Is it Fair for Universities to Consider Race or Ethnicity as a Factor Essay - 1

Is it Fair for Universities to Consider Race or Ethnicity as a Factor in Admission - Essay Example The utilitarianism point of view and John Rawls’ perspective has been touched upon here to give an incisive look at the topic at hand. Race and ethnicity debates bring bias and prejudice to the fore within college and universities, thus committing to an unfair agenda and a feeling of being left out from gaining admission on the part of the students. One would seem to agree with the premise that race and ethnicity talks bring more negativity within the equation and are bound to pose a serious problem than anything else. This is because race and ethnicity marginally divide the people, which is an area of concern as it does not treat people on the same footing as they should be in day to day lives. It makes them feel inferior, which is not the task of a college or a university before it grants admission to the ones who are applying within its realms. Merit must always remain supreme and there cannot be any divided opinions under such a dictum. It is true that race and ethnicity bring about a general bias within the discussions of the students, and hence it would be better to understand that such colleges and universities would not be able to impart the kind of education that is remarked as a hallmark of them. One would agree that this is unfair because one cannot disallow students from gaining education based on their race and ethnicity tangents. This is a heinous act which needs to be condemned as much as possible. It will make students feel bad with regards to their race and ethnic settings and ask them to protest against the college and university realms. From the utilitarianism theory, it can be deduced that properly providing each and every student the right to secure admission is a normative activity and thus should be exercised in essence. It will maximize happiness and reduce the racial and ethnic divide which has been getting the importance unnecessarily over the years.

Automobility Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Automobility - Essay Example She also thinks that automobiles enhance knowledge. She says that automobiles take us to any place from watching birds to visiting battlegrounds. She also says that automobiles enhance privacy and allow us control over our immediate environment. The reason why so many people are buying cars is because there are benefits in having a car, something that cannot be said about other means of transport. There are public transportations too such as buses and taxis. However, although these too have benefits, they do not provide privacy. Having a private car greatly increases one's mobility. The environmentalists may raise a hue and cry about the ill-effects of the car. But there is little they can do to provide alternatives (Loren Lomasky). Mathew Paterson argues that to explain the rise and subsequent dominance of automobility as a mode of transportation in contemporary societies it is necessary to examine: a) the political economy of automobility; and b) the cultural politics of automobility. How does Paterson's analysis differ from Lomasky's Matthew Paterson has used environment and the capitalist structure to highlight the reason for the rise and dominance of automobility. ... In due time the number of cars increased. Today, the population of cars is high enough to warrant their restriction by environmentalists. A richer class of people will by all means buy a car. Paterson emphasizes the centrality of the car to capitalism. Capitalism had major influence in projecting the value of the car. The capitalist ideology provided the boost to the car industry to evolve through a combination of factors that cover industrialization, taxation, employment and road construction (b) Cultural politics Transportation is not the only need for a car. The basic purpose in owning a car is indeed transportation. However, there is the aura of a culture that has evolved with the automobile. Paterson projects the social, cultural and ability to commute fast in a car that has shaped the need for a car. Unlike Loren Lomasky, he has not concentrated on the benefits of the car. He has instead focused on the underlying reasons for the evolution of the car as a necessity rather than a luxury that has made it so ubiquitous today. Paterson says that our dependence on cars must be understood from the culture that we have allowed to take root in our midst. In order to address environmental issues it is necessary to address this culture and correct the anomalies that have allowed the car to play a dominant role in our affairs (Automobile politics). Several of the authors we have read have argued that is not useful to think about "automobile" and "driver" as separate entities. Rather, they argue that we need to think about them as constituting an "assemblage," which has also been termed a "car-driver," a "driver-car," a "Carson" and several