The first thing to know about bias is that it does not necessarily live in the hearts of individuals. While we all know people who explicitly blurt out racist/sexist/homophobic (or other) comments born of ignorance and fear, much of the bias in our society is implicit. One way of describing implicit bias refers to associations — between particular groups and certain behaviors, attitudes or ways of being — woven into the fabric of our society. These associations affect outcomes and lead to inequalities, including inequalities on our campus.

One of the strongest associations you may be familiar with is that women are not good at science and math. Countless psychology studies have found that simple things — like having significantly fewer women’s bathrooms in the Stanford math building — enforce these associations and lead to women feeling out of place. No one explicitly tells women that they are in a “foreign” field, however. All women have to do is notice the lack of female mentors, or try to find a bathroom. Obviously the math department architect did not intend to make women feel uncomfortable in the math building; this bias was implicit.

Even the way we talk about inequality in our society is implicitly biased. Academics, journalists and others usually say minority groups are disadvantaged. This language does two things: it implies that the problem is with minority groups, and it leaves the dominant group “off the hook.” But policies such as “legacy” admissions (recently documented by sociologist Douglas Massey) allow advantage to contribute to inequality as well: alumni family members are more likely to have been admitted when minorities were blatantly discriminated against. White Americans even have the overlooked advantage of being able to describe themselves as “regular,” “normal” and from “the typical American family.” The focus in our society on disadvantage, even though advantage certainly exists and contributes substantially to inequality, has contributed to our implicit associations between minority groups and negative characteristics.

The Graduate Student Council Diversity Committee started Diversity Week to inform you of the specific ways Stanford University can change to help ease these biases on our campus. And, yes, these biases exist at Stanford. Consider these examples:

A prospective graduate student’s family has means to pay for a standard GRE prep course (currently costing upwards of $1,000). This student is more likely to take the course than a student without economic privilege. On average, these courses can add up to 210 points to one’s score. Stanford departments whose admissions decisions rely on these scores risk admitting students whose merit lies not only in their intellect but also in their pocketbook.

And during the first round reviewing these graduate applications, Stanford faculty and graduate students (most likely pressed for time and not specifically trained to review them) reading these applications are susceptible to implicit associations, such as “women are not good at math” and “black people are unintelligent.” They need only read the applicant’s name (i.e. “Jenny” applying to Electrical Engineering or “Jamal” applying to Economics) to trigger these associations and allow bias to unintentionally, unconsciously color their evaluations. Hard to believe? Look up economists Bertrand and Mullainathan of the National Bureau of Economic Research. They sent 5000 job applications to various companies. The otherwise identical applicants had either a stereotypically white or a black name. White applicants received 50 percent more callbacks than black applicants.

Despite this bias, let’s say Jenny gets into Stanford Electrical Engineering. She is probably one of few women in her lab. This lack of representation may send a message to Jenny that she does not belong because she is a woman. The resulting strain Jenny experiences may not surface in her performance, but it could determine how likely she is to continue in the field, as well as her overall life satisfaction. It is not enough, then, to create a diverse faculty and graduate student body. We must also think of active ways to sustain the lives of these individuals once they arrive.

As people who are likely not prejudiced but nevertheless play a role in perpetuating this biased system, what can we all do to actively work against it? We can choose a path of action. Big things, like activism, teaching, writing social policy and research are important. But it is the small acts — attending diversity events, conversing with a friend about this article, being aware of Stanford’s graduate and faculty diversity statistics — that also have great potential for meaningful impact. Everyone can perform at least one of them.

Courtney Bonam is a fourth-year doctoral student in the psychology department.