Teaching & Learning Guide for: ‘Because they tip for shit!’: The Social Psychology of Everyday Racism in Restaurants
Authors: Rusche Sarah E. , Brewster Zachary W. 
Published: May 2009

This guide accompanies the following article: Sarah E. Rusche and Zachary W. Brewster, ‘“Because they tip for shit!” The Social Psychology of Everyday Racism in Restaurants,’Sociology Compass 2/6 (2008): 2008–2029, 10.1111/j.1751‐9020.2008.00167.x

Author's Introduction

The context of the article is very relatable to students, many who have worked in restaurants and most who eat in them. Sociologically, this article taps into three major topical areas: racism and discrimination, social psychology and workplaces. This research shows how racist discourse in workplaces shapes servers’ discriminatory behavior toward African‐American customers. This article also exposes students to important concepts of social psychology, such as: status beliefs, stereotype activation, cognitive bias, attribution errors, performance expectations, and self‐fulfilling prophecies.

Author Recommends:

Bonilla‐Silva, Eduardo. 2002. ‘The Linguistics of Color‐Blind Racism: How to Talk Nasty about Blacks without Sounding “Racist.”’Critical Sociology 28: 41–64.

According to the author, color‐blind racism constitutes the primary racial ideology of the post‐civil rights era. This ideology is characterized by linguistic practices surrounding whites’ discourse about race‐related issues in the United States. The author outlines five components of the post‐civil rights racial ideology: (1) as a result of the current normative climate most whites, avoid directly expressing their racial views; (2) whites cautiously express their racial views using a variety of ‘semantic’ moves that conceal their racial prejudices (e.g., ‘I'm not prejudiced, but ..., ‘I am not black, so I don't know,’‘Yes and no, but ...,’); (3) whites tend to project racial motivations onto blacks and in doing so they are able to avoid taking responsibility for their own sentiments and actions (e.g., blacks don't want to be friends with us); (4) whites often use diminutives in color‐blind racetalk. For instance, whites rarely say that they are opposed to a racialized matter, such as interracial marriage, but instead express such views by prefacing their position with a diminutive (e.g., ‘I'm a little against interracial marriage’); (5) when whites are pushed to discuss sensitive racial topics they often become incoherent and incomprehensible. The author concludes by discussing the potential for race‐neutral policies to emerge out of research that fails to consider the rhetorical tools that whites utilize to preserve the false and socially constructed perception of color blindness.

Dirks, Danielle and Stephen K. Rice 2004. ‘Dining While Black: Tipping as Social Artifact.’Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 45: 30–47.

The authors locate the documented racial tipping differential within the context of everyday racism that African Americans, in particular, continue to encounter. The authors’ qualitative analysis reveals the existence of what they describe as a ‘culture of white servers’ within restaurant establishments. Indicative of such a culture are anti‐black sentiments among predominately white wait staff. Such anti‐black sentiments are evidenced in derogatory stereotyping and coded language utilized by servers to privately disparage African‐American patrons. The documented anti‐black beliefs and attitudes among servers constitute the underlying cause of both covert and overt discriminatory server behaviors. Among other examples of racial discrimination, the authors delineate instances wherein servers’ expressed an unwillingness to serve black patrons and to avoid doing so they actively engaged in negotiations with other white servers in a game of ‘Pass the [Black] Table’. Moreover, the authors find that when servers are ‘forced’ to wait on African Americans they often admittedly provide inferior service by exerting a minimum amount of effort to these guests. In short, the authors argue that the racial tipping differential is, in part, a manifestation of a server initiated self fulfilling prophecy wherein restaurant servers adhere to racial stereotypes concerning the tipping practices of black patrons and therefore feel justified in discriminating – both overtly and covertly – when delivering service to them. African Americans in‐turn reciprocate with lower than average tips thereby reaffirming servers’ anti‐black sentiments.

Feagin, Joe R. 1991. The Continuing Significance of Race: Antiblack Discrimination in Public Places. American Sociological Review, 56: 101–116.

Drawing on in‐depth interviews with 37 middle‐class African Americans, the author highlights the continuing significance of anti‐black public‐place discrimination. The author's analysis provides an empirical challenge to contemporary claims that discrimination no longer threatens economically advantaged African Americans. To the contrary, the author's research details incidents of public‐place discrimination (e.g., restaurants, retail stores, pools, public streets, etc.) including avoidance, poor service, verbal epithets, threats, and harassment. The author also explores African Americans’ coping responses to such disparate treatment. Findings show that in response to public accommodation discrimination (e.g., restaurants, stores, etc.) victims are likely to engage the perpetrator in a verbal confrontation or may withdraw to avoid the time and energy that a confrontation requires. Street discrimination, on the other hand, offers victims less protection and is more likely to involve violence, leaving their responses more restricted. Common responses to street discrimination include withdrawal, resigned acceptance, or quick verbal retorts. The author argues that the nature and consequences of contemporary discrimination can only be understood once the important intersection between the individual's and group's accumulated experiences with discrimination are considered.

Fiske, Susan T. and Shelley E. Taylor. 1984. ‘Social Schemata’ in Social Cognition, Reading, MA: Addison‐Wesley.

In this chapter from Social Cognition, Fiske and Taylor explain the concept social schemata, discussing a wide range of research on its functions. Social schemata, or schemas, are ‘cognitive structures’ that store organized knowledge about some object, idea or person. A schema organizes and stores information in a related way, sort of like a filing cabinet of prior experience. Schemata help individuals process information – about situations, objects, or people – efficiently. A fundamental assumption of this concept is that perceivers actively construct their own reality through the creation and interpretation of meaning. This assumption is important when considering that schemata are virtually unchanging; the schemas become real to those who hold them. What the authors call the perseverance effect suggests that schemata tend to persevere despite evidence that contradicts the schema. (For example, relating to Rusche and Brewster's research, a server with a schema that views black patrons as poor tippers will be activated despite experiences with black patrons who tip well). It is much more difficult to change a schema than it is to develop one. While Fiske and Taylor argue that schemata do not generally change, they also note that discrepancies are the most common catalysts for schema change. Since the information does not fit the schema, the perceiver must consider the reasons and further consider the accuracy of the schema.

Mallinson, Christine, and Zachary W. Brewster. 2005. ‘“Blacks and Bubbas”: Stereotypes, Ideology, and Categorization Processes in Restaurant Servers’. Discourse.’Discourse and Society 16: 787–807.

In this paper, the authors analyze data from 15 in‐depth interviews with restaurant servers to investigate how stereotypes and categories are formed in casual interaction and casual discourse. Findings suggest that servers categorize customers by drawing on race and class based cues, which are subsequently used to produce two distinct but related types of discriminatory discourse –‘racetalk’ and what the authors term ‘regiontalk’. According to the authors, racetalk and regiontalk can be understood as constituting structured forms of discourse that appears to cast the speaker as ‘color‐blind’ or ‘class‐blind’ but that actually serves to justify his or her race‐ and class‐based stereotypes, attitudes, and discriminatory behaviors against racial minorities and lower‐class southern whites –‘redneck/bubbas’. Findings show that when categorizing black patrons, race alone is sufficient to invoke cultural stereotypes that correspond with the cognitive category of ‘black’ in servers’ minds. As such, servers do not differentiate between black patrons. In contrast, servers’ categorization of ‘redneck’ patrons draws on many regional and/or class‐based characteristics that are manifested in markers of cultural capital (such as linguistic behavior, table manners, and style of dress, which may be similar to class status markers). Another key difference between racetalk and regiontalk delineated by the authors involves the use of positive self‐presentation. Findings demonstrate that servers generally follow their use of negative other‐presentation with positive self‐presentation when speaking about black patrons, but this is not the case when speaking about the redneck social type. While there are marked differences between the two forms of discourse the authors argue that both racetalk and regiontalk can be seen as discourses of colonialism, since they both reflect and maintain stereotypes and categorizations that draw upon, support, and sustain the ideology of white supremacy that has dominated past and present American society.

Ridgeway, Cecilia L. and Kristan Glasgow Erickson. 2000. ‘Creating and Spreading Status Beliefs.’American Journal of Sociology, 106: 579–615.

The authors outline findings from two experiments that lend support to status construction theory, which claims that status beliefs are spread through interaction and behavior. Status beliefs are shared cultural beliefs that people in one group are more esteemed and competent than those in another group. These status beliefs create social distinctions based on categories such as race, age, gender, and occupation. Status beliefs are extremely pervasive and are a product of categorization processes, for without these categorizations, important social distinctions could not be made. In addition, they are also maintained and reproduced through the spreading of these beliefs throughout the culture by individuals and institutions. Status beliefs can be ‘spread’ and taught to others who share nominal characteristics like race or job title. The first experiment discussed found that by treating ‘the other’ according to the status beliefs, actors teach the belief to their peers (e.g. race‐peers; workplace peers). The second experiment showed that those who witness these behaviors also develop the status belief. The implications of the spreading of status beliefs are far‐reaching in that this process enables dominant groups to spread status beliefs that will be widely embraced.

Online Materials:

1. Understanding Race – Lived Experience

http://understandingrace.com/lived/index.html

RACE is a project of the American Anthropological Association. Using historical and scientific examinations of race, as well as lived experiences with racism, the RACE project seeks to reveal the ‘unreality’ of race. Most relevant for this article is the section on lived experience, where students can play games about everyday experiences in ‘different’ shoes, take quizzes about stereotypes, explore how race is defined on censuses across the globe, see a film about the contradictions black girls face regarding the beauty standard, read a blog where experiences of racism and discrimination have been documented and discussed, and much more. The other sections of this project can provide supplemental learning opportunities for students including the history of racial classification, timelines, details on human variation, and information about what genetics, biology and health have to do with race.

2. FRONTLINE

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/

FRONTLINE's website is user friendly and provides a host of resources for educators of the behavioral and social sciences. On this website teachers will find a large library of documentaries that have aired on The Public Broadcast Station (PBS) over the last 26 years. While this site offers something relevant to just about any sociology course that one teaches the documentaries exploring diversity in America are particularly noteworthy. A Class Divided and The O. J. Verdict are two specific documentaries that are relevant to any course on race and ethnic relations. The website also provides teachers with lesson plans, discussion questions, active learning exercises, and student assignments that align with each of the one hour documentaries.

Sample syllabus:

This article can be used in multiple settings, but would be especially relevant to courses on racism or social psychology. To maximize breadth, we have included units for which this article may useful. Depending on the focus of the course, this article can be used differently, either emphasizing the discussion about racism and discrimination, or by emphasizing the social‐psychological processes in a course in this field.

 Unit – Racism and Discrimination

Concepts:

 Everyday Racism

 New Racism or Color‐blind Racism

 Systemic Racism

 Racist Discourse

 Stereotypes

 Discrimination

Readings:

Antecol, Heather and Deborah A. Cobb‐Clark. 2006. ‘Racial and Ethnic Discrimination in Local Consumer Markets: Exploiting the Army's Procedures for Matching Personnel to Duty Locations.’The Australian National University Centre for Economic Policy Research, Discussion Paper No. 544. Available online at <http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/pdf/DP544.pdf>.

Coates, Rodney D. 2008. ‘Covert Racism in the USA and Globally.’Sociology Compass 2: 208–231. Reference Online. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00057.x

Dirks, Danielle and Stephen K. Rice 2004. ‘Dining While Black: Tipping as Social Artifact.’Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 45: 30–47.

Essed, Philomena. ‘Everyday Racism’ in A Companion Study of Race and Ethnic Relations. David Theo Goldberg and John Solomos [eds]. 2002. Blackwell Reference Online. DOI: 10.1111/b.9780631206163.2002.00020.x

Feagin, Joe R. 1991. The Continuing Significance of Race: Antiblack Discrimination in Public Places. American Sociological Review 56: 101–116.

Mallinson, Christine, and Zachary W. Brewster. 2005. ‘“Blacks and Bubbas”: Stereotypes, Ideology, and Categorization Processes in Restaurant Servers’ Discourse.’Discourse and Society 16: 787–807.

Rusche, Sarah E. and Zachary W. Brewster. ‘“Because they tip for shit!”: The Social Psychology of Everyday Racism in Restaurants.’Sociology Compass 2/6 (2008), pp. 2008–2029. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00167.x

Swim, Janet K., Lauri L. Hyers, Laurie L. Choen, Davita C. Fitzgerald, and Wayne H. Bylsma. 2003. ‘African American College Students’ Experiences with Everyday Racism: Characteristics of and Responses to These Incidents.’Journal of Black Psychology 29: 38–67.

Tomaskovic‐Devey, Donald, Marcinda Macon, and Matthew Zingraff. 2004. ‘Looking for the Driving While Black Phenomena: Conceptualizing Racial Bias Processes and Their Associated Distributions.’Police Quarterly 7: 3–29.

Van Dijk, Teun A. ‘Discourse and Racism’ in A Companion Study of Race and Ethnic Relations. David Theo Goldberg and John Solomos [eds]. 2002. Blackwell Reference Online. DOI: 10.1111/b.9780631206163.2002.00017.x

 Unit – Social Psychology of Everyday Racism

Concepts:

 Self‐fulfilling prophecy

 Stereotypes; Stereotype Activation

 Social Cognition

 Attribution Errors

 Racist Discourse

Readings:

Berard, Tim J. ‘The Neglected Social Psychology of Institutional Racism.’Sociology Compass 2/2 (2008), pp. 734–764. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00089.x

Bonilla‐Silva, Eduardo. 2002. ‘The Linguistics of Colorblind Racism: How to Talk Nasty about Blacks without Sounding “Racist”’, Critical Sociology, 28, 1–2, 41–64.

Correll, Shelley J. and Cecilia L. Ridgeway. 2003. ‘Expectation States Theory.’ In Delamater, John [ed.]. 2003. Handbook of Social Psychology, Springer: New York.

Devine, P. G. 1989. ‘Stereotypes and Prejudice: Their Automatic and Controlled Components.’Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56: 5–18.

Fiske, Susan T. 2000. ‘Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination at the Seam between the Centuries: Evolution, Culture, Mind, and Brain.’European Journal of Social Psychology 30: 299–322.

Fiske, Susan T. 2004. ‘Intent and Ordinary Bias: Unintended Thought and Social Motivation Create Casual Prejudice.’Social Justice Research, 17: 117–127.

Kaiser, Cheryl R. and Carol T. Miller. 2001. ‘Stop Complaining! The Social Costs of Making Attributions to Discrimination.’Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27: 254–263.

Kawakami, Kerry, Heather Young, and John F. Dovidio. 2002. ‘Automatic Stereotyping: Category, Trait, and Behavioral Activations.’Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28: 3–15.

Pettigrew, Thomas. 1979. ‘The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport's cognitive analysis of prejudice.’Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 5: 461–476.

Ridgeway, Cecilia L. and Kristan Glasgow Erickson. 2000. ‘Creating and Spreading Status Beliefs.’American Journal of Sociology 106: 579–615.

Rusche, Sarah E. and Zachary W. Brewster. ‘“Because they tip for shit!”: The Social Psychology of Everyday Racism in Restaurants.’Sociology Compass 2/6 (2008), pp. 2008–2029. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00167.x

Tomaskovic‐Devey, Donald, Marcinda Macon, and Matthew Zingraff. 2004. ‘Looking for the Driving While Black Phenomena: Conceptualizing Racial Bias Processes and Their Associated Distributions.’Police Quarterly 7: 3–29.

Focus and discussion questions:

How does the authors’ use of triangulation improve their research results?

What is the relationship between systemic racism and social‐psychological aspects of racism?

What role does workplace discourse play in servers’ discrimination? In what other contexts is discourse used to promote, justify or minimize discrimination?

Are there further‐reaching consequences for blacks apart from the quality of dining experiences? In what other contexts might these social‐psychological processes play out

If restaurant managers or owners wanted to eliminate racist discourse and discrimination against blacks in their restaurants, how could they go about doing it?

Project Ideas:

1. Racist Discourse Assignment

(Adapted from an assignment developed by Christine Mallinson, University of Maryland, Baltimore County)

Now that you have read our article as well as research by Bonilla‐Silva (2002), Dirks and Rice (2004), and Mallinson and Brewster (2005), you are ready to begin doing research to corroborate what you have learned from these authors. Thus, for this assignment you will collect and analyze evidence of racialized restaurant server discourse. Such discourse is disproportionately evidenced when servers converse about patrons’ tipping behaviors. Begin by visiting The Original Tipping Page (http://tipping.org), a website that is specifically geared toward restaurant servers and which includes a job‐related discussion board. On this site, restaurant servers post messages on discussion boards and debate issues related to their jobs, including the tipping practices of patrons.

Task: Search these online postings and gather data about how servers talk about racial differences in tipping behaviors. On The Original Tipping Page, collect servers’ online postings by clicking on the ‘Forums’ link in the toolbar at the top of the home page. From there, you can access the discussion board by clicking on the ‘Enter the Board’ link at the bottom of the page and then clicking on the ‘Tipping Forum’ link on the following page. Upon entering the ‘Tipping Forum’, students can read/search various postings from servers for evidence of ‘racetalk,’ racial prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (be sure to search the archives too). When analyzing1 the data you collected, look for patterns in servers’ discourse and pay particular attention to the properties of racetalk as described by Bonilla‐Silva (2002) and Mallinson and Brewster (2005). There are many other server blogs that you are encouraged to explore in search of data on servers’ racialized discourse, which provide opportunities for analytic comparison. These include but are not limited to: The Bitter Waitress (http://bitterwaitress.com), The Insane Waiter (http://allprowaiter.blogspot.com), Waiter Rant (http://WaiterRant.Net), The Stained Apron (http://stainedapron.com), Raging Server (http://www.ragingserver.com/), and The Upset Waitress (http://upsetwaitress.com).

2. Restaurant Ethnography Assignment

For this assignment, you will collect data and write a short ethnography on the racialized nature of restaurant establishments. Your first task is to select a restaurant that will serve as your research site. Because you will be spending a considerable amount of time in this restaurant, we suggest taking some time to think about the type of restaurant that you find most interesting. For instance, you may want to explore the racialized nature of small locally owned and operated restaurants (e.g., ‘ma and pop’ type establishments). Alternatively, you may think about doing your field research in a corporate owned chain restaurant (e.g., Red Lobster, Outback Steak House, Applebee's, etc.), such as those explored in Rusche and Brewster's (2008) research. Another option is to explore the racialized nature of ‘ethnic’ restaurants, such as Chinese, Mexican or Indian restaurants. Owing to the fact that students will be doing their research in different types of restaurants, we encourage instructors to allocate class time to discussing emergent similarities and differences across research sites.

Once you have chosen a research site of interest to you, it is time to begin doing research by visiting your chosen restaurant (we suggest requiring students to log a minimum of hours to be determined by the instructor). While in the field, you should attempt to position yourself in a location that allows you to observe the interactions between servers, customers, and managers (e.g., the bar area or host stand). While observing the activities of the restaurant, you should take brief notes on what you see, hear, and think. These notes will permit you to identify patterns in observed behaviors and interactions over the course of your research. These notes will become the data that you will later analyze. While it is impossible to foresee the exact patterns that you will find, existing research should inform your analysis. There is a wealth of empirical evidence that shows that contemporary racism is subtle in nature in contrast to the overt nature of Jim Crow era racism. The subtle nature of contemporary racism will likely make it difficult to identify racialized workplace patterns. We encourage you to carefully observe both server–customer interactions as well as those among servers, if you have the vantage point to do so. Some questions that you might explore include: Are there are any differences in the way white servers interact with white customers versus black patrons? Do white servers smile at whites when greeting them more than comparable black tables? Do servers appear to be more friendly or welcoming when providing service to whites compared with blacks? Do white and black customers appear equally satisfied or dissatisfied with their service? How do you know? Do servers ‘check in’ with white tables more than black tables?

Once you have collected and analyzed the data, it is time to write an analytic paper using data excerpts to support your argument. Details for this assignment will vary by instructor but can include analytic memos or other sociological research reports.

Notes

* Correspondence address: Pomona College. Email: serusche@chass.ncsu.edu

1 The data students collect can be analyzed in class and facilitated by the instructor or alternatively can be analyzed on their own time and turned in as a course project or term paper. We also suggest that instructors consider having students complete the assignment in small groups.