The Profit in Bias
Embracing Our Differences in the Digital Age
Senator John Cornyn and Vanita Gupta at this week’s Senate hearing on police use of force
I prefer the word “biased” over “racist” because bias includes gender and other non-race-specific social advantage or lack thereof. But you can use the word racist if you prefer.
In these potentially historic times following the murder of George Floyd it is important that we stop shying away from our very human biases. Especially policy-makers — if they cannot openly recognize their preference for certain types of people over others, they cannot work to actively counteract policies that systematize those preferences. There is a much darker side to July 4th that must be addressed — just imagining that day from the perspective of those in bondage. The let down is heartbreaking. The hypocrisy deafening. The sadness overwhelming. But I am not focused on the types of racism that are intense and violent here. Because I believe there is a much more dangerous and economically relevant form of racism that too many American continue to ignore. It’s the type of subtle bias that I suspect most liberals are guilty of, which, in aggregate causes massive harm.
In that career-launching speech Obama gave at the Democratic National Convention in July of 2004, he famously said “There is not a black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America.” Then Trump showed us how wrong he was. My wish for America on this, our birthday, is that we stop feeling ashamed or nervous about being human. Humans are biased, by design. White America is biased, and so is Black America. Gay America is biased as much as Straight America. Hispanic America, Asian America. Indeed, every single American is biased simply because we are human. Police are biased. As are our teachers. Politicians are biased — and not just for the members of their district. And if you are thinking, “not me!” read on. Brain science disagrees.
This topic is particularly relevant in these times because of the economic connection to the burgeoning digital economy. To achieve prosperity as industrial giants fall to their knees we must become curious of what is gaining marketshare. I wish for America to teach the world how to be open about our biases rather than being known as a country that can’t admit it’s own original sin. After studying the research on our own psychology, it seems silly to even claim that we are not biased as a basic brain function. All of us. Our brains filter out lots of data using our biases, without them we could not make sense of the world we live in. Those who can exam these psychological mechanics gain an advantage by not confusing our psychology for ourselves or our even just our hearts. When we become mindful, we wake up. And during those brief moments of being awake, our automatic, mechanical, biased reactions need not determine our actions.
The exchange between Senator John Cornyn and Vanita Gupta on the Senate Judiciary Hearing on policing reform last month (pictured above) and then Senator Booker’s later comment at that hearing show just how scared we are of our very humanity. Vanita Gupta’s statement that we are all racist is met with a quick cover up to the official record. Senator Cornyn himself loses his ability to have a civil conversation with Mrs. Gupta stating “you lost me” when she stated that we are all biased only to have Senator Booker back him up, making the claim that “nothing could be farther from the truth.”
To reconcile the fact that slaves built this nation and that people of color have remained enslaved after the ownership of people was made illegal (through systematic economic violence against them), we must first reconcile a history much older than America — human beings have always been and will always be biased, by nature. May be because my own family experienced the very personal and systematic violence of Nazi Europe, not to mention our people’s annual celebration of freedom from slavery in Egypt thousands of years ago (we never stop reminding ourselves of that period of bondage), my family always favored an honest familiarity with racism and bias in its myriad forms.
I have two daughters. One is Japanese and the other is African American. Very often the first thing people say to me after having just seen my Japanese daughter from a distance at the playground is, “she is so smart!” That is never the first thing they notice about my quite brilliant African American daughter. Don’t you think my Japanese daughter will grow up more confident in her “smartness” as a result of people’s tendency to see Asians as smart? It would be so much more healthy if our culture welcomed the calling out of such bias so that we can discuss it, may be even laugh about it once in a while between the tears. I have great hope for Generation Alpha with regards to their willingness to be open about bias, but I also want to help them out by ensuring that their urban high schools are diverse. More on that later.
How And Why Bias Will Make Us Money
The Digital Age is creating an unprecedented opportunity for diversity to drive prosperity. And America clearly may have a head start. Industrial dynamics of ownership and coercion are increasingly outperformed with decentralized digital models based on sharing. This “inversion” as it is called, changes inter-group dynamics because we only benefit from having an enemy to hate when we are in competition over finite resources.
That’s right, I’m suggesting that being biased can make us money! Happy birthday my fellow racist Americans, by owning our racist views, without confusing them for any kind of objective truth, and learning to act against these impulses, we can learn to create digital wealth. We can do so only if we learn that biases are a core human brain function developed over thousands of years to help us survive as tribes that collaborate with each other while in competition others. If we don’t learn to study our own biases, others will do it for us and they will be able to manipulate us for their profit.
In an “ideas economy” competition is replaced by collaboration since ideas have more value when shared as compared to industrial/physical resources built using oil and steel that are zero-sum: if I have it, you don’t. In digital markets, copies can be created and distributed at nearly zero marginal cost. The more free copies that are created and shared the more value amassed. Even real products and services benefit from these positive-sum dynamics: I digitize the spare room in my home or a ride in my car by posting images on AirBNB or Uber and the more copies of this digital abstraction are downloaded, the more money am likely to make in physical reality.
This fundamental economic shift will require that we study our own forms of bias by exposing them and welcoming when others point them out because learning in this way helps us economically. Those who can do this will gain loyal followers. Comedians have long been doing this, as have many entertainers. We find authenticity entertaining and we will pay people who have the courage to be real. Our brand loyalty is connected to this, as well. Everything is becoming entertainment, even politics, and with social media, even business and friendships, accelerating these trends even more.
Beyond attracting audiences with authenticity, we must never forget that when a small group can control the choices of the many, we have democracy in name but oligarchy in function. Furthermore, when a few gain while the many lost out, we also only have free markets in name, but centralized control in function because of regulatory capture. In other words, understanding our psychological machinery as represented in our biases is fundamental to the health of free markets and democracy alike.
Motivated Reasoning
Let’s take a look at some of the brain science that explains how buyers and voters alike can be manipulated en masse when they fail to recognize their own biases, confusing their perspective with objective reality.
According to brain science, the easiest way to manipulate people’s choices is to tap into what psychologists refer to as “motivated reasoning.” Motivated reasoning is a bias toward a decision that conforms to what a person already believes from past experience or association.
In politics, for example, if I consider myself a Republican, and I learn about a policy being advocated by the Republican Party, I am motivated to find a logical pathway to aligning my arguments to support that policy, even if, on the face of it, the policy contradicts the deeper conservative virtues articulated in the party platform. This is, after all, the role of political parties — to simplify the voting process so that we don’t all have to be policy wonks who read and study every single piece of legislation independently.
Researcher Jeffrey H. Cohen conducted a series of studies published as “Party Over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs.” In these studies, Professor Cohen offered participants various policy proposals: for example, two welfare policies, one being very generous and the other very stringent. He then randomly assigned the policy to a political party. He started the research by telling participants which party was (randomly) associated with each of the policies. People consistently chose to support the policy that they were told matched their party even over the one that matched their preexisting convictions. No matter how much information he provided and how much he forced them to do calculations to think through who benefitted from the policy, people sided with their political party over their logic. This desire to herald group allegiance more than an ability to be rational independent thinkers is the easiest way for the few to manipulate the many.
If we consider that the original political party was our tribe, our extended family, and as a result, our race — we can see that we are built to justify our preferences rather than to examine them objectively. Long before democracy, human beings had always had a proclivity for identifying a group to which they belonged and, by extension, “the others” who were seen to be a threat to that social identity. There are many conclusive studies that demonstrate the massive power of such in-group bias — researchers can even measure in our saliva when we are looking at our own people or when we look at those with whom we do not identify.[i] Those identifications provide easy access to our motivated reasoning machinery. Given how powerful such group allegiance is, we would hope that we we align ourselves rarely and with careful consideration. Not so.
Minimal Group Paradigm
Henri Tajfel was a Polish Jew who fought the Nazis in World War II. He became a psychologist and was determined to understand why we attack, discriminate, and kill fellow human beings. He sought to define a “minimal group paradigm” — the least we must do to form groups who exhibit the type of motivated reasoning that leads to discrimination against each other. He started with giving people different group names. He planned to add more conditions until the groups started to experience inter-group conflict.
As it turned out, just giving people a random group label was enough to spark a desire for one group to dominate the other. Researchers offered subjects a situation where they would give everyone a dollar amount, say a thousand dollars. (I’m inventing the dollar amounts here.) Alternatively, they could decide whether to give their group members only six hundred dollars and the other group members three hundred dollars. Most participants preferred to receive six hundred dollars to see the opposing group only get three hundred dollars rather than the “greater good” scenario where everyone received the thousand dollars.
Not only is our motivated reasoning a vulnerability, but it is so fundamental to our humanity that we form groups with nothing more than a label. After that, all that seems to matter to most members of each group is “winning” relative to the other: we are willing to sacrifice our own gain if it means we get more than they do. Brain scientists have since found a region of our brain that is stimulated by schadenfreude: the pleasure of seeing your competition suffer. As much as our brains are designed to do good to the in-group, they are also designed to do harm to the out-group.
Johnathan Haidt summarizes this behavior by arguing that while we think that our mind is a truth-seeking machine, it is much more like a press secretary. It is built to construct an argument for the thing that our emotional boss gets behind. When we hear that our group has a position, our “thinking” is an ad hoc process of constructing arguments to support this position, and the “evidence” collected from our senses is filtered for that which helps us construct the necessary arguments.
In the 1954 Robbers Cave experiment, researchers posed as camp counselors to 22 eleven- and twelve-year-old boys. The boys had never met and were selected specifically because they were nearly identical in race, religion, classroom behavior, academic ability, family structure and other social and psychological measures. The boys were split into two groups. After one week of summer camp, the two groups were made aware of the other boys down the road. As soon as they heard about the other camp, they started calling the other group bad names and demanded they hold a baseball game to compete with them. A week of competition was set up. Very quickly hatred and anger began to fly between the groups. Conspiracy theories started: when one group left garbage out but forgot that they had done so, they falsely accused the other group of dumping garbage on their camp. One group felt the water was colder in their swimming hole than the day before and accused the other boys of dumping ice in their pond. These fake accusations led to fights and physical attacks like throwing rocks at each other to the point that counselors had to intervene.
Human beings tend to attack anyone they consider as “other,” especially if there is competition with that “other” over resources like food or property or jobs. Add to such nominal groupings more potent identities such as skin color and hair types, religion, accent, politics, and then add financial interests military hardware the perceived threat turns into actual threat, and these tendencies grow exponentially stronger.
Our urge to be part of a group makes us susceptible to propaganda and advertising. To be anti-fragile we have an opportunity to dismantle this human vulnerability. Not by denying our love for kin, rather, by not competing over resources. When there is no need for competition and cooperation actually makes more money, we have no more reason to fear others. If we all melted into corporate sameness (Starbucks, McDonalds) we risk losing all that is valuable when individual narrative matters as much as prime real estate once did.
Mass Identity
Each of us has many competing identities within us: race, class, accent, origin, religion, sports team, neighborhood, political party, alma mater, profession, news sources, medical history, and so on. These become a threat to democracy and the digital economy when they line up in unison; what author Lilliana Mason termed “mega identities” in her book Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity.
I prefer “mass identities” over “mega identities” because it makes the link to mass media, mass production, mass communication, mass transportation, mass production, and other forms of industrial infrastructure that may have helped cause large-scale identity centralization. When multiple social identities are centralized by grouping them in a single “mass identity,” the power of in-group bias is multiplied and can be somewhat routinely controlled by dictators and marketing executives, alike. On the other hand, the more diverse and competing identities we celebrate within our individuality, the stronger our democracy and more innovative our economy becomes since we cannot be easily manipulated alongside our neighbors.
The same goes for our political architecture: the founding fathers designed this democracy such that the three branches of government were in competition for power. This conflict between the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Presidency ensures none of them reigns supreme. But if political party allegiance becomes stronger than a politician or judge’s allegiance to the power imbued in their role within their branch of government, then a president or a congress or a court can take control of the nation for their own personal gain. Maintaining competition between political identities is crucial to a strong democracy. Many people assume that diversity implies denying our identity but that is inaccurate. The Congress must build pride in their ranks to ensure political equilibrium with The President and The Courts. And so too with each branch, in kind.
The same is true for big business: artificial intelligence is used by advertisers to categorize us into groups to manipulate our choices in unison, leading to more people making the same purchase decisions and thus channeling money to a few at the top who are then able to control large sectors of the economy. The emergence of such mass identities is a result of the globalized scale of the industrial era. But digital economics takes this a step farther, ignoring borders and limits of distance or marginal production costs to the point that we gain access to hyper-local experiences from around the globe, instantly. The global suddenly becomes local, the big corporation faces competition from the crowd, and innovation drives profitability over marketshare.
Finally, the same goes in science. Social scientists and brain researchers realized their mistake when they became aware that their research was WEIRD: research subjects were university students who were “Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic.” All social science was skewed to represent these university students and thus failed to describe human beings more generally, as intended.
A diversity of identities is what keeps our democracy and our economy free and fair. Diversity means knowing that we are biased and enjoying our unique heritage while also celebrating other cultures as an experience to enjoy. This at a time when exotic experiences are more valuable than products or services.
The need for diversity to ensure anti-fragility should not come as too much of a surprise given the same dynamics at play in multiple complex systems. It’s the reason we avoid procreating with members of our immediate and extended family: a failure to maintain diversity in our gene pool leaves us vulnerable to disease and malformation. So too in finance, the standard refrain of financial advisors is to “diversify the portfolio.” Diversity is the key to anti-fragility. And diversity is a nice way to say that we are all aware of our differences — aware of our biases.
Diversity And Choice
Marilynn Brewer is a researcher well known for her contributions to the field of social identity and intergroup relations. Her research showed that to protect democracy or any complex social structure,
characterized by cross-cutting category distinctions a single person may be attached to one ingroup by virtue of ethnic heritage, to another by religion, to yet another based on occupation, or region of residence, and so forth. With this profusion of social identities, other individuals will be fellow ingroup members on one category distinction but outgroups on another. Such cross-cutting ingroup-outgroup distinctions reduce the intensity of the individual’s dependence on any particular ingroup for meeting psychological needs for inclusion, thereby reducing the potential for polarizing loyalties along any single cleavage or group distinction and perhaps increasing tolerance for outgroups in general.[ii]
Dr. Brewer continues her explanation, citing that we know that if you are Irish and Catholic, you probably don’t know many people outside of this identity. If you are Irish and Jewish, you probably grew up in contact with a lot of non-Irish and non-Jewish people, and this early exposure to people that are not part of your group makes you less prone to dehumanize those that are in your outgroup. The more contact we have with diversity, the more we realize that others can be rational, reasonable, and good even if they are not like us. That better prepares us to succeed in a digital economy where studying data about others facilitates network effects.
Cross-party voting was normal fifty years ago. Today the Republican party, in particular, has figured out how to unite a base of supporters who share multiple identities including rural dwelling, gun owning, anti-elite, religious, FOX News viewing, and White so that when their party loses, the members’ collective self-esteem is devastated by the loss because so many of their identities simultaneously feel the rejection in a very personal way. Democrats may catch up in this regard, and when they do, we will have a country with two mass identities: essentially city-dwellers versus those in rural spaces. If a politician leading such a mob can simply point to a perceived enemy, they can most easily manipulate their base into action against the threat based on outdated industrial strategies of zero-sum competition.
When our self-esteem is made vulnerable to attack by a single election result, our democracy is weakened. Our identities get tied together in a “winner-takes-all” fight between the leaders of mass manufactured platforms. Propaganda controlling our self-image is even more powerful than ads or media controlling our attention. Our self-image ultimately makes the decision and directs our attention based on our emotional preferences. Emotional identity is easy to manipulate when we are on autopilot. But when we become momentarily “woke,” our conscious mind regains control of the levers of choice and then a shift in our focus transforms conflict into comedy.
If we want to fight our implicit bias toward another race, we must notice the thoughts our brain receives about someone from that race as soon as we see them. Just bringing these thoughts into our awareness builds a muscle to then notice how automatic our judgments are about that person before we know anything about them. Similarly with politics: noticing how we listen to a State of the Union speech by a president of our party versus how we listen to one of the opposite party can build a muscle that questions our knee-jerk thinking about policy. In economic terms, when we realize that we have trained the AI to show us a type of ad, we can free ourselves from its lure and reconsider our heart’s intentions. And, so too with social science: by being deliberate in our study of diverse populations we are more likely to learn deeper truths about the human condition. Perhaps even in the physical sciences, opening research to diverse populations leads to more insight than working with people who are like us in thought process. Diversity drives innovation and thus profits.
Remember that choice is itself a function of our attention — that same commodity that is traded in digital marketplaces and fought over in elections. Learning to harness that attention for our own benefit is the key to profitability in a digital world. Studying our attention and the thoughts that arise, especially those that are biased in nature, will offer us a ticket to prosperity if we can stop shying away from admitting our humanity.
Microaggression: How a Slight Favor for Kin Causes Violence
Consider that when you talk to someone who isn’t listening to you, you are not as articulate as when you speak to someone who hangs on your every word. Try it — tell a friend to actively not listen while you try to tell them about your favorite food or movie, and then do the same while they are listening attentively. It’s difficult to be articulate when the party you are addressing is not paying closes attention. As a teacher I learned this first-hand. When the class engaged I was a great teacher and when they did not I stumbled and fumbled and just managed to lose them even more in my desperation. Our internal state is clearly connected to the perspectives of those around us, as much as our egos don’t like to admit it. By addressing these dynamics head on, we can learn to engage our audience. My students called it “being real.”
What people call micro-aggressions are, in fact, the experience of how others listen to us before we open our mouth to speak. We cannot help internalizing these social perspectives, no matter how hard we try to separate ourselves from them. If we can recognize that our ways of being are linked to how we perceive others, then we can start to see how our bias for one group, no matter how subtle we think it is, has far reaching consequences. It is hard to comprehend the massive economic advantages in job interviews, apartment hunts, sales calls, interactions with police, and much more afforded by people who just have a very slightly greater comfort with those who are more similar to them. If we grew up in the same culture, it is only natural that we share a connection. Denying our bias is denying this simple fact.
That is why micro-aggressions are so pernicious: they cut right to the core of our performance by impacting our attitude in any given social interaction. They are the type of racism inflicted on others by those who are certain that they are not racist at all. Just because you have a slight preference for some people, even if you harbor no ill will toward others, you are still dangerously biased, especially if you are a policy maker or leader of any kind.
Not only does the HR Manager find a natural connection with those who grew up in their same culture, but the prospective out-group candidate is also not connecting culturally which causes their performance at the interview to suffer. This gives the manager more reasons to choose the candidate they had a gut feeling would get the job when they first met them. If a hiring manager can’t call out their own bias without threat of lawsuit, how can we expect them to organize a hiring system that counteracts such natural preferences?
This is also why teachers’ perception of their students is such a driver of student outcomes, and why allowing so many white teachers to teach our black and brown students is a terrible idea. If my teacher thinks that I am not a good student because we fail to share the same social norms, even if they never say it in so many words, my chances of thriving in that classroom are severely limited. The teacher cannot see past the difference in culture to recognize my brilliance. Many of these young white teachers first try to teach the students to be white so that they can have a chance of connecting with their intellectual abilities. Certainly learning to interface with White people is important in a historically biased culture, but too many teachers fail to see past culture making acting White a prerequisite to all learning. They try to be the white parents these kids never had, ignoring the obvious fact that they assume White Culture is superior to that of their black students. And then they blame the students for not being engaged with the important lessons they seek to impart.
The answer is not to fire the white teachers or hire black teachers — that would help — but in an inverted digital world the makeup of the student body is more important than that of the teachers. In New York City we already have a diverse body of students without doing any new recruiting — we must now demand that our system leverage this diversity by bringing it into every single classroom so that students can learn to have discussions with those who are different from them.
In her article, “The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love or Outgroup Hate?” Marilynn Brewer points out that “studies of ethnic and racial prejudice in the United States and Europe confirm that the essence of ‘subtle racism’ is not the presence of strong negative attitudes toward minority outgroups but the absence of positive sentiments toward those groups.”[iii] The most dangerous form of racism and sexism is not the rare, pathological, extremist view of superiority and venom and violence; rather, it is the all too common human tendency to look a bit more favorably toward kin.
Such microaggressions are not only directed at minority groups. We direct them at each other constantly. Wealthy people and pretty women experience potent microaggressions because people tend to see them for their money or sex appeal, and not for their individual character. Because a pretty girl is not recognized for her smarts as a default, even though we don’t doubt her ability to be smart, she will struggle to generate self-confidence in this arena because it must come from within her, unlike her confidence that she is physically desirable, which bombards her from the outside. No matter how hard she works in school, many people will fail to notice because they get tripped up by her attractive physicality. Similarly, once we hear that someone is extremely wealthy or famous, we cannot act normally around them because of their social or financial capital.
In his book How to be an Antiracist, Ibram X. Kendi writes, “What’s the problem with being ‘not racist’? It is a claim that signifies neutrality: ‘I am not a racist, but neither am I aggressively against racism.’ But there is no neutrality in the racism struggle. The opposite of ‘racist’ isn’t ‘not racist.’ It is ‘antiracist.’”[iv] I extrapolate this thinking past race to gender and class, arguing that being “anti-biased” is the opposite of being biased. Claiming that we are non-biased is ridiculous. It’s akin to saying that I wouldn’t care more for my daughter than for a complete stranger. Such non-bias would be a pathology if actually exhibited by a human being.
In-group Preference Without Out-Group Fear
Anthropologists have shown that tribes that were not in direct competition with others for food and had no food storage for others to target tended not to be violent.[iv] In other words, it is possible to celebrate a social identity without having to denigrate that of another if we do not face resource competition. The shift from competitive zero-sum industrial logic to a sharing, positive-sum, digital mindset thus creates unique conditions that favor the celebration of the in-group while becoming curious and open to sharing with other groups at the same time.
Marilynn Brewer makes the following observation:
There may be many situations in which either the structural or psychological conditions for reciprocal activation of ingroup positivity and outgroup negativity may hold. However, there are both empirical and theoretical grounds for challenging the assumption that such reciprocity is inevitable or even common. Whenever the structure of resources or opportunities really is a zero-sum situation, any preferential treatment of ingroup members will be achieved at the detriment of outgroup members, but this does not mean that attitudes are similarly zero-sum. Discrimination can be motivated solely by ingroup preference, in the absence of any negative affect or hostile intent toward outgroups.[vi]
Brewer makes an evolutionary argument that we survived and reproduced by forming groups. The result is that, as a species, human beings are characterized by obligatory interdependence. For long-term survival, we must be willing to rely on others for information, aid, and shared resources, and we must be willing to give information and aid and to share resources with others. A cooperative system requires that trust dominates over distrust because we don’t want to give the benefits of our resources to others who will not reciprocate. In-group bias is thus a form of contingent altruism limited to those we consider to be our extended family.
Brewer continues: “The reciprocal relationship between in-group cohesion and out-group hostility may be limited to conditions in which groups are in competition over physical resources or political power. Whether actual or imagined, the perception that an out-group constitutes a threat to in-group interests or survival creates a circumstance in which identification and interdependence with the in-group is directly associated with fear and hostility toward the threatening out-group and vice versa.”
When we perceive a threat defined as another group coming to take what we have, we define our social identity by denigrating those who are perceived to threaten us. That is why it is important for those who seek to control us with mass identity politics to create an “enemy” who is coming to threaten our security, whether economic or otherwise. Jews were a popular threat for hundreds of years before Muslims took their place as the group we allow ourselves to hate. Jews became White and our Muslim cousins are now among the brown people that America has long disfavored. But without a threat we have no reason to continue these aggressions and they become a liability to all of our freedoms.
The role of systems like user reviews and blockchain technology is to provide a digitized trust to facilitate sharing across diverse communities. Before these technologies, we could not imagine offering our house keys or a ride in our car to a stranger — we were driven by the economics of competition rather than cooperation. In a digital economy, where creativity and sharing lead to economic security over standardization and competition, hating the other is no longer profitable.
This truth that we are, each and every single one of us, biased in all sorts of different ways will set us free from the barriers that prevent all Americans from celebrating our great nation together. That is what Obama had intended in his address and as the Fourth of July reminds us to do, today. You are biased, America! But if we can admit that, we have an opportunity to become reborn as a model of human collaboration, ingenuity, and prosperity.
[i]Sinthujaa Sampasivam et al., “The Effects of Outgroup Threat and Opportunity to Derogate on Salivary Cortisol Levels,” International journal of environmental research and public health (MDPI, June 21, 2016), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4924073/.
[ii] Marilynn B. Brewer, “The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love and Outgroup Hate?,” Journal of Social Issues 55, no. 3 (1999): pp. 429–444, https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00126)
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibram X. Kendi, How to be an Antiracist (s.l.: vintage, 2020), Mobi e-book location 151 of 5307.
[v] James Woodburn, “Egalitarian Societies,” Man 17, no. 3 (1982): , doi:10.2307/2801707.
[vi] Brewer.
[vii] Matt Barnum and Gabrielle LaMarr LeMee, “How GreatSchools Steers You toward Whiter, More Affluent Schools,” Chalkbeat (Chalkbeat, January 27, 2020), https://chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2019/12/05/greatschools-ratings-poverty-race-segregation-housing/)
#PassionForLearning
