An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Malcolm Gladwell on Juries and Race

Over the past couple days we’ve had some compelling posts about the “race card” and “racism without racists” here at TMV. Those posts have drawn very vibrant comment threads; the kind of discussion that makes blogging vital. I hope I might add to and continue that discussion with this re-posting of a piece I wrote about a SXSW keynote address Malcolm Gladwell gave back in March 2005.

In it Gladwell recounts this story [video] from his book, Blink

blink.jpgIt seems the great conductors of the world once innocently believed that men were innately better musicians than women and orchestras were male bastions. When one day, through a set of fortuitous circumstances, a male maestro auditioned a woman he thought was a man (she auditioned from behind a screen) he hired her. And when screens were broadly adopted it became clear to everyone that women were every bit as talented musicians as men.

What once was “obvious,” that men were better musicians, is now obviously not.

His story is to illustrate the power and peril of subliminal snap judgments. Says Gladwell [@48:38 The “clip” feature is no longer supported]:

There are certain things about somebody that all of us are really really good at knowing right away, and certain things that we may think we’re good at knowing that we are profoundly not…

Sexual attractiveness, you can do like that…

When we have real experience with something we are good at making profoundly good snap judgments, but in almost every other situation where we do not have that level of expertise our snap judgments are bad. And as a society I feel we are way too cavalier about the products of our snap judgments.

After his talk, during the questions, Gladwell made this observation that I have seen made no place else [@50:29]:

I have become convinced since writing this book that juries should never be able to see the defendants in a jury trial; that that is just crazy. Why? Because the kind of snap judgments a jury is likely to make about a defendant from seeing the defendant are all irrelevant…

Every year someone stands up and points out that there are huge differentials in the conviction rates and sentences for blacks and whites convicted of the same crime. And yet we make that observation and kind of shrug and say, “Well, that’s America.”

We don’t have to live with that. Why don’t we do something about it?

I would bet every dollar I own that if we put the defendant in a backroom and had the defendant answer all questions by email that the gap between black and white defendants, the sentences and conviction rates would shrink.

I absolutely believe that.

I do too. But, I wonder, what do you all think?

  • I wonder how constitutional that would be...but it's an interesting thought. I'm not sure, though, how much the analogy is applicable. The comparison of music auditions with criminal trials seems a bit of a faulty analogy to me. With a trial, despite all of the efforts to prevent the jury members from knowing anything about the case besides what they hear at the trial itself, people will know at least some facts. This would be especially bad in prominent cases, such as, to use a local (Georgia) example, the Brian Nichols case. That story has been covered to hell and gone, and everyone who was selected for the jury knows his race. I suppose if you could somehow anonymize the defendant- but that might preclude character witnesses...I'd go on, but I don't actually know anything about law and I have a paper to work on. It's an interesting idea, though.
  • Thanks for the post, Joe. After reading Blink, I started directing people here to the Harvard implicit associations test, to demonstrate to themselves that we have racial and gender biases that we cannot easily overcome. It's why we need programs, such as affirmative action, to overcome that bias. Here it is again. www.implicit.harvard.edu
  • JWindish
    I had not heard of project implicit before. Very interesting. At the risk of being to revealing, my results from their "featured task: U.S. elections 2008:

    "Your data suggests a strong automatic preference for Barack Obama over John McCain

    Your data suggests a moderately stronger automatic association between Christian and John McCain, compared to Barack Obama

    Your data suggests a slightly stronger automatic association between American and Barack Obama, compared to John McCain"
  • pacatrue
    I started taking that test and quit halfway through. They seemed to be forcing me to make a decision in a way I didn't want to. I ended up killing it and writing a long methodological essay to them in the feedback area. In short, I don't know if I believe anything from that methodology at all.
  • superdestroyer
    Is the author really implying that blacks and whites commit crimes at the same rate and that everything in the justice system is due to racial bias. Maybe the author should go back and look at the racial differences in being a crime victim.

    Blacks are much more likely to be crime victims. It that also due to racial bias? If I remember, blacks are six times more likely to be the victim of a homocide than whites. I wonder how the explain that away or is it more likely that they just ignore data that does not support their position.
  • pacatrue, try again. The point is that you can't trick your reflexes, and if you honestly try to make the association as quickly as possible it shows how you are hardwired. But it's telling that you say "forcing me to make a decision in a way I didn't want to." Isn't that the point? You want to make the other association. We all do. Not even blacks can quickly associate good with African American as easily as good with white. It's disturbing. And not even women can "see" women in business, management and leadership as easily as they can associate men with those roles.
  • pacatrue
    I actually read up a bit in the FAQ and one thing they address in there is something like "if it keeps giving me the red X, does that mean this test is not for me?" The eventual answer they give is yes and that's what I was seeing. The test seems to revolve around reaction time measurements of some sort. They must be looking for either a facilitation or interference effect due to unconscious assumptions. However, I see no point in measuring RTs of things I think are wrong. If I think the pic looks happy and it's forcing me to say it's unhappy over and over, you aren't going to learn much of interest from whether I say it's unhappy faster with black faces than I do with white faces. The task the dependent measure is based on has been compromised. The reason is that the time it takes me to remember "oh, I'm supposed to say this guy looks unhappy" and click appropriately is easily greater than the interference or facilitation effect they are trying to measure.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC