Since the 1980s, many, perhaps even most, colleges and universities instituted diversity requirements for undergrad students that required them to take at least one course about racial/ethnic minorities. Twenty or so years later, the question some are asking is, have these courses served their purpose and are they still useful? In answering that question, Williams College is overhauling their diversity requirement:

Students had to take a course about a minority group or a non-Western group. Anything that met that basic criterion could count. . . . The requirement was so vague that it didn’t have any real meaning, [Williams professor Chris Waters] said. . . . A lot of our international students wondered what on earth this was about, and many of our non-white students viewed it as tokenism. Why would our minority students need to take such a course?” . . .

So after a year of deliberation, the Williams faculty voted to . . . require that the diversity requirement be about more than some “other” group. The “exploring diversity” courses can’t just be about another group or culture, but must “include an explicit and critical self-reflection on and immersion in a culture or people,” according to the college’s new policy. . . .

Courses about gender and sexuality could qualify. Courses about various Western societies could qualify. Courses that are critical of the groups they explore could qualify. . . . Burger said that he is particularly pleased with the way the change shifts the goal away from learning some facts about another group to learning to understand other people’s ideas and approach to life.

It sounds like Williams is probably onto something here. American society has changed and it’s not just about Whites and Blacks any longer. There are many dimensions of diversity these days so it makes sense that other underrepresented and/or understudied groups, even White ones, deserve some attention.

At the same time, I hope that such courses and diversity requirements in general keep in mind, and in fact retain, the central notion that there are power dynamics and inequalities in American society that still have not changed. These dynamics are still responsible for the various mechanisms of inequality, injustice, and discrimination that continue to negatively affect many groups, particularly racial/ethnic minority groups.

These issues still are important and significant and still need to be emphasized and studied. Yes, it’s nice to learn about Whites in the antebellum south, but let’s not forget that Whites in those situations still enjoyed a significant power advantage over other members of American society, and in many ways, continue to do so today.

In other words, it is true that American diversity is not just about race/ethnicity any longer -- but it is still about power and inequality. We should never forget that.

It should be well-known to everyone by now that on average, getting a college degree results in more annual income -- in most cases, about double what you would earn with just a high school diploma alone. But as Diverse Issues in Education reports, new Census data shows that not all racial/ethnic groups receive the same income boost from their college degree:

[B]achelor-degree holders earned an average $51,554 in 2004, compared to $28,645 earned by high school graduates and the $19,169 earned by those without a high school diploma. . . . Black high school graduates earned $23,498 compared to $25,823 earned by Hispanics, $28,289 earned by Asians and $30,197 earned by Whites.

Even having a bachelor’s degree did not equalize earnings across races. Blacks with bachelor’s degrees earned $42,342 while Whites earned $53,411, Asians earned $47,912 and Hispanics earned $45,166. Blacks with doctoral degrees earned $82,615 compared to $94,426 earned by non-Hispanic Whites. . . .

Spriggs says the income disparities can’t be explained away with achievement gaps, the theory that Blacks would earn less in the marketplace because they’re not as skilled as demonstrated by lower test scores. Previous analyses indicate the annual earnings of Blacks are less than that of Whites with the same test scores, Spriggs says.

The article also notes that compared to men, women also continue to experience lower returns on their college degrees. Some of the differences can be attributed to differences in field of study/major and regional differences in salary, but as the last quoted paragraph notes, even after controlling for those other factors, workers of color and women continue to earn less than White and male workers.

In other words, American society has made progress in closing the racial and gender wage gap, but clearly, there is still plenty of room for improvement.

Do you use the Internet too much? Do you feel withdrawal symptoms when you are away from the Internet? Are you curious as to how many people are “addicted” to the Internet? As reported by CBS News, a new study finds that around 1 in 8 people (12.5%) of people may have an Internet problem. Here are some questions asked of respondents and their answers from the study:

• Do you feel your personal relationships have suffered as a result of excessive Internet use? (6 percent said “yes")
• Do you conceal nonessential Internet use? (9 percent “yes")
• Do you feel preoccupied by the Internet when you’re offline? (4 percent “yes")
• Do you find it difficult to stay away from the Internet for several days at a time? (14 percent “yes")
• Do you go online to escape problems or relieve a negative mood? (8 percent “yes")
• Have you tried to cut back on your Internet use? (12 percent “yes")
• If so, did you succeed? (94 percent “yes")
• How often do you stay online longer than you intended? (12 percent said “very often” or “often")

You can make your own judgments about whether 1 in 8 constitutes a “social problem” of Internet addiction. I suppose that ultimately, the Internet is just like any other activity -- if used in moderation it can be enjoyable, productive, and beneficial. But whether it’s gambling, drinking, or even yoga, shopping, or eating, if it becomes excessive, there is certainly the possibility that the Internet can become a problematic addiction.

Technology can change from year to year, but addiction problems seem to be always constant.

During the 2000 and 2004 elections, Republicans were accused of trying suppress minority and immigrant votes in many key states. Whether they are true or not, it’s pretty clear that voter intimidation is more associated with conservatives and Republicans than it is with liberals and Democrats. Are Republicans in fact more likely to try to suppress votes? It certainly doesn’t help their cause with stories like this -- a Republican Vietnamese American candidate has been accused of illegally intimidating Democratic Hispanic voters in California:

[T]he investigation appeared to be focused on the campaign of Tan D. Nguyen, a Republican challenger to Democratic U.S. Rep. Loretta Sanchez. The letter, written in Spanish, tells recipients: “You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time.” In fact, immigrants who are naturalized U.S. citizens can vote. . . .

Scott Baugh, chairman of the Orange County Republican Party, condemned the letter as “an obnoxious, grotesque piece of work.” “Regardless of who did it -- Republican or Democrat -- if it’s a crime, then whoever did it should be prosecuted,” Baugh said. A group of six Vietnamese-American political candidates running for offices in Orange County issued a joint statement saying: “The content of this mailer is offensive to the immigrant voters, regardless of their ethnicity.”

The note’s letterhead resembles that of an anti-illegal immigration group, California Coalition for Immigration Reform, but group leader Barbara Coe said she told investigators for the attorney general’s office Wednesday that her group didn’t authorize the letter and she didn’t know who sent it. . . . Numerous political leaders including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger have denounced the letter and called for the investigations.

Tan Nguyen has denied having any knowledge of this act, instead blaming his one of his campaign workers for unilaterally creating and mailing these flyers. As a Vietnamese American myself, I really want to believe him. However, given how rabid -- and yes even extremist -- many Vietnamese Americans can be in terms of their political expressions, I’m afraid that I’m a little skeptical at his excuse. In fact, I think he’s lying.

If Tan Nguyen is the person responsible for this act, all I have to say is -- Wow. In one fell swoop, Nguyen has managed to (1) commit an illegal fact in violation of federal voting laws, (2) cause his own political party to denounce such actions, (3) mobilized his Democratic opponents to capitalize on such a monumental bonehead move, and (3) embarrass the entire Vietnamese American community, regardless of political beliefs.

Nice job, Tan. You deserve to go down for that -- hard.

When it comes to access to political participation and voting, it’s been well documented that in some areas and localities around the country, many Blacks have been disenfranchised at the hands of Whites. However, as the New York Times reports, there is one instance in which the opposite is alleged to have happened -- Blacks trying to disenfranchise White voters:

The Justice Department’s main focus is Ike Brown, a local power broker whose imaginative electoral tactics have for 20 years caused whisperings from here to the state capital in Jackson. Mr. Brown, a twice-convicted felon, the chairman of the Noxubee County Democratic Executive Committee and its undisputed political boss, is accused by the federal government of orchestrating — with the help of others — “relentless voting-related racial discrimination” against whites, whom blacks outnumber by more than 3 to 1 in the county.

His goal, according to the government: keeping black politicians — ones supported by Mr. Brown, that is — in office. To do that, the department says, he and his allies devised a watertight system for controlling the all-determining Democratic primary, much as segregationists did decades ago.

Mr. Brown is accused in the lawsuit and in supporting documents of paying and organizing notaries, some of whom illegally marked absentee ballots or influenced how the ballots were voted; of publishing a list of voters, all white, accompanied by a warning that they would be challenged at the polls; of importing black voters into the county; and of altering racial percentages in districts by manipulating the registration rolls.

I think it’s important to keep these events in perspective. If in fact Mr. Brown is guilty of these allegations, they are reprehensible and have no place in the American democratic system, to be sure. Disenfranchisement of potential voters -- of whatever race or ethnicity -- is illegal, period.

At the same time, I would like to ask why is it that numerous other instances in which voting irregularities and disenfranchisement against Blacks and other people of color have been alleged and frequently substantiated, most notably in the 2000 and 2004 national elections, were never prosecuted or even followed through on by the Justice Department?

If the Justice Department is legitimately serious about stamping out voter disenfranchisement, they need to be paying much more attention to the myriad of examples in which Blacks and other people of color continue to be denied their constitutional right to vote, rather than picking an isolated incident such as this to prosecute.

I’ve written before that I’ve basically lost any hope that the mainstream media can be engines for positive social change in American society. This is because since corporations now control much of the media, the emphasis these days is on exploiting information and conflicts for profit and political favor, rather than disseminating important information for knowledge’s sake. Perhaps one of the worst offenders if the Fox network. Therefore, I was a little shocked to hear that Fox just fired a White sportscaster for racially-insensitive remarks against Hispanics:

Fox baseball broadcaster Steve Lyons has been fired for making a racially insensitive comment directed at colleague Lou Piniella’s Hispanic heritage on the air during Game 3 of the American League championship series. . . . Piniella said the A’s needed Thomas to get “en fuego” -- hot in Spanish -- because he was currently “frio” -- or cold. After Brennaman praised Piniella for being bilingual, Lyons spoke up.

Lyons said that Piniella was “hablaing Espanol” -- butchering the conjugation for the word “to speak” -- and added, “I still can’t find my wallet.” . . . “I don’t understand him, and I don’t want to sit too close to him now,” Lyons continued. . . . Hired when Fox began broadcasting baseball in 1996, Lyons was suspended without pay in late September 2004 after his remarks about Shawn Green of the Los Angeles Dodgers. Green is Jewish and elected not to play one of the two games at San Francisco that took place during the Yom Kippur holiday.

The network apologized for Lyons’ remarks at the time. Earlier in the playoffs, while working the Mets-Dodgers NLDS, Lyons unwittingly made fun of a nearly blind fan who was wearing special glasses to see the game. “He’s got a digital camera stuck to his face,” Lyons said.

At a time when it seems that more and more radio and television personalities are purposely offending minority groups and only getting a slap on the wrist as punishment, if anything, from their employers, I am flabbergasted that Fox, of all the networks, is taking a stand by firing Lyons. Who would have known that -- at least in this instance -- Fox actually has a conscience!

During the Civil Rights Movement, many injustices were perpetrated against activists who challenged the racist status quo and instead, put their careers and lives on the line to fight for equality. While many of those injustices still need to be corrected, as the New York Times reports, at least Vanderbilt University is owning up to their earlier mistake of expelling a Civil Rights activist in the 1960s:

Rev. James M. Lawson Jr., 78, . . . returned to teach at Vanderbilt this fall, 46 years after the university expelled him for his role in lunch-counter sit-ins that made Nashville a springboard for a generation of civil rights activists. The expulsion of Mr. Lawson, a Methodist divinity student who was one of the nation’s leading scholars of civil disobedience and Gandhian nonviolence, was quickly dubbed the Lawson affair, and tarnished Vanderbilt’s reputation for years.

University officials apologized to Mr. Lawson long ago, honoring him and inviting him back for periodic lectures. Even Harvie Branscomb, the chancellor who presided over Mr. Lawson’s ouster, apologized before his death. But the invitation to return as a visiting professor is a new chapter in relations between Vanderbilt and its famous former student.

“It isn’t often that an institution gets the chance to correct for a previous error,” said Lucius Outlaw, Vanderbilt’s associate provost for undergraduate education, who first proposed that Mr. Lawson be asked here for the year. Mr. Lawson said the invitation came “out of the blue.” He bore no grudge when he was expelled, he said, nor does he today.

In today’s era where the potential for intergroup conflict and hostility is so high, it’s nice to see stories like this that show how reconciliation is possible, even for a big institution such as Vanderbilt University. Kudos to the school, Associate Provost Outlaw for his idea of inviting Rev. Lawson back to teach, and to Rev. Lawson himself for showing us that forgiveness can be very healing.

Demographers will tell you that a few years ago, Latinos overtook Blacks in terms of population size and are now the U.S.’s largest racial/ethnic minority group. As anecdotal evidence around the country also shows, in many places Latinos are also overtaking Blacks in terms of political power. Inevitably, this has led to some tensions and hostility between the two groups. But as the New York Times reports, people in a small town in Georgia show that conflict doesn’t necessarily have to be the result:

The arrival of hundreds of thousands of Hispanic immigrants over the past decade is quietly changing the dynamics of race relations in many Southern towns. The two pastors [Rev. Harvey Williams Jr. and Rev. Atanacio Gaona] find that the fault lines that separate their communities sometimes test their friendship and challenge their efforts to bring blacks and Hispanics closer together. The two groups, who often live and work side by side, compete fiercely for working-class jobs and government resources. . . .

Many blacks express anguish at being supplanted by immigrants who know little of their history and sometimes treat them with disdain as they fill factory jobs, buy property, open small businesses and scale the economic ladder. . . . Some Hispanics say African-Americans treat them with hostility and disparage them with slurs, even though blacks know the sting of racism all too well. They say many blacks are jealous of their progress and resent the fact that whites, who dominate the business sector, look increasingly to Hispanics to fill work forces. Blacks say employers favor immigrants because they work for less money. . .

When Mr. Gaona’s computer became infected with a virus, he called Mr. Williams, who stopped by to help repair it. When state officials refused to renew his brother’s driving license because his immigration papers were not in order, Mr. Gaona called Mr. Williams in frustration. Mr. Williams relies on Mr. Gaona to interview Hispanic immigrants who ask to rent his church’s social hall for parties. And it was his respect for the Hispanic pastor that helped persuade him to use his newspaper column to chastise Americans who disparaged the newcomers.

“I believe that rather than be angry or envy those who have came to America and found success, we ought to be learning from them,” Mr. Williams wrote. As the ministers meandered through their changing neighborhoods one afternoon, they considered taking their friendship to another level by preaching a joint service for their congregations. Though they knew it might never happen, they envisioned Spanish speakers and English speakers, newcomers and long timers’ holding hands and praying beneath the oak trees.

Certainly there are still many obstacles that need to be overcome before Blacks and Latinos can feel completely comfortable interacting with each other. To be honest, that ideal may never been fully achieved. But that does not mean that we cannot try. As Revs. Williams and Gaona show, different groups can unite around a single commonality and use it to forge new relationships and friendships with each other.

The point here is, racial/ethnic differences do not have to necessarily lead to conflict and tension. That’s a hard thing to remember when groups are (seemingly) in economic competition with each other within the capitalist system, but let us remember the old proverb that says that sharing by all will mean scarcity for none.