FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Nov 21

Angry Young Males Revolt In America

by bcurry

Back in 2013, I read a very interesting book by Michael S. Kimmel entitled: “Angry White Men: American Masculinity at the End of an Era.”  In it, he described an increase in anger in the seismic economic, social and political shifts that have so transformed the American landscape among young white men.  Downward mobility, increased racial and gender equality, and a tenacious clinging to an anachronistic ideology of masculinity left many white men feeling betrayed and bewildered.  “Angry white male” is a term for white men holding conservative or right-wing views. Today, the term is often used when talking about the politics of the U.S. The term mostly refers to a group which emerged in the early 1990s. They reacted to what they thought were injustices created by “affirmative action.”  An angry white male is opposed to anti-discrimination policies (such as affirmative action) that benefit racial minorities and women.  Supporters of Donald Trump are sometimes said to largely include angry white men.  Today, one might add young Black and Hispanic men to their numbers, especially now that affirmative action is no longer in play.

Back in the 1960s, when activists pushed for laws to equalize opportunities for women, girls had been much less likely than boys to graduate from college.  However, a recent study indicated that by 2015, the situation had flipped.  Boys were much less likely than girls to make it through college and reap the premium jobs that came with degrees.  Young men were not just getting lower-paying jobs than young women, they were also more likely to leave the job market altogether.  This left many of them living with their parents and gave them lots of free time to spend on video games and in chat rooms.  One research team looked at national time-use surveys and found that young men between the ages of twenty-one and thirty spent 12 percent less time on paid work in 2015 than they had ten years earlier — a much sharper drop than was seen in any other demographic group. The newly freed-up time was spent largely in front of a computer.  The amount of time that men under thirty dedicated to video games and “recreational computer time” rose to 520 hours a year in 2015, 99 hours more than what it had been ten years earlier; a significantly greater amount of time and a sharper increase than was seen among older men and women of all ages.1

Even when it comes to investing and playing the markets on-line, young men dominate the scene, preferring to gamble in day trading in order to possibly become wealthier as well as clearly attaining a high out of risk-taking.  Normally, these men are between 20 and 30 years old and live at home with a lot of time on their hands.2  This phenomenon was particularly exasperated by the pandemic, which also continued to have negative impacts on men with respect to  the post-pandemic labour market and low wages.

The results of the American elections illustrated a clear statistical divide between more educated males and lesser educated males, with the majority of the prior supporting Kamala Harris and the latter Donald Trump.  In particular, young men in the so-call working and middle classes are unhappy with the way the economy has gone for them.  They are also still angered over what they perceive to be as unfair and unequal treatment when it comes to women, whether real or not.  This placed Harris at a clear disadvantage during the election when Democrats obviously failed to address the issue.  The Republicans used conservative social media effectively to appeal to the grievances of young working, unemployed and underemployed men.  Policies pushed by the Democrats, including reproductive rights and gender-based ones, did not appeal to most young men.

Canada is not immune to the lure of conservative policies which tend to attract young Canadian males to their political thinking, all of which will have a direct impact in the federal election expected to happen next year.  Unless there is a drastic change in the economy and labour market, one can expect a similar backlash against the current Liberal government whose social policies will no doubt be a major target by conservative groups.

1. Richard V. Reeves and Ember Smith: “Boys Left Behind: Education Gender Gaps Across the US” (The Brooking Institution, October 12, 2022)  https://www.brookings.edu/articles/boys-left-behind-education-gender-gaps-across-the-us/.

2. ”The Trolls of Wall Street (How the Outcasts and Insurgents are Hacking the Markets)”: Nathaniel Popper (HarperCollins Publishers, New York, N.Y., 2024) p. 53

Affirmative Action Conservative Political Groups Donald Trump Labor Force Presidential Election 2024 Republican Party Social Media US

Leave a comment »
Aug 22

American Public Schools Are Failing Minority Students

by bcurry

A recent study out of Stanford University addressed the question of alternatives to affirmative action programs in colleges which were banned by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 2023.  The study found that a total of only about 13 percent of students in the admitted class at a group of colleges studied were Black or Hispanic.  For context, Americans of high-school-graduation age today are about 38 percent Black or Hispanic.  In addition they noted that SAT scores often continued to be used as a simplified measure of academic merit.  This was despite the fact that test scores fell out of favour with many colleges during the pandemic.  However, several of the most selective schools, such as M.I.T. have recently returned to them.  Of course, higher income families can afford to have their children tutored in how to pass a SAT itself.

Let’s face it, low-income Black and Hispanic students are more likely than low-income white and Asian students to live in high-poverty neighbourhoods and attend high-poverty schools.  College admissions officials know that Black and Hispanic students are less likely to attend high schools where subjects like calculus, physics and computer science are taught.  Thus, limiting their ability and chances to be admitted into important disciplines such as science, technology, engineering and math (STEM).

Now we are seeing the impact of the loss of affirmative programs, which no doubt previously benefited Black and Hispanic students.  The Washington Post reported in July 2024 that many universities are abandoning race-conscious scholarships worth millions.  As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, they are forced to consider possible legal consequences in favouring any particular racial group.  Instead, college administrations are looking at possible alternatives to insure greater diversity on their campuses and provide some forms of income support to minorities.

The negative impact has been substantial.  For example, the New York Times reported in August that at M.I.T., Black, Hispanic, Native American and Pacific Islander student enrollment for the incoming class of 2028 dropped sharply after the affirmative action ban.  Their enrollment represented 16 percent of all M.I.T. students compared with a baseline of about 25 percent of undergraduate students in recent years. The comparison to the class of 2027 was also dramatic. The percentage of Black students enrolled dropped to 5 percent from 15 percent, and the percentage of Hispanic and Latino students dropped to 11 percent from 16 percent.  White students made up 37 percent of the new class, compared with 38 percent last year.  On the other hand, the percentage of Asian American students in the class jumped to 47 percent from 40 percent.  This is very likely the result of Asian American students having better access to STEM programs in secondary schools.  As well, Asian American students score higher on SAT
tests than other minority groups, especially Black students who tend on average to score much lower on standardized tests.  These results are not happening just at M.I.T., but also at other universities where they banned affirmative action initiatives as far back as the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1996 and the University of Michigan in 2006.  Both saw significant drops in Black student admissions even as the number of college-age Black residents rose in their states.

The inability of minority groups to access higher education without some form of affirmative initiatives has become quite evident.  Much of the problem lies with the poor quality of primary and secondary education available to low-income neighbourhoods, often populated by minority families.  The way in which schools are locally and state funded has to change in order to offer more standardized and equitable education opportunities.  In the above noted New York Times article, Justin Driver, a professor at Yale Law School, was quoted as saying that the decline in Black enrolment was “as depressing as it is predictable,” with far-reaching consequences. “A paucity of Black students at the nation’s foremost colleges will ultimately have effects on the nation itself,” he said, adding, “What begins on college campuses will ultimately affect the nation as a whole, in every sector of the nation, from governmental leaders to academic leaders to business leaders.”

Affirmative Action Education in U.S. US

Leave a comment »
Mar 11

Why are Affirmative Action Initiatives Under Attack in the U.S.?

by bcurry

It all started in June 2023 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious college admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina are unconstitutional, causing colleges and universities to shift to race-neutral policies.  This decision upended decades of legal precedent when it came to affirmative action policies among post-secondary institutions.  Since then, several lawsuits have been launched representing the latest front in a conservative campaign to roll back affirmative action programs in government and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in the corporate world.  Affirmative action programs are ripe targets, legal experts say, in part because nearly every state and locality has one or more that benefit women, minorities and other underrepresented groups.  Conservative activists have filed dozens of complaints against Fortune 500 companies alleging discrimination against White people.  Long-standing federal programs created to benefit minority-owned businesses now find themselves on shaky ground.  In the past, courts typically have upheld government affirmative action programs on the grounds that society has an interest in remedying past and ongoing discrimination.  All that is starting to change, largely because of recent court decisions.

One of the programs under attack is the federal Small Business Administration’s 8(a) program for minority government contractors.  The SBA had to overhaul its application process last year after a court ruled that the SBA could not automatically assume that Black, Hispanic, Asian or Native American business owners qualify as socially disadvantaged – a prior key requirement.  The Minority Business Development Agency was similarly blocked from using racial categories to determine applicant eligibility.

The Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative public interest law firm representing many of the plaintiffs, noted that the vast majority of race-based government programs are operated by states and cities.  Fifteen states have race- and sex-based mandates that apply to most public boards, according to a survey released in 2023 by the Foundation.  In 14 states, the survey found similar requirements for 63 professional licensing boards responsible for social work, dentistry, pharmacy and medical examination.  All told, the Foundation reported that at least 25 states have such requirements in some form.  Generally, it is argued that preference for minority applicants allegedly violates the 14th Amendment right to receive equal treatment under the law.

Historically, African Americans were largely locked out of the skilled workforce.  A 1960 report by the Department of Labor found that Black workers make 60 percent less on average than Whites.  Meanwhile, the modern civil rights movement began challenging segregation in the South, and the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case led to the desegregation of public schools.  Responding to growing demands for racial equality, President John F. Kennedy signed an executive order in 1961 requiring federal contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”  This was the birth of affirmative action initiatives in the U.S.

Many American businesses were confused about how to comply with the subsequent new laws, including President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Civil Rights Act of 1964, which encouraged businesses to diversify their workforces while prohibiting discrimination.  Critics argued that they would result in preferential treatment of Black Americans, claims that have persisted for decades.  Affirmative programs appear to have had a positive effect.  According to one 1973 study, the average income in 1969 of “non-White” young, college-educated men was 98 percent of the average of U.S. workers, up from just 80 percent a decade earlier.  Such programs are seen as attributing to helping to reduce traditional discriminatory patterns in the labor market.  In addition, the wage gains coincide with an explosion in the number of Black people enrolling in colleges, particularly in elite colleges — 417,000 in 1970, up 83 percent from a decade earlier. 

There is little doubt that affirmative action programs, no matter how effective they are, will continue to be under attack by conservative groups, whether in the courts and in local and state governments.

Affirmative Action Education in U.S. Racism US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Blog at WordPress.com.