Clashing Views on Social Issues

Herausgeber: Finsterbusch, Kurt

• Broschiertes Buch

Produktbeschreibung

Taking Sides volumes present current controversial issues in a debate-style format designed to stimulate student interest and develop critical thinking skills. Each issue is thoughtfully framed with an issue summary, an issue introduction, and a postscript or challenge questions. Taking Sides readers feature an annotated listing of selected World Wide Web sites. An online Instructor's Resource Guide with testing material is available for each volume. Using Taking Sides in the Classroom is also an excellent instructor resource. Visit www.mhhe.com/takingsides for more details.

Produktdetails

• Taking Sides: Social Issues
• Verlag: Dushkin Publishing
• Seitenzahl: 401
• Erscheinungstermin: März 2010
• Englisch
• Abmessung: 232mm x 132mm x 21mm
• Gewicht: 485g
• ISBN-13: 9780078050015
• ISBN-10: 0078050014
• Artikelnr.: 28435414

Autorenporträt

Kurt Finsterbusch is a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland at College Park. He received a BA in history from Princeton University in 1957, a BD from Grace Theological Seminary in 1960, and a PhD in sociology from Columbia University in 1969. He is the author of Understanding Social Impacts (Sage Publications, 1980), and he is the coauthor, with Annabelle Bender Motz, of Social Research for Policy Decisions (Wadsworth, 1980) and, with Jerald Hage, of Organizational Change as a Development Strategy (Lynne Rienner, 1987). He is the editor of Annual Editions: Sociology (McGraw-Hill/Contemporary Learning Series); Annual Editions: Social Problems (McGraw-Hill/Contemporary Learning Series); and Sources: Notable Selections in Sociology, 3rd ed. (McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, 1999).

Inhaltsangabe

Unit 1 Culture and Values
Issue 1. Does the News Media Have a Liberal Bias?
YES: Fred Barnes, from "Is Mainstream Media Fair and Balanced?"
Imprimis (August 2006)
NO: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., from Crimes Against Nature (HarperCollins,
2005)
Fred Barnes, journalist, executive editor of The Weekly Standard and TV
commentator, argues that the mainstream media has a pronounced liberal
bias. They do not hire conservatives, and an analysis of specific news
stories shows their bias. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., environmentalist and
political activist, agrees with Barnes that the media is biased but
believes that it has a conservative bias. Surveys show that most
Americans have many false beliefs that are fed to them by conservative
talk radio shows and other conservative media outlets. Many media
owners are very conservative and stifle investigative reporting.
Issue 2. Is Third World Immigration a Threat to America's Way of Life?
YES: Mark Krikorian, from The New Case Against Immigration (Sentinel,
2008)
NO: Jason L. Riley, from Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders
(Gotham, 2008)
Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration
Studies, presents the case against immigration. He emphasizes the
changes in America that make immigration less beneficial for America.
The current immigrants are not much different than immigrants in the
past century but they do not fit the new America as well as the past
immigrants fit the old America. One part of the story is that the new
America will not assimilate immigrants well. Jason L. Riley, an editor
of the Wall Street Journal, applauds immigration because it will
propel, not impede, economic growth. America has a flexible labor
market, where both employers and employees can change the work
situation as they need or desire. "In the end, employers, workers, and
consumers are all better off." America has a labor shortage that
immigrants help fill without taking jobs in the aggregate from
Americans. Riley also argues that new immigrants assimilate much like
the old immigrants did.
Unit 2 Sex Roles, Gender, and the Family
Issue 3. Does Divorce Have Long-Term Damaging Effects on Children?
YES: Elizabeth Marquardt, from "The Bad Divorce," First Things
(February 2005)
NO: Constance Ahrons, from We're Still Family: What Grown Children Have
to Say about Their Parents' Divorce (Harper Collins, 2004)
Elizabeth Marquardt, Director of the Center for Marriage and Families,
defends the common belief that divorce has devastating impacts on
children and attacks Constance Ahrons's counter-thesis. Constance
Ahrons, co-chair of the Council on Contemporary Families, found in her
research on the children of divorced parents that they do quite well in
later life and most think that they were not harmed by the divorce.
Issue 4. Does the "Mommy Track" (Part-Time Work) Improve Women's Lives?
YES: E. Jeffrey Hill, Vjollca K. Märtinson, Maria Ferris, and Robin
Zenger Baker, from "Beyond the Mommy Track: The Influence of
New-Concept Part-Time Work for Professional Women on Work and Family,"
Journal of Family and Economic Issues (2004)
NO: Mary C. Noonan and Mary E. Corcoran, from "The Mommy Track and
Partnership: Temporary Delay or Dead End?" The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science (2004)
Brigham Young University colleagues E. Jeffrey Hill and Vjollca K.
Märtinson, along with Maria Ferris of IBM and Robin Zenger Baker at
Boston University, suggest that women in professional careers can
successfully integrate family and career by following a new-concept
part-time work model. In contrast, Mary C. Noonan, an assistant
professor in the department of sociology at the University of Iowa, and
Mary E. Corcoran, a professor of political science at the University of
Michigan, document the various costs of the mommy track for female
attorneys, including lower salaries and decreased likelihood of
promotion to partner.
Issue 5. Should Same-Sex Marriages Be Legally Recognized?
YES: Human Rights Campaign, from "Answers to Questions about Marriage
Equality" (Human Rights Campaign, 2009)
NO: Peter Sprigg, from "Questions and Answers: What's Wrong with
Letting Same-Sex Couples 'Marry'?" (Family Research Council, 2004)
America's largest lesbian and gay organization, the Human Rights
Campaign, presents many arguments for why same-sex couples should be
able to marry. The main argument is fairness. Marriage confers many
benefits that same-sex couples are deprived of. Researcher Peter Sprigg
presents many arguments for why same-sex couples should not be able to
marry. The main argument is that the state has the right and duty to
specify who a person, whether straight or gay, can marry, so no rights
are violated.
Unit 3 Stratification and Inequality
Issue 6. Is Increasing Economic Inequality a Serious Problem?
YES: James Kurth, from "The Rich Get Richer," The American Conservative
(September 25, 2006)
NO: Gary S. Becker and Kevin M. Murphy, from "The Upside of Income
Inequality," The American (May-June 2007)
James Kurth, Claude Smith Professor of Political Science at Swarthmore
College, warns of very negative consequences for America of the growing
income inequality from a conservative perspective. He also mentions the
liberal criticisms of inequality but downplays their importance,
because America has institutions that mitigate them. Gary S. Becker and
Kevin M. Murphy, both economists teaching at the University of Chicago
and Senior Fellows at the Hoover Institute, swim upstream on this issue
by pointing out the positive consequences of the growing income
inequality. The main reason for the increasing inequality is the
increasing returns to education, which, in turn, inspire greater
efforts by young people to increase their social capital.
Issue 7. Has Feminism Benefited American Society?
YES: Barbara Epstein, from "The Successes and Failures of Feminism,"
Journal of Women's History (Summer 2002)
NO: Kate O'Beirne, from Women Who Make the World Worse (Sentinel, 2006)
History Professor Barbara Epstein argues that the feminist movement has
been highly successful in changing the consciousness of Americans to
"an awareness of the inequality of women and a determination to resist
it." She explains how feminists succeeded at the consciousness level
but have declined as a movement for social change. Journalist Kate
O'Beirne argues that feminism is unpopular with women and is pushing an
agenda that most women do not support. She claims that most women have
concluded "that the feminist movement is both socially destructive and
personally disappointing."
Issue 8. Has Affirmative Action Outlived Its Usefulness?
YES: Curtis Crawford, from "Racial Preference versus
Nondiscrimination," Society (March/April 2004)
NO: Lawrence D. Bobo, from "Inequalities that Endure?" in Maria Krysan
and Amanda E. Lewis, eds., The Changing Terrain of Race and Ethnicity
(Russell Sage Foundation, 2004)
Curtis Crawford, editor of the Web site , explores all possible options
for bettering the situation of disadvantaged minorities in a truly just
manner. He argues that the right of everyone, including white males, to
nondiscrimination is clearly superior to the right of minorities to
affirmative action. Sociologist Lawrence D. Bobo demonstrates that
racial prejudice still exists even though it has become a more subtle
type of racism, which he calls laissez-faire racism. Though it is
harder to identify, it has significant effects that Bobo illustrates.
In fact, it plays a big role in current politics.
Issue 9. Are Barriers to Women's Success as Leaders Due to Societal
Obstacles?
YES: Alice H. Eagly and Linda L. Carli, from "Women and the Labyrinth
of Leadership," Harvard Business Review (September 2007)
NO: Kingsley R. Browne, from Biology at Work: Rethinking Sexual
Equality (Rutgers University Press, 2002)
Alice H. Eagly and Linda L. Carli contend that barrie rs exist for
women at every stage of their career trajectories, resulting in not a
glass ceiling, but a labyrinth. Kingsley R. Browne asserts that the
division of labor by sex is rooted in biologically based differences
between women and men. Evolutionarily based natural selection has led
to inclinations that make women and men better suited for different
types of jobs.
Unit 4 Political Economy and Institutions
Issue 10. Is America Dominated by Big Business?
YES: G. William Domhoff, from Who Rules America? Power, Politics, and
Social Change, 5th ed. (McGraw-Hill, 2006)
NO: Sheldon Kamieniecki, from Corporate America and Environmental
Policy (Stanford University Press, 2006)
Political sociologist G. William Domhoff argues that the "owners and
top-level managers in large income-producing properties are far and
away the dominant power figures in the United States" and that they
have inordinate influence in the federal government. Political
scientist Sheldon Kamieniecki's research finds that business interests
do not participate at a high rate in policy issues that affect them,
"and when they do, they have mixed success in influencing policy
outcomes." In fact, environmental and other groups often have
considerable influence vis-à-vis business interests.
Issue 11. Does Capitalism Undermine Democracy?
YES: Robert B. Reich, from "How Capitalism Is Killing Democracy,"
Foreign Policy (September/October 2007)
NO: Anthony B. Kim, from "Economic Freedom Underpins Human Rights and
Democratic Governance," Heritage Foundation Web Memo (March 18, 2008)
Robert B. Reich, Professor of Public Policy at the University of
California, Berkeley, and former U.S. Secretary of Labor, accuses
capitalism of undermining democratic governments' ability to serve the
public good and advance the general welfare. The political power of the
corporations exceeds that of the people so many nations with democratic
elections do not function as democracies. Anthony B. Kim, a policy
analyst at the Heritage Foundation's Center for International Trade and
Economics, contends that economic progress through advancing economic
freedom has allowed more people to discuss and adopt different views
more candidly, ultimately leading societies to be more open, inclusive,
and democratic.
Issue 12. Should Government Intervene in a Capitalist Economy?
YES: Joseph E. Stiglitz, "Government Failure vs. Market Failure:
Principles of Regulation," paper prepared for the conference
"Government and Markets: Toward a New Theory of Regulation," February
1-3, 2008, Yulee, Florida
NO: Walter Williams, "Future Prospects for Economic Liberty," Imprimis
(September 2009)
Joseph E. Stiglitz, University Professor at Columbia University, argues
that the government plays an essential role in enabling the market to
work properly. Capitalism runs amok if it is not regulated to protect
against abuse and ensure fairness. Walter Williams, Professor of
Economics at George Mason University, argues that the founders defined
a small role for government in the Constitution and protected the
freedom of individuals. Now the role of government is increasing and
individual freedoms are declining. The free market has achieved great
prosperity for America and the intervention of government has had net
negative impacts.
Issue 13. Has Welfare Reform Benefited the Poor?
YES: David Coates, "Cutting 'Welfare' to Help the Poor," from A Liberal
Toolkit: Progressive Responses to Conservative Arguments (Praeger,
2007)
NO: Stephanie Mencimer, "Brave New Welfare," Mother Jones
(January/February, 2009)
David Coates presents the argument for welfare reform, which is that
most poverty is self-induced; the previous welfare program created
poverty and many other problems; and the reform reduces poverty,
improves the lives of the people who left welfare, and solves other
problems. Stephanie Mencimer, staff reporter for Mother Jones, does not
denigrate the current welfare law but documents the horrible way
welfare is administered in many states. Many welfare workers deny many
benefits to many people who qualify for welfare. Thus, many welfare
benefits do not reach the poor.
Issue 14. Is Competition the Reform That Will Fix Education?
YES: Clint Bolick, from "The Key to Closing the Minority Schooling Gap:
School Choice," The American Enterprise (April/May 2003)
NO: Ron Wolk, from "Think the Unthinkable," Educational Horizons
(Summer 2004)
Clint Bolick, vice president of the Institute for Justice, presents the
argument for school choice that competition leads to improvements and
makes the case that minorities especially need school choice to improve
their educational performance. Educator and businessman Ron Wolk argues
that school choice and most other educational reforms can only be
marginally effective because they do not get at the heart of the
educational problem, which is the way students learn. Too much
attention is directed to the way teachers teach when the attention
should be placed on how to stimulate students to learn more. Wolk
advocates giving students more responsibility for their education.
Issue 15. Should Biotechnology Be Used to Alter and Enhance Humans?
YES: President's Council on Bioethics, from Beyond Therapy (Regan
Books, 2009)
NO: Michael J. Sandel, from "The Case Against Perfection," The Atlantic
Monthly (April 2004)
The President's Council on Bioethics was commissioned by George Bush to
report to him their findings about the ethical issues involved in the
uses of biotechnology. Included in this selection are the expected
positive benefits from the biotechnologies that are on the horizon.
Political science professor Michael J. Sandel was on the President's
Council on Bioethics but presents his private view in this selection,
which is very cautionary on the use of biotechnology to alter and
enhance humans. Many other uses of biotechnology he praises, but he
condemns using biotechnology to alter and enhance humans. In these
activities, humans play God and attempt inappropriate remaking of
nature.
Unit 5 Crime and Social Control
Issue 16. Is Street Crime More Harmful Than White-Collar Crime?
YES: David A. Anderson, from "The Aggregate Burden of Crime," Journal
of Law and Economics XLII (2) (October 1999)
NO: Jeffrey Reiman, from The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison:
Ideology, Class, and Criminal Justice, 5th ed. (Allyn & Bacon, 1998)
David A. Anderson estimates the total annual cost of crime including
law enforcement and security services. The costs exceed $1 trillion,
with fraud (mostly white-collar crime) causing about one-fifth of the
total. His calculations of the full costs of the loss of life and
injury comes to about half of the total costs. It is right, therefore,
to view personal and violent crime as the big crime problem. Professor
of philosophy Jeffrey Reiman argues that the dangers posed by negligent
corporations and white-collar criminals are a greater menace to society
than are the activities of typical street criminals.
Issue 17. Should Laws Against Drug Use Remain Restrictive?
YES: Herbert Kleber and Joseph A. Califano Jr., from "Legalization:
Panacea or Pandora's Box?" The World & I Online (January 2006)
NO: Peter Gorman, from "Veteran Cops Against the Drug War," The World &
I Online (January 2006)
Herbert Kleber, the executive vice president of the Center on Addiction
and Substance Abuse (CASA), and Joseph Califano, founder of CASA,
maintain that drug laws should remain restrictive because legalization
would result in increased use, especially by children. Kleber and
Califano contend that drug legalization would not eliminate
drug-related violence and harm caused by drugs. Author Peter Gorman
states that restrictive drug laws have been ineffective. He notes that
drug use and drug addiction have increased since drug laws became more
stringent. Despite the crackdown on drug use, the availability of drugs
has increased while the cost of drugs has decreased. In addition,
restrictive drug laws, says Gorman, are racist and endanger civil
liberties.
Issue 18. Are We Headed Toward a Nuclear 9/11?
YES: Brian Michael Jenkins, from "Terrorists Can Think Strategically:
Lessons Learned from the Mumbai Attacks," Rand Corporation (January
2009)
NO: Graham Allison, from "Time to Bury a Dangerous Legacy-Part I,"
YaleGlobal Online (March 14, 2008)
Brian Michael Jenkins, senior advisor to the President of the Rand
Corporation, in testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs, posited that a team of terrorists
could be inserted into the United States and carry out a Mumbai-style
attack, as terrorism has ;increasingly become an effective strategic
weapon." Graham Allison, Harvard professor and director of the Belfer
Center for Science and International Affairs, affirms that we are not
likely to experience a nuclear 9/11 because "nuclear terrorism is
preventable by a feasible, affordable agenda of actions that . . .
would shrink the risk of nuclear terrorism to nearly zero."
Unit 6 The Future: Population/Environment/Society
Issue 19. Are Declining Growth Rates Rather Than Rapid Population Growth
Today's Major Global Population Problem?
YES: Michael Meyer, from "Birth Dearth," Newsweek (September 27, 2004)
NO: Danielle Nierenberg and Mia MacDonald, from "The Population Story .
. . So Far," World Watch magazine (September/October 2004)
Michael Meyer, a writer for Newsweek International, argues that the new
global population threat is not world overpopulation but
underpopulation in many countries. Declining birth rates will
ultimately lead to declining population and increasing ratios of older
people to younger people in many countries. This situation creates
immense problems in supporting the elderly and maintaining a healthy
economy. Danielle Nievenberg and Mia MacDonald counter those who fear
negative consequences of stable or declining population. The worriers
fail to notice the benefits of a stable population. Furthermore, the
population decline thesis is overblown. The population of developed
countries with healthy economies is likely to grow through immigration.
Stable or declining population countries will only have to change some
policies to avoid the anticipated serious problems.
Issue 20. Is Humankind Dangerously Harming the Environment?
YES: Lester R. Brown, from Plan B 4.0, Mobilizing to Save Civilization
(Earth Policy Institute, 2009)
NO: Bjorn Lomborg, from "The Truth about the Environment," The
Economist (August 4, 2001)
Lester R. Brown, founder of the Worldwatch Institute and now president
of the Earth Policy Institute, argues that population growth and
economic development are placing increasingly harmful demands on the
environment for resources and to grow food for improving diets. Bjorn
Lomborg, a statistician at the University of Aarhus, Denmark, presents
evidence that population growth is slowing down; natural resources are
not running out; species are disappearing very slowly; the environment
is improving in some ways; and assertions about environmental decline
are exaggerated.
Issue 21. Is Globalization Good for Humankind?
YES: Johan Norberg, from "Three Cheers for Global Capitalism," The
American Enterprise (June 2004)
NO: Martin Hart-Landsberg, from "Neoliberalism: Myths and Reality,"
Monthly Review (April 2006)
Author Johan Norberg argues that globalization is overwhelmingly good.
Consumers throughout the world get better-quality goods at lower prices
because the competition forces producers to be more creative,
efficient, and responsive to consumers' demands. Even most poor people
benefit greatly. Martin Hart-Landsberg, Professor of Economics at Lewis
and Clark College, argues that globalization has "enhanced
transnational capitalist power and profits at the cost of growing
economic instability and deteriorating working and living conditions."