I am a little conflicted about this book. Which, given the emotionally explosive nature of the topic, is not so surprising.
Dr. Jennifer Eberhardt is a professor of psychology at Stanford University. She got her PhD from Harvard. She was chosen in 2014 for a MacArthur "genius grant". She is, quite clearly, not just an African-American with opinions, she has a lot of detailed and scientific knowledge about how bias works. She is also, though, an African-American with opinions; she tells the story of being arrested the day before she was due to walk across the stage to receive her Ph.D., including the part where she was slammed onto the police car and handcuffed, and charged with resisting arrest. She learned that day that if you are allowed only one phone call from jail, it can be very helpful if the person you call is a high-ranking official at Harvard. She was quickly released.
She also knows how to tell a good story, and how to help the reader to challenge their own assumptions. She waits until the end of her story of being arrested, to tell you that the officer who originally pulled her over, who escalated what should have been a routine traffic stop until there were five police cars involved and she was dragged off to jail, was also black. Ouch.
Eberhardt is, clearly, an enormously effective writer. She is also good at remaining even-handed and rational, even when discussing extraordinarily emotional topics. She is often called in to advise police departments that are reeling from the aftermath of one video or another of a young black man being shot to death by police. If you think about the kind of person who chooses a job where she often has to walk into a room full of police officers who are not happy, who don't know her and don't probably trust her, it reveals that she is not a person who is just looking for the easy way in life.
Not every episode in her book is so emotionally heavy. The chapter about her moving, as an adolescent, to a high school where everyone else was white, was pretty entertaining. "I'd had no practice recognizing white faces. They all looked alike to me. I could describe in detail the face of the black woman I happened to pass in a shopping mall. But I could not pick out from a crowd the white girl who sat next to me in English class every day."
I could not shake the feeling, though, as I read the book, that I was waiting for it to get started. One tale after another, which brought home the real human cost of bias, how it distorts relations between races and between minorities and law enforcement (and banks, and schools, and their neighbors, and etc.), and why we need to better understand how to eliminate it where we can, and reduce the impact where we cannot. Each one a perfect introduction to the real part of the book, which is where we talk about what works, and what doesn't. Well, we did get glimpses, but not much.
There was a paragraph which mentioned that racial sensitivity training was not as effective, in reducing police shootings of black men, as additional training on how to recognize quickly a gun (vs. a wallet or a phone or whatever). In other words, the way to make a police officer better at not shooting young black men, is to make them better at not shooting anyone (who isn't actually a threat). Well that sounds both useful to know, and not obvious until after you've been told it. But, it was a rare bit of actionable knowledge in a sea of well-written, thoughtful and emotionally powerful stories. But, you know, I wouldn't have picked up a book of this sort, in order to figure out whether or not bias or racism was a problem. I doubt anyone would; you choose a book of this sort to read when you've already decided that it is a problem. I'm also not the type to want to just stoke my anger, for the fun of being angry. Despite what my young adult male mind might have thought, "more anger" is almost never the solution to a complex problem. If anger were sufficient to make progress on this, we would have made a lot more progress in the years since the Rodney King beating was captured on videotape. But that was 1991, almost thirty years ago, so clearly anger is not what we're lacking, here.
It may be that Dr. Eberhardt is thinking that the typical reader is more interested in emotionally stirring tales than rational analysis, and so she saves her rational analysis and actionable results for the departments and corporations that hire her as a consultant. If so, regarding the typical reader, perhaps she is correct. But, it's not what I was looking for. I know this is a bit unfair, but I found myself comparing the book, not entirely favorably, to Malcolm Gladwell's "Talking To Strangers", which takes on many of the same topics. Gladwell, though, leavens the emotional tales with a lot more data, and a lot more published research, some of which does not point entirely in the direction you might expect (which is when it is most useful).
Another glimpse we get, which is quite similar to a point that is repeated several times in Gladwell's recent book as well, is that there are times when relying on a person's intuition is part of the problem. Some of Eberhardt's work (e.g. with the web company Nextdoor) comes from the fact that people are more likely to be swayed by racial bias when they trust their intuition, and more likely to be able to get beyond that bias when you introduce some "friction", which usually means time for rational thought, into the process. She suggests that the widely used slogan of "if you see something, say something", be changed to "if you see something suspicious, say something specific". It is not fashionable, in recent decades, to suggest that relying on your intuition could be a mistake, but telling police officers, or the general populace, that their intuition about who is trouble, is essentially guaranteeing that young males, and especially young black males, will be raised in an environment with an adversarial relationship with the law. It's a good insight, but it's more an example of what NOT to do, than of what to do.
In the last chapter, she addresses the root of the problem that has prevented us from making as much progress (any progress?) as we wanted to since 1991: we don't know what works, because most people have no incentive to know.
"...the value of [implicit bias] training, with all its variables, is often hard to quantify. The vast majority of implicit bias trainings are never rigorously evaluated, in part because measuring their worth is hard. There are no agreed-upon metrics developed by scientists for evaluating training effectiveness. Should the training lead to an immediate reduction in implicit bias? That's a tall order considering that these implicit associations have been practiced over a lifetime. What would a reduction in implicit bias even look like?...Even beyond the difficulty of evaluating the effectiveness of training are the high financial stakes involved with declaring success or failure. Bias training is a fast-growing for-profit business, and finding fault with results could affect the bottom line of the trainers."
There, unfortunately, is the crux of the matter. We have a very great number of people getting angry, a large number of people who want a quick solution so that they can get the heat off of their department, and a smaller number of people who want to be able to plausibly claim that they are offering a solution, so that they can get a paycheck. No one involved has both the knowledge and the incentives, to restructure how our society handles things like job interviews, police policy, bank loan applications, and all the many other systemic sources of bias that Dr. Eberhardt (quite effectively) describes for us in this book. In order to make progress, you have to have people who are both capable of finding out what works (with the resources to do so), and the willingness to say what doesn't work. We have, in the last several decades, not made a whole lot of progress on this particular front, not even from 2009-2016, when we had black Americans as both President and Attorney General. Representation of blacks (and other minorities) among the wealthy and powerful has greatly increased; the opportunities and dangers of being a poor minority in America, have not improved nearly so much. To get a better result, we need to have a better understanding of what works, and what doesn't, and at the moment there aren't very many people who are in the business of actually figuring that out. Dr. Eberhardt appears to be one of the people who are in the process of doing that, but she seems a lot more interested in telling us why it matters that we fix this problem (which everyone who chooses to read her books is already convinced of), than she does in telling us how to fix this problem.
But, despite all that, it is certainly the case that we are better off having researchers such as Dr. Eberhardt investigating the issue, and if her book was a little more story-heavy, and a little less data-heavy, than I prefer, it was still orders of magnitude better in this respect than most of what we hear, see, and read on this topic from our newsmedia.