Diversity learning · Advanced

Aversive Racism and Discrimination Under Ambiguity

Examine how unequal judgments can persist alongside sincere commitments to fairness, and practice reducing the ambiguity that permits them.

About 56 minutes, plus optional practice · 4 lessons · Voluntary learning

Start learning

All diversity courses: Foundation, Intermediate, and Advanced

Course outline

When values and decisions diverge
Distinguish an aversive-racism hypothesis from a judgment about a colleague.
14 minutes
Ambiguity in ordinary service decisions
Map three points where discretion enters a service decision.
14 minutes
Design a decision that can be checked
Draft criteria before reviewing a fictional case.
14 minutes
Check whether the repair changed the pattern
Select a process measure and an outcome measure.
14 minutes

Share this course

What you’ll be able to do

Explore and practice

Distinguish an aversive-racism hypothesis from a judgment about a colleague.
Map three points where discretion enters a service decision.
Draft criteria before reviewing a fictional case.
Select a process measure and an outcome measure.

What you can take into your work

Explain the reasoning behind a response to each fictional case.
Use the course job aid to propose an observable change and a way to review it.

Write a review note with process adherence, outcomes, alternative explanations, next decision, owner, and date.

Read the introduction

Examine how unequal judgments can persist alongside sincere commitments to fairness, and practice reducing the ambiguity that permits them.

Aversive Racism and Discrimination Under Ambiguity — practice guide

A working aid for examining a decision, preparing a response, and checking what changed.

Examine how unequal judgments can persist alongside sincere commitments to fairness, and practice reducing the ambiguity that permits them.

Keep evidence, interpretation, and proposed action distinct.
Use authorized work records only; keep private learning responses out of personnel records.
A course exercise does not replace formal policy, complaint procedures, professional assessment, or decision authority.

Write a review note with process adherence, outcomes, alternative explanations, next decision, owner, and date.

Before the decision

Name the decision and the authority responsible for it.
Write the relevant criteria and acceptable evidence before examining identities.
Specify clarification, accommodation, and exception routes.

During review

Record evidence separately from impressions.
Compare opportunities to provide missing information.
Mark changes in criteria and require a documented reason.
Escalate concerns through the appropriate formal route when needed.

After the decision

Check process adherence and outcomes separately.
List alternative explanations and data limitations.
Assign an owner and date to continue, revise, or stop the change.

Complete a practice record

Decision or situation: describe one concrete example and the specific part within your responsibility.
Evidence: record the observed sequence and identify what is still uncertain; do not include private course reflections or unnecessary personal details.
Proposed action: Write a review note with process adherence, outcomes, alternative explanations, next decision, owner, and date.
Review: name the person responsible, an appropriate review date, and the evidence that would support continuing, revising, or stopping the change.
Return the result: explain what changed and why to the people who need that information, using an appropriate authorized channel.

Participation and course completion in this program do not count toward DHS-required training credits unless management, a director, or DHS leadership expressly approves an exception.

Sources and further reading

Dovidio and Gaertner (2000), Aversive racism and selection decisions
Abstract and citation record. Experimental selection research supports examining ambiguous decisions; simulated decisions do not diagnose individual staff.
Dovidio, Kawakami, and Gaertner (2002), Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction
Abstract and citation record. Primary interaction study. Measures and impressions are context-dependent; workplace exercises here are program-authored applications.
Dovidio and Gaertner, full article
University-hosted full primary article for optional examination of the study design and limits.

All research and sources across the program

Opening your page…

You can still use the navigation while it loads.

Course outline

When values and decisions diverge

Distinguish an aversive-racism hypothesis from a judgment about a colleague.

14 minutes

Ambiguity in ordinary service decisions

Map three points where discretion enters a service decision.

14 minutes

Design a decision that can be checked

Draft criteria before reviewing a fictional case.

14 minutes

Check whether the repair changed the pattern

Select a process measure and an outcome measure.

14 minutes

Sources and further reading

Dovidio and Gaertner (2000), Aversive racism and selection decisions

Abstract and citation record. Experimental selection research supports examining ambiguous decisions; simulated decisions do not diagnose individual staff.

Dovidio, Kawakami, and Gaertner (2002), Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction

Abstract and citation record. Primary interaction study. Measures and impressions are context-dependent; workplace exercises here are program-authored applications.

Dovidio and Gaertner, full article

University-hosted full primary article for optional examination of the study design and limits.