Race, Gender, and Affirmative Action Attitudes in American and Canadian Universities

Direct comparisons of American and Canadian faculty and students’ views concerning issues of race, gender, and affirmative action in higher education are rare. The 1999 North American Academic Study Survey provides a unique opportunity to analyze the role of national and positional factors in faculty and student attitudes towards race, gender, and affirmative action in the US and Canada. The findings indicate that national factors are more important than positional factors on many racial and affirmative-action issues. Differences between students and faculty are more pronounced than are cross-national variations on many gender-related issues.Rares sont les comparaisons directes entre l’opinion des corps professoral et étudiant des États-Unis et du Canada sur les problématiques liées à la nationalité, au sexe et à la discrimination positive dans l’enseignement supérieur. Le document 1999 North American Academic Study Survey donne l’occasion unique d’analyser le rôle des facteurs nationaux et socioculturels sur l’attitude des corps professoral et étudiant envers la nationalité, le sexe et la discrimination positive aux États-Unis et au Canada. Les résultats suggèrent que, pour plusieurs problématiques liées à la nationalité et à la discrimination positive, les facteurs nationaux sont plus importants que les facteurs socioculturels. Pour plusieurs problématiques liées au sexe, on observe des différences d’attitudes plus marquées entre le corps professoral et le corps étudiant d’un même pays que d’un pays à l’autre

What does it mean to be a kin majority? Analyzing Romanian identity in Moldova and Russian identity in Crimea from below

Objective This article investigates what kin identification means from a bottom-up perspective in two kin majority cases: Moldova and Crimea. Methods The article is based on ∼50 fieldwork interviews conducted in both Moldova and Crimea with everyday social actors (2012–2013). Results Ethnic homogeneity for kin majorities is more fractured that previously considered. Respondents identified more in terms of assemblages of ethnic, cultural, political, linguistic, and territorial identities than in mutually exclusive census categories. Conclusions To understand fully the relations between kin majorities, their kin-state and home-state and the impact of growing kin engagement policies, like dual citizenship, it is necessary to analyze the complexities of the lived experience of kin identification for members of kin majorities and how this relates to kin-state identification and affiliation. Understanding these complexities helps to have a more nuanced understanding of the role of ethnicity in post-Communist societies, in terms of kin-state and intrastate relations