Fresh From Stereotypes (Fresh Off the Boat)

this doesn't actually pertain to the blog post but @TheBluestEye

Let's get something clear: discrimination is a two-way street.  Anyone and everyone can  be discriminated against, there's just the matter of how well-known and what level this discrimination is operated on.  Beneatha exemplifies this idea when she so bluntly states, "[disliking rich people] makes just as much sense as disliking people 'cause they are poor, and lots of people do that" (50).  Sure, plenty of discrimination against the lower socioeconomic groups exists, but we can't ignore the fact that resentment and prejudice exists on higher classes as well.  This isn't to downplay the struggles of those who are at a financial disadvantage, which are undoubtedly vast; rather,  it is to bring to light the nature of discrimination (I'm talking discrimination itself, not what discrimination does): it *ironically* sees no age, color, or class.

Perhaps I'm not being clear.  Look at it this way: The young see the old as phased out, frail, suck-in-their-ways, and simply outdated.  Meanwhile, the old see the young as rash, naive, foolish, and untrained.  Discrimination functions both ways.

discrimination from both sides

Take affirmative action, for example.  It reinforces stereotypes for both those who benefit from it and those who don't.  On the one hand, it functions under the assumption that all African-American, Native-American, or Hispanic students attend inner-city, underfunded schools with a lack of resources, and implies that any students from these race groups are incapable of making it into certain schools or occupations on their own merit.

reminiscent of the Gratz v. Bollinger case?

On the other hand, affirmative action maintains that all Caucasian and Asian-American students are overly privileged and that school is "easy" for them.  On the contrary, plenty of poor Asian immigrants exist, just as there are African Americans living in the upper middle class or even in the top 1%.  If affirmative action exists to show compassion and consideration for the hardships felt historically by certain racial groups, why does it still send a message of indifference towards others?

By asserting that race closely equates the economic well-being of applicants, affirmative action perpetuates a double-edged discrimination.  Should, then, adversities go by uncompensated for?  Of course not, but they should be done rightly so.  The resources available to each student should be assessed by some other means other than simply color; current methods leave room for more qualified candidates to be passed in hopes of making (at times) dubious social gains.  

Just as stereotypes can be applied to any group, so can discrimination.  This is because the root reasoning, the foundation of any type of discrimination is founded upon over generalizations and misconceptions.  Stereotypes and discrimination go hand in hand, and both are far from being eliminated.  In the end, all we can really do is make judgement with a handful of doubt and the willingness to revise them.  

*****I know that affirmative action is a controversial topic, and I respect that there may be other opinions on it.  I encourage anyone willing to express their thoughts on the topic in the comment section.  Additionally, this blog post was inspired by a research paper I wrote last year on the topic.  If you'd like to read more about it or see evidence to back up my claim, you may click here to view it*****