Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Sociology saves us all

People holding protest signs

University of Houston students protest a Texas bill which would ban diversity programs at public colleges and universities in 2023.

Raquel Natalicchio/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images

Thiele Strong is a sociology professor at San José State University and a public voices fellow at the The OpEd Project.

Across the nation, campaigns to cancel, eliminate and marginalize the basic social science education that underpins diversity, equity and inclusion efforts have gained steam. Educational gag orders and DEI bans impact students from K-12 classrooms to college campuses.

Most central to the ire of those attacking are foundational sociological concepts. Sociology is the field which studies society. Sociologists analyze life chances and how we get them; how structures pattern our experiences and beliefs. Too often confused for its more celebrated sister science, psychology, sociology is the psychology of the people.


Sociologists explore how various aspects of our identity – gender, race, economic status, sexuality – show up and affect us in the world.

We discuss the “social construction zone” and how what has happened in the past affects people today. We examine power, who has which types of it — and, just as importantly, who doesn’t. As educators, we want students to learn about our social order, to reconsider and reimagine both it and their place in it.

Despite its centrality to understanding the collective human experience, sociology is marginalized in our schooling system. Sociology is not part of the core curriculum in K-12 education, and students can earn an undergraduate degree without taking a sociology class.

Becoming sociologically minded is not always easy. Quoting astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson, “In science, when human behavior enters the equation, things go nonlinear. That's why physics is easy and sociology is hard.”

As a normative sociologist, I encourage students to get curious and to use data to understand how we can learn from ourselves, what works and what doesn’t work, to build a better society for all people.

In recent years, I have felt incredulity for the ways in which the alt-right weaponizes the notion of freedom of speech. Conservative political pundits claim to be unable to speak freely, yet they have a platform to denounce social science fundamentals – and do so. Debating the theories of sociology is certainly acceptable but it is quite different from advocating the banning of sociological concepts from our schools.

As a tenured professor, I haven’t felt like I have full freedom of speech in my classroom; speaking without reservation about sociological content can feel risky. There are colleagues outside my department who dismiss sociologically driven insights. I worry a student in the class might record me, skewing content or taking what I say out of context to create a viral bit. I fear a public that does not value and will attack educated women talking honestly about our craft, which asks difficult, thorny questions with uncomfortable answers.

This negotiation to work within our current polemic political environment limits my ability to express freely. The notion of freedom of speech, and more specifically, the freedom of speech for whom, is at stake.

This hierarchy of “whose rights” is playing out across the nation and it plays out at the classroom level as well. Perversely, the ideal of freedom of speech has been commandeered by the alt-right as freedom to denounce legitimate and necessary social science knowledge. This shift has negative consequences for our youth, sociology educators, the public — all of us.

Nearly a dozen states have introduced bills directing what students can and cannot be taught about the role of enslavement in American history and ongoing racism. Florida lawmakers have proposed legislation that would prohibit classroom discussions about sexual orientation and gender identity. Labor history has long been absent from school curriculum.

At the root of the free speech debate is the fine line between speech that offends one’s sensibilities and speech that crosses the line into intolerance. Learning the reality of anti-Black racism, for example, may threaten some; however, antiracist curriculum is education, not hate speech.

In a highly polarized society, how do we keep ourselves and our school systems in contact with ideas that are enriching — and safe from ideas that are not so?

Sociology, because of the way it parses through, discerns and analyzes our collective ways, can help.

Education is meant to broaden horizons and encourage critical thinking through exposure to knowledge, new ideas and different ways of thinking.

Sociology faculty, educators and students deserve to live out freedom of speech, both on- and off-campus. We need people and institutions to invest in sociology. We need parents to write letters to school boards and administrators asking for more sociology in schools. And we need a political system that will take seriously the work of those of us who study society. The ability to open our minds, perhaps to uncomfortable ideas, which could help us to envision a socially sustainable future, may indeed be vital for our collective well-being.

Read More

White Books and Curriculum Damage Black Children

The rise of book bans and erasure of Black history from classrooms emotionally and systematically harms Black children. It's critical that we urge educators to represent Black experiences and stories in class.

Getty Images, Klaus Vedfelt

White Books and Curriculum Damage Black Children

When my son, Jonathan, was born, one of the first children’s books I bought was "So Much" by Trish Cooke. I was captivated by its joyful depiction of a Black family loving their baby boy. I read it to him often, wanting him to know that he was deeply loved, seen, and valued. In an era when politicians are banning books, sanitizing curricula, and policing the teaching of Black history, the idea of affirming Black children’s identities is miscast as divisive and wrong. Forty-two states have proposed or passed legislation restricting how race and history can be taught, including Black history. PEN America reported that nearly 16,000 books (many featuring Black stories) were banned from schools within the last three years across 43 states. These prohibitive policies and bans are presented as protecting the ‘feelings’ of White children, while at the same time ignoring and invalidating the feelings of Black children who live daily with the pain of erasure, distortion, and disregard in schools.

When I hear and see the ongoing devaluation of Black children in schools and public life, I, and other Black parents, recognize this pain firsthand. For instance, recently, my teenage granddaughter, Jaliyah, texted me, asking to visit the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington, D.C., because she had heard that the President planned to close it. For what felt like the millionth time, my heart broke with the understanding that too many people fail to rally on behalf of Black children. Jaliyah’s question revealed what so many Black children intuitively understand—that their histories, their feelings, and their futures are often treated as expendable.

Keep Reading Show less
Pluralism or DEI - or Both - or None?

equity, inclusion, diversity

AI generated

Pluralism or DEI - or Both - or None?

Even before Trump’s actions against DEI, many in the academic community and elsewhere felt for some time that DEI had taken an unintended turn.

What was meant to provide support—in jobs, education, grants, and other ways—to those groups who historically and currently have suffered from discrimination became for others a sign of exclusion because all attention was placed on how these groups were faring, with little attention to others. Those left out were assumed not to need any help, but that was mistaken. They did need help and are angry.

Keep Reading Show less
Two people in business attire walking into an office.

Dr. Valentina Greco reflects on how accent bias, internalized gatekeeping, and hidden prejudices shape academia—and how true change begins by confronting our own discomfort.

Getty Images, Marco VDM

How Do We Become the Gatekeepers?

“Do you have a moment?”

I turned and saw my senior colleague, Paul (not his real name), a mentor and sponsor, at my office door.

Keep Reading Show less
So DEI doesn’t work. OK, what would be better?

Conceptual image of multiple human face shapes in a variety of colors illustrating different races

Getty Images

So DEI doesn’t work. OK, what would be better?

It is no secret that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs are under attack in our country. They have been blamed for undermining free speech, meritocracy, and America itself. The University of Virginia is the latest to settle with the government and walk away from its DEI initiatives rather than defend its programs or find a new solution.

Those who decry DEI say they do so in the name of meritocracy. They argue that those who benefit from DEI programs do so at the expense of other, more qualified individuals, and that these programs are weakening professions such as our military, science, education, and healthcare. But these arguments have it exactly backwards. DEI programs were never designed to give privilege to underrepresented people. They were put in place to chip away at discrimination and nepotism, both concepts that are antithetical to meritocracy.

Keep Reading Show less