These days, everywhere I look it seems like I find stories and articles about conflict between different groups of people. Maybe it’s because I’m more sensitive to such issues because I’m a sociologist. Whatever it may be, it is refreshing to occasionally find an article that illustrates how Americans can bridge various divisions and help one another. In this case, a football team from an affluent, virtually all-White high school helped its poorer, predominantly minority rival salvage their season:

Friday night’s season opener pitting the Cold Spring Harbor Seahawks against their perennial championship archrival, the Roosevelt Rough Riders, is the football game that almost didn’t happen. The Seahawks come from a wealthy white Long Island district with top-rated schools, while the Rough Riders live in a working-class community of blacks and Hispanics whose dysfunctional schools forced a state takeover in 2002. . . .

[T]heir annual face-off was jeopardized this spring when Roosevelt’s budget troubles eliminated the district’s entire interscholastic sports program. Then members of the Seahawks’ booster club began sending in donations, adding to the $15,000 that Roosevelt parents had managed to raise. A Seahawks captain, Peter Ottaviano, and a few teammates went to Roosevelt’s turf to join their rivals in fund-raising car washes.

And at the end of August, an anonymous businessman from Cold Spring Harbor sent an eye-popping $20,000, just in time for the school board to reinstate the football program before classes resumed.

This is a nice example of people coming together across both racial and social class differences in order to do the right thing. Major kudos to both high schools, particular Cold Spring Harbor, and also to the anonymous businessperson who contributed $20,000 to the effort to save Roosevelt’s football season. Let’s hope that we see more examples of this cooperation and unity in our society.

In the context of the recent heated debates surrounding America’s immigration policy, one of the criticisms directed at illegal immigrants was that they allegedly refuse to learn English and steadfastly hold onto their native language into succeeding generations and that therefore, American society would be hopelessly divided into two societies -- one speaking English, the other speaking Spanish. But as CBS News reports, new research convincingly refutes that paranoid notion:

A few generations after families move to the United States from Latin American countries, fluency in Spanish dies out and English becomes the dominant language, according to a new paper published by sociology professors from New Jersey and California. The paper counters popular arguments that the size of Latino immigration to the United States could create a bilingual society and a fundamental change in American culture. . . .

The study suggests that Mexican immigrants arriving in Southern California today can expect only five out of every 100 of their great-grandchildren to speak fluent Spanish. . . . The authors of the new paper use survey data to show that Hispanics with each successive generation are becoming English speakers, just like previous immigration waves in U.S. history.

In theory, findings like this should -- should -- lay to rest nativist fears about immigrants (legal or illegal, Mexican, Asian, or whatever) stubbornly clinging onto their native language and refusing to learn English. However, my guess is that just like other situations, right-wing critics of immigration will just ignore or dismiss it and continue to selectively point to more obscure, biased, and/or scientifically unreliable research that supports their own political agenda.

What are sociologists to do in this blatantly partisan and ideological environment? Our research is supposed to “inform” public policy but in many ways, just ends up becoming another pawn in the big political power game. It can be pretty discouraging at times. But ultimately, we can’t give up. The “facts” need to be revealed, regardless of how it gets used or ignored. Our voice needs to be heard, because without it, something tells me there would be even more chaos, biased assumptions, and plain old lies.

Good work, Professors Massey, Rumbaut, and Bean -- keep them coming.

When it comes to most discussions of White privilege, the assumption most sociologists have is that Whites generally are not aware of the privileges they enjoy as a White person in predominantly White American society. However, as Diverse Education Magazine reports, a new study may suggest that contrary to that assumption, many Whites may indeed be well aware of their privileges:

Surprisingly, in a telephone survey of more than 2,000 households nationwide, a clear majority of Whites (74 percent) stated that their own racial identity was important to them. A similar majority of its White respondents recognized that prejudice and discrimination are important in explaining White advantage, according to the study. . . .

Of the 74 percent of Whites who said that their racial identity was important to them, close to half (37 percent overall) classified it as “very important,” a finding that stunned the researchers. By comparison, about 72 percent of Black, Hispanic and Asian respondents considered their racial identity “very important.” . . .

The research also found that a White person’s awareness of their race and their awareness of the privileges that come along with belonging to that race are not the same. . . . Respondents in a group of Blacks, Hispanics and Asians were almost twice as likely as Whites (81 percent to 46 percent, respectively) to say that institutions favor Whites.

That final quoted paragraph is important to understand -- being aware of one’s White racial identity is not the same as being aware of the privileges associated with being White. In fact, as the article also notes, less than half of Whites surveyed agree that American institutions favor Whites over minorities.

The question becomes, when 46% of Whites surveyed apparently recognize that their White identity is an advantage, can we then conclude that in general terms, Whites as a whole are aware of their privilege, in contrast to the conventional assumption that Whites generally are not aware of their privilege? I would say 46% is a pretty significant number of Whites who are aware of their privileges. It seems that we sociologists do need to rethink that conventional assumption.

In the larger picture however, what we finally need to ask is, now that many Whites are aware of their privileges in American society, how willing are they to actually do something about achieving racial equality so that all Americans, regardless of racial identity, have the same opportunities? Awareness is one thing -- willingness to act is another.

It’s probably not a big secret that in many ways, American society seems to be getting more and more polarized and partisan, whether that be liberals vs. conservatives, Democrats vs. Republicans, religious vs. non-religious, red vs. blue states, etc. But as CBS News reports, many evangelicals and environmentalists are finding more common ground in their shared efforts to fight against global warming:

Many evangelicals have dismissed environmentalists as liberals unconcerned about the economic impact of their policies to fight global warming. Long-standing distrust between the two camps over issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage has discouraged evangelicals from joining liberals on the environment.

But shared concerns over global warming and protecting the Earth are bringing together the two groups in ways that could make the Republican Party more eco-friendly and lead some evangelicals to vote Democratic. . . . “More and more evangelicals are coming to believe creation care is an integral part of their calling as Christians. It is becoming part of their faith,” said Melanie Griffin, director of partnerships for the Sierra Club and an evangelical.

Dewitt said evangelicals will not call themselves environmentalists. “They are going to call themselves pro-life,” he said. “But pro-life means life in the Arctic, the life of the atmosphere, the life of all the people under the influence of climate change.”

Should liberals like myself find this trend encouraging or troublesome? On the one hand, it is an encouraging trend because it gains more support for environmental causes and efforts to reduce global warming, which is something that benefits all of humanity.

On the other hand, there is a chance that conservatives/Republicans could “take over” this cause and transform it into a “conservative” policy, much in the same way that they’ve been able to frame the concepts of “family values” or “national security” into conservative causes.

It’s too early to tell, but at this point, I am willing to put partisan suspicion aside and applaud these groups of evangelicals for working to fight global warming. This is truly an issue that requires broad-based, bipartisan efforts to address. We can haggle over specific labels different groups may use to characterize their work, but if it eventually leads to a cleaner and safer environment for humanity, I’m all for it.

Have you ever wondered why academia is nicknamed the “Ivory Tower?” It may be because of idyllic and perhaps elitist perceptions about pursuing knowledge and wisdom. Or it could be due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of professors are White. With that in mind, Diverse Magazine examines the factors that affect how well minority doctoral students succeed in penetrating the Ivory Tower:

The good news is that African-American, Hispanic/Latino, and American Indian students are entering doctoral programs at higher percentages than any previous time in history. The bad news is that, in 2003, these three under-represented groups combined receive less than 10 percent of all doctoral degrees conferred . . . More than half of those who enroll in a doctoral program leave before graduation. . . .

Data revealed that these minority doctoral students encounter a variety of potential barriers, including family and first generational issues, inadequate educational preparation, unclear institutional policies and procedures and “chilly” departmental climates. Overwhelmingly, issues associated with race/ethnicity permeated every cultural and institutional barrier identified in this study. . . .

This study suggests that college leaders have failed to build bridges between under-represented students’ sociological and cultural factors and their doctoral programs. Just accepting more minority candidates is not the solution; working to understand cultural conflicts, remove institutional barriers and increase the quality of diversity initiatives are essential.

That last quoted sentence bears repeating -- just accepting more minority doctoral students is not enough. They need to be respected, listened to, and deliberately integrated into the department and program. This prescription goes to all doctoral students of all races, but the point here is that because minority students are still relatively rare in doctoral programs, departments should pay extra attention to them and their needs if their goal is to help them succeed.

Universities are doctoral programs are very good at talking the talk -- proclaiming that they value multicultural diversity and taking “affirmative action” to help underrepresented students succeed, and even admitting more minority grad students. But it may be a whole different matter when it comes to walking the walk -- taking concrete steps to ensure that minority students are not ignored, feel alienated and isolated, or even antagonized because of institutional and interpersonal barriers that exacerbate their underrepresented status.

Despite its many problems, we generally assume that the U.S.’s education system is still the best in the world. Or is it? A new report by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education suggests that in many areas, the U.S. (and in particular several states) has now fallen behind other countries in how well it prepares its students for college, having affordable higher education, and other measures of overall quality of education:

While the report found progress in some areas over the time period that the center has been producing these report cards (this is the fourth biennial study), in other areas, especially related to costs, states appear to be backsliding. . . . What the data suggest, Callan said, is a system in which American higher education is resting on its laurels from the period of time before the rest of the world started to pay attention to higher education. . . .

The report card is best known for its grades for individual states — and the grades were particular poor for affordability, with 43 states receiving an F and no states earning an A or a B. . . . The report looks both at state totals and also at subgroups, with states earning better grades if they don’t have large gaps in the performance of different racial and ethnic groups. Generally, the report found that such gaps are widespread and significant.

This data and report paint a rather somber, but probably not entirely shocking, picture of the American educational system. As the article and report notes, there is plenty of blame to go around. If there is one area of American society that truly needs a genuine bipartisan effort to improve itself, it is the educational system. If we cannot bridge political ideologies and work together on this one, the education system will continue to decline and hurt all of us, but especially racial/ethnic groups that are most at risk.

In other words and in the context of the ever-evolving globalized international community, our country will be in dire straits if this continues. If that happens, we all fail.

Last year, the NCAA dictated that colleges whose nicknames and/or mascots deemed to be offensive to Native Americans will not be allowed to host any NCAA postseason game in any sports. In response, many colleges have decided to change their school nicknames. But that has brought up the fear that alumni will refuse to donate to the school in an angry backlash. The Chicago Sun-Times notes that this fear may be exaggerated:

When Knox College in western Illinois got rid of its nickname 13 years ago, the school heard from plenty of angry alumni vowing never to donate to the school again. But in the years since, the school said, donations have increased steadily, and even some of the angriest alumni have come back to strongly support the school. . . .

While it is unknown whether alumni will close their wallets if [the University of Illinois] drops Chief Illiniwek as its symbol, the experience at Knox is similar to what other area schools have seen after changing nicknames or mascots. In general, school officials and fund-raising experts said, while there might be a short-term dip, initial anger subsides. Over the long haul, in most cases, alumni reflect upon their overall experience at the school as a motivation to continue to give money.

If I recall, the same fears existed when the first Civil Rights victories were achieved back in the 1950s and 1960s -- that if all-White schools were desegregated that White parents would keep their children home permanently, or that citizens would rebel against government authority if they were forced to integrate. As history shows, there were a few examples of that kind of backlash but for the most part, people eventually accepted that this was the reality of the day, not to mention that it was the right thing to do.

As the article mentions, we can say the same thing in regard to reactions to schools “being forced” to change their racially/culturally insensitive and perhaps even racist nicknames by the NCAA. Alumni might grumble at the beginning, but eventually accept it as reality and see the larger context of the issue.

The moral to this story is, change can be hard, but yes, tolerance and respect for racial justice can be legislated -- even imposed -- on society without disastrous consequences.

You may remember the millions of people who protested against crackdowns against illegal immigrants several months ago. During those protests, one explicit message that organizers wanted to put forward was that these protests were the stepping stone toward unprecedented voter turnout in the near future. But as the Associated Press reports, states are still waiting to see those influx of new voters:

An Associated Press review of voter registration figures from Chicago, Denver, Houston, Atlanta and other major urban areas that saw large rallies shows no sign of a historic new voter boom that could sway elections. Even in Los Angeles, where a 500,000-strong protest in March foreshadowed demonstrations across the United States, an increase in new registrations before the June primary was more trickle than torrent in a county of nearly 4 million voters.

Protest organizers -- principally unions, Hispanic advocacy groups and the Roman Catholic Church -- acknowledge that it has been hard to translate street activism into ballot box clout, though they insist their goal of 1 million new voters by 2008 is reachable. . . . Some activists acknowledge that their groups have yet to master the nuances of voter registration drives -- a typically face-to-face task more complex than mobilizing a march. Others complain that political parties with the most to gain haven’t financed registration efforts.

There is still time left to accomplish that goal, of course, so immigration activists and their supporters should not panic just yet. At the same time, it’s clear that there is a lot more work that needs to be done before we can see tangible results from those historic marches back in the spring. Until then however, as the article points out, the slogan of “Today We March, Tomorrow We Vote” will remain only a slogan until we translate it into true political power at the ballot box.