Erika's post on equality

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-affirmative-action-20151209-story.html

The article above talks about affirmative action and whether or not it is constitutional. The article specifically talks about the decision of the supreme court about The University of Texas's policy. The school argued that it was not needed anymore due to the law that guarantees the top 10% of each high will be accepted, of which one third have been African American and Latino. Others who opposed the idea of doing away with it say it helps those who would normally be discriminated against (whether it be conscious or subconscious). This however is the second time the supreme court has heard this case, the first being two years ago. They ended up sending it to a lower court to figure it out.

This speaks to what we talked about in our class discussions about race, affirmative action, and Mills' racial contract. I think it is important to keep in place because if one school gets to remove it many others will want to. Also we do not live in the color blind society that we wish we did, people are stereotyped by their race. For African Americans and other minorities this hurts their chances of getting into higher education. We discussed in class about whether it created or destroyed equality. I believe that it creates equality by giving everyone a chance at achieving their highest potential. I would also fear about what would happen if a very racist school was allowed to get rid of affirmative action because others had. It would lead to no minorities being accepted to that school. Mills also mentions the economic inequalities between whites and African Americans. I believe that this is due to the inequalities of education, which is being counteracted by affirmative action.

Gender Inequality

The article I read discusses the wage gap between genders, and how, if narrowed, it can increase the money going into the global economy. the article goes on to discuss the 15 indicators of gender equality for a wide array of groups in 95 countries. The countries were then measured for their distance from gender parity. Western Europe was 0.71 meaning it was 0.29 from 1, which is the perfect score. That means that even more developed countries still have a big gap for gender parity. The article continued to say that if countries around the world would improve there inequality between genders, then the GDP will rise because of the narrow gap, and more opportunities will arise.

This article reminded me if Susan Moller Okin's complaint on Gender inequality. She said that family life is unequal, meaning that a man and a woman are not treated the same, and that things need to change. I believe that Okin is right in that statement, however the plausibility of the gender gap narrowing is unplausible because, sadly, the world is not taking steps to improve the equality. women are being told that they belong in certain jobs that dont use too much strength or brains. This is similar to women in Military roles. they are being restricted or coerced into not being in direct combat, because they are supposedly physically weaker than men, which is not always the case. I believe that we need to  work on bringing the gender parity gap closer so that at least the education worldwide provided for women and men can be increased.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/19e105ca-9a7c-11e5-be4f-0abd1978acaa.html#axzz3tegTOLb2

Blum tries to get rid of the fourteenth amendment

https://newrepublic.com/article/124955/next-supreme-court-challenge-equality-americans

The article I read discussed a man who is known as a political mastermind. He is known for gathering plaintiffs, counsels, ad helps finance litigation in order to try and move the law or make the law more conservative in terms of race and voting. Ed Blum wants to get rid of the fourteenth amendment in order to assure that un-naturalized immigrants, children and others equal representation in America in state legislatures. Blum as started a case known as Enwel vs. Abbott whose main goal is to change the rules for state legislative redistricting. "Blum’s argument is that unnaturalized immigrants, children, and other who lack access to the ballot should not be counted for purposes of legislative representation, which would unquestionably result in a major shift in political power away from urban population centers toward the whiter, more rural areas of the state." It seems Blum's main goal is to allow inequality in voting.

I think this piece connects to Cohen's idea of moral right on the right wing. Cohen uses Robert Nozick to explain moral right. Robert Nozick explains moral right as the idea that everyone as full power over themselves and asserts that everyone else has power over themselves as well. However, he later explains that even though others are entitled,because of their self- ownership no one is entitled without my consent to press into their own or anyone else's service.  I think Blum has this right wing idea of moral right. I feel he believes it is his moral right over himself and over others to try and to limit equality among voters.  I think he shows a sense of entitled power. He feels entitled to limit others voting for his own personal gain.

Devon's Equality Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/marty-knollenberg-african-americans-white_56631e64e4b072e9d1c66d9d?ir=Politics&section=politics

This article elaborates on a Michigan State hearing regarding academic performance among different demographic groups within the state. The hearing made news and caused much controversy because state senator, Marty Knollenberg, was quoted saying that the reason for the academic disparities were due to the fact that "we can't make an African-American white". The purpose of the hearing was to break down all the data from Michigan schools and their data showed that race had nothing to do with the disparity in academic performance. Knollenberg has come under fire for his racist comments but has stated that his remarks were taken out of context and his only concerns are with improving education for all students. Another quote from Knollenberg: "You mention why these schools districts fail, and you mention economically disadvantaged and non-white population are contributors to that. And we can’t fix that. We can’t make an African-American white," he said at the meeting. "That's just, it is what it is."

Immediately after reading Senator Knollenberg's comments I thought of Mills' Racial Contract, specifically about how racism is institutionalized and how racism isn't necessarily a problem with the individual but society itself. Looking at both the quotes from the Michigan senator it is easy to point fingers at him and say that he is the problem and the reason racism is such a problem in America however, I would argue and i think Mills would argue, that the issue lies within the education system itself. Equality is never really talked about in school, which results in an environment that discrimination and racist comments are accepted. Our history of colonialism and slavery also play a key role into our acceptance of racism. But again that problem does not lie with the individual but the structure of society that allows racism to exist. It allows us to create stereotypes about different groups of people, similar to the stereotypes of African-Americans contribution to poor academic performance and low economic status that Knollenberg commented on. Until we try to fix racism at an institutional level and not an individual level it will never be fixed. We must look within our educational,economic, and political systems to change the way race is seen in our society.

Hyla Equality Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alexander-reynolds/school-to-prison_b_8108068.html

This article is about the school-to-prison pipeline and how this is a form of institutionalized racism. The school-to-prison pipeline is a trend in American education that students are sent straight from the classroom into the prison system. This phenomenon is based in strict policies in schools that criminalize certain behaviors, such as graffiti or even just violating the dress code. Many times there are police on campus to monitor and oversee these violations. Most students who are affected by the school-to-prison pipeline are minorities who come from low-income backgrounds. The school-to-prison pipeline becomes a form of institutionalized racism as it mostly affects and targets minorities in poor neighborhoods. This school-to-prison pipeline is taking young minority students out of school and into the prison system. Therefore removing them from society and taking away their chance for education.

This article reminded me of Mills’ “The Racial Contract” in which he describes how racism is actually institutionalized and our society is structured on racism. Although this school-to-prison pipeline does not seem like it would purposely target students of color, that it would target everyone who commits these violations it equally, it does not. This police surveillance and harsh policies are much more likely in schools that are in more low-income areas. Also as a result of institutionalized racism it is often times minorities who live in these low-income areas. They, therefore, are the ones who are getting caught up in the school-to-prison pipeline. I personally think it is crazy that a student should get a criminal record and face jail time for something such as breaking the school dress code, or other minor infractions. This school-to-prison pipeline takes that violation and makes the student become a part of the criminal justice system, instead of just dealing with it as a school issue. This results in a huge number of students being taken out of schools and put into prisons.

Gender Equality in the Military

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/opinion/sunday/women-in-combat-jobs.html

This article discusses the recent decision made by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter that will allow women to serve on the front lines in military combat. Mr. Carter announced that "as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before." The US is following in the footsteps of other countries such as Canada, Israel, and France, where women are allowed in military combat roles.

(This map shows which countries allowed women to serve in all combat roles in 2013.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/01/25/map-which-countries-allow-women-in-front-line-combat-roles/

In my opinion, if a woman is able to meet the standards, she should be able to serve. However, this also brings up issues like sexual assault and discrimination within the military itself. Although the article did not mention this, I think that it is very important to acknowledge. It reminds me of Okin's false gender neutrality- even though women are now legally permitted to serve in combat roles, they will still face many problems from inside the military that need to be addressed.

Guatemala and Power

Anchal Kannambadi

Article: http://panampost.com/carlos-sabino/2015/11/16/foreign-aid-bankrolls-violence-in-guatemala/

This article is about the Norwegian Embassy, and how they are attempting to aid Guatemala in their Oil export, however they seem to have a political agenda, and are causing more violence between Guatemalans. The Norwegians believe that they are working well with the people, however they have restricted the growth of the Guatemalans instead. Since Guatemala has a complicated political system, the Norwegians do not realize that they are promoting extremist groups, which causes more harm.  The Norwegian embassy has the intent to help finance and support the “indigenous communities” within Guatemala, but they are not realizing that their money is going towards organizations that “treat conflict as a profession.” At the end of the article, it is stated that the Norwegian embassy has realized that their involvement with Guatemala is not beneficial, and they have ended their experiment.

This article reminds me of our discussion on War, Politics, and Power, in which we talked about how Power and violence tend to go hand in hand. Although Norway wants to help out Guatemala, they are harming them more, because Norway, which is a democratic country, seems to want to advance their allies and political agenda, but they are causing more harm. I see this idea as something similar to what Michael Foucault believed which was how 'we cannot have perfect knowledge of the world  because everything we know is filtered through biases.' Norway seems to want to help out Guatemala, but their "idea" of what is considered helping, does not seem to help anyone. Foucault's idea on power also is that power is about reaching goals, and although Norway has the right idea of funding other third-world countries, they were not doing it for the benefit of the Guatemalans rather it was for the benefit of the Norwegians.