Discover why our School of Management is the perfect place to study and explore our courses, facilities, careers support and student experiences
Volume 2, Issue 1
Spring 2024
This journal is published by the students and staff from the Department of Politics, Philosophy and International Relations at Swansea University.
Please visit our website where you can find an online version of this publication and all of our previous editions:
https://myuni.swansea.ac.uk/faculties/fhss/socsci/populo/
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of the publisher, nor be otherwise circulated in any form or binging or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on subsequent publisher.
© Swansea University
2
Chief Editor
Florence Wade
Politics
Deputy Chief Editor
Imogen Williams
Politics
Editors
Saskia Culbert
Ancient History and Politics
Andrés Soler Aldama
Politics and International Relations
Louis Carpenter
Politics
3
Contents
Chief Editor’s Introduction .......................................................................................... 5
Is racism still a blind spot for contemporary political institutions and parties? - PO-
131- Thomas Cour-Palais ................................................................................................ 6
Do parents have a moral duty to enhance their children through genetic
engineering? Are they morally blameworthy if they choose not to do this, assuming
that genetic enhancements are affordable and easily accessible? – HUP-244-
Natasha L. Jennings ...................................................................................................... 18
Critically assess the ways in which the experiences of immigrants and refugee
communities in Western societies have been shaped by issues of race and racism? –
PO-253- Yumna Rangoonwala ...................................................................................... 28
What is the purpose of Government? A Marxist and Hobbesian Comparison . – PO-
245- Charles Corr .......................................................................................................... 37
Under what circumstances is genocide likely to occur? – PO-3330- Matt Stevens ... 45
How can J.L Austin’s (1976) Speech Act Theory be used to understand Langton’s
(1993) claim that pornography silences women? And is Langton’s (1993) claim
justified? – PO-3317- Amelie Higgins ......................................................................... 55
From Pixels to Politics: A media-centric analysis of the 2020 far-right surge in the
U.S. – PO-3319- Victoria Russell ................................................................................. 86
End Note ...................................................................................................................... 137
4
Chief Editor’s Introduction
Dear readers,
Welcome to the first edition of Volume 2 of Populo! After Populo's success last year
we are back and aiming to publish another two editions to showcase the incredible first-
class work produced by students in the Department of Politics, Philosophy and
International Relations.
This edition includes work from students from all three years of study. Our third-year
publications include both a dissertation and a report from the Researching Politics
module. We hope this gives you an insight into the variety of work you may be asked
to complete during your degree.
I would like to give thanks to the editorial team for all their hard work producing this
edition as well as Dr Matthew Wall and Pete Griffiths for their support.
On behalf of the whole team, I would like to thank everyone who submitted their work,
whether it was published or not, and congratulate the students whose excellent work has
been chosen for publication.
I hope you all continue to support the journal this academic year and beyond as we are
all proud of what has been produced.
Happy reading!
Florence Wade, Chief Editor
5
Is racism still a blind spot for contemporary political institutions and parties? - PO-131- Thomas Cour-Palais
In exploring whether racism is still a blind-spot I will focus on political institutions
and parties in the UK, in particular on governmental attitudes but will also touch on
the role or views of some other powerful bodies, such as parliament, the judiciary,
opposition MPs, and advisory bodies.
The report of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities chaired by Tony
Sewell was released March 2021, having been commissioned by Boris Johnson’s
government in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests. These protests followed: the
murder in the US of George Floyd, a black man, by a white police officer, and the
disproportionate deaths and economic suffering amongst minority ethnic groups
during the Covid pandemic. The Windrush scandal and Grenfell Tower deaths also had
a significant impact, alongside ongoing lived experience of racism in the UK, and the
legacy of Britain’s colonialist, imperialist, slave-trading history. Response to the
‘Sewell Report’ clearly demonstrates a massive government blind-spot regarding
racism, with United Nations experts reporting that ‘stunningly, the report’… ‘claims
that, whilst there may be overt acts of racism in the UK, there is no institutional racism’. 1
Because the Sewell Report stated that, whilst individual acts of racism happen, UK
institutional and structural racism no longer exist, the government chose to absolve
1 ‘UN Experts Condemn UK Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities Report’, OHCHR (2021), <https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/04/un-experts-condemn-uk-commission-race-and-ethnic-disparities- report>.
6
itself and powerful institutions of responsibility - arguably ‘gas-lighting’ 2 those whose
lived experience says differently. Institutional racism goes ‘hand in glove’ with
structural racism. Institutional racism refers to racism via discriminatory action or
inaction through ‘unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist
stereotyping’. It persists because of a failure of leadership to ‘address its existence’
within institutions such as: government, systems of justice or policing, or the NHS.
The term ‘institutional racism’ came into the public sphere in 1999 as a result of the Macpherson Inquiry into the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence. 3 Structural racism
refers to wider political and social and economic disadvantages, underpinned by
norms and cultural practices established and rooted in colonialist and slave-trading history, which benefit white people and disadvantage people of colour. 4
Critics have called the Sewell Report ‘deeply cynical’ and ‘a truly historic denial of the scale of race equality in Britain’. 5 UN experts criticised the report’s denial of
institutional and structural racism and its claim that other factors impact more on life
chances, such as geography, family influence and socioeconomic background. They
said the report discounted data around the lived experience of racism whilst accepting police data as ‘objective’. 6 Furthermore, it did not take seriously findings of other
reports and reviews such as: the Angiolini Review (of deaths in police custody), the
Lammy Review (of racial discrimination in the Justice system), or analysis by international human rights experts. 7 Moreover, the report wrongly denied systemic
racism including inequities in: health, education, housing, criminal justice and policing
such as ‘stop and search’ practices. The experts contended that, in fact, institutional
2 Frank Langfitt, ‘U.K. Government Report Draws Criticism over “Historic Denial” of Race Issues’, NPR (2021), <https://www.npr.org/2021/04/01/983499592/u-k-government-report-draws-criticism-over-historic-denial-of-race- issues>.
3 Vini Lander, ‘Structural Racism: What It Is and How It Works’, The Conversation (2021), <https://theconversation.com/structural-racism-what-it-is-and-how-it-works-158822>. 4 Lander. 5 Langfitt. 6 ‘UN Experts Condemn UK Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities Report’ p. 2. 7 ‘UN Experts Condemn UK Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities Report’ p. 3.
7
and structural racism underpin UK poor economic, social and health outcomes,
discriminatory employment practices, unequal pay, higher maternal mortality rates and
poor educational outcomes. They argued that institutional and structural racism
operate via decision making by employers, teachers, and police officers etc. through ‘nodes of power’ arising out of the ‘legacy mindsets of racial hierarchy’. 8 Moreover,
the Sewell Report’s suggestion that ‘family structure, rather than institutionalised and
structural discriminatory practices are the central features of the Black experience is a
tone-deaf attempt at rejecting the lived realities of people of African descent and other ethnic minorities in the UK’. 9 Lastly, the report, offensively, attempted to sanitize
experience of the slave trade and ‘the social capital and political influence they gained
from exploiting black bodies’ by saying that ‘there is a new story about the Caribbean
experience which speaks to the slave period not only being about profit and suffering
but how culturally African people transformed themselves into a re-modelled African/Britain.’ 10
The report was met with huge criticism and the government initially defended itself
by ‘condemning all critiques of the report as evidence of ad hominem attacks against black and brown conservatives’ 11 who had supported it. It is said that an ‘illusion of post-racialism’ 12 in recent British politics, is fostered by the government (and shadow
cabinet and parliament) becoming more representative. However, arguably, it suits
those in power to have politicians from ethnic or racial minorities fronting policies or
backing reports which might otherwise be seen as discriminatory or racist, because,
potentially, it is harder to challenge something as racist if it is promoted by someone
who appears to be from a (discriminated against) minority group. For example, recent
8 UN Experts Condemn UK Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities Report’ p. 4. 9 UN Experts Condemn UK Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities Report’ p. 4. 10 Langfitt. 11 Kuba Shand-Baptiste, ‘The “Post-Racial” Narrative in Britain and the US Is More Myth than Reality’, British GQ (2021), <https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/post-racial-britain>, p. 5. 12 Shand-Baptiste, p. 3
8
Home Secretary, Braverman, espoused very right-wing views with harsh policies on
immigration, making racist ‘sweeping and appalling’ comments about British-
Pakistani men. Referring to abusers in a child sex abuse case, Braverman said that
they held ‘cultural values totally at odds with British values’. Baroness Warsi, member
of the House of Lords and a former Conservative MP, argues that it is harder to hold
an ethnic minority MP to account for racism, claiming that ‘black and brown people can be racist too’. 13 Warsi contends that ‘Braverman’s own ethnic origin shielded her from criticism for too long'. 14
It is true that minority ethnic representation in both government and parliament has
increased markedly in recent years, for example in 1987 there were 4 MPs from
minority ethnic backgrounds and in 2019 there were 66. 41 were Labour, 23 conservative, and 2 Liberal – amounting to 10% of MPs. 15 However, since about 16%
of the population are from a minority ethnic background, there is still progress to be
made. The devolved governments are less representative - in September 2022 the
percentage of MPs from a minority ethnic background was 4.5% in the Scottish Parliament, 5% in the Welsh Parliament and 0% in the Northern Irish Assembly. 16
However, the current UK government is historically the most racially/ethnically
representative yet. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak appointed his first Cabinet in October 2022 with 5 Ministers from minority ethnic backgrounds, including himself. 17 Despite this, ‘this show of diversity in our cabinet is not progress’ if the Prime Minster leaves racist views and rhetoric unchallenged. 18
13 Sayeeda Warsi, ‘Listen to Suella Braverman and Realise: This Show of Diversity in Our Cabinet Is Not Progress’, The Guardian (2023), <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/12/suella-braverman-diversity-cabinet- british-pakistani-men-rishi-sunak>. 14 Warsi. 15 Elise Uberoi and Helena Carthew, ‘Ethnic Diversity in Politics and Public Life’, House of Commons Library (2022), <https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01156/>, p. 5.
16 Uberoi and Carthew, p. 5. 17 Uberoi and Carthew, p. 5. 18 Warsi.
9
Further demonstration that structural racism, entrenched prejudice and ‘white
superiority’ is present in Westminster is found in the experience of some MPs. Black
MP, Dawn Butler reported being in a members lift when she was told ‘this lift isn’t
really for cleaners’, and also being challenged about being on the members terrace by a minister who commented ‘they’re letting anyone in nowadays’. 19 MP Abena
Oppong-Asare was mistaken for staff and given a bag to look after by a Conservative
MP and another MP mistook her for another black MP expressing surprise that ‘there
were more of you’. Florence Eshalomi was also mistaken for another black MP as she came out of the voting lobby. 20 In addition to this there have been overt acts of
individual racism, and disrespect, such as Boris Johnson demonstrating Islamophobia
by referring to veiled Muslim women as ‘letterboxes’ after which Islamophobic incidents rose by 375%. 21
Despite the ‘post-racial narrative’ 22 of the Sewell Report, incidence of institutional
racism continues to manifest in Britain. In August 2023 Dr Begum, the head of the
UK’s leading race equality thinktank, ‘the Runnymede Trust’ resigned saying that the
continued denial of institutional racism created an issue of credibility for the government. 23 Begum said ‘every time they denied institutional racism, some other
event would happen that showed the realities for people of colour living in Britain. If
19 Katie Proctor, ‘Black MPs Tell of Being Confused with Other Politicians’, The Guardian (2020), <https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/12/black-mps-tell-of-being-confused-with-other-politicians>.
20 Proctor. 21 Proctor. 22 Shand-Baptiste, p. 1.
23 Aamna Mohdin and Amelia Gentleman, ‘UK Failing to Address Systemic Racism against Black People, Warn UN Experts’, The Guardian (2023), <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/27/uk-government-failing-to-address- systemic-racism-against-black-people-un-working-group-of-experts-on-people-of-african-descent>.
10
it wasn’t the Casey review, it was the cricket, or the experience of black England footballers at the Euros. Every time there’s a denial of racism it surfaces again’. 24
Whilst there have been many positive developments in the UK, Britain is very far
from a ‘post-racial’ society. Following a fact-finding visit to the UK in January 2023,
nearly 2 years after the Sewell Report, the United Nations Working Group of Experts
on People of African Descent reported deep concerns about ‘the stark and
unsustainable inequalities underpinned by systemic racism, judicial bias and discriminatory policing of people of African descent.’ 25 After welcoming many ‘good
practices’ in Britain including: the Inclusive Britain Plan; the Equality Act 2010; the
Race Disparity Audit under Theresa May; the Lammy Review; the Angioli Report; the
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights 2020; and advancements by some local authorities to dismantle racism, 26 the UN experts expressed ‘very extreme concern’ 27 to the UK government, saying ‘from the perspective of people of African descent, racism in the UK is structural, institutional and systemic’. 28 Particular
concerns included failure to address racial disparities in the criminal justice system
such as: death in police custody, ‘joint enterprise’ convictions (where two or more
defendants are accused of the same crime in relation to the same incident), and the
dehumanising nature of the stop and strip searches. It was also of concern that UK
austerity measures disproportionately exacerbated problems for people of African
descent. Other highlighted deeply troubling issues were: the fallout of the Windrush scandal which ‘left a deep scar on the collective psyche’ 29 ; discrimination in maternal
24 Aamna Mohdin, ‘Race Equality Leader Hits Out At UK’s Denial Of Institutional Racism’, The Guardian (2023), <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/30/race-equality-leader-hits-out-at-uk-denial-of-institutional-racism>. 25 United Nations Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, ‘End of Mission Statement following its country visit to the UK (18-27 January 2023), containing its preliminary findings and recommendations’ UN (2023). 26 United Nations Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent. 27 Mohdin and Gentleman. 28 ‘UK: Discrimination against people of African descent is structural, institutional and systemic, say UN experts’ OHCHR (2023), <https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/01/uk-discrimination-against-people-african-descent-
structural-institutional>. 29 Mohdin and Gentleman.
11
and infant health care leading to higher mortality rates; discriminatory immigration
policies and practices; and discrimination in schools including disproportionate exclusion from school of young black males. 30 The British government’s response
was, once again, denial, of choosing ‘not to see’, saying: ‘We strongly reject these
findings’, the report wrongly views people of African descent as a homogenous group,
the analysis is superficial and that the UK is open and tolerant, thus wilfully failing to take seriously or to address the lived experience of those consulted. 31
Different political parties have faced particular challenges around racism. The
Labour Party has struggled to address accusations of antisemitism and, at the height of this, there was a spike in attacks on Jewish communities in the UK. 32 Meanwhile, the Conservatives have faced accusations of Islamophobia. They reject these, 33 but have
implemented ‘counter-terrorism’ initiatives such as ‘Prevent’, which ‘introduced state
surveillance in which Muslims are positioned as suspect communities, exacerbating Islamophobic sentiment’. 34 In 2018 a UN special envoy, Achiume, deplored the government’s Prevent programme, expressing deep concern about high levels of anxiety and mistrust affecting the Muslim community especially. 35 Moreover, she
reported great concern about Brexit-era hate crimes and the ‘anti-migrant, anti-
foreigner rhetoric developed around the campaign in favour of Brexit that had become
30 Mohdin and Gentleman. 31 Mohdin and Gentleman. 32 William Shankley and James Rhodes, ‘Racisms in contemporary Britain’ in Ethnicity, Race and Inequality in the UK , (Bristol: Bristol University Press, 2020) pp. 221-222.
33 Shankley and Rhodes, p. 217. 34 Shankley and Rhodes, p. 203.
35 ‘UN rights expert hails UK for anti-racism action but raises serious concerns over Immigration Policy, Prevent programme and Brexit’ OHCHR (2018), <https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2018/05/un-rights-expert-hails-uk- anti-racism-action-raises-serious-concerns- over#:~:text=Tendayi%20Achiume%2C%20has%20commended%20the,hate%20crimes%20and%20immigration%20cons equences>.
12
widespread in society’ 36 with relationship to immigration policies and their consequences. 37
Unlike the Conservatives, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats do not deny
institutional and structural racism and claim they will address it. Labour Party leader,
Keir Starmer has promised a race equality act and shadow government minister David
Lammy said eradicating structural racism would be a ‘defining cause’ of the next Labour government. 38 However, Starmer, himself, faced accusations of racism from
Diane Abbott after he accused her of antisemitism. She said, ‘there is a widespread
sentiment that as a black woman, and someone on the left of the Labour Party that I will not get a fair hearing’. 39 Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey has also declared his will to tackle racism, saying he made a ‘lifetime commitment to tackle the scourge of racism and to fight the disgrace of racial inequality’. 40
In conclusion, the current government has explicitly denied that structural and
institutional racism exist in the UK. Expert opinion and expressed lived experience
both affirm that deeply entrenched racism operates in many spheres of UK society,
including government, parliament, judiciary, police and education. Given this, there is
a clear wilful government ‘blind-spot’ concerning the existence of structural and
institutional racism in the UK. Whilst Labour has faced accusations of racism, both
36 ‘UN rights expert hails UK for anti-racism action but raises serious concerns over Immigration Policy, Prevent programme and Brexit’. 37 UN rights expert hails UK for anti-racism action but raises serious concerns over Immigration Policy, Prevent programme and Brexit’. 38 Nazia Parveen and Aamna Mohdin, ‘Starmer Promises Race Equality Act, a Year on from George Floyd’s Murder’, The Guardian (2021), <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/25/starmer-promises-race-equality-act-a-year-on- from-george-floyds>. 39 ‘Diane Abbott Attacks Starmer and Labour over Race Complaint Handling’, ITV News (2023), <https://www.itv.com/news/london/2023-09-20/diane-abbott-attacks-on-starmer-and-labour-over-race-complaint- handling>. 40 Ed Davey, ‘Putting Liberalism At The Heart Of Diversity And Anti-Racism’, Liberal Democrat Voice (2020), <https://www.libdemvoice.org/ed-davey-writes-putting-liberalism-at-the-heart-of-diversity-and-antiracism- 65428.html>.
13
Labour and Liberal Democrats acknowledge harms caused by ongoing systemic
racism and profess that they intend to address these. How this might manifest in
practice is unclear, but such racism is, at least, recognised rather than denied. What is
needed is for the government to acknowledge their ‘blind-spot’, to ‘choose to see’, and
become aware and commit to addressing institutional and structural racism in political
institutions and parties.
14
Bibliography
Carthew, Helena and Elise Uberoi (2022), ‘Ethnic Diversity in Politics and Public
Life’, House of Commons Library ,
<https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01156/>, pp. 1-17.
Davey, Ed (2020), ‘Putting Liberalism At The Heart Of Diversity And Anti-Racism’,
Liberal Democrat Voice , <https://www.libdemvoice.org/ed-davey-writes-
putting-liberalism-at-the-heart-of-diversity-and-antiracism-65428.html>.
‘Diane Abbott Attacks Starmer and Labour over Race Complaint Handling’, ITV News
(2023), <https://www.itv.com/news/london/2023-09-20/diane-abbott-attacks-on-
starmer-and-labour-over-race-complaint-handling>.
Gentleman, Amelia and Aamna Mohdin (2023), ‘UK Failing to Address Systemic
Racism against Black People, Warn UN Experts’, The Guardian ,
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/27/uk-government-failing-to-
address-systemic-racism-against-black-people-un-working-group-of-experts-on-
people-of-african-descent>.
Lander, Vini, (2021), ‘Structural Racism: What It Is and How It Works’, The
Conversation (2021), <https://theconversation.com/structural-racism-what-it-is-
and-how-it-works-158822>.
Langfitt, Frank (2021), ‘U.K. Government Report Draws Criticism over “Historic
Denial” of Race Issues’, NPR , <https://www.npr.org/2021/04/01/983499592/u-
k-government-report-draws-criticism-over-historic-denial-of-race-issues>.
Mohdin, Aamna and Nazia Parveen (2021), ‘Starmer Promises Race Equality Act, a
Year on from George Floyd’s Murder’, The Guardian ,
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/25/starmer-promises-race-
equality-act-a-year-on-from-george-floyds>.
15
Mohdin, Aamna (2023), ‘Race Equality Leader Hits Out At UK’s Denial Of
Institutional Racism’, The Guardian ,
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/30/race-equality-leader-hits-
out-at-uk-denial-of-institutional-racism>.
Proctor, Katie (2020), ‘Black MPs Tell of Being Confused with Other Politicians’, The
Guardian , <https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/12/black-mps-tell-
of-being-confused-with-other-politicians>.
Rhodes, James and William Shankley (2020), ‘Racisms in contemporary Britain’ in
Ethnicity, Race and Inequality in the UK , (Bristol: Bristol University Press) pp.
203-228.
Shand-Baptiste, Kuba (2021), ‘The “Post-Racial” Narrative in Britain and the US Is
More Myth than Reality’, British GQ , <https://www.gq-
magazine.co.uk/politics/article/post-racial-britain>.
‘UK: Discrimination against people of African descent is structural, institutional and
systemic, say UN experts’ OHCHR (2023), <https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-
releases/2023/01/uk-discrimination-against-people-african-descent-structural-
institutional>.
‘UN Experts Condemn UK Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities Report’,
OHCHR (2021), <https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/04/un-experts-
condemn-uk-commission-race-and-ethnic-disparities-report>.
United Nations Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent (2023), ‘End
of Mission Statement following its country visit to the UK (18-27 January
2023), containing its preliminary findings and recommendations’ UN.
‘UN rights expert hails UK for anti-racism action but raises serious concerns over
Immigration Policy, Prevent programme and Brexit’ OHCHR (2018),
<https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2018/05/un-rights-expert-hails-uk-
16
anti-racism-action-raises-serious-concerns-
over#:~:text=Tendayi%20Achiume%2C%20has%20commended%20the,hate%
20crimes%20and%20immigration%20consequences>.
Warsi, Sayeeda (2023), ‘Listen to Suella Braverman and Realise: This Show of
Diversity in Our Cabinet Is Not Progress’, The Guardian,
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/12/suella-braverman-
diversity-cabinet-british-pakistani-men-rishi-sunak>.
17
Do parents have a moral duty to enhance their children through genetic engineering? Are they morally blameworthy if they choose not to do this, assuming that genetic enhancements are affordable and easily accessible? – HUP-244- Natasha L. Jennings
This essay will explain both the concept of moral duty and genetic enhancement
and explore their relationship with one another regarding a parent’s moral duty when
deciding to enhance their children genetically.
Genetic enhancement refers to the alteration of genes to improve upon selected
traits or characteristics that naturally occur within an organism (Medical Dictionary,
2009). For example, Lagay (2001) claims that altering a person’s gametes to ensure
their children are musically inclined is one such example of genetic enhancement and
additionally claims there is an argument to be made that genetically bolstering an
embryo’s immune system could be considered enhancement.
Moral duties are moral obligations; they are actions that are chosen to fulfil or
dismiss a moral agent’s- that is, a person who can be held accountable for their actions
as they can tell right from wrong (Ethics Unwrapped, n.d.)- responsibility (Winston,
2008). For example, parents are considered to have responsibility for their children
(Thompson, 2022)- and it would be their moral duty to do right by their child; it would
therefore be a violation of a parent’s ‘duty of care’ to allow their child to wander off
into a crowded public area unsupervised at a young age.
Thus, if parents have a moral duty to do good for their children, and genetic
enhancements could improve aspects of potential children, and provided these
18
enhancements were accessible to all parents, we must posit the question: Do parents
have a moral duty to genetically enhance their children?
In order to explore one such argument for genetic enhancement, we can use
childhood vaccines in comparison. Parents have the obligational authority to make
medical decisions for their children (Bester, 2020), including preventative medical
care such as ensuring children receive vaccinations against disease; this is an ethical
principle known as the ‘best interest standard’, wherein during all decisions the chosen
option should be one that best ensures a child’s welfare. Thus, as Bester (2020) claims,
parents arguably have a moral obligation to ensure their children are vaccinated.
Similarly, would this not imply that parents have a moral duty to enhance their
children genetically? If we consider a parent morally blameworthy for not vaccinating
or allowing a child medical treatment against a disease or illness as it goes against the
child’s welfare (Bester, 2020), then we could argue the same for genetic enhancement.
If we could alter a child’s genes to improve their immune system or to create
immunity to disease outright, we could forego the vaccination and natural
immunisation process of getting sick altogether while still garnering their benefits. We
could thus argue that denying such enhancements could be comparable to denying
vaccines or other medications that aid the immune system. Furthermore, if we can
compare denying such enhancements to the refusal of recommended medical
treatments, we could argue that such denial would fall under some definitions of
medical neglect wherein parents refuse children proper health care (NSPCC, n.d.),
making parents morally blameworthy for medical neglect in the denial of genetic
enhancements.
19
Therefore, parents arguably have a moral duty to enhance their children’s immunity
genetically, and should they have the means to do so, they are morally blameworthy
should they refuse to do so. Indeed, Bostrom and Savulescu (2009) would agree that it
is the duty of parents to promote the excellence of their children and ensuring the
health of a child is certainly in the realm of promoting their child’s ‘quality’, so to
speak. Thus, if a parent’s moral duty is to make certain their child excels, and genetic
enhancement promotes this, we could argue they are morally blameworthy should they
choose not to enhance their children genetically.
What we must consider, however, is where we should, as a society, draw the line on
genetic enhancement. Arguing that children have a right to immunity to disease is
hardly controversial, nor is the idea that parents must ensure the health of their
children; thus, arguing for genetic immunisation or for parents to protect their
children’s health are perhaps not difficult positions to defend, but the moral duty of
parents to genetically enhance their children becomes much more controversial when
we extend this argument into areas such as disability. To explore the ethics of this, we
must look at similar arguments regarding the moral standing of ensuring a child is
born without disability.
Some philosophers argue that ensuring disabled children are not born is not as
controversial as it may seem (Brecher, 2011). Brecher (2011) claims that not only is it
morally acceptable to prevent people from being born with genetic conditions that
would cause them great suffering, but it is perhaps even a moral requirement- he does,
however, question what such preventions tell those who already exist with such
genetic conditions. Though Brecher (2011) argues against claims that by arguing for
the prevention of disabled births, we are not then automatically arguing for the
elimination of disabled people- as some critics argue- he claims that the practice of
20
eugenics in eradicating disabled lives is not equal to the abortion of foetuses
discovered to have developed a disability, a current life cannot be compared to a non-
existent life. However, arguably, in arguing that disabled foetuses should be aborted,
are we not, in turn, implying that disabled lives are not worth bringing into the world?
Despite this arguably being the following natural conclusion, Brecher (2011) does
not argue that a disabled life is worth less; he does not consider being born deaf to be a
tragedy- he instead argues that bringing a disabled child into a society where their
ability to flourish would be lessened, is a life worth avoiding. Brecher (2011)
acknowledges how disabled people could interpret such a claim as saying their lives
are not worth living. However, he argues that a life can be worth living while still
working to eradicate the, as he perceives, undesirable conditions of such life. Brecher
(2011) uses slavery as an, as he admits, rather different analogy- he claims that just
because a slave may consider their life worth living despite slavery does not mean we
should not work to abolish slavery and that, like for slavery, just because some
disabled people consider their life worth living does not mean we can apply that to all
disabled.
This argument, however, is flawed. Despite acknowledging the difference between
being a slave and having a functional disability, Brecher’s (2011) use of slavery as an
analogy falls short after examining it outside the argument of ‘life worth living’. While
a person can be born as a slave, a social status forced onto a person is far different to
an inherent biological difference- a person born a slave can be freed from slavery, but
most, if not all, functional disabilities cannot be cured; for example, learning
disabilities (Akin, 2021). Furthermore, the lobbying for the eradication of slavery is
the fight for the reformation of a social structure, but the argument for eradicating
disability is the fight to remove a group of people from society, as implied by
21
McMahan (2005), which could arguably lead into eugenics despite Brecher’s (2011)
arguments.
As touched upon above, what we need to know about such prevention of genetic
conditions, is why they are so much more controversial than arguing for preventing
non-genetic conditions. Brecher (2011) acknowledges that one such difference is that
when talking about genetic conditions, it is the intrinsic link to identity claimed by
disabled people that morally differentiates the two- he, for example, points to the fight
by the deaf community to protect the right to bring deaf children into the world as a
way of asserting deafness as an important identity. Brecher (2011), however, does not
consider this a convincing argument, nor does he consider the social model of
disability entirely convincing as rebukes to preventing disabled births, as he concludes
that if a disability cannot be changed by adapting social norms to accommodate that
disability, then it devalues no one to eliminate said disability.
Bostom and Savulescu (2009) similarly suggest that arguing against enhancement
for the reason it would send the message that those who are unenhanced are
intrinsically worth less, in this essay’s case, those who are allowed to be born disabled,
is distinct from the message that some properties are not as good as other properties
for people to have, again in this discussion’s case, that the property of being disabled
is not as good to have as the property of being abled. Bostom and Savulescu (2009),
similarly to Brecher (2011), argue that this latter message is not immoral to send if it is
true. Thus, genetic enhancement is not an immoral practice to encourage. Thus, if it is
not an immoral practice, is it the moral option? Does this then insinuate that parents
who do not enhance their children are not making the moral choice and are morally
blameworthy should they refuse to enhance their children ‘against’ disability
22
genetically- if this disability is a less desirable property in the society that they are
bringing their child into?
However, regardless of how convincing we may or may not find identity politics or
social definitions of disability, the fact remains that screening in order to prevent
disabilities has substantial social and political implications (McMahan, 2005).
McMahan (2005) refers to multiple arguments against the screening for and abortion
of disabled foetuses, perhaps the most substantial arguments he puts forth that counter
Brecher’s (2011) claims are that the attempts to prevent disabled people from being
born are not only harmful to the disabled community as a whole but to each disabled
individual. McMahan (2005, p.129) claims that in trying to prevent disabled births, not
only are we telling disabled people that we are “‘trying to prevent the existence of
people like you,’”, which itself alone is arguably ableist and damaging to the disabled
community, but we are also reducing the number of disabled people- making each
individual disabled person more isolated, which arguably could lead to further
discrimination of disabled people. We as a society would also suffer loss from a
reduced number of disabled people as it would result in a loss of diversity, and
McMahan (2005) argues that the existence of disabled people provides valuable
lessons about respecting differences in our society and the value of life as a whole.
Additionally, McMahan (2005) argues that trying to reduce the number of disabled
people is comparable to attempts to get rid of any particular group of people, for
example, race, and the shrinking of the disabled population via preventative abortion
would not only damage the visibility of disabled people but would weaken their
political power. These could arguably lead to discrimination issues and make fighting
against discrimination much harder. Choosing to endorse practices that would reduce
23
diversity and weaken a minority group’s political power would arguably be a morally
blameworthy action.
However, McMahan (2005) also posits that if it is immoral to prevent a disabled
foetus from making it to term, we cannot argue that it is morally permissible to make a
foetus disabled by, for example, harming it in utero in the same argument. However,
McMahan (2005) does appear to claim that it is perfectly moral to ensure a disability
at conception, provided the foetus has not yet begun development- the argument
appears to be that there is a difference between ensuring disability from conception
and creating or allowing disability via harm to the foetus, as the latter implies a victim.
Thus, arguably, this claim would apply in the reverse scenario. Suppose a foetus were
to have its disability removed in utero or it was aborted to prevent disability- in that
case, there is a victim in the sense that its potential future identity as a disabled person
has been taken from it just as with an injured abled foetus. In both situations where
there is a potentiality to create a victim, there is arguably a moral duty to avoid this-
therefore, a person would be morally blameworthy for injuring a foetus to create
disability and for aborting a foetus to prevent disability.
Therefore, after considering the arguments for why genetic conditions should or
should not be prevented, we can argue that it is not our moral duty to prevent
disability, and we may, in fact, be morally blameworthy in trying to do so. As such,
parents arguably do not have a moral duty to genetically enhance their children
regarding genetic disabilities and are morally blameworthy should they try to do so.
Overall, we could argue that parents have a moral duty to do the best for their
children and that they are morally blameworthy should they choose not to when it is
within their capabilities. However, the potential negative implications surrounding
24
genetically enhancing children are too influential to ignore. Therefore, arguably,
parents are morally blameworthy if they choose not to enhance their children against
potential diseases, just as they are if they refuse vaccination. However, parents equally
are morally blameworthy if they choose to use genetic engineering to eradicate or
create genetic disabilities in their children. Overall, as we have seen, the status of
whether genetic enhancement of children by parents is a moral duty and their moral
blameworthiness in refusing is not static and entirely dependent on context, intent, and
potential consequences within and beyond the immediate family unit. This conclusion,
of course, however, is the case for genetic enhancements in the context of disabilities
and disease. However, this essay has not tackled genetic enhancements in other areas,
such as intelligence or musical ability, and whether or not genetic enhancements to
‘improve’ children in ways beyond disability is a moral obligation is perhaps another
discussion entirely.
25
References
Akin, T. (2021, September 08). Can learning disabilities be cured? Progress Parade.
https://www.progressparade.com/blog/can-learning-disabilities-be-cured
Bester, J. C. (2020). The ethical obligation to vaccinate children and its policy
implications. On Education. Journal for Research and Debate, 3 , (8).
https://doi.org/10.17899/on_ed.2020.8.2
Bostrom, N., & Savulescu, J. (2009). Human Enhancement . Oxford University Press,
UK.
Brecher, B. (2011). What is Wrong with Eliminating Genetically Based Disability?
Public Health Ethics , 4 , (3), 218-225. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phr029
Ethics Unwrapped. (n.d.) Moral Agent .
https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/moral-agent
Genetic Enhancement. (2009, n.d.). Medical Dictionary . https://medical-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/genetic+enhancement
Lagay, F. (2001). Gene Therapy or Genetic Enhancement: Does It Make a Difference?
AMA Journal of Ethics, 3 , (2), 37-39. https://journalofethics.ama-
assn.org/article/gene-therapy-or-genetic-enhancement-does-it-make-
difference/2001-02
McMahan, J. (2005). The morality of screening for disability. Ethics, Law and Moral
Philosophy of Reproductive Biomedicine , 1 , (1), 129-132.
https://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/files/morality-screening-disability1pdf
NSPCC. (n.d.). Neglect . https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-is-child-abuse/types-of-
abuse/neglect/
26
Thompson, J. (2022, August 14). Do parents really have a moral obligation to their
children? Big Think. https://bigthink.com/thinking/philosophy-parents-duty-
of-care/
Winston, M. (2008, February 08). Moral Responsibilities and Duties. An Ethics of
Global Responsibility.
http://ethicsofglobalresponsibility.blogspot.com/2008/02/moral-
responsibilities-and-
duties.html#:~:text=Both%20duties%20and%20responsibilities%20are%20kind
s%20of%20moral%20obligations%2C%20but,discharge%20a%20moral%20agen
t's%20responsibilities
27
Critically assess the ways in which the experiences of immigrants and refugee communities in Western societies have been shaped by issues of race and racism? – PO-253- Yumna Rangoonwala
Worldwide migration has reached historic proportions in today’s globe, with current
projections estimating that roughly 281 million individuals were living as international
migrants in 2020, accounting for 3.6% of the world’s population (International
Organization for Migration, 2021). In addition, an estimated 26 million refugees exist
worldwide (Amnesty International, 2019). As a result, there has been a massive
increase in ethnic and racial variety inside countries, raising serious concerns about the
shaping and negative influence of race and racism on the experiences of these groups.
It can be argued that race is merely a social construct, which results in racism, where a
“superior” race exercises dominance and control over others (International Labour
Organization, 2001, p. 2). This essay seeks to explore this notion by assessing the
influence of racial stereotypes on immigrants’ and refugees’ access to education and
employment, along with the role of media and immigration policies in perpetuating
racial inequality. Echoing Priyamvada Gopal’s belief that “we cannot talk about
racism without understanding whiteness,” this essay will explore the concept of
‘whiteness’ and argue that it has played a crucial role in perpetuating the racist
experiences that immigrants and refugees face as they navigate the challenges of
belonging and integration in Western societies (Gopal, 2020).
We will begin this essay by considering the influence racial stereotypes can have on
immigrants’ and refugees’ access to education and employment. Markus Appel
discusses how a study revealed that unfavourable stereotypes and prejudice towards
immigrants and refugees might result in cognitive underperformance and worse
educational attainment (Markus Appel, 2015, p. 10). Immigrants and refugees
subjected to negative prejudice may experience “stereotype threat,” a phenomenon in
28
which the fear of confirming a negative stereotype about one’s social group leads to
cognitive anxiety and poor performance on stereotype-related tasks. Hence, the fear of
stereotypes can negatively influence immigrants’ performance, especially in
educational environments where academic accomplishment is a significant measure of
success. According to the analysis of research on stereotype threat, even subtle cues
that activate negative stereotypes, such as asking negatively stereotyped immigrant
students about their ethnic background prior to a task, can reduce performance to the
same extent as blatant cues, such as stating a group’s cognitive inferiority.
Underperformance due to this might perpetuate the negative stereotype, producing a
self-fulfilling prophecy that can be difficult to shake. This underperformance may also
lead to a growing achievement gap between immigrants and their native-born
counterparts.
Similarly, David Pager contends that racial attitudes can negatively influence
immigrants’ and refugees’ access to work opportunities (Devah Pager, 2009, p. 787).
He discusses the results of a study that identifies three types of employment
discrimination: categorical exclusion, in which Black or minority candidates are
immediately rejected in favour of White applicants; shifting standards, in which racial
biases influence applicant evaluations; and race-coded job channelling, in which
minority applicants are directed towards jobs with higher physical demands and less
customer contact, reinforcing racial stereotypes and limiting their opportunities. These
results showcase a significant racial hierarchy in employers’ responses to job
candidates, as White candidates had the most favourable responses, followed by
Latinos, while Black applicants received far less (p. 784). Even when comparing
similarly competent individuals, these discriminatory practices remain, suggesting a
clear preference for White and Latino job seekers over their Black counterparts.
Additionally, the experiment reveals a troubling finding that companies consider
minority status similar to having a criminal record. Minority applicants, especially
immigrants, and refugees, are evaluated on a level with White ex-offenders, making it
29
even more difficult for them to get work. Individuals from marginalized backgrounds
face significant difficulties due to these biased beliefs and prejudices, increasing
inequality in the employment market.
To delve into and understand the process by which race comes to matter in the
access to education and employment for immigrant and refugee communities, we can
look at Teresa Guess’s notion that “race” is a social construct created by historical,
social, cultural, and political values, and there is no scientific evidence to support it
(Guess, 2006, p. 654). She stresses the social construction and flexibility of the idea of
Whiteness, highlighting that it may be constructed, analysed, adjusted, and abandoned
(p. 660). Guess argues that historical ideologies, such as Social Darwinism, among
many others, related concepts of superiority and inferiority to distinct races, thereby
shaping race as a construct. Indeed, these deeply embedded prejudices produce social
biases that remain over time, creating challenges experienced by migrants and
refugees to access the same level of education and employment as their White
counterparts.
The next part of this essay will look at the role of media in perpetuating racial and
ethnic stereotypes. Blair Braxton expresses how the media’s representation of refugees
and asylum seekers perpetuates racism by analysing the use of particular frames which
reinforce negative stereotypes and promote fear and suspicion of these groups. In
particular, she notes that certain media outlets use the ‘criminality visual’ frame to
portray refugees and asylum seekers as criminals, depicting them as wild and untamed
people who endanger public safety (Braxton, 2021, p. 34). Photographs with a
criminality frame will show refugees participating in acts of aggressiveness or
violence; in particular, these photographs will often show young males as aggressors
with looks of hostility on their faces. Pictures like these intend to instil fright over the
entrance of perceived threatening immigrants on European land. These fear-mongering
tactics rely on the concept of ‘us against them,’ where ‘us’ refers to Europe’s safety
and sanctity, while ‘them’ refers to the presence of perceived criminals who endanger
30
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138Made with FlippingBook HTML5