We at IDHE are horrified and deeply saddened by yet another mass shooting and hate crime, this time aimed at Asian Americans and women. For too long, violence against Asian Americans has been simultaneously visible and erased. We refuse to view this act of violence as so isolated or so commonplace that it fails to shock us. Sadly, while we want to believe, as President Biden said, that “this is not who we are” as a nation and people, violent acts like this week’s reflect what Stacey Abrams described as “deep and persistent malignancies” in our social and political systems.
To aid educators, we offer resources for understanding some of the major social problems that underlie the threats to AAPI communities, women, and our inclusive democracy. This list is not comprehensive, but it does help deconstruct some of the intersecting factors behind this week’s violence:
3. Violence against women remains commonplace in the U.S. and around the world. Ironically, only hours before this violent attack, the House of Representatives reauthorized the Violence Against Women’s Act (VAWA). Originally passed with bipartisan support in 1994, VAWA was viewed as landmark legislation, but it was not without loopholes. The Act was reauthorized in 2013 but then lapsed in 2018 due to partisan disputes over provisions preventing people with a history of violence against women from owning guns and provisions protecting transgender communities. While 172 members of Congress voted against VAWA, it nonetheless passed and is moving to the Senate.
Of course, colleges and universities must get their internal houses in order. In 2019, the Association of American Universities (AAU) reported that one in four women on campuses experience non-consensual sexual contact and two in five report being sexually harassed. Rates of violence and harassment against LGBTQ communities are equally disturbing.
5. Long before the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, scholars, civic organizations, and government officials had sounded alarms over the rise of hate-driven domestic terrorism. In September 2019 hearings before the U.S. House of Representatives, FBI Director Christopher Wray identified “homegrown violent extremists” as the “top threat” to national security, motivated by racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and misogyny, as well as perceptions of government overreach and reactions to legislation. His testimony was chillingly predictive of the January 6 insurrection. Civic organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League track growing hate groups, their objectives, and their locations. In her 2020 book, Hate in the Homeland, American University professor Cynthia Miller Idris provides data and insight on how hate groups flourish, including among the nation’s youth. Facing History and Ourselves offers teaching resources for teaching about hate in the U.S.
Hate groups thrive on the Internet. Although Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube famously banned hate groups following the January 6 insurrection, these groups have migrated to other social media sites. These digital enclaves reinforce anger, and promote radicalization. Online, individuals and groups that spread hateful and violent messaging show international growth, and a cascading effect of real-world violence is the end result.
In 2019, the American Psychological Association issued its first-ever guidelines for working with boys and men. The introduction to the guidelines notes that while men dominate professionally and politically, “Something is amiss for men as well.” Noting statistics on men and crime, homicide, suicide, harsher punishments for misbehavior in schools, and even their shorter life expectancy, the APA urges practitioners to examine the patriarchal context for men and how it affects their mental health.
This is not a comprehensive list, of course. But it highlights many of the complicated dimensions of racist and misogynistic violence. We believe that educating citizens about these phenomena are more effective than the mere condemnation and partisan fighting that prevent real change.
As a team, we debated whether to limit this statement to a rejection of hate and violence aimed at Asian Americans. Although those are the sentiments that prompted us to write a statement, we decided to share a more proactive vision for responding to evil. Real problems in society are complex, and interdisciplinary. Education happens when people confront these problems by sharing their experiences and ideas. We would like to see a more visible effort from within the academy to use research on hate and the problems underlying it as a catalyst for bringing about that kind of productive confrontation among students and the public.
We view higher education as the nation’s think tank. Perhaps if we rally colleges and universities and tackle these deep social and political malignancies together, we can protect rights and humanity and build a more inclusive democracy.
Nancy Thomas
Adam Gismondi
Prabhat Gautam
Thuy Duy Trinh
David Brinker
DaShawn Dilworth
Peter de Guzman
The Institute for Democracy & Higher Education is dedicated to shifting institutional priorities, practices, and culture to advance student political learning, equity, and engagement in democracy. We fulfill our mission through research, resource development, and support for institutions interested in improving their campus political learning climate. The National Study of Learning, Voting, and Engagement (NSLVE) - the Institute’s signature initiative - is both a service to campuses to learn their student voting rates and a research database for IDHE.
The National Study of Learning, Voting, and Engagement
Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life, Tufts University