Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Analyzing Controversial Issues
Document related concepts
Transcript
Analyzing Controversial Issues Sociology 220 Prof. Pamela Oliver Issues • Is it appropriate to use race or ethnic profiling in policing and security enforcement? • Should race or ethnicity be taken into account in college admissions? • Should U.S. immigration law be changed to allow more workers from Mexico? • Should English be the only language of instruction in U.S. public schools? Major Dimensions • Groups: defining what the “sides” are and how this relates to race/ethnicity • Interests: who stands to gain/lose • Factual claims: assertions about reality • Value claims: assertions about justice or morality • Discourse: how language is used to persuade, to position the issue with respect to other issues or principles Sources • We are looking for opinionated or “biased” sources, people who really advocate each side • We want opinions from BOTH sides • You want to sort your sources into “sides” and notice what kinds of claims are being made on each side • Library Lecture Groups • Clarify the “sides” in terms of social policy advocated • Racial/ethnic groups are related to these “sides” but not usually identical • Sometimes there are more than two, or there are shades of opinion • People often cast their opponents as homogeneous Interests • Who stands to gain/lose? – Money – Jobs – Political Power – Prestige, sense of superiority • People often disguise their interests under claims of general principles Factual Claims • What people say “the facts” are • Most times, the different sides disagree about facts • People may make factual claims about which the evidence is non-existent, in dispute, or contrary • Important to look for factual claims & the evidence supporting them Value Claims • • • Assertions about core principles of justice, fairness, equality, morality Both sides generally advocate positive values The sides may invoke different values or weigh them differently, or may agree on values but disagree on how to accomplish them Discourse • The words that are used, how the issue is compared to others • The two sides usually use different language, talk about the issue in different ways • Non-ethnic example: pro-life vs pro-choice. Different ways of framing what abortion is “about” • Those advocating points of view typically choose their language & framing purposefully to make a point Racial/Ethnic Profiling: 1. Defining Sides • People who want policies that pay special attention to groups that are “high risk” for certain types of crimes. – Usually not in the targeted race/ethnic groups – People who have special interest in the crime/terror problem Vs. • People who want policies reducing or eliminating the use of race/ethnicity as a basis for policing decisions. – Often members of the targeted race/ethnic groups – Others: linked to groups/ideologies with concern about discrimination Pro-Profiling: Groups, Interests, Claims • Usually not members of the “profiled” group, do not expect to be “targeted” (Interest: Won’t trouble them.) • Often members of law enforcement defending their actions (Interest: protect their jobs) • Concern about danger/difficulty of policing, need to use all tools • Factual claims about differential crime rates by ethnicity – Arab/Muslim terrorists – Black/Hispanic crime or drug dealing • May dispute claims that there IS racial profiling: all economics, or behavior warranting suspicion, not profiling Pro-Profiling: Interests, Values & Discourse • Value: concern for public safety, security (Interest: Expect these policies to reduce your crime victimization) • “Tough on crime” or “drug war” or “axis of evil” rhetoric • The criminals (terrorists) are “others” that need to be guarded against. Demonization of the criminal? • The [White] majority is not a crime/terror risk. Anti-Profiling: Groups, Claims, Values • Law-abiding people in targeted groups feel hassled by police or improperly arrested • Factual claims about police bias, e.g. “driving while black” & New Jersey turnpike data, imprisonment disparities • Factual claims of no or small difference in crime risk Black or Hispanic involvement in crime, especially drugs White terrorists • Values: Equality, fairness, presumption of innocence, justice Anti-Profiling: Discourses • Critique of political uses of “tough on crime” rhetoric • “Driving while Black” • Discrimination, racism, prejudice • “Profiling” shifts from neutral descriptive term to synonym for discrimination (example of language evolution in process of struggle) • Prison-industrial complex • Maintain boundaries of segregation • Comfort majority with image of criminals as “others” • Political value in having an external enemy. Using Race in College Admissions: Sides • Those who favor factoring race/ethnicity into college admissions, generally as one factor among many – Those who could expect to gain by such factoring: Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, some Asians – Those who would not expect to benefit directly but support anyway: some Whites & Asians – College administrators & others who favor these policies VS • Thos who oppose using race/ethnicity at all – Those who believe they will benefit from “ignoring” race, Whites & some Asians. – Those who could expect to gain, but oppose anyway: members of “targeted minorities” – Politicians & general public who see this is part of a bigger issue Using Race: Two Kinds of Pro Arguments • The disadvantage argument stresses – Legacy of unfair disadvantage due to societal discrimination – Need for more educated workers & professionals to help advance historically-disadvantaged communities – Weight of disadvantage keeps down students who would do well if given a chance – Majority students have plenty of opportunities, are not hurt • The diversity argument stresses – Inherent educational value in a culturally mixed environment – The majority benefits from diversity as much or more as “minority” students College Admissions: Factual Claims & Disputes • Whether there is still a legacy of disadvantage and ongoing discrimination – Whether disadvantaged students have ability and can do well if given a chance (Bok & Bowen vs Bell Curve) – Whether prejudice and stereotypes hurts the performance of even “advantaged” minority studies • How admission procedures actually work: admitted “on the basis of race” vs. “one factor among many.” Claims about other admission factors (e.g. alumni preferences) – – • What the racial/ethnic composition of college classes actually is • College enrollment rates vs. high school graduation rates College Admissions: Qualifications • Many factual disputes about qualifications of students for whom race is “factored” – Pro- advocates claim these students are well-qualified, anti-advocates say they are not – Sub-debate about whether standardized test scores (which favor Whites) are a valid “qualification” – Sub-debate about overcoming disadvantage as evidence of qualification – Sub-debate about qualifications and deservingness of disadvantaged Whites College Admissions: Outcomes • There are many factual disputes about the consequences of these policies – Graduation rates and reasons for non-completion (ability vs. financial strain, campus climate) – Impacts on “racial harmony” and White attitudes – Impacts on students of color – Impacts on Asian students (who are often not “targeted” but ARE often discriminated against in favor of Whites, relative to qualifications) College Admissions: Values • Equality: procedural vs. substantive • Justice: overcoming past wrongs • Cultural diversity in education • Individual claims vs. group claims • Whether society as a whole should have more racial/ethnic (or class) equality College Admissions: Discourse • “Reverse discrimination” labels Whites as victims • Quotas are illegal, but critics of “affirmative action” paint it as a quota program (blurs distinctions) • The icon of the “highly qualified white” – there are no mediocre or marginally qualified whites? • The icon of the “unqualified minority” – there are no qualified minorities? • Drawing comparison to alumni preferences • Diversity language Mexican Immigration: Sides • Immigration should be low & more enforcement to keep Mexican workers out VS • Mexican workers are part of economy, their immigration should be made legal. – Many different specific proposals for how to do this! NOTE: “Illegal immigration” as a problem is caused by immigration laws and can be fixed by making immigration legal. Mexican Immigration: Interest Groups • Mexicans: work in US, make money to send back to Mexico. (Or immigrate & stay here.) • US workers: concern that wages are undercut by larger supply of low-wage workers or that Mexicans take jobs that would go to US-born (especially African Americans) • Employers exploiting undocumented workers, circumvent minimum wage & working condition laws, Social Security taxes etc. • General population who benefit from inexpensive services, e.g. fast food, child care, cleaning services • Cultural interests: Spanish vs. English speakers Mexican Immigration: Factual Disputes • Effect of Mexican workers on wages of US workers • Effect of Mexicans on educational, social service budgets vs. taxes paid • Effects of Mexicans on general health of the economy • Effects of wage/economy differentials on migrant flows • Whether Mexicans are involved in crime, drug trade Mexican Immigration:Value Claims • Illegal immigration is “breaking the law” vs. “we make the laws” • Preserve what we have from outside competition vs. international justice • Society is better off if culturally homogenous vs. culturally heterogeneous • Workers are here, should be treated fairly • US citizens should be considered first Mexican Immigration: Discourse • “Illegal immigrant” stresses criminal vs. “Undocumented worker” stresses worker • Immigrants as dangerous vs. nation of immigrants • Whether hostility to Mexican (or Asian) immigration is racial – Debates among Mexican Americans about this English: Sides • “English only”: teach in English – Isolationist: it is the kid’s problem if s/he cannot speak English – Integrationist: English immersion is educationally best VS • “Bilingual” – Separatist: OK if primary language is not English, but learn English as second language (nobody in the US advocates not knowing English) – Integrationist: bilingual instruction is the best way to learn content + English and end up well-educated English: Interests • Educating children: what method works best – For overall education (math, science, history, etc.) – For English • Language dominance: being able to conduct business in your first language without having to accommodate others – Threat of hearing foreign language in “your” territory • Taxes: paying for children’s education English: Factual Claims – part 1 • Which educational methods work best – For English • When the school is majority English-speaking • When the majority in school speak a single other language • When the children speak many different languages • How affected by age, prior literacy of children (and adults) – For other content (math, science, history, etc.) English: Factual Claims – part 2 • How educational assessment are affected by ongoing immigration • How educational programs work in practice – English immersion as cultural oppression – Bilingual education as ghetto-ization; assumption that all Latinos speak Spanish – Impact of funding programs • Educational history of European immigrants (the myth that they all learned English fast and did well in school) • Ethnic differences in bilingual education English: Value Claims • English language unifies the country • People who do not speak English (or do not want to speak English) should stay out of the US • Knowing multiple languages is good in a global world • Language is important to a person’s sense of self, not easily changed English: Discourse • English First, English Only, • US for English-speakers • Cultural diversity, multiculturalism • “Educationally best” • What is best for the children?
