Since today is the first day of classes for the spring semester, here’s a timely post on the subject -- by now I’m sure you’ve heard the accusations from some conservatives that professors who have a liberal bias are likely to discriminate against students who have a conservative perspective -- I’ve already written several posts about such charges. As Inside Higher Education reports, more research is coming out to once again refute this paranoid accusation:

Frequently, these claims are based on studies — many have been released in the last two years — of professors. Party registration is documented, or professors respond to surveys, or syllabus content is rated. A new study being released today aims to debunk all of those studies. “The ‘Faculty Bias’ Studies: Science or Propaganda,” takes eight of the recent studies on faculty politics and judges them by five general tests of social science research. . . .

The various studies analyzed are by no means identical, but they tend to have two major themes (although some stress just one of the themes): that faculty members are liberal and that their liberal inclinations are significant in considering their performance. Lee’s analysis finds some support for the first theme. “Taken together, these studies at best suggest that college faculty members are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans,” he writes. However, even on this theme, he notes that the studies tend to exclude community college faculty members and to focus on faculty at elite institutions — probably skewing the results.

The second theme takes a more thorough beating in the study. “Among the most serious claims the authors make is that this liberal dominance results in systematic exclusion of conservative ideas, limited promotion opportunities for conservative faculty, and expression in the classroom of liberal perspectives that damage student leaning,” Lee writes. “These claims, however, are not supported by the research. Basic methodological flaws keep a critical reader from accepting the conclusions suggested by the authors.”

The article goes on to describe in more detail the empirical shortcomings of the eight studies about “bias in the classroom” and I recommend that you read the entire Inside Higher Education article for yourself to understand the specific problems Lee identified with some of them.

In general, Lee’s new study only confirms what I and virtually all of my colleagues have been saying all along -- yes, most faculty, particularly in the humanities and social sciences, tend to have a liberal perspective and/or identify themselves as Democrats. But this does not actually mean that we are guilty of quashing or retaliating against conservative viewpoints in our classroom.

In my personal experience, it is inevitable that a small but disproportionately vocal number of students in my classes will say that I have a liberal bias (although a greater number of students will tell you that I ultimately present a very balanced set of perspectives in my courses). But again, having a liberal bias is different from saying that I unfairly discriminated against them or tried to silence them in the classroom.

Let’s be sure to separate the two issues because they are not the same.

A colleague of mine asked for my help in recruiting Asian American women to take an Internet survey she’s created to help analyze work and family issues. It’s open to all women who self-identify as Asian American. It’s not exactly a short survey -- it’ll take about 30 minutes to complete -- but the data will be very valuable in helping her understand some very important issues. Please consider participating and please help by directing your friends, coworkers, relatives, etc. to the URL below. Thanks.

——————————————————————————-

I am an assistant professor of Women’s Studies at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and am conducting a study on how Asian American women balance work and family responsibilities. If you or someone you know would be available to participate in survey for this study, it would greatly contribute to understanding the challenges and concerns of this understudied group of women and their mothering and work experiences.

http://www.questionpro.com/akira/TakeSurvey?id=567154

The study is supported by an American Association of University Women Postdoctoral American Fellowship, a grant from the Institute of Asian American Studies at UMASS Boston and a research leave from UMASS Amherst. The survey will be completely confidential.

Unfortunately, I cannot offer any remuneration, other than the satisfaction of knowing that your participation will potentially help to raise awareness and facilitate workplace practices and policy initiatives to better serve Asian American working families. In addition, you may find the survey itself enjoyable and useful for gaining a deeper understanding of your own experiences and how they compare to other Asian American women.

At the end of the survey, you can enter your name into a raffle for a $100 book gift certificate as well as provide your contact information if you are willing to participate in a follow-up interview. Thanks and best wishes!

Miliann Kang
Assistant Professor of Women’s Studies
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
mkang@wost.umass.edu

You may have heard the recent news from the Census Bureau that as of 2005, and for the first time in recorded history, more than half of all adult women are living without a spouse. There are plenty of implications that arise from this latest finding, but as the New York Times points out, contrary to popular perception, this so-called “marriage gap” isn’t about gender, but instead, it’s about education and social class -- women with lower socioeconomic attainment are less likely to marry than women with higher socioeconomic attainment:

Statistics show that college educated women are more likely to marry than non-college educated women — although they marry, on average, two years later. . . . Women with more education also are becoming less likely to divorce, or inclined to divorce, than those with less education. They are even less likely to be widowed all in all, less likely to end up alone. . . .

The difference extends across race lines: black women are significantly less likely to marry than white women, but among blacks, women with a college education are more likely to marry than those who do not.

Among women ages 25-34, 59 percent of college graduates are married, compared with 51 percent of non-college graduates, according to an analysis of the Census Bureau’s June 2006 Current Population Survey by Steven P. Martin, a sociologist at the University of Maryland. The same is true at older age groups: the difference is 75 percent to 62 percent for those ages 35-44, and 50 percent to 41 percent among those 65 and older.

The article points out that the statistical pattern with men is rather similar as well -- the more educated a man is, the more likely he is to be married and that this trend increases with age. Many people might find these numbers a little surprising because the general perception tends to be -- fueled by media portrayals as well -- that “higher class” women are more likely to be independent and never-married while “lower class” women are more likely to follow the traditional path of marriage no matter what.

But as the data show, the exact opposite is true. Ultimately, what we have here is a finding which says that financial security brings marital stability and that both lead to greater happiness.

You might remember that recently an Asian American student applicant who was rejected at Princeton sued the university claiming racial discrimination. The people at Princeton’s student newspaper, The Daily Princetonian, decided to write about his case. Unfortunately, they tried to do so using a parody that included mocking Asian language accents and basically playing off offensive stereotypes against Asians. While the student newspaper claimed it was all hyperbole, others weren’t so amused:

Under the byline of Lian Ji, the article used broken English and racial stereotypes to bash the school for his rejection. “Hi Princeton! Remember me? I so good at math and science. Perfect 2400 SAT score. Ring Bells?” the article began. “Just in case, let me refresh your memories. I the super smart Asian. Princeton the super dumb college, not accept me.”

An accompanying note informed readers that the article was part of the joke issue, but that did not stop Princeton students and alumni from accusing the writers of racism. “Many angry Asian American alums are circulating this article like wildfire. I consider myself an easygoing person, but, guys, this article doesn’t even try to use humor to hide the underlying hate,” Andre Liu, who identified himself as a 1991 graduate, wrote to the editor. “Real bad call.”

Friday’s issue published an article on the controversy and a note from the paper’s managing board that stated its members “sincerely regret having upset some of our readers,” but defended their intentions. “Using hyperbole and an unbelievable string of stereotypes, we hoped to lampoon racism by showing it at its most outrageous,” the note said. “We embraced racist language in order to strangle it. At its worst, the column was a bad joke; at its best, it provoked serious thought about issues of race, fairness and diversity.”

In a letter that appeared in the Daily Princetonian, Princeton’s Asian American Studies Association said the column was “offensive to Asian American students” and “reflects poorly on Princeton’s reputation as a diverse and informed university.”

Apparently The Daily Princetonian includes a few Asian American writers who worked on the “parody” and apparently felt that publishing it was appropriate. Because of that fact, many defenders of The Daily Princetonian argue that they were right in publishing the piece. And apparently, all Asian Americans are supposed to think alike, right? Just because one or a few Asian Americans thought that it was funny means that all Asian Americans should fall right in line, like mindless robots?

As someone who’s been called “extremely sarcastic” by friends and relatives, I can appreciate the value of hyperbole and satire. But in this case, the parody clearly crossed the line into reinforcing and perpetuating offensive stereotypes. Ultimately, The Daily Princetonian has a right to feel that their piece tried to attack racial stereotypes. But they should realize that the same freedom of expression allows the rest of us to denounce it as patently offensive.

For more perspective on this issue, be sure to read Jeff Yang’s weekly “Asian Pop” column.

Racial differences continue to be one of the most controversial and vexing issues in contemporary American society. In an effort to promote a deeper understanding of the biological, cultural, and political aspects of this idea of “race,” as Inside Higher Education reports, the American Anthropological Association has created a new website entitled “Race: Are We So Different“:

The project’s Web site presents quizzes, timelines and other interactive activities designed to consider questions on the history of race in America, human variation across the planet, and race as a “lived experience.”

The interactive timeline is especially helpful, as it allows students to track race in America as it evolved in government, science and society. For instance, clicking on “Government: 1830s-1850s,” opens a page that explains how the U.S. and Mexican governments handled race differently after the Mexican American War.

In another section, titled “Lived Experience,” users can test their knowledge of facts and stereotypes concerning race and sports. While the anthropologists generally emphasized race as a cultural construct, they acknowledged that physical variations can be found in different groups.

Kudos to the AAA for creating such an interesting, timely, and informative resource.

Kiplinger’s Magazine recently released their annual list of Top 100 U.S. Public Universities and I am glad to see that my current employer, the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, moved up from 81st last year to 63rd this year.

Certainly, such ratings can be rather temperamental and there is plenty of debate regarding whether they really measure an institution’s true quality. Nonetheless, progress is always a positive step and I hope that with Deval Patrick as Massachusett’s new governor, that UMass Amherst will continue to demonstrate its potential and climb in the rankings.

I should also note that my undergraduate alma mater, U.C. Irvine, made a huge jump from #70 last year to #17 this year, the biggest improvement of any school on the list. However, my graduate alma mater, the University at Albany, SUNY, dropped from #46 to #67 this year.

Here’s another emerging front in the Illegal Immigration War -- as CBS News reports, stores around the country that serve large Hispanic populations have been receiving death threats for accepting pesos as payment:

A pizza chain has been hit with death threats and hate mail after offering to accept Mexican pesos, becoming another flashpoint in the nation’s debate over immigrants. “This is the United States of America, not the United States of Mexico,” one e-mail read. “Quit catering to the damn illegal Mexicans,” demanded another. . . . Pizza Patron spokesman Andy Gamm said the company was just trying to sell more pizza to its customers, 60 percent of whom are Hispanic.

Wal-Mart, H-E-B supermarkets and other American businesses in towns along the Mexican border accept pesos. And some busineses in New York and Minnesota communities along the northern border accept Canadian dollars. The difference here is that many of the pizza joints are far from the border, in places like Dallas, more than 400 miles away, and Denver, more than 700 miles.

From a business point of view, of course it makes sense for these businesses that serve predominantly Latino customers -- many of them immigrants who have direct contacts with Mexico, illegal or not -- to accept pesos. But from a cultural/political point of view, as the article notes, this type of backlash is not that surprising. In other words, the Illegal Immigration War continues to rage . . .

I’ve written before about the NCAA’s recent regulations designed to get colleges and universities to change their nicknames away from Native American images and mascots that are deemed offensive. Inevitably, there has been resistance from people associated with targeted colleges (although my post cited examples where ultimately the transition has been relatively smooth). However and unfortunately, Inside Higher Education reports on a recent incident regarding the University of Illinois that highlights how far we still need to go:

Native Americans on the Urbana-Champaign campus are demanding protection after discovering threats and racist jibes against them on a Facebook group. . . . Inside Higher Ed obtained a printed copy of the page which has been removed from Facebook. The page carries three postings, apparently by two students at the university whose names are blacked out. Neither student responded to an e-mail request for an interview.

With over 110 members, the group is titled “If They Get Rid of the Chief I’m Becoming a Racist.” One posting reads, “[W]hat they don’t realize is that there was never a racist problem before..but now I hate redskins and hope all those drunk casino owning bums die.” Another post states that one of the leaders of the movement to remove Chief Illiniwek is of Sioux descent. “I say we throw a tomohawk [sic] into her face.” . . .

[Wanda S. Pillow, director of the Native American House] said that several Native American faculty members contacted Facebook and the administration over the weekend about the threats. On Tuesday, after Pillow and others circulated an e-mail to faculty members demanding an investigation, the university announced that it would conduct one.

As one commenter at the bottom of the article notes, these types of hateful comments are the perfect example of the fact that rather than “honoring” Native American culture and ancestry that supporters of such nicknames claim, ultimately, they only illustrate the kind of racist prejudice and intolerance that these “supporters” have against Native Americans.

In other words, their hypocrisy is so thick, you can cut it with administrative red tape.

————————————————————————————————————————

Update: On February 16, 2007, the University of Illinois announced that after negotiations with the NCAA, the school will eliminate the Chief Illiniwek mascot and all related American Indian imagery, but will be allowed to keep using the name “Illini” and “Fighting Illini” since they refer specifically to the Illinois state name. Thus ends Chief Illiniwek’s 81-year stint as mascot of the University of Illinois.