Project One- Race in Politics

Noelle Crawford
Overview
My group was assigned race. We were attempting to discover how race affected voters. It
has been years since America dabbled in segregation, and even longer since the slavery that
birthed racism in America, but race is still a big question. It hides behind doors and innocent and
sometimes not-so-innocent jokes and jests. The way the current generation has grown up, the
only thing they know about segregation and racism is what theyve learned at school and the
occasional non-politically correct comment from a grandparent. Racism is no longer what it used
to be, or is it? In modern America, are African-Americans still naturally distrusted and hated or
have the tables turned? How does a candidate's race affect their probability of winning and
peoples general opinion of them? These are the questions we sought to answer.
To accomplish this, we took a profile of a potential political candidate and assigned him
two faces, a African-American face and a Caucasian one and hit the streets, shopping malls and
restaurant parking lots. Half of the respondents were given the survey and political breakdown of
the African-American man, while the other half were given identical papers, but the picture in
the corner was of a Caucasian man. After getting twenty-five responses for each man, we
compared the answers to see which received more hate, and what demographics were more
inclined to racism of the pro-African-American or pro-Caucasian sort.
Hypothesis
My hypothesis was based upon what happened in the 2008 and 2012 elections. I
suspected that many people would be more less likely to bash on a African-American persons
opinions because they were scared of sounding racist, hence the African-American man would
receive more positive feedback that the non-protected Caucasian man. A lot of people in the
2008 elections voted for Barack Obama, not just for his views and qualifications, but because he
was African-American and they liked the idea of being progressive and being a part of the large
body that voted the very first African-American president into office. Looking at what happened
in the past, and the fear of looking racist in a land where everyone should be accepted except
those who dont accept others I formed my hypothesis that the African-American candidate
would receive more support.
The political importance of this hypothesis, should it be correct, would be two fold. First,
it would show that racism has turned against those it once favored. Caucasians are more likely to
vote against themselves in an effort to seem more progressive. In effect, racism has reached the
point that being African American is more helpful than harmful as people are more likely to vote
for them than they are a caucasian man, not because of standards or who is the best, but because
they dont want to seem racist. Secondly, it would mean, should this hypothetical result reach
past race, that the minorities in general have an advantage over the minority. Many people, for
instance, are saying that they are planning to vote for Hillary Clinton, not because they agree
with her policies (many dont even know what they are) or what she has done (as there have been
many scandals she was implicated in) but because she is a female, and they think it would be
nice to have a woman president. Other examples of minorities receiving special treatment

because of past discrimination could include sexual orientation as well. I would not extend this to
religious organizations as beliefs for and against various religions have proven to be very volatile
and there hasnt been a big push for religious equality, although there has been a big push for
having no religion.
Methodology
To prove this hypothesis correct, or incorrect we created a survey. The poll asked the
respondent to answer a few demographic questions about themselves. They gave us their gender,
age, religious affiliation and parental origin. These questions helped us to place where
discriminatory racism had the greatest hold. Then they were asked whether the candidate had
sufficient education to be a U.S. Senator from Utah, whether he had sufficient work experience
to be a U.S. Senator from Utah, whether he demonstrates strong leaderships skills, whether he
has the kinds of life experiences that will help him understand average Utahns, and whether or
not they supported more of his policy positions than they opposed. Each of the statements and
questions about the potential candidate could be answered as strongly agree, agree, neutral,
disagree or strongly disagree.
The question about the parents origin was added by our group to the initial survey in an
attempt to discover whether or not where the respondents parents originated from had an effect
on how they viewed members of a different race (specifically African American.) We supposed
that someone whose parents grew up in the South where racism is more prevalent would be more
likely to distrust and oppose an African-American candidate than someone who grew up in a
state that has been less touched by racism, like a northern or western state. Furthermore, we were
interested in how those whose parents had international roots viewed the racism fight in
America.
The imaginary candidate was a forty-one-year-old man who was born and raised in
Sandy, Utah and had two kids. He graduated from Jordan High School then went the University
of Utah and got a B.A. in Sociology. He later graduated from the University of Chicago with a
Masters degree in social work. As for his work experience, he worked at several restaurants
while attending university, then interned with the Chicago Community Development
Organization. He worked for 18 years as a licensed clinical social worker then founded and
currently directs the Wasatch Front Regional Social Services Network. As for Community
service, the fake candidate was an active member of his church, an elected member of the
Taylorsville City Council, an appointed member of the Salt Lake Community College Board of
Trustees, a regular volunteer for Habitat for Humanity and a volunteer soccer coach for Salt Lake
County Parks and Recreation. His issue positions were as follows: he wants to stimulate the
economy by allowing states to create special community development areas that will be eligible
for federal infrastructure and small-business grants, supports the Second Amendment right to
bear arms, but would enact background checks on all gun purchasesincluding private party and
gun show salesand would ban all clips that hold more than 10 rounds, repeal all No Child Left
Behind federal testing requirements, supports the Obamacare and increased federal spending to
fund mass-transit projects, would cap interest rates on student loans at four percent and delay the
start of repayment until the student has full-time employment, supports immigration reform.
Taking this fabricated candidate, twelve polsters visited various spots around Utah,six of
them with the image of the Caucasian man, and six with the image of the African-American. The
2

respondents were given the candidate biography with a picture of the African-American or
Caucasian man, asked to read it, then respond to the survey. The pollsters watched the
respondents for reactions and took note of them on the back of their survey when they received it
filled out from the respondent. All of the results were compiled on a spreadsheet so that the
results could be compared with ease. Looking at the spreadsheet, I then created a general
agreement rate for each statement and candidate. A strongly agree was worth two points, an
agree was worth one, a neutral gave zero, a disagree negative one and so on, then divided by the
number of respondents to create the average agreement rate for each question. By comparing
these numbers I was able to better compare the results between the two candidates.
Results
Regarding education, the results showed little variation between the two groups. Both the
African-American and the Caucasian candidate were widely approved of at a ninety-three
percent and one hundred percent approval rate respectively. The difference in these rates is seven
percent. To define the one hundred percent, it means that on average, people answered agree to
this question. Many answered neutral or disagree, but these were negated by those who answered
strongly agree.
Those who believed him to have proper experience varied much more dramatically. The
Caucasian man had an approval rate of seventy-three percent while the African-American
candidate had an approval rate fifty-seven percent. The difference in these rates is sixteen
percent. This was the section with the largest difference between the numbers. Perhaps this
difference has less to do with race and more to do with who took the surveys which will be
looked at shortly.
When it came to leadership skills, the African-American man came out ahead with a
sixty-four percent approval rate compared to the Caucasian candidates sixty percent. The
difference in these rates is four percent. Leadership is the first questions which is personal to the
men. How much he has worked and gone to school are more facts than they are anything else,
but leadership skills is personal, and are about the personality of the man. That this is one of the
few categories the African-American candidate triumphed over is not a mistake, it happened the
next time the question became more personal.
Those who believed that he had the kinds of life experienced that will help him
understand the average Utahn were at eighty-seven perecent for the Caucasian candidate, but
only seventy-nine percent for the African-American. The difference in these rates is eight
percent. This question had more possibility for race to become a factor than any other. A
African-American man could have had very different life experiences in this state than a
Caucasian man, thus race could have an actual change in these numbers. The average Utahn is
Caucasian . Having a senator that is a different race than the majority of the members in Utah
could give him different priorities because of his lifestyle. This is not necessarily the case, but it
is a possibility. If this was the thinking of the average Utahn, it would make sense that these
numbers vary so much more dramatically than the other rates.
However, when it came to policy positions, the African-American candidate was once
again ahead. His approval rating was fifty-seven percent compared to the Caucasian candidates
approval rating which rested at fifty-three. The difference in these rates is four percent. This

question, about ones policy positions is the other most personal question on this survey and once
again the African-American candidate was triumphant. This doesnt seem to be a likely
coincidence, however upon looking at the numbers, the African-American candidate won not
because he had more general approval here than in other places, but because the Caucasian
candidate was hated upon more than usual, having two strongly disagrees, because of this I am
less inclined to believe that the rates are based upon race.
Totalling them up, the average approval rating for the Caucasian candidate was seventyfive percent which barely trumped the African-American candidates seventy percent approval
rate. The difference in these rates is five percent. Five percent is a very small, rather insignificant
number when it comes to polls of this sort and is well within the probability of error. Five
percent of fifty people is the difference of less than three people. If then, even three people (and
the numbers say there was a lot more than that) took the survey by filling out random dots
because they looked pretty or agreed with everything because they decided to be nice, these
results are skewed to the point that that five percent is no longer valid.
As for the origin, we received no one who had parents who were born in the south which
was what we were mainly looking for. Interestingly enough however, those who were foreign
born were sixty-one percent more likely to agree with either candidate than those who were born
in the United States. The Caucasian candidate had a sixty-six percent approval rate amongst
those whose parents were born in the United States and a hundred-thirty percent approval rate
amongst those who were foreign born. This pattern is also consistent with the African-American
candidate who had a thirty-two and a hundred-fifteen approval rate respectively. However, once
again there was not enough respondents with foreign blood to extract an accurate conclusion
(there were two foreign borns who were surveyed for the Caucasian candidate.)
Many of the respondents didnt seem to care much about the survey. A couple just wrote
agree all the way across, while others admitted that they hated politics and just but strongly agree
to be nice. Others, however, actually studied the information and had conversations with the
pollsters. One man wrote a message to the fabricated candidate and told the pollster to wish him
good luck the next time she saw him. The most interesting reaction was one LDS women who
was sixty-one years of age who read through the African-American candidates information sheet
with negative body language and disapproving snorts, but then went on to give him very positive
answers, which was the kind of bias we were hoping for.

Conclusion and Suggestions

Our group found that there was little actual difference between the two candidates. The
numbers were too close together and the possible variables were not controlled enough. Had
there been more surveys distributed it would be easier to find and conclude upon this
information. Had the results been more definite this would have been a correct number of
surveys, but it was too close for the numbers that we collected.
With the close answers that we were able to collect, one can conclude that there was very
little difference based upon race. Perhaps, this is because America already has a AfricanAmerican president and hence race is no longer much of an issue. Those who dont want to seem

racist and those who really are might be sparse enough, in Utah which has been touched very
little by racism over this countrys history. It never really had slaves, nor did it participate in the
Civil War. Indeed, it wasnt even a state then. Due to this lack of historical involvement in this
issue, the results of this sort of research are not very obvious.
If another group were to conduct this research, they should survey a larger number of
people. The amount of people that were surveyed did not give an accurate reflection of the
feelings of Utah because about half of the people surveyed didnt want to participate and were
likely very annoyed to be stopped mid-shopping for a political survey. If more people were
surveyed it would help to see more change in the numbers and be able to make a more definite
conclusion.
Taking this survey to a different state, perhaps those in the North and South would also be
a helpful. In the states in the West, the age old fight between African-Americans and Caucasians
is less prevalent. Very few African Americans live here, and those who do are generally accepted.
Perhaps, if future research groups wanted to state in Utah, they could look at Hispanics versus
Caucasians as the Caucasians have a lot more antagonism toward Hispanics, specifically
Mexicans, than they do toward African-Americans.
Finally, there should have been at least one question on the survey about trust or whether
or not someone would actually vote for that person. The questions asked gave less of an
opportunity for those with racist or non-racist feelings so it was hard to draw conclusions. Had
there been more opinion-based questions about acting on the information one would likely be
able to see more differences.