Blog

Discuss some of the factors that increased the vulnerability of African-American residents (Henkel article).

Discuss some of the factors that increased the vulnerability of African-American residents (Henkel article)
After reading either of the two articles ?Institutional Discrimination, Individual Racism, and Hurricane
Katrina? by Henkel, et al. or ?In the Eye of the Storm: How the Government and Private Response to
Hurricane Katrina Failed Latinos? by Mu?iz, write a short essay that responds to the following:
Discuss some of the factors that increased the vulnerability of African-American residents (Henkel article)
or Latino residents (Mu?iz article) of New Orleans before, during, and after Hurricane Katrina, including
their ability to anticipate and prepare for the storm, cope with the impacts, and eventually recover.
Your essay should be roughly 1-2 pages in length (single spacing). All essays should be clear, concise,
and well-organized, and demonstrate a solid understanding of the reading. All essays should be
proofread thoroughly for spelling and grammatical errors. Direct quotes (if used) should include page
numbers in the citation.
Submit your essay via the ?Submit Short Essay 6 Here? link, found under the ?Short Essays? tab on
Blackboard no later than 1:30PM (the start of class) on Thursday 9/29. NO late essays will be accepted.
Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2006, pp. 99–124
Institutional Discrimination, Individual Racism,
and Hurricane Katrina
Kristin E. Henkel*
University of Connecticut
John F. Dovidio
University of Connecticut
Samuel L. Gaertner
University of Delaware
Since Hurricane Katrina made landfall, there have been accusations of blatant
racism in the government?s response, on the one hand, and adamant denials that
race played any role at all, on the other. We propose that both perspectives reflect
oversimplifications of the processes involved, and the resulting debate may obscure
a deeper understanding of the dynamics of the situation. Specifically, we discuss
the potential roles of institutional discrimination, subtle contemporary biases,
and racial mistrust. The operation of these processes is illustrated with events
associated with Hurricane Katrina. In addition, drawing on these principles, we
offer suggestions for present and future recovery efforts.
You?d have to go back to slavery, or the burning of Black towns, to find a comparable event
that has affected Black people this way.
?Darnell M. Hunt, a sociologist and head of the
African American Studies Department at UCLA
I think all of those remarks were disgusting, to be perfectly frank because, of course,
President Bush cares about everyone in our country, and I know that.
?Laura Bush, First Lady
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kristin E. Henkel, Department
of Psychology, 406 Babbidge Road, Unit 1020, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-1020
[e-mail: Kristin.Henkel@gmail.com].
99
C 2006 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
100 Henkel, Dovidio, and Gaertner
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, which devastated New Orleans and
had particular impact on its Black community in August of 2005, accusations
pertaining to the lack of preparation for the storm and for the plight of its victims
were heatedly exchanged. Racism was one focus of the debate. On one side, it
was asserted that the inadequate response to the storm and the flooding was due
to obvious racism. This sentiment is evident in a statement by Kanye West, a
prominent rap artist, who said, ?George Bush doesn?t care about Black people?
(Broder, Wilgoren, & Alford, 2005). In response and in contrast, others such as
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice adamantly denied that race had anything to
do with Hurricane Katrina or the government?s response to it. She claimed that
?nobody, especially the President, would have left people unattended on the basis
of race? (Broder et al., 2005).
From a social psychological perspective, both sides appeared to oversimplify
the situation, and polemics obscured the potential roles of historical factors, institutional
discrimination, and contemporary subtle forms of individual racism,
all of which likely played parts in the impact of Hurricane Katrina and the government?s
response to it. This article examines some events and decisions related
to Hurricane Katrina, and explores how historical and contemporary orientations
toward Blacks in the United States likely shaped responses in a way that produced
particularly tragic consequences for Black residents of New Orleans without overt
antipathy or intention of decision makers. We emphasize the importance of how
the past shapes contemporary race relations. In the next section, we provide a brief
overview of the forces that contribute to racism in the United States. We then apply
these psychological insights into the dynamics of racism to understand the events
and decisions that produced uniquely devastating outcomes for Blacks in New
Orleans. We conclude by exploring the implications of this analysis for specific
interventions in New Orleans and for policy more generally.
It is impossible to know whether the processes we propose were operating
among the protagonists; we can only point out that the immenseness of the devastation
created tremendous confusion and communication problems and, further,
show that these are precisely the conditions most conducive to the activation of
these processes. We have prepared this article in the interests of helping people
sort through the different perspectives on these tragic events and to sensitize policy
makers, officials, and future rescuers to how racial factors can play a role during
such catastrophes.
Understanding Racism
Although discussions and accusations of racism in the popular media typically
portray racism in its most obvious and blatant form, within psychology it
is considered to be much more complex and multifaceted. Individual bias is just
one aspect, but one that involves several components: prejudice, stereotypes, and
Racism and Katrina 101
discrimination (Dovidio, Brigham, Johnson, & Gaertner, 1996). Prejudice is commonly
defined as an unfair negative attitude toward a social group or a person
perceived to be a member of that group. A stereotype is a generalization of beliefs
about a group or its members that is unjustified because it reflects faulty
thought processes or overgeneralization, factual incorrectness, inordinate rigidity,
an inappropriate pattern of attribution, or a rationalization for a prejudiced attitude
or discriminatory behavior. Discrimination is defined as a selectively unjustified
negative behavior toward members of the target group that involves denying ?individuals
or groups of people equality of treatment which they may wish? (Allport,
1954, p. 51).
Even though racism relates directly to the coordinated interaction of stereotypes,
prejudice, and discrimination, it involves more than individual biases. Racism
reflects institutional, social, and cultural influences, as well. According to Jones
(1997), at its very essence racism involves not only negative attitudes and beliefs,
but also the social power that translates them into disparate outcomes that disadvantage
other races or offer unique advantages to one?s own race at the expense of
others. As Feagin and Vera (1995) explain, ?Racism is more than a matter of individual
scattered episodes of discrimination,? it represents a widely accepted racist
ideology and the power to deny other racial groups the ?dignity, opportunities, freedoms,
and rewards that are available to one?s group through a socially organized set
of ideas, attitudes, and practices? (p. 7). Thus, while the study of prejudice and discrimination
focuses on the roles of individuals and interpersonal processes, racism
encompasses institutional, social, and cultural processes that serve as an influential
backdrop to individual-level perspectives. Institutional racism, for example,
refers to the intentional or unintentional manipulation or toleration of institutional
policies (e.g., poll taxes, admissions criteria) that unfairly restrict the opportunities
of particular groups of people, and cultural racism involves beliefs about the superiority
of one?s racial cultural heritage over that of other races and the expression
of this belief in individual actions or institutional policies (Jones, 1997).
Moreover, both contemporary personal and institutional racism often operate
without Whites? intention to harm members of minority groups or even awareness
by Whites of their personal role in disadvantaging Blacks. For instance, applying
policies that seem just and egalitarian based on immediate principles of fairness
in a narrow sense may systematically disadvantage groups that for historical reasons
have fewer contemporary resources (e.g., wealth or education) that would
allow them to benefit fully from these policies and procedures (Dovidio, Mann, &
Gaertner, 1989). Thus, Whites? historical discrimination against Blacks produces
a legacy of disparity that may be perpetuated even by well-intentioned people
who endorse and exercise current policies that have disparate consequences for
Whites and Blacks. Furthermore, cultural racism gives priority to the values of
the majority group, which are embedded in widely accepted cultural ideologies
(Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Policies, laws, and procedures that reflect these values
102 Henkel, Dovidio, and Gaertner
may be subtly distorted in ways that enhance the disadvantage of minority groups
and the advantage of the majority group. Thus, when a racial group and its members
have been historically disadvantaged, the consequences are broad and severe,
reproducing themselves across time (Jones, 1997).
Consistent with this perspective, statistics show that racial disparities in several
key quality-of-life areas have stubbornly persisted over the years. For example,
the median family income for Blacks is less than two-thirds that of Whites, a
differential that has widened over the past two decades (Blank, 2001). Also, on
several basic measures of health and well-being, the racial gap either has been
maintained or in some cases (e.g., infant mortality) has widened substantially over
the past 50 years (Jenkins, 2001). Furthermore, recent studies suggest that over
their lifespans, Black and White patients receive unequal treatment from medical
practitioners, resulting in less favorable health-related outcomes for Blacks (see
Smedley, Stith, & Nelson, 2003). Steady trends toward residential integration that
were observed from 1950 to 1970 have slowed in the South and stagnated in the
North (Massey, 2001). Massey (2001) observed, ?Either in absolute terms or in
comparison to other groups, Blacks remain a very residentially segregated and
spatially isolated people? (p. 403). Both cultural racism and institutional racism
are subtle, difficult-to-detect processes that are at least partially responsible for
these outcomes.
Like institutional and cultural racism, individual prejudice is also commonly
manifested subtly, often without conscious awareness or intention. Many contemporary
approaches to individual racism acknowledge the persistence of overt,
intentional forms of racism but also consider the role of automatic or unconscious
processes and indirect expressions of bias (McConahay, 1986; Sears, Henry, &
Kosterman, 2000). We have explored the nature of Whites? racial attitudes to
understand the duality between the generally expressed nonprejudicial views of
Whites in contemporary U.S. society and the persistence of significant racial disparity
and discrimination. Our work built upon the conceptual framework of Kovel
(1970), who distinguished between dominative and aversive racism. Dominative
racism is the ?old-fashioned,? blatant form. According to Kovel, the dominative
racist is the ?type who acts out bigoted beliefs?he represents the open flame of
racial hatred? (p. 54). Aversive racists, in comparison, sympathize with victims
of past injustice, support the principle of racial equality, and regard themselves as
nonprejudiced, but, at the same time, possess negative feelings and beliefs about
Blacks, which may be unconscious. Aversive racism is hypothesized to be qualitatively
different than blatant, ?old-fashioned,? racism, is more indirect and subtle,
and is presumed to characterize the racial attitudes of most well-educated and
liberal Whites in the United States. Nevertheless, the consequences of aversive
racism (e.g., the restriction of economic opportunity) are as significant and pernicious
as those of the traditional, overt form (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004; Gaertner
& Dovidio, 1986).
Racism and Katrina 103
A critical aspect of the aversive racism framework is the conflict between
Whites? denial of personal prejudice and underlying unconscious negative feelings
toward, and beliefs about, Blacks. Because of current cultural values, most Whites
have strong convictions concerning fairness, justice, and racial equality. However,
because of a range of normal cognitive, motivational, and sociocultural processes
that promote intergroup biases, most Whites also develop some negative feelings
toward or beliefs about Blacks, of which they are unaware or from which they try
to dissociate their nonprejudiced self-images. These negative feelings that aversive
racists have toward Blacks do not reflect open hostility or hatred. Instead, aversive
racists? reactions may involve discomfort, uneasiness, disgust, and sometimes fear.
That is, they find Blacks ?aversive,? while at the same time finding any suggestion
that they might be prejudiced ?aversive? as well. Thus, aversive racism may involve
more positive reactions to Whites than to Blacks, reflecting a pro-ingroup rather
than an anti-outgroup orientation, thereby avoiding the stigma of overt bigotry
while protecting a nonprejudiced self-image.
The negative feelings and beliefs that underlie aversive racism are hypothesized
to be rooted in normal, often adaptive, psychological processes. These processes
fundamentally involve the consequences of social categorization. People
inherently categorize others into groups, typically in ways that delineate the ?we?s
from the ?they?s? (Hamilton & Trolier, 1986). The mere categorization of people
into groups, even on the basis of arbitrary assignment, is sufficient to initiate (often
spontaneously, according to Otten & Moskowitz, 2000) an overall evaluative bias,
in which people categorized as members of one?s own group are evaluated more
favorably than are those perceived as members of another group (Brewer, 1979;
Tajfel, 1970).
The aversive racism framework also helps to identify when discrimination
against Blacks and other minority groups will or will not occur. Whereas oldfashioned
racists exhibit a direct and overt pattern of discrimination, aversive
racists? actions may appear more variable and inconsistent. Sometimes they discriminate
(manifesting their negative feelings), and sometimes they do not
(reflecting their egalitarian beliefs). Our research has provided a framework for
understanding this pattern of discrimination.
Because aversive racists consciously recognize and endorse egalitarian values
and because they truly aspire to be nonprejudiced, they will not discriminate in
situations with strong social norms when discrimination would be obvious to others
and to themselves. Specifically, when people are presented with a situation in which
the normatively appropriate response is clear, in which right and wrong are clearly
defined, aversive racists will not discriminate against Blacks. In these contexts,
aversive racists will be especially motivated to avoid feelings, beliefs, and behaviors
that could be associated with racist intent. Wrongdoing, which would directly
threaten their nonprejudiced self-image, would be too costly. However, because
aversive racists still possess feelings of uneasiness, these feelings will eventually
104 Henkel, Dovidio, and Gaertner
be expressed, but they will be expressed in subtle, indirect, and rationalizable ways.
For instance, discrimination will occur in situations in which normative structure
is weak, when the guidelines for appropriate behavior are vague, or when the basis
for judgment is ambiguous or confusing. In addition, discrimination will occur
when an aversive racist can justify or rationalize a negative response or a failure
to respond favorably on the basis of some factor other than race. Under these
circumstances, Whites unintentionally may engage in behaviors that ultimately
harm Blacks but that allow Whites to maintain their self-image as nonprejudiced
and that insulate them from recognizing that their behavior is not color blind.
Frequently, this discrimination does not manifest itself in purposeful harm or
injury, but rather in Whites? failure to help Blacks either in situations in which
the failure to help can be attributed to factors other than race (e.g., the belief
that someone else will intervene; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1977; Saucier, Miller, &
Doucet, 2005), or in the expression of particular positive responses to Whites
without overtly negative actions toward Blacks (Gaertner et al., 1996). Indeed, one
of the fundamental conclusions of the Report of the National Advisory Commission
on Civil Disorders (1968) over 35 years ago was that the disadvantaged status of
Blacks was due, in part, to insufficient efforts of Whites to help Blacks, not to their
efforts to harm them. This principle could likely be relevant to the inadequacy of
the official responses to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
The subtlety of the contemporary expressions of institutional racism and individual
biases may contribute in significant ways to the racial mistrust, particularly
the distrust of Blacks for Whites that characterizes race relations within the United
States (Dovidio, Gaertner, Kawakami, & Hodson, 2002; Feagin & Sikes, 1994).
Blacks have a pervasive distrust for Whites that is reflected in high levels of perceived
discrimination and orientations toward basic social institutions (Dovidio
et al., 2002). Blacks report distrust of government leaders (Earl & Penney, 2001;
Shavers-Hornaday, Lynch, Burmeister, & Torner, 1997) and medical practitioners
and researchers (Armstrong, Crum, Reiger, Bennett, & Edwards, 1999; Davis &
Reid, 1999), as well as for authorities and policies in the areas of business and
education (Phelps, Taylor, & Gerard, 2001). They also tend to perceive conspiracies
by the government and Whites generally to harm Blacks (Crocker, Luhtanen,
Broadnax, & Blaine, 1999), reflected for example in the belief that AIDS was
purposefully created to infect Blacks.
At the same time, because of the absence of intention and awareness involved
in much of contemporary institutional and individual racism, Whites may be not
be sensitive to the extent of racial bias in the United States and particularly to
their own expressions of bias (Dovidio et al., 2002). As a consequence, Whites
and Blacks often express divergent views about their race relations. For instance,
in a Gallup Poll (Gallup, 2002) over three-quarters (79%) of Whites reported that
Blacks ?have as good a chance as Whites? to ?get any kind of job,? but less than
half (46%) of Blacks shared that view. Whereas the vast majority (69%) of Whites
Racism and Katrina 105
perceived that Blacks were treated ?the same as Whites,? the majority of Blacks
(59%) reported that Blacks were treated worse than Whites.
In the next section we illustrate the role of three of the basic processes in
contemporary racism?institutional racism, aversive racism, and racial mistrust?
in the context of Hurricane Katrina. We acknowledge that old-fashioned, blatant
racism still exists among Whites and that it continues to affect the lives and wellbeing
of Black Americans. It may even have played a role in the consequences
of Hurricane Katrina on Blacks in New Orleans. Nevertheless, we emphasize that
understanding the subtle dynamics of race relations, rather than being preoccupied
with assigning blame for intentional harm, may not only provide valuable insight
into the events and responses associated with Hurricane Katrina but also help guide
the development of new policies that can assist the residents of New Orleans and
prevent disparate harm to Blacks more generally in the future.
Understanding Responses to Hurricane Katrina
What happened during and after Hurricane Katrina was determined not only
by the present circumstances on the Gulf Coast but also by a history of discriminatory
policies and practices, particularly in the New Orleans area, that created
socioeconomic and consequent housing disparities along racial lines. In addition,
although the actions of decision makers during Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath
may have appeared ?colorblind,? without particular sensitivity to the unique vulnerabilities
of the Black population these actions were subtly biased and produced
racially disparate consequences. Also, historical discrimination and contemporary
institutional racism eroded the trust of Blacks in New Orleans for the government,
which adversely influenced the effectiveness of interventions in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina. In this section we therefore examine the influences of (a) historical
discrimination and contemporary institutional racism, (b) subtle bias at the
individual level, and (c) interracial distrust.
Historical Discrimination, Contemporary Institutional Racism,
and Hurricane Katrina
The impact by Hurricane Katrina was catastrophic by all measures. Besides
billions of dollars of damage and a premier city in the United States left largely
in ruins, between 1,100 and 1,700 people died and thousands more are still unaccounted
for (Burchfiel, 2006). In addition, Hurricane Katrina was particularly
devastating for Blacks. The flooding caused by the hurricane was particularly damaging
to Black neighborhoods, communities that were relatively uninsured against
floods. Thus, many of the Blacks in New Orleans who survived but were displaced
by Hurricane Katrina will not be able to afford to return to the city and to the areas
where they once lived.
106 Henkel, Dovidio, and Gaertner
To understand what happened during Katrina and why it had such a disproportionate
negative impact on Blacks, it is important to appreciate the local and
national historical context that surrounded the disaster. One of the most significant
legacies of slavery and historical discrimination in the United States is the
pervasive racial disparity in wealth (Blank, 2001). The median family income for
Whites in 1994 was $33,600 but was only $20,508 for Blacks. Blacks? incomes
were only 62% of Whites? incomes. Moreover, when net worth is considered,
weighing family financial assets and debts, the gap is even greater. In 1994, the
median net worth for Whites was $52,944 as compared to $6,723 for Blacks. That
is, Blacks? net worth was only 12% of Whites? net worth (Oliver & Shapiro, 2001).
Contemporary biases further contribute to racial disparities in income. Minority
groups have disproportionate difficulty finding jobs as compared to majority
groups: based on job audits across several countries, minority-group members
have a 23.7 percent chance of being discriminated against when applying for any
given job (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Even when Blacks find jobs, they are overrepresented
in jobs with poor working conditions, such as shift work, long hours,
repetitive tasks, physical dangers, and accident rates. They also have disproportionately
low mobility out of such low-end jobs (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Institutional
discrimination in the labor market only serves to increase discrepancies between
minority group and majority group members. Discrepancies in the labor market
lead to a disproportionate number of Blacks in positions of lower socioeconomic
status.
Race and racial disparities are particularly relevant for understanding the impact
of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. For example, in the context of Hurricane
Katrina, fewer available resources meant that it may not have been as easy for
Blacks, who were less likely to own cars, to leave the city. In addition, socioeconomic
differences influenced the vulnerability of Blacks, relative to Whites,
to the devastating consequences of Hurricane Katrina. Approximately one-third
of the population in the New Orleans metropolitan area is Black, ranking it 11th
in terms of percentage of Black population among over 300 major metropolitan
areas in the United States (CensusScope, 2006). The largest proportion of Blacks
is concentrated within the city limits, representing 68% of the population, many
of whom lived in the most low-lying areas?those most vulnerable to Hurricane
Katrina. In addition, New Orleans historically has been one of the cities with the
largest racial disparities in income and wealth. It showed the fourth largest increase
in racial disparity in income in recent years (Madden, 2000). The poverty rate in
New Orleans has been almost twice the national rate, and a third of Blacks and
half of the Black children in the city live below the poverty level (Hancock, 2005).
This racial gap in income and wealth contributed significantly to the particular
vulnerability of Blacks in New Orleans to Hurricane Katrina.
One consequence of racial disparities in wealth and income, which is exacerbated
by contemporary housing discrimination, is the residential segregation of
Racism and Katrina 107
Blacks. In general, more affluent residential areas in the United States are predominantly,
if not virtually exclusively, White. Thus, access to housing in these
areas requires either pre-existing wealth or access to substantial housing loans. As
we noted earlier, the racial gap in wealth is even greater than the sizable income
disparity (Blank, 2001; Madden, 2000). Moreover, in part due to their lower wealth
and available assets, Blacks have more difficulty obtaining housing loans than do
Whites. In 2001, 36% of Black applicants, compared to 16% of White applicants,
were denied conventional home mortgage loans. However, even when controlling
for financial status, Blacks are denied home loans at rates much greater than
Whites. Among applicants who had incomes less than 50% of the income for the
local area, Blacks were denied loans 42.7% of the time, whereas Whites were
denied 29.6% of the time. Among the applicants who made more than 120% of
the median income, Blacks were denied 19.6% of the time, whereas Whites were
denied only 6.8% of the time (Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council,
2002).
Institutional policies, past and present, have further contributed to residential
segregation of Blacks and Whites. According to Seitles (1996), federal and state
governments have had large roles in creating and maintaining residential racial
segregation. For example, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) employed
practices that disadvantaged Blacks since it began in 1937. It used a practice
called ?red-lining? to determine risks associated with loans made to borrowers in
specific neighborhoods. ?Red-lining? involved rating neighborhoods such that the
neighborhoods in the top two categories were White, stable, and in demand. The
?high risk? categories involved Blacks. The third category was made up of working
class neighborhoods near Black residences, and the fourth category was Black
neighborhoods. As a result of this policy, most mortgages and home loans went to
middle class White families, promoting the racial segregation of neighborhoods,
particularly in urban areas. Further, the federal government used interstate highway
and urban renewal programs to increase segregation (Seitles, 1996).
In addition to institutional discrimination rooted in historical practices, contemporary
biases conspire to contribute further to residential segregation. Fischer
and Massey (2004) found that callers identifiable as Black were systematically
discriminated against relative to those identifiable as White in housing
inquiries, controlling for the socioeconomic status of the caller. The primary
exception to this effect was for Black neighborhoods. Blacks were more
likely than Whites to gain access to areas that already had high concentrations
of Blacks. Thus, institutional discrimination, along with individual discrimination,
tends to deny Blacks access to the more affluent neighborhoods, which are
much more readily available to Whites. Due to past and present institutional discrimination
in housing and mortgage processes, neighborhoods are segregated
and mortgages go to largely White neighborhoods, which only perpetuates the
problem.
108 Henkel, Dovidio, and Gaertner
The history of racial disparities in income and wealth and the influence of
institutional discrimination have had a significant influence on housing patterns
in New Orleans. New Orleans currently ranks 29th out of 318 metropolitan areas
examined in terms of the extent of neighborhood racial segregation (CensusScope,
2006), and the highest concentrations of Blacks have been in poorer areas. In addition,
as Laura Bush observed, in New Orleans poor Black neighborhoods were
on lower, undesirable, cheaper land that was particularly vulnerable to flooding.
As a function of where they lived, when Hurricane Katrina hit, many Black people
in New Orleans were already in a position to be disproportionately affected by
the disaster. For example, HUD-funded public housing units above Feret Street
West, which were occupied largely by Blacks, and New Orleans East were also
on lower ground more vulnerable to flooding than higher, more desirable neighborhoods.
Even areas that Blacks considered attractive locations within the city,
such as New Orleans East and the Lower Ninth Ward, were at environmental risk.
New Orleans East is home to middle income Blacks who left the urban center of
New Orleans in the 1960s and 1970s to build affordable homes in this area. The
homes were affordable because they were built on slabs and were located 2.5 to
4.0 feet below sea level. The Lower Ninth Ward is a neighborhood of primarily
modest houses, often the location of choice of musicians and multi-generational
Black families of the metropolitan area. It is situated in close proximity to an
industrial canal, which posed particular health risks during the flood. This neighborhood
was devastated by Hurricanes Betsy and Rita, as well as by Hurricane
Katrina.
In summary, the result of the institutional discrimination in New Orleans as
outlined here is multifaceted. Because of discriminatory housing and mortgage
policies and practices, Blacks tended to live in more environmentally vulnerable
areas of the city. The discrepancies in socioeconomic status were exacerbated by
discrimination in the labor market, which on the whole prevented Blacks from
gaining jobs, specifically ones of higher status, and prevented acquisition of material
resources, such as personal cars, that would have enabled them to evacuate
New Orleans for safer areas as Hurricane Katrina approached. When evacuation
orders were announced, a disproportionate number of Blacks in the areas most
at-risk lacked the resources to leave the city. ?Many of them were people without
automobiles,? explained Marc Morial, former mayor of New Orleans and now the
president and chief executive officer of the National Urban League. They were
?people who couldn?t afford a hotel room, who may have had no choice but to
remain. And that means that the people who remain in New Orleans are disproportionately
poor people, disproportionately African-American? (Ross, 2005). Past
and recent institutional discrimination on the basis of race thus contributed to the
particular vulnerability of the Black population of New Orleans to a disaster like
Hurricane Katrina.
Racism and Katrina 109
Subtle Bias and Response to Hurricane Katrina
The pattern of decision making, or lack of immediate responsiveness that characterized
the official response in the aftermath of Katrina, also reflects the kinds of
subtle biases associated with aversive racism. Given that Blacks were disproportionately
affected by the storm and flooding, any sluggishness and disorganization
on the part of government officials also disproportionately affected Black victims
of the disaster. Michael Brown, then the head of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), learned about the starving crowds at the New
Orleans Convention Center from news media, rather than through official means
(CNN, 2005). In addition, no large-scale deliveries of supplies arrived at the
Convention Center until midday on September 2nd, four days after Kat