According to research, bias is a habit that begins to take shape at an early age. As we form our own social identities surrounding things like ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, religion, and gender, we start to identify as members of a specific group of people. These identities in many ways can shape how we see and treat others — and how others see and treat us.

At the University of Wisconsin–Madison, Dr. William Cox, Dr. Patricia Devine, and their colleagues developed the bias habit-breaking intervention, an evidence-based approach which builds on more than 30 years of scientific research on prejudice, stereotyping, and bias, and has been proven to reduce bias in people’s attitudes and behavior long-term. Dr. Cox is the Principal Investigator of the Stereotyping and Bias Research (SABR) Lab in the Department of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and the founder of Inequity Agents of Change, a 501(c)(3) dedicated to reducing bias, creating inclusion, and promoting equity. In this conversation,

Dr. Cox explains how bias impacts the mind. He then provides proven strategies for reducing bias, and identifies common approaches such as color-blindness that people often take to address bias that often create more bias rather than less.

Topics covered with timestamps:

2:44 – Why a scientific, evidence-based approach is the best method for reducing bias.

7:29 – The origins of “bias as a habit” and a summary of the bias habit-breaking intervention model.

13:30 – How stereotypes can create and guide our expectations about others.

17:13 – People in society are often penalized if they violate the stereotypes we hold for them.

20:04 – Once a stereotype is a habit of mind, even if we experience that it’s wrong 75% of the time, confirmation bias causes us to give more credit to our stereotype than to the contrary evidence.

28:44 – Perspective taking as a strategy for reducing bias.

36:18 – How untested assumptions can reinforce stereotypes and cause them to self-perpetuate.

38:57 – Stereotype replacement as a strategy for reducing bias.

42:20 – Considering situational explanations as a strategy for reducing bias.

46:14 – Broadening your media input as a strategy for reducing bias.

51:23 – Colorblindness, ignoring group status, believing in personal objectivity, and stereotype suppression fail as approaches to reduce bias and create more bias rather than less.

57:03 – The importance of speaking up when you see bias occurring.

Have you ever felt like an imposter? Unqualified for the job, less intelligent than your classmates, or undeserving of your accomplishments, and that somehow you managed to convince others you were more capable than you really are?

In this episode of the DEI Podcast with Max Gaston, we revisit Max's conversation with Dr. Kevin Cokley, a psychologist at the University of Michigan who studies the imposter phenomenon. Dr. Cokley researches the relationship between imposter feelings, mental health, and academic outcomes among students from underrepresented communities. Listen as he discusses his research and experience with imposter feelings, and how we can learn to use these feelings as a motivation rather than a limitation in our daily lives.

In this episode, three students from the Notre Dame Black Law Students Association join Max for a lively discussion on the power of representation in law school, the complexity and pervasiveness of stereotypes, and contemporary social issues in the Black community, the legal profession, and beyond.

In his best-selling book, The Color of Law, Richard Rothstein demolished the de facto segregation myth that Black and White Americans live separately by choice, providing the most forceful argument ever published on how federal, state, and local governments gave rise to and reinforced neighborhood segregation. Aware that twenty-first-century segregation continues to promote entrenched inequality and underlie our most serious social problems, Richard has partnered with housing policy expert Leah Rothstein to write JUST ACTION: How to Challenge Racial Segregation Enacted Under the Color of Law. 

JUST ACTION provides bona fide solutions, based on decades of study and experience, that activists and their supporters can undertake in their own communities to address historical inequities, and shows how community groups can press those in government and the private sector that imposed segregation to finally take responsibility for reversing the harm, creating victories that might finally challenge residential segregation and help remedy America’s profoundly unconstitutional past.

In recent years, the business case for diversity has emerged as the go-to argument for why organizations should prioritize diversity in their recruiting efforts. Though most organizations don’t feel the need to explain why they care about core values such as innovation, resilience, or integrity, when it comes to diversity, lengthy justifications on the value of hiring a “diverse workforce” have become the norm.

At Boston University's Questrom School of Business, Dr. Oriane Georgeac researches how individuals respond to organizations’ messages about diversity and their justifications for why they value diversity in their workforce. Her findings show that organizations relying on a business case to justify diversity among their ranks may inadvertently alienate and hurt their efforts to recruit members of historically underrepresented communities.

Judicial clerkships are typically characterized as an unadulterated good—lifelong mentor-mentee relationships between judges and law clerks that confer professional benefits. But little information exists to help law students identify positive work environments and avoid judges who mistreat their clerks.

At the Legal Accountability Project, Aliza Shatzman works to ensure that law clerks have positive clerkship experiences, and to provide resources to those who do not. In this conversation, Aliza describes her personal experiences with gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation by a former DC Judge. Aliza also explains how Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not extend to federal judicial employees, the need for greater diversity within judicial chambers, and the work LAP is doing to support greater judicial accountability.

Topics covered with timestamps:

· 3:01 – Discussing what clerkships are, how they are messaged, and how students go about getting clerkships.

· 8:23 – Aliza discusses her experience with harassment and mistreatment during her judicial clerkship and the reputational harm inflicted on her by her former judge following her clerkship.

· 13:11 – Discussing the power disparity between judges and law clerks and how that disparity and the threat of retribution and reputational harm makes it difficult for law clerks to speak out in the face of mistreatment.

· 17:17 – Discussing the mental health consequences for judicial law clerks who are mistreated by judges.

· 19:32 – Aliza explains how she went on to found the Legal Accountability Project following her negative clerkship experience.

· 22:22 – Discussing the problem of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act not extending to federal judicial employees and the role Law Schools can play in protecting students who will go on to be law clerks.

· 30:55 – Discussing the importance of judicial ethics and the state of the judiciary overall regarding ethics and accountability.

· 34:04 – Aliza discusses the centralized clerkships database being developed by the Legal Accountability Project—tech that democratizes information about judges so law students have more information about judges before making decisions on where to clerk.

· 37:39 – Discussing the lack of diversity in judicial chambers and the hiring practices of judges as reported in the recent publication, Law Clerk Selection and Diversity: Insights From Fifty Sitting Judges of the Federal Courts of Appeals.

· 43:27 – Aliza discusses the benefits of diversity in judicial chambers to support fair and equitable legal problem solving.

· 46:24 – Discussing the role of judges in judicial reform and the work of the Legal Accountability Project.

Have you ever heard the phrase “I don’t see color,” when talking about race or ethnicity? Color blindness is the idea that ignoring or overlooking racial and ethnic differences promotes racial harmony and helps us treat people equally. But research shows that color blindness does just the opposite and can actually cause more harm in our interactions with people of different backgrounds.

At the Questrom School of Business at Boston University, Dr. Evan Apfelbaum researches color blindness and uses behavioral science to reveal the challenges and potential of diversity and social change. In 2012, Dr. Apfelbaum published an article entitled “Racial Color Blindness: Emergence, Practice, and Implications." He has since published several papers on race, diversity, and how we relate to one another.

Max and Evan discuss the findings of Evan’s 2012 paper and their importance today, including why color blindness is unsuccessful as a strategy for making race relations go smoothly. They then discuss the recent Supreme Court ruling striking down affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard, which was based on the view that the law requires racial color blindness in admissions decisions.

Topics covered with timestamps:

2:10 - The growing relevance of color blindness as a decision making tool and the phenomenon of avoiding race as a social interaction strategy to try to be more culturally sensitive.

5:20 - Understanding and defining racial color blindness.

6:15 - A summary of the research and findings in “Racial Color Blindness: Emergence, Practice, and Implications," (Evan P. Apfelbaum, Michael I. Norton, Samuel R. Sommers, Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 21, No. 3 (JUNE 2012), pp. 205-209)

and how those findings hold up today.

9.53 - Discussing the mistaken belief that color blindness can prevent prejudice and discrimination. E.g., “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race” ~ John Roberts, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.

14:30 - Discussing how people do notice race when perceiving others, and why nevertheless by the age of 10 color blindness becomes children’s main approach for dealing with race.

18:00 - Discussing how color blindness can facilitate and justify racial resentment, thereby creating more bias in attitudes and behaviors.

21:58: Discussing how White individuals who ignore race come across as less trustful and more likely to be prejudiced to Black conversation partners.

24:23 - Discussing the affirmative action decision in Students for Fair Admissions and how universities and other organizations must now rethink their approach to diversity.

30:58 - Discussing the educational benefits of diversity using research findings on diverse juries vs all white juries.

35:27 - Discussing the problematic trend of using diversity as a reference for everyone except straight white men.

40:29 - Discussing fairness and the finding that when race is made salient, many White people shift from viewing color blindness as “everyone should have equal outcomes” to viewing it as “everyone should receive equal treatment, regardless of existing race-based inequalities.”

44:51 - Discussing the different concerns of liberals and conservatives when it comes to topics like fairness and affirmative action.

47:36 - Discussing how liberals and conservatives don’t actually have starkly different values on a whole but rather different understandings and concerns of fairness in relation to diversity.

49:25 - Discussing multiculturalism as an alternative approach to color blindness.

53:12 - Discussing Dr. Apfelbaum’s current research on how promoting diversity affects people's beliefs on fairness and meritocracy in decision making processes.

“Innocent people should not be in prison.” (Anna McGinn, Notre Dame Law School ‘22).

In the latest episode of the DEI Podcast, Max revisits his conversation on exoneration justice with two lawyers who are working to free the innocent.

Exoneration justice is the tireless effort to free innocent people imprisoned after being wrongfully convicted of crimes, and to provide them with rehabilitative services. Jessa Webber and Anna McGinn, Notre Dame Law School’s Bank of America Foundation Fellows, have dedicated their legal careers to this work.

This episode of the DEI Podcast was part-one of a three-part series on public interest law. We talked with Jessa and Anna to explore the systemic problems that have led to a backlog of wrongful convictions disproportionately of people of color and members of the LGBTQ community, what anti-racist efforts look like to reduce the frequency of wrongful convictions on the front end, and how exoneration justice is helping create a fair and equitable justice system for everyone. Jessa and Anna also discuss the public interest path in law school, and how the Bank of America Foundation Fellowship is making public interest work after law school possible.

Click here to read about one of Anna’s clients who was recently freed from prison after spending nearly 25 years behind bars for a crime he did not commit.