Reflection: "What are the Aims of Diversity?"

What are the Aims of Diversity?

To increase our Knowledge. This means utilizing an open minded approach when encountering situations that are unknown and new to you. This also means to use a nonjudgmental mindset when coming upon these new situations, so that you are able to take in information objectively.

To utilize Methods to both increase our knowledge about diversity, as well as be a model and teach others how to be a citizen that isn't just tolerant of others but accepting. This includes not being color blind but seeing differences for what they are, and accepting those differences as equal to everyone else's differences.

It is to have Perspective, and to think about how we all have been discriminated against and how awful that feels. To remember this as the commonality that everyone shares, and to use that common thread to instill compassion throughout people. I honestly want to believe that people aren't born to discriminate against each other and that discriminatory behaviors are taught, not natural.

It takes Vision to see how society can be changed, and to have the courage to be part of the positive evolution. Whether you have time, resources, or commitment to the cause, anyone can join the team to increase the acceptance of diversity.

What I learned from this course is that as try as we may, we cannot categorize people effectively. Thankfully that is the case because there is no reason for this! We are all multifaceted and multiracial, whether you are black, while, Native American, etc. We all come from a mix of people, our world is too old and people have been so integrated that is is unlikely anyone has a "pure" lineage (whatever that means!).

The various portions of Rosenblum's and Travis' (2012), Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability, outlined separate groups of people that have been discriminated against over the years, with an eye to the U.S. This information is so important to pass along from generation to generation, so we learn from the mistakes of the past so we can have a healthier and happier future, that considers everyone different and equal.

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. C. (2012). The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability (ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

"What Can We Do? Becoming Part of the Solution," "In Defense of Rich Kids," and "Uprooting Racism: How White People Can Work for Racial Justice," (Rosenblum and Travis, 502-520).

My first reaction within seconds of reading the article "In Defense of Rich Kids" by William Upski Wimsatt (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 508-511) was definitely negative. Though Wimsatt is pointing out that people with money didn't chose to be rich and that if you are, why not be a "cool rich kid" and donate your money to just causes (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 510)? Even so, I can't help by feeling "ew" about this article. He writes like a "bro" and completely draws a line between rich people and poor people (in his article, there wasn't an in between).

Again, he talks about the charities he supports and how he is trying to engage other people like him to use their money for good. I realize money is helpful when trying to promote change. But to think that it is the end all is sad to me. Maybe this is because I am from a working class family and the subtle chip on his shoulder throughout this entire article completely irked me.

"...it's easy to criticize my actions when you don't have much money..." (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 508). Maybe I wasn't thinking about criticizing you before but after reading that part, I want to now! Again, yes, he wants to help charities that need to get their feet off the ground but I guess the difference is this: he is using his money to help which he realizes he will get more and more of, while others use their very lives and energy to do something. Those are the people I want to celebrate, not the money man.

In the end, I don't think it is the message that Wimsatt gave, it was his delivery. Maybe a more humble approach would make the lowly 99% want to engage with him more.

In the following reading "Uprooting Racism: How White People Can Work for Racial Justice" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 512-516), the authors offer concrete steps about how to overcome adversity (such as racism).

One of them is money....ok, Wimsett won that one.

Additionally, white people can be a "strong ally" by offering "respect...speak up...talk to other white people...interrupt jokes and comments...[and] take risks" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 513). That makes sense and seems pretty obvious.

Have you ever played the game "Cards Against Humanity?" It is very inappropriate and I can't decide if I actually can play it without feeling absolutely terrible. It has become increasingly popular and I am honestly a little shocked by its content. It's just making it ok to say racist things and that seems like taking a step back; I don't think laughing at the discrimination of people is ever appropriate.

"The challenge we face is to change patterns of exclusion, rejections, privilege, harassment, discrimination, and violence that are everywhere in this society existed for hundreds (or...thousands) of years. We have to begin by thinking about the trouble and the challenges in new and productive ways...." (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 502).

The above quote is refreshing, after having to write about rich providing support and about how money will change how things change. Wimsatt's flaw is that he is sticking with a corrupt system and playing by its rules. To really change society for the better, he should focus on renewing the very system that gave him his wealth.

If we want to really start change, do we have to play by the system's game or should we deviate, to create a new "game" and a new way of interacting with one another?

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. C. (2012). The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability (ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

"The Biology of the Homosexual," "A New Paradigm for Understanding Women's Sexuality and Sexual Orientation," and "The Heterosexual Questionnaire" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 147-167).

"...samesex desire is simply not comparable to questions like eye color, hair color, or height....for how are we to measure the "occurrence" (or non-occurrence) of a "trait" that is itself relational, subtle, and subject to varied modalities and modulations?" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 155-156).

"...heterosexuals are normal and mentally healthy but homosexuals are abnormal....the consensus among psychiatrists and psychologists is that homosexuality is not a form of pathology nor is it associated with mental illness..." (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 158).

To categorize people is obviously a popular method of making sense of differences, though categorizing is certainly limiting and can never encompass the vast array of individuals found throughout the planet. Scientists have wondered how to categorize people who are homosexual by asking: what makes them homosexual? Research has be done throughout the 20th century but is unsuccessful in it's finding to determine a "gay gene" or a scientific explanation for a person identifying as homosexual or heterosexual (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 147).

Another method to discover differences between women who identify as heterosexual or homosexual was to figure out how femininity might differ between the two groups (again, a focus on categorizing people). Previously, it was thought that women who were homosexual were ill, and that they may also display less feminine characteristics compared to heterosexual women (Rosenblum and Travis, 2012). This, of course, is completely untrue and the "Illness Model," Inversion Model," and "Biological Models" have all been challenged and none have held any truth when trying to differentiate women (Rosenbmul and Travis, p. 158-159).

The Heterosexual Questionnaire, found at the end of this portion of Rosenblum's and Travis' (2012) book, The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions pf Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability, is an interesting spin on how people who identify as homosexual may feel when receiving a survey about why they might be homosexual. After viewing it, it simply seems ridiculous to pose those kinds of questions to anyone, as the questions lend themselves to making the responder feel like they have done something wrong.

The theme of these three readings is that sexuality is fluid and there's no need to categorize people or find out the biological reason for sexual orientation. By looking for a reason, it insinuates there is a problem to be fixed. If people are happy and healthy than what does it matter? "On standardized measures of personal adjustment and psychological well-being, gay and lesbian couples, and parents are comparable to their heterosexual counterparts" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 158).

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. C. (2012). The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability (ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

"Framing Class: Media Representations of Wealth and Poverty in America," "Loot or Find: Fact or Frame?," and " The Protean N-Word" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 448-474).

"...the media either play class differences for laughs or sweep the issue of class under the rug so important distinctions are rendered invisible" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 448).

"The most relevant and dominant frame is color blindness, or the belief that race is not a factor in how we make sense of the world" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 455).

"Over the years, nigger has become the best known of the American language's many racial insults, evolving into the paradigmatic slur....That is why Arabs are called "sand niggers," Irish "the niggers of Europe"..." (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 466).

In the United States, people can be influenced by the media to a fault. People allow media to teach them social norms without engaging in critical thinking to determine if the media is correct or not. Many people of the U.S. watch the morning and/or nightly news for the day's events. It is easy for these newscasts to alter public opinion.

Television shows sometimes juxtapose different classes of people but instead of focusing on the evident problem of class inequality, the show it turned into an opportunity to laugh at others' misfortunes while wishing to be more like the wealthy portrayed (Rosenblum and Travis, 2012).

Along the same idea, media can also promote color blindness. Again, this can be seen in television shows, where everyone is the same and the topic of diversity is not discussed. Understandably, not ever tv show is trying to create positive social change but even so, they indirectly may show the public's view of diversity in how they decide to create their characters.

In the U.S. to reference someone as a nigger can be considered to be the worst insult. Originating from the Latin, it wasn't always an insult. It is unknown when the transition was made from noun to insult. Of course, the media does not portray this word in a good light and it is not widely used. As you may have noticed, I even have a challenging time typing it (I have only really typed it out once), because it is so engrained in me that we don't use that word; however, is the the right way to think? I am NOT SAYING we should begin to call each other by that term as a way to insult, not at all but are there other ways to go about this issue instead of just avoiding it (Rosenblum and Travis, 2012)?

The media has a power over people in the way that it can provide information very quickly and widely without missing beat. It has the responsibility to have accurate information while not reinforcing discrimination. Just like the media, we also have a responsibility. That is to not believe everything you hear, read, watch, etc. Critical thinking and following up about information is essential, if you want the real picture of an event or information provided. Without critical thinking, individuals are susceptible to blindly following someone who could be completely incorrect.

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. C. (2012). The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability (ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

"Lilly's Big Day," The Other Movement That Rosa Parks Inspired: By Sitting Down, She Made Room for the Disabled," and "Influencing Public Policy" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 502

"...when she neared retirement, someone slipped her a pay schedule that showed her male colleagues were making much more money than she was" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 489).

"Park's method of dissent-sitting still-was well suited to a community in which many people found themselves having to do that very thing all day long. Within two decades of her refusal to give up her seat, disabled people in cities across the country began staging their own sit-ins..." (Rosenblum and Travis, p.491).

"There are at least five central groups or stakeholders involved in influencing the legislative process: constituents, organizations or interest groups, coalitions, members of Congress, and congressional staffers" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 492-493).

The above quotes provide insight into how various people were mistreated through discrimination, how those people fought discrimination, and a general outline of how we, as citizens of the U,S., can change the course of how we treat each other.

Lilly had been underpaid compared to her male co-workers for the entirety of her career. When she realized this and took her employer to court, the court found her company guiltily; however, her case was thrown out which meant she received nothing. Though she went through the process to receive lost payment and didn't in the end, she still did elicit change because she stood up for herself and others noticed.

Rosa, when refusing to give up her seat on the bus, was a model to others to stand up to those who were discriminating against them. People who used wheelchairs did sit-ins at city bus stations, as a way of showing their solidarity and a desire for change.

It can often feel overwhelming to think of all the good that needs to be done in the world; however, as the third quotes shows us, there are steps we can take to promote positive change.

The theme of these articles, is that when there is an opportunity to stand up for what is right and ethical, we should do our best to take the opportunity. As you may guess, it is not usually the easier path, though the potential rewards are the fact that you are supporting not only yourself but future generations.

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. C. (2012). The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability (ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

"Beyond the Closet: The Transformation of Gay and Lesbian Life," "Dude, You're a Fag: Adolescent Male Homophobia," and "Sexual Orientation and Sex in Women's Lives: Conceptual and Methodological Issues" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 269-292)

"Identities are complex. We don't have just one and in the course of our lives we alter....If an identity...is considered the core, it will help shape an individual's decisions about friends, residence, social activities, and employment" (Rosenblum and Travis, p.269)

"Homophobia is indeed a central mechanism in the making of contemporary American adolescent masculinity" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 277)

"Sexual behavior is still defined in genital ways that may not accurately reflect the totality of women's sexual experiences" (Rosenblum and Travis, p.291)

As the three quotes seen above point out, identities are ever-changing, are affected by those around us and how society's social constructs have been modeled to us while information/research concerning identity is still lacking (Rosenblum and Travis, 2012).

We do not go through life with only one identity. We may have more than one at a time, and some of those identities may stick with use, become our primary identity while others fade out of our lives or become more secondary identities (Rosenblum and Travis, 2012). As a child, you may consider yourself a student, a daughter, a flute player, and an avid reader. As you grow older, the identity of student and musician fade, while the daughter remains and mother, gardener, and businesswoman join.

In adolescence, society in the U.S. emphasizes that boys should begin to partake in opportunities to show their masculinity. This time of life is often confusing and potentially a difficult transition for boys to make, from boyhood to manhood. At the expense of others, some boys may engage in activities that increase others' perception of their masculinity, such as name calling, physical altercations, etc. Homophobia is a maladaptive manner in which some may attempt to display their entrance into adulthood. This practice is disgusting and as a society, we need to teach that boys do not need to engage in such acts to prove themselves masculine. In fact, they shouldn't have to prove anything at all (Rosenblum and Travis, 2012).

Relationships between two people are often categorized into heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc; however, some think that these do not encompass an individual's experience with relationships, and how relationships may actually look. It is unknown how we all get our needs met through various people in our lives. We may have a sexual partner, a best friend we talk to, etc. (Rosenblum and Travis, 2012).

Going forward, our nation needs to promote individuality even more and decrease the need for people to prove their masculinity or their sexual orientation. There should be no need for categorizing at all, as this only limits people. Since our identities evolve over time, our society needs to realize that reality, and reinforce the idea that is ok while teaching people how to co-exist without hatred for differences in identity.

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. C. (2012). The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability (ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

"It's All in the Family: Intersections of Gender, Race, and Nation," "Proving Manhood," and "Gendered Sexuality in Young Adulthood: Double Binds and Flawed Options" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 245-268)

"The traditional family ideal projects a model of equality....actual families remain organized around varying patterns of hierarchy....the traditional family ideal assumes a male headship that privileges and naturalizes masculinity as a source of authority" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 246-247).

"...proving masculinity may require frequent rehearsals of toughness....one's ability to withstand stress as a preparation for greater stress" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 255)

"A battle of the sexes approach suggests that women have internalized a relational orientation but are unable to establish relationships because hooking up-which men prefer-has come to dominate college sexual culture (Rosenblum and Travis, p.261)

It was interesting to read the first article "It's All in the Family: Intersections of Gender, Race, and Nation" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 245-254) which is quoted at the beginning of this post. What was intriguing is that the family model ideally would be a balanced relationship between adults, each having the same amount of say over the decision making process in a family. This also includes the decision making capabilities of children of these adults and how that should also be equal. As the first quote indicates, this is not necessarily what is occurring across the U.S. There is still a sense of a male figure being at the top of the family, then the mother, then the children. At times, even a male child may have more say than their mother.

The second quote found above, shows that the perception of males in the U.S. society is one of being tough and having the ability to withstand difficult situations; however, in order to prepare they must practice and contrive situations to be tough in (Rosenblum and Travis, 2012).

The last quote also shows this idea that males of college age in the U.S. are less likely to want relationships compared with their female peers. When women do engage in sexual encounters with peers that have no goal of a relationship, they may be stigmatized as a slut, unlike their male peers (Rosenblum and Travis, 2012). When it comes to the perception that females strive for relationships whereas males don't, is this a social construct, misinformation, or human nature?

To return to the first two quotes about male dominance in a family system, unfortunately I have experienced the consequences of being female in a family that still blindly considers some jobs of the family to be for females and some for males. My husband and I have almost the some exact educational background, as well as the same experience with fixing cars (none of our education included car mechanics, unfortunately). As I was speaking to my own father about a potential problem with my car, he told me to "just put (my husband) on the phone, he'll know more about this." Well you know what, my husband doesn't, and I dare say that I might now a bit more because I grew up helping my father when I unsuccessfully didn't find something else I had to do (fixing cars wasn't fun for me, though my younger sister loved it). I was so angry that my father had said that to me and I told him so (somewhat politely).

Another example, is when my extended family gets together for a birthday, holiday, etc. All of the men and women in my family hold full time jobs, no one is a stay at home parent. When it is time to prepare the meals, set the table, clean-up, and bring out dessert the women do it. The men sit in the living room and talk or watch tv. My father over the years, having two daughters who are opinionated, now helps, but the rest do nothing but enjoy the day. I remember as a child this occurring and thinking nothing of it but now it is so obviously unequal that I can't let it slide. It's a remnant from the past, from when my grandmother had that role (though, she definitely worked as well as kept the house up). The women in my family are not only expected to work but to keep house as well.

The three above quotes suggest the inequality of women and the social constructs we assign to males and females, that are simply outdated (or maybe should have never occurred in the first place). Fortunately, social constructs are what we invent, and that means they can be changed. Like the college students from Rosenblum's and Travis' (2012) book or the males and females in my family, roles need to be individualized, not the norm.

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. C. (2012). The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability (ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

"Blink in Black and White," "See Baby Discriminate," and "Between Barack and a Hard Place" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 351-369).

"They wanted their children to grow up colorblind. But Vittrup's first test of the kids revealed they weren't colorblind at all (Roseblum and Travis, p. 357)

"We make connections much more quickly between pairs of ideas that are already related in our minds than we do between pairs of ideas that are unfamiliar to us" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 351).

"Obama's election to the presidency demonstrates that old-fashioned racism...though still far too prevalent in the nation, is capable of being defeated..." (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 364).

As our country believes it is making strides to eradicate racial prejudice, there are some indicators that this is true as well as untrue. A study done by Vittrup around children in Austin, TX showed that those children being volunteered for the study came from families that were supportive of racial diversity; however, when it came time for the families to openly discuss racial differences with their children some parents no longer wished to participate. As the first quote above indicates, the families didn't want their children to see racial differences, they wished them to consider everyone not only as equal but the same (Rosenblum and Travis, 2012).

In the portion of Roseblum's and Travis' (2012) book, "Blink in Black and White," the
Implicit Association Tool (IAT) created by Greenwald, Banaji, and Nosek which was based on individuals' observations, showed that without realizing our thought process, we are making judgements about others quicker than we may realize. 

The last quote seen above discusses President Obama's entrance into his current office. This shows that we can change our mindsets, and those mindsets of an entire nation, even though historically the U.S. would have been less likely to elect an African American president because of the terrible prevalence of racism.

What these three articles have in common is their eye to racial discrimination. They in compass racial discrimination which is obvious (racism), less obvious (colorblindness), and how we as a society can overcome previous social constructs. The latter can be accomplished through educating our children and fellow adults that to be an individual is fine, that we all don't have to be the same; however, to be different from one another is not an opportunity for anyone to be better.

What is hopeful, is that we can still make a difference and should continue to strive for the ideal which is where everyone can be who they are as well as be equal.

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. C. (2012). The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability (ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

"Changing Color Lines; Immigration, Race/Ethnicity, and Multiracial Identification" and "From Friendly Foreigner to Enemy Race" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 94-111).

"The arrival of...Asians and Latinos thus complicates the black/white portrait of America. If a black/white color line no longer characterizes the nature of racial/ethnic relations in the United States...where will the line be redrawn?" (Rosenblum and Travis p. 95).

My first reaction to the above quote is: Let There Be No Line!!

By saying this, I am not trying to ignore the fact that the people of the U.S. have diverse backgrounds. It isn't about ignoring differences; however, why do we need a color line? This line would only be a spectrum of color, and I don't need to know where I am on that spectrum. My placement on that spectrum shouldn't change how I live my life or how others treat me or how I treat others. Is this idealism? Perhaps, but it shouldn't be.

As this portion of the book points out, as people increasingly marry others from various backgrounds and/or as people have children together, babies with multiracial backgrounds are born. This is occurring at an increasing rate in the U.S. and in reality it has been happening in the U.S. since people from Europe first arrived.

The authors discussed that people who are white Americans are also possibly multiracial (unless everyone in your background is from the same country/region). Since race is a social construct that evolves over time, it seems naive that white Americans are simply considered white but not necessarily of multiracial backgrounds. If I am English, Czechoslovakian, German, Native American and probably much more, wouldn't one think that I was multiracial and not just white?

When in time did we begin noting people as being multicultural? Doesn't it seem very probable that people have conceived children with others from other backgrounds forever? Are we not all multiracial because of this?

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. C. (2012). The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability (ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

"Whiteness as an "Unmarked" Cultural Category" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 88-94).

"The category of "American" represents simultaneously the normative and the residual, the dominant culture and a nonculture" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 90).

"Whites...became conceptually the real Americans, and only certain kinds of whites actually qualified   (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 90).

The two quotes seen above provide an outlook about being "American" that honestly saddens me. As a white American woman, I am very much aware that to be white is to be "normal" in some circles throughout the U.S, though I don't include that norm in my own life. As the second quotes points out, not all white people were actually considered to be white people, even if their skin color was somewhat the same shade. I am referring to those who originated from countries such as Ireland, Italy and Eastern European countries. These people were only really considered to be white in the mid 1950's. My own great-great grandmother was from Czechoslovakia, and my grandmother has told me stories about the discrimination her grandmother and mother faced for being of Eastern European descent while living in the U.S. which she and I never had to experience, since we are now considered to be white.

To return to the first quote which insinuates that to be white means you have no culture, is interesting.         I have had the opportunity to travel across the U.S. to visit friends and family in various other states other than those in New England. The one thing I enjoyed the most was being apart of others' culture and traditions, no matter how large or small they might seem. To think that white people don't have culture seems untrue. I don't want to negate others' feelings that they don't have culture, because maybe for them there is a bigger issue. Perhaps they need to connect with community so they feel like they do have culture because the culture they have cultivated, perhaps one of isolation, doesn't suit them.

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. C. (2012). The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability (ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.


I grew up in western Massachusetts. Even the cultures between there and where I live in VT are different. I chose VT for very specific reasons, all of which can fall under the category of culture. Culture doesn't have to find you, you can create whatever you want it to be.

"Class and the Transition to Adulthood," "Cause of Death: Inequality " and "Why Are Droves of Unqualified, Unprepared Kids Getting into Our Top Colleges? Because Their Dads Are Alumni" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 292-310)

This portion of the book points out that as the inequality gap between lower and upper classes increases, health benefits for the lower class citizens decreases. This could be due to the decreased buy in or social unity that the two classes of people have. As people stop identifying themselves with an entire group of people, they are less likely to care about supporting them or the institutions that contribute to their well being. This is what the article points out, that upper class citizens can afford to pay for private schools, healthcare, etc, and therefore do not need to financially support public schools and public healthcare thus decreasing those public institutions funding. This decrease in funding ends up decreasing the support school, hospitals, etc have which in turns affects the lower class population who need those institutions to support their education and health care needs.

"...even poor people in rich countries like the United States are rich compared to ordinary people in poor countries" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 302). As this section of books suggests, this in untrue. People in the U.S. are in fact not better off than other poor people in other countries. The authors pointed out that poor people in the U.S. my have material items such as televisions but when it comes to healthcare, there is no benefit from living in the U.S. and being poor versus being poor somewhere else. In fact, though African American families in the U.S. earn five times more than those in El Salvador, men from both countries are expected to live on average to 67 years old (Rosenblum and Travis, 2012). 

In contrast to the difficulties those with less income experience, those with connections and increased income experience advantages for their lineage. These benefits can be increased access to healthcare, since increased money can afford individuals to buy services those with less money can not, as well as access to higher education that is seemingly undeserved. By undeserved I mean that these individuals did not earn or show higher grades than other individuals from less connected families, though they still were accepted to Ivy League colleges more often than not. 

The situation occurring in the U.S. is that children with parents who previously attended Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, etc were likely to be accepted over others even though their grades were lower. These schools have increasingly admitted to these students, referred as "legacies," to be admitted over other students, to ensure that alumni financial support continued, though no research has been done to support this idea.

Why is this allowed and why don't people push back against these universities? Obviously, because no one is pushing back hard enough and instead, it seems like others would like to join this elite group rather than call it out. "Joshua Li, a former co-chair of Harvard's Asian-American Association, explains his complacency differently: "We understand that in the future Asian-American students will receive these tips as well" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 309). 

Unfortunately, it seems as though if one is about to benefit from joining the elite class, favoritism for connected people and discrimination for everyone else is swept aside. In theory, it would be better to sacrifice  you and your families gains by not joining this elitist class; however, when it comes down to it, what would you decide to do? Would you enjoy the favoritism or stick to your ethical ground?

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. C. (2012). The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability (ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

"Real Indians: Identity and the Survival of America" and "Asian American Panethnicity: Contemporary National and Transnational Possibilities" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 66-87)

Though these two passages were within the same section of Rosenblum and Travis' (2012) The Meaning of Difference, the experiences of those involved were/are incredibly different.

Those of Native American ancestry, also described as "Indian" have had to and continue to have such complex challenges with claiming, explaining, and justifying their background. An interesting piece to this passage was a comparison of the differences for one to claim themselves as Native American versus African American. "The logic that underlies the biological definition of racial identity becomes even more curious and complicated when one considers the striking difference in the way that American definitions assign individuals to the racial category of "Indian," as opposed to the racial category "black" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 70). The passage continues to read, "Although people must have only the slightest trace of "black blood" to be forced into the category of "African American," modern American Indians must (1) formally produce (2) strong evidence of (3) often rather substantial amounts of "Indian blood" to be allowed entry into the corresponding racial category (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 70).

Based on the complete reading of that passage, I wonder if the above is true because one has more to gain when they are of an American Indian tribe, because the United States owes a debt to that group for past atrocities. Of course, that can be said of the African American groups as well, but this is the question I am posing: Does the U.S. feel more indebted to American Indians versus other groups that it has previously/currently mistreats?

It is interesting that in the second passage another look into ethnicity really supports the idea that race is a social construct, and because of this, it is constantly evolving. It was interesting to read, though not surprising, that those U.S. citizens that have ties to various Asian countries are really much more than Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. "Arriving to the United States, nineteenth-century immigrants from Asian countries did not think of themselves as "Asians"....Asian immigrant groups did not even think of themselves as Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and so forth, but rather people from Toishan, Hoiping..." (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 76).

Though the generalization of people as Asians was novel then, it is actually being used as a way for some people to join in solidarity in more recent history. This was/is possible because as new generations grew up speaking English, people of various backgrounds could easily communicate. The idea of Pan-Asianism brings up a thought: Is it ideal for anyone to create a Pan-group, does it not create an us and them culture, or on the flip side, does it promote support among various people which aids in their abilities to navigate the world?

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. C. (2012). The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability (ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

"Can You See the Rainbow? The Roots of Denial" and "Not Blind Enough: Living in the Borderland Called Legal Blindness" (Rosenblum & Travis, p. 317-330)

 "I tried very hard to be "normal," to be anonymous and to merge with the crowd" (Rosenblum & Travis, p. 318).

"...lack of communication gave me a powerful unspoken message that my disability must be denied" (Rosenblum & Travis, p. 318).

"...the behavior of adults clearly conveyed the message "You are not acceptable as you are" (Rosenblum & Travis, p. 319).

I found the above quotes from Rosenblum & Travis (2012) to be powerful and telling of the challenges those with disabilities face. The first quote I believe disability or no, everyone can relate to. To be normal is a term I always found challenging; what does that exactly mean? There is no normal in any culture, as everyone has their own uniqueness that makes them an individual.

The second and third quotes made me think if my profession and how I face the clients I support. The clients all are diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, and my role in their lives is never to change that diagnosis but to support each individuals positive experience with their natural environments through creating specific behavior and skill programming. No plan or programming is the same because each individual is just that, an individual. A plan for one person would never fit a plan for another. Often, disabilities are viewed in a negative light. I have found it humbling to notice that some of my students are more skilled than I in certain area, that their disability has actually allowed them to understand something I cannot, or something I have yet to learn.

The important message that this article supports is that we should never deny someones disability or believe that someone with a disability needs to change or hide who they are. We are all individuals, and the idea of normalcy is certainly a false idea.

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. C. (2012). The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability (ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

"What's Class Got to Do with It?," "More or Less Equal?," and "The Silver Spoon: Inheritance and the Staggered Start" (Rosenblum and Travis, p.130-145).

The following quotes from Rosenblum and Travis (2012) inspired the following post:

“…the United States now has greater income inequality and higher rates if poverty than other industrial countries” (p.140).

“Despite the ideology of meritocracy, the reality in America, as elsewhere, is inheritance first and merit second” (p.138).

The authors discuss that in the U.S., middle and lower class citizens will have increased difficulty transcending or moving up the socioeconomic ladder, as compared to wealthy citizens. This in part is due to the head start that wealthy citizens have, as they receive financial support from their wealthy families and do not have to work for their success or financial gains, since it is already there waiting for them. Due to this “staggered start” (p.136), people of the middle and lower classes may never increase their class standing, and if they do it may be one step out of 30, not really moving them very far up that ladder of financial success.

As a daughter of hard working middle class people of the U.S., I have felt this struggle. I have been blessed to go to both undergraduate and now, graduate college but the financial requirements were mine to pay. My parents supported me as much they could as an undergraduate student, helping me pay for books and expenses like that but the bulk of the expense was mine.

In many ways, I’m glad to have had to learn how to take care of myself financially. I won’t say it isn’t challenging to be friends with others who have no loans, and the opportunities to “quit life” to find themselves if they feel inclined, because they have their parents financial supports; however, I’m proud of what I have gained because I really earned it. I don’t fault others their socioeconomic standing because it’s not their fault that they are wealthier; I would honestly love to have a trust fund and wouldn’t turn down an offer for one.

The real question is why our country isn’t more merit based and how would that effect our society if generational inheritance wasn’t a huge component of people’s success? As a behaviorist, I would hypothesize that motivation to work hard and efficiently would increase significantly!

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. C. (2012). The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability (ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

James A. Banks (2009) article, Human Rights, Diversity, and Citizenship Education

I have decided that my first post will be about the James A. Banks (2009) article, Human Rights, Diversity, and Citizenship Education. I found this article to be very relevant to the experiences I have daily when working for a mental health agency in Chittenden County, VT. My clients attend schools throughout this county, and it is apparent that there are cultural differences from school to school, and even classroom to classroom.

This article highlighted the 60^th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and how educators should take the opportunity to consider how they should “consider the implications of the UDHR for educating citizens in multicultural democratic nations” (Banks, p. 100).

I appreciated how Banks discussed how we, as educators, need to transition to reinforcing the idea of being a “multicultural citizen” (Banks, 106). None of us have one culture we belong to, even if we have lived in the United States our entire life. Culture is a broad spectrum, and to try and limit ourselves doesn’t do our identities justice and reinforces the idea that we should live in a monoculture.

Moving forward, I want to try to incorporate the idea of “multicultural citizen” in my every day work (Banks, 106).  I think constantly asking the questions “What is culture?” and “How can I best support my clients’ culture?” is the strategy I will use to increase my awareness of the importance of this topic.