If there is one thing about social inequality that I wish I could write about, I would cheat and say two things, which are colorblindness and affirmative action. The reasons why I group these two concepts together is because I do believe they interlap. With colorblindness, it has been used as a tool to “not see race”, which people think is a good concept, but it does more damage. By not acknowledging race, you are ignoring racism and racial disparities, which still exist if you choose to see race or not. With the concept of affirmative action, I do like the concept of giving marginalized groups an advantage, especially in a world that caters to white people. However, I do think affirmative action has only worked on a micro level, and for true success, it needs to succeed on a macro-level.
This relates to the second question concerning how to make work and the workplace have more equality, which I believe needs to take place on a micro-level. On the other hand, I do acknowledge that equality on a micro-level has benefits and can do a lot of good. However, for the overall good, I think it needs to take place on a macro-level, which has more of a likely to affect public consciousness about different ideals. What often happens is when we see individual success stories, it forms public opinion on a topic that might be true. For example, in one of my criminal justice classes we were discussing how the presidency of Barack Obama put this ideal in many people’s minds that the U.S. was never closer to equality based on race in that moment. This is what I was getting at from the differences in micro and macro levels, micro level situations could form a public opinion that might not be true because it’s occurring on a smaller scale, often on the individual level. This is why working on a macro level, in my opinion, is more significant because you are representing a larger quantity of people that is more representative of the population. Working on a macro level, in the case of the question for equality in the workplace, is more often to have a overall more positive effect because you are looking out for the group instead of the individual.
