NC’s ‘alarming’ disparity of black student arrests among worst in country

Leave a comment

In North Carolina, black students are nearly six times more likely to be arrested at school and school activities than white students, according to recently released federal data analyzed by WRAL News. That disparity is among the worst in the country.

Law enforcement arrested more than 600 North Carolina students on public school grounds, during off-campus school activities or on school transportation during the 2015-16 school year, according to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Education.

In North Carolina, 9.2 out of every 10,000 black students were arrested, compared to 1.6 white students. Only three other states – West Virginia, Iowa and Rhode Island – had a higher disparity between the arrest rates of black and white students.

About 147 out of every 1,000 black students were suspended from North Carolina schools in 2015-16. That’s compared to about 44 white students out of every 1,000.

More from WRAL.com
Posted by Libergirl
Advertisements

Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race For years, racism has been defined by the violence of far-right extremists, but a more insidious kind of prejudice can be found where many least expect it – at the heart of respectable society

Leave a comment

Illustration: Ben the Illustrator
Pinterest

Illustration: Ben the Illustrator

On 22 February 2014, I published a post on my blog. I titled it “Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People about Race”. It read: “I’m no longer engaging with white people on the topic of race. Not all white people, just the vast majority who refuse to accept the existence of structural racism and its symptoms. I can no longer engage with the gulf of an emotional disconnect that white people display when a person of colour articulates their experience. You can see their eyes shut down and harden. It’s like treacle is poured into their ears, blocking up their ear canals. It’s like they can no longer hear us.
“This emotional disconnect is the conclusion of living a life oblivious to the fact that their skin colour is the norm and all others deviate from it.
“At best, white people have been taught not to mention that people of colour are “different” in case it offends us. They truly believe that the experiences of their life as a result of their skin colour can and should be universal. I just can’t engage with the bewilderment and the defensiveness as they try to grapple with the fact that not everyone experiences the world in the way that they do.

‘Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race’ – podcast

“They’ve never had to think about what it means, in power terms, to be white, so any time they’re vaguely reminded of this fact, they interpret it as an affront. Their eyes glaze over in boredom or widen in indignation. Their mouths start twitching as they get defensive. Their throats open up as they try to interrupt, itching to talk over you but not to really listen, because they need to let you know that you’ve got it wrong.
“The journey towards understanding structural racism still requires people of colour to prioritise white feelings. Even if they can hear you, they’re not really listening. It’s like something happens to the words as they leave our mouths and reach their ears. The words hit a barrier of denial and they don’t get any further.

“That’s the emotional disconnect. It’s not really surprising, because they’ve never known what it means to embrace a person of colour as a true equal, with thoughts and feelings that are as valid as their own. Watching [the documentary] The Color of Fear by Lee Mun Wah, I saw people of colour break down in tears as they struggled to convince a defiant white man that his words were enforcing and perpetuating a white racist standard on them. All the while he stared obliviously, completely confused by this pain, at best trivialising it, at worst ridiculing it.
“I’ve written before about this white denial being the ubiquitous politics of race that operates on its inherent invisibility. So I can’t talk to white people about race any more because of the consequent denials, awkward cartwheels and mental acrobatics that they display when this is brought to their attention. Who really wants to be alerted to a structural system that benefits them at the expense of others?
“I can no longer have this conversation, because we’re often coming at it from completely different places. I can’t have a conversation with them about the details of a problem if they don’t even recognise that the problem exists. Worse still is the white person who might be willing to entertain the possibility of said racism, but who thinks we enter this conversation as equals. We don’t.

Lose yourself in a great story: Sign up for the long read email
Read more

“Not to mention that entering into conversation with defiant white people is a frankly dangerous task for me. As the hackles rise and the defiance grows, I have to tread incredibly carefully, because if I express frustration, anger or exasperation at their refusal to understand, they will tap into their presubscribed racist tropes about angry black people who are a threat to them and their safety. It’s very likely that they’ll then paint me as a bully or an abuser. It’s also likely that their white friends will rally round them, rewrite history and make lies the truth. Trying to engage with them and navigate their racism is not worth that.
Advertisement

Sponsored by WGU
Top 5 Nursing Jobs
These nursing jobs pay six figures. What do you need to land one?
“Amid every conversation about Nice White People feeling silenced by conversations about race, there is a sort of ironic and glaring lack of understanding or empathy for those of us who have been visibly marked out as different for our entire lives, and live the consequences. It’s truly a lifetime of self-censorship that people of colour have to live. The options are: speak your truth and face the reprisals, or bite your tongue and get ahead in life. It must be a strange life, always having permission to speak and feeling indignant when you’re finally asked to listen. It stems from white people’s never-questioned entitlement, I suppose.
“I cannot continue to emotionally exhaust myself trying to get this message across, while also toeing a very precarious line that tries not to implicate any one white person in their role of perpetuating structural racism, lest they character-assassinate me.
“So I’m no longer talking to white people about race. I don’t have a huge amount of power to change the way the world works, but I can set boundaries. I can halt the entitlement they feel towards me and I’ll start that by stopping the conversation. The balance is too far swung in their favour. Their intent is often not to listen or learn, but to exert their power, to prove me wrong, to emotionally drain me, and to rebalance the status quo. I’m not talking to white people about race unless I absolutely have to. If there’s something like a media or conference appearance that means that someone might hear what I’m saying and feel less alone, then I’ll participate. But I’m no longer dealing with people who don’t want to hear it, wish to ridicule it and, frankly, don’t deserve it.”
After I pressed publish, the blogpost took on a life of its own. Years later, I still meet new people, in different countries and different situations, who tell me that they have read it. In 2014, as the post was being linked to all over the internet, I braced myself for the usual slew of racist comments. But the response was so markedly different that it surprised me.

Rest of the story by Reni Eddo-Lodge/theguardian

Posted by The NON-Conformist

Every Culture Appropriates The question is less whether a dress or an idea is borrowed, than the uses to which it’s then put.

Leave a comment

A woman walks with her two daughters at a busy street in downtown Shanghai July 11, 2013.

Meet the Death Metal Cowboys of Botswana. In black leather decorated with metal studs, they play a pounding style of music that people who know more than me trace to the British band “Venom” and its 1981 album Welcome to Hell. Question: Is this cultural appropriation? Why or why not?

The question is inspired by a spasm of social-media cruelty that caught wide attention last week. A young woman in Utah bought a Chinese-style dress to wear to her high school formal. She posted some photographs of herself on her personal Instagram page—and suddenly found herself the target of virulent online abuse.

For once, the story has a happy ending. Good sense and kindness prevailed, and instead of her prom being ruined, the young woman exited the dance buoyed by worldwide support and affirmation, most of all from within China.

Yet the idea persists that there is something wrong and oppressive about people of one background adopting and adapting the artifacts of another. Sadly often, these stories end as successful power plays enforced by local bullies.

At Oberlin in 2015, a Vietnamese American student shamed the dining hall into ceasing to serve its version of Banh Mi sandwiches.

Instead of a crispy baguette with grilled pork, pate, pickled vegetables and fresh herbs, the sandwich used ciabatta bread, pulled pork and coleslaw. “It was ridiculous …. How could they just throw out something completely different and label it as another country’s traditional food?”

The references to “baguette” and “pâté” in a food product of a former French colony might have tipped off the angry Oberlin student that the banh mi is not quite as traditional a Vietnamese food as she imagined. When this exotic remake of a classic pate en baguette was first sold in the streets of Hanoi, the vendors called it “banh tay”: literally “Western-style bread.”

By David Frum/TheAtlantic full article

Posted by The NON-Conformist

 

Wisconsin is the GOP model for ‘welfare reform.’ But as work requirements grow, so does one family’s desperation.

Leave a comment

The Trump administration is using Wisconsin as a model, but hopeful statistics belie the continuing struggles of low-income families trying to meet increasing standards for public assistance.

Image: Washington Post

The shock absorbers in James Howlett’s Ford Fusion were busted, but he and his partner, Nadine, packed their two children inside anyway. They were already homeless, and their time on food stamps was running out. They needed to fix the car and dig up documents to try to get back on welfare.

The suburban homeless shelter where they slept the night before was now in the distance as they made their way through the familiar blight of the city neighborhood that was once home. Howlett dropped Kayden, 5, at kindergarten and Cali, 3, at day care in a community center that stood amid the boarded-up houses and vacant fields surrounded by barbed wire that dot Milwaukee’s north side.

That’s when he found himself gripped by a new worry: His run-down Ford might be another barrier to government assistance.

More from The Washington Post

Posted by Libergirl

What’s the Difference Between a Frat and a Gang? They’re both blamed for predisposing their members to violent acts, but they’ve sparked radically different public-policy responses.

Leave a comment

When I thought about locking up with a crew in 1996, I wanted to see a full initiation first, not parts I stumbled upon over the years. My friend Cliff and I arrived at a park not close from my home in Jamaica, Queens. Leaves danced with the wind around our feet, wafting an eerie feeling in my 14-year-old black body. The grounds of the initiation beckoned: a high-rise chain link fence, enclosing two basketball courts.

Through the daylighted chain, I watched scowls and punches and stomps engulf the uninitiated teen—a stoppage, then an awkward transition into hugs, handshakes, and smiles. The striking contrast shot at my core of authenticity, the insincerity of the punch-hug, of the stomp-smile, murdering my thoughts of joining a crew.

The same feeling shot within me five years later in 2001 when I thought about joining a college fraternity. The rumors of beatings and sexual assaults overwhelmed me like the worn-down bodies of pledges inching around campus unclothed in hazing. The before contrasted vividly again with the after: the excitable energy of the sparkling new brothers when they came out each year to the deafening cheers of their potential victims, especially in sororities. At these campus spectacles, my mind became a split screen of the past and the present.

My timeworn mind remains a split screen, seeing the fraternity from the same vantage point I see the gang. An abnormal view, I know. But from abnormal views, we discover.

The fraternity may be as violent as the gang. Collegiate America may be as dangerous for women as urban America. If sexual violence is a violent crime, then the fraternity of today may be committing as many violent crimes as the gang of the 1990s that spooked fearful Americans into tough-on-crime policies. The fraternity may be as frequently violent as the “savage gang MS-13,” as President Donald Trump called it in his State of the Union Address in January to spook fearful Americans into tough immigration policies. But Americans stereotype the gang and fraternity differently and treat them differently and rationalize their violence differently and police them differently. What if Americans looked at them similarly? What if Americans treated them similarly? What if Americans treated their victims similarly?

That is not to suggest that Americans should treat fraternities the same way they treat gangs right now any more than they should treat gangs the way they treat fraternities right now. But if experts on gang violence and sexual violence came together to extract the most effective policies and ideas from both, what lessons would they learn? Perhaps they would extract from the approach to the gang: the intense political will, the recognition of the crisis, the billions in public resources, the aggressiveness of investigators, the absolute refusal to blame the victims of violence, the centering of the victim. Perhaps they would extract from the approach to the fraternity: efforts focused on prevention and education, empathy for the accused, factoring in substance abuse, recognizing the causal complexity of human violence.

A call to bring together these experts may sound as outrageous as a call to conceptually bring together the gang and the fraternity. And yet, these calls are tuned by data and logic.

Five offenses are considered violent crimes in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report Program: murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. But forcible rape is not the totality of sexual violence, according to the Center for Disease Control’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and the Division of Violence Prevention. Sexual violence includes “unwanted sexual contact”; “non-contact unwanted sexual experiences”; “alcohol/drug-facilitated penetration of a victim”; and “non-physically forced penetration which occurs after a person is pressured verbally or through intimidation or misuse of authority to consent or acquiesce.”

Fraternity men are not responsible for all, or probably not even most, of the sexual violence on college campuses these days. But the same was true of gangs and urban violence in the 1990s. Violent crimes in which the urban victim identified the offender as a gang member peaked in 1996 at 10 percent of all violent crimes, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Still, gang culture has been linked to the violence problem. Gang members were found in one study to commit three times as many serious and violent offenses as non-gang youth. It is reasonable to conclude that gangs turned teens into people more likely to commit violent crimes.

Fraternity culture has been linked to the problem of sexual assault on college campuses, to recite a recent headline almost word for word. Three different studies found that frat men are three times more likely to rape than non-frat men. “It is reasonable to conclude that fraternities turn men into guys more likely to rape,” wrote the author of one of those studies.

In 1993, for every 1,000 urban residents, 74, or 7.4 percent, reported being victims of violent crime, a percentage that declined thereafter, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. In 2016, for every 1,000 urban residents age 12 or older, 29.9, or 2.9 percent reported being victims of violent crimes, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. In contrast, 16.9 percent of female freshmen reported being victims of non-consensual sexual contact by force and incapacitation during the 2014-15 academic year, according to a recent national survey of 27 universities. (Over the course of their collegiate life, 27.2 percent of senior women reported being victims of inappropriate sexual contact. Six of out 10 females, as well as gays and lesbians, reported “non-contact unwanted sexual experiences,” one of the CDC’s categories of sexual violence.)

A female freshman in college today may be more than two times more likely to be a victim of sexually violent contact than an urbanite was likely to be a victim of a violent crime in the mid-1990s. And, given the decline of violent crime in the intervening years, she may be more than five times more likely to face sexual violence on her campus than an urbanite is to face violence in her community. When “non-contact unwanted sexual experiences” are included, these disparities may be even larger.

Those numbers may be imprecise, or misleading. They may underestimate urban violence (and do not account for forms of “non-contact” urban violence). Sexual violence of all kinds is rampant off campuses, including in urban communities. And this comparison relies on the inexact science of self-reporting. I have been a victim of violent crimes, but never reported them to the police. More than half of the violent crimes from 2006 to 2010 went unreported to law enforcement, according to a report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and RTI International. But underreporting may be even worse when it comes to sexual violence on college campuses. One 2000 study from the U.S. Department of Justice found that more than 95 percent of collegiate victims of completed or attempted rapes—let alone other forms of sexual violence—did not report the assaults.

No one really knows how often violence occurs in urban communities, or how often sexual violence occurs on (or off) college campuses. But I do know the perception of danger could not be more different. I do know societal perceptions and reactions to gangs and fraternities could not be more different.

Consider this series of contrasts: toughness toward savage gang boys versus softness toward immature frat men. Worries about destroying the lives of drunk 20-year-olds accused of violence versus hardly caring about destroying the lives of high 16-year-olds accused of violence. Attacking gangs wielding the faces of their victims versus attacking and defacing the victims of fraternities. Defending death sentences for violent gang boys versus defending the life of privileged denial for violent frat men.

This double standard is both racist and elitist. After all, the stereotypical gang boy is poor and non-white. The stereotypical frat man is elite and white. And the double standard is sexist, as well. A blinding toxicity of masculinity prevents some Americans from truly caring about the typical victim of sexual assault on college campuses in the way they care about the victim of urban violence. Then again, how many Americans really care about those mourning Latino parents of an MS-13 victim that Trump invited to his State of the Union Address? Or about urban Black teens like ‘90s me who were jumped or killed by gangs? And how many want to lock up, deport, or segregate as many of us as possible so we won’t harm them? Do most Americans think there is something wrong with the poor black gang boy and his non-white family, culture, community, and country that is not wrong with the family, culture, community, and country that produces the elite white frat man?

Gang boys are commonly cast as humanity’s problem; youth of color are demonized as super-predators. But frat boys apparently make stupid mistakes as all humans do; none of them, apparently, are super-preying on women.

This is not an attack on all American male gangs or fraternities, especially those healthy brothers and brotherhoods living in the shadows of the toxicity plaguing communities and campuses. It is an attack on Americans’ wildly disparate perceptions of, and policies towards, gangs and fraternities.

Three out of four major police departments already had new gang intelligence units (GIUs) by 1993. “Gangs and drugs have taken over our streets,” President Bill Clinton said as he signed the multi-billion dollar Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, the largest crime bill in American history, the next year.

Fraternities and sexual violence have taken over our colleges. And yet, has Congress ever seriously considered steering billions to thwart sexual violence, to clean up the toxic masculinity poisoning fraternities and campus life?

The task of addressing campus sexual violence has fallen primarily to colleges. But some colleges have been as reluctant to expose and subdue the sexual violence in their jurisdictions as police departments have been to expose and stamp out the police violence in their jurisdictions.

Hazing and discriminatory membership policies have prompted politicians and institutions like Florida State University and Harvard University to punish fraternities in recent years—not the preponderance of evidence of sexual violence. The Obama administration tried to push and prop up reluctant colleges. In 2011, the Office for Civil Rights urged campus officials to respond more promptly to reports of sexual violence, and use a less-rigorous standard for determining whether a sexual assault occurred.

But neither Democrats nor Republicans appear willing to declare political war on those sexually violent frat men in the way both declared political war on those violent gang boys in the 1990s, in the way Trumpian Republicans have declared political war on gangs today. “We cannot afford to be complacent in the face of violence that threatens too many of our communities,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions on October 5 as he revived the war on gang violence. This resuscitation came two weeks after Education Secretary Betsy DeVos terminated the Obama-era fight against campus sexual violence. She revoked the more aggressive Obama-era guidelines for cracking down on campus sexual assault, claiming the federal overreach puts an undue burden on accused students to defend themselves. “The process … must be fair and impartial,” DeVos said.

DeVos appears more concerned with the rights of privileged men accused of sexual assaults than underprivileged boys in gangs being mass surveilled, suspected, and incarcerated. Sessions is federally overreaching on gang violence—not to mention on sanctuary cities and drugs—while DeVos is retracting the feds from deterring campus sexual violence. And they both work for a rich white man who relentlessly attacks gang violence, while relentlessly denying the accusations of sexual violence put forth by 22 women. Trump embodies the double standard and its multiple veins of bigotry.

Older frat men receive childlike compassion, teaching, and parental care away from home, while younger on average gang boys receive shame, charges as adults, and prisons away from home. Fraternities, surrounded by recruiters and breeders of politicians, aid their sexually violent members into jobs and wealth. Gangs, hounded by cops and highlighted by politicians, aid their violent members into penitentiaries and poverty.

Both models are failing in opposite directions to suppress the violence. Too punitive towards gangs. Too indulgent of frats. What about a new model that discards incarceration and indulgence as solvents? What about the split screen becoming one screen?

Instead America is stuck at the intersection of racism, sexism, and elitism as gangs and fraternities batter American bodies. How Americans carry on treating the violent and impoverished 16-year-old Latino gang member versus how Americans carry on treating the violent and affluent 21-year-old white fraternity brother—the split screen—should show us all about the self-destructive essence of American bigotry.

By Ibram X. Kendi/TheAtlantic

Posted by The NON-Conformist

Conservatives Want to Do Away with Affirmative Action and They’re Using Asian-Americans to Make It Happen

Leave a comment

Back in 2014, a federal lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts on behalf of a group of Asian-Americans charging Harvard University’s undergraduate-admissions process with discriminating against Asians. The lawsuit claimed the elite university holds Asians to a higher standard than other applicants, employing a de facto quota in its admission decisions on Asian students who, despite having superior SAT scores, were disproportionately denied acceptance. Although the percentage of Asians in the U.S. population has more than doubled over the past three decades, and despite that the majority of students accepted into Harvard’s 2017 freshman class were nonwhite, the average percentage of Asian students in the school’s freshman classes has mostly hovered around 18 percent.

“Harvard’s undergraduate admissions policies and procedures have injured and continue to injure Plaintiff’s members by intentionally and improperly discriminating against them on the basis of their race and ethnicity,” read the suit.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently breathed new life into these allegations against Harvard by launching an investigation into the school’s admissions practices, a step that could lead to a DOJ suit against the university. Given the current conservative political environment, such a move would likely have a detrimental effect across the country on schools with affirmative action programs.

“Whenever these things come up for consideration, the tendency is for schools to actually move toward a more safe and conservative perspective,” said Hilary O. Shelton, director of the NAACP’s Washington bureau and senior vice president for advocacy and policy. “Instead of working more assertively to address the disparities in African-American participation in colleges and universities, they have a tendency to cut down on all of that.”

After citing numerous court cases, including the landmark Grutter v. Bollinger and the substantial evidence continuing to justify the need for affirmative action, Shelton clarified the relevant high court decisions “all agree that there is racial disparity and discrimination in college admissions and that much more needs to be done to address this issue.”

This acknowledged the dynamics at play go beyond black and white. Because of admissions disparities for Asian-Americans at elite institutions like Harvard, affirmative action policies designed to remedy systemic racism are being targeted by both white conservatives and a group of Asian-Americans formed around the initial suit to highlight the alleged “penalties” of such race-conscious policies. For the conservatives, the chance to expand their longstanding attack on such policies is a can’t-miss opportunity. For Asian-Americans — be they liberal or conservative, supporters of the suit or critics — it does, at least, raise a significant question over how a policy approach partially designed to help nonwhite individuals might be harming them.

It has been argued that the apparent strengths and superior test scores of Asian candidates are commonly diminished by an undue focus on cultural or nonacademic factors. Consistently, the 2014 complaint cited a Harvard admissions official who wrote that an applicant’s “scores and application seem so typical of other Asian applications I’ve read: extraordinarily gifted in math with the opposite extreme in English.” It also referenced a director of college counseling from a Massachusetts high school who noted how admissions officers at elite universities regularly lament how Asian-American applicants all “look the same” on paper. “When Harvard calls us back and gives us a brief synopsis of why certain [Asian] kids didn’t make it, they’ll say, ‘There were so many kids in the pool that looked just like this kid.”
In an August 2017 editorial for the New Yorker, Harvard Law School professor Jeannie Suk Gersen touted the substance of the litigation regardless of how “uncomfortable” it might be for progressives, in particular, to acknowledge how a program designed to help marginalized peoples could hurt other nonwhite groups. Still, Gersen pointed out it would be a “serious error” to assume that “in order to stop discrimination against Asian applicants, race-conscious affirmative action must end.” To the contrary, she stressed that “continued use of affirmative action of the kind upheld by the Supreme Court is perfectly compatible with tackling the discrimination at issue. The problem is not race-conscious holistic review; rather, it is the added, sub-rosa deployment of racial balancing in a manner that keeps the number of Asians so artificially low relative to whites who are less strong on academic measures.”
Therefore, reasoned Gersen, a race-conscious affirmative action is needed to “address the historic discrimination and underrepresentation of blacks and Latinos, in combination with far less severity in the favoring of whites relative to Asians.” In other words, keep the current and justifiable preferences for Black students and Latinos while eliminating the penalty for Asian-Americans.

While stressing the “most effective affirmative action and equal opportunity programs” are those that include the consideration of a diversity of factors alongside race, Shelton acknowledged “it is unfair to try to term Asian-Americans as those who should not receive an opportunity to go to colleges or universities, or should somehow be tempered in their acceptance.” That, he added, “would simply be unfair as well.”

Some take it further, contending the impetus behind the suit is far more about politics than any alleged penalties or quotas. “The issue hiding in plain sight is not how the elite admissions system keeps Asians out,” recently wrote Marie Myung-Ok Lee, for NBC’s online news platform Think. The Columbia University writing teacher insisted “it is more about how it is largely rigged to keep white students — who are often staggeringly underqualified — in, by any means necessary.”

Lee pointed to the thinly veiled right-wing orchestration of the Harvard suit by Houston-based conservative strategist Edward Blum and his nonprofit Students for Fair Admissions. Blum’s organization has filed multiple lawsuits in the past decade challenging affirmative action policies, including the Harvard suit and another against the U.S. Department of Education. Lee took issue with the group’s recruiting tactics, which commonly feature a disillusioned Asian student wondering if her admissions denial was based on race, before noting that even if Harvard is found guilty of denying admission to Asian students based on racial quotas, “reparative increases of Asian American admissions would need to come from subtracting the spots from underqualified whites, not from supposed affirmative action candidates.” This is only logical, implied Lee, given the large numbers of white athletes and rich alumni children with substandard academic and SAT credentials who commonly enjoy admissions advantages in elite schools across the country.

Harvard’s deployment of possible quotas needs to be dealt with, concluded Lee, “but not via false allies who exploit legitimate grievances to maintain white mediocrity at the expense of qualified blacks, Latinos, Native Americans and, yes, Asian-Americans.” 

By D. Amari Jackson/AtlantaBlackStar

Posted by The NON-Conformist

Study Shows Trump Voters Were Motivated by Fear of Losing Privileged Status—Not Economic Anxiety This wasn’t about the stagnant wages.

Leave a comment

Much has been made about Trump’s support from the “forgotten men and women” who elected him to throw a “flash-bang grenade” at the elites in Washington. Usually, this framed as an issue concerning “economic anxiety,” and the fact that middle-class white Americans are less prosperous than they were in past generations.

But a new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that this narrative is flawed. Trump supporters aren’t angry about off-shoring, they’re resentful about their possible loss of status.

“It’s much more of a symbolic threat that people feel,” study author Diana C. Mutz from the University of Pennsylvania, told the New York Times. “It’s not a threat to their own economic well-being; it’s a threat to their group’s dominance in our country over all.”

Mutz’s research casts doubts on the economic anxiety explanation, which researchers call the “left behind” theory. People who lost jobs or came from cities where off-shoring ravaged the local economy weren’t more likely to support trump than people who didn’t.

“It wasn’t people in those areas that were switching, those folks were already voting Republican,” Mutz said.

The actual correlation she uncovered involved a “social dominance orientation,” which measures whether people see hierarchy as a good and natural way to organize society. White people who had that view gravitated towards Trump.

“It used to be a pretty good deal to be a white, Christian male in America, but things have changed and I think they do feel threatened,” Mutz said.

Read the study here or the Times story here.

By Martin Cizmar / Raw Story

Posted by The NON-Conformist

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: