Research Assistance

Corporations and Minority Groups
Term Paper ID:34867

Essay Subject:
A discussion that summarizes the ways in which major US corporations target minority groups ...... More...

5 Pages / 1125 Words
5 sources, 20 Citations, MLA Format
$20.00

More Papers on This Topic

Paper Abstract:
A discussion that summarizes the ways in which major U.S. corporations target minority groups and the poor, polluting areas that are impoverished and vulnerable. Legal measures to curb environmental injustice are explored and assessed.

Paper Introduction:
Advocates for environmental justice endeavor to stem a tide ofenvironmental inequities that appear to disproportionately burden minoritypopulations by exposing them to harmful pollution According toconventional wisdom the culprits in these cases of environmental racismare invariably major U S corporations the victims primarily racialminorities and the poor Since the s warriors for environmentaljustice have sought to codify laws and statutes prohibiting largecorporations from exploiting the already meager social resources ofminorities and the neighborhoods they inhabit Such measures have includedinvoking the provisions of the

Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.

Quoted in a Knight Ridder/Tribune piece onthe topic, the assistant vice president of the New Jersey Chamber ofCommerce indicated that "if you want the private sector to re-invest incities, you have to make it easier, but if you have an issue likeenvironmental justice, that's another hurdle" (Van Sant). 38 (2 1): 611-618."Community Takes Active Role in Redefining Former NPL Site." Hazardous Waste Superfund Week (HWSW). "Environmental Justice Report Hurts Minorities, Conservatives Warn (Commission on Civil Rights". "Storm clouds over the environmental horizon." Society. In 1976, the U.S. In 2 2, New Jersey became the "first state to propose environmental-equity rules for businesses looking to locate in minority or low-incomecommunities" (Van Sant). On the surface, this would seem easy to do. Constitution to suit environmentalconcerns, and a 1994 Executive Order (12898) guaranteeing that FederalAgencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency make environmentaljustice part of their permanent mission (Huebner 58). In thefuture, policy-makers would do well to observe that where industrialcorporations have no choice but to manufacture cleanly and safely, thesetroubling issues surrounding environmental justice will no doubt fade away. "Corporation Megabucks," it is argued, will choose to "disposeof its waste product at the minimum cost to itself, despite the potentialeffects to others, thereby shifting its production costs to the generalpublic, that is, to the commons" (Brook 613). Bill Clinton's 1994 executiveorder (12898) mandating that federal agencies incorporate environmentaljustice principles into their work has, in this way, been seen as ahindrance to poor and minority communities in this regard. Some recourse, however, has come in the form of a 1997 finding by theU.S. February 8, 2 2. seeks protection for poor, minorities often exposed to pollution." Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service. corporations target minority groups and the poor? Indeed, as proponents of environmental justice have rallied forsupport in the halls of legislature, it has been difficult to prove thatcorporations have a discriminatory intent when making their selections forpotentially harmful facilities (Huebner 6 ). Aside from lower property values and general cost of living benefits,minority and poor communities gravitate toward industrial sites for jobsthat many of these corporations provide. Because those portions ofthe "commons" most cost-effective for corporations are those in the poorestcommunities, and because the poorest communities in America are populatedwith high concentrations of ethnic minorities, the "burden of industrialwaste" will ultimately fall "more heavily on black and brown than on white"(Szasz, as quoted in Brook 615). Manyproponents of environmental justice would argue in the affirmative.Consider the following scenario offered by The Social Science Journal,which presents a fictional- but not atypical- American corporation,"MegaBucks", which produces commodities that, through the manufacturingprocess, emit contaminants into the air and discharge toxic waste into thewaterways. 23 (2 1): N/A.Huebner, Stephen B. Work CitedBluey, Robert, B. So it seems that environmental problems are inseparable from pooreconomic conditions, and further, that the poorest economic conditionsplague primarily racial minorities. corporations, the victims primarily racialminorities and the poor. However, another factorcompromising the case for environmental justice involves the patterns ofmovement exhibited by some minorities in response to the plans of majorcorporations. However, as might be expected, industry leadersand environmental groups have puzzled over these rules, attempting toassess the costs (jobs do not materialize) against the benefits (a cleanerenvironment is safeguarded). October 2 , 2 3. It is more plausible to assume, as even the Social ScienceJournal does, that corporations are motivated by cost, not race. Since the 198 s, warriors for environmentaljustice have sought to codify laws and statutes prohibiting largecorporations from exploiting the already meager social resources ofminorities and the neighborhoods they inhabit. This has hampered effortsmade by environmental activists to use the U.S. In this, it must be made clear thatthe activities of industrial corporations, whether racially motivated ornot, nonetheless have had a disproportionately negative effect onminorities. That the populationsof these cost-efficient regions are racial minorities is an unfortunateconsequence of corporate bargain-hunting. Conservativesargue that where environmental activists fight to keep factories out ofimpoverished communities, they actually hurt those that they claim to beprotecting by taking potentially lucrative jobs away from those who needthem the most (Bluey, HWSW). Constitution to buoy theircause. If this istrue, is it fair to say that major corporations are racist, and actuallytarget racial minorities? Racism,then, may be regarded as a consequence of environmental injustice, not acause of it. 36 (1999): 57-58.Van Sant, Will. As reported in Society: "Recent evidence indicates thatminority and poor populations tend to locate near industrial facilitiesafter the facilities are sited, possibly due to lower property values"(Huebner 63, emphasis added). http://www.freerepublic.com/f-news/11November2 3Brook, Daniel. "N.J. "The ongoing tragedy of the commons." The Social Science Journal. Circuit Court of Appeals, which allows individuals a private right ofaction to raise Title VI (of the 1964 Civil Rights Act) claims based on"disparate impact", or discriminatory effect, against perpetrators ofenvironmental injustice (Huebner 6 ). It is not clear that this is the case.Industrial corporations looking to build factories and plants are attractedto specific regions because they are cost-efficient. corporations are driven bycost, they nonetheless impact poor and racial communities unfairly anddisproportionately by exposing them to pollution. As such, it would appear thatthose fighting for environmental justice need not be so concerned withproving discriminatory intent; instead, showing that a disparate impact hasbeen sustained by a racial or poor community will be enough (perhaps) towin claims against corporate America. FreeRepublic.com. What is clear is that though U.S. This would appear to be tantamount toenvironmental racism. Title VI of the Civil Rights Actinsists that no one be subjected to discrimination "under any program oractivity receiving Federal financial assistance" on the grounds of "race,color, or national origin" (Huebner 6 ). According toconventional wisdom, the culprits in these cases of environmental racismare invariably major U.S. As a result, manymeasures have been taken to combat this trend, with mixed results. Do major U.S. Thus, by the transitive property,environmental problems are the problems of racial minorities. Advocates for "environmental justice" endeavor to stem a tide ofenvironmental inequities that appear to disproportionately burden minoritypopulations by exposing them to harmful pollution. Such measures have includedinvoking the provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, tailoring equalprotection rights explicit in the U.S. Minority and poor communities find the lowercost of living in industrial communities attractive, and move to them inorder to capitalize on the economic benefits of living there. Supreme Court officially required that litigantsmust prove, when citing the equal protection clause of the Constitution,that decisions to build industrial facilities were racially motivated(Huebner 61). However, the suggestion thatindustrial corporations intend to pollute the neighborhoods of, forexample, African-Americans simply because they are African-American seemsunlikely. Ultimately, it is a delicate balance that must be struck; concernsover environmental justice must be weighed against potential economicbenefits in any community that counts an industrial corporation as a"member". Manycommunities can thus become disproportionately minority after industrialfacilities arrive, thus rendering disparate impact claims groundless.

If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:

Browse Essays by Subject

Browse more subjects...

All Subjects

<< Back TO Main Subjects...