Reference no: EM132441732 , Length: 5

For this week's Short Paper, you are tasked with the following:

• Compose a 3 - 5 page essay response to one of the class reads from Week 5 and 6 that summarizes the reading briefly, defines the argument within the reading that the author is making, and responds to that argument using specific evidence from three researched sources (the author and title of which you also name) that supports or opposes some claim you are making, with proper MLA in-text citations

• If you are unsure about your "response" to the reading, or if you are unsure where to start you response, you may use previous material from your discussion post about the reading in this paper if you wish (though normally this would be considered self-plagiarism). Also, you may consider one of the following example prompts to get started:

Question 1. David Roberts, author of "The Radical Moral Implications of Luck in Human Life," asserts that because certain individuals are inherently more fortunate in their biological and sociological inheritances, but we cannot downplay hard work and dedication when it comes to personal success, some of the wealth generated by "market competition" should be used to help create more equal opportunity for the disadvantaged.

• If you agree with this idea in principle: what sort of sociopolitical policies cab you imagine that would aid in creating a more just and equal landscape where it concerns economic advantages, employment, education and, or, criminal justice? What kind of policies exist already that aid in creating a more just and equal landscape, how well do they work, and what could be done to improve them, if anything?

• If you disagree with this idea, why? Are there already enough, or too many, "entitlement" or "empowerment" programs that do enough to help "level the playing field" for disadvantaged individuals? Are these programs simply ineffective, and an inefficient use of federal dollars? What would a better use be for these funds?

Question 2. Ta-Nehisi Coates, author of "The First White President," posits that Donald Trump is not a president who just happened to be white and later became president, but rather the first "white" president, as in, a president overtly representing what amounts to white supremacy or aspects of white supremacy, and whom was elected specifically in response to the first black president in Barack Obama and, or, because a majority of the white demographic trusted inherently his ability and character and ignored unsavory parts of the rhetoric that got him elected.

• If you agree with Coates' about Trump's electorate base and therefore his place in history as "the first white president", in whole or in part, in which aspects of Trump's campaign, presidency, or overall rhetoric do you notice overtones of white supremacy? Does Trump's election prove something about the racial power structure in this country? In what ways?

• If you disagree with Coates, in whole or in part, why? In what ways can you prove that Trump's campaign, presidency and overall rhetoric do not contain overtones of white supremacy? Coates notes that political pundits frequently attribute Trump's 2016 victory to the poor, white, working class and yet Trump dominated nearly every white demographic of voters, so does this not imply that it was, in fact, white people as a collective who nominated Trump, and does a burden of guilt not fall on that white collective for some of the objectively unsavory parts of Trump's campaign, presidency and overall rhetoric? If someone votes for a president who overtly espouses racism and sexism is that individual not implicit in racism and sexism?