ࡱ> %` Cbjbjٕ 4%~~~~~~~VvVvVv8v\vt١j{j{"{{{{{{XZZZZZZ$Ӣh;~~{{~~~{{|~{~{XX~~{^{ 9Vv>\D0١ӥ ӥӥ~@{D}:~~zH{{{~~^{{{١qVvVv~~~~~~  The Influence of Anti-Black Attitudes on Minority Support for Race-Conscious Policies Kierra A Freeman For decades, researchers have examined the attitudes of Whites and African Americans toward race-conscious policies. As anticipated, African Americans are largely in favor of race-conscious policies, while Whites are the least supportive of such policies. Ascending beyond the traditional Black-White dichotomy, it is necessary to consider factors shaping the attitudes of Asians and Latinos merely because both groups benefit from affirmative action policies, but nonetheless hold varying degrees of support for such policies. Thus, this study seeks to examine the extent to which anti-Black attitudes shape minority support for race-conscious policies. It is expected that Asians and Latinos are more likely to oppose race-conscious policies to the extent that members of these groups display greater anti-Black attitudes. Data from the Multi City Study of Urban Inequality, 1992-1994 is used to assess these attitudes. This study reveals that Hispanics are more likely to oppose opportunity-enhancing policies when compared to outcome-directed when displaying greater anti-Black attitudes. In reference to Asians, there are no statistically significant findings regarding Asian support for race-conscious policies. Introduction From its onset, affirmative action has been a controversial issue facing the American public. Proponents of this policy argue that affirmative action is necessary to redress past discrimination against minorities within the U.S. President Johnson first articulates the rationale for affirmative action in a well known speech given at Howard University in 1965 where he states that, You dont take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race and then say, You are free to compete with all others and still justly believe you have been completely fair (Lopez and Pantoja 2004). Although given 42 years ago, the rationale behind this speech remains a central issue within todays society. Based on glass ceilings in the workplace and dire needs for diversity within public universities, there are still existing inequalities among minority groups relative to Anglo-Americans. In spite of this observation, opponents of affirmative action contend that race-conscious policies are no longer necessary within todays society. Opponents of affirmative action often argue that certain groups, African Americans in particular, benefit from affirmative action policies and should not. For example, individualism, self-reliance, the work ethic, obedience, and discipline are some of the traditional American values that all citizens are expected to embrace (Kinder & Sears 1981, pg. 416). However, opponents argue that African Americans are unlikely to adhere to these principles. This form of racism, referred to as symbolic racism, is used by Anglo Americans as a justification for opposing affirmative action (Kinder & Sears 1981). When using negative connotations to describe African Americans, it is imperative that opponents of race-conscious policies realize that African Americans are not the sole beneficiaries of such policies. Affirmative action developed during the 1960s and 1970s under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Under this act, affirmative action was shaped by the Presidency and Congress and emphasized nondiscrimination within a race blind Constitution (Graham 1992, pg. 50). From this assertion, as well as the fact that Asians, Latinos and other minority groups benefit from affirmative action, it is apparent that African Americans are not the only group race-conscious policies aim to assist. However, as a result of the Civil Rights measures passed in response to acts of protest primarily from African Americans, many have linked the minority group to race-conscious policies. If Anglo Americans perceive that African Americans are lazy and unintelligent, contradicting all notions of traditional American values, it is plausible for whites to oppose affirmative action. However, a subject of concern lies in understanding how other minorities are affected by these mainstream views. It seems plausible to assert that African Americans, Latinos and Asians will favor race-conscious policies because of historical prejudices these groups have encountered. However, scholars argue that because Latinos and Asian Americans have sizable foreign-born populations, their political outlooks reflect the optimism of immigrant society (Lopez and Pantoja 2004). Along with this argument, other scholars have fond that both Latinos and Asian Americans held negative stereotypes of African Americans. Specifically, the stereotypes of Blacks held by Latinos were more negative than those held by Whites, and Latinos often felt that they had more in common with Whites (McClain, et al). Although this research was conducted in Durham, North Carolina, these generalizations could be applicable to society as a whole. As these findings illustrate, Latinos and Asian Americans are affected by mainstream views. One could infer that this desire to assimilate to mainstream views has in turn fostered anti-Black attitudes. The primary purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which anti-black attitudes shape Latino and Asian American support for race-conscious policies. This is an important issue to consider because researchers have shown that Latinos and Asian Americans in varying degrees have taken intermediate positions on race-conscious polices (Lopez and Pantoja 2004). All individuals are not on the same level in terms of the resources available for their assistance. Based on the apparent disparities within the academic and professional arenas, minority groups continue to remain subordinate relative to the dominant group. What is the rationale behind minority opposition to race-conscious policies? Has anti-Black attitudes altered minority support for affirmative action? Literature Review Debates amongst scholars regarding affirmative action and racial attitudes are not a recent phenomenon. As previously mentioned, racist white attitudes towards minority groups, particularly African Americans, has shaped their support for affirmative action policies (Kinder & Sears 1981). This is an important factor to consider because it is possible that non-Black minority attitudes are now shaped by these negative perceptions of Blacks. Before exploring this concept, it is necessary to examine some of the approaches that academic scholars have taken to assess how Blacks are perceived by whites as well as how these white attitudes have shaped their support for affirmative action policies. In the article Prejudice and Politics: Symbolic Racism versus Racial Threats to the Good Life Donald R. Kinder and David O. Sears (1981) examine Whites prejudice against Blacks through two major theoretical approaches. The realistic group conflict theory emphasizes the tangible threats Blacks might pose to Whites private lives. These threats are typically seen through neighborhood and social contact, economic competition, busing of school children for racial integration, and threats to personal safety from black violence. The second theory, symbolic racism, emphasizes abstract, moralistic resentments of Blacks, presumably traceable to preadult socialization. Within the context of this article, symbolic racism is defined as a blend of anti-black affect and the kind of traditional American moral values embodied in the Protestant Ethic. This theory is seen as critical to understanding racial attitudes because it is believed that symbolic racism, unlike racial threats to Whites personal lives, could be the most potent vehicle for racial prejudice today. In concluding their research, both scholars find that symbolic racism is the overriding determinant of voting in relation to racial threat. Overall, what makes this a compelling article is that it focuses on prejudice as a political force, and this is necessary to understanding attitudes centered on race-conscious policies. Despite its emphasis on racist White attitudes against Blacks, this article fails to consider how non-Black minority groups perceive African Americans. It is crucial that these attitudes are examined because as previously stated, African Americans are not perceived favorably by other minority groups. In his article Resistance to Affirmative Action: Self-Interest or Racism Cardell K. Jacobson (1985) examines whether or not self-interest, new symbolic racism, and old fashioned racism are predictors of attitudes about race-conscious policies. His rationale for examining these types of racism is based on the belief that old fashioned racism has taken a different form in recent years. New symbolic racism is based on the belief that blacks are making and winning too many demands from the government. Self interest is somewhat confounded with symbolic racism because feelings of unfair economic competition have possibly prompted White resistance to black gains and perceived White losses. Jacobson concludes his study with the following argument: new racism, old-fashioned racism, and self-interest all tend to be moderate predictors of attitudes toward affirmative action programs, although the strongest predictor is clearly the new racism scale (pg. 306). Along with this article, other scholars have sought to examine racial attitudes toward race-conscious policies. In the article Racial Prejudice and Attitudes toward Affirmative Action several scholars examine the relationship between blatant racial prejudice and anger toward affirmative action (Kuklinski et al, 1997). Whereas this article focuses on some of the same issues as the previous ones, it makes several arguments based on a more recent time span. This is necessary when examining issues as salient as racial attitudes simply because these attitudes are often altered by different occurrences. Nonetheless, their study is centered on three potential theories: blatantly prejudiced attitudes continue to pervade the White population in the United States; resistance to affirmative action is more than an extension of this prejudice; and White resistance to affirmative action is not unyielding and unalterably fixed (Kuklinski et al, 1997, pg. 403). Racial prejudice as blatant animosity is considered to be a strong, openly expressed, negative evaluation of African Americans within the context of this article. To assess their attitudes, White respondents were asked their opinions on federal government increasing the tax on gasoline, professional athletes getting million dollar salaries, large corporations polluting the environment, and African American families moving in next door. In estimating the level of anger over race-conscious policies, the scholars replaced the black family item with black leaders asking for affirmative action (Kuklinski et al 1997, pg. 408). The scholars conclude with the following statement: racial prejudice remains a major problem in the United States, but this prejudice alone cannot explain all of the anger toward affirmative action among Whites; although many Whites strongly resist affirmative action, they express support for making extra efforts to help African Americans. There are several assertions used in the previous works that will be thoroughly examined in this research. For example, Kinder and Sears (1981) argue that anti-Black attitudes are essential to understanding symbolic racism. Whereas these attitudes are used to determine voting behavior amongst Whites, this paper will focus on whether or not these attitudes actually influence support for race-conscious policies. All of the previously mentioned articles address the effects of racial attitudes towards African Americans. Often reiterated in their works, some of these scholars argue that racial attitudes against Blacks often dictate whether or not Whites will support affirmative action. Based on past as well as contemporary works, it is apparent that research has focused on issues amongst Blacks and Whites. However, it is imperative that researchers extend beyond the Black-White dichotomy by incorporating the views of other minorities. Unlike the previous works discussed, a central premise of this work lies in examining the attitudes of minorities on race-conscious policies. Before thoroughly explaining the underlying principles of this paper, it is necessary to discuss some of the arguments used in examining different racial attitudes towards affirmative action. In the article Beyond Black and White Linda Lopez and Adrian D. Pantoja (2004) compare African American, Latino, Asian American, and White support for job training and educational assistance programs (an opportunity-enhancing policy) and racial preferences in the workplace (an outcome-directed policy) (pg. 633). In determining these attitudes, the authors asked the respondents whether or not they favored special job training and educational assistance, as well as special preferences in hiring and promotion for certain groups. By controlling for certain factors such as class, discrimination, ideology, age, and education, they found that African Americans supported both forms of affirmative action, while Whites were the least supportive. In reference to Latinos and Asian Americans, both exhibited moderate degrees of support for the policies. Within their study, scholars Pantoja and Lopez acknowledge the possibility that class, discrimination, ideology, age, gender, and education may influence an individuals attitude on affirmative action policies and isolate these factors within their study. The same approach will be used within this research. Along with these control variables, both scholars are using opportunity-enhancing and outcome-directed policies as forms of affirmative action, and these policies are essential to understanding the focus of this paper. This is merely because both policies are different in theory, but are nonetheless, forms of affirmative action. More precisely stated, the opportunity enhancing policy is offering special job training and educational assistance, and the outcome-directed policy is offering preferences in hiring and promotions to certain groups. By offering different forms of assistance, respondents should be expected to favor one policy over the other. For example, most citizens will probably feel more inclined to support the opportunity-enhancing policy because it is merely extending a helping hand to groups that have been previously subjected to unequal treatment. However, one would not expect the same level of support in regards to the outcome-directed policy because most individuals will feel that their interests are at risk. This is a rational argument because by supporting hiring and promotion policies for certain groups, it is probable that others will be less likely to receive the same opportunities. Whereas these policies are necessary to understanding racial group support for affirmative action, Pantoja and Lopez fail to consider possible attitudes that often influence non-Black minority support for such policies. Thus, this study offers a different approach to the works of these scholars by considering how anti-Black attitudes will influence minorities support for race-conscious policies. For clarification purposes, Asians and Latinos are the minority groups presented within the scope of this paper. Theory The purpose of this study is to examine the extent to which anti-Black attitudes shape minority support for race-conscious policies. Before examining this hypothesis, it is necessary to examine the underlying meaning of anti-Black attitudes and why it is expected that these attitudes will shape Latinos and Asians support for affirmative action policies. As previously mentioned, anti-Black attitudes were derived from the term symbolic racism. In the article Prejudice and Politics Donald R. Kinder and David O. Sears (1981) define symbolic racism as a blend of anti-black affect and the kind of traditional American moral values embodied in the Protestant Ethic (pg. 416). This type of racism represents a form of resistance to change in the racial status quo based on moral feelings that blacks violate such traditional American values as individualism and self-reliance, the work ethic, obedience, and discipline (Sears and Kinder 1981). Anti-black attitudes tend to depict Blacks as being lazy, criminals, unintelligent, as well as poor. Although this concept is derived from symbolic racism, a term framed within the 1980s, anti-Black attitudes are still prevalent within contemporary society (Sears and Kinder 1981). For example, these attitudes are clearly expressed when political issues are being considered. African Americans, in particular Black women, are often perceived as impoverished abusers of the welfare system. This opinion ignores statistics which have shown the following: Children, not women, are the largest group of people receiving public assistance. Less than 5 million of the 14 million public assistance recipients are adults, and 90 percent of those adults are women. The majority of the recipients are White (38 percent), followed by 37 percent African Americans, and 25 percent other minority groups (Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian Americans) (U.S. Census Bureau 1995). However, these findings are often disregarded and Blacks are still portrayed as lazy and poor. Along with these factors, Blacks are often described as criminals and dumb and in congruence, these factors are clear examples of anti-Black attitudes. As previously mentioned, these attitudes are framed as mere contradictions to traditional American values. These attitudes are expected to influence minority support for affirmative action. There are several reasons why anti-Black attitudes are expected to alter minority support for race-conscious policies; however, in regards to the scope of this paper, two factors will be examined: the importance of adhering to American values and assimilation. As previously mentioned, individualism, work ethic, and obedience are the core values under the American system. If these values are embedded in the minds of Latinos and Asians, it is plausible to expect that these minorities will hold differing opinions on affirmative action when compared to Blacks. This is merely because opponents against race-conscious policies tend to associate anti-Black attitudes with these policies. Because some minorities may feel that it is necessary to adhere to American principles, it is expected that they will exhibit stronger levels of opposition to race-conscious policies. Similar to the rationale behind American values, some minorities believe that it is necessary to assimilate to mainstream culture, and this is also a justification as to why anti-Black attitudes should be expected to influence minority support for affirmative action policies. Mainstream culture is typically seen as White American culture. Because race-conscious policies are often opposed by White Americans, and some minority groups may feel compelled to identify with such views, it is plausible to expect minorities to oppose affirmative action policies when anti-Black attitudes are considered. For example, in the article Racial Distancing in a Southern City several scholars examine the attitudes of Latino immigrants toward African Americans (McClain et al, 2006). In their findings, the scholars discovered that certain subgroups of Latinos and Asians held negative stereotypes of African Americans and felt that they were more like Whites when compared to African Americans (McClain et al, 2006). Within this study, anti-Black attitudes are based on perceived notions of drug usage and gang involvement, self reliance, and intellectual abilities. This research will focus on Asians and Latinos support for affirmative action policies. These two minority groups are of interest based on findings in previous literature. During their research on general support for race-conscious policies among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and Whites, scholars Pantoja and Lopez (2004) found that Latinos and Asian Americans in varying degrees took intermediate positions on these issues (pg. 633). Thus, a central purpose within this paper lies in determining what issues could be expected to strongly affect their perspectives on affirmative action policies. In summary, the hypothesis within this study is as follows: it is expected that Asians and Latinos are more likely to oppose race-conscious policies to the extent that members of these groups display greater anti-Black attitudes. Because both policies aim to redress past discrimination against racial minority groups, the terms affirmative action and race-conscious policies will be used interchangeably within the scope of this paper. Methods There are a series of steps conducted to assess the validity of the theory used within this study. Data from the Multi City Study of Urban Inequality, 1992-1994 is used to assess anti-Black attitudes and their influence on minority support for affirmative action. The data is drawn from the following cities: Los Angeles, Boston, Detroit, and Atlanta. However, this analysis is restricted to information collected from Los Angeles because it is the only city out of the four that includes a statistically representative sample of the minorities studied within this research. The sample size of the minority groups is 4, 025. 25.34% of the respondents are Hispanics and 26.21% of the respondents are Asians. All of the questions that are used to formulate variables within this research can be found within this particular data set. A series of regression analyses are conducted to test the relative strengths of anti-Black attitudes and their influence on minority support for affirmative action policies. The dependent variables used within this study are based on two race-conscious policies. The first question is labeled as an opportunity-enhancing policy and it asks: Now I have some questions about what you think about the fairness of certain policies. Some people feel that because of past disadvantage there are some groups in society that should receive special job training and educational assistance. Others say that it is unfair to give these groups special job training and educational assistance. What about you? Do you strongly favor, favor, neither favor nor oppose, oppose, or strongly oppose special job training and educational assistance for African Americans? Based on previous literature, opportunity-enhancing programs are often treated as more benign forms of government assistance because they have simply allowed individuals to help themselves (Pantoja and Lopez 2004). Because Whites have displayed stronger levels of support toward this policy, it is expected that minorities will exhibit the same patterns; these patterns are largely based on the role of anti-Black attitudes. Unlike opportunity-enhancing policies, outcome-directed policies typically elicit stronger levels of oppositions from Whites. This is merely because minority groups are being favored for jobs and promotions that in turn will contribute to fewer chances for Whites. Although it is rational for Whites to oppose outcome-directed policies, opposition amongst minorities is somewhat unusual. However, as a result of including anti-Black attitudes, minorities should be expected to exhibit weaker levels of support for outcome directed policies when compared to opportunity enhancing policies. The second question is labeled as an outcome-directed policy and it asks: Some people feel that because of past disadvantages, there are some groups in society that should be given preference in hiring and promotion. Others say that it is unfair to give these groups special preferences. What about you? Do you strongly favor, favor, neither favor or oppose, oppose, or strongly oppose special preferences in hiring and promotion to African Americans? Within this study, both policies are measured on a scale in which 1=strongly oppose, 2=oppose, 3=neither favor nor oppose, 4=favor, and 5=strongly favor. The independent variables within this study are a series of questions that represent anti-Black attitudes. The three questions are combined to form an index variable labeled as Stereotype. The first question is intended to measure attitudes on intelligence and is as follows: I want to know whether you think African Americans tend to be intelligent or tend to be unintelligent. Where would you rate African Americans on this scale, where 1 means tends to be intelligent and 7 means tends to be unintelligent? A score of 4 means you think that African Americans are not towards one end or the other and, of course, you may chose any number in between that comes closest to where you think African Americans stand. For decades, scholars have sought to examine intellectual differences amongst all races. Most have discovered that intellectual differences amongst African Americans, Asians, Latinos and Whites may be largely attributed to geographical as well as socioeconomic factors. Nevertheless, African Americans are often perceived as having less native intelligence relative to Whites and Asians. Thus, it is expected that when African Americans are perceived as unintelligent, Asians and Latinos will be less likely to support both race-conscious policies. The second question is intended to assess attitudes on self-reliance and is as follows: I want to know whether you think African Americans tend to be self-supporting or tend to prefer to be on welfare. Where would you rate African Americans on this scale, where 1 means tends to be self-supporting and 7 means tends to prefer to be on welfare? A score of 4 means you think that African Americans are not towards one end or the other and, of course, you may chose any number in between that comes closest to where you think African Americans stand. In examining the concept of symbolic racism, Kinder and Sears mention that Blacks are perceived by Whites as less likely to adhere to traditional American values such as individualism and self-reliance (Kinder and Sears 1981). Based on differing attitudes amongst groups within todays society, African Americans are still considered as lazy and more likely to rely on welfare. Thus, it is expected that when African Americans are perceived as primary recipients of welfare, Asians and Latinos will be less likely to support the opportunity enhancing and direct outcome policies. The third question is intended to assess attitudes on drug usage and gang association and is as follows: I want to know whether you think African Americans tend not to be involved in drugs and gangs or tend to be involved in drugs and gangs. Where would you rate African Americans on this scale, where 1 means tends not to be involved with drugs and gangs and 7 means tends to be involved with drugs and gangs? A score of 4 means you think that African Americans are not towards one end or the other and, of course, you may chose any number in between that comes closest to where you think African Americans stand. According to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, the lifetime likelihood of incarceration for African Americans (16.2%) is almost twice that of Hispanics (9.4%) and more than six times that of Whites (2.5%). Based on these statistics, it is not surprising why African Americans are typically classified as drug abusers and gang members. Contrary to these statistics, African Americans actually have lower drug usage rates relative to other groups. As this study indicates, there are factors such as geographic location and socioeconomic status that must be considered when interpreting these statistics (Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies). However, in the scope of this research, it is expected that the more African Americans are perceived as being involved with gangs and drugs, the less likely Asians and Latinos will support affirmative action policies. Along with the dependent and independent variables used within this study, several control variables were examined to determine other possible factors that could influence minority support for affirmative action. The control variables within the models are as follows: discrimination, political ideology, education, gender, and income. The questions used to ascertain each variable is presented in the appendix. It is expected that if Latinos and Asians believe that African Americans still experience discrimination, they will support affirmative action policies. Discrimination is measured on the following scale: 1= a lot; 2= some; 3=only a little; 4= none at all. In measuring ideology, 1=extremely liberal, 2=liberal, 3=slightly liberal, 4=moderate; middle of the road; 5=slightly conservative; 6=conservative; and 7=extremely conservative. Asian Americans and subgroups of Latinos are not as ideologically homogenous as minority groups such as African Americans. The principled objection perspective has well established that self-identified conservatives oppose race-conscious policies on the grounds that they object to extensive government involvement in remedying racial inequalities (Sniderman and Piazza 1993; Sniderman, Brody, and Kuklinski, 1984). Whereas this approach has been largely confined to examining ideology among Whites, ideology is used within this study to determine whether or not conservative Asians and Latinos will display greater opposition to the opportunity-enhancing and outcome-directed policies. Previous literature on education has shown contrasting opinions on how ones level of education should influence their attitude on race-conscious policies. For example, Protho and Grigg (1960) argue that education has a politically liberalizing effect and the well educated display a deeper commitment to democratic principles. However, other research findings suggest that the well educated are familiar with the principles of racial integration and equality, yet their commitment to seeing the implementation of these policies is rare (Jackman and Muha 1984). Within this study, the central argument is that higher levels of education will prompt respondents to support affirmative action policies. In measuring income, the categories are divided based on intervals of $4,999. For example, 1 represents none or less than $4,999, 2 represents $5,000- $9,999 and so on to in which 20 represents $150,000 or more. It is expected that when Asians and Latinos have higher incomes, they are less likely to support race-conscious policies. Results To what extent do anti-Black attitudes shape minority support for race-conscious policies? As previously mentioned, the questions related to crime, intelligence, and self-reliance are all combined into an index of anti-Black attitudes. These attitudes are labeled as stereotype. It is expected that Asians and Latinos are more likely to oppose race-conscious policies to the extent that members of these groups display greater anti-Black attitudes. According to Table 1, the direction of the stereotype coefficient supports the argument that Hispanics are more likely to oppose opportunity enhancing policies when greater levels of anti-Black attitudes are perceived. With a p-value of .005, this finding is statistically significant. In addition to the index of Black attitudes, several control variables were included within this study. In reference to the discrimination variable, this examination anticipated that if Hispanics felt that Blacks were subjected to discrimination, they would be more likely to support opportunity-enhancing policies. The positive direction of the coefficient, as well as a p-value equal to .000, supports this expectation. Thus, Hispanics are more likely to support opportunity-enhancing policies when they believe that Blacks are often subjected to discrimination. This finding is not surprising because African Americans and Hispanics share a common history of exclusion, and both groups are still targets of discrimination within contemporary society. In reference to the education variable, this study suggests that Hispanics with higher levels of education are more likely to support opportunity-enhancing policies and those with lower levels of education are less likely to support such policies. Table 1 confirms this expectation based on the direction of the coefficient as well as the significance of the p-value. Along with education, this study suggests that Hispanics with higher levels of income are more likely to support opportunity-enhancing policies. With a coefficient of -.024, table 1 disconfirms this argument. As a result of its statistical significance, this finding actual indicates that Hispanics with higher levels of income are less likely to support opportunity-enhancing policies. A plausible justification for this relationship is rather difficult to assess. Perhaps, inferences can be made regarding the ideology finding when the relationships amongst both variables are considered. For example, with a coefficient of -.046, table 1 indicates that Hispanics who identify themselves as being more conservative than liberal are less likely to support opportunity enhancing policies. Several academic scholars have argued that White conservatives tend to have higher incomes and are less likely to support affirmative action. Perhaps this long held assumption is applicable to Hispanics as well. Table 1: Anti-Black Attitudes as Determinants of Hispanic Support for Opportunity Enhance Policy VariableCoefficientP-ValueStereotype-.0320.005Discrimination.1490.000Education.0200.032Income-.0240.013Ideology-.0460.039Const4.020.000N= 4,025 R-Squared= 0.0592 Similar to Latinos support for opportunity-enhancing policies, this study also expects that Latinos are more likely to oppose outcome-directed policies to the extent that members within this group display greater anti-Black attitudes. The direction of the coefficient in table 2 confirms this relationship. Thus, Latinos are less likely to support outcome-directed policies based on their negative perceptions of African Americans. Because the p-value is significant at the .05 level, it can be inferred that these attitudes are not by chance. For example, if the attitudes are perceived to change by one point, support for the outcome directed policy is expected to decrease by .028. Although this is not as significant as perceptions changing from strongly favored to strongly opposed, these results indicate that negative perceptions of Blacks are prevalent in the minds of some Hispanics. Similar to the opportunity-enhancing policy, table 2 reveals that Hispanics are more likely to support outcome-directed policies when Blacks are perceived as being subjected to discrimination. Along with the discrimination variable, table 2 also reveals that Hispanics with politically conservative views are more likely to oppose outcome-directed policies than those with more liberal views. Also, the coefficient for income indicates that Hispanics with higher levels of income are more likely to oppose outcome-directed policies. As previously mentioned in regards to opportunity-enhancing policies, these findings are not surprising and were actually expected within this study. However, the findings for the education variable were unexpected. It was anticipated that Hispanics with higher levels of education would be more inclined to favor outcome-directed policies. Table 2 disconfirms this expectation. With a coefficient of -.027, this finding indicates that Hispanics with higher levels of education are more likely to oppose outcome-directed policies. A possible justification for this relationship is mentioned in previous literature. Scholars Jackman and Muha argue that the well educated are more familiar with the principles of racial integration and equality, yet commitment to seeing these principles come to life does not run very deep (1984). Overall, the effects of education should be modest if that when examining attitudes on outcome-directed policies. Table 2: Anti-Black Attitudes as Determinants of Hispanic Support for Outcome-Directed Policy VariableCoefficientP-ValueStereotype-.0280.022Discrimination.1340.002Education-.027 0.010Income-.020  0.062Ideology-.0620.013Const3.970.000N=4,025 R-Squared= 0.0491 Figure 1: Distribution of Hispanic errors for the Outcome-Directed Policy  * This graph presents the number of errors found when Hispanics were asked if they favor or oppose outcome-directed policies. The distribution is clustered because the survey questions are categorical. Nonetheless, the errors within this graph are relatively normally distributed around the five components of the question. In addition to this finding, tests are conducted to measure the studentized residuals. There are 222 out of 8, 909 residuals calculated, which in turn does not pose a problem to the data. The Cooks D influence and the diagonal elements of the projection hat matrix are also calculated and outliers do not affect the results. Table 3: Anti-Black Attitudes as Determinants of Asian Support for Opportunity-Enhance Policy VariableCoefficientP-ValueStereotype-.0030.877Discrimination.1170.019Education.0020.896Income-.017 0.046Ideology-.035 0.238 Const3.520.000N=4,025 R-Squared=0.0205 Within this study, it is expected that Asians are more likely to oppose opportunity enhancing policies to the extent that members of this group display greater anti-Black attitudes. The direction of the coefficient in table 3 supports this relationship; however, the p-value is not statistically significant. Thus, if this relationship does exist, it is merely by chance alone. By examining table 1, it is clear that a relatively even number of Asians held negative perceptions of Blacks as well as positive. Therefore, it would be rather difficult to explain why the results are not statistically significant. Similar to Latinos, it is expected that when Asians believe that Blacks are discriminated against, they will most likely support opportunity enhancing policies. Table 3 confirms this expectation. Because the p-value is statistically significant, this relationship is not by chance. In reference to the education variable, it is expected that Asians with higher levels of education will most likely support opportunity enhancing policies. The direct of the coefficient within Table 3 supports this relationship, but the results are not statistically significant. Thus, these expectations were not confirmed. A similar pattern is found when measuring political ideology. Asians holding politically conservative views are more likely to oppose opportunity enhancing policies. Although the coefficient in table 4 supports this direction, this relationship is not statistically significant but rather close. A possible justification for this finding may be attributed to the fact that the political ideologies of Asians are often difficult to assess. It is expected that Asians with higher levels of income will most likely oppose opportunity enhancing policies. Table 3 confirms this direction, and the results are statistically significant at the .05 level. Table 4: Anti-Black Attitudes as Determinants of Asian Support for Outcome-Directed Policy VariableCoefficientP-ValueStereotype-.0150.354Discrimination.0210.663Education.0100.639Income-.0100.259 Ideology-.0790.006Const3.360.000 N=4,025 R-Squared= 0.0201 It is expected that Asians are more likely to oppose outcome-directed policies to the extent that members of this group display greater anti-Black attitudes. The coefficient in table 4 supports this direction, but there is no significance. Perhaps, these results are not statistically significant because the data did not accurately gauge Asian opinions on anti-Black attitudes. Along with this speculation, it is often rather difficult to determine the validity of opinions. What if Asians actually exhibit stronger levels of anti-Black attitudes relative to what the surveys were able to ascertain? In examining the control variables, table 4 indicates that the coefficients for discrimination, education and income support the direction anticipated within this study. However, the p-values for these variables are not statistically significant. In reference to ideology, it is expected that Asians with politically conservative ideologies will oppose outcome-directed policies. With a coefficient of -.079, table 4 confirms this direction. This relationship is also statistically significant and is therefore not simply by chance. Table 5: Significance of Stereotypes Opportunity EnhanceOutcome directedAsians-.003-.015Hispanics-.032-.028 By closely examining the results within this study, table 5 reveals that there are some differences between Latinos support for opportunity-enhancing and outcome-directed policies, as well as Asians support for these policies. Based on statistically significant findings, Hispanics are more likely to oppose opportunity-enhancing policies relative to outcome-directed policies. However, because the coefficients are weak, and there is a -.004 difference between the policies, it is rather difficult to make inferences as to why Hispanics tend to oppose opportunity-enhancing policies more than outcome-directed policies. The coefficients in table 5 indicate that Asians are more likely to oppose outcome-directed policies when compared to opportunity-enhancing policies. However, because both of these findings are not statistically significant, it is possible that these relationships are merely by chance. Lastly, this study considers the impact that gender can have on Hispanics and Asians supporting race-conscious policies. As tables 7 through 10 illustrate in the appendix section, the interaction of the gender and stereotype variables with Asians and Hispanics are not statistically significant. Thus, there is not a significant difference between Asian men and Asian women, nor Latinos and Latinas, in terms of how anti-Black attitudes shape their support for opportunity-enhancing and outcome-directed policies. In addition to interacting these variables, regressions are tested for collinearity and heteroscedasticity within the data. Because these factors did not affect the data, the results from their output are presented under tables 11-18 in the appendix. Discussion and Conclusion Based on previous literature, several scholars have examined White attitudes toward race-conscious policies. Some White Americans have argued that by working to assist minorities, affirmative action policies have in turn hindered their opportunities. Because of these commonly held beliefs regarding affirmative action, it is not surprising that a considerable amount of literature has focused on understanding White attitudes. However, recent scholars have evolved past confining their research to White American views. For example, Linda Lopez and Adrian Pantoja (2004) extend beyond White attitudes by comparing African American, Latino, Asian American, and White attitudes toward opportunity-enhancing and outcome-directed policies. Their research, along with other existing works, has shown that African Americans are the most supportive group towards affirmative action policies and Whites are the least. Asians and Latinos have typically taken intermediate positions on race-conscious policies. Are there factors that have influenced their perspectives on these policies? This paper focused on the extent to which anti-Black attitudes shaped Latinos and Asians support for race-conscious policies. It was expected that both groups would be more likely to oppose both opportunity-enhancing and outcome-directed policies when they displayed greater anti-Black attitudes. The results within this research revealed the complexities involved in anticipating such an outcome. The results within this study revealed that Hispanics were more likely to oppose opportunity-enhancing policies relative to outcome-directed when they displayed greater anti-Black attitudes. A possible justification for this finding may be attributed to the belief that if Blacks are perceived as welfare recipients, unintelligent, drug abusers as well as members of gangs, it is possible that Blacks will be less likely to take advantage of the opportunities being presented. This finding was unexpected because this study anticipated that Hispanics would be more inclined to oppose outcome-directed policies when compared to opportunity-enhancing policies. This is merely because outcome-directed policies go beyond simply providing a condition for success, but attempt to guarantee benefits based on an individuals group status (Lopez and Pantoja 2004). If Hispanics are truly advocates for work ethic and self-reliance, is it plausible for individuals to receive preference as a result of group status? This study anticipated that Asians would be more inclined to oppose race-conscious policies when they displayed greater anti-Black attitudes. Although this direction is confirmed, this finding was not statistically significant for both opportunity-enhancing policies and outcome-directed policies. Therefore, it is rather difficult to argue that Asians are influenced by anti-Black attitudes. Perhaps there are underlying factors that are essential to understanding policy support amongst Asians that are not examined within the data. Along with this shortcoming, this study is illustrated within each of the four models in the result section. Under each model, the r-squared values are relatively close to 0. These values indicate that the relationships found among Latinos and Asians are not accurately accounted for by the statistical models. Thus, it is rather difficult to argue that Asians as well as Latinos are influenced by anti-Black attitudes. Lastly, by relying on survey data to measure attitudes, is it plausible to assume that all respondents are being honest? Within contemporary society, it is believed that most people are not truthful when asked questions about negative perceptions of others. As a result of this shortcoming, how does one truthfully gauge public opinion? If anti-Black attitudes are crucial determinants of minority support for race-conscious policies, the affirmation of this finding must be proven by future researchers. Perhaps this may be accomplished through representative samples of the United States population and better categorical data. Appendix Interactions: Table 7: Table 8: Opportunity EnhanceCoefficientT-ScoreP-ValueStereotype-.118767-5.650.000Hispster.06670251.550.120Malster-.0379839-1.150.249Hispmale-.01865-0.080.935Stereolatmal-.0419439-0.630.532Hispanic-.2098759-1.410.159Male.36593683.020.003Constant2.39029130.460.000 Outcome DirectedCoefficientT-ScoreP-ValueStereotype-.1178522 -4.790.000Hispster .09034961.80 0.072Malster-.0669336-1.740.082Hispmale-.0969985-0.360.717Stereolatmal-.0090885-0.120.908Hispanic-.4660189-2.67 0.008Male.49528733.500.000Constant3.09529933.710.000 * Tables 7 and 8 present the findings for interacting Latinos, gender, and stereotypes against the opportunity-enhancing and outcome-directed variables. As this finding indicates, there is not a significant difference between Latinos and Latinas in terms of how anti-Black attitudes shape their support for opportunity-enhancing and outcome-directed policies. Table 9: Opportunity EnhanceCoefficientT-ScoreP-ValueStereotype-.0818152-4.290.000Asian.14321290.670.503Male.32205052.870.004Stereoasmale.06795190.720.472Malas-.2352833-0.790.428Astereo.09096621.340.179Malster-.0392662-1.290.198Constant2.216831.240.000 Outcome DirectedCoefficientT-ScoreP-ValueStereotype-.0511446-2.28 0.023Asian.49039041.950.052Male.47321473.590.000 Stereoasmale.00678580.06 0.951 Malas-.2399752-0.690.492Astereo-.0101006-0.130.899Malster-.0649528-1.810.070Constant2.771658 33.190.000 Table 10: * Tables 9 and 10 present the findings for interacting Asians, gender, and stereotypes against the opportunity-enhancing and outcome-directed variables. As this finding indicates, there is not a significant difference between Asian men and Asian women in terms of how anti-Black attitudes shape their support for opportunity-enhancing and outcome-directed policies. Heteroscedasticity Table 11: Opportunity EnhanceOriginal T-ScoreModified T-ScoreStereotype5.615.61Discrimination-18.16-18.16Ideology-7.91-7.91Education-0.60-0.60Income-10.69-10.69Hispanic0.010.01Const62.1362.13 * As this table illustrates, there were not any changes in the T-scores and thus, there were not any significant levels of heteroscedasticity present within the data. Table 12: Direct OutcomeOriginal T-ScoreModified T-ScoreStereotype-4.34-4.26Discrimination16.4915.01Ideology5.965.96Education5.195.15Income13.5813.57Hispanic-1.94-2.01Const22.6421.91 * As this table illustrates, there was a mild level of heteroscedasticity present within the data based on the Discrimination variable. This is controlled for within the research. Table 13: Opportunity EnhanceOriginal T-ScoreModified T-ScoreStereotype4.414.26 Discrimination-17.04-14.10Ideology-7.98-7.75Education0.500.50Income-10.65-10.53Asian-5.28-5.10Const64.4662.49 * As this table illustrates, there was a mild level of heteroscedasticity present within the data based on the Discrimination variable. This is controlled for within the research. Table 14: Direct OutcomeOriginal T-ScoreModified T-ScoreStereotype3.72 3.64Discrimination-16.03 -14.52Ideology-5.75-5.78Education-5.45-5.46Income-13.77  -13.75 Asian-1.26-1.43Const 49.4748.12 * As this table illustrates, there was a mild level of heteroscedasticity present within the data based on the Discrimination variable. This is controlled for within the research. Collinearity Hispanic Opportunity Enhance Table 15: VariableVIF1/VIFEducation1.340.745518Income1.250.798104Hispanic1.180.847593Ideology1.060.942512Stereotype1.040.959959Discrimination1.020.975622Mean VIF1.15 Asian Opportunity Enhance Table 16: VariableVIF1/VIFEducation1.32 0.758043Income1.240.803810Asian1.140.876760Ideology1.040.959286Stereotype1.070.937054Discrimination1.060.947216Mean VIF1.14 * There were no signs of collinearity within the data Hispanic Direct Outcome Table 17: VariableVIF1/VIFEducation1.340.745208Income1.250.797981Hispanic1.18 0.847170Ideology1.06 0.942318Stereotype1.04 0.959679Discrimination1.03 0.975280Mean VIF1.15 Asian Direct Outcome Table 18: VariableVIF1/VIFEducation1.32 0.758257Income1.240.803588Asian1.140.877713Ideology1.04 0.959084Stereotype1.070.937262Discrimination1.060.947399Mean VIF1.14 * There were no signs of collinearity within the data Discrimination The discrimination variable is based on the following question: In general, how much discrimination is there that hurts the chances of African Americans to get good paying jobs? Do you think that there is a lot, some, only a little, or none at all? For measurement purposes, 1= a lot; 2= some; 3=only a little; 4= none at all. Ideology The following statement is used to capture an individuals political ideology: We hear a lot of talk these days about liberals and conservatives. Here is a 7-point scale on which the political views that people might hold are arranged from extremely liberal to extremely conservative. Where would you place yourself on this scale? For measurement purposes, 1=extremely liberal, 2=liberal, 3=slightly liberal, 4=moderate; middle of the road; 5=slightly conservative; 6=conservative; 7=extremely conservative Education The following question is used to assess each respondents educational level: What is the highest grade of school or year of college you have completed. For measurement purposes, this question is based on a 17 number scale where 0= No years of education, 1= one year and this pattern continues to where 17= 17 or more years. Income The following question is used to determine the income level of each respondent: Please look at this page and tell me the letter of the income group that includes your total family income before taxes in 1991. This figure should include your income from all sources, and the income of all family members living with you. It should include salaries, pensions, self-employment earnings and public assistance. (If the respondent is uncertain, what would be your best guess?) References Graham, Hugh Davis (1992). The Origins of Affirmative Action: Civil Rights and the Regulatory State. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 523, 50-62 Jackman, Mary, and M. Muha. (1984). Education and Intergroup Attitudes: Moral Enlightment, Superficial Democratic Commitment, or Ideological Refinement. American Sociological Review 49:751-69 Jacobson, Cardell K. (1985). Resistance to Affirmative Action: Self Interest or Racism?. Journal of Conflict Resolution 29(2), 306-329 Kinder, Donald R., and David O. Sears. (1981). Prejudice and Politics: Symbolic Racism Versus Racial Threats to the Good Life. Journal of Personality 40:414-31 Kuklinski, James H., Sniderman, Paul M., Knight, Kathleen, Piazza, Thomas, Tetlock, Philip E., Lawrence, Gordon R., and Mellers, Barbara (1997). Racial Prejudice and Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action. American Journal of Political Science, 41(2): 402-419 Lopez, Linda, and Pantoja, Adrian A. (2004). Beyond Black and White: General Support for Race-Conscious Policies Among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and Whites. Political Research Quarterly 57(4): 633-642 McClain, Paula D., Carter, Niambi M., DeFrancesco Soto, Victoria M. , Lyle, Monique L., Grynaviski, Jeffrey D., Nunnally, Shayla C., Scotto, Thomas J., Kendrick, J. Alan., Lackey, Gerald F., and Cotton, Kendra Davenport (2006). Racial Distancing in a Southern City: Latino Immigrants Views of Black Americans. The Journal of Politics, 68(3), 571-584. Protho, James W., and Grigg, Charles M. (1960). Fundamental Principles of Democracy: Bases of Agreement and Disagreement. Journal of Politics 22: 276-94     PAGE  PAGE 1  4N]^awz~ 4 N T 5 U  . B C O Q /505^=_= EEEJKKKKvLU:VVVW"Wй楹捹 heYfhg h:=Khghtohg5>* hNyhg hXBhghzhg5>*hYhg5>* hg5>*h$CJaJhgCJaJhghgCJaJha hgCJaJhgh[hg5CJaJhg5CJaJ2   4abcduvwxyz{|}~gdg$a$gdg$a$gdgBB P Q "^)-49= EEzFHNUX]ZeZfZ d`gdgdgdggdg$a$gdg"WbWhWWWXXXX!Y/YY\Z]ZdZfZ^`bb:efg h hhh.hOhbhchjlanqsvvEF݁_ ʋhBq`hg5>*hhg6 h khghz hg6hV3hg6 h'hg hg6hDhg6 h hgh hg6 hg5>*h#hg5>*hg heYfhg9fZ]bNg>lpv&y|Faqʋ+,5AI$$Ifa$gd"lgdg d`gdgdgdg d`gdgʋIҌ׌9H2;012UY34STiۛ NVãޣ ;`12Z[øܪܪܪܢܪܪܪܛ h+hghZQhg6 heYfhg hhgjXhhgU hg5 hDqhgh Ehg6 hg6hghgCJaJhthgCJaJhthg5CJaJ=IJU[aq[[[$$Ifa$gd"lkd$$IflF ,"         t06    44 laabqv|q[[[$$Ifa$gd"lkdu$$IflF ,"      t06    44 la|}q[[[$$Ifa$gd"lkd$$IflF ,"   t06    44 laq[[[$$Ifa$gd"lkdQ$$IflF ,"   t06    44 laq[[[$$Ifa$gd"lkd$$IflF ,"   t06    44 laÌȌΌq[[[$$Ifa$gd"lkd$$IflF ,"   t06    44 laΌόh12ql``Xllldgdg d`gdggdgkd$$IflF ,"      t06    44 laƖ[kd$$IflF t"         t0"6    44 la$$Ifa$gd"lƖǖ֖ۖq[[[$$Ifa$gd"lkd~$$IflF t"      t0"6    44 laq[[[$$Ifa$gd"lkd$$IflF t"   t0"6    44 la q[[[$$Ifa$gd"lkdv$$IflF t"   t0"6    44 la"(q[[[$$Ifa$gd"lkd$$IflF t"   t0"6    44 la()/4:q[[[$$Ifa$gd"lkd`$$IflF t"   t0"6    44 la:;UVWXYZqlllllllllc gdggdgkd$$IflF t"      t0"6    44 la 34Jkd$$IflF ,"         t06    44 la$$Ifa$gd"lgdg dgdgšȚɚؚݚ[kd$$IflF ,"      t06    44 la$$Ifa$gd"lq[[[$$Ifa$gd"lkd$$IflF ,"   t06    44 laq[[[$$Ifa$gd"lkdo$$IflF ,"   t06    44 la'q[[[$$Ifa$gd"lkd$$IflF ,"   t06    44 la'(.39q[[[$$Ifa$gd"lkd=$$IflF ,"   t06    44 la9:ST qlldddlllldgdggdgkd$$IflF ,"      t06    44 la )/5[kd$$IflF ,"         t06    44 la$$Ifa$gd"l56EJPq[[[$$Ifa$gd"lkd$$IflF ,"      t06    44 laPQ[`fq[[[$$Ifa$gd"lkd$$IflF ,"   t06    44 lafgnt|q[[[$$Ifa$gd"lkdj$$IflF ,"   t06    44 la|}q[[[$$Ifa$gd"lkd$$IflF ,"   t06    44 laq[[[$$Ifa$gd"lkd8$$IflF ,"   t06    44 laãģ2YZ[qll``llM$Ifgd"l d`gdggdgkd$$IflF ,"      t06    44 la[o[kd$$IflFT t06    44 la $$Ifa$gd"loYYY$$Ifa$gd"lkd$$IflFT t06    44 la =;U"=>qldddXddd d`gdgdgdggdgkd|$$IflFT t06    44 la  >ͬ -59C?:;TU=>FGTUV_`ltuyz{̿Ϳȿumff h&-!h]V,hOh]V,5hz(_h]V,5CJaJh/h]V,5CJaJhoh]V,5CJaJh]V,5CJaJh]V,CJaJhoh]V,5CJaJh]V,5CJaJh]V,5CJaJhG!h]V,5CJaJh]V,h/hg5 hg5>*h^2hg6 h^2hghg hg5(>GUVW`abcdefghijkluvwxyz{gd]V,$a$gd]V,{:kd $$Ifl\:," t 6P 0"644 la$$ &P#$/Ifa$gd1)lƿ̿Ϳֿ߿:kd$$Ifl\:," t 6P 0"644 la$$ &P#$/Ifa$gd1)l߿:kdf$$Ifl\:," t 6P 0"644 la$$ &P#$/Ifa$gd1)l !':kd $$Ifl\:," t 6P 0"644 la$$ &P#$/Ifa$gd1)l '(KLkl#9:CYZg}~1QZoxy!+@HIJOPS^_`̤h]V,5CJaJh+Nh]V,CJaJh]V,CJaJhHh]V,5CJaJh]V,5CJaJ h$"h]V,hOh]V,5 h]V,5hz(_h]V,5CJaJh]V, h&-!h]V,@'(5?EKW::::$$ &P#$/Ifa$gd1)lkd$$Ifl\:," t 6P 0"644 laKLU_ekW::::$$ &P#$/Ifa$gd1)lkdO$$Ifl\:," t 6P 0"644 laklqzW::::$$ &P#$/Ifa$gd1)lkd$$Ifl\:," t 6P 0"644 laW::::$$ &P#$/Ifa$gd1)lkd $$Ifl\:," t 6P 0"644 laWR5555$$&P#$/Ifa$gd1)lgd]V,kd8!$$Ifl\:," t 6P 0"644 la:kd!$$Ifl\:," t 6P0"644 la$$&P#$/Ifa$gd1)l W::::$$&P#$/Ifa$gd1)lkd~"$$Ifl\:," t 6P0"644 la#-39W::::$$&P#$/Ifa$gd1)lkd!#$$Ifl\:," t 6P0"644 la9:CMSYW::::$$&P#$/Ifa$gd1)lkd#$$Ifl\:," t 6P0"644 laYZgqw}W::::$$&P#$/Ifa$gd1)lkdg$$$Ifl\:," t 6P0"644 la}~W::::$$&P#$/Ifa$gd1)lkd %$$Ifl\:," t 6P0"644 laW::::$$&P#$/Ifa$gd1)lkd%$$Ifl\:," t 6P0"644 laW::::$$&P#$/Ifa$gd1)lkdP&$$Ifl\:," t 6P0"644 laWRRRRRRRRgd]V,kd&$$Ifl\:," t 6P0"644 la JKLMNOPQRSTUV_`t$$ &P#$/Ifa$gd1)lgd]V,W::::$$ &P#$/Ifa$gd1)lkd'$$Ifl\:," t 6P 0"644 la &(CEbcl 249OQXnpwHINȼhz(_h]V,5CJaJhz(_h]V,CJaJh]V,CJaJhz(_h]V,5CJaJh]V,5CJaJ h+7h]V,hOh]V,5 h]V,5h]V,5CJaJ hNhh]V, h&-!h]V,h]V,;W::::$$ &P#$/Ifa$gd1)lkd9($$Ifl\:," t 6P 0"644 laW::::$$ &P#$/Ifa$gd1)lkd($$Ifl\:," t 6P 0"644 la W::::$$ &P#$/Ifa$gd1)lkd)$$Ifl\:," t 6P 0"644 la  &W::::$$ &P#$/Ifa$gd1)lkd"*$$Ifl\:," t 6P 0"644 la&'/8=CW::::$$ &P#$/Ifa$gd1)lkd*$$Ifl\:," t 6P 0"644 laCDLV\bW::::$$ &P#$/Ifa$gd1)lkdh+$$Ifl\:," t 6P 0"644 labclsyW::::$$ &P#$/Ifa$gd1)lkd ,$$Ifl\:," t 6P 0"644 laWRR555$$&P#$/Ifa$gd1)lgd]V,kd,$$Ifl\:," t 6P 0"644 la:kdQ-$$Ifl\:," t 6P0"644 la$$&P#$/Ifa$gd1)l:kd-$$Ifl\:," t 6P0"644 la$$&P#$/Ifa$gd1)l W::::$$&P#$/Ifa$gd1)lkd.$$Ifl\:," t 6P0"644 la ")2W::::$$&P#$/Ifa$gd1)lkd:/$$Ifl\:," t 6P0"644 la239CIOW::::$$&P#$/Ifa$gd1)lkd/$$Ifl\:," t 6P0"644 laOPXbhnW::::$$&P#$/Ifa$gd1)lkd0$$Ifl\:," t 6P0"644 lanowW::::$$&P#$/Ifa$gd1)lkd#1$$Ifl\:," t 6P0"644 laW::::$$&P#$/Ifa$gd1)lkd1$$Ifl\:," t 6P0"644 laWRRRRRRRRgd]V,kdi2$$Ifl\:," t 6P0"644 la HIJgd]V,JKLMNablx$$Ifa$gd1)lgd]V, Nakl-.@ABD'2>?NZ[dnoyyǿҸҸҸҸҸҸҸǿұұұұ hGh]V, h9{h]V, h6.h]V,h]V,CJaJh+Nh]V,CJaJ h"h]V, h]V,5hG!h]V,5CJaJh]V,5CJaJh+Nh]V,5CJaJCt^^^$$Ifa$gd1)lkd 3$$IflF G  t06    44 lat^^^$$Ifa$gd1)lkd3$$IflF G  t06    44 lat^^^$$Ifa$gd1)lkd4$$IflF G  t06    44 lat^^^$$Ifa$gd1)lkdm5$$IflF G  t06    44 la t^^^$$Ifa$gd1)lkd*6$$IflF G  t06    44 la#(-t^^^$$Ifa$gd1)lkd6$$IflF G  t06    44 la-.4:@t^^^$$Ifa$gd1)lkd7$$IflF G  t06    44 la@AB tooooYYYYY$$Ifa$gd1)lgd]V,kda8$$IflF G  t06    44 la &'28>^C$ $Ifa$gd1)lkd,9$$IflF G  t06    44 la$$Ifa$gd1)l>?NTZt^^^$$Ifa$gd1)lkd:$$IflF G  t06    44 laZ[dint^^^$$Ifa$gd1)lkd:$$IflF G  t06    44 lanoy~t^^^$$Ifa$gd1)lkd;$$IflF G  t06    44 lat^^^$$Ifa$gd1)lkdJ<$$IflF G  t06    44 lat^^^$$Ifa$gd1)lkd=$$IflF G  t06    44 lat^^^$$Ifa$gd1)lkd=$$IflF G  t06    44 layztoooooYYYY$$Ifa$gd1)lgd]V,kd>$$IflF G  t06    44 la ^C$ $Ifa$gd1)lkdL?$$IflF G  t06    44 la$$Ifa$gd1)lt^^^$$Ifa$gd1)lkd%@$$IflF G  t06    44 lat^^^$$Ifa$gd1)lkd@$$IflF G  t06    44 lat^^^$$Ifa$gd1)lkdA$$IflF G  t06    44 la$+2t^^^$$Ifa$gd1)lkdjB$$IflF G  t06    44 la$+2389?EFLRXYZ\} !T_kl{ ºٱºٝh}th]V,5CJaJh}th]V,5hG!h]V,5CJaJh]V,5CJaJh]V,CJaJh+Nh]V,CJaJh+Nh]V,5CJaJh]V,5CJaJh]V, h]V,5 hGh]V, h9{h]V, h"h]V,7239?Et^^^$$Ifa$gd1)lkd'C$$IflF G  t06    44 laEFLRXt^^^$$Ifa$gd1)lkdC$$IflF G  t06    44 laXYZ!toooooooooogd]V,kdD$$IflF G  t06    44 la !)1:BKST_^kdlE$$IflF G  t06    44 la$$Ifa$gd1)l_fkl{CkdEF$$IflF G  t06    44 la$$Ifa$gd1)l$ $Ifa$gd1)lt^^^$$Ifa$gd1)lkdG$$IflF G  t06    44 lat^^^$$Ifa$gd1)lkdG$$IflF G  t06    44 lat^^G $Ifgd1)l$$Ifa$gd1)lkdH$$IflF G  t06    44 lat^^^$$Ifa$gd1)lkdGI$$IflF G  t06    44 lat^^^$$Ifa$gd1)lkdJ$$IflF G  t06    44 latoooooooo\$Ifgd1)lgd]V,kdJ$$IflF G  t06    44 la  akdK$$IflF  t06    44 la$Ifgd1)l,-DE\]vw%/=IWgu)3CM]iyݰݝhG!h]V,5CJaJ hph]V,h]V,CJaJh]V,5CJaJ h0h]V,hG!h]V,5CJaJh]V,5CJaJh}th]V,5CJaJh]V,CJaJh]V,h}th]V,CJaJ>#,taaa$Ifgd1)lkdeL$$IflF  t06    44 la,-6;Dtaaa$Ifgd1)lkd>M$$IflF  t06    44 laDENS\taaa$Ifgd1)lkd N$$IflF  t06    44 la\]hmvtaaa$Ifgd1)lkdN$$IflF  t06    44 lavwtaaa$Ifgd1)lkdO$$IflF  t06    44 lataaa$Ifgd1)lkdxP$$IflF  t06    44 latoooo\\\$Ifgd1)lgd]V,kdQQ$$IflF  t06    44 laq^^^$Ifgd1)lkdFR$$IflF   t06    44 laq^^^$Ifgd1)lkd$S$$IflF   t06    44 la%q^^^$Ifgd1)lkdT$$IflF   t06    44 la%&/4=q^^^$Ifgd1)lkdT$$IflF   t06    44 la=>INWq^^^$Ifgd1)lkdU$$IflF   t06    44 laWXgluq^^^$Ifgd1)lkdrV$$IflF   t06    44 lauvq^^^$Ifgd1)lkdPW$$IflF   t06    44 laqlllllllllllgd]V,kd.X$$IflF   t06    44 la  Ykd(Y$$IflF   t06    44 la$Ifgd1)lgd]V, )q^^^$Ifgd1)lkdZ$$IflF   t06    44 la)*3:Cq^^^$Ifgd1)lkdZ$$IflF   t06    44 laCDMT]q^^^$Ifgd1)lkd[$$IflF   t06    44 la]^ipyq^^^$Ifgd1)lkd\$$IflF   t06    44 layzq^^^$Ifgd1)lkdT]$$IflF   t06    44 laq^^^$Ifgd1)lkd2^$$IflF   t06    44 laqllllYYY$Ifgd1)lgd]V,kd_$$IflF   t06    44 la$.>JXhv!ABql!+JKzprsz{Rɽﰨﰨ拓zh]>h]V,6h~ph]V,5>* h]V,6hh]V,6hf1h]V,6 hih]V,h~ph]V,5 h]V,5h%h]V,6h~ph]V,5CJaJh}th]V,CJaJh}th]V,5CJaJh]V,CJaJ hph]V,h]V,hG!h]V,5CJaJ-q^^^$Ifgd1)lkd `$$IflF   t06    44 laq^^^$Ifgd1)lkd`$$IflF   t06    44 la$q^^^$Ifgd1)lkda$$IflF   t06    44 la$%.5>q^^^$Ifgd1)lkdb$$IflF   t06    44 la>?JOXq^^^$Ifgd1)lkdfc$$IflF   t06    44 laXYhmvq^^^$Ifgd1)lkd6d$$IflF   t06    44 lavwq^^^$Ifgd1)lkde$$IflF   t06    44 la!"qlllllllllllgd]V,kde$$IflF   t06    44 la  !+,qrsz{STUVWXYZ[\]^_`abc$a$gd]V,dgd]V,gd]V,cno !}Flmpmoxy^gd]V,gd]V, $`a$gd]V, $^a$gd]V,$a$gd]V,$a$gd]V,=]Ng !#$&')*012345;<=>?@ABCѸh`\70JmHnHuh"hg hg0Jjhg0JUhXjhXU hk@h]V, h]V,6h]V,h$.h]V,6(y "#%&()234?@A &`#$gd"dgd]V,`gd]V,gd]V,ABCgd]V,21h:pg/ =!"#$% s$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :Vl t65 /  /  s$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :Vl t65 /  / e$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :Vl t65 / e$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :Vl t65 / e$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :Vl t65 / e$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :Vl t65 / s$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :Vl t65 /  /  $$If!vh5 5 5 #v #v :Vl t"65 5 /  /  $$If!vh5 5 5 #v #v :Vl t"65 5 /  / s$$If!vh5 5 5 #v #v :Vl t"65 5 / s$$If!vh5 5 5 #v #v :Vl t"65 5 / s$$If!vh5 5 5 #v #v :Vl t"65 5 / s$$If!vh5 5 5 #v #v :Vl t"65 5 / $$If!vh5 5 5 #v #v :Vl t"65 5 /  /  Dd v0  # A"B  S5ury/n,M6 . @= S5ury/n,M6K N9 x x;"b|c-)*<ǧkk-DjX_%U4PTP) ŀ@h?wv/ِd3̜3{QJ D),--]bj) D}<:[3jwY{"jJՉ)94Tj)6#wScj~#F((PVjJez n4|e5=?Q ~աo^Ro6~t('.#5겿.?vqUW}iHVADjQ WY39vUC*?,&C٨HZ|ozjqԶ!Yҍ45Te4{82HfٞRsIf<<6W35tPj+g✩w'_"yE('`)Re~6ّ#ǓcRy.'fH^h;rA #nO'VĔ(#dCvx}ͦ>%wqPgH=]~WVwyc6|kAc6M:IcswaْڱWWw_2*JK:{X%SsUϥq[\م҇58NDZEqohlv;GG"?8˾@=Xq&}E3'9mͻ85#WG LP֖l_]>GWTݫneykɾPv_`vzJ,㋽Cš?CgE Jg JVɃw^b^\yqMi6P7iỤgm[u5)~3p̣Iצv~$}ؽ0v_`?ٽ^K{E͛;r_{{_PUBe/:yR" d/!+2OBvP!+2+!d_]![3ZuLȌl".!dEm{Lٱٹ!dEf.d!+2 !2MqOU]D\ BȊL:w@Y;By"36Ę.[C[:lS?{eYi!dEiBvڿ]B]3T]VdF|ۄm ϰBVd@"!d@VB~bȚˊ&U9zxMr=ğʼI9.u(_o"ކX}ߠl'KbyXխę-?o"n@|"x=B;KjU-@O} D]ߌ\%\QG%+|^ xz->_! A,_J,u>g'>.&ǃOB|Zf>g#nK|qkps 3\ĝPLu=P_E,9}P:! ׉Dm@YQ?I<w>B<v>x PI<3jo&[^Emsw'sLrE!ky.ۨ$~_mZLKZOK?" 6K\1b{ۈo$lΔO3ˉ7F,co!|?C,'[灧O&n@<3n່&/VÈDx&1s}ǀK,XbMOW˺Ķ+%]N<|,p'bϑ%vw ~ѻįlI,EKxi/OI[k1[g{L%Ik_hxmk֮=ji׮diןNӮ]l@\Z~9Ͽ6KK;:iw<^v5}_mΗY; |4BmڝFkwK=S>msD|;YӴ;? X$~Rbv4ڍGqn<{R=ms.?n<]x_p[ڍϋ͡|B@v{o||$flNg2nS<K 37:75nʸ9%7/o7n>Ѹg7i|q~ͧo46IKB<ظ0pO%k]O ܒcs ^yȸ뙩]<D<˸'zڸg{Ѹ뵗{<52zqqדˌ\n']=/^'hV㮗w=q%]3z]~^y'67gY>}ρ//pS|*~`eجRc{ӗv?nH{S`Mv\v//y]԰Zװ-޶㽶S2?]Po&aXtfuoْuJh:ςcy޾^y*zeJqCAy 1_-_Vw.ϯ7۫a-VW= &m+_N m~ϷRۛهct_is %`Nr$ '9vߒo ՙ//LUQt4lMʗmc]qD*sE\¬w}4VVe;fqSVe\h]2<ݻeJ!%kW0ɰ:gf)m+y7SufZs2ꔶ+?qɹ$W|\ek msW꘻R~:H1gkebN5O+皇1yu:B|;7{m_݀T?5u;heG{Q?lںFs$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :Vl t65 /  /  s$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :Vl t65 /  / e$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :Vl t65 / e$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :Vl t65 / e$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :Vl t65 / e$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :Vl t65 / s$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :Vl t65 /  /  s$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :Vl t65 /  /  s$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :Vl t65 /  / e$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :Vl t65 / e$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :Vl t65 / e$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :Vl t65 / e$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :Vl t65 / s$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :Vl t65 /  /  $$If !vh555#v#v#v:Vl t6555/ /  / / a $$If !vh555#v#v#v:Vl t6555/ /  / / a $$If !vh555#v#v#v:Vl t6555/ /  / a $$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P 0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P 0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P 0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P 0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P 0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P 0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P 0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P 0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P 0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P 0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P 0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P 0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P 0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P 0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P 0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P 0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P 0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P 0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P0"65$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t 6P0"65$$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/ / / / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/  / / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/  / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/  / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/  / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/  / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/  / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/ / / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/ / / / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/  / / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/  / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/  / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/  / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/  / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/  / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/ / / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/ / / / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/  / / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/  / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/  / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/  / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/  / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/  / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/ / / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/ / / / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/  / / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/  / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/  / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/  / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/  / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/  / / $$If!vh5x5;5~#vx#v;#v~:Vl t065/ / / / $$If!vh55Y5#v#vY#v:Vl t065/ / / / / $$If!vh55Y5#v#vY#v:Vl t065/  / / / / $$If!vh55Y5#v#vY#v:Vl t065/ /  / / $$If!vh55Y5#v#vY#v:Vl t065/ /  / / $$If!vh55Y5#v#vY#v:Vl t065/ /  / / $$If!vh55Y5#v#vY#v:Vl t065/ /  / / / $$If!vh55Y5#v#vY#v:Vl t065/ / / / / $$If!vh55Y5#v#vY#v:Vl t065/ / / /  / / / $$If!vh5x5|5\#vx#v|#v\:Vl t065/ / / / / $$If!vh5x5|5\#vx#v|#v\:Vl t065/  / / / / $$If!vh5x5|5\#vx#v|#v\:Vl t065/ /  / / $$If!vh5x5|5\#vx#v|#v\:Vl t065/ /  / / $$If!vh5x5|5\#vx#v|#v\:Vl t065/ /  / / $$If!vh5x5|5\#vx#v|#v\:Vl t065/ /  / / / $$If!vh5x5|5\#vx#v|#v\:Vl t065/ / / / / $$If!vh5x5|5\#vx#v|#v\:Vl t065/ / / / / / / $$If!vh5x5|5\#vx#v|#v\:Vl t065/ / / / / $$If!vh5x5|5\#vx#v|#v\:Vl t065/  / / / / $$If!vh5x5|5\#vx#v|#v\:Vl t065/ /  / / $$If!vh5x5|5\#vx#v|#v\:Vl t065/ /  / / $$If!vh5x5|5\#vx#v|#v\:Vl t065/ /  / / $$If!vh5x5|5\#vx#v|#v\:Vl t065/ /  / / / $$If!vh5x5|5\#vx#v|#v\:Vl t065/ / / / / $$If!vh5x5|5\#vx#v|#v\:Vl t065/ / / / / / / $$If!vh5x5|5\#vx#v|#v\:Vl t065/ / / / / $$If!vh5x5|5\#vx#v|#v\:Vl t065/  / / / / $$If!vh5x5|5\#vx#v|#v\:Vl t065/ /  / / $$If!vh5x5|5\#vx#v|#v\:Vl t065/ /  / / $$If!vh5x5|5\#vx#v|#v\:Vl t065/ /  / / $$If!vh5x5|5\#vx#v|#v\:Vl t065/ /  / / / $$If!vh5x5|5\#vx#v|#v\:Vl t065/ / / / / $$If!vh5x5|5\#vx#v|#v\:Vl t065/ / / / / / / D@D gNormalCJPJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No Listn@n g Table Grid7:V0PJ4 @4 gFooter  !.)@. g Page NumberC 4abcduvwxyz{|}~BPQ ^!%,15 ==z>HFMP]ReRfRUZN_>dhn&qtFwxxxazq~ʃ+,5AIJU[abqv|}ÄȄ΄τh12Ǝǎ֎ێ "()/4:;UVWXYZ34’Ȓɒؒݒ'(.39:ST )/56EJPQ[`fgnt|}Ûě2YZ[o=;U"=>GUVW`abcdefghijkluvwxyz{Ʒ̷ͷַ߷ !'(5?EKLU_eklqzø˸ӸԸ߸ #-39:CMSYZgqw}~ù̹ҹعٹڹ۹ܹݹ޹߹JKLMNOPQRSTUV_`t»ǻͻλӻܻ  &'/8=CDLV\bclsyƼμԼռۼ ")239CIOPXbhnowɽʽ˽̽ͽνϽнѽҽӽԽսֽ׽ؽٽڽHIJKLMNablxȿϿֿ׿ #(-.4:@AB &'28>?NTZ[dinoy~yz$+239?EFLRXYZ!)1:BKST_fkl{ #,-6;DENS\]hmvw%&/4=>INWXgluv  )*3:CDMT]^ipyz$%.5>?JOXYhmvw!" !+,qrsz{STUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcno !}Flmpmoxy #&)234?@DH0H0H0H0H0H0H0H0H0H0H0H0H0H0H0H0H0H0H0H0H0H0H0H0H0H0H0H0H00000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000H00H00H00H00H00.H00H00@0@0H00$ $$$'"WʋNCptvfZIa|ΌƖ(:'95Pf|[>{߿'Kk9Y} &Cb 2OnJ-@>Zn2EX!_,D\v%=Wu)C]y$>XvcyACqsuwxyz{|}~ Br  '!!# $ % & T' ( ) T* + , - . / 0 T1 2 3 ,4 l5 6 7 ,8 l9 : ; ,< l= > ? ,@ lA ++SSSSS T T k k&k}m}mm[{`lD     ++SSSSSTT%k,k,kmmmfkwD  B*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName K{EL@GAI!!O&X&((A+J+12,535p;w;sOzOYY5s>sPsYsfsos1u7uADYm W q  P\Of:Xr """"""W#d#%%)),---3/A/63D344!6-688{99::>>~>>EAOABBqBBBBDDE&EEEFF|FFGGTI_I=JDJJJKJKNNPPSSwSSTTTTTTCUKUUUVVVVdWWOX^X6YGY Z+Z0\;\]]^^^^`*`aabbGcZcccRd]dDeEeffgggghhii7lOlFmXmmmnnpp(p3pppRqTqr$rrrs tuuwwx*xSycyyyyyzzT|b|}}ǁҁւӆ)6މYȟ 8Dҕݕ ,4l}!6Ǜқ1<OZ  kyKYϳгXɵԵzͶR_|:A CJ%'!<:<FHmp?25My "#%&()AD333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333,ZTě3>VڽNBMZ`b "#%&()AD "#%&()AD  $"gc! ]V,`\71)?Kf7X,5AIJU[abqv|}ÄȄ΄τƎǎ֎ێ "()/4:;’Ȓɒؒݒ'(.39: )/56EJPQ[`fgnt|}Z[o{Ʒ̷ͷַ߷ !'(5?EKLU_eklqzø˸ӸԸ߸ #-39:CMSYZgqw}~ù̹ҹعٹ`t»ǻͻλӻܻ  &'/8=CDLV\bclsyƼμԼռۼ ")239CIOPXbhnowlȿϿֿ׿ #(-.4:@A&'28>?NTZ[dinoy~$+239?EFLRXY!1BST_fkl{ #,-6;DENS\]hmvw%&/4=>INWXgluv  )*3:CDMT]^ipyz$%.5>?JOXYhmvwD@ CP@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z ArialC PMingLiUe0}fԚ"1hĆĆ m m!4d2QHX ?g2(The Influence of Anti-Black Attitudes onkfreemantrhayesOh+'0 $0 P \ ht|,The Influence of Anti-Black Attitudes on kfreemanNormaltrhayes2Microsoft Office Word@F#@.x@.x ՜.+,D՜.+,h$ hp  Texas A&M Universitym' )The Influence of Anti-Black Attitudes on Title4@(_AdHocReviewCycleID_EmailSubject _AuthorEmail_AuthorEmailDisplayName_ReviewingToolsShownOnceNQpapermwalker@politics.tamu.eduMeredith Walker  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~     !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F>Data  f1Table?ӥWordDocument4SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q