Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your
convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any
representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated “AS IS” and “AS
AVAILABLE” and are not retained in our systems. CENGAGE LEARNING AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY
AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY,
ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning
Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints Terms and Conditions and by using the
machine generated PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of
the machine generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom.

After the civil rights era, white Americans failed to support
systemic change to end racism. Will they now?
Author: Candis Watts Smith
Date: 2020
From: Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection
Publisher: Gale, a Cengage Company
Document Type: Viewpoint essay
Length: 1,359 words
Content Level: (Level 5)
Lexile Measure: 1330L

Full Text:
Article Commentary

“[W]hite Americans’ understanding of racism is too superficial to prompt them to support policies that have the potential to lead to
greater justice for Black Americans.”
Candis Watts Smith is an associate professor of political science and African American studies at Pennsylvania State University in
University Park, Pennsylvania. In the following viewpoint, Smith explores the principle-policy gap, which refers to the distance
between how people characterize their own values and their actual willingness to support social change. The author draws parallels
between the Black Lives Matter protests of the twenty-first century and the civil rights movement of the 1960s, which led to
substantial legislation like the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Though social attitudes have evolved over time, Smith
asserts that many white Americans still fail to understand the nuances and history of racism in the United States. Closing the
principle-policy gap, the author concludes, will require both sacrifice and action on the part of white Americans.

As you read, consider the following questions:

According to Smith, how has public perception of the Black Lives Matter movement changed since 2014?1.
What lessons does the author suggest that twenty-first century Americans can learn from the civil rights movement of the2.
1960s?
In your opinion, what can individual people do to help close the principle-policy gap? Explain your answer.3.

The first wave of the Black Lives Matter movement, which crested after the 2014 police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, had the
support of less than half of white Americans.

Given that Americans tend to have a very narrow definition of racism, many at that time were likely confused by the juxtaposition of
Black-led protests, implying that racism was persistent, alongside the presence of a Black family in the White House. Barack
Obama’s presidency was seen as evidence that racism was in decline.

The current, second wave of the movement feels different, in part because the past months of protests have been multiracial. The
media and scholars have noted that whites’ sensibilities have become more attuned to issues of anti-Black police violence and
discrimination.

After the first wave of the movement in 2014, there was little systemic change in response to demands by Black Lives Matter
activists. Does the fact that whites are participating in the current protests in greater numbers mean that the outcome of these
protests will be different? Will whites go beyond participating in marches and actually support fundamental policy changes to fight
anti-Black violence and discrimination?

As a scholar of political science and African American studies, I believe there are lessons from the civil rights movement 60 years ago
that can help answer those questions.

Principles didn’t turn into policy

The challenges that Black Americans face today do not precisely mimic those of the 1960s, but the history is still relevant.

During the civil rights movement of the mid-20th century, there was a concerted effort among Black freedom fighters to show white
Americans the kinds of racial terrorism the average Black American lived under.

Through the power of television, whites were able to see with their own eyes how respectable, nonviolent Black youth were treated by
police as they sought to push the U.S. to live up to its creed of liberty and equality for all of its citizens.

Monumental legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed, purportedly guaranteeing
protection from racial discrimination in many public spaces and equal opportunity to register to vote and cast a ballot.

Additionally, whites were increasingly likely to report attitudes that many would now view as nonracist over the following several
decades. For example, white Americans were more willing to have a nonwhite neighbor. They were less likely to support ideas of
biological racism or the idea that whites should always have access to better jobs over Blacks.

But these changed values and attitudes among whites never fully translated into support for government policies that would bring
racial equality to fruition for Blacks.

White Americans remained uncommitted to integrating public schools, which has been shown to drastically reduce the so-called
racial achievement gap. Whites never gave more than a modicum of support for affirmative action policies aimed to level the playing
field for jobs and higher education.

This phenomenon the distance between what people say they value and what they are willing to do to live up to their ideals is
so common that social scientists have given it a name: the principle-policy gap.

White Americans’ direct witness of police brutality led to a shift in racial attitudes and the passage of significant legislation. But even
these combined changes did not radically change the face of racial inequality in American society.

Going backward

By the 1970s and 1980s, political leaders would capitalize on whites’ sentiments that efforts for racial equality had gone too far.

That created an environment that allowed the retrenchment of civil rights-era gains. The Republican Party’s so-called “Southern
Strategy,” which aimed to turn white Southern Democrats into Republican voters, was successful in consolidating the support of white
Southerners through the use of racial dog whistles. And the War on Drugs would serve to disproportionately target and police already
segregated Black communities.

By the 1990s, racial disparities in incarceration rates had skyrocketed, schools began to resegregate, and federal and state policies
that created residential segregation and the existing racial wealth gap were never adequately addressed.

From understanding to action?

Scholars have made efforts to reveal the intricate and structural nature of racism in the U.S. Their analyses range from showing how
racial disparities across various domains of American life are intricately connected rather than coincidental; to highlighting the ways in
which race-neutral policies like the GI Bill helped to set the stage for today’s racial wealth gap; to explaining that America’s racial
hierarchy is a caste system.

But my research shows that white Americans, including white millennials, have largely become accustomed to thinking about racism
in terms of overt racial prejudice, discrimination and bigotry. They don’t see the deeper, more intractable problems that
scholars and Black activists have laid out.

Consequently, it has taken a filmed incident of incendiary racism to awaken whites to the problems clearly identified by Black
activists, just as it did for previous generations.

My research also shows that individuals’ understanding of the problem influences their willingness to support various policies. A big
issue that our society faces, then, is that white Americans’ understanding of racism is too superficial to prompt them to support
policies that have the potential to lead to greater justice for Black Americans.

Attitudes and policies don’t match

Some have suggested that this second wave of the Black Lives Matter movement is the largest social movement in American history.
These protests have led local representatives to publicly proclaim that Black Lives Matter; policymakers, government officials and
corporations to decry and remove Confederate symbols and racist images; and congressional as well as local attempts to address
police accountability.

But, as after the civil rights era, the principle-policy gap seems to be reappearing. Attitudes among whites are changing, but the
policies that people are willing to support do not necessarily address the more complex issue of structural racism.

For example, polling reveals that people support both these protests and also the way that police are handling them, despite
evidence of ongoing brutality.

The polling also shows that the majority of Americans believe that police are more likely to use deadly force against Black Americans
than against whites. But only one-quarter of those polled are willing to support efforts to reduce funding to police a policy aimed to
redistribute funds to support community equity.

More whites are willing to acknowledge white racial privilege, but only about one in eight support reparations to Blacks.

Americans may choose to dig deeper this time around. Some state legislators, for example, are attempting to leverage this moment
to create more systemic changes beyond policing in schools, judicial systems and health matters.

But ultimately, Americans will have to overcome two intertwined challenges. First, they will have to learn to detect forms of racism that
don’t lend themselves to a mobile-phone filming. And they will have to recognize that dismantling centuries of oppression takes more
than acknowledgment, understanding and well-meaning sentiment. It takes sacrifice and action.

https://theconversation.com/after-the-civil-rights-era-white-americans-failed-to-support-systemic-change-to-end-racism-will-they-
now-141954

Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2020 Gale, a Cengage Company
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Smith, Candis Watts. “After the civil rights era, white Americans failed to support systemic change to end racism. Will they now?”

Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2020. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/TGREEL614947152/OVIC?u=ccsf_main&sid=OVIC&xid=80cb4a25. Accessed 1 Nov. 2020.
Originally published as “After the civil rights era, white Americans failed to support systemic change to end racism. Will they
now?” The Conversation, 13 Aug. 2020.

Gale Document Number: GALE|TGREEL614947152

Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your
convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any
representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated “AS IS” and “AS
AVAILABLE” and are not retained in our systems. CENGAGE LEARNING AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY
AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY,
ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning
Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints Terms and Conditions and by using the
machine generated PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of
the machine generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom.

We can’t talk about racism without understanding whiteness
Author: Priyamvada Gopal
Date: 2020
From: Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection
Publisher: Gale, a Cengage Company
Document Type: Viewpoint essay
Length: 1,199 words
Content Level: (Level 5)
Lexile Measure: 1340L

Full Text:
Article Commentary

“One distinctive feature of whiteness as ideology is that it can make itself invisible and thereby make its operations more lethal and
harder to challenge.”
Priyamvada Gopal is an academic and author of Insurgence Empire: Anticolonial Resistance and British Dissent. In the following
viewpoint, the author argues that people must confront the ideology of whiteness and abolish its power in order to achieve a post-
racial society. Referring to conversations surrounding the Black Lives Matter movement, Gopal characterizes Black lives as
historically undervalued. Further, she asserts, if all lives are supposed to matter, Black lives must matter. The author contends
helping Black lives achieve parity is not racist, and she suggests that refusing to understand this is a choice. In all, Gopal maintains,
confronting the idea of whiteness will require people to have difficult and uncomfortable conversations or risk hatred prevailing.

As you read, consider the following questions:

According to the author, what is whiteness, and why is this significant?1.
How does Gopal use her social status as a Brahmin in India to support her argument that oppression works downward, and2.
that white supremacy must be abolished? Do you find it persuasive? Why or why not?
In your opinion, is achieving a post-racial society possible? Explain your answer.3.

When it comes to race and racism, we focus on those at the sharp end of discrimination from black people routinely subjected to
police brutality to people of colour missing from positions of influence. Progressive ideals invoke “inclusion” for ethnic minorities, or
special bias training. These measures may be necessary, but they put the focus squarely on those subjected to victimisation
rather than the system that perpetuates racism.

What results is a form of benevolence whereby some people of colour get “included” as part of diversity measures, even as social
hierarchies and habits of thought in white-majority societies remain largely unchanged.

The truth is that there is nothing pleasant about confronting the reality of an acute racial hierarchy. If the racial order is really to
change and there are those who don’t want it to it is not just black lives or racial minorities that should be the topic of
discussion, but the racial ideology that currently calls the shots in western societies.

This is what brings us to “whiteness” which is not a biological category so much as a set of ideas and practices about race that
has emerged from a bedrock of white supremacy, itself the legacy of empire and slavery. Confronting the idea of whiteness involves
far more uncomfortable discussions than “inclusion”, especially for people deemed white, since it involves self-examination and
acknowledging ugly truths, both historical and contemporary. It is simply easier to try to shut it out or down.

I found this out to my cost last week when I tweeted a response to the racially inflammatory “White Lives Matter” banner flown over
the Etihad Stadium after Manchester City and Burnley footballers had “taken the knee” to honour George Floyd. My tweet,
deliberately playing with the wording of the banner by qualifying it, made the point that white lives cannot be deemed to matter
because they are white, that it should not be whiteness that gives those lives value. In addition to the tsunami of racist sewage that
immediately came my way, littered with N-words and P-words along with sexist slurs, rape fantasies, death threats and open
declarations that “white lives matter more”, I was repeatedly asked why, if white lives did not matter as white lives, do black lives
matter? Was that also not also racist?

No, it is not also racist. White lives already matter more than others so to keep proclaiming they matter is to add excess value to
them, tilting us dangerously into white supremacy. This doesn’t mean that all white people in western societies are materially well-off
or don’t experience hardship, but that they don’t do so by virtue of the fact that they are white. Black lives remain undervalued and in
order for us to get to the desirable point where all lives (really do) matter, they must first achieve parity by mattering. It’s not really that
hard to understand unless you choose not to.

Studies of “whiteness” are not new. Respected scholars, such as the late Noel Ignatiev, author of How the Irish Became White, and
David Roediger, have studied the history and sociology of whiteness in great detail. Ignatiev, who was Jewish, wrote about the
“abolition of whiteness”, not as a call to eliminate white people but a system of racial entitlement that necessarily relied on the
exclusion of those deemed to be lesser. For Ignatiev, whiteness was not a biological fact so much as a kind of ideological club where
“the members go through life accepting the benefits of membership, without thinking about the cost” to others.

Over time, people have been added to the club and aspire to membership of it, from the Irish and European Jews to many Asians
today. One distinctive feature of whiteness as ideology is that it can make itself invisible and thereby make its operations more lethal
and harder to challenge. Science and the humanities are largely in accord that “race” is not a biological category, but a way of
creating power differentials, which have practical consequences. If that power differential in western societies is to be removed, then
the ideology at the top whiteness must be abolished. Only then can the abolition of all other racial categories and the
post-racial world we so often claim to espouse actually follow.

Although in Britain I am racialised as “non-white” or Asian, in my birth country of India I have some experience of what it is like to be a
member of a powerful but invisible ruling category. As a Brahmin (the “highest-ranking” tier of the deeply hierarchical Hindu caste
system), I belong to a social grouping that operates much like whiteness does. It rules the roost, is not disadvantaged by virtue of
caste (though there are those who might suffer from poverty or misogyny), and it treats any challenge to its power as a form of
victimisation or “reverse oppression”. For the record, there is no such thing: oppression only operates downwards. This is why, at the
same time as I reinforced Ignatiev’s call for the abolition of “whiteness”, I repeated that Brahmin supremacy in India must also be
abolished.

One of my less discourteous correspondents last week asked me, using only one expletive, why people “need a manual for race
relations” when we could just respect each other. Unfortunately, until we get to a point where all lives really do matter, there is no
point in declaring that race doesn’t make a difference or that equality exists, when it clearly doesn’t. “White lives matter” implicitly
suggests whites matter more than others. “Black lives matter” is saying those lives need to matter more than they have, that society
needs to give them more weight. Until we square up to the ugly realities of how whiteness operates lethally, invisibly, powerfully

we are doomed to fighting a toxic and pointless culture war, where the only winners are those who want hatred to prevail.

Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2020 Gale, a Cengage Company
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Gopal, Priyamvada. “We can’t talk about racism without understanding whiteness.” Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection,

Gale, 2020. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/RFSNJJ564253926/OVIC?u=ccsf_main&sid=OVIC&xid=f403357c. Accessed 1 Nov. 2020.
Originally published as “We can’t talk about racism without understanding whiteness,” The Guardian, 4 July 2020.

Gale Document Number: GALE|RFSNJJ564253926

Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your
convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any
representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated “AS IS” and “AS
AVAILABLE” and are not retained in our systems. CENGAGE LEARNING AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY
AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY,
ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning
Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints Terms and Conditions and by using the
machine generated PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of
the machine generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom.

Racism isn’t about ignorance. Some highly educated people
have upheld systemic inequality
Date: June 18, 2020
From: Washingtonpost.com
Publisher: The Washington Post
Document Type: Article
Length: 966 words
Content Level: (Level 5)
Lexile Measure: 1420L

Full Text:
Byline: Victor Ray;Alan Aja

About US is an initiative by The Washington Post to explore issues of identity in the United States. Sign up for the newsletter.

As rebellions against the police killings of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd and, last weekend, Rayshard Brooks, shake the country,
education is once again being prescribed as racism’s cure. Anti-racist reading lists are bouncing around Twitter and mainstream
publications, pushing books on racism atop bestseller charts and fueling months-long wait-lists at local libraries. Celebrities like the
Golden State Warriors’ coach, Steve Kerr, have called for a better education in African American history, and many white people
have decided now is the time to reach out to their black friends, seeking absolution and education.

Nothing warms our nerdy professorial hearts like seeing people buy books, and we understand the need for knowledge to attack
entrenched social problems (please keep borrowing, exchanging and buying books, everyone). And we are deeply committed to
popular anti-racist education. We hope anti-racist education can play a part in eradicating myths about causes and consequences of
racial inequality. And black women theorists of abolition have unquestionably contributed to the current global mass movements
calling for defunding the police.

But as educators, we also are aware of the limits of the education-as-cure-for-racism trope when it is uncoupled from commitments to
redistribute resources. Education detached from concrete, measurable changes, such as protesters’ calls for defunding the police
departments, is the “thoughts and prayers” of anti-racism. It allows people to feel like something is being done without committing to
actual changes that might upset broader patterns of privilege. Prescribing education as the cure for racism often confuses individual
bigotry with a system of domination. As a system of domination, racism can be manipulated, because it is bigger than any individual.
Highly educated people, who sometimes know better, contribute to systems of racial harm on a regular basis.

The architecture of American racism is not an unfortunate accident: It was created intentionally to acquire and keep power. The highly
educated designed America’s system of segregation and America’s prison system. Highly educated lawyers devise arguments to
protect police who kill black and brown folks, highly educated prosecutors decline to bring charges, and highly educated judges
assign light sentences. There is no good evidence that educating police about implicit bias works to lessen harm. And whites with
high cognitive ability are no more likely to support practical policies that lessen racial inequality. But their education does allow them
to offer more sophisticated justifications for privilege.

The trope of education-as-cure also presumes a kind of unwarranted racial innocence, assuming if the poor souls just knew better,
they would not call the cops on a birdwatcher, defend segregated schools or shoot a black jogger. For example, white women who
call the police on black and brown people for barbecuing, selling bottled water, or simply existing show a keen awareness of racism’s
operating system. When Amy Cooper called the police in retaliation for being asked to leash her dog in New York’s Central Park, she
was not showing an irrational fear of black men. Calling 911 was a calculated manipulation of a system that has historically harmed
black men. Using knowledge of a system to your advantage is not ignorance, it is the act of someone educated in the nuances of
institutionalized racism.

For some, the caricature of an uneducated backwoods racist may be comforting. This caricature safely places the taint of racism on a
different group and immunizes the middle-class from accusations of bias. By placing the problem of racism on the poorly educated, it
allows those who are aware or racial inequality to feel like they have done nothing wrong and can therefore safely continue to do
nothing.

Most students are taught about the Jim Crow-era efforts to keep schools separate and unequal, but fewer probably know

contemporary education shows levels of segregation not seen since before the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v Board of Education
decision. For example, a recent report by the Economic Policy Institute found that black children are five times as likely as white
children to attend racially and ethnically segregated schools and twice as likely to attend “high-poverty” schools.

Furthermore, continued use of admissions screens for elite public high schools yield racially exclusive results, as do supposedly
desegregated schools that employ racialized tracking. As sociologists Amanda Lewis and John Diamond show, even “best case
scenario” integrated schools in highly educated, liberal enclaves maintain segregation in nominally integrated buildings. All these
processes happen in the United States’ most educated and often most liberal cities, where those who know about the causes of racial
inequality lack the political will to intervene.

Or imagine a highly educated, anti-racist teacher working in a segregated school who has a personal commitment to equal education.
As many teachers from underfunded predominantly nonwhite schools will readily admit, no amount of personal heroism can
overcome the racially segregated educational system America seems to accept. These individual commitments to anti-racism, while
meaningful and commendable, do little to change the system that disproportionately condemns nonwhite students to schools with
poor resources in the first place.

The problem of racial inequality is not just a lack of knowledge; it is the lack of a willingness among many white people to commit to
an equitable distribution of resources.

What movements like those currently in the streets recognize is that systemic problems are not solved by education in the absence of
collective action. Solutions to racial inequality require a reorganization of what creates inequality in the first place: unequal access to
social and material resources. Seeing education as a necessary but insufficient condition for challenging racial inequality is not
pessimistic. It recognizes that knowledge used to confront, rather than accommodate or legitimate authority, can lead to a more
equitable distribution of power.

Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2020 The Washington Post
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
“Racism isn’t about ignorance. Some highly educated people have upheld systemic inequality.” Washingtonpost.com, 18 June 2020.

Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A627109467/OVIC?u=ccsf_main&sid=OVIC&xid=fefbd6b6. Accessed 1 Nov. 2020.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A627109467

Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your
convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any
representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated “AS IS” and “AS
AVAILABLE” and are not retained in our systems. CENGAGE LEARNING AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY
AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY,
ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning
Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints Terms and Conditions and by using the
machine generated PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of
the machine generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom.

Affirmative Action Is Not Racial Profiling
Author: Tim Wise
Editors: Carol Ullmann and Lynn M. Zott
Date: 2013
From: Racial Profiling
Publisher: Gale, a Cengage Company
Series: Opposing Viewpoints
Document Type: Viewpoint essay
Length: 2,238 words
Content Level: (Level 5)
Lexile Measure: 1440L

Full Text:
Article Commentary

Tim Wise, “Affirmative Action for Dummies: Explaining the Difference Between Oppression and Opportunity,” Timwise.org, October
22, 2010. Copyright © 2010 by Tim Wise. All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission.

“Affirmative action does not seek to create a system of unearned black and brown advantage, but merely to shrink
unearned white advantage.”

Tim Wise is an author, public speaker, and antiracism trainer who has helped numerous corporations and government agencies
dismantle institutional racism. In the following viewpoint, Wise addresses the common question of how affirmative action is different
from traditional, racist discrimination. He examines the intent, function, impact, and outcome of affirmative action and traditional
discrimination, drawing distinctions between advantages offered to whites through discrimination and attempting to level the field
through affirmative action. Despite affirmative action, statistics show that whites still are advantaged in educational opportunities and
employment; proof, Wise argues, not that whites are more superior but that the work of affirmative action still has a long way to go
as the roots of traditional discrimination run deep.
As you read, consider the following questions:

According to Wise, how does the intent of discrimination differ from the intent of affirmative action?1.
According to Wise, does affirmative action deprive white people of equal consideration for enrollment at universities,2.
employmen