Theories and studies about reducing racial prejudice

Theories and studies about reducing racial prejudice Everyone has a race or ethnic group that they see themselves as being part of. On the other hand, not all people are exposed to stinging words or physical harm from a prejudiced individual because of the color of their skin. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2005), there are approximately 210,000 hate crimes a year; racial prejudice is the motivation for over half of them. This paper will discuss theories and studies on ways to reduce racial prejudice. Racial prejudice has been around since groups of people could distinguish themselves from one another (Milner, 1983). The 1920s were when prejudice started catching the attention of psychologists as a social phenomenon that needed to be studied (Duckitt, 1992). Samelson (1978) talked about how tests between races were first meant to measure individuality but soon the authors were publishing empirical evidence that Whites were superior to Blacks (as cited in Duckitt, 1992, p. 1185). Milner (1983) states that prejudice occurs because people become frustrated, need a scapegoat, or because they are feeling some anxiety and need a way to release it. One of the first texts on prejudice and reducing prejudice was written by Gordon W. Allport. Encouraged by Robin Williams study on conditions that further the reduction of racism, Allport wrote The Nature of Prejudice in which he discusses his contact hypothesis (Utsey, Ponterotto, Porter, 2008). Allport (1954) stated that prejudice may be reduced by equal status contact between majority and minority groups in the pursuit of common goals (p. 281). Allport (1954) also says there are eight different areas of contact, causal, residential, occupational, recreational, religious, civic and fraternal, political, and goodwill intergroup activities. Allport (1954) says that both state and federal legislation can be used to pass antidiscrimination laws and have public agencies enforce these laws. According to Allport (1954), there are six programs that can be used to reduce prejudice. They are formal educational methods, contact and acquaintance programs, group retraining methods, mass media, exhortation, and individual therapy. Allport (1954) feels that individual therapy is the best one, yet no study has been convincing of this. Allport (1954) describes formal educational methods as teaching about prejudice in the school setting. There are five types of formal educational methods. There is the informational approach, direct approach, indirect approach, the approach through vicarious experience, and the project method. The next method is contact and acquaintance programs which means that White people and Black people get together and get to know each other. The third method is group retraining. In group retraining, the outgroup members and the ingroup members switch roles and try to become empathetic to each other. The fourth method is mass media in which messages are sent in the media spreading information on tolerance of others. The next method is exhortation which is like religion in which leaders spread the message of tolerance of other people. Finally, there is individual therapy in which a person meets with a therapist to change their way of thinking. Blincoe and Harris (2009) talk about three major programs that cause a minimization in racial prejudice. Cooperation is similar to Allports (1954) contact theory. This program has been used in jigsaw classrooms in which children are broken up into racially varied group and then each child is given a piece of information to teach to the others (Aronson Bridgeman, 2007; Blincoe Harris, 2009). Along with the children learning information, they also showed higher self-esteem, liked school more, and for minorities, their school grades had improved (Aronson Bridgeman, 2007). The tolerance program is synonymous with political tolerance and the respect program is supposed to reinforce and encourage diversity (Blincoe Harris, 2009). Crisp and Turner (2009) hypothesize that imagining contact with an outgroup can have a close or same effect on diminishing prejudice as actual contact with an outgroup. Turner, Crisp, and Lambert, (2007) found that participants who imagined an optimistic interaction with an outgroup member conveyed more positive attitudes and less prejudice than those who did not (as cited in Crisp Turner, 2009). Stathi and Crisp (2008) did a study that showed that even though projection of positive self traits is higher for ingroups than outgroups (Clement Krueger, 2002), positive imagined contact leads to greater projection of positive traits to outgroups (as cited in Crisp Turner, 2009, p. 234). In addition to contact theory, there is the goal based approach which consists of three goals that people need to reach. These are comprehension goals, self-enhancement goals, and motivation to avoid prejudice (Kunda Spencer, 2003). Kunda and Spencer (2003) say that comprehension goals include the need to understand events, reduce the complexity of the environment, gain cognitive clarity, and form rational impressions. Stereotypes serve these needs by enabling perceivers to simplify and understand the huge amounts of social information that they confront and to make inferences that go beyond available information (p. 524). They also say that self-enhancement goals include the need to protect and enhance self-esteem. Lastly, motivation to avoid prejudice inhibits the activation of stereotypes. When people notice that they are treating others differently because of their skin color, they will feel the discrepancies because they know it is not right. Therefore they feel guilty which ma kes them repress their prejudiced thoughts. Another part of the goal-based theory is why there is prejudice in the first place. Kenrick, Neugberg, and Cialdini (2009) feel that there are two things that prejudice does for people, it helps us gain economic resources and the characteristics of the other groups bring our economic goals to our attention. The first way to achieve the goals of the goal-based theory is to attempt to change the character of the prejudiced person. The second is to change the situation in which the prejudiced person feels like they can discriminate against others. Next is to give people a different way to satisfy their goals and last is to activate goals incompatible with prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. Part of the goal-based approach involves looking at the point of view of other people. Galinksy and Moskowitz (2000) say that when a person looks at themselves, they have higher favorable responses to the ingroup. Turner (1987) says favoritism increases toward the in-group (as cited in, Galinsky Moskowitz, 2000, p. 709). Therefore, thinking that you are part of the outgroup will increase positive responses to them and decrease prejudice thoughts about them (Galinsky Moskowitz, 2000). In the judicial area, the goal-based approach has some significance. Studying about prejudice and ingroups and outgroups can become very important especially for those who may be suing another person in civil court for injury that they could have caused. People tend to like others who are similar to them (Kerr, Hymes, Anderson, Weathers, 1995). If a juror feels that they are not similar to the plaintiff in a malpractice case that juror might feel that the plaintiff should get a lower amount of money to compensate for the damages or perhaps believe they should not get any money at all. The same applies to the defendant. If the juror feels they are similar to the defendant than they could be more lenient on his punishment (Green Bornstein, 2003). However, Marques and Yzerbyt (1988) say that the opposite effect can also happen. That is, the jurors are harsher on an ingroup member because they are part of the ingroup and they pose a threat to the positive image of the ingroup members. They call it the black sheep effect in which positively viewed ingroup members are viewed better than outgroup members but negatively viewed ingroup members are viewed as being worse than outgroup members (as cited in, Green Bornstein 2003). Finally, there is the ignorance hypothesis. People experience prejudiced thoughts because they simply do not know any better (Kenrick, Neugberg, Cialdini, 2009). If everyone would interact with the other groups, they wouldnt stereotype individuals of other groups. However, Stephan and Stephan (1996) say research shows that this approach does little to reduce prejudice (as cited in, Kenrick, Neuburg, Cialdini, 2009). Case (2007) did a study in which college students were required to take a course on diversity. The course was designed to heighten recognition of White privilege and racism, raise support for affirmative action, and decrease prejudice, guilt, and fear of other races. The students took a survey at the beginning of the course which measured White privilege, awareness of racism, and the students level of racism to different ethnic groups. The same survey was given at the end of the semester as well. Results showed white privilege, awareness of racism and support for affirmative action increased. However, students reported greater fear of other races. Students levels of racism remained constant except for racism against Latinos, which increased. Case explains this as possibly being by chance or that the course could have actually increased prejudice. Blanchard, Lilly, and Vaughn (1991) hypothesized that hearing another person express strong antiracist opinions would have more of an effect than hearing another person express equal opinions or opinions that were more accepting of racism. They also speculated that when a person hears another person express strong support of racism, the first person showed less support of antiracism. They did two studies in which they interviewed college students in a group with a confederate who either openly expressed strong antiracist views or strong racist views when asked about a false situation in what should happen to another student who wrote racist notes. There was a neutral condition in which the participant answered the questions first and in the other condition the confederate answered first. The authors hypotheses were confirmed in both of the experiments. In 2007, four studies were done by Turner, Hewstone, and Loci that investigated self-disclosure as a mediator of the effect of cross-group friendship and vicarious experiences of such friendship (p. 371). The subjects for studies one were children between the ages of eight and twelve. The ages of the children for subjects two and three were 12 through 16. The last study included undergraduate students. In Study One, students were first given tasks that required them to categorize photographs of faces as negative or positive and White or Asian. The last tasks were to categorize White/Positive or Asian/Negative and White/Negative or Asian/Positive. In Study Two, the students were given questionnaires on their thoughts on the other ethnic group. The third study was the same as the second study except the experimenters used a larger group. In Study Four, White participants were given a questionnaire that measured predictor variables, mediator variables, and explicit outgroup attitude. So me of questions were, How often do you discuss intimate or personal issues with people who are Asian? (p. 380) and How rewarding are the interactions you have with Asian people? (p. 380). All four studies found that self-disclosure positively predicted explicit outgroup attitude. Vrij, Akehurst, and Smith (2003) conducted a study where people were shown cue cards and then were given surveys to measure prejudice. They focused on seven principles, that they say decrease prejudice when used in public campaigns. The seven principles are (1) an emphasis on similarities; (2) positive similarities in a positive context; (3) many representative members; (4) provision of explicit information; (5) employ a credible source; (6) state illegality; (7) central and peripheral routes to persuasion (p. 285). Each of the cue cards had one of the seven principles or the opposite of it. For example, state illegality was shown on one cue card as one White man and one Black man approximately the same age with wording above them that said These two men applied for a job as an Accounts Manager. The man on the left was turned down because he is Black (p. 291); the other card was the same as the first one but had the wording IT IS ILLEGAL TO DISCRIMINATE ON THE GROUNDS OF RACE (RACE R ELATIONS ACT, 1976) (p. 291). Subjects were then given a survey that measured their prejudice. Vrij, Akehurst, and Smith found that if the subject viewed a card that did not have one of the seven principles, their prejudice had increased versus if they had seen one of the principles. The two principles that had the most effect were emphasis of similarities and similarities in a positive context. Carpenter, Za ´rate, and Garzas study that was done in 2007, focused on using differences and individuality to reduce prejudice in groups that are African American, White American, Mexican American, and Mexican National. In Experiment One, the African American and White American participants were first primed with stories that had an emphasis on the personal self or others. Then, they filled out questionnaires while looking at pictures of African Americans and White Americans. The White Americans, who were primed to have an emphasis on others, had reduced prejudice. However, the African Americans showed no difference in prejudice levels. In Experiment Two, White Americans, Mexican Americans, and Mexican Nationals took self-esteem tests and then answered questions on all three groups. Carpenter, Za ´rate, and Garza (2007) found that self-esteem did not have any effect on prejudice and that looking at ways that your own ethnic group is different from other groups can lessen prejudi ce. Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) did a meta-analysis of over 500 studies and 713 independent samples that tested the intergroup contact theory. Their findings showed that intergroup contact does decrease intergroup prejudice. Pettigrew and Tropp go on to say that the conditions are not independent but entwined with each other. They also feel that intergroup contact can be utilized to end prejudice against other underrepresented groups. Racism not only exists among individual people but also in government forms. Billingsley and Giovannoni (1972) have been doing studies that show that African American children have been consistently counted out from services provided by child welfare establishments, they believe this is due to racism that exists in these institutions (as cited in, Miller Ward, 2008). Miller and Ward (2008) say there has been overrepresentation of African Americans in the welfare system for a long time. They then go on to talk about the Breakthrough Series Collaborative (BSC) methodology was used to analyze the welfare systems racism and then identify strategies to reduce the racial disproportions. The BSC theory of change has six areas which are (1) increase the awareness and understanding of the issue, (2) identify challenges and test strategies for improvement, (3) implement site-level policy and practice improvements, (4) spread the improvements throughout the larger system, (5) sustain system-wi de improvements, and (6) improve child and family outcomes (p. 227). Many participants of the program reported being able to achieve a fully functional program in their location. However, the participants said they had difficulty spreading changes from their location to a larger system. More work still needs to be done to stop the racial prejudice that occurs in the welfare system. There are also racial discrepancies in the health care system. For example, according to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2006, the age-adjusted death rate for White Americans of both sexes, was 764.4 and for African Americans of both sexes, it was 982.0 (Heron, Hoyert, Murphy, Xu, Kochanek, Tejada-Vera, 2009). In 2002, Dovidio et al. conducted a study of racism that occurs during an emergency. White subjects were half as likely to help a Black person as they were to help a White person. While the participants opposed that the idea they were racist, it was the only difference in the fabricated emergency (as cited in Carlson Chamberlain, 2004, p. 375). Carlson and Chamberlain (2004) say that to reduce the health disparities between White Americans and African Americans, there must be a change in the research areas that combine social conditions with the physiological pathways to health and disease and that we need to join together on emotional levels to understand each other to c hange racial attitudes. In addition to healthcare and welfare, racism has even showed up in our grocery stores. In a study that was done in 2003, Topolski, Boyd-Bowman, and Ferguson found differences in the quality of fruits in grocery stores that were part of the same chain but were located in different parts of the city. They collected fruit samples from stores that were located in neighborhoods that had high socio-economic status and low socio-economic status. More minorities lived in the lower income neighborhoods. The quality of the fruit in the high SES neighborhood was better than the fruit that came from the other neighborhood, as judged by students who examined, ate the fruit and then rated them. As you can see, there is hope for eliminating racial prejudice. On the other hand, a lot of the studies that I presented in this paper were done with children and college students. It still leaves out a majority of the population. Yet, I think we have come a long way from previous generations in accepting others, especially in the case of race and ethnicity. If we eliminate or even reduce racial prejudice, then minority children will do better in school, they will have better economic and career opportunities, and will experience lower rates of crime against them. With the current research on racial prejudice, we could also apply these theories to sexism, homophobia, and ageism. Hopefully, in time, Andy Warhols I think everybody should like everybody quote will finally be true.

Two Former Tyco Executives Found Guilty

The past three years have witnessed stunning financial collapses in many companies that were ranked among the most admired companies in America. Sunbeam, Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, and HealthSouth were lauded, imitated, and studied for their stunning performances. Now they are studied for their failures. What went wrong? How could so much go so wrong? And, the inevitable question, where were the auditors and the accountants as these financial statements of well-being were released? Tyco International CEO Dennis Kozlowski, former CFO Mark Swartz, and former general counsel Mark Belnick were all indicted on charges that Kozlowski and Swartz, among others, stole $170 million from the company and pocketing $430 million from the fraudulent sale of Tyco stock. Belnick was charged with hiding $14 million in loans to himself. Tyco's management fired back as well. It filed a lawsuit against Kozlowski looking to recoup $244 million in pay and benefits. Tyco, over the period between 1964 and 2001, went from a small research firm based in New Hampshire to a conglomerate with a presence in over 100 countries and over 250,000 employees. Between 1991 and 2001, then-CEO Dennis Kozlowski took Tyco from $3 billion in annual sales to $36 billion in 2001 with over 200 acquisitions at a cost of $60 billion. It was through its expansive acquisition program that Tyco's accounting pushed the envelope. Tyco made its acquisitions look as anemic as possible. Called â€Å"spring-loading,† the goal was to have the acquired company seem to be a nonperformer in terms of earnings, much below its actual performance. However, if the acquired company then simply performs normally the following year, Tyco enjoys a boost to both its growth as well as respect for its management ability. Spring-loading is easily accomplished by, for example, having the acquired company pay all bills for the acquisition, even if that bill is not due, and also pay all other bills, whether they are due and owing. Raychem's treasurer sent out the following email when Tyco was acquiring Raychem: At Tyco's request, all major Raychem sites will pay all pending payables, whether they are due or not †¦ I understand from Ray [Raychem's CFO] that we have agreed to do this, even though we will be spending the money for no tangible benefit either to Raychem or Tyco. A report completed by David Boies, at the direction of Tyco's board, included an interview with an employee of another Tyco acquisition in which the employee indicates that a Tyco executive asked: â€Å"How high can we get these things? How can we justify getting this higher?† (Ackroyd & Thompson, 1999). The Boies report indicates that Tyco executives used both incentives and pressure on executives in order to get them to push the envelope on accounting rules in the acquisition process. The SEC has begun an investigation into Tyco's accounting in its acquisition of U.S. Surgical in 1998. Documents in the case include memoranda between Tyco financial executives proposing ways to slow U.S. Surgical's growth between the Tyco acquisition announcement and actual transfers of the assets. The memos refer to their ideas as â€Å"financial engineering†. Just prior to final closure, U.S. Surgical took a one-time hit of $322 million in miscellaneous charges. Beginning in the last quarter of 2001, Tyco's shares began to drop in price as shareholders realized the extent of the accounting creativity. By the summer of 2002, when Kozlowski was indicted for sales tax evasion on transactions involving his personal art collection, shareholder trust was dissipated and Tyco's shares had fallen 80 percent, from over $50 per share to just above $10. For purposes of examining ethics instruction for accountants, auditors, and managers, there are two common factors in these case studies. First, the financial pictures painted of the companies were grossly distorted. Only the level of sophistication in terms of masking the true financial condition varies among the companies. Enron used the slightly more nuanced SPEs while WorldCom used the less glitzy sleight of hand in turning ordinary expenses into capital expenses. Sunbeam relied on quantitative materiality standards to evade detection of its management of numbers, and HealthSouth seemed to start with the numbers it wanted for results and work backward. Second, these were also companies trying to maintain exponential growth. There were continuing pledges from their CEOs to keep the double-digit growth going. That pressure to maintain numbers increased with each passing quarter as the economy took a downturn and as their once unique strategies for growth fell victim to competition or the realities of economic cycles. The distortions were a function of their goals of maintaining an unrealistic pace of earnings growth. In short, individuals in the companies felt pressure and succumbed to deceit to satisfy increasing demands. These companies and those responsible for their financial reports were not dabbling in gray areas. The issues in these cases are clear and the conduct plainly wrong. With all the training in ethics and professional responsibility, the question that arises is as follows: How could so much go so wrong for so long in such large companies with no one raising an effective objection to halt the juggernauts of creative financial reporting and accounting? That this question must be posed in the wake of such staggering failures actually provides the answer. The answer is that those who were engaged in the creative and, often, not-so-creative but fraudulent accounting were trained in schools of business in which the curriculum (including ethics courses) is misguided in terms of training ethical leaders. The senior officer group of Enron included M.B.A.s who were trained during the financial wizardry era of M.B.A. programs in the 1980s. Mark Schwartz, the CFO of Tyco, held an M.B.A. Jeffrey K. Skilling, the former CEO of Enron, held an M.B.A. from Harvard. Andrew Fastow, then CFO, graduated from the Kellogg School at Northwestern. Clifford Baxter, another member of Enron's senior executive team, graduated from NYU's M.B.A. program. Tragically, Mr. Baxter took his own life following the collapse of Enron and during the period of daily revelations about its activities and the pending Congressional hearings. Mr. Baxter clearly saw the accounting issues within the company because Sherron Watkins, considered the whistleblower in the case, references him in her internal memo as someone who understood the accounting improprieties. Mr. Baxter left the company in the final months prior to its collapse. The M.B.A. curriculum has, since the time of the Milken and Boesky era, trained students in the importance of smoothing out earnings so as to maximize shareholder value, the often-stated role of business. While the role of business in society and the issues surrounding maximizing shareholder wealth are typical topics of coverage in ethics courses and modules in business schools, very little in textbooks and mandates from the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) focuses on moral absolutes or â€Å"bright line† virtue ethics such as honesty, fairness, or even false impressions in financial disclosures. The AACSB guidelines contain no mandates or references to these issues of honesty or training students in resolution of dilemmas involving honesty, disclosure, and false impression. The typical topics for business ethics textbooks, indeed for the literature in the field, center around social responsibility, and include a plethora of materials and cases on environmental issues, health and safety issues, sweatshops, diversity, and corporate philanthropy. The officers of all of the companies examined here and the companies themselves were all heavily involved in community and philanthropic work. Because of the focus of business schools on social responsibility as ethics, many of these officers and, to a large extent, the cultures of these companies, felt comfortable with deceptions in the name of shareholder value because they were accomplishing what they were trained to do in business school and they had ethics derived from their dedication to philanthropy, diversity, and environmentalism. These were all â€Å"soft† companies in the sense that they were not involved in those types of activities that are the targets of environmental protesters or labor activists. These were not companies running sweatshops or producing chemicals. Their perception of being â€Å"good† derived from the definition of good touted and taught by business ethicists in schools of business. The split, in their minds, between right and wrong did not lie along the lines of virtue ethics, but, rather, along the lines of social responsibility. Enron's CFO, Andrew Fastow, was beloved in Houston's Jewish community for his fund-raising for the city's proposed Holocaust museum. He was also involved in the city's art museum and virtually every other philanthropic cause related to the arts in the Houston area. Even those who worked with these officers in community projects and fund-raising had equated social responsibility with ethics, and were consistently shocked when Enron's financial conduct and reports were revealed. All of the companies noted here, as well as Charles Keating's American Continental and Finova Capital (the 7th-largest bankruptcy in the history of the United States), were widely known for their dedication to philanthropic activity, social responsibility, environmental activism, and dedication to community generosity. The curricula at business schools had permitted them the luxury of rationalization when it came to accounting and financial reporting because, in their minds, they had reached the conclusion Jeffrey Skilling touted in nearly every interview he gave, which was, â€Å"We are on the side of angels†. The behavior of executives in these companies reflects their grounding in any one of the three currently used models of business school ethics training: (1) the social responsibility model; (2) the code model; and (3) the stakeholder/normative model. Under the social responsibility model, students are educated in the importance of environmentalism, diversity, human rights, and philanthropy. Included in this approach may also be extensive discussions of product liability issues. Deficiencies in this approach are characterized in the previous section. The most descriptive list of this approach to ethics is found in the screens used by social responsibility investment funds, listed as follows: 1. The hiring of women and minorities; 3. Equity interest and ownership of South African operations (this screen is now dated because of the elimination of apartheid); 5. No layoffs and the hiring and promotion of those with disabilities; 6. No generation of revenue from weapons production; 7. Donations and the use of economically disadvantaged contractors and suppliers; and So long as stock prices are cranking up, it seems the CEO can be â€Å"cellophane man† for all anyone cares. But CEO divas are still quite an item in the business press. One thing is clear: Credibility and character count. Post-Enron, integrity and fair play matter more than the old gung-ho. Press reports about the lack of executive integrity are everywhere. One notable media story exposed the rise of companies conducting extensive background checks, complete with credit reports and neighbor interviews, for prospective CEOs. Ronald Zarrella, Bausch and Lomb's chief executive, was found to have shaded the truth about his credentials, saying he had an M.B.A. from New York University. Actually, he left prior to graduating. The board responded by cutting him out of a $1.1 million year-end bonus. Today CEOs are getting slammed for hoarding huge bonuses as they terminate legions of mid-level managers and production workers in the face of recession fears. Dennis Koslowski, CEO of Tyco, siphoned off millions from the firm by granting and forgiving employee relocation loans. He used the wealth for such essentials as a $15,000 umbrella. A guilty plea by one auditor and the criminal conviction of his audit firm have resulted in statutory reform, new policies on financial reporting, and stricter regulatory requirements for audit firms. When all the reform dust settles, however, and the new statutes, regulations, and rules are implemented, auditors and those who educate them will still be left with the same question: why were auditors willing to allow the types of financial reports and reporting decisions that produced fundamentally unfair and inaccurate portraits of the companies they were auditing? The answer to this question requires exploration of ethics education in both business schools and schools of accountancy. While there are voids in that training, there are also seminal works that could be used to help future accountants and auditors understand the dilemmas they will face and how to resolve such dilemmas. The Israeli bank-shares fiasco, the Enron affair, and, in its wake now, the WorldCom and Tyco scandals clearly demonstrate that unethical managers are a liability not only to their own organizations, but to the general public. The problem is that the formulation and publication of codes of ethics alone do not guarantee that managers and employees will behave ethically. Moreover, it is evident that managerial ethical behavior has a great deal of influence on the ethical climate and culture of the organization. Walking the talk is the name of the game, managers must not only be familiar with the ethical culture and accept it, but must serve as examples to the rest of the corporation. Any disparity between the declared ideology of the organization and managers' behavior has a deleterious effect. To establish a reputation of ethical leadership, managers must adhere to a high moral ground and ensure that their actions are perceived to be ethical. When ethical dilemmas are not confronted and when ethical aspects of daily managerial life are ignored, employees quickly perceive that ethical considerations do not constitute an integral component of the organization. They may rightly observe that bottom line and profits, not integrity and accountability, are core values. Consequently, when employees are faced with an ethical dilemma, the almighty dollar is most likely to rule the day.

Infinitely Waiting for Godot Essay

Vladimir and Estragon are two tramps waiting for someone who is never going to come around. We all may find ourselves waiting at one point in time may it are at the grocery store or simply waiting outside of my English class. One may come to find that these two characters are a picturesque example of the futility of human life. â€Å"They talk, they walk, they play different games, they abuse and rebuke each other, even they try to attempt suicide to free themselves from the agonies of life but this remains just an abortive attempt† (Shabnum 1). This inability to free themselves from the shackles of their average day to day monotony makes for a repetitive and predictable play. This repetitiveness only furthers the idea that the pair will be waiting for Godot eternally. The pair seems to be drawn to Godot for one reason or another and cannot bring themselves to leave before they meet Godot. â€Å"As Vladimir and Estragon are already condemned to endless suffering in the form of ceaseless waiting, the spectator might expect them to focus their game on a more optimistic issue† (Karic 2). As Vladimir and Estragon wait on Godot they exemplify the senselessness of human life. Vladimir who can be characterized as the alpha male of the group constantly states that he would like to leave, but the drive to stay put precedes his desire to leave. Knowing this one could assume that Vladimir is extremely discontent with himself. His alpha male persona he portrays is simply a faà §ade to hide his inner feelings of boredom and loneliness. The exchanging of hats between Vladimir and Pozzo show that, Vladimir is yearning for outside stimulus. This give-and-take of hats can be looked at as an interchange of Vladimir’s and Pozzo’s thoughts. This longing for an external source of sensory information is what keeps Vladimir endlessly waiting. Estragon is a sharp contrast from the boldness of Vladimir. Estragon seems to be sitting throughout the entire play which shows his submissiveness to Vladimir. This submissiveness not only defines Estragon’s personality but his viewpoint on life as well. As the play begins to unwind Estragon’s mental continuity begins to deteriorate. This mental deterioration is caused by the endless waiting on Godot. â€Å"In Waiting for Godot, the gradual dilapidation of every character can be felt through different forms of depravity, for depravity exists in all its form – mental, physical, spiritual†(Shabnum 1). This decline is exemplified when Estragon cannot recognize Pozzo and Lucky. Estragon is stuck waiting for Godot for many of the aforementioned reasons stated above. Foremost, Estragon can never seem to make decisions on his own which in turn will keep him waiting for Godot. This lack of decision making on Estragon’s part shows that his real reason why he waits for Godot, is that he is seeking some sort of guidance which Godot can provide. If one can view Godot as a heavenly figure then a religious aspect is added onto why the pair continues to wait for Godot. â€Å"In any case, the tramps expect that when Godot will at last come, they will sleep in a warm and secure shelter, in dry straw, their stomachs filled, and this is why one of them exclaims, â€Å"We shall be saved† (Terrian 7). This idea that Godot is a god figure coming to provide the pair with salvation from death is what keeps them waiting. While the pair continues to wait on Godot they are inevitably coming closer and closer to their death. Although, Vladimir and Estragon could be waiting for a savior they are at the same time killing themselves. In both of the characters minds there is something that Godot can provide for them that they themselves cannot obtain. This only further reinforces the idea that Godot is either some sort of angelical or extraterrestrial being. Why would the pair continue to wait for Godot if they could achieve what they w anted without Godot? The possibility of Godot bestowing the pair with something unworldly is clearly a prospect for thought. Each character also brings to the table many characteristics both innate and learned. First, Vladimir easily draws us into his persona by showing us that he is the most assertive of the pair. In most cases people are drawn to figures of authority. Vladimir perfectly takes on this role of authority over Estragon and this is what first draws the reader into his persona. As one delves deeper into Vladimir’s actions and persona it is easily seen that Vladimir cannot make decisions easily. This is a stern contradiction with his commanding relationship over Estragon. This distinction between being a leader and being unable to make decisions is what makes the pair extremely magnetic. Almost like a married couple, the pair has become so used to bickering and fighting that they need that in their lives to survive. This reliance on one another is also what draws the pair together. The reliance that each of these characters has on one another is not a true friendship as neither of their actions show any deeper relationship between the two. Many times throughout the play Vladimir and Estragon both suggest that they would be better off alone but the pair is extremely hesitant to separate from one another. The setting in which the pair are stuck waiting for Godot is extremely desolate. This lack of anything else to rely on for entertainment or sustenance is what drives the two characters to come together and form a mutual relationship. This sense of nothingness and desolation of the location they are currently in is only combatted by the presence of one another. Vladimir seems to have either had a severe sleeping problem or that he does not want to be lonely when Estragon falls asleep. Constantly trying to wake Estragon up, Vladimir shows us that he does not like to be alone with his thoughts.

Crime Prevention At Osgood Hall Law School - 969 Words

Throngs of activists, the bulk of them female, will parade down the streets of Downtown Los Angeles next week. Scantly clad women will conceal their faces with cardboard cut outs inscribed with words like â€Å"slut† or â€Å"whore†. The signs that they hold up in protest will read â€Å"still not asking for it.† It’s called SlutWalk. Almost five years ago, two events ignited this transnational movement. The first one occurred on January 24th in 2011 when Toronto police officer named Michael Sanguitti and his colleagues were speaking about campus crime prevention at Osgood Hall Law School. While addressing the issue of sexual assault on campus, Michael Sanguitti gave the students some not-so-sage advice, saying, â€Å"Women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.† Not even a month later, on February 18th, 2011, Justice Robert Dewar convicted a city council employee named Kenneth Rhodes of sexual assault. The prosecution pushed for a prison sentence, but Rhodes cited several reasons for believing his victim consented. These included that she was wearing a tube top, wearing â€Å"a lot† of makeup, willingly kissed him, and made it clear she wanted to â€Å"party.† In contrast to this â€Å"consent,† he admitted she resisted his advances several times and he raped her on the side of the road, and by his own account he said, â€Å"It will only hurt for a little while.† His punishment was two years of House arrest, after Justice Dewar described him as a â€Å"clumsy Don Juan,† whom had bee mislead