The Paradox of Blame: Evaluator Racial Identity and Protective Socialization in Decisions to Sanction

• In Event: Everyday Carcerality: How Organizations Police, Punish, and Control

Abstract

Social science research reinforces conventional wisdom: the more blameworthy an individual, the more deserving they are of formal sanctioning. However, this relationship draws largely on evidence from White-identifying evaluators. Black-identifying evaluators might enact alternate logics where this relationship does not hold. To examine this possibility, I leverage a video vignette survey that randomly assigns Black- and White-identifying teachers (N=1,171) from 286 public schools to evaluate identical routine misbehavior by ethnoracially-diverse students. I find that Black-identifying teachers perceive students of all backgrounds as being more blameworthy than do White-identifying teachers observing identical misbehavior within the same schools. But seemingly-paradoxically, Black-identifying teachers refer blameworthy students for formal sanctioning less than do White-identifying teachers. These differences are most pronounced within minoritized schools with punitive formal sanctioning norms. To explore mechanisms, surveys and follow-up interviews (N=98) reveal that blaming can serve different purposes for Black-identifying versus White-identifying teachers. For many White-identifying teachers, blameworthiness serves as justification for formal punishment. For many Black-identifying teachers, blameworthiness instead signals a need for informal interpersonal behavioral accountability to prepare minoritized students for the realities of discrimination—what I call “protective socialization.” This study uncovers how the existence of discrimination can produce racially-distinct social meanings of “blameworthiness” and divergent patterns of sanctioning.

Author

• Jayanti Johanna Owens, Yale University