Report cites 'untapped potential' of growing Hispanic/Latino population
BOSTON, Mass. (SHNS)–Policymakers have spent the past few years wringing their hands about losing Massachusetts residents to other states, and a new report suggests Hispanics and Latinos could play a major role in helping to prevent population decline.
About eight in 10 new Massachusetts residents are Hispanic or Latino, quickly increasing their share of the Bay State population, according to a new report from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation and We Are ALX.
Baystate Health plans to cut dozens of jobs
Those takeaways were a key topic of discussion Wednesday morning, when MASSterList and State House News Service joined with We Are ALX for a forum discussion fueled by the report.
Between 2014 and 2023, Hispanic and Latino people accounted for 84% of the state's population growth — a larger share than nationwide, authors said. In that same time period, Hispanics and Latinos accounted for six in 10 new jobs.
The 24-page report, titled '¡Vamos Massachusetts!', concluded that Hispanic and Latino workers have played an 'outsized role' in the state economy, contributing more than one-quarter of growth in gross state product over a 10-year period despite representing only 13.5% of the population.
'This report reveals a critical truth: Hispanic/Latino residents are essential drivers of economic growth in Massachusetts and shows how much untapped potential remains,' MTF policy researcher Pablo Suarez said in a statement alongside the report.
'Closing gaps in education, workforce training, and wealth is an economic necessity to sustain Massachusetts' competitiveness,' Suarez continued.
Report authors warned that significant gaps still exist, with Hispanic and Latino residents graduating college and owning homes at lower rates than other demographic groups. The report outlined an $11.1 billion wage gap between Hispanics and Latinos in Massachusetts and the overall state population.
Authors suggested several policy recommendations, like improving education outcomes for Hispanic and Latino students; supporting workforce training and homeownership programs; and creating easier access to capital for Hispanic and Latino people to establish and grow businesses.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
39 minutes ago
- CBS News
Fear grips Colorado mountain towns amid rumors of increased patrols by Immigration and Customs Enforcement
In Colorado's mountain communities, there are growing concerns about an increased presence of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. This has led to panic among certain communities and people who are unsure of their rights. Voces Unidas de las Montañas describes itself as a nonprofit focused on advocacy and policy for Latinos and Latinas, pushing to change an inequitable system. According to the organization's website, the nonprofit is in 12 Western Slope counties. Voces Unidas de las Montañas CBS Recently, the organization has been taking phone calls from worried residents after what they call a significant uptick in ICE activity in the area. We were receiving over 100 phone calls or messages via our social media platforms, or directly to our hotline, or directly to our just mainstream phone numbers," said Alex Sanchez, CEO and President of Voces Unidas de las Montañas. Sanchez said there are people who are on heightened alert when they see certain posts appear on social media. CBS "We were speaking to wives or relatives who couldn't find their loved one and were calling us to say, 'We saw a video online and it looked like my loved one, and we need help trying to find them... where do we go?'" The fear has spread to the community and is impacting more than undocumented Coloradans. "They're questioning whether they themselves are in danger and whether their kids should be going to school or what action they should be taken. Those are the conversations we're having or we were having that week for sure at an unprecedented level," said Sanchez. Alex Sanchez CBS In a statement from ICE, a spokesperson said, "U.S. immigration and customs enforcement is executing its mission of identifying and removing criminal aliens and others who have violated our nation's immigration laws... For operational security and for the safety of our law enforcement personnel, ICE does not confirm, deny, or otherwise discuss ongoing or future operations." "You can't take Latinas and Latino workers out of the construction industry. You would shut that down in the entire country. You can't run the resorts we run today without, you know, everyday people who are the backbone of these systems and these industries. We are intertwined," said Sanchez.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
State-level AI regulation ban emerging as D.C. flashpoint
BOSTON (SHNS) – Governors and legislatures 'won't be happy' if the federal government bars them from enacting any state-level regulations on artificial intelligence for the next decade, U.S. Sen. Ed Markey said Wednesday while pledging an effort to get the policy rider tossed from a funding bill. The junior senator from Massachusetts convened civil rights activists and academic experts for a virtual event, where they escalated their opposition to a provision in the U.S. House-approved reconciliation package imposing a 10-year moratorium on state AI restrictions. Markey said that when the bill emerges in the U.S. Senate, he will try to have it eliminated 'as a violation of the Senate rules for reconciliation.' 'We have to be clear about the provision: rather than proposing any plan to address the risks of AI, [the bill would] say you can't do anything about it. But governors are not going to be happy with that, state legislatures won't be happy with it, and I think increasingly, Republicans and Democrats are not going to be happy with it,' Markey said Wednesday. Alondra Nelson, a former Biden administration science official who is now a professor at Princeton University's Institute for Advanced Study, argued that governments cannot wait another decade before pursuing limitations on the use of AI and automated decision-making systems. 'AI systems are already, today, reshaping equality and opportunity in real people's lives. We know that IRS algorithms have disproportionately targeted black taxpayers for audits. We know that facial recognition systems are already leading to wrongful arrests. We know already that insurance companies are using surveillance data that creates discriminatory pricing for different Americans. We know that the uses of AI in health care are sometimes missing cancer in darker-skin patients while detecting it in other patients,' Nelson said. 'These aren't hypothetical future risks. They're certainly not risks that we can wait for 10 years to address. These are documented harms that are happening to members of the American public right now.' The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee added the moratorium language to the budget reconciliation bill. At a markup hearing last month, committee chair Rep. Brett Guthrie of Kentucky said the proposal would implement 'guardrails that protect against state-level AI laws that could jeopardize our technological leadership.' However, the proposal has drawn some bipartisan pushback. Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia said Tuesday she did not know the 10-year AI regulation ban was in the bill when she voted to advance it and is 'adamantly OPPOSED to this.' She added that she would not vote in favor of the finalized bill — which cleared the House by a one-vote margin — if it returns from the Senate still containing the moratorium. Forty attorneys general, both Democrats and Republicans, jointly penned a letter to congressional leaders on May 16 announcing opposition to the provision, warning that its impact 'would be sweeping and wholly destructive of reasonable state efforts to prevent known harms associated with AI.' Attorneys general previously called for federal AI governance to focus on 'high risk' systems with emphasis on transparency, testing and enforcement. Attorney general letter on AI moratoriumDownload 'Rather than follow the recommendation from the bipartisan coalition of State Attorneys General, the amendment added to the reconciliation bill abdicates federal leadership and mandates that all states abandon their leadership in this area as well,' the 40 AGs wrote in the letter circulated by the National Association of Attorneys General. 'This bill does not propose any regulatory scheme to replace or supplement the laws enacted or currently under consideration by the states, leaving Americans entirely unprotected from the potential harms of AI. Moreover, this bill purports to wipe away any state-level frameworks already in place.' Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell was among the letter's signatories. On Beacon Hill, elected officials have been weighing the potential risks of AI against the economic upsides of a fast-growing industry. Lawmakers and Gov. Maura Healey last year included $100 million in an economic development bond bill to create a Massachusetts AI Hub, which Healey's office said would 'facilitate the application of artificial intelligence across the state's ecosystem.' Lawmakers targeted AI in several bills pending this term, proposing new guardrails around its use in health care decision-making, additional consumer protection measures, a study on greenhouse gas emissions from the electrically demanding technology, and more. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump Is Right About Affirmative Action
President Donald Trump's assault on what he broadly calls DEI has been slapdash and sadistic. That doesn't mean the system under attack should be maintained. Racial preferencing in university admissions as well as in employment and government contracting—more commonly understood as affirmative action—might once have been necessary, but long ago became glaringly unfair in practice. Affirmative action in college admissions continues—despite being banned by the Supreme Court in 2023—through the use of personal essays, interviews, and other proxy mechanisms. It continues in businesses' hirings and promotions. It's possible to believe two truths simultaneously: Judging individuals by race instead of merit has to end, in no small part because it hurts the very people it is supposed to uplift; and Trump's approach to ending it is harmful. He is not simply eliminating progressive excesses, but threatening to destroy the legacy of America's civil-rights legislation along with them. Over the years, antidiscrimination policy has come to bear little resemblance to what the authors of the 1964 Civil Rights Act imagined. As the Stanford economist Thomas Sowell observed in his 2004 book Affirmative Action Around the World, the very meaning of the word discrimination now encompasses 'things that no one would have considered to be discrimination' half a century ago, such as, most recently, the exclusion of trans athletes from women's sports. When Lyndon B. Johnson signed the law, he was certainly not picturing wealthy Black business owners getting preferential government contracts, or the children of Black upper-middle-class professionals receiving an enormous handicap on their applications. And yet that is what happened. After the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the proportion of Black and Latino students at several selective schools actually increased. As my colleague Rose Horowitch reported: '43 of the 65 top-ranked universities have essay prompts that ask applicants about their identity or adversity; eight made the addition after the Court's decision.' This might not be illegal—Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion that the ruling didn't prohibit 'universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life.' But some schools may be going further. Last month, Students for Fair Admissions and others filed a class-action lawsuit accusing UCLA's medical school of 'engaging in intentional discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity.' The suit alleges that the admissions department 'requires applicants to submit responses that are intended to allow the Committee to glean the applicant's race, which the medical school later confirms via interviews.' In March, an X account with an anime avatar and the obscene username @bestn-gy claimed to have hacked NYU and published what it said were the standardized-test scores of students in 2024. The data, broken down by race, showed that Black students had an average SAT score nearly 200 points lower than their Asian peers. (In an email to students, NYU administrators wrote that 'the charts posted by the unauthorized actor, purporting to show certain admissions data, were both inaccurate and misleading.') [Rose Horowitch: The race-blind college-admissions era is off to a weird start] Use of racial preferences extends beyond universities, of course. Soon after taking office in January, Trump signed an executive order banning 'illegal discrimination' in federal agencies and rescinding a range of DEI and affirmative-action mandates. Last week, the administration moved to shut down the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, which had, since the 1980s, awarded billions of dollars in contracts from the Department of Transportation to businesses owned by women and members of racial minorities. The plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the program called it the 'largest, and perhaps oldest affirmative action program in U.S. history.' The administration now argues that the program is unconstitutional, a realization that it says it came to after Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. People assumed that 'racial segregation was over in 1954 with Brown v. Board,' Edward Blum, the president of Students for Fair Admissions, told me. 'The reality was it wasn't anywhere near being over. Throughout the country, there was pushback.' Supporters of affirmative action who refuse to accept the changing legal landscape are pushing back in the same way now, he said. He told me his organization is planning more lawsuits: 'We're not at the beginning of the end; we're at the end of the beginning.' The struggle between those who support racial preferences and those who think they've gone too far is also flaring up in the corporate world. Jason L. Riley, the author of a new book called The Affirmative Action Myth, sees the DEI bureaucracy that became standard in corporate America as 'affirmative action under a different label.' Since Trump's reelection, companies such as Facebook, Google, Target, and Ford have begun reassessing their DEI commitments. Businesses had leaned into DEI partly because they feared civil-rights litigation. But in the process they left themselves vulnerable to legal challenges from a Justice Department with a different philosophy. Right after the election, in a move that was emblematic of the shifting climate, Walmart announced that it would end racial-equity training programs and scale back initiatives that had favored minority-owned suppliers. When I was younger, I was predisposed to view affirmative action as both logical and morally necessary. But arriving at college as a scholarship student saddled with loans, I couldn't help but notice how many Black students more well off than me had benefited from the practice. These included the children of African and West Indian immigrants whose ancestors had not been subjected to slavery in America, which affirmative action was in part intended to redress. For students such as these, affirmative action has been, as Sowell writes, 'a boon to those already more fortunate.' I also saw how pervasive and pernicious the assumption was that even the most talented Black students hadn't earned their way in. Too often, affirmative action fostered quiet resentment or patronizing acceptance among Asian and white students; encouraged a sense of complacency among some Latino and Black students, who correctly intuited that the same exertions would not be expected of us; and exacerbated inequality across the board rather than alleviating it. The same dynamics reproduce and magnify disparities beyond the ivory tower. Sowell's 2004 book cited a study of the beneficiaries of contracts set aside by the government for minority-owned small businesses. More than two-thirds of a random sample had 'net worths of more than a million dollars each,' Sowell writes. 'When some members of Congress publicly opposed such programs, Congressman Charles Rangel from Harlem compared them to Hitler and depicted any attempt to roll back affirmative action as an attack on all blacks.' In 2023, many Black elites similarly warned that the Supreme Court ruling would 'decimate the Black middle class that affirmative action had created,' as Riley put it to me. Yet the overwhelming majority of the purported beneficiaries didn't seem concerned. A Pew Research Center poll published a few weeks before the decision found that only 20 percent of Black respondents felt that they'd been helped in their education or career by 'efforts to increase racial and ethnic diversity.' Some 35 percent said such efforts had done them harm. [Bertrand Cooper: The failure of affirmative action] Sowell helps explain why. 'Affirmative action in the United States has made blacks, who have largely lifted themselves out of poverty, look like people who owe their rise to affirmative action and other government programs,' he writes. 'This perception is not confined to whites. It has been carefully cultivated by black politicians and civil rights leaders, who seek to claim credit for the progress.' This has led, he adds, to a 'virtual moratorium on recognition of achievements by blacks, except in so far as they are collective, political milestones or otherwise serve current ideological or political interests.' Tolerating double standards like the ones exposed by the NYU hack as natural or necessary is not only infantilizing but historically myopic. Affirmative action was never intended to be permanent. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor mused nearly a quarter century ago, 'we expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary.' But for many, the idea that Black people and other designated minority groups would forever need to be assessed differently in order to compete had become sacrosanct. Thinkers such as Riley and Sowell refute that idea. 'There was a Black middle class in this country before affirmative action,' Riley told me. 'If anything, the era of affirmative action has slowed its growth.' Black poverty fell 40 percentage points from 1940 to 1960, he pointed out: a period 'when the government really didn't give a damn what was happening to Black people.' The idea that Black success is owed to white generosity—and that Black people's most salient value in a given institution is primarily representative and meant for the moral betterment of the white and other non-Black people around them—is a tragedy for all those who see themselves as part of a Black community. (The same can be said for members of other groups who have borrowed from the antidiscrimination playbook.) Only a perplexing mixture of folly and helplessness would motivate people to stake their prosperity on the guilt and magnanimity of the very power structure they claim has oppressed and excluded them. If, as Audre Lorde put it so memorably, 'the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house,' why would the master's benevolence suffice to educate and employ those he regards as his servants? Trump is responding to the use of racial preferences in ways both necessary and extremely dangerous. In April, the federal government launched an investigation of Harvard Law School, part of Trump's reckless and frequently petty crackdown on higher education, under the guise of eliminating DEI. The probe came in response to reporting from the journalist Aaron Sibarium finding that the Harvard Law Review made DEI the 'first priority' in its admissions process and routinely accepted or rejected articles based on the author's group identity. One editor referred, in writing, to the race of a prospective author as a 'negative.' This is a preposterous—and yes, racist—way to think about legal scholarship and to treat human beings. Legal arguments and citations are either persuasive or they are not. Trump's acting assistant secretary for civil rights condemned the journal's selection process as a race-based 'spoils system'—one that probably merited federal scrutiny. In May, the Justice Department sent a letter notifying Harvard about a broader investigation into whether the university had defrauded the government by continuing to use affirmative action in its admissions process. Ensuring that Harvard complies with a Supreme Court ruling is reasonable enough. But Trump hasn't stopped there. His aim is not to improve the school. The point is to humble and humiliate it, along with any institution that doesn't reflect or embrace his resentful project. Opposing DEI—along with the vaguely construed goal of 'fighting anti-Semitism'—has become a pretense for the administration to carry out a culture-war campaign that has very little to do with antidiscrimination. Trump has also purged Black employees from federal offices, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Library of Congress. The barely veiled notion that Black presence and visibility in leadership positions is in itself suspect is as repugnant as it is consistent for a president whose political star first rose by questioning Barack Obama's birth certificate. Trump's most worrisome move to date was an order released in April, innocently called 'Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,' that represents an alarming curtailment of civil-rights laws and norms. The order directed all federal agencies to eliminate the use of 'disparate-impact liability,' a principle established in the Civil Rights Act that protects groups from policies that adversely affect them, no matter whether those policies can be proved to be overtly discriminatory or maliciously conceived. (Consider, for example, zoning laws mandating single-family housing or minimum square footage on new construction, which might have the effect of keeping Black families out of a neighborhood.) Trump's order essentially nullifies the government's long-standing interest in ensuring fairer outcomes among groups with regard to rules that are ostensibly neutral but in practice impose disproportionate burdens. Now government agencies are being told to focus solely on overt or intentional discrimination with regard to opportunity, which in contemporary American life is extremely difficult to establish. Such a change was recently unthinkable. And so, once again, 'the law,' as Anatole France quipped, 'in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.' In attacking both DEI and disparate-impact liability, Trump conflates them in the public imagination. But they are not equivalent. In fact, the difference between the two is instructive for what kinds of antidiscrimination practices must be preserved. Racial preferences have become a discriminatory means of achieving parity through proactive favoritism and reliance on double standards. By contrast, disparate-impact liability—though it can certainly be misapplied or abused—is fundamentally a reactive safeguard against unfairness. It aspires to race-blindness, seeking to remove rather than redistribute unjustifiable obstacles. Some conservatives have suggested that both need to go; the writer Christopher Caldwell has argued that the entire Civil Rights Act was a mistake. In his 2020 book, The Age of Entitlement, he wrote that the law had rolled back 'the basic constitutional freedoms Americans cherished most'—in particular, the freedom of association—by mandating integration and nondiscrimination policies that soon pervaded the private sphere. The only proper response, he implied, was to strip away the very architecture of civil rights as we know it. When the book came out, Caldwell's perspective seemed far-fetched. At that time, conventional wisdom had rallied around the idea that civil-rights legislation never went far enough. Ibram X. Kendi's How to Be an Antiracist and Robin DiAngelo's White Fragility would soon become the twin epochal texts of the period that followed the death of George Floyd. 'The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination,' Kendi wrote, articulating an idea that quickly became ascendant in much of academia and corporate America. 'The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.' Vive la discrimination! If Caldwell's proposals seemed impossible, Kendi's felt inevitable. What a difference half a decade can make. It is Caldwell's world that we find ourselves living in now. What will come after Trump's wrecking ball stills? The complicated reality is that, for the first time in decades, we will have an opportunity to do something better for all Americans. We should begin with a simple observation: Universities, businesses, and other institutions concerned about ensuring diversity and equal opportunity don't have to rely on racial preferences. The Harvard Law professor Randall Kennedy sees real value in affirmative action, not least because it helped counteract the legacy of Jim Crow, which he witnessed firsthand during his youth. But he doesn't believe the practice as we've known it is the only possible solution to the nation's ongoing social challenges. 'I'm not like, 'Everything that exists under the name affirmative action needs to continue,'' he told me. 'It's a vehicle. But a vehicle can only carry so much weight.' [Rose Horowitch: The era of DEI for conservatives has begun] Ralph Richard Banks, a professor at Stanford Law and a co-founder of the Stanford Center for Racial Justice, pointed out some of affirmative action's limitations. He told me that it allowed Americans to obsess over narrow questions—who gets an acceptance letter and who doesn't—while ignoring structural inequalities, many of which go beyond race and manifest long before a student applies to college. It was a 'Band-Aid' that let us postpone 'dealing with the big issues,' he told me. Colleges and businesses that are hiring have other options; he suggested they could reach out 'to communities, neighborhoods, places where we don't usually get applicants from.' Race is part of that calculus, but so is class. When I got to college, I was struck by how few people saw this latter category as a means of achieving justice and inclusion. Policies focused on class, however, could both capture a high proportion of Black applicants and, crucially, treat poor white and other applicants equally—thus beginning to dilute the populist resentment that the Trump movement has so powerfully exploited. Such policies would also treat Black applicants themselves with greater fairness, given that most of the benefits of race-conscious admissions and hiring practices have bypassed the Black underclass entirely. One approach, put forward by the economist Raj Chetty, is for universities to consider where applicants come from; kids from neighborhoods with limited mobility that rarely send students to elite colleges could be given an advantage. A class-based system of affirmative action is the only defensible path forward. Neither alternative—the improbable continuation of the status quo or Trump's heedless war on civil rights—is tenable. The cliché that Trump has the wrong answers to the right questions has again proved convincing. His administration's campaign against affirmative action, DEI, and civil-rights law more broadly has been ill-conceived and poorly executed. Weaponizing a reactionary politics of white grievance and hobbling some of the world's greatest universities because of a personal vendetta is appalling. So, too, is trampling on the laws that have made American society more equal. But it is also undeniable that systematically failing to treat people as individuals doesn't help Black or Latino people—or anyone else, for that matter. It has entrenched the rancid notion of innate racial hierarchy, and ultimately rendered the nation weaker and more divided. Article originally published at The Atlantic
