Social Inequity and Globalization: Understanding Violent and Nonviolent Responses

Globalization generates economic growth that is dominated by the free market dynamics of liberalization, deregulation, and privatization. The benefits of this growth are not distributed equally. The resulting inequities cause poverty, marginalization, exclusion, and instability. People respond to these inequities in both positive/nonviolent and negative/violent ways. This capstone project investigates the reasons for divergent responses to globalization by contrasting the underlying social factors in two case studies: peace communities in Colombia and piracy in Somalia. By measuring the level of vulnerability, considering security in a variety of domains, and examining stress on socio-cultural norms, this project develops a social factors framework for understanding the reasons for negative/violent versus positive/nonviolent responses to globalization.

Women Of India: Developmental setbacks of gender inequity

This project examines rural Indian women and discusses the strong correlation between gender inequity and the setbacks that have crippled development. The embedded caste system has created a distinct social hierarchy, which has incidentally deprived women of their freedom and voice. Gender inequity and social stratification are direct causes of the AIDS epidemic, research revealing a contingency between lack of empowerment and exposure to the disease. Additionally, the HIV/AIDS virus carries a strong cultural stigma, which influences whether or not women will seek treatment if infected, since AIDS victims face extreme social isolation and discrimination, in India. This project discusses several cause-and-effect frameworks related to gender inequity, which have stunted the growth and success of India.

Women Who Kill Women

This article focuses on the phenomenon of women who kill women in the context of India’s dowry murders. Killing by females is rare, and killing of other females is rarer still. India’s dowry deaths, where mothers-in-law are, next to husbands, the most accused and convicted, represents a unique opportunity to examine the mechanics around women who kill, especially in the context of a gender violence crime. The article examines both the roots of the dowry system and the current anti-dowry and dowry-violence legislation to demonstrate the implicit and accepted gender inequities within marriage that serve to under gird an overall system of female oppression within the marital relationship. This inequity is understood to be a positive aspect within marriage, but ironically negative within public Indian society. The article then considers various theories of agency and motivation from social science and feminist literature to answer why some women participate in oppressing other women in Indian society. Finally, the article notes some of the ways in which Indian courts are contributing to the oppressive power structure by limiting the application of the anti-dowry and dowry-violence laws.

The Keyes to Reclaiming the Racial History Of the Roberts Court

This article advocates for a fundamental re-understanding about the way that the history of race is understood by the current Supreme Court. Represented by the racial rights opinions of Justice John Roberts that celebrate racial progress, the Supreme Court has equivocated and rendered obsolete the historical experiences of people of color in the United States. This jurisprudence has in turn reified the notion of color-blindness, consigning racial discrimination to a distant and discredited past that has little bearing to how race and inequality is experienced today. The racial history of the Roberts Court is centrally informed by the context and circumstances surrounding Brown v. Board of Education. For the Court, Brown symbolizes all that is wrong with the history of race in the United States - legal segregation, explicit racial discord, and vicious and random acts of violence. Though Roberts Court opinions suggest that some of those vestiges still exits, the bulk of its jurisprudence indicate the opposite. With Brown’s basic factual premises as its point of reference, the Court has consistently argued that the nation has made tremendous strides away from the condition of racial bigotry, intolerance, and inequity. The article accordingly argues that the Roberts Court reliance on Brown to understand racial progress is anachronistic. Especially as the nation’s focus for racial inequality turned national in scope, the same binaries in Brown that had long served to explain the history of race relations in the United States (such as Black-White, North-South, and Urban-Rural) were giving way to massive multicultural demographic and geographic transformations in the United States in the years and decades after World War II. All of the familiar tropes so clear in Brown and its progeny could no longer fully describe the current reality of shifting and transforming patterns of race relations in the United States. In order to reclaim the history of race from the Roberts Court, the article assesses a case that more accurately symbolizes the recent history and current status of race relations today: Keyes v. School District No. 1. This was the first Supreme Court case to confront how the binaries of cases like Brown proved of little probative value in addressing how and in what ways race and racial discrimination was changing in the United States. Thus, understanding Keyesand the history it reflects reveals much about how and in what ways the Roberts Court should rethink its conclusions regarding the history of race relations in the United States for the last 60 years.