A Search for Diversity: University Edition

Having almost finished my plethora of college applications, it is around this time when I start to reflect on the application process. My mind is filled with the statistics from an array of college pamphlets and I can probably recite the common essay questions I've had to answer over these past several, hectic months.

What stands out? Interestingly, the topic of diversity was very much prevalent in the majority of my applications. Nearly all of the college pamphlets I read contained a detailed breakdown of the school's students by ethnicity. Many of the information sessions I attended contained a segment where the admissions officer boasted about how many different backgrounds were present in the school. And at least three of the essays I had to write answered a prompt like " X College prides itself on diversity. Please talk about your background and how that will add to our campus".

Personally, I believe that diversity is important in a college setting. Varied perspectives and unique upbringings provide a more interesting and compelling experience for students since they get to learn about people who are very different from them. However, I began to wonder: has the search for diversity ever gone too far? Have colleges ever been so committed to fostering diversity that they forget about the other aspects of an application? 

Of course. Take two "current" examples: Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and now Fisher v. University of Texas (currently being heard by Supreme Court). Similar in nature, these court cases center around the idea of affirmative action. Many of the current criticisms regarding this policy stem from students feeling that they were denied because there were more ethnically diverse applicants (same or less qualifications) as competition. Looking at Grutter v. Bollinger, the University of Michigan even admitted that they were quite interested in including as many minorities into the Law School to "provide an opportunity for them"- an idea which the District Court even found unlawful. Though the Supreme Court ultimately upheld affirmative action in that case, here we are, a mere 9 years later, taking a similar case (Fisher v. U. of Texas) to Supreme Court to review the same policy.

Should it stay or should it go? There's definite controversy regarding affirmative action, as seen by this article from Yale News. Some schools deem it necessary...besides, doesn't there need to be some sort of regulation to help bring majority and minority groups together? There are certainly positives to having a multitude of perspectives and stories to share. However, some schools find that minority groups are overrepresented and that there is real discrimination going on in the admissions process. Are policies upholding affirmative action, then, encouraging colleges to choose students based mainly on color of their skin and how "different" they look? Are they just trying to make the school look diverse and not paying enough attention to the actual credentials of the students?

Regardless of the ruling by the Supreme Court for Fisher v. University of Texas, universities need to define diversity- what does that actually mean for our school? With that, the color of an individual's skin should never be the sole factor that gets them into college. Unique experiences, difficult circumstances, passion, grades, extracurriculars...those are the elements that set a student apart. But, like Grutter v. Bollinger, taking a minority into a university just because they are a minority and not because of their great scores, compelling story or extraordinary school involvement, isn't fair to that student or the student who is therefore denied because they do not have the racial "edge". A certain appearance does not equate to a deserving, diverse perspective. There are deserving members in both the majority and minority groups as well as undeserving members. That's why decision-makers should stick to the application and stay away from a compelling appearance or label. 

Mind-Altering Lab Coat

Have you ever put something on, say, a new suit or a sparkly gown, and feel different than you did a couple hours ago when you were sitting on the couch in your pajamas? Or have you ever wondered why doctors wear white lab coats or sales associates at high end retail shops wear suits? 

I hadn't given much thought to it though, thinking that it was just a coincidence that I would sometimes act classier and more proper when I was dressed up in fancy clothing. However, it seems that clothing doesn't just affect how others perceive you- it has been found that clothing also affect how you act.

A study published by the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology called "Enclothed Cognition" (a spin-off to the term embodied cognition) tested the claim that clothing effects the wearer's psychological processes. Their test revolved around the, you guessed it, infamous white lab coat. The white lab coat has always represented care, diligence, and cleanliness. However, does it actually affect performance? Or is it just worn to make others believe that the individual is careful, clean, etc? 

Source

The study concluded that, yes, wearing a white lab coat will increase your focus and attentiveness. The study first tested whether individuals were more focused when wearing a lab coat versus when they weren't, which showed that the act of physically wearing a coat altered your psychological processes. Additionally, the study tested levels of attentiveness when individuals wore a lab coat described as a doctor's coat versus when they wore a coat described as a painter's coat. This study revealed that the symbolism of the garment also mattered, as the individuals wearing the doctor's coat were more focused than those who wore the painter's coat. 

I find it fascinating that wearing a certain article of clothing, feeling it on your body and placing meaning onto it, can affect the way you think and act. Having previously thought more about how appearance affects the way other individuals think of you, it is riveting to see how appearance may affect the wearer. Though I'm sure more studies must be conducted on this subject, I'm wondering what your thoughts are. Can the way you dress affect your personality? Can it make you smarter, more attentive and well-behaved?

Veiling: Oppression or Liberation?

In this day and age, where globalization has intertwined the many cultures of the world, it's commonplace to discuss the values and practices of other cultures. What I've been hearing lately has been a lot of discussion revolving around the question "Is the veiling of Muslim women a sign of oppression or liberation?".

In Western society, I don't think it's much of a shock to assert that Western media shines a negative light on veiling. Seeing a woman walking down the streets of Chicago in a hijab, especially a burqa, stirs up controversy. The usual questions arise: "Who would make her wear that thing?", "Why would anyone wear that thing in the United States"?, and even "Is she a threat?". Anger, frustration, confusion. Americans are so used to the status-quo that anything different is considered bad. Typical American dress varies, but in general, we're used to showing a lot of skin. Bikinis, short shorts, and miniskirts are typically acceptable for women, and being topless in public is totally acceptable for men.

Appearance is so important to us, rightfully so, as it is the first thing we see when we look at people. However, it's truly difficult to justifiably say "This is the right way to look" or "This is the wrong way to look".  We think burqas are oppressive? Take a look at this:

I love this photo because it really shows two opposite perspectives on one significant idea. Honestly, for those of you who are Americans or Westerners, have you ever thought of this perspective? That the way women dress in Western culture exemplifies a male-dominated culture?

Appearance has a lot to do with perspective. What I take away from this is that an individual must understand the reason why someone else dresses or appears the way they do. Preconceptions and rumors go a long way, but they are rarely true. Going back to veiling in Muslim societies, sure, some women may feel oppressed and forced when wearing a burqa. That's a possibility. However, there are undoubtedly veiled women who feel like the woman wearing the burqa in the comic. Women who cover themselves to feel modest and gain self-respect.

This article gives a pleasant, positive perspective on veiling. Take Dawud, the Muslim Student Association board member, as an example. Dawud said that "[the hijab] defines who I am as a Muslim woman. It is a constant reminder of my faith....As women, we tend to be constantly objectified and expected to play out certain roles. I feel like the hijab breaks that barrier down". See that? Here's a woman who not only feels proud that she wears a hijab, but also a woman who chose to wear it out of her own free-will. Not the sort of story you would expect to hear on typical American television, right?

So are veils always a positive sign? No, but I like to think that they aren't as negative as the Western media portrays them to be. Appearance is powerful and indicates plenty, however each individual's appearance has a complex back story. That being said, before we judge a tradition, let's do some proper research before coming to any major conclusions.

Egypt- The Traps

Every country has an image. This image is made up of its strengths, weaknesses, the way the country interacts, reacts, governs, etc. This image in turn affects a country's classification: how it would be ranked compared to other countries. The decisions a country makes and the circumstances a country is under can greatly affect its standing in the world. In The Bottom Billion by Paul Collier, Collier discusses some of the critical factors that affect a country's image. Specifically, the book focuses on the various "traps" that bring a country to be considered in the bottom billion. These four traps include: conflict, natural resources, bad governance, and being landlocked. To explore Collier's argument, I decided to focus in on Egypt, a country that has gone through a considerable amount of change in the past year, and see how its image correlates to these traps.

Firstly, Egypt is not considered to be in the bottom billion. However, that doesn't mean Egypt hasn't or doesn't deal with any of the traps Collier mentions. Let's start, though, with the traps Egypt does not deal with and how that affects Egypt's well-being.

Egypt is not landlocked. Though most countries that suffer from the landlocked trap are in Africa, Egypt happens to be located on the coast, making it able to take advantage of the Mediterranean Sea and Red Sea. Coastal access is vital for a country, as it links the country to strong trade routes. This allows Egypt to trade more easily with other countries and maintain a steady flow of imports and exports. For this reason, the income Egypt gains from coastal trade helps keep the country out of poverty as well as prevents them from having to rely on their neighbors.

Additionally, Egypt is not greatly affected by the natural resource trap. Though Egypt is commonly thought of for its abundance of crude oil and petroleum products and exports a considerable amount of this yearly, Egypt seems hardly phased. Why? Well, Collier notes that the more natural resources a country has, the more competition and selectivity there is. Also, a country could then be controlled solely by a specific natural resource and all its other resources will become hardly competitive. However, with Egypt's location near sea trade routes, the transportation and exposure of Egypt's goods are greater than usual, so it seems that Egypt then doesn't have a problem with transporting its goods evenly. Not being landlocked clearly helps with this.

Conflict, in general, is a trap that most countries inevitably fall into. Egypt currently faces some internal conflict, for example the uprisings regarding the new Egyptian Constitution, and that naturally distracts Egypt's government and citizens from keeping peace and focusing on other crucial aspects of society. However, though conflict may sometimes be a trap for Egypt, bad governance is the trap Egypt mainly falls into.

In 2011, people from around the world watched as Egypt protested the rule of Hosni Mubarak. The 2011-2012 Egyptian Revolutions indicated that Egyptians had been battling bad governance and had finally bursted. These revolutions also indicated that Egypt had finally solidified in their minds what exact image represented a president for them. For example, Egyptians fought for free elections, freedom of speech, legitimacy and the end of emergency law. That is what they wanted and expected to see. Now, this image resonates even today with the new presidency in Egypt, as can be seen in the uprisings against Morsi regarding his declared rights regarding the Constitution drafting, as mentioned before.

Though Egypt is heading in a better direction with its government, "bad governance" is arguably its most prominent trap. A corrupt and uncooperative government prevented Egypt from progressing with the rest of the world, leaving it with a lot of "cleaning up to do" after Mubarak was ousted. Additionally, constant uprisings and a lack of confidence in the government proves to be detrimental to the economy, as less people will invest their money into the well-being of the country. Also, the uprisings in Egypt were violent and teared apart the overall stability and peace in the country. This trap though, did help Egyptian citizens consider their image and their President's image, which in the long run, will potentially bring about positive change.

Could these new changes in Egypt rid the country of the bad governance trap? I suppose only time will tell...

The Photoshop Craze

Have you ever examined the photos in magazines...specifically photos of people? Have you noticed the flawless complexion, creaseless clothing, bright white teeth, perfect makeup and wrinkle-less skin? If you haven't, don't feel bad. It was only recently that I began to recognize how "perfect" everyone looks when they're placed in a magazine. Is it just that these people look flawless in real life or is something deceiving going on?

I would argue the latter. Photoshop, a computer program that is able to alter photos in incredible ways, has been showing up more and more in magazines than most individuals probably realize. When I used to look at a photo of someone in a magazine, I expected the minor touch-ups: get rid of pimples, smooth out some areas, etc. But could photos be far more "photoshopped" than expected?

Here is a video that shows just how easily a photo can be altered without looking altered.

The ease of photoshop shown in this video brings up the concern: how do we know if photos are real or not? Could every photo just be fake? How does that affect, then, a reader? My main concern is that there are people looking at these photos and comparing themselves to those images. If photos of individuals in the majority of magazines are photoshopped to be flawless, what is that telling readers about self-image and about what is socially accepted? That beauty is having flawless skin, perfect teeth and makeup? Hmm...

To understand the prevalence of photoshop in mainstream media, this article from The New York Times does a great job of explaining it. One thing from it that I want to highlight is the idea that photoshopping is not always the editors initiative. 

The article mentioned, for example, that "Chris Buck, a celebrity photographer who describes his shots as more natural, tells his assistant during photo shoots not to let a publicist or celebrity look at his work. He said his approach has cost him some business, especially with older actresses" (Haughney 1). 

Yikes. It seems like celebrities aren't so offended to see themselves brushed up a little. But what implications does that have on magazines that, well, preach about "being yourself" and being "natural" like Seventeen Magazine? Did they not expect that someone would eventually think it's hypocritical to preach to girls that they should be natural but still publish magazine with photoshopped and overly edited photos? Well, here's what happened. Julia Bluhm, a 14 year old girl, called the magazine out on it and got the editor-in-chief Ann Shoket to pledge not to alter the photographs in the magazine. As skeptical as I am that Shoket will actually never alter photos, it's promising that people are beginning to call magazines out on this issue. Even better, Bluhm's petition on photoshopped photos in Seventeen caught a lot of attention and young girls are now looking to get Teen Vogue, another magazine, to make the pledge. 

Will it catch on? Or will photoshopped, flawless, and deceiving images be here to stay? Are we ready to reject the ideals magazines paint for us? I guess time will tell. 

Presidential Beauty Contest

 http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/10/03/debate_1003_preexisting_480x360.jpg

Whenever I've had a formal presentation in class, I've always been asked to dress nicely. I can still hear my numerous teachers mentioning "A suit and tie for men...dress or blouse and dress pants for ladies" before every presentation I'd give.

Why do teachers want students to dress up for a speech or presentation? The answer is simple. Individuals look more put together, sophisticated and professional when they are dressed up, which instinctively sets the mood for the rest of the presentation.

Needless to say, this custom resonates far beyond the classroom. For the past couple weeks, there have been numerous debates, conferences and speeches being made for this Election season. Most notable are the heated Presidential Debates between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. If you're like me, always having an invisible microscope out to examine the details not usually considered, maybe you've considered the way these candidates looked.

The photo above is of the two candidates, Romney and Obama (respectively), at the first Presidential Debate. What's there to notice? First of all, the suits. Obama opted for a navy blue suit, while Romney chose a classic black suit. The President went with a blue tie and American flag lapel pin, while the Governor selected a red striped tie and an American flag pin as well. What are the candidates trying to have their style choices say about them? Elizabeth Wellington, a writer for philly.com, explained her answer to this question by saying that "both men have to look compassionate, yet strong. Romney must be careful not to look too much like a wealthy one-percenter, while President Obama can't come across as too forceful, yet he must be presidential" (Wellington). 
For the rest of Wellington's article, click here. 

With what Wellington said, the candidates also want their appearance to evoke emotions with their appearance. A great way to do this is by picking a great tie. I'm not kidding you. Ties, out of all the other pieces that make up a typical male's formal outfit, have the most color flexibility. That being said, each potential color evokes a different emotion, so the color of a candidate's tie can say a lot about them. 

For the first debate, Obama selected a blue tie. Firstly, blue is the color of the Democratic Party, which easily signals to spectators "I'm the democratic candidate". Also, blue is considered a calming color. According to the basic representation of colors, determined by 1940's Swiss psychotherapist Max Lüscher, the color blue evokes feelings of commitment, dependability and inspiration. (For more on the emotions evoked by colors, click here.)

Romney, who chose the Republican Party's color, red, also likely thought about evoking specific emotions. The color red is associated with feelings of stimulation: passion, strength, energy and enthusiasm. Romney, often considered as the "underdog" or "challenger" in the election, chose well in my opinion with the red tie. He wanted to get noticed, attract attention and seem strong. A red tie clearly evokes those emotions more than a blue tie. The blue tie, however, suited Obama's demeanor better, who, as the current president, wanted to reassure Americans that he has been a good, dependable President and wishes to continue to inspire Americans. 

To top this off, studies have shown that each party favors a different look for their candidates. An article from livescience.com found that "'Republicans tend to do better when they look like a high-school quarterback or a CEO- square jaw, cropped hair'.... Democrats did better when they had the look of a college professor'" (Bryner).

The same source also did an experiment where participants looked at photos of opposing congressional candidates and were asked to choose which candidate appeared more competent, more intelligent, more likable and more trustworthy.

The article noted that "candidates who were labeled as more competent and more trustworthy were more often identified as Republican, while Democrats were more often linked with traits of likability and intelligence" (Bryner).
For the rest of this article, click right here!

So is it just one large coincidence or do candidates really spend more time on their appearance than the average individual expects? I think it's hard to write this one off as just a fluke. Appearance is clearly an important factor in how others perceive an individual, and just like my experiences of dressing up before giving a class speech, it's highly unlikely that our fellow presidential candidates don't give some concrete thought into how exactly they look when they're on our TV screens. After all, even the seemingly tiny details could make a huge difference when it comes time to vote.

Are employers looking at your resumé or at YOU?

Here's a question I've been pondering:

Does appearance really affect an individual's chance of scoring the job they want? 

I mean, I doubt that I'm the only one who has thought about this. Technically speaking, appearance isn't supposed to be a factor in the workplace. But employers are humans and don't all humans have a bias? Don't all employers have a preference or a plan to fill their workplace up with a specific type of people? Whether it's denying someone because they don't bring aesthetic diversity to the company or for just looking too rough, too artistic, or too preppy...it's hard to accept the idea that employers are so well trained that they are focusing 100% on the resumé and 0% on the looks. 

It's hard to deny that career-related stereotypes exist and it doesn't take more than a quick google image search to confirm this. 

What image pops in your head when you think about an aerobics instructor? Or a nurse?

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/aerobics(1).jpg

http://nursejobsvancouver.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/nurse_jobs_vancouver.jpg

After doing a quick scan of what images I saw when I searched "fitness instructor" and "nurse", the results looked a lot like these two photos. Aerobics instructors were predominately women who were very skinny, wearing classic yoga gear or a more revealing sports bra/shorts ensemble, and seemingly young and "fresh". The photos for nurses were almost all of women, all wearing scrubs, smiling, hair pulled back cleanly and neatly, and the stethoscope naturally in view. 

Does Google Images answer all of my questions? Definitely not, however it really gets at what sorts of strong stereotypes we as humans have for different jobs and professions. That being said, because there are so many stereotypes in the workplace, it's understandable to claim that certain individuals do face discrimination in certain fields. 

Let's go back to the fitness instructor example. What sorts of people could be disadvantaged by the aesthetic stereotypes in this field? 

Take a look at this story: 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/educate/college/business/articles/20050724.htm

Here is the classic example of job discrimination based on appearance. This prospective employee, Portnick, could have been the most dedicated employee Jazzercise had ever had. She might have had a stunning resume, filled with dozens upon dozens of experiences and qualifications making her fit for the job. But she was turned down just because she didn't "appear fit". I sometimes feel that people assume this sort of discrimination only goes on in very obviously aesthetically-based fields like modeling, for example. Portnick's story shows, however, that appearance may matter more to employers in all sorts of fields than many of us expect. 

Take a look at this quote from the article:

"In a recent analysis, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis reviewed various economic studies to find possible links between looks and wages. The study's conclusion: A worker with below-average looks tended to earn significantly less -- on average 9% less -- per hour than an above-average-looking employee. And those with above-average looks tended to earn 5% more than their average-looking colleagues.

'If someone looks like Brad Pitt or Julia Roberts, and society values that, that attribute is built into wages," says Michael Owyang, an economist who worked on the analysis'."

Unbelievable, right? Not only does appearance affect the likelihood that an individual will get the job but it also affects how much money that individual will be making. 

So is it inevitable? Will certain people merely be destined to receive lower wages than others? Should Portnick accept that she simply does not fit the mold and pursue something else? Each individual will have a unique answer to each of those questions. From my perspective though, discrimination based on appearance is superficial and hollow. Though someone may not look fit for a certain position or job, that doesn't mean they aren't capable of doing it or potentially able to redefine how the job is done. I know it sounds cliché, but I'm a firm believer that heart and passion are what stands out stronger than the way someone looks. But that's my take on it.

All that glitters isn't gold.

~Shakespeare, Tolkien

Agree? Disagree?