http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/8496532.stm
Chief Petty Officer Jacqueline Cartner, of the HMS Collingwood of the British Royal Navy, won a tribunal regarding sex discrimination. The ordeal began when Cartner was passed over for a promotion to a warrant officer. Because of her winning of the case she is expected to be awarded the equivalence of 10 years’ pay is an agreement is not properly made with the Royal Navy.
Kam Bains, Cartner’s solicitor, said that the British tribunal had found that the Royal Navy had discriminated against the sailor which violated the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975. Bains also noted that the Royal Nay’s promotion system was “a matter of concern” and that its procedures were “primitive” in a sense.
The case, held in Southampton, reviewed the decision of the Royal Navy’s promotion board back in 2008. During that promotion session, Cartner was the only female candidate considered for promotion against a number of male candidates. Cartner’s grounds for complaint stemmed from an analysis of the male candidate’s experience. She believed that she was a better candidate because she had carried out the role of warrant officer in an acting capacity since 2006, while none of the other male candidates did not.
Cartner has received numerous awards throughout her career as she was selected as the NATO Military Member of the Year in 2000 and an MBE (Member British Empire) in 2001. According to Bains, she had been promoted to each and every rank faster than every one of her competitors and regularly outperformed her male peers.
Cartner explains her feelings of this whole situation, “This has been a very long and painful road for both me and my family, and I am sad that it has had to come this far… However, I am glad that the tribunal ruling has served to vindicate my claims of sex discrimination.”
In this article I see a few things at work here: Status Positions of Functionalist Theory and Institutionalized Discrimination. In the case of status positions, when the issue at hand is the military, most people would agree that it would be males who succeed in the physical nature of war, preparation, strength, etc. When the issue of women in the military comes up, which is already a controversial issue, most people would agree that women would not be inclined to succeed as much as or more than the men who carry out the same functions. In the case of Cartner, her achievements violated the status position of women in the military because she was outperforming men who are “supposed” to do better than women and this may have created some sort of discriminatory effect with those of the promotional board.
Because of this predetermined discrimination, I see this relating to the concept of Institutional Discrimination. Basically I see this at work because although Cartner has more awards, credentials, experience than her male peers involved in the same promotional hearing, she was passed up. In the case of a military institution, I wholeheartedly believe that her concerns were genuine. The military institution is a male dominated one and I wouldn’t be suprised if that promotion board was filled with all males. Institutional Discrimination can stem from a conscious or subconscious discrimination which is bias to their own interests; in this case it was the male sex. According to the Parillo text, “[T]he dominant group will not hesitate to act discriminatorily of it thinks that this approach will effectively undercut the minority group (women in the military) as a social competitor.” I feel that some sense of bias/discrimination is rooted because of Cartner's rise to success as a female in the Royal Navy.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
Screening for Muslims
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/04/tsa.measures.muslims/index.html?iref=allsearch A Muslim-American group criticized a TSA (Transportation Security Administration) plan for enhanced screening procedures for US bound passengers traveling through “state sponsors of terrorism or other countries of interest.” According to an undisclosed senior government official, these countries include Cuba, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Yemen. The guidelines target 13 nations which have a majority of Muslims in its population.
Ac cording to the group, The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the enhanced screening processes specifically target Muslims. The group feels that the policies “disproportionately target American Muslims who have family or spiritual ties to the Islamic world... These new guidelines, almost every American Muslim who travels to see family or friends or goes on pilgrimage to Mecca will automatically be singled out for special security checks -- that's profiling," said Nihad Awad, the council's executive director. "While singling out travelers based on religion and national origin may make some people feel safer, it only serves to alienate and stigmatize Muslims and does nothing to improve airline security." In a broader sense the group feels that the tougher measures are a result of religious and ethnic profiling.
The council is not alone. According to a statement from the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), "Singling out travelers from a few specified countries for enhanced screening is essentially a pretext for racial profiling, which is ineffective, unconstitutional and violates American values. Empirical studies of terrorists show there is no terrorist profile, and using a profile that doesn't reflect this reality will only divert resources by having government agents target innocent people.”
A spokesperson for the TSA, Kristen Lee responded to the claims, “TSA does not profile… TSA security measures are based on threat, not ethnic or religious background.”
This article presents the issue of ethnocentrism based on points of view. The TSA policy does not take into respect the view that may be seen on the other side of the issue, of the Muslim people. Although the policy is in the best interest of everyone, as it aims to be, the methodology is not sensitive to Muslims as a whole. In this situation the in-group of the general populous, who may view Muslims as the “enemy” because of occurrences in the past, may not be aware of such profiling. The out-group, the Muslims, are not being objectively evaluated, but are profiled as “terrorists” because of their ethnic backgrounds and religion.
These views are a direct effect of false consciousness and categoric knowing. Categoric knowing is based on assumptions from limited information, such as the assumption that Muslims are more prone to being terrorists than any other race, although there is not actual terrorist profile. False consciousness is also a factor in clouding the objectivity of those who have provided to the security plan. The inner prejudice toward Muslims because of previous attacks, do not form a logical basis for implementing an act that would target a specific group of people.
Ac cording to the group, The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the enhanced screening processes specifically target Muslims. The group feels that the policies “disproportionately target American Muslims who have family or spiritual ties to the Islamic world... These new guidelines, almost every American Muslim who travels to see family or friends or goes on pilgrimage to Mecca will automatically be singled out for special security checks -- that's profiling," said Nihad Awad, the council's executive director. "While singling out travelers based on religion and national origin may make some people feel safer, it only serves to alienate and stigmatize Muslims and does nothing to improve airline security." In a broader sense the group feels that the tougher measures are a result of religious and ethnic profiling.
The council is not alone. According to a statement from the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), "Singling out travelers from a few specified countries for enhanced screening is essentially a pretext for racial profiling, which is ineffective, unconstitutional and violates American values. Empirical studies of terrorists show there is no terrorist profile, and using a profile that doesn't reflect this reality will only divert resources by having government agents target innocent people.”
A spokesperson for the TSA, Kristen Lee responded to the claims, “TSA does not profile… TSA security measures are based on threat, not ethnic or religious background.”
This article presents the issue of ethnocentrism based on points of view. The TSA policy does not take into respect the view that may be seen on the other side of the issue, of the Muslim people. Although the policy is in the best interest of everyone, as it aims to be, the methodology is not sensitive to Muslims as a whole. In this situation the in-group of the general populous, who may view Muslims as the “enemy” because of occurrences in the past, may not be aware of such profiling. The out-group, the Muslims, are not being objectively evaluated, but are profiled as “terrorists” because of their ethnic backgrounds and religion.
These views are a direct effect of false consciousness and categoric knowing. Categoric knowing is based on assumptions from limited information, such as the assumption that Muslims are more prone to being terrorists than any other race, although there is not actual terrorist profile. False consciousness is also a factor in clouding the objectivity of those who have provided to the security plan. The inner prejudice toward Muslims because of previous attacks, do not form a logical basis for implementing an act that would target a specific group of people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)