Search results

Does the social work labor force reflect the field's commitment to social and economic justice? Using individual-level census data for 1980–2014 on self-identified social workers and on other college graduates in college-majority occupations, this article finds three key patterns. First, representation of women, blacks, and Latinx in social work is high and growing, greatly exceeding that in most of these other occupations. Second, white men continue to earn more than comparable women, blacks, and Latinx, but gender/racial/ethnic pay disparities in social work have dropped by half or more since 1980 and are far smaller than in most other occupations. Third, social workers earn substantially less than comparable employees in other occupations, and the pay disadvantage is growing. That low pay, however, may contribute to both the diversity and relative pay equity in social work.

ABSTRACTDespite some stakeholders' concerns about the practical value of an undergraduate degree in political science, our graduates actually do quite well in the labor market. Based on analysis of a sample of 3.4 million college graduates (including 86,000 in political science) from the 2009–2014 American Community Surveys, our majors earn two-thirds more than demographically similar high school graduates if they stop with bachelor's degrees, but they are among the most likely to obtain graduate degrees, especially in law. Only engineering, economics, computer science, and health science majors make at least 10% more than our graduates, who make nearly as much as those who major in business and 10% to 25% more than those who major in most other social sciences and humanities. Political science majors have relatively high unemployment rates in their 20s, however, and may end up in very different occupations than they imagined when they chose political science.

Government preference for military veterans in hiring, a means to honor them for their service and sacrifices, potentially conflicts with other values of the public service, including its diversity and quality. Census data for 1990, 2000, and 2006-2009 show that veterans are at least three times as likely to hold federal jobs as, but only 10% more likely to hold state and local government jobs than, comparable individuals without military service. Veterans' preference has substantially increased the percentage of federal employees who are men and has probably decreased the percentages who are Asians, gay men, and immigrants, but its effects on the composition of state and local governments are small. Federal personnel data for the past decade show that veteran new hires are older and less educated than nonveteran new hires, and that they do not advance as far in the first 15 years of their careers as nonveterans hired into the same grades at the same time, suggesting that veterans' preference may be lowering the performance of the federal service. Adapted from the source document.

According to both the contact hypothesis and gay rights advocates, coming out to straight friends and family members should increase acceptance of homosexuality and support for gay rights. If lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (LGBs) come out primarily to people they expect to be accepting, however, the repeated finding that people who know LGBs are more likely to support gay rights could be overstating the impact of coming out. Using individual‐level data from 27 national surveys, I find that similar variables predict both knowing LGBs and supporting gay rights, but in different ways. Even after controlling for those demographic, religious, and political variables—and sometimes also for beliefs about whether some people are born gay and whether homosexuality is immoral—people who know LGBs are much more likely to support gay rights. The effect holds for every issue, in every year, for every type of relationship, and for every demographic, religious, and political subgroup.

Why are people with same-sex partners more likely than married people to work for nonprofit organizations (NPOs)? Analysis of 2000 Census data suggests that smaller gay–straight pay disparities for men in the nonprofit sector, occupational choices, and ability to afford nonprofit employment explain some overrepresentation of partnered gay men but not of partnered lesbians. Even after controlling for all these factors, people with same-sex partners remain more likely than married people to work for NPOs, suggesting that a strong desire to serve others is an important factor.

Why are Americans who believe homosexuality is innate more likely to support the rights of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (LGBs)? Attribution theory suggests that people are more likely to support LGB rights if they do not blame LGBs for their sexual orientation. Alternatively, moral condemnation of homosexuality may lead both to belief that homosexuality is a choice and opposition to LGB rights, while acceptance of LGB rights may lead to a belief in a biological basis for homosexuality as part of a constellation of tolerant beliefs. Using logit analysis on individual‐level data from 24 national surveys conducted since 1977, I find that the link between belief in a biological basis for homosexuality and support for LGB rights is strong and growing for almost all groups on almost all issues. The reason may have more to do with people shaping their origin beliefs to match their political and religious values, than with origin beliefs affecting support for LGB rights.

Successfully reframing a political issue as morality policy should strengthen the hand of those charging immorality. However, reframers face a daunting task in shifting public opinion. In 1989, Christian conservatives attempted to reframe the debate over federal funding for the arts from waste to immorality, by attacking grants for "anti‐Christian" and "homoerotic" art. Using General Social Survey data from before, during, and after the attempted reframing, this article assesses the reframers' success in heightening the salience of religion, commitment to civil liberties, and attitudes toward sexuality in public thinking about government spending on the arts.