Skip to Content
0 Votes
Version 10.1 by Ryan C on 2025/06/25 20:22
Show last authors
1 = Whiteness & White Guilt =
2
3 {{expandable summary="Study: Learning (Not) to Know: Examining How White Ignorance Manifests and Functions in White Adolescents' Racial Identity Narratives"}}
4 **Source:** *Child Development*
5 **Date of Publication:** *2025*
6 **Author(s):** *Brandon D. Dull, Leoandra Onnie Rogers, Jade Ross*
7 **Title:** *"Learning (Not) to Know: Examining How White Ignorance Manifests and Functions in White Adolescents' Racial Identity Narratives"*
8 **DOI:** https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.14215
9 **Subject Matter:** *White Adolescents, Racial Identity, White Ignorance, Critical Whiteness Studies, Anti-White Bias*
10
11 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
12 1. **General Observations:**
13 - Sample Size: 69 White adolescents (ages 15.91 ± 0.49)
14 - 62% Female, 38% Male
15 - 84% of parents held a bachelor’s degree or higher
16 - Average neighborhood racial composition: 64% White
17 - Median family income: $139,868
18
19 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
20 - 74% attended schools where White students made up less than 50% of the population
21 - 17% attended private schools
22
23 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
24 - 10% of participants focused only on their ethnic background and not race, excluding them from further analysis
25 {{/expandable}}
26
27 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
28 1. **Primary Observations:**
29 - The study identified three dominant manifestations of "White Ignorance":
30 - **Constructing Whiteness as Disadvantaged:** Claims of "reverse racism" and that White people are unfairly stereotyped as racist.
31 - **Framing Racism as Unimportant or Distant:** Use of colorblind ideologies ("we're all the same") and assertions that racism happens "elsewhere" but not in their own diverse communities.
32 - **Active Refusal to Know:** Explicit statements of not caring about race or being unwilling to engage with racial realities.
33
34 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
35 - 24% claimed prejudice against White people.
36 - 42% said all White people are unfairly stereotyped as racist.
37 - 33% expressed colorblind views.
38 - 45% acknowledged racism exists but claimed it is not present in their environment.
39 - 21% openly expressed disinterest in racial issues.
40 - 26% could not or would not imagine how race affects their lives.
41
42 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
43 - A minority (16%) demonstrated resistance to White Ignorance by explicitly naming systemic racism and acknowledging White advantage.
44 {{/expandable}}
45
46 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
47 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
48 - Extensive qualitative analysis using semi-structured interviews.
49 - Provides direct quotes and categorized examples for each identified theme.
50 - Positions adolescent White ignorance within a cultural and macrosystemic framework.
51
52 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
53 - The entire study is based on the presupposition that White supremacy is an inherent, inescapable cultural system.
54 - The study does not examine counter-arguments or validate claims of "reverse racism."
55 - Participants' statements were filtered through a critical race theory-aligned analytical lens, which introduces ideological bias and frames White resistance as rare and problematic by default.
56 {{/expandable}}
57
58 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
59 - This study provides direct examples of how anti-White bias is institutionalized under the guise of "critical whiteness studies."
60 - It frames legitimate concerns of White adolescents (such as reverse discrimination) as pathological or invalid.
61 - Useful for documenting how CRT frameworks systematically dismiss White perspectives and reinforce anti-White narratives in developmental psychology.
62 {{/expandable}}
63
64 {{expandable summary="🔍 Racial Bias Examination"}}
65 1. The study assumes that claims of anti-White discrimination are a form of "White Ignorance" rather than engaging with them as potentially valid experiences.
66 2. The authors position the entire U.S. as a "White supremacist" system and argue that seeing Whites as disadvantaged is inherently a distortion, ignoring possible real-world evidence of anti-White bias.
67 3. The study’s critical framing disallows neutral or pro-White interpretations and dismisses colorblindness as a harmful ideology.
68 {{/expandable}}
69
70 {{expandable summary="📄 Other Wiki Pages That Should Reference This Study"}}
71 1. [[Discrimination Against White People>>path:/bin/view/Main%20Categories/Discrimination/Discrimination%20Against%20White%20People/]]
72 2. [[Critical Race Theory>>path:/bin/view/Main%20Categories/Ideologies/Critical%20Race%20Theory/]]
73 3. [[White Identity Development>>path:/bin/view/Main%20Categories/Identity/White%20Identity%20Development/]]
74 4. [[Anti-White Bias in Education>>path:/bin/view/Main%20Categories/Discrimination/Anti-White%20Bias%20in%20Education/]]
75 {{/expandable}}
76
77 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
78 [[Download Full Study>>attach:Child Development - 2025 - Dull - Learning Not to Know Examining How White Ignorance Manifests and Functions in White.pdf]]
79 {{/expandable}}
80 {{/expandable}}
81
82
83 {{expandable summary="Study: Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"}}
84 **Source:** *Psychological Science*
85 **Date of Publication:** *2014*
86 **Author(s):** *Caleb E. Lai, Anthony G. Greenwald, et al.*
87 **Title:** *"Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions"*
88 **DOI:** [10.1177/0956797614535812](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614535812)
89 **Subject Matter:** *Implicit Bias, Racial Psychology, Psychological Conditioning*
90
91 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
92 1. **General Observations:**
93 - Tested **17 different interventions** across **6,321 participants**, all measured via IAT (Implicit Association Test).
94 - Focused exclusively on reducing **pro-White, anti-Black preferences** — no reciprocal testing on anti-White bias.
95
96 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
97 - Educational and exposure-based interventions (e.g., multiculturalism, egalitarian messaging) failed to reduce bias significantly.
98 - Most effective short-term results came from **trauma-based or emotionally coercive interventions**.
99
100 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
101 - The **"Black hero" intervention**, where participants imagined being violently attacked by a White man and rescued by a Black man, was among the most effective.
102 - Effects of even the most extreme interventions **dissipated within 24–72 hours**, with no long-term behavioral change.
103 {{/expandable}}
104
105 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
106 1. **Primary Observations:**
107 - The interventions that produced the most dramatic IAT changes used **emotionally graphic narratives** depicting Whites as violent aggressors and Blacks as saviors.
108 - Merely showing positive Black images or promoting egalitarian values had minimal effect on implicit associations.
109
110 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
111 - In the **"Black hero" condition**, participants were asked to imagine being physically beaten by a White person and then rescued by a Black person — an intentionally vivid and disturbing scenario.
112 - The **"Black victim" intervention** relied on emotionally shocking imagery of anti-Black violence (e.g., lynching) to induce guilt and disrupt positive associations with Whiteness.
113
114 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
115 - None of the scenarios reversed the framing (e.g., Black aggressor/White victim), confirming the ideological goal was **to degrade White identity**, not merely reduce bias.
116 - The study was **cited by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)** to justify DEI-aligned policy recommendations.
117 {{/expandable}}
118
119 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
120 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
121 - Large sample size and systematic comparison across diverse intervention types.
122 - Clearly shows that **implicit preference is resilient** and not easily changed by education or exposure alone.
123
124 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
125 - The most “effective” methods **relied on emotional manipulation, not persuasion or evidence**.
126 - Assumes **natural in-group preference is pathological** when expressed by White subjects but makes no effort to test other groups.
127 - **Zero attention to pro-Black or anti-White bias** — only White attitudes are pathologized.
128
129 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
130 - Test the **psychological harm** and ethical implications of using graphic racial trauma to coerce attitude change.
131 - Include interventions that **strengthen ingroup empathy** without demonizing other groups.
132 - Disaggregate bias by **class, region, and individual experience**, rather than racially reducing all bias to “Whiteness.”
133 {{/expandable}}
134
135 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
136 - Provides direct evidence that **DEI-style implicit bias training** is based on emotionally abusive and **anti-White psychological framing**.
137 - Shows how **social science selectively targets Whites for attitude correction**, often using fictionalized racial trauma scenarios.
138 - Demonstrates that even extreme interventions **fail to achieve long-term change**, undermining the scientific justification for such policies.
139 {{/expandable}}
140
141 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
142 1. Investigate **implicit bias training outcomes** in real-world institutional settings.
143 2. Study **the ethical limits of psychological reprogramming** in DEI policies.
144 3. Explore **natural ingroup preference across all races** using morally neutral frameworks. 
145 {{/expandable}}
146
147 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
148 [[Download Full Study>>attach:lai2014.pdf]]
149 {{/expandable}}
150 {{/expandable}}
151
152 {{expandable summary="
153
154 Study: School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education"}}
155 **Source:** *Social Science Research Network (SSRN)*
156 **Date of Publication:** *2020*
157 **Author(s):** *Eric Kaufmann, David Goldberg*
158 **Title:** *"School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education"*
159 **DOI:** [10.2139/ssrn.3730517](https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3730517)
160 **Subject Matter:** *K–12 Education, CRT, Indoctrination, Teacher Training*
161
162 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
163 1. **General Observations:**
164 - Surveyed **over 800 educators** and analyzed **curricula, training materials, and administrator communications**.
165 - Found that **CSJ ideology is deeply embedded in public school systems**, including charter and magnet schools.
166
167 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
168 - Teachers reported being trained to believe **Whiteness = privilege + harm**, not just historical context.
169 - Administrators disproportionately **disciplined or suppressed dissenting White teachers or parents**.
170
171 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
172 - **Majority of educators fear retribution** if they question CSJ orthodoxy.
173 - **Curriculum mandates racial self-critique** primarily for White students, often starting in elementary grades.
174 {{/expandable}}
175
176 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
177 1. **Primary Observations:**
178 - CSJ ideology **functions as an implicit worldview**, not a neutral teaching tool.
179 - “Equity” in practice means **dismantling of perceived White dominance**, often through emotional manipulation of students.
180
181 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
182 - White students and teachers report **feeling targeted or dehumanized** in diversity sessions.
183 - Minority students were often **placed in victim-centric identity frameworks**, reinforcing grievance politics.
184
185 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
186 - In several documented districts, **student activities included “unlearning Whiteness” workshops**.
187 - One district mandated that teachers **“de-center White perspectives”** in all classroom subjects.
188 {{/expandable}}
189
190 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
191 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
192 - One of the few empirical studies documenting **systemic ideological bias in education**.
193 - Strong evidentiary base drawn from **firsthand educator testimony** and training materials.
194
195 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
196 - Study is based on **self-reported perceptions**, though many are substantiated with examples.
197 - Focus is primarily U.S.-centric; international parallels not explored.
198
199 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
200 - Future studies could **quantify the academic and emotional impact** on White students.
201 - Comparative analysis with **non-CSJ schools** (e.g., classical models) would clarify causal impact.
202 {{/expandable}}
203
204 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
205 - Documents how **CRT-aligned ideology disproportionately targets White students and teachers**.
206 - Confirms that **school choice fails to protect against ideological indoctrination** when CSJ is systemic.
207 - Supports the need for **explicitly anti-indoctrination educational frameworks** grounded in neutrality and merit.
208 {{/expandable}}
209
210 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
211 1. Investigate **legal protections for students against compelled ideological speech**.
212 2. Study **alternatives to CSJ pedagogy**, such as classical liberal education or civic humanism.
213 3. Examine **psychological outcomes** of guilt-based racial framing among White children.
214 {{/expandable}}
215
216 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
217 [[Download Full Study>>attach:Goldberg and Kaufmann - School Choice Is Not Enough The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education.pdf]]
218 {{/expandable}}
219 {{/expandable}}
220
221 {{expandable summary="
222
223 Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}}
224 **Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education*
225 **Date of Publication:** *2019*
226 **Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum*
227 **Title:** *"Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"*
228 **DOI:** [10.1037/dhe0000140](https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000140)
229 **Subject Matter:** *Critical Race Theory, Sports Sociology, Anti-White Institutional Framing*
230
231 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
232 1. **General Observations:**
233 - Based on **47 athlete interviews**, cherry-picked from non-revenue Division I sports.
234 - The study claims **“segregation”**, but presents no evidence of actual exclusion or policy bias — just demographic imbalance.
235
236 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
237 - Attributes **White participation** in certain sports to "systemic racism", ignoring **self-selection, geography, and cultural affinity**.
238 - Claims White athletes are “protected” from race discussions — but never engages with **Black overrepresentation in revenue sports**.
239
240 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
241 - White athletes are portrayed as **ignorant of their privilege**, a claim drawn entirely from CRT frameworks rather than behavior or outcome.
242 - **No empirical data** is offered on policy, scholarship distribution, or team selection criteria.
243 {{/expandable}}
244
245 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
246 1. **Primary Observations:**
247 - Frames **normal demographic patterns** (e.g., majority-White rosters in tennis or rowing) as "institutional whiteness".
248 - **Ignores the structural dominance** of Black athletes in high-profile revenue sports like football and basketball.
249
250 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
251 - White athletes are criticized for **lacking racial awareness**, reinforcing the moral framing of **Whiteness as inherently problematic**.
252 - **Cultural preference, individual merit, and athletic subculture** are all excluded from consideration.
253
254 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
255 - Argues that college sports **reinforce racial hierarchy** without ever showing how White athletes benefit more than Black athletes.
256 - Offers **no comparative analysis** of scholarships, graduation rates, or media portrayal by race.
257 {{/expandable}}
258
259 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
260 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
261 - Useful as a clear example of **how CRT ideologues weaponize demography** to frame White majority spaces as inherently suspect.
262 - Shows how **academic literature systematically avoids symmetrical analysis** when outcomes favor White participants.
263
264 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
265 - **Excludes revenue sports**, where Black athletes dominate by numbers, prestige, and compensation.
266 - **Fails to explain** how team composition emerges from voluntary participation, geography, or subcultural identity.
267 - Treats **racial imbalance as proof of racism**, bypassing merit, interest, or socioeconomic context.
268
269 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
270 - Include **White athlete perspectives** without pre-framing them as racially naive or complicit.
271 - **Compare all sports**, including those where Black athletes thrive and lead.
272 - Remove CRT framing and **evaluate outcomes empirically**, not ideologically.
273 {{/expandable}}
274
275 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
276 - Demonstrates how **DEI-aligned research reframes benign patterns** as oppressive when White majorities are involved.
277 - Illustrates **anti-White academic framing** in environments where no institutional barrier exists.
278 - Provides a concrete example of how **CRT avoids acknowledging Black dominance in elite spaces** (revenue athletics).
279 {{/expandable}}
280
281 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
282 1. Investigate **racial self-sorting and cultural affiliation** in athletic participation.
283 2. Compare **media framing of White-majority vs. Black-majority sports**.
284 3. Study **how CRT narratives distort athletic merit and demographic outcomes**.
285 {{/expandable}}
286
287 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
288 [[Download Full Study>>attach:Hextrum - 2020 - Segregation, innocence, and protection The institutional conditions that maintain whiteness in coll.pdf]]
289 {{/expandable}}
290 {{/expandable}}
291
292 {{expandable summary="
293
294 Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}}
295 **Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
296 **Date of Publication:** *2016*
297 **Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axt, M. Norman Oliver*
298 **Title:** *"Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations, and False Beliefs About Biological Differences Between Blacks and Whites"*
299 **DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1516047113](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113)
300 **Subject Matter:** *Medical Ethics, Race in Medicine, Implicit Bias*
301
302 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
303 1. **General Observations:**
304 - Analyzed responses from **222 white medical students and residents**.
305 - Investigated belief in **false biological differences between Black and White people**.
306 - Measured how those beliefs affected **pain ratings and treatment recommendations**.
307
308 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
309 - **50% of participants endorsed at least one false belief** (e.g., Black people have thicker skin or less sensitive nerve endings).
310 - Those who endorsed false beliefs were **more likely to underestimate Black patients' pain**.
311
312 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
313 - Bias was **most prominent among first-year students**, diminishing slightly with experience.
314 - Study used **hypothetical case vignettes**, not real patient data.
315 {{/expandable}}
316
317 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
318 1. **Primary Observations:**
319 - False biological beliefs were **strongly correlated with racial disparity** in pain assessment.
320 - Endorsement of such beliefs led to **less appropriate treatment for Black patients** in fictional cases.
321
322 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
323 - Medical students with **no false beliefs showed no treatment bias**.
324 - No evidence was presented of **active discrimination** — bias appeared linked to **misinformation, not malice**.
325
326 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
327 - Fictional vignettes demonstrated that **misinformation about biology**, not systemic malice, led to unequal care.
328 - The study **did not show bias against White patients**, nor explore disparities affecting them.
329 {{/expandable}}
330
331 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
332 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
333 - Provides valuable insight into **how medical myths can affect judgment**.
334 - Demonstrates the importance of **clinical education and evidence-based practice**.
335
336 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
337 - Fails to examine **bias affecting White patients**, including under-treatment of opioid dependence or mental health.
338 - Only focuses on one direction of disparity, treating **White patients as a control** rather than a population worthy of study.
339 - **Overemphasizes "racial bias"** narrative despite the findings being more about **ignorance than intent**.
340
341 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
342 - Include **comparison groups for all races**, not just a binary Black–White framework.
343 - Investigate **systemic neglect of poor rural White populations**, especially in Appalachia and the Midwest.
344 - Clarify the **distinction between false belief and racial animus**, which the study conflates under CRT framing.
345 {{/expandable}}
346
347 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
348 - Shows how **DEI-aligned narratives exploit limited findings** to vilify White professionals.
349 - Provides an example of a **legitimate medical education issue being repackaged as “racial bias.”**
350 - Highlights the **lack of reciprocal scrutiny** of how minorities may receive **preferential narrative framing** or **programmatic support**. 
351 {{/expandable}}
352
353 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
354 1. Study whether **DEI training reduces false beliefs** or simply **induces White guilt**.
355 2. Investigate **biases against White rural patients**, especially regarding **opioid or pain management stigma**.
356 3. Conduct **clinical outcome studies**, not self-reported vignettes, to test **real-world disparities**. 
357 {{/expandable}}
358
359 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
360 [[Download Full Study>>attach:Hoffman et al. - 2016 - Racial bias in pain assessment and treatment recommendations, and false beliefs about biological dif.pdf]]
361 {{/expandable}}
362 {{/expandable}}
363
364 {{expandable summary="
365
366 Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}}
367 **Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)*
368 **Date of Publication:** *2015*
369 **Author(s):** *Anne Case, Angus Deaton*
370 **Title:** *"Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st Century"*
371 **DOI:** [10.1073/pnas.1518393112](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1518393112)
372 **Subject Matter:** *Public Health, Mortality, Socioeconomic Factors*
373
374 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
375 1. **General Observations:**
376 - Mortality rates among **middle-aged white non-Hispanic Americans (ages 45–54)** increased from 1999 to 2013.
377 - This reversal in mortality trends is unique to the U.S.; **no other wealthy country experienced a similar rise**.
378
379 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
380 - The increase was **most pronounced among those with a high school education or less**.
381 - Hispanic and Black non-Hispanic mortality continued to decline over the same period.
382
383 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
384 - Rising mortality was driven primarily by **suicide, drug and alcohol poisoning, and chronic liver disease**.
385 - Midlife morbidity increased as well, with more reports of **poor health, pain, and mental distress**.
386 {{/expandable}}
387
388 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
389 1. **Primary Observations:**
390 - The rise in mortality is attributed to **substance abuse, economic distress, and deteriorating mental health**.
391 - The increase in **suicides and opioid overdoses parallels broader socioeconomic decline**.
392
393 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
394 - The **largest mortality increases** occurred among **whites without a college degree**.
395 - Chronic pain, functional limitations, and self-reported mental distress **rose significantly in affected groups**.
396
397 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
398 - **Educational attainment was a major predictor of mortality trends**, with better-educated individuals experiencing lower mortality rates.
399 - Mortality among **white Americans with a college degree continued to decline**, resembling trends in other wealthy nations.
400 {{/expandable}}
401
402 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
403 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
404 - **First major study to highlight rising midlife mortality among U.S. whites**.
405 - Uses **CDC and Census mortality data spanning over a decade**.
406
407 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
408 - Does not establish **causality** between economic decline and increased mortality.
409 - Lacks **granular data on opioid prescribing patterns and regional differences**.
410
411 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
412 - Future studies should explore **how economic shifts, healthcare access, and mental health treatment contribute to these trends**.
413 - Further research on **racial and socioeconomic disparities in mortality trends** is needed.
414 {{/expandable}}
415
416 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
417 - Highlights **socioeconomic and racial disparities** in health outcomes.
418 - Supports research on **substance abuse and mental health crises in the U.S.**.
419 - Provides evidence for **the role of economic instability in public health trends**.
420 {{/expandable}}
421
422 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
423 1. Investigate **regional differences in rising midlife mortality**.
424 2. Examine the **impact of the opioid crisis on long-term health trends**.
425 3. Study **policy interventions aimed at reversing rising mortality rates**.
426 {{/expandable}}
427
428 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
429 [[Download Full Study>>attach:Case and Deaton - 2015 - Rising morbidity and mortality in midlife among white non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st century.pdf]]
430 {{/expandable}}
431 {{/expandable}}
432
433 {{expandable summary="Study: How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"}}
434 **Source:** *Urban Studies*
435 **Date of Publication:** *2023*
436 **Author(s):** *Nina Glick Schiller, Jens Schneider, Ayşe Çağlar*
437 **Title:** *"How Do People Without Migration Background Experience and Impact Today’s Superdiverse Cities?"*
438 **DOI:** [10.1177/00420980231170057](https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980231170057)
439 **Subject Matter:** *Urban Diversity, Migration, Identity Politics*
440
441 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
442 1. **General Observations:**
443 - Based on interviews with **White European residents** in three major European cities.
444 - Focused on how **"non-migrants" (code for native Whites)** perceive and adapt to so-called “superdiversity”.
445
446 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
447 - Interviewees were **overwhelmingly framed as obstacles** to multicultural harmony.
448 - Researchers **pathologized attachment to local culture or ethnic identity** as “resistance to change”.
449
450 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
451 - Claims that even positive civic participation by Whites may **“reinforce white privilege.”**
452 - Provides **no quantitative data** on actual neighborhood changes or crime statistics.
453 {{/expandable}}
454
455 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
456 1. **Primary Observations:**
457 - Argues that White natives, by simply existing and having a historical presence, **“shape urban inequality.”**
458 - Positions White cultural norms as inherently oppressive or exclusionary.
459
460 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
461 - Critiques White residents for seeking **cultural familiarity or demographic continuity.**
462 - Presents **White neighborhood cohesion** as a form of “invisible boundary-making.”
463
464 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
465 - Interviews frame **normal concerns about safety, schooling, or housing** as coded “racism.”
466 - Treats **multicultural disruption** as inherently positive, and **resistance as bigotry.**
467 {{/expandable}}
468
469 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
470 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
471 - Reveals how **social scientists increasingly treat Whiteness itself as a problem.**
472 - Offers an **unintentional case study in academic anti-White framing.**
473
474 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
475 - **Completely ignores migrant-driven displacement** of working-class Whites.
476 - Makes **no attempt to understand White residents sympathetically**, only as barriers.
477 - Lacks analysis of **economic factors, crime, housing scarcity, or policy failures** contributing to discontent.
478
479 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
480 - Include **White perspectives without presuming guilt or fragility.**
481 - Disaggregate “White” by **class, locality, or experience** — not treat as a monolith.
482 - Balance cultural analysis with **hard demographic and economic data.**
483 {{/expandable}}
484
485 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
486 - Demonstrates how **academic literature increasingly stigmatizes White presence** in urban life.
487 - Shows how **“diversity” is defined as the absence or silence of native populations.**
488 - Useful for exposing how **CRT and superdiversity discourse erase White communities' legitimacy.**
489 {{/expandable}}
490
491 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
492 1. Study the **psychological impact of demographic displacement** on native European populations.
493 2. Examine **rising crime and social fragmentation** in “superdiverse” zones.
494 3. Analyze how **housing, schooling, and local economies** are impacted by mass migration. 
495 {{/expandable}}
496
497 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
498 [[Download Full Study>>attach:Crul et al. - 2023 - How do people without migration background experience and impact today’s superdiverse cities.pdf]]
499 {{/expandable}}
500 {{/expandable}}