Essay: The Merits of Affirmative Action.

For my final paper I looked at the merits of affirmative action. I argued that affirmative action is still a relevant and effective means through which to address persisting racial stereotypes and economic discrepancies if implemented correctly. In my essay I rebutted the most common and strongest criticisms of affirmative action and sought to demonstrate its continuing usefulness as a potential policy.

Research Paper

In my research paper, I examined the idea of affirmative action in higher education, how it's been implemented, and the arguments for and against it-- especially interesting in terms of how the Supreme Court has supported it or refuted it at the University of Michigan in 2003.

I concluded that an examination of the ideas behind the implementation of affirmative action in higher education and an assessment of how it affects society leads one to the conclusion that overall, affirmative action’s effect on society has and will continue to be positive because it minimizes the disparities in equality between white society and socially constructed racial minorities.

I also thought that though the importance of considering the practical ways to fix racial inequalities in higher education should not be diminished, the support for affirmative action in higher education that holds the most gravity is the simple idea that it is morally right, because minority students in present day America on the whole generally begin their education on a lower level and receive a lower quality education than white students, which leads to fewer economic and intellectual opportunities in life. The only way to reform this problem as quickly as possible is with the direct intervention of the group in charge: privileged white society.

Immigration & Race

For my research paper, I worked to analyze how the perception of immigrants and the formation of immigration policy have racial implications. In an effort to address the issue, I began with a discussion on how the United States of America was built on immigration and transitioned to current debates about the problem of immigration.

Throughout my paper I discussed the following things:
- language used to address immigration issues --> implications of "alien" and "illegal" opposed to undocumented.
- history of immigration laws: quota systems that initially favored Northern Europeans and eventually progressed to favor Western Hemisphere migrants--> immigration preference
- current policy changes and implications:
1) "English Only" proposals, forcing assimilation
2) the "Secure Fence Act" which is the fence built between the US and Mexico-- why so scared of immigrants from the south?
3) Arizona's new immigration law-- which condones racial profiling and allows great room for interpretation and abuse by law enforcements, also making hispanics that identify as American feel less American.

After close analysis of immigration issues, I concluded that residents of the United States must work to recognize (and overcome) their fear of changing demographics. Additionally, government policies must work to understand why people migrate in an effort to better address the issue. With better education and the deconstruction of stigma and stereotypes, better relationships will develop amongst the immigrants and those born in the United States.

Research Paper

I examined how Dave Chappelle and Richard Pryor have changed comedy and society with their racially charged humor. Through careful examination of a documentary on Pryor and an episode of Inside the Actors Studio I was able to understand where each comedian stood on the topic, and why they did so. In the Richard Pryor documentary, many black comedians give their input about the topic of the use of the N word and of bringing race into comedy in such a blatant way. Both Pryor and Chappelle traveled to Africa, and both came back changed. Both decided to stop using this word, but the damage has already been done. Although Pryor said to stop using it, it was becoming engrained in the black community as a way of self identifying, and in the case of Chappelle the word had started to become too common for his liking. Both comedians employed a white voice, which Pryor was again the first to do. In the episode of Inside the Actors Studio Dave is asked about this voice and he responds saying that all black people are bi-lingual. When I heard this I thought I had hit pay dirt, the interview already had provided me with some information that could be useful but this hit so close to what we have discussed in class that I felt there was no way I could not incorporate it into the paper. In the closing bit of the interview Chappelle is asked about crossing the line, and he gives a somewhat profound response that is rooted in the fact that people don't realize some of the privelege that they have and feels that it is so institutionalized that people often forget about the problem. It has been a very interesting thing to research and examine because these two men were very much alike and act as the same vehicle to different generations.

My Conclusion

The main goal of this research paper was to expose the eugenic undertone of modern media. By valuing the whiter skin of popular figures, allowing degenerative influences in minority culture to proliferate, and representing sex as a segregated practice, the media helped to maintain racial segregation and inhibit miscegenation. These were shown to be eugenic principles through the twentieth century in the US. If the social influences of popular culture push for the reproduction of two lighter skinned, morally laudable individuals it was for the proliferation of these genes and character qualities into future generations.
The problem with eugenic movements was that in theory they would benefit a population by creating healthier citizens. However, when it built hierarchies of superior and inferior groups, labeling the minorities in the US as less intelligent and “undesirable,” it became a racist tool to maintain an assumed white supremacy. In relation to the media’s main goal of making money and believing they were representing images in specific ways and situations that would produce the most income, they showed a visual representation of society. The message was that an implicit eugenic tone symbolizes the continued racist sentiments of the white American consumer. The solution to the problem did not rest solely on the shoulders of the people in control of the media, but on the American public, as well. Until a change in attitudes towards body image, minority culture, and sex occur, racism will continue to disseminate throughout the public sphere of America.

Witness to Racism: What would you do?

I came across this very interesting news piece on how a bystander would act if they witnessed racism in America. It relates to the example Professor Moore brought up of standing in line and hearing racially charged comments. What would you do, really?

http://abcnews.go.com/WhatWouldYouDo/story?id=6551048&page=1

My Research

There is a contemporary debate over the utility and/or harm racial recognition has caused, polarized by the eliminativism on one end and conservatism on the other. Eliminativism considers racial categorization to be mistaken and oppressive and thus calls for the abandonment of it altogether. Conservatism feels that racial identities are beneficial and must be preserved, yet reformed. Both positions look for a change in the way we perceive race. The motivation behind my research paper is an intuition that Americans have a preset qualitative belief on race that lurks in one’s subconscious. If this is so, such an implicit bias poses problems for reforming modern racial categorization in either direction (eliminativism or conservatism). How do you autonomously overcome something you are not even aware of?

My intuition is empirically grounded in the implicit association test (IAT), a psych study revealing that our opinions on race elude our consciousness and are not necessarily available to introspection. In my research paper, I plan to use this empirical platform to embark on a discussion regarding the pitfalls of eliminativism and/or conservatism (I might just choose one to focus on) as well as the potential solution to reforming our ideas on race (once establishing that our current ideas are diseased and undesirable). In my pragmatic prescription to the diagnosis, I foresee the possibility of appealing to concepts developed by W.E.B De-Bois, specifically on his ideas for self-empowerment of the suppressed races.