(image from http://www.yadempowers.org/ I don’t own the rights of this image. )

It all started when she was a small girl. She was diagnosed with mild-polio virus, which needed emergency medication to safe leg. The doctor did what he thought it was best for her. The nightmare turned real, the blame that he was the cause of her disability, something that made the doctor go underground from medical field and till now he is nowhere to be seen.

Later in her adult age, she was walking home from work- a primary school teacher, when she slipped on a banana peeling and fell down, breaking her stable leg. She was rushed to the nearby private hospital for first-aid before she was transferred to a public hospital. In there, she underwent a surgical operation to restore her leg. That was when one doctor told her the reality, telling her to appreciate the doctor who stopped the virus from engulfing her even though disabled but at least working leg.

After being released from the hospital, she went direct home. As ‘expected’, no one was there to help her, or to just pop in and go. She deed what she was able to, avoiding food most of the time- this was to avoid the call of nature. Remember, she could not move around because of effects of an operation, plus the fact that she is disabled.

A week passed on, her weakness doubled, but still none of her two sister showed up to help her out. Although she helps them financially or in other way, they chose to avoid being in contact with her at the time she needed them so much. They made no call or just a message of quick recovery. Why? Disability.

During that week of isolation, she tried walking around to do some simple chores in the house but it seemed impossible, since she was denying herself food. In that moment, she felt dizzy and fell on the floor- hurting her leg. She was rushed to the hospital by the neighbor.

Her leg was fixed one more time, in addition the doctor advised her to get enough food. Something she knew was hard for her, but her determination to survive was her drive that lead her through.

Just a simple presence means a lot when someone is in need. Caring does not mean being there the whore time, just a few minute is what counts.

Mrs. Martha Canter

US Department of Education

400 Maryland Avenue, SW

Washington D.C. 20202

Dear Mrs. Martha Kanter,

Hello, my name is Matthew Campbell and I have a shared concern with a sample of the general public: in order to confront ongoing discrimination against minority and majority members, the Federal Government should radically amend former anti-discrimination policies, such as Affirmative Action. These changes will create a more colorblind society through the equitable distribution of resources and qualified teachers throughout U.S. public schools and create a greater and fairer chance for true equal opportunity for all.

Within the United States, a compilation of laws named Affirmative Action has begun to create some unforeseen issues among certain Americans. This law, enacted in 1965, had the original intent of giving a fair opportunity to African-Americans, and came into being as a result of the movement of Civil Rights activists, led by Martin Luther King Jr. However, the law now gives an advantage to certain individuals even when their qualifications prove that the position should not be given to them. As well, within academic institutions, namely universities, reverse discrimination has been discovered within the application process. For example, The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that after Proposition 209 (a law banning the state schools of California from taking race into account) was introduced, the White and Asian populations at all University of California colleges grew anywhere from 6% to 20%. This statistic illustrates the shortcomings of Affirmative Action: a form of discrimination against the “majority,” and therefore discrimination against potentially more qualified candidates.

In order to confront this issue, the Federal Government can and should collect a greater proportion of all educational tax revenue, increasing from the current ~6% up to 15% to 25% in order to reach a greater good for all people, not just minorities. This increased revenue should be spent on incentives that will encourage more qualified teachers to go to underserved areas of the country, such as “Spanish” Harlem, downtown Baltimore, etc. These incentives should amount to more than just bigger salaries; they should include healthcare benefits, tax cuts, etc. Once such a policy is enacted, the surplus of money should be directed towards creating equal schooling across the U.S., focusing greatly on the less privileged schooling systems.

Although this idea may get great opposition, the solution gets to the root of the issue and may, if given time, create discrimination-free institutions. Some have argued that should this be set forth, it would collapse on itself because the country’s best teachers will not voluntarily go to the most dangerous cities in the country. But, when supported by extra benefits and money it will be hard for even the most prestigious teachers to resist. Obviously, there will be other opposition arguments, but I believe that the benefits will greatly outweigh the problems.

Through following the above steps, the government will have potentially gotten that much closer to eradicating acceptance by demography, which is inherently discriminatory, and following better our true American ethos of advancement by merit.

Sincerely,

Matt Campbell

2190 Kampala Place

Dulles, VA 20189-2190

According to The Center for Equal Opportunity, “Studies show that a Black or Hispanic undergraduate applicant is 500 times more likely to be admitted to Wisconsin-Madison than a similarly qualified White or Asian applicant.” In order to confront an ongoing discrimination (against minority and majority members), the Federal Government should radically amend and change former anti-discrimination policies (such as Affirmative Action) to create a more colorblind society through the distribution of resources and qualified teachers equally throughout the public schools of the United States of America to create a greater and fairer chance for true equal opportunity for all.

Across the United States, Reverse Discrimination, the act of denying a position at an institution or company to the “majority” (whites/males), has become a very real and apparent issue. The spark of Reverse Discrimination is Affirmative Action; the law enacted in 1965 that states that all institutions affiliated with the government must have at least 10% minority enrolled or employed in their system. Over time, the policy has changed into new and improved law in order to address specific problems, but of the same concept: minorities have an advantage over majorities when applying for a job or position at an institution. In recent times, people have begun to see what damage such a law may induce, and therefore, have begun to uncover new issues and topics surrounding Affirmative Action. For example, The Wall Street Journal discovered that after Proposition 209 (a law banning the state schools of California from taking race into account) was introduced, White and Asian population at all University of California colleges grew anywhere from 6% to 20% (Johnson). This statistic illustrates the shortcomings of Affirmative Action: a form of discrimination against the “majority,” and therefore discrimination against potentially more qualified candidates for positions at each of the Universities of California. The drastic increase in both White and Asian populous (both of whom are not minorities under Affirmative Action) directly after a law was enacted that cancels out Affirmative Action. This shows that the Asian/White applicants were better candidates, but were blocked access to these schools simply because of their skin color. A more specific example is that an Asian American applied to Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, University of Pennsylvania, MIT, and Yale, but only got into Yale. At first, one may think that it was not because of his color, but because of his grades. But, this student got absolutely perfect SAT scores, got A’s or A+s in all nine of his advanced placement classes, but was still denied access to any of the above schools simply because of race (Marcus). Both of theses examples are two of many complaints and articles all describing one prominent issue, Reverse Discrimination.

The Federal Government, in order to confront the above issue, is capable and should be willing to change its policies in order to reach a greater good for all people, not just specific minorities. In order to reach a greater good, there are some steps that I would suggest be done. First, take small percentages (10%-25%) of all local taxes directed towards public schooling, and redirect it to the Federal Government (rate is susceptible to change depending on the economic stature of the local area) for schooling; using this enormous sum of money, large incentives should be made so that the better qualified teachers have a reason to want to go to the “bad” areas (Spanish Harlem, Downtown Baltimore, etc). These incentives should not only be larger pay, but also greater benefits for the teachers (such as healthcare, tax cuts, etc). Once such a policy is enacted, all surplus money filtering through should be used to create better facilities across the United States. Through completing the above steps, the government will have created a more balanced populous across every level of qualification. By creating more balance, laws such as Affirmative Action will not be needed because now no student has the disadvantage of background, and schools will hold all races. Also, through creating better education systems in the “bad” areas, the area itself may become a better place to live as a whole. Furthermore, this solution could create a worldwide revolution in anti-discrimination and may cause other countries to follow in our tracks.

Although there may be great opposition to the movement, this solution gets right down to the root of the issue and may, over time, create discrimination-free institutions. The opposition to this solution may say things like, if we pay lots of taxes for our county, we should get the benefits. This opposition is absolutely right, which is why the Federal Government will be taking only a small amount of extra taxes that will not only help the greater good, but will most likely come right back to your county to create better schooling for you, too. One may argue that the country’s best teachers will not voluntarily go to the most dangerous cities in the country. When supported by all of the extra benefits and money that will come with a job in a dangerous city, it will be hard for even the most prestigious teachers to resist. Over time, the more dangerous cities may eventually become better simply because of the better school system. Finally, people may say that Affirmative Action is working, why change it? On the outside, Affirmative Action is working, but if one searches deeper, the results will show that Affirmative action was useful, but now is beginning to cause unforeseen problems across the US. These new problems should be addressed for the better. The solution gives numerous benefits to both individuals, as well as the country as a whole. Should the Federal Government invest in this idea, the country could eradicate racial and gender discrimination when deciding whom to accept into one’s institution.

In conclusion, in order to confront an ongoing discrimination (against minority and majority members), the Federal Government should radically amend and change former anti-discrimination policies (such as Affirmative Action) to create a more colorblind society through the distribution of resources and qualified teachers equally throughout the public schools of the United States of America to create a greater and fairer chance for true equal opportunity for all.

Legal Steps to Take When Facing Workplace Discrimination

First begin by taking notes and recording every-time when an instance of workplace discrimination occurs including a time and date stamp. Take notes to see if you have any eye witnesses to the workplace discrimination, make sure to write down every incident or statement that is offensive, log every inappropriate comment made by another employee or supervisor and also make sure to print out any email messages or items posted on company bulletin boards that contain racial epithets. All physical and recorded evidence can later on be taken to an lawyer such as a DC employment Lawyer. Next, make it a point to talk to other employees as they may also be potential witnesses or victims themselves. If your company has a complaint policy, make a complaint to someone in a managerial positions, human resources is usually the best place to begin as they’re the most equipped to deal with such complaints and accusations.

Finally, you’ll wanting to consider hiring a Discrimination Attorney such as a DC Discrimination Attorney to pursue your workplace discrimination concerns and considering the possibility of a lawsuit. A DC Discrimination Attorney’s purpose is to act as an Discrimination and Labor & Employment lawyer is to act as an advocate on behalf of those who have been victimized. It’s crucial that every plaintiff have a have a knowledgeable lawyer handle any case involving discrimination or Labor & Employment disputes.

Despite being held at the Coliseum, the site of the 1912 Republican
convention, an overflow crowd of six to twelve thousand waited
outside for their turn to view the exhibits. Inspired by the three-week
celebration, Woodson decided to form an organization to promote the
scientific study of black life and history before leaving town.  On
September 9th, Woodson met at the Wabash YMCA with A. L. Jackson
and three others and formed the Association for the Study of Negro
Life and History (ASNLH).
He hoped that others would popularize the findings that he and other black intellectuals would publish
in The Journal of Negro History, which he established in 1916.  As early as 1920, Woodson urged black
civic organizations to promote the achievements that researchers were uncovering.  A graduate
member of Omega Psi Phi, he urged his fraternity brothers to take up the work. In 1924, they
responded with the creation of Negro History and Literature Week, which they renamed Negro
Achievement Week.  Their outreach was significant, but Woodson desired greater impact.  As he told
an audience of Hampton Institute students, “We are going back to that beautiful history and it is going
to inspire us to greater achievements.”  In 1925, he decided that the Association had to shoulder the
responsibility.  Going forward it would both create and popularize knowledge about the black past. He
sent out a press release announcing Negro History Week in February, 1926.

Woodson chose February for reasons of tradition and reform.  It is commonly said that Woodson
selected February to encompass the birthdays of two great Americans who played a prominent role in
shaping black history, namely Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, whose birthdays are the 12th
and the 14th, respectively.  More importantly, he chose them for reasons of tradition.  Since Lincoln’s
assassination in 1865, the black community, along with other Republicans, had been celebrating the
fallen President’s birthday.  And since the late 1890s, black communities across the country had been
celebrating Douglass’.  Well aware of the pre-existing celebrations, Woodson built Negro History Week
around traditional days of commemorating the black past.  He was asking the public to extend their
study of black history, not to create a new tradition.  In doing so, he increased his chances for success.

Yet Woodson was up to something more than building on tradition. Without saying so, he aimed to
reform it from the study of two great men to a great race.  Though he admired both men, Woodson
had never been fond of the celebrations held in their honor. He railed against the “ignorant
spellbinders” who addressed large, convivial gatherings and displayed their lack of knowledge about the
men and their contributions to history.  More importantly, Woodson believed that history was made
by the people, not simply or primarily by great men.  He envisioned the study and celebration of the
Negro as a race, not simply as the producers of a great man. And Lincoln, however great, had not
freed the slaves—the Union Army, including hundreds of thousands of black soldiers and sailors, had
done that. Rather than focusing on two men, the black community, he believed, should focus on the
countless black men and women who had contributed to the advance of human civilization.

From the beginning, Woodson was overwhelmed by the response to his call.  Negro History Week
appeared across the country in schools and before the public.  The 1920s was the decade of the New
Negro, a name given to the Post-War I generation because of its rising racial pride and consciousness.  
Urbanization and industrialization had brought over a million African Americans from the rural South into
big cities of the nation.  The expanding black middle class became participants in and consumers of
black literature and culture.  Black history clubs sprang up, teachers demanded materials to instruct
their pupils, and progressive whites stepped and endorsed the efforts.  

Woodson and the Association scrambled to meet the demand.  They set a theme for the annual
celebration, and provided study materials—pictures, lessons for teachers, plays for historical
performances, and posters of important dates and people.  Provisioned with a steady flow of
knowledge, high schools in progressive communities formed Negro History Clubs.  To serve the desire
of history buffs to participate in the re-education of black folks and the nation, ASNLH formed branches
that stretched from coast to coast.  In 1937, at the urging of Mary McLeod Bethune, Woodson
established the Negro History Bulletin, which focused on the annual theme. As black populations grew,
mayors issued Negro History Week proclamations, and in cities like Syracuse progressive whites joined
Negro History Week with National Brotherhood Week.

Like most ideas that resonate with the spirit of the times, Negro History Week proved to be more
dynamic than Woodson or the Association could control.  By the 1930s, Woodson complained about
the intellectual charlatans, black and white, popping up everywhere seeking to take advantage of the
public interest in black history.  He warned teachers not to invite speakers who had less knowledge
than the students themselves.  Increasingly publishing houses that had previously ignored black topics
and authors rushed to put books on the market and in the schools.  Instant experts appeared
everywhere, and non-scholarly works appeared from “mushroom presses.”  In America, nothing
popular escapes either commercialization or eventual trivialization, and so Woodson, the constant
reformer, had his hands full in promoting celebrations worthy of the people who had made the history.  

Well before his death in 1950, Woodson believed that the weekly celebrations—not the study or
celebration of black history–would eventually come to an end.  In fact, Woodson never viewed black
history as a one-week affair.  He pressed for schools to use Negro History Week to demonstrate what
students learned all year.  In the same vein, he established a black studies extension program to reach
adults throughout the year.  It was in this sense that blacks would learn of their past on a daily basis
that he looked forward to the time when an annual celebration would no longer be necessary.
Generations before Morgan Freeman and other advocates of all-year commemorations, Woodson
believed that black history was too important to America and the world to be crammed into a limited
time frame.  He spoke of a shift from Negro History Week to Negro History Year.  

In the 1940s, efforts began slowly within the black community to expand the study of black history in
the schools and black history celebrations before the public.  In the South, black teachers often taught
Negro History as a supplement to United States history.  One early beneficiary of the movement
reported that his teacher would hide Woodson’s textbook beneath his desk to avoid drawing the
wrath of the principal.  During the Civil Rights Movement in the South, the Freedom Schools
incorporated black history into the curriculum to advance social change.  The Negro History
movement was an intellectual insurgency that was part of every larger effort to transform race
relations.

The 1960s had a dramatic effect on the study and celebration of black history.  Before the decade was
over, Negro History Week would be well on its way to becoming Black History Month.  The shift to a
month-long celebration began even before Dr. Woodson death.  As early as 1940s, blacks in West
Virginia, a state where Woodson often spoke, began to celebrate February as Negro History Month.  In
Chicago, a now forgotten cultural activist, Fredrick H. Hammaurabi, started celebrating Negro History
Month in the mid-1960s.  Having taken an African name in the 1930s, Hammaurabi used his cultural
center, the House of Knowledge, to fuse African consciousness with the study of the black past.  By
the late 1960s, as young blacks on college campuses became increasingly conscious of links with Africa,
Black History Month replaced Negro History Week at a quickening pace.  Within the Association,
younger intellectuals, part of the awakening, prodded Woodson’s organization to change with the
times. They succeeded.  In 1976, fifty years after the first celebration, the Association used its influence
to institutionalize the shifts from a week to a month and from Negro history to black history. Since the
mid-1970s, every American president, Democrat and Republican, has issued proclamations endorsing
the Association’s annual theme.

What Carter G. Woodson would say about the continued celebrations is unknown, but he would smile
on all honest efforts to make black history a field of serious study and provide the public with
thoughtful celebrations.

If I had the choice between the two jobs I know which one I’d prefer to do, and it wouldn’t be the binman. Inhuman hours, heavy lifting, constantly on your feet in all weather conditions and the sheer fact that it is garbage you are dealing with day in, day out is a job which wouldn’t appeal to many. The pay therefore reflects that. I’m not saying that dinner ladies don’t work hard because I’m sure they do, but this would seem to be less a case that should revolve around ‘equal rights’ for women and more a case that should revolve around the nature of the job. I don’t believe the two jobs can be easily compared if I’m honest. One is an inside job working with children, who granted can be evil blighters when they want to be, and the other is a hard, physical demanding outside job and it’s ten times dirtier.

I would respectfully suggest that perhaps some people ought to try a weeks work as a binman and then see if the jobs are comparable. I think the answer would be no. There is nothing stopping the dinner ladies from becoming binmen, but I don’t think that would go down very well. And the reason for that is exactly as I said earlier; it’s not a job most people want to do. This seems to me to be a case of one group of people deciding that they should get the same pay as another group of people, and the common sense approach of which job is harder has been thrown out the window in view of political correctness. This isn’t about gender because binmen could become dinner ladies and vice versa. I don’t think I’d want to be a binman even if it paid five times higher than my current comfortable role sitting at a desk, I wouldn’t want the strain, the mess or the smell and I most certainly wouldn’t want the hours.

I could see the point if a female dinner lady was paid less than a male lunchtime supervisor, or a female refuse collector was paid less than a male binman but that isn’t the case. This isn’t sexual discrimination because the two jobs are completely different and one is a darn site muckier, nastier and harder work. This is simply people trying to get more by once again giving the old excuses a run around the playground, but because others are so desperate to avoid being tarred with the brush of discrimination they led it happen and pander to them.

But ok, if we run with the decision of the court case that it was about gender equality and accept that then we still have a major problem. Because the council didn’t bring the women’s wages up to match the binmens, they brought the binmens down to match the dinner ladies leading to losses of approximately £4000. To any worker that kind of loss of income would be devastating as it means an approximate shortfall of £330 a month. That can easily be equivalent to a months food bill or dependant on area a months rent meaning it’s no wonder that people suddenly wonder whether they can actually afford to live where they do or how they do. If you are going to pander to political correctness then the people who are literally picking up our garbage shouldn’t be the ones to have to pay for it.

If you want to be paid as a binman then go and be a binman is my answer to this issue. I’m sure we’d all love it if our binmen all decided to become dinner blokes.

For real inequality please read about the slavery of todays young and what we can do to fix it.

Some think this is just the tendency of which the person has a face and attractiveappearance more successful than those who are not blessed with a beautiful face. It isalso considered a new form of discrimination in the world of careers that must beeradicated.

In America, this has to be some legal cases, and many experts began to study this subject.Economists, Daniel Hamermesh, argues that people who are not handsome to be protected by law. He said, ”The research I did shows have interesting faces to help you getmore income, get rich mate to get better deals in the transaction, while bad people can notdo anything about it.”

But according to the law firm Lawrence Davies of Equal, this will impact for a working system. ”After all, protecting the people who are considered ’ugly’ as one form of disabilitywould bring people in the wrong direction,” he said. He stressed that the community should be more focus on the legal equality that has been established in the work environment.

The case was further strengthened by the case of Shirley Ivey, 61 years. He demanded his company in Washington as ’lookism’. He left his position because he felt the stress of prolonged because the boss is always telling himself that he would be preferred if she is more beautiful.

Its 2012. We are susposed to be the most advanced species in the world. Yet there is still racism? I mean come on. Seriously people, get over it. Yes they’re skin colour is different to yours,  so what? They breathe, they speak, they move in the same way as you. They are human too, they can do pretty much everything you can do.

Racism is nothing more than bullying. Bullying has no place in our society and never will. It’s just a sign of immaturity and ignorance if we are perfectly honest with ourselves. Why should we treat others differently because of the colour of our skin? Or why should we be treated differently because of the colour of our skin? It’s not fair, it’s not nice and it’s not a great way to go through life. If anything it’s a very immature thing to do. It’s childlike.

Have we really learned nothing from the past? Did the civil rights movement in America mean nothing at all? People are still killed today based on the colour of their skin. But why are some people like that? Some people put it down to age, if they’re older they are likely to be racist cause of how they were brought up; wrong! My Granny is 92 and is not racist, she never says a bad word against people of other races. There are a number of other “reasons” why someone may be racist but what difference does it make?

Will the world ever be free from racism? Probably not in my lifetime, but I hope that someday my grandchildren or great grandchildren will live in a world where everyone is treated equally by everyone. Where you don’t have to fear for your life when you walk in certain parts of town just because you’re skin colour is different. I hope that someday the world will be completely free of racism.

The high costs of education in Indonesia is caused by the current commercialization of education. Education into a commodity that is offered to students (parents) with a variety of costs.

Categorized education “seeded” the sky-high cost of course. Many excellent schools pegged the cost of expensive education. Starting from development institutions that the amount donated millions of dollars, the cost of uniforms, the cost of extracurricular activities, until the required textbook which should not be a burden off parents.

Impact of commercialization of education will eventually make discrimination right to education facilities for children from poor families. In fact, education is low cost and quality is a form of realization of human rights, socio economic rights and culture that should be the responsibility of the state.