3200 Exam 1 Topic 1-4

Topic 1 - Understanding Diversity

The most universal quality is diversity.

- Michel de Montaigne

The term diversity embraces a range of topics and programs. As the world and American society
change, it becomes increasingly important to study and understand human diversity. It is no longer
just a thoughtful and considerate thing to do; rather, it is a gauge of success in business and
society.

Diversity education has spread into school and university curricula. Understanding diversity enriches
our personal lives. It broadens our perspectives. It makes us more worldly-wise.

For example, by visiting a diverse community that is deeply influenced by religious heritage, we can
note architecture, symbols, dress and customs that give the neighborhood character. The
opportunity may let us see things from a different point of view or simply enjoy the beauty of the
world as seen and created by others.

We can also gain an idea of how the community might impact people's development and their manner
of interacting with others. It can provide us insights about our interactions with them.

We react and behave differently in a room full of people who appear to be the same as us and with
whom we are familiar, as opposed to a room filled with people who seem different from us. Just as
we look around a room and try to size up the situation so that we might know how to act, others are
doing the same. Just as we form first impressions, so others have their impressions.

The more we understand human diversity and the way that it affects human relations, the more
comfortable and confident we feel in our own lives. It might be reflected in the way we greet people
while shopping in a mall, attending school, or participating with them in a conversation.

Understanding diversity equips you to deal with a diverse world, in business and in your personal and
social life. It provides you personal insights about yourself and guides you in the basics of building
relationships with people from different backgrounds.

This course is designed to guide you in the basics of building relationships with people from different
backgrounds and experiences, including social and ethnic origins. If you are skilled in human relations
and an effective communicator, you will have a head start in the world of work and in building
satisfying and enhancing relationships.

Let's begin.

The Nature of Diversity and Human Relations

All of us make assumptions about life. Differences can challenge assumptions but they can also lead
to appreciation of self and others. The basic premise of appreciation is understanding. If we are
open to learning and personal understanding, differences that surround us can be noticed and
valued.

Understanding diversity in human relationships is about coming to terms with personal attitudes,
beliefs and expectations about others and gaining a degree of comfort with the concept of being
different. Ray Bakke, Executive Director of International Urban Associates and a strong advocate of
social justice, stated: "The real challenge facing the world is not geographic distance - but cultural
distance."

Cultural diversity can be viewed as the variety of human cultures in a specific region, or in the world
as a whole. The general consensus among mainstream anthropologists is that humans first emerged
in Africa about two million years ago. Since then, human beings have spread throughout the world,
successfully adapting to different climate conditions and to periodic earth-shattering changes. The
result was that many separate and markedly different societies came into existence around the
globe and many of these differences still persist.

As well as the more obvious cultural differences that exist among peoples of the world, such as
language, dress and customs and traditions, there are also significant variations in the way societies
organize themselves, share moral values, and interact with others and their environment. Some
cultures and societies have been more successful at surviving than others.

Some anthropologists have argued that, just as biodiversity seems crucial in the long-term survival of
the earth, cultural diversity may be essential for the long-term survival of humanity. Going one-step
farther, it may be that the often appealing conservation and protection of primitive and indigenous
cultures may be as vital to humankind, as the conservation of species and ecosystems are to life in
general.

However, this argument can also be challenged. First, like most evolutionary accounts of human
nature, the importance of cultural diversity for survival may be a hypothesis that can neither be
proved nor disproved.

Second, it can be argued that it would be unethical to deliberately conserve less developed
societies, because this would deny people within those societies the benefits of technological and
medical advances that are enjoyed by those in the developed world.

Finally, there are many people, particularly those with strong religious beliefs, who maintain that it is
in the best interests of individuals and of humanity as a whole that we all embrace the model for
society that they deem to be correct. For example, evangelical churches and missionary
organizations have worked actively for many years to reduce cultural diversity by trying to discover
remote tribal societies, converting them to their church's faith and advocating conformity to their
model of society. The same could be said about nations or political forces within a nation that try to
convert a country or region to a particular form of government, whether it be democracy, socialism
or sharia law.

Cultural diversity is not easy to quantify, but one indicator used throughout the centuries is a count
of the number of languages spoken in a region or in the world. The definition of a separate human
population is not precise, but, using language as the primary criterion, there are between 4,000 and
8,000 distinct human populations around the world.

By this measure, there are signs that we may be going through a period of marked decline in the
world's cultural diversity. More specifically, a conservative estimate is 50% of the world's languages
will disappear in this century. The rate of disappearance is projected to be one language dying
roughly every two weeks. Population growth, immigration and imposing cultural norms from one
country to another help explain such a decline.

Most recently in the United States, governmental agencies have been developed to encourage the
acceptance and appreciation of human differences. For example, Commissions on Human Relations or
Human Rights are common in most states. They try to help create discrimination-free businesses and
communities.

These commissions variously seek to eliminate discrimination based on race, color, national origin,
religion, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, genetic information, physical or mental disability, and
age. One of their missions is to ensure equal opportunity to all through the enforcement of state
laws against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. They also provide
educational and outreach services related to promoting and improving human relations in businesses
and communities.

Understanding diversity and human relations is viewed as the foundation for building a healthy and
productive society where people can live and work in an atmosphere of trust, respect, and
acceptance. Such a base helps ensure the continued growth and prosperity of our nation.

The Melting Pot Myth

The society of the U.S. has often been described as a melting pot. Immigrants from several countries
settled in the nation and, as they learned and worked together, an assimilation process took place
that produced an American society. For centuries our country attracted people from all corners of
the world who wanted to be a part of the American Dream. In fact, U.S. history is one of immigration,
assimilation and recognizing diversity.

It began in 1620 with about 100 English colonists who were seeking religious freedom. It was the
first European migration to North America. The immigration flow accelerated after the French
Revolution and during the 19th century. Population growth and the desire for new opportunities
drove millions of Europeans to the New World.

American ports were teeming with German, Chinese, Irish, Italian, and Polish immigrants. Until 1882,
the U.S. government had an open door immigration policy. Then it tried to exclude prostitutes,
criminals, alcoholics and Chinese, among others, from coming into the country. By 1921, admission
depended largely upon an immigrant's country of birth.

About 70% of all immigrant slots were allotted to people from three nations: U.K. (England, Northern
Ireland, Scotland and Wales), Ireland and Germany. There was a long waiting list for those born in
eastern and southern Europe. In 1965, nationality quotas were abolished and this seemed to usher in
a new area of mass immigration, particularly from Mexico and Latin America.

In recent years other descriptions of American society have been used, such as tossed salad and
mosaic. Instead of melting into a single culture, more immigrants wanted to retain their own national
characteristics while integrating into a new society. They were often supported by older generations
of Americans who liked the idea of reclaiming their original identity. The concept of a melting pot was
becoming obsolete, or perhaps it was always a myth.

The essentials of our nation's founding cultures still remain and provide the bedrock for U.S. identity.
However, new technology and embracing cultural differences is changing America. At one time,
bagels, pizzas, spaghetti, tacos, sauerkraut, and chow mien were all new and unfamiliar in our
communities, but now they are a part of the culture. Immigrants come and change America and are
changed by America.

While we may share a form of American identity, we also have separate cultural identities. America is
not a pot of melted cultures and but rather a place of coexisting cultures, each vitally alive and
somewhat distinct. Perhaps it was inevitable that the concept of multiculturalism would work its way
into American thought.

In the early 1980s, the multiculturalism movement gained support in the US, particularly in the context
of educational reform. Whereas monoculturalism implies a homogeneous culture without diversity,
multiculturalism promotes something quite different. It is an ideology advocating that society should
consist of, or at least allow and include, distinct cultural groups with equal status.

As a movement, multiculturalism has produced the energy and forces to promote the need to
understand, value, and celebrate human diversity. Cultural diversity is easy to recognize, but
understanding of human diversity requires us to go deeper.

Genes and Genetics

Almost all genes in all humans are identical. The genes have to be very similar or else the bodies
they build wouldn't work and their owners would die. Yet, DNA bases and sequences differ from
person to person without changing anything, since they don't seem to have any effect on how the
body functions. Other variants produce such effects as differences in height, eye color, fingerprints,
and blood groups.

Sometimes, certain genetic variants produce susceptibility or perhaps an unusual resistance to
disease. These gene types exist in all human populations and are of special interest to researchers.
Even when the variations are of little, if any, functional significance, they can tell us something about
the human past.

An enormous body of data has accumulated on the extent of genetic variation among human beings,
but most of this information has arisen through individual investigators and been collected under
widely varied conditions. In addition, the information and samples that have been collected are
located in laboratories around the world and access to them has often been difficult. It has not been
easy to compare results from different studies. Consequently, support has been growing in the
international scientific community for a worldwide, geographically comprehensive survey of variation
in the human genome.

It might be helpful to review the language used to explain biological similarities and differences. First,
cells are the fundamental working units of every living system. All the instructions needed to direct
their activities are contained within the chemical DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid).

Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk who based his work on pea plants, was the first person to trace
the characteristics of successive generations of a living thing and his basic principles published in
1865 became known as Mendel's Laws. They are familiar to students in biology. In a way, he
pioneered modern genetics. He determined that the heritable units, which he called genes, occurred
in pairs and could exhibit linkage. His tool was statistics .. long before the molecular model of DNA was
first introduced several decades later.

On Feb. 28, 1953, Francis Crick walked into the Eagle pub in Cambridge, England, and, as his
colleague James D. Watson later recalled, announced that they had found the secret of life. Crick
and Watson had figured out the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid, commonly known as DNA. That
structure or model - a double helix that can unzip to make copies of itself - confirmed suspicions that
DNA carried life's hereditary information. The theoretical structure was such a perfect fit that the
experimental data was almost immediately accepted.

In the race to discover DNA, Watson and Crick made use of the discoveries by many scientists who
came before them. Maurice Wilkins played a crucial role and he shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for
Physiology and Medicine for the discovery. However, another important figure remains less
recognized and without whom the discovery would not have been possible.

Rosalind Franklin, a brilliant woman chemist, worked as a research associate in John Randall's
laboratory at King's College, London. It was there in 1951 that she crossed paths with Maurice
Wilkins, who led a separate research group working on a different project regarding DNA.

When Randall gave Franklin responsibility for her DNA project, no one had worked on it for months.
She not only began to conceptualize how DNA functioned but took X-ray pictures to support her
ideas. One scientist called her photographs of DNA the most beautiful X-ray photographs of any
substance ever taken. She was responsible for much of the early research and discovery work that
led to the understanding of DNA's structure. Subsequently, there was a controversy over the
meaning of her work and its historic contribution.

It appears that Wilkins misunderstood her role, behaving as though Franklin were a technical
assistant when both scientists were actually peers. Unfortunately, Franklin lived a short-life
(1920-1958) and died from ovarian cancer, perhaps aggravated by her work with X-rays. Because
the rules of the Nobel Prize forbid posthumous nominations, she was not recognized or included
among its winners.

Before proceeding with the story of DNA's discovery, a few brief definitions are in order.
Nucleotides are the chemical building blocks of DNA. Each DNA nucleotide consists of three parts:
(1) a phosphate group, (2) a sugar group and (3) one of four types of nitrogen-containing bases. To
form a strand of DNA, nucleotides are linked into chains, with the phosphate and sugar groups
alternating. A base is a chemical substance that donates electrons or hydroxide ions or that accepts
protons. The four nitrogen bases found in DNA molecules are adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G)
and cytosine (C).

In due course, it was Watson who fit the final pieces into place. He was in the lab pondering
cardboard replicas of the four chemical bases that comprise DNA's alphabet. He realized that pairs
of bases could serve as the rungs on the twisting ladder, or double helix, of DNA. Subsequently, he
and Crick showed that each strand of a DNA molecule was a template for the other. During cell
division, the two strands separate and on each strand a new other half is built, just like the
preceding one. This way DNA can reproduce itself without changing its structure.

DNA from nearly all organisms is made up of the same chemical and physical components. The DNA
sequence is the particular side-by-side arrangement of bases along the DNA strand (e.g.,
ATTCCGGA). This order spells out the exact instructions required to create a particular organism
with its own unique traits. Not until decades later, in the age of genetic engineering, would the
power of this concept be unleashed and the implications more vivid.

DNA's discovery has been called the most important biological work of the last 100 years. The
biochemical field it opened may be the scientific frontier for this millennium. It has also led to another
question: What is a genome?

A genome is the entire DNA in an organism, including its genes. Genes carry information for making all
the proteins required by all organisms. These proteins determine, among other things, how the
organism looks, how well its body metabolizes food or fights infection, and sometimes even how it
behaves.

DNA's four similar chemicals called bases (A, T, C, and G) are repeated millions or billions of times
throughout a genome. The particular order of As, Ts, Cs, and Gs is extremely important. The order
underlies all of life's diversity, even dictating whether an organism is human or another species such
as yeast, rice or fruit fly, all of which have their own genomes. Understanding DNA is the focus of
national and international genome research projects.

An example of such work is the U.S. Human Genome Project (HGP), which formally began in 1990. The
project originally was planned to last 15 years, but rapid technological advances accelerated the
completion date two years. Although the HGP was completed in 2003, further analyses of data will
continue for many years to come.

Genomes vary widely in size. The smallest known genome for a free-living organism (a bacterium)
contains about 600,000 DNA base pairs, while human and mouse genomes have more than 3 billion.
Except for mature red blood cells, all human cells contain a complete genome. DNA in the human
genome is arranged into 23 distinct pairs of chromosomes and each contains many genes, the basic
physical and functional units of heredity. A human genome is estimated to contain 20,000-25,000
genes.

Initiated in 2008, the "1000 Genomes Project" is an international, public-private research effort to
build by far the largest, most detailed catalog of human genetic variation available, with data from the
genomes of more than 2,600 anonymous people from 26 populations around the world. The project
unites multidisciplinary research teams from many countries, including China, Italy, Japan, Kenya,
Nigeria, Peru, the United Kingdom, and the United States. By providing an overview of all human
genetic variation and making the data freely and publicly accessible to researchers worldwide
through public databases, the "1000 Genomes Project" will fuel further investigation and advances in
biology and medicine for decades to come.

Anthropologists, geneticists, doctors, linguists, and other scholars from around the world are trying
to document the genetic variation of the human species worldwide. This scientific endeavor, using
advanced technologies, is designed to collect information on human genome variation to help us
understand the genetic makeup of all of humanity and not just some of its parts. The goal is to
completely map and sequence the human genome. Progress has been rapid, and it is now generally
agreed that current international projects will produce the complete sequence of the human genome
in the near future.

Given the prevalence of television shows such as "Criminal Minds," "NCIS," and the "CSI" franchises in
primetime and syndication, almost everyone is familiar with the basic concept of DNA evidence. It is
the most powerful tool for crime solving since the fingerprint and has helped solve hundreds of
cases investigators previously deemed unsolvable.

Although 99.9% of human DNA sequences are the same in every person, enough of the DNA is
different to distinguish one individual from another, except identical twins. Due to advances in
modern technology, along with rules and procedures guiding DNA analysis, DNA testing is up to
99.99% accurate for most tests. However, while there are many approaches, techniques and tests
that might be used in an analysis, limited funding often means that analysts must choose wisely to
get the most accurate and complete profile possible. And, as to be expected, human error at any
point in the process can jeopardize the accuracy or viability of any results.

DNA can be extracted from any body fluid, such as blood, saliva, sweat, and nasal mucus or from
fragments of a body, such as hair roots, torn skin or flesh. DNA is the same in every cell of the body
and it stays the same throughout life. Subsequently, DNA profiles taken at different times and places
can be compared to determine whether or not they come from the same person.

When a match is found, the most important question to be answered is, "What is the likelihood or
probability of such a similar occurrence happening by chance?" When forensic DNA analysis is used
to identify individuals, analysts tend to employ a method of scanning 13 regions of the human
genome. The odds of an identical match between two people when 13 regions are scanned are so
small that the results are sometimes called a DNA fingerprint.

DNA can be used to identify criminals with incredible accuracy when biological evidence exists. By
the same token, DNA can be used to clear suspects and exonerate persons mistakenly accused or
convicted of crimes. In all, this technology is vital to ensuring accuracy and fairness in the criminal
justice system.

News stories extolling the successful use of DNA to solve crimes are abundant. For example, New
York authorities linked a man through DNA evidence to at least 22 sexual assaults and robberies
that had terrorized the city. Authorities in Pennsylvania and Colorado used DNA evidence to solve a
series of rapes and a murder perpetrated by the same individual. DNA evidence has been a major
tool in solving cold cases that were processed prior to it was available. In the 2001 Green River
murders, DNA evidence provided a major breakthrough in a series of crimes that had remained
unsolved for years despite a large law enforcement task force and a $15 million investigation.

Forensic DNA analysis relies largely on the world's DNA databases where analysts can suspect DNA
to existing samples already recorded. While some these large collections of genetic coding are
private, governmental agencies manage most of them. The largest of such DNA databases is the
Combined DNA Index System (CODlS) managed by the United States government. As of 2011, it held
over nine million records.

DNA analysis or profiling has a number of uses beyond the positive or neg3tive identification of
suspected criminals. Examples of other uses include identifying victims or their remains when no
other means is possible; determining the risk of genetic diseases; and verifying familial relationships,
such as paternity or the kinship of adopted siblings. DNA analysis is not limited to humans. The
technology can help deter11ine the species of an endangered animal, identify animals in cases of
suspected poaching or authenticate animal pedigree such as those used in pet and livestock animal
shows.

Going Beyond Genetics

"I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural
Selection."

- Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace proposed that natural selection could explain the origin of
species, as well as many biological differences and similarities among life forms. It is important to
note that for natural selection to work, there needs to be variety within the population undergoing
selection.

Darwin and Wallace didn't know the precise genetic mechanisms that allowed natural selection to
work. It was their contemporary Gregor Mendel who discovered that genetic traits are inherited as
discrete units, now called chromosomes and genes. Mendel also discovered that hereditary traits
could be inherited independently of each other, rather than as a bundle. Such traits may then reunite
in new combinations. This genetic recombination supplies some of the variety on which natural
selection depends.

Selection through differential resistance to disease has influenced the distribution of human blood
groups. Natural selection also has affected facial features, body size and shape, and many other
expressions of human biological diversity.

Those who believe in biological determinism propose that cultural variation:; are inherited in the same
manner as biological variations. The theory is often used to explain basic instincts such as babies
following their mothers or trying for food. The central theme is that biological factors such as an
organism's individual genes, as opposed to social or environmental factors, determine how a system
behaves or changes over time.

A biological determinist, for instance, would look only at innate factors, such as genetic makeup, in
deciding whether or not a given person would exhibit certain human behaviors, such as having a
particular sexual orientation or becoming a serial killer or a poet. Non-innate factors, such as social
customs and expectations, education, and physical environment, would be discounted.

Richard Lewontin, a Harvard professor, geneticist, and author of several books about human
diversity, is one of several harsh critics of biological determinism. He and his colleagues challenge
the argument for the primacy of genes over the social environment. The search for ultimate health
care and healing is beyond a genome project and are simplistic promises of a cure-all for a myriad of
ills. As he and many other scientists see it, identifying the genetic cause does not necessarily
produce a cure and discounts the impact of environmental factors.

Are human behavior and social structures determined solely by human biology and evolution?
Lewontin points out that 85% of all human genetic variation is intra-population, 7% intra-regional and
only 8% inter-regional. Therefore, it makes no sense to separate genetic from environmental factors.

Is society naturally hierarchical, with inequality an unavoidable consequence of human nature? What
are the causes of schizophrenia and mental illness? How much are human social structures
determined by biology and evolution? What is the role of social environment in human development?
These and other provocative questions continue to be part of the study of human diversity and the
answers are elusive.

Going Beyond Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism emphasizes the unique characteristics of different cultures and nations. Apparently,
the word was first used in 1957 to describe Switzerland with its tolerance for many ethnic
contributions, but came into common use in Canada in the late 1960s. It quickly spread to other
English-speaking countries.

The term is often used to describe societies and nations that have many distinct cultural groups,
usually as a result of immigration. This can lead to anxiety about the stability of national identity.
Currently, immigration issues and policies have become major political topics as illegal immigrants
have helped change our nation's demographics.

Diverse cultural groups can also lead to cultural exchanges that are mutually beneficial. Such
exchanges range from major accomplishments in literature, art and philosophy to relatively token
appreciation of variations in music, dress and new foods. Multiculturalism is a reflection of tolerance
and perhaps of incorporating changes in the way people interact.

Sometimes multiculturalism is seen as a cultural mosaic of separate ethnic groups, in contrast to a
melting pot where they are all blended together. Another approach likens multiculturalism to the
intermingled yet distinctive flavors of a mixed salad. Multiculturalism has been addressed in most
contemporary democratic nations, advocating to some extent or other for citizens and immigrants to
interact peacefully with other cultures in the nation while also preserving their cultures and
heritages. Some nations, including Australia, Canada and Sweden, have official national policies
designed to promote and protect multiculturalism within their respective countries. But, even these
countries recognize that achieving a nationwide understanding, acceptance and implementation of
those policies is a long-term goal.

Diversity is a very broad term that certainly includes but is not limited to an appreciation of
multiculturalism. Multiculturalism, while a useful concept, does not call attention to diversity in sex
roles or gender expectations. And, it requires a big jump to connect a multicultural emphasis to
people with disabilities or respecting people who have unpopular but valid viewpoints. The term also
ignores the role of intellectual development, learning styles and personality types.

An appreciation of diversity has as its foundation an educational level that promotes
open-mindedness, fairness, mutual respect, sensitivity, cooperation and freedom of expression. It
also embraces the desire to eliminate discriminatory practices and attitudes. This includes but is not
limited to an appreciation of different cultures of origin.

Human Diversity

People often think of human diversity in terms of certain hot button group differences that are
typically associated with some form of oppression. These differences are frequently sensitive and
difficult issues due to the pain or hardships experienced individually and collectively by members of a
group that was different from a more dominant or privileged group that hurt them. These differences
include:

- Race
- Nationality
- Culture/ethnicity/subculture
- Gender
- Class or social status
- Economic status (wealth/poverty)
- Age (generation gaps)
- Ability /disability
- Sexual orientation
- Religion
- Political party

Too often these politically sensitive differences overshadow a multitude of other differences, most
of them highly individual. Many of them are also equally significant to our everyday interactions and
relationships with others. They include:

- Personality
- Interests
- Investment of energy and resources
- Preferences and physical needs
- Skills and aptitudes
- Ideas and concepts
- Feelings and emotions
- Opinions, positions and commitments
- Attitudes
- Beliefs and values
- Assumptions about reality
- Available resources
- Habits
- Lifestyles
- Cognitive styles and ways of perceiving the world
- Communication styles
- Histories and myths
- Personal experiences
- Stages of development
- Physical appearances
- Roles in society or a group
- Family of origin
- Education - both formal and informal, past and ongoing
- Acquired information
- Health and mental health

Human Diversity Defined

Human diversity can be defined as all the characteristics that differentiate us as individuals, as well
as all the characteristics that make us alike. There are many dimensions to diversity that go well
beyond obvious differences such as ethnicity, gender, age, physical abilities and marital status. The
less obvious dimensions of diversity also play a critical role in human relations.

Understanding the dynamics of diversity allows people to respect and value differences. When
people feel valued, respected, and empowered, they are more motivated to work and live together
for the common good of all.

How This Course Is Organized

We know that no two people are alike. Considering the billions of people who inhabit the earth, we
never encounter someone who looks, thinks, or acts the same as we do. Each of us is unique. At
least it seems that way.

At the same time, all of us as people share certain traits, life experiences, and perceptions of the
world. We belong to groups, which help define us as a person. It is evident that the world is full of
diversity, but every perceived similarity or diversity is in the eye of the beholder.

The purpose of this course is to examine the nature of diversity and how it affects human
relationships and behavior. We begin by viewing how biology and genetics provide the foundation
upon which to study how people congregate and interact with one another. Biological conditions help
determine social ones, but it is the later that determines the nature of tolerance, coexistence,
conflict resolution, assimilation, and interdependencies.

The first section focuses on terminology, and understanding (Topic 1) and valuing (Topic 2) diversity.
There is also some discussion of historical and traditional perceptions and myths that must be
challenged in order to adv3nce and understanding of humankind. The world is changing, creating a
new landscape of diverse populations and worldwide interdependencies. Globalization has opened
doors that were once closed and provided new opportunities to exchange ideas and to do business
with diverse populations (Topic 3). In order to fully appreciate diversity and its meaning, it's essential
that we acknowledge the limits of our own heritage and the history that we carry into relationships.
We celebrate the glory of the past and also confront issues that have been detrimental to others
and us. Certain shameful perceptions and incidents of the past need not be repeated (Topic 4).

The second section emphasizes the social component of diversity. It begins with a study of race,
ethnicity, social cultures and sub-cultures, and nationality (Topic 5). These play a part in defining our
nation and our personal identity. These same elements have been a source of bias and prejudice
that continues to plague our nation. Diversity is reflected in socioeconomic differences (Topic 6)
where wealth and poverty, class and status, opportunities and lack of them play a part in the welfare
of our nation. Others social aspects of diversity include gender and sexual orientation (Topic 7) and
the ways in which different generations interact (Topic 8).

In section three, attention goes beyond race and sex and is given to other physical elements of
diversity. These include looks and appearance (Topic 9), health indicators and common health
problems (Topic 10), and physical impairments, including vision, hearing and orthopedic (Topic 11).
The fourth and final section of the course is about the intellectual and emotional elements of
diversity. Personal belief systems include values, religion and politics (Topic 12). Intellectual
development and learning styles vary (Topic 13). Finally, there are different personality types and
communication styles, and diversity is reflected in mental health development and personality
disorders (Topic 14).

"We are all the same and we are all different. What great friends we will be."

- Kelly Moran, The Tiny Caterpillar and the Great Big Tree

Topic 2 - Valuing Diversity

Look around where you go to school, to work, or the neighborhood in which you live. Do all of the
people you see have the same hairstyle? Are they the same height and weight as you? Do they like
the same music or have the same taste in clothes?

We are all different and in many ways. For the most part, our differences can be valued because
they make the world more remarkable and interesting. They also contribute to our nation's
accomplishments and advancement.

Valuing Diversity in a Democratic Society

We live in a democratic society. Beyond the political implication that citizens determine governmental
structure, policies and laws is the concept of a democratic culture. Political opponents may disagree,
but they must tolerate one another and acknowledge the legitimate and important roles that each
plays. American society's ground rules encourage mutual respect and civility in public debate. People
agree that they have a right to disagree.

Democratic societies advocate equality. There is the belief, in principle, that all people are created
equal and should enjoy equal social, political, and economic rights and opportunities. It does not
mean that everyone will be equal in terms of wealth, business opportunities, and education. Those
are determined, in large measure, by individual differences as expressed in motivation, determination,
and competitiveness.

Valuing Diversity in the Workforce

In today's economy, the strength of diversity is more important than ever. In the first part of this
century, 85% of new workers are expected to be women, minorities, and immigrants. Valuing human
diversity means valuing individual differences, not only those of gender and race, but differences in
abilities, beliefs, and points of view.

In the workplace, diversity-wise employees benefit from improved sensitivity. Co-workers are more
likely to help others who have previously shown respect to them. On the opposite end of the
spectrum, those who say or do culturally insensitive things are limited in what they can accomplish
and perhaps even dismissed from their jobs.

In one notable example, Rush Limbaugh was widely criticized, and eventually left his position with a
television network, after his comment that one National Football League player was favored because
he was black. Political correctness is not only translated into kind and sensitive working
relationships, it is now considered essential in politics and business.

Cultural awareness and sensitivity can benefit your job prospects. As "globalism" advances,
companies are seeking employees who are able to work in a diverse environment; thus, there is a
push for bilingual or multi-lingual employees. If your company wants to send you to China, could you
excel in your work? If you were in an office of different nationalities, would you be able to work well
with them? Can you relate to people who are different from you?

Beauty and the Beast: A Tale of Diversity

The classic fairy tale of Beauty and the Beast is pertinent to diversity and human relations. You may
recall that the young maiden, Beauty, in order to save her father's life, agreed to live in an
enchanted castle with the Beast. While very fearful and horrified by his appearance, she was
eventually able to look beyond his monstrous appearance and "into his heart."

After learning of the Beast's kind and generous nature, Beauty's perception of his appearance
changed. She no longer was repelled by the way he looked but instead was drawn to his loving
nature. The better she got to know him, the less monstrous he seemed. Finally, finding him dying of a
broken heart, she reveals her love for him, which transforms the beast into a handsome prince. They
not only lived happily ever after, but all those who stumbled into their domain in despair were
changed, finding on their departure that their hearts were filled with goodness and beauty.

In real life, those we do not know or understand often repel us. Yet after they have become our
friends, we wonder why they once seemed monstrous to us. Nowhere is the story of Beauty and the
Beast more apparent than in schools, where the diversity of students is increasing every year.

Students come from many cultures and ethnic groups, embrace different religions and speak various
languages. They represent different socio-economic groups and ability levels. Their skin color may
be different and they may hold tightly to some values and traditions that don't fit easily with the
cultural norm. More and more schools are addressing the issues of diversity in an attempt to control
bias, prejudice, and discrimination and, subsequently, increase learning and productivity.

Naturally, these same differences show up in the world of work. Diversity is no longer being feared
or ignored. Rather, through educational efforts and cooperative activities, it is increasingly more
valued and celebrated.

Diversity Training in the Workplace

Virtually every Fortune 1000 company has some form of diversity education or training program. In
2003, more than fifty Fortune 500 businesses wrote the U.S. Supreme Court to support affirmative
action college admissions policies. The future of American business is facing an increasingly diverse
landscape and companies view knowledge of diversity and human relations as vital to the future.

Diversity education and training are now regular parts of most organizations and companies that
cater to or serve the public. Companies that practice diversity training benefit in numerous ways.

Better prevention of lawsuits. Discrimination lawsuits cost companies millions of dollars.
Understanding of diversity and human relations in the workplace can help prevent sexual harassment,
ethnic discrimination, and other leading causes of legal issues. In addition, companies are better able
to comply with federal laws and guidelines that help govern business.

However, understanding and valuing human diversity goes beyond matters of compliance. Successful
people and organizations capitalize on the broad perspectives and experiences diversity brings to
achieve greater success.

Better decision-making. A company made up of employees from different backgrounds has a wider
base from which to pool experiences. Differing ideas, managed correctly, increase the options of a
company and enable it to solve problems and make wiser and more practical decisions that are in
tune with the marketplace. Diversity provides more opportunities for innovation and creativity.

Better company morale and teamwork. When employers and employees are sensitive to the value of
diversity, discrimination and cultural insensitivity decrease. Collaboration among people who enjoy
working together enables them to operate at peak performance and feel supported for their
contributions. Relationships are considered the life-blood of a company and these relationships are
immersed in diversity.

Better recruitment and retention. A workplace that demonstrates interest in employees as people
first, then as workers, attracts and retains a high-quality workforce. When the accomplishments of all
workers are recognized 3nd valued, a "family atmosphere" and a source of pride is created.

Better marketing. Compa1ies, who understand, value, and connect with consumers of differing
backgrounds, gender, and ages, are able to better serve them. There are usually better marketing
strategies towards spec fie groups, clients, and customers.

For example, the worldwide 3M company provides more than 55,000 products and more than thirty
core technologies. You are probably most familiar with such brands as Scotch, Post-it, and
Scotchgard". The billion dollar company has a written policy that claims "diversity inside = more
opportunity outside." It is assumed that when employees reflect the diverse communities that they
serve, they are more likely to understand their customers and, consequently, capture more of the
emerging diverse consumer markets.

Better outlook for global marketplace. Many companies view their future as depending on the ability
to win in the competitive, global marketplace. They see the need to value employees' diverse
backgrounds, experiences, and ideas, and to create new business opportunities based on new
thinking about diversity. Managed diversity is a key to success in expanding global markets.

One major reason international mergers fail is because of an inability to bridge cultural differences.
Companies that are equipped to work with organizations and businesses from around the world
discover more open doors in the global market.

Better personal relationships. Diversity education increases personal growth. Although companies
are looking at the profit line, it is evident that people who study diversity issues become more open
to life's experiences. They learn more about the world and perceive things from a broader spectrum
of what might be termed reality. They are less judgmental and their increased openness helps them
grow in personal ways that otherwise would not be possible.

People also feel more cosmopolitan and confident in relationships. The stress and tension often
associated with unfamiliar surroundings and unknown people are reduced. As personal relationships
improve, an increased inner peace results that makes life seem less threatening and more satisfying.

Celebrating Diversity

Thomas Sowell, a distinguished professor at Stanford University, said: "The very motto of the
country-- E Pluribus Unum -- recognizes the diversity of the American people. Translated from Latin,
the phrase means "From many, one" or "Out of many, one." It originally referred to the integration of
the 13 independent colonies into one united country. More recently, it has taken on an additional
meaning that focuses on the pluralistic and diverse nature of American society.

When applied to diversity, the motto might support the idea of assimilation or a "melting pot," when
diversity was sacrificed in order to create one flavor-the American. In modern times, diversity is
valued more and seen as an independent ingredient that can add to the flavor of being an American.
In this case, the analogy of a "tossed and mixed salad" rather than a "melting pot" seems more
appropriate.

Sowell emphasized the importance of worldwide diversity and how transfer of ideas is significant in
the history of the human race. Cultural advances have transferred from one group and from one
civilization to another. He claims that much of our Western civilization came from diverse parts of the
world and that our nation is a reflection of many cultures. The rise of our nation is based on the
foundation of sciences and technology from around the world.

Paper and printing, for example, originated in China many centuries before making their way to
Europe. So did the magnetic compass, which made possible the great ages of exploration that put
the Western Hemisphere in touch with the rest of world.

Mathematical concepts migrated from one culture to another. For instance, trigonometry came from
ancient Egypt, and the numbering system now used throughout the world originated among the
Hindus of India. Europeans called the system Arabic numerals because it was the Arabs who were
the intermediaries through which these numbers reached medieval Europe. Much of the philosophy of
ancient Greece first reached Western Europe in Arabic translations, which were then retranslated
into Latin.

Much of what is often associated with Western civilization originated from the Middle East or Asia.
The game of chess came from India and gunpowder from China. Various concepts related to
astronomy, medicine, optics, and geometry were part of the knowledge base in the "Orient" long
before being adopted by Europeans.

The rise of Western Europe to world preeminence in science and technology was built upon these
foundations, and then the science and technology of European civilizations began to spread around
the world, including the United States.

Sowell also brings attention to culture advancements, implying that so11e cultural features were not
only different from others but better. The less effective features of a culture were typically
abandoned and replaced with others that are deemed to have more value - usually practical value.

A case could be made that cultural features do not exist merely as badges of identity to which we
have some emotional attachment. In a more practical sense, they exist to meet the necessities of
human life. When features of another culture prove to be better, the old ones tend to fall by the
wayside or survive only as marginal curiosities.

Arabic numerals are not simply different from Roman numerals; they are better than Roman numerals.
It is inconceivable today that the distances in astronomy or the complexities of higher mathematics
Should be expressed in Roman numerals. Merely to express the year of American independence--
MDCCLXXVI-- requires more than twice as many Roman numerals as Arabic numerals. Roman numerals
may be quaint and useful for numbering Kings or Super Bowls, but they cannot match the efficiency
of Arabic numerals in most mathematical operations.

Manuscript scrolls once preserved the precious records, knowledge, 3nd thoughts of the past. But
after paper and printing became known, books were far faster and cheaper to produce, which drove
scrolls and scroll writers into almost extinction. Books were not simply different; they were better
than scrolls. Now, computer technology and high-density monitors are challenging the use and need
for paper books and magazines.

No doubt, such things as music, art, and literature from different cultures can provide lasting
contributions and serve many human purposes, as long as they continue to be understood and
valued. For example, the literary work of Shakespeare is still quoted, although the Elizabethan style
of the English language has long since passed.

When Europeans first ventured into the arid interior of Australia, they often died of thirst or hunger
in a land where the Aborigines had little trouble finding food or water. Within that particular setting,
at least, the old aboriginal culture enabled people to do what both aborigines and Europeans wanted
to do-- survive. A given culture may not be superior for all things or in all settings, much less remain
superior over time, but particular cultural features may be clearly better for some purposes-- not
just different.

Why do people bother arguing about the preeminence of one culture over another? We need only
recognize that particular products, skills, technologies, agricultural crops, or intellectual concepts
accomplish particular purposes better than their alternatives. It is not accurate, nor is it really
necessary to rank one culture over another in all things, much less to claim that they remain in that
same ranking throughout history.

Why do some groups, subgroups, nations, or whole civilizations excel in some particular fields rather
than others? Why are some cultural groups so vehemently opposed to others? Why does a
conflicted history have to be kept alive and part of the thinking and actions of new generations?
Why should new generations be held responsible for ancient blunders and hatreds that existed
centuries before they were born?

Many people have spoken of the need to celebrate the legacies of diverse cultures. Furthermore,
they promote the celebration of diverse cultures even as they continue to change and evolve. To be
isolated from other cultures and civilizations is a mistake, since worldwide diversity is needed to
advance the human race.

It isn't always easy to celebrate diversity, despite the knowledge that civilization is indebted to the
contributions of people from various tribes, clans, nations, and continents around the world. Some
have suggested that it will never be possible for our humanity to value each and every human being
without regard to gender, age, color, nationality, disability or religion. There is too much
competitiveness built into human nature, and people will always view some qualities as "better than"
or "less than" others. Personal or national survival is often seen as related to dominance, superiority,
and position of strength, giving them precedence over the ideals of acceptance and equality.

Is it possible to celebrate similarities while at the same time celebrating diversity? Is it possible to
value everyone's uniqueness without comparisons? Is a person's value dependent on looking or
acting a certain way or having certain material possessions?

We live in a world dominated by commercialism. Messages are repeated over and over again on
television that certain clothes, games, food, places to go or things to own are more valued than
others. Companies spend millions of dollars to emphasize how their products are different and
superior. To own a particular product helps a person be "cool." Young people want to wear certain
brands of shoes, look and dance like popular performers, or use the language of successful athletes.
It is all part of the striving to be unique while also being similar.

Our uniqueness and diversity are evident each time an infant is born. We marvel that no two babies
look alike. Even twins are different. Along the way, societal and cultural norms, together with the
media, encourage us to be more alike than different. It follows that we grow up tending to view
differences and diversity as having less value.

Consequently, to celebrate diversity is more than saying that we value the worth of human beings
everywhere and recognize that all cultures play a part in the advancement of civilization. There is no
question that diversity training can affect the way adults interact with one another. However, the
valuing and celebrating of diversity best begins in infancy and is nourished in childhood, when the
words, looks and touches given to every child emphasizes his or her value-regardless of ability,
gender, beauty or family status. Then, as children grow up learning to be comfortable and proud of
their unique selves and heritage, they will be more inclined to encourage others to do the same.

Differences are not always celebrated or valued. A little girl is saddened because she was not born
a boy in family that cherishes male dominance. A small boy, whose leg was torn off in a farming
accident feels useless and does not want to live unless he can walk again. A boy who inherited a
small physical frame feels intimidated when playing games with larger boys who tease him. A child
who finds it difficult to learn in a classroom that does not recognize different learning styles feels
less intelligent than classmates and makes up excuses to avoid going to school. A girl who does not
have the brand of clothes that is popular with her classmates pretends to be sick rather than attend
school.

Cultural diversity is not static; rather, it is dynamic and often a picture of competition. And, as we
now know, that which appeals and serves human purposes most effectively tends to survive while
others decline or disappear.

The World of Competition

Since the beginning of time, human beings have competed against nature and each other. Diversity
tends to inspire competition. To better understand some of the issues related to diversity, including
celebrating its value, we need to take a closer look at the nature of competition.

Competition is a striving to achieve dominance or attain a rewarding goal. It might be the driving
force of life and the critical element in survival. It is at the center of conflict. Competition can take
place between two or more forces, life forms, systems, individuals or groups. It leads to adaptation
and, ultimately, evolution.

From an early age, most of us are taught ways to compete against others. We become familiar with
the role competition plays in our society and how it characterizes athletic events, business and
politics, classroom rankings and grades, sibling rivalries, computer and board games, and so forth. It
permeates life. In families and schools, we learn to compete as individuals and as members of group.

Competition and Diversity

When individuals compete against one another each tries to achieve his or her goal. There is a
winner and a loser. In competition, individuals seek an outcome that is personally beneficial but
detrimental to all others in the situation. One person's gain is directly related to someone else's loss.

Inherent in individual competition is a set of values or basic principles that are reinforced by the
consequences of competing. More specifically, in individual competition there is a will and commitment
to obtain more than others. Winning suggests that one person is superior, perhaps smarter, faster,
stronger, or more competent. Winning, of course, depends on beating, defeating, and gaining more
than other people.

Triumph is the number one consideration. Achieving or demonstrating excellence may not matter,
when competition centers full attention on a winning outcome. If luck plays a part, then so be it.

Thus, the nature of competition encourages people to think of how they can oppose, obstruct, or
even sabotage the success of those with whom they are competing. As most athletic coaches know:
"Winning depends on a good offense (performing better than others) and a good defense (not
letting anyone do better than you)."

The satisfaction of winning is the counter point to the disappointment that goes with losing. Winners
think better of themselves, at the least for the moment, and have a sense of pride. Losers, at least
temporarily, feel hurt, low or maybe depressed. By the nature of competition, when someone loses,
it is a source of pleasure and happiness for someone else. And, it's hard to value or celebrate the
success of your rivals.

If one's rivals are different in a way that gives them an advantage, that difference is feared, perhaps
envied. On the one hand, if the rivals differ in a way that does not give them an advantage, they
might be discounted or dismissed. On the other hand, if the rivals differ in a way that does not give
them an advantage, they might be discounted or dismissed.

For example, classmates doing average work often have unpleasant feelings about high performing
students because they win in the classroom. They achieve more and reap the rewards of good
grades, high praise and favorable recognition. Low performing students are often less admired,
sometimes even scorned through disrespectful words and labels. The message is if they aren't
competitive, they aren't respected.

The degree to which pleasure or unpleasantness is experienced as a result of competition depends
upon the situation. It is related to what is at stake---what is gained and what is lost. The irony is that
as soon as one competition is settled and a winner is determined, then it's time to move on to the
next one and compete again.

National or world championships last for a year and then it's time to try again. A salesperson at the
top of the company's leader board for a month is excited about a bonus. However, at the beginning
of the next month everyone starts competing and climbing the ladder again.

Those people you perceive as adversaries threaten your success. When smart and ambitious
opponents obstruct and sabotage the work of others, they are to be distrusted and watched
closely. In general, unless it is to your benefit, you are not likely to support or encourage such rivals.
After all, their goal is to win at your expense.

Think of times when you were in a situation where competition resulted in a winner and a loser. Is
competition a good motivator for you or would you prefer to avoid it? Is fear of failing a motive for
performing at a high level? How do the expectations of others affect your competitive behavior?
Does your self-worth depend on how many times you are a winner?

Of course, there are differences between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. You can compete against
others and feel personal satisfaction, even though you are not proclaimed the winner. Perhaps your
personal goals were met, despite the defeat. Maybe it was a case of your performing your best,
only to be dealt a loss by a superior opponent. Then come the encouraging words from parents,
coaches, and teachers: "That's ok, you'll get them next time."

Sometimes people go into a contest or competitive situation knowing they don't have much of a
chance to win. They motivate their efforts by setting personal goals within the competition. In this
way, they use competition with themselves as a means to maintain and enhance personal dignity and
self-worth.

These same principles also apply to group competition, when teams are matched against each other.
When one group in society is in competition with others for resources or recognition, there is
conflict. For instance, inner city gang fights are often about protecting the gang's "turf" and not
having members or symbols defamed.

Cooperation and Diversity

The issue of acceptance, valuing, and celebrating human diversity involves an understanding of
competition. When one culture views another as an enemy and in competition for superiority, then
conflict is inevitable. When one culture sees another as a threat, then it is difficult to find terms upon
which they can agree to collaborate or cooperate, especially when differences are historical and
deep-seeded.

For those of us in the United States, it is hard for us to understand how tribes and sects in
Afghanistan would rather diminish and destroy others than work together toward the democratic
freedoms that our nation cherishes. But given their long history of aggression and hostilities, our
ideas about cooperating with rivals in the pursuit of a common purpose are foreign perhaps even
foolish to them.

For many people in Afghanistan, the American presence communicates a worldview that they are
losers, a vanquished people guided by heathen warriors. It is difficult for them to see positive
opportunities and value of cooperation.

The first step in seeing diversity as an asset is to focus on personal values, needs and goals that
are already shared. Rather than focusing on the same beliefs in a particular religions or governmental
processes, it might be sharing the belief in freedom of choice. In mutually cooperative activities
individuals seek outcomes that are beneficial to themselves and to all other group members.

When groups cooperate, there is commitment to the common good. There is a concern for the
success of others because their efforts contribute to one's own well-being. People working in
cooperation "sink or swim together." It becomes an "all for one and one for all" mentality that
characterizes mutual goals and behavior. Teamwork is prized because succeeding depends on
everyone doing his or her part.

In a cooperative group endeavor, pleasure is less about winning and being superior. It is more
associated with success that comes from helping and assisting others and sharing in achievements.

When people work in cooperation, they assume that by everyone working together everyone will
experience success. They are allies. Some individuals' contributions might be more notable than
others; nevertheless, everyone participating feels included and valued.

For example, a young man who as a football player made several dazzling runs in a game was
credited for being the star. In his post-game interview he quickly acknowledged the contributions of
his teammates. First, he knew that there is tendency for the most conspicuous team member to get
the most credit for winning. Second, he also knew that if he wanted his teammates to continue
supporting his individual efforts then it was important to recognize them.
In the context of cooperative goals and efforts, differences are to be valued. All group members are
potential resources and contributors to success. Individual differences mean more diverse resources
are available for the joint effort, and thus, the differences are valued. Moreover, the diverse
contributions of everyone help members realize that, in the long run, everyone is of equal value and
equally deserving, regardless of their gender, ethnic membership, culture, social class or ability.

When respect, tolerance and cooperation are emphasized and experienced, some of the less
attractive consequences of competition are reduced or cast into a more positive perspective. It is
much easier then to value and celebrate differences.

Topic 3 - Recognizing a Changing Diverse World

For most of us, our awareness of where we are in time and space, and the changes that are
happening, is limited to our immediate surroundings. We think more about going to work, to the
grocery store, or a social event than about a war thousands of miles away. We are happy to greet
classmates when we pass them in a hallway, but don't spend much time imagining them working at
home on their computers. We are saddened to read about a family that lost their home to fire and
try to imagine their plight. We might reflect on it a few moments and then move on with our own
immediate tasks.

The more we know people the closer we feel to them, especially when they are in our presence.
When they leave for some other place, thoughts about them may linger for a while and then we
forget about them. We focus on our own immediate interests. There is an old adage: "Out of
sight...out of mind."

We rely on television images and newspaper reports to tell us "how other people live." We read or
hear about tragedies and are relieved that they are not a direct part of our own lives. We know of
individual accomplishments by great athletes, movie stars, politicians or famous people and might
imagine what it might be like to be so celebrated. After a few moments, it's then back to the
present. It is our immediate environment that is most demanding and most influential on our
perceptions of reality.

We are so caught up in day-to-day living that we may hardly be aware of how change is always taking
place. In our own thoughts, it's quite possible to isolate our selves from most of the world.

Yet, we live in a world of change. Sometimes change is a matter of choice. At other times, it is thrust
upon us and we are forced to recognize that things are not the same as they once were. On still
other occasions, change can be so sweeping that we are caught up in it whether we are aware of it
or not, or whether we like it or not. Eventually, most of us come to recognize it, if not accept it.

Many changes seem rapid, when in fact they have been slowly accumulating to reach the point of
catching our attention. Some changes are swift and we have to make immediate adjustments in the
way we see things or manage our lives. Some changes push humankind into a totally new era of
history, perhaps even a major step in our evolution.

For example, some of us have lived to see how computer technology has rapidly changed the world
and our lifestyles. However, to others they have never known the world without this technology.
Perceptions of the world dramatically changed for some and simply embraced as a normal part of life
for others.

In general, we have advanced into the perceptual realms of the infinitely large, such as outer space,
and the infinitely small, such as microcosmic structures and organisms. More scientific progress has
been achieved in the last 50 years than during the entire previous history of mankind.

For instance, intricate instruments, linked by instant communication to our planet, are being sent
farther and farther away into the universe. Human beings have set foot on the moon and returned
safely to earth. Outer space is being used for unprecedented systems of worldwide communication
and studies of the earth's resources and physical conditions. More than three thousand satellites
and space objects are circling around the earth giving us more information than many ever dreamed
possible.

Changes in transportation have expanded from land and sea to the atmosphere, with ever larger and
faster planes. There is more movement of goods and services across continents and throughout the
world. The world many of us once knew is figuratively shrinking as global thinking and communication
are expanding.

Scientists have harnessed atomic energy and provided a world of electronics, of cybernetics, of
laser technology. Research has unlocked many mysteries of the infinitely large and small. For
instance, in the field of microbiology new exhilarating and sometimes frightening vistas have been
opened up through the study of genes. Never on this planet has there been such intensive research
and discovery by so many scientists in so many lands.

Scientific and technological advancements have always had far-reaching consequences for
humankind. The first effect was an unprecedented improvement in living conditions. This improvement
continues to spread around the entire world despite regrettable discrepancies and delays.

With changes in medicine and living conditions, the length of life has increased, reaching more than
seventy years in many affluent societies. In the country of India life expectancy increased from forty
to fifty years in two decades. Many of the diseases that caused great epidemics are wiped out and
efforts are still being made to attack the remaining principle causes of early death.

Today, the average life span is double what it was 200 years ago. The United Nations estimates that
by 2050 the number of people over 60 years of age will increase from one in ten currently to one in
five (World Population Ageing 1950-2050, United Nations Population Division). Gender is part of the
picture too, with women significantly outliving men. In the US, some 50 per cent of married women
aged over 65 will outlive their husbands by at least 15 years.

Ageing populations raise serious issues of how to fund the growing number of people who are 60
years and older through retirement and advanced age. Governments are finding that they cannot
afford to fully fund pensions costs, healthcare, long-term care and other welfare provisions. Thus,
the changes that were ushered in during the 1930s and 40s to provide security for retirees are
changing. The age for retirement is changing to reflect the realities of a new world.

The manner in which people receive news and entertain themselves is also changing. For instance,
Americans spend more time watching TV, listening to the radio, surfing the Internet, and reading
newspapers than anything else, except breathing. It averages about 9 hours a day, above the
average of what most people sleep. In fact, media use has risen every year since 2000. The
escalation is due in part to faster and easier ways to get information and entertainment.

There are more TVs in the U.S. than people because in many homes there is one two or more rooms.
For teenagers, being on the Internet and watching TV at the same time are not mutually exclusive.
For that matter, you can also put a cell phone in the picture.

According to a study by the Nielsen Media Research group, Americans spend average of 4.5 hours a
day watching TV, which is more time than they spend with other media. Next come the radio and the
Internet. Reading newspapers is fourth, passed in 2006 by Internet use.

One of the reasons that media use is increasing is because of new technology, availability, and
extended programming. TV shows are no longer limited. The increased number of channels makes
some kind of targeted programming accessible almost all the time. As Baby Boomers get older, it's
expected that they will watch more television. People who are over 50 watch TV more than people
who are 20. An aging population is projected to be a driving force in the future for media use.

As more Americans increase their media use, there is also more exposure to global events and
news. In the comfort of their homes, people can watch unusual athletic events or the unfolding of
tragic news taking place thousands of miles away, perhaps in another country. The media broadens
people's perspectives and reveals how diverse the world is. It also shows how that diversity is
reflected in our society.

A Digital Democracy

Individuals are changing the nature of the information age. Individuals have had such an impact on
change that Time Magazine (2006) in its annual pick of the Person of the Year decided to choose
"You." A mirror was featured on the cover page. The editors viewed the vast number of computer
users as the creators and consumers who are transforming art, politics, and commerce. Our nation is
engaged in a new digital democracy and it has become a part of a "global nervous system" that is
not only tuned into the world but changing it.

As observed by Time editors, journalists once had the exclusive province of taking people to places
they'd never been. But now a mother in Baghdad with a videophone can le: you see a roadside
bombing, or a patron in a nightclub can show you a racist rant by a famous comedian.

Described by some as "amateur hour," and others as "reality sites," the internet is now a means of
getting to websites and blogs posted by individuals. Sites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube allow
individuals to post their ideas and homemade videos. All of these blogs and videos bring events to
the rest of us in ways that are often more immediate and authentic than traditional media.

A New World

Longer and better lives have brought about an accelerated growth of the human race. People on our
planet have increased from 2.5 billion in 1951, to 4.5 billion in 1980 and to more than 7 billion in the
year 2012.

An impressive illustration cf how fast the world population is growing can be seen at WorldOMeters,
a real time clock http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/. It can cause one to pause and
reflect on how rapidly the face of the world is expanding. A population clock (along with data
regarding the economy, society, health and energy consumption) for the United States can be found
http://www.usarightnow.com/.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html. It reflects a current population of more
than 315 million and growing in numbers each minute.

Yet, a slow rate of growth during the first part of the decade suggests th3t the U.S. continues to
emerge slowly from the worst economic downturn since the 1930s. The notion's birth and
immigration rates fell in the aftermath of the 2007-09 recession. Growth, b3sed on levels of fertility,
mortality, and migration rates, is projected to be at a slower pace over the next several years.

The Population Reference Bureau (2012)
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2012/world-population-data-sheet(world-map.aspx#/ma
p/population provides a fascinating interactive map of the world that enables you to see current
populations and projected growth by regions and countries. One observation (2011) compared
trends in the countries. Developing countries accounted for 97 percent of most growth because of
the dual effects of high birth rates and young populations. Conversely, in the developed countries
the annual number of births is barely exceeding deaths because of low birth rates and much older
populations. By 2025, it is likely that deaths will exceed births in the developed countries, the first
time in history that this will have happened.

How is population of people spread throughout world? Another interesting site can be found at
http://www.geohive.com/. Here you can gain a picture of the 50 largest populated counties in the
world. Can you name the top ten? To compare and contrast countries of the world in terms of their
demographic status, go to: http://www.xist.org/earth/world.aspx.

For fun and interest, how does France compare to Bangladesh in terms of geographic size and
population? How does Germany compare to Nigeria? How does the United Kingdom (England)
compare to Mexico or Thailand?

Think of the cultural and scientific contributions that each of these countries have made to the
world. It's clear that the size of the country and population doesn't always equate with scientific and
technological progress. Each country typically has a cultural identity, although the largest and most
progressive countries are the first to become more culturally diverse.

In addition, an increasing number of people are living in urban areas. The percentage of the world's
population living in urban areas has increased from 30% to nearly 50% since 1950. By 2030, that
number is expected to reach 60%. This dramatic shift in population density has created a range of
serious issues, including water, sanitation, shelter, and urban poverty.

Of course, not all people in the world share the same resources or enjoy the same standard of living.
Nearly one billion people suffer from hunger and malnutrition, a root cause of poverty, illiteracy,
disease, and mortality. As the vision of a global community continues to be talked about, the world
becomes more aware of such problems.

In addition, some nations are more dependent upon others for certain resources. There is no better
example of how a resource can affect a standard of living and relationships among countries than oil.
Our nation's oil demand is huge. The U.S. has less than 5 percent of the world's population; yet, it
consumes more than 25 percent of global oil production-about 20 million barrels per day (mbd). Oil is
the dominant fuel in the U.S. energy market, meeting almost 40 percent of total U.S. energy needs.
Most of this is consumed by the transportation sector.

The nation has been slow to look at alternatives to oil and gas consuming products. Being faced with
limited resources and being dependent upon other nations is not a mind-set that is common to most
Americans. One result is that consumers are buying more fuel efficient vehicles.

The U.S. is not alone in its quest for more oil. Industrial economies around the world remain highly
dependent on oil and also need to import it from other countries. China and India, for example, with
their fast growing economic middle classes are especially affecting the oil market and generating
more competition.

What are other consequences of population growth both for the U.S. and for the world as a whole?
In the recent past, the primary concern for developing countries--where virtually large population
growth is found--dealt with matters of adequate food supply. Thus far, food production has generally
kept pace with population growth in all regions except Africa.

A detailed study of world food production potential, which was conducted by the U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization, concluded that there is now sufficient capacity to provide for the world
population. As food and nutrition become less an issue, standard of living and human relationships
become more important.

This is part of a new world into which we have entered. Change has brought about real crises to our
planet: pressures on the environment, on use and management of resources, on the energy crisis,
and concerns about food distribution, pressures from urban development, and the threat of inflation.

Worldwide Interdependence

A major effect that is taking place is the advent of an intricate and extremely dense network of
worldwide interdependencies. Until recently, nations were able to be relatively isolated from each
other. New transportation systems and technology changed that. Suddenly, or so it seems, nations
are more a part of the world's perspective. Beyond nature's interdependencies, which have always
characterized our planet (the water, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen cycles, and other internal links of the
biosphere), the world has suddenly been seized in a rapidly growing web of interdependencies
created by people and their need for resources and interactions.

There has been a huge increase in world trade. International tourism has mushroomed. Large
transnational companies have a foothold in many countries, as they combine money, labor, resources,
and technologies across national boundaries. They tend to view the globe as a single market. Some
companies are so large and rich that they dwarf the resources of many nations. This poses new
dilemmas regarding international ethics and the history of power.

A popular protectionist bumper sticker in the United States read "Real Americans Buy American," and
many Americans tried to do that in hope of backing our country's labor interests. The trouble is that
it is hard to know which car is really more American: The Chevrolet built in Mexico primarily from
non-American imported parts and then shipped to the United States so American consumers can "buy
American." The Ford built in Germany by Turkish workers for export to the Nigerian market. Or the
Toyota Camry designed at Toyota's Newport Beach (California) Design Center, built by American
workers at the Georgetown, Kentucky, Toyota plant from parts that, other than the engine and drive
train, are almost exclusively American, and test-driven at Toyota's 12,000-acre Arizona proving
grounds. Whew! Interdependencies are so interwoven already that it's not much of a leap for
worldwide marketing.

Many times, global marketers attempt to break down the barriers that they encounter in different
cultures. Marketing has an undeniable impact on culture and sub-cultures. It can through vast
resources put pressure on people to change their cultural habits and customs.

More specifically, marketers believe that sales depend less on autonomous choices by independent
buyers and more on the traditional beliefs and habits that are shaped and reinforced by the media.
Tea drinkers, for example, are not good prospects for Coca-Cola sales, so when the Coca-Cola
Company entered the Asian market it essentially declared war on the Indian tea culture. It was
necessary to convince people that instead of the long-honored tradition of drinking tea, coke was a
great alternative and often preferred.

Long-lunch and eat-at-home traditions hinder the development of fast food franchises. Records show
that in recent years successful fast food franchises have been able to undermine Mediterranean
long-lunch and eat-at-home rituals. Some critics moaned that this action was "corrupting family
values," as thoroughly as Hollywood action movies were supposed to have done. Fast food is about
accommodating a culture in which work is central and social relationships are secondary. It is more of
a case in which fast trumps slow and simple beats complex. Thus, cultures collide and marketers
make it happen.

The global economy is growing. E-commerce has certainly contributed to its development and will
continue to play a major role. E-marketing is changing too and is particularly interested in diverse
cultures and building relationships.

In yesterday's world, there were three primary media types-television, radio, and printed pages. The
Internet provides more varied types of marketing approaches, including flash movies, streaming
media, interactive media, banners, and pop-ups. If you have surfed the Internet lately, no doubt you
have found them a bit annoying, even if they are informative and effective.

In the traditional media environment, "the message was the medium" and perhaps more clearly
defined by the medium. It was a mono-cultural situation, where the viewer was passive and without a
voice. One exception might be the highly successful talk-radio programs. The interaction, even
though limited, contributes greatly to its success.

In today's Web environment, the viewer has more opportunity to interact and to have a voice.
Marketing and advertising is no longer a matter of "I speak, you look and listen," as the salesperson
presents his or her pitch and as the consumer passively hears the latest jingle. Instead, it is
becoming a "we converse and we both listen" approach. Client/customer/patient relationships have
become critically important to sales in the U.S. and abroad.

E-commerce and E-marketing is dependent upon the Internet and its future. The Internet has created
cyberspace and new cultures have been spawned. These cultures (and sub-cultures too) transcend
geographic boundaries. Computers help translate languages and provide images, sounds, and enable
conversations that were limited, if not improbable, in the past. Cyberspace has embraced the world
and made it seem smaller.

Global interdependencies have forced governments into new collective thinking and cooperative
arrangements. Some of these were inconceivable only a few decades ago. Under such changed
circumstances, which deeply affect our lives, there is an urgent need for more global education.

In the past children went to school and learned details about the past, the geography and the
administration of their countries. In the future, they will study more about the world, its global
problems, national interdependencies, and international institutions.

A child born today will be faced as an adult, almost daily, with problems of a global interdependent
nature be it peace, food, the quality of life, inflation, or scarcity of resources. He or she will be a
beneficiary or a victim in the total world fabric.

U Thant, the former Secretary General of the United Nations, when discussing these issues and
problems, said:

"The law of love and compassion for all living creatures is again a doctrine to which we are all too
ready to pay lip-service; however, if it is to become a reality, it requires a process of education, a
veritable renaissance. Once it has become a reality, national as well as international problems will fall
into perspective and become easier to solve. Wars and conflicts, too, will then become a thing of the
past, because wars begin in the minds of men, and in those minds love and compassion would have
built the defenses of peace. "...Global education begins with the idea of world citizenship."

A New Nation

The United States of the near future will be in the throes of demographic shifts that will upend our
political, economic, and technological priorities and redefine economic markets. From age distribution
to the color of skin, the notion will look dramatically different.

In 1776, the number of people living in the colonies was about 2.5 million. In a sense, they were all
foreigners, emigrating from various countries, especially those in Western Europe.

In the year 2012, the resident population of the United States is projected at over 315 million. The
increase in population is, of course, due in large part to continued immigration. According to the U.S.
Census Bureau, in the year 2004, there were 34 million foreign-born residents living in the nation, or
about 12 percent of the population. Another 30 million Americans were considered "second
generation," meaning that at least one of their parents was born abroad.

Latin America continues to send immigrants and as of 2004, about 53% of the nation's foreign-born
population was born in a Latin country. In that same year, of the 537,000 people who became
naturalized U.S. citizens, the highest number came from Mexico, India, the Philippines, Vietnam, and
China.

The U.S. Census Bureau (2012) estimates that people of color make up more than 36% of the U.S.
population. By 2050, the multicultural populace will represent 50%.

It is also interesting to note:

- More than half of the U.S. population growth between 2000 and 2010 was due to the increase
in the Hispanic population.
- The Asian population grew faster than any other major ethnic group between 2000 and 201 0.
- The populations of California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and New Mexico are
"majority-minority," meaning their populations were more than 50% "minority."

"A minority," the census release clarified, "is anyone who is not single-race white and not Hispanic."
This can be misleading due to the way race and ethnicity are reported to the Census. Because
Hispanic origin is reported independently of one's race, there will be an increasingly large number of
people who fall into multiple categories.

Language is a key to communication and understanding. There are many students in our schools who
speak English as a second language. Bilingual education is a low priority in American schools, which
affects not only individual development, but also national security and global competition.

According to the Center for Applied Linguistics, less than one fourth of public elementary schools
report teaching foreign languages, even though a child's early years are the best ones to learn a
new language. In addition, less than one percent of our nation's high school students study Arabic,
Chinese, Farsi, Japanese, Korean, Russian or Urdu-combined!

Less than 8 percent of undergraduates in American colleges and universities take foreign language
courses and less than 2 percent study abroad in any given year. How many foreign students have
you noticed on your campus? What is their attitude about learning English and performing well in their
courses? What could be said about U.S. students on their homeland campuses?

Many students in other nations begin learning another language before they are even 10 years old.
They will have an edge over monolingual Americans and others in developing new relationships and
fostering business connections in countries other than their own.

While only 44% of U.S. high school students were studying a foreign language in 2002, learning a
second or even a third foreign language is compulsory for students in Europe, China, Thailand, and
many other countries. For instance, more than 200 million children in China study English. By
comparison, only about 24, 000 elementary and secondary students in the U.S. study Chinese.

Schools at every level are now balancing their budgets and offsetting reductions in government
allocations by cutting their course offerings and/or eliminating foreign language requirements. David
Skorton and Glenn Altschuler, writing in Forbes magazine (2012) pointed to the shrinking number of
schools and universities that offer the study of foreign languages and viewed it is a threat to the
nation's security. Only 18% of Americans report that they are able to speak a language other than
English, while 53% of Europeans (and increasing numbers in other parts of the world) can converse
in a second language. Apparently, the last big push to study foreign languages came shortly after
1957 when the Russians launched Sputnik. The authors went on to say, "We may not be quite as
frightened as we were during the height of the Cold War but we must be just as resolute in
designing a comprehensive approach to foreign language acquisition that will prepare the next
generation of Americans for success in a highly competitive, tightly interconnected world."
All of this is to say that the world and our nation are changing. The U.S. has a long history of
diversity, of welcoming people from different countries. They have different heritages, languages,
customs, and spiritual opinions. For the most part, while the nation's population will incorporate some
of differences that people bring, there is pressure to follow traditional customs, language, and to
shape an identity that is monocultural rather than multicultural.

It is also evident that our nation continues to be somewhat isolationist in it's thinking about global
dependencies. There seems to be a prevailing attitude that others should learn and adapt to our
language and customs rather our citizens becoming multi-lingual and worldly wise. Trends toward
economic globalization will bring some changes.

As the nations of the world become more dependent on one another, globalization will continue. In
addition, knowledge of diversity and its impact on human relations will play a key role in bringing
positive and productive changes in our nation and the world.

Topic 4 - Confronting Problems of Diversity

Our Baggage from the Past

In Valuing Diversity (1995), Lewis Griggs noted:

"The degree to which we are able to form relationships with others is a measure of our own personal
growth. We can become our fullest selves only through relationship and through reflecting on our
responses to the relationships we form. The way we can build positive relationships with diverse
people is to first know ourselves, including the baggage that we bring from the past."

Self-knowledge is the foundation and essential component of our personal and professional integrity.
As we become more conscious of the values and behavior patterns rooted in our personal history
and culture, we are better able to relate positively with others. Only then can we understand how
our own prejudices and past experiences (our baggage from the past) influence our perceptions of
reality, lead us into stereotypical thinking and behaviors, and affect our forming relationships with
individuals who are different from us.

Culture shapes what we know and do. Our culture of origin greatly impacts the lens through which we
see the world. For instance, each of us grew up with a set of cultural messages that we acquired
from our families, peers, and other parts of our environment. Throughout the process of growing up,
most of us did not question the validity of the information we were absorbing. Adults, in their
eagerness to help prepare us for the world, too often did not understand their own history and
baggage enough to avoid spreading myths and bias attitudes.

In Diversity Issues in the Workplace (1995), Frances Kendall wrote that when we were growing up:

"We simply took on the attitudes, prejudices, and stereotypes about men and women, about people
who are culturally and racially different from ourselves, about age, about work, and about what is and
what is not considered normal."

Consequently, many of us still today do not recognize that our culturally defined ways of doing things
are so deeply embedded that we cannot imagine anyone thinking about doing things in other ways. In
some cases, it isn't just that we think it's the right way; it's seen as the only way.

A Culture of Wars and Rivalries

During times of war, military personnel are taken through training sessions that portray the enemy as
less than human. A solider is more likely to pull the trigger on a weapon aimed at a combatant who is
perceived as an object rather than another human being. Human beings could have a family, similar
interests and wishes, and who in other circumstances might laugh with us at something amusing.
Soldiers, enemies, hateful images are killed, not human beings.

During a war, to see an enemy as human or potential friend could cause a soldier to hesitate and
subsequently be killed. Considering the number of wars that the United States has been engaged in
during the past 50 years, our government does not do a very good job of sensitivity and diversity
training following peace negotiations. Hate and prejudice against a wartime enemy are difficult to
change.

For instance, there were many veterans who fought in World War II who, following the war, absolutely
refused to buy anything from Germany or Japan. There was no forgiveness and never intended, as
they saw atrocities and friends killed. Those memories were not forgotten or dismissed, even though
the enemy was a mysterious specter who was anything but a human being.

Enduring prejudice was burned into their memories and it was hard from them to understand how our
nation's leaders could embrace former enemies in peace. To this day, many hardened soldiers cannot
understand or appreciate human diversity because of their prejudicial experiences.

Some did overcome their hatred and learned to cope with the tragedies of war. In time, they saw
former enemies as people who were trapped in tragic circumstances. As they learned more about
the human nature of their enemies, it was possible to avoid generalizing, reduce stereotyping, and to
acknowledge human diversity.

High school and college rivalries, to a lesser degree, can also spark bias and prejudices. "I hate TPU,"'
fans might chant, "'Go to hell, TPU; go to hell." Some carry such zeal to the extent of starting physical
fights in the streets or vandalizing property. This ill will between teams can be carried on for years.
Some alumni, for example, take great pleasure in seeing "anybody, I don't care who" defeat a
traditional rival.

Loyalty and the spirit of competition have driven people in our nation to excel in so many ways, yet
they can play a part in demeaning diversity. "You are either with us or against us." In addition, our
attitudes and behaviors toward people are, in part, determined by an historical legacy of interactions
with people who are different from us. Just as fan loyalty for a team and loathing for an opponent
are attitudes often passed down from one generation to the next, perhaps even more so are
prejudices and biases towards people of different appearance, ethnicity, religion or other cultural
attribute.

Diverse cultures have different ways of fostering and building relationships. Regardless, you are
more likely to develop close friendships with those who grew up with you in the same environment.
You initially relate more easily with them because you share familiar events and circumstances, as
well as similar customs and communication styles. Sometimes it's just easier to find common ground
upon which to build a relationship.

Of course, mutual respect is essential, no matter any differences. A person may have been teased
by peers, felt unattractive at the time, disliked attending school, or had some other powerful
negative experiences when growing up. It's possible then that a person from the same childhood
neighborhood or community might be viewed with suspicion, mistrusted, and perhaps avoided.

It's also true that when people move beyond initially perceived differences of others, they often find
areas of deep connection. Humanness, no matter how diverse, is the critical factor for bonding.

Understanding and respecting diversity can help us connect with others who seem so unlike us. We
can be curious and find areas where there is a commonality of perceptions and then attitudes,
values, and expectations. The first steps in forming friendly relationships, especially with people who
are different from us, are founded on interest, respect, and shared experiences and goals.

In Valuing Relationship (1995), Lewis Brown Griggs said:

"Knowing myself is what allows me to know, understand, and value the diversity of others so that I
can build trust with them. With more trust comes the ability to communicate more clearly, to problem
solve and network more effectively, and to realize the value of synergistic relationships and
productive interdependency. Together, investing in my relationship with myself and enhancing my
relationship with others are important insurance policies against lost opportunities."

A World of Conflict

Where there are differences there is conflict. Conflict is everywhere and occurs at the individual,
community, organizational, and national levels. Most conflicts are confined and expressed
nonviolently. In fact, conflict can be constructive and, in many instances, it is fundamental to social
change. However, unfriendly conflicts, particularly violent ones, are a threat to all communities -
locally and globally - and they can affect all of us.

According to the Jimmy Carter Center for Conflict Resolution, wars are responsible for the greatest
violations of basic human rights-- causing death, destruction, and human suffering. At any time, there
are roughly 110 ongoing violent political conflicts in the world, and about 30 of these are major wars
where more than 1,000 soldiers are killed. The effects of war, including hunger and disease, are
responsible for many more deaths.

Even though democratic nations experienced more riots, demonstrations, and labor strikes than
dictatorships between 1950 and 1990, such events did not slow down economic growth. Under
dictatorships they did. Dictatorships experience a war, on average, every 12 years, compared with
every 21 years in democracies (Human Development Report 2002--Deepening Democracy in a
Fragmented World).

Conflict Resolution. Sometimes conflict can be negotiated. Conflict resolution is the process of
resolving a dispute or a conflict. It typically occurs by presenting each side's needs, and adequately
addressing everyone's interests so that each might be satisfied with the outcome. Conflict resolution
aims to end conflicts before they lead to physical fighting and destruction.

The process involves two or more individuals (or groups) with opposing views regarding specific
issues. There is another individual (or group) who acts as a third party and is considered neutral.
Resolution methods may include conciliation, mediation, arbitration or litigation.

Negotiation is a direct resolution method between adversaries. Negotiation can be the traditional
model of hard bargaining, where the interests of one individual or group far outweighs any working
relationships. Or, the negotiation can focus on the best interests of both parties and preserving
productive relationships.

It may also be possible to avoid conflict without actually resolving the underlying dispute. Parties
recognize that they disagree and that no further action needs to be taken at the time. In a few
cases, such as in a democracy, it may even be desirable that people express their disagreements,
thus revealing the issues that need to be given further consideration. In this case, agreeing to
disagree resolves the conflict.

Some view conflict resolution meetings as too narrow and the mere settlement of a few issues is not
enough to end a conflict. When settling a current dispute occurs without concern for building
peaceful relationships, it seems only a matter of time before festering conflicts result in another
confrontation that must be resolved.

Conflict Prevention. Concern for the proliferation of internal conflicts and civil wars within countries
and regions led to the introduction of conflict prevention as a method to avert conflict before
violence takes over. However, the negative connotation that has been attached to the term conflict
prevention, suggesting that conflicts are inevitable and inherent in human coexistence, has
dissuaded many people from giving serious consideration to the concept. Is conflict an inevitable and
necessary part of human relationships?

Not surprisingly, the primary method for conflict prevention put forth by experts, and demonstrated
throughout history, is education. In terms of human diversity, multicultural education is considered
essential in preventing ethnic and global conflicts.

Conflict Management. Another approach, but not so popular with practitioners in conflict resolution, is
the concept of conflict management. In this case, conflict is a deliberate personal, social and
organizational tool, commonly used by capable politicians, managers and coaches. It is the
manipulation of conflict as a means of motivating competition, winning a contest or capturing a
market.

For example, athletes might picture their opponents as someone who is trying to embarrass or hurt
them. The scenario may be real or imagined. Coaches might allude to this kind of conflict in their pep
talks, as they try to energize their players to a higher level. In other situations, a classroom teacher
created teams of students and awarded prizes to those teams who scored best on a weekly exam
and four regional sales offices charted their sales for 3 months, competing for a bonus based on
highest total sales.

In these cases, the conflicts are manufactured or contrived. There is a reasonable amount of control
and participants compete according to rules. It is easy to decide a winner. Sometimes, managers are
faced with frequent conflicts that arise in a job, such as competing sales personnel who argue over
contracts. In this situation, conflict is anticipated and accepted as part of the job or work setting.
Therefore, conflict management skills are required to reduce the degree or level of conflict rather
than try to prevent it.

Coexistence. Coexistence is a state in which two or more groups are living together while respecting
their differences and resolving their conflicts nonviolently. Although the idea of peaceful coexistence
is not new, the term came into common usage during the Cold War. It has been defined as:

- To exist together (in time or place) and to exist in mutual tolerance.
- To learn to recognize and live with differences.
- To interact with a commitment to tolerance, mutual respect and the agreement to settle
conflicts without recourse to violence.

At the core of coexistence is the awareness that individuals and groups can differ in numerous ways
including class, ethnicity, religion, gender and political inclination. Such group identity factors may be
the causes, or contribute to the causes, of conflicts or they may become solidified as conflicts
develop and escalate. A policy of coexistence, however, is intended to diminish the likelihood that
identity group differences will escalate into damaging actions.

Coexistence also means learning to live together, to accept diversity and to enable peaceful
relationships to exist. When relationships are positive and equal in nature, then they enhance
people's self-respect and independence. When relations are negative or destructive, there is an
undermining of freedom, human dignity and self-worth.

Coexistence between the United States and the USSR during the Cold War, while often tense and
uneasy, was seen as the most favorable atmosphere in which there could be a struggle between
social systems-without war or interference by one state in the internal affairs of another. Such
coexistence included nonviolent and indirect competition between the two systems in various
arenas, despite the continuing threat of armed conflict.

Coexistence is a paradigm that can apply to intra-state relations as well those at the international
level. When closely examined, the overwhelming majority of the nations in the global community have
significant internal schisms based upon ethnicity, race and religion. The significance of these
differences in the social and political process varies widely.

Coexistence among different peoples, races, religious groups, clans and tribes, each fiercely
defending its own identity, is the great challenge for the 21st century. Peaceful coexistence is not
without tension, nor does it endure without commitment and diligence.

Human Rights. Human rights matter in any civilization. They affect the lives of each and every one of
us. There are rights that are considered by most societies to belong automatically to everyone.
They recognize our freedom to make choices about our lives and to develop our potential as human
beings. They focus on justice and equality. They deal with how people relate to one another and how
we live together.

Human rights represent common values drawn from the world's diverse spiritual, religious, humanist,
political and cultural beliefs. They underlie our expectations about life, education, health, work,
personal security, equal opportunity and fair treatment and our systems of government.
Human rights are inherent, inalienable, universal and indivisible. They are inherent, in that they belong
to everyone because of their common humanity. They are inalienable, in that people cannot give
them up or be deprived of them by governments. They are universal, in that they apply regardless of
distinctions such as race, sex, language or religion. They are indivisible, in that no right is superior to
another.

The General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, see Figure 4.1. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all countries to
publicize the text of the Declaration and to have it disseminated, displayed, read and expounded in
schools and other educational institutions. It was not considered a part of international law. The
effort did not gather a great deal support, especially since totalitarian leaders ruled so many
countries. The concepts, however, are lasting and can still apply to all in the world.

A principle pillar for coexistence and respect for human rights is education. Worldwide, there is a
need for a major paradigm shift in educational programs; there is a need for programs that parents,
communities and nations actively support. Educational systems in which living together peacefully in a
diverse world is a principle value are an essential component - and a smart investment -- for ensuring
a safe and prosperous world.

Confronting Shameful Ghosts of the Past

History tells us that human beings have long struggled with human rights. There are numerous
examples in all nations that tell the story of people making serious judgments about the well-being of
another group of people, so much so that it determines whether they live or die.
Eugenics. Eugenics is a social philosophy that advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits
through social intervention and methods. The various goals are to create healthier and more
intelligent people, to save society resources, and to lessen human suffering. Despite the positive
potential such goals may suggest, one must ask, at what cost?

The means of achieving these goals include prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth
control, selective breeding, in vitro fertilization and genetic engineering. Historically, eugenics has at
times culminated in coercive state-sponsored discrimination and severe human rights violations, such
as forced sterilization and acts of genocide.

Sterilization. Sterilization is the process of removing or blocking the sex organs so that it is not
possible to produce offspring. A surprise to many, the U.S. has a history of compulsory sterilization
programs for the purpose of eugenics. At the turn of the nineteenth century, many American citizens
and state governments were quite concerned with problems posed by the "mentally deficient,
criminals, drunkards and whoremongers." The general public believed that the growing numbers of
these "sordid ranks" were leading to certain disaster.

In the glow of nineteenth-century science, people believed that these troubled individuals were born
that way. In 1907, Indiana implemented the world's first eugenic sterilization law. The bill was
supported by the testimony of many doctors who believed in the Surgical Solution. It provided the
compulsory sterilization of " ... any confirmed criminal, idiot, rapist or imbecile in a state institution"
whose condition had been determined to be "unimprovable" by an appointed panel of physicians.

Connecticut followed Indiana's lead. The 1927 Supreme Court case Buck vs. Bell, which legitimized the
forced sterilization of patients at a Virginia home for the mentally retarded, led to an increase in the
number of forced sterilizations in the nation. Before long, several states passed laws calling for the
sterilization of their institutionalized citizens and such procedures were carried out regularly.

Where laws did not exist, overzealous physicians snipped anyway. For example, one state institution
in Pennsylvania conducted some 270 involuntary sterilizations over a thirty-year period, even though
the state had no recorded law providing for such activity. Indeed, the number of actual sterilizations
far exceeded the number of reported ones.

The principal targets of the American programs were people who were mentally retarded or mentally
ill. However, also targeted under many state laws were people who were deaf, blind, epileptic and
physically deformed. Some sterilization took place in prisons and penal institutions, targeting
criminality, but they were in the relative minority.

Why did people believe in such nonsense? Eugenics experts published journal articles, papers and
editorials and harangued politicians into subscribing to their views. They proved quite convincing in
their oversimplified views of social interaction and their wildly off-base proclamations of the genetic
basis for certain traits.

Leon Whitney, author of The Case for Sterilization in 1934, claimed the United States had to perform
ten million sterilizations immediately to avoid rapid societal disintegration. He speculated that
perhaps one-quarter of humanity was not parental material. Whitney agreed with Adolph Hitler
concerning eugenic matters and refused to recant his admiration, even in his unpublished
autobiography completed in the mid-1970s. Fortunately, legislative action never fully satisfied his
views.

Of course, not everyone agreed with the case for sterilization. A law drafted and debated in
Kentucky caused one senator to remark that if the law had gone through forty years ago, there
would not be so many fools in the Senate at the time. This was seconded by an amendment calling
for mandatory sterilization of all Republicans and the bill failed.

Eugenicists strained to fit available data into a hypothesis rather than the other way around. They
found themselves combating the publication of reports asserting that not enough was known about
heredity and environment to advance such drastic procedures as sterilization. Finally, in 1942
another Supreme Court case, Skinner vs. Oklahoma, ruled against punitive sterilization.

By some estimates, over 65,000 involuntary sterilizations took place in 33 states under compulsory
programs. This figure is thought to be low because so many surgeries were performed illegally and
not reported. In addition, thousands of people were unjustly interred in mental hospitals. Numerous
marriages were annulled and thousands were prevented from marrying and having children.

America's eugenics campaign was exported around the world, including to Nazi Germany, where it
may have added to Hitler's master race theories and the scientific cover for his genocidal hatred. It
was not a wise or proud moment in American history.

In recent years, the governors of many states have made public apologies for their states' past
programs, beginning with Virginia and followed by Oregon and California. None have offered to
compensate those sterilized, citing that few are likely still living and would have no affected
offspring.

Confronting The Specter of Hate

Perhaps from the beginning of life, there is a natural born tendency for people to be somewhat
suspicious and cautious of others. Maybe the first cries from a baby are those of protest and
demand more than pleading or begging for food and comfort. Driven at first by the struggle for
physical survival, later in life most people are driven by a need for psychological survival-to protect
the self or personal identity--and one of the basic instincts of self-survival is to be defensive and/or
aggressive.

Over eons of time, suspicions and fears have made people apprehensive about others. It takes trust
before people let down their guards and become open, perhaps never totally letting go of some
psychological defenses. Trust, as we know, is built on mutual respect, understanding, caring and a
feeling of security. Unconditional love is a noble concept, but not very realistic.

History also shows that humankind have the potential for a strong aversion or dislike for others.
Based on primal fear, these unpleasant feelings can sometimes be manifested as hateful and hostile
actions associated with a desire to hurt or disparage a threatening person or object.

It's possible for thoughts to produce violent and destructive tendencies. There is a felt desire to
dismiss, to dismantle or to destroy whatever is threatening to a sense of identity-- all in the name of
survival. This perception may be at such a low level of awareness that people are not even
conscious of how driven they are by negative and abhorrent thoughts. That's a sobering and scary
idea.

On battlefields, soldiers fe3r for their lives and are typically afraid and filled with hatred for their
enemy. Hate, at this time, is a motivator for what are perceived as actions for survival. Demeaning
and killing others can seem rational in those hostile times. Given an obvious enemy, military comrades
and citizens encourage warfare.

The war against terrorists, who embrace violence, for example, is easier to rationalize when there
are no faces and no identities. There is less emotional guilt over trying to destroy a threat.
Bombings, kidnappings and assassinations by unknown radicals are intimidating. Because terrorists
are deadly and unpredictable, their fanatic beliefs and actions are met with a fierce determination to
strike back and gain revenge.

Unfortunately, once the identity of actual terrorists is known, anger and hatred often generalize to
innocent people who happen to share the same religion, ethnicity or skin color. For example, the
terrorists and suicide bombers in Iraq neither represent the majority of Muslims nor their
interpretation of Islamic faith. Yet, Arab Americans are frequently viewed and profiled now as
potential antagonists and are met with suspicion.

Hateful thoughts become more problematic when we are not on a battlefield. It is the personal wars
within our immediate and relatively peaceful environments that are troublesome. For some, these
wars may be based on fantasies of survival that they learned early in life. For others, the wars,
imagined or not, result from a growing dislike for those who threatened them and caused them to
feel demeaned in some way. Such threats, of course, are in the eye of the beholder, the degree of
which is determined by each person's perception.

Hate in America

When prejudice and bias motivate an unlawful act, it is considered a hate crime. Race and religion
inspire most hate crimes, but hate today wears many faces and there is an increasing growth in hate
crimes.

A hate crime is any criminal act in which biased motive is a clear contributing factor. A hate incident is
any act, including conduct, speech, or expression, in which biased motive is a clear contributing
factor. Hate incidents do not have to include a criminal act. - (National Center for Hate Crime
Prevention, Education Development Center, Inc.)

It is estimated that in the United States:

- Every hour someone commits a hate crime.
- Every day the victims of hate crimes include at least eight blacks, three whites, three
homosexuals, three Jews and one Hispanic.
- Every week a cross is burned out of hatred.

Hate in America is a dreadful and constant factor of life. The dragging death of a black man in Jasper,
Texas; the crucifixion of a gay man in Laramie, Wyoming; and post-9/11 hate crimes against hundreds
of Arab-Americans are examples of perceived threat and intolerance taken to an unlawful extreme,
resulting in hate crimes.

In the year 2006, two white teenagers brutally beat and sodomized Texas teen, David Ritcheson,
with a pipe. They screamed racial epithets and doused him with bleach in an attempt to hide their
fingerprints. Ritcheson is Latino.

An unidentified homeless man sleeping in a Boston park was awakened early in the morning when two
men began kicking him in the stomach. He fell back asleep after the attack, only to be reawakened
when the two men returned and set fire to his legs. The man escaped alive, but with severe burns.

Norris Gaynor of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, was not as lucky. Three teenage boys beat him to death
with baseball bats. The actions were caught on a security camera and led to their arrest. They had
attacked another homeless man that same night.

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (2003), hate crimes are carried out against
individuals because of their real or perceived identity. Of the approximately 7,500 reported
incidents, 51% were motivated by racial bias, l8% by religious intolerance, 17% by sexual
orientation bias, and 14% resulted from an ethnicity/national origin bias.

Many students are targets of hate crimes. Twelve percent of 12-lB year old students reported they
had been the subjects of hate-related insults at school. This included comments about their race,
religion, ethnicity, disability, gender or sexual orientation.

According to Tolerance.org http://www.tolerance.org/campus/index.jsp, every year more than a
half-million college students are targets of bias-driven slurs and physical assaults. Every day at least
one hate crime occurs on a college campus and almost once every minute a college student
somewhere sees or hears racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise biased words or images. In
addition, no campus advertises its hate crimes or bias incidents; some administrations might even
dismiss or hide records and facts from the public eye to avoid tarnishing their schools' reputations.

There was has been an increase of 1600% in hate-motivated violence and anti-Islamic crimes since
9/11. In addition, there has been a dramatic increase in hate crimes committed against people who
are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered (LGBT). Hate crimes based on sexual orientation have
more than tripled in the past ten years, with highest numbers reported in the states of California,
New York, New Jersey, Michigan and Massachusetts, respectively. These five states comprise 46.7%
of all incidents reported in the United States. According to FBI statistics, there has also been a
growth in hate crimes agai1st Asian Americans.

At the same time, many states and cities consistently fail to even report hate crimes and the data
recorded in others are deficient. In 2003, the state of Hawaii, for example, did not participate in
reporting hate crimes and has never submitted a hate crime report to the FBI. Southern states were
once viewed as the hotbeds for hate crimes, but today most hate crimes are reported in the
Northern and Western states.

Law enforcement officials acknowledge that hate crimes, like rape and family violence crimes, are
under-reported. Many victims are reluctant to go to the police, and some police agencies are not
fully trained in recognizing and investigating hate crimes.

Cyberbullying is a new phenomenon that is increasing. It is a term used to describe how students,
usually in middle and high school, use chatrooms and e-mails to spread hateful gossip or to send
threats to other students. According to a 2005 Clemson University study, about one in five of 3,700
middle school students reported they had been cyberbullied in the past two months.

The Internet is a magnificent resource and it has helped change our world. Given its openness and
freedom, it is also a place where hateful messages can be spread easily. Racist and bigoted
comments can be seen everyday in blogs and chat rooms and on message boards. One posting
spoke openly of wanting to kill Hispanics and to start another Holocaust. Some say it is the price of
freedom, with rights protected under the First Amendment, while others are eager to talk about
controlling the hate mongering that appears in cyberspace.

Genocide: Massacre of Innocents

World War II was undoubtedly the costliest war in military history. No truly accurate figures exist and
estimates can be only roughly approximated. However, most authorities agree that somewhere
between 15 and 20 million military personnel were killed in action and another 25 to 30 million civilians
probably died as a result of the indiscriminate bombings, artillery barrages and savage fighting.

For years, Gerda Weissmann Klein has been speaking to students at schools across the nation about
the horrors she survived during the Holocaust of World War II. On January 27, 2006, she spoke to
the world. She was among a select few to speak in the United Nations General Assembly Hall as part
of the first International Day of Commemoration in memory of victims of the Holocaust. The date, Jan.
27, was chosen because it is the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, the most notorious Nazi
death camp. Throughout the morning, the message was clear: Remember the victims, remember the
horrors, and be vigilant to prevent such atrocities from happening again.

The Final Solution, a genocide plan to annihilate the Jewish people was the culmination of a decade of
Nazi policy in Germany, under the rule of Adolph Hitler. It called for murdering the Jews of Europe by
gassing, shooting and other means. Up to six million Jews lost their lives--two-thirds of the Jewish
population of Europe in 1939.

Auschwitz survivor Roman Kent, who introduced Klein, said the mandate to remember remains
paramount. "If we were to forget,"' he said, "the conscience of mankind would be buried alongside the
victims." He added, "We must teach our children tolerance, at home and at school. Tolerance cannot
be assumed; it must be taught. We must teach our children that hate is never right, and love is never
wrong."

However, genocide appears to be a regular and widespread feature of the history of civilization. The
phrase "never again" has often been used in relation to genocide. Sadly, though, it continues to be
rebuffed to the present day.

The term genocide refers to massive crimes committed against ethnic groups. A Polish-Jewish lawyer
named Raphael Lemkin (1900-1959) sought to describe Nazi policies of systematic murder against
the Jews. He formed the word genocide by combining geno-, from the Greek word for race or tribe,
with -cide, from the Latin word for killing. In proposing this new term, Lemkin had in mind a description
of "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the
life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves."

The 20th century's first recorded incident of genocide took place in Armenia, an eastern Turkish
province, starting in 1915. The outbreak of WWI provided the leaders of the ruling Ottoman Empire in
Turkey an opportunity to fulfill their dream of PAN-Turkism by exterminating all Armenians.

In the words of Talaat Pasha, Ottoman Turkish leader, "Kill every Armenian woman, child and man
without concern for anything." As a result, the government murdered approximately 1,500,000
Armenians. More than half the Armenian population perished and the rest were forcibly driven from
their ancestral homeland. Many Armenians escaped the massacres by fleeing to Europe and America.

"I am confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this.
The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when compared to the
sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915." - Henry Morgenthau, Sr. U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman
Empire.

In 1939, one week before the invasion of Poland and the start of World War II, Adolph Hitler gave his
military commanders orders to "kill without pity or mercy all men, women and children of Polish race
or language." He concluded his remarks with, "Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the
Armenians?"

In a wider historical perspective, genocide has been common throughout history. The annihilation of
entire peoples, such as the indigenous populace of the Caribbean and Patagonia by Europeans, is
usually considered to be genocide, whether by direct or indirect means such as making survival or
procreation impossible.

In the past hundred years, more or less systematic sprees of deliberate large-scale killings of entire
groups of people have occurred in what are now the countries of Turkey, Namibia, Congo, Russia,
Ukraine, Poland, China, Cambodia, and most recently, Kosovo, Rwanda and Sudan.

The Rwandan Genocide was the massacre of an estimated 800,000 to more than a million ethnic
Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda. Two extremist Hutu militia groups carried it out, during a
period of about 100 days in 1994.

Regrettably, the lessons that might have been learned in Rwanda have been lost on the Sudanese
government. Using its militias and air force, along with deliberate starvation, the government is on a
path to systematically kill all the black Sudanese of Darfur. Over 380,000 people have already died,
and 2 million were driven from their homes by a brutal campaign of repression. Darfur's women have
been targeted for systematic rape and brutality. You may well ask how can this be happening in what
we like to consider the modern world of the 21st century?

The Search for Meaning

Victor Frankl was an Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist who chronicled his experiences as an
inmate in a Nazi concentration camp. He became a famous writer and a key figure in developing
existential therapy, one of the most popular of all counseling theories. His therapeutic methods were
based on finding a reason live.

One of his books, Man's Search for Meaning, is a classic book still read by millions of people because
it has meaning for every generation.

"We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts
comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but
they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the
human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own
way." - Victor Frankl

Each of us has this power to choose. Choosing to understand and value diversity is a significant step
for people who live in the 21st Century. It is imperative that we stop the repetition of past mistakes,
misjudgments and cruelty. The future depends on building human relationships that embrace
diversity.