Interracial Marriage's Acceptance and What it Means

In recent years there have been incidents in places such as Louisiana and Kentucky in which either a judge or a church refuse to legally acknowledge or accept an interracial couple, either to get married or become members of said church. Usually these stories immediately become national hot topics that spur debate and outcries. To some interracial couples, both married and just dating are seen as the ultimate sign of achieving racial equality. For years there was a legal prohibition on interracial marriage in several states, but now it seems that the opposite situation has occurred, and this change in attitude may have larger implications in regards to the future of race relations in America.

In a recent finding from the Pew Research Center an increasing number of Americans hold a favorable view of interracial marriage. What once was practically a taboo has now become acceptable to many Americans, a significant shift from 1986 in which only a rough third of Americans viewed such unions as acceptable. Now in 2010 about fifteen percent of recent marriages are between two people of different ethnicities. While this may not seem like much this still reflects a major improvement in regards to how people view both their race or ethnicity as well as to how separate or intertwined these should be, if at all.

Now some may look at this and simply believe this shift to be natural, or not significant, or both. However, this increase is very important if one wishes to predict what direction race relations in the US are heading. With an increase of people feeling comfortable enough to date, and even marry someone not of their own ethnicity suggests that the person in particular does not factor race and ethnicity in selecting a potential partner. This also suggests for a large number of these people their family and peers are at least accepting, if not supportive relationship. In 1925 sociologist Emory Bogardus created a scale of judging the social distance that existed between various ethnic groups in the United States. This scale listed a number of social contexts which Borgadus would ask subjects to answer whether or not they would be willing to accept a person of a different ethnicity in that context. At the lower end of the scale was the context which, arguably should have been the easiest to accept and at the other end was the social context that Borgardus believed would have been the most intimate and therefore most difficult for someone to accept a person of a different ethnicity into. For Borgadus that context was having a close family member be married to someone of a different ethnicity. The fact that interracial marriage is on the rise speaks volumes of just how much progress has been made, but we must remember that these relationships are still in the vast minority and therefore leave much greater room for improvement.

You can find the New York Times article here.

The Future of Affirmative Action

In looking at race relations in America there is possibly no other topic that is as vitriolic as that of affirmative action. In asking what form of ethnic diversity should our nation pursue, either assimilation or pluralism, we must also consider how to accomplish that. Indeed after decades of state sanctioned racial discrimination which kept minorities, particularly African Americans, in a state of economic and political suppression programs like affirmative action were necessary. The efforts of affirmative action programs were to correct the past mistakes of racism and discrimination. Now nearly fifty years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act there are those who feel the concept of affirmative action now stands to facilitate the very evils it was enacted to end.

In the 2003 Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger, the court ruled that state governments could use race in determining who could be accepted. What this did not include was a standardized point system. Now that decision is being challenged by the upcoming case Fischer v. University of Texas. With the current court leaning just right of center, there is a significant chance that such policies as that use race as an attempt to increase diversity on campus could be ruled unconstitutional.

Proponents of these practices claim that it allows for greater academic diversity by accepting applicants from various socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. To do away with such practices, proponents claim, would sharply reduce the acceptance of African and Latino Americans. Indeed diversity is important, especially in colleges and universities, for it is during this time in the lives of young adults when they are most exposed to new ideas and new people. To have that diversity reduced would be unfortunate. However, those who oppose these pseudo-affirmative action policies do so out of any feelings of racism, instead they feel that taking a person’s race into account under any circumstances is wrong.

The person who filed the suit that has led to the case which will be heard by the Supreme Court is Abigail Fischer, who felt that her race prevented her from achieving enrollment at the university. In Texas the top ten percent of students from each high school are automatically accepted, a criterion the Ms. Fischer did not meet. This placed her into a secondary category in which race plays an unspecified role in determining accepted applicants. One can certainly see how this could cause one to feel frustrated, and at worst discriminated against. Now with this upcoming case the question of the necessity of affirmative action on a post-Civil Rights America is falling back into the public eye.

Personally, while I understand that using race as a factor in acceptance policies may seem counter-productive at first glimpse, I also acknowledge the legitimate role that these polices and those like them have played in undoing the drastic ethnic inequalities that were the result of prolonged legal discrimination. In her majority opinion of the 2003 Grutter case former Justice Sandra Day O’Conner believed there would eventually come the day in which “the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary”. Some believe that day has come and only time will tell if the Supreme Court agrees.

The New York Times article can be found here.

As I have posted in the past I think an important aspect of understanding racial and ethnic relations is to recognize when there is evidence that highlights real progress has been made in alleviating discrimination and prejudice. While traditionally the American South was most infamous for its segregationist policies the entire nation openly practiced such discriminatory practices by maintain a racially segregated housing market.

By using openly segregated practices suburban neighborhoods remained racially separated for years, and even after legislation made it illegal to use race as a factor in determining housing loans the system had already been set up in a way to maintain the status quo. This represents how primary level discrimination, which is usually the actions of an individual, are able to morph into structural discrimination, which is the most subtle form discrimination takes. Fortunately, housing segregation in America’s metropolitan areas has taken a turn for the better. According to a study performed by two fellows from the Manhattan Institute, a conservative research organization, racial integration in cities is at its highest rates since 1910.

While this a welcomed accomplishment there is still much work to be done in addressing separation between Caucasians and African-Americans, especially in regards to public education. With a decline in busing some public school districts have become even more racially homogenous in recent years and the averages for Caucasians show they still live in neighborhoods which generally consist of seventy-eight percent white residents.

Luckily a welcomed statistic is that today roughly only twenty percent of African Americans live in areas defined as ‘ghetto’, or low-income, which is down from a rate of close to fifty percent a half-century earlier. Ironically, the cities greatly improving in increased racial integration are in the Sun Belt, where many of the nation’s strictest segregation laws persisted up to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. One factor contributing to this is the influx of immigrants, many of whom choose the major Sun Belt cities to live.

So while much is left to be accomplished there is also much to celebrate in the battle for racial equality. Making housing less segregated is arguably one of the first steps to increasing association and intermingling between people.

You can find the New York Times article here.

We Must Overcome

Racism and discrimination is often a conflict between what we perceive and what is real. In our post-September eleventh world much has changed in America. Anyone waiting in line to board an airplane can testify to enormous changes that have occurred in the last decade since that tragic event and American foreign policy has undergone drastic changes as well as our nation and allies struggle to fight a new type of enemy, terrorism. There is no doubt that terrorism is a legitimate threat and one group that has utilized these tactics is the numerous fundamentalist Islamic militia cells scattered across.

However, we must acknowledge that this is not our only threat we face and we must strive to rise above our initial reactions. Recently news broke out that the New York Police Department had shown the film “The Third Jihad” to at approximately fifteen-hundred officers during their training. This film depicts an America which is under constant attack from an internal threat, Muslim terrorists hiding in wait.

Now while one could exclaim that the police are promoting racism it is better to ask why such a film was shown. Clearly, the police believe there is a legitimate risk which we face. Unfortunately, the scars of September eleventh have permeated and many of the immediate feelings of fear and anger are still present. In race relations there are many factors which influence how different ethnic groups interact. One such factor is timing of contact. This factor relates to the greater events occurring in the world during the time in which two groups come into contact with one another. In the case of Muslim Americans and immigrants from the Near East America has experienced an attack from a small group of people proclaiming the ideals of their own perverted vision of Islam. Unfortunately, this has significantly shaped how many Americans view the religion and its adherents, a religion that most new next to nothing about before the attack.

One thing I believe needs asking is whether this is what the terrorists want. Indeed to stir up feelings of mistrust and hatred among Americans would be in the best interest of its enemies, both fundamentalist Islamists and other threats. Homegrown and foreign terrorists of all ethnic backgrounds are intent on the destruction or reshaping of America and by dividing and turning against each other simply plays into their interest.

Instead we must stand firm and united against the threats we face. We must not give into our fears and then use those fears top legitimize racial, ethnic, and religious profiling. Once we acknowledge that the legitimate dangers our nation faces come from a diverse collection of dangerous individuals and groups we can become better equipped to address them.

The article can be found here.