Blog Post 6&7: Affirmative Action

In the heated controversial topic Fisher V. University of Texas holds that affirmative action in schools is necessary to promote diversity. For many years minorities have been discriminated against and more likely to be at a disadvantage because of past events. As an illustration to this Grutter V. Bollinger and affirmative action act has been used to ensure equality.

Grutter V. Bollinger caused my conflict because it allowed schools to consider race as a factor in achieving racial diversity in schools. The Supreme Court held that “The equal protection clause does not prohibit the law schools narrowly tailored use of race in admission decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body”. The court explained the reason in using race as a factor is to make sure that all factors which will contribute to diversity is considered.

Grutter V. Bollinger. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.Oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_241/

Affirmative action caused my conflict because it is a policy which “gives opportunities to minorities, women, and any group that has been subject to discrimination in the past”.

Affirmative action pros and cons. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/affirmative-action-pros-and-cons

The Jim crow laws and Plessy V. Ferguson court case allowed my conflict to be what it is today because of past discrimination that happen in the past.

Jim Crow laws are what allowed discriminating against African Americans okay. Jim Crow laws are what said to be what “legalized segregation between blacks and whites”. I believe this caused my conflict because public institutions designated to African Americans including schools were not equal to white public institutions.  

Jim Crow Laws. (n.d.).Retrieved from http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/jim-crow-laws.html

Plessy V. Ferguson was a case that “based their decision on the separate-but-equal doctrine, that separate facilities for blacks and whites satisfied the fourteenth amendment so long as they were equal”. This shows that blacks and whites wasn’t always consider equal because this court case was later overturned by Brown V. Board of education.

Plessy V. Ferguson. (n.d.).Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1895/1895_210

 

 

 

Blog Post 7: Tibetan Autonomy

Conclusion Claim:

A desirable outcome for China in this conflict would be that their control over Tibet would finally become solidified without problems.

Claim 1:

Working in China’s favor no country, such as the U.S. has recognized Tibet as an independent nation. (Book 2012, p. 38-44)

Claim 2:

China has evidence that does have Tibet was and is a piece of China. (Dhussa 2009, p. 1-6)

 

References

Bork, E. (2012). Tibet’s transition. World Affairs, 175(3), 38-44

Dhussa, R. (2009). Tibet: A nation in exile. American Geographical Society’s Focus On Geography, 52(2), 1-6.

Blog Post 6: Tibetan autonomy

Conclusion Claim:

A desirable outcome for Tibet in this conflict would be that Tibet would finally achieve its independence.

Claim 1:

Once they achieve their independence, Tibetans could finally embrace their human rights without issue. (Klein 2011, p. 115-165)

Claim 2:

The bloody violence between China and Tibet could finally be cast aside and peace could happen between them. (Ortolani 2012, n/a)

References

Ortolani, A. (2012, Fed 27). Why violence in Tibet is getting worse. The Atlantic. Retrieved from: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/why-violence-in-tibet-is-getting-worse/253627/

Klein, R. (2011). An analysis of china’s human rights policies in Tibet: China’s compliance with the mandates of international law regarding civil and political rights. ILSA Journal Of International & Comparative Law, 18(1), 115-165

Blog 6&7- Kelly Green

Syria’s civilians should overthrow Assad’s regime in order for the government to be converted from a dictatorship to a democracy. According to Diehl, “The quicker Assad falls, administration officials believe, the more likely it is that he could be replaced with a liberal and democratic order” (Diehl, 2012).  However it has been argued that Assad will not be able to be defeated because of the loyalty that the regime has from minority communities, apprehensiveness of the urban Sunnis, and the government’s institutions such as the army and state bureaucracy for example (Zisser, 2013).

The civil war in Syria was caused by the dissatisfaction of the government to its people as a result of violation of human rights and social circumstances; a major theme of the Arab spring.  Flock writes, “The Syrian people say they are protesting against the repressive measures of Assad’s regime” (Flock 2011). However Diehl argues that the major cause of this civil war deals with the Islamic divide amongst Syria. He writes, “But there has also been, from the very beginning, a streak of raw sectarianism in the Syrian version of the Spring” (Diehl, 2012).

References

Spyer, J. (2012 June). Defying a dictator: meet the free Syrian army. World Affairs. http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/defying-dictator-meet-free-syrian-army

Jackson, D. (2012 June). Lines in the sand: Assad plays the sectarian card. World Affairs. http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/lines-sand-assad-plays-sectarian-card

Zisser, E. (2013). Can Assad’s Syria survive revolution?. Middle East Quarterly. 20(2), p7,41-65. http://ehis.ebscohost.com.proxy ub.researchport.umd.edu/eds/detail?sid=6a084206-4def-4f37-8c2e-19155cd50912%40sessionmgr10&vid=9&hid=8&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db=aph&AN=85845490

Flock, E. (2011 March). Syria’s revolution: a revolt brews against Al-Assad’s regime. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/syria-revolution-revolt-against-bashar-al–assads-regime/2011/03/15/ABrwNEX_blog.html

Blog Post 6 & 7 – Kat Platt

Blog Post 6

South Korea is the rightful owner of the Dokdo/Takeshima islets. Historic Korean texts recognize the islets as part of Korean territory as far back as 512 A.D. (Kim, 2005). After World War II, a list of instructions entitled SCAPIN677 were sent by the United States to Japan demanding they terminate any authority over outside nations and land. The United States specifically excluded both Korea and Dokdo from their definition of what land Japan would be allowed to control (“SCAPIN677,” 2012).

 

References:

Kim, Y. (2005). What Is the Controversy Over Dokdo All About?. Koreana, 19(3), 14-19.

SCAPIN677. (2012). Wikisource. Retrieved from http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/SCAPIN677

 

Blog Post 7:

Japan is the rightful owner of the Dokdo/Takeshima islets. In 1905, the Japanese government decided that the Dokdo/Takeshima islets would be incorporated into the Shimane Prefecture (“10 Issues of Takeshima,” 2008). This decision showed Japan’s intentions to incorporate the islets into Japanese territory. The San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed in 1951 by Japan, states that Japan would have to, “renounce all right, title, and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton, and Dagelet” (“San Francisco Peace Treaty,” 2007). The islets of Dokdo were not included in this treaty.

 

References:

10 Issues of Takeshima. (2008). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. Retrieved from http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/pamphlet_e.pdf

San Francisco Peace Treaty. (2007). Taiwan Documents Project. Retrieved from http://www.taiwandocuments.org/sanfrancisco01.htm