In contrast to the direct and easily discernible traditional forms, contemporary biases are expressed, often unintentionally, in indirect and ration-alizable ways. Because of the subtle nature of contemporary bias, passive equal opportunity employment policies may not ensure the fair and unbiased treatment of traditionally disadvantaged groups. Policies designed to protect disadvantaged individuals and groups from one type of discrimination based on overt anti-outgroup actions may be ineffective for addressing biased treatment based on ingroup favoritism that may characterize aversive racism. In contrast, affirmative action, with its focus on documenting and responding to disparities at the aggregate level and its emphasis on outcomes rather than intention, addresses some of the particularly problematic aspects of subtle biases that permit disparities to persist despite people's good intentions. Finally, it is important to note that even though biases may be unconscious, unintentional and subtle, that does not mean that bias is inevitable or immutable.
Significant changes can occur in individuals and in society.
Expressed racial attitudes have changed dramatically since the civil rights legislation 30 years ago. The personal, social and economic well-being of Blacks, women and other traditionally disadvantaged groups have improved since the advent of affirmative action. We should not delude ourselves, however, that equality has been achieved, that equity is now guaranteed or that we are a society beyond bias. Racism still needs to be combatted actively and self-consciously. Good intentions alone are not sufficient to guarantee equality.