SO38CH02-Reskin ARI 10 June 2012 9:1

ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further The Race Discrimination
Click here for quick links to
Annual Reviews content online,
including:
System
• Other articles in this volume
• Top cited articles
• Top downloaded articles
Barbara Reskin
Access provided by California Lutheran University on 01/27/15. For personal use only.

• Our comprehensive search Department of Sociology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195;
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:17-35. Downloaded from [Link]

email: reskin@[Link]

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012. 38:17–35 Keywords

First published online as a Review in Advance on cumulative advantage/disadvantage, racial disparities, racial inequality,
May 1, 2012
systems perspective
The Annual Review of Sociology is online at
[Link] Abstract
This article’s doi: To understand the persistence of racial disparities across multiple
10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145508
domains (e.g., residential location, schooling, employment, health,
Copyright  c 2012 by Annual Reviews. housing, credit, and justice) and to develop effective remedies, we must
All rights reserved
recognize that these domains are reciprocally related and comprise an
0360-0572/12/0811-0017$20.00 integrated system. The limited long-run success of government social
policies to advance racial justice is due in part to the ad hoc nature of
policy responses to various forms of racial discrimination. Drawing
on a systems perspective, I show that race discrimination is a system
whose emergent properties reinforce the effects of their components.
The emergent property of a system of race-linked disparities is über
discrimination—a meta-level phenomenon that shapes our culture,
cognitions, and institutions, thereby distorting whether and how we
perceive and make sense of racial disparities. Viewing within-domain
disparities as part of a discrimination system requires better-specified
analytic models. While the existence of an emergent system of über
discrimination increases the difficulty of eliminating racial disparities,
a systems perspective points to strategies to attack that system. These
include identifying and intervening at leverage points, implementing
interventions to operate simultaneously across subsystems, isolat-
ing subsystems from the larger discrimination system, and directly
challenging the processes through which emergent discrimination
strengthens within-subsystem disparities.

17
 SO38CH02-Reskin ARI 10 June 2012 9:1

A SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE ON system of discrimination. Indeed, domain-

RACIAL DISPARITIES specific analyses of disparities seldom take
seriously the causal role of discrimination. In
Although sociologists know that racial dis-
contrast, the unit of analysis from a systems
parities across domains are related, most
perspective is not individual subsystems but
quantitative research fails to reflect this.
rather the entire system—the forest rather than
Considerable evidence has established the
the trees. And the phenomena to be explained
reciprocal feedback relations between racial
are the relationships among the subsystems
disparities across domains; health-care dispar-
rather than the outcomes within individual
ities, for example, contribute to disparities in
subsystems (Deutsch 1969, p. 2; Menendian &
schooling, and vice versa. In practice, however,
Watt 2008).
most analyses of otherwise technically high
After summarizing a systems perspective, I
quality treat the disparities to be explained as
show how it applies to racial disparities. I argue
independent of disparities in other domains.
Access provided by California Lutheran University on 01/27/15. For personal use only.

that pervasive disparities across major institu-

Ignoring the reciprocal causality of disparities
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:17-35. Downloaded from [Link]

tional spheres comprise a race discrimination

across spheres necessarily leads to misspecified
system. In addition, a systems perspective rec-
causal models. And correctly specified models
ognizes that systems have emergent effects that
are the sine qua non for effective policy inter-
can affect their components. I argue that the
ventions. Improperly specified analyses are of
emergent effect of pervasive racial disparities is
questionable scholarly and practical value. This
über discrimination, a meta phenomenon that
is a strong claim, and I do not make it lightly.
maintains or exacerbates black-white dispari-
Unless we acknowledge the interdependence
ties. I show that according to a systems approach
of racial disparities across domains and take
it is impossible to explain race-linked disparities
on the challenge of modeling this interde-
within a single subsystem, much less to come up
pendence, we can neither explain race-based
with remedies for those disparities. I conclude
inequality in the United States nor contribute
by discussing approaches to possible remedies
to the development of viable remedies.
for systematic racial disparities that stem from
In addressing the challenges of explaining
a systems perspective.
interrelated racially linked disparities within
any sphere and formulating possible remedies,
it is helpful to begin with a systems perspective A Systems Perspective
and to conceptualize the reciprocal interde- The components of systems are linked through
pendence of racial disparities across domains reciprocal causation (i.e., feedback loops).
as a race discrimination system. Systems As a result, systems are inherently dynamic.
theory offers a way to conceptualize racial Because feedback effects often reinforce the
discrimination as something greater than the relations among subsystems, systems tend
sum of race-linked disparities across a set of toward equilibrium (Boguslaw 1982, p. 9).
subsystems. According to a systems perspec- Exogenous shocks can weaken systems, how-
tive, a system is an entity that comprises a set of ever. As noted, systems generate emergent
dynamically related components or subsystems properties—outcomes that no individual
(Deutsch 1969, Bellinger 2004/2005). Socio- subsystem can produce. An example of an
logical research typically focuses on disparities emergent property is wetness. Neither hy-
within a single subsystem (for examples, see drogen nor oxygen alone has or can produce
Pager & Shepherd’s 2008 review). Although wetness; wetness occurs only in a chemical
this approach has documented the prevalence system that includes both hydrogen and oxygen
of and trends in inequality in specific domains, in the correct proportions. The emergence
it renders invisible the fact that racial disparities of system-level properties reflects the fact, as
in apparently unrelated spheres are part of a Aristotle observed more than 2000 years ago,

18 Reskin
 SO38CH02-Reskin ARI 10 June 2012 9:1

that “[t]he whole is something over and above I submit that widespread, interdependent,
its parts, and not just the sum of them.” race-linked disparities—black-white residential
segregation and disparities in schooling, em-
ployment, earnings, health care, credit markets,
Discrimination as a System and the criminal justice system, among others—
The core of my argument is that the emergent constitute a system whose emergent property
product of pervasive race-linked disparities— is über (or meta) discrimination. In effect, in-
some but not all of which are caused by terrelated disparities to which discrimination
discrimination—is über discrimination. Here contributes to some degree comprise a system
I distinguish between terms. By a disparity I whose product is societal-level discrimination.
refer to any difference in an outcome. Dispar- This emergent discrimination profoundly helps
ities are of interest to sociologists when they to maintain racial disparities by suffusing the
systematically favor some groups over others. world we occupy, automatically affecting our
Access provided by California Lutheran University on 01/27/15. For personal use only.

Discrimination refers to unwarranted differ- beliefs and values about color and worthiness
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:17-35. Downloaded from [Link]

ential treatment of persons based on group and shaping the distribution of resources. Thus,
membership.1 In 1971, the Supreme Court ex- emergent discrimination maintains disparities
panded this definition to include practices that within subsystems.
are neutral on their face but have an unjustified In sum, a race discrimination system is the
disparate impact (Griggs v. Duke Power 1971). product of both a system of race-linked dispar-
More recently, cognitive psychologists have ities and a belief system that perpetuates them.
demonstrated that differential treatment can Although a systems approach to discrimination
stem from automatic biases outside our aware- should be useful in understanding other perva-
ness and thus is not necessarily intentional sive disparities, in view of the history of race in
(Dasgupta 2004, Greenwald & Krieger 2006; America and the pervasiveness of racial dispar-
for a contrary view, see Blanton & Jaccard ities, I focus on the race discrimination system.
2008). For example, although Major League
Baseball umpires call pitches in fractions of
THE SYSTEM OF RACE
a second, they are more likely to call strikes
DISCRIMINATION IN THE
when they and the pitcher are the same race
UNITED STATES
(Parsons et al. 2011; see also Price & Wolfers
2010, who observed a similar automatic bias Before the 1960s—the decade when the United
in favor of same-race players by professional States outlawed race discrimination in several
basketball referees). In sum, discrimination is domains—the systemic nature of discrimina-
increasingly conceptualized as either inten- tion was clear. In 1944, Swedish Nobel Lau-
tional or automatic disparate treatment as well reate Gunnar Myrdal concluded from inten-
as unjustified disparate impact. sive study that the degraded situation of blacks
By a discrimination system I mean a set of in the United States stemmed from “an in-
dynamically related subsystems (or domains) in terdependent system of dynamic causation,”
which (a) disparities systematically favor cer- with “no ‘primary cause’ [because] everything is
tain groups, (b) disparities across subsystems are cause to everything else” (Myrdal 1944, p. 78).
mutually reinforcing, and (c) one source of Over the next two decades, sociological scholar-
within-subsystem disparities is discrimination. ship on race—most of which was theoretical or
descriptive—took for granted that race discrim-
ination existed across all spheres of public life.
In the 1960s, this broad approach to racial
1
discrimination was supplanted by research that
Although Merton (1972) used different language (treating
people on the basis of functionally irrelevant characteristics), specialized in black-white disparities within a
his definition is essentially the same. single domain. Research that extended beyond

[Link] • The Race Discrimination System 19

 SO38CH02-Reskin ARI 10 June 2012 9:1

a single domain rarely went further than a result directly from discrimination, and (c)
causally proximate one. For example, studies disparities in each subsystem are reciprocally
of black-white earnings disparity controlled for linked to disparities in other subsystems. The
the effects of educational attainment. A focus next section summarizes research that shows
on just one or at best two domains within that racial inequality in the United States
a larger interrelated system meant that re- satisfies these three conditions.
searchers omitted the causes of disparities that
in turn affected independent variables in their
analyses (for example, the effects of neighbor- Race-Linked Disparities and
hood racial composition or access to health care Discrimination Within Subsystems
on educational attainment) in explaining dis- Thousands of scholarly studies have docu-
parities in the outcome variable (Quillian 2006, mented disparities that favor whites over blacks
p. 302). across every major subsystem in American
Access provided by California Lutheran University on 01/27/15. For personal use only.

Moreover, as the discipline adopted more society. This section briefly reviews these
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:17-35. Downloaded from [Link]

rigorous analytic techniques and higher stan- disparities as well as evidence of the role of dis-
dards for causal inference, researchers became crimination in producing them. The following
increasingly reticent about attributing an un- section shows that these major subsystems are
explained disparity to discrimination (Quillian reciprocally related.
2006, p. 303). Although surely most specialists
on any form of race inequality took for granted Residential and school segregation. Race-
the systemic nature of discrimination, nonethe- based disparities regarding where people live
less they became ever more cautious about and where children go to school are pervasive
concluding that discrimination was the cause of and long-standing. As researchers have thor-
observed disparities.2 This caution persists; few oughly documented, blacks and whites are seg-
sociologists are willing to ascribe any portion of regated into different neighborhoods. Although
an unexplained disparity to discrimination. It is segregation declined in smaller cities in the re-
as if using the term “discrimination” to explain cent past, America’s largest cities remain highly
disparities erodes one’s claim to scientific im- segregated on the basis of race (Massey et al.
partiality. [An important exception is Rugh & 2009, Reardon et al. 2009). Moreover, the de-
Massey’s (2010) outstanding analysis of racial cline in race segregation between 1980 and
segregation and the foreclosure crisis, which 2000 stemmed from the growth of multiethnic
used the term “discrimination” 15 times.] neighborhoods rather than of mixed white-and-
In this article, I argue that our reluctance black neighborhoods (Friedman 2008). And
to conclude that discrimination is a major discrimination in housing and mortgage mar-
cause of race inequalities has impeded our kets has been a major factor in residential seg-
ability to advance the scientific understanding regation (Massey & Denton 1993, Rugh &
of racial inequality and thus precluded our Massey 2010).
addressing which interventions might reduce As long as children are assigned to schools
discrimination-based disparities. I conclude based on where they live, residential segre-
that a society-wide system of race discrim- gation ensures that public elementary and
ination exists if three conditions are met: secondary schools remain segregated. Thus,
(a) race-linked disparities exist in every sub- discrimination in access to housing necessarily
system, (b) at least some of these disparities contributes to school segregation [however, in
the longer term, school desegregation may fos-
ter housing integration (Mitchell et al. 2010)].
2
According to Quillian (2006, p. 304), only discrimination Although court-ordered busing reduced school
revealed by well-conducted audit studies has been beyond
challenge. Heckman & Siegelman (1993) have questioned segregation after 1970, the decline reversed
whether audit studies unequivocally establish discrimination. by 1989 (Orfield 2001, p. 32; Logan et al.

20 Reskin
 SO38CH02-Reskin ARI 10 June 2012 9:1

2008). Because residential and school segre- Housing and mortgage markets. Blacks are
gation physically separate whites and African less likely than whites to own their homes, their
Americans, both greatly facilitate unequal homes are worth less, and their homes are less
treatment. Thus, besides its dominant ma- likely to appreciate in value than those owned
jor role in school segregation, residential by whites (Williams et al. 2005; see Pager &
segregation—and to a lesser extent, school Shepherd 2008, p. 189, for a review). Racial
segregation—contributes to disparities in every disparities in home ownership (and residential
other major subsystem. segregation) originated in the discriminatory
practice of redlining black neighborhoods (the
Education. Racial disparities in educational
outlining of predominantly black neighbor-
achievement provide stark evidence of the ef-
hoods on maps that real estate agents then
fect of segregating children on the basis of their
used to preserve segregated neighborhoods
race (Mickelson 2003). Whites are more likely
and financial institutions and to assess risks in
Access provided by California Lutheran University on 01/27/15. For personal use only.

than blacks to complete high school and to enter

mortgage and insurance decisions). Although
and graduate from college. These differences
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:17-35. Downloaded from [Link]

discrimination in the housing market has

stem in part from differences in the resources
declined, steering black prospective buyers to
and qualities of predominantly black and pre-
primarily black neighborhoods has increased
dominantly white schools. The National Cen-
(Ross & Turner 2005).
ter of Educational Statistics reading and math-
In addition, although the Community
ematics test scores for elementary and middle
Reinvestment Act of 1997 increased home
school students between 1978 and 2008 show
ownership among blacks by increasing their
fluctuating racial disparities that reached a min-
access to mortgages (Bond & Williams 2007),
imum in the late 1980s (Harris & Herrington
race discrimination still infects mortgage mar-
2006; Vanneman et al. 2009, pp. 6, 28; Barton &
kets. Black prospective buyers are told about
Coley 2010), approximately the time when
fewer mortgage products (Ross et al. 2005)
schools were most integrated (Orfield 2001,
and are charged higher fees and closing costs,
p. 14).
and blacks who qualify for prime-rate loans
Labor market. Researchers have documented nonetheless tend to be steered to subprime
black-white disparities in all facets of the labor lenders (Williams et al. 2005, p. 189; 2008;
market (unemployment, labor force partic- Bocian et al. 2008, p. 121; see also Pager &
ipation, employment, job assignments, pro- Shepherd 2008, pp. 190–91). According to
motions, pay, authority, working conditions, Rugh & Massey (2010, p. 630), “race discrim-
benefits, and more). Most important is evidence ination occurred at every step in the complex
that (a) blacks are unemployed at twice the rate chain of events leading from loan origination
of whites, (b) since 1980 the labor force partici- to foreclosure” (see also Bosch et al. 2010).
pation of young blacks has fallen relative to that Residential segregation has disadvantaged
of whites (Holzer et al. 2005), (c) black and white blacks primarily by facilitating predatory
workers are concentrated in different occupa- lenders’ exploitation of predominantly black,
tions with occupational segregation as high in economically vulnerable communities. This
2009 as it was in 2000 (C. Childers, unpublished targeting of black communities for risky
analyses), and (d ) the black-white pay gap has and overpriced loans has put black home-
grown since 1996 (Rodgers 2008). Discrimi- owners at particular risk of foreclosure
nation is demonstrably implicated in these dis- (Williams et al. 2005, p. 188; Rugh & Massey
parities (Moss & Tilly 2001, Pager 2003, Pager 2010).
et al. 2009). For example, econometric analyses
attributed between one-quarter and one-third Credit and consumption markets. Until a
of the wage gap to discrimination or racial ani- quarter of a century ago, creditors openly de-
mus (Charles & Guryan 2011, Fryer et al. 2011). nied blacks credit. After Congress banned race

[Link] • The Race Discrimination System 21

 SO38CH02-Reskin ARI 10 June 2012 9:1

discrimination in credit, creditors overcharged Discipline, incarceration, and the criminal

blacks relative to whites. On average, blacks pay justice system. Blacks suffer harsher penal-
higher annual percentage rate (APR) interest ties than whites in social control systems. For
on car loans (Ayres 2001, pp. 88–123; Charles instance, black students are more likely than
et al. 2008). Black-owned small businesses pay whites to be disciplined or suspended (Fenning
higher average interest rates on loans than & Rose 2007, Wallace et al. 2008). Accord-
comparable white businesses (Hu et al. 2011). ing to data collected by the US Department of
Payday lending stores which routinely charge Education (2012), African American students
APRs of up to 400% are concentrated in are more than 3.5 times more likely to be sus-
economically disadvantaged—and often dis- pended or expelled than their white peers.
proportionately black—communities (Stegman This pattern of harsher punishment for
2007). blacks exists in other spheres. For example,
Little research exists on the extent of race case workers are more likely to discipline black
Access provided by California Lutheran University on 01/27/15. For personal use only.

discrimination in consumption markets; how- than white welfare recipients (Monnat 2010,
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:17-35. Downloaded from [Link]

ever, audit studies have documented race dis- Fording et al. 2011). Ayres & Borowsky (2008)
crimination in new car prices (Ayres 2001, found that Los Angeles police were more likely
pp. 88–123; Ayres & Siegelman 2001; also to stop black motorists than non-Hispanic
see Pager & Shepherd 2008, pp. 191–92). In whites and, having stopped them, were more
general, blacks are disadvantaged in consump- likely to make blacks get out of their car, more
tion markets because of their lower purchasing likely to frisk blacks, more likely to search their
power (Williams & Collins 1995), their more cars, and more likely to arrest them. Impor-
limited choices, and higher prices for inferior tantly, stops of blacks were less likely to lead
products (Larson et al. 2009). to a citation or arrest, and searches and frisks
of blacks were less likely to reveal a weapon
than stops, searches, and frisks of non-Hispanic
Health services. Blacks are disadvantaged rel- whites, indicating that traffic officers’ dispro-
ative to whites in every aspect of their access to portionate scrutiny of blacks was unwarranted.
health care. These disadvantages culminate in Alexander (2012) provides scores of additional
worse health outcomes for blacks. Importantly, examples.
these disparities have been growing (Williams Burgeoning research has systematically doc-
& Mohammed 2009). Blacks are more likely umented the vastly disproportional arrest and
than whites to suffer from diabetes, cardiovas- incarceration of black boys and men (Pettit
cular disease, hypertension, stroke, and stress, & Western 2004; Wakefield & Uggen 2010,
among many other conditions; are treated less figure 5; Lyons & Pettit 2011). This dispar-
effectively for these conditions; and are more ity to which racial discrimination contributes
likely to be disabled from them. Life expectancy has increased at an alarming rate (Alesina &
for blacks remains much lower than for whites. Farrara 2011). The effect of race within the
Discrimination—especially disparate impact criminal justice system is strong and, as I show
discrimination—contributes to racial dispari- below, consequential.
ties in health. [See, for example, how choosing
recipients for kidney transplants had a disparate Race-Linked Disparities as the Parts
impact on blacks (Ayres et al. 2001).] Also im- of a Race Discrimination System
plicated are discrimination within the health-
This section discusses how race-linked dis-
care system (Smedley et al. 2003) and blacks’
parities in subsystems give rise to a self-
greater exposure than whites to stress, violence,
perpetuating system of race discrimination.
and unhealthy neighborhoods, all risks to which
discrimination contributes (Turner & Avison Feedback effects across subsystems. The
1992, Williams & Mohammed 2009). sine qua non of a system—reciprocal feedback

22 Reskin
 SO38CH02-Reskin ARI 10 June 2012 9:1

across subsystems—is a well-established phe- I argue, however, that their consequences are
nomenon, repeatedly reported in research on more dire: Collectively they constitute a system
racial inequality. Residential racial segregation that infects American society and all of its insti-
links many of the major subsystems by concen- tutions with race discrimination and that harms
trating blacks in neighborhoods that lack good virtually all Americans of African ancestry.
schools and health care, while exposing them Applying a systems perspective to race-
to environmental hazards, economic exploita- linked disparities clarifies the causal relation-
tion, and punitive policing (Menendian et al. ship between an observed disparity and sys-
2008, Rugh & Massey 2010). More generally, temic discrimination, thereby vitiating the
feedback relationships exist between resi- otherwise customary analytical attempts to ap-
dential segregation, education, employment, portion the gap between racially neutral factors
socioeconomic status, the cost and quality of and discrimination. More important, a systems
healthy food, community resources, and health perspective elucidates the efficacy of potential
Access provided by California Lutheran University on 01/27/15. For personal use only.

care (Denton 1996; Card 2007; Williams & remedies for disparities. Ending disparities re-
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:17-35. Downloaded from [Link]

Mohammed 2009, p. 35), and between educa- quires a different approach when they emanate
tion, employment, credit, housing, and health in part from a system.
subsystems (Blank et al. 2004). Prisons’ “long
reach,” as reviewed in Wakefield & Uggen
(2010, p. 389), contributes to lifelong disparities Emergent discrimination. A systems per-
in employment, wages, credit, health, housing, spective recognizes that a set of subsystems
and enfranchisement (Massoglia & Warner operating in several domains have emergent
2011, Rodriguez & Emsellem 2011, Alexander effects that none of its subsystems can produce
2012). The differential treatment of black and on its own. I argue that pervasive racial
white children and their families within the disparities across multiple domains have given
health-care and criminal justice systems and in rise to a system of race discrimination whose
labor and credit markets contributes to racial emergent effects implant über discrimination
disparities in educational attainment (Barton & into our minds, culture, and institutions.
Coley 2010). Discrimination in credit markets System-wide race discrimination is fueled
contributes to higher rates of loan default, with by processes operating in multiple sectors that
negative effects on minority entrepreneurship, collectively fuel a larger entity that can in turn
home ownership, and wealth accumulation. cause other effects in those sectors. Although
Discrimination in housing markets contributes some degree of discrimination exists in each of
to residential segregation, which is associated the subsystems I have discussed, other factors
with concentrated disadvantage, poor health also contribute to race-linked disparities. Im-
outcomes, and limited educational and employ- portantly, however, emergent discrimination
ment opportunities (Pager & Shepherd 2008, intensifies disparities within each sector. Con-
p. 199). The redundancy in this paragraph sider housing markets. Explicit race discrimina-
mirrors the redundant links connecting race tion by sellers, real estate agents, and mortgage
to advantage and disadvantage in the United brokers; redlining; and restrictive covenants
States. are direct discriminatory causes of housing
In sum, within each subsystem, (a) racial segregation. Even if discrimination’s only di-
disparities favor whites, (b) ongoing race dis- rect effect were on where people lived, it would
crimination is implicated in the disparities, and indirectly contribute to black-white disparities
(c) disparities are causally interdependent across in schooling, health care, the cost of insurance,
subsystems. At minimum these three facts the opportunity to accrue wealth, etc. In sum,
demonstrate the existence of a system of the ac- direct discrimination within subsystems exac-
cumulation of white advantage and black disad- erbates disparities in other subsystems in part
vantage (Blank et al. 2004; Blank 2005, p. 100). by creating emergent (über) discrimination.

[Link] • The Race Discrimination System 23

 SO38CH02-Reskin ARI 10 June 2012 9:1

The impact of emergent discrimination. A ENDING AMERICA’S RACE

particular value of a systems perspective for DISCRIMINATION SYSTEM
understanding pervasive race-linked disparities Systems inherently resist change for three
is the perspective’s insight that systems have reasons. First, feedback effects among their
emergent properties that are themselves causal component subsystems usually counteract
agents. über discrimination operates at a meta the effects of exogenous pressures to change.
level, influencing the cultural and social con- Second, the mechanisms that give rise to a sys-
texts in which people act. In social psycholog- tem’s emergent product tend to be redundant;
ical terms, it distorts how we see others, the when some are eliminated, others replace them.
attributions we make about them, and our pre- Third, the groups that contributed to the cre-
dictions of their performance. It misinforms ation of a system and benefit from it have a stake
our understanding of events and our inferences in its survival (Lieberson 1985, Rugh & Massey
about causes and consequences. Emergent— 2010). However, strategies exist for changing
Access provided by California Lutheran University on 01/27/15. For personal use only.

or über—discrimination transforms the race- systems. One takes advantage of the fact that
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:17-35. Downloaded from [Link]

related disparities across the range of domains most systems have leverage points—points in a
into a race discrimination system. By affecting subsystem that are essential for system mainte-
the social and cultural milieu, this system makes nance. Consider, for example, the weather and
race salient in a way that distorts our percep- agricultural systems in the Great Plains just
tions and feelings. east of the Rocky Mountains. The rainfall was
Figure 1 offers a simplified representation sufficient only for grass crops such as wheat,
of the race discrimination system in the and even for these crops not always enough. In
United States. Although a three-dimensional the early twentieth century, droughts and crop
figure would better convey emergent (i.e., failures prompted the Bureau of Reclamation to
über) discrimination, in this two-dimensional build dams to divert melting snow into pipelines
representation its location in the middle of the and irrigation ditches. Irrigating the arid grass-
subsystems and its reciprocal links with each lands transformed the weather-agriculture
subsystem indicate both how emergence occurs system, creating fertile farmland that supported
and what its effects are (blue arrows). (A single a reliable and diverse assortment of crops.
three-dimensional, two-headed arrow shaped A second way to eradicate a system’s emer-
like an upside-down funnel with a base that gent product is the introduction of an exoge-
encompass all of the subsystems would better nous force that acts simultaneously on all of its
represent the joint effects of the subsystems on subsystems. The US Army used this strategy
the emergence of über discrimination, and the to end race discrimination. In one fell swoop it
latter’s effects on each subsystem.) implemented a sanctioning system that banned
Most social scientific explanations of racial race-based treatment and supported a culture
disparities within subsystems distinguish that emphasized allocation based on ability
between nondiscriminatory and discriminatory and rank (Moskos & Butler 1997). The auto-
causes. For example, analyses of black-white matic “trading curbs” built into financial mar-
differences in morbidity focus on diet or kets is another example. These trading curbs
biological factors that render one group more quell potentially catastrophic market fluctua-
susceptible to certain diseases. However, tions spurred by a frenzy of electronic trades
through the race discrimination system, ap- generated by predetermined algorithms by giv-
parently race-neutral factors can be traced to ing traders time-outs to consider trades (Litan
the effects of discrimination in one or more & Santomero 1998).
race-linked risk factors. Figure 1 reflects this Twice in US history has an opportunity
in recognizing emergent discrimination as the existed to dismantle the race discrimination
fundamental cause of any apparent nondis- system. The first time was at the end of the Civil
criminatory causes of observed disparities.

24 Reskin
 SO38CH02-Reskin ARI 10 June 2012 9:1

War when Congress abolished slavery, passed increasing access to public accommodations,
the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to mortgages and other credit markets, and the po-
the Constitution, and enacted the Civil Rights litical process, these laws improved the lives of
Acts of 1866. These acts freed enslaved blacks untold numbers of black Americans. The black-
and accorded to all US-born blacks citizenship white gaps in earnings and educational attain-
rights equal to those of whites.3 In theory, ment narrowed (Card & Krueger 1993, figure
ensuring equal legal status to blacks and whites 1; Orfield 2001), and occupational and school
may have been a leverage point that ended the segregation declined (King 1992, Orfield 2001).
use of race in allocating advantages and dis- Although hundreds of thousands of blacks
advantages. And these interventions improved benefited from the regulatory actions during
the lives of many African Americans. For the the civil rights era, by the end of the 1970s black
most part, however, their effects were short progress stalled, and gains in some domains
run because federal support was short lived were lost. These reversals occurred in part
Access provided by California Lutheran University on 01/27/15. For personal use only.

and blacks were concentrated in the South, because the attack on race discrimination had
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:17-35. Downloaded from [Link]

which had the greatest stake in the status quo been too piecemeal. Laws were enacted over
ante. When the federal government withdrew several years, had different mandates, involved
from the vanquished South, it was replaced by different regulatory agencies with different
a new system of oppression: state-mandated enforcement mechanisms, and imposed few if
racial classification, black codes, the renewed any sanctions on lawbreakers. In addition, reg-
disenfranchisement of blacks, and the Jim ulatory agencies, which were underfunded and
Crow doctrine of separate and unequal, as deluged with complaints, were reactive, placing
well as systematic repression achieved through the enforcement burden on discrimination’s
economic exploitation, terror, and violence victims, who were often poorly positioned
(Myrdal 1944, Dawson 1994). to challenge more powerful entities. By the
Almost 100 years later, the federal gov- 1980s complainants faced an increasingly
ernment leveled a second broad attack on the conservative judiciary that limited the efficacy
discrimination system. Between 1964 and 1972, of discrimination laws and affirmative action
it outlawed race discrimination in employment plans. For example, federal judges terminated
and labor unions, public accommodations, court-ordered busing, declaring segregated
education, credit, mortgages and voting, as school districts unified and hence beyond
well as discrimination by any entity funded remedy, although no plaintiff had sought this
by the federal government.4 During this change (Orfield 2001, pp. 16–17).5
period, the courts began enforcing the 1954 The federal government’s attacks on dis-
Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of crimination were not sufficiently widespread to
Education (Orfield 2001, p. 16). These actions overcome the reinforcing relationships among
by the federal government were exogenous subsystems within the race discrimination sys-
shocks to the race discrimination system, tem. Residential segregation remained high in
shown by the red arrows in Figure 2. By large cities, bolstering racial disparities across
other domains. Lawmakers and regulators were
in no hurry to end the race discrimination
3
Of course, these changes did not make black women legally
equal to men.
4
These laws include the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1968
5
Fair Housing Act (amended in 1988 to increase the gov- Most recently, the Supreme Court struck down race-based
ernment’s enforcement powers), the 1974 Equal Credit Op- student-assignment policies in Seattle and Louisville, cities
portunity Act, the 1975 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, that had voluntarily addressed de jure segregation by dis-
and the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act. During the tributing students more evenly across schools [Parents In-
same period, presidential executive orders prohibited race volved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1
discrimination within the federal government and by federal (2007), decided with Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of
contractors. Education (2007)].

[Link] • The Race Discrimination System 25

 SO38CH02-Reskin ARI 10 June 2012 9:1

system, and opponents to discrimination failed and segregation. The mass incarceration of
to understand that discrimination was a system black men (which Alexander 2012 termed
that required a coordinated assault.6 In sum, al- “The New Jim Crow”) now appears to be a
though the attacks on discrimination benefited fourth. I am not arguing that ending slavery did
many African Americans, they were never suffi- not transform life for American blacks or that
ciently broad in their reach or sustained in their the Civil Rights Movement and the laws and
enforcement to surmount the ongoing cultural regulations arising from it did not permit a sea
and cognitive biases generated by entrenched change in the socioeconomic opportunities of
über discrimination. many African Americans. Nonetheless, today
A recent analysis argues compellingly that in virtually every realm for which evidence
even during the civil rights era, the Republicans exists—from the bottom to the top of the so-
had begun an attempt to win over Southern cioeconomic hierarchy—whites remain better
Democrats by playing on their racial fears of off, on average, than blacks. The existence of a
Access provided by California Lutheran University on 01/27/15. For personal use only.

black violence (Alexander 2012, pp. 44–48). race discrimination system does not mean that
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:17-35. Downloaded from [Link]

Nixon’s success in linking race and crime cre- every African American is always denied oppor-
ated broad political support for a national war tunities because of her race or that discrimina-
on crime that evolved during the Reagan ad- tion on the basis of one’s race is an inescapable
ministration first into a war on drugs and later feature of American life. But it does mean that
into a war on crack cocaine (Alexander 2012). being black reduces one’s opportunities and
Concomitant with the retrenchment in the increases one’s risk of adverse events. And it
enforcement of civil rights laws was the coup continues to do so, I submit, because of the exis-
de grace: In 1986 Congress enacted massively tence of a discrimination system based on race.
disproportional prison sentences for persons
convicted of possessing crack cocaine, a form
of cocaine that was cheaper than powdered NOW WHAT?
cocaine and that was marketed in predomi- The effects of being black in America have been
nantly black communities. This disparity in well documented. But until we recognize that
sentencing, for which there was no scientific disparities in schooling, employment, housing,
justification, has led to the mass incarceration credit markets, health, incarceration, etc., are
of black men and boys (Mauer 2003, Alexander part of and perpetuated through a system of
2012). Of all the race-linked disparities re- racial disadvantage, even the best research
viewed above, the disparity between blacks’ can neither explain white-black disparities
and whites’ risks of incarceration has grown nor move us toward a fairer society. Barring
the most rapidly and is the most consequential across-the-board interventions or strategic
(Western 2002, Mauer 2003, Wakefield & manipulation of leverage points, the race
Uggen 2010, Schnittker et al. 2011). And mass discrimination system is self-perpetuating.
incarceration of black men ensures their subse- The argument that widespread racial
quent disadvantage in and even exclusion from disparities are part of a fully developed dis-
other domains, including the labor market, the crimination system shares some of the premises
credit market, political and civic participation, of cumulative disadvantage theory (DiPrete
and access to certain economic safeguards. & Eirich 2006). Myrdal (1944) described “the
The United States has used three systems to Negro problem” as a vicious cycle of “cumu-
subordinate blacks: slavery, Jim Crow racism, lative causation.” More recently, scholars have
characterized racial inequality as a system of
cumulative disadvantage across spheres (Blank
6
The efficacy of small comprehensive pilot programs de- et al. 2004, Blank 2005, Menendian & Watt
signed to address inequality attests to the efficacy of a sys-
tem of simultaneous across-the-board interventions (see, e.g., 2008, Schnittker et al. 2011). For example,
Duncan et al. 2007). “[t]hrough spillover effects across domains,

26 Reskin
 SO38CH02-Reskin ARI 10 June 2012 9:1

processes of cumulative disadvantage across conclude that discrimination had not caused an
the life course, and feedback effects, the effects observed disparity. If the coefficient remained
of discrimination can intensify and . . . become significant, researchers who planned to subject
self-sustaining” (Pager & Shepherd 2008, their analyses to peer review had to address
p. 199). whether omitted variables might have produced
I argue that a systems approach is more the disparity. Only after showing that a dis-
useful than cumulative disadvantage theory parity could survive both actual and theoreti-
for understanding persistent racial inequality cal control variables could researchers conclude
because it recognizes that race discrimination that discrimination might have contributed to
is an integrated structural entity that simul- the disparity. Given these hurdles, sociologists
taneously obscures the causes of disparities rarely attribute disparities to discrimination ex-
within each sphere and amplifies their effects. cept in audit studies. The scrupulous efforts
Moreover, a systems perspective is more likely that researchers take to be sure that we do not
Access provided by California Lutheran University on 01/27/15. For personal use only.

than a cumulative disadvantage perspective misattribute a disparity to discrimination has

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:17-35. Downloaded from [Link]

to generate effective remedies. A cumulative prevented sociologists from acknowledging—

disadvantage approach assumes that groups much less explaining—pervasive race discrimi-
can avoid becoming trapped by catching up in nation in America.
important spheres. This assumption is the basis As Mickelson (2003, p. 1074) pointed out in
for the logic behind affirmative action in educa- a thoughtful essay on racial disparities in educa-
tion or employment. In contrast, according to a tion, “distinguishing racial discrimination from
systems perspective, racial disparities are robust racial disparities is . . . an interesting intellec-
because emergent discrimination constrains the tual, legal, and statistical challenge with possi-
paths through which blacks can overcome ac- bly important policy implications [, but] in the
crued disadvantages. Thus, a systems approach everyday lives of black and white students . . . ,
better accounts for the persistence of racial this distinction probably is less meaningful
disparities despite the periodic implementation than social scientists and policy makers might
and enforcement of policies ostensibly designed hope.” I will go even further: The primary
to reduce them. A system whose emergent product of applying our sophisticated analytic
property is discrimination will sustain discrim- tools to deciding whether discrimination con-
ination until feasible interventions are devised tributed to observed disparities is publications.
and policy makers muster the will to imple- We cannot reduce persistent black-white
ment them more or less at once across multiple disparities in any sphere until we recognize
subsystems. that the interrelatedness of disparities across all
spheres gives rise to meta discrimination that
reinforces blacks’ disadvantage across every
Explaining Disparities, sphere. This assertion implies a different (and,
Detecting Discrimination in my opinion, more worthy) analytic challenge
An enduring effect of the antidiscrimination for inequality researchers: designing and car-
laws of the 1960s was that people and orga- rying out research whose object is developing
nizations stopped admitting that they treated policies that can make America more just.
blacks and whites differently. This end of open Mickelson (2003, p. 1052) proposed that in-
discrimination has made it almost impossible to stead of asking when racial disparities in ed-
detect discrimination. Researchers can infer its ucation are due to discrimination, we should
occurrence only by controlling for the effects ask, “When are racial disparities not due to dis-
of every possible nondiscriminatory reason for crimination?” (p. 1075, emphasis in original).
a disparity. In conventional regression analy- Answering the second question will be more
sis if the control variables rendered the coeffi- useful for closing the racial gap than answering
cient for race nonsignificant, researchers would the first. The research reviewed above leaves

[Link] • The Race Discrimination System 27

 SO38CH02-Reskin ARI 10 June 2012 9:1

little doubt that discrimination is implicated in black neighborhoods often lacked street names
every form of racial inequality (see also Pager and numbers). If all else failed, they turned to
& Shepherd 2008).7 A systems perspective ex- threats, violence, and economic reprisals. Each
plains this regularity by recognizing that the of these tactics was a superficial cause of blacks’
emergent property of race-linked disparities in low registration in the Deep South states. In
myriad subsystems is über discrimination, which a regression equation, the use of any of these
has a life of its own. If racial discrimination in strategies—say, a literacy test—would corre-
the United States is indeed such a system, then late strongly with the proportion of blacks who
our default hypothesis must be that discrimina- were registered. But banning any specific re-
tion is implicated in all observed disparities, a quirement (which Congress and the courts did
hypothesis that we must accept unless we can at various times) did not increase black voting
demonstrate that it is false. because each was a superficial cause of blacks’
The customary approach to analyzing low voter registration. The basic cause was the
Access provided by California Lutheran University on 01/27/15. For personal use only.

disparities regresses a dependent variable on monopoly of power by a white minority who

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:17-35. Downloaded from [Link]

potential causal factors. The analyst infers as could retain that power only by preventing
causes those variables whose partial regression blacks from voting. Between the time that black
coefficients are statistically significant. The men were given the constitutional right to vote
logic of this approach implies that if X has and when they were able to do so, all the tac-
a statistically significant and substantively tics the Southern states employed to disenfran-
nontrivial net effect on a disparity, closing it chise blacks were superficial causes. Enfranchis-
requires changing X. However, as Lieberson ing Southern blacks required almost 100 years,
(1985, p. 185) and Link & Phelan (1995, p. 89) 6 Supreme Court decisions, an amendment to
have shown, the validity of this inference the US Constitution, an Act of Congress, and
depends on whether X is Y’s “basic” (or in the loss of an untold number of lives.
Link & Phelan’s terminology, “fundamental”) Analyzing discrimination as the emergent
cause or a “superficial” (or “surface”) cause. A product of a system of disparities presents
basic cause generates the outcome of interest analytic challenges. As Myrdal (1944, p. 1069)
(Y), whereas a superficial cause may do so only recognized, researchers must solve “an inter-
temporarily (Link & Phelan 1995). connected series of . . . equations, describing
The strategies that Southern states used to the movement of the actual system under var-
prevent blacks from registering to vote illus- ious influences.” Although Myrdal recognized
trate the difference between basic and superfi- in 1944 that this strategy was “far behind the
cial causes. Southern states prevented almost all horizon,” he believed that it was possible in
blacks from voting until the late 1960s by mak- principle. Duncan (1967, p. 98), who also called
ing registration impossible. Segregationists’ for solving multiple equations, saw the primary
tactics included requiring one or another of the obstacle in designating targets for social policy
following: prohibitive poll taxes, literacy tests, interventions as “a lack of knowledge of the
evidence that one’s grandfather had been a reg- causal connections among indicator variables.”
istered voter, frequent re-registration, lengthy Although estimation procedures, including
residence in a district, that registration be lim- techniques to solve simultaneous equations,
ited to inconvenient times (e.g., during the have advanced a great deal since 1944, we still
planting season), or information that was un- lack the theoretical and statistical acumen to
available to many blacks (e.g., addresses because realize Myrdal’s dream of solving a set of si-
multaneous equations in a complex system with
feedback effects, emergent properties, and tons
7
I apologize to black readers for presenting as controversial of endogeneity. But that does not mean that
what to them is obvious. we should dismiss the idea of a discrimination

28 Reskin
 SO38CH02-Reskin ARI 10 June 2012 9:1

system. For the time being, we must acknowl- Congress, and was enforced by the Army.
edge that ignoring discrimination’s likely Without question it made a difference for
effects misspecifies our analytic models. Even many African Americans and their descen-
more importantly, we must design our re- dants. But the premature withdrawal of federal
search with an eye toward identifying possible support limited its impact.
interventions in the discrimination system. Between 1940 and 1964, several US pres-
idents exercised their executive authority to
create more opportunities for black Americans,
Strategies to Eliminate but few lasted beyond the president’s tenure
Race-Based Disparities in office (apart from Truman’s executive order
Several general theories address the causes of integrating the armed forces), and relatively
race discrimination: conscious or automatic few blacks benefited (Graham 1990, Reed
prejudice or antipathy (Allport 1954, Becker 2011). Lyndon Johnson’s success in muscling
Access provided by California Lutheran University on 01/27/15. For personal use only.

1971, Greenwald & Banaji 1995), competitive major civil rights legislation through Congress
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:17-35. Downloaded from [Link]

threat (Blalock 1956), a sense of group position and creating enforcement agencies was ex-
(Blumer 1958, Lieberson 1985), and efficiency ceptional. His civil rights agenda failed to
(Mayhew 1968, Phelps 1972, Arrow 1973). dismantle the discrimination system, however.
Although each of these is no doubt implicated First, Congress would not pass a single om-
in race discrimination, none is testable because nibus civil rights law covering many important
all involve mental states that are themselves en- spheres or endorse a regulatory agency with
dogenous to the effects of emergent discrimi- sanctioning power. Second, opposition to the
nation (for an ingenious exception, see Ayres Vietnam War held Johnson to a single full term,
2001, pp. 45–87). None has given rise to effec- precluding sustained executive leadership in
tive remedial policies. Systems theory points to opposing race discrimination. The civil rights
several ways to transform or weaken a system: legislation of Johnson’s presidency created a
introducing an exogenous force that acts simul- few underfunded enforcement agencies that
taneously on the subsystems, intervening on a were easy targets for subsequent Congresses,
leverage point within an influential subsystem presidents, and federal judges to weaken.
and thereby changing other subsystems, mov- The United States has agreed in principle to
ing subsystems out of the race discrimination eliminate all forms of discrimination by sign-
system, and altering common practices within ing the United Nations Convention on the
subsystems to sharply reduce disparate treat- Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrim-
ment and disparate impact. ination. According to the authors of a 2008
progress report to the United Nations, al-
An exogenous force that acts on every sub- though programs exist in the United States to
system. If, as I argue, emergent discrimination address racial discrimination in housing, educa-
sustains a belief system that reifies race, stig- tion, health care, and employment at all levels
matizes blacks, and blames them for intractable of government, state and federal agencies are
black-white disparities, then dismantling this underfunded and lack enforcement power, and
race discrimination system will require a well- these programs are fragmented and uncoordi-
organized, sustained intervention by a central nated, which means that the causes of dispari-
authority that enjoys legitimacy and commands ties that are under the auspices of one agency
resources. These conditions existed on the few (e.g., health) are under the oversight of a dif-
occasions when the United States seriously ferent agency (e.g., housing) (Menendian et al.
addressed racial inequality. Reconstruction 2008, p. 19). A single authoritative entity, with
after the Civil War had the support of the a mandate to act, could make a difference. In
victorious federal government, was funded by their recent analysis of the impact of residential

[Link] • The Race Discrimination System 29

 SO38CH02-Reskin ARI 10 June 2012 9:1

segregation on the foreclosure crisis, Rugh & on the interdependence across subsystems
Massey (2010, p. 646) recognized the impor- has documented the centrality of residential
tance of coordinated efforts. They called for segregation.
permanent programs within the Departments Residential segregation is amenable to
of Labor, Commerce, Treasury, and Housing policy interventions. Federal, state, and local
and Urban Development to monitor and reme- governments provide tax incentives to shape
diate race discrimination through regular au- the behavior of employers and other public
dits of markets for jobs, goods, services, credit, and private actors, and they can encourage
and housing. I agree as to the importance of residential integration through tax incentives
structures charged with monitoring and reme- such as substantially lower property taxes
diation, but would go further. The coordina- in predominantly black neighborhoods (and
tion needed for effective intervention would be grandfathering in lower taxes so black residents
most likely in a single cabinet-level agency that are not driven out of their neighborhoods as
Access provided by California Lutheran University on 01/27/15. For personal use only.

houses all federal programs charged with proac- they offer more amenities and attract more
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:17-35. Downloaded from [Link]

tively monitoring and eliminating race discrim- whites). Other inducements to integrate
ination within all spheres. Although the call for predominantly minority communities include
a cabinet-level agency dedicated to ending dis- attracting businesses (through tax breaks),
crimination may strike readers as naive, in the developing well-maintained and engaging
1950s no one would have dreamed that ten years public spaces that feature cultural events such
later Congress would outlaw race discrimina- as concerts or Friday night movies, and making
tion in employment, public accommodations, such areas the sites for resources that the larger
housing, credit, and voting. community can enjoy (bike paths, swimming
pools, libraries, gyms, evening classes). In other
Acting on leverage points. Where are poten- words, incorporating into black communities
tial leverage points in the race discrimination the amenities that exist in predominantly
system in which intervention can make a differ- white communities combined with systematic
ence? The feedback relations across subsystems challenges to practices that confine blacks to
shown in Figure 1 do not point to a leverage predominantly minority neighborhoods offer
point. However, there is a theoretical basis for a potential leverage point for weakening a key
viewing neighborhood segregation as a leverage subsystem in the discrimination system.
point. The concentration of millions of African
Americans in predominantly black urban ghet- Removing institutions from the discrimina-
tos makes black-white disparities inevitable. tion system. Domains that function as total
Physical separation is the most efficient mech- institutions may insulate themselves from the
anism for intended and unintended unequal race discrimination system. The Army’s success
treatment. It makes it easy for decision makers in minimizing racial inequality is an example
who distribute resources to do so unevenly, and (Moskos & Butler 1997, Lundquist 2008). The
it has the advantage of keeping both the more US Army’s policy banning race discrimination
and less advantaged ignorant of the disparities was enunciated from the top and implemented
in the quality, cleanliness, and safety of their within a relatively short time (Moskos &
streets and playgrounds, the products available Butler 1997). Other domains that operate as
to them and their costs, the risks of going out- total institutions and can segregate themselves
doors and the air they breathe when they do, from the larger society (e.g., religious orders,
the quality of their public transportation, the athletic teams) may be able to insulate them-
convenience of nearby medical facilities, and selves from discriminatory subsystems (Blalock
the pleasures of seeing flowers and trees grow- 1967). While too few organizations are suf-
ing in one’s neighborhood. In addition to the ficiently isolated, their successes demonstrate
theoretical case, the research reviewed above that it can be done.

30 Reskin
 SO38CH02-Reskin ARI 10 June 2012 9:1

Increasing accountability, reducing dis- bargaining, transfering cases, and sentencing

cretion. Because über discrimination operates has created an environment that allows con-
partly through distorting our thought processes scious and unconscious biases to flourish.”
(Greenwald & Banaji 1995), a third strategy for In sum, requiring public agencies, nonprof-
limiting discrimination involves implementing its, and federal contractors among others to
decision-making practices that minimize these implement genuine accountability and to min-
distortions. One such process holds decision imize discretion will weaken disparities across
makers accountable. When people know that subsystems.
they are going to be held accountable for mak-
ing fair decisions, they are less likely to be biased
by irrelevant factors (Lerner & Tetlock 1999, CONCLUSIONS
Kalev et al. 2006, Castilla 2008). There has never been a time in the United
A second beneficial practice is to minimize States when people’s race did not affect where
Access provided by California Lutheran University on 01/27/15. For personal use only.

decision makers’ discretion in allocating oppor- they lived, what schools they could attend, their
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:17-35. Downloaded from [Link]

tunities or penalties. Because discretionary de- opportunity (if any) for higher education, their
cisions are necessarily subjective, they open the hope for decent jobs, their access to affordable,
door to cognitive (as well as intentional) bias. high-quality health care, and the severity of
For example, which houses real estate agents the penalties for perceived wrongdoing. Thus,
show prospective buyers and renters is often a there has never been a chance to staunch the
matter of agents’ discretion, which steering re- flow of disadvantage across subsystems, much
flects (Ross & Turner 2005). In the mortgage less to end the vicious cycle in which disparities
industry, replacing individuals’ decisions with spread across spheres. I have argued that we
automated risk assessments and underwriting must recognize disparities across interrelated
has reduced the racial gap (Gates et al. 2002; spheres as a system that itself produces über dis-
Williams et al. 2005, p. 184). The discipline crimination that distorts our perceptions and
meted out to welfare recipients disproportion- warps how our culture views blacks. In the view
ately disadvantages blacks over non-Hispanic that discrimination is maintained by the feed-
whites when public assistance workers have back effects among its components and by the
discretion (Schram et al. 2009). effects of über discrimination, research seeking
Within the criminal justice system in which to explain disparities within a single domain is
racial discrepancies have increased alarmingly, misspecified, and debates regarding the relative
discretion often is the norm. As Alexander importance of discrimination for specific dis-
(2012, p. 61) showed, the lack of constraints on parities are futile. Although I discuss possible
police discretion has become part of the design strategies and loci for intervention to illustrate
of the “war on drugs.” And racial disparities are a systems perspective approach, coming up with
larger when arrests are discretionary (Ayres & feasible and politically realistic solutions is far
Borowsky 2008). In addition, the disposition of beyond my expertise. Instead, my object is to of-
cases is entirely a matter of prosecutorial and ju- fer a more fruitful starting point for students of
dicial discretion (Alexander 2012, pp. 87, 115). racial inequality and to remind them that their
As Alexander (2012, p. 117) concluded, the subject matter is not simply a specialty upon
“immuniz[ation of ] prosecutors from claims of which to build an academic career. For millions
racial bias and fail[ure] to impose any meaning- of Americans it is literally a matter of life and
ful check on their discretion in charging, plea death.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
I have served as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in race discrimination cases. I have been
compensated for this work, but I have donated all earnings. I am not aware of any affiliations,
memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might have affected the objectivity of this review.

[Link] • The Race Discrimination System 31

 SO38CH02-Reskin ARI 10 June 2012 9:1

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to Devah Pager, Lowell Hargens, Michelle Maroto, and Hedwig Lee for their advice
or assistance with this review. I appreciate the encouragement of Annual Review of Sociology editors
Doug Massey and Karen Cook.

LITERATURE CITED
Alesina AF, Ferrara EL. 2011. A test of racial bias in capital sentencing. NBER Work. Pap. 16981, Natl. Bur.
Econ. Res., Cambridge, MA. [Link]
Alexander M. 2012. The New Jim Crow. Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York: New Press.
Rev. ed.
Allport G. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley
Aristotle. 350 BCE. Metaphysics Book H, 1045:8–10. [Link]
Access provided by California Lutheran University on 01/27/15. For personal use only.

html
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:17-35. Downloaded from [Link]

Arrow KJ. 1973. The theory of discrimination. In Discrimination in Labor Markets, ed. O Ashenfelter, A Rees,
pp. 3–33. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Ayres I. 2001. Pervasive Prejudice: Unconventional Evidence of Race and Gender Discrimination. Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press
Ayres I, Borowsky J. 2008. A study of racially disparate outcomes in the Los Angeles Police Department.
Prepared for the American Civil Liberties Union of So. Calif., Los Angeles. [Link]
documents/view/47
Ayres I, Dooley LG, Gaston RS. 2001. Unequal racial access to kidney transplantation. See Ayres 2001,
pp. 165–232
Ayres I, Siegelman P. 2001. Gender and race discrimination in retail car negotiations. See Ayres 2001, pp. 19–
44
Barton PE, Coley RJ. 2010. The Black-White Achievement Gap: When Progress Stopped. Princeton, NJ: Educ.
Testing Serv.
Becker G. 1971. The Economics of Discrimination. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Bellinger G. 2004/2005. Systems: a journey along the way. Systems Thinking Web Site. [Link]
[Link]/systems/[Link]
Blalock HM. 1956. Economic discrimination and Negro increase. Am. Sociol. Rev. 16:584–88
Blalock HM. 1967. Occupational discrimination: some theoretical propositions. Soc. Probl. 9:240–47
Blank RM. 2005. Tracing the economic impact of cumulative discrimination. Am. Econ. Rev. 95:99–103
Blank RM, Dabady M, Citro CF, eds. 2004. Measuring Racial Discrimination: Panel on Methods for Assessing
Discrimination. Washington, DC: Comm. Natl. Stat., Div. Behav. Soc. Sci. Educ., Natl. Acad. Press
Blanton H, Jaccard J. 2008. Unconscious racism: a concept in pursuit of a measure. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 34:277–
97
Blumer H. 1958. Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Pac. Sociol. Rev. 1:3–7
Bocian DG, Ernst KS, Li W. 2008. Race, ethnicity and subprime home loan pricing. J. Econ. Bus. 60:110–24
Boguslaw R. 1982. Systems Analysis and Social Planning: Human Problems of Post-Industrial Society. New York:
Irvington
Bond C, Williams DR. 2007. Residential segregation and the transformation of home mortgage lending.
Soc. Forces 86:671–98
Bosch M, Carnero M, Farré L. 2010. Information and discrimination in the rental housing market: evidence
from a field experiment. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 40:11–19
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
Card D. 2007. Racial segregation and the black-white test score gap. J. Public Econ. 91:2158–94
Card D, Krueger A. 1993. Trends in the black-white earnings gap, revisited. Am. Econ. Rev. 83:85–91
Castilla EJ. 2008. Gender, race, and meritocracy in organizational careers. Am. J. Sociol. 113:1479–526
Charles KK, Guryan J. 2011. Studying discrimination: fundamental challenges and recent progress. Annu.
Rev. Econ. 3:479–511

32 Reskin
 SO38CH02-Reskin ARI 10 June 2012 9:1

Charles KK, Hurst E, Stephens M. 2008. Rates for vehicle loans: race and loan source. Am. Econ. Rev. 98:315–20
Corning PA. 2002. The re-emergence of “emergence”: a venerable concept in search of a theory. Complexity
7(6):18–30
Dasgupta N. 2004. Implicit ingroup favoritism, outgroup favoritism, and their behavioral manifestations.
Soc. Justice Res. 17:143–69
Dawson MC. 1994. Behind the Mule: Race and Class in African American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ.
Press
Denton NA. 1996. The persistence of segregation: links between residential segregation and school segrega-
tion. Minn. Law Rev. 80:795–823
Deutsch R. 1969. Systems Analysis Techniques. Edgewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
DiPrete TA, Eirich GM. 2006. Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality: a review of theoretical
and empirical developments. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 32:271–94
Duncan GJ, Huston AC, Weisner TS. 2007. Higher Ground: New Hope for the Working Poor and Their Children.
New York: Russell Sage Found.
Access provided by California Lutheran University on 01/27/15. For personal use only.

Duncan OD. 1967. Discrimination against Negroes. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 1:85–103
Fenning P, Rose J. 2007. Overrepresentation of African American students in exclusionary discipline. Urban
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:17-35. Downloaded from [Link]

Educ. 42:536–59
Fording RC, Soss J, Schram SF. 2011. Race and the local politics of punishment in the new world of welfare.
Am. J. Sociol. 116:1610–57
Friedman S. 2008. Do declines in residential segregation mean stable neighborhood racial integration in
metropolitan America? A research note. Soc. Sci. Res. 37:920–33
Fryer RG, Pager D, Spenkuch JL. 2011. Racial disparities in job finding and offered wages. Work. Pap., Harvard
Univ., Cambridge, MA. [Link]
Gates SW, Perry VG, Zorn PM. 2002. Automated underwriting in mortgage lending: good news for the
underserved? Hous. Policy Debate 13:369–92
Graham HD. 1990. The Civil Rights Era. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Greenwald AG, Banaji MR. 1995. Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychol.
Rev. 102:4–27
Greenwald AG, Krieger LH. 2006. Implicit bias: scientific foundations. Calif. Law Rev. 94:945–67
Griggs v. Duke Power, 401 U.S. 424 (1971)
Harris DN, Herrington CD. 2006. Accountability, standards, and the growing achievement gap: lessons from
the past half century. Am. J. Educ. 112:209–38
Heckman J, Siegelman P. 1993. The Urban Institute Audit Studies: their methods and findings. In Clear
and Convincing Evidence: Measurement of Discrimination in America, ed. M Fix, RJ Struyk, pp. 187–258.
Washington, DC: Urban Inst. Press
Holzer JH, Offner P, Sorensen E. 2005. Declining employment of young black less-educated men: the role
of incarceration and child support. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 24:329–50
Hu Y, Liu L, Ondrich J, Yinger J. 2011. The racial and gender interest rate gap in small business lending.
Presented at Econ. Semin., Tulane Univ., March 21. [Link]
[Link]
Kalev A, Dobbin F, Kelley E. 2006. Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative
action and diversity policies. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71:589–617
King MC. 1992. Occupational segregation by race and gender, 1940–1989. Mon. Labor Rev. 115:30–37
Larson NI, Story MT, Nelson MC. 2009. Neighborhood environments: disparities in access to healthy foods
in the US. Am. J. Prev. Med. 36:74–81
Lerner JS, Tetlock PE. 1999. Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychol. Bull. 125:255–75
Lieberson S. 1985. Making It Count. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Link BG, Phelan J. 1995. Social conditions as fundamental causes of disease. J. Health Soc. Behav. Extra
Iss.:80–94
Litan RE, Santomero AM, eds. 1998. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Financial Services. Washington, DC:
Brookings Inst.
Logan JR, Oakley D, Stowell J. 2008. School segregation in metropolitan regions, 1970–2000: the impact of
policy choices on public education. Am. J. Sociol. 113:1611–44

[Link] • The Race Discrimination System 33

 SO38CH02-Reskin ARI 10 June 2012 9:1

Lundquist JH. 2008. Ethnic and gender satisfaction in the military: the effect of a meritocratic institution.
Am. Sociol. Rev. 73:478–96
Lyons CJ, Pettit B. 2011. Compounded disadvantage: race, incarceration, and wage growth. Soc. Probl. 58:257–
80
Massey DS, Denton NA. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Univ. Press
Massey DS, Rothwell J, Thurston D. 2009. The changing bases of segregation in the United States. Ann. Am.
Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 626:74–90
Massoglia M, Warner C. 2011. The consequences of incarceration: challenges for scientifically informed and
policy-relevant research. Criminol. Public Policy 10:851–63
Mauer M. 2003. The crisis of the young African American male and the criminal justice system. In Impacts of
Incarceration on the African American Family, ed. O Harris, RR Miller, pp. 199–218. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transactions
Mayhew L. 1968. Ascription in modern societies. Sociol. Inq. 38:105–20
Access provided by California Lutheran University on 01/27/15. For personal use only.

Menendian S, Watt C. 2008. Systems primer. Struct. Racializ. Res. Rep., Kirwan Inst. Study Race Ethn., Ohio
State Univ., Columbus. [Link]
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:17-35. Downloaded from [Link]

Menendian S, Spencer M, Knuth L, Powell J, Jackson S, et al. 2008. Structural Racism in the United States.
Report to the UN Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on the occasion of its re-
view of the Periodic Report of the United States of America. [Link]
Structural_Racism.pdf
Merton RK. 1972. Insiders and outsiders: a chapter in the sociology of knowledge. Am. J. Sociol. 78:9–47
Mickelson RA. 2003. When are racial disparities in education the result of discrimination: a social science
perspective. Teachers Coll. Rec. 105:1052–86
Mitchell DE, Batie M, Mitchell RE. 2010. The contributions of school desegregation to housing integration:
case studies in two large urban areas. Urban Educ. 45:166–93
Monnat SM. 2010. The color of welfare sanctioning: exploring the individual and contextual roles of race on
TANF case closures and benefit reductions. Sociol. Q. 51:678–707
Moskos CC, Butler JS. 1997. All That We Can Be: Black Leadership and Racial Integration the Army Way. New
York: Basic Books
Moss P, Tilly C. 2001. Stories Employers Tell: Race, Skill, and Hiring in America. New York: Russell Sage Found.
Myrdal G. 1944. An American Dilemma. Vols. 1, 2. New York: Harper & Row
Orfield G. 2001. Schools More Separate: Consequences of a Decade of Resegregation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Univ. Civil Rights Proj.
Pager D. 2003. The mark of a criminal career. Am. J. Sociol. 108:937–75
Pager D, Shepherd H. 2008. The sociology of discrimination: racial discrimination in employment, housing,
credit, and consumer markets. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 34:181–209
Pager D, Western B, Bonikowski B. 2009. Discrimination in a low-wage labor market: a field experiment.
Am. Sociol. Rev. 74:777–99
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007)
Parsons CA, Sulaeman J, Yates MC, Hamermesh DS. 2011. Strike three: discrimination, incentives, and
evaluation. Am. Econ. Rev. 101:1410–36
Pettit B, Western B. 2004. Mass imprisonment and the life course: race and class inequality in US incarceration.
Am. Sociol. Rev. 69:151–69
Phelps ES. 1972. The statistical theory of racism and sexism. Am. Econ. Rev. 62:659–61
Price J, Wolfers J. 2010. Racial discrimination among NBA referees. Q. J. Econ. 125:1859–87
Quillian L. 2006. New approaches to understanding racial prejudice and discrimination. Annu. Rev. Sociol.
32:299–328
Reardon SF, Farrell CR, Matthews SA, O’Sullivan D, Bischoff K, Firebaugh G. 2009. Race and space in the
1990s: changes in the geographic scale of racial residential segregation, 1990–2000. Soc. Sci. Res. 38:55–70
Reed SE. 2011. The Diversity Index: The Alarming Truth About Diversity in Corporate America . . . and What Can
Be Done About It. New York: Russell Sage Found.
Rodgers WM III. 2008. Understanding the black-white earnings gap. Am. Prospect, Sept. 22. http://
[Link]/article/understanding-black-white-earnings-gap

34 Reskin
 SO38CH02-Reskin ARI 10 June 2012 9:1

Rodriguez MN, Emsellem M. 2011. 65 Million Need Not Apply. The Case for Reforming Crimi-
nal Background Checks for Employment. New York: Natl. Empl. Law Proj. [Link]
e9231d3aee1d058c9e_55im6wopc.pdf
Ross SL, Turner MA. 2005. Housing discrimination in metropolitan America: explaining changes between
1989 and 2000. Soc. Probl. 52:152–80
Ross SL, Turner MA, Godfrey E, Smith RR. 2005. Mortgage lending in Chicago and Los Angeles. Work. Pap.,
Dep. Econ., Univ. Conn.
Rugh JS, Massey DS. 2010. Racial segregation and the American foreclosure crisis. Am. Sociol. Rev. 75:629–51
Schnittker J, Massoglia M, Uggen C. 2011. Incarceration and the health of the African American community.
DuBois Rev. 8:133–44
Schram SF, Soss J, Fording RC, Houser L. 2009. Deciding to discipline: race, choice, and punishment at the
frontlines of welfare reform. Am. Sociol. Rev. 74:398–422
Smedley BD, Stith AY, Nelson AR, eds. 2003. Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in
Health Care. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
Access provided by California Lutheran University on 01/27/15. For personal use only.

Stegman MA. 2007. Payday lending. J. Econ. Perspect. 21:169–90

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:17-35. Downloaded from [Link]

Turner RJ, Avison WR. 1992. Innovations in the measurement of life stress: crisis theory and the significance
of event resolution. J. Health Soc. Behav. 33:36–50
US Department of Education. 2012. Civil Rights Data Collection, March 2012. Washington, DC: Off. Civil
Rights. [Link]
Vanneman A, Hamilton L, Anderson JB, Rahman T. 2009. Achievement gaps: how black and white stu-
dents in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the National Assessment of Educational
Progress. Stat. Anal. Rep. NCES 2009-455, US Dep. Educ., Natl. Cent. Educ. Stat., Washington, DC
[Link]
Wakefield S, Uggen C. 2010. Incarceration and stratification. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 36:387–406
Wallace JM, Goodkind S, Wallace CM, Bachman JG. 2008. Racial, ethnic, and gender differences in school
discipline among US high school students: 1991–2005. Negro Educ. Rev. 59:47–62
Western B. 2002. The impact of incarceration on wage mobility and inequality. Am. Sociol. Rev. 67:526–46
Williams DR, Collins C. 1995. US socioeconomic and racial differences in health: patterns and explanations.
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 21:349–86
Williams DR, Mohammed SA. 2009. Discrimination and racial disparities in health: evidence and needed
research. J. Behav. Med. 32:20–47
Williams DR, Neighbors HW, Jackson JS. 2008. Racial/ethnic discrimination and health: findings from
community studies. Am. J. Public Health 98:S29–37
Williams R, Nesiba R, McConnell ED. 2005. The changing face of inequality in home mortgage lending. Soc.
Probl. 52:181–208

[Link] • The Race Discrimination System 35

 SO38CH02-Reskin ARI 10 June 2012 9:1

Labor Market, Income

Educational access, attainment Criminal Justice System

School Segregation DISCRIMINATION Health Care System

Access provided by California Lutheran University on 01/27/15. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:17-35. Downloaded from [Link]

Credit Markets
Residential Segregation

Housing, Mortgage Markets

Figure 1
The race discrimination system and emergent discrimination.

[Link] • The Race Discrimination System C-1

 SO38CH02-Reskin ARI 10 June 2012 9:1

1964 Civil Rights Act,

Affirmative Action

Brown v. Board Ed.

Labor Market, Income

Criminalization of Crack Cocaine

Educational Access, Attainment

Criminal Justice System

School Segregation
Access provided by California Lutheran University on 01/27/15. For personal use only.

Emergent
DISCRIMINATION Health Care System
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:17-35. Downloaded from [Link]

Court Discrimination
Ordered
Busing

Credit Markets
Residential Segregation

Fair Housing Act Equal Credit Opportunity Act

Housing, Mortgage Markets

Community Reinvestment Act Home Mortgage Disclosure Act

Figure 2
Exogenous shocks to the race discrimination system.

C-2 Reskin
 SO38-Frontmatter ARI 28 May 2012 12:26

Annual Review
of Sociology

Contents Volume 38, 2012

Prefatory Chapters
My Life in Sociology
Access provided by California Lutheran University on 01/27/15. For personal use only.

Nathan Glazer p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:17-35. Downloaded from [Link]

The Race Discrimination System

Barbara Reskin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p17
Theory and Methods
Instrumental Variables in Sociology and the Social Sciences
Kenneth A. Bollen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p37
Rational Choice Theory and Empirical Research: Methodological
and Theoretical Contributions in Europe
Clemens Kroneberg and Frank Kalter p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p73
Social Processes
Network Effects and Social Inequality
Paul DiMaggio and Filiz Garip p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p93
Youth Political Participation: Bridging Activism and Electoral Politics
Dana R. Fisher p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 119
Brokerage
Katherine Stovel and Lynette Shaw p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 139
Group Culture and the Interaction Order: Local Sociology
on the Meso-Level
Gary Alan Fine p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 159
Resolution of Social Conflict
Robin Wagner-Pacifici and Meredith Hall p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 181
Toward a Comparative Sociology of Valuation and Evaluation
Michèle Lamont p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 201
Construction, Concentration, and (Dis)Continuities
in Social Valuations
Ezra W. Zuckerman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 223

v
 SO38-Frontmatter ARI 28 May 2012 12:26

Institutions and Culture

A Cultural Sociology of Religion: New Directions
Penny Edgell p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 247
Formal Organizations
Status: Insights from Organizational Sociology
Michael Sauder, Freda Lynn, and Joel M. Podolny p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 267
Outsourcing Social Transformation: Development NGOs
as Organizations
Susan Cotts Watkins, Ann Swidler, and Thomas Hannan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 285
Political and Economic Sociology
Access provided by California Lutheran University on 01/27/15. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:17-35. Downloaded from [Link]

The Arc of Neoliberalism

Miguel A. Centeno and Joseph N. Cohen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 317
Differentiation and Stratification
Economic Insecurity and Social Stratification
Bruce Western, Deirdre Bloome, Benjamin Sosnaud, and Laura Tach p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 341
The Sociology of Elites
Shamus Rahman Khan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 361
Social and Economic Returns to College Education
in the United States
Michael Hout p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 379
Individual and Society
Race Relations Within the US Military
James Burk and Evelyn Espinoza p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 401
Demography
The Future of Historical Family Demography
Steven Ruggles p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 423
Causes and Consequences of Skewed Sex Ratios
Tim Dyson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 443
Marital Instability and Female Labor Supply
Berkay Özcan and Richard Breen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 463
Urban and Rural Community Sociology
Urbanization and the Southern United States
Richard Lloyd p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 483
Making a Place for Space: Spatial Thinking in Social Science
John R. Logan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 507

vi Contents
 SO38-Frontmatter ARI 28 May 2012 12:26

Sociology and World Regions

Islam Moves West: Religious Change in the First and Second
Generations
David Voas and Fenella Fleischmann p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 525

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 29–38 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 547

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 29–38 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 551
Errata
Access provided by California Lutheran University on 01/27/15. For personal use only.

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Sociology articles may be found at

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:17-35. Downloaded from [Link]

[Link]

Contents vii
 Annual Reviews
It’s about time. Your time. It’s time well spent.

New From Annual Reviews:

Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
Volume 1 • March 2014 • Online & In Print • [Link]
Editor: Frederick P. Morgeson, The Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University
The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior is devoted to publishing reviews of
the industrial and organizational psychology, human resource management, and organizational behavior literature.
Access provided by California Lutheran University on 01/27/15. For personal use only.

Topics for review include motivation, selection, teams, training and development, leadership, job performance,
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:17-35. Downloaded from [Link]

strategic HR, cross-cultural issues, work attitudes, entrepreneurship, affect and emotion, organizational change
and development, gender and diversity, statistics and research methodologies, and other emerging topics.
Complimentary online access to the first volume will be available until March 2015.
Table of Contents:
• An Ounce of Prevention Is Worth a Pound of Cure: Improving • Perspectives on Power in Organizations, Cameron Anderson,
Research Quality Before Data Collection, Herman Aguinis, Sebastien Brion
Robert J. Vandenberg • Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future
• Burnout and Work Engagement: The JD-R Approach, of an Interpersonal Construct, Amy C. Edmondson, Zhike Lei
Arnold B. Bakker, Evangelia Demerouti, • Research on Workplace Creativity: A Review and Redirection,
Ana Isabel Sanz-Vergel Jing Zhou, Inga J. Hoever
• Compassion at Work, Jane E. Dutton, Kristina M. Workman, • Talent Management: Conceptual Approaches and Practical
Ashley E. Hardin Challenges, Peter Cappelli, JR Keller
• Constructively Managing Conflict in Organizations, • The Contemporary Career: A Work–Home Perspective,
Dean Tjosvold, Alfred S.H. Wong, Nancy Yi Feng Chen Jeffrey H. Greenhaus, Ellen Ernst Kossek
• Coworkers Behaving Badly: The Impact of Coworker Deviant • The Fascinating Psychological Microfoundations of Strategy
Behavior upon Individual Employees, Sandra L. Robinson, and Competitive Advantage, Robert E. Ployhart,
Wei Wang, Christian Kiewitz Donald Hale, Jr.
• Delineating and Reviewing the Role of Newcomer Capital in • The Psychology of Entrepreneurship, Michael Frese,
Organizational Socialization, Talya N. Bauer, Berrin Erdogan Michael M. Gielnik
• Emotional Intelligence in Organizations, Stéphane Côté • The Story of Why We Stay: A Review of Job Embeddedness,
• Employee Voice and Silence, Elizabeth W. Morrison Thomas William Lee, Tyler C. Burch, Terence R. Mitchell
• Intercultural Competence, Kwok Leung, Soon Ang, • What Was, What Is, and What May Be in OP/OB,
Mei Ling Tan Lyman W. Porter, Benjamin Schneider
• Learning in the Twenty-First-Century Workplace, • Where Global and Virtual Meet: The Value of Examining
Raymond A. Noe, Alena D.M. Clarke, Howard J. Klein the Intersection of These Elements in Twenty-First-Century
• Pay Dispersion, Jason D. Shaw Teams, Cristina B. Gibson, Laura Huang, Bradley L. Kirkman,
• Personality and Cognitive Ability as Predictors of Effective Debra L. Shapiro
Performance at Work, Neal Schmitt • Work–Family Boundary Dynamics, Tammy D. Allen,
Eunae Cho, Laurenz L. Meier

Access this and all other Annual Reviews journals via your institution at [Link].

Annual Reviews | Connect With Our Experts

Tel: 800.523.8635 (us/can) | Tel: 650.493.4400 | Fax: 650.424.0910 | Email: service@[Link]
 Annual Reviews
It’s about time. Your time. It’s time well spent.

New From Annual Reviews:

Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application
Volume 1 • Online January 2014 • [Link]

Editor: Stephen E. Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon University

Associate Editors: Nancy Reid, University of Toronto
Stephen M. Stigler, University of Chicago
Access provided by California Lutheran University on 01/27/15. For personal use only.

The Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application aims to inform statisticians and quantitative methodologists, as
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:17-35. Downloaded from [Link]

well as all scientists and users of statistics about major methodological advances and the computational tools that
allow for their implementation. It will include developments in the field of statistics, including theoretical statistical
underpinnings of new methodology, as well as developments in specific application domains such as biostatistics
and bioinformatics, economics, machine learning, psychology, sociology, and aspects of the physical sciences.

Complimentary online access to the first volume will be available until January 2015.
table of contents:

• What Is Statistics? Stephen E. Fienberg • High-Dimensional Statistics with a View Toward Applications
• A Systematic Statistical Approach to Evaluating Evidence in Biology, Peter Bühlmann, Markus Kalisch, Lukas Meier
from Observational Studies, David Madigan, Paul E. Stang, • Next-Generation Statistical Genetics: Modeling, Penalization,
Jesse A. Berlin, Martijn Schuemie, J. Marc Overhage, and Optimization in High-Dimensional Data, Kenneth Lange,
Marc A. Suchard, Bill Dumouchel, Abraham G. Hartzema, Jeanette C. Papp, Janet S. Sinsheimer, Eric M. Sobel
Patrick B. Ryan • Breaking Bad: Two Decades of Life-Course Data Analysis
• The Role of Statistics in the Discovery of a Higgs Boson, in Criminology, Developmental Psychology, and Beyond,
David A. van Dyk Elena A. Erosheva, Ross L. Matsueda, Donatello Telesca
• Brain Imaging Analysis, F. DuBois Bowman • Event History Analysis, Niels Keiding
• Statistics and Climate, Peter Guttorp • Statistical Evaluation of Forensic DNA Profile Evidence,
• Climate Simulators and Climate Projections, Christopher D. Steele, David J. Balding
Jonathan Rougier, Michael Goldstein • Using League Table Rankings in Public Policy Formation:
• Probabilistic Forecasting, Tilmann Gneiting, Statistical Issues, Harvey Goldstein
Matthias Katzfuss • Statistical Ecology, Ruth King
• Bayesian Computational Tools, Christian P. Robert • Estimating the Number of Species in Microbial Diversity
• Bayesian Computation Via Markov Chain Monte Carlo, Studies, John Bunge, Amy Willis, Fiona Walsh
Radu V. Craiu, Jeffrey S. Rosenthal • Dynamic Treatment Regimes, Bibhas Chakraborty,
• Build, Compute, Critique, Repeat: Data Analysis with Latent Susan A. Murphy
Variable Models, David M. Blei • Statistics and Related Topics in Single-Molecule Biophysics,
• Structured Regularizers for High-Dimensional Problems: Hong Qian, S.C. Kou
Statistical and Computational Issues, Martin J. Wainwright • Statistics and Quantitative Risk Management for Banking
and Insurance, Paul Embrechts, Marius Hofert

Access this and all other Annual Reviews journals via your institution at [Link].

Annual Reviews | Connect With Our Experts

Tel: 800.523.8635 (us/can) | Tel: 650.493.4400 | Fax: 650.424.0910 | Email: service@[Link]