Earlier I wrote about a small suburban church in Georgia that has directly addressed the demographic and cultural change taking place in their community by integrating its newcomer ethnic groups into its church through the “social glue” of Christianity. In the process, the church is setting an example of how to assimilate new residents in 21st century America.

Along the same lines, the New York Times reports on another town in the same area of Georgia in which a new charter school is taking on these same challenges, by welcoming a diverse set of refugees from all around the world and bringing them together with American students from diverse social classes:

More than half the 380 students at this unusual school outside Atlanta are refugees from some 40 countries, many torn by war. The other students come from low-income families in Decatur, and from middle- and upper-middle-class families in the area who want to expose their children to other cultures.

Together they form an eclectic community of Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews and Muslims, well-off and poor, of established local families and new arrivals who collectively speak about 50 languages.

The International Community School, which goes from kindergarten through sixth grade, began five years ago to address a pressing local problem: how to educate a flood of young refugees.

It has evolved into a laboratory for the art of getting along, a place that embraces the idea that people from different cultures and classes can benefit one other, even as administrators, teachers and parents acknowledge the many practical difficulties.

The article goes on to describe that not surprisingly, the school and its teachers face quite a range of challenges in bringing everyone together into a classroom of learning, from language barriers to raising money to helping new students overcoming the trauma of their refugee experiences.

Nonetheless, I find it genuinely heartwarming that, along with the Clarkston Baptist Church at the center of my previous post, the International Community School has chosen to address the challenges of globalization and transnationalism head on, rather than running away from it or denying that it will ever affect them.

Everyone involved with the International Community School -- administrators, teachers, assistants, volunteers, parents, and students -- deserves to be congratulated for what they are doing -- putting their convictions and words about living in peace in a diverse society into practice, into their own daily activities.

As the saying goes, well done is always better than well said. Keep up the good work, everyone.

I came across this article at Inside Higher Education that completely blows my mind -- officials at Palm Beach Community College recently declined to provide health insurance benefits for domestic partners of their employees, but have now approved health insurance benefits for pets of their employees:

When trustees of Palm Beach Community College reached a tie vote in August on a proposal to offer health insurance for the domestic partners of employees, the measure failed and advocates for gay professors and other employees were disappointed. Because the college only pays for employees’ benefits, the proposal wouldn’t have cost the college a penny, but would have opened up quality insurance at a lower cost for the partners of gay and lesbian employees.

Now -- in a move that is seen as adding salt to those wounds -- the college has added a new health insurance benefit for some (unmarried) household members of employees: pet health insurance. All employees were told that they would get a 5 percent discount and group rates on a health insurance plans for their pets. A range of plans are offered, covering wellness care, vaccinations, X-rays, surgery and hospitalization (although pre-existing conditions may not be covered).

“Your pet is a member of your family — his quality of life is important to you,” says the promotional material from the veterinary insurance company. While gay rights groups in the area stressed that they are not anti-pet, they said it was insulting for the college to offer a new benefit for canines and felines who are considered family members while ignoring human life partners of their employees.

I suppose that just about sums up the state of our nation, where animals are treated more humanely than some human beings. Absolutely incredible.

Today, November 9, marks the start of the Diwali (also known as Deepavali) Festival, celebrated by Indians and South Asians around the world as the “Festival of Lights” that symbolizes the triumph of light (good) over darkness (evil).

Wikipedia has a rather comprehensive description of the holiday, while the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation has a summary of the how the festival and its cultural significance relates to gay and lesbian members of the Indian community. In GLAAD’s words, “The holiday and its themes of love, compassion and understanding also reflect the unique hopes and dreams that resonate within the South Asian LGBT community.”

The following YouTube video, made by the India Association at the University of Missouri -- Rolla, depicts the ancient legend of how Diwali first began:

For more information on the Diwali Festival, you can visit the following sites:
http://indianfestivals.info/diwali.html
http://www.deepavali.info/
http://www.indif.com/nri/Festivals/Diwali.asp
http://www.netglimse.com/holidays/diwali/index.shtml

Many opponents of immigration (legal or illegal) like to argue that immigrants are less likely to think of themselves as American, are not interested in assimilating into American culture, and would rather go back to their birth country than stay in the U.S. However, a new study on Latino immigrants by the respected non-partisan Pew Research Center suggests a different picture -- most Latino immigrants want to be as American as anybody else:

Only one-in-ten (9%) of all Latino immigrants send remittances, make phone calls at least once a week and have traveled back to their country of origin in the past two years. Meanwhile, nearly three-in-ten (28%) do not engage in any of these activities. . . .

The share making trips in the recent past is higher among immigrants with long tenure than among the recent arrivals. Acquiring U.S. citizenship, which is more common among those with more years of residence, is associated with higher levels of recent travel. . . .

Two-thirds of Latino immigrants (66%) say they plan to stay in the U.S. for good, but this intention varies significantly depending on how long an individual has been in this country. Among those here for fewer than 10 years, 51% say they plan to stay, a view shared by 85% of those who have already been here more than 30 years.

To summarize, while many might expect virtually all Latino immigrants to have deep levels of attachment to their birth countries, a significant number of them (28%) do not engage in any of the three identified “attachment” behaviors at all. Also, the longer a Latino immigrant lives in the U.S. or if s/he has U.S. citizenship, the more likely s/he is to travel back and forth between the U.S. and his/her birth country, again contrary to conventional expectations. And even among recent immigrants, more than half plan to stay permanently in the U.S.

The take-home message from this study seems to be: in contrast to criticisms that they aren’t interested in assimilating, overwhelmingly, Latino immigrants (legal and illegal) want to become Americans.

With that in mind, their critics can still argue over whether they -- particularly those who are here illegally -- should be allowed to become American citizens, but their argument that Latino immigrants themselves don’t want to become Americans now appears to be significantly weakened.

Here’s a cartoon that pretty much sums up my opinion on President Bush’s recent veto of an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program for uninsured children (copied from http://community.livejournal.com/politicartoons/).

In my previous post entitled “The Downside of Diversity,” I wrote about a new study by a Harvard professor which concluded that in areas with high levels of racial/ethnic diversity, residents are more likely to feel alienated and distrustful of each other.

In that context however, as the New York Times reports, in many churches around the country, an influx of new immigrants has led to increased racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity in their churches. More importantly and in contrast to the findings of the above-mentioned, it has actually strengthened the social bonds between church members:

The Clarkston International Bible Church, which sits along an active freight rail line down the road from the former Ku Klux Klan bastion of Stone Mountain, is now home to parishioners from more than 15 countries. . . The church’s Sunday potluck lunch features African stews and Asian vegetable dishes alongside hot dogs, sweet tea and homemade cherry pie.

The transformation of what was long known as the Clarkston Baptist Church speaks to a broader change among other American churches. Many evangelical Christians who have long believed in spreading their religion in faraway lands have found that immigrants offer an opportunity for church work within one’s own community. And many immigrants and refugees are drawn by the warm welcome they get from the parishioners, which can stand in stark contrast to the more competitive and alienating nature of workaday America.

Indeed, evangelical churches have begun to stand out as rare centers of ethnic mixing in a country that researchers say has become more culturally fragmented, in part because of immigration.

The article describes that the transition to a multi-ethnic and multicultural church was not an easy one. As their town was experiencing these profound demographic changes, many old-time White residents were appalled and moved elsewhere, rather than live next to more immigrants and people of color.

Nonetheless, other long-time residents turned to the Bible to get guidance on how to deal with these social changes and found the answer in Jesus’s example of praying for unity among his followers. As a result, the church first rented out its facilities to Filipino, Vietnamese, and African groups for their own services. Eventually, the church invited these separate congregations to join them to form an expanded and inclusive congregation.

Further, the article notes that all groups involved had to change a little: ” Merging congregations has meant compromise for everyone. The immigrants who join the main congregation have to give up worshiping in their native languages. Older Southern Baptist parishioners have given up traditional hymns and organ music.”

This story about the evolution of the Clarkston International Bible Church is a great example of sociology in so many ways. The first lesson is that globalization and demographic change are practical realities of American society. With that in mind, “traditionalists” can try to keep running away and moving from town to town if they like, but eventually they will have to deal with these changes one way or another.

Alternatively, as illustrated by William Perrin’s example in the article, they can summon up the courage to consciously adapt to these changes and learn to even embrace these changes because it is these kinds of challenges that make us stronger and more united as a community and as a society.

A third “lesson” we might learn from this story is the positive power of religion to facilitate social unity and solidarity. Many Americans and particularly many academics, are rather skeptical and even hostile towards organized religion. In many cases, they see religion as a divisive force that only serves to perpetuate “us versus them” mentalities.

In many cases, these critics of religion certainly have a point and there are plenty of examples to support their perspective. Nonetheless, as this article illustrates, not all aspects of organized religion are divisive and in fact, as shown by the Clarkston example, religion can serve as a powerful and effective focal point that can bring together people from diverse backgrounds.

All combined, the final sociological lesson to be learned is that rather than leading to more alienation and distrust, racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity, with the help of some kind of “social glue” like religion, can indeed offer us the opportunity to socially evolve and to become better American citizens.

As a sociologist who studies immigration and assimilation, I have written before about how, in the context of today’s globalized and transnational 21st century American society, recent immigrants and the children of recent immigrants are blending old and new to create new forms of assimilation that incorporate elements from both mainstream American society and their ancestral culture. With that in mind, New American Media profiles this process among Latinos:

Latinos are assimilating, but in their own way, keeping much of their identity. Tamales at Christmas. Turkey and menudo at Thanksgiving. English at work and Spanish at home. Dual loyalties to the San Diego Chargers and Guadalajara Chivas. The Fourth of July. Cinco de Mayo. . . .

The big difference between European and Latino immigrants, according to Ramos and some sociologists, is that Hispanics live next to their countries of origin, allowing them to maintain ties with their family, culture and language. In addition, there exists today an extensive network of Spanish-language media. . . .

Defining assimilation is as complex as reforming immigration laws. Can you speak Spanish and be assimilated? Do you have to like hamburgers more than grilled steak tacos? When can you say you have achieved assimilation? . . . Richard Rodríguez, a writer who has published various books about the adaptation of Latinos to U.S. culture, said that assimilating is absorbing the individuality of the United States, and that this is precisely what Hispanics are doing.

This is exactly the type of “new assimilation” that I’ve been writing about, whether it happens to Latinos, Asians, or whoever else. As American society moves forward into the 21st century, it is inevitably becoming much more diverse -- demographically and culturally. The practical reality is that non-White groups increasingly make up an every-increasing share of the U.S. population and that this demographic change is certain to bring cultural changes.

However, there are many Americans who bemoan and lament these changes and will insist that you can only be a “real” American if you are born in the U.S. and whose ancestors are White and came from Europe. Ultimately, there’s not much I or anybody else can do to change their mind or to encourage them to broaden their definition of who qualifies to be an “American.”

In the end, reactionaries like that are likely to be replaced by young Americans who are indeed forging their own sense of identity -- one that includes being both Mexican, Chinese, or whatever and being American at the same time.

You may have heard that in July 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two landmark affirmative action cases. In both cases, the Court basically ruled that school desegregation plans that are based on race/ethnicity are unconstitutional. In other words, using the race/ethnicity of students to decide who goes to what school is illegal.

With that in mind, the question becomes, how about school desegregation plans that are based on social class instead -- how effective are they at achieving racial/ethnic integration? Try shed light on this question, the New York Times examines the case of several public school districts around the country and finds that in many cases, using social class instead of race to achieve racial integration is not a magical cure-all:

San Francisco began considering factors like family income, instead of race, in school assignments when it modified a court-ordered desegregation plan in response to a lawsuit. But school officials have found that the 55,000-student city school district, with Chinese the dominant ethnic group followed by Hispanics, blacks and whites, is resegregrating.

The number of schools where students of a single racial or ethnic group make up 60 percent or more of the population in at least one grade is increasing sharply. In 2005-06, about 50 schools were segregated using that standard as measured by a court-appointed monitor. That was up from 30 schools in the 2001-02 school year, the year before the change, according to court filings. . . .

Many of these experiments are modest, involve small districts or have been in place only a few years. But the experiences of these districts show how difficult it can be to balance socioeconomic diversity, racial integration and academic success.

Only a few plans appear to have achieved all three goals. Others promote income diversity but not racial integration while still other plans are limited and their results inconclusive. Those who have studied them say a key to that outcome is how aggressively a plan shifts students around and whether there are many schools that can lure middle-class students from their neighborhoods into poor ones.

To be sure, racial integration in public schools is a complicated issue. In this context, the main point that I want to emphasize is that, while educational policy is not one of my specific areas of expertise, it seems to me that the fundamental problem here is that some schools have more money and other resources than others and that racial segregation is just a symptom of this basic inequality.

In other words, as a result of the larger issue of residential segregation, in many public school districts, Black students are frequently confined to neighborhoods where property values -- and therefore property taxes that are used to fund schools in that district -- are lower than in predominantly White suburbs. Therefore, while money doesn’t solve everything, these mainly Black schools have less money to hire high quality teachers and to buy equipment, materials, fix their infrastructure, fund extracurricular activities, etc.

Therefore, while I may be totally missing the picture, it seems to me that in order to fix the problem at its most basic level, what we need first is a reshuffling of funds before we try to reshuffle students. That is, some kind of redistribution of school funds seems to be the only solution that will begin the process of eventual racial integration.

Of course, affluent school districts won’t be keen to have some of their money taken away. But maybe they won’t have to -- maybe the answer is for the state to redistribute funds from other projects or to generate new funds for these needy district some other way. The bottom line is, if educating our young people is the key to our future, we need to look at the root cause of the problem and then every option available to address that problem.