#we are severely underrepresented in media | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dark-nimbus · 1 year

Text

A Rant on Representation in Media (mostly comics)

CW: ableism, disability erasure, mentions of fat phobia, mentions of fetishization, lmk if there’s anything I missed

I can’t believe that here in 2023 we still have to say this, but fuck it this year has already been hell enough so why not add another thing

Representation, whether it be for disabilities or culture, race or religion, any marginalized group— ALWAYS MATTERS

I spent the majority of the other night dealing with people trying to downplay the impact of Barbara Gordon’s paralysis being retconned. Wanna see how that went?

“Oh, but it’s okay if Barbara Gordon still has some mobility because there’s paralyzed people that regain their ability to walk”

Her spinal cord was completely severed, she was left fully paralyzed from the waist down

“There’s a 60yo fighting in a Kevlar bat suit and shifting clay people, but Barbara getting her legs back again is a problem?”

Okay, can clay people restore a spinal injury? Can Batman punch a nervous system into fully functioning? What relation does that have?

Aside from the fact there’s zero connection between the two, paralysis actually fucking exists. Batman and clay shifters, believe it or not, don’t. Lemme know if you find an irl Batman or Clayface that needs representation. Go on, I’ll wait

“Barbara being able to walk again isn’t disability erasure, there’s other paralyzed characters”

The definition of disability erasure is literally terminating someone’s disability under the belief it makes a person less than. The fuck you mean it’s not?

And how many paralyzed comic characters can you name? I’m willing to bet it doesn’t come to 50. Every character belonging to an underrepresented group matters. Whether their representation is taken away completely with that one character’s erasure or not isn’t the fucking point. You’re still fueling the already negative stigma around disabilities and sweeping disabled people further under the rug

“Her disability erasure doesn’t matter, DC will just paralyze her again in later issues”

I’m sorry, are you completely paralyzed from the waist down? Do you embody each and every paralyzed person and their experiences? No? What makes you think that you get to determine whether the erasure of something you don’t even have matters?

As for DC re-paralyzing Barbara, it’s been retconned since 2011. Even if they do plan on undoing whatever whack job microchip magic they’ve got going, they sure as hell are taking their sweet-ass time

I can’t believe people were actually arguing in favor of Barbara’s disability erasure, but here we are. Representation has always mattered and always will, and yet media loves grossly misrepresenting everything. Barbara was such a strong character as Batgirl, and flourished in her character development even more as Oracle. Her struggles, overcoming them, and learning to love herself and value her abilities beyond the mantle made her a well-loved inspiration for many. To have all of that stripped away and undone with a microchip was just as insulting as it was a destroyed opportunity for character growth

And unfortunately that’s not the first conversation I’ve had regarding the representation of characters

Oh, you thought I was done? Ha! I wish. How about Spiderverse?

“Oh but Sun-Spider can’t be a superhero, she’s wheelchair-bound!”

Professor X. The Chief. Oracle.

And just to cover all my bases: Bucky Barnes, Daredevil, Hawkeye, Doctor Mid-Nite, Hornet, Jericho, Cyborg. And that’s not even going into characters with much more hidden disabilities. Disabilities never stopped anyone from being able to achieve anything, nor should it ever

“Fat spider-people? Really? That’s just unrealistic”

Yes, really. What’s the problem with that? Surely it’s not the webbing, which have been proven to be durable enough to support buildings. No way it’s how they’re shaped when there’s a car, a horse, and a whole ass T-Rex spider variant

Some people really forgot the whole concept behind the first Spiderverse movie. How Stan Lee made it clear that “anyone can wear the mask.” It doesn’t matter your body type, whatever disorders or disabilities you have, your ethnicity or your upbringing. Being a hero is so much more than that, and the diversity of each spider-variant only reinforces how Spider-Man represents everyone

But let’s go even further with voice acting

“So what if Sunspot is being voiced by a white person instead of an Afro-Brazilian voice actor? It’s animated”

Oh wow I wasn’t aware that representation stops at the sound machine. Yes, Sunspot’s newest voice actor is Brazilian, but with a character whose ethnicity plays an integral part in his story, you’d think Marvel would figure casting an Afro-Brazilian VA would be more authentic for the role than the fourth white dude in a row, but no. Of course not

And with each VA they cast, Marvel pushes Afro-Brazilian VAs out of this role they’d intimately understand and be passionate in representing. VAs that Sunspot fans would love to see knowing that their favorite character (or even themselves) would be understood, rather than being hollowly voiced with characteristics that don’t match the person

“If Sunspot should be voiced by an Afro-Brazilian voice actor does that mean Magneto should be voiced by exclusively German Jewish voice actors? It’s not a monolith”

And neither are Brazilians. Hell, neither is any religion or race. That’s why we want an Afro-Brazilian VA. There’s so many nuances that can only be breathed into the character by someone who understands because they themselves have lived that life. It may be small but those nuances are what make the character feel alive to their audience, and the closer a VA is to the experiences of their character, the more genuine the character feels

Portraying animated characters doesn’t fall completely on the writers and artists. Artists may take control visually, and writers may be responsible for plot and voice lines, but it’s the VAs that are in the spotlight. VAs are the ones that gives these characters character. And those characters can’t be fully and properly represented for viewers if it’s not all there

Representation always matters. Its significance doesn’t go away with erasure, and it definitely isn’t less important because other people who aren’t among that marginalized group refuse understand. Disabilities don’t define who someone can be, nor does body type, or culture, or religion or any other background. It doesn’t stop at the sound machine. Anyone who says otherwise are just adding to the ignorance most media uses to excuse the already shit representation of the entertainment industry

Every marginalized group is valid. Every minority deserves to be portrayed as they are and not feel like they’re being fetishized, infantilized, or inaccurately represented for the sake of plot

Little me, the queer adopted Asian kid with raging ADHD, severe anxiety, and shit communication skills deserved more than the fetishization from anime characters and shouldn’t have needed to wait until they discovered Cassandra Cain, the first character to show that superheroes could look like them too

And people that never struggled to find themselves represented in media sure as hell don’t have an excuse to encourage lacking representation and feign ignorance when common decency and basic human empathy is free

38 notes · View notes

eriexplosion · 1 year

Text

I've been thinking a lot about Plan 99. Most of the fandom has, whether we want to or not, because how do you stop thinking about it honestly? Now I've been riding the Tech's Alive train from the start, for a lot of reasons - I won't list them all out, because there's been some absolutely amazing meta on the topic. Shout out to @heyclickadee especially who's done some in depth posts about Tech's probable survival that I cannot recommend enough.

But the thing that I can't stop coming back to and turning over in my hands like a shiny object is the thought of physically disabled Tech. It's a storyline that I think is underrepresented in media, as well as a choice that preserves the narrative stakes while being reason enough for the cast and writers to get as emotional as they did discussing it during the panel. And, frankly, it's a realistic outcome. There's this tendency to hold up character death as the ultimate demonstration of realism in a narrative based around war, but for every soldier that never came home there's a soldier that made it back with permanent injuries that changed their life forever.

But what I'm especially focused on is how it all ties together with the narrative themes that we've seen through the show, and that have been especially prominent in season two. Tech coming back with a permanent disability, especially one that removes him from the field in some way, fits in perfectly with several things.

The first one is of course survival as a whole - we get a lot of focus on this, and the most notable moment is with Crosshair and the ice vulture. "They find a way to survive" and all. But while it's most prominent in Crosshair's storyline, it's not absent from the rest of the batch's narrative. We see their determination to survive, Tech most especially. Episode two is basically an ongoing demonstration of how hard he's able to go even when he can barely move, and we get that long focus on him when the line "I'm a survivor" comes in. Then we get episode four, which is entirely focused on his quick thinking, his unique processing, and how it helps him survive where literally any other human would have been killed.

Tech is a calculated risk taker, but he's a survivor. If anyone could make it through that fall he could, tying his plot in rather firmly with Crosshair's journey through that shared narrative of finding a way to survive.

Which brings us to our next major theme - choices, respecting them and, especially, living with the consequences of your own. Tech made a choice, he looked at the odds and chose to risk himself to protect his family. If he dies here, that's it, that's as far as he has to go and it's up to everyone else to live with his choice and his loss. The consequences of that decision become theirs to bear.

But, if he lives, if he's permanently affected by his choice, then not only are they dealing with the consequences but so is he. Dying is a single choice, living with permanent changes is a series of them. Coming to the conclusion that despite everything he doesn't regret any of it, that he'd do it all again to protect them is a choice too. All of which leads directly into a theme that was most notably laid down by Tech himself in The Crossing - the ability and need to adapt.

If Tech becomes injured enough that he can't go into the field, that's a major shakeup in the fabric of the team as well as his own self image. From the start, Tech has always been elbow deep in the missions. He's in thick of the fight, right there dual wielding to take down enemies, smacking droids with datapads, hacking, and he gets several points where he physically saves Omega. He's not a sidelines kind of nerd.

So what happens if he can't do that? Maybe he's hurt enough that he has to actually stay behind on Pabu permanently, maybe he can go with them and pilot but he can't leave the Marauder, either way how does he handle being put in a situation where he can't be what he was before on the team and they have to go into danger without him there to protect them or help? The team has to adjust to his absence, and he has to adjust to not being able to do Everything and fill every gap. He has to adjust to watching them leave, not knowing if they'll come back.

But they have to adapt. He has to adapt. That's what soldiers do.

Except he's not even a soldier anymore, not in the same way, he might still be a mechanic and a pilot, but he's not the soldier he used to be, and that's another narrative theme hit. Who are the clones when they can't be soldiers? What else can they do, what are their lives without war and fighting? If Tech can't do what he did before, what can he do, how can he help his family, who even is he outside of the role that was given to him?

The final theme that I think ties into this - the second season has put a real emphasis on culture and community, we see communities coming together to support each other in multiple episodes such as with the wookiees, the rescued miner kids, Pabu as a whole. And Tech dealing with the changes that new disability brings provides ample opportunity to see that community support in action.

Pabu is a village of refugees, people who have likely gone through exactly what he's going through. His living would give the opportunity to explore that further and provide yet another link between the Batch and Pabu, another example of their belonging. He can't be as self sustaining as he was before. He doesn't have to be. None of them do, they have a community now and it's okay to lean on them.

I keep coming back to Tribe, too, specifically that quote that got us all right in the heart. When a young one leaves, the trees weep. But when they return the trees sing. As this child has found his new home, perhaps, one day we all will find a new path.

At the time a lot of us thought about Crosshair. Now we can connect it very directly to Omega's kidnapping. Two lost young ones that the trees will sing for when they return. Hopefully we get to see that with Tech too. We've definitely had our weeping, so fingers crossed for some singing to come.

#the bad batch #the bad batch spoilers #the bad batch speculation #tbb tech

81 notes · View notes

yellowjacketslesbian · 2 years

Text

What Van Palmer Means to Me

(this is an entirely self-indulgent rambling essay, but my options were writing this or sobbing over seeing adult Van in the trailer for the hundredth time)

A huge thank you to @woodenpicador for proofreading this and especially for all their encouragement to actually share this.

When I started watching Yellowjackets in December 2021 on a whim and a few friends’ recommendations, I couldn’t have predicted it would be my reason to join a fandom for the first time in my life. I definitely never expected to connect with one of the characters as deeply as I did.

But why would I expect to connect with one of the characters? I had never seen myself truly reflected media before. There have been a few characters I’ve felt some level of connection with over the years, like Jo March in Little Women and Kat Stratford in 10 Things I Hate About You, but my love for them and other characters was built on the foundation of headcanoning key changes to the characters’ identities (see: Jo March is a nonbinary lesbian in my heart). I had never before been able to truly see myself in a character as they were presented in the source material. As sad as it sounds, I don’t know if I ever really expected to get to see myself reflected back in a piece of media.

Van Palmer was the first time I truly saw myself on screen. Seeing her meant so much more to me than words can ever really describe, but I’ll make my sincerest attempt. Seeing a character be so unapologetically a lesbian and especially, a butch lesbian (in 1996, no less) was huge for me and I’m sure many other masc, butch, nonbinary, or otherwise gender nonconforming lesbians. While Van is far from the first butch lesbian in media (though we are severely underrepresented), she is one of the first I’ve seen that’s been allowed to exist fully beyond an amalgamation of stereotypes. She’s a fully realized character who is also butch lesbian. It’s so clearly evident that she’s a full character, not a prop for a storyline or a character created to check a representation box.

Van Palmer is a soft, sweet, loyal, caring, smart, funny, sarcastic, dorky film nerd who loves her girlfriend deeply, and she’s butch. She has so many traits beyond the more obvious parts of her identity and the beautiful thing about her characterization is that those traits are treated as just as much a part of her as her being butch. Van is butch and she’s soft. Van is butch and she’s loyal. Van is butch and she’s a dork.

For me, seeing a butch lesbian on screen who’s also inherently soft and sweet and loyal was groundbreaking. In a lot of ways, it infuriates me that having a butch/masc/gnc lesbian character with those traits in media has been so rare in the past. People who know masc/butch lesbians in real life can attest to those traits being the standard not the exception, but for a long time media portrayals of us have relied heavily on (mostly) negative stereotypes to paint a caricature of our identities rather than committing to an accurate portrayal of us as actual people.

Being exposed to negative stereotypes of masc lesbians in media and then hearing those biases repeated in real life made it so much harder for me personally to realize and accept that I’m butch and that I’m attracted to other masc/butch lesbians. When you grow up seeing and hearing only negative stereotypes about your identity, it’s so hard to embrace that identity.

Especially as someone who spent my teens and early college years heavily closeted for various reasons and could tolerate dressing more femininely, I spent some time after coming out as a lesbian trying to be femme, and femme4femme no less. It was so hard to accept that I was masc, knowing all the privileges I would have to give up to embrace that. It was even harder to allow myself to actually label myself as masc/butch knowing all the stereotypes that would come with that label.

I remember being newly out to myself as a lesbian and going down the checklist of stereotypes in my head to reaffirm that I couldn’t possibly be masc or butch. This wasn’t exactly hard: the only example of a butch lesbians I had seen in media were hardened, stoic, archetypes of a “fuckboi” copy and pasted from Shane (to be clear, I love Shane, but it’s exhausting when she’s the only representation masc lesbians are allowed to have) with small details changed. As embarrassing as it is to admit how hard it was to accept myself back then, I want to illustrate why the representation masc/butch lesbians finally have in Van Palmer is so important and necessary.

Though I had already been presenting masc for a while when Yellowjackets aired, it wasn’t until I saw Van that I felt comfortable actually labeling myself as masc and butch and truly accepted that part of my identity. I was able to see a butch lesbian on screen being soft and vulnerable, where that softness wasn’t something she had to find but something that was as much a part of her as any other part of her identity. Watching Van be a soft, sweet, dork who uses sarcasm as her armor was the first time I saw myself reflected back in a piece of media. When I saw her on screen it was just this lightbulb moment of “oh, actually I can be butch and still be everything I already am.” Seeing real representation for the first time in my life in Van Palmer allowed me to actually accept my identity and stop trying to apologize to the world for being gender nonconforming.

At the same time, seeing Van was also a little bittersweet. I could see the person eighteen-year-old me had been too scared to be back in the mid-2010s. However, I’m so incredibly grateful that young butch/masc/nonbinary/gnc lesbians now have Van Palmer on their televisions because maybe, just maybe, I would’ve accepted myself a little bit sooner had I had a character like Van to look to back then.

Van’s very existence as a character has been a monumental stride for butch/masc representation, but her storyline in season one, including her relationship with Taissa have also demonstrated marked changes for the better in lesbian representation and queer representation overall that I never could have imagined. I watched Van’s New York monologue in episode seven and was immediately filled with dread because I had seen different iterations of that same monologue so many times before. They always ended in a beloved queer character dying too young and too soon. Van’s “death” at the end of episode seven didn’t shock me, because I had expected it since her and Taissa’s kiss in episode five. It was her survival in episode eight that did. The deliberate subversion of the “bury the gays” trope with Van was a true turning point in queer representation. The writers took what we have all been unfortunately trained to expect by decades of watching the characters who represent our identities die in the first act, and twisted it into a story of a queer characters survival time and again, despite all odds. That the queer character happens to be a butch lesbian, an identity that is often ignored altogether, makes her survival so much more meaningful. It’s also incredible that Van and Taissa are in not only a lesbian relationship (and they come out) in 1996, but also an interracial relationship. Depicting a relationship between a Black lesbian and a butch lesbian is huge when lesbian and sapphic representation is still predominately and nearly exclusively white femme4femme couples. I could write a whole different essay on why it’s so important to have Van and Taissa’s relationship on screen and praise the decision for them to be in an established relationship, but I’ll save that for a different day.

The day we got the casting announcement for adult Van and I saw a post that read “Van lives,” I wept because it meant that I would continue to see myself on screen. While I had believed that Van would survive, I had watched people theorize (and almost delight in) all the different ways this character—who had finally given me and many other people representation—could die. That casting announcement allowed all of us who have known, loved, or been a Van to breathe a collective sigh of relief that those people had been wrong, and, as surreal as it seemed, Van Palmer would get to grow up.

After the casting announcement, the question loomed: Van lives, but would butch Van? At times, doubt crept in and I began to worry that the tradeoff for Van’s survival would be a feminized version of her that would be “more palatable for audiences” in the present timeline. When I saw the first promotional photos of adult Van I screamed “oh my god, they’re actually letting her be a dyke,” and then I sobbed. It was the moment I actually allowed myself to fully believe that I would get to see her grow up and become a true older version of the butch lesbian that had finally given me representation for the first time in my life.

I couldn’t possibly write this without acknowledging the actor who has single handedly made monumental strides in representation for butch, masc, nonbinary, and otherwise gender nonconforming lesbians everywhere by originating the role of Van Palmer. Liv Hewson brought Van to life with so much care and added so much to the character, in a way I don’t believe any other actor could have. From clocking Van as a lesbian long before they were told she is one to all of the improvisations they added, Liv had a huge role in creating Van. I’m not sure we would even be meeting adult Van in a few short weeks without Liv.

There are infinitely more things I could say about Van Palmer, but I’ll end here. I am so incredibly grateful to have Van as representation and I hope that everyone who has had a hand in bringing her to life on screen knows what she means to so many of us. I am placing my full trust in the writers to continue to beautifully portray this groundbreaking representation on screen and allow her story to continue in both timelines until the final episode.

#I actually did write 1700 words about Van Palmer #I'm just very emotional about finally having this representation #van palmer #van yellowjackets #Yellowjackets #butch representation #masc representation #lesbian representation

88 notes · View notes

purple-mushroom-cap · 9 months

Text

i just feel like as gay people we are so severely underrepresented in media that we'll automatically hold anyone or anything who even mentions our existence in a higher light

#gay #lgbtqia #lgbtq #some people get a pat on the back just by going “gay ppl don't disgust me!”#and some shows im not going to name names get popularized and a progressive W because two men kissed in the background #like yeah good job thats so important but can we go to the next step please #lesbian #sapphic #wlw #sincerely a tired sapphic

8 notes · View notes

live-fast-pet-frogs · 2 years

Text

The Good Lawyer, hopes and peeves

I heard the Good Doctor is looking to produce and episode that can possibly be a backdoor spinoff to the show titled "The Good Lawyer". Apparently it will feature a young female lawyer who has OCD. This was a surprise for me, as I expected that not unlike The Good Doctor, TGL would also be adapted from a korean show and my bet was Extraordinary Attorney Woo.

As a person with OCD I am quite sceptical about this choice though. While OCD is underrepresented in the media, it is also misrepresented and in most cases confused with OCPD (obsessive compulsive personality disorder, with vastly different symptoms eg. keeping rigid schedules and experiencing distress at the slightest change in their routines), autism, or just general cleanliness or quirkyness.

In reality, OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) is an anxiety disorder that consists of obsessive, intrusive thoughts that are disturbing and distressing (in some cases can be of violent, religious or sexual nature), and compulsive actions that can be but are not limited to self-harming behaviours. It is also an incredibly debilitating illness that can ruin relationships and make the sufferer isolate, harm and doubt themselves. Without the correct psychological help OCD can become chronic and can lead to the person becoming essentially housebound, or worse. It really sucks, take it from me. It is however treatable to a degree, and therapy can make a massive difference and bring back quality of life. I can say that finally after twenty years of suffering and three years in therapy, I am scheduled to come off my medications soon as I am finally feeling like my intrusive thoughts aren't directly interfering with my everyday life.

So now that we established that this is a serious mental illness, NOT a cute personality quirk, not a developmental disorder or neurodivergence, read this:

Do not get me wrong, the fact that it is role that's open to female identifying actors of any ethnicity and ability is great, and hopefully they cast an actress who has/had OCD and can bring some nuance in the role. But some of the wording around this synopsis really ticks me off.

"Joni's OCD symptoms take a severe toll on her personal and professional life."

This is good and realistic. As mentioned above, people with OCD can struggle with jobs, especially if they are in highly stressful workplaces, for example a law office.

"Joni (...) is often embarassed of her symptoms"

Again, visible compulsions can be a characteristic of someone with OCD. The thing about compulsions is, they are often unreasonable and the sufferer can feel the need to exhibit compulsions at random times and cannot always control themselves (even if they can it is very distressing to them). To give an example, one of my compulsions was knocking on wood, 40 knocks exactly with both hands, and then twisting my wrists 40 times. The intrusive thought that brought these actions out mostly had to do with the wellbeing of my brother who was severly ill at the time. I thought that, if I didn't carry out the compulsions, something would happen to him. Unreasonable, but at the time it feels so real that it doesn't matter whether you are in your room or in the frozen food aisle in Tesco, you have to do your compulsions. It is embarrassing when you feel other people's judgement or being misunderstood.

"She is a great lawyer, using her attention to detail, compulsive over-thinking and analytical skills as a superpower"

Here's where it gets icky. First things first, intrusive thoughts are not something you can control. You can't "turn on" ruminating when you want to, and definitely cannot use it as a "superpower". This was a point that was argued in OCD support groups but the majority of OCD sufferers including me think that it is rude and dismissive to refer to OCD as a superpower, or asking to focus on the "positives". Yes, in my case OCD gives me a higher sense of morality and a bigger attention to detail, but it wasn't usually in the positive aspects of life. I would refer to it more like a curse I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy rather than a superpower. It's an illness that needs treatment. The symptoms ease up following treatment. So portraying OCD like a superpower or something that makes you "special" can be harmful and get in the way of healing. This particular mindset and use of words is usually characteristic of those who aren't well informed on the topic.

Overall, I will make the final judgement AFTER I have seen the respective episode, but so far I am worried that this too will fall into the category of the misused "OCD trope" and fail to represent accurately. A lawyer with OCD is an interesting concept but I would rather watch the character managing her illness, and seeking treatment for it rather than try to use it to her advantage at work.

rant over.

40 notes · View notes

kinghijinx22 · 2 years

Text

I have now started filtering Hunter Owl House out of my tags

After being forced to look at Hunter for far too long, I have now been motivated to start using the filter feature. Because fuck Hunter, he actually ruins the show with his presence. And I can't stand seeing him when I'm looking at Owl House stuff. Already have to deal with Dana herself trying to replace the queer Afro Latina protagonist that was promised with the generic cishet white boy. Luz is representing minorities who have been severely underrepresented in mainsteam media, especially in protagonist roles. Protagonists like Hunter have always existed everywhere in mainsteam media and are always given the protagonist role. There are already plenty of main characters like Hunter, but barely any like Luz and it's a shame that she's being side-lined so much to give all the attention and importance to Hunter. We aren't allowed to have a queer Afro Latina protagonist without her having to share the spotlight with a cishet white boy. And yeah after having Hunter shoved down my throat so much in the show itself, I don't need it outside of the show as well. Give me Luz, Amity, Gus, Willow, Eda, Raine and Lilith art.

#the owl house #fuck hunter #please Dana Terrace just let Luz be the main character #stop down playing and nerfing all the other characters and using them just to prop up your favourite white boy #I know you love him so much but the queer and poc characters should be allowed importance as well #luz noceda #amity blight #gus porter #willow park #eda clawthorne #raine whispers #lilith clawthorne

31 notes · View notes

synergysilhouette · 2 years

Text

Most of the genderlocked stories didn't even need to be genderlocked, story-wise; PB was just being cheap.

The only stories that (in my mind) HAD to be genderlocked were:

Baby Bump

Bachelorette Party

A Courtesan of Rome

Getaway Girls (I'm assuming; not a VIP player)

The Unexpected Heiress

Desire & Decorum--I wasn't gonna include this since MC can be a WOC and in Victorian England, her chances of success, climbing the social ladder, and inheriting her white father's estate would be very low. The only reason I say it had to be genderlocked is because of Duke Richards; even if a woman could wield as much power as him, there would be no push for a male MC to marry her due to the low odds of them having children, making her not a severe threat (unless she's made to be a young aristocrat, but that kinda changes things, doesn't it?)

Some other stories that could have been GOC with some story retweaking:

Red Carpet Diaries--this could get dicey, as book 1 addresses ageism for women in Hollywood, but it could simply be rewritten as a sexism thing; Male MC is simply prioritized over Victoria. Plus we can still do the sexual harassment arc from book 3, given that male sexual harassment/assault is usually very underrepresented in the media.

The Royal Romance--some may disagree, but I think this is salvageable. Granted, replacing all the eligible women with eligible men could be difficult, but some of the reused female designs could simply be replaced with reused male designs. Perhaps to make it easier, make the prince/princess be canonically bisexual so some characters (such as Olivia and Hana) stay no matter what. OR (in the event that MC and the royal are the same gender), MC is simply visiting thanks to Maxwell's invitation, as a same-sex royal relationship would be frowned upon because they can't have kids--of course, it's already weird that the prince canonically chooses the love of his life's baby to be his heir, even if she isn't his daughter.

All the other genderlocked books could easily be GOC with minimal story changes, imo.

#Choices #choices #pixelberry #choices stories you play #pixelberry studios #playchoices

18 notes · View notes

marveltrumpshate · 2 years

Photo

As the saying goes, women’s rights are human rights. Despite growing threats to autonomy and agency, women are forcefully declaring their place in the world and actively working to ensure equity for themselves and future generations. The following are organizations whose focus is on doing just that.

For more information on donation methods and accepted currencies, please refer to our list of organizations page.

Center for Reproductive Rights

The Center for Reproductive Rights is the only global legal advocacy organization dedicated to ensuring reproductive rights are protected in law as fundamental human rights for the dignity, equality, health, and well-being of every person. With local partners across five continents, they have secured legal victories before national courts, UN Committees, and regional human rights bodies on issues such as access to life-saving obstetrics care, contraception, maternal health, and safe abortion services and the prevention of forced sterilization and child marriage.

Girls Who Code

There is a massive gender gap in technology, and Girls Who Code is actively seeking to end that—and they're on track to close the gap in new entry-level tech jobs by 2030! Girls Who Code also focuses on historically underrepresented groups, not just gender diversity; half of the girls they serve are from those groups, including those who are Black, Latinx, or from low-income backgrounds. Through clubs, college programs, and summer immersions, GWC reaches girls of all ages (elementary school through college) and all knowledge levels (beginner to advanced) to teach them coding, expose them to tech jobs, and provide a community with other women in tech. We imagine this would be close to the hearts of several of our favorite characters, so choose this one if it's close to yours as well.

Global Fund for Women

Global Fund for Women is the largest global organization for gender justice. They support grassroots feminist movements and organizations around the world for maximum local impact and have provided over $184 million in grants to 5,000+ women’s funds in 176 countries over the past three decades. Their recent focus has been providing mobilization and networking resources for women and girls in their own communities and amplifying those voices so they’re heard in the global community.

National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum

NAPAWF is the only organization focused on building a movement for social, political, and economic change for Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) women and girls. Their work focuses on policy and structural change, organizing and civic engagement, and legal advocacy and judicial strategy. They also tackle reproductive health and rights, economic justice, and immigration and racial justice.

National Network of Abortion Funds

The National Network of Abortion Funds builds power with members to remove financial and logistical barriers to abortion access by centering people who have abortions and organizing at the intersections of racial, economic, and reproductive justice. They provide their grassroots base of over 80 autonomous, diverse organizations/abortion funds with leadership development, infrastructure support, and technical assistance. Some fund procedures while others cover abortion pills, transportation, lodging, childcare, doula services, and other forms of support.

Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network

RAINN is the largest anti-sexual violence organization in the U.S. and operates a 24-hour national phone/online hotline as well as a DoD Safe Helpline for the Department of Defense that provide support for survivors. They partner with over 1,000 local organizations nationwide and coordinate with state and federal departments to ensure that sexual assault is prevented, perpetrators are held accountable, and survivors get justice. They also educate the public, media, and entertainment industry about sexual assault. While we put RAINN in this post because women and girls experience sexual violence at high rates, people of all genders can be victims and RAINN helps everyone regardless of gender.

Room to Read

Room to Read focuses specifically on the continents of Africa and Asia in their mission to ensure education for girls and literacy for all children. They collaborate with local governments and educational providers to ensure that their solutions are sustainable as they work to decrease the rate of illiteracy and increase gender equality in education worldwide.

#marvel trumps hate #mth 2022 #charity spotlight

5 notes · View notes

wibble-wobbegong · 2 years

Note

some ppl in the tag have been making transfem byler headcanons that only apply to one character (making them a straight couple) or making them fully sapphic (erasing will's canonical sexuality) and a few people took issue with it and posted abt it. but then those ppl got their inboxes flooded w anons jumping to conclusions and it was a Whole Thing, but one of the original people who was frustrated w it was transmasc and getting a bunch of shit even though they were posting abt being offended by some of the headcanons as a queer transmasc person

HELP “erasing will’s sexuality”

bitches really out here making a fuss about trans hcs???? fandom is queer down to its roots, people have always molded canon into representation for themselves because we don’t get representation in media very often. as long as the intention isn’t to make them straight there is literally nothing wrong with hcing any character as trans. when queer people choose to expand upon a character’s queerness by broadening it into the fluidity of sexuality and gender it’s because there isn’t many other places to find characters you like that also already have that progressive queerness

also, contextually, a handful of people making transfem hcs is not the demographic anyone should be angry at for invalidating will’s sexuality. the people making those hcs are more than likely queer and more than likely trying to see themselves in their favorite characters. reminder that sapphic and transfem/genderqueer people are severely underrepresented in media as it is. they aren’t punching down, they’re punching up with hcs like that. queer people making queer hcs in queer spaces is normal and also a staple in fandom - keep queer spaces queer. don’t divide us as we start getting the inklings of representation. until all of us are represented, none of us are.

and, as a trans man, getting offended by that is so stupid. to all my trans sisters looking to project onto mike and/or will, to all my genderqueer friends who find comfort in seeing your favorite characters be like yourselves, to all my wlw bros who have had to deal with their representation getting cancelled and shut down and fetishized, keep making your silly little hcs and writing your silly little fics and drawing your silly little doodles. stan she/her mike, i have read fics so great about her they made me question myself for a hot minute

hope that other guy is ok tho

#queer people making queer headcanons 😱#i don’t wanna hear shit about how transfem headcanons are the things erasing will’s sexuality. be serious #y’all will gatekeep anything #byler #asks

4 notes · View notes

music-industry-updates · 3 months

Text

Which next social media will replace TikTok?

TikTok has taken the social media world by storm with its addictive short-form video content, amassing millions of users worldwide. However, the digital landscape is ever-evolving, and new competitors are emerging, each bringing innovative features and fresh approaches to content creation. In this article, we explore the top TikTok rivals to watch in 2024, analyzing their unique offerings, user demographics, and potential impact on the social media ecosystem.

1. Overview of TikTok’s Success: TikTok, launched in 2016 by ByteDance, quickly became a global phenomenon. Its algorithm-driven feed, known as the “For You Page,” presents users with an endless stream of personalized content, keeping them engaged for hours. TikTok’s core features include short, snappy videos often set to music or sound bites, an extensive library of filters and effects, and tools for easy video editing and sharing. This combination has created a platform that appeals to a wide range of users, from teens to celebrities, and has fostered a new generation of influencers.

2. Emerging TikTok Rivals: While TikTok remains at the forefront, several platforms are gaining traction and positioning themselves as formidable rivals. Let’s delve into some of these competitors:

Triller: Triller, often referred to as a “music video app,” allows users to create professional-looking videos in seconds. With its AI-powered editing tools, users can automatically edit their videos to the beat of any song. Triller has attracted high-profile users, including musicians and celebrities, making it a popular choice for music-centric content.

Dubsmash: Dubsmash predates TikTok but has reinvented itself to compete in the current market. It focuses on lip-syncing and dance videos, with an emphasis on community and user interaction. Dubsmash boasts a strong presence in the African American community and is known for its vibrant and inclusive user base.

Byte: Created by one of the co-founders of Vine, Byte offers a nostalgic return to 6-second looping videos. It capitalizes on the simplicity and creativity that made Vine popular, attracting users who prefer quick, punchy content.

3. Feature Comparison: Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of these TikTok rivals requires a closer look at their features:

Content Creation Tools: Triller’s AI-powered editing is a standout, making it easy for users to create polished videos. Dubsmash offers robust lip-syncing features, while Byte’s simplicity appeals to those who enjoy quick, looped videos.

User Interface: Triller and Byte have intuitive interfaces that are easy to navigate. Dubsmash, with its focus on community, features a feed that highlights user interactions and trends, fostering a sense of belonging.

Algorithms: TikTok’s algorithm is renowned for its ability to quickly learn user preferences. Triller and Byte also employ advanced algorithms to deliver personalized content, while Dubsmash prioritizes community-driven content discovery.

4. User Base and Demographics: Different platforms attract different audiences. TikTok has a broad appeal, but its primary user base consists of teenagers and young adults. Triller has found a niche among music enthusiasts and celebrities. Dubsmash is particularly popular within specific communities, while Byte attracts former Vine users and those who appreciate short, looped videos.

Triller: Known for its music-centric approach, Triller appeals to aspiring musicians and fans of music videos. The platform has a slightly older demographic compared to TikTok, with many users in their 20s and 30s.

Dubsmash: Dubsmash has a diverse user base, with a strong presence among teenagers and young adults. It has been particularly successful in communities of color, offering a platform for underrepresented voices.

Byte: Byte attracts a nostalgic crowd of former Vine users, typically in their late teens and early twenties. Its focus on short, looping videos appeals to those who enjoy quick, humorous content.

5. Monetization and Creator Support: For content creators, monetization options and support are crucial factors when choosing a platform. Here’s how TikTok’s rivals stack up:

Triller: Triller offers monetization through brand partnerships and sponsored content. It also has a Creator Fund to financially support top creators, similar to TikTok’s fund.

Dubsmash: While Dubsmash does not yet have a formal monetization program, it provides tools for creators to grow their audience and engage with brands. Its strong community focus can lead to organic growth and partnership opportunities.

Byte: Byte has implemented a partner program that pays creators based on the popularity of their content. This initiative aims to support emerging talent and foster a vibrant creator community.

As the digital landscape continues to evolve, TikTok’s rivals are gaining momentum and challenging its dominance. Triller, Dubsmash, and Byte each offer unique features and cater to different user demographics, providing fresh opportunities for content creators and users alike. These platforms are not only competing with TikTok but are also pushing the boundaries of innovation in the social media space, making 2024 an exciting year for digital content creation.

0 notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 4 months

Text

By: Michael Hartney and Renu Mukherjee

Published: May 30th, 2024

Introduction

Last summer, in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), the United States Supreme Court issued a blockbuster decision eliminating affirmative action in higher education. In ending the nation’s controversial 45-year experiment with race-conscious admissions, the SFFA majority emphasized how affirmative action had evolved to discriminate against certain “overrepresented” minorities (Asian students), who did not receive a boost on account of their race, in favor of other “underrepresented” minorities (black and Hispanic students) who did:

College admissions are zero-sum.… [A] benefit applied to some applicants but not to others necessarily advantages the former group at the expense of the latter … [such that] the guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color.[1]

The Court’s ruling in SFFA may be applied to the consideration of race in other areas, including in admissions at the nation’s service academies and selective public high schools and in employment and federal contracting, all of which are being actively litigated in lower courts.[2] Amid this new legal and political upheaval over the future of affirmative action, many progressives have sought to delegitimatize SFFA on two grounds.

First, some have described the case as conservative judicial activism. The narrative goes something like this: three new justices joined the court and abandoned precedent so that they could impose their extreme and narrow conservative policy preferences on the public. Arthur Coleman, a cofounder and managing partner of EducationCounsel, put it this way: “You might say, ‘Gee, it was only seven years ago that the University of Texas prevailed on these very same [affirmative action] issues. What’s the difference?’ In large part, it’s the composition of the Court.”[3] Not to be outdone, President Biden indicted the decision as extreme, saying immediately after the ruling was handed down that “this is not a normal court.”[4]

Second, many affirmative action advocates, especially in the media, insist that most Americans (including most Asians) favor affirmative action. Therefore, they say that SFFA was “out of step” with the public’s support for diversity in higher education.[5] For example, in the very same news conference where he blasted SFFA, President Biden said: “Take a look at how [the court has] ruled on a number of issues that have been precedent for 50, 60 years. That’s what I meant by not normal. …Across the board, the vast majority of the American people don’t agree with the majority of decisions the court is making.”[6]

This report marshals new evidence to show that both criticisms miss the mark.

Drawing on two survey experiments from the 2022 Cooperative Election Study (CES),[7] we show that affirmative action was politically vulnerable before SFFA. Specifically, we argue that the SFFA ruling strongly aligns with growing consensus that merit should trump diversity in university admissions, particularly when race-conscious admissions policies harm Asian students.

Specifically, our survey data show that:

On average (across several versions of an affirmative action question), seven in 10 Americans said that they opposed race-based admissions in higher education.

It was important that SFFA focused on discrimination against Asian students. Respondents who were told that affirmative action harmed Asian (rather than white) students were more likely to oppose racial preferences in university admissions.

The discrimination against Asian students that was revealed in the SFFA litigation made Democrats, in particular, more skeptical of affirmative action: fewer than half of Democrats supported affirmative action once they learned that Asian students would be disadvantaged. In contrast, 68% of Democrats who were told that affirmative action would disadvantage white students said that they supported maintaining racial preferences.

In an experiment where survey respondents played the role of a medical school admissions officer, the vast majority made admissions decisions based on race-neutral, merit-based criteria. Specifically, when asked to choose between two competing applicants (one Asian, one black), most chose the applicant with better academic qualifications, even if it came at the expense of maximizing diversity in the medical school. While respondents do value racial diversity at the margins, we find that they do so only when applicants have relatively comparable academic qualifications. However, in practice, universities’ rarely implemented race-based admissions policies this way.[8]

In sum, despite what progressive critics have argued in their attempt to delegitimize the decision, SFFA was not an example of the Court simply placating a small slice of the electorate (conservative whites). Rather, we show that SFFA’s concern for discrimination against Asian students reflects a wide degree of consensus from across the political spectrum. That consensus is driven by a public, including most Democrats, that prioritizes merit-based, rather than diversity-maximizing, admissions criteria.[9]

How Affirmative Action Is Framed Matters

Issue framing matters in politics. Research has long shown that the way an issue is framed can lead to significant policy change.[10] As one of us has written previously, “every issue can be understood, or defined, in multiple ways. Issue definition draws attention to some dimensions of an issue rather than others, [helping determine] which values, goals, and ideas are understood to be germane to a policy choice … when contemplating an issue.”[11]

In recent years, the debate surrounding affirmative action in American higher education has changed considerably. In the past, legal and political challenges to the practice focused on the harms to white students (see, e.g., Bakke, 1978; Hopwood, 1996; Grutter and Gratz, 2003; Fisher, 2013 and 2016). More recently, the issue has been framed to focus on discrimination against Asian applicants (e.g., SFFA, 2023).

Did this reframing of the affirmative action debate weaken public support for racial preferences? More specifically, does public support for affirmative action tend to decline when Asians (rather than whites) are shown to be disadvantaged by race-based admissions policies? To find out, we conducted a framing experiment on the most recent CES, a large national survey of Americans carried out in November 2022 (before the SFFA ruling).[12] In our first experiment, survey respondents were assigned to one of four possible versions of the following question (the bold font indicates the conditions that were randomly varied):

Some people say that {because of past discrimination / because it is important to have diversity on college campuses}, Blacks should be given preference in university admissions. Others say that such preference is wrong because it discriminates against {whites/Asians}. What about your opinion—are you for or against preferential admissions policies for Blacks?

About half the respondents were told that critics of affirmative action worry that these policies discriminate against Asian students, while the other half were told that such policies would hurt white students. We found no evidence that the first part of the question (which provided different rationales for affirmative action) had any impact on the results; so to keep things as straightforward as possible, we focus on the results of the latter experiment here. Although all the results (broken out by racial subgroup) are shown in the Appendix, we highlight only the headline findings here in the body of the report.

Three main findings stand out.

First, on average (across the different experimental conditions), most respondents (71%) indicated that they oppose racial preferences (just 29% support them).[13] Unfortunately, we do not have large enough samples of racial-minority respondents to make reliable comparisons between minority subgroups. Therefore, we pool, or combine, responses from non-Hispanic whites (N=501), Asians (N=19), and Latinos (N=83), in order to compare them with responses from non-Hispanic blacks (N=79), since research shows that blacks hold decidedly more positive views of affirmative action than do other racial/ethnic subgroups.

We find little difference in support for affirmative action between whites alone and the pooled group of whites, Asians, and Latinos. When considered alone, 77% of non-Hispanic whites oppose the use of racial preferences in college admissions, compared with 75% of the white, Asian, and Latino grouping (across all the experimental conditions). We have fewer than 100 black respondents in our sample, but they were far more likely to favor preferences (70% in favor versus just 30% against).

Our second major finding comes from our other framing experiment, which found that respondents who learn that affirmative action policies may harm Asian (rather than white) students are far more likely to oppose racial preferences. That is, we find compelling (and statistically significant) evidence that when Asian disadvantage is emphasized, support for affirmative action craters. In total, support for preferences dropped by 10 percentage points, from 35.4% to 25.6%. Among whites alone, support dropped by 8 points, and among the pooled white, Asian, and Latino grouping, support dipped 10 points (all statistically significant differences).[14]

Third, in order to test the extent to which SFFA was, as critics allege, a “right-wing” ruling that catered to conservative whites, we break out the results by party identification in order to examine how the framing experiment worked on different political coalitions. We were especially interested in whether key elements of the Obama electoral coalition (progressive whites, Asians, and Hispanics) felt cross-pressured by affirmative action policies that hurt Asians (an important and growing member of that coalition).

Unsurprisingly, we found strong opposition to affirmative action among Republicans (95%), irrespective of whether Asians or whites were mentioned as the victims. But among Democrats, we witnessed a remarkable crack in the Obama coalition. Specifically, seven out of 10 Democrats who were told that affirmative action disadvantaged whites favored giving racial preferences to black students. But when Democratic respondents were informed about the disadvantages to Asian students, a minority (46%) said that they supported such preferences. Among the nonblack elements of the diverse Obama coalition (progressive whites, Asians, Hispanics), support dried up even more. As Figure 1 shows, 63% of these voters favored preferences that came solely at the expense of white students, but only 38% backed affirmative action when they learned that Asian applicants would lose out.

Suffice it to say that ending affirmative action wasn’t a right-wing affair. Rather, the Court’s evolving affirmative action jurisprudence tracked a shift among nonblack Democratic voters who, once cross-pressured by Asian plaintiffs’ interests, ultimately abandoned support for race-based university admissions (a position in line with most of the nonblack Obama electoral coalition). In sum, our findings show that when affirmative action programs threaten opportunities for Asians (as opposed to whites), most Americans—especially most Democrats—become far less comfortable with using race in admissions decisions.

Americans Want Universities to Use Merit-Based Admissions Criteria, Considering Diversity Only as a Tiebreaker Among Relatively Equal Applicants

When interpreting public opinion surveys, it is important to focus on specific questions that pollsters ask. Question wording is especially important for polling about affirmative action.[15] For example, proponents of the practice often point to polls that show strong support for programs that “help [minorities] get better access” to higher education.[16] Opponents, however, can just as easily find polls that show that most Americans oppose using race as a factor in admissions or hiring decisions.[17]

These findings reveal something important about Americans’ values. Large majorities broadly favor equality of opportunity but not equality of outcomes. Since equality of opportunity seems congruent with universities taking affirmative steps to diversify (another popular value), it’s not surprising that the public responds favorably to abstract questions about “affirmative action.” By contrast, most Americans oppose preferences, because that emphasizes how race-conscious policies intentionally benefit some groups (and harm others) to obtain equal outcomes.

Values, however, are only one part of the affirmative action polling puzzle. Most people do not pay close attention to politics, and thus do not know very much about how complex policy issues—including affirmative action programs—work in practice.[18] To be clear, we are not saying that Americans don’t hold sincere beliefs about what constitutes fairness in admissions policies. But one’s answer to a question about affirmative action depends not only on those beliefs about fairness but also on beliefs about how affirmative action programs actually work. Poll questions themselves, however, can have a strong impact on how respondents understand an issue. As political scientist Terry Moe explains:

Because [Americans] come to any survey with little information, they will be quite sensitive to information contained within the survey itself. …This information determines how the issue is “framed.” And the framing, in turn, influences which (of many possible) values and beliefs get activated in people’s minds, and thus how people respond. …If public opinion is to be well measured on an issue, the issue must be framed with great care. The framing should provide respondents with enough information to give them a good sense of what the issue is about. The information also needs to be balanced, so that respondents are not pushed to see the issue in a positive or a negative light.[19]

We agree with Moe so far as it goes, but we think that measuring public support for affirmative action presents additional challenges, ones that limit the value of conventional survey questions. Affirmative action puts so many competing values—diversity, inclusion, merit, opportunity, and nondiscrimination—directly in tension with one another, that even the most unbiased pollsters will struggle to write balanced questions that clearly convey these trade-offs for an unsophisticated public.

As an alternative, we propose experimental vignettes as a helpful solution.

Our vignettes are modeled after a technique used by political scientists to study voters’ preferences in elections known as “candidate choice survey experiments.”[20] In our vignettes, respondents are asked not to evaluate two competing political candidates but to play the role of an admissions officer and decide between two competing medical school applicants.

Specifically, in our experiment, we told each survey respondent that “a medical school must choose between two candidates who are competing for the final spot in next year’s class of future doctors.” Then we ask the respondents to “carefully review each applicant’s profile before selecting the applicant they would admit.” Importantly, although the applicants’ accomplishments were randomly varied, the specific pair of applicants that each respondent saw always consisted of an Asian applicant and a black applicant (Table 1).[21]

Table 1

Illustration of Applicant Pairings in Medical School Admissions Vignette Experiment

he experiment was designed to test whether, and when, Americans believe that diversity should trump merit in medical-school admissions. In other words, we wanted to know whether respondents would ever reject the more “qualified” applicant so that they could admit one who would increase racial diversity at the medical school.

First, we tested the effects of making the two competing applicants closer or further apart on the conventional merit-based criteria that medical schools consider: college grades (GPA) and performance on the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT). We created two applicant pairings. In the first pairing arrangement, which we call the real-world merit gap, the Asian applicant boasts a 3.8 undergraduate GPA and a 90th-percentile MCAT score, while the black applicant has a much lower 3.5 GPA and 65th-percentile MCAT score. We call this the real-world merit gap because these numbers approximate the actual differences (on average) between black and Asian applicants who were accepted to an accredited U.S. medical school at the time of our survey (Table 2).[22]

Table 2

Average MCAT Scores and GPAs for Matriculants to U.S. MD-Granting Medical Schools, by Race/Ethnicity, 2023–24

In the second applicant pairing, which we call the affirmative action edge case, the Asian applicant boasts the same high grades and test scores as before, but we increase the black applicant’s GPA to 3.7 and MCAT score to the 85th percentile to create an “edge case”—i.e., one in which the underrepresented minority (the black applicant) is only slightly academically less impressive than the overrepresented minority (the Asian applicant).

We also randomized background information on the hypothetical medical school in the question prompt. One group of respondents were told that the medical school’s student body already matched “the racial/ethnic composition of the United States.” The other group were shown enrollment figures that matched the real-world racial composition of America’s medical schools (i.e., where Asians are overrepresented, and blacks and Hispanics underrepresented).[23] Respondents were randomly assigned to these different contextual cues, so we can be sure that any difference in their willingness to admit the underrepresented minority applicant is directly attributable to what they learned from the question about the lack of diversity or the magnitude of merit-based differences between the applicants.

The intuition of the experiment is straightforward. We first vary whether the medical school lacks representation (racial diversity); then we vary how close the underrepresented minority applicant is on merit-based criteria to the higher-performing overrepresented minority applicant. This allows us to examine whether and when Americans are willing to support affirmative action in practice—as opposed to supporting it in the abstract (as a non-zero-sum program that ensures equal opportunities for underrepresented minorities).

What do we find?

First, regardless of the vignette received, most respondents make their admissions decisions on merit-based criteria (college grades and MCAT scores). Consider the “strongest” case for giving the nod to the black applicant: one in which blacks are severely underrepresented at the medical school and the black applicant in question is an “edge case,” i.e., only a little below the Asian applicant on academic qualifications. Even in this most favorable (and, as we have noted, unrealistic) scenario, only about one in three respondents would admit the less qualified black applicant. About 70% still choose the Asian applicant.

Figure 2 shows the rates at which nonblack Democrats and nonblack Republicans would admit the black applicant over the Asian applicant, depending on the experimental condition. As we expected, political affiliation makes some difference, but respondents in both parties make their admissions decisions overwhelmingly using merit-based criteria. Even when the black and Asian applicants are close on these criteria and the school lacks diversity, only 35% of nonblack Democrats say that they would admit the black applicant to diversify the medical school.

Diversity, however, is still important for these respondents—and especially for Democrats. When Democratic respondents are told that the black applicant has much lower grades and test scores than the Asian applicant, and that the medical school is already racially representative of the country, just 14% admit the black candidate. However, regardless of the black applicant’s qualifications (relative to the Asian), about one in three Democrats will admit the black student when told that blacks are underrepresented, and Asians overrepresented, at the medical school. In other words, diversity looms larger for Democrats, and they feel cross-pressured, despite their clear concern for merit, to consider racial representation in medical school admissions.

The results of our vignette experiment are telling. Remember, when Americans are asked abstract questions about affirmative action, they tend to respond favorably, saying that they support programs that ensure equal opportunities for minorities in education. However, this experiment reveals what happens when we dispense with abstraction. Instead of asking citizens to understand what “affirmative action” means, our vignette experiment asks them to perform a straightforward task that mirrors what admissions officers actually have to do: evaluate actual applicants relative to a pool and choose. In the case of medical school admissions, Americans are a merit-first bunch. They tend to choose the applicant with better academic qualifications. They do appear to value diversity at the margins, but they allow it to become a deciding factor only when applicants are close on the merits, rather than far apart.

Americans Favor Merit-Based Admissions Criteria and Reject Anti-Testing Narratives

Some readers might object that our vignette experiment emphasizes standardized test scores as the linchpin of merit-based admissions criteria. After all, many affirmative action proponents claim that such tests are racially biased and are poor proxies of students’ academic qualifications. To address this criticism, we asked all our survey respondents two additional sets of questions that probe their beliefs about testing and the various criteria that should be used in higher-education admissions.

First, we asked respondents which of the following two statements about the role of standardized tests—such high school exit exams, the SAT/ACT, and Advanced Placement (AP) exams—was closer to their own views:

Since their inception almost a century ago, standardized tests have been instruments of racism that perpetuate racial bias in our society. Although they are imperfect instruments, standardized tests are one objective indicator of a student’s academic progress and ability.[24]

Over 75% chose the second option. What’s more, most nonwhite respondents firmly rejected the first option (that standardized tests are instruments of racism that perpetuate bias). Over 65% of nonwhites said that, in fact, such tests are an imperfect objective indicator of academic ability. Just over 55% of non-Hispanic black respondents agreed. In other words, only a minority of blacks (44%) said that standardized tests were instruments of bias rather than objective indicators of learning.

We then asked a series of questions (modeled after a similar survey conducted by Pew Research) about the factors that should and should not be used in college and (separately) medical school admissions. Specifically, for undergraduate college admissions, we asked whether the following criteria should be a major factor, minor factor, or not a factor:

Race or ethnicity Character or personality factors (e.g., likeability, courage, kindness) Scores on standardized tests, such as the SAT or ACT High school grades

For medical school admissions, we asked about:

Race or ethnicity Character or personality factors (e.g., likeability, courage, kindness) Scores on the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) College grades

The full set of results for all demographic subgroups are displayed in Table A3 in the Appendix. Here we wish only to note that Americans of all racial backgrounds are far more supportive of using high school grades and SAT/ACT (in the context of college admissions) and undergraduate GPAs and MCAT scores (in the context of medical school admissions) than any other factor we examined. In other words, most respondents would likely object not only to Harvard’s use of race/ ethnicity but also to its use of the now-infamous “personality scores” (which were biased against Asian students) to ensure that it recruited a racially diverse class. Americans of all stripes rejected both consideration of race and of subjective factors, and instead supported using test scores and grades as the major factor in admissions decisions.

Conclusion

Since the Supreme Court eliminated affirmative action in higher education, university administrators have been hard at work devising various ways to weaken the impact of the decision. One popular workaround has been to encourage students to write about their race or ethnicity in application essays. Consider one of the 2023–24 supplemental essay prompts for admission to Harvard College: “Harvard has long recognized the importance of enrolling a diverse student body. How will the life experiences that shape who you are today enable you to contribute to Harvard?”[25]

This prompt is not only in tension with the Court’s opinion in Students for Fair Admissions—the majority noted that “universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today”—but it also goes against public consensus that race should play, at most, a minimal factor in admissions. Our findings from the 2022 CES show that for large swaths of the American public—including, we would note, most nonwhite Democrats—merit trumps race when it comes to university admissions; and this is especially true when Asians are framed as the victims of affirmative action.

[ See Appendix for data. ]

#Michael Hartney #Renu Mukherjee #merit #make merit matter #meritocracy #affirmative action #supreme court #medical school #racial discrimination #Harvard #Harvard University #Students for Fair Admissions #religion is a mental illness

1 note · View note