race

As average temperatures rise around the world, more and more people are being exposed to heat waves. From 2000-2016, the number of people exposed to extreme and unusual temperatures grew by 125 million. And while temperature doesn’t discriminate, people do. In a recent paper published in the journal Demography, a team of authors found that in India people from marginalized caste groups were more likely to be exposed to heat at work than people from dominant caste groups. They call this “thermal injustice.”

Caste is a complex social phenomenon found in many countries around the world which sorts people into social groups based on their ancestry. Researchers have long known that a person’s caste can influence many social opportunities and outcomes, such as what types of jobs they can get, how much money they can make, where they live, how long they live, and the quality of health care available to them. Now we can add risk of exposure to heat waves to the list.

The authors combined heat data from satellite imagery with data from a large survey. They focused on the heat waves that hit India during the summers of 2019 and 2022. While India is a large country with many climates, the temperature in Delhi, the national capital, reached 49°C (120°F) in May 2022. The authors found that people from more marginalized caste groups were more likely to be exposed to heat stress.The authors found that people from more marginalized caste groups were more likely to be exposed to heat stress. This association was still present after they controlled for age, gender, education and economic status.

The likelihood of being exposed to extreme heat can depend on many social factors, including your job. If you spend your days in an air-conditioned office, for example, you will be cooler than someone who works on a construction site. But the bottom line is that while the influence of caste on India’s job market may be decreasing, most people who do physical labor outdoors come from marginalized caste groups. Thus, as heat-related public health initiatives in India are developed, caste and thermal injustice should be front and center.

An array of colors arranged in a shape of a thought bubble. Photo by author, Jordyn Wald.

How do Americans define discrimination? Lauren Valentino and Evangeline Warren reveal that it’s not as clear-cut as we might expect. Through interviews and a nationally representative survey, they found that Americans don’t exactly share the same ideas on what “counts” as discrimination—much less racism, sexism, or classism—and these differences aren’t random. 

According to Valentino and Warren, Americans view discrimination through different lenses, depending on whether they’re thinking about racism, sexism, or classism. These lenses guided respondents in deciding whether an act qualified as discrimination:

• Intentionality: Some participants believe that discrimination requires a clear intent to harm. If an act was unintentional, they didn’t view it as discrimination. 
• Unequal treatment or outcomes: Some participants felt that discrimination only occurs when someone is directly targeted and treated unequally. Others saw it through unequal outcomes—where past barriers still limit opportunities for certain groups today, regardless of intent. 
• Power imbalances: Some participants viewed discrimination as tied to structural power imbalances. This means that certain groups have held more power over time, making discrimination a persistent issue rather than isolated incidents.

When it came to types of discrimination, most participants thought racism required intentional actions and targeted unequal treatment. In contrast, sexism and classism were more often seen as unintentional or rooted in unequal outcomes. While all three forms of discrimination were connected to systemic power imbalances, participants linked racism and sexism more closely to historical dynamics, whereas classism was seen as a more contemporary, pervasive issue.

Demographics also determined different definitions. Younger participants and Democrats, for example, were more likely to define discrimination in terms of unequal outcomes, regardless of intent, whereas Republicans and older respondents often emphasized intentionality.Younger participants and Democrats, for example, were more likely to define discrimination in terms of unequal outcomes, regardless of intent, whereas Republicans and older respondents often emphasized intentionality. Women and nonbinary individuals focused on power imbalances and structural inequalities, while men tended to view discrimination as isolated instances of unequal treatment. Black and Hispanic respondents highlighted disparities in outcomes, whereas white participants were more concerned with intent. Additionally, those with lower incomes were more likely to interpret discrimination through the lens of power imbalances compared to wealthier individuals.

In the end, what “counts” as discrimination depends on who you ask and what type of discrimination is under question—but one thing’s clear: Americans aren’t just discussing definitions; they’re grappling with varied and dynamic perspectives on power, fairness, and inequality. 

Three social media message bubbles with blurred graphics. Image by author, Jordyn Wald.

Racist talk among conservatives has long been divided by scholars into two main types: forms of which are “overt” (open and direct) and those which are more “covert” (hidden, subtle, or coded). However, Marcus Brooks finds that since George Floyd’s murder in 2020, a new form of race talk may be emerging in conservative online spaces. It is what he calls “color-blind nationalism.”

In order to conduct the study, Brooks analyzed comments from conservative spaces on TikTok, YouTube, and Twitter. He focused on two main cases: conservative views on Critical Race Theory (CRT) and reactions to the rebranding of products like Aunt Jemima pancake mix in response to concerns about racial stereotypes. 

Brooks finds that in these online spaces conservatives talk about race and about Black Americans in particular, in a way that pushes back against woke culture and promotes traditional American values. Some characteristic tropes or themes of this new racial talk include:

• Ingroup and Outgroup Boundaries: Conservatives try to bring Black Americans into their “ingroup” by framing liberals and Democrats as the corrupt “outgroup” – positioning themselves as the protectors of historical truth. For example, one commenter claims, “the Left has been whitewashing their racist past” and “blaming Republicans for their sins.” 
• Shared Threat and Racial Protection: Conservatives position themselves as protecting Black Americans from the liberal “victimhood” messaging. For example, claiming liberals “teach black children they’re inherently victims” and asks, “u want children thinking they’re victims?” They suggest instead the focus should be on values like self-discipline, responsibility, and hard work.
• Unity Through Shared American Values: Conservatives focus on creating a shared American identity based on values like family, patriotism, and independence, rather than race. For example, a Black commentator defends Aunt Jemima, urging the “woke crowd” to “Leave Auntie Jemima alone” and using hashtags like “#DemocratsDividingAnd DestroyingAmerica.” Another commenter called for Aunt Jemima’s return, suggesting that the left is out of touch.

Brooks’s study explores how this “colorblind nationalism,” with its emphasis on unity and shared values, may be reshaping debates about race and racism and their focal role in the broader culture wars that continue to wrack the nation.

Speech is not just about what we hear. Listeners make judgments about how they think people will talk using visual cues to make assumptions about a person’s age, gender identity, socioeconomic status, etc., However, it’s not yet clear in what ways this affects how listeners hear.

Ethan Kutlu created an experiment to examine how people’s implicit racial and linguistic biases impact their perception of accentedness, or how accented people believe a speaker is. First, participants were shown a picture of either a white woman or a South Asian woman. Then, audio of a sentence read by either an Indian English or American English speaker was played. Sentences from the same lists were read by both speakers. Importantly, this experiment was conducted in a racial-match and mismatch fashion. Thus, at some points, participants would see a South Asian woman and hear an Indian American accent (e.g. racial match) but at other points, they would see a white woman and hear an Indian American accent (racial mismatch). This way, the researchers were able to isolate the effect of race perceived through sight and race perceived through sound (seeing race vs. hearing race). Finally, participants were asked to judge whether the speaker had an accent. (All participants identified as native speakers of American English.)

This experiment determined that the images that were shown did, in fact, affect judgments of the level of accentedness. When listeners were shown a South Asian image before hearing the audio, they were more likely to rate the speaker as “accented.” This occurred when speakers heard either Indian English or American English. Participants were also significantly faster at rating speech accentedness when shown a South Asian image regardless of the audio played.

Overall, this research suggests that race impacts not just how we see and judge individuals but even how we hear them. Such a finding adds yet another twist to our understanding of the mechanisms by which discrimination impacts education, housing, finances, and more in contemporary American society.

A crowd of protestors hold various signs, including “Black Lives Matter” and “Yellow Peril Supports Black Power.” “Racism is th Deadliest Virus” by Backbone Campaign is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Social media is an important tool for social movements. Instagram, one of the most popular social media apps, is frequently used by activists to document events, spread political messages, solicit donations, and more. The authors of a new study argue that Instagram resembles a digital “community bulletin board.”

Turning back to 2020 and 2021, racial justice movements faced multiple crises. The murder of George Floyd by police officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota, triggered a worldwide upswell of racial justice protests. At the same time, political leaders and others in the U.S. associated the COVID-19 pandemic with Asian Americans, leading to a rise in hate crimes.

Focusing on this pivotal time, Rachel Kuo and Sarah Jackson examined how Black and Asian activists in two regions of the United States used Instagram to invoke memories of past struggles in order to articulate their visions for the future in their recent article. They collected social media posts by Black and Asian activist groups in the midwestern and southeastern United States and found that the activists emphasized historical memories of cross-racial solidarity in order to fight back against perceptions of Black-Asian conflict.

Despite its popularity, the authors say that relatively little research has been done on Instagram. In part, this is because Instagram’s image-based format makes it harder to analyze data in comparison to text-based social media. In addition, the authors say, Instagram is often stereotyped as being less “serious” than other platforms. The researchers argue that Instagram’s goal of helping people collect their personal memories to build a shared memory within social movements provides a unique opportunity for research. 

As Black and Asian racial justice activists were confronted with multiple crises in 2020-21, they drew on memories of past moments of cross-racial solidarity among activists. For example, one post reinterpreted a slogan first developed in the 1960s: “Yellow Peril Supports Black Power.” Other posts highlighted the history of solidarity between Black and Asian activists, including meetings between activists and historic textshighlighted the history of solidarity between Black and Asian activists, including meetings between activists and historic texts. Another talked about the friendship between Asian-American activist Yuri Kochiyama and Malcolm X, and still another promoted a reading list of texts about Black and Asian-American feminism.

According to the authors, social media enabled activists to share information about the history of cross-racial solidarity outside of the traditional media. This independence empowered activists to emphasize solidarity against oppression over racial conflict. The researchers argue that, while lots of organizing still takes place in the real world, digital messaging enables activists to create and share new ways of understanding the world that aren’t dependent upon traditional media platforms.

A group of young adults working at a coffee shop patio. Image by Helena Lopes under Pexels license.

The notion of a pan-ethnic Asian American identity first emerged in the United States during the civil rights movement but has become increasingly tied into a monolithic narrative that lumps Asian ethnic groups together. Lost in this process is the diversity of history, culture, languages, and political views different Asian American ethnic groups have. New research by sociologists looking at survey data examines the differences between ethnic groups in their views towards affirmative action and how, depending on their understanding of the Supreme Court’s views toward affirmative action, their responses may change. 

Ji-won Lee and W. Carson Byrd conducted an experiment using data from the 2016 National Asian American Survey, a national survey of over 3,600 Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Filipino, Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Hmong people throughout the US about their views on race-conscious college admissions. 

Around half of the participants gave their views on race-conscious college admissions; the rest received information about the 2016 SCOTUS ruling before they provided their opinions. The “split ballot” design was intended to assess the effect knowledge of the Supreme Court upholding affirmative action in Fisher v. University of Texas had on Asian Americans’ views towards affirmative action, and this brought out some important ethnic variations.

Lee and Byrd found that for the group without information about the SCOTUS ruling, attitudes towards race-conscious admissions varied widely depending on ethnicity. Over 50% of Koreans, Bangladeshis, Filipinos, and Cambodians were in favor or strongly in favor of race-conscious admissionsOver 50% of Koreans, Bangladeshis, Filipinos, and Cambodians were in favor or strongly in favor of race-conscious admissions followed closely by Japanese, Indian, and Pakistani respondents. Chinese, Vietnamese, and Hmong respondents were the least likely to be in favor of affirmative action and more likely to be opposed to it. In this sample, Asian Americans focused mostly on how they would benefit from affirmative action and the discrimination they face.  

In the sample where participants did have prior knowledge of the SCOTUS ruling, the researchers found that support for race-conscious admissions attitudes decreased. When they had prior knowledge of SCOTUS-affirming race-conscious admissions, Asian Americans’ attitudes centered around their ethnoracial identities and political support for immigrants, a group identity Asian Americans are more likely to take on. The framing of the SCOTUS rulings thus demonstrates the complex relationships between Asian Americans and other racial groups. Asian Americans who embrace the idea that their interests align closer with white people end up supporting or even opposing affirmative action by considering if they could be victims of such admissions policies. 

The author’s findings demonstrate the diversity in Asian American ethnic groups’ views towards affirmative action as well as the differences in how their views shift within the context of Asian American racialization in relation to other racial groups and the US legal system. Although there is a wide-held perception of Asian Americans being the same, different ethnic groups have different histories and experiences of their race and ethnicity within the US and its higher education system. By looking deeper into different groups, Lee and Byrd show how we see that different ethnic groups have different attitudes toward affirmative action. However, these findings can extend beyond affirmative action to dismantle the assumption that Asian Americans all hold the same interests, values, and cultures.

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.

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 room of empty desks. Image by Pixabay from Pexels is licensed under Pexels license.

Racism is found everywhere in America – from neighborhoods to the criminal justice system, and even in classrooms, where Black boys are more than three times as likely to be suspended or expelled from school than White boys are. In a recent article, Dr. Jayanti Owens looked into one possible explanation for this disparity: differences in how Black, White, and Latino public school teachers assign blame to their male students for minor classroom misbehaviors.

Dr. Owens conducted her study on 1,339 teachers who were nationally representative of racial and gender demographics from 295 schools across the United States. To test the impact of teacher blaming bias, Dr. Owens and professional videographers worked with 11 high school-aged, undercover actors (four Black boys, four Latino boys, and three White boys) to film short clips of an actor from each racial group either throwing paper, texting during class, or slamming the door in the classroom. Owens then asked the teachers to evaluate and describe the behaviors of the students in a textbox after viewing one of the nine possible videos (three misbehaviors and three racial groups, creating nine unique vignettes).

Owens found that, on average, White teachers were more likely to assign blame to Black students than White students for identical classroom misbehaviors. However, these assignments varied by the race of the teachers. When White teachers were asked to describe the behaviors of the Black students in the video clips, they tended to use language that assigned blame to the personality of the student, rather than the potential factors outside the student’s control. In contrast, Black teachers assigned blame equally across all student races, while Latinx teachers assigned significantly more blame to Black students than White and Latino students.

Owens suggests that the higher attribution of blame by teachers of color to Black and Latino students could be a result of what she terms ‘tough love,’higher attribution of blame by teachers of color to Black and Latino students could be a result of what she terms ‘tough love,’ where Black and Latinx teachers hold their students of color to higher behavioral standards to “prepare [their] minority students for the realities of racism.”  

Looking beyond the classroom, Owens emphasizes that these different standards for attributing blame can have real and long-term effects on students. The more blameworthy that teachers see their students, the greater the chance that students will be disciplined by the school. Students who are suspended or expelled from school have a higher likelihood of dropping out, which studies show leads to higher rates of incarceration and other lifelong disadvantages.