Taking Threat Seriously: Prejudice, Principle, and Attitudes Toward Racial Policies

Abstract

Drawing from group theories of race-related attitudes and electoral politics, we develop and test how anxiety influences the relative weight of prejudice as a determinant of individuals’ support for racial policies. We hypothesize that prejudice will more strongly influence the racial policy preferences of people who are feeling anxious than it will for people who are not. Using an experimental design we manipulate subjects’ levels of threat and find significant treatment effects, as hypothesized. We find that individuals’ racial policy attitudes are partially conditional on their affective states: individuals who feel anxious report less support for racial policies than those individuals who do not feel anxious, even when this threat is stimulated by non-racial content. More broadly, we conclude that affect is central to a better understanding of individuals’ political attitudes and behaviors.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Threatening Text

Education & Society/Security

Task Force on Eco- and Animal Rights Terrorism Finds State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges Vulnerable

One common thread that brings the institutions of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) together is their collective involvement in promoting the interests of universities in the discovery of new knowledge. They are now faced with an unprecedented challenge to the traditional autonomy of the academy to educate, to discover, and to use new knowledge in service to their external communities. Eco- and animal rights terrorist groups seek to curtail research (at universities and elsewhere) that relies on the use of animals, biotechnology, and genetically modified organisms that can be used to improve the human condition. Some of these groups are prone to use violence to achieve their goals, and as such they pose real threats to universities and other research facilities. Those in higher education are also faced with the prospect that international terrorists may seek to use their research activities in such a manner as to produce a disaster causing catastrophic loss of life.

At its November 2001 Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., the NASULGC Board of Directors formed a task force on eco- and animal rights terrorism to explore issues caused by these groups. Several telephone conference meetings have been conducted over the last several months and a 2-day workshop in Washington, D.C. in June was convened to deal with the growing problem.

Eco-Terrorism and the Increasing Eco-Terrorist Threat

The FBI defines eco-terrorism as “the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by environmentally oriented, sub-national groups for environmental-political reasons, aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.” The U.S. Attorney General has formally designated organizations such as the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) as domestic terrorists. The FBI has named them as the two most dangerous domestic terrorist groups in America, and has stepped up its investigative activities in this area.

The FBI has expressed serious concerns about the growing impact that eco- and animal rights terrorist activities may have on the university community. The agency’s concerns include academicians’ knowledge of the people who work in their laboratories, the possible training for terrorist actions on campus; and the lack of tough federal laws that might deter eco- and animal rights terrorists.

While many research facilities are located on large urban campuses and can be secured from potential attacks, others are located in isolated areas that are far more difficult to secure. Moreover, faculty have expressed concerns about the potential threat of terrorism to their own well-being and to that of their students. Such concerns are heightened at land-grant universities with genetic research interests and rural agricultural research facilities.

Eco- and Animal Rights Terrorism on Campus

Eco- and animal rights terrorists have claimed credit for a large number of attacks on university facilities across the United States, ranging from the burning of a University of California, Davis research facility nearly 20 years ago to the recent destruction of the University of Washington’s Center for Urban Horticulture. Other recent incidents include:

• Windows, computers and laboratory equipment were destroyed at an undisclosed university’s poultry laboratory.

• A psychology laboratory was raided, offices trashed, acid poured on the floor, slogans painted on the walls and rats and rabbits removed from the laboratory.

• ELF claimed responsibility for a bomb that was found outside a research facility before it detonated.

  

  Animal Rights Demonstrator chants “Animals over Humans”

Education & Society/Security

Eco- and animal rights terrorists have also targeted numerous research facilities owned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and private corporations that partner with universities in research activities. These partnerships may help explain the reluctance of universities to make public the attacks by these terrorist groups. In a report entitled “Illegal Incidents Summary,” the Foundation for Biomedical Research summarizes over 400 acts of terrorism by ELF, ALF, Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty (SHAC), and other organizations.

The Tragedy of Dr. Michael Podell

Since universities are the training ground for future generations of researchers, the loss of a single researcher and/or laboratory has far-reaching implications for the future of the research enterprise. One recent case illustrates how harassment and the threat of violence can affect America’s experimental researchers. Until recently, Dr. Michael Podell of Ohio State University was one of the leading American HIV virus researchers. His research could provide important insights into how HIV and FIV penetrate the brain.

Dr. Podell was harassed and threatened by both People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and ALF for several years. Shortly after his office phone number and e-mail address were disclosed on their web pages, he began receiving death threats. Despite a USDA surprise visit to OSU and Dr. Podell’s laboratory that found them in compliance with experimental animal policy, the harassment continued. Dr. Podell’s lab was fire-bombed one early morning: the university has not decided whether or not to rebuild.

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology President Bob Rich stated that “the scientific research community [is] deeply alarmed at the precedent set by the destruction of important, peer-reviewed research in the face of insufferable persecution. It is disturbing to learn that the pace of research discovery can be dictated by the destructive tactics of a group of extremists, rather than by the scientific community or the federal agencies charged with overseeing the care of animal subjects.” Frankie Tull, President of the Foundation for Biomedical Research, argued in a June 12, 2002 letter to NIH Director Elias Zerhouni that the long-term implications “of such valuable peer-reviewed research being abandoned as a result of unbearable harassment” were “frightening.” She wrote, “We fear that the loss of Dr. Podell and his research project is merely the beginning of an ever-increasing campaign against research discovery and medical advancement.”

University Arson Fire: The fire bombing of Dr. Michael Podell’s laboratory at OSU in 2001 caused extensive damage. OSU had employees and programs housed in the building

The ultimate goal of the eco- and animal rights terrorists is to use the threat of violence, including threats to human life and safety, to limit scholarly inquiry. The use of violence to further their goal should be abhorrent to all who are against the use of violence and especially to the entire academic community. If the research community is to protect itself from such terrorism, they will need to forge partnerships among themselves and with industry, their local communities, and federal and state governments. America’s global preeminence depends on its ability to conduct research. These terrorist groups threaten not only research, buildings, laboratories, and human lives; they threaten the United States of America.

Appendix 2: Non-Threatening Text

Education & Society/Security

Task Force on Eco- and Animal Rights Groups Finds State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges Lacking

One common thread that brings the institutions of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) together is their collective involvement in promoting the interests of universities in the discovery of new knowledge. They are now faced with an unprecedented challenge to the traditional autonomy of the academy to educate, to discover, and to use new knowledge in service to their external communities. Eco- and animal rights activist groups seek to influence research (at universities and elsewhere) that relies on the use of animals, biotechnology, and genetically modified organisms that can be used to improve the human condition.

At its November 2001 Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., the NASULGC Board of Directors formed a task force on eco- and animal rights activism to explore various issues related to such activism and to make recommendations to the NASULGC presidents. Several telephone conference meetings have been conducted over the last several months and a 2-day workshop in Washington, D.C. in June was convened to deal with the problem.

Increasing Eco- and Animal Rights Activism

The classic definition of activism is “a policy of vigorous action, especially in politics.” Today, successful activism has the potential of separating scientists from the university and ultimately scientists from their research careers.

The FBI has expressed concerns about the growing impact that eco- and animal rights activists may have on the university research community. The agency’s concerns include academicians’ management and security controls and the lack of tough federal laws that might deter eco- and animal rights activists.

While many university research facilities are located on large urban campuses and can be secured from activists, others are located in isolated areas that are far more difficult to secure. Moreover, the FBI believes, and we have confirmed, that faculty are worried about losing their research, often a life’s work, in attacks by domestic activist extremists. Faculty and university administrators have expressed concerns about the potential harm to facilities and laboratories worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. These concerns are heightened at land-grant universities with genetic research interests and rural agricultural research facilities.

Eco- and Animal Rights Groups on Campus

Eco- and animal rights activists have claimed credit for protests on university facilities across the United States, ranging from the burning of a University of California, Davis research facility nearly 20 years ago to the recent peaceful march on the University of Washington’s Center for Urban Horticulture. In the latter case, the fire damage to the university facility was estimated at $5.4 million. Property damage of other recent incidents includes:

• Arsonists poured gasoline throughout the offices of researcher Catherine Ives, resulting in an estimated $900,000 in fire damage.

• Windows, computers and laboratory equipment were ruined at one university’s poultry laboratory. The estimated cost of damage was $130,000.

• A psychology laboratory was raided, offices trashed, acid poured on the floor, slogans painted on the walls and rats and rabbits removed from the laboratory. The cost of the clean-up was over $10,000.

Marching for Milk? Animal Rights activists protest what they consider to be inhumane treatment of cows during milking. The Dairy Farmers of America is a $1.2 billion industry that such protesters want to stop

Eco- and animal rights activists have also targeted numerous research facilities owned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and private corporations that partner with universities in research activities. These groups’ influence on scientific research at all levels of the system is difficult to determine. What is clear, however, is that more than $3 million worth of property damage has been sustained. The loss of research is incalculable.

Education & Society/Security

The Story of Dr. Michael Podell

Since universities are the training ground for future generations of researchers, the loss of a single researcher and/or laboratory has far-reaching implications for the future of the research enterprise.

One recent case illustrates how activists can affect America’s experimental researchers. Until recently, Dr. Michael Podell of Ohio State University was one of the leading American HIV virus researchers. His research could provide important insights into how HIV and FIV penetrate the brain. His work was praised in peer-reviewed journals and was funded with a $1.68 million NIH grant.

Dr. Podell’s laboratory was picketed for several years by on-campus eco- and animal rights activists. Shortly after his office phone number and e-mail address were disclosed, Dr. Podell began receiving complaints about his work. Despite a USDA surprise visit to Ohio State University and Podell’s laboratory that found them in compliance with experimental animal policy, the complaints continued. Eventually, the university closed the lab out of liability concerns and Dr. Podell quit his profession as a researcher.

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology President Bob Rich stated that “the scientific research community [is] deeply upset at the precedent set by the abandonment of important, peer-reviewed research in the face of such protests. It is troubling to learn that the pace of research discovery can be influenced by the tactics of a group of activists, rather than by the scientific community or the federal agencies charged with overseeing the care of animal subjects.” Frankie Tull, President of the Foundation for Biomedical Research, argued in a June 12, 2002 letter to NIH Director Elias Zerhouni that the long-term implications “of such valuable peer-reviewed research being abandoned as a result of these activists” were “difficult to imagine.” She wrote, “We think that the resignation of Dr. Podell represents a shift in the campaign against research discovery and medical advancement.”

Campaigners outside Sheffield University

The ultimate goal of the eco- and animal rights groups is to use activism to limit scholarly inquiry. The use of protests and other tactics to further their goal should be viewed cautiously by the entire academic community. In order to protect scientific research and university property, researchers will need to forge partnerships among themselves and with industry, their local communities, and federal and state governments. If they fail to do so, they will undermine the viability of their research and, thus, the ability to provide better opportunities for improved health and life for those they serve in America and elsewhere.