Myth: Hard Work And Credentials Determine Employment Opportunities

Many jobseekers spend a great deal of time applying for job postings hoping that their fine-tuned resumes will land them the job of their dreams, or at least a job—or if nothing else, an interview. Their efforts often go unnoticed, their applications unanswered, and they hardly ever find out why. On the other hand, others are landing jobs even when they are not looking. Phenomena such as these are realities of life and career building. However, they are usually not included in the narrative that career advisors tell.

The purpose of this post is to shed light on the untold portion of the job search narrative.  

Narrative Assumes Ideal Conditions And Denies All Variables Except One—The Job Seeker

Career counseling is built on many incomplete claims predominantly focused on how things “should” be, but not how they really are. The narrative generally disregards all variables except the job seeker. It assumes fair and transparent application processes that meet industry standards, that every application is considered equally and that the people processing the applications are doing their jobs competently. Career advisors’ narratives usually do not consider the political environments in which hiring takes place or possible shortcomings of the persons involved.

Formality To Claim Transparency

Many jobs are posted merely to claim transparency. Some of the best jobs don’t even get posted. They are filled through networks. Additionally, some jobs that are posted don’t get filled for financial or other reasons. Subsequently, interviews are often not what they appear to be. Interviews are more about chemistry than content. Assuming that a candidate is interviewing for an actual open position, the necessary impressions are usually made within few seconds.  

Regardless of the facts, career advisors continue to claim that one can write the “winning resume” and conduct the “winning interview.” Naturally, one can optimize a resume to a level that can lead to an interview. However, that can take days or weeks. Additionally, since an interview does not always mean that one is being considered for an opening, it does not necessarily increase the chances of landing a job significantly; particularly since jobs can also be filled without an interview.

Last but not least, employers are looking for the best fit, not for candidates with the highest credentials or most sophisticated skill set. The message that more education and a better skill set increases the chances of landing a job has little do to with facts.  

Testing And Extensive Planning

The way one’s career develops has little to do with what one went to school for, envisioned, or carefully planned. Careers generally result from coincidence. Regardless of these facts, job seekers are told to endure extensive career testing and planning, or they are asked to create artificial networks that seldom lead to more than frustration. They are given tests that allegedly determine which careers a particular individual would excel in and be a good fit for based on his or her skills and interests, as if the individual would not excel in other careers as much, or as if being a “good fit” at a job would simply be a result of the role one plays instead of a complex string of factors that depend on various personal and job-related variables.

Obtaining Opportunities—“Who You Know, Not What You Know”

Obtaining opportunities is one of the most crucial aspects of a career. Opportunities are not necessarily determined by hard work, qualifications or skills, but by the chemistry one has with the hiring manager or someone with influence over the selection process. Career advisors rarely mention this or that superior qualifications and skills can, in fact, even halt one’s career by intimidating some decision makers.

People who are aware that they have received opportunities fairly easily claim that they were given an opportunity, but they had to work hard to excel in it, disregarding the fact that this is exactly what differentiates them from the others: They were given the opportunity to “work hard,” to showcase their skills while others were not, even though some others may have been equally, or more qualified.

Opportunities are often spur of the moment events—coincidences. They are mainly determined by, as the saying goes, “who you know, not what you know.” Obtaining an opportunity is, for some, the most challenging, and for others, the easiest part of their careers. The best job fits are the ones that one “falls into” without too much effort or force.

Future Of Work—Fewer Employment Opportunities

Hope should be encouraged. However, hope based on inaccurate perceptions can encourage individuals to waste their efforts on unrealistic outcomes. When job seekers believe the way careers develop is solely up to them, they work harder. They feel more powerful. Such positive thinking is more likely to translate into positive outcomes, and some people will excel as a result of the positive and empowering messages. However, the opposite can be detrimental and more people are likely to be affected by the negative outcomes than the positive ones bite can be detrimental and more people are likely to be affected by teh y is mething else that is positive. ecause traditional employment opportunities are limited and becoming rarer, and the quality of existing opportunities are deteriorating. Even white collar work in the 21^st century is industrialized (similar to blue collar work at production facilities), leaving little room for creativity. To maximize profits, employers are working to specialize and systemize work through uniformity even more. Lacking ethics and integrity in leadership levels that most people are familiar with encourages further deterioration of the white collar workplace, meaning traditional employment, as attractive as it can be, is not necessarily always a desirable one.

Disproportionately Large Applicant Pools Benefit Employers, Not Necessarily Individuals Or Society

It is in employers’ interest that career advisors—backed by schools, universities—continue to claim the “winning resume” or “winning interview” narrative because the narrative helps maintain a wide applicant pool. However, with a few exceptions, disproportionately large applicant pools also indicate oversupply of human capital and shortage of work—quality work, to be specific. Employers can pick and choose from a pool of highly qualified candidates while offering less and less. At some point, they can offer so little that many workers cannot even meet basic living expenses in spite of full-time work.

It Is Critical That Job Seekers Know The Truth About Hiring Processes 

The truth about hiring processes must be told because an accurate perception of the situation can help applicants make more educated choices. Instead of wasting much of their energy and time to get hired by someone, they may find other avenues to maximize their potential. Naturally, they can still continue to apply for jobs selectively, however, while investing more energy into starting their own businesses or doing other creative work. Additionally, when individuals stop being dependent on others to hire them, and instead, start their own ventures, “everyone” benefits. Individuals benefit as they are able to explore their talents and skills, and are more likely to succeed authentically; businesses benefit from more competition and society sees a better offering of services.

Career advisors can contribute to better outcomes by telling the full story of how careers are made so that job seekers can make better choices.

Original Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alev-dudek/myth-hard-work-and-creden_1_b_9311806.html 

Power, Economics And The ‘Islamic Terrorism’ Narrative

Shortly before 130 were killed in the tragic attacks in Paris, 43 people also died in Beirut in a similar attack. Innocent human lives were taken in both instances for which ISIS claimed responsibility. There was hardly any international reaction to the attacks in Beirut, compared to the reactions to Paris. Ironically, Muslims, who also make up approximately 54 percent of Lebanon’s population and are generally among the victims of ISIS attacks, became the scapegoats, as has apparently become customary around the world since 9/11.

When a man or a woman blows him/herself up, kills and injures hundreds of innocent people, what happens afterwards is what is most noteworthy: money starts to flow, projects get funded, people get hired, security apparatuses get expanded, weapons get sold. The more fear that can be instilled in taxpayers during such times, the less objectionable they become, the fewer questions they ask and the less they hold their representatives accountable—certainly, a dream come true for any opportunist who is more than willing to exploit the situation to the fullest. However, who can hold it against them that they do what is right for their careers?

War profiteers do what is right for them. However, the rest of us need to deal with the truth that “jihadist terrorism” is the (undesired) outcome of an historical “Western” strategy of playing groups in the “Middle East” against each other, destabilizing the region and capitalizing on it—naturally, supported by the many Middle Eastern by-standers, because greed does not discriminate based on religion, ethnicity, or national allegiance. That may also explain why the terrorism narrative lacks logic—we have to fear dangerous terrorists who hate us so much that they are willing to pay the ultimate price, who choose to kill 130, 43, or 14 innocent people even though they would be able create damages at much higher rates by using many other methods of modern warfare. The majority of their victims are Muslims, while we continue marginalizing Muslims, and our media is providing these killers with the most powerful platform to reach their goal, allowing them to terrorize us by repeating the same “sensational” images over and over, 24/7, and the list goes on. The narrative does not make sense.  

Similar to other forms of politics, the terrorist narrative, too, is about economics and power. It is a crucial catalyst for the 21^st century military industrial complex. Makers of the war on terror, in fact, don’t have a problem with Islam or Muslims per se, as their close relationships with one of the most repressive Islamic regimes in the world who support these terrorists, shows. Except, at some point, they start believing their own dehumanizing messages, regardless of the truth factor. In the war on terror, Muslims happen to be the convenient group to build the narrative around. It could have been anyone.

However, in the 21^st century, people all around the world are becoming more and more aware that they have more in common than differences. They are inter-connected, exposing and exchanging information with each other. Isolating and marginalizing certain groups to justify wars is not as effective a tool as they used to be. Too much information is out there. People can more easily see behind the inaccuracies that they are told, even though technology is also a powerful tool to create artificial realities as the irrational fear of terror attacks in the USA shows.  

Wars are generally not democratic, they never have been. They represent the interest of the few at the cost of many. Democracy limited to the voting booth has not done justice to the many who elect the officials but have little to no say in what the officials do later on their behalf. However, technology may turn out to be the tool that enables the emphasis of democracy to shift from voting booths to a more effective platform, especially after the votes have taken place—a tool that may be particularly useful for the voters in the dominant “West” as they elect the key players and are more likely to be heard; the higher their numbers, the louder their voices.  

Only time will tell if technology is indeed a catalyst to more democracy and subsequently, for fewer wars, or rather, another tool for the continuing dominance of the few.


Original Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alev-dudek/power-economics-and-terrorism_b_8949456.html

GOP Denying Women Basic Economic Rights

As the self-identified party of small government and "maximum economic freedom and the prosperity freedom makes possible," Republicans have been working hard to restrict women's rights and coerce them to conform to traditional roles, such as abstaining from sex until marriage, getting married, having babies, and ideally, relying on their husbands to support them. Their opposition to paycheck fairness bills is consistent with these efforts. Although, the pay gap is in contradiction with encouraging productivity, economic activity, and the American Dream that the GOP is allegedly trying to promote or restore. However, on the other hand, the GOP may just be referring to pursuing prosperity without the presence of integrity and fair and free competition, which would make their opposition to paycheck fairness bills more consistent with their claims.

Making 79 Cents To Every Dollar Made By Men

Women in the U.S.A. to date make approximately 79 cents to every dollar made by men. The reasons for the discrepancy are complex. However, they include historically- and culturally-ingrained sexism exhibited, among other means, through a lack of appreciation for women's contributions to society, limiting gender roles, and (subsequent) discriminatory treatment. It must be noted here that sexism not only influences society's and/or men's view of women, but also the way women perceive themselves. Later in this post, we will discuss how women consciously and/or subconsciously contribute to the status-quo and subsequently, how they can improve their situation through increased awareness and confidence.

Efforts to counteract wage discrimination are not new. President John F. Kennedy signed into law the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibits "discrimination on account of sex in the payment of wages." However, the Act has not been sufficient. Therefore, wage discrimination continues into the 21st century.

Educational And Professional Attainments Of Women In The U.S.A.

The discrepancy in earnings is hardly due to a lack of education, qualifications, or participation in the job market. Women make up approximately 50.8 percent (2010, see Table 1) of the U.S. population and 46.8 percent of the total U.S. workforce. In2009-2010, females represented 57.4 percent of students receiving a bachelor's degree and 62.6 percent of students receiving a master's degree. In spite of their attainments, women are often locked in traditional female roles, under-represented in traditional male roles, and paid less than their male peers in similar positions. The impacts of loss in salaries accumulate over time and have detrimental economic consequences, particularly for single women and single mothers, which includes their increased likelihood of living in poverty at advanced age.

GOP: Denying Women Their Economic Rights

To date, the GOP has been consistently blocking paycheck fairness bills (2010, 2011,2012, 2013, 2014) introduced by the Democrats, claiming, among other that, such anti-discriminatory laws would lead to litigation, or that managers who were not involved in the discrimination would become liable after the responsible manager leaves the organization, as if any such arguments come close to outweighing what the legislation is supposed to do: help eliminate economic discrimination based on gender. In her most recent effort in 2015, Senator Mikulski introduced another paycheck fairness bill, S.862, which can be expected to be thwarted by the GOP, too.

The GOP is not only adamantly preventing the Democrats from passing any legislation that would help women gain economic equality, they are also overturning progress, as in the case of Republican Governor Scott Walker, who repealed the Wisconsin Equal Pay Law and apparently changed his stand on paycheck fairnesslater. Republicans must have changed their minds altogether, as they recently introduced a watered-down version of a paycheck fairness bill - the Workplace Advancement Act, "which would make it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees for talking to each other about their salaries."

While Congress is continuing to play politics at women's expense, some states such asConnecticut, Delaware, North Dakota, Oregon and California, have acknowledged the urgency of this problem and have passed their own equal pay legislations. Several additional states have introduced similar bills and are awaiting results.

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Of 2009

One of the most significant victories on the path to equal pay for equal work, since the passing of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, is the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, alsoopposed by the majority of Republicans and signed into law by President Obama. Under the new law, each paycheck resets the 180-day statute of limitations for filing a complaint, making it much more realistic to hold employers who engage in wage discrimination responsible for their actions and the subsequent damages they cause.

Understanding The Bigger Picture Critical To Understanding The Need For Intervention - U.S.A. Lags Behind Iraq, Namibia, Mozambique, Afghanistan
Due to the deeply rooted and persevering nature of sexism, courageous intervention and progressive policies that address the issue directly, as well as indirectly, are indispensable, as demonstrated by many other countries, such as Germany, Norway, and France, that went as far as introducing quotas to increase representation of women, which is one of many steps toward gender-economic equality.

Understanding the overall picture of women's standing in the U.S.A. is crucial to understanding wage inequality. A comparative analysis to developments abroad can help illustrate the situation better: women are not only compensated unfairly compared to their male counterparts, but they also substantially lack representation and voice. For example, women represent only approximately 19 percent of members of the U.S. Congress. In terms of women in the national legislature, the United States ranks 76th in the world, behind countries such as Iraq, Namibia, Mozambique and Afghanistan. In her more than 200 years of history, the United States has not had a female leader, which leaves her behind countries like Turkey, India, Pakistan, Germany, Malawi, Kosovo, and the list goes on.

Under-Represented In Traditional Male Roles While Continuing To Occupy Traditional Female Roles

Besides in politics, women are also under-represented in U.S. board rooms. They only occupy 4.4 percent of CEO positions at Fortune 500 companies. Barriers for women exist also in other senior and executive level positions while being under-represented in other traditional male roles. Within competitive examining and student new hires for federal government occupations, males account for 80 percent of information technology, 83 percent engineering, and 92 percent law enforcement. Women continue to occupy traditional female roles, such as elementary or middle school teacher, while "secretary" remains the most common profession to date for women in the U.S.A. The lack of voice and opportunity for women is a noteworthy situation for a country with such an enormous economic and political impact, particularly when we consider which countries precede her in this arena.

Combat Gender Pay - Raising Awareness, Empowering Women 

Regardless of the complexity of why the wage gap exists, awareness and empowering women is crucial to gender equality. Research shows that women tend to value their work lower than men, are more reluctant to take credit for what they do, rarely negotiate their salaries or ask for raises, are more willing than men to give up or interrupt their careers for the sake of their partners and children, subordinate their needs to the needs of others and the list goes on. The self-defeating aspects of such attitudes are logical consequences of sexism; they are learned behaviors; taught by parents, enforced in communities and strengthened in many aspects of public life throughout history. In addition to these learned attitudes, there are also various practical reasons why women have fewer opportunities than men: women are less likely to have mentors and be favored by the "good old boy's network" that to date determines access to professional opportunities, and once again, the list goes on.

Opponents of paycheck equity laws often argue that such laws are offensive to women as they assume that women are not equally qualified to prove themselves in the job market and ask for what they deserve. In an ideal world, this would exactly be the case. However, we don't live in an ideal world. We don't even live in a world where a woman (or a man for that matter) can always freely negotiate her salary.

Perpetuating A Vicious Cycle - When Employers Base Future Pay On Current Income 

Employers often inquire about salary history, on which they base their offer. Even federal employers base future pay on current income. Such requests for disclosure, however, particularly affect women negatively. They enforce the vicious cycle of previous discrimination to which women and minorities are more likely to be subjected to, making it even more difficult for women to improve their situation, regardless of whether they are improving their negotiation skills and asking for the money they deserve. Contrary to preconceived notions, getting a raise or a desired salary is also not as easy as asking for it, when the inquirer is a woman. When women ask for raises, they can be perceived as demanding. They can also be treatedunfavorably for negotiating their salaries.

Moving Forward

Most jobs today are very specialized and narrowly focused. Everyone who is hired is expected to be qualified and do a good job. There is hardly any reason that justifies the immense pay gaps for doing the same or a relatively similar job, as we see today. And if there is such a discrepancy in performance when doing the same job, that discrepancy should not be determined by gender.

The complex issue of the wage gap is difficult to solve as it is a historical, and subsequently, a structural problem, deeply ingrained in every aspect of our lives; it is certainly not one that is going to go away any time soon. By acquiring the skills and qualifications they need, women have done their part to gain access to opportunities and privileges that men always had. Now the society needs to do its part: take responsibility and provide them with a discrimination-free environment to make the most out of their potentials. Women don't need pity, and they don't need sympathy; what they need is equality of opportunity, opportunity to prosper like any other man.
Let's pass the Paycheck Fairness Act!

Original Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alev-dudek/gop-denying-women-basic-e_b_8598684.html

All Americans Not Equal: Mistrust and Discrimination Against Naturalized Citizens in the U.S.

Approximately 13 percent of the U.S. population -- nearly 40 million -- is foreign-born, of which about 6 percent are naturalized U.S. citizens. Given the positive image associated with immigrants -- the "nation of immigrants" or "the melting pot" -- one would assume that all Americans in the U.S.A., natural born or naturalized, have equal worth as citizens. This, however, is not necessarily the case. Despite U.S. citizenship, naturalized Americans are seen less than equal to natural born Americans. They are often confused with "foreign nationals." Moreover, their cultural belonging, allegiance, English-language skills, as well as other qualifications, are questioned.

This post is going to examine foreign-born contributors in the U.S.A. in context of federal government employment opportunities, particularly in the national security area. Foreign-born citizens have critical linguistic and cultural abilities that are needed, but a tendency to profile them may obstruct the U.S. government taking full advantage of their talents. Profiling and mistrust based on national origin in turn can lead to unnecessary resentment and detachment of loyal citizens, endangering the unity that makes the U.S.A. strong against extremists in the first place. As Peter Neumann, Director of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalization and Professor at King's College London suggests, inclusiveness is a significant contributor to security as it lowers the chances of radicalization and extremist recruitment.

Anti-Immigrant Policies In The U.S., A Historic Perspective

Mistrust and discrimination against naturalized citizens as demonstrated in variousanti-immigrant policies is not new to the 21st century. In fact, marginalization of immigrant groups based on (perceived) threats has been an inherent part of U.S. history. Examples of policies targeting immigrants include the Alien and Sedition Acts, Chinese Exclusion Act, Immigration Act of 1924, the Alien Registration Act and the Executive Order 9066.

Discriminatory treatment of naturalized citizens is even anchored in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, [...] shall be eligible to the Office of President [...]" There may have been some rationale behind the provision at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. However, that is certainly not the case any longer. An amendment to this provision has been unsuccessful to date, even though the provision is not only discriminatory, but also shows a lack of trust in the democratic system altogether, as, for someone to become the president of the U.S.A., a significant number of Americans would have to vote for him/her.

The lack of concern with this discriminatory passage conveys much about sentiments toward naturalized citizens today. Even in countries such as Germany [see Basic Law, Article 54, Section 1 (president) and Article 64 (chancellor)], or Turkey (Law Nr. 6271, Section 6; Basic Law (Anayasa, Madde 76)), where diversity and inclusion is less of the national identity, any citizen is trusted to lead the country, indicating a significant deficiency in the U.S. Constitution.

Recent Cases Of Mistrust And Discrimination Against Foreign-Born Citizens

Similar sentiments are reflected in policies that denied naturalized citizens equal access to employment opportunities as late as 1988, in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination based on national origin, in this case, "without a compelling state interest." More recently, naturalized citizens were awarded monetary benefits of $31 million resulting from Equal Employment Opportunity complaints in 2014, $35.3 million in 2013, and $37.0 million in 2012, respectively. It must be noted here that employment discrimination is extremely difficult to prove. Therefore, many incidents are likely to go unreported or undetected which, in the contrary case, would have increased these aforementioned amounts per year even more.

Concerning sentiments toward naturalized citizens can also be found in an official report sponsored by the Defense Personnel and Security Research Center (PERSEREC). Based on the extremely limited number of open source cases that occurred from 1990 until 2007 (see Table 2) - 37 (among others) - the author concludes that naturalized citizens are more likely to commit espionage while she fails to provide an explanation on how using protected demographic traits in her research is going to improve U.S. national security policies and how her loaded conclusion will not result in a further increase in discrimination against naturalized Americans.*

Foreign-Born Citizens Dying In Line Of Duty

In the midst of all these, let us examine immigrants' (naturalized Americans and non-citizens) contributions in the area where, according to President G.W. Bush, the "finest citizens" can be found -- the U.S. military. In 2008, foreign-born represented 65,033, 4.8 percent of the 1.36 million active-duty personnel in the armed forces. Themilitary greatly benefits from the cultural and linguistic diversity of these members.

Immigrants, however, not only join the U.S. military, they also perform quite well in it. General Pace, USMC, Chairman, Joint Chiefs Of Staff, testified before Congress that even among the non-citizens, "[s]ome 10 percent or more than those who are currently citizens complete their first initial period of obligated service to the country.... they are reliable, they are courageous.... more than 20 percent of those who have received our Nation's highest award for heroism in combat have been immigrants."

Although naturalized citizens' allegiance is questioned even by liberal officials such as Senator Dianne Feinstein (D), the granddaughter of Jewish and Catholic immigrants from Poland and Russia, who claims that "allegiance is driven by... birth", immigrants die in line of duty, while trying to protect U.S. interests. According to the Department of Defense, as of July 23, 2015, out of 6,837** who died in line of duty from 2000 until 2015, 130 were naturalized citizens. Additionally, the USCIS has grantedposthumous citizenship to 111 military personnel non-American citizens who were killed while defending the U.S.A. since September 2001.

Equal Opportunity, Inclusion And Sticking To American Principles

As the world is becoming increasingly interconnected and mobile, individual identities are becoming even more diverse and are encompassing more than one nation, ethnicity, or culture at a time. Subsequently, concepts such as citizenship or allegiance are changing and becoming more organic. Some things, however, remain the same, regardless: most people, no matter where they are from, are more alike than different. In essence, they generally all want the same things: better opportunities and a better life for themselves and their offsprings. Most people are neither terrorists nor plan on committing any crimes.

Ideals such as equal opportunity and inclusion are what makes the U.S.A. a strong nation and attracts many foreign-born, hard-working, productive individuals to this country. For many foreign-born individuals, the U.S.A. represents a unique place, possibly different than their places of birth, where they can find things that they may not have been able to find elsewhere: opportunities of economic nature or otherwise; respect and dignity; and maybe tolerance. In fact, naturalized Americans may have a deeper appreciation for this country based on their personal stories than someone who may have been born on U.S. soil and never had an opportunity to compare or choose their nationality. Either way, prejudice and biases can only alienate and detach people, whereas fair and equal treatment attract and nurture ties and allegiances.

Therefore, in regard to federal hiring, it may be best to remain open to the possibility that espionage (or unauthorized disclosure of classified information, for that matter) can be carried out by any person regardless of place of birth, national or ethnic origin, gender and other similar traits. The low number of espionage in the U.S.A. indicates that strong background check processes for defense personnel are in place. Concentrating on improving strategies or developing new ones to ensure that the best and most suitable individuals are hired and trusted with sensitive information will certainly generate better results than profiling of naturalized Americans.

*Under "race or ethnicity" the author lists a category which she refers to as "Arab." "Arab" is generally not a category on which the federal government gathers demographic data. Therefore, it is unclear where the particular data was extracted from and why a separate category was created for this group.

**Combined U.S. service members' deaths in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation New Dawn (OND), Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR), and Operation Freedom's Sentinel (OFS) from January 2000 through July 2015. Please note that this number does not include all active duty military deaths during this period, e.g. self-inflicted.

Original Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alev-dudek/foreign-born-citizens-in-america_b_8030968.html

Police Brutality Against Black Men, Plausible Outcome of Structural Racism

The killing of unarmed teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, last year by a white police officer in which a grand jury decided that there was "not enough probable cause to indict police officer Darren Wilson" was not the first time that an unarmed black man got killed by a white police officer and the justice system failed to redress. As the case of Eric Garner soon showed, it won't be the last time, either.

Protests Are About Institutional Racism Not About Single Incidents

The protests for "Ferguson" and Staten Island have not been about single incidents of one black man getting killed by one (white) police officer. They are about institutional racism in the United States, and about excessive use of police force that ends only in its most visible and extreme form with the killing of a black man by the "defender" of our very system, but remains invisible from the national eye a majority of the time.

Effort To Separate Protests From Race

There is much effort to separate the protests from race as racism understandably remains a very uncomfortable topic in the United States. Understandably, as an open discussion about the issue also leads to the questioning of the status-quo. We have to remember that the construct of racism in its very essence is economic. It was historically constructed to justify exploitation of arbitrary determined groups. Changes to racist structures, therefore, would threaten the existences of many of its profiteers. It would also lead to the questioning of tales about the extent of upward mobility in the USA, or about life being all about choices that one makes, that good choices generally lead to good things and bad choices lead to bad things, etc. Such tales allow people who "have it good" to feel better about themselves as they can claim that they owe the status-quo to their achievements based on the good choices that they made, instead of a system that has set them up to succeed in the first place.

In the realm of the painful truth behind such facades, it is understandable why one would choose not to talk about race.

Civil Rights: Overt Racism Replaced By Covert Racism

Racism today is easy to hide because after the civil rights era, it became not only legally, but also culturally less acceptable to be and act openly racist. In support of the status-quo, a new, highly "sophisticated" and powerful form of racism emerged. Today's racism is very difficult, in many cases, practically impossible to detect. However, careful analyses of an array of data help us illustrate that we still live in a highly racially segregated society.

Moving Forward

The protests against the grand jury decisions in the killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner may have triggered the much needed debate beyond the use of excessive police force, about institutional racism and economic inequalities in the USA. It is too bad that it had to take so many deaths before we were even willing to admit that there may be something wrong with the system.

Only history will tell, if we are heading toward the change that many Americans have been waiting for. However, we should not be too optimistic as history also shows that even if changes occur, they are usually very nominal, particularly since a man-made construct such as racism that has taken centuries to build and preserve is not going to turn into equal access, social justice and alike overnight.

What is more likely is that in the near future, we may see changes to the excessive use of police force, which is unfortunately, only a symptom, not the cause of the actual problem. The underlying causes such as structural racism and social stratification will be too difficult to fix, even if the political will to do so should present itself.

On the other hand, sustainable changes, some may argue, come in small doses and no matter how small, any step in the right direction is a gain.



Original Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alev-dudek/police-brutality-against-_2_b_7633184.html

U.S. Police Officers Kill Primarily Because They Are Attacked, Not To Disrupt Crime

In spite of the steady decline in violent crimes, law enforcement in the U.S.A. is becoming significantly more violent. Compared to other developed countries, such as Germany or Great Britain, disproportionately more arrest-related deaths occur in the U.S. Additionally, in the treatment of suspects, a racial disparity is evident; disproportionately more black males get killed by white police officers. Political exploitation of “crime” and militarization of law enforcement are factors that contribute to the status-quo and may explain why most arrest-related killings by the police are not a result of attempting to disrupt crime, but in defense of attacks, perceived or real, against them.

Killings By Less Than 5 Percent Of Law Enforcement Agencies Already Exceeds 400 Annually

A surprisingly high number of arrests occur in the U.S.A. annually. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), of the Department of Justice, reports 98 million arrests from 2003 to 2009, equaling approximately 16 million arrests per year. If we were to disregard the fact that most arrests are repeat offenses, this would mean that approximately five percent of the U.S. population is getting arrested annually.

The high number of arrests is complemented by the number of “justifiable homicides” committed by law enforcement. Approximately 753 law enforcement agencies contributing to the FBI’s “Justifiable Homicide Database” (which is less than five percent of the 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the U.S. A.), report killing over 400 per year: 401 in 2011; 426 in 2012; and 461 in 2013, to be specific. The database does not include the remaining 96 percent of law enforcement agencies in the U.S. The state of Florida, and New York are missing from the database altogether. Even though, for example, 67 “justifiable homicides by police” were recorded in 2012 in Florida; 66 in 2011; and 53 in 2010 and the list goes on. The nationwide numbers, additionally, do not include homicides committed by law enforcement that are outside of the realm of “justifiable homicide” as defined by the FBI.  

The BJS reports that “the number of justifiable homicides has increased by 25.4% from 500 in 1999 to 630 in 2008.” The increase in violence mirrors the weapons that law enforcement uses to kill: increasingly more often, shotguns were used in the killings: 29 times in 2009 versus 46 times in 2013, equaling an increase of approximately 57 percent in four years, or theoretically by 14 percent each year, if the increase is distributed evenly.

In a couple of years, we may have more accurate data on “justified homicides,” as on December 18, 2014, President Obama signed the “Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013,” a bill introduced by Congressman Robert C. Scott. The bill requires state and federal law enforcement agencies report the deaths of individuals in their custody to the Department of Justice. How effectively this law is going to be enforced, and its outcome, remains to be seen. However, either way, the new law is one important step in the right direction.

Police Officers Kill Because They Are Attacked, Not To Disrupt Crime

Crucial to understanding the big picture associated with law enforcement in the U.S. is the following: a high number of the homicides committed by the police are results of “attacks against the police” and not of attempt to “disrupt a crime.” Moreover, the BSJ report confirms a disparity between “justifiable homicides” committed by the police versus citizens: Citizens killed suspects primarily to “disrupt crime” (See Figure 52b) whereas police officers killed to thwart attacks. This accounted for 64 percent of “justifiable homicides” committed by the police in 2008 (See Figure 52a).

The question that we have to ask ourselves is: Why is there such a high incidence of attacks against the police in the U.S.A? The perceived and/or real attacks may be explained by the overall militarization of law enforcement as illustrated by the excess military equipment that the police receive, or the increased deployment of SWAT teams. Militarization is generally accompanied with a combat-culture; a culture that is clearly not suitable for community policing. An entity that is supposed to protect members of its community, instead of waging war on them, will most likely trigger mistrust, and vice versa, which then can lead to offensive behavior. Minor incidents then can lead to bigger problems, such as homicide.

Disproportionate Killing Of African American Males By White Police Officers

Racism is another factor that law enforcement in the U.S.A. is struggling with. The recent “Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department” revealed chilling accounts of biases and racial prejudice against African Americans that included, but was not limited to, targeting African Americans with tickets and fines to raise revenue. Ferguson is certainly only one of many such examples across the country.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that a disproportionately high number of the killed are African American, 31.8 percent versus 42.1 percent white, even though African Americans represent only approximately 13.2 percent of the U.S. population (2013). White officers reportedly killed the majority of the whites and 68 percent of the people African Americans who suffered arrest-related deaths. In instances where the circumstances of the killings were listed as "undetermined," 77 percent of the killed were black.

Another concerning issue with law enforcement in the U.S.A. is the racial make-up of the police force. In a country where diversity is supposed to be valued and many policies and procedures are theoretically in place to ensure equal opportunity and diversity in hiring, the U.S. police force substantially lacks diversity. For example, approximately 67 percent, or two thirds of Ferguson, Mo., is African American; however, of the 53 commissioned police officers, only three (approximately six percent) are black. Even though, diversity is a key factor that needs to be addressed within the U.S. police force, it alone is not going to solve all of the problems.

Lack of diversity within the police force is also common in other countries, such as Germany, but does not automatically lead to circumstances as in the U.S. On the other hand, the police force in Wisconsin, for example, is representative for its population, but faces similar issues as other localities in the U.S. where diversity is lacking. However, diversity is still a key factor that needs to be addressed in the U.S. for obvious reasons.

Comparison — Arrest Related Deaths In Germany And In Great Britain

The U.S.A. is, however, not only a dangerous place for suspects, but also for police officers. Seventy-six police officers were killed in the line of duty in 2013, 95 in 1212, 72 in 2011,  56 in 2010 and 48 in 2009.

In the last ten years (2003-2013), the number of police officers killed in Germany consistently stayed within 0-3 annually. Between 2001 and 2014, the police annually killed between 3 and 12 (12 is the highest data provided by civil liberties organizations) people. German police officers were so traumatized after they killed, only one third were able to go back to their previous duty. Many switched to desk jobs.  

Hardly anyone was killed by the police in Great Britain. British police fired their weapons three times in 2013, but fatally shot no one. In 2012, only one person was fatally shot the entire year. Foreign Policy reports that “[b]etween 1900 and 2006 [106 years] only 67 British police officers were killed… excluding Northern Ireland.” After adjusting for the population differences, the numbers are considerably higher for the U.S.A.

Tough On Marginalized Communities, Not “Tough On Crime”

Police officers in the U.S.A. are not better or worse than in Germany or Great Britain. What determines the conduct of an average police officer is the political and organizational climate in which they operate.

Law enforcement in the U.S.A. has been extensively utilized to further political agendas through soundbites such as “tough on crime,” even though the United States, in fact, is not “tough on crime,” but rather tough on marginalized communities. “Tough on crime” would mean preventing crime from happening in the first place, from which the society as a whole would certainly benefit. It would require progressive public policies – programs that help diminish poverty, racial disparity, social injustices and such. “Tough on crime” has certainly nothing to do with the demonization of minority communities, or the for-profit Prison Industrial Complex that have been destroying families and communities in the U.S.A.

This article was originally published in Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alev-dudek/us-police-officers-kill-p_b_6909494.html

War Against Muslims Post 9/11?

9/11 has changed the life of Muslims substantially. Almost overnight, they become the target of media-hype, various “anti-terror” efforts, religious intolerance and hate crimes.

Increase in Hate Crimes Against Muslims in the U.S.A.

Anti-Muslim hate crimes in the USA increased fivefold, reaching an average of 100-150 recorded cases per year. Muslims make-up less than 1 percent of the U.S. population, however, represent 13.7 percent of the victims of hate crimes based on religious biases in 2013; noteworthy is the increase of approximately two percent from 11.6 the previous year, even though an overall decrease in religiously motivated hate crimes was recorded.

It is important to note that recorded hate crime numbers are subject to under-reporting since the participation in tracking programs is voluntary in the U.S.A. Additionally, applicable cases may not always be accurately identified as hate crimes, and therefore add to an increase in under-representation.  In spite of the potential for under-representation, hate crime data is a useful method to track development patterns over time.  

How Does the U.S.A. Measure up Against Western European Countries in Context of Biases and Crimes Against Muslims?

The backlash against Muslims in major Western European countries after 9/11 was more severe than in the U.S.A., particularly considering that 9/11 happened on U.S. soil. According to The Guardian, “hundreds of anti-Muslim offences were carried out [in the U.K.], in 2013, with Britain's biggest force, the Metropolitan police, recording 500 Islamophobic crimes.” In the U.S.A., in 2001, shortly after 9/11, a spike in hate crimes against Muslims — over 400 cases — were recorded, followed by a drop, and remained constant below 200 since 2002. Adjusted to the difference in population, there is a substantial gap in the number of hate crimes committed in the U.K. versus the U.S.A.

France does not track hate crimes. However, strong anti-Muslim sentiments became evident, among other, in various legislations that went as far as aiming to limit freedom of expression of Muslims; the ban on burqas and the law against denial of Armenian genocide are some of such examples. The latter legislation was overturned as the country’s highest judicial body deemed it unconstitutional. Similarly, Switzerland passed a legislation banning the construction of minarets from Mosques, while claiming that the ban was “not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture.” Severity of the anti-Muslim sentiment in Germany was demonstrated, among other, in the outcome of the European Parliamentary election in May 2014, during which right-wing parties recorded substantial gains. Furthermore, recently formed right-wing radical groups such as Pegida (Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West) emerged and enjoys major support among the general population in Germany.

9/11 Repercussions — Anti-Muslim Policies in the U.S.A.

CNN correspondent Peter Bergen reported last April that “since 9/11, extremists affiliated with a variety of far-right wing ideologies, including white supremacists, anti-abortion extremists, and anti-government militants, have killed more people in the United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda’s ideology.” The $1.6 trillion that was spent in the U.S.A. since 9/11 on the “War on Terror,” however, does not target all terrorists equally, but clearly singles out the ones associated with the “Middle East,” “Islam,” and other similar stereotypical categories; therefore, most people do not associate the “War on Terror” with angry white males who go on a shooting rampage the way Stephen Hick did when he shot and killed three young people of Muslim faith in Chapel Hill earlier last month.  

This “War on Terror” changed the lives of average Muslims in the USA substantially, as they became suspects and potential terrorists in the aftermath of 9/11. The FBI and NYPD started mapping Muslim communities, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied many Muslims the citizenship and U.S. veterans ended up on a No Fly list without due process. The New York Times reports that the FBI even scrutinizes its own employees with “ties” to the Middle East without a probable cause.

In some states, like Alabama and Oklahoma, Americans apparently have become so paranoid about Islam that they have proactively banned Sharia Law, defying basic human reason since there is no evidence that Sharia is in any way a threat to the U.S. judicial system. This was made possible, in spite of the fact that a ban which singles out one religion violates not only basic American values, but also the First Amendment.

War Against Islamic Extremists, not Against Muslims?

U.S. authorities repeatedly claim that the U.S.A. is not at war with Muslims, but with Islamic or, as President Obama recently put it, violent extremists. The repercussions of anti-terror efforts that single out Muslims, even though more and more extremist recruits have diverse backgrounds and many of them have little to do with Islam, unfortunately paint a different picture. Negative images under which Muslims have to suffer are not only a result of the messages conveyed through the steps taken against them by the authorities, but also a result of the sensationalism and the dissemination of repeat stereotypes and biases by the mainstream media.  No wonder so many Americans are becoming suspicious of their fellow citizens.

“War On Terror,” Increase In Terror Plots

As another recent threat of terrorist attacks on American malls has demonstrated — contrary to claims by experts such as Thomas Kean, former New Jersey governor and chair of the 9/11 commission — in spite of the excessive spending  and erosion of civil liberties, the “War on Terror” did not result in more safety for Americans, at least not according to average Americans. As a recent poll conducted by NBC News/Wall Street Journal  demonstrates: 47 percent of Americans report feeling less safe after 9/11, whereas only 26 percent feel safer and another 26 percent report no change — notion that is supported by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington D.C., which confirmed that terror plots have increased since 9/11. Of the 60 terror plots, 49 were reportedly “homegrown,” indicating that the source of the threat is complex and diverse.

Threat of Military Industrial Complex Identified by President Eisenhower 50 Years Ago

Without a doubt, terrorism is a real threat that the U.S.A. and its allies have to combat. However, there must be a better way than the excessive waste and abuse of tax payer money and fear-mongering to fight this war. If we were to remain consistent in our “War on Terror” strategy, American tax payers would have to spend more money, give up more freedoms, and become less safe in the future.  

The current “War on Terror” is the Military Industrial Complex that President Dwight Eisenhower warned Americans against more than 50 years ago. Many beneficiaries of the “War on Terror” understandably don’t want this war to end, no matter how much animosity it has created and how unsuccessful it has been. However, as American tax payers pick up the tab, we should consider questioning what the rest of us have exactly gained from spending the money, a good portion of which we could have spent on improving our schools, investing in research and development, creating sustainable jobs, and establishing preventive programs for many ailments in our society. 

Original link to this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alev-dudek/war-against-muslims-post-_b_6772870.html