Race and Class, Redux

An article apparently from the Chicago Tribune similtaneously argues that race creates completely different Americans and that Blacks aren't sure if Obama 'reflects their interests'.

“In both cases—in the value system and in the case of Biden’s comments—we do have a situation where Americans are trying to talk across the wide chasm that is race,” said Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University... Perceptually, blacks and whites live in vastly different worlds."

and then...

Obama now finds himself needing to bridge racial divides—even among blacks. Given his racial heritage and upbringing in a white household, Obama has prompted skepticism among African-Americans who have questioned whether he has enough in common with them to reflect their interests.

How can you rationally try to say that race separates people, but then that the Black population might not accept Obama because of his background?

Race does not equal ethnicity does not equal culture.
Social construction versus country of origin versus family and community values.

Not interchangeable.

The issue that the article is really trying to write about is classism.

Stereotypes are Stupid [Limiting]

"I think that's true if you're playing basketball or in an office job. That's just how the world is right now."

Yes, now, and hopefully a step towards a better future. Sure looks encouraging.

Klein Sexual Orientation Grid

We were working with this in class, and I thought it would make for an interesting contribution to some discussions that have been going on, as well as just an interesting perspective.

(And yes, it reminds you of Kinsey, but its by F. Klein and Ta. J. Wolf 1985)

Variable	Past	Present	Ideal
Sexual Attraction
Sexual Behavior
Sexual Fantasies
Emotional Preference
Social Preference
Self-Identification
Hetero/Gay Lifestyle

1 = Other gender or heterosexual only
2 = Other gender mostly or heterosexual mostly
3 = Other gender somewhat more or heterosexual some what more
4 = Both genders equally or hetero/lgb (lesbian, gay bisexual) equally
5 = Same gender somewhat more or lgb somewhat more
6 = Same gender mostly or lgb mostly
7 = Same gender only or lgb only

Sexual Attraction : To whom are you sexually attracted? For the present, use the past year as a time frame.
Sexual Behavior : With whom do you have sex?
Sexual Fantasies : When you daydream, masturbate, or fantasize about sexual experiences, with whom do you imagine having sex?
Emotional Preference : With whom do you feel intimate loving and emotional connections?
Social Preference : With whom do you prefer to spend your social time?
Self-Identification : How do you describe your sexual orientation?
Heterosexual / LGB Lifestyle : With which "community" do you identify and spend time?


I think it puts interesting questions and considerations on the table. The numbers don't add up to some super calculus of a person's sexuality, it just servers as a mental evaluation, and a collective acknowledgment that sexuality isn't binary, and doesn't even fall into three categories, nor is it completely static over time.

Food for thought, I suppose...


ps. blogger HTML code sucks, it put all sorts of random breaks in where they shouldn't have been

Why Class Matters and Race Doesn't : College Admissions

In the late 1960s, Arthur Fletcher, created a plan to get federal construction workers to increase their employment of minorities, and in doing so, created a model which today has evolved into affirmative action (1). When created, the model existed as a way to solve a problem in social inequality. Today, arguably in part due to the so called 'Philadelphia Plan', the situation has changed, which means that a new system should be under consideration to better address a different problem. Race based affirmative action policies should be replaced by socio-economic based affirmative action, and I will focus primarily on its implications in the college admissions process. Race is no longer the same social concept it was in the past, while socio-economic status remains, however unfortunately, an important factor in today's social fabric. Therefore, a class rather than racially based system would not only be more fair and equitable, given the modern social structure, but also would be more able to effectively address the problems that persist, both in education and in general inequality.

While reaching back into this nation's history, race may have at many points been considered an important defining characteristic of any given person, that notion is less entrenched and relevant today, for two main reasons. In the past, efforts were made to justify perceived racial differences as pertinent by trying to back these ideas up with science. Modern technologies allowing greater understanding about the human genome has proven a lack of genetic difference between races. This means race, as it exists today, is a social construction. Race only exists because this society acts as if it exists, and any attributes given to any race are only there because any given community believes them to be true, while the differences have no scientific baring.

There is a difference between race and culture. The idea of race relates to a group of people based on physical characteristics. Culture can be related to race, but also can be segmented with a racial group and can span across racial boundaries. Culture encapsulates the values and customs of a group of people, while race is more of a classification based on visual categorization. Therefore, while race only influences an individual because of how society reacts t to its own invented notion, culture affects an individual based on how, where and by whom they were raised. So for example, while there might be a strong cultural influence on someone, that will not be quantified on a college application in the form of a check box asking for race.

While discrimination, or merely assumptions, based on race my still exist in our society, and some may argue that affirmative action exists to address missed opportunities due to racial discrimination, there are other classification and groups that society maintains that do not apply to affirmative action, even though they too can be use d for discrimination. These include gender, religion, and ableism, among others. Therefore, I do not believe that race-based affirmative action seeks to address problems of socially enforced inequalities.
At the same time, socioeconomic status maintains a direct link to an individual's opportunities or lack thereof. A team of researchers, Carnevale and Rose, looking a similar question conducted a survey asking, “What helps and hurts in life? (2)” Of respondents, 83% considered growing up low-income family to be a disadvantage, and 85% believed coming from a low-income school hurts in life. As for a racial breakdown, 78%, 77% and then 71% respectively thought it was a disadvantage in life to grow up in a low-income Black family, Hispanic family and then white family. So while the survey showed that people perceived being up poor an a minority to be more of a disadvantage than being white and a minority, it was by no means by an overwhelming number, and the overall question emphasizes that the bigger problem is coming from a low-income family and low-income school.

Further more, socioeconomic status seems to have a greater effect on college attendance than race does, at least in some instances. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, out of the US Department of Education, approximately 70% of whites 65% of Blacks and 65% of Hispanics attend some form of college by the time they are 24years old. On the other hand, nationwide, about 90% of students from families earning more than $80,000 attend college, compared to only 60% of families earning less than $33,000. That 60% is less than the number of Blacks and Hispanics attending college. These numbers are addressing college totals. Using a tiered system of evaluating colleges according to how 'good' they are from Barrons, Carnevale and Rose compared attendance from each of the the four quartiles of income to these four 'tiers' of colleges. Within the top tier colleges, for example, 74% of attendees are from the top quartile of income, while 9% are from the bottom half, 3% from the bottom quartile, and 6% from the second from the bottom. Those numbers only address the highest tier schools, which should be interesting in its own way, because those schools tend to have the bigger endowments that would allow them to give more financial aid and could afford to admit more lower income students. If one looks at the second tier of schools, 46% of admits come from the top quartile while 25% come from the bottom half, and in the third tier, a third each comes from the top quartile, second quartile and then bottom half.

Some might argue that these students from lower income families and poorer quality high schools are not as ready or as able to perform at higher college levels. By the means that college admissions officers have to evaluate student potential, these low-income students are not under performing. A study used standardized tests scores as a measure of aptitude, which presents its own problems whereas affluent students can buy tutors and practice tests, and lower income students are more often ill-prepared with what the test will even look like. However, that study found that a student from the lowest quartile of income but the highest quartile of test score was just as likely to be admitted to college as a student from the highest income but lowest test score quartile (3). That statistic emphasizes the role socioeconomic status directly plays in college admissions.
Income has a strong impact on a students education and their likelihood to get into college than race . Some may argue that the reason some under performing schools do not receive the funding or other sources of help that would improve their quality of education is because the government or the tax payers are racists and therefore the system is racists and they do not care about those schools. However, I argue that regardless of the reason these schools as a whole are ignored, the factor that impacts the child at the end of the day is that her or his school is located in an area of lower income where the parents cannot afford to easily remedy the inadequacies of their children's public education. That factor will equally impact all children in that school regardless of their race, and regardless of if the reason they school is under performing is because of institutionalized racism, or classism. The impact of a poor school on a child's education and therefore college readiness is greater than the impact of residual racism in society on a given students academic performance. A racial minority student attending a suburban school is going to receive a better education than a white student attending an underfunded, mostly white school in a rural area, or a white student attending a mostly minority school in an urban area. Admissions should be based on academic potential, not on trying apologize for social problems of the past. Therefore, the greater factor to consider is socioeconomic status, rather than race.

As discussed earlier, culture affects a child more so than race does, because culture is more specific to any given student's upbringing. Another factor that plays into college attendance, on top of quality of education and aptitude, is perception of cost of attendance. Again according to a study by the US National Center for Education Statistics, while all families tend to “substantially overestimate” the cost of college tuition, families from lower income tend to do so more (4). This means that students in these schools not only are ill-equipped to apply to colleges and tend to be overlooked, but will discount their own ability to be able to attend. Not helping the problem, a study showed that between 1995 and 2003, grant money for tuition given to higher income students actually increased at a higher rate than money given to lower income students (5). Accepting or maintaining the idea that college is unaffordable and therefore unattainable and not a worthy goal will have a discouraging effect on students who might otherwise push themselves to be getting the better grades, when they are capable. On the other hand, to be raised in a family that may overestimate the cost of college, but can afford it anyway, would be an encouragement throughout a students academic career to have that end goal in sight.

Additionally, the college going mentality is often not present on these high school campuses. In an interview with a high school teacher in south Los Angeles, Mr. Demetrius Holmes said about his school that, “Currently the culture is not a college going culture, teachers and parents have low expectations. (6)” He explained his efforts to increase college visibility at his school to get students to be thinking about college attendance. This is in stark contrast to most higher income schools where the culture is such that college attendance is an assumption. Therefore, the students at the lower income schools are fighting a culture battle on two fronts – at home and at school – and therefore need more assistance and understanding when it comes to college admissions.

While this proposal more effectively helps students who need it, and more directly targets a remedy towards institutional inequalities, it also could benefit the universities. Schools often proclaim their 'commitments to diversity' when it comes to their ideal student body, often referring to race. Harvard issued a statement claiming to be attempting to make their school more affordable to more people, explaining that the are looking for, “widest possible diversity of life experiences and intellectual perspectives. (7)” While 'diversity' often ends up translating into more colorful publicity papers for schools, focusing on socioeconomic, rather than just racial, diversity would have a greater result of a range of students' backgrounds and bringing fresh ideas to the table. Talking in a classroom about classism, income, inequity, takes on a whole new dynamic if students from across the socioeconomic spectrum can compare their experiences. Admitting a more racially diverse, but still somewhat affluent student body does not bring the same variety of upbringing. If schools want to proclaim their diversity is for the purpose of enriching the academic possibilities because of the unique experience each individual student can bring, they should turn their focus towards socioeconomic based affirmative action.



Citations:
(1) Holley, Joe. Washington Post. “Affirmative Action Pioneer Advised GOP Presidents”. 14 Jul 2005 p B1Holley, Joe. Washington Post. “Affirmative Action Pioneer Advised GOP Presidents”. 14 Jul 2005 p B1
(2) Carnevale, Anthony P. Rose, Stephen J. America's Untapped Resource. “Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions”. The Century Foundation. 31 MAR 2003
(3) Gladieux, Lawrence E., "Low-Income Student and the Affordability of Higher Education," America's Untapped Resource: Low-Income Students in Higher Education, New York: The Century Foundation Press, 2004, p. 25.
(4) Horrn, Laura J. Chen, Xianglei, Chapman, Chris. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. “Getting Ready to Pay for College: What Students and Their Parents Know About the Cost of College Tuition and What They are Doing to Find Out.” NCES 2003-030. Washington, DC: 2003.
(5) Liu, Nien. “The Rich Get Richer.” www.educatednation.com citing Chicago Tribune. 06 SEPT 2006
(6) Holmes, Demetrius. Personal Unpublished interview. 17 APR 2006
(7) Harvard University Gazette. “Harvard announces new initiative aimed at economic barriers to college.
” Cambridge, MA: 28 FEB 2004

Obama & Fox, as told by TDS

This is some what amazing. Fox News not only tried to insinuate that Muslim = terrorist or Muslim = can't be president, or even more broadly knows something about Islam = bad, but they made up the facts that let them pretend it was newsworthy or factual.

(Video expires 2/28/07)



Later, Olberman & CNN (though not my favorite news outlet) completely ripped O'Reilly apart for it. And then, apparently, Obama personally went after Fox, saying

These malicious, irresponsible charges are precisely the kind of politics the American people have grown tired of, and that Senator Obama is trying to change by focusing on bringing people together to solve our common problems.

Quite simply, this guy is cool.

Feminism, Sexism, and the notion of Gender

In a class the other day, we were supposed to create an imaginary institution that was structurally sexist.
First we tried to determine what 'sexist' means. In this class, coming to a definition tends to be very Montessori-like, in that every answer is considered valid, whether it is or not, and regardless of the fact that we are trying to set a base.

I believe any assumptions based on gender (not sex, but socially constructed gender) to be 'sexist', whether the assumption is positive or negative, whether it hurts or helps a certain group. [I'm using 'sexism' as I believe that term came into use before we had a concept of gender and biological sex being different.] I think the acknowledgment of gender, especially in individual instances, is inherently sexist, because it draws upon a number of social constructions that may or may not have any relevance to the individual person being considered.

The Colonic has a post that imagines, "a world wherein biological organs, sex, gender and sexuality do not have a culturally idealized relationship to one another," which I don't completely disagree with. My only complaint would be that it still seems to click to a notion of two options, even if one can flow in between, while maybe we could move away from these social constructions being all that we draw from - that our definitions of self come from the collective of everyone else.

So what about the decline in popularity of the word, 'feminism'? While others may have different reasons, I find part of the reason to be because I am not pro-woman or pro-feminine any more than I am pro-human.

In following, I am frustrated even when 'feminine' is used in what I deem to be a positive context. For example, Justice by Truth discusses the feminist approach to international relations. I understand that taking a gender lens to such a study can examine "where are the women" in any given situation, as she cites. However, with my limited knowledge of IR theory, I do not understand how that extrapolates to

Feminist theory of international relations is based on several assumptions. Feminist theorists examine the individual level rather than the state level. They propose that non state actors influence global issues, where as realists propose that the nation-state is the unitary actor. Feminists support justice over order, meaning a just system is more beneficial than one in a hierarchal structure. Feminists strive for equality, not only between sex but race and other dichotomies that exist as well. Struggle is inherent in this journey for equality, a challenge feminist theorists are ready to accept.

I find this to be one of those examples of sprawling notions of connections under misleading titles. While I do agree that advocates for different causes, for example environmentalists and feminists, can work together on some issues. However, I find little connection to tell me why, inherently, feminist theorists support justice over order, how that is derived from viewing relations through a gender lens.

Continuing, the post discusses structural violence, which is defined as "given social structure or social institution kills people slowly by preventing them from meeting their basic needs," and how this can be resolved through a feminist viewpoint. As previously explained, I fully believe that gender is a social construct. Therefore, I fail to be convinced that the answer to a problem that is within the social structure itself can be solved by another invented construction within that institutionalization. If the problem is that society has been built so as to disadvantage x people, I do not think the solution can come from another flaw in the system - gender.

Asking questions regarding gender in the past are interesting to find out more about our history. The question, "Where are the women?" can inform us about the other half of history that is often ignored, and just add to our knowledge. Using that question as a solution to current problems, as if finding the absence of women and then adding them to the equation will solve the issue is less useful. To want to have knowledge of the whole scenario is commendable, but I am fairly certain historical scenarios go beyond male and female.

No, it looks terrible in hot pink.

{rant}

Beach Cruiser bikes are the equivalent of SUV's...
I don't care that because they're bigger they're more comfortable. You're riding it no more than a mile, suck it up.
I don't care that its super cute because it comes in pink.
I do care that when I go to responsibly try to lock my bike to a bike rack, your extra wide handlebars are looming over into the space allotted to my bike... Not quite unlike an SUV failing to allow for any space to enter and exit your car, because it takes up way too much of a the parking spot.
I'm a little bit tired of getting stabbed in the side by your handlebars as I try to reach over and across your bike to lock and unlock mine.
Just because you can build it that big, and you can afford to buy it that big, doesn't mean you should.

{/rant}

Anyone joining me in my support of skinny, maneuverable bikes?