‘The Loneliest Generation’ by Graham Vyse in The Signal

This piece stacks up well with what I've been learning about Gen Z. Gen Z are individuals born in 1995 or 1996. These are our students, my children. 

Particularly noteworthy is the growing gender divide between Gen Z women and men. I particularly refer you to this publication on Politics, Sex, and Sexuality by Cox, Popky and Lee (2022) of the American Enterprise Institute.

Partisan politics, together with changes in how Americans perceive each other, should give us pause:

"More and more, Republicans and Democrats view each other not just as people with different ideas about the size and scope of government—but as threatening."

Clearly, there is a growing schism in our country. Partisan politics against the backdrop of a recent Trump administration abhorred by many American women, has widened this divide.

You'll have your own reflections. I do agree that Gen Z's hearts and minds are up for grabs, considering their frustrations, disillusionment and pessimism registered in their political attitudes. As for myself, I'm not sure that this divide is that terrible, especially if it means that Gen Z women are also wiser and leading our nation, taking us to a more tolerant and accepting place as a country. We can only hope.

-Angela Valenzuela

Reference

Cox, D. A., Popky, D., & Lee, B. (2022). Politics, Sex, and Sexuality: The Growing Gender Divide in American Life, Survey Center on American Life, American Enterprise Institute.

 

‘The Loneliest Generation’ by Graham Vyse | June 10, 2022 Why are American men and women moving in such different directions on public issues? Daniel Cox on how the attitudes and convictions of young adults are changing U.S. political life. (Originally published 2022 | 06.10) Something unusual appears to be happening among young Americans. “For much of the past two decades,” the Survey Center on American Life recently noted, “young women and men have had similar political profiles. But the ideological differences between them grew rapidly over the past few years as young women became increasingly liberal.” The Survey Center, a project of the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute (AEI), cited Gallup polling that shows 44 percent of young women aged 18 to 29 considering themselves “liberal” last year, compared to only 25 percent of men in the same age range—a major change from 30 percent of young women and 27 percent of young men considering themselves liberal a decade earlier. What’s causing this political divergence? Daniel Cox is a senior fellow in polling and public opinion at AEI who co-authored the Survey Center’s recent report on the “growing gender divide in American life.” Cox says the dramatic increase in progressive politics among American women of Generation Z, the cohort born between 1997 and 2012, comes out of a series of trends, including fewer young women being married than in previous generations and more of them being more formally educated and religiously unaffiliated. Many of these young women were affected by the #MeToo movement, Cox says, while spending formative adult years during the presidency of Donald Trump, whom a strikingly high ratio of them disliked. As Generation Z becomes more politically engaged in the coming years, Cox sees the potential for their convictions to alter U.S. political priorities. It’s a question, though—given the prominence of disillusionment, disconnection, frustration, and pessimism in their attitudes about American political life. Graham Vyse: What patterns stand out to you in the political tendencies of Generation Z in America? Daniel Cox: To understand how Gen Z relates to politics differently than older U.S. generations do, you have to understand how people in this new generation have been raised. Many of their parents have emphasized individual achievement, education, and enrichment as primary goals for their children. At the same time, Gen Z has experienced less, compared with previous generations, in the way of traditional institutions like organized religion in their childhood—whether that’d be regular participation in worship services or Sunday school, or even saying prayers with their families. In part, this shift has been driven by changes in parenting priorities; but it’s also driven by the fact that Gen Z is more likely to be raised by parents with different religious backgrounds, blended families that include children from previous marriages, or single parents, all of which tend to have lower levels of religious involvement. Politically, climate change is important to Get Z. Gun policy is important. LGBTQ issues are important. I expect abortion to become tremendously important. Yet there isn’t one preeminent, animating political issue for this generation. What’s happened instead is that political identity has become increasingly central to people in defining who they are. It’s become a stand-in for character or even personality. That’s unfortunate in some ways. It leads Americans to be more politically segregated and to shut down political conversations based on the belief that knowing someone’s politics means you know what you need to about their whole life story and whether they’re part of your good tribe or not. We’re on track to become even more politically segregated—more politically polarized—and I believe the decline of institutions and the unraveling of our civic life are playing important roles in that process. Vyse: How does this new prominence of political identity relate to the broader political trends you’re seeing? Advertisement Cox: Part of what’s going on is that younger Americans’ politics are becoming more closely connected with their other demographic attributes. The political scientist Lilliana Mason notes that people in the U.S. increasingly live with these “super identities”—their political, religious, racial, ethnic, and gender identities all combining and moving them in the same direction. You’re not merely a liberal. You’re an atheist, Jewish, bisexual liberal—and all those identities interact and reinforce one another. So political identity is becoming more important, but it’s also becoming increasingly aligned with other demographic characteristics and even lifestyle choices. If you’re Christian today, there is a much higher probability that you are a conservative or a Republican; if you’re an atheist, odds are you’re liberal or a Democrat. Consumer behavior has become more politicized as well. Liberals are much more likely to live near a Whole Foods, while conservatives are more apt to show up at Cracker Barrel. What this means practically is that Americans’ political identities have become much more than the sums of our views on various political issues—and that, increasingly, it’s difficult to separate politics from other aspects of our lives. Meanwhile, there are fewer and fewer places in American life where we can challenge our own beliefs or compromise with people whose beliefs are different from ours. It makes democratic society difficult. More and more, Republicans and Democrats view each other not just as people with different ideas about the size and scope of government—but as threatening. Dan More from Daniel Cox at The Signal: “In many ways, young men are doing less well in life than young women in America. Young men tend not to have as much social support. They’re less likely to go to college. They’re more likely to live at home. Many of them believe that neither political party is doing much to help them. On the right, much more than on the left, you hear the idea that society is disadvantaging them. Today’s young men are more liberal than their elders on a lot of cultural questions, including premarital sex and same-sex marriage, and they’re more likely to have friends or family members who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. But when it comes to questions about the role and size of government in the economy, men, including young men, are less inclined to favor intervention than women are. It’s an issue area where the attitudinal differences between men and women are growing.” “Young men and young women in the U.S. both tend to want their government to do more—on gun control, on climate change, on reducing economic inequality—but there’s a profound pessimism among them, in ways we didn’t see in earlier generations, about the government’s ability to do anything. That has to do with political polarization and congressional gridlock; the government hasn’t shown that it’s up to handling a lot of these issues. But the pessimism is stronger among young men than young women. Young men are more likely to think no one’s on their side.” “There’s obviously a multitude of negative physical and psychological consequences of being lonely, and people who are lonely are probably going to be less active in politics. In extreme cases, loneliness results in anti-social behavior—not just outright violence but a general lack of participation in civil society, marriage, and community life. My concern would be that loneliness in Gen Z will lead to apathy and even political nihilism over time. Still, it’s remarkable meanwhile that, despite lower engagement in civic and religious organizations, young people still are participating in politics at reasonable levels, at least by historical standards.” Vyse: Can you think of any political phenomena in the U.S. over the last decade that might have been hard to understand at the time but, in retrospect, make more sense in light of these Gen Z trends? Cox: One of the profound shifts we’ve seen in American politics is the Democratic Party's embrace of culture-war issues, which used to be more associated with the Republicans. I think the party’s focus on those issues, often at the expense of economic issues, is partially a result of changing Democratic demography. The party now has a disproportionate number of college-educated women in its ranks, and they’re having a significant impact on the party’s priories. In the early ‘90s, roughly one in 10 Democrats was a college-educated woman. By 2021, it was close to one in three. Vyse: How do you see American politicians and activists adapting to engage Gen Z? Cox: You know, the people who understand these new generations best are market researchers—companies trying to attract young people as customers or future employees. There’s significant evidence of career ambition among the youngest generation, but we’re also in the midst of a reassessment of the centrality of work in our lives. We talk about “work-life balance,” but a lot of Gen Z wants “life-work balance.” That’s going to change how young people engage with their employers and what kind of commitments they’re willing to make as part of their jobs. Politicians will probably ignore this cohort for a while, as young people are traditionally less engaged in politics. One trend I’ll be following is how younger Republicans in the U.S. think about issues of diversity and American identity—what it means to be American. One of the most promising recent developments, in my opinion, is the fact that Hispanic Americans appeared to be supporting Republicans in far greater numbers than people expected. I don’t mean to be political when I say that’s promising; it’s that we don’t want racialized parties—a party for white people and a party for everybody else. I find it hopeful to see that there are constituencies that the parties have to compete over. As the United States becomes more diverse, there's going to be a greater recognition that very few constituencies belong to either party. Another important trend is how secularization is affecting the Republican Party, particularly younger Republicans. Conservative Christians are still the party’s largest constituency—if you can call them a single constituency—in the party, but there’s a growing number of folks, particularly among the young, who have less traditional ideas about sex and sexuality, even if they’re religious. They’re more tolerant of LGBTQ policies and have LGBTQ friends. I’m not saying they’ll be open to every progressive idea about sex and sexuality, but they’re going to come at these issues differently. When young people look around their classrooms or their sports fields or the bars where they’re hanging out, they’re looking at a different demographic reality. Another way, still, that we might anticipate Gen Z changing American politics is that they aren’t going to feel as compelled as previous generations to operate through traditional channels. They may be less inclined to write to members of Congress, but they’ll engage with them on social media, or share political videos on YouTube or TikTok. New technologies are meanwhile offering new ways to engage in politics—as with a group now going after the ad revenue streams of media outlets trafficking in misinformation. There’s a sense among Gen Z that if you can dream it, you can do it. Now, that can be scary for some of the institutional defenders and the older guard, but the political system needs to be responsive. This new generation is going to demand it—whether on the issue of gun violence or climate change or other issues—possibly in ways we haven’t seen from the Millennial generation.

It was beyond interesting having a front-row seat on the brouhaha that took place at our university just before Thanksgiving last month involving UT College of Education researchers regarding an American Enterprise Institute (AEI)-inspired attempt to pause legitimate, well-designed research because its exclusive focus was on white children and caregivers.

Elaborated more fully in the Texas Tribune piece authored by Kate McGee appearing below, this attempt exposes an ultra-conservative agenda that involves AEI fellow and University of Michigan-Flint professor, Dr. Mark Perry, "who has filed hundreds of complaints with the OCR against universities that he believes are violating federal policies."

Not only would this attempt to thwart sound research violate Academic Freedom in higher education, but had the AEI succeeded, it would have set a terrible precedent at our university on anti-racist research.

On the heels of anti-CRT Senate Bill 3 that focuses exclusively on K-12 education, I see this as an opening volley against our social justice work in higher education about which we should all not only be vigilant, but vigorously oppose. The university ultimately did the right thing in lifting the "pause" to credible research that the university itself is funding by people who have nothing better to do than intimidate researchers asking important questions that help fill much-needed gaps in scholarship.

May this be a lesson to other scholars getting similarly targeted. Do not give in to these white supremacist obstructionists. I'm proud of our swift response and trust that we will continue to address such baseless complaints as they surface. Stated differently, not responding means caving in to our freedom of expression and Academic Freedom that should never be compromised. Never.

-Angela Valenzuela

UT-Austin professors criticize university for halting antiracism study with preschoolers

The decision to halt the study comes after a University of Michigan-Flint professor filed an Office for Civil Rights complaint against the study, arguing it discriminates against children of color. But professors said pausing the study sets a negative precedent that could impact academic freedom.

BY KATE MCGEE NOV. 22, 20216 PM CENTRAL

Credit:Multiple University of Texas at Austin faculty groups say administrators are bowing to political pressure for pausing research into a program that teaches white preschoolers about anti-Black racism.  Allie Goulding/The Texas Tribune

The University of Texas at Austin has paused a study on a program that teaches white preschoolers about anti-Black racism, drawing criticism from multiple faculty groups accusing the school of bowing to political pressure.

The research project itself is the target of a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights that claims it discriminates against children of color because only white children are participants. The three researchers conducting the study were told to pause their research as UT-Austin administrators conduct a legal review of the complaint.

But some faculty members say the pause will negatively impact the research and will set a negative precedent that could allow anyone “to derail faculty research based on content they may disagree with,” according to a letter obtained by The Texas Tribune on Monday.

“To succumb to political coercion, especially as it relates to scholarship that confronts anti-Black racism, white supremacy, and any other forms of oppression, compromises the central function of a public university,” the letter states. “The University’s actions send a message that risks censoring and chilling professor speech based on viewpoint, running afoul of central tenants of the First Amendment.”

In an email to the university’s provost, the researchers conducting the study said that based on consultation with people who have experience with the Office for Civil Rights and academic freedom experts, “this is an atypical and unprecedented response from a university.”

The UT-Austin Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility also sent a letter to UT-Austin President Jay Hartzell and administrators stating they were alerted by the three researchers that the university’s action potentially violated their academic freedom. The organization said it would be investigating the allegation, according to a copy of that letter obtained by the Tribune.

The complaint about the research — and administrators’ directive to pause it — comes as conservatives in Texas and the U.S. wage a war against what they consider to be critical race theory. That academic discipline centers on the idea that racism is not restricted to individuals but is embedded in policies and legal systems. Experts on critical race theory say critics are actually targeting any teachings that challenge and complicate dominant, white-centric narratives about America’s history and identity.

The Texas Legislature this year passed new restrictions on how public school teachers can discuss current events, encourage civic engagement and teach about America’s history of racism. Last month, state Rep. Matt Krause, R-Fort Worth, asked school districts which books available on their campuses included about 850 titles, most of which include discussions of race or sexuality.

The GoKAR! Project, which stands for Kids Against Racism, is a program developed to create “opportunities for caregivers to engage in dialogue about anti-Black racism with their preschool-aged children at home,” using children’s videos and discussion guides, according to a recruitment flyer on the school’s website. It was proposed through the university’s Associate Professor Experimental program and funded last year. It received a $100,000 grant.

Participants must commit seven to 12 hours and earn a $25 gift card for participating. According to the flyer posted online, the researchers wanted to recruit up to 200 pairs of caregivers and children to participate this fall. The flyer states that all participants must be white. Researchers said the study serves to deepen scholarship about the potential impact of reducing bias and systemic racism.

The program has received attention from conservative-leaning news outlets, including Fox News and the Daily Caller. UT-Austin faculty told administrators in their letter that the decision to pause the study after right-leaning news outlets wrote about it “is even more worrisome, as it represents a response motivated by political pressures.”

They call on UT-Austin to fully reinstate the study while the Office for Civil Rights considers if it will conduct an investigation. OCR investigations can take months and, sometimes, more than a year.

Concerns about setting precedent

According to emails obtained by the Tribune, UT-Austin Provost Sharon Wood emailed the three researchers Thursday night asking them to “pause delivery of any educational program materials to the volunteers who have agreed to participate in this project.”

“UT will work promptly to retain expert outside counsel to conduct an objective review under an expedited time frame,” Wood said.

On Sunday, the researchers received a follow-up email that amended the directive and said they must pause ongoing recruitment and enrollment of new participants.

The university did not respond to the Tribune’s request for comment Monday. The university posted on its website last week that school officials were aware of the OCR complaint.

“Because we also expect all research projects to comply with the law and university policies, the university is conducting a legal compliance review of the complaint before this study is launched,” the website states.

Yet according to one of the researchers, Huriya Jabbar, they had started recruiting students to participate in October.

The three researchers who are overseeing the program declined to provide further details. They told Wood via email they will cooperate with the system’s legal review but asked the school to reconsider the demand that they pause their work and expressed worry that the university’s decision to pause their progress will create unintended consequences.

“We are concerned about the precedent that set, the door this opens for complaints filed by anyone to derail faculty research, the messages that this communicates both within and beyond UT, and the broader implications for researchers’ academic freedom at UT,” the email reads.

The complaint was filed by Mark Perry, a University of Michigan-Flint professor and fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank in Washington, D.C., who writes about economics. Perry has filed hundreds of complaints with the OCR against universities that he believes are violating federal policies. Recently, OCR said it would investigate eight of 10 complaints he filed since March 2020. That includes his complaints about Austin jeweler Kendra Scott’s Women’s Entrepreneurial Leadership Institute within UT-Austin’s College of Fine Arts and a meetup for first-year women engineers at the Cockrell School of Engineering known as “Chocolate Chats.”

In a letter to the U.S. Department of Education, Perry argues that GoKAR! discriminates against children and caregivers of color by not letting them participate.

Faculty argue in their letter the research reflects the National Institute of Health’s guidance related to civil rights protections in research.

“Research projects are often limited in scope for many reasons, such as the principal investigator’s scientific interest, funding limitations, recruitment requirements and other non-discriminatory considerations,” the guidance states. “Thus, criteria in research protocols that target or exclude certain populations are warranted where nondiscriminatory justifications establish that such criteria are appropriate with respect to the health of the subjects, the scientific study design, or the purpose of the research.”

In their letter, UT-Austin faculty say there are multiple reasons the project limits participants to white students, including the size of the grant, consultations with experts in the field and a review of the current gaps in the literature.

“This limitation is important because existing literature indicates opinions, biases and the effectiveness of interventions vary across racial groups,” the professors wrote. “The study’s sampling of one racial group ensures that its findings are more robust.”

Perry wasn’t the only person who has shown interest in this research program, the professors allege. UT-Austin McCombs School of Business Professor Richard Lowery and Austin-based lawyer Louis Bonham both filed open records requests earlier this month requesting information from the research team.

Lowery declined to comment on the matter. Bonham has written about the study on Minding the Campus, a libertarian-conservative website that focuses on higher education.

Disclosure: University of Texas at Austin, University of Texas at Austin - McCombs School of Business and University of Texas at Austin - Texas Enterprise - McCombs School of Business have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.