Affirmative action should no longer be implemented since it does not accomplish the redistributive justice necessary to eliminate the structural advantages certain racial or cultural groups hold over others. Though while it aims to correct the social power imbalance prevalent in modern society, it fails to account for the historic wrong-doings specific groups have perpetrated in the past that now benefit from affirmative action. It might not be possible to consider the train of logic concerning the causality of what group had wronged who at what point in time and for what reason. To do so would be to rely on faulty and unreliable information dependent upon which group dispenses it. Social and talent lotteries exist which create the success and wealth disparities that are observed today. Some individuals are fortunate enough to be born in a social caste or class that has easy access to resources that would allow for what would be considered a successful life. Others have been born with traits that are unique to that individual that allows them to excel in the areas of life that are necessary to achieve success. The person in question might simply be more charismatic, intelligent, creative, stronger, or adept at learning material that society considers essential. All of the aforementioned characteristics are just the few of many that are useful in achieving success in life. If the two lotteries were to be implemented in a metaphorical example, it would be a race track: resulting well in the social lottery puts people closer to the finishing line than the less fortunate and those who have resulted well in the talent lottery are faster runners. The finishing line in this case can be thought of as achieving the ideal dream-life in which all of the possible wants an individual can practically desire are fulfilled. Affirmative action attempts to eliminate the social lottery yet does not take into account historic factors that date back past recent events that should be considered when examining one’s starting place on the race track.
As I have stated before, the absolute fairest way in which to allocate resources and entitlements in society to ensure total economic and social equality would be to look behind the construct known as the Veil of Ignorance and then allocate resources and entitlements accordingly. To look behind such a construct would produce a social system in which the worst-off in terms of wealth would benefit from those who are able to increase their own; wealth inequalities would still exists so as long as those who live below the mean of the wealth line benefit from the inequalities. Society will still have it’s geniuses such as Bill Gates, but if they benefit from their success, the poorest of society should be aided and be bought up to the mean level where everyone else is.

Definitely not positively. The general sentiment from outsiders will probably resemble some form sympathy or disgust; not any feeling that is relatable to our more desirable qualities. Based on the student body’s reaction to an administrative decision concerning the future employment of a famous athletic local figure, who is widely regarded to be the “face of the school,” outsiders are not likely to view us as having any self-control, dignity, or class. That, in turn does not surprise me. I grew up outside of the school’s sports heavy culture which received as much attention and devotion as an established religion, thanks to the influence of the aforementioned public figure. It is reasonable that my perception of ourselves (PSUer’s) is similar to that of an outsider now just being made aware of current events at the school. It would seem that the student body (the life-blood of the school) puts a heavy focus on partying and the leisurely or festive aspects of college-so much so that they rate themselves the #1 party school on a national scale. It is evident that they make it a point to maintain this status-excessive alcohol consumption is practically a requirement before engaging in additional leisurely activities. The heavy emphasis on the athletic programs further exacerbates the rambunctious nature of the students. This relationship is so cemented, that whenever there is an athletic event of enough scale and magnitude of notoriety, students are certain to increase their consumption of libations as well as further liberate the restraints on their otherwise civil behavior. Apparently, they make it a point to attend the sporting events that are played by people they do not even know personally yet cheer for with all their heart and, on occasion, do so without the protection of warm garments in the colder seasons. It is through this repeated drilling of first and secondhand practices of this culture that make the removal of the athletic figure all the more painful for the resident student population. It seems that those who embrace the athletic culture here as a religion have had their lives shaken upon the announcement that the athletic coach was relieved of his duties. Outsiders have made the comparison of the hierarchal cover-up to protect the sacredness of the school’s brand name to recent events regarding the Roman Catholic Church and pedophilia. It is an observation that I acknowledge to be stunningly accurate and clever. Of course the bulk of students, in all their self-indulged perception, will see this as an affront and will probably not understand the analogy (perhaps because they do not want to.) Upon seeing the revolting hypocrisy of the administrators in our institution, outsiders will suspect that such undesirable characteristic would trickle down to the student body and will thus view us as suspect.

It seems to be the case that people overlook the benefits of immigration into the United States, or for any country for that matter. Numerous reasons and myths exist to favor opposing the flow of immigrants into one’s native country. For example, it thought that immigrant workers will take away available job openings away from the natives. This exists on a highly technical, professional level as well as a base, manual labor level. Though it is true that these areas of work are dominated by immigrant workers, the arrangement works as an advantage for the natives. Who would be willing to endure through the harsh conditions of manual labor and have the work ethic to work in physically demanding settings on a consistent basis(that pay relatively well)? Not the natives, who apparently are unsuited for the aforementioned work environment. Business owners have lost large amounts of resources because of more stringent immigration policies. It is overall beneficial for the economy to allow a certain type of employee (in this case, the hardworking immigrants) to be available in the labor market. As for the highly skilled jobs, the immigrants who out-occupy the natives are also simply better suited for that area of labor. In there home countries, they are instilled with the mathematic and scientific discipline that make them more viable candidates than their native counterparts. There is no restraint in the native population that prevents them from pursuing the same rigorous training as the immigrant worker. All of the resources for developing this professional prowess are present and attainable, but the natives tend to opt for less demanding fields, or at least fields that do not help drive technological growth which drastically changes society’s progression. Another less visible myth is that immigrants are dangerous and are likely to participate in criminal behavior. Ironically, in the U.S., whenever immigration rates are up, crime rates decrease on a fairly consistent basis. Logically, we must consider the reason why immigrants travel here to begin with; to raise money that they would otherwise be unable to generate in their home country. Since they are under constant scrutiny for simply being foreign, it would be detrimental for their goal if they were to be arrested for engaging in illegal activity. Knowing this, they might opt to abide by the local laws and regulations to remain productive in their new country. There is also an argument that immigrants tend to free-ride or take advantage of the social services available for natives, such as school and medical centers. Though they clearly exhibit this, we must consider the actual net costs or benefits of them being employed in another country. It is widely overlooked that they still give back to the local, state, and federal level in the form of taxes on their wages in addition to filling the undesirable employment vacancies that the natives are unwilling to perform.

The text book definition of racism is a minority group being suppressed or discriminated against a majority group. It is implied that the discrimination or suppression being performed is based on the belief of that the oppressed is a race is intrinsically inferior to the majority race. What makes a race the majority or minority usually depends on who constitutes what amount, either as the majority or the minority, in a given country. It could also be the case that smaller scope communities such as states, provinces, and municipalities have their own unique situations of racism. In the United States, if a black person is discriminated against by a white individual, it is considered racism. However, if a white person is discriminated against a black individual, it not considered racism, but still is an act of discrimination. The same instance applies to all other minority groups or nonwhites.

The text book definition of racism is a minority group being suppressed or discriminated against a majority group. It is implied that the discrimination or suppression being performed is based on the belief of that the oppressed is a race is intrinsically inferior to the majority race. What makes a race the majority or minority usually depends on who constitutes what amount, either as the majority or the minority, in a given country. It could also be the case that smaller scope communities such as states, provinces, and municipalities have their own unique situations of racism. In the United States, if a black person is discriminated against by a white individual, it is considered racism. However, if a white person is discriminated against a black individual, it not considered racism, but still is an act of discrimination. The same instance applies to all other minority groups or nonwhites.
Racism could also be generally thought of as discriminating on the basis of their race. This does not necessarily have to have the same malicious connotation as the previously mentioned definition of racism. For example, if someone needs to describe to someone else that they are looking for somebody, it might be expedient to use race as an identifying characteristic to help hasten the search. In this scenario, race is not used to undermine anybody. If it is inherent in people’s way of thinking to describe someone and race comes into mind to help in identifying the person, than it could be the case that everyone is races to a certain degree or to some extent. This does not necessarily mean that they are automatically bigoted or prejudiced against others because of their race, but they use race as a trait when considering the characteristics that make a person. This is just as reasonable as using hair or eye color to pick out or identify a person. The reasoning behind this all refers to our ability as human beings to learn or comprehend things. For example, when asked which car is your in the parking lot, you might refer to it as the “color model x.” Color is used as an identifying detail in this case and does not carry any prejudicial meaning. It is when we associate certain behaviors (usually negative) along with these colors do we start lapsing into being discriminatory or even the first definition of being racist listed above. It might not necessarily be wrong to refer to somebody by the color of their skin for the sake of identification purposes so as long as it is in a non-offensive context. Thus in this sense, it would be fair to call a person racist simply because of the traits that they asses to identify others.

That depends. There a number of factors and elements that shape the circumstances in which the individual chooses to hang out with the group of people who are of a race different from them. It might be the case that he or she hangs out with this particular group of people simply because he or she lives in an area that is inhabited by a large number of people of certain races, which happens to be the races of the individual’s affiliates. In such a scenario, he or she is structurally checkmated into hanging out with people of these races because of the aforementioned situation.
However, the underlying implication of this question seems to be that the individual lives in a community with a reasonably diverse population in terms of race. It also seems to be an assumption that members of the races tend to gravitate around one another forming cliques. We suppose then that the individual is of a different race than that of his affiliates or the clique that he prefers companionship with. Does this mean that he or she chooses to hang out with them purely on the basis of race? This cannot be so. There could be a wealth of hypothetical reasons of why he or she is choosing to associate themselves with the group in question. There are number of characteristics at play that influence the individuals decision to fulfill their need for companionship. He or she could be of the same religion as this group of people and might share some values and morals that he or she would not identify with in other groups in the community. The list of hypothetical interests aside from race they could share can go on indefinitely.
There is of course the likelihood that the individual spends time with this group because of race alone. For some, races might correspond with certain ideas or traits that are deemed desirable or undesirable. It could be the case that the individual attributes traits or characteristics of the race in question that he or she sees as desirable and accordingly affiliates with that race in admiration of exercising these qualities and/or the hopes of adapting these qualities. In such a case, then the individual can be said to be a poser; being something they are not. Though they are free to choose who they can hang out with, it is a shame to see that they do not take pride in the race that they are born from and instead identify with a different one. It is as if they are acknowledging that their own race is intrinsically inferior compared to the one they prefer. To a degree, we are all obligated to owe credit to the race (or races) that we are born from since it is a unique, constant variable that we cannot change in ourselves (physically speaking.) It is a matter with being content with what was given to not through your own choice and making the most of it.

Adding racial identifiers for no apparent reason seems to be indicative of people attempting to add a specific context to a certain situation. It seems to be the case that when people add a racial signifier unnecessarily, they mean to convey additional details to their listener or listeners. For example, when people say that “my race’ X’ boss, told me to work overtime for no reason, I became upset,” they might mean to hint to their audience the traits associated with race X in question. Different races are stigmatized with a variety of stereotypes and unfounded attributes. Some can be positive such as intelligent, athletic, rich, or hard-working. Unfortunately, when an individual mentions race X as an identifier needlessly, not only are we presented with a mental image of the individual, but also the traits and behaviours attributed to them. The majority of the time, people will bring up racial as a signifier under negative connotations. Typically the race mentioned will be thought of in an unflattering light; violent, stupid, bigoted, frugal, lazy, dishonest, and disgusting are a few of the numerous traits that are often attached to a racial identity. Even if people do not do it intentionally, they seem to be subconsciously revealing that race is a vital variable in determining the qualities and behavior of a person. Blurting the race of an individual can even be condescending under in certain context, as if to refer to the notion that the individual being spoken of has an inherent disadvantage in the situation being stated. For example, “My ‘race X’ classmate was able to pass it, so I know I definitely could.” Racial identifiers ought to be used in instances when pinpointing the profile of an individual is necessary. Cases such as police reports come to mind. To better allow people to identify a suspect or person of interest, it not uncommon to use their race as a key detail. To use their race as a detail is expedient, and sometimes absolutely necessary in finding that individual. The same can be said in less grave situations, such as when directing friends or acquaintances to find other people. Whether or not race can in fact be used to discern the qualities or behaviour of a person remains up to debate. It might be the case that when presented with a given situation, people are likely to react in a specific manner according to their race. Of course, this is just a hypothetical speculation that would most realistically be unlikely, especially considering an international perspective than relegating predictions to our current country of residence. Perhaps what determines what best can infer about an person’s character is where they come from, which is not necessarily dependent on race. More active parameters, such as culture and actual life experience are more likely to determine an individual’s character rather than race alone.

No. Compared to racial inequality, gay inequality is not a significant issue. Only very recently in the scope of recorded human history have we began to recognize that action must be taken to dissolve the barriers of racial inequality that persist in numerous areas of life. It is as if in only the last twenty percent of human existence have we recognized that it is wrong to deny individuals from resources and services on the basis of race and that a system of policies must be put into place to help address this failure in equity and correct past injustices based on ethnocentrism. The bulk of the policy-making bodies of civilization seem to focus their attention on more evident issues such as race which can be perceived directly and readily by a casual observer and requires no further knowledge about the preferences or behaviour of the observed in question. Race is more of a passive trait than sexual orientation since it is relatively more of a matter of “being” than actually having to take action. The most likely chain of events that will occur in terms of eliminating inequalities would be the dissolving of racial inequalities and then orientation inequalities. Society has demonstrated its adverseness to minority racial groups more so than those with widely undesirable sexual preferences (there have never been many cases about shops or institutions that post signs which say “no queers.”) Race can refer to a larger populations of people as well, while sexual orientation can only be regarded as small subgroups of those races (I have yet to learn about a race in which the majority of its individuals are homosexual.) The issue of racial inequality has been flagged in the public’s face very noticeably, especially in the passed century int the United States of America. Racial tension, prejudice, and general injustice has existed for almost as long as Mankind’s recorded existence, while sexual preference has been barely mentioned. The characteristic of race is also tied to many aspects of people’s lives that affect their welfare such as how much income they make or how they are treated by the law enforcement authorities. There are not many cases in which being a homosexual or not has influenced the outcome of any of these parameters. Racism is an institutionalized equity problem that civilization barely has taken any substantial progress in correcting (which is no surprise because of our categorical thought process as human beings.) We are still in the developmental stages of finding a policy that eliminates all of the inequalities that might contribute to individuals’ socioeconomic disparity. Then we have to try to enact such policies and then asses whether or not they were effective. We continue with this process of trial and error until all members of organized society can honestly say that a racial equilibrium has in fact been established. Only after contending with the race issue can we move onto addressing the issue of sexual orientation.

It is hopeful to see that people in Haiti are taking initiative to develop a decent economy. Yvrose’s footwear, Manouchka’s women’s accessories, and Clorene Blaise’s apparel business are welcome efforts in creating an active marketplace in Haiti’s impoverished economic climate. The opportunity costs of working in Haiti are high and the residents there pay dearly for it-jobs certainly allow for a chance of earning decent living and can prevent people from having to resort to a life of crime or having to suffer from hunger or disease. It also makes sense that these folks are investing and running business that produce common-need items such as shoes and clothing. Yvrose’s shoe business offer something people could use to more easily perform manual labor. It also helps that she enjoys what she does- it is best if the proprietor is also emotionally invested in the work that they do. It is an issue, however, that she has to use out of date machinery to create her goods. Hopefully, through gaining substantial profit and reinvesting her money, she will be able to upgrade her assets and be even more productive. The same case goes with Manouchka who has a labor force of now two employees; she loves her work. If consumers take a liking to her product, she could gain a sizable profit and be able to hire more employees. More employees, more revenue, more output, more employees again. A positive spiral of consumer can help greatly in the growth of their business as well as encourage other potential entrepreneurs to see that there is success to be had in owning a business. Assuming that these individuals establish a bustling fashion industry, agglomerativeindustries are sure to follow; laundry mats, dry cleaners, and maybe even tailors. All they need is spark of demand- good consumer demand is a necessity for helping insure that cash flows into their businesses. For their items to sell well, they need to be at affordable prices. It would be a mistake to start off with give aways- people will get used to an anchored price for nothing. But before people actually begin making purchases, they need to know about these goods in the first place. A good investment in advertisement can help stir up some interest in the would-be consumers and increase demand. It takes money to set up the adverts-it takes money to make money. The initial flows of profit should be invested into capital that would make their business more productive. Then perhaps they could expand their inventories to include more goods for different functionalities; such as accessories or clothing that could help people be more productive at their jobs (that mostly entail manual labor because of Haiti’s status as a developing country.) More productive people means more output, more income, better food, and then even more productive people. They are moved from a vicious cycle to a virtuous cycle.

As discussed in class, what shapes the individual and his or her circumstance is both free will and determinism. Off course, there are situations in which one might seem evident or take precedence over the other. To determine if one does in fact play more of a role than the other, we would need to examine each and every individual life and history on the face of the planet and some how calculate how they got to the point they are in now through a percentage of either through choice (free will) or forces and factors beyond their control (determinism.) Such a feat would be, in reality, immensely difficult to do. But as though experiment, considering how crucial and ubiquitous these concepts are, it could be said, that on the whole, an individual facing their present circumstance has to owe 50% to free will and 50% to determinism.

However, when taking into consideration the mechanics with which we are bought into this world, we do not exert any real degree of control. We are bought into this world not of our own free will. It is extremely easier to select when we die than when we are born. The environments that we find ourselves surrounded by and the biological makeup that gives our physical traits (and probably some mental ones) are not of our choosing. As small infants or little children, we do not possess the faculties to readily make major and drastic decisions such as choosing to move away from home or questioning the instructions or information dispensed by adults, all of which are accepted as a given. It is only through the acquisition of experience and knowledge can we then be capable of the required critical thinking to know what is best for ourselves and act accordingly-yet even the very experience and knowledge which we draw from to come our decisions are subject to given circumstances external of us, which further supports determinism as the constructing agent.

When examining the world through a socioeconomic lens, we find that the majority of the world is plunged into poverty, while a small minority enjoys a life of affluence. Consider the poor man sleeping on the bench at the park or other public domain in the middle of the night. Did he choose to sleep there? Assuming that we all make rational choices that make us better off, surely this could not have been an act of free will; forces and factors beyond his control have led him into his current situation. Much of the world is enveloped in this vicious cycle of poverty. Individuals are born into what are relatively the same chances, but do to various structural limitations (lack of networking, poor diet, negative reinforcement by an assortment of institutions) they simply cannot achieve the life they hope to live no matter what degree of autonomy that they maintain.

This is not to say that they absolutely cannot ATTEMPT to do something about. Certainly, if an impoverished individual were to devote every fiber of their being into improving themselves and their productivity, then they are likely to experience a higher standard of living. It is all a matter of simply playing with the hand of cards that we were dealt.