Figure 9.8. 12th graders’ attitudes toward police and toward race relations. Monitoring the Future, 1976–2015.
Issues around race are particularly salient for iGen’ers, who have been surrounded by racial diversity their entire lives. In 2015, most 12th graders said their high school was at least half another race, double the number in 1980. Three times more said their close friends were of other races.
iGen’ers don’t just go to diverse schools; they also interact with people of different races in many different settings and say they have gotten to know people of other races this way (see Figure 9.9). College student Darnell, who is black, says, “I’ve been blessed to be surrounded with Latinos, white people, black people, Asians, all type of people, and I think that broadened my horizons.” Carly, 19, also views living in a diverse neighborhood as a positive. “I live in Ypsilanti, Michigan, which is like 40% black, and in my surrounding neighborhood almost all my neighbors are black or Hispanic,” she wrote. “I am white so that makes me a minority here. I grew up in a town that was 99% white and I was nervous moving here—like an idiot—but it turns out that it is exactly the same as anywhere else, except there are more black people.”
Figure 9.9. 12th graders’ interaction with other races. Monitoring the Future, 1976–2015.
iGen teens have experienced a record-setting amount of diversity in their schools, neighborhoods, and activities. But what would they prefer to experience? Here the picture is more complex. On the side of progress toward racial equality, the number of white teens who think an all-white environment is best has been cut in half to a small minority. In addition, the number who think primarily other-race environments are desirable has doubled.
But that’s not the whole story. Surprisingly, the number of white teens who say that diverse environments—those in which “some” people are of another race—are desirable is just one out of four and has not budged since the 1970s (see Figure 9.10). The number is only somewhat higher among black and Latino teens: one out of three. Despite iGen’ers’ greater experience with those of other races, and even though most say those experiences have been positive, most of them describe diverse environments as merely “acceptable,” not “desirable.” If a racially diverse environment is merely acceptable, it goes a long way toward explaining why racial incidents continue to occur on college campuses and why the 2016 election season gave voice to a white nationalism some had thought no longer existed. Apparently the average iGen teen tolerates diversity but is not sure it’s the ideal system.
Figure 9.10. Percentage of white 12th graders who rate certain racial compositions as “desirable.” Monitoring the Future, 1976–2015.
The same trend appears in personal relationships. White teens who say that having a close friend, boss, or next-door neighbor of another race is “desirable” are in the minority. That number is about the same as in the 1990s—though iGen has started a trend toward changing that just in the last few years (see Figure 9.11). Black and Latino teens are a little more likely to favor cross-race relationships, with half viewing having a close friend of another race “desirable” in 2015. Overall, these preferences help explain why the white kids still sit together in the high school cafeteria.
Figure 9.11. Percentage of white 12th graders who rate having a close friend, boss, or next-door neighbor of another race as “desirable.” Monitoring the Future, 1976–2015.
When I interviewed iGen’ers about this, most said diversity is “acceptable” instead of “desirable” for a quintessentially iGen reason: race doesn’t matter. Living with other races “would be acceptable because I honestly do not understand what the fuss is about racism. The color of skin is just that—a color. It doesn’t tell you what they feel inside, what their motivations are, or their goals in life,” wrote Lori, 21. “I don’t care if my neighbors and coworkers were different, I don’t care if I’m the only white person. As long as everyone can treat everyone with the same respect then I don’t see a problem.” William, 20, found that mutual interests are more important. “As a black guy, I’m really into metal and other kinds of rock music,” he wrote. “I’m also a huge World War I buff. Not too many people in my area (mostly black) are into those things. I just happened to meet a cool guy that was into that stuff and he happened to be white. I don’t go out of my way looking for white people to be my friend—it just comes naturally. People get so caught up on race, if they look a little deeper they might find that people are not so different after all.”
I got the impression that these iGen’ers didn’t want to choose between diversity being “acceptable” or “desirable” because they saw the whole question as ridiculous. As Heather, 20, wrote, “Race has nothing to do with qualifications of a person’s ability to be a manager. What is this, the 50’s?” Francie, 20, wrote, “In this day and age, it seems silly to still be seeing in color with regards to dealing with humans. I’m white, but I don’t care about color when it comes to my friends because it’s idiotic and close minded to be trapped in an archaic mindset.” Saying that diverse environments were “desirable” might have indicated a little too much interest in race, and if you are iGen you aren’t supposed to notice race.
This iGen theme of ignoring race crops up again when we consider how racial issues are discussed on college campuses. Not seeing race has advantages, but it also overlooks the different experiences of students of color and ignores the reality that people do of course “see” race. (When a conservative guest on The Daily Show said, “I don’t see color,” host Trevor Noah responded, “Then what do you do at a traffic light?”) The idea of ignoring race might also be at the root of the surge of white nationalism, if some whites feel that their race is not being recognized. The history of 2014–2016 might well suggest that pretending race doesn’t exist is not a viable strategy.
In other ways, however, racial attitudes in the United States have shifted substantially toward equality. The percentage of whites who wouldn’t want a close relative to marry a black person plummeted from 54% in the early 1990s to 10% in the 2010s (see Figure 9.12). Many iGen’ers can’t even comprehend why anyone would oppose interracial marriage. “I’m honestly not too sure why interracial marriage was ever an issue in the first place, but I think it’s more accepted now due to the public’s shift toward racial acceptance,” wrote Anthony, 19. “Most people in America have access to information that can refute claims about purity of race, which is a racist idea created by white people in the first place. That mixing races was ever seen as ‘bad’ or ‘immoral’ honestly confuses me.”
Figure 9.12. Negative attitudes toward blacks, white 18- to 24-year-olds. General Social Survey, 1972–2016.
The percentage of whites opposed to living in a mostly black neighborhood or who support housing discrimination has been cut in half. Yet about the same percentage of white adults believe that blacks are lazy. Jaden, 21, thinks this might be due to media coverage. “While there is coverage of other races also doing crime, there seems to an incredible focus on showing African Americans doing illicit activities,” he wrote. “This nonstop negative portrayal of African Americans on news programs and documentaries has a significant effect on how people view them.”
It’s also interesting to explore the generational divisions in recent years (2014–2016). The biggest differences are between the Silents (those 70 and older) and everyone else (see Figure 9.13). There are also some surprises: white iGen’ers and young Millennials are the generations most likely to believe that blacks are lazy, and are slightly more opposed than older Millennials are to living in a mostly black neighborhood. This could be the ignorance of youth, or it could be a sign of the return of a form of white nationalism.
Figure 9.13. Whites’ negative attitudes toward blacks, by age/generation group. General Social Survey, 2014–2016.
On college campuses, discussions of race often center on issues such as affirmative action in university admissions and scholarships. With income inequality and high student loan debt, some w
hite students resent what they perceive as the special treatment of students of color. One University of Wisconsin student posted to Yik Yak, “There’s a black girl on my floor constantly bitching about oppression . . . bitch I scored 12 pts higher than you on my ACT, yet you have a full ride & I got zero scholarships.” When Rutgers University student Yvanna Saint-Fort was admitted to seven colleges, her high school friends told her it was only because she was black.
Reverse racism resonates with iGen. In a survey of 14- to 24-year-olds conducted by MTV, 48% of whites agreed that “discrimination against white people has become as big a problem as discrimination against racial minority groups” (27% of people of color agreed as well). The vast majority, 88%, believe that favoring one race over another is unfair, and 70% believe it’s never fair to give preferential treatment to one race over another, regardless of historical inequalities (that includes 74% of whites and 65% of people of color). iGen’ers believe in their version of equality so much that many find it difficult to support affirmative action. When racial preferences collide with economic burdens, racism on campus is sometimes the result.
iGen may usher in a new era of affirmative action, but based on class rather than race. In 2015, 52% of entering college students (in the American Freshman Survey) agreed that “Students from disadvantaged social backgrounds should be given preferential treatment in college admissions,” up from 37% in 2009. iGen’ers are fiercely supportive of equality, but they see equality as going beyond race.
All in all, iGen’ers have had more experience with racially diverse environments than any generation before them, and the vast majority say they believe in equality. Whites are much more willing to have black neighbors or relatives by marriage, though these shifts have appeared among older generations as well. The number of white teens who think an all-white environment is desirable has been cut in half, but the number who think a diverse environment is desirable has barely budged. Social psychology studies have found that mere contact among the races is not enough; the contact must be positive and among equals. Although iGen’ers are clearly more racially progressive than previous generations at the same age, they are far from postracial. They are also not postgender, and for both race and gender issues they look similar to Millennials and GenX’ers in recent years. iGen’ers do stand apart on LGBT issues, however; that’s where there is a sizable generation gap, with iGen’ers leading the way toward more equality and acceptance.
Safe Spaces, Disinvitations, and Trigger Warnings
In the past few years, college campuses have erupted in protests, many of them focused around equality issues. But there are other themes as well. Many protests focus on eliminating not just discrimination but offensive speech, which has drawn criticism that iGen’ers exhibit a hair-trigger sensitivity. This is where the movement for equality collides with the First Amendment. To the distress of free speech advocates, campuses have “bias reporting systems” that allow students to report incidents that offend them. Faculty members have been suspended for leading discussions about race. Controversial speakers are increasingly “disinvited” or their talks disrupted.
Is this really a cultural change, or have college students always been this way? The over-time data show that things really have changed: iGen’ers are more likely to support restricting speech (see Figure 9.14).
Figure 9.14. Entering college students’ attitudes toward speech on campus. American Freshman Survey, 1967–2015.
Young adults in general are also more likely to agree with speech restrictions. The Pew Research Center found that 40% of Millennials and iGen’ers agreed that the government should be able to prevent people from making offensive statements about minority groups, compared to only 12% of the Silent generation, 24% of Boomers, and 27% of GenX’ers.
When people answer these questions about speech restrictions, they are likely thinking about blatant racism or sexism—someone who uses a racial epithet in anger or contempt or someone who says, “All [insert group here] are [insert negative trait here].” When two white fraternity brothers at the University of Oklahoma were caught on tape leading a chant taunting that “[N-word]s” would never be allowed in the fraternity, including the line “hang ’em from a tree,” they were promptly expelled and the fraternity was shuttered. The case ignited a furious debate over the limits of the First Amendment, which legal scholars agree protects even such vile and hateful speech. As Supreme Court Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion on a different First Amendment case, “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and . . . inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”
Blatantly racist incidents such as the one in Oklahoma clearly push the limits of free speech. What’s changed recently is that more and more statements are deemed racist or sexist and more and more speakers are deemed “extreme.” A Latino student was offended that a white friend used the Spanish word fútbol to refer to playing soccer. Students at Oberlin College complained that the undercooked rice in the cafeteria sushi was offensive to minority students. A Colorado College student was suspended for two years (later reduced to six months) for responding to a Yik Yak social media discussion of #blackwomenmatter with the anonymous post “They matter, they’re just not hot.” A faculty member at the University of Kansas was suspended after a candid classroom discussion about race on campus. As sophomore Rachel Huebner wrote in the Harvard Crimson in 2016, “This undue focus on feelings has caused the college campus to often feel like a place where one has to monitor every syllable that is uttered to ensure that it could not under any circumstance offend anyone to the slightest degree.”
This is the dark side of tolerance; it begins with the good intentions of including everyone and not offending anyone but ends (at best) with a reluctance to explore deep issues and (at worst) with careers destroyed by a comment someone found offensive and the silencing of all alternative viewpoints.
This may partially be due to a shift in government guidelines. In 2013, the US Departments of Justice and Education broadened the definition of sexual harassment from speech a “reasonable person” would find offensive to speech that is simply “unwelcome.” Universities are now applying that standard to “unwelcome” speech around race and religion as well as gender, unwilling to favor the First Amendment over the slight possibility of a federal lawsuit. As Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt’s widely circulated 2015 Atlantic piece on these issues put it, “Everyone is supposed to rely upon his or her own subjective feelings to decide whether a comment by a professor or a fellow student is unwelcome, and therefore grounds for a harassment claim. Emotional reasoning is now accepted as evidence.”
When students disagree with a speaker invited to come to campus, they now would rather that the speaker not come at all. In the American Freshman Survey, support for banning extreme speakers reached an all-time high in 2015 (see Figure 9.14). Students at Smith College demanded the disinvitation of Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund; Rutgers protesters prompted Condoleezza Rice to cancel; and students at Brandeis blocked Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a women’s rights champion who is also a staunch critic of Islam. A nonprofit organization that defends free speech found that disinvitations have quintupled since 2000, going from a rare event to a relatively common one. In 2016, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education recorded forty-three disinvitation incidents, an all-time high (see Figure 9.15).
Figure 9.15. Number of speakers “disinvited” from speaking at US college campuses, 2000–2016. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).
President Obama weighed in on the disinvitation issue by saying “I think it’s a healthy thing for young people to be engaged and to question authority and to ask why this instead of that, to ask tough questions about social justice. . .
. Feel free to disagree with somebody, but don’t try to just shut them up . . . What I don’t want is a situation in which particular points of view that are presented respectfully and reasonably are shut down.” In other words, protest, but let the other side speak, too.
The political scientist April Kelly-Woessner found that the rejection of free speech by social justice advocates is generationally new: social justice and free speech beliefs are unrelated among those over 40, but those under 40 who support social justice are less supportive of free speech. In a 2015 survey, 35% of college students believed that the First Amendment does not protect “hate speech” (it does) and 30% of liberal students believed that the First Amendment is “outdated.” This echoes iGen’s emphasis on safety featured in chapter 6—the extension of safety to include emotional safety and the belief in words as violence.
The fall 2015 protests at the University of Missouri were fueled by the Black Lives Matter protests in nearby Ferguson and by several incidents of racism on campus. The activism soon took a turn, however, when the protesters declared that they had the right to create a “safe space” on the public university campus and exclude the media. Several protestors got into a shoving match with a student photographer, and a faculty member yelled that they needed some “muscle” to get him out. The photographer stated (correctly) that he had a First Amendment right to be there.
iGen Page 24
