Search for: All records

Contemporary Earth crises are challenging ideologies that enthrone humans at the center of existence and separate from nature, problematizing common notions of sustainability. Further inquiry, particularly sustainability of what and for whom, requires decentering the human experience toward other-than-human beings (e.g., plants and animals). In this article, we, as the Kinship Circle book club, share reflections from our monthly dialogue with the five-part book series Kinship: Belonging in a World of Relations, built on a foundation of partnership experiences with the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Lake Superior Band of Ojibwa. Together, we discuss three major departures from our previous modes of thought at the individual, community, and global levels. First, as students, mentors, and relatives to many, we aim for (research) practices that affirm relationships to place, an approach we understand as remembering what it means to be human. Second, to rebuild shared responsibilities across communities of many kinds, we move beyond an anthropomorphization debate toward “animism," recognizing the sentience and autonomy of other-than-human beings on Earth. Third, in support of a transformative and collective human ethic, we hope to contribute to restoring relationships with the many that gift us life, using connections between migration, justice, and introduced species. Finally, we present a practical Kinship Circle framework for applying these concepts in educational settings. Our conclusion provides central kinship lessons for decentering humans in the sustainability sciences, rooted in humility, responsibility, and an Earth-centered ethics. 

Building on research demonstrating significant differences in how Black and White Americans view law enforcement, this study assesses how those differential views shape potential jurors’ decision-making in the context of a federal drug conspiracy case in which the primary evidence against the defendant is provided by an FBI agent and an informant cooperating with the agent. A sample of 649 Black and White jury-eligible U.S. citizens were exposed to the case, in which a Black defendant is being tried, and where the informant-witness race (Black or White) was varied. Participants determined verdict, evaluated evidence, and completed additional measures. Results indicated that Black participants were significantly less likely to convict than White participants, especially in the White informant condition; rated the law enforcement witness as less credible, and viewed police more negatively across three composite measures. Exploratory analysis of how juror race and gender interacted indicates Black women largely drove racial differences in verdicts. Perceptions of police legitimacy mediated the relationship between juror race and verdict choice. We conclude that it is critical that citizens are not prevented from being seated on juries due to skepticism about police, given the risk of disproportionate exclusion of Black potential jurors. The legal processes relevant to juror excusals need to be reconsidered to ensure that views of police, rooted in actual experience or knowledge about the problems with fair and just policing, are not used to disproportionately exclude persons of color, or to seat juries overrepresented by people who blindly trust police.