Calling Issues “Civil Rights” Decreases Public Support, Even Among Supporters

A new study of over 7,500 California voters reveals a counterintuitive finding that could reshape how activists approach social change: framing contemporary problems as “civil rights” issues actually decreases public support for government action, even among people who strongly value civil rights.

The research challenges decades of conventional wisdom about how to build coalitions and win public backing for progressive causes.

The study, published in the American Sociological Review, found this “frame backfire” effect occurred across different types of issues, beneficiary groups, and political audiences—suggesting the problem isn’t simply partisan resistance or racial resentment, but something deeper about how Americans process civil rights language today.

When Good Language Goes Bad

Researchers surveyed California voters in 2016 and 2019, asking them to read scenarios about people facing workplace discrimination, food insecurity, or lack of healthcare. When these problems were described using civil rights terminology, support for government intervention consistently dropped.

“We found that respondents did indeed feel very positively about civil rights in the abstract and largely agreed about their meaning,” said lead author Dr. Fabiana Silva of the University of Michigan’s Ford School of Public Policy. “But when hardships were framed as civil rights issues, it actually decreased public support for government action. Most surprising to us was how widespread this negative effect was.”

The effect proved remarkably consistent. Civil rights framing reduced support whether the issue involved unequal treatment (like workplace discrimination) or material deprivation (like hunger). It backfired when applied to problems affecting African Americans, Mexican Americans, white Americans, and undocumented immigrants alike.

Perhaps most striking: the framing even reduced Black respondents’ support for government action to help Black people facing hardships.

Key Research Findings:

• Civil rights framing decreased support across all demographic groups tested
• Effect occurred for both discrimination and economic hardship issues
• Even Black voters showed reduced support when issues were framed as civil rights
• Americans define civil rights narrowly, focusing on equal treatment rather than economic needs

The Memory Problem

Why does invoking civil rights—a concept Americans generally support—backfire so consistently? The researchers point to an unexpected culprit: our collective memory of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement.

“When contemporary activists make civil rights claims, they unwittingly evoke an implicit comparison to the historic Civil Rights Movement,” explained co-author Dr. Kim Voss of UC Berkeley. “We think that this might undermine the power of a civil rights claim, because contemporary hardships seem less significant and contemporary claims-making seems less heroic than that idealized collective memory.”

This creates a impossible standard. Today’s struggles for workplace equality or healthcare access pale in comparison to the epic battles against Jim Crow segregation. The very success of the Civil Rights Movement in American memory may now handicap efforts to address ongoing inequalities.

The study revealed another crucial insight not emphasized in initial coverage: Americans define civil rights quite narrowly. Most respondents understood civil rights as “the right to be treated equally regardless of race, gender or religion” rather than broader economic or social rights. This narrow definition helps explain why civil rights language feels like a stretch when applied to issues like poverty or healthcare access.

Beyond Black and White

The research team expected civil rights framing might work differently for different groups or issues. They thought it might be more effective for African Americans, given the historical association, or for discrimination issues rather than economic problems.

Instead, they discovered what they term “widespread frame backfire” that transcended traditional political and demographic boundaries. “In fact, we found that civil rights framing even reduced Black respondents’ support for government action to address hardships faced by Black people,” Silva noted. “At the same time, this is not what we would have expected from a racialized backlash account.”

This finding rules out simple explanations based on racial resentment or partisan polarization. The consistency of the effect across groups suggests something more fundamental about how the civil rights frame functions in contemporary American political discourse.

What Works Instead?

The researchers aren’t leaving activists empty-handed. Their analysis suggests an “American values” frame might prove more effective—one that emphasizes fairness, equal opportunity, and individual dignity without triggering unfavorable comparisons to past movements.

“We are interested in how to improve the life chances of vulnerable groups, like racial minorities, immigrants and low-wage workers,” said co-author Dr. Irene Bloemraad of the University of British Columbia. “We wanted to test what kinds of claims resonate with ordinary Americans.”

This alternative approach could help movements avoid the memory trap while still appealing to core American ideals. Rather than invoking the heroic past, it focuses on present-day values and future possibilities.

Implications Across the Political Spectrum

The findings have implications far beyond progressive causes. Conservative movements—from gun rights to anti-abortion advocacy—also frequently employ civil rights language to advance their agendas.

“This might be disheartening to activists,” Voss acknowledged. “But a better takeaway is that frames other than civil rights are likely to be more effective for building public support.”

The research suggests that effective advocacy may require moving beyond the symbolic power of historical movements toward language that speaks directly to contemporary concerns and values. In an era when many Americans feel disconnected from traditional institutions and narratives, this shift toward present-focused framing could prove crucial for building the broad coalitions needed for lasting social change.

For activists wondering how to build support in an increasingly polarized political environment, the answer may lie not in invoking the past’s greatest triumphs, but in speaking directly to today’s shared values and tomorrow’s possibilities.