Written: 04/05/2009
Publication: n/a
Publish Date: n/a
According to Scott Sernau, “Race is a social construction, not a biological fact… Arrange a sampling of the world’s population in a line from lightest to darkest, and the result is a continuous gradation.” Racial segregation between blacks and whites is a persistent social construction. Humans naturally create racial divisions attempting to compartmentalize and separate the weak from the strong and the light from the dark. The prevailing attitudes that exist in the United States concerning racial inequality are reminiscent of skin color associations made in the past.
Race and ethnicity are not what causes segregation but rather the connections created by the recognition and classification of one’s skin color. As societies began to separate “colored” from “white” skinned people, color became an important factor in determining a person’s fate and success. Sernau adds, “Color and class became intertwined. Lighter groups fared better than darker ones. Even within the black community, color often mattered.” This color distinction made it easy for white slave owners to identify and exploit darker skinned individuals. Furthermore, slavery in the United States hinged on the belief and perpetuation that dark or black skin color signified an inherited inferiority.
Today, blacks living in the United Sates are constitutionally free and equal to whites. However, blacks with lighter skin enjoy better class mobility and are able to secure more lucrative positions of power than their darker counterparts. According to Sernau, “The most accepted black leaders are those who neither look particularly ‘black’ nor speak in a particularly ‘black way.’” Examples of his hypothesis can be found in individuals such as Colin Powell, Barack Obama, and Condoleezza Rice. Though each individual does not act in a “black way” they are all considered prominent black leaders. Ironically, during Barack Obama’s presidential campaign many political and media figures questioned if he was “black enough.”
Similar questioning evokes a sense of stereotypical expectations of black leaders in America – easily likened to the actions taken toward the African slaves that were justified by harsh stereotypes. Though American officials claim to be moving away from race based distinctions, it is evident that some political and social leaders want race to be an issue. We can also assume that not only whites, but blacks as well, want racial inequality to continue to be an issue in the United States. According to black radio journalist Larry Elder, “Most blacks, despite tremendous social, economic, and political progress, expect race relations to remain a problem in this country.”
It is questionable whether or not Elder’s opinions are wide-spread throughout the black population, but he does raise an interesting argument. Perhaps black political and civic leaders view racial inequality and class struggle as a tool toward bettering the black community. This thought would support the Conflict Theory outlined by Karl Marx and Max Waber. However, according to the Davis and Moore Functional Theory of Stratification, class conflict is a strictly ideological approach to social inequality. Moreover, Davis and Moore contend that the conflict theory argues what ought to be, but does not describe what is.
Davis and Moore’s Functional Theory of Stratification claims, “Inequality motivates hard work, competition, and efficiency.” Whereas Melvin Tumin asserts, “Inequality erodes opportunity, perpetuates privilege, and undermines motivation and hard work while it perpetuates inefficiencies.” Larry Elder would most likely follow the Davis and Moore theory and reject the conflict theory completely. However, according to his first assumption, most black leaders may want or need class conflict to exist. Either way, both theories allude to an inherent hierarchical structure within society. The Social Dominance Theory explains that hierarchy exists within all social groups and asserts that inequality is essential to maintaining social order.
The compulsory segregation of blacks in the United States began with residential segregation following the civil war. Just as white slave owners segregated blacks for decades in order to impose social dominance, the U.S. government created similar social restraints. The government used Supreme Court decisions to create laws that perpetuated social dominance over blacks through segregation. The Supreme Court case Plessy vs. Ferguson, of 1896, upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation in public accommodations and declared “separate but equal” as standard practice in law. However, “separate but equal” laws seemed to be rarely equal and always separate. Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka later overruled this case in 1954, declaring that separate educational facilities for children denied black children equal opportunities. This Supreme Count decision ended de jure racial segregation and cleared a path for racial incorporation. Residential segregation persisted until the late 1960s, but with the advent of the civil rights movement, it was virtually brought to an end.
According to the Kerner Commission on residential segregation, “White institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it.” The commission focused their examination on racial ghettos and housing inequality among black communities. Denton and Massey argue that, “Segregation created the structural conditions for the emergence of an oppositional culture that devalues work, schooling, and marriage and stresses attitudes and behaviors that are antithetical and often hostile to the success of the larger community.”
Therefore, we can assume that problems apparent in the black community and the racial inequality among black and whites today are not singular occurrences. Rather, these problems have been perpetuated out of compulsory residential segregation and established restrictions. Though the Fair Housing Act ended residential segregation in 1968, the effects of compulsory residential segregation can still be examined within black culture. Moreover, since blacks and whites rarely cohabitate, little has been shared culturally, resulting in differing social norms hardening over time. The prevailing thoughts of whites regarding blacks may be primarily shaped by this turbulent time in American history. If so, recent racial inequality and prejudice would seem outdated and archaic as an individual’s fundamental mindset.
According to Denton and Massey, “The urban underclass thus arose from a complex interplay of civil rights policy, economic restructuring, and a historical legacy of discrimination.” Larry Elder’s argument may seem overstated when we consider that many black Americans still live in a residentially segregated society. Furthermore, black segregation cannot be likened to other segregation experienced by other racial or ethnic groups, simply because blacks living in the United States experienced such a high sustained level of residential segregation. Because of this pattern of institutionalized segregation Denton and Massey argue that residential segregation, “Shows little sign of change with the passage of time or improvements in socioeconomic status.” Though the government may no longer support the compulsory segregation of blacks, many within the community have low socioeconomic standing and thus have poor class mobility.
After the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the 1970s and 1980s were marked by the absence of a word from the American vocabulary. The word was segregation. As if afraid of a second coming, the American public swept the word under the “tolerance” rug, never to be uttered again. However, it is not the word that caused so much damage, but rather how its users manipulated it. The associations and reservations conveyed by the word solidified individual’s prevailing thoughts and may have lead to some racial inequality experienced today. Though the word did resurface over time, this disregard for a single word may have been the first widespread occurrence of a racial language phobia.
Taken from: The Language of Inequality: Examining Voluntary Segregation within Social Order by Mr. Madison
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
An Abject Failure: Reforming Edinboro University’s Student Government Association
Written: 03/17/2009
Publication: Edinboro University's Spectator
Publish Date: April 22, 2009
In the wake of recent SGA corruption and misgivings, it is necessary that the students of Edinboro University speak out against this faux student-run régime. The SGA claims to give students a voice by offering a democratically elected congress and executive board, but in recent times this has not been the case. Nor has the SGA used the voting process properly with regard to fund allocations; allocations to which every student contributes and is entitled.
SGA should promote equal rights for all students. SGA should encourage and provide equal rights and involvement opportunities for all organizations, offering all organizations the same rights for obtaining funds. Lastly, SGA should not only be open to the wants and needs of students, but should also encourage a constructive dialogue and act as a “servant-leader.” Unfortunately, SGA has accomplished none of these goals.
Today we see an SGA that values prestige and “face-time” over the core altruistic values for which it was once created. Frankly, the system no longer works and it seems to have more glitches than Microsoft’s Vista; in large part because of the absence of three key elements necessary for institutional success: integrity, vision, and sense.
Today’s SGA makes a mockery of the democratic process and often ignores the legitimate pleas of the students it seemingly represents. By creating a “House of Representatives” in 2008, the association touted a new outlet for clubs and organizations. However, the outlet came with strings attached: House members were required to attend numerous, and sometimes exhausting, meetings, even if they received no funding from SGA. Punishment for non-attendance amounted in funding cuts and the loss of a mailbox. (In recent meetings, SGA has admitted that the mailboxes are rarely used, since important information is usually communicated via email or collegiatelink.net.)
In hindsight, SGA realized that most students did not want to attend these three hour long meetings, dealing with the blinding bureaucracy and harsh attitudes of the executive board. “Come on guys, we expect more for you,” was the board’s typical way of attempting to shame motivation into its membership. When will they realize that the students they serve are the ones who have unmet expectations?
When it comes to the communication problems further exacerbated by taking away mailboxes and freezing accounts, who is really at fault? Several organizations protested that they had not been receiving any emails at all. All organizations have had to update their information at the start of each semester and update their constitutions, therefore SGA should have every president and advisors email on file. Unfortunately for the student body, this information has been commonly “misplaced” or “lost” within the annals of the SGA office. This kind negligence is unacceptable.
Yet, operating free from SGA’s purview is more than simply discouraged: it’s nearly impossible. Clubs and organizations are inhibited from having a successful fundraising program due to the SGA approval process. Every club wishing to fundraise on campus must seek the “OK” from SGA, which is offered only with the implicit understanding that the club must “tow” the SGA line and not attempt to disaffiliate.
The massive amount of unallocated funds that lay in the lap of the current Director of Finance are stubbornly released and almost bitterly guarded. This money is taken from student tuitions and much of it is used in a pork barrel fashion. Larger, and arguably less deserving organizations, often receive massive amounts of funding, while smaller, arguably more deserving, organizations are left to count their pennies and scrape along. In SGA it seems that compensation is awarded less for reasons of merit than for reasons of personal relationship.
Sense would dictate that by allowing clubs and organizations easy access to funding and encouraging sovereignty with little obligation to SGA, students would participate in many more activities naturally. Why won’t SGA trust the student body to spend their own money? This democratic fallacy mars the integrity of the Student Government Association and its alleged pro-student attitude.
SGA mandates that all student clubs and organizations participate and be active during meetings. Yet, some of their own rules disinvite active participation. According to the SGA minutes taken from 03/09/09, “Candidates for Vice-President must be a current full time student and have completed two semesters of college as a full time student at Edinboro University.” This does not allow for all students to be involved. Why are full time students given priority to run for positions? Shouldn’t all students, full- or part-time, be able to run for executive board positions, since all students are required to attend meetings?
The assumption of the executive board seems to be that part-time students are not familiar enough with campus. Many members of SGA noted that since only full-time students can live within the residence halls, only they would have the necessary understanding for the layout and culture of the university. Resident students, however, have their own organization: the Residence Hall Association. SGA is designed to be for all students. Additionally, consider the living situations for current executive board members: According to the Edinboro University Campus Directory, the President of SGA does not live on campus but rather on Erie Street in the borough of Edinboro. The Vice President of SGA does not live on campus but rather an undisclosed location off campus. Furthermore, the Director of Finance, the Secretary, the Parliamentarian, and the Executive Assistant all live off-campus. True, each is a full-time student, but just how much of that “time” is spent on-campus? It leaves one to wonder what the real reason may be for disallowing all students to participate in the SGA electoral process. We may never know.
SGA must become a “servant-leader” to the students, void of nonsensical banter and frivolous voting measures that deter and stifle progress. SGA is ripping the Edinboro University student body apart at the seams with its on-going battle between unrealistic bureaucracy and pragmatic altruism. Only when the “servant-leader” role is realized and pursued by the students of Edinboro University, may the wrongs of SGA be reversed.
Regards,
Mr. Madsion
Mrs. Madison
Publication: Edinboro University's Spectator
Publish Date: April 22, 2009
In the wake of recent SGA corruption and misgivings, it is necessary that the students of Edinboro University speak out against this faux student-run régime. The SGA claims to give students a voice by offering a democratically elected congress and executive board, but in recent times this has not been the case. Nor has the SGA used the voting process properly with regard to fund allocations; allocations to which every student contributes and is entitled.
SGA should promote equal rights for all students. SGA should encourage and provide equal rights and involvement opportunities for all organizations, offering all organizations the same rights for obtaining funds. Lastly, SGA should not only be open to the wants and needs of students, but should also encourage a constructive dialogue and act as a “servant-leader.” Unfortunately, SGA has accomplished none of these goals.
Today we see an SGA that values prestige and “face-time” over the core altruistic values for which it was once created. Frankly, the system no longer works and it seems to have more glitches than Microsoft’s Vista; in large part because of the absence of three key elements necessary for institutional success: integrity, vision, and sense.
Today’s SGA makes a mockery of the democratic process and often ignores the legitimate pleas of the students it seemingly represents. By creating a “House of Representatives” in 2008, the association touted a new outlet for clubs and organizations. However, the outlet came with strings attached: House members were required to attend numerous, and sometimes exhausting, meetings, even if they received no funding from SGA. Punishment for non-attendance amounted in funding cuts and the loss of a mailbox. (In recent meetings, SGA has admitted that the mailboxes are rarely used, since important information is usually communicated via email or collegiatelink.net.)
In hindsight, SGA realized that most students did not want to attend these three hour long meetings, dealing with the blinding bureaucracy and harsh attitudes of the executive board. “Come on guys, we expect more for you,” was the board’s typical way of attempting to shame motivation into its membership. When will they realize that the students they serve are the ones who have unmet expectations?
When it comes to the communication problems further exacerbated by taking away mailboxes and freezing accounts, who is really at fault? Several organizations protested that they had not been receiving any emails at all. All organizations have had to update their information at the start of each semester and update their constitutions, therefore SGA should have every president and advisors email on file. Unfortunately for the student body, this information has been commonly “misplaced” or “lost” within the annals of the SGA office. This kind negligence is unacceptable.
Yet, operating free from SGA’s purview is more than simply discouraged: it’s nearly impossible. Clubs and organizations are inhibited from having a successful fundraising program due to the SGA approval process. Every club wishing to fundraise on campus must seek the “OK” from SGA, which is offered only with the implicit understanding that the club must “tow” the SGA line and not attempt to disaffiliate.
The massive amount of unallocated funds that lay in the lap of the current Director of Finance are stubbornly released and almost bitterly guarded. This money is taken from student tuitions and much of it is used in a pork barrel fashion. Larger, and arguably less deserving organizations, often receive massive amounts of funding, while smaller, arguably more deserving, organizations are left to count their pennies and scrape along. In SGA it seems that compensation is awarded less for reasons of merit than for reasons of personal relationship.
Sense would dictate that by allowing clubs and organizations easy access to funding and encouraging sovereignty with little obligation to SGA, students would participate in many more activities naturally. Why won’t SGA trust the student body to spend their own money? This democratic fallacy mars the integrity of the Student Government Association and its alleged pro-student attitude.
SGA mandates that all student clubs and organizations participate and be active during meetings. Yet, some of their own rules disinvite active participation. According to the SGA minutes taken from 03/09/09, “Candidates for Vice-President must be a current full time student and have completed two semesters of college as a full time student at Edinboro University.” This does not allow for all students to be involved. Why are full time students given priority to run for positions? Shouldn’t all students, full- or part-time, be able to run for executive board positions, since all students are required to attend meetings?
The assumption of the executive board seems to be that part-time students are not familiar enough with campus. Many members of SGA noted that since only full-time students can live within the residence halls, only they would have the necessary understanding for the layout and culture of the university. Resident students, however, have their own organization: the Residence Hall Association. SGA is designed to be for all students. Additionally, consider the living situations for current executive board members: According to the Edinboro University Campus Directory, the President of SGA does not live on campus but rather on Erie Street in the borough of Edinboro. The Vice President of SGA does not live on campus but rather an undisclosed location off campus. Furthermore, the Director of Finance, the Secretary, the Parliamentarian, and the Executive Assistant all live off-campus. True, each is a full-time student, but just how much of that “time” is spent on-campus? It leaves one to wonder what the real reason may be for disallowing all students to participate in the SGA electoral process. We may never know.
SGA must become a “servant-leader” to the students, void of nonsensical banter and frivolous voting measures that deter and stifle progress. SGA is ripping the Edinboro University student body apart at the seams with its on-going battle between unrealistic bureaucracy and pragmatic altruism. Only when the “servant-leader” role is realized and pursued by the students of Edinboro University, may the wrongs of SGA be reversed.
Regards,
Mr. Madsion
Mrs. Madison
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
