{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

baby - See Baby Discriminate 1 Print Article | Newsweekcom...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–9. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 8
Background image of page 9
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: See Baby Discriminate 1 Print Article | Newsweekcom Page 1 of 9 PRINT THIS See Baby Discriminate Kids as young as 6 months judge others based on skin color. What's a parent to do? By Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman | NEWSWEEK Published Sep 5, 2009 From the magazine issue dated Sep 14. 2009 At the Children's Research Lab at the University of Texas, a database is kept on thousands of families in the Austin area who have volunteered to be available for scholarly research. In 2006 Birgitte Vittrup recruited from the database about a hundred families, all of whom were Caucasian with a child 5 to 7 years old. The goal of Vittmp's study was to learn if typical children‘s videos with multicultural storylines have any beneficial effect on children's racial attitudes. Her first step was to give the children a Racial Attitude _ Measure, which asked such questions as: Follow NEWSWEEK How many White people are nice? (Almost all) (A lot) (Some) (Not many) (None) D‘fl TWItter for Continuous Updates How many Black people are nice? and Live Tweating «$- (Almost all) (A lot) (Some) (Not many) (None) www.twitter.oom{NEW§WEE§< During the test, the descriptive adjective "nice" was replaced with more than 20 other adjectives, like "dishonest," "pretty," "curious," and "snobby." Vittrup sent a third of the families home with multiculturally themed videos for a week, such as an episode of Sesame Street in which characters visit an African—American family's home, and an episode of Little Bill, where the entire neighborhood comes together to clean the local park. In truth, Vittrup didn't expect that children's racial attitudes would change very much just from watching these videos. Prior research had shown that multicultural curricula in schools have far less impact than we intend them to—largely because the implicit message "We're all friends" is too vague for young children to understand that it refers to skin color. Yet Vittrup figured explicit conversations with parents could change that. So a second group of families got the videos, and Vittrup told these parents to use them as the jumping-off point for a discussion about interracial friendship. She provided a checklist of points to make, echoing the shows' themes. "1 really believed it was going to work," Vittrup recalls. The last third were also given the checklist of topics, but no videos. These parents were to discuss racial http://www.newsweek.com/id/2 l 4989/output/print 1/ l 1/2010 See Baby Discriminate | Print Article | Newsweekcom Page 2 of 9 . equality on their own, every night for five nights. At this point, something interesting happened. Five families in the last group abruptly quit the study. Two directly told Vittrup, "We don't want to have these conversations with our child. We don't want to point out skin color." Vittrup was taken aback—these families volunteered knowing full well it was a study of children's racial attitudes. Yet once they were aware that the study required talking openly about race, they started dropping out. It was no surprise that in a liberal city like Austin, every parent was a welcoming multiculturalist, embracing diversity. But according to Vittrup's entry surveys, hardly any of these white parents had ever talked to their children directly about race. They might have asserted vague principles--like "Everybody's equal" or "God made all of us" or "Under the skin, we're all the same"——but they'd almost never called attention to racial differences. l They wanted their children to grow up colorblind. But Vittrup's first test of the kids revealed they weren't colorblind at all. Asked how many white people are mean, these children commonly answered, "Almost none." Asked how many blacks are mean, many answered, "Some," or "A lot." Even kids who attended diverse schools answered the questions this way. More disturbing, Vittrup also asked all the kids a very blunt question: "Do your parents like black people?" : Fourteen percent said outright, "No, my parents don't like black people"; 38 percent of the kids answered, "I , don't know." In this supposed race—free vacuum being created by parents, kids were left to improvise their . own conclusions—many of which would be abhorrent to their parents. ’ Vittrup hoped the families she'd instructed to talk about race would follow through. After watching the videos, the families returned to the Children's Research Lab for retesting. To Vittrup's complete surprise, the three groups of children were statistically the same—none, as a group, had budged very much in their racial attitudes. At first glance, the study was a failure. Combing through the parents' study diaries, Vittrup realized why. Diary after diary revealed that the parents barely mentioned the checklist items. Many just couldn't talk about race, and they quickly reverted to the vague "Everybody's equal" phrasing. Of all those Vittrup told to talk Openly about interracial friendship, only six families managed to actually do so. And, for all six, their children dramatically improved their racial attitudes in a single week. Talking about race was clearly key. Reflecting later about the study, Vittrup said, "A lot of parents came to me afterwards : and admitted they just didn't know what to say to their kids, and they didn't want the wrong thing coming I out of the mouth of their kids." We all want our children to be unintimidated by differences and have the social skills necessary for a diverse world. The question is, do we make it worse, or do we make it better, by calling attention to race? The election of President Barack Obama marked the beginning of a new era in race relations in the United States—but it didn't resolve the question as to what we should tell children about race. Many parents have http://www.newsweek.com/id/214989/0utput/print 1/1 1/2010 See Baby Discriminate | Print Article I Newsweek.com Page 3 of 9 g explicitly pointed out Obama‘s brown skin to their young children, to reinforce the message that anyone can rise to become a leader, and anyone—regardless of skin color—«can be a friend, be loved, and be admired. Others think it‘s better to say nothing at all about the president's race or ethnicity—because saying something about it unavoidably teaches a child a racial construct. They worry that even a positive statement ("It's wonderful that a black person can be president") still encourages a child to see divisions within society. For the early formative years, at least, they believe we should let children know a time when skin color does not matter. What parents say depends heavily on their own race: a 2007 study in the Journal of Marriage and Family found that out of 17,000 families with kindergartners, nonwhite parents are about three times more likely to discuss race than white parents; 75 percent of the latter never, or almost never, talk about race. In our new book, NurtureShock, we argue that many modern strategies for nurturing children are backfiring—because key twists in the science have been overlooked. Small corrections in our thinking today could alter the character of society long term, one future citizen at a time. The way white families introduce the concept of race to their children is a prime example. For decades, it was assumed that children see race only when society points it out to them. However, child— development researchers have increasingly begun to question that presumption. They argue that children see racial differences as much as they see the difference between pink and blue—but we tell kids that "pink" means for girls and "blue" is for boys. "White" and "black" are mysteries we leave them to figure out on their own. It takes remarkably little for children to develop in—group preferences. Vittrup's mentor at the University of Texas, Rebecca Bigler, ran an experiment in three preschool classrooms, where 4— and 5-year-olds were lined a up and given T shirts. Half the kids were randomly given blue T shirts, half red. The children wore the shirts i for three weeks. During that time, the teachers never mentioned their colors and never grouped the kids by E shirt color. The kids didn't segregate in their behavior. They played with each other freely at recess. But when asked l . which color team was better to belong to, or which team might win a race, they chose their own color. They believed they were smarterthan the other color. "The Reds never showed hatred for Blues," Bigler observed. ”It was more like, 'Blues are fine, but not as good as us.’ " When Reds were asked how many Reds were nice, they'd answer, "All of us." Asked how many Blues were nice, they'd answer, "Some." Some of the Blues were mean, and some were dumb—but not the Reds. Bigler's experiment seems to show how children will use whatever you give them to create divisions— seeming to confirm that race becomes an issue only if we make it an issue. So why does Bigler think it's important to talk to children about race as early as the age of 3? Her reasoning is that kids are developmentally prone to in—group favoritism; they're going to form these preferences on their own. Children naturally try to categorize everything, and the attribute they rely on is that which is the most clearly visible. We might imagine we're creating color—blind environments for children, but differences in skin color or hair http://www.newsweek.com/id/214989/output/print 1/1 l/2010 See Baby Discriminate | Print Article | Newsweekcom Page 4 of 9 or weight are like differences in gender—they're plainly visible. Even if no teacher or parent mentions race, i kids will use skin color on their own, the same way they use T—shirt colors. Bigler contends that children ' extend their shared appearances much further—believing that those who look similar to them enjoy the same things they do. Anything a child doesn't like thus belongs to those who look the least similar to him. The spontaneous tendency to assume your group shares characteristics—such as niceness, or smarts—is called essentialism. Within the past decade or so, developmental psychologists have begun a handful of longitudinal studies to determine exactly when children develop bias. Phyllis Katz, then a professor at the University of Colorado, led one such study-ufollowing 100 black children and 100 white children for their first six years. She tested these children and their parents nine times during those six years, with the first test at 6 months old. How do researchers test a 6—month—old? They show babies photographs of faces. Katz found that babies will stare significantly longer at photographs of faces that are a different race from their parents, indicating they find the face out of the ordinary. Race itself has no ethnic meaning per se—but children's brains are noticing skin—color differences and trying to understand their meaning. When the kids turned 3, Katz showed them photographs of other children and asked them to choose whom they'd like to have as friends. Of the white children, 86 percent picked children of their own race. When the kids were 5 and 6, Katz gave these children a small deck of cards, with drawings of people on them. Katz told the children to sort the cards into two piles any way they wanted. Only 16 percent of the kids used gender to split the piles. But 68 percent of the kids used race to split the cards, without any prompting. In reporting her findings, Katz concluded: "I think it is fair to say that at no point in the study did the children exhibit the Rousseau type of color—blindness that many adults expect." The point Katz emphasizes is that this period of our children's lives, when we imagine it's most important to not talk about race, is the very developmental period when children's minds are formng their first 1 conclusions about race. 3 Several studies point to the possibility of developmental windows—stages when children's attitudes might be i most amenable to change. In one experiment, children were put in cross—race study groups, and then were ! observed on the playground to see if the interracial classroom time led to interracial play at recess. The E researchers found mixed study groups worked wonders with the first-grade children, but it made no , A difference with third graders. It's possible that by third grade, when parents usually recognize it's safe to start talking a little about race, the developmental window has already closed. The other deeply held assumption modern parents have is what Ashley and I have come to call the Diverse Environment Theory. If you raise a child with a fair amount of exposure to people of other races and cultures, the environment becomes the message. Because both of us attended integrated schools in the 197os—Ash1ey in San Diego and, in my case, Seattle—we had always accepted this theory's tenets: diversity breeds tolerance, and talking about race was, in and of itself, a diffuse kind of racism. i But my wife and I saw this differently in the years after our son, Luke, was born. When he was 4 months old, Luke began attending a preschool located in San Francisco's Fillmore/Western Addition neighborhood. One of the many benefits of the school was its great racial diversity. For years our son never once mentioned the http://www.newsweek.com/id/2 l4989/output/print 1/1 1/2010 See Baby Discriminate E Print Article | Newsweekcom Page 5 of 9 color of anyone's skin. We never once mentioned skin color, either. We thought it was working perfectly. Then came Martin Luther King J r. Day at school, two months before his fifth birthday. Luke walked out of preschool that Friday before the weekend and started pointing at everyone, proudly announcing, "That guy comes from Africa. And she comes from Afiica, too!" It was embarrassing how loudly he did this. "People with brown skin are from Africa," he'd repeat. He had not been taught the names for races—he had not heard the term "black" and he called us "people with pinkish—whitish skin." He named every kid in his schoolroom with brown skin, which was about half his class. My son's eagerness was revealing. It was obvious this was something he'd been wondering about for a while. He was relieved to have been finally given the key. Skin color was a sign of ancestral roots. Over the next year, we started to overhear one of his white friends talking about the color of their skin. They still didn't know what to call their skin, so they used the phrase "skin like ours." And this notion of ours versus theirs started to take on a meaning of its own. As these kids searched for their identities, skin color had become salient. Soon, I overheard this particular white boy telling my son, "Parents don't like us to talk about our skin, so don't let them hear you." As a parent, I dealt with these moments explicitly, telling my son it was wrong to choose anyone as his friend, or his "favorite," on the basis of skin color. We pointed out how certain friends wouldn't be in our lives if we picked friends for their color. Over time he not only accepted but embraced this lesson. Now he talks openly about equality and the wrongfulness of discrimination. Not knowing then what I do now, I had a hard time understanding my son's initial impulses. Katz's work helped me to realize that Luke was never actually colorblind. He didn't talk about race in his first five years because our silence had unwittingly communicated that race was something he could not ask about. The Diverse Environment Theory is the core principle behind school desegregation today. Like most people, I assumed that after 30 years of desegregation, it would have a long track record of scientific research proving that the Diverse Environment Theory works. Then Ashley and I began talking to the scholars who've compiled that very research. In the summer of 2007, led by the Civil Rights Project, a dozen scholars wrote an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting school desegregation in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle. By the time the brief reached the court, 553 scientists had signed on in support. However, as much as the scientists all supported active desegregation, the brief is surprisingly circumspect in its advocacy: the benets of desegregation are qualified with words like "may lead" and "can improve." "Mere school integration is not a panacea," the brief warns. UT's Bigler was one of the scholars heavily involved in the process of its creation. Bigler is an adamant proponent of desegregation in schools on moral grounds. "It's an enormous step backward to increase social segregation," she says. However, she also admitted that ”in the end, I was disappointed with the amount of evidence social psychology could muster [to support it]. Going to integrated schools gives you just as many http://www.newsweek.com/id/214989/0utput/print 1/1 1/2010 See Baby Discriminate | Print Article | Newsweekcom Page 6 of 9 chances to learn stereotypes as to unlearn them." The unfortunate twist of diverse schools is that they don't necessarily lead to more cross-race relationships. Often it‘s the opposite. Duke University's James Moody—an expert on how adolescents form and maintain social networks—analyzed data on more than 90,000 teenagers at 112 different schools from every region of the country. The students had been asked to name their five best male friends and their five best female friends. Moody matched the ethnicity of the student with the race of each named friend, then compared the number of each student's cross—racial friendships with the school's overall diversity. Moody found that the more diverse the school, the more the kids self—segregate by race and ethnicity within the school, and thus the likelihood that any two kids of different races have a friendship goes down. Moody included statistical controls for activities, sports, academic tracking, and other school—structural conditions that tend to desegregate (or segregate) students within the school. The rule still holds true: more diversity translates into more division among students. Those increased opportunities to interact are also, effectively, increased opportunities to reject each other. And that is what's happening. As a result, junior-high and high—school children in diverse schools experience two completely contrasting social cues on a daily basis. The first one is inspiring—that many students have a friend of another race. The second cue is tragic—that far more kids just like to hang with their own. It's this second dynamic that becomes more and more visible as overall school diversity goes up. As a child circulates through school, she sees more groups that her race disqualifies her from, more lunchroom tables she can't sit at, and more i j ; implicit lines that are taboo to cross. This is unmissable even if she, personally, has friends of other races. "Even in multiracial schools, once young people leave the classroom, very little interracial discussion takes place because a desire to associate with one's own ethnic group often discourages interaction between groups," wrote Brendesha Tynes of the University of Illinois at Urbana—Champaign. All told, the odds of a white high-schooler in America having a best friend of another race is only 8 percent. Those odds barely improve for the second~best friend, or the third-best, or the fifth. For blacks, the odds aren't much better: 85 percent of black kids' best friends are also black. Cross—race friends also tend to share a single activity, rather than multiple activities; as a result, these friendships are more likely to be lost over time, as children transition from middle school to high sc...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}