Society is differentiated in several categories and everybody cannot have the same opportunities to advance him or herself. Some people are disabled and therefore are unable to compete effectively when it comes to some issues. In some societies, culture has defined women as being weak people whose duty is only to give birth and take care of children. They are therefore given minimal opportunities to economically empower themselves.
There are also places where people from given racial backgrounds are given an upper hand in economic and societal matters as compared to others. However, it is just fair that every person is treated equally and given equal opportunities in society to develop. Consequently, the government has initiated policies that are meant to ensure equality in society. Affirmative action is among the efforts that have been taken to see to it that each person stands the same chance in the society.
Affirmative action refers to the measures that are taken by the government to ensure that discrimination against people on the grounds of sex, color, religion or nationality is eliminated. It is important to note that these measures are usually applied in employment areas. The measures have been taken so as the help mitigate the effects of historical discrimination that has led to various disadvantages to the affected groups (Tittle 237).
Moreover, the argument has been that every group of people needs to be fairly represented in institutions especially if the institutions are within the society where the groups reside. However, various institutions are bound to be unfair if they are left free to act on their own initiatives. As a result, affirmative action is necessary to ensure that institutions are compelled to include everybody.
Despite the good effects that affirmative action has to the society, it has not gone without opposing arguments. To begin with, there are those people who view affirmative action as being a form of reverse discrimination. In their view, affirmative action leads to discrimination against the majority in favor of the minority.
In the case of Riccci v. DeStefano, a group of white people went to court complaining that affirmative action had been used to discriminate against them. This argument is based on the fact that some criteria for various actions are disregarded so that affirmative action could be applied.
Moreover, there are those people who argue that it would be better if merit and qualifications were the criteria used to give people various positions (Sharma 89). According to this group of people, affirmative action requires use of some features which people have no control over like, gender and race in selection of people. This is being unfair to other people who cannot change their background.
With or without affirmative action, there are other qualifications that must be met. These include academic or job experiences that one must have before being allowed to even attend an interview. In this regard, people have argued that affirmative action does not help people or women from lower classes but only those who happen to come from well to do backgrounds.
Minority and women from lower classes do not even have the opportunity of getting a good education that can allow them to stand a chance of being considered for interviews (Sharma 95). Consequently, some people have argued that affirmative action leads to further class discrepancies.
Another argument against affirmative action is based on the fact that people might be unwilling to work hard knowing that the affirmative action will favor them to get employed. Moreover, affirmative action will only increase racial tension because people favored by affirmative action will be viewed negatively by others.
Furthermore, other people argue that discrimination is illegal in law and each person will try as a much as possible to avoid discrimination on any grounds. With this in mind, affirmative action is useless since everybody is trying to use merit in choosing students or even employees. In addition, affirmative action is seen by opponents as some form of quotas which are not healthy to the society.
On the same note, the problem of discrimination on grounds of gender, race or any other factor is not present in any society nowadays, leave alone in American society. As a result, it is useless to use affirmative action to fight a vice that is no longer existent in society (Fischer 20).
Moreover, provided there is affirmative action in place their will still be some form of stigma to minority groups. As a result, affirmative action only helps to foster prejudices towards some groups of people. Arguably, people need to be evaluated as individuals and not as groups in which they belong. By and large, though affirmative action is linked to minority groups there is scanty evidence that the groups which need affirmative action really benefit from the same.
Not everybody is against affirmative action. There are people who have brought forward quality explanations of why affirmative action is essential to the society. Firstly, the society is made up of different racial groups some of which have been discriminated against for a long time now. Moreover, communities that are considered as minorities are increasing in number (Tittle 240). Whether we like it or not, these people will form our country’s workforce in the future.
As a result, it would help to equip everybody from now to ensure that the future workforce will be well prepared. On the same note, it is a fact that there are some communities who due to their racial background have been disadvantaged. These communities are unable to compete effectively because they lack the necessary qualifications. One way of assisting these communities is by addressing the historical injustices and finding a way of reversing the same. This is what affirmative action aims at doing.
Moreover, if the community does nothing, most institutions will be dominated by the majority groups. These will lead to further disadvantages to the minorities. Therefore, affirmative action is important to ensure that minorities are empowered by ensuring their representation in schools and work places.
In addition, ensuring a level play ground in itself will not help to give equal opportunities to everybody (Fischer 12). The major groups which have several advantages over the minorities will always have an upper hand. Therefore, affirmative action is very essential in helping people with various disadvantages thus ensuring that everybody has equal opportunities.
Opponents of affirmative action argue that race and gender should not be used as a basis for giving people opportunities. Proponents argue that affirmative action is not used to make employers and schools take unqualified people.
On the contrary, affirmative action is meant to ensure that minorities and women who qualify are given an upper hand in these institutions. Similarly, diversity in opinion which has been found to be very beneficial in any institution stems from diversity in composition of workforce.
It is important to note that diversity leads to ingenuity and competitiveness in the workforce. In this regard, affirmative action is very essential because if helps to foster diversity in selection. It is also evident that there is a huge gap in education, especially higher education, between whites and color communities. This gap can never be eliminated if deliberate measures are not taken to ensure that the minorities have a fair share of opportunities in institutions of higher learning.
Moreover, research at the Michigan University depicted that people needed exposure on how different races view the world in order to integrate with people without problems (Sharma 76). On the same note, people who have experienced diversity are more likely to succeed in life because they are more able to approach various problems from an objective perspective (Fischer 9).
It is, therefore, the argument of proponents that affirmative action is not intended to discriminate against the majority or be unfair to any group. On the contrary, it is meant to ensure that all people are pulled up to the point where they can be able to compete equally with other people.
Affirmative action has found great support from the government in form of policies as well as various decisions from the courts. In the case of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), the court held that institutions can use race as a factor of admission to achieve race diversity in the composition of their students. This is because adoption of color blind policies will only favor white students due to the fact that they get exposed to education systems early in life.
In the case of Griggs v. Duke Power co., the court decided that the employment requirements were discriminating because promotions were not done fairly on the ground of job performance. The government also helped to enforce the affirmative action in 1979 when President Jimmy Carter issued an executive order which led to the creation of National Women’s Business Enterprise Policy (Tittle 253). This enhanced implementation of affirmative action thus enabling women to prosper in entrepreneurship.
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is also among the measures that have been taken by the government to help in the efforts of affirmative action. This Act ensures that people with disabilities are given equal treatment as any other person during employment or promotion process. The review of affirmative action that was ordered by president Clinton in 1998 found that affirmative action is very crucial. However, the review suggested continuous evaluation to ensure that any negative effects are eliminated immediately.
It is important to note that there are also efforts to stop the enforcement of affirmative action. The most recent include the case of Fisher v. University of Texas. In this case the plaintiffs are arguing that they were discriminated against when they failed to get admitted to the university.
They are citing the university’s application of the affirmative action as the cause. The future of affirmative action in learning institutions depends on the ruling of this case. If the court overturns or affirms the ruling of Grutter v. Bollinger is matter that we can only wait to see. It is paramount to note that there have been successful petitions against affirmative action in the past. In the case of Hopwood v. Texas (1996), it was held that the university could not use race as a factor of admission (Sharma 117).
Opponents of affirmative action argue that it is ethically wrong to favor some people in society. The argument is that affirmative action is a way of punishing innocent people from majority communities who were not there when discrimination was taking place. Moreover, it is unethical to just wait until people are grown up to give them favors (Fischer 4).
From the time of birth, minority communities should be given equal chances so that they may stand a good chance of competing effectively with the others. However, it should be noted that there is everything ethically correct in trying to favor people who have been pushed to the back in various societal aspects. If people agree that segregation was ethically wrong and immoral, then affirmative action is ethically right because it addresses the effects of segregation.
The minority and colored people still comprise a very minimal percentage when it comes to various economic sectors. Unemployment rate among black people is double that of white people. There are still huge disparities in terms of education levels between Black-Americans and White-Americans.
The effects of segregation have not yet been fully addressed. Moreover, it has been depicted that without affirmative action these disparities will escalate.
Many people will avoid women workers or the disabled due to reasons well known to them. It is, therefore, important to have affirmative action in place to help in addressing issues that equality policies cannot be effective in tackling. Nevertheless, it would be vital to ensure that affirmative action policies are well formulated to minimize any negative effects that might arise.
Works Cited
Fischer, Katharina. Advantages and Controversy of US “Affirmative Action” Concerning African-Americans. Munchen: GRIN Verlag, 2010. Print.
Sharma, Arvind. Reservation and Affirmative Action: Models of Social Integration in India and the United states. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publishers, 2005. Print.
Tittle, Peg. Ethical Issues in Business: Inquiries, Cases, and Readings. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2000. Print.
The most significant twentieth-century trend is that suburbs became the dominant life style for Americans (Teaford, 2008). Whites experienced overwhelming suburbanization. In 1920, Whites and Blacks lived in suburbs almost equally: about one-third of each group’s residents. However, there was a dramatic increase in suburbanization after WWII.
By that time, the Whites suburbanization rate grew by nearly 70%, from a 1940 level of about 38% to a 1970 level of about 63% (U.S. Bureau of Census 1963). The change to suburban dominance in population is reflected in comprehensive statistics on economic activity (Gottdiener and Hutchison, 2011). In many cases, suburbs have outpaced their core central cities in economic importance since 1970.
According to the Bureau of Census, 46 percent of the 1990 population lived in suburbia, 40 percent in central cities, and 14 percent in rural areas. This study will examine the association between the level of Asian suburbanization and the segregation between Whites and Asians in 260 metropolitan areas (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1963).
Recently, Asians are the fastest growing minority group. According to the Bureau of Census, Asian population grew from 3.5 million in 1980 to 7.3 million in 1990 and to 8.8 million in 1995 (Palen, 1995). Currently, the Asian population consists of around 4% of the entire population (Bureau of Census).
There always has been debate as to whether higher level of minorities’ suburbanization yields lower segregation or higher segregation. Segregation is the distribution of racial and ethnic groups into separate and distinct residential areas of the city (Logan, 2011). The general trends in residential dissimilarity across 260 metropolitan areas from whites have declined since 1970.
Even though Blacks have experienced the most declines in residential segregation, they remain the most segregated in cities. The largest black population averages remains high. While the Asians remain the least segregated compared to other ethnical groups, the average level of Asian-Whites segregation has not changed much. So the question is why do we care about segregation and why does segregation matter?
According to previous social scientists, there are some serious social costs related to residential segregation. This compares to the researches on examining Black-White segregation or Hispanic-white segregation. However, there are not many studies only focusing on Asian-White segregation. Accordingly, a variety of factors affect segregation of Asians but this paper will only focus on the role of suburbanization.
By using the data collected from the 260 major metropolitan areas across United States in 2009, the researcher will test the hypothesis that the level of suburbanization leads to the decline of Asian-White segregation based on spatial assimilation model.
Theoretical Arguments
The purpose of this research is to investigate the association between the level of Asian suburbanization and the segregation between whites and Asians in metropolitan areas. The hypothesis of this research is based on the spatial assimilation model that physical mobility implies one’s upward social mobility. In other words, once Asians social status moving up, then they can get living closer with whites.
Therefore, Asians will have less social, economic, and cultural gaps with whites, which finally lead to the decreasing of Asian-Whites segregation. The researcher will put this hypothesis to the test. Additionally, the reputation of Asians towards Whites plays an important role concerning the point of Asian suburbanization increasing the Asian-Whites integration.
To restate my hypothesis: the concentration of Asians in the suburbs of the metropolitan area will help to alleviate the Asian-white segregation in the metropolitan area. My theoretical argument is to explain why suburbanization might lead to contact that is more residential with whites.
Moreover, the average incomes of Asians are the highest among other minority groups. According to the contact hypothesis, four conditions are especially important. That is urbanization, poverty levels, geographic location, and governments.
Some scholars who adapted the stratification perspective state that there is relatively weak correlation exist between the continuously Asian suburbanization and the level of Asian-white segregation in the unit of metropolitan area.
According to Logan and Stults’s (2011) report of the New Findings from the 2010 Census, they found that Asians are considerably less segregated than African Americans, and their segregation levels have remained steady since 1980. In addition, with the growth in Asian population, unique ethnic conglomerations tend to coagulate. Because of this, the groups live more sparsely now than in 2000, a trend that has grown since 1980.
Despite Asian isolation, another important factor is the stereotypes of Asians. Maria Krysan (2002) conducted an open-ended question survey in Los Angeles, and asked whites about their comfort with different levels of integration with Asians and then asked to explain.
Krysan (2002) found the major problem with Asians is based the stereotypes: the modal response was that Asians are not friendly, stick to themselves, or are uninterested in integration.
The problems with Asian neighborhoods, according to these whites, are “cultural differences” – particularly expressed as language concerns (Krysan, 2002). Thirdly, the rapid development of suburban Chinatown plays an important role in the controversial issue of continuing Asian-White segregation even in the suburbs.
Another study can be looked at is Monterey Park, a suburb outside Los Angeles that became a focal point for new Chinese immigration. In 1960, the population was 85 percent white in contrast to the population in 2000 was 43 percent Asian, 35.5 percent Hispanic, and only 21.6 percent Whites. For a time, the city was known as the “Chinese Beverly Hills”, and it was later referred to as the first suburban Chinatown.
Lastly, other sociologists have suspected that the presence of Asian neighbors provides a protection against white flight, or in the terminology of Farley and Frey (1994), a “buffer.” Buffering is shorthand for the argument that the movement of “more fully assimilated second and third generations of Asians to higher-status, more integrated communities” provides “a push that should lead to greater integration of blacks.
On the other hand, the spatial assimilation model has remained largely controversial issue in the previous studies, which are related to the possibility that Asians might remain segregated from whites even in the suburbs, from four aspects: Asian isolation, the emerging suburb Chinatown, Asian stereotypes, white flight, and multiethnic buffers.
According to Logan and Stults’s report of the 2010 Censes new findings, the rapidly growing Asian populations are as segregated today as they were thirty years ago, and their growth is creating more intense ethnic enclaves in many parts of the country (2011).
This paper will focus on the gateway city (this is the city that facilitates entry into the main city), because most of the new Asian immigrants live in suburban towns within the metropolitan region, not in the central city.
In addition, our focus on the special assimilation perspective will help us to understand the importance of moving beyond the city and looking at the metropolitan region more broadly when we study immigration and other demographic trends that affect our communities. (Gottdiener and Hutchison, 2011).
Hence, while this paper looks into this aspect, it will also delve into the effect of suburbanization on segregation of minority groups with special regard to Asians.
Literature Review
Large bodies of past researches show the focal relationship between the concentration of Asians in the suburbs of the metropolitan area and the level of Asian-white segregation in the metropolitan area.
According to article “Trends in the Suburbanization of Racial/Ethnic Groups in U.S. Metropolitan Areas, 1970 to 2000 (2011:239)”, the authors found that nearly all the variance in 1970 to 2000 growth in White suburbanization (86 percent) is explained by changes in the supply of suburban housing. However, the percentage of variance explained is much lower for the other minority groups.
This suggests that the overwhelming cause of changes in White suburbanization over the past three decades was increases in the supply of suburban housing. Another study indicates that Whites have suburbanized faster and more completely than other groups.
Hwang and Murdock (1998) concluded that the suburbs possessing seven image indicators: suburb’s smaller population size; lower density; younger housing stock; lower percentage of minority residents; suburb’s old age; higher percentage of traditional family homes and higher percentage of owner-occupied homes did draw more white movers.
Massey and Denton’s (1987) cross-sectional analysis of segregation in 1980, reported that in metropolitan areas in which Hispanics or Asians had higher incomes and were more likely to speak English or to be U.S. born, these groups were significantly like to live in suburbs and thereby to experience lower levels of segregation.
Moreover, according to Logan et al.’s (2004) finding, they firstly concluded that among Asians, an increasing share of foreign-born persons were associated with greater decreases in segregation. Secondly, if Asian economic standing improves, it will have a great potential to further residential assimilation with whites.
Therefore, according to the assimilation model, scholars suggest that discrimination does not fundamentally drive the segregation between Asians and Whites, but the social status and culture differences seems more likely driving the segregation between Asians and Whites.
Based on the 2005-2009 American Community Survey (ACS) Logan (2011) found White incomes averaged over $60,000, which is about $25,000 more than blacks and $20,000 more than Hispanics. However, Asian incomes averaged just over $70,000. Thus, if we use the spatial assimilation model, which the economic status increases, it will finally lead to residential assimilation with whites.
Obviously, the dramatic increasing suburbanization rates of Whites, Asian prestige (based on statistics) and theoretical expectation based spatial assimilation will create the connection between the two testing variables that the increasing rates of suburbanization will finally lead to the decreasing level of Asian-Whites segregation.
Compared to other minority groups, Asians are the least segregated group with whites. Just like Krysan (2002) found, it seems more likely the biggest problem of segregation between Asians and Whites is not about discrimination, but cultural differences
. Thus, I assume that Whites hold positive attitudes toward Asian’s reputation, and this finally leads back to the model of assimilation – once we fill the culture gap, this will eventually leads to Asian-Whites integration.
The perspective of reputation of a minority group is critical. As long as the reputation stays stable, then if the social status increases and the cultural differences decreases, finally the spatial distance will relatively decreases. In addition, the spatial assimilation model denotes this meaning too.
Data and Method
In this section, the researcher fast forwards to 2009 using the most recent population census data in 2010. This study tests the relationship between the level of suburbanization in the metropolitan area and the level of Asian-White segregation across 276 metropolitan areas in 2009. In analyzing this focal relationship, I am testing the hypothesis that the higher suburban concentration the lower Asian-White segregation.
In other words, there is a negative relationship between suburbanization and Asian-white segregation. The total number sample of metropolitan areas is 276.
First, in order to generate a new variable that indicates the percentage of the population living in the suburbs in each of the metropolitan areas, I used the variable of suburban population in 2009 divided by the total population in 2009, then converted into percentage measurement. However, in order to keep the consistency in the sources of data, the number of metropolitan areas changed from 276 to 260.
My analysis only includes one measure of a metropolitan-area characteristic, which is the percentage of suburbanization rate in 2009. In terms of the dependent variable, I use an “Index of Dissimilarity” to measure the level of Asian-White segregation; it indicates how evenly the members of Asians and Whites are distributed among the 260 metropolitan areas across the nation.
The “Index of Dissimilarity” refers to the percentage of Asians who would have to move in for all neighborhoods to reflect a certain percentage of Asian composition of the entire city (say 46.31 percent). There are five dimensions define geographic traits that social scientists think of when they consider segregation (Gottdiener and Hutchison 2011:213). They are Unevenness, Isolation, Clustered, Concentrated, and Centralized.
The percentage of a metropolitan-area population residing in the suburban ring of the metropolitan area is taken from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s State of the Cities Data System (2009). The researcher will use correlation analysis to test whether there is a negative association between the level of suburbanization and the level of Asian-white segregation in the metropolitan areas in 2009.
The bivariate regression utilizes the relationship between the independent and dependent variables to predict the score of the dependent variable from the independent variable. In other words, after testing the hypothesis by using bivariate regression model, we will be able to predict the level of Asian-white segregation from the level of suburbanization.
However, in this study, we are more focusing on the association or relationship between these two variables than prediction.
The most common is a Pearson correlation coefficient (r), which is the correlation between two interval variables, and it ranges from -1.00 to +1.00. If -0.3
Results
Results from model predicting the level of suburbanization has very weak positive association on Asian-White segregation in 2009 in 260 metropolitan areas across the United States. This is completely opposite to the hypothesis. The correlation coefficient arrived at from the regression model is 0.0121. This indicates a weak but positive relationship between the variables.
Therefore, the level of suburbanization almost has no effect on the level of Asian-white segregation in 2009 across 260 metropolitan areas (n=260). Obviously, the result does not support my hypothesis that there is a negative association between the level of suburbanization and the level of Asian-white segregation. This shows that other factors are also at play in affecting the segregation of Asians.
This may include poverty levels, demographic shapes, levels of immigration, social status, and state and federal policies. While suburbanization plays a role in segregation, the factors appear more pronounced as they form a larger chunk of the explanatory model (Timberlake et al. 2011).
Moreover, the bar graph interprets the level of Asian-white segregation are all under 50, which means modest segregation. An interesting finding in the bar graph shows that the modest level of suburbanization actually has higher Asian-whites segregation than the lowest and highest level of suburbanization. The result implies that segregation tends to categorize things into certain groups that look alike.
This actually supports my counter theoretical argument that Asians might remain segregated from whites even in the suburbs. For example, while Chinese are of Asian descent, suburban Chinatowns seem to be resided by Chinese only. This is despite the fact that there may be black population residing alone and whites alone in the same locality.
Discussion
The United States has traditionally been referred to as a “melting pot”. Her history began with waves of immigrants; bring their own cultures, traditions and all hoping to find freedom, new opportunities, and a better way of life.
The racial segregation has a long history in the United States: from the Black Codes to Chinese Exclusion Act to Japanese American internment to Jim Crow Laws to Redlining to Separate but Equal to White flight. As we can see, the state of segregation has been changed from legally enforced separation to more voluntary or involuntary separation.
The result shows that the increasing suburbanization does not have big effects on Asian-white segregation. However, it has a slight influence on bringing up the segregation of Asian and Whites. Therefore, the question as to whether suburbanization created more opportunities for living the “American Dream,” lingers.
On the other hand, it is prudent to ask whether suburbanization led to the homogenization of American culture, which produces more segregation and isolation. As I already argued at the beginning, too many unmeasured variables affect segregation of Asians. For this study particularly, I only focus on the role of suburbanization (Lu, 2001).
The results explain my hypothesis that suburbanization might not be the only factor that cause the Asian segregation. Therefore, in spite of suburbanization, what are the other factors affect segregation of Asians? According to Park and Iceland’s (2011) findings of residential segregation from 1990 to 2000, Asian segregation levels are consistently lower in new destinations.
Moreover, the native-born are less segregated than the foreign born, which is consistent with immigrant spatial incorporation. Finally, socioeconomic indicators are generally consistent with predictions of spatial assimilation. This study posits several academic and procedural limitations. First, lack of independent variables causes spuriousness. Secondly, there lacks available data to support Asian segregation.
Thirdly, this study only observes one year (2009), which is too short for studying segregation. Usually, sociologists often study segregation for at least a decade or even longer periods, so they can gather more data and come up better patterns. Data availability has the capacity to bring studies that are more empirical. Additionally, it is possible to relate to different periods to study patterns.
References
Gottdiener, M. & Hutchison, R. (2011). The New Urban Sociology. Boudler, CO: Westview Press.
Hwang, S. & Murdock, S. (1998). Toward an Integrated Ecological- Sociological Theory of Suburbanization. Web.
Krysan, M. (2002). Whites Who Say they would flee: Who are they, and why would they leave. Demography, 39(4): 675-696.
Logan, J. et al (2004). Segregation of Minorities in the Metropolis: Two Decades of Change. Demography 41(1): 1-22.
Lu, S. (2001). Intergroup Contact and the Assimilation of the Chinese Entrepreneurs in Small Southern Towns: A New Approach to the Intergroup Contact Hypothesis. Web.
Massey, D.S. & N.A. Denton, N.A. (1987). Trends in the Residential Segregation of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians: 1970-1980. American Sociological Review 52(1): 802-25.
Palen, J. (1995). The Suburban Revolution: an Introduction. Sociological Focus, 28(4): 347-351.
Park, J. & Iceland, J. (2011). Residential Segregation in Metropolitan Established Immigrant Gateways and New Destinations, 1990-2000. Social Science Research, 40(3):811-821.
Teaford, J. C. (2008). The American suburb: The basics. New York: Routledge.
Timberlake, J. et al. (2011). Trends in the Suburbanization of Racial/Ethnic Groups in U.S. Metropolitan Areas, 1970 to 2000. Urban Affairs Review, 47(2): 218-255.
U.S. Bureau of Census. (1963). Eighteenth census of the United States: 1960, vol. III pt. 1D: Selected area reports, standard metropolitan statistical areas. Web.
Residential segregation is an ongoing problem within the U.S. that indicates a deep societal inclination towards bias for certain ethnic and social groups within the general population of the country.
This form of community formation (i.e. Caucasians in one neighborhood, African Americans in another) extends to various social situations related to economic opportunity, education and even the way people are treated in public. Some communities and jobs simply require individuals with more money and a better educational foundation which result in a form of isolation and consolidation of different cultures in communities that are within their economic and educational strata.
It is based on this perception that opportunities related to work, education and being within a safe community are often isolated to Caucasian populations. On the other end of the spectrum, low income housing, lack of job availability and unsafe communities due to high crime rates are often seen among minority populations as seen in the case of L.A. (i.e. Los Angeles). This in effect creates social segregation wherein American society is becoming increasingly divided over racial lines (Jesdale, Morello-Frosch, and Cushing, 811-817).
Today, forms of racial segregation are also evident in society where wealth is increasingly being isolated towards the majority which in this particular case consists of the Caucasian population. The end result of such actions is that minorities remain minorities with wealth, education and connections being increasingly isolated to the upper echelons of society. It is based on this that this paper will explore the current level of racial segregation within various areas in the U.S. and attempt to explain the factors that lead to their development.
Literature Review
Origin of Residential Segregation
Residential segregation as it is known today has its origins in the current level of structural inequality within the U.S. social system. Structural inequality can be described as an inherent bias within social structures which can provide some advantages to a select group of people within society while at the same time marginalizing others (Li, Campbell, and Fernandez, 2642-2660).
This can be seen in instances related to racism, education and discrimination wherein certain segments of the population are categorized and marginalized depending on the color of their skin and their particular race (Li, Campbell, and Fernandez, 2642-2660). For example the law involving illegal immigration passed by Arizona has in effect created a form of discrimination against many Mexicans living within the U.S. who are in fact there legally.
Structural inequality is one of the main reasons behind the continued limitations in the development of community systems wherein minorities are in fact being discriminated against due to connotations involving their propensity towards illegal or criminal behavior.
One clear example where structural inequality promotes discrimination can be seen in the current employment rates within the U.S. and their correlation to race. Despite the presence of an assortment of laws barring discriminatory practices, this still occurs among several local or regional businesses (Li, Campbell, and Fernandez, 2642-2660).
While on paper it can be seen as a viable way of providing businesses with the “proper type” of employee, the fact remain that such a discriminatory hiring system has actually resulted in racial lines being drawn with white Americans normally being segregated into the upper tier of community system creation while minorities are usually set in the lower tier system.
Such a system actually perpetuates the concept of societal inequality where it has come to be believed that white Americans are more associated towards success and having better levels of education while minorities are leaning towards marginal careers at best. As explained by Friedman, Tsao, and Chen (2013), communities tend to develop along racial lines due to the availability of opportunities.
Limitation of opportunities is often the result of racial associations with illegal/criminal activity with African Americans, Mexicans and Latin Americans consisting of the three most identifiable demographics when it comes to cataloguing crime in certain parts of the U.S. An article in the New York Times examining the number of African Americans in U.S. jails shows that since 2000 there were 791,600 African inmates behind bars compared to the 603,032 that were enrolled in college.
Comparatively, during the 1980’s there were only 143,000 African Americans in jail and 463,700 enrolled in college (Friedman, Tsao, and Chen, 1477-1498). What this indicates is a growing limitation of opportunities for a minority population in the U.S. that contributes to towards residential segregation
Discrimination in Work Place Environments
Various studies conducted examining the hiring practices of various HR departments have also shown that despite the presence of affirmative action programs most HR personal tend to call people for interviews with names that sound like they belong to a majority while at times ignoring those that belong to minorities unless upper management says that they need to round out the talent pool with minorities (Li, Campbell, and Fernandez, 2642-2660).
Other instances have also shown that despite laws against discriminating individuals due to sex or race, this has not prevented HR personnel from proactively choosing men or Caucasians to fill higher positions in the company as compared to women or minorities. This is one of contributing factors that has lead to residential segregation at the present.
Methodology
The method of research that will be utilized in this paper is actually quite simple, utilizing survey data from Milwaukee, New York, Chicago and Detroit, the researcher will utilize studies that have examined the demographics of these locations and will attempt to explain why certain segments of the local population are segregated the way they are. This will include levels of segregation and census numbers.
Limitation of the Study
Due to the sheer amount of possible locations that could possibly be examined, the researcher has decided to limit the study primarily to Milwaukee, New York, Chicago and Detroit which are listed among the top 10 most segregated locations within the U.S.
Data
Data Analysis
Area Examination
As it can be seen in various inner city neighborhoods that were examined in this study, the population structure in several areas is geared towards low income families and the concentration of minorities into a single area. While on the other end of the spectrum the outer and more affluent suburbs consist predominantly of Caucasians.
Based on an examination of the research data, it can be seen that a considerable degree of “clustering” is present wherein populations of specific ethnicities are not spread out; rather, they are concentrated into small pocket communities or encompass large swaths of the given map.
It is obvious that the Caucasian population easily outstrips the population density of the other ethnicities (i.e. Asians, American Indians, African American and Hispanic) however, what is surprising is the formation of the segregated population sets wherein minority populations are increasingly concentrated within the city while white populations decrease within the city center yet increase as they approach the suburbs.
One way of analyzing this is by comparing the demographic data with the immigration and socio-economic history of the regions that are being examined.
An examination of Milwaukee, New York, Chicago and Detroit showed that on average 75.8 percent of the local population was composed of Caucasians while 18.5 percent was composed of African Americans. The remainder was a mixture of Alaskan Natives, Native Americans, Hispanics, Latinos and other races (Spivak and Monnat, 1414-1437).
What is interesting to note is that based on an examination of survey data from the year 2000 till 2010, the African American population within the areas that were being examined rose by 20% as a result of migrations of the African American population from states such as Mississippi.
The same can be said for the Hispanic and Latino population that increased also increased from 2000 to 2010 which also came about as a result of migration. The reason behind such migrations is connected to the economic robustness of the local market of the population centers that are being examined which many minorities interpreted as a “signal” so to speak to try their luck within the local area.
However, an examination of the migrating African American, Hispanic and Latin American population revealed that a disproportional amount of the immigrants were from low income families with little, if any, substantial work experience and education.
As explained by Iceland, Sharp, and Timberlake (2013), individuals with low income levels and little in the way of substantial education have a greater predilection to go for manual labor jobs due to the limited opportunities that are presented to them. As a result, they tend to concentrate within particular areas in a city center due to the availability of low income housing as well as enabling them to live closer to where they work which helps them to save money (Iceland, Sharp, and Timberlake, 97-123).
Further examination of the demographic data of Milwaukee, New York, Chicago and Detroit shows that what is present is a White majority with an increasing level of Black, Hispanic and Latino immigrants who are looking for better opportunities within the local area through work.
The concentration of Latinos, African Americans, and other minorities within the urban centers is indicative of communities created based on their educational capacity as seen in the study of Nelson (2013) which examined population concentrations and the level of education of the ethnicities there.
Nelson explains that the concentration of Caucasians in America’s suburbia is due to the fact that by virtue of their race, they have lower levels of discriminatory practices leveled against them which gives them access to more opportunities in relation to education and wealth creation.
This helps to develop the necessary income levels to actually afford a house located within the suburbs. While such a viewpoint may be controversial since few individuals would openly admit to being racist due to the negative social connotations attached to the description, the fact remains that there is still a level of racial animosity within the local population of the U.S. (Nelson, 646-657).
Evidence of this can be seen in the study of Britton and Goldsmith (2013) which examined the local population of the U.S. and saw that there was still a considerable income and education gap between the White majority population and the African American-Mexican-Latino minority population.
Neighborhoods are still drawn across “ethnic lines” so to speak with White neighborhoods often being the most economically stable and prosperous as compared to their minority counterparts (Britton and Goldsmith, 2886-2903). Other studies support such claims by showing that the areas that have been examined have had a history of racial discrimination since the mid 1990s which continues to persist due to the population imbalance (Spivak and Monnat, 1414-1437).
Access to Education as one of the reasons behind Residential Segregation
While it may be true that some minorities do have difficulties in learning due to their origins, the fact remains that such a system actually perpetuates the concept of societal inequality where it has come to be believed that white Americans are more oriented towards success while minorities are leaning towards marginal careers at best.
This is not only limited to the current school system in lower grades but also in higher education wherein the basis of college admission is the use of SAT scores as a indicator of talent in an individual (Spivak and Monnat, 1414-1437). The one problem with using SAT scores as the main criteria for evaluating college admissions is that they fail to accurately represent the true value or abilities that a person possesses.
Take for example an individual who works to support his family, gets marginally good grades in school and average SAT results, it can be assumed that the average SAT results and the marginally good grades could be attributed to the fact that this individual has to work to support his family and, as a result, could not devote the same amount of time into studying.
Most individuals would not be capable of balancing work, family obligations and going to school yet here is a person that is able to do that. Based on an examination of various applications of minorities to several colleges, it has been shown that, on average, the SAT score of white Americans outclassed that of their minority counterparts yet this is not an indicator of superior talent, rather, white students were merely given more opportunities to learn and develop as a result of their social advantage (Spivak and Monnat, 1414-1437).
This particular form of structural inequality denies the possibility of certain minorities from entering particular colleges resulting in not only a degree of inequality in lower education but in higher education as well.
The end result of this level of segregation is that minority populations are stuck with low paying jobs resulting in a greater concentration towards living within low income communities within cities. This can be seen in the study data which is indicative of the correlation between education and opportunity and how this impacts residential segregation.
Crime and Residential Segregation
Based on the information that was provided in the previous section, an individual’s status as a minority would limit their capacity to obtain a decent paying job and increases the likelihood of them turning towards a life of crime to sustain themselves. It should also be noted that a majority of the businesses within Milwaukee, New York, Chicago and Detroit are owned by the White majority with managers, shop keepers and other individuals of authority normally being White.
In their study involving discrimination and its impact on criminal behavior, Sharp, and Timberlake (2013), explain that a combination of structural inequality with tendencies of racial discrimination limits the opportunities available to minority populations which creates a greater tendency towards criminal activity.
It must be noted that the rate of crime in certain areas has been proven to go up depending on the income rate of the populations within it. As such, areas with population structures geared towards low income families and people create the possibility for criminal behaviors to occur as a result of desperation or the distinct influence from people in the surrounding environment. For example, various social scientists indicate that a person’s race is invariably connected to that person’s propensity or possibility of being able to commit a crime.
The two most identifiable minorities in connection to a vast majority of crime in the country (i.e. African American and Hispanic) are also the two most identifiable minorities in connection to poverty, social inequality and a distinct lack of education standing and achievement. It can also be seen from the study data that these minorities are also the most concentrated within city centers and are rarely seen in the suburbs.
Data from various school districts around the U.S. reveals that communities composed of African Americans and Hispanics were among those that were predicted to perform the most poorly in terms of scholastic achievement while communities composed primarily of white Americans were predicted to perform at a much higher level. This is in part due to two factors: racial prejudice against the capabilities of minorities and class prejudice against a class with a lower income threshold.
While school districts may say they are not prejudiced the fact remains that the current system of segregation within schools wherein students at the same grade level are grouped into different blocks depending on aggregate skill is in fact a form of discrimination since it encourages social class disparity. From a sociological perspective this particular form of behavior encourages the creation of criminal tendencies in people since it reinforces the social idea that minorities cannot rise above what they currently are.
This is one of the facilitators of residential segregation that this study has come across since a concentration of low income families in an area increases the predilection towards criminal behavior especially when factoring in a lack of potential opportunities.
As a result, white populations that have high levels of opportunity and income would tend to avoid living in such areas and would focus on areas with low crime rates. This is can be seen in the examination that was done wherein concentrations of white populations was in areas far away from the city.
Conclusion
What this paper has shown is that the connection between race, culture and population structures can be understood under the sociological context that since certain races and population demographics are impacted by limited opportunities, they are not given the chance to rise above their current level which causes residential segregation.
While it may be true that there are cases where minorities do in fact achieve the so called “American Dream” they represent only a small fraction of a population that is being placed in a disadvantageous situation by a system that is inadequately capable of fully providing them with the tools they need to become a success.
Works Cited
Britton, Marcus L., and Pat Rubio Goldsmith. “Keeping People In Their Place? Young – Adult Mobility And Persistence Of Residential Segregation In US Metropolitan Areas.” Urban Studies (Sage Publications, Ltd.) 50.14 (2013): 2886-2903. Print.
Friedman, Samantha, Hui-shien Tsao, and Cheng Chen. “Housing Tenure And Residential Segregation In Metropolitan America.” Demography 50.4 (2013): 1477-1498. Print.
Iceland, John, Gregory Sharp, and Jeffrey M. Timberlake. “Sun Belt Rising: Regional Population Change And The Decline In Black Residential Segregation, 1970- 2009.” Demography 50.1 (2013): 97-123. Print.
Jesdale, Bill M., Rachel Morello-Frosch, and Lara Cushing. “The Racial/Ethnic Distribution Of Heat Risk-Related Land Cover In Relation To Residential Segregation.” Environmental Health Perspectives 121.7 (2013): 811-817. Print.
Li, Huiping, Harrison Campbell, and Steven Fernandez. “Residential Segregation, Spatial Mismatch And Economic Growth Across US Metropolitan Areas.” Urban Studies (Sage Publications, Ltd.) 50.13 (2013): 2642-2660. Print.
Nelson, Kyle Anne. “Does Residential Segregation Help Or Hurt? Exploring Differences In The Relationship Between Segregation And Health Among U.S. Hispanics By Nativity And Ethnic Subgroup.” Social Science Journal 50.4 (2013): 646-657. Print.
Spivak, Andrew L., and Shannon M. Monnat. “The Influence Of Race, Class, And Metropolitan Area Characteristics On African-American Residential Segregation.” Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell) 94.5 (2013): 1414-1437. Print.
In the article You’re Either One of Us or You’re Not: Racial Hierarchy and Non-Black Members of Black-Greek Letter Organizations, the authors address the problems of “racial segregation” in the educational context that can be discovered as causes of debate to support racial diversity and equality at schools (Laybourne et al. 1). The main reason for focusing on this problem is the fact that educational institutions such as colleges and high schools support the principles of tolerance, but it does not guarantee the absence of problems related to racism (Laybourne et al. 1). In this instance, the authors use qualitative interviews to understand the impact of racism on the behavior of the students. Consequently, the primary goal of the paper is to explain these and other terms and concepts and clarify them to the reader, who does not know the topic. In the end, the conclusions are drawn to summarize the main findings of the paper and underline the main ideas of the authors.
In the first place, racial segregation can be defined as “separation of humans into racial groups in daily life” (CTI Reviews 50). This matter can be based on legal aspects such as laws and rights or individual perceptions of racism and prejudice, and it is a highly common phenomenon in modern society. In turn, “racial discrimination” implies showing no respect to the representatives of other races and their rights and freedoms (Laybourne et al. 1). In this case, violating human rights is the main problem associated with racial discrimination. This term is highly linked to the concepts of racial bias that have a similar interpretation such as having prejudiced opinions about people of different races and ethnicities. These principles can be discovered as the main issues that are important and profoundly addressed in the article.
To support the diversity that can be defined as a term opposite to racial segregation since it encourages racial equality and justice, different micro-organizations tend to be established and include Black Greek-letter organizations (BGLOs) (Laybourne et al. 1). These organizations not only protect students from acts of discrimination but also help them become valuable members of society. Simultaneously, these entities were established in the twentieth century to encourage the development of self-identity, and it could be interpreted as the individual’s understanding of oneself “as an autonomous individual in charge of his her own life” while his/her decisions were based on different experiences acquired in the past or future (Kuzmanovich 325). The development of these characteristics is vehemently important in the modern world, as it helps people make logical decisions and act by social norms.
Thus, they achieved their goals by providing social support, explanations of leadership, scholarship, superior academic performance, and life-long membership (Laybourne et al. 4). Thus, the ideas of the need for racial recognition are supported in “Divine Nine” which is the organization that unites the existent BGLOs (Laybourne et al. 3). A combination of these matters helps BGLOs change position of the students in the society. The main reason for that is the fact BGLOs play on of the central roles in college or institution of higher education, and this feature helps its members communicate with the rest of the community and become more engaged in different activities. Consequently, it could be said that the role of BGLOs cannot be underestimated since it not only helps students avoid racial isolation (not being able to interact with the rest of the college community due to prejudices about race) but also assists them in becoming valuable and educated members of the society.
Nonetheless, recently, some of these entities expanded their opportunities to offer similar services to “various people of color around the world”, but originally, they only addressed the needs and problems of the Black community (Laybourne et al. 4). It could be said that the participation of non-Black members is often driven by social phenomena such as color-blindness. Colorblind racism can be defined as a strong belief that racism does not exist, and all people are equal (Turner and Nielsen 55). This absence of racial boundaries attracts more and more individuals of other races and ethnicities to BGLOs. However, it is not always the only benefit, as these communities also provide support and help build bonds with their members. However, the research shows that non-Black membership is still low, and it can be explained by different kinds of fears.
Thus, to understand the reasons for the development of BGLOs and discrimination in public schools, the racial climate is one of the most important factors, and it consists out of “norms, values, and routines” that define educational institutions’ attitudes towards the race (Laybourne et al. 4). It implies that the representatives of different cultures have dissimilar needs, and they have to be addressed in the curriculum. At the same time, the racial climate in the educational institution could be discovered as one of the main factors that could support diversity. Meanwhile, diversity implies creating equal opportunities and respecting every member of society disregarding his/her culture, ethnicity, and social status. In this case, the racial climate on campus can increase understanding of the individuals about the existence of different cultures (cultural awareness) and help them engage in different kinds of events (Laybourne et al. 4). Nonetheless, apart from the importance of these aspects in the American society, not all universities and colleges reflect the importance of multiculturalism in their racial climate, and it is one of the reasons for the rising growth of racism.
Alternatively, the racial landscape is another term, and it implies placing individuals of other races either as “honorary-whites” (who have access to scholarships and other educational opportunities) or as “triangled between Whiteness and Blackness” (Laybourne et al. 3). In this case, it could be said that this definition exists in different kinds of educational institutions such as colleges and universities, as it is the most common way to understand the way the scholarships are distributed (Laybourne et al. 3). Nonetheless, this model is based on stereotypes that are often defined as particular opinions about the individuals, who belong to a specific racial or professional group (Laybourne et al. 3). The lack of a clear distinction explains the reasons for the associations with the representatives of other races and the rising popularity of BGLOs. A combination of these factors underlines that all of these matters have a critical impact on diversity in educational institutions.
To determine the presence of aspects discovered above, the in-depth interviews were conducted to understand the popularity of BGLOs, responses to racial climate and boundaries, and the impact of BGLOs on racial hierarchy among college students of different ethnicities. The data was collected in 2014-2015, and respondents were representatives of different nationalities and ethnicities such as Vietnamese, Korean, Filipina, Guatemalan, Egyptian, and Puerto Rican (Laybourne et al. 4). Selecting the representatives of these groups was logical, as they are representatives of different races.
In the first place, one of the major findings was the fact that the racial hierarchy (majorities and minorities) continued to exist apart from cherishing the concepts of diversity in the organizations (Laybourne et al. 8). Nonetheless, many students did not depict or highlight any differences between students of diverse races, but they actively stated that the racial divide in a campus life continued to exist (Laybourne et al. 7). In this instance, it could be stated that many individuals did not consider joining BGLOs before college, as they were either not aware of it or did not view it as a necessity. Nonetheless, when starting their studies at college, they were shocked by the racial climate and strong racial hierarchy (Laybourne et al. 7). This matter was a primary reason for attracting people to join BGLOs, as they needed support.
Simultaneously, it was discovered that the racial landscape was even more complex, as many students joined fraternities not only because of their race but also due to their leadership roles and the possibility to become a part of the community. In turn, apart from expanding coverage of BGLOs by encouraging participation of the representatives of other ethnicities, the racial boundaries were strong (Laybourne et al. 10). For instance, it was revealed that some of non-Black BGLO’s members were acting differently from other members of the community, and it was revealed that there were some typical behavioral norms related to BGLOs. This finding supports that racial hierarchy is rather strong. At the same time, some non-white members of BGLOs such as Latinos were not respected by other black participants and people outside BGLOs, as they did not belong to any of the groups (whites or blacks) (Laybourne et al. 10). These members often experienced problems, as they were not fully respected. It could be said that these factors stated that the issues and racial hierarchy were more complicated than expected, and new measures had to be introduced to cultivate equality and diversity in the educational institutions.
In the end, it is critical to summarize the main findings of the paper since they will have a beneficial impact on understanding the topic. In this case, it could be said that despite the rising popularity of tolerance, diversity, and equality, the racial divide of the past had a clear impact on racial climate, values, norms, and hierarchy accepted in the educational institution (Laybourne et al. 11). At the same time, it was unveiled that BGLOs still help the representatives of the Black community, but, due to changes in the racial landscape, some whites and members of other ethical groups start joining them. In turn, BGLOs have a positive impact on racial climate, as they increase awareness of the existence of diverse cultures and help students become leaders. Thus, these matters were entirely affected by the social hierarchy and values that were cherished in the educational institutions. Overall, it could be said that these findings could be viewed as a basis for the subsequent research due to the discovered dependence and continuous changes in understanding the differences between races in contemporary society.
Works Cited
CTI Reviews. Planning Local Economics Development, Theory and Practice. Content Technologies, Inc., 2016.
Kuzmanovich, Daniella. Refractions of Civil Society in Turkey. Springer, 2012.
Laybourne, Wendy, et al. “You’re Either One of Us or You’re Not: Racial Hierarchy and Non-Black Members of Black-Greek Letter Organizations.” Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, vol. 1, no. 1, 2016, pp. 1-14.
Turner, Sarah, and Sarah Nielsen. The Colorblind Screen: Television in Post-Racial America. NYU Press, 2014.
Women have always struggled against marginalization and segregation from the male-dominated domain in terms of careers and jobs. They have asserted efforts that would see them being treated with equality and given equal opportunities as men. Amelia Earhart was one such woman among the few of a rare caliber whose ventures into the male-dominated sphere-like in flying and her success and contribution to aviation have gone down in history. Indeed, the name Amelia Earhart is mentioned and remembered by many due to her historically significant contribution to the field of aviation.
Main text
Amelia Mary was born to Amy and Edwin Earhart in Atchison, Kansas on July 24, 1897. She attended Hyde Park High School in Chicago, Illinois, Ogontz School for Girls in Rydal, Pennsylvania, and Columbia University in New York, where she prepared for a career in Medicine and Social Science (Susan W, 1994 pp11). As the World War 1 raged and the need for nurses increased, she was to join other nurses who served as military nurses in Canada.
It was during her service in Canada that she developed an interest in flying. She pursued this interest in California, became very successful and received her pilot’s license in 1922. Immediately afterward, Amelia took a temporal break from pursuing active flying but continued her association with aviation by entering numerous flying meets. Meanwhile, she spent several years as a teacher and social worker at Dennison House in Boston (Susan W, 1994 pp11).
Later, Amelia Earhart returned to active flying and it was through this flying that she gained considerable fame on June1928, as the first woman to fly across the Atlantic. The Fokker trimotor (Her first voyage plane) piloted by Wilman Stutz and Louis Gordon flew from Trepassy Bay, Newfoundland, to Burry Port, Wales (Susan W,1994 pp 23). However, on this flight she would only serve as a passenger thanks to Amy Guest’s family (the heir to a Pittsburgh steel fortune) who forbade her from flying hence giving up her place for Amelia. Amelia on the other hand was more than glad to have this chance and she never gave second thoughts about this chance. It was after this flight that Amelia’s contribution to world history began to take shape.
Another historical contribution of Amelia Earhart was the co-founding and establishment of the first organization of the women fliers in 1929. This organization is called the “Ninety-Nines,” It is an international organization of women pilots, which continues today to promote opportunities for women in aviation, and also sponsors All-women Transnational Air Race (also known as the powder puff Derby) and other proficiency building flying activities aimed at encouraging and improving flying skills. Amelia became the first president of this organization and served from 1930 to 1932 (Susan W, 1994 pp 24).
In 1930, Amelia was to add even more to her fame when she accomplished the Atlantic flight, as a solo female pilot when she flew from Harbor Grace, Newfoundland, to Londonberry, Ireland. It was around this time that Amelia Earhart took an active role in the efforts to open the field of aviation to women and end male dominance in this exciting new field. She was to serve in the Liddington line, the company among the first airlines, which provided regular passenger services between New York and Washington, D.C. The company had just made efforts to involve females in its flight crew.
Amelia was to cement her name in the world history in January 1935 when she outdid her Atlantic solo by making another solo flight from Hawaii to California. The Hawaii California flight had a much longer distance than the Canada-England flight. She hence became the first pilot to successfully fly that route. She became the first woman so designated by the United States Congress when this and her other numerous accomplishments earned her the ‘Distinguished Flying Cross’ (Susan W,1994 pp 40).In addition, Amelia won the hearts of so many that in 1935, Americans named her the second best-known woman in the United States after Eleanor Roosevelt
Amelia Earhart’s passion for flying grew more and more that she set out in June 1937 to circumnavigate the world. She was accompanied by Fred Noonan her navigator with whom she was to fly her twin-engine Lockheed Electra. Unfortunately, this was to be the last of Amelia’s inspiring flight career. On the most difficult leg of the trip, Amelia and Noonan vanished tragically near Howland Island in the Pacific Ocean. Even though an intense searching was Ordered by the then US president Roosevelt and some help from the Japanese forces employed, they found no trace of Amelia Earhart, Fred Noonan, or their plane. Any more efforts and research about this accident have resulted in no more facts.
Lastly, Amelia also gave several beneficial lectures about flying in many US colleges and schools. She was also able to write many books that were published with the help of her husband George Putnam who was a publisher (Susan W, 1994 pp 43).
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be argued that though few facts are known about the disappearance of Amelia Earhart and her navigator Fred Noonan in the central Pacific near the International Date Line, few facts are certain; That Earhart’s message to the world is , there is no limit to those with the courage to test new boundaries. In addition, her contribution, especially to the aviation field has set a pace that for many years to come will remain unparalleled.
References
Susan Ware (1994). Still Missing: Amelia Earhart and the Search for Modern Feminism. New York: Norton publishers. Pages 11, 23- 45.
The suburban advertiser. Mystery surrounding Earhart,s death. Web.
Dr. Bruce H. Charnov. Amelia Earhart, John M. Miller and the First Transcontinental Autogiro Flight in 1931. Hofstra University. 2003 (ISBN 1-56720-503-8).
Housing segregation involves the partitioning of neighborhoods depending on the ethnicity of the occupants. Propagation is enforced through biased housing options for the minority populations, offering poor housing conditions, and enforcing biased neighborhood legislations, among other ways. Consequently, the poor neighborhoods affect the education, health, and economic nature of the minority groups. Economically, access to credit markets and mortgage are hindrances to the minority populations when acquiring houses in safe neighborhoods (Iceland 7). Thus, this paper explains the concept of housing segregation, as well as describes how the concept relates to education, health, and economics.
Housing Segregation
According to Williams and Collins, segregation refers to the division of dwelling places by considering the ethnic orientation of the people (405). One study by Pager and Shepherd explains the production of housing segregation (188). The study utilizes an experiment on housing utilities by gathering audit data. The results show that there is some bias across some platforms regarding housing options for the minority population groups that are characterized by the Latinos, Asians, Blacks, and Native American communities. The study suggests that blacks go through adverse treatment, with a ratio of one to five, in their search for housing (Pager and Shepherd 188). The Hispanics also experience the same treatment in search of shelter, with a ratio of one to four (Pager and Shepherd 188).
Ideally, housing discrimination for these communities was promoted through limited information concerning the available housing units. One way this was done was by availing inadequate financing options to minority populations who had the need to purchase a home. In case they still pursued their goal of buying their homes, despite all the odds, they would be steered to the poor neighborhoods and communities set aside for the minority populations. Eventually, the system worked to the detriment of the minority blacks while benefiting their white counterparts. For instance, the well-to-do black communities living in segregated neighborhoods suffer a poverty incident rate of 0.283 (Massey 336). On the other hand, the poor whites living in racially homogenous areas are significantly insulated from poverty, only suffering a poverty incident rate of 0.150 (Massey 336).
There is a high level of housing discrimination in case the real estate or housing agent is located in a neighborhood that hosts the majority white population. It is likely that a black American individual will go through discrimination regarding housing information opportunities when looking for a home in a location that is dominated by the white community (Pager and Shepherd 189). However, these incidences vary according to different metropolitan factors. In fact, it is common for housing segregation to occur after the signing of a rental agreement. For instance, there are various complaints filed with the civil rights commission, indicating that most property owners fail to provide sustainable development for housing units inhabited by the blacks. It is also a frequent occurrence for minority populations in these units to withstand threats from their neighbors and managers. They also have to live up to unequal resident rules, which in most cases, are to their detriment.
The Roots of Housing Segregation in the Society
The physical separation of various races through differential residential housing arrangements is a phenomenon that is imposed through different policies and legislation. Major economic institutions that run the housing policies implemented by the federal government spearheaded most of the legislations that promoted segregation among the various communities (Baker 322). The judiciary further approved these impositions as elevated by the white supremacy, an ideology that was popularized by cultural institutions and the Church (Williams and Collins 405). These policies and legislations were combined with various neighborhood organizations to ensure that there were limited housing options for the black communities in these places. Moreover, the real homeowners and real estate agents practiced discrimination in affluent neighborhoods, thereby subjecting the blacks to the least desirable areas.
In effect, the black communities living in the Northern and Southern cities have endured segregation since 1860 (Williams and Collins 405). Thus, segregation is a salient feature of contemporary cities in America. The tenets of the practice date back to the onset of the twentieth century, where segregation levels were unaffected by the improving socioeconomic status of the people (Pager and Shepherd 188). However, the practice decreased from 1980 to 2000, even though the black American society continued to be subjected to varying patterns of residential placements, with different marks from those occupied by the white community.
Housing Segregation and Education
Education and segregation are closely related issues. First, segregation informs the available educational quality in most schools (William and Collins 405). The problem is rampant to the magnitude that the black community is already aware of the schools they are to attend. The quality of education available in a neighborhood mostly depends on some community resources they receive, given that the funding available for most public schools emanates from the local government. Overall, there is a relationship between residential segregation and poverty levels. In effect, a majority of public schools boast a high incidence of poor students, as these students come from the surrounding poor neighborhoods. William and Collins further espoused that nationally, poor students from the Hispanic and black communities accounted for 0.66% of the total student population in schools in the year 1991 (405).
In particular, learning institutions in Chicago had the largest number of minority students in 1989 at 0.9% (Williams and Collins 405). Another research by Watford and Cameoux documents that while the Los Angeles Unified school population in the district amounts to about 10% of black students, the community gets poor service from the UCLA (2). The implication is that segregation is still rampant, even at the university level. One’s racial orientation is a critical determinant of the neighborhoods they can dwell in. For instance, many poor white families have the privilege of living in posh residential estates owing to their racial orientation (Williams and Collins 406).
Overall, minority student groups go through severe seclusion in schools. A study by Williams and Collins purports that, when most minority families moved from the ghetto to the suburbs, they were not readily embraced (406). Thus, the segregation these families faced back at home was extended to the schools, as there was an increase in suburban school segregation. As a result, both Latino and black students attend schools characterized by poor mean scores, as this is where they comfortably fit. In contrast, white students attend the best performing schools as they are readily accepted in suburban schools (Williams and Collins 406). Consequently, residential segregation is a crucial factor in high school dropout rates, as well as poor graduate grades among the Latino and black students (Williams and Collins 406).
Housing Segregation and Health
Housing segregation has two effects on health. First, it affects the quality of health care given. Secondly, it influences healthy behaviors in a community. Quality medical care is a challenge for the African-American populations, and the problem worsens through segregation. In fact, health care centers are highly centralized in affluent neighborhoods compared to their scarcity in the poor neighborhoods. Thus, pharmacies located in poor neighborhoods are less likely to stock adequate medications compared to those positioned in affluent residential areas (Williams and Collins 411).
The second effect of segregation on health is the impact it has in promoting healthy behaviors. One research by Williams and Collins espouses that there are some recreational facilities in advantaged neighborhoods compared to the less advantaged residential areas (410). In fact, there are no recreational facilities in poor neighborhoods, as concerns for personal safety supersede the need for physical exercises.
Additionally, segregation affects the acquisition of desirable services among minority populations. Segregation practices inform racial differences in the purchase of certain services, owing to differences in income levels. One assumption is that a majority of the segregated communities are poor and have low-income levels. Thus, most commercial enterprises avoid these neighborhoods, meaning that their valuable services are scarce in these places. To substitute for the low earnings, the enterprises offer inferior quality products to make the services affordable (Williams and Collins 411). In turn, people from poor neighborhoods end up paying a higher price for low-quality goods, as fresh fruits and vegetables are scarce. In effect, scarcity leads to high prices, and the high prices imply that the residents cannot afford the products, leading to poor nutrition among these communities.
Further, segregated residences have become an important advertisement area for unhealthy products due to the use of commodities in the neighborhoods. Some key characteristics of segregated neighborhoods are poverty, violent behaviors, and unhealthy habits (Williams and Collins, 411). Thus, the communities constitute ready markets for alcohol and cigarettes. In effect, companies have capitalized on their marketing strategies to target people from these residences, as they are most prone to the consumption of harmful products. In fact, alcohol and cigarettes are the coping mechanisms for individuals living in low-income neighborhoods as they offer relief from the deprivation and suffering that characterizes the environments. Most people from segregated neighborhoods suffer stress, family constraints, neighborhood crime, violence, and even death due to poverty, poor education, and limited incomes.
Housing Segregation and Economics
William. J. Wilson proposed an economic theory in 1987 to explain the idea of housing segregation. In his theory, the economist argued that demographic forces and powerful economics transformed the inner city environment (Massey 330). He argued that poor manufacturing climates and the placement of blue-collar jobs in suburban areas, as well as the growth of the service sector, out-phased the availability of manual jobs for the minority populations. The effects of this economic wave were weak family structures, a reduction in the number of marriageable people, and high poverty rates. The economic wave also meant that inner-city occupants were isolated from middle-class jobs (Baker 323). In the same period, the rise of civil rights created new opportunities for middle-class blacks, who eventually moved out of the ghettos for better living conditions. Thus, a big number of minorities left behind were the poor blacks with limited resources, institutional support, and reduced societal values. In effect, these regions are still assumed to be for the poor and the majority of black communities.
Credit markets are another economic instrument that promotes housing segregation. Credit markets influence the availability of mortgages for both the black and white communities. Pager and Shepherd suggest that both Hispanics and blacks face a higher rejection rate when seeking mortgages than their white counterparts (191). The black community is also exposed to poor credit terms compared to their white counterparts, despite similar credit characteristics. Pager and Shepherd further espouse that blacks end up paying higher interest rates compared to whites on housing mortgages (191). The authors further assert that the differences are more rampant, depending on the buyer’s age, mortgage date purchase, and income levels. One assumption that governs this line of thought is that the blacks are more likely to default payment of the housing loans compared to the whites. In effect, about 82% of such loan applications are rejected (Pager and Shepherd 191).
In conclusion, estate agents and homeowners spearhead housing segregation. These two players offer insufficient information on available homes and harass potential black and Latino owners, thereby discouraging their tenancy. Consequently, blacks and Latinos are forced to live in poor neighborhoods, which affect their education, health, and income. Economically, the segregated groups experience inferior credit markets and mortgage disadvantages, as they are assumed to have poor loan repayment behavior.
Works Cited
Baker, Scott. “The Paradoxes of Desegregation: Race, Class and Education.” American Journal of Education 109.3 (2001): 320-343, 2001. Print.
Iceland, John. Residential Segregation: A Transatlantic Analysis. New York: Migration Policy Institute, 2014. Print.
Massey, Douglas. “American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass.” American Journal of Sociology 96.2 (1990): 329-357. Print.
Pager, Devah, and Hana Shepherd. “The Sociology of Discrimination: Racial Discrimination in Employment, Housing, Credit and Consumer Markets”. Annual Review of Sociology 34 (2008): 181- 209. Print.
Watford, Tara, and Eddie Comeaux. “Merit Matters: Race, Myth & UCLA admissions 2006 CAPAA Findings.” Research Report 3.3 (2006): 1-7. Print.
Williams, David, and Chiquita Collins. “Racial Residential Segregation: A Fundamental Cause of Racial Disparities in Health.” Public Health Reports 116 (2001): 404-413. Print.
The Roma, found in all the countries of Europe and especially in Central and Eastern Europe, are analogous to long term refugees and face problems with both segregation and efforts at integration. Having presumably left India in response to Islamic incursions, they have never settled anywhere successfully over the long term without negative consequences. Enslaved in Wallachia and Moldavia, (Greenberg, 2010), and excluded from full rights of citizenship in most places, they have kept moving. They took up occupations that depended on their skills rather than on land or property ownership. As mobile workers, they did not necessarily need to integrate into communities.
During the Communist period, housing and jobs were taken care of by the state, obviating the issue of integration (LADANYI & SZELENYI, 2001). In post-Communist Eastern Europe, this strategy disappeared. Some of them look back to that era as paradise-like (Plainer, 2009).
How should these countries manage their Roma populations today: Continue segregation and target services to them exclusively, or integrate them into a decidedly hostile population? What are the risks associated with each approach?
Segregation has been associated with non-participation in the educational system – certainly not past the lower grades (O’Nions, 2010). It has been associated with exclusion from many work opportunities and much preventive medical care. Segregation, in combination with unregistered construction of housing, or use of abandoned facilities, has meant that safety, garbage collection, and sewage disposal are all unaddressed. Children in segregated Roma communities do not necessarily acquire the language of their nation of residence, and therefore cannot participate fully in the economy when they become adults (O’Nions, 2010). However, they do retain many of their customs, their language, and their social structure, which is a conscious goal for many.
Integration does not have so many successful examples to point to. Greenberg recalls visiting experimental pilot programs in Vidin and Montana, Bulgaria, where in-home visits and joint programs helped to incorporate the Roma into services and education. The apparent dramatic success of this effort, he reluctantly concludes, was because it was a “foundation-funded pilot program, the nature and location of which had insulated in from the constraints of local and national resistance to integration” (Greenberg, 2010, p. 922).
The goal of integration is blocked by characteristics of the communities in which the Roma live, and the Roma themselves, and the way that nations treat ethnic differences within their borders (LADANYI & SZELENYI, 2001). The Roma does not have a pan-national identity which allows them to effectively function as a group across country lines and in communicating with national governments (Uzunova, 2010). In this, they are different from the Jewish people, who have had as long as the history of refugee and diaspora status, but who have successfully maintained a common identity across miles and generations.
They also wish in many cases to preserve their unique culture. This is one of the main drawbacks of integration. Unavoidably, contact with non-Roma in schools, for example, could cause young Roma to question such practices as child marriage. This is the reason that the American Amish maintain their schools.
Additionally, if the population of each country is not brought to accept the integration of Roma into the mainstream, the appearance of Roma in a school, just as in a neighborhood, will precipitate labeling as Gypsy, and lose status. The parallel situation is the “white flight” experienced in many US cities (Greenberg, 2010). The effective result will be segregation again.
There are vanishingly rare examples of successful integration of a refugee population without loss of cultural identity. In the USA, the achievement of many Vietnamese has provided a hopeful and astonishing exception, with many Vietnamese students achieving high honors within years of their arrival in the USA. It is beyond the scope of this paper to examine this phenomenon in detail, but it is worth considering. Since both segregation and integration have drawbacks for the Roma, some creative and culture-sensitive approach is needed that neither imposes the Roma on an unprepared and uncooperative population nor isolates them from contact, services, and opportunities.
Bibliography
Greenberg, J. (2010). Report on roma education today: From slavery to segregation and beyond. Columbia Law Review, 110(4), 919-1001.
LADANYI, J., & SZELENYI, I. (2001). He social construction of roma ethnicity in bulgaria, romania and hungary during market transition. Review of Sociology, 7(2), 79-34.
O’Nions, H. (2010). Different and unequal: the educational segregation of Roma pupils in Europe. Intercultural Education, 21( 1), pages 1-13.
Plainer, Z. (2009). Three roma groups from iris – a fragmented ethnography. Studia universitatis babeş‐bolyai, studia europaea, 157-183.
Uzunova, I. (2010). Roma integration in europe: Why minority rights are failing. Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law, 27(1).
The present study is focused on the urgent need for organizations to develop and implement strategies and policies that will facilitate the reduction of gendered occupational segregation in engineering and technology-oriented domains, particularly in Europe and the Middle East.
Towards the attainment of this broad objective, a survey was conducted on a sample of 100 female participants working for telecommunication and ICT-oriented firms, either in Europe or in the Middle East.
An online in-depth interview was also done on a sample of 20 management personnel/supervisors of the selected firms for the purpose of having a deeper understanding on why female professionals continue to constitute a minority of the labour force in these sectors.
This section purposes to detail the results of the two exercises, followed by a wide-ranging discussion of the findings when evaluated against existing literature on the topic. The discussion will be focussed on unearthing the reasons and providing tenable solutions/alternatives to the problem of gendered occupational segregation as per the study’s stated objectives and key research questions.
It is important to note that the researcher received 62 completed questionnaires, representing 62% response rate. 14 in-depth interviews were conducted to their logical conclusion, representing 70% response rate. Of the 62 returned questionnaires, 34 (54.8%) came from Europe while 28 (45.2%) came from the Middle East
Statement of Results (Questionnaire Schedule)
The major highlights of the study are not only interesting, but informative too, particularly in relation to understanding why women persist to constitute a minority of the labour force in engineering and technology-oriented domains of the economy.
An analysis of demographic information demonstrates that engineering and technology-oriented firms employ a young female workforce, with the majority of the female participants’ sampled (62.8%) saying they are yet to celebrate their 30th birthday, both in Europe and Middle East. Only a handful of the participants (5.2%) have celebrated their 40th birthday.
A substantial number of participants (70%) had been in active employment for a period not more than five years. A major research finding is that many participants in the two research regions (Europe and Middle East) reported working in low cadre positions as demonstrated in the figure below.
Figure 2: Area of Engagement
The above figure demonstrates that 42% of the female professionals in the sampled firms worked as support personnel; while a mere 10 % were engaged in administrative functions.
A cross-tabulation analysis aimed at noting the differences between Europe and the Middle East revealed that the problem is much embedded in the former, where only two women (3.2%) reported working in an administrative capacity. In Europe, 4 women (6.5%) worked as administrators or supervisors.
Overall, a third of the participants (34.5%) said their satisfaction with their current career engagement was poor, while one in every ten women (11.7%) said they have had very poor experiences with their current career engagement. It is imperative to note that only 15.6% of the female participants agreed that their current career engagements were deeply satisfying.
Majority of the women cited discriminative workplace policies and lack of attention from management and fellow male colleagues as the main reasons behind developing negative attitudes towards their current careers. Training and career advancement opportunities, work-life balance initiatives and reasonable pay were cited as contributing to positive workplace experiences and satisfaction.
Work Environment
The 5-point Likert-type scale was employed to evaluate some critical issues that were perceived to have a domineering influence on the representation of women in engineering and technology-oriented careers.
These issues are directly related to the work environment and include: learning opportunities; training opportunities; tools and resources for performance; achievement recognition; cooperation from male work colleagues; adequate communication frameworks, and; inclusion into the company’s vision and mission.
Descriptive means were employed to demonstrate how the female participants rated the underlying issues in their respective organizations according to region. As suggested above, a 5-point Likert-type scale was used to rank the responses, with 1 representing ‘highly disagree’ and 5 representing ‘highly agree.’ The table below summarizes the results
Table 1: Descriptive Means of Work Environment Ratings
N=62
Europe (n=34)
Middle East (n=28)
Mean
Cases
Mean
Cases
Company provides learning opportunities
2.2001
29
2.5006
27
Company provides training opportunities
2.1000
28
2.6000
22
Company provides needed tools and resources
2.3478
25
2.1890
23
I am recognized for my achievement
1.9000
34
1.0967
28
Its easy to get a long with male colleagues
4.5500
28
1.6655
21
Employees communicate adequately
4.6700
24
2.0100
24
I feel I am part of the company’s vision
2.5001
29
1.8990
20
This descriptive analysis evidently demonstrates that female employees in the two regions disagree with the assertion that their respective companies provide them adequate learning and training opportunities, as well as the necessary tools and resources required to successfully complete work engagements.
An interesting observation from this analysis is the fact that majority of the female employees in the two regions highly disagree with the statement that that management recognizes their abilities and achievement.
Another interesting finding from the analysis is that while majority of female employees in Europe highly agree that they easily get a long with male work colleagues, the scenario drastically changes in the Middle East, with the majority of the female employees sampled highly disagreeing to that assertion.
In equal measure, majority of the employees in Europe highly agree to the assertion that there is adequate communication between them and management, while many of the employees in the Middle Easily disagree to that assertion.
Two-fifths (41.2%) of women professionals in the Middle East had contemplated leaving their current position in their respective companies, with a substantial number citing cultural barriers, discriminative practices, and unfavourable organizational practices and policies as the main reasons behind the move.
Equally, one-fifths (21.7%) of women professionals in Europe had at one time contemplated leaving active employment, mainly due to stagnation in career advancement and lack and inadequate training opportunities.
This finding is particularly important to this study as it demonstrates that the variables that inform women occupation representation in engineering and technology-oriented domains are indeed unique to particular regions.
Women engineers in the Middle East are overworked than their counterparts in Europe, resulting in a scenario where more women crave to leave active employment so as to have time to raise a family.
This observation points to the importance of culture in deciding which career trajectories are meant for women as can be underscored by one of the findings of the in-depth interviews that women are negated to the role of raising a family in many cultures which are predominant in the Middle East.
Consequently, a job with huge demands and strict deadlines is not perceived as ideal for women in the Middle East as it makes them abridge their child-rearing responsibilities.
On the other hand, many firms operating in Europe seems to have implemented good work-life balance initiatives as fewer women working in these firms reported ever having to allocate additional personal time beyond their normal working hours to meet the work demands of their respective companies.
This observation can perhaps explain why few women working for firms in Europe opted to leave active employment, while more women in the Middle East agreed that they had at one time contemplated leaving active employment.
Meritocracy and Organizational Policies & Culture
The 5-point Lickert-type was once again employed to come up with descriptive rankings of various statements used to measure the influence of meritocracy and organizational policies and culture on the representation of women in engineering and technology-oriented domain.
Again, the results demonstrated notable differences of perception between women professionals working in Europe on the one hand and those working in the Middle East on the other, implying that divergent factors might be at play. The mean score was used to rank the responses, with 1 representing ‘highly disagree’ and 5 representing ‘highly agree.’ The table below outlines the results
Table 2: Descriptive Means of Meritocracy and organizational Policies Influences
N=62
Europe (n=34)
Middle East (n=28)
Mean
Cases
Mean
Cases
Promotions/training based on merit
2.5900
30
1.3005
25
Gender not considered when allocating work
4.1975
30
1.7578
24
Men are paid more for equal work
4.5908
29
4.8900
28
Policies and culture adequately communicated to employees
3.1000
25
2.5907
28
Management actively listens and acts on my contribution
3.5000
27
2.2978
21
Contributions from male colleagues given more weight than own contribution
4.5070
31
4.8900
27
Male work colleagues listen to own contributions
4.0078
30
1.9025
28
Contributions of male colleagues given more weight in strategizing about work and allowances
3.0056
34
4.7679
21
Contributions from female employees viewed with contempt by management
2.8901
30
4.1034
25
A number of important findings arise from this analysis:
the progression of women professionals in the Middle East in engineering and technology-oriented firms remains severely constricted by unequal treatment of women and men at the organizational level,
women Professionals in Europe seem to be gaining adequate ground in terms of organizational policies intended to encourage them to seek active employment in these fields,
discriminative practices against women professionals in the Middle East appears well embedded in the organizational culture and policies of firms operating in this region,
the existing culture and organizational policies are galvanized towards carrying male employees in high esteem as opposed to female employees.
Overall, 39 (62.9%) of the female participants said they were not happy with their respective company’s policy issues and directions relating to the provisions of a gender-neutral working environment.
In considering regional differences, it is important to note that 17 (50.0%) of female employees in Europe were not happy with their companies’ provisions, while 24 (85.7%) of female employees in the Middle East said the provisions adopted by their respective companies could not guarantee a gender neutral working environment.
The main reasons given for assuming this perspective include: long working hours; untenable job demands for women, such as on-site/field postings; biased contribution and compensatory schemes; perceived lack of abilities in women as opposed to men, and; lack of career progression and training opportunities for women.
Again, about two-thirds (64.5%) of the women polled believed that the current organizational policies practiced by their respective firms were not equally supportive for both male and female employees, and failed to provide an enabling environment for workers to perform optimally in a demanding work environment.
A cross-tabulation analysis of the finding demonstrated this perception was more ingrained in the Middle East, with 24 (85.7%) and 16 (47.1%) of the women professionals saying the current organizational policies are not equally supportive for both males and females in the Middle East and Europe, respectively. The region-specific reasons behind this scenario are demonstrated in the figure below.
Figure 2: Reasons behind the Lack of Equally Supportive Organizational Policies
The above distribution demonstrates that the three leading reasons why women feel unsupported when working in engineering and technology-oriented firms in the Middle East include:
women feel constrained to the periphery of service delivery,
most job advertisements are intended for males,
workplace policies tend to limit the women’s opportunities to lead teams/groups.
Equally, the three leading reasons why women working for European-based firms feel unsupported include:
biased promotion/training opportunities in favour of men,
policies limiting women’s opportunities to lead teams/groups,
limiting women to the periphery of service delivery.
Education & Abilities
Overall, nine in ten women (88.7%) thought they had acquired the right education and abilities required to perform optimally in their current work settings.
However, an interesting observation is the fact that despite nearly all the women saying they had they possessed the right education and abilities to do the job, a third (22.4%) agreed to the assertion that they have at one time faced challenges in their work settings as a direct consequence of their level of education.
This finding points to a particular misconception that women have when working in demanding work environments – that they are not equal to the task despite their level of education, abilities, or cumulative achievements.
This view is reinforced by the fact that about two-thirds (64.8%) of the women polled in this particular survey held a perception that male work colleagues are more qualified than them, mainly due to the reason that it was only males who seemed to lead project teams and other positions of authority in the organizations.
Additionally, the women suggested that male work colleagues always received more pay and recognition than their female counterparts and, as a direct consequence, could have been more qualified than the women.
An interesting finding suggested by some women participants is that women often held males in high esteem even in situations where they knew the males are less qualified, while males often perceived the women as low achievers even in situations where they knew that they are less qualified than the women.
38 (61.9%) of the women participants said that their level of education is not commensurate to their pay and/or benefits in their respective work stations. Region-wise, 22 (78.6%) of women sampled from the Middle East (n=28) believed that they received extremely low pay, which is not in any way commensurate to their level of education, abilities and achievement.
Equally, 16 (47.1%) of women working for Europe-based firms (n=34) said their pay was not commensurate to their level of education. The following distribution captures the reasons behind this perception
Figure 3: Reasons why Current Pay is Not Commensurate to Level of Education
The above figure shows that the three foremost reasons why women professionals in the Middle East think their current pay is not commensurate to their level of education include:
perception that male colleagues are rewarded more for equal work,
failure by management to provide their women employees with important benefits such as annual leaves and maternity leaves,
payment imbalances between males and females with similar levels of education.
Equally, the three foremost reasons why women professionals in Europe think their current pay is not commensurate to their level of education include:
lack of career progression to higher positions which guarantee more pay,
non-consideration of level of education in making payment decisions,
biased training opportunities in favour of male work colleagues at the expense of women with similar qualifications.
Statement of Results (In-depth Interview Guide)
A number of themes were generated when interviewees were asked to elucidate their perception on women professionals in engineering and technology-oriented domains.
Of the 14, interviewees, 6 portrayed women professionals as being equal to the task of what was demanded of them by their employers, while 4 interviewees said engineering is perceived to be a man’s profession and therefore there existed limited encouragement for women to excel in engineering.
Another 3 interviewees suggested that women were disadvantaged to work in engineering and technology-oriented firms due to difficult job demands and ungodly working hours. Indeed, someone said that “…women professionals want their job to be pleasurable, have an excellent work environment, make a difference, provide a good remuneration package and allowances, and be flexible.”
When the interviewees were requested to state the greatest strengths and weaknesses of women professionals working for engineering and technology firms, a sizeable number said that educational background, talents and abilities were the main sources of strength, while others suggested that an organization’s leadership and management style could provide the needed strength for women engineers.
Some underlying themes for the weaknesses facing women working in these domains included: discriminative workplace practices; unequal treatment of men and women, particularly when it came to pay, allowances and leadership roles; non-responsive management, and; lack of role models.
A number of notable themes were established when interviewees were asked to explain the reasons for the dwindling numbers of women employees in engineering and technology-oriented domains.
One underlying theme revolved around the fact that organizational culture in engineering and technology-oriented firms is traditionally masculine, while another underlying theme suggested that women professionals in these firms are excluded from men’s occupation networks and cannot rely on an authoritative women’s occupational network to compensate the exclusion from men’s networks.
The emergence of family businesses, particularly in the Middle East, also made it possible for women to be locked out of engineering fields so as they could take care of family responsibilities. Lack of clear career trajectories and unreasonable work demands such as working odd hours were also noted as significant factors.
Interestingly, 8 of the 14 interviewees held a perception that women are constrained to become better engineers and technology experts, not because they have lower educational achievements or abilities than men but due to external factors intrinsically related to the work environment, such as odd working hours, routine travel to the field sites and heavy workload, among other factors.
Other interviewees, particularly from the Middle East, blamed cultural barriers and socialisation processes as the main reasons why women continue to be constrained to outperform their male counterparts.
Indeed, one interviewee for the Middle East stated that “…despite my level of education, the male colleagues I was working with could not care to introduce me to meetings held to share knowledge about existing networks. I was always left in the dark to manoeuvre my way…and almost felt like giving in.”
A number of underlying themes surfaced when the interviewees were asked to suggest the issues that needed to be addressed to reduce gendered occupational segregation in engineering and technology-oriented fields.
One theme that came out strongly is that of women empowerment; that is, the management and male employees of engineering and technology-oriented firms need to see women professionals less as passive recipients of knowledge and instructions, and more as dynamic contributors and innovators of outstanding ideas.
Another strand of opinions centred on increasing training career advancement opportunities to not only encourage more women into these domains but also to make sure that they are retained in service.
Some interviewees from the Middle East stressed the need for educational institutions to identify established women engineers and use them as role models to encourage more girls choose academic disciplines that would guarantee them a career trajectory in science, engineering and technology-oriented fields.
Still, a sizeable number of interviewees supported a rapid shift of organizational culture and policies practiced in these firms, from a masculine-dominated projection to a gender neutral work environment.
Discussion
The initial objective of the present study was to critically evaluate the reasons why there are few women in the telecommunication industry in Europe and Middle East.
A strand of existing studies (e.g., Morganson et al, 2010; Franzway et al, 2009; Hatchel & Aveling, 2008) have already been commenced to look into the broad issue of gendered occupational segregation in engineering and technology-oriented fields, but only a few have been interested in establishing the scope of the problem beyond the United States of America.
This particular study focussed attention to establishing the antecedents and consequences of employment discrimination in telecommunication and ICT-related sectors in Europe and the Middle East.
The present study has not only corroborated the findings of previous studies on gendered occupation segregation in the engineering domain, but has demonstrated useful insights into understanding the problem from the employee’s perspective, as well as from organizational and socio-cultural standpoints.
Overall, it has been revealed that the problem of gendered occupational segregation in Engineering and Technology-oriented fields in the two regions is precipitated by, among other things: discriminative workplace policies; inadequate attention of women professionals by management, as well as fellow male work colleagues;
lack of training and career advancement opportunities; low pay compared to male colleagues; a crash between work and life/family responsibilities exemplified by huge work demands, a continuous need to travel to the field, and ungodly working hours, and; the presence of an organizational culture and policies that are traditionally masculine.
These findings reinforce the results of previous studies, which held that despite the fact women were been increasingly absorbed into engineering-related domains in the recent past they have to not only contend with a slump in salaries, status, and working conditions but also with the harsh domain of masculinity that is well entrenched in these sectors (Benson & Yukongdi, 2005; Hafkin & Huyer, 2007; Bystydzienski, 2004).
It has also been established that the problem of gendered occupational segregation in engineering and technology domains is more entrenched in the Middle East than in Europe, particularly due to the strict cultural adherence, which outlines that the place of women is in the family setting as opposed to workplace environment.
A new finding related to these reasons is that family-related businesses in the Middle East have continually served as active co-perpetrators of gendered occupational segregation as they are usually run by the sons of the founders, condemning the daughters and other women professionals to providing supportive roles despite their level of academic qualification.
Again, these findings are reflective of the conclusions of other previous studies, which revealed that religious and social cultural barriers in the Middle East demands that women abide by a social convention that reinforces the need for them to play a supportive role relative to men (Benson & Yukongdi, 2005).
An important insight that has been revealed by this study is that the religious and cultural dogmas practiced in the Middle East trigger a scenario which places men in core occupations despite their qualifications relative to women, thus permitting culture to become the basis for gender divergences in recruitment, promotion, training, compensation and decision-making authority.
It is important to note that this problem is less entrenched in Europe. However, it underlines the need for policy makers to consider cultural issues, particularly from the social constructionist standpoint, when devising and implementing programs and policies aimed at addressing the problem.
As observed by Bhatia & Amati (2010), one of the most elaborated features of the social constructionist perspective is the recognition that women and men are located divergently in society and that not all women or all men share similar experiences or challenges.
One of the specific objectives of the present study was to critically analyze how women are impacted negatively as a result of gendered employment discrimination in the telecommunication and ICT-related sectors.
The findings demonstrate that women are not only constrained to lower cadre positions with no recognition for their abilities and achievement, but they lack support from management and fellow male colleagues, engage in massive resignations due to unbearable/unfavourable working conditions, as well as lack crucial training opportunities to ensure career advancement and growth.
These findings appear to reinforce the conclusions made by Gillard et al (2008), who suggest that women professionals in telecommunication/ICT sectors tend to be concentrated in particular occupational spheres, which are normally the lower skilled support jobs related to data entry.
An important disclosure here is that these negative impacts are more intensive in the Middle East, again due to cultural barriers and the presence of male-dominated work-environments.
This particular study has established that the negative impacts related to gendered occupational segregation in telecommunication and ICT-oriented firms in Europe triggers massive resignations of women professionals, lending credence to Sappleton & Takrui-Rick (2008) assertion that women experience certain influences upon recruitment into these sectors, which obstructs them and make it hard for them to be retained in the sectors.
The interplay between Meritocracy and socio-cultural and organizational variables in entrenching gendered occupational discrimination in engineering and technology-oriented forms have also been evaluated.
It has been revealed that most engineering firms operating in the Middle East demonstrate greater bias in favour of men over equally competitive and perfuming women despite the fact that their respective managements argue that these firms subscribe to meritocratic principles in recruitment and promotion.
It should be recalled that meritocracy denotes a social system that subscribes to merit, talent and capabilities as the foundation for recruiting employees into positions and dispensing rewards (Castilla & Bernard, 2010; Deem, 2007).
A substantial number of women professionals in the Middle East feel that the management of their respective firms limits their career advancement by favouring women over equally qualified women. Indeed, women professionals face more challenges trying to penetrate these critical sectors when job advertisements clearly states some advertised job positions are only reserved for male applicants.
This problem is less entrenched in Europe, but it still needs to be addressed to ensure that women access opportunities in these critical sectors.
In organizational variables, it has been established how organizational policies and culture entrench gendered occupational segregation of women engineers in engineering and technology-oriented firms by: establishing procedures and policies that consider gender when allocating work; ensuring that men are paid more for equal work; facilitating a masculine organizational culture; ignoring or inadequately recognising the contributions made by women employees, and; poor communication networks between women employees and management.
These variables, which are felt across board in Europe and the Middle East, are further exacerbated by social-cultural variables revolving around issues of active work-place discrimination, entrenched cultural barriers, and misplaced perceptions of the women’s role in society. Again, it is imperative to note that these problems are more entrenched in the Middle East than in Europe.
Indeed, these revelations lend credence to an assertion by Benson & Yukongdi (2005), who suggested that many organizational policies and strategies orient themselves to the unfounded paradigm that women possess less levels of human capital relative to men.
Lastly, the findings of the present study demonstrates that alternatives to check the problem of gendered occupation segregation in engineering and technology-oriented sectors need to be developed and implemented while considering regional variations, in large part because of the fact that some variables are unique to particular regions.
In this study, it has been demonstrated that European engineering firms need to deal more with variables touching on organizational policies and culture, while engineering forms operating in the Middle East need to deal more with variables touching on the value of education and abilities, social and cultural barriers, as well as organizational policies and culture.
A major alternative for the problem in Europe is to increase training and career advancement opportunities for women professionals with a view to not only encourage more women into these domains but also to guarantee their retention in service. Another alternative is to level the playing ground for both male and female employees by allocating pay and allowances in relation to individual merits and achievements.
Third, European firms need to encourage the development and integration of women networks for purposes of availing ready information and opportunities arising from the evaluated sectors. The underlying denominator in all these alternatives is a reduction in male domination in engineering and technology fields.
Organizations need to develop policies that are responsive to the needs and demands of women professionals as opposed to maintaining a perception popularized by Kusk et al (2007), which posits that women’s success in engineering and technology-related fields is often contingent upon them adopting an overtly male-oriented career pattern.
In the Middle East, stakeholders need to address issues relating to cultural barriers and the value of education in women’s career progression.
The study findings demonstrate that the Pipeline Theory, which suggests that increasing the number of women professionals in male dominated sectors should automatically lead to more equality in the labour market (Schweitzer et al, 2011), does not hold much water in Middle East work settings due to cultural barriers that condemn women professionals to the periphery of service delivery, their level of education or achievement notwithstanding.
Another alternative for firms operating in the Middle East is to ensure that recruitment and selection of personnel in family-run organizations are done on merit rather than on superficial dimensions such as family lineages. Also, women professionals in the Middle East need to be recognized for their achievement and the girl students aspiring to become engineers need to be provided with adequate role models to identify with.
Reference List
Benson, J., & Yukongdi, V (2005). Asian Women Managers: Participation, Barriers and Future Prospects. Asian Pacific Business Review, 11 (2), pp. 283-291.
Bhatia, S., & Amati, J (2010). ‘If these Women can do it, I can do it, Too’: Building Women Engineering Leaders through Graduate Peer Mentoring. Leadership & Management in Engineering, 10 (4), pp. 174-184.
Bystydzienski, J.M (2004). (Re)Gendering Science Fields: Transforming Academic Science and Engineering. NWSA Journal, 16 (1), pp. 8-12.
Castilla, E.J., & Bernard, S (2010). The Paradox of Meritocracy in Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55 (4), pp. 543-576.
Deem, R (2007). Managing a Meritocracy or an Equitable Organization? Senior Managers’ and Employees’ Views about Equal Opportunities Policies in UK Universities. Journal of Education Policy, 22 (6), pp. 615-636.
Franzway, S., Sharp, R., Mills, J.E., & Gill, J (2009). Engineering Ignorance. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 30 (1), pp. 89-106.
Gillard, H., Howcroft, D., Mitev, N., & Richardson, H (2008). “Missing Women”: Gender, ICTs, and the Shaping of the Global Economy. Information Technology for Development, 14 (4), pp. 262-279.
Hafkin, N.J., & Huyer, S (2007). Women and Gender in ICT Statistics and Indicators for Development. Information Technologies & International Development, 4 (2), pp. 25-41.
Hatchell, H., & Aveling, N (2008). Those same Old Prejudices? Gendered Experiences in the Science Workplace. Journal of Workplace Rights, 13 (4), pp. 355-375.
Kusk, F., Ozbilgin, M., & Ozkale, L (2007). Against the Tide: Gendered Prejudice and Disadvantage in Engineering. Gender, Work & Organization, 14 (2), pp. 109-129.
Morganson, V.J., Jones, M.P., & Major, D.A (2010). Understanding Women’s Underrepresentation in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: The Role of Social Coping. Career Development Quarterly, 59 (2), pp. 169-179.
Sappleton, N., & Takrui-Rick, H (2008). The Gender Subtext of Science, Engineering, and Technology (SET) Organizations: A Review and Critique. Women’s Studies, 37 (3), 284-316.
Schweitzer, L., Ng, E., Lyons, S., & Kuron, L (2011). Exploring the Career Pipeline: Gender Differences in Pre-Career Expectations. Industrial Relations, 66 (3), pp. 422-444.
The city that I am researching is the city of Chicago. I am interested in studying the city to understand our city’s history better and understand the struggles that many people face today, as there are visual scars from racial segregation. The timeline will be used in the 1950s,1960s, and the 2010s. The topic that will be included in this research is housing, education, and unemployment. The two major factors that heavily contribute to economic inequality are education and unemployment. In Johnsons’ prologue, on page 10, he talks about examples of persistent racism built into neighborhood Universities and schools. Housing is a byproduct as a result of poor education and low job opportunities.
Racial segregation has been an ongoing subject in the United States for many. In the south side of Chicago, it is apparent the damage resulting from racial segregation. Housing is important as it is a factor in the outcome of an individual’s future. Housing has a role in education and job opportunities. Education: Education is important because it is predictive of an individual’s future occupation and earnings. When the quality of education is hindered based on wealth class, it results in an endless cycle of poverty and inequality. For many students in low-income areas, the quality of education is inadequate to prepare for college and be successful. In today’s society, education is a major factor in determining a person’s success, and many high-paying jobs require some form of a college education. Racial segregation affects the quality of individual education.
Employment is a big factor in many of the ongoing issues in the city of Chicago. The Southside of Chicago was once a thriving market in industrialization, providing people with livable wages. However, overtime jobs had left the Southside leaving many people unemployed and struggling to survive due to fewer job opportunities, causes a major increase in poverty and leaving them to live in constant poverty. In addition to employment, Chicago is labeled as the nation’s murder capital which suggests that neighborhoods with the highest rates of violence correlate with neighborhoods with high unemployment rates.
In 2008, America elected Barack Obama as its first African American president. While many saw this as evidence that America had overcome its turbulent history of racial inequality, one does not have to go far to discover that segregation and uneven life chances persist in the United States. Ironically, Chicago, Barack Obama’s hometown, continues to be one of the most segregated cities in the United States. Racial prejudice and institutional discrimination have resulted in the growth of predominantly black inner city ghettos. For the greater part of a century, these ghettos have been left unregulated and virtually untouched, perpetuating a cycle of poverty, crime, and substandard living conditions. I will examine the growth of Chicago’s largely black South Side in this article, exploring both the history of racial violence and the discriminatory policies that have resulted in such sharp divisions in one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the country.
To examine the racial segregation in Chicago, this is an exploratory study entirely based on ideas gleaned through a review of the current literature on the issue, including studies, reports, magazines, and books, among other sources. The following are the study’s research questions: In completing this research project, you will be able to gain important knowledge or expertise on the topic under consideration. With the use of previously published material, this author draws broad generalizations about the subject matter at hand and develops and tests a hypothesis concerning racial segregation in the city of Chicago. One of the most challenging jobs in all of the research is not the acquisition or creation of new data but rather the analysis and integration of data that is already available to make sense of what has been discovered. To address the phenomena under examination, I concur with this assertion and make the best use possible of insights gleaned from modern literature.
The Great Migration
Many Southern states enacted new constitutions and laws at the beginning of the twentieth century, removing the rights of blacks and many poor whites. They could not serve as adjudicators or vie for any office if they could not vote. Discriminatory legislation, such as the segregation of public facilities based on race, was passed by white politicians (Derenoncourt, 2019). Segregated schools for African children and other amenities were chronically minimally funded in the agribusiness. Violent crimes against black people increased when whites’ legislative bodies were presided over by Jim Crow rules to restore white authority and limit public life. Lynchings were used as extrajudicial punishment to ensure compliance with these laws (Guillet, 2019). In the early twentieth century, the boll weevil invasion decimated most of the cotton industry. As a result, African-Americans began leaving the South for the North to enjoy greater freedoms, send their children to better schools, and find better jobs.
Thousands of people moved north due to the industrialization of the North and the rapid development of the infrastructure, meatpacking, and steel industries. Up until 1960, many black southerners fled violence and segregation by migrating to Chicago in pursuit of economic opportunity. The rural population decreased with the high increase in the urban population. An important trend emerged as a result of African Americans migrating to urban regions from rural areas. (Grigoryeva & Ruef, 2015). The Great Migration changed Chicago politically as well as culturally.
The bulk of African Americans who migrated north between 1910 and 1940 came from rural areas. Most of them were sharecroppers and laborers, but others were landowners who the boll weevil outbreak had uprooted. They were undereducated and unprepared for urban jobs due to the South’s chronic underinvestment in public education for blacks. They had to swiftly adapt to a new urban society, much like other European rural immigrants had to. Many people took advantage of Chicago’s excellent educational system, and their children had little trouble adapting to the city’s unique culture and way of life (Taeuber et al., 1994). Most black migrants arrived after 1940, when the second major wave of migration began, already urbanized and coming from southern cities and towns. Those who moved to the city were ambitious and well-educated, and they could put those advantages to good use in their new communities.
The flood of new immigrants into cities brought about a great deal of concern. An estimated 3,000 black Chicagoans came each week in the 1940s, arriving by train from the South and entering localities they had heard about from friends and the Chicago Defender (Derenoncourt, 2019). Measuring and documenting the Great Migration took place with great care. The significant changes in their neighborhoods caused urban white northerners in the city to become alarmed (Guillet, 2019). When it came to employment and housing, the South Side’s steel and meatpacking sectors provided the most opportunities for the working class. Meanwhile, newer and older ethnic immigrants competed with the newcomers.
In the 1919 gang wars and riots, ethnic Irish played a significant role. When they first arrived on the South Side, they fought against other immigrants, including other ethnic whites and southern blacks, to control their region. Chicago served as a focal point for enormous migration and racial unrest that followed (Derenoncourt, 2019). As Chicago’s industries grew, so did the number of job opportunities for new migrants, notably those from the South. The railroad industry and the meatpacking industry both used black employees (Howenstine, 1996). The Chicago Defender, a black newspaper in the city, helped southerners learn about Chicago. Using Illinois Central trains, it transported bundles of papers south, where African-American Pullman Porters dropped them off in Black neighborhoods. When the black belt expanded by 50,000 people between 1916 and 1919, it put extra strain on the South Side’s institutional system; many boarded trains heading north.
Segregation
Homespun inequitable covenants do outlaw by national courts in the ’20s. An increasing number of the city’s African residents experienced the same discrimination as those in the South. During the city’s fast population boom, many blacks struggled to get employment and better housing since the fierce struggle for shelter among various groups of people (Howenstine, 1996). Chicago continued to attract many immigrants from southern and eastern Europe simultaneously as the Great Migration of blacks from the South. The groups were engaged in a conflict over salaries for the working class.
Chicago’s political leaders began enacting racially restrictive covenants in 1927, even though earlier measures like redlining and zoning just for single-family houses had been used to keep the city’s housing segregated. Shelley v. Kraemer, a case decided in 1948 by the United States Supreme Court, ruled racially discriminatory covenants illegal. However, this did not instantly alleviate the housing problems faced by blacks. Homeowners’ associations forbade their associates from selling to black families, preserving segregation in the housing industry (Logan et al., 1984). Due to the scarcity of affordable housing, European refugees and their descendants had to compete with blacks for a place to call home.
Many white middle-class and upper-class families were among the initials to leave the city searching for better-paying jobs and better-connected commuter rail and transport structures. Later, immigrants, ethnic whites, and black families lived in the older homes (Logan et al., 1984). Those of us from the suburbs who had been in the city for the longest were more inclined to move into newer, more expensive residences as soon as we could. After the Second World War, many of the white residents of the South Side moved out because of the influx of newcomers and the resulting increase in housing demand. It wasn’t long before more African-Americans began moving into what had become the nation’s black capital. South Side neighborhoods became predominantly black, giving rise to the Black Belt.
Racial Segregation in Housing
Demographic mix of modern-day Chicago is surprisingly similar to that of the city before the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. Even though data suggest that Chicago has steadily grown more racially mixed over the past decade, the city continues to be one of the most racially divided in the United States. In large part, this is the consequence of discriminatory housing laws that have kept black Chicagoans confined to South Side urban ghettos for more than a century, generating a cycle of poverty and violence that continues to this day. Real estate groups and white communities campaigned to establish regulations that would restrict the regions into which black residents might migrate to keep them inside their racially segregated neighborhoods.
According to Lorraine Hansberry’s novel A Raisin in the Sun, a black family struggles to leave the ghetto and settle in a better-off neighborhood. An interesting period in Chicago history was the inspiration for the show’s plot. The play takes place in Chicago between 1945 and 1959, and it explores the racial and housing tensions that were prevalent in the city at the time. As a result of World War II industrial jobs and Southern sharecropping’s demise, the period 1940–1960 saw a net increase in African American population in Chicago, compared to the migration of 1910–1930, during which an enormous number of black Americans first came to Chicago from the South.
Before the end of World War II, Chicago’s housing market was severely restricted for returning soldiers. During the Civil Rights Movement, the majority of African-Americans lived in a swath of Chicago, also called the “Black Belt” that spanned from 12th to 79th streets and Wentworth to Cottage Grove avenues. About 60,000 African-Americans from the South moved to Chicago in search of work between 1940 and 1944. White residents drafted “restrictive covenants,” legally enforceable agreements that stated that some households could not rent or sell to anyone who was black to keep freshly arrived black Americans out of their communities. Such covenants exacerbated traffic congestion during the war because they confined African Americans to the Black Belt. After the war, as more blacks migrated north to Chicago, congestion worsened, and numerous families were forced to share an apartment, which became increasingly common.
In addition to making life more difficult, traffic congestion has made it harder for black families to find decent places to live. Considering that this area has a high density of people, landlords are forced to split flats into small units known as “kitchenettes” and charge overpriced rents for them. There were times when these apartments did not have toilets, which meant that everyone on the floor had to share a single toilet in the hall. At various points, buildings lacked essential services like adequate heating. Residents had to do with kerosene lamps and improvised stoves, which frequently caught fire due to overheating. The flammability of the partitions separating the flats increased the danger. The Black Belt had 751 fires in a single year, many of which were deadly. Even though landlords were seldom fined for maintaining slum dwellings, those who were found to be in the wrong realized that paying the typically modest fee was considerably more profitable than fixing their buildings. There was a rat infestation because of an old and potentially hazardous housing stock, local officials’ apathy and indifference, and insufficient sanitation. In A Raisin in the Sun, Travis Younger and his pals kill a rat that is “as big as a cat.” They are heroes. Several eyewitnesses reported seeing rats attack sleeping children, sometimes killing or maiming them. TB and other illnesses spread quickly in the Black Belt, where newborn mortality and total mortality were higher than in the rest of Chicago.
The Black Belt expanded into surrounding communities after World War II. Restrictive covenants were declared illegal by the Supreme Court in 1948. Because of a building boom in the suburbs and on the city’s edges, there are now more options for individuals who want to live in the city. Over time, a rising number of African-Americans moved up from poverty and into middle-class areas where they could enjoy a much better quality of life. African Americans’ desire to get away from the slums created them in certain situations rather than the other way around. It’s impossible to exaggerate the role of shady real estate investors in the migration of African Americans to wealthier, predominately white communities. To boost their investment returns, speculators would exploit white people’s anxieties about their black neighbors. White working-class people were particularly prone to such tactics because of their demographic makeup. As the owners’ primary asset, they were concerned that their home prices would plummet. It was speculators who took advantage of these anxieties by using a tactic called “blockbusting,” They tried to persuade white economy class residents that an influx of African Americans would be bad for their communities. As a result, white property owners often decided to accept offers below the property’s actual worth because they believed that their properties would become even less valuable as time passed.
Speculators profited handsomely from the inflow of African Americans thanks to bank regulations that were overtly discriminatory, such as “redlining,” with earnings sometimes doubling for those who utilized them. Before the Civil Rights Movement, banks would draw a red line through “undesirable” areas of town, refusing to provide loans to newly arriving African Americans. Even though African-Americans marched and filed lawsuits against housing discrimination as a consequence, the early Black American families who wanted to migrate to these regions were compelled to negotiate on highly unfavorable conditions. Speculators would have to pay an outrageously high monthly payment even though they can buy houses for a modest down payment.
The investor might compel black people to leave their homes for minor contract infractions since they’d have to sign an installment contract over ownership to him. African American families were forced to take in a significant number of borders to augment their income because of the high cost of tuition. As a result, a surplus of people crammed into a small amount of accessible space once again. They wouldn’t be able to keep up with the property’s maintenance since they’d be paying speculators every month. It would harm the neighborhood. Additionally, black zones did not get the same degree of city services as white communities, and the territory that had looked to African Americans as the promised land gradually transformed into yet another slum.
There was a lot of discussion about neighborhood integration. At the time, riots led by a white mob were not unheard of. In contrast, the great majority of Chicagoans had no idea how dire the situation was. During the 1940s, major media failed to report the riots because of the Chicago Commission on Human Relations pressure. Residents of the “White Belt” who could not move out from the “Black Belt’s” border formed neighborhood associations to let blacks know they were not welcome.
According to Karl Lindner, a Clybourne Park Improvement Association member, “Negro families are happiest when they reside in their neighborhoods” in A Raisin in the Sun. Mr. Lindner makes a purchase offer to the Younger family, offering to buy the property back for a greater price than the family initially paid. Discrimination against African Americans wasn’t always veiled. In certain cases, police escorts are required to assist the first African-American family settle into a predominantly white community. For months, they had been subjected to relentless verbal abuse and lived in fear of being physically attacked. Their house was set on fire, and someone threw bombs out the windows. There was danger and rejection for African Americans everywhere they went, even when they were only trying to locate a suitable location for themselves to call home.
Racial Segregation in Education
Educational segregation has far-reaching social consequences. Many young African- Americans face discrimination, which adds unnecessary stress to their lives and impairs their cognitive development. Eric Hanushek and colleagues researched racial concentrations in schools and discovered that they had large and significant consequences. When a school has a larger percentage of black pupils, it appears that the health of the black children is harmed. White or Hispanic students at the school do not experience these impacts, showing that peer connections rather than the institution’s quality are to blame. Furthermore, studies show that having a large concentration of black students in a school has the greatest impact on the academic performance of those students.
Students from impoverished inner cities, including African Americans, continue to struggle academically because of their pressure from family and friends who are still living in poverty in their hometowns. Another way in which education is utilized to keep people apart is through segregation in the workplace. Real estate marketers may use school racial composition as a strategy to attract white buyers into the segregated inner-city ring. In recent years, the percentage of black children enrolling in integrated public schools has fallen to its lowest level since 1968. It has been referred to as “American apartheid” because of the inequality in educational opportunities between white and black students in the United States. Those who link this imbalance to apartheid sometimes use the example of uneven financing for primarily black schools as an illustration of apartheid. By the academic year 2002–2003, about 87 percent of Chicago public school students were black or Hispanic, with fewer than 10 percent of children enrolled in white schools. Only around 5 percent of the children in Washington, D.C., were white, with the majority of them being either black or Hispanic in origin.
The fear of being accused of “Acting White” has made it difficult for ethnic groups to get an education. I don’t know how to define this word except that most African-Americans use it as a derogatory term to describe those who show an interest in their academics because they believe doing so betrays their culture by trying to fit in with white society instead of remaining true to their roots. There is a trade-off between doing well and being accepted by your peers if you come from a traditionally low-achieving group, according to Harvard University’s Roland Fryer, Jr., “especially when that group comes into contact with more outsiders.” However, racial, educational segregation is caused by causes other than economics. For minorities to succeed in educational environments, social constructions must be removed.
Several public schools in Mississippi are still racially divided, as they were in the 1960s during an era of widespread anti-black sentiment. In many towns where black children make up the majority of the student body, only white children are enrolled in minor private schools. Despite being the state’s premier academic institution, the University of Mississippi enrolls an unacceptably low number of African-American and Latino students. Even though these institutions are intended to be models of excellence in education and graduation, the inverse is occurring. Children of European origin are largely educated in private schools in Jackson Metropolis and tiny towns outside. School segregation persists in Mississippi, South Carolina, and other states where whites and blacks remain segregated in education.
Apart from the Deep rural South, segregation can also be found in major cities like New York. The state had the highest level of racial segregation among black students when compared to other Southern states. Students have grown separated based on their race and family wealth simultaneously, which is an example of double segregation. In 19 of the city’s 32 school districts, white students are underrepresented. School segregation was addressed by the United States Supreme Court more than six decades ago, yet minority and low-income children continue to be denied equal opportunities in educational opportunities. To make matters worse, according to a 108-page report from the Government Accountability Office, the percentage of low-income black or Hispanic students in American K-12 public schools increased from 9 to 16 percent between 2000 and 2014.
Racial Segregation in Employment
The black community of Chicago established a class structure that included a considerable number of domestic workers and other manual laborers and a small but rising presence of middle- and upper-class commercial and professional elites, according to the Chicago Tribune. In 1929, black Chicagoans got access to city employment, increasing their status as members of the professional class. A continual battle for African Americans in Chicago was fighting job discrimination. Supervisors in various firms hindered development opportunities for African Americans, resulting in lower pay and preventing them from obtaining better earnings. Beginning in the mid-twentieth century, African-Americans began to advance through the ranks of the labor sector gradually.
The influx of African-Americans widened the market for their products and services. “The insurance industry was the site of the most significant breakthrough in black business.” Chicago was the home of the founding of four major insurance businesses. Then, in the early twentieth century, service businesses supplanted manufacturing. During this period, the African-American market on State Street consisted of barbershops, restaurants, pool clubs, saloons, and beauty salons, among other establishments. African Americans utilized these trades to help them establish themselves in their communities. These businesses provided African-Americans with an opportunity to start families, make money, and become active members of their communities.
It became clear that the South Side ghetto’s continuous decline was endangering the city’s financial core, so the City of Chicago embarked on an ambitious effort to revitalize the areas surrounding what is known as the ‘Loop. The Neighborhood Redevelopment Corporation Act of 1941 and subsequent amendments and legislation served as the impetus for the initiative’s inception. So that blighted districts might be revitalized while still protecting ‘endangered’ ones, lawmakers gave the city more authority to take public land for “public uses” before selling it to private developers for reconstruction on a government-subsidized basis. The city was then in charge of relocating citizens who had been displaced.
According to a survey conducted in 1943, there were 350,000 dilapidated structures in the area around the ‘Loop’s’ south-western edge. Fearing that major financial institutions and enterprises would migrate to the suburbs, this law was passed to encourage private sector investments in development projects to prevent an urban catastrophe from occurring. While this period of rapid gentrification was occurring, the South Side and the neighborhoods surrounding the University of Chicago on the South Side received financial assistance from both the public and private sectors. Urban renewal projects have reduced the fear of decentralization and financial flight from the city center. Still, thousands of people have been displaced, the majority of whom are black Chicagoans. Creating centralized all-black public housing facilities was the city’s solution to the problem.
When African Americans first came to Chicago, they tended to gravitate toward the already-established black neighborhoods in the city. When the census was taken in 1910, an estimated 78 percent of black Chicagoans lived in a slight stretch of communities on the city’s south side called the “Black Belt.” Even though these neighborhoods were increasingly overcrowded and dilapidated, African Americans rarely tried to expand their communities beyond the boundaries that had been established. When black Chicagoans sought to relocate into mostly white areas on occasion, deadly conflicts erupted. On the most severe level, these tensions were demonstrated in 1919 when a young African American child swimming in Lake Michigan wandered into a section of the lake designated for whites and was stoned to death. When Chicago police declined to make an arrest, crowds descended on the city. It began rioting, resulting in 13 days of unrestrained mayhem, during which 38 people were murdered, 537 were injured, and almost 1,000 black families were forced to flee their homes. Even though official institutions of segregation had been abolished over half a century earlier, de facto segregation systems persisted far into the twentieth century and are still in place in many parts of the world today.
Because of this, the Federal Housing Act of 1937 created Chicago’s Chicago Housing Authority (CHA), which was in charge of all the city’s public housing. In the beginning, the North Side’s first buildings only housed white people, while the South Side ghetto’s largest housing complex was designated for black people. Occupants in public housing had to be of the same race as those living in the neighborhood where the building was located due to a government regulation known as “The Neighborhood Composition Rule” (Choldin, 2005). To avoid provoking a backlash from local politicians, Chicago’s Housing Authority (CHA) was forced into adopting a policy of “containment,” establishing housing complexes in neighborhoods where residents were already familiar with them, particularly on the city’s South and South-West Sides. As a result of this policy, the ‘Black Belt’ neighborhood on Chicago’s South Side has become increasingly overcrowded. Not until 1968, when federal money was cut off, Chicago’s Housing Authority (CHA) stopped developing housing complexes in the city’s South Side ghettos, a total of 168 high-rise buildings housing about 19,700 people. HUD eventually took control of the CHA in 1996 and began evicting occupants and demolishing failing housing buildings due to the CHA’s failure to administer the Chicago Housing Projects effectively. Except for a handful on the South-West Side, all of the city’s high-rises and virtually all of its low-rise row houses have been demolished.
Racial discrimination in public housing was prohibited, and financial criteria were steadily decreased as part of the federal standards for admittance. Because of this, Cabrini-population Green went from being predominantly white working-class to being predominantly black and impoverished, with few other options for better housing, creating a long-term resident. With its boarded-up high-rise windows and burned-out facade, Cabrini-Green has become a symbol of criminality and blight. As a result of its location between two of Chicago’s most wealthy neighborhoods, Lincoln Park and the Gold Coast, Cabrini-Green stands out among Chicago’s Public Housing developments. Even as the Cabrini-Green area became more lawless and decayed, the areas immediately surrounding it began to prosper. The local industry changed from manufacturing to professional services, resulting in redevelopment and new high-income housing projects. This shift was not lost on investors, who began purchasing nearby properties in anticipation of the demolished projects.
One of Chicago’s most renowned public housing failures, the Cabrini-Green Housing Projects, exemplifies the worst of the city’s racial segregation at its most extreme. The CHA built the Frances Cabrini Homes in Chicago’s Near-North Side in 1942. The Cabrini Extension and William Green Homes high-rises were built during the next two decades, adding another 20 stories to the property. Neighborhood Composition Rule states that the development initially contained people of many ethnicities, such as Italians, Irish, Puerto Ricans and African Americans. This is still the case today. However, the economic crisis that followed World War II led to a rise in unemployment. At the same time, the city drastically reduced spending for public services, transit, police enforcement, and infrastructure upkeep, causing many middle- and lower-class families to consider moving elsewhere…. Racial discrimination in public housing was prohibited and financial restrictions were steadily decreased as part of the federal standards for entry. A permanent population was created as a result, since the working-class residents of Cabrini-Green were replaced with mostly impoverished blacks with few alternative options for better housing. Cabrini-burned-out Green’s facade and boarded-up high-rise windows became a symbol of criminality and urban degradation. As a result of its location between two of Chicago’s most wealthy neighborhoods, Lincoln Park and the Gold Coast, Cabrini-Green stands out among Chicago’s Public Housing developments. While the area around Cabrini-Green deteriorated and fell into disrepair, the areas around it began to gentrify as the industry switched from manufacturing to professional services, resulting in investments and new high-income housing complexes. A lot of people observed the change and began buying nearby homes in anticipation of the projects being demolished. the Near North Redevelopment Initiative Plan was developed after the HUD assumed control of the CHA in 1996, proposing a 10-year plan to destroy the current complexes and rebuild them with mixed-use housing for people of all income levels. The final Cabrini-Green structure was torn down in 2011. Those who wanted private accommodation in the city or suburbs might use vouchers to pay for it there. However, many former residents have moved to the South Side’s impoverished, segregated communities due to prejudice by landlords and a lack of transitional help. Similarly, the former Cabrini-Green residents will not be guaranteed a place in the new mixed-income building, which will only have half the amount of public housing apartments. Former homeowners as well as observers have blasted the “Near North Development Plan” for what they see as a land grab.
Conclusion
Ostracism and prejudice were and continue to be a constant presence in Chicago, even though the first African Americans migrated there in quest of jobs and freedom from the oppressive institutions of the South. While many would say that 21st-century American society has abandoned its discriminatory bias policies, others would contend this is not the case. The more closely you look, the more it becomes obvious that they have only gotten more latent. When African Americans first came to Chicago, they were pushed into segregation via violence and legislation designed to keep them away from predominantly white neighborhoods. Despite improvements in the legal system, which resulted in the repeal of such discriminatory practices, new and more hidden forms of segregation emerged, which exploited the legal system to maintain black Chicagoans in a submissive condition of isolation. When the expansion of these overcrowded ghettos began to pose a danger to the city’s economic prosperity, black Chicagoans found themselves once more on the wrong side of an unjust and discriminatory social structure. Instead of dealing with the concerns brought up by such a huge proportion of the city’s inhabitants, the subject was hidden from view.
References
Derenoncourt, E. (2019). Can you move to opportunity? Evidence from the Great Migration. Unpublished Manuscript.
Grigoryeva, A., & Ruef, M. (2015). The historical demography of racial segregation. American sociological review, 80(4), 814-842.
Guillet, E. (2019). The great migration. University of Toronto Press.
Howenstine, E. (1996). Ethnic change and segregation in Chicago. Ethnicity: Geographic perspectives on ethnic change in modern cities, 31-49.
Logan, J. R., & Schneider, M. (1984). Racial segregation and racial change in American suburbs, 1970-1980. American Journal of Sociology, 89(4), 874-888.
Taeuber, K. E., & Taeuber, A. F. (1964). The Negro as an immigrant group: Recent trends in racial and ethnic segregation in Chicago. American Journal of Sociology, 69(4), 374-382.
The main aim of education is to offer learners the best possible development. Attending school enables individuals to lead morally, creatively as well as productive lives in society. Students ought to gain skills and knowledge that form part of the basis for lifelong learning. One of the ways that contribute to this goal is ensuring that there is diversity in classrooms. However, if classrooms are filled with most students of the same ethnic or racial background, then this presents potential harm to students as they may not fit nicely among other social groups.
When learning with people from diverse cultures and backgrounds, students can have a more comprehensive comprehension of the subject matter. Diversity in classrooms teaches learners and exposes them to various other cultural and social groups (Jansson et al., 2020). The interactions effectively prepare learners to become better citizens in their respective communities and to fit elsewhere too. On the contrary, segregation spatially isolates ethnic and racial groups in one of the critical phases of human development when ethnic and racial attitudes are formed. Seclusion challenges the value of unity as well as equal opportunity, which education ought to contribute towards, and countries espouse.
Segregation in learning institutions promotes the notion of ethnic and racial differences as well as supremacy by making the idea of separation a physical reality. Children who study in mixed background classes learn about different ethnicities and cultures cross interact and feel more comfortable with the diversity in their lives in school and beyond. Diversity allows learners to freely and more confidently interact with different social groups thus forming friendships (Jansson et al., 2020). Globalization is on the rise, and students who learn in mixed classrooms are better prepared to work and flourish in ethnically and racially diverse workplaces. All schools must embrace diversity so that they produce learners that are conscious of diversity and hence can fit in any community.
Reference
Jansson, F., Birkelund, G., & Lillehagen, M. (2020). Segregation within school classes: Detecting social clustering in choice data. Plos One, 15(6). Web.
