In a recent essay published in this magazine, I wrote about a phenomenon I call “angry activism.” I explained how the desire to be right and “win” against “the other side” has resulted in the tendency to perceive everyone with divergent views as an enemy. How anger can be an appealing tool to foster unity and commitment around a cause, but that it is less fruitful in delivering social change, because it impedes empathy and effective communication. I suggested that listening with the goal of mutual understanding is a more productive method.

I’m returning to this concept of angry activism to address one related matter in particular: white people. Specifically, the current position of “whiteness” in left-leaning spaces. Angry activism in left-wing spaces has been the root cause of an increasingly common attitude toward white people (cis straight men in particular) that is condemnatory and dismissive. This position is both hypocritical and impractical. It uses the same flawed racialist identity politics that are negatively attributed to whiteness and discourages potential help and resources that might otherwise be part of the solution. Activists on all sides would do better to reject identity politics and embrace a more empathetic approach to pursuing change.

In the past few decades, the position of whiteness has been shifting. Historically, it often carried a distinct advantage. This advantage encouraged individuals across society to define themselves along racial lines. Over the years, efforts to change this dynamic have gained support in many circles, resulting in advancements in social equality and human rights. Particularly in left-leaning spaces, where these effects have been most pronounced, this shift has been marked by an intentional centring of non-white voices. Among other things, this trend has meant that white people are often expected to sit quietly in the background, with the general attitude being that it’s now time for non-white people to have their turn.

I understand the appeal of this approach. After so many years spent feeling a compulsory deference to a white majority, it makes sense that some people in racial minority groups would seek out spaces where their voices are given precedence. It also makes sense that silencing whiteness would seem the most direct approach to correcting inequality because it seems to balance the scales, as it were.

The problem is, this approach demonises white people much in the same way that people of colour have been previously. In both cases, the same racial essentialism is at play, and the characteristic in question is seen as something negative that individuals are encouraged to distance themselves from. Those who cannot are shamed and made to apologize, not for anything they’ve done, but for who they are. They are treated as representatives of their entire race, and lectured on how to engage in the never-ending atonement for the sins of their ancestors.

The hypocrisy in this attitude is obvious. Discrimination cannot be ended with more discrimination. Creating an environment in which some people are allowed to express their opinions while others are not, based solely on skin colour (or any other such attribute) is not “social justice.” As long as the practice of applying race-based judgments to justify preferential treatment is allowed to continue, the outcome will result in the exact same kind of illiberal inequalities that have plagued the world for centuries.

The reason these attitudes flourish in so many left-leaning activist spaces is, in large part, because of the embrace of angry activism. Repeated experiences of racial discrimination can, not surprisingly, fuel anger and resentment, which is frequently directed back at the perceived culprit—in this case: whiteness. The desire this can generate to “level the playing field” or even to watch the “enemy” suffer a little bit under the same conditions they are credited with creating is understandable; but not very productive. It often serves to increase hostilities and decrease opportunities for dialogue and consensus, which makes the desired progress toward change more difficult.

The leftist hostility toward whiteness is also highly impractical. If the goal is to persuade more white people to join the so-called “side” of social equality, then endlessly disparaging them as a category is probably not the best way to go about it. Treating with animosity those white individuals who believe in the cause and are willing to venture into leftist spaces is equally illogical, as they are generally not “the enemy” that such efforts are fighting against. White people make up a notable portion of the world population and have the potential to be a great asset in the pursuit of equality. Intentionally banishing them to the outskirts of the conversation is not the best way to effect change.

So, what are white and non-white folks actually supposed to do?

First, we should all strive to get away from identity politics. The tendency to lump people together on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, socioeconomic class, religion, etc. is prevalent, but flawed. While many individuals in a given group will probably find things they have in common, not everyone will. The trouble with identity politics is that through this lens people will often feel pressured to conform to the stated commonalities of the group anyway, which overlooks their individuality and restricts their freedom.

The second solution to all of this is, as I have argued before, to let go of angry activism. Rather than approaching every encounter as an opportunity for confrontation, start with compassionate listening, avoid judgment, and try not to take things personally. In conversation, truly listen to what others have to say. Recognize that people may need to voice their frustration, just as you occasionally need to voice your own. It can be challenging to resist feeling angry and defensive, but try to remember that most of the time people just want to feel seen, heard and better understood.

If we do this, we will be able to talk more openly about racial issues and social inequalities. Normalising conversations on these topics is an important step in this process, especially among people with diverging viewpoints. It is my hope that through these efforts we will find more common ground and mutual understanding. To achieve this goal, activism must move beyond anger and resentment. The left can do their part by abandoning the idea that white people are the enemy.

This piece is published as part of a partnership between Areo and the publication Queer Majority. You can find the original source here.
Visit https://www.queermajority.com.

Whenever I am asked how a campus should begin to internationalize, I recommend a short, inexpensive report titled Educating Americans for a World in Flux, published by the American Council on Education (ACE). This report focuses on the task of educating all U.S. students to be
global citizens.

“The nation must commit itself now to providing all students with the kinds of knowledge it once provided only to a few – a powerful, deep rooted understanding of other languages, diverse cultures, and global issues,” the report urges. “This kind of competence needs to be provided not as something extra in the curriculum, but as an integral part of the educational experience.”

The need to recognize the value of international education and begin the task of changing priorities is no less important for historically Black colleges and universities (HCBUs) and minority-serving institutions (MSIs) than for majority-serving institutions. In fact, one could argue that it is even more urgent for the former institutions.

While there are a number of ways an institution demonstrates its commitment to international education, one generally recognized by international educators is the number of undergraduate students who study abroad for academic credit each year. According to Open Doors 1995/96, a yearly publication of the New York-based Institute of International Education – which reports on the number of U.S. students who study abroad and foreign students studying in the U.S. – of the 85,000 undergraduates who studied abroad during the 1995-96 academic year, 10,571 were students of color. The precise ethnic composition was 4,146 (4.9 percent) Asian American; 3,827 (4.5 percent) Hispanic; 2,348 African American (2.8 percent); and 250 (0.03 percent) Native American.

Only sixteen HBCUs reported to Open Doors. Collectively, these institutions sent 150 students abroad (most of whom are assumed to be Black), out of a total HBCU population of 280,000. It is possible that there were more students from HBCUs who studied abroad in the 1995-96
academic year, but they were not reported to Open Doors.

The 85,000 undergraduates who did study abroad in the 1995-96 academic year represent fewer than 1 percent of the 12.2 million U.S. undergraduates that year. If these statistics are any indication, then the task of internationalizing campuses is enormous for all of the
nation’s institutions of higher education.

Visionary leaders at HBCUs and MSIs have an exciting opportunity to chart new territory and provide successful models for replication and adaptation by other institutions. Models of international campuses that reach low-income, minority, and nontraditional students are much needed in higher education – and these are the very populations with which HBCUs and MSIs have demonstrated success.

The reason I like to recommend Educating Americans for a World in Flux is because it offers some easily adopted recommendations for developing an international campus. Among them are:

* establishing language competency requirements for all graduates;

* requiring an understanding of other cultures;

* developing curricula that demonstrate international understanding;

* developing study abroad and international internships for all students;

* developing consortia to enhance capabilities;

* developing opportunities to cooperate with institutions abroad; and

* providing support to local schools and community organizations.

While none of the recommendations are more important than others, institutions that send a clear signal to faculty that their active role in the internationalization process is valued – and has tangible rewards in the tenure and promotion process – are likely to change more rapidly and in a deeper, more meaningful way than those institutions that fail to do so.

Faculty from all disciplines who contribute to an international campus program should be encouraged and rewarded if they speak other languages, have presented at international conferences, are engaging in international research projects, host international scholars, advise
international students, take sabbaticals abroad, receive international grants or fellowships, go on short-term international study programs, or advise international student clubs. The possibilities are endless.

Developing an international campus may seem overwhelming, but an inexpensive and important first step is to undertake an assessment of the international strengths of a campus. An initial assessment might include identifying faculty, administrators, and others who speak
foreign languages; taking inventory of courses that have an international focus or component, or offer comparative international content; and identify faculty who have presented at international conferences, are engaged in international research, have received international fellowships and grants, or have attended educational programs abroad.

With a bit of detective work and minimal expenditure, a campus that develops such a catalog of international achievements is likely to find that it has the start of an international program, no matter how modest. An international assessment. starts the internationalization process by highlighting the global activities of the campus that can then be used to initiate a comprehensive strategy.

Making a campus international in mission, deed, and outreach involves everyone: faculty, administrators, support personnel, students, and the community. With limited resources, the challenge may seem daunting. But the rewards are unlimited for every person on a campus entrusted with the education, safety, and well-being of future citizens.

KAREN JENKINS, Vice President, Institutional Advancement; Editor-in-chief Journal of Studies in International Education; Council on International Educational Exchange

spacer

 

US Population Distribution, by Generation and Race/Ethnicity in 2024

Marketing Charts

The share of the US population in 2024 that will be non–Hispanic White, non–Hispanic Black, non–Hispanic Asian, Hispanic, and of other race/ethnicity, …

The share of the US population in 2024 that will be non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Asian, Hispanic, and of other race/ethnicity, for the following generations:

• Alpha
• Gen Z
• Millennials
• Gen X
• Baby Boomers
• Silents

spacer

Diversity in Higher Education: Facts and Statistics

BestColleges.comMar 31, 2023 — White students made up nearly half of the total undergraduate population at 42%. Hispanic and Latino/a students were the second largest group at …

spacerspacer

College Enrollment Statistics [2023]: Total + by Demographic

Education Data Initiative

Jan 10, 2024 — 71.9% of Black or African American students attend 4-year institutions. … 5.0% of enrolled college students are nonresident non-citizens. The …

spacer

College Enrollment Statistics [2023]: Total + by Demographic

Education Data InitiativeJan 10, 2024 — 55.5% of White or Caucasian students enroll at 4-year institutions. … 71.9% of Black or African American students attend 4-year institutions.
spacer

Annual Foreign Investment in U.S. Existing-Home Sales …

National Association of REALTORS®Jul 18, 2022 — Foreign buyers who lived abroad purchased $24.9 billion worth of existing homes, up 13.2% from the 12 months prior and accounting for 42% of the …spacer

More U.S. Scientists and Engineers Are Foreign-Born

Population Reference BureauMore than 60 percent of foreign-born scientists and engineers in the United States in 2009 were from Asia, according to Census Bureau data analyzed by PRB.
spacer

Science in the US is built on immigrants. Will they keep coming?

Chemical & Engineering News

Mar 4, 2019 — Currently, immigrants make up around 25% of all US science and technology workers and around 50% of the doctoral-level science workforce …

spacer

1 in 5 U.S. physicians was born and educated abroad. Who …

AAMCFeb 23, 2023 — At the most basic level, they provide care that people need — both during residency and, in many cases, for their entire professional lives,” …
spacer

 

U.S. relies heavily on foreign-born healthcare workers

Reuters

Dec 4, 2018 — More than one in four doctors in the United States were born in another country, and a new study suggests many nurses, dentists, pharmacists …

spacer

Young people today probably don’t have a clue, but there was a time, not too long ago, when one could call or walk into a business and speak with the Manager or the Owner face to face to ask about work.  Often, very successfully.  But, with the onslaught of Technology, EVERYTHING is done ONLINE.  Often the very owners have little to say about who gets to apply.  Everything is filtered through AI. 

Today, many jobs have been downgraded to TEMPORARY positions, because it is cheaper for the Owners to pay Temporary Employees than to maintain personnel that require time off, vacations, health insurance, stock, retirement…etc.  So now, the foreigners are taking the jobs from American workers.   That is, those jobs that have not already been outsourced, again thanks to Technology.

spacer

Immigrants as Economic Contributors: Immigrants Fill the Temporary Needs of American Employers

By Dan Kosten

Immigrants are increasingly pivotal in the U.S. economy. Not only do they provide a more permanent solution to our workforce needs, but they also help fill the temporary needs of American employers. This paper is part of a series examining the immigrants’ various roles in our economy. It highlights research on immigrants employed as temporary workers, who fill the labor needs of U.S. employers that experience temporary or seasonal spikes in business. The paper also shows how some longer-term nonimmigrant temporary workers have become critical to the workforce of businesses with longer-term labor needs that have not been met by the native-born workforce or by our outdated immigrant visa system.

Temporary Visas Are Critical to the U.S. Economy

Two types of visas exist for foreigners who want to enter the United States: an immigrant visa, which provides permanent resident status and could lead to citizenship, and a nonimmigrant visa, which provides foreigners with authorization to stay only temporarily. Nonimmigrant visas are granted to foreigners coming to the U.S. for tourism, diplomatic purposes, and temporary work.

Thousands of temporary worker visas are allocated each year, divided into about 20 categories. Some are allocated for seasonal work, and some are issued for longer periods to fill worker shortages employers’ face. Some of these temporary visas, however, are capped in the number that can be allotted each year. These caps can pose a challenge for certain sectors of the economy that cannot get enough workers for the jobs they have open.

For the most part, the immigrants on temporary work visas are working full-time and must return to their country after their visa expires. This paper focuses on the most significant of these 20 temporary worker visa categories.

spacer

spacer

How can white people apologize to people of color? – YouTube

YouTube · KING 5 Seattle