While K-12 education is free in the USA, paying for higher education is a struggle for most Americans. For those whose household income is not high enough to pay for college immediately, there are several options. They can either start saving money from the child’s early years, take student loans, or work at several jobs while studying. Still, there are people who cannot afford higher education through any of these ways. As Johnson claims, “the rapidly rising rates of college and university tuition is putting higher education, even in our “public” tax-supported institutions, beyond the reach of many in the nation’s middle class” (11). This situation is clamant for the USA, as the country strives to achieve equality. If education is accessible only for those who were lucky to be born in wealthy families, social disparities will persist. The reform of the higher education system might be a step forward for the country as all the society is going to benefit from this.
It is evident that advancement in the education system leads to rise in the quality of life of society. The question is how making education free of charge at all levels is going to improve its quality. First of all, it will boost competition, which is a driving force for development. American higher education is somewhat competitive today, but it remains unfair as long as finances are one of the criteria. Financial disparity excludes a large number of people from the competition for higher education. According to Bowen, “denying a large part of the population the opportunity for personal development through higher education would be indefensible” (20). Society must see the threat of refusing the opportunity as there is always the chance that the person who has the potential to invent the cure from cancer, for example, may not be able to afford education.
Furthermore, governments, by financing education, acquire the opportunity to manage it and to set demand on the universities. This reform might lead to the fair distribution of students across the spheres and geographical regions according to the need of each of them. The private education sector promotes going for popular programs disregarding national demand, while other areas remain significantly understaffed. Thus, governmental management of higher education can enhance the situation in the job market.
The opponents of free education express their concern about the problem of its implementation. Education, especially if it strives to provide high-quality training, requires significant resource investments. Goksu and Goksu define the financing of higher education as one that “consists of a set of methods to obtain resources needed by higher education institutions in order to maintain their functions” (1154). First of all, a large number of teaching staff should be employed and sufficiently paid. In addition to this, universities should be technically equipped, including sports and residence facilities, information technologies, and scientific laboratories.
Therefore the concept of being “free” for citizens implies that it is financed either by the government or by local communities, such as states. Thus it means that it can be accessible only technically; in fact, education can be financed from taxes that people pay. This is the point where controversy arises, as most people who are not going to get a higher education degree to oppose paying additional taxes for it. Even people who are advocating for the free single-payer healthcare system financed by general tax do not apply the same idea is to education. Unlike medicine, education is a choice, and those who do not choose it do not desire to take part in its sponsorship.
Implementation of a governmentally financed system of higher education, despite being a significant improvement, will require substantial investment, and those who state that it will considerably cost to the tax-payers are not mistaken. Yet, it does not mean that it should not be done even with sacrifices. The primary justification for free higher education is that, despite significant initial investments, the system is going to become self-sustainable. The university graduates, paying the tax from their salaries during their careers, will pay back the expense and take part in financing the currently studying.
Higher education is one of the critical determinants that increase personal income. As Karpio et al. Claim, “education has the greatest positive influence on the differences between the income distributions while being the most discriminatory attribute” (969). That is why the education tax percentage applied to salary should vary depending on the salary level. Thus, those with higher incomes, including the majority of college graduates, will pay most of the education tax. Such a system will protect people without education from the extra expense, but a small amount of tax will remain on them. Even if they do not use free education, they will still benefit from the education reform.
As it is stated above, the reform in education financing will enhance its quality. Besides, society should view education improvement as the primary objective, which will influence not only those who are getting it but every single citizen. According to Goksu and Goksu, advancement in education contributes to improvements in the socio-cultural structure and economy, which increase the level of service that citizens can enjoy (1152). Better scientific development, enhanced quality of care, and improved leadership in politics will lead to advances in the quality of life of society. Moreover, education reform can balance the current job market situation and provide employment justified by national and state demand.
Educated people are the most valuable human resource of the nation, and they comprise its significant intellectual potential. Qualitative higher education should not be viewed as an instrument for improving life only for those who get it, but as a tremendous economic and political good for the whole society. Educational reform may lead to positive changes, and it is worth paying for living in a better world. Nevertheless, this progress may come at a considerable cost for tax-payers. The politicians who take the initiative of educational reform need to take a number of unpopular decisions, such as tax increase, and they may also face opposition from universities. Nevertheless, free education has the power to transform society from a long-term perspective, improve the quality of life, and combat social disparities.
Paying the tuition fee is unaffordable for many representatives of the middle class, as well as for most of the people below the poverty line. The implementation of free higher education can diminish economic disparities and become the solution to the problem, but it causes severe opposition. Tax-payers who do not pursue higher education degrees are not willing to pay additional taxes. That is why the reform needs several unpopular decisions, which will have a positive effect in the future. The self-sustainability of the system is a matter of time as the graduates will cover the expenses from their salaries. For other citizens, education reform will bring the improvement of their quality of life and promote a better society.
Works Cited
Bowen, Howard. Investment in Learning: The Individual and Social Value of American Higher Education. Routledge, 2018.
Goksu, Alper, and Gonca Gungor Goksu. “A Comparative Analysis of Higher Education Financing in Different Countries.” Procedia Economics and Finance, vol. 26, 2015, pp. 1152–1158., Web.
Johnson, Daniel M. “Tuition Crisis: The Costs and Financing of Public Higher Education.” The Uncertain Future of American Public Higher Education, 2018, pp. 11–25., Web.
Carpio, K., et al. “The Quantile Decomposition of Personal Income Distributions in the USA.” Acta Physica Polonica A, vol. 129, no. 5, 2016, pp. 965-970., Web.
Cleopatra’s Role In The Evolution Of Humanity
A role of a person in the evolution of humanity cannot be overestimated. There are numerous names of outstanding people that are associated with various periods of history as they became the manifestation of that era and preconditioned the way society evolved. In ancient times, the influence and contribution of individuals were even more significant because of the prevalence of monarchial forms of government and the concentration of absolute power in the hands of one man. Traditionally, famous male rulers are studied by scientists to understand what factors impacted their decisions and actions, and the whole world. However, there was an example of a female ruler, who put herself on a record. Cleopatra, the last ruler of the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt, managed to effectively rule her country foster its development by combining outstanding diplomatic skills, charisma, and knowledge that transformed her into one of the most influential and well-known women of all times.
Context
The importance of Cleopatra’s rule and its unusual character can be explained by the context. Ancient Egypt was traditionally a powerful patriarchal state headed by male pharaohs who concentrated absolute power in their hands and were considered the embodiment of a god. It was one of the fundamental underpinnings of the system of government and guaranteed accession and stability. All outstanding women associated with Egypt were either pharaohs’ wives or co-rulers that were given power because of their marriage (Bowen, 2016). In such a way, Cleopatra’s ascension to the throne became an event that contradicted this tradition and should be considered an achievement of this individual who managed to attain success under the complicated circumstances. In the age of male dominance and women’s subordinate position, she became a ruler of a big state whose decisions impacted its further evolution and development. Cleopatra is often taken as one of the first queen regnant in recorded history (Bowen, 2016). These factors precondition the high level of interest to her person and explain her significance to Western Culture.
Early Years
The ground for future achievements and the unusual life of Cleopatra was formed in her childhood. She was born in 69 BC in the family of Ptolemy XII, representative of the Ptolemaic pharaoh’s dynasty, which started to rule after the Macedonian invasion and conquer of the country. Her mother is unknown as there are no records or any information about her. In such a way, she was not ethnically Egyptian; she traced her origins to Ptolemy Soter, general of Alexander the Great, who was Macedonian (Cole & Symes, 2017). Cleopatra acquired outstanding education as was taught by Philostratos and spend much time in the Library of Alexandria (Cole & Symes, 2017). She was able to speak many languages and had information about multiple cultures peculiar to Egypt.
However, one of the most significant events that impacted her formation as an individual was Roman military moods and Romans’ desire to spread their impact. The Empire interfered with the policy of Egypt and affected its development directly. Ptolemy XII had to leave Egypt because of the critical damage to his popularity caused by the inability to resist Romans (Cole & Symes, 2017). Cleopatra had to accompany him in this exile and visited Athens and Rome. However, soon, he was restored with the help of the Roman Empire, and Ptolemy XII designated Cleopatra and Ptolemy XIII as his heirs. It provided the woman with a legal opportunity to become the ruler of a state.
Ascension to the Throne
In 51 BC, Ptolemy XII died, and Cleopatra and her brother became the rulers of the state. The given information was hidden from the Roman Empire for a long time to ensure that new pharaohs would be able to protect the throne and gain enough power (Cole & Symes, 2017). There is an assumption that Cleopatra and Ptolemy XIII contracted marriage to eliminate all possible uncertainties associated with their rights for rule and made their position stronger (Bowen, 2016). Regardless of the popularity of this theory, the given fact is often doubted as no direct records evidence this idea or refute it. Sibling marriage was not new to Egypt, and incestuous relations were not condemned. On the contrary, many previous pharaohs were born in such families, which were considered legal. Nevertheless, soon, Cleopatra rejected her brother as a co-ruler, and on 29 August 51 BC, she was proclaimed as the only ruler of Egypt.
Rule
Despite Cleopatra’s attempts to seize power, Ptolemy XIII did not step aside and managed to gather support. Being vulnerable, she had to escape to Syria and hire an army that would help Cleopatra to protect her claims. At the same time, the Civil war in Rome became an important event in the political life of Egypt as it impacted its domestic policy. Hoping to please Caesar, Ptolemy XIII assassinated Pompey, who retreated to the region after his defeat in the batter of Pharsalus; however, it did not help as Caesar punished killers of his opponent and provided his support to Cleopatra (Watterson, 2017). Being charmed by her diplomatic skills and charisma, he insisted on the observation of Ptolemy’s XII decree proclaiming the brother and sister as his heirs. It resulted in the growth of Ptolemy’s XIII dissatisfaction and rebellion that became extremely dangerous for Caesar, who had a limited number of forces in the region.
Nevertheless, with the help of fresh reinforcements, the consul of Rome defeated troops attacking him. It became a defining moment in Cleopatra’s life as Ptolemy XIII died trying to escape. For this reason, Caesar appointed 12-year-old Ptolemy XIV as her joint ruler through a sibling marriage to avoid possible problems associated with a sole-ruling female pharaoh (Watterson, 2017). In fact, for Cleopatra, it meant that she acquired the power she needed. She continued to live with Caesar as his woman, which means that her co-ruler did not limit her ambitions. Moreover, in accordance with the existing theories, Ptolemy XIV was poisoned by Cleopatra as he prevented her and Caesar’s son from becoming a ruler (Watterson, 2017).
In such a way, her position critically depended on the Roman Dictator, who concentrated power in his hands and supported Cleopatra as the queen of Egypt. His assassination became a serious political hit for her as her ambitions and plans had to be reconsidered. She left Rome, where she lived at Caesar’s villa, and returned to Egypt trying to empower its positions and solve multiple problems that accumulated here (Watterson, 2017). Hunger caused by the absence of the overflowings of the Nile and financial issues affected the country and had to be managed (Cole & Symes, 2017). The role of Cleopatra as a ruler and her power are often doubted; however, she managed to reconstruct the financial system and provide people with the food they needed. She also devoted much attention to culture and architecture by trying to combine new elements or Roman and Greek styles.
At the same time, at the international level, her positions remained unstable. The war between the Second Triumvirate and Caesar’s assassins became a serious event that reconsidered the balance of power. Representatives of both camps asked for her support and military aid, but Cleopatra decided to send troops to Dolabella, a Caesarian loyalist (Cole & Symes, 2017). However, the army was trooped by Cassius, who was also supported by the governor of Cyprus (Cole & Symes, 2017). Responding to it, Cleopatra, with her fleet, moved to Greece to assist members of the Triumvirate in their campaign. Trying to show her loyalty, she had a personal meeting with Mark Antony, which became the last turning point in her life. They engaged in romantic relations, which became useful for the queen of Egypt (Watterson, 2017). Looking for a powerful partner to continue the dynasty and increase the influence of Egypt, Cleopatra correctly realized that Antony was one of the most powerful men in the state and benefited from these relations. Soon she was provided with territories in the Levant and other regions that were traditionally considered Roman provinces.
The empowerment of her personality, Antony’s transformation in an eastern ruler, and his attempts to join new lands to Egypt resulted in a new war with Octavian, who was afraid of the former ally. Cleopatra supported her lover, and they both tried to oppose Roman troops in the Battle of Actium (Watterson, 2017). It turned out a disaster for them and destroyed her hopes for the restoration of the power of Egypt (Tsoucalas & Sgantzos, 2019). She had to commit suicide because of Antony’s death and the absence of any hope for the improvement of the situation (Tsoucalas & Sgantzos, 2019). However, even her death was appreciated by peers who emphasized her courage and decision to avoid humiliation with honor.
Contribution
Analyzing Cleopatra’s personality, it should be said that she contributed to the development of the western world and culture. First, she managed to become the first female sole-ruler in an extremely patriarchal society. It demonstrated the power of women and their ability to impact the global discourse. Being a queen of Egypt, she interfered with the Roman policy and was taken into account by all influential figures of that time. It was achieved due to her diplomatic skills and the ability to find allies that would help the state to evolve and preserve its importance at the international level.
Additionally, Cleopatra inspired multiple artists and philosophers who later formed the image of a beautiful, clever, and influential woman who could affect the future and change the course of history. Her relations with Caesar and Antony demonstrated that Cleopatra correctly realized the vulnerability of her position as a sole female ruler and tried to gather the support of outstanding leaders. Due to these relations, Egypt remained one of the most important forces in the East. At the same time, she stimulated the cultural exchange between the Western and Eastern worlds, which shaped people’s mentalities and their traditions.
Conclusion
Altogether, Cleopatra was an outstanding woman who managed to become a ruler in an extremely complex situation. She had to face multiple challenges and protect her state in terms of a chain of civil wars. Using her outstanding diplomatic skills and the ability to find powerful allies, she managed to make her positions stronger and became a real force in the political discourse of that time. As the last ruler of the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt, Cleopatra managed to effectively rule her country foster its development by combining outstanding diplomatic skills, charisma, and knowledge that transformed her into one of the most influential and well-known women of all times.
References
Bowen, S. A. (2016). Finding strategic communication & diverse leadership in the ancient world: The case of Queen Cleopatra VII, the last pharaoh of Egypt. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 3(1).
Cole, J., & Symes, C. (2017). Western civilizations, volume one (19th ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Tsoucalas, G., & Sgantzos, M. (2019). The death of Cleopatra. In P. Wexler (Ed.), Toxicology in antiquity (pp. 83-92). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
Watterson, B. (2017). Cleopatra: Fact and fiction. Gloucestershire, England: Amberley Publishing Limited.
America’s Band-Aid For Racism Is The Ethnically Ambiguous
God created all men and women to be equal. Some of us are more equal than others, however. For a nation that has the line “In God We Trust” on its bills, the US has certainly become one of the last refuges of widespread racism. It is hard to believe that just 50 years ago, the majority of black and Latino citizens in the US were institutionally segregated from the majoritarian white society. It is still easy to see and feel the traces of such harmful and narrow-minded beliefs.
Despite not stating it out loud, many white people hide their inherent racism by catering to individuals known as “ethnically ambiguous,” who are considered to be the most “white-looking” among indigenous populations. Having experienced the difference in treatment between ambiguous and non-ambiguous US citizens on my skin, I seek to oppose the acceptability of ethnic ambiguity as a concept. The claim I make is that the concept of ethnic ambiguity is used to subtly promote the ideas of white superiority as the standard of appearance, to further oppress the minorities.
The topic of gender ambiguity first affected me when I visited a cantina with a few cousins of mine, and the waitress refused to take orders from everyone except myself, with me being the least “Latino-looking” person out of three. Fresh from Costa Rica, I was shocked to experience that not only color but also the tone of the skin mattered in the US. This was 2017, Orlando, Florida, not Birmingham 1963. And yet, it demonstrated to me the power that ethnically ambiguous people were granted. Upon doing further research, I discovered how deep this rabbit hole went.
I learned many things about racial ambiguity, including the fact that it is a popular choice of fashion in the US, and that ethnically ambiguous people are more likely to be hired (Laer and Janssens 198). Many sociological tests indicate that individuals that appear to be of lighter complexion or have a European facial structure are viewed as more attractive by the majority (La Ferla). I also discovered attempts to pass ethnic ambiguity as for the next step in human evolution, with individuals carrying traits of different races being less susceptible to illnesses (Adams). All of these facts are used to subtly reinforce the notion that white blood somehow “improves” various indigenous people, both economically and biologically. It is a subtle and sinister way to promote and ingrain racism under the guise of economics and psychology.
During my research, I discovered that most of the articles do not take a firm stance on this matter. They either discuss racism detached from the concept of ethnic ambiguity or simply state the facts on how does lighter complexion improves employment opportunities, healthcare, and attractiveness in people without connecting it to the greater social constructs. At the same time, I found no scholarly articles that would defend ethical ambiguity as a necessary transitional phase between racism and inclusivity. It leaves me to analyze on my own, with an implicit understanding of the matter.
Ethnic ambiguity and the inherent racism of preferring lighter-skinned faces over ethnically indigenous often go unnoticed by many people who believe themselves to be non-racist. Exposing the underlying assumptions, tendencies, and trends would help many realize the unseen acts of discrimination and prejudice would help many realize their actions and repent. The first step towards fixing something is to realize that there is a problem. The current treatment of ethnically ambiguous people as superior to the rest demonstrates how the term is used as a band-aid to hide the prejudice towards blacks and Latinos that did not vanish anywhere.
Works Cited
Adams, William L. “Mixed Race, Pretty Face?” Psychology Today. 2006. Web.
Laer, Koen Van, and Maddy Janssens. “Agency of Ethnic Minority Employees: Struggles Around Identity, Career and Social Change.” Organization, vol. 24, no. 2, 2017, pp. 198-217.
La Ferla, Ruth. “Generation E.A.: Ethnically Ambiguous.” New York Times. 2003. Web.