Marjorie Heins wins 2013 Hugh Hefner First Amendment Award!

NYU Press is proud to announce that Marjorie Heins has been chosen to receive the 2013 Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award in book publishing. She is being honored for her book, Priests of Our Democracy: The Supreme Court, Academic Freedom, and the Anti-Communist Purge, a chronicle of the history, law and personal stories behind the struggle to recognize academic freedom as “a special concern of the First Amendment.”

Christie Hefner established the Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Awards in 1979 “to honor individuals who have made significant contributions in the vital effort to protect and enhance First Amendment rights for Americans,” in the fields of journalism, government, book publishing and education. Find the full list of this year’s winners here.

A press reception with the winners, judges and special presenters will be held on May 22, 2013 at the Playboy Mansion where winners will receive a cash award of $5,000 and a commemorative plaque. (Awesome—way to go, Marjorie!)

Rebel girls rising

—Jessica K. Taft

There is a poster on the wall of my office that reminds me of the long history of girls’ activism. The image is of two girls, wearing roller skates and sashes that proclaim “don’t be a scab.” They have pamphlets in their hands and bows in their hair. Taken during the 1916 New York City street car strike, this photograph speaks to the fact that girl activists have been participating in social movements for quite some time, and that they have been involved in a wide variety of struggles.

The girl activists I wrote about in Rebel Girls do not just address what we might think of as ‘girls’ issues,’ such as teens’ reproductive rights, access to education, or body politics. Like the girls in this early photograph, today’s girl activists in North and South America also fight for labor rights, economic justice, racial equality, environmental sustainability, peace, human rights, and indigenous sovereignty. Girls’ lives, and therefore girls’ politics, are not just defined by their “girl-ness” but are also shaped by their different experiences with neoliberal globalization, political repression, poverty, racism, militarism, and heterosexism.

From my perspective, an analysis of the multiple historical and social contexts of girls’ lives and girls’ activism is what is most notably missing from the current popular celebrations of girls’ capacities to “change the world” (i.e. The Girl Effect and Girl Rising). As girls become increasingly visible figures in discourses on development and economic growth, we desperately need to understand how girls are impacted by the structures of global capitalism and the histories of colonialism and imperialism (not just by local iterations of gender inequality). And, as girls are praised for their individual strengths and their capacity to overcome adversity, we need to learn about the ways they have collectively resisted these forces as participants in social movements.

I too believe that girls can change the world. However, I see this happening not just through individualized economic and educational empowerment but through collective activist projects.  Women’s History Month—and the public discourse on girls as agents of change—should not just applaud individual girls and their educational achievements, but should acknowledge the many generations of girls who have strapped on their roller skates, taken to the streets, and worked together to stand up for social and economic justice.

Jessica K. Taft is assistant professor of sociology at Davidson College and is the author of Rebel Girls: Youth Activism and Social Change Across the Americas (NYU Press, 2010).

Waiting for democracy

—Andrew Guthrie Ferguson

Last November, thousands of citizens waited for hours outside polling places to cast their ballots in the presidential election. When asked why they were willing to wait, most answered in the emphatic language of democratic pride. It is our duty. It is our right. It is our calling as citizens. We are proud to.

Every day in courthouses across America, there are other lines of waiting citizens—lines for jury duty. There are lines to get into the courthouse, lines to check in, lines before you head to the courtroom for jury selection. Yet, if you ask those jurors why they were willing to wait, the language is less emphatic, less proud.

Why do we think of voting as something more connected to our democratic identity?  Why of the twin political rights of voting and jury service—the two markers of full political citizenship—do we value the right to vote more? The answer is that we misunderstand the value and values of jury service to democracy.

Why Jury Duty Matters sets out to reframe the debate by showing the importance of jury service to our democracy. To understand the value of jury service you need to understand its history, its constitutional connection, and its personal relevance to citizenship.

First, the history of the jury is the history of America. The right to a jury trial came over on the first boats to America. Jury protections can be found in the charters that founded the Jamestown and Plymouth colonies. Juries were instituted in the constitutions of each of the Thirteen Colonies and each of the new States. In fact, the denial of the right to a jury trial made it into the Declaration of Independence as one of the grievances of the colonists, helping to spark the Revolutionary War. Not surprisingly then, the right to a criminal jury trial is the only right that makes an appearance in both the original text of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights—under Article III and the Sixth Amendment, respectively. Further, you also have the Seventh Amendment’s right to a civil jury and the Fifth Amendment’s right to a Grand Jury.

Then, as America democratized and diversified, the jury was central to the battle for equality. The civil rights movement in the South began by challenging exclusions from jury service. The right to serve as a juror was a badge of citizenship—symbolizing equality. The women’s suffrage movement (both before and well after the Nineteenth Amendment) also involved a particular emphasis on the right to serve as jurors. Equality meant voting and having the right to jury service. Today, paralleling the progress of the various civil rights movements, jurors represent a fair cross section of society, a living symbol of equality in law.

This constitutional history is real, yet most people do not appreciate it when it comes to jury service. Jury duty is the one time where constitutional history and constitutional theory become immediately relevant, because you—the citizen—are a constitutional actor. We—the people—must act, and Why Jury Duty Matters explores why you should accept the call as a constitutional actor.

Second, the jury is a teaching moment where constitutional values come alive in practice. Participation, deliberation, fairness, equality, accountability, liberty, dissent, and the common good—these are constitutional values, and they are embedded in jury service. While voting is one form of participation, jury service is an even more fundamental contribution. It requires working through those other principles, applying due process rules to achieve fairness, deliberating with others, dissenting with tolerance, and practicing equality in a microcosm of one-person, one-vote democracy in the jury room.

These values are also values that we see in other areas of our democratic practice. But in jury service the lessons are longer, the questions deeper, and the practice harder. It is for that reason that Alexis de Tocqueville likened juries to free public schools, always open to teach the civic skills of democracy.

Finally, jury service is personally meaningful. It is the one day that you are required to act like a constitutional citizen. The argument in this book is that you should treat that jury summons like a constitutional invitation. You get to experience it for a day, or more, and hopefully learn a thing or two about your country and the Constitution.

Jury duty is Constitution duty. It is a way for citizens, ordinary folks, to connect to the constitutional principles that guide this nation. Most people see jury duty as a service they do for the court system or for the defendant or parties. But in truth, jury duty is also for the citizen. Jury duty provides constitutional lessons necessary for democracy.

So the next time you are waiting on jury duty, remember you are waiting for democracy. It is just as important as your vote.

Andrew Guthrie Ferguson is Professor of Law at the David A. Clarke School of Law at the University of the District of Columbia. He is co-author of Youth Justice in America and author of Why Jury Duty Matters: A Citizen’s Guide to Constitutional Action.

Sandy Hook: Another symptom of widespread cultural despair

—Jessie Klein

I’m still shaken from last Friday’s shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, one of the worst massacres in the history of the United States.

Not much information is available about the 20-year-old gunman or his motives. We know that he had been a student in the Newtown school system years before, and those who were acquainted with him described him as “brilliant” but “remote.” We need to stop looking for the profile of the perpetrators; and examine instead the profile of schools and society more generally. Many school shooters since 1979 have been described with those same adjectives.

When gunmen are repeatedly described as “remote” or as a “loner,” there is likely more than just a “personality disorder” behind their history. In 2004, the General Social Survey (GSS) revealed that fifty percent of our population has either one person or no one to talk to about important issues in their lives. Scholars suggest that this qualifies as inadequate or “marginal support.”

We need to stop looking for perpetrator’s profiles, and instead examine the profile of schools and society overall. According to GSS data from 1985 to 2004, social isolation has tripled. Other reports suggest that empathy has significantly decreased whereas depression and anxiety rates, among adults and youth alike, are soaring. Panic attacks have become part of the common vernacular and are no longer stigmatized as a characteristic of the insane. With fewer options for social acceptance, it is perhaps no surprise then, that depression among youth is starting at increasingly younger ages.

In The Bully Society: School Shootings and the Crisis of Bullying in America’s Schools, I discuss how bullying and other hurtful behaviors have also become common norms. These days, we are pressured to become as successful and powerful as we can be, but are rarely encouraged to check on our neighbors or offer support to others in need. We are working so hard and are so overscheduled that we barely have time to stop for one another, even if it were our priority.

Schools need to make social obligation and support for one another a top goal in curricula, as well as a value discussed and re-affirmed in every aspect of their community. We need a new generation of youth to lead our country who will feel that being compassionate and empathic is just as important as being successful. We need to find a time again when talking to neighbors and offering support is considered kinder than leaving them alone because they are probably busy.

Of course there would be fewer fatalities if we had better gun control laws. There is no question about that. But then the symptoms of our despairing culture will be revealed in other forms. In addition to gun control, we need to tackle the real issues. People need to authentically connect with one another and support each other as a matter of course. We need to transform our bully society into more compassionate and integrated communities. Only then can we truly change.

Jessie Klein is Assistant Professor of Sociology/Criminal Justice at Adelphi University and author of Bully Society (NYU Press, 2012). She has also served as a supervisor, school social worker, college adviser, social studies teacher, substance abuse prevention counselor and conflict resolution coordinator at many high schools. Her writing appears in scholarly journals as well as popular media.

Enjoy 30% off holiday books from NYU Press!

This holiday season, we’re offering 30% off our hand-picked selection of gift books, from Press favorites to recent bestsellers!

Simply visit the sale page on our website to browse the collection—no promo code needed! Or, get started here with some quick suggestions for folks on your holiday shopping list…

    For the history buff: Highway Under the Hudson: A History of the Holland Tunnel, by Robert W. Jackson (now $21.00).

    For the social media junkie: The Social Media Reader, edited by Michael Mandiberg   (now $16.80).

    For the green thumb: Freedom’s GardenerJames F. Brown, Horticulture, and the Hudson Valley in Antebellum America, by Myra B. Young Armstead (now $24.50).

    For the wine lover: Soft Soil, Black Grapes: The Birth of Italian Winemaking in California, by Simone Cinotto (now $24.50).

    For the lonely hearts: Single: Arguments for the Uncoupled, by Michael Cobb (now $14.70).

    For the life-long (or aspiring) New YorkerMore New York Stories: The Best of the City Section of The New York Times, edited by Constance Rosenblum (now $13.27).

For guaranteed delivery by December 24, order by December 15, 2012. Sale for U.S. and Canadian customers only. Ends December 21, 2012.

Price of the “gender trap”? Childhood foundations of the wage gap

—Emily W. Kane

Last month, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) released its most recent study of the gender wage gap, “Graduating to a Pay Gap.” According to the data compiled by the AAUW, just one year out of college, women who were working full time earned, on average, only 82% of what their male counterparts earned. Media attention has focused on AAUW’s finding that, even after accounting for the impact of different college majors, occupations and industries, about one third of the wage gap remains unexplained.

The gap that remains after accounting for college majors and occupations is an important one, but it shouldn’t distract us from the even greater proportion of the gender wage gap that is explained by what social scientists call “occupational gender segregation,” or the tendency for men and women to pursue different courses of study in college and different occupations regardless of their level of formal education. Nor should it distract us from the financial price women pay for their lower overall hours in the labor force, which are often driven by domestic responsibilities. As I argue in my recent book The Gender Trap: Parents and the Pitfalls of Raising Boys and Girls, some of the first foundations for all of this are laid down in early childhood.

Drawing on interviews I conducted with mothers and fathers of preschoolers from a wide range of backgrounds, my analysis reveals how parents can unwittingly contribute to reproducing occupational gender segregation, the wage gap, and women’s responsibilities for domestic labor. From toys and activities that encourage nurturance in girls and technical problem-solving in boys to the differential way they frame the importance of juggling work and family for sons and daughters, even parents anxious to open new opportunities for their daughters often reinforce patterns that are likely to trap them instead. One mother, for example, reported that she had discouraged her four-year old son’s expressed interest in growing up to be a daycare worker “because he could never support a family doing that.”

Another parent, this one a father, noted that he hopes his five-year old daughter has the option to pursue a high-powered career “in the boardroom”, but also hopes she could say “I am a woman and I want to stay home with my kids.” These kinds of comments were echoed often throughout my study, and were rarely combined with parallel comments about a girl’s potential responsibility for supporting children financially or a boy’s option to stay at home with kids. In small moments like these, parents reinforced occupational segregation, assumptions about men’s responsibilities for earning a “family wage” (and thus about women’s financial dependence on men), and routine acceptance of the double standard of low pay associated with traditionally female occupations like child care, social work and primary education.

As I outline in much greater detail in the book, all of those factors combine to reinforce gender traps that most parents hoped to avoid. But I also argue that with greater recognition of the constraints faced by both men and women as they struggle to support families, and greater awareness of the childhood lessons both girls and boys need to learn to be prepared for those future constraints, parents, educators and all of us interested in a better world for our children can sidestep some of the gender traps that contribute to the pay gap the AAUW report points out, a pay gap that only increases in the years after college graduation, and that is all the more complicated for women without college degrees and women who face other intersecting wage disparities by race or citizenship status.

Emily W. Kane is Professor of Sociology at Bates College, and author of The Gender Trap: Parents and the Pitfalls of Raising Boys and Girls (NYU Press, August 2012).

Why “deferred action” isn’t enough

—Michael A. Olivas

Tens of thousands of undocumented students are making their way through college without federal financial support and with little state financial aid available—only to find that they cannot accept employment or enter the professions for which they have trained. Cases of undocumented law-school graduates who have passed the bar are surfacing in California, Florida, and New York, and more will soon surface in other fields, too, as unauthorized students graduate from college. Seeing this brick wall, a number of immigration law professors wrote a letter to the president, urging him to use the administrative discretion available to him, to help undocumented college students who find themselves in the worst of all possible worlds. It appears this call was heard when, in June 2012, President Obama announced an expansive Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy, which is still in the implementation first phases.

Unfortunately, despite the excitement (and outrage from President Obama’s Republican opponents), this policy is not the stalled DREAM Act, which would have created a path to citizenship for some immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. The President’s courageous decision could not have accorded any more than he did, as any true reform will have to come from Congress, which has been reluctant to take up even the modest DREAM Act, much less the more comprehensive immigration reform so needed.

Gov. Mitt Romney has indicated his determination to veto any version of the DREAM Act, and the 2012 GOP platform urges deportation of these students. In reality, the President’s adoption of a “deferred action” policy is, to a great extent, old wine in a new wineskin. The policy does not grant legal-residency status, as the DREAM Act would, but only defers deportation for a renewable two-year period. Announcing the policy shows new political will, but it does not change existing law or create additional discretion.

Forms of prosecutorial discretion, including deferred action, have been available for many years (originating in the John Lennon deportation case, in the early 1970s). Nothing substantive has been added to existing authority. Indeed, in June 2011, the government announced that it would focus on deporting known criminals (the “gangbangers” as President Obama referred to them in a recent debate)—and urged prosecutors to use their discretion in considering the cases of students who would qualify for the DREAM Act. DACA has made regular provisions for these students to receive work authorization. Bear in mind, too, that this administration removed and deported nearly 400,000 unauthorized immigrants in the previous year. Even with those metrics, and the militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border, those who would further restrict immigration are not convinced that there has been enough enforcement—and see deferred action as a threat to the present situation. In August 2012, CIS employees filed suit to end DACA. There is a new application procedure, a good thing, and many details yet to be determined.

Deferred action is a vague and confusing process—and it will probably lead to unscrupulous notarios entering the picture. Under current regulations, individuals whose case has been deferred are eligible to receive employment authorization, provided he or she can demonstrate “an economic necessity for employment.” Deferred action can be terminated or renewed at any time at the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security. Many potential DREAMers will be hesitant to apply and “out” themselves to authorities, even in exchange for employment authorization, if the President is not re-elected. The delays occasioned by schools being overwhelmed with transcript requests make it clear that this has been a complicated and expensive process, one with uncertain contours. History may be on the side of the DREAMers, but they still find themselves in a cruel limbo not of their making, and with no clear way out of the thicket. This is a movement forward, and the program will transform many of the students’ lives for the better. But only the adults in Congress taking up immigration reform will truly serve their interests, and that of society.

Thirty years after the Supreme Court told us that undocumented immigrants deserve an education (Plyler v. Doe, 1982), we have yet to resolve this impasse. Deferred action is a step in the right direction, but until more cases are cleared and these students can take up work, it will be a program fraught with potential. While these students’ chances of being deported may be reduced, without employment authorization and a reasonable opportunity to regularize their status, they will still live in the shadows—with limited hope.

Michael A. Olivas is Professor of Law, University of Houston, and the author of No Undocumented Child Left Behind (NYU Press, 2102).

Reflections on NYU Press book banned in Arizona

—Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic

The rapid growth of populations of color, especially relatively young groups like Latinos, has created a number of conflicts over schools and schooling. In Arizona, a successful program of Mexican American Studies in the Tucson school system drew the ire of state authorities who deemed it un-American and biased. Its defenders countered that it greatly boosted attendance, engagement, and graduation rates for hundreds of Latino schoolchildren who made up over fifty percent of the student bodies in many schools in Arizona, and was not at all unpatriotic or divisive.

The Tucson program had increased graduation rates from below half to over ninety percent, with many of the students, most from poor families, going on to college.  Taught by charismatic young instructors, many with degrees in Ethnic Studies from the University of Arizona, the program featured Latino history and culture, including works by well known author such as Rodolfo Acuna, Sandra Cisneros, Paulo Freire, Howard Zinn, and William Shakespeare. Students studied the great empires of Mesoamerica, the War with Mexico, and the colonization of Puerto Rico. They studied the civil rights movement of the 1960’s and the role of leaders such as Martin Luther King, Cesar Chavez, and Denver-based Corky Gonzales. They learned to play mariachi music, dance Mexican dances, and create poetry.

When Arizona authorities banned the program under a new bill (H.B. 2281) forbidding the teaching of ethnically divisive material and removed the offending textbooks to a distant book depository in front of crying students, the local Latino community exploded in indignation. A Texas community college professor organized a caravan of “libro-traficantes” (book traffickers) to smuggle “wet books” into Tucson, where they gave them away to bystanders from a taco truck borrowed for the occasion. Librarians and publishing houses across the nation donated copies of the banned books. Sympathetic Anglos wrote columns or spoke at teach-ins supporting the program.

Teachers who were fired or transferred brought a number of legal actions challenging the bill or book ban, which included works by each of the authors mentioned above, as well as our book, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction (NYU Press). This straightforward exposition of critical race thought had been in use in a number of the Tucson classes to explain racial dynamics in the United States. NYU proudly issued a new edition of this best-selling book in 2012 and was happy to donate copies to the beleaguered children of Tucson.

Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic are Professors of Law at Seattle University and have collaborated on four previous books, including The Latino Condition, Second Edition (NYU Press, 2010), The Derrick Bell Reader (NYU Press, 2005), How Lawyers Lose Their Way: A Profession Fails Its Creative Minds, and Understanding Words That Wound.

☞ Also, a special congratulations to @writerswriting, winner of our book giveaway of Critical Race Theory during last week’s Banned Books Week!

Celebrate Banned Books Week!

Banned Books Week kicked off yesterday, marking 30 years of “celebrating the freedom to read.” The Office for Intellectual Freedom of the American Library Association (ALA) will be commemorating the 30th anniversary with their “50 State Salute to Banned Books Week“ and a “Virtual Read-Out,” which encourages readers to share videos of themselves reading excerpts from their favorite banned book.

The cause is especially close to our hearts this year at NYU Press, as one of our books made the banned book list, just as it was being released in its second edition!

Following the Tucson Unified School District’s decision to entirely dissolve its Mexican-American Studies program, several books that had been part of its curriculum were banned. Books that made this list included Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire, Chicano!: The History of the Mexican Civil Rights Movement by Arturo Rosales, and NYU Press’s own Critical Race Theory by scholars Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic.

We’d like to take part in the celebration this week and show our support in the fight against censorship! To start, we’re sharing this video reading below, uploaded by Colorado College Feminist and Gender Studies professor Heidi Lewis.

Do you have a favorite banned or challenged book? Let us know in the comments section!

On Constitution Day: Citizenship, jury duty, and Stephen Colbert

—Andrew Guthrie Ferguson

On the 225th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution, two truths remain: the Constitution has survived as the foundational document of this country; and no one agrees on its meaning. It remains inviolate yet contested, sacred but unsettled. And this is a good thing—a sign of its relevance and importance to daily life.

We are living in an era when the Constitution matters. Earlier this month at the Republican National Convention, the Constitution almost was given a speaking role, as references to liberty, limited government, and constitutional constraints dominated the speeches. A week later at the Democratic National Convention, President Obama articulated a theme of collective responsibility based on constitutional citizenship—“a word at the very heart of our founding, a word at the very essence of our democracy, the idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations.” These Conventions offered two visions of the same document and contrasting images of the role of constitutional principles in society. Again, this is a good thing, as it reaffirms the engagement of citizens in the definition of constitutional citizenship.

Yet, the most telling reaction was from cultural critic and occasional constitutional comedian, Stephen Colbert, who said in response to President Obama’s citizenship comment, “I felt we all got jury duty by watching him last night.” On Constitution Day, I want to agree with Mr. Colbert and say that such a feeling of obligation—of linking responsibilities and constitutional citizenship—is also a good thing, because jury duty is constitution duty.

But most of us do not consider jury service as such a constitutional activity. Citizens when summoned don’t see themselves as constitutional actors. The truth in Colbert’s comedy is that “we the people” feel the same dread about constitutional responsibilities as we do about jury duty. Not because we don’t love the idea of the Constitution or even the jury. But because the work involved is unfamiliar and difficult. We don’t think about constitutional rights until they are threatened, and we don’t think about constitutional responsibilities as part of our daily lives. This should change, not only on September 17th—the one day we choose to honor the United States Constitution—but every single day. Every day is an invitation to recognize our responsibility to be a constitutional actor.

Jury duty exists as perhaps the best example of a misunderstood constitutional moment. Most citizens miss the constitutional principles embedded in the experience. The jury is not only a constitutionally mandated institution, but an institution that teaches constitutional values. Juries represent democracy in action, as citizens vote based on principles of fairness, equality, and accountability. We act on common principles, we speak, we deliberate, and we decide. A quick look around the courthouse reveals constitutional principles at play:  participation, deliberation, fairness, equality, accountability, liberty, dissent, and the common good are built within the structures of the courthouse and the rules of trial. These are constitutional principles that helped found America, and all exist in the educational experience that is jury service. Yet, we rarely look for those constitutional lessons, and this is not a good thing.

Instead of dreading jury duty, we should consider it an invitation to constitutional participation—one of the few times we are called to act in a direct way with constitutional principles. You may believe in liberty, due process, and accountability, but jury service requires you to apply those principles to the human being sitting across the courtroom. You may think voting is important (even if you don’t always do it), but in the jury room you must vote. In short, most of us claim we would die to protect the Constitution; jury service simply asks you to live it.

So, as we reflect on what the Constitution means to us today, we should also reflect on how we approach the few moments of constitutional responsibility required of us as citizens. Jury duty, voting, participating in local government, and civic education are all necessary duties we undertake as citizens because of the Constitution. They remind us that in order to stay relevant and important we need to make the Constitution part of our everyday lives. We need to act as constitutional citizens, and to do that we need to teach ourselves about the importance and value of our constitutional responsibilities—including jury duty.

Andrew Guthrie Ferguson is Professor of Law at the University of the District of Columbia. His book, Why Jury Duty Matters: A Citizen’s Guide to Constitutional Action, will be released in early 2013.

The case for global education

Did you know tomorrow is International Literacy Day? Established by UNESCO in 1965, International Literacy Day (observed annually on September 8) focuses attention on worldwide literacy needs, reminding the international community that literacy is a human right and the foundation of all learning. Today, we’d like to kick off the celebration with a free chapter from Educating the Whole Child for the Whole World (edited by Marcelo M. Suarez-Orozco and Carolyn Sattin-Bajaj): “The Case for Global Education,” by John Sexton, the President of NYU. Read an excerpt from the chapter below, and access the full chapter here.

Today, the world is wired; it has grown small. What happens in distant places is known and, more important, experienced almost everywhere—by almost everybody—immediately and unavoidably. The faith assumption of education for global citizenship is that students will ask, not “How did they get to be that way?” but, with voracious curiosity, “What can I learn from you?” How can I translate your world into mine and mine into yours—without diluting our distinctiveness?

You can celebrate International Literacy Day, too. Here are a few tips from UNESCO on how to
JOIN THE CELEBRATION:

1.  Donate books and reading materials to your local school or community centre
2.  Start a reading club
3.  Volunteer to teach literacy classes in your community
4.  Become a mentor of a non-literate person
5.  Send your literacy stories to joinliteracy(at)unesco.org


Click here
 to learn more about Literacy Day and ways you can advance literacy in your community.

Parental fear, social judgments, and the gender trap

—Emily W. Kane

In a moving New York Times magazine story, Ruth Padawer reveals the treacherous terrain facing parents whose young sons wish to wear dresses and tiaras, polish their fingernails, or even refer to themselves as girls. She opens the article with an account of one such boy: Four-year-old Alex, whose parents were worried about his desire to wear a dress to preschool. Susan, Alex’s mom, wanted to let her son pursue his interests, but worried intensely about how others would treat him. She was terrified that he would be bullied at school, tortured by statistics that predicted her son would likely become a drug addict or commit suicide later in life, and often had panic attacks as a result.

The complex tales of significant gender variation that Padawer reports are important ones, as is her analysis of how psychologists, pediatricians and other experts advise parents of “gender variant” children. But even parents whose children perform gender just a little differently, and parents who wish to encourage even a moderately more fluid approach to gender, face fears and anxieties as well. In my forthcoming book, The Gender Trap: Parents and the Pitfalls of Raising Boys and Girls, I interviewed parents of preschoolers, asking them how they think about children’s gender. None of these were parents whose kids would be classified as gender variant and none had sought any expert intervention—they were just everyday parents from all sorts of backgrounds, engaged in routine daily choices.

I figured many would tell me that they see gendered patterns in childhood as biologically dictated, while also reporting relatively unconscious everyday actions that reinforce and even produce those patterns. Some parents did follow that expectation, but many didn’t. And among those who viewed gendered childhoods as a product of social expectations rather than biological dictates, and who considered gender expectations problematically limiting to their children, I heard reports of an everyday world teeming with social pressures, judgments from friends, relatives, and even strangers if their kids didn’t stick to a narrowly gendered path. These parents were very much conscious of the social costs—to their children and themselves—of not living up to gender expectations. Consistent with Padawer’s analysis and decades of scholarship in gender studies, these social pressures are much more notable for boys (and men) who wander even a little bit off the socially dictated path.

Recent attention to significant gender variance in childhood, and to the struggles faced by transgendered people of all ages, is a welcome trend for those who wish to see a world unconstrained by gender rules. But the parents I interviewed offer a crucial reminder of just how far we are from that world, as even more minor variations—especially for sons—provoke fear, anxiety and careful management on the part of quite a few parents. For parents, the trap of pushing children toward traditionally gendered outcomes is sometimes baited by beliefs about biology, personal preferences, and unconscious actions. Even when it isn’t, the routine assumptions and everyday judgments of friends, relatives, teachers, children’s peers, and strangers can bait that same trap. Parents can try to create a less constraining world for their children, but the rest of us will need to suspend our judgments and applaud their efforts.

Emily W. Kane is Professor of Sociology at Bates College in Lewiston, Maine. Her forthcoming book, The Gender Trap: Parents and the Pitfalls of Raising Boys and Girls will be released this month.