- Discrimination questions
- Examples of discrimination in society today
- Discrimination individual vs institutional
- Prejudice and discrimination based on race, ethnicity, power, social class, and prestige
- Stereotypes stereotype threat, and self fulfilling prophecy
Discrimination individual vs institutional
Discrimination can be defined in two ways: individual and institutional. Individual discrimination refers to the prejudiced behavior of one person, while institutional discrimination refers to the way an organization's rules or policies disadvantage certain groups. Although they are distinct, these two forms of discrimination can be interconnected. Individual discrimination can be reinforced by institutional policies, and vice versa, which leads to a larger, systemic issue. (. Created by James Howick.
Want to join the conversation?
- at0:02,why would discrimination have to be against minorities? I do not think that is accurate. Wealthy people are clearly not the majority, and more than one of them discriminates against people based on wealth or income.(9 votes)
- Perhaps it may help to define a few terms...
Dominant group: A group of people with more power than other groups (subordinate groups) in a society.
Minority group: Any group that is discriminated against, treated unequally, or singled out as different, and because of this treatment regards themselves as objects of discrimination
So when we look at the statement at0:02"Discrimination is differential treatment and harmful actions against minorities, the key word being actions..."; I would think of minority group here as 'any subordinate group', since this is how it is normally used in sociology.
Wealthy people are normally the dominant group in society, wealth often equals power. The wealthy can be stereotyped, discriminated against, etc.... At that point it may be more accurate to describe the wealthy as a minority group. Wealthy people can belong to other groups, which may be considered a minority group based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, or other traits.
Wagley and Harris in 1958 defined a minority group as:
1. treated unequally or having less power
2. treatment is distinguished by physical or cultural traits.
3. involuntary membership
4. awareness of unequal treatment
5. high rate of in-group marriage
Hope this helps!(52 votes)
- The last part of the video talks about the girl being 'past-in-present' discriminated against, however, you talk about her feelings and not her actually being discriminated against. Are you saying this type of discrimination is based on the feelings of the victim? [I couldn't find another appropriate word other than victim].(4 votes)
- Well it's not just that. In every case it's about how the minority group feels about being discriminated upon. Aside from that, imagine yourself attending a segregated school, as segregation is lifted by law. The people who were actively segregating you are still in school. Segregation and discrimination are still very much present in the school. It's just not enforced by law, but by the institution. In fact many African American students did not feel safe attending white schools even after they could no longer lawfully discriminate against them, because they were bullied and harassed by students and teachers.
Same happened when slaves were freed from farms, but in a much more apparent way. They flooded towards the cities in order to start a life, only to be met by resistance from townsmen. Who even went as far as slaughtering them.(9 votes)
- How is past-in-present discrimination a type of unintentional discrimination?(2 votes)
- Take this example (from Our Social World, by Ballantine, Roberts, and Korgen):
In the 1950s, in USA, schools invested less money on black students ($34 each) than white students ($147 each). This intentional discrimination no longer exists, but the effects do. These individuals grew up with lower incomes, thus they had lower Social Security checks. Now who's suffering? Their children and grandchildren. The 1950s graduates can't financially support their family to go to college. As a result, in the present, fewer African Americans are entering college than white people. The US government discriminated against blacks intentionally in 1950, but today, they don't intend for blacks to be discriminated against. It's an unintentional long-term outcome of what was once an intentional decision.(11 votes)
- Is unintentional discrimination only manifested by institutions or are individuals capable of doing this as well?(5 votes)
- What's the difference between Dissemination and Diffusion??(2 votes)
- 2:38How is that discrimination? Who's fault is that?? They took the guilty plea just because it "seemed" like a minority had never gotten a non-guilty verdict. How about doing some actual research? And invoking your rights as an American (if you are here legally) and getting the non-guilty verdict if you actually are innocent. That way no "side effect discrimination" has to occur
Please, as an immigrant and a minority myself, we are not victims.(1 vote)
- even though @238 an example is begun, the side effect discrimination is exemplified more around @2:53where the applicant"s criminal record is weighed regardless of the truth (plausible since there are true cases of individuals falsely incarcerated but that is besides the point just as @238 serves no significant substance to the definition just khan academy trying to be entertaining for learning purposes i presume)(2 votes)
- This is more of a labeling/ethics issue, but I don't think that "unintentional" can even be used to classify any kind of discrimination. Discrimination, in its being, can never be unintentional. No one "accidentally" takes harmful actions and treats people differently. Any kind of discrimination that is presented as unintentional in this video should really be called something like "secondary discrimination," where it's discrimination based on past intentional discrimination. Unintentional discrimination is a bad way to describe these actions because it seems like it's almost excusing the discriminators by saying that "they didn't mean it." Yes, they did. To some degree, it was definitely intentional.(1 vote)
- Is it stated in any of the videos that being part of a minority group has to be involuntary? How about religion? If a given religion be considered a minority in a given geographical location, then an individual who chooses not to follow such religion will become a voluntary member of a minority group, since he/she would be subject to everything other minorities face.(1 vote)
- Does being racist falls under both Individual and Past-in-Present category for discrimination?(1 vote)
- Yes! It depends on who is doing the discriminatory deed. In fact, it could also fit under side-effect discrimination. For example, I'm just making this up, a person from a certain race is discriminated by employers at an an institution leading to them having no income with which to pay for internet. Thus, these poor people will not become aware of a job posting from another institution that is only posted on the internet. This second institution is discriminating against people w/o internet, whom do not have internet because another institution discriminated against them and didn't give them a job=an income=ability to buy internet.(0 votes)
- Why does the definition include "against minorities" when you include an example that affects the female sex (the professor discriminating against women). Women (and girls) are not a minority. We actually make up 51% of the population. We are definitely discriminated against but I believe the definition must be slightly wrong because we are NOT a minority.(0 votes)
- [Voiceover] Discrimination is differential treatment and harmful actions against minorities, the key word here being actions. And discrimination can be based on a ton of different factors including race, age, religion, and the list goes on and on. And discrimination can occur at the individual level, but it can also happen at an organizational or institutional level. So, first, let's take a look at an example of individual discrimination. So for individual discrimination you can say that this is a science professor, for example, and he does not like women so he will not let them in his class no matter what. And that's how he is. He says, "Hey, no women are allowed "to learn physics in my class." So because he is an individual person and he's acting against a certain type of people based on sex in this case, but it could have been on age, race, religion, whatever, that is individual discrimination. So he is taking action. It's him, one person. On the other hand, we have institutional discrimination. So institutional discrimination is really just an organization discriminating. It's not an individual anymore. So this can include governments, banks, schools, any sort of organization. So the example we'll look at is Brown v. Board of Education, and this was a landmark court case in 1954. And in this court case, it overturned the fact that there used to be separate but equal schools. So African-Americans and whites had to go to different schools. Well, this in fact wasn't the case and that's what Brown was saying. He was saying, "Hey, even though you're saying "there are these separate but equal schools, "that actually is not true. We're having much more "inferior service to you, and we also aren't "receiving the same education, and we're being mistreated." So that is what institutional discrimination is, and it can be done through a couple different ways. And a couple types that we'll talk about are intentional and unintentional. And this is a law so this intentional, our example. And let's look at a couple examples of how institutional and organizational policies can actually discriminate unintentionally. So, first, we'll look at something called side-effect discrimination, and side-effect discrimination is an interesting thing because it talks about how one institution or organization or sort of sector can influence another negatively. So there's many institutions if we think about it. There's economics. There's politics, government, law, business, medicine. We have all sorts, and they all are interdependent and related in some way. And that is what side-effect discrimination is saying. So if one area is sort of discriminating or doing something, it can affect another. So let's take a look at this example. So let's say in a small town it seems that an African-American man has never gotten a non-guilty verdict. So many minorities plead guilty to a lesser charge even though they may have been innocent, and they didn't think they could get off on a fair verdict in this city so they just took the lesser crime. Well, let's fast forward. They're trying to apply to a job now, and while applying to the job their criminal record comes up and the employer he has nothing. He just uses the information about the applicant's criminal record, and they don't intend to discriminate by any means. There's no ill will, but they end up doing so whether or not the individual was guilty or not, and this is side-effect discrimination. So it's unintentional. So by the criminal justice system having reached an unjust verdict, it wasn't fair at all, the potential employer is swayed in an unfair way. So that's side-effect discrimination, one institution affecting another. So a second way unintentional discrimination can occur is through something called past-in-present discrimination. And past-in-present discrimination talks about how things that were done in the past, even though they may no longer be allowed, they can have consequences for people in the present. An example would be Brown v. Board of Education. Before this verdict, African-Americans and white people had to attend different schools. So just after the decision, let's say that there's a girl and she wants to go to an integrated school now with white kids and black kids both in the same classroom but now she's clearly not, she doesn't feel welcome. She still feels mistreated, and it's still not going well for her so that's past-in-present discrimination. That's a negative attitude from the past coming forward to the present, and it causes a minority to be discriminated against unfairly.