race

Parents with high levels of education and income spend a lot of money raising their children. They shuttle their kids between violin lessons and soccer practice, fill playrooms with toys designed to aid kids’ development, and squeeze in weekend visits to museums and exhibits. Low-income parents’ money, in contrast, is more tightly stretched, and tends to go towards necessities like bills and food. Can anything be done about these differences and inequalities? New research from Margot Jackson and Daniel Schneider suggests a potential solution, one that involves increased public investment for all kids.

Jackson and Schneider created and analyzed a new data set that links state-level investments in children and families with information on household spending on children over a period of fifteen years. Examples of state-level spending include things like public education, welfare, and Medicaid. Household spending includes purchases of educational books or toys or recreational equipment. They find that when public investment increases, inequality in parental spending on children decreases.

There are two reasons for these promising results. One is that low-income families have more money to spend on their children when public support helps families meet their basic needs. In other words, when income and healthcare are supplemented, families have more money available to invest in their children’s education and development.when public support helps families meet their basic needs…[they] have more money available to invest in their children’s education and development

At the same time, when there is more universal public investment in resources like schools, high-income parents spend less on their children, more confident in the resources their children are already receiving. In short, increased public investments allow low-income parents to spend more, and high-income parents to spend less.

Those of us who care about inequalities in parental spending on children know that early inequalities set the stage for a lifetime of differences in the opportunities and experiences available to people in their formative years. It can be difficult to imagine how these gaps can be narrowed. This research shows that these inequalities are not fixed or inevitable, and that more public spending on children can help equalize the playing field.  

Over the past two years, hundreds of K-12 education hours were lost to COVID-19 and we are beginning to see the academic impact. But what about the emotional, social, and mental health impacts? In new research, Kate Watson and colleagues show some of the challenges students faced during the COVID-19 school closures by analyzing a nationwide survey of school social workers.

While teachers may concentrate on the academic achievement of students, school social workers focus on the emotional, social, and “other” sides of education. 

Above and beyond lost classroom and learning time, COVID-19 school closings meant that children were unable to spend time with friends, attend extracurricular activities, and participate in many traditional school activities for months — and school social workers noticed. 

In the survey, school social workers identified that 76% of students needed mental health services, 62% needed food, and 62% needed tutoring. Typically, these services would be coordinated and provided by the school social worker – such as placing daily food inside of backpacks of students in need of dinner after school.  However, forced to stay at arm’s length, school social workers were severely limited in aiding their students’ basic needs.forced to stay at arm’s length, school social workers were severely limited in aiding their students’ basic needs

School social workers also shared the levels of student participation and engagement through virtual education. Strikingly, more than 80% of participants reported extremely low levels of student participation.  In other words, students generally showed an extremely low level of engagement during “zooming”. Notably, students of color and students who live in poverty were even less likely to be engaged – widening inequities.

Schools have long been about more than just academic learning. Today, while COVID-19 appears to be on the retreat, society must take stock of the lessons learned and implement changes to better prepare schools and the holistic well being of children. The perspectives of school social workers, as advocates for children’s emotional, social, and holistic well being, can show us how much our society relies on schools – beyond just the academics.

After the wave of Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020, the idea of being actively anti-racist, as opposed to simply “not racist” or “color-blind,” has gained popular attention. But does the general public agree that there is a distinction between being “not racist” and being “anti-racist”? According to a new paper by three sociologists, Samuel Perry, Joshua Grubbs, and Kenneth Frantz, the answer is no.

Perry, Grubbs, and Frantz begin from the claim that the language of “anti-racism” has increased in prominence over the last decade. They point to the proliferation of educational curricula incorporating this language, as well as a number of best-selling books. Data from Google shows that the use of terms related to anti-racism in books has spiked since 2013. And Google searches for “antiracist” peaked in the summer of 2020. Against this backdrop, the sociologists use survey data to explore which groups of Americans are most likely to identify as “anti-racist.” 

Unsurprisingly, the research team found that among the people surveyed, the strongest correlation for identifying as “anti-racist” is holding progressive views on racial issues.

Other findings were more surprising. For example,  the second-strongest correlation among all survey respondents with identifying as “anti-racist” was identifying as “color-blind.” In other words, many Americans identify as both “anti-racist” and “color-blind.” This discovery is intriguing because in recent years sociologists have tended to emphasize the more conservative effects of colorblindness rather than its more liberal or change-oriented dimensions.many Americans identify as both “anti-racist” and “color-blind”

The authors suggest that this is because both the terms “anti-racist” and “color-blind” read to whites as being liberal views on race, but not radical. This is in contrast to the academic discourse (and even some popular books) about these terms.

In addition, researchers also found that Black and Hispanic people were significantly less likely than white people to identify as “anti-racist.”  One reason for this may be that books, curricula, and other campaigns advocating for “anti-racism” are often targeted at white audiences. It also does not necessarily mean that white people more often behave in an anti-racist manner. People in general are likely to identify as “anti-racist,” regardless of their views on race. This includes those who would, for example, not confront a friend who made a racist comment.

This research reminds us that people’s conceptions of race are complicated and ever-changing. The way scholars understand race does not always line up with the general public.

We usually think about gentrification as the replacement of poor, non-white residents with white and affluent newcomersin city neighborhoods. According to this narrative, property values rise alongside an influx in amenities catering to a wealthy, whiter community. But an immersive new study from Alfredo Huante complicates that by showing how a changing working-class, Latinx neighborhood in LA grapples with affluent Latinx arrivals.

Using the case study of Los Angeles’ Boyle Heights barrio, Huante examines a process he calls “gente-fication.” During “gente-fication” educated, higher-income, and lighter-skinned Latinx move to historically working-class barrios. Instead of a process of “gentrification” where the “gentry,” or the elite and noble classes move to a neighborhood, “gente” describes a distinct process in which new, wealthier arrivals share  existing residents’ racial or ethnic background. Huante’s research moves beyond the black-white conflict usually associated with gentrification to emphasize tensions within the same racial and ethnic group that are present in the processes of neighborhood change in Boyle Heights. Huante draws on in-depth interviews with long-term barrio residents, community activists, and real estate agents, in addition to data from social media and neighborhood meetings.During “gente-fication” educated, higher-income, and lighter-skinned Latinx move to historically working-class barrios

Despite the fact that the majority of Boyle Heights’ residents are Latinx and working class, barrio residents disagree about whether gente-fication is a threat to the neighborhood. Long-term White residents and Latinx media figures argue that new wealthy Latinx residents will stimulate economic growth and foster racial diversity. Because gente-fiers are Latinx, not white, they also feel like their arrival prevents the cultural erasure usually brought about by gentrification. On the other hand, local activists opposing gentrification claim the new class of Latinx newcomers are still displacing and replacing long-term working-class Latinx residents who are also darker-skinned.

While it seems like this process of gentefication preserves the racial and ethnic character of a neighborhood, Huante’s emphasis on class inequalities within racial and ethnic groups reminds us that the complexities of intra-ethnic dynamics on the ground have a much different story to tell.

Parenting is hard. Ensuring that their kids are healthy and successful, while maintaining their own well-being and other commitments, is a real challenge for many caregivers. Parenting classes, an intervention targeted towards low-income parents, can help. These classes can potentially offer parents support and help them build skills. 

However, new research from Maia Cuchiarra shows how parents and class instructors may have fundamentally different understandings of the purpose of parenting. In particular, parents and instructors may disagree about the appropriateness of physical discipline, particularly when parents are concerned about preparing their children to live in a hostile or threatening environment.parents and class instructors may have fundamentally different understandings of the purpose of parenting

Cucchiara attended weekly, community-based parenting courses taught by professionals living in the same predominantly Black and lower-income neighborhood.  Most of the class participants that Cuchiarra observed attended classes voluntarily or as a requirement of a housing program, not due to court-mandate. 

The Black mothers in the course understood parenting through a “protective frame.” They viewed their primary responsibility as ensuring the physical safety of their children in a world, and local community, that was unsafe and potentially violent. They had a nuanced view of physical discipline and drew clear distinctions between types of force that were or were not appropriate. These mothers felt that it was important for their children to respect them and understand how to use force to protect themselves if threatened.

In contrast, class instructors used a “therapeutic frame.” They viewed children as very vulnerable and in need of warm and gentle support. They did not think that physical discipline was ever appropriate and viewed the potential consequences of using physical discipline as serious for both the parent-child relationship and children’s self-esteem.

The mothers in the study used physical discipline because it helped them meet their high-stakes goal of keeping their children safe in a hostile world. Even though the parents and instructors in this study were members of the same community, this research shows how professional commitments to non-violence can clash with the parental responsibility of raising children in potentially violent environments. The mothers in the study used physical discipline because it helped them meet their high-stakes goal of keeping their children safe in a hostile world

Although explicit racial segregation in housing was outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1968, in practice, Americans remain highly segregated by race. This is due both to the continuing impacts of historical policies and present-day policies, such as exclusionary zoning laws.

The latest 2020 U.S. Census results give social scientists an opportunity to evaluate the state of segregation using high-quality data. Benjamin Elbers recently used Census data to evaluate how segregation has changed (or not) in the U.S. over the last 30 years. He examined data from 228 metropolitan areas.

Elbers finds that overall, segregation declined substantially in each decade. 

However, these overall numbers are not the whole story. For instance, Hispanic and Asian people have become more segregated from white people, on average. Elbers also points out Black people remained highly segregated from white and Asian people in many places.

So, while there has been some progress over the last thirty years, racial segregation and racial inequality remain defining features of American society. 

For many Christian Americans, discussions of structural racism amount to attacks on America – and its Christian heritage – itself. Using survey data collected during the early months of the pandemic and through the summer of “racial reckoning” in 2020, Samuel Perry, Ryon Cobb, Andrew Whitehead, and Joshua Grubbs show how “White Christian nationalism” contributes to what they call a “perception gap” on racial issues. 

Perry and colleagues measure Americans’ attitudes on racial discrimination using four sets of survey data from 2019-2020. They also assess respondents’ approval of Christian nationalism, an ideology that fuses Christianity and American civic life. Champions of Christian nationalism seek to define America as a divinely-inspired Christian nation and advocate enshrining Christianity and “Judeo-Christian heritage” in school curricula, in the public sphere, and in government. 

The authors find that White proponents of Christian nationalism tend to minimize anti-Black discrimination and deny the presence of systemic racism in policing. The surveys – designed to capture shifting opinions during the developments of 2020 – revealed that supporters of Christian nationalism were more likely to believe that the men who murdered Ahmaud Arbery were “not necessarily racist” and acted within their right as vigilantes. White proponents of Christian nationalism tend to minimize anti-Black discrimination and deny the presence of systemic racism

Unlike whites who accept Christian nationalism, Black respondents recognize who affirmed the ideology did so while recognizing racial discrimination against Black Americans. Whereas White supporters of Christian nationalism look at American history without recognizing past violence and atrocity against minorities and people of color, Black Americans who affirm Christian Nationalism see it as a call to action to address present-day inequalities and injustices.

By depicting key elements of American history with a religious gloss that overlooks racial problems, White Christian nationalism and its ideological commitments contribute to a “perception gap” on issues of racism and systemic discrimination.

Courts are expected to be unbiased. However, Vicki Lens found, in courtrooms mothers are routinely judged based on narrow expectations of motherhood that ignore their real-world situations and challenges.

Lens studied mothers’ treatment within family courts, observing approximately 100 child maltreatment cases from 2012-2013 in one U.S. urban courtroom in the Northeast. They found that judges based neglect and removal of children on gendered beliefs of “good mothers.” “Good” mothers are those that take primary care of their children and sacrifice for their children. In making decisions, judges were focused on beliefs about what it means to be a “good mother” and disregarded that motherhood also requires resources and social supports. 

For instance, one mother was accused of educational neglect by a judge for failing to quickly find a tutor for her child. This was even after the mother fought to get her daughter on a wait-list for tutoring and the mom’s caseworker explained the difficulty in finding tutors. Instead of seeing the effort that the mother put forward despite challenges, the judge saw this as inherently negative for the child. The judge felt that a good mother would have put more effort into finding a tutor for her child while working at her job. 

The norms and conventions of the court itself were another part of the problem for underprivileged mothers. Judges required that only attorneys speak for their clients in court, even though the attorneys often misunderstood the complexities of clients’ situations. This led to many underprivileged mothers having no way to communicate with the judge about the structural issues that prevented them from fulfilling this “good mother” role that was valued by the judges. 

While based on just one family courtroom, this study shows how moms can be silenced and judges can mistake inequalities in resources outside of the courtroom as neglect. The end result is that underprivileged mothers, forced to defend their parental rights, face an uphill battle in trying to keep their kids. For the courts to act fairly, all legal actors must hear and value underprivileged mothers’ complicated experiences.

Originally published November 17, 2021

Dating apps have changed how we think about dating. With options that allow users to search for partners across physical distance, it can seem like there are no boundaries to finding love with these apps. However, one sociologist highlights that race and location continue to limit dating options.

Sarah Adeyinka-Skold interviewed over 100 racially diverse, college-educated women, who live in the United States. Adeyinka-Skold asked if these dating apps lessened the boundaries of location and race for women trying to find romantic partners across the country.  The interviews revealed that local culture was actually still a major factor for all those she interviewed. Some women were frustrated about being in locations where there seemed to be a pattern of men who didn’t take dating seriously or just wanted hookups. In other locations, women found it challenging to find dates that shared their gender expectations, with many available men only wanting housewives.  Adeyinka-Skold asked if these dating apps lessened the boundaries of location and race for women trying to find romantic partners across the country. The interviews revealed that local culture was actually still a major factor

One example was Monique who described her frustrations with dating in Lubbock, Texas. Monique specifically focused on her realization that her aspiration of wanting to be more than a stay-at-home mom went against the conservative culture of Lubbock. In particular, she found that men there were, “looking for that person, that woman where she might have a career, but is willing to give it up to raise a family.” 

Latinx and Black interviewees were more likely to express additional issues with race in regards to location. This was because women of color struggled to find potential partners with the same racial and educational background as their own. There simply weren’t enough college educated men of color in their areas so they felt that their local dating pool was very limited.

This research highlights the limits of technology in mitigating the effects of deeply embedded inequalities and cultural constraints. Technology didn’t help the white college educated women because of gender norms in parts of the United States that only valued women’s contributions in house or care work. Technology also was limiting for college educated women of color because of inequalities that only allowed very few men of color to get college degrees. In other words, whatever the new digital world may bring us, it is, like everything else, still bound up with long-established constraints of culture and social inequality.

Dating apps have changed how we think about dating. With options that allow users to search for partners across physical distance, it can seem like there are no boundaries to finding love with these apps. However, one sociologist highlights that race and location continue to limit dating options.

Sarah Adeyinka-Skold interviewed over 100 racially diverse, college-educated women, who live in the United States. Adeyinka-Skold asked if these dating apps lessened the boundaries of location and race for women trying to find romantic partners across the country.  The interviews revealed that local culture was actually still a major factor for all those she interviewed.

Some women were frustrated about being in locations where there seemed to be a pattern of men who didn’t take dating seriously or just wanted hookups. In other locations, women found it challenging to find dates that shared their gender expectations, with many available men only wanting housewives.  Adeyinka-Skold asked if these dating apps lessened the boundaries of location and race for women trying to find romantic partners across the country. The interviews revealed that local culture was actually still a major factor

One example was Monique who described her frustrations with dating in Lubbock, Texas. Monique specifically focused on her realization that her aspiration of wanting to be more than a stay-at-home mom went against the conservative culture of Lubbock. In particular, she found that men there were, “looking for that person, that woman where she might have a career, but is willing to give it up to raise a family.” 

Latinx and Black interviewees were more likely to express additional issues with race in regards to location. This was because women of color struggled to find potential partners with the same racial and educational background as their own. There simply weren’t enough college educated men of color in their areas so they felt that their local dating pool was very limited.

This research highlights the limits of technology in mitigating the effects of deeply embedded inequalities and cultural constraints. Technology didn’t help the white college educated women because of gender norms in parts of the United States that only valued women’s contributions in house or care work. Technology also was limiting for college educated women of color because of inequalities that only allowed very few men of color to get college degrees. In other words, whatever the new digital world may bring us, it is, like everything else, still bound up with long-established constraints of culture and social inequality.