Fiduciary Duty’s Paradox Incrementally Flexible Essay Example

Fiduciary Duty’s Paradox: Incrementally Flexible Paper The above section has demonstrated that the uncertainty surrounding pension funds’ obligations with respect to non-financial factors in investment decision-making presents a practical barrier to consideration of environmental factors, including climate change, in both the US and UK context. It is clear that part of the problem is the lack of both current case law and consistent legislative commentary on the topic. However, the problem runs deeper than that – it is tied to the nature of fiduciary duty itself. This subsection examines what it is about fiduciary duty that makes it ill suited to adapt to changing social circumstances in anything other than an incremental manner. The urgent nature of climate change makes this situation all the more poignant. Fiduciary duty is a ramshackle concept. In early case law it arose, organically, out of certain relationships of trust. Whether a particular relationship was fiduciary, and what duty it entailed, was often difficult to predict. Indeed, it is difficult to escape the perception that in early times the finding of fiduciary duty, and its content, was rather arbitrary. The preceding sub-sections have demonstrated that although the nature of pension fund fiduciary duty has been clarified in both the US and the UK by successive pieces of legislation, uncertainties remain, particularly with respect to non-financial factors in investment decisions. And, as Langbein has argued, elements of the duty continue to evolve, both through legislation and through curial interpretation. In short, pension fund fiduciary duty remains, to an extent, ‘a concept in search of principle’. We will write a custom essay sample on Fiduciary Duty’s Paradox: Incrementally Flexible specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Fiduciary Duty’s Paradox: Incrementally Flexible specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Fiduciary Duty’s Paradox: Incrementally Flexible specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer In order to deal with the changing social and environmental realities associated with climate change, fiduciary duty must be able to accommodate certain investment innovations – in particular to allow the explicit consideration of the risks and opportunities associated with climate change. It must be able to recognise the increasingly financial implications of climate change, as legislation (e.g. on emissions trading) and markets are gradually doing. However, this subsection argues that while this type of innovation in fiduciary duty is possible, without legislative change it will be incremental – and too slow to meet the urgent changes required by climate change. This subsection explores the paradoxical nature of fiduciary duty with respect to investment innovation: the duty can evolve – history has seen it adapt to emerging social expectations – but the tendency for courts to judge fiduciaries’ prudence by reference to existing investment norms means that any innovation in investment is bound to be incremental – any change in fiduciary duty must fight against considerable inertia. As a result, while the past flexibility of fiduciary duty suggests that the investment innovation of the risks and opportunities presented by climate change is acceptable in theory, the past also suggests that innovation in the courts (that is, absent legislation) is incremental. Change, when introduced too quickly, has been equated by courts with imprudence in the past. The following subsections visit fiduciary duty’s incrementally adaptable nature, showing how it has adapted to evolving financial and social norms in the past, bu t also discussing its tendency toward inertia. The final subsection discusses what the nature of fiduciary duty means for pension funds’ attitudes toward climate change. Adapting to Changing Social Expectations (both Financial and Non-Financial) Fiduciary duty in an investment context has adapted slowly to changing social expectations about finance over the years. If we trace the development of trustees’ fiduciary duty since Victorian times, the change in expectations of investment is striking. In the 18th and 19th centuries, English law took a prescriptive, risk-averse approach to the investment of trust funds. In Learoyd v Whitely Watson LJ explained the principle as follows Business men of ordinary prudence may, and frequently do, select investments which are more or less of a speculative character; but it is the duty of the trustee to confine himself to the class of investments which are permitted by the trust and likewise to avoid all investments of that class which are attended with hazard. According to John Langbein, early English legal attitudes toward investment of trust funds were deeply affected by the South Sea Bubble: in 1719, Parliament allowed trustees to invest in the South Sea Company, whose shares promptly dropped by 90 percent. In the aftermath, the chastened Parliament instigated a conservative approach to investment of trust funds that began with the Bubble Act (1719) and would not disappear completely until the Trustee Act (2000). Under this risk-averse approach, trustees were only permitted to invest in assets specifically authorised in legislation. These generally included consolidated bank annuities, gilts and mortgages of real property. The prescriptive nature of these legislative lists was gradually relaxed over time: under the Trustee Investment Act 1961, trust funds were required to be divided into ‘narrower range’ and ‘wider range’ investments, with wider range investments including UK securities and some shares. It was not until the repeal of the 1961 Act with the Trustee Act 2000 that the prescriptive approach to investment disappeared from English legislation, allowing trustees to invest in any asset class. The law with respect to investment of trust funds in the US followed a similar trajectory. US law inherited the English system of prescribing suitable investments for trustees in Victorian times. It began to move away from the prescriptive approach with the seminal case, Harvard v Amory, which introduced the classic US statement of the more flexible prudent man test: All that can be required of a trustee to invest, is, that he shall conduct himself faithfully and exercise a sound discretion. He is to observe how men of prudence, discretion and intelligence manage their own affairs, not in regard to speculation, but in regard to the permanent disposition of their funds, considering the probable income, as well as the probable safety of the capital to be invested. While there was some resurgence of the process of requiring trustees to invest only in assets included on a ‘legal list’ of investment options for trustees following the New York case, King v Talbot, legislative initiatives gradually broadened trustees’ investment opportunities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. In particular, the advent of modern portfolio theory in the 1940s led to the legislative introduction of the modern prudent investor rule. The large amount of legislative change regarding the investment of trust funds in the US is testament to the flexibility of fiduciary duty. As Langbein notes the trust of today bears only a distant relationship to the trust of former centuries. The trust that we know is mainly a creature of the 20th Century; accordingly, common law processes of incrementalism were no more suitable for today’s trust law than for the regulation of nuclear power plants. Today, under the modern prudent investor rule, trustees in the US may invest in any asset that is appropriate to the fund portfolio, taking into account the risk and return objectives of the trust and its beneficiaries. The need for fiduciary duty to entertain new social and economic expectations surrounding investment was such that its adaption had to be facilitated by legislation. In this light, the past flexibility of fiduciary duty with respect to the investment of trust funds is demonstrated by its rapid adaptation to new financial standards. The potential for fiduciary duty to adapt to new investment approaches is therefore clear. Taking these points one step further, the next paragraphs argue that fiduciary duty also has the flexibility to adopt a broader view of investment by allowing the consideration of certain non-financial issues in investment decision-making. Changing societal expectations have affected fiduciary duty’s approach to investment in subtler ways than risk averseness. Fiduciary duty has had the flexibility to evolve with respect to non-financial factors in trustee decision-making in the context of changing attitudes toward women in the work place. Although dealing with trustees of a council rather than those of a pension fund, Roberts v Hopwood provides a vibrant illustration of how fiduciary duty can evolve in a social context. In this case, a local authority used its powers under statute to increase wages for its workers to above the national average and to pay men and women equally. The district auditor found that the council’s wage increase was unreasonable and ordered its reversal. The council appealed and the case progressed to the House of Lords. The House of Lords found that the council had breached its fiduciary duty by aiming to be a model employer instead of paying the minimum wage. Atkinson LJ stated that the council would, in my view, fail in their duty if, in administering funds which did not belong to their members alone, they put aside [minimum wage indicators] and allowed themselves to be guided in preference by some eccentric principles of socialistic philanthropy, or by a feminist ambition to secure the equality of the sexes in the matter of wages in the world of labour. Atkinson LJ regarded the council’s decision to increase wages for both men and women as a symptom of ‘the vanity of appearing as model employers of labour’ and of the council becoming ‘such ardent feminists as to bring about, at the expense of the ratepayers whose money they administered, sex equality in the labour market.’ In this case, the council’s consideration of non-financial factors in determining how to invest ratepayers’ money was found to violate its fiduciary duty to ratepayers. With the growth of the anti-discrimination movement throughout the 20th Century, the decision to grant wage parity between sexes no longer appears to be the fanciful indulgence of ‘some eccentric principles of socialistic philanthropy.’ Some sixty years later, in Pickwell v Camden London Borough Council,   the Court affirmed the fiduciary duty of a council to its ratepayers, but also noted the council’s entitlement to ensure the welfare of its workers, stating that the council ‘must therefore often be involved in balancing fairly these interests which may frequently conflict.’ The Court referred to the decision of the House of Lords in Roberts v Hopwood and said looking back, as we do, over 60 years of progress in the field of social reform and industrial relations some of their Lordships observations may, with the benefit of this hindsight, appear unsympathetic what has changed over those years is our attitudes to what should be regarded as pure philanthropy. In other words, whereas wage parity was once seen as philanthropy, it is now seen as a legitimate consideration potentially consistent with fiduciary duty. The Court’s comments with respect to Roberts v Hopwood indicate an acknowledgment of the flexibility of fiduciary duty to yield in accordance with evolving social forces as well as commercial forces. The development of fiduciary duty here was ancillary to the commercial context: just as the duty has adapted to evolving expectations in the investment context, it has also adapted to admit considerations once considered to be non-financial. It is therefore possible that fiduciary duty could adapt to changing social expectations about the environment, and in particular climate change. It is important to remember that fiduciary duty, no matter how immutable it appears to be at a single moment in time, is and always will be the object of interpretation; how it will be interpreted will vary with evolving investment and social stan dards. It is the rate of its evolution that is uncertain, an idea that is discussed below. Inherent Inertia: Prudence tends toward the status quo While the content of fiduciary duty clearly can evolve over time, change is often slow. It took more than 250 years for the investment conservatism engendered by the South Sea Bubble to give way to the concept of diversified investment portfolios. In particular, the law lagged significantly behind the finance industry (and, it must be said, financial reality) in adopting modern portfolio theory. It is argued here that legal inertia with respect to fiduciary duty and pension fund investment is linked to the prudent man standard. What is prudence? According to the UK Pensions Regulator, ‘[p]rudence is difficult to define in general terms and will apply differently to different circumstances.’ Prudence is so difficult to define precisely because it is circumstantial. When judges are faced with deciding whether a particular trustee’s decision was prudent, both US and UK law requires them to look at what other trustees in a similar position would do – they must look to the conventional behaviour in the pension fund industry. In 2000, Hawley and Williams argued that ‘the safest course of action for a professional owner is to take only those actions generally accepted as prudent – which historically has led institutions to adopt a conservative view of their responsibilities as owners.’ The prudent course of action in this light becomes the status quo, slowing innovation in investment decision-making. Therefore although fiduciary duty in the investment context is flexi ble, it is, paradoxically, susceptible to significant inertia. This is of great consequence for pension fund trustees, as it reinforces pre-existing behavioural biases within the industry (this problem is discussed in section IV below). This inertia comes from several quarters: legislation, incremental judicial interpretation, and through the behaviour of the pension fund industry itself. In the US, a formula urging fiduciaries to perpetuate the status quo in investment behaviour is built into the modern prudent investor rule. Under the rule as it is formulated in ERISA, trust funds must be managed ‘with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims.’ When determining how a prudent man in an investment context might act, it seems logical that investors should look to the investment behaviour of their peers – or at least to the behaviour of their peers that has not attracted criticism for imprudent investment. Fiduciaries are therefore encouraged to base their investment judgements essentially upon the prevailing investment conventions at any one time. In the UK, a trustee must manage the trust in the same manner as an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. Professional trustees and asset managers professing to have special fund management skills have a higher standard of care. The standard of care for both professional and other trustees is, like the US standard, self-referential. The prudence standard is once again associated with what other investors do. As such, UK pension fund trustees are expected to associate prudence with a conventional approach to investment. A preference for maintaining the status quo in investment behaviour can be seen in the historical reluctance of many courts to accept modern portfolio investment as prudent. Prior to the introduction of the modern prudent investor rule, courts across the UK and US legal world required fiduciaries to be able to demonstrate that each individual investment is ‘prudent’ – any single investment failure could amount to imprudence on the part of the fiduciary. This legal stance resulted in risk-averse decisions by pension fund trustees, but also in returns that were significantly lower than they could have been. The introduction of the US modern prudent investor rule, and its equivalent diversification rule in the UK, allowed fiduciaries to make investments that were more beneficial for the beneficiaries. The ability of pension funds to adapt to the realities of climate change are similarly restrained by the prudence standard’s hostility to anything other than inc remental change. Judicial interpretation of the standard of prudence presents a further pressure on trustees to invest according to the convention of their day. Fratcher points out that there is a tendency on the part of the courts even in the absence of a statute to lay down definite subsidiary rules on what is and what is not a prudent investment. When a certain investment is held in one case to be improper, the courts are likely to treat the case as a precedent holding that no investment of that type is proper. It is this tendency that has made palpable the fear of pension fiduciaries of considering factors traditionally seen as non-financial in investment decision-making; it is this tendency that allowed the judgment in Cowan v Scargill to grow to the (undeservedly) legendary proportions it has reached. In the US, the testimony of experts in financial affairs is usually admissible for determining whether a fiduciary has acted prudently.346 This self-referential feature is likely to propagate conventional wisdom, rather than to encourage trustees to innovate. The practical consequence of requiring investors to base their actions on the actions of their peers is that the status quo tends to prevail. For this reason, Keith Johnson and Frank Jan de Graf have described the prudence standard as a ‘lemming standard’. In their view, ‘pension funds are often reluctant to pursue prudent strategies not being widely used by other pension funds for fear of exposure to liability’. In circumstances such as the present, where investors are typically driven by short-term performance, prudent investment becomes short-term investment. The situation in the UK is similar. A report published by the UK Department of Social Security in 1997 used in-depth interviews with trustees of 48 selfadministered private sector occupational pension schemes to examine trustee investment practice. The report found that the main objective for trustees in administering their funds was to provide a good return on assets, and that trustees sought to achieve this aim by ‘appointing expert advisers and fund managers with successful track records and monitoring their performance; adopting what they perceive as cautious investment policies; and providing guidelines and benchmarks for fund managers for investing schemes’ assets.’ In the UK, trustees who are unsure of their duty may take advice from experts, including those within the finance industry. There have been some moves made toward encouraging pension fund trustees to act independently of their peers if their fund is different to the norm. In 1990, the Committee of Enquiry Report into Investment Performance Measurement recommended that ‘trustees should consider whether their own fund has special characteristics which indicate that it should be invested differently from the generality of funds.’ However, this does nothing to encourage innovation in a fund which does not have ‘special characteristics’. The Outcome for Climate Change The evolution of fiduciary duty, from restricting investment to specific low-risk categories until the second half of the 20th Century to embracing the modern prudent investor rule, reflects a change in social attitudes toward investment. Statutes in both the UK and the US are helping to keep fiduciary duty up to date – this is particularly true of the statutory shift from prescriptive lists of investment options for fiduciaries toward the modern prudent investor rule. However, even the statutory developments of the last two decades are insufficient to enable pension funds to move toward a more sustainable investment paradigm. The incrementalism central to the maturation of fiduciary duty in the past cannot facilitate the urgent action required by climate change. Nor does it, more importantly, encourage a deep philosophical change of the kind necessary to look at the long-term sustainability of investments. An aggravating factor exists here in the question of whether, and to what extent, a court would consider an explicit reference to climate change in an investment strategy as a ‘non-financial’ issue. Until such a case is heard, or relevant legislation enacted, it will be difficult to displace fiduciaries’ anxiety with respect to the appropriateness of attention to the complex web of issues surrounding climate change in the context of investment decision-making. It is reasonable to predict that courts will decide by reference to convention: if most pension funds view climate change as a non-financial issue, then courts are likely to see this position as the prudent one. While almost all governments and major companies around the world now see climate change as a financial issue, as well as an environmental and social one, few pension funds have demonstrated this view. In a way, therefore, pension fund inaction on climate change is likely also to be self-perpetuating without legislative clarification. There is no intrinsic reason for fiduciary duty to prevent pension funds from adopting a forward-looking approach to investment that includes the consideration of factors (such as the risks and opportunities associated with climate change) which are coming to be recognised as financial but which have not traditionally informed investment decisions. In theory, fiduciary duty should adapt to new economic realities engendered by climate change, but change is likely to be incremental (just as it was with respect to modern portfolio theory and equal opportunity in the past). Left up to pension fund trustees and courts, it is likely that the concept of prudence will lag behind as legislative changes correct the market failures of climate change. In practice, the tendency for prudent behaviour to be equated with conventional behaviour means that most pension funds will not move beyond the status quo in terms of investment strategy. Pension fund trustee caution with respect to uncharted financial territory is not surprising, given the uncertainty surrounding fiduciary duty. However, the focus of pension fund trustees on fiduciary duty as the main reason for eschewing change in investment approach obscures significant behavioural impediments to sustainable investment: ingrained short-termism regarding both financial performance and environmental impact, and institutional inertia. These impediments, when combined with the prudence standard’s constant reference to the status quo, create a collective action problem: in order for climate change to become an accepted consideration for pension fund trustees, a group of trustees must act in unison. Next Page   Ingrained Inertia, Short-Termism and Collective Inaction Previous Page   Pension Fund Fiduciary Duty and Non-Financial Considerations

Your LinkedIn Profile Photo - Projecting the Right Image

Your LinkedIn Profile Photo - Projecting the Right Image I have now conducted 32 in-depth reviews of peoples LinkedIn profiles and one of the most common things I tell people is Consider getting a new photo. Some people have privacy considerations and choose not to post a picture to LinkedIn. If you do have confidentiality concerns, I respect your choice. However, there are reasons to include a photo in your LinkedIn profile. It builds trust and credibility and makes you a real person rather than simply an electronic profile. And its the first thing people notice. If you do choose to post a photo on LinkedIn, the first question to ask yourself is: What image do I want to project? Most of us will answer this question, A professional image, of course! Remember, this is LinkedIn. Its not Facebook for your friends or a dating website for your cute and sexy look. Yet heres what I found in many business peoples pictures (and I may be talking to you): Cars, computers, and random objects in the background (these draw attention away from you) Dark backgrounds that make it hard to see your face Other people:Â   girlfriends, kids, and drinking buddies (are you planning to bring them to your interview?) Dogs (are you planning to bring them to your interview?) Obvious cropping, creating an amateur look (maybe okay for Facebook, but not for LinkedIn) Long shots where we can?t see the persons face (whats the point?) If you were an employer or a client, what would your reaction be to these photos? To avoid these common blunders, I recommend to most people that they get a professionally done head shot in front of a plain light colored background. Thats the kind of photo that builds business credibility. (If you dont want to go to a studio, a white house will do the trick as a background all you need is a friend with a portrait lens.) There are exceptions to every rule. Perhaps if you are in real estate, you want your picture to be taken in front of a house you sold or you might just want your company logo in the corner of the photo. If you are in the travel industry, perhaps you want an exotic background. As a general rule, however, if its not relevant to your work, dont include it in the photo! And make sure we can see your face. Ask yourself: What image do I want to project? Then create a match for that image in your LinkedIn photo. Remember, a lot of people are looking.

Queen Anne Style Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Queen Anne Style - Essay Example This offers various means of designing the inside of the house, enabling different shapes of rooms and corners to present a rather complicated but purposeful form. The steep roofs common in Queen Anne homes give the Victorian touch, giving a sense of antiquity which to me symbolizes wealth. Probably, what make the style so attractive are its ornamental spindles and brackets that give off a romantic ambiance to the home, making it simply a welcoming place to stay in. The beauty in the aforementioned parts of the house reflects the strength and artistic design of an era that survived until the modern age because of its value not only historically but aesthetically as well. Having a touch of Queen Anne in my dream house may give the magical sense of being in another age, near famous people who built this modern world with their wisdom and artistry. For the centuries that the style survived, it only shows the immortality of such art and I wish to be a part of those who preserve such beauty in my

Toyota Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Toyota - Essay Example However, the suppliers’ competency is one of the current long term objectives of the Toyota (â€Å"Helping Suppliers Compete†). The TMC believes that the steady and long term relationship with suppliers would be beneficial for the company to spawn mutual benefits through mutual trust. The company has also formulated specific strategies to augment the competitiveness of its suppliers in the auto-manufacturing marketplace. For instance, as reported (in â€Å"Helping suppliers compete†), the company’s annual purchasing policy sets certain annual performance expectations for customers in some specific areas such as quality, delivery, cost, and supplier diversity; and in addition, the company dispatches experts to work with suppliers when they struggle to meet their annual expectations. Mitigation of environmental impact of automobiles is another long term objective of the company (â€Å"our stance on biofuels†). Nowadays, consumers are increasingly conc erned about the issues like global warming and green gas emissions. It has been identified that fuel combustion in vehicles contributes to environmental issues. Therefore, the company has made certain sets of environmental leadership core principles with intent to amplify the future growth.

Is Psychology a Science Essay Example for Free

Is Psychology a Science Essay Psychology is commonly defined as scientific study of human behaviour and cognitive processes. Broadly speaking the discussion focuses on the different branches of psychology, and if they are indeed scientific. However, it is integral in this to debate to understand exactly the major features of a science, in order to judge if psychology is in fact one. There must be a definable subject matter this changed from conscious human thought to human and non-human behaviour, then to cognitive processes within psychologys first eighty years as a separate discipline. Also, a theory construction is important. This represents an attempt to explain observed phenomena, such as Watsons attempt to account for human and non-human behaviour in terms of classical conditioning, and Skinners subsequent attempt to do the same with operant conditioning. Any science must have hypotheses, and indeed test them. This involves making specific predictions about behaviour under certain specified conditions, for example, predicting that by combining the sight of a rat with the sound of an iron bar banging behind his head, a small child will learn to fear the rat, as is the case of Little Albert (1923). Also, empirical methods are used in scientific fields to collect data, relevant to the hypothesis being tested, as is the case in many psychological experiments, such as the use of brain scanning in Dement and Kleitmans 1957 study. Science is meant to be objective and unbiased. It should be free of values and discover the truths about what it is studying. Positivism is the view that science is objective and a study of what is real. For example, schizophrenia, when diagnosed as being caused due to excess dopamine, is being studied in a scientific manner. The explanation does not take into account any cultural customs or individual differences that might lead to schizophrenic behaviour. However, even in scientific research like this the person is doing the diagnosing has his or her own views, and may misinterpret behaviour because of his or her own subjective biases. For example, if someone talks about hearing voices, they may be referring to a spiritual experience, but a medical practitioner might well diagnose schizophrenia. So objective, value-free study is not easy, because the scientist has views and biases, and cultural or other issues are perhaps important factors. Some say that a truly objective study is not possible. In conclusion, its a science.

Emily Dickinsons Faith and Daisy Miller by Henry James Essay -- Henry

American writers and poets of the 19th century created literature to criticize and detail the imperfections of society. Emily Dickinson, who retired from contact with the outside world by the age of twenty-three in favor of a life of isolation, can arguably be considered such a poet. Her untitled poem "Faith" can be interpreted as criticism of the masculine-dominated society of her time and supports themes in Henry James's work Daisy Miller: A Study, which also criticizes societal expectations and practices. The first two lines of Dickinson's poem "Faith" read: "‘Faith' is a fine invention/When Men can see-," the capitalization stressing the words "faith," "when," and "men," suggesting that men can be trusted to believe what is right only when their vision is not blinded by things such as the prejudice and societal expectations. Winterbourne, the main character in Henry James's story Daisy Miller: A Study, is a representative of common 19th century masculine-dominated society of the elite, and a product of all the accompanying prejudices. It is therefore that Winterbourne cannot help but find some fault in Miss Daisy Miller, who he meets for the first time during a visit to Vevey and who "talked to Winterbourne as if she had known him a long time. He found it quite pleasant" (330). Before society forces him to find fault with Daisy, his instincts allow him to take pleasure in her company and to see her for who she truly is, simply "a person much disposed towards conversation" (329). However, it is not long before Winterbourne feels a need to place her within the rigid expectations proper to her class and gender. He begins to find her disposition towards conversation and acknowledgment to having a great deal of gentlemen's... ...some Italian" (363) for Winterbourne to recognize his mistake. Like looking through a microscope, the clues of Daisy's innocence are finally brought to light, into focus, and are undeniably evident. Faith failed Mr. Winterbourne, as he was unable to see past what society expected him to see, and it was only through hard facts and evidence-the testimony of the dying girl and the Italian man with whom she spent most of her time-that Mr. Winterbourne could finally accept Daisy as she was, truly a girl disposed to conversation and nothing else. He tells his aunt that Daisy "sent me a message before her death which I didn't understand at the time. But I have understood it since. She would have appreciated one's esteem" (364), meaning that Daisy would have liked to be thought of kindly and not labeled as someone or something she was not, and never gave evidence to being.

Cultural Diversity-Race and Ethnicity 4 Essay

†¢ What information about race and ethnicity in the United States has helped you better understand or relate to specific minority groups? I would have to say that I have learned a lot of information by taking this cultural diversity class. I know that there are minorities in the United States, but I was unaware of many of the discriminations that have happened over the years. I have always thought that we were all equal and that is how I have raised my children. We may come from different backgrounds, have different colors of skin and speak other languages, but we are all people living our lives and trying to become successful. I can now see the challenges that many minority groups have to face in the United States and understand why there are so many different programs available to the minority. o Have you learned something new about your own cultural history? I am about ? Native American and I learned many things about the Native American gaming laws and how that all works. It is interesting to see how the government has stepped up and showed the Native Americans that we want them to be successful and allowed them to produce these successful casino and resorts. I did not realize that many of the casinos are on Native land and there to help the Natives and there reservations. I have never researched much about where I come from or anything about my background, but it was nice to see that there are things that are offered for the wrongs that have been done in the past. I found that the Natives do not hold a grudge and are using what is offered to them to earn money and employee there Natives. Many of them still live on the reservation and are able to work right there on the reservation. †¢ Trends in immigration will continue to shape the face of the United States. What will this face look like in the year 2050? In 2050 I see that there will still be a small amount of discrimitnation in the United States, but there will be many minority groups that have multiplied and will continue to go to college become doctors, teachers, lawyers and so on. There will be no difference in our society as to who is going to help us when we need a doctor or even who is going to teach our childrens children. I feel that if they are taking the time to learn out language and go to school and earn a degree then they should be considered a part of our country and not have to live with discrimination. I know that we cannot change the way people feel and act, but we can start by accepting others ourself and respecting all of the people no matter the race. †¢ How might the country best prepare for the changing race and ethnicity of its current and future citizens? I feel that we need to accept all race and ethnicity into our country. I see that we can learn many things from other people that we may not have thought of ourselves. I feel that we need to educate our citizens so they can see what they are going to expect in the future of the United States. We cannot change who we are or where we come from, but we as citizens can show you why there is no reason to treat any race or ethnicity different from our own. There needs to be education to our children and our future to teach them that we accept all races and ethnicities and they are what form us as a community and society.