Friday, December 14, 2018

Data USA

Data USA provides county level data on:



https://datausa.io/



About Data USA:
In 2014, Deloitte, Datawheel, and Cesar Hidalgo, Professor at the MIT Media Lab and Director of Collective Learning, came together to embark on an ambitious journey -- to understand and visualize the critical issues facing the United States in areas like jobs, skills and education across industry and geography. And, to use this knowledge to inform decision making among executives, policymakers and citizens.
Our team, comprised of economists, data scientists, designers, researchers and business executives, worked for over a year with input from policymakers, government officials and everyday citizens to develop Data USA, the most comprehensive website and visualization engine of public US Government data. Data USA tells millions of stories about America. Through advanced data analytics and visualization, it tells stories about: places in America—towns, cities and states; occupations, from teachers to welders to web developers; industries--where they are thriving, where they are declining and their interconnectedness to each other; and education and skills, from where is the best place to live if you’re a computer science major to the key skills needed to be an accountant.
Data USA puts public US Government data in your hands. Instead of searching through multiple data sources that are often incomplete and difficult to access, you can simply point to Data USA to answer your questions. Data USA provides an open, easy-to-use platform that turns data into knowledge. It allows millions of people to conduct their own analyses and create their own stories about America – its people, places, industries, skill sets and educational institutions. Ultimately, accelerating society’s ability to learn and better understand itself.
How can Data USA be useful? If you are an executive, it can help you better understand your customers and talent pool. It can inform decisions on where to open or relocate your business or plant. You may also want to build on the Data USA platform using the API and integrate additional data. If you are a recent college graduate, Data USA can help you find locations with the greatest opportunities for the job you want and the major you have. If you are a policymaker, Data USA can be a powerful input to economic and workforce development programs. Or, you may be a public health professional and want to dive into behavioral disease patterns across the country. These are just a few examples of how an open data platform like Data USA can benefit everyday citizens, business and government.

Wednesday, December 12, 2018

Poverty

Defining Poverty

Experts talk about poverty in various ways. This post explains some of the most common terms used to describe poverty in the United States today; official poverty measure and the supplemental poverty measure, extreme poverty, low income, concentrated poverty.

The Loaded and Offensive Use of the N-word

Trigger Warning - Whites often have difficulty discussing racism.  This is a well documented reality especially by Robin DiAngelo's White Fragility.  Additionally, racists may find this particularly offensive.  However, please note that this post is not accusing anyone, especially white students, in my classroom of racism.  Instead it is simply explaining the history of racism and the loaded language of the N-word.  If you start to have defensive feelings as you read this, please check yourself.  Remind yourself that this is not about you.  Take a deep breath and try to listen and understand.

This video excerpt is from Ta-Nahisi Coates speaking at Evanston High School.  He explains that language has context.




Pamela Oliver, a professor from UW Madison has made a list of terms that explain the history and nature of racially-based terminology.  Her post is continually updated here.  It is really informative and a recommended read, but below is an excerpt specifically about the "N-word".

“People of color” (often abbreviated POC in certain circles) may sound the same as colored, but has a different history and meaning. It is the political term signifying pan-racial unity among people who are not White and is often used in political or activist circles. While it may seem to some students illogical that two phrases, “colored” and “people of color,” that both refer to people who are not white, should have very different political meanings, this is how language works. A not-Black person using “colored” signifies that one is at best ignorant and probably racist, while a not-Black person using “person of color” signifies that one is a political activist who is trying to respect and form alliances with people of color. (Note that White political activists who use “people of color” or POC may still be criticized for their implicit White supremacy, but the term itself does not signify this. See the discussion of “minority” below for more on pan-racial terms.)
The big insult word is “nigger” and its variant “nigga.” This is the n-word. There are many people who believe I should not write that word even in an informative essay like this one, and I hesitate as I do it. I have written the word on PowerPoint slides (as in “nigger – always an insult”) so people know what we are talking about, but have been persuaded by Black sociologists that there is too much risk that even that pedagogic purpose can be experienced as a micro-aggression by students. I am hoping that in this context, buried in an article that builds up to it, the usage is acceptable. There are many people who view this word as vulgar and unspeakable and offensive. In the United States, it is the most loaded word one can utter, it is the nuclear weapon of racial epithets. There is no other word that comes even close in its explosive power. It is always insulting when said by a non-Black. It is the word that is linked with degradation and violence. It is the word linked to lynching and murder as in “die n-“  It is the word White people use today when they want to wound Black people. A Black woman I know went into the post office in Madison and asked for the Martin Luther King commemorative stamps; the clerk said, “I’m not giving out any of those n- stamps.” That’s how the word is used: to insult somebody as they are going about their daily business, to make them feel like they don’t belong. It ruined her week and made her not want to have anything to do with White people for a while.
There was never a positive or even neutral public use of the word historically. No political movement ever formed around the identity n-. Under slavery and segregation Black people sometimes used the word themselves because they had no other word and you will often see the word used in literary fiction by Black people to convey the culture of a past period. None of that makes the word acceptable by non-Black people in modern usage.
What is confusing to young non-Black people is that they hear Black people using the term often among themselves, especially in rap music, and think they ought to be able to use it. The “rule” here is actually easy: you can insult yourself or your group in ways that others cannot. It is like the rule that I may insult my brother or sister, but if you do it I’m going to punch you.
Students also bring up singing along with rap music. I’ll just say that the context of singing along isn’t the same, although how people experience your choice of music is probably worthy of another conversation I’m not prepared to facilitate. When the topic was brought up, at least one minority student talked about being appalled at groups of White people listening to rap and singing the n-word together.
There is also a phenomenon in which a negative word gets turned positive by a radical or “edgy” movement. This has happened with the word Chicano (to refer to a Mexican American) or the words “dyke,” or “faggot,” insult terms for lesbians and gay men which are sometimes picked up and used by members of the group for radical effect. There are arguments among Black people about whether they should be able to use the n-word for this kind of edgy radical effect. Many Black political writers use the n- word in this way.  I have read things written by Black people on both sides of this debate, some saying that they should be able to use the word and that avoiding it just gives it power, and others saying it just gives White people the idea it is OK to use the word. But these are debates about whether Black people should ever use the word, not debates about whether White people should be allowed to call Black people the n-word.
Non-Black students who have attended majority-Black schools and non-Black athletes on mixed-race teams may talk about context, and the subtleties of using racial insults with each other as a way of declaring friendship across boundaries. What I say about this is, first, yes this does happen, especially among men, and there are some subtle rules about this. Second, lots of times the it is the White people have initiated this; Black people put up with it, even though they don’t like it and feel that it is a microaggression, because they do understand the rules of bonding through insult and don’t want to rock the boat. Third, just because you have one relationship in which you use the n-word appropriately as insult bonding definitely does not give you the permission to go around insulting any other Black people you happen to meet. You do not get any kind of pass at all just because you happen to know a Black person who let you call them n-.
I have also heard some discussion of the difference between n-r and n-a, and all I can say is that this isn’t White folks’ business. If Black people want to make these distinctions, that is their business.
Randall Kennedy’s book Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word traces the origins of the word, the history of its usage among Blacks, controversies about it, and how context affects the word. He argues that there are usages among Blacks that are entirely positive. He even argues that there are rare circumstances in which the n-word may be appropriately used by White people, but his examples convinced me that even when such usage is appropriate when you know the context, there will be plenty of people who are offended anyway. For example, there are people who believe the n-word should not be spelled out in this essay, even for the purpose of explaining why not to use it.
If you search the Internet a little, you can find dozens of articles and blog posts mocking White people for whining about not being allowed to say the n-word when Black people can use it. This is viewed as the ultimate example of White privilege in action: White people are so privileged they think there should not be even one word that somebody else can use that they can’t.
There are dozens of other words that have been used historically and in the present to insult Black people that can generally be written without the same level of pain as the n-word but you should assume that if you use them you will be considered a racist, and I cannot imagine any way in which you would use these words except with insulting intent. The ones that come to my mind are shade, spook, darkie, coon, ghetto, jigaboo, welfare queen. I’m sure there are dozens of others. There are also dozens of racist stereotyped images that are considered insulting.

Professor Oliver said above that "It is the word that is linked with degradation and violence."   I want to add that this history of racism includes:

12 million African people forcibly removed from their country and enslaved in the U.S.

2 million African people who died from the horrific conditions of just the journey to the U.S.

The original Constitution which declared that people from Africa were only 3/5 of a person and they were considered property and not people.

There were over 4000 public killings/lynchings of African-American people from 1830-1950.  See the interactive map available here.


This includes the lynching of Emmett Till whose pictures appeared in JET magazine and circulated among the black community in the 1950s.

The Jim Crow laws of the post-slavery era detailed here.

The era of mass-incarceration detailed in Michelle Alexander's book, The New Jim Crow and also the subject of Ava Duvernay's documentary 13th.

Ibram Kendi's book, Stamped From the Beginning is an extraordinary work that details the history of racism in the U.S.


All of that is just the history of racism in the U.S.  It doesn't even mention the enormous scholarly work that has researched racism from our current generation.  A quick search of sociology articles about racism on JSTOR reveals 12,572 articles published since the year 2000 about racism.

This includes:
Racism in the criminal justice system and in the prison system.
Racism in medicine.
Racism in politics.
Racism in city planning and policy.
Racism in the media.
Racism in academia.

All of the above is the context behind the N-word.  By using the N-word it displays ignorance at best, but more likely a cold-hearted anger that excuses the centuries of violence and oppression.

Despite all this, some whites were so angered and afraid at the election of a black man for President of the United States that there has been a feeling among whites that somehow they are oppressed.  Michael Tesler explains in his book that rather than the Obama era ushering in a post racial society, the U.S. has actually become more racial as a result of it.  Mostly, this is a misplaced fear because some whites think racism is a zero sum game and so any advances for Americans who are not white means that whites are being oppressed.  Chris Boeskool explains that when you are used to being privileged, equality feels like oppression.

There is a really ignorant notion in some circles about an idea of "black privilege".
This critique explains it.

Some people even post online about why white people feel discriminated against.  Here is an explanation of that.

This NPR story explains that a majority of whites in 2017 believe that whites face discrimination.

Stereotypes against whites are a problem, but as this psychologist explains, they are a problem in creating a barrier in communicating between different groups.  So, like I said at the beginning of this lesson, if you are white like me, check your attitudes.  Realize that when people talk about racism and privilege they are not saying that you did something wrong.  Understand the history.  Don't feel the need to be defensive.

This Harvard extension class looks like a good resource for understanding racism.


Race Terms

After understanding the explicit and implicit biases and the institutional racism that results from these, it is important in moving forward with sensitive and accurate terminology to discuss race.  
As a general rule, start by recognizing each person's uniqueness and their own personal preference for terms that they would like to be called.  However, when you don't know what that term is,  Pamela Oliver, a professor from UW Madison has made a list of terms that explains the history and nature of racially-based terminology.

Saturday, December 8, 2018

Derek Black, White Supremacist, Changed by Matthew Stevenson, Jewish College Roommate

From the NPR show Onbeing, We'd heard Derek Black, the former white power heir apparent, interviewed before about his past. But never about the friendships, with other people in their twenties, that changed him. After his ideology was outed at college, one of the only orthodox Jews on campus invited Derek to Shabbat dinner. What happened over the next two years is like a roadmap for transforming some of the hardest territory of our time.



Also featured in the book Rising Out of Hate by Eli Saslow.  Here is a synopsis:
Derek Black grew up at the epicenter of white nationalism. His father founded Stormfront, the largest racist community on the Internet. His godfather, David Duke, was a KKK Grand Wizard. By the time Derek turned nineteen, he had become an elected politician with his own daily radio show – already regarded as the “the leading light” of the burgeoning white nationalist movement. “We can infiltrate,” Derek once told a crowd of white nationalists. “We can take the country back.” Then he went to college. Derek had been home-schooled by his parents, steeped in the culture of white supremacy, and he had rarely encountered diverse perspectives or direct outrage against his beliefs. At New College of Florida, he continued to broadcast his radio show in secret each morning, living a double life until a classmate uncovered his identity and sent an email to the entire school. “Derek Black…white supremacist, radio host…New College student???” The ensuing uproar overtook one of the most liberal colleges in the country. Some students protested Derek’s presence on campus, forcing him to reconcile for the first time with the ugliness his beliefs. Other students found the courage to reach out to him, including an Orthodox Jew who invited Derek to attend weekly Shabbat dinners. It was because of those dinners–and the wide-ranging relationships formed at that table–that Derek started to question the science, history and prejudices behind his worldview. As white nationalism infiltrated the political mainstream, Derek decided to confront the damage he had done. Rising Out of Hatred tells the story of how white-supremacist ideas migrated from the far-right fringe to the White House through the intensely personal saga of one man who eventually disavowed everything he was taught to believe, at tremendous personal cost. With great empathy and narrative verve, Eli Saslow asks what Derek’s story can tell us about America’s increasingly divided nature. This is a book to help us understand the American moment and to help us better understand one another.

Former White Supremecist Explains How He Turned Toward Then Away from Racism






Christian Picciolini explains how he was pulled into Neo-Nazism and white supremacy. And then explains how he walked away.

At 14, Christian Picciolini went from naïve teenager to white supremacist -- and soon, the leader of the first neo-Nazi skinhead gang in the United States. How was he radicalized, and how did he ultimately get out of the movement? In this courageous talk, Picciolini shares the surprising and counterintuitive solution to hate in all forms.

Identity - Community - Purpose


The importance of personal connection with individuals different than we are.

The problem is our disconnection from each other.
Hatred is born of ignorance.
Fear is its father.
Isolation is its mother.
When we don't understand something we become afraid of it.
Pull people in and bring them closer.
Fill in their potholes.
Find someone that is undeserving of your compassion and give it to them.

What a great example of the importance of sociology and understanding identity and our social network and group belonging.  Also shows the importance of ingroups and outgroups and we think about outgroups.


Here is his website.  And here is a synopsis from his book, White American Youth:

As he stumbled through high school, struggling to find a community among other fans of punk rock music, Christian Picciolini was recruited by a now notorious white-power skinhead leader and encouraged to fight with the movement to "protect the white race from extinction." Soon, he had become an expert in racist philosophies, a terror who roamed the city, quick to throw fists. When his mentor was arrested and sentenced to eleven years in prison, sixteen-year-old Picciolini took over the man's role as the leader of an infamous neo-Nazi group.
Seduced by the power he accrued through intimidation, and swept up in the rhetoric he had adopted, Picciolini worked to grow an army of extremists. He used racist music as a recruitment tool, launching his own propaganda band that performed at white-power rallies around the world. But slowly, as he started a family of his own and a job that for the first time brought him face to face with people from all walks of life, he began to recognize the cracks in his hateful ideology. Then a shocking loss at the hands of racial violence changed his life forever, and Picciolini realized too late the full extent of the harm he'd caused.
Raw, inspiring, and heartbreakingly candid, WHITE AMERICAN YOUTH tells the fascinating story of how so many young people lose themselves in a culture of hatred and violence and how the criminal networks they forge terrorize and divide our nation.

Friday, December 7, 2018

Research - Conclusion - Example

I think that one problem/difficulty in sociology is in the connection between research, conclusion and example.  The essence of sociology is scientific research about society.  Based on that research, sociologists come to conclusions.  Then, we try to exemplify those conclusions in simple terms to explain the conclusions to students.  

McIntosh's Knapsack is an example to teach the conclusion of racism that sociological research proves.  I think that the problem is that sometimes sociologists (myself included) get wrapped up in an example (like Knapsack) and we forget to teach about the scientific research behind it.  When we get wrapped up in teaching a sociological conclusion and we only use an example to teach it but not research, we run the risk of engaging in rhetorical debate that can often end up with anecdotal evidence.  This leaves us as sociology teachers (especially in the current post-factual era) at risk of engaging with students who feel free to choose their own side and debate the teacher.  There is a mistrust of institutions in general, and educational ones specifically that already undermines our intellectual authority.  It doesn't happen a lot, but I have had a steady minority of students who consistently challenge the conclusions in sociology based on the rhetorical arguments that they hear from people like Ben Shapiro.  I think that we, as teachers, need to be distinct when we teach are teaching about sociological research vs. sociological conclusions, vs. simple examples of the conclusions.  

I have seen this happen often when teaching sociological vocabulary.  In most cases, the vocabulary is a conclusion reached through sociological research.  But the intro textbooks that we use ignore the original research and jump right to the conclusions.  I think that in an era when educational institutions were valued and teachers were trusted this was fine.  But the current era of fake news, liberal education bias, and anti-political correctness leaves open the constant reality that as teachers we will be challenged and the boldfaced explanations in books will not be enough.  I think that we need to contextualize the vocabulary and concepts in a way that links it to research, conclusions or examples. 

Shapiro (and others like him, namely Jordan Peterson, Charlie Kirk and Jacob Wohl) are able to question the examples we use and provide their own examples because they are really just citing anecdotes, or in some cases cherry-picked research.  IMHO, it would be wiser as sociology teachers for us to lead students to all of the research that is available and then explain that that research can lead us to a conclusion which then can be explained through a simple example.  This is why I think that there is not a lot of literature out there by academics about thinkers like Shapiro.  Sociology academics are engaged in research while demagogues like Shapiro are engaged in more philosophy and rhetorical debate.  But because their views are about social issues, students feel like they can bring them up in sociology class.  But they are not sociologists.  Jordan Peterson has even called for the dismantling of sociology as a discipline!  So I think some sociologists don't even address them because sociologists don't see them as peers worthy of engaging.  Despite that assessment, I have seen these people come up in class so below are my thoughts specifically to address people like Shapiro when students bring them up in class.

Responding to questions about rhetorical demagoguery with a social science answer.

I am struck by the era we are living in.  We live in the information age.  Information is literally in our hands via smartphone.  We can access millions of bits of data within seconds.  And yet, we have entered an era of post-facts.  It is a postmodern era where on can cultivate their own reality.  The same smart devices that allow us to access information, also allow the masses to create their own information.  They can send out their own construction of reality into an echo chamber that amplifies their own notions of reality.

Three of the most successful pseudo-intellectuals at doing this are Ben Shapiro, Jacob Wohl, and Jordan Peterson.  While each of these three have arrived on the public stage through different paths with different successes, all three pose a threat to reality and understanding the world.  They deserve credit for being intelligent and excellent debaters.  But that doesn't make them grounded in facts or reality.  All of them use clever rhetoric and strawman arguments to make their case.  However, they are not scientific or social scientists.  But students don't realize this.  It would be good for society and good for the student if teachers could successfully respond to students who ask about these deceptive individuals.

Obviously, in this era we have seen the erosion of science and facts as any kind of basis for understanding the world.  If the person you are talking to has this position, then the conversation is useless; one can believe whatever he or she wants to and the consequences are real even if the science is not.  Many of the students who ask about these arguments are enrolled in school seeking a degree but also believe that all schools are liberal-indoctrinating institutions.   It is a harkening back to the dark ages of medieval Europe; not that different than trepanning, burning "witches", or bloodletting.   Of course, arguments from people like Shapiro, Wohl and Peterson do not seem as crazy as medicinal practices of the pre-industrial age, but those practices didn't seem crazy then either.  People believed in those practices and acted accordingly.

I am also cautious about addressing the arguments that these conservative idealogues create because I do not want to justify their arguments by acknowledging them through discourse.  However, social scientists and rational thinkers are approached by students and acolytes of these "thinkers" and we need to be able to understand what is happening to make the appropriate judgement about whether and how to respond to their rhetoric.

Most often, they are using a strawman argument.  By recognizing what the strawman argument is, one can counter it.  Usually the arguer makes a claim then jumps to a conclusion that seems based on that claim without truly connecting the two or by glossing over assumptions.  When done well, the argument is quick and seamless making it difficult to notice the leap.  But if you slow down the argument and examine it, you will notice this and the assumptions will begin to break down.  Be careful, often the strawman arguer will try to continue moving quickly and say things like, "Please don't interrupt me"  because they do not want to clarify their views or explain their argument in detailed terms.  In sociological research we talk about operationalizing terms.  This is a way of explaining exactly what we are talking about in a specific and defined manner.  Be sure to do that when encountering these strawman arguments.

Additionally, these debaters cleverly steer the argument through their rhetoric towards their point.  It is a great debate tactic, but it is not scientific.  George Lakoff, a Berkley professor of linguistics writes about this technique extensively.  When a student asks a question that is obviously from from a rhetorician like Shapiro or Wohl, I try to take a deep breathe, and clarify the student's question.  Slowing down the query and clarifying helps to reframe and refocus the question.

Finally, these demagogues cherry pick facts and use anecdotal information to focus on their political aims rather discuss issues at large.  They point to individual trees so that their listeners do not see the forest.  At times however, they will seem to point to larger conclusions or examples but often through a stereotype or false category.  For example, you will often hear the phrase, "the left" which seems to identify an enigmatic group that all believes in some ideology.  This rhetorical device is casting a wide net to capture many disparate ideas and paint them all together.  So, when you engage with the argument, Shapiro and his acolytes are able to say well you are a sociologist, part of the liberal educated elitist group, sometimes called "libs" so your argument is nullified because you have been painted as part of the problem.  He is casting a net at the problem, but he is also catching anyone addressing the problem and tying them up together.


Here are some other sources to help address these individuals:

These facts don’t care about Ben Shapiro’s feelings.
The author of "Rap is Crap" can't stop contradicting himself.  Shapiro frequently repeats this simple mantra:  “Facts don’t care about your feelings.”  But despite presenting himself as a voice of reason who stands up to the “MAGA movement,” Shapiro has a habit of contradicting statements he made before (and even after) Trump took office, and a long history of failing to follow his own advice.
OPINION: TCU professor’s response to Ben ShapiroWhat I learned was that Mr. Shapiro was working under a flawed assumption: that his particular social conservative views were in and of themselves “facts.” Spoken rapidly and unequivocally, his strong convictions of what is totally true and absolutely wrong were not explicitly supported by facts at all.

What I Learned From Watching Ben Shapiro for a Week
It was painful. Ben Shapiro is really smart, but I believe that the data he presents in his arguments is meticulously picked to prove his point and that he has a very strong bias (expected).

Why Ben Shapiro Is A Total Fraud
I cannot even use the bulk of Shapiro’s comments to string together anything coherent on that front, and must dig into his articles and videos in order to elaborate on the scant piffle he does provide. Thus, what had started as a brief note on Shapiro’s disingenuousness has now turned into a point-by-point takedown of modern, bastardized conservatism as a whole, highlighting not only Shapiro’s poor thinking skills, but his utter hypocrisy, as well.

The Hollow Bravery of Ben Shapiro
These publications and commentators aren’t embracing the kind of real debate that they pay lip service to on campuses; they are spoon-feeding screeds to their right-wing readers. They are telling them that their most deeply felt beliefs about the world and about their fellow Americans are not only factually correct, but also morally righteous. Often, that means reinforcing ideas about race and gender shaped by bias more than fact, while simultaneously claiming to be the last redoubt of objective journalism.


THE INTELLECTUAL WE DESERVE 
Jordan Peterson’s popularity is the sign of a deeply impoverished political and intellectual landscape…


Peterson’s claims about morality, reality, and the meaning of life are dubious.

What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

How did a once obscure academic become the Internet’s most revered—and reviled—intellectual?


How dangerous is Jordan B Peterson, the rightwing professor who 'hit a hornets' nest'?
Since his confrontation with Cathy Newman, the Canadian academic’s book has become a bestseller. But his arguments are riddled with ‘pseudo-facts’ and conspiracy theories.


WHO IS JACOB WOHL? PRO-TRUMP TWITTER PERSONALITY MOCKED OVER FAKE MUELLER SEXUAL ASSAULT ALLEGATIONS
...implicated in a conspiracy to concoct false sexual-assault allegations against special counsel Robert Mueller...accused of defrauding investors...


Charlie Kirk’s New Book, a Broadside Against Higher Ed, Is Heavy on the Anecdotes



I went inside a rightwing safe space to find out the truth about universities
With universities in an ‘existential crisis’, Turning Point USA sells a safe space for conservatives who have convinced themselves they are the embattled minority



The perfectly incoherent Trumpism of Charlie Kirk's Campus Battlefield
Does Charlie Kirk hate safe spaces or love them? Depends.

Tuesday, December 4, 2018



The militarization of police in the U.S.

The link below has an interactive graphic that is searchable by county.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/15/us/surplus-military-equipment-map.html


Rural Americans and Political Anger

From Vox:

A Princeton sociologist spent 8 years asking rural Americans why they’re so pissed off

Hint: it’s not about the economy.


Robert Wuthnow, a sociologist at Princeton University, spent eight years interviewing Americans in small towns across the country. He had one goal: to understand why rural America is so angry with Washington.  Wuthnow’s work resulted in a new book, The Left Behind: Decline and Rage in Rural America. He argues that rural Americans are less concerned about economic issues and more concerned about Washington threatening the social fabric of small towns and causing a “moral decline” in the country as a whole. The problem, though, is that it’s never quite clear what that means or how Washington is responsible for it.

Fragile Masculinity, Trump Voters and Google Trends Data

Using Google Trends to research fragile masculinity and Trump voters.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/11/29/how-donald-trump-appeals-to-men-secretly-insecure-about-their-manhood/?utm_term=.4a9f93c35f71

From boasting about the size of his penis on national television to releasing records of his high testosterone levels, President Trump’s rhetoric and behavior exude machismo. His behavior also seems to have struck a chord with some male voters. See, for example, the “Donald Trump: Finally Someone With Balls” T-shirts common at Trump rallies.
But our research suggests that Trump is not necessarily attracting male supporters who are as confidently masculine as the president presents himself to be. Instead, Trump appears to appeal more to men who are secretly insecure about their manhood. We call this the “fragile masculinity hypothesis.” Here is some of our evidence.

Thursday, November 29, 2018

Continuing Step 2: Literature Review

Please continue to research what has been published about your topic already.   Keep noting what research has been done.  Keep a list of the citation information and a summary of what the research is about. 

Use academic sociology journal articles.  The SHS ILC database JSTOR will be especially helpful here.   JSTOR, an online database that you can search by subject. Go to the SHS Library online where you can login to JSTOR under "Academic Journals". Click here to go directly to JSTOR Advanced search.

Also use the “the Society Pages,” a website of sociology resources, especially Discoveries page, and on the Contexts page, the In Brief section.

Note the citation information for each article you study. Once you are logged on, scroll down to select "sociology" then search any subject you would like.  You should add each article to a bibliography and annotate/summarize these articles.  In your research project, you should make sense of the background research you find.  What have other authors concluded?  How does the research fit together?  What story does the research tell?  What information is left out of the previous literature?


Monday, November 19, 2018

Race, Gender and School Discipline

Read this article from the Sociology of Education.


Here is data that you can use to conduct a similar study:
School discipline data


Research Project Step by Step Overview

1. Identify what you’d like to study. What topics are you interested in? Can you frame your interest into the form of a question? Some things to consider: What group/people are you attempting to study? Are you interested in study how this creates and reinforces social norms and stability? Are you interested in how this creates social inequality? Are you interested in how this creates meaning between people – either values, norms, etc.? Why are you interested in this topic? This will become the introduction of your project.



2.  Conduct a literature review.  Research what has been published about your topic already.  Use academic sociology journal articles.  The SHS ILC database JSTOR will be especially helpful here.  Also use the “the Society Pages,” a website of sociology resources, especially Discoveries page, and on the Contexts page, the In Brief section.

JSTOR, an online database that you can search by subject. Go to the SHS Library online where you can login to JSTOR under "Academic Journals". Click here to go directly to JSTOR Advanced search.

Note the citation information for each article you study. Once you are logged on, scroll down to select "sociology" then search any subject you would like.  You should add each article to a bibliography and annotate/summarize these articles.  In your research project, you should make sense of the background research you find.  What have other authors concluded?  How does the research fit together?  What story does the research tell?  What information is left out of the previous literature?

3.  After conducting the literature, write a hypothesis about what you think you will find if you study the topic.  Your hypothesis should include:  Operational definitions about what you would study, an explanation about what you think you will find and why.


4. Explain or propose your research.  Since this is just a 100-level intro to sociology class, you will be expected to propose a research project.  This includes choosing a method and designing a study even if you are not able to carry out that study.  This should be a thorough explanation of the research.  It should include all of the components of the research you choose to do.  For example, if you choose to do a survey, you should type up the survey. Here are some methods for you to choose from:
ethnography/participant observation, interviews, surveys, existing sources, or experiment.  For students who want to exceed expectations, you may conduct the actual research.  That would include actually gathering data then analyzing it. 

Here are some sights for exploring data:


Data from Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research 

 Pew Research Center

 NORC's General Social Survey


Census Bureau here or here on my blog.



Data from U of Michigan's Monitoring the Future - Data on Teens and behaviors, attitudes, values


 National Center for Education Statistics



Data from Brookings Institute


 Stanford Center on Poverty & Inequality


 Bureau of Labor Statistics

School discipline data


The Gender Pay Gap from the Washington Post explains the dynamics that lead to unequal pay for women.


Mass shooting data sets:

Mass Shooting Tracker
MotherJones data set of all school shootings.
TribLive list of all school shootings for the last 50 years.

Dollar Street is a website from Gapminder that compiles pictures from around the world.  You can sort the data by income, country or by the category such as bedrooms, or toothbrushes.

College and economic mobility.


Where college grads move.


Baby name database from SSA.






Friday, November 16, 2018

Affirmative Action on Campus and Debunking Myths on Campus by Julie J Park

Chapter 1: Black Students and the Cafeteria—What’s the Big Fuss?
Chapter 2: Who’s Really Self-Segregating? Sororities, Fraternities, and Religious Groups
Chapter 3: Is Class-Based Affirmative Action the Answer?
Chapter 4: Why Affirmative Action Is Good for Asian Americans
Chapter 5: Why the SAT and SAT Prep Fall Short
Chapter 6: The Problem of the “Problem of Mismatch”
Chapter 7: How Then Should We Think? A Conclusion
In Race on Campus, Julie J. Park argues that there are surprisingly pervasive and stubborn myths about diversity on college and university campuses, and that these myths obscure the notable significance and admirable effects that diversity has had on campus life.
Based on her analysis of extensive research and data about contemporary students and campuses, Park counters these myths and explores their problematic origins. Among the major myths that she addresses are charges of pervasive self-segregation, arguments that affirmative action in college admissions has run its course and become counterproductive, related arguments that Asian Americans are poorly served by affirmative action policies, and suggestions that programs and policies meant to promote diversity have failed to address class-based disadvantages. In the course of responding to these myths, Park presents a far more positive and nuanced portrait of diversity and its place on American college campuses.


Here is a podcast episode from BHD (Black and Highly Dangerous):

In recent years, affirmative action has re-emerged as a hot topic in the world of higher education. However, debates about race and affirmative action in higher education are often clouded by myths and misconceptions. Today, we focus on the facts and have an open conversation about diversity on college campuses by interviewing Dr. Julie J. Park, an associate professor of education at the University of Maryland, College Park. We begin by discussing the importance of racial diversity in higher education (24:19) and her forthcoming book— Race on Campus: Debunking Myths with Data (26:45). We then have an in-depth conversation about affirmative action, including the role of race in admissions (31:55) and whether some groups are especially disadvantaged by race-conscious admissions (33:52). We also discuss meritocracy and the factors that might impact a students’ ability to meet more narrow definitions of merit (42:45), equity and fairness within the admissions process (49:30) and how to foster racial diversity, belonging, and inclusiveness on campus (53:10).


Dr. Park wrote about this at Inside Higher Ed
According to an expert report filed in the case on the side of Harvard by David Card of the University of California, Berkeley, the admit rate for the Classes of 2014-2019 was 5.15 percent for Asian Americans and 4.91 percent for white applicants who are not recruited athletes, legacies, on a special dean’s list or children of faculty/staff members. It is problematic that white people are more likely to fall into these special categories, but that’s a different issue than eliminating the ability to consider race as one of many, many factors, which is the goal of the lawsuit.

And here is a review from research gate
In chapter 1, Park situates this book within the existent literature on structural diversity, organizational culture, and cross-racial interactions while presenting a conceptual framework illustrating their relationship. Park begins chapter 2 by addressing how IVCF underwent change by moving toward an organizational culture emphasizing racial diversity and crossracial interaction. She identifies two external forces that were at play, which included the historical roots of IVCF through the national IVCF organization and the changing racial demographics at the campus. In addition, Park distinguishes three internal factors including the unique needs of students of color, a decision to take risks by the IVCF leadership, and the integration of racial reconciliation as a core value. Then, she describes how the organization incorporated these influences into their operation and how IVCF acted upon these forces to begin the process of reimagining its own culture around race. This is a pertinent example of Schein’s (2010) model of organizational culture and creating a total cultural shift. The specific issue of addressing underlying assumptions makes up the majority of the book, with chapters focusing on specific elements of this process: building congruence between race and faith in chapter 3, the possibilities and perils of interracial friendship in chapter 4, shifting strategies in chapter 5, losing diversity within the group in chapter 6, when an Asian American minority becomes the majority in chapter 7, and realigning values, structures, and practice over time in chapter 8.

Wednesday, November 7, 2018

Race around the world

Please take out your handout for race.

If "race" is not biological then it is a social construction.  There is no way to biologically, physically or scientifically group humans into distinct racial groups.  If there was, then racial groups would be the same all over the world.  They would fit into the scientific classification system such as kingdom, order, phyllum etc...  But instead each culture has its own racial types.

Look at how different these racial categories are in Japan, Mexico and Brazil:







What are some physical features people in the U.S. use to define race?







Race in Japan:
When I was in Japan, I asked some Japanese friends what races were in Japan and they said "nihon-jin and gai-jin," Which means "Japanese people and foreign people.  In other words, the Japanese think that there are Japanese people in the world and then there is everyone else.  And then I pressed him further and I said, " But aren't there different groups within Japanese culture?"
My friend finally said, " Ahh yes... there were ancient Japanese who settled the islands from the north and there were ancient Japanese who settled the islands from the south, and you know how to tell who came from where?  Earwax." That's right, earwax! He explained that some Japanese have dry flaky earwax and others have wet greasy earwax.  That determines where your ancestors came from and a different biological group that you are a part of- essentially a different race.  But that makes no sense to us because in the US we never think of earwax as part of race.



Think about how the history of a country affects how that country perceives race.
Race in Mexico:

Here are racial groups in Mexico:
  1. Mestizo: Spanish father and Indian mother
  2. Castizo: Spanish father and Mestizo mother
  3. Espomolo: Spanish mother and Castizo father
  4. Mulatto: Spanish and black African
  5. Moor: Spanish and Mulatto
  6. Albino: Spanish father and Moor mother
  7. Throwback: Spanish father and Albino mother
  8. Wolf: Throwback father and Indian mother
  9. Zambiago: Wolf father and Indian mother
  10. Cambujo: Zambiago father and Indian mother
  11. Alvarazado: Cambujo father and Mulatto mother
  12. Borquino: Alvarazado father and Mulatto mother
  13. Coyote: Borquino father and Mulatto mother
  14. Chamizo: Coyote father and Mulatto mother
  15. Coyote-Mestizo: Cahmizo father and Mestizo mother
  16. Ahi Tan Estas: Coyote-Mestizo father and Mulatto mother






Take  one second and quickly answer the following question:
What color is your skin?







Race in Brazil:
In Brazil, In 1976, the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) conducted a study to ask people to identify their own skin color.  Here are the 134 terms, listed in alphabetical order:
    Acastanhada (cashewlike tint; caramel colored)
    Agalegada
    Alva (pure white)
    Alva-escura (dark or off-white)
    Alverenta (or aliviero, "shadow in the water")
    Alvarinta (tinted or bleached white)
    Alva-rosada (or jamote, roseate, white with pink highlights)
    Alvinha (bleached; white-washed)
    Amarela (yellow)
    Amarelada (yellowish)
    Amarela-quemada (burnt yellow or ochre)
    Amarelosa (yellowed)
    Amorenada (tannish)
    Avermelhada (reddish, with blood vessels showing through the skin)
    Azul (bluish)
    Azul-marinho (deep bluish)
    Baiano (ebony)
    Bem-branca (very white)
    Bem-clara (translucent)
    Bem-morena (very dusky)
    Branca (white)
    Branca-avermelhada (peach white)
    Branca-melada (honey toned)
    Branca-morena (darkish white)
    Branca-p�lida (pallid)
    Branca-queimada (sunburned white)
    Branca-sardenta (white with brown spots)
    Branca-suja (dirty white)
    Branqui�a (a white variation)
    Branquinha (whitish)
    Bronze (bronze)
    Bronzeada (bronzed tan)
    Bugrezinha-escura (Indian characteristics)
    Burro-quanto-foge ("burro running away," implying racial mixture of unknown origin)
    Cabocla (mixture of white, Negro and Indian)
    Cabo-Verde (black; Cape Verdean)
    Caf� (coffee)
    Caf�-com-leite (coffee with milk)
    Canela (cinnamon)
    Canelada (tawny)
    Cast�o (thistle colored)
    Castanha (cashew)
    Castanha-clara (clear, cashewlike)
    Castanha-escura (dark, cashewlike)
    Chocolate (chocolate brown)
    Clara (light)
    Clarinha (very light)
    Cobre (copper hued)
    Corado (ruddy)
    Cor-de-caf� (tint of coffee)
    Cor-de-canela (tint of cinnamon)
    Cor-de-cuia (tea colored)
    Cor-de-leite (milky)
    Cor-de-oro (golden)
    Cor-de-rosa (pink)
    Cor-firma ("no doubt about it")
    Crioula (little servant or slave; African)
    Encerada (waxy)
    Enxofrada (pallid yellow; jaundiced)
    Esbranquecimento (mostly white)
    Escura (dark)
    Escurinha (semidark)
    Fogoio (florid; flushed)
    Galega (see agalegada above)
    Galegada (see agalegada above)
    Jambo (like a fruit the deep-red color of a blood orange)
    Laranja (orange)
    Lil�s (lily)
    Loira (blond hair and white skin)
    Loira-clara (pale blond)
    Loura (blond)
    Lourinha (flaxen)
    Malaia (from Malabar)
    Marinheira (dark greyish)
    Marrom (brown)
    Meio-amerela (mid-yellow)
    Meio-branca (mid-white)
    Meio-morena (mid-tan)
    Meio-preta (mid-Negro)
    Melada (honey colored)
    Mesti�a (mixture of white and Indian)
    Miscigena��o (mixed --- literally "miscegenated")
    Mista (mixed)
    Morena (tan)
    Morena-bem-chegada (very tan)
    Morena-bronzeada (bronzed tan)
    Morena-canelada (cinnamonlike brunette)
    Morena-castanha (cashewlike tan)
    Morena clara (light tan)
    Morena-cor-de-canela (cinnamon-hued brunette)
    Morena-jambo (dark red)
    Morenada (mocha)
    Morena-escura (dark tan)
    Morena-fechada (very dark, almost mulatta)
    Moren�o (very dusky tan)
    Morena-parda (brown-hued tan)
    Morena-roxa (purplish-tan)
    Morena-ruiva (reddish-tan)
    Morena-trigueira (wheat colored)
    Moreninha (toffeelike)
    Mulatta (mixture of white and Negro)
    Mulatinha (lighter-skinned white-Negro)
    Negra (negro)
    Negrota (Negro with a corpulent vody)
    P�lida (pale)
    Para�ba (like the color of marupa wood)
    Parda (dark brown)
    Parda-clara (lighter-skinned person of mixed race)
    Polaca (Polish features; prostitute)
    Pouco-clara (not very clear)
    Pouco-morena (dusky)
    Preta (black)
    Pretinha (black of a lighter hue)
    Puxa-para-branca (more like a white than a mulatta)
    Quase-negra (almost Negro)
    Queimada (burnt)
    Queimada-de-praia (suntanned)
    Queimada-de-sol (sunburned)
    Regular (regular; nondescript)
    Retinta ("layered" dark skin)
    Rosa (roseate)
    Rosada (high pink)
    Rosa-queimada (burnished rose)
    Roxa (purplish)
    Ruiva (strawberry blond)
    Russo (Russian; see also polaca)
    Sapecada (burnished red)
    Sarar� (mulatta with reddish kinky hair, aquiline nose)
    Sara�ba (or saraiva: like a white meringue)
    Tostada (toasted)
    Trigueira (wheat colored)
    Turva (opaque)
    Verde (greenish)
    Vermelha (reddish)

      Can a plane ride change your race?

      Looking at the distinctions in Japan, Mexico and Brazil might not make sense to us because we view race so differently.  However, all of this is evidence that race is a social construction.   Read the passage below and then answer the questions after.


      4.  Answer individually:   Did the girl’s race change?  Why or why not?

       5.  As a group discuss, each student share his/her answer to this question.  Change or add to your thoughts above as needed.  Then as a group decide on one answer: Yes or NO?


      Here is a link to different censuses around the world.


      Click on the link and then note in your packet which race you would be in the other countries around the world.
      When you are finished, which countries were you a different race than how you identify yourself in the U.S.?