Edge.sagepub.com



CHAPTER 1

Birthright Citizenship: Who should be an American?

OVERVIEW

The United States is one of two advanced industrial nations (the other is Canada) to automatically confer citizenship on any baby born within its boundaries, including babies born to undocumented immigrants. In other words, any baby born on American soil is automatically a citizen of the United States, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.

This policy is based on the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, passed shortly after the Civil War, which says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The amendment was intended to guarantee the citizenship rights of ex-slaves. The qualification that these citizens must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States excluded American Indians (who were seen, at the time, as being subject to the jurisdiction of their tribes and were not granted citizenship rights until the 1920s) and the children of foreign diplomats and visitors from other nations.

Birthright citizenship is one of the many issues that split public opinion and generate the emotional debates that emerge whenever immigration is discussed. Is this too broad a definition? Does this policy make sense? What are the costs of maintaining it? Do undocumented immigrants take advantage of this inclusive definition? What message would be sent by repealing it? What are people really saying when they speak about issues like this?

Two points of view are presented on these questions. Once you have examined the points of view, turn to the “Debate Questions to Consider” and respond to the issues raised. Your instructor may request that you respond to these questions individually or as part of a group or class discussion.

POINTS OF VIEW

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)

FAIR is a lobbying group that works to change national immigration policy and reduce level of immigration. FAIR argues that the policy of birthright citizenship creates a drain on U.S. taxpayers and that the babies of unauthorized immigrants add unjustly to an already heavy tax burden.

To access this selection:

• Go to

• Type “birthright citizenship” in the Search box in the upper-right-hand-window of their home page and click the arrow to the right of the box.

• Click “Birthright Citizenship (2010)” in the list.

• While reading the article, pay special attention to their main points, the data cited, and the summary “What does this mean?”

The Migration Policy Institute (MPI)

MPI, an “independent, nonpartisan nonprofit think tank dedicated to the study of the movement of people worldwide,” sponsored a study to examine some of the consequences of ending the practice of automatic citizenship. The authors of the study argue that repeal would create a large, permanent class of marginalized people, aliens to both the United States and to the native country of their ancestors. In effect, this group would be stateless, without full citizenship rights, and easily exploited.

To access this selection:

• Go to

• Type “birthright citizenship” in the Search box in the upper-right-hand-window of their home page and click the “Search” button.

• Find and click “The Demographic Impacts of Repealing Birthright Citizenship” in the list of sources that appear and then click “Download Brief” to access the article

• Read the Summary of the article and take special note of sections I and II and the Conclusion (Section VI). Read enough of the rest of the article so that you have a feel for the nature and content of the argument being presented. Pay special attention to the data they present

OPTIONAL: Conduct your own Internet search for information and sources on birthright citizenship. Avoid obviously partisan arguments and look especially for scholarly articles written by sociologists and other social scientists, perhaps using search engines such as Proquest or Google Scholar. Review and evaluate these sources. What information and perspectives do they add to the debate? What kinds of empirical evidence do they use to support their arguments?

DEBATE QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

1. Chapter 1 opened with some questions about what it means to be an American. How does the debate over birthright citizenship relate to this larger issue? How would each of the Americans introduced in “Some American Stories” react to this debate? Can you predict their positions? How? Is there a way of assessing the arguments that might go beyond mere partisanship? Both articles cite facts and evidence. Which are most convincing? Why?

2. Can you relate these articles to some of the concepts introduced in this chapter? For example, where and how are these concepts used: inequality, power, prejudice, and racism? How does gender shape this debate? Would changing policy on birthright citizenship affect men and women equally? Why or why not? Can you think of some ways in which this debate has different implications for men and women?

3. The articles for this exercise were located by searching the Internet. What are some of the dangers of doing “research” this way? How can you protect yourself against these threats? What would you want to know about these authors and their respective organizations as you assess their ideas? How could you find out?

4. Finally, after reading this chapter and considering these opinions, what are your views on the issue of birthright citizenship? Were you aware of the issue before reading these materials? Had you formed an opinion? If so, has your opinion changed? Why or why not? If the issue is new for you, what are your reactions? Either way, what else would you like to know about the issue? What questions occur to you? How could you answer them?

CHAPTER 2

English Only?

OVERVIEW

What role should English play in the process of adjusting to the United States? Should English language proficiency be a prerequisite for full inclusion in the society, as stated in the 1907 quotation from President Roosevelt at the beginning of Chapter 2? Should English be made the official language of the nation? This would mean that government business at all levels would be conducted only in English.

Some argue that “Official English” would avoid the expense and confusion of translating government documents and proceedings and would speed up assimilation, empowering newcomers to compete for jobs and position. Others argue that such policies are unnecessary, thinly veiled attempts to marginalize immigrants and continue their exclusion from the mainstream.

What are the arguments in this debate? How well reasoned and supported are the positions? Below are links to two diametrically opposed positions, both of which are stated with conviction and confidence and seem to be supported by evidence and research. You may find yourself agreeing with one side and then switching to the other point of view as you read through the material and think about the issues. Therefore, it is important that you evaluate the claims and counter-claims carefully and in the context of the material presented in this chapter. The “Debate Questions to Consider” will provide helpful guidelines for evaluation.

POINTS OF VIEW

U.S. English

U.S. English, Inc. is a “citizens action group dedicated to preserving the unifying role of the English Language in the United States.” The organization works to make English the official language of the U.S. and strongly opposes efforts to make Spanish an official second language

To access this selection:

• Go to

• Click The “Official English” tab at the top of the page and then click “Research and Statistics”

• Scroll down the page to the “Research and Statistics” heading and click on each of the following

o Questions and Answers about Official English (Pay particular attention to what they say about the practical results of making English the official language)

o Official English Claims and Realities (Note especially the responses to charges that “Official English” disparages or marginalizes immigrants)

o Facts and Figures (There is a lot of information here. Skim the list and note any facts that seem particularly important or cogent)

Institute for Language and Education Policy (ILEP)

This organization is headed by Dr. James Crawford and advocates “research-based policies in serving English and heritage language learners” and strongly opposes “Official English” which they see as an unnecessary assault on immigrants and minority groups. Dr. Crawford argues that the new immigrant groups are learning English rapidly – perhaps in two generations as opposed to the “traditional” three generation pace – and that it is non-English languages that are in danger of disappearing.

To access this selection:

• Go to

• Find “English Only” in the list on the left of the home page and click “FAQ”

• Scroll through the document, paying particular attention to the following issues:

o Is bilingualism a threat to unity? Wouldn’t a common language promote harmony?

o Were earlier immigrants more eager to assimilate than immigrants today?

o Are policies to restrict non-English languages racist? Are supporters of English Only racists?

o Do bilingual education and “total immersion” programs work? How can educational programs in other languages actually promote acculturation?

DEBATE QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

1. What assumptions are these authors making about the role of language in assimilation? What stage of Gordon’s model are they discussing? Do the authors believe that a group can adjust successfully to U.S. society without learning English?

2. What reaction might other groups (recent immigrants, African Americans, Native

Americans, white ethnics) have to making Spanish an official second language? What stakes would they have in this policy issue?

3. Can you identify some social class aspects of the issue of bilingualism and multilingualism? Which economic classes would benefit from an English-only policy? Which economic classes are hurt? How? Why?

4. The documents at the U.S. English web site argue that English is a global language and that non-English speakers are handicapped not only in the United States but also in the global economy. On the other hand, the documents at the ILEP website argue that proposals to make English an official language are unnecessary and insulting to immigrant groups. List the points made by each group side by side. Which argument seems more credible? What additional facts could clarify the debate? How could you collect such facts?

5. Would making Spanish an official second language threaten societal unity, as U.S. English argues? Is the “English-only” movement a disguise for prejudice and intolerance? What evidence from this chapter and from your own experience can you cite to support these contradictory statements? How could the underlying debate be resolved?

CHAPTER 3

Modern Racism on Television?

OVERVIEW

Traditionally, American racism has used biological inferiority as an explanation (and rationalization) for racial and ethnic inequality. A statement of this view might sound like this: “They (blacks, Hispanics, or other minorities) are poor and uneducated because they’re incapable of anything more.”

Today, according to theories of modern racism, culture has supplanted biology as an explanation (and rationalization) of group inequality, which is now attributed to weaker or inferior minority group values and norms. A statement of this view might sound like this: “They are poor and uneducated because they just don’t work hard enough” or “They have all those problems because they don’t have strong families.”

Modern racism blames the victims and places the burden for change on minority communities. The larger society is absolved of any responsibility, the dominant group is held harmless, and the history of exploitation and oppression are ignored. Modern racism continues the “othering” that began at the birth of U.S. society and perpetuates prejudice and stereotypical thinking, although in more subtle and indirect forms.

How common is modern racism today? To what extent are views of racial and ethnic inequality couched in the language of modern racism? What is the role of the media in shaping, reinforcing, and expressing modern racism?

In this installment of Current Debates, you will view two videos, one from Fox News and one from MSNBC. As you watch, keep in mind that these shows represent different ideological viewpoints. The commentators are editorializing, not reporting objectively or with due consideration to all sides of the arguments they raise. Your critical facilities should be on high alert as you view these presentations!

POINTS OF VIEW

Fox News

The first video clip is of commentator Bill O’Reilly of Fox News reacting to President Obama’s statements after George Zimmerman was acquitted for the shooting of Trayvon Martin.[1] O’Reilly argues that the President should not be dwelling on the past or phrasing racial issues in terms of black victimization and that Obama misunderstands the true problems that are plaguing the black community. He discusses a number of issues – teen pregnancy, drugs, and violence, and others – and blames the president and the “civil rights industry” for ignoring them.

To access this selection:

The O’Reilly clip is available on Youtube at

MSNBC

The other video is taken from the MSNBC show Disrupt. Host Karen Finney and guests Rashid Robinson and sociologist Tim Wise respond directly to O’Reilly’s arguments and attempt to refute them. They also attempt to change the focus of the argument and raise a variety of other issues.

To access this selection:

The Dispatch clip is available at Tim Wise’s website at

DEBATE QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

1. Does O’Reilly blame black problems on the black community? According to him, who should be seeking solutions? What statistics and other evidence does he cite to support his arguments? How convincing are they?

2. What points do Finney and her guests make in response to O’Reilly? Do they refute his arguments? What evidence and statistics do they use? How convincing are they? What other issues do they raise? How germane are these other issues?

3. To what audiences are these shows playing? How much overlap is there between the audiences? On what points would the audiences agree? Is there any chance for a meaningful dialog between these audiences?

4. Do O’Reilly’s statements demonstrate modern racism? How? Are Finney and her guests unbiased? What points of view do they reflect? Which side, in your view, makes more sense?

CHAPTER 4

How Did Slavery Affect the Origins of African American Culture?

OVERVIEW

As we noted in Chapter 4, there has been considerable debate about the role of slavery in the creation of African American culture. One strand of the debate began with the publication of Stanley Elkins 1959 book Slavery: A Problem in American Institutional and Intellectual Life, in which he argued that African American culture was created in response to the repressive plantation system and in the context of brutalization, total control of the slaves by their owners, and dehumanization. He argued that black culture was “made in America,” but in an abnormal, even pathological social setting. The plantation was a sick society that dominated and infantilized black slaves. The dominant reality for slaves—and the only significant other person in their lives—was the master. Elkins described the system as a “perverted patriarchy” that psychologically forced the slaves to identify with their oppressors and to absorb the racist values at the core of the structure.

Elkins’s book stimulated an enormous amount of controversy and research on the impact of slavery and the origins of African American culture. Researchers developed new sources of evidence and new perspectives and, contrary to Elkins, they have generally concluded that African American culture is a combination of elements, some from the traditional cultures of Africa and others fabricated on the plantation.

Two selections illustrate this argument, both focused on family life. One, from the work of historian William Piersen, focuses on the survival of West African and African American customs and the other, from historian Peter Kolchin, argues that slaves had sufficient latitude to create their own world and their own understandings of themselves.

A final view is presented in an excerpt from the writings of Deborah Gray White. She argues that most scholarly work on slavery is written from the perspective of the male slave only, to the point of excluding the female experience. In the passage from her 1985 book Ar’n’t I a Woman? Female Slaves in the Plantation South, she also addresses the problems of research in the area of minority group females and summarizes some of what has been learned from recent scholarship on the impact of slavery.

All of these views are consistent with Blauner’s idea that the cultures of colonized minority groups are attacked and that the groups are forcibly acculturated. Elkins’s argument is the most extreme in that it sees African American culture as fabricated entirely in response to the demands of enslavement and the fearful, all-powerful figure of the master.

POINTS OF VIEW

NOTE: Unlike other chapters, there are no internet links in this debate. The selections that follow are edited versions of the original works

Slavery Created African American Culture

Stanley Elkins

Both [the Nazi concentration camps and the American slave plantations] were closed systems from which all standards based on prior connections had been effectively detached. A working adjustment to either system required a childlike conformity, a limited choice of “significant other.” Cruelty per se cannot be considered the primary key to this; of far greater importance was the simple “closedness” of the system, in which all lines of authority descended from the master and in which alternative social bases that might have supported alternative standards were systematically suppressed. The individual, consequently, for his very psychic security, had to picture his master in some way as the “good father,” even when, as in the concentration camp, it made no sense at all.

For the Negro child, in particular, the plantation offered no really satisfactory father image other than the master. The “real” father was virtually without authority over his child, since discipline, parental responsibility, and control of rewards and punishments all rested in other hands; the slave father could not even protect the mother of his children, except by appealing directly to the master. Indeed, the mother’s own role loomed far larger for the slave child than that of the father. She controlled those few activities – household care, preparation of food, and rearing of children – that were left to the slave family. For that matter, the very etiquette of plantation life removed even the honorific attributes of fatherhood from the Negro male, who was addressed as “boy” – until, when the vigorous years of his prime were past, he was allowed to assume the title of “uncle.”

From the master’s viewpoint, slaves had been defined in law as property, and the master’s power over his property must be absolute. . . . Absolute power for him meant absolute dependency for the slave—the dependency not of the developing child but of the perpetual child. For the master, the role most aptly fitting such a relationship would naturally be that of father.

SOURCE: Elkins (1959, pp. 130–131).

African American Culture Was Created by an Interplay of Elements from Africa and America

William D. Piersen

In the colonial environment, . . . [African and European] traditions were fused. . . . The result was an unprecedented and unintended new multicultural American way of life. . . . [Africans] had little choice [but this] adjustment was not as difficult . . . as we might suppose: The cultures of Africa and Europe were both dominated by the rhythms and sensibilities of a premodern, agricultural way of life shaped more by folk religion than by science, and domestic responsibilities were relatively similar on both continents. . . .

One of the greatest sacrifices that faced the new African Americans was the loss of the extended families that had structured most social relationships in Africa. . . . [African marriage customs were usually polygynous (permitting more than one wife) and patrilineal (tracing ancestry through the male side).] With marriage, most African Americans seem . . . to have settled quickly into Euro-American style, monogamous nuclear families that trace inheritance bilaterally through the lines of both parents. Nonetheless, colonial naming choices show the continuing importance of African ideas of kinship among African Americans, for black children were more commonly . . . named after recently deceased relatives, a practice rooted in the African belief of rebirth across generations. . . .

African Americans . . . tried to rebuild as best they could the social cohesion once provided by the now missing extended families of Africa. [They] tried to duplicate some of the kinship . . . functions . . . by forging close relationships with their countrymen and shipmates from the Middle Passage. . . . [Many] treated both the blacks and whites that lived with them . . . as a kind of artificial kin. . . .

In North America many white colonials soon gave up traditional European village residence patterns to move out individually on the land, but African Americans, when they had the choice, generally preferred to stay together. . . . Such communalism [was] a reflection of the value that Africans and African Americans put on collective living.

In West Africa kin groups gathered in their housing together in large compounds that featured centralized open spaces devoted to social functions and collective recreation. Husbands and wives within the compounds usually had their own separate family quarters. . . . In colonial African American housing the old ways were maintained. . . . [In early-18th-century Virginia] most slaves lived in clusterings of more than 10 people. In these quarters, black social life was centered not on the interior of the small dark sleeping structures but outside on the common space devoted to social functions.

SOURCE: Piersen (1996).

Slaves Were Able to Establish Their Own Customs

Peter Kolchin

Historians … have been virtually unanimous in finding that Elkins erred in depicting a world in which slaves had no "meaningful others" aside from their masters. Of course, slaves lived under widely varying conditions, … for the vast majority, however, slavery never provided such a hermetically sealed environment; beings who were in theory totally dependent on their masters were able in practice to forge a semi-autonomous world … which accentuated their own distinctive customs and values. In this endeavor, they looked for support most of all to their families and their religion.

Families provided a crucial if fragile buffer, shielding slaves from the worst rigors of slavery. ... Even under the best of circumstances, slave families lacked … institutional and legal support … [but] Antebellum slaves lived in families, legally recognized or not. …

Slave owners … usually … considered themselves strong supporters of, slave families. Motivated by both a paternalistic concern for the well-being of their "people" and a calculating regard for their own economic interest, slave owners paid … attention to the family lives of their slaves. … Their actions … served to make possible, despite the hostile environment, a family life among slaves that was vital if constantly at risk. …

Most … historians have stressed the actions of the slaves themselves in building and defending their families … Like most other Americans and Western Europeans… , Southern slaves usually lived in nuclear … households: father, mother, and children. … Marriages, unless broken by sale, were usually long-lasting. Families constituted a fundamental survival mechanism, enabling the slaves to resist the kind of dehumanization that Elkins believed they underwent. Slaves may have owed their masters instantaneous and unquestioned obedience, but in the bosoms of their families they loved, laughed, quarreled, schemed, sang, and endured, much as free people did.

Slave families exhibited a number of features that differentiated them from prevailing norms among white Southerners and revealed the degree to which those families were created by the slaves themselves. Slaves used naming practices to solidify family ties …, naming children after fathers and grandfathers especially frequently because male relatives were more likely than female to be sold away. …

The slaves' marital standards differed in significant ways from those of their owners. Although slaves expected each other to be faithful in marriage, they did not put much stock in the prevailing Victorian notion of premarital sexual abstinence. … Unlike Southern planters, however, slaves strictly adhered to marital exogamy, shunning marriage with first cousins. …

Slave children learned at an early age that they had to conform to the wishes of two sets of authorities-their parents and their owners … Such competing claims on their loyalty could be confusing. Evidence of the masters' authority was readily apparent in their dealings with adult slaves; children who saw their parents verbally or physically abused without resisting could not fail to draw the appropriate lesson about where real power lay. At the same time, parents struggled to provide their children with love and attention and passed on family lore as well as customs and values. With the help of friends and relatives, parents sang to their children, told them stories, [and] exposed them to their version of Christianity. …

Although families provided slaves with a basic refuge from the horrors of slavery, this refuge was always insecure. Masters who preached the importance of family life subverted their own message by constantly interfering with their people's families: they sold, raped, and whipped. … Slaves struggled valiantly' to lead "normal" lives, and in doing so they relied most heavily on their families, but their lack of power … rendered those families extremely vulnerable. … Slave families … reflected … both the determined efforts of their members to achieve a measure of autonomy and the fragility of that autonomy.

SOURCE: Kolchin, 2003 pp. 138-143

The Experiences of Female Slaves Have Been Under-Researched and Under-Reported

Deborah Gray White

Stanley Elkins began [the debate] by alleging that the American slave master had such absolute power and authority over the bondsman that the slave was reduced to childlike dependency. “Sambo,” Elkins argued, was more than a product of Southern fantasy. He could not be dismissed as a “stereotype.”

Elkins’ thesis had a profound effect upon the research and writing of the history of slavery. … The direction that the research took, however, was in large part predetermined because Elkins’ slavery defined the parameters of the debate. In a very subtle way these parameters had more to do with the nature of male slavery than with female slavery. . . .

John Blassingame’s The Slave Community is a classic, but much of it deals with male status. For instance, Blassingame stressed the fact that many masters recognized the male as the head of the family. He observed that during courtship, men flattered women and exaggerated their prowess. There was, however, little discussion of the reciprocal activities of slave women. Blassingame also described how slave men gained status in the family and slave community, but did not do the same for women. . . .

The reality of slave life gives us reason to suspect that we do black women a disservice when we rob them of a history that placed them at the side of their men in their race’s struggle for freedom. The present study takes a look at slave women and argues that they were not submissive, subordinate, or prudish, and they were not expected to be so. Women had different roles from those of men, and they also had a great deal in common with their African foremothers, who held positions not inferior but complementary to those of men. . . .

Source material on the general nature of slavery exists in abundance, but it is very difficult to find source material about slave women in particular. Slave women are everywhere, yet nowhere. . . .

The source problem is directly related to what was and still is the black woman’s condition. Every economic and political index demonstrated the black woman’s virtual powerlessness in American society. A consequence of the double jeopardy and powerlessness is the black woman’s invisibility. . . .

The history of slavery has come a long way. … We have learned that race relations were never so clear-cut as to be solely a matter of white over black, but that in the assimilation of culture, in the interaction of blacks and whites, there were gray areas and relationships more aptly described in terms of black over white. We have also begun to understand that despite the brutality and inhumanity, or perhaps because of it, a distinct African American culture based on close-knit kinship relationships grew and thrived, and that it was this culture that sustained black people through many trials before and after emancipation.

SOURCE: Gray White, Deborah. 1985. Ar’nt I a Woman?: Female Slaves in the Plantation South. New York: Norton. pp. 17 - 25

DEBATE QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

1. Why is the origin of African American culture an important issue? What difference does it make today? If Elkins is correct, what are the implications for dealing with racial inequality in the present? Could a culture that was created under a pathological system and a sick society be an adequate basis for the pursuit of equality and justice today? Is Elkins’s thesis a form of blaming the victim? Is it a way of blaming the present inequality of the black community on an “inadequate” culture, thus absolving the rest of society from blame?

2. If Piersen, Kolchin, and White are correct, what are the implications for how African

Americans think about their history and about themselves? What difference does it make if your roots are in Africa or in colonial Virginia or in both?

3. What does White add to the debate? What are some of the challenges in researching the experiences of female slaves? How did the experiences of female slaves differ from those of male slaves?

CHAPTER 5

Affirmative Action in Higher Education (The “Mismatch” Hypothesis)

OVERVIEW

What role, if any, should race, ethnicity, and gender play in university admissions? As we saw in Chapter 6, the admission policies of many selective colleges and universities have given an advantage to racial and ethnic minorities to compensate for past discrimination and to ensure a diverse student body.

How important are these goals? Jim Crow segregation ended (formally, at least) 50 years ago: Should higher education still be thinking in terms of redressing past injustices?

How important is diversity on a campus? Does it have educational benefits? Does granting admission to a minority student with lower GPA and test scores amount to reverse discrimination against a more qualified white student? Are less-qualified minority students being set up for failure when they are admitted to selective universities? If they succeed, won’t their achievements be stigmatized and viewed as tainted?

These and myriad other issues continue to animate discussions of affirmative action. In this installment of Current Debates, we’ll focus on one of these issues. The “mismatch hypothesis” argues that many minority students admitted to elite universities by affirmative action policies are placed in classrooms where they cannot compete effectively. They are set up to fail, even though they could easily succeed on less selective campuses.

The mismatch hypothesis is fully presented in a recent book (Sander and Taylor, 2013), which you should explore to fully understand the argument. We will focus on a shorter version of the argument, as presented in a magazine article by the same authors, Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor. The counter-argument, presented by sociologist William Kidder, argues that Sander and Taylor systematically misuse the evidence and misstate their case. The selections are preceded by a brief history of affirmative action, which will provide more perspective on the issues being debated

Both sides present their positions with conviction and you may find yourself switching sides in the argument as you consider the positions. Thus, it is important that you consider the positions carefully and in the context of this chapter and the “Debate Questions to Consider.”

POINTS OF VIEW

A History of Affirmative Action

To access this selection: go to



The Mismatch Hypothesis

The Sander and Taylor article is at

Scroll through the article, paying particular attention to:

• Their definitions and explanation of “mismatch”

• What they mean by “large” and “small” preferences in admission policies and the consequences of each

• The evidence they cite in favor of their thesis

An Argument against the Mismatch Hypothesis

For Kidder’s refutation of the mismatch hypothesis, go to

Scroll through the article, paying particular attention to:

• The nature of his arguments against Sander and Taylor

• The evidence and studies he cites

DEBATE QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

1. Do you think that Sander and Taylor want to eliminate all affirmative action programs or are they arguing for reform?

2. Proposition 209, passed in 1996 by statewide referendum, ended racial preferences in

college and university admissions in California. According to Sander and Taylor, what effect did Proposition 209 have on graduation rates for black and Hispanic students? Why? How does Kidder respond to this argument? Which of the two arguments makes the most sense? Why?

3. One possible criticism of Sander and Taylor is that their argument ignores the reasons that affirmative action programs were implemented in the first place. Do they seem to take account of forces such past-in-present discrimination? Do they take adequate account of the context of race and ethnic relations in the United States?

4. How does Kidder argue against Sander and Taylor? How does he build his case and

what evidence does he cite? Does his point of view seem more anchored in social science research? Why?

5. Even if mismatch is a problem, is this a reason to end Affirmative Action? Are there

ways to reduce “mismatch” and improve the performance of less-well-qualified students? Are selective universities obligated to implement such programs? Why or why not?

6. Ultimately, given the material presented in the chapter and considering both sides of

the mismatch argument, do you believe that affirmative action has a role to play in university admissions? Do you agree with the Supreme Court decision in Fisher v. University of Texas (cited in Chapter 5)? Why or why not?

Chapter 6:

Should the United States be Colorblind?

OVERVIEW

Many Americans believe that the way to finally get past the injustices of the past is to treat everyone exactly the same in schools, jobs, politics, and every other institution. This argument resonates strongly with fundamental American values and appeals to many as simple common sense: If we want to have a society in which only character matters—not race or skin color—we need to start treating people as individuals, not as representatives of groups.

From this “colorblind” point of view, programs such as affirmative action perpetuate rather than solve the problems of racial inequality in America. Several states have enacted, or considered, policies that would require all state agencies (including Universities) to ignore race and ethnicity in their decision-making processes (including college admissions and hiring for jobs). For example, in 2006, by an overwhelming margin, the voters of Michigan passed Proposition 2, which prevents state colleges and universities from taking account of race or ethnicity in admissions decisions. Proposition 2 was challenged by a number of parties and its constitutionality will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014.

How could anyone reasonably oppose a policy of equal treatment? What arguments can be raised against official colorblindness? Some people, a distinct minority of public opinion, believe that to ignore race is to perpetuate the inequalities of the past. Colorblindness perpetuates white privilege and dominance and does not lead to a more equal and open society. The only way to end racial inequality is to build programs and policies that take explicit notice of race and confer an affirmative advantage on blacks and on other colonized, marginalized groups. Without a strong program to force employers to balance their workforces and to require college admission programs to seek out qualified minority candidates, the racial status quo will be perpetuated indefinitely. In this opposed view, “colorblindness” is seen as a disguised form of prejudice, and a version of modern racism (see Chapter 3).

POINTS OF VIEW

The argument for colorblindness is presented by Ward Connerly, an African American and a prominent leader of anti-affirmative action programs in California and Michigan. The interview was published in The American Enterprise in 2003. The opposing view is presented by Sociologist Meghan Burke, a professor at Illinois Wesleyan University and the author of Racial Ambivalence in Diverse Communities: Whiteness and the Power of Color-Blind Ideologies (2012, Lexington Books)

"'Live' With Tae" by Ward Connerly, The American Enterprise, 2003, pp.18-21.

Colorblindness vs. Race-Consciousness – An American Ambivalence by Meghan A. Burke, 2003.

Debate Questions to Consider

1. What assumptions does Connerly make about the overall fairness of American society? Are there any similarities between his position and human capital theory (see Chapter 2)? Judging from the evidence presented in this chapter, how credible is his statement that young black Americans face essentially the same problems as all young Americans? Is he thinking about all African Americans? Middle-class African Americans? Male as well as femals? How close is the United States to Connerly’s “Racial Privacy Initiative”?

2. What, according to Burke, are the consequences of official colorblindness? Would the progress toward racial equality that has been made be reversed? How is colorblindness a disguised form of white domination?

3. Which author(s) directly addresses “past-in-present” discrimination? How?

4. This chapter documents the continued existence of racial discrimination, yet people of color are often criticized for recognizing some people’s behavior as racist– what many call “playing the race card.” Why aren’t minorities’ claims of racism taken seriously? What role does the colorblind ideology play in this?*

5. Which of these two positions is most appealing to you? If you agree with Connerly, how would you combat modern institutional discrimination? If you agree with Burke, how would you respond to the charge that programs such as affirmative action are a form of “reverse discrimination”?

CHAPTER 7 Are Indian Sports Team Mascots Offensive?

OVERVIEW

Like other colonized minority groups of color, American Indians face many challenges. Some of their issues, however, are more symbolic and perceptual and reflect their long history of marginalization. How are American Indians seen by the larger society? What stereotypes linger in American popular culture? How might these stereotypes affect the ability of American Indians to argue their cause?

The controversies over using Indian mascots for athletic teams illustrate these symbolic battles. Is there any real harm in using team names such as “Indians,” “Seminoles,” or “Braves”? Are people who object to these names carrying political correctness and sensitivity too far? Or, does this practice reflect the way Indians are seen in the larger society? If they are seen primarily as exaggerated, stereotypical caricatures, can they expect to generate much interest, support, or sympathy in the larger society? Given the small size of the group, such support is crucial for efforts to deal with the issues of jobs and education, health care and discrimination.

Some universities and colleges, including Stanford and St. Johns, have dropped their “Indian” sports mascots in recent years (Stanford from “Indians” to “Cardinal” and St. John’s from “Redmen” to “Red Tide”) and others have secured permission to use an Indian name (for example, Florida State University has an agreement with the Seminole tribe to use the tribal name). In other cases, especially for professional teams, the use of what some consider offensive names and mascots continue.

Nowhere, of course, is this controversy more intense than in our nation’s capital. The Washington Redskins are one of the most beloved sports franchises in the nation and their roots go deep in the local community. The team argues that “Redskin” is a symbol of honor, bravery, and fortitude and the majority of fans seem to agree. Others point out that “redskin” is a racial slur, equivalent to “nigger,” “spic,” “chink,” and “honky,” completely inappropriate in everyday conversation, let alone as the nickname for such a highly visible sports franchise.

A variety of readings are presented for this debate. We begin with an article that provides some background and perspective on the issues. Next, we consider a letter written by Dan Snyder, the owner of the Washington NFL franchise, defending the name and a rebuttal from Sally Jenkins, a Washington Post sports columnist. The final selections are a Sports Illustrated magazine article that argues that Indian-themed mascots are not offensive and a rebuttal article written by a group of academics and Indian activists.

POINTS OF VIEW

History and Perspectives

To access the article, written by reporter Lakshmi Gandhi of National Public Radio, go to



Owner Dan Snyder’s letter explaining his commitment to the team nickname.

To access the letter, go to



A Column Sally Jenkins, a Sports Writer for the Washington Post, Responding to Snyder’s Letter.

To access the column, go to



The Sports Illustrated Article (edited)

Indian Symbols are Not Offensive

S.L. Price and Andrea Woo

[The thorniest word problem in sports today is] the use of Native American names and mascots by high school, college, and professional teams. For more than 30 years the debate has been raging over whether names such as Redskins, Braves, Chiefs and Indians honor or defile Native Americans, whether clownish figures like the Cleveland Indians’ Chief Wahoo have any place in today’s racially sensitive climate, and whether the sight of thousands of non-Native Americans doing the tomahawk chop at Atlanta’s Turner Field is mindless fun or mass bigotry. It’s an argument that, because it mixes mere sports with the sensitivities of a people who were nearly exterminated, seems both trivial and profound. . . .

[The case of Betty Ann Gross, a member of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux tribe] illustrates how slippery the issue can be. She grew up on a reservation in South Dakota and went to Sisseton High, a public school on the reservation whose teams are called the Redmen. Gross, 49, can’t recall a time when people on the reservation weren’t arguing about the team name, evenly divided between those who were proud of it and those who were ashamed. Gross recently completed a study that led the South Dakota state government to change the names of 38 places and landmarks around the state, yet she has mixed feelings on the sports issue. She wants Indian mascots and the tomahawk chop discarded, but she has no problem with team names like the Fighting Sioux (University of North Dakota) or even the Redskins. “There’s a lot of division,” Gross says. . . .

Although most Native American activists and tribal leaders consider Indian team names and mascots offensive, neither Native Americans in general nor a cross-section of U.S. sports fans agree. That is one of the findings of a poll conducted for SI. . . . The pollsters interviewed 351 Native Americans (217 living on reservations and 134 living off) and 743 fans. Their responses were weighted according to U.S. Census figures for age, race, and gender and for distribution of Native Americans on and off reservations. With a margin of error of ±4%, 83% of the Indians said that professional teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, or symbols, and 79% of the fans agreed with them. . . . When pollsters asked about the Washington Redskins, they found no great resentment toward the name. Instead, they again found agreement between Native Americans and fans (69% of the former and 74% of the latter do not object to the name). . . .

While those who support names such as Seminoles (Florida State) and [Atlanta] Braves can argue that the words celebrate Native American traditions, applying that claim to the Redskins is absurd. Nevertheless, Redskins vice president Karl Swanson says the name “symbolizes courage, dignity, and leadership and has always been employed in that manner”—conveniently ignoring the fact that in popular usage dating back four centuries, the word has been a slur based on skin color. . . . Many experts on Native American history point out that . . . the word redskin was first used by whites who paid and received bounties for dead Indians. . . .

However, what’s most important, Swanson counters, is intent: Because the Redskins and their fans mean nothing racist by using the nickname, it isn’t racist or offensive. Not so, says Suzan Harjo (a Native American activist): “There’s no more derogatory word that’s used against us . . . in the English language. . . Everyone knows that it has never been an honorific. It’s a terrible insult.” . . .

SOURCE: Price and Woo (2002, pp. 66–73).

The Article Responding to Price and Woo (edited)

Mascots Are Offensive

C. R. King, E.J. Staurowsky, L. Baca, L. Davis, and C. Pewewardy

To fully understand both the SI article and ongoing controversy about mascots, one must grasp the history of Indian symbols in sports. . . . Native American mascots emerged (mainly) in the early 1900s, after [the end of military hostilities]. . . . These mascots were part of a larger phenomenon of increased prevalence of Native American images in U.S. popular culture, including Western movies, symbols for beer and butter, and art in homes. One of the reasons why most Americans find the mascots unremarkable . . . is because of the prevalence of similar images throughout U.S. popular culture. . . .

Historically, the most popular sport mascots have been animals associated with aggression (e.g., Tigers) and Native Americans (e.g., Indians, Chiefs, Braves, and so forth). Although other ethnic groups have been occasionally used as mascots, these mascots differ from Native American mascots in several ways: [these mascots] are often (a) a people that do not exist today (e.g., Spartans); (b) less associated with aggression (e.g., Scots); (c) selected by people from the same ethnicity (e.g., Irish Americans at Notre Dame); and (d) not mimicked to nearly the same degree.

Native American mascots emerged in a context in which many non-Native Americans were “playing Indian.” Still today, children don “Indian” costumes at Halloween, “act like Indians” during “Cowboy and Indian” games, “become Indian Princesses” at the YMCA, and perform “Indian rituals” at summer camps. Adults belong to organizations that involve learning “Indian ways” and performing “Indian rituals.” Non-Native Americans have created an imaginary version of Indianness that they sometimes enact, and they expect real Native Americans to either ignore, affirm, or validate such myths and practices. Similar practices applied to other races/ethnicities, such as “playing black” or “playing Jewish,” would not be accepted in our society today.

Activism against Native American mascots has been evident for more than 30 years. Since the early 1990s, this activism has become more widespread [and] emerged from Native American individuals, groups, and communities that work on a variety of other issues, such as treaty, economic, cultural, environmental, health, and educational issues. … Many Native American organizations see the elimination of such mascots as part of a larger agenda of reducing societal stereotyping about Native Americans (in the media, school curriculums, and so forth) and informing the public about the realities of Native American lives. An increase in accurate information about Native Americans is viewed as necessary for the achievement of other goals such as poverty reduction, educational advancements, and securing treaty rights.

Anti-mascot activists articulate many different arguments against the mascots. First, they assert that the mascots stereotype Native Americans as only existing in the past, having a single culture, and being aggressive fighters. Second, they hold that these stereotypes influence the way people perceive and treat Native Americans. Such imagery is seen as affecting Native American images of themselves, creating a hostile climate for many Native Americans, and preventing people from understanding current Native American realities, which affects public policy relative to Native Americans. Third, the activists state that no racial/cultural group should be mimicked (especially in regard to sacred items/practices), even if such mimicking is “culturally accurate.” And fourth, they argue that Native Americans should have control over how they are represented. . . .

Native American mascots are rooted in the bloodthirsty savage stereotype, as it is this stereotype that is linked to desirable athletic qualities such as having a fighting spirit and being aggressive, brave, stoic, proud, and persevering. . . .

Of course, even [this] so-called positive stereotype [is] ultimately negative. [All] stereotypes fail to recognize diversity among the people who are being stereotyped. . . . Most people deny that they believe any racial stereotypes. . . . When we do notice our own stereotyping, it is often because our beliefs are very negative (e.g., believing that African Americans are criminal or Puerto Ricans are lazy). When our stereotypes are “positive” (e.g., Jews as good at business or Asians as smart), we tend to think that these beliefs are not stereotypical and thus not racist.

Sport mascots are based on what is today perceived as “positive” ideas about Native Americans: that they are brave, principled, persevering, good fighters. This “positive cast” to the mascot stereotype leads most to conclude that the mascots are not racist. In fact, it is this “positive cast” to the mascot stereotype that leads many mascot supporters to think that the mascots actually counter racism by “honoring” Native Americans. . . .

It is not surprising that some Native Americans embrace “positive” stereotypes of Native Americans, and thus that some are not critical of Native American mascots. There are several factors that encourage Native Americans to accept, internalize, celebrate, and even capitalize on, “positive” stereotypes of Native Americans. First, many people do not define so-called positive stereotypes as stereotypes or racist. In fact, a group that experiences a great deal of inequality may be especially attracted to any imagery that is positive, as such imagery might be a relief from the negative. Second, throughout much of U.S. history, Native people have faced intense pressures to acculturate and have been exposed to many of the same stereotypical images of Native Americans as non-Natives have. These pressures have certainly resulted in some Natives adopting “dominant/white/outsider views” of Native Americans. Third, given the destruction of Native economies and the resulting economic destitution, some Native people have turned to the marketing of their ethnicity, or an acceptable Hollywood version of their ethnicity, to survive, including teaching “Native spirituality” to non-Native Americans; selling Native jewelry and art; and managing Native tourist establishments.

In conclusion, to understand the Native American mascot issue … one needs to understand the social context surrounding the mascots. Most important, one must understand the historically rooted, but contemporarily alive, stereotypes of Native Americans. Native American mascots emerged from these stereotypes, and these mascots continue to reinforce these stereotypes. The continued prevalence of these stereotypes inhibits social changes that would better contemporary Native American lives.

SOURCE: King, Staurowsky, Baca, Davis, and Pewewardy (2002, pp. 381–403).

DEBATE QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

1. Several articles point to surveys that show that most people (even Native Americans) do not object to the use of Indian team mascots. How relevant is this point to the debate? Should questions such as these be decided by “popular vote,” or are there deeper principles? If so, what are those principles, and how should they be applied?

2. The management of the Washington football team argues that the team uses “redskin” to honor American Indians for their courage and dignity. Should “intent” matter in deciding whether a term is insulting or offensive? Who should settle questions like these? The team? The tribes? Someone else?

3. What arguments are made regarding the harm done by using Indian team mascots? Are these arguments convincing? Why or why not? What are “positive stereotypes,” and how do they differ (if at all) from negative stereotypes? Are positive stereotypes less harmful than negative stereotypes?

4. What is the gender dimension to these arguments? Are team names sexist? What is the nickname of the sports teams on your campus? Are the women’s teams distinguished by adding the modifier “Lady” or “Women”? What issues arise from this pattern? Do these issues matter? How?

5. Ultimately, is anything important really at stake here? Isn’t it all just a matter of exaggerated political correctness? Why does it matter (if it does)?

Chapter 8 Are Hispanic Americans Assimilating or Are They Changing American Culture?

OVERVIEW

As we saw in Chapter 8, immigration from Latin America—and especially from Mexico— has been voluminous in recent decades. Will these new immigrants adapt to American culture or will American culture adapt to them? Will they adopt traditional American values and the English language or will Spanish persist and Latino values become predominant?

We have been asking questions like these since the opening sentences of this text and we have examined evidence in this chapter that suggests that assimilation in general and language acculturation in particular is generally proceeding at the “usual” three-generation pace for most Latino groups. However, these facts will not be persuasive to everyone and there is widespread concern that American culture cannot survive in its present form. For example, Samuel Huntington, a distinguished and prolific political scientist, argued in his influential book Who Are We? (2004) that large-scale immigration (particularly from Mexico) is leading the United States away from its historical roots and its central values. The Internet is rife with similar thoughts, some measured and thoughtful, others clamorous and verging on hysteria. Presented below are a variety of viewpoints on the topic, drawn from different political views and several scholarly sources.

As usual, a variety of viewpoints are presented for your consideration. We begin with an article written by Samuel Huntington, the political scientist mentioned above, which argues that American culture is threatened by Latino (particularly Mexican) immigration, followed by two more selections that express similar concerns. We then consider the viewpoint of political economist Francis Fukuyama, who takes issue with Huntington, and end with a report that argues that contemporary immigrants are following roughly the same patterns as in the past.

POINTS OF VIEW

Huntington’s Argument

To access the article, go to:



The article is lengthy, so you will want to skim it for the points most relevant to this debate. In particular, examine his “six differences” between contemporary and past immigrations, his points about Spanish as a second language, the section “Blood is Thicker than Borders,” and his concluding section.

An article by former U.S. congressman, presidential candidate, and political activist Tom Tancredo, which argues that Latinos are not assimilating

To access the article, go to:



An article from the VDARE, a conservative, largely anti-immigrant blogspot, which argues that Latinos are a threat to American culture.

To access the article, go to:



The article by Fukuyama, taking issue with Huntington.

To access the article, go to:



A report by Myers and Pitkin which argues that contemporary immigrants are following roughly the same assimilation patterns as in the past.

To access the article, go to



Read the introduction and summary carefully and skim the rest of the report. In particular, pay attention to the evidence they present and the sources of the data they use.

DEBATE QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

1. Analyze these arguments in terms of assimilation and pluralism. Which of these authors – if any – are using Gordon’s model of assimilation? Can these issues and concerns be expressed in terms of pluralism? How?

2. What issues do Huntington, Tancredo, and Francis (on the VDARE site) raise about

the assimilation of Latinos and Mexicans? Does the information presented in this chapter tend to refute or confirm their concerns? How?

3. What points does Fukuyama make in response to the arguments presented by

Huntington? What evidence does he present to back up his points? How convincing is the evidence?

4. What evidence is presented in the report by Myers and Pitkin in support of the idea that assimilation is proceeding today as in the past? How convincing is the evidence? Is the evidence consistent with the evidence presented in this chapter? How?

CHAPTER 9 Asian American “Success”: What Are the Dimensions, Causes, and Implications for Other Minority Groups?

OVERVIEW

We have seen in this chapter that the notion of Asian American success is a stereotype, an exaggeration, and, in many ways, simply false. Yet, the characterization is persistent and, for many, compelling. We have also seen that, like all myths, there is some truth to the notion: on many indicators that Americans would take as measures of “success,” Asian Americans are superior to national norms and much higher than other racial minorities.

In this installment of Current Debates, we consider several related questions: What are the sources of Asian American “success?” How accurate is this characterization? What are the political and cultural implications of applying the label of success to Asian Americans?

The readings for this debate include two selections that are consistent with the “cultural” explanation for Asian American success discussed in Chapter 9. The first article is by sociologist Harry Kitano, who argues that the success of the Japanese in America is due in part to their culture and in part to their strength of character, resilience, and flexibility. The second article, by journalist Lee Seigel, characterizes Asian Americans as successful and attributes their success as “driven by will and resolve.”

Next, we consider the “structural” explanation, as presented by sociologists Alejandro Portes and Min Zhou. They link the success of Chinese Americans to their enclave economy and also draw some provocative comparisons between Chinese Americans and African Americans, suggesting that the “thorough acculturation” of the African American community has weakened its economic vitality.

Finally, we consider two authors who dispute the notion that Asian Americans are more successful. Sociologist Pyong Gap Min points out the limits and qualifications that need to be observed when comparing Asian Americans with other groups. Min also argues that the image of success is harmful, both to Asian Americans and to other racial minority groups. Finally, sociologist Stacey Lee argues that the myth of Asian American Success has been developed to criticize other minorities, blacks in particular.

POINTS OF VIEW

The article by Kitano (edited)

The Success of Japanese Americans is Cultural

Harry Kitano

Social interaction among Japanese Americans is governed by behavioral norms such as enryo and amae. These derive from Confucian ideas about human relationships and define the dimensions of interaction and exchange between superior and inferior members of a social group. Although these forms of behavior were brought over by Issei immigrants, they still survive in attenuated form among the Nisei and even the Sansei.

Enryo prescribes the way in which a social inferior must show deference and self-abnegation before a superior. Hesitancy to speak out at meetings, the automatic refusal of a second helping, and selecting a less desired object are all manifestations of enryo. . . .

Amae behavior softens a power relationship through the acting out of dependency and weakness, and expresses the need for attention, recognition, acceptance, and nurture. A child displays amae to gain the sympathy and indulgence of a parent. A young, anxious-to-please employee in a business firm will act with exaggerated meekness and confusion to give his superior an opportunity to provide paternal advice and treat him as a protégé. Through the ritual display of weakness and dependency, reciprocal bonds of loyalty, devotion, and trust are formed. In this way, amae creates strong emotional ties that strengthen cohesion within the family, business organization, and community.

Japanese Americans inherit an almost reverential attitude toward work. Their ancestors struggled for survival in a crowded island country with limited natural resources, and they placed great value on industry and self-discipline. Certain traditional attitudes encourage resilient behavior in the face of setbacks and complement the moral imperative to work hard. Many Japanese Americans are familiar with the common expressions gaman and gambotte which mean “don’t let it bother you,” “don’t give up.” These dicta, derived from Buddhist teachings, encourage Japanese people to conceal frustration or disappointment and to carry on. A tradition that places great value on work and persistence has helped many Japanese Americans to acquire good jobs and to get ahead.

The submerging of the individual to the interest of the group is another basic Japanese tradition, and one that produces strong social cohesion and an oblique style of behavior, one manifestation of which is the indirection or allusiveness of much communication between Japanese; another is the polite, consensual behavior expected in all social contacts. Both are common in Japan and visible among Japanese Americans. Today, even third- and fourth-generation Japanese Americans are apt to be seen by others as agreeable, unaggressive, willing to accept subordinate roles, and reluctant to put themselves forward. . . .

The history of the Japanese Americans in the United States is one of both resilience and adaptation. Suffering from discriminatory laws and racial hostility in the first half of the 20th century, Japanese Americans were nonetheless able to create stable ethnic communities and separate, but vital, social organizations. Since the end of World War II, with the disappearance of legal discrimination and the weakening of social restrictions, they have assimilated more readily into American society and shown rapid economic progress. Scholars have searched for the key to their remarkable record of adaptation. Some have pointed to the Japanese family, others to a strong group orientation, and still others to Japanese moral training; all of these theories often tend to overemphasize the degree to which Japanese traditions have been maintained. Japanese Americans have displayed a pragmatic attitude toward American life. [Rather] than rigidly maintaining their traditions, Japanese Americans have woven American values and behavior into the fabric of their culture and have seized new social, cultural, and economic avenues as they have become available, extending the limits of ethnicity by striking a workable balance between ethnic cohesion and accommodation.

SOURCE: Kitano (1980, pp. 570–571). Reprinted by permission of the publisher. Copyright © 1980 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College.

The article by Seigel

To access the Wall Street Journal article by Lee Siegel, go to



Selection by Portes and Zhou (edited)

The “Success” of Chinese Americans is Structural

Alejandro Portes and Min Zhou

[What lessons for ethnic poverty can we find in the experiences of Chinese Americans and other groups that have constructed ethnic enclaves?] A tempting option—and one to which many experts have not been averse—is to resort to culturalistic explanations. According to these interpretations, certain groups do better because they possess the “right” kind of values. This view is, of course, not too different from assimilation theory except that, instead of learning the proper values after arrival, immigrants bring them ready made. A moment’s reflection suffices to demonstrate the untenability of this explanation. . . .

The very diversity of [the] groups [that have constructed enclave economies] conspires against explanations that find the roots of economic mobility in the unique values associated with a particular culture. If we had to invoke a particular “ethic” to account for the business achievements of Chinese and Jews, Koreans and Cubans, Lebanese and Dominicans, we would wind up with a very messy theory. In terms of professed religions alone, we would have to identify those unique values leading Confucianists and Buddhists, Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics into successful business ventures. In addition, culturalistic explanations have little predictive power since they are invoked only after a particular group has demonstrated its economic prowess. . . .

There is no alternative but to search for the relevant causal process in the social structure of the ethnic community. [Several] common aspects in the economic experience of the immigrant communities [are] relevant. . . .

[First is] the “bounded solidarity” created among immigrants by virtue of their foreignness and being treated as [different]. As consumers, immigrants manifest a consistent preference for items associated with the country of origin, both for their intrinsic utility and as symbolic representations of a distinct identity. As workers, they often prefer to work among “their own,” interacting in their native language even if this means sacrificing some material benefits. As investors, they commonly opt for firms in the country of origin or in the ethnic community rather than trusting their money to impersonal outside organizations.

Bounded solidarity [is accompanied by] “enforceable trust” against malfeasance among prospective ethnic entrepreneurs. Confidence that business associates will not resort to double-dealing is cemented in something more tangible than generalized cultural loyalty since it also relies on the ostracism of violators, cutting them off from sources of credit and opportunity. [Enforceable trust] is the key mechanism underlying the smooth operation of rotating credit associations among Asian immigrant communities.

Bounded solidarity and enforceable trust as sources of social capital do not inhere in the moral convictions of individuals or in the value orientations in which they were socialized. [These benefits] accrue by virtue of [the group’s] minority [status] in the host country and as a result of being subjected to mainstream pressure to accept their low place in the ethnic hierarchy. Such pressures prompt the revalorization of the symbols of a common nationality and the privileging of the ethnic community as the place where the status of underprivileged menial labor can be avoided. . . .

Black Americans, Mexican Americans, and mainland Puerto Ricans today lag significantly behind the immigrant groups in their entrepreneurial orientation. [This] lack of entrepreneurial presence is even more remarkable because of the large size of these minorities and the significant consumer market that they represent. . . .

We believe that the dearth of entrepreneurship among these groups is related to the dissolution of the structural underpinnings of the social capital resources noted above: bounded solidarity and enforceable trust. A thorough process of acculturation among U.S.-born members of each of these groups has led to a gradual weakening of their sense of community and to a reorientation towards the values, expectations, and preferences of the cultural mainstream. [Complete] assimilation among domestic minorities leads to identification with the mainstream views, including a disparaging evaluation of their own group. . . .

[Even] groups with a modest level of human capital have managed to create an entrepreneurial presence when the necessary social capital, created by specific historical conditions, was present. This was certainly the case among turn-of-the-century Chinese. [It] was also true of segregated black communities during the same time period. The current desperate conditions in many inner-city neighborhoods have led some black leaders to recall wistfully the period of segregation. [As one black leader said]:

[T]he same kind of business enclave that exists in the Cuban community or in the Jewish community existed in the black community when the consumer base was contained [i.e., segregated from the larger society] and needed goods and services that had to be provided by someone in the neighborhood. Today, blacks will not buy within their neighborhood if they can help it; they want to go to the malls and blend with mainstream consumers.

Hence, thorough acculturation and the formal end of segregation led to the dissipation of the social capital formerly present in restricted black enclaves and the consequent weakening of minority entrepreneurship. As blacks attempted to join the mainstream, they found that lingering discrimination barred or slowed down their progress in the labor market, while consumption of outside goods and services undermined their own community business base.

SOURCE: Portes and Zhou (1992, pp. 513–518).

Selection by Min (edited)

A Critique of the Model Minority Thesis

Pyong Gap Min

Probably the most frequently cited thesis . . . in the Asian American social science literature over the past two decades is the model minority thesis. . . . Many Asian American community leaders might have felt appreciative of the success image, taking it as a positive acceptance of Asian Americans by U.S. society. Yet, Asian American scholars, teachers, social workers, and activists have never appreciated the success image. Instead, they have provided harsh criticisms of the so-called model minority thesis, examining its inadequacies and its political basis and negative consequences. . . .

Median Family Income Not a Good Measure of Asian Americans’ Economic Well-Being

The success image of Asian Americans is partly based on the fact that the median household . . . income of Asian Americans is higher than that of white Americans. However, many . . . social scientists have . . . argued that the median family income is not a good measure of the economic success of Asian Americans because they have more workers per family and residentially concentrate in large cities, such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, DC, where living costs are very high.

The critics of the model minority thesis have also indicated that the thesis . . . distorts the . . . socioeconomic diversity [of Asian Americans]. While many college-educated Asian immigrants make high earnings . . . many others struggle for economic survival trapped in low-level, service-related jobs [and in] . . . the secondary labor market or the ethnic market. . . . [There is] a greater diversity in class among Asian Americans than among white Americans.

Issues of Lower Rewards to Human Capital Investment

The critics . . . do not consider Asian Americans successful mainly because Asian immigrants do not get rewards for their educational investments equal to white Americans. . . . Many college-educated Asian immigrants engage in low-status, low-paying occupations as taxi drivers, gas station attendants, or cleaners. Many Korean immigrants engage in labor-intensive small businesses to avoid low-paying service and blue-collar jobs. Some studies have indicated that even Asian immigrants who hold professional and government jobs are concentrated in periphery specialty areas or less influential positions. . . .

It is important to examine foreign-born Asian Americans separately from native-born, because the latter have a language barrier and other disadvantages for employment in the United States. [Some] studies . . . have found that native-born Asian American workers receive more or less equal rewards from their human capital investments to white Americans, while Asian immigrants get much lower returns. . . .

[Various studies] support the view that foreign-educated Asian immigrants’ language barrier and their lack of job market information, along with the difference in quality of education between Asian countries and the United Sates, are mainly responsible for their lower returns for human capital investments. However, [the studies also show] that Asian immigrants do . . . experience discrimination, whether based on racism, nativism, or both, in the U.S. labor market. . . .

The Glass Ceiling Problem

Another important issue . . . is the underrepresentation [of Asian Americans] in upper-level administrative, executive, and managerial positions in corporate and public sectors. [Although they] are well represented in professional occupations . . . Asian Americans may be at a disadvantage for these upper-level administrative positions because they lack communication and leadership skills, a result of more authoritarian child socialization techniques practiced in many Asian immigrant families. But it is also true that some well-qualified Asian Americans are not given these desirable positions because Asians are stereotyped as lacking leadership skills. . . . However, as native-born Asian Americans have come of age, more and more of them have been able to move into high-ranking positions during recent years. . . . As more and more Asian Americans occupy upper-level managerial and administrative positions, the stereotype of Asian Americans as lacking leadership skills will change too.

Asian Americans’ High Academic Achievement

The model minority image assumes that nearly all Asian American children are successful in school performance and that Asian cultural norms emphasizing children’s education are mainly responsible for their educational success. The critics of the model minority thesis have challenged both of these assumptions. . . . Asian Americans out­perform whites in the rate of college degree attainment almost 2 times [see Exhibit 9.13] and statistics [like these] may have led . . . reporters and some researchers to overgeneralize Asian Americans’ educational success. But . . . Vietnamese Americans, especially foreign-born Vietnamese, [and some other groups] have a substantially lower level of education than white Americans. . . .

The model minority image includes the assumption that the Asian immigrant parents’ cultural norms emphasizing their children’s education are mainly responsible for the high academic achievement of Asian American students. This assumption is problematic, although it has some element of truth. . . . Contemporary Asian immigrants include a significant proportion of highly educated people who held professional and managerial occupations prior to immigration. Because of their parents’ highly educated background, Asian American students have a huge advantage in school performance over other minority children and even white students. This background of Asian immigrants should be emphasized as the most significant determinant of Asian American students’ academic success. Moreover, . . . immigrants . . . are self-selected in that those who are more . . . achievement oriented have taken the risk of immigrating to the United States. . . .

However, in addition to these class and self­selection effects, cultural factors contribute to Asian American students’ academic success, and this is why I have indicated that the Asian cultural norms interpretation has some element of truth. People in other countries, especially Asian and Caribbean countries, tend to put more emphasis on education . . . than people in the United States and Western European countries. . . . I have seen many students from Asian and Caribbean countries . . . working exceptionally hard to advance to a graduate school despite their financial difficulty and language barrier, while many native-born white American students . . . were attending college simply to get a college degree. The high achievement orientation of Asian and Caribbean students in the United States reflects the values in their home countries. . . .

No doubt, Asian immigrant parents’ emphasis on their children’s success . . . and . . . the perception of Asian American children as model students have positively affected their academic performance. But they have also had negative effects on their psychological well-being by putting too much pressure on them. Although academically successful children are well rewarded in the family and the community, the students who perform at below-average or even average levels are not rewarded and are sometimes neglected by their parents. . . .

Negative Effects of the Success Image on Asian Americans’ Welfare and Other Minority Groups

Asian American critics of the model minority thesis have argued that the success image . . . is not only invalid but also detrimental to the welfare of Asian Americans. . . . The critics point out that . . . Asian Americans have frequently been eliminated from affirmative action and other social service programs designed for disadvantaged minority groups. For example, the poverty rates of Chinese residents in New York Chinatown and Korean residents in Los Angeles Koreatown in 1990 were 25% and 26%, respectively. . . . Yet, those poor Chinese and Korean residents were not eligible for many welfare programs for which poor African Americans were eligible. The critics have also indicated that the success stories . . . stimulated anti-Asian sentiment and violence on college campuses and in communities. . . .

Asian American social work and mental health professionals in particular have been concerned about the negative implications of the success image for various social services to Asian Americans. . . . Policymakers and non-Asian social workers tend to assume that Asian Americans generally do not have serious juvenile, elderly, and other family problems. However, Asian American social workers have argued that Asian Americans’ underuse of social services does not imply that they have fewer . . . problems . . . [but] rather . . . their help-seeking behavior patterns. . . . Moderately disturbed Asian Americans are reluctant to seek help from mental health services because of their cultural norms emphasizing shame and family integrity. Several studies reveal that Asian immigrants have a higher rate of stress and other mental health problems than white Americans. . . .

Finally, . . . the model minority thesis . . . negatively affects other minority groups as well. . . . By emphasizing the importance of cultural factors for the successful adjustment of Asian Americans, the success image in effect blames other less successful minority groups for their failure. It thus legitimates the openness of American society and leads people to fail to recognize social barriers encountered by other minority groups.

SOURCE: Min (2006, pp. 81–87)

Selection by Lee (edited. References have been omitted)

The Model Minority Myth is a Way to Criticize Other Minority Groups, Especially Blacks

Stacy Lee

The term "model minority" first appeared in the popular press in January 1966 in William Peterson's New York Times article, "Success Story Japanese American Style," in which he praised Japanese Americans for not becoming a "problem minority." Within the year, U.S. News & World Report published an article lauding the success of Chinese Americans. … The article went on to praise the good citizenship of Chinese Americans and the safety of Chinatowns. The fact that the stereotype first appeared in the middle of the Civil Rights movement was no coincidence. Just months before the Peterson article was published…, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed and the 1965 Watts riots occurred. Critics of the model minority stereotype have argued that the emergence of the stereotype at this moment in history represented the attempts of the status quo to silence the charges of racial injustice being raised by African Americans …

It was also during the mid-1960s that social scientists began to talk about poverty as a cultural phenomenon. Poor people were described as living in a culture of poverty that shaped their actions and behaviors in ways that trapped them in poverty. Significantly, poverty became associated most closely with urban blacks during this period. … Since then, blacks have been equated with urban blight, cultural deficiency, and dysfunctional families. … In contrast to the representation of blacks …, Asian Americans were heralded as model minorities with strong families and good cultures. Indeed, the rhetoric of the model minority stereotype emphasized the role of Asian culture and families in the success of Asian Americans.

The prescriptive nature of the model minority stereotype is striking in both the Peterson article and the U.S. News & World Report piece. Chinese Americans and Japanese Americans were singled out as good citizens and good minorities precisely because they were seen as quiet, uncomplaining, and hard-working people who achieved success without depending on the government. According to these authors, the success of Asian Americans proved that all groups could achieve the American dream through hard work. That is, Asian Americans as model minorities were used to exemplify the achievement ideology. … African Americans were implicitly being told to model themselves after Asian Americans. While Asian Americans were held up as shining examples of hard work and good citizenship, African Americans were positioned as loud, complaining, and lazy. Put differently, there can be no model minority without the concomitant lazy, underachieving black “other." Thus, as a hegemonic device the model minority stereotype maintains the dominance of whites in the racial hierarchy by diverting attention away from racial inequalities and by setting standards for how minorities should behave.

During the 1980s the model minority stereotype reached beyond Chinese and Japanese Americans to include Southeast Asians as well. … The popular press began to recognize the potential negative implications of the model minority stereotype during the 1980s [but] it continued to portray Asian Americans as exemplary minorities who gain success through sheer effort and determination. The cover story for Time's August 31, 1987, issue illustrates [the] point. The article, "The New Whiz Kids: Why Asian Americans Are Doing So Well, and What It Costs Them," lauded the academic achievement of Asian American students … . It included stories of Southeast Asian refugees who overcame extreme obstacles to achieve academic success. … Once again, Asian Americans are depicted as brave, silent, and long-suffering people. The implicit message is that individual effort will be rewarded by success and that failure is the fate of those who do not adhere to the value of hard work. …

In the traditional family values rhetoric espoused by neoconservatives during the 1990s, Asian American families were held up as exemplars of old-fashioned, traditional, good families. Not insignificantly, the traditional Asian family was contrasted with the stereotypical dysfunctional black family headed by a single black mother on welfare … In the 1992 riots that followed the Rodney King verdict, the conservative press depicted Korean Americans as hardworking, self-made immigrants whose property was threatened by the unlawful anger of black America. Here, Korean Americans became stand-ins for white, middle-class America …

The model minority stereotype persists into the early 21st century without any signs of disappearing. The continuing dominance of the model minority stereotype reflects the fact that the stereotype continues to support the rhetoric of the achievement ideology. Asian Americans as model minorities are the ideal … subject [for the achievement ideology] – motivated, self-sufficient, and successful. The model minority success of Asian Americans is interpreted as evidence that [American society is] neutral and color-blind. Similarly, Asian Americans as model minorities represent the ideal neoconservative subject – traditional, family-oriented, and hard-working. The stereotypical image of the Asian family, with the strict patriarchal father, the dutiful mother who lives solely to guide her children's education, and the obedient children who do well in school, serves the rhetoric of traditional family values espoused by neoconservatives. As in the Civil Rights era, the model minority stereotype pits Asian Americans against other groups of people of color and supports the rhetoric of meritocracy. …

Finally, the stereotype has persisted because there appears to be some evidence to support the idea that Asian Americans are successful. … However, the success of [some Asian American] student mask the growing academic struggles of other Asian American youth. By describing Asian Americans as model minorities, the diverse and complex experiences of Asian Americans remain hidden.

DEBATE QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

1. If Kitano and Seigel are correct, what could other minority groups learn from Asian American experience? Are cultural factors (such as determination and resilience) more important than structural factors (such as colonization and discrimination)? Could other minority groups (such as African Americans and Native Americans) have countered their oppression with “good values?” How?

2. If Portes and Zhou are correct, what could other minority groups learn from the Chinese experience? Do Portes and Zhou use cultural factors as part of their explanation? How? Are Portes and Zhou advocating segregation? Pluralism? Assimilation?

3. According to Min and Lee, what are the limitations of the “model minority” image? What specific sociological concepts do Min and Lee use in their critiques? What is the “glass ceiling” problem for Asian Americans, and how does it compare with similar problems faced by women (see Chapter 11)? What “self-selection” factors affect the academic performance of Asian Americans? What are some of the negative effects of the model minority image for Asian Americans and for other minority groups?

4. Which of these views are consistent with traditional assimilation theory? How? Which are consistent with human capital theory? How? Which views are consistent with the thinking of Noel and Blauner? How?

CHAPTER 10

Is Immigration Harmful or Helpful to the United States?

OVERVIEW

The continuing debate over U.S. immigration has generated plenty of controversy but no consensus. We have seen – in this and in previous chapters – that immigration is a complex, multi-layered phenomenon which generates a variety of attitudes and opinions. Not surprisingly, perhaps, there are also multiple sets of “facts” being cited or emphasized by the various parties to the debate.

The selections for this debate begin with an essay by Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, a well-known “think tank” for immigration issues. Camarota argues against immigration on the grounds that it is harmful to native-born workers, especially those in the low-wage sector.

An opposing point of view is presented by Doris Meissner, former commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. She presents and explains “Five Myths” about immigration and also responds to questions submitted online following the publication of on her article. Finally, we consider a list of “Top Ten Immigration Myths and Facts” posted by PBS’s News hour.

POINTS OF VIEW

The Article by Camarota

To access this essay, go to



The Article by Meissner

To access this article, go to



The transcript of the online Q and A with Meissner

To access this selection, go to



The “Top Ten Immigration Facts and Myths”

The access this selection from PBS news, go to



DEBATE QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

1. Consider the nature of the arguments presented in these excerpts. To what extent do they appeal to emotion? To what extent do they base their arguments on evidence and logic? What specific disagreements over “facts” can you identify? What information would you need to resolve these disagreements?

2. Use the evidence presented in Chapter 10 and in Chapters 8 and 9 to further evaluate

these arguments. How persuasive is Camarota’s argument that immigrants have a negative impact? Can you reconcile his points with Meissner’s response to “Myth #1?” What additional information would you need to resolve this argument?

3. Similarly, evaluate PBS’s response to the myth that “immigrants don’t want to

learn English” (#6) and “Today’s immigrants are different” (#7)

4. Much of the debate over immigration is economic. What other dimensions should

be added (cultural, linguistic, and so forth) to the debate? What arguments were raised in previous chapters that should be considered here?

5. After considering the points made by Camarota, Meissner, and PBS as well as the

material presented in this text, what are your conclusions about the relative costs and benefits of immigration? Is it harmful or helpful to U.S. society? Why?

6. What are the implications of this debate for the “traditional” minority groups?

What gender and class dimensions can you identify in this debate?

CHAPTER 11

Should Children Be Raised Genderless?

OVERVIEW

If gender is a social construction, as we have argued in this text, should boys and girls be raised differently? Do gender expectations limit the free development of children and force them to conform to roles that may be contrary to their needs, talents, and potentials? Aren’t gender roles a form of oppression, as illustrated by the Narrative Portrait of Leslie Feinberg in Chapter 11?

These are not merely rhetorical questions. In 2011, a Canadian couple – Kathy Witterick and David Stocker – told their family and friends that they would not reveal the sex of Storm, their newborn baby. They wanted to raise their child “gender neutral” and avoid the classifications and expectations characteristically attached to little girls and boys.

They were already attempting to limit the power of gender expectations on their two older boys by, for example, allowing them to freely choose their activities, their hairstyles, and even their dress. They wanted to let their children choose their own gender expressions, a freedom that Feinberg would have greatly appreciated.

With their third child, Storm, they were taking another step away from gender conventions, going well beyond notions of androgyny, by not revealing the sex of their newborn to anyone, not even to the grandparents. Could this experiment in gender freedom succeed?

The selections for this debate begin with an overview of the issues and an analysis of the “end of gender” written by reporter Linton Weeks of National Public Radio. Then, we meet Storm’s parents and learn about their viewpoint in a newspaper interview published in The Toronto Star in 2011 and in an update on the story from 2013. Next we consider a

generally critical reaction to Storm’s parents from a story in The Globe and Mail and a generally supportive reaction from feminist blogger Megan Karius.

POINTS OF VIEW

The Overview from Weeks of NPR

To access this selection, go to



The Interview with the Parents

To access the interview, go to

The Update

To access the update, go to



A Critique

To access the story from The Globe and Mail, go to



A Statement of Support

To access the blog entry from Karious, go to



DEBATE QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

1. In her NPR article, Weeks asks “Does gender matter”? How would you respond? What are some ways in which the importance of gender may be decreasing? Are these positive or negative trends? Why?

2. What exactly are Wittericks’ and Stocker’s goals in raising their children as they are? What do they hope to accomplish?

3. What objections do the critics raise to gender neutral child-rearing techniques and what are the arguments in support of Witterick and Stocker? Are these objections based on research, social convention, logic, religion, or something else? How would you evaluate these arguments?

4. If gender is a social convention, does it follow that children should be free to choose their own gender expressions? Are there limits to gender freedom?

5. Do you suppose that Storm (and his or her older brothers) would be better adjusted and happier than other children? Why or why not?

6. Is this attempt to break the bonds of societal expectations fair to the children involved?

7. (Optional) Search the Internet for any updates on Storm. Do more recent developments tend to support or refute Witterick and Stocker? How?

CHAPTER 12

Who’s Rights Should Prevail?

OVERVIEW

Consider these events: A wedding photographer in New Mexico refuses a job filming the commitment ceremony of two lesbians. A florist in the state of Washington declines to supply flowers for a same sex wedding and a bakery in Colorado refuses to cater a party celebrating the wedding of two gay men. In all three cases, the business owners said that their religious beliefs prevented them from supplying the requested services and, in all three cases, the owners were sued (Paulson and Santos, 2014).

Situations such as these have become more common as LGBT people have become more visible over the past several decades and they raise some important questions about civil liberties, freedom of choice, and discrimination. Which set of American values should take precedence in these cases? Those that require business owners to serve everyone, regardless of race, color, national origin, or creed? Or those that guarantee religious freedom? Should people be required to support, even indirectly, practices that they find personally offensive?

Before the passage of the Civil Rights law of 1964 (see Chapter 6), business owners in the South could refuse service to African Americans, consistent with the racist, Jim Crow laws of the day. Are the photographer, florist, and baker mentioned above practicing the same kind of discrimination? Or, were their acts justified by the demands of their religion? Do we need to balance the need for equal public treatment with the requirements of private moral codes?

The state legislature of Arizona became the focus for this debate when they passed a bill (SB 1062) in the spring of 2014. The bill would permit business owners to refuse service to LGBT people, as long as they were behaving “in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief.” The bill was eventually vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer, but not before it set off a wide-ranging and often emotional debate across the United States.

The readings for this debate begin with an article from the New York Times that provides an overview of the legislation and reactions from various groups and continues with an article from the National Journal comparing Arizona’s SB 1062 to segregation. We then consider an article defending the need for SB 1062 from the Christian Post and close with an editorial reconciling the legislation with support for marriage equality from Forbes Magazine.

POINTS OF VIEW

The overview from the New York Times

To access this article, go to



The statement from the National Journal comparing SB 1062 to segregation

To access this article, go to



The statement from the Christian Post defending SB 1062

To access this article, go to



The statement from Forbes reconciling SB 1062 with support for marriage equality

To access this article, go to



DEBATE QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

1. How convincing is the argument that compares SB 1062 to Jim Crow practices? What are the key differences and similarities?

2. One author argues that it’s important to prevent the government from forcing people to speak or act in violation of their religious or moral beliefs. Is this a fair characterization of the bill? Is it a convincing point? What if the moral beliefs in question came from an extremist organization that used religion to justify white supremacy?

3. How can support for marriage equality be reconciled with support for SB 1062? What logic does the author use to explain and justify his position?

4. After reading through the articles, make a list of the most important arguments for and against the legislation. Can you add your own arguments to either (or both) lists?

5. Finally, after considering all the pros and cons, what is your position in this debate? What is the single most important argument in support of your position?

6. (Optional) Search the Internet for updates on similar state legislation. Is SB 1062 truly dead or does it’s spirit survive?

-----------------------

[1] Trayvon Martin, an unarmed African American teenager, was returning home from a convenience store with a drink and some candy. He was stopped by George Zimmerman because he “looked suspicious.” In the ensuing altercation, Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman. Zimmerman was acquitted of 2nd degree homicide and manslaughter charges in the July, 2013. His trial was closely and extensively watched by the national media.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download