The concept of equality is significant in the discussion of liberty, property, and the role of government in the lives of people. This is seen in tribal groups as well as in oppressive societies wherein political leaders treat the people under them as if they were mere objects.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two of the best philosophical minds during the Age of Reason and they both had differing opinions with regards to the subject of equality. Hobbes argued that there is no practical application to the concept of equality. He said it can only lead to chaos. Locke on the other hand can only envision a prosperous and stable society when all men are treated equal.
Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes was born into continent embroiled in a bloody civil war. The brutality of war led Hobbes to the conclusion that men are like animals that needed to be controlled. Hobbes went even further and said that there was a need for some form of coercive power that should force people to do what is right. Equality according to Hobbes is seein in the equal use of power needed to force men to do the right thing.
Hobbes was clearly bothered and terrified by the prospects of war that he was willing to justify whatever coercive action that a leader needed to impose on people. This is for the simple purpose of creating a stable government and the creation of a prosperous nation under the rule of law. However, the use of a compelling force means that men and women must be prepared for coercion and the loss of freedom.
They have to accept the fact that a superior power has to rule over them. This absolute power has the authority to do what it pleases in terms of deciding the fate of a town, community or individual. In other words the judgement is final. There can be no appeals. It is therefore a system that can easily produce a dictator. Aside from that there is the danger of increasing the power of the dictator and he can no longer remain as the arbiter and guardian of the people. He will become the absolute ruler of his domain.
Hobbes even made a clear argument that the people who are under this regime must not do anything to upset the balance of power. The citizens must learn to submit meekly and without question because this is the only assurance that peace and stability can be achieved. Freedom of expression and creativity is stifled for the greater good.
Equality according to Hobbes is all about the equal distribution of mans capability and propensity to destroy one another. This form of equality Hobbes accepts to be the main reason why men and women must not be allowed to do as they please.
According to Hobbes equality among men is seen in their common desire for destruction and power and he wrote: I put forth a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power that ceaseth only in death (Hobbes, p.58). In Hobbes mind men are equal only in their ability to destroy and subdue one another.
Locke
When Locke began to write down his ideas, the world has undergone a tremendous transformation as it tried to break away from its mediaeval past. Locke and his contemporaries are therefore more confident to go against established ideas about politics and social life.
While Hobbes preferred to surrender human rights and offer people freedom under an absolute ruler, Locke on the other hand made his disagreement known. Locke cannot accept the fact that kings and queens are given blanket authority over peoples lives. Locke said it is against the natural order of things that men should become the slave of another.
Locke was one of the first to elucidate that there is no such thing as a divine right to rule, no one was born to be a king and rule over others with an iron hand. Locke could not accept Hobbes proposition that only absolutism can establish a progressive and stable government.
Although Hobbes and Locke differed in their perspective of equality both men are in agreement when it comes to the necessity of a State. They also agree that man should be under the authority of a just ruler. The only difference is that Hobbes did not give provide an avenue to resist against acts of despotism. Locke is in agreement only as long as the governments role is limited to the management of the collective rights of people for the establishment of an egalitarian society.
Hobbes fear of chaos and utter destruction due to incessant warfare is matched by Lockes fear of dictatorship and abuse of power. Locke also argued that absolutism as a form of government can easily lead to the corruption of the government. It is therefore important that Locke is able to shoot down the argument that monarchs have the divine mandate to rule.
In the 21st century Lockes view has been proven to be closer to the ideal form of government needed to create a stable and prosperous society. It is therefore interesting to note that when Locke completed his treatise there was no other form of government that he could have used to prove his point.
European societies are only familiar with the monarchical form of governance. Absolutism is the main feature of European governments. It is therefore important to point out the source of knowledge that Locke utilized to help him arrive at his conclusions with regards to equality.
It is not surprising to know that part of his understanding of politics has a theological basis. Locke used the Bible to prove that even in the very beginning there was nothing that could provide any basis to the claim that there are those who are born to subjugate others and that there are those destined to be under the control of another human being.
Locke argued the following points and he wrote: Adam had not, either by natural right of fatherhood or by positive donation from God, any such authority over his children, nor dominion over the world, as is pretended& That if he had, his heirs yet had no right to it (Locke, p.1). It was an idea that did not take effect soon enough but later on it became the basis for freedom loving people who found a way to prove that indeed all men and women are created equal (Burke, p.347).
The conceptual framework that Locke presented is easy to grasp. He was referring to the basis of traditional lineal authority and his writing proves that there is none. A present day King does not have the mandate from heaven. He does not have authority to rule over another person.
It must be made clear that Locke did not talk about a leaderless society but a society governed by laws and the King himself is under that law. Locke made a clarification that rules are not changed based on the caprice and whim of the ruler but it is based the rule of law. Everyone is under the law and no one is above it. This is the only way to live under a society with rules and yet never in danger of someday being under the absolute control of a despot.
Conclusion
It would be impossible to understand Hobbes and Lockes assertion regarding equality without considering the context of the times. Hobbes was justified in his understanding of equality because he saw people killing each other on a regular basis. The destructive nature of war was so real that Hobbes sought a way out of it.
For him a life under absolutism is better than a life of constant warfare. Locke on the other hand lived in a time when rulers and powerful monarchs are so corrupt that it spurned him to write against their abuses. Lockes arguments were way ahead of his time because for centuries, absolutism has been accepted as the only method to effectively govern men. Thus, the modern world and democratic governments are indebted to Locke and his treatise.
Works Cited
Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolution in France. CA: Stanford University Press, 2001.
Before attempt to answer this question, it is necessary to discuss the definition of the doctrine of egalitarianism, prioritarianism and the purpose of this doctrine. The doctrine of egalitarianism is a prominent trend in social and political philosophy, which provides that all people should be treated as equals. Equality is the central to justice and holds that all people should have the same social, political, economic, and civil rights. Since the late twentieth century, it has also become relevant in moral philosophy. In social and political philosophy, it raises two different question and these are the Equality of what trend and why equality trend.
Egalitarians consider that equality and justice are interrelated. On the other hand prioritarians emphasise that both concepts are different. In order to answer this question it needs to discuss distinction between the Equality view and the Priority view. Here it is most important to consider which are more facilitating for individuals when their interests conflict with those of more advantaged individuals. In Equality or Priority? in The Ideal of Equality, Derek Parfit discuss the distinction between egalitarianism and prioritarianism which central element to discuss here. Then need to draw a conclusion that which view is superior.
Equality can be arising in many different perspectives and there may be no appropriate answer to all of these circumstances. Insofar as equality is implicit as a substantive social value which is distinct, for instance, from the formal principle that all people are of equal worth that individual should treat like cases alike and from the axiological verdict and the basic reason is that there is something valuable on human relationships that are differences of power, rank or status.
The differences of power, rank and social status are prevalent to human social life. Starting from the primitive communal system to modern society in every society there are two class and they are oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another. This conflict carried on an uninterrupted open fight, a fight that each time ended either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of contending class. More or less all human institutions and organizations identify hierarchies of authority and most social roles confer distinctions of status, for instance the relationships of doctors to patients, parents to children, teachers to students, employers to employees, lawyers to clients, and so on.
It is supposed that two persons are equally well-off. According to a social status compatible with the priority view, it needs to consider whether its possible for one to have priority more than the other. However if they get equal priority, then automatically better off will have greater priority than an individual who is worse off. This implies that in both views give priority to worse off persons over better off agents though for different reasons there are priority views to be distinguished from equality views. Parfit concluded that when comparing distributions for two individuals it need not ask how well off is everyone else because priority view is special in the fact.
The Priority View which may content of social ranking is this separability of individuals. Insofar as the content of the social ranking, Prioritarianism is but a special case of egalitarianism to the extent that the content of the social ranking is concerned. However, numerous authors have argued that egalitarians are in reality committed to more special views and it should reject separability. If it is summarize as content of the social ranking, egalitarianism is the best distribution because inequality is intrinsically. On the other hand prioritarianism means separability of individuals plus decreasing (positive) weights bad because to be badly off increases priority.
Ronald Dworkin reflected the reason of egalitarianism principle in his article what is equality.
He argued that intrinsically bad or unfair life prospects should be equalized, welfare should be increased, that the that justice is comparative that inequalities are just when otherwise facilities are destroyed in the name of justice and finally there are some absolute humanitarian principles like independence, autonomy, or human dignity. Prioritarians principles do not assume that equality itself can be a foundation of justice and that it is important irreducible aim of justice, it has intrinsic moral worth.
Prioritarians also believe that equality itself cannot be foundation of justice or it has no fundamental importance it is rather a by-product though it has a little importance as reducible worth1. In aspect of equality they want to say that equality is less advantaged. the fulfillment of absolute standards such as respect, human dignity, or citizenship are of utmost significance to give people an opportunity to live like a human being-worthy life. They also argued that individuals should have access to food and shelter, treatment, or should have private and political freedom.
Two Egalitarian Arguments
One of the most important arguments with regard to the egalitarian view is the assumption of equality argument and the argument of pluralistic egalitarianism. The former one believes that equality does not require any justification, but only inequality does. However, if the distributor is not performing according to the principle of equality he has to give some specific reasons for his decision to provide unequal distribution. According to the view of equality the extreme pluralistic egalitarian in the special sense of comparative fairness is the merely aim of justice is wrong; however the other great prioritarian view is that equality has nothing to do with justice is also wrong. 2 There are four different aspects which demonstrate that justice and equality are connected with each other.
Firstly, according to prioritarians equality is significant as a by-product for the achievement of absolute standards, for example human dignity.
Secondly, relational equality is one aspect of justice among others; one requires relational equality in order to yield like equality of chances, legal equality or antidiscrimination laws.
Thirdly, equality is indispensable in being a joint initial point with regard to social membership, political autonomy, or liberty of exchange since absolute standards presuppose that publics life prospects are more or less the same.
Fourthly, equality is a result of political independence insofar as there seem to be present unique cases according to which an equal allocation is rightly demanded
Still it is most controversial question in relation between justice and equality, which has not been successfully answered whether egalitarianism or prioritarianism has the most reasonable conception. The main objections against the egalitarians are the by-product objection of equality3 and the objection of inhumanity4 and the objection of complexity.
The By-Product Objection of Equality
The egalitarian analysis that equality is one of the most important or the central aims of justice and it should not be seen as a mere by-product, on the prioritarian side which had been a mayor point of criticism5. They think that equality is a mere by-product and it is due to absolute standards similar to human dignity or respect, whereas equality is due to relational standards. They argued that proportional equality is part of equality but equality is not justified if it always means arithmetical equality
Prioritarians argument is that in cases of people who are hunger and infirmity or deficiency of goods they should be helped first because hunger, deficiency of goods and illness are terrible conditions for every human being and not because other citizens are in a better condition. It will not be justified to compare between people who are better off and hunger, illness or other people who need sufficient goods to live. In cases of hunger and illness the role of equality is not simple as prioritarians want to make other people believe and their objection loses if these people get supply and if one acknowledges that they should be treated equally as human beings then primarily their will be no ongoing discrimination and no contradiction.
Derek Parfit in Equality and Priority6 argued that in one respect inequalities as such are bad that their disappearance would be asked for change with something which is better. Teleological egalitarians may welcome if better off people lose their additional resources as a result of natural disaster and hence all are in the same terrible condition than nobody else could profit. He also gives an example that if we destroyed the eyes of the sighted not to advantage the blind, but just to make the sighted blind. But it would be not adequate to criticize the egalitarians by using this objection and it would be wrong to create equality by leveling down.
So he argued his objection that there is nothing good about what we have done if we achieve equality by leveling down. In the same way, it is not in any way good news if natural disaster makes everyone equally badly off.
The Objection of Inhumanity
Anderson (1999) discussed the objection of inhumanity which is one of the major arguments against egalitarianism7. He defines it three different parts and these are as follows:
fault is-up-to-them objection,
the objection of stigmatizing and
The tutelage objection.
The Fault is-Up-to-Them Objection
The first part is an objection against the egalitarian view is that people who are liable for their own horrible condition should be left alone with their troubles, no matter what happens to them. The second objection against the kind of reasons egalitarians have to help people who are in a terrible condition, which did not occur through their own fault. The final part is an objection against the executive of the state in which category a misery should be placed and the examination of the people to get the relevant information for the state. This would be a case of putting the people under the tutelage of the state and damaging their private sphere.
Proponents of luck egalitarianism desire to equalize unjustified life prospects, if the citizen gets into a miserable position on their own fault, they have no justified demands for supply that means they people should be responsible for their decisions. Anderson criticizes this view stating that a car driver who has no insurance and unlawfully made a turn over on the road which causes a serious accident then it would be all right to him dying in a hospital.
According to Rakowski that driver has no legal demands to be kept on the non-natural respiration apparatus, any more. The society should help citizens if people lost the right track no matter whether they caused their own disaster or not, but only for they are human beings and it should main reason to give them a helping hand. It may be seen as true landmark of the development in human history. The basic concept of each sound society, to neglect helpless citizens seems inappropriate for a state which is dedicated to the idea of human flourishing.
Anderson was criticized by two point and these are,
Firstly egalitarians argued that all people are equal, therefore in special cases such as the guilty car driver case where he was seriously injured which are so unjust that these people should be helped, even though this miserable situation occurred only for his own fault8.
Secondly, paternalism could be an honorable and convincing principle of legislation. Therefore, it should not be humiliating for the state to make laws, for example, on wearing safety belts, insofar the laws are due to a democratic process
On the egalitarian view the destruction of property in the name of justice is unacceptable. Parfit makes a difference between the deontic and the teleological egalitarianism and his teleological egalitarianism is open for criticism. He also said that a sound egalitarianism should include teleological and deontic aspects.
The Objection of Stigmatizing
Prioritarians have an objection against the kind of reasons egalitarians have to assist people who are in terrible conditions and this situation did not happen through their own fault for example some people are disabled from birth or some became disabled by virtue of an accident or a disease or people with poor natural talents. Anderson considered that if one looks at the rules there is no care for all badly off people which lay down who belongs to the bad brute luck community, and the grounds to help the bad brute luck citizens are discriminating for them. He also argued in aspect of the egalitarian view that the reasons offered to allocate additional resources to handicapped persons, are wrong because disable persons may claim to the property of egalitarian relocation in virtue of their weakness to others not due to their equality to others.
The Objection of Complexity
The objection had been brought into the discussion by Lucas and Rescher9. His criticism is powerful and informative. The most important point against egalitarianism is his hypothesis that the spheres of justice are much more complicated than egalitarians accept as true. Their assumption that equality is the most important principle of justice is a false monism. According to the prioritarians, there are other principles of distribution such as there are, according to the prioritarians, other principles of distribution like the principle of merit or desert, the principle of qualification, or the principle of efficiency, and so forth.
Conclusion
Long researches and debates among Egalitarianism and Prioritarianism have been accomplished without a conclusion reasoning both the ideology has influenced the welfare thinkers almost in the same way. So it is some time difficult to making decision. Sometime it seems that the both philosophy is correct, both are applicable. But the real life does not allow existing more than one truth in a single case at a particular time and place.
There should be only one truth. Both the issue Egalitarianism and Prioritarianism are which should be practiced, totally depends on the existing system and character of the state. Social and economic precondition of the ruling class deters to whom the state machine would like to serve. In a class divided society practice of equality is a vague term. For instance in the British Legal system it has been ensured the rule of law that produced all are equal in the eye of law.
But the practical tragedy is that for a hungry lady has been imprisonment of seven years accused for a bread stolen, in the same court an industrialist declared bankrupt without any imprisonment accused for stolen millions of pounds from Bank. A theft of bread valued single penny and a theft of million pounds which requires more imprisonment? Positively any neutral person would ask for greater punishment for industrialist. This is the real picture of egalitarianism practiced in the British legal system.
In the name of equality the things that happen is just not a fair deal. Thus this paper may conclude that the equality is good as theoretically or hypothetical presentation and for practice in real life much more horrible and inequality in the brand name of equality. This inequality can be removed by Prioritarianism. At the same this paper would argue for Prioritarianism with proper legislative guide line to ensure human rights and social justice.
Bibliography
Anderson, E. (2006), What is the Point of Equality? ISBN 0521681251, pp. 289-330.
Parfit, D., (2000), Equality or Priority? in The Ideal of Equality, Clayton, Matthew and Andrew W., (ed.), (Houndmills: Macmillan), pp-91120.
Joseph Raz, (1986), The Morality of Freedom, 3rd edition, Oxford: Clarendon Press, ISBN 0006862217 pp. 216231.
Dworkin, R. (1981), What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources, in: Philosophy & Public Affairs, (Cambridge, Harvard University Press), ISBN. 9780674017726, pp. 286-332.
Parfit, D. (1998), Equality and Priority, Mason, A. (Ed), Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 1-20.
Rakowski, E. (1991), Equal Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-824079-1, pp-5-9.
Parfit D., (1984), The repugnant conclusion, in Reasons and Persons Journal.
Journal article: Cohen, G. A., (1986), Self -Ownership, world ownership and equality: part II Social philosophy and policy, 3:2,1986, 77-96.
Footnotes
Joseph Raz, (1986).
Parfit, D. (2000).
Raz (1986).
Anderson (1999).
Raz 1986: 218-221, 227-229 and Parfit 1998: 13-15.
Judith Sargent Murray is a writer and a poet, known for her advocacy for womens rights. The author discussed the topic of equality in the eighteenth century, which was a radical viewpoint at that time. This paper presents the analysis of Murrays On the Equality of the Sexes, which was published in 1790. It addresses the linguistic devices used to convey meaning, the elements of fiction, and the theme presented in the paper. The paper concludes that Murrays work is a notable piece from the perspectives of its innovativeness, irony, and persuasiveness.
Linguistic Devices
Irony can be considered one of the mist significant ways Murray selects to convey meaning; its significance for the work will be discussed in detail below (Pizzetta 1). It is vital to add that irony offers radical destabilizing possibilities , which is why the author involves it in the text (Walsh 93). On the Equality of the Sexes presents the examples of ambiguity as well. For instance, the author writes that the torpid spirit mingling with its clod can scarcely boast its origin from God (Murray 3). The word clod can be interpreted in several ways; one of its meanings is the piece of earth, while the other one is a dull person.
In these words, the author seems to criticize individuals who believe that any man, even the least intelligent one, is better than a woman. She says that those who are not smart may be less godly that they think they are. It is possible to say that the text presents ambivalence as well. For instance, in the very first line of her work, Murray seems to agree with the opinion society has, but in the next one, she questions it, saying that the future experience will reveal the truth (Murray 3).
Elements of the Fiction
It is possible to say that On the Equality of the Sexes is written in a persuasive but ironic tone. She author presents the views society has on the differences between males and females and questions them, revealing her opinion and helping the reader to see the contrast between these opposing perspectives. She refers to people who eat, and drink, and all their work is done , not willing to learn more about the world (Murray 3). The author contrasts these individuals with others, seeking the causes of events, and having curious minds. These words are ironic, as Murray implies that men do not have to work hard to be perceived smart, because for society, their gender implies higher intellectual capacities.
Thus, one of the figures of speech that can be seen in Murrays work is irony. For instance, she starts one of her lines with as if when discussing the perspectives society has about women (4). She presents her viewpoint in the way that questions the societal norms of her time. Murrays words show that the author does not believe that women are servants, while men are leaders. Her tone can be considered mocking; she laughs at the existing views and wants to illustrate that they are comic. Pizzetta notes that Murray incorporates irony to ameliorate the expectations society has about women (1). It is possible to conclude that the quality of the elements the author incorporates in her work is high, as her ironic tone is not offensive but contributes to her advocacy for the idea.
Theme
The primary theme that can be traced in the work is equality between sexes. The author creates On the Equality of the Sexes to discuss the perceptions society of her time has regarding the differences between men and women. She notes that a persons intellectual properties do not depend on gender. Murray says that some there are who wish not to improve, who never can the path of knowledge love (3). She implies that if a person is not curious and does not aspire after knowledge, they cannot be intelligent regardless of their sex. The author criticizes the traditional gender roles of her society. Murray notes that women are creative and have lively imagination; they are masters of deception and speculation (5). She believes that their minds can do greater things than housework.
In her words, Murray also demands the reader to grant that their minds are by nature equal (6). She argues that the perceived superiority of males is not determined by their higher intellectual properties but their differences in education for boys and girls. In her age, boys were encouraged to study science and math, while female students had to learn how to take care of their households. Murrays work suggests that the female brain is not limited in any way compared to the mail one; instead, society suppresses womens intellectual capabilities by forcing them to perform unfulfilling tasks.
Evaluation
This work is significant from the perspective of feminism, especially considering the fact that it was written in the eighteenth century. It is possible to say that Murrays ideas presented in On the Equality of the Sexes are ahead of her time. As mentioned above, in the authors society, women are perceived differently than men from the viewpoints of their intellectual qualities, expectations, and approaches to education. It is notable that although Murrays views can be considered radical for her time, her statements and judgements do not intend to offend men. The authors arguments are designed to challenge the system that judges people differently based on their sex. It is possible to say that Murrays views are progressive; they contribute to the development of feminist ideas in society of her time.
On the Equality of the Sexes is also notable from the perspective of sociology. Murray writes that the soul unfetterd, to no sex confind (4). These words mean that a persons soul is not confined to their gender, and that gender cannot correspond to the complexity of a soul. The authors perspective is also revolutionary for her time, as the idea about genders and their meanings are still disputed and questioned today. Murrays work is significant from both the feminist and the sociological perspectives, as the woman discusses the ideas at the time when females are forced to focus on particular topics and center their lives around their chores and households.
Conclusion
Murrays On the Equality of the Sexes is a persuasive and innovative work that presents arguments for the equality of sexes. The piece was written in 1790; it features a radical perspective on societal norms and the concept of gender that was uncommon for that time. The use of irony helps the author to convey her criticism while not offending any groups of individuals directly.
Works Cited
Murray, Judith Sargent. Selected Writings of Judith Sargent Murray, edited by Sharon M. Harris, Oxford University Press, 1995.
Pizzetta, Candis. A Darwinian Approach to Judith Sargent Murrays On the Equality of the Sexes. International Journal, vol.6, no. 1, 2018, pp. 1-9.
Walsh, Sue. Gender and Irony: Childrens Literature and Its Criticism. Asian Women, vol. 32, no. 2, 2016, pp. 91-110.
Education is an essential part of human life. Considering the problem of education in different parts of America and the history of its development, the education of Afro-Americans in the ex-slaves status can be interesting to dwell upon. It is possible to consider the problem of democratization of the society and an attempt to make education democratic and free for all.
The author of the book under discussion The Education of Blacks in South, 1860-1935 by Anderson states that popular education system and democracy should be inseparable.
Thus, considering the situation which took place in late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it is possible to state that proclaiming democratic ideas in the education, the main goals of Hampton/Tuskegee idea (despite the reputation of the Hampton Institute) were directed at training freedmen to educated people and to be prepared for subordinate role on the territory of the New South.
It can be noticed that some of the actions which took place in the educational system of ex-slaves were directed at maintaining social supremacy of whites under blacks. Thus, the Hampton/Tuskegee idea implemented in Hampton Institute may be considered as both consistent with the democratic ideals of self-determination and equality and not. The closer consideration of the problem is necessary with the discussion of the specific examples which may help understand the situation.
The problem of education was sharp for the society as having agreed on the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution, many people still could not accept the idea of equal schools for both races. Black people did not stated on equal with white population education. According to Anderson (1988), black population set two goals before them, short-range and long-range.
The short-range purpose was directed at offering black population the basic literacy skills in the democratic society. The long-range purpose of the education for black population of the New South was to create free and equal society (Anderson 1988, 31).
White population was against offering black one classic liberal education. All parties agreed that a new system of education was necessary, but they could not agree on the details. Samuel Armstrong solved the problem and offered the Hampton/Tuskegee idea which was directed at the popularization and democratization of the education for black students offered for Hampton Normal and Agricultural Institute in Hampton, Virginia.
However, new curriculum offered the possibility of adapting black education to the particular needs and interests of the Souths dominant-class whites (Anderson 1988, 31). Armstrong was a representative of a social class whose ideas did not coincide with those provided by freedmen. So, he attempted to create a form of education which could be satisfactory for black population but at the same time which would not make those equal to whites.
The special instruction offered particularly for black students carried hidden purpose. White population of America had decided that it was better to reorient the main idea of the social education for ex-slaves rather than tried to destroy it. The elimination of the education for black population might lead to struggle which was undesirable. The decision to implement special instruction was really innovative.
Implementing knowledge in students minds with Armstrongs philosophy, new teachers were trained who could be able to substitute northern teachers in the region and teach other generations the same ideas. One of the main ideas of the Armstrongs special instruction was the preparation of the ex-slaves for the role of subordinate population in the New South by mans of the methods which were unnoticed for black peoples (Anderson 1988, 36).
The implementation of industrial education in the Hampton model was another step for reaching the purpose of making ex-slaves dependent on southern whites. Hampton Institute did not offer its students neither trade nor agricultural training, only teacher certificates for the first several years (Anderson 1988, 34). This phenomenon can be explained by the main idea of the program.
Whites wanted to remain dominant. Giving an opportunity to trade with other lands by personally grown products made the domination a delusive hope. Black population would have an opportunity to become economically independent and whites could not allow this.
Teaching was a profession which was really important for implementing the ideas whites wanted in the black society. Further, ex-slaves had to teach their children what they knew and in a couple of years when Armstrongs philosophy was strongly rooted in the blacks society, they were allowed to trade and cultivate lands.
Returning to the problem of industrial education, it should be stated that many people considered it as more intelligent. It was also stated that if black population were offered to work mentally, they would not want to accept manual labor.
Stating on the intellectual importance of industrial education, whites wanted to make blacks more dependent, still, some black spokesmen placed under question the motives of industrial education (Anderson 1988, 64). However, industrial education was implemented and students received it. Whites also pursued the goal to eliminate the number of criminal cases and poverty as black people were given an opportunity to study, find job and earn for living.
The supremacy of one race under another one was the main purpose of the Hampton/Tuskegee idea. Whites understood that black population was better adapted to the Southern conditions. Thus, to teach back people work with their hands was a good idea, but to make those suitable citizens, they had to be educated. Thus, Hampton/Tuskegee idea was a perfect decision.
The implementation of industrial education gave black people an opportunity to get education which confirmed them that they had to work with their hands, do not wish too much, and remain in their cultural and natural environment (Anderson 1988, 82). Thus, black people received what they wanted, education and equality, even though it was an illusion, and white people, nevertheless, implemented racial hierarchy.
Anderson (1988) tries to provide the idea that the Hampton-Tuskegee model of black education emerges as a politically expedient device to reconcile hostile southern whites to the idea of universal common schooling for black children, and not so much as a unique form of second-class education to reinforce the social oppression of black southerners (80).
Still, reading the book under discussion it becomes obvious that the conversation about implementation of equal public education on both white and black citizens is held only during the southern education movement which took place in 1901-1915. During this time white population expressed absolute dissatisfaction with the idea to provide equal public education (Anderson 1988, 101).
It should be mentioned that the fight for equal education for both races lead the movement for struggling for civil and political equality (Anderson 1988, 108). Here comes the question, Isnt it the main reason for white Americans reluctance to implement equal educational principles?
Having considered the whole situation from the very beginning up to the end, it may be stated that the unwillingness of white society to implement equal rights of whites and blacks in the education were mostly based on the reluctance to implement equality in other parts of life.
Having created the vision of equal education consistent with the democratic ideals of self-determination, white Americans tried to show black population that they were offered freedom and equality they desired, but at the same time, whites knew that the equality in education was fictional, only its vision was created.
At the same time, it is impossible to argue the fact that Hampton-Tuskegee model cannot be considered as the first step to democratic ideals of self-determination and equality. Black people were given an opportunity to experience freedom, even though it was illusion. Black people understood that they had a dream, having become educated they could formulate a goal and try to reach it.
So, the educational program which was aimed at making black population of the southern part of America dependant on white people provoked the free ideas in the black society. Being educated, black people had an opportunity to think that allowed them to make conclusions and understand who was ruling the society and provide actions to eliminate that domination.
The Hampton/Tuskegee education has never been created to make black society democratic. Proclaiming the idea of equal education, it was aimed at making black people more dependent on white population, but education is a great power. It makes people think, no matter what information they are offered.
The understanding of the hidden motives of the industrial education allowed black society to defend their rights. Looking at the modern situation in the USA makes it possible to conclude that black people managed to reach their aim and become equal with white people, still, they had to struggle for their rights severely.
Thus, it may be concluded that being aware of the blacks desire to get freedom and equality with white population, Hampton/Tuskegee idea was implemented in life. On the one hand, black population was shown that their rights are considered and they have an opportunity to get education.
On the other hand, the rights of black people were as distant from those of the white people as before the Hampton/Tuskegee idea implementation. Thanks to the idea of industrial education, Afro-American teachers fulfilled the country that allowed northern white teachers leave the New South.
Having offered black people the idea that they were equal with white people, the supremacy of white people in political, social, and economic life still was present. Furthermore, all the ideas implemented under the Hampton/Tuskegee model were directed at rooting the thought in the minds of black population that they have achieved exactly what they wanted and there is nothing to struggle for.
This was necessary for white Americans for ignoring freedmen and continuing building white dominated society. So, it may be stated that the Hampton/Tuskegee idea was not aimed at being compatible with the democratic ideals of self-determination and equality. This was just a cover which helped white Americans build their dominated society and keeping black people ignorant of this.
Reference List
Anderson, James D. 1988. The Education of Blacks in the South, 1860-1935. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Social inequality is a specific form of social differentiation in which individuals, social groups, or classes are at different levels of the social hierarchy, and have unequal life chances and opportunities to satisfy their needs.
Inequality is understood as unequal access of large social groups of people to economic resources, social goods, and political power. The main mechanisms of social inequality are relations of property, power, social division of labor, as well as uncontrolled, spontaneous social differentiation. One of the forms of social inequality in the world was apartheid, the policy of racial segregation in South Africa from 1948 to 1994 (Meyer, 2017). History has known many fighters against inequality, and one of the most famous human rights activists was an enemy of apartheid who served 27 years in prison for his beliefs.
This individual was born in the village of Mfezo, located on the left bank of the Mbashe River in South Africa. After secondary school, he graduated from Clarkebury School, then attended Methodist College in Fort Beaufort, and at the age of 21, he was enrolled as a student at Fort Hare University (Meyer, 2017). However, he left the university due to participation in a boycott of students who disagreed with the results of elections to the student representative council. In 1941, he moved to Johannesburg, and, along with his work as a lawyer, he entered the University of the Witwatersrand at the Faculty of Law.
As a university student, he became interested in politics and regularly participated in meetings of black intellectuals of the African National Congress. He often appeared at rallies and protests, supporting the side of the local population. In 1948, when the National Party came to power in South Africa, he became chief secretary and later president of the African National Congress Youth League (Meyer, 2017). He organized the Campaign of Disobedience to the Authorities, and in 1955, convened the Congress of the Free People (Meyer, 2017). His help to the people did not consist only of political disagreement.
He created the first law company that provided free services to blacks. He also compiled a list of principles for the future democratic society of the Republic of South Africa, which became the main document for the non-violent struggle against the apartheid regime.
In the early 60s, having achieved nothing peacefully, he created a radical organization that allowed for the possibility of armed struggle. Together with team members, they organized explosions of government and military facilities. In 1962, he was brought to trial and imprisoned for organizing strikes (Meyer, 2017). As a political prisoner, he had the worst conditions of detention and the least amount of privileges. For example, he was allowed to write only one letter or make only one call every six months. Nevertheless, thanks to the support of his friends who remained at large, during this period, he managed to become a well-known politician and fighter for equality.
Since the mid-1980s, the government has been trying to find a compromise. He was offered freedom in exchange for refusing to fight against apartheid, but he refused the offer. Only in 1989, did the authorities lift the ban on the African National Congress (Meyer, 2017).
A year later, he was acquitted in court and released. Immediately after his release from prison, he began an intensified struggle against the government which was accompanied by acts of terrorism and clashes. His efforts led to the holding of the first democratic elections in South Africas history and the African National Congress in 1994 (Meyer, 2017). With 62% of the vote, the fighter became the first black president of South Africa.
During 5 years of his rule, the new president achieved free medical care for children and pregnant women, free compulsory education for children under 14, and introduced equality in the payment of benefits. He increased subsidies for the maintenance of rural residents, introduced laws on land, labor relations, qualifications of workers, equality in employment, and many other policies. Under his government, large-scale work was carried out in the country on telephones, electrification, and the construction of hospitals, clinics, and residential buildings. He died on December 5, 2013, at the age of 96 (Meyer, 2017). However, his policy and fight for equality made him a well-known person around the world.
The person who made a difference in fighting for equality was Nelson Mandela. He was one of the most recognizable symbols of the 20th-century human rights movement, whose dedication to defending the freedoms of people inspires human rights defenders around the world. Mandela, sentenced to life imprisonment, became a vivid symbol of resistance to the growing anti-apartheid movement. He consistently refused to surrender his political positions in exchange for freedom. His historical merit is the creation of a Republic where representatives of all races coexist more or less peacefully. Nelson Mandela has become the moral compass and symbol of a better future for all of Africa.
Reference
Meyer, S. (2017). Nelson Mandela: South African president and anti-apartheid activist. The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc.
Many leaders have had inspiring literature but not many have been inspiring than Martin Luther King Junior. Since his death, Kings works have received criticism from many quarters. Some of the criticisms portray him as a larger that life character.
Kings early life experiences shaped his faith, later life, career and even marriage to a very large extent. Martin Luther King Junior was born and brought up in a strictly religious family. His family; father, mother and grandparents were leaders in the Baptist church in America. For instance his paternal grandfather was a pastor in this church where his father later became a pastor.
Due to their active involvement in church Martin Luther King Junior spent much of his childhood in Ebenezer Baptist church. As he grew up he was saddened by the notable differences brought about by racism. At the age of six he discovered that he could not go to the same school as his white play mate and best friend. This and such experiences lead to the realization of how unjust the American society was. Gradually he engaged himself in civil rights movements to become a renowned religious human rights activist.
He wrote articles and gave inspiring speeches. Even though his works proposed non-violent protests, they still attracted sharp criticism, both positive and negative from various quarters. His writings have come under heavy criticism especially from Africana Studies scholars who question whether they contained the necessary intellectual content to be declared academic.
Furthermore King has also been declared a plagiarist. However not all criticism has been negative. It has been claimed that he was a great leader whose activities had massive effects on the historical human rights movements. Despite all the criticism leveled against him, his works greatly influenced by his early life experiences, have had a large impact in the clamor for equality amongst all races.
The history of inequality in the 1950s and 1960s
The foundation of true democratic society that respected the basic freedom, liberty and other basic rights can be traced back to the grate American civil war of 1860s. The south was defeated and as such one of the effects of the war was to help reconstruct this region by putting in democratic laws.
The American human right and equality movement had gone on for quit a while prior to the 1950. The black American had fought courageously for equality and thus ended the inhuman slave trade and labor. However, an equality revolution occurred in the 1950s and 1960s.The revolution heightened in the 1960s, but the events of that was shaped by what had happened in the1950s.
The 1950s America was more peaceful in terms of protest. Americans were fairly tolerable of each other. The economy was good as it was driven by the power of the middle class. However, deep a seated cold war between races eventually gave way in the 1960s. The revolution grew out of the increasing oppression, there rising poverty levels, racial and cultural divisions as well as risk political pressure and tensions (Lewis para 3).
The tensions underlined were heightened in the 1950s by increasing opposition to legalization of racism and inequality by The Jim Crow laws. The laws legalized racial segregation and inequality. The blacks were also denied basic needs such as the right to vote, decent education and jobs. This inequality was justified by its supporters who argue that the whites economic prosperity depended on keeping the blacks at the lowest ebb of the society ladder (Lewis para 4).
Other than the economic reasons, some other factors lead to the increase of human rights revolution in the late 1950 to 19 60s. Some of the blacks had moved from the south to the northern states which had not legalized racism. The blacks in northern states were treated well and enjoyed equal treatment as the whites. As such this motivated the southern blacks to demand for equality. Finally the events after the World War II also inspired the equality movement in America.
This is because America declaration for justice peace and freedom for all. The black in the south thus demanded that the American government hold true its promise of freedom and equality (Lewis para 9- 11). The revolution was lead by a number of activists such as Martin Luther king junior, Malcolm X among others. Early life experiences of martin Luther king influenced his involvement in search fro an equal society
Kings earlier life experiences that influenced his later life
Martin Luther King Juniors early life experiences had a very large impact on him and his career as a human rights activist. Like all the blacks in the southern states he came into contact with racial inequalities at a very early age. However, there is no record to show that he was unaware of the social inequalities before he was six years old. This is despite the fact that he went to an all blacks Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.
However, when he turned six and it was time to go to school, he for the first time experienced the ugly reality of racism. At that time he was told that he could not go to the same school as his white best friend because he was colored. This shocking revelation came from the parents of his white best friend. Upon inquiry from his parents, they responded well by explaining to him the history of the racism in America (Fleming 6).
Growing up under strict Baptist parents was another significant and influential development that shaped his life. He grew up under a very strict father who almost forcibly taught his children to respect the Christian commandments and have an absolute belief in God. It is reported that by the time he was five he could recite the Ten Commandments (9). Martin Luther king junior was close to his grandmother than to his parents.
He would therefore accompany her to church and sing alongside her in the church choir. It is probably this early exposure to singing in public that enhanced his commendable oratory skill that later became his chief asset in his works. His opposition to social inequities was evident in his earlier life, such as when he refused to buy shoes from the colored section in a shoes shop as well as when he with his white music teacher refused to sit separately in a bus. Thus his early life experiences prepared him for his career.
An overview of kings works in relation to the fight for equality
One of the characteristic factors of all Kings writings is the determined and unhindered fight for equal rights. His writings as well as his speeches justifiably assert the notion that equality of all races is the responsibility of all people. His works fought for equal treatment by providing equal employment opportunities.
He lamented, however that the under privileged had been denied basic education. As such this put them in an unduly disadvantaged position that would only qualify them for poorly paid menial labor. The black, especially, were the largest victims of this unjust treatment in a country that had implemented the equal treatment for all more than a hundred years ago.
The denials of basic education thus automatically put them in lower level jobs t. As such they were relegated to only do menial jobs. Such inequalities are however brought about by the misunderstanding and the different interpretation of the term equality (King, King and Harding 8). As such these differences in definition exposed the gaps between the existing realities and the intended goal of an equal society.
King in his Letter from the Birmingham Jail also accused the white of being democrats but practicing the antithesis of democracy (King, King and Harding 21). Even though the letter had some religious messages, Martin Luther opted to adopt the intellectual approach in his argument about the need for the church, lead by its clergy, to be at the forefront in the fight for an equal society.
In this letter, he drew many examples on how the church had failed the same society it claimed to serve. He argued that the churchs refusal to support efforts to stem racial inequality was equal to preaching water and drinking wine (King para 25).
His works continued to highlight that the effect of the legalized racism were greater and went beyond the social protests. The economic burden of racism was too big a burned to handle.
Employing the uneducated black in American companies would lead to low quality goods which are an economic waste. Furthermore, the black had to be economically empowered to have the necessary buying power. This is because American as becoming a master of mass production and as such hard to search for markets for its goods. The black community provided a lucrative market.
Doing this would mean empowering the black through education, provisions of better jobs that would lead to better buying power. Furthermore king lamented that the distribution chain of manufactured good had to be improved so as to serve black neighborhood (King, King and Harding 21).
It would have been easy to accuse King of only fighting for equal rights of only blacks in Americans. he proved his critics wrong by also highlighting the need to not only have social equality but also economic equality amongst all members of the society. King was shocked by the fact that white and black civil rights workers had been brutally killed for demanding a justice course for all (King, King and Harding 2).
Scholarly criticism of Kings writings
Martin Luther King Juniors works has drawn much criticism from many quarters (Carson 1). His writings have received both negative and positive criticism.
Anthony Cook, an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Florida asserts that King, like many of the Critical legal Scholars who have bravely sought to transform the great American society wrestled with many of the theoretical dilemmas that were the basis of the equality movement (Cook 985).
King did not just stop at that: he and engaged himself in gainful experiences as well the social struggles of the equality movement. Cook adds that martin Luther king junior drew his inspiration and thought from religious as well as the politics of the time. The result is that king created a superior and ideal society devoid of all the social evils that existed in the 1950s and 60s America. Thus his works were beyond mere words.
Carson (1) agrees with Prof Cook and adds that Kings writings contained deep religious messages of love and peace. However, religious messages were less evident in his writings as they were in his oral speeches. This is because most of these speeches were constructed as summons.
As such they had to assume a religious perspective on the issue of inequality. In many of his speeches he pleaded with the masses not to adopt a philosophical approach to understanding God. This, he reasoned, would add to their confusion. Probably his unspoken conviction is that the uneducated black American would have had a problem philosophizing God.
Not all black scholars have whole heartedly accepted Kings writings as purely scholarly. These include some of the most respected Africana Studies scholars such as Molefi Asante and Maulana Kalenga.
These two among many others argue that it is no doubt that King was a respected religious philosopher, well established in his own right. Furthermore they add that Kings leadership skills are unquestionable. However Kings works according to these two is subject to evaluation on whether it contains the intellectual content to be included in Africana Studies (Keatts ii).
Many of the African scholars argue that even though Kings works played a major role in the fight for equality in America they cannot be equated to the works of early human right activist such as W.E.B. Du Bois (6). Scholars are almost in agreement that Martin Luther King Juniors contribution to the search for an equal and just American society was more prophetic than academic.
Kings activities, which included his preachings, his writings as well as social protests on equality have inspired many people over the years. However whether they can be used as valid scholarly sources is a debatable subject. Some of these scholars assert that such prophetic works lack the intellectual validity to be cited as academic sources. As such so many of the Africana Studies scholars have had to ignore king and embrace other black and equality rights activist such as Garvey, Nkrumah and Malcolm X (Karenga 3).
Conclusion
The contributions of Martin Luther King Jr., have had great impact not only on him as a person but also on many other people. His works and thoughts are documented in his writings. Scholars have applauded his works as prophetic as they crated a vision of an ideal society. However such woks are debatable whether they can be included as academic sources as they lack the scholarly content. This is not intended to take away any criticism away from his works. They have still inspired the search fro equality in America.
Works Cited
Carson, Clayborne. Editing Martin Luther King, Jr.: Political and Scholarly Issues. In palimpsest: Editorial theory in the Humanities edited by George Bornstein and Ralph G. Williams, 305-316. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993.
The US has had a number of colorful events in its history as regards to liberty, equality and power. Many have lost their lives while fighting for the three social values. Actions aimed at restoring democracy and human freedoms can be traced back to the works of classical scholars.
The social contract that is alleged to have been signed by men brought about the fundamental rights and freedoms. People agreed to live together and co-exist harmoniously. Liberty is the freedom to do anything desired by an individual. Such freedoms however should not interfere with the rights of others. It is true that as an individual claims to be free, he/she has a responsibility of behaving according to societal laws and regulations (Owens 97).
The US has a long history of struggle towards liberty. The first major struggle was against colonialism in which the US managed to liberate itself from the colonial rule. During colonialism, Native Americans were not allowed to take up jobs in government with the reason that they were illiterate. The only thing they could offer was manual labor. The whites exploited Americans for long before they organized a revolution to liberate themselves.
Democracy and respect of human rights are some of the important tenets of liberty. Democracy means that each individual should be allowed to participate in governmental decision-making. Usually, people participate in governance by electing their representatives. Americans have constantly engaged in conflicts, with an intention of being recognized and treated equally.
Murrin and Johnson do not appreciate the fact that justice can be achieved through violence (40). Americans fought for their rights, they never acquired them through soft means. Again, the writers are ignorant as regards to the rights of the minority in US. The black race and other people of color have not enjoyed the rewards of sovereignty.
Ever since, Africans have supplied their labor free or at very lost cost. Their struggle to liberation resulted to a deadly Civil War which cost the lives of many, including senior government officials. The inconsistencies between the Southerners and Northerners will remain as one of the most important historical events in the US. Through the Civil War, Southerners were lastly freed but their social interaction in society has not been pleasant. The American society still feels that African culture is inferior to other cultures.
During the World Wars, agitation for liberty and equality reached at a surpassed level whereby other members of society previously neglected started demanding for their rights. Women in particular capitalized on the Presidents speech, which posited that the war intended to restore democracy and equality. This implied that despots such as Benito Mussolini of Italy, Adolf Hitler of Germany and monarchic regime in Japan had to be overthrown.
The allied forces indeed managed to do this, which further gave women courage to fight male patriarchy. Women were determined to pursue their rights since they knew that it was possible to achieve equality. Men erected barriers that derailed women from achieving their rights for a long time (Robertson 21). The world war provided a good ground for a revolt. Women were granted some rights and freedoms that untied them from male domination.
Even though American people have achieved rights as well as freedoms, the society does not recognize the existence of some members. The societal structure is so rigid and skewed to an extent that citizens do not have options but to comply.
Just like in earlier years, women are still economically powerless. The gap between the rich and the poor is widening. The minorities in society continue to face the injustices implanted by societal structure. People of color have little capital, which impedes them from participating in economic development.
They are incorporated in the economy as underdogs meaning that their role is provision of labor. The owners of the means of production are the Whites. Therefore, women and African race are compared to the proletariat who produces goods for the rich. This trend is not expected to change soon due to development model employed by the state. Capitalism will always generate few rich individuals and several poor people.
Another problem that interferes with individual liberty is state power. The state claims to be sovereign and for that case, it has the power to exercise jurisdiction over life and property. The state has a right to terminate life or to recover individual property when state security is in danger. In real terms, state sovereignty or power is incompatible with individual liberty. The state is seen to exercise authority over individuals in a number of ways.
It can therefore be concluded that state power and capitalism subjugates and oppresses the poor, including women. The state is a property of the ruling class that is employed to protect property. The bourgeoisie co-opts the state because it has coercive powers. State machineries have always been used throughout history to perpetuate the poor and women. Governments come up with laws that prohibit certain behaviors from individuals. The American states have recently enacted immigration laws that repress other races.
Works Cited
Murrin, John and Johnson, Paul. Liberty, Equality, Power: A History of the American People since 1863. 3rd ed. New York: Wadsworth Publishing, 2003.
Owens, William. Freedom: Keys to Freedom from Twenty-one National Leaders. Memphis, Tennessee: Main Street Publications, 2008.
Robertson, Henry and Merrills, Graham. Human Rights in the World: An Introduction to the Study of the International Protection of Human Rights. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996.
It is a general human tendency to discover certain principles by which to govern ones actions in dealing with other people. Over the course of their lives, people infer those general principles, either consciously or unconsciously, based on the outcomes of particular actions that they take. It is undoubtedly the case that people are greatly influenced by their culture in establishing a set of governing values.
However, I believe that one has to be critical towards the conventional values of ones culture and try to go beyond the cultural norms in search of deals that can have deeper foundations. Over the course of my life, I have concluded that it is beneficial to consider three central notions as a frame of reference in determining the morality of each particular action. In my opinion, those values are empathy, equality, and justice.
I have always seen the ability to take the others perspective or empathize with him or her as the foundation of moral behavior. If we were not able to see others as beings similar to ourselves, we would not have any reason to consider their interests on a par with our own. It would be perfectly natural to use the other as a means to our own ends if we were not able to think about his or her needs as well. Therefore, I always try to view every situation in which I am involved from the perspective of all the other participants in order to grasp the accurate picture of that situation. This maneuver assures that everyones needs are addressed to the extent that it is possible. It also ensures that no one is hurt emotionally or in any other way.
Related to the principle of empathy is the notion of equality, which is extremely important as an addition to the ability to empathize. As it has been said, people have an impulse towards empathizing with others; however, the mere ability to feel the others pain and consider his or her desires is not enough if every persons wants, needs, and emotions are not treated equally. For instance, many people were moved by the pain of the slaves they held, and yet, they simply did not see the slaves pain as equal to their own. The principle of equality compels us to have each individual as similar to everyone else and avoid making any sort of discrimination based on race, religion, nation, or class.
Finally, the third principle that I always consider when judging the moral character of my actions or the actions of others is justice. Given the two principles I have outlined above, justice can sometimes be a concept that is often in conflict with empathy and equality. For instance, when helping to resolve personal disputes between two people, if one empathizes with both sides and holds the interests of both sides as equal, no resolution can be reached.
The impulse towards justice means that a person who consciously disregards the interests and needs of others automatically reduces the need for consideration of their own interests in the eyes of others. I would claim, however, that one cannot wholly disregard empathy in order to serve justice because doing so can easily result in vengefulness, which I view as irrational and dehumanizing.
There are many examples where adherence to the values outlined above helped me to make a moral decision. For instance, empathy for those who suffer, or are in a position not favored by society, incited me to join and volunteer at several humanitarian organizations. I spent an entire summer volunteering at the Red Cross, where we prepared food for the homeless and helped in organizing many charities. I think that everyone should be involved in humanitarian activities to the extent that they can because helping others is not just our choice but a moral obligation.
This is an analysis of impacts of the expansion of higher education on income inequality in China.
Introduction
Education is often an imperative predictor of a persons future income (Lee 2006, 1). Basing on the Horace Mann tradition, Lee adds that education paces the society towards achieving a stable equality (1). Qian and Smyth note that the unraveling of the connection between education and income has attracted scholarly attention (3).
The need for the scholarly attention cannot be underestimated since an access to education is one of the basic human rights for everyone. From economic and social perspectives, quality education is one which facilitates an individuals capability to increase income as well as general well-being.
In other words, education should cushion against widening income gap across the society. Qian and Smyth (2005) explain the empirical finding that irregular access to education across a populace impacts negatively income distribution and economic growth (2). Globally, China is the most populous nation. A World Bank assessment revealed that China contributes the largest portion of poverty to the world, especially those people living in the rural areas (Borooah et al. 2005, 2).
The pursuit to gain equality through education throughout the last century has had a fast diffusion of public education. In the contemporary society, education continues to be an undisputed tool for social mobility and expansion (Lee 2006 3; Wu 2007 3).
Nevertheless, the impact of education as a social bottom line can be likened to a double edged sword meaning that a scholar from a disadvantaged background can have a turnaround in regards to his/her future income. On the other hand, the turnaround depends on the investment made towards the attainment.
Arguably, this could be the underlying reason why the Chinese Government decided to adopt the Law on Nine-Year Compulsory Education in 1986 to make it possible for all children at school to have nine years of schooling (Lee 2006, 2). According to World Bank (2009) , the Education Gini coefficient based on gender and ethnicity, inequality pattern in Chinas education had a positive trend from 0.57 in 1978 to 0.26 in 2004 (2).
Qian and Smyth (2005) state that in China the literacy levels among the adults rose from 60 percent within a period of 40 years to 85.5 percent in 2001 (3). In 1999, the student enrollment in primary schooling of 135 million and a teacher capacity staffing of 582 000 made China boast the largest primary school program.
China has diversified the secondary schooling to offer more than just general secondary education. Others include skilled labor, specialized, adult as well as vocational schooling (Qian and Smyth 2005, 3). At the tertiary level, the number of undergraduate enrollments and individual institutions in the year 2000 increased to 5.56 million and 1 770, respectively (Qian and Smyth 2005, 3).
By the turn of the millennia, China was experiencing an unprecedented and accelerated economic growth. However, this was paralleled by alarming disparities in income. Since the Mao era up to the early 1990s, income inequalities were on the decline, however, the 1990s decade experienced a reverse trend (Fleisher et al. 2008, 2).
Wu and Perloff pinpoint that economic growth in China grew by five times while the per capita income rose by four times, but disproportionately in the favor of the affluent and those in the urban areas (2004). Difficulties in demonstrating the income inequality have been aggravated by lack of consistent and reliable income dispersion data over time. The government has made limited attempts to provide Gini index.
In China, income inequality is fuelled by geographical factors, disparities in the access to education, the recurrent informal sector as well as barriers to employment and career progression for particular groups, especially rural migrants. Wu and Perloff (2004) argue that the income inequality is higher within the rural populace as well as between the rural and urban workers (4). Nevertheless, rural-urban migration has had a marginal impact on the status quo.
Wu and Perloff (2004) further explain that urban biased policies and institutions contribute markedly to such a situation and to the increase in urban-rural inequality (5). For instance, migrants to urban areas in search for income are discouraged from gaining urban residence status due to the strict residence registration system.
This discriminates them from welfare benefits as well as better pay commonly enjoyed by the urban residents. Wu and Perloff (2004) made an attempt to explain the scenario and generated inferences by the use of the Kuznets Curves and hypothesis (4). The scenario of growing inequality amid the migration restrictions becomes complicated with shifts in population trends.
Income inequality problems in China are related to imperfect labor market. The labor market experience the oversupply of partially educated graduates who crowd the large eastern cities like Beijing. Ning (2010) observes that the expansion of higher education has dismally contributed to the harmonization of regional income distribution (10).
Chinas cities are yet to coalesce into a single common job market base that will fairly address the differences in regards to education. This explains why graduates across the country tend to work in the eastern cities even if those are not their hometowns.
Inconsistencies within the education sector are traced back to a failed rationale in the examination system as well as weaknesses in the quality screening. Quality differences within same study courses result in skill imbalances in the labor market. In order to better chances as a highly skilled individual, there is a need to invest more in education. Costs associated with skill screening discourage firms from investing.
Government Spending on Education
Compared to nations of relatively the same level of per capita income and economic robustness, China has historically scored dismally with regard to investment in human capital development particularly at post secondary level. In 2004, the national budgetary spending on education was 2.79 percent of the GDP, which had always remained below 3 percent since 1992.
This is lower relative to the average of 5.1 percent achieved by other countries in the developed world (Fleisher et al. 2008 2). There was a rise in the proportion of college graduates within the population in 1992 (at 1.7 percent) compared to 1982 (0.4 percent); nevertheless, this was marginal.
As from 1999, sharp rise in government spending on education resulted in a remarked steep increase in enrollment from 7.4 percent to 21.3 percent in 1997/98 and 1998/99, respectively. However, this did not translate to a sharp increase in the proportion of college graduate vis-a-vis the population, which was as low as 5.2 percent in 2003 (Fleisher et al. 2008 3).
Investing in Higher Education in China
Towards the start of the 1990s some universities in China passed some institutional policies that required students to pay a portion of tuition levy. This trend was popular until 1997 when fees were institutionalized as part of the higher education package that students had to meet.
Thereafter, higher education in China has had to be paid for by the student (Dong and Wan 2012, 2). Students have to pay for tuition even if its a subsidized charge. Over the time, the government made deliberate efforts to improve policies that support the paying of tuition levies. This has seen an annual rise in fees. Within the 1990s the annual per-student recurrent expenditure in public institutions of higher education rose by two-thirds to RMB 10 230 million (Levin and Xu 2005, 38).
The rise in expenditure was due to the tuition and research. Analysts forecast that making the costs of higher education lower will result in market efficacy and improved student learning. Dong and Wan (2012) observe that such measures may raise the inequality levels, however (2).
The development witnessed in higher education financing was motivated by the governments desire to expand the sphere of education as well as domesticate the cost-sharing theory into education system (Dong and Wan 2012, 3). If the government insists on not interfering in the sphere of education as part of the expansion, then education will cease to be public; it will only be accessed by those from the upper class. This will not only result in educational inequality but also income inequality.
Decomposing the Impacts of Expansion of Higher Education on Income Inequality in China
Population Effect
The higher education expansion program was intended to enhance internal efficiency (Levin and Xu 2005, 52). Although China is expanding its education across the country, the ability to optimize the opportunity widely varies in different financial limits and regional areas.
Actually, the trend is exacerbated by a possible vicious cycle that exists between income inequality and education inequality (Ning 2010, 5). Trends in the access to higher education since the expansion of education reforms in 1989 signal a rise in inequality. The regional differences between the east and west better explain this. In the year 2007, college graduates in Qinghai province located in the Countrys west were 15 483, which is relatively lower than 242 617 in Beijing in the east (Ning 2010, 5).
Based on these figures, more employment opportunities will be allocated to those in the east than the west. Considering that labor migrations are in favor of flowing to the east than to the west, the west remains economically stagnated due to lower level of education attained by people, thus offering lower remunerated jobs.
Actually, this is highly evident and likely when subjected to the Kuznets Curve and hypothesis, where the peculiarities of various inequalities are better explained. Ning (2010) cites that Chinas public education has hardly become efficient to foster economic growth as well as bridge wage gap (6).
Labor Choice Effect
Students from disadvantaged background particularly those discriminated through social stratification hardly benefit from expansion of higher education. Ning (2010) highlights that the poor were not beneficiaries of educational expansion even with the market approach rolled out in the 1990s (6).
This justifies the fact that the education choice is not an obvious cause. It is a necessity that students from poor background have to go to school in order to reverse their fate, but this is derailed by economic hurdles that deny any opportunity to maximize on that potential. Eventually, education inequality through social stratification further widens the economic and income inequalities.
Even though graduates from poor background have attained higher education, they may not succeed in getting jobs that are well remunerated because of the reduced social capital network. In order to avert this hurdle, these students opt for a higher degree of education to imply their professional competence.
In other words, they resort to over-education. Over-educated people are likely to originate from humble backgrounds, thus switching labor markets.
In fact, over educated students tend to migrate to affluent regions of China which suppresses in turn the growth of local human resource capital in such areas. Lee (2006) applies the classical human capital theory to explain the net impact of high education levels, the migration trends and the ultimate outcome (16).
Majors at universities, such as finance, for example, enroll more students not because of the ability to provide the students with innovative ideas, high rates, etc., but due to perceived skewed income distribution across the labor market. Based on this, there is no motivational fee for skilled workers within the technical or any other training, thus the standards of education in this type of higher education are average, if not substandard. In addition, the labor market experiences a shortfall of technical experts.
Besides, the job market is flooded with graduates in humanity studies and social sciences. In other words, the number of students that enter such departments to meet the demand of labour workers in corresponding fields leads to an across-the-board income differences. Levin and Xu (2005) note that at the turn of the millennia the national market supply for graduates with a degree in Philosophy was the highest (50).
Others that followed respectively were law, history, science, engineering and medicine. Employment opportunities for students of agriculture, education, economics and literature were hard to come by. In 2001, unemployment rates stood at 3.6 percent up from 2.3 percent in 1992 (Levin and Xu 2005, 50).
Although the literacy and higher education training requirements have been met for some labor segments even beyond market demand, this has come at an expense of not only other professions, but of the market as a whole. Ning (2010) implies that this state of affairs results in semi-skilled graduates being supplied to the market, who at the end may not be able to upgrade the technology (6). In other words, the skill competitiveness has been compromised.
In such a scenario, the productivity of the labor market becomes questionable and meeting the revenue generation target is impossible. This leads to inequality whereby those in the monopolized industries are better remunerated due to high monopoly rents.
Inasmuch as such industries do not obviously require highly trained or qualified employees, employers tend to set high academic requirements for recruits. In the end, the talent may not be rewarded since the employer focuses on the academic qualification as the yardstick, which may lock out those not privileged with better schooling opportunities especially from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Price (Return Rate) Effect
Ning (2010) explains the relationship between income inequalities and the level of higher education is attained via the convex return context (7). In such a context, the educational attainment is directly proportional to the return outcome. Previous empirical studies in Mexico show that changes in inequalities are driven by adjustment in earning across educational groups.
In the 1980s, the increase in inequality was as a result of convex return context. During this decade, income inequalities favored those with relatively higher education attainment across the population. With the expansion of higher education, China is experiencing an almost similar scenario.
This is exemplified in the return rates for schooling independently as well as along the different educational groups. Those with higher education attainment are being favored.
This skews the income distribution more when the higher education attainment is not readily translated into productivity resulting to possible exploitation of people with lower education levels. At the end, the return rates become pegged to academic rewards other than skills and productivity. Lower education attainment is rewarded through the absolute income increase.
It is likely that if poor students fail to achieve an adequate return on investment on schooling, then the income gaps will continue to increase. Often in developing countries, the occupation level will be dictated by education.
In a relational society where social network is necessary to penetrate government jobs, there is no guarantee that poor students with high education level will make it into the government sector. Ning (2010) states that the education level of parents influences the wage earnings of the children on the basis of human capital accumulation as well as possibilities to find a job (8).
Differences of ones abilities, luck as well as adjustments during schooling may influence how individuals with the same education attainment experience income inequality. Increase in income pegged on education level favors candidates with unobservable characteristics that rank them well above within the conditional wage distribution, Ceteris paribus.
Ning (2010) cites that this revolves around the non-cognitive skill (9). This has close ties with the observation that students from disadvantaged background attain education, but their job prospects are not immediately promising.
Income inequality occurs when overeducated people have to contend with incommensurate wage. Ning (2010) observes that in the recent years graduates have not been unable to get jobs in China (9). Graduates had to switch to jobs below their educational background. To a greater extent, these inflicted their return on education. This disapproves that over-education is an end to the persisting income inequality.
Expansion of higher education makes income distribution susceptible to inequality outcomes when the quality of education translates to compromised returns to education. When college enrollment is not proportionate to schooling resources (education resource per capita), it is predictable that quality of education will decline. Ning (2010) observes that skill quality in the decade before education expansion scored better than thereafter (10).
The employer suffers expertise deficits translating to income losses due to unqualified graduates. Levin and Xu (2005) suggest some improvements that ought to accompany the expansion of higher education to sustain quality (37). There should be a national effort to devote and diversify resources and funding for higher education.
There is a need to put in place progressive regulations for higher education against which institutions can be evaluated as well as be held accountable. It should be demonstrated that quality of learning in higher education is dignified even with expansion in quantity. Levin and Xu (2005) observe that there is a perception that a fully fledged university in China offers almost every professional specialties (54). In other countries of equal magnitude to China like the USA, this is not usually so.
Levin and Xu (2005) regard Yale and Princeton as top universities that currently dont offer some appealing majors, yet their reputation remains stable and intact attracting and training qualified graduates (54).
With reference to China, Ning (2010) analyzed the impact of education on the employees future income. It was revealed that when wage was a dependent variable, the rate of return to education was 7.9 percent (14). When the annual earning was the dependent variable, the return rate was higher at 11.3 percent (Ning 2010, 14).
Lastly, according to Lee (2006), implications of earning inequalities related to return rate effect as well as labor choice effect loom wider than population (23).
Conclusion
Initially, scholars argued that expansion of education would increase attendance rates of schooling in due course; consequently, this would result in a decline in disparities in educational opportunities since the attendance rates of children from disadvantaged backgrounds will grow considerably in regards to the upper class. However, this early belief has been disputed a lot by the modern day scholars. The planned expansion of education has been considered as a switch from the elitist to mass education.
It is evident that the level and distribution of education are key subsets of income distribution. Gregorio and Lee (2002) conclude that a rise in the average level of education among the population in China has a balancing effect on earning distribution (406). This has a Kuznets-inverted U relationship especially when the government economizes on the social expenditure.
Ning (2010) also states that the inverted U relationship between income and expansion of education in China has been demonstrated using macro-data (4). Lee (2006) explains that the Kuznets Curve scenario where the level of higher education rises with an expanding economy resulting in rise in education inequalities that stabilize in reaching the threshold (14).
Gregorio and Lee (2002) during their cross-country analysis of the relationship between education and income inequality note that policymakers perceive education spending as a powerful tool for addressing the income inequality, however, it is not that obvious (395).
Nevertheless, there remains a positive connection sand link between education inequality and income inequality, especially when education inequality is measured on the basis of schooling variance. Trends in the return rate on education will eventually dictate whether the impact of higher education attainment of income inequality is either positive or negative.
Considering the stratified nature of Chinas society, the expansion of education may not necessarily have the same impact on populace equality as the distribution of educational opportunities will have. Wu (2007) observes that during the expansion of education in China, the Gini Coefficient (that assesses inequality across a populace) rose to 0.449 in 2005 from 0.317 in 1978 (5).
The approach of distribution of educational opportunities takes care of the distribution of scarce resources that are imperative for the education system, which allows for the equalizing of the other fundamentals of the social structure across the populace.
In the case of China, expansion of education impacted the distribution of educational opportunities by introducing the market approach into the education, thus widening the gap of inequality on the basis of access and distribution of economic resources.
Lee (2006) notes that the net impact of the expansion of education on income inequality follows the Classical Economic Theory (14). Furthermore, the expansion lacked a clarified equalizing impact through unevenly and unequally distributed opportunities. He further faults the market approach fronted through policy reforms as intended to widen the inter-provincial educational inequality in higher education.
In re-dressing the inequality issues, Lee (2006) suggests developing stratified collection and redistribution of educational resources strategy, as well as breaking down structural social barriers that would allow more mobility (15). He applies the Nees theory of transition economy to explain the inter-provincial inequalities that arise when the market is used for education expansion in China.
He further explains that the introduction of market approach into the expansion of education by the Chinese government was intended to bring on-board the efficiency of market mechanisms, as well as liberalize the redistribution of resources to individual level after the attempts of the central government to execute re-distribution modalities failed to a greater extent. This raises the worry on whether the government of China has abandoned the quest for ameliorating the inequality difference.
Levin and Xu (2005) observe that there has been no clear pattern from studies on the linkages that exist among Chinas wage rates, expansion of higher education, current level of development as well as graduate employment (49).
In conclusion, Lee (2006) states that unless the impact of the expansion of education is clearly understood, it is difficult to forecast future trends of income inequality, thus formulate appropriate policy that will curb the negative growth (1). The consequences are huge, considering that policy implication is favoring the rise in tuition costs and fees for higher education, yet students anticipate having an ultimate return on investment from their education.
References
Borooah, Vani, Bjorn Gustafsson, and Li Shi. China and India: Income Inequality and Poverty North and South of the Himalayas. Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 2005. Web.
Dong, Haiying, and Xuehong Wan. Higher Education Tuition and Fees in China: Implications and Impacts on Affordability and Educational Equity. Current Issues in Education 15, no. 1 (2012): 1-10.
Fleisher, Belton, Haizheng Li, and Min Qiang Zhao. Human capital, economic growth, and regional inequality in China. IZA Discussion Papers, Econstor, 2008.
Gregorio, Jose De, and Jong-Wha Lee. Education and income inequality: New Evidence from Cross-Country Data. Review of Income and Wealth 48, no. 3 (2002): 395-416. Web.
Lee, Min-Dong Paul. Widening Gap of Educational Opportunity? A Longitudinal Study of Educational Inequality in China. Research Paper, United Nations University, 2006. Web.
Levin, Henry, and Zeyu Xu. Issues in the Expansion of Higher Education in the Peoples Republic of China. China Review, 5, no.1 (2005): 33-59. Web.
Ning, Guangjie. Can Educational Expansion Improve Income Inequality in China? Evidences from the CHNS 1997 and 2006 Data. IZA Discussion Papers, IZA, 2010. Web.
Qian, Xiaolei, and Russell Smyth. Measuring Regional Inequality Of Education In China: Widening Coast-Inland Gap Or Widening Rural-Urban Gap? ABERU Discussion Paper, Monash university, 2005. Web.
World Bank. Literature Review on Equity and Access to Tertiary Education in the East Asia Region. Literature Review, World Bank, 2009. Web.
Wu, Xiaogang. Economic Transition, School Expansion, and Educational Inequality in China, 1990-2000. Research Report, Population Studies Center, 2007. Web.
Wu, Ximing, and Jeffrey Perloff. Chinas Income Distribution and Inequality. Repec, 2004. Web.
The purpose and methods of education are constantly being discussed and perceived differently. As I am sure, education should not only give knowledge, but make students worthy citizens, able to think critically, promote equality, and honor the diversity of their society. To achieve that outcome, students should be allowed to speak and reflect freely. Unfortunately, the contemporary American education can hardly fulfill this ideal. As Jonathan Kozol proves, diversity has become a meaningless declaration in American schools. Additionally, the education system based on standardized testing not only fails to give students wide outlook, as Diane Ravitch states but also discriminates poor and minority students.
The Purpose and Methods of Education
As Nelson Mandela said, Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world (Ratcliffe 137). The purpose of education, as well as and the range of methods it should use to achieve that purpose, has always been and still is discussed. Some thinkers claim that education should make an individual morally virtuous in the first place, and achieving knowledge is a secondary aim.
Others are convinced that education should provide a person with a comprehensive knowledge about various aspects of the living world, and the more knowledge in different fields a person gets, the batter. According to another opinion, education should prepare young citizens for their future adult life in a competitive environment, and for that reason the school system should provide a mini-model of such an environment, making students learn how to gain a competitive advantage.
To my opinion, apart from giving broad knowledge, education should provide individuals with necessary skills for living in a certain society, as well as a wide outlook, and make them understand fundamental principles of this society. In multiracial and multicultural countries, such as the USA, one of the fundamental principles, which education should address, is diversity. Despite the fact that nowadays, in the 21st century, honoring diversity has become an almost a common tradition, recognizing the need for diversity in education is still a controversial issue in the sphere of education. In fact, honoring diversity has become an official, often insincere act, which merely covers the real problems related to the racial equality in education.
Jonathan Kozol, an educator, writer, and activist, wrote at length about the inequality in education and the difference between the real and false diversity. In his work The Uses of Diversity, he acknowledges that the subject of diversity is introduced to children in most public schools has come to be a very bland and boring ritual, an expression, which would be sincerely supported by virtually any school student if you ask them.
Kozol criticizes the fact that the concept of diversity is present in school curricula, but in reality there is next to no diversity at schools; this diversity looks more like racial segregation. Such a strong word is not an exaggeration. Kozol mentions his own experience when he collected information from community schools. He witnessed that schools mostly lacked diversity in students racial backgrounds. Kozol reveals the truth: instead of having diverse students studying together, schools mostly represent either all-black, all-white, or all-Hispanic contingent, with a small percentage of other races (Jacobus 608-609).
Apart from that, Kozol criticizes the way, in which the history of civil rights was presented in American education system. He states that it is given in a form of heroic stories, which creates in children a false positive sense, making them believe that the aims of those struggles are achieved and secured. Such an approach forces children to think that the reality, which they see in and out of school, is not to be believed (Jacobus 609-610).
As for the methods that should be used in education to achieve its ends, I totally agree with Jonathan Kozol: instead of making children repeat false claims about diversity and civil rights, it is necessary to let them speak freely about the problems that they witness and challenges that they face, even if it would not (and it would not) sound pleasant. If educators allow students to analyze the situation and make conclusions by themselves, it will forge a generation of responsible citizens, who rely on their own critical thinking rather than on school textbooks. Only such a generation can honor diversity in its true meaning.
How the Ideas of Education Are Implemented
Apart from the faked diversity, there are plenty of other flaws in American educational system. I am utterly convinced that applying the market model to education and making schools and students depending on the interests of business owners is among the most terrible disasters that plague American education. Another problem, a consequence of the latter, is the standardization of knowledge, its presentation is a form of standard portions ready to be consumed. These measures are taken to make students more likely to pass the variety of tests that they are required to pass to get their school more funding. Such an approach have nothing in common with raising educated citizens with a wide outlook and developed critical thinking.
In her book The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education, Diane Ravitch offers a comprehensive description of these flaws. In this work, Ravitch describes the educational reform, in the implementation of which she participated, and explains what were the initial intentions of the reformers, and why she has become seriously disappointed with the outcomes of the reform. The author states that current education system fails to meet the ideas of education, such as personal empowerment, free choice, and freedom. According to Ravitch, nowadays schools became part of the capitalist system, implementing business models in their curricula.
Ravitch describes the way of reasoning, as a result of which charter schools emerged: Why shouldnt schools be managed by anyone who could supply good schools, using government funds? Free of direct government control, the schools would be innovative, hire only the best teachers, get rid of bad teachers& (Ravitch 24). She explains that educators were sure that applying market rules only the best will survive to schools seemed a god idea, but the adoption of school choice only worsened the situation, making schools in urban centers, especially charter ones, made public education less democratic and accessible. Instead of introducing free competition and choice, charters started the rivalry for the best students in poor communities. Sometimes they accept all the applicants and then throw the outsiders back into public schools. As a consequence, those students from poor areas, who do not perform well, have no choice but to study in public schools (Ravitch 24-25).
In her work, Ravitch severely criticized the No Child Left Behind Act, a 2001 act of US Congress, that supported standard-based educational reform, according to which all the students of the USA had to pass test on a proficient level by 2014, and school funding and teachers salaries were placed in dependence on their achievement. Ravitch claims that this act establishes unachievable standards and the fact that the act allows to shut down the schools, which failed to meet the Annual Yearly Progress requirements, made it even worse (Ravitch 97). The author also explains that the very standards are perceived differently, for the states were offered to work out their own understanding of proficiency. It means that standardized tests cannot be named unbiased indicators. Therefore, the NCLB Act is merely a way for the government to place a severe control on education.
Additionally, she mentions, the NCLB act entails the narrowing of a curriculum (and, hence, knowledge) since students need only a narrow list of things (reading, math, and writing) to pass standardized tests. Ravitch claims that the school curriculum should be changed with more focus on liberal arts and sciences. She reflects on the previous times, when the students were provided with a rich curriculum in history and the arts, instead of learning basic rules of math and English. With the adoption of the NCLB, students were also robbed of knowledge in geography, civics, and science. Consequently, the American students are now less likely to become individuals with well-furnished mind, shaped by reading and thinking (Ravitch 31).
The No Child Left Behind Act, School Funding, and Tests
Diane Ravitch is not the only one to disapprove of the NCLB Act. The Act is being criticized for a variety of undesirable outcomes. First, it is unclear how low-performing schools are going to be helped by this act, particularly by tutoring. In some cases, students do not use the opportunity to change schools or to apply for a free tutors services. The standards of quality for tutors may be vague in some districts and even states. States also often neglect the schools with the lowest level of performance. Next, the growing federal control over K-12 education is frowned upon. NCLB, as it was already mentioned, relies too heavily on standardized tests, which leads to a simplified, narrowed curriculum. Moreover, some states have ignored the requirement to distribute qualified teachers evenly between poor and wealthy schools (Klein par. 14-15).
Apart from that, the law has been underfunded. The initial legislation supported a high increase in education expenditures. Federal spending on Title I education had to reach $25 billion by 2077, but it receives around $14.5 billion in 2015 (Klein par. 16).
NCLB had a dramatic effect on classroom practices. Because of the need to prepare students for tests, teachers have to allocate the instruction time in such a way as to cover the information needed for the test and teach students specific skills. Thus, time for test subjects increases, while the rest of information is neglected (Dee and Jacob 179).
I suppose that the greatest flaws of NCLB are linking school funding to students performance and negative effect on diversity in education. As it will be shown below, these problems are connected.
A 2005 study examines the impact of the NCLB Act and touches, among others, the problem of racial equality. As the authors indicate, the interest of legislators, who adopted the school accountability system, is in a large part focused on low-achieving students. For a number of reasons, such as being from a disadvantaged background, minorities are more likely to be low-achievers. If a school is mandatory accountable for the achievements of students, it will make a racial or ethnic gap in education much wider, despite the fact that NCLB is meant to narrow this gap. The authors of the study found out that Hispanic students benefitted from accountability, while Black ones did not. The developers of the educational reform did not take the issue if racial equality into consideration (Hanushek and Raymond 298-300).
Lance Fusarelli reflects on positive and negative effects of NCLB. Among positive effects the author mentions the fact that if one minority group in a school is failing to meet the standards, the entire school will be charged, so there will be no way to neglect the performance of that group, as well as the fact that school leaders will be encouraged to monitor the performance more attentively. However, Fusarelli states, these positive effects are closely linked with certain negative outcomes.
First, the legislators believe that the primary reason for low student performance is low expectations of educators, on which assumption NCLB is based. In fact, there is a wide range of reasons for low performance: being from a disadvantaged family, having a disability, having poor knowledge of English, etc. It is certain that these problems are more likely to affect minorities. Next, if policy makers use testing to bring the quality of performance up to a higher level, it means that students will be punished for not doing well on tests. Motivation by punishment is by no means a sigh of a free society. Finally, this approach places students into stressful conditions, which, ironically, lowers their chances to perform well (Fusarelli 74-77).
James Crawford, Executive Director National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE), has emphasized the discriminative effect of NCLB on English Language Learners (ELLs), i.e. non-native speakers, who study English. As Crowford mentions, NABE had initially supported the pass of NCLB, hoping that the new legislation would establish adequate requirements for English Language Learners and make schools devote more attention to such children. However, it turned out that the kind of attention NCLB drew to them was not beneficial. The law sets such standards in English that non-native speakers are unable to meet them. Moreover, the Act does nothing to remove the obstacles that hinder the achievement of ELLs: lack of resources, a serious shortage of teachers, who are qualified to work with ELLs, non-suitable instruction material, poorly developed instruction programs (Crawford 1-2).
In general, the outcomes of NCLB in the field of equality are not flattering. Children of color and children from disadvantaged families still do not do as well in school as white children. Despite the effort of the legislators to improve the school system, a few changes happened to the lives of the poor and minorities (Meier and Wood 10).
Conclusion
As I am convinced, the main goal of education is to make students responsible citizens, who respect equality and diversity. Current American education system fails to achieve this ideal. It does not promote free thinking and discriminates the students from poor and minority backgrounds.
The purpose and methods of education are constantly being discussed and perceived differently. As I am sure, education should not only give knowledge, but make students worthy citizens, able to think critically, promote equality, and honor the diversity of their society. To achieve that outcome, students should be allowed to speak and reflect freely. Unfortunately, the contemporary American education can hardly fulfill this ideal. As Jonathan Kozol proves, diversity has become a meaningless declaration in American schools. Additionally, the education system based on standardized testing not only fails to give students wide outlook, as Diane Ravitch states but also discriminates minority students.
Works Cited
Crawford, James. No Child Left Behind: Misguided Approach to School Accountability for English Language Learners. Center on Education Policy, 2004. Web.
Dee, Thomas, and Brian A. Jacob. The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Students, Teachers, and Schools. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 32.2 (2010): 149-207. Print.
Fusarelli, Lance D. The Potential Impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on Equity and Diversity in American Education. Educational Policy 18.1 (2004): 71-94. Print.
Hanushek, Eric A., and Margaret E. Raymond. Does School Accountability Lead to Improved Student Performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 24.2 (2005): 297-327. Print.
Jacobus, Lee A. A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. 9th ed. 2013. Boston, MA: Bedford / St. Martins. Print.
Klein, Alyson. No Child Left Behind: An Overview. Education Week 2015. Education Week. Web.
Meier, Debora, and George Wood. Many Children Left Behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act Is Damaging Our Children and Our Schools. Boston: Beacon Press, 2004. Print.
Ratcliffe, Susan. Oxford Treasury of Sayings and Quotations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.
Ravitch, Diane. The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education. New York City, New York: Basic Books, 2011. Print.