5 CHAPTER : BACK TO THE ARENA
5.3 A Reunion
In the fall of 2018, alumni from Americus High School will meet for several reunions on Homecoming. The Class of 1999 will organize for the first time since 2008, in honor of the twentieth year since their graduation. The high school they will return to is no longer named “Americus,” but is now Americus-Sumter High School (owing to a City and County Schools merger). The impetus for the merger was birthed in early activism by Sumter County Board of Education Representatives in the 1950s and 1960s (notably Jimmy Carter). They sought to counteract what was, in those times, a system that saw the white children go to the City and the black children go to the County.
What followed in the years after full-scale integration, however, was a realignment of the status quo without further legal force. By the late 1990s, the City Schools maintained a much higher racial diversity than the County Schools (while also boasting of balanced budgets and better overall facilities). In addition, teachers, coaches, and administrators of color dominated the City Schools whereas the County Schools were led almost entirely by whites. The early
progressive efforts quite literally morphed into a process that eventually had vast unintended effects.
Since their graduation, most of the white alumni of the Americus Class of 1999 have moved away from their home town and have not been active in efforts to reunite. A majority of those that do remain actually send their own children to out-of-district schools in neighboring counties. Some even choose to support the local private academy (Southland) that was founded in the years immediately following integration.
This type of story is not unique. In Georgia alone, mergers and full-scale movement of white students to new schools has forged the histories of countless Deep South communities like LaGrange, Rome, Athens, and Valdosta. The modest equal status that did exist in the few
decades following integration of the public education systems there have evolved into a very different form of private self-selection. Not only have white families moved away, but they have also often rescinded their financial support for the multi-cultural learning environments that fostered them. Subsequent financial investment in new business and infrastructure has also sought “whiter” pastures elsewhere.
Very few communities remain that support the same integrated institutions that existed at the conclusion of “Reconstruction.” In applying anecdotal contemporary observations to this reality, one can observe higher wages and standards of living for people of all races in those scattered towns and cities like Buford, Thomasville, Moultrie, Cartersville, and Carrollton.
When the Class of 1999 comes together at a school that will surely feel somewhat alien to them (Americus-Sumter High School), they will reunite with a community of peers that shared the experience of growing up in a place that combatted prejudice daily following the infamous cover on Life magazine. However, the harsh reality of discrimination will also be clearly evident
if reunion photos are filled only with black and brown faces. Active engagement by white Southerners in multi-racial social settings is the key to realizing equal status for all. At least in one small instance, in an isolated Deep South and black belt town, that remains a hopeful possibility.
REFERENCES
Abramowitz, Alan I. 1994. “Racial Attitudes and Partisanship in the U.S. Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science Vol. 38 No. 1: 1-24.
Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Acharya, Avidit, Matthew Blackwell, and Maya Sen. 2016. “The Political Legacy of American Slavery.” Journal of Politics Vol. 78 No. 3: 621-41.
Baybeck, Brady. 2006. ‘‘Sorting Out the Competing Effects of Racial Context.’’ Journal of Politics Vol. 68 No. 2: 86-96.
Black, Merle. 2004. “The Transformation of the Southern Democratic Party.” The Journal of Politics Vol. 66 No. 4: 1001-17.
Blaylock, Hubert M. 1967. “Percent Non-White and Discrimination in the South.” American Sociological Review Vol 22: 677-82.
Bledsoe, T., S. Welch, L. Sigelman and M. Combs. 1995. ‘‘Residential Context and Racial Solidarity Among African Americans.’’ American Journal of Political Science Vol. 39 No. 2: 434-58.
Blumer, Herbert. 1958. "Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position." Pacific Sociological Review Vol. 1: 3-7.
Boas, Franz. 1921. “The Problem of the American Negro.” Yale Review January.
Bobo, Lawrence. 1983. "Whites' Opposition to Busing: Symbolic Racism or Realistic Group Conflict?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol. 45: 1196-1210.
Bobo, Lawrence and Vincent Hutchings. 1996. "Perceptions of Racial Group Competition: Extending Blumer's Theory of Group Position to a Multiracial Social Context." American Sociological Review Vol. 61: 951-72.
Bobo, Lawrence and James R. Kluegel. 1993. "Opposition to Race-Targeting: Self-interest, Stratification Ideology, or Racial Attitudes?" American Sociological Review Vol. 58: 443- 64.
Bolsen, Toby. 2011. “Framing Effects and Political Behavior.” In Larry Kuznar, Allison Astorino-Courtois, and Sarah Canna (Eds), From the Mind to the Feet: Assessing the Intent-to-Action Dynamic. Maxwell AFB: Air University Press:141-60.
Bornstein, B. H. 1999. “The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out?” Law and Human Behavior Vol. 23: 75-91.
Campbell, Angus, Phillip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter.Oxford: John Wiley.
Carmines, Edward G. and James A. Stimson. 1981. “Issue Evolution, Population Replacement, and Normal Partisan Change.” The American Political Science Review Vol. 75 No. 1: 107- 18.
Carmines, Edward G. and James A. Stimson. 1986. “On the Structure and Sequence of Issue Evolution.” The American Political Science Review Vol. 80: 902-21.
Carmines, Edward G. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Dahl, Robert A. 1972. Polyarchy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Ditonto, Tessa M., Richard R. Lau and David O. Sears. 2013. “AMPing Racial Attitudes:
Comparing the Power of Explicit and Implicit Racism Measures in 2008.” Political
Psychology Vol. 34 No. 4: 487-510.
Dixon, Jeffrey C. 2006. "The Ties That Bind and Those That Don't: Toward Reconciling Group Threat and Contact Theories of Prejudice." Social Forces Vol. 84: 2179-2204.
Dixon, Jeffrey, and Michael Rosenbaum. 2004. "Nice to Know You? Contact, Cultural and Group Threat Theories of Anti-Black and Anti-Hispanic Stereotypes." Social Science Quarterly Vol. 85: 257-80.
Douglass, Frederick. “Address of the National Colored Convention.” Presentation at the National Convention of Colored Peoples, Louisville, KY, September 24, 1883.
Druckman, James N. 2007. “A Theory of Framing and Opinion Formation in Competitive Elite Environments,” with Dennis Chong. Journal of Communication Vol. 57: 99-118.
Druckman, James N. and Rose McDermott. 2008. “Emotion and the Framing of Risky Choice.” Political Behavior Vol. 30 No. 3: 297-321.
Druckman, James N. and Toby Bolsen. 2011. “Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions about Emergent Technologies.” Journal of Communication Vol. 61: 659-88.
Druckman, James N., Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, and Author Lupia. 2011.
Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science.New York: Cambridge University Press.
Druckman, James N. 2012. “The Politics of Motivation.” Critical Review.
Evans, Hiram W. 1926. “The Klan’s Fight for Americanism.” North American Review March- April-May: 33-63.
Evans, Jonathan St. B. T. and David E. Over. 1996. Rationality and Reasoning. Hove: Psychology Press.
Fisher, Robert J. 1993. “Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning.” Journal of Consumer Research Vol. 20 No. 2: 303-15.
Gay, Claudine. 2004. “Putting Race in Context: Identifying the Environmental Determinants of Black Racial Attitudes.” American Political Science Review Vol. 98 No. 4: 547-62.
Giles, Michael W. 1977. “Percent Black and Racial Hostility: An Old Assumption Reexamined.” Social Science Quarterly Vol. 58: 412-17.
Giles, Michael W. and Melanie A. Buckner. 1993. "David Duke and Black Threat: An Old Hypothesis Revisited." Journal of Politics Vol. 55: 702-13.
Glaser, James M. 1994. “Back to the Black Belt: Racial Environment and White Racial Attitudes in the South.” The Journal of Politics Vol. 56 No. 1: 21-41.
Glaser, James M. 2005. The Hand of the Past in Contemporary Southern Politics. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
Glaser, James M. and Timothy J. Ryan. 2013. Changing Minds if Not Hearts: Political Remedies for Racial Conflict. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Greene, Melissa Faye. 1991. Praying for Sheetrock. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Henry, P.J. and David O. Sears. 2002. “The Symbolic Racism 2000 Scale.” Political Psychology Vol. 23 No. 2: 253-83.
Henry, P.J. and David O. Sears. 2009. “The Crystallization of Contemporary Racial Prejudice
across the Lifespan.” Political Psychology Vol. 30 No. 4: 569-90.
Holbrook, Colin, Daniel M. T. Fessler and Carlos David Navarette. 2016. “Looming Large in Others' Eyes: Racial Stereotypes Illuminate Dual Adaptations for Representing Threat Versus Prestige as Physical Size.” Evolution and Human Behavior Vol. 37 No. 1: 67-78. Hopkins, Daniel J. 2016. The Increasing United States. Manuscript Under Review.
Huckfeldt, Robert and Carol Weitzel Kohfeld. 1989. Race and the Decline of Class in American Politics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Hunt, Matthew O., Larry L. Hunt and William W. Falk. 2013. “Twenty-First-Century Trends in Black Migration to the U.S. South: Demographic and Subjective Predictors.” Social Science Quarterly Vol. 94 No. 5: 1398-1413.
Iyengar, Shanto, Simon Jackman, Solomon Messing, Nicholas Valentino, Toril Aalberg, Raymond Duch, Kyu S. Hahn, Stuart Soroka, Allison Harrell, and Tetsuro Kobayashi. 2013. “Do Attitudes about Immigration Predict Willingness to Admit Individual Immigrants? A Cross-National Test of the Person-Positivity Bias.” Public Opinion Quarterly Vol. 77 No. 3: 641-55.
Jackman, Mary R. 1994. The Velvet Glove: Paternalism and Conflict in Gender, Class, and Race Relations. Berkeley: University of California Press.
James, Erika Hayes, Arthur P. Brief, Joerg Dietz and Robin R. Cohen. 2001. “Prejudice Matters: Understanding the Reactions of Whites to Affirmative Action Programs Targeted to
Benefit Blacks.” Journal of Applied Psychology Vol. 86 No. 6: 1120-28.
Kahan, Dan M. 2013. “Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection.” Judgment and Decision Making Vol. 8 No. 4: 407-24.
Kahan, Dan M. 2015. “Climate Science Communication and the Measurement Problem.” Political Psychology Vol. 36: 1-43.
Kaiser, C. R. and C. L. Wilkins. 2010. "Group Identification and Prejudice: Theoretical and Empirical Advances and Implications. " Journal of Social Issues Vol. 66: 461 -76. Kam, Cindy D. 2011. “Student as Experimental Participants: A Defense of the ‘Narrow Data
Base’.” In James N. Druckman, Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, and Author Lupia, eds. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science.New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kennedy, David M. and Lizabeth Cohen. 2013. The American Pageant 15th Edition. Boston: Wadsworth.
Key Jr., V.O. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: Knopf.
Kinder, Donald R. and David O. Sears. 1981. “Prejudice and Politics: Symbolic Racism versus Racial Threats to the Good Life.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol. 40: 414-31.
Klitgaard, Robert E. 1972. “Institutionalized Racism: An Analytic Approach.” Journal of Peace Research Vol. 9 No. 1: 41-49.
Knuckey, Jonathan. 2006. “Explaining Recent Changes in the Partisan Identifications of Southern Whites.” Political Research Quarterly Vol. 59 No. 1: 57-70.
Kuklinski, James H, Michael D. Cobb and Martin Gilens. 1997. “Racial Attitudes and the “New South.”” The Journal of Politics Vol. 59 No. 2: 323-49.
Kunda, Ziva. 1987. “Motivated Inference: Self-Serving Generation and Evaluation of Causal Theories.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 53 No. 4: 636-47.
Kunda, Ziva. 1990. “The Case for Motivated Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 108 No. 3: 480-98.
Kunda, Ziva. 1999. Social Cognition: Making Sense of People. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Lasswell, Howard. 1936. Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
McClain, Paula D., Niambi M. Carter, Victoria M. DeFrancesco Soto, Monique L. Lyle, Jeffrey D. Grynaviski, Shayla C. Nunnally, Thomas J. Scotto, J. Alan Kendrick, Gerald F. Lackey, and Kendra Davenport Cotton. 2006. “Racial Distancing in a Southern City: Latino
McGann, Anthony. 2016. “Voting Choice and Rational Choice.” in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford: John Wiley.
Nir, Lilach. 2011. “Disagreement and Opposition in Social Networks: Does Disagreement Discourage Turnout?” Political Studies Vol. 59 No. 3: 674-92.
Nisbet, Erik C., P.S. Hart, Teresa Myers and Morgan Ellithorpe. “Attitude Change in
Competitive Framing Environments? Open-/Closed-Mindedness, Framing Effects, and Climate Change.” Journal of Communication Vol. 63 No. 4: 766-85.
Oliver, J. Eric and Tali Mendelberg. 2000. “Reconsidering the Environmental Determinants of White Racial Attitudes.” American Journal of Political Science Vol. 44 No. 3: 574-89. Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1986. Racial Formation in the United States New York:
Routledge.
Pettigrew, Thomas F. 1998. “Intergroup Contact Theory.” Annual Review of Psychology Vol. 49: 65-85.
Redding, Saunders. 1968. “Introduction.” The Negro in American History Vol.3 Chicago: Encyclopedia Brittanica Educational Corporation.
Schattschneider, Elmer E. 1960. The Semisovereign People. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Sitkoff, Harvard. 1993. The Struggle for Black Equality. New York: Hill and Wang. Sniderman, Paul M. and Thomas Piazza. 1993. The Scar of Race. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Steenbergen, Marco R. and Bradford S. Jones. 2002. “Modeling Multilevel Data Structures.” American Journal of Political Science Vol. 46 No. 1: 218-37.
Taber, Charles S. and Milton Lodge. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science. Vol. 50 No. 3: 755-69.
Taylor, Marylee C. 1998. “How White Attitudes Vary with the Racial Composition of Local Populations: Numbers Count.” American Sociological Review Vol. 63 No. 4: 512-35. Thomas, W. LaVerne. 2005. Sociology: The Study of Human Relationships. Austin: Holt,
Rhinehart and Winston.
Thorpe, Earl E. 1968. “Introduction.” The Negro in American History Vol.2 Chicago: Encyclopedia Brittanica Educational Corporation.
Tzioumis, Konstantinos. 2018. “Demographic aspects of first names.” Scientific Data Vol. 5: 180025.
Valentino, Nicholas A. and David O. Sears. 2005. “Old Times There Are Not Forgotten: Race and Partisan Realignment in the Contemporary South.” American Journal of Political Science Vol. 49 No. 3: 672-88.
Voss, D. Stephen. 1996. “Beyond Racial Threat: Failure of an Old Hypothesis in the New South.” The Journal of Politics Vol. 58 No. 4: 1156-70.
Walburn, Lee. 1999 “Regarding Henry: The 25th Anniversary of Hank Aaron’s 715th Homer.” Atlanta Magazine April 1 Edition.’
Woodward, C. Vann. (1957) “The Political Legacy of Reconstruction.” The Journal of Negro Education Vol. 26 No. 3: 231-40.
APPENDIX Survey Experiment Design I. Research Design
A. The type of research proposed is a survey instrument with an embedded “dictator game” experiment. The entire survey and experiment is contained within an electronic-based instrument designed in Qualtrics. This survey and experiment will be completed online. A consent form precedes the survey. The subsequent survey data will mainly serve to establish many of the demographic variables of interest, though attitudinal data is also gathered. Questions will be answered with regard to race, gender, age, etc. In addition, subjects will be asked to describe the “racial environment” of their hometown. Both specific data linked to the U.S. Census as well as data on subjects’ perceptions will be collected. The experiment will involve a single-test only, randomized design that will allow subjects to choose to “share” with either a black or white fictitious individual. The “sharing” behavior proxies for a measure of racial discrimination. Specifically, the experiment proceeds as follows: Individuals will be thanked for participating at the conclusion of the survey questions. They will then be “given” 10 raffle tickets to do with as they please. Though there is no actual prize, deception is utilized in order to foster the belief that they may have something to gain by their choice. Thus, they are given the role of a dictator. They can act with complete self-interest or with a measure of altruism. A fictitious research assistant is presented as the individual with whom they may share their tickets. This research assistant differs in race according to the randomization of the treatment (i.e. one research assistant appears to be “White” and one research assistant appears to be “Black”). They choose how to allocate their tickets, and the survey ends. Due to randomization, we can assume that the only thing that differs between the two sub-populations tested is the race of the research assistant that they allocate to. Thus, the number of tickets allocated provides insight on the subject of discrimination. When coupled with the attitudinal data, the overall design should provide necessary insight for answering the primary research question. It should also allow the researchers the ability to test how closely the attitudes measured in the survey align with the behaviors exhibited in the experiment.
II. Detailed Study Procedures
A. The data collection process is completely confidential via Qualtrics. Data collection, itself, should not take more than 10 minutes per subject. The timeline for collection is estimated to be no more than a semester (or less). The data will first be handled by the data administrator of the Political Science Research Pool. At the point the primary investigators are given the data, all identifying variables will have been removed by the
provided will be stored in password-protected and fire-walled computers. No identifying information will be presented or published as a result of this study. No individuals will be identified personally, and all findings will be summarized via group statistics (OLS and MLE estimation). III. Data and Analysis
A. Sample
The sample will be gathered from the Political Science Research Pool at GSU on a volunteer-basis. Subjects are GSU undergraduate students who are enrolled in required American Government courses. The sample size is anticipated to be around 200 in total. This number is compatible with OLS and MLE statistical modeling.
B. Measurement / Instrumentation
The variables of interest are as follows: Race, Age, Gender, Ideology, Relative Prejudice (as measured via an index of three questions),
Demographics of Hometown/Secondary School, Perceived Demographic Makeup of Home Community, Perceived Interracial Contact in Home Environment, Extent of “Sharing” with a Black/White Individual (as a proxy for Discrimination).
The survey measurement techniques utilized are consistent with a wealth of racial attitudes research. The dictator game, likewise, has been utilized in many political science experiments.
The data will be collected online via GSU Qualtrics. C. Methodology
The data will be analyzed using Stata statistical software. Appropriate modeling will be dependent upon the nature of the dependent variable (continuous, discrete, etc.) as well as the distribution of the data. It is anticipated that OLS and Ordered Probit will be appropriate.
Relative levels of “prejudice” and “discrimination” will serve as primary dependent variables.
“Prejudice” will be measured as the distance between one’s opinions of other races juxtaposed with one’s own race. This method is consistent with a host of prior research.
Independent moderating variables for “discrimination” will include an interaction term of demographic makeup and perceived demographic makeup on two levels (the home community and the secondary school). The independent mediating variable for “discrimination” will be the racial treatment itself.
Survey Instrument
Prejudice and Discrimination: A Dictator Game Experiment
You may skip any questions that you prefer not to answer – no questions are required to continue.
Q1 What is your age?
Q2 What is your gender?
Female
Male
Q3 What racial group do you identify with?*
White
Black
Hispanic or Latino (Non-White)
Asian or Pacific Islander
Native American
Multi-Racial
Other
*Non-white participants who may have overlooked the statement that this study is focused on white racial attitudes alone will end the survey here.
Q4 What is the zip code of your hometown?
To the best of your knowledge, please estimate the population percentages of the following racial groups in your home community:
Q5 Whites:
Q6 Blacks:
Q7 Hispanic or Latino (Non-White):