My PSA on Diversity

This is a video I created for my media tools class that also goes with the poster I previously posted a few days ago. My video basically four different things diversity is, which are Change, Our Future, Unity, and Power. At the end of the video there's a message that states, "Stop Violence, Hatred, and Injustice and make a difference". The video is only about 30 seconds, but there is a clear message being stated in the video. Four people volunteered to help me with my video and their help is greatly appreciated. The song playing in the background of the video is Common - Come Close. I hope you enjoy my creation. 

The image shown above is a poster that I created for a project for my media tools class. This wasn't my original concept for my poster, but it came to me at once. There are four images shown on the poster connecting to the topic of my blog. The two images shown at the top are of the typical situations that happen at school. Both pictures show how a set of girls are gossiping about one girl who stands out from the group. The two images shown at the bottom of the poster are basically saying that it is wrong to discriminate against others. One image shows the word "STOP" in bold letters with different situations that effect the world in the text. The other image shows a globe of the world with several hands holding it upward. The hands are different skin colors, which represents and symbolizes unity between race, gender, and sexuality. The text shown says, "Stop Discrimination, Promote Diversity". 

On November 4, 2008 Proposition 8 passed in California, amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The defeat provoked a groundswell of initiative within the GLBT community at a grassroots level, with many new political and protest organizations being formed in response.

The NOH8 Campaign is a photographic silent protest created by celebrity photographer Adam Bouska (http://www.bouska.net) and partner Jeff Parshley in direct response to the passage of Proposition 8. Photos feature subjects with duct tape over their mouths, symbolizing their voices being silenced by Prop 8 and similar legislation around the world, with "NOH8" painted on one cheek in protest.

Nearly two years since its inception, the NOH8 Campaign has grown to over 5,500 faces and continues to grow at an exponential rate. The campaign began with portraits of everyday Californians from all walks of life and soon rose to include politicians, military personnel, newlyweds, law enforcement, artists, celebrities, and many more.

The NOH8 Campaign has received overwhelming support from around the world, appearing on various local and national news programs and publications. The images are currently being used on various social networking sites to spread the message of equality, predominantly Facebook and Twitter. Eventually the images are expected to be compiled for a large-scale media campaign.

H.I.V. Discrimination Law Fails in Chinese Court

This is an article from The New York Times on the issue in Beijing, China where a young man was applying for a teacher position and was denied the job after the prospective employer finds out his has H.I.V. This is a form of discrimination because one shouldn't be denied something they have a passion for and put down from something they have been given. Continue to read the article to see what the result were. If you want to see the official article on New York Times click here 

BEIJING — In a rare, public test of the nation’s law prohibiting discrimination against people with H.I.V., a Chinese court on Friday ruled against a man who said he was wrongly denied a teaching job after his prospective employer learned he had the virus that causes AIDS.

The man who filed the lawsuit, a 22-year-old college graduate, had passed a battery of written tests and an interview when a mandatory blood test revealed his H.I.V. status, prompting the local education bureau in the eastern city of Anqing to reject his application.

“I’m heartbroken,” said the man, who used the alias Xiao Wu in legal papers to protect his identity. “I just wanted to find some justice for me and for others facing the same problem.” Lawyers for the man said they would appeal.

In his ruling, the judge agreed with the education bureau’s contention that regulations barring H.I.V.-infected civil servants trumped a four-year-old law that was supposed to protect people with the virus from the prejudice of employers. That measure, passed by the State Council, the government’s chief administrative body, states that “no institution or individual shall discriminate against people living with H.I.V., AIDS patients and their relatives.”

Li Fangping, a lawyer who argued Xiao Wu’s case during a three-hour trial last month, said the judge’s decision defied logic. “It’s an example of how the legal system enhances and expands discrimination against people who are H.I.V. positive,” he said.

People with AIDS have increasing access to medical treatment in China, but they are widely shunned and often barred from universities, state jobs and private corporations. The ostracism has serious implications: in a report last year, the United Nations said fear and ignorance kept many of the estimated 740,000 Chinese infected with H.I.V. from seeking treatment.

The government has come a long way since the 1990s, when it went to great lengths to cover up a scandal in which thousands contracted the disease at state-run transfusion programs.

These days, people with AIDS have access to free antiretroviral drugs, and China’s top leaders, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao and President Hu Jintao, make a show of consoling people with AIDS each World AIDS Day. The government earlier this year lifted a ban on H.I.V.-infected foreigners’ visiting China.

But AIDS advocates say they face a wealth of restrictions that make it hard to carry out grass-roots activities. Wan Yanhai, the founder of the AIDS organization Aizhixing Institute, moved to the United States last May, claiming government harassment had made it impossible to carry out his work.

On Thursday, Beijing Loving Source, a children’s AIDS charity founded by the jailed dissident Hu Jia, announced it was shutting down after repeated scrutiny by the tax authorities.

In a closely watched case, Tian Xi, an AIDS activist who contracted H.I.V. through a blood transfusion, is awaiting sentencing in Henan Province on charges that his protests against the hospital responsible for his infection resulted in property damage.

In a way, the legal travails of Xiao Wu had been a bright spot for AIDS activists, who for years had seen a series of job-discrimination lawsuits rejected by Chinese courts before going to trial. Domestic media coverage of the case has been sympathetic, and given the central government’s laws against discrimination, legal advocates hoped a positive outcome would set a precedent.

Last month, an H.I.V.-positive college graduate, who was encouraged by Xiao Wu, filed a similar case in Sichuan Province.

Now advocates worry that Friday’s ruling will have the opposite effect, providing legal cover for employers who do not want to hire people with H.I.V.

“This is bad news, given that it was the first time an H.I.V.-positive person dared to stand up for his rights,” said Yu Fangqiang, an AIDS advocate whose organization, Beijing Yirenping, provided free representation to the defendant. “The entire H.I.V. community had high hopes, but now the door appears to be shutting for people who want to use the courts to fight against discrimination.”

Wal-Mart v. Class Action

This article is from The New York Times dealing with the law suit Wal-Mart has going on. They are being taken to court for sex discrimination against female employees and the amount they are paid. 

Click here for the full article 

Wal-Mart Stores is the largest private employer in the United States, with more than a million people on its payroll. It’s no wonder that a class-action lawsuit against the company would be major news when the suit alleges sex discrimination in pay and promotion against hundreds of thousands of female employees and could lead to back pay of billions of dollars.

The Supreme Court has even put the case on its docket, but no court has declared a winner at any level. The California federal trial court overseeing the lawsuit has yet to rule on the merits. Instead, as a judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, inSan Francisco, noted in a concurring opinion, the trial court has simply decided to let the group of women proceed against Wal-Mart in a class action.

Wal-Mart contends the group is too big to manage and spans so many types of employees that it doesn’t qualify as a class — and that, even if it did, it cannot get back pay. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case prematurely. It should be sent back to the trial court so everyone involved can get on with it.

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defining class actions, sets no limit on size. Its purpose is to make it more efficient to litigate cases involving many people with common claims — specifically challenges of a large group of plaintiffs. If Wal-Mart discriminated against female employees on a scale matching the company’s reach, justice must be expansive enough to give them their due.

Court-watchers would be wise to notice that the justices have again asked for briefs and arguments about a question not raised by either party. That is, whether there are legal grounds for recognizing the plaintiffs as a class and allowing them to pursue justice.

Based on the trial judge’s careful opinion and the appeals court’s equally careful majority opinion, the answer should be yes, resoundingly. Based on liberties the Roberts court has taken when it has reframed other cases, this one bears watching, closely. There is a risk that the court will shift from addressing whether the class is a class to assessing the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims and usurp the role of the trial court.

The image to the left shows a variety of hands in a circle surrounding a vibrant universe. All of the hands are a different color , but the background of the image is black and white.  The only color that is shown is where all of their hands meet in the middle of the circle, giving a feeling of unity. 

The image shown to the left shows a box of candy with five different colored faces.  The names are Tahini, Ginger, Java, and Hazel. All of the pieces of candy are a different color, which represents the idea of race and diversity. The name of the candy is "DeBrand Chocolatier" and has the words "Faces of the world" and "Celebrate Diversity".

The video above is something I found on youtube, which is about a dance group named Diversity. The group Diversity competed in Britain's Got Talent and made it to the finals. They are a group made up of different genders, age groups, and ethnicity. My main point in blogging this is to show to show you that there is nothing wrong with diversity and people who are different can work together.

My Audio Interview with Lucinda

Discrimination PSA

The image below is a print ad designed by Commission For Racial Equality. It illustrates an African American to the left fading in the dark background with the words "SCARED?" in bold red letters. It also says, "You Should Be. He's a Dentist." The designer is bringing up a serious issue that African American Doctors and Dentist have with stereotypes. The meaning is We as a whole should come together and support each other, as well as trust another person that has a position, no matter what gender or race they are. 

More Hispanics Say Discrimination Is a Problem, Poll Finds

By Julia Preston 

More than six in 10 Latinos in the United States say discrimination is a “major problem,” a significant increase in the last three years, according to a broad survey of Latino attitudes by the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group in Washington.

In 2007, the Pew center reported, 54 percent of Latinos said discrimination was a major problem. That year, nearly half of Latinos — 46 percent — cited language as the primary cause for that discrimination. In the new survey, a plurality — 36 percent of Latinos — said that immigration status was the leading cause.

The Pew Hispanic Center report comes as Latino voters could play a decisive role in several close midterm races, including the governors’ and Senate contests in California; the Senate race in Colorado; and the re-election fight in Nevada of Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, against Sharron Angle, a Tea Party-backed candidate.

The Pew survey shows Latinos — the nation’s largest minority, with 47 million in the United States — feeling beleaguered by backlash from the polarizing debate over immigration in the last year, and with some new mixed feelings about the impact of illegal immigration on Hispanics already living in the United States. While 29 percent said that impact had been positive, 31 percent said it had been negative.

In 2007, before the recession began, fully half of Latinos said illegal immigration had a positive impact on those already in this country.

Still, a large majority of Latinos — 86 percent — support legislation to open a path to citizenship for an estimated 11.1 million illegal immigrants if they pay fines, pass background checks and have jobs. Only 13 percent of Latinos said illegal immigrants should be deported.

According to the report, 51 percent of Latinos have more confidence in the Democratic Party on immigration issues, while 19 percent trust the Republicans more. But the top issue of concern for Latinos these days is education, with immigration their fourth priority, the survey found.

More than half, 52 percent, of Latinos, worry that they, a family member or a close friend could be deported, according to the Pew survey. One-third of the Latinos in the report knew someone who had been detained or deported in the last year.

The vast majority of Latinos, 79 percent, oppose the strict law aiming at curbing illegal immigration that passed in Arizona this year. (Parts of the law were put on hold by a federal judge.) A similar majority, 78 percent, is opposed to repealing the birthright citizenship clauses of the constitution.

Latinos are divided, however, on whether to increase the number of officers patrolling the Southwest border, with 48 percent approving and 46 percent opposed.

respecT : Gender Diversity

This is a PSA(Public Service Announcement) on the hatred issues that effect transgendered, men, and women around the world. It's pretty powerful when you look at the different scenes and clips in the video.

The image below illustrates a print ad established by the Commission For Racial Equality against racism, which is a form of discrimination. There are four images of brains labeled African, European, Asian, and Racist. The brains labeled African, European, and Asian are the same size, where the brain labeled Racist is smaller.  The meaning is everyone is created equal, and the people who are racist in a way being ignorant. 

What Should the Punishment Be for Acts of Cyber Bullying?

This article is written by Katherine Schulten from the New York Times, talking about the situation with cyber bullying and different views people have on cyber bullying 

This is the question an article in the Week in Review asks about the Tyler Clementi case. “Just how culpable is an online bully in someone’s decision to end a life?” the article asks. Do you know about this case, and the Phoebe Prince caseearlier this year? How tough should the punishment be for those who cyberbullied these students? Why? How do you think incidents like these could be prevented in the first place?In “Bullying, Suicide, Punishment,” John Schwartz discusses the complexities of the case and concludes:

Finding the right level of prosecution, then, can be a challenge. On the one hand, he said, “it’s college — everybody is playing pranks on everybody else.” On the other, “invading somebody’s privacy can inflict such great distress that invasions of privacy should be punished, and punished significantly.”

There is also the question of society’s role. Students are encouraged by Facebook and Twitter to put their every thought and moment online, and as they sacrifice their own privacy to the altar of connectedness, they worry less about the privacy of others.

Teenagers “think that because they can do it, that makes it right,” said Nancy E. Willard, a lawyer and founder of the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use.

Impulsiveness, immaturity and immense publishing power can be a dangerous mix, she said. “With increased power to do things comes increased responsibility to make sure that what you’re doing is O.K.,” she said.

…That is why Daniel J. Solove, author of “The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor and Privacy on the Internet,” said society needed to work on education.

“We teach people a lot of the consequences” of things like unsafe driving, he said, “but not that what we do online could have serious consequences.”

Students: Tell us what you think about how punishment in this case and others like it should be handled. How much is the bully to blame, and how much responsibility should he or she bear for the consequences? Why? How do you think cyberbullying like this can be prevented in the first place? Do you think education, as Mr. Solove suggests above, is enough?

Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships

This Article is another form of discrimination in the world that has become a serious issue over the past years. I read about it on the New York Times, which was written anonymously. Take a look and feel free to give to give your opinion on gay marriage.

For over a decade, the issue of same-sex marriage has been a flashpoint political issue in the United States, setting off waves of competing legislation, lawsuits and ballot initiatives attempting either to legalize or ban the practice. Rifts have also opened among religious groups over the decision to recognize same-sex marriage or condemn it. And a California ruling seems to have set the issue on a direct course for the Supreme Court.

Proponents of same-sex marriage say that the institution is a unique expression of love and commitment and that calling the unions of same-sex couples anything else is a form of second-class citizenship; they also point out that many legal rights are tied to marriage. Those opposed to same-sex marriage agree that marriage is a fundamental bond with ancient roots. But they draw the opposite conclusion, saying that allowing same-sex couples to marry would undermine the institution of marriage itself.

In March 2010, Washington, D.C. became the sixth place in the nation where same-sex marriages can take place. Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont also issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

In other states the issue moved one way and then another. A California court in 2008 ruled that a law barring same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. In a referendum that November, a ballot measure known as Proposition 8 was passed that restored the ban. Proposition 8 withstood a challenge in the state Supreme Court, which upheld the ban while allowing the marriages performed before it took effect to stand. But in August 2010, a federal judge found it unconstitutional, in a ruling that both sides say will end up before the Supreme Court. A week after his ruling, the judge said that the ban would cease to have effect on August 18th.

In 2009, Maine approved a bill allowing gay marriage, only to see voters reject it at the polls in November.  In December 2009 the New York State Senate voted down a proposal to legalize same-sex marriage. The vote followed more than a year of lobbying by gay rights organizations, who steered close to $1 million into New York legislative races to boost support for the measure.

But in July 2010, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that a law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage (Known as the Defense of Marriage Act) was unconstitutional, finding that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples.

A RUNNING BATTLE IN THE LEGISLATURES AND THE COURTS

The issue of same-sex marriage came to the fore after the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled in 1993 that the denial of marriage licenses to three homosexual couples amounted to unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of sex -- not sexual orientation -- unless the state could show a compelling reason for the denials.

The Hawaii Legislature passed a bill in 1994 affirming marriage as intended for "man-woman units" capable of procreation. But in 1996, conservatives, fearful that the court case would lead to the sanctioning of marriages of lesbian and gay couples in Hawaii by the end of 1997, campaigned across the nation to insure that the recognition of same-sex marriages would not spread to other states.

The legislative battle picked up momentum as more conservatives became convinced a federal law was required. In September 1996, the United States Congress, approving what was called the "Defense of Marriage Act," voted overwhelmingly to deny Federal benefits to married people of the same sex and to permit states to ignore such marriages sanctioned in other states. The bill was signed by President Bill Clinton.

In 1998, Hawaii voters rejected the legalization of same-sex marriages.

Same-sex marriage first became a reality in the United States in 2004, after the Supreme Court in Massachusetts ruled that it was required under the equal protection clause of the state's Constitution. Connecticut began allowing same-sex marriage in late 2008.  

In April 2009, Iowa's Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing gay couples to marry, and the legislatures of Maine and Vermont passed laws granting the same right in the following weeks. In California, after a court decision in 2008 allowed the marriages, a voter referendum that November, upheld in court in May 2009, barred them.

The New Hampshire legislature approved revisions to a same-sex marriage bill on June 3, 2009, and Gov. John Lynch promptly signed the legislation, making the state the sixth to let gay couples wed and changing the landscape surrounding an issue that brings together deeply held principles and flashpoint politics.

Civil unions, an intermediate step that supporters say has made same-sex marriage seem less threatening, are legal in New Jersey, Connecticut and Vermont. The latter two states are phasing them out after adopting same-sex marriage laws.

NEW ENGLAND

New England remains the nucleus of the same-sex marriage movement, with a campaign under way to extend marriage rights to gay men and lesbians in all six of the region's states by 2012.

Critics say the success of the movement in New England is largely because courts and legislatures, not voters, are making the decisions. Voters have approved constitutional bans on same-sex marriage in 26 states since the Massachusetts court ruling, a landmark, took effect; the constitutions of four other states also limit marriage to heterosexuals.

Gay rights supporters suffered a crushing loss when voters decided in November 2009 to repeal Maine's new law allowing gay men and lesbians to wed, setting back a movement that had made remarkable progress nationally over the course of the year.

Maine, with its libertarian leanings, had seemed to offer an excellent chance of reversing the national trend of voters rejecting marriage equality at the ballot box. Instead, it became the 31st state to block same-sex marriage through a public referendum.

 CALIFORNIA

Another major front in the debate is California. On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of California voted 4-to-3 that a state law banning same-sex marriage constituted illegal discrimination because domestic partnerships were not a good enough substitute. In its decision, the court wrote that whatever term is used by the state must be granted to all couples who meet its requirements, whatever their gender. The court left open the possibility that another term could denote state-sanctioned unions so long as that term was used across the board.

Opponents quickly organized, and launched the Proposition 8 initiative campaign, asking voters to ban same-sex marriages. After an expensive and hard-fought campaign, the measure passed on Nov. 4, 2008, with 52 percent of the vote. (Florida and Arizona also passed bans at the same time.)

Groups who had fought Proposition 8 immediately filed suit to block it. On May 26, 2009, the state Supreme Court upheld the voter-approved ban but also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed. But in August 2010, a federal judge in San Francisco struck down the ban, saying it unfairly targeted gay men and women, handing supporters of such unions a temporary victory in a legal battle that seems all but certain to be settled by the Supreme Court.

The judge initially stayed his order, leaving the Proposition 8 ban in effect, then said it would be lifted as of August 18th, allowing same-sex marriages to resume.

PRESIDENT OBAMA AND GAY MARRIAGE

The flurry of activity in early 2009 has put pressure on President Obama to engage in a variety of gay issues. Mr. Obama has said he opposes same-sex marriage as a Christian but describes himself as a "fierce advocate of equality" for gay men and lesbians. While Mr. Obama has said he is "open to the possibility" that his views on same-sex marriage are misguided, he has offered no signal that he intends to change his position.

On legislation, Mr. Obama is charting a careful course. In addition to calling for the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military, Mr. Obama supports a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that said states need not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Opponents of same-sex marriage say that is an inconsistency. But Mr. Obama's Justice Department defended the law against separate lawsuits brought by the Massachusetts Attorney General and an advocacy group.

On July 8, 2010, Judge Joseph L. Tauro of United States District Court in Boston ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in both cases. In the Coakley case, the judge held that federal restrictions on funding for states that recognize same-sex marriage violates the 10th Amendment, which declares that rights not explicitly granted to the federal government, or denied to the states, belong to the states.

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND RELIGION

Religious institutions have struggled with policies, privileges and rites regarding homosexuality, including whether or not to bless same-sex unions and whether or not gays and lesbians may hold positions of authority. There is no consensus among Christian faith groups on what the Bible says about homosexuality. Meanwhile, many individuals yearn for acceptance from their houses of worship.

In 2005, The United Church of Christ became the first mainline Christian denomination to support same-sex marriage officially when its general synod passed a resolution affirming "equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender." The resolution was adopted in the face of efforts to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

In July 2009, at the 76th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, delegates including bishops, clergy and lay members, voted to open "any ordained ministry" to gay men and lesbians, a move that could effectively undermine a moratorium on ordaining gay bishops that the church passed at its last convention in 2006. Delegates also voted not to stand in the way of dioceses that choose to bless the unions of same-sex couples. Both issues have roiled the church for years.

Methodists, Presbyterians and American Baptist Churches have also debated the issues, and other Christian denominations have struggled with how to minister to gay and lesbian members.

Fundamentalist denominations have made significant efforts against homosexuality. The Southern Baptist Convention, for example, has expelled congregations that welcomed homosexuals to their memberships.

Reform Judaism, the largest of the main branches of Judaism, has for years allowed same-sex commitment ceremonies.

Islam prohibits same-sex marriage.

My Audio Interview

I decided I wanted to see how the public thinks about the issues on Discrimination and Diversity, so why not interview my own mother. My mother's name is Lucinda and she works in the business world dealing with enrolling kids into school. In our interview, she describes her past experience of discrimination at a supermarket she used to work at and her connection with the church she now attends being a melting pot.

Here are the following question asked during the interview:


1) Where are you from, What is your ethnicity, and Where did you grow up? In an ethnic culture or neighborhood? or in a mixed environment?


2) Do you think Diversity, meaning different ethnicity effect your environment? and if so how ?


3)What are you ideas on how the world can benefit from Diversity? meaning how can different cultures come together as one.


4)Have you ever been involved with discrimination as far as work or public places? If so what was the situation? 


5)How do you feel about affirmative action?


6)Why do you think so many people discriminate against people of different race or ethnicity?


7)Do you think Diversity builds a person's self-esteem?


8)When you look at a person of different ethnicity, what's the first thing that comes to mind?


9)Are you a member of a church or organization? If so, do you feel your church or organization is made up of diversity? 


10)If it was something you could contribute to your community on diversity, what would it be?


To listen to my interview, click HERE

Diversity

Here's a video I came across on YouTube that seemed to point out different situations that people all around the world go through. Towards the end of the video, it says "Put Yourself In Someone Else's Shoes". Take these words into consideration and think how does this apply or  relate to you ? You can also watch the video here

Diversity & Discrimination in the Workplace

Here's an article I found by Lauren Nelson( eHow Contributor) on some of the common forms of discrimination that take place in an work environment. 

 

The demographic face of America is evolving at a rapid pace. With this surge in diversity comes a need for cultural sensitivity. In instances where this sensitivity is absent or has failed, discrimination can be a problem. This has become an important issue in the world of business.

Gender Discrimination

1. While women may have gained suffrage at the turn of the century, gender discrimination is still a prominent issue in the workplace today. According to statistics from the Department of Labor in 2008, women now make up over 46 percent of the workforce, but still face prejudice. Traditionally, this manifests in three areas--income, sexual harassment, and familyprejudice.
   
   Women are still the victims of income discrimination. Market Watch reports that women today earn only part of what men earn. According to an April 2010 article from Market Watch, the U.S. Department of Labor reports that the average weekly income for a woman is $665, which is only 79 percent of the average weekly male income of $884.
   
   Sexual harassment is an additional problem in the workplace. Research conducted by Louis Harris and Associates in 2008 found that 31 percent of women studied reported being the victim of unwanted sexual attention while at work.
   
   Family prejudice is another form of discrimination for women at work. Women may be discriminated against by being denied promotions or being fired because of family obligations or pregnancy. In fact, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's statistics for 1997 to 2009 show that pregnancy discrimination is one of the fastest growing forms of gender discrimination today.

Racial Discrimination

2. America has always been considered a bit of a melting pot, but for the first time, it appears as though Caucasian Americans will soon become the minority. 2008 Census Bureau Data suggests that by the year 2042, racial groups typically associated with the term "minority" will become the majority, as their presence will collectively outnumber the amount of self-identified Caucasians. This expansion has led to hiring discrimination. For example, advocacy group Think Progress reported in April 2010 that recent legislation passed in Arizona gives public school officials the ability to fire someone with a "heavy accent," and has been largely received as a xenophobic measure to combat the increasing Hispanic population in the state.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination

3. The past decade has witnessed an increasing tolerance for members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered, or GLBT, community. The most recent data, coming from a 2002 Gallup poll, suggests that nearly one in five Americans identify as openly homosexual. While public sentiment toward this community has improved over the years, discrimination is still a problem. Statistics revealed in a 2007 Trib Live article show that, "23 percent of gay employees have been harassed at work, 12 percent have been denied promotions, and nine percent were fired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity."

Age

4. Individuals of all ages are in the workforce, ranging from high school graduates to senior citizens. Research conducted by Kelley Services and CareerBuilder.com in 2007 found that, "21 percent of employees age 50 and older reported they have experienced discrimination or unfair treatment in the workplace. More than one third of respondents said they experienced this type of treatment at least once a week." In 63 percent of these cases, the individuals in question were not held accountable for their actions.

Anti-Discrimination Laws

5. There are a variety of laws in place to protect members of this diverse workforce from discrimination. On a federal level, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 can all be used to defend your rights. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission can help you understand these rights and file complaints against offending employers. It is important to look into the laws in your state as well, as additional regulations may provide further protection.

Tributes to a Young Suicide Victim at a Hometown Forum

By Lisa W. Foderaro in the New York Times

Nikomeh Anderson, a friend of Tyler Clementi's, spoke during a tribute to him on Thursday in Ridgewood, N.J. Beside her, from left, were Chelsea Spell, Wendy Kennedy and Deb Spell.

RIDGEWOOD, N.J. — After all the anti-bullying pleas, the celebrity testimonials and the huge gatherings at Rutgers, an event to honor Tyler Clementi’s life and reflect on the meaning of his death was held in his hometown on Thursday night in an old stone church.

Marcus Yam for The New York Times

Eileen Kelly-McGeever cried during the playing of a song written for Tyler Clementi at St. Elizabeth’s Episcopal Church in Ridgewood, N.J.

The gathering was billed as a town hall meeting, not a religious service (his family had kept his funeral strictly private). And though the speakers included victims of bullying who had not known Mr. Clementi, as well as local and state politicians, former classmates of his from Ridgewood High School were also scattered across the pews, and one spoke movingly of her grief. It was thus the most intimate, personal tribute to be held since Mr. Clementi’s suicide on Sept. 22 drew national attention.
The friend, Nikomeh Anderson, a freshman at New York University and an aspiring actress, talked about the young man who had sat near her in a high school class, as well as her shock upon learning of his death — without knowing the circumstances that led to it.
Mr. Clementi, a Rutgers freshman and an accomplished violinist, leapt to his death three days after his roommate, Dharun Ravi, secretly set up a webcam in their dorm room, prosecutors say. They contend that Mr. Ravi joined another freshman, Molly Wei, in the dormitory on the university’s Piscataway campus to watch Mr. Clementi’s intimate encounter with another man and streamed it live on the Internet.
“They outed him on the Internet, doing something that’s very private and very personal,” Ms. Anderson told the audience Thursday night at St. Elizabeth’s Episcopal Church. “No one deserves to have their private life made public. Imagine how violated, embarrassed, angry and ashamed he must have been.”
“Our love of art really drew us together, made us more cultured, more mature people, yet somehow always with a spark of craziness and fun,” she said. “Tyler was a part of this family and a part of the Ridgewood High School community, and I just couldn’t wrap my head around why such a talented, generous person would jump off the G. W. Bridge.”
Coming on the eve of Bullying Prevention Month in October and National Coming Out Day on Monday, the suicide immediately touched a nerve. It has generated a nationwide conversation about the vulnerability of gay teenagers and prompted celebrities like the talk show host Ellen DeGeneres, the former “American Idol” judge Paula Abdul and Tim Gunn, of the television series “Project Runway,” to speak out against harassment. Ms. DeGeneres, who is gay, posted a video on her Web site in which she described Mr. Clementi’s suicide as a “wake-up call” and teenage bullying as an epidemic.
The forum on Thursday, in which Anthony Bevilacqua, a former violinist from the Ridgewood Symphony Orchestra, played a piece he had composed called “Heaven’s New Angel,” was the latest gathering to remember Mr. Clementi, 18, and to urge tougher laws against bullying. On Wednesday, at a town meeting at Rutgers, Senator Frank R. Lautenberg said he would introduce legislation to make colleges adopt a code of conduct that prohibits bullying. The law would also provide money for schools to establish programs to prevent such harassment.
Both town meetings were organized by the gay rights group Garden State Equality.
Mr. Ravi, 18, of Plainsboro, N.J., and Ms. Wei, also 18, of Princeton Junction, were charged with two counts of invasion of privacy for using a “camera to view and transmit a live image” of Mr. Clementi. The most serious charges carry a maximum sentence of five years. Mr. Ravi was additionally charged with two counts of invasion of privacy for trying a similar live transmission on Sept. 21, the day before the suicide.
Prosecutors are now weighing whether to upgrade the charges to a hate crime based on Mr. Clementi’s sexual orientation. The Middlesex County prosecutor, Bruce J. Kaplan, said last week that his office would make “every effort to assess whether bias played a role in the incident.”
Mr. Ravi made reference to his roommate’s sexual orientation in a Twitter message after he successfully caught him on camera, writing: “I saw him making out with a dude. Yay.”
On Tuesday, lawyers for Ms. Wei issued a statement, declaring her innocence and saying that she “committed no crime” and that “her remarkable reputation is being unjustly tarnished by uninformed and incorrect assumptions.” On Wednesday, Mr. Ravi’s lawyer, Steven D. Altman, said in a statement that he was “heartened to hear” that prosecutors were “taking their time to learn all the facts before rushing to judgment.”
Many in the audience on Thursday had driven long distances to show their support for Mr. Clementi and gay rights. “I’m here to make sure this person didn’t kill himself in vain,” said Chase Kruppo, 22, of Jackson, N.J., a recent college graduate and a volunteer for the Stonewall Community Foundation, a gay-rights organization. “We should not be here tonight.”

The Strength of Our Diversity

By Harriet Hankin

For Article, click here

The broad topic of diversity – gender, race, religion, creed, disability, sexual preference, and nationality – shapes who we are and how we perceive the world. It influences us as much as the historical factors that define our generations. The diversity of the emerging workforce creates both challenges and opportunities for organizations and their employees.
America has always been a melting pot and this will not change in the future. What will change, however, is the diversity of the mix. If the shades in the melting pot of the past came from a box of eight colors, the shades of the future will come from a box of sixty-four. What will change, too, are the demands upon companies to reflect this increasingly broad range of shades. But the labor pool itself is becoming so blended, so ‘colorful,’ that employers of the future, simply by filling their ranks, will be hiring a more diverse workforce. Quite simply, there will be no way to avoid it.

The workforce can be seen as a collection of different peoples working together toward common goals, yet each bringing his or her own perspective and abilities.

According to the US Census Bureau, for the first time since the early 1930s, one of every ten Americans is foreign-born. By the year 2050, the country’s racial/ethnic makeup is projected to be: 55 percent White, 21 percent Hispanic, 14 percent Black, 9 percent Asian, and 1 percent American Indian.

Among all immigrants to the United States between 1996 and 2002, 25 percent came to California, the most diverse state in the union. By 2025, an estimated 34 percent of California residents will be white. In comparison, Maine, the least diverse state, is expected to be more than 97 percent white in 2025.

In another fifty years, it won’t matter if your grandmother’s grandmother came from Puerto Rico or Africa, Germany or Ireland, you will just be American. Remembering heritage is important; having prejudice because of it does not make sense.

In his book, The Global Me: New Cosmopolitans and the Competitive Edge: Picking Globalisms Winners and Losers, G. Pascal Zachary expresses his positive views about the blending population. He sees the mixing of races, ethnic groups, and nationalities happening at unprecedented levels that are only just beginning. These blends of people will have a positive impact on the places where they live and work. They tend to be more inclusive, fair-minded, flexible and open, making them attractive to employers.

The point is that the labor pool is becoming less and less of a menu where companies can hire one from Column A and one from Column B to fill predetermined quotas. For one thing, the workforce in a blender makes it too easy. (I can’t help but recall a certain unenlightened manager I once knew who exclaimed "If I can hire one candidate who’s a half-black, half-Hispanic female, I’ll have finished my quota for the year!")

Diversity in the future will be evolutionary, not revolutionary. It will have more to do with acceptance, flexibility, and respect. It will be about hiring someone different because it will broaden our perspective, open up new views, and better reflect our markets, not because it will get us a check mark in the affirmative action box on a review form.

Acceptance and Respect

Just hiring a diverse group of employees will not be enough. Acceptance and respect of the differences among employees will also be key. Often I see diversity linked to the term tolerance. I am not a big fan of this association. I view tolerance as similar to hiring quotas – a concept that once served a purpose that is now becoming obsolete. In the workforce of the future, employers will not merely tolerate differences among employees; they will embrace them. The diversity of their workforces will make companies stronger in every area, and employers who recognize this fact today will have a leg up on future success.

The Diversity Continuum

Diversity is a phenomenon that is moving along a continuum. Initially, when people all strived for the comfort of sameness, variety was a threat. So, diversity was cause for segregation. Then, thanks to inspirational leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, we slowly moved toward tolerance. People didn’t necessarily change their views. We just learned to "put up and shut up" about things and other people that were different. The next stage along the continuum is acceptance, which not only recognizes and tolerates differences, but also respects and welcomes them. Ultimately, the continuum celebrates diversity.
Diversity challenges us to move from segregation, through tolerance, then acceptance, to celebration.
People are generally at different places on the continuum relative to different groups. Where we are on the continuum at any given time with regard to a particular group is shaped by any number of factors, such as where we live, how we were reared, and what is happening in the world. Certainly the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on America are a dramatic example of this. In the United States, anyone of Arab descent became immediately suspect, and many Americans slid instantly from acceptance to fear of anyone who even looked Middle Eastern.

Companies on the Continuum

Most of corporate America is somewhere around ‘tolerate.’ Whether closer to ‘putting up with’ or closer to ‘acceptance’ varies according to influencers such as company size, location and industry. By and large, a company moves further and faster along the continuum toward acceptance when: 1) it is forced to, or 2) its leaders accept and encourage diversity. For example, companies become more accepting of diversity either when they are located where the population is more diverse, or when they operate in an industry whose employment needs can be met only by accepting diverse employees. Geography is an obvious factor. A company hiring from the labor pool in California, the most diverse state in the country, sees people of all backgrounds when interviewing for a position. In Maine, however, the opposite is true.
Industry also plays an important role. In some industries, the need for employees with specialized skills is so great that employers, eager to find enough employees, have been forced to reach out to a more diverse labor pool. For example, the dramatic shortage of nurses in the United States (and worldwide) has led to a major exodus of qualified workers from poorer nations to wealthier ones. Thousands of nurses have left South Africa, Ghana, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago to come and work in the United States and other more developed countries.
Yet another example is the dearth of high-tech professionals. Congress has authorized several increases in H-1B visas for highly skilled international workers. At the same time, many American companies have moved various technical functions to other nations. Intel has a chip-processing plant in Costa Rica, and China, with more college students graduating than ever before, is becoming a ripe resource for global research and development.

Awareness at the Top

Beyond being ‘forced’ into diversity by demographics, geography, or industry, companies move along the diversity continuum when diversity is embraced at the top of the organization. According to Suzanne F. Kaplan, a diversity consultant to corporations, "Many CEOs understand the business case for diversity – their company’s workforce has to look and think like the world at large if they are to be successful in this era of globalization." However, a diversity initiative can also result "when there’s a change of heart at the top."
With a committed leader at the top, you then choose employees based on a different screening process. Real diversity not only accepts variety, it seeks it out. Rewarding people for making sure there is a diversity of thinking in the organization is diversity at its best. Real diversity is mental diversity.
Movement along this continuum will be critical for employers of the future. I believe that the ultimate goal here goes beyond even the celebration of difference – to a place where differences are irrelevant. Moving forward must include working through tolerance to celebration in the face of diversity, even though this continues to highlight differences. Individuals who work for and run companies will need this kind of priority and coaxing toward celebration before they can move to the point where diversity is a non-issue.

Ahead of the Curve

I believe that the more diverse corporations will be the more successful ones in the future. Ultimately, diversity programs aim to change a corporation’s culture, a challenge requiring a comprehensive solution. For example, companies with a large, dispersed workforce will need a multilayered, multifaceted approach to implement a diversity strategy. Companies need to realize that diversity is strength, not weakness.
At the root of a successful organization will be a corporate culture that does not simply have diversity as a policy but that embraces and embodies a diverse workforce as a way to have a productive structure.
As the competitive landscape intensifies, companies that pay attention to diversity and structure their organizations around it will find that they have far greater access to the best talent pool. This includes men and women, members of different religions, people of many races, disabled persons, and individuals of varying sexual orientation. Truly diverse companies will see opportunities for meaningful contribution from older and younger workers alike, from the disabled, and from those of varying life needs. As organizations move to embrace diversity, they will find that they are ahead of the curve on every measurable front – from recruiting and retaining the best employees to higher profit margins and productivity levels, from better reflecting their marketplace to finally insuring a more satisfying workplace.

Excerpted from THE NEW WORKFORCE Five Sweeping Trends That Will Shape Your Company’s Future by Harriet Hankin (Amacom, 2004). For more information or to order, go to amanet.org/books.

One Form of Discrimination

By Aaron Bullock 

This is one form of discrimination that effects many around the world and that is Bullying. Most bullying takes place in public and private schools. Students judge others by how their dressed, popularity, where they come from(or live), and for racial issues. People fail to realize how a person's feelings and emotions can be effected by judging them by their situations and appearance. How would you feel if someone judged you? To the right is a picture to help you visualize what a student can experience everyday at school.

Change the World: Diversity

Here's a video from youtube that caught my eye on the idea of Diversity in the world. You can also check it out here

The Black-White Happiness Gap: Large, but Narrowing

By Justin Wolfers in the New York Times 

There’s a lot of talk about race these days.  But high-frequency chatter can obscure some of the more important longer-term trends shaping the lives of African-Americans.  Which is why Betsey Stevenson and I turn to the data, in a new paper, “Subjective and Objective Indicators of Racial Happiness.”  The full version is here, but David Leonhardt does a splendid job of writing up the paper in today’s New York Times (plus don’t miss the great graphic).

The big idea in the paper is to see what we can learn from subjective indicators—like happiness—that isn’t evident in objective indicators.

The usual objective indicators suggest that there’s been disappointingly little progress in narrowing racial gaps in employment or income since the 1970s.  And objective social indicators like educational attainment, incarceration rates or some measures of family structure tell an even grimmer story.  Basically, the Civil Rights movement happened, and then we ran out of puff about three or four decades ago.  It’s a thoroughly dispiriting set of facts, and according to the “taxi driver test” (i.e. talking with cabbies), this lack of progress isn’t widely understood.

But data on self-reported happiness add some nuance to this story.  Our research reveals three key findings:

1. The black-white happiness gap in the 1970s was huge.  And as much as we know that measures of relative deprivation pointed to tough circumstances for blacks in the 1970s, the happiness gap was larger—much larger—than could be explained by these objective differences in circumstances.  Even the richest blacks were less happy than the poorest whites.  Here’s Leonhardt’s summary of this evidence:
   
   

   In the 1970s, a relatively affluent black person — one in a household making more than nine out of 10 other black households, or at the 90th percentile of the black income spectrum — was earning the same amount as someone at the 75th percentile of the white spectrum. That’s another way of saying blacks were making less than whites.

   But blacks were far less satisfied with their lives than could be explained by the income difference. People at the 90th percentile of the black income spectrum were as happy on average as people just below the 10th percentile of the white income spectrum, amazingly enough.

2. The black-white happiness gap has narrowed substantially.  Again, here’s Leonhardt:
   
   

   Today, people at the 90th percentile of the black income spectrum are still making about as much as those at the 75th percentile of the white spectrum — but are now as happy on average as people in the dead middle, or the 50th percentile, of the white income spectrum. The income gap hasn’t shrunk much, but the happiness gap has.”

   In fact, the rise in the happiness of black Americans is as dramatic of a rise in happiness as you are likely to see in this sort of data.  This has occurred despite very little progress in the usual objective indicators.
3. Even as the black-white happiness gap has narrowed by about two-fifths, it remains large.  Much of this remaining gap can be “explained”—in a statistical sense—by the different life circumstances of blacks and whites. So today, the objective and subjective indicators tell a more consistent story.

What’s driving these dramatic changes in happiness?  Well, we don’t know exactly what the reason is, but:

The most obvious is the decrease — though certainly not the elimination — in day-to-day racism. “The decline in prejudice has been astounding,” says Kerwin Charles, a University of Chicago economist who has studied discrimination. Well into the 1970s, blacks faced “a vast array of personal indignities that led to unhappiness,” he noted. Today, those indignities are unacceptable in many areas of American life.

I think Kerwin is right, although this is based on gut, rather than firm evidence.  And so the next stage in this research program is to link those personal indignities to measures of well-being.  The social science challenge here is a measurement one: How best to get a handle on the evolution of day-to-day racism?

For more on this, also see Julia Baird’s splendid Newsweek column, which emphasizes the gender dimension of our research.

---

Justin Wolfers is a professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania.