Sheldon Eakins:

Welcome, advocates, to another episode of the Leading Equity Podcast, a podcast that focuses on supporting educators with the tools and resources necessary to ensure equity at their schools. Today, I'm very excited because we're talking about a topic that I'd love to talk about, diversity, training and the work that happens or doesn't happen with regards to the training. Before we get into today's topic, I'd love to introduce our special guest, which is Jessica Nordell, the author of The End of Bias: A Beginning, how we eliminate unconscious bias and create a more just world. So without further ado, Jessica, thank you so much for joining us today.

Jessica Nordell:

Thank you so much for having me.

Sheldon Eakins:

Pleasure is always mine. I'm really excited to talk about this, but before we get into it, could you share a little bit about yourself and what you currently do?

Jessica Nordell:

Absolutely. I'm a science writer and journalist, and for the last 10 or 15 years, I've been covering issues related to bias, prejudice and discrimination. And several years ago, I was really having this nagging question, which is journalists focus on problems. We expose wrongdoing, we prove that there was a problem that someone was doing the wrong thing, and we don't focus as much on how to fix it. And so I had this question, this kind of burning question, which was, okay, we've demonstrated that unexamined bias is pervasive across education, healthcare, the workplace, criminal justice, it's pervasive. What actually changes people's behavior? This was my question. Where do we have data that shows that a particular approach has had a measurable impact on the way people are operating or the way an organization functions or the way a culture operates? And so that was really the motivation for this book. I was looking to see what actually changes people. And so I spent about six years on this quest to try to find examples and studies and stories from around the world that showed what actually makes a dent in this problem that is so consequential.

Sheldon Eakins:

I got you. Well, I want to know. What changes people? So when you talk about the researches you've done, and I do a lot of training. I do a lot of diverse, equity, inclusion training, a lot of the audience there in some sort of role that might deal with that as well. And I know we have a lot of independent contractors and consultants that are listening as well. And I remember having a conversation with Dr. Pedro Noguera in regards to implicit bias, and his take was he has not found implicit bias training as effective, as opposed to teaching the audience about strategies regarding implicit bias. So I want to get your take on that. What are your thoughts on implicit bias training or even diversity training, if you want to go a little bit broader? I want to get your take.

Jessica Nordell:

Yeah, it's such a good question. We could talk about this for so many hours. So the kind of concept of implicit bias, which is that we have these automatic responses that are conditioned by culture that are outside of our awareness sometimes, or maybe even outside of our control, has been around since the '90s. And as a result of this kind of insight that implicit bias is this construct in our minds that's influencing our behavior, there have been a number of approaches developed to try to actually shift the implicit bias itself and there are dozens of different strategies that have been attempted. And the way these are evaluated is through the implicit association test, typically.

               And what they've found is that even if these approaches shift that response on the implicit association test, it tends to go back to baseline within 24 hours. And so there's this idea that implicit bias is sort of paradoxically elastic. It can be moved around, but it comes back to its original state. So the goal of actually shifting someone's response to an implicit association test has not born very much fruit. So then there's this question about broader diversity training or anti-biased training that's more about strategies. And there is some interesting research that suggests that you can shift people's behavior, even if maybe you're not changing the implicit associations themselves.

Sheldon Eakins:

So the research you're finding is you can change the behavior, but you can't necessarily change the implicit bias piece. Is that what I heard?

Jessica Nordell:

That seems to be what the research is suggesting, which is really interesting because it's kind of like, okay, we have these maybe associations and stereotypes that have been conditioned over decades because we live in a racist, sexist culture, and those associations are pretty sticky, but we can do other things that cause people to override those associations and behave in a way that's more aligned with their values.

Sheldon Eakins:

Interesting. So I've heard a lot of pushback. For those who aren't familiar, implicit association tests out of Harvard University with Dr. Anthony Greenwald and Dr. [inaudible 00:06:01], and I hope I'm pronouncing her name correctly. But I've seen a lot of pushback regarding the test itself because you had to select rather quickly your choices, your options. If you haven't taken tests, I definitely do recommend that you do. But I like what you said as far as, yeah, so I noticed wow, I'm pretty biased. And then that's as far as it goes, or within 24 hours, you really haven't changed. And so even when I do training on implicit bias, I always tell folks, I said, "Listen, first of all, I still have biases. We all do. As your trainer, I have biases. We're going to spend an hour, we're going to spend 90 minutes, half day, whatever the training's going to look like, but at the end of the day, there's still work that you're going to need to do after this because I'm not necessarily going to change your," like you said, "Behaviors from this session that we have."

               So I guess the next question that I have, Jessica, is okay, we do some implicit bias awareness, self-awareness, those kind of things. What's next in that process if we really want to change those behaviors?

Jessica Nordell:

So there are a couple of interesting approaches that have had some rigorous testing to see whether they're actually changing people's behavior. And I think that's important because often when trainings happen, the way they're evaluated is more in the form of a survey about how people feel, if they feel like they've learned something, which is good information to have, but what we really want is to see if it's changing people's behavior in a positive direction. And so what I was really looking for were trainings that were evaluating that, that were evaluating how people actually show up in the world and interact with people.

               So there's an approach developed out of the university of Wisconsin, which has some promising results. So the idea behind this training is that it looks at bias as a habit, as this kind of cultural habit that we develop and practice over time. And it becomes so kind of automatic and spontaneous, our habitual reactions, that we might not notice we're doing them and they can totally conflict with our values. And so that's kind of the frame for this training. And because it looks at bias as a habit, the approach it takes uses the principles from cognitive behavior therapy, which is also used to change people's habits, different kind of habits usually. And so there are kind of three dimensions of this training. There is awareness, motivation and strategies, which you alluded to earlier.

               And so the awareness part is really arming people with the knowledge about how bias works and that they themselves can potentially express it even if they think of themselves as fair minded people. Motivation to tackle it, which consists of really laying out the stakes of the problem and why this is so consequential and the harms that it causes in society and individuals. And then strategies. Okay, now that you are aware that you can potentially be perpetuating bias and you understand how important and consequential it is, here are some strategies that you can try. And those strategies include things like taking the perspective of the other person, trying to imagine what it's like to be that other person. Trying to imagine situational reasons for a particular behavior, rather than jumping to the conclusion that that's just who that person is and they're fulfilling a stereotype. Connecting more with people across social differences, getting to know a wider variety of different kinds of people. Those are some of the strategies that are proposed.

               And so what's interesting is they did a cluster randomized test of this. So with STEM departments at a university, they matched similar STEM departments, gave some of them the training and some of them not. And this one was focused on gender bias. And what they found was that the STEM departments that received the gender bias training later hired more women as new faculty. So it showed that behavior change.

Sheldon Eakins:

So they were aware that they didn't have enough gender or diversity when it comes to gender and so they intentionally, because they were aware of their biases with their hiring practices, they intentionally hired more women onto their staff.

Jessica Nordell:

That appears to be what happened. Yeah. I mean, we know that some departments received this training and others didn't, and the ones that received the training hired more women compared to the ones that didn't. And because it was a really carefully designed randomized trial, you can kind of tease out that that was caused by the training and it wasn't caused by some other sort of random event that was happening.

Sheldon Eakins:

Okay. Okay. Thank you for that. That's good data to know about. So it does sound like implicit association tests or implicit bias training tests and things like that do work, but you have to be willing, as an individual, to actually change those behaviors. The reason why I'm saying this, because I see a lot of people that go to these trainings that are mandatory and they're coming in close minded. And I guess the question that I have next then is how willing does someone or open minded should someone be to enter into these spaces for these trainings to get that first part, which is that self-awareness, and then to move into the behavior practices?

Jessica Nordell:

That's a really important question. And if we look at the difference between mandatory trainings and voluntary trainings, the research shows that there's a better effect when it's a voluntary training than when it's a mandatory training. So this is research done by some sociologists named Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev, who looked at 30 years of diversity training data in the corporate world. And they looked at companies that had introduced a variety of different kinds of diversity initiatives and then they looked at the makeup of management before and after the initiative. And what they found was that when diversity trainings were mandatory, that actually had a negative effect on the proportion of women and people of color, underrepresented minorities, in management.

Sheldon Eakins:

Why is that?

Jessica Nordell:

The hypothesis that the researchers suggest is that there's this backlash effect, that managers don't want to be forced to do something and they kind of resent it and then it comes out in this backlash way.

Sheldon Eakins:

Okay. Now, I've seen that.

Jessica Nordell:

You have sometimes?

Sheldon Eakins:

Sometimes when I'll do a training and whoever I'm working with, and I always ask, "Is this a mandatory or is this voluntary?" Because you get two different groups of people as well. So you get those preaching to the choir sessions with the voluntary folks versus you're going to get a different set of folks that maybe there might be a higher population of resistance or they don't have the buy-in, and like you said, they just feel forced to go to the, "I got another PD. Oh it's on diversity." And my experience, especially working with white educators, it's, what kind of diversity training is this going to be? Is this going to be a training that's going to make me feel bad or feel guilty or feel uncomfortable? Am I feeling like I'm going to be blamed for stuff that I had absolutely nothing to do or my ancestors? Whatever it is. These are the type of thoughts or comments that I'll see or people will bring to me when it comes to these type of trainings. So I'm glad that you brought that piece up.

Jessica Nordell:

Yes. And I think this would be such a ripe area of research because I think you need two totally different approaches when you have the people who want to be there because they feel like they want to live out their values, they want to be on a certain path of equity, and people who are offended and feel like, why am I being punished for something I didn't have any control over? There needs to be a different approach for that group and I would love to see research directed at that group, specifically how we actually change the behavior of folks who are not on board already. Because what you're describing is exactly what I've found too. In these voluntary trainings, you see a lot of women and a lot of people of color.

               And in fact, there was another really big study of a kind of habit model of training that was done at a large corporation. I think it was 3,000 employees. It was another randomized controlled trial where some people got the training and some people didn't. And it had those elements of motivation and awareness and strategies. And this is super interesting. What they found was that it had an effect on people's behavior, but it mostly had an effect on the behavior of people who belonged to the group that was being discussed. So the gender focused training had a big effect on how women acted toward other women. It made them more motivated to nominate a woman later on to mentor her for coffee. Similarly, one that was focused on race had the biggest effect on members of historically marginalized racial groups and made them more likely to want to nominate someone from those groups to mentor. So it's really interesting. Maybe one of the effects that these trainings have is it motivates and activates people who are already kind of on that path.

Sheldon Eakins:

So is that effective then? If the people that are actually wanting to do the work are the people that are voluntarily showing up for these trainings, is that as effective as people going to trainings where those are the folks that really need to change, but it's forced training, is that effective?

Jessica Nordell:

I mean, that's a great question. I think, not to fall back on kind of the academic answer, but more research needs to be done. I think we need to do more research to figure out what's really going on. Because a lot of these trainings are not evaluated at all so we don't really know. They could be making things better for some folks, could be making things worse or maybe things aren't changing. We don't really know. So I think the more data we can gather on the effect and how these trainings are actually affecting behavior in that workplace or in that school system, the better we'll be able to answer that question.

Sheldon Eakins:

I got you. Now, I read a book called Contagious by, oh my gosh, John Berger, Jonah Berg, I think, years ago, when it first came out, and it was really eye-opening for me. It talks about what people kind of latch onto and strategies to ... Because I was really looking at advocacy work and I was just trying to find some additional strategies. And one of the things that the book talked about was offering menus or options. So for example, going back to the mandatory training, and I ask folks that I'm working with, I say, "Are there multiple training opportunities for people?" So for example, if I say, "Okay, folks, we have three PDs this year and they're all centered around diversity, choose at least one of these PDs."

               So when you have that resistance, when you have those individuals that say, "I don't want to go to training, I don't want to go any diversity training," but you have a higher chance of getting some buy-in from those individuals when they feel like they have choices. So even though there is a mandatory training that you have to go to at least one, but knowing that, oh, I can choose this one on teaching strategies, or I can choose this one on discipline, or I can choose this one on leadership or something like that, that creates that buy-in or better opportunities for buy-in. However, it's still not a guarantee, but at least you're giving options as opposed to saying, "Okay, you have one training that you have to go to, and this is the training. Be there at such and such time."

Jessica Nordell:

I love that idea. I think it would be fantastic to do some research and see if that works. It sounds like, at least in other areas, that sense of agency is a good way of getting buy-in. So that would be a fascinating thing to look at. I mean, I'm curious, have you had an opportunity to try that out and do you notice a difference in buy-in when people have a chance to choose?

Sheldon Eakins:

So I don't have data, after survey reports or anything that says, oh, this was a better route. However, from my experience working with groups, it is more effective when it's a mandatory training. So I'll say, "Hey, I can give you three or four different sessions at different times or whatever while we're working together, and if you want to have someone, your staff or whoever, take one or two of these sessions," that seems to work better than to, again, just show up for that one training that everyone has to go to. Again, you're going to get a nice mixture of folks that want to be there versus folks that don't want to be there. And then when it comes to participation in the Zoom call or in live trainings, you're going to get more hands raised and more comments made in the chat and all that stuff is going to come from those folks who want to be there as opposed to those who typically don't want to be there. So that's been my experience

Jessica Nordell:

That's fascinating. I think that could be a really good way of kind of dealing with that challenge of the fact that the people who maybe need the training the most are the ones that are going to be the most resistant.

Sheldon Eakins:

Yeah. And I always say that in my training. I say, "Listen, you can look in your screen, you can look in this room, and I can guarantee there's at least one person that you can think of that should be here that's not here." So I'll always say, "How do you spread what you learned? How do you teach? Because if you're at a dinner table and you hear a conversation happen and you're like, 'What the hell did they just say?' Oh, I remember what Dr. Eakins said in his training the other day. Now's an opportunity for me to say something." But I don't know if they would've done that had they not had those trainings that are there. Again, but you have to be willing to do the work.

Jessica Nordell:

Exactly. Yeah, the speaking up piece is really important and that is actually something else that that first training that I mentioned, the Wisconsin training, also looked at. They did a racial bias focused version of this training and they found that students who had done the training were more likely to speak up about racism two years later after they had taken this training.

Sheldon Eakins:

Two years later?

Jessica Nordell:

Yeah.

Sheldon Eakins:

So they're still about that life two years later. So it wasn't a one and done.

Jessica Nordell:

Right. Right. And that point that you're bringing up about sort of setting an example, I think is another really good way of not preaching only to the choir, but spreading it to people who don't want to be there or didn't show up to the voluntary training because there's this whole idea of social norms and the fact that we are so influenced by what we see people around us doing, that even if a person didn't go to the training and even if they're not necessarily totally on board with these ideas, if someone they admire is, if someone that they admire who's popular in that group is behaving in these new ways, more equitable ways, speaking up more, what have you, that is going to start to influence their behavior. So that's another way of kind of spreading these ideas even to people who didn't volunteer to participate.

Sheldon Eakins:

I got you. All right. Let's shift gears just a little bit because the title of your book is The End of Bias. Now, if I'm just looking at the cover and I'm like, oh, this is all I need so that bias will end, is that the message that you are bringing to the audience as the reader? Yeah, this is how to end the bias. Or is it something else?

Jessica Nordell:

So the subtitle of the book is A Beginning.

Sheldon Eakins:

Okay. Okay. Okay. I intentionally left that out just to see how you were going to respond.

Jessica Nordell:

So of course one book is not going to end centuries, and in some cases thousands of years, of racist and patriarchal thinking, and not to mention ableism and religious discrimination and fat bias and all of these different kinds of bias. But what I hope that this book can do is give people tools to start the journey wherever they are in their own lives, in their own communities, their own organizations. Because what I do in the book is tell stories and highlight research about approaches that actually have been shown to shift things for the better and to change people's behavior.

Sheldon Eakins:

Okay. So this not the step one, step two, bias is over.

Jessica Nordell:

I mean, I wish. That'd be awesome. We would all have a lot of free time to do other things then.

Sheldon Eakins:

Yeah. I would be out of a show. So that makes sense. So if I'm just brand new, let's just say I'm a first year teacher, I've never heard of implicit bias. Why should I pick up this book versus maybe someone who's, like for myself, who's had all kind of experiences when it comes to racial bias or others who are very familiar, why should they buy this book?

Jessica Nordell:

Well, if we're talking about teachers in particular, the goal, I think, of all teachers is to help their students succeed and to create positive learning experiences for students so they can thrive, not only in school, but in life, in the world as they become adults. And bias plays a really big role here, because if a teacher is expressing any kind of unexamined bias, unintentional or unconscious bias, towards students, that has a huge effect. I'm thinking about the research of Dr. Jason Okonofua, a psychologist who looks at educational disparities, and he really, I think, does an amazing job sort of capturing the way that bias can be a feedback loop.

               So if I am a teacher and I'm expressing some, say, racial stereotyping, I'm doing some racial stereotyping of a student, that student is going to start realizing that they're going to be labeled, they're going to start anticipating being labeled, fearing that kind of reaction, and that's going to cause them to start to disengage, to be less trusting, to feel like maybe they don't belong in the school. Maybe it'll cause them to act out in certain ways. And then that comes back to me as the teacher and then I start thinking, oh gosh, well maybe this student is a troublemaker. And then it goes back to the student again and it creates this really dangerous feedback loop, which ultimately can cause that student to disengage, to not want to participate, to send them in a path away from educational thriving. And so for teachers, I think it's really critical to develop a deep awareness, motivation and some strategies to combat that problem so they can help their students thrive.

Sheldon Eakins:

At the end of the day, help your students thrive. And then I think we can all agree that that's something that's important to all educators. Now, here's a question that I get a lot. A lot of folks will reach out and say, "Okay, Sheldon, I took your free implicit bias course. I read this book. I took the implicit association test. I'm working on it. I'm not perfect, but I'm working on it. However, how do I approach maybe a peer who I've noticed has done some bias type of things? Maybe there's some discrimination, maybe there's some prejudice. And again, I'm assuming that this person's well intentioned, but it's an unconscious bias that they have performed towards either myself, another student, colleague, parent, somebody within the school community." What are some approaches that you would recommend when it comes to, "Hey, I recognize someone's being biased towards another person, but I don't really know how to approach it?"

Jessica Nordell:

That's a really good question. I think that one thing that is important to keep in mind is that we all have kind of some core needs. We want to feel like we have agency over our lives. We want to feel like we're competent people who can do our jobs and fulfill the things that we want to fulfill. And we want a sense of connection and relatedness to other people. And so what I'd say is that when you confront that colleague, try to keep those things in mind. Keep in mind that this is a person who it would be helpful to stay in a relationship with to allow them to feel a sense of agency and competence.

               So I think the way that comes out in practice is instead of saying something that might feel shaming or sort of demote that person, to engage them in questions, to ask from a spirit of curiosity and love, "Can you tell me a little more about why you said that? Can we talk about that? I'd like to share how it made me feel because I value our relationship and I want us to continue to have trust and respect toward one another." The challenge, of course, is that people have so many different levels of emotional skills that they're bringing to that encounter and some people might shut down. But if it's someone who you feel like you have some relationship with and maybe you just have some basis of trust, I think it's worth approaching it in that way because then you can stay in a relationship and you're more likely to have a positive outcome.

Sheldon Eakins:

Okay. So same scenario. Now, let's say you-

Jessica Nordell:

I would be very curious to hear what you think of that [inaudible 00:30:16].

Sheldon Eakins:

Well, I got more. I got more questions. All right. All right. Let's just say I'm a teacher, I'm in school and I saw a notice that my principal was being biased towards someone else. So I approached just like you said, "Hey, I'm just curious. Can I ask you some questions about something that I heard you say earlier this morning," and then you explain what happened and how it made you feel. And then all of a sudden, that principal responds with, "Well, I didn't mean it like that," or "You need to lighten up," or-

Jessica Nordell:

You're overreacting.

Sheldon Eakins:

"You're overreacting." "I don't think it is what you thought it was," one of those kind of comments, defensive comments, basically saying, "Hey, I didn't mean anything by it. It's on you to lighten up." How would someone respond in that type of situation?

Jessica Nordell:

I think for anyone in any workplace, there is some amount of discernment that has to happen in terms of, is this a person or a situation or an organization that can change, or is this ultimately a place that I have to leave because it's harmful to me and it's not going to change? So I mean, that unfortunately is a decision that folks have to make. I wouldn't want people to stay in a situation that is causing them harm, emotional, psychological, spiritual harm. If it seems like there might be a possibility of change, however, I think this is a place where collective action can be really powerful. So instead of it just being you, the teacher, versus your principal, this might be an opportunity to band together with some other staff members, some colleagues and present a united front.

               I'm thinking of an example where this was effective in the context of gender, which was MIT. About 20 years ago, some female science faculty realized that they were being given fewer resources, less lab space, bigger teaching loads than their male colleagues. And it wasn't effective for them to individually speak out about this so they got together as a group and they systematically cataloged all of the different ways that this inequity was happening. They went around at night with measuring tapes and actually measured all of the offices and lab spaces and brought this data as a group to the administration. And because they had data and they had, I think, the power of numbers, the administration was forced to respond. And ultimately, there were a bunch of policy changes that were put in place as a consequence.

Sheldon Eakins:

Okay. So maybe establishing kind of strength in numbers situation, coming prepared with some data or some sort of support to back up what you're saying. So it can't just necessarily be about, "Hey, I felt this way, but maybe here's some stuff that actually supports how I felt." Is that what I'm hearing?

Jessica Nordell:

That can be helpful. I think, yeah, absolutely collecting information, collecting data because then it's harder to deny. It's harder to say to someone, "Well, you're just overreacting," if there's a group of teachers who are saying, "Look, these students have been suspended for X infraction and this group of students has not been suspended for the same infraction," for example.

Sheldon Eakins:

Okay. Okay. That makes a lot of sense. Jessica, I thoroughly have enjoyed this conversation and I consider you as providing a voice in leading equity. And folks, if you haven't picked up the book, I definitely recommend The End of Bias: A Beginning, how we eliminate unconscious bias and create a more just world. Jessica, I'd love for you to share maybe your final thoughts with the audience.

Jessica Nordell:

One final thought, since we've been talking on this theme of training, is that there's some really exciting research about trainings that change behavior that don't target bias. So I just wanted to mention these to your audience. So one is an approach for K-12 educators that was developed by Dr. Jason Okonofua. And his concern was disparate rates of suspension between Black and Latino students and white students. And obviously, we see really big disparities in exclusionary discipline for these groups. But what he did was really interesting. Instead of focusing on teachers biases, he had teachers participate in a training that was designed to have them recommit to their values and really bring empathy to student discipline. So he had them do kind of similar things to what we were talking about. Consider students' perspectives, imagine situational reasons for behaviors, avoiding labeling students as troublemakers. And he really had teachers go through some readings and reflections and exercises to help them sort of remember how important respect and trust are to that teacher student relationship and to helping students thrive. And what he found was that this empathy approach, which did not even mention bias, had a big effect on suspension rates. So teachers who underwent this empathy training, that group saw almost 50% reduction in suspensions over the following year, and Black and Latino students rates in particular dropped from about 12.3 to about 6%.

               So I think this is really interesting because it suggests that there's another way to deal with these biases, which is you kind of boost people's values and you really make those important and salient and that that actually then can override those biases. So if I'm really motivated to be empathic and I really am kind of thinking a lot about my values as a teacher and what my goals are, then that could actually be more powerful than those biases that I might be engaging in automatically.

Sheldon Eakins:

Got you. I love this. Well, Jessica, if we have some folks that want to connect with you, what's the best way to reach you online?

Jessica Nordell:

I would love to hear from folks. My website is www.JessicaNordell.com. You can contact me. There's a contact button on that website. Obviously, all of these ideas and more are in my book, The End of Bias: A Beginning. And yeah, happy to hear from folks and would love to hear if people try out these techniques and what the results are.

Sheldon Eakins:

Awesome. And we'll leave the links in the show notes for everyone to connect with you as well. Jessica, it has truly been a pleasure. Thank you so much for your time.

Jessica Nordell:

Thank you so much. I really enjoyed our conversation.

Are you subscribed to the podcast? If you’re not, I want to encourage you to do that today. I don’t want you to miss an episode. Click here to subscribe in iTunes!

Now if you enjoy listening to the show, I would be really grateful if you left me a review over on iTunes, too. Those reviews help other advocates find the podcast and they’re also fun for me to go in and read. Just click here to review, select “Ratings and Reviews” and “Write a Review” and let me know what your favorite part of the podcast is. Thank you!