BETTER Judgments: IMPROVING how white people decide what's racist, what's sexist, and what's not
With Betsy Leondar-Wright
Forthcoming with Stanford University Press
Forthcoming with Stanford University Press
In 2015, Donald Trump rode down the Trump Tower escalator and announced the focus of his presidential campaign: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best… They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” Months later, a video revealed him telling television host Billy Bush, “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything… Grab ’em by the pussy.” These incidents led to more reporting on Donald Trump’s past. Reportedly, he’s refused to rent to black people, used the n-word on his television show, walked in on beauty pageant contestants while they’re changing, called women ‘pigs’, and sexually assaulted multiple women.
Is Donald Trump racist? Sexist?
Many Americans think the answers are clear. But whatever your answers, about half the country disagrees with you.
And these aren’t the only issues about which we disagree. Is flying the confederate flag racist? What about Black Entertainment Television? Is it sexist for a male boss to call his female worker ‘honey’? To give mothers custody of their children more often than fathers?
Better Judgments: Improving How White People Decide What’s Racist, What’s Sexist, and What’s Not explains how a large segment of Americans comes to answer this question. It argues that white conservatives sit on one side, white liberals on the other, each unable to see what the other sees because they define racism and sexism differently and use opposing methods to determine whether their definition has been met. White conservatives tend to use narrow intent-based definitions and investigative methods; they treat each case as separate from similar cases like it, probe for details about each situation, rely on explicit proof alone, entertain alternative explanations, and give the accused the benefit of the doubt. White liberals tend to use broad definitions that include unequal outcomes as well as intent. They use algorithmic methods, treating any case that matches a pattern of how unequal treatment tends to play out as racist and sexist, inferring evidence based on patterns rather than explicit evidence, considering no alternative explanations or conflating them with racism, and assuming the accuser is correct due to widespread patterns of mistreatment. We argue that neither white conservatives nor white liberals are as evidence-based as they could be, and suggest better ways for deciding what's racist, what's sexist, and what's not.
Is Donald Trump racist? Sexist?
Many Americans think the answers are clear. But whatever your answers, about half the country disagrees with you.
And these aren’t the only issues about which we disagree. Is flying the confederate flag racist? What about Black Entertainment Television? Is it sexist for a male boss to call his female worker ‘honey’? To give mothers custody of their children more often than fathers?
Better Judgments: Improving How White People Decide What’s Racist, What’s Sexist, and What’s Not explains how a large segment of Americans comes to answer this question. It argues that white conservatives sit on one side, white liberals on the other, each unable to see what the other sees because they define racism and sexism differently and use opposing methods to determine whether their definition has been met. White conservatives tend to use narrow intent-based definitions and investigative methods; they treat each case as separate from similar cases like it, probe for details about each situation, rely on explicit proof alone, entertain alternative explanations, and give the accused the benefit of the doubt. White liberals tend to use broad definitions that include unequal outcomes as well as intent. They use algorithmic methods, treating any case that matches a pattern of how unequal treatment tends to play out as racist and sexist, inferring evidence based on patterns rather than explicit evidence, considering no alternative explanations or conflating them with racism, and assuming the accuser is correct due to widespread patterns of mistreatment. We argue that neither white conservatives nor white liberals are as evidence-based as they could be, and suggest better ways for deciding what's racist, what's sexist, and what's not.