Segregation is something that has literally separated people throughout history and as the world moves towards a more global and diverse model, the spread of anti-segregation initiatives follow. In a country as developed as the United States of America, and one that has led the way in stifling racial tensions since the Civil Rights Movements of the 1970’s, it seems absurd to think that in today’s racially and ethnically diverse society that these are still problems with segregation. The fact is, not only does segregation exist around the world in less developed countries, but it is something that is alive and well in some of the most important cities throughout America. Major metropolitan areas such as New York and Los Angeles have been dealing with the forms of racism, racial bigotry, and segregation at all levels for decades and although the tensions may seem to be easing, it is not with certainty that we can see a sure improvement in the system. The current implementation of measures to reduce segregation at an institutional level such as that of “the lack of racial and socioeconomic diversity in the city’s public schools” is a clear indicator that inequality still exists in some of the most ethnically and racially diverse places in the United States; New York City. Upon learning of trending issues such as this one in New York City, it is easy to suggest a solution to the “problem” however it is often these proposed solutions that serve as a mere Band-Aid to the real problem, or root cause of the issue. Through investigation at all levels of the social system, it is apparent that there are many factors that contribute to forms of inequality, including segregation, and that there must be a complete overhaul of the social system if there is to be a proposed solution to the “institutional discrimination” which “is built into the structure itself”.
Context
On October 21, 2014, the New York Times reported on the proposed legislative changes to the New York School System. A three part bill, “would require the city’s Education Department to publicly report raw numbers for various measures of diversity in city schools” as well as “two other pieces of legislation” that would act as “nonbinding resolutions”. This proposed legislation is specifically geared toward improving the mix of students into different schools based on socioeconomic class and race. The legislation is also a way to raise awareness and make a slow transition into a different type of institutional integration, also known as de-segregation. However, the approach to the problems that exist, including limited admission of racial minorities into prestigious schools, cannot be solved immediately because of the possibility of adverse consequences at all levels, therefore the legislation aims to take a tiered approach to the implementation.
Problem
Institutional discrimination is something that transcends the entire system, from the macro-level down to the individual family unit and although it has such a large reach, it is not easily identifiable. Institutional discrimination can best be defined as maintaining “the advantage for the dominant group while providing the appearance of fairness to others” , and in a society that was founded by predominantly white males, it may seem easy to pinpoint exactly where the problem is, but the reality is that institutional discrimination is subtle. It is so engrained in the entire framework of our social system that the minority population which is affected by the consequences of inequality the most, carry out practices that help advance the dominant group because institutional discrimination is so subtle. The very component that stratifies society based on socioeconomic class, race, ethnicity and gender is being carried on through ignorance, because there is a lack of understanding and awareness that surrounds just how unbalanced the scales have become.
The opportunities for minorities do not exist in the same manner that they do for the dominant group. Of course, this is not an absolute statement because there is always an aspect of relativism embedded within every problem, but in regards to social mobility, there is less room for minorities. The upward social mobility is primarily limited to those members of society who hold a degree of wealth, power, and/or prestige. The majority of the population is confined to the lesser ranks of society where they are afforded the appearance of social mobility, but there is no true advancement. For example, if a member of the lower class wins the lottery or becomes an overnight millionaire through a business scheme, they may be afforded the luxuries of the upper class, in terms of access to material goods and the purchase of more expensive services, but it does not mean acceptance in social circles that are occupied by the dominant elite class. The elite class, or dominant group, holds a piece of prestige and power that is always just out of reach for minorities.
This framework of our society goes much deeper than meets the eye. These disparities between race, ethnicity, class, and gender dictate where people live, access to and quality of healthcare, education, and basic necessities. The inequality caused by an unbalanced system essentially affects overall quality of life and contributes to what theorists recognize as a “culture of poverty”. In fact, only a few years ago, the New York Times published an article titled ‘Culture of Poverty’ Makes a Comeback, in which they addressed the issues of poverty that still exist in specific neighborhoods throughout New York and how some of these neighborhoods remain what sociologists refer to as a “poverty trap” due to “structures of poverty” embedded within our social system. This culture of poverty is more than an issue that exists in neighborhoods throughout New York. It is a clear indicator that there is something wrong with the system and we know that this stratification exists due to institutional discrimination, so the passing of poverty from one generation to the next is more than a problem of poverty; it is a problem of inequality and the trickle-down effect that occurs at the macro-level and transcends every micro-level of society.
Solution
It is always easy to identify what may be the problem at one level or another, and there will always be an offered solution, but when sociologists are trying to address the root cause of a problem from every angle, business gets tricky. Research is one of the ways to investigate possible solutions to problems, and raising awareness of these problems is the first step in taking action, however there is always some residual left over to deal with; otherwise we could live in a perfect society.
Since we’re aware that a perfect society is not an option, we are faced with conceptualizing problems and investigating which theory proves to be more effective in terms of rendering a possible solution. I can’t say with certainty that there is one solution that will work better than another to eliminate institutional discrimination, however I can give my opinion as it is related to alleviating segregation within the New York School System.
This means that it is okay for different groups to be divided by race, ethnicity, social class, and gender but that it is not okay to treat one group differently than another. The political aims at remediating inequality always have a common focus. They are always determined to prove that everyone is created equal and that all people deserve the same rights. Although this may sound like a perfect social system, it only gives the appearance of a perfect system. Nothing has changed. In fact, by measuring a school’s equality by the percentage of minorities that it accepts, it is only further exacerbating the problem of institutional discrimination by marking minorities as different. Instead of “accepting” more minorities into more prestigious schools, maybe we should look at improving the educational and societal components of lower-income schools and “accepting” non-minorities into those schools.
Works Cited
Carl, John D. Think Social Problems 2013. Pearson, 2013.
Cohen, Patricia. ‘Culture of Poverty’ Makes a Comeback. 17 October 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/us/18poverty.html?_r=0>.
Freeman, Jo. Institutional Discrimination. n.d. 25 April 2016. <https://www.uic.edu/orgs/cwluherstory/jofreeman/womensociety/institidiscrim.htm>.
Harris, Elizabeth A. New York City Council to Look at School Segregation. 21 October 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/nyregion/new-york-city-council-to-look-at-school-segregation.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0>.
Stanford University. Ideal Types of the 'culture of poverty' and its implicit alternative. n.d. 25 April 2016. <http://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/urb_culture_of_poverty.htm>.
