Neo-Nazi swastikas, explicitly racist chants and slogans, and public demonstrations with hoods and torches, as seen recently in places likes Charlottesville, are what signal white supremacy for many Americans. Yet, for over a decade, activists and policy makers have used the phrase “white supremacy” in different ways, moving beyond extremist ideologies and individuals’ bigoted beliefs to focus on the deep historical structure and institutional dimensions of racial inequality in social life. Perhaps not surprisingly, sociologists have been at the forefront of parsing out this broader usage and meaning of white supremacy.

Rather than focusing solely on explicit prejudice and organized hate groups, recent sociological uses of the term describe how the very nature of American society inherently privileges white people, white identities, and the status of whiteness. This includes how white people fare better in economic terms, as well as how white people experience superior outcomes in other ways, such as education and health, and how all of these systemic inequalities happen through established institutional arrangements, cultural norms, and public policies. For scholars with this emphasis, America is a “white supremacist” nation — not because individuals or the law are explicitly prejudiced, but because white privilege is central to American social life.

• Moon Kie Jung, João H. Costa Vargas and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (eds) 2011. The State of White Supremacy: Racism, Governance, and the United States. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press
• Naa Oyo A. Kwate, and Melody S. Goodman. 2014. An Empirical Analysis of White Privilege, Social Position and Health. Social Science & Medicine 116: 150-160.
• Joe Feagin. 2013. The White Racial Frame: Centuries of Racial Framing and Counter-Framing. New York: Routledge.
• Matthew Desmond and David Emirbayer. 2009. “What is Racial Domination?” Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race 6(2): 335-355.
• Matthew Hughey. 2010. “The (Dis)similarities of White Racial Identities: The Conceptual Framework of ‘Hegemonic Whiteness’.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 33(8): 1289-1309.

This is not to suggest that sociologists and other social scientists have neglected the study of extremist white groups like Neo-Nazis or the KKK. In fact, sociologists have continued to track how more traditional white supremacists have evolved alongside changing social backdrops and history. These scholars have documented how white supremacist movements in the 21st century have been shaped by whites’ perceptions of victimhood following increased immigration, globalization, and diversity in America.

• Jackie Hogan and Kristin Haltinner. 2015. “Floods, Invaders, and Parasites: Immigration Threat Narratives and Right-Wing Populism in the USA, UK and Australia.” Journal of Intercultural Studies 36(5): 520-543.
• Rory McVeigh. 2009. The Rise of the Ku Klux Klan: Right-Wing Movements and National Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Pete Simi, Kathleen Blee, Matthew DeMichele, and Steven Windisch. 2017. “Addicted to Hate: Identity Residual among Former White Supremacists.” American Sociological Review 1-21.

With all of these different strands of research and interpretations of white supremacy, it is imperative for all of us — activists and analysts alike, as well as everyone in between — to be thoughtful and cautious about how, when, and in what company we use the term “white supremacy.”

As the fall final exam season creeps up, students are returning to their notes and — hopefully — recalling everything they learned this semester. But what kind of notes do they have, and will those notes be helpful? We wondered whether taking notes via pen and pencil versus typing made a difference for students. Here’s what we found!   

Technology isn’t going away in the classroom. School districts across the country are getting grants from governments and tech companies to expand their technology options, especially increasing access to technology for traditionally underserved populations and experimenting with new forms of content delivery. But researchers have looked into the potential negative effects of technology on learning, especially the multitude of potential distractions for students using laptops in class. They find that college students who have laptops in lectures are on average less engaged, less satisfied with their education, and perform worse than other students.

• Robin H. Kay and Sharon Lauricella. 2011. “Exploring the Benefits and Challenges of Using Laptop Computers in Higher Education Classrooms: A Formative Analysis.” Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 37(1): 1-18.
• Jeff Sovern. 2011. “Law Student Laptop Use During Class for Non-Class Purposes: Temptation v. Incentives.” University of Louisville Law Review 51: 483-534.
• James M. Kraushaar and David C. Novak. 2010. “Examining the Affects of Student Multitasking with Laptops during the Lecture.” Journal of Information Systems Education 21(2): 241–51.

In experimental studies, students who used laptops were more likely to write down exactly what was said, which involved less thinking and processing during the notetaking process. Students who took notes longhand were better prepared to answer conceptual questions on the content, even when those who took more extensive notes on laptops were able to study their notes before the quiz.

• Pam A. Mueller and Daniel M. Oppenheimer. 2014. “The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard.” Psychological Science 25(6):1159–68.

On the other hand, researchers have argued that technological innovation and changes in classrooms may make notetaking an out-of-date skill altogether. This research focuses on inclusion and the potential ability for technology to assist students with physical or cognitive disabilities.

• Jacques van der Meer. 2012. “Students’ Note-Taking Challenges in the Twenty-First Century: Considerations for Teachers and Academic Staff Developers.” Teaching in Higher Education 17(1):13–23.
• Dung C. Bui, Joel Myerson, and Sandra Hale. 2013. “Note-Taking with Computers: Exploring Alternative Strategies for Improved Recall.” Journal of Educational Psychology 105(2): 299–309.

Benefits for the wealthiest Americans in Republicans’ proposed tax plan are causing alarm among some Americans, especially because they risk widening an already large wealth gap. According to a recent analysis, the three richest Americans control more wealth than half of the United States’ population. Wealth is different from income, because it takes into account assets like property and debts in addition to earnings, which means wealth inequality in the United States is much greater than income inequality. Social scientists demonstrate that the amount of wealth a person accumulates is associated with a variety of social advantages. And once someone has accumulated wealth, the benefits continue to build up over time and across generations.

Income matters for wealth accumulation, but that is not the only factor. Homeownership is particularly important, though age, wealth of parents, level of education, religion, race, and gender also influence the wealth a person acquires. For instance, unmarried women’s wealth on average is lower than men’s, and a significant gap exists between whites and Blacks in America — a gap that only gets wider in the top tax bracket.

• Alexandra Killewald and Brielle Bryan. 2016. “Does Your Home Make You Wealthy?” Russell Sage Foundation Journal of Social Sciences 2(6): 110–28.
• Michelle Maroto. 2016. “Growing Farther Apart: Racial and Ethnic Inequality in Household Wealth Across the Distribution.” Sociological Science 3: 801–824.
• Mariko Lin Chang. 2010. Shortchanged: Why Women Have Less Wealth and What Can Be Done about It. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Lisa Keister. 2005. Getting Rich: America’s New Rich and How They Got that Way. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Dalton Conley. 1999. Being Black, Living in the Red: Race, Wealth, and Social Policy in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Having wealth is an important indicator of future wealth and well-being. Parents’ wealth is often associated with greater well-being for their children, including higher educational and occupational attainment. Personal wealth also partially explains the gap in marriage rates between people with high and low education levels.

• Fabian T. Pfeffer. 2011. “Status Attainment and Wealth in the United States and Germany.” Pp. 109-37 in Persistence, Privilege, and Parenting: The Comparative Study of Intergenerational Mobility. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Amy J. Orr. 2003. “Black-white Differences in Achievement: The Importance of Wealth.” Sociology of Education 76(4): 281-304.
• Daniel Schneider. 2011. “Wealth and the Marital Divide.” American Journal of Sociology 117(2): 627-67.

The Trump administration recently discontinued an Obama administration policy known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Established in 2012, DACA provided steps toward permanent residency for undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States since childhood. Conditions include proof of living in the United States since before age 16, criminal background checks, status as employed or a college-student, and routine renewal and payment every two years. Furthermore, DACA recipients are ineligible for federal welfare, student aid, and citizenship. Public figures, including pundit Ann Coulter and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, have expressed concerns about immigrants taking too many jobs, draining social support programs, and threatening American culture and ways of life. Research shows, however, that these individuals are not a threat to American culture and society — they are in fact a part of American culture and society.

Many DACA recipients are deeply enmeshed in American society, as virtually all have lived in the United States since childhood. Since the DREAM act was originally passed, beneficiaries have experienced better mental and physical health outcomes. Furthermore, the legislation has offered people in precarious positions a way to be better incorporated into their society; nearly all are employed, speak English as a first language, and have family ties to the United States. Rescinding these protections, therefore, could possibly lead to adverse impacts on recipients’ well-being and lifestyle.

• Donald Kerwin and Robert Warren. “Potential Beneficiaries of the Obama Administration’s Executive Action Programs Deeply Embedded in US Society.” Journal of Migrant Health and Security 4(1): 16-28.
• Roberto G. Gonzales, Veronica Terriquez, and Stephen P. Ruszczyk. 2014. “Becoming DACAmented: Assessing the Short-Term Benefits of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).” American Behavioral Scientist 58(14): 1852-1872.
• Rachel Siemons, Marissa Raymond-Flesh, Colette L. Auerswald and Claire D. Brindis. 2017. “Coming of Age on the Margins: Mental Health and Wellbeing Among Latino Immigrant Young Adults Eligible for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).” Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health 19(3):543-551.

The Trump administration has left Congress time to either renew or repeal DACA. Even if DACA is continued, however, research has shown that state and municipal governments vary greatly in the support they provide to undocumented immigrants. So, even if DACA survives at the federal level (which is not at a guarantee), variations in state and local governments could lead to vastly different outcomes for people in different regions across the country.

• Kara Cebulko and Alexis Silver. 2016. “Navigating DACA in Hospitable and Hostile States State Responses and Access to Membership in the Wake of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.” American Behavioral Scientist 60(13): 1553-1574.
• Tom K. Wong and Angela S. García. 2016. “Does Where I Live Affect Whether I Apply? The Contextual Determinants of Applying for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.” International Migration Review 50(3):699–727.

This past week, the Philadelphia Board of Pensions and Retirement voted to withdraw its investments in the for-profit prison industry. However, the prison industry depends on more than just investors to finance its operations. It also relies on resources from defendants, inmates, and their families. Social science research demonstrates the far-reaching consequences of the penal systems’s money leveraging strategies.

Federal and state criminal justice agencies and correctional institutions charge defendants and inmates with the costs of arrest, prosecution, conviction, incarceration, and supervision. For example, fees include the cost of electronic monitoring and registration for people convicted of sex offenses. In some states, defendants pay for their hearings (court-fees). If found guilty, they also pay room-and-board fees while in prison (pay-to-stay fees).

• Kirsten Levingston. 2008. “Making the Bad Guy Pay: Growing Use of Cost Shifting as an Economic Sanction.” Pp. 52-79. in Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration. New York: The New Press.

As a form of punishment, judges impose monetary sanctions for misdemeanor and felony crimes alike. Monetary sanctions disproportionately disadvantage defendants from low-income communities through three different mechanisms: reducing family income, limiting their access to jobs or educational opportunities, and increasing the likelihood of ongoing criminal justice system involvement. These consequences challenge the assumption that monetary sanctions serve as a more favorable alternative to incarceration or supervision.

• Karin D. Martin, Bryan L. Sykes, Sarah Shannon, Frank Edwards, and Alexes Harris. 2018. “Monetary Sanctions: Legal Financial Obligations in US Systems of Justice.” Annual Review of Criminology 1: 10.1-10.25. 
• Amaia Iratzoqui and Christi Metcalfe. 2017. “Set Up for Failure? Examining the Influence of Monetary Sanctions on Probation Success.” Criminal Justice Policy Review 28(4): 370-393.

Correctional authorities outsource the operation and provision of services within correctional institutions to generate revenues for both public and private institutions. Contracts to run prison services – commissaries, telephone services, or online banking, for example – are based on commissions (what critics call “kickbacks”), which generate incentives for corruption and disproportionate profit-making at the expense of inmates and their families. This means companies have higher incentives to increase their profit margins by charging higher prices and fees.

• Mary Katzenstein and Maureen Waller. 2015. “Taxing the poor: Incarceration, Poverty Governance, and the Seizure of Family Resources.” Perspectives on Politics 13(3): 638-656.
• Hadar Aviram. 2015. Cheap on Crime: Recession-era Politics and the Transformation of American Punishment. Oakland: University of California Press.

Recent events in Burma, the United States, and Spain have shown how appeals to nationalism can initiate or heighten violence. Nationalist ideologies, however, look quite different in each of these countries, and many countries with strong national identities do not experience these types of conflict at all. Sociological research helps explain how nationalism develops differently from one country to the next and the consequences that result.

Nationalism is a particularly strong form of identification, as it can surpass personal connections and reinforce a shared bond throughout the borders of a nation. Social identity can help people define their place in the world, and nationalism can provide a positive way through which to do so. It can also be used to advocate for national-scale interests on a global level, promoting diverse perspectives in international institutions. This is especially true when a country was created through a more spontaneous process, where national identity develops simultaneously with the broader identity formation of groups already living in a particular area.

• Craig Calhoun. 2007. Nations Matter: Culture, History, and the Cosmopolitan Dream. New York: Routledge.

But the path to nationhood isn’t always so organic. Many nations were originally created through decades or centuries of violence and oppression. In other words, national identity works differently when it interacts with different kinds of state power. A majority of countries in the Global South began with ambiguously drawn borders created with the intent of domination. In such states, nationalism stems from (oftentimes violent) renegotiations of identity following foreign rule.

• Ronald Aminzade. 2013. “The Dialectic of Nation-Building in Post-Colonial Tanzania.”  The Sociological Quarterly 54: 335-366.
• James Ferguson. 2006. “Paradoxes of Sovereignty and Independence: ‘Real’ and ‘Pseudo’ Nation-States and the Depoliticization of Poverty.” Pp. 50-68 in Global Shadows: Africa in the Neoliberal World Order. London: Duke University Press.

These different pathways to nationhood result in dramatically different forms of nationalism across the globe. Civic nationalism, for example, is based on citizenship as the root of belonging, while ethnic nationalism is grounded in ethnic identity. Ethnic nationalism tends to be more prominent in nations that have experienced more conflict over time. It can also be more exclusionary, with some studies finding lower tolerance for immigrants in more ethnically-nationalist societies. These two forms can also blend together, as civic nationalism can express quieter assumptions about ethnic belonging.

• Rogers Brubaker. 1992. Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

• Wesley Hiers, Thomas Soehl, and Andreas Wimmer. 2017 “National Trauma and the Fear of Foreigners: How Past Geopolitical Threat Heightens Anti-Immigration Sentiment Today.” Social Forces 96(1):361-388.
• Gary Gerstle. 2001. American Crucible: Race and Nation in the Twentieth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Political spectators anxiously await a final decision from the Supreme Court on the Wisconsin gerrymandering case, Gill v. Whitford. Gerrymandering occurs when legislators redraw voting districts in order to concentrate their electoral dominance. This highly anticipated judicial decision could stop gerrymandering practices and require courts around the country to search for bias in their district maps. While voting is the cornerstone of democracy, social science research on gerrymandering suggests that democratic ideals may not match up to how voting works in practice.

Wisconsin redistricting plans that were ratified in 2011 gave Republicans an advantage over Democrats in translating votes into seats in the legislature. Computer simulations can diminish partisanship in district drawing, but it remains unclear how effective this would be in reducing political polarization in Congress. One study suggests that redistricting does appear to diminish electoral competition, but does not appear to exacerbate polarization along party lines.  

• Jowei Chen. 2017. The Impact of Political Geography on Wisconsin Redistricting: An Analysis of Wisconsin’s Act 43 Assembly Districting Plan. Election Law Journal 16(4): 1-10.
• Nolan McCarty, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal. 2009. “Does Gerrymandering Cause Polarization?.” American Journal of Political Science 53(3): 666-680.

Political sociologists have shown that full voting rights are not as guaranteed in the United States as in many other major democracies, and gerrymandering is just one example of practices that lead to the under-representation of low-income voters and communities of color in the electoral process. For example, partisan gerrymandering reduced access to communication between ward residents, local nonprofits, and their political representatives in Chicago. There is also evidence it changed voters’ choices in Georgia. In short, gerrymandering has real consequences for racial inequalities and representation in the United States.

• Frances Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward. 2000. Why Americans Still Don’t Vote: and Why Politicians Want it that Way. Boston: Beacon Press.
• Robert Vargas. 2016. Wounded City: Violent Turf Wars in a Chicago Barrio. New York: Oxford University Press.
• V. Hood and Seth C. McKee. 2008. “Gerrymandering on Georgia’s mind: The Effects of Redistricting on Vote Choice in the 2006 Midterm Election.” Social Science Quarterly 89(1): 60-77.

Immigration is a hot-button issue in American politics today. President Trump’s proposed border wall, rescinding of DACA, travel bans for multiple majority-Muslim countries, and increased detention and deportation have meant that the debate has focused almost exclusively on Hispanics and Muslims. This is the latest in a long history of misgivings towards immigrants that has obvious racial dimensions. It’s easy to forget that much anti-immigrant rhetoric is based on American attitudes about who is white, or who has the potential to become white. Social science research reminds us how certain groups who were once cast as racial outsiders eventually came to be seen as “white,” while others have been consistently denied white status and the full citizenship that comes with it.

The meaning of “white” has changed through the course of American history. From the 19th century into the early 20th century, “white” only incorporated Anglo-Saxon, Protestant Americans. American voters and policymakers were concerned that “non-white” immigrant groups such as the Irish, Poles, Jews, and Italians lacked the ability to assimilate into American society. Gradually, however, these immigrants became incorporated into the dominant racial category and were thus no longer considered outsiders.

• Cybelle Fox & Thomas A Gugliemo 2012. “Defining America’s Racial Boundaries: Blacks, Mexicans, and European Immigrants, 1890–1945.” American Journal of Sociology 118(2): 327-379
• Vilna Bashi Treitler. 2013. The Ethnic Project Transforming Racial Fiction into Ethnic Factions. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
• Libby Garland. 2014. After They Closed the Dates: Jewish Illegal Immigration to the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

This did not apply to all immigrant groups, however. Despite the historical flexibility of the category, whiteness never encompassed everybody. Courts, laws, and pseudoscience defined whiteness in ways that excluded some groups from full citizenship in America. Many immigrant communities—such as West Indians, Hispanics, and the Chinese—found themselves in racial categories that shaped their access to various socioeconomic opportunities, belonging, and citizenship.

• Rogelio Sáenz and Karen Manges Douglas 2015. “A Call for the Racialization of Immigration Studies: On the Transition of Ethnic Immigrants to Racialized Immigrants.” Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1(1): 166-180.
• Kornel Chang. 2012. Pacific Connections: The Making of the U.S.-Canadian Borderlands. Berkeley: University of California Press
• Leo R. Chavez. 2012. The Latino Threat. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.  
• Mary C. Waters. 2014. “Defining Difference: The Role of Immigrant Generation and Race in American and British Immigration Studies.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 37(1):10–26.

From sexual harassment to salary gaps, stories about gender inequality at work are all over the news. How does this happen? Social science research finds that people often place into different jobs by gender, race, and class, and this sorting has consequences for inequality in earnings and career prestige. Just like a middle school dance where students congregate on opposite sides of the floor because of both self-sorting and social norms, gendered occupational segregation comes from a combination of choice and implicit discrimination based on workplace “fit.” Women often choose less prestigious occupations based on how they perceive their personalities and competence, and employers and colleagues tend to favor people like themselves when hiring, promoting, and collaborating.

When people choose their jobs, they often think about careers to match their personalities. Gender socialization and stereotypes about competence, personality traits, and innate abilities influence how women and men consider which  jobs are right for them. Many women learn to perceive themselves as emotional, systematic, or people-oriented. They also tend to think they possess the right traits to work in female-dominated jobs like teaching and nursing. Women are more likely to think they will perform poorly at careers in science, technology, math, and engineering (STEM) because they have learned to think they are not “naturally” as good at these subjects as men are.

• Erin Cech. 2013. “The Self-Expressive Edge of Occupational Sex Segregation.” American Journal of Sociology 119(3): 747-789.
• Maria Charles and Karen Bradley. 2009. “Indulging our Gendered Selves? Sex Segregation by Field of Study in 44 Countries.” American Journal of Sociology 114(4): 924-976.
• Shelley J. Correll. 2004. “Constraints into Preferences: Gender, Status and Emerging Career Aspirations.” American Sociological Review 69: 93-113

Outright gender-based discrimination in hiring and workplace practice is illegal, but it still occurs through implicit biases to the detriment of women. Employers often look for people who will blend well with their workplace’s culture, and this results in hiring candidates similar to themselves, in terms of both gender and social class. Once hired, colleagues tend to collaborate and share resources with those they think are like them as well, often isolating women in male-dominated workplaces. As a result, many women leave highly-paid, highly-skilled positions in favor of less prestigious jobs with more women and friendlier environments.

• Dana M. Britton. 2017. “Beyond the Chilly Climate: The Salience of Gender in Women’s Academic Careers.” Gender & Society 31(1): 5-27.
• Lauren A. Rivera. 2012. “Hiring as Cultural Matching: The Case of Elite Professional Service Firms.” American Sociological Review 77(6): 999–1022.
• Lauren A. Rivera and András Tilcsik. 2016. “Class Advantage, Commitment Penalty: The Gendered Effect of Social Class Signals in an Elite Labor Market.” American Sociological Review 81(6): 1097-1131.
• Louise Marie Roth. 2006. Selling Women Short: Gender and Money on Wall Street. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Donald Trump was recently the first sitting president to address the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C., where he referenced “attacks” on Judeo-Christian values. But what does this “Judeo-Christian” buzzword really mean? Social science research shows us that national identity is a style of political engagement that can change over time, but also that these cultural changes have real stakes for the way Americans think about their fellow citizens. While the U.S. is becoming an increasingly racially and religiously diverse nation, this demographic change comes up against the persistent cultural assumption that Americans share a distinct Christian identity and heritage.

The meaning of “Judeo-Christian” has changed over time. Once referring to progressive political coalitions, it became a rallying cry that designated socially conservative positions in the “culture wars” of the 1980s and beyond. This case shows us how nationalism is a cultural style comprised of different beliefs and identities. This means that political leaders and everyday citizens can draw on different styles of nationalism.

• Douglas Hartmann, Xuefeng Zhang, and William Wischstadt. 2005. “One (Multicultural) Nation Under God? Changing Uses and Meanings of the Term ‘Judeo-Christian’ in the American Media.” Journal of Media and Religion 4(4): 207–34.
• Bart Bonikowski and Paul DiMaggio. 2016. “Varieties of American Popular Nationalism.” American Sociological Review 81(5): 949–80.
• Rhys H. Williams. 2013. “Civil Religion and the Cultural Politics of National Identity in Obama’s America.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 52(2): 239–257.

And these styles of nationalism have real stakes. An emerging trend in public opinion literature shows that Christian nationalism in particular is a strong predictor of negative attitudes toward minority groups. For example, respondents high on this kind of nationalism are also less likely to support interracial and same-sex marriage.

• Samuel L. Perry and Andrew L. Whitehead. 2015. “Christian Nationalism and White Racial Boundaries: Examining Whites’ Opposition to Interracial Marriage.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 38(10): 1671–89.
• Andrew L. Whitehead and Samuel L. Perry. 2015. “A More Perfect Union? Christian Nationalism and Support for Same-Sex Unions.” Sociological Perspectives 58(3): 422–40.