How to use this Page

The theme of the American Society of Criminology meeting this November is “Criminology at the Intersections of Oppression.” The burden of violence and victimization remains markedly unequal. The prevalence rates, risk factors, and consequences of violence are not equally distributed across society. Rather, there are many groups that carry an unequal burden, including groups disadvantaged due to race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sexual identity, place of residence, and other factors. Even more problematically, there is an abundance of evidence that there are marked disparities in service access and service quality across sociocultural and socioeconomic groups. Unfortunately, even today this still extends to instances of outright bias and maltreatment, as evidenced by ongoing problems with disproportionate minority contact, harsher sentencing, and barriers to services.

However, there is promising news, because advances in both research and practice are readily attainable. Regarding research, there are a number of steps that can be taken to improve our existing state of knowledge. To give just a few examples, we need much more research on hate crimes and bias motivations for violence. Hate crimes remain one of the most understudied forms of violence. We also need many more efforts to adapt violence prevention and intervention programs for diverse groups. The field has still made surprisingly few efforts to assess whether prevention and intervention programs are equally efficacious for different socioeconomic and sociocultural groups. Even after more than 3 decades of program evaluation, only a handful of such efforts exist. Program developers should pay more systematic attention to ensuring that materials that use diverse images and settings. However, it is also important to note that cultural adaptation means more than just superficial changes in name use or images.

Regarding practice, what is needed is more culturally appropriate approaches. In many cases, this means more flexible approaches and avoiding a “one size fits all” approach to services. Most providers, I believe, have good intentions and are trying to avoid biased interactions, but many of them lack the tools for more culturally appropriate services. One specific tool that can help is called the ‘VIGOR’, for Victim Inventory of Goals, Options, and Risks. It is a safety planning and risk management tool for victims of domestic violence. It is ideally suited for people from disadvantaged groups, because, unlike virtually all other existing safety plans, it has places for social and community issues, financial strain, institutional challenges, and other issues that affect people who experience multiple forms of disadvantage. The safety plan does not just focus on physical violence. The VIGOR has been tested with two highly diverse groups of low-income women, who rated it as better than all safety planning they had received.

The VIGOR also offers a model for how other interventions can be expanded and adapted to consider the intersections of oppression with victimization in an effort to be more responsive to all of the needs of those who have sustained violence. With greater attention to these issues, there is the potential to make a real impact and help reduce the burden of violence and victimization for all members of society.

Dr. Hamby attended an Author Meets Critics session at the ASC annual meeting yesterday morning. The session was chaired by Dr. Claire Renzetti, co-editor of the ‘Oxford Series of Interpersonal Violence’.

The post Violence, and diverse forms of oppression appeared first on OUPblog.

        

Related Stories

• Beyond #WhyIStayed and #WhyILeft
• Back to the future with the ASC’s new Division of Policing
• Five facts about women’s involvement in organized crime

 

by Michele Norris. Pantheon, 2010. (nook ebook) I am posting about a book for grown ups today. Known as one of the hosts of NPR's All Things Considered, Michele Norris is a journalist who has also written for the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and Washington Post. She set out to write about her family after learning, almost by accident, that her father had been shot in the leg by police

By Sydney Beveridge, Social Explorer With the new school year approaching, Social Explorer is taking a closer look at education data today and over the years. The most recent available data (from the 2009 American Community Survey) reveal education levels and distinctions among groups, as well as the correlations between educational attainment, income and employment.

I n a statement signed by Raymond B. Cattell, Hans Eysenck, Arthur R. Jensen and Richard Lynn, all eminent professors and experts in the field of intelligence and IQ testing, they concur that the definition of intelligence is “general mental capacity that involves the ability to reason, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience.” These gentlemen agree that intelligence is not merely book learning or test-taking smarts; rather it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending one’s surroundings. It is important to realize that “catching on,” “making sense” and “figuring out” are the key factors in “intelligence.” The professors also agree that IQ tests measure this general ability, and that most standardized IQ tests measure more or less the same traits - so far so good! However, they overemphasize the role genetic factors play in the measurement and understanding of human intelligence. According to these men and 48 other signees of the approval of the conclusions of the book  The Bell Curve,  Blacks are doomed to be less intelligent than Whites and Asians. The group further declares that there is no convincing evidence that the IQ bell curves for different racial groups are converging. In unison they affirm that there is no definite answer as to why IQ bell curves differ across racialethnic groups. Could it be that IQ tests themselves hold the key to this problem…? Is it really “genetics” that explains why a hungry child in Ethiopia or young student in some war-torn area of the globe does not learn math and language as well or score as high on an IQ test as his counterpart who lives in a good neighborhood in the socalled First World, is at peace with himself and his environment, has the benefit of a decent education and parents who can care for and tutor him? The signees believe that research on matters of intelligence relate to some  unclear  social and primarily biological  distinctions. A phenomenon known as the Flynn Effect may reduce or eliminate differences in IQ between races and cultures in the future. With IQ scores in affluent Holland and Spain up by 6–8 points, respectively, in just one decade and an astonishing 26- point increase in the past 14 years in developing Kenya, it is evident that the Flynn Effect is a reality and that genetic bias against Blacks does not carry any weight. There is, in addition, an argument that the average IQ of the United States was 75 before improved nutrition increased the scores of the general population. (The IQ for the average American is currently 98.) It is almost universally agreed upon that a person’s IQ can predict academic success, but not how to function successfully in one’s environment. Furthermore, there is considerable evidence from re-testing and the application of different tests that a person’s IQ does not remain fixed over his  lifetime.

Emotional and motivational factors play a key role on how one scores on any given test and may vary from one test to another. It is a believed that as many as 60% of IQ test scores change significantly over time. With this in mind, can we assume that a test score accessed at a particular point in an individual’s life is a valid indicator of his “native” intelligence? “G” or “general intelligence” is as cultural as it is controversial. The core element in measuring a person’s intelligence is vocabulary. Vocabulary reflects one’s cognitive skills but exposure to words is not genetic, it is learned (read environmental). A child or an adult who has never seen an octagon or the male icon or symbol (B&) or the symbol for female (@&) would most certainly not recognize them if they were presented to him in an intelligence test. The genetic component in IQ is the reciprocal of the environmental component: the larger the difference in environments, the less thecomponent determined by genes will appear. Today it is acceptable and realistic to embrace the view that racial and gender differences are not genetic but reflect environmental challenges. But consider Harvard University’s President in 2005, Lawrence Summers. Summers suggested that gender differences in intrinsic ability were a cause of the dearth of top echelon female scientists. He cavalierly disregarded the realities of bias in hiring, discriminatory tenure practices and negative stereotypes. Stating that sex differences in cognitive ability were the “real” reason there were less women scientists than men; he and his supporters felt that research on the matter clearly pointed in that direction. Summers must have completely forgotten about Marie Curie, the only person to win two Nobel Prizes: one in chemistry and the other in physics! Summers later apologized for his “reckless” language and shortly thereafter resigned.  Phillip Emeagwali, who helped give a boost to the supercomputer, is a Nigerian-born scientist who stunned the world of high tech and HIQ when he won the Gordon Bell Prize in 1989. The fact that a Black African would have an IQ of 190 and be married to a Black American microbiologist/biochemist may have caused racist Nobel Prize winner, Dr. William Shockley, to roll over in his grave. Ironically, Shockley died the same year that Emeagwali won the Gordon Bell Prize for The Connection Machine. Andy Warhol was one of the most important representatives of pop art and best remembered for his representations of Campbell’s Soup cans. Warhol created hundreds of other works during his allotted 58 years, including commercial advertisements, films, the blotted-line technique and the process of silk screening in painting. His IQ was allegedly 86. Yet many would call  both  Emeagwali and Warhol geniuses despite the 104 point difference in IQ scores. The idea that one group of people is, in comparison to another, smarter or dumber than another should be discarded. Clearly there will always be individual differences, but it should be emphasized that the individual who is well adjusted has the capability; life experience and motivation will be a success in his elected vocation.

I n a statement signed by Raymond B. Cattell, Hans Eysenck, Arthur R. Jensen and Richard Lynn, all eminent professors and experts in the field of intelligence and IQ testing, they concur that the definition of intelligence is “general mental capacity that involves the ability to reason, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience.” These gentlemen agree that intelligence is not merely book learning or test-taking smarts; rather it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending one’s surroundings. It is important to realize that “catching on,” “making sense” and “figuring out” are the key factors in “intelligence.” The professors also agree that IQ tests measure this general ability, and that most standardized IQ tests measure more or less the same traits - so far so good! However, they overemphasize the role genetic factors play in the measurement and understanding of human intelligence. According to these men and 48 other signees of the approval of the conclusions of the book  The Bell Curve,  Blacks are doomed to be less intelligent than Whites and Asians. The group further declares that there is no convincing evidence that the IQ bell curves for different racial groups are converging. In unison they affirm that there is no definite answer as to why IQ bell curves differ across racialethnic groups. Could it be that IQ tests themselves hold the key to this problem…? Is it really “genetics” that explains why a hungry child in Ethiopia or young student in some war-torn area of the globe does not learn math and language as well or score as high on an IQ test as his counterpart who lives in a good neighborhood in the socalled First World, is at peace with himself and his environment, has the benefit of a decent education and parents who can care for and tutor him? The signees believe that research on matters of intelligence relate to some  unclear  social and primarily biological  distinctions. A phenomenon known as the Flynn Effect may reduce or eliminate differences in IQ between races and cultures in the future. With IQ scores in affluent Holland and Spain up by 6–8 points, respectively, in just one decade and an astonishing 26- point increase in the past 14 years in developing Kenya, it is evident that the Flynn Effect is a reality and that genetic bias against Blacks does not carry any weight. There is, in addition, an argument that the average IQ of the United States was 75 before improved nutrition increased the scores of the general population. (The IQ for the average American is currently 98.) It is almost universally agreed upon that a person’s IQ can predict academic success, but not how to function successfully in one’s environment. Furthermore, there is considerable evidence from re-testing and the application of different tests that a person’s IQ does not remain fixed over his  lifetime.

Emotional and motivational factors play a key role on how one scores on any given test and may vary from one test to another. It is a believed that as many as 60% of IQ test scores change significantly over time. With this in mind, can we assume that a test score accessed at a particular point in an individual’s life is a valid indicator of his “native” intelligence? “G” or “general intelligence” is as cultural as it is controversial. The core element in measuring a person’s intelligence is vocabulary. Vocabulary reflects one’s cognitive skills but exposure to words is not genetic, it is learned (read environmental). A child or an adult who has never seen an octagon or the male icon or symbol (B&) or the symbol for female (@&) would most certainly not recognize them if they were presented to him in an intelligence test. The genetic component in IQ is the reciprocal of the environmental component: the larger the difference in environments, the less thecomponent determined by genes will appear. Today it is acceptable and realistic to embrace the view that racial and gender differences are not genetic but reflect environmental challenges. But consider Harvard University’s President in 2005, Lawrence Summers. Summers suggested that gender differences in intrinsic ability were a cause of the dearth of top echelon female scientists. He cavalierly disregarded the realities of bias in hiring, discriminatory tenure practices and negative stereotypes. Stating that sex differences in cognitive ability were the “real” reason there were less women scientists than men; he and his supporters felt that research on the matter clearly pointed in that direction. Summers must have completely forgotten about Marie Curie, the only person to win two Nobel Prizes: one in chemistry and the other in physics! Summers later apologized for his “reckless” language and shortly thereafter resigned.  Phillip Emeagwali, who helped give a boost to the supercomputer, is a Nigerian-born scientist who stunned the world of high tech and HIQ when he won the Gordon Bell Prize in 1989. The fact that a Black African would have an IQ of 190 and be married to a Black American microbiologist/biochemist may have caused racist Nobel Prize winner, Dr. William Shockley, to roll over in his grave. Ironically, Shockley died the same year that Emeagwali won the Gordon Bell Prize for The Connection Machine. Andy Warhol was one of the most important representatives of pop art and best remembered for his representations of Campbell’s Soup cans. Warhol created hundreds of other works during his allotted 58 years, including commercial advertisements, films, the blotted-line technique and the process of silk screening in painting. His IQ was allegedly 86. Yet many would call  both  Emeagwali and Warhol geniuses despite the 104 point difference in IQ scores. The idea that one group of people is, in comparison to another, smarter or dumber than another should be discarded. Clearly there will always be individual differences, but it should be emphasized that the individual who is well adjusted has the capability; life experience and motivation will be a success in his elected vocation.

Especially in light of the recent discussions about books (and their covers!) I wanted to post this for all NYC area readers:

The South Asian Women's Creative Collective (SAWCC) presents our next public event:

Beyond Gossip Girls: An Evening with Young Adult Authors, Neesha Meminger and Sheba Karim

Wednesday, July 29th, 7pm

Books and films for young adults have exploded onto the scene recently with the success of the Twilight series, Gossip Girl, Harry Potter, and The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants. How do teens of color fare amidst this explosion? What is it like to try to publish works with multicultural characters or characters of color in an industry clamoring for the next Twilight?

Join us for a reading and discussion with young adult novelists Neesha Meminger (author of Shine, Coconut Moon, Margaret K. McElderry Books/Simon & Schuster 2009) and Sheba Karim (author of Skunk Girl, Farrar, Straus & Giroux 2009). Meminger and Karim deal with issues ranging from the Sikh experience post 9/11 and single parenthood to body image and Muslim American identity, while providing cohesive narratives of South Asian American adolescences and their growing pains. Both authors will read from their new novels and discuss their different paths to publication and writing for a teen audience. Booksigning and reception to follow.

at

The Asian American Writers' Workshop
16 West 32nd Street, 10th Floor
(btwn 5th Ave and Broadway)
New York, New York

$5 suggested donation

For more information, visit sawcc.org

I won't be there; going to evening events in NYC is a bit of a challenge, logistics wise, and I'm already taking too much time off this coming week. Please, whoever attends, write it up and let me know the link to your blog report.

© Elizabeth Burns of A Chair, A Fireplace & A Tea Cozy

Now a’ days, when ask you someone (in America) what they “are”, normally the response can seem kind of confusing… for example:

“Oh me? I’m half Asian.”

“Wow, what’s the other half?”

“White.”

“Cool, I’m half Scottish, half German.”

“Awesome.”

Now, this doesn’t seem to confusing to some people, but for me it does. Why? Because they just said that they “are” half Asian- white/half Scottish- German when honestly I feel that they should just stick to one word which is…

Human.

Now, now I get it. We should be proud of our culture and the places our family has come from and stuff, but that’s just what it is… our culture and places our family has come from, in other words, our ethnicity. It’s not who we ARE, since we are HUMAN. Dog’s can be half Asian-White/ half Scottish- German too you know. That’s why sometimes I get confused, a human defining themselves just by there ethnicity doesn’t make sense. If someone asked there ethnicity or background, then we can get the whole “speel” of it, but if it’s just who we are… then I feel human makes sense (Unless you are not human).

So, the next time someone asks you what you ARE. I suggest you ask for a clarification or respond with human, since it’s really the only logical answer.

If you feel you are anything different, please state your breed! =P

Now a’ days, when ask you someone (in America) what they “are”, normally the response can seem kind of confusing… for example:

“Oh me? I’m half Asian.”

“Wow, what’s the other half?”

“White.”

“Cool, I’m half Scottish, half German.”

“Awesome.”

Now, this doesn’t seem to confusing to some people, but for me it does. Why? Because they just said that they “are” half Asian- white/half Scottish- German when honestly I feel that they should just stick to one word which is…

Human.

Now, now I get it. We should be proud of our culture and the places our family has come from and stuff, but that’s just what it is… our culture and places our family has come from, in other words, our ethnicity. It’s not who we ARE, since we are HUMAN. Dog’s can be half Asian-White/ half Scottish- German too you know. That’s why sometimes I get confused, a human defining themselves just by there ethnicity doesn’t make sense. If someone asked there ethnicity or background, then we can get the whole “speel” of it, but if it’s just who we are… then I feel human makes sense (Unless you are not human).

So, the next time someone asks you what you ARE. I suggest you ask for a clarification or respond with human, since it’s really the only logical answer.

If you feel you are anything different, please state your breed! =P