Contestation over language use is an unavoidable feature of American politics. Yet, despite the rise of language policing on both sides of the aisle, we know surprisingly little about how ordinary citizens respond to norms governing language use from both in-group and out-group members. Following Munger (2017), I would like to leverage social media platforms such as Reddit and Twitter to evaluate whether injunctions to use particular words (e.g., undocumented immigrant, Latinx) are effective. I plan to use an experimental approach, where conditional on mentions of “illegal alien” or “Hispanic/Latino,” users are randomly assigned to receive a “language correction.” Outcome measures would include subsequent use of corrected terms, valence of user responses, and upvoting/liking/RTing behavior.
This project is the first comprehensive examination of African North Americans who crossed one of the U.S.-Canada borders, going either direction, after the Underground Railroad, in the generation alive roughly 1865-1930. It analyzes census and other records to match individuals and families across the decades, despite changes or ambiguities in their names, ages, “color,” birthplace, or other details. The main difficulty in making these matches is that the census data for people with a confirmed identity does not stay uniform decade after decade. Someone might be recorded not with their given name but instead a nickname (Elizabeth to Betsy); women can marry or get remarried and change their names; racial measures by a census taker may change (black to mulatto, or mulatto to white); someone might say they are from Canada, even when they were born in Kentucky, depending on how the question was asked; people who were estimating their ages might be 35 in 1870 and 40 in 1880 and 50 in 1890, for example.
Under United States securities laws corporations must disclose material risks to their operations. Human rights issues, especially in authoritarian countries, rarely show up in the information that data providers offer to investors, in part due to the risks to those subject to these abuses. The result is a dearth of data on human rights materiality and the tendency of investors to overlook human rights risks of the companies that they finance.