essay on overcoming discrimination

Essays About Discrimination: Top 5 Examples and 8 Prompts

You must know how to connect with your readers to write essays about discrimination effectively; read on for our top essay examples, including prompts that will help you write.

Discrimination comes in many forms and still happens to many individuals or groups today. It occurs when there’s a distinction or bias against someone because of their age, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.

Discrimination can happen to anyone wherever and whenever they are. Unfortunately, it’s a problem that society is yet to solve entirely. Here are five in-depth examples of this theme’s subcategories to guide you in creating your essays about discrimination.

1. Essay On Discrimination For Students In Easy Words by Prateek

2. personal discrimination experience by naomi nakatani, 3. prejudice and discrimination by william anderson, 4. socioeconomic class discrimination in luca by krystal ibarra, 5. the new way of discrimination by writer bill, 1. my discrimination experience, 2. what can i do to stop discrimination, 3. discrimination in my community, 4. the cost of discrimination, 5. examples of discrimination, 6. discrimination in sports: segregating men and women, 7. how to stop my discrimination against others, 8. what should groups do to fight discrimination.

“In the current education system, the condition of education and its promotion of equality is very important. The education system should be a good place for each and every student. It must be on the basis of equal opportunities for each student in every country. It must be free of discrimination.”

Prateek starts his essay by telling the story of a student having difficulty getting admitted to a college because of high fees. He then poses the question of how the student will be able to get an education when he can’t have the opportunity to do so in the first place. He goes on to discuss UNESCO’s objectives against discrimination. 

Further in the essay, the author defines discrimination and cites instances when it happens. Prateek also compares past and present discrimination, ending the piece by saying it should stop and everyone deserves to be treated fairly.

“I thought that there is no discrimination before I actually had discrimination… I think we must treat everyone equally even though people speak different languages or have different colors of skin.”

In her short essay, Nakatani shares the experiences that made her feel discriminated against when she visited the US. She includes a fellow guest saying she and her mother can’t use the shared pool in a hotel they stay in because they are Japanese and getting cheated of her money when she bought from a small shop because she can’t speak English very well.

“Whether intentional or not, prejudice and discrimination ensure the continuance of inequality in the United States. Even subconsciously, we are furthering inequality through our actions and reactions to others… Because these forces are universally present in our daily lives, the way we use them or reject them will determine how they affect us.”

Anderson explains the direct relationship between prejudice and discrimination. He also gives examples of these occurrences in the past (blacks and whites segregation) and modern times (sexism, racism, etc.)

He delves into society’s fault for playing the “blame game” and choosing to ignore each other’s perspectives, leading to stereotypes. He also talks about affirmative action committees that serve to protect minorities.

“Something important to point out is that there is prejudice when it comes to people of lower class or economic standing, there are stereotypes that label them as untrustworthy, lazy, and even dangerous. This thought is fed by the just-world phenomenon, that of low economic status are uneducated, lazy, and are more likely to be substance abusers, and thus get what they deserve.”

Ibarra recounts how she discovered Pixar’s Luca and shares what she thought of the animation, focusing on how the film encapsulates socioeconomic discrimination in its settings. She then discusses the characters and their relationships with the protagonist. Finally, Ibarra notes how the movie alluded to flawed characters, such as having a smaller boat, mismatched or recycled kitchen furniture, and no shoes. 

The other cast even taunts Luca, saying he smells and gets his clothes from a dead person. These are typical things marginalized communities experience in real life. At the end of her essay, Ibarra points out how society is dogmatic against the lower class, thinking they are abusers. In Luca, the wealthy antagonist is shown to be violent and lazy.

“Even though the problem of discrimination has calmed down, it still happens… From these past experiences, we can realize that solutions to tough problems come in tough ways.”

The author introduces people who called out discrimination, such as Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Barbara Henry – the only teacher who decided to teach Ruby Bridges, despite her skin color. 

He then moves on to mention the variations of present-day discrimination. He uses Donald Trump and the border he wants to build to keep the Hispanics out as an example. Finally, Bill ends the essay by telling the readers those who discriminate against others are bullies who want to get a reaction out of their victims. 

Do you get intimidated when you need to write an essay? Don’t be! If writing an essay makes you nervous, do it step by step. To start, write a simple 5 paragraph essay .

Prompts on Essays About Discrimination

Below are writing prompts that can inspire you on what to focus on when writing your discrimination essay:

Have you had to go through an aggressor who disliked you because you’re you? Write an essay about this incident, how it happened, what you felt during the episode, and what you did afterward. You can also include how it affected the way you interact with people. For example, did you try to tone down a part of yourself or change how you speak to avoid conflict?

List ways on how you can participate in lessening incidents of discrimination. Your list can include calling out biases, reporting to proper authorities, or spreading awareness of what discrimination is.

Is there an ongoing prejudice you observe in your school, subdivision, etc.? If other people in your community go through this unjust treatment, you can interview them and incorporate their thoughts on the matter.

Tackle what victims of discrimination have to go through daily. You can also talk about how it affected their life in the long run, such as having low self-esteem that limited their potential and opportunities and being frightened of getting involved with other individuals who may be bigots.

For this prompt, you can choose a subtopic to zero in on, like Workplace Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, and others. Then, add sample situations to demonstrate the unfairness better.

What are your thoughts on the different game rules for men and women? Do you believe these rules are just? Cite news incidents to make your essay more credible. For example, you can mention the incident where the Norwegian women’s beach handball team got fined for wearing tops and shorts instead of bikinis.

Since we learn to discriminate because of the society we grew up in, it’s only normal to be biased unintentionally. When you catch yourself having these partialities, what do you do? How do you train yourself not to discriminate against others?

Focus on an area of discrimination and suggest methods to lessen its instances. To give you an idea, you can concentrate on Workplace Discrimination, starting from its hiring process. You can propose that applicants are chosen based on their skills, so the company can implement a hiring procedure where applicants should go through written tests first before personal interviews.

If you instead want to focus on topics that include people from all walks of life, talk about diversity. Here’s an excellent guide on how to write an essay about diversity .

Maria Caballero is a freelance writer who has been writing since high school. She believes that to be a writer doesn't only refer to excellent syntax and semantics but also knowing how to weave words together to communicate to any reader effectively.

View all posts

• Youth Program
• Wharton Online

Overcoming Prior Discrimination: How the Stories We Tell Ourselves Can Help

How can people develop resilience in the face of past discrimination is it best to push aside memories of adversity, or can revisiting them become a source of strength wharton management professor samir nurmohamed explored how people seeking employment might benefit from this knowledge..

Racial, ethnic, gender and other forms of discrimination are an endemic evil in our society. Discrimination can destroy lives and must be rooted out wherever it occurs. But while it is still an unfortunate reality, the stories people tell themselves about how they’ve handled it can significantly affect them, including their career success.

This phenomenon came to light in research I conducted with Timothy Kundro of the Mendoza College of Business and Christopher G. Myers of the Carey Business School, reported in our paper “Against the Odds: Developing Underdog Versus Favorite Narratives to Offset Prior Experiences of Discrimination.” Our study explored how different kinds of narratives that people construct about what has happened to them (self-narratives) might help them overcome some of the potentially damaging effects of prior discrimination.

The Effect of Being the Underdog

We introduced two types of personal success stories: the “underdog” narrative and the “favorite” narrative. In the underdog narrative, a person recalls a situation in which they defied others’ low expectations and triumphed through believing in their own ability to succeed. The favorite narrative involves a similar situation, but the individual feels supported along the way by others’ faith in them. Prior work has shown that high expectations from others are beneficial for success, but it is unclear whether favorite narratives would offer benefits in this context because they may suppress or fail to acknowledge the adversity that prior discrimination presents.

We devised testing to uncover how these two types of stories might shape the impact of discrimination on people’s careers. For our main experiment, we recruited 330 unemployed job seekers from two Pennsylvania reemployment centers. We offered workshops titled “My Success, My Story,” in which job seekers—mostly from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds—were invited to think about their own life story and how it could help them achieve their career goals.

We randomly assigned them to write about and discuss one of two different themes that corresponded to our two narratives: to tell a story about how they were the underdog in a situation—believing in themselves when others did not—or to tell one about how they were a “favorite,” triumphing with the support of others. A control group was asked simply to recount a story about their life. All job seekers were encouraged to develop actual stories, meaning a tale with a beginning, middle, and end; characters such as oneself, family members, and co-workers; and a “lesson” that they could apply in the future.

There’s no magic wand to make discrimination’s harmful effects disappear. But how people frame past experiences to themselves may make a positive difference.

Before we assigned the storytelling exercise, we measured participants’ experiences with prior discrimination. The category of discrimination wasn’t limited to employment; it could have occurred in education, housing, or encounters with police, for example. Afterward, we measured their performance efficacy, which relates to their confidence in their own ability to find employment. And a month later, we obtained data from the reemployment center on whether or not these individuals had gotten a job.

What we found is that underdog narratives offset the ramifications of prior discrimination relative to favorite narratives. The “underdog” group felt more confident in their ability to land a job—and ultimately, did.

We then mounted a larger study online with job seekers from around the country, using a similar process. In this study we assessed not only whether they got hired, but also their subjective performance: whether they believed they performed successfully. For example, did the position they were hired for exceed their own goals? We also probed individual differences that might affect the findings: for instance, the fundamental assessments that people make about their competence, worthiness, and control over their own lives. Here too, we found that underdog narratives were more beneficial than favorite narratives for reducing the repercussions of prior discrimination on performance efficacy and employment.

The Power of Storytelling

Our findings could be beneficial in real-world settings: for example, as a useful technique for job placement advisors working with people who have experienced discrimination or similar forms of adversity. The workforce advisor could encourage such individuals to reflect on times when others expected them to fail, but they succeeded. Moreover, job seekers themselves could be made aware of the power of storytelling as a vehicle for helpful self-reflection during a job search. They might use blogs or journals to harness the resilience that can come from surviving adversity.

Our research builds on recent studies on perceived discrimination, which notes that suppression of prior adversity may have harmful effects. The concern is that one might internalize the discrimination and lose self-confidence. On the other hand, our results suggest that acknowledging the adversity you’ve experienced can be a source of strength.

Obviously, job seekers would have been better off had they never been subjected to discrimination. There’s no magic wand to make its harmful effects disappear. But how people frame past experiences to themselves may make a positive difference in their career and life journeys.

• EXPLORE Random Article

How to Overcome Discrimination

Last Updated: February 18, 2023 References

This article was co-authored by Tasha Rube, LMSW . Tasha Rube is a Licensed Social Worker based in Kansas City, Kansas. Tasha is affiliated with the Dwight D. Eisenhower VA Medical Center in Leavenworth, Kansas. She received her Masters of Social Work (MSW) from the University of Missouri in 2014. There are 13 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been viewed 24,449 times.

Discrimination can make you feel small, anxious, sad, or defeated. It’s important to feel empowered and able to make a difference for both yourself and other people. Learn to see yourself in a positive light. Seek support and know who and where you can turn to talk. Finally, find ways to take action on a larger scale to help raise awareness and bring change.

Embracing Yourself

• Your list can include physical traits (such as, “My favorite part of my body is my hair”), characteristics (such as, “I am kind, generous, and compassionate”), and your social qualities (such as, “I enjoy making other people feel good and laugh”). [2] X Research source
• You can also practice ways to raise your self-esteem.

• For example, ask yourself how you’ve grown or matured as a result of your experiences, or if you’re able to relate to people better due to your own experiences. If you’ve experienced discrimination for being a minority, you might relate to other minorities differently.
• If you feel like things will never change and you’ll always feel hopeless, think back to other difficult times when bad things improved for you.

• Face your fears and overcome them. For example, stand up for someone and show that you’re on their side or talk about discrimination during class.

Getting Support

• Have people you know you can talk to and be with comfortably.
• Meet in-person instead of texting or calling on the phone.

• Therapy can help you learn assertiveness skills and help to increase feelings of empowerment.

• Give and receive advice, share resources, and talk about how to make changes.
• Find a support group by calling your local mental health clinic, university counseling center, or by doing an internet search.

Seeking Change

• Direct discrimination: When a person is treated unfairly because of a specific characteristic, such as age, race, gender, disability, or sexual orientation.
• Indirect discrimination: When laws and policies put a person in a disadvantaged position.
• Harassment: Any unwanted, offensive, humiliating and intimidating act directed at you because of one of your unique characteristics. Harassment can be in the form of gestures, spoken and unspoken words, images, or jokes.
• Sexual harassment: This is the same as regular harassment, but sexual in nature.
• Victimization: Unfavorable treatment as a response to a person’s claim of discrimination.

• For example, discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability, and age are prohibited. You can report it at http://www.ed.gov/ocr/complaintprocess.html
• Write down every detail of the discriminatory event immediately after it happens. That way, you won’t forget any words or actions that were used against you.

• Examples of discrimination in the workplace that are prohibited include age, disability, pregnancy, race/color, religion, sex, and national origin. [9] X Trustworthy Source US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission U.S. government agency that enforces civil rights in the workplace Go to source

• Have a clear case and if possible, prove the discrimination. If there’s any doubt, people may question your allegations, which can make any formal proceedings more difficult.

• Let people know that you will stand up for them if they’re experiencing discrimination.

• Find ways to make a difference in the workplace, school or university, community, or local government. Do an internet search to find an advocacy group near you or join a national group.

Taking Care of Yourself

• Alcohol/chemical dependency
• Isolative tendencies
• Thoughts of self-harm or harming others

• Find activities that help you clear your mind and feel better after you’ve completed them.

• Practicing relaxation for 30 minutes each day can help keep depression away and can help stabilize your moods.

• If you need a pick-me-up, go on a walk or do some exercise. You can also call a friend or listen to music that helps you feel good.

Expert Q&A

You might also like.

• ↑ https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/fostering-a-positive-self-image
• ↑ https://www.healthyplace.com/blogs/speakingoutaboutselfinjury/2015/03/embrace-being-different-you-are-making-a-difference/
• ↑ http://au.reachout.com/challenging-negative-thinking
• ↑ https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201101/how-attain-real-personal-empowerment
• ↑ http://www.goodtherapy.org/learn-about-therapy/issues/prejudice-discrimination#Discrimination
• ↑ http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/stress-management/in-depth/support-groups/art-20044655
• ↑ https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/howto.html
• ↑ https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/index.cfm
• ↑ https://www.eeoc.gov/discrimination-type
• ↑ https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/dealing-with-discrimination.htm
• ↑ http://www.seap.org.uk/im-looking-for-help-or-support/what-is-advocacy.html
• ↑ https://psychcentral.com/news/2011/03/24/suppressed-emotions-can-lead-to-aggression/24643.html
• ↑ http://www.helpguide.org/articles/bipolar-disorder/bipolar-support-and-self-help.htm#stress

About this article

Did this article help you?

• About wikiHow
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

• Student Opportunities

About Hoover

Located on the campus of Stanford University and in Washington, DC, the Hoover Institution is the nation’s preeminent research center dedicated to generating policy ideas that promote economic prosperity, national security, and democratic governance. 

• The Hoover Story
• Hoover Timeline & History
• Mission Statement
• Vision of the Institution Today
• Key Focus Areas
• About our Fellows
• Research Programs
• Annual Reports
• Hoover in DC
• Fellowship Opportunities
• Visit Hoover
• David and Joan Traitel Building & Rental Information
• Newsletter Subscriptions
• Connect With Us

Hoover scholars form the Institution’s core and create breakthrough ideas aligned with our mission and ideals. What sets Hoover apart from all other policy organizations is its status as a center of scholarly excellence, its locus as a forum of scholarly discussion of public policy, and its ability to bring the conclusions of this scholarship to a public audience.

• Scott Atlas
• Thomas Sargent
• Stephen Kotkin
• Michael McConnell
• Morris P. Fiorina
• John F. Cogan
• China's Global Sharp Power Project
• Economic Policy Group
• History Working Group
• Hoover Education Success Initiative
• National Security Task Force
• National Security, Technology & Law Working Group
• Middle East and the Islamic World Working Group
• Military History/Contemporary Conflict Working Group
• Renewing Indigenous Economies Project
• State & Local Governance
• Strengthening US-India Relations
• Technology, Economics, and Governance Working Group
• Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region

Books by Hoover Fellows

Economics Working Papers

Hoover Education Success Initiative | The Papers

• Hoover Fellows Program
• National Fellows Program
• Student Fellowship Program
• Veteran Fellowship Program
• Congressional Fellowship Program
• Media Fellowship Program
• Silas Palmer Fellowship
• Economic Fellowship Program

Throughout our over one-hundred-year history, our work has directly led to policies that have produced greater freedom, democracy, and opportunity in the United States and the world.

• Determining America’s Role in the World
• Answering Challenges to Advanced Economies
• Empowering State and Local Governance
• Revitalizing History
• Confronting and Competing with China
• Revitalizing American Institutions
• Reforming K-12 Education
• Understanding Public Opinion
• Understanding the Effects of Technology on Economics and Governance
• Energy & Environment
• Health Care
• Immigration
• International Affairs
• Key Countries / Regions
• Law & Policy
• Politics & Public Opinion
• Science & Technology
• Security & Defense
• State & Local
• Books by Fellows
• Published Works by Fellows
• Working Papers
• Congressional Testimony
• Hoover Press
• PERIODICALS
• The Caravan
• China's Global Sharp Power
• Economic Policy
• History Lab
• Hoover Education
• Global Policy & Strategy
• National Security, Technology & Law
• Middle East and the Islamic World
• Military History & Contemporary Conflict
• Renewing Indigenous Economies
• State and Local Governance
• Technology, Economics, and Governance

Hoover scholars offer analysis of current policy challenges and provide solutions on how America can advance freedom, peace, and prosperity.

• China Global Sharp Power Weekly Alert
• Email newsletters
• Hoover Daily Report
• Subscription to Email Alerts
• Periodicals
• California on Your Mind
• Defining Ideas
• Hoover Digest
• Video Series
• Uncommon Knowledge
• Battlegrounds
• GoodFellows
• Hoover Events
• Capital Conversations
• Hoover Book Club
• AUDIO PODCASTS
• Matters of Policy & Politics
• Economics, Applied
• Free Speech Unmuted
• Secrets of Statecraft
• Pacific Century
• Libertarian
• Library & Archives

Support Hoover

Learn more about joining the community of supporters and scholars working together to advance Hoover’s mission and values.

What is MyHoover?

MyHoover delivers a personalized experience at  Hoover.org . In a few easy steps, create an account and receive the most recent analysis from Hoover fellows tailored to your specific policy interests.

Watch this video for an overview of MyHoover.

Log In to MyHoover

Forgot Password

Don't have an account? Sign up

Have questions? Contact us

• Support the Mission of the Hoover Institution
• Subscribe to the Hoover Daily Report
• Follow Hoover on Social Media

Make a Gift

Your gift helps advance ideas that promote a free society.

• About Hoover Institution
• Meet Our Fellows
• Focus Areas
• Research Teams
• Library & Archives

Library & archives

Events, news & press, america’s struggle for racial equality.

Recapturing civil rights leaders’ commitment to ending discrimination

O n June 11, 1963, in the wake of Governor George Wallace’s stand against integration at the University of Alabama, President John F. Kennedy reported to the American people on the state of civil rights in the nation. He called on Congress to pass legislation dismantling the system of segregation and encouraged lawmakers to make a commitment "to the proposition that race has no place in American life or law."

Invoking the equality of all Americans before the law, Kennedy said: "We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the Scriptures and it is as clear as the American Constitution. The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated."

The American people are now beginning a great debate over the use of race and gender preferences by federal, state, and local governments. In 1996, a majority of voters in California, including 29 percent of blacks, approved the California Civil Rights Initiative prohibiting preferential treatment in public employment, education, and contracting. In a series of cases, the Supreme Court and federal courts of appeal have made it clear that the system of preference is built on an exceedingly shaky foundation. These cases--chiefly the Adarand decision of 1995--establish that racial classifications are presumptively unconstitutional and will be permitted only in extraordinary circumstances. In 1998, Congress is likely to consider legislation to end the use of race and gender preferences by the federal government.

As we enter this debate, Kennedy’s stirring words on civil rights are as important as they were in 1963. In the name of overcoming discrimination, our government for the past generation has been treating Americans of different races unequally. This is not the first time that American governments have intentionally discriminated. The institution of slavery and Jim Crow laws both violated the fundamental American tenet that "all men are created equal" and are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." But racial preferences designed to compensate for prior discrimination are also inconsistent with our most deeply cherished principles.

Slavery was the single greatest injustice in American history. The conflict sparked by its existence and by efforts to expand it took 365,000 American lives. A system of ferocious violence that degraded human beings to the status of chattel, American slavery had at its core the belief that blacks were subhuman. It was an institution that systematically and wantonly trampled on the most basic of human relations: Husband was separated from wife, parent was separated from child. Liberty was denied to individuals solely by reason of race.

When this disgraceful chapter in our history came to an end, it left a legacy of racism that has afflicted America up to the present generation. Soon after the Civil War, that legacy found expression in the segregation statutes, also known as Jim Crow laws. Historian C. Vann Woodward describes segregation thus: "That code lent the sanction of law to a social ostracism that extended to churches and schools, to housing and jobs, to eating and drinking. Whether by law or by custom, that ostracism extended to virtually all forms of public transportation, to sports and recreations, to hospitals, orphanages, prisons, and asylums, and ultimately to funeral homes, morgues, and cemeteries."

Woodward continues, "The Jim Crow laws, unlike feudal laws, did not assign the subordinated group a fixed status in society. They were constantly pushing the Negro farther down." Woodward also documents the "total disfranchisement" of black voters in the South through the poll tax and the white primary. He quotes Edgar Gardner Murphy on the attitude of many southern whites that energized the system of segregation during the first half of the 20th century: "Its spirit is that of an all-absorbing autocracy of race, an animus of aggrandizement which makes, in the imagination of the white man, an absolute identification of the stronger race with the being of the state."

A Question of Dignity

The civil-rights movement of the 1950s and the early 1960s arose to combat racist laws, racist institutions, and racist practices wherever they existed. The story of that movement is a glorious chapter in the history of America. Sparked by the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) , the civil rights movement dealt a death blow to the system of segregation with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The Voting Rights Act of 1965 soon followed, creating the basis for fully restoring the franchise to black Americans throughout the country.

The moral example of those who stood against the forces of racial injustice played a critical role in reshaping American attitudes toward race. The American people were moved by images of the terrible acts of violence and gross indignities visited on black Americans.

Moreover, the civil-rights movement embodied a fundamental message that touched the soul of the American people. It exemplified an ideal at the core of the American experience from the very beginning of our national life, an ideal that was never fully realized and sometimes tragically perverted, but always acknowledged by Americans.

The ideal of respect for the dignity of the individual was set forth in the Declaration of Independence: "[A]ll men are created equal" and are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." At Independence Hall on the eve of the Civil War, Lincoln spoke of this ideal as "a great principle or idea" in the Declaration of Independence "which gave promise that in due time the weights should be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and that all should have an equal chance." This ideal undergirded the civil-rights movement and condemned the contradictions of America’s segregated society.

This ideal has never been more eloquently expressed than by Martin Luther King Jr., who said, the "image of God . . . is universally shared in equal portions by all men. There is no graded scale of essential worth. Every human being has etched in his personality the indelible stamp of the Creator. . . . The worth of an individual does not lie in the measure of his intellect, his racial origin, or his social position. Human worth lies in relatedness to God. Whenever this is recognized, ‘whiteness’ and ‘blackness’ pass away as determinants in a relationship and ‘son’ and ‘brother’ are substituted."

King explicitly linked this religious view of man to the philosophical foundation of the United States. America’s "pillars," King said, "were soundly grounded in the insights of our Judeo-Christian heritage: All men are made in the image of God; all men are brothers; all men are created equal; every man is heir to a legacy of dignity and worth; every man has rights that are neither conferred by nor derived from the state, they are God-given. What a marvelous foundation for any home! What a glorious place to inhabit!"

In light of King’s personal experiences and the contradiction of sanctioning slavery and segregation in a country committed to equality, this is a remarkably optimistic view of the American experience. It is a view that propelled the civil-rights movement to great victories.

An Animating Principle

This understanding of the dignity of the individual found concrete expression in a legal principle that was relentlessly pursued by the early civil-rights movement. If universally adopted, this principle would fulfill the promise of American ideals. It was eloquently stated by the first Justice Harlan in his dissent to the Supreme Court’s decision in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) . In words that would often be cited by those seeking to overthrow the odious Jim Crow system, Harlan pronounced, "Our Constitution is color blind. . . . The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the Supreme law of the land are involved."

The colorblind principle articulated by Harlan was the touchstone of the American civil-rights movement until the mid-1960s. Emory law professor Andrew Kull, in his admirable history The Color-Blind Constitution , identifies the centrality of the colorblind principle to the movement: "The undeniable fact is that over a period of some 125 years ending only in the late 1960s, the American civil-rights movement first elaborated, then held as its unvarying political objective, a rule of law requiring the color-blind treatment of individuals."

This fact is well illustrated by the example of Thurgood Marshall. In 1947, Marshall, representing the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Legal Defense and Education Fund, in a brief for a black student denied admission to the University of Oklahoma’s segregated law school, stated the colorblind principle unequivocally: "Classifications and distinctions based on race or color have no moral or legal validity in our society. They are contrary to our constitution and laws."

Marshall’s support for the colorblind principle--which he later abandoned--is vividly described by Constance Baker Motley, senior U.S. district judge for the Southern District of New York, in an account included in Tinsley Yarbrough’s biography of Justice Harlan. Motley recalled her days working with Marshall at the NAACP: "Marshall had a ‘Bible’ to which he turned during his most depressed moments. . . . Marshall would read aloud passages from Harlan’s amazing dissent. I do not believe we ever filed a major brief in the pre-Brown days in which a portion of that opinion was not quoted. Marshall’s favorite quotation was, ‘Our Constitution is color-blind.’ It became our basic creed."

The principle of colorblind justice ultimately did find clear expression in the law of the United States. By passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress acted decisively against the Jim Crow system, and established a national policy against discrimination based on race and sex. It is the supreme irony of the modern civil-rights movement that this crowning achievement was soon followed by the creation of a system of preferences based first on race and then extended to gender.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an unequivocal statement that Americans should be treated as individuals and not as members of racial and gender groups. Congress rejected the racism of America’s past. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, no American would be subject to discrimination. And there was no question about what discrimination meant. Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota--the chief Senate sponsor of the legislation--stated it as clearly as possible: Discrimination was any "distinction in treatment given to different individuals because of their different race."

Was This Enough?

As the Civil Rights Act was being considered, some voices questioned the adequacy of the principle of colorblind justice. The Urban League’s Whitney Young said that "300 years of deprivation" called for "a decade of discrimination in favor of Negro youth." James Farmer, a founder of the Congress of Racial Equality, called for "compensatory preferential treatment." Farmer said "it was impossible" for an "employer to be oblivious to color because we had all grown up in a racist society." But Roy Wilkins of the NAACP, in an encounter with Farmer, summed up the traditional view of the civil-rights movement: "I have a problem with that whole concept. What you’re asking for there is not equal treatment, but special treatment to make up for the unequal treatment of the past. I think that’s outside the American tradition and the country won’t buy it. I don’t feel at all comfortable asking for any special treatment; I just want to be treated like everyone else."

While considering the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress itself debated the issues of racial preferences and proportional representation. The result of that debate was the adoption of Section 703(j) of the Act, which states that nothing in Title VII of the Act "shall be interpreted to require any employer . . . to grant preferential treatment to any individual or group because of the race . . . of such individual or group" in order to maintain a racial balance. Senators Joseph Clark of Pennsylvania and Clifford Case of New Jersey, who steered that section of Title VII through the legislative process, left no doubt about Congress’s intent. "[A]ny deliberate attempt to maintain a racial balance," they said at the time, "whatever such a balance may be, would involve a violation of Title VII because maintaining such a balance would require an employer to hire or refuse to hire on the basis of race. It must be emphasized that discrimination is prohibited to any individual."

For a brief, shining moment, the principle of colorblind justice was recognized as the law of the land. But soon that principle was thrust aside to make way for a system of race-based entitlement. The critical events took place during the Nixon administration, when the so-called Philadelphia Plan was adopted. It became the prototypical program of racial preferences for federal contractors.

In February 1970, the U.S. Department of Labor issued an order that the affirmative-action programs adopted by all government contractors must include "goals and timetables to which the contractor’s good faith efforts must be directed to correct . . . deficiencies" in the "utilization of minority groups." This construct of goals and timetables to ensure the proper utilization of minority groups clearly envisioned a system of proportional representation in which group identity would be a factor--often the decisive factor--in hiring decisions. Embodied in this bureaucratic verbiage was a policy requiring that distinctions in treatment be made on the basis of race.

Discrimination of a most flagrant kind is now practiced at the federal, state, and local levels. A white teacher in Piscataway, New Jersey, is fired solely on account of her race. Asian students are denied admission to state universities to make room for students of other races with much weaker records. There are more than 160 federal laws, regulations, and executive orders explicitly requiring race- and sex-based preferences.

Now, as throughout the history of preferences, the key issue in the debate is how policies of preference can be reconciled with the fundamental American tenet that "all men are created equal" and are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."

Evidence of racism can still be found in our country. American society is not yet colorblind. The issue for Americans today is how we can best transcend the divisions of the past. Is it through a policy of consistent nondiscrimination or through a system of preferences?

Racial preferences are frequently justified as a measure to help low-income blacks. But the evidence is compelling that the beneficiaries of preferential policies are overwhelmingly middle-class or wealthy. For the most part, the truly disadvantaged have been unable to participate in the programs that grant preferences. Furthermore, the emphasis on preferences has diverted attention from the task of addressing the root causes of black Americans’ disadvantage. The lagging educational achievement of disadvantaged blacks can be ameliorated not through preferences but through structural reform of the American elementary and secondary education system. Preferences do nothing to help develop the skills necessary for the economic and social advancement of the disadvantaged.

Dressed-Up Discrimination

Preferences must also be judged a moral failure. Although some individuals have benefited significantly from preferences and a case can be made that preferences have enhanced the economic position of the black middle class, these gains have come at a great moral cost. Put simply, preferences discriminate. They deny opportunities to individuals solely because they are members of a nonpreferred race, gender, or ethnic group. The ambitions and aspirations, the hopes and dreams of individual Americans for themselves and for their families are trampled underfoot not for any wrongs those individuals have committed but for the sake of a bureaucratic effort to counterbalance the supposedly pervasive racism of American society. The penalty for the sins of the society at large is imposed on individuals who themselves are guilty only of being born a member of a nonpreferred group. Individual American citizens who would otherwise enjoy jobs and other opportunities are told that they must be denied in order to tilt the scales of racial justice.

Although preferences are presented as a remedial measure, they in fact create a class of innocent victims of government-imposed discrimination. In our system of justice, the burden of a remedy is imposed on those responsible for the specific harm being remedied. In the case of racial preferences, however, this remedial model breaks down. Those who benefit from the remedy need not show that they have in fact suffered any harm, and those who bear the burden of the remedy do so not because of any conduct on their part but purely because of their identity as members of non-preferred groups. Americans of all descriptions are deprived of opportunities under the system of preferences. And some of these victims have themselves struggled to overcome a severely disadvantaged background.

The proponents of preferential policies must acknowledge the injuries done to innocent individuals. They must confront the consequences flowing daily from the system of preferences in awarding contracts, jobs, promotions, and other opportunities. Supporters of the status quo attempt to hide the reality of preferences beneath a facade of "plus factors," "goals and timetables," and other measures that are said merely to "open up access" to opportunities. Behind all these semantic games, individual Americans are denied opportunities by government simply because they are of the wrong color or sex. The names assigned to the policies that deprive them of opportunity are of little moment. What matters is that our government implements a wide range of programs with the purpose of granting favored treatment to some on the basis of their biological characteristics. How can such government-imposed distinctions be reconciled with Martin Luther King’s message that whenever the image of God is recognized as universally present in mankind, " ‘whiteness’ and ‘blackness’ pass away as determinants in a relationship"? The conflict is irreconcilable.

The moral failure of preferences extends beyond the injustice done to individuals who are denied opportunities because they belong to the wrong group. There are other victims of the system of preferences. The supposed beneficiaries are themselves victims.

Preferences attack the dignity of the preferred, and cast a pall of doubt over their competence and worth. Preferences send a message that those in the favored groups are deemed incapable of meeting the standards that others are required to meet. Simply because they are members of a preferred group, individuals are often deprived of the recognition and respect they have earned. The achievements gained through talent and hard work are attributed instead to the operation of the system of preferences. The abilities of the preferred are called into question not only in the eyes of society, but also in the eyes of the preferred themselves. Self-confidence erodes, standards drop, incentives to perform diminish, and pernicious stereotypes are reinforced.

All of this results from treating individuals differently on the basis of race. It is the inevitable consequence of reducing individuals to the status of racial entities. The lesson of our history as Americans is that racial distinctions are inherently cruel. There are no benign distinctions of race. Our history--and perhaps human nature itself--renders that impossible. Although the underlying purpose of preferences was to eliminate the vestiges of racism, the mechanism of redress was fundamentally flawed. Rather than breaking down racial barriers, preferential policies continually remind Americans of racial differences.

Scarring the Soul

Martin Luther King Jr. described the harm done to all Americans by the Jim Crow system: "Segregation scars the soul of both the segregator and the segregated." Similarly, every time our government prefers one individual over another on the basis of race, new scars are created, and the promise of the Declaration of Independence is deferred.

The way forward in American race relations is to embrace the vision of a colorblind legal order that was set forth 100 years ago by Justice Harlan, pursued devotedly by the civil-rights movement, articulated eloquently by President Kennedy, and enshrined in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The way to transcend our racial divisions is to first ensure that we, as a people acting through our government, respect every person as an individual created in the image of God and honor every American as an individual whose color will never be the basis for determining his opportunities.

This principle is consistent with the initial meaning of "affirmative action" in civil-rights law. On March 6, 1961, President Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925, establishing the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, and creating a framework for "affirmative steps" designed "to realize more fully the national policy of nondiscrimination within the executive branch of the Government." The executive order also provided that government contracts contain the following provision: "The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color or national origin."

The original concept of affirmative action excluded any notion of preference. Indeed, the concept of affirmative action was explicitly linked with the principle of nondiscrimination. It was to be affirmative action to ensure that individuals were treated "without regard to their race." There is no hint of group entitlement or proportional representation in the executive order. On the contrary, the exclusive focus is on the right of individuals to be treated as individuals. The "affirmative steps" were actions designed to ensure that individuals of all races would have an opportunity to compete on the basis of their individual merit.

William Van Alstyne, a law professor at Duke University, has stated it as well as anyone: "[O]ne gets beyond racism by getting beyond it now: by a complete, resolute, and credible commitment never to tolerate in one’s own life--or in the life or practices of one’s government--the differential treatment of other human beings by race. Indeed, that is the great lesson for government itself to teach: In all we do in life, whatever we do in life, to treat any person less well than another or to favor any more than another for being black or white or brown or red, is wrong. Let that be our fundamental law and we shall have a Constitution universally worth expounding."

The American people have embraced that commitment, and the courts have gone far toward making it our fundamental law. The only remaining question is whether the elected representatives of the people will do their part to rid our legal order of the odious distinctions of race.

View the discussion thread.

Join the Hoover Institution’s community of supporters in ideas advancing freedom.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Black Americans Have a Clear Vision for Reducing Racism but Little Hope It Will Happen

Many say key U.S. institutions should be rebuilt to ensure fair treatment

Table of contents.

• Black Americans see little improvement in their lives despite increased national attention to racial issues
• Few Black adults expect equality for Black people in the U.S.
• Black adults say racism and police brutality are extremely big problems for Black people in the U.S.
• Personal experiences with discrimination are widespread among Black Americans
• Black adults see voting as the most effective strategy for moving toward equality in the U.S.
• Some Black adults see Black businesses and communities as effective remedies for inequality
• Black Americans say race matters little when choosing political allies
• The legacy of slavery affects Black Americans today
• Most Black adults agree the descendants of enslaved people should be repaid
• The types of repayment Black adults think would be most helpful
• Responsibility for reparations and the likelihood repayment will occur
• Black adults say the criminal justice system needs to be completely rebuilt
• Black adults say political, economic and health care systems need major changes to ensure fair treatment
• Most Black adults say funding for police departments should stay the same or increase
• Acknowledgments
• Appendix: Supplemental tables
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to understand the nuances among Black people on issues of racial inequality and social change in the United States. This in-depth survey explores differences among Black Americans in their views on the social status of the Black population in the U.S.; their assessments of racial inequality; their visions for institutional and social change; and their outlook on the chances that these improvements will be made. The analysis is the latest in the Center’s series of in-depth surveys of public opinion among Black Americans (read the first, “ Faith Among Black Americans ” and “ Race Is Central to Identity for Black Americans and Affects How They Connect With Each Other ”).

The online survey of 3,912 Black U.S. adults was conducted Oct. 4-17, 2021. Black U.S. adults include those who are single-race, non-Hispanic Black Americans; multiracial non-Hispanic Black Americans; and adults who indicate they are Black and Hispanic. The survey includes 1,025 Black adults on Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP) and 2,887 Black adults on Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel. Respondents on both panels are recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses.

Recruiting panelists by phone or mail ensures that nearly all U.S. Black adults have a chance of selection. This gives us confidence that any sample can represent the whole population (see our Methods 101 explainer on random sampling). Here are the questions used for the survey of Black adults, along with its responses and methodology .

The terms “Black Americans,” “Black people” and “Black adults” are used interchangeably throughout this report to refer to U.S. adults who self-identify as Black, either alone or in combination with other races or Hispanic identity.

Throughout this report, “Black, non-Hispanic” respondents are those who identify as single-race Black and say they have no Hispanic background. “Black Hispanic” respondents are those who identify as Black and say they have Hispanic background. We use the terms “Black Hispanic” and “Hispanic Black” interchangeably. “Multiracial” respondents are those who indicate two or more racial backgrounds (one of which is Black) and say they are not Hispanic.

Respondents were asked a question about how important being Black was to how they think about themselves. In this report, we use the term “being Black” when referencing responses to this question.

In this report, “immigrant” refers to people who were not U.S. citizens at birth – in other words, those born outside the U.S., Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories to parents who were not U.S. citizens. We use the terms “immigrant,” “born abroad” and “foreign-born” interchangeably.

Throughout this report, “Democrats and Democratic leaners” and just “Democrats” both refer to respondents who identify politically with the Democratic Party or who are independent or some other party but lean toward the Democratic Party. “Republicans and Republican leaners” and just “Republicans” both refer to respondents who identify politically with the Republican Party or are independent or some other party but lean toward the Republican Party.

Respondents were asked a question about their voter registration status. In this report, respondents are considered registered to vote if they self-report being absolutely certain they are registered at their current address. Respondents are considered not registered to vote if they report not being registered or express uncertainty about their registration.

To create the upper-, middle- and lower-income tiers, respondents’ 2020 family incomes were adjusted for differences in purchasing power by geographic region and household size. Respondents were then placed into income tiers: “Middle income” is defined as two-thirds to double the median annual income for the entire survey sample. “Lower income” falls below that range, and “upper income” lies above it. For more information about how the income tiers were created, read the methodology .

More than a year after the murder of George Floyd and the national protests, debate and political promises that ensued, 65% of Black Americans say the increased national attention on racial inequality has not led to changes that improved their lives. 1 And 44% say equality for Black people in the United States is not likely to be achieved, according to newly released findings from an October 2021 survey of Black Americans by Pew Research Center.

This is somewhat of a reversal in views from September 2020, when half of Black adults said the increased national focus on issues of race would lead to major policy changes to address racial inequality in the country and 56% expected changes that would make their lives better.

At the same time, many Black Americans are concerned about racial discrimination and its impact. Roughly eight-in-ten say they have personally experienced discrimination because of their race or ethnicity (79%), and most also say discrimination is the main reason many Black people cannot get ahead (68%).  

Even so, Black Americans have a clear vision for how to achieve change when it comes to racial inequality. This includes support for significant reforms to or complete overhauls of several U.S. institutions to ensure fair treatment, particularly the criminal justice system; political engagement, primarily in the form of voting; support for Black businesses to advance Black communities; and reparations in the forms of educational, business and homeownership assistance. Yet alongside their assessments of inequality and ideas about progress exists pessimism about whether U.S. society and its institutions will change in ways that would reduce racism.

These findings emerge from an extensive Pew Research Center survey of 3,912 Black Americans conducted online Oct. 4-17, 2021. The survey explores how Black Americans assess their position in U.S. society and their ideas about social change. Overall, Black Americans are clear on what they think the problems are facing the country and how to remedy them. However, they are skeptical that meaningful changes will take place in their lifetime.

Black Americans see racism in our laws as a big problem and discrimination as a roadblock to progress

Black adults were asked in the survey to assess the current nature of racism in the United States and whether structural or individual sources of this racism are a bigger problem for Black people. About half of Black adults (52%) say racism in our laws is a bigger problem than racism by individual people, while four-in-ten (43%) say acts of racism committed by individual people is the bigger problem. Only 3% of Black adults say that Black people do not experience discrimination in the U.S. today.

In assessing the magnitude of problems that they face, the majority of Black Americans say racism (63%), police brutality (60%) and economic inequality (54%) are extremely or very big problems for Black people living in the U.S. Slightly smaller shares say the same about the affordability of health care (47%), limitations on voting (46%), and the quality of K-12 schools (40%).

Aside from their critiques of U.S. institutions, Black adults also feel the impact of racial inequality personally. Most Black adults say they occasionally or frequently experience unfair treatment because of their race or ethnicity (79%), and two-thirds (68%) cite racial discrimination as the main reason many Black people cannot get ahead today.

Black Americans’ views on reducing racial inequality

Black Americans are clear on the challenges they face because of racism. They are also clear on the solutions. These range from overhauls of policing practices and the criminal justice system to civic engagement and reparations to descendants of people enslaved in the United States.

Changing U.S. institutions such as policing, courts and prison systems

About nine-in-ten Black adults say multiple aspects of the criminal justice system need some kind of change (minor, major or a complete overhaul) to ensure fair treatment, with nearly all saying so about policing (95%), the courts and judicial process (95%), and the prison system (94%).

Roughly half of Black adults say policing (49%), the courts and judicial process (48%), and the prison system (54%) need to be completely rebuilt for Black people to be treated fairly. Smaller shares say the same about the political system (42%), the economic system (37%) and the health care system (34%), according to the October survey.

While Black Americans are in favor of significant changes to policing, most want spending on police departments in their communities to stay the same (39%) or increase (35%). A little more than one-in-five (23%) think spending on police departments in their area should be decreased.

Black adults who favor decreases in police spending are most likely to name medical, mental health and social services (40%) as the top priority for those reappropriated funds. Smaller shares say K-12 schools (25%), roads, water systems and other infrastructure (12%), and reducing taxes (13%) should be the top priority.

Voting and ‘buying Black’ viewed as important strategies for Black community advancement

Black Americans also have clear views on the types of political and civic engagement they believe will move Black communities forward. About six-in-ten Black adults say voting (63%) and supporting Black businesses or “buying Black” (58%) are extremely or very effective strategies for moving Black people toward equality in the U.S. Smaller though still significant shares say the same about volunteering with organizations dedicated to Black equality (48%), protesting (42%) and contacting elected officials (40%).

Black adults were also asked about the effectiveness of Black economic and political independence in moving them toward equality. About four-in-ten (39%) say Black ownership of all businesses in Black neighborhoods would be an extremely or very effective strategy for moving toward racial equality, while roughly three-in-ten (31%) say the same about establishing a national Black political party. And about a quarter of Black adults (27%) say having Black neighborhoods governed entirely by Black elected officials would be extremely or very effective in moving Black people toward equality.

Most Black Americans support repayment for slavery

Discussions about atonement for slavery predate the founding of the United States. As early as 1672 , Quaker abolitionists advocated for enslaved people to be paid for their labor once they were free. And in recent years, some U.S. cities and institutions have implemented reparations policies to do just that.

Most Black Americans say the legacy of slavery affects the position of Black people in the U.S. either a great deal (55%) or a fair amount (30%), according to the survey. And roughly three-quarters (77%) say descendants of people enslaved in the U.S. should be repaid in some way.

Black adults who say descendants of the enslaved should be repaid support doing so in different ways. About eight-in-ten say repayment in the forms of educational scholarships (80%), financial assistance for starting or improving a business (77%), and financial assistance for buying or remodeling a home (76%) would be extremely or very helpful. A slightly smaller share (69%) say cash payments would be extremely or very helpful forms of repayment for the descendants of enslaved people.

Where the responsibility for repayment lies is also clear for Black Americans. Among those who say the descendants of enslaved people should be repaid, 81% say the U.S. federal government should have all or most of the responsibility for repayment. About three-quarters (76%) say businesses and banks that profited from slavery should bear all or most of the responsibility for repayment. And roughly six-in-ten say the same about colleges and universities that benefited from slavery (63%) and descendants of families who engaged in the slave trade (60%).

Black Americans are skeptical change will happen

Even though Black Americans’ visions for social change are clear, very few expect them to be implemented. Overall, 44% of Black adults say equality for Black people in the U.S. is a little or not at all likely. A little over a third (38%) say it is somewhat likely and only 13% say it is extremely or very likely.

They also do not think specific institutions will change. Two-thirds of Black adults say changes to the prison system (67%) and the courts and judicial process (65%) that would ensure fair treatment for Black people are a little or not at all likely in their lifetime. About six-in-ten (58%) say the same about policing. Only about one-in-ten say changes to policing (13%), the courts and judicial process (12%), and the prison system (11%) are extremely or very likely.

This pessimism is not only about the criminal justice system. The majority of Black adults say the political (63%), economic (62%) and health care (51%) systems are also unlikely to change in their lifetime.

Black Americans’ vision for social change includes reparations. However, much like their pessimism about institutional change, very few think they will see reparations in their lifetime. Among Black adults who say the descendants of people enslaved in the U.S. should be repaid, 82% say reparations for slavery are unlikely to occur in their lifetime. About one-in-ten (11%) say repayment is somewhat likely, while only 7% say repayment is extremely or very likely to happen in their lifetime.

Black Democrats, Republicans differ on assessments of inequality and visions for social change

Party affiliation is one key point of difference among Black Americans in their assessments of racial inequality and their visions for social change. Black Republicans and Republican leaners are more likely than Black Democrats and Democratic leaners to focus on the acts of individuals. For example, when summarizing the nature of racism against Black people in the U.S., the majority of Black Republicans (59%) say racist acts committed by individual people is a bigger problem for Black people than racism in our laws. Black Democrats (41%) are less likely to hold this view.

Black Republicans (45%) are also more likely than Black Democrats (21%) to say that Black people who cannot get ahead in the U.S. are mostly responsible for their own condition. And while similar shares of Black Republicans (79%) and Democrats (80%) say they experience racial discrimination on a regular basis, Republicans (64%) are more likely than Democrats (36%) to say that most Black people who want to get ahead can make it if they are willing to work hard.

On the other hand, Black Democrats are more likely than Black Republicans to focus on the impact that racial inequality has on Black Americans. Seven-in-ten Black Democrats (73%) say racial discrimination is the main reason many Black people cannot get ahead in the U.S, while about four-in-ten Black Republicans (44%) say the same. And Black Democrats are more likely than Black Republicans to say racism (67% vs. 46%) and police brutality (65% vs. 44%) are extremely big problems for Black people today.

Black Democrats are also more critical of U.S. institutions than Black Republicans are. For example, Black Democrats are more likely than Black Republicans to say the prison system (57% vs. 35%), policing (52% vs. 29%) and the courts and judicial process (50% vs. 35%) should be completely rebuilt for Black people to be treated fairly.

While the share of Black Democrats who want to see large-scale changes to the criminal justice system exceeds that of Black Republicans, they share similar views on police funding. Four-in-ten each of Black Democrats and Black Republicans say funding for police departments in their communities should remain the same, while around a third of each partisan coalition (36% and 37%, respectively) says funding should increase. Only about one-in-four Black Democrats (24%) and one-in-five Black Republicans (21%) say funding for police departments in their communities should decrease.

Among the survey’s other findings:

Black adults differ by age in their views on political strategies. Black adults ages 65 and older (77%) are most likely to say voting is an extremely or very effective strategy for moving Black people toward equality. They are significantly more likely than Black adults ages 18 to 29 (48%) and 30 to 49 (60%) to say this. Black adults 65 and older (48%) are also more likely than those ages 30 to 49 (38%) and 50 to 64 (42%) to say protesting is an extremely or very effective strategy. Roughly four-in-ten Black adults ages 18 to 29 say this (44%).

Gender plays a role in how Black adults view policing. Though majorities of Black women (65%) and men (56%) say police brutality is an extremely big problem for Black people living in the U.S. today, Black women are more likely than Black men to hold this view. When it comes to criminal justice, Black women (56%) and men (51%) are about equally likely to share the view that the prison system should be completely rebuilt to ensure fair treatment of Black people. However, Black women (52%) are slightly more likely than Black men (45%) to say this about policing. On the matter of police funding, Black women (39%) are slightly more likely than Black men (31%) to say police funding in their communities should be increased. On the other hand, Black men are more likely than Black women to prefer that funding stay the same (44% vs. 36%). Smaller shares of both Black men (23%) and women (22%) would like to see police funding decreased.

Income impacts Black adults’ views on reparations. Roughly eight-in-ten Black adults with lower (78%), middle (77%) and upper incomes (79%) say the descendants of people enslaved in the U.S. should receive reparations. Among those who support reparations, Black adults with upper and middle incomes (both 84%) are more likely than those with lower incomes (75%) to say educational scholarships would be an extremely or very helpful form of repayment. However, of those who support reparations, Black adults with lower (72%) and middle incomes (68%) are more likely than those with higher incomes (57%) to say cash payments would be an extremely or very helpful form of repayment for slavery.

• Black adults in the September 2020 survey only include those who say their race is Black alone and are non-Hispanic. The same is true only for the questions of improvements to Black people’s lives and equality in the United States in the October 2021 survey. Throughout the rest of this report, Black adults include those who say their race is Black alone and non-Hispanic; those who say their race is Black and at least one other race and non-Hispanic; or Black and Hispanic, unless otherwise noted. ↩

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Black Americans
• Criminal Justice
• Discrimination & Prejudice
• Economic Inequality
• Race, Ethnicity & Politics

A look at Black-owned businesses in the U.S.

8 facts about black americans and the news, black americans’ views on success in the u.s., among black adults, those with higher incomes are most likely to say they are happy, fewer than half of black americans say the news often covers the issues that are important to them, most popular, report materials.

• American Trends Panel Wave 97

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Ending Discrimination Against People with Mental and Substance Use Disorders: The Evidence for Stigma Change (2016)

Chapter: 6 conclusions and recommendations, 6 conclusions and recommendations, lessons learned, experiences of other countries.

The experiences of Australia, Canada, and England (see Chapter 4 ) strongly indicate that changing negative social norms that stigmatize people with mental and substance use disorders will require a coordinated and sustained effort. Behavioral health-related norms and beliefs are created and reinforced at multiple levels, including day-to-day contact with people affected by mental and substance use disorders, organizational policies and practices, community norms and beliefs, the media, and governmental law and policy. Successful national-scale anti-stigma programs in other countries shared the following characteristics:

• They were supported by government at the national level.
• Support was committed on a long-term basis, often over decades.
• There was ongoing evaluation and monitoring from the planning phase forward.
• The initiative was multipronged to address the full range of relevant needs.
• Programs and services were coordinated across states (provinces) and across economic and social sectors to reduce fragmentation of efforts.
• Information was collected and disseminated about what worked, with whom, and under which conditions in order to inform the ongoing program development as well as future programs.

The Ryan White Act

In the United States, the Ryan White Care Act (RWCA) provides an example of a coordinated and sustained effort to meet the full spectrum of needs in people with HIV/AIDS. The act was initially passed by Congress in 1990 and has since been reauthorized four times in 1996, 2000, 2006, and 2009. The act supports programs and services at the community, municipal, and state level across the nation. Over the past 25 years, the Ryan White Program has become a critical component of the HIV/AIDS health care system in the United States, serving more than one-half million people ( Crowley and Kates, 2013 ). The history, evolution, and outcomes of the program provide relevant information for future behavioral health anti-stigma initiatives.

The Ryan White Program has evolved to embrace a focus on treatment as prevention, which is consistent with the goals of the Affordable Care Act and the U.S. National HIV/AIDS Strategy. Ongoing evaluation and outcomes research provide future direction for the program, most recently in the areas of health workforce development, insurance coverage, and efforts to scale up programs to achieve population-level impacts ( Crowley and Garner, 2015 ).

The Ryan White Program funds social support-related services in addition to traditional health care and prescription drug programs, including transportation and housing assistance, nutrition services, day care, and dental care ( Taylor, 2010 ). Such “wrap-around” services are provided within the context of an integrated model of care to improve quality of life for people living with HIV/AIDS who face many of the stigma-related barriers as individuals with mental and substance use disorders ( Garfield, 2011 ). Funding is awarded through statutorily established formula grants and through competitive mechanisms with the bulk of funds distributed noncompetitively in response to evolving needs.

One critique of RWCA is that the act did not establish minimum standards for care and services delivery across all states. For example, the act funded AIDS Drug Assistance Programs that were managed by individual states with the states deciding how to allocate funding and set eligibility for enrollment. At the program’s peak height in September 2011, more than 9,000 people with HIV were on state medication waiting lists. Although state and local autonomy regarding implementation and delivery is essential, lessons learned from the AIDS Drug Assistance Programs underscore the need for unifying program standards and illustrate the

important role of the federal government in a national strategy to reduce stigma related to mental and substance use disorders.

An Ecological Framework

Research on stigma toward mental and substance use disorders is challenging and complex in part because it necessarily involves a wide range of independent service systems, numerous sectors and professions, competing agendas, nuanced ethical and cultural issues, and multiple levels of outcome analysis ranging from the individual level to national statistics. Coordinating research across these many layers and systems will require a strategic and harmonious effort on the part of the federal government, private foundations, and academic and health care institutions, and other stakeholders. A coordinated research effort should be finely tuned to the societal and cultural contexts that intentionally or unintentionally endorse or facilitate stigma at various levels, especially the structural level. One assumption of an ecological perspective is that society’s tolerance for or endorsement of a negative norm sets a precedent for stigma at the individual, family, and community levels ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2014 ). This underscores the need to focus more attention on eliminating structural stigma (see Recommendation 2 ).

Understanding the processes by which factors at the individual, family, community, and social levels interact to produce and maintain stigma will require multidisciplinary, multimethod, and multisector approaches. Research will need to leverage and build on the existing knowledge base related to mental and substance use disorders, stigma change, and other relevant and related fields. Finally, effective research needs to consider the cultural processes, social stratification, ecological variations, and immigrant/acculturation status that are pertinent to understanding the causes and consequences mental and substance disorder stigma ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2014 . These sociocultural factors are critical elements to consider in developing and testing intervention strategies and in adapting evidence-based practices to unique populations and target audiences to ensure cultural relevance, reach, efficacy, and adoption ( Barrera et al., 2013 ).

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A national-level approach.

CONCLUSION: The experiences of the U.S. campaigns related to HIV/AIDS and of anti-stigma campaigns in Australia, Canada, and

England demonstrate the need for a coordinated and sustained effort over 2 or more decades to reduce the stigma associated with mental and substance use disorders.

Norms and beliefs related to behavioral health, such as the stigma associated with mental and substance use disorders, are created and reinforced at multiple levels, including day-to-day contact with affected individuals, organizational policies and practices, community norms and beliefs, the media, and governmental law and policy. A number of private and public organizations are already engaged in anti-stigma and mental health promotion efforts, but because these efforts are largely uncoordinated and poorly evaluated, they cannot provide an evidence base for future national efforts.

RECOMMENDATION 1: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services should take the lead responsibility among federal partners and key stakeholders in the design, implementation, and evaluation of a multipronged, evidence-based national strategy to reduce stigma and to support people with mental and substance use disorders.

Relevant stakeholder groups would include the following:

• consumers in treatment for mental and substance use disorders and consumer organizations;
• families and others whose lives are touched by mental illness or substance use disorders, including suicide-attempt survivors and loss survivors;
• relevant private sector leadership, including major employers;
• relevant foundations and nongovernmental organizations;
• advocates and advocacy groups, including civil rights and disability law experts;
• insurance companies and pharmaceutical manufacturers;
• journalists and others in the news media, including public health media experts;
• health and behavioral health care providers, and administrators, including protective services and social services providers;
• health professional education institutions and professional associations;
• academic researchers, including suicide prevention experts and researchers;
• law enforcement officials and first responders; and
• representatives of federal, state, and local governments.

Early tasks would include the following:

• Identify a lead organization to serve as convener of stakeholders.
• Promote coordination and engagement across local, state, federal, and nongovernmental groups, including the U.S. Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Labor, and relevant stakeholder groups to pool resources and promote evidence-based approaches.
• Evaluate current laws and regulations related to persons with mental and substance use disorders to identify opportunities to promote changes to support people on the path to recovery.
• Support the development of a strategic plan for research and dissemination of evidence about effective strategies to change social norms related to mental and substance use disorders (see Recommendation 3 ).
• With the federal agencies and other partners, develop a process of identifying and engaging grassroots efforts in each state to promote the implementation of evidence-based programs and fidelity monitoring of service delivery.
• With the federal agencies, establish a long-term, national monitoring system for stigma and stigma reduction.

Collaboration and Coordination

In 2013, eight federal agencies were identified as having programs to support individuals with mental and substance use disorders—the U.S. Departments of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing, Justice, Labor, Veterans Affairs, and the Social Security Administration—although their specific mission goals vary. To improve the effectiveness and extend the reach of the federal agencies’ programs, there are some ongoing efforts to coordinate across the agencies and their programs ( U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2014 ).

To maximize desired outcomes, collaborative efforts should eschew “ownership” of programs and include cobranding and resource sharing. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA’s) ongoing engagement with stakeholders can support the search for common ground, mutually articulated goals, and shared agendas.

The committee has identified structural stigma and stereotypes of dangerousness and unpredictability as major sources of public and self-stigma. Given the importance of reducing stigma in these areas, early efforts could focus on development of a communications campaign that

targeted policy and decision makers to challenge specific laws, policies and regulations that discriminate against people with mental and substance use disorders. Such a campaign could develop evidence-based public service announcements to hold in readiness for tragic events, such as mass violence, suicide by school and college students, and suicide clusters.

CONCLUSION: Changing stigma in a lasting way will require coordinated efforts, based on the best possible evidence, which are supported at the national level and planned and implemented by a representative coalition of stakeholders. Engaging a wide range of stakeholders would facilitate consensus building and provide the support needed to overcome major obstacles to the implementation of effective anti-stigma programs in the United States. Barriers and challenges include, but are not limited to, conflict among major stakeholder groups regarding best practices and priorities, resource constraints, and the need to target multiple audiences with variable perceptions and priorities, as well as shifting priorities at the national level.

RECOMMENDATION 2: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services should evaluate its own service programs and collaborate with other stakeholders, particularly the criminal justice system and government and state agencies, for the purpose of identifying and eliminating policies, practices, and procedures that directly or indirectly discriminate against people with mental and substance use disorders.

Strategic Planning for Research

The committee defines strategic planning as the process undertaken by an agency or organization to define its future and formulate a detailed plan to guide its path from the current state to its vision for the future.

CONCLUSION: A planning process usually results in the development of a key document that includes a plan to ensure that communication is maintained across all stakeholders. This element is especially relevant for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration given the agency’s ongoing engagement with stakeholders and collaborators. A strategic plan can also serve as the basis of comparison for an ongoing plan for iterative effectiveness monitoring.

RECOMMENDATION 3: The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration should conduct formative and evaluative research as part of a strategically planned effort to reduce stigma.

SAMHSA’s ongoing program of research on social norms and communications practices could coordinate with national efforts to achieve common goals and objectives. SAMHSA’s Office of Communication’s future activities could also be informed and supported by partners and participating stakeholders.

Because change occurs slowly, outcome evaluations need to be multifaceted and sustained to capture both direct and indirect effects, as well as intended and unintended consequences. An evaluation plan should include and support community-based participatory research that is based on the principle of partnership, in which community partners act as co-learners with academic partners rather than helpers and recipients. This approach involves community stakeholders in helping to define both the change targets and the intervention strategies, as well as in the conduct of the research itself. To inform a national campaign, more in-depth formative and evaluative research is critically needed in three areas: communication strategies, contact-based programs, and the role of peers.

Communication Strategies

Communication science provides a basis for understanding the effects of message features, contents, and platforms on four outcomes: cognitive (e.g., attention and memory), affective (e.g., liking, empathy, and fear), persuasive (e.g., attitude and behavior change), and behavioral (e.g., intents and actions). These effects are not discrete. They depend on characteristics of the target audience or audiences, the media platform, the message source, and the specific content and production features used in the message. For example, in a campaign to counter the stereotype of dangerousness in the wake of a tragic event, relevant audiences would include the media, school officials and teachers, young people, parents, and clergy. Messages would target specific smaller groups and would be designed and delivered with input and support of engaged stakeholders, for example, in donated airtime or volunteered time of high-profile supporters and speakers.

CONCLUSION: Best practices in choosing effective messages first require that a communications campaign develop well-defined goals for each specific group targeted. Effective messages can then be tailored to the specific target audience for the defined goals.

Because of the complexity of designing communication messages, efforts to implement the committee’s recommendation on this topic should be informed by the results of formative and evaluative research. Research is necessary both before message concepts are generated and after message concepts are created for testing in the field. The perspectives of people with lived experience of mental and substance use disorders should inform anti-stigma campaigns at every stage, including design, delivery, and evaluation.

RECOMMENDATION 4: To design stigma-reduction messaging and communication programs, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration should investigate and use evidence from formative and evaluative research on effective communication across multiple platforms.

Several general features of effective communication programs have been identified by research and can inform the work in the committee’s recommendations to SAMHSA:

• Identify specific target groups and specific goals appropriate to each group (e.g., legislators and policy makers, employers and landlords, educators, health care practitioners, and people with mental and substance use disorders).
• Make strong appeals that are relevant and personally consequential to particular audiences, for example, young people or veterans.
• Understand how a particular audience orients to a message and what kinds of cues and styles hold their attention so that the message is absorbed and remembered.
• Know what matters most to a specific target group.

Contact-Based Programs

Mixed-methods research has led to the identification of key elements of successful contact-based programs ( Corrigan et al., 2013 , 2014 ). Outcome research on contact demonstrates robust effects in pre-post studies ( Corrigan et al., 2012 ; Griffiths et al., 2014 ) and at follow-up ( Corrigan et al., 2015a ). Although the efficacy of contact-based programs is greater than that of education programs alone in adults across a range of specific target audiences, such as health professionals, college students, and police, evidence shows that one-time contact is not as effective as repeated contact. Education programs are effective in changing stigmatizing attitudes among adolescents.

CONCLUSION: To expand the reach of contact-based programs, efforts will be needed to develop a nationally representative cohort of individuals who have disclosed information about their experiences of mental or substance use disorders. Involvement of those individuals needs to be preceded by the design of programs to aid personal consideration and action on disclosure decisions and of peer training programs to help people consider the risks and benefits of disclosure.

RECOMMENDATION 5: To decrease public and self-stigma and promote affirming and inclusive attitudes and behaviors targeted to specific groups, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration should work with federal partners to design, evaluate, and disseminate effective, evidence-based, contact-based programming.

The Role of Peers

Peers play an essential role in combatting stigma, in part because they model personal recovery. Their role is critical in helping individuals to overcome the debilitating forces of self-stigma. Peer support programs and services include social and emotional support, as well as practical support related to quality-of-life decisions, delivered by people with mental and substance use disorders. Peer support has existed since the 1970s, but in 2001 several states began efforts to certify and train the peer specialist workforce. By 2012, 36 states had established such programs, although there is considerable variation in the certification programs across these states ( Ostrow and Adams, 2012 ). State programs vary in terms of stage of development and certification requirements, including the content and process of training, examination criteria, and requirements for continuing education and recertification ( Kaufman et al., 2012 ).

Most research on the outcomes of peer services has focused on quality-of-life measures. Few data are available about the costs and benefits of these programs, although the research suggests that people who use peer support services are more likely to use other behavioral health services of all kinds, including professional services and prescription drugs, which may lead to improved outcomes ( Landers and Zhou, 2014 ). Although more peers are becoming certified, stakeholders disagree about the risks and benefits of professionalizing the role given grassroots origins of peer support in the consumer movement ( Ostrow and Adams, 2012 ).

CONCLUSION: In the United States, there is no established and accepted set of national or state competencies or standards for peer

specialists, such as those that apply to other health professionals at state levels.

Although stakeholders do not agree on the risks and benefits of certification for peer support providers, it may contribute to the quality and outcomes of peer services and facilitate research on the effectiveness of these services across a range of outcomes. Programs need to be appropriately targeted to the audience or audiences and implemented at the relevant geographic level. Components of this effort would include standardization of preparation for peer service providers and development of practice guidelines for referral to and delivery of peer services across agencies and organizations engaged in this work. SAMHSA has taken steps in this direction with its 2009 Consumer-Operated Service Evidence-Based Practices Toolkit ( Chapter 4 ) and continues to have an important role to play in the development and dissemination of these products and programs across the nation. The National Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health offers a national certification for parent support providers that could serve as a model for future efforts to expand the reach of high-quality peer support services.

RECOMMENDATION 6: The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration should work with partners to design, support, and assess the effectiveness of evidence-based peer programs to support people with mental and substance use disorders along the path to recovery and to encourage their participation in treatment.

Development of a national strategy for eliminating the stigma of mental and substance use disorders is a challenging, long-term goal that will require collaboration across federal agencies, support from governments at all levels, and engagement of a broad range of stakeholders. No single agency can implement an effective national strategy, but SAMHSA brings specific and unique strengths including well-established stakeholder relations, commitment to the recovery model, and a history of promotion and implementation of prevention and early intervention strategies. Early objectives will include consensus building across a range of issues, design of cost-sharing arrangements, and development and implementation of a research strategy, including a system for monitoring change public attitudes, and mechanisms for disseminating information to inform future anti-stigma interventions.

Estimates indicate that as many as 1 in 4 Americans will experience a mental health problem or will misuse alcohol or drugs in their lifetimes. These disorders are among the most highly stigmatized health conditions in the United States, and they remain barriers to full participation in society in areas as basic as education, housing, and employment. Improving the lives of people with mental health and substance abuse disorders has been a priority in the United States for more than 50 years. The Community Mental Health Act of 1963 is considered a major turning point in America's efforts to improve behavioral healthcare. It ushered in an era of optimism and hope and laid the groundwork for the consumer movement and new models of recovery. The consumer movement gave voice to people with mental and substance use disorders and brought their perspectives and experience into national discussions about mental health.

However over the same 50-year period, positive change in American public attitudes and beliefs about mental and substance use disorders has lagged behind these advances. Stigma is a complex social phenomenon based on a relationship between an attribute and a stereotype that assigns undesirable labels, qualities, and behaviors to a person with that attribute. Labeled individuals are then socially devalued, which leads to inequality and discrimination. This report contributes to national efforts to understand and change attitudes, beliefs and behaviors that can lead to stigma and discrimination. Changing stigma in a lasting way will require coordinated efforts, which are based on the best possible evidence, supported at the national level with multiyear funding, and planned and implemented by an effective coalition of representative stakeholders.

Ending Discrimination Against People with Mental and Substance Use Disorders: The Evidence for Stigma Change explores stigma and discrimination faced by individuals with mental or substance use disorders and recommends effective strategies for reducing stigma and encouraging people to seek treatment and other supportive services. It offers a set of conclusions and recommendations about successful stigma change strategies and the research needed to inform and evaluate these efforts in the United States.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Sociology LGBTQ

LGBTQ Discrimination: Overcoming Prejudice and Fostering Inclusion

Table of contents, roots of lgbtq discrimination, manifestations of discrimination, the impact on individuals and society, efforts to combat discrimination, fostering inclusion and equality, conclusion: the path to a more inclusive future.

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• Racial Realism
• Intersectionality
• Social Class

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

How to Overcome Poverty and Discrimination Essay

The success story of Sherman Alexie is an inspiring piece of writing that reminds people of the difficulties Indian children and other minorities face in life. Alexie (1998) is determined to inspire as many school students to read more and save their lives from poverty as he can. However, I do not believe this encouragement is a ticket to success for most people. I think that overcoming poverty and discrimination should not be a challenge for an individual but instead a goal for the entire society.

Children should not be put under the expectation to oppose societal injustices. In his essay, Alexie (1998) is understanding of the “defeated” Indian children who refuse to try the way he suggests. According to Alexie (1998), such children are expected to be stupid; they are not presumed to exceed expectations and are treated accordingly. Therefore, people should not view this issue as an individual challenge that every child should overcome because the game’s rules are not fair for everyone. Alexie’s (1998) success has much to do with luck, as he himself admits, rather than his personal determination. In my experience also, luck is the major element of success: being born into a prosperous household, being provided a place and resources for studying, and being given support and encouragement. All of this is due to simple luck, not determination. As such, to give a chance to the “defeated” children and save their lives, as Alexie (1998) puts it, society itself must change the rules so that everyone can have access to this ticket to success.

Determination and inspiration solely are never enough to ensure everyone’s ability to overcome poverty and discrimination. Success stories like Alexie’s should not be used as examples every child should follow. Due to the disparity of wealth in the world and racial and gender discrimination, not everyone is able to excel. Instead of telling children how they should overcome societal prejudice, the adults should work together to eliminate such obstacles from their paths.

Alexie, S. (1998). Superman and me. Los Angeles Times, 19 .

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, June 29). How to Overcome Poverty and Discrimination. https://ivypanda.com/essays/how-to-overcome-poverty-and-discrimination/

"How to Overcome Poverty and Discrimination." IvyPanda , 29 June 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/how-to-overcome-poverty-and-discrimination/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'How to Overcome Poverty and Discrimination'. 29 June.

IvyPanda . 2023. "How to Overcome Poverty and Discrimination." June 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/how-to-overcome-poverty-and-discrimination/.

1. IvyPanda . "How to Overcome Poverty and Discrimination." June 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/how-to-overcome-poverty-and-discrimination/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "How to Overcome Poverty and Discrimination." June 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/how-to-overcome-poverty-and-discrimination/.

• Sherman Alexie: Poet's Biography
• Malcolm X and Sherman Alexie
• Literature Studies: Every Little Hurricane by Sherman Alexie
• The Properties of Memory in "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" by Sherman Alexie
• The Essay "Superman and Me" by Sherman Alexie
• War Dances by Alexie Sherman
• Victor Joseph' Sense of Identity in "Reservation Blues" by Sherman Alexie
• Symbolism in The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven by Alexie
• "Family Relationships in What It Means to Say Phoenix Arizona" by S. Alexie
• “Smoke Signals” Movie and "This is What It Means to Say Phoenix, Arizona" by Sherman Alexie
• Income and Wealth Inequality in Canada
• Connection of Poverty and Education
• The Opportunity for All Program: Poverty Reduction
• Early Childhood Financial Support and Poverty
• The Homelessness Issue in Canada