Journal of Latina/o Psychology, Vol 1 (3)

This month saw the release of the third issue of the inaugural volume of the Journal of Latina/o Psychology. The issue reprints the Executive Summary of the 2012 report by the APA Presidential Task Force on Immigration. In 2011, then-APA president Dr. Melba Vasquez charged the Task Force with developing “an evidence-based report on the psychological factors related to the immigration experience.” In the Executive Summary, and of course, the full report (accessible here), the authors extensively review the research relevant to immigrant families. This review describes the the immigrant population, the immigration process (including acculturation), and factors relevant to assessment, education, and clinical contexts. Notably, the authors did not shy away from reviewing the context of reception towards immigration, which has recently taken a more hostile turn. The JLP advances this report by publishing an excellent commentary by Drs. John Ruiz, Miguel Gallardo, and Ed Delgado-Romero, who skillfully bring the focus to Latinos.

Complementing this focus on the immigration report are three interesting articles: two that introduce novel measures and one that examines within-group variability in language use and alcohol use in Latino adolescents. Happy reading!

Fallout from the Supreme Court and the Voting Rights Act

Earlier, I posted a reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision to rule the VRA unconstitutional. I noted that we would have to wait and see what the reaction and effects would be. It appears that we have not had to wait long: The list of states that have enacted strict Voter ID laws include Alabama, Texas, Mississippi, Virginia, South Carolina, and now North Carolina.

These Voter ID laws vary in their scope, but they are all unified by their purported intent to eliminate voter fraud from being perpetrated by ineligilble or fraudulent voters casting ballots. Critics of the Voter ID laws argue that evidence of fraud is negligible or nonexistent, the restrictions create more problems than they solve, and fundamentally make the process (and country) less democratic by reducing the number of people who can vote.

My take on this is that it is pretty transparent that the concern about fraud is a red herring. I would have no problem with instituting a Voter ID law, if it were accompanied by a comprehensive, state-organized and funded, voter registration drive. If the state made a concerted effort to register (for free) all eligible citizens and helped them obtain the documentation they needed (or provided it), then I could support a Voter ID law. WIthout this, it is fairly clear that Voter ID laws will make it more difficult for the poor to vote, as the obstacles they will need to overcome will be many.

 

Changing culture in the U.S.

This has been a very interesting summer in the U.S. regarding issues of race, ethnicity, and culture. The Supreme Court ruled that the Voting Rights Act to be unconstitutional, the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman trial received national attention, and reforming immigration policy has gotten top billing in Congress. Opinions and reactions to each of these topics has been predictably polarized among partisan lines, which may not be surprising or particularly interesting at first glance.

A deeper look, however, leads me to wonder if fear of a changing country and world is what underlies the different reactions. It is no secret that the demographics of the country are changing — U.S. census estimates suggest that by 2050, European Americans will comprise less than 50% of the population in this country. European Americans will still be the largest ethnic group, but their relative size and power will be diminished from what it once was. Attitudes and definitions of healthy and acceptable relationships have changed. Beyond the U.S. borders, we see evidence of diminished U.S. influence (both soft and hard) with the rise of other nations (China, Brazil, India), and non-nation state influences (e.g., religion). The global community is getting smaller and more interconnected through economic and technological links in ways that previous generations could never have envisioned. As a result, change is happening rapidly, different voices are being heard, and life is becoming less predictable and stable. Moreover, the world has gotten so complicated that it is hard to understand all of the nuances of different economic, legal, social, and environmental policies that are being considered.

What is the natural reaction to change and stress? Retreat into black and white thinking, us vs. them, right vs. wrong. It is easier to work with simplified concepts that make me feel good about my family and friends, the decisions we make, and the world in which we live, than it is to acknowledge the incredibly complex and nuanced world where everyone is trying their best, where we have overlapping and non-overlapping values and beliefs, and where often we don’t know what is the best choice to make.

I worry that, in this country, we have not fully acknowledged these realities and that we continue to hold onto the belief that if we just win the next election, we can get the country on the right path. Problem is, every side thinks this, and so it is a dead end way of solving our problems.

Rather than continue to do things in our usual ways, what we need desperately are innovative thinkers who can work effectively with people from diverse backgrounds to solve our most challenging and intractable problems. Ask yourself if this is you. And then after you answer in the affirmative, take a hard look at the people with whom you work and socialize. Do you have diversity in your life? Do you interact with people who see the world differently from you? If not, maybe you should try. To my way of thinking, this is a critical element of the education we should be promoting for our children.