The Impact of Discrimination on Individuals - Essay Example

Discrimination Can Never be Justified, Not Even When this is intended to Help a Disadvantaged or Underrepresented Group By Candi s FACULTY OF LAW Abstract This brief essay presents a discussion about discrimination, the impact of discrimination on individuals and strategies to control discrimination in a society. Although segregation of people into casts is an ancient phenomenon and a tendency for dominant groups to dominate lesser groups has always existed, the aspiration that all people should enjoy equality of treatment, and opportunity is now enshrined in the psyche of a vast majority from the civilised world. Discrimination presents serious and lasting consequences for those subject to discrimination to present a negative impact on their future growth. Thus, it makes sense to enact laws that will deter those that discriminate, even if it takes time and effort to implement these laws to give effect to right thinking and to control discrimination. However, although positive discrimination, or affirmative action, remains an option for controlling discrimination, by itself this discrimination, which hurts individuals to disadvantage them when resources are scarce unless the burden of helping the disadvantaged is shared by the whole society. Thus, it makes sense to suggest that discrimination can never be justified, not even when this is to help a disadvantaged or underrepresented group. Contents Introduction 1 The Impact of Discrimination 3 Legal Approaches to the Control of Discrimination 6 Theoretical Approaches to Discrimination and Consequences 9 Conclusion 10 Bibliography / References 13 (This page intentionally left blank) Introduction The term discrimination refers to the differential treatment of members of one group by members of another (Pincus, 2003, Pp. 2 – 8). Individuals experiencing discrimination confront exclusion from opportunities to participate in some desirable aspects of social life, or from access to equal opportunities or enjoyment of scarce resources, often with a general sense among neutral observers that the individual, or the group that an individual belongs to, is not being treated fairly (Davies, 2000, Pp. 96 – 97). Discrimination may result in unequal access to education, employment, licensing or marginalisation in other ways based on race, religion, nationality, age, sex, sexual orientation, appearance or other attributes of an individual (Hellman, 2008, Pp. 2 – 4). According to Hellman (2008, Pp. 2 – 4), universities that refuse to accept students who belong to certain political affiliations, businesses that refuse to hire individuals above a certain age even though these individuals are capable of performing, or governments denying equal opportunities to all to compete for public service jobs indulge in wrongful discrimination. Clearly, members of a learned university, a responsible business or a competent national government should have known better than to indulge in discrimination. However, individuals or groups too may act to discriminate purposely against members of other groups based on perceptions about their ethnicity, race, religion, national origin or other attributes. Thus, the majority population in a country may lean towards discrimination against migrants from certain nations or members of a dominant religious group may lean towards discrimination against those belonging to other religious inclinations (Bertossi, 2007, Pp. 1 – 4). The October 2005 riots in France involving immigrants from North Africa and problems faced by coloured people, e.g. Africans or Asians in a predominantly white society that is often the focus of media attention point to problems related to discrimination and integration in whole societies. Both the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights prohibit discrimination (Arnheim, 2004, Pp. 262 – 264). Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is about prohibition of discrimination concerning ‘the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention’. Thus, although a consensus exists that discrimination is wrong, it is only possible to invoke Article 14 of the ECHR in relation to rights mentioned in this convention. In the United Kingdom domestic discrimination law, several types of discrimination, notably racial and sex discrimination are the subject of a whole body of law of their own and it is possible to base a case on discrimination alone. However, the European Court for Human Rights suggests that not only is it discriminatory to ‘treat differently persons in analogous situations without providing an objective and reasonable justification’ but also the converse, ‘to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different’ again of course ‘without an objective and reasonable justification’ (Arnheim, 2004, Pp. 263). Thus, even ‘positive discrimination’ involving efforts to help disadvantaged or underrepresented groups is wrong because this disadvantages individuals. This brief essay presents a critical examination of discrimination, including positive discrimination, the impact of discrimination and approaches to discrimination. The Impact of Discrimination According to Roscigno (2007, Pp. 1 – 5), because victims of discrimination are often ignorant, they fail to realise that they are subject to discrimination. In addition, victims of discrimination may fear retaliation, or they may lack the monetary resources, time or emotional strength to pursue publically visible or legal action. Discrimination mandated by law is de jure discrimination, which results in institutionalisation of discrimination, but custom or practice often sanction de facto discrimination (Timander, 2010, Pp. 32 – 33). The state and its institutions, non-state institutions, and individuals may all foster discrimination, and structural discrimination refers to the totality of ways in which a society fosters discrimination. However, although blatant discrimination in contrast to covert discrimination that remains hidden beneath the surface in layers of external niceties is relatively rare, all forms of discrimination cause psychological, health and material damage to the victims to stunt their potential for growth and to lead them to destruction (Roscigno, 2007, Chapter 2). After all, the reason why discrimination exists is to inflict damage on others to improve prospects for the self or those that are similar. According to Timander (2010, Pp. 34 – 36), published literature and research studies present substantial evidence to suggest that harmful mental and physical health impacts of discrimination do accrue to victims of discrimination. Depression, psychological distress, anxiety and a lack of wellbeing often characterise the impact of depression on mental health and hypertension, poor health, cancer risks, as well as potential risk factors for disease, such as high blood pressure, obesity and substance use are some of the impacts of discrimination on physical health. Clearly, discrimination both directly and indirectly damages the person, their economic prospects, capacity of persons to grow to achieve and their future prospects. Timander (2010, Pp. 34 – 36) states that all forms of discrimination including discrimination based on disability, sex, age, race, religion, sexual orientation present hurt and damage, with research carried out by this author in the United Kingdom and Sweden supporting the fact that discrimination induces negative mental and physical health consequences. Huynh (2010, Pp. 916 – 920) states that discrimination is an important factor to consider in the development of ethnic minority children and adolescents because discrimination predicted lower grades in the education system, lower self-esteem, depressive symptoms, distress, and physical complaints. Thus, discrimination acts as a stressor that disrupts the normal growth of children and adolescents. In addition, Huynh (2010, Pp. 916 – 920) suggests that ethnic identity, or a stronger identification with an ethnic group, ethnic socialisation or maintaining ties with the ethnic group to which one belongs and a tendency for some minorities to become more adept at discerning race related cues did not moderate the association between discrimination and well-being. Thus, it is clear that discrimination presents serious damage to individuals and their future growth. However, the best strategy for eliminating the debilitating impact of discrimination is to remove or to reduce discrimination in a society. It is important to remember that discrimination is not just a problem that confronts multicultural societies in developed nations, because discrimination in the developing world acts severely to disadvantage minority ethnic and religious groups as well as women (Rogers, 1980, Pp. 192 - 193). Legal Approaches to the Control of Discrimination Legal approaches to the control of discrimination include implementation and enforcement of laws that encourage equality in society, measures directed to encourage assimilation and affirmative action involving treating a subclass or group of disadvantaged people differently to improve their chances (Appelt, 2000, Chapters 12 – 15). Enacting legislation that discourages hate speech, discrimination based on age, sex discrimination and encourages equality in pay reduces structural discrimination in a society. In addition, it makes sense to implement legislation for positive race relations, equality in employment opportunities, protection of individual and human rights and equality in treatment of individuals. Enhancing the level of education and awareness in the masses, promotion of a certain level of inclusion that does not impinge on individualism together with efforts directed towards elimination of preconceived notions about groups in a community are also likely to help with reducing discrimination. It is important to note that promoting individualism helps eliminate a cast mentality in a society that forces people to cling together as groups that are then likely to come in conflict with other groups to discriminate and to become a butt of discrimination (Edmonds, 2006, Pp. 123 – 125). However, when promoting individualism, it is important to ensure that the society and the state are able to meet obligations to all individuals without a need for family or friends to become involved. Family and friends are positive attributes, but the state should recognise that the government as a representative of a people is responsible for the welfare of all. O’Neil (2011, Pp. 3 – 6) emphasises the need for a human rights based approach for controlling discrimination. It is right to suggest that any attempt to reverse entrenched discrimination must examine how best to prevent human rights violations hidden under a landscape of poverty that eliminates the capacity of individuals to protect themselves from exploitation and discrimination. All individuals living within the political boundaries of a nation have rights that include economic and social rights that ought to be inviolable and protection of these rights is a duty and not charity. Because human rights are interdependent and connect with civil and political rights as well as economic and cultural rights, governments must devise a legal and developmental framework that can best guarantee all individuals their rights without dumping any responsibilities on family or other individuals and organisations that may include charity organisations. Resource mobilisation, promotion of individual responsibility and maintaining sustainable levels of population are essential for the welfare of all groups and this means that it is impossible to tolerate uncontrolled reproduction with a view to dumping living human children on a society to present an untenable burden. It is important to remember that only affluent societies can guarantee human rights, quality of the individual and non-discrimination (O’Neil, 2011, Pp. 6 – 9). Thus, it makes sense to sanction and to discourage behaviour of individuals who harm the capacity of societies to deliver to all its members based on their capabilities, and it will be right to suggest that the one-child policy in China is probably right for the Chinese society. Affluent societies present markedly reduced levels of discrimination and human rights violations. Thus, sustainability as well a practical feasibility is paramount for all social and human development strategies. It is unfortunately true that the quest for control of discrimination presents links with many other social issues. However, international conventions from the United Nations, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities point to the emergence of international standards. Theoretical Approaches to Discrimination and Consequences Nations in Europe and North America have moved actively to implement legal measures to outlaw discrimination and to implement affirmative action, or positive discrimination (Guiraudon, 2009, Pp. 530 – 540) and (Herron, 2010, Pp. 1 – 11). However, the European Union, which has issued directives to member states to implement legislation that imposes sanctions on various forms of discrimination, recognises that outlawing discrimination will not ensure genuine equality of opportunity for everyone in the real world (Guiraudon, 2009, Pp. 537 – 538). Experience from various European nations suggests that legislation takes time to propagate through institutions and the society to change thinking and superior courts must rule on various matters dealt with by lower courts to establish precedents. However, at the very least legislation banning discrimination imposes the ideal and decides about the right values for a society, even if much effort is required to bring about real change by implementing the law and bringing about a change in the thinking of individuals and groups. Positive discrimination, or affirmative action, involves giving to those groups that are disadvantaged but by giving to those that cannot meet the grade, genuinely deserving individuals may remain deprived as individuals and not groups (Pincus, 2003, Pp. 3 – 4) and (Kellough, 2007, Pp. 3 – 21). Every job in a scarce job market that goes to an individual who claims to belong to a group subject to discrimination darkens the future of someone who has worked hard to make their future but must suffer so that someone else is favoured. Thus, positive discrimination or affirmative action now lacks favour, even if this is because dominant groups that maintain power in societies will not want complete depravation of all those belonging to such groups because of favouritism or charity. After all, charity depends on a capacity to give and favouritism is itself discrimination. Thus, according to Herron (2010, Pp. 109 – 112), it is important to select most carefully those that merit inclusion in affirmative action programmes, and it also makes sense to spread the burden of presenting support to such individuals on the whole society without unduly disadvantaging someone who has worked most honestly and diligently to achieve. After all, depriving a deserving individual is the peak of injustice, and it is important to understand that achievement comes from generations of dedicated, responsible and honest hard work. Conclusion This essay presented a discussion about discrimination, the impact of discrimination and remedies to control discrimination in a society. It is possible to conclude that it makes sense to try diligently to control discrimination because the effects of discrimination are unduly damaging, and it is likely that serious and lasting consequences will accrue to those subject to discrimination. Thus, it makes sense to enact legislation that will deter those that indulge in discrimination, compensate victims of discrimination and help change thinking about discrimination. However, although positive action remains an option for controlling discrimination, it is important to ensure that positive discrimination does not disadvantage individuals who genuinely deserve and the entire society shares the cost of assisting those that are subject to discrimination. Robbing from a deserving individual to give to a beggar is tantamount to theft, the peak of injustice and by itself discriminatory. Thus, it is right to suggest that discrimination can never be justified, even if the intention behind discrimination is to help a disadvantaged or underrepresented group. (This page intentionally left blank) Bibliography/ References Arnheim, Michael 2004, The Handbook of Human Rights Law, Kogan Page Appelt, Erna and Jarosch, Monika (Editors) 2000, Combating Racial Discrimination Affirmative Action as a Model for Europe, Berg / Oxford International Publishers Limited Baclija, Irena 2008, ‘“Positive Discrimination” Policies for Inclusion of Europe’s Largest Minority: Examples of Educational Policies for the Roma Minority in Europe’, Politička misao, Vol. XLV, (2008.), No. 5, pp. 175–189, retrieved: December 12, 2011, from: EBSCO Bertossi, Christophe (Editor) 2007, European Anti-Discrimination and the Politics of Citizenship: Britain and France, Palgrave Macmillan Centeno, Miguel Angel and Newman, Katherine S 2010, Discrimination in an Unequal World, Oxford University Press Connor, K. T 2009, ‘Delighting in Positive Discrimination—or “Discernment": A True Case History’, The Diversity Factor, Summer 2009, retrieved: December 12, 2011, from: EBSCO Davies, Martin 2000, The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Work, Wiley-Blackwell Edmonds, David 2006, Caste Wars: A Philosophy of Discrimination, Routledge Guiraudon, Virginie 2009, ‘Equality in the making: implementing European non-discrimination law’, Citizenship Studies Vol. 13, No. 5, October 2009, 527–549, retrieved: December 12, 2011, from: EBSCO Hellman, Deborah 2008, When Is Discrimination Wrong? Harvard University Press Herron, Rachael, Clare 2010, Superficially Similar but Fundamentally Different: A Comparative Analysis of US and UK Affirmative Action, Durham University, retrieved: December 14, 2011, from: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/662/ Huynh, Virginia W. & Fuligni, Andrew J 2010, ‘Discrimination Hurts: The Academic, Psychological, and Physical Well-Being of Adolescents’, Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(4), 916–941, retrieved: December 12, 2011, from: EBSCO Keane, David 2007, Caste-based Discrimination in International Human Rights Law, Ashgate Lang, Kevin 2007, Poverty and Discrimination, Princeton University Press Nelson, Todd D (Editor) 2009, Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination, Psychology Press, Taylor and Francis Group O’Neil, Ben 2011, ‘Anti-Discrimination Law and the Attack of Freedom of Conscience’, Policy, Vol. 27 No. 2, Winter 2011, retrieved: December 12, 2011, from: EBSCO Pincus, Fred L 2003, Reverse Discrimination: Dismantling the Myth, Lynne Rienner Publisher Rogers, Barbara 1980, The Domestication of Women: Discrimination in Developing Societies, Routledge Roscigno, Vincent J 2007, The Face of Discrimination: How Race and Gender Impact Work and Home Lives, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Sperino, Sandra F 2011, ‘Rethinking Discrimination law’, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 110:69, October 2011, retrieved: December 12, 2011, from: EBSCO Timander, Ann-Charlott 2010, Experience of discrimination, collective identity and health: Two studies carried out in Sweden and England, UK, Halmstad University, School of Social and Health Sciences, retrieved: December 12, 2011, from: http://hh.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:337891 Read More