The question of racial justice and equality in the US has been manifested by a distinct process that can be tracked in the history of legislative actions aimed at eradicating discriminatory tendencies and building up a non-discriminant society. This issue must be investigated seriously, and answers to why this problem has persisted for so long despite implementing many policies should be sought. The present paper explores contemporary American debates about racial discrimination and the inequities resulting from it. It analyzes how modern economic and political aspects promote race differentiation that prevents minority groups from gaining access to the social goods supplied by state authority.
The central issue of this investigation is: What are the reasons that cause racial disparities to remain prevalent in American society despite enforcing and adapting laws aimed at promoting social justice, and what should be done to solve this problem? In responding to this question, the thesis posits that the continuation of such disparities is triggered by a series of socio-political and economic dynamics that specifically relate to disadvantaged groups’ equitable access to social goods in contemporary society. Despite this, efforts to enhance racial justice and equality have continued to make strides. The claim sets up an extensive exploration of the various elements that perpetuate racial disparity in the US.
Equity in Higher Education
With time, the debate on equal opportunity in universities has shifted to new opportunities and obstacles to redressing racial inequities. This study provides a critical analysis of the intricacy of equity and how it relates to the issue of racial justice within the sphere of higher education. Despite the widespread acceptance of the term “Equity,” more and more people have begun to worry about potentially losing the idea’s historical significance – which revolves around the pursuit of racial balance (Bensimon 96). This is particularly relevant to the most recent transformation within college education in the country, where actual impartiality is under threat through the eradication of ethnicity as one of the critical factors. Additionally, the concept of equitability is becoming depowered by its cooption as it diverges from its aim for racial justice. Racial inequity demands that society acknowledge the chronic background of equality reforms in the essential social situation. Colorblind reforms underscore the point that a reassessment is necessary because not all the underlying determinants of racial disparities are addressed. Restoring “equity” has become a social urgency rather than a linguistic demand. It emphasizes how the issue of racial justice is linked to equality to provide meaning for the concept in a new way.
This social criticism directly correlates with the study issue, thus proving its essence in racial justice and equality. The sociopolitical lens allows the examination of the structural problems that perpetuate racial inequalities when analyzing inequality in higher education. “Equity, once viewed suspiciously as racially divisive and associated with the activism of social justice movements that academic purists disdain as “advocacy” work, is now being enthusiastically embraced on the academic scene” (95). This perspective extends our understanding of socio-political processes, challenging established views and revealing structural mechanisms leading to inequality. This sociopolitical analysis is confirmed as an essential part of the study in general through the utilization of the CRAP test. Its currency in terms of how much it reflects current discourse on race and reflects on its significance as a tool to measure racial disparity. Legitimate, it contributes toward a better understanding of equity and provides an opportunity to discuss racial and class-based exploitation through educational institutions’ discourse in society. These racial imbalances persist, and sociopolitical studies on equality in lower and higher education help understand why this is so. Specifically, this is a part of a broader political conversation that explores how to redefine the term ” equity” and use it as the basis for transformation (Bensimon 98). Besides language, this barrier will have a social and political thrust that pushes down academic walls and creates lasting change in higher education.
School Desegregation
Several court decisions, especially Milliken v. Bradley, still make racial equality difficult within educational efforts. This theory posits that although efforts were made to eliminate the racial chasm in education through Milliken, it resulted in a cyclical perpetuation of the racial inequality that has always existed since then. “…competing interests of black equality and white freedom were central to Milliken and remain fundamental to the question of school desegregation in multiracial yet racially isolated times” (Horsford 3). In particular, historical studies show how Millikan’s impact remains with us today as we struggle to achieve racial equality through neighborhood school revival, local control, and school choice. Analyzing the long-term effects of desegregation measures depends on reviewing the Milliken case’s history. The problematic issues can only be solved by identifying their causal factors, making it possible to develop effective interventions. The main point of this argument is to remind us that the socio-political factors existing after Milliken and leading to racial differences in education outcomes cannot be dismissed. While thought-provoking statements from this historical study exist, we must also take note of the bias that might be involved in arguments favoring this effort to equalize the interests between the advantaged and the disadvantaged groupings. Hence, this calls for a well-rounded and comprehensive approach to tackling the deeply entrenched racial disparities in the educational system. For instance, desegregation laws illustrate why legislative interference fails to dismantle the sociopolitical structures that uphold inequality. Any meaningful progress in this regard requires a thorough appreciation of how the revival of local governance can affect neighborhood schools.
It does not imply that apart from physical barriers, there must be complete reforms in the educational systems and processes for some degree of equal treatment among students with disabilities and non-disabled students. In addition, it emphasizes the necessity for re-evaluating more extensive normative social principles that formulate the framework of the education system. This is evident by the fact that neighborhood schools have gained ground. According to the historical documents, these imply local control and school options rather than racial equality. However, closing the racial achievement gap between blacks and whites goes above just adherence to the law; it involves resisting other cultural presumptions whose intentions may be neutral but end up promoting racial disparity (7). In other words, everything should be included in an all-out response to the school desegregation case known as the Milliken affair. However, these legislative interventions can only partially address the existing racial disparity in our schools. The radical process entails reviewing the political setup of a society, amending its norms, and being persistent in overcoming ingrained attitudes. Nevertheless, these legacies are not so easily reversed; this is why systematic measures need to be employed to address the question of authentic diversity and integration among students in education.
Legal Framework and Status Hierarchies
Achieving racial justice in the criminal justice system involves balancing social order and advancing legal rights. Great strides have been taken concerning the legal environment, but real achievement has yet to be realized regarding resolving status hierarchies. “In assessing the movement for same-sex marriage, advocates, politicians, and journalists compared the fight for marriage equality to the mid-twentieth century movement for education equality, characterizing the former as a new front in civil rights” (James 202). Hence, considering some cases, this study reveals perspectives on hierarchies in issues like marriage equality and school integration. It emphasizes that legal triumphs do not guarantee accurate equity, for they disregard consented assumptions about status disparities. In the areas of gay marriage and school desegregation, it is realized that hierarchy can only be broken down by force. In such a process, inequality might be nurtured to discard legal victories that lack sound comprehension of the status dynamic. It will principally examine neglected beliefs that have sustained some other positions, including heterosexuals as well as whites.
Status inequality should easily be torn down, so the legal system needs to be scrutinized for this. This basis for legal doctrines and attempts ought to be on policies and policies that lie under equity-promoting policies and policy. Nevertheless, these wins become symbolic and irrelevant if they do not address issues like status relations that create different statuses among people in society. “. The interaction of law and societal status remains undertheorized” (201). This argument extends social reflection about the law, which is necessary enough to overturn the traditional hierarchical perception. However, a holistic approach must be adopted beyond legal mechanisms because legal frameworks and the cultural values and attitudes that inform these frameworks are inextricable. This type of question has something to do with education because it will change how people think, leading to changes in their social norms. In summation, what constitutes a substantive legalism approach to attaining racial justice lies beyond mere interrogations on the status or class systems and the power structures that affect our societies.
Evolution of U.S. Laws and Racial Equity
The bond between American legislative history and racial equity is like solving a complex puzzle with contrasting ideas, open-ended questions, and mysteries. However, it is a paradox that some legislation upholds racial domination and inequality even though the laws proclaim freedom and equality by the law. “A bloody Civil War and hard-fought amendments to our Constitution formally incorporated fundamental principles of equal justice into American law” (Jenkins 61). Abolitionism and the constitutional amendments were key milestones towards equality following the Civil War. However, the promises of such legal developments could not be met by African Americans as it exposed the fundamental discrepancy in the law. Structural problems interfere with progressive laws that seek fairness in American racial issues. The peculiar nature of American law cannot be ignored, given that historical events have determined it mainly. There were official declarations that still saw racial inequities continue or get worse. This contradiction, however, calls into question the commonly held notion that laws are mere instruments for meting out justice. Instead, it requires taking into account how legal systems inadvertently sustain systemic disadvantages while appearing to support impartiality. The highest discord is always found after the Civil War./ The fact that it took American society several years before civil rights could be achieved speaks volumes about the limit of the legal abolishment of slavery. Analysis of this historical paradox enables us to appreciate the intricacies involved in the relationship between racial equity and law.
Moreover, understanding that equal treatment in the law is yet to be attained prompts examination of existing racial disparities. However, this ongoing conflict has been engraved in the judicial system and is not merely a phenomenon of history. “The lack of either strong civil rights laws or judicial accountability has enabled the perpetuation of a criminal justice system in which racial bias heavily influences policing, prosecution, and sentencing” (63). This awareness requires us to reflect on whether our current legal systems are adequate to address the issues or what hinders the coming about of egalitarian societies. In essence, the strength of this story is drawn mainly from its numerous sources, which are made up of historical documents, legal rulings, and other publications from organizations. To this end, the argument sidesteps the minutiae associated with each study/analysis while at the same time broadening the complex aspects inherent in the US judicial system. Concerning the central thesis, this argumentative position works like an appeal as racial disparities still prevail. It will involve a review of the implementation, enforcement procedures, and the laws themselves. The advocates for justice based on race look to this focus on inadequacies not corrected as an opening for a revolutionary strategy of change to laws beyond mere political talk shows.
John Rawls’ Theory and Racial Justice
For many years, John Rawls’s theory of justice has been widely referred to as the foundation of moral management, based on the principle of a correct decision arising from “the veil of ignorance” (Matthew 237). However, the application of such a theory in light of racial justice reveals some shortcomings that question whether it can halt racial injustice and rectify past wrongs. For example, in essential terms, Rawls’ theory claims that there should be a priori principle of justice formulated without knowing an individual’s specific features covered by a veil of ignorance, and therefore, racial discrimination will automatically be forbidden (237). Nevertheless, their utopia is flawed because real-world racism is not as simple a phenomenon of color mixing as they envision it. Utopia is an environment in which individuals should determine other people’s races without knowing that they belong to particular races themselves. However, a theoretical curtain of ignorance cannot wash down the racial element in the administration of justice because society systems are corrupted by embedded systemic bias and racial hostility that has been there throughout history. The analysis raises doubts about its applicability in overcoming racial discrimination. Rawls’s concept of justice stems from the proposition that men would naturally come up with equitable notions in the absence of racial awareness. On the other hand, this idealized point of view fails to take into account the deeply rooted discrimination and prejudice inherent in societal systems. Whereas racial inequity persists, the actual practical effects of racial inequality remain evident, and therefore, Rawls’ analysis is not able to undo this intricate structure.
Furthermore, one can see, in assessing its impact on historical racist oppression, the time element of the theory presents itself. Unlike Rawls’s approach, it needs more instruments to confront the historical legacies of injustice and prejudice. A fictitious starting point is based on ignoring the consequences of past misdeeds. In practice, though, redressing historical oppressions calls for a more prosperous and more contextualized account of Rawls’ ideal theory that is deficient of that. The notion of FEO is worthy but has severe flaws regarding race relations (244). As per Rawls ‘ philosophy, opportunities lead to fairness and, therefore, fair outcomes; however, FEO implementation does not mean the elimination of structural barriers that uphold racial disparity in a culturally racist society. About the historical context of racial discrimination, the imperfections of FEO would have to be addressed by addressing the root causes of unequal distribution of services. In its essence, the intricacy of racism evidences the constraints of the Rawlsian concept of justice, even though it might be helpful regarding a purely analytical view of an idealized justice. Shortly, the idea fails to deal with structural prejudices, historical legacies, and the subtle notion of fair opportunities. However, a more sensible approach that considers the present situation is needed to eliminate racial disparity successfully. It is possible that too much emphasis on Rawlsian concepts leads to simplification of the complexity of race justice and hinders progress toward authentic universal social equity. The fact that Rawls’ theory has some inherent defects compared with the principle of racial justice can serve as a wake-up call. However, the philosophical framework of Rawlsian justice fails when providing some practical solutions to persistent issues related to discrimination. If serious strides are to be achieved, we should do away with utopia abstractionism, whereby history is seen and perceived as one-dimensional, and racial prejudice in contemporary society remains complex.
Racial Justice in Coaching
Race discrimination remains an entrenched prejudice in the coaching profession, which has long been considered crucial for both the professional and personal growth of individuals. The article argues that such biases should be identified and corrected because they form the basis for social progress toward racial justice in business ethics. There are racial injustices that continue to ravage the coaching industry, even though it has pledged itself with a dedication towards personal improvement. Therefore, the institutional biases should be addressed by scrutinizing the prevailing industrial practices. This translates to a step beyond the blind approach, which involves dismantling biased approaches informed by real racism issues with consideration of the differences resulting in diverse races. One crucial challenge noted is a high degree of “color blindness” in coaching (Roche and Passmore 23). The result is, therefore, a society that has accepted this kind of racism whereby the structural prejudices go unchecked because of the notion of an egalitarian approach that attempts to ignore racial differences. This barrier can only be crossed through a paradigm shift and moving beyond mere recognition of diversity towards actively stopping discrimination with equal opportunities for all people.
It is further complicated by their need for concern regarding the racial dynamics of professional artifacts and literature associated with the coaching business. The industry argument suggests that the difficulties in dealing with the nuances of racial issues prevent the industry from aggressiveness. Understanding racism also helps recognize the need for inclusion and exploiting the exploitation of triggers, creative ideas, and excellence. Reasoning emphasizes that quantitative steps are essential to creating a multiracial atmosphere in coaching to solve racial bias. Regarding this, the coaching profession must lead the way in removing barriers to the progress of BIPOC coaches (11). Racial prejudices, if not eliminated, will lead to the perpetuation of social injustices in the coaching profession. Teaching industry leadership is another factor in promoting racial equity. Poor representation of leadership hinders progression, thus sustaining racist activities. The assertion argues that it is intelligent to pressure and drive BIPOC individuals toward the top leadership positions in an attempt to rectify the historical errors that have been committed while at the same time promoting diversity within the organization, thus benefiting the company. A new perspective of argumentation regarding racial justice in sports and physical activity administration introduces significant changes within the field. Acknowledging and solving racism in the coaching sector can help support the more critical social goals of achieving racial justice, which include removing discrimination and recognizing the complexities around racial experiences. Ethically, this makes sense in improving professional coaches’ integrity, influence, and contributions towards world equality and inclusion.
Conclusion
This essay contends that even though the US has carried out several interventions historically, these actions alone cannot eliminate systemic inequity and maintain marginalized communities’ unequal access to socio-economic resources due to the intricate combination of modern political and economic factors that uphold it. Despite the legal efforts, the languages of racism persist as well, and society does not address the status inequalities that sustain the racial disparities. On this side of the debate, a holistic strategy should be adopted covering a wide range of issues ranging from acceptable detailed research on egalitarianism in postsecondary education to follow-up of important judicial decisions and the development of American law. Such interventions should not only focus on law but question existing myths, promote diversity, and tear down status hierarchies. Incorporating various perspectives underscores that continuous conversation, interrogation, and commitment to adjusting social norms towards developing a more substantive reality of racial justice is necessary for the world to be in the future where race equality exists as a fact, not a dream.
Works Cited
Bensimon, Estela Mara. “Reclaiming Racial Justice in Equity.” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, vol. 50, no. 3-4, July 2018, pp. 95–98, https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2018.1509623.
Horsford, Sonya Douglass. “Social Justice for the Advantaged: Freedom from Racial Equality Post-Milliken.” Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, vol. 118, no. 3, Mar. 2016, pp. 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811611800305. Accessed 7 Dec. 2021.
James, Osamudia. Carolina Law Scholarship Repository Carolina Law Scholarship Repository Superior Status: Relational Obstacles in Law to Racial Justice and Superior Status: Relational Obstacles in Law to Racial Justice and LGBTQ Equality LGBTQ Equality SUPERIOR STATUS: RELATIONAL OBSTACLES in the LAW to RACIAL JUSTICE and LGBTQ EQUALITY OSAMUDIA JAMES. 2022, scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1578&context=faculty_publications.
Jenkins, Alan. “Racial Equity and US Law.” Health Equity, vol. 7, no. 1, Jan. 2023, pp. 61–69, https://doi.org/10.1089/heq.2022.29022.aje.
Matthew, DC. “Rawls and Racial Justice.” Politics, Philosophy & Economics, vol. 16, no. 3, July 2017, pp. 235–58, https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594×17717736.
Roche, Charmaine, and Jonathan Passmore. Racial Justice, Equity and Belonging in Coaching HENLEY CENTRE for COACHING. 2021, assets.henley.ac.uk/v3/fileUploads/Racial-Justice-Equity-and-Belonging-in-Coaching.pdf. Accessed 3 Dec. 2022.
write