Explore the vast range of titles available.

This article argues that the integration of race-conscious dialogues in public administration programs will promote racial and social justice, as well as improve service delivery for a wide array of constituents. Scholars have acknowledged the challenges associated with incorporating racial justice into public sector practices. However, if racial divisions are to subside, academic and professional training programs need to purposefully include discussions of race, racism, and racial equity. This article concludes with a discussion of way to incorporate an antiracist pedagogy in public administration curriculum. This strategy can begin preparing future administrators to thoughtfully engage in difficult dialogues around topics of race and racism.

Although the current COVID-19 crisis is felt globally, at the local level, COVID-19 has disproportionately affected poor, highly segregated African American communities in Chicago. To understand the emerging pattern of racial inequality in the effects of COVID-19, we examined the relative burden of social vulnerability and health risk factors. We found significant spatial clusters of social vulnerability and risk factors, both of which are significantly associated with the increased COVID-19-related death rate. We also found that a higher percentage of African Americans was associated with increased levels of social vulnerability and risk factors. In addition, the proportion of African American residents has an independent effect on the COVID-19 death rate. We argue that existing inequity is often highlighted in emergency conditions. The disproportionate effects of COVID-19 in African American communities are a reflection of racial inequality and social exclusion that existed before the COVID-19 crisis.

The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has organized hundreds of disruptive protests in American cities since 2013 (Garza 2014; Harris 2015; Taylor 2016). The movement has garnered considerable attention from the U.S. media and is well recognized by the U.S. public (Horowitz and Livingston 2016; Neal 2017). Social movement scholars suggest that such robust mobilizations are typically predicated on clear social movement frames (Benford and Snow 2000; Snow et al. 1986). Tillery (2019b) has identified several distinct message frames within the social media communications of BLM activists. In this paper, we use a survey experiment to test the effect of three of these frames—Black Nationalist, Feminist, and LGBTQ+ Rights—on the mobilization of African Americans. We find that exposure to these frames generates differential effects on respondents’ willingness to support, trust, canvass, and write representatives about the Black Lives Matter movement. These findings raise new questions about the deployment of intersectional messaging strategies within movements for racial justice.

This Sounding Board article reviews racial and socioeconomic inequities in the burden of climate change and discusses strategies for health professionals to advance environmental justice and health equity.

Schools are heralded by some as unique sites for promoting racial equity. Central to this characterization is the presumption that teachers embrace racial equity and teaching about this topic. In contrast, others have documented the ongoing role of teachers in perpetuating racial inequality in schools. In this article, we employ data from two national data sets to investigate teachers’ explicit and implicit racial bias, comparing them to adults with similar characteristics. We find that both teachers and nonteachers hold pro-White explicit and implicit racial biases. Furthermore, differences between teachers and nonteachers were negligible or insignificant. The findings suggest that if schools are to effectively promote racial equity, teachers should be provided with training to either shift or mitigate the effects of their own racial biases.

This paper provides an analysis of U.S. farmland owners, operators, and workers by race, ethnicity, and gender. We first review the intersection between racialized and gendered capitalism and farmland ownership and farming in the United States. Then we analyze data from the 2014 Tenure and Ownership Agricultural Land survey, the 2012 Census of Agriculture, and the 2013–2014 National Agricultural Worker Survey to demonstrate that significant nation-wide disparities in farming by race, ethnicity and gender persist in the U.S. In 2012–2014, White people owned 98% and operated 94% of all farmland. They generated 98% of all farm-related income from land ownership and 97% of income from farm owner-operatorship. Meanwhile, People of Color farmers (African American or Black, Asian American, Native American, Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and Hispanic farmers) were more likely to be tenants rather than owners, owned less land, and generated less farm-related wealth per person than their White counterparts. Hispanic farmers were also disproportionately farm laborers. In addition to racial and ethnic disparities, there were disparities by gender. About 63% of non-operating landowners, 86% of farm operators, and 87% of tenant farmers were male, and female farmers tended to generate less income per farmer than men. This data provides evidence of ongoing racial, ethnic and gender disparities in agriculture in the United States. We conclude with a call to address the structural drivers of the disparities and with recommendations for better data collection.

Population-level health outcomes and measures of well-being are often described relative to broad racial/ethnic categories such as White or Caucasian; Black or African American; Latino or Hispanic; Asian American; Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander; or American Indian and Alaska Native. However, the aggregation of data into these groups masks critical within-group differences and disparities, limiting the health and social services fields’abilities to target their resources where most needed. While researchers and policymakers have recognized the importance of disaggregating racial/ethnic data—and many organizations have advocated for it over the years—progress has been slow and disparate. The ongoing lack of racial/ethnic data disaggregation perpetuates existing inequities in access to much-needed resources that can ensure health and well-being. In its efforts to help build a Culture of Health and promote health equity, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has supported activities aimed to advance the meaningful disaggregation of racial/ethnic data—at the collection, analysis, and reporting phases. This special issue presents further evidence for the importance of disaggregation, the technical and policy challenges to creating change in practice, and the implications of improving the use of race and ethnicity data to identify and address gaps in health.

Racial capitalism is a fundamental cause of the racial and socioeconomic inequities within the novel coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) in the United States. The overrepresentation of Black death reported in Detroit, Michigan is a case study for this argument. Racism and capitalism mutually construct harmful social conditions that fundamentally shape COVID-19 disease inequities because they (a) shape multiple diseases that interact with COVID-19 to influence poor health outcomes; (b) affect disease outcomes through increasing multiple risk factors for poor, people of color, including racial residential segregation, homelessness, and medical bias; (c) shape access to flexible resources, such as medical knowledge and freedom, which can be used to minimize both risks and the consequences of disease; and (d) replicate historical patterns of inequities within pandemics, despite newer intervening mechanisms thought to ameliorate health consequences. Interventions should address social inequality to achieve health equity across pandemics.

Climate change has a broad range of health impacts and tackling climate change could be the greatest opportunity for improving global health this century. Yet conversations on climate change and health are often incomplete, giving little attention to structural discrimination and the need for racial justice. Racism kills, and climate change kills. Together, racism and climate change interact and have disproportionate effects on the lives of minoritised people both within countries and between the Global North and the Global South. This paper has three main aims. First, to survey the literature on the unequal health impacts of climate change due to racism, xenophobia, and discrimination through a scoping review. We found that racially minoritised groups, migrants, and Indigenous communities face a disproportionate burden of illness and mortality due to climate change in different contexts. Second, this paper aims to highlight inequalities in responsibility for climate change and the effects thereof. A geographical visualisation of responsibility for climate change and projected mortality and disease risk attributable to climate change per 100 000 people in 2050 was conducted. These maps visualise the disproportionate burden of illness and mortality due to climate change faced by the Global South. Our third aim is to highlight the pathways through which climate change, discrimination, and health interact in most affected areas. Case studies, testimony, and policy analysis drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives are presented throughout the paper to elucidate these pathways. The health community must urgently examine and repair the structural discrimination that drives the unequal impacts of climate change to achieve rapid and equitable action.

The term intersectionality references the critical insight that race, class, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, nation, ability, and age operate not as unitary, mutually exclusive entities, but rather as reciprocally constructing phenomena. Despite this general consensus, definitions of what counts as intersectionality are far from clear. In this article, I analyze intersectionality as a knowledge project whose raison d'être lies in its attentiveness to power relations and social inequalities. I examine three interdependent sets of concerns: ( a ) intersectionality as a field of study that is situated within the power relations that it studies; ( b ) intersectionality as an analytical strategy that provides new angles of vision on social phenomena; and ( c ) intersectionality as critical praxis that informs social justice projects.