Author’s Note: This excerpt is from my weekly “Top of Mind” email, sent to subscribers every Thursday. For more content like this and to receive the full newsletter each week, sign up on Minding the Campus’s homepage. Simply go to the right side of the page, look for “SIGN UP FOR OUR WEEKLY NEWSLETTER, ‘TOP OF MIND,’” and enter your name and email.
Few things are more infuriating than implicit bias training. Over the course of my career, I’ve endured three of these trainings. Each assured me that, as a white dude, guilt was my inheritance and reeducation is my obligation. But like almost everything we’re required to follow—like the food pyramid—implicit bias training is scientifically baseless.
Implicit bias theory surged in popularity after the Implicit Association Test (IAT) debuted in the late 1990s. As David Randall explains in this week’s top article, it’s a favorite of politicians on both sides, who claim that unconscious prejudices drive behavior and must be corrected through mandatory training. Yet, the National Association of Scholars (NAS), in its report Zombie Psychology: Implicit Bias Theory and the Implicit Association Test, finds no evidence that people are unaware of their implicit biases, that such biases reliably predict behavior, or that the IAT produces stable results. “The collective intellectual demolition of implicit bias theory is astonishingly thorough—and matched by the parallel demolition of the Implicit Association Test,” the report’s authors write.
[RELATED: Implicit Bias Training Hijacks Justice]
Yet, because the theory is politically expedient, radical activists have embedded its use into public policy.
Randall informs us that California mandates implicit bias training for judges, prosecutors, and police, while New Jersey imposes similar programs for law enforcement. These initiatives rest on the faulty premise that addressing unconscious bias improves legal outcomes. In reality, they distort justice, allowing accusations of discrimination to hinge on vague claims or statistical disparities rather than demonstrable intent, prioritizing “equity” over fairness.
For example, Vermont’s anti-discrimination laws, Randall notes, recognize “unintentional discrimination,” encompassing microaggressions and unconscious biases. Such laws turn everyday interactions into potential legal minefields. (Universities, as detailed in a recent report by Speech First, not only mandate implicit bias training for incoming students but also hold separate sessions to teach students about microaggressions. Assuming Asians excel at math, for example, is now treated as a thought crime.)
The worst of implicit bias comes when activists advocate for using it to train jurors and even propose using the IAT to select juries. Implicit bias poses a grave threat to justice by replacing individual intent with statistical claims of discrimination in the legal system, turning the law into a tool for imposing arbitrary notions of “equity,” rooted in flawed and irreproducible data, rather than ensuring fairness and individual accountability. As the report notes, activists exploit these false positives to advance identity-group agendas, undermining the principles of impartial justice and due process.
Take the case of Daniel Penny, a white ex-Marine who intervened when Jordan Neely, a black man, threatened passengers on a New York subway, and imagine how the verdict might have changed under the influence of implicit bias theory. Despite Neely’s extensive criminal record and threatening the lives of passengers on the New York subway and Penny’s courageous act to stop him from harming those passengers, the theory’s framework—where guilt is preordained by identity (and being white makes one automatically guilty)—would have almost certainly led to a homicide conviction. We have only a rare moment of judicial sensibility to thank for sparing Penny, with the jury finding him not guilty. Yet Penny continues to face relentless attacks from Black Lives Matter activists who argue that his race invalidates his heroic actions.
[RELATED: Why ‘Implicit Bias Training’ Makes No Sense]
In short, “Implicit bias theory is altering American government and society piecemeal … These initiatives now impose implicit bias trainings, implicit association tests, diversity trainings, and a wide variety of other requirements on millions of Americans.”
The solution is clear: abolish implicit bias training. Remove it from workplaces, higher education, law enforcement, and the judiciary and instead focus on evidence-based policies that uphold fairness and critical thinking. Penny’s acquittal signals a potential culture shift away from implicit bias. But, for this change to take hold, justice must consistently reassert itself.
Follow Jared Gould on X
Image by Savannah River Site on Flickr; “More than 100 Savannah River Nuclear Solutions Aspiring Mid-Career Professionals members and guests gathered for a highly interactive workshop titled ‘Lead From Within: Overcoming Unconscious Bias in the Workplace’ in March 2019. The event was led by Assistant Dean at the James M. Hull College of Business at Augusta University and founder of Career Potential, LLC, Melissa Furman.”
This article was originally published at www.mindingthecampus.org
