Theses and Dissertations: A Guide to Planning, Research, and Writing
By R. MURRAY THOMAS and DALE L. BRUBAKER
Traditionally in academia, the two main purposes of master's-degree and doctoral
projects are (a) to provide graduate students guided practice in conducting
and presenting research and (b) to make a contribution to the world's fund of
knowledge or to improve the conduct of some activity.
The practice aspect goes well beyond the demands of a typical term paper or
individual-study assignment, since the aim is to equip students to do research
and writing of respectable, publishable quality in the future.
The contribution-to-knowledge aspect is intended to make the student's study
more than just a learning exercise by using this opportunity to produce valued
information or to introduce a point of view not available before. This aspect
is what usually distinguishes a master's thesis from a doctoral dissertation,
in that the contribution of the dissertation is expected to be of greater magnitude
than that of the thesis.
Sources of Guidance
"If I'd known he'd be too busy to be of much help, I would have tried to
find a better advisor."
At the outset of your project, it is well to identify potential sources of help
and to recognize the advantages and limitations of each. Those sources of most
value are usually academic advisors, fellow graduate students, experts outside
of your own department or institution, you yourself, and the professional literature.
ACADEMIC ADVISORS
Policies for assigning faculty members to supervise students' thesis and dissertation
projects can vary from one institution to another and even across departments
within the same institution.
In some cases, the advisor who guides a student's general academic progress
automatically becomes the supervisor of the candidate's work on the thesis or
dissertation. Under such a policy, students are relieved of the responsibility
of choosing a mentor, but they may unfortunately end up with less than optimal
help. In other cases, an academic advisor will not automatically be assigned,
but he or she will be only one of a group of several faculty members from whom
a student can choose a guide.
Under these circumstances, before students announce their choice of a mentor
they can profitably collect several kinds of information about the professors
who form the pool of potential advisors. Included among the sources of information
are fellow students, the professors within the pool, other faculty members,
secretaries, research assistants, and the professors' publications.
Institutions and departments can also differ in the number of faculty members
assigned to supervise and evaluate a student's research. One common pattern
at the master's level is to have a three-member committee for each thesis, with
the committee chairperson acting as the candidate's principal supervisor. However,
in colleges and universities with large numbers of master's degree students,
the entire master's project may be directed and assessed by a single faculty
member. At the doctoral level, the supervising committee often consists of three
to five professors.
In the following paragraphs, we describe kinds of information to seek about
potential advisers. We then suggest useful sources of each kind.
(The rest of this book can be found at Questia's
online libary by clicking here
and searching for Theses and Dissertations: A Guide to Planning, Research,
and Writing By R. MURRAY THOMAS and DALE L. BRUBAKER)
Kinds of Information to Collect
In learning about the professors in your pool of potential mentors, you will
likely find it helpful to discover their (a) fields of interest and expertise,
(b) style of advising, and (c) attitudes about appropriate research topics and
methods of research.
Fields of interest and expertise
Obviously, the closer an advisor's area of expertise is to your research problem,
the better equipped she or he will be to identify difficulties you may encounter,
recommend sources of information pertinent to your topic, and guide your choice
of methods for gathering and interpreting data. There are several ways to learn
about faculty members' specializations--the titles and contents of classes they
teach, their published books and articles, the topics of theses and dissertations
produced under their guidance, other staff members' opinions, and other students'
experiences with those faculty members.
The task of deciding how well a potential advisor's interests and skills suit
your needs is likely easiest if you already have a specific research problem
in mind, or at least if you have identified the general realm you hope to explore.
If you have no inkling of the kind of topic on which your study will focus,
then the next of our selection criteria--style of advising--may become your
primary concern.
Style of advising
Professors vary greatly in how they work with students on theses and dissertations.
Those at one end of a monitoring scale closely control each phase of the student's
effort, in some cases dictating what is to be done at every step, then requiring
the student to hand in each portion of material for evaluation and correction.
Advisors at the opposite end of the scale tell students to work things out pretty
much by themselves and to finish a complete draft of the project before handing
it in for inspection.
Advisors also vary in how available they are when students need them. Some are
frequently away from the campus. Some require students to make an appointment
with a department secretary several days or weeks ahead of time in order to
confer about the individual's research. Others allow students to drop by the
office or to phone any time they need help. Some answer queries only in their
office. Others permit students to phone them at home.
Professors also differ in the way they offer advice and criticism. Some are
blunt about the shortcomings of a student's effort, perhaps derisive and abusive.
Others are direct in pointing out weaknesses in the candidate's work, but they
do so in a kindly, understanding manner, recognizing that doing serious research
is a new endeavor for the student and that mistakes along the way are not only
expected but can function as valuable learning opportunities. Yet others are
so cautious about potentially hurting a student's feelings that they are reluctant
to point out weaknesses in the project and thereby fail to guide their advisees
toward correcting the shortcomings of their efforts.
Consequently, you will likely find it useful to learn ahead of time about faculty
members' styles of directing theses and dissertations--about how closely they
monitor steps in the process, how available they are to offer help, and how
skillfully they identify deficiencies and suggest solutions without unduly damaging
students' egos.
Your best sources of information about advising styles are usually (a) fellow
graduate students who are farther along than you are in the thesis or dissertation
process and (b) other professors whom you know personally and who are willing
to talk about their colleagues' modes of guidance.
(The rest of this book can be found at Questia's
online libary by clicking here
and searching for Theses and Dissertations: A Guide to Planning, Research,
and Writing By R. MURRAY THOMAS and DALE L. BRUBAKER)
Attitudes toward topics and methodology
Faculty members often disagree about what constitutes proper research. Consequently,
you might end up with an advisor whose notions of suitable research topics and
methods of investigation are at odds with your own beliefs. Therefore, three
types of information you may wish to seek are your potential advisors' views
of (a) quantitative-versus-qualitative methods, (b) positivism-versuspostmodernism
perspectives, and (c) basic-versus-applied research.
Quantitative-versus-qualitative methods: As these terms are generally used,
quantitative research involves amounts, which are usually cast in the form of
statistics, but qualitative research does not involve amounts in any strict
sense. Here are titles of projects that might be categorized under each type:
Quantitative:
Germany's Economic Growth, 1950-2000
Rural and Urban Educational Achievement in Oregon
Amounts of Public and Private Finance for Welfare Programs
Generational Height and Weight Comparisons--Japan and the USA
The Growth of Tourism--Florida and Alabama
Short-Term Effects of Three Antidepressant Drugs
Qualitative:
The Philosophical Foundations of Psychoanalysis
Silverado--The History of a Frontier Town
A Theory of Political Participation
One Week in the Life of a Deaf-Mute
Judaic Foundations of Islamic Doctrine
The Present-Day Relevance of William James's Pragmatism
Professors who locate themselves exclusively in the quantitative camp demand
that students' research involve the compilation of data in the form of amounts.
Hence, they reject historical chronicles, philosophical analyses, a line of
logic leading to a conclusion, a comparison of the qualities of different societies,
the detailed description of an individual's or group's style of life, and the
like. Furthermore, adherents of quantitative studies sometimes prefer studies
that focus on rather large numbers of people, schools, cities, or political
constituencies so that broadly inclusive generalizations can be drawn from the
research results. Such adherents thus disapprove of studies focusing on one
autistic person (singlesubject research) or only a few subjects (three autistic
children, two schools, four candidates for political office, five neighborhoods)
whose results cannot, with confidence, be generalized to a wide range of people
or events. Proponents of quantitative studies tend to prefer such research methods
as controlled experiments and surveys that employ interviews, tests, systematic
observations, questionnaires, and quantitative content analysis. (For arguments
supporting the quantitative position, see the following references: Howell,
1997; Shavelson, 1996.)
In contrast, professors who subscribe strictly to qualitative methodology tend
to belittle research that involves what they may refer to as "no more than
number crunching" which they feel oversimplifies complex causes, dehumanizes
evidence, and fails to recognize individual differences among people, among
environments, and among events. Advocates of qualitative studies tend to favor
such research techniques as historical and philosophical analyses, descriptive
observation, case studies, ethnography, and hermeneutics. (For rationales supporting
the qualitative stance, see: Bogdan & Knopp, 1992; Denzin & Lincoln,
1994.)
There are, in addition to the foregoing two polar positions, a great many faculty
members who will accept a wide array of research approaches, quantitative and
qualitative alike. We would count ourselves among their number because, in our
opinion, the quantitative-versus-qualitative controversy is really off target.
The issue, in our minds, should not be: Are quantitative methods better than
qualitative, or vice versa? Instead, the issue should be: Which approach-quantitative,
qualitative, or some combination of both--will be the most suitable for answering
the particular research question being asked? This point of view, which respects
the contributions that can be made by all sorts of methods, is the one we espouse
throughout this book.
However, to be practical about your own situation as a student pursuing a degree
in a particular department, what we as the authors of this book believe about
the quantitative-qualitative debate is really not important. What is important
is how well your own beliefs match those of the advisors with whom you might
conduct your research. Thus, a useful twofold question to ask is: Which research
methodologies do the potential members of my research-project committee prefer
or even accept? And how well do my own preferences match the opinions of those
professors? In effect, establishing a good match promotes efficiency, effectiveness,
and goodwill in your work with advisors.
The rest of this book can be found at Questia's
online libary by clicking here
and searching for Theses and Dissertations: A Guide to Planning, Research,
and Writing By R. MURRAY THOMAS and DALE L. BRUBAKER
The Affirmative Action Debate
By George E. Curry, Addison Wesley
get
the full version of this research at Questia Online Library by clicking here
INTRODUCTION
A report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights provides the context for today's
contentious debate over affirmative action. It notes: "Historically, discrimination
against minorities and women was not only accepted, but was also governmentally
required. The doctrine of white supremacy, used to support the institution of
slavery, was so much part of American custom and policy that the Supreme Court
of the United States in 1857 [in the Dred Scott decision] approvingly concluded
that both the North and the South regarded slaves 'as beings of an inferior
order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social
or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the
white man was bound to respect.'"
Women, like African-Americans and other racial minorities, were treated as
less than full citizens throughout much of American history, though to a different
degree. As Justice William J. Brennan observed, neither slaves nor women could
hold office, serve on juries, or bring suit in their own names, and married
women traditionally were denied the legal capacity to hold or convey property
or to serve as legal guardians of their own children.
Over the past three decades, the United States has struggled valiantly to overcome
that sordid legacy as it moves toward what Manning Marable, in the opening selection
in this book, calls "the ultimate elimination of race and gender inequality,
the uprooting of prejudice and discrimination, and the realization of a truly
democratic nation." Out of that struggle came the policy of affirmative
action.
Although the term "affirmative action" is relatively new, the concept
is not. The Civil Rights Commission defines the contemporary term as encompassing
any measure, beyond simple termination of a discriminatory practice, which permits
the consideration of race, national origin, sex, or disability, along with other
criteria, and which is adopted to provide opportunities to a class of qualified
individuals who have either historically or actually been denied those opportunities,
and to prevent the recurrence of discrimination in the future. But well over
a century ago, at the beginning of the Reconstruction era that followed the
Civil War, the Freedman's Bureau was established to assist newly freed slaves,
providing for AfricanAmericans to receive clothing, land, and education. More
recently, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to avert a march on Washington planned
by A. Philip Randolph, president of the powerful Brotherhood of Sleeping Car
Porters, signed an executive order in 1941 forbidding federal contractors from
discriminating.
However, the pernicious problem of racism still existed two decades later in
1961 when John F. Kennedy, observing that the nation's top defense contractors
employed few blacks, signed Executive Order 10925. It invoked the term "affirmative
action" for the first time and established the Committee on Equal Employment
Opportunity. President Lyndon B. Johnson followed up in 1965 with Executive
Order 11246, which required federal contractors to take affirmative action to
provide equal opportunity without regard to a person's race, religion, or national
origin. Three years later, women were added to the protected groups. In 1969,
under President Richard M. Nixon, "goals and timetables" were added
as yet another component of affirmative action.
get the full
version of this research at Questia Online Library by clicking here
Now, a quarter of a century later, affirmative action is more controversial
than ever. It has been credited by supporters with expanding the black middle
class and lowering barriers to equal opportunity, while its critics suggest
that this tool intended to eliminate discrimination is itself discriminatory.
The question has developed into a major wedge issue in the 1996 presidential
election. Affirmative action faces the prospect of being sharply curtailed,
if not eliminated, by Congress and by voters in California, our largest state.
This collection of twenty-nine essays, most of them published here for the
first time, is not likely to end this emotionladen debate. Nor would I want
it to do so. Rather, my goal from the outset has been to assemble some of the
sharpest minds in the country, provide a forum for them to express their personal
views on affirmative action, and hope that in the process we would expand our
knowledge of the issue and develop a deeper tolerance for views with which we
fervently disagree.
CHAPTER ONE
THE BEGINNING
In 1903, W. E. B. Du Bois observed that "the problem of the twentieth century
is the problem of the color line -- the relation of the darker to the lighter
races of men in Asia and Africa, in America and the islands of the sea."
Affirmative action and other race-conscious remedies were created to erase
the differences in rights and opportunities defined by that color line. In this
chapter, four essays trace how affirmative action has evolved in the twentieth
century. While all these authors favor affirmative action, their essays raise
important questions: What alternatives to affirmative action did our country's
political leaders see? Mat were their aims? How much can rules that prohibit
discrimination accomplish? Do affirmative action programs go far enough? In
context, we see that the debate over affirmative action is not a simple yes
or no issue.
First, Manning Marable, director of the Institute for Research in African-American
Studies at Columbia University and author of Beyond Black and White: Transforming
AfricanAmerican Politics (1995), contrasts the efforts to prohibit discrimination
in the 1940s and the triumphs of the civil rights era with the current political
atmosphere. He also places affirmative action in the context of a long debate
within the African-American community over the value of integration and inclusion.
More than sixty years after Du Bois wrote about the color line, President Lyndon
B. Johnson, a southerner, observed that it remained clearly visible: "In
far too many ways American Negroes have been another nation: deprived of freedom,
crippled by hatred, the doors of opportunity closed to hope." Reprinted
here is Johnson's commencement address at Howard University in 1965, which set
both the tone and the rationale for affirmative action in the 1960s. The Johnson
administration made affirmative action national policy to help open the doors
of hope for racial and ethnic minorities (later expanded to include women and
other disadvantaged groups).
Appointed in 1969 as the nation's first assistant secretary of labor for employment
standards, Arthur A. Fletcher has often been referred to as "the Father
of Affirmative Action." He is the author of the Philadelphia Plan to combat
racism in the construction industry. His essay is a behind-the-scenes account
of the earliest efforts to institutionalize affirmative action. Despite the
best intentions, however, the policy quickly became a political orphan, never
clearly codified in federal statutes and owing its shaky existence to the generosity
of the executive branch.
The chapter concludes with an essay by Dr. Cornel West, whom Henry Louis Gates,
Jr., of Harvard University, calls "the preeminent African-American intellectual
of our generation." Looking at affirmative action in the context of race
relations in the United States, he is surprised that the furor over it is so
intense. Affirmative action, he says, is a "weak response" to the
"legacy of white supremacy." It is interesting to consider what other
corrective measures our society might have tried.
get the full
version of this research at Questia Online Library by clicking here
Staying on the Path to Racial Equality
Manning Marable
Instead of pleasant-sounding but simplistic defenses of "affirmative action
as it is," we need to do some hard thinking about the reasons why several
significant constituencies that have greatly benefited from affirmative action
have done relatively little to defend it. We need to recognize the critical
theoretical and strategic differences that separate liberals and progressives
on how to achieve a nonracist society. And we urgently need to reframe the context
of the political debate, taking the initiative away from the Right. The triumph
of "Newtonian Republicanism" is not a temporary aberration: it is
the culmination of a thirty-year ideological and political war against the logic
of the reforms of the 1960s. Advocates of affirmative action, civil rights,
and other policies reflecting left-of-center political values must recognize
how and why the context for progressive reform has fundamentally changed.
The first difficulty in developing a more effective progressive model for affirmative
action goes back to the concept's complex definition, history, and political
evolution. "Affirmative action" per se was never a law, or even a
coherently developed set of governmental policies designed to attack institutional
racism and societal discrimination. It was instead a series of presidential
executive orders, civil rights laws, and governmental programs regarding the
awarding of federal contracts and licenses, as well as the enforcement of fair
employment practices, with the goal of uprooting the practices of bigotry.
At its origins, it was designed to provide some degree of compensatory justice
to the victims of slavery, Jim Crow segregation, and institutional racism. This
was at the heart of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which stated that "all
persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right
in every State and Territory, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties,
give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings
for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens. .
. ."
The fundamental idea of taking the proactive steps necessary to dismantle prejudice
has been around for more than a century.
During the Great Depression, the role of the federal government in protecting
the equal rights of black Americans was expanded again through the direct militancy
and agitation of black people. In 1941, socialist and trade union leader A.
Philip Randolph mobilized thousands of black workers to participate in the "Negro
March on Washington Movement," calling upon the administration of Franklin
D. Roosevelt to carry out a series of reforms favorable to civil rights. To
halt this mobilization, Roosevelt agreed to sign Executive Order 8802, which
outlawed segregationist hiring policies by defense-related industries that held
federal contracts. This executive order not only greatly increased the number
of African-Americans who were employed in wartime industries, but expanded the
political idea that government could not take a passive role in the dismantling
of institutional racism.
This position was reaffirmed in 1953 by President Harry S. Truman's Committee
on Government Contract Compliance, which urged the Bureau of Employment Security"to
act positively and affirmatively to implement the policy of nondiscrimination
in its functions of placement counseling, occupational analysis and industrial
services, labor market information, and community participation in employment
services." Thus, despite the fact that the actual phrase "affirmative
action" was not used by a chief executive until President John F. Kennedy's
Executive Order 10925 in 1961, the fundamental idea of taking the proactive
steps necessary to dismantle prejudice has been around for more than a century.
get the full
version of this research at Questia Online Library by clicking here
PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCES AMONG CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS
What complicates the current discussion of affirmative action is that liberals
and progressives themselves were at odds historically over the guiding social
and cultural philosophy that should inform the implementation of policies on
racial discrimination. Progressives like W E. B. Du Bois were convinced that
the way to achieve a nonracist society was through the development of strong
black institutions and the preservation of African-American cultural identity.
Du Bois's strategy was reflected in his concept of "double consciousness,"
that black American identity was simultaneously African and American, and that
dismantling racism should not require the aesthetic and cultural assimilation
of blackness into white values and social norms.
The alternative to the Du Boisian position was expressed by integrationist
leaders and intellectuals like Walter White, Roy Wilkins, Baynard Rustin, and
Kenneth B. Clark. They too fought to destroy Jim Crow, but their cultural philosophy
for the Negro rested on inclusion rather than pluralism. They deeply believed
that the long-term existence of separate, allblack institutions was counterproductive
to the goal of a "color-blind" society, in which racial categories
would become socially insignificant or even irrelevant to the relations of power.
Rustin, for instance, personally looked forward to the day when Harlem would
cease to exist as a segregated, identifiably black neighborhood. Blacks should
be assimilated or culturally incorporated into the mainstream. My central criticism
of the desegregationist strategy of the inclusionists is that they consistently
confused "culture" with "race," underestimating the importance
of fostering black cultural identity as an essential component of the critique
of white supremacy. The existence of separate black institutions or a self-defined,
all-black community was not necessarily an impediment to interracial cooperation
and multicultural dialogue.
Despite the differences between Du Boisian progressives and inclusionist liberals,
both desegregationist positions from the 1930s onward were expressed by the
organizations and leadership of the civil rights movement. These divisions were
usually obscured by a common language of reform and a common social vision that
embraced color blindness as an ultimate goal. For example, both positions are
reflected in the main thrust of the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
which declared that workplace discrimination should be outlawed on the basis
of "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." However, the
inclusionist orientation of Wilkins, Rustin, and company is also apparent in
the act's assertion that it should not be interpreted as requiring employers
"to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group."
Five years later, after Richard M. Nixon's narrow victory for the presidency,
it was the Republicans' turn to interpret and implement civil rights policy.
The strategy of Nixon had a profound impact on the political culture of the
United States, which continues to have direct consequences within the debates
about affirmative action today. Through the Counterintelligence Program of the
FBI, the Nixon administration vigorously suppressed the radical wing of the
black movement. Second, it appealed to the racial anxieties and grievances of
George Wallace voters, recruiting segregationists like Jesse Helms and Strom
Thurmond into the ranks of the Republican Party.
On affirmative action and issues of equal opportunity, however, Nixon's goal
was to utilize a liberal reform for conservative objectives: the expansion of
the African-American middle class, which might benefit the Republican Party.
Under Nixon in 1969, the federal government authorized what became known as
the Philadelphia Plan, a program requiring federal contractors to set specific
goals for minority hiring. As a result, the portion of racial minorities in
the construction industry increased from 1% to 12%. The Nixon administration
supported provisions for minority set-asides to promote black and Hispanic entrepreneurship,
and it placed Federal Reserve funds in black-owned banks. Nixon himself publicly
praised the concept of "Black Power," carefully interpreting it as
"black capitalism."
It was under the moderate-conservative aegis of the Nixon and Ford administrations
of 1969-77 that the set of policies which we identify with "affirmative
action" was implemented nationally in both the public and the private sectors.
Even after the 1978 Bakke decision, in which the Supreme Court overturned the
admissions policy of the University of California at Davis which had set aside
sixteen out of one hundred medical school openings for racial minorities, the
political impetus for racial reform was not destroyed. What did occur, even
before the triumph of reaction under Reagan in the early 1980s, was that political
conservatives deliberately usurped the "colorblind" discourse of many
liberals from the desegregation movement.
get the full
version of this research at Questia Online Library by clicking here
As conservatives retreated from the Nixonian strategy of utilizing affirmative
action tools to achieve conservative political goals, they began to appeal to
the latent racist sentiments within the white population. They cultivated the
racist mythology that affirmative action was nothing less than a rigid system
of inflexible quotas which rewarded the incompetent and the unqualified, who
happened to be nonwhite, at the expense of hardworking, taxpaying Americans,
who happened to be white. White conservatives were able to define "merit"
in a manner that would reinforce white male privilege, but in an inverted language
that would make the real victims of discrimination appear to be the racists.
It was, in retrospect, a brilliant political maneuver.
And the liberals were at a loss in fighting back effectively precisely because
they lacked a consensus internally about the means and goals for achieving genuine
equality. Traditional liberals like Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law
Center in Montgomery, Alabama, who favored an inclusionist, colorblind ideology
of reform, often ended up inside the camp of racial reactionaries, who cynically
learned to manipulate the discourse of fairness.
SUPPORT FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AT DIFFERENT LEVELS
These shifts and realignments within American political culture about how to
achieve greater fairness and equality for those who have experienced discrimination
had profound consequences by the 1990s. In general, most white Americans have
made a clear break from the overtly racist, Jim Crow segregationist policies
of a generation ago. They want to be perceived as being "fair" toward
racial minorities and women, and they acknowledge that policies like affirmative
action are necessary to foster a more socially just society.
According to a USA Today/ CNN/Gallup poll ( March 1719, 1995), when asked,
"Do you favor or oppose affirmative action programs?" 53% of whites
polled expressed support, compared to only 36% opposed. Not surprisingly, AfricanAmericans
expressed much stronger support, with 72% in favor of affirmative action programs
and only 21% against. Despite widespread rhetoric that the vast majority of
white males have supposedly lost jobs and opportunities due to affirmative action
policies, the poll indicated that only 15% of all white males believe that "they've
lost a job because of affirmative action policies."
However, there is severe erosion of white support for affirmative action when
one focuses more narrowly on specific steps or remedies for addressing discrimination.
For example, the USA Today/ CNN/Gallup poll indicates that only 30% of whites
favor the establishment of gender and racial "quotas" in businesses,
with 68% opposed. In contrast, two-thirds of all African-Americans expressed
support for quotas in business employment, with only 30% opposed.
When asked whether quotas should be created "that require schools to admit
a certain number of minorities and women," 61% of the whites were opposed,
with 35% in favor. Nearly two-thirds of all whites would also reject policies
that "require private businesses to set up specific goals and timetables
for hiring women and minorities if there were not government programs that included
hiring quotas," whereas two-thirds of all African-Americans strongly favor
affirmative action programs with goals and timetables for private businesses.
On issues of implementing government-supported initiatives for social equality,
most black and white Americans still live in two distinct racial universes.
It is not surprising that "angry white men" form the core of those
who are against affirmative action. What is striking, however, is the general
orientation of white women on this issue. White women have been overwhelmingly
the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action: millions have gained access
to educational and employment opportunities through the implementation and enforcement
of such policies. But most of them clearly do not share the political perspectives
of AfricanAmericans and Hispanics on this issue, nor do they perceive their
own principal interests to be at risk if affirmative action programs are abandoned
by the federal government or outlawed by the courts. In the same USA Today/
CNN/Gallup poll, only 8% of all white women stated that their "colleagues
at work or school privately questioned" their qualifications because of
affirmative action, compared to 19% of black women and 28% of black men. Less
than one in five white women polled defined workplace discrimination as a "major
problem," compared to 41% of blacks and 38% of Latinos. Forty percent of
the white women polled described job discrimination as "not being a problem"
at all. These survey results may help to explain why middle class-oriented,
liberal feminist leaders and constituencies have been less vocal than African-Americans
in the mobilization to defend affirmative action.
get the full
version of this research at Questia Online Library by clicking here
A quarter-century of affirmative action programs, goals, and timetables has
been clearly effective in transforming the status of white women in the labor
force. It is certainly true that white men still dominate the upper ranks of
senior management: while constituting 47% of the nation's total workforce, they
make up 95% of all senior managerial positions at the rank of vice president
or above. However, women of all races now constitute about 40% of the total
workforce overall. As of the 1990 census, white women held nearly 40% of all
middle management positions. While their median incomes lag behind those of
white men, over the past twenty years white women have gained far greater ground
in terms of real earnings than black or Hispanic men in the labor force. Black
professional women have also gained ground in recent decades, but blacks overall
still remain significantly behind white men in median incomes at all levels.
In this context, civil rights advocates and traditional defenders of affirmative
action must ask themselves whether the majority of white American women actually
perceive their material interests to be tied to the outcome of the battle for
income equity and affirmative action that most blacks and Latinos, women and
men alike, continue to fight.
We should also recognize that although all people of color suffer in varying
degrees from the stigma of racism and economic disadvantage within American
society, they do not have the same material interests or identify themselves
with the same politics as the vast majority of African-Americans. For example,
here are mean on-the-job earnings, according to the 1990 census:
All American adults $15,105
Blacks $10,912
Native Americans $11,949
Hispanics $11,219
It is crucial to disaggregate social categories like "Hispanics" and
"Asian-Americans" to gain a true picture of the real material and
social conditions of significant populations of color. About half of all Hispanics,
according to the Bureau of the Census, identify themselves as white, regardless
of their actual physical appearance. Puerto Ricans in New York City have lower
median incomes than African-Americans, while Argentines, a Hispanic group that
claims benefits from affirmative action programs, have mean on-the-job incomes
of $15,956 a year. The Hmong, immigrants from southeast Asia, have mean on-the-job
incomes of $3,194; by striking contrast, the Japanese have annual incomes higher
than those of whites.
None of these statistics negate the reality of racial domination and discrimination
in terms of social relations, access to employment opportunities, or job advancement.
But they do tell us part of the reason why no broad coalition of people of color
has coalesced behind the political demand for affirmative action. Various groups
interpret their interests narrowly and in divergent ways, looking out primarily
for themselves rather than addressing the structural inequalities within the
fabric of American society as a whole.
A DU BOISIAN STRATEGY TOWARD AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
So where do progressives and liberals go from here, given that the Right has
seized the political initiative in dismantling affirmative action, minority
economic set-asides, and the entire spectrum of civil rights reforms? We must
return to the theoretical perspectives of Du Bois to begin some honest dialogue
about why race relations have soured so profoundly in recent years.
Affirmative action was largely responsible for a significant increase in the
size of the black middle class; it opened many professional and managerial positions
to blacks, Latinos, and women for the first time. But in many other respects,
affirmative action can and should be criticized from the Left, not because it
was too liberal in its pursuit and implementation of measures to achieve equality,
but because it was too conservative. It sought to increase representative numbers
of minorities and women within the existing structure and arrangements of power,
rather than challenging or redefining the institutions of authority and privilege.
As implemented under a series of presidential administrations, liberal and conservative
alike, affirmative action was always more concerned with advancing remedies
for unequal racial outcomes than with uprooting racism as a system of white
power.
Rethinking progressive and liberal strategies on affirmative action would require
sympathetic whites to acknowledge that much of the anti-affirmative action rhetoric
is really a retreat from a meaningful engagement on issues of race, and that
the vast majority of Americans who have benefited materially from affirmative
action have not been black at all. A Du Boisian strategy toward affirmative
action would argue that despite the death of legal segregation a generation
ago, we have not yet reached the point where a color-blind society is possible,
especially in terms of the actual organization and structure of white power
and privilege. Institutional racism is real, and the central focus of affirmative
action must deal with the continuing burden of racial inequality and discrimination
in American life.
There are many ways to measure the powerful reality of contemporary racism.
For example, a 1994 study of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management found that
African-American federal employees are more than twice as likely to be dismissed
as their white counterparts. Blacks are especially likely to be fired at much
higher rates than whites in jobs where they constitute a significant share of
the labor force: for example, black clerk-typists are 4.7 times more likely
to be dismissed than whites, and black custodians 4.1 times more likely to be
fired.
Discrimination is also rampant in capital markets. Banks continue policies
of "redlining," denying loans in neighborhoods that are largely black
and Hispanic. In New York City in 1992, for instance, blacks were turned down
for mortgage applications by banks, savings and loans, and other financial institutions
about twice as often as whites. And even after years of affirmative action programs,
blacks and Latinos remain grossly underrepresented in a wide number of professions.
As Jesse Jackson observed in a speech before the National Press Club, while
native-born white males make up only 41% of the U.S. population, they are 80%
of all tenured professors, 92% of the Forbes 400 chief executive officers, and
97% of all school superintendents.
get the full
version of this research at Questia Online Library by clicking here
If affirmative action should be criticized, it might be on the grounds that
it didn't go far enough in transforming the actual power relations between black
and white within our society. More evidence for this is addressed by the sociologists
Melvin Oliver and Thomas Shapiro in Black Wealth/White Wealth (1995). The authors
point out that "the typical black family has eleven cents of wealth for
every dollar owned by the typical white family." Even middle-class African-Americans,
people who often benefited from affirmative action, are significantly poorer
than whites who earn identical incomes. If housing and vehicles owned are included
in the definition of "net wealth," the median middle-class African-American
family has only $8,300 in total assets, as against $56,000 for the comparable
white family.
Why are blacks at all income levels much poorer than whites in terms of wealth?
African-American families not only inherit much less wealth; they are hit daily
by institutional inequality and discrimination. For years, they were denied
life insurance policies by white firms. They are still denied home mortgages
at twice the rate of similarly qualified white applicants. African-Americans
have been less likely to receive government-backed home loans.
Given the statistical profile of racial inequality, liberals must reject the
temptation to move away from "race-conscious remedies" to "race-neutral"
reforms defined by income or class criteria. Affirmative action has always had
a distinct and separate function from antipoverty programs. Income and social
class inequality affect millions of whites, Asian-Americans, Latinos, and blacks
alike, and programs that expand employment, educational access, and social service
benefits based on economic criteria alone are absolutely essential. But the
impetus for racism is not narrowly economic in origin. Racial prejudice is still
a destructive force in the lives of upper middle-class, college-educated African-Americans
as well as poor blacks, and programs designed to address the discrimination
they feel and experience collectively every day must be grounded in the context
of race. However, affirmative action is legitimately related to class questions,
but in a different way. A truly integrated workplace, where people of divergent
racial backgrounds, languages, and cultural identities learn to interact and
respect each other, is an essential precondition for building a broadly pluralistic
movement for radical democracy. The expanded implementation of affirmative action,
despite its liberal limitations, would assist in creating the social conditions
essential for pluralistic coalitions to promote full employment and more progressive
social policies.
What is required among progressives is not a reflexive, uncritical defense
of affirmative action, but a recognition of its contradictory evolution and
conceptual limitations as well as its benefits and strengths. We need a thoughtful
and innovative approach in challenging discrimination which, like that of Du
Bois, reaffirms the centrality of the struggle against racism within the development
of affirmative action measures. We must build on the American majority's continued
support for affirmative action, linking the general public's commitment to social
fairness with creative measures that actually target the real patterns and processes
of discrimination that millions of Utinos and blacks experience every day. And
we must not be pressured into a false debate to choose between race and class
in the development and framing of public policies addressing discrimination.
Moving toward the long-term goal of a colorblind society, the deconstruction
of racism, does not mean that we become neutral about the continuing significance
of race in American life.
As the national debate concerning the possible elimination of affirmative action
comes to define the 1996 presidential campaign, black and progressive Americans
must reevaluate their strategies for reform. In recent years we have tended
to rely on elections, the legislative process, and the courts to achieve racial
equality. We should remember how the struggle to dismantle Jim Crow segregation
was won. We engaged in economic boycotts, civil disobedience, teach-ins, freedom
schools, and freedom rides; we formed community-based coalitions and united
fronts. There's a direct relationship between our ability to mobilize people
in communities to protest and the pressure we can exert on elected officials
to protect and enforce civil rights.
Voting is absolutely essential, but it isn't enough. We must channel the profound
discontent, the alienation and anger that currently exist in the black community
toward constructive, progressive forms of political intervention and resistance.
As we fight for affirmative action, let us understand that we are fighting for
a larger ideal: the ultimate elimination of race and gender inequality, the
uprooting of prejudice and discrimination, and the realization of a truly democratic
nation.
To Fulfill These Rights
Lyndon B. Johnson1
Our earth is the home of revolution.
In every corner of every continent men charged with hope contend with ancient
ways in the pursuit of justice. They reach for the newest of weapons to realize
the oldest of dreams; that each may walk in freedom and pride, stretching his
talents, enjoying the fruits of the earth.
Our enemies may occasionally seize the day of change. But it is the banner
of our revolution they take. And our own future is linked to this process of
swift and turbulent change in many lands in the world. But nothing in any country
touches us more profoundly, nothing is more freighted with meaning for our own
destiny, than the revolution of the Negro American.
In far too many ways American Negroes have been another nation: deprived of
freedom, crippled by hatred, the doors of opportunity closed to hope.
In our time change has come to this nation too. The American Negro, acting
with impressive restraint, has peacefully protested and marched, entered the
courtrooms and the seats of government, demanding a justice that has long been
denied. The voice of the Negro was a call to action. But it is a tribute to
America that, once aroused, the courts and the Congress, the President and most
of the people, have been the allies of progress.
get the full
version of this research at Questia Online Library by clicking here
Thus we have seen the high court of the country declare that discrimination
based on race was repugnant to the Constitution, and therefore void. We have
seen in 1957, 1960, and again in 1964, the first civil rights legislation in
this nation in almost an entire century.
As majority leader of the United States Senate, I helped to guide two of these
bills through the Senate. As your President, I was proud to sign the third.
And now very soon we will have the fourth -- a new law guaranteeing every American
the right to vote.
No act of my entire administration will give me greater satisfaction than the
day when my signature makes this bill too the law of this land.
The Voting Rights Bill will be the latest, and among the most important, in
a long series of victories. But this victory -as Winston Churchill said of another
triumph for freedom -"is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the
end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
That beginning is freedom. And the barriers to that freedom are tumbling down.
Freedom is the right to share fully and equally in American society -- to vote,
to hold a job, to enter a public place, to go to school. It is the right to
be treated in every part of our national life as a person equal in dignity and
promise to all others.
But freedom is not enough. You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying:
Now you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders
you please.
You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate
him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, "You are
free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe that you
have been completely fair.
Thus it is not enough to just open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens
must have the ability to walk through those gates.
This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We
seek not just freedom but opportunity -- not just legal equity but human ability
-- not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as
a result.
For the task is to give twenty million Negroes the same chance as every other
American to learn and grow, to work and share in society, to develop their abilities
-- physical, mental, and spiritual, and to pursue their individual happiness.
To this end equal opportunity is essential, but not enough. Men and women of
all races are born with the same range of abilities. But ability is not just
the product of birth. Ability is stretched or stunted by the family you live
with, and the neighborhood you live in, by the school you go to and the poverty
or the richness of your surroundings. It is the product of a hundred unseen
forces playing upon the infant, the child, and the man.
We seek not just freedom but opportunity --
not just equality as a right and a theory,
but equality as a fact.
This graduating class of Howard University is witness to the indomitable determination
of the Negro American to win his way in American life.
get the full
version of this research at Questia Online Library by clicking here
The number of Negroes in schools of higher learning has almost doubled in fifteen
years. The number of nonwhite professional workers has more than doubled in
ten years. The median income of Negro college women exceeds that of white college
women. And there are also the enormous accomplishments of distinguished individual
Negroes -- many of them graduates of this institution, and one of them the first
lady ambassador in the history of the United States.
These are proud and impressive achievements. But they tell only the story of
a growing middle class minority, steadily narrowing the gap between them and
their white counterparts.
But for the great majority of Negro Americans -- the poor, the unemployed,
the uprooted, and the dispossessed -- there is a much grimmer story. They still
are another nation. Despite the court orders and the laws, despite the legislative
victories and the speeches, for them the walls are rising and the gulf is widening.Here
are some of the facts of this American failure. Thirty-five years ago the rate
of unemployment for Negroes and whites was about the same. Today the Negro rate
is twice as high.
In 1948 the 8% unemployment rate for Negro teenage boys was actually less than
that of whites. By last year that rate had grown to 23%, as against 13% for
whites.
Between 1949 and 1959, the income of Negro men relative to white men declined
in every section of this country. From 1952 to 1963 the median income of Negro
families compared to white actually dropped from 57% to 53%.
In the years 1955 through 1957, 22% of experienced Negro workers were out of
work at some time during the year. In 1961 through 1963 that proportion had
soared to 29%.
Since 1947 the number of white families living in poverty has decreased 27%,
while the number of poor nonwhite families decreased only 3%.
The infant mortality of nonwhites in 1940 was 70% greater than whites. Twenty-two
years later it was 90% greater.
Moreover, the isolation of Negro from white communities is increasing, rather
than decreasing, as Negroes crowd into the central cities and become a city
within a city.
Of course Negro Americans as well as white Americans have shared in our rising
national abundance. But the harsh fact of the matter is that in the battle for
true equality too many are losing ground every day.
We are not completely sure why this is. The causes are complex and subtle.
But we do know the two broad basic reasons. And we do know that we have to act.
First, Negroes are trapped -- as many whites are trapped -- in inherited, gateless
poverty. They lack training and skills. They are shut in slums, without decent
medical care. Private and public poverty combine to cripple their capacities.
We are trying to attack these evils through our poverty program, through our
education program, through our medical care and our other health programs, and
a dozen more of the Great Society programs that are aimed at the root causes
of this poverty.
We will increase, and accelerate, and broaden this attack in years to come
until this most enduring of foes finally yields to our unyielding will. But
there is a second cause -- much more difficult to explain, more deeply grounded,
more desperate in its force. It is the devastating heritage of long years of
slavery; and of oppression, hatred, and injustice.
For Negro poverty is not white poverty. Many of its causes and many of its
cures are the same. But there are differences -deep, corrosive, obstinate differences
-- radiating painful roots into the community, the family, and the nature of
the individual.
These differences are not racial differences. They are solely and simply the
consequence of ancient brutality, past injustice, and present prejudice. They
are anguishing to observe. For the Negro they are a constant reminder of oppression.
For the white they are a constant reminder of guilt. But they must be faced
and dealt with and overcome, if we are ever to reach the time when the only
difference between Negroes and whites is the color of their skin.
Nor can we find a complete answer in the experience of other American minorities.
They made a valiant and a largely successful effort to emerge from poverty and
prejudice. The Negro, like these others, will have to rely mostly on his own
efforts. But he just can not do it alone. For they did not have the heritage
of centuries to overcome. They did not have the cultural tradition which had
been twisted and battered by endless years of hatred and hopelessness. Nor were
they excluded because of race or color -- a feeling whose dark intensity is
matched by no other prejudice in society.
Nor can these differences be understood as isolated infirmities. They are a
seamless web. They cause each other. They result from each other. They reinforce
each other. Much of the Negro community is buried under a blanket of history
and circumstance. It is not a lasting solution to lift just one corner of that
blanket. We must stand on all sides and raise the entire cover if we are to
liberate our fellow citizens.
One of the differences is the increased concentration of Negroes in the cities.
More than 73% of all Negroes live in urban areas compared with less than 70%
of the whites. Most of the Negroes live in slums. Most of them live together
-- a separated people. Men are shaped by their world. When it is a world of
decay, ringed by an invisible wall -- when escape is arduous and uncertain,
and the saving pressures of a more hopeful society are unknown -- it can cripple
the youth and desolate the man.
There is also the burden that a dark skin can add to the search for a productive
place in society. Unemployment strikes most swiftly and broadly at the Negro.
This burden erodes hope. Blighted hope breeds despair. Despair brings indifference
to the learning which offers a way out. And despair, coupled with indifference,
is often the source of destructive rebellion against the fabric of society.
There is also lacerating hurt of early collision with white hatred or prejudice,
distaste, or condescension. Other groups have felt similar intolerance. But
success and achievement could wipe it away. They do not change the color of
a man's skin. I have seen this uncomprehending pain in the eyes of little Mexican-American
school children that I taught many years ago. It can be overcome. But for many,
the wounds are always open.
Perhaps most important -- its influence radiating to every part of life --
is the breakdown of the Negro family structure. For this, most of all, white
America must accept responsibility.
It flows from centuries of oppression and persecution of the Negro man. It flows
from long years of degradation and discrimination, which have attacked his dignity
and assaulted his ability to provide for his family.
This, too, is not pleasant to look upon. But it must be faced by those whose
serious intent is to improve the life of all Americans.
Only a minority -- less than half -- of all Negro children reach the age of
eighteen having lived all their lives with both of their parents. At this moment
little less than two-thirds are living with both of their parents. Probably
a majority of all Negro children receive federally aided public assistance sometime
during their childhood.
The family is the cornerstone of our society. More than any other force it
shapes the attitudes, the hopes, the ambitions, and the values of the child.
When the family collapses it is the children that are usually damaged. When
it happens on a massive scale the community itself is crippled.
So unless we work to strengthen the family, to create conditions under which
most parents will stay together -- all the rest: schools and playgrounds, public
assistance and private concern, will never be enough to cut completely the circle
of despair and deprivation.
get the full
version of this research at Questia Online Library by clicking here
Banned in the Media: A Reference Guide to Censorship in the Press,
Motion Pictures, Broadcasting, and the Internet,
By Herbert N. Foerstel
get
the full version of this research at Questia Online Library by clicking here
Introduction
The 1996 Oxford Modern English Dictionary defines the "media" as "the
main means of mass communication (esp. newspapers and broadcasting)." The
1995 Cambridge Paperback Encyclopedia ( David Crystal , ed., 2d ed., 1995) says
"media" is "a collective term for television, radio, cinema,
and the press." This book will use these standard definitions, with one
modification: the inclusion of the Internet, the newest and most controversial
form of mass communication.
There is little doubt that the media have overwhelmed books as the preferred
source of information and entertainment worldwide, and the United States is
both the primary producer and the primary consumer of the media product. A recent
study conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau and the New York communications investment
house, Veronis Suhler, produced some startling figures. The media business has
become one of the twelve largest industries in the United States. Profits are
high; operating margins range from 5.4 percent for the emerging interactive
digital media to more than 16 percent for broadcasters. Several of the big newspapers
do even better. The expectation is that the growth rate of newspaper revenues
will double between 1995 and the year 2000, and the other media will do almost
as well. 1
More interesting is the data indicating the stranglehold that the media have
on the American public. The ordinary American spends 3,400 hours a year consuming
the media output. That represents almost 40 percent of our lives, more time
than we spend sleeping and far more time than we spend working. Radio and television
represent 80 percent of our media consumption. Our reading occupies about an
hour a day, half of it for newspapers. By the year 2000, according to the study,
we will be reading even less, watching television even more, and spending more
time on the Internet. 2
Little wonder, then, that we hear so much about the power of the media and
its influence on everything from morality to politics. The current problem is
not the growing media power, but the narrowing corporate cabal that wields it.
In 1983 Ben Bagdikian, then journalism dean at the University of California,
Berkeley, published The Media Monopoly, which revealed that at least half of
all media business was controlled by just fifty corporations. By 1987, when
his second edition appeared, he reported that just twenty-nine corporations
exercised that power, and by the time of his fourth edition in 1992, that number
had shrunk to twenty. Bagdikian noted a similar evolution in newspapers and
magazines. Of the 1,700 daily newspapers in this country, 98 percent were local
monopolies and most of their combined circulation was controlled by fewer than
fifteen corporations. Among magazines, Time, Inc., alone was responsible for
40 percent of industry revenues. 3
get the full
version of this research at Questia Online Library by clicking here
Bagdikian wrote,
[A] shrinking number of large media corporations now regard monopoly, oligopoly,
and historic levels of profit as not only normal, but as their earned right.
In the process, the usual democratic expectations for the media -- diversity
of ownership and ideas -- have disappeared as the goal of official policy, and
worse, as a daily experience of a generation of American viewers and readers.
. . . It's no way to maintain a lively marketplace of ideas, which is to say
it is no way to maintain a democracy. 4
Bagdikian's trailblazing research and widely praised 1987 edition of The Media
Monopoly were virtually ignored by the media. His explanation of why the major
media had failed to discuss the disadvantages of media consolidation was simple:
editors were not interested in these problems because they were all in the newspaper
consolidation business themselves.
Indeed, the media's failure to address the most significant problem in its
industry caused that very issue to be declared the "most censored news
story of 1987" by the prestigious Project Censored. Every year since 1977,
Project Censored, based at Sonoma State University, has published its list of
the news issues or "stories" that have been most heavily suppressed
during the previous year. The judges who selected the media monopoly story as
the "most censored" during 1987 included John Kenneth Galbraith, Bill
Moyers, and Judith Krug. Communications professor Carl Jensen, originator of
Project Censored, said the judges selected the media monopoly story because
it was the root cause for underreporting generally. "We have fewer sources,
fewer outlets and more control by fewer people," said Jensen. 5
The problem of media monopolies has worsened in recent years, but it continues
to be ignored by the media. Project Censored's latest edition, Censored 1997.
The News That Didn't Make the News, featured an article, "Free the Media,"
that literally mapped out the four giant corporations that control the major
television news divisions: the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), the American
Broadcasting Company (ABC), the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) and the Cable
News Network (CNN). Author Mark Miller notes that two of the four holding corporations
are defense contractors (both involved in nuclear production), and the other
two purvey entertainment. Miller concludes that we are thus the subjects of
a "national entertainment state," in which the news and much of our
amusement are provided by the two most powerful industries in the United States.
Miller presents an elaborate chart that maps the tentacles of General Electric,
Time Warner, Disney/Cap Cities and Westinghouse, the four media giants. He says
a glance at each chart reveals why, say, Tom Brokaw might have difficulty covering
stories critical of nuclear power, or ABC News will no longer be likely to do
an exposé of Disney's policies, or, indeed, why none of the media is
willing to touch the biggest story of them all -- the media monopoly itself.
Miller says such maps "suggest the true causes of those enormous ills
that now dismay so many Americans: the universal sleaze and 'dumbing down,'
the flood tide of corporate propaganda, the terminal inanity of U.S. politics."
He warns that "the same gigantic players that control the elder media are
planning shortly to absorb the Internet, which could be transformed from a thriving
common wilderness into an immeasurable de facto cyberpark for corporate interests,
with all the dissident voices exiled to sites known only to the activists."
Only a new, broad-based antitrust movement can save the media, according to
Miller. 6
get the full
version of this research at Questia Online Library by clicking here
The media have always been the captive of religion and politics, scorned and
manipulated by both in ways beyond anything suffered by book publishers. A recent
example of the former is the boycott launched by Baptists against the Walt Disney
Company. On June 18, 1997, the Southern Baptist Convention in Dallas, Texas
overwhelmingly approved a resolution urging the denomination's 15.7 million
members to boycott all presentations and products bearing the Disney name and
everything produced by the vast Disney conglomerate that includes Miramax Films,
ABC television, ESPN, E! and Disney cable channels and Hyperion Books. The primary
objection expressed by the Baptists was Disney's support for homosexuals, as
represented by ABC's sitcom "Ellen," whose star is an admitted lesbian
and Disney's willingness to grant health benefits to the partners of homosexual
employees.
The Baptists admit that the effectiveness of the boycott may not be immediately
evident, but Ted Baehr, chairman of the Christian Film and Television Commission,
said, "The Crusades were not a high point in public relations for the church,
but they give people a feeling of accomplishment, and this boycott may do the
same for many Americans." 7
Banned in the U.S.A. ( 1994) examined censorship in book publishing, but only
in the context of schools and libraries. This book may be regarded as a sequel
to Banned in the U.S.A., but there are significant differences. Banned in the
Media examines censorship in six formats -newspapers, magazines, radio, television,
motion pictures and the Internet-in a wide variety of contexts. Whereas individual
books can be plucked from school classrooms or library shelves by nervous school
or library officials, much of the media product is ephemeral, and its censorship
is wielded with a broader brush.
An important distinction between my methodologies for analyzing books and the
media is the manner in which incidents of censorship are tallied and compared.
The number of times a particular book title is banned from school curricula
or removed from library shelves can be tallied and a list of the most banned
books can be assembled, but much of the media does not admit to such particularization.
The wide and disparate variety of media formats make it impossible to analyze
statistically and rank incidents across the entire media. Frequently, it is
even difficult to isolate and identify the origin of media censorship.
Serial publications, particularly magazines, are uniquely vulnerable to newsstand
or convenience store boycotts. They also suffer censorship of individual articles
or issues. Motion pictures, like books, have been banned in ways that allow
statistical analysis, but the monolithic
get the full
version of this research at Questia Online Library by clicking here
Something happens to people when they get online. Maybe it's the instant access, maybe it's the "I-could-be-naked" anonymity, but when people get online they sometimes get overly casual and informal. This might be fine when your talking to your buddy in Omaha or the sweetheart you just met in a chatroom, but it doesn't work well when you're trying to get business done.
Just because you're communicating online does not mean you should consider yourself exempt from any of the formalities of paper-based communication. Online cover letters are notoriously awful, poorly written throwaways of fewer than three lines whose only purpose is to say "I'm applying, this is my resume, have a nice day."
When formatting the cover letter, stick to left-justified headers and four-inch wide text lines in your paragraphs. You never know when the address you're mailing to has a small e-mail-page format that will awkwardly wrap text around the screen. Also, many e-mail systems cannot handle text enhancements like bolding, bulleting or underlining, so play it safe by using CAPITAL LETTERS -- or dashes -- if you need to make an emphasis. For more expert advice on cover letters, check out the Vault Job Search Survival Center .
Proper E-mail Cover Letter Etiquette
Anil Dash, the former chief information technology officer for an online music video production studio in Manhattan, lost his job this January when the company fired nearly all its employees. Since then, Dash figures he's applied for more than a dozen jobs, contacting every one of the potential employers - befitting an out-of-work CIO - through e-mail.
But every time he prepares another e-mail, he faces a choice. Should he bother to write an e-mail cover letter, the sort of thing he'd do if he were mailing the resume, or should he merely dash off a few lines to the effect of, "Hi, I'm interested in your job, and I've attached my resume as a Word file. Thanks."
"I do cover letters for jobs I really want," Dash says. "For ones I don't care about, I just spam them."
Why cover letters still matter
According to recruiting experts, Dash is doing the right thing by writing extensive e-mail cover letters. Even though cover letters came of age in the age of pen and paper (or typewriter and paper), they still have a place in the 21st century, when want ads, resumes, and interviews all fly over virtual networks.
"It's going over the Internet, but it's the same product," Madeline Miller, the manager of Compu-Type Nationwide Resume Service in upstate New York, said of e-mail cover letters. "The cover is very important and it should be the same quality if you were to mail it."
Since e-mail messages generally tend to be conversational and quickly written, many people aren't used to drafting carefully written e-mail cover letters. But Miller said any applicant who creates a fully-fleshed e-mailed cover letter has an advantage over an applicant with a more slapdash cover letter.
"There is a tendency to jot off a few lines, and people might write, "I'm applying for this job, here is my resume," Miller said. "But if there is a cover letter, that could put somebody over the top."
But at the same time, make sure your e-mailed cover letter isn't a chore to read. If brevity is a virtue with conventional cover letters, it's a necessity for e-mailed cover letters. You can find out more about cover letters with Vault's expert career advice.
Appropriate cover letter length
Reesa Staten, the research director for OfficeTeam, a staffing service firm, says e-mailed resumes shouldn't run more than two or three paragraphs.
"You want to include the same type of information, albeit in a shorter version," Staten said. "What you don't want to do is rehash your resume. There's no need to restate what you've done in the past. What you want to do is tell them where you learned about the listing, why you're right for the job, and how they can reach you."
Tips for sending cover letters and resumes
If you really want the job, follow up an e-mailed cover letter and resume with a hard copy you mail. Make sure this hard copy includes a cover letter, too, that restates who you are and why you're qualified. Somewhere in the cover letter, be sure to write, "I recently e-mailed you my resume and I'm following up with this hard copy."
Why should you do this? A hard copy gives your resume another chance for exposure and makes it easier for a potential boss to pass around or file your cover letter and resume. In cases where your e-mailed cover letter and resume have been overlooked in someone's in-box or rendered inaccessible by a computer glitch, a hard copy may be your only chance for exposure.
If you're including a resume as an attachment, first make sure the prospective employer accepts attachments. Then, in your cover letter, mention the program you used to create your attachment. ("I've enclosed a cover letter written in Microsoft Word 2000.") It's also a good idea to include a cut and paste text version of your resume in addition, in case the person reading the resume doesn't have the software to open your attachment.
With any resume file you're attaching, open it first to make sure it's updated, error free, and the version of your resume you want to send. Sending a virus is tantamount to sealing your job-doom.
Save a copy of whatever you send by including your own e-mail address in the "BCC" field or by making sure a copy goes to your "Sent mail" folder. This allows you to resend the letter if a problem pops up.
Lastly, don't fill in the "to" field with the recipient's e-mail address until you've finished writing and editing the cover letter and resume. This prevents you from accidentally sending off the message before it's ready.
For more expert advice on the job search, from resumes and cover letters to interviewing and salary negotiation, go to the Vault Job Search Survival Center
