Is social responsibility the same as social justice? Can one act in a socially responsible fashion without working towards social justice (consciously or otherwise)? And if these two are not interchangeable or inextricably linked, how does one effect the other?
It would certainly seem that the latter cannot exist without the former, and that the former can be highly correlated with the latter.
To give this philosophical query an inflammatory edge, can we as Americans achieve social justice without explicitly and concretely embracing the idea of and committing to racial justice?
For many, this may be a new term. And, no doubt, this term may be perceived by a significant subset of readers of this blog as "politically correct" jargon embraced by bleeding-heart liberals. And if this is the case, I will accept this knee-jerk reaction as the cost of writing what I hope is socially responsible commentary.
And for the open-minded remainder of readers out there still interested in this intellectual (and highly practical) inquiry, I recommend following the work of the Applied Research Center (ARC), an innovative think tank convening its annual Facing Race conference in New York this week. ARC combines research, advocacy and journalism towards advancing racial justice.
Tomorrow morning (3/24/07), I will be co-moderating a workshop on how new media can be leveraged by individuals and groups dedicated to this cause.
I encourage you to view the web-based video to see how ARC is fulfilling their organizational mission in a very socially responsible manner in its pursuit of justice for all regardless of race, ethnicity or national origin.
Related Stories: | Topics:Ethonomics, Applied Research Center, Social Issues, United States, New York |
Email
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Buzz Up!
LinkedIn
Recent Comments | 2 Total
May 17, 2007 at 10:30am by JE Burke
You can dress up a pig, but it's still a pig.
I long for the day Martin Luther King dreamed of where people would be judged based on their character and not the color of their skin, including white skin.
Programs like this only continue to divide as someone is always going to be left out, and nobody wants that, including people who are white. Is it fair that my child can't get an internship because she's white? Isn't that against Martin Luther King's teachings?
To automatically assume those of us who don't agree with political correctness are close-minded is insulting at best. Putting people in buckets based on skin color, now that's what I call close-minded.
May 17, 2007 at 11:00am by Dennis A VanLiere
Common words, uncommon meaning: One of the problems with commentary (published, oral, or otherwise) over the past several decades is that we use terms without definition, assuming everyone understands what is meant by them...and I am not sure that is really true. Justice is such a word.
30 years ago, in the time of Dr. Martin Luther King, I am not sure his use of the word 'justice' has the same meaning that is used today. There has been a subtle migration of the term. He had a Christian context for his speech and terminology, informed by his reading of the Bible and his background as a preacher. Justice for him, and most who come from such a background is a term rich in a world focused on what God says in the Bible and is focused on a world view and context centered on God, His character and being like Him (truth, love (for Him and love for His creation - because it reflects Him). Very objective.
Today, 'justice' is subjective, focused on mankind, and often packed with the philosophy of those who use it. It can have a context of not only equality of opportunity, but equality of things...and if one person has more than another, it can smack of injustice, just to use one example. Of course, not everyone may accept that meaning, but if the ones writing and speaking have that worldview and context, it can move people toward that same worldview and definition, even if that is not the 'correct' view (e.g., as the writer infers, without denying that it is true, 'politically correct.')
Thus, the public debate is not on the definition of the word, or the idea of changing the definition...there is no debate. It would be good to have such a debate.