Why Are Meetings So Frustrating?

On By econnellIn Sally Raskoff, Social Psychology4 Comments

By Sally Raskoff

Do you find workplace meetings frustrating? I’ve been feeling frustrated with meetings a lot lately.

Meetings are an organization’s way of making group decisions. Individual decision-making is so much easier. For example, I’ve decided to write this blog on frustrating meetings! Done!

But meetings require including the opinions of others; their viewpoints must be heard and discussed and that takes time. And patience.

When power enters into the equation, meetings can be much quicker but just as frustrating.

Those with power move things along when they run things, share their opinion, or make a decision. This can be speedier, yes, but frustrating if you don’t agree, couldn’t give input, or if your input is discounted or ignored.

Some people with power participate in collaborative meetings, but their power is typically still in play. It’s hard to ignore the boss if they are in the room with you.

My graduate school mentor told a great story that he had experienced. The way I remember it, he and many others were sitting in a room discussing the topics at hand and a decision had to be made. Everyone was sitting in the same type of chair around the room; since no one was at the head of the table or in a bigger chair than others it was a very level playing field. Everyone spoke their piece, stated their opinions, and voiced their concerns. The discussion went all the way around the room until the last man spoke up and shared his opinion on the matter. At that point, everyone nodded and agreed that his was the correct decision. This person was Carl Rogers, an eminent psychologist whose work on group processes is well known. His status and power lifted him above a level hierarchy despite the efforts to flatten it.

True collaborative work or shared governance is tough and slow.

This is especially true if the groups sharing the process are culturally heterogeneous. If the group is culturally homogeneous, the similarity of culture can be helpful in avoiding miscommunications. With heterogeneous groups, the likelihood of someone not fully understanding another is increased above and beyond the typical personal miscommunications that can plague any group.

One reason the Spanish Mondragon Cooperatives, a federation of workers who co-own the corporation, has been so successful is that their cultural homogeneity supports the groups’ cohesiveness.

In-group and out-group dynamics might also affect a meeting’s dynamics. If you are part of an in-group, you might identify with that group and feel loyalty towards it. Thus, if a member of your in-group makes some points during the meeting, the other members of that in-group will probably agree with and support that point. If you’re not a member of that group, you can get quite frustrated, especially if that group’s members are in the majority. If an out-group is dominating the meeting and your in-group members are in the minority, you can feel very disempowered.

Have you ever sat in a meeting and wondered why you were getting frustrated? What other sociological dynamics might have been occurring?

Hoarding and the Sociology of Consumption

On By econnellIn Karen Sternheimer, Popular Culture and Consumption, Social Problems, Politics, and Social Change, Social Psychology15 Comments

KS_2010a By Karen Sternheimer

If you ever want to be sure you don’t snack while watching television, tune into a show like Hoarders on A&E or one of the several other shows about compulsive hoarders and the unbelievable messes they live with. The team that comes to clean their homes will invariably discover some really gross stuff—particularly if the resident has pets—that aren’t conducive to eating while watching.

At the same time, the people profiled are typically in immense emotional pain, which can be hard to watch. I know people who hoard and have seen up close how difficult it can be for them to try and go through their stuff. I also know the frustration of spending hours helping them clean up only to see the piles return within days or weeks.

Hoarders tends to focus a lot on the psychological problems of its participants, as the American Psychiatric Association lists compulsive hoarding as a symptom of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and is considering classifying compulsive hoarding as a separate diagnosis. While it’s unclear exactly how many Americans are compulsive hoarders, estimates suggest that somewhere between 1.3 million to 3 million people collect too many items, have difficulty in disposing of and organizing things to the point that stuff takes over their living spaces and interferes with their quality of life.

It’s easy to watch Hoarders in judgment, see the piles of trash and think the subjects should just get over it and clean up. Watching the cluttered lives they lead make it tempting to see the hoarders as oddballs who are totally different from “normal” people.

Watching this show got me thinking about what sociological factors likely play a role in hoarding in addition to psychological disorders. After all, in a society where we are all encouraged to consume our way towards happiness and acceptance, it’s not a big surprise that many people are afraid to let go of their things, even things others might see as garbage.

The proliferation of self-storage businesses attests to how much stuff many of us collect. One in ten American households rented a storage unit in 2007, and the United States is home to about 86% of the world’s self-storage facilities. As you can see from the ad below, accumulating stuff appears totally normal, and only a problem if not stored properly. We have also built bigger houses to hold more stuff; as this National Public Radio (NPR) report details, the average square footage in American homes doubled between the 1950s and 2000s despite families getting smaller (home sizes actually decline for the first time in decades in 2009, likely due to the recession).

Consumption is critical to our economy as well. You might hear news analysts talk about consumer confidence—essentially how good we feel about the economy—and how it may impact consumer spending. Since more than two-thirds of economic growth is driven by spending, our economy is very dependent on people doing lots of shopping. If you recall the days after September 11, 2001, one of the things the president asked citizens to do was to go to the mall and to Disneyland. In large part our economic structure is based on us buying more, whether we have space for it or not.

Our consumer-based culture suggests that our possessions define us, that brands identify our social position and social status. Giving things is also the way we are encouraged to show others we love them on their birthday and special holidays. On some level it shouldn’t be surprising that those experiencing psychological problems have taken these values to extremes.

On one episode of Hoarders, a young man explained why he could not throw out an empty water battle or a soda can. His mother bought those for him, he said, and throwing them out would be just like rejecting her. Clearly very depressed, he knew that all of the clutter around him was interfering with his life, and yet he felt paralyzed to do anything about it.

While most people would not think of empty bottles in quite the same way, how many people store old gifts that they no longer use because of some sentimental value attached to the giver? I confess to this one. I have an item in my closet my grandmother gave to me a few years before her death—in 1986. So there is a very fine line between someone like me—sentimental yet orderly—and someone who assigns sentimental value to objects that clutter their living space.

Hoarding may fall on the extreme end of the consumption scale, but it is a spectrum most of us are on ourselves. In some ways, shows like Hoarders may help us see compulsive hoarders as completely separate from us, and help us avoid looking critically at our own consumption habits. Most of us might not live among piles of garbage…or do we?

Short Text Messages: Illusion over Substance

On By econnellIn Janis Prince Inniss, Popular Culture and Consumption, Relationships, Marriage and Family, Social Problems, Politics, and Social Change10 Comments

new janis By Janis Prince Inniss

I have discussed my anti-texting bias in previous posts, but I do recognize that texting can be useful. For example, I taught my mother to text when she was in her late 70s! Recovering from surgery meant to give her a sense of sound, Mum was down to one poorly performing ear. As she prepared to visit family by plane in another state, I realized that she would be virtually deaf upon arrival. My mind filled with worst-case scenarios of family attempting to pick her up at the airport, but being unable to locate her despite repeated calls to her cell phone or airport pages. Mum’s sight is pretty good, however, so I taught her to text a few hours before she departed. That holiday season, she kept me apprised of her activities with several texts per day; I got running commentary on her vacation and she got my responses without any problem .

Although I object to how expensive texting can be, I understand why people might find it useful. Texting allows people to ”say” things when they can’t speak; the advantages of this are obvious and often we are saying things we probably shouldn’t, to people we probably shouldn’t, and at times when we probably should be doing something else. Consider that text messages were allegedly a part of Tiger Woods’ extramarital affairs, are used by teachers who prey on their students sexually, and helped cause the downfall of former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. The consequences of teen sexting have been widely discussed and debated. Less dramatic, but still in the same category of inappropriate use is texting someone while you’re in a meeting or in class.

People text while doing other things, such as watching movies, having conversations, eating, and working. (Note that research on multitasking indicates that the term more properly refers to doing more than one thing poorly.) That’s what one Wal-Mart cashier who texts at work is doing: While customers push their goods up to the cashier, he reads a text. And while I get my credit card out of my purse, swipe, and sign it, he types a text! (I’ve seen this particular cashier do this repeatedly, so I know he wasn’t doing it once in an emergency). People—teens in particular— are even texting and driving, giving rise to increasing numbers of car accidents due to distracted driving. (Oprah Winfrey has been raising awareness to this issue through her “No Phone Zone” campaign.)

About one third of teens send more than 100 texts per day—and this is the primary way that teens communicate (over phone calls, instant messages, emails, face-to-face, and social networking.) Why is texting so popular? Is it because it allows us to seem communicative, even when we really aren’t?

Let me give you a few examples. I have friends and family members who send annual Christmas Day text message blasts to everyone in their address books. It’s great to receive a holiday greeting, of course, but it feels so impersonal. (Is a blast text any less personal than a computer generated greeting card, electronic card, or an annual family newsletter sent to everyone?) A short telephone call, even voice message seems more personal to me than the blast.

Now that Mother’s Day seems to be cause for acknowledgment not only with those who mothered us, but all mothers we know (a post for another time), I have started receiving blast texts wishing me a Happy Mother’s Day; other so-called holidays also bring me blast texts wishing me a Happy Whatever! Given that the text senders and I don’t communicate on a regular basis, I think actual conversations such as “How are the kids?” “And your Mom?” “How are things at school?” would be real—or at least better approximations of—communication. A text message can give the illusion that we are communicating even when we are not.

Ever think about why someone is sending you a text rather than calling or visiting you? I do. Visits are not as convenient (or maybe even appropriate) as other methods of communication. But given that texts are inconvenient to type (at least for some of us) and that there is a 160 character limit, a text message provides a limited form of communication. This makes sense when we remember that we refer to as texts are technically “short message service”. Short message, not full conversation. As one among other modes of communication, texts are fine but if used too often they give the appearance of communication, in a medium that is by nature unable to support a substantive conversation. Texts can’t convey emotion to the extent that a voice or non-verbal cue can, which is why sensitive conversations are not as suitable for this medium. And given that people are often texting while attending to other tasks, how engaged can they really be with the person they are texting or with the people around them?

Ritual Season

On By econnellIn Popular Culture and Consumption, Sally Raskoff, Theory3 Comments

new sally By Sally Raskoff

Rituals surround us at this time of year: awards ceremonies, commencement, marriages, and anniversaries. Add in some birthdays or baby showers and you have a lot of social events to attend!

Rituals are public behaviors that have tremendous meaning for us as individuals and for our society as a whole. These events announce changes in our lives, achievements, and milestones. Yet they do so much more.

Commencement is my favorite school activity (much more fun than committee meetings). We faculty dress in our gowns, each distinctive for the degree we have and the school where we earned it. The faculty and soon-to-be graduates march into the stadium, take their seats, listen to the speakers, text their family and friends, and savor the experience of sharing these moments. Once students start walking the line to get their diploma cover, shake the dignitaries hands, and wave at their loved ones in the stands, we faculty wave if they see us and remember their first day of class. Especially considering that many of our students do not make it to this point, this is a moment to appreciate the tenacity and perseverance of those who do.

Scholarship and awards ceremonies have the same flavor, as they are joyful events where people celebrate their acknowledgements from foundations and clip_image002grantors to support their education. At our college, the awards are also where we celebrate those students who are transferring to a four-year college or university. (Those students are not the same students who graduate with an A.A. degree.) As they are acknowledged by name, we hear which universities have accepted them and which one they will attend. That gives many in the audience a chance to yell out in support of their favored institution. (It’s obvious who are the UCLA and USC fans in the room.)

Among my family and friends thus summer, we will be celebrating a 25th wedding anniversary, a 30th birthday, a 40th birthday, and a baby shower. These are personal events yet we are compelled to celebrate them publicly. Why?

clip_image004The anniversary is mine. My spouse and I weren’t sure whether to have a party at all and haven’t yet decided on how big this party will be, but our family let us know that we need to have one. The birthdays are milestone birthdays although they are a little scary to those experiencing them. The baby shower is to welcome a new person into the world and to shower the new parents with supplies and support in their coming adventure.

What would happen if we didn’t have these events? Graduations without a commencement celebration; awards without public acknowledgement; milestone anniversaries and birthdays passing without notice, and babies changing their parents’ lives without support of family and friends? It sounds like a lot less fun!

These rituals provide a way for individuals to commemorate and appreciate their achievements and milestones. They give us motivation to do more and they help us appreciate what we have accomplished. Without them, life continues on a mundane or profane level, without any sense of how special or sacred those markers are. Achieving a degree or award, staying married, living longer, and creating life are all important behaviors for the individuals involved but also for society.

These rituals affirm that our behaviors are socially acceptable and worth striving for, and they connect to important social norms. Because rituals are shared and public, they reinforce those social norms for the participants and the observers.

Society’s stability is based on social norms and close social networks (among other things). Social rituals provide the social solidarity or social glue to keep us bonded to each other. These rituals reinforce awareness of what our society deems important, and provides some motivation to achieve those things.

clip_image006

Commencement and awards ceremonies reinforce the norms of educational achievement, without which society would not have skilled labor and those who will work in the professions. Social bonds are also reinforced as the graduates are seen as a cohort and the alumni associations approach them about membership. Anniversaries, birthdays, and baby showers all reinforce social bonds among family systems and friendship networks. They also reinforce norms of family: clip_image008marriage and parenting.

One might look more closely at Erving Goffman’s “Interaction Ritual” concept to see how we conform to expectations within these events. One could also analyze the many wedding-related rituals (e.g., showers, bachelor’s parties, rehearsals) to see how social norms, networks, and solidarity are involved in the creation of a new family.

In what social event have you recently taken part in? How are these or other sociological concepts and issues related to your event?

Can Social Problems Be Solved?

On By econnellIn Behind the Headlines, Crime and Deviance, Karen Sternheimer, Social Problems, Politics, and Social Change12 Comments

KS_2010a By Karen Sternheimer

If you have ever taken or taught a sociology class, you know that many students leave feeling like some problems are too deeply entrenched in our social structure to ever change. This, of course, is not true; social change is possible. But how?

In the United States, the legal system has been our go-to solution for many issues. Civil rights activists effectively used the courts to desegregate schools, and Congress passed several landmark bills guaranteeing voting rights and fair housing, for instance.

But the law is only one avenue to create change; there are many other ways that ordinary citizens can work to solve problems. We are accustomed to thinking that the best way to deal with problems like gang violence, for instance, would be to pass more laws to punish those involved in gangs more severely. But while people who act violently should be punished and incarcerated, prison alone will not stop people from joining gangs.

Father Gregory Boyle, a Jesuit priest in Los Angeles, began working with gang members in 1984 when he was assigned to a church in one of the city’s poorest and most dangerous neighborhoods. As Boyle describes in his book, Tattoos on the Heart: The Power of Boundless Compassion, presiding over the funerals of young  person after young person moved him to take action.

For the last eighteen years, Boyle has run Homeboy Industries, a nonprofit organization whose mission is to provide jobs for “at-risk and formerly gang-involved youth to become positive and contributing members of society through job placement, training and education.” Homeboy Industries include shops and businesses, including a bakery, café, silk screening and embroidering, and grounds maintenance services. Participants also work side by side with former gang rivals and learn to let go clip_image002of the notion that they are enemies. (Learn more about Father Greg and Homeboy Industries by watching Father G and the Homeboys).

The businesses are designed to help people who might not otherwise be employable learn skills that will enable them to lead law-abiding lives. One of the biggest challenges that people coming out of prison face is getting a job. As Boyle observed, many employers are not “felon friendly”. And particularly during these days of high unemployment, having a record can mean few options. (Check out the documentary A Hard Straight for an in-depth look at the challenges of staying out of prison while on parole).

Homeboy Industries is now overflowing with thousands of young people who want to leave gang life behind and find jobs. But like many non-profit institutions, Homeboy Industries is facing tough financial times, as the recession has reduced donations. They were recently forced to lay off 300 people–all of their paid staff. The organization’s small businesses are quite successful, earning about $2.5 million annually, but this is just a quarter of the organization’s operating budget. (In addition to job training, Homeboy Industries offers tattoo removal, mental health care and legal services). The organization is seeking about $5 million dollars in donations to re-hire their staff for this year.

If that seems like a lot of money, consider this: celebrities and other wealthy Angelenos just donated more than $12 million to buy the land around the Hollywood sign after a three month campaign to save it from developers. And the cost to incarcerate one inmate in a California prison averages $47,000 a year; at that rate, Homeboy Industries costs about the same as housing 212 inmates and yet serves thousands of young people.

For the state’s 673 prisoners on death row, the cost
rises to $90,000 per inmate each year. Perhaps that’s why the prison
system costs California taxpayers nearly $8
billion, about 11 percent of the state's budget (a higher percentage
than the state’s educational system receives).

Like many other states, California is facing a massive budget deficit of $20 billion. To alleviate this shortfall, the state plans to release many prisoners and will also cut social services, including aid for child welfare and foster care, the disabled, and the elderly. While these cuts might save money in the short term, in the long run we might see more problems—and possibly more crime—from these decisions.

The vast majority of those incarcerated in California’s prisons (83
percent) are there for property crimes rather than violent crimes (14
percent), crimes like theft, drug distribution and drug possession,
which in some cases may be the result of a lack of legitimate job
opportunities.

It’s very possible that organizations like Homeboy Industries might save far more money than they cost. So why haven’t philanthropists rushed forward as they have for the Hollywood sign?

As Boyle notes, gang members are often viewed by others as “disposable” people who are undeserving of help. Journalist Malcolm Gladwell writes in What the Dog Saw: And Other Adventures that we often prefer to fund programs for people we feel are morally clip_image002[7]deserving. And yet in his chapter on homelessness, “Million Dollar Murray,” Gladwell concludes that it may be cheaper to pay for housing for persistently homeless people than to provide services to manage homelessness.

This may not play well with the general public, who might see a down-on-her-luck single mother as more deserving of help than an alcoholic who has been on the streets for years. But Gladwell finds that in the long run the public health costs for the least sympathetic homeless people—those that might be heavy drinkers and resist working—are actually much higher if they stay on the streets than they would be if we found a way to house them. Likewise, heavily tattooed gang members with long criminal records may not be the most sympathetic of characters, but helping them get jobs will be cheaper than sending them to prison.

Addressing problems like gang violence are not easy, but they are also not impossible to deal with. What other problems can be addressed if we are willing to assist unsympathetic groups? How might we save money in the long run by doing so?

Ascribed Status vs. Achieved Status: The Case of Homelessness

On By econnellIn Class and Stratification, Social Problems, Politics, and Social Change, Todd Schoepflin25 Comments

todd_S_2010a By Todd Schoepflin

Every so often the terms we encounter in an Introduction to Sociology textbook are a little boring. Sometimes the examples are outdated, other times the discussion just lies flat on the page. As much as I love teaching an introductory course, I even tire of the material occasionally. But then a student speaks up and the concepts jump off the page.

While teaching two basic concepts in sociology this semester– ascribed status and achieved status –I gave the usual examples for each. An ascribed status is involuntary, something we cannot choose. Race, ethnicity, and the social class of our parents are examples of ascribed statuses.

On the other hand, an achieved status is something we accomplish in the course of our lives. To some extent, achieved status reflects our work and effort. College student, college dropout, CEO, and thief are examples of achieved statuses. (I made a sarcastic comment in class that some CEOs are thieves, but no one laughed. I’ll try that joke again next semester.)

Then I brought up homelessness as an interesting status to think about. Many people think homelessness is definitely an achieved status. They see homelessness as a result of a poor work ethic or irresponsible lifestyle choices. But when you think more deeply about homelessness, you gain an understanding that homelessness can be considered an ascribed status in many cases.

When I asked students about their understanding of the causes of homelessness, they were able to identify some of them, including substance abuse and mental illness. The cause of mental illness makes for an interesting debate. If we accept the premise that we don’t choose mental illness, I think we can make the argument that homelessness is an ascribed status when it’s the result of mental illness. By the way, one major reason for homelessness cited by mayors of U.S. cities is so obvious that most people wouldn’t think of it: a lack of affordable housing.

Anyway, the discussion continued when a student raised her hand and talked about how she was homeless as a child. I was stunned. Having taught college students for ten years, I thought I’d heard everything. But Ayla is my first student I know of that has experienced homelessness. In talking about her Ayla background she made an essential point: homeless children should be thought of as an example of ascribed status. Obviously, children don’t choose to be homeless, as circumstances beyond their control leave them without housing.

Throughout the semester, Ayla told me details about her childhood. Her mother, who had a drinking problem and other personal issues, could not provide for her on a consistent basis.The oldest of four children, Ayla had to take charge of family matters. She remembers paying bills as early as age nine. She would go to a check-cashing store and pay the rent (her family received SSI assistance). She would buy groceries. She’d get out of school and do a mental check (“What do I do now?”). Her first objective was to find her mom to make sure she was okay, and then she would get her brothers from school. Sometimes they would stay at a friend’s house, sometimes at a shelter.

This stretch of time in her life was roughly from age nine to thirteen in Rochester, New York. Through it all, she always attended school. Things settled in her life when she moved to Niagara Falls, New York to live with her grandmother. She graduated from high school in Niagara Falls and earned a scholarship to nearby Niagara University.

Ayla’s transition from being homeless as a child to attending college reminded me of the movie Homeless to Harvard, based on the true story of Liz Murray, who was homeless as a teenager and whose parents suffered from substance abuse. When I mentioned this movie in class, a student remarked “That’s why they don’t make movies called From Prep School to Harvard.” Now that was funny (the class laughed) but there was tremendous insight behind the humor. Making it to Harvard after prep school training is not nearly as impressive a feat compared with someone who has spent time on the streets as a child.

house_-_es I remain awestruck by Ayla’s story, especially when I consider the relative advantages I enjoyed growing up in a solid middle-class household. We were well provided for. There was always plenty of food in the house and on the table. My father had a steady job my entire life. My mother stayed home to take care of my brother and me and to run the household. She didn’t return to the paid workforce until I attended middle school. I spent most of my childhood and adolescence in the house that is pictured, a very nice house my parents still live in today.

Reflecting back, the stability they provided was priceless. I took for granted not only material comfort but also consistency of care, discipline, and structure. I think I underestimate how much that consistency developed me into the person I am today. And I think of Ayla, who has come so far from so little, never knowing her father, not being able to count on her mother, having to be an adult during childhood. Ayla’s story continues to inspire me. I think it’s extraordinary that she became a college student (achieved status) after spending part of her life homeless (in her case, ascribed status). Since learning from Ayla about her life story, achieved status has taken on a new meaning for me.

What is Ethnic Studies?

On By econnellIn Behind the Headlines, Janis Prince Inniss, Race and Ethnicity, Social Institutions: Work, Education, and Medicine, Social Problems, Politics, and Social Change8 Comments

new janis By Janis Prince Inniss

Recently, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed a bill that would give that state the toughest immigration laws in the U.S. Less than three weeks later, Governor Brewer signed a law that has been described as effectively banning ethnic studies in public schools. Should schools be found in violation of the law, they will be hit where it hurts: in their pockets, with 10 percent of their state financial aid withheld.

Before looking more closely at this bill, let’s review a few basics. What is Ethnic Studies? According to the University of California Riverside‘s Ethnic Studies Department, Ethnic Studies is “the interdisciplinary social and historical study of how different populations have experienced, survived, and critically engaged the United States nation-building project.” The website of the University of California, Berkeley’s Department of Ethnic Studies states that faculty in its department, “seek to provide collectively a comparative framework for understanding both the specificities and the differences among the situations of racially-marginalized groups in the US and beyond.”

These descriptions come from university-level programs, but give us a common understanding of the nature of such types of courses. Typically, ethnic studies focus on African American Studies, Asian American Studies, Chicano Studies, and Native American Studies (although the specific names may differ).

Here is some of the text of House Bill 2281 in caps, with my thoughts:

THE LEGISLATURE FINDS AND DECLARES THAT PUBLIC SCHOOL PUPILS SHOULD BE

TAUGHT TO TREAT AND VALUE EACH OTHER AS INDIVIDUALS AND NOT BE TAUGHT TO

RESENT OR HATE OTHER RACES OR CLASSES OF PEOPLE.

Sounds reasonable enough. See discussion further on about resentment issues that also apply to hate.

PROHIBTED COURSES AND CLASSES; ENFORCEMENT

A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL IN THIS STATE SHALL NOT INCLUDE

IN ITS PROGRAM OF INSTRUCTION ANY COURSES OR CLASSES THAT INCLUDE ANY OF THE

FOLLOWING:

PROMOTE THE OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

Well, I would certainly hope not!

PROMOTE RESENTMENT TOWARD A RACE OR CLASS OF PEOPLE.

Promoting resentment doesn’t sound too savory to me. Nor does it seem like the job of a school. But how will the enforcers of this bill decipher whether a course or class “promotes resentment”?

We sociologists, are always looking to measure things; I would love to know what research design will be employed to ascertain that a particular course promotes resentment. Will the law enforcer use his own feelings of becoming riled up when reading a syllabus as an indication that it will promote resentment in others?

ARE DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR PUPILS OF A PARTICULAR ETHNIC GROUP.

Hmm. Let’s say I design a class that focuses on some aspect of the Mexican experience in the U.S., does that mean the course is designed primarily for Mexican and Mexican American students? Are these classes designed for particular students or are they designed to focus on specific content?

Have you ever taken an ethnic studies class? Are you of the ethnicity that was the focus of the class? I don’t have data on who takes what classes, but class make-up has to be influenced by the make-up of the whole school. At a predominantly white school, there may be a number of white students taking Ethnic Studies classes. In some cases, African American and Black students may be the ones in classes focusing on that group and so on.

Can other students attend such classes? I don’t see why not. Might they feel left out? Maybe. Might they feel guilt by association? Perhaps. For example, white students in a course on the Mexican American experience in the U.S. might feel that because mention is made of white involvement in repression or racism or other untoward acts, that they are seen as guilty by association. And maybe Mexican American students in such a class might feel resentment towards their white peers.

ADVOCATE ETHNIC SOLIDARITY INSTEAD OF THE TREATMENT OF PUPILS AS INDIVIDUALS.

Initially, this sounds fine, except for the obvious that we all seek to belong to groups. Will students who display ethnic solidarity be seen as proof that the course advocated this? Again, what will serve as proof that the course caused such an impact?

clip_image002 clip_image004

More generally, why were these particular items included in the bill? Why are any of the issues raised in this bill associated with Ethnic Studies in public schools? What does overthrowing the government have to do with Ethnic Studies? What does promoting resentment have to do with Ethnic Studies? And what does teaching resentment and hate have to do with Ethnic Studies? What is the relationship between such activism and the teaching of any subject?

Part of what’s at issue in the debate surrounding this law is whether there is even a need for Ethnic Studies. Why should there be separate studies for any of the groups typically placed at the center of Ethnic Studies? The answer, of course, is that the full story of people of color has not been reflected in our history and other textbooks. Ethnic Studies classes aim to rectify this imbalance by providing a fuller treatment of often untold stories.

So why this law? Tom Horne, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, said the Arizona bill was written to target a particular program in the Tucson school district that he says promotes resentment—one that he has been trying to end for many years. I can think of no class that I’ve ever taken, or would ever teach that would obviously run afoul of this law. But if the Superintendent finds a particular Ethnic Studies program so problematic, why target such courses across the state? (Mr. Horne
referred to a Raza studies program curriculum as “revolutionary” and said that it creates resentment among students who take the course.) Some writers have suggested that Mr. Horne is politically motivated; he is running for Attorney General in Arizona. What do you think motivates this law?

Consuming Education

On By econnellIn Sally Raskoff, Social Institutions: Work, Education, and Medicine, Social Problems, Politics, and Social Change17 Comments

new sally By Sally Raskoff

PBS’s Frontline recently aired a story on for-profit educational institutions. Ten percent of all post-secondary students are enrolled in one of these relatively new types of institutions. A Los Angeles Times article notes that these for-profit schools offer classes at non-traditional times, offering flexible educational opportunities for people working full-time. Students in these schools receive over 25 percent of the federal financial aid awarded to college students, so not only is this an important education concern, but a public policy issue as well.

College students in all types of institutions are borrowing more money and ending up in more debt upon graduation than just a decade ago. Students in the for-profit colleges end up defaulting on their loans at higher rates than do students in the more traditional public or non-profit colleges.

clip_image003

Source: The Institute for College Access and Success

Why are students in so much more debt than in previous years?

We might surmise that in the past college was cheaper. According to College Board data, even adjusted for inflation, the cost of attending a four-year public institution has more than tripled in the past thirty years.

Fees and tuition have been increasing as public funding has decreased. Private donations and institutional endowments also took a hit during the recent recession. We could also consider the growth of for-profit colleges as a source of this cost increase, since they tend to cost much more than traditional colleges. Their students are more likely to be on financial aid and are less likely to pay the full tuition at the same time they take classes. However, that does not mean that those students are paying less for their classes since they are still liable for the loans.

The National Center for Education Statistics data on financial aid by type of college (Table 9) clearly shows that while they are not the most likely to be on financial aid, students at for-profit colleges are much more likely to have loans than students in other colleges. About 78 % receive loans at for-profit two-year schools, compared with 19 % at public two-year programs. Community college students are often eligible for financial aid yet don’t apply for it, perhaps because they don’t know they can. Staffing shortages mean that many financial aid offices are likely overburdened and understaffed. Students may find they have to navigate the process on their own, get frustrated, and give up. By contrast, for-profit schools make helping students apply for financial aid a high priority because without it the schools wouldn’t be able to stay in business. Perhaps if community college students knew more about their eligibility for financial aid they would be more likely to complete their degrees, as President Obama has encouraged.

Students have to borrow more money than they used to just to stay in school. With the current economic situation, students are less likely to have jobs to help pay for their education. The community college where I teach just finished our program review and our student survey results really surprised us: 52% of our students live with their parents and 40% are not employed. This is at an urban commuter community college campus, which traditionally has served a slightly older population of students than four-year residential campuses. When our campus recently updated our Educational Master Plan (a five-year plan for guiding us in making policy and budgets), our data clearly showed that our potential students often enrolled at the for-profit colleges in our region. This puzzled us since those colleges charge so much more money than we do, but it makes sense when you consider that it is possible for students to enroll in almost any class they wished at the for-profit school.

Since that time, our budget has been cut substantially, which means that we have had to cut classes. We have many fewer classes with much larger class sizes, and every semester we turn away more students than we enroll. Students may find it easier to enroll at for-profit institutions, but the Frontline report raised serious questions about the quality of education some students are getting at for-profit schools.

Some students reported being promised jobs in the health care industry, but when they later applied they were told that they didn’t have the necessary training. Other news reports suggest that this is not an isolated incident, and some students have filed lawsuits against the schools they attended. These concerns about educational quality and students’ financial burdens have prompted President Obama to propose new regulations for financial aid at for-profit schools to ensure that taxpayers’ dollars are used appropriately.

Consuming education has become an increasingly expensive endeavor. Economic decisions are taking priority over educational concerns in institutions around the country, whether it be reducing the number of classes offered at community colleges like mine, or offering classes that might serve shareholders needs more than students’ best interests at some for-profit programs. We now have a large portion of the population paying huge student loan bills; for many of these students the soft job market means they might not find a job that pays enough to cover their monthly payments. Why do you thing being educated in the twenty-first century is so much more expensive than in the past?

Lightness and Whiteness

On By econnellIn Karen Sternheimer, Popular Culture and Consumption, Race and Ethnicity17 Comments

KS_2010a By Karen Sternheimer

The recent passage of Arizona’s immigration law has created fear, particularly among Latinos, that darker-skinned individuals might be under increased scrutiny as possible illegal immigrants. Janis Prince Inniss has blogged about colorism and the privileges of lighter skinned blacks, who historically have had more opportunities than their darker-skinned peers.

And yet paradoxically, many whites make a concerted effort to darken their skin, through tanning or using creams providing the appearance of a tan. Why is light skin a privilege for some groups but not for others?

You might be thinking what I thought much of my life growing up: tanned skin “looks better.” As a pale-skinned white person, I was occasionally taunted from classmates and strangers who might actually yell from passing cars, “get a tan!” One guy in college told me I’d be so much more attractive if only I had a tan.

I learned that I could get tan if I baked in the sun and got a good burn, which would eventually turn into a tan. Once while on a summer vacation to Florida I spent the whole day in the sun and was up all night sick from sun poisoning (which caused fever, chills, and vomiting, not to mention an awful burn). And yet when I returned home I got all kinds of compliments from classmates on my hard-earned tan, despite the fact that the skin on my chin, nose and cheeks had blistered and looked like overcooked cheese.

That was a long time ago, and I have since stopped tanning, especially when one of my cousins was diagnosed with melanoma, a potentially fatal form of skin cancer. Her prognosis was not good at first, but thankfully after surgeries and years of treatment she survived. I am in a high risk group because of my complexion, family history, and because of the severe burn I endured before I was eighteen.

Her struggle with melanoma was not isolated: as you can see from the graph below charting melanoma trends in the United States, rates of diagnosis have risen steadily over the past several decades. And yet tanning is still popular, both outside and in tanning salons.

clip_image002

According to the American Academy of Dermatology, the indoor tanning industry brings in about 5 billion dollars a year, which has quintupled since 1992. Most of their patrons—70 percent—are white girls and women aged 16-29. The Skin Cancer Foundation estimates that nearly 30 million people use indoor tanning beds each year, and that those who do have increased odds of contracting skin cancer.

All this begs the question: why is tanned skin—something that is potentially harmful and aging—often considered a sign of health and beauty?

To answer this question, we might go back a century to a time when light skin was privileged over tanned skin for whites. The majority of Americans still lived in rural areas, and many worked on farms and fields. Pale skin reflected wealth and implied the lack of a need to labor outdoors. And with massive influxes of immigration from southern and eastern Europe, lighter complexions of people from northern and western Europe connoted status.

After World War I, several major changes made tanning gain popularity. First, the economy shifted. As the middle class grew and labor became more automated, being outside was identified more with leisure than work. Leisure time grew with the growth of wages and the shorter workweek. European ethnic divisions began to lose some of their power due to the unifying effect of the war effort as well.

Ironically, the medical establishment did much to promote the association between health and tanning. During the 1920s, the sun was thought to be able to  cure nearly any ailment. Tuberculosis was a major illness of the era, and warm, dry air was thought to help heal its many sufferers. Bacteria flourishes in dark, moist spaces, and during a time when many people lived in cramped, crowded conditions with little sanitation, it is likely that spending some time outside would be a major improvement from their normal environment.

Today, perceptions of tanning are complex: the medical establishment warns of the dangers of overexposure to the sun, but millions still seek tans. I have noticed the contradictory thoughts about tanning myself. Every so often someone compli
ments me on how few wrinkles I have and asks how I’ve been able to keep my skin from sun damage though I spend a lot of time outdoors in southern California. Once someone even asked to know what sunscreen I use so she could go out and buy it herself. And yet I still occasionally hear taunts about my naturally light skin. “Are you from Alaska?” a man asked me on the beach last summer, as he and his friends laughed.

While rude remarks like this are a nuisance, my skin color hasn’t likely created the same kinds of challenges that dark-skinned blacks and Latinos might experience. My pale skin is not likely to lead to me to be pulled over by police, lose a job opportunity or be denied housing.

Legend has it that Coco Chanel, a fashion icon of the early twentieth century, first made tanning fashionable during the 1920s. But skin color is about more than just fashion—it reveals other sociological meanings. What other reasons do you think that light skin provides few advantages for whites, unlike for people of color?

Arizona Immigration Law and Racial Profiling

On By econnellIn Behind the Headlines, Immigration, Population, Aging, and Demography, Janis Prince Inniss, Race and Ethnicity23 Comments

new janis By Janis Prince Inniss

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer recently signed a law that would enact the most stringent immigration policies in the U.S. Nationally, the bill (SB 1070) has generated a lot of emotional response on both sides. On May 1, there were demonstrations by tens of thousands against the bill in several cities including Los Angeles, Dallas, and Chicago. Those who decry the bill have called for a boycott of the state; the oldest historically black fraternity, Alpha Phi Alpha, has already moved its annual conference—expected to draw up to 10,000 people— from Phoenix to Las Vegas. Even President Obama has jumped into the fray, referring to the bill as a “mistake”. The immigration debate is not confined to Arizona, and will likely be a hot topic nationally.

What is Arizona Senate Bill 1070? (Click here to read the entire bill.) Simply, the law allows law enforcement to question people suspected of being in the U.S. illegally about their immigration status and makes it a crime to be without immigration documents. SB 1070 also makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally.

What are the major criticisms of the bill? Many worry that it will lead to racial and ethnic profiling of Latinos. What do those who support the bill say? Proponents argue that this bill is the antidote to the violence they claim is correlated with illegal immigration and stress public safety concerns.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4176340&w=400&h=249Watch the latest news video at video.foxnews.com

 

Already, Governor Brewer has signed House Bill 2162 which revises HB 1070, (Click here to read the full revision) which according to the governor should address fears about racial and ethnic profiling: Police are restricted from using race or ethnicity as the basis for questioning. According to the Los Angeles Times, Governor Brewer said racial profiling would not be tolerated, and added, “We have to trust our law enforcement.” In addition, the change proposes that police may only ask immigration status questions while enforcing another law; previously a “contact” with police was sufficient cause for questions about immigration status. (It should be noted that the Arizona law mirrors U.S. federal statutes in many of the most discussed areas of the Arizona bill.)

Putting aside our strong feelings about immigration, illegal immigrants, and what the best remedy is, let’s consider only the notion that police are not to use race or ethnicity as a basis for questioning. Granted that the revised bill in Arizona states that it is in enforcing another law that police may inquire about immigration status, but exactly how will police ignore their attitudes about race and ethnicity?

I am not necessarily suspicious that any police officers are more prejudiced than the rest of us, so I would ask the same question of any of us: How do any of us ignore race or ethnicity in our jobs or going about our everyday life? Maybe we are “colorblind” without cues about a person’s race or ethnicity—perhaps interacting by email or telephone, but even in those cases, we may observe subtle cues that suggest race or ethnicity. Knowing that the majority of illegal immigrants in Arizona are from across the border in Mexico, can police ignore that information? Can police ignore race and ethnicity to enforce laws any more than we can in other areas of life?

Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Blink, examines research about the decisions that we make in the blink of an eye. Like it or not, as Gladwell points out, we all make split second judgments. And those quickly formed judgments and conclusions impact how we respond in a variety of situations. We all know what we’re supposed to think and believe about certain topics such as race and ethnicity. The police should ignore race and ethnicity as a basis for questioning right?

Ask them and I’d bet they would say they do so now and will continue to do so if and when the new bill goes into effect. But as the Implicit Association Test (IAT) illustrates, what we say about race is quite different from what we actually believe: The vast majority of IAT test takers, including African Americans, show a pro-white bias. (Do you want to try it yourself? If so, click here and then proceed to the Race IAT.)

How do you legislate people’s assumptions? Or prevent them from letting their unconscious attitudes impact their behaviors? Can policed be trained to overcome their stereotypes and prejudices—and do so in high stress situations in which they have little time to respond? Research Gladwell cites indicates that both training and experience can alter our thinking—even our unconscious thoughts so that is hopeful; pretending that we don’t all have biases—even ones that we don’t think we have—is not.