Archive for the ‘Culture Wars’ Category

Culture wars replacing fiscal discipline as calling card of today’s GOP – Villages-News

Fred McGrath

The Institute for Legislative Analysis has just released themost expansivestudy on U.S. Congressional voting trends nearly 65,000 votes finding Republican lawmakers voted for the conservative position on cultural and social issues 97.33% of the time, but for the limited government position on tax and fiscal issues just 50.63% of the time.

View all 535 Members of Congress Ranked Most Progressive to Most Conservative

The study found more than half of Republicans (146 of 275) voted for the progressive position on fiscal issues more often than the conservative. But on cultural issues (abortion, LGBTQ and gender ideology, and race) all but 23 Republicans voted at least 90% of the time for the conservative position.

The data confirms what many have suspected the Tea Party movement is officially dead. The Republican party is in a new movement grounded on populism and focused on winning the culture wars, said Ryan McGowan, CEO of the Institute for Legislative Analysis. The recent bankruptcy of FreedomWorks coupled with significant ideological shifts within major conservative institutions will likely further gravitate Republican lawmakers to this new policy agenda.

The55-page congressional studyalso found the following:

Fred McGrath is the president of the Institute for Legislative Analysis.

Link:
Culture wars replacing fiscal discipline as calling card of today's GOP - Villages-News

On culture wars and the hypocrisy of the Catholic Left – Catholic World Report

(Image: Alexander Grey/Unsplash.com)

The term culture warrior is often invoked, usually pejoratively, to describe a certain kind of conservative Catholic who fights in the political sphere for the Catholic viewpoint to be enshrined in law on certain hot-button issues. I say pejoratively since the charge is often made that these issues are best fought on the cultural level, via the path of persuasion rather than on the political level. Conservatives are thus accused of being simplistic and nave in trying to impose by law points of view that have not prevailed in the cultural domain on the level of argument.

As with all caricatures, there is a modicum of truth in this assessment. And it is indeed true, by and large, that the conservative viewpoint on these issues has lost the cultural battle. This fact makes all political moves seem oriented toward an oppressive curtailment of activities that a majority have come to view as basic civil rights. This is certainly how the mainstream media do portray things, as we saw after Roe v. Wade was struck down. Conservatives were, and are, portrayed as coercive bigots intent on imposing a narrow sectarian view of abortion through draconian laws.

Obvious double standards

Nevertheless, I firmly reject this caricature, and for several reasons. First, while it is accurate to say there is a modicum of truth in the caricature, there is also more than a little deflection at play here. Quite often, when employed by NCR(eporter) Catholics it is used to justify paying no attention whatsoever to the public importance of these issues, relegating them to the putatively private realm of sexual morality, with the use of the utterly crass and inaccurate term pelvic issues. They may pay lip service to the importance of abortion, for example, and claim that it is indeed a part of the seamless garment of life ethicbut then proceed to put it on a back burner as an embarrassment.

Eventually, the mask drops entirely and we see that, for them, not all pelvic issues are equally apolitical and private. How many Pride flags will we see flying outside of Catholic institutions in June? How many comments on X from Fr. James Martin will we see celebrating the political gains made by the LGBTQ+ movement (or community) over the past twenty years? Apparently, the private sexual lives of same-sex attracted persons are a matter of deep public concern and importance. So important, in fact, that those in the Church who fight for this cause are never dismissed as mere culture warriors. Nope. They are instead lionized by leftist Catholics as champions of human rights.

This brings me to the second problem with the caricature. Who within the Catholic world gets to decide what counts as a culture war issue and what doesnt? For example, abortion is a form of homicide, a form of premeditated murder, and yet we are told that we should not agitate in the political sphere to end it and to stick to purely cultural forms of persuasion. But when it comes to a fundamental question of human rightsin this case, the very right to lifethere can be no question of kicking the political can down the road until such time as a more favorable cultural situation emerges.

Meanwhile, we are told that there can be no compromise with the forces of bigotry when it comes to LGBTQ rights. In almost every state where gay marriage was put up to a vote of the people, including deeply Blue California, it was voted down. The LGBTQ revolution happened in large measure as a result of top-down judicial imposition. So it would seem that the very designation of what counts as a culture war issue and what doesnt is largely an invention of the Catholic Leftand is actually a form of rhetorical violence since its aims are malicious and deliberately tendentious. In other words, it is a form of propaganda. Culture has changed as a result of judicial decisions and nobody on the Catholic Left is arguing that these issues should have been resolved apolitically on a cultural level only.

Roe v. Wade is yet another example of a new class of rights, nowhere envisioned by the Constitution, suddenly emerging by judicial fiat. While it is true that a large segment of the American electorate was open to this liberalization, a large segment was not. The imposition of Roe v. Wade created an immediate, massive and ongoing backlash on the cultural level that poisoned our politics at its root, turning every Supreme Court nomination into a cage match, to the death, between deranged political pit bulls. And yet nobody on the secular Left opined that maybe the culture was not ready for legal prenatal homicide via judicial authority alone.

Polluting culture with trendy politics

What these two examples show us (specifically, Obergefell and Roe) is that the law has pedagogical value and that, once enacted, laws can change the culture in deep and profound ways.

A few years ago, Georgia passed a law saying that, in the public schools, there are to be two and only two kinds of bathrooms: one for people with penises and one for people with vaginas. Which is, of course, the pure commonsense realism of the entirety of human history and culture. The Left went berserk, including the sex-and-circuses Catholic Left, and threatened economic boycotts against Georgia and so forth. It was the usual bilge. Yet, today, with only small pockets of dissent, the law has had its effect, which (at the very least) means it has depoliticized bathrooms and returned them to the genuinely private sphere. And if there ever was a mere pelvic issue, bathroom usage, from toilets to urinals to bidets, would certainly be near the top of the list.

Along these lines, do I even need to mention the entire march of civil rights for African Americans? From the Civil War to the post-war constitutional amendments, on through the battle against Jim Crow laws and segregation, there is no way one can say that America waited until there was a deep and broad public, cultural consensus before it sought political and legal remedies to our racial sins. And why is that? Because the issue was deemed far too important, too foundational, and too constitutive of who we are as a people to be left to cultural drift as the only proper remedy.

This is why I think one of the most misused phrases, often employed by those who would dismiss us as mere culture warriors, is politics is downstream of culture. But this is only partly true and when it is elevated to some lofty status as an ironclad law of human nature it is deeply misleading. Because the lines of causation are not just one way, and quite often in our history the reverse has been true. Culture is, in fact, very frequently downstream of politics.

There is also the phrase, You cannot legislate morality! Tell that to Rosa Parks! Furthermore, it is sheer lunacy to suggest there isnt a core moral claim in almost every piece of major legislation. Laws are by nature coercive. A stop sign is coercive. And thank God it is. The purpose of the coercive aspects of the law is to foster a moral vision of the common good on this or that issueno matter how seemingly mundane. I am a notoriously impatient driver and I hate stop signs and red lights. But I am pleased to be coerced into safe driving since I value my life and the lives of everyone else on the road.

But we have gone so far down the path of caricaturing cultural conservatives as potential fascists intent on criminalizing everything fun and pleasurable, that my words here will be construed by many as a call to turn America into Catholic Sharia land. Never mind the Left has turned America into a pornified septic tank and a circus freak show of the dragification of everything. Never mind it is now the case in many States that parents can lose custodial rights to their children if they misgender them. Never mind it is now considered to be a form of rank bigotry if you think eight-year-old boys and girls should not have their bodies surgically mutilated beyond repair. Never mind the Left opposes all laws intended to prevent the soft infanticide of letting babies born alive after an abortion die of neglect. Never mind the modern Left doesnt even have the virtue any longer of being the anti-war party. Or the anti-wealth party. Or the anti-surveillance State party.

Never mind all of that. Because, according to them, the Catholic culture warriors are here to turn all of our daughters into bipedal, ambulatory baby incubators for churning out the future fascists of America.

Rejecting the Catholic Lefts push for political and cultural hegemony

Finally, there is also the fact that many Catholic liberals, not content to criticize the politics of pro-life Catholics, are now moving the goalposts even further and claiming that even focusing on these issues in a purely cultural way, via the path of persuasion and evangelization, is deeply suspicious.

Returning to my last essayon Massimo Faggiolis fever dream of a new Trump-Catholic axis emergingwe see how Faggioli originally lumped Bishop Barron and Word on Fire into that axis. His evidence was that Bishop Barron likes to interview social conservatives, including Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro. I guess Professor Faggioli was counting on nobody noticing that in none of these interviews is there even a hint of political advocacy for Trump. But, for him, being a socially conservative Catholic in and of itself is evidence enough of a closeted support for Trump, which (it goes without saying) he believes is awful.

Ponder that fact for a minute. Let it sink in. Because the claim is that not only is it wrong to be a culture warrior in a way that focuses on electoral politics, but it is also now deeply suspicious to focus on socially conservative issues in a way focused on the broader politics of the cultural polis and its many venues for public dialogue and conversation. We are damned if we focus on electoral politics. And now we are damned if we simply focus on the politics of culture, the latter being viewed as a mere cover for the former.

Therefore, it would seem that what the Catholic Left wants is both political and cultural hegemony. What they want is for all of the Catholic deplorables (indietrists!) to crawl back into their buried school buses on their Fatima survivalist compounds and to shut the hell up. But this is how Catholic liberals have always acted and so it should come as no surprise. They have a dead-end ecclesial project, which has failed spectacularly wherever it has been tried, and a theology that is little more than a warmed-over Kantian/Marxist/Mall Rat confluence of faculty lounge pretentiousness and the idolatry of the culture of sex and Mammon. Which is why they resort to the authoritarianism of the ecclesial bureaucratic apparatus. Synodality via Motu proprio. The typical faux democracy of the totalitarians.

While I am at it, I may as well address the fact that the combox attached to this article will remind me I am not a fan of Donald Trump. So how, it may be asked, can I offer up an apologia for pro-life politics all the while dismissing the man who really, more than any other, engineered the overturning of Roe? All I can say is that I give him kudosand big onesfor that, and I harbor no ill will toward any Catholic who will vote for him for that reason. But my overall politics and my reasons for not voting for him or Biden are too complex to parse out here. It has something to do with my post-liberal soul; in fact my opposition to both candidates is not grounded in an indifference to politics at all, but the opposite. That will have to suffice for now until, perhaps, a future essay.

I will end with a proposal. Let us retire the use of the term culture warrior since it is at best a vacuous term meaning whatever we want it to mean. At worse it is a derisive term designed to malign in order to dismiss. I propose instead that we call ourselves by a different name. I would propose we call ourselves Catholic sanity activists.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

Read the original:
On culture wars and the hypocrisy of the Catholic Left - Catholic World Report

Back to Back’s Multiple Bad Things takes a sophisticated look at the moral ambiguities of today’s ‘culture wars’ – The Conversation

Back to Back Theatre is an internationally lauded ensemble of collaborators based in Geelong. With some members identifying as intellectually disabled and/or neurodiverse, the company has spent more than two decades producing performance works that address the politics of visibility and power.

The company has been described as having an astonishing ability to dissect the unspoken imaginings of society. And its latest show, Multiple Bad Things, directed by Tamara Searle and Ingrid Voorendt, showcases this capacity.

With great sophistication and certainty, the performance takes the dynamics of a workplace and reflects it to the audience to reveal the complex power dynamics, inequitable structures and political tensions that underpin and uphold the damaging status quo.

Taking place in a context that seems part-factory and part-construction site, four workers appear. One (Simon Laherty) directly addresses the audience as a narrator, blithely providing trigger warnings for the work they are about to see, and takes a seat at a desk as if he is a supervisor in his site office.

His computer screen is visible to the audience. He begins playing a game of solitaire, but eventually we watch as he doomscrolls through video clips of highly muscled men working out, fast cars, guns, porn and nature documentaries. Lahertys character implicates the audience in this world, positioning them as present but silent voyeurs.

A second worker (Scott Price) arrives and promptly parks himself on a giant inflatable pool floatie shaped like a flamingo. They are then joined by the other two (Bron Batten and Sarah Mainwaring). Batten appears to be the only non-disabled person on stage.

Batten and Mainwaring appear to have the most work ethic. They begin piecing together the structure that dominates the centre of designer Anna Cordingleys compelling set. It resembles a kind of post-apocalyptic Ikea nightmare: an enormous spiky tangle of poles or pipes that must somehow fit together.

In what appears to be a demonstration of human futility, the workers begin listing bad things while assembling the structure. As they work, apparently banal conversations take place.

At one point, they discuss the international aisle at the supermarket. As Price interjects with the kind of cuisines that can be found in this aisle (Mexican! Dutch! Japanese!), Mainwaring points out British food is now also located in the international aisle. Batten remarks that this seems pointless, given British food also occupies the rest of the supermarket.

These seemingly innocuous exchanges of dialogue underscore a central thread in the work, as the performers begin to wrestle with notions of difference and diversity, and the question of who gets to take up space. As the exchanges take place, we start to see a painfully obvious embodied representation of inequity among the workers, as Mainwaring physically struggles with the task at hand and requests help.

As the show progresses, Batten reacts to Prices perceived laziness by removing the air from the inflatable, triggering a great argument between them. Price claims he has been violently targeted because of his autism. Batten counteracts this by adopting the language of the oppressed to assert her own diversity and need for support.

In doing so, she maintains the system of power that clearly has her at the top of the pecking order as the only non-disabled person of the four.

Mainwaring watches on, at times saying she doesnt understand whats happening between them. Price seems to lose the argument, carrying the deflated flamingo and lying on the floor, proclaimed dead by Batten, who poses hero-like around the structure, celebrating her victory.

This moment reveals the disquieting outcome of Battens self-victimisation. It also speaks to the harm that can be caused by those who come from a place of moral righteousness and certitude.

The structures seemingly set up to support inclusion are revealed as redundant tools through a sly referencing of the workplaces Diversity and Inclusion Committee, and a hopelessly frustrating and hilarious phone call Mainwaring makes to a support helpline. The audience is shown how these tools maintain control and drown out the voices of the most disenfranchised, leaving the workers to manage their own issues without support.

Multiple Bad Things demonstrates Back to Back Theatres leading approach to a growing area of interest in disability arts practice: the aesthetics of access. This is where we see sophisticated ways of incorporating access, for both audience and performers, into the framework and design of the performance.

One example was the use of the oval screen at the rear of the stage used to display subtitles. This text was, thanks to the audio-visual design by Rhian Hinckley, seamlessly integrated into the design of the broader work and at times strategically used to disrupt or underscore the action on stage.

Directors Searle and Voorendt have crafted a proficient, seamless, complex and sophisticated hour-long work. They bring the unique performances and identities of the ensemble, along with an evocative score by Zo Barrie and assured lighting design by Richard Vabre, into symbolic interplay. As these elements weave together, the performance oscillates between playful and poignant, flippant and horrific.

The final moments of the show see Mainwaring alone on stage, completing the assembly herself and it then initiating the final transformation of the spiky poles in a powerful theatrical moment.

Laherty leaves his office post for the third time in the performance and delivers a monologue about computer solitaire. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, he says. You have to be prepared to lose a few games before you win.

Mainwaring and Laherty embrace. In stark juxtaposition to the conflict and suffering we have just witnessed, we see a moment of care between the performers. While much is left unresolved regarding the central question of difference, diversity and who is entitled to take up space, Lahertys reflections on solitaire resonate with this image.

Multiple Bad Things highlights there may be no singular perspective on what is right and wrong. Perhaps, as we collectively negotiate the building of more equitable structures, success relies on what it is were prepared to lose in order to win.

Read more:
Back to Back's Multiple Bad Things takes a sophisticated look at the moral ambiguities of today's 'culture wars' - The Conversation

Book Review: So you think the culture wars are new? Shakespeare expert James Shapiro begs to differ – The Caledonian-Record

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

See the original post here:
Book Review: So you think the culture wars are new? Shakespeare expert James Shapiro begs to differ - The Caledonian-Record

Majority of AAPI adults support teaching history of racism in schools, new poll finds – The Christian Science Monitor

U.S. schools should teach about issues related to race, most Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders believe. They also oppose efforts to restrict what subjects can be discussed in the classroom, according to a new poll.

In the survey from AAPI Data and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 71% of AAPI adults favor teaching about the history of slavery, racism, and segregation in K-12 public schools. The same share also said they support teaching about the history of Asian American and Pacific Islander communities in the United States, while about half support teaching about issues related to sex and sexuality.

AAPI Democrats are more supportive of these topics being taught in classrooms than AAPI Republicans.

Still, only 17% of AAPI adults think school boards should be able to limit what subjects students and teachers talk about in the classroom, and about one-quarter of AAPI Republicans are in favor of these restrictions.

The results indicate that efforts to politicize education through culture war issues have not gained strong inroads in Asian American communities, said Karthick Ramakrishnan, a public policy professor at the University of California, Riverside, and founder of AAPI Data. Across the country, conservative members of state legislatures and local school boards have made efforts to restrict teaching about race and gender in classrooms.

Even as parents are concerned and engaged in various ways with K-12 education, the culture wars are not something that resonate with AAPI parents, he said. I think thats important because theres so much news coverage of it and certainly a lot of policy activity.

AAPI Americans are a fast-growing demographic, but small sample sizes and linguistic barriers often prevent their views from being analyzed in other surveys.

Glenn Thomas, a father to three children in public schools who identifies as a political independent and is Japanese and white, said that while he does not oppose classrooms covering topics like race and gender, he does not think they should be the sole focus of how curriculums are designed.

Im kind of old-school, reading, writing, arithmetic, he said of how schools approach topics like gender and race. I dont think it necessarily needs to be taught as separate curriculums.

Mr. Thomas, whose family has lived all over the country because of his career in the military, said the influence of politics and external actors in public schools varied greatly depending on where they lived. In Florida, where he currently lives, he thinks the state government too heavily influences local schools.

Nationally, 39% of AAPI adults say that they follow news about their school boards, while just 13% say they have attended a local school board meeting and 18% have communicated in-person or online with a local school board member. When it comes to elections, 28% have voted in a local school board election.

While those percentages are roughly consistent with the general public, AAPI adults are slightly less likely to say they have voted in a local school board election.

Because a high percentage of Asian Americans are immigrants, Mr. Ramakrishnan said, many did not grow up in the same political system as the United States, where there is a high level of local control and influence over schools. A lack of outreach from mainstream institutions may also contribute to a lower level of engagement, he added.

It takes a fair amount of effort to learn how the system works and how to have influence in that system, he said. Given the high level of interest that [Asian American and Pacific Islander] parents place in education, you would expect higher rates of participation.

Varisa Patraporn, a Thai American mother of two public school children in California, said that she is a consistent voter in local elections, given the importance of those individuals in making decisions that affect schools. In Cerritos, where she lives, candidates tend to host events and send out mailers during elections, reflecting a robust campaign for seats on the school board.

Ms. Patraporn said that while she has communicated with school board members, she has not attended a school board meeting. Part of that, she said, is because the meetings happen in the evening and are harder to attend for parents who have young children or other obligations. That means the parents who do attend and speak up can have a disproportionate amount of sway.

Ms. Patraporn said that she wants the school curriculum to be more diverse and inclusive, despite pushback from some parents who do not want discussions of race in the classroom. She said she often supplements her childrens reading to expose them to a wider range of perspectives beyond what they get from their assignments.

Those conversations have started, but theres a lot of resistance in our community to that, she said. Theres a lot of resistance in terms of being fearful of what it means to actually talk about race.

Mr. Ramakrishnan said the polling data indicates an opening to engage AAPI communities more intensely with their local educational institutions. According to the poll, about two-thirds of AAPI adults see the schools that children attend as extremely or very important to their success in adulthood. And about half say parents and teachers have too little influence on the curriculum in public schools, similar to the general population.

This is a community that still sees college as a good deal, as an important pathway toward mobility and success, and is concerned about the quality of K-12 education as well, he said. We have a ripe opportunity to engage and boost participation in these Asian American Pacific Islander communities when it comes to educational policy.

The poll of 1,068 U.S. adults who are Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders was conducted from April 8-17, 2024, using a sample drawn from NORCs probability-based Amplify AAPI Panel, designed to be representative of the Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander population. Online and telephone interviews were offered in English, the Chinese dialects of Mandarin and Cantonese, Vietnamese and Korean. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4.7 percentage points.

This story was reported by The Associated Press.

See the article here:
Majority of AAPI adults support teaching history of racism in schools, new poll finds - The Christian Science Monitor