Link Roundup: Equality And Diversity In Academia

13 06 2013

Later this summer, I will be joining my colleagues in sociology for our annual national conference, hosted by the American Sociological Association.  This year’s theme is “Interrogating Inequality: Linking Micro and Macro.”  I am pleased to see that this focus on inequality — really the core topic of most sociological research — includes some inward reflection, as well.  Two sessions caught my eye:

  1. “Revisiting the 2003 ASA Race Statement,” a thematic session that asks whether we should continue to examine race and ethnicity in sociological research on inequality.  Scheduled for Sunday, August 11th, 10:30am-12:10pm.  Featuring panelists Nancy Lopez, David R. Williams, Michael Omi, Lynn Weber, Felice J. Levine, Roberta M. Spalter-Roth, and Deborah K. King.
  2. “Interrogating Inequalities within Sociology,” a thematic session that “will showcase critical analysis of inequality about sociology and its effects on our paradigms, concepts, methods, and findings.”  We, as a discipline, are stronger when sociologists of diverse backgrounds and perspectives are included and equally valued.  This panel, co-sponsored by the Committee on the Status of Women in Sociology, features Alenxadra Kalev, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, Joey Sprague, Roberta M. Spalter-Roth, Rodney D. Coates, and Erin Leahey.

I have also come across a number of stories in the past few weeks on the status of equality and diversity in academia in general.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Academia, Advocacy, American Sociological Association, Anti-Fatphobia, Anti-Racism, Anti-Sexism, Asians and Asian Americans, Bias, Black People, Black Women, College, Dialogue, Discrimination, Diversity, Education, Equality, Ethnicity, Exclusion, Faculty, Fatphobia, Gender, Graduate School, Higher Education, Inclusivity, Inequality, Institutional Change, Institutional Discrimination, Institutional Racism, Institutional Sexism, Intellectual Activism, Interpersonal Discrimination, Interpersonal fatphobia, Interpersonal Racism, Interpersonal Sexism, Intersectionality, Latina/o People, Marginalized Groups, Men, Minorities, People of Color, Prejudice, Professions, Progress, Race, Racism, Research, Scholars, Scholarship, Science, Sexism, Social Science, Sociology, Stereotypes, Tenure, Universities, White People, Women, Women of Color

Reflections On Self-Doubt In Academia

13 05 2013

In her latest blog post, “On Racism, Inferiority, and the Self,” sociologist Crystal Fleming reflected on the sense of inferiority that too many members of oppressed groups feel.  She notes:

What I have learned is that racism, homophobia, sexism and all other ‘isms’ only sting when we buy into the fiction that our worth is determined by what other people think of us.  When we feel pain from being stereotyped or negatively viewed, it’s because we needlessly give our power away. And at any moment, we can choose to stop doing that.

Unfortunately, even with a sense of pride in our identity and community, and the related rejection of the prejudices toward our group(s), we still experience the “sting” of such hostility:

But all it takes is exposure to a sexist or racist comment to remind us that some people think very poorly of us. And when that happens, the anger we feel might eclipse a pain we may have never acknowledged–the pain of fearing that the bigot, the chauvinist or the homophobe might be right.  Maybe there is something wrong with me. Maybe I am inferior. And even if we reject the idea that we are less than, we may nonetheless feel wounded by another human being’s searing rejection.

To get past this, she argues for further rejection of the dominant society’s stereotypes, prejudice, discrimination, and hostility:

The point is to realize that this wounded ego–this lie of inferiority–does not define you. Could never define you. You are the Witness. You are Presence. You are beyond any idea, thought or construct. And the tragicomic, hilarious truth is that you have always been this whole, perfect Being. The beautiful thing is that the truth of who You really are doesn’t depend on your state of mind, your thoughts or your level of awareness.

The Case Of Graduate School

I have made a life-long promise to myself to focus my energy as a scholar on advocating for social justice, liberating oppressed communities, and making academic knowledge and research accessible beyond the ivory tower.  In other words, I do not want to waste my energy on navel-gazing, doing research on academia, engaging in initiatives that promote academia for its own benefit.  Lately, I let myself get caught up in debates with some of my colleagues about research, but primarily from a concern of the impact research has beyond academe.  I will give myself a pass, but I do wish to return to scholarship (including blogging) that serves those outside of the academy.

In another way, I find myself reneging on this promise: reflecting on my time in graduate school.  This chapter of my life is coming to a close, and I will soon embark on the next as a professor at the University of Richmond.  So, in that regard, it makes sense that I would reflect on these past six years.  But, I also find myself reflecting, not just to myself but publicly as well, in a way that feels as though pent up thoughts are now gushing out.  Yep, it is as though I remained silent for six years, and now am releasing my tell-all book, albeit in snippets as blog posts, tweets, and Facebook posts.  Again, I do not wish to write a book on graduate school — it’s been done, and can be useful, but I prefer to devote my energy as a scholar on work that serves others more directly.

BA Graduation ('07)

BA Graduation, UMBC (’07)

Where does this silence come from?  I recently reread a letter I wrote to myself, “A Letter to an Activist,” in which I reflected on my life and upbringing, my values, and my social justice-informed agenda as a scholar.  In it, I noted that I have been outspoken, challenging stereotypes, exclusion, and silences since the age of 5.  My first attempt at activism was demanding that my kindergarten teacher explain why I could only select one racial identity on a form for school.  That multiracial activism flourished, including challenging fellow students who insisted on using the term “mulatto” (possibly a derivative of mule, implying that interracial marriage is equivalent to cross-species breeding), and participating on forums for multiracial and multiethnic people.  Not even three months after coming out of the closet, I was organizing my high school’s National Day of Silence, which also flourished into bigger activism during my time in college.

With the support and encourage of my parents to be proud of who I am, and to speak up, particularly to challenge injustice, I rarely knew silence and doubt (aside from the doubt many queer people must reject through coming out and rebuilding one’s sense of self).  I came to graduate school just as outspoken.

MA Graduation, IU ('09)

MA Graduation, IU (’09)

On one of the first days, a faculty member asked what we would do if the US reinstated the draft for military service.  (Six years later, the question still seems odd, its purpose and his agenda unclear.)  My cohort-mates, one by one, gave uncertain answers.  (Really, as a PhD student who would probably be excused, who has thought about what they would do?)  When my turn came, I offered, “even if they don’t ask, I would tell!”  My cohort-mates released a collective, unexpected laugh — as did I, feeling quite proud of myself for responding to a silly question with a silly answer (while simultaneously pointing out that I could not serve [pre-Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal] as a queer person).  These days, that bravery looks much different, less humorous, and comes after a great deal more introspection and weighing the risks of speaking up.

Yep, just days from having a doctorate in hand, I actually feel less brave, more hesitant to speak up, than when I merely had a Bachelor’s degree.  I already knew that self-doubt set in, that my voice wavers when I speak, even in casual conversations with faculty.  It became painfully obvious when, during a visit to U Richmond, my partner pointed out that I seemed strangely unsure of myself when speaking with my future colleagues.  Almost daily, he is the sole audience member to my fiery rants about various current events and controversies in academia; he sees me singing at the top of my lungs and dancing around our apartment when I’m feeling good or sassy.  So, why the heck was I talking to my future colleagues as though I was a nervous, awkward undergraduate student?  (I wasn’t even like that when I actually was an undergrad!)

PhD Graduation, IU ('13)

PhD Graduation, IU (’13)

Unfortunately, the very training that is designed to empower me intellectually has also disempowered me in other ways.  The academy’s emphasis on status, expertise, and evidence (i.e. data) has humbled me — no, it has made be carry an overwhelming sense of doubt.  Besides these emphasized values, the professional socialization of graduate training has included a repeated wearing of my sense of self as a person of color, as a queer person, as an activist.  My introduction to “the classics” of sociology included token coverage of “people like me” — one week on feminist theory (including black feminist theory and standpoint theory) in my social theory course.  New projects were often criticized for lacking a “big question” because, as I was told, merely studying the lives of queer people, or Black people, or women is not interesting to the mainstream of the discipline; there must be some broader question in order for it to be broadly relevant.  There is a deradicalization that seems inherent to this professional socialization, as well, which, at times, were made explicit — the promise to “beat the activist” out of me.

So, I hear where Crystal is coming from.  I appreciate her insight and advice.  But, I must say, we face a nearly-impossible challenge of remaining whole as scholars from marginalized backgrounds when we are systematically bombarded with messages that say we are not good enough, that we are not smart enough, that are communities are not interesting, and so on.  Arguably, all educational training is like this, though I suspect things were a bit better for me because I consistently attended diverse (particularly in terms of race, ethnicity, and nationality) schools that intentionally celebrated such diversity.  Graduate school has proved to be a different beast for me — at a Historically White College or University (HWCU), in a predominantly-white town, in a conservative state in the Midwest.

This self-doubt, a poison of which I am now painfully aware, is slowly draining out.  At the cusp of “Doctorhood,” I feel myself regaining some of the lost sense of empowerment.  I feel smarter.  I feel a bit braver.  But, it is not merely having the PhD that is returning me to my pre-graduate school sense of self.  Despite the promise to break you down to rebuild you, there is some extra beating-down that seems to occur for scholars from marginalized backgrounds, particularly if they come with activist-leanings.  So, some of this revival has been my own rejection of some of this professional socialization.  For my own survival, I have had to contextualize, distance myself from, or completely reject some of the values of (dominant, i.e., R1) academia.  It seems even Crystal has had to do some similar self-reflection to get to a better, healthier place in her career.

Concluding Thoughts

My take-away point is not to counter Crystal’s message, but rather to give a bit more context.  The dominant socialization processes, which contain values that are not completely relevant to or inclusive of members of marginalized groups, and that even devalue those groups, are enforced and reinforced systematically and through institutions.  We are bombarded with our simultaneous invisibility and hypervisibility as caricatures and stereotypes in media, in schools, in politics.  Even in academia — where “average” students of marginalized backgrounds are not being let in — our competence is questioned.  We must do the work to constantly reject these indignities, stereotypes, and hostilities; but, we (all of us) must change institutions that transmit these values and ideas, as well.  It may be time that we stop “beating” students, switching instead to a model of empowerment.  Just a thought.


Comments : Comments Off
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Academia, Activism, Attitudes, Bias, Black Communities, Black People, Black Students, Blogging, College, Coming Out, Discrimination, Diversity, Education, Empowerment, Exclusion, Faculty, Graduate School, Heterosexism, Higher Education, Identity, Inequality, Injustice, Institutional Discrimination, Intellectual Activism, Internalized Oppression, Interpersonal Discrimination, Knowledge, Latina/o People, Latina/o Students, LGBT People, Marginalized Groups, Me, Media, Microaggressions, Military, Minorities, Multiracial People, Oppression, People of Color, Power, Prejudice, Pride, Professions, Public Sociology, Publishing, Queer, Race, Racism, Research, Research Methods, Science, Self, Self-Definition, Self-Doubt, Self-Esteem, Sexism, Sexual Identity, Silence, Social Justice, Social Science, Socialization, Sociology, Standpoint, Stereotypes, Stigma, Stress, Teaching, Tenure, Transphobia, Universities, Values, Voice, Women, Women of Color

Protecting Science From Harm, Protecting Against Harmful Science

2 05 2013

sosThe activists are coming!  And, so they should.  A supposedly “debunked” study by Mark Regnerus that does not employ valid measures of lesbian couples worked its way right into a US Supreme Court case on marriage equality.

We, as sociologists, did all that we could: 1) petitioned the journal in which it was published, Social Science Research, 2) published critiques of his and Loren Marks‘s studies in the journal, 3) wrote to the media to point out the study’s flaws, 4) offered extensive methodological critiques (e.g., blogs), 5),  petitioned the leadership of the American Sociological Association (ASA) to make a public statement against the Regnerus study, 6) conducted an internal audit of the peer review process, and 7) submitted a brief to the Supreme Court as a discipline to make clear no evidence exists to worry about LGBT families.  And, there may have been other efforts of which I am unaware.

But it wasn’t enough.  Regnerus and other conservative scholars submitted their own amicus brief to the Court.  And, somehow, this one study counters all of the other studies enough that Supreme Court Justice Scalia noted:

If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must — you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there’s – there’s considerable disagreement among — among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a — in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not. Some States do not — do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.

Aftershocks

The American Sociological Association released another statement thereafter to clarify that Regnerus’s study was flawed.  While imperfect, every other study suggests no evidence that children of same-gender families are worse off in terms of health, adjustment, academic performance, etc.  And, the Department of Sociology at the University of Texas-Austin held a mini-conference on LGBT families last week, featuring Gary Gates and other big names in LGBT research.  I assume this was part of the department’s effort (which started as soon as Regnerus’s study was published) to show that others in the department are doing great, pro-LGBT work.

But, it is too late.  We do not yet know the outcome of the Supreme Court cases.  And, it is unclear whether Regernus’s “debunked” study will be cited by other researchers, politicians, or in other court cases.  These are, indeed, real possibilities because his study has been “debunked,” but not retracted.  That means it still stands as a peer-reviewed, published academic article — albeit critiqued and discounted.

The lengths that these activists are going makes sense.  Though we got to the point where we felt comfortable with the “debunked” status of Regnerus’s paper, it still caused damage — on our watch.  Despite our intentions and efforts as a discipline, we did not do enough to prevent this study from having an impact in the fate of LGBT rights (in this case, marriage equality).  Whether it comes from religion, science, politics, education, or some other institution, threats to your rights are just that, so who wouldn’t shift into self-defense mode?

Protecting Against Harmful Science

My primary concern, which I have voiced in the discussions among sociologists, is what are we doing to prevent further harm to the community that has been affected by this study?  On our watch, a study that should never have reached publication ended up reaching the Supreme Court.  We alerted others, “watch out!”; we critiqued Regnerus’s actions, “he’s not even measuring it right!; and even issued a formal statement saying, “we’re not with this guy, he’s crazy.”  But, all while we watched Regnerus set up a very calculated assault on LGBT Americans.  Since fellow sociologists have so vehemently opposed releasing the names of the peer reviewers of the study, and do not feel compelled to push for retraction, I continue to ask, so now what?

I cannot believe I have to raise this question.  But, it seems some are more concerned about protecting science than protecting people from science.  There are general principles regarding ethical scientific practice (including discipline specific guidelines), and the universality of Institutional Review Boards to ensure researchers at universities are not causing harm to their participants.  Unfortunately, these guidelines were developed as a response to very unethical and harmful research in the past:

  • During the Holocaust, the Nazis conducted many experiments on Jews (including children)
  • The “Tuskegee syphilis experiment” (1932-1972), in which poor African American men were infected with syphilis without their knowledge nor with treatment: “The 40-year study was controversial for reasons related to ethical standards; primarily because researchers knowingly failed to treat patients appropriately after the 1940s validation of penicillin as an effective cure for the disease they were studying.”
  • Similar experiments were conducted in Guatemala from 1946-1948.  Over 80 people died as a result.
  • The use of Henrietta Lacks‘s cells without her or her family’s permission or knowledge in 1951.
  • Stanley Milgram’s 1961 psychological experiments on obedience, in which he deceived subjects into thinking they were delivering shocks (sometimes deadly) as punishment to a person completing a faux task.  Ethical concerns have been raised about the Stanford prison experiment, as well.
  • Tearoom Trade (1970) — Laud Humphreys’s study of same-sex sexual encounters in public spaces without their knowledge or consent; after observing the men, he used their license plate numbers on their cars to track down their home addresses to interview them (sometimes in front of their families).

For all of the positive things that have come from science (even from some of the awful exploitative, dangerous experiments above), science is sometimes used for evil.  Too often, marginalized communities are the targets of harmful science.  Of course, in this case, Regnerus and his colleagues did not have any direct contact with their participants; and, there is little reason to suspect that Knowledge Networks (which carried out the survey) caused any harm.

However, I argue that we have an obligation to ensure that harm is not caused in the activities that come after research is conducted: how the research is used and for what purposes.  Some argue that, even when studies are carried out for good, we owe it to our participants to give something in return — immediate and tangible, not just “thanks for advancing science!” — for opening up about their experiences, backgrounds, thoughts, opinions, and feelings.

So, now what are we doing to protect this marginalized community that has been further harmed by science?  What can we do?  Below are some things that have been suggested, and my thoughts on them.

Speaking Out, In General

It is important that we speak out about this scandal, in general.  Unfortunately, it feels as though some sociologists feel they have done all that they could and just want this to go away already.

But, who speaks for us?  I may be wrong, but many of those — “some sociologists” — do not appear to either be LGBT themselves nor do they study LGBT communities (I’m including here bloggers and those who have left comments).  So, maybe it is simple to walk away from this when you can return home to your legally-recognized spouse after a day’s work.  Unfortunately, it appears that the sociology bloggers at orgtheory and scatterplot are serving as The Voice for the entire discipline, and the LGBT activists are in direct dialogue with them.  I wonder what LGBT sociologists and sociologist of sexualities have to say about this scandal, and whether they feel that we have done enough.

I worry, as I have before: who gets to speak?  The subfield of sexualities in sociology is relatively new and disproportionately young.  We must tread lightly.  And, it is likely that many have remained silent on this issue because they are soon to be or are currently on the job market; or, they are on the tenure-track; or, even with tenure, they are at the margins of their department and the discipline as a whole.  Or, just like other fields, maybe some sexualities scholars see their work as irrelevant to activism.  And, even for those of us who do pursue activism, we risk professional consequences.  But, even those who are not explicitly involved in activism may be the target of political witch hunts or other external threats, or lack of support from the academy to do our research.

silenced

Retract It Already

The retraction of published studies is more common than I realized.  But, it looks like there is no movement to retract the Regnerus study.  There is a lot of shadiness, omission of important details, and conflict of interest sprinkled throughout this entire scandal.  But, within conservative standards of “when to retract,” Regnerus’s study is safe.  It was the peer review process that is problematic.  Specifically:

[T]he paper was submitted for publication 20 days before the end of the data collection, and 23 days before the data were delivered to the University of Texas! That’s fast.

There must be some post-hoc excuse Regnerus or the journal could give to clear this up.

That is in addition to the serious methodological problems that the reviewers should have caught.  That is more than enough for some to call for the study’s retraction.  Okay, so, since this is not Regnerus’s fault, per se (short of questionable political motivations and funding sources), retract the study and then invite him to go through the peer review process again — this time with different reviewers who are not his colleagues.

“Out The Reviewers!”

LGBT activist John M. Becker has moved forward in demanding records from Social Science Research, namely to out the reviewers of the Regnerus study.  Some of my fellow sociologists have been talking about this — I’m sure informally, but in this case publicly on blogs.  Some have taken issue with Becker’s efforts, suggesting that it subverts the sanctity of the peer review system for academic publishing; to reveal the identities of anonymous reviewers is a threat to the entire scientific enterprise.   Oh, and does it get ugly when sociologists and activists go head to head.  But, understandably, when outside forces threaten science (e.g., forced oversight, taking away funding), we necessarily lash out in self-defense.

But, I wonder what would happen if we did reveal the names of those scholars who reviewed Regnerus’s study.  Recently, while reading one article about the source of whites’ attitudes toward race-based attitudes, I noticed that the reviewers were explicitly named, right on the first page:

Editor’s note: The reviewers were Lawrence Bobo, Warren E. Miller, David O. Sears, and Susan Welch (p.723).

I decided to search Google for “editor’s note: the reviewers” to see if this was a fluke.  I came across two other journals that have, or at least used to, explicitly name the reviewers of a published article, Teaching Sociology and Sociological Inquiry.  In the case of the former, I thought maybe as it has become more popular, and moved toward publishing more empirically-based articles, the editorial board might have dropped this practice along the way.  But, even a recent article, by sociologist Janice McCabe, dawns the editor’s note, naming each reviewer.  It looks as though Sociological Inquiry published the names of authors just for a few years in the early 1990s.  These are not the top journals of the discipline, but this discovery leaves me wondering what the harm would be to reveal the names of the publishers in this instance — in this case in which the peer review system was abused, misused, or underused (depending on your perspective).

This is not a question of whether sociology or any other academic discipline should maintain anonymous peer review for publishing.  While imperfect, it strengthens science and minimizes (some) concerns about bias.  If anything, I see room to strengthen the peer-review system further.  And, let’s set aside the potential harms of the overwhelming pressure to publish for jobs, tenure, promotion, etc. as well.  The question here is what harm would be caused to the peer review system, or even the entire scientific enterprise, if the reviewers of this one “debunked” study were revealed?

That some journals have revealed the names of reviewers — including articles that are ethically and politically sound — leads me to suggest that the sky will not fall if Becker is successful in his demand for the SSR records.  Science will still exist the following day.  But, I do agree that this may not actually get us any further in squashing Regnerus’s study or the harm caused by it.

Fight Fire With Fire: More Research!

As Fabio Rojas suggested in response to my plea to do something to take this study down, another possibility is to simply beat Regnerus at his own game.  Do more, better research.  Indeed, sociologists Andrew Perrin, Philip Cohen, and Neal Caren have done just that in a forthcoming article in Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health — even using the New Family Structures Study data. (Of course, they find that Regnerus’s conclusions were bogus and methodologically flawed.)  I do hope, however, that awareness of their new study spreads, as JGLMH is a psychiatry journal and has a so-so impact factor.   But, Perrin makes clear that this journal was chosen because of the speedy turn around, and it actually sent out a call for papers to address the Regnerus scandal.

As Michael Bader notes, this scandal has sparked even better work, and maybe science will be even stronger in the first place.  But, shouldn’t we be getting it right the first time?  Isn’t that what peer review is for?  Sure, with time, maybe we will set the record straight.  But, for now, the damage has been done for LGBT people.  With so much that we have yet to study about LGBT families, it also warrants asking whether we should be worried about having to spend time, energy, and resource on redoing research.

Other Suggestions

Fabio also suggested:

  • [Realize] that that history is on our side. Increasingly, public opinion polls show greater and greater majorities favor LBGT equality. So if we are winning already, I wouldn’t go and ruin one of academia’s most valuable assets – blind review.
  • [R]elentlessly critique garbage and draw attention to the body of research.
  • I would engage the other side with sincerity and fervor. I would show people how to maintain the high ground.

In other words, don’t worry, keep blogging, and be the bigger person.  As gay people, my partner and I still cannot get married, not in the state in which we currently live nor the one we are moving to this summer.  I am pretty worried about the outcome of the Supreme Court case.  And, I am worried how easily this one study breezed through the peer review process, to publication, to press, to the courts.  Shouldn’t more sociologists be worried about this, too?  And, I am not sure what to say about maintaining “the high ground”.  It seems, for the oppressed, playing nice and playing by the rules does little to protect your rights being debated and denied on a daily basis — and my colleagues seem less concerned with my well-being as a human than with the well-being of science.

A Final Plea

“You don’t know what the heck you’re talking about!”  Exactly.  I am just days away from receiving my PhD, and have little experience publishing and providing reviews for journals compared to the sociologists at the fore of these debates.  What do I know?

That is a problem, in my opinion.  A systemic problem.  With a few research scandals going on these days, I am surprised that my colleagues and I are not in dialogue about science and research ethics.  In fact, all that I recall is one week in my research methods course devoted to ethics.  We read ASA’s code of ethics, Van Maanen’s (1983) “The Moral Fix: On the Ethics of Fieldwork,” Allen’s (1997) “Spies Like Us: When Sociologists Deceive their Subjects,” and Simonds’s (2001) “Talking with Strangers: A Researcher’s Tale.”  

I read Tearoom Trade for another course, though we did not discuss Humprhey’s unethical methods.  My knowledge of the Milgram experiment comes from a brief coverage of ethics in my undergraduate psychology and sociology methods courses.  And, much of my knowledge about eugenics, the Tuskegee experiments, and other exploitative practices on communities of color comes from my knowledge of Black history rather than science.

In speaking with other LGBT sociologists, I know that I am not alone in my anger, disappointment, and frustration — and, my ignorance about what I can do.  This is partly due to our relative lack of power, as a subfield in general (soc of sexualities) and as individuals (pre-tenure).  But, it is also due to our lack of access to memories of prior scandals of this sort.  For example, while I did read Richard Udry’s “Biological Limits of Gender Construction” (ASR 2000), and even Barbara Risman’s and others‘ critical responses in a class, we never talked about the broader context.  What happened after the article and the responses were published?

seminarWhy don’t we talk about these types of events in our graduate courses?  Why does our training on research ethics only cover the stages leading to submitting an article for publication, ignoring ethical and professional practices that follow publication?  In general, I think we could benefit from a bit more reflection on science as an institution.  It would be nice (I would even say crucial) to discuss the contexts behind published articles and books.  A sociology of sociology, if you will.  Why are the authors in certain journals overwhelmingly women, while the top sociology journals are about two-thirds men authors, and the most male-dominated journals are on methods and mathematics?  Why are broken barriers in publishing somehow undermined as “affirmative action in publishing” or “trendy, but not really important” (yes, I have heard scholars say this).

If anything, I ask that we stop trying to make this scandal go away in hopes that history will stop repeating itself.  Just 12 years after the scandal surrounding Udry’s study, we are faced with a similar problem.  And, my generation of sociologists barely knows about it.  How can we learn from the mistakes of our discipline if we are not teaching new members about them — what happened and how we resolved it?  C’mon colleagues — we have got to do better, for the future of our discipline, but also for society as a whole.

–

UPDATE (05/02/13):  And, now we have an example of the potential impact Regnerus’s study can have outside of the courtroom: the everyday harassment of LGBT people.


Comments : Comments Off
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Academia, Activism, Advocacy, American Sociological Association, Bias, Black Communities, Black People, Blogging, Congress, Courts, Dialogue, Education, Equality, Faculty, Fear, Government, Graduate School, Heterosexual Privilege, Heterosexuals, Higher Education, History, Homophobia, Inequality, Injustice, Intellectual Activism, Justice, Lesbians, LGBT Communities, LGBT Health, LGBT People, LGBT Rights, Marginalized Groups, Marriage, Marriage Equality, Me, Media, Minorities, Oppression, People of Color, Politicians, Politics, Power, Prejudice, Public Sociology, Publishing, Racism, Research, Research Methods, Retaliation, Science, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Social Change, Social Institutions, Social Science, Society, Sociology, Teaching, Trans*, Universities, US Supreme Court, Violence Against People of Color, Violence Against Queer People

Happy Capitalism Season!

22 11 2012

What is thanksgiving really about?

Am I one of few who still views Thanksgiving as a day to come together with family and/or friends to reflect on the many blessings in one’s life?  Every year, I spend the day with my parents, though sometimes with extended family, too.  We go out to eat and spend the rest of the day relaxing.  No, my mother does not fulfill her “womanly duties” in the kitchen while my father and I watch the “Cowboys and Indians” thanksgiving football game.  And, we do not pack our gear for tonight’s camp out outside of Macy’s until Black Friday‘s start.  This is because we also do not celebrate Christmas as much of the rest of the country (and many parts of the world) does; as an inter-religious, fairly well-to-do family, we focus on spending time with one another rather than consumerism.  Are we weird?

Capitalism On Steroids

The expansion of the holiday season over the years has been a bit unnerving.  Somehow one day, Christmas, has become a month-long capitalist marathon.  (In reality, many families likely exchange gifts in the morning, and then go on about their day after those first few hours.)  But, we remained fairly safe with the Christmas season contained within the bookends of Thanksgiving and New Year’s.  “Black Friday” has kicked off the month-long period of shopping, sales, mall Santa Clauses, annoying commercials — and New Year’s ended it all.

But, wait!  This year, the Christmas shopping season has now spilled into Thanksgiving day.  Those stores that refrained from being open today will open at midnight.  I suppose they have some semblance of a heart for their employees, not forcing them to work on a holiday.  What kindness; they can hold off until midnight to work:

One retailer, P.C. Richard & Son, posted on its Facebook page:  ‘It is our opinion that retailers who choose to open on Thanksgiving Day or night show now respect to their employees or families, and are in total disrespect of family values in the United States of America.’

If we now see sales and shopping for 12/25 beginning on 11/22, will they begin on 11/1 by 2020?  When will it end?

Is It Moral?

No, really.  Is the present reality of Thanksgiving Day moral?  Football (a major, masculinist capitalist enterprise), intense shopping, and gluttony.  It is a bit disconcerting.  More importantly, the curtain of the warm, fuzzy feeling we get about the holiday season sometimes lifts, revealing the underlying ugliness.  This Black Friday — well, now, Black Thursday — we are privy to the awful reality faced by low-wage, low-power employees of many of the megastores that are opening earlier and earlier to holiday shopping.  Following news that the dessert company, Hostess, decided to close its doors rather than meet the demands of its workers on strike, Walmart is now facing union strikes in several cities.  What better way to improve labor rights than to let holiday shopping expand further?

Big businesses do not care about their workers.  Their priority is profit for the top execs.  Naively, I thought that after a Walmart employee was trampled to death upon opening doors for Black Friday shopping in 2008, we, as a nation, we realize how far we have let the consumer craze take over.  Nope.  Now in 2012, it is worse.  And the worst part of all?  Walmart would rather spend millions fighting a measly $7,000 fine for the employee’s death than to accept fault:

Nearly four years after a Walmart worker was trampled to death by a stampede of Black Friday shoppers, Walmart Stores Inc. continues to fight a $7,000 fine by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration that it failed to control the crowd of shoppers.

Appalling!  Absolutely appalling.  But, with a day that originates with colonialism, genocide, and war, what more should we expect?

Just a little food for thought…


Comments : Comments Off
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : America, American Indians, Business, Capitalism, Class, Commercials, History, Injustice, Justice, Labor Rights, Morality, Poverty, Social Change, Social Norms, Society, Unions, Work

[kinsey] Who Are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Americans?

5 11 2012

LGBT Americans.

This was originally posted at Kinsey Confidential.

Over the past few years, we have been hearing new estimates of the number of adults in the United States who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender.  It seems the number came down from the 10 percent figure from the work of Alfred Kinsey, to 8 percent with the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior, to 3.8 percent in a report from the Williams Institute (UCLA).  The latest estimate from a Gallup poll last month suggests that 3.4 percent of Americans identify as LGBT.

Only 3.4 Percent?!

The size of a minority group — in this case, LGBT people — is important for numerous political and social reasons.  So, it is understandable that some were initially panicked when the commonly-cited figure of “one-in-ten” seemed to drop to a low of 3-4 percent.

Why was there such a drop in estimates of the size of the LGBT population in the US?  The primary reason for what appears to be a drop is how we have counted LGBT people.  When Dr. Kinsey conducted his major studies in the 1940s-1950s on the sexual behaviors of women and men in America, he asked them about sexual encounters with individuals of their same gender.  In fact, when measured this way, even 2008 estimates come close to 10 percent of adults who have engaged in same-gender sexuality.  But, the majority of those adults identify as heterosexual — that is because, while they are related, sexual behavior, sexual orientation, and sexual identity are distinct aspects of our lives.

In addition, as Indiana University professor Brian Powell points out, these are estimates — 3.4 percent — of those who are “out,” or at least willing to tell a researcher that they are LGBT.

You may be thinking, “3.4 percent?  That’s pretty small no matter how you measure it!”  Generously rounding to 4 percent, that is the equivalent of one LGBT person in every twenty-five people.  At approximately ten million people of the 315 million people in the US, that places the size of the LGBT population between the state populations of Michigan (9.8 million) and Ohio (11.7 million).

Who Are LGBT People?

There has been a great deal of attention over the past decade on the relationships and families of LGBT people.  But, since researchers are just now beginning to collect national data on sexual identity, we know still do not know a great deal about who LGBT people are.  With recent research, including last month’s Gallup/Williams Institute poll, we can begin painting a picture of the sociodemographic and political profile of LGBT Americans:

  • Race:  There is notable racial and ethnic diversity among LGBT people, with 3.2 percent of white Americans identifying as LGBT, while over 4 percent of Black, Latina/o, and Asian American adults self-identify as LGBT.  As the report suggests, “Overall, a third of LGBT-identifiers are nonwhite (33 percent), compared with 27 percent of non-LGBT individuals.”
  • Gender:  There is a slightly larger percentage of women (3.6 percent) who identify as LGBT, compared to men (3.3 percent).
  • Age:  LGBT identification appears to be skewed toward younger populations, with slightly more than six percent of 18-29 year olds identifying as LGBT, compared 30-49 year olds (3.2 percent), 50-64 year olds (2.6 percent), and adults 65 and older (1.9 percent).
  • Socioeconomic Status:  Contrary to the stereotype of wealthy LGBT people (gay men, in particular), the greatest percentage of LGBT adults has completed only some college (but no degree), followed by having a high school diploma or less education.  Also, LGBT people are skewed toward lower levels of income ($60,000 or less, but especially under $24,000).
  • Relationship Status:  About 20 percent of LGBT people report that they are married, and 18 percent are either in a domestic partnership or living with a partner, while 48 percent are currently single.  This compares to 54 percent of heterosexuals who are married, and 23 percent who are single.
  • Parental Status: Equal percentages of heterosexual and LGBT women have children under the age of 18 (32 percent for each).  But, 16 percent of LGBT men have young children in the home compared to 31 percent of heterosexual men.  Interestingly, Latina/o, Black, and Asian American LGBT adults are more likely than white LGBT individuals to be parents.
  • Region: LGBT people make-up similar percentages of each region of the country, though the numbers are slightly higher for the East (3.7 percent) and West (3.6 percent) coasts, compared to the South (3.2 percent) and Midwest (3.4 percent).  Indeed, LGBT people and same-gender couples live in just about every part of the country.
  • Political Views: LGBT Americans are generally more liberal, and more likely to identify as (or at least with) the Democratic political party, than heterosexuals.  Also, the majority favor President Barack Obama over presidential contender Mitt Romney, while heterosexuals appear more evenly split between the candidates.

Beyond Sexual Identity

The biggest caveat for these results is that LGBT adults were examined as a singular group, so we do not know how these characteristics vary among lesbian women, bisexual women and men, and gay men.  And, more importantly, the unique profile and experiences of transgender people cannot be distinguished, either.

Also, while LGBT people differ somewhat from the general, predominantly-heterosexual (and cisgender) population, they are not a homogenous group.  There is a great deal of diversity within LGBT communities, namely in terms of race and ethnicity, gender identity and expression, social class, relationship and family structure, and so forth.  As such, it is important to think about the many identities and statuses individuals LGBT hold — not just sexual and gender identity.  For example, in pushing for greater visibility, support, and equality for LGBT families, it is crucial to acknowledge that LGBT people of color and LGBT women are more likely to have kids, and face the additional burdens of racial and gender inequality.  LGBT families are just as much an LGBT issue as they are about race, ethnicity, gender, class, immigration, etc.

As I concluded in my last post on the size of the LGBT population, we still need more research to capture the profile and experiences of LGBT people in the US and worldwide.  Indeed, sexual and gender identities are a core part of who we are as people — not just in the bedroom, or in our private lives, but also for our experiences in and view of the world!


Comments : Comments Off
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Age, Cisgender People, Civil Rights, Class, Coming Out, Community, Equality, Gay Men, Gender, Gender Identity & Expression, Heterosexuality, Heterosexuals, History, Inequality, Intersectionality, Invisibility, Kinsey Confidential, Latina/o People, LGBT Communities, LGBT People, Marginalized Groups, Marriage Equality, Minorities, People of Color, Queer People of Color, Race, Research, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Social Change, Society, Sociology, Transgender, Visibility

Wow! People Sometimes Date “Outside Of Their Race”

16 02 2012

Hearing or reading about Mildred and Richard Loving — the “Loving” half of Loving vs. Virginia – always warms my heart.  In the midst of fierce racism and on-going legal and political battles over the legal status of interracial marriages, the couple fought to be recognized as married in Virginia.  I don’t like their story just because I, myself, am the child of an interracial couple; and, I tend to cringe when I hear “same-sex marriage is just like interracial marriage” (which misses the unique, yet intersecting, manifestations of racism, sexism, and homophobia).  I appreciate their story because they made history in the process of fighting simply to be recognized as a married couple.

New Media Attention

For a number of reasons, interracial and interethnic couples have caught the media’s attention in the past week or so.  A documentary about the Lovings, “The Loving Story,” aired on Valentine’s Day, coinciding with the release of a Pew Research Center report on the rising number of interracial marriages in the US.  It seems fair to suggest that this attention also stems from the recognition of a growing number of multiracial and multiethnic people since the 2010 Census, and the election of President Barack Obama (who is multiracial).  As I noted elsewhere about some recent attention on the lives of Black women, it seems the media is suddenly interested in people who have existed throughout history.  I welcome the new attention, of course, but a few glaring matters seem overlooked.

But, What About…

The biggie, of course, is how the media talks about interracial and interethnic couples as though they never existed before the Lovings, and multiracial and multiethnic people were never born before Barack Obama.  I would venture to say that so long as there has been “race,” there have been relationships and identities that transcend the boundaries between distinct racial groups.  And, relatedly, some seem to talk about legal interracial marriages as though none existed before the 1967 US Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down the remaining 20 state laws that banned interracial marriage.

Second, little is discussed about the variation among interracial and interethnic couples.  The numbers and growth/decline of such couples vary by racial and ethnic pairing, as well as gender.  For example, the percent of whites who marry someone of a different race or ethnicity is the smallest, while that among Asians is the largest.  White-Black pairings make up a smaller percent of interracial and interethnic couples than white-Asian and white-Hispanic.  If we were to talk about these differences by race and ethnicity, we would need to talk frankly about the differences in relations between whites and people of color, and how they are gendered, classed, and the role of immigration.  (Maybe that’s asking too much for quick splashes about “the soaring rates of intermarriage!“)

Third, there seems to be an absence of discussing race and ethnic relations, and racial and ethnic identity.  Yes, the increasing number of interracial and interethnic couples is due, in part, to increasing acceptance of such couples.  But, what does this say about race and ethnicity today?  Why aren’t there more couples like this?  And, how interesting, the primacy of race.  Heterosexuality (what we could call “intergender marriages”) is assumed.  In fact, some use “intermarriage” (which doesn’t suggest what is being crossed — is it race? religion?  class?  gender?) and “interracial marriage” interchangeably, indicating the exclusive focus on racial and ethnic boundaries.  And, though, in the same discussions, we acknowledge the growing number of multiracial and multiethnic people, we fail to ask about the cross-racial and -ethnic relationships for them.  (Mildred Loving was multiracial — Black and American Indian.)

Finally, in such a great focus on the increasing accepting of interracial and interethnic couples, the higher divorce rate for these couples compared to intraracial and intraethnic marriages is glossed over, if mentioned at all:

The Pew study also tracks some divorce trends, citing studies using government data that found overall divorce rates higher for interracial couples. One study conducted a decade ago determined that mixed-race couples had a 41 percent chance of separation or divorce, compared to a 31 percent chance for those who married within their race.

Another analysis found divorce rates among mixed-race couples to be more dependent on the specific race combination, with white women who married outside their race more likely to divorce. Mixed marriages involving blacks and whites also were considered least stable, followed by Hispanic-white couples.

The actual Pew report gives a little more detail, suggesting that it is Black-white marriages that are most likely to end in divorce, though this may be largely among Black men-white women pairings.  Again, this relates to the importance of talking about the variation in relations between whites and people of color.  But, it also warrants further inspection — what is unique about these couples?  Arguably, despite such growing social acceptance, these couples are less stable because of lower levels of support from friends and family and integration into each other’s lives.

Ideally, there will be more reflection on what this means for the future of racial and ethnic relations, racial and ethnic identities, and racial and ethnic communities.  I hate to admit that I share the pessimism of others — the supposed blurring of racial and ethnic lines will probably not translate into the end of race and ethnicity, rather simply a reformulation of racial and ethnic boundaries and hierarchies.


Comments : Comments Off
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Asians and Asian Americans, Black People, Civil Rights, Dating, Ethnicity, Gender, Interracial, Latina/o People, Love, Marginalized Groups, Marriage, Me, Media, Multiracial, Multiracial People, People of Color, Politics, Prejudice, Race, Racial Identity, Racism, Relationships, Research, Social Change, Social Norms, Society, Stereotypes, White People

Want A Happier Marriage? Shut Up And Get In The Kitchen.

5 02 2011

A few days ago, Paula Szuchman, an editor of The Wall Street Journal, offered a few tips for Newsweek readers (especially women) on making their marriage happier.  She points to thinking “economically” as a good strategy for dividing household chores and tasks.  (She’s even written a whole book on this.)  Though I’m sure she would have much more to say, considering she’s offered quite a bit of relationship advice (e.g., “How to Nag Effectively“), she offers two tips in her Newsweek essay:

  1. Use incentives with your partner/spouse. For example, one incentive is to avoid nagging.  Instead, simply trust your partner/spouse to complete tasks and chores around the house.
  2. Rather than aiming for 50/50 split in household division of labor, divide up tasks and chores based on what each partner is good at and/or enjoys.

In her own marriage, she notes that she’s found greater happiness and less conflict with her husband by suppressing her frustration that arises when he does not complete his assigned tasks, or does not do them well.

“For what it’s worth, going to bed angry is a miracle cure. I stop escalating, get some sleep, and wake up with a clearer head. Nine times out of 10, the dispute gets resolved that morning. It’s called maximizing utility—or, in my house, living happily ever after.”

Shut Up And Get In The Kitchen?

Today, many women in heterosexual relationships work full-time jobs and tend to the majority of household labor — a phenomenon known as the “second shift.”  Despite major shifts in society toward gender equality (women outnumber men on college campuses and make up nearly half of the working population) we still see inequality in marriage and parenting.  As Szuchman sees it, women should be content with an imbalance in household division of labor and should avoid “nagging” their male partners; after all, keeping quiet should be an incentive for them to actually pick up a broom for a change.

What is missing from her logic — besides adherence to the feminist values she proclaims — is a recognition of social expectations for women to take care of home and family (and work full-time).  Couples typically do not enter a relationship with a blank slate regarding expectations.  Those who actually do take an active role in defining household tasks and chores must do so against a societal script for wives/girlfriends and husbands/boyfriends.

Further, it is critical to acknowledge that girls are socialized in ways that incorporate domestic tasks — instrumental knowledge that boys don’t necessarily learn.  (Think The Pacifier, a comedy with Vin Diesel, responsible for four kids.)  But, when a woman’s husband bleaches her blue jeans the second time, Szuchman would recommend that she “have faith” that he’ll figure it out rather than “nagging” him.

Finding Equality Through Social Change

Increasingly, some couples seek to balance the brunt of household labor by outsourcing.  Yet, such an option is a luxury only middle- and upper-class couples can realistically afford.  And, among those couples who trade off money for time spent working around the house, the money used to “outsource” usually comes directly from female partners but not from male partners.  (This, of course, is compounded by gender disparities in pay.)  Further, working-class women of color are overrepresented in domestic service jobs.  Thus, in a sense, some middle- and upper-class white couples, women in particular, are realizing gender equality in household labor by shifting the burden to other, more disadvantaged groups.

As some scholars and advocates have noted, we must recognize the norms and expectations surrounding gender and household labor as systematic and patterned.  Thus, societal and institutional factors are a driving force in the inequality we see in couples.  As such, in order to truly realize gender inequality in household division of labor, we must also attend to these factors.  This includes fundamental shifts in how we socialize children (is it such a bad thing to teach sons how to wash their own clothes?) and institutional changes (e.g., providing childcare for parents, universal health care, paid family leave).  We can never achieve gender equality in marriage and families if we, as Szuchman does, tell a woman to keep quiet and have her husband’s dinner ready after both of them have worked all day.


Comments : Comments Off
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Academia, Equality, Feminism, Gender, Inequality, Institutional Change, Marriage, Relationships, Social Change, Social Norms, Society, Women, Work

[kinsey] The Changing Definition Of Family: Results From A Multiyear Survey

25 09 2010

This was originally posted at Kinsey Confidential.

Is there a natural, universal definition of what makes a family?  Nope.  Enter the sociologists… “Family,” like many aspects of social world of humans, is defined by humans themselves.  Historically in the United States, humans have defined being related “by blood” is the only way other than marrying one’s spouse to be counted as family.  As something that is defined by humans, that definition can and has changed drastically over time.  (If you want more of a lesson on this perspective of sociology, check out the theory of social constructionism.)  Just as the definition of “having sex” is not natural or universal, a new study finds that the definition of “family” varies and changes over time.

The Multi-Year Study

In their book, Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans’ Definitions of Family, sociologists Brian Powell, Catherine Bolzendahl, Claudia Geist, and Lala Carr Steelman use data in 2003, 2006, and 2010 from samples that are representative of the United States.  The most recent survey, 2010, contained 830 respondents and, in all the surveys contained over 2,300 participants.  In each survey, respondents were asked whether they considered various family structures to count as “family”: married heterosexual couples, unmarried cohabiting heterosexual couples, unmarried cohabiting same-sex couples, couples with and without children, families with and without pets.

The Findings: What Makes A Family Among Heterosexuals?

Last year, with another sociologists, Laura Hamilton, the researchers released one set of findings: 70% of Americans think that its better if women take their husbands’ last names when they get married, with about 50% suggesting it should be a legal requirement.  One definition of family that is just about everyone endorsed is a married heterosexual couple with children, while 92% counted married heterosexual couples without children as “family.”

Eighty-three percent of Americans count an unmarried cohabiting heterosexual couple with children as a family, but that number drops below 40% if they do not have children.  So, according to the majority of Americans, two criteria are required for defining a family: marriage and children.

The Findings: What Makes A Family Among Same-Sex Couples?

The views of Americans regarding the families of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people show changes toward a more inclusive definition of family.  Now, the country is evenly split on whether same-sex marriage should be legal, with 52% agreeing.  In the 2010 survey, 68% of respondents said they counted a same-sex couple with children as a family, up from 54% in 2003; but, only one-third count same-sex couples without children as a “family.”

The researchers found that this increasing acceptance of same-sex couples as families is partly due to an increase in the number of Americans who report having an LGBT friend or family member.  Also, more and more Americans report believing that genetics, rather than god’s will, peers, or parenting, are determine sexual orientation.  However, based on the 2006 survey, 30% of Americans would count pets as families but not same-sex couples.  In general, however, the majority of Americans believe that a family that defines itself as “family” is indeed a family.

You can see ABC News coverage, including a brief interview with Professor Brian Powell, here.


Comments : Comments Off
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Academia, Children, Equality, Gender, Homophobia, Kinsey Confidential, LGBT People, Love, Marriage, Marriage Equality, Politics, Relationships, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Sociology