Still Separate Still Unequal Summary

Modern Segregation: Society’s Way of Repeating Old Habits

For many years now both men and women have struggled to obtain justice in education, the economy, and in the workforce as segregation continues to seek its element of inequality in the lives of American citizens. While segregation is known as a problem of the past, it has also shown to affect today’s society in many ways. In the essay “Still Separate, Still Unequal,” Jonathan Kozol reports on the matter of segregation occurring in today’s public schools throughout urban and suburban cities in the Unites States. Along with him in “Rethinking Affirmative Action,” David Leonhardt observes how discrimination policies have continuously address the topic of race rather than emphasizing the

disadvantages students encounter by college admissions. In “Gay Marriage: Sidestep on Freedom’s Path,” Alexander Cockburn implies that for gay couples marriage has now become a way to conform to society’s laws in order to receive equal treatment in the work field. Throughout this ongoing search for justice, philosopher John Rawls has acknowledged that the difference and liberty principles helps address any conflicts of interest between one and society; allowing everyone access to the basic liberties regardless of social and economic inequalities. Both Kozol’s and Leonhardt’s essays provide evidence that in today’s society student’s limits for achievement is being set by school districts who fail to acknowledge Rawls principles where everyone has access to equal treatment, despite their ethnicity and economic standings. Not only is segregation targeting education, but it is also affecting the LGBT community by cutting them short from job opportunities and healthcare benefits, evidently ignoring Rawls’s theory of justice in modern society. All three essays demonstrate to a certain extent how society today embodies elements of segregation in education, employment, and economic fields just like the 1960’s did.
Affirmative action’s principle is designed to eliminate the effects of discrimination around college campuses, but it is in reality affecting the quality of education students receive based on race just as marriage eliminates job opportunities for couples based on their sexuality.

Affirmative action has developed an illusion of progress throughout the years in the United States, but many college students have been oppressed by “affirmative action’s proponents to focus the program on race rather than broadly on the disadvantage” (Leonhardt 2). Leonhardt observes that the use of race as a deciding factor in college admissions does increase diversity, but it often gives minorities unfair advantages simply because of the high demand of different backgrounds. Leonhardt implies that colleges are now asking for less demanding criteria from those of diverse backgrounds in order to offer equal educational opportunities to all. However, in this case affirmative action’s principles shows to be unfair, because it is cutting majorities short from acceptance, education, and social elements in universities. Not only is this not fair to those students who have worked hard to achieve their goals, but also to those who have difficulties in school. Those students who are approved by college admissions based on their backgrounds perhaps do not have the same level of experience and drive to receive a higher level of education opposed to those who are

denied acceptance. In this case the use of affirmative action is ineffective, because it does not guarantee success for those students of diverse backgrounds nor are other students being raised to the same standards. Rawls’s principles of equality and fairness are clearly undermined by affirmative action’s use of reverse discrimination by focusing sole on social and economic factors in college admissions. Exactly how affirmative action promotes equal educational, social, and employment opportunities, marriage intends to do the same. However, from Cockburn’s point of view he acknowledges how in reality “marriage diverts [one] from the path of necessary reform” (1). Employers are now demanding for same sex couples to unite in the name of marriage so that they can too benefit from work collections and unemployment compensation just as other couples do. Not only is the workforce relying on marriage, but also focusing on the idea of the nuclear family to stay on track with society’s rules and morals of gender roles. Since the 1900’s, the image of the working man and housewife has influenced how families operate at work, home, and professionally. This draws back to how employment companies use the element of marriage to recruit in new talent to expand their brand. Recruiters are now focusing on how to build a stronger generation of workers rather than allowing one’s sexuality to limit their employment opportunities. These companies are using the disadvantages women and men faced in the 1900s, such as how homosexuals were prevented from working and receiving gross-pay just to push out old members of the work force and pull in new ones. Rawls’s principles are not being applied as companies demonstrates that those couples who do not conform to legal joining will eventually end up hurting economically and will be excluded from job opportunities. In this case, cooperating with the law of marriage is the only way for the LGBT community to survive economically.
To the extent where both Kozol’s and Leonhardt’s essays address race as a factor in the level of education students receive, it has also been observed how money can determine at what age students begin to attend school and where. Leonhardt examines how the principle of affirmative action is intentionally designed to enhance any positive actions and behaviors that support nondiscrimination and equality in education, but throughout the years other elements of discrimination have been brought to light. “Simple discrimination seems to have become a relatively smaller obstacle over the last few decades, while socioeconomic disadvantage has become a larger one” (Leonhardt 3). The United States is known as one of the wealthiest countries in the world, yet citizens are being affected by the decrease of economic opportunities. As a result, many families are suffering to provide secure environments and other necessities to survive in urban communities. During his visit around New York public schools, it has come to Kozol’s attention that wealthy children who have been privileged to receive an education since an early age “by now, received the benefits of six or seven years of education, nearly as twice as many as the children who have been denied these opportunities” (46). African American and Hispanic children in public schools are now isolated based upon their social status and economic standings rather than being offered the education they need to succeed in life. Schools in urban communities receive less attention than those of private schools who receive sufficient funding handing them with the advantage to expand the level of education and professional opportunities they offer to their students. Instead of presenting students with new and updated textbooks, sport opportunities, and safer environments like private schools do a child’s performance is now being affected in both school and at home. Parents will now rather risk their money and send off their children to a school with an environment that promotes their lifestyle in return for a successful educational path. The school system is failing to recognize Rawls’s principles by not offering the same amount of academics to all students, despite of their social class. Using money as a factor to decide who receives a greater education is not only unfair, but cruel to those parents who are not financially capable of offering their children a better lifestyle. Socioeconomic discrimination has not only targeted African Americans and Hispanics, but even the Caucasian community in urban cities who fail to fit in with the wealthy class.
Just like how Kozol’s essay stresses the limits for achievement that public school districts offer, Cockburn incorporates the struggles of same sex couples who conform to the inequalities encountered in marriage.

Since the 1960’s, same sex relationships have created controversy throughout the United States on whether The LGBT community should be treated any differently from the nuclear couple. However, Cockburn quickly implies the views of Peter Tatchell, the British gay leader and how he believes that marriage forces “‘[Gay men to] conform [and] albeit equality with [society’s’] screwed-up system. That is not liberation. It is capitulation’” (1). Those couples who agree to gay marriage are risking their opportunities to expand themselves in social or cultural ways as they please. Marriage tries to mold a generation of couples that have worked in the past leaving no room for uniqueness. Gay couples are now conforming to society’s orders just to survive and to achieve their aspirations of perhaps having the option to legally own their home one day, having kids, or opening up their own business. Marriage has been the only way the government has approved to helping gay couples achieve their goals and it has also fabricated the idea that it leads to the pursuit of happiness when in reality it is controlling in what ways couples can obtain this feeling of achievement. Society has not only used marriage, but has also manipulated school districts to restrict students from

acquiring sufficient guidance towards achieving their dreams. Kozol is shocked with he meets Mireya, a student with hopes of becoming a social worker, but is enrolled in a sewing program. “When [Kozol] asked her teacher why Mireya could not skip these subjects and enroll in classes that would help her peruse her college aspirations, she replied ‘It isn’t a question of what the students want. It’s about what is available’” (Kozol 54.) Not only are school districts limiting children from achieving success, but they so lack to encourage students from pursing their dreams. These students are future leaders, workers, and parents who will influence how the next generation will work. It is students like Mireya who can influence benefiting education styles and behavior modifications for students in public schools and other academics. Fairness and equality is what Rawls purposes, but both matrimony and the education system are lacking to enhance the qualities that citizens have to acquire justice in society.
For many years now segregation has affected the ways U.S citizens live and perform socially, economically, and educationally. To address this ongoing issue affirmative action has proponed to destroy all forms of discrimination to bring all citizens equal opportunities in different fields. However, both Leonhardt and Kozol observe how in the education system affirmative action’s principles lack to offer all students the same level of education basing advantages on race, money, and social class. Cockburn also acknowledges the struggles the LGBT community encounter while they strive to achieve their aspirations along with obeying the law of marriage to create a just-society. Both affirmative action’s and marriage’s principles show to neglect Rawls’s theory of justice by trying to mold an idea of equality despite the differences in everyone’s everyday life just to avoid any changes that government and society has created throughout centuries. However, if society and the government accept to alter ancient policies and their mentalities then perhaps affirmative actions and matrimony’s original intentions will bring all citizens to equal standings in terms of employment and education. Not only should all men and women be treated equal, but also all the methods to obtain social and economic opportunities be offered in all situations. Only with this, can citizens prosper and achieve justice in society.