When Should We Address Inequality?

Julien Levieux, Year 13, Churchill

As I am writing this, anti-racism protest are flaring around the globe, demanding a realisation of long-running injustices and an end to the discrimination of minorities. Triggered by the graphic death of George Floyd and unfazed by the coronavirus threat, protesters have ignited many debates on policing, reparations, the evaluation of historical figures and specific societal principles such as universalism. Yet their message remains clear: to many, society in its current form is littered with various social inequalities, and must change.

This is not the first time in 2020 that people have demanded a reduction in inequality. At the start of the coronavirus pandemic, there was a marked contrast between how wealthier residents in developed countries could stay at home while those deemed ‘essential workers’ had to work as usual, often with inadequate protection. This has led to calls for a new social contract with more workers’ rights and a reduction in economic inequality. As the pandemic progressed to developing countries, another contrast emerged between the economic response of developed and developing countries. The question of debt relief and other problems of global justice subsequently re-emerged.

Most would say that there is something unfair in each of these situations that need change. The question of when we should address inequality in general, however, is a more difficult question of justice that requires deeper examination. To do so, I will explore, specifically, when we should address social, economic and global inequalities through a philosophical lens. Through this, I hope to help inform your position so that you may know where you stand in this debate.

Social inequality

At its most basic level, humans object to deliberately imposed inequalities in society. Most object to state-sanctioned racial, gender, ethnic or religious discrimination that deliberately excludes people from education, jobs and other areas in the social sphere. This type of discrimination is unfair because it permanently affects people’s welfare for no good reason. For example, why should we exclude someone from a job based on their skin colour? Aside from prejudice, there is no good reason. Fairness in society requires that opportunities are open to those who are deserving and qualified, and that judgement of somebody does not rest on prejudiced and irrelevant factors. So, when a government imposes discriminatory laws, this gives ground to act and tackle social inequality.

Nevertheless, many of the social justice movements of late – Me Too, Black Lives Matter and so on – object not necessarily to discriminatory laws but to a discriminatory culture. Activists against racism may note that while racist Jim Crow laws no longer exist in the United States, the police disproportionately kill Black people. Feminists may note that laws prevent employers from discriminating based on gender, but some industries remain overwhelmingly dominated by men. Both cases seem to highlight how people are still judged by irrelevant and prejudiced factors, despite laws preventing this.

Are these good grounds to call for change? Some may disagree. An extreme position would be to say that the basic standards of right and wrong depend entirely on society’s values. A racist culture may be wrong in one community but not in another, because the values are different. We should therefore not tackle a racist culture in a racist society, as it values such a culture – there is nothing intrinsically right or wrong about racism. Such a view would be an example of moral relativism. Judging by the way I write, you can probably tell I find it very hard to believe in this position. Not only is it frequently an argument used by racists (“We like our culture the way it is”), there are two other problems with this argument. One, if laws already exist to prevent discrimination, that should indicate that society no longer values said discrimination. Two, if social justice movements are only justified if they align with society’s current values, that seems to preclude any minority-led calls for change. This is an extreme and untenable position. Were movements for women’s voting rights unjustified because they did not align with society’s then-values? Clearly not.

Another way one might disagree would be to dispute the existence of a discriminatory culture, saying that other factors cause discrepancies in female employment, but that would be another topic for discussion. The most common way of disagreeing would be to say that the existence of laws preventing discrimination is more than enough. The reason a discriminatory culture may exist is that the rules are not enforced adequately, but the fact that such laws exist provide the most reliable way to tackle discrimination. It is foolish to use government measures to change culture because culture is always changing and challenging to enforce. Some may even go further and say that state intervention to enforce culture may be undesirable and a violation of liberties. For example, censoring an old film or book because they may perpetuate classic gender stereotypes would be overkill. Alternatively, this argument is often combined to argue against the apparent existence of a discriminatory culture. Some may cite the lack of litigation in a particular field of work to say that the discrepancy in female employment is not due to discrimination, but rather, other factors. So long as anti-discrimination laws exist, that is more than enough.

The German philosopher Karl Marx would strongly disagree with that statement. For all the failings of his other theories (especially communism), Marx made a very keen observation about the inefficacy of written laws. As he observed, equal political rights are worth fighting for, but they are of little value if people still treat you unequally. In his famous essay ‘On the Jewish Question’ (1844) he writes:

“A state can liberate itself from a limitation without man himself being truly free of it.”

In other words, political emancipation – freeing people from legal or political restrictions – does not free people from societal constraints. Marx wrote his essay at a time when recently-passed Prussian laws restricted the rights of Jews like himself. Although the Rhenish Parliament would later vote for the emancipation of Jews, the King vetoed the legislation. Marx’s essay argued that even if the King allowed laws to ensure Jewish emancipation, it would make no difference. It would not change the fact that a German Jew remained a second-class citizen.

Why are laws so ineffective? The simple answer would be that they are human creations. Nobody is perfect, and neither are our creations. People can easily circumvent laws. For example, how can one prove discrimination when a Black person is paid less for doing the same job? The boss could argue that the differences in salaries are a result of gaps in performance and talent. Laws may also not be rigidly enforced. Rules against bullying may exist at school, but how effective are they if teachers turn a blind

eye to bullying? (Note: I am NOT insinuating that this happens at Harrow; it’s just a useful analogy to help my explanation) Another keen observation Marx made was that a right to equality could sometimes be completely unequal. How equal would it be if disabled athletes competed with other Olympic athletes? It would be foolish to claim a ‘disability-blind’ policy makes that competition anything but unequal.

The last point Marx made has been contentious for some feminists because it implicitly suggests that women have different needs than men. Some see this as an admission of female inferiority, and thus some feminists have attempted to deny that women have different needs. Yet different needs may not be a sign of weakness. After all, men have a higher average daily calorie intake than women, but this is neither a sign of superiority or inferiority. Similarly, ‘gender-blind’ policies in the workplace can be extremely discriminating. If a boss paid his employees by the hour, pregnant women would earn less in total because they have to take time off work, which is unfair. This is why paid maternity leave exists: to cater to womens’ different needs, not to make them inferior. Of course, men and womens’ different needs can be greatly exaggerated to perpetuate gender stereotypes, but it follows that even laws that promote equality can be unequal. According to Marx, that would be another grounds for calling for change.

Something I want to make clear, however, is that this does not mean that all social justice activists are Marxists. Some may be Marxists, but otherwise, this attack line from politicians is at best, ignorant. Marx was a very influential philosopher who inspired non-Marxists alike with his social critiques. Why many are reluctant to endorse Marx completely is probably because of his solution to a discriminatory culture: revolutionary action to overthrow the current system to establish a classless, communist utopia. Marx’s solutions are not the only controversial ones. Affirmative action in universities and reparations towards disadvantaged minorities are also contentious.

It follows that the most controversial area in the social inequality debate is how to solve it. Otherwise, we have seen that we should tackle social inequality when it is state-sponsored, and also when a discriminatory culture clearly exists in apparent violation of anti-discriminatory laws. Relativist arguments to defend such a culture are flawed. Laws can also be ineffective at promoting equality, and some that aim to do so are inherently unequal. This gives grounds to call for change, but what kind of change is highly debatable. In the case where the cause of inequality is unfair, we should act to change the cause. That is simple enough in the case of discrimination. In the case where the cause is not unjust, things become more complicated.

Suppose that two restaurants have very different performances because one has a renowned, talented chef, and the other does not. This difference in talent, a natural difference but not necessarily the fault of either chef, results in the family and employees of the other restaurant consequently not receiving business, having lower wages, and causes inequality. The cause of this inequality – a simple preference for food – is not wrong or illegal. Whether to address this inequality becomes a dilemma.

In most countries around the world, there is a system of redistributive taxation to solve this issue. Those with higher incomes or inheritance are taxed higher, and the government redistributes it for the use of those with lower incomes. The tax income can then be used for providing services to the poor that would otherwise be inaccessible, for example, healthcare, education and social welfare. This, in turn, can reduce some inequality by ensuring that both the rich and the poor receive similar equality of opportunity to live.

Governments with this kind of tax system run with the assumption that we should tackle economic inequality in general – when specifically, requires more analysis.

The Genevan philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau implicitly justified tackling economic inequality overall. He believed that a state was justified if it represented the ‘general will’: a vague concept that meant the collective will of the citizen body as a whole. The general will is the source of all law. Therefore laws must be general in application but universal in scope: it cannot target specific individuals and must be impartial. For this to be true, he argued that a state could not have a high degree of economic inequality. Otherwise, the impact of the laws would vary for each individual. A law which restricted the right to vote to literate individuals might be fair if the population were 99% literate; it would not be appropriate if only 15% were literate, for example. Thus we can infer that economic inequality can threaten the entire social fabric. This is not too dramatic a statement: Rousseau died not long before the French Revolution began, partly caused by discontent over the economic inequality in France at the time. So from Rousseau, we can see why we should tackle economic inequality in general; the debate usually begins over the An extreme answer would be to say that all forms of economic inequality should be eliminated. Almost all, even Marx, have rejected this position. As previously mentioned, Marx believed that equality could paradoxically be unequal: it is not fair for a sick patient to receive the same amount of economic resources as a healthy person, for example. Other reasons for rejecting this hardcore equality would be that it is impossible. To achieve simple equality would require a potent state in charge of distributing resources equally. Giving so much power to a state would result in corruption, meaning that another inequality would re-emerge. Another reason for rejecting simple equality would be that it is undesirable: it removes any possibility of freedom of choice. One can no longer decide which restaurant to go to; one would be assigned to a restaurant to ensure that each restaurant receives the same number of customers. Not many would like to be in such a situation.

The argument that most closely justifies the distributive taxation system of today is that made by the American philosopher John Rawls. He believed that to construct the model state, we would need to undergo a thought experiment.

Suppose two people are playing cards. Suppose that as one person deals, they see a card lying on the floor. Seeing that, one proposes to the other that they should deal again, but the other person disagrees. Attempts to compromise fail. How should this dispute be resolved fairly?

Perhaps the two players were smart enough to anticipate such a situation and so agreed to reshuffle the cards should such a situation arise. Suppose they did not do this. Maybe they can consult an impartial spectator – preferably one who understands the game of cards. Suppose that this is not an available option. What can they do?

A third option would be to imagine a hypothetical agreement. Both players could imagine what they would have agreed upon before the game if they had made an agreement. This hypothetical thinking is a way to filter out our bias when making decisions – something which Rawls adopts in his philosophy.

In his seminal work ‘A Theory of Justice’ (1971) he writes:

With echoes of Rousseau, he commences his thought experiment by relegating everybody to an impartial state – something he called ‘the original position’. In this state, everybody is to be filtered out of knowledge which can bias perspective. This state of ignorance he famously called the ‘veil of ignorance’, and it is necessary before people can begin to think of the terms of the hypothetical social contract. People do not know how to make the conditions favour themselves, so they would make the terms impartial for everybody because that would be the best way to benefit themselves.

The people would have no knowledge of their social class, no knowledge of their race, no knowledge of their natural talents, no knowledge of the current economic circumstances and no knowledge of what they think makes life worthwhile. What the people do know are what Rawls calls ‘primary goods’: liberty, opportunity, wealth, income and self-respect. Rawls considers these to underpin all other wants in life. Rawls then assumes that the people undertaking this thought experiment want to maximise these primary goods, that they are rational, and that they do not care about other people’s situation.

What would the hypothetical contract look like after this thought experiment? According to Rawls, the conditions would be:

“1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a system for all.

2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: a. To the greatest benefit to the least advantaged...and b. Attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.” (From ‘A Theory of Justice’)”

The first principle is the Liberty Principle: people should be granted liberties to the extent that it does not infringe upon other people’s freedoms. For Rawls, this takes priority over the other principles. So even if slavery improved the lives of slaves economically, it would not be justified because it would violate the Liberty principle. 2 b) is the Fair Opportunity Principle, which we briefly explained the reason behind at the start of the article. 2 a) is the Difference Principle, which is most relevant for this section.

The reasoning behind such a principle lies loosely with rational choice theory. Suppose you came home from a stressful day and wish to have a drink. You can have a glass of water, which may quench your thirst, but would not do much to improve your happiness whether the water tasted good or not (perhaps you left it in the sun). However, it is very unlikely that the water would taste bad: it is just water. Or you can have a glass of milk, which can improve your happiness if it tasted good but would make you annoyed if it tasted bad. There is also a much higher chance of the milk being expired and tasting bad. Which drink should you have?

Perhaps you go straight for the milk. It is a much riskier choice, but you may decide that it is a risk worth paying to improve your mood. This principle would be called ‘maximax’: maximising the maximum result. It may sound rational, but it is a joke. If drinking the milk caused a risk of severe food poisoning, nobody would go for the milk. In the context of economic inequality ‘maximax’ means exclusively ensuring that the richest are as rich as possible, presumably because you have a slim chance of being in that top 1%. However, not many would support the ensuing inequality.

Suppose you decide to work out the chances of the milk being expired and the associated happiness that drinking the milk or water would give. Maybe you have some background in statistics: you decide to find out the expected value and choose the drink which maximises the expected value of happiness. Perhaps it turns out that the milk gives higher expected satisfaction. This seems a rational way of doing things.

Maybe you want to play things safe and decide to go for the water. This principle is called ‘maximin’: maximising the minimum result. In the context of economic inequality, ‘maximin’ refers to the Difference Principle.

So it seems that we have to decide between the principles of maximin and maximising expected value when determining what degree of economic inequality is acceptable. Rawls rejects maximising expected value because it is too risky. In the above example, it might involve you taking a glass of milk, which has a chance of being expired. An essential aspect of this hypothetical contract is that once agreed, it must be final. If it turns out that the society which the contract has engineered is undesirable, then the initial agreement was never justified. So maximising average income cannot be the terms of the hypothetical contract.

So maximin – the Difference Principle – seems like the condition that rational people under the veil of ignorance would agree to. Because nobody knows who will be rich or poor, it makes sense to engineer a society in which the

wealth of the poor is maximised, so that, if you were poor, you would be happy that society is at least trying to make you not poor. For Rawls, we should address economic inequality if doing so can maximise the wealth of the poor.

Is this a good idea? Some may disagree. The most famous critique of Rawls comes from his Harvard counterpart, Robert Nozick. Nozick does not necessarily see fault with Rawls’ method; instead, he thinks that the Difference Principle is incompatible with the Liberty Principle. He begins his argument by clarifying between ‘patterned’ and ‘unpatterned’ theories of justice. Patterned theories follow a pattern: to distribute resources based on people’s needs, to distribute resources based on people’s abilities etc. Nozick claims that all patterned theories violate liberty.

The example he uses to show this is what is now known as the ‘Wilt Chamberlain argument.’ Wilt Chamberlain was an American basketball player who holds the record for scoring 100 points in an NBA game. Let us assume that society distributes resources according to people’s needs (a patterned theory); let us call this distribution D1. Now, fans voluntarily show up to watch Wilt Chamberlain play and pay for tickets; Wilt earns money and distorts the initial distribution of resources and causes a new distribution D2. From this, Nozick draws several conclusions.

First, any patterned theory can be disrupted by people acting freely. For example, the initial distribution of resources according to people’s needs was disrupted by people choosing to watch Wilt play. Can people ever rigidly stick to a pattern? Probably not. It would involve missing out on the chance of watching Wilt Chamberlain play.

Secondly, if D1 is justified, and people choose to move D1 to D2, then D2 must be justified. Once we conclude this, we have admitted that there can be justified disruptions to the original pattern, thus refuting patterned theories altogether. There are only two ways of enforcing this pattern: one is to violate people’s right to choose to watch Wilt Chamberlain and maintain D1, or the other, is to intervene to redistribute wealth continually. This is impeding people’s liberty: Nozick considers liberty to mean no restrictions on the right to own property.

Nozick considers Rawls’ Difference Principle to be a patterned theory, and Rawls has said that the Liberty Principle takes precedence over the Difference Principle. So Nozick thinks Rawls’ theory violates liberty. Supporters of Rawls’ argument can respond that Nozick’s’ views of liberty differ from Rawls’: Rawls only considers ‘basic liberties’ such as freedom of speech and

freedom to run for government. It does not mean that people should be free from the government interfering in their lives. Nozick has a stronger attack. He claims that taxation is forced labour. If you are paid to work and forced to pay 50% of your income for tax, half of the time you are, in essence, working for someone else you did not choose to work for. So for Nozick, we should not address economic inequality, unless the inequality was a result of crime or discrimination because to do so would violate liberties. What the state should do is to protect people from crime, enforce contracts and respect the right to private property.

Nozick is not the only one to think that we should not address inequality (barring some exceptional cases like crime and discrimination). Social Darwinists believe that humans are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection that you see in nature. Therefore, in society, people compete for resources and mates; social Darwinists claim that the fittest win this competition and will come to replace the losers through natural selection. To tackle inequality would oppose progress in society by reducing the intensity of this struggle. The problem, however, with this theory is that there may exist a ‘fittest’ group of people only at a very specific time. As society is continually changing, the vision of a fit group of people winning out is incoherent because they can quickly lose out tomorrow – they may not accumulate resources and phase out other people. The other problem with social Darwinian theories is that they can ironically become a victim of their success. Suppose we run society with Darwinian principles and one group of people win the natural selection race and begin accumulating all the resources. Those who are left out will be unhappy and will resist being phased out. They may start to resist the winning class violently, and now we have a real Darwinian struggle that we see in the wild. Is this the society that people envision living in? As Rousseau prudently observed, inequalities breed human jealousy and threaten society altogether.

So while the Darwinian argument may be incoherent, how do we respond to Nozick? Most societies are not run to his ideal. What we could say is that redistributive taxation increases the liberty for the poor, because it gives them more choice to use that money for different purposes. Yet Nozick’s argument has revealed an important point: there may be times when even Rawls’ theory might not seem justified. The American philosopher Harry Frankfurt believes that inequality is not the problem; the question is whether people have enough. Would it make sense to redistribute inequality in a situation where most people earned the wages of executives and there were Then again, one could still say that in Rawls’ original position, nobody knows what the income of the worst-off would be, so it makes sense to help them regardless. The debate could go on and on.

So while the debate on when to tackle economic inequality may be a fascinating question in political philosophy, it does not follow that it can provide us with obvious answers. Rawls’ theory may be very influential, but some would still object to it. Perhaps the question of economic inequality is one better suited for economists to answer. Thomas Piketty may be a more authoritative source to consult.

Global inequality

One of the first things that people learn in Geography is something called the ‘North-South divide’. Generally speaking, countries located in the ‘Northern’ parts of the Earth tend to be more developed while those found in the ‘South’ tend to be developing countries. This trend isn’t wholly true today – note how Australia and New Zealand are considered part of the ‘North’ while they are distinctly located very South of the equator – but the trend remains somewhat true. North America is much more developed than South America, Europe is much more advanced than Africa, and Northern parts of Asia tend to be more developed than Southern parts of Asia. Partly why this trend exists (although not the whole story) is colonialism. ‘Northern’ countries like France or the United Kingdom colonised ‘Southern’ states. They exploited these colonies for their profit, inhibiting the colonies’ development for many more years (as seen, for example, in Haiti). So an idea that has gained traction recently is to reverse this injustice by forcing countries to pay reparations to their former colonies.

Is this fair? Partly, maybe: it is not untrue that colonialism has inhibited some countries’ development. However, can we say that the lack of progress in these former colonies is due entirely to colonialism? Alternatively, can we say that the developed status of developed countries is altogether owing to its exploitation of colonies? Probably not. Another issue with reparations is that we are placing the burden of payment on a generation which may have no involvement whatsoever in colonialism. To be forced to pay for something which you did not do isn’t entirely fair.

Instinctively, this conclusion does not sound right. It also seems unfair that colonial countries can walk away from their troubled past without paying any kind of reparations. Perhaps we should think about things differently. It may be true that our actions unknowingly worsen global inequality. For example, if you decide to buy a German car instead of a Mexican one, you have inadvertently exacerbated global inequality by advantaging a developed country and disadvantaging a developing country. The cause of this inequality is not wrong; it is not a result of discrimination, for example. We might also conclude that we should have some sort of redistributive mechanism to help developing countries. Now here emerges a point of contention. Should this redistribution of wealth be mandatory, or should it be a result of personal choice?

Those who believe that the redistribution of global wealth should be mandatory are called philosophical ‘cosmopolitans’. They think that principles of justice apply to everyone in the world, regardless of borders. Philosophical ‘nationalists’ disagree. They are not nationalists in the political sense (although they could be), but believe principles of justice only apply within a state–there is a moral significance to borders. Duties to help the poor may exist within a country, but there are no duties beyond that – such actions would only be a matter of charity.

You may think that this debate seems beside the point. After all, both cosmopolitans and nationalists agree that we should help the world’s poorest people. Yet the distinction between the two views is essential. If we take the cosmopolitan view and see global redistribution as a matter of justice, then it becomes something enforceable. For example, countries will sue those who evade tax. If global redistribution becomes a question of justice, it may become enforceable: people can be sued if they avoid their duty to pay the world’s poor. Instinctively, upon hearing this, most people would revert to the nationalist position. Most people would think that they pay taxes to their government so that it helps its citizens, not citizens of another country (unless that is done for geopolitical reasons, for example). After all, what is the point of having individual states if they are not there to help their citizens?

This conclusion might unsettle some; perhaps it could be attacked as xenophobic. Yet it does not seem entirely fair to take the cosmopolitan view and mandate citizens of a wealthy country to pay for the world’s poor. After all, those who struggle to get by in a prosperous country may be considered wealthy, globally. However, making them pay for the citizens of a poorer country seems to be asking too much. Perhaps there may be a third way of doing things: maybe wealthy countries should redistribute

their wealth not based upon a Rawlsian Difference Principle, but to ensure a minimum standard of living. Most states have unknowingly or knowingly chosen this path. By being members of the United Nations, countries have also voluntarily funded related agencies like the World Health Organisation, which help ensure a minimum standard of living in developed countries. For some, this may still be too little.

The question of global justice is an emotional one and will always be challenging to solve. It follows that a pure cosmopolitan or nationalist view may be difficult to defend, but both do provide useful insights that could inform a more balanced third-way of viewing things.

Conclusion

The question of when to resolve inequality will never lead to easy answers. More importantly, there can never be a position that can be free from any attack. What is more important, therefore, is to be able to articulate views that are logical and coherent so that that thoughtful debate may proceed. Hopefully, this article helped inform your position so that you can also join the discussion.

Further reading

What does it all mean? By Thomas Nagel

An introduction to political philosophy by Jonathan Wolff

Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick

Is Economic Inequality Really a Problem? By Samuel Scheffler https://www.nytimes. com/2020/07/01/opinion/economic-inequality-moral-philosophy.html

Black Wall Street

Johnson, Hannibal B. Black Wall Street: From riot to renaissance in Tulsa’s historic Greenwood district. Marion Koogler McNay Art Museum, 1998.

Walker, Robin. The Rise and Fall of Black Wall Street: And the Seven Key Empowerment Principles. Reklaw Education Limited, 2014. Wilson, Jay Jay, and Ron Wallace. Black Wall Street. Black Wallstreet Pub., 1996.

Class and Race: unrelated or inseparable?

Foroohar, Rana. Black Lives Matter Is about Both Race and Class, Financial Times, 14 June 2020, www.ft.com/content/28dc48f8-b36b4848-8e73-774999a8e502.

“What about Race?” Class Action, classism.org/about-class/what-about-race/.

Wilson, William Julius. “Don’t Ignore Class When Addressing Racial Gaps in Intergenerational Mobility.” Brookings, Brookings, 11 Apr. 2018, www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2018/04/12/dont-ignore-class-when-addressing-racial-gaps-in-intergenerational-mobility.

Hamilton, Darrick, and Jennifer Cohen. “Race Still Trumps Class for Black Americans | Darrick Hamilton and Jennifer Cohen.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 27 Mar. 2018, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/27/race-trump-class-black-americans. *“U.S. Poverty Statistics.” Federal Safety Net, federalsafetynet.com/us-poverty-statistics.HTML.

OK Could God Be Blamed for Racial Inequality in America?

Olusoga, David. “The Roots of European Racism Lie in the Slave Trade, Colonialism – and Edward Long.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 8 Sept. 2015, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/08/european-racism-africa-slavery. Cave, Peter. Can a Robot Be Human?: 33 Perplexing Philosophy Puzzles. Oneworld, 2008. Bible, Galatians 3:28

Has Political Correctness in America Gone Too Far?

1. Borger, Julian, and Penketh, Anne. “Fight Intimidation with Controversy: Charlie Hebdo’s Response to Critics.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 7 Jan. 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/07/charlie-hebdo-satire-intimidation-analysis. 1. Thompson, Nick. “Charlie Hebdo: Magazine Is No Stranger to Controversy.” CNN, Cable News Network, 7 Jan. 2015, edition.cnn. com/2015/01/07/europe/charlie-hebdo-controversy/index.html. 2. Granath, Solveig, and Magnus, Ullen. “‘The Elevation of Sensitivity over Truth’: Political Correctness And Related Phrases in The Time Magazine Corpus.” Applied Linguistics, vol. 40, no. 2, 2017, pp. 265–287., doi:10.1093/applin/amx019. 3. Roper, Cynthia. “Political Correctness.” Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 31 Jan. 2020, www.britannica.com/topic/ political-correctness. 4. Campisi, Jessica. “Bill Maher Calls Political Correctness ‘a Cancer on Progressivism’.” TheHill, The Hill, 11 June 2019, thehill.com/ homenews/media/447843-bill-maher-political-correctness-a-cancer-on-progressivism-forwarding. 5. Williams, Thomas. “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate.” A Letter on Justice and Open Debate, Harper’s Magazine , 7 July 2020, harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/. 6. Chait, Jonathan. “Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say.” Intelligencer, 27 Jan. 2015, nymag.com/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thingto-say.html. 7. Brenan, Teresa. “Foreword.” Political Correctness: a Response from the Cultural Left, by Richard Feldstein, University of Minnesota Press, 1997, pp. 9–19. 8. Press, Associated. “Longtime Sacramento Kings TV Broadcaster Resigns after Tweet to DeMarcus Cousins.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 3 June 2020, www.latimes.com/sports/story/2020-06-02/sacramento-kings-tv-broadcaster-grant-napear-resigns-demarcus-cousins. 9. Colton | June 21, Emma. “Conservative Pundit Mocks ‘Cancel Culture’ with Tweets Urging Yale to Change Name for Slave Trade Link.” Washington Examiner, 21 June 2020, www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/conservative-pundit-mocks-cancel-culture-with-tweets-urging-yaleto-change-name-for-slave-trade-link. 10. Kesslen, Ben. “Aunt Jemima Brand to Change Name, Remove Image That Quaker Says Is ‘Based on a Racial Stereotype’.” NBCNews. com, NBCUniversal News Group, 17 June 2020, www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/aunt-jemima-brand-will-change-name-remove-image-quaker-saysn1231260?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma. 11. Norton, Michael I, et al. Sage Journals, 2006, pp. 949–953, Color Blindness and Interracial Interaction: Research Report - Playing the Political Correctness Game.

12. Rodin, Miriam J, et al. “Asymmetry in Prejudice Attribution.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 26, no. 6, 1990, pp. 481–504., doi:10.1016/0022-1031(90)90052-n. 13. “Cracks in the Liberal Edifice.” The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, by John J. Mearsheimer, Yale University Press, 2018, pp. 82–119, 10.2307/j.ctv5cgb1w. 14. Wilson, John K. The Myth of Political Correctness The Conservative Attack on Higher Education. Duke University Press, 2012. 15. Jones, Tom. “Breaking down the Controversial Resignation of New York Times Opinion Writer Bari Weiss.” Poynter, 15 July 2020, www.poynter.org/newsletters/2020/breaking-down-the-controversial-resignation-of-new-york-times-opinion-writer-bari-weiss/. 15. Weiss, Bari. “Resignation Letter.” Bari Weiss, 2020, www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter. 15. Jones, Tom. “The Controversy at The New York Times Is over More than Just One Op-Ed. The Future of the Times Could Be at Stake.” Poynter, 8 June 2020, www.poynter.org/newsletters/2020/the-controversy-at-the-new-york-times-is-over-more-than-just-one-op-ed-the-future-of-the-times-could-be-at-stake/.

How Gerrymandering Inhibits Civil Rights Progression

II, Story by Vann R. Newkirk. “The Battle for North Carolina.” The Atlantic. The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/the-battle-for-north-carolina/501257/. Accessed 11 Sept. 2020.

Ingraham, Christopher. “This Is the Best Explanation of Gerrymandering You Will Ever See .” The Washington Post, 2015.

Murphy, Brian, and Will Doran. “New Congressional Maps in North Carolina Will Stand for 2020, Court Rules.” The News & Observer, 2019.

“North Carolina’s Congressional Map Gets Struck down in Court, but Democrats Shouldn’t Get Hopes Up.” Daily Kos, https://www.dailykos. com/story/2016/2/5/1480735/-North-Carolina-s-congressional-map-gets-struck-down-in-court-but-Democrats-shouldn-t-get-hopes-up. Accessed 11 Sept. 2020.

Onion, Rebecca. “Take the Impossible ‘Literacy’ Test Louisiana Gave Black Voters in the 1960s.” Slate Magazine, 28 June 2013, https:// slate.com/human-interest/2013/06/voting-rights-and-the-supreme-court-the-impossible-literacy-test-louisiana-used-to-give-black-voters.html.

Astor, Maggie. “Voting Rights Were Already a Big 2020 Issue. Then Came the Gerrymandering Ruling.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 28 June 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/us/politics/supreme-court-gerrymandering-democrats.html.

Criss, Doug. “Gerrymandering -- Explained.” CNN, Cable News Network, 27 June 2019, edition.cnn.com/2019/06/27/politics/what-is-gerrymandering-trnd/index.html.

“Gerrymandering in the United States.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 4 Aug. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States.

“Gerrymandering.” American Civil Liberties Union, www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/gerrymandering.

Harrow, Jason, and Staff Writer. “Gerrymandering Is the Civil Rights Issue of Our Day and Undermines Equality.” The Globe Post, 14 Aug. 2018, theglobepost.com/2018/08/13/gerrymandering-civil-rights/.

Shapiro, Howard M. “Geometry and Geography: Racial Gerrymandering and the Voting Rights Act.” The Yale Law Journal, vol. 94, no. 1, 1984, p. 189., doi:10.2307/796320.

Soffen, Kim. “How Racial Gerrymandering Deprives Black People of Political Power.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 9 June 2016, www. washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/09/how-a-widespread-practice-to-politically-empower-african-americans-might-actually-harm-them/.

Washington Post. “Gerrymandering, Explained.” YouTube, 14 Nov. 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGLRJ12uqmk.

Prokop, Andrew. “What Is Gerrymandering?” Vox, Vox, 5 Aug. 2014, www.vox.com/2014/8/5/17991938/what-is-gerrymandering.

Barasch, Emily. “The Twisted History of Gerrymandering in American Politics.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 20 Sept. 2012, www. theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/the-twisted-history-of-gerrymandering-in-american-politics/262369/.

Amy Gardner, Ted Mellnik. “Redistricting Activists Brace for Wall of Inaction as Battle Moves to States.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 13 Nov. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/12/redistricting-activists-brace-wall-inaction-battle-moves-states.

Root, Alex Tausanovitch and Danielle. “How Partisan Gerrymandering Limits Voting Rights.” Center for American Progress, 8 July 2020, www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2020/07/08/487426/partisan-gerrymandering-limits-voting-rights/.

Thernstrom, Abigail, et al. “Redistricting, Race, and the Voting Rights Act.” National Affairs, 2010, www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/ detail/redistricting-race-and-the-voting-rights-act.

Ingraham, Christopher. “This Is Actually What America Would Look like without Gerrymandering.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 13 Jan. 2016, www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/13/this-is-actually-what-america-would-look-like-without-gerrymandering/.

Biello, Peter. “How Gerrymandering Skewed the 2016 Elections.” New Hampshire Public Radio, 27 June 2017, www.nhpr.org/post/how-gerrymandering-skewed-2016-elections.

Lieb, David A. “AP Analysis Shows How Gerrymandering Benefited GOP in 2016.” The Denver Post, The Denver Post, 24 June 2017, www. denverpost.com/2017/06/25/gerrymandering-2016-election/.

Astor, Maggie, and K. K. Rebecca. “What’s Stronger Than a Blue Wave? Gerrymandered Districts.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 29 Nov. 2018, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/29/us/politics/north-carolina-gerrymandering.html?mtrref=undefined.

Lieb, David A. “Analysis Indicates Partisan Gerrymandering Has Benefited GOP.” AP NEWS, Associated Press, 25 June 2017, apnews.com/ fa6478e10cda4e9cbd75380e705bd380/AP-analysis-shows-how-gerrymandering-benefited-GOP-in-2016?utm_campaign=SocialFlow.

Stephanopoulos, Nicholas. “The Causes and Consequences of Gerrymandering.” Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers, 2017, papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2990638.

Rothman, Lily. “Ferguson Verdict and ‘A System Cannot Fail’ W.E.B. DuBois Quote Origin.” Time, Time, 25 Nov. 2014, time.com/3604241/ w-e-b-dubois-quote-ferguson/.

British, Library Learning. “Women’s Suffrage Timeline.” British Library, 6 Feb. 2018, www.bl.uk/votes-for-women/articles/womens-suffrage-timeline#authorBlock1.

Pruitt, Sarah. “What Happened at the Stonewall Riots? A Timeline of the 1969 Uprising.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 13 June 2019, www.history.com/news/stonewall-riots-timeline.

History.com, Editors. “Apartheid.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 7 Oct. 2010, www.history.com/topics/africa/apartheid.

Blakemore, Erin. “The Harsh Reality of Life Under Apartheid in South Africa.” History, 26 Apr. 2019, www.history.com/news/apartheid-policies-photos-nelson-mandela.

Timson, Jamie. “Nelson Mandela at 100: How Did South Africa’s Apartheid Start and End?” The Week UK, The Week UK, 18 July 2018, www.theweek.co.uk/94089/how-did-south-africa-s-apartheid-start-and-end. Inequality Trends in South Africa A Multidimensional Diagnostic of Inequality, Statistics South Africa, Private Bag X44, Pretoria 0001, 2019. www.statssa.gov.za/publications/Report-03-10-19/Report-03-10-192017.pdf.

Sulla, Victor, and Precious Zikhali. “Overcoming Poverty and Inequality in South Africa.” The World Bank, 2018, doi:10.1596/29614.

Grinevicius , Jonas, and Mantas Kacerauskas. “Someone Compiled The Positive Changes That Are Happening Because Of The Protests.” Bored Panda, June 2020, www.boredpanda.com/thread-of-positive-change-because-of-protests/?utm_source=google.

Gallagher, Michael. “Africa | The Birth and Death of Apartheid.” BBC News, BBC, 17 June 2002, news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/575204.stm.

South African History Online, SAHO. “The Youth Struggle.” South African History Online, 8 June 2015, www.sahistory.org.za/article/ youth-struggle.

Boddy-Evans, Alistair. “What Caused a Student Uprising in Soweto in 1976?” ThoughtCo, 3 July 2019, www.thoughtco.com/student-uprising-soweto-riots-part-1-43425.

Allen, John. “Rabble-Rouser for Peace: the Authorized Biography of Desmond Tutu.” Internet Archive, New York: Free Press, 2006, archive. org/details/rabblerouserforp00john.

South African History Online, SAHO. “Youth and the National Liberation Struggle.” South African History Online, 21 Mar. 2011, www. sahistory.org.za/article/youth-and-national-liberation-struggle. Resolution 392. The Security Council, 19 June 1976, http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/392. Accessed 17 Aug. 2020.

India Under the British Empire: The Story of Repression and the Fight for Independence

“Bengal Famine of 1943.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 3 Aug. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#1942%E2%80%9345:_ Military_build-up,_inflation,_and_displacement.

“The Bengali Famine.” The International Churchill Society, 9 Dec. 2019, winstonchurchill.org/resources/in-the-media/churchill-in-the-news/ bengali-famine/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CChurchill%20is%20our%20hero%20because,American%20and%20Zionist%20Holocaust%20Denial.%E2%80%9D.

Brain, Jessica. “Timeline of the British Empire.” Historic UK, www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Timeline-Of-The-British-Empire/.

“British Raj.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 24 July 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj.

“Causes of Decline of Mughal Empire.” Tutorialspoint, www.tutorialspoint.com/modern_indian_history/modern_indian_history_causes_decline_of_mughal_empire.htm#:~:text=Foreign%20Invasion,almost%20destroyed%20its%20military%20power.

Choudhury, Soumen Dhar. “Bengal Famine of 1943: Misfortune or Imperial Schema.” SSRN, 20 Sept. 2019, poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery. php ID=17208608902900507112011210000607700005908003408605905607208407307411809707409210602706004904902601912305 11090041090691160100641110250070160510871160130830800091001260690140490710121190200831150251070970230860840760 88064115103102110074095095001114070094&EXT= pdf

Clarke, Stephen. “In Good Company: Re-Evaluating the Legacy of the East India Company.” History Today, History Today, 16 Sept. 2014, www.historytoday.com/good-company-re-evaluating-legacy-east-india-company.

“Company Rule in India.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 2 Aug. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India.

“Defence of India Act 1915.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 8 June 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_of_India_Act_1915.

“Dharasana Satyagraha.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Apr. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharasana_Satyagraha.

“East India Company.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 2 Aug. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company#Slavery _1621%E2%80%931843.

“Government of India Act 1858.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 7 May 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India_Act_1858.

Hamlin, Rebecca. “Civil Rights.” Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 24 Mar. 2020, www.britannica.com/topic/civil-rights.

History.com Editors. “Salt March.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 10 June 2010, www.history.com/topics/india/salt-march#:~:text=The%20Salt%20March%2C%20which%20took,distance%20of%20some%20240%20miles.

“Indian Indenture System.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 20 July 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_indenture_system#Government_ of_British_India_regulations.

“Indian Rebellion of 1857.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 3 Aug. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857.

“Indian Slavery Act, 1843.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 28 May 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Slavery_Act,_1843.

“Jallianwala Bagh Massacre.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 31 July 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre#cite_note20.

Kuchay, Bilal. “Churchill’s Policies to Blame for 1943 Bengal Famine: Study.” India News | Al Jazeera, Al Jazeera, 1 Apr. 2019, www. aljazeera.com/news/2019/04/churchill-policies-blamed-1943-bengal-famine-study-190401155922122.html.

Landow, George P. “The British East India Company — the Company That Owned a Nation (or Two).” The British East India Company - the Company That Owned a Nation (or Two), 10 Dec. 2019, www.victorianweb.org/history/empire/india/eic.html.

Maya Oppenheim @mayaoppenheim. “Winston Churchill Killed as Many as the Worst Genocidal Dictators of the 20th Century, Says Indian Politician.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 8 Sept. 2017, www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/winston-churchill-genocide-dictator-shashi-tharoor-melbourne-writers-festival-a7936141.html.

Pinkston, Bonnie. “Documenting the British East India Company and Their Involvement in the East Indian Slave Trade.” The Aquila Digital Community, The University of Southern Mississippi, 3 Oct. 2018, aquila.usm.edu/slisconnecting/vol7/iss1/10/.

Pti. “Bengal Famine of 1943 Caused by British Policy Failure, Not Drought: Study.” The Economic Times, Economic Times, 20 Mar. 2019, economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/bengal-famine-of-1943-caused-by-british-policy-failure-not-drought-study/articleshow/68495710.cms.

“Rowlatt Act.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 25 June 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowlatt_Act.

Safi, Michael. “Churchill’s Policies Contributed to 1943 Bengal Famine – Study.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 29 Mar. 2019, www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study

“Sarojini Naidu.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 28 July 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarojini_Naidu#Death_and_legacy.

Schultz, Kai. “India Still Awaits Apology From Britain for Massacre in Amritsar 100 Years Ago.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 13 Apr. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/04/13/world/asia/jallianwala-bagh-massacre-india-britain.html.

Singh, Prakhar. “Real Causes of the Devastating Bengal Famine, 1943.” Medium, Medium, 2 May 2018, medium.com/@Prakhar__Singh/ real-causes-of-the-devastating-bengal-famine-1943-daac8389495e.

“Slavery in Britain.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 2 Aug. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain#Abolition.

“Slavery in India.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 3 Aug. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_India#Indentured_labor_system.

Tharoor, Shashi. “Opinion | In Winston Churchill, Hollywood Rewards a Mass Murderer.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 10 Mar. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/03/10/in-winston-churchill-hollywood-rewards-a-mass-murderer/

Holland, James. “James Holland.” James Holland’s Griffon Merlin, James Holland, Https://Www.griffonmerlin.com/Wp-Content/Uploads/2015/09/Logo-Griffon-Merlin.png, 19 Jan. 2018, www.griffonmerlin.com/2018/01/19/the-bengal-famine-was-churchill-to-blame/.

OK Is History Repeating Itself? An Outline of Police Brutality in the USA

Corbould, Clare. “The Fury in US Cities Is Rooted in a Long History of Racist Policing, Violence and Inequality.” The Conversation, 1 July 2020, theconversation.com/the-fury-in-us-cities-is-rooted-in-a-long-history-of-racist-policing-violence-and-inequality-139752

“George Floyd: How the USA’s history has shaped today’s police brutality” BBC News, 05 Jun 2020, https://www.bbc.com/news/ av/52921989/george-floyd-how-the-usa-s-history-has-shaped-today-s-police-brutality

Philimon, Wenei. “Not Just George Floyd: Police Departments Have 400-Year History of Racism.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 7 June 2020, www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/07/black-lives-matters-police-departments-have-long-history-racism/3128167001/.

North, Anna. “How Racist Policing Took over American Cities, Explained by a Historian.” Vox, Vox, 6 June 2020, www.vox. com/2020/6/6/21280643/police-brutality-violence-protests-racism-khalil-muhammad. Casas, Angelica, et al. Early American Policing - Runaway Slave Patrols. BBC News, BBC, 8 June 2020, www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-52943128/early-american-policing-runaway-slave-patrols.

“Fatal Force: Police Shootings Database.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 22 Jan. 2020, www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/.

Forbes, Flores A., et al. “How a 13th Amendment Loophole Created America’s Carceral State.” The Crime Report, 4 June 2019, thecrimereport.org/2019/06/03/539754/.

Momodu, Samuel. “The Birmingham Campaign (1963) •.” Blackpast, 31 Aug. 2016, www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/birmingham-campaign-1963/. The House Joint Resolution proposing the 13th amendment to the Constitution, January 31, 1865; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789-1999; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives.

OK Most Influential Speeches and Songs from the Civil Rights Movement

Jeff Wallenfeldt. “Selma March.” Britannica, July 2020, https://www.britannica.com/event/Selma-March.

Blackpast. “(1957) Roy Wilkins, “The clock will not be turned back”, Blackpast, July 2010, https://www.blackpast.org/african-americanhistory/1957-roy-wilkins-clock-will-not-be-turned-back/.

Amy Tikkanen. “I Have a Dream.” Britannica, July 2020, https://www.britannica.com/topic/I-Have-A-Dream.

Lyndon B. Johnson. “We Shall Overcome.” History Place, March 1965, https://www.historyplace.com/speeches/johnson.htm.

Noah Adams. “The Inspiring Force Of ‘We Shall Overcome’.” npr, August 2013, https://www.npr.org/2013/08/28/216482943/the-inspiring-force-of-we-shall-overcome.

Latifah Muhammad. “15 Powerful Songs That Embody and Support Black Lives Matter Movement.” ET, July 2020, https://www.etonline. com/15-powerful-songs-that-embody-and-support-black-lives-matter-movement-147773.

OK LGBT History Outside the Western World

Parker, Kim, and Ruth Igielnik. “What We Know About Gen Z So Far.” Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project, 15 May 2020, www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/on-the-cusp-of-adulthood-and-facing-an-uncertain-future-what-we-know-about-gen-z-so-far/.

Brandlin, Anne-Sophie. “10 Animal Species That Show How Being Gay Is Natural.” DW.COM, 2017, www.dw.com/en/10-animal-speciesthat-show-how-being-gay-is-natural/g-39934832.

Liu, Deming. “The Research of Qing Dynasty Homoerotic Atmosphere.” Airiti Library, 2009, www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?docid=U0002-2001200912383700.

Leung, Crystal. “Gay Emperors in Chinese History.” The World of Chinese, 27 June 2019, www.theworldofchinese.com/2019/06/gay-emperors-in-chinese-history/.

Krempholtz, Emily. “Some Native Americans Recognized Not Two, Not Three... But Five Genders.” Buzzworthy, 17 Sept. 2019, www. buzzworthy.com/native-americans-five-genders/.

Medicine, Beatrice. “Directions in Gender Research in American Indian Societies: Two Spirits and Other Categories.” Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, vol. 3, no. 1, 2002, doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1024.

Loh, Morven, et al. “‘The Passion Of The Cut Sleeve’ - Homosexuality in Ancient China.” Fumble, 8 Feb. 2020, www.fumble.org.uk/homosexuality-ancient-china/.

Leland, John. “A Spirit of Belonging, Inside and Out.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 8 Oct. 2006, www.nytimes. com/2006/10/08/fashion/08SPIRIT.html?_r=0.

Pember, Mary Annette. “‘Two Spirit’ Tradition Far From Ubiquitous Among Tribes.” Rewire.News, Rewire.News, 13 Oct. 2016, rewire.news/ article/2016/10/13/two-spirit-tradition-far-ubiquitous-among-tribes/.

The Impact of Civil Rights on the Roman Empire

Gibbon, Edward. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Strahan & Cadell, London, 1776.

The Philosophical Groundings of Equality

Camus, Albert, and Justin O’Brien. The Myth of Sisyphus. Vintage International, 2018. Camus, Albert. Stranger. Vintage International, 1989. K., Le Guin Ursula. The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. Townsend School, 1996. Sartre, Jean-Paul, et al. Existentialism Is a Humanism. Manitoba Education and Advanced Learning, Alternate Formats, 2016. Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, and Constance Garnett. Demons. Dover Publications, Inc., 2017. Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. Beyond Good and Evil. Oregan France, 2020. Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, et al. The Gay Science. Dover Publications, Inc., 2020. Harris, Sam. The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. Black Swan, 2012. Wittgenstein, Ludwig, and Bertrand Russell. Tractatus Logico Philosophicus Logical-Philosophical Treatise). Really Simple Media, 2011. Plantinga, Alvin. God and Other Minds. Cornell, 1992. Plantinga, Alvin. Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God. Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 2009. “PHILOSOPHY - Soren Kierkegaard.” Youtube, uploaded by The School of Life, 26 June 2015, youtube.com/watch?v=D9JCwkx558o. “LITERATURE - Fyodor Dostoyevsky.” Youtube, uploaded by The School of Life, 27 May 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMmSdxZpseY.

“NIETZSCHE ON: The Superman.” Youtube, uploaded by The School of Life, 25 Sept. 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxiKqA-u8y4.

“Existentialism: Crash Course Philosophy #16.” Youtube, uploaded by CrashCourse, 6 June 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaDvRdLMkHs.

“Debate: God and Morality: William Lane Craig vs Erik Wielenberg” Youtube, uploaded by ReasonableFaithOrg, Feb 23, 2018 https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=6iVyVJAMiOY

Chambers, Marcia. “GRAND JURY VOTES TO INDICT GOETZ ONLY ON GUN POSSESSION CHARGES.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 26 Jan. 1985, www.nytimes.com/1985/01/26/nyregion/grand-jury-votes-to-indict-goetz-only-on-gun-possession-charges.html.

Court of Appeals of New York. People v Goetz, 28 May 1986, www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/archives/p_goetz.htm.

Daley, Suzanne. “MAN TELLS POLICE HE SHOT YOUTHS IN SUBWAY TRAIN.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 1 Jan. 1985, www.nytimes.com/1985/01/01/nyregion/man-tells-police-he-shot-youths-in-subway-train.html.

Desowitz, Bill. “‘Joker’: How Cesar Romero and Bernhard Goetz Inspired Joaquin Phoenix’s Look.” IndieWire, IndieWire, 8 Oct. 2019, www. indiewire.com/2019/10/joker-joaquin-phoenix-cesar-romero-bernard-goetz-1202179438/.

Domian, Christopher. “‘...YOU HAVE TO THINK IN A COLD-BLOODED WAY’.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 30 Apr. 1987, www.nytimes.com/1987/04/30/nyregion/you-have-to-think-in-a-cold-blooded-way.html?pagewanted=all.

Feldman, Richard. “Bernie Goetz ‘The Subway Gunman’ 30 Years Later.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 21 Feb. 2015, www.huffpost.com/entry/ bernie-goetz-the-subway-g_b_6369128.

Godfrey, Alex. “The ‘Hero’ Who’d Had Enough: How Subway Vigilante Bernhard Goetz Inspired Joker.” The Telegraph, Telegraph Media Group, 8 Oct. 2019, www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/joker-true-crime-story-subway-vigilante-bernhard-goetz/.

Hornblower, Margot. “Intended to Gouge Eye Of Teen, Goetz Tape Says;`My Problem Was I Ran Out of Bullets’.” The Washington Post | HighBeam Research, The Washington Post, 14 May 1987, web.archive.org/web/20121023052130/www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1322122.html.

Johnson, Kirk. “GOETZ SHOOTING VICTIM SAYS YOUTHS WEREN’T THREATENING.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 May 1987, www.nytimes.com/1987/05/02/nyregion/goetz-shooting-victim-says-youths-weren-t-threatening.html.

Johnson, Kirk. “YOUTH SHOT IN SUBWAY SAYS HE DIDN’T APPROACH GOETZ.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 20 May 1987, www.nytimes.com/1987/05/20/nyregion/youth-shot-in-subway-says-he-didn-t-approach-goetz.html.

Kelley, Tina. “Still Seeking Payment From Bernard Goetz.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 Sept. 2000, www.nytimes. com/2000/09/10/nyregion/following-up-still-seeking-payment-from-bernard-goetz.html?ref=darrellcabey.

Leo, John. “Behavior: Low Profile for a Legend Bernard Goetz.” TIME.com, 21 Jan. 1985, web.archive.org/web/20130822234059/www. time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,956277,00.html.

Lyall, Sarah. “N.A.A.C.P. LEADER SEEKS FEDERAL CASE ON GOETZ.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 20 June 1987, www. nytimes.com/1987/06/20/nyregion/naacp-leader-seeks-federal-case-on-goetz.html.

Pitt, David E. “BLACKS SEE GOETZ VERDICT AS BLOW TO RACE RELATIONS.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 June 1987, www.nytimes.com/1987/06/18/nyregion/blacks-see-goetz-verdict-as-blow-to-race-relations.html.

Press, Associated. “Bail Slashed for Man Who Shot Four on Subway.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 7 Feb. 1985, articles.latimes. com/1985-02-07/news/mn-5137_1_bernhard-goetz.

Raab, Selwyn. “4 YOUTHS SHOT BY GOETZ FACED CRIMINAL COUNTS.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 Jan. 1985, www. nytimes.com/1985/01/10/nyregion/4-youths-shot-by-goetz-faced-criminal-counts.html.

Biography.com Editors. “Bernhard Goetz Biography” Biography.com, 12 May 2020, https://www.biography.com/crime-figure/bernhard-goetz

Brooks, Michael. “Stories and Verdicts: Bernhard Goetz and New York in Crisis.” College Literature, vol. 25, no. 1, 1998, pp. 77–93. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25112354

Hamlin, Rebecca. “Civil Rights.” Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 24 Mar. 2020, www.britannica.com/topic/civil-rights.

“Bernard Goetz.” IMDb, IMDb.com, www.imdb.com/name/nm1249570/.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.” Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 5 Nov. 2019, www.britannica.com/topic/National-Association-for-the-Advancement-of-Colored-People.

“Crack, Reefer, and the ‘Subway Vigilante’: The Strange Saga of Bernhard Goetz and Other Loathsome Tales.” Points: The Blog of the Alcohol & Drugs History Society, 5 Aug. 2014, https://pointsadhs.com/2014/08/05/crack-reefer-and-the-subway-vigilante-the-strange-saga-of-bernhard-goetz-and-other-loathsome-tales/.

“Where Is ‘Subway Vigilante’ Bernie Goetz, Who Shot Four Black Teens, Now?” Oxygen Official Site, 13 May 2020, https://www.oxygen. com/true-crime-buzz/trial-by-media-where-is-subway-vigilante-bernie-goetz-now.

When Should We Address Inequality?

Time Is Money Artworks of Fantasy by Anatoly Kozelskiy for Sale - ART.Biz. http://art.biz/picture/anatoly-kozelskiy-time-is-money/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2020.

Ustinova, Anastasia. “Have, Have-Nots: News Group Examines Wealth Inequality Ahead of 2020 Elections.” Karma, 6 Nov. 2019, https:// karmaimpact.com/have-have-nots-news-group-examines-wealth-inequality-ahead-of-2020-elections/. On The Jewish Question by Karl Marx https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2020. Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971.

Bertram, Christopher. “Jean Jacques Rousseau.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 26 May 2017, plato.stanford. edu/entries/rousseau/#IdeaGeneWill.

Ahead of 2020 Elections.” Karma, 6 Nov. 2019, https://karmaimpact.com/have-have-nots-news-group-examines-wealth-inequality-aheadof-2020-elections/.

Alexander, Colin. “Colonialism in India Was Traumatic – Including for Some of the British Officials Who Ruled the Raj.” The Conversation, http://theconversation.com/colonialism-in-india-was-traumatic-including-for-some-of-the-british-officials-who-ruled-the-raj-77068. Accessed 1 Nov. 2020. Bloomberg - Are You a Robot? https://www.bloomberg.com/tosv2.html?vid=&uuid=91c56cd0-1bfe-11eb-8775-a1c638993eae&url=L25ld3MvYXJ0aWNsZXMvMjAxMy0wOC0xMy9ob3ctcmFjZS1hbmQtaW5lcXVhbGl0eS1pbmZsdWVuY2UtdGhlLXNpemUtb2YtdXJiYW4tcG9saWNlLWZvcmNlcw==. Accessed 1 Nov. 2020.

“British Conquest of India, 1753–1858.” The Map Archive, https://themaparchive.com/product/british-conquest-of-india-17531858/. Accessed 1 Nov. 2020.

“Celebrate Women’s Suffrage, but Don’t Whitewash the Movement’s Racism.” ACLU of Maine, 27 Aug. 2018, https://www.aclumaine.org/ en/news/celebrate-womens-suffrage-dont-whitewash-movements-racism.

“Economic Inequality, Part 1: Where We Are and Why.” Darden Ideas to Action, https://ideas.darden.virginia.edu/economic-inequality-part-1. Accessed 1 Nov. 2020.

Economist, The. “Has Political Correctness Gone Too Far?” Medium, 18 Sept. 2018, https://medium.com/@the_economist/has-political-correctness-gone-too-far-b16c473fbce.

“Have, Have-Nots: News Group Examines Wealth Inequality Ahead of 2020 Elections.” Karma, 6 Nov. 2019, https://karmaimpact.com/ have-have-nots-news-group-examines-wealth-inequality-ahead-of-2020-elections/.

“Heritage of Resistance: Re-Enactment to Honor Slave Rebellion.” Black Voice News, 8 Nov. 2019, https://www.blackvoicenews. com/2019/11/07/heritage-of-resistance-re-enactment-to-honor-slave-rebellion/. Law in Ancient Rome, The Twelve Tables - Crystalinks. https://www.crystalinks.com/romelaw.html. Accessed 1 Nov. 2020. Magazine, Contexts. Black Lives and Police Tactics Matter - Contexts. https://contexts.org/articles/black-lives-and-police-tactics-matter/. Accessed 1 Nov. 2020. Magazine, Contexts. Black Lives and Police Tactics Matter - Contexts. https://contexts.org/articles/black-lives-and-police-tactics-matter/. Accessed 1 Nov. 2020.

“Mexico’s Time Zones.” Mexperience, https://www.mexperience.com/mexicos-time-zones/. Accessed 1 Nov. 2020.

Subscribe to Read | Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/31ed22f8-47a6-11ea-aee2-9ddbdc86190d. Accessed 1 Nov. 2020.

Ustinova, Anastasia. “Have, Have-Nots: News Group Examines Wealth Inequality Ahead of 2020 Elections.” Karma, 6 Nov. 2019, https:// karmaimpact.com/have-have-nots-news-group-examines-wealth-inequality-ahead-of-2020-elections/. ---. “Have, Have-Nots: News Group Examines Wealth Inequality Ahead of 2020 Elections.” Karma, 6 Nov. 2019, https://karmaimpact.com/ have-have-nots-news-group-examines-wealth-inequality-ahead-of-2020-elections/.