Interpersonal Diversity was more likely to decrease than increase during quarantine, but it mostly remained the same.
Most students indicated that the interpersonal diversity in their lives remained the same during #Quarantine. Among those indicating a change, more indicated a decline than an increase.
Dual-Identifying Multiracials & monoracial allies* were more likely to indicate that their interpersonal interactions became less diverse during quarantine, though this may be because they had more diverse circles to begin with. For instance, they’re also the two groups least likely to indicate that most of their bonds are monoracial. Especially dual-identifying multiracials who indicated that only 10.9% of their bonds remained mostly monoracial.
Conversely, multiracials who only identify strongly with one of their racial backgrounds (Mono Identity) were just as likely as monoracials to indicate that their interpersonal bonds remained similarly monoracial during the pandemic.
Ultimately dual-identifying multiracials’ lives remained more diverse than other groups during the pandemic, and monoracial allies social bonds remained more diverse than non-allies.
* = monoracial allies refer to monoracial subjects who explicitly indicated supporting multiracials on addressing the issue of academic erasure. As such, other respondents may feel that they’re allies but didn’t explicitly elect to identify as such.
Sidenotes (assume direct quotes).
Groups Merely sharing the same space do not equal integration
The macroecological picture of intergroup relations isn’t reflective of processes of informal segregation occurring at the microecological level of intergroup relations which occur in “every-day life spaces” (Clack et al., 2005).
Illusory Contact —> that institutional demographics often report macroecological integration while lower-level segregation persists.
HS Cafeteria (White table, Asian table, Black table, Hispanic table…)
Aside for athletes who play team sports — who reliably produce the most diverse tables during lunchtime — interracial interactions are consistently lower than one would expect by chance (McCauley et al., 2001). Female student groups were 50% are likely to eat at racially diverse tables during lunch, consistent with research indicating that straight women tend to have more homophilous ethnoracial preferences segregated than men (Sagar, Schofield, & Snyder, 1983; Schofield & Sagar, 1977; Singleton & Asher, 1977).
Multiracial Hypodescent Patterns (Danielle Young et al., 2020)
There is research that clearly demonstrates hypodescent patterns in the racial categorization of multiracial and racially ambiguous individuals today (e.g., Freeman et al., 2016; Ho et al., 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017; Krosch et al., 2013; Peery & Bodenhausen, 2008, S1; Roberts & Gelman, 2015). However, some work demonstrates that multiracial targets are categorized into groups other than their socially subordinate identity, such as multiracial (e.g., Chen & Hamilton, 2012; Pauker, Carpinella, et al., 2018; Peery & Bodenhausen, 2008, S2). Research also reveals the existence of alternative categorization patterns (e.g., minority bias; Chen, Pauker, et al., 2018) or suggests that categorization patterns can vary across racial group membership due to a perceiver’s lifetime exposure to different racial groups (and thus provides evidence both consistent and inconsistent with hypodescent (e.g., attention theory; Halberstadt et al., 2011). In sum, evidence for hypodescent is mixed and to date there has not been a systematic evaluation of the methods and results from this area of research. Thus, a meta-analysis is needed to examine the extent to which hypodescent categorization patterns are replicable and generalizable and under what conditions they emerge. Here, this meta-analysis explores if and when racial categorizations of multiracial and racially ambiguous targets follow hypodescent patterns.
Lauren Davenport (2018)
Multiple-minority biracials also appear to be more firmly liberal and Democrat when it comes to issues of race. This should come as no surprise: their parentage designates them people of color and they contend with the presuppositions that accompany being minorities in America.
One woman says,
People can’t tell what I am, so I think that does influence how people treat me. But I definitely do identify with the black community, so I think what hurts them hurts me. What’s a positive thing for them is a positive thing for me. For Latinos, it’s the same answer. (Black-Latino female)
Giulia Ranzini & Judith Rosenbaum (2020)
Page 44: “The ethnicity associated with profile pictures and names impact the evaluation of a potential date on Tinder. Overall, respondents ranked Caucasian-looking Tinder users as more attractive and more likely to be their date of choice.
Interestingly, this finding did not hold when narrowed down to respondents identifying as Western-European only: They did not prefer Caucasian-looking or sounding profiles.
Attitudes toward relationships between people from different ethnic backgrounds have improved over the years (Newport, 2019). These trends have coincided with an increase in the use of dating apps such as Tinder and other online dating platforms (Smith & Anderson, 2016).”
Page 52: “These findings are in line with existing research on the role of race in online dating, underscoring that Caucasians are generally favored over all other groups (Rudder, 2014; Tsunokai, McGrath, & Kavanagh, 2014).”
‘Race is a filter (Robinson, 2015) that contributes to your dating market value (Heino et al., 2010)’
West (2019) → “Preference for one’s own race occurs in both majority and minority racial groups, though this preference varies by group and location (Muttarak & Heath, 2010; Uskul et al., 2007), can occur for different reasons (Reich, Ramos, & Jaipal, 2000; Tatum, 2004) and is generally stronger in White people than in racial minorities (Mendelsohn, Shaw Taylor, Fiore, & Cheshire, 2014). Indeed, because of the uniquely intimate nature of sexual and romantic relationships (Berscheid, 1988), they sometimes appear to be the final frontier of interethnic interaction. It is still common for individuals to explicitly state racial preferences in romantic partner selection (Herman & Campbell, 2012; Mendelsohn et al., 2014). This occurs for sexual minorities as well as heterosexuals, and sometimes adopts openly discriminatory racial tones, for example “no Asians, no Blacks” (Paul, Ayala, & Choi, 2010, p. 533) — language that would be considered openly racist, and thus socially unacceptable, if done in other contexts such as friendships or work places (Apfelbaum, Pauker, Ambady, Sommers, & Norton, 2008; Thai, Hornsey, & Barlow, 2016).”
Kauff et al., 2021
“Schlüter et al. (2018), for example, showed that ethnic majority members prefer neighborhoods that are characterized by a low number of ethnic minority members as a place of residence — even when other factors, such as house pricing, housing quality, and educational quality in a neighborhood are controlled for. Based on observational data from a cafeteria of an ethnicallymixed high-school in England, Al Ramiah et al. (2015) found segregationist behavior among ethnic majority and minority members: White and Asian students chose to sit in proximity to ethnically similar others and refrained from mixing with ethnic outgroup members in the school cafeteria (see also Shelton & Richeson, 2005). Using a different and highly innovative approach, Dixon et al. (2019) observed comparable results in a context characterized by a long history of intergroup conflict and high salience of group differences. The authors analyzed around 1,000 hours of GPS movement data from 181 Protestant and Catholic individuals living in Belfast. Although Belfast is a historically segregated city, Protestants and Catholics live in relatively close proximity to each other in some neighborhoods. Dixon et al. observed, however, that despite this “opportunity” for contact participants seldom visited outgroup areas and mostly used street networks and facilities within their ingroups’ residential areas” (p. 41).
UC San Diego’s Black Staff Association (BSA) is hosting their Juneteenth Celebration and Black Excellence Awards on Thursday, June 17 from 2:30 to 4 p.m. The virtual program will celebrate the vibrancy and creativity of Black culture and express appreciation for the Black Excellence exemplified by Black staff across campus. The event is open to staff, faculty, students, friends and supporters. Everyone is welcome.
“Yesterday President Biden declared a federal holiday for Juneteenth, the day that celebrates and commemorates the end of slavery in the United States. This is an historic moment for our nation — 156 years in the making.
Celebrated on the 19th of June, Juneteenth, also known as Jubilee Day, Liberation Day and Freedom Day, marks the day in 1865 that enslaved people in Texas learned they were free. This news was delivered two and a half years after President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation became law.
I intend to immediately add this to the University of California’s calendar of holidays. This year we will observe this holiday on Monday, June 28th. Starting in 2022, we will celebrate the Juneteenth holiday according to the federal calendar.
As we approach June 19th, I invite you to join me in reflecting on our nation’s history, the horrors of centuries of bondage, and the difficult road from liberation to equality. Let us resolve to build a future representing and lifted up by our ideals, our values, and our best selves.
Michael V. Drake, MD — President, University of California