Ethnicity and Identity: Chapter 3 Discrimination

Ethnicity and Identity:� Chapter 3�� Discrimination

1) Discrimination � the denial of opportunities and equal rights to individuals and groups because of prejudice or other arbitrary reasons

a) Some people find it difficult to see discrimination as a widespread phenomenon and say things like, �minorities drive cars, hold jobs, own homes, go to college��

b) This viewpoint fails to recognize the lingering legacy of past discrimination.� Any understanding of discrimination must include how past discrimination impacts our practices today.

c) Discrimination is� not just one overt act toward a person of a subordinate group.� It is the outcomes for these subordinate groups deeply embedded in our institutions and our practices as a society.

2) Relative Deprivation vs. Absolute Deprivation

a) Relative Deprivation is defined as the conscious experience of a negative discrepancy between legitimate expectations and present actualities� (an awareness of the difference between what you might reasonably expect in comparison to others and what is actually happening in reality)

b) Absolute Deprivation is defined as a fixed standard based on a minimum level of subsistence below which families should not be expected to exist� (the poverty line).

c) Discrimination today does not mean absolute deprivation, although it can. It usually means relative deprivation.� (examples:� being passed over for a job promotion is relative deprivation, not having a job at all is absolute deprivation/� use Dairy Queen example also)

d) People who resist the idea of discrimination existing in the U.S. are usually focusing on absolute deprivation and ignoring relative deprivation.

3) Total Discrimination�refers to the effects of two factors of discrimination working together:� current discrimination operating in the real world today and past discrimination.

a) When understanding discrimination, it is not enough to focus only what is being done to people today.� We must also consider what discrimination happened in the past and how it impacts what is happening today.

b) A person may be dealt with very fairly in the present but may still be at a disadvantage because he/she was dealt with unfairly in the past (example: access to poorer health care, inadequate counseling in school, less access to good books/computers)

c) Sometimes this has been used as an excuse by subordinate group members, and sometimes majority group members resent the concept of past discrimination related to total discrimination� this is often where these groups have trouble understanding each other�s experiences.

4) Institutional Discrimination�the denial of opportunities and equal rights to individuals and groups that result from the normal operations of society and are deeply imbedded in the institutions of our society

a) Our institutions are family, work , school, mass media, politics/government/ sports/neighborhood/peers.

b) Individual discrimination refers to overt acts of person toward another. Institutional discrimination refers to less obvious acts committed collectively against entire groups which usually occur without individual intentionality or awareness (examples, p. 93 book)

c) There are unintended consequences that result in institutional discrimination, even when people and institutions have good intentions (examples, p. 93 book)

d) Institutional discrimination can be seen in the outcomes of our institutions for subordinate groups.

--differential hiring practices/ promotion practices

--bias in lending and leasing practices

-- inadequate health care

--differential access to health care

--differential income status

�� 5) Low Wage Labor�a disproportionate share of racial and ethnic minority members are either unemployed or employed in low wage labor

�� a)�� such jobs offer little opportunity for improvement

�� b)�� such jobs do not offer protection in terms of health care

�� c)�� such jobs do not offer retirement benefits

�� d) this secondary job market has come to be called the informal economy, meaning there is transfer of money, goods, and services that are not reported to the government (cash transactions)

�� e)� the work being done in this informal economy resembles the work of traditional occupations but the workers lack the formal credentials to enter employment� in� the real economy (examples:� mechanics, electricians, yard work, unregulated child care, street vendors). This means they are not going anywhere in terms of advancement.

�� f) the vast majority of workers in the informal economy are members of subordinate groups�

�� g)� these workers have not necessarily experienced direct discrimination in the present but because of past discrimination are unable to secure traditional employment.

�� h) read p. 96 with the class�discrimination in job seeking

�� 6)�� Measuring Discrimination�table p. 98, measuring median incomes

a) In general, white men make more than other races and more than white women.

b) White women, however, make more than than Black men, Native American men, Hispanic men

c) Men make more than women, and racial and ethnic women make the least�

d) It would appear that Asian American men and women are the exception to such outcomes� and this is because they have higher degrees and more education�. When education is held constant, however, consider the results in Table 3.1 Median Income. P. 100

e) Results from p. 99

�� 7)� History/Eliminating Discrimination

a) Two main agents of social change have worked to reduce discrimination�voluntary organizations and the federal government.

b) These two are closely related over our history in that most efforts initiated by the government were first urged by associations or organizations representing subordinate groups. Rarely has the government itself taken the first step to eliminate discrimination. It has always acted in response to the voluntary organizations.

c) Voluntary organizations are such things as church groups, fraternal social groups, minor political parties, legal defense funds, militant organizations (NAACP, Women�s Movement, Organization for Social Justice).

d) The first government antidiscrimination action was from the Executive Level (presidential).� Franklin D. Roosevelt created in 1943 the Fair Employment Practices Commission.� This agency, though, had little power and could only ask for VOLUNTARY cooperation and compliance. It had limited jurisdiction.

e) The second government antidiscrimination action was from the Courts (Supreme Court).� In 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education states that �separate but equal� facilities, including education, were unconstitutional.� It was assumed this ruling would end discrimination. It did not.

f) The most important effort to eradicate discrimination was from the Legislature (Congress) . The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed and led to the establishment of the Equal� Employment Opportunities Commission. This is a broad act that basically eliminates discrimination legally.

g) Discrimination however continues to exist� informally and in various forms that circumvent the legal system.�� Examples:

--� REDLINING is a patter of discrimination against people trying to buy houses in minority and racially changing neighborhoods (regentrification: Heights in Houston).� Housing agents show fewer houses to Blacks and Latinos, steering them to minority neighborhoods and offering far less assistance in buying such houses.

-- REDLINING applies in other areas beside housing� Service deliverers refuse to go to minority areas. (Pizza Hut example where Pizza Hut refused to deliver 40 pizzas to an honors program at an all Black neighborhood).� This concept now covers everything from housing as it originally did to repair people, post office deliveries etc�

j) The Supreme Court ruled in 1988 that states and cities may ban sex discrimination by large private clubs where business lunches and other activities take place.

-- still today, there are multiple types of clubs where women cannot join, there are at least 23 golf courses where even Tiger Woods based on race cannot be a member

8)�� Affirmative Action

a) Affirmative Action is the positive effort to recruit subordinate group members for jobs, promotions, and educational opportunities.

b) It first appeared in an executive order issued by President Kennedy in 1961.� Six years later, it was amended to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender but was still vaguely defined.� Over the years its wordings and concepts have been more clearly defined.

c)� Today, Affirmative Action has become a catchall term for subordinate group preference programs and goals. Because of current and past discrimination, the subordinate group member will be provided preference� under Affirmative Action by employers when all other factors are considered equal.� It has also become a lightning rod for opposition to any programs that suggest special consideration of women and racial minorities.

d)� Affirmative Action is an important tool for reducing institutional discrimination and federal measures under this term are aimed at procedures that deny equal opportunity even if they are not intended to be overtly discriminatory� (examples p. 108, 109).

e)� How far can an employer go in encouraging women and minorities to apply for a job before it becomes unlawful discrimination against the white majority member?� (p. 109, read A.B)

f) Has affirmative action actually helped alleviate employment inequality on the basis of race and gender?

-- it does appear that affirmative action has had a significant impact when it has been applied, mainly in two areas:�� the number of minorities hired and the increase in their incomes when hired.

--it has been questioned by not only whites but affluent subordinate group members based on charges of� reverse discrimination, which is the idea that government actions under Affirmative Action programs cause better qualified people to be bypassed in favor of women and minority males.

g) Critics of Affirmative Action programs call for color blind policies that will end affirmative action and allow all people to be judged fairly.� While that sounds fair, will this then end the institutional practices that favored whites and led to affirmative action programs in the first place?

--(read 1^st paragraph, p. 113)

-- supporters of affirmative action programs contend that as long as businesses and schools rely on informal social networks, personal recommendations, and family ties, the majority group members will have a distinct advantage build on generations of being in positions of power.

h) There is no clear or commonly� agreed upon answer to any of these issues related to Affirmative Action. 21^st century,�� Consequently,� Affirmative Action has emerged as an increasingly important issue in state and national political campaigns.

Should affirmative action policies, which give preferential treatment based on minority status, be eliminated?

�Affirmative action generally means giving preferential treatment to minorities in admission to universities or employment in government & businesses. The policies were originally developed to correct decades of discrimination and to give disadvantaged minorities a boost. The diversity of our current society as opposed to that of 50 years ago seems to indicate the programs have been a success. But now, many think the policies are no longer needed and that they lead to more problems than they solve.

One notable example is a case argued a few years back in the Supreme Court concerning admissions to the University of Michigan. The school had a policy of rating potential applicants on a point system. Being a minority student earned you more than twice as many points as achieving a perfect SAT score. Three white students sued citing this as raced-based discrimination. School officials said that diversity is desirable and affirmative action is the only way to achieve true diversity. Several other cases involving affirmative action have followed similar arguments.

Yes

Affirmative action leads to reverse discrimination. Affirmative action is designed to end discrimination and unfair treatment of employees/students based on color, but it in effect does the opposite. Whites who work harder and/or are more qualified can be passed over strictly because they are white. Contrary to many stereotypes, many minorities fall into the middle or upper class, and many whites live in poverty. Unfortunately, the way things are set up now, a poverty-stricken white student who uses discipline and hard work to become the best he can be can be passed over by a rich minority student who doesn't put in much effort at all.
Affirmative action lowers standards of accountability needed to push students or employees to perform better. If a minority student can get into Harvard with a 3.2 grade-point average, why should she push herself to get a 4.0? Although some students or employees are self-motivated, most people need an extra push or incentive to do their very best. By setting lower standards for admission or hiring, we are lowering the level of accountability. We should reward hard work, discipline, and achievement; we shouldn't reward a student simply because he or she is a certain race, nor punish another student simply because he or she isn't.
Students admitted on this basis are often ill-equipped to handle the schools to which they've been admitted. Imagine a AA minor league baseball player suddenly asked to bat cleanup in the majors, or a high school science fair contestant suddenly asked to take a rocket scientist job at NASA. There's a possibility of success in these situations, but it's more likely they will be in over their heads. Schools like Harvard and Yale have high GPA and SAT requirements because it is extremely difficult to graduate from them. Thus, when they're forced to lower standards to achieve a minority quota, some students can't keep up. This isn't to say these students are less capable, but chances are that if they can't meet minimum requirements, they probably aren't ready to go there. The far-lower graduation rate of minorities is testament to the fact that they are too often going to schools that don't match their ability. The original application criteria of schools were put in for a reason. We should adhere to them.
It would help lead a truly color-blind society. When you apply for a job or fill out a college application, how often are asked about things like your hair color, eye color, or height? Unless it's for a modeling or athletic position, probably never. Why? It's because hair & eye color or height don't have any effect on your ability to do a job or succeed at a school. There's no association between hair/eye color and intelligence, discipline, ambition, character, or other essentials. Thus, it's useless to even ask about the information. Conversely, there's no association between skin color and intelligence/discipline/etc. So why do we keep drawing attention to it? Wouldn't it be great if we one day lived in a society when skin color was ignored as much as hair & eye color?
It is condescending to minorities to say they need affirmative action to succeed. When you give preferential treatment to minorities in admission or hiring practices, you're in effect saying "You're too stupid or incapable of achieving on your own, so let me help you". It is condescending and insulting to imply that minorities cannot achieve their goals through hard work and ability.
It demeans true minority achievement; i.e. success is labeled as result of affirmative action rather than hard work and ability. Ask Condi Rice or Colin Powell how they got to where they are -- hard work or affirmative action? Both were hired because they are bright, articulate, and well-suited for their positions. My guess is that both would be offended if you said they got to where they were strictly because of affirmative action. The same can be said of minority doctors, lawyers, business leaders, etc. Too often, their achievements are demeaned by people who believe preferential treatment got them to their current positions. Minorities must then work twice as hard to earn respect.

Diversity is desirable and won't always occur if left to chance. Part of the education process is learning to interact with other races and nationalities. Many students live very segregated lives up until the time they start college. Thus, opinions of other races and nationalities are based on stereotypes. Interaction allows students to learn that persons of the opposite race are people too, more or less just like themselves. The movie Remember the Titans, based on a true story, is an excellent illustration of this. In the beginning, the football players portrayed in the movie are heavily segregated and antagonistic to the other race. The coach forces them to room with a player of the opposite color as well as learn some essential facts about each other. To make a long story short, they become lifelong friends and accomplish an undefeated season. Since this diversity is desirable, we want to make sure colleges represent a wide range of backgrounds. Unfortunately, without affirmative action, this diversity is much less likely to occur. It's possible schools with become segregated like in past decades. Elite schools may become increasingly dominated by majority students. Diversity is so important; we can't leave it to chance.
Students starting at a disadvantage need a boost. Minority students, generally speaking, start out at a disadvantage in their college or job application process. They usually come from lower income families and have less opportunity to go to private schools as white students. Some inner city youths must also live their childhoods in high crime, drug-infested areas. Sincere, hard-working minority students are every bit as capable as white students, but because of these disadvantages, they may not have the same paper qualifications. Affirmative action evens the playing field a bit.
Affirmative action draws people to areas of study and work they may never consider otherwise. Whether it's men being brought into nursing, women brought into technology fields, or minorities brought into Ivy League schools, it is always desirable to bring people to areas of study or work that they may not have considered otherwise. The more we change stereotypes, the less we'll need affirmative action in the future.
Some stereotypes may never be broken without affirmative action. For decades blacks were considered less capable than whites. It took affirmative action to give blacks the opportunity to show they are every bit as capable. These and other stereotypes have started to change and will continue to change with the help of affirmative action.
Affirmative action is needed to compensate minorities for centuries of slavery or oppression. The first several centuries of the U.S.'s existence saw whites enslave and oppress blacks, Native Americans, and other minorities. Minorities gave decades of unpaid labor, had land taken from them, were subject to brutal punishments, and were denied most of the fundamental rights provided by our Constitution. Affirmative action simply provides a way to compensate the descendants for the wrongs done to their ancestors.

9)� The Glass Ceiling

a)� Not all subordinate group members fail to keep pace with Whites in terms of income.�� (Examples: In 2006 1.1 million black households and another 1.1 million Hispanic households made over $100,000).� But, prejudice and discrimination do not end with wealth.� (read B, p. 114).

b) As subordinate group members are able to compete successfully, they encounter attitudinal and organizational barriers that prevent them from reaching� their full potential.� They are confronted with a glass ceiling.� DEFINITION:� the barriers or biases that block the promotion of a qualified worker because of subordinate group membership.� (example: women advancing up the corporate ladder)

c) Specification of Glass Ceiling barriers.

1.� lack of management commitment to establishing systems, policies, and practices for achieving upward mobility

2.�� pay inequalities for work of equal or comparable value

3.� gender, race, ethnicity based stereotyping and harassment

4.� unfair recruitment practices

5.� lack of family friendly workplace policies

6.� limited opportunities for advancement to decision making positions.

d) Sociologist Max Weber over 100 years ago wrote that the �privileged class monopolizes the purchase of high priced consumer goods and wields the power to grant or withhold opportunity from others.�� In the U.S., this privileged class in control is white and male�consider the following:

1)� Over 80% of the 11, 500 people who serve as on the boards of directors of the Fortune 1000 companies are White and male.

2)� For every 82 White men on these boards,� there are 2 Latinos, 2 Asian Americans, 3 African Americans, and 11 White women.

3) There are 2, now maybe 3, women who are Executive Directors of all companies registered on the Fortune 500 list for corporations.