I think the reason so many white people are always vehemently opposed to afiirmative action is the same reason so many of them (really, us, as I am a white female) are opposed to welfare. They tend to view both of these programs as not being beneficial to them. Most white people believe only black people (and others people of color, though I think they perceive it as a mostly black) benefit from the affirmative action policies in place. I think it is also more common to think of "affirmative action" in terms of policies that demand quotas of businesses or schools. Thus, many think affirmative action lets possibly unqualified candidates (or school applicants) attain a job by refusing other qualified (typically white and male) candidates.
Of course, all of these beliefs are wrong. Quotas are extremely uncommon in affirmative action policies, as most are like the policies Sam described in class. Such policies include "evening the playing field" with methods such as recruiting in mostly black schools, adding "points" to applications from minorities (to balance out other aspects of school applications, such as Advanced Placement scores or classes, since many minority schools do not have as many class offerings), or being required to consider or interview minority job applicants. However, many of these policies do not actually require accepting or hiring minority applicants; the focus is instead on evening the median playing field to give minorities to match the opportunities already given to members of the dominant groups.
In addition, as Sam said, white people have benefitted from modern-day affirmative action (not to mention historical affirmative action). This is of course true. White women for example, including myself and many of my friends, have benefited because there was an overall push to include women as a significant portion of the college going population. Thus colleges were encourages to accept female students, scholarships opened up for women specifically, etc. I have actually heard some male fellow students complain about this because they feel discriminated against as some scholarships are designed to only reach female students. However, I believe this is part of the overall ignorance of affirmative action. In this example, many white males—the group that most people would assume are aided the least by affirmative action—benefit indirectly. Mothers, daughters, wives, sisters, cousins, neighbors, and more are now able to make a wage comparable to a man, and thus men benefit by having these wages in the family, for example. I believe it is similar for white people; while it seems like only people of color benefit directly, white people receive some benefits too.

I knew from the moment that I opened my tin foil packet that Sam was going to talk about chocolate, slavery, and Third World economic conditions as a whole, especially how we as First World consumers have trapped many in a continuing cycle of poverty, and thus slavery. And my reaction was, "Oh, no, Sam…" out of dread. Because I did not want to face the reality I already knew was true.
So I ate that first piece of chocolate with that dread and listened to his lecture. The video was terrible, but what was worst was one of the boys' comments about what he would say to those eating the chocolate produced by slaves. It was disturbing because these slaves are often thought of as trapped and unaware, and we do have campaigns to free them. But campaigns to actually stop the demand are nearly non-existent. Free Trade has grown in popularity and scope over the years, which is excellent. But I would argue that Free Trade and similar products are still seen as being produced for "hippies." Many people believe that they cannot afford these slave free, pesticide free alternatives, yet many are extremely willing to raise money to free slaves in these countries. Perhaps this is because of the human aspect of the story. When we are told stories about slaves or shown pictures of sweatshops or farms, our heart goes out to those working hard, suffering, and not being compensated. But many of these videos stop at the suffering and do not continue to describe why slavery continues. Many of them will say slaves are used for cheap labor but do not specifically point the finger at us, the consumers.
So Sam finished and asked us to eat the second piece of chocolate if we knew we would, at some point, eat chocolate produced by slavery. He told us to eat the chocolate if we knew we wouldn't up all chocolate (besides Fair Trade) for the rest of our lives. So I ate the chocolate because I knew I would be lying to myself otherwise.
I didn't feel the same dread or hopelessness I thought I would at the beginning of the lecture. Rather, I felt more aware of my actions. I did not enslave millions of people by eating a single piece of chocolate, and I don't think Sam's point was to make us feel guilty about consumption. I think we were meant to be more aware. While no single one of us is guilty for the poor treatment of millions of others, our collective ignorance is what keeps slaves in shackles. Even when we are not ignorant—such as when we donate money—it is usually done to take care of our guilt.

I think some people would respond to this question by saying they would not hire illegal immigrants if they were the head of a large corporation or farm. But I think that it is unrealistic to not consider the positive aspects of hiring illegal immigrants as a large company. Sam and the videos we watched in class touched on many of these benefits. For example, illegal immigrants are of course cheaper labor than Americans for companies. Americans have an imposed minimum wage as well as health benefits, workers' compensation, and possibly even severance packages, among other costs for their employers. Illegal immigrants, of course, do not have these costs tied to them. They can be hired for a lower wage. They might also be willing to be hired "under the table." This would mean that employers would not be paying taxes or benefits or severance for them, and workers would also not paying taxes through paychecks.
However, as some of the videos shown in class said, there are other benefits to illegal immigrants as workers. If I were potentially an employer at a large agricultural firm, I would consider hiring Americans to work for me. However, it appears that Americans from whom illegal immigrants are "stealing jobs" simply do not want and will not do the same kind of hard, laborious work that illegal immigrants are willing to do. I think as an employer, I would recognize the reasons why the illegal immigrants would be there to work for my company or farm. Many of these immigrants would have traveled to the United States to work in order to send money back to their families. As Sam suggested, this kind of motivation could make them harder, better, and quicker workers than many Americans who are not as desperate or destitute. I do think I would want to give Americans a chance to work for me, since they might very well be my own market, and if they have a job, they can obviously buy more of my goods. Yet, I still think I would find the illegal immigrants to be better workers.
Legally, I also do not think that companies' hiring policies, especially in agriculture, is harshly enforced. I think that, as an employer, it would be relatively easy to find and hire illegally immigrants every season. I also think that since so many other employers would be doing the same, I would almost be forced into doing so because I could not be entirely competitive. With much lower labor costs, I would be able to either invest in better capital equipment, such as more productive tractors, or I would be able to lower my prices to expand my crops' markets.

I'm glad this was posted as a video because no one wanted to answer the question in class—myself included. I do not think that the lack of responses means apathy in relation to this issue; rather, I think the issue creates extreme discomfort for white people in the United States. I am a white female who feels discomfort and worry about the declining percentage of the population being white.

The reasons I feel worried are not because I fear for my own well-being or the well-being of my people, AKA whites. Instead I fear that white control will continue to be as strong as ever. Networks consisting mostly of white men—politics, corporations, et cetera—may tighten even further out of fear of colored people becoming more dominant in these aspects of life.

I know that some whites feel worried that a growing body of colored people may lead to an American government dominated by these colored people, rather than mostly white people. Many fear that such a government will "give us what we deserve" for the mistreatment of colored peoples by white people. I think this is interested because of the white guilt that many white people have, as well as an unawareness of non-whites. As Sam said in one class, most black males blame themselves—not whites, not anyone else—for their mistakes. I wonder if this inability to view blacks and other non-white groups as not blaming us—white people—for the wrongs in their lives are further keeping us in the stage of white guilt. Until we get past white guilt, we cannot view a non white majority nation as a positive (or neutral thing).

Things might change in such a society, but I don't think they will drastically occur. A non white majority nation just means that white people are not above fifty percent of the population anymore. This does not mean that a single minority group will dominate. Rather, the populations of blacks, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, and others might increase, leaving us in a country with no "majority" nation but a nation in which whites continue to have the largest racial group. We might see Spanish spreading throughout schools, the government, and our every day life, rather than just in local grocers' markets (which is where I encounter Spanish the most frequently in my home town). We might have a growing prevalence of non-white actors in movies and television, which is at current moment a rarity, once non-white directors and movie executives become powerful. I think a non-white majority nation could be an improvement in some ways, but I fear that it will be much the same as ever.

I'm always amazed when women in this country proclaim to not be feminists or to hate feminism and its supporters. As a woman, how can one not be at least somewhat aware of the inequalities that we face as well as the stands against them? Many of the people in the video were uncomfortable with the question but admitted that, when pushed to answers, thought feminism was about hating men and caring only about women. I expect this ignorance more so from men because, especially for straight white men, who have not necessarily been the subordinate, rather than dominant group, throughout their lives.
But women have to face enormous hypocrisy and double standards in America since they are born. We are told that we must look beautiful but not too beautiful (because then we will be stupid or a bitch), that we have to score just as well as boys on science and math exams even though we are constantly told that we are biologically inferior in these subjects, and we are pushed to go to college and get degrees t o make ourselves competitive with men—as men with only a high school diploma can often still be paid more than a woman with a four year degree—and no one questions why these things are. Rather, we are just taught to work within the system, to "prove ourselves" and our gender, rather than questioning why we would have to prove ourselves in comparison to men at all.
I can understand the negative connotation of the word "feminist," but I'm amazed by how wide-spread this belief of feminism was by those in the video. Bra burning "extremists" do come to mind for me, but as a woman, I do not understand how other women can consider these actions for equality to be so extreme. It also amazes me that many of those interviewed think feminists hate men. I consider myself a feminist because of the values supported by feminism (I would find it difficult to find someone who is not a feminist in this case), and many of my friends are men. Some of them would identify as feminist as well, and I have no hate towards any of them because they happen to be men. Feminism supports all genders' rights, including men, who often face societal pressure similar to the pressure women face (such as the fear of not being "manly" enough). Feminism also has a strong connection with the lesbian/gay/transgender/bisexual community, which obviously has a male presence.
In short, I wish women—including intelligent, driven women in college like those in the video—would learn that "feminism" is not a term to be feared but rather an ally if they have want to have equal pay and equal opportunities with men.

The stories of people who live in this condition always amaze me. These twins are absolutely never alone, can never do a single thing without another person watching them or listening. Yet they still have completely separate thoughts, dreams, and feelings. To me, that would be terrifying and restricting, yet the twins even say that appreciate never being alone.

Their lives are, on a daily basis, a struggle between free will and determinism. They have to talk to the same people, watch the same movies, and take the same classes. But there are such large implications for their lives that are completely out of their control. Perhaps they will only be hired as one person, thus they will only make a single salary. Perhaps they will both want to marry and have a family, but that seems like a nearly impossible scenario (how can they have partners with the other constantly attached?).

It's interesting that they've come to terms with some of this. They're different people but within their circumstances, they are making individual choices. Which I suppose is what all of us are doing-- making choices within our given circumstances (gender, race, sexual orientation, family, etc.). Theirs is an extreme case, but only because it is so unusual.

I don't really understand this question. I think it assumes that a girl who is wearing a short skirt, or a low-cut top, or high heels is dressing like a "slut" but wants to be treated like a girl who isn't (i.e. one who is to be respected). To me, this doesn't make sense, because it shouldn't matter what the girl is wearing. A person deserves to be treated with dignity and respect no matter what their clothing choice.

To me this kind of thinking, that a woman dressed a "certain way" should be treated differently than a woman say just wearing jeans and a t-shirt leads to the kind of thinking that says rape victims would not have been victimized if they hadn't dressed in a way that "asked for it." That kind of thinking is just absurd (considering older women obviously not dressing "slutty" aren't "asking for it").

Women dress some ways for very different and varied reasons. Many women just dress in what is considered a "slutty" way to feel confident about themselves and their bodies as well as to impress and fit in with their other girl friends. Some of it has to do with what girls think a guy wants, but sometimes it has nothing to do with pleasing a guy and meeting his standards.

As a woman, we can definitely be contradictory at times (so can men). But I don't think it is contradictory to want to dress to show more skin and exude more confidence and ask for respect at the same time. To me that is a sign that a woman aware of her sexuality and her sexual appeal is a woman who cannot be respected because she's a "slut," which is absurd. It's one thing if a girl isn't acting classy (i.e. falling down drunk, etc), but clothes have nothing to do with actions.

The best ways the US can aid foreign countries are, unfortunately, the type of things that will probably never occur. The US does budget for aiding other countries, but this is not because it wants to "help." As a country worried about its own economic progress, the national and international-scale aid we give to foreign countries is made mostly for our own benefit. Many people will complain that we spend "too much" on aid for developing nations, while in reality the percentage we spend is far less than other industrialized countries (and often directly benefits American companies, as Sam mentioned in class).

To me, the best aid is multifaceted. First, large organizations such as the World Bank and IMF cannot be used to benefit powerful countries. Currently, they are trapped into doing so by the policies promoted by these countries. Interest rates, loans, and debts are a way of controlling developing countries' economies, as there are no other organizations large enough to tackle this problem.

While it will never happen, some of the best aid would be a fair international market and reduction of foreign corporations in developing countries. The US, due to its wealth, has the ability to subsidize its own markets and thus make artificially cheap products, especially in agriculture. US corporations also own large portions of land in developing countries, leading to rapid exploitation of resources. Industrialized countries also take from the profit of natural resources in developing countries by taking raw products and "adding value" by making a "final product."

Of course, changing all of these structural problems will be nearly impossible. For aid that the average American can help with, I think microcredit is one of the strongest movements. Rather than dumping American products and cash onto the countries, American citizens can easily finance small loans for entrepreneurs and families in developing nations through private organizations like Kiva. The locals who want these loans know better than us what their communities need. The problem with most aid on the individual and NGO level is that we often assume we know what communities in developing countries need (food, medications, etc) when in reality we may not understand what the greatest priorities are.

Many people will mention service learning, such as our Haiti project, as a large potential to help struggling nations. While I think service has this possibility, this isn't always true. The largest weakness of service is not listening to the needs of the community being "served." It can be difficult to see past our desire to "do good," but to truly aid these countries, we need to listen to what they need, not what we think they need.

I couldn't be more excited about the Haiti project. Working in developing countries with community members and business owners is my passion. Currently I do similar work with Global Law Brigades and Global Business Brigades, although micro-finance is becoming an area of interest for me. Sam emphasized in almost every video that these entrepreneurs do not want hand-outs for machines, cloth, etc. They want to be empowered, through reasonable financing, to buy the necessary goods to improve their businesses or to reach that next level. This is what really has me interested because I don't think many people realize both the desire to secure loans, not just free cash, or the difficulty that accompanies this.

I really liked projects that seemed to have a market in the US, such as the bags being made by Anaes. I think it'd be awesome to connect students here with these businesses in Haiti, since popular opinion seems to view Haiti as a tragedy with no hope for the future (without developed countries dumping goods and money into the Haiti).

The articles about the peanut butter were very insightful. There are many well-meaning groups and individuals in the US who raise the funds to send clothing, food, medicines, and more to these countries, completely unaware of the impacts they are having on the locals. Sometimes money doesn't get to the people they mean to help (as it instead remains in the hands of the powerful few), and sometimes these donations destroy businesses in the same way the US's foreign trade policies have destroyed the countries' local businesses.

That said, those businesses who sold food were of interest to me, especially the woman selling the peanuts. The snack is probably delicious, and it is extremely nutritious, so I thought it was a very worthwhile investment, since it has a positive health impact for the community (depending on what other sources of food the locals have). The difficulty was trying to be creative with solutions for her business, such as packaging. Trying to find solutions that meet many criteria-- availability for the business owner, affordability, its environmental impact (one reason I wasn't crazy about her plastic cups)-- is going to be the most challenging part of this assignment. But I can't wait!

The largest problem I see with welfare is, as Sam said, our inability to see what welfare actually is. Your college loans are WELFARE. The medications your grandparents get are usually funded by WELFARE. Big Ag, which keeps your food artificially cheap is WELFARE. Unemployment is WELFARE (and if your parents or the parents or someone you know weren't laid off during the recession, you're lucky and probably unusual). Many people will scream for the end of welfare because "lazy" or "immoral" people are "taking our money," when in reality, almost every single person in this country benefits from welfare programs. Additionally, most people on welfare are on it for short periods of time (say 6 months) because it is usually due to a lapse in employment.

For those people who are on welfare not looking for another way of providing for their family-- which is the minority-- I think we need to consider whether welfare is the "root" issue or if there are larger problems. Let's say a mother is on welfare but has a job. She can take a second job (they both pay minimum wage), but if she does, she'll lose the food stamps she gets (which currently feed her and her two kids). Should she get a job and stop being "lazy"-- but then not be able to feed her family? There is a problem then not with welfare but how to access a decent living wage, even when working for over 40 hours a week.

Many people will complain that people who receive food stamps or welfare do not eat healthily, etc. We should consider, instead of why "those people" aren't doing things right, how our "poor areas" are set up. Is there even transportation to a decent grocery store? Is produce even affordable when you have very little and have children?

I don't believe welfare necessarily discourages people to provide for themselves. I think the situations that make "welfare" (as it is typically thought of) necessary discourage this. When there are no decent jobs within a reasonable distance from your home (and thus you spend a lot on transportation), when you eat unhealthily because of the lack of options and thus suffer from expensive preventable health issues, etc. are situational factors often present in places where the "welfare" we think of is high. Perhaps instead of looking at welfare as a cause of "laziness" we should see it as a symptom of a society and economy that isn't working for its people.

Of course there are lazy people who "abuse the system." But these stories stick out because they make us angry; they're not statistically significant. Should we eliminate programs that aid millions of children, and the disabled, the middle class (which would fall terribly without temporary aid) because of a small minority?