Spin, or real change, from American corporations?

Recently, more than 200 chief corporate executives, leaders among the most pervasive corporations in American life, (Apple, Amazon, Marathon Oil, Pepsi, 3M, Walmart, etc), met and redefined the role of the corporation in society. They apparently hope to “redefine” that role away from one focused on building value for shareholders (making money for shareholders) to a more socially responsible actor (essentially how they will “behave” in the pursuit of profit). See statement here: opportunity.businessroundtable.org/ourcommitment.

As central actors in a free market economy, they believe “Americans deserve an economy that allows each person to succeed through hard work and creativity and to lead a life of meaning and dignity.” Does that mean that Amazon’s work conditions are going to improve?

The statement goes on: “We believe the free-market system is the best means of generating good jobs, a strong and sustainable economy, innovation, a healthy environment and economic opportunity for all.” This seems quite the opposite of what is happening in the U.S. right now, with wages only now beginning to rise, the stock market lurching on every presidential tweet, ominous “signs” of economic downturn, and growing antagonism between the U.S. and virtually every other industrialized country. Is this in response to the pro-business nationalism of President Trump?

So, what is this all about? Is it the leading edge of a soft revolution in corporate behavior, moving away from the relentless pursuit of profit regardless of the collateral effects? Or, is it a public relations effort in face of a growing chorus of younger people who are embracing the socialist label (redefining it really from what it has historically meant)?

I think it is important to note that distrust of corporations was part of the founding of the United States. The federal government, however, gave states the right to recognize corporations. Basically, in a free market based on risk/reward, corporations were created as “legal persons” to reduce the personal economic risk of its living shareholders.

In short, shareholders and executives cannot be held personally liable for corporate failures. Thus, if a corporation makes bad decisions, its shareholders are protected from losing their personal homes and assets, whereas the corporation’s employees are not. They will lose their livelihoods and possibly their assets if they cannot find employment. We can call that class privilege.

Research demonstrates a declining trust by Americans in American institutions and their leaders. This is especially true of the youngest adults in the United States. Trust in business leaders among 18-29 year olds is at just 34 percent, the same as for elected officials. So, is this just spin by the CEOs or it is a real change?

Let’s examine the bullets points offered in the statement. This is what they committed to:

• Delivering value to our customers. We will further the tradition of American companies leading the way in meeting or exceeding customer expectations. Wouldn’t that be a recommitment if it has been their tradition? So, this to me suggests no change in past behavior.

• Investing in our employees. This starts with compensating them fairly and providing important benefits. It also includes supporting them through training and education that help develop new skills for a rapidly changing world. We foster diversity and inclusion, dignity and respect. Is this an admission that in the past they were not compensating fairly, providing benefits, and supporting them through reinvestment in them?

• Dealing fairly and ethically with our suppliers. We are dedicated to serving as good partners to the other companies, large and small, that help us meet our missions. Similar to the previous bullet, is this an admission of not dealing fairly and ethically in the past?

• Supporting the communities in which we work. We respect the people in our communities and protect the environment by embracing sustainable practices across our businesses. I await for the first call from the Business Roundtable to reverse the rapid deregulation of the environment.

• Generating long-term value for shareholders, who provide the capital that allows companies to invest, grow and innovate. We are committed to transparency and effective engagement with shareholders. Isn’t that the original reason for corporations, generating value for shareholders? Maybe its “long-term” instead of each quarter?

Maybe I am too hard on these leaders of the free market. But, if this is supposed to build trust and confidence, I don’t think it is going to work. A change in behavior? If these are quiet admissions of past “poor dealings” then we should see some changes very quickly. What time is it?

Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email: thomas.steiger@indstate.edu.

Reflections on racism, forgiveness — and redemption

previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 3 March 2019

Now that the dust has settled regarding the blackface scandals among the Virginia Democrat political leadership, what’s come of it? Gov. Northam is still in power, though diminished. Several weeks ago a commentator remarked about how so many white people are no doubt trying to scrub their yearbooks, Facebook, and other sources for any evidence of blackface. Those searches are probably either completed or now forgotten, threat over. The new anger de jure is directed at something that did or did not happen at the Academy Awards.

A couple of weeks ago I listened to a discussion lead by Joshua Johnson of NPR’s 1A radio program about the history of and use of blackface and other black images for the entertainment and product branding by white entertainers and business people. It’s worth your time to listen and can be found here: www.npr.org/2019/02/08/692759371/the-news-roundup-for-february-8-2019.

Near the end of the segment, Mr. Johnson raised the question of “white redemption,” that is, when can someone like Gov. Northam, who is exposed to have engaged in racist behavior, claim to, or be, redeemed? This discussion did not go too far, but I’ve been thinking about it ever since.

Is it possible for a politician, public figure, really anyone, especially if they are white, to survive something like this? Gov. Northam has not resigned. The Virginia Black Legislative Caucus met and decided he should step down, but fell short of demanding it. Would that be the same response if the governor were a Republican? Does party matter or is it something about Gov. Northam’s “total body of work” that mitigates in some way his medical college yearbook photos and the activity memorialized in those photos?

Gov. Northam was to start a “reconciliation tour” but has delayed it. I’m confident that the public relations firm that Gov. Northam hired is behind the idea of a “reconciliation tour” and if they are worth their fee they will not have Gov. Northam trying to moonwalk.

I wonder what Gov. Northam has said in private, if anything. He is reported to be a member and regular attendee at the First Baptist Church of Capeville, a predominately black church. Almost immediately Pastor Kelvin Jones and congregants gave him “another chance.” That is a very different response than national white Democrat leaders who called for Northam’s immediate resignation.

White Democrat leaders are unforgiving while Gov. Northam’s pastor and fellow Baptists are willing to give him another chance. Another chance to do what? To not wear blackface? To not have another picture from 30-plus years ago emerge with compromising content? If Gov. Northam screws up his second chance, will he be shunned at church? Asked to leave the congregation? Asked to resign the governorship?

What does redemption look like for most of us, the “us” not in the public eye? First, who grants the redemption? Our white friends who may worry that being friends with someone who wore blackface or did racist things 30 years ago might reflect on them? Those who think all this is just PC liberal “gotcha” moralizing? Or is it our African American friends, colleagues and neighbors who we look to for redemption? For that “another chance” to not do something? Most of us really don’t have African American friends, colleagues or neighbors, given how race so effectively segregates us both physically and socially. So, this is a challenge. That Gov. Northam worships with African Americans says something, I think.

In January, I had a reunion with my two of my college roommates. It had been 38 years since I had seen SN. I was startled when he told us his first memory of me. It involved matters of race. I didn’t recall it, even after he told the story. I don’t deny it; I suspect that it happened because I know, at 17, an only child, I was apprehensive about living with a person who I didn’t know and afraid that he might be black. Fear is the heart of racism.

After several weeks of thinking about this I don’t have any answers. I do have one suggestion. Don’t make excuses for past behavior. Own it. If you are embarrassed/ashamed/feeling guilty by it today, why weren’t you then? That should say something about the path you have been on.

You may not have been very conscious of your path, but you can reflect on it now. And maybe achieve some level of redemption.

Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email: thomas.steiger@indstate.edu.

Problems abound in Chinese gene-editing research

previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 16 December 2018

On Nov 26 Dr. He Jankui, a Chinese biomedical researcher, became (in)famous. He shocked the world by announcing that he had used a gene splicing technology to edit the genes of two embryos, who he claims have been born, thus ushering in the age of genetically enhanced human beings.

Why is this so controversial? There are many ways to examine this, but with one, I have 20 years of experience. I’ve served on the “Institutional Review Board” (committee that reviews all human subjects work conducted at ISU) including chairing it for nearly a decade.

Dr. He revealed that he had altered the genes of twin baby girls so they would not contract HIV. It is unclear whether his statement is true, but his university as well as the Chinese government have distanced themselves from Dr. He and suspended his work. The two girls have been born, and if the story is true, they can pass their altered genes to their own children.

Eugenics, a movement to improve the human species by selecting superior traits, arose in the West and then found its greatest expression in Nazi Germany. Indeed, the Nazi human experimentations revealed after the war, led to the creation of the Nuremberg Code, which attempted to guide biomedical research, especially in the West and specifically in the US. Nonetheless, research revealed in the later 1960s and early 1970s that violated the “Code” and most people’s basic sensibilities, resulted in the “Belmont Report” and the formal decentralized regulation of human subjects research in the U.S. that we have today. And those documents and practices have influenced the rest of the world.

Three, at times, competing, ethical principles guide (regulated) human subjects research in the United States. They are “beneficence,” “respect for persons,” and “justice.” They are equal in weight, sometimes conflict, but yield a conservative approach to recruiting and conducting research with human subjects. Understandably, many researchers chafe at human subjects review of their research.

In one of a series of videos Dr. He appears in as part of his announcement, Dr. He outlined the ethical principles that guided his work. However, he justified the therapeutic use of the procedure, not the research. Research ethics are different and arguably more conservative. Indeed, the dual role conflict between clinician offering therapy and researcher is a common challenge in biomedical research.

Dr. He appeared to be motivated to perfect a genetic edit of a gene to make the babies resistant to HIV because HIV has devastated much of the Chinese population. That would be his argument for beneficence and that is certainly defensible, but there are many “howevers.” I could not find a copy of the informed consent document and a detailed description of the process to consent the prospective parents. It does not sound like it was vetted by an ethics board and it is not clear from what I can find if the informed consent document contained all necessary elements of informed consent.

Reports about the informed consent document state that the reason for the research was to create an AIDS vaccine, which the research was clearly not. Deception can be used in research but it must be necessary to the research, not to allay concerns on the part of potential subjects.

Another concern is that paternal transmission of HIV to offspring is rare and the process used for the in vitro fertilization essentially eliminated the possibility of that transmission anyway. Thus there was no medical reason to edit the embryos’ genes. Dr. He justified the research by claiming it would protect the children in the future, but HIV, even in China, is avoidable.

Every human subjects researcher must weigh the risks and benefits of the research. If the benefits do not outweigh the risks, then the research does not go forward. As an experienced reviewer of human subjects research, from what I can piece together, it does not appear that the benefits outweigh the risks. This is, in part, because we don’t fully know the risks.

Even the technique Dr. He used, CRISPR, to edit the genes, has been related to causing cancer because of the imprecision of the editing. Did Dr. He present that as a risk to the parents? The procedure might lead to the daughters being resistant to HIV but at greater risk of developing cancer?

Parents, desperate to have a child, are vulnerable. The father of the twins was depicted by Dr. He as being despondent that he could not have children presumably because he was concerned about passing on HIV to his children. My guess is that the cost of having in vitro fertilization was beyond their means (on average about $4,300 USD; average household income, $10,220 USD) thus agreeing to be part of research in order to get the safer procedure than normal sexual reproduction is ethically problematic as well.

This goes to the ethical principle of respect for persons. Researchers must not use undue influence to gain the consent of their subjects. And if the risks were not fully explained to the parents, then the principle of respect for persons is not upheld. Moreover, Dr. He administered the informed consent himself. Normally, the therapist would not consent his research subjects because of “undue influence” over the subjects.

Lastly is the ethical principle of justice. Had Dr. He undertook this research in order to protect the embryos from infection from their father, Dr. He would have adhered to this principle, because the group most likely to benefit, infected fathers and their partners, are the ones shouldering the risk of the research (although it is the embryos who are actually at risk, but embryos cannot consent to the procedure).

However, Dr. He stated that his motivation was to protect the embryos not from their father but in the future. Therefore, the principle of justice is not upheld. The principle of justice holds that those who benefit from the research should bear the risks of the research. Dr. He however, targeted for recruitment an arguably vulnerable population who were, in their eyes, unable to have children because of the threat of parental transmission. They are not the only group who would benefit; anyone who receives the edited genes would benefit.

Parents without HIV should have also been recruited in order to not solely burden the HIV infected group with the risk of the research that can benefit groups beyond the HIV positive group.

Hence, based on what I can piece together about Dr. He’s research, this research should not have gone forward.

Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email thomas.steiger@indstate.edu.

What if Kavanugh had said something different?

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 4 October 2018

I believe Dr. Ford. I am skeptical of Judge Kavanaugh’s denial. It is clear he refuses to admit to things that are fairly obvious about his youth. He painted himself at that age and later in college in a manner that does not sound “right.” What I am stuck on is why. Why is he reluctant to admit to any tarnish on his past? Perhaps we are seeing what others have called “upper class privilege.”

All of us constantly, whether we are aware of it or not, manage the impressions we give off in part in an effort to manage what others think of us. Some of us are conscious of that and cultivate that impression management very much, we can see this in the concept of personal branding.

We all were young once. To be “young” is to make mistakes, try out stuff, live in a rarefied world where “we” think we have discovered “sex, drugs and music.” I think just about everyone, when they were “young” did things that if they could do it over, would not. Some acts are relatively innocent (Mr. Young, I am truly sorry I ruined your front yard by doing a “burnout’ in it with my car.) and unfortunately, some are not and leave life-long scars, such as what Dr. Ford experienced. Surely one measure of maturity is to learn from “mistakes.”

By now, everyone has made their mind up about both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh My guess is that short of any credible further investigation, no matter what comes out now, won’t change anyone’s mind about these two people that most of us now think we know but really do not.

In that vein, I offer the following thought exercise. Please imagine if Judge Kavanaugh had said this during that Thursday hearing:

"Thank you Chairman Grassley and Senators. This has been a very difficult process. It has angered me to the point of rage as my name, which I have tried to carefully cultivate, has been dragged into the gutter and I have been accused of truly evil things. And, as I sit here now, I know all of you are expecting me to 'categorically deny' that I ever did what Dr. Ford has testified that I did, more than 30 years ago.

"The truth, however, is that I cannot do that. I can say I do not remember, though, even that is too strong.

"The fact is I do like beer and I used to drink too much of it. I did drink until I was in a stupor, more than once, and there are times where I don’t remember things. Listening to Dr. Ford’s testimony today, there are things she said that correspond to what I describe as flashes of memory but I cannot really place them, in fact, I don’t now really understand them or even that they correspond to anything that actually happened. They could just be flashes from alcohol laden dreams.

"The fact is, I don’t want to be Dr. Ford’s attacker, who would want to be such a monster? But, truthfully, I cannot say it wasn’t me. I can only truthfully say I don’t know. I don’t believe it was me, but I don’t have the same level of confidence in saying no that Dr. Ford has in saying yes.

"What I can say is that I have conducted myself as a jurist appropriately and with honor and I think a record worthy of confirmation to the Supreme Court. I have sought to promote women lawyers through my clerkships, because I believe we need more women in the highest reaches of law. If I am confirmed, I will be the best justice I can be and continue to conduct myself with the same integrity as my record reflects.

I know doing what you expected me to do, categorically deny that it was me who attacked Dr. Ford, would make your decision as Senators easier. Things are not always so clear and we judges have to sift through messy facts and arguments. I wish you great wisdom as you consider what you have heard today.”

How would you respond to Judge Kavanaugh if that had been his statement? Would it make any difference?

James Comey, and the complexity of values

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 22 April 2018

I don’t know whether to admire former FBI director James Comey or feel sorry for him.

Last June I sat glued watching Mr. Comey testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee. It inspired me to write an essay about what was going on, revealed by his testimony.

This essay is more about Mr. Comey as he morphs, unwittingly, into “committing sociology” (a derogatory phrase originated by columnist George Will). Mr. Comey’s remarks, ahead of the release of his book, make many sociological claims about American values.

Here is just a brief part of an interview that captures what Mr. Comey has been saying recently:

STEVE INSKEEP, NPR: Why have you focused in some of your comments on what you view as the moral fitness of the president to be president?

JAMES COMEY: Because I'm very worried that — and one of the ways I hope to be useful is having people realize that there's something above our normal fights. We fight like crazy in this country about guns and about social issues and taxes and immigration. And that's as it should be, and it's always been that way. But there's something we all have in common, which is a core set of values that is us as America — right? — freedom of expression, freedom of religion, rule of law, equal protection of the laws, the truth. We hold these truths to be self-evident. It's the fourth word of that sentence.

My initial reactions to Mr. Comey were: is he just now realizing this; has he been living in a cloister? And, he sounds like a conservative.

So, what about Mr. Comey’s sociology? He is asserting that a society must have in common a core set of values, a kind of glue, that holds a society together; a common sociological view, from the mid-19th century to the mid-20th century.

As research into societal values continued there were some inconvenient findings that posed a serious problem for Mr. Comey’s view of the necessity for a “core set of values.” And that finding and reality is that whatever core set of values one might identify for a society, individual members of that society do not necessarily hold them. They might hold one or two, or even the entire core, but individuals differ from each other in terms of their values and from the “societal core set.”

We sociologists also know that individual values are reflective of the company folks keep and are around. So, significant social groups have individuals that share (some) similar values. Religious folks share some values that non-religious folks do not. Catholics share values different from Protestants. Liberals share values different than conservatives. But, even within those groups, there are differences. See how conservative Catholics are responding to the liberal Pope Francis.

What are values? Sociologically, values are broad abstract principles that we internalize and then guide our decisions about what is good or not. So, one American value is freedom. Whatever increases freedom is usually a good thing among Americans. But so is security. We value security in our homes and so forth but those values actually conflict. Conflicting values is not unusual either.

Also from 19th century sociology we come to a different understanding of “deviance” or behavior that violates the norms and values of a group. It’s deviance from those norms and values that is shaking Mr. Comey. Deviance can play a very positive role in reasserting societal values. Why? Because our response to the deviance can reinforce the rightness and goodness of those values. So, if Mr. Comey were one of my students, I’d point out that President Trump is not so much a threat to our values, but he is a deviant to them (truth, justice, and the American way). As far as a threat, however, if Americans don’t respond to punish the deviant (punishment for President Trump might be to ignore him) that suggests those are not strongly held or important values.

In short, deviants are not the threat but an opportunity for us to reassert “our” values. The threat lies with non-response to the deviant. Or, it’s an indication that the values are not perhaps widely held (or held anymore). And that Mr. Trump is not viewed as a deviant and not violating closely held societal values.

One value that I do think is quite American is “winning.” And that is not enshrined in our Constitution, but no question, America likes winners and punishes losers.

Demographic shifts disrupt majority-minority status

Previously published 7 April 2018 by the Terre Haute Tribune Star

Over the last month or so, I have read and heard stories about the changing demographics of the United States. The term “minority-majority” is common in those reports. Even Wikipedia has an entry for majority-minority: “A majority–minority or minority–majority area is a term used in the United States to refer to a jurisdiction in which one or more racial and/or ethnic minorities (relative to the whole country's population) make up a majority of the local population.”

A search of the term produces many reports, especially over the last two years with headlines such as “10 percent of U.S. counties now majority-minority,” “US to be majority-minority by 2044,” “post-recession generation to be majority-minority.”

I guess it makes for good headlines to use such terms but it certainly isn’t helpful as the United States’ demographics change. Indeed, it is this kind of headline and framing that drives the uneasiness that is driving so much of the reactionary policies of our current politics.

In a racist society that constructs in-groups and out-groups based on physical or cultural differences, the dominant group, which may be a numerical majority as in the United States, will predictably be unnerved and feel threatened as “minority” groups gain more equal status, including numerically. For such groups, “equality” feels like discrimination.

My issue with the use of “majority-minority” is that it encourages that fear of greater equality.

Think about what the use of “majority-minority” assumes; it assumes that any white person has more in common with any other white person than any person of “minority” status. This line of thinking reduces all white folks to essentially the same things just as it also reduces others to the same-but essentially different than white folks. Indeed, constructing things in that way, makes it even harder for individuals to rise above the simplistic, inherently racist categories to create meaningful and positive human relationships, or for those who must see some kind of economic value in everything “social capital.”

The use of “minority-majority” also assumes that all “minorities” are the same, too. Adopting this usage forces the assumption that all minorities are the same. African-Americans are not the same as Latin/a Americans nor are they the same as Chinese Americans. The paradox is that using minority-majority actually pushes minority members to view each other as more similar than to the majority.

If demographic patterns hold out, whites will go from a majority to the plurality. Whites will still be the largest single racial/cultural group. To the extent that “white” preferences for foods, entertainment, fashion, and so forth are homogeneous, their market power will continue to dominate, because the “minority” is indeed not homogeneous in their preferences. Many share similar preferences that white folks do.

I suspect this is not the first time in our history that “whites” faced a similar demographic situation. (Of course we did not have the 24/7 media coverage of such things then.) From 1820 to 1860 the U.S. population almost doubled, and that doubling came from immigration. 31 million people immigrated to the U.S. in that 40-year period. And, given who was considered “white” then, many of the people who today are considered white were not then — the Irish, Eastern Europeans, Greeks, Italians and others.

Over time, however, definitions changed and they became “white.” Don’t be surprised if current racial definitions change and these trends change. Of course that means those currently “white” will be joined by some who are not considered “white” now. This, too, is predictable when such racial/cultural classifications signify inequalities individuals will look to “move” up into the dominant groups.

It is up to us. For me, the “dominant” group in the United States are its citizens. It’s too bad that is a minority viewpoint.

Secularization in America? Not so fast

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 18 February 2018

Is America becoming secular like the rest of the western industrialized world? Most scholars of this topic would say yes as well as, I think, most people would. A recently published paper, using the same data that others have used to conclude that secularization is occurring, comes to a different conclusion.

People vary in their commitment to things, whether it be politics, being a fan of a sports team, a volunteer in the community or religion. Scholars generally divide people into three broad groups based on their religious commitment: little to no commitment/practice (the secular); moderate; and intense. How these categories are specifically defined may differ by study, but generally they show the same thing. Other western industrial countries show an average reduction in the proportion of religious practitioners as well as intensity. This seemed to be the case for the United States as well, until Professors Schnabel and Bock published their article last November (www.sociologicalscience.com/download/vol- /november/SocSci_v4_686to700.pdf).

They disaggregated, meaning break out different groups from the whole, the “not religious,” the moderately religious, and the most intensely religious. While it is true that when aggregated it does appear that Americans are becoming more secular, as the cliché goes, the devil is in the details.

Periodic U.S. data from 1989 to 2016 shows an increase in the proportion of no affiliation with religion, from just under 10 percent to 20 percent. Among those with moderate affiliation, a decline from about 57 to about 42 percent. But among the intensely affiliated, virtually no change from 1989 to 2016 at about 38 percent. These trends suggest that “secularization” is occurring among the moderately affiliated only. The intensely affiliated seem unaffected.

Church attendance shows a similar pattern. There is a drop in sometime church attendance of about 6 percentage points and an uptick in never attend of the same with those who attend multiple times per week holding steady at about 9 percent.

A similar pattern holds for one’s view of the Bible, a steady third view the Bible as the literal work of God, while those who view it as inspired by God but not literal declined by about 5 percentage points and those who view the Bible as a book of fables, increased by 5 percentage points.

Examining prayer, however, shows a different but revealing pattern. Those who do not pray or pray once a week or less are remaining steady at about 22 percent, but those who pray sometimes have dropped from about 52 percent to 48 percent. However, those who pray multiple times a day has increased from about 22 to about 30 percent. This suggests that the movement in praying is from sometimes to multiple times a day, not to less praying.

The authors conclude, contrary to most others, that America is an exception to the otherwise secularizing trends found in other western industrial countries. While the authors admit that it would be possible to just call this an American path to secularization, they prefer to conclude that America is becoming increasingly polarized religiously between the intensely religious and the (more) secular.

The authors argue that this is happening due to the increasing politicization of religion, especially among the most intensely religious. This has turned off the moderately religious, a form of backlash to the increasing politicization. Ultimately, the authors conclude: "… although religion is simply becoming less salient in other societies, it remains important in the public sphere and central to cultural divides in the United States. Therefore, rather than following the pattern we would expect on the basis of the secularization thesis, American religion remains persistently and exceptionally intense."

An implication of this research is that although the portion of the U.S. that is intensely religious has remained constant, in order to do so means that their absolute numbers are growing. The U.S. population has grown by more than 76 million people during the study period (1989-2016). If the intensely religious amount to about 38 percent of the U.S. population, then they have grown by almost 29 million over that period. That is 29 million highly likely conservative voters.

With the growing secularization of the rest of the population, we may find that the intensely religious do find themselves to be a minority in an otherwise secular nation. How will an otherwise secular nation view and treat the significant (and probably more politically powerful than their numbers would otherwise suggest) intensely religious?

Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email thomas.steiger@indstate.edu.