Changes for page Research at a Glance


on 2025/06/19 19:12
Summary
Details
- Page properties
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -XWiki. XWikiGuest1 +XWiki.AdminAngriff - Content
-
... ... @@ -717,146 +717,6 @@ 717 717 {{/expandable}} 718 718 719 719 720 -{{expandable summary="Study: “A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured”: Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Daters?"}} 721 -**Source:** *Sociology of Race and Ethnicity* 722 -**Date of Publication:** *2020* 723 -**Author(s):** *Andrew R. Flores and Ariela Schachter* 724 -**Title:** *"“A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured”: Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Daters?"* 725 -**DOI:** [10.1177/2332649219871232](https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649219871232) 726 -**Subject Matter:** *Interracial Dating, Racial Stereotyping, Online Behavior* 727 - 728 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} 729 -1. **General Observations:** 730 - - Used **experimental survey data** from a nationally representative sample (N = 1,070). 731 - - Participants evaluated hypothetical dating profiles of White individuals who expressed interest in Black, Latino, or Asian partners. 732 - 733 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:** 734 - - **White men interested in Black women** were rated as **less cultured, more aggressive, and lower class**. 735 - - White women interested in Black men were **viewed as less intelligent and more promiscuous**. 736 - - **Interest in Asian partners** did not carry the same negative stereotypes; in some cases, it improved perceived desirability. 737 - 738 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:** 739 - - **Latino partners** were seen more neutrally, though men who dated them were seen as more “dominant.” 740 - - Across the board, **Whites who dated within their race were viewed most favorably**. 741 -{{/expandable}} 742 - 743 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} 744 -1. **Primary Observations:** 745 - - Interracial daters—especially those dating Black individuals—are **subject to negative assumptions** about intelligence, class, and morality. 746 - - Stereotypes persist even in **hypothetical online contexts**, showing deep cultural associations. 747 - 748 -2. **Subgroup Trends:** 749 - - White men who prefer Black women face **masculinity-linked stigma**, often tied to “urban” or “ghetto” tropes. 750 - - White women dating Black men are **framed as sexually deviant or socially undesirable**, particularly by other Whites. 751 - 752 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:** 753 - - The most negatively perceived pairing was **White woman/Black man**, reinforcing long-standing cultural anxieties. 754 - - Respondents judged interracial daters not just by race but by **projected cultural assimilation or rejection**. 755 -{{/expandable}} 756 - 757 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} 758 -1. **Strengths of the Study:** 759 - - Reveals **latent racial boundaries** in contemporary dating preferences. 760 - - Uses **controlled experimental design** to expose socially unacceptable but real biases. 761 - 762 -2. **Limitations of the Study:** 763 - - Relies on **self-reported reactions to profiles**, not real-world dating behavior. 764 - - **Fails to analyze anti-White framing** in the assumptions about White participants who prefer other races. 765 - - Assumes stigma is irrational without investigating **rational in-group preference or cultural concerns**. 766 - 767 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** 768 - - Include **reverse scenarios** (e.g., Black or Latino individuals expressing preference for Whites). 769 - - Examine how **media portrayal of interracial couples** influences perception and desirability. 770 - - Account for **class and education overlaps** that could explain perceived traits. 771 -{{/expandable}} 772 - 773 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} 774 -- Highlights how **Whites who date outside their race—particularly with Blacks—are pathologized**, even within their own community. 775 -- Shows that **Whiteness is penalized** when paired with non-Whiteness, reinforcing social costs for racial mixing. 776 -- Useful for understanding **how stigma around interracial relationships is unevenly applied**, with anti-White moral overtones. 777 -{{/expandable}} 778 - 779 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} 780 -1. Study how **in-group dating preferences differ across races** and are morally interpreted. 781 -2. Investigate how **class and education** affect perceptions of interracial relationships. 782 -3. Examine whether **Whites are disproportionately judged** when deviating from group norms vs. other races. 783 -{{/expandable}} 784 - 785 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} 786 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_2332649219871232.pdf]] 787 -{{/expandable}} 788 -{{/expandable}} 789 - 790 - 791 -{{expandable summary="Study: E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer): Diversity and Birth Rates"}} 792 -**Source:** *National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)* 793 -**Date of Publication:** *2024* 794 -**Author(s):** *Umit Gurun, Daniel Solomon* 795 -**Title:** *"E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer): Diversity and Birth Rates"* 796 -**DOI:** [10.3386/w31978](https://doi.org/10.3386/w31978) 797 -**Subject Matter:** *Demography, Social Cohesion, Diversity Effects on Fertility* 798 - 799 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} 800 -1. **General Observations:** 801 - - Used large-scale demographic, economic, and census data across **1,800+ U.S. counties**. 802 - - Found a **strong negative correlation between local diversity and White fertility rates**. 803 - - Quantified impact: a 1 SD increase in ethnic diversity leads to a **4–6% drop in birth rates**. 804 - 805 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:** 806 - - Decline most pronounced among **non-Hispanic Whites**, especially in suburban and semi-urban areas. 807 - - **No significant birth rate drop observed among Hispanic or Black populations** under the same conditions. 808 - 809 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:** 810 - - Diversity increases linked to **reduced marriage rates**, especially among Whites. 811 - - Authors suggest **“erosion of social cohesion and trust”** as mediating factors. 812 -{{/expandable}} 813 - 814 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} 815 -1. **Primary Observations:** 816 - - Ethnic diversity significantly **reduces total fertility rates**, independent of economic or educational variables. 817 - - **Social fragmentation** and perceived dissimilarity drive fertility suppression. 818 - 819 -2. **Subgroup Trends:** 820 - - White populations respond to diversity with lower family formation. 821 - - **Cultural distance** and loss of shared norms are possible causes. 822 - 823 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:** 824 - - High-diversity metro areas saw steepest declines in White birth rates over the past two decades. 825 - - Study challenges mainstream assumptions that diversity has neutral or positive demographic effects. 826 -{{/expandable}} 827 - 828 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} 829 -1. **Strengths of the Study:** 830 - - Offers **quantitative backing for claims long treated as taboo** in public discourse. 831 - - Applies **robust statistical methods** and cross-validates with multiple data sources. 832 - 833 -2. **Limitations of the Study:** 834 - - Avoids discussing **racial preference, ethnic tension, or cultural conflict** explicitly. 835 - - Authors stop short of acknowledging **the demographic replacement implication** of sustained low White fertility. 836 - 837 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** 838 - - Include **qualitative data on reasons for delayed or avoided parenthood** among Whites in diverse areas. 839 - - Examine **media messaging and policy environments** that could accelerate these trends. 840 -{{/expandable}} 841 - 842 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} 843 -- Confirms a **central premise** of the White demographic decline thesis. 844 -- Demonstrates that **diversity is not neutral** but **functionally suppressive to White reproduction**. 845 -- Offers solid **empirical support against the utopian assumptions** of multiculturalism. 846 -{{/expandable}} 847 - 848 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} 849 -1. Examine **fertility effects of diversity in European countries** experiencing immigration-driven change. 850 -2. Study **how school demographics and crime perception** affect reproductive decision-making. 851 -3. Explore **policy frameworks that support demographic stability for founding populations**. 852 -{{/expandable}} 853 - 854 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} 855 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:12.Gurun_Solomon_Diversity_BirthRates.pdf]] 856 -{{/expandable}} 857 -{{/expandable}} 858 - 859 - 860 860 {{expandable summary="Study: The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"}} 861 861 **Source:** *Porn Studies* 862 862 **Date of Publication:** *2015* ... ... @@ -1613,74 +1613,6 @@ 1613 1613 {{/expandable}} 1614 1614 1615 1615 1616 -{{expandable summary="Study: School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education"}} 1617 -**Source:** *Social Science Research Network (SSRN)* 1618 -**Date of Publication:** *2020* 1619 -**Author(s):** *Eric Kaufmann, David Goldberg* 1620 -**Title:** *"School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education"* 1621 -**DOI:** [10.2139/ssrn.3730517](https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3730517) 1622 -**Subject Matter:** *K–12 Education, CRT, Indoctrination, Teacher Training* 1623 - 1624 -{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} 1625 -1. **General Observations:** 1626 - - Surveyed **over 800 educators** and analyzed **curricula, training materials, and administrator communications**. 1627 - - Found that **CSJ ideology is deeply embedded in public school systems**, including charter and magnet schools. 1628 - 1629 -2. **Subgroup Analysis:** 1630 - - Teachers reported being trained to believe **Whiteness = privilege + harm**, not just historical context. 1631 - - Administrators disproportionately **disciplined or suppressed dissenting White teachers or parents**. 1632 - 1633 -3. **Other Significant Data Points:** 1634 - - **Majority of educators fear retribution** if they question CSJ orthodoxy. 1635 - - **Curriculum mandates racial self-critique** primarily for White students, often starting in elementary grades. 1636 -{{/expandable}} 1637 - 1638 -{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} 1639 -1. **Primary Observations:** 1640 - - CSJ ideology **functions as an implicit worldview**, not a neutral teaching tool. 1641 - - “Equity” in practice means **dismantling of perceived White dominance**, often through emotional manipulation of students. 1642 - 1643 -2. **Subgroup Trends:** 1644 - - White students and teachers report **feeling targeted or dehumanized** in diversity sessions. 1645 - - Minority students were often **placed in victim-centric identity frameworks**, reinforcing grievance politics. 1646 - 1647 -3. **Specific Case Analysis:** 1648 - - In several documented districts, **student activities included “unlearning Whiteness” workshops**. 1649 - - One district mandated that teachers **“de-center White perspectives”** in all classroom subjects. 1650 -{{/expandable}} 1651 - 1652 -{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} 1653 -1. **Strengths of the Study:** 1654 - - One of the few empirical studies documenting **systemic ideological bias in education**. 1655 - - Strong evidentiary base drawn from **firsthand educator testimony** and training materials. 1656 - 1657 -2. **Limitations of the Study:** 1658 - - Study is based on **self-reported perceptions**, though many are substantiated with examples. 1659 - - Focus is primarily U.S.-centric; international parallels not explored. 1660 - 1661 -3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** 1662 - - Future studies could **quantify the academic and emotional impact** on White students. 1663 - - Comparative analysis with **non-CSJ schools** (e.g., classical models) would clarify causal impact. 1664 -{{/expandable}} 1665 - 1666 -{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} 1667 -- Documents how **CRT-aligned ideology disproportionately targets White students and teachers**. 1668 -- Confirms that **school choice fails to protect against ideological indoctrination** when CSJ is systemic. 1669 -- Supports the need for **explicitly anti-indoctrination educational frameworks** grounded in neutrality and merit. 1670 -{{/expandable}} 1671 - 1672 -{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} 1673 -1. Investigate **legal protections for students against compelled ideological speech**. 1674 -2. Study **alternatives to CSJ pedagogy**, such as classical liberal education or civic humanism. 1675 -3. Examine **psychological outcomes** of guilt-based racial framing among White children. 1676 -{{/expandable}} 1677 - 1678 -{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} 1679 -[[Download Full Study>>attach:11.Goldberg_Kaufmann_CSJ_Education_Impact.pdf]] 1680 -{{/expandable}} 1681 -{{/expandable}} 1682 - 1683 - 1684 1684 {{expandable summary="Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}} 1685 1685 **Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education* 1686 1686 **Date of Publication:** *2019*