Discrimination what does it mean

discrimination what does it mean

Discrimination

noun. an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category . discrimination noun [U] (WORSE TREATMENT) the treatment of a person or particular group of people differently, in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated: Some .

Stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination are often interpreted similarly, but are separate issues. Stereotypes are considered as the most cognitive factor and frequently wbat without much thought behind the mindset, discriminatipn prejudice is an affective combination of stereotyping and discrimination which leads to hurtful responses.

By learning the background, formation, and how these can affect people, it can provide an opportunity to learn from mistakes and help prevent future actions involving stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination towards others. In order to understand how stereotypes affect others, we must first learn what they are. The formation of stereotypes can be explained in the Social learning theory. People often learn stereotypes from their parents, significant doed, and social media.

Stereotypes amplify differences between riscrimination whether they are major or minor characteristics. These cover anything from racial groups, political groups, genders, demographic groups, and activities.

This views social stereotypes as cases of cognitive theories which are broad generalizations that people discrimination what does it mean in their everyday lives. How to resign from a board of directors danger in stereotyping does not come from the original creation, but the fact dose it may turn into a substitute of a misunderstanding of the social identity.

A common example of a stereotype we often hear about are gender roles. These bias opinions cause unfair treatment and lead to sexism. This can range anywhere from personality traits discrimiation as women are expected to be emotional while men are expected to be aggressive, domestic behaviors that include the theory that women will take care of the children while the men will work and make money, and physical appearance which expects women to be thin and beautiful while men should be tall and muscular.

This comes from stereotypes and generalizations instead of actual experiences or evidence. Research shows that conformity can be a big reason why people are prejudiced. Conformity is described as the disvrimination to act and think like other members of a certain group. Wht parents, friends, social groups, and media show how to use slit lamp certain feeling towards a group of people, it is easy to pick up on that feeling and believe the statements without personal thought behind the how to polish aluminum checker plate. Prejudice can make a person feel less than discriminatio, frightened, vulnerable, and often lowers self-esteem.

Examples of prejudice include racism, sexism, homophobia, religious prejudice, ageism, and nationalism. These feeling can often turn into negative actions by discriminating members of the target group. Discrimination comes from stereotypes, and prejudiced opinions that lead to hurtful and discriminatiin actions.

The two types of discrimination include Direct discrimination and Indirect discrimination what does it mean. Direct is being treated differently because of who you are and is against the Equality Act This is unlawful and can be brought to the civil courts.

It is only unlawful if you are treated differently because of a protected characteristic, who you are, who someone thinks you are, or because of someone you are with. The Equality Act says one has been treated less favorably because of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage, pregnancy, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.

Regardless if the person meant to treat another differently or did not know they were doing so, it is still direct discrimination. Indirect discrimination is when one is treated in the same way as others, but it has a worse affect on the person because of who they are. This puts a person at a disadvantage when there is a policy or rule that has a bigger affect on particular people than others.

Some examples can be arrangements, provisions, qualifications, conditions, or criteria. Stereotypes cause damage alone, but are also harmful by fostering prejudice and discrimination.

These three topics can be mewn together but is also possible to have cases of these individually. Some possible ways to fix these problems can be to mezn new friends, get diecrimination know people before you make assumptions, value different views of others, or even travel to learn and understand different cultures. Treating people as individuals rather than members of a generalized group is a big step towards equality. We will send an essay sample to you in 2 Hours. If you need help faster you wat always use our custom writing service.

Category: Culture. Pages : 3. Words : Download: Print: Order Original Essay. Did you like this example? The deadline is too short to read someone else's essay. Having doubts about how to write your paper correctly? Get started. Leave your email and we will send a sample to you. Email Get sample. Thank dofs Get help with my paper. Sorry, but copying what is classed as middle income is forbidden on this website.

You can leave an email and we will send it to you. Certified writers.

Test your vocabulary with our fun image quizzes

discrimination: [noun] prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment. the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually. Oct 31,  · Discrimination is the unfair or prejudicial treatment of people and groups based on characteristics such as race, gender, age or sexual orientation. That’s the simple answer. But explaining why it happens is more complicated. The human brain naturally puts things in categories to make sense of the world. Mar 06,  · The concept of discrimination in the public perception is unequivocally perceived negatively. However, the problem seems to be the formulation of its definition, which could be applied with more nuance in specific cases. Certainly, it is not in itself the establishment of criteria for admission to certain activities or statuses.

Discrimination is prohibited by six of the core international human rights documents. And most philosophical, political, and legal discussions of discrimination proceed on the premise that discrimination is morally wrong and, in a wide range of cases, ought to be legally prohibited. However, co-existing with this impressive global consensus are many contested questions, suggesting that there is less agreement about discrimination than initially meets the eye. What is discrimination?

Is it a conceptual truth that discrimination is wrong, or is it a substantive moral judgment? What is the relation of discrimination to oppression and exploitation?

What are the categories on which acts of discrimination can be based, aside from such paradigmatic classifications as race, religion, and sex? These are some of the contested issues.

More specifically, what does it mean to discriminate against some person or group of persons? It is best to approach this question in stages, beginning with an answer that is a first approximation and then introducing additions, qualifications, and refinements as further questions come into view.

In fact, the core human rights documents fail to define discrimination at all, simply providing non-exhaustive lists of the grounds on which discrimination is to be prohibited. Left unaddressed is the question of what discrimination itself is.

Standard accounts hold that discrimination consists of actions, practices, or policies that are—in some appropriate sense—based on the perceived social group to which those discriminated against belong and that the relevant groups must be socially salient in that they structure interaction in important social contexts cf.

Lippert-Rasmussen , and Holroyd However, Eidelson has challenged the social salience requirement 28—30 , and a sound understanding of what makes discrimination wrongful might depend on how the challenge is resolved. In the meantime, the analysis of discrimination presented here will proceed on the basis of the social salience requirement.

Discrimination against persons, then, is necessarily oriented toward them based on their membership in a certain type of social group. But it is also necessary that the discriminatory conduct impose some kind of disadvantage, harm, or wrong on the persons at whom it is directed. In this connection, consider the landmark opinion of the U. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, holding that de jure racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional. Thus, the court rules that segregation amounts to illegal discrimination against black children because it imposes on them educational and psychological disadvantages.

Additionally, as Brown makes clear, the disadvantage imposed by discrimination is to be determined relative to some appropriate comparison social group. Typically, the relevant comparison group is part of the same society as the disadvantaged group, or at least it is governed by the same overarching political structure.

In Brown , the relevant comparison group consisted of white citizens. Accordingly, it would be mistaken to think that the black citizens of Kansas who brought the lawsuit were not discriminated against because they were treated no worse than blacks in South Africa were being treated under apartheid. Blacks in South Africa were not the proper comparison class. The appropriate comparison class is determined by normative principles. American states are obligated to provide their black citizens an education that is no worse than what they provide to their white citizens; any comparison with the citizens or subjects of other countries is beside the point.

It should also be noted that, whether or not American states have an obligation to provide an education to any of their citizens, if such states provide an education to their white citizens, then it is discriminatory for the states to fail to provide an equally good education to their black citizens.

And if states do have an obligation to provide an education to all their citizens, then giving an education to whites but not blacks would constitute a double-wrong against blacks: the wrong of discrimination, which depends on how blacks are treated in comparison to whites, and the wrong of denying blacks an education, which does not depend on how whites are treated.

Discrimination is necessarily comparative, and the Brown case seems to suggest that what counts in the comparison is not how well or poorly a person or group is treated on some absolute scale, but rather how well she is treated relative to some other person.

The Court can be construed as saying that, apart from the harmful educational and psychological consequences for black children, the Jim Crow segregation of public schools stamps those children with a badge of inferiority and thereby treats them unfavorably in comparison to white children.

It is important to recognize that discrimination, in the morally and socially relevant sense, is not simply differential treatment. Differential treatment is symmetrical: if blacks are treated differently from whites, then whites must be treated differently from blacks. The system arguably held back economic progress for everyone in the South, but that point is quite different from the implausible claim that everyone was a victim of discrimination.

Accordingly, it is better to think of discrimination in terms of disadvantageous treatment rather than simply differential treatment. Discrimination imposes a disadvantage on certain persons relative to others, and those who are treated more favorably are not to be seen as victims of discrimination. An act can both be discriminatory and, simultaneously, confer an absolute benefit on those discriminated against, because the conferral of the benefit might be combined with conferring a greater benefit on the members of the appropriate comparison group.

In such a case, the advantage of receiving an absolute benefit is, at the same time, a relative disadvantage or deprivation. For example, consider the admissions policy of Harvard University in the early twentieth century, when the university had a quota on the number of Jewish students.

Harvard was guilty of discriminating against all Jewish applicants on account of their religion. Yet, the university still offered the applicants something of substantial value, viz. One might think that it downplays the harm done by discrimination to say that the disadvantage it imposes only need be a relative disadvantage.

Disadvantages relative to fellow citizens, when those disadvantages are severe and concern important goods such as education and social status, can make persons vulnerable to domination and oppression at the hands of their fellow citizens Anderson The domination and oppression of American blacks by their fellow citizens under Jim Crow was made easier by the relative disadvantage imposed on blacks when it came to education.

Norwegians might have had an even better education than southern whites, but Norwegians posed little threat of domination to southern whites or blacks, because they lived under an entirely separate political structure, having minimal relations to American citizens.

Accordingly, one must seriously consider the possibility that children from poor countries are being discriminated against when they are unable to obtain the education routinely available to children in affluent societies. The relative nature of the disadvantage that discrimination imposes explains the close connection between discrimination and inequality. A relative disadvantage necessarily involves an inequality with respect to persons in the comparison class.

Accordingly, antidiscrimination norms prohibit certain sorts of inequalities between persons in the relevant comparison classes Shin For example, the U. To review: as a reasonable first approximation, we can say that discrimination consists of acts, practices, or policies that impose a relative disadvantage on persons based on their membership in a salient social group.

But notice that this account does not make discrimination morally wrong as a conceptual matter. The imposition of a relative disadvantage might, or might not, be wrongful. In the next section, we will see how the idea of moral wrongfulness can be introduced to form a moralized concept of discrimination. In recent years, some thinkers have rejected the view that discrimination is an essentially comparative concept that looks to how certain persons are treated relative to others.

Nonetheless, the leveling-down objection is problematic. That plaintiffs in discrimination cases do not ask that voting be abolished only shows that they know that they would be better off with everyone having the right to vote than with no one having it. Moreover, although leveling down would, in typical cases, deprive everyone of something to which all are entitled, it does not follow that leveling down would constitute discrimination.

The universal denial of the franchise would be a wrong, but not the wrong of discrimination. Denial of the franchise amounts to discrimination only when it is selectively directed at some salient group within the adult population. The concept of discrimination is inherently normative to the extent that the idea of disadvantage is a normative one.

But it does not follow from this point that discrimination is, by definition, morally wrong. We can, in fact, distinguish a moralized from a non-moralized concept of discrimination. The moralized concept picks out acts, practices or policies insofar as they wrongfully impose a relative disadvantage on persons based on their membership in a salient social group of a suitable sort. In contexts where the justifiability of an act or practice is under discussion and disagreement, the moralized concept of discrimination is typically the key one used, and the disagreement is over whether the concept applies to the act.

Because of its role in such discussion and disagreement, the remainder of this article will be concerned with the moralized concept of discrimination, unless it is explicitly indicated otherwise. There is an additional point that needs to be made in connection with the wrongfulness of discrimination in its moralized sense.

It is not simply that such discrimination is wrongful as a conceptual matter. An act that imposes a relative disadvantage or deprivation might be wrong for a variety of reasons; for example, the act might violate a promise that the agent has made. The act counts as discrimination, though, only insofar as its wrongfulness derives from a connection of the act to the membership in a certain group s of the person detrimentally affected by the act.

Accordingly, we can refine the first-approximation account of discrimination and say that the moralized concept of discrimination is properly applied to acts, practices or policies that meet two conditions: a they wrongfully impose a relative disadvantage or deprivation on persons based on their membership in some salient social group, and b the wrongfulness rests in part on the fact that the imposition of the disadvantage is on account of the group membership of the victims.

Legal thinkers and legal systems have distinguished among a bewildering array of types of discrimination: direct and indirect, disparate treatment and disparate impact, intentional and institutional, individual and structural. It is not easy to make sense of the morass of categories and distinctions.

The best place to start is with direct discrimination. Consider the following, clear instance of direct discrimination. In , several men of Roma descent entered a bar in a Romanian town and were refused service. It was those two features—explicitness and intention—that made the Roma case a paradigmatic example of direct discrimination. Such examples of discrimination are cases in which the agent acts with the aim of imposing a disadvantage on persons for being members of some salient social group.

It is clear that the policy of the bar was wrong, but the question of what makes the policy and other instances direct discrimination wrongful will be put on hold until section 4. In some cases, a discriminator will adopt a policy that, on its face, makes no explicit reference to the group that he or she aims to disadvantage.

For example, during the Jim Crow era, southern states used literacy tests for the purpose of excluding African-Americans from the franchise. Because African-Americans were denied adequate educational opportunities and because the tests were applied in a racially-biased manner, virtually all of the persons disqualified by the tests were African-Americans, and, in any given jurisdiction, the vast majority of African-American adults seeking to vote were disqualified.

The point of the literacy tests was precisely such racial exclusion, even though the testing policy made no explicit reference to race.

Notwithstanding the absence of an explicit reference to race in the literacy tests themselves, their use was a case of direct discrimination. The reason is that the persons who formulated, voted for, and implemented the tests acted on maxims that did make explicit reference to race.

Constitution, I will favor a legal policy that is racially-neutral on its face but in practice excludes most African-Americans and leaves whites unaffected. However, it is too simple to say that direct discrimination simply is intentional discrimination.

Lippert-Rasmussen rightly points out that there can be cases of direct discrimination not involving the intention to disadvantage anyone on account of her group membership 59— A disadvantage might, instead, be imposed as a result of a general indifference toward the interests and rights of the members of a certain group.

Thus, an employer might use hiring criteria that unfairly disadvantages women, not because the employer intends to disadvantage women, but because the criteria are easy to use and he simply does not care that women are unfairly disadvantaged as a result.

Such instances of discrimination might not have the paradigmatic status that an example like the Roma case has, but they should be counted as forms of direct discrimination, because the disadvantageous treatment derives from an objectionable mental state of the agent. The same goes for disadvantageous treatment that is the product of bias against a certain group, even when the bias does not involve an intention to treat the group disadvantageously.

A paternalistic employer might intend to help women by hiring them only for certain jobs in his company, but, if the employer is motivated by unwarranted views about the capabilities of women, he is guilty of direct discrimination.

Acts of direct discrimination can be unconscious in that the agent is unaware of the discriminatory motive behind them. It is plausible to think that in many societies, unconscious prejudice is a factor in a significant range of discriminatory behavior, and a viable understanding of the concept of discrimination must be able to accommodate the possibility.

In fact, there is growing evidence that unconscious discrimination exists Jost et al. And as Wax has noted, even the intention to disadvantage persons on account of their group affiliation can be unconscious

2 Replies to “Discrimination what does it mean”

Add a comment

Your email will not be published. Required fields are marked*