Latest news with #non-Hispanic
Indian Express
6 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Five years since the murder of George Floyd, many of the commitments made to address systemic racism have been abandoned
Written by Kevin Brown In the five years since the extrajudicial police killing of George Floyd, much has changed for the Black community in the United States, but not in the way one would have expected at the time. While the Black community had complained of systemic racism for decades, George Floyd's killing provided America with undeniable, visible evidence of its existence, at least regarding police conduct. Since the involuntary incorporation of Black people as chattel slaves starting in 1619, systemic racism has existed in virtually all major aspects of American society. In 2020, the median Black family income was 60 per cent of that of white non-Hispanic family income; Black people were nearly three times more likely to live in poverty; 42 per cent of Black families owned their own home, contrasted with 70 per cent of white non-Hispanic families; and median Black family wealth was $24,100 compared to $188,000. Regarding the administration of criminal justice, studies have shown that Black people are more likely to be arrested by the police than white non-Hispanics for the same offences, more likely to be charged with a crime when arrested, more likely to be convicted when charged with a crime, more likely to serve a prison sentence when convicted, and when given a prison sentence, they are given longer ones. Even though there are five times more white males in the US than Black males, 10 per cent more Black males are incarcerated. In the aftermath of George Floyd's killing, America witnessed some of the largest protest marches in its history. As if waking up to the existence of systemic racism, CEOs of major corporations, governmental officials, educational administrators and non-profit organisations pledged to institute policies and programmes to attack it. For example, Google committed $50 million to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, JP Morgan Chase allocated $30 billion in housing and business loans to support Black and Latinx communities, Apple launched its Racial Equity and Justice Initiative with $100 million and the Department of Justice began investigations of police departments throughout the country to identify patterns of excessive force and disproportionate targeting of Black people. The commitment to address systemic racism, however, produced an unprecedented backlash that began almost immediately. White conservative voices raised the level of their complaints on media outlets against the concept of systemic racism, critical race theory (CRT) and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. They claimed programmes and policies embodied in these concepts were destroying America by teaching false doctrines and abandoning meritocracy. In their eyes, there may be a few racist individuals, but systemic racism does not exist. These conservatives found a sympathetic spokesperson in then-President Donald Trump. On September 22, 2020, less than four months after Floyd's killing, Trump issued the Presidential Executive Order 13950 that criticised CRT as a divisive concept and sought to exclude diversity and inclusion training from public and private entities that receive federal contracts. Trump's loss in the November 2020 elections, where, according to CNN exit polls, he only received 12 per cent of the Black vote, but 58 per cent of the white non-Hispanic vote, slowed down the momentum of the building white conservative backlash. However, after upholding affirmative action in admissions of selective higher education institutions for 45 years, in June of 2023, the US Supreme Court struck it down nationwide in a 6-3 decision. Even though People of Colour (Black, Latinx, Asian, Native Americans and Mixed-Race people) make up the majority of Americans under the age of 18, the Court rejected the rationale that the benefits of diversity justified taking race into account in the admissions process. The implications of the Court's opinion were somewhat muted during the 2024 election, where the Democrats nominated Kamala Harris, a woman of mixed South Asian and Black ancestry, as their presidential candidate. In the 2024 elections, Trump received a similar percentage of votes from Black and white non-Hispanic voters that he received in the 2020 election. But Asian and Latinx voters substantially increased their support for Trump. Thus, in the 2024 elections, not only did he win the Presidency, but the Trump-dominated Republican Party took control of both Houses of Congress. Effectively, the Black community now faces not only what legal experts assert is the most conservative Supreme Court since the 1950s, but also a hostile President and Congress. Since returning to the Presidency, Trump has exercised power like no other American president ever. As a result, a significant number of Trump's executive orders have been enjoined by the federal courts. Nevertheless, Trump has put pressure on major corporations, the most elite colleges and universities and state and local governments to end their DEI programs. As part of the Trump Administration, the Department of Justice has gone from combating racism against underrepresented minorities to targeting public and private institutions with DEI programs because they are viewed as discriminating against white people. Consequently, many of the commitments made to address systemic racism have been abandoned. Thus, five years after the murder of George Floyd, the Black community in the US faces the most formidable federal governmental obstacles against its efforts to achieve racial equality since the 1940s. The writer is Richard S Melvin Professor Emeritus, Indiana University Maurer School of Law & Mitchell Willoughby Professor, Joseph Rice School of Law of the University of South Carolina
Medscape
28-05-2025
- Health
- Medscape
Sedentary Behavior Tied to Cognitive Decline in Older Adults
In older adults, increased sedentary time was associated with smaller brain volume, greater neurodegeneration, and worse cognitive performance, especially among apolipoprotein E ( APOE ) ε4 carriers, new research suggested. These associations persisted over a 7-year period, even among people who achieved recommended levels of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA). METHODOLOGY: This study included 404 adults aged 60 years or older (mean age, 71 years; 54% men; 85% White, non-Hispanic) from the Vanderbilt Memory and Aging Project who were cognitively unimpaired or met criteria for early mild cognitive impairment at baseline. Researchers collected actigraphy data using wrist-worn accelerometers for 24 hours on 7 consecutive days and performed neuropsychological assessments and 3T brain MRI over a 7-year period. The analysis included both cross-sectional and longitudinal evaluations of sedentary time in relation to brain structure and cognition, and covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, APOE-ε4 carrier status, and MVPA. TAKEAWAY: The average sedentary time among participants was 13 h/d, and 87% of participants engaged in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended levels of MVPA (average, 61 min/d). In the cross-sectional unadjusted analysis, increased sedentary time was associated with a smaller Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging signature ( P = .01) and worse episodic memory performance ( P = .003) but was no longer significant after adjusting for MVPA. = .01) and worse episodic memory performance ( = .003) but was no longer significant after adjusting for MVPA. In the cross-sectional analysis adjusted for MVPA, among APOE-ε4 carriers, increased sedentary time was associated with smaller volumes of frontal ( P = .02) and parietal ( P = .03) lobes, reduced total gray matter volume ( P = .02), and lower performance on the Boston Naming Test ( P = .01) and Hooper Visual Organization Test ( P = .01). carriers, increased sedentary time was associated with smaller volumes of frontal ( = .02) and parietal ( = .03) lobes, reduced total gray matter ( = .02), and lower performance on the Boston Naming Test ( = .01) and Hooper Visual Organization Test ( = .01). In the longitudinal analysis, increased sedentary time was associated with a reduction in hippocampal volume ( P = .008). Among APOE-ε4 carriers, it was associated with a reduction in occipital volume ( P = .03). IN PRACTICE: 'These findings are particularly important in the context of aging, as mobility limitations and greater sedentary time increases in older adults. From a personalized medicine approach, healthcare professionals might consider assessing not only a patient's exercise regimen but also the amount of time they are sedentary throughout the day, recommending a reduction in such sedentary behavior in addition to increasing daily physical activity,' the study authors wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by Marissa A. Gogniat, Vanderbilt Memory and Alzheimer's Center, Nashville, Tennessee. It was published online on May 13 in Alzheimer's and Dementia . LIMITATIONS: This study included a racially homogenous, highly educated, and physically active sample, which may have limited its generalizability. Methodological limitations included the use of cross-sectional rather than longitudinal MRI registration, the use of individual neuropsychological subtests instead of composites, and a potential inaccuracy due to wrist-worn actigraphy devices. This study also did not conduct a full 24-hour compositional activity analysis, which could have improved the assessment of optimal activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep distribution. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by the Alzheimer's Association, National Institute on Aging, Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Vanderbilt University High-Performance Computer Cluster for Biomedical Research, and the Richard Eugene Hickman Alzheimer's Disease Research Endowment. One author reported serving on the scientific advisory board for Vivid Genomics and holding editorial roles with the Alzheimer's and Dementia and Alzheimer's and Dementia: Translational Research and Clinical Intervention .
Axios
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Texas had second lowest 2024 voter turnout in nation
Texas saw the country's second lowest turnout in the 2024 presidential election, per new Census Bureau estimates. Why it matters: Texas' consistently low turnout could mean voters don't think it's competitive to cast a ballot in the state, University of Houston political science professor Brandon Rottinghaus tells Axios. What they're saying: "We wanna think that Texas is the best at everything — in barbecue, in football — but the reality is that we fall significantly behind when it comes to voter turnout," Rottinghaus says. Flashback: GOP turnout last year far outstripped Democratic turnout in Texas. The big picture: About 65% of voting-age Americans cast a ballot in last November's elections, down from nearly 67% in 2020, per the Census Bureau. Arkansas (52.8%), Texas (57.9%) and Louisiana (58%) had the lowest shares of voting-age citizens participating. By the numbers: A higher percentage of Texas women (59.9%) voted than men (55.9%), mirroring national trends. Turnout was highest among white non-Hispanic voters (66.6%) in Texas and lower among Black (57.7%), Asian (52.3%) and Hispanic (44.5%) voters. Reality check: Texas is one of the youngest states in the U.S. by median age, and data shows that older people are often more likely to vote than younger people. Plus, Hispanic Texans make up the highest share of the state's population. They are historically less likely to vote than other groups, per Rottinghaus. Between the lines: Lack of participation doesn't necessarily imply voter apathy. Some want to vote but are unable to.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - A ‘baby bonus' won't save America, but immigration will
In a moment of historic labor shortages and economic uncertainty, the U.S. should embrace every source of human potential. Instead, some of the country's most powerful voices are pushing policies that attempt to grow the population by pressuring Americans to have more children, even as they actively work to lower our nation's immigrant population. Recent proposals include a so-called 'baby bonus' payment to encourage conception. But this isn't about birth rates — it's about whose births are being encouraged, and whose futures are being ignored. At first glance, proposals to support families may seem well-intentioned. But little is done to materially support families once children arrive. There's no universal childcare or paid parental leave. There are no meaningful investments in affordable housing or job quality. At the same time, access to abortion and contraception is being rolled back in a sweeping move to limit women's options and control reproductive outcomes. The message is unmistakable: Have more babies, but don't expect help. This isn't a policy approach to support families. It is an ideological project, rooted in fears that white Americans are being demographically replaced by immigrants and people of color. According to the 2020 Census, non-Hispanic whites accounted for 57.8 percent of the U.S. population, down from 63.7 percent in 2010. Projections suggest that by 2045, non-Hispanic whites will comprise less than half of the total population. In this context, promoting birth over immigration isn't just an economic choice — it is a cultural defense strategy. Without immigration, the U.S. labor force would already be shrinking, threatening everything from economic stability to the sustainability of Social Security and Medicare. According to Census data, 83 percent of current growth in the working-age population comes from immigrants and the children of immigrants. Immigrants are not a stopgap — they are the backbone of our future. And yet, rather than embrace this reality, birth-rate policies double down on a fantasy that the nation can secure its future by growing a narrowly defined population from within, while shutting out those who don't fit a preferred cultural mold. Immigrants are not a threat but a national asset. Nearly 50 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children, including such American icons as Google, Tesla, and Pfizer. Immigrants also drive innovation — 36 percent of all U.S. patents filed between 1990 and 2016 have been credited to foreign-born inventors. Immigrants fill essential roles in agriculture, construction, healthcare and education, often in communities where native-born workers are in short supply. And they contribute hundreds of billions in taxes, helping sustain Medicare and Social Security for everyone. To ignore these contributions is to deny reality. We are a country that has always been shaped by those who chose to come here to work, to build, to dream. The diversity of people who call America home has always been its greatest strength, not its weakness. Instead of treating childbirth as a cultural weapon, we should build a country where all families, regardless of race, religion or origin, are supported with the tools they need to thrive. To build a future that reflects the best of what America can be, we must stop trying to preserve a mythic past and start investing in the diverse, dynamic reality of the present. Jina Krause-Vilmar is the author of a forthcoming book on immigration and women's economic inclusion Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
21-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
A ‘baby bonus' won't save America, but immigration will
In a moment of historic labor shortages and economic uncertainty, the U.S. should embrace every source of human potential. Instead, some of the country's most powerful voices are pushing policies that attempt to grow the population by pressuring Americans to have more children, even as they actively work to lower our nation's immigrant population. Recent proposals include a so-called 'baby bonus' payment to encourage conception. But this isn't about birth rates — it's about whose births are being encouraged, and whose futures are being ignored. At first glance, proposals to support families may seem well-intentioned. But little is done to materially support families once children arrive. There's no universal childcare or paid parental leave. There are no meaningful investments in affordable housing or job quality. At the same time, access to abortion and contraception is being rolled back in a sweeping move to limit women's options and control reproductive outcomes. The message is unmistakable: Have more babies, but don't expect help. This isn't a policy approach to support families. It is an ideological project, rooted in fears that white Americans are being demographically replaced by immigrants and people of color. According to the 2020 Census, non-Hispanic whites accounted for 57.8 percent of the U.S. population, down from 63.7 percent in 2010. Projections suggest that by 2045, non-Hispanic whites will comprise less than half of the total population. In this context, promoting birth over immigration isn't just an economic choice — it is a cultural defense strategy. Without immigration, the U.S. labor force would already be shrinking, threatening everything from economic stability to the sustainability of Social Security and Medicare. According to Census data, 83 percent of current growth in the working-age population comes from immigrants and the children of immigrants. Immigrants are not a stopgap — they are the backbone of our future. And yet, rather than embrace this reality, birth-rate policies double down on a fantasy that the nation can secure its future by growing a narrowly defined population from within, while shutting out those who don't fit a preferred cultural mold. Immigrants are not a threat but a national asset. Nearly 50 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children, including such American icons as Google, Tesla, and Pfizer. Immigrants also drive innovation — 36 percent of all U.S. patents filed between 1990 and 2016 have been credited to foreign-born inventors. Immigrants fill essential roles in agriculture, construction, healthcare and education, often in communities where native-born workers are in short supply. And they contribute hundreds of billions in taxes, helping sustain Medicare and Social Security for everyone. To ignore these contributions is to deny reality. We are a country that has always been shaped by those who chose to come here to work, to build, to dream. The diversity of people who call America home has always been its greatest strength, not its weakness. Instead of treating childbirth as a cultural weapon, we should build a country where all families, regardless of race, religion or origin, are supported with the tools they need to thrive. To build a future that reflects the best of what America can be, we must stop trying to preserve a mythic past and start investing in the diverse, dynamic reality of the present. Jina Krause-Vilmar is the author of a forthcoming book on immigration and women's economic inclusion
