Carl Potak: Politics and Society

The Effects of Affirmative Action within University Admissions, a scholarly research paper by Carl Potak

2007-05-11T00:27:00.000-04:00

Since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, affirmative action has been a key topic of discussion for universities, state governments, and the federal government. Because of its ambiguousness with the Constitution, people across the political and social spectrum have remained divided in opinion. Affirmative action shall be defined, for the purposes of this essay, as a policy or program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity in education for minorities. While it is difficult to postulate an argument that is clearly better or more legitimate in opposition or support of affirmative action in universities, instead I will dissect the issue starting from a lesser studied (in the academic community) group in discussion of this topic: Asians; then African Americans and Hispanics; and Whites. My hypothesis is that affirmative action adversely affects Asians while it assists African Americans and Hispanics in their desire for higher education. The Asian student population is the fastest growing of any group, minority or majority, with or without affirmative action. Without affirmative action in some states, other groups such as African Americans and Hispanics have seen sharp declines in their percentages in university systems. This paper will also try to show the effects on the previously mentioned cohorts from affirmative action as they are the largest groups with the most data available, and how groups affect each other.

The role of government has played a large role in helping academics to understand the effects of ending affirmative action and what it has done during its tenure. A majority of the elite private colleges and universities receive federal funding for certain programs or for areas of federal interest. Also, because they receive funding, they fall under the umbrella of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, barring discrimination by federally funded colleges. The past 60 years has been very progressive. This has made it difficult to analyze pure data and the differences of university admissions from before affirmative action policies were implemented to currently implemented policies without taking the nature of the times in to account. Now, we can better understand how non-affirmative action college and post-undergraduate admissions differ from affirmative action policies that were in place. For example, in 1996 California adopted Proposition 209, which banned state-sponsored affirmative action in admissions, contracting, and employment. In Texas and Michigan, there were similar measures to Proposition 209 of California, banning race-conscious admissions in their public universities. Because of these, we can review differences in trends and how affirmative action or its removal both hurts and helps the four major groups in college admissions.

[Line Graph goes here]

At the University of California at Berkeley for 2005-2006, the ethnic breakdown consists of 40% Asian or Pacific Islander, 31% White, 11% Hispanic, 10% unknown, 4% Black, 3% non-resident aliens, and 1% Native American or Alaskan (UC Berkeley 2007). In 1997, right before Proposition 209 was enacted, “the proportion of black freshmen matched the state population, 7 percent” and in 2007 the proportion is just 3.6% for black freshmen (Egan 2007). Data from that year was unavailable for other ethnicities. Two years later, from 1999-2000, it dropped to 5% African Americans at Berkeley overall and to 4% six years later. As one can notice from the line graph above, fluctuations in enrollment over the seven-year span have been very minor. Since 1999, Asian enrollment has increased by roughly 800 people, gaining only one percent. Hispanic enrollment has also increased only 1% since 1999, but according to the trend of its fellow minority group, the African Americans, I would assume Hispanic enrollment to have decreased initially from Proposition 209 as well. It is difficult to tell if in ensuing years, Hispanic disenrollment becomes noticeable in UC Berkeley and other U.C. schools. “Under-represented minorities, including Latinos, make up only 19 percent of UC’s freshman class, but 46 percent of the state’s high school graduating class” (San Francisco Chronicle, 2006). This downward trend for African Americans is apparent, and shows how much affirmative action has helped them in attending UC Berkeley.

[Bar Graph goes here]

The University of California (UC) enacted a system where the top 4% of every high school would be guaranteed admission in to UC, but that in itself is a feat for students. The people that usually have the best grades and SAT scores in their high schools are usually the individuals that are from middle-class to affluent families where parents can afford tutors and preparation courses for their children (Holzer & Neumark, 2005). This disadvantages Blacks and Hispanics just as much even though the UC policy is purely meritorious and not literally something that will profile race. As shown in the bar graph above, because of our social stratification, this policy of admission is inherently discriminatory. Family income is directly correlated to how well a student will perform in high school. Despite the actions of the state, many of which are led by Ward Connerly (a Black Republican of California in charge of the American Civil Rights Coalition), to exclude race and gender from admissions and to create more fair admissions practices, they end up harming minorities regardless of intention (Robinson 2006). This policy seems to benefit Whites and Asians even more for admissions because the majority of these two groups are predisposed to do better academically. Hence, this is another barrier towards racial equality in California.

Affirmative action seems to be a double-edged sword for Asians. Asians are a very large group, consisting of people from well over ten countries in the Pacific as well as American-Asians whom are first, second, or even third generation Americans. This cohort is extremely dominant in the academic community, where they consist of less than 5% of the U.S. population, but “make up 10 to 30 percent of students at the nation’s best colleges” (Egan 2007). “Asians made up 24 percent of the undergraduate population at Carnegie Mellon and at Stanford, 27 percent at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 14 percent at Yale and 13 percent at Princeton” last year (Egan 2007). Because of their overall academic superiority, affirmative action hurts the aggregate cohort. At the University of Texas at Austin, where affirmative action is banned; prior to its enactment, the university accepted 68% of the Asians that had applied, whereas after the law was enforced, it accepted 81% of all Asians whom have applied (Schmidt 2003). Further, in 2005, Asian-Americans that applied to the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, where affirmative action was legal, were accepted at 54%, while Blacks were accepted at 71% and Hispanics at 79%. This was despite the fact that Asians had much higher SAT scores than the others (Egan 2007). While affirmative action hurts many of these students because they are considered more of a majority academically, discriminated against, as well as by discounted from such affirmative action practices, it can help students as well. Generally speaking, the amount of people affirmative action helps is overshadowed by the amount that it hurts though. Many Asian students come from countries and families that are not as well off as that of those in the United States. These students are usually proponents for affirmative action, but are in the minority of their group that actually want it.

The lack of affirmative action, while generally beneficial to Asians, could possibly induce social consequences within the universities if their numbers were to increase drastically. For example, because of the way they are raised, Asians have a special respect for their elders. This plays a role in the classroom. Instead of more Socratic methods of learning, like raising their hands and participating in class, they are taught to play the role of learner and to not question what the professors say. While this may seem like a generalization, there is truth to this, much because of multi-generational custom. As far fetched as some may think, if Asians become the majority in most institutions, such a thing could play a role in changing the nature of classrooms in post-secondary education.

The Asian students face an interesting ideological dilemma in affirmative action. Because of their strength in numbers academically, they usually represent more than Blacks and Hispanics combined in universities. As shown above, affirmative action is harmful to the cohort’s overall success, but is generally seen as beneficial to the scholastic minorities such as African Americans and Hispanics in acceptance rates such as that of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. “In a recent national poll conducted by The Chronicle [of Higher Education], 45 percent of Asian-American respondents agreed with the assertion that colleges should admit students from racial minority groups even if they have lower grade-point averages and standardized-test scores than other students” (Schmidt 2003). The 55% majority has spoken against affirmative action, but that should not discount the 45% that were pro-affirmative action as statistically insignificant. This is significant because it posits a divide between the students, despite how much affirmative action will or will not help them. The 55% of respondents, though, are the people whom are the majority, and the majority usually wins.

Hispanics and African Americans are the two groups that take the largest hit from the removal of affirmative action and receive the most gain from having it in place. Since both cohorts are experiencing similar effects and are similar in social stratification, these two groups will be spoken of together. On principle, because someone is homosexual, it does not mean that they are a Democrat. The same principle can be followed with affirmative action. Just because someone is Black or Hispanic, it does not mean that the person will approve of or support affirmative action. Both sides of the ideology will be explored further to ascertain a better understanding of why people within their group are for or against it.

There are many opponents to this policy from both groups, with one of the leaders being Ward Connerly. It has been said in numerous publications that he is traveling from state to state in discussions with party and governmental leadership in creating ballot initiatives to stop affirmative action (Lewin 2007). The reasons to be against affirmative action for Hispanics and Blacks are very legitimate and are based on strong ideologies. One claim is that they are “violations of an allegedly ‘color blind’ Constitution, as ‘reverse discrimination’ against whites, and as demeaning to the individuals they are intended to elevate” (Robinson 2006). Under Amendment XIV, Section 1 of the Constitution, it states “...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This can be seen as a broad argument that state schools with affirmative action are depriving people from life and liberty.
Some opponents say affirmative action is reverse discrimination against Whites because racial minorities with less credentials are being picked over Whites with more credentials; another wholly valid argument. This can also be considered the unfair advantage frame because affirmative action gives African Americans and Hispanics an unfair advantage that they have not earned (Kinder & Sanders, 1996).

Further, the position that affirmative action is demeaning is saying in lay man’s terms, that Blacks and Hispanics are not smart enough or motivated enough to do the necessary work in order to achieve the same goals as Whites and Asians, so a hand out is in need. Also, another opposing view against these policies is that they say that minorities are unequal and, because of quotas, show a lack of equality.

There is also the mismatch hypothesis, where students who are accepted in to upper class universities are unable to do the work because they are not as prepared as the students entering without affirmative action, hence being ‘mismatched’ in to schools (Holzer & Neumark, 2005). This specific argument has had some research and is something that can be empirically tested. Data collection for the mismatch hypothesis is difficult, and there is room for further investigation that could prove valuable in arguments for or against affirmative action in the future.

Arguments for affirmative action are more often than not a liberal point of view. Regardless of one’s sphere of beliefs, affirmative action can invigorate the supporters just as much as the opposition is charged. Some of the opinions in support of this policy are ones such as having affirmative action in order to rid racism, achieve equality, receive partial reparations for slavery and the injustices of history, and some people are mobilized for it because they feel group identity.

Justice Harry Blackmun’s opinion in the Bakke case of 1978 was that “in order to get beyond racism, we must first take into account race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently” (Gamson & Modigliani, 1987). This view takes largely in to account that there are huge disparities in America between classes and ethnicities. To reiterate, the bar graph on page four is a sample of the gap between ethnicities. If those two groups with lesser incomes are the main two groups being assisted, and affirmative action were positively affecting them, it would not only help to decrease the gap between the rich and the poor, but help with racial equality as well. One reason why Blacks and Hispanics receive negative treatment in society in comparison to Whites is because they are two of the poorest and least educated racial groups and are seen as inferior by the upper class. Equality and respect can be relatively synonymous terms, and if these two cohorts get unconditional respect from the upper class, then they will undoubtedly be considered equal in society. Furthermore, that is how affirmative action can help minorities.

Some supporters of affirmative action also see it as something necessary and owed to them, especially black supporters. This is mainly because of slavery and oppression since the 17th century. It is my belief that the people of the United States were forced to choose; they would rather have affirmative action than give monetary reparations to African Americans, which some estimate would cost in the hundreds of billions of dollars. It is the belief of many, though, that something is owed to Blacks for the hardships they endured, and with affirmative action, there is something they can see that is being done to help almost specifically them.

Group identity can, in my opinion, also be considered to be collective identity. Some believe affirmative action is a type of collective action because it’s an effort to end disparages between minorities and majorities. Also, being part of a collective issue like affirmative action helps to provide even more of a psychological identity of belonging to a cause that you believe in. The prospect of supporting affirmative action because of group identity is not the most legitimate of ideologies, but supporting it because a person truly believes in it and receiving that feeling of collective identity seems noteworthy.

In my findings, I cannot find any reasons or data to show that affirmative action for Hispanics and African Americans are adversely affecting Asian Americans, Whites, or other groups as a whole. It is a common belief that people who receive affirmative action in university admissions take spots away from Whites, which I have not found to be entirely true, but I cannot disprove it either due to a lack of available empirical data. Further, from the data reviewed in my references and that I collected, it seems that the White cohort also has had no impact on the rest of the groups since it has largely remained the control group and the majority, minus a few exceptions like UC Berkeley.

What does having affirmative action mean for university admissions? One of the largest draws of affirmative action that admissions committees like is that it mandates them to maintain a more diverse student population and follow quotas. Also, it provides universities the ability to give students a chance at higher education that they may have not received otherwise. Because of this, they may also be subjected to civil suits of reverse discrimination from Whites or Asians. Further, because admissions is accepting students with lower credentials, they are lowering the bar for their university slightly, which may decrease prestige as well.

What does the banning of racial preferences mean for university admissions? This allows universities to become pure meritocracies. Having racial preference-free admissions gives admissions the chance to attract the brightest students that they can. Such a policy tends to preclude them from having civil suits filed against them on the basis of race- a generally positive notion. As shown on Page 3, this can cause a decline in adversity on campus, and an increase in the Asian population overall. Because of this, universities must find other and more original methods in order to attract students from different ethnic backgrounds. Whether there are different recruiting methods or better advertising, something needs to be done so that universities can have a diversified student body. Since more states are joining the fight against affirmative action, admissions programs are going to need plans to counter-act the effects of losing racial preferences.

Earlier, Asian public opinion was touched upon, and there was a 55% favor in dropping affirmative action programs. Further, other cohort and aggregate opinions will be explored. According to Gallup polls with a sample size of 1,385 adults nationwide and a margin of error of plus or minus three percent, when asked “Do you generally favor or oppose affirmative action programs for racial minorities,” 49% favored it, 43% opposed, and 8% were unsure. But when broken down in to public group opinion, Whites generally opposed it, and Blacks and Hispanics overwhelmingly supported such policies with 70% and 63% respectively. Next, "If two equally qualified students, one white and one black, applied to a major U.S. college or university, who do you think would have the better chance of being accepted to the college: the white student, the black student [options rotated] -- or would they have the same chance?" The responses were rather interesting. Whites, 24% of the time picked the White student, 34% picked the Black student as favored, 38% said they had the same chance, and 4% were unsure. This shows that White opinion is more progressive and assumes admissions are doing things to help minorities. Now, when asked Blacks the same question, 67% picked the White student to be favored, 5% for the Black student to be favored, ad 24% said both students had the same chance. Coupled with Hispanic opinion in a similar nature, 44% of Hispanics said the White student would be favored, 14% said the Black student would be favored, and 38% said both students had the same chance of admission. From the data above, it can be speculated that Blacks and Hispanics feel like admissions are oppressive to minority groups and that there is a strong racial bias against them. General opinion favored the White student by 2% and 36% said both students to have an equal chance. These public opinion polls are interesting in that they can help us to further understand race relations and to show policy makers what direction aggregate opinion is moving on affirmative action policies.

In conclusion, affirmative action is an issue that divides our nation. It has been an ongoing topic of discussion for decades, and we can still find no “right” answer to the problem. Affirmative action affects each group differently in its purpose to redress past discrimination to minorities. The Asian cohort, a large and strong academic body, is mal-affected by these policies, while African Americans and Hispanics are assisted greatly, despite their public opinion. Because of the nature of these times, opinion has been shifting towards the elimination of affirmative action in favor of admissions based solely on merit. Proponents for this would say that it is the right thing to do, and opponents would disagree. In the end, assuming this trend of eliminating affirmative action continues, without social and governmental intervention in the basic K-12 school system nationwide, minorities will continue to suffer due to their economic position in society.

References
CQ Researcher. 2002. “Affirmative Action in Undergraduate Admissions.”

Egan, Timothy. 2007. “Little Asia on the Hill.” New York Times, 7 January.

Gamson, William A. and Modigliani, Andre. 1987. “The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action.” Research in Political Sociology Volume 3: 137-177.

Holzer, Harry J. and Neumark, David. 2005. “Affirmative Action: What Do We Know?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.

Kennedy-Dubourdieu, Elaine and Robinson, Jo Ann Ooiman. 2006. Race and Inequality: World Perspectives on Affirmative Action. Burlington, VT. Ashgate Publishing Company.

Kinder, Donald R and Sanders, Lynn M. 1996. Divided By Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals. Chicago, Illinois. The University of Chicago Press.

Lewin, Tamar. 2007. “Colleges Regroup after Voters Ban Race Preferences.” New York Times, 26 January.

Piazza, Thomas and Sniderman, Paul M. 1993. The Scar of Race. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard University Press.

The Polling Report: Race & Ethnicity. 2007. http://www.pollingreport.com/race.htm

San Francisco Chronicle. 2006. “The Legacy of Proposition 209.” 6 November.

Schmidt, Peter. 2003. “For Asians, Affirmative Action Cuts Both Ways.” The Chronicle of Higher Education Volume 49 Issue 39:pA24.

University of California at Berkeley. 2007. http://www.berkeley.edu/

Predictions and Analyzations - Democrats

2006-12-29T14:16:00.000-05:00

Now that former Senator Edwards has announced his candidacy for President of the United States, I'm going to start making a few predictions about him and his Democratic opponents. Since I'm no longer working for Senator Clinton, or at least for now...I'm going to let some of my words flow.

Here I will post my prediction that Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will announce their candidacies for president as well, but each are most probably trying to pick different dates with minimally a week apart. This is because each candidate wants their own spotlight.

Tom Vilsack was the first to announce candidacy, and him being the Iowa governor, may help him in the Iowa primary. Though by no means is he considered a front-runner. Vilsack's lack of celebrity status will hurt him as well as him not being the best looking candidate, which is actually something that's subconsciously very important to voters. He has little name recognition nationally, but governors have been able to get over that. Also, his slogan "V for Vilsack" is relatively catchy and I think people will remember that.

John Edwards announced in a very non-traditional way. It was not in the Capitol, but in New Orleans, at a job site where Edwards helped to repair someone's house. He has a few things going for him. He ran once, was defeated, and I'm sure he learned a lot about why he lost. Secondly, he was picked and nominated as the Vice Presidential candidate in the 2004, which gives him some more political pull and celebrity status. This is name recognition at its best. Supposedly he has a different strategy, but is still going to emphasize his "two americas" theme, which is obvious by his usage of the hurricane Katrina disaster as a prime example. Edwards reminds me of the Kennedy family from the 60's and 70's. He's younger, good looking, rich, and smiles like it. Not that it's a bad thing, he just looks like one of the elite.

Dennis Kucinich has announced candidacy, I believe. He has some slight name recognition, but that will not help him. In my opinion, Mr. Kucinich is a really good person, and knows a lot about policy, but does not have what it takes to be President. If he did we would have seen him as a shining star in the Democratic Primaries. He probably won't win any states in the primaries. He is a non-issue. Sorry Dennis!

Hillary Clinton has been setting up a presidential run for countless months. She set up numerous exploratory committees and has really basically put everything in place to make her the #1 front-running candidate for the President of the United States. She already has celebrity status and better name recognition than anyone who can be on the ticket. After all, she was the first lady for eight years and has been a senator for six years already with also having won her re-election in a landslide. Almost every citizen knows who the first lady is, and everyone knows who Bill Clinton is. Having him as her husband and as the possible first gentleman is quite an advantage to have as well. New Yorkers just voted her back in to the Senate, and she and her campaign staff must realize a possible increase of anti-clinton sentiment when she announces a presidential run. It will be an interesting campaign strategy that the staff will have to pursue to overcome a decrease in popularity from anti-clinton sentiment. Some people may see her re-election to senate being used as a stepping stone for her political gain. I'm not sure what to think. She looks better now than she did many years ago, so that may help her, not to mention the fact that she is a woman and it is time to see if we are ready for the first female president.

Barack Obama is my hero. I think he is an excellent role model for any child. That being said, his popularity is remarkable. If one thinks about it, he was not even elected Illinois Senator yet and he delivered the 2004 DNC keynote speech. That's pretty impressive to be able to so with party politics as they are today. That rose him to superstardom for Democrats, and now Republicans are just starting to hear his name and know who he is too. I doubt many Republicans watched the 2004 Democratic National Convention on television. Obama's integrity, smarts, leadership, and his eloquence are four things that have made this man who he is today. He also set up many many avenues to make his candidacy easier. The Senator seems like an amazing presidential candidate to me, but I think the color of his skin will be a problem for too many people. Much of America is still racist and I am unsure if America as an aggregate is ready for a black president. One thing he really has going for him is he's young and good looking. That should help him as well. He is still a front-runner with Hillary Clinton and possibly John Edwards.

Now for the true predictions. I think Hillary will get the Democratic nomination and will pick Barack as her Vice Presidential candidate. Since he's a Senator, he knows the Senate already and will know how to do his job pretty well if elected. This will also set him up for a stronger presidential bid being the vice president once one or two both terms are over. That would be interesting: the first female president and first black vice president. I think Edwards does have a chance though, but I feel he's much harder for me to predict.

Senator Clinton and a run for the White House

2006-10-05T01:54:00.000-04:00

Let it be known that I am a pretty avid supporter of Senator Clinton and that I actually work for her campaign. Let it also be known that I am no way, shape, or form saying that she will run for President of the United States of America nor do I know if she will announce candidacy for it. With that precursor in mind, I will express my own opinion on her current situtation in New York.

I work at the Broome County Democratic Headquarters, stationed in Binghamton, NY. There, I have taken up the title of Chenango County Coordinator, for I am responsible for most of the political happenings with Senator Clinton's campaign in that county. My duties also are spread to include Broome County activities with the other interns. Yes, you heard me...I am indeed an intern, like everyone else in the world it seems.

Every county in the southern tier of New York is majoritarily Republican. Some counties such as Stueben County, I believe, have double the amount of Republicans over Democrats, and that is not counting the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party. Yes, those are actually parties too. The Southern Tier consists of approximately seven counties. The reason I bring these sorts of figures up is because Senator Clinton, nor any other democratic senator that I know of has won these counties.

New York, as a whole seems like it is relatively similar to the United States. I will provide the breakdown with my findings to support my claim. NY has its counties like the U.S. has its states. We have NYC, which is itself, then all of our other cities like Buffalo, Syracuse, Binghamton, Albany, Ithaca, Utica, etc. Those cities correspond to the nation's top cities which I don't feel like listing out. These cities in both the US & NY are predominantly democratic. The similarities are showing. Everywhere else are suburbs and rural areas, which are predominantly republican, just like in the general consensus of the United States. As one can see, I find much similarity between the two.

Now, if Senator Clinton wins these Republican dominated counties, whether its some, none, or all, I think it has a lot to say if she does decide to make a run for top cop. If these counties correlate to the red states, then they will be a large indicator of how one would do in the bid for President. Many republicans are angry and want change, and even more democrats want change. We have wanted a different president since Bush came in to office. I think our democratic headquarters in Broome County has the opportunity to change the tide of an election, and perhaps future. Just like the butterfly effect; the flap of a butterfly's wings can cause a tornado across the world. Could it be possible that it is in our hands? There is so much speculation on Hillary and running for President. If she won some of these counties, would it mean she could win some red states of equivalent proportion? I am not saying that it would be easy to win these counties, because it is definitely an uphill battle for all of us working from the Headquarters in Broome County to take the Southern Tier of NY. If we do take some of them, which would be absolutely amazing...it doesn't mean it would be easy to take the red states, but possible with a good amount of work and political strategy. I just find it amazing that so much CAN be centered around ONE state in the upcoming months/year. New York.

Education Plan Continued...A new course initiative.

2006-10-04T18:55:00.000-04:00

In order to make people more aware with our political system and politics in general, how about mandating separate course studies throughout middle and high school. By separate course studies I mean a politics class. Plain and simple, every year for a full year in middle school and high school, have children take a politics class.

Fundamentally it will do a few things. One thing it will do is increase political awareness. Secondly, it will boost voter registration and voter turnout, especially among the youth. Thirdly, candidates will hold more respect for younger voters and be more issue-based. If schools can teach a politics course it will also create many more thousands of jobs and would do this nation a great justice.

This concurrent plan may have an adverse effect on political science programs in universities, so I would have to explore this further. But I am sure that to a certain extent, this program could be successfully coordinated and implemented with no adverse affect to colleges and universities.

I will end this post with a statement.

The common people have a right to know, not just the elite.

The start of an education plan that will take a long time...

2005-12-03T15:48:00.000-05:00

Okay, so I discovered something while debating education reform the other day. It was that the secondary schools, meaning k-12, will never reform if they are not made to. The only way to force them to become better and more learning intensive, is to increase the standards of the post-secondary schools, meaning universities and colleges. Make the minimum passing grade higher, increase the standards for admissions. i will elaborate more later.

A Sociology Presentation that i wrote on the gap between the rich and the poor.

2005-05-13T00:14:00.000-04:00

A social class is, in the most basic sense, a group of people that share the same or similar social status. The relative importance and definition of membership in a particular class differs greatly over time and between societies, particularly in societies having a legal differentiation of groups of people by birth or occupation. In the well-known example of socioeconomic class, many scholars view societies as stratifying into a hierarchical system based on economic status, wealth, or income. With the social changes of the 20th century, a gradually developing urban middle class appeared in most Western countries, producing three strata: an Upper class of the immensely wealthy and/or powerful, a Middle class of managers and highly paid professionals, a Lower class of people paid average or low wages or receiving "welfare.” This includes those who are homeless. Karl Marx suggested that the primary social division was between a “ruling class" and a laboring class.

In the article I read, dated August 16th 2004, it describes how the gap between the rich and the poor has continuously increased over the years. And while there is some sociology rooted in this problem, most of it is political. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and this applies to this day. The rich and powerful will do everything they can to stop social mobility and to help their friends in the upper class. For example, President Bush’s tax cuts and how most of the $1.3 trillion dollars went to the wealthy and only a small portion of that went to the middle and lower classes. Here’s a statistic for you: The wealthiest 20% of households in 1973 accounted for 44% of total U.S. income, according to the Census Bureau. Their share jumped to 50 percent in 2002, while everyone else’s fell. For the bottom fifth or bottom 20%, the share dropped from 4.2% in 1973 to 3.5% now.

One of the problems affecting all that are not rich is inflation. Our economy has undergone inflation but everyone’s paychecks have not. People have not been getting raises and their salaries are more or less the same as it used to be and there has been close to no compensation in terms of keeping up with inflation and the economy’s growth. Many of the every day things we buy have went up drastically, including gas. Sooner or later people will not be able to afford the price of gas. Three in five pay below the national median hourly wage of $13.53, said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist for Wells Fargo. On a weekly basis, the average wage of $525.84 is at the lowest level since October 2001.

Another reason the poor are getting poorer is because of the crumby support system they have. Most of the poor have a worse education than one who has money. Rarely will you find a married couple both with Masters Degrees and still making close to nothing, but it is out there. People who are poor or homeless need two things to get themselves out of the lower class and to rise in to the middle class. First, they need a better welfare support system to help them with what they actually need, instead of trying to give someone a band-aid to fix a broken leg. Some people need some money and food stamps, some people don’t…it’s all dependant on the person. The other thing that is needed, though, is education. There needs to be a program that can give these people a better education, necessary for getting a higher paying job. Special schools or institutes, even allowing the earning of G. E. D’s during all times of the day should be implemented so they too, can move up the socio economic ladder.

The middle class is moving two ways. Many of the middle class jobs are being outsourced or companies are just laying massive amounts of people off. Either way, often times it is hard to find a new job that is steady with equal or better pay. So much of the middle class face economic trouble causing them to start to head down to the lower class level. And a good portion of the middle class is moving up, and they are making more money than they ever had before, mostly by working very diligently for most of their lives.

On the back of our 1 dollar bill, there is a pyramid, with the eye of illuminati. If you notice, the top of the pyramid is not attached and is floating above. That small section represents class structure and mostly a lack of social mobility. The rich and powerful is that small section with the all Seeing Eye, watching over you and controlling the ladder. The upper class has the smallest population, then the middle class is next in line, and the lower class has the largest population…able to be represented in a pyramid form. The reason the top section is detached is because no one below that is supposed to be able to reach that kind status, so the rich keep the rich in power.

So it seems the growing trend of our economy and society right now is for the middle class to thin out so much where there is only a small population still remaining in the middle class. The poor don’t have such programs stated earlier and many people are working multiple jobs just to put food on the table; there is almost no social mobility within the lower class. The upper class is the smallest, and certainly the richest, allowing close to no mobility in to the class of the rich and the powerful as well as controlling most of the job market. I explained a few things to help the lower class achieve a better socio economic status, but there is still way more to do as well as keeping a nice big middle class of informed, educated, Americans that don’t literally have to live paycheck to paycheck.

Global Warming...a problem? I think so.

2005-05-13T00:10:00.000-04:00

The greenhouse effect is responsible for the Earth's warm, livable atmosphere. Greenhouse gasses keep the Earth about 33 C (60 F) warmer than it would be without its natural blanket of protective gas. While the greenhouse effect is perfectly natural, we can change the climate from things we do. Water vapor, methane, carbon dioxide, CFCs, ozone and nitrous oxide are all greenhouse gases.

The greenhouse effect is when sun rays go through our atmosphere to warm up the ground, water, and everything else exposed to the sun. Those things exposed to the sun emit infrared radiation a.k.a. heat. Molecules in the atmosphere absorb the infrared radiation and release heat within the atmosphere, trapping the heat in the atmosphere.

Chronologically, here is a timeline of what has happened historically with global warming. In 1896, a Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius discovered what the greenhouse effect does and what it is. In 1913, Charles Abbot found that global warming correlates to weather patterns. In 1979, the first World Climate Conference was held in Geneva to discuss global warming and its effects on us. In 1988, the U.N. establishes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and Carbon Dioxide levels reach 350 parts per million from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million. In 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change presented its first assessment report, stating that we are doing harm to our planet. In 1992, the United States, and more than 100 other countries sign the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Rio de Janeiro, attempting to make efforts to curb our global warming increases. In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol is negotiated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. The U. S. signs the treaty although the U.S. Senate agrees in advance not to ratify the treaty citing economic concerns. President Bush will withdraw the U.S. from the treaty in 2001. In 2005, the Kyoto Protocol enters into force on February 16. The Protocol was ratified by 140 countries that account for most of global emissions from industrialized nations, according to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Concentration of carbon dioxide now stands at 372 parts per million, higher than at any time in at least the past 420,000 years according to David King, chief science advisor to the British Government.
What has caused us to rise to 372 parts per million of Carbon Dioxide and what is causing us all this damage? One thing that is doing excessive damage and seems to be our number one global warmer is hog, pig, and cow raising. What makes them our top contender for the number one spot is because of what they are forced to be fed, causing excessive methane gas from their wastes. One million metric tons of methane is equivalent to the emissions of 24.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, so as you can see…methane is a very harmful greenhouse gas. Another thing that contributes to the highest carbon dioxide levels ever is our everyday trucks, cars, vans, sports utility vehicles, SUV’s, and pretty much all construction units with wheels. While cars, vans, and SUV’s have emissions standards, the rest have way less and some of them have no standards. So while these vehicles are running they are releasing CO2 & Chlorofluorocarbons, or CFC’s. Both of these are greenhouse gasses, which contribute to the warming of our atmosphere and other problems as well, like ozone depletion, quality of air, smog, etc. The other main contributor to global warming is the factories and plants all around the globe. The United States Republican government now has a policy of de-regulation for all of these big-business factories so they don’t have to spend as much on environmental regulations and filters on their smoke stacks. So instead of being able to produce much cleaner smoke in to the air, they are putting raw pollutants in to the air. The U.S. is the largest global warming contributor, and China is in the second place. The United State’s role of non-involvement with the Kyoto Accords just shows how greedy we are and how much the government doesn’t care about our long term future. China is listed as a developing country, still, so according to the Kyoto Accords, they need not have any emissions standards on their factories.

What is the effect that global warming is having on the planet and all of us? One of our main concerns is the raised water levels from melting ice caps on both poles. When the ice caps melt, the water level will rise so greatly that it will bring the water up multiple feet, entrenching many towns and large cities situated along the coasts. Giant icebergs are cracking off the Antarctic that are gigantic in proportion, showing a rise in surface temperature even down there. Warming up the planet where blooming and seasons for animals and reptiles are starting earlier every year. For instance, the Japanese cedar is a tree that many are allergic to, and this season it’s producing more pollen than it ever has due to global warming, so it is affecting the health of the Japanese citizens as well. Receding and melting glaciers on large mountains like Mt. Kilimanjaro are a large problem, and are causing longer droughts in the surrounding areas, affecting the whole ecosystem there too. Alaska’s polar bears are thought to be roaming on snow and ice but these days you can even find them on the frozen ground…why? Because the surface temperatures and atmospheric temperatures have risen to the point where it doesn’t snow there in as much of an excess as it did in the past. The Sea bird population decline has been linked to global warming as well. The black guillemot population is declining from 1990 levels because melting sea ice has increased the distance the birds must fly to forage for food and reduced the number of resting sites available. The warmer water can affect migratory patterns of fish too, and in turn birds who feed on those fish. Global warming does not just affect humans, it affects the entire biosphere.

Who can we blame? We can blame the republicans and conservatives who are anti-environment and pro-money. They are helping big business out by imposing their policies of de-regulation on the factories and plants so that it is cheaper to run the factories by letting pollutants enter the air more freely instead of them being filtered out through emissions standards. We can also blame the President for repeatedly declining involvement with the Kyoto Accords, which over 100 countries are parts of. We are supposed to set a positive example for the rest of the world but instead people from the other countries dislike us for all of the bad things we are doing internationally.

What can we do to prevent further damage? The first thing I would suggest is getting a new President of the United States. It is clear that his imposition of his lack of values is ruining our planet. Second, we can regulate the factories again, like we had done in the Clinton administration. We can set better emissions standards for our trucks, cars, and other vehicles, so fewer pollutants are released in the air. We can require that all hog factories meet permanent performance standards to achieve environmental and public health goals and that they take care of the waste problems as well in a clean manner. The last thing we can do is hope that nothing extremely major and life changing happens.

My Agenda

2005-02-01T23:55:00.000-05:00

Hey guys, it's been a while since I've posted. I will finish that religion article sooner or later. But right now I've made a list of things I believe we need to change within our country, and I'll be concentrating on writing about each one of these problems. This will be one of my new projects of things to do. I'll be researching each of the topics and doing my best to write the most objective plan to fixing them. I'll be editing this post and adding things to most categories as well, and from there I'll write seperate pieces on each topic. In no particular order of importance, my list is as follows:

Welfare

FCC Censorship

Social Security

Border Patrol/Security

Immigration

Separation of Church and State
·President Bush’s preaching to the country and world in his state of the union addresses and press conferences constantly mentioning god.
·The Pledge of Allegiance
·In god we trust on money

The Patriot Act
· Phone tapping
· Looking at your library records
· Reading your e-mail
· Being taken prisoner without warrant

Drugs
· Marijuana Legalization

Environmental Issues
· More Regulation not De-Regulation
· Global Warming
· Fossil Fuels

Education
· Higher Education

Healthcare

Military
· Slightly less than 1.4 million active soldiers (2002)
· 875,000 reservists (2002)

Budget Deficit
· $675 Billion; second largest since WWII; 5.9% of the GDP
· By 2009 the proposed budget deficit is around 2.55 Trillion, which would be the largest in history.

Supreme Court

Trade

Gay Marriage

Stem Cell Research

U.N. Relations/Foreign Relations
· Iraq
· Korea
· Russia
· China
· Israel
· France

Tax Breakup Bracket / General Taxes

Abortions

Voting rights

Incarcerated Civilians’ Rights

· Currently inmates have no real rights besides the right to a lawyer. Their very basic right of the freedom to vote has become void. They should at least be allowed to exercise their right to vote. There are 2,000,000 inmates in the United States. That number is higher than our active military’s population.

Crime

· Murders
· Public school crime

Gay Marriage Statement

2005-01-27T18:41:00.000-05:00

While this country was formed on religious persecution, we as a government are to be religious no more and should hold a secular role. The banning of Gay Marriage is purely because of people’s religious views etc. If two people of the same sex are in love why not let them get married? Do they not have feelings too? While I can understand they cannot procreate, they can still adopt children and raise them as a couple, and nothing is stopping them nor will anything do so. You don’t need to be married to raise a child, as we all know. While I feel a child should grow up with the appropriate mother and father role models, I will not let my personal feelings get in the way of what someone can and cannot do what they deserve as a right. Marriage is a sacred relationship that is an official and legal bond, bringing two people together so they can share their lives with each other. Homosexuals should be afforded the same right as men and women, so they, too, can have that special bond with one another.

Election Lawsuit

2004-12-24T06:19:00.000-05:00

To my understanding, the votes were recounted and Bush was still heavily in the lead in Ohio. I honestly am not sure what to believe. Now I know that President Bush's super Christian attitude and influence has gotten a lot more of church goers and conservatives to get out and vote for him on the ballots, but there were an insane amount of fuck-ups in that state. It was the Florida of 2004. TONS of ballots were mysteriously lost in Democratic counties and even more were just thrown away, also from moreso liberal areas. This dearly bothers me.

Republicans may be up in everyone's face about their "ethics" and how superior Republicans are, while Democrats haven't really been standing up to the plate as much it seems, but at least the Democrats are honest. We do honestly follow the rules way more than those Conservative Capitol Hill politicians. The Republicans win the big elections the dirty way. They secretly organize losses of ballots, screw-ups of important mistakes, etc so that they can use all of the turmoil to help them win. We all know that Gore won Florida in 2000 and should have been President of the United States right now. With all of those stupid dimple chads, hanging chads, some party line votes, some not, it screws things up. And I shall not forget the vans of votes suddenly getting lost too! Sorry, but I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I seriously think that all of that was planned and organized. G.W.B.'s brother, Jeb, just also happens to be Governor of Florida, and one of the women (my mind is in an absence of her name) on the Bush campaign also was leading/handling the Florida election process. Sorry, but the evidence of a set-up is way too clear to dismiss and I really have a strong feeling of that entire state being pre-rigged.

SAME shit going on with Kerry and Bush in Ohio. How in every other state were there not lines for 10+ hours but in Ohio there were?? You know, the state with 20 electoral votes that decided the election? Also, votes were lost and all that BS. Its asinine I tell you, completely screwed up. While there was no corruption in the high political tiers of Ohio that I can see, there were definitely some people pulling strings in the voting districts... Why in the highly important states with a fine line that sways either way from democrat to republican, seem to get screw-ups on election day? Tell me that, and I will give you a cookie.

Elections in a broad sense

2004-12-03T04:44:00.000-05:00

Well I learned some rather surprising things today, one of them being that our voter turnout percentages have been wrong for decades, and the other, which I will get to later. I'll elaborate on what I mean by the voter turnout numbers.

The media and many other sources have claimed that in the 2000 election, we only had a 51% voter turnout. What was not mentioned is that it was 51% of all people in the United States of and over 18 years old. This includes: prison inmates that are not eligable to vote, patients in mental hospitals, immigrants, illegal immigrants, citizens that aren't registered to vote, and I'm sure there's more.

This false percentage is one of the things giving us a bad wrap world-wide. That such an established, respected (it used to be at least) counry that is the world's largest superpower can have such a poor turnout. Only 51% would not show for much and that people in the United States don't care.

In 2000, the V.A.P. or Voting Age Population, released by the census bureau, was 205 million people and the number of voters was 105 million people. The Population of Eligabable Voters, another product of the census burea, was said to be 156 million eligable voters in the United States. Subtract 156 million from 205 million and you come with the amount of uneligable voters that were used, which comes out to be a whopping 49 million people that couldnt vote.

The right number we should be matching up the 105 million people that voted to should be the 156 million eligable voters. If you do the math, you'll come up with a 67% voter turnout. I think that is damn good amount of people when the country and economy were doing extremely well. It gave the voters less motivation to go out and vote too, and that was in 2000.

Four years have now passed and it is almost 2005 now and we still do not have the election results. We had a much higher voter turnout this presidential election due to it being so incredibly heated, motivating people to go out and vote for their pick for pres. But there is one thing I can guarantee you, and that is when the official results are released, the numbers will be misconstrued and the media and news sources will be using the wrong numbers once again. I think the real percentage of voter turnout would be around 72-75%? Something like that.

--------------

To continue on a similar subject, but different note, I got wind today that a "three prong" lawsuit is in the works against the State of Ohio claiming widespread voter fraud.

Cliff Arnebeck, the Attorney representing the Alliance for Democracy, claims he has evidence of fraud and he's confident when the votes are recounted, Ohio will go Kerry. And as of this morning, the NY Times reports that Kerry and Edwards have officially joined the effort!

Now I am a Kerry supporter, and I actually worked a little bit for the campaign in terms of fundraising activities, but I am doubtful that this lawsuit will be successful. I believe Bush had a 136,000 vote lead over Kerry. That is one LARGE number to overcome. I believe Kerry would need over 50% of that number to gain those 20 electoral votes, so that is something like 69,000 or 70,000 votes going to Kerry. I could be wrong, after all, it is 3:52 AM. Hooray to insomnia.

As much as I hate Bush, I still think he is going to come out in the end with Ohio's official recount figures. I will be following this topic as closely as possible, due to my improbable hope that Kerry can actually take Ohio and win the election.