Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Scholars commonly study bias and discrimination from the perspective of those discriminated against and, to some extent, the institutional practices that foster discrimination. The research on institutional oppression often excludes a concurrent area of discriminatory omissions. Research on privileged omissions as a discretionary bias provides a more holistic view of discretionary decisionmaking. The concept of discriminatory omissions has limited research, but this paper adds to scholarship in this critical area by providing analysis and calls upon public service practices to disrupt the unintended consequences of privileged omissions.

Keywords

discrimination omissions diversity public service racial profiling privilege

Introduction

In service-oriented fields, the implications of discretionary decisions that have a discriminatory impact have been studied through those discriminated against and, to some extent, the institutional practices that foster discrimination. Many times, in the research on racial profiling, redlining, or other forms of institutional oppression, such studies neglect a concurrent area of discriminatory omissions. While it is imperative to research oppressive practices that target individuals based on group membership, research on privileged omissions as a discretionary bias provides a more holistic view of discretionary decision-making. The discriminatory impact of “Driving While Black” is more salient when the discriminatory omissions of “Driving While White” are taken into consideration. Limiting biased profile discussions to only those discriminated against inherently overlooks the condonations granted to privileged individuals. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU, 2022) notes that discussions of racial profiling should simultaneously include discriminatory omissions, using the example of southern sheriffs sitting idly by while racists such as the Ku Klux Klan terrorized African Americans during the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. This one example of law enforcement exercising discriminatory omission of non-enforcement and protection highlighted not only the compounding consequences for African-Americans fighting for civil rights but also the lack of repercussions for those committing acts of violence. We define privileged omissions in the service-oriented fields as a derivative of discriminatory omissions, where the practice of privileged exclusion, intentionally or unintentionally, are decisions that discriminatorily impact historically marginalized groups while positively impacting historically privileged populations. The exploration of the concept and how we have come to such a definition is outlined throughout this paper, with specific attention to the consequences of inaction and the importance of accountability.

Privileged omissions in service-oriented fields involve where the discretion not to act (omission) requires as much attention as the decision to act (commission). Overall, the concept of discriminatory omissions has received limited attention, but this paper seeks to add to the area of research by introducing the concept of privileged omissions and analyzing its implications.

Historical Understanding of Discriminatory Omission

Discriminatory Omission, is not a new concept but has been part of social science research and practice as early as 1938. However, social science research has often overlooked the existence and impact of privileged omissions. One of the earliest examples where the discriminatory omission of city services prevented access to opportunity comes from a 1930s social study of Pittsburgh. The study reflected on how agency policies were impacting immigrant and Black communities through a lack of opportunities that were being identified. Klein’s (1938) social study analysis of Pittsburgh found, in part, how discriminatory practices and policies were negatively impacting marginalized groups from having opportunities for “wholesome recreation, indoor and outdoor” (p. 401). Klein (1938) notes that “parts of leisure time fields, particularly in summer camps facilities, where economic relief, health service, and group work coincide, the discriminatory omission of opportunities for Negro children is a condition bordering on disgraceful” (p. 402). This early example of the concept of discriminatory omission reflects on the policy and planning of social agencies to systematically leave out critical opportunities to specific groups based on race.

A couple of decades later, Somers and Somers (1953) applied discriminatory omissions in their study of workers’ compensation. They note that in the early 20th century, workmen’s compensation was a “pioneer American program” of social insurance that “was regarded as a hopeful symbol of progressive labor legislation” (p. 32). At the time of their study, they estimated a third of employees were not included in workman’s compensation, while millions more could discriminatorily be excluded by the employer at any time. They suggest that the discriminatory omissions of those excluded from compensation coverage are driven by “fictitious concepts of ‘hazardous employment’ used to justify” omission or limited coverage (p. 32). Those who were discriminatorily omitted were found to be those more in need of these protections, such as unorganized, unionless workers.

As in the previous two examples, the term discriminatory omissions would go on to be used in many contexts—typically in a manner that the omission further discriminates against already marginalized groups. In addition to service-oriented fields, examples from legal, educational, healthcare, and international contexts address discriminatory omissions. In a legal context, Ronald (1972) reviewed the case of due process for educational benefits of being classified “conscientious objector” by the selective service board and ordered to perform alternate service. In the discussion of due process, Ronald (1972) raises factors that should be considered, such as personal traits, especially those of individuals who are susceptible to invidious discrimination, concluding that “confronted with discriminatory omission, an ingenious judiciary might test classifications under camouflaged versions of heightened scrutiny” (p. 409). More recently, Verstraelen (2018) highlights how the Belgian courts found two provisions in the Income Tax Code unconstitutional because of a discriminatory omission. The legal approach to discrimination in the latter case is not used in a prejudicial manner according to race, age, or sex but levies a difference in discretionary decisions. Bellows (2014) looked at the legal accountability of local governments for environmental discrimination. This form of discrimination exemplifies how environmental policies can disproportionately burden older unincorporated communities, which also tend to be lower-income. In such cases, Bellows (2014) suggests that governments “allow courts to provide, in cases where a discriminatory omission is found, appropriate equitable relief that would rectify the omission” (p. 28).

On the other hand, legal discriminatory omissions have faced challenges of being able to prove such practices. Knox (1975) studied the desegregation of school districts, highlighting one example where a county in Texas had taken a “series of actions and omissions [that were] obviously segregative” (p. 541). The actions included county and state officials repeatedly proposing and implementing consolidation plans for the surrounding county that conspicuously excluded the Black district. Knox (1975) concluded that “racially discriminatory omission is more difficult to prove” because of existing state policies (p. 541).

Pane and Rocco (2012) argue that racism is legalized in the official rules of exclusionary school discipline and that teacher education programs do not sufficiently prepare White teachers to work with Black and Latino/a students in disciplinary alternative schools. They further suggest the lack of anti-racist pedagogy allows the educational curriculum to continue the “conviction of the superiority of White cultural or social norms” (Pane & Rocco, 2012, p. 111). Ultimately, the discriminatory omission of Critical Race Theory in educational programs results in “misinformed teachers [getting] involved in power struggles in the classroom unnecessarily” (Pane & Rocco, 2012, p. 111). In addition to the education curriculum, research can reflect discriminatory omissions by those conducting the studies. Ekong et al. (2021) refer to the discriminatory omission of research data along with “eccentric weighting of summary statistics bring about errors that erroneously signified the connection between public debt obligation and growth in GDP” in their study of public debt in Nigeria (p. 110).

In healthcare, examples of discriminatory omissions and their impact on vulnerable populations include HPV vaccination programs for males (Gattegno et al., 2019). In international discussions, Rostas (2010) notes how a Romanian government memo commits discriminatory omissions by highlighting criminal activity by ethnicity but excluding reference to crimes committed by other Romanian ethnic groups when addressing migration policing practices in Western Europe. Endoh (2017) looked at the issue of how to protect migrants stranded by disasters in destination countries through a case study of Japan. Endoh notes that “immigrants with murky legal or administrative status are particularly vulnerable,” with the undocumented or asylum seekers often omitted from public aid, either legally or through discriminatory omission (p. 321). Similarly, Kromm and Sturgis (2008) found the US government’s treatment of internally displaced persons in the wake of Hurricane Katrina had failed to meet the commitment under the U.N. Guiding Principles to protect the human rights of those displaced. One such example included the funding of an evacuation plan for Louisiana that relied primarily on personal vehicles, in turn creating a discriminatory omission of those who did not own cars (Kromm & Sturgis, 2008). These examples of discriminatory omissions further underscore how the concept of privileged omissions as an extension of discriminatory practices often is addressed.

Discretionary Decisions

The concept of omissions is grounded in the ability of administrators to make discretionary decisions. The power of administrative discretion has long been an area of concern for its potential for abuse and unethical practices (Leys, 1943). Morgan (1987) outlined the consequences of administrative discretions for various types of discretionary abuse: arbitrariness, irrationality, improper standards, lack of control, and harm to the client. Ultimately, Morgan (1987) suggests that rather than focusing on whether administrative discretion should be exercised, emphasis should be on making discretionary decisions better—recognizing the moral exercise of authority. As Sowa and Selden (2003) have found, administrative discretion impacts active representation in administrative agencies, and this underscores the importance of representation and the varying impact discretion has on groups of people.

A “myth” of public sector neutrality has long reverberated in how public service organizations and public servant actions make discretionary decisions with neutral impact (Portillo et al., 2020). This ethic of neutrality sees administrators as not exercising independent moral judgment but rather faithfully carrying out policy—a view that Thompson (1985) rejected in order to achieve genuine administrative ethics. Thompson notes that the ethic of neutrality “underestimates the discretion that administrators exercise. It impedes the accountability of administrators to citizens” (p. 556).

Legally, the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 set out some initial protections against administrative agency action, holding unlawful any decisions that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion” (APA, 1946). The courts have continually upheld the need and importance of administrative discretion, most recently in immigration cases (Zatz & Rodriguez, 2014). However, discretionary acts of omission continue to center on those that are negatively impacted while systematically creating a system where acts of privileged omission are allowed to proliferate.

Contextualizing Discriminatory Omissions

Discriminatory omissions are not limited to individual acts of bias but are systematized through rules and regulations. The various codes, laws, and policies that define biased treatment provide opportunities for profiling and discriminatory omissions to proliferate. For example, The Administrative Code of the City of New York Bias-Based Profiling (2022), § 14–151, states:

Bias-based profiling means an act of a member of the force of the police department or other law enforcement officer that relies on actual or perceived race, national origin, color, creed, age, immigration or citizenship status, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or housing status as the determinative factor in initiating law enforcement action against an individual, rather than an individual’s behavior or other information or circumstances that links a person or persons to suspected unlawful activity.

This equivocal definition presents a challenge because it is difficult to prove that social identity is the determining factor in initiating law enforcement action; a service agent can evade the administrative code if they only racially profile individuals breaking the law. Circumvention of policy will continue without a more comprehensive definition of biased treatment. Acknowledging privileged omissions provides a more complete view of biased treatment by taking into consideration individuals absolved of any wrongdoing because of privilege. It counteracts the justification that a profiled individual was targeted because of a rule violation when there is a record of a privileged individual being excused for the same violation.

Fryberg and Eason (2017) argue that a theory of bias and discrimination that focuses solely on “commissions”—tangible or verifiable content of people’s thoughts, feelings, and actions toward a group – “is insufficient for explaining or capturing the true nature of the prejudice and discrimination” (p. 554). They advance the notion of omissions to underscore aspects that are invisible or intentionally left out of the public consciousness in their study of Native Americans. Moreover, Fryberg and Eason (2017) note that “when people fail to recognize omissions, they tacitly accept them and thereby perpetuate the status quo” (p. 553).

To this end, discriminatory omissions are a form of invisible privilege not afforded to historically marginalized groups. Under the guise of neutrality, privileged omissions benefit the privileged praxis by condoning their inadequacies, offensive behavior, rule violations, and corruption. Because of privilege, these faults are excused; however, the same misconduct is weaponized against historically marginalized individuals as a justification for biased treatment. This interpretation of discriminatory omissions is a form of biased treatment that has a critical impact in service-oriented fields such as criminal justice, healthcare, education, counseling, and other government and nonprofit actions. The following discussion is divided into three key parts for understanding and reviewing the impact of privileged omissions: the dark figure of privileged omissions, reinforcing the status quo, and lack of accountability.

Dark Figure of Privileged Omissions

Privileged omissions are not reflected in official data and consequently remain hidden in incident records. Toldson (2019) argues that misinformed inputs, “bad stats,” will lead to a problem persisting or becoming worse, but “[g]ood data [are] comprehensive, holistic, and provide a complete picture of important issues” (p. 7). Similar to the dark figure of crime, there is a dark figure of privileged omissions because administrations have failed to prevent or change a biased practice. Skogan (1977) stated there are dimensions to the dark figure of unreported crime: “This pool of unrecorded crime has several consequences: it limits the deterrent capability of the criminal justice system, it contributes to the misallocation of police resources, it renders victims ineligible for public and private benefits, it affects insurance costs, and it helps shape the police role in society” (Skogan, 1977, p. 41). Similar to the dark figure of crime, there are consequences for not acknowledging, reporting and documenting omissions.

Neither decision-makers nor beneficiaries are likely to report privileged omissions. The decision maker may not be aware of the omission because of implicit bias, and the beneficiary may be unaware they benefited from the omission. Not reporting omissions can also be motivated by fear of reprisals and discredit. Reporting an omission would label the decision-makers as biased, unethical, and untrustworthy; it would compromise their public integrity. In addition, depending on the situation, the public would view the beneficiary as privileged, unqualified, or receiving a pardon for their wrongdoing. The repercussions of reporting privileged omissions are not limited to the individual level. If unveiled, administrations can also be stigmatized, sued, and lose the confidence of their constituents (Banaji et al., 2003). These unrecorded exceptions reinforce the status quo and do not hold decision-makers accountable for their biased practices. The lack of awareness, discussion, and research on privileged omissions exacerbate this situation. By keeping this practice out of the public eye, the administration evades the attention and scrutiny of the public.

Reinforcing the Status Quo

Privileged omissions are a method to maintain the status quo in public bureaucracies by veiling the rule violations of privileged persons and the inaction of organizations. In criminal justice, by not acknowledging privileged omissions, public administrators are guilty of status quo bias by only viewing racial profiling through the traditional discriminatory impact of those discriminated against (Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1988). When biased profiling occurs during the commission of a crime, a rule enforcer can refute a profiling accusation; however, documenting privileged omissions can reveal partiality and hold administrative authority accountable for biased profiling. The status quo is twofold—partial definitions of biased treatment and continual profiling of historically oppressed populations.

By reinforcing the status quo, decision-makers are susceptible to confirmation bias, where there is an “unconscious propensity to search for, favor, recall, and interpret information in a way that confirms their previous beliefs and hypotheses while giving disproportionately less attention to alternative possibilities” (Alsaad et al., 2018, p. 42). Overlooking privileged omissions maintains a one-sided view in our assessment of biased treatment. Moreover, confirmation bias is a primary reason privileged omissions are pervasive because decision-makers enter a situation seeking confirmation for their biases by searching for evidence to validate their beliefs (Toldson, 2019). Confirmation bias comes in many guises, and one common form is stereotyping group membership behavior (Nickerson, 1998).

Omissions also help maintain social norms and values through the social construction of rule breakers (e.g., criminals, delinquents, and perpetrators). When a member of a privileged group is repeatedly exempted from a sanction, they avoid not only punishment but also the image and stigma associated with being a rule breaker. They become a symbol of a law-abiding citizen, and consequently the biased-profiled individual becomes a symbol of a law violator. This is evident in media coverage where Black males are overrepresented in crime coverage, which leads to stereotyping and conceptual entrapment based on the social construction of the offender (Dixon & Maddox, 2005; Rome, 2004). For example, research has shown that people of color and whites use drugs at a similar rate, but people of color are more likely to be arrested, convicted, sentenced, and incarcerated (Alexander, 2010; Nunn, 2002; The Sentencing Project, 2018). Whites can evade the stigma, imagery, and consequences associated with drug use, but people of color become symbols of law violations.

Symbols define administrations and are used to legitimize the status quo (Lorinskas et al., 1985). These socially constructed identities also establish precedents for the biased treatment of different groups, and “one can perpetuate a racist practice simply by routinely following precedent” (Alexander & Stivers, 2020, p. 1476). Discriminatory omissions are a facet of an invisible justice system where discretionary decision-making affects every phase in the administration of justice (Atkins & Pogrebin, 1982).

Lack of Accountability

As Alexander and Stivers (2020) suggest, the public sector must “confront how racism has, even more insidiously, hidden itself within administrative precedents that have guided their decisions” (p. 1486). Confronting administrative precedents in part requires taking accountability for actions by decision-makers. Various definitions of accountability focus on evaluating behavior and holding a decision-maker responsible for their actions (Bovens, 2007; Hall & Ferris, 2011; Hochwarter et al., 2007; Lerner & Tetlock, 1999; Lupson & Partington, 2011; Tetlock, 1992). Many administrations utilize accountability mechanisms such as litigation, elections, public hearings, town meetings, professional oversight, appraisals, surveillance, performance standards, and media reports (Hall & Ferris, 2011; Qiu & Macnaughton, 2017). Many of these mechanisms are available and utilized in racial profiling cases; however, there are no known accountability mechanisms to assess and sanction the practice of privileged omissions. Consequently, administrators are not held responsible and democratic control is jeopardized (Overman & Schillemans, 2022). The lack of policies and insufficient record-keeping exacerbate this concern. Organizations and individuals should be held accountable for privileged omissions.

Organizational accountability predominates public administration research, but Overman and Schillemans (2022) argue that greater emphasis should be placed on individual decision-makers, leading to more accountable organizational performance. Privileged omissions are more likely to occur at the individual level, and by developing mechanisms to hold individuals accountable, organizations will benefit. Overman and Schillemans (2022) extended the psychological term of felt accountability to public administration to articulate accountability at the individual level. Hall and Ferris (2011) define felt accountability as:

An implicit or explicit expectation that one’s decisions or actions will be subject to evaluation by some salient audience(s) with the belief that there exists the potential for one to receive either rewards or sanctions based on this expected evaluation. (p. 134)

Because of the lack of attention to and reporting on privileged omissions, decision-makers will not be subject to judgment by an audience. Acknowledging privileged omissions can improve accountability because “individuals will change their behavior as a result of such mechanisms only when they anticipate future accountability to a salient account holder” (Overman & Schillemans, 2022, p. 12). Accountability impacts the decision-making process and the manner of conducting oneself. Scholars argue there is a lack of accountability in biased profiling; similarly, we contend there is no accountability in privileged omissions. With associated challenges of accountability in omissions, their continued practice will reinforce the status quo in public sector practices. In order to disrupt the circular nature of privileged omissions, the public sector requires addressing the various consequences.

Conclusion—Disrupting the Unintended Consequences

This article and the takeaways of privileged omissions open up an area of further research that is critical for further understanding in service-oriented fields. The practice of privileged omissions has been partially exemplified here through examples of law enforcement. However, the literature also has shown that public service government agencies and health and legal fields are not immune from this type of discriminatory omission. The lack of action in service fields can have dire consequences in environmental decisions, hiring practices, economics, and real estate, further creating unequal and unjust impacts on privileged and marginalized groups. These consequences intended and unintended, must be disrupted.

Debiasing strategies, a method of disruption, are “approaches and sets of actions aimed at reducing the detrimental influence of decision biases and enhanc[ing] the rationality and effectiveness of decisions” (Kaufmann et al., 2009, p. 86). There is limited research on debiasing in public administration (Nagtegaal et al., 2020); however, the literature identifies two major debiasing categories, modifying the environment and modifying the decision maker (Kaufmann et al., 2009; Nagtegaal et al., 2020; Soll et al., 2015). Modifying the environment is when the bias is inconsequential or has a limited impact (Nagtegaal et al., 2020). For instance, the “veil of darkness” hypothesis proposes that law enforcement is less likely to racially profile traffic stops when it is dark (Grogger & Ridgeway, 2006; Pierson et al., 2020). Modifying the decision-maker is done through education and anti-bias training to provide an individual with the knowledge and tools to overcome or mitigate their bias (Lilienfeld et al., 2009; Nagtegaal et al., 2020). These trainings can teach individuals about their biases and help disrupt biased profiling and discriminatory omissions.

We have presented a lens for better understanding privileged omissions. The practice of exclusion, intentionally or unintentionally, in decisions that discriminatorily impact historically marginalized groups while positively impacting historically privileged populations can best be viewed through three key aspects:

Dark Figure of Privileged Omissions— Privileged omissions are not reflected in official data and consequently remain hidden in incident records;

Reinforcing the Status Quo— Discriminatory omissions are a method to maintain the status quo in public bureaucracies by veiling the rule violations of privileged persons and the inaction of organizations, and;

Lack of Accountability— Organizations and individuals need to be held accountable for privileged omissions.

In conclusion, we find that it is critical to disrupt the unintended consequences of privileged omissions. Disrupting the circular nature of a public sector that carries out such omissions requires addressing the various consequences. As we outlined, privileged omissions are a derivative of discriminatory omissions, where the intentional or unintentional practice of exclusion from decisions that discriminatorily impact historically marginalized groups while positively impacting historically privileged populations. Overall, recognizing the existence of privileged omissions in fields of public service allows for better understanding of its impact and methods for disruption. Future studies can learn from best practices in each service field and critical failures in addressing such discriminatory omissions.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Tony Carrizales

Author Biographies

Addrain Conyers is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice and Assistant Provost for Faculty Development at Marist College. His scholarship focuses on social equity, social deviance, and inclusive teaching.

Tony Carrizales is an Associate Professor of Public Administration and Chair of the Department of Public and Nonprofit Administration at Marist College. His research interests include diversity and education in the public sector.

References

Alexander

Stivers

(2020). Racial bias: A buried cornerstone of the administrative state. Administration & Society, 52(10), 1470–1490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399720921508

Alexander

. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness (Revised edition.). The New Press.

Alsaad

Taamneh

Al-Jedaiah

M. N.

(2018). Does social media increase racist behavior? An examination of confirmation bias theory. Technology in Society, 55, 41–46.

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). (2022). Racial profiling: Definition. Retrieved August 25, 2022, from https://www.aclu.org/other/racial-profiling-definition

APA. (1946). Administrative Procedure Act. Retrieved June 5, 2023, from https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/05/01/act-pl79-404.pdf

Atkins

Pogrebin

(1982). Discretionary decision making in the administration of Justice. In Atkins

Pogrebin

(Eds.), The invisible justice system: Discretion and the law (pp. 3–15). Anderson.

Banaji

M. R.

Bazerman

M. H.

Chugh

(2003). How (un)ethical are you? Harvard Business Review, 81(12), 56–64.

Bellows

. (2014). Holding local governments accountable for environmental discrimination: The Promise of California Government Code Sec. 65008. Ecology Law Quarterly, 41, 1.

Bovens

(2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x

10.

Dixon

T. L.

Maddox

K. B.

(2005). Skin tone, crime news, and social reality judgments: Priming the stereotype of the dark and dangerous black criminal. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(8), 1555–1570. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02184.x

11.

Ekong

C. N.

Effiong

U. E.

Inyang

N. F.

(2021). Public debt and the real sector of the Nigerian economy. International Journal of Economics Commerce and Research, 9(7), 101–133.

12.

Endoh

. (2017). Surrogate guardian: Responsibility to protect migrants in disasters and responses by the Japanese state. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 18(1), 319–339.

13.

Fryberg

S. A.

Eason

A. E.

(2017). Making the invisible visible: Acts of commission and omission. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6), 554–559.

14.

Gattegno

M. V.

Vertamatti

M. A.

Bednarczyk

R. A.

Evans

D. P.

(2019). A cross-sectional survey of parental attitudes towards Human papillomavirus vaccination exclusion categories in Brazil. BMC International Health and Human Rights, 19(1), 1–9.

15.

Grogger

Ridgeway

(2006). Testing for racial profiling in traffic stops from behind a veil of darkness. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101, 878–887.

16.

Hall

Ferris

(2011). Accountability and extra-role behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 23(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-010-9148-9

17.

Hochwarter

W. A.

Ferris

G. R.

Gavin

M. B.

Perrewé

P. L.

Hall

A. T.

Frink

D. D.

(2007). Political skill as neutralizer of felt accountability—job tension effects on job performance ratings: A longitudinal investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 226–239.

18.

Kaufmann

Michel

Carter

C. R.

(2009). Debiasing strategies in supply management decision-making. Journal of Business Logistics, 30(1), 85–106.

19.

Klein

. (1938). A social study of Pittsburgh. Columbia University Press.

20.

Knox

R. F

. (1975). Interdistrict desegregation: The remaining options. Stanford Law Review, 28, 521.

21.

Kromm

Sturgis

(2008). Hurricane Katrina and the guiding principles on internal displacement. Institute for Southern Studies, 36(1–2), 1–40.

22.

Lerner

J. S.

Tetlock

P. E.

(1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255

23.

Leys

W. A

. (1943). Ethics and administrative discretion. Public Administration Review, 3(1), 10–23.

24.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

Ammirati

Landfield

(2009). Giving debiasing away: Can psychological research on correcting cognitive errors promote human welfare? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 390–398.

25.

Lorinskas

Kalinich

Banas

(1985). Symbolism and rhetoric: The guardians of status quo in the criminal justice system. Criminal Justice Review, 10(1), 41–46.

26.

Lupson

Partington

(2011) Individual civil servants’ conceptions of accountability. Public Management Review, 13(7), 895–918. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2011.589609

27.

Morgan

D. F

. (1987). Varieties of administrative abuse: Some reflections on ethics and discretion. Administration & Society, 19(3), 267–284.

28.

Nagtegaal

Tummers

Noordegraaf

Bekkers

(2020). Designing to debias: Measuring and reducing public managers’ anchoring bias. Public Administration Review, 80(4), 565–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13211

29.

Nickerson

R. S

. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175

30.

Nunn

K. B

. (2002). Race, crime and the pool of surplus criminality: Or why the “war on drugs” was a “war on blacks”. The Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice, 6(2), 381.

31.

Overman

Schillemans

(2022). Toward a public administration theory of felt accountability. Public Administration Review, 82(1), 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13417

32.

Pane

D. M.

Rocco

T. S.

(2012). Teaching disruptive students: An indictment of colorblind teacher education programs. In Plakhotnik

M. S.

Nielsen

S. M.

Pane

D. M.

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th annual college of education & GSN research conference (pp. 105–113). Florida International University.

33.

Pierson

Simoiu

Overgoor

Corbett-Davies

Jenson

Shoemaker

Ramachandran

Barghouty

Phillips

Shroff

Goel

(2020). A large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops across the United States. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(7), 736–745. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0858-1

34.

Portillo

Bearfield

Humphrey

(2020). The myth of bureaucratic neutrality: Institutionalized inequity in local government hiring. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(3), 516–531.

35.

Qiu

Macnaughton

(2017). Mechanisms of accountability for the realization of the right to health in China. Health and Human Rights, 19(1), 279–292.

36.

Rome

. (2004). Black demons: Media’s depiction of the African American male criminal stereotype. Praeger.

37.

Ronald

L. M

. (1972). Constitutional law-due process-conscientious objectors, as Alternate Servicemen, Are Entitled to the Same Veterans Educational Benefits Received by Regular Servicemen-Robison v. Johnson, 352 F. Supp. 848 (D. Mass. 1973). Creighton Law Review, 6, 393.

38.

Rostas

I. R. I

. (2010, January 14–15). The responses of Romanian authorities to Roma migration [Conference session]. Romani Mobilities in Europe: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford.

39.

Samuelson

Zeckhauser

(1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59.

40.

Skogan

. (1977). Dimensions of the dark figure of unreported crime. Crime & Delinquency, 23, 41–50.

41.

Soll

J. B.

Milkman

K. L.

Payne

J. W.

(2015). A user’s guide to debiasing. In Koehler

D. J.

Harvey

(Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 924–951). Wiley.

42.

Somers

(1953). Workmen’s compensation. Unfulfilled promise. ILR Review, 7(1), 32–42.

43.

Sowa

J. E.

Selden

S. C.

(2003). Administrative discretion and active representation: An expansion of the theory of representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 63(6), 700–710.

44.

Tetlock

P. E

. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 331–376.

45.

The Administrative Code of the City of New York Bias-Based Profiling . (2022). Biased-based profiling - CCHR. Retrieved August 20, 2022, from https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/biased-based-profiling.page#:~:text=%22Bias%2Dbased%20profiling%22%20means,as%20the%20determinative%20factor%20in

46.

The Sentencing Project. (2018, April 19). Report to the United Nations on racial disparities in the U.S. criminal justice system. The Sentencing Project. https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/report-to-the-united-nations-on-racial-disparities-in-the-u-s-criminal-justice-system/#footnote-ref-4

47.

Thompson

D. F

. (1985). The possibility of administrative ethics. Public Administration Review, 45(5), 555–561.

48.

Toldson

. (2019). No BS (bad stats): Black people need people who believe in black people enough not to believe every bad thing they hear about black people. Brill Sense.

49.

Verstraelen

. (2018). Constitutional dialogue in the case of legislative omissions: Who fills the legislative gap? Utrecht Law Review, 14(1), 61–81.

50.

Zatz