ReportWire

Tag: Pew Research Center

  • The most popular social media platform among US adults isn’t Instagram or TikTok

    [ad_1]

    Social media is an overwhelming part of our lives these days, but the Pew Research Center provided an in-depth look at just how much we rely on these platforms. In a 2025 report that looks at social media usage with American adults, the data-driven think tank revealed some nitty-gritty details like year-to-year changes, age gaps and most importantly, frequency of use.

    At the number one spot, YouTube holds a dominant position, with 84 percent of the 5,022 adults surveyed saying they use Alphabet’s video-sharing platform. Meta earns silver and bronze medals since 71 percent of adults said they use Facebook, while 50 percent responded positively when it comes to Instagram use. However, not all of Meta’s social media outlets are doing well. Threads may have hit 400 million monthly active users this summer, but only eight percent of adults surveyed said they use it. Rounding out the bottom of the list, only 21 percent of adults surveyed said they use X, while four percent of adults said they’re on Bluesky and three percent are on Truth Social.

    Besides popularity, the Pew Research Center also explored the frequency with which American adults use their preferred social media platforms. In a separate survey with 5,123 adults, the report uncovered that 52 percent of adults go on Facebook daily, with 37 percent of them logging on several times a day. Nearly as frequently, 48 percent of adults use YouTube daily, including 33 percent of that demographic watching videos on the platform several times a day. When looking at frequency through the lens of age gaps, the starkest difference is found with 47 percent of adults between 18 and 29 using TikTok at least once a day, while only five percent of those aged 65 or older use the ByteDance-owned app every day.

    When looking at annual trends, YouTube and Facebook have largely maintained stable usage — and even some growth — since 2021. Even though it may feel like Facebook has begun to stagnate, the report shows that it has a loyal user base that’s still growing at a consistent rate. On top of that, Meta is still continuing to update the social media platform, including recently revamping Facebook Marketplace.

    [ad_2]

    Jackson Chen

    Source link

  • Opinion | Evangelical Support for Israel Is About More Than Theology

    [ad_1]

    Tucker Carlson calls it a ‘heresy,’ but it’s rooted in a belief that freedom and faith are inseparable.

    [ad_2]

    Ralph Reed

    Source link

  • The Democrats Have a Democrat Problem

    [ad_1]

    We’re one year away from the 2026 midterm elections and a day before voters in New Jersey and Virginia elect governors – as good a time as any to assess the political landscape.

    One takeaway from a new poll is that the Democratic Party has a problem … with its own voters.

    The survey from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, conducted before the partial government shutdown, found a whopping 67% of Democrats say their own party makes them feel frustrated. Thirty percent go so far as to say they are angry with their side.

    The frustration is way up from 2019 and 2021, when 50% and 48% of Democrats, respectively, said they felt frustrated with their party.

    • 41% of Democrats said their party isn’t fighting hard enough against President Donald Trump
    • 13% see a lack of good leadership
    • 10% complain of a lack of good messaging

    A Polling Quirk

    We saw something similar in the first polls about Obamacare. Among those expressing opposition to the law were Democrats who felt the Affordable Care Act – a heavily negotiated compromise approach to overhauling the nation’s healthcare system – did not go far enough.

    In other words, when you see disapproval in a poll, don’t assume it’s all people who hate the concept. Many may mean they’re getting too much of a thing, but some will mean they’re not getting enough of it.

    Sign Up for U.S. News Decision Points

    Your trusted source for breaking down the latest news from Washington and beyond, delivered weekdays.

    Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S. News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy.

    No Clear Edge?

    On balance, the Pew poll found widespread unhappiness with both parties. Sixty-one percent of respondents said Republicans are very or somewhat too extreme in their positions. Fifty-seven percent said the same about Democrats.

    (If you want more evidence of the Democrats’ plight, an October CBS News/YouGov poll found 64% of those surveyed used “weak” as the top word to describe the party.)

    Do the parties govern in an ethical way? Just 39% said so about Republicans, and 42% said that accurately described Democrats. Do they respect the country’s democratic institutions and traditions? Forty-four percent said Republicans do, while 53% said Democrats do.

    On the economy, arguably the most critical issue, Republicans have seen their edge drop considerably from two years ago, with 38% of Americans saying they agree with the GOP’s economic policies. Thirty-five percent say the same about Democrats, only three percentage points lower. Republicans had a 12-point lead on this question in 2023.

    Unhappy With Trump, But Not Thrilled With Dems

    Thanks to a new Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll, we’re getting a clearer picture of voters’ views of Trump and what his standing means – and doesn’t mean – one year out from midterms.

    Overall, 41% of Americans say they approve of the job he’s doing, with 59% saying they disapprove. That’s the highest disapproval since a similar poll one week after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

    The president’s doing fine with Republicans, at 86% approval. And he’s doing dismally among Democrats, with 95% of them disapproving. But Trump is struggling with independents, among whom he has a 30% approval rating while 69% disapprove.

    The Post poll had some pretty bleak findings for Democrats, with 68% of Americans saying the party is out of touch with their lives. Sixty-three percent say the same about Trump and 61% say so about Republicans.

    All of which leads to the poll’s findings about which party would win the day if the midterm elections were held today: 46% of registered voters say they’d support the Democratic candidate in their district while 44% said the Republican and 9% said they would not vote.

    Obviously, a lot can – and will – change before Americans go to vote. But Democrats need to find a way to energize their own voters if they’re going to retake the House.

    [ad_2]

    Olivier Knox

    Source link

  • Bad News for Farmers and Good News for News: Weekly Roundup

    [ad_1]

    Friday? Already? Guess we’ll take it.

    Monday

    I dug into high-quality AI video generation that has the potential to make “video or it didn’t happen” obsolete, because the presence of footage won’t be a guarantee of authenticity.

    Is the ad for the (entirely fictional) New York Mets Collapse Playset entertaining? Yes, especially if you’re not a Mets fan. But apps like OpenAI’s Sora 2, which turns your text prompts into very convincing videos, could have scary applications.

    Imagine grainy, security-camera-style video of someone at night sabotaging a ballot box.

    Tuesday

    I looked at the plight of American farmers, who face ever more expensive inputs like fuel, machinery and seed and declining commodity prices, as well as trouble over President Donald Trump’s trade wars.

    “Since 2020, the USDA says, labor costs are up 47%, seed expenses are up 18%, fuel costs have risen 32% and fertilizer expenses have climbed 37%,” I noted. “Meanwhile, since reaching a high above $7 per bushel in 2022, corn prices are down to about $4/bushel today.”

    The Trump administration has doled out billions of dollars in aid to farmers since March, and the president is reportedly looking at a comprehensive bailout package of $10-15 billion. But it’s hard to know whether anything will move while the government is shut down.

    Meanwhile, a Farm Journal survey of more than 1,000 farmers in August and September found nearly 80% of respondents say the U.S. is in, or on the brink of, a farm crisis.

    Wednesday

    The Gaza ceasefire is a rapidly evolving story with many moving parts and many unanswered questions (unanswered as of this week, anyway). I looked at the parts of the agreement that have not yet been fully fleshed out.

    Does Hamas disarm? Who runs Gaza? Will the ceasefire hold? Will the regional pressure remain on Hamas? Who rebuilds Gaza and how? W(h)ither the two-state solution for Middle East peace?

    There are a lot of hard negotiations and decisions ahead.

    Thursday

    Per the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, the No. 1 thing Americans say they feel when they consume news is “informed.” And those who consume news all or most of the time are the most likely to say that.

    Pew found that 66% of the biggest news consumers said they feel “informed,” against 40% of those who said they follow current events some of the time and 21% of those who reported doing so less often.

    That’s great. It’s our mission, after all. But.

    Across all news consumers, Pew found:

    • 42% said the news makes them feel angry “extremely often” or “often”

    • 38% said it made them feel sad

    Now, I would argue that “informed” and “angry” or “sad” are not contradictory. You could be very well informed about this year’s shocking measles outbreak and not feel like dancing a jig.
    But there is a bit of a contradiction between these numbers and Gallup’s findings that just 31% of Americans trust us a great deal or a fair amount to report fully, accurately and fairly.

    As I always point out, though, everyone actually trusts the mainstream media. Americans – including this White House and Republicans in Congress – will happily cite mainstream news coverage that they feel reinforces their prior beliefs or serves their ideological purposes.

    Sign Up for U.S. News Decision Points

    Your trusted source for breaking down the latest news from Washington and beyond, delivered weekdays.

    Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S. News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy.

    [ad_2]

    Olivier Knox

    Source link

  • What Do ICE Raids Teach Kids?

    [ad_1]

    Just one day after taking office, President Trump signed an executive order authorizing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to resume raids in sensitive locations, including schools and churches. Immigrant rights groups and education advocates immediately sounded the alarm, warning that these policies would have far-reaching consequences, especially for the most vulnerable.

    Now, months later, their warnings have come to pass.

    On June 6, ICE launched military-style raids in California, days after federal authorities deployed the National Guard and hundreds of Marines to Los Angeles, a self-declared sanctuary city. 

    Pew Research Center data shows that 1 in 10 Black Americans is an immigrant. And while much of the public debate has focused on immigration policy writ large, advocates say the impact of the raids creates a climate of fear for immigrant students.

    They “are afraid to leave their homes,” says Dr. Christopher Nellum, executive director of Ed-Trust. “Some parents no longer feel safe taking their children to school.”

    In recent weeks, some immigrant students have skipped graduation. Others aren’t showing up to summer school — not because they don’t want to attend, but because they’re afraid they’ll be detained.

    Immigration raids “are an act of terror against the very communities that fuel our schools, colleges, and way of life,” Nellum says. “Families are being torn apart, students are traumatized, and educators are left reeling. When they are under attack, our educational institutions are under attack.”

    The Toll of Anti-Black Racism and ICE Activity

    Studies from Harvard’s Immigration Initiative show that students from diverse or mixed immigration status families experience higher levels of anxiety, depression, and school disengagement. 

    For Black immigrant students, these challenges are compounded by racial bullying and harassment, racial profiling by teachers, and systemic bias within schools.

    “When a child’s body is coded as both Black and foreign, it is doubly marked,” says Dr. David Kirkland, a New York City-based education scholar and CEO of forwardED. “How do you ‘do school’ under siege? You don’t.”

    Kirkland says we also have to remember that school is more than a building: “It’s a covenant between a society and its children that, for a time, they will be safe enough to wonder, stable enough to grow, and free enough to imagine themselves into being,” he says. “Surveillance — particularly racialized surveillance — shatters this promise.”

    A National Alarm

    While ICE raids drew national attention to Los Angeles, the Trump administration plans to expand enforcement into other cities with large immigrant populations, such as New York City and Chicago. 

    “What you’re seeing happen to Angelenos is happening to your neighbors,” Nellum says. “Los Angeles is not unique — it’s just a harbinger of what we will likely see more of across the nation.”

    Keeping Immigrant Students Safe

    In response to growing concerns among families, the Los Angeles Unified School District introduced several protective measures, including creating “safety zones” on campuses, relocating summer school sites to reduce travel, and offering virtual options. 

    But Nellum says those measures, while important, don’t go far enough.

    “It’s time to go further,” he says. “Expanded access to legal, housing, and mental health support is needed immediately.”

    That’s why Nellum and EdTrust–West, which is based in Oakland, are pushing state lawmakers to pass legislation that would restrict federal agents’ access to schools and student data.

    “Young people must hear, again and again, in as many ways as possible: you belong to our community,” Nellum says. “We care about you and you deserve safety and protection.”

    Kirkland says that beyond policy, schools must work to rebuild trust and create learning environments that address the educational, emotional, and psychological needs of students. 

    “Justice requires a redistribution of power,” Kirkland says. “In this moment, power must be used to shield the vulnerable, amplify the silenced, and repair what fear has broken.”

    [ad_2]

    Quintessa Williams, Word in Black

    Source link

  • Social media companies have too much political power, 78% of Americans say in Pew survey | TechCrunch

    Social media companies have too much political power, 78% of Americans say in Pew survey | TechCrunch

    [ad_1]

    Finally, something that both sides of the aisle can agree on: social media companies are too powerful.

    According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, 78% of American adults say social media companies have too much influence on politics — to break it down by party, that’s 84% of surveyed Republicans and 74% of Democrats. Overall, this viewpoint has become 6% more popular since the last presidential election year.

    Americans’ feelings about social media reflect that of their legislators. Some of the only political pursuits that have recently garnered significant bipartisan support have been efforts to hold social media platforms accountable. Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) have been working across the aisle on their Kids Online Safety Act, a bill that would put a duty of care on social media platforms to keep children safe. However, some privacy advocates have criticized the bill’s potential to make adults more vulnerable to government surveillance.

    Meanwhile, Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have also forged an unlikely partnership to propose a bill that would create a commission to oversee big tech platforms.

    “The only thing worse than me doing a bill with Elizabeth Warren is her doing a bill with me,” Graham said at a Senate hearing in January.

    It’s obvious why Americans think tech companies have too much political power — since the 2020 survey, social platforms were used to coordinate an attack on the Capitol, and then as a result, a sitting president got banned from those platforms for egging on those attacks. Meanwhile, the government is so concerned about the influence of Chinese-owned TikTok that President Biden just signed a bill that could ban the app for good.

    But the views of conservative and liberal Americans diverge on the topic of tech companies’ bias. While 71% of Republicans surveyed said that big tech favors liberal perspectives over conservative ones, 50% of Democrats said that tech companies support each set of views equally. Only 15% of adults overall said that tech companies support conservatives over liberals.

    These survey results make sense given the rise of explicitly conservative social platforms, like Rumble, Parler and Trump’s own Truth Social app.

    During Biden’s presidency, government agencies like the FTC and DOJ have taken a sharper aim at tech companies. Some of the country’s biggest companies like Amazon, Apple and Meta have faced major lawsuits alleging monopolistic behaviors. But according to Pew’s survey, only 16% of U.S. adults think that tech companies should be regulated less than they are now. This percentage has grown since 2021, when Pew found that value to be 9%.

    Liberals and conservatives may not agree on everything when it comes to tech policy, but the predominant perspective from this survey is clear: Americans are tired of the outsized influence of big tech.

    [ad_2]

    Amanda Silberling

    Source link

  • GOP leaders pursue new lawsuits over 2024 election rules – including attacking methods of voting they want supporters to use

    GOP leaders pursue new lawsuits over 2024 election rules – including attacking methods of voting they want supporters to use

    [ad_1]

    (CNN) — Republican leaders are encouraging their supporters to vote by mail in this year’s consequential presidential election, even as their party pursues lawsuits and legislation that would make it harder for those votes to count.

    The Republican National Committee and the Mississippi Republican Party are suing the Magnolia State to end its practice of including absentee ballots received up to five business days after the election. In the swing state of Pennsylvania, meanwhile, the RNC and other Republican groups have challenged efforts to count absentee ballot envelopes missing a date – and have won so far. The GOP has also jumped into cases in OhioGeorgia and Florida to defend restrictions on ballot drop boxes enacted by Republican lawmakers that are now being challenged by groups on the left. And in North Carolina, a new law, advocated by Republican lawmakers and in effect for this year’s elections, eliminates what was once a three-day grace period to accept most mail-in ballots.

    But amid the legislative and legal attacks on early voting, the GOP’s leadership is nonetheless vowing a robust program to convince Republicans to turn in ballots early, either via in-person early voting or by mail, with a campaign called “Bank Your Vote.”

    [ad_2]

    Fredreka Schouten, Tierney Sneed and CNN

    Source link

  • Most Americans now live in a legal marijuana state – and most have at least one dispensary in their county – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    Most Americans now live in a legal marijuana state – and most have at least one dispensary in their county – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    [ad_1]





    Most Americans now live in a legal marijuana state – and most have at least one dispensary in their county – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news




























    skip to Main Content

    [ad_2]

    AggregatedNews

    Source link

  • Black Success, White Backlash

    Black Success, White Backlash

    [ad_1]

    For more than half a century, I have been studying the shifting relations between white and Black Americans. My first journal article, published in 1972, when I was a graduate student at the University of Chicago, was about Black political power in the industrial Midwest after the riots of the late 1960s. My own experience of race relations in America is even longer. I was born in the Mississippi Delta during World War II, in a cabin on what used to be a plantation, and then moved as a young boy to northern Indiana, where as a Black person in the early 1950s, I was constantly reminded of “my place,” and of the penalties for overstepping it. Seeing the image of Emmett Till’s dead body in Jet magazine in 1955 brought home vividly for my generation of Black kids that the consequences of failing to navigate carefully among white people could even be lethal.

    Explore the November 2023 Issue

    Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.

    View More

    For the past 16 years, I have been on the faculty of the sociology department at Yale, and in 2018 I was granted a Sterling Professorship, the highest academic rank the university bestows. I say this not to boast, but to illustrate that I have made my way from the bottom of American society to the top, from a sharecropper’s cabin to the pinnacle of the ivory tower. One might think that, as a decorated professor at an Ivy League university, I would have escaped the various indignities that being Black in traditionally white spaces exposes you to. And to be sure, I enjoy many of the privileges my white professional-class peers do. But the Black ghetto—a destitute and fearsome place in the popular imagination, though in reality it is home to legions of decent, hardworking families—remains so powerful that it attaches to all Black Americans, no matter where and how they live. Regardless of their wealth or professional status or years of law-abiding bourgeois decency, Black people simply cannot escape what I call the “iconic ghetto.”

    I know I haven’t. Some years ago, I spent two weeks in Wellfleet, Massachusetts, a pleasant Cape Cod town full of upper-middle-class white vacationers and working-class white year-rounders. On my daily jog one morning, a white man in a pickup truck stopped in the middle of the road, yelling and gesticulating. “Go home!” he shouted.

    Who was this man? Did he assume, because of my Black skin, that I was from the ghetto? Is that where he wanted me to “go home” to?

    This was not an isolated incident. When I jog through upscale white neighborhoods near my home in Connecticut, white people tense up—unless I wear my Yale or University of Pennsylvania sweatshirts. When my jogging outfit associates me with an Ivy League university, it identifies me as a certain kind of Black person: a less scary one who has passed inspection under the “white gaze.” Strangers with dark skin are suspect until they can prove their trustworthiness, which is hard to do in fleeting public interactions. For this reason, Black students attending universities near inner cities know to wear college apparel, in hopes of avoiding racial profiling by the police or others.

    I once accidentally ran a small social experiment about this. When I joined the Yale faculty in 2007, I bought about 20 university baseball caps to give to the young people at my family reunion that year. Later, my nieces and nephews reported to me that wearing the Yale insignia had transformed their casual interactions with white strangers: White people would now approach them to engage in friendly small talk.

    But sometimes these signifiers of professional status and educated-class propriety are not enough. This can be true even in the most rarefied spaces. When I was hired at Yale, the chair of the sociology department invited me for dinner at the Yale Club of New York City. Clad in a blue blazer, I got to the club early and decided to go up to the fourth-floor library to read The New York Times. When the elevator arrived, a crush of people was waiting to get on it, so I entered and moved to the back to make room for others. Everyone except me was white.

    As the car filled up, I politely asked a man of about 35, standing by the controls, to push the button for the library floor. He looked at me and—emboldened, I have to imagine, by drinks in the bar downstairs—said, “You can read?” The car fell silent. After a few tense moments, another man, seeking to defuse the tension, blurted, “I’ve never met a Yalie who couldn’t read.” All eyes turned to me. The car reached the fourth floor. I stepped off, held the door open, and turned back to the people in the elevator. “I’m not a Yalie,” I said. “I’m a new Yale professor.” And I went into the library to read the paper.

    I tell these stories—and I’ve told them before—not to fault any particular institution (I’ve treasured my time at Yale), but to illustrate my personal experience of a recurring cultural phenomenon: Throughout American history, every moment of significant Black advancement has been met by a white backlash. After the Civil War, under the aegis of Reconstruction, Black people for a time became professionals and congressmen. But when federal troops left the former Confederate states in 1877, white politicians in the South tried to reconstitute slavery with the long rule of Jim Crow. Even the Black people who migrated north to escape this new servitude found themselves relegated to shantytowns on the edges of cities, precursors to the modern Black ghetto.

    All of this reinforced what slavery had originally established: the Black body’s place at the bottom of the social order. This racist positioning became institutionalized in innumerable ways, and it persists today.

    I want to emphasize that across the decades, many white Americans have encouraged racial equality, albeit sometimes under duress. In response to the riots of the 1960s, the federal government—led by the former segregationist Lyndon B. Johnson—passed far-reaching legislation that finally extended the full rights of citizenship to Black people, while targeting segregation. These legislative reforms—and, especially, affirmative action, which was implemented via LBJ’s executive order in 1965—combined with years of economic expansion to produce a long period of what I call “racial incorporation,” which substantially elevated the income of many Black people and brought them into previously white spaces. Yes, a lot of affirmative-action efforts stopped at mere tokenism. Even so, many of these “tokens” managed to succeed, and the result is the largest Black middle class in American history.

    Over the past 50 years, according to a study by the Pew Research Center, the proportion of Black people who are low-income (less than $52,000 a year for a household of three) has fallen seven points, from 48 to 41 percent. The proportion who are middle-income ($52,000 to $156,000 a year) has risen by one point, to 47 percent. The proportion who are high-income (more than $156,000 a year) has risen the most dramatically, from 5 to 12 percent. Overall, Black poverty remains egregiously disproportionate to that of white and Asian Americans. But fewer Black Americans are poor than 50 years ago, and more than twice as many are rich. Substantial numbers now attend the best schools, pursue professions of their choosing, and occupy positions of power and prestige. Affirmative action worked.

    But that very success has inflamed the inevitable white backlash. Notably, the only racial group more likely to be low-income now than 50 years ago is whites—and the only group less likely to be low-income is Blacks.

    For some white people displaced from their jobs by globalization and deindustrialization, the successful Black person with a good job is the embodiment of what’s wrong with America. The spectacle of Black doctors, CEOs, and college professors “out of their place” creates an uncomfortable dissonance, which white people deal with by mentally relegating successful Black people to the ghetto. That Black man who drives a new Lexus and sends his children to private school—he must be a drug kingpin, right?

    In predominantly white professional spaces, this racial anxiety appears in subtler ways. Black people are all too familiar with a particular kind of interaction, in the guise of a casual watercooler conversation, the gist of which is a sort of interrogation: “Where did you come from?”; “How did you get here?”; and “Are you qualified to be here?” (The presumptive answer to the last question is clearly no; Black skin, evoking for white people the iconic ghetto, confers an automatic deficit of credibility.)

    Black newcomers must signal quickly and clearly that they belong. Sometimes this requires something as simple as showing a company ID that white people are not asked for. Other times, a more elaborate dance is required, a performance in which the worker must demonstrate their propriety, their distance from the ghetto. This can involve dressing more formally than the job requires, speaking in a self-consciously educated way, and evincing a placid demeanor, especially in moments of disagreement.

    As part of my ethnographic research, I once embedded in a major financial-services corporation in Philadelphia, where I spent six months observing and interviewing workers. One Black employee I spoke with, a senior vice president, said that people of color who wanted to climb the management ladder must wear the right “uniform” and work hard to perform respectability. “They’re never going to envision you as being a white male,” he told me, “but if you can dress the same and look a certain way and drive a conservative car and whatever else, they’ll say, ‘This guy has a similar attitude, similar values [to we white people]. He’s a team player.’ If you don’t dress with the uniform, obviously you’re on the wrong team.”

    This need to constantly perform respectability for white people is a psychological drain, leaving Black people spent and demoralized. They typically keep this demoralization hidden from their white co-workers because they feel that they need to show they are not whiners. Having to pay a “Black tax” as they move through white areas deepens this demoralization. This tax is levied on people of color in nice restaurants and other public places, or simply while driving, when the fear of a lethal encounter with the police must always be in mind. The existential danger this kind of encounter poses is what necessitates “The Talk” that Black parents—fearful every time their kids go out the door that they might not come back alive—give to their children. The psychological effects of all of this accumulate gradually, sapping the spirit and engendering cynicism.

    Even the most exalted members of the Black elite must live in two worlds. They understand the white elite’s mores and values, and embody them to a substantial extent—but they typically remain keenly conscious of their Blackness. They socialize with both white and Black people of their own professional standing, but also members of the Black middle and working classes with whom they feel more kinship, meeting them at the barbershop, in church, or at gatherings of long-standing friendship groups. The two worlds seldom overlap. This calls to mind W. E. B. Du Bois’ “double consciousness”—a term he used for the first time in this publication, in 1897—referring to the dual cultural mindsets that successful African Americans must simultaneously inhabit.

    For middle-class Black people, a certain fluidity—abetted by family connections—enables them to feel a connection with those at the lower reaches of society. But that connection comes with a risk of contagion; they fear that, meritocratic status notwithstanding, they may be dragged down by their association with the hood.

    When I worked at the University of Pennsylvania, some friends of mine and I mentored at-risk youth in West Philadelphia.

    One of these kids, Kevin Robinson, who goes by KAYR (pronounced “K.R.”), grew up with six siblings in a single-parent household on public assistance. Two of his sisters got pregnant as teenagers, and for a while the whole family was homeless. But he did well in high school and was accepted to Bowdoin College, where he was one of five African Americans in a class of 440. He was then accepted to Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business, where he was one of 10 or so African Americans in an M.B.A. class of roughly 180. He got into the analyst-training program at Goldman Sachs, where his cohort of 300 had five African Americans. And from there he ended up at a hedge fund, where he was the lone Black employee.

    What’s striking about Robinson’s accomplishments is not just the steepness of his rise or the scantness of Black peers as he climbed, but the extent of cultural assimilation he felt he needed to achieve in order to fit in. He trimmed his Afro. He did a pre-college program before starting Bowdoin, where he had sushi for the first time and learned how to play tennis and golf. “Let me look at how these people live; let me see how they operate,” he recalls saying to himself. He decided to start reading The New Yorker and Time magazine, as they did, and to watch 60 Minutes. “I wanted people to see me more as their peer versus … someone from the hood. I wanted them to see me as, like, ‘Hey, look, he’s just another middle-class Black kid.’ ” When he was about to start at Goldman Sachs, a Latina woman who was mentoring him there told him not to wear a silver watch or prominent jewelry: “ ‘KAYR, go get a Timex with a black leather band. Keep it very simple … Fit in.’ ” My friends and I had given him similar advice earlier on.

    All of this worked; he thrived professionally. Yet even as he occupied elite precincts of wealth and achievement, he was continually getting pulled back to support family in the ghetto, where he felt the need to code-switch, speaking and eating the ways his family did so as not to insult them.

    The year he entered Bowdoin, one of his younger brothers was sent to prison for attempted murder, and a sister who had four children was shot in the face and died. Over the years he would pay for school supplies for his nieces and nephews, and for multiple family funerals—all while keeping his family background a secret from his professional colleagues. Even so, he would get subjected to the standard indignities—being asked to show ID when his white peers were not; enduring the (sometimes obliviously) racist comments from colleagues (“You don’t act like a regular Black”). He would report egregious offenses to HR but would usually just let things go, for fear that developing a reputation as a “race guy” would restrict his professional advancement.

    Robinson’s is a remarkable success story. He is 40 now; he owns a property-management company and is a multimillionaire. But his experience makes clear that no matter what professional or financial heights you ascend to, if you are Black, you can never escape the iconic ghetto, and sometimes not even the actual one.

    The most egregious intrusion of a Black person into white space was the election (and reelection) of Barack Obama as president. A Black man in the White House! For some white people, this was intolerable. Birthers, led by Donald Trump, said he was ineligible for the presidency, claiming falsely that he had been born in Kenya. The white backlash intensified; Republicans opposed Obama with more than the standard amount of partisan vigor. In 2013, at the beginning of Obama’s second term, the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act, which had protected the franchise for 50 years. Encouraged by this opening, Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas moved forward with voter-suppression laws, setting a course that other states are now following. And this year, the Supreme Court outlawed affirmative action in college admissions. I want to tell a story that illustrates the social gains this puts at risk.

    Many years ago, when I was a professor at Penn, my father came to visit me. Walking around campus, we bumped into various colleagues and students of mine, most of them white, who greeted us warmly. He watched me interact with my secretary and other department administrators. Afterward, Dad and I went back to my house to drink beer and listen to Muddy Waters.

    “So you’re teaching at that white school?” he said.

    “Yeah.”

    “You work with white people. And you teach white students.”

    “Yeah, but they actually come in all colors,” I responded. I got his point, though.

    “Well, let me ask you one thing,” he said, furrowing his brow.

    “What’s that, Dad?”

    “Do they respect you?”

    After thinking about his question a bit, I said, “Well, some do. And some don’t. But you know, Dad, it is hard to tell which is which sometimes.”

    “Oh, I see,” he said.

    He didn’t disbelieve me; it was just that what he’d witnessed on campus was at odds with his experience of the typical Black-white interaction, where the subordinate status of the Black person was automatically assumed by the white one. Growing up in the South, my dad understood that white people simply did not respect Black people. Observing the respectful treatment I received from my students and colleagues, my father had a hard time believing his own eyes. Could race relations have changed so much, so fast?

    They had—in large part because of what affirmative action, and the general processes of racial incorporation and Black economic improvement, had wrought. In the 1960s, the only Black people at the financial-services firm I studied would have been janitors, night watchmen, elevator operators, or secretaries; 30 years later, affirmative action had helped populate the firm with Black executives. Each beneficiary of affirmative action, each member of the growing Black middle class, helped normalize the presence of Black people in professional and other historically white spaces. All of this diminished, in some incremental way, the power of the symbolic ghetto to hold back people of color.

    Too many people forget, if ever they knew it, what a profound cultural shift affirmative action effected. And they overlook affirmative action’s crucial role in forestalling social unrest.

    Some years ago, I was invited to the College of the Atlantic, a small school in Maine, to give the commencement address. As I stood at the sink in the men’s room before the event, checking the mirror to make sure all my academic regalia was properly arrayed, an older white man came up to me and said, with no preamble, “What do you think of affirmative action?”

    “I think it’s a form of reparations,” I said.

    “Well, I think they need to be educated first,” he said, and then walked out.

    I was so provoked by this that I scrambled back to my hotel room and rewrote my speech. I’d already been planning to talk about the benefits of affirmative action, but I sharpened and expanded my case, explaining that it not only had lifted many Black people out of the ghetto, but had been a weapon in the Cold War, when unaligned countries and former colonies were trying to decide which superpower to follow. Back then, Democrats and some Republicans were united in believing that affirmative action, by demonstrating the country’s commitment to racial justice and equality, helped project American greatness to the world.

    Beyond that, I said to this almost entirely white audience, affirmative action had helped keep the racial unrest of the ’60s from flaring up again. When the kin—the mothers, fathers, cousins, nephews, sons, daughters, baby mamas, uncles, aunts—of ghetto residents secure middle-class livelihoods, those ghetto relatives hear about it. This gives the young people who live there a modicum of hope that they might do the same. Hope takes the edge off distress and desperation; it lessens the incentives for people to loot and burn. What opponents of affirmative action fail to understand is that without a ladder of upward mobility for Black Americans, and a general sense that justice will prevail, a powerful nurturer of social concord gets lost.

    Yes, continuing to expand the Black professional and middle classes will lead to more instances of “the dance,” and the loaded interrogations, and the other awkward moments and indignities that people of color experience in white spaces. But the greater the number of affluent, successful Black people in such places, the faster this awkwardness will diminish, and the less power the recurrent waves of white reaction will have to set people of color back. I would like to believe that future generations of Black Americans will someday find themselves as pleasantly surprised as my dad once was by the new levels of racial respect and equality they discover.


    This article appears in the November 2023 print edition with the headline “Black Success, White Backlash.”

    [ad_2]

    Elijah Anderson

    Source link

  • College Is a Dividing Line in Politics. Here’s What You Need to Know.

    College Is a Dividing Line in Politics. Here’s What You Need to Know.

    [ad_1]

    The idea of college as a fundamental political division in the U.S. has prompted a great deal of handwringing in the academic world over the past six years. On Tuesday, a high-stakes midterm election will play out with college in the backdrop once again.

    On its surface, the divide is simple: People with college degrees increasingly vote for Democrats, while people who didn’t go to college increasingly vote for Republicans. In a similar vein, there’s a widening gap on opinions of college itself: Republicans tend to question the value of higher ed, while Democrats tend to support it.

    In 2020, 56 percent of college-educated voters supported Democrats, a share that grew slightly from 2016. And 56 percent of voters with a high-school education or less supported Republicans.

    Before 2016, a majority of people from both political parties had positive perceptions of colleges. Starting that year, 72 percent of Democrats maintained this view, but only 43 percent of Republicans did.

    What’s behind the divide, however, is more complicated — as The Chronicle wrote in 2020.

    Here’s what the most recent data tell us.

    A 2022 survey by New America found that 73 percent of Democrats believe that colleges have a positive effect on the nation. Only 37 percent of Republicans said the same. Among all Americans, the proportion who believe higher ed is leading the country in a positive direction has dropped by 14 percentage points, to 55 percent, since 2020.

    Americans across the political spectrum agree that a college degree is valuable to an individual, and both Democrats and Republicans have expressed concerns about the rising cost of higher education. But they remain divided on who should pay for it. Among Republicans, 63 percent say students should pay for their degrees. That’s compared to 77 percent of Democrats who say the government should fund higher education, according to the New America report.

    An earlier survey from the Pew Research Center also charted dwindling support for higher education. The survey found that in 2019, 38 percent of American adults believed colleges were having a negative effect on the country, up from 26 percent in 2012. That shift came almost entirely from Republicans and independents who lean Republican, while Democrats’ views remained stable.

    At the center of the divide are white voters. Most white voters with less education voted for Republicans in 2016. But a majority of white voters with higher levels of education favored Democrats, a shift from most past elections. The divide has become more stark across gender: A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in 2018 found the widest gap between white, college-educated women, who preferred a majority-Democrat Congress, and white men without degrees, who preferred a majority-Republican one.

    ‘Winners and Losers’

    There’s a new book that cuts to the heart of the divide over college: After the Ivory Tower Falls: How College Broke the American Dream and Blew Up Our Politics — and How to Fix It (HarperCollins, 2022), written by Will Bunch, a Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist. In the book, Bunch argues that higher ed is a key source of modern-day resentment that has seeped into Republican politics.

    Higher ed is a key source of modern-day resentment that has seeped into Republican politics.

    Last week, during a session at the Chronicle Festival, Bunch zeroed in on a key question driving his work: “Why do people in the working class have these attitudes towards people with college diplomas?”

    Following World War II, higher ed was generally seen as a public good across the board, Bunch said. That began to change during the civil-rights movement in the 1960s, which spurred campus protests and pressured colleges to increase access for women and people of color. In the 1970s, Ronald Reagan, then governor of California, began touting the idea that colleges were liberal indoctrination factories, adding fuel to a burgeoning conservative backlash.

    Today, Bunch said, college is roiled by a student-debt crisis, a decline in federal and state funding, and a perception among many people who didn’t earn degrees — some of whom live just a stone’s throw from their local college — that institutions are wildly out of touch.

    Bunch suggested that colleges help engineer a system “that’s maybe a little bit less obsessed with creating winners and losers” — in other words, a shift away from meritocracy and toward opportunity.

    What else is contributing to the political rift over college? Research has suggested that a college degree, especially one in the social sciences, could mediate one’s beliefs about race and gender in a way that makes people less likely to vote for Republican candidates.

    This dynamic was highlighted during the 2016 election, which was marked “by exceptionally explicit rhetoric on race and gender,” according to a paper authored by Tatishe M. Nteta, an associate professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. The paper found that people with college degrees were less likely to express negative views of racial groups than people without degrees.

    Republicans and Democrats agree that colleges in rural areas are major employers in these regions. But people in “rural and Rust Belt America” — areas that have steadfastly voted Republican over the years — “have viewed higher education as an otherworld, whose mores and demographics are at odds with their way of life,” David Scobey wrote for The Chronicle in 2019. Scobey is director of Bringing Theory to Practice, a national project aimed at increasing civic engagement.

    There are areas of common ground when it comes to higher ed, though.

    Across political affiliations, 86 percent of Americans agree that higher education can help advance people’s careers, a 2022 survey from Public Agenda found. Fifty-two percent of Americans believe higher education strengthens the economy. And 51 percent of Americans think democracy would be stronger if more people were college educated.

    [ad_2]

    Sarah Brown, Carolyn Kuimelis, and Grace Mayer

    Source link

  • What Will Happen in Georgia?

    What Will Happen in Georgia?

    [ad_1]

    ATLANTA—The three dozen young Black men and women who gathered in a church meeting room last Friday night were greeted with a rousing exhortation that had the added benefit of being true.

    In welcoming remarks, Bryce Berry, a senior at nearby Morehouse College and the president of the Young Democrats of Georgia club, told the group that none of the party’s national-policy accomplishments of the past two years would have been possible without people like them. “Without young Georgians, young Black Georgians,” Berry said for emphasis, “there would be no Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, no American Rescue Plan … no Inflation Reduction Act, no student-debt relief, and no gun-safety bill.”

    It was the sort of thing speakers always say to motivate a crowd at political rallies. But in this case it was historically accurate: Massive turnout and huge margins among young voters, especially young voters of color, were crucial to the twin runoff victories of Georgia Senators Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock in January 2021 that delivered Democrats their unexpected majority in the upper chamber.

    Young adults have become an essential electoral asset for Democrats—and loom as a potentially decisive factor in determining whether the party can avoid the worst outcomes up and down the ballot this November. In particular, young voters may decide whether Democrats can preserve the fragile hold on the Senate that Georgia provided to them.

    A sharp generation gap is among the most consistent findings in public polling across almost every competitive Senate race this year. Here in Georgia, for instance, an array of recent public polls (including surveys by Quinnipiac University, Marist College, Monmouth University, and the University of Georgia) have found Warnock leading the Republican Herschel Walker by as much as two to one among young adults from about 18 to 34 and consistently by a margin of about 10 percentage points among those in early middle age. Polls almost always show Walker at least slightly ahead among those in their later working years, and solidly leading among those 65 and older. (This week’s explosive allegations about Walker—the claim that he allegedly funded an abortion for a girlfriend and the subsequent accusations of domestic violence from his son—seem likely to weaken him, perhaps substantially, with every group, but are unlikely to erase these sharp generational differences.)

    These patterns are so common across the competitive states that it’s hard to imagine Democrats maintaining their Senate majority unless young voters like those who gathered at Atlanta’s Allen Temple AME Church turn out in substantial numbers.

    Compared with older generations, Millennials and members of Generation Z are more racially diverse, more likely to hold postsecondary degrees, and less likely to identify with any religious tradition. Both cohorts have leaned sharply Democratic since the first Millennials entered the electorate in large numbers in the 2004 election; the party has routinely carried about three-fifths of young adults in recent presidential contests. In 2018, Democrats hit a peak of support among young voters, winning two-thirds of those younger than 30 and three-fifths of those ages 30 to 44, according to estimates by Catalist, a Democratic targeting firm.

    Millennials and Gen Z are especially crucial to Democratic fortunes across Sun Belt states like Georgia and Arizona. In this region, younger generations are far more racially diverse than the mostly white, older voters who provide the backbone of GOP strength. In Arizona, for instance, Latino voters and other people of color compose almost three-fifths of the population under 30 but less than one-fifth of the population over 65, according to calculations from census data by William Frey, a demographer at Brookings Metro. In Georgia, Black voters and other people of color represent half of eligible voters under 45 but only three in 10 of those over 65. The gap between what I’ve called “the brown and the gray”—the diverse younger and the mostly white older generations—is comparably large in Texas and Nevada and nearly as big in North Carolina, Frey’s data show.

    For Democrats, this year’s nightmare scenario of losing both the House and Senate is a repeat of 2010 and 2014, when the GOP midterm sweeps were turbocharged by a catastrophic falloff in turnout among young people from the presidential race two years earlier.

    The anemic youth turnout in those off-year elections during Barack Obama’s presidency fueled a widespread perception that Democrats now faced a structural disadvantage in midterms because the electorate in those years was destined to be much older and whiter than in the presidential contest. But the 2018 results upended that assumption: Much more robust turnout among young adults helped power the Democratic gains that allowed them to recapture the House of Representatives. Compared with 2014, youth turnout increased in every state in 2018, more than doubling across the country overall, Circle, a think tank at Tufts University that studies young voters, has calculated. Some of the biggest increases occurred in Sun Belt states where the youth population is the most racially diverse, including Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada.

    The turnout surge continued into 2020, when exactly half of adults younger than 30 showed up to vote, a big increase from the 39 percent in 2016, Circle concluded. Georgia again ranked among the states with the biggest youth-turnout increase compared with 2016—a key factor in the Democrats’ razor-thin victories there in the presidential race and the two Senate runoffs.

    Democrats this year are highly unlikely to win as big a share of youth voters as they did during their 2018 sweep (they didn’t even equal it in 2020). But one of the pivotal questions remaining for the 2022 election is how close Democrats can come to matching the strength with young voters they displayed while Donald Trump was in the White House.

    Democrats face some serious headwinds. Never enthusiastic about President Joe Biden during the 2020 Democratic primaries, young people have given him lackluster approval ratings throughout his presidency. Generally operating with less of a financial cushion than older voters, young people have also been more affected by the highest inflation in four decades. “The cost of living is going up, but our salaries are not,” Alexia Brookins, a manager at a construction company, told me at the AME event sponsored by the group Millennials of Faith last weekend.

    In a mid-September NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, just 37 percent of Millennials and Gen Z said that Biden’s actions had strengthened the economy; 55 percent said that he had weakened it. In a late-September Yahoo News/YouGov survey, only about one-fifth of young adults ages 18 to 44 said life was better for people like them since Biden took office (the rest said it was unchanged or worse).

    Terrance Woodbury, a partner at HIT Strategies, a Democratic consulting firm that focuses on young voters of color, worries that these verdicts will make it difficult for Democrats to reach the turnout and margins they need among young voters. In polling that HIT recently conducted for the NAACP, he told me, three-fourths of Black adults younger than 50 said their lives had not improved since Biden took office.

    Woodbury told me that although the media seem fixated on whether potential Republican gains among men will widen the Black gender gap this year, he expects that the “generational gap” in the African American community will be much wider. “Younger voters are much more likely to say Democrats take Black voters for granted, much less likely to approve of the direction of the country, and much less likely to approve of the performance of Democrats in Congress and the White House,” he told me. “All of that is significantly higher by generation than by gender. I actually do think there is a real risk of Democrats underperforming with young voters, and specifically young voters of color.” Equis Research, a Democratic polling firm that specializes in Latino voters, raised similar warnings about young Hispanic voters in a late-September memo analyzing the upcoming election.

    But other factors may help Democrats approach, if not necessarily match, their recent advantages with young voters.

    More young adults may vote in 2022 simply because so many of them registered and voted in 2018 and 2020. One reason for that is structural: There are more young people on the voter rolls because of the [2018 and 2020] elections, which is a huge boost, because it means they are more likely to be contacted by parties and organizations,” and those contacts increase the likelihood of people voting, Abby Kiesa, Circle’s deputy director, told me.

    The other key reason is attitudinal: Higher youth turnout may mean that not only is voting becoming a habit for those who have already done it; it is also becoming more expected among the 18-year-olds who age into the electorate every two years (more than 8 million of them since 2020, Circle projects). At the AME event, for instance, Kendeius Mitchell, a disability-claims manager, told me that youth engagement in Georgia is feeding on itself. “Just having it around so much in the conversation now is making people take accountability,” he said.

    John Della Volpe, the director of polling at the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics, sees the same trend in the institute’s national surveys. “Voting … could be becoming a part of this new generation and how they think,” he told me.

    Also lifting Democratic hopes is the party’s summer succession of policy advances on issues important to young people. Della Volpe said the “No. 1” criticism of Biden among young adults in the Harvard poll was “ineffectiveness.” But the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, with its sweeping provisions to combat climate change, and the president’s decision to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt for millions of borrowers have provided Democratic organizers and ad makers something they lacked earlier this year: evidence to argue to young adults that their votes did produce change on things they care about. Biden gave organizers another talking point yesterday afternoon, when he announced a sweeping pardon of all people convicted of simple marijuana possession under federal law.

    On the ground in Georgia, Keron Blair, the chief organizing and field officer for the New Georgia Project, a grassroots political organization founded by the Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, told me that with the Democrats’ recent successes, “it feels a little bit easier” than in the spring to make the case to young adults that their vote counts.

    Looking across the overall record of Democrats since they took power, “people aren’t like, ‘Oh my God, this is amazing,’” Blair told me. “But people are clear that some of the wins and the political and economic shifts that we are seeing [are] the result of the [voting] choices that people have made.”

    Also working for Democrats is the gulf in values between most young voters and the Trump-era Republican Party. Fully 70 percent of adults younger than 30, for instance, said in a Pew Research Center poll this summer that abortion should remain legal in all or most circumstances, by far the most of any age group. That places them in sharp opposition to a GOP that is intensifying talk of passing a national ban on abortion if it wins control of Congress. “If we maintain that [recent] surge among young voters and voters of color,” Woodbury said, “they are voting against the crazy on the other side.”

    Although different public surveys have sent different signals about youth engagement, the latest IOP youth survey, which is considered a benchmark in the field, found that as many young people said they “definitely” intend to vote this fall as did in 2018.

    That prospect points toward an incremental but inexorable power shift. In 2020, for the first time, Millennials and Gen Z roughly equaled Baby Boomers and their elders as a share of eligible voters. By 2024, the younger generations will establish a clear advantage. As their numbers grow, so does their capacity to influence the national direction. There’s no guarantee they will exercise that inherent power next month by turning out to vote in large numbers. But more young people appear to be recognizing how much their choices can matter. Berry, the young Georgia activist, told me that his message to his friends is centered on understanding the strength in numbers that they are accumulating: “I really impress on folks, ‘Look at what happened because of you. You understood the moment in 2020; now you have to understand the moment in 2022.’”

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • O’Connor Institute Constitution Series Showcases Library of Congress

    O’Connor Institute Constitution Series Showcases Library of Congress

    [ad_1]

    Press Release



    updated: Mar 18, 2021

    The Sandra Day O’Connor Institute For American Democracy will present a complimentary online public forum Constitution Series: Equality and Justice for All on Thursday, April 8, 2021, at 1 p.m. EDT.  The webcast, open to the public, will feature Dr. Carla Hayden, the nation’s 14th Librarian of Congress who has served under three presidential administrations. Dr. Hayden will speak on the topic of Enriching America’s Stories: Expanding Diverse Collections. Guest moderator for the forum will be Chevy Humphrey, President and CEO of the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry and a member of the Institute’s Board of Directors.

    Dr. Hayden will provide insight into the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery in 1865, ratified by Congress and signed by President Abraham Lincoln. Additionally, she will discuss “Of the People: Widening the Path,” a new program funded by the Mellon Foundation which creates new opportunities for more Americans to engage with the Library of Congress and add their perspectives to the Library’s collections. Of The People will allow the national library to share a more inclusive American story and expand the Library’s efforts to ensure that a diversity of experiences is reflected in our historical record and how we might use those materials to better understand our past.

    The Constitution Series was launched by the Institute in 2020 to convene civil dialogue and foster solutions. With core values of inclusivity, civility and collaboration, the organization founded by Justice O’Connor believes that the expressed ideals of this great nation require exploring issues of injustice. The series hopes to broaden perspectives and increase understanding through thoughtful listening, mutual respect and shared purpose.

    Justice O’Connor has stated that “in order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity.”

    Following Justice O’Connor’s retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court, she founded the O’Connor Institute, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization to advance American democracy through multigenerational civil discourse, civic engagement and civics education. For more information and to register for the free webcast, visit www.OConnorInstitute.org.

    Media Contact:
    Heather Schader | 602-730-3300 x8 | hschader@oconnorinstitue.org | @SDOInstitute

    Source: Sandra Day O’Connor Institute For American Democracy

    [ad_2]

    Source link