With the end of the semester rapidly approaching, and our final exam barely two weeks off (Thursday, Dec. 15th, 9-12), the families need to start racking their collective brains to come up with some questions for the final exam. This exercise is similar to what you did for the midterm exam, only now I am asking for you to make up questions from the latter half of the course. Specifically, I want each family to come up with FIVE short-answer questions (and answers) from the latter half of the course. The "latter half" begins with class lecture/discussion of Chapter 2 in Dr. Tatum's book, starting midway in that chapter, p. 57, "The Psychological Threat of Stereotypes." Anything that we've covered since then is fair game to make up questions; that would include class lectures and blog material on the rest of Dr. Tatum's book, "The New Jim Crow," and even Chapters 1, 3, & 7 of "Yellow." I trust you all should have a good idea of what I mean by "short-answer" questions, since you've done this before and you've taken the midterm exam. Given the time constraint of having only three classes left, at least one and a half of which will be devoted to presentations of your interview papers, that does not leave much class time for brainstorming with your fellow family members. But I will give you some time next week, however, you probably will have to confer outside of class as well.
I WILL NEED THE FAMILIES TO SUBMIT YOUR PROPOSED QUESTIONS (AND ANSWERS) NO LATER THAN NOON, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9TH (WHICH IS THE LAST DAY OF CLASSES BEFORE FINAL EXAM WEEK). You can submit them via email or in writing. I will then read over your proposed questions and try to accept at least three from each family. For each question beyond three that I accept, that family will earn a bonus point. I will then post these questions & answers on this blog NO LATER THAN MONDAY AFTERNOON (DEC. 12), so that you can review them for the final exam. For all PARTICIPATING family members, you will earn 6 activity points, plus any bonus points.
Finally, remember this is a FAMILY (OR GROUP) activity. In that regard, I WILL NOT ACCEPT INDIVIDUAL SUBMISSIONS FROM FAMILY MEMBERS. THE FAMILY, AS A WHOLE OR GROUP, SHOULD SUBMIT THE BEST FIVE QUESTIONS YOU CAN COME UP WITH.
_________________
Remember, your Interview paper is due tomorrow, and all of you should be prepared to give a 10-minute presentation, hitting the highlghts of what you found.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
Highlights from "The New Jim Crow"
As I promised before Thanksgiving break, I was going to post some notes on the portion of "The New Jim Crow" that I was not able to get to in class, which is well over half the book. Please keep in mind, these notes are NOT intended to be comprehensive; rather, I would call them mere "highlights." Nonetheless, this material will be fair game to make up questions for the final exam. So, here goes ---
CHAPTER 3: THE COLOR OF JUSTICE
Dr. Alexander had a nice passage which clearly described the circular logic of those who defend racial profiling. Referring to studies from New Jersey and Maryland, she says, "What most surprised many analysts was that, in both studies, whites were actually MORE LIKELY than people of color to be carrying illegal drugs or contraband in their vehicles. In fact, in New Jersey, whites were almost twice as likely to be found with illegal drugs or contraband as African Americans, and five times as likely to be found with contraband as Latinos. Although whites were more likely to be guilty of carrying drugs, they were far less likely to be viewed as suspicious, resulting in relatively few stops, searches, and arrests of whites. The former New Jersey attorney general dubbed this the 'circular logic of racial profiling.' Law enforcement officials, he explained, often point to the racial composition of our prisons and jails as a justification for targeting racial minorities, but the empirical evidence actually suggested the opposite conclusion was warranted. The disproportionate imprisonment of people of color was, in part, a product of racial profiling -- not a justification for it." (p. 131)
Of course, in addition to the above point, you should be aware, in general, of how a number of Supreme Court rulings have made it difficult, if not impossible, to prove there is racial discrimination in different aspects of our criminal justice system.
CHAPTER 4: THE CRUEL HAND
In noting the widespread employment discrimination against ex-convicts, Dr. Alexander makes a very appropriate comment about the importance of work, which cannot be overemphasized. She says, "Even beyond the need to comply with the conditions of parole, employment satisfies a more basic human need -- the fundamental need to be self-sufficient, to contribute, to support one's family, and to add value to society at large. Finding a job allows a person to establish a positive role in the community, develop a healthy self-image, and keep a distance from negative influences and opportunities for illegal behavior. Work is deemed so fundamental to human existence in many countries around the world that it is regarded as a basic human right. Deprivation of work, particularly among men, is strongly associated with depression and violence." (p. 145)
She also brings out the phenomenon of a "spatial mismatch," which works against black ex-cons especially because most of the jobs these days are in the suburbs (if not overseas). As she goes on, "Manufacturing jobs,...have all but disappeared from the urban core during the past thirty years. Not long ago, young, unskilled men could find decent, well-paying jobs at large factories in most Northern cities. Today, due to globalization and deindustrialization, that is no longer the case. Jobs can be found in the suburbs -- mostly service sector jobs -- but employment for unskilled men with criminal convictions, while difficult to find anywhere, is especially hard to find close to home." (p. 147) Also: "An ex-offender whose driver's license has been suspended or who does ot have access to a car, often faces nearly insurmountable barriers to finding employment." (p. 147)
Dr. Alexander closes this chapter with a very important observation, which I know addresses some of your concerns about her argument. Please read over all of pp. 171-172, beginning with: "None of this is to suggest that those who break the law bear no responsibility for their conduct or exist merely as 'products of their environment.'"....
CHAPTER 5: THE NEW JIM CROW
Dr. Alexander makes a very important point regarding what she believes is a profound misunderstanding of how racial oppression actually works -- that it is NOT just about individual attitudes but the basic structure of our social system. SEE ALL OF PAGES 178-179 (especially, p. 178).
Criminality today carries a clear RACIAL STIGMA: "Every racial caste system in the United States has produced racial stigma. Mass incarceration is no exception. Racial stigma is produced by defining negatively what it means to be black. The stigma of race was once the shame of the slave; then [in the context of Jim Crow] it was the shame of the second-class citizen; today the stigma of race is the shame of the criminal..." (p. 192), and note what she goes on to say on the rest of p. 192 and 193.
Of course, you should be able to identify the SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES between Jim Crow and mass incarceration, all of which are in bold print. (pp. 185-205)
Finally, pay particular attention to pp. 206-207, where Dr. Alexander notes how we could have responded more constructively to the collapse of inner-city communities in the 1970s and 80s:
"The economic collapse of inner-city black communities could have inspired a national outpouring of compassion and support. A new War on Poverty could have been launched. Economic stimulus packages could have sailed through Congress to bail out those trapped in jobless ghettos through no fault of their own. Education, job training, public transportation, and relocation assistance could have been provided, so that youth of color would have been able to survive the rough transition to a new global economy and secure jobs in the suburbs. Constructive interventions would have been good not only for African Americans trapped in ghettos, but also for blue collar workers of all colors, many of whom were suffering too, if less severely. A wave of compassion and concern could have flooded poor and working-class communities, in honor of the late Martin Luther King, Jr. All of this could have happened, but it didn't. Instead we declared War on Drugs."
"The collapse of inner-city economies coincided with the conservative backlash against the Civil Rights Movement, resulting in the perfect storm. Almost overnight, black men found themselves unnecessary to the American society and demonized by mainstream society...." (pp. 206-207)
CHAPTER 6: THE FIRE THIS TIME
Dr. Alexander poses an important rhetorical question: "Have we unwittingly exaggerated the importance of individuals succeeding within pre-existing structures of power, and thereby undermined King's call for a 'complete restructuring of our society?" (p. 241), and note what she goes on to point out about being blinded by our belief in individualism (just as we are blinded by colorblindness).
Finally, I appreciate what she observes about Dr. King near the end, that today we are stuck in an approach to civil rights' advocacy which Dr. King had abandoned during his final years. We have not appreciated King's radicalism.
____________________________
That's it. Please be sure to review these highlights along with class lectures on "The New Jim Crow." We will make the transition to Asian Americans tomorrow (Tues. 11/29). Start reading "Yellow." As I said in the blast email I sent yesterday, we are going to try to cover just Chapters 1, 3, & 7 in that book.
CHAPTER 3: THE COLOR OF JUSTICE
Dr. Alexander had a nice passage which clearly described the circular logic of those who defend racial profiling. Referring to studies from New Jersey and Maryland, she says, "What most surprised many analysts was that, in both studies, whites were actually MORE LIKELY than people of color to be carrying illegal drugs or contraband in their vehicles. In fact, in New Jersey, whites were almost twice as likely to be found with illegal drugs or contraband as African Americans, and five times as likely to be found with contraband as Latinos. Although whites were more likely to be guilty of carrying drugs, they were far less likely to be viewed as suspicious, resulting in relatively few stops, searches, and arrests of whites. The former New Jersey attorney general dubbed this the 'circular logic of racial profiling.' Law enforcement officials, he explained, often point to the racial composition of our prisons and jails as a justification for targeting racial minorities, but the empirical evidence actually suggested the opposite conclusion was warranted. The disproportionate imprisonment of people of color was, in part, a product of racial profiling -- not a justification for it." (p. 131)
Of course, in addition to the above point, you should be aware, in general, of how a number of Supreme Court rulings have made it difficult, if not impossible, to prove there is racial discrimination in different aspects of our criminal justice system.
CHAPTER 4: THE CRUEL HAND
In noting the widespread employment discrimination against ex-convicts, Dr. Alexander makes a very appropriate comment about the importance of work, which cannot be overemphasized. She says, "Even beyond the need to comply with the conditions of parole, employment satisfies a more basic human need -- the fundamental need to be self-sufficient, to contribute, to support one's family, and to add value to society at large. Finding a job allows a person to establish a positive role in the community, develop a healthy self-image, and keep a distance from negative influences and opportunities for illegal behavior. Work is deemed so fundamental to human existence in many countries around the world that it is regarded as a basic human right. Deprivation of work, particularly among men, is strongly associated with depression and violence." (p. 145)
She also brings out the phenomenon of a "spatial mismatch," which works against black ex-cons especially because most of the jobs these days are in the suburbs (if not overseas). As she goes on, "Manufacturing jobs,...have all but disappeared from the urban core during the past thirty years. Not long ago, young, unskilled men could find decent, well-paying jobs at large factories in most Northern cities. Today, due to globalization and deindustrialization, that is no longer the case. Jobs can be found in the suburbs -- mostly service sector jobs -- but employment for unskilled men with criminal convictions, while difficult to find anywhere, is especially hard to find close to home." (p. 147) Also: "An ex-offender whose driver's license has been suspended or who does ot have access to a car, often faces nearly insurmountable barriers to finding employment." (p. 147)
Dr. Alexander closes this chapter with a very important observation, which I know addresses some of your concerns about her argument. Please read over all of pp. 171-172, beginning with: "None of this is to suggest that those who break the law bear no responsibility for their conduct or exist merely as 'products of their environment.'"....
CHAPTER 5: THE NEW JIM CROW
Dr. Alexander makes a very important point regarding what she believes is a profound misunderstanding of how racial oppression actually works -- that it is NOT just about individual attitudes but the basic structure of our social system. SEE ALL OF PAGES 178-179 (especially, p. 178).
Criminality today carries a clear RACIAL STIGMA: "Every racial caste system in the United States has produced racial stigma. Mass incarceration is no exception. Racial stigma is produced by defining negatively what it means to be black. The stigma of race was once the shame of the slave; then [in the context of Jim Crow] it was the shame of the second-class citizen; today the stigma of race is the shame of the criminal..." (p. 192), and note what she goes on to say on the rest of p. 192 and 193.
Of course, you should be able to identify the SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES between Jim Crow and mass incarceration, all of which are in bold print. (pp. 185-205)
Finally, pay particular attention to pp. 206-207, where Dr. Alexander notes how we could have responded more constructively to the collapse of inner-city communities in the 1970s and 80s:
"The economic collapse of inner-city black communities could have inspired a national outpouring of compassion and support. A new War on Poverty could have been launched. Economic stimulus packages could have sailed through Congress to bail out those trapped in jobless ghettos through no fault of their own. Education, job training, public transportation, and relocation assistance could have been provided, so that youth of color would have been able to survive the rough transition to a new global economy and secure jobs in the suburbs. Constructive interventions would have been good not only for African Americans trapped in ghettos, but also for blue collar workers of all colors, many of whom were suffering too, if less severely. A wave of compassion and concern could have flooded poor and working-class communities, in honor of the late Martin Luther King, Jr. All of this could have happened, but it didn't. Instead we declared War on Drugs."
"The collapse of inner-city economies coincided with the conservative backlash against the Civil Rights Movement, resulting in the perfect storm. Almost overnight, black men found themselves unnecessary to the American society and demonized by mainstream society...." (pp. 206-207)
CHAPTER 6: THE FIRE THIS TIME
Dr. Alexander poses an important rhetorical question: "Have we unwittingly exaggerated the importance of individuals succeeding within pre-existing structures of power, and thereby undermined King's call for a 'complete restructuring of our society?" (p. 241), and note what she goes on to point out about being blinded by our belief in individualism (just as we are blinded by colorblindness).
Finally, I appreciate what she observes about Dr. King near the end, that today we are stuck in an approach to civil rights' advocacy which Dr. King had abandoned during his final years. We have not appreciated King's radicalism.
____________________________
That's it. Please be sure to review these highlights along with class lectures on "The New Jim Crow." We will make the transition to Asian Americans tomorrow (Tues. 11/29). Start reading "Yellow." As I said in the blast email I sent yesterday, we are going to try to cover just Chapters 1, 3, & 7 in that book.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
EXTRA CREDIT OPPORTUNITY - "TULIA"
As I mentioned in class this morning, I've decided to show the documentary on the book, "Tulia: Race, Cocaine, and Corruption in a Small Texas Town," which I am using in my criminology class. Michelle Alexander also refers to this incident in "The New Jim Crow." It is clearly an incident with racial overtones. So, after viewing the film next Tuesday (11/22), for 5 EXTRA CREDIT POINTS you may post a comment on this blog in which I want you to discuss (IN ONE OR TWO PARAGRAPHS) how you feel the documentary supports (or does not support) Michelle Alexander's argument in "The New Jim Crow."
If you decide to do this, make sure to post your comment on this blog NO LATER THAN TUESDAY, NOV. 29TH.
If you decide to do this, make sure to post your comment on this blog NO LATER THAN TUESDAY, NOV. 29TH.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Follow-up to "Lecture" on Chapter 1 of The New Jim Crow
Sorry about getting side-tracked on the JFK assassination this morning. I felt I could and should have done a better job talking about Chapter 1, The Rebirth of Caste. Let me follow-up a bit on my remarks to make sense of what Michelle Alexander is trying to do in that chapter.
A. First and foremost, this is a historical chapter which I believe does a good job of describing the different forms of racial caste systems, going back to the development of slavery. I believe she adds confirmation to many points we made earlier in connection with the video series, for example that passage on origin of the concept of race and how it was used both to justify slavery and justify the extermination of the Indians (p. 23). I believe she is right on target in talking about the origin of Jim Crow after Reconstruction. Where her argument becomes more controversial, of course, is her interpretation of the post-Civil Rights era (1970-present) in which she argues that "law and order" and the "War on Drugs" are the colorblind slogans of the new racial caste system. In Chapter 2 she goes into much more detail on the evidence of racial bias in the law and order regime of modern times. In Chapter 1 she talks more about the politics of this all, which cuts across political party lines. I especially appreciate what she says about the Clinton Administration, which, in its effort to be tough on crime and drugs, escalated mass incarceration. Rather than try to address some of the underlying problems in the black community, they went after the drug abusers and dealers who could be seen more as symptoms of these problems rather than the cause. Parenthetically, I would even say that the Obama Administration has been reluctant to address this issue for fear of being labeled "soft" on crime and drugs.
So, that brings us up to Chapter 2, which I will take up on Thursday. You should be much father along in your reading and keep in mind those two essay topics, of which you will write on one for next Tuesday.
A. First and foremost, this is a historical chapter which I believe does a good job of describing the different forms of racial caste systems, going back to the development of slavery. I believe she adds confirmation to many points we made earlier in connection with the video series, for example that passage on origin of the concept of race and how it was used both to justify slavery and justify the extermination of the Indians (p. 23). I believe she is right on target in talking about the origin of Jim Crow after Reconstruction. Where her argument becomes more controversial, of course, is her interpretation of the post-Civil Rights era (1970-present) in which she argues that "law and order" and the "War on Drugs" are the colorblind slogans of the new racial caste system. In Chapter 2 she goes into much more detail on the evidence of racial bias in the law and order regime of modern times. In Chapter 1 she talks more about the politics of this all, which cuts across political party lines. I especially appreciate what she says about the Clinton Administration, which, in its effort to be tough on crime and drugs, escalated mass incarceration. Rather than try to address some of the underlying problems in the black community, they went after the drug abusers and dealers who could be seen more as symptoms of these problems rather than the cause. Parenthetically, I would even say that the Obama Administration has been reluctant to address this issue for fear of being labeled "soft" on crime and drugs.
So, that brings us up to Chapter 2, which I will take up on Thursday. You should be much father along in your reading and keep in mind those two essay topics, of which you will write on one for next Tuesday.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Reminders & Emily's Research on the Benefits of Diversity in Higher Education
REMNDERS: Continue reading in "The New Jim Crow." Remember that I plan to finish covering this book by Nov. 22nd, which is our last class before the Thanksgiving break. In this context, I will be handing out (or possibly emailing you) a description of our third and final short essay which will involve analyzing some aspect of "The New Jim Crow." Be looking for this as early as next Monday or Tuesday (Nov. 14 or 15). This will be due on the 22nd.
Also, I trust most of you have not forgotten about the Interview paper, which will be due on Thursday, Dec. 1st. You should have either done your interview by now or are planning to do it soon so that you will have time to write up the results. You will also be presenting a synopsis of your findings in class beginning on that Thursday.
EMILY'S RESEARCH ON THE BENEFITS OF DIVERSITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Let me preface these points that Emily covered in class on Thursday (11/10) by noting that this information came from footnotes #7, 8, & 9 from pp. 110-111 in Dr. Tatum's book.
Supreme Court case, "Grutter v. Bollinger"
* Grutter was a white Michigan resident with a high GPA and LSAT score who alleged that she was rejected by the University of Michigan Law School because race was a predominant factor in admissions. The case was argued on April 1, 2003 and decided on June 23, 2003. The Supreme Court ruled that the University of Michigan Law School's admissions program that gave special consideration for certain racial minority applicants did NOT violate the 14th Amnendment (equal protection clause, I assume). Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the deciding vote. She said that the Constitution does not prevent the law school's tailored use of race in admissions. It was her hope [and I would say the hope of affirmative action programs in general] that 25 years from now (around 2027), racial preferences should no longer be needed to insure diversity in education. Affirmative action should not be permanent, and eventually race-neutral admissions should be put in place.
*In contrast, another Supreme Court case in 2003, "Gratz v. Bollinger," the court ruled AGAINST the University of Michigan's stricter point-based admissions program for undergraduates because it was basically a QUOTA system. Justice O'Connor was in the majority on this decision too.
AS I NOTED IN CLASS, THIS SHOWS THAT THE COURTS, GOING BACK TO THE BAKKE CASE (IN 1979, I BELIEVE) HAVE CONSISTENTLY STRUCK DOWN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS THAT INVOLVED QUOTAS. HOWEVER, THE COURTS HAVE ALSO UPHELD THE USE OF RACE AS A FACTOR IN ADMISSIONS TO ENSURE DIVERSITY, AS WELL AS A MATTER OF FAIRNESS TO GROUPS THAT HAD BEEN EXCLUDED IN THE PAST.
PATRICIA GURIN, "THE MISSION OF HIGHER EDUCATION": This was part of the brief defending the University of Michigan Law School's admissions program. She argued that the goal is to prepare young people for participation in our democratic society, which is a diverse society [what Tatum called "democracy outcomes"]. Higher education is supposed to advance knowledge and to educate those who will become active in society. Being exposed to racial and ethnic differences helps in reaching these goals. Students develop better in diverse environments. Colleges and universities have an obligation to choose carefully the kind of student body that will create the best learning environment for all their students. "Because students in late adolescence and early adulthood are at a critical stage of development, diversity is crucially important in enabling them to become conscious learners and critical thinkers."
SILVIA HURTADO: Colleges can create conditions that maximize the learning that occurs in an environment with a diverse student body. Students who interact more with diverse peers demonstrate more complex thinking linked to both cognitive and social development.
***Let me add, clearly both Gurin and Hurtado support Dr. Tatum's claim that there are educational and social benefits to diversity in higher education. But I would still point out that the above statements still do NOT constitute EVIDENCE of these claims. We'd have to probe a bit deeper to see just what facts they uncovered to support these claims.
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS PART OF WHAT YOU'LL NEED TO STUDY FOR THE FINAL EXAM.
Also, I trust most of you have not forgotten about the Interview paper, which will be due on Thursday, Dec. 1st. You should have either done your interview by now or are planning to do it soon so that you will have time to write up the results. You will also be presenting a synopsis of your findings in class beginning on that Thursday.
EMILY'S RESEARCH ON THE BENEFITS OF DIVERSITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Let me preface these points that Emily covered in class on Thursday (11/10) by noting that this information came from footnotes #7, 8, & 9 from pp. 110-111 in Dr. Tatum's book.
Supreme Court case, "Grutter v. Bollinger"
* Grutter was a white Michigan resident with a high GPA and LSAT score who alleged that she was rejected by the University of Michigan Law School because race was a predominant factor in admissions. The case was argued on April 1, 2003 and decided on June 23, 2003. The Supreme Court ruled that the University of Michigan Law School's admissions program that gave special consideration for certain racial minority applicants did NOT violate the 14th Amnendment (equal protection clause, I assume). Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the deciding vote. She said that the Constitution does not prevent the law school's tailored use of race in admissions. It was her hope [and I would say the hope of affirmative action programs in general] that 25 years from now (around 2027), racial preferences should no longer be needed to insure diversity in education. Affirmative action should not be permanent, and eventually race-neutral admissions should be put in place.
*In contrast, another Supreme Court case in 2003, "Gratz v. Bollinger," the court ruled AGAINST the University of Michigan's stricter point-based admissions program for undergraduates because it was basically a QUOTA system. Justice O'Connor was in the majority on this decision too.
AS I NOTED IN CLASS, THIS SHOWS THAT THE COURTS, GOING BACK TO THE BAKKE CASE (IN 1979, I BELIEVE) HAVE CONSISTENTLY STRUCK DOWN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS THAT INVOLVED QUOTAS. HOWEVER, THE COURTS HAVE ALSO UPHELD THE USE OF RACE AS A FACTOR IN ADMISSIONS TO ENSURE DIVERSITY, AS WELL AS A MATTER OF FAIRNESS TO GROUPS THAT HAD BEEN EXCLUDED IN THE PAST.
PATRICIA GURIN, "THE MISSION OF HIGHER EDUCATION": This was part of the brief defending the University of Michigan Law School's admissions program. She argued that the goal is to prepare young people for participation in our democratic society, which is a diverse society [what Tatum called "democracy outcomes"]. Higher education is supposed to advance knowledge and to educate those who will become active in society. Being exposed to racial and ethnic differences helps in reaching these goals. Students develop better in diverse environments. Colleges and universities have an obligation to choose carefully the kind of student body that will create the best learning environment for all their students. "Because students in late adolescence and early adulthood are at a critical stage of development, diversity is crucially important in enabling them to become conscious learners and critical thinkers."
SILVIA HURTADO: Colleges can create conditions that maximize the learning that occurs in an environment with a diverse student body. Students who interact more with diverse peers demonstrate more complex thinking linked to both cognitive and social development.
***Let me add, clearly both Gurin and Hurtado support Dr. Tatum's claim that there are educational and social benefits to diversity in higher education. But I would still point out that the above statements still do NOT constitute EVIDENCE of these claims. We'd have to probe a bit deeper to see just what facts they uncovered to support these claims.
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS PART OF WHAT YOU'LL NEED TO STUDY FOR THE FINAL EXAM.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)