C.N. Le

One of the prevailing themes of the course has been connecting the institutional and the individual levels of sociological analysis. Thanks to one of your classmates, I’ve come across the following example of trying to do so: students at Hampshire College have organized around demands for more racial diversity, among other things.

The Facebook page for the Hampshire College student group describes their situation and purpose:

Calling Hampshire Alums to Support a Campus Racial Justice Initiative

Dear Friends & Fellow Hampshire Alums,

We are writing to express our great sense of excitement and urgency about recent organizing efforts at Hampshire Colleges. The campaign is at a critical moment that needs alumni support.

Students of color, international students and allies at Hampshire have been enmeshed in a fight that many of us were similarly involved in; to build a campus that is truly racially just and hold the administration accountable in achieving this end.

The current effort represents a crucial moment in the history of anti-racist organizing at Hampshire College. It builds upon that history and demands new solutions to an old problem; that of institutional racism on campus that reflects and compounds the greater structural racism within this country. Students of Underrepresented Cultures and Ethnicities (SOURCE) and allies have collaborated in this well-coordinated, thoughtful and intersectional campaign. They have drafted a new set of demands that builds upon those presented 20 years ago at the historic Dakin Takeover in 1988, as a result of which the Cultural Center was formed.

We’ve been asked by the campaign’s organizing committee to gather names of alumni in support of their efforts. These names will be presented to the administration by students as they carry out negotiations.

In their letter to current Hampshire President, Ralph Hexter, they wrote, “Members of the SOURCE community are asking the administration, faculty, and student body to support them in making institutional changes. These changes are mandatory in order to increase the retention and success of students from the SOURCE community here.”

We will be sending a petition with names of Hampshire alumni to campaign organizers to be used in their negotiations with the administration. Please respond with your name and year of entrance (F02) on the wall below or with a message to one of the group administrators. We are aiming to compile a lengthy list of names so please respond ASAP.
____________________________________

PURPOSE AND DEMANDS OF SOURCE

This week is being executed in an attempt to raise awareness about the need for serious change in the way that the institution approaches anti-racism. The week will consist of art, activism, and the events listed below.

Members of the SOURCE community are asking the administration, faculty, and student body to support them in making institutional changes. These changes are mandatory in order to increase the retention and success of students from the SOURCE community here.

All we demand is that Hampshire be actively anti-racist. We demand the following:

1. Re-establishment of Dean of Multicultural Affairs position (as stipulated from the Cole Agreement), in addition to the already-existent Presidential Assistant for Diversity position.

2. Creation of four new positions for full-time faculty in ALANA and Queer Studies.

3. Transparency in the process by which adjunct faculty become permanent faculty.

4. Re-evaluation of the Multiple Cultural Perspectives academic requirement.

5. Mandatory anti-oppression trainings for faculty, staff, Public Safety, and Residential Life staff and interns.

6. Stability in financial aid packages. If a student’s needs do not change, then the package must remain the same over the course of the student’s time at the college. Further, a student’s ability to register for classes will not be hindered by holds or other issues related to financial aid status.

7. Institutionalized funding for the Cultural Center, SOURCE groups, QCA groups, and Women’s Center. Identity-based groups will be exempt fro the process of “group recognition” each semester.

8. Permanent staffing at the Cultural Center, Women’s Center, and Queer Community Alliance. Creation of a new staff position at the Cultural Center to be filled by an individual experienced in addressing the needs of international students.

9. Establishment of at least one residential hall designated for students of color, in the dorms, by Fall 2008.

10. Designation of a Queer-Identified (and not just Queer-Friendly) residential hall in the dorms.

11. Allocation of funds to expand library and media resources relevant to Third World Studies and students.

12. Immediate hiring search, for which a committee will be formed with students for whom this position is intended to serve, for a new staff member in health services with the goal of hiring this person within one year. Person must provide some kind of concrete experience/qualifications for relating to students of color, international students, queer students, trans students, and female students.

13. Guaranteed permanent identity-based housing on campus. Aggressive recruitment of students of color, international students, queer students.

14. For Hampshire to live up to its current plan of responsible investment, keeping with historical precedent of divestment from South Africa, we demand that Hampshire should cut financial ties with countries that occupy and practice racial apartheid.

15. Establishment of a comprehensive racial harassment policy to be outlined in Non Satis Non Scire.

16. Creation of a position in Institutional Advancement geared towards raising funds that specifically address issues of diversity on campus.

17. Closing of the college on Colombus Day and Martin Luther King, Jr. Day to hold a campus-wide teach-in on racism and imperialism.

LASTLY, we demand that a committee of students and administrators be established to negotiate these demands and assess whatever agreements follow.

It’s probably difficult to fully understand or evaluate the group’s grievances or goals without knowing all the details of what led to the current situation, but it is worth noting that there are examples of activism for racial justice in our own backyard.

As our nation celebrates the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. today, it’s appropriate that we reflect on the state of his quest toward racial harmony and equality in contemporary American society.

Specifically, in this day and age, racial/ethnic relations seem to influence many of the most controversial and hotly-debated issues in modern American society. This includes immigration (especially illegal immigration), racist imagery such as recent noose incidents, and most recently, issues surrounding Barack Obama’s campaign.

With that in mind, I think it’s useful for us — or at least for me as a sociologist — to try to take a step back and look at these issues from a more institutional or contextual perspective. In other words, to understand each of these specific issues that I just mentioned better, I think it’s useful for us to first understand the social context which forms the framework within which each issue unfolds.

With that in mind, the results from two national-level surveys have just been released to try to give us this larger, societal picture of the current state of racial/ethnic relations. Specifically, studies conducted by the Pew Research Center and New America Media each provide data and insight on attitudes toward and between different racial/ethnic groups in America. So let’s take a look at each to see what they say and how they can help us understand American racial/ethnic relations better.

The Pew Research Center study generally concludes that among Whites, Blacks, and Latinos, large majorities of each group report that they get along “pretty well” or “very well” with members of the other groups. However, there are some differences — Black and Latino seem to be slightly less positive:

While 70% of blacks say blacks and Hispanics get along very or pretty well, just 57% of Hispanics agree. Meantime, some 30% of Hispanics say blacks and Hispanics get along not too or not at all well; this is the most negative assessment registered by any group in the survey about any inter-group relationship.

It’s important to note however, that although this 57% of Latinos who report good relations with Blacks is lower than what Blacks report themselves, it is still a numerical majority.

The Pew study also reports that generally speaking, those with higher education and income tend to report better cross-racial relations. Perhaps surprisingly, Blacks living in rural areas tend to report better relations with Whites than Blacks who live in urban or suburban areas. Also, there were no significant differences in terms of attitudes by region of country. Finally and perhaps on a discouraging note, younger Blacks report worse relations with Whites than older Blacks.

In general, I found the Pew study informative but with one significant drawback — they chose to exclude Asian Americans from the study.

In my opinion, this omission is absolutely inexcusable in this day and age when the Asian American population is close to 15 million, in which Asian Americans are some of the most socioeconomically successful ethnic groups in the U.S., and when Asian Americans increasingly make up large proportions of the population of many states and majorities in many cities.

I am extremely disappointed that an organization as otherwise professional and well-regarded as the Pew Research Center chose to exclude Asian Americans from this important study.

To remedy that, let’s turn to the other national study on racial attitudes, from New America Media (NAM), in conjunction with Bendixen & Associates. This survey included Asian Americans, Latinos, and African Americans, but because it focused on attitudes among and between racial/ethnic minority groups, the study did not include Whites.

Similar to the Pew study, I am a little disappointed that Whites were not included, but in relative terms, there is already a sufficient level of racial attitude data that exists among Whites, but much less so when it comes to data on racial minorities, especially Asian Americans.

Also, I am impressed that the NAM study was conducted in multiple languages to maximize its overall validity and generalizeability. A Powerpoint presentation of their major findings is also available for download. To summarize, the study notes:

[The poll] uncovered serious tensions among these ethnic groups, including mistrust and significant stereotyping, but a majority of each group also said they should put aside differences and work together to better their communities. . . .

Predominantly immigrant populations – Hispanics and Asians – expressed far greater optimism about their lives in America, concluding that hard work is rewarded in this society. By contrast, more than 60% of the African Americans polled do not believe the American Dream works for them. . . .

[Regarding tensions and mistrust], 44% of Hispanics and 47% of Asians are “generally afraid of African Americans because they are responsible for most of the crime.” Meanwhile, 46% of Hispanics and 52% of African Americans believe “most Asian business owners do not treat them with respect.” And half of African Americans feel threatened by Latin American immigrants because “they are taking jobs, housing and political power away from the Black community.” . . .

[Nonetheless], the poll found “a shared appreciation” for each group’s cultural and political contributions. “Hispanics and Asians recognize that African Americans led the fight for civil rights and against discrimination, forging a better future for the other groups,” she said.

“Asian Americans and African Americans say Hispanic culture has enriched the quality of their lives. African Americans and Hispanics perceive Asian Americans as role models when it comes to family and educational values.”

Generally, I am saddened — but entirely shocked — to hear that apparently, there is still a lot of racial tension and suspicion between Asian Americans, Latinos, and African Americans. I agree that important issues need to be addressed for these stereotypes to eventually be disproved.

Nonetheless, I would point out two points in regard to this NAM survey. The first is that as the Pew Research Center study generally showed, more educated and higher-income respondents are likely to be more positive about cross-racial attitudes and experiences.

With that in mind, it appears that the NAM survey did not disaggregate its responses by social class, instead lumping everyone from all kinds of educational, income, and occupational backgrounds together within each racial/ethnic group. This is disappointing and unfortunately, distorts the findings a little bit.

But perhaps more importantly, I am disappointed in some of the wording of the questions in the NAM survey. For example, it asked Asian and Latino respondents whether they agreed with the statement “I am generally afraid of African Americans because they are responsible for most of the crime.”

I must say that I finding that wording to be a biased, leading, and confusing, based on conventional sociological methodologies and guidelines of creating empirically valid surveys. First of all, it asks two questions in one — whether they are afraid of African Americans, and two, whether they agree that African Americans commit most of the crime. One of the key rules about questionnaire design is that you should only ask one question at a time.

Second, presenting the statement that African Americans “are responsible for most of the crime” is leading — it should have just asked the question, “Do you agree or disagree that African Americans are responsible for most crimes committed” would have been less leading and more direct. The distinction between the two is subtle, but empirically valid.

Another example of a poorly-worded and misleading question is “Latin American immigrants are taking away jobs, housing and political power from the Black community,” asked of African American and Asian respondents. Again, the problem here is that there are three questions combined into one — whether Latino immigrants take away jobs, take away housing, and take away political power are all three distinct issues and questions that are unfortunately all rolled into one.

Take together, I would argue that these two questions may have distorted and exaggerated the overall level of racial tension between Asians, African Americans, and Latinos, especially considering most of the other findings in the NAM study, which generally showed a high level of willingness to cooperate with each other.

Specifically, 86% of Asians, 89% of African Americans, and 92% of Latinos agreed with the statement, “African Americans, Latinos, and Asians have many similar problems. They should put aside their differences and work together on issues that affect their communities.”

Ultimately and in my opinion, that is the probably the most significant finding from the NAM survey — although some tensions and stereotypes still exist between Asians, Latinos, and Africans Americans (although the true extent is still unknown because some of the questions asked were biased and misleading), overwhelming majorities of each group are willing to work together to address issues of discrimination and inequality that they have in common.

To conclude, both the Pew and NAM studies stand as useful examples of both useful and interesting data, but also how shortcomings in their fundamental design unfortunately compromised their overall value.

As sociologists and as Americans in general, these are the kinds of institutional issues we need to keep in mind when we try to apply them to better understand specific issues.

Is there less racial discrimination against Blacks in American society these days? Do Blacks have equal opportunity to succeed? How are race relations in the U.S. today? The answers to these questions aren’t so easy and according to a new study by the Pew Research Institute, Blacks and Whites tend to have very different answers to questions like these:

African Americans see a widening gulf between the values of middle class and poor blacks, and nearly four-in-ten say that because of the diversity within their community, blacks can no longer be thought of as a single race, a new Pew Research Center survey has found.

The survey also finds blacks less upbeat about the state of black progress now than at any time since 1983. . . . Whites have a different perspective. While they, too, have grown less sanguine about black progress, they are nearly twice as likely as blacks to see black gains in the past five years.

The full report describes how Blacks tend to perceive more discrimination in regards to applying for a job, buying or renting a house, applying to college, and dining out or shopping.

At the same time, the report does note:

The survey finds that black and white Americans express very little overt racial animosity. As they have for decades, about eight-in-ten members of each racial group express a favorable view about members of the other group. Large majorities in both groups say that blacks and whites get along either “very” or “pretty” well, though in both cases a greater number say “pretty well.” More than eight-in-ten adults in each group also say they know a person of a different race whom they consider a friend.

These findings may seem a little contradictory, but I think the results reinforce a notion that many scholars of race and ethnicity like me have been saying all along: racial discrimination is not generally a problem of individual prejudices but of institutional patterns and practices.

In other words, there is no contradiction when Blacks report more discrimination in public life but have generally positive attitudes towards individual Whites because, like I noted, the racism they experience may or may not be manifested through particular White individuals but are almost always reinforced and perpetuated by institutional and organizational forces that frame that particular situation in favor of Whites and at the expense of Blacks.

Therein lies the challenge for all of us as Americans — to change not just individual attitudes and prejudices, but to address deeper, institutional-level influences on how people act and think that may be biased for or against any particular racial group.