The racist bank teller and racial colorblindness

In my recent post on racial colorblindness, I admonished DEI trainers for not at least addressing some people's support for racial colorblindness:

It's called "anticipating the objection before someone else has a chance to raise it." It's not rocket science. It's composition 101.

Well, in that same post, I failed to anticipate objections to something I said. And while it's not a fatal objection, it's an important one, and one I cannot refute completely.

The bank teller example

I argued that one good thing about the idea of racial colorblindness is that it could serve as a guide to personal, daily practice. I used the example of a bank teller who tries to abide by "colorblind" practices:

 

if [sic] black customer walks in a bank to cash a check and sees all the employees and customers are white--maybe in that case the bank teller should be prepared to do something a little more welcoming. What that would be and whether there's a way to do that without being condescending, I don't know. But the teller will still have to ask for i.d.

And of course, formally equal customer service can come with a below-the-surface attitude noticeable by even the thickest-skinned customer. But even so, the customer gets their customer service concern addressed quickly and with a smile. It's a lot better than "we don't serve your kind here."

One of the arguments I hoped to convey was that the bank teller would help that customer in accordance with racially colorblind guidelines. I went so far as to suggest that even if the bank teller were personally racist and engaged in passive aggressive actions to make the customer feel uncomfortable, the fact that they would serve that black customer was better than a flat out refusal of service.

Objections to my example

That's true as far as it goes. But here are two objections I failed to consider.

The first is that there is something underhanded in suggesting, as I probably was suggesting, that "hey, at least it's not Jim Crow." I won't elaborate on that specific except to acknowledge that that's a legitimate criticism, and I committed that error.

The second objection is to my assumption that the bank teller will serve that customer, regardless of how racist that teller is. I might be wrong. And to the extent that I am wrong, if the racist teller is savvy enough, the racially colorblind rules of the law and the bank could actually help that teller refuse service.

In my own experience as a teller about 25 years ago, we had a lot of discretion whenever a customer presented a "risk":

• If a customer presented a check worth a lot of money (say, over $1,000)....
• If the person presenting the check didn't have an account with the bank....
• If the check was a personal check (or a business check that wasn't computer- or printer-generated)....
• If the address on that person's i.d. was very far from the branch bank's address, if that person had "only" a state i.d. and not a drivers license

....any of those factors, especially when more than one of them were present, could affect whether or not we cash that check. They signaled that there was a risk involved. (For the record, I believe those factors weren't arbitrary. But I also believe that using some of them to assess risk was appallingly unfair. But that's the subject for another blog post.)

The teller, usually in consultation with a supervisor, had to decide if it was worth the risk. It's very possible, in that environment, for a teller with ill-intent to tip the tables against the customer presenting the check and at the same time claiming they were only following the rules.

Answers to the objections

I have some answers to that objection:

First, I'll point out we're assuming an exceptionally malicious bank teller, intent on discrimination at every turn. It's almost an ideal It's hard to find such people in real life. If we push the assumption to a point few (if any) people are arguing for, we'll find an "ideal type" of racist, one who goes to bed every night ruminating on how they're going to screw over black people the next day.

Second, the teller--even the diehard racist one who wants to leverage every opportunity to discriminate against persons of color--faces incentives NOT to do that:

• A day without strife can be its own reward: I.e., it's easier to be a bank teller when a transaction with a customer goes well and doesn't devolve into recriminations. It's easier to simply serve the customer and not try to find reasons not to serve them.
• The customer might raise a grievance with the bank management. The customer might not actually do so, but the fact that they might can serve as a check.
  
• The bank would probably take any grievances seriously, or seriously enough to hear out any grievance from a customer. The bank really likes to see itself--and especially portray itself--as a racially enlightened institution, open to all people from all backgrounds. Its officers really, really, really want to appear to take "diversity" seriously. (They do like rich people, who are less of a risk than poorer people, but as long as it's a question of dollars and not race, they're on comfortable ground.) That means they're sensitive to accusations about disparate treatment and if a customer chooses to contest disparate treatment, they'll usually at least get a hearing.
  

Third, it's not clear to me that an approach other than racial colorblindness helps. Let's consider a "race conscious" approach, say, one where tellers are instructed to be more lenient about i.d. requirements for black customers. (Remember this is a "race conscious" approach. Being more lenient about i.d. requirements for everyone is a facially colorblind approach.)

 

I can see two problems with that approach. One is that it will almost definitely encourage some fraud. And let us remember that persons of color have bank accounts, too. At least some of the fraud will happen to them. Even if (as often happens) the bank recompenses the account holder, it's still a huge inconvenience.

 

The second problem has to do with the non-diehard but sometimes personally racist teller. That person is like you and me, with a lot of biases and assumptions that are self-contradictory. In a "colorblind" system, that person tries to treat members of different races equally. That person fails, but they try and thereby offer a basic minimal level of service to all. A race conscious approach threatens to remind that teller to keep race at the forefront. Doing so might lead the teller to be much more sensitive to black customers. Or it might encourage the teller to remember, resurrect, validate, and act on their inner racism. I suspect the race conscious approach would do both because there's no such thing as a policy that has only intended and desired effects.

Where my answers fall short

Still, I have to confess that I haven't completely refuted the point. There remain legitimate objections to which I don't have fully satisfactory answers.

 

I don't have an answer to implicit bias, the idea that deep down we harbor assumptions about people from different races that while not always conscious, affect our actions. That idea has been challenged, but speaking for myself and my anecdotal observations, it probably plays a role. (Cue in a contradiction: I "speak for myself" but if the bias is really implicit, I can't really do so, because its....implicit. Still, I live with contradictions and can still sleep at night). I listed a number of reasons for assessing "risk." One I didn't mention was what the customer looked like. Skin color probably does play a role, even if that role is usually not acknowledged.

Another problem comes with the idea of raising a grievance with the bank. From the customer's perspective, that's an exhausting task. I shouldn't expect a customer to go through the hassle every time they're mistreated. And while banks probably hear out any customer's complaints, if the teller complied with the "colorblind" rules, then the customer is out of luck, even if they're right. To paraphrase my one-time co-blogger Will Truman, if you have to fight to get your rights enforced, it's like not having those rights in the first place. (He puts it more elegantly, but I don't recall the exact phrasing.)

Yet another objection comes with my critique of "race conscious" approaches, such as more lenient i.d. requirements for persons of color. One reason I raise against it is that it would increase fraud. And along some margin, it would. What I didn't say was that banks make the tradeoff all the time between fraud and enforcing policies. They fold the cost of fraud into their cost of doing business. Of course, "cost of doing business" usually translates somehow in cost to the customer. But if that cost is spread out, then maybe being a little fairer is worth the extra cost. (That is, if we assume different i.d. requirements are indeed fairer.)

Finally, invoking lenient i.d. requirements as an example of a "race conscious" approach might be a straw man argument. Maybe no one truly advocates for that. I personally haven't heard that they have. I'll confess to the straw man argument. People might believe that other "race conscious" options would help, such as "educating" tellers to be more sensitive about a racially diverse customer base, maybe through a DEI program. If you've read my recent posts, you'll realize I'm skeptical such programs are very effective (I also, by the way, to avoid saying the word "educate" as a verb....it might encouarge a reaction you might not want it to encourage). Still, that's probably more what people mean if they advocate leaving a "colorblind" approach.

 

Sendoff

I realize I'm focusing on personal behavior and touching only lightly on "systems" or "structures." Therefore, I'm not addressing, or at least not directly addressing, the argument that racism is systemic or structural. I have reservations about how those terms are used, but I concede that there's some merit to them and that I am simply not addressing those points in my post.  

This is a hard subject. There aren't any easy answers. I'm still convinced that "racial colorblindness" is at least sometimes a defensible idea and deserves a seat at the table. At the same time, I recognize there are legitimate objections to the idea, especially as some people tend to use it.