If pro-choice Catholic politicians can be held up as examples and urged to accept the guidance of their priests and bishops on life issues, it’s only right to deny these two socially conservative Catholic politicians a free pass as they persist in condemning — and mocking — poor people and people of color (who Gingrich and Santorum seem to view as one and the same).

As a Catholic, I wish I could believe that this would make the slightest impact on the two candidates, but alas, I don’t think that listening to or respecting people of color is how you get the nomination in the GOP. Nor is thinking too hard about or understanding the struggles of people who need food stamps.

As Catholic leaders who recognize that the moral scandals of racism and poverty remain a blemish on the American soul, we challenge our fellow Catholics Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum to stop perpetuating ugly racial stereotypes on the campaign trail. Mr. Gingrich has frequently attacked President Obama as a “food stamp president” and claimed that African Americans are content to collect welfare benefits rather than pursue employment. Campaigning in Iowa, Mr. Santorum remarked: “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.” Labeling our nation’s first African-American president with a title that evokes the past myth of “welfare queens” and inflaming other racist caricatures is irresponsible, immoral and unworthy of political leaders.

Some presidential candidates now courting “values voters” seem to have forgotten that defending human life and dignity does not stop with protecting the unborn. We remind Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Santorum that Catholic bishops describe racism as an “intrinsic evil” and consistently defend vital government programs such as food stamps and unemployment benefits that help struggling Americans. At a time when nearly 1 in 6 Americans live in poverty, charities and the free market alone can’t address the urgent needs of our most vulnerable neighbors. And while jobseekers outnumber job openings 4-to-1, suggesting that the unemployed would rather collect benefits than work is misleading and insulting.

As the South Carolina primary approaches, we urge Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Santorum and all presidential candidates to reject the politics of racial division, refrain from offensive rhetoric and unite behind an agenda that promotes racial and economic justice.

This is our right as Americans and as citizens of Alabama. Sometimes people will say that the U.S. Constitution gives us the freedom to worship. Actually, the Constitution gives us the right to the free exercise of our religion. “Freedom to Worship” means that we can come together on Sunday to worship. “Free Exercise” means that, when we leave church on Sunday, we have the right to exercise our faith in our daily lives. This new law prevents us as believers from exercising our life of faith as commanded by the Lord Jesus.

I did not wish to enter into a legal action against the government of Alabama. It is not my temperament to look for an argument. I prayed fervently about this matter, and my prayer kept bringing me back to the motto I chose ten years ago for my bishop’s coat of arms: “The love of Christ impels us” (2 Cor 5:14) Indeed, the love of Christ impels us to “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit…” (Matthew 28:19). No law is just which prevents the proclamation of the Gospel, the baptizing of believers, or love shown to neighbor in need. I do not wish to stand before God and, when God asks me if I fed him when he was hungry or gave him to drink when he was thirsty, to reply: yes, Lord, as long as you had the proper documents.

Throughout our history we have been a nation of immigrants. The words of Moses to the Hebrew people should resonate in our own hearts: “You shall not oppress or afflict the alien among you, for you were once aliens residing in the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 22:20) As citizens we have the right to live our Christian faith. As Christians, we have an obligation to do so.

Wanda Sykes on the i-word:

Elon James White on what to do if you’re stopped by the cops or ICE.

I’m interested in your thoughts, as parents, as anti-racists, and — if there are any of you TRAs reading this — as transracial adoptees. If you comment, please let me know if I can quote you in my article (using first name only, or an alias if you provide one). Or, if you’d rather not comment publicly, feel free to email me (nikki at jhu dot edu).

I know that when I experienced such teasing as a kid, it was my parents’ instinct to minimize it. (That’s partly why I stopped telling them about it from a young age.) They weren’t trying to undermine the legitimacy of my feelings; I just don’t think they really understood how it was different from any other sort of childhood teasing that they themselves had experienced. And probably they knew I was already “sensitive” about my “race thing” and didn’t want me to dwell on it any more than I already was. I’m not sure their response, even if different, would have made me feel better at the time. It might have made a difference in terms of our relationship, though, both then and now — I still have a hard time talking to them about racial issues, particularly my own as a TRA, and I know it’s partly because of those childhood instances. When I think back on it, though, I’m kind of at a loss for what they could have provided to me in the way of defense, coping skills, etc. I have a lot to say to adoptive parents on issues to consider before adoption, and issues to consider when discussing race with their child of color, but when it comes to actually confronting racism, I don’t have as much advice.

I’m talking with a professor of social work who has studied this issue in earnest, and says that 100% of transracial adoptees in one of her studies report being teased — or worse — by their peers. I know it’s only one study, but the numbers are extremely high in similar studies as well. Not very encouraging, America.

Sadly, in many places, his words still ring all too true.

I want to express my gratitude that at 11:00 last Sunday morning, this was not true at the church in my neighborhood.

If you’ve seen my “How Diverse Is Your Neighborhood?” post, you know that metro DC is generally very segregated. But my neck of the woods is one of the few areas that looks almost brown on the big map:

Each dot represents 25 people: Red means white, blue means black, orange represents Hispanics, green means Asian, and grey means other.

Not too bad for DC.

Of course, even in a pretty diverse neighborhood, churches can tend towards the monochromatic. The language spoken, the style of music, the preaching, the ministry leaders and emphases, the art, the way people dress… they can make some people feel more welcome than others.

As I looked around during the homily Sunday morning, though, I realized there’s something different going on here. In the pews immediately surrounding me, I saw eleven Asians, seven black people, twelve white people (I counted myself), and thirteen Latinos. Thank you, Jesus.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m definitely not claiming we’re done “preach[ing] brotherhood and mak[ing] it a reality within [our] own body.” And Dr. King’s call to “really go out and to transform American society” remains. There’s a long road ahead.

But I thank God that 11:00 on Sunday morning when we stand and sing that Christ has no east or west, at least in this one church, we’re beginning to do it together.

This Hyphen article on Asians and the college admissions process is very good and well worth a read. I share it not because I’m so indignant about possible anti-Asian bias at certain schools, and not because I think Asians should be able to get into any selective school to which they apply (I mean, who can? Very few people, really, even highly qualified ones), but because it brings up two points that are too often overlooked when people talk about Asians as “overrepresented” in the college admissions process:

1. As a group, Asian Americans benefit far less than do white applicants when it comes to legacy/major donor admissions.
2. Asian Americans are not underrepresented on many college campuses, but they are often misrepresented and broadly stereotyped as applicants (viewed as hardworking but not strong leaders; intelligent but not creative; booksmart but shy and reserved and unable to “contribute” as much to class discussions or campus life; focused on science and math at the expense of other subjects; etc.).

These disadvantages carry over to the professional realm as well — Asian employees, whether male or female, can hardly be easily incorporated into “old boys’” networks that are by nature both racist and sexist. Asians may also find it harder to excel in the workplace if they aren’t viewed as creative, outgoing leaders. These issues of harmful stereotyping hold Asians back and, as an Asian American, concern me far more than the actual percentages of Asians on college campuses, “elite” or otherwise.

Related: Kate’s excellent “Model Minority” derailment post

(P.S. Sorry about my increeeedibly long break from posting, guys. I had my second kid in January. She doesn’t nap much. I work twice as many hours as I used to. And I’m getting ready to move in a couple of months. But I AM going to try and post here more often! I’ve missed this blog.)

The exhibition RACE: Are we so different? brings together the everyday experience of living with race, its history as an idea, the role of science in that history, and the findings of contemporary science that are challenging its foundations.

Interactive exhibit components, historical artifacts, iconic objects, compelling photographs, multimedia presentations, and attractive graphic displays offer visitors to RACE an eye-opening look at its important subject matter.

Developed by the American Anthropological Association in collaboration with the Science Museum of Minnesota, RACE is the first nationally traveling exhibition to tell the stories of race from the biological, cultural, and historical points of view. Combining these perspectives offers an unprecedented look at race and racism in the United States.

Other museums have been and will be hosting this exhibit as well. Current and upcoming locations include Boston, Charlotte, Santa Barbara, New Orleans, Houston, and Durham. Please visit the official website for a virtual tour and the tour schedule.

What inspired your study of white attitudes towards race and racial inequality?

In order for me to understand the issues of race in the U.S. –particularly racial inequality– I decided that I needed to understand a puzzling phenomenon: Why is it that the issues of race and racial inequality are so prevalent in public discussion, in news media, in scholarly work, yet when you talk to people about race, no one seems to think there’s a problem? This is particularly true among whites….

In general, whites in the U.S. articulate a value system that says that color blindness is a good thing– that noticing race, mentioning race, calling attention to race is a bad thing. And so people would like to think of themselves as colorblind. Most people claim that it doesn’t matter if you’re black, white, green, purple or blue. What really matters is the best person for the job, the best student for the school, etc. Now, they don’t necessarily act that way in their own lives. They in fact do notice race– we have lots of studies that indicate that that is one of the first things that you notice about someone. But the etiology is that it isn’t something one should notice, and therefore we aren’t going to mention it, we aren’t going to talk about it. In fact, whites get very uncomfortable if people call attention to it….

Whites may talk about race, racism and race relations in terms of a collective process, or a community will, but they never applied it to themselves. When people do think about issues of racial inequality, they attribute it to “those racists over there.” It never applies to them. They hold onto the notion that racial inequality is created primarily by racism, and if they don’t feel that they’re racist, then they don’t have to participate in a solution.

I learned some unexpected things from these interviews– namely that inequality gets reproduced through advantages to whites, as much or more so than it does through discrimination against minorities. While some people make the argument that these are just different sides of the same coin, I will argue that there are very important differences. While discrimination against blacks or other minorities is illegal, favoritism or advantage towards white is not….

How are whites advantaged in the job market when discriminatory policies have been banned?

Essentially I found that everybody got every job, throughout their entire lives, because somebody helped them. They know someone or they know someone who knows someone, etc. This is so pervasive that I came to understand that almost every job is wired– meaning that there isn’t an equal opportunity for people to go out there and compete for a job. Almost every job, in one way or another, is reserved for someone’s friend, or someone’s colleague, or someone who knows someone, or someone like me.

Most of the people that I talked to are subject to what psychologists call “attribution error.” Attribution error has to do with how you attribute the outcomes of certain things. Most people understand what happened in their lives as the result of their own individual efforts, their own personal characteristics, because they were honest, hardworking, tried hard, motivated, able to change, etc. And the situational context– the help they got, the resources available to them, the advantages that they had– are not particularly noticeable to them. In fact, in most cases they didn’t offer that information. If they did offer it upon further probing, they would usually minimize it or discount it.

The extra help and advantages were essentially invisible. These advantages would not immediately come to mind when I asked them, “How did you get that job?” Many times in the interviews I would have to say, “Did you know anyone there? Did anyone help you? How did this come about?” Then people would say, “Yes, as a matter of fact, I just happened to run into this fellow that I used to go to high school with that worked there. He came over and put his arm around my shoulder and said, ‘You should hire this guy. He’s a good guy.’”

When I asked people what the most important factor was in getting to where they are in life, they would say things like hard work, honesty, motivation, ability to change, persistence. These were all things that they identified as their personal characteristics. It wasn’t attributed to someone helping me, my family having resources, someone helping with school tuition or the down payment on a house or car. These facts would be revealed when I asked specific questions, but they didn’t see those as important factors.

Furthermore, having this kind of help or advantage in terms of getting jobs was not just true of the people in fact who had tried hard, worked hard and persisted. It was also true of the people who had screwed up, who had flunked out of school, who had gotten fired from jobs, who had gotten in trouble with the law, who had gotten into drugs and alcohol. Even those people knew someone who could get them back on track, find them a job or at least get them in the door. When I asked them about their particular circumstances, people defined said, “You know, I got myself together.” Or they would say “Yes, that just got me in the door, but then I had to prove myself.” So even people who objectively didn’t necessarily have the qualifications or the capabilities were still able to attain those jobs because somebody helped them.

Read more.

Many middle-class white people, especially those of us who grew up in the suburbs, like to think that we got to where we are today by virtue of our merit– hard work, intelligence, pluck, and maybe a little luck. And while we may be sympathetic to the plight of others, we close down when we hear the words “affirmative action” or “racial preferences.” We worked hard, we made it on our own, the thinking goes, why don’t “they”? After all, it’s been almost 40 years now since the Civil Rights Act was passed.

What we don’t readily acknowledge is that racial preferences have a long, institutional history in this country– a white history.

Read more.