Implicit Bias & (IAT) Implicit Association Test
This is part of the Culture War Encyclopedia, last updated: July 24, 2023
C O N T E N T S
Implicit Bias
Implicit Association Test (IAT) & Unconscious Racism
Intuitive Social & Political Judgements (Jonathan Haidt)
Spread of Unconscious Bias Training & Implicit Bias Testing in the Corporate world (Douglas Murray, Delgado & Stefancic)
Racist Hypocrisy of the Implicit Bias Testers (Douglas Murray)
Public Discussion
Sources
Implicit Bias
What is implicit bias and how has this concept been used in modern culture?
A bias is
an inclination toward a position or conclusion; a prejudice
according to the Penguin Dictionary of Psychology.1 The Cambridge Dictionary defines bias as
the action of supporting or opposing a particular person or thing in an unfair way, because of allowing personal opinions to influence your judgment
Implicit is defined as
not explicit, hence not directly observable
and as
cognitive processes that operate independently of consciousness.
by the Penguin Dictionary of Psychology.[2 The Cambridge Dictionary defines implicit as
suggested but not communicated directly
and as
felt by someone or influencing them without them being aware of it
In Critical Race Theory - an Introduction3, authors Richard Delgado4 and Jean Stefancic5 define implicit bias6 as the
unconscious association of one idea with another
Notice that they seem to be defining implicit association, not implicit bias for some reason. That’s fine because it is not difficult to define…
Implicit bias is the unconscious association of one thing with an other thing based on sexist or racist stereotypes or other such inclinations.
IAT (Implicit Association Test) & Unconscious Racism
These ‘crits’ (as critical race theorists call themselves)7 Delgado and Stefancic also write,8
studies using the Implicit Association Test (IAT) show that a large percentage of American citizens harbor negative attitudes toward members of groups other than their own.
Note that what these and some other authors refer to as the IAT is actually the “Race ('Black - White' IAT)” or the “Race Task” of the IAT. You see, the IAT has over a dozen tests or tasks including the Transgender ('Transgender People - Cisgender People' IAT) test/task and the Religion ('Religions' IAT) test/task.
What, then, is this IAT? The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology9
Implicit Association Test (IAT) A procedure developed by Anthony Greenwald designed to asses an individual’s attitudes. In the original version subjects grouped a series of insect names (cockroach, ant) and flower names (rose, lilac) along with a list of pleasant and unpleasant words. Most individuals find this easy, particularly when the insect names are grouped with unpleasant words and the flowers with the pleasant. But when the groups are switched so that they were asked to group the insect names with the pleasant words and the flowers with unpleasant, the task was surprisingly difficult and reaction times (RTs) are dramatically slower. The implicit emotional elements of the objects held in mind either speed up or slow down the RTs to specific objects based on whether the attitudes held are concordant or discordant . . . By replacing insects and flowers with groups that have social relevance, attitudes toward issues such as race, gender, homosexuality and other sensitive topics can be assured whether or not the subjects are aware of holding these attitudes.
Charles R. Lawrence III writes in his 2008 retrospective10 to his highly influential 1987 paper The Id, the Ego, and Equal Protection Reckoning With Unconscious Racism that
During the twenty years since The Id, the Ego, and Equal Protection was published, behavioral scientists have made significant advances in the study of unconscious racism. Recent social cognition research has provided stunning evidence to support my assertion that we are all infected with racial bias and that often that bias resides outside of our awareness.
In 1994, researchers at Yale University and the University of Washington devised the Implicit Association Test. The Implicit Association Test measures unconscious racial bias by linking together words and images to reveal what associations come most easily to mind. When you visit the IAT web site, you are asked to classify a series of faces into two categories, African American and European American. You must then mentally associate the white and black faces with words such as “joy” and “failure.” You must take the test under considerable time pressure using your computer keys to respond to the pairings. If you take the test too slowly the web site indicates that you have defaulted and must begin the test again. These tests have been taken by more than two million people. An analysis of tens of thousands of these tests taken anonymously on the Harvard web site found that eighty-eight percent of white people had a pro-white or anti-black implicit bias; nearly eighty-three percent of heterosexuals showed implicit bias for straight people over gays and lesbians; and more than two-thirds of non-Arab, non-Muslim testers displayed implicit biases against Arab Muslims.
Implicit bias research also supports my observation that the victims of white supremacy often internalize racial bias directed against them. Forty-eight percent of blacks showed a pro-white or anti-black bias.
Lawrence also wrote,11
When I first assigned The Id, the Ego, and Equal Protection to my constitutional law classes, many students found my claim that we all harbored unconscious bias difficult to accept. They found the theoretical work and anecdotal examples I cited unconvincing and argued that if my own experience differed from theirs this was indicative of the considerable difference in our ages. They were careful not to call me old, but they said that they had grown up in a post-civil rights world where race no longer mattered. I was disappointed but not surprised by this reaction.
This is coming from the same man who condemns his fellow anti-racist activist friends as being comparable to the KKK based on nothing more than their skin color (see the section in the Culture War Encyclopedia dedicated to unconscious racism for more on that). He later12 complains about
students’ resistance to reading proof of their own racism as sufficient to hold us collectively responsible for that racism’s impact.
Intuitive Social & Political Judgements (Jonathan Haidt)
In The Righteous Mind - Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, Jonathan Haidt13 writes,14
SOCIAL AND POLITICAL JUDGEMENTS ARE PARTICULARLY INTUITIVE
Here are four pairs of words. Your job is to look only at the second word in each pair and then categorize it as good or bad:
flower-happinesshate-sunshinelove-cancercockroach-lonelyIt’s absurdly easy, but imagine if I asked you to do it on a computer, where I can flash the first word in each pair for 250 milliseconds (a quarter of a second, just long enough to read it) and then I immediately display the second word. In that case we’d find that it takes you longer to make your value judgement for sunshine and cancer than for happiness and lonely.
This effect is called “affective priming” because the first word triggers a flash affect that primes the mind to go one way or the other. If you see the second word within that brief window of time, and if the second word within that brief window of time, and if the second word has the same valence, then you’ll be able to respond extra quickly because your mind is already leaning that way. But if the first word primes your mind for a negative evaluation (hate) and I then show you a positive word (sunshine), it’ll take you about 250 milliseconds longer to respond because you have to undo the lean toward the negativity.
So far this is just a confirmation of Zajonc’s theory about the speed and ubiquity of affect, but a big payoff came when social psychologists began using social groups as primes. Would it affect your response if I used photographs of black people and white people as the primes? As long as you’re not prejudiced, it won’t affect your reaction times. But if you do prejudge people implicitly (i.e., automatically and unconsciously), then those prejudgements include affective flashes, and those flashes will change your reaction times.
The most widely used measure of these implicit attitudes is the Implicit Association Test (IAT), developed by Tony Greenwald, Mahzarin Banaji, and my UVA colleague Brian Nosek. You can take the IAT yourself at ProjectImplicit.org. But be forewarned: it can be disturbing. You can actually feel yourself moving more slowly when you are asked to associate good things with the faces of one race rather than another. You can watch as your implicit attitude contradicts your explicit values. Most people turn out to have negative implicit associations with many social groups, such as black people, immigrants, obese people, and the elderly.
In the next paragraph, Haidt uses the metaphor of an elephant. He had explained this earlier15 were he writes,
The central metaphor . . . is that the mind is divided, like a rider on an elephant, and the rider’s job is to serve the elephant. The rider is our conscious reasoning - the stream of words and images of which we are fully aware. The elephant is the other 99 percent of mental processes - the ones that occur outside of awareness but that actually govern most of our behavior.
Getting back to where we were, Haidt continues,16
And if the elephant tends to lean away from groups such as the elderly (whom few would condemn morally), then we should certainly expect some leaning (prejudging) when people think about their political enemies. To look for such effects, my UVA colleague Jamie Morris measured the brain waves of liberals and conservatives as they read politically loaded words. He replaced the words flower and hate in the above example with words such as Clinton, Bush, flag, taxes, welfare, and pro-life. When partisans read these words, followed immediately by words that everyone agrees are good (sunshine) or bad (cancer), their brains sometimes reveals conflict. Pro-life and sunshine were affectively incongruous for liberals, just as Clinton and sunshine were for conservatives. The words pro and life are both positive on their own, but part of what it means to be a partisan is that you acquired the right set of intuitive reactions to hundreds of words and phrases. Your elephant knows which way to lean in response to terms such as pro-life, and your elephant sways back and forth throughout the day, you find yourself liking and trusting the people around you who sway in sync with you.
The intuitive nature of political judgements is even more striking in the words of Alex Todorov, at Princeton. Todorov studies how we form impressions of people. When he began his work, there was already a lot of research showing that we judge attractive people to be smarter and more virtuous, and we are more likely to give a pretty face the benefit of any doubt. Juries are more likely to acquit attractive defendants, and when beautiful people are convicted, judges give them lighter sentences, on average. That’s normal affective primacy making everyone lean towards the defendant, which tips off their riders to interpret the evidence in a way that will support the elephant’s desire to acquit.
But Todorov found that there was more going on than just attractiveness. He collected photographs of the winners and runners-up in hundreds of elections for the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives. He showed people the pairs of photographs from each contest with no information about political party, and he asked them to pick which person seemed more competent. He found that the candidate that people judged more competent was the one who actually won the race about two-thirds of the time. People’s snap judgements of the candidates’ physical attractiveness and overall likeability were not as good predictors of victory, so these competence judgements were not just based on an overall feeling of positivity. We can have multiple institutions arising simultaneously, each one processing a different kind if information.
And strangely, when Todorov forced people to make their competence judgements after flashing the pair of pictures on the screen for just a tenth of a second - not long enough to let their eyes fixate on each image - their snap judgements of competence predicted the real outcomes just as well. Whatever the brain is doing, it’s doing it instantly, just like when you look at the Muller-Lyer illusion.
The bottom line is that human minds, like animal minds, are constantly reacting intuitively to everything they perceive, and basing their responses on those reactions. Within the first seconds of seeing, hearing, or meeting another person, the elephant has already begun to lean toward or away, and that lean influences what you think and do next. Intuitions come first.
Spread of Unconscious Bias Training & Implicit Bias Testing in the Corporate world (Douglas Murray, Delgado & Stefancic)
In the Madness of Crowds - Gender, Race and Identity, Douglas Murray writes,17
UNCONSCIOUS BIAS TRAINING + INTERSECTIONALITY
This brings us ineluctably - and right on cue - to the ultimately destination point of this impossible process of perpetual stratifications and deduction: the importance of ‘intersectionality.’ The Chief People Officer of The Daily Telegraph gets us there before I can. But it is important, she stresses, to consider the intersectional overlay to all this. For we should recall that is not only women who need to be empowered and given a leg-up in the hierarchy. There are other marginalized groups who should also receive help. A member of the audience reminds the panel that some people are refugees and it is important that their voices do not get lost in all this. A point which can be made widely and endlessly. Some people have disabilities. Some people are depressed. Not everyone is beautiful. Some people are gay. And so on.
The woman from J.P. Morgan tells us that this is precisely one of the reasons why her firm has instituted compulsory ‘unconscious bias training.’ There is general agreement that this should be instituted more widely. Our brains are so wired that we are sometimes not aware of biases and prejudices that may lie dormant in the back recesses of our brains. These engrained prejudices may lead us to prefer men over women (or, presumably, vice-versa) or people of one skin colour over another. Some people may be put off hiring somebody because of their religion or sexuality. And so ‘unconscious bias training’ is available at J.P. Morgan and at an increasing number of other banks, financial institutions and other private and public companies in order to rewire our attitudes and allow those who submit to it have their natural prejudices altered, cleaned up and corrected.
Just one of the staggering oddities of the discussion going on is the certainty that the readers of The Daily Telegraph would absolutely hate all this. In Britain the Telegraph is regarded as the newspaper of the conservative right. Its readers might fairly be said to be less in favour of change than in things broadly staying the same, whereas unconscious bias training must be very high up the list of things that will stop anything being the same. That is the point of it. It is intended to change everything. And it has come to occupy a central position not just at conservative newspapers and leading Wall Street and City of London firms, but at the heart of government. In 2016 the US Government’s Office of Personnel Management announced that it was planning to put all of its employees through unconscious bias training. That is a workforce of 2.8 million people. The British government has committed itself to similar processes of bias and ‘diversity training’ for all.
The schemes themselves slightly differ, but all centre around versions of what at Harvard University has been developed as the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Since it went on the internet in 1998 more than 30 million people have taken the test on the Harvard website to discover whether or not they harbour unconscious bias. What the IAT attempts to work out is who individuals think of as being in an ‘in group’ and who they might see as being in an ‘out group.’ Cited thousands of times in academic papers. It has undoubtedly become the most influential measure of ‘unconscious bias.’
It has also spawned a whole industry. In 2015 the Royal Society of Arts in London announced that it was training people on selection and appointment panels to address their unconscious bias. The organization released a video explaining how his was done. It advocated four principle moves: deliberately slow down decision-making; reconsider the reasons for your decision-making: question cultural stereotypes; monitor each other for unconscious bias. All of which presupposes certain sets of outcomes. For instance, once someone has questioned a cultural sets of outcomes. For instance, once someone has questioned a cultural stereotype are they allowed to hold onto it? Probably not. If people monitor each other for unconscious bias raining they do not seem to mean ‘questioning’ people. They mean ‘changing’ them.
Anyone who has ever had to interview large numbers of people for any role will know that a significant part of the process is ‘first impressions’. There reason there are so many heave-some mottoes like ‘You never get a second chance to make a first impressions’ is that it is widely recognized to be true. It isn’t just how people look, how they are dressed or what firmness heir handshake does not have. It is about a whole set of other signals and impressions that a person gives off. And the response to them does indeed involve prejudice, and swift decision-making. Not all of which will be bad.
For example, most people have a natural prejudice against those with swiftly moving, shifting or darting eyes. Is that presumption a ‘bias’ or might it be justified, built in by an evolutionary instinct that it may be unwise to overcome? More pertinently, what should a small-busniness owner feel in an interview with a woman in her late thirties who the boss suspects is likely to become pregnant in the next few years? Obviously employment law prevents the interviewer from delving into this. But it could be said that the employer has an instinctive bias against such a candidate. And the law might wish to change that. But the small-business owner’s bias against hiring a woman who may work for a short period of time before going on maternity leave, thereby costing the company in maternity pay for a job she may not return to, is not an entirely irrational bias.
Testing yourself for existing prejudices may root out some deep-seated distrust of people of a certain background or powerful women, or much else. It may also just make you distrust all of your instincts. And just as instinct can lead individuals in the wrong direction, it is also very often the only thing that has seen them right.
What is more, you may feel differently from one day to the next, and people who have taken the IAT have found exactly that. Indeed, criticism of the whole idea of implicit bias is such that even some of the people who worked on the Harvard test, which has become such a benchmark, have expressed their concern about what their work has been used for. Since its deployment in the corporate world, government, academia and an increasing number of other places, two out of the three people who created the IAT at Harvard have publicly admitted that the test cannot do what it purports to do with sufficient accuracy. One of the three, Brian Nosek of the University of Virginia, has said publicly that the extent to which the test can measure anything meaningful has been misconceived. There had been an ‘incorrect interpretation’ of his work, he noted. Of attempts to prove bias in individuals he has said, ‘There is some consistency but not high consistency. Our mind isn’t that stable.’ What is more there is mounting evidence that none of this works in practice. For instance, that increasing the number of women on selection panels doesn’t increase the chances of a women on selection panels doesn’t increase the chances of a woman getting a job.
So here is a whole area which has been insufficiently studied but has already been rolled out across government and business. Will its effects be benign, its only costs being the huge expense in recruiting experts to guide people in this inexpert discipline? Or will attempts to presume to rewire the brains of every single government employee and everybody in business have repercussions which nobody has yet dared to imagine? Who knows.
But if implicit-bias training looks like a half worked-out theory turned into a fully worked-out business plan, the dogma under which it sits is a grade even beyond that. At the ‘Women Mean Business’ conference it is the Chief People Officer of The Daily Telegraph who is busily pushing the importance of an intersectional approach in business as well as in society more widely. This comes in response to women in the audience wondering where they should place ethnic minorities, refugees and asylum seekers in the list of groups who deserve a bit of whatever can be squeezed out of those with power.
It should probably be said from the outset that despite presenting itself - like ‘bias training’ - as a fully worked-out science, intersectionality is far from it. Its originators, like the feminist authors and academics ‘bell hooks’ (i.e. Gloria Jean Watkins) and Peggy McIntosh, simply assert that Western democracies include a range of groups(women, ethnic minorities, sexual minorities and others) who are structurally oppressed in a ‘matrix of oppression'.’ From there what the intersectionalists urge is a political project rather than academic discipline. The interests of one of these groups is portrayed as the interest and concern of all of these groups. If they unite against the common enemy of the people at the top of the pyramid who allegedly hold the power, then something good will happen. To say that intersectionality has not been thought through is an understatement. Together with its other faults it has not been put to the test in any meaningful way anywhere for any meaningful length of time. It has the most tenuous basis in philosophy and has no major work of thought dedicated to it. To which someone might respond that there are plenty of things that haven’t been tried yet and that don’t have a fully worked-out structure of thought behind them. But in such cases it would ordinarily be deemed presumptuous, not to say unwise, to try to roll out that concept across an entire society, including every educational institution and every profitable place of business.
Although many people in important, well-renumerated positions now argue for this theory, where can this ‘intersectionality’ be said to work? And how could it? Just look at the set of unsolvable questions which it sets off even just in this room at the ‘Woman Mean Business’ conference. All of the women here have benefited from career advancement. Many could hardly enjoy more. Which of them is willing to offer up that place to somebody of a different skin colour, sexual orientation or class position, and when and how should they do so? When, and how, is anyone meant to be able to discern that the person who is prioritized over them, if they were to take a step back and urge this other person forward, has not in fact had a far easier time in their life than they have themselves?
In The War on the West, Douglas Murray writes,18
At other elite private schools, such as the $40,000-a-year Harvard-Westlake School in Los Angeles, parents have struggled to find a way to rebut a similar “antiracist” agenda. That school’s aim include explorations of “implicit bias” for seventh graders provided by the unimprovably titled “Pollyanna Racial Literacy Curriculum.” There has also been a redesign of the eleventh-grade US history course that is now taught “from a critical race theory perspective,” and students in the tenth grade have been put through Implicit Bias Testing.
Notice that Murray writes they were put through Implicit Bias Testing as opposed to Implicit Association Testing. That seems a bit biased toward finding bias. Murray continues,
Meanwhile, at nearby Brentwood ($45,630 per annum), pupils were treated to racially segregated “dialogue” sessions, where the school’s reading list had also been put through the usual purge. Out went The Scarlet Letter, Lord of the Flies, and To Kill a Mockingbird. In came such books as Ibram X. Kendi’s Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America, while the faculty announced a late start for one day for the lower school because of its study of Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility.
As though to prove that anything the schooling system can do, the college system can do worse, at least one law professor at an American university has been advocating a ranking systems for “whiteness” on American campuses. University of Dayton professor emerita Vernellia Randall has ranked colleges on a chart that records “total whiteness” and “excess whiteness” scores. Among other things, she has demanded that American law schools eliminate “excess whiteness” from their campuses.
Meanwhile, the authors of Critical Race Theory - an Introduction claim that these dogmas have not spread fast or far enough. They write,19
Critical Empirical Analysis
In recent years, psychologists and other social scientists have been developing new tools to understand racial oppression and its effects. On the Basis of work by Claude Steele, Joshua Aronson, and others, empiricists have attempted to learn learn how stereotype threat impairs the ability of minority test-takers to do to their best work and how to combat it. To this point, courts have been slow to apply the teachings of this new form of knowledge, even though it would seem to promise insight into the reasons for the minority-white test gap.
Other social psychologists study implicit associations, the near-automatic connections that almost every person who grows up in American society draws between race and personal qualities, such as cleanliness, attractiveness, goodness, and a tendency to obey the law. Many Americans have taken the implicit association test, which is online, and learned that they harbor negative attitudes toward minorities, foreigners, or women. Unlike stereotype threat, implicit association research has been slowly making inroads into the thinking of lawyers and judges.
Racist Hypocrisy of the Implicit Bias Testers
Douglas Murray writes later in the Madness of Crowds,20
As we saw earlier, it was Harvard that gave the world the ‘Implicit Bias’ test. Or as one web headline puts it, "‘Are you a racist? This Harvard racism test will tell you.’ If that is the case then it would appear that America’s oldest university ought to take the test itself. And if the implicit bias test was in fact accurate it would come back with the result that Harvard itself is very racist indeed.
In 2014 a group called ‘Students for Fair Admissions’ filed a lawsuit against Harvard. The group represented Asian-Americans who argued that the university’s admissions policies had shown a pattern of discrimination going back back decades. Specifically they alleged that in the name of ‘affirmative action’ Harvard had been routinely and systematically biased against Asian-American applicants. The university fought hard to prevent the release of documents revealing information on its application criteria, arguing that these were effectively Harvard’s trade secrets. But the university - which claimed not to discriminate against applicants ‘from any group’ in its admissions process - was eventually forced to reveal these secrets. It is no wonder that they had tried to keep them hidden.
Since Harvard is only able to accept around 4.6 per cent of each year’s applicants, it is perhaps inevitable that some forms of vetting was needed. But the vetting procedure that Harvard allowed itself could hardly have been more unpalatable. Like most other universities in America (and spreading out from there). Harvard wanted to eradicate the idea of racial bias in its selection process. But it turned out that if you attempt to eradicate the idea of racial bias you do not get a completely ethically representative hierarchy, but a hierarchy which disproportionately favours certain groups. Harvard - being smart - realized this, and had to find some way to get around the problem, specifically in order to try to increase the number of African-Americans who were attending the university. And so it decided to find ways to bias its ostensibly colour-blind entrance policy against one of the groups which was dramatically over-performing. Harvard turned a process that presented itself as intended to be race-blind, but which actually set up to improve the chances for some, into a process that was race-obsessed.
Although the university denied the allegations in court, its own records showed that over a period of years Harvard had been routinely downgrading Asian-American applicants. In particular it was downgrading them on personality traits including ‘positive personality’, kindness and likeability. Unfortunately for Harvard, during the disclosure stage it transpired that the downgrading of Asian-American students was happening without Harvard or any other educational institution of excellence need to do that? For two reasons.
The first is that Harvard like all other similar elite institutions has committed itself to presenting to the world not simply the best possible people, but the best possible people after they have been put through the selection strainer that is the institution’s commitment to diversity. The second is that Harvard did not deliberately disadvantage certain groups and advantage others in its commitment to ‘affirmative action’ policies and diversity criteria in general, the products of Harvard might be worryingly non-diverse. Specifically they might have a student body which disproportionately or even largely consisted not of white Americans of black Americans, but of Asian-Americans and Ashkenazi Jews. Here we get a glimpse of the word’s ugliest landmine.
Murray then goes on to discuss the controversial Bell Curve which wanders off the range of what we are concentrating on here.
Public Discussion
On July 15, 2023, Andy Ngo tweeted,
Jordan Peterson retweeted this and added his own thought.
Also see unconscious racism & critical race theory.
This is part of the Culture War Encyclopedia.
SOURCES
Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefancic - Critical Race Theory - an Introduction (3rd edition, 2017) New York University Press
Haidt, Jonathan - The Righteous Mind - Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion (copywrite Jonathan Haidt, 2012; 1st edition, 2013) Vintage Books, Random House
Lawrence III, Charles R. - Unconscious Racism Revisited: Reflections on the Impact and Origins of “The Id, the Ego, and Equal Protection” - Connecticut Law Review Vol.40, No. 4, (May, 2008) (abstract here at Georgetown Law University)
Murray, Douglas - The Madness of Crowds - Gender Race and Identity (USA edition, 2021 (First published Great Britain, 2019) Bloombury Publishing
Murray, Douglas - The War on the West (1st edition, 2022) Harper Collins Publishers
Reber, Arthur S., Rhianon Allen and Emily S. Reber - The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology - Peguin Reference Library (4th edition, 2009)
FOOTNOTES
Page 96 in Penguin Dictionary of Psychology.
Pages 372-373 in Penguin Dictionary of Psychology.
Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefancic - Critical Race Theory - an Introduction (3rd edition, 2017) New York University Press
According to publisher De Gruyder,
Richard Delgado is John J. Sparkman Chair of Law at the University of Alabama and one of the founders of critical race theory. His books include The Latino/a Condition: A Critical Reader (co-edited with Jean Stefancic; New York University Press) and The Rodrigo Chronicles (New York University Press
Here are some results from Google Scholar for Richard Delgado…
According to publishers De Gruyder,
Jean Stefancic is Professor and Clement Research Affiliate at the University of Alabama School of Law. Her books include No Mercy: How Conservative Think Tanks and Foundations Changed America’s Social Agenda and How Lawyers Lose Their Way: A Profession Fails Its Creative Minds.
Here are some results from Google Scholar for Jean Stefancic…
author: Jean Stefancic race consciousness
author: Jean Stefancic critical race theory
author: Jean Stefancic critical theory
Page 13
See page 27 of Critical Race Theory - an Introduction by Delgado & Stefancic wherein they write “Critical race theorists (or “crits,” as they are sometimes called) . . . ”
Page 13
Page 373
Pages 958-959
Page 963
Jonathan Haidt Ph.D has a Ph.D. in Psychology from University of Pennsylvania and a B.A., Philosophy from Yale University and has mant awards and appointments; see here.
Pages 66=68
Page XXI
Pages 68-69
Pages 87-92
Pages 54-55
Pages 142-144
Pages 168-170