0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

Last modified by Ryan C on 2025/06/26 03:09

From version 121.1
edited by XWikiGuest
on 2025/06/19 19:12
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 120.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/19 06:04
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -XWiki.XWikiGuest
1 +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*