Diverse Issues in Higher Education
Current News
Study Shows Brain’s Reaction Racial Stress
By Robin Chen Delos
Oct 24, 2008, 00:36
Racial mistrust affects the brain of Whites and Blacks differently. A new University of South Carolina study finds Black peoples’ brains register stress in response to neutral facial expressions of Whites.
Study researchers Dr. Tawanda Greer and Dr. Jennifer Vendemia used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to examine the brain’s response to stimuli. They specifically targeted areas of the brain that process emotional reactions and decisions.
Researchers showed their participants a series of White and Black adult faces with happy, hostile or neutral expressions. The question for the participants for each photo: can you trust this person to give you directions? Researchers monitored brain activity as they waited for the response from their participants, 11 Blacks and nine Whites.
Blacks and Whites had no major differences in their reactions to happy and hostile faces. But Black participants showed a very high level of stress in the brain when they looked at Whites’ neutral facial expressions.
“The African-American participants pored over the photos of neutral White faces looking for visual cues that would suggest that they could trust the person,” Greer says. “The more intently they looked, the more their stress level increased.”
Greer says “ambiguous” situations involving Whites has been associated with race-related distress for Blacks. [To read the entire story, go to: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_11874.shtml ]
Showing posts with label whites. Show all posts
Showing posts with label whites. Show all posts
Friday, October 24, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
Poll shows gap between blacks and whites over racial discrimination
Yahoo News
By CHARLES BABBINGTON, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — Since the nation's birth, Americans have discussed race and avoided it, organized neighborhoods and political movements around it, and used it to divide and hurt people even as relations have improved dramatically since the days of slavery, Reconstruction and legal segregation.
Now, in what could be a historic year for a black presidential candidate, a new Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll, conducted with Stanford University, shows just how wide a gap remains between whites and blacks. It shows that a substantial portion of white Americans still harbor negative feelings toward blacks. It shows that blacks and whites disagree tremendously on how much racial prejudice exists, whose fault it is and how much influence blacks have in politics.
One result is that Barack Obama's path to the presidency is steeper than it would be if he were white.
Until now, social scientists have not closely examined racial sentiments on a nationwide scale at a moment when race is central to choosing the next president. The poll, which featured a large sample of Americans — more than 2,200 — and sophisticated survey techniques rarely used in media surveys, reflected the complexity, change and occasional contradictions of race relations.
More whites apply positive attributes to blacks than negative ones, and blacks are even more generous in their descriptions of whites. Racial prejudice is lower among college-educated whites living outside the South. And many whites who think most blacks are somewhat lazy, violent or boastful are willing or even eager to vote for Obama over Republican John McCain, who is white.
The poll, however, shows that blacks and whites see racial discrimination in starkly different terms. When asked "how much discrimination against blacks" exists, 10 percent of whites said "a lot" and 45 percent said "some."
Among blacks, 57 percent said "a lot" and all but a fraction of the rest said "some."
Asked how much of America's existing racial tension is created by blacks, more than one-third of white respondents said "most" or "all," and 9 percent said "not much." Only 3 percent of blacks said "most" or "all," while half said "not much at all."
Nearly three-fourths of blacks said white people have too much influence in American politics. Only 12 percent of whites agreed. Almost three times as many blacks as whites said blacks have too little influence. [ To read the complete story, go to: http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-race-in-america;_ylt=AmLbC7oTeEEaTPaN7zje456s0NUE ]
By CHARLES BABBINGTON, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — Since the nation's birth, Americans have discussed race and avoided it, organized neighborhoods and political movements around it, and used it to divide and hurt people even as relations have improved dramatically since the days of slavery, Reconstruction and legal segregation.
Now, in what could be a historic year for a black presidential candidate, a new Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll, conducted with Stanford University, shows just how wide a gap remains between whites and blacks. It shows that a substantial portion of white Americans still harbor negative feelings toward blacks. It shows that blacks and whites disagree tremendously on how much racial prejudice exists, whose fault it is and how much influence blacks have in politics.
One result is that Barack Obama's path to the presidency is steeper than it would be if he were white.
Until now, social scientists have not closely examined racial sentiments on a nationwide scale at a moment when race is central to choosing the next president. The poll, which featured a large sample of Americans — more than 2,200 — and sophisticated survey techniques rarely used in media surveys, reflected the complexity, change and occasional contradictions of race relations.
More whites apply positive attributes to blacks than negative ones, and blacks are even more generous in their descriptions of whites. Racial prejudice is lower among college-educated whites living outside the South. And many whites who think most blacks are somewhat lazy, violent or boastful are willing or even eager to vote for Obama over Republican John McCain, who is white.
The poll, however, shows that blacks and whites see racial discrimination in starkly different terms. When asked "how much discrimination against blacks" exists, 10 percent of whites said "a lot" and 45 percent said "some."
Among blacks, 57 percent said "a lot" and all but a fraction of the rest said "some."
Asked how much of America's existing racial tension is created by blacks, more than one-third of white respondents said "most" or "all," and 9 percent said "not much." Only 3 percent of blacks said "most" or "all," while half said "not much at all."
Nearly three-fourths of blacks said white people have too much influence in American politics. Only 12 percent of whites agreed. Almost three times as many blacks as whites said blacks have too little influence. [ To read the complete story, go to: http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-race-in-america;_ylt=AmLbC7oTeEEaTPaN7zje456s0NUE ]
Monday, February 18, 2008
Study Challenges Assumptions About Affirmative-Action Bans
Chronicle of Higher Education
By PETER SCHMIDT
February 8, 2008
The results of a new study on the impact of bans on race-conscious admissions policies seem to confirm what many critics of affirmative action have long suspected: It is Asian-Americans, rather than whites, who are most disadvantaged by elite universities' consideration of ethnicity and race.
Left unanswered are the likely political ramifications of its finding that Asian-American enrollment has surged — and whites' share of enrollment has actually declined — at elite universities that were forced to abandon affirmative-action preferences.
The study, the results of which are to be published this week in InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, was based on an analysis of enrollment data from selective universities in three states: California, where voters passed a 1996 referendum barring institutions from considering applicants' race or ethnicity; Florida, where Gov. Jeb Bush persuaded the state university system to abandon race-conscious admissions in 2000; and Texas, where race-conscious admissions were prohibited under a 1996 federal court decision that remained in effect until the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of such policies in 2003.
The researchers behind the study, who characterize themselves as supporters of affirmative action, say in the report on their findings that the absence of any white enrollment surge at the institutions examined "can hardly be satisfying" to "those who campaigned for the elimination of affirmative action in the belief that it would advantage the admission of white students." Their report predicts a white backlash against race-neutral admissions policies if Asian-Americans continue to make gains.
In the past, many affirmative-action advocates have denounced assertions that Asian-Americans are harmed by race-conscious admissions policies. They say such claims are motivated by a desire to erode Asian-American support for affirmative action and drive a wedge between Asian-Americans and other minority groups.
On the other side of the issue, Roger B. Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity and a leading opponent of race-conscious admissions policies, said he suspected the new report was an attempt to undermine white opposition to affirmative-action preferences and to drive a wedge between whites and Asian Americans.
"Those of us who are campaigning against racial preferences are not doing so out of a desire to see an increase in the numbers for this or that group," Mr. Clegg said. "We are doing so because we think discrimination against members of any racial or ethnic group is wrong." [To read the entire article, go to: http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i22/22a02002.htm (subscription required)]
By PETER SCHMIDT
February 8, 2008
The results of a new study on the impact of bans on race-conscious admissions policies seem to confirm what many critics of affirmative action have long suspected: It is Asian-Americans, rather than whites, who are most disadvantaged by elite universities' consideration of ethnicity and race.
Left unanswered are the likely political ramifications of its finding that Asian-American enrollment has surged — and whites' share of enrollment has actually declined — at elite universities that were forced to abandon affirmative-action preferences.
The study, the results of which are to be published this week in InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, was based on an analysis of enrollment data from selective universities in three states: California, where voters passed a 1996 referendum barring institutions from considering applicants' race or ethnicity; Florida, where Gov. Jeb Bush persuaded the state university system to abandon race-conscious admissions in 2000; and Texas, where race-conscious admissions were prohibited under a 1996 federal court decision that remained in effect until the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of such policies in 2003.
The researchers behind the study, who characterize themselves as supporters of affirmative action, say in the report on their findings that the absence of any white enrollment surge at the institutions examined "can hardly be satisfying" to "those who campaigned for the elimination of affirmative action in the belief that it would advantage the admission of white students." Their report predicts a white backlash against race-neutral admissions policies if Asian-Americans continue to make gains.
In the past, many affirmative-action advocates have denounced assertions that Asian-Americans are harmed by race-conscious admissions policies. They say such claims are motivated by a desire to erode Asian-American support for affirmative action and drive a wedge between Asian-Americans and other minority groups.
On the other side of the issue, Roger B. Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity and a leading opponent of race-conscious admissions policies, said he suspected the new report was an attempt to undermine white opposition to affirmative-action preferences and to drive a wedge between whites and Asian Americans.
"Those of us who are campaigning against racial preferences are not doing so out of a desire to see an increase in the numbers for this or that group," Mr. Clegg said. "We are doing so because we think discrimination against members of any racial or ethnic group is wrong." [To read the entire article, go to: http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i22/22a02002.htm (subscription required)]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)