Many people object to the strategies recommended by Tough and Heckman because they believe those strategies, even though they may make opportunities more equal, express contempt for the cultures of the homes that poor children inhabit.
1. Do you agree, and if so why (if not why not)? 2. Assume it is true that some of the strategies expres contempt for the home cultures. Should we pursue them anyway?
Any habits or norms that prevent success and thriving should be discouraged, no matter which culture they may be a part of. Although I do not think Tough and Heckman encourage contempt for the cultures of the homes that poor children inhabit in theory, I do think that implementation of their ideals will result in contempt of the culture in practice. I don't think that the problems that they seek to address should necessarily be viewed as "culture" that needs to be preserved. If anything, they may be considered parts of the culture of poverty, which in my opinion should be separated from the culture of those homes that need to be respected and protected. To encourage this part of their culture and allow it to propagate will merely guarantee that the disparity gap will continue to be a problem. Their methods may also contradict the practices in households of any socio-economic level, familial traditions, or ethnic traditions, which may be referred to as "culture", but are disadvantaging children who live in homes that possess them. If showing contempt for certain "cultures" is necessary in order to level the playing field and implement their egalitarian ideals, then it should be done. Preserving elements of culture that are pernicious to those practicing them is counter-productive to promoting those children’s success. In my opinion, egalitarian principles should attempt to treat people of all cultures as similarly as possible, which requires that homogeneity in certain cultural aspects be established. Homogeneity in certain cultural aspects is also important for diversity because everyone must have common values in order to communicate and relate to each other and can facilitate movement up the social ladder because they must understand a culture in order to be a part of it, and changing someone’s cultural norms is much easier to do when they are young than when they are grown and attempting to transcend a social barrier.
In short: 1. Do the strategies express contempt for the disadvantaged home cultures? Maybe, but not of what should be considered culture worth preserving. 2. If it is, is it worth it? yes.
1. Do you agree, and if so why (if not why not)? 2. Assume it is true that some of the strategies expres contempt for the home cultures. Should we pursue them anyway?
Any habits or norms that prevent success and thriving should be discouraged, no matter which culture they may be a part of. Although I do not think Tough and Heckman encourage contempt for the cultures of the homes that poor children inhabit in theory, I do think that implementation of their ideals will result in contempt of the culture in practice. I don't think that the problems that they seek to address should necessarily be viewed as "culture" that needs to be preserved. If anything, they may be considered parts of the culture of poverty, which in my opinion should be separated from the culture of those homes that need to be respected and protected. To encourage this part of their culture and allow it to propagate will merely guarantee that the disparity gap will continue to be a problem. Their methods may also contradict the practices in households of any socio-economic level, familial traditions, or ethnic traditions, which may be referred to as "culture", but are disadvantaging children who live in homes that possess them. If showing contempt for certain "cultures" is necessary in order to level the playing field and implement their egalitarian ideals, then it should be done. Preserving elements of culture that are pernicious to those practicing them is counter-productive to promoting those children’s success. In my opinion, egalitarian principles should attempt to treat people of all cultures as similarly as possible, which requires that homogeneity in certain cultural aspects be established. Homogeneity in certain cultural aspects is also important for diversity because everyone must have common values in order to communicate and relate to each other and can facilitate movement up the social ladder because they must understand a culture in order to be a part of it, and changing someone’s cultural norms is much easier to do when they are young than when they are grown and attempting to transcend a social barrier.
In short: 1. Do the strategies express contempt for the disadvantaged home cultures? Maybe, but not of what should be considered culture worth preserving. 2. If it is, is it worth it? yes.