Monroe County currently stands on the precipice of a historic milestone. Should he win, Benjamin Arrington would become the first person of color to hold the office of Monroe County Prosecutor, and only the third in the entire state of Indiana. It is an opportunity for progress that reflects the diverse, forward-thinking community we strive to be.
Yet, as the May primary approaches, a disturbing and all-too-familiar narrative has taken root among supporters of his opponent, Erika Oliphant. Rather than engaging strictly on policy, elements of her base have taken to calling Ben “unhinged,” “angry,” and “overly aggressive.”
It is profoundly unfortunate, not merely because it is false, but because this rhetoric lazily operationalizes one of the most insidious and historically entrenched tropes in American society: the Angry Black Man.
When a Black man asks for fairness, demands accountability, or calls out a legitimate grievance, his passion is rarely afforded the same grace as his white peers. Instead, it is immediately perceived as a threat. This is not a matter of subjective political opinion; it is a well-documented cognitive bias and a deeply anchored sociological phenomenon.
The stereotype traces its roots back to the post-Reconstruction era, originating from the “Brute” caricature. This historically manufactured image depicted Black men as innately savage, prone to explosive rage, and inherently dangerous. It was a deliberate cultural tool designed to justify systemic violence, Jim Crow laws, and the disproportionate policing of Black communities. While the overt cartoons have faded from the mainstream, the underlying psychological bias remains deeply embedded in the American subconscious, weaponized to silence Black men who challenge the status quo.
The empirical evidence demonstrating this bias is overwhelming:
- Perception of Threat: A landmark 2017 study published by the American Psychological Association (APA) found that people consistently perceive Black men as larger, more physically threatening, and more aggressive than White men of the exact same size and weight. Even when unarmed and stationary, the baseline perception of a Black man is skewed toward danger.
- Misattribution of Anger: Research by psychologists Hugenberg and Bodenhausen (2003) demonstrated that individuals are significantly quicker to perceive anger in Black faces than in White faces, and they perceive that anger as lasting longer. An expression that might be read as “determined” or “frustrated” on a White man is rapidly categorized as “hostile” on a Black man.
- The Penalty for Assertiveness: Studies on workplace dynamics and leadership, such as those published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, reveal that Black leaders are penalized for expressing frustration or asserting themselves in ways that White leaders are actually rewarded for. When a White professional pushes back, it is “strong leadership.” When a Black professional does the same, it is “aggressive” and “unhinged.”
Ben called out unfair treatment, and for that, he has been painted with this regressive brush. It is deeply disappointing that Oliphant—who publicly claims to work toward minimizing racial prejudice and inequity—would allow her campaign ecosystem to operationalize this trope.
If we are to subject Benjamin Arrington to this narrative of reckless aggression, we must ask the questions that expose its absurdity. If Ben is truly so “unhinged,” why doesn’t he have an arrest record? How has he managed to maintain his law license in good standing for years? How did he successfully navigate and maintain a long, disciplined tenure working with the state? How is he entrusted to serve as the director of a legal clinic for a non-profit organization?
At 43 years old, if Ben is governed by a baseline of volatile aggression, where is the trail of trouble? The reality is entirely incongruous with the caricature. The record shows a dedicated, highly disciplined professional.
It is bitterly disappointing to watch fringe Democrats indulge in this rhetoric. We are supposed to be the party of equality. We are supposed to be the coalition that recognizes implicit bias, calls it out, and does the hard work of dismantling it. Instead, some have chosen the path of least resistance, leaning into a racialized trope simply because it is politically convenient in a primary race.
Calling out unfairness is not aggression; it is a demand for equity. Acknowledging a grievance is not being unhinged; it is holding power accountable. Monroe County deserves a prosecutor’s race built on the merits of the candidates’ records and visions for the future, not one that relies on the ghosts of historic prejudice to score cheap political points.
References
- Goff, P. A., Jackson, M. C., Di Leone, B. A. L., Culotta, C. M., & DiTomasso, N. A. (2014). The essence of innocence: Consequences of dehumanizing Black children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(4), 526–545.
- Hugenberg, K., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2003). Facing prejudice: Implicit prejudice and the perception of facial threat. Psychological Science, 14(6), 640-643.
- Livingston, R. W., & Pearce, J. L. (2009). The teddy-bear effect: Does having a baby face benefit black chief executive officers? Psychological Science, 20(10), 1229-1236.
- Wilson, J. P., Hugenberg, K., & Rule, N. O. (2017). Racial bias in judgments of physical size and formidability: From size to threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 59–80.
- Wingfield, A. H. (2010). Are some emotions marked “Whites only”? Racialized feeling rules in professional workplaces. Social Problems, 57(2), 251-268.
Leave a Reply