CSLS Speaker Series – “Testing Universalism: Do Interventions Targeting Socioeconomic Inequality, As Opposed to Racial Inequality, Garner Broader Support?”

featuring Danieli Evans, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Washington School of Law

Abstract: Scholars of equal opportunity policy have long debated whether framing redistributive programs in more universalist terms—e.g., targeting socioeconomic inequality, rather than racial inequality—would increase support for those programs. Some have argued that interventions targeting a more universal class of beneficiaries, such as lower income people, would garner broader public support than race-based interventions. But there are reasons to doubt this: Racial bias might undermine support for interventions targeting socioeconomic inequality due to common (though inaccurate) stereotypes associating poverty with race. Additionally, due to class biases, people may be unsympathetic to programs benefiting lower income people of any racial group.

This survey experiment is designed to test whether a more universalist framing (targeting socioeconomic inequality rather than racial inequality) impacts support for a remedy in a disparate impact discrimination claim, and whether this effect depends on the claimant/beneficiary’s race. I use a 2×2 design varying (a) the alleged basis for discrimination (Race vs. Socioeconomic Status) and (b) the race of the complaining party (Black vs. White). I measure how these factors impact participants’ support for discrimination claims alleging that distributive policies (school funding, zoning, and employment requirements) have unjustified disparate racial/socioeconomic impacts. I will discuss the preliminary results of this study and solicit audience members’ feedback on future directions for this research.

Cosponsored with the Center for Race and Gender

 Reception: Lunch 12:15-12:45 p.m. 
 Program: 12:45-2:00 p.m.