Should the Government be more Open and Unbiased to Avoid Discrimination and Unjust Laws?
How it works
Since the 1870s when Jim Crow laws were introduced, discrimination and unjust laws have been around, causing people to be separated from others because of the color of their skin and being forced to use separate facilities in 1896 to avoid coming in contact with those who were “different”. An unjust law can make someone wish they were someone else and lower self-esteem excluding them from the standard view of what an American should be (King). In which makes all laws then that was separating blacks from whites, “unjust because of retaining to the color of skin and” destroying “the joy of being who you were born as”, (King).
The government has sat back and watched the world become more prejudiced. By 1954, integrated schools were introduced thanks to the supreme court ruling in the controversial case of Brown vs. Board of Education and 10 years later, the Civil Rights Act was passed beginning the breakdown of segregation. However, there must have been reasoning as to why discrimination and segregation started. The people could have felt intimidated by someone else and felt as though they were in danger but the true reason is unknown. Even now, those who’ve come looking for a better life are turned away because they don’t “belong”. The subtle barring cannot go unnoticed, this type of treatment is what prevents those from getting proper jobs deserved as a person in which arises the question, should the Government be more open and unbiased to avoid discrimination and unjust laws?
We are the same and yet diverse in which those who are afraid of something new or different shut others out. For example, Susan McGuire had found out that her mother was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, but because of the BRCA testing, she avoided getting tested herself because her results would not just be released to her, but to those of higher rank as well. Thus, exposing her to genetic discrimination and lowering her chances of a proper job (Hawkins). With this in mind, because of her DNA, she would be treated differently and even more so if she were diagnosed with cancer, pushing her out of different opportunities. It’s interesting how your DNA somehow has to do with the ability to perform a job properly and which jobs are specifically for an individual since they are of a certain race, gender, or worship a different God than other people. Then with those differences, causes someone to look and treat you differently than they would have if you had “fit in”. Unfortunately, not everyone is treated equally with the law or by others. But, when deciding the law and whom it may pertain to, the court has to take into consideration the different concerns which are automatically included since they are a real person.
However, it is common that this is usually overlooked (Tan 100). As studied by Harvard, there are over 200 cases of genetic discrimination in which started with a woman being fired from her job for testing positive for Huntington’s disease (Hawkins). Then there was the pregnant woman whose fetus had tested positive for cystic fibrosis which caused her health care to limit their coverage for her and her baby but said they’d be fully willing to pay for the woman to get an abortion (Hawkins). There needs to be a matter of private life staying private. There should be no reason for a person to be fired or denied rights because of his/her personal matters that in which should not stop them from working or bother other co-workers unless it is contagious or affects their physical ability. It is understood that people have a view of a race or gender due to a previous experience in which causes an individual to treat other people with that same description different because of that bad experience. The United States wants to keep those not born in the United States out because 9/11 had caused fear with the attack on the twin towers. Since then, a stereotype had begun to form and “the many restrictions on immigrants stop the millions looking for a new life from having one. These restrictions include getting certain jobs, renting or buying a home and stripping them of opportunities in which should be available to everyone (Somin 1).
There is right and wrong to the ways that people should be treated. To turn someone away based on their race or ethnicity is morally wrong. The color of your skin or whichever God you worship should not take away from your rights which truly belongs to you. There is nothing that should be restricted. Because of this, not only are immigrants affected, but also some of those that are native-born and of the same race/ethnicity (Somin 3). On the other hand, this affects everyone and the cycle continues as the human race turns against one another but it is supposed to be a nation; united we stand divided we fall and America should stand as one. When discrimination comes into play, so does biased opinions and decisions. Bias tends to occur when there is a strong need to roll off track of the main point. There are about two methods known. First is “public commitment to a pre-determined outcome”. It is like choosing one thing over another based off which you think is best. Or “path-dependent” in which can base future decisions off of the previous ones that may have worked before (Vaganay 4).
These methods affect many decisions and thus leads to an employer not hiring people that fall under a certain group because someone apart of that group had betrayed them or done them wrong. In turn, the “disparate impact” comes into play. This theory is known as the “disparate impact” states that when an activity leaves an effect on a race, gender, or ethnicity, it can and/or will be classified as discrimination even if there was no plan to single out a certain group (Clegg 79). So, without meaning to, people could be discriminatory without knowing and that is not their fault. Some don’t even notice they may be discriminated against. This ties into law making with the higher authorities. Someone should keep them in check since the world will soon follow these laws. Just because someone or a group may have power, does not mean that all the rules given by them should become law. A law has to be reasonable and unbiased. It has to better the country and not just a section of the country (Wyma 159). Even those of high authority can be wrong. We are all humans and can make mistakes. Then again, some choose not to address their mistakes openly and it leads to the question of “How many times can a man turn his head pretending he just doesn’t see?,” (Dylan). There is a problem that should be fixed regarding the treatment of others.
Trailing back to the source, government involvement has decreased when pertaining to citizen well-being. It is very important that the government is predictable and less “arbitrary” which makes the law more believable. In other words, to avoid that type of machine government, “probable cause standard is imposed,” (Bernman). But, laws have been made to attempt to make America better, but it only includes the perfect vision of better to those apart of Government and especially the President. Because of Trump’s “Zero Tolerance” policy, children are being taken away from their mothers and out in confinement where the people watching those kids are not allowed to hug the crying child or aid when they vomit (McBain 32). Just because they come from a different country, it doesn’t make it right to separate families if they are immigrants.“How many ears must one man have before he can hear people cry?” (Dylan).
They are people too and shouldn’t have to face that type of pain or any pain especially the kids who don’t have a clue as to what is going on. If thoroughly read, the first article in the Constitution does not give any power to restrict or degrade immigration. Only power with naturalization to be able to keep citizenship out of reach. It is possible for people to live in a country without citizenship (Somin 5). There is such a big deal about people who are supposed to be out the United States residing here. When in reality, they can be here if they want since it is apart of their given rights. According to Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, “In December 2014 President Obama’s Department of Homeland Security concluded that it cannot enforce immigration restrictions unless it continues to engage in massive racial profiling. This is the one area where the Obama administration believes that racial profiling is a good thing”. Laws against immigration are unjust and an unjust law usually tends to be directed at a minority that isn’t given the right to be able to change the presented law. As stated by King, “Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state’s segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered”. In a way, immigration laws work like this. Anything so that an outsider doesn’t become a citizen. Government officials have been trained to practice the “immigrant sanctuary” in which restrains the police and other federal powers from enforcing the immigration law (Gardner 2).
In conclusion, the law should not single out a minority, but address each race, gender, religion, and ethnicities equally under whichever laws are made. It is believed that a just law would vouch for the people’s safety and protection, respect religion in which follows God’s law, and avoid the possible negative effects of “evil actions”, (Wyma 160). The making of unjust laws allows for civil disobedience. If a law seems like it may not be good for the community, then stop and think “is it more harmful to the common good if we follow, or if we break, the unjust law?” because then an important decision is being made. If the law is broken, then will it do good for the area or bring in more conflict to stop people from protesting against the ‘unjust’ law. It also depends on the type of case being addressed (Wyma 165). Those who try to create change within an area are only attempting to bring the problem into the light so that it may be addressed. But if being ignored, the peaceful protest can become violent for the attention needed. Therefore the situation is not getting fixed (King). It is understood that laws made are put in place for a reason, but it should allow people to be who they truly are. See no color and understand the trouble that these kinds of laws have put others through in order to fit in the United States.
- Clegg, Roger. “The Bad Law of `disparate Impact.’.” Public Interest, no. 138, Winter 2000, p.
- 79. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&dbx=a9h&AN=2604112&site=ehost-live.
- Dylan, Bob. “Blowin’ In The Wind Lyrics.” Lyrics Freak, 1963,
- Gardner, Trevor George. “Immigrant Sanctuary as the ‘Old Normal’: A Brief History of Police
- Federalism.” Columbia Law Review, vol. 119, no. 1, Jan. 2019, pp. 1–83. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=134241107&site=ehost-live.
- Hawkins, Dana. “Dangerous Legacies.” U.S. News & World Report, vol. 123, no. 18, Nov. 1997 p. 99. EBSCOhost,
- King, Martin Luther. “‘Letter From Birmingham Jail.’” Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King,
- Jr.], 16 Apr. 1963, www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html.
- McBain, Sophie. “Inside America.” New Statesman, vol. 147, no. 5424, June 2018, p. 32.
- EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=130362902&site=ehost-live.
- Somin, Ilya. “Immigration, Freedom, and the Constitution.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public
- Policy, vol. 40, no. 1, Jan. 2017, pp. 1–7. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=122286534&site=ehost-live.
- Tan, Daniel YM. “Public Bodies, Unjust Enrichment and the Rule of Law.” Oxford University
- Commonwealth Law Journal, vol. 15, no. 1, July 2015, pp. 99–119. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/14729342.2015.1130255.
- Vaganay, Arnaud. “Outcome Reporting Bias in Government-Sponsored Policy Evaluations: A
- Qualitative Content Analysis of 13 Studies.” PLoS ONE, vol. 11, no. 9, Sept. 2016, pp. 1–21. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0163702.
- Wyma, Keith D. “When and How Should We Respond to Unjust Laws? A Thomistic Analysis of
- Civil Disobedience.” Christian Scholar’s Review, vol. 43, no. 2, Winter 2014, pp. 157–170. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=93881466&site=ehost-live.”