Social Economis and Discrimination

8/3/2019 Social Economis and Discrimination

1/11

Socioeconomic Discrimination 1

Running head: SOCIOECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION

Take Home Final Exam

On the Covert Salience of Socioeconomic Discrimination

Moran He

The Pennsylvania State University

On the Covert Salience of Socioeconomic Discrimination


2/11


In the social justice discourse, racial and ethnic prejudice has received considerable attention.

The important element of social class has been largely excluded from social and psychological

studies. In this opinion paper, I argue that people are more likely to be discriminated based on

their socioeconomic status (SES) than other biological and basic social status variables such as

race, ethnicity, gender, and disability status. Specifically, economic discrimination is

structuralized in the system of education, health care, court, and so on as well as individually

expressed in peoples everyday life (Pincus, 2000).

Empirical Findings

Education. Structured discrimination on the basis of family income continues to persist in

the U.S. education system. The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance (ACSFA,

2006) investigated the college access and attrition rates of low- and moderate-income, college-

qualified high school graduates based on the analysis of data collected by the Education

Department, primarily through the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1998, the

Education Longitudinal Study of 2002, and the National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey.

ACSFA reported that 1.4 million to 2.4 million bachelors degrees will be lost this decade as

financial concerns prevent academically qualified students from the lowest income bracket from

attending college. Among 8th graders in 1998, only 16 percent of low-income students attained a

bachelors degree by the year 2000.

Another analysis of three decades of data from national samples of entering college freshmen

reveals that American higher education is more socioeconomically stratified today than at any

time during the past three decades (Astin & Oseguera, 2004). Astin and Oseguera specifically

examined the access to elite institutions among students from the lower socioeconomic strata.

By 2000, high-income students represented 55 percent of the entering first-year students in elite


3/11


institutions, compared to the 13 percent representation of low-income students. In addition,

standard tests such as Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SATS) and AP tests are class-biased because

students who attend poorly funded schools in poor neighborhoods are less likely to learn and

prepare for the tests (Chancer & Watkins, 2006).

Attempting to testify in court about the psychological and academic impact of structural

economic discrimination on working-class students who attending plaintiff schools ofWilliams v.

California, Fine and her colleagues (2004) conducted focus group interviews with 101 poor and

working-class youth from one elementary, one middle, and nine high schools in California. The

interviewees reported structural disrepair, high rates of unqualified teachers, high teacher

turnover rates, and inadequate instructional materials in the schools. The evidence suggested

that these schools not only systematically under-educated poor and working-class youth, and

youth of color, but they taught working-class students a civic lesson to learn to feel powerless,

alienated, shameful, angry and betrayed (p. 2218). They reported that some students had tried

to speak out about these discriminative structures in school, only to be ignored again.

Similarly, studies have compared the access to educational and technological resources

among different age, gender, family income, and ethnicity groups. For instance, Calvert and her

colleagues (2005) found that families with higher incomes and higher education levels were

more likely to own computers and to have Internet access from home, which were perceived

more favorably for childrens learning. The foregoing evidence has suggested that the working

poor are denied the best educational resources, the best educational experience, and thus the best

graduate study and employment opportunities.

Health Care. Research in social studies has historically documented the disparities in

medical treatment in the U.S. Numerous studies have examined variables including age, race


4/11


and ethnicity, gender, and disability as determinants of the perceived discrimination in the health

care system (e.g., LaVeist, Rolley, & Diala, 2003; Tello et al., 2005). Among these variables,

financial barriers have significantly limited the access to care and access to information for

patients of the working class. Additionally, health care providers bias and stereotypes based on

patients socioeconomic status partially account for differential treatment and assessment (Van

Ryn & Burke, 2000).

Empirical evidence also suggests that differences in socioeconomic status are critical to the

racial disparities in health care. For instance, Becker and Newsom (2003) reported on findings

from a qualitative study of 60 middle-income and low-income African Americans who had one

or more chronic illnesses. The main objective of their study was to compare satisfaction with

health care by patients categorized as low income with those categorized as middle income. The

respondents ranged from those who were middle class, worked as professionals, were home

owners, and had medical insurance to those who were poor and unemployed, lived in public

housing, and had no medical insurance. Becker and Newsom concluded that, compared to

middle-income patients, low-income patients spent much greater portions of time dealing with

the health care bureaucracy. All but eight percent of the low-income patients saw their health

care as being second-rate. In addition, a higher level of mistrust was reported by low-income

respondents who questioned whether various health encounters were signs of discrimination. A

few unemployed, uninsured respondents reported that they felt they were treated like second-

class citizens. They identified discriminative encounters including physician reluctance to try

different medications or treat a condition more aggressively, indifferent care, and waiting for

hours in emergency rooms to be seen.


5/11


Similar pattern of socioeconomic discrimination persists in womens health care. Using

nationally representative date on adult women from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey,

Sambamoorthi and McAlpine (2003) assessed whether differences in socioeconomic status may

explain racial and ethnic differences in the use of preventive services among women of different

age groups. The results suggested that low socioeconomic status, lack of insurance, and lack of a

usual source of care caused significant barriers to preventive care for adult women across racial

groups.

Legal System. When members of the upper class have predominated over the working poor

in politics, the every content of law and the jury system are likely to be discriminative against the

poor and working class (Chancer & Watkins, 2006). For example, gun control legislations in

many states in the 1990s indicated a contemporary intent to keep guns away from lower

socioeconomic groups (Funk, 1995). Funk further explained that setting a high minimum price

or minimum melting-point for handguns deprived the poor, especially the non-White poor, of the

right to bear arms for self-preservation whereas they are more likely to become the victims of

violence.

Fukurai (1996) studied the discrimination in jury selection based on criteria such as race,

ethnicity, and social class positions. In this study, community research survey was sent to more

than 1,000 potential jurors randomly selected from a California County master key list. The

dichotomous probit analyses revealed that prospective jurors in lower social classes were

consistently underrepresented in most federal and state court jury pools and venires. In contrast,

there was a significant overrepresentation of minority jurors who had greater annual incomes and

jobs of higher prestige (co-efficient of -.151 and -.016 for income and occupation, respectively).

Fukurai concluded from the findings that jurors social class status (e.g., occupational prestige,


6/11


annual income, and managerial authority at work place) are important determinants of

discriminations in jury selection, even more so than the racial and ethnic backgrounds of

potential jurors.

Neighborhood. Low-income persons are also discriminated against in middle- or upper-class

neighborhoods. Concerns about depreciating property values, increasing crime rates, and lack of

pride and decency have long been cited as reasons for objection to having low-income persons

moving into middle- or upper-class neighborhoods (Kirby, 1999). It is not clear whether such

class prejudice is just a cover-up for racial discrimination. Kirby conducted two quantitative

studies on the effect of income source and race on the objection to potential neighbors among

homeowners and college students. The purpose of the studies were to determine whether race

and class interacted or functioned separately and whether one variable was more primary than

the other in determining the expressed attitudes. In both studies, African American, European

American, and Hispanic American participants were asked to express their race and economic

class prejudice toward prospective new neighbors described in vignettes. Cross-factor ANOVA

analyses of the data generated significant evidence that people openly and without

compunction used economic class as a factor in making judgments of others, independent of the

race of the described person in the vignettes (p.1508). Kirby pointed out that, there was a clear

distinction between class bias and race bias. She further contended that class, and not race, was

the primary characteristic of prejudice. She also questioned the assertion that, in the United

States, race was still more influential than class.

Self-Perceived Prejudice. Kuran and McCaffery (2004) conducted 749 telephone interviews

and 1,045 web surveys to investigate peoples perceptions of discrimination beyond the domains

of race and ethnicity. They found that people considered discrimination based more often on


7/11


socioeconomic status than on ethnicity. For instance, results of the web survey indicated that

53.7 percent of the respondents reported of having been victimized infrequently or frequently by

socioeconomic discrimination, as in contrast to the 34.9 percent of the respondents who reported

ethnic discrimination. The same pattern was confirmed when an analysis controlled for

respondent characteristic variables including age, gender, race, and level of education. Similar to

the results of the abovementioned studies, the findings of this study contrasted with the far

greater attention received by ethnic discrimination.

Still other empirical studies have examined the socioeconomic discrimination that exists in

the media and the produce aisle in supermarket (e.g., Sizemore & Milner, 2004; Topolski et al.,

2003). The interplay of economic discrimination and discrimination based on disability might be

one of the few areas of prejudice studies that have not received much attention.

Discussion

The empirical findings, cited herein, certainly speak to the pervasive existence of the

socioeconomic discrimination, at the institutional, structural, and individual level. Therefore, I

contend that socioeconomic discrimination is more salient than other types of discrimination in

many domains of our personal and social life. But a question remains to be answered, Is it the

more primary source of discrimination than other race- or gender-related sources? The question

is difficult to clarify because African Americans, Non-White Hispanic Americans, and women

constitute the majority of the population living with low socioeconomic status and poverty.

Consequently, discrimination, when its origin is economic, is addressed in terms of race and

gender. Another question to ask is, Can we deal away with the racial or gender discrimination

without dealing with the economic piece? Most probably not. Yet, it seems that addressing the

ideological foundation of discrimination is more convenient, less radical, and thus is more


8/11


favored, and more engaging than changing the economic infrastructure of the nation. I believe

that the primary problem of African American people is not about color but about poverty.

There are sound reasons to expand discrimination studies beyond color.

Likewise in the realm of counseling, when working with the minority population, it is

important for me to understand the interaction of different origins of discrimination, not to ignore

the powerful effect of economic discrimination, and not to make assumptions based on the

visibility of color, sex, and disability. Liu et al. (2004) presented an insightful framework to

understand social class in counseling, a case analysis, and implications for work with clients

from the working class. I learned from this article the importance to be aware of my own bias

against the poor and understand how the internalized classism might affect low SES clients.

In addition, the traditional counseling theories offered by training programs were developed

out of class bias as a result of the invisibility of working-class people in the utilization of the

services and in the creation of knowledge. More often, counselors are left to their own to get to

know the clients with low socioeconomic status and to understand their worldview. I need to

develop sensitivity to financial, familiar pressures the clients face. In college counseling

particularly, I need to be aware of the challenges that students from low socioeconomic families

might face as they go to college and start their journey of moving upward to the middle class.

They might need to pick up a new way of talking, making sense, and to redefine relationship

with family and friends. Along the same line, the traditional assessment may not be hastily

applied to the working poor until I have gained insight into their manner of life.


9/11


References

Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. (2006).Mortgaging our future: How

financial barriers to college undercut Americas global competitiveness. Washington, D.

C.: Author.

Astin, A. W., & Oseguera, L. (2004). The declining equity of American higher education.

Review of Higher Education, 27 (3), 321-342.

Becker, G., & Newsom, E. (2003). Socioeconomic status and dissatisfaction with health care

among chronically ill African Americans. American Journal of Public Health, 93 (5), 742-

748.

Calvert, S. L. (2005). Age, ethnicity, and socioeconomic patterns in early computer use.

American Behavioral Scientist, 48 (5), 590-607.

Chancer, L. S., & Watkins, B. X. (2006). Gender, race, and class: An overview. Malden, MA:

Blackwell Publishing.

Fine, M., Burns, A., Payne, Y. A., & Torre, M. E. (2004). Civic lessons: The color and class of

betrayal. Teachers College Record, 106 (11), 2193-2223.

Fukurai, H. (1996). Race, social class, and jury participation: New dimensions for evaluating

discrimination in jury service and jury selection.Journal of Criminal Justice, 24 (1), 71-88.

Funk, T. M. (1995). Gun control and economic discrimination: The melting-point case-in-point.

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 85 (3), 764-806.

Kirby, B. J. (1999). Income source and race effects on new-neighbor evaluations.Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 29 (7), 1497-1511.

Kuran, T., & McCaffery, E. J. (2004). Expanding discrimination research: Beyond ethnicity and

to the web. Social Science Quarterly, 85 (3), 713-730.


10/11


LaVeist, T. A., Rolley, N. C., & Diala, C. (2003). Prevalence and patterns of discrimination

among U.S. health care consumers.International Journal of Health Services, 33 (2), 331-

344.

Liu, W. M. et al. (2004). A new framework to understand social class in counseling: The social

class worldview model and modern classism theory.Journal of Multicultural Counseling

and Development, 32, 96-121.

Pincus, F. L. (2000).Discrimination comes in many forms: Individual, institutional, and

structural. In M. Adams et al. (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice, pp. 31-35.

New York: Routledge.

Sambamoorthi, U., & McAlphine, D. D. (2003). Racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and access

disparities in the use of preventive services among women. Preventive Medicine: An

International Journal Devote to Practice and Theory, 37 (5), 475-484.

Sizemore, D. S., & Milner, W. T. (2004). Hispanic media use and perceptions of discrimination:

Reconsidering ethnicity, politics, and socioeconomics. The Sociology Quarterly, 45 (4),

765-784.

Tello, J. et al. (2005). A census-based SES index as a tool to examine the relationship between

mental health services use and deprivation. Social Science and Medicare, 61(10), 2096-

2105.

Topolski, B. et al. (2003). Grape of wrath: Discrimination in the produce aisle.Analysis of Social

Issues and Public Policy, 3 (1), 111-119.

Van Ryn, M., & Burke, J. (2000). The effect of patient race and socio-economic status on

physicians perception of patients. Social Science and Medicare, 50, 813-828.


11/11


Documents

Social Economis and Discrimination