# data[].attributes.body
I read a couple of the selected articles and “Back to Reality”, by Ward Connerly was the one article that I most related to on a personal level. The writing felt easy to ready and the use of personal experience on the topic of race felt personable; his story felt relatable to the reader who empathized with race and being an American. Towards the end of the article is what spoke to me the most. When a reporter from the New York Times interviewed Connerly and asked him, ‘What are you?’ and Connerly replied, ‘I am American’, Connerly’s response could transcend over many people who are second, third, fourth and beyond, generations of individuals who struggle with the same issue, “Who are we?” I struggle with this dilemma. I am fourth generation American. My ancestry before them derives from Spain, Portugal, and the areas of Colorado and New Mexico. But who I am, is All-American. I struggle with the issues of not being Latina enough for Latinos and not being American enough for Americans. I, as many people like me, struggle to find our identity and although I am not ashamed of both cultures, I always felt like I was not brown enough or “white” enough to be me. Sometimes, it is nice to be looked at for who I am beyond my skin color or last name. On one occasion where my ethnicity was brought up was from a co-worker who stated that my chances of getting into the Social Work Program at BSU are higher than hers because I am a Latin female and she is a white female. She also went on to say that I would get in because BSU has to meet a diversity quota. Then, I did not understand her passive remarks, but I felt once I had a moment to process her statements, she actually thought I had an advantage over her racial identity. It is still funny how people think this way. Obsessively thinking about her comment, I go on to ask a friend who is in the bachelor’s program for Social Work at BSU, “how many people are in his program?” He states there are about 50 people. I then go on to ask, “Out of those 50 people, how many people are black, Asian or Latino?” He goes on to say about 11 people are non-white. I realized this co-worker’s philosophy was inaccurate, but her justification was true to her. I believe this issue is still relevant because many people who are non-white Latinos struggle with people who believe discrimination against non-white people doesn’t exist because of laws like affirmative action that are placed for our protection. Yes, these laws protect us but sometimes that doesn’t change the mindset of some people on a personal basis, like my co-worker reasoning. In the end all we want is a little bit of colorblindness and kindness from all.

# data[].attributes.body
I found the article "Politicizing the Housewife" interesting, but a bit all over the place. The author touched on many different topics concerning the the evolution of the housewife in America, but the article turned into a book review of Feminine Mystique and criticism of it's author. From comparing the rate that husbands and wives assault each other, PC feminism, interpretations of different feminists beliefs to the modern housewife or individualist feminist I found many things that I agree and disagreed with. The last part about Mimi Gladstein's idea of the individualist feminist really resonated with me. The author describes Gladstein as a "voice of sanity" who views a woman's choice to enter the work force just as valid as staying home to raise a family. I agree that women should be free to choose either and that being a mother teaches many valuable skills that can be applied in the workplace and vice versa. Today, we have become more accepting of women in the workforce and not just baby making machines who cook and clean, however, there is debate about how a woman can successfully juggle both. America still has some work to do concerning maternity/paternity leave, family paid leave and sick/personal leave which all seem necessary for raising a family in today's modern world where both parents work. It should no longer be a debate just about women, but about both men and women and their contributions to the family unit as equals. Throughout history there has always been a disconnect between feminism and what it means for men, but quite literally it's always just been about equality between the sexes. Many states are spearheading laws concerning family leave and that's promising, we just have to work on not making being politically correct such a bad thing.

# data[].attributes.body
Politicizing the Housewife is an article the discusses the feminist view or myths of what it means to be a housewife. Cheryl L. Meyer "Mothers who kill their children" says that the mother who kills her child is every mother, any mother. PC Feminist said that “murdering moms are driven to violence by the men who impregnate them and trap them in the psychologically devastating role of housewife”. Betty Friedman said the “suburban household is a “concentration camp” for women”. I’ve worked and have been a stay at home mom. I think both are difficult but personally for me staying at home after working for so long, was more difficult. I couldn’t deal with the guilt but that’s me personally because I tend to be hard on myself. I certainly didn’t agree with Cheryl L. Meyer when she said that every murdering mom is any mother. The woman that have killed their children are seriously suffering a mental illness that is probably not made any easier by the difficult task of being a housewife and not getting the mental medical help they need, but just being a housewife and mother isn’t the sole source for them killing their children.  I was a fifteen year old mother and I don’t remember being the “tired mess” that I would have committed infanticide, by the way that child is now 31 years old.  I don’t agree with Susan Miller Okin when she said that the state has to intervene.  I agree with Mimi Gladstein because ultimately, I feel that it is the woman’s choice to work or to stay at home, both are valuable and whatever makes the woman feel valuable is what is important.  I think that the way this relates to current government and politics is because there is always the back and forth argument of what is the better choice. I also think that the economy is one of the reasons that some woman choose to work instead of staying home because they need to help support the family.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose the Wall of Separation Between Church and State for my article because it has interested me after seeing religion on the floor of congress before the sessions started and hearing how it shouldn't be like that. I knew it wasn't in the Constitution to separate religion from state, I just didn't know if it was a law enacted by Congress. It confuses me seeing the Ten Commandments removed from a courthouse or even public schools when Congress has a reverend. There is nothing in the Constitution banning religion from public places so how would that be considered un-Constitutional. One of the few things I can agree on is that things are changing and have been since the 90's.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose the article "Back to Equality" by Ward Connerly and he addresses the the issue of race discrimination in America. He pulls from his own experience as an African American growing up when signs such as "No Colored People Allowed" still prevented African Americans from entering restaurants to explain why he felt the need to join the California Civil Rights Initiative to help in present day society to continue to fight race or gender based discriminations. I agree with author's main idea of this article, that all Americans should be looked at with a little color blindness, or in other words we should all be judged by our talents and skill levels versus what we look or sound like. That everyone, no matter the color of your skin or the gender you identify as, should be given the same opportunities. I do believe that it's not fair for colleges or workplaces to fill their "diversity quotas" and then start turning away students or potential job workers because they already have enough of that particular race or gender. I do think that these quotas were in put in place at first for a good reason, to encourage companies and schools to be aware of their populations and to make sure that they were including people from all groups of people. But I think to look at someone simply based on the color of their skin or the gender identity has to change, and that we as people especially in today's society need to reach the point where those things are not as important as content of the person, such as their character and morals. Right now in America racism and hate is on the rise, and it's si important now more than ever to come together as a country and unite on belief and value versus skin color and gender.

# data[].attributes.body
For my article, I chose “The Wall of Separation Between Church and State”. Overall, I feel like I agreed with the article and I couldn’t pick out anything I inherently disagreed with. I do agree that the First Amendment is commonly misinterpreted and prescribed additional meaning. However, I also think that it is important to take Jefferson’s words “… thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” Into consideration when new legislation is enacted. While the original intent of the First Amendment was to limit interference of government in religion, I think that now it is equally important to protect from interference by the church in matters of state.

A current example of the separation of church and state comes in the form the vaccination requirements for schools, where some parents want their children exempt based on religious grounds. The debate boils down to weather or not students should be allowed exemption based on religious preference or if this restriction is acceptable as it is not targeting a specific religion but is instead in place to preserve good order.

# data[].attributes.body
The Wall of separation article by Judd Patton is very interesting as I have never come across this term in my lifetime. Overall I am intrigued with the idea that the state has tried to in a sence push away church from all of publice schools and places of public learning. I agree with the statement that the first amendment is not to protect the government from the church but the church from the government. If this is true then why did they prohibit religous newspapers and clubs in the publice school. That seems to me that that is doing the opposite of protecting religons  but more of trying to get rid of religion totally. Although I am glad they have changed that law to allow religous papers into the school. This is different than banning the ability to right the ten commandments on public school walls. Where writing the ten commandments encourages only one form of religion. This is what our founding fathers were trying to accomplish in the first ammendment, to not favor one specific religion, but to allow many forms of religion to occur.

Currently this has come to light in many forms but a main one is with Pete Buttigieg and his candidacy for president. Although the constitution has attemted to separate the state from religion, voters still are going to vote religiously, possibly taking Buttigieg out of the race because of his gender status and how that reflects to many peoples religious beliefs.

# data[].attributes.body
For my article i chose "The "Wall of Separation" between Church and State by Judd Patton. I found Patton's take on the first amendment very interesting. I can understand his point of view and the reasoning behind it however I do think that the separation of church and state was far more intention by our founding fathers than he believes. While I do not believe that religion is something that should be imposed in a school setting I do think that if a school is designated as a school devoted to a style of teaching based on a certain religion and parents want to send their children there, then that should be their choice.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was fascinating and accurate in many ways. I’m a housewife, I have been home to raise all four of my beautiful daughters and have made the choice to do that from day one. So while I can relate to the challenges it can often bring, I cannot relate to the thought of being trapped.

60 years ago things were different. A bit more stepford wives than your 21st century housewives I would guess. Whenever there are black and white expectations on any gender, there is eventual blow back.

I was very interested in hearing about the Influential book “The Feminine Mystique”. The effect it had on women at the time, the misinterpretations of the book that the author had to de-bunk, and the critiques of the theory and author herself. Modern doctrine is quite frequently the same. Stay at home Moms are STILL criticized and  judged for making the choices they have made. Some for staying home, some for going to work.

I agree 100% that not all mothers should stay at home with their children. I also agree that “Playing God on No Sleep” can be simply tragic. I could also say that exact term when discussing Surgeons, Transportation drivers, Teachers, nurses, Scientists, etc... Doing just about anything on no sleep is dangerous. Which quickly changes the topic of discussion to mental health.

So the idea that the dynamics of a family is decided by anyone but them is preposterous. Unless there is immediate danger at home, freedom of family stays just that. There are many social and cultural influences that might encourage familial decisions be made pre-maturely. I myself was raised in a culture that promoted a Stay at home Mom situation. I have faced my own struggles as a result, but they are my own. Not all women raised in the same type of culture share my regrets or goals. I wish I had finished school before having kids, but here I am. While it is something I wish I had done differently, I do not regret staying home with my kids. Nor do I worry I will drown them in a River because of my decisions. Again, it comes down to mental health, coping skills and a willingness to keep moving forward. Adapt and embrace.

I really appreciated the last paragraph of the article.

“To those women who choose to stay home and raise a family, it can be not only the most fulfilling use of their time, but it can also teach management skills that translate well into the workplace afterwards. In approaching marriage and the family, the feminist slogan should be: “the personal is personal.” “ (McElroy,2001)

The personal IS personal. We should take care of ourselves to be better humans. We should look out for each other, instead of judging each other. As my hero, Brene Brown says “People are hard to hate close up. Move in”.

# data[].attributes.body
I think most families have make a choice once they have kids for one person to stay home or both go to work. Politics back in the 60's and 70's were much different for women and I can see how women wanted to change the mold that everyone had in their minds for how a woman should tend to the kids, house and their husband. It's definitely a sacrifice to not have a full time job to tend to kids. With time, more laws have helped women become successful in the workforce. It can be dangerous for women to be in a abusive relationship were she has no money because she has to stay home with kids. The pressure can be intense for anyone in that position. Being a stay-at-home mom and also, a full-time working mom in my lifetime. Both positions are extremely hard. I'm not surprised that some women with mental illness hurt their children or even kill them. In the article, there is a quote that says , "Playing God on No Sleep"  is so true. Babies and children depend on their mothers 100% for their survival. Someone with a distorted mind and no sleep taking care of children is so scary. A toxic home could result in death or abuse for children. I think in America, we should be focusing more on mental health of children, women, and men. I agree with so much of this article and it really shows you the dark side of what a lot of families go through. I don't agree that women aren't getting hired because they are housewives. I think we have so much more opportunities because of the internet, that if you are qualified for the job, it shouldn't matter if you have stayed home as a mother or not.

# data[].attributes.body
The article that I chose to read was " The war against boys". I found that they article was interesting to read about. How they started it was interesting. That girls out perform boys and they are thriving more then boys. I do agree looking back when I was in high school boys would ask if they could copy homework and notes so they could get credit for it. I would say both genders do struggle. Ive seen many boys and girls struggle with taking tests and not passing them even though they have studied. I do not agree when they said boys don't do good on stranderized testing. Anyone can take a test and fail it because they didn't study for it. Passing or failing has nothing to do with the gender.
This article has a lot to do with our government because of who we have as president. I have been told by many of people that we cant have a girl president because we are to emotional. I strongly disagree with that. Woman can do anything that a men could do. I think woman should have a try in the house. It could help our government a lot but we wont know unless a woman gets a try.

# data[].attributes.body
This article mainly focused on white guilt. The example the author used was Affirmative action. I think this is a good example of a guilt motivated piece of policy. It is also unfair for minorities because it lowers the standards by accounting race into SAT scores. The author states "we can use guilt to discredit any political position whites take on racial matters." I think this is a pretty negative way to look at this issue. If a white person is advocating for equality I don't see why that would be driven by guilt. The article says that white people feel like its their duty to "save" the black community. I truly hope this is not a wide spread thought among the black community. You can't help people simply to help people.

# data[].attributes.body
The article I chose to read was the “The War Against Boys” by Cristina Hoff Sommers and it was very interesting. One thing I agreed with in this article is that girls are outshining the boys in school and life. Which in turn, because women are more motivated than men, they are taking control in every aspect of life causing the decline of males’ influence in society. Women have been working harder, smarter, and better and they have been slowly taking over control of dominance in government, jobs, responsibilities, etc.

One thing in the article that I disagree with is that there is an unfairness to boys, and it is a war against boys. Boys and men are just not putting in the effort themselves and are lacking the focus academically and mentally. While girls are motivated and driven academically, they are creating opportunities for themselves instead of sabotaging themselves like many boys are doing now. For example, as “The CQ Researcher” Sommers notes, “Daughters want to please their teachers by spending extra time on projects, doing extra credit, doing homework as neat as possible. Sons rush through homework assignments and run outside to play, unconcerned about how the teacher will regard the sloppy work.” This being the reason why boys are falling behind because boys are not motivated (qtd. in Sommers 1).

This article relates to not only our government but all governments. Since the dawn of civilization, governments have been run mostly by men, but now women are more tenacious and have bigger aspirations than men and are taking over. Even though, there is still a majority of men in governments women are slowly taking control and will soon have more power.

# data[].attributes.body
In the article Back to Equality the author, Ward Connely talks about the issue of race discrimination in America. I completely agree with the author's viewpoint with this issue, in America today we are no longer looking at the individual as the individual we are looking at them by the color of their skin. He talks about affirmative action and how schools have race quotas to fill and how instead of looking at people as people, we look at them as a skin color. I know in recent years I have noticed a trend where if I have an opinion on racism within America I have often been shut down because I am white. Isn’t that racist itself, not letting someone have an opinion on a social issue based on the color of their skin. By not getting rid of the barrier of skin color, I truly believe that we have managed to keep racist traditions in America longer than we could’ve. For the naysayers out there who said people will always judge people on their skin color as well, I have to say that argument isn’t from my time in the military I have learned that it doesn’t matter what their skin color was it was whether they could do their job and have my back. This article is important in current politics because racism is still an issue today, people will say minority groups are still discriminated against and the system is against them. This isn’t true the law is on everyone's side who follows it if you break the law you break the law. I think instead of people continuously playing the victim, wouldn’t it be better if we actually solved the problem instead of perpetuating it further by classifying people by race.

# data[].attributes.body
I enjoyed this article very much. As a brand new mother and as a new stay at home mom I can understand how hard it can be. Though I truly do not understand killing your kids, I also do not suffer postpartum depression. I think that being stuck in a house, with a million things to do, while tiny humans rely on you to keep them alive, is harder than a full time job. I do not think or agree with it being a mans fault and I do think that woman can play the "poor me" card and blame their struggles within on someone else (a man). Maybe these housewives really do feel it is a mans fault they have to stay home, but I think that there is always a choice, and always a way to do what you need to while having a family. I understand that it is hard not feeling like you are pulling in any money and I do think that men do not fully understand how hard housewives work and how much they do, which can make any woman depressed or feel unappreciated. I think having a good support system and significant other while staying home is very important. Depression is a serious issue and I could understand why people feel like hopeless but, I think harming or thinking of harming your kids is a different type of mental illness and should not be compared to postpartum depression.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Wall of Seperation Between Church and State

# data[].attributes.subject
The Wall of Seperation Between Church and State

# data[].attributes.body
As a whole, I agree with the premise in this article. The general idea is that the constitution said that The government is not supposed to make any law that respects or places one religion over others, and that it has become distorted over time. It says that the separation of church and state isn't even in the constitution and that it came later.
I agree that the original meaning was to not allow the government to promote a church.
It was in the constitution because America had broken off from England, a country where people were forced to belong to the national church. Puritans originally came to America because many of them had been severely punished because they disagreed with some things in the King's church.
Now the concept of Separation of Church and State has come to mean whatever people want it to mean. I don't think that people should be forced to list to, or be a part of any religion, but people now try to get any symbol of religion moved from anything associated with government and I think that's too far.

# data[].attributes.body
This article focused on a few different things. I think the main idea of the article is about feminism and how it fits in with the role of being a housewife (for both those who do and don't want to be one). On one end of the spectrum women are victims of capitalism and men are supposedly to blame for housewives who snap and lash out at their kids, or even kill their children. These are wives who feel forced to live in a role that they don't want, so they blame the husband for keeping them "captive". It also touches on the fact that women don't get paid for housework and doing what needs done, which makes things easier on the husband so he can focus on his career.
On the other end of the spectrum, the article discusses how being a housewife is a choice and even a feminist can fulfill the role happily...if she feels it is a choice and not forced on her.
Though I think every mom has a  moment where she feels like strangling her kids, I disagree that it is  normal to think about  actually wanting to carry out harming them. While housewives do have so much on their shoulders, the man cannot be blamed for a wife hurting her kids. He might be the cause of her stress, but ultimately, she chooses her actions. I think in much of these abuse cases, the wife probably has a chemical imbalance...and that is not something she can blame her spouse for...just like a man cannot blame his stressful job for the reason he smacks his wife around.
I agree that being a housewife is a commodity and teaches valuable lessons/ skills that can be applied in the workforce. I also agree that capitalism has made it hard on women with the division of gender roles. Women don't get paid to stay home and they don't make as much as men (statistically), when they work outside the home.
I think gender inequality is still an issue today. It's hard for a man to support a family on his own anymore...yet, if his wife works as well, she likely won't get paid as much and they have to find alternative childcare. I think a woman working outside the home should be a choice. I also think there needs to be more wage equality and more government funded mental health resources available to wives who are overwhelmed and feel like they are trapped, and for men who feel they are carrying the weight of the world on their shoulders trying to support their family.

# data[].attributes.body
The article that I decided to analyze for my project was "The War Against Boys". This article was definitely an interesting one to read. To start off, the first thing that was said was that girls out perform boys in academics. I definitely did agree with this statement. From personal experience, I have seen girls work a lot harder for that A than I have seen a boy. Girls tend to spend more time on homework and performing well on tests. Although both genders do struggle with different things, one thing that made me disagree in this article was that boys don't do well on standardized testing. I feel that this statement made in the article is false. Anyone whether it be male or female can come in to take a test and fail due to them not being prepared. That has nothing to do with gender but it has more to do with "how hard am I going to study to pass this test."
This article relates to our current government because of who we have as presidents. We have never had a female president and that is one thing that I believe should change. Whenever we see a female presidential candidate speaking on their views or at political debates we tend to brush them off and pick out flaws that would make them a terrible president for our country.

# data[].attributes.body
I have heard this saying all throughout my life, in books, and frequenting the news. However, I was never actually sure where the phrase came from until I read this article. I knew one thing that I also heard a lot, that the actual phrase “separation of church and state” was not in the Constitution. After reading the article I thought it made a lot of sense how this phrase has come about and how it was been warped over time. The one thing I can mainly agree with in this story is that the Constitution set up the first amendment in regards to freedom of religion in order to protect religion from the state, and not the other way out. I  also agreed with the author about how this conclusion was made. The founding fathers were all religious people to some extent. They believed that law and religion were tied very closely together. I do not think there should be a single religion ruling a nation, but I do not think it should be a topic that is shoed away from the state at all costs.

I didn’t really disagree with anything in this article. As for relating this topic to a current even tit was very hard to think of or find just one. There are cases going on daily where people claim their right to practice religion is being challenged. It all goes back to what was said in the article. The tides are changing and the state is being protected from religion instead of the other way round.

# data[].attributes.body
From the 1st sentence this article is very interesting. Straight to the topic girls are thriving in school. Boys are second. For many years we have seen boys benefiting from a school system that favors them and its bias against women. The study they did from department of education shows today's girls are outshine boys in every aspect. Better grades, higher education, and goals. Overall more motivation and results. Only in sports do boys excel. After further reading i wanted to see their claim on why this is happening and i believe it all comes to down to certain characteristics. I believe this relates to our current government in good way because there could not be a better time in the U.S where women are excelling so fast. In the last 5 years women empowerment has grown so much that we had a gender shift in sports leaders like Serena Williams and a presidential candidate in Hillary Clinton just to name a few.

# data[].attributes.body
The article I chose for this project is the war against boys, the one thing that I do agree with in this article is that girls are out performing boys in many aspects, including things like academics, sports, and attending a post secondary education.
Something that I disagree with in this article is the insinuation that because girls are out performing girls this would mean that the inequalities don't exist. I think that the biggest thing that I took from this article is that although girls as a whole have better abilities boys actually have better opportunities, thus making it a war against girls and not a war on boys.
This relates to United States government because through out all of history we do not have a single female president, and voting rights are fairly new to women in the spectrum of history.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Wall of Seperation Between Church and State

# data[].attributes.subject
The Wall of Seperation Between Church and State

# data[].attributes.body
In the article written by Judd Patton, "The Wall of Seperation Between Church and State", he describes the evolution of the 1st Ammendment to the Constitution, and it's effects over time. While it was interesting to read the sperate notes that many of our founding fathers had written about the ammendment, it is easy to see that not everyone had the same ideas about what it meant then, and what it means now to our new leaders. There were a few founders that I would side with, and some I would not, as it is the same in these modern times. Many founders saw it as religion being protected from government, others saw it as government being protected from religion.
I am not religious at all, I have a hard time finding the importance of "being under oath", even as a kid I did not understand why I would pledge alleigence "under god", these things do not mean to me what it would mean to a "god fearing" person. Though I do understand the difference between wrong and right, I don't need the influence of church to determine that. I believe this is the case in our modern age as well, after watching the senate trial on the impeachment and removal of Donald Trump, all of the senators would pray to God before the trial, every day. And as the Ten Commandments are engraved in the halls of the Supreme Court, is this just a means of putting fear in ones eyes, and having them feel like there may be actual consequences for lying?
In this article they give a couple summaries of a couple court cases that the 1st Amendment has brought forth. One being that in 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that The Ten Commandments could not be hung on the walls of public schools, I agree with this. Though I agree, they should go a step further and rid any religion from public schools, such as the pledge of allegience under god. The reason I say this is that I would be repremanded for not reciting this or holding my hand on my heart during that time, which is wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
The article I chose to discuss is “The war against boys” by Christina Hoff Sommers. There were things I disagreed with and things I agreed with. I do think that often people overlook the struggles of boys and men in favor of highlighting women’s struggles. I by no means think that women don’t face many difficulties, I just mean that sometimes a boy in distress isn’t as noticed. I enjoyed how the author consistently provided facts and statistics for every claim. They came across as unbiased, which can be rare to find in such articles.

What eternally frustrates me is how we can’t seem to realize that both genders have struggles. Both are stereotyped and suffer because of it. Instead of understanding this, it seems that there has to be a constant battle for ‘which gender suffers more.’ I also felt that the author didn’t quite seem to understand that adolescence can, in fact, be a very difficult time for girls (and boys as well). There were times when they dismissed claims of this, which admittedly were rather overdramatic in how they where stated.

It relates to current issues because educational studies have shown that boys and members of minorities are more likely to receive harsher punishment, including suspension. There are currently disputes at a policy level about how to keep schools safe and running smoothly, while also protecting minorities, boys, and students with disabilities from unfair treatment.

# data[].attributes.body
Overall I agree with the article but the one thing that stood out to me was the section of the article named "A Little Colorblindness". This is how I believe our world should function. This section talks about the author of the articles experience as a 15 year old with a job. The author states that he is African American and his bus driver to get to work was a white male, the bus driver would fix his schedule each day to make sure the author was on the bus and to get to work on time. The author states that "His act of kindness was color-blind".
One thing in the article I disagree with, is something that author also disagrees with. It is under a section named "The New Discrimination", the author explains that when he was at University of California there was a Latina who he met. He explains that she was not allowed to take certain classes and she had also been kicked out of classes because the fact that she was a Latina. This is not right, this is kind of like the "plus factor" topic in our discussion board 3. Our race should not be used against us at any time at any point of our lives.
There is still discrimination to this day. In every aspect of a persons life, they are looked at and viewed based on their color or ethnic background. From simple bank loans to purchase a car to running for a high ranking position in government.