Social Injustice and Children

The Renquist article concluded from the meta-analysis that there was a definite, but modest effect of race on environmental risk, but no effect for SES. Professor Marquez discussed a number of environmental exposure situations in which communities of color organized against, and were sometimes successful. He also talked about how it is harder to win battles because its hard to prove direct effects. Dillworth-Bart and Moore review literature on how minority children are disproportionately exposed to environmental pollutant exposure. These authors also talk about ways to research environmental exposure from a child development perspective, and involving the communities affected.

What do you take away so far of these seemingly contradictory pieces of scholarship? Are they contradictory, or do they fit together in some way? After reading the Dillworth-Bart article, discuss what you are thinking now in terms of the issue of race and environmental exposures.

Selection Criteria, Missing Pieces and Construction of Meaning

For today's response, let's think critically about methodology and how criteria shape implications of research.

In his conclusion, Evan Rinquist writes that while race is a statistically significant factor in the selection of environmentally hazardous sites, it is nonetheless a small one. He goes on further to say that the small size of its impact means that race should remain only one of many criteria for policy creation. While this is an interesting conclusion that should and probably will be discussed further, let's think about how Rinquist arrived at his conclusion.

Looking at page 230 of the article, the section entitled "The Data Gathering Process," we would like you to think about how the research decisions affect meaning and outcomes.

How did he sort through those studies and how many were discarded? What did he keep? What does that say about his conclusions? How far, and to what can we apply his conclusions? (Hint: is he reporting the results of his analysis of readings, or that of original research on environmental justice?) Reflecting on Alex's comments of the first day about the "holes" she found in literature, how do Rinquist's criteria reflect the general "entry requirements" for evidence in the quantitative or scientific fields?

Good luck, and see you tomorrow!


P.S. If you have a strong statistical background, great! The article will be a much richer experience for you. If not, however, don't worry too much--and *try* not to get too bogged down in the statistical minutiae.

The Roots of Integrationist Indigenism

In the section entitled "Integrationist Indigenism," Hector Díaz-Polanco discusses the foundation of "contemporary integrationist indigenism," and although he does discuss the strands of romanticism, relativism and Gamio's distinction (see footnote 22), much of his tone is alarmist and highly critical.

What do you think about his argument? Do you believe that the integrationist policies and theories he describes were intentionally ethnocidal? If so, why? If not, what makes you think that there might be more to the story?

Don't worry, there is no "right answer" here; instead, we are looking for critical thought regarding his argument.

See you tomorrow!

June 4 reading question

Chapter 1 from "From the Ground Up" describes several different tributaries of the environmental justice movement. Briefly what were they and what did they each contribute? What did they have in common?