Monica Wang, Boston University

People who most frequently encounter everyday discrimination – those subtle snubs and slights of everyday life – are more likely to suffer from anxiety and depression.

What’s more, that finding remains true no matter the person’s race, gender, age, education, income, weight, language, immigration status or where they live.

These are the key takeaways from our recent study, published in JAMA Network Open.

Everyday discrimination refers to the routine ways people are treated unfairly because of characteristics such as skin color, perceived background or general appearance.

Generally, it means disrespectful treatment: waiting longer than others for help at a store, having your ideas dismissed without consideration at work, or hearing rude comments about your identity.

Although marginalized groups endure everyday discrimination most often, our study indicates that this is a widespread issue affecting people of all races and backgrounds.

I’m a professor who specializes in community health. My team and I analyzed data from the 2023 National Health Interview Survey, which included a weighted sample of nearly 30,000 U.S. adults, adjusted to accurately reflect more than 258 million people – approximately 75% of the country.

Along with reporting frequency of everyday discrimination, participants completed clinical screenings for depression and anxiety.

Advertisement

The results were striking: Nearly 56% of participants experienced at least occasional everyday discrimination, with 3.6% having “high levels,” meaning they faced discrimination most frequently – at least monthly and often weekly.

High levels were most prevalent among Black adults, at 8.6%. Multiracial respondents were next with 6.4%. Hispanics and white participants were at about 3%, Asians just over 2%.

Women and immigrants, people with disabilities and those who are overweight, obese or struggling with food insecurity also reported higher levels.

When compared with those reporting no discrimination, participants with high levels had five times the odds of screening positive for either depression or anxiety, and nearly nine times the odds of screening positive for both.

As discrimination increased, the increase in screening positive for depression, anxiety or both varied by race, with a more noticeable rise among groups that are often overlooked in these discussions – white, Asian and multiracial adults.

This doesn’t mean discrimination is less harmful for Black, Hispanic/Latino or other racial and ethnic groups. One possible reason for our study’s findings may be that groups that have long endured structural discrimination may have developed more ways over time to cope with it.

Why it matters

At some point, all of us experience unfair treatment due to our personal traits. But this type of discrimination isn’t just unpleasant. Our study shows it has real consequences for health.

Advertisement

Along with depression and anxiety, discrimination creates chronic stress, leading to increased risk for hypertension, heart disease, impaired brain functioning, accelerated aging and premature death.

For some, everyday discrimination may emerge at different times in life. This can happen to people as they get older or when they become ill.

But for others, it is a constant. This includes people living in marginalized communities, people of color, those socioeconomically disadvantaged or with disabilities, or those who identify as LGBTQ+. https://www.youtube.com/embed/dOUSBLPQ5Sk?wmode=transparent&start=0 Ageism is one of many forms of everyday discrimination.

What other research is being done

Multiracial people are uniquely challenged because they navigate multiple racial identities. This often leads to feelings of isolation, which increases mental health risks.

White adults, though less frequently exposed to racial discrimination, still face mistreatment, particularly if they have lower incomes, limited education or working-class backgrounds. In recent years, white people have perceived rising levels of discrimination against their own group.

People of Asian descent are vulnerable to societal pressures and harmful stereotypes, which spiked during the COVID-19 pandemic.

When factors are combined – for example, adding financial insecurity or immigration status to racism – compounded health challenges arise.

Advertisement

What’s next

Understanding how discrimination affects health for all can lead to policies and programs targeting root causes of mental health disparities and the rising rates of depression and anxiety.

Discrimination isn’t just a Black versus white issue. It’s a public health crisis affecting all Americans. Acknowledging its harmful health effects is a first step.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

Monica Wang, Associate Professor of Public Health, Boston University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — In the aftermath of a recent City Council vote, multiple diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives are facing significant changes, pauses, or outright terminations in Scottsdale. This decision has sparked spirited discussions among residents and community leaders regarding the future of these programs and their impact on the community.

Last week, city employees received an internal memo detailing the specific DEI initiatives that would be eliminated. This decision follows a controversial 5 to 2 vote by the City Council in February, which adopted an ordinance to discontinue city funding for DEI programs. The ordinance emphasized that city employees should be hired, evaluated, and promoted based on merit and outlined the reassignment of at least two DEI-related positions.

As part of this shift, Scottsdale has removed its DEI website and all associated social media accounts, along with any printed materials displayed at city facilities. Among the program cuts are the City’s Juneteenth celebration, the employee-driven Diversity Advisory Committee, and a special program at the public library designed for children that incorporated music and fingerplays promoting DEI values.

Additionally, the City will no longer sponsor significant events and organizations, including the NAACP Freedom Fund Dinner and the Local Government Hispanic Network. However, the Scottsdale Human Relations Commission, the Mayor’s Ability Awards, and the enforcement of the city’s anti-discrimination ordinances will remain intact, according to a spokesperson for the City.

City officials anticipate that these cuts will free up approximately $115,000 in the Scottsdale budget. In a statement responding to the changes, Scottsdale Mayor Lisa Borowsky emphasized the commitment to ensure that every individual in Scottsdale has equal opportunities for success. “Although the formal diversity office has ended, we remain committed to ensuring every individual in Scottsdale has equal opportunity to thrive,” she stated. Borowsky added, “We are a welcoming city, and I am confident that my fellow residents, business leaders, our nonprofit partners, and our anchor institutions will continue to work alongside the city in achieving our collective goal – ensuring that no community or resident in Scottsdale is underserved or overlooked.”

Despite the city’s assurances, the decision has met with backlash from residents who argue that these programs play a crucial role in building community and fostering diversity. Madison Stroh, a local resident, expressed concern about the cuts, stating, “If that money being saved is put to other good uses, then I think that would be beneficial. But if they’re just trying to cut it just to cut it, then I don’t know how I feel about it.”

As Scottsdale moves forward with this significant change in its approach to diversity, equity, and inclusion, the community will undoubtedly continue to engage in discussions about the importance of these initiatives and their impact on the city’s fabric. The cuts reflect a critical juncture for Scottsdale as it navigates the complexities of balancing budgetary constraints with the needs of its diverse population. Residents will be watching closely as the city aims to redefine its commitments moving forward.

Related link:

Advertisement

https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/scottsdale-city-council-member-says-vote-remove-dei-program-not-effective

Shoumita Dasgupta, Boston University

Threats of mass deportations loom on the post-2024 election horizon. Some supporters claim these will protect the country from immigrants who bring “bad genes” into America. But this is a misguided use of the language of science to give a sheen of legitimacy to unscientific claims.

Politicians invoke genetics to confirm false stereotypes that immigrants are more violent than native-born citizens as a result of biological differences. This is despite the fact that immigrants living in the country with or without legal authorization have significantly lower crime and violent crime rates than U.S. citizens. Moreover, there is no strong genetic evidence to support a biological predisposition for committing violent acts.

As a geneticist and a child of immigrants, I study the intersection of biology and bias. I am also author of the book “Where Biology Ends and Bias Begins: Lessons on Belonging from Our DNA.” What is clear from my professional work is that this line of thinking – attempting to use science to explain human difference in ways that reinforce social hierarchies – isn’t new. It takes the playbooks of genetic essentialism and scientific racism and applies them to public policy.

The fallacy of genetic essentialism

Genetic essentialism is the concept that genes alone are the reason why someone develops a specific trait or behaves a certain way. For instance, a genetic essentialist would say that a person’s athleticism, intelligence, personality and a range of other traits are encoded entirely in their DNA. They ignore the influence that sports training, material resources and learned behaviors have on these traits.

When used to explain differences between populations, genetic essentialism discounts the role that structural biases – inequities deeply ingrained in how systems operate – play in individual differences. Structural biases create a playing field that advantages one group over another from the start.

For instance, studies seeking to identify a gene for violent behavior may use measurements that are themselves biased. If arrest or incarceration rates were used as evidence of violence, study findings would be affected by discriminatory practices in the policing and criminal justice systems that more harshly penalize people of color.

Studies trying to disentangle the relative effects of genetic and structural factors on specific traits also face similar biases. For example, mental health outcomes are influenced by the identity-related stress that racial or sex and gender minorities experience. Similarly, socioeconomic outcomes are affected by the effects of redlining and segregation on generational wealth.

Advertisement

Genetics of educational attainment

As another example of behavioral genetics, consider a 2018 study on the genetics of educational attainment – in other words, whether certain genes were associated with years of schooling completed. The researchers were careful to communicate their results as pertaining specifically to educational attainment. They highlighted that genetic scores explained only about 11% to 13% of the variance – meaning, 87% to 89% of differences in educational attainment were due to influences other than genetics.

However, some popular press coverage oversimplified their findings as identifying genes for intelligence, even though the scientists did not directly measure intelligence – nor is it possible to.

Educational attainment can reflect everything from generational wealth to racial biases in education. A student with access to tutors their parents paid for has fewer educational obstacles than a student who has to work after school to make ends meet. Likewise, school punishment practices that are biased against students from certain backgrounds can set them on a harmful trajectory known as the school-to-prison pipeline.

Genetic studies are not conducted in a vacuum, and social influences can confound analyses seeking to focus on biological effects. In fact, some scientists think of genes as potential controls to allow more careful study of the nongenetic factors accounting for the remaining 87% to 89% of differences in educational attainment.

Intentional misinterpretation of these observations on educational attainment have led some to conclude that Black students are simply not as intelligent as their white counterparts. They argue that these differences are genetically encoded and immutable. However, when the effects of wealth gaps and school segregation are accounted for, test score gaps substantially narrow. Importantly, educational attainment gaps actually invert, predicting that Black students complete more years of school than white students.

Slipping to scientific racism

This brings us to scientific racism: the way in which science is contorted to support preexisting views about the superiority of the white race over all others.

American physician Samuel Morton was one of the original forebears of scientific racism. He was interested in providing “evidence” to support his belief that Caucasians were the most intelligent of all races. To do this, he collected skulls and categorized them into five racial groupings he believed were derived from separate creation events. He measured skull volume as an indicator of intelligence.

When comparing the averages from each group, his results supported his original theory. However, if he had instead focused on the array of skull volumes in his collection, he would have seen substantial overlap in each of the groupings. That is, each group had a range of small to large skulls. Morton’s singular focus on proving his beliefs from the outset likely influenced his favored analytical approach. Nor is there a meaningful correlation between brain volume and intelligence.

Similar beliefs are at play when white supremacists manipulate data to create a scientific basis for their claims that white people are more intelligent than Black people. These tampered results appear in dark corners of the internet where they are shared in fringe journals, far-right social media memes and racist manifestos.

Advertisement

To be clear, there is no evidence that genetic differences related to intelligence or cognitive performance exist between racial groups. Instead, this is another argument growing out of replacement theory, the conspiracy theory that Jews and Western elites are deliberately replacing white populations with populations of color. Adherents believe that people of color are genetically inferior but are reproducing and immigrating at greater rates, and so threatening white power.

Human genetic variation

Scientists have systematically studied human genetic variation for decades, looking at differences in the DNA of people around the world. These studies definitively demonstrate that we are far more alike than different. The vast majority of common genetic variation is found across populations, and very few rare variants are specific to an individual group.

This may seem unexpected. Looking at the world around you, you’ll observe some differences between racially defined groups, such as skin tone and hair texture. However, there is no place in the world where you’ll be able to draw a line that cleanly separates people with dark skin tone from those with light skin tone. Skin color varies continuously across the globe, and a range of skin tones are present within any individual group.

Importantly, variation in one genetic trait is not predictive of other genetic traits. That is, you can’t extrapolate conclusions about traits such as disease predisposition from the genes that influence skin color. Even if the fallacy of genetic essentialism were true and cognitive ability was primarily a biological trait – which it is not – it would not be possible to connect an observed skin tone to predicted intelligence. https://www.youtube.com/embed/wK94PWbCmsk?wmode=transparent&start=0 President-elect Donald Trump pledged to use the military to carry out mass deportations.

Misappropriating genetics

While science does not support genetic essentialism or other underpinnings of replacement theory, this exact rationale has made its way into national immigration policy.

These policies grew directly out of the American eugenics movement, which sought to build a supposedly better human race through social engineering based on “race science.” Zoologist Charles Davenport created the Cold Spring Harbor Eugenics Record Office in 1910 to pursue his interests in evolution, breeding and human heredity. There, he and his colleagues collected records of American families, documenting their traits and ascribing genetic bases to them.

Harry Laughlin, a high school teacher Davenport recruited to serve as superintendent of the office, was later appointed as the expert eugenics agent for the U.S. congressional Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. He commissioned studies to document race-based trends in so-called biological traits such as intelligence, inventiveness and feeble-mindedness, erroneously concluding that observed patterns were due to genetic differences between populations. His findings were used to inform U.S. immigration quotas, which were set higher for populations deemed to have good genes and lower for those with undesirable traits.

Advertisement

These policies were codified in the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924. In signing the act, President Calvin Coolidge declared, “America must remain American,” paraphrasing a popular Ku Klux Klan slogan. This law severely restricted immigration from Asia and implemented strict quotas for immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe. It also established elements of immigration that remain in 2025, including the visa system and the Border Patrol. With the passage of the Immigration Restriction Act, anti-Semitism and xenophobia became law of the land.

Coming full circle, genetic essentialism and racism continue to drive present-day rhetoric using “bad genes” to justify mass deportations of people deemed harmful to American society. Politicians and tech moguls are employing a combination of racism, willful misunderstanding of genetic science and political power to promote their own social agendas.

Politicians and hate groups have often weaponized genetics, leading to violent events carried out in the name of white supremacy. These include the 2017 Charlottesville Unite the Right rally, the 2019 Christchurch shootings of Muslims at two mosques, and the 2022 Buffalo massacre of Black customers at a neighborhood grocery store.

A better understanding of science and history can empower scientists, policymakers and others to reject unscientific claims and protect vulnerable members of society targeted by racism.

Shoumita Dasgupta, Professor of Medicine, Assistant Dean of Diversity & Inclusion, Boston University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement