Discrimination and Health Care

With much talk about Obamacare and our changing health laws, many people have questioned the justification of mandated health insurance. Is it right for the Government to tell me how to take care of my body? David Rivkin of the Justice Department explains, “a health insurance requirement would set the precedent that the government can control every single way in which you dispose of your income.” Amanda Read writes in the New York Times, "the government could require everyone to eat particular healthy foods or buy gym memberships using the same justifications as the insurance mandate." However I would argue that an individual health mandate would in fact guarantee Americans more rights.

Currently, hospitals give less care to the uninsured because they are less likely to be compensated, and the uninsured have less access to preventative care. A recent study from Families USA found, "in-hospital mortality rates were 60 percent higher for uninsured than insured children." They went on to say, "uninsured adults are nearly four times less likely than insured adults to get preventive care screenings such as pap smears, mammograms, and prostate exams due to cost."  In fact, Jack Ebeler of the National Academics calculates that uninsured adults 50% more likely to die prematurely from serious conditions such as heart disease or cancer.


Also, currently uninsured individuals are denied health coverage due to a pre-existing medical condition. A recent national survey estimated that in the past three years, 12.6 million tried to purchase health insurance and were in fact denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition.  Luckily, under the Affordable Care Act (provision of Obamacare), insurers cannot reject individuals or charge them higher premiums based on pre-existing medical conditions.

I think the fact that the new health law takes discrimination out of the equation makes the individual health mandate within Obamacare justified. Remember, before the law 12.6 million Americans couldn't have access to health insurance due to their illnesses, and now the law makes it so they can't legally be excluded. I think this is a big step forward for health care. What do you think? Is it justified for the government to tell my how to spend my money, regardless of the inherent benefits?
 

Affirmative Action: Targeting the Wrong Students

In a recent classroom activity, we discussed with various partners advantages/disadvantages of living on the North Shore, and with our own racial identity. This sparked discussion regarding affirmative action.

A decade ago, in the Supreme Court case Grutter vs. Bollinger, upheld affirmative action as an admission policy practiced at the University of Michigan Law School.  One of the dissenting opinions from Justice Anthony M. Kennedy argued that race should be “one modest factor among many others” — and that universities were instead treating it as “a predominant factor,” which was unconstitutional.

Now, with a new Supreme Court case involving the University of Texas, the dean of admissions, Stuart Schmill, wrote in an email to The Tech at MIT, "“Because we know that students learn quite a lot from each other, we want to bring to campus students who will add to the entire campus learning environment. This also means bringing together students from different backgrounds.”

Many of our nation’s elite universities such as the eight Ivy-league schools, and six others reported, in an amicus brief supporting UT,  that they sought a student body that was “diverse in many ways.” While many are still skeptical that race plays an important role in admissions, a recent study of elite colleges by Thomas J. Espenshade, a Princeton sociologist, finds that an African-American student with a similar application to a white student received the equivalent of a 310-point lift in SAT scores, on a 1,600-point scale. The study also encompassed Latino students and found the margin was 130 points. The rest of the article, found in yesterday’s paper (New York Times) can be read here.

While I believe, diversifying campuses is a critical way for students to broaden their horizons, I DON’T believe the current affirmative action policy allows students to achieve this goal. Associate editor of The Atlantic, Jordan Weissman puts: “One of the criticisms of race-based affirmative action is that it too often assists upper-middle-class and upper-class African Americans, or wealthy black students from Africa or the Caribbean, instead of truly disadvantaged students.” This is problematic as the economically disadvantaged students that are supposed to be helped by these admissions policies aren’t receiving the benefits. As cruel as it is to say, not only is a university an institution for higher learning; but it is also a business. If the goal is to diversify their campuses, admissions officers would rather choose a minority student who can pay their full whopping-tuition, rather than provide tens of thousands of dollars of financial aid to students coming from lower income. Do you think this is a just way for schools to diversify? Please comment your thoughts below.

This is America? Migrant Workers Benefit our Economy

"This is America. I don't want my tomato picked by a Mexican. I want it picked by an American, then sliced by a Guatemalan, and served by a Venezuelan in a spa where a Chilean gives me a Brazilian."

These comical words were spoken by talk show host, and comedian Steven Colbert in front of Congress in May of last year. While our class has explored the theme of immigration through our reading of The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Diaz, many politicians disfavor Birthright Citizenship with recent legislation.

 In the United States, any person born on U.S soil is automatically considered a naturalized citizen of the United States. This is illustrated by the latin phrase jus soli, or "Birth by soil." Many argue that this allows illegal immigrants to flock into the U.S just to give birth and stay in America with their children. While many politicians complain about illegal migrant work, I believe they are necessary to our country's prosperity.

First off, Lower wage workers, like illegal immigrants, perform a vital function in the American economy.  According to Chris Isidore, CNN money senior writer, “economists say that if immigrant workers weren’t present, rather than native-born workers getting better wages to do the same jobs, many jobs done by immigrants might not get done at all”  Illegal immigrants are absolutely necessary for many jobs and products across the country that most people don’t even know, like lettuce.  Benjamin Powell, senior fellow at the Independent Institute, an Oakland-based think tank, says in 2004 after a crackdown on illegal immigration that hurt the lettuce industry, “To hire Americans to do it, they would have had to raise wages so far, it wouldn’t have been worth it for them... It caused less of a loss to leave the crop to rot.” 

These low wage workers provide large shares of employment in many fields like agriculture, where 80% of field workers are illegal immigrants.  Tamar Jacoby, president of Immigrationworks, says in a New York Times Article from 2011 that, “if unauthorized farm workers are expelled from the U.S. — [there will be] not just more expensive produce, but the collapse of American labor-intensive agriculture.”  To put a number on this horrifying image, according to the USDA, the agriculture industry in America as of 2010 is worth over 308 billion dollars.  Jacoby goes on to say, “According to economists, every farm job supports three to four others up and downstream in the local economy: from the people who make and sell fertilizer and farm machinery to those who work in trucking, food processing, grocery stores and restaurants.”  Illegal immigrants aren’t only completely responsible for the agriculture industry, but also up to 8% of our country’s employment, using statistics from the USDA.

Others may argue that this is undermining cheap labor, but the way I see it, it is a mutually beneficial relationship. Many immigrants come to America seeking economic opportunities that weren't being met in their own country. It also proves to be beneficial to the US economy for the above reasons. What do you think? Are illegal immigrants, on net, a benefit or a burden to US society? Please share your opinions below

Teach for Equality

Today our teacher, Mr. O'Connor, wrote a new post entitled Proclaiming Emancipation, Part II which questions whether or not the US has seen more racial equality since the Civil Rights Movement. Last week, many of our class's Civil War Reconstruction projects entailed plans for education reform, as argued that equal education brings more societal equality as well. 

Imani Perry of the Washington Post wrote that "[African Americans] face the highest rates of unemployment and incarceration, and have alarmingly low high school graduation rates in major cities." The Progressive also released that, "A mere 11 percent of black students were proficient in math, as opposed to 50 percent of Asians, and 42 percent of whites." 

While this inequality continues to hold Blacks captive, along with income disparities and shockingly high incarceration rates as shown by Perry, there are implications of racially unequal education system that cause the U.S to struggle in the world economy. According to a study from the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, U.S. students lag behind many other countries in math and reading skills. African-American and Latino students, in particular, are falling way behind. The US could have both smarter students overall, as well as a higher GDP growth which could translate into "an additional $1 trillion in the economy each year", the study said.

If the US wants to live up to its fullest economic potential, it clearly needs to figure a way to bring not only the academic proficiencies of minorities higher, but for white students too. This, I believe would create a more sound education system, better preparing our students for an advancing job market, and increase academic competition internationally. Now it's your turn. Do you think an improved education system would better our country with racial equality? I wonder whether these steps would also bring down unemployment among African Americans and reduce incarceration rates. Also please consider the question: Is education really the way to go, or should we target other areas? Please share your thoughts below.

Injustice to the Voter: Present During Reconstruction and Today

Recently, our class discussed ways in which the planters fought back during reconstruction. One of the ways they tried to flex their power was through economic coercion, by limiting freedmen's voting rights by threatening their jobs at the voting polls. This political corruption, limited the promised right to voice their opinion in our democracy, which harmed the political process. Although, 150 years after the reconstruction period, has our political process changed that much? 

Steven Greenhouse of the New York Times wrote, “Until 2010, federal law barred companies from urging employees to support specific politicians. But the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision has freed companies from those restrictions, and now several major companies have sent letters or information packets to their employees suggesting — and sometimes explicitly recommending — how they should vote this fall.

ThinkProgress shows us that CEOs like the Koch brothers threatened 45,000 employees saying that if Obama won there would be layoffs.  Many followed up on these threats. A Las Vegas Ceo fired 22 of his 114 workers as a direct result of Obama winning the election. You can find the rest of the article here.

Although not targeted specifically to African Americans (like voter restriction during reconstruction) there are still injustices in our very political system that went unsolved. This issue begs the question whether or not it is just for money to play a part in our democracy (as it currently does). What do you think?

I think it's wrong to influence people's voices based on their economic situations.This affects votes  because as Stanley Feldman from the department of political science at Kentucky points out, “Accumulated evidence very strongly suggests that vote choice and presidential evaluations are influenced by personal economic considerations. In other words, if you feel voting one way could make you lose your job, you might vote the other way despite your political beliefs. This completely undermines the election process by giving CEOs unfair voting power through the ability to threaten their employees. Similar to reconstruction, there are still political injustices that I believe need to be fixed.

Final Exam: Darkness Behind the Light

      In late September, Apple released the iPhone 5, which soon became one of the most widely used pieces of technology across the globe. Although one of the most influential companies, I’ve observed that Apple does not represent exemplary stewardship in the business world, by the inherent racism in their advertisements, as well as the use of low wage slave labor in third world countries. Even 150 years after slavery, our society still does not value equality, making the Apple iPhone ad an important artifact representing a lack of change in our societal mindset.

     Take a look at the image from one of Apple’s signature advertisements for the iPhone 5. A pristine looking white backdrop accompanies the sleek white device, held in the hand of a white man or woman. It is interesting that Apple chooses these light colors and the clear simplicity of the product, however this is no coincidence.
 
     In several of our class discussions, we have analyzed the connotations of colors such as white, and black. White is often the color representing light, goodness, purity, and innocence; virtually the color of perfection. Now, look at the the word “black” which by definition means devoid of light, dismal, pessimistic, gloomy and connotes anger, hatred, and evil. Considering our history of slavery and racially inequality, it is no coincidence that the white men who wrote our English dictionaries painted the word “black” in negative light. Even in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible we see the negative connotation of the word: “She is blackening my name in the village! She is telling lies about me!”(Miller 22). Here, Abigail connotes that using the word “blackening” is tainting her reputation of adultery. It is clear that even three hundred years after slavery and our dark history of racially inequality, one of our era’s most prominent companies, Apple, still follows this same mindset portraying “black” in a negative light, proving little change in our society’s mindset.

     Moreover, Apple’s use of innocence, and purity in their color scheme for the iPhone ads is a strong contradiction to Apple’s dark background with the use of cheap slave labor. Recently in the news, and in class, we discussed a Foxconn plant, which manufactures Apple products in China and has been noted for the horrible conditions that their workers are subjected to. This is similar to Ursula Le Guin’s      “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas”, a short story that portrays a utopian society with a dark secret. With the happiness of Omelas, the price is paid by a miserable child who, “…lives on a half-bowl of cornmeal and grease a day”(Le Guin 281). In Omelas, a poor child is forced to suffer while the rest of society reaps the benefits of a happy life. Apple is similar in the fact, that behind the purity and perfection of their ads and products, there are people who are treated like the child from Omelas.
 
     Companies like Apple, try to cover up their atrocities through ads and as classmate Zach Peltz wrote in his poem regarding slave labor, people in third world countries are “Sold to white men with thick, black hair, And to the eye of abuse, misuse, and profit” (“Just Do It”). Again, we see that unbearable working conditions and treatment exist behind the very “utopian” products on which we use and value so much. Society continues to value luxury and comfort over fair treatment, and the companies who make these products value their profits over standards. I believe recognizing what we value and believe is crucial for a society to evolve and thrive, but through Apple’s iPhone 5 ads, the clear connotations of “black”, as well as their use of cheap labor shows that although the 13th amendment abolished slavery, society’s mindset of equality really hasn’t changed.

Racism oppresses European soccer leagues

We all grew up listening to brave stories of African American athletes, like Jackie Robinson, who persevered and thrived on the field despite challenges with ignorance and racism as he became the first player of color in the MLB in the late 1940's. With our recent class discussions of racism, it has come to my realization that European soccer leagues are experiencing the same difficulties with racism as we had with "breaking the color barrier"in baseball just after World War II.

Last week in a friendly match, Kevin Prince Boateng of AC Milan kicked a ball into the bleachers, taking a stand after he had been subjected to racial abuse which resulted in the game being called at half. The rest of the report from CNN can be further read here as well as a video of the incident. The German born-member of the Ghana national team along with many other African members of club football teams have been the victims of severe racial abuse. Cameroonian player Samuel Eto'o threatened to leave during a match due to racist chants and the list of verbally abused players goes on. ESPN even highlighted the issue in a segment back in 2008 called, "A Beautiful Game Turns Ugly." Please start around 0:45 and watch some of the powerful and upsetting stories of racism.

Racism has been a problem in America since the beginning. Fighting racial ignorance has defined our country and will now play a defining role of the legacy of the world's most beloved sport. I think like Jackie Robinson who was the target of physical and verbal abuse, by ignoring it and continuing to thrive, you are sending the most powerful message to combat further racist acts. Although I am sure the chants are overwhelming and near impossible to ignore, I don't think Boateng, Eto'o, and other players should walk off the field. However, I think the leagues also need to crack down with harsher punishments on the hosting clubs whose fans, players, coaches, and officials are responsible for racist actions and comments towards others. What actions do you think should be taken to combat and punish racism?