inequality

A woman wearing a mask shopping at grocery store. Image by Anna Shvets under Pexels license.

Psychology research suggests that crisis and uncertainty lead humans to think in stark binaries, which fuel division and polarization. We saw this early in the COVID-19 shutdown, as public health requirements stoked cultural divisions over personal autonomy and governmental control. In popular discourse, concern for public health and, conversely, focus on private sector well-being, became proxies for partisan affiliation. However, a recent study of business owners by the sociologist Ioana Sendroiu reveals how moral concerns supersede seemingly cut and dry political divisions between public health and profit motives. Using interviews of small business owners conducted at the beginning of the spring 2020 lockdown, Sendroiu demonstrates how business owners negotiate uncharted moral minefields in surprising ways. 

As a global public anxiously adjusted to the new pandemic reality in the spring of 2020, Sendroiu conducted sixty remote interviews with small business owners in North America. Their businesses included gyms, spas, wholesale distributors, retail, and food service, all of which followed public health mandates.

One of the main findings of Sendroiu’s study is that, in contrast to popular conceptions of private sector “profit-first” approaches, small business owners viewed public health and organizational survival as inseparable issues.  Saying his business had a responsibility to the community, for example, one California small business owner closed before stay-at-home orders went into effect. Multiple respondents suggested that being a good business owner meant prioritizing their employees’ health. Businesspeople from Georgia to Manitoba shared examples of noncompliant customers who openly defied public health restrictions and quarantine measures. In the face of uncertainty and a public health emergency, closing up became the only option to prioritize employees’ wellbeing. In all of these examples, doing the right thing was just as important as making money.

Not all businesspeople cited altruistic reasons for closing. Many adopted pragmatic logics that recognized the changing business model of pandemic-era commerce. Having experienced a decline in business and revenue in the weeks leading up to the shutdown, some businesses reduced operations or shifted to entirely online operations. Even in these cases, however, small business owners often talked about the moral pressures and responsibilities that operated alongside financial pressures. As one California business owner who mentioned revenue loss as her primary motivation put it: “we don’t want to be a part of the problem.” 

Amidst the uncertainty, fear, and polarization of 2020, business leaders made unprecedented, moral decisions that would affect the health of others. And  their decisions as to whether or not to close their business played out in less partisan and polarized ways than the sensationalized coverage of politics would suggest. According to Sendroiu, crises, or “unsettled times marked by widespread uncertainty,” such as the Coronavirus pandemic reveal how uncertainty can produce multiple, competing interpretations of reality, and lead people to choices that are less self-interested (and more altruistic) than we might otherwise assume or expect.

A group of people building a sidewalk with wet concrete. Image by Rodolfo Quirós under Pexels license.

A new study by Netta Kahana highlighted the shifting public opinions about combining travel with volunteering activities–practices, known widely as volunteer tourism or sometimes “voluntourism”. This practice typically emphasizes community work in developing countries and in recent years has come under scrutiny for being self-serving, exploitative, ineffective, and even harmful. Such concerns result from the fact volunteers can be unskilled and that the infrastructure these volunteers build is typically not self-sustainable without ongoing supplies or labor. Despite these critiques, volunteer tourism remains popular for ambitious and affluent young people and Kahana wanted to understand why. 

The study gauged 48 volunteer tourists from Israel and their self-perception, self-worth, and motivations.48 volunteer tourists from Israel and their self-perception, self-worth, and motivations. The interviewees were all in their twenties, from middle-class backgrounds, and had volunteered in either Nepal or India. Many of the study participants acknowledged recent public criticisms of voluntourism. However, they also saw volunteerism aligned with travel as a morally worthy action, serving the common good.

Kahana’s analysis documented three main justifications for these sentiments. The first involved the selection of a “proper” or reputable organization. As one volunteer explained:

• “You need to carefully check what their mission statements are because when you are in a hostel and they offer you to volunteer in an orphanage, it is for money. It totally hurts the children, so inquire, inquire, inquire, inquire, and investigate. You do not volunteer without talking with an alumnus. Like I did.”

The second justification had to do with providing locals with beneficial tools. Another volunteer put it like this:

• “The issue was about making them [the locals] understand they have more options to make money through tourism, and they can rebuild themselves financially. Because it’s very difficult there. It’s crazy poverty.”

The third justification volunteers offered was about being socially proactive:

• “I don’t say it [volunteering] is the best but if you come with good intentions and you want to help [then] come and do your best…. If you will do good, then it is great. If I look on the positive vs. the negative, then it is more positive. Hence, I volunteered. It is not a zero-sum game or 50-50, it is more 80-20.”

In other words, volunteers believe their good works contribute to net-positive outcomes.

positive self-evaluations of volunteer tourists’ characters and are used to dispel perceived judgments from society These interviews reveal the positive self-evaluations of volunteer tourists’ characters and are used to dispel any perceived judgements from society that might be raised about their participation. Kahana hopes her article will inform guidelines to ensure that the good intentions of volunteers will materialize as this sector of tourism continues to develop and grow.

A patient signing a form in a doctor’s office. Image by SHVETS production under Pexels license.

Reproductive rights are considered a hot-button topic by many, but different groups can face different pressures in exercising these rights. Moreover, rights around fertility-affecting operations like the removal of one’s uterus (hysterectomies), are often left out of the discussion. To shed light on these issues, recent research examines how gender and race affect those seeking a hysterectomy, usually seen as the most extreme birth control option. 

Andréa Becker, a postdoctoral researcher and instructor at the University of California San Francisco conducted 100 in-depth interviews with a diverse set of individuals who have undergone or are considering a hysterectomy. These operations were sought in many cases to remedy painful reproductive conditions like endometriosis, uterine tumors, or for gender-affirming care. 

She discovered that while white cisgender (cis) women are routinely blocked from accessing desired hysterectomies, cis women of color are pressured into having hysterectomies by medical professionals they are relying on for responsive treatment. Even in cases where a woman of color desires to preserve her fertility, she may experience unwanted pressure to have her uterus removed instead of seeking other treatments for painful reproductive conditions. For example, here’s how a Black woman named Kat described her struggle to preserve her fertility despite the medical establishment’s pressure.

“Every time I had a physical exam, every time I had a vaginal exam, every time I had a pelvic exam every time, it was like “hysterectomy, hysterectomy, hysterectomy,” it was it was definitely pushed.”

Women who did not have or intend to have a male partner or desire kids also experienced differential treatment when seeking a hysterectomy. One lesbian woman even described how medical practitioners did not consider her wishes on the matter at all and were more concerned with the fertility wishes of a fictitious future husband.

Perhaps surprisingly, trans men and non-binary patients reported having a comparatively easy experience getting a premenopausal hysterectomy if they wanted one and were readily offered the procedure or even directed to it as it reinforced societal gender norms.

The study clearly shows a systematic disregard for women’s agency by the medical community, especially that of women of color. The pressure exerted by practitioners to sterilize women of color, even when it contradicts their wishes and goals, has links to a much longer history of medical abuse of such patients. These findings reinforce the need for medical institutions and practitioners to understand and address how racial prejudice and other forms of discrimination affect their treatment of patients.

A bare prison cell with a bunk bed, metal chair, and toilet. Image from RDNE Stock project under Pexels license.

Gender segregation is a core feature of American prisons, with men and women separated out into separate facilities. So how do gender nonconforming prisoners fit into this system? 

In a study of California men’s prisons from 1941 to 2018, Joss Greene finds that the response to gender-nonconforming prisoners varied historically. As attitudes towards both punishment and gender changed over time, prison administrators shifted their approach to managing gender-nonconforming prisoners. 

1941-1954: Segregation

Beginning in the early 1940s, California promoted prisons as sites of rehabilitation. However, from 1941 to 1954, prison administrators viewed gender nonconformity as a contagion that threatened both the overall health of the prison and the prison’s rehabilitation efforts. Prisoners who were identified as “effeminate homosexuals” were segregated from the rest of the prison population, stigmatized, and excluded from educational and work opportunities.

1955-1981: Treatment

From 1955 to 1981, prison administrators approached gender-nonconforming prisoners as “medicalized subjects”, meaning that their homosexuality or gender expression was considered a psychiatric or medical condition. 

Gender-nonconforming prisoners were subjected to psychological studies and “treatment” (in the form of harsh medical experimentation) at a newly constructed California prison medical facility. However, many prisoners were able to use their new medical label as leverage to demand access to some gender-affirming care.

1982-1998: Risk Management

In the late 1970s, California’s “tough on crime” approach led to a historic rise in prison populations. To increase efficiency, prison administrators classified prisoners into four risk levels, based on their sentence, behavioral record, and other factors. Those classified as high-risk were subject to harsher punishment. Under this system, all “known homosexuals” were automatically classified as a Level 3 risk (the second-highest level). They were grouped in with individuals convicted of more serious crimes, faced increased restrictions within the prison, and were frequently targets of violence. Victims of violence often increased their risk score by defending themselves, as the system did not distinguish between the risk of harm to the prisoner and the risk of the prisoner harming others.

1999-2018: Legal Status

Finally, from 1999-2018, there were growing social movements opposing mass incarceration, and “transgender” became a recognized legal status. Prison administrators, seeking to avoid legal battles, created a “transgender” prisoner category and expanded their medical services, including gender-affirming hormone treatments.

Despite these legal advances, most transgender prisoners have been unable to access hormone treatments and still face widespread suffering in prisons. They remain a protected group in name, but not in reality.

Advancing Rights

Greene’s work highlights how institutions (and their underlying logic and resources) can shape how gender boundaries are defined, reproduced, and changed over time. In California prisons, views on crime and punishment, incarceration rates, prison resources, and anti-incarceration social movements all shifted gender boundaries within prisons. These historical shifts should provide hope for some trans rights advocates, who view changing prison policies as an opportunity to provide relief for transgender prisoners. That said, fully addressing the suffering of gender-nonconforming prisoners will require more fundamental changes to both societal gender boundaries and the nature of prisons themselves.

A woman wearing a hard hat and safety glasses working on an engine. Image from Chevanon Photography under Pexels license.

Unionizing and strikes continue to maintain headlines, but labor unions and strikes have been intertwined with American industry for decades. That said, many of these historic strikes have been by unions representing traditionally male-dominated positions, whereas today women are increasingly taking on unionizing challenges. This changing gender balance was recently highlighted by Margarita Torre in her recent study.

Torre analyzed the General Social Survey data from 2002-2021 and found that supportive attitudes around labor unions have increased across the board. Younger women, women with less than a high school education level, and those in female-dominated occupations were even more favorable towards unions compared to other groups of women. 

There are good reasons for this. Historically, as Torre writes, women have “tended to work in a much narrower range of occupations than men and are overrepresented in low-paying, part-time, and temporary jobs with fewer opportunities for advancement.” Unions provide greater benefits (healthcare or retirement plans) and higher wages which can help reduce gender inequality in the workforce, especially in labor markets that offer a wider range of job opportunities and hours compared to previous decades. 

Race is also a big part of the story. About 11% of Black women in the U.S. are part of unions, higher than both White and Hispanic women.11% of Black women in the U.S. are part of unions, higher than both White and Hispanic women. Women and people of color stand to benefit greatly from joining a union as particularly vulnerable groups. 

While only about 4% of 24-year-olds and younger express their intention of joining a union when entering the workforce, Torre explains that the favorability of unions among young women may increase as more women enter the workforce and begin to see the benefits of unionization.

Head football coach Leslie Frazier of the Minnesota Vikings from 2010-2013. Image from Wikimedia Commons.

Racial disparities in hiring practices remain a constant issue in many workplaces. What’s more, these racialized biases are also influencing nonwhite employees’ likelihood of being promoted to leadership positions. This happens even in the National Football League, which has made a point of trying to facilitate the hiring of Black head coaches through the implementation of its famous “Rooney Rule.”

In 2003, the NFL adopted one of the most recognized diversity policies in the U.S., the Rooney Rule. Named after Dan Rooney, former owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Rooney Rule requires that at least one person of color be interviewed for all open head coaching positions in the league. Ironically, Pittsburgh is one of the only places where the rule seems to have worked. Before the 2022 Super Bowl, two of the three Black NFL head coaches were fired, only leaving Mike Tomlin, the head coach of the Steelers since 2007. Although Tomlin is only one season short of being the NFL’s longest-tenured Black head coach, racial disparities in the NFL’s hiring practices still exist. 

In their article “Racial Disparity in Leadership: Evidence of Valuative Bias in the Promotions of National Football League Coaches”, Christopher I. Rider and colleagues explore how racial disparities in leadership roles persist despite this policy. They provide an NFL context by using career history data for over 1,300 coaching staff of the NFL between 1985 and 2015 to investigate how, even when employees of color and white employees hold the same lower-ranked position and perform at equal rates, employees of color are less likely to progress toward a leadership role than their white counterparts (also known as valuative bias). They then analyze if the Rooney Rule was effective at reducing valuative bias in promoting lower-level coaches of color to leadership roles. 

It remains puzzling that the NFL is made up of primarily Black football players yet white men hold the majority of leadership roles. This reason alone provides the researchers with an informative context for exploring racial disparities in leadership attainment. Additionally, it is easy to measure a coach’s performance by simply looking at the percentage of a team’s wins and the performance of the offense/defense that corresponds with the coach’s primary responsibility. Finally, as demonstrated in the chart below, the NFL coaching staff is great for analyzing promotions to leadership roles because there is a clear ranking among coaching positions.

The researchers found that between 1985 and 2015, the Rooney Rule did increase the representation of head coaches of color right after it was implemented. However, when they include all variations of promotions across all coaching positions, they find a significant difference in the average promotion rate for coaches of color (4.5%) and white coaches (7.6%). They also find that when the lowest-level coaches are restricted (assistant position coaches), white coaches are 2.4 times more likely than coaches of color to be promoted. Although they find that white coaches are no more likely to be promoted to head coach than coaches of color in the same position, they find that nearly 80% of promotions to head coach are from coordinator positions. This means that even when a coach of color and a white coach played the same position in college, began their coaching career at the same level, and are currently coaching the same position, white coaches are nearly twice as likely to be promoted to coordinator positions than coaches of color, suggesting that Black coaches who are initially hired into lower-level coaching positions have a much lower chance in career advancement opportunities than their white counterparts.

Although the Rooney Rule increased the representation of coaches of color in all NFL coaching positions, racial disparities in career advancement opportunities across all levels persist in the NFL–especially in lower-level positions, where they are not subject to the Rooney Rule. In other words, valuative bias in promoting coaches of color persists despite the NFL’s high-profile attempt to close the racial gap in leadership positions. By using NFL hiring practices as a case study, the researchers show that organizations must address unequal promoting practices from lower-level positions to close racial disparities in leadership positions.

A grayscale landscape with a tall border fence surrounded by floodlights in the distance. Image by David Peinado from Pexels is licensed under Pexels license.

Immigration law is commonly assumed to be enforced by federal agencies such as the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). However, in recent years state, county, and municipal police and courts have become integral to the process of identifying, holding, and punishing immigrants. From the moment a person is booked, local police become aware of their citizenship status and this information can be immediately forwarded to federal authorities. 

To gain insight into these local-federal law enforcement relationships, Michael T. Light and colleagues looked at data on felony convictions from every local jurisdiction in Texas and California. These states have the largest and fastest-growing immigrant populations in the US but differ greatly in how they treat immigrants in the justice system. Texas has given immigration authority to the local police and has increased cooperation with ICE. California, in contrast, has become a self-proclaimed “sanctuary” for immigrants by distancing themselves from ICE and preventing local authorities from holding people for immigration violations alone. Looking at data from both states allowed the researchers to compare these differing approaches.

In both states, the researchers found that immigrants were convicted and incarcerated at a much higher rate than comparable US citizens arrested for the same crimes with similar criminal histories. In Texas, however, they found that immigrants were almost 10% more likely than citizens to be incarcerated, whereas the immigrant-citizen gap was only 2% in Californiaimmigrants were almost 10% more likely than citizens to be incarcerated, whereas the immigrant-citizen gap was only 2% in California. This is largely due to Texas’ strict policies that encourage local law enforcement to work with federal law enforcement

In some ways, this “punishment gap” between citizens and immigrants parallels the disparities between white and non-white defendants. The authors therefore suggest that future discussions of disproportionate criminalization may center around citizen status as well as race. 

This research shows what can happen when local police become the gatekeepers of both the criminal justice system and the immigration system. Based on the differing outcomes in Texas and California, it appears that deepening connections between local and federal criminal justice systems may result in harsher punishment for immigrants. 

A man driving a forklift in a warehouse, unloading a pallet of drinks. Image by Elevate from Pexels is licensed under Pexels license.

In the United States, every state has different laws regulating the strength of unions. About half of states have anti-union laws – somewhat deceptively called “Right to Work” (RTW) laws – that make union membership and the payment of union dues for workers optional and limit other union organizing. In contrast, pro-union states mandate workers join unions at workplaces with existing unions and pay dues. Supporters of these RTW laws argue that workers should not be obligated to join a union at their workplace or pay dues. Opponents argue all workers at unionized workplaces should have to join the union because they benefit from bargaining agreements, including pay, benefits, and working conditions. 

Tom VanHeuvelen compared these RTW laws in anti-union states and pro-union states using a nationally recognized data set of 5,000 American families and 18,000 individuals to see if there were different economic outcomes for workers. His results suggest that pro-union policies are good for workers whether they are in unions or not. Specifically, VanHeuvelen found that states with RTW laws had lower average pay (5-12% less)states with RTW laws had lower average pay (5-12% less), lower union premiums (benefits, working conditions, promotion policies, etc.), and more pay inequality between employees. In other words, these anti-union states had poorer economic outcomes for workers than pro-union states.

VanHeuvelen suggests that anti-union laws have lasting impacts on the overall economy and political landscape of states. To support his theory, VanHeuvelen looked at workers who travel between states for work, e.g. someone who lives on the border of two states: residing in a pro-union state, but working in the neighboring anti-union state. This analysis revealed a sharp decrease in average pay and pay equality in anti-union states — even when workers lived in a pro-union state but worked in an anti-union state. 

Broadly speaking, this research suggests that so-called ‘Right To Work’ laws not only lead to a weaker union presence but also that workers in RTW states are actually somewhat worse off than those in ‘pro-union’ states. For those who were optimistic about RTW laws benefiting workers, it might be time to rethink policies for both unions and workers.

A building with United Nations carved into the top in the background, with flags from numerous countries in the foreground. Image by Xabi Oregi from Pexels is licensed under Pexels license.

How do the big, rich countries usually get what they want even when international organizations encourage representation and try to level the playing field? Many may assume it is the usual exercise of wealth and political power on the global stage. However, recent research from Danielle Falzon reports that in the case of the United Nations another, overlooked factor may be at play: namely, that the standards required for delegates and delegations present unique challenges and barriers for those from developing countries.

During UN sessions, representatives of various countries hold a series of meetings concerning each discussion topic. To be a part of these discussions, nations must maintain delegates and delegations to represent their country on each of these specific issues. In observing over 200 hours of climate negotiations at the United Nations and conducting interviews with dozens of representatives, Falzon identified at least four factors that affect a delegation’s involvement and impact: the size of the delegation, English-speaking language requirements, knowledge and expertise in Western science and legal standards, and long-term, multi-year representation. Suffice to say, each of these requirements are difficult for representatives and delegations from poorer, less developed nations to meet consistently.

Many interviewees focused on the lack of consistent and English-proficient representation, and especially the smaller number of delegates that developing countries were able to send. As a representative from a developing country explained:

“Just the amount of people that can devote time to a single issue makes such a huge difference… . It’s an enormous inequality. People who are tired, haven’t slept or eaten … they can’t argue as well as people who have.”People who are tired, haven’t slept or eaten … they can’t argue as well as people who have.”

Falzon argues that these standards and expectations create a systemic inequality in access and representation at the UN that calls into question the status quo of the organization’s common operating practices. Do negotiations have to take place in person and require that delegates are always in attendance in order to have say? This sort of institutional change, while it would be a large transition, may make it easier for developing countries to have their voices heard.

 A woman in a suit arguing with a judge in robes outside a courtroom. Image by ekaterina-bolovtsova from Pexels is licensed under Pexels license.

Both child welfare social workers and juvenile probation agents work in systems where time is scarce and caseloads can be overwhelming. Catherine Sirois observed this reality among social workers and probation agents by observing court hearings where youth did not neatly fit within either the child welfare or juvenile justice systems.

Sirois observed juvenile court hearings, interviewed court and social service workers, and attended governmental committee meetings to understand how young people ended up being the responsibility of child welfare or juvenile justice. She found that both agencies attempted “institutional offloading” during court hearings. That is, they tried to place the children, who required the most time and effort due to mental or behavioral challenges, in the other agency and not their own.

This deflection, Sirois explains, is not caused by social workers or probation officers being lazy, but because of the reality of scarce resourcesis not caused by social workers or probation officers being lazy, but because of the reality of scarce resources. For example, a social worker may have an overbooked caseload which means they can only serve a certain number of time-intensive youths. As a result, when they get to court, such social workers may attempt to remove some of these youths from their caseload — freeing up their time for other, less time-intensive youths.

Because this institutional offloading often occurs in court, where children and adolescents can hear and see their social worker or probation agent attempt to drop them as a client, this can make them feel unwanted, abandoned, and unloved. This institutional abandonment coupled with family histories of neglect and abandonment can increase the likelihood that youth will need even more interventions. 

Sociological research like Sirois’ study sheds light on the paradox of institutional offloading in child welfare and juvenile justice systems. While it may be easy to blame individual probation officers and social workers for turning youth away, this research shows how limited resources can pressure well-meaning social workers and probation agents to drop the children who are most in need of services.