U of M News Wire: June 21, 2007

 
University of Minnesota study finds that Americans couch feelings about race in the 'happy talk' of diversity-speak

By Mark Cassutt
U of M News Wire

According to a new study by researchers in the University of Minnesota's sociology department, Americans are generally positive -- even optimistic -- about the word 'diversity,' but when asked, even those working in the field of race relations have trouble describing diversity's value and stumble when giving real life examples.
 
The desire to appear color-blind leads most Americans to prefer the standardized language of diversity-speak when addressing issues of race, rather than the other way around. The researchers conclude that American diversity-speak is a sort of 'happy talk,' an upbeat language in which everyone has a place, everyone is welcome and even celebrated.
 
The study takes its conclusions from a telephone survey of more than 2,000 households across the country and nearly 150 hour-long interviews with adults from a wide range of backgrounds living in Atlanta, Boston, Los Angeles and Minneapolis/St. Paul.
 
The study found a majority of Americans -- cutting across race, class and gender lines -- value diversity, but their upbeat responses to the term contradict tensions between individual values and fears that cultural disunity could threaten the stability of American society. Also regardless of race, Americans' definition of diversity places white people at the neutral center and all other groups of people as outside contributors.
 
"The public debates and talk-show lamentations about immigration and political correctness leave many Americans to assume there's a big divide in the country between those who value diversity and those who reject it," said Doug Hartmann, associate sociology professor, who coauthored the study with graduate student Joyce Bell. "The fact is, most Americans value diversity - but they see it as a benefit with the potential cost of cultural disunity and social instability."
 
The study also found that most Americans use platitudes when describing diversity. "The topic of race lies outside the realm of polite conversation," said Bell. "Everyone in the study -- regardless of race, political affiliation and even level of rhetorical ability -- had real trouble talking about the inequities and injustices that typically accompany diversity in the United States."
 
The study will be published in a forthcoming issue of American Sociological Review and is part of the sociology department's American Mosaic Project, an ongoing project funded by the Minneapolis-based David Edelstein Family Foundation that looks at race, religion and cultural diversity in the contemporary United States.
 
 
----------
 
 
U of M looking for citizen input on the environment
State leaders working with U of M officials to build a conservation plan for Minnesota

By Justin Ware
U of M News Wire

Safe water, more forests, the condition of state parks; the state of Minnesota wants to know what environmental issues matter the most to Minnesotans. And the University of Minnesota's Institute on the Environment has a Web site that allows residents to let their leaders know what they think.
 
The information gathered from the site will help form the Minnesota Statewide Conservation and Preservation Plan, which is being developed by the Institute on the Environment with consulting partners Bonestroo and CR Planning. The plan will chart a long-term course for safeguarding Minnesota's natural heritage.
 
"This plan is intended to guide the state's natural resource conservation efforts for the next 50 years," said Deborah Swackhamer, interim director of the Institute on the Environment and lead principal investigator on the project. "So it is crucial that all concerned citizens and organizations make their voices heard as early in the process as possible."
 
Providing feedback for the plan is easy. Just log on to http://wrc.umn.edu/scpp/, click on "get involved", then on the green icon that asks you to "contribute your vision" and it will open up an email field.
 
The information will be used to assemble a final plan that officials hope will be ready by June 2008. That plan will include long-term conservation and preservation goals and strategies, benchmarks to evaluate progress and prioritized activities needed to implement the strategies.
 
 
----------
 
 
Growing Concerns
A parenting question-and-answer column with Dr. Martha Erickson of the University of Minnesota

Question: My husband and I are planning to write our will. We are trying to decide who should take care of our two children should we pass on. Our familial choices are both limited and many. I come from a big family yet I have problems with my siblings from a viewpoint of child rearing. How can I address this issue?  How does one decide?  And what should I think about that is in the best interest of my kids?
         
Answer: As difficult as it is to even entertain such possibilities, it’s important to think carefully about what would be best for your children in the event of such a huge loss.  Children’s needs vary greatly with age, and you don’t say how old your children are.  But here are some general questions to guide you:
 
• To whom do your children already have close ties? If you were not available to them, is there someone to whom they naturally would turn for comfort or guidance?
 
• Among the people you know (both family and friends), who is most likely to make a serious emotional investment in your children’s lifelong wellbeing?  Certainly you would want your children to have the best care in the short-run; but you also want to know they will have a family that provides a base of love and support on through their adult lives.  
 
• Who most closely shares your values and beliefs about the big issues involved in childrearing?   
 
• Who is best prepared to address the short- and long-term emotional issues that arise for children at a time of catastrophe and loss?  
 
• Are there potential caregivers in your circle of family and friends who would be able to maintain your children’s existing connections with friends, school, place of worship and community?  Losing parents is devastating under any conditions; continuity of other relationships can provide comfort and security in the midst of such a loss.
 
• Finally, who is willing to take on this important responsibility -- now and forever? It’s critical that before anyone agrees to being designated in your will, they think carefully about what such a role entails.  No one should enter lightly into such an agreement.
 
According to my family attorney, the designation of caregivers for surviving children in a will is not legally binding, but judges usually honor the wishes of the parents. Exceptions sometimes occur when family members contest the arrangements recommended in the will. With that in mind, it would be wise for you to talk openly and tactfully with all interested parties about the arrangements you are specifying in your will.  For example, if you choose to designate neighbors rather than family members, you might tell your relatives you have chosen someone who can allow the children to remain in their same school and neighborhood for the sake of continuity -- and you might emphasize that you will instruct these friends to be sure your children maintain close contact with extended family in the event of your death. The last thing you would want to do is leave your children in the midst of a battle among friends or relatives who are angry and hurt by their exclusion from your plans.