Social Biases Essay Example for Free

Social Biases Essay Dr. Deirdre Teaford Abstract People behave differently toward other culture and groups and discriminate in many forms of social bias. These biases can impact harshly an individuals career and social life. Discrimination, prejudice, and stereotypes can influence adversely an individuals quality of life. The concept is more prevalent in society that most people realize. This problem could be unfavorable to group cohesion, cooperation, and the success of society. Humans prefer to go with the flow of a crowd. When an idea is chosen by the masses (an entire nations or a small group), the individualized brain enters a kind of hive mind mentality. This causes social norms and behaviors to propagate among the individuals regardless of the evidence in support. This type of social bias is built with the desire to conform or fit in. Social biases have been a barrier humans have experienced from generation to generation. They take short cuts to make sense of the world. Humans have made rash decisions or discriminatory practices based on gender, race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, political preferences, and socioeconomic tatus. Humans have become fallible and has been subjected to their many flaws by making errors in Judgment, memory, and social attribution. Social psychologists have claimed these biases can be eliminated if the individuals have the motivation and capacity to change their attitude. According to Fiske (2010), Some people think bias is a thing of the past, and others think it is a real and present danger that targets diverse social groups (p. 28). Moreover, there are subtle and obvious misunderstandings among groups of individuals that affects the bias of people in heir lives, but strategies for change are possible (Fiske, 2010). In this analysis, the concept of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination will be defined. In the same aspect, the analysis will describe the differences between blatant and subtle bias while identifyi ng some common biases that may affect the lives of individuals and Stereotyping, and Discrimination Gender and ethnic stereotypes are inevitable. In the context of affirmative action, the inevitability has played an important practical implication. One arguments against affirmative action is that employers and educational administrators should be ender-blind and colorblind in their hiring and recruiting process (Stewart, Weeks, Lupfer, 2003). Individuals are often hurt by discriminatory and prejudicial behaviors and attitudes. The current laws cannot halt prejudicial or stereotyping attitudes, but they can address instances of discrimination. Discrimination, stereotyping, and prejudice are somewhat similar, but they are very different. Prejudice The operational definition involves reacting fervently to an individual on the basis of ones feelings about the group (Fiske, 2010). It is a belief that formulated without considering the facts. It is also an unwarranted or negative attitude toward a person based on his or her association of a social group. Stereotyping The operational definition entails an individuals cognitive associations and expectations about a group. These expectations will encompass the beliefs about the characteristics of a group (Fiske, 2010). Moreover, it is an indiscriminate belief about a class of people or particular group. Advantage: It allows the individual to respond hastily to certain situations because he or she may had a related experience. Disadvantage: It will make us ignore the differences between people. Discrimination The operational definition involves acting on the basis of ones prejudices and stereotypes, rebuffing equality of treatment that individuals wish to have (Fiske, 2010). Moreover, it is the negative behavior, or actions toward a group of people or individual on the basis of social/race/gender class. In this context, discrimination can be either blatant or subtle. Subtle and Blatant Bias In the last two decades, there is no doubt that women have made strides in the fight for equality. Many can recognize that women have overcome the many prejudices against their participation in the workforce (Earnshaw, 1993). In our society, blatant bias is being replaced by subtle bias to decrease the broad- mindedness for obviously biased behavior. Subtle bias is also acknowledged as modern prejudice. This does not mean that women do not get discriminated at work even though they have achieved equality of opportunity (Earnshaw, 1993). The first generation bias was more hostile towards women who needed to be in home with the children. On this second generation bias, for example, women may get more narrative praise than the male co-workers but low rating point related to Job performance (Earnshaw, 1993). Subtle Bias This particular modern bias is indirect and is manifested by withholding respect and sympathy. It is ambiguous and sometimes involves positive and hostile feelings that can cause extreme responses (Fiske, 2010). Blatant Bias This old-fashioned bias ensues as a result of threats to the struggle for positive group identity. They include segregation, physical attack, extermination, avoidance, opinion clearly in regard to a particular individual or group. Impact of Social Bias The lives of individuals can be influenced by social biases. Negative outcomes like neglect, hostile environment, or avoidance may be created by discrimination. When a biased individual interacts with an outgroup members, the expressed behavior of the individual will solicit negative and ill attitudes. Prejudice will influence the individuals lives with instances of ageism, sexism, and racism that will affect their career and social life. According to Vaish, Grossman, and Woodward (2008), When adults display a negative bias across an array of psychological situations, they will use the negative information instead of the positive one (p. 383). Moreover, the negativity bias may serves as an evolutionary adaptive purpose of helping individuals afely explore and examine the environment to avoid harmful situations (Vaish et. al. , 2008). Two Strategies to Overcome Social Biases There are several strategies to minimize social biases, such as affirmative action, and equal opportunity laws. The majority of these strategies involve constant intergroup contact. The key term for a biased individual is change. Old habits die hard but and individual can break those habits. According to Fiske (2010), Intergroup contact and mutual differentiation are two possible strategies to minimize the bias. Intergroup Contact These are interactions between members of different social groups. During the contact, there is equal status in the groups, there are common goals, and there is no competition but cooperation. They are not easy to meet, but they make complete sense (Fiske, 2010). Mutual Differentiation In this context, mutual differentiation is important for two reasons: (1) People retain awareness of individuals social identity in the contact situation, and (2) Individuals seem typical in the sense that they represent their own groups (Fiske, 2010). In Conclusion The motivation of change is the key to steer away from social biases. The bias will be the individuals preference toward a peculiar way of viewing or thinking omething. This behavior will be influenced by a certain prejudice.

British War :: essays research papers

!! YOU ARE THERE !!   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The most important event in U.S. History in my opinion would be Washington’s escape from the British Army at New York. This event changed the course of U.S. History because it was the closest the movement for freedom came to being crushed.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  It all started when Washington and his army were waiting for the British on Long Island. He expected the British to launch a full frontal assault. He did not look at his flanks, and was heavily dug in. This would be where the U.S. defeated the British for good, or died trying.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Unfortunately the British did not come up the front; they instead launched a small frontal attack while sending men to the flank. Washington’s army curled up, they had no place to go, and this was the end for the United States. Somehow though the British didn’t press the attack and Washington managed to slip off the island at night without the Red Coats seeing him.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  I chose the battle of Long Island because it was where America was saved from the brink of disaster. If Washington had failed to get the Army off at night, or the British had pressed the attack, poof, no America. It may have not been the bloodiest, it may not have been the most exciting, but it certainly was the most important date in American History   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In my opinion Samual Adams was the most important man in American history. There may be a lot of men that are better known, but they all came because of the great rabble-rouser himself. Without men like Sammy there would have been no American Revolution.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In Boston Samual Adams was one of the influential people that started the Son’s of Liberty. Without them nobody would have stolen the ballast from a British ship, or raided Fort William-Mary. If those hadn’t been stolen the British would have never marched on Lexington and Concord, and the Revolutionary war would not have happened.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Maybe he was a man of coincidence, or maybe he knew what he was doing, but however you look at it Sam Adams was a big part in America gaining its independence.

Corrosiveness of Soda Essay

Soft drinks, also called as sodas, are one of the most popular beverages that are drunk worldwide. Several brands of sodas, mainly from the brands The Coca-Cola Company, Pepsi, and Dr. Pepper-Snapple, are competing in their sales. As of 2012, the leading brand of food beverages is Coca-Cola. Statistics show that more than a billion Coca-Cola products are consumed daily worldwide. That means that we are consuming more sodas than ever before, and many health issues are showing up, including teeth problems. Soft drinks can be found almost everywhere, from sari-sari stores, canteens, stalls, groceries, restaurants, and other places. The average capita consumption of sodas in the Philippines is seven liters per day, which is alarming. Most soft drinks contain high sugar content, as a typical 12-ounce can of soda contains 9 to twelve teaspoons of sugar. Sugar has been shown to suppress the immune system and has been linked to cancer, heart disease, diabetes, hypoglycemia, gout, kidney hypertrophy, retinopathy, obesity, hyperactivity, learning disability, viral, bacterial, fungal, and yeast infections, peptic ulcer, hiatal hernias, gallstones, Crohn’s disease, shortened life span, and depression. Sodas also provide empty calories, and that is also not a good point in drinking it. These are calories that enter your bloodstream without even providing vitamins, minerals, or proteins that you need for your health. Also, most brands of soda pop are sweetened with high fructose corn syrup. High fructose corn syrup has been shown to be more very harmful than sugar. As much as we are more concerned of sugar content and the empty calories that soft drinks have, we must also consider the acidity of it. The corrosiveness of soda is ten times that of fruit juices, as they have this certain ingredient, called phosphoric acid. The phosphoric acids in sodas are used as an acidifying agent to give the sodas their tangy flavor. A latest research in the Academy of General Dentistry even states that this acid reports that drinking any type of soft drink hurts teeth due to the phosphoric/ and or citric acid in the beverages. Although phosphorus is also important to the body, imbalance in phosphorus to calcium in your bones can cause your body to break down calcium from your bones and release it to your blood to balance acidity. Not only does it affect your bones, it also causes  teeth to rot and turn yellow, and can also result to digestive problems. Phosphoric acids in high concentrations are actually used for rust removal, which makes it all the more dangerous to intake. People have been drinking lots of soft drinks each day. We see them buying it from stores everywhere, and they drink it to â€Å"quench their thirst†, instead of just drinking plain water. Drinking water is always the best option in quenching thirst than soft drinks. The average capita consumption of sodas in the Philippines is seven liters per day per person. Seven liters per day per person is quite a shock, because sodas are not supposed to be taken in large amounts, let alone drinking it each day. So that means that if you don’t drink in a day or two, others might be taking twice or thrice the amount of the sodas that you do not drink. Many people just consider the sugar content, and some even believe soft drinks to be harmless. But prolonged exposure to sodas lead to significant tooth enamel loss, a study from the Academy of General Dentistry showed. This proves that we must be careful in drinking soft drinks, even if we do not let the soft drinks stuck inside our mouths. The corrosive effect of sodas start nearly immediately, and it increases within time. Sodas that are dark-colored are the most corrosive. As much as you see the effect that they did to the coins, the effect would be far greater to our teeth, as they corroded tarnish easily. The phosphoric acid content, added by the sugars of these sodas is the root cause of the erosion of tooth enamels. The soda that removes the tarnish the fastest is the most corrosive and dangerous to people’s teeth enamels.

Briefing Package for Incoming Minister Australia’s Offshore Detention policy - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 10 Words: 2884 Downloads: 2 Date added: 2019/10/10 Did you like this example? Overview of the Australia’s Offshore Detention policy The last two decades have experienced numerous amendments to the Australian’s offshore detention policy (Mares and Mares 2001, pp. 341). Majorly, as a political response to the ever increasing number of refugees and asylum seekers arriving the Australian coast by boats and a consequent reports of deaths at seas between Indonesia and Australia as well as the mistreatment of migrants including discrimination, sexual assault and murder, it is important to seek for further amendments of the policies as a remedy to the prevailing controversy. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Briefing Package for Incoming Minister: Australia’s Offshore Detention policy" essay for you Create order According to studies, 51,640 emigrants arrived in Australia within a period of 5 years to December 2013, and at least 860 deaths were recorded over the same period of five years. It is worth understanding that the both Australia’s major political parties in conjunction with the ministry of immigration have endeavoured to address the controversy surrounding Australian’s offshore detention policy through deterrence-based policies which seem to block access to protection as well as imposing heavy penalties on migrants who arrive by boat (Leach, M., 2003, pp. 25). Impact of the Australian’s offshore detention policy and its amendments In the period 2012 and 2013 financial year, the Australian refugee and humanitarian program had expanded to 20,000 places that have been divided between onshore protection and offshore resettlement. According to studies, this marks the largest increase to the program in three decades and is estimated to have resulted in 85% rise as far as the number of offshore resettlement visas issued is concerned. Furthermore, following the change of the government in 2013, the refugee and humanitarian program rescued to about 14000 places in which majority of these places were dedicated to offshore resettlement (Jupp 2014, pp. 540). However, the department of immigrations projects an increase of 15% places by the year 2019. The government has recently announced that it would create additional 10,000 humanitarian places for refugees and asylums following the crises reported in Iraq and Syria (Hawkins, F., 1991, pp 618). Further, the government has announced that it is finalizing granting all 10,000 visas, despite the fact that some people are yet to arrive in the designated places. In the last three decades, the Australian’s offshore detention policy has had various amendments as outlined below (Mares and Mares 2001, pp. 341). Community placements In October 2010, the Australian government adopted the use of community detention as an approach to hold immigration detentions. The government has also begun to release a significant number of asylum seekers from all the closed immigration detention facilities and integrating them into the community on Bridging Visas (Hawkins 1991, pp. 43). Bridging Visas allow the immigrants to integrate themselves into the community pending resolutions regarding their protection claims. The department of immigration has discovered that most asylum seekers with the Bridging Visas are allowed to have access to the country’s universal health care system and receive living allowances that are equivalent to the 80% of Centrelink Special Benefit (Mares and Mares 2001, pp. 341). The department of immigration has also ensured that people living in the community detention move freely and has the right to expression of speech but cannot choose where to live. That is, they should live in places whose addresses are determined and specified by the Minister for immigration. Such individuals are also subject to supervision arrangements and curfews. By 30th April 2017, the department reported about 560 individuals in community detention as well as more than 20,000 others living in the community on Bridging Visas (Steel et al. 2004, pp. 527). Work rights The Ministry of Immigration has dwelled tremendously with regard to work rights of refugees and asylum seekers. For example, by December 2014, the asylum seekers who had arrived in the country by boat after July 2012 and who had subsequently discharged from various immigration facilities and granted Bridging Visas were not eligible to work rights. In this note, by December 2014, the government granted work permits to the asylum seekers in this category. Before the amendment of the policy, individuals in community detention were not entitled to work rights (Borjas 2011, pp. 58). That is, most asylum seekers could suffer and live in poor conditions. Nevertheless, most asylum seekers enjoy relief as they can now apply for Bridging Visas that grant them working rights in the country. It should also be noted that despite such as relieve, there is still some challenges of timely renewal of the Visas as well as practical barriers to securing employment. These challenges indicate that many asylum seekers have difficulty finding employment despite the right to work.   Furthermore, most of these face the problem of losing work rights especially when their claims are refused. Access to case support With regard to the refugees and asylum’s access to support, the Status Resolution Support Services (SRSS) program provides that some Bridging Visa holders with complex needs can access more intensive casework support. However, most individuals in this category claim that they receive little assistance that is below their income support (Betts 2003, pp. 169). With regard to the most vulnerable individuals especially people with disabilities, mental health and children may be discharged into the community detention, a community placement that is more supportive and restrictive and which provides more intensive support than those offering services to individuals on Bridging Visas (Steel et al. 2004, pp. 527). Refugees with adverse security assessments Individuals with the well-founded fear of persecution should be assessed and cleared by the Australian Security and Intelligence Organization (ASIO) prior obtaining protection visas. The ministry of immigration, through ASIO, issued adverse security and investigation assessments to more than fifty refugees between 2010 and 2011. According to the guidelines provided by the ASIO, individuals subject to the assessment could not be deported back to their countries of origin because they were recognized as refugees and thus the government could not release them to the Australian community.   Therefore, these individuals were denied protection visas and subsequently remained in definitely in the closed detention facilitates. It is worth noting that, contrary to the rights exercised by the Australian citizens and residents, refugees and asylum seekers are denied the right to appeal the assessment. That is, none of them receive evidence or reasons for the adverse security assessments (Stee l et al. 2004, pp. 527). However, since 2015, many refugees have been released into the Australian community following the overturn of the adverse assessment by the ASIO. Furthermore, the policy dictates that the individuals who have had ASIO assessment overturned to reapply for protection visas. For the refugees who are still in the protection facilities, this indicates longer periods of detention especially if the government intends to release them based on their possession of protection visas. For example, in August 2014, the UN Human Rights Committee reported indefinite detention of the refugees was contrary to the International Covenant on Civil and political rights. Visa cancellations Following the amendments to section 501 of the Migration Act 1958, there are additional grounds based on which refugees and asylum seekers can fail a character test. Interestingly, the amendments now allow the minister for immigration to nullify or cancel an individuals visa on the basis of their character such as having a criminal record or posing or perceived to pose a threat to the Australian community (McMaster 2001, pp. 190). In this connection, individuals who have been sentenced to a year or more have their visas canceled. This means that the cancellation powers put refugees at risk of indefinite or prolonged detention because they cannot be deported to their countries of origin. Moreover, the co-location of individuals who spent time in prisons as well as individuals seeking asylum in the same detention facilities has resulted in tensions in the facilities and consequently intensified security measures put in place to manage the centers. Border Force Act In July 2015, the Australian Border Force (ABF) Act was enacted majorly to make crimes punishable by a period of 2 years imprisonment for entrusted individuals to disclose or make a record of protected information. Under the ABF Act, the entrusted individual could be a Border and Immigration worker including people employed or engaged by the Ministry of Immigration. This includes social educators, workers, and other contracted individuals by the Australian government to provide services on behalf of the Ministry. In October 2016, the ABF Act was further amended to exempt health professionals such as nurses and physicians working in detention from the description of Immigration and Border Protection workers. It is worth noting that the Act was amended before a High court challenge that was filled by a group comprised of nurses, doctors, and other health professionals. Problems and solutions associated with the refugee and asylum policy Adverse conditions and abuse It has been noted with concern that the Australian asylum policy condones abuse such as sexual harassment and prolonged and unlawful detention. It is clear that Australia has failed to address the severe abuse of asylum seekers and refugees in a bid to discourage others from entering the country (McMaster 2001, pp. 190). Various reports have shown that refugees and asylum seekers attempting to infiltrate the country via boats are taken to the offshore processing centres on the pacific islands of Papua New Guinea and Nauru, with the Australian government catering for the processing of the applications.   For example, about 2,000 asylum seekers and refugees on Nauru have reported serious inhumane treatment and abuse by the residents and officials of the Australian government (Leach 2003, pp. 255). That is, the conditions where the asylum seekers and refugees are housed are inadequate and comprise of cramped tents where temperatures are extremely unfavorable as they reach as high as 50oC.   Various interviews contacted by the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (HRW) has also indicated that these individuals are subjected to prison-like conditions such as two-minute showers, not allowed to use smartphones and regular search of their tent in the processing centre. In its efforts to review the matter, the ministry of immigration has raised various questions concerning the current Australia’s migration policy. Furthermore, there have been concerns that children detained in Nauru are at risk of post-traumatic stress disorder. This report was based on a reported traumatic incident in which two refugees held in Nauru had set themselves on fire in protest of the pathetic conditions they are subjected to (McMaster 2001, pp. 190). With this regard, the HRW and Amnesty have described the Australian immigration policy as controversial, and an indication of a persistent failure to address such abuses and to some extent condoning and adopting the abuses (Correa-Velez 2005, pp. 23). The Australian government began the process of directing the refugees and asylum seekers to Nauru in 2013 following a significant rise in the number of individuals trying to infiltrate the country via boats (Mountz, 2011, pp. 381). Recommendation/Option 1 The refugee and asylum seeker policy should incorporate clauses that protect the people from mistreatment in the detention facilities. The clause should include access to basic needs such as food and shelter. The policy should also incorporate severe punishment to both the residents and government officials found guilty of mistreating the refugees and asylum seekers. Such penalties should include heavy fines or long-term imprisonment or both for individuals found guilty of perpetrating such offenses (Correa-Velez 2005, pp. 23). Restricted Media Access to Nauru Because the Australias refugee and asylum seekers have restricted media access to Nauru the policy has been described as controversial. Furthermore, in 2014, the government hiked its media visa application fee from $147 to $5862 and fixed it as a non-refundable amount in the event of rejection. The HRW and Amnesty and other stakeholders have described such a clause as very high and exploitative. With this regard, visa requests by media firms such as ABC and Al Jazeera have been rejected. Moreover, ABC’s Ginny Stein reported that even before submitting an application she was discouraged and informed that it had been rejected. It was until October 2017 that the first foreign journalist was granted access (Every and Augoustinos 2007, pp. 411). At one time, an associate editor of the Australian criticized foreign outlets for projecting complaints from refugees and asylum seekers in Nauru without him being on the ground to verify the information and also, being the first foreign jo urnalist to access be granted access to the island, having vague knowledge about the information. Interestingly, Kenny reported that the support for the strong border protection policies contributed to his application’s success (Correa-Velez 2005, pp. 23). Recommendation/Option 2 With regard to the restricted access of foreign journalists accessing detention facilities, the current Australian’s offshore detention policy should incorporate lenient considerations of the application for access (Silove 2000, pp. 604). Such lenient restrictions would permit journalists into accessing the detention facilities and air some of the challenges faced by the individuals. Consequently, such penetration into areas such as Nauru would elicit global concern and, therefore, measure from global governments and well-wishers would intervene and help cover some costs.   Since it is a basic human right to have access to information, there ought to be the enactment of policies that prohibit the ban on Facebook and other social media as well as the use of smartphones in the Nauru Island (Murray and Skull 2005, pp. 25). This would result to positive results contrary to the perception of the Nauruan government that social media is a powerful tool for disrupting, embarrassing and destroy its reputation and consequently its instability (Dudley 2003, pp. 102). Delays in refugee and asylum seeker determination and pressure for its application Under the Australian immigration policy, most refugees and asylum seekers, who come to the country by boat, await for over three years before they get an opportunity to lodge a protection application. Although the Australian’s offshore detention policy permit this group to apply for protection visas, the refugee status determination is frequently suspended for the group. This has been reported as a challenge as the department of immigration normally takes longer to lift such a ban once it is imposed (Every and Augoustinos 2008, pp. 562). Furthermore, the scraping out of government-funded legal advice which has led to the long waiting list to access a lawyer who can assist in lodging a visa protection application has been a significant barrier. This prompted the issuance of warning letters by the department of immigration to the asylum seekers who had not applied for the protection visas as well as those who were in the long list of community legal centers (Gibney 2004, pp.783) . Recommendation/Option 3 There should be an amendment to the current policy stipulating a specific timeline within which asylum seekers and refugees visiting the country can be granted an opportunity to lodge a protection application (Gibney 2004, pp.783). There should be clear guidelines, for example, people should be given 30 or 60 days with a possibility of a 10-day extension and should be advised that failure to do so would lead to losing bridging visas, welfare payment and the right to lodge their applications. Furthermore, it should be stated clearly that if people fail to seek for protection visas through an application by a certain date, they would be barred from applying for a permanent or temporary visa in the country and, therefore, should return to their countries of origin.   Such amendments would curb the problem of the delays in the detention facilities as well as relieve pressure for application of visas and protection among the refugees and asylum seekers (Steel 2006, pp.56). Further, the existing policy should include a fast track RSD process especially for asylum seekers arriving by boat. That is, in the event their claims are nullified by the department of immigration, the group of asylum seekers should no longer be able to apply for review to the independent statutory authority for conducting merits review of the claims (McMaster 2002, pp. 279). The policy should also be in such a way that the department of immigration would have the mandate to decide which of its own negative decisions would be presided over by the Immigration Assessment Authority. With this regard, the Immigration Assessment Authority would provide a far more limited form of review. That is, asylum seekers would no longer be interviewed, and no further information can be presented except in exceptional circumstances (Clyne 2005, pp. 173). Conclusion The Australian’s offshore detention policy is a test in how a country can balance its right to determine who enters into the country with the rights of the worlds dispossessed. In 2001, the country was believed to set itself apart, especially following the Tampa affair incident that brought its policy to the public domain and operationalized. It is clear that the over the years, the refugee and asylum seekers policy have flaws and controversies that need to be addressed through amendments of the some of the Acts or reforms. Some of the controversies or flaws identified include adverse conditions subjected to the refugees and asylum seekers, abuse including sexual and physical assault and restricted media access to detention facilities such as Nauru. Other controversies that have marred the policy include delays in refugee and asylum seeker determination and pressure for its application, work rights and prolonged detention period in Nauru and Papua. It is therefore critical to recommend some of the reforms that the ministry of immigration must put in place in order to address the identified controversies. For example, the ministry must ensure that the right of the refugees and asylum seekers are granted. The ministry should also pass ensure safety in the detention facilities, strict adherence to the timeline within which the Bridging visas and protection application should be granted to the refugees and asylum seekers. Finally, there should be amendments regarding access to information and the authorization of foreign journalists into the detention facilities.