Ann Arbor Times

Civil rights appeals have been pivotal in shaping social change and protecting human rights in the United States. However, new research from the University of Michigan suggests that using civil rights rhetoric to gain public support for modern social issues might be counterproductive.

The study, published in the American Sociological Review, indicates that while many people view civil rights positively in theory, framing current problems like employment discrimination, sexual harassment, food insecurity, and inadequate health care as civil rights issues can actually decrease public support for government intervention.

"Most surprising to us was how widespread the negative effect was," stated Fabiana Silva, lead author and assistant professor of public policy at U-M.

This counterproductive effect of civil rights framing was observed across various issues of discrimination and material deprivation among different groups—African Americans, Mexican Americans, white Americans, and undocumented Mexican immigrants—and audiences including liberals, conservatives, whites, African Americans, and Latinos.

One might suspect these findings are due to racialized backlash. However, Silva explains that this would imply certain groups—particularly those with anti-Black attitudes—would react more negatively than others. Instead, the research showed that civil rights framing similarly decreased support for government action across all respondent subgroups. Interestingly, it even reduced Black respondents' support for addressing challenges faced by Black communities.

Researchers suggest this backfire effect may occur because civil rights language evokes comparisons with the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s—a time characterized by state-sanctioned discrimination and violence. Such associations could make today's issues seem less severe and unintentionally alienate supporters.

The study proposes that activists and policymakers consider framing issues around "American values" as a strategy. "We were intrigued to find that not only did American values framing work better than civil rights framing but also that people have an expansive view of American values," Silva noted. "People largely believed that all the problems we examined represent violations of American values."