I think society dislikes immigrants for a few reasons. Number one, anyone who is coming into our country, taking our jobs, and moving into our neighborhoods is going to cause animosity simply because they are taking up our land and invading our work force. There aren’t even enough jobs in the United States for all Americans who are willing to work, and the fact that illegal immigrants occupy many of the blue-collar jobs angers many Americans who need work. Personally, I have no problems with immigrants who are legal, because like Sam said in class, our country was formed on the basis of immigration. Everyone who lives here (except Native Americans) immigrated into the United States at one point or another, so those who complete all legal obligations necessary to be a citizen are as much of a citizen as I am. However, immigrants who illegally come into our country and occupy our labor force can expect to be hated. Another reason I think that society dislikes immigrants is because of the extreme feelings of patriotism in our country. As much as people of other cultures are welcome, they are welcome for a visit and then we’ll gladly see them off a week or two later. Once people from other countries attempt to resettle their lives in America, they are crossing the line. I understand that America is arguably the most prosperous country in the world, however it sadly isn’t big enough for everyone that has dreams of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Personally, I feel that other countries could offer the same opportunities and promise found in the United States, but if everyone keeps coming here there are not going to be any hard workers left anywhere else. I also don’t understand why immigrants think that American is automatically going to have a job for them when they get here. The video we watched at the end of class on Thursday really moved me. To see that bus driver who is an immigrant feeding the many hungry immigrants on the streets was heartwarming, but very sad at the same time. If all of those immigrants are hungry, on the streets, with no work, then what are they doing here? They would probably have no trouble finding a job in another country, or in their country of origin. The job market in America is not prosperous in the current economy, and immigrants need to realize that there isn’t really a place for them in our society, especially if they are coming here with no qualifying skills. I think Americans would be more open to immigrants if our economy was in a better state and more Americans had stable jobs, however I still understand why people have hard feelings towards them.

I think it would be really hard to decline an offer of nepotism if one was presented to me for a few reasons. First of all, in today’s society, it is extremely hard to find an internship or job. If a family member has a prominent role in a company that could affect my standing in receiving a job offer, that is obviously something I would want to use to my advantage. I don’t think that utilizing an offer of nepotism to one’s advantage is submitting to any type of reverse racism. Nepotism has been a phenomenon affecting societies literally since the beginning of time. Naturally, a person is always going to use his or her connections to their advantage, whether that was in Europe in the 1500’s or in America today. I do not feel that affirmative action wasn’t put in place to counteract nepotism. Black and brown people still benefit from nepotism in the same way that white people do. If a young black man’s father is a partner in a prestigious law firm, he is going to offer a job to his law-school-bound son before he offers it to a random applicant. Sadly but truly, that is a very easy and smart way to get ahead in life. There are too many people competing for jobs and positions to only rely on personal skills and experience to land a dream job. The easiest and most promising way to get “in” with a company is to get recommended by someone you know who already works there, preferably a family member because that will give you the most clout. I think it would be really hard for anyone to turn down a position offered to him or her because of nepotism simply because of the insane competition in the job market. This classic line has been instilled in the brains of basically everyone I know, “it’s not about what you know, it’s about who you know.” I really feel that this statement is so true and applies to people of all genders, races and ethnicities. A white person may get offered a position in a company because of a family connection, but if for some reason he or she turns it down, that in no way means that a minority is going to get that position instead. Nepotism is not a barrier for affirmative action to cross. I personally feel that the two are unrelated, as anyone can benefit from nepotism. Affirmative action was specifically put in place to advance minorities who have been demoralized for centuries in the United States, however their plight did not arise from nepotism among white elites. I don’t think anyone should discriminate against another on the basis of gender, race or ethnicity, however it sadly happens and needs correction through affirmative action.

In this situation, I don’t think it’s fair to single out Obama as someone who is using large amounts of funds in ways that aren’t helping those in need. Whoever will run against Obama in the 2012 election will be raising the same, if not a very close, amount of money and spending it on their presidential campaign, just as people have been doing since our country’s formation. In all cases, I’m sure there have been much more beneficial ways to use presidential campaign money other than personal promotion, however money is what makes a presidential campaign possible. I don’t think Obama, or anyone else who will be participating in a campaign, is doing anything wrong by raising money for his or her campaigns. What about all of the billions of dollars spent in Hollywood making movies? Personally I think that money is being used in much less beneficial ways than money raised for a presidential campaign. What about the millions of dollars people throw away gambling in casinos? That could definitely be used to help those in Haiti or other places around the world like Japan that are suffering major hardships at this time. It isn’t Obama’s job to spend every waking second worrying about these people. He does much more for them than the majority of most citizens of the world, and he has every right to raise one, two, or three billion dollars for his presidential campaign if he pleases. If people are upset that no one is out there raising a billion dollars for Haiti, maybe they should go out and raise money instead of sitting around and complaining about what other people aren’t doing. Raising money for people in Haiti and raising money for a presidential campaign literally have nothing to do with one another. People raise money for various things all the time, does that mean it’s wrong because they aren’t raising money for people in Haiti? Many causes need funding and sadly there isn’t enough money in the world to fix all of our problems. Our Haiti entrepreneur project is an amazing thing that will hopefully change the lives of many people in Haiti, and eventually change the entire outlook of the country. There are many ways to help the people of Haiti and other underprivileged countries without direct monetary donations, and I think we are showing a great example of that. However, although money always helps, I don’t think anyone should be reprimanded or looked down upon because they don’t chose to donate their money to a specific cause. Everyone has personal endeavors that are very important to him or her, like a presidential campaign to Obama, and obviously he needs to raise a large sum of money for it to be successful in today’s society. There are many people who have ridiculously large sums of money in the bank, and if people are going to complain about lacks of donations, those are the people they should focus on.

In this situation, I don’t think it’s fair to single out Obama as someone who is using large amounts of funds in ways that aren’t helping those in need. Whoever will run against Obama in the 2012 election will be raising the same, if not a very close, amount of money and spending it on their presidential campaign, just as people have been doing since our country’s formation. In all cases, I’m sure there have been much more beneficial ways to use presidential campaign money other than personal promotion, however money is what makes a presidential campaign possible. I don’t think Obama, or anyone else who will be participating in a campaign, is doing anything wrong by raising money for his or her campaigns. What about all of the billions of dollars spent in Hollywood making movies? Personally I think that money is being used in much less beneficial ways than money raised for a presidential campaign. What about the millions of dollars people throw away gambling in casinos? That could definitely be used to help those in Haiti or other places around the world like Japan that are suffering major hardships at this time. It isn’t Obama’s job to spend every waking second worrying about these people. He does much more for them than the majority of most citizens of the world, and he has every right to raise one, two, or three billion dollars for his presidential campaign if he pleases. If people are upset that no one is out there raising a billion dollars for Haiti, maybe they should go out and raise money instead of sitting around and complaining about what other people aren’t doing. Raising money for people in Haiti and raising money for a presidential campaign literally have nothing to do with one another. People raise money for various things all the time, does that mean it’s wrong because they aren’t raising money for people in Haiti? Many causes need funding and sadly there isn’t enough money in the world to fix all of our problems. Our Haiti entrepreneur project is an amazing thing that will hopefully change the lives of many people in Haiti, and eventually change the entire outlook of the country. There are many ways to help the people of Haiti and other underprivileged countries without direct monetary donations, and I think we are showing a great example of that. However, although money always helps, I don’t think anyone should be reprimanded or looked down upon because they don’t chose to donate their money to a specific cause. Everyone has personal endeavors that are very important to him or her, like a presidential campaign to Obama, and obviously he needs to raise a large sum of money for it to be successful in today’s society. There are many people who have ridiculously large sums of money in the bank, and if people are going to complain about lacks of donations, those are the people they should focus on.

I personally don’t think any one stage is better than the other, and that being in any other stage than humanitarian is bad. Clearly these stages are put in place to show the evolvement of racial acceptance and how one moves through these stages of acceptance in his or her life. Just because you do not deem yourself a humanitarian, I don’t think that means you have any bad intentions towards people of other races (unless, of course, you do). Just like the boy who asked this question, I want to be a humanitarian, and feel that I embody many qualities of a humanitarian, however when it comes to situations where my people are in danger versus others who I have no connection to, I would feel much more connected to my own people. I can’t even really imagine putting other people above my own, so I guess that doesn’t make me a humanitarian at all. However, I’m definitely accepting of all races; I embrace people of all cultures and I truly do care about people of other races and love to learn about their heritage. I guess this places me in the pseudo-communitarian stage. I don’t think being in this stage should be considered worse than being a humanitarian. These stages show personal evolvement and I think once someone passes the first four stages they have showed that they understand the racial issues in our world and are willing to overcome them. I personally would say anyone who is in the pre-awakening or even awakening stages are somewhat blind to the real world around them and should consciously work towards moving through these stages. Not that it makes them a bad person for being in the preliminary stages, but in the sense of acceptance, those stages are not a good place to be. It is important to recognize the bigger picture of these stages, and the human race as a whole. Ideally, everyone should move through all 5 stages and eventually become a humanitarian. If this were the case, our world would be free from racism and I think that is the ultimate goal of all race relations connoisseurs like Sam. I also don’t think that there is anyway to control what stage one resides in. One can tell their mind to think a certain way but ultimately true colors always come out, so I don’t think anyone can move through the stages consciously, because it is something that just happens within you. I didn’t make it a point to ignore race and love people for who they are, it just happened. I have always been exposed to people of many different races, which definitely was a huge factor in helping me progress through these stages of acceptance, and I hope everyone has experiences in their lives that truly move them forward, in hopes of all converging in the humanitarian stage.

Before Sam mentioned the wide use of irrelevant racial signifiers, I never took notice to how serious this issue truly is. Whenever I hear anyone tell a story, they never fail to mention that their rude waiter was black or that their incapable taxi driver was of Asian decent. Looking back at the many stories I have been told that include racial signifiers, do they really matter? If I were told the story and the racial signifier were left out, chances are the story still would have had the same effect. I think a lot of people accidentally use racial signifiers when it is completely unnecessary, and half of the time it is probably a subconscious word that just comes out while someone is talking. Although it may not seem like it is hurting anyone, I think the irrelevant use of racial signifiers only adds to the race issue in the United States. If people are constantly hearing racial signifiers in daily conversation when they are not at all relevant or necessary, it makes people feel like race is something that matters when talking about just about anything, when in reality that is not the case at all. Someone’s race isn’t a detail of a story that has any relevance or bearing to anything, and it would be awesome if people could stop throwing out racial terms like they don’t mean anything. I wish everyone were able to take Soc 119 so their eyes could be opened up to these serious issues the way mine have been. I am going to make a conscious effort to avoid using racial signifiers when it is completely unnecessary. Like Sam said in class, there are definitely times when using racial signifiers is completely legitimate, and I think people shouldn’t be afraid to use them when it is necessary. I work at a clothing store during breaks when I am at home, and when ringing customers up at the register we always ask who helped them in the store. The staff is very diverse, and customers are always hesitant to describe whoever helped them by their race. I guess they feel that we would be offended if they called our fellow employees “the short Asian girl” or “the cute black guy”, however we always end up describing each other that way in order to determine who was working with the customer. They always seem surprised that we are so open to referring to each other by our racial classifications, however in this case it is in no way offensive; we are just trying to identify each other! Like this situation, I think there are times when using racial signifiers are necessary and okay, but in typical day-to-day story telling, irrelevant racial signifiers only fuel racism by making race a prominent aspect of daily life.

I think this is a very valid question. On paper, affirmative action programs sound like an ideal way to smooth over the inequalities in areas such as college acceptance rates and employment opportunities. I’m sure as a minority, it is comforting to know that institutional discrimination will not affect your chances of getting a job or getting accepted to a certain college, however some whites feel this puts them at a disadvantage. Either way you look at it, affirmative action programs are placing quotas on the amount of people—both whites and minorities—accepted into various educational or professional ventures. In high school, I wrote a research paper on affirmative action and the common misconception of “reverse discrimination”. Conservatives who believe reverse discrimination is an effect of affirmative action feel that while it opens the door for jobs, promotions, or education to minorities, it shuts the door on whites. There was a Supreme Court case in 1978 that related directly to this issue, and the ruling of the case confirmed that affirmative action was put in place to provide minority groups that had previously been discriminated against with the same opportunities whites have been afforded since the establishment of the United States of America, and not to undermine the success of whites. I think it is important for people to realize that affirmative action only helps qualified individuals get recognized in a society dominated so heavily by whites. I don’t think affirmative action takes anything “too far”. Clearly there is a reason that laws needed to be put in place in order to guarantee equality of opportunity for all people in America. Schools and workplaces were not diversified at the same levels as the United States population, and qualified minorities were getting denied opportunities based on their race or ethnicity. Affirmative action laws ensured a more equal playing field in the United States, and although they steadfastly remain, discrimination still takes place against minorities much more than against whites. For example, a study Sam spoke about in class produced results showing that whites with a criminal record were more likely to get a callback for a job than minorities without a criminal record. To me, that seems like textbook discrimination, and show that affirmative action laws are still needed to provide equal opportunity to qualified minorities in the United States. If the “quotas” for minorities in schools and professional settings were continually increased, maybe it could be deemed as taking things “too far”, however the system actually doesn’t use quotas in order to promote equality, it just ensures that employers and educators make sure equal opportunity is provided to diversify environments. Even with affirmative action laws, minorities face an uphill battle to achieve equality of opportunity in the US, a country that is so historically discriminatory.

Sadly, but truly, I think that the reason we tend to view people from other countries as so different from ourselves is because they look different, and have different cultural practices. Although I hate to admit it, it is hard to not judge someone by the way they look. I think this judgmental quality has been instilled in American children from the time we were very young. We were always told to “not judge a book by its cover”, however to me, Americans are by far the most judgmental group of people. In my Soc 119 discussion group, there is a student who was born and raised in London. Whenever we discuss racism, (which is about 94% of the time) this student always has the same thing to say: he doesn’t have much insight into racism, as he never experienced it growing up in London. He says that because London is such a diverse city, being racist is nearly impossible, as one has friends from all over the world from the time they begin schooling. Although I would consider America to be a culturally diverse country, it seems as though diversity only exists in extremely urban areas, and typically along the coasts. Growing up in a suburb of Philadelphia, I have been exposed to many different races throughout my life, however whenever I meet someone who looks different from me, I automatically perceive them as different. I can’t really explain why I have this perception, but I guess it is from years of reinforcement that those who look different truly are different. Soc 119 has really opened up my eyes to how serious of a problem racism is. Going forward, I don’t think I’ll ever classify someone based on the way they look, because when people do that, they are probably wrong 99% of the time. There is no possible way to tell one’s personality, values, and cultural orientation simply based on the way they look. One’s racial orientation may play a part in defining their values and culture, however their race does not define who they are as a person. “Race” is something completely physical, and no one should be judged by the way they look. I think it is sad that people are so comfortable with defining others based on their race, and I wish everyone had an opportunity to take Soc 119 and gain the same understanding from this class that I have. I would have never considered myself a racist person; however, now I am so much more conscious of making judgments and assumptions simply based on the way someone looks. This bad habit is definitely something that people don’t even realize they are doing, but I’m sure the person who is being judged notices. Although people from around the world all look extremely different, we all belong to the same race—the human race—and no one should be treated differently because of his/her personal, beautiful, physical features.

I think the fundamental basis of this question is racist, as this student is assuming that the majority of black people live in urban areas. While this may be true, that does not mean that black people make up the majority of the population in these urban areas. Yes, minorities may live more centrally in cities, but they are still minorities. With this being said, the arrests in urban areas should have no reason to be largely of black people or white people. These arrests SHOULD be proportional to the population, as the rest of the arrests throughout the country. As Sam showed us in class, arrests across the board are disproportionately minorities, which sadly does show a slight lean towards racism in our police forces all over the country. If black people make up a certain percentage of a population in an area, then they should roughly make up that same percentage of arrests in that area. It is unfair to claim that because there are “more police” in urban areas, there are more arrests of black people; there shouldn’t be any connection between the two. If there are more police, then there should be more arrests of everyone, not just blacks, or any other minority for that matter. I think our justice system in the United States is very fair for the most part, but that is hard to argue after analyzing the numbers Sam showed us in class. I personally do not know how to explain the serious disproportions relating to percentages of arrests by race and percentages of populations by race. I think the government needs to take a serious look into the justice system at all levels. There will always be “crooked cops”, however police forces should be fundamentally fair to all races, in fact I don’t even think they should take race into consideration when making arrests. Along with looking into the principles of police forces, the government should also take the time to look into both federal and state courts, because Sam also showed us a scenario where a judge was very unfavorable to minorities. I really do not think skin color or race has anything to do with a persons actions. If a certain area is extremely violent and filled with minorities, chances are a white people from that area are going to be violent as well. There is no explanation for the disproportionableness of minorities in our population and minorities in our jails. It is something that needs to be looked into and assessed, because to me it truly doesn’t make any sense. Whites commit crimes just as minorities do, in both urban and rural areas. If there are more police, they should be catching more crimes done by everyone, and I don’t think there is any other way to look at it.

In agreement with what Sam was saying at the end of the most recent lecture, it is necessary for all of us to just “go with c”—meaning we should all have a value orientation incorporating the views of both free will and determinism. Everyone should be held accountable for his or her choices and actions, which are a major factor in determining the outcome of one’s life. However, I think in a way both determinism and free will actually intertwine and coexist in shaping our lives. Determinism accounts for the things that are out of our control, like parents’ income, living situation and location, and in some cases the presence of absence of parents at all. Things like this are clearly uncontrollable for a child or teenager, as there is only so much a young person can do to alter such serious things in his or her life. Even though it may be subconscious, these uncontrollable factors definitely play a part in the decision-making that encompasses one’s “free will”. Free will is considered to be one’s personal choices, but these choices have to be shaped by something. Choices just don’t stem from thin air, people are prompted to make certain decisions based on the cards they are dealt. One student may have chosen to go to Penn State because it was the best possible university he or she got accepted to, while another student may have chosen to go to Penn State because it was the only university that their parents could afford for them to go to. Although both students made the same decision, the first may have only gotten accepted to Penn State and a community college, while the latter may have gotten into 3 Ivy League schools but was forced to attend Penn State due to financial restraints. Yes, both students’ decision accounts for which university they attend, but they made the decisions based on the cards they were dealt. In this scenario, determinism and free will literally work together, and I think in most cases this coupling seems to be true. Determinism influences almost all aspects of life, and choices are presented to us at every turn we take. I think it is foolish to accredit where we end up in our lives to either extreme. I am studying at Penn State University because yes, like everyone else, I chose to come here. At the same time, determinism left me with 3 schools to choose from, and Penn State seemed to be the best option for me. I am happy with my decision and where I ended up, but things could have been very different had I been dealt different cards, like acceptances to various other schools and the opportunity to make a different decision.