Inequality

Baker 1 Jennifer Baker Reverse Discrimination Even though slavery has not been a part of America for over a century now, racial discrimination still exists in various parts of our culture. A controversial policy known as affirmative action was introduced in the 1960’s to try and promote racial equality in society. Affirmative action is supposed to give minorities an equal chance in life by requiring minority employment, promotions, college acceptance, etc. At first this sounds like a perfect solution to racial discrimination, but in reality it is discrimination in reverse.

The term “affirmative action” was first used back in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy in an executive order designed to encourage racially mixed work forces. He stated that contractors should “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin. ” (Affirmative Action) Then in 1964 the Civil Rights Act was passed which prohibited employment discrimination based on race or sex. The Civil Rights activists continued to argue that minorities weren’t going to be able to compete with the more qualified applicants after having suffered discrimination for so long.

So in 1969 President Nixon made it a federal policy that a certain percentage of minorities must be hired in the workplace. Quickly affirmative Baker 2 action changed from being a policy that ensured equal opportunity to being one that gave unfair advantages to minorities. Affirmative action has remained controversial throughout the years, finding itself in and out of the courts. One of the most famous cases was Fullilove vs. Klutznick, which took place in 1980. The ruling stated that setting aside 10 percent of the hiring for minorities was constitutional.

Fortunately in 1996 proposition 209 was passed in California which ended affirmative action throughout the state. This was definitely a breakthrough, but the effects of affirmative action still linger. Many businesses and corporations still give preference to minorities even if they are less qualified. Employers fear that lawsuits will be filed stating that applicants were turned down because of their race. Renowned author and political activist Nathan Glazer, has been against affirmative action since its beginning. Glazer believes that the olicy became controversial when it went beyond the ideas of the Civil Rights Act and started requiring employers to hire or promote a certain number of minority applicants or employees. In order to make sure that affirmative action was taking place, federal courts started enforcing “quotas” or “goals” for specific numbers of minority hiring. If these were met, lawsuits based on racial discrimination would be less valid. Says Glazer, “Affirmative action has become a matter of setting statistical goals or quotas by race for employment… the expectations of color blindness that was

Baker 3 paramount in the 1960’s has been replaced by a rigid frame of numerical requirements. ”(Glazer, 6) Those who oppose quotas and goals are said to be opposers of the Civil Rights Act, even though the affirmative action of today is not what the Civil Rights Act embodied. Glazer compares the misinterpretation of the Civil Rights Act to the desegregation of schools. In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled that segregated schools were unconstitutional. The idea of racially integrated schools, like racially integrated workplaces, is an excellent one.

However, the desegregation of schools has made busing a necessity. Busing, although not in use today, is when students are transferred to another school for purposes of racial integration. It is costly to run all the buses and the commuting is hard on the students. Those opposing busing are said to agree with the segregation of schools. (Glazer, 10) The desegregation of schools was also mentioned in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Initially this seemed a fair proposal, but just as affirmative action became detrimental in the workplaces, integrating minorities in schools turned into numerical requirements.

Can you imagine busing programs being used across the United States today? The scary truth is that once one of these ideas is adopted in one city, any other city can then follow suit. For example, if Santa Cruz County were granted the right to require a 15 percent Hipic student enrollment in all high schools within the county lines, any other city could also put this idea into practice based on precedent. The assignment of students Baker 4 based on race would cause an endless stream of angry parents. Fortunately busing is in the past, but affirmative action still has its claws in the school system.

A few weeks ago I was watching a 60 Minutes segment about a white girl who had filed a lawsuit against the University of Michigan claiming that they did not accept her because of her race. She had graduated from high school with a high GPA and had done everything in her power to become qualified for acceptance, yet she was denied admission. Further research showed that the University of Michigan does in fact admit students based on race. When reading applications, they award points according to criteria. For example, if one writes a good essay he is awarded 1 point and if he is a minority he is awarded 20 points.

Something is askew. Is being a minority is 20 times more important than one’s scholarly achievements? The University’s argument is that students learn better in a racially diverse environment. UC Davis is another example. In 1988 only 40 percent of Davis’ freshman class had been accepted solely on the basis of merit. While whites or Asian-Americans needed at least a 3. 7 GPA in high school to be accepted, most minority applicants were accepted even though they met much lower standards. Sixty-six percent of the whites graduated while only twenty-seven percent of blacks did.

Even as recently as 1997 one was more likely to get accepted into UCLA if he were black or Hipic than if he were white. The minority students had both lower GPA’s and test scores. There were 5000 applicants for 200 seats which meant that some qualified students were rejected to make way for less Baker 5 qualified minorities. (Chances of Admission) This does not sound like an equal society. In 1995 the University of California system voted to end all affirmative action in admissions. When the changes took effect in 1998, minority enrollment went down drastically.

This seems prejudicial, but in reality it is fair and allows competition between the best, regardless of race. Everyone has an equal opportunity to receive an education. Public schools are free and it is mandatory that children attend them. Any student can take full advantage of their first 12 years of education and earn the GPA that will gain them admission into a college. If a student is born into a poor family there are scholarships and student loans available. Malcom X is a perfect example of someone choosing to rise up and get an education.

Early in his life he made very unwise choices and ended up a pimp. When he was caught and thrown in jail he decided to begin educating himself. All he had was a dictionary but he used that dictionary and copied down every page. He went from being an illiterate street pimp to a very influential political leader. Affirmative action wasn’t around in Malcom’s time, but today everybody knows about it or has at least heard the term used. The first time I heard about affirmative action was when my brother first started working at Ralph’s supermarket.

There was a black woman working there who was very slow and unproductive. One day my brother asked a fellow employee why the lady didn’t lose her job and he said, “She’s here for affirmative action reasons. ” It turned out that whenever the lady was scheduled for a shift, another Baker 6 worker was also scheduled just to make up for the inefficiency of the black lady. My brother’s boss feared a lawsuit if he fired her. This is ridiculous! It is a costly arrangement and unfair to the lady hired just to take up slack for someone else’s laziness.

The policy of affirmative action basically states that in order to have an integrated society with equal opportunities for all races, minorities must be given an advantage to make up for their disadvantages. This means that less qualified applicants are getting hired and that students who do not meet the requirements for college admission are being accepted while qualified students are being turned away, all based on race. The Constitution bans the exclusion of minorities from anything based on color, therefore it is unconstitutional to exclude whites based on the same principles. The lesson of great decisions of the Supreme Court and the lesson of contemporary history have been the same for at least a generation: discrimination on the basis of race is illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, inherently wrong, and destructive of democratic society. ”(Gross, 1) Affirmative action is asking us to overlook all that we’ve learned and even fought for. Since affirmative action is such a hot topic and it affects our country as a whole, it’s important to know how the presidential candidates view this subject. Vice President Al Gore tends to favor the policy while Governor George Bush disagrees with it.

Gore’s idea is “mend it, don’t end it. ”(Al Gore) He says that affirmative action has done a lot for women and minorities over the years and that to get rid of it would be a waste. He has yet Baker 7 to provide a way to fix it. Bush argues against quotas and goals and proposes an alternative to this policy, one he has used in Texas. He terms his system of ideas and policies “affirmative access”. (George Bush) His idea leans more towards the original thinking of the Civil Rights Act and promoting equal opportunity. An example is that the top 10 percent of each high school’s graduates be automatically accepted into the college of their choice.

Supposedly the idea has been effective over the past couple of years in Texas. Both candidates have good points. Affirmative action has helped reduce minorities’ and women’s suffering prejudices in the workplace and in school, but on the other hand it has been taken to the extreme and the prejudices have been turned around. We need to get back to the heart of what the original affirmative action intended. Racial prejudices need to be eliminated completely. We are all the same on the inside. There is no reason to consider outward appearances.

Employers and colleges only need to look at the applicants’ qualifications when determining who will be hired or accepted. Affirmative action could also use a face-lift, like the name change Bush suggested. When the term “affirmative action” is used, it is looked upon negatively and is associated with discrimination. A law that requires the acceptance of the most qualified would allow competition of the best and eliminate the issues of minority prejudices. If no regard is given to race, as Kennedy intended, then only the most qualified applicant will be accepted. This is fair. Baker 8

Affirmative action has, in a way, become unfair to minorities. What is going to make them strive to be the best by working hard to get that promotion or studying hard to get those grades if they know they have an easy in? It has become an insult to minorities. Affirmative action is basically saying that they are not as smart or as qualified to be in good schools or in good jobs. It is saying that they need special help to get jobs and into colleges. It is a mockery. I know so many smart minority people who will transfer into better colleges than I and I’m as white as they come!

I sat next to a girl this semester who was so intelligent and had the most amazing style of writing. She was a mix of Indian and black. We must not insult these people by suggesting that we must compensate for their “inferiority” to make everyone equal in the eyes of the law. We were all created equal, and anyone, black, white, or any other race, can choose to set higher goals and achieve them just as Malcom X did. The old affirmative action is outdated. The premise that minorities should be given an advantage to make up for their disadvantages is ridiculous and irrelevant.

Most of the minorities coming into the work force were born after the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 and therefore have not suffered disadvantages in school or the workplace. If anything, they have reaped the benefits of affirmative action. California and Texas, as well as a few other states, have begun to take major steps in eliminating affirmative action. It is a start but it needs to spread. We are all equal and absolutely no regard should be given to Baker 9 race in education or employment. It is time to end the old affirmative action. We need a policy that eliminates the issue of race completely.

Social Inequality with Canadian Aboriginals SOC 300 Dr. Kelly Train Milica Rados 500460778 Different ethnic backgrounds immigrate to Canada making it a very multicultural society. Immigrants coming to Canada have made it progress to a more multicultural society, making other nations believe that this is the case, however this does not include native societies that have been living in Canada for the longest period of time. The purpose of this paper is to analyze how Aboriginals live in Canada.

This paper argues that aboriginals in Canada are not treated with the same equality as non-aboriginals livening in Canada, even though Canada is known as a multicultural society. By studying the history of Aboriginal settlement in Canada and understanding their connection to the land there is a better understanding of why taking over their land is a social issue. By taking over their land their sense of connection to nature was taken away which was a big part of the Aboriginal culture. This caused educational inequality and also the inequality they face within their workplace and the wages they receive.

By , their culture, education and their current economic state it becomes more clear why this is a social issue in Canada and how that takes away from the multiculturalism Canada is known for. Aboriginals, which include first nations people, were the first people of Canada however, the treatment they receive today shows otherwise. Aboriginal treaties, Westphalia Treaty of 1648, that were established in Canada in the mid-seventeenth century were used to “harmonize discovery and conquest principles” (Frideres, 2000).

The land that Aboriginals occupied was more than just land to them, they felt a connection with Mother Nature and they established roles in their families that helped them create a working community. Without even trying to understand how Aboriginals felt about their treaties and their land the British Common Law abolished Aboriginal land and tenure (Frideres, 2000). The British came into Canada stronger, with weapons and technology that the Aboriginals did not know about or ever see and when they took over their land they had nothing they could do or say about it.

The Aboriginal had no choice but to cooperate and let the land that they felt strong connections to be taken over. Losing a sense of connection to the land and having to watch one of the most important parts of their community being taken over cause further problems for the Aboriginal people. Due to the problems faced with settlement of British into Canada, Aboriginals have not had the same independence they had when they were living in Canada alone, they don’t receive the same equality or freedom.

According to symbolic internationalists the identity of a person cannot be determined without understanding the historical context of what the individual is born into. “Socialization theory” argues that individuals are born into groups and learn their culture and what they learn goes on to the next generations (Frideres, 2008). If a person born into Aboriginal social groups, their understanding of who they are comes from the group they are born into. Their parents teach them about the land and help them develop the same connection to nature that they feel.

Aboriginal identity emerges from Aboriginal groups that are shaped by their sense of location (Frideres, 2008). Aboriginals have a strong connection to their land and nature around them and that is what they teach the next generation as stated before. Aboriginal people are the original occupants of the territory known as Canada and as such possess a special relationship to this space (Mills, 2006), and even though this is the case it does not mean that Aboriginals need to own all of Canada and all the land should be considered there.

However, the land that they did occupy and did have should be left as is because their connection to the land is important to them. But that is not the case. Aboriginal people are an ethnicity abstracted from their distinct history and relationship to the land and to newcomers (Mills, 2006). They no longer get to own their land but at the same time they have to watch their land being taken over. Over time this sense of group, or community disappears. Generations can no longer teach younger generations about the importance of nature and therefore the history is slowly lost.

Since they lost their history and their connection to the land a lot of other parts of their culture and their beliefs was taken away as well. The main issue faced was losing a sense of their culture. Canada being a multicultural society, allows for all people to practice their culture and they have the freedom to believe what they want. The aboriginals lost that right when their land was taken over. It was lost because they no longer owned their nature and it was taken over by technology and architecture, making them less united with the forest and the land that they lived in.

By taking over the land they were also forced to have to change their education. In schools they were no longer allowed to learn Aboriginal culture. In 2002 by studying Canadian schools it was said that as many as 30 percent of elementary students and 40 percent of high school students did not speak even a little of their Native tongues (Schissel, 2002). The reason that this is the case can be because Aboriginal families stopped practicing their culture and heritage at home therefore distancing the children from understanding where they came from.

That is not because they no longer wanted their kids to know the traditions or history of their ancestry, but it was simply because they lost the connection they had. After being forced to stop practicing aboriginal culture when the British settlement fist happened, they had to learn a new culture and therefore it was slowly lost sine it was forbidden. Therefore the main reason that such high numbers of Aboriginal students do not speak their native language is because the educational system in Canada fails to recognize and incorporate indigenous knowledge (Schissel, 2002).

Since it would be hard to incorporate all cultures existing in Canada it is acceptable that the language is not practiced in schools. However aboriginals play such an important role in Canadian history their culture should be incorporated in the schools more, especially in history classes involving in Canada. Some may argue that other cultures are not incorporated into the mainstream school system, but aboriginals are the main settlers of Canada and therefore they should be recognized and taught about. Others argue that there are alternative schools that will study traditional cultures.

However according to Schisel (2002) this achievement of education would be laughable and would not be considered for a higher level of education such as continuing to university. Therefore they are forced to study the mainstream system if they wish to have a future in the Canada employment wise. Not only did the Aboriginals sacrifice their language and culture, they often also encounter the additional hindrances of racism, prejudice, poverty, violence, and underemployment (Schissel, 2002) Underemployment that Aboriginals face is a serious social issue in Canada.

The reason that this can be seen as a serious social issue is because Aboriginal peoples were titled as one of the four economically disadvantaged target groups in Canada in the Employment Equity Act 1995 (Maxim, 2001). This means that the Aboriginals cause overall views of Canada to go down. They can affect the overall economy in Canada because this means they suffer from poverty and unemployment bringing Canada down as a nation. The creation of the Indian in 1985 did not do any help with creating Aboriginals as equals and this party is suffering to this day.

Act Registered Aboriginal people in Canada are more likely than any other culture in Canada to be unemployed. They also have a lower education achievement and are considered more likely to be unemployed than anyone else in Canada (White, 2003). It is not just registered aboriginals that are suffering economically it is also the non-registered aboriginals as well. Overall all Aboriginal Canadians are disadvantaged when compared with the non-Aboriginal Canadian population. The amount of disadvantage, is measured by the characteristics of income we are examining, differs for the different categories of Aboriginal peoples (Maxim, 2001).

The earnings of Aboriginal people is 10. 4 percent lower than non-aboriginal people in Canada (Maxim, 2001). Thinking about all the different cultures in Canada that number is high compared to the rest of the Canadian citizens. Aboriginal people, mainly concerning women are employed in low paying jobs and also are in less stable jobs (Mills, 2006). There are two main reasons that this is the case according the Mills (2006). The first reason he gives us is that Canadians limit the number of jobs offered for aboriginals.

They limit the jobs that they are giving to women for example, therefore resulting in lower paid jobs. The second reason according to Mills (2006) is by putting Canadians in less desirable jobs. This causes a disadvantage for them and it creates segregation. Therefore by limiting their jobs to less desirable jobs they are being treated with inequality and suffer from segregation. The employment rates and unemployment rates suggest that Aboriginals in Canada are way more disadvantage and therefore signifying that Canada is not as multicultural as we believe it to be.

In conclusion, it is apparent that Aboriginals are facing sociologically related problems living in Canada. Canada portrays itself as a multicultural society and even though the acceptance of immigrants has progressed a high amount in the years, what is ignored is the aboriginal societies that first settled in Canada. Being the first nations people of Canada the recognition they receive should be much higher. Their history should be brought into schools and the be taught to not only Aboriginals but also other Canadian students because it is an important part of Canadian history.

The language should not have been eliminated in the past and just like other cultures they should have received the same treatment being allowed to own their own land, and study their culture. If Aboriginal history was to be taught would create a better sense of acceptance for Aboriginal people and it would help them not forget their culture and their connection to the land. Not only should the history of Aboriginals be taught more, but their acceptance in the work place should be improved.

The amount of jobs offered should be higher and the wages they receive should reflect the wages of the rest of Canadians. This would cause Canada to progress into the multicultural society they strive to be. This would cause other cultures to feel more of an acceptance and statistic wise Canada would progress as well. Based on the history of Aboriginals, their culture, the mainstream school system and employment rates; aboriginals are suffering from inequality and it does impact Canada as a society. References Frideres, James S. 2000.

Aboriginal Tenure in the Constitution of Canada. Canadian Ethnic Studies. 32. 2:140. Frideres, James S. 2008. Aboriginal Identity in the Canadian Context. The Canadian Journal of Narrative Studies. 28. 2:313-342 Maxim P, White P, Beavon D, Whitehead P. 2001. Dispersion and polarization of income among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology. 38. 4:465-476. Mills, Suzanne E. 2006. Segregation of Women and Aboriginal People Within Canada’s Forest Sector by Industry and Occupation.

The Canadian Journal of Narrative Studies. 26. 1:147-171. Schissel B, Wotherspoon T, Friesen J. 2002. The legacy of school for Aboriginal people: education, oppression, and emancipation. Canadian Ethnic Studies. 34. 2:129-131 Vivian J. 2006. With Good Intentions: Euro-Canadian and Aboriginal Relations in Colonial Canada. Canadian Ethnic Studies. 38. 2:181-183 White J, Maxim P, Gyimah S. 2003. Labour Force Activity of Women in Canada: A Comparative Analysis of Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Women. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology. 40. 4:391-415.

Seminar on Peace Education A Research Paper on Racial Discrimination Racism takes many forms. In general, it is a belief that a particular race or ethnicity is inferior or superior to others. Racial discrimination involves any act where a person is treated unfairly or vilified because of their race, color, descent, national or ethnic origin. Racism may take the form of stereotyping, name calling or insults, commentary in the media, speeches at public assemblies and abuse on the internet.

It can include directly or indirectly excluding people from accessing services, employment, education or sporting activities. Racism can occur systemically, as the result of policies, conditions and practices that affect a broad group of people. For example, research shows that systemic racism can result in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students experiencing poorer outcomes in education, or job applicants without Anglo-Saxon names finding it difficult to gain job interviews. Just as other forms of discrimination may relate to a number of attributes, so does the experience of racism.

For example, racism may compound the experience of discrimination of a woman, who is treated less favorably on the basis of her religion and her gender, or an older person, who is discriminated against on the basis of their skin color and their age. In its most serious manifestation, racism is demonstrated in behaviors and activities that embody race hate, abuse and violence – particularly experienced by groups who are visibly different because of their cultural or religious dress, their skin color or their physical appearance. Ultimately, racism is a tool to gain and maintain power.

It is also inextricably linked with socio-economic factors, and frequently reflects underlying inequalities in a society. The impact or racism is becoming a major problem in our society today. Racism is a system in which a group of people practice violent acts and power over others on the foundation of their skin color and racial inheritance. Despite the consequences of who discriminates, why is it done and how it is practiced and defended, what has remained true is that racism promotes power, recognition, advantages, and opportunity for some people at the expense of others.

Most people today have experienced racism in their lives. They may experience it while they are at school, in the neighborhood, shopping in the mall, dining in a restaurant, and at work. Racism takes place anywhere and everywhere. Racism may even change the way an individual may feel about themselves and marks a deep scar in their life and may take a while to heal. There are three types of racism in the workplace. First type of racism in the workplace is racial discrimination. Second type is color discrimination, and lastly the discrimination of language.

The first type of racism in the workplace is racial discrimination. Racial discrimination is present when people are treated in a different way than others who are equally situated because they are part of a particular race and unchangeable characteristics, such as physical features, native to their race. In employment it can happen when employees are treated differently than other employees equally situated because of their interracial dating or marriages, culturally oriented expression of attitudes and beliefs, and members in racially oriented groups.

An example of race discrimination is when you didn’t get a job because you were told you wouldn’t fit in to the workplace because of your race, you’ve been rejected service or treated incorrectly in a shop or hotel, or you’ve been separated out for filthy jobs because of your race. The next type of racism in workplace is color discrimination. Color discrimination is present when individuals are treated differently than others who are equally situated because of the color of their skin. This is a separately identifiable type of discrimination that can also occur in conjunction with race discrimination.

Color discrimination can also occur in the absence of race discrimination when members of the same race are treated differently because of their skin color. An example that relates to color discrimination in the workplace is the employer does not hire anyone darker but hires light-skinned or white persons of all races. Final type of racism in workplace is . Language discrimination means treating someone in a different way only because of his or her native language or further characteristics of speech.

An example of language discrimination on the job is when an employee may be subjected to language discrimination if the workplace has speak-English-only rule, especially if her primary language is not English. An employee may also be the victim of language discrimination if she is treated less favorably than other employees because she speaks English with an accent, or if she is told she does not qualify for a position because she does not speak English well enough.

But language discrimination doesn’t only happen on the job, a person may be denied access to businesses or government services because he or she does not speak English. Racial discrimination is everywhere. In the Philippines, we can say that racial discrimination is evident, especially to those who belong to a tribal minority or ethnic groups. Even the media manifested racism, most of the advertisement that can be seen in the television could let us think about racism.

Like for example, the commercial about a whitening soap or lotion, they used image models have dark complexion skin. And in order to promote the effectiveness of their products they have to show that their models are whitened by their products. So meaning having dark skin is not good to look at. Though it is just an advertisement but still it could be another form of racial discrimination among dark people. But not only those advertisements in television, but even also some of our local “teleserye” or “telenobela”.

In that, I can say that racism is prevalent in the Philippines. Racial discrimination of Filipinos doesn’t exist only within the country but also to other countries. Why do most people from Western and other rich countries discriminate Filipinos? And why do they usually think of us as Gold diggers and stuff? How inferior it is to hear that thing if you were in our part either it is not easy to take that in your part knowing that people around the world describes Filipino as a Domestic Helpers.

In the Philippine history, Spanish colony has made a big change in the country and has made contributed positive things and negative things. The friars (Spanish friars of the past settling in the Philippines) is putting into the minds of the students and of the people that they are the Superiors since they are white and the Indios (Filipino’s of before) are brown. In that thing you can already see that there is racial discrimination. One positive thing I can give upon their (the Spanish) contribution to the Philippines is Christianity in the land.

This has been the greatest thing Filipino’s at this present is proud of and has made most us religious, God-fearing, prayerful and these things but in the other hand on the negative side, Spanish made us traumatize on the things they have done like being innocent, and idiots. They kept on punishing the people of before if they won’t pay their debts. In fact, we Filipino’s are the real owner of this land and there is no need for us to be demanded on the debts rather it’s in our whim to demand those things from them since they were foreign in the land.

But look at what they did, because of power with so much guns, good swords and equipped soldiers, they controlled the land and called the Filipino’s as squatters. Now at the present times, the effects of those traumas have occurred from the cause. We ought to be blameless if we can’t improve our economy that well, but time will come we will prosper since we have a kind of land that is much fertile and with lots of resources to cater the world. People would think we are poor, yes we are poor.

Eventually, we are poor in terms of economy that is why most of us go to other lands just to be slaves and we don’t care for as long as we can feed our families after those wages and labors being given. Though the world describes Filipina’s as DH or Domestic Helpers but in our land we call them as Heroes- heroes of our family. If you get to know our culture, I know you would understand everything why we come into certain things. For as long as we live happily, that’s all it takes. The talks of the people won’t stumble us down in fact we become stronger and stronger every day.

It doesn’t mean we hate people the way they see us, well it’s normal and it’s there will and choice to hate us. We can’t stop them from it, but all I can say is that, respect is what we ask for. Respect us as humans and as a person. We cannot really avoid such discrimination, so many laws now implemented about anti-racial discrimination but still it is always there. Racism existed throughout human history. In the Philippines, last November 2011 the senate passed a bill that would prohibit and penalize racial discrimination in the workplace, educational institutions, and services.

Senate Bill 2814 also known as the Anti-Discrimination Act of 2011, according to its sponsor Sen. Loren Legarda, would provide a lasting and effective solution to discrimination in the country. Legarda said that based on the 20th Periodic report submitted by the government to the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in 2008, the Philippines does not formally recognize the existence of racial discrimination in the country.

She quoted the country’s official stand in the report as saying “racial discrimination is alien to the prevailing mores and culture of the Filipino People” and that “racial discrimination has never officially or factually existed in the Philippines, neither in a systemic nor formal nor intermittent nor isolated manner” because “Filipinos have essentially the same racial and ethnic origins. ” Legarda said the government has to formally recognize the existence of racial discrimination in the country.

The bill stipulates penalties on acts of racial discrimination in employment, education, delivery of goods, facilities and services, accommodation, transportation, media, and in search and investigatory activities. Persons who “request, induce, encourage and authorize or assist others to commit acts of discrimination or profiling” would also be held liable. We need to acknowledge that discrimination exists before we can eliminate it for we cannot eradicate something that is considered a ghost by others.

We must strive to transform our society into an open-minded and sensitive community where no child is subjected to name-calling because of his distinct looks; we must build a nation where each individual’s beliefs and principles are respected and everyone is given equal opportunity to achieve his full potential as a person and as a Filipino citizen. Sources: http://www. senate. gov. ph/press_release/2011/0511_legarda2. asp http://www. philstar. com/Article. aspx? articleId=751133;publicationSubCategoryId=63 http://socyberty. com/ethnicity/racial-discrimination/#ixzz27l5k6GU6

Marx vs. Weber in today’s society Marx and Weber have not lived within the same social conditions we are facing today, and one question that may arise is, whose approach to social class and inequality is more compatible with today’s society? Taking a closer look at Weber’s analogy, and the concept of “life chances”, one may attempt to conclude that his approach is more flexible and fitting in today’s society. Weber offers a micro level analysis of inequality at the individual’s level, which makes his approach more versatile.

Furthermore this approach can explain the changes in regards to class determination by the market situation over time through the concept of life chances. Marx is known for putting forth a theory of classes that is centered on economical grounds where “society […] is […] splitting up into two great hostile camps […]: bourgeoisie and proletariat ” (Marx, 1978, p. 474). Belonging to either class will depend on whether you own the means of production or not; from this system stems inequality.

Weber takes a step further then Marx, and discusses other social forces then economical one, that influences social class and inequality. Weber put central importance to the concept of power, “the chance of a man or a number of men to realize their own will in a communal action even against the resistance of other who are participating in the action” (Weber, 2003, p. 95). The way power is distributed creates “three discrete but interrelated realms [classes, status groups and parties]” (Weber, 2003, p. 94).

These three dimensions in relation to power are used to explain inequality. Distribution of power among classes leads to unequal access to material resources since classes are “purely economically determined” (Weber, 2003, p. 99). As for status power, one’s “social estimation of honor” (Weber, 2003, p. 99) determines the capacity to exercise power upon those who view him or her as a superior. Class and Status power “influence one another and they influence the legal order and are in turn influence by it” (Weber, 2003, p. 99).

Parties on the other hand, focus on gaining social power that enables them to have influence on decision-making. From Marx’s Manifesto of the communist party (1978) one can concluded that the Bourgeois and the proletariat are mutually dependent on one another, but this does not make them equal in a capitalist society. Weber does agree that the capitalist society and the “economy has a particularly determinative impact on the social order and power” (Weber, 2003, p. 94). However Weber points out that individual still have agency and “a relative autonomy to culture and politics” (Weber, 2003, p. 94).

Hence, the determination of class-situation by the market situation cannot be exclusive to Marx view based on the relationship to the means of production. Weber’s puts forth a concept of “life chances” which entails that even the dominated still have a scoop of choices. In today’s society, these choices have expanded and become more equal. For example, today’s market is seen to be a knowledge-based market, where higher education and skill set is given more value. Those in lower classes also have a possibility to compete in the labour market since higher education is becoming more accessible to everyone.

Weber’s approach gains versatility by looking at the role of social action and therefore takes into consideration an individual’s “rationally motivated adjustments of interest” (Weber, 2003, p. 97). Marx’s approach focuses too much on the economical conditions, and although it may still be relevant today economy, it fails to accurately predicted other dimensions of life that have influenced social class and inequality. A shift to a knowledge base labour market and increase in higher education accessibility has improved individuals “life chance”.

However upon putting forth the argument that individuals have more choices now then before, one may questions the true intention of these choices. It could be, as Marx may suggest, an illusion of choice set forth by the dominant classes to prevent a revolution from the dominated class. Reference: Marx, K. and Friedrich E. (1978). Manifestation of the Communist Party. The Marx-Engels Reader, (2nd ed), edited by Robert C. Tuker. 473-483. Weber, M. (2003) Class, Status, Party. Social Theory: the Roots and Branches, edited by Peter Kivisto. 95-100.