You’ve probably heard and/or have seen firsthand that American society is becoming increasinly diverse, racially/ethnically and demographically. This has posed some challenges for many parts of our society, politically, culturally, and as the New York Times reports, educationally as elementary schools across the nation struggle to keep up with the influx of kids from baby boomers and immigrants:

Millions of baby boomers and foreign-born parents are enrolling their children, sending a demographic bulge through the schools that is driving a surge in classroom construction. It is also causing thousands of districts to hire additional qualified teachers at a time when the Bush administration is trying to increase teacher qualifications across the board. Many school systems have begun recruiting overseas for instructors in hard-to-staff subjects like special education and advanced math. . . .

In projections published last year, the federal Department of Education said the nation’s elementary and secondary enrollments would grow, on average, by about 200,000 students annually, reaching 56.7 million in 2014. . . . The enrollment trends would be uneven, regionally, with schools in the Northeast and Midwest losing students, on average, and those in the South and West growing, the department said.

This trend is yet another example of how, for better and for worse, American institutions must come to grips with and address the fundamental demographic changes that are taking place in our society. In other words, it is now longer prudent or even possible to pretend that American society will always be predominantly White, at least in demographic terms.

Whites and White culture will still have the most prominent influence at the institutional level, but as this article illustrates, the “next wave” of Americans is increasingly made up of immigrants and their children. As a society, we have the opportunity to leverage and benefit from that energy and human potential, or to squander it by resisting its inevitable emergence and instead, retreating into fear, arrogance, and isolation.

What will it be?

I’m not a big fan of reality TV series but for those of you who watch Survivor, you may have heard that for their upcoming season, they will be dividing up teams based on racial/ethnic identity, with separate teams of Whites, Blacks, Latinos, and Asians. Several politicians are raising concerns that this structure will only lead to further racial divisions and tensions in American society:

“The idea of having a battle of the races is preposterous,” City Councilman John Liu said Thursday. “How could anybody be so desperate for ratings?” Liu, who is Asian-American, said he was launching a campaign urging CBS to pull the show because it could encourage racial division and promote negative typecasts. He and a coalition of officials, including the council’s black, Latino and Asian caucus, planned to rally at City Hall on Friday.

In a statement, CBS defended the ethnic twist, saying it follows the show’s tradition of introducing new creative elements and casting structures that reflect cultural and social issues. “CBS fully recognizes the controversial nature of this format but has full confidence in the producers and their ability to produce the program in a responsible manner,” the statement said. “‘Survivor’ is a program that is no stranger to controversy and has always answered its critics on the screen.”

I certainly agree that there is a potential for viewers to interpret the new team structure as a reflection of American society in general and that therefore, different racial/ethnic groups should stick with each other and be wary of others who aren’t like them. But I also think that for better or for worse and in many ways, American society is already at that point -- we only need to look at the hateful vitriol directed at illegal immigrants as proof.

In other words, I don’t see Survivor as really inciting Americans to divide themselves by race -- Survivor only seems to be the latest example of that increasing trend. For better and for worse, I have long ago given up hope that the entertainment industry can be positive engines for social change. Instead, as the Asian American Justice Center’s annual reports indicate, they continue to woefully lag behind the rest of American society when it comes to incorporating and portraying America’s true racial/ethnic diversity.

In that context however, in this upcoming season, Survivor’s producers have the opportunity to either inflame existing tensions even more, or to demonstrate that racial differences do not necessarily have to lead to prejudice or hostility. Is there still a glimmer of hope that the entertainment industry can rise to the occasion, or will it just be the same old, same old? As they say, stayed tuned to find out . . .

We all probably know by now that transracial adoptions involving White parents adopting children from Asian countries is rather commonplace. Perhaps less obvious however, are transracial adoptions in which Which parents adopt African American children. Nonetheless, as the New York Times reports, the numbers of these White-Black transracial adoptions has been increasing in recent years:

Ms. Brockway and Mr. Timble are among a growing number of white couples pushing past longtime cultural resistance to adopt black children. In 2004, 26 percent of black children adopted from foster care, about 4,200, were adopted transracially, nearly all by whites. That is up from roughly 14 percent, or 2,200, in 1998. . . .

The 2000 census showed that just over 16,000 white households included adopted black children. Adoption experts say there has been a notable increase since 2000. The reasons for the increase are varied. The Multiethnic Placement Act and its amendments prohibited federally financed agencies from denying adoption based on race. The foster care system has sharply changed in recent years and now includes financial incentives for finding more adoptive families.

The combination of legal changes and greater embracing of multicultural families — Americans have adopted more than 200,000 children from overseas in the past 15 years — have lessened resistance from both blacks and whites. The long wait for white children and the high costs of international adoptions — typically $15,000 to $35,000 — also play a role.

The article also notes that international Asian adoptions are perhaps losing their popularity slightly because of concerns over the legality of the baby’s orphan status and because of backlash against the implicitly racist assumption that Asian children are more “racially similar” to White children. Combined with fewer social concerns about the cultural appropriateness of Whites raising Black children, these factors combine to produce more White-Black adoptions.

Nonetheless, as the article points out, there are still lingering concerns on both sides of the White-Black adoption process, from other White parents who wonder why a White couple wouldn’t prefer to have White children, to some Blacks who worry that the adopted children will become “whitewashed,” and from various critics who protest as devaluating the lives of Blacks the practice of setting adoption fees for Black children lower in order to encourage their adoption.

At the same time, there are more programs to aid both the adoptive parents and the adopted child with their situations and to deal with the complicated issues involved in such transracial adoption. The bottom line seems to be that times have changed -- like it or not, American society is becoming increasingly multicultural and multiracial.

Transracial adoptions do not have to always be associated with a loss of racial identity. Obviously there are issues involved that all parties need to be mindful of. But let us not forget that ultimately, there is one quality that is paramount above all others in terms of making sure adoptive children thrive in whatever environment in which they’re raised -- love.

Andrew Young is an African American former Mayor of Atlanta as well as a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. He was hired recently by Wal-Mart to help them improve their national image. Unfortunately, he has just done the exact opposite with recent derogatory comments about Jews, Asians, and Arabs:

In the Sentinel interview, Young was asked about whether he was concerned Wal-Mart causes smaller, mom-and-pop stores to close. “Well, I think they should; they ran the ‘mom and pop’ stores out of my neighborhood,” the paper quoted Young as saying. “But you see, those are the people who have been overcharging us, selling us stale bread and bad meat and wilted vegetables. And they sold out and moved to Florida. I think they’ve ripped off our communities enough. First it was Jews, then it was Koreans and now it’s Arabs; very few black people own these stores.” . . .

The backlash was abrupt, reports CBS News correspondent Anthony Mason. “It does border on racism when you say Jews, Arabs, Koreans and things of that nature,” Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, told Mason. “Certainly I know that Andy wouldn’t want that same type of characterization done to African Americans — nor would I.”

I might expect these kinds of comments coming from ideological hacks like Michelle Malkin or Anne Coulter, or maybe even from clueless politicians like George Allen, but from an acclaimed Civil Rights activist and role model for many Americans working for social justice?

The question becomes, are these comments just an anomaly, a temporary blip that we should just dismiss as entirely-out-of-character for someone of Young’s stature, or are they more indicative of his genuine feelings and beliefs that he was afraid to express until he momentarily let his guard down? I suppose the answer will depend on what he does from this point forward and the extent to which he reaches out to the groups he denigrated.

People can make mistakes, but people also have a responsibility to make up for those mistakes.

You might think that people who are perceived to be really smart (say like, ohhh I don’t know, college professors) should be more prepared to succeed at high-pressure tasks. But new research suggests that this may not always be the case and in fact, really smart may be more prone to failing at high-pressure tasks than others:

A new study finds that individuals with high working-memory capacity, which normally allows them to excel, crack under pressure and do worse on simple exams than when allowed to work with no constraints. Those with less capacity score low, too, but they tend not to be affected by pressure.

“The pressure causes verbal worries, like ‘Oh no, I can’t screw up,’” said Sian Beilock, assistant professor of psychology at Miami University of Ohio. “These thoughts reside in the working memory.” And that takes up space that would otherwise be pondering the task at hand.

“When they begin to worry, then they’re in trouble,” Beilock told LiveScience. “People with lower working-memory capacities are not using that capacity to begin with, so they’re not affected by pressure.”

In other words, smart people are more likely to feel pressure (either internal or external) and that pressure will frequently result in them failing at a particularly high pressure task. So that brings up the more general question -- are smart people really happier people? Or do smart people develop elevated expectations of themselves, leading to them feeling more stress and ultimately, a greater likelihood at failure (in a relative and absolute sense)?

Just some food for thought . . .

Faced with declining enrollments, many historically-Black colleges and universities are now recruiting more Latino/Hispanic students. As an article at USA Today explains, part of it is simple demographics -- the Latino/Hispanic population recently passed the Black population to become the largest racial/ethnic group in the U.S. and continues to grow at a faster rate than Blacks. But similarities in history and culture are also prominent factors:

The campuses are hiring Hispanic recruiters, distributing brochures featuring Hispanic students, and establishing special scholarships for Hispanics. At the historically black Texas Southern University in Houston, the school has started five Hispanic student organizations, including fraternities and sororities, to help make the campus more inviting. . . .

While the idea has been greeted with open arms by the college’s administrators, some students and alumni said they are mixed about actively recruiting Hispanics to historically black colleges. “I do have concerns,” said Earl Nero, a retired Atlanta businessman who graduated from Morehouse in 1974. “Since the college has determined they want to stay the same size they are, that would take away space from qualified African-American students.” But having other minorities attending a historically black college will help them get “a real life view about what black people are all about,” Nero added.

Student James Travis, who is black, said having other students of other races on a historically black campus bothers him “a little bit” because it challenges the college’s mission. “It’s supposed to maintain the historically black tradition,” said the 21-year-old student from the Atlanta suburb of College Park. “I’ll have to see how it goes before I see if I want to change the situation or not.”

Still, educators say the nation’s two largest minority groups are a natural fit on a college campus. “They are both underserved communities when it comes to higher education,” said Michael Lomax, president and CEO of the United Negro College Fund. “We have got to educate them so that we can have a competitive workforce in the 21st century.”

While it’s natural for many Blacks to have concerns and reservations about increasing numbers of non-Blacks attending historically-Black schools, ultimately I feel that this is a positive development. First, just because more non-Blacks are attending does not necessarily mean that these schools have to change their fundamental mission of having a curriculum and culture focused on Black history.

In other words, welcoming more non-Blacks and maintaining a Black-centered institution should not be mutually exclusive because as many have noted, Blacks and Latinos (along with Asians and Native Americans) share many aspects of history, culture, and contemporary issues in common, not the least of which is learning how to live and work with each other as American society continues to become more diverse, multicultural, and transnational.

Women and especially women of color are increasingly entering high-status occupations once solely comprised of (White) men. Unfortunately but not surprisingly, many women of color encounter subtle and not-so-subtle forms of prejudice, discrimination, and exclusion in these jobs. A new report from the American Bar Association documents such treatment against women of color in large law firms:

An American Indian attorney is asked where she keeps her tomahawk. White male partners look past a Black lawyer, assuming she is clerical staff. An Asian attorney is called a “dragon lady” when she asserts herself. A study by the American Bar Association says those real-life experiences, along with more subtle forms of discrimination, are prompting growing numbers of minority women to abandon the nation’s biggest law firms. . . .

Law firms exclude minority women from golf outings, after-hours drinks and other networking events, the study says. Partners neglect the women of color they are supposed to help mentor. . . .

Among the statistics in the study: Forty-four percent of minority women said they were denied desirable assignments, versus 2 percent of White men. Forty-three percent of minority women said they had limited access to client development opportunities, compared with 3 percent of White men. Nearly two-thirds of minority women said they were excluded from informal and formal networking opportunities, compared with 4 percent of White men.

Such discrimination largely goes unchecked at law firms, forcing women to accept the discrimination or quit, Brown says.

Like I said, these findings are pretty outrageous but ultimately not completely shocking. Sociological research and real-world evidence such as this consistently show that whenever women (and particularly women of color) enter White male-dominated professions that they inevitably encounter many forms of resistance and hostility, direct and indirect. In this case, this kind of treatment has apparently led to a notable exodus of women of color from large law firms.

At the least, I give the ABA credit for making this data and information public and putting it out in the open for everyone to see. Hopefully that is a sign that the legal profession is starting to take these issues seriously and that hopefully, meaningful changes can start to happen.

We generally know that the most common last names in the U.S. are ones such as Smith, Jones, Williams, Johnson, etc. But what if you have a last name that’s different than that? Ever wonder how common is your last name? A new lookup service hosted by PBS, using Social Security Administation records, lets you look that up. (There is also an alternative site that ranks last names).

I was rather surprised to see that the most common Vietnamese last name, Nguyen, is ranked 124th -- ahead of names I thought were more common such as Jefferson, Jacobs, Walters, Jennings, Rodriguez, Chandler, Schneider, etc. My own last name, Le, is ranked 975th -- ahead of surnames such as Foreman, McMahon, Wang, Sinclair, Seymour, etc.

In the end, sites like these are good examples to see that while WASP names still predominate, the U.S. is a lot more culturally diverse than ever before and will continue in that direction, whether people like it or not.