Journal Article 8.1 Harkness, S. K. (2016). Discrimination in lending markets: Status and the intersections of gender and race. Social Psychology Quarterly, 79(1), 81–93. doi:10.1177/0190272515623459
Abstract: Research documents that lenders discriminate between loan applicants in traditional and peer-to-peer lending markets, yet we lack knowledge about the mechanisms driving lenders’ behavior. I offer one possible mechanism: When lenders assess borrowers, they are implicitly guided by cultural stereotypes about the borrowers’ status. This systematically steers lenders toward funding higher status groups even when applicants have the same financial histories. In an experimental test, I examine how applicants’ demographic characteristics combine to alter lenders’ status assessments and, thereby, lenders’ decisions in an artificial peer-to-peer lending market. Participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk evaluated a series of loan applicants whose gender (female or male) and race (black or white) were manipulated. The results demonstrate that applicants’ gender and race significantly affect lenders’ funding decisions because they alter lenders’ status beliefs about the applicants. This study provides experimental evidence that status is a likely mechanism driving lending discrimination
Learning Objective: 8.2: Describe the difference between prejudice and discrimination.
Summary: Harkness demonstrates the structural and discriminating mechanisms within banking systems that stereotype and exclude applicants on the basis of race and gender.

Journal Article 8.2: Bonilla-Silva, E., & Dietrich, D. (2011). The sweet enchantment of color-blind racism in Obamerica. ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 634(1), 190–206. doi:10.1177/0002716210389702
Abstract: It has become accepted dogma among whites in the U.S. that race is no longer a central factor determining the life chances of Americans. In this article, the authors counter this myth by describing how the ideology of color-blind racism works to defend and justify the contemporary racial order. The authors illustrate three basic frames of this ideology, namely, abstract liberalism, cultural racism, and minimization of racism. The authors then examine research that has empirically shown the effects of color-blind racism on whites’ reactions to Hurricane Katrina, among whites who have adopted children of color, and in America’s elite law schools. Finally, the authors examine how the election of Barack Obama is not an example of America becoming a “post-racial” country but reflects color-blind racism. The authors argue that the Obama phenomenon as a cultural symbol and his political stance and persona on race are compatible with color-blind racism. The authors conclude with the prognosis that, under the Obama administration, the tentacles of color-blind racism will reach even deeper into the crevices of the American polity.
Learning Objective: 8.4: Outline effects of prejudice, racism, and discrimination on minority and dominant groups.
Summary: The authors explore the fallacy behind notions of a post-racial America and discuss how these views could be exacerbating race relations in our society.

Journal Article 8.3: Roscigno, V. J., & Wilson, G. (2014). Privatization and racial inequality. Contexts, 13(1), 72–74. doi:10.1177/1536504214522014
Abstract: Sociologists Vincent J. Roscigno and George Wilson discuss workplace “reforms” that undermine public sector workers’ rights.
Learning Objective: 8.5: Describe efforts to reduce racial and ethnic inequality at the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels of analysis.
Summary: The application of business models to nearly all aspects of our social lives have resulted in a downturn in workplace protections and benefits that further add to increases in racial inequalities.