The article “Unequal Opportunity: Race and Education” was written by Professor Linda Darling-Hammond who holds an Ed. D., in urban education. Throughout the reading of the article, it is clear that the main point is on inequality within educational systems. Darling-Hammond opens the article with a reference to W.E.B. DuBois that quickly shapes into her main focus of how race and education interact. Darling-Hammond mainly states her points through historical evidence and looking at the root of the problem of education inequality.
Equality means everyone has equalrights, not that nobody is better than anyone else
“It is not good to be different from our brothers, but it is evil to be superior to them” (Rand 21). Equality cannot prevent himself from having certain abilities, but he is punished for them, even where these abilities could benefit the collective. Equality does not have the freedom to be his best self.
The real motive that Equality possesses is the aspiration to prove self-worth to the character himself and to the community. In the text, Equality states, “No single one can possess greater wisdom than the many Scholars who are elected by all men for their wisdom. Yet we can. We do. We have fought against saying it, but now it is said.
Equality lives in a collectivist society, which is a society that believes, “that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.” Therefore, Equality being the person he is, struggles with being an individual. He knows it is against the law but he enjoys knowledge so much, it confuses him. He states, “And in our heart-strange are the ways of evil! - and in our heart there is the first peace we have known in 20 years.”
Equality is often seen as an immense privilege that most don't get to experience. After acquiring the most basic rights of equality, the question of true equality comes into place. Although the idea of it seems quite pleasant, and something to be achieved, this turns out to be false. Total equality is full of many troubles that consists of the manipulation of others, as shown in “Harrison Bergeron”, leads to the apparent decline in ambition, and minimizes the success of people in favor of appeasing feelings. Furthermore, the manipulation of others is required in order to achieve true.
There's so much emphasis on putting others before oneself that people often forget to look out for their own needs, as shown in this book. Ayn Rand successfully captures the negatives of an overrated ideology and presents an unorthodox perspective on the matter. In conclusion, Equality's true motives behind his work are much more selfish than they first appear to be. Equality strives to fulfil his own personal desire rather than contribute everything to society, and this isn't necessarily a negative thing.
Equality is right to be motivated this way because for once someone who is not a scholar has invented something that the scholars have never thought of. The scholars even rejected his invention because they said it would decrease the production of candles, but truthfully they rejected his invention because they were in fear of his knowledge and intelligence. The idea of Equality’s invention came from the experiments he conducted and the days of work he tried to discover this so called “electricity”. “We forgot all men, all laws and all things save our metals and our wires. So much is still to be learned!
Men are only meant to serve the collective. This made it difficult for Equality to be himself because he had no worth as an individual. “It is only our brother men who matter. Give no thought to us, for we are nothing,” (Rand 70) The provided characterization shows Equality’s intent.
Equality is a complex issue because it depends on the standards of the person defining it. It should mean that everyone has the same opportunity as everyone else, but that is not true. Equality is defined as the quality or state of having the same rights, social status, etc.” (Merriam-Webster). In Kurt Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron”, the government set standards for being equal at the expense of the individuality and freedom of the citizens.
My Values of Equality Milton Friedman, an American economist, in his article “Created Equal”, points out his concept about “Created Equal”. Friedman discusses the different ways that humans are considered to be equal, and then he declares three specific categories for human equality: equality before God, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Friedman argues that the first equality is the Founders’ use, the second equality is compatible with liberty, and the third equality is socialism. Equality is such a beautiful word that everyone should appreciate, and Friedman claims his points about its concept from his own comprehension. I really respect Friedman’s points about equality; however, there is something critical about equality which
For the argument that economic equality leads to monotony and uniformity is an absurd notion because not one human is like any other. We are unique because we are different peoples. If two people are similar in wealth and status and comfort, it is not necessarily true that both of them are the same people because of it. Egalitarians argue that there is more to what makes a person than just their wealth, their dress code, their house or their car. The human mind is inherently complex; and to claim that anyone person can think exactly the same as another is an absurd
America prides itself on being one of the most effective democratically governed counties. The idea of the American dream is that all people have equivalent political freedoms and a responsive government. However the effectiveness of social equality is being threatened by increasing inequality in the United States. Economic inequality in the US has expanded drastically. The wealth gap has had drastic changes over the past 35 years.
Equality in America America and its people have worked hard to create a home in which everyone is treated, and feels equal. We’ve fought wars, held protests, and lost many lives in situations where we were fighting for fair treatment. After all of these sacrifices, it's safe to say that Americans have the right to love, and cherish the equality that their home presents them with, but to an extent. Equality in society, government, and basic human interactions should always be kept, and held with great importance. However, we also need to keep in mind that we are not the same people.
It concerns him because this kind of equality refers to traditional distributive principles that are practiced universally and social goods are being singly owned or monopolized by individuals or elites (and this good needs to be shared equally within society). Ultimately “simple equality” focuses on the monopolization of social goods. Walzer believes that because of this focus on monopoly, it is favourable for tyranny. Why exactly is it favourable for tyranny? Further effort, power and state intervention would consistently be required to redistribute goods, thereby creating a situation that is harder to resolve.
