class: center, middle, inverse, title-slide .title[ # Contested Discrimination ] .subtitle[ ## A Theory of the Societal Struggle over Definition and Prevalence ] .author[ ### Merlin Schaeffer ] .date[ ### 2025-09-02 ] --- class: clear # The Puzzle: Why Does Discrimination Persist? .left-column[ .center[**Prevailing Frameworks**] 1. **Clinical:** + Discr. as pathology + Group-based differential treatment ] -- .right-column[ .push-left[ .center[ <img src="media/Black_Female_Caller2.png" width="30%" /><img src="media/Black_Male_Caller.png" width="30%" /> ]] .push-right[ .center[ <img src="media/White_Female_Caller.png" width="30%" /><img src="media/White_male_Caller.png" width="30%" /> ]] <img src="media/Figure_1.png" width="100%" /> .center[.backgrnote[*Source*: Schaeffer et al. (2025): "When Politics Enters the Waiting Room: Far-Right Electoral Victories Exacerbate Discrimination in Access to Healthcare"]] ] --- class: clear # The Puzzle: Why Does Discrimination Persist? .left-column[ .center[**Prevailing Frameworks**] 1. **Clinical:** + Discr. as pathology + Group-based differential treatment 2. **Instrumental:** + Discrimination as tool for social closure. + Focus on monopolizing advantages and boundary making. ] -- .right-column[ .center[**A Nixon advisor:**] > “We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. >“We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” .center[.backgrnote[*Source*: [CNN](https://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie)]] ] --- class: clear # The Puzzle: Why Does Discrimination Persist? .left-column[ .center[**Prevailing Frameworks**] 1. **Clinical:** + Discr. as pathology + Group-based differential treatment 2. **Instrumental:** + Discrimination as tool for social closure. + Focus on monopolizing advantages and boundary making. ] .right-column[ <img src="media/Bohren.png" width="80%" /> ] --- class: clear # The Puzzle: Why Does Discrimination Persist? .left-column[ .center[**Prevailing Frameworks**] 1. **Clinical:** + Discr. as pathology + Group-based differential treatment 2. **Instrumental:** + Discrimination as tool for social closure. + Focus on monopolizing advantages and boundary making. ] .push-right[ .center[**Shared View**] 1. Discrimination as **objective phenomenon** 2. `\(\rightarrow\)` No theory of the **societal struggle** over its very definition and prevalence. .content-box-red[.center[ `\(\Rightarrow\)` Societal struggle is a primary cause <br> of its persistence. What is **legitimate differentiation** vis-à-vis **illegitimate discrimination**? ]]] --- # An example .left-column[ <img src="media/Krarup1.png" width="100%" /> ] .right-column[.center[ <img src="media/Krog.png" width="70%" /> ] <img src="media/Krarup2.png" width="100%" /> ] --- # Motivation .font70[Two "failed" experiments] .push-left[ <img src="media/Haaland.png" width="100%" /> ] -- .push-right[ <img src="media/Schaeffer.png" width="100%" /> ] --- # A Theory of Contested Discrimination <br> <br> <img src="Retreat_files/figure-html/threepillars-1.gif" width="100%" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> --- class: clear # Pillar 1: The Contested Definition (AIPPAH) .push-left[ .center[ ### The AIPPAH Model] The struggle over definition is structured by six inherently ambiguous dimensions: * **A**ttribution: Was it *because of* group membership? * **I**njustice: Was the action *unfair*? * **P**artiality: Was the practice *universal*? * **P**ublic: Is this a *public* or private matter? * **A**symmetry: Does it require a *power dynamic*? * **H**arm: Was the damage *significant*? ] -- .push-right[ <img src="media/Statement-festival.png" width="90%" /> ] --- # Motivation .font70[Counterintuitive perceptions] .center[ <img src="./media/Gender.png" width="80%" /> .center[.backgrnote[*Source*: [Gallup](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1687/race-relations.aspx)]] ] --- # Pillar 2: The Contested Reality .push-right[ <img src="media/Contested.png" width="100%" /> ] .push-left[ .center[ ### Dynamic of Perceptual Divergence ] 1. **Divergent (Contested) Definitions:** Minorities become more sensitive to subtle slights; majority becomes more defensive. 2. **Divergent Opportunity Structures:** Minorities have more encounters in mainstream spaces, increasing their chance of experiencing discrimination. 3. **Divergent Awareness:** Minority success allows them to see remaining systemic barriers, but majority takes it as proof that discrimination is a declining problem. ] --- # Pillar 3: The Contested Arenas .push-left[ <img src="media/Blueprint Asymmetry.png" width="100%" /> ] -- .push-right[ <img src="media/Contested Arenas.png" width="100%" /> ] --- # Potential hypotheses - As a minority group’s legal and socio-economic position improves, its members will increasingly endorse systemic interpretations of the AIPPAH dimensions, while significant segments of the majority will simultaneously maintain a minimalist interpretation; this will expand the gap in perceived prevalence of discrimination between them. -- - Due to Blueprint Asymmetry, political messaging from the Right that frames a policy dispute using a single AIPPAH dimension will be more effective at mobilizing its base than messaging from the Left that must appeal to a more complex, multi-dimensional systemic argument. -- - An increase in the variance of majority-group perceptions of discrimination will be associated with greater political mobilization within the contested arena of Public Discourse -- - Alignments between arenas are often fragile because they rest on malleable social norms rather than stable convictions; consequently, a previously established alignment can be destabilized by a successful counter-mobilization in the Public Discourse arena that signals the norm is weakening, thereby releasing citizen subgroups from their perceived obligation to conform and causing a renewed misalignment with the Policy Regime. --- # Conclusion .push-left[ .content-box-red[.center[ **Theory of Contested Discrimination** recasts discrimination as an <br> enduring site of dynamic tension, <br> not a pathology with a definitive solution. ]] <br> .center[**Three scope conditions:**] 1. Democratic society based on equal dignity 2. Stratification along group lines other than class 3. Those group identities are recognized ] .push-right[ .center[ **Key Contributions:** ] - Shifts focus from objective phenomenon to explaining the societal struggle itself. - Provides coherent model synthesizing 1. definitional debates (**AIPPAH**) 2. perceptual gaps (**Divergence Dynamic**) 3. political struggle (**Arenas**) - Generates Testable Hypotheses + **AIPPAH**, **Divergence Dynamic**, **Blueprint Asymmetry**, ... ]