Recently in Prejudice Category

Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus is the story of Victor Frankenstein, a young scientist who, during his studies at the university, discovers the principle behind life and how to apply this principle to give life to previously non-living matter. He creates a Being, but immediately upon seeing his deformed appearance, he feels revulsion and abandons his creation. The Being is left alone to wander in a world where every human being feels revolted by his appearance, considering him a monster and excluding him from society.

The story is a good example of the psychological processes associated with stigma, defined as the devaluation of a person as a consequence of an attribute that indicates that person is different from what is considered normal. People perceive stigma and experience very strong affective reactions. In the case of the Being created by Frankenstein, his deformed appearances makes people afraid and revolted, and they avoid or attack him, even his creator.

An important message of the book concerns the possibility of a self-fulfilling prophecy associated with discrimination: the Being becomes angered by constant rejection and decides to take revenge on mankind, actually becoming the monster everyone thinks he is. As Percy Shelley wrote when describing the novel: "Treat a person ill, and he will become wicked".

Here's the link to the article and blog from CNN:

Since we mentioned this in class, I thought I should post an update about it. I saw other people have posted about it, but this article is talking about the federal government's response to the law.

Also, check out some of the comments posted on CNN's blog about it. Some of them are pretty unbelievable, but I guess that depends on what party ideology you identify with.


I just got through reading this little slice of heaven and it is infuriating. Republican Tim James, who is in the gubernatorial race in Alabama appears in a campaign add where he promises to give the state's driver's license exam in English only. His reason?: it will be a cost-saving, ok? I fail to comprehend how getting rid of the existing non-English versions of the exam will cut costs. He goes on to say: "This is Alabama, we speak English. If you want to live here, learn it".

This topic always gets my blood boiling. I have been all over Mexico and I have yet to see an American make an attempt at speaking Spanish. Also, whenever people do make an effort at speaking English here in the U.S., they get discriminated against because they'll speak it with an accent. This happened to my mom the first time we went to Chicago in 2003. We were in an elevator at the Sears Tower and some people were being rude. My mom made a comment about it in English so that the men would understand, and I see an employee of the building give my mom a dirty look and rolled his eyes...My claws came out at that point. I said, "You got a problem there cheif?"...he denied he had a problem..."So why are you rolling your eyes? You think every Mexican that comes here doesn't understand English or speaks with a heavy accent? Are you that ignorant?" ...he profusely apologized and said I was right in calling him an ignorant moron. I doubt he was sincere but it gave me great pleasure to call him out in front of a large group of people. I've seen this type of crap all the time.

Not only do people have to speak English while they're here but they also have to speak it without an accent as well. Otherwise they're some kind of simpleton who don't know anything.

This proves the point I was trying to make yesterday in class while discussing Cassie's book Black Like Me. Although people are a little more open minded than what they once were, there are still a lot of places in this country, particularly the South, that continue to be overtly racist.  

What do you guys think of this idiot's campaign?

This op-ed in the NY Times could not be a better summation of the recent Confederate History Month controversy. Admittedly, I do skim the news for this kind of op-ed piece that argues in favor of acknowledging that slavery did happen and that it was a fundamental reason for the civil war. Call me biased if you must. It is a guilty pleasure to read things with which I agree.

There are many opportunities in this article to ask the question 'why?'. These are questions I have been asking myself for quite some time, and luckily I have chosen the right field of study to get such questions at least partially answered.

  • Why are some so adamant about denying that slavery had a big role in the Civil War and the makeup of the Confederacy?
  • Was the confederacy good for anyone besides the wealthy plantation owners?
  • If John Lewis doesn't have evidence that someone called him an N-word, does that mean there's no longer racism in this country?
  • If it was only spittle rather than a full spit that was aimed at Emmanuel Cleaver, does that mean that there's no longer racism in this country?
  • Is racism over in this country because we're fine with homophobic slurs against white, not black congressmen?
  • If this Tea Party movement is not against the rights and liberties of minority groups, shouldn't there be more minority groups represented in the Tea Party?
  • What is with the gun fixation?
  • If a mob of African Americans were carrying side arms would people be ok with that?
  • What is with the militia fixation?
  • If African Americans were forming a militia would people be ok with that?
  • What is with the Sarah Palin fixation?
  • What is with the Glenn Beck fixation?
  • Was Michael Steele not fired because he was black?
  • Was Michael Steele hired because he was black?
  • Does having a party that has 0 African American Congressman and 0 African American Governors think that race is not an issue because it has Michael Steele as the RNC chair, only appointed after Obama's campaign? 
  • Has too much been made about the issues of African Americans like 52% of the Tea Party protesters feel?
  • Can one man be a socialist, a communist, a fascist, and a Nazi all at the same time?
  • Do people know what it means to be a socialist, a communist, a fascist, and a Nazi?
  • If the American flag acts as a prime for conservatism, is someone who is wearing a shirt with an American flag pattern really that conservative or is it just the salience talking?
  • Could the American flag also act as a prime for racial bias?
  • Is it wrong to be prejudiced against other people who might be prejudiced?
  • Can one be prejudiced against an entire news network? cough cough Fox News cough
Ok, my inquisitiveness and deep seated biases are out in the ether. I beg the indulgence of the public for the automaticity of my cognitive mechanisms, they are after all hard-wired and it would be futile to attempt to alter what God hath bestowed.

If someone has some answers, I would very much appreciate it. 


Image: Albert Snyder


I came across the following article: about a man named Albert Snyder. His 20 year old son was killed in Iraq four years ago and now he is in a legal battle against the Westboro Baptist Church. Church members picketed his son's funeral with signs reading "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "You're Going to Hell". The church, which is mostly comprised of the Phelps family, has targeted several soldier funerals and claim that "military deaths are the work of a wrathful God who punishes the United States for tolerating homosexuality." This is completely perposterous to most people, but the question becomes: When do we draw the line when it comes to freedom of speech? It is illegal for someone to yell "Fire!" in a public place, but it is perfectly legal to express such hatred towards others because of their sexuality, race, ethnicity, and the like. I have a serious problem with this. Next week the U.S. Supreme Court decide whether or not the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church are protected by the first ammendment. What do you guys think? Where do we draw the line in terms of freedom of speech?

"A few people are completely and utterly blind to race: children with a rare genetic disorder known as Williams syndrome, according to findings published in the journal Current Biology."

     While the link above does not really provide much information about the actual disorder itself, it is DEFINITELY thought provoking.  A naturally occurring confound for a phenomenon that has received as much attention from psychologists as just about any other human characteristic.  "Um....Mother Nature?  Um, yeah hi, this is Jerry calling, are you, are you playing games with me and my "psychologizing" homies or what?"

     According to the description found in the article, those diagnosed with Williams Syndrome have little or no detectable social fear, and do not exhibit ANY racial stereotypes.  

NOW I'm going to get FREAKY on you:

     Fast forward 200 years in the future.  Work on the human genome has isolated the specific genetic traits for this "race neutral" perspective, and has successfully grafted it into otherwise fully functioning healthy human beings.  These are the next generation members of the "Equality Force", the latest incarnation of an international Supreme Court (keep in mind, the world is now run by one unified government)
     The Equality Force decides rules with perfect objectivity, swayed by neither race or ethnicity.  There's just one problem, one fatal flaw in this utopian judiciary bliss.....

Nurture Sucka!

Seriously though, what do findings regarding the Williams Syndrome suggest about stereotypes in the rest of us?

This is an article from Huffington Post about Mike Huckabee comparing gay marriage to drug use and calling same-sex adoption experimentation. He says that by approving of same-sex marriage, we are just accommodating every behavioral pattern and would lead to support of incest and drug use. 

Really, Mike? I think even Chuck Norris would disapprove... 

I can't imagine that supporting same-sex marriage would lead to support of incest. There is a large amount of research to show that homosexual attraction is natural and influenced by birth-order and prenatal hormones. We can also change rats' mate preference by injecting sex hormones at a young age to make females exhibit mounting behavior and males display lordosis. On the other hand, women are repulsed by scents that that resemble kin during the fertile stage of the menstrual cycle and are always disgusted by their father's smell (indicative of a biological motive against incest). 

What makes or breaks the support of an idea that seems taboo? Is it just enough people in support or something else? When do facts weigh out the ill-informed folks making statements based on personal values?

Racism and Basketball

| 1 Comment | 0 TrackBacks

March Madness just finished, but I came across this article regarding racism: 


Here's a short section from the article:

"Even though the race issue isn't discussed in polite company, it's been the subject of hushed conversations at the Final Four and will be obvious to anyone in attendance or tuning in at home. The subject is so taboo that even Larry Bird bristles when it's brought up."


What do people think about this issue? We have talked about it before, but I was interested in the issue being so "charged" that people don't even want to discuss it.

"PORTLAND - About two dozen women marched topless from Longfellow Square to Tommy's Park this afternoon in an effort to erase what they see as a double standard on male and female nudity."

     Ah, finally, a movement I can support, and from the looks of it, they need all the "support" they can get!  Apparently the state in which this unorthodox event took place, Maine, defines nudity as "genitals only".  So, what's a girl to do when she can walk around topless?  Well, it seems she's going around topless.  

"The women, preceded and followed by several hundred boisterous and mostly male onlookers, many of them carrying cameras"

     Oh really?  No kidding?  You don't say?  A whole bunch of guys followed a whole bunch of topless women?  This sounds more like a bizarre bachelor party or Girls Gone Wild event than a social movement.  My favorite part of this story is the organizers' comments after the march:  

"Ty McDowell, who organized the march, said she was "enraged" by the turnout of men attracted to the demonstration. The purpose, she said, was for society to have the same reaction to a woman walking around topless as it does to men without shirts on."

Come on Ty, COME ON!  Sure, I suppose she can be enraged, but I think her position would have been more effective had she used this as a teachable moment.  What if she had said the following INSTEAD:  
     "The attention we received while marching today illustrates the divide between the social perception of men and women, and how we still have a long way to go before we reach equality.  I mean, if there were 20 topless men walking down the street, it would probably have looked like a ghost-town around here.  I think we have made some progress though, and I look forward to our next event"

Ty, you can lose your shirt, but lose the aggression too!  Have a sense of humor for goodness sakes, and realize that until internet porn is obsolete and Hustler and Playboy go bankrupt, naked chicks will remain totally sweet...

NOTE:  I felt it was my duty to maintain the normative male perspective on female nudity for the purposes of this entry.  Please don't think less of me, I really am a decent human being.  
"On February 4, the Fair Housing Justice Center (FHJC) announced the filing of a federal race discrimination lawsuit against a real estate broker, Amelia Lewis, and two housing cooperatives, Silver Beach Gardens Corporation and Edgewater Park Owners Cooperative, Inc., located in the Throgs Neck area of the Bronx, New York."

     Okay, So I'm not a Realtor, but I have worked in way too many sales jobs already to keep my head above water as a poor student.  I also know that in the last few years if you have to sell your house, GOD BLESS YA, cause its gonna' take awhile.

      With this in mind, how do things like this EVER happen?  Is it really possible that this is some kind of accident?  Lets see, with a name like the "Silver Beach Gardens Corporation", one might assume that this neighborhood co-op is composed of some pretty damn nice places.  Now, to have the means to purchase a nice joint you've either got to make a boat load of money, OR your parents made a boat load and gave you a good share of it.

     Regardless, lets assume that most of these people actually earned their money, which as research has shown over and over how education and income share a strong correlation.  This means that many of these folks must have gone to college, and were required to take some of the same courses you were.

     You'd think that SOME of these folks would think to themselves "Hey, you know what, our neighborhood is flippin pale, I wonder why that is?" 

OR maybe this is not the case, maybe it was a simple oversight, due to an antiquated protocol that overlooks such things.  But really?  Its safe to assume that many of these folks had to get the same 3 letters of recommendation from current owners to be able to purchase THEIR place, so doesn't that mean that this place is solely inhabited by all the "cool kids" from high school that still wear their "Senior Keg 1992" t-shirt while mowing the lawn?

This whole thing perplexes me...and I'm not sure how to best address this sort of issue?  I mean, what are you going to do, enforce affirmative action for buying homes?




Author Tim Wise does an excellent job describing the state of racism in America (both before the age of Obama and during his 2008 presidential campaign). Wise's book is broken down into two main parts, or essays as he describes it. The first is an overview of racism and discrimination in America, citing both explicit and subtle forms of racism within the realms of employment and income, housing, education, criminal justice and law, health care, and even going into great detail of the inequality demonstrated during hurricane Katrina in 2006 and the 2008 presidential campaign. This portion of the book was mainly aimed at getting across the point that racism in America is still going strong, despite the fact that statistics show that most white Americans believe Obama's election as our president signals the end of racism in our country. Wise argues that although the election of a black man to our highest ranking position is a big step in the right direction, it does not mean that white people view black people on the same level they may see the president (he uses the analogy of Bill Cosby and the Cosby Show in terms of how white people view him differently because he does not fit the stereotype-consistent role of the "black man in America". Wise also spends a good portion of this part of the book criticizing Obama for his failure to address racism in a more direct fashion, stating that Obama has often side-stepped the issue of race in America and what needs to be done to promote more equality within the realms I mentioned above. My question regarding the first part of the book is: Is it really Obama's task to focus more of this effort on racism in America because he is our first black president? Because of the fact that he is our first black president, does it just come with the territory, whereas presidents before him were not "expected" to tackle this issue because they were old white men?

The second essay of the book focuses on what needs to be done to help alleviate modern racism (or racism 2.0, as Wise refers to it). In particular, Wise focuses on what white America needs to do in order to help promote equality in our country. He mentions five main goals for white America: 1) Take personal responsibility addressing racism and white privilege. 2) Listen to black people regarding racism. 3) Stop the denial of our disturbing history dealing with race. 4) Connect with anti-racist white culture to help promote understanding. 5) Speak up! - When you see racism, no matter how subtle, take action and make a difference.

Overall, I thought this book was a well organized argument for how racism is still a very big issue in our country and it can be seen where ever we go. Wise definitely did an excellent job getting the point across about how Obama's election to president does not mean racism is ending, it is simply not what it used to be....racism has evolved. Wise point out several instances of racism and discrimination in the book that relate to many concepts we have discussed in class, including stereotype threat, ingroup/outgroup biases, situational factors that bring out hidden prejudices, and institutional and modern racism. I would recommend this book to anyone who is looking for a good overview of where America stands in our battle against racism and discrimination.

To Kill a Mockingbird

| 0 Comments | 0 TrackBacks

The Pulitzer Prize winner To Kill a Mockingbird is a timeless classic written by Harper Lee. The story takes place in the small southern town of Maycomb County, Alabama in the midst of The Great Depression. The narrator of this riveting story is a young girl named Jean Louise Finch, or Scout. Scout is not the typical delicate, shy, and ladylike child that society expects her to be. She is an outspoken, rambunctious and free spirited tomboy who wears overalls, plays in the outdoors alongside her older brother Jem, and is far more intelligent than most in her age group. She and her brother Jem are the children of Maycomb County defense lawyer Atticus Finch. Atticus can be considered an untraditional man in several respects. For starters he is a single father raising two children. He also encourages and stresses the importance of an education and egalitarian beliefs to Scout and Jem during a time when it was very unpopular to do so.

Throughout the text, Scout walks us through her childhood adventures in this conservative southern Alabama town alongside Jem and occasionally their best friend Dill. At first life seems simple. But when their father Atticus takes on the case of his life, they all begin to realize the severity of racial turmoil that defined American society during this time period.

  In the story, Atticus takes on the case of a Negro man named Tom Robinson. Tom is a young family man whose only crime is that he is African American. He stands accused of raping the eldest daughter of Mr. Ewells, an impoverished social misfit in Maycomb County. The Ewells are an unpopular family who live on the outskirts of Maycomb in the midst of the town's dump. They are known by everyone in the county for being aggressive, dishonest, uncivilized, unclean, and uneducated. Despite these facts they hold a great advantage over the most civilized and honest African Americans: they are white.

 Scout and Jem encounter dirty stares and insults by many of their fellow townsfolk because their father is defending a Negro. Through example however, Atticus teaches his children that the color of your skin does not define what kind of person you are. Everyone should be treated with kindness and respect. Scout and Jem manage to hold their heads high and support their father's cause. Despite the best efforts of Atticus however, Tom is convicted of raping Mr. Ewells' daughter and is sentenced to death. Scout and Jem learn the grim reality that justice for all does not exist in the ignorant and racist American culture.

To Kill a Mockingbird is a wonderful text to read when learning about stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. Readers can get examples of all three of these elements throughout the entire story not just in the context of black versus white, but also society versus women, and poor whites versus everyone else. Some of the social psychological underpinnings of this novel deal with constructs such as categorization, Social Identity Theory, depersonalization and dehumanization, out-group homogeneity, social motives such as self-enhancement and control, and the list goes on.

Harper Lee's novel To Kill a Mockingbird is a wonderful representation of the struggles experienced by generations of minorities as well as females throughout American history. From a social scientific standpoint, the novel gives social psychological novices a well rounded summary of stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination along with solutions to such issues.

Everyone should check out this website and the accompanying video! This has changed my entire view on the history of the United States in terms of racial relations between white people and black people. Is it possible that we have all been brainwashed through years of exposure to the superiority-inferiority of the two races? Would this explain why so many people still hold strong prejudices and/or are outright bigots?

I think that we, as a society, need to take a long look in the mirror and figure out where we have been in order to decide what we really are today. This does not only include the white race, but the black race as well. The perpetuating harm that is being done today through the media has ties to early advertising of slaves, mockery of black people, and early silent films. However, we do not even realize this because of how long this propoganda has been around. I don't know about you, but I totally buy into what Tom Burrell is getting at through this website. Check out Kim's post on Burrell's NPR interview if you want to hear more from him.


This is one of the first petitions I have seen that has the particular goal of trying to curb Tea Party hate-speech. There have been several posts on here about the Tea Party movement being racist, but I think more importantly there is an unacceptable amount of downright hateful rhetoric coming from the protesters. For an example see below:

This link is a plea for signatures by a group on Facebook called Cuentame. I suggest you go to their page and check out some of their videos. It's pretty cool stuff they're doing. You could sign the petition too if you wanted.!/cuentame

Here is their video posted on Huffington Post today. 
This is a clip of a Hispanic guy going solo against a group of racist protesters. They keep telling him to go back to his country and he fires back saying he is indigenous to the continent and that they should go back to Europe. Their logic is flawed and they keep calling him a coward even though he's one man standing up to a group of people.

Would you have the guts to stand up to a group of people like this? Do you think his presence fueled their fire?

I thought this was a fitting article after reading Billig. Do you think the incidents on some of California's campuses could be attributed to pockets of hate or something else (the article mentions media attention and adolescence as a couple)?

ATLANTA (AP) -- A Georgia man who posted a video of himself on the Internet holding a sign that said "Elton John must die" has been arrested for making terroristic threats.

"What Elton John has done is desecrated the image of the Lord Jesus Christ, blasphemed the Lord Jesus Christ," Horsley said in the video.
This is an article from NBC Sports about comments Torii Hunter made:

Here's one of the main quotes that Torii Hunter said from the article:

"People see dark faces out there, and the perception is that they're African American," Los Angeles Angels center fielder Torii Hunter says. "They're not us. They're impostors.

The racial categorization going on here is pretty clear, especially from the "us" comment. But to call these players "imposters??" Hunter is getting some bad press from these comments, as well. Some of the other comments he made in this article are pretty outrageous too. What are everyone's thoughts on this?


Recently, a sorority of white girls won the national step dancing championship. This is significant because this is a type of dance that is primarily dominated by African American culture, so the upset win did just that....upset people. There is some controversy of the white girls impedeing on black culture. The judges actually awarded the 2nd place team the same amount of money as the winning team because of the number of complaints about the results of the competition. What do you think about this? If anyone is eligible to compete in the competition, why is there such an outrage over white women winning it? Do you agree with the actions that have taken place following this, or do you think this could have been handled differently?,0,7661246.story


This is an article about a preschooler who was not allowed to re-enroll in a Catholic school because of the sexual orientation of his parents. It is hard to believe that something like this happened in such a socially liberal town like Boulder, CO. What do you think of the school's "reasoning" for not allowing this student to come back? There is probably a certain degree of hypocrisy going on here.....if the school were to find out that one of its students or faculty was gay, would they react the same way?

The Southern Poverty Law Center's annual report just came out, and it reported that there was a 244% increase in the amount of "Patriot" groups forming. These groups espouse anti-government conspiracy theories and blind Patriotic messages of upholding the constitution. This rise blamed on the state of the economy, frustrations of unemployment, and derivations of rhetoric coming out of the Tea Party movement.There was a 40% overall increase in hate groups throughout the U.S. in the past year. The report also sites a number of crimes connected to these hate groups in the past year.

In the report they talked about a moving toward a bit of a threshold. In my opinion I very much believe that this report is related to the events at the various universities. I think that frustration, especially economic frustration is a potent variable when it comes to expressing prejudice and hate toward the out-group. Moreover, when frustration is fueled by conspiracy theories, fear mongering, and misinformation, the corollaries are to sure to be hateful and harmful.

Here's a link to the article:

I thought I'd post this update since we have been talking about this in class. I think the administration's response to these incidents have been good, but I think they need to do more. If you get a chance, read the Chancellor's statement (I think it is in another blog post). She uses a lot of "we" language. It is creating a common group identity as UC San Diego students.

What else should be done to address these problems? What statements would you issue to the public about these events?
On the way home from school today I was listing to NPR and heard this: (start listing at about 26:35) story on BBC News Hour.  It is a story about how anti abortion activists are starting a new campaign claiming that groups like Planned parenthood are targeting African American women for abortions to reduce their population. 

There is an interview with a representative of planned parenthood who talks about the work they do with low income people in inner cities to give them the choice of when to have a child.  The other interview is with a member of the Georgia right to life group who happens to be a niece of Martin Luther King Jr.  After he initial claims of "just knowing" this is happening she doesn't really back it up and starts going back to the normal antiabortionist lines about the rights of the child.

What do you think about this story?  Also do you think that the right to life activist is using her family's historical importance to sway this argument? 

Racial Tension on UC Campuses

| 1 Comment | 0 TrackBacks

A noose found on campus. A widely publicized "Compton Cookout" themed party (sponsored by white students), protests, and walk-outs. All at UCSD.

Here's a letter I received from the Chancellor of UC Riverside (I'm an alum, so I get updates):

TO:    Faculty, Staff, Students and Alumni
          University of California, Riverside

I add my voice of outrage over the recent series of racist events that have occurred on or near the San Diego campus of the University of California.

We are all diminished by such despicable and unacceptable behaviors by a few individuals... such racist bigotry and ignoorance have no place in a civilized society, particularly a campus of the University of California because of our high expectations, expressed in the campus’ Principles of Community ( and statement on respect (

For our faculty, staff, students and alumni who are African American, these events can be particularly and personally traumatizing. To all, I offer my continuing support, and my unyielding commitment to be proactive in identifying, confronting, and eradicating racism.

Below are links to two additional statements, one from UC President Mark Yudof and Russell Gould, Chair of the UC Board of Regents, and a second from President Yudof, all 10 chancellors, and the chair and vice chair of the UC Academic Senate.

Timothy P. White


All of this on the heals of media reports showing that colleges and universities are not doing a good job of retaining minorities and graduating them. This was last week's letter from the Chancellor:

Dear Friends,

There have been several stories in the national and regional media this week regarding gaps in college graduation rates along racial and ethnic lines.

At the University of California, Riverside, graduation rate gaps are negligible.

The March 1 print edition of Newsweek contained an article titled, “Minority Report: American universities are accepting more minorities than ever. Graduating them is another matter” (

While the authors highlight a number of public universities with pronounced racial and ethnic gaps in graduation rates, they - as well as students, parents and lawmaakers - should know that such results are hardly inevitable.

Among UCR entering freshmen classes over the last half-dozen years, African Americans, Chicanos/Latinos, Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders, and whites each graduated at rates of 66-70%. In fact, data from the last two years of graduating classes show our African American students outperformed whites, 71% to 66%.

This success is not because we admit only elite students. Rather, we add enormous value through freshman learning communities and other academic opportunities and support efforts during a student’s matriculation. Further, our students generally have a strong work ethic about their studies and have had instilled in them by prior experience - coupled with theiir own intrinsic drive and ability - a deep responsibility to taake full advantage of the opportunities offered by UCR.

UC Riverside faculty and staff maintain an unyielding commitment to diversity as a vital component of academic excellence in today’s world. Our diversity of people, programs, and ideas has demonstrably enhanced our teaching, learning, research, and creative activity. This is reflected in a quote this week from our fourth-year student La Tonya Hodges, who is African American, “When you see there are black people around you being successful and graduating, that pumps you up to want to achieve and do well.”

Upon graduation, students from the nine UC campuses with undergraduate students are queried through the University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey. In response to the statement that, “Diversity is important on this campus,” 91% of Riverside graduates agree (the range across UC is 74% - 91%). When asked “Are students of my race/ethnicity respected on this campus?”, 87% of UCR students agree; for African American students it’s 77%; for Chicano/Latino students it’s 90%; and Asian American/Pacific Islander 88%. These responses are consistently among the top across the UC.

The word about UCR’s success in recruiting, retaining and graduating students of color has been gaining traction in the media, including just this week a mention in New York Times and California Watch blogs, and our regional paper The Press-Enterprise (links follow my letter for those interested).

While some universities and colleges seek recognition for the students they admit, we are most interested in being known for the students we graduate...and it is a gratifying point of pridee for our faculty, staff, students, and alums to see the national recognition in this regard.

Best regards,


Tim White, Chancellor
17 Students were arrested at UC Irvine in part for protesting racists acts ongoing at UCSD
"Seventeen UC Irvine activists were arrested after carrying out an impassioned sit-in outside the school chancellor's office this morning."                                                                                                                                  

Aversive Racism in America

| 0 Comments | 0 TrackBacks

This is an investigative report from 20/20 from 2 about 2 years ago. You'll have to check out the 2 videos (they are each about 6-7 min. long), but I thought this was an excellent example of how race and crime are associated in many people's mind. I thought the results of this report were pretty amazing. What would you do in this situation? Do you think you would react as most people did in this video, or would your behavior be different because of what we know about racism? Would the results of this "study" be different depending on the environment?

Part 1:

Part 2: