History Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 55

History - Essay Example They were also against the reforms that were legislated by the state because they had a preference for individual freedom by choice. They majorly favored agricultural farms and independence in the rural areas and the right to ownership of slaves. Their agenda at this time was rapid expansion in territories whether by purchase or war. Their main focus was to progress by external growth. On the other hand during the 1840s period was the Whigs. They too had their political interests. Contrary to the democrats, the Whigs were a party of modernization. They looked into the needs of the future. Their main interest was the hope of the people of America. They strategized the use of federal state governments to spear head the growth of the nation especially the transport and banking sector. (Holt, 30) writes that they facilitated reforms in public schools, prisons and temperance. As opposed to the democrats, they favored free labor, industrial and urban growth. They were opposed to war and favored gradual expansion of territories as opposed to the democrats who favored rapid expansion of territories through conquering and purchase. The candidate that was chosen to run for 1844 elections was called James Birney. He only managed to win 2% of the total votes but managed to get most of the votes from the northern part which was majorly Whig dominated. On the other hand of the opposing party, were the non-abolitionists who opposed the expansion territorial conquering. This party won in 1848 with 10% of the popular vote. Martin Van Buren was the party candidate. However in 1852 they lost half percentage of their support because their candidate had rejected the compromise made in 1850. In 1860, the democrats’ party split when they were defeated in a defending platform concerning slavery. The convention was held in Charleston, South Carolina. (Holt, 34) points out

The Influence Of Internet And New Media Media Essay

The Influence Of Internet And New Media Media Essay This study aims to give insight into the meaning young educated people in Syria give to the Internet and new media as a means to gain social, political and religious agency, and the influence this has on existing social structures in a traditional and authoritarian state like Syria. Background The Internet has enabled entirely new forms of social interaction, activities, and organizing. Especially social networking websites such as Facebook, Twitter and Blogger have opened new ways of communication over the last couple of years. As global Internet access is growing, the effects of the Internet have also spread to the Middle East, and its influence on restrictive socio-political entities is often mentioned in the press. One may think of news headlines like Iran Protests: Twitter, the Medium of the Movement (Time Magazine  [1]  ), In Egypt, Pushing Revolution by Internetà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ½ (Newsweek  [2]  ) or the frequently mentioned influence of Internet on changing social and religious patterns (e.g. Ambrust 2000). Unfortunately, academic knowledge to back up these claims is very limited. In a country like Syria, Internet was virtually non-existent less than ten years ago. Today however, a fast growing group  [3]  of people has access to the global network and many shops, mosques and political movements have created a space on-line. All these developments seem to have a big impact in a traditional and authoritarian society. But how can Internet and new media influence the agency of people? Why Syria ? Syria is a traditional society with an authoritarian government where gaining agency is highly channeled through religious and social traditions or membership of the ruling Baath party. However, as the countrys age demographic is changing (the majority of the people is under the age of thirty  [4]  ) and globalization has brought new ideas inside its borders, the younger generation seems to search for more direct ways to gain agency. At the same time, Internet usage is on the rise and recent figures  [5]  indicate that social networking sites are attracting an increasing community of (young) Syrians who use these media to interact with friends, exchange ideas and form digital communities. There are also examples of young Syrians using the Internet to gain agency. Syrian Facebook users recently organized a successful campaign to boycott mobile telephone providers in protest against high tariffs (Sharif 2009) and a simple search brings up a plethora of on-line Syrian communities, ranging from religious discussion groups to calls for educational reform. Nevertheless, recent initiatives calling for mass protests against the government were less successful  [6]  . Despite these developments, Reporters Without Borders ranked Syria among the thirteen enemies of the Internet  [7]  , a conclusion based on the persistent monitoring of Internet dissidents by the state and the blocking of websites. However, in the wake of the popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, the Syrian government recently (February 2011) made a remarkable step by opening up the Internet and dismantling blockades on websites like Facebook, Twitter and Youtube  [8]  . With an ever growing Internet community and the legalization of access to social networking websites, it seems likely that the role of the Internet and new media as a means to gain agency will increase over the next couple of years. Research questions (preliminary) The main question I would like to pose in this study is:What meaning do young, educated people in Syria give to the Internet and new media as a means to gain agency and change existing structures? To answer the main research question, it is important to first answer a couple of sub-questions. By tackling these questions, I will increase my insight into the subject as the research progresses. How do young, educated people in Syria use the Internet and new media? How do young, educated people in Syria believe that their use of the Internet and new media influences their social values, societal participation and world view? What is the position of the Internet and new media in current social, political and religious structures in relation to young, educated people in Syria? How are existing structural forces in Syria (e.g. religious, political, traditional entities) acting and adapting to the use of Internet and New Media use? Methodology (preliminary) This study will have a social-anthropological focus. While using statistical data where possible, the research methods that will be used will mainly be qualitative: individual interviews, participant observation and focus group discussions. By investigating the (perception of) influence as experienced by people themselves, it will be possible to draw a picture of the way Internet and new-media influence their agency and the existing structures. I will also conduct research through on-line participant observation on Syrian social-network sites and by following the activities of other new media. Furthermore, I will investigate how (religious, social and governmental) structural forces (re)act towards the use of Internet and new Media by investigating policies, publications and activities. Before the start of my fieldwork period (1 year), I will start with an extensive literature research on the subject. During the fieldwork period, I will gain access to the target group through my personal network of people, which I have built-up over the last couple of years (see also: personal information). Theories and concepts (preliminary) Central to this study are the concepts of structure and agency. Agency refers to the ability of people to act independently, have control over their life and make free choices. Structure, by contrast, refers to the pattern or framework of relationships between social institutions such as political systems, religion, class, customs and moral norms, which influence or limit the choices and opportunities that individuals possess. In applying these concepts, I will follow Anthony Giddens Structuration theory (1986). The Structuration theory holds that all human action happens within the framework of an existing social structure which is controlled by a set of norms and laws. Therefore, human actions are at least partly predetermined based on the contextual rules under which they occur. However, structures are not definite and external, but sustained and modified by human actions. Therefore, in and through their activities (agency), people reproduce and transform the conditions (structures) that make these activities possible. Besides Giddens, this study will also build on publications by some of his contemporaries who have published on the subject, like Bourdieu (1977) , Berger Luckman (1966) and Orilowski (1992, 2000), who have published on the duality of structure to technology. Furthermore, I will also use sources from the realm of (new) media studies for the conceptual and theoretical framework of this study. Manual Castells has been one of the most significant social theorist of new media in the last two decades. In his Information Age trilogy (1996, 1998, 2000), Castells argues that the development of communication network structures and architectures is a core feature of the contemporary social condition. These networks are not controlled by anyone but extend outward from computing and information communication technologies to all forms of social, economic and cultural relations. In Critique of Information (2002) the sociologist and critical theorist Scott Lash, builds forth on Castells and argues that the rise of the global information order is marked by a fundamental blurring of the distinction between culture and technology. This means that in order to influence relations of power, inequality and domination within a technological and informational c ulture, one must become part of the networks and flows of this informational culture. In their work on Internet use in Trinidad, Miller and Slater (2001) come to a rejection of Internet research that focuses on the way in which new media seems to constitute spaces or places apart from the rest of social life (real life or offline life). Internet (and new-media) are rather spaces within social life in which new forms of sociality and new identities are emerging. Internet and new media should thus be seen as extensions of the social space rather than tools within the social space. Poster (2001) summarizes this as follows, the Internet is more like a social space than a thing, so that its effects are more like those of Germany than those of hammers. In conjunction with Miller and Slater, Jenkins (2006) argues that the frame of reference for individuals who are connected, is not the same as for those who are not. Connected people judge their social environment according to different standards, sourcing from norms, values and beliefs that not always match with the social p ractices they are subject to in real life. In relation to the research topic, we can say that instead of being an instrument to gain agency, Internet and new media may function as a place, within social space, that is out of reach for the structures that normally define it. That is, unless these structural forces will also embrace new media and the Internet. This place within social space creates a new social reference frame and a platform for sharing thoughts, beliefs and ideas which may contribute to the increase of an individuals agency in society.

Mesoamerican Empires Essay -- Mayan, Olmec, Aztec

The three main Indian empires in Mesoamerica were the Olmec, Mayan, and Aztec. These intriguing cultures had three very different religions and origins, but there were some similarities. In all three cases, they built their cities mainly as religious centers, and had some similar forms of worship. All of their societies revolved around their separate religions. The Olmecs are the earliest known Mesoamerican civilization. Around 1200 B.C. the Olmecs originated as a primitive people living and farming on the shores of Mexico (Stanton 91). Soon, however, they began to build cities such as San Lorenzo, La Venta, and Monte Alban. These â€Å"cities† were religious centers where people gathered to worship, and were not populated (Stanton 91). The first of these centers, San Lorenzo, was built c. 1150 B.C., on a flat topped, man-made mountain. It was mysteriously abandoned 200 years later (Stanton 92-93). La Venta, built between 1000 and 600 B.C., sat on an island in a swamp (Stanton 93). Later, around 500 B.C., Monte Alban, which was used as a religious center even after the Olmecs faded, was built on an immense mountain (Stanton 93). The cities were made up of temples and plazas, and decorated by monumental stone heads, which weighed up to 50 tons (Stanton 93)! These heads probably represented their early kings and had distinct helmets (K ingfisher 32). It is incredible how the Olmec people transported the stone from the distant mountains to La Venta, near the shore, without the aid of work animals or carts. It appears that the Olmecs did this grueling work for their gods willingly, as there is no evidence of forced labor (Stanton 93). The Olmecs probably worshipped the jaguar, as it appears so often in their artwork. There are also many e... ... (Schweikart 5-6). The Aztecs’ greed for sacrificial hostages turned these Indian neighbors against them (Kingfisher 196-197). The Aztecs were defeated, partially because they had been weakened by smallpox, but also because the Spanish fought together as a single force, while Aztecs fought as individuals (Schweikart 6-7). These three civilizations were focused on their religions, causing some similarities. They all built cities as religious centers. Both the Mayas and the Aztecs worshipped their gods through human sacrifice. The Olmecs were so dedicated to their gods that they transported 50 ton boulders from the mountains to the shore. For the Mayas, even their games were related to their religion. The Aztec society was constantly at war for the sole purpose of making sacrifices to their many gods. Religion dominated the cultures of these Mesoamerican empires.

Face-to-Face Versus Online Education Essay

Education is essential to the future of our society. Many adults, including scholars and teachers, are constantly searching for the best way to educate students today. Face-to-face education, being the genuine form, seems to be the first choice of many students. However, online education is becoming more popular and is being used more often at universities. Online courses are convenient for some who have busy schedules which obstruct them from attending face-to-face courses. Online education may be the most convenient form of education, but is it an effective form? Several valid arguments have been made by scholars and other individuals claiming it meets both of these standards. The main question students and scholars would like to know is whether or not one form is better than the other. There are several differences between online and face-to-face education. Lecture classrooms are common in universities. They are an easy way to teach a large number of students at once, however, many students dislike lectures because it places them in the majority. In a lecture classroom setting, students may not have the chance to communicate with the professor or even their peers. Students may feel shy and intimidated by the amount of people around them. The online discussions, chat rooms, and e-mail features in web-based classes makes it virtually impossible to avoid communication with fellow students or teachers. The social barriers which exist in face-to-face communication often seem to be non-existent in online communication and students feel a lot less pressured to speak up, or should I say â€Å"type up†. Online communication, however, does not allow for nonverbal cues and this tends to limit the quality of certain discussions and lecture notes. Some  students may feel they need to be face-to-face with the person teaching them in order to better understand and comprehend the material being presented. Being able to hear what the professor has to say can draw the attention of some and distract the attention of others, sometimes depending on the excellence of the professor. Students are encouraged to try web classes if they have trouble learning from what they hear and find it easier to comprehend what they read. The convenience of online learning is possibly its most brilliant quality. Students find it practical that they can attend a class while sitting in the comfort of their own home. Soldiers, pregnant women, and others with tight schedules are all able to complete their course work in a timely manner through web-based courses. A man who works full time as an assistant at law firm and wants to continue working, while attending classes so he can become a lawyer himself, may want to take online courses instead of face-to-face in order to accomplish both goals. I think situations like this one makes online learning brilliant since it opens doors of opportunity to certain people. By posting information in discussion forums up to several times a day, professors can keep students working, but the students can respond when they have the chance. Online courses allow convenience for time and patience also. Think about the amount of time you spend driving to school and walking to classes, or the frustration of trying to get to a class on time while searching for a parking space in which you won’t be towed or ticketed. I spend up to twenty minutes of some school days driving in my car, congested with my vulgarity and frustration, searching for a parking space. Even with the beauty of all its aspects, some say convenience should not be an alternative to higher education. â€Å"Even though convenience is a positive attribute about the online classroom, it may not be enough to provide for the social and educational needs of students.† (Barakat) Students have claimed that they like the idea of not having to attend class â€Å"but disliked the process of communicating in a delayed, impersonal manner.†(Barakat) Through my online education experience, I have found that there are benefits  and disadvantages communicating on the web. Since times and meeting places are not specified in online group work, members of the group cannot make excuses on why they cannot attend. The assignments can be worked on by each group member on their own time. The group members can then cooperate with one another through postings or e-mail to equally combine their contributions. We don’t have to worry about the group members who did not participate receiving credit (as commonly happens in in-class group work) because we submit only the names of those who participated in the assignment. Having experienced both online and face-to-face education, I have come to the popular opinion: Online education has its positive aspects in relation to convenience and quantity of communication, however, I believe that face-to-face education produces better quality of communication which, in the end, is more essential to the learning process. Online education is convenient and can grant students opportunity to communicate more often with their professors and peers through postings and mail forums. Face-to-face education allows students to learn in a more personal nature which may make the learning process easier and more enjoyable. Neither form of education has been declared the right, or best form. Different individuals have varied beliefs and opinions on which type of education is the best. In order to form an opinion as to which form of education is best for you develop a hypothesis and then experiment by experiencing both forms. Finally, ask yourself, â€Å"Is online education as effective as traditional face-to-face education?† References Barakat., Dr. Samer A. On-line Education Versus Classroom Face To Face Education. www.sharjah.ac.ae/academic/engineering/e-forum/Abstracts-htm/a2-4.htm#. Kindred, Jeannette. Thinking About the Online Classroom: Evaluating the â€Å"Ideal† Versus the â€Å"Real†. www.acjournal.org/holdings/vol3/Iss3/rogue4/kindred.html. Chamberlin, Sean W. Face-to-Face vs. Cyberspace: Finding the Middle Ground. Syllabus Magazine. Thu., Mar. 4, 2004. J. R. Bourne, A. J. Brodersen, J. O., A Model for On-Line Learning Networks in Engineering Education, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 85, No 3

Summary and Analysis of two EEOC laws

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is The United States Government enforcement mechanism for Federal legislation regarding discrimination in the workplace. Two recent Acts of Congress under the management of the EEOC have particularly wide-ranging effects and potential effects for the American people. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is considered a landmark Act and a platform for future legislation of its type. The Genetic Nondiscrimination Act 2008 is part of a continuing line of anti-discrimination legislation.Its full impact probably will not be seen for decades to come but its potential impact in closing a new avenue for discrimination is great. As Federal Acts these laws instantly have more impact than any pre-existing state laws. They set nationwide standards for businesses, labor unions and employment agencies. A business cannot relocate itself in a state where anti-discrimination laws are less strict or where enforcement is lax. Individuals can exp ect the same rights and protections nationwide, except in cases where certain industries have been granted exceptions for safety or national security reasons.Traditionally, the Federal government has been hesitant to regulate private business. In the case of discrimination it has made exceptions when it became clear that discrimination was either unconstitutional, hurting national productivity, or both. The Civil Rights Movement was a catalyst for much of the anti-discrimination legislation we regard as commonplace today. Background The social upheaval of the 1960s triggered substantial changes in American law. Those changes were mirrored in actions of the United States Congress and Judiciary.An increasing emphasis on the securing of individual rights for all Americans led to a series of new laws crafted especially to protect historically discriminated against minorities. Laws designed to even economic and societal playing fields for African-Americans and women were enacted in the 1 960s and 70s. In the 1980s and 90s new laws focused on the rights of the disabled. About the same time individual privacy concerns came to the forefront. In this scientific and technological age, personal information is more readily available than ever. Genetic information could be spread widely in the blink of an eye.This information could then be used in discriminatory ways. Researchers worry that a new spectrum of discrimination has been opened up based on a person's genetic potential to become ill. A perceived genetic black mark could effectively label a person in much the same way as minorities, women and the disabled have been labeled in the past. Three laws: The Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the Genetic Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) are part of a continuum of nondiscrimination laws designed to mitigate the effects of such labeling or prevent it all together.The latter two laws were essentially a product of the first. Th ose two laws will be analyzed here. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) This Act came about from a growing cultural realization that people with physical disabilities have every right to full participation in American society. In many cases their contributions are equal or greater than able-bodied citizens. Instead of being seen as an embarrassment or a drag on society, they should be seen as valuable assets that should be cultivated rather than wasted.Historically speaking, the disabled were not accommodated in this purpose. Instead they were excluded from employment and many of the other functions of the American society. This exclusion was often based on erroneous assumptions about the capabilities of disabled people, the reticence of others to accept them, etc. Framed in the legal context, the question was whether American society and government were systematically violating the constitutional rights of the disabled by not guaranteeing an equal playing field.Disabl ed individuals already have much to overcome. Allowing discrimination to make their lives all the more difficult was morally wrong and, eventually, unconstitutional as well. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 piggybacked upon the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and several other laws. It attempted to codify, in clear terms, the rights of the individual disabled citizen as well as the rights and responsibilities of various agencies, governmental organizations and private businesses dealing with the physically disabled. Purposes (ADA)The Congress of The United States has determined that â€Å"Census data, national polls, and other studies have documented that people with disabilities, as a group, occupy an inferior status in our society and are severely disadvantaged socially, vocationally and educationally† (United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1990). Given those realities the potential impact of anti-discriminatory legislation is enormous. In some cases pr eventing discrimination is as simple as removing physical barriers. In other cases it requires a long-term attitude readjustment in opinions about the disabled and what they can or cannot do.Discrimination has also occurred because businesses have irrational fears about what it will cost them to have employees with disabilities. This Act is designed to clarify what businesses can and cannot do in regard to the disabled. In a clarified landscape businesses can effectively keep costs down. The subtitle of the act describes its purpose this way: â€Å"To establish a clear and comprehensive prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability† (United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1990).In its statement of Findings and Purposes the Congress concluded that disabled people have suffered unjust discrimination and needless denial of opportunity. This discrimination has effectively relegated the disabled to â€Å"second class citizen† status in the United States. Modern medicine and recognition of the accomplishments of disabled Americans has led to a shift in perspective. In the past, qualified students were excluded from education by outdated attitudes or because of something as simple as physical barriers. The same was true in employment.When disabled Americans were not plugged into these two critical facets of life, they would often end up excluded from society as a whole. In addition to being the â€Å"right thing to do†; this act is the result of a simple cost-benefit analysis. The cost of making attitude adjustments and simple accommodations pales in comparison to the potential societal benefits of having disabled people fully participating in society (Pickering, 2000). In addition to justifying the act based on evidence of past discrimination, the Congress also notes the financial toll of discrimination on the basis of disability.Individuals suffer the costs of not having an equal chance to make a living. Society then suffers as well because many become dependent on government and other aid when equal opportunity might have made this unnecessary. Thirdly, the nation loses the productivity that many disabled people are capable of. Provisions (ADA) This act regulates what companies may and may not consider in the hiring, firing and promotion of employees with disabilities. Disabled employees cannot be classified as such if it, in any way, unfairly hinders their chances of success at the corporation.The fact that the employee has a physical disability cannot be the deciding factor in whether or not an employee is hired or promoted, except under a very narrow set of criteria. Disabled employees are entitled to equal opportunity and equal pay for equal work. Reasonable accommodations must be made for the disabled employee wherever necessary. â€Å"Reasonable† is a term that is subject to ongoing interpretation. In some cases it can mean something simple as adding a wheelchair ramp or widening a bathroom door.In other cases it can mean an alteration in the job itself. Employers have some leeway in this area. Courts have ruled that when accommodations would cause a â€Å"disparate† hardship on the company it may be granted a waiver from the â€Å"reasonable accommodations† standard. During the application phase, the employer may not ask about disabilities except in the context of the applicant's ability to perform job-related tasks. If there is a pre-employment testing process the employer must make reasonable accommodations for each applicant to take the test.Medical tests can be done on a voluntary basis. The results can only be used for hiring/firing decisions when a clear inability to do the job is apparent. The employee also may not be coerced or retaliated against when requesting accommodations mandated under this act. This prohibition also applies to any employee or other individual who may have helped a disabled person exercise their rights. Notices of this act must be posted by emplo9yers agencies and labor unions in an easily accessible place for employees to read.Enforcement of the Act is handled by the Office of the Attorney General of the United States and The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Sub agencies like The Occupational Safety and Health Administration and others may become involved if a particular case warrants. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) By the turn of the twenty-first century a great deal of legislation aimed at securing the rights of minorities, women and the disabled had been enacted and had passed constitutional scrutiny. Meanwhile, a new technological age was emerging.The world was rapidly becoming more interconnected. The science of genetics was also experiencing explosive progress. A new and nearly infallible method of identifying specific people animals and plants was discovered and refined. Genetic testing of individuals has been around for a while. In recent years this testing has become more refined, more widely available and less expensive. This type of testing can identify genes or gene disorders that are associated with a wide array of health conditions. This does not mean that the person will get the condition; it only means that the potential is there.In 2008 Congress acted upon public worries that genetic testing and information could be used for discriminatory purposes. Employers might try to use genetic information for hiring, firing and promotion purposes. Insurers might also use that information for denial of coverage, rate changes or other purposes. In contrast with the ADA (1990), the Genetic Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 is an attempt to target potential discrimination before it becomes widespread. In addition to protecting the rights of individuals this Act is designed to create a friendlier environment for medical and scientific research.According to Hudson, Holohan and Collins, â€Å"Along with the benefits it provide s to individuals, the new law should have positive effects on the fields of clinical research and health care delivery† (2010). Purposes (GINA) The stated purpose of this Act is: â€Å"To prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment† (United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2008). This is similar to the purpose stated in the ADA. Because of the nature of genetic science enforcement methods differ. Discrimination in this area can have wise-ranging effects.Hudson et al. Also believe that genetic discrimination has had a chilling effect on potential research subjects. â€Å"Fear of genetic discrimination has also put a damper on patients' willingness to consider genetic tests†¦ or to have the results of such tests included in their medical records† (Hudson, Holohan and Collins, 2010). After fourteen years of Congressional debate GINA was finally passed in 2008. During the time this Ac t was under consideration, a number of states enacted their own laws on genetic testing and the transfer and usage of genetic information.As the genetic science industry grew many of those laws have been repealed however. This triggered a renewed effort by the Congress to pass a set of uniform standards. In theory, genes are neutral indicators of human beings. In practice genetic information can be used for de facto discrimination against individuals. Provisions (GINA) In section 1 of the Act, The Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 was amended to provide additional protection against genetic-based discrimination. Insurance companies may not set group premium rates based on disease potententiality identified through genetic testing.Insurers can take into consideration diseases that have already manifested themselves in the group population. Heath plans may not require genetic testing as a policy condition. Under a narrow set of circumstances they can request genetic testing if it can assist in clarifying the health situation of a certain individual. It cannot request or mandate testing of the entire group. A genetic test is defined as: â€Å"an analysis of human DNA, RNA, chromosomes, proteins or metabolites that detects genotypes, mutations or chromosomal changes† (United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2008).Fines for noncompliance begin at $100 daily for each employee. For example, if ten employees were mandated or coerced into genetic testing as a condition of maintaining insurance coverage, the federal government would levy a $1000 fine to the insurer retroactive to the time the coercion began. For violations more serious than de minims, the fines are higher. Genetic information may not be used for eligibility, maintenance of policy or as a pre-existing condition. Employers must comply with many of the same restrictions on genetic testing.Hiring, promotion and firing decisions cannot be based on genetic information. Also the em ployer may not acquire or purchase genetic information about an employee without specific written permission. Even when permission is given all other restrictions still apply. Similar requirements also apply to employment agencies and labor organizations. One notable exception exists for labor organizations. If the purpose is to monitor the effects of toxins in the workplace, the collecting of genetic information may be allowable if certain requirements are met.The employees must be notified and provided with individual results; and the actions must be compliant with OSHA, the provisions of this Act and any other federal laws. Section 206 of this Act addresses confidentiality, an issue of growing concern for many Americans. The Act strengthens confidentiality standards set forth in state and federal legislation, including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Under this Act remedies and enforcem ent vary according to the type of violation and which statute the employee is covered under.Analysis and Conclusion These are two Acts of Congress which may appear different on their face. They were enacted nearly twenty years apart. One targets a legacy of past behavior while the other is preventive in nature. One is based on very human issues while the other is concerned with the cutting-edge of science. Despite their differences, the two laws boil down to one issue of concern to every American – discrimination. These acts are part of a continuum not to create equality but to ensure equal opportunity. These laws are recognition of two of the greatest strengths of America.This nation grew from humble seeds by expanding opportunity, over time, to those would not have received it before. The contributions of those citizens then fueled America's rise to power. Secondly, the Acts are indicative of a nation's willingness to right its past wrongs. This has been done many times in the history of the nation. Making these changes is not always easy, but it is necessary for the continued growth of the country. The impact of The Genetic Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 remains to be seen. It is very likely that as genetic science continues to grow the law will need to evolve.Its ability to do so will be the measure of its ultimate impact. It will be a challenge for the law to keep up. In 1995, there were about 300 genetic tests for diseases and conditions. Most of these tests were done in the context of scientific research and were not readily available to the public. Today over 1500 tests are available. They are much more widely accessible and cover a wide range of conditions from rare to commonplace. The Genetic Nondiscrimination Act puts the scientific community on notice by setting privacy and ethical standards and creating an enforcement apparatus.The safeguards in this Act may ultimately benefit science by making citizens more willing to participate in researc h. More importantly, it potentially closes doors to an entirely new and damaging form of discrimination. There are potential financial benefits as well. According to Hudson, Holohan and Collins â€Å"It will accelerate research†¦ and allow Americans to finally realize the benefits and health care savings offered by gene-based medicine† (2010). This act is an early step for preventing discrimination in a burgeoning field. It is not comprehensive though.The safety and reliably of genetic tests is one potential area for future regulation. Marketing of genetic testing services is another. When Congress considers regulatory acts of this nature there are many factors to take into consideration. It must consider effects and potential effects on a wide array of stakeholders. Preventing discrimination on one group without causing discrimination or undue hardship on another is a narrow line to walk. The ADA and GINA have made progress in preventing unjust and unnecessary discrimin ation.The ADA has brought a large population of people out of society's shadows. The Act will become all the more important as people can now live longer and be productive with disabilities. Our aging population also means that the law will impact an increasingly large group of people. The Genetic Nondiscrimination Act shares philosophical similarities with the ADA and The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Discrimination, whether based on race, disability or genetic makeup is not true to the United States' Constitution. As a result of these laws individuals and society will benefit socially and economically.America itself will benefit by having the contributions of the citizens' affected. The nation benefits when the largest possible majority of its citizens enjoy the individual right to maximize potential. In a dynamic society, Congress will need to revisit and amend these laws in perpetuity in order to fulfill their true promise. References Hudson, Kathy, M. K. Holohan and Frances Collins . (2010). â€Å"Keeping Pace with the Times: The Genetic Nondiscrimination Act of 2008†. NEJM. Retrieved May 29 from: http://content. nejm. org/cgi/content/full/358/25/2661Pickering, Francis. (2000). Americans with Disabilities: exploring implications of the law for individuals and institutions. New York: Routledge. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (2008). â€Å"The Genetic Nondiscrimination Act of 2008†. EEOC. Retrieved May 29, 2010 from: http://www. eeoc. gov/laws/statutes/gina. cfm United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (1990). â€Å"Titles I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990†. EEOC. Retrieved May 30, 2010 from: http://www. eeoc. gov/laws/statutes/ada. cfm