Category: Equality

A Stereotype: Every Day Practice

In the US, the issue of stereotyping still remains a problem in the society despite the evident activism and advocacy for equality and no tolerance to discrimination of any form.

Since stereotyping is an everyday practice, it is imperative to know where the stereotyping starts. Social inequality is a reflection of human belief that deviance is not an odd personality characteristic but rather a behavior committed against other people in a community.

This practice also involves the belief that some personalities are socially disadvantaged because of their life situations. Consequently, social inequality applies to several life situations like poverty, gender, skin color (race), health among other conditions, as confirmed in BBC news by Field (Dec. 3 2010).

Stereotypes form the basis of this discussion. Stereotypes refer to standardized mental perceptions held common by a certain group of people.

These stereotypes often represent oversimplified viewpoints, chauvinist attitude and belittling judgment about certain individuals in a community. Stereotyping is not usually accurate. It depends on meanings people create.

A serious problem has been stereotyping people with mental illness. This stereotyping mostly causes stigma because of labeling the stereotyped individuals in the society.

Mentally ill people bear labels such as ‘schizos’ ‘retards’ and or ‘psychos’. This labeling portrays such individuals as being lunatics hence another label as ‘loony’ and are hence segregated from normal people.

Stereotyped people feel ashamed, worthless and are emotionally hurt. It is shocking how easy a society mocks a person with mental illness and not one with physical disability. The society wrongly perceives the mental condition as a choice rather than a legitimate sickness.

The Concept

One of the main concepts discussed by Field in his Parenting not Income Key to Tackling Social Inequality is ‘Power’. For clarity, the everyday practice herein discussed is stereotype while the concept is power that he refers to as ‘class differences’.

He uses children to symbolize the inferior stereotyped group of people. Stereotyping has become a serious social problem developing from everyday practices. These practices arise from social agreements and traditions.

Usually, these stereotypes develop from very long historical backgrounds. It is on this backdrop notion that stereotypes gain their perpetual power of validity to a symbolic and speech expressions done against a certain group deemed deviant.

This gives the perpetrators of stereotype some power over the victims they demean by speaking or acting in a manner that degrades the victims’ self-esteem.

In most cases, for the stereotypes to have that generalized acceptance, a larger percentage of a community has to share it either explicitly or implicitly. This translates to mean that the larger the community, the bigger the prejudice.

Stereotype is a deceptive simple labeling of certain individuals or groups, adopting and limiting how the society perceives them, For instance, people with mental disabilities.

Social inequality hence relies on the meanings that the society attach to these stereotypes causing stereotypes individuals to be labeled deviant. It may not be entirely because of their actions but mainly because the dominant powers perceive them so.

There is the presumption that a person previously hospitalized for mental illness is a violence risky person. These definitions show that stereotypes are in most cases merely simplified notions of people and not perceptions derived from objective facts. Hence stereotyping tends to make normal people seem superior to those with perceived deviant condition.

Analysis

Concept Illustration

There exists a direct relationship or rather a positive correlation between power and stereotyping. The more powerful a group is in relation to another, the more stereotyped the inferior group.

Power relations drive stereotypes in any society. People accept the stereotypic notions against a demeaned individual or a group of people as truths.

Thus, they do not consider them as problematic unless the individual or the group entirely manifests its human characteristics. As individuals or groups’ relative power increases, it can occasionally stop society’s propagation of deliberate stereotype against it.

There are many paradoxes in stereotyping, all of which are analytically helpful. When a group of people creates stereotypes for managing its perception of others, impassive observers are able to understand the compact suppositions that direct that group’s way of thinking.

The main point is that, stereotype, regardless of the victims, depends on composite images to portray what people view as the essence of a social group (Grinberg CNN News Oct. 26 2011).

This usually happens in cases of unequal power relations like the struggle for supremacy between men and women, superior race contestation, etc.

Of course, not all superior groups have power like “all whites” and “all men”. However, collectively, white people have power over black people and Men have power over women because of stereotypes against groups.

Stereotyping often isolates a certain unreal characteristic of the target group and then portrays it differently as a group. This usually communicates more about the stereotype inventor’s need than the victim’s nature.

For instance, one community portraying women in the next community as entirely mothers can be extremely worried of its nurturing capability. This evidently shows that stereotype is a power struggle between a superior group and a minority group.

Social Relevance

Though incorrect stereotyping can only result in inefficient decisions but also sternly impede progression of minority position individuals, the society confronts these obstinate problems.

Firstly, human beings rely on these stereotypes to draw sense from the world and hence eliminating these stereotypes is an uphill task. Secondly, the stereotypes seem unresponsive to change or societal modification because they help deal with inner conflict and insecurities.

Stereotypes maintain basic values about an individual’s or group of people’s societal roles and power relations. They hence offer a framework of judging character.

Historically, the primary categorization of people into groupings resulted into the assignment of social status based on powers relations. People assign different groups either a positive or a negative stereotype, or an in-group and out-group status.

This in turn, leads to differing performance expectations for people in other groups. Usually, people expect the high status group to organize and take charge, as the low status group does the assigned duties of supporting the high status group. To maintain the status quo, they normally ignore new information that does not fit into their acuity.

Categorization affects individuals in two unique ways. First, behavior is affected. This way, willingness and level of working is different for the high and low status groups.

Second, this also affects cognition, as well as the way people think (Field BBC News Sep. 3 2011). The causes to which success and failure is attributed are essential to subsequent performances.

High status group is made confident and adequately prepared to handle certain tasks while low status group is considered inadequately prepared for these challenges. Stereotyping is hence a power struggle for the powerful remain powerful.

Unequal Power Relations and Social Inequality

The social identity theory purports that, in stereotype cases, the members of lower status face inconsistencies between universal motivations to view the in-group positively.

The truth for their group compares unfavorably to high status people. The individual’s perception of the legitimacy of the claims caused them to accept or try to change the Unequal power relations by sharing the power.

Members beings stereotyped against are hence more likely to take active measures against social inequality with the out-group when they believe the measure are highly likelihood of succeeding.

They will struggle against social inequality when they view the unequal power relations are illegitimate and, therefore, unstable. For instance, in a male dominated organization, women selected to hold positions based on gender and given timely news that they secured the positions because of their credentials chose more authoritative tasks compared to women selected because of affirmative action.

Conversely, members of a lower status in unequal power relations are likely to accept and comply when they perceive it to be legitimate and, therefore, stable.

They would not try to change it. Such members will accept the lower status and remain dependent on the higher status group deemed superior.

Stereotype is a fundamental type or representation in power relations since it shows or rather exposes power struggles and attitudes against a category of people in a certain community during a certain period.

Stereotyping others is an ideological process, which marks essential societal arrangements designed in the interests of powerful individuals.

Stereotypes make these societal organizations seem natural instead of cultural. Hence stereotyping is a strategy among people used to secure power and influence of the dominant groups in society.

Works Cited

Field, Frank. Parenting not Income Key to Tackling Inequality, BBC News, 2010. Web.

Grinberg, Emmanuella. We are a Culture, not a Custom. CNN News, 2011. Web.

Introduction

Education knows no distinction and students should have equal opportunities and rights irrespective of their sociological or demographic characteristics. However, traditionally it has been observed that some domains of education have remained the preserves of male students; while some other domains are preferred for female students. This compartmentalized treatment carried across gender distinction has had the effect of polarizing educational and career pursuits in a prefixed manner such as denying the right to know and educate in a specific area of education. Till about two decades ago the entry of women in physical sciences and engineering courses was considered an act of adventurism and even to this day the number of female students that enroll in engineering courses is very limited. This paper examines the gender issues of equality and representation in the K-12 education system and gives out the major findings based on the observed trends from the structured study of literature in the area.

Gender Equity

McElroy(2007) cites Peggy McIntosh who gives an exhaustive definition of gender issues in school education: “The phrase can refer to all aspects of school structure and behavior that reflect the society’s socialization of male and female to be “opposite” sexes. I think the phrase is not inclusive enough to indicate the wider concerns of the women’s movement, which brought it into being. We need to talk about women’s and men’s experiences, not just our problematical “issues.” Still, the phrase “gender issues” is a useful shortcut to the subject of how schools reflect our present systems of sex/gender politics. I think that the phrase induces fear in many women and guilt or impatience in many men. Women may fear that talking about “gender issues” will either create conflicts or add to a tension between the sexes that they want to deny. Men, naturally enough in light of new perspectives coming out of the women’s movement, often feel guilty at hearing a phrase like “gender issues.” Some feel that if they have done anything wrong to women they don’t know what it is, and they feel unjustly accused. This level of analysis is, of course, far too simple.” Wimpee &Mack(2005) cite an important report compiled by the American Association of University Women(AAUW) as follows, “In 1992, the American Association of University Women released a report called “How Schools Shortchange Girls,” authored by Susan Bailey, director of the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women. The report is a quite thorough distillation of 3,500 national studies conducted between 1983 and 1991. Nearly every aspect of male and female students’ lives was compared, from test scores to the amount of attention received from teachers.

Findings of AAUW Research

• NAEP reading and math scores do not mirror these results: girls outscore boys in English consistently over time and have drawn even in math scores.
• NAEP tests are designed to assess knowledge.
• 1998 SAT results showed boys placing ahead of girls by 7 points in English and 35 points in math.
• SAT scores are supposed to predict success in the first year of college.
• Because of lower SAT scores, girls get fewer college scholarships.
• Girls consistently outperform boys in college GPA.
• Twice as many boys as girls are diagnosed with learning disabilities.
• Three times as many boys are reported to have language disorders.
• Women earn 55% of all Bachelors’s and Masters’s degrees.
• Some studies show that boys call out answers in class eight times more often than girls but this research is hotly disputed.
• Some studies show that boys receive twice as much attention from teachers
• Many claims that that attention is often negative attention”.

In a more recent US department of Education Action report compiled in 2005 Peter & Carroll (2005) report the latest trends in gender equity in school secondary education in the following words, “Over the past two decades, the rates at which women have enrolled in undergraduate education and attained college degrees increased at faster rates than those of men. Part of this increase may be related to an increase in the percentage of traditional students who were women,

although women are still overrepresented among nontraditional students. In addition, in 1999– 2000, women made up a greater percentage of Black students than they did among White, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander students and Black women earned proportionally more associate’s and bachelor’s degrees than Black men. When looking at high school academic preparation among 1982 and 1992 high school graduates who entered postsecondary education within 2 years of high school completion, women closed some existing gender gaps and, in some cases, surpassed men. In the later cohort, even among students who had higher levels of high school academic preparation, women were more likely than men to earn a bachelor’s degree—a difference not found in the earlier cohort”.

Taking further the example of gender equity in the educational areas of engineering and physical sciences; there have been various types of initiatives devoted to improving gender equity. However, underlying these efforts was a clear admission that women were grossly underrepresented in all such courses. The initiative to improve gender participation has taken various forms from one-day career conferences (Conwell & Prichard, 1992) summer science

programs (Baker, Lindsey, & Blair, 1999) to curricular role model projects (Evans, Whigham, & Wang, 1995). It was also observed that gender differences persisted in the quality and the number of interactions that the students had within the classroom. Jones and Wheatley (1990) have documented gender differences in the quality and quantity of teacher-student interactions in science classrooms. For instance, Guzzetti and Williams (1996) observed that students were quite conscious of gender distinctions in science classrooms and that markedly varying language patterns existed between female and male students in such classroom sessions. Similarly, in a survey covering nearly 56 secondary mathematics and science teachers, Plucker (1996), reported that an avowed awareness of issues of gender equity in science and mathematics; the instructors did not quite know the practical impact of their actions on lessening or heightening the existing inequities. This almost made for no worthwhile and effective interventions from the teachers to promote gender equity. Literature has on record several other studies which have explained various strategies to promote gender equity by basing such strategies on issues like incorporating gender-inclusive information and strategies into pre-employment science teacher education courses (Richmond, Howes, Kurth, & Hazelwood, 1998; McGinnis & Pearsall, 1998; Sanders, Campbell, & Steinbrueck, 1997; Ambrosio, McDevitt, Gardner, & Heikkinen, 1991; Bullock, 1997; Scantlebury, 1994). Wimpee &Mack(2005) provide an interesting listing of instructional tips to increase gender equity in the following words, ”

• Be sure to ask higher-level cognitive questions of girls as well as boys.
• Have high expectations of all students.
• Encourage girls to take part in hands-on experiences. Girls tend to be passive learners.
• Use cooperative learning strategies regularly.
• Don’t interrupt girls or let other students do so.
• Use the human body as an example to promote understanding for instance in physics, life science, etc. Girls often find the human body fascinating and will identify with concepts linked to their bodies.
• When dealing with experiments, stress the safety precautions instead of the dangers. Girls may be reluctant to engage in lab activities that seem dangerous
• Introduce lessons with an overview. Girls learn more readily from the “big picture.”

While the above instructional tips were intended for use in all curriculums of K-12 schools, Damota (1991) has the following tips for increasing gender participation in science and mathematics:

• “Raise expectations throughout the school community for the science achievement of females, minorities, and students with disabilities
• Address teacher- and student-related factors that influence minority student participation and performance in science (e.g., expectations, previous experiences, assessment practices, language, stereotypes).
• Foster cultural and linguistic diversity throughout science activities, thereby providing a multicultural perspective.
• Address gender inequities in science.
• Increase participation in science education and make science more meaningful for students from underserved groups.
• Reexamine all grouping practices. End traditional tracking, use flexible grouping, and encourage frequent collaboration by students of diverse abilities, age, gender, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity.
• Make program decisions based on the systemic analysis of student performance data disaggregated by race, gender, and ethnicity when appropriate to the issue under consideration – e.g., equitable access to opportunities to learn.
• Ensure that concerns about equity and excellence are reflected in new standards and assessments.
• Evaluate all assessments – including alternative assessments – based on equity criteria.
• Avoid culturally biased assessment practices.
• Participate in professional development experiences designed to support the reexamination of beliefs, expectations, and cultural sensitivities; develop skill in teaching in diverse classrooms; improve practice in the new curriculum, instruction, and assessment strategies; and redefine roles and responsibilities in support of equity in science”.
• Provide educational leadership to support equity and excellence when developing and assessing an equity plan and when evaluating the equity of your district’s or school’s science programs for pre-K-12 education.
• Involve parents as partners in the science education of their children.

Conclusions

From the above, it can be seen that the literature widely acknowledges that there are substantial gender inequities in the K-12 education system and the individual participants of this system such as the instructors and the students themselves are broadly aware of such inequities. This was particularly the case with the education streams in physical sciences, engineering, and mathematics. However, none of these participants had developed sensitivities good enough to remove these inequities through concrete and well-thought action plans. These participants needed to become more aware of the wide and rich literature available on this issue so as to internalize the action-oriented strategies for implementation. Particularly teaching community is ideally suited to initiate these strategies as they exercise and determine most student behavior through their own actions and powers. Once implemented the gender equity strategies are likely to result in futuristic schools that are more holistic and realistic in offering educational products. As McElroy(2007) quotes Peggy McIntosh on an ideal scenario, “The ideal school truly empowers students to realize human potential, including the potential of collaborative work — what some feminists call “power with,” as against “power over.” We disempower students, on the other hand, if we leave them ignorant of the existing uses of power in the world and the existing rules for the use of power. Therefore, I think the ideal school curriculum gives students what Joan Kell-Gadol calls a “doubled vision” — a view of the dominant culture and of its alienation from most people’s needs. We need to give students the tools the world says are the necessary ones — the basic skills, so-called critical ability — and the ability to realize the limits and provinciality of those tools at present and their attachment to partial and distorted systems of thinking and being and wielding power.”

Work Cited

1. McElroy, Blair.(2007). Gender Issues for the Schools An Interview with Peggy McIntosh. Web.
2. Wimpee Monica & Mack Ryan(2005). Addressing Gender Differences in K-12 Schools. Cultural Diversity. 2005.Hamline University.MAT Program.
3. Peter Katharin & Carroll C. Dennis.(2005). Gender Differences in Participation and Completion of Undergraduate Education and How They Have Changed Over Time. Postsecondary EducationDescriptive Analysis Reports. U.S. Department of Education Institute of ducation Sciences NCES 2005–169
4. Conwell, C. R., & Prichard, M. K. (1992). Expanding students’ horizons in mathematics and science. School Science and Mathematics, 92(5), 267-272.
5. Baker, D. R., Lindsey, R., & Blair, C. (1999). Girls summer lab: An intervention. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 5, 79-95.
6. Evans, M. A., Whigham, M., & Wang, M. C. (1995). The effect of a role model project upon the attitudes of ninth-grade science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32,195-204.
7. Jones, M. G., & Wheatley, J. (1990). Gender differences in teacher-student interactions in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 861-874.
8. Guzzetti, B. J., & Williams, W. O. (1996). Gender, text, and discussion: Examining intellectual safety in the science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 5-20.
9. Plucker, J. A. (1996). Secondary science and math teachers and gender equity: Attitudes and attempted interventions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 737-751.
10. Richmond, G., Howes, E., Kurth, L., & Hazelwood, C. (1998). Connections and critique: Feminist pedagogy and science teacher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 897-918.
11. McGinnis, J. R., & Pearsall, M. (1998). Teaching elementary science methods to women: A male professor’s experience from two perspectives. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 919-949.
12. Sanders, J., Campbell, P. B., & Steinbrueck, K. (1997). One project, many strategies: Making pre-service teacher education more equitable. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 3, 225-43.
13. Ambrosio, A. L., McDevitt, T. M., Gardner, A. I., & Heikkinen, H. (1991). Factors related to equitable teaching: Implications for an equity issues course. Paper presented at the conference of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 342 764).
14. Bullock, L. D. (1997). Efficacy of a gender and ethnic equity in science education curriculum for preservice teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 1019-1038.
15. Scantlebury, K. (1994). Emphasizing gender issues in the undergraduate preparation of science teachers: Practicing what we preach. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 1, 153-164.
16. Damota, Irene.(1991). Principal, Whittier School, Chicago, Illinois, talks about knowing that each child has the potential to be a scientist (audio comment, 187k). Excerpted from the videoseries, Schools That Work: The Research Advantage, Videoconference 3, Children as Explorers (NCREL, 1991).

Insights

Equity and equality are believed to mean one thing, but the two terms differ greatly. Equality implies everyone is on the same level in society irrespective of resource distribution, but equity is concerned with ownership whereby each person has to possess something in terms of property.

Equality dictates that people should be treated in the same way as far as the apportionment of values and qualities is concerned while equity entails fairness, something that is popularly referred to as equality of outcomes (Glaser, Bartley, McGuire, & Bannon, 2011). In a family set up, for example, sharing of resources equally among the father, mother, and children amount to equality since each member receives an equal share without considering other factors that would result in the allocation of greater shares to a particular member.

Alternatively, the family might decide to distribute resources equitably based on the needs and requirements of each member, whereby the senior members will be allocated many shares, whereas children will get fewer because their needs are few as well. From this example, it is evident that equity refers mainly to the qualities of fair play, justice, objectivity, and handedness, while equality is all about equal sharing of resources and precise division.

Social equity and equality are some of the topics that raise ethical concerns because public administrators are torn between offering services equally and considering equity in the process. Cooper (2012) suggests that any public administrator has to consider uncertainties surrounding any ethically confusing concepts such as social equity and equality. Cooper further suggests that public administrators do not have the luxury of time since they are expected to offer critical services in a timely manner.

In Cooper’s view, a gathering of additional information is needed to facilitate decision-making as far as social equity and equality are concerned in public administration. Frederickson (2005) observed that public administrators had played a critical role in ensuring resources are distributed equitably in American society.

In his view, American society has never been equal; hence application of equality in the distribution of important resources is impossible, meaning public administrators must undertake the role of studying the society to comprehend the expectations and the needs of each group.

Resource

In his titled justice for all: promoting social equity in public administration, Johnson (2011) advises the public servants on some of the ways of realizing social equity in American society. The scholar hails the American populace for electing a black to be in charge of policy formulation and implementation in the country.

In his opinion, he sees the election of a black president as one way of pursuing the justice-for-all agenda more aggressively. In the past few decades, public administration in the United States is focused more on achieving social equity whereby the rights and expectations of each American are fulfilled.

Application

Racially-based policing is one of the major threats both to social equity and equality because it affects members of particular races from realizing their desired objectives and goals in society.

While the police service is charged with the role of protecting lives and property, they have the responsibility of applying the law equally and equitably in the sense that an individual is arrested based on the type of crime committed, but not the race or ethnicity.

The only strategy aimed at ending racial discrimination in the police service is instituting affirmative action principles to ensure the minority races are protected in society. Through affirmative action, the perpetrators are likely to be prosecuted in the court of law hence deterring their negative behaviors.

References

Cooper, T. L. (2012). The responsible administrator: An approach to ethics for the administrative role (6th ed). New York: Jossey-Bass.

Frederickson, H. G. (2005). The state of social equity in the American public administration. National Civic Review, 94(4), 31-38.

Glaser, M. A., Bartley, H., W., McGuire, B. J., & Bannon, C., (2011). Frederickson’s social equity agenda applied: Public support and willingness to pay. Public Integrity, 14(1), 19-37.

Johnson, N. J. (2011). Justice for All: Promoting Social Equity in Public Administration. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

While delivering his ruling in the case of Regents v. University of California v. Bakke, Justice Harry Blackmum, a judge of the US Supreme Court, upheld the decision by institutions of higher learning to use race as one of the guiding factors in selecting qualified students to join college.

The court ruled out that the practice by the medical school at the University of California at Davis to preserve positions for less-privileged minority students in each entering class was unlawful. Justice Blackmum noted that “in order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race.

There is no other way” (Cornell University Law School, n. d.). I do not agree with this statement because it appears to suggest that one’s identity is judged by his/her race and that when judging someone’ potential or character, race should be a guiding factor.

If at all we intend to end racism, we must learn how to judge people based on their character, skills, and identity. We must also stop evaluating people based on their race. Racisms involve grouping people based on their ethnicity or color of their skin. It also involves taking action on racial grounds.

By definition, racism means taking account of race. Based on this definition, Justice Blackmum appears to suggest that we must be racists in order to end racism. This is not only immoral, but also illogical.

We should always endeavor to judge people by the content of their character, as opposed to the color of their skin. That this statement means is that we should not use skin color to evaluate the moral stature or competence of other men.

For example, we should not use skin color as a factor in admitting people to institutions of higher learning on in hiring them. Instead, we should admit students or hire people based on their competence, qualifications, and skills possessed. However, in our modern society, this appears to be far from the case.

Color preference seems to have replaced color blindness. Inasmuch as we may try to appear rational, there is no denying it that affirmative action entails a lot of racism (Bobo, 1998). Affirmative action promotes racism, in that it tries to please one group of people in the society at the expense of another group.

In case society decides to adopt a colorblind approach, we may end up losing more than we are likely to gain from this approach. For example, because the colorblind approach hinges on the premises that race should not and does not matter, we stand to lose all that we might have gained by identifying with a different culture.

In addition, we need to appreciate the fact that because all of us perceive the world differently, this is what adds spice to life.

By adopting a colorblind approach through affirmative action, we risk losing this valuable possession. Nobody benefits from or desires the “sameness” ideals promoted across cultures by our colorblind attitudes (Neville et al, 2000). For instance, if we embrace a blind society, we could end up losing our ethnic identity.

There is a clear distinction between color blindness and equality. Proponents of color blindness try to argue that all of us are equal by promoting affirmative action. Consequently, they attempt to mould individuals so that they can fit their description of equality.

In the process, they turn a blind eye to those values and capabilities that they would not wish to be associated with and embrace the qualities of an individual that they would want to be identified with. In contrast, equality refers to the ability to appreciate our various experiences, perspectives, abilities, and talents, in a diverse society.

Several authors have warned society against trying to adopt a color0blind attitude since different groups of people views different situations differently. Those who are keen on achieving a color blind society seems to ignore that fact that our society is deeply racialized.

Reference List

Bobo, L. (1998). Race, interests, and beliefs about affirmative action. American Behavioral Scientist, 41, 985-1003.

Cornell University Law School. (n. d.). Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Web.

Neville, H. Lilly, R., Duran, G., & Lee, Brown, L. (2000). Construction and Initial Validation of the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 59-70.

The issue of gender equality can be discussed in many cultures and societies without references to the possible racial and ethnic differences, but it is important to note that these differences influence the development of the discussion significantly. Thus, the second part of the 20^th century is characterized by significant changes in the public’s approaches and visions about the problem of gender equality. Researchers pay attention to the fact that women seem to have a voice about many social spheres, and their roles are changed with references to global progress.

However, it is important to focus more on the ethnic differences while discussing the issue because the role of black woman in the African diaspora can be described as still controversial regarding the issues of oppression, problem of distributing duties and responsibilities within the family or society, and regarding the opportunity to receive good education or job position. In spite of the fact that black women struggle for stating their equal rights with men within the African diaspora even more intensively than the female representatives of the other races and ethnicities, the question of the gender equality remains to be urgent, and it is necessary to discuss it while concentrating on the concepts of racism and gender oppression, womanism, mothers, and black women’s ‘otherness’.

Although the historic and social events and changes in the USA typical for the period of the 1960s-1980s contribute to the stating the ideals of civil rights and gender and racial equality, black women in the African diaspora still suffer from the unequal distribution of roles between black women and men in the family and community and from the racial discrimination at the larger social level. The era of civil rights reforms brought many changes and improvements in the community of black women, but the cases of the sexual, social, national, and religious oppression are still obvious. If black men received the opportunity to state their equality within American society, black women have to state their rights within the African diaspora.

Thus, they have to struggle with black men for their rights. In her work, Walker states, “Black women are called… ‘the mule of the world,’ because we have been handed the burdens that everyone else… refused to carry” (Walker 405). From this point, to receive the opportunity to fight for the equality in the American society to cope with the racial discrimination, it is necessary to win the right for equality in the community of black men while rejecting the principles of unequal distribution of duties and the obvious isolation from the active social life.

To analyze the current position of black women in the African diaspora, it is necessary to refer to the concepts of womanism and motherism. Having focused on the ideas of the social and gender equality, black women began to act as socially conscious and responsible persons during the 1970s, and their movement resulted in identifying the voice of black women among the other women struggling for equality. Nevertheless, Collins pays attention to the fact that “black women appear to have a voice, and with this new-found voice comes a new series of concerns” (Collins 9). As a result, only illusions of change were observed during the period, and many women expressed their ideas with references to womanism and motherism.

The signs of sexism and racism in the society of the African diaspora led to the development of womanism. However, black women are inclined to discuss the problem of equality in the larger context, and “womanism seemingly supplies a way for black women to address gender oppression without attacking black men” (Collins 11). Black women identify the problems of gender inequality typical for all the types of relations between men and women without references to the race.

The concept of motherism differs from the idea of womanism because motherism is used to discuss the position and activities of only black women in opposition to the roles performed by men in the community. In spite of the fact that mothers is based on stating the natural basics of the family, and black women as mothers keep significant powers, the idea of mothers reveals the true nature of the gender inequality in the African diaspora because women are expected to perform the roles determined traditionally, as the result of the historic development of the community (Acholonu 28; Hurston 111-115). Referring to the ideals of womanism and feminism, black women use their differences in culture and ethnicity to contribute to advantage and overcome the man-made boundaries in the spheres of art and education as well as social fields (Wilentz 387). Hoping to cope with the issues of inequality, black women try to use their ‘otherness’ as the strength or advantage.

Thus, the challenges associated with black womanhood within the African diaspora are closely connected with the concept of gender inequality. That is why active black women focus on overcoming gender oppression with the help of proclaiming their rights and principles based on the theory of womanism and accentuated self-definition.

Works Cited

Acholonu, Catherine Obianuju. Motherism: The Afrocentric Alternative to Feminism. USA: Afa Publications, 1995. Print.

Collins, Patricia Hill. “What’s in a Name? Womanism, Black Feminism, and Beyond”. The Black Scholar 26.1 (1996): 9-17. Print.

Hurston, Zora Neale. Their Eyes Were Watching God. USA: Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2013. Print.

Walker, Alice. “In Search of Our Mothers’ Gardens”. Within the Circle: An Anthology of African American Literary Criticism from the Harlem Renaissance to the Present. Ed. Angelyn Mitchell. USA: Duke University Press, 1994. 401-409. Print.

Wilentz, Gay. “Toward a Diaspora Literature: Black Women Writers from Africa, the Caribbean, and the United States”. College English 54.4 (1992): 385-405. Print.

Introduction

The concept of equality is as old as the thought of humans but its universal appeal remains an elusive ideal. The demand for equality obsesses every political thought since we are not sure what it is but whatever it is, we want it. The ideology of equality is a paradox. We often assume that all people are equal but we learn they are not intact equal since every individual inherits different traits that are influenced by social conditions (education, family environment, etc) in which fortune places him or her. This in turn leads to differences in the conception of equality as discussed below.

Formal equality

This is an idea of equality that prevails within liberal thinking. Historically, this idea was meant to dismantle the legally and politically sanctioned privileges enjoyed by certain social groups. This notion is entwined with the liberal notion of rights. The perception of equal rights historically has presupposed the idea of impartiality, neutrality, and universality in the contents and access of education opportunities. As noted by Hall and Kennedy (2006) this principle has been accepted by most societies thus fostering a way forward to the fulfillment of the ideal of equality.

Its rationale is to ensure that, no student or group of students should enjoy greater access to education opportunities due to their social status or forbidden access on the account of gender, race, color, religion, sex, political ideas, and social origin. This principle was advocated by the societies after realizing that race, class, and gender contributed much to inequalities in education access and opportunities. The oversight of this ideology is that it doesn’t overcome certain situations of individual inequality. For instance, children from a poor background will rarely have access to quality education since they cannot be able to join private schools, also at higher grades, high dropouts are recorded to this social group. Secondly, it may lead to imbalances in the enjoyment of equal rights, and finally, equal treatment may have discriminatory effects on the account of the situation of that person.

Real equality or material equality

This is a conception by socialists and feminists that focuses on the results produced by education i.e. the outcome of education. It deals with problems associated with the inequalities in the society such as poverty that leads to unequal access to education opportunities. This approach calls for affirmative action to the community institutions such as the state to provide free education to all children in certain grades such as primary and secondary levels. It also seeks schools to provide the resources needed in the education to economically disadvantaged students. It also demands the dispensation of certain requirements of general applications to some individuals to prevent them from being discriminated against access to education e.g. special attention paid to the slow learners in the classroom. Examples are given in the constitution of Puerto Rico that not only provides the right of every person to an education that leads to the full development of her personality but goes further and demands the state to offer free access to primary and secondary levels. This rationale has some limitations in that it has a potential conflict with a certain conception of liberty and thus it is opposed by the liberals. (Michele, 2006)

Equality of educational opportunities

This is conceived as an argument in favor of equal rights because inequalities of rights in education opportunities to a student or group of students leads to unequal education opportunities, for example, those students who come from a poor background lacks enough capital to join schools that offer quality education and hence receives least enriching education and end up with historically deflating diplomas which have less value and thus cannot compete with their counterparts who are degree holders in the job market. This ideology on the conception of equality distinguishes the diverse modalities of the twentieth-century welfare state. It is straddled between the conception of formal equality and real or material equality (which is useful for a certain purpose and advocated by supporters of progressive social policies), carries the trouble of the common indetermination suitable to an origin based on ideological accommodation. (Michele, 2006)

It is sometimes used to mean equal rights as explained or to serve as a ground to demand equality of conditions since it argues that unequal conditions constitute barriers to equality of opportunities i.e. it considers both formal and real equality bearing in mind their strength and weaknesses. This ideology has been perceived as the opposite of equality of results but it is not easy to distinguish between results and opportunities. For example, in the case of equal access to education, it is not easy to tell whether it is a condition that provides for a better opportunity or it is the result of a policy that is aimed at the redistribution of services and resources. The key question that remains under this conception is the opportunities for what, as affirmed by J.R. Pole. Whose answer depends on values, needs among other factors created by historical circumstances, and group’s aspiration? As proposed by Jefferson, the proposition implies the vindication of an equal right to all children to get to be part of the elite i.e. each child should be beneficial to the education. (Noll, 2006)

Difference approach

This is a conceptual proposal that emerges after the realization of the situations in which it is not possible to eliminate real (natural or cultural) differences among people. This proposition hence rests on the ideology of the differences among people, which should always be, accepted the way they are. These differences may arise from biological traits- such as race and sex- or social constructs such as gender. The aim of this approach is not to remove the differences but to avoid, eliminate and reduce the harmful impacts that some may claim to attach to them. For instance, legal provisions in some countries require the physically and mentally challenged children to be provided with reasonable access to education since these characteristics cannot be erased but their adverse impact can be eliminated. Within this concept, claims for the cultural self-determination made by indigenous and other ethnic groups are included i.e. the right to own their culture and language, or rights asserted by girls about the differential facts of pregnancy or motherhood. (Noll, 2006)

Multi-dimensional approach

The numerous situations that involve some type of inequity in the contemporary world, as well as the different problems that the amendable ideal of equality has historically alleged to redress, necessitate abandoning any form of reductionism in the attribution of meaning to the concept of equality. The usefulness of the concept lies precisely in its polysemantic character. Its greatest strength is its capacity to bear multiple meanings of inequality since not all inequalities are the same and the problems of inequality have always been and will continue to be multi-dimensional. (Noll, 2006)

Conclusion

The usefulness and insufficiency of the several conceptions of equality call discussed for the development of a multi-dimensional and dynamic approach that can incorporate and transcend them. We should avoid reductionism when analyzing equality and we should make efforts to conceive more complex ways of addressing the multiple angles and problems connected to the concept of equality.

References

Hall, D., and Kennedy, S. (2006). Primary progress, secondary challenge: A state-by-state look at student’s achievement patterns. Washington, DC; Education trust.

Kenneth, R. (2003), Equality of education Opportunity and the Criterion of Equal Educational Worth, Journal of studies in philosophy and education, vol 11 (329-337).

Michelle, F. (2005), Framing dropouts, New yolk, Sunny press publishers.

Michele, S. (2006), Social welfare, the Neo-conservative Turn, and Educational Opportunity: journal of philosophy of education, vol 38 (275-286).

Noll, J.M. (Ed.). (2006). Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial education issues (13th Ed.). Dubuque, IA; McGraw-Hill.

Spring. J. (2005). The American school, 1642-2004 (6th ed). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

It is evident to many that it is difficult for a sole individual to make changes in the political system of a country, especially in the United States of America. However, many can attest to the fact that there is power in numbers. Political institutions are due to respond to voices of groups rather than to the voice of an individual. In that case, it has been common for individuals to form groups and raise their grievances, proposals, and demands as one.

An interest group refers to an association of individuals with common interests, concerns, and goals who come together to address government policies affecting them. They constitute of public, religious, economic, government, and civil rights interest groups. These groups are increasingly becoming a trend because of their influence on the political platform.

This article focuses attention on a civil rights interest group that is vibrant in Ohio. The interest group under consideration is the Equality Ohio group. Equality Ohio is an unprejudiced and nonprofit organization that fights for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community in Ohio. The Members formed this civil rights interest group in 2005 following passage of the Ohio issue, which barred the government from acknowledging same sex relationships and marriages. Equity Ohio headquarters are in Columbus, Ohio. The group has offices in main towns nationwide. This organization constitutes of about 30,000 members. In general, this group seeks to ensure that the state government puts member on a level ground with other straight citizens. Further, it seeks to see that the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community has equal rights in terms of sex orientation, gender identity, equal chances of housing, equal employment opportunities and safe educational institutions (Equality Ohio, 2013).

Equality Ohio just like most organizations takes sides in the political arena. The group has been active in politics as government policies affect the existence and the rights of the group. In the subsequent elections, Equality Ohio has channeled their support towards the Democratic Party rather than towards the Republican Party.

In the 2012 election, this organization offered full support to the Democratic Party. In fact, they endorsed president Barrack Obama. The group’s rationale for endorsing Democrats party is the benefits they have continuously gotten from party. For, instance in the first term of his presidency, Barrack Obama accomplished a lot for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. Obama’s administration ensured the signing of the hate crime prevention act, the affordable care act, among other acts. These acts consider the needs of the LGBT community. Further, the democrat’s government banned laws that were discriminating against this community. These among many other accomplishments by the democrat’s government compelled Equity Ohio organization take democrats side as they felt represented.

On the hand, Republican Party is conservative in nature and supports the traditional marriages system. For Example, in 2004 the party had firm stand and was against gay marriages. The views of the republican have been consistent from the beginning. For this reason, the LGBT community does not support them. However, in the republican’s bid to gain ground that is more concrete the party is changing views. In the recent years, republican leaders are coming out to support gay communities. However, the party has not yet convinced the Equality Ohio group to support them.

The influence that the Equality Ohio community group holds in Ohio’s politics is significant. Statistics show that four percent of the American population associate themselves with the lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender community. Though this is a small percentage, it can be the victory margin of a political party. For instance, in the last election the gay community vote was significant especially in Ohio as the state’s votes acted as a swing vote. Both Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama battled for the gay community vote for in order to gain extra ground. Each of the two candidates needed as many votes as they could get from any small group. This shows why the two concentrated on the gay community groups such as Equality Ohio. In the election, the gay community came out in large numbers to support the democrats because the party considered rights of the gay community in their previous term (Cohen 2012).

The fact that the gay community supports the democrats and not the republicans has consequences on the state government. The ruling government has to consider the gay community and listen to their grievances. In the last election, democrats used the gay community in their campaigns as fundraisers and campaigners and benefited from their votes. This means that the democrat’s government has an obligation towards this community.

Just like other interest groups, the Equality Ohio group is important in politics. The political parties should accommodate ideas of interest groups and rationalize the constituent views of the different interest groups. Evidently, the gay community vote proved significant in the last election held in the United States. In general, the political arena cannot sideline the importance of interest groups such as Equity Ohio.

References

Cohen, M. (2012). Gay Vote Seen as Crucial in Obama’s Victory. Web.

Equality Ohio. (2013). Equality Ohio, Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Form Coalition. Web.

Introduction

While looked at broadly, all societies require an educational system. The youth have to be taught of what they are likely to face on their way to maturity. When looked at this way, then it becomes clear that socialization and education are no different. However, in numerous preliterate cultures, such difference is not made.

Savage inequality is a book that is written by Jonathan Kozol in concern of schools in the urban centers as well as the citizenship sense. In his journey that takes him two years, Kozol investigates the scenery of the education system in the urban areas.

He presents an apparent and righteous argument in justification of intrinsic human worth and autonomous ethics, in opposition to the long-term discrimination forces and corporatism, which have been displayed in complete rampage. In the 30 towns and environs that he visited, he found that racial segregation, a destitute imposed government, and almost total communal denial were the order of the day.

Discussion

Kozol argues that, in spite of a century of lawful and governmental action, America upholds uneven and divided education system whereby the deprived that form the marginal children, debatably who warrant the most resources, obtain schooling that is qualitatively dissimilar compared to that of their whiter, richer equivalents (Kozol, 132).

The unfairness persists within metropolitan community school structures and between town and uptown districts, which form the separating lines, which were frequently drawn with openly ethicized aim. The book has been alienated into six sections in which each section takes the reader to a dissimilar part of the state.

My opinion regarding to money

The book identifies the troubles that teachers need to tackle due to inadequate financial support for schools in low-income districts. Its title means that the state’s negligence to the stipulation of superior communal schooling to kids is almost the same to immoral disregard.

In each section of the book, the author discloses inadequate financial support and horrible circumstances in interior town schools for instance, dripping roofs, halls submerging every occasion there is rainfall, three or four classes dividing a gymnasium or an eatery owing to lack of enough rooms, and educators having out-of-date course books and occasionally, not any at all (Kozol, 79).

I think that the story approach that Kozol employs is precious because of how much realism is misplaced, more often intentionally covered, by the strategy discussions that enclose communal education.

A regular disagreement that the writer tackles is the assertion that town scholars obtain “sufficient” education, and that more funds are not the answer to whatever troubles that may infect their schools. In my opinion, Kozol suggests that funds whether directly or indirectly guided to schools would make schooling a more encouraging occurrence for the kids who go to these schools.

This does not imply that more cash is a magic-bullet answer to the troubles of town communal schooling or that schooling is such an answer for superior troubles, like poverty and drugs, which face these groups of people, no. Education experts and proletarians argue that family and literary troubles add to an atmosphere where educational skills are not appreciated or taken care of.

As Kozol indicates however, the family and the school differ in the indirect irresponsibility of the government when it comes to family background imbalance. He argues that it is accountable for unfairness in communal education (Kozol 89). In addition, it breaches any version of fairness for a communal resource to be given in greater quantities to those slightest in need, the precise communal education that runs in the US.

My opinion on performance

The book indicates that deprived kids are captivated in terrible municipal schools while the middle group has options (Kozol 56). I think that money alone cannot be used as an excuse to the poor performance of children in those schools. Other family issues like solitary or no parent families, living below the poverty level, and lack of socialization thus, making them to speak little or no English, affect most of them.

The rate of drop out is very high in poor schools, which creates space for the ones who would progress to secondary school because of poor budgetary computations. In my opinion, it is hard to show that scholars are planned to fail, but it is obvious that failure is a vital constituent of planning, in every town school system in the state.

When novel classrooms and educator employments are planned, no stipulation is made for that amount of scholars whom everybody is sure will not come back. Long-range policies are founded on extrapolations of prominent failure prices. In this warped logic, the dilemma of congestion represents a surplus of achievement, while high withdrawal rates give some inhalation room.

My opinion regarding to social justice

The author aims at confronting every communal computation with a command for fairness. He insists that individual and nationality privileges overshadow conservation of an ethnic and financial position quo that, lastly, can only excuse itself on the stipulations of unprocessed authority (Kozol 127).

He unfolds the relaxed facade of uptown and boardroom courtesy, illuminating prejudice that recognizes no divisional address, but which is comprehensively American. In my opinion, chauvinists have no unique animus for Black infancy, but instead, they try to separate and make African Americans as an unenlightened entity.

The school populace is conversely, a caged state liability. In this ground, the most permanent damage can be consummated, but as well, it is within the limits of communal schooling, whereby the nationality rights fundamentals may be most forcefully campaigned in the full illumination of the day, and in the nationwide morals face.

My opinion regarding the book’s publication

The educational unfairness subject has no likelihood of disappearing overnight. However, the books publication has ensured that the unfairness in American educational system and strategy has unimaginable thoughtlessness that clearly and compassionately is brought to the front position of the awareness of the American populace as well as to the program of the policy-makers of the state.

The book has documented touchingly, and relentlessly the worrying unfairness in American culture, as well as given information and approach that will be able to assist the nation in moving in the direction of a more caring educational strategy.

Conclusion

Education is a vital component in the life of an individual, more so in their tender age. It cannot be differentiated from socialization since children learn from one another. In savage inequalities, the author has shown that education is not handled equally thus, creating an education gap between the poor and the rich, the white and the black.

This is unfair, as all children regardless of their family background, race, color or any other difference, deserve the same quality education. The book which indicates the problems more than offering solutions, calls for policy makers to reflect on this and come up with solutions which would be of benefit to every individual.

Works Cited

Kozol, Jonathan. Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools. New York: Crown Pub, 1991. Print.

Introduction

The media influence how people perceive gender equality. As such, the media portrays how different genders relate. In the recent past, the media have been condemned for compromising on the intention of realizing gender equality. Similarly, they have been accused of propagating undesirable gender prejudices. According to women activists, the media misrepresent and portray women as sexual objects. With respect to utilitarianism theory, the media should end gender prejudices by implementing policies that please all parties (Singer, 2003). Critics suggest that the theory should not be adopted because it may perpetuate immoral acts while trying to please the involved parties. In spite of the critics’ sentiments, the media should formulate and implement decisions that will enhance happiness for both parties.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a moral concept, which determines right and wrong based on the results of selecting an act or rule over other acts or rules (Singer, 2003). The standard of utility is evaluated against every other action in a circumstance of choice. With respect to consequences, utilitarianism encompasses all the good and bad effects resulting from the decision chosen. The effects are considered whether the decision has been implemented or not. When the dissimilarities between the consequences of options are not great, the options are not perceived as being moral. Mill (2013) suggests, “Actions or decision should be perceived as ethically right or wrong when the repercussions are of such significance that an individual would desire to see the cause compelled to perform in the favoured way” (Haines, 2014). Unlike deontology theory, the concept moves away from the choice of an individual’s welfares and takes into account the welfares of everyone.

Application

With respect to utilitarianism, the media should end gender prejudices by choosing decisions based on the consequences of their choices. The media should settle on a choice that will enhance happiness between both parties. As such, the media have distorted the perception of women in society by misrepresenting them, displaying them as submissive beings, and by portraying them as sexual objects. They should try to expand their boundaries to allow the equal representation of all genders in the industry. Similarly, they should stop depicting women as sexual objects. By doing so, the industry will enable women to compete equally with their male counterparts. Women will also get equal opportunities as men do in the industry. In addition, the media will enhance their reputation by enhancing equal representation. Based on the above illustrations, it is apparent that the above acts will result in maximum happiness between both parties.

Objection

According to those who object utilitarianism, the concept should not be utilized because sometimes it defends immoral acts. With respect to the above case, the theory supports any decision or act that will result in greater happiness for both the women and the media. For instance, the media can retrench a number of men and replace them with women. Similarly, the media can employ women only into new vacancies. In addition, opportunities expected in the future can be preserved for women. Through the above initiatives, the media will address the social inequalities that had been directed at the female gender in the past. The actions will enhance the media’s reputation. Despite the benefits of the above acts, it should be noted that the decision taken is unethical as it gives women more privileges over men. By doing so, the theory has gone against its main goal of enhancing gender equality.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it should be noted that the media should end the above challenges by adopting policies or acts that will result in greater happiness for both the industry and the women. The media should settle on a choice that will enhance happiness to both parties, instead of listening to the critics’ opinions that suggest that with utilitarianism theory, immoral acts can be defended.

References

Haines, W. (2014). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.

Mill, J. (2013). Early Modern Philosophy. Web.

Singer, P. (2003). Voluntary Euthanasia: A Utilitarian Perspective. Bioethics, 17(5), 526- 541. Web.

Introduction

The reality of the United States is a rather versatile theme for discussion. The thing is that Americans are not united in their urge for freedom and rights. Here a point on nationwide division is outlined. To say more, people do not mind in today’s American society the values of humane attitude toward each other without mentioning the differences in ethnical or cultural diversity. ‘Melting pot’ of today leaves much to be desired, because, realizing the fact that America is the country of multinational coloring, the population is still in the process of finding out proper solutions for the problem of prejudices maintained in the society. The paper is devoted to the problem of equality in US society. This point concerns all suggested aspects of this idea: racial, gender, economic, etc. The world of people does not differ in terms of the superiority of some groups in it, thus, the concept of equality should be implemented based on societal wide recognition of its use.

National approach

Looking at the relationships between people in America, one admits that there is a controversial character of relations between Whites and Blacks. This feature of the American society is presupposed, of course, with its historical development. Nonetheless, time passed, but the struggle seems not to come to an end. Here is a paradox; trying to teach the world how to maintain changes using democratic transformations, the internal situation of the US is far from democracy. America can fairly be called a divided nation, where the human approach does not matter. Hatred and discrimination are the main negative factors, strange as it may seem, for the contemporary development of society.

Racial issue

This assertion is underlined in the article by David Brooks in which he divides the whole of America into Blue and Red ones. These two parts contradict each other in the level of life, in personal priorities, in clothing, in the particular language, etc. (Brooks para. 7). Nevertheless, such a survey of the author states the real problem of the US in terms of its destructive way of internal development which has been going since the formation of the country. Furthermore, when two sides of one America collide, the conflicts appear which may cause disregards of official structures in support for some “other” representatives of the society. One of the grave examples is the time of total segregation in the 1960s. Another approach promotes the idea that the interests of the majority for some reason are more valuable than those of minorities. The ethical issue has no way out, for such a theme stays in the conditions of the perpetual danger of violation. People in America still have problems with inequality as of supposed opportunities. Poverty and lack of federal support for the lower layers of society is an outrageous fact for one of the most powerful countries in the world arena. The sphere of education is also divided into White and Black schools. Everything in the USA underwent or undergoes division into so-called leaders of the situation and outsiders.

Conclusion

To sum up, the contemporary society of the US is in its decline. It is so because still many biases fulfill people in their mutual relationships. Discrimination and inequality are apparent in American society. Moreover, such a phenomenon is far from reaching positive consequences. The issue is in its process to find applicable solutions.

Works cited

Brooks, David. ‘One Nation, Slightly Divisible’. The Atlantic Monthly. December, 2001. Hyperlink. Web.