Focus on American Life: Учебно-методическое пособие

Ф Е Д Е РАЛ Ь Н О Е АГ Е Н Т С Т В О П О О БРАЗО В АН И Ю В О РО Н Е Ж С КИ Й Г О С У Д АС Т В Е Н Н Ы Й У Н И В Е РС И Т Е Т

FOCUS ON AMERICAN LIFE У чебно-метод и ческоепособи епо специ альностям межд ународ ныеотнош ени я 030701 (350200) и рег и онов ед ени е080200 (521300)

В О РО Н Е Ж 2005

2

У тв ержд ено научно-метод и чески м отнош ени й № 8 от6 и ю ля 2005 г .

сов етом ф акультета межд ународ ных

С остав и тели : И .Ю . В остри ков а О .В . С уханов а

У чебно-метод и ческоепособи епод г отов лено на каф ед рестранов ед ени я и и ностранных языков и стори ческог о ф акультета В оронежског о г осуд арств енног о уни в ерси тета. Рекоменд уется д ля студ ентов 2-3 курсов ф акультета межд ународ ных отнош ени й по специ альностям межд ународ ные отнош ени я и рег и онов ед ени е.

3

CONTENTS I. II. III. IV.

We the People… … … … … … … … … … … … … … . Assignments… … … … … … … … … … … … … … ... American Government… … … … … … … … … … ... Assignments… … … … … … … … … … … … … … ... Economy, Labour, and Welfare… … … … … … … . Assignments… … … … … … … … ..… … … … … … .. Education… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Assignments… … … … … … … … … … … … … … …

4 16 19 28 31 40 43 52

4

I. WE THE PEOPLE

The "Average American" The variety of ethnic identities, immigration experiences, and cultural choices that have gone into making Americans is so complex, however, that describing the average American" is very difficult. Our "average American" might be white, but Americans are not "normally" white. Most Americans are Christians, but America cannot be called "a Christian country." And a majority of Americans might claim European ancestry, but this description also does not define Americans in general. Neither, in fact, does language. The United States is one of the few countries that has no "official" national language, or languages. English is the common language by use, but it is not the national language by law. About 30 million Americans speak a language other than English at home. This means, for example, that if you meet an American in New Mexico who speaks Spanish as his first language, he could be a recent immigrant, having arrived in the U.S. only a few years ago, or his grandparents could have arrived in the United States a hundred years ago. It could also be that his ancestors had been living in the area years before the thirteen British colonies were established on the East Coast. A so-called foreign accent does not necessarily mean that an individual is (or even was) a foreigner.

The "Melting Pot," the "Salad Bowl," and the "Pizza" Of all the many different nationalities and ethnic groups which have gone into the making of America, some have quickly assimilated. They have largely lost or intentionally given up many of those specific markers which would make them much different from their neighbors. This process of assimilation, or "Americanization," becoming part of the "melting pot" - has characterized the immigrant experience in American history. Other Americans have, while becoming American in other ways, maintained much of their ethnic identities. In this sense, U.S. society has been likened to a "salad bowl." It does not follow, however, that these Americans are any less aware or proud of their American nationality. Japanese-Americans provide a well-known example. Although their loyalty in World War II was doubted by many of their fellow countrymen, as a group they became the most highly decorated American soldiers fighting in Europe. Perhaps a better metaphor for American society than either "the melting pot" or the "salad bowl" would be that of a "pizza" (which has become, by the way, the single most popular food in America). The different ingredients are often apparent and give the whole its particular taste and flavor, yet all are fused together into something larger. Still another factor to consider in describing "the American" is that the face of America is constantly, and often very rapidly, changing. It is estimated that by the year 2000, for instance, Hispanics (a term including all Spanish-speaking Americans, such as Mexican-Americans or "Chicanos," Cubans, Puerto Ricans, etc.) will be the largest

5

"minority" in the United States. In a num- ber of cities Hispanics will represent the majority of citizens. Crevecoeur's old and often repeated question "What then is the American, this new man?" - cannot be answered simply or conclusively. At best, we can say that an American is someone who meets the legal requirements of citizenship and who considers himself or herself to be an American. And, any person born on American soil automatically has the right to American citizenship. Significantly, the older categories of nationality brought from the Old World - race, language, religion, and parents' ancestry - have become relatively unimportant in America. They can be used to describe an American, but not to define one.

Demographics - the Basic Picture Although it is difficult to paint a picture of the average American today, there is no difficulty in obtaining data to describe American society. Americans seem to be fascinated by surveys, research studies, questionnaires, and opinion polls which describe them and their country. Tons of such demographic material appear each year. The main reason so much information is available about America and Americans is found in the Constitution. The Constitution of the United States specifies that a nationwide census, a "head count" of all Americans, must be taken every ten years. The census is necessary to determine what changes there might have been in the population. The number of representatives each state can elect to the House of Representatives, for example, is determined by population. Similarly, the figures are very important in establishing how much money from federal taxes will be returned to the states, or how much cities will receive in aid from the federal government. Today, the census also gives a wealth of other information on almost any aspect of American life. The information is public and easily available, and anyone interested in accurate descriptive data on the U.S. should consult the most recent edition of the Statistical Abstract of the United States. Here we are interested in basic information about American society. This type of information, for example, tells us that the United States is a country with an area of 3.6 million square miles and has a population density of only 66 people per square mile. By comparison, the population density of Italy is 491, that of the Netherlands 918, and that of West Germany 635 people per square mile. Also of basic interest is how the U.S. population can be categorized by race and ethnic origin. The total number of Americans in 1980, about 83 percent considered themselves "white," 12 percent "black," over 6 percent "Hispanic," and so on. "Considered themselves" is important, for all these figures were based upon "self-identification." In other words, Americans themselves determined with which groups they wished to be Resident Population by Race and Spanish Origin (1980 Census) identified. With the exception of one group, American Indians, there are no official definitions that can be used to say which American is what. So basically, as an American, you are what you say you are. Some Americans obviously felt they belonged to two or more races or ethnic groups.

6

These national percentages do not indicate how the various groups are represented in the individual states, cities, or communities. As might be expected, they are not evenly distributed 60 across the nation. In Mississippi, for example, blacks make up about 35 percent of that state's population, whereas in Wyoming they represent less than 1 percent. In the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., blacks form the majority, with around 70 percent of the population, while the figure for Los Angeles is 17 percent or around 500,000 people. Other groups are also unevenly distributed. Hispanic Americans, for instance, represent only 6.4 percent of the national population. Yet in Texas about one in every five Americans (21 percent) is "of Spanish origin" and in Mexico more than one in three (36.6 percent). In 17 states, Hispanic Americans form the largest "minority." The American Indian population in the United States increased about 70 percent from 1970 to 1980. Only 1.4 million (0.6%) of the population can be legally defined as American Indians. However, some historians believe that this is more than there were when the first European explorers arrived in the New World. At that time, they claim, about one million "Native Americans" were living in what is today the United States.

A Majority of Minorities? 26.5 million Americans categorized themselves as “black”. But a smaller number, 21 million, identified themselves as “Afro-American” or “African.” Similarly, only1.4 million Americans were classified as American Indians. When asked to identify their ancestry, however, 6.7 million claimed an American Indian heritage. If Americans are seen only in terms of majorities and minorities, whites and blacks, what is to be done, then, with Americans who claim Polish or Hungarian ancestry? Are they a “ minority”? There is no special category given for “Jew” or “Jewish”. Would this be an ancestry, an ethnic group, a race, a religion, or even all of these? Some 14 million people of “other races” are also represented in the U.S. Is such a minority category also a minority in itself or simply an unspecified number of minorities? The vast majority of Americans could, if the wished, include themselves among one or more “minority” categories or groups.

Changing Patterns of Immigration Where Americans came from and when they came, does not define how they see themselves today. It is interesting to see, though, how the immigration patterns have changed over time. These changing patterns do affect, and have affected, what America is today and how Americans view the rest of the world. Between 1861 and 1960, the majority of immigrants came from Europe. But during the past 25 30 years the largest share of immigrants has come from Latin America and Asia. In 1984, for instance, 64,100 immigrants from Europe were legally admitted to the U.S. By contrast, legal immigration from the southern Americas (mainly 35 Mexico, the West

7

Indies, the Dominican Republic, and Colombia) was 193,500. An additional 256,300 legal immigrants came from Asia (mainly the Philippines, Vietnam, Korea, and China). The millions of "de facto Americans" - and no one knows exactly how many there really are - are not included in the figures shown above. The Census Bureau estimates that there are some three to six million "illegal immigrants" already living in the U.S., about two-thirds of them from Mexico. It is also estimated that more than one and a half million more illegal immigrants from Mexico are presently crossing into the United States each year. It is not clear what effect a new immigration law, passed in 1986, will have on these "illegal aliens." The law gives legal status to those who can prove that they have been in the U.S. since 1982. This would allow an estimated 1.5 million illegal aliens to qualify for citizenship. What is very clear is that the so-called European heritage of America is undergoing a major change as more and more people from Latin America and from Asian countries enter U.S. society. Growing numbers of Americans will be able to say that they, or their parents or grandparents, came from these regions. As a consequence, the American view of the world is more likely to be towards the south and west.

Immigration Laws Some of these changes have been brought about by changes in the immigration laws. Until the 1850s, immigration to the U.S. had been largely unrestricted, with some 90 percent of all immigrants coming from Europe. In the 1920s, a number of measures were taken to limit immigration, especially from Asian countries and southern and eastern Europe. The overall number of immigrants was limited by law and quotas were set for countries and, later, "hemispheres." In 1968, this quota system was abolished. An annual limit of 170,000 was set for immigrants from the Eastern Hemisphere and 120,000 for the Western Hemisphere. Ten years later, the separate limits for the two hemispheres were abolished in favor of a worldwide limit of 290,000 per year. In addition, however, special measures were taken to allow large numbers of refugees from several regions (especially East Asia and Central and South America) to enter the U.S. Thus, the average number of immigrants legally admitted throughout the 1970s was about 430,000 per year. The number jumped to 654,000 in 1980, reflecting a new wave of Cuban refugees. In recent years, the number of immigrants officially admitted to the U.S. was around 550,000 per year. The 1986 immigration law, while imposing stiff penalties on American businesses that employ illegal aliens, is noteworthy for its attempt to give legal status and citizenship to those illegal immigrants who are, in all but law, already Americans.

Why They Came - Why They Come Major changes in the pattern of immigration have been caused by wars, revolutions, periods of starvation, persecutions, religious intoleration, and, in short, by

8

any number of disasters which led people to believe that America was a better place to be. More than a million Irish, for instance, emigrated to America between 1846 and 1851 in order to escape starvation and disease in Ireland. During the same period, large numbers of other Europeans fled political persecution. And in the 1870s another wave of refugees left the political turmoil of eastern and southern Europe to seek freedom and a future in America. The largest streams of European immigrants came between 1900 and 1920, that is, before, after, and during World War I. At other times, for example, during the Depression and during World War II, smaller numbers of immigrants came to the U.S. Since the 1960s, more and more people have fled the poverty and wars in Asia and Latin America in the hope of finding a better life in the United States. There is, of course, another side to America's ethnic pluralism and racial variety, one that Americans, more than any other people, are aware of. The first slaves brought to what is today the United States arrived in Virginia on board a Dutch ship in 1619. On the eve of the American Revolution, slavery was already firmly established in what was shortly to be the United States of America. In 1776, probably about a fifth of all inhabitants in the British colonies in America were Negro slaves. Between 1777 and 1804, all states in the new republic north of Maryland abolished slavery. However, neither the North nor the South would escape the grave social, economic, political, and moral problems that are the heritage of slavery. Although the Civil War (1861-1865) brought an end to slavery in all of the states, discrimination against blacks would continue. Ironically, some countries that were among the greatest slave-trading nations for so long, such as Portugal, Spain, and England, have largely escaped the consequences which almost all Americans have come to accept as rightly theirs. Americans know that although most of their ancestors came to America by choice, a great many did not. The moral questions associated with immigration remain today. The large number of illegal immigrants pouring over the long Mexican border, for example, has led some Americans to call for much stronger restrictions. Yet many of these illegal aliens were living in poverty that is shocking even to the poorest Americans. If you are an American whose ancestors were poverty-stricken, saying "no" to such people is very difficult. On the one hand, this immigration provides a safety valve for Mexico. On the other hand, admittedly, some Americans welcome this source of inexpensive labor. In any case, stopping the vast flow of illegal immigrants is much easier to demand than to do. Whether they are wanted or not, they continue to come. Even as the countries of origin and patterns of immigration change, America's tradition as a nation of immigrants is not likely to end. All in all, the heritage of immigrants and immigration has brought enormous benefits to America. German intellectuals who fled Germany after the failed revolutions of 1830 and 1848, for example, brought with them a liberal tradition that did much to change their newly adopted land. Again, a hundred years later, America was enriched by Jewish immigrants who, seen by many as the "refuse" of the world at the time, have added their brilliance to American culture, education, and science. Many other eth ethnic groups have, of course, also added their contributions to the American Dream, and, by doing so, kept that dream alive.

9

Without a doubt, the American immigration experience, then and now, is one of the most important factors in American life. All immigrants have contributed to the development of some "typical" American characteristics. Among these are the willingness to take risks and to strike out for the unknown with independence and optimism. Another is patriotism for the many who feel that they are Americans by choice. And, equally, there is the self-critical tradition; those who were "fat and happy," as the phrase goes, never left home.

Religion - "One Nation, Under God" Looking at religion in the U.S., we are once more faced with a typically American contradiction. From its very beginnings as a nation, Americans have been extremely careful to separate church and state, religion and government. The Constitution, specifically the First Amendment, forbids the government to give special favors to any religion or to hinder the free practice of any religion. As a result, there are no church taxes in the United States, nor is there an official state church or a state-supported religion. There are no legal or official religious holidays. Christmas, for example, is an important religious holiday for Christians. However, Congress cannot proclaim it, or any other religious observance, to be an official or legal holiday. To do so would violate the Constitution. There are no political parties in the United States that have "Christian" in their names. There is no longer even the assumption that America is, or should be, "a white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant" (WASP) nation. Yet surveys show that religion continues to be quite important to many Americans, especially when compared with people in other countries. While 58 percent of Americans feel that religion is "very important" in their own lives, it is hard to say to what extent religious beliefs affect their daily lives. However, a study done by Gallup International in 1986 seems to show that attention to religion, at least, is increasing in the United States. Some 48 percent of those surveyed felt that the influence of religion on American life was greater than it was five years before (but, of course, 52 percent did not think it was greater). Also, about half said they were more interested in "spiritual and religious matters" than they were five years earlier. Throughout American history, there have been periods of religious revivals which come and go. If there is in fact a "return to is religion" at present, then it is associated with the more "fundamentalist" denominations. These church groups are usually more conservative orthodox in their religious beliefs and practices. Membership in the less conservative, so-called "mainline" Protestant churches in the U.S. has actually fallen in the last ten years by about 8 percent. Furthermore, church attendance by (Roman) Catholics has dropped by about a third during the same period. By contrast, membership in the fundamentalist Christian churches has gone up by 35 percent, and orthodox Jewish congregations have increased by as much as 100 percent. The increase in the fundamentalist Christian groups has attracted much public attention. One reason is that many of these church groups actively publicize their beliefs and try to influence public life and political processes. Many have their own radio or television stations which they and their members finance. Yet overall the fundamentalist churches

10

still represent a minority, even if a very active one, of all American church groups and members. Since Americans are free to form and follow any religious belief or religion they wish, there area great many beliefs, denominations, and churches in the United States. The Roman Catholic Church is by far the single largest, with about million members. Although there are approximately 78 million Americans who might call themselves "Protestants," they are distributed among many different, independent churches. There is no one church or church group that speaks for all Protestants or would be listened to by all. Each group, rather, supports itself. It employs its own ministers, builds its own buildings, and follows its own beliefs. Although religion plays an important role in the personal lives of many Americans, it has relatively little real influence in political matters. This is especially true at the national level. Some Americans, for example, were afraid that conservative, religious supporters of President Reagan would be able to affect national policies in the 1980s. Today, however, these fears have proved to be largely exaggerated. The size of America, the tradition of religious toleration, and the separation of church and state by law, as well as the extreme variety of religious backgrounds of Americans have prevented religion from gaining much influence on politics. Especially in comparison with many other western countries, the influence of religion on public and political institutions in the United States is minimal.

Prosperity and Poverty Describing Americans and American society by race and ethnic background, ancestry, and religious affiliation gives fundamental information about the United States today. Other basic information is concerned with economic factors. What does the average American earn and how is income distributed? Also important is where Americans live. How many live in urban and how many in rural areas? What are the largest cities? Approximately 100 years ago, the United States overtook Great Britain to become the richest nation in the world. Since then, whether measured by average income or by gross national product (GNP), the U.S. has remained among the wealthiest nations. In 1985, for example, the median family income of all Americans was about $27,700. In other words, one half of all families earned more than this amount each year, and one half less. What this means is that, as a whole, the American people are a very prosperous nation. Nonetheless, Americans are very concerned with that percentage of their countrymen who fall below what they consider "a decent standard of living." This is not starvation: it is being poor in relation to the rest of the nation. Most Americans are troubled by the fact that some social, ethnic, and racial groups show a disproportionate number of people living below the official poverty level. The "official poverty level" is set by the federal government and adjusted from time to time. This is interpreted as the stage at which a decent standard of living can no longer be expected. In 1985, for example, the official poverty level for a four-person family was $10,989 per year. This amount refers to earned

11

income only. It should be noted that this poverty figure does not already include any welfare benefits, housing support, aid to children, food stamps, Medicaid, or other help from federal and state programs. Nor does it include the free school breakfast and lunch programs or the surplus food programs which distribute food free of charge to the poor. Among the areas with many people below the poverty level is Appalachia, that mountain region which includes parts of such states as West Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Thousands of people there need better housing, medical treatment, and other services. Much poverty also exists among minority groups. The average incomes of American Indians, blacks, and Hispanics continue, as a whole, to be lower than those of whites. The fact that a much smaller proportion of Americans are poor today than they were 50, 75, or 100 years ago does not provide much comfort for Americans concerned with the problem of poverty. Any poverty rate, to them, is unacceptable, although there may be broad disagreement on what to do about it. Some believe the federal government should use its power and money to do everything it can to eliminate poverty and provide for all those who cannot provide for themselves. Others believe that public welfare programs are costly and ineffective, and that they remove incentives for poor people to work, to get the education, training, and jobs which would allow them to help themselves. Many observers maintain that a permanent "underclass" is beginning to develop in the United States that is dependent on welfare from generation to generation. The question of which measures might be most effective to help the poor achieve more independence and prosperity continues to be debated among Americans. Yet, few Americans today feel that easy answers will be found to these difficult problems.

Mobility - Moving West Where Americans live and where they are moving also reveals how America has changed and is changing. From its very beginnings as a nation, the "population center of gravity" has been moving westwards. This is the point where the country would balance if only the weight of the population were considered. Early settlers left the original British colonies along the East Coast and pushed westwards in thin lines along the rivers, and then through the mountain passes. The American frontier - that imaginary line dividing areas with more than two people per square mile from those with fewer -was at one time just on the other side of the Appalachian mountains. Then, it was found in the areas that are today known as the Midwest. Soon it was across the Mississippi. By 1853, the U.S. had acquired the entire western part of the country, by purchase, conquest, and treaty. As more and more people entered these territories, new states were created. In 1890, the frontier was finally and officially declared "closed." In other words, all areas now had an average of more than two people per square mile. America's "manifest destiny," her mission to

12

expand her territory all the way across the continent in order to provide room for future generations, had been completed. This frontier experience, the gradual but steady opening and settlement of new lands to the west, had continued for almost three hundred years. According to the American historian Frederick Jackson Turner, this experience of first surviving in and then cultivating the vast, wild land had a deep and lasting influence on the American character. It strengthened the spirit of independence: the frontiersmen went ahead of governments, not behind them. It demanded self-reliance and self-confidence. It encouraged a sense of equality: what individuals could do was more important than who they or their parents were. It brought forth restlessness, that "wanting to move on," which many observers still see in Americans today. It made Americans more willing to "get up and go" somewhere else in search of something better. It created certain toughness: those who were weak, or lacking in willpower, did not do well on the frontier. And finally, it probably helped to develop a characteristic that has also been frequently noted among Americans. In bad times and good, they tend to move easily from one part of the country to another. They seem to settle in and feel quickly at home wherever they go. America still is a highly mobile society. Between 1975 and 1980, for example, 45 percent of the nation's families changed their residence. Half of those who moved stayed within the same county. The remainder moved to a different county or state. Of the over ten million adults and children who changed geographic regions during that period, seven million settled in the South and West. In the course of one year (19831984) alone, some 39 million Americans moved to a different house.

Internal Migration- From Frost Belt to Sun Belt There is no doubt that the balance of population has shifted away from the North and East to the South and West. This movement is most clearly marked by California's status as the largest state with some 26.4 million people in 1985 (compared with New York State's 17.8 million). The large southwestern state of Texas, with some 16.4 million people (up from 11.2 million in 1970), is the third most populous. In 1940, 11 percent of the total U.S. population lived in the West, 30 percent in the Midwest, 32 percent in the South, and 27 percent in the Northeast. Forty years later, 19 percent lived in the West, 26 percent in the Midwest, 33 percent in the South, and 22 percent in the Northeast. From 1980 to 1985, the South and West had almost 85 percent of the total U.S. population growth (11 million of 13 million). The fastest growing states during that period were Alaska (4-29.7%), Arizona (+17.2%), Nevada (+16.9%), Florida (+16.6%), Texas (+15%), Utah (+ 12.6%), Colorado (+ 11.8%), California (+11.4%), and New Mexico (+11.3%). This population growth contrasts strongly with that of other (northern and eastern) states which increased very little between 1980 and 1985, and actually decreased in some: Massachusetts (+1.5%), Wisconsin (+1.5%), New York (+1.3%), Illinois (+0.9%), Indiana (+0.2%), Pennsylvania (-0.1%), Ohio (0.5%), Michigan (-1.9%).

13

Looking at the population figures of the ten largest cities in the U.S. today, we can also see some interesting changes. The figures show only the population within the city limits, not the metropolitan area. Among the "top ten" cities, six are in the South and West of the U.S., namely Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, San Diego, Phoenix, and San Antonio. Their increases in population range from 10 percent (Los Angeles) to 46 percent (Phoenix). With the four northern and eastern cities, the opposite is true: each of them has lost in population, between 9 and 28 percent of its 1970 total. Urbanization Another development that has continued since the founding of the United States is the gradual but definite movement from rural to urban areas, from farms and small towns to the cities and the suburbs. In 1880, about three quarters of all Americans still lived in rural areas. A century later, almost three quarters lived in or around urban areas. These urban areas are, of course, not only huge cities or metropolitan areas with millions of people. Only 17 percent of all Americans live in large cities of 500,000 and more, while 65 percent reside in places with 100,000 or fewer inhabitants. In 1980, there were some 8,500 towns with fewer than 100,000 people. In the past ten years or so, there has also been a noticeable movement out of the central cities to the suburbs. In 1980, in fact, it was estimated that over 40 percent of all Americans lived in suburban areas. It would be far too early, however, to talk about a "decline" of the great cities, even those of the North that have lost a substantial number of their middle-class populations. In many of these cities (Boston is a well-known example), downtown areas are being renovated, made attractive, and are thus regaining middle-class inhabitants. There is also a notable trend toward so-called "urban villages." These areas are often found outside the central cities, among the suburbs. They act as small city centers, with businesses grouped around a large shopping mall, and usually include offices, entertainment facilities, public services, parks, and health-care centers as well. In some ways, these "mini-cities" represent a change in direction: businesses are now going to where their customers and employees would rather live.

Crime The crime rate in the U.S., which rose dramatically in the 1960s and 1970s, has gone down steadily since 1980. Department of Justice statistics show that serious crimes (murder, rape, robbery, etc.) declined 7 percent nationwide in 1983 and an additional 4.5 percent the following year. In some areas, for example in New York City, crime decreased 17 percent over a three-year period, with homicides and burglaries down by 10 percent. However, experts who had predicted a further decline were puzzled when FBI figures for 1985 showed an increase in violent crimes. Public opinion polls show that Americans view crime as one of the most serious problems of their society. Several studies have also shown that the amount of crime,

14

especially violent crime, is frequently overestimated. Experts believe that this awareness and fear of crime is largely caused by the great attention it is given in newspapers and on television, and also because violent crime is a popular theme for television series and films. Many Americans are therefore surprised to learn that, according to Interpol, the "general crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants" for the U.S. is significantly lower than that for several other western nations such as Sweden, New Zealand, or Denmark, and not much higher than those for West Germany, Austria, or England. Nevertheless, among all crimes, murder makes the headlines, and there is no doubt that homicides continue to be a serious problem in America. The U.S. had a murder rate (per 100,000 inhabitants) of 8 in the mid-1980s, compared, for instance, with a rate of 7 for Canada, 5 for Sweden and West Germany, and 4 for Italy. It makes a difference, of course, where someone lives in America. The murder rates (in 1985) for states such as Texas (13.0), Florida (11.4), and Michigan (11.2) contrast with those for Minnesota (2.1), Iowa (1.9), South Dakota (1.8), and North Dakota (1.0). In some parts of the country, above all in decayed, inner-city areas, most people keep their doors locked and do not walk alone at night. In other parts, few people take such precautions. In the United States, as elsewhere, the causes of serious crime are hotly debated and many reasons for it suggested. Among these are unemployment, drug-abuse, poverty, inadequate police enforcement, ineffective courts, racial discrimination, consumerism, television, and "a general decline in middle-class values." Surprisingly, a major study of crime in the U.S. carried out by North-western University in 1982 found that "the number of poor people in a city is only marginally related to property or violent crime." In other words, American cities with a higher rate of unemployment and poverty do not necessarily also have a higher crime rate. Many experts are coming to believe that only grass-roots efforts to improve community life overall will have a lasting effect. Many communities across the nation have started their own campaigns against crime, encouraging their citizens to participate in crime-prevention programs and to report crimes. Several civil rights groups actively support such "self-help" campaigns. In some neighborhoods, citizens participate in "neighborhood watch" programs and organize groups to patrol the streets. Changes The Civil Rights Movement, which had fought its most bitter battles in the 1960s, also led to action and protest in many other areas. Women who had taken part in many of the nationwide civil rights activities became more aware of, and involved in changing, their own situation, and the biases and prejudices with which they were faced. On the average, they earned less than men. Their average educational level was lower, and in some cases they were discriminated against in both law (for example, divorce cases) and financial matters (for example, getting a loan). The Constitution (in the 14th Amendment) might say that all "persons" had equal rights and protection under the law, but in practice, men were often "more equal." Why, for example, were

15

fewer women enrolled in the medical and law schools of the nation's universities? And why, for that matter, were women in the military usually found in secretarial or nursing roles? Progress in many areas can only be judged state by state, for the states control such important areas as marriage and divorce laws, and most work legislation. The proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) failed to be ratified by enough states, and many believe that some women did not really want full equality under the law. They feared, perhaps, that divorce laws which treated men and women equally would often leave women with the children and very little else. Others argue that the ERA failed because too many men used such fears as an excuse to protect their own interests. Despite the failure of the ERA, the fact that many women are taking their convictions to court has had a deep effect not only on how women are being treated but also on the attention their demands have received. Overall, two major trends can be seen. First, there are now more laws which specifically protect women against discrimination. As a result, there have been a large number of law suits in which women claim, for instance, that a man was given a position although a woman was equally or better qualified. During the last decade, career opportunities for women have markedly improved as a consequence. Secondly, there has been a gradual, but general, improvement in how women are seen and treated in society. No one today, for example, seems surprised to see a woman driving a truck, working as a policeman, or as a high school principal. Finally, the move to complete equal rights under the law has also led to a better understanding of some of the worst forms of sexual discrimination. For example, most American cities now have special health, psychiatric, and legal staff to aid in rape cases. Many support houses for abused women, and cases involving sexual harassment are being more actively prosecuted in many parts of the country. Despite a series of recessions, the civilian labor force grew by 37 percent between 1970 and 1984. Between 1982 and 1985, more than 10 million new jobs were created. Reflected in these figures is a sharp rise in the proportion of women who work. In 1950, about two-thirds of American women were housewives; ten years later, about one-half were. More than two-thirds of the women between 25 and 44 are employed, and some 55 percent of married women with children work outside the home today. The proportion of women in the total labor force, presently about 44 percent, is expected to continue growing until the year 2000. Over 70 percent of all American households (some 84 million) in 1982 were "families." Households with only one or two members increased from 46 to 55 percent of all households between 1970 and 1982, while households with five or more members dropped from 21 to 12 percent. Today's Americans marry later, have fewer children, and divorce more readily. However, almost three-fourths of those divorced later remarry. More Americans are also raising children alone. Between 1960 and 1983, the number of "single-parent" households increased by 175 percent, one-person households by 173 percent, and households composed of unmarried couples by 331 percent. The most striking change contained in these figures is the increase in families with a female head and no husband present. The number of unwed mothers, too, jumped from half a million in 1970 to almost 3 million in 1982. While fifteen years

16

ago, 40 percent of all households consisted of husband, wife, and children, that figure has dropped to 28.5 percent. These changes have caused concern among many Americans. Some feel that traditional values are eroding and that the center of American life, the nuclear family, is in danger. Others, however, believe that such developments reflect a liberalization in American life. For example, they point out that changes in divorce laws in many states have made it easier to be divorced. They also claim that the once strong social taboos against unmarried couples living together, or against "illegitimate" children, have broken down and are things of the past. There are several other significant forces which are transforming American society today. For example, the "baby boom" generation (the some 27 million Americans born between about 1946 and 1964) is becoming middle-aged. For the first time in American history, there are now more people who are 65 and over than teenagers. By the year 2030, one in five Americans will be over 65, compared with slightly more than one in eight today. This aging of the population will have considerable impact on American society, its institutions, services, and economy. This look at several fundamental ways of describing Americans has shown, above all, that what America is today, is very much different from what it was even a few decades ago. The once dominant picture of America and Americans as mainly British in ancestry - with just a few other European nationalities, and a small number of "minorities" - Protestant in religion, and having its largest cities and centers of power along the East Coast, is badly out of date.

********************************************************************* ********************************************************************* ASSIGNMENTS 1. Give English definitions to the following explanations: a) sameness; exact likeness b) a person’s ancestors considered as a group or as a continuous line c) easily seen or understood, evident d) Spanish-speaking Americans e) facts, figures, information f) questioning of a selected sample group of people to analyze public opinion g) an official counting of a country’s total population, with other important information about people h) concentrated condition i) belonging to another country or race, foreign j) a person who has left his/her country to escape from war, oppression k) to force the acceptance of; to put a tax, duty on l) to treat cruelly, to cause to suffer, to trouble continually m) relating to a Protestant movement which strictly follows orthodox beliefs n) financially successful, flourishing

17

o) region that forms the margin of p) born of parents not married to each other

settled or developed territory

2. Translate the words and word-combinations from English into Russian and from Russian into English rapidly without any stops: To define; markers; род ств енность, род ов ое сход ств о; д ейств ов ать, в ли ять; to estimate; quota system; г олод , г олод ани е; turmoil; поправ ка (кзаконопроекту); to hinder; терпи мость; to eliminate; willpower; to shift away; столи чный; пад ени е, сни жени е; homicide; marginally; поступать, запи сыв аться; harassment.

3. Translate the article into English using the structures in brackets: КО РЕ Н Н Ы Е АМ Е РИ КАН Ц Ы П од счи тано (to be estimated), что около 20 млн. жи телей С оед и ненных Ш татов мог ут быть носи телями (to identify oneself) "и нд ейской кров и " (по перепи си 1980 г .). О д нако ли ш ь около 1,4 млн. счи таю т себя и нд ейцами (амери кански ми и нд ейцами , эски мосами и ли алеутами ) (American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut). Ч уть больш е полов и ны и х прожи в ает в ф ед еральных резерв аци ях и ли ряд ом с ни ми , остальные рассеяны сред и (to be scattered throughout) основ ног о населени я. И нд еец не обязан жи ть в резерв аци и . Е сли в 1940 г . менее30 тыс. и нд ейцев жи ли в г ород ах, то теперь и х там более700 тыс. В 19 крупнейш и х г ород ах и и х при г ород ах прожи в ает по 5 и ли более тысяч и нд ейцев , на в сей терри тори и Л ос-Анд желеса (Los Angeles urban complex) и х около 82 тыс. Кри тери и племенной при над лежности разли чны и опред еляю тся (to be set) сами ми племенами . П лемена уи нта (the Uintah) и урей ю та (the Ouray Utes) в ш тате Ю та опред еляю т ее по нали чи ю более 50% и нд ейской кров и и , по крайней мере, 25% кров и племени ю та. Ч ероки (the Chrokees) в ш татеО клахома счи таю т св ои ми прямыми потомками (lineal descendants) соплеменни ков , у которых может быть ли ш ь малая д оля (small fraction) и нд ей ской кров и . П лемя санта клара пуэбло (the Santa Clara Pueblo) в Н ью -М екси ко счи тает д етей и нд ейца и з св оег о племени , женатог о не на и нд и анке, законными претенд ентами (eligible for) на членств о в племени , но это неотноси тся кд етям и нд ейской женщ и ны и з племени санта клара, в ыш ед ш ей замуж неза и нд ейца. Л и ш ь 10% и з более чем 200 резерв аци й насчи тыв аю т не менее 5 тыс. оби тателей. Крупнейш ая и з ни х — Н ав ахо (the Navajo) (расположена в ш татах Ари зона, Н ью -М екси ко и Ю та), в которой прожи в аетоколо 166 тыс. и нд ейцев . Больш и нств о и з 500 племен и г рупп, при знав аемых амери кански м прав и тельств ом, немног очи сленны. Л и ш ь в 5 ш татах (Аляска, Ари зона, Н ью М екси ко, О клахома и Ю жная Д акота) и нд ейцы прев ыш аю т (to make up) 5% населени я. В сеамери кански еи нд ейцы яв ляю тся г ражд анами С оед и ненных Ш татов .

18

4. Talking points: 1)Why is it difficult to define an “ average” American? 2)Explain the impact of immigration on American society. 3)Discuss possible consequences of recent changes in the pattern of immigration. 4)Should stricter laws against further immigration be passed? Discuss the pros and cons. 5)What are the major differences between religious life in the U.S. and in Russia? 6)What recent developments have affected the role of women in American society?

19

II. AMERICAN GOVERNMENT

A New Nation In 1776, the thirteen weak British colonies in America came together, stood up, and told what was then the world's greatest power that from now on they would be free and independent states. The British were neither impressed nor amused, and a bitter six-year war followed, the Revolutionary War (1776-83). It's hard to appreciate today, over two centuries later, what a revolutionary act this was. A new republic was founded, turning into reality the dreams and ideals of a few political philosophers. Americans broke with an age-old tradition, and so sent shock waves back across the ocean: they decided that it was their right to choose their own form of government. At that time, the statement that governments should receive their powers only "from the consent of the governed" was radical indeed. Something new was under the sun: a system of government, in Lincoln's words, "of the people, by the people, for the people."

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights The former colonies, now "the United States of America," first operated under an agreement called the Articles of Confederation (1781). It was soon clear that this loose agreement among the states was not working well. The central, federal government was too weak, with too few powers for defense, trade, and taxation. In 1787, therefore, delegates from the states met in Philadelphia. They wanted to revise the Articles, but they did much more than that. They wrote a completely new document, the Constitution, which after much argument, debate, and compromise was finished in the same year and officially adopted by the thirteen states by 1790. The Constitution, the oldest still in force in the world, sets the basic form of government: three separate branches, each one having powers ("checks and balances") over the others. It specifies the powers and duties of each federal branch of government, with all other powers and duties belonging to the states. The Constitution has been repeatedly amended to meet the changing needs of the nation, but it is still the "supreme law of the land." All governments and governmental groups, federal, state, and local, must operate within its guidelines. The ultimate power under the Constitution is not given to the President (the executive branch), or to the Congress (the legislative branch), or to the Supreme Court (the judicial branch). Nor does it rest, as in many other countries, with a political group or party. It belongs to "We the People," in fact and in spirit. In this way, Americans first took for themselves the liberties and rights that elsewhere were the privileges of an elite few. Americans would manage their own affairs in their own interests. They would elect their own representatives and make their own laws. And, of course, they would make their own mistakes.

20

They stated in the first ten Constitutional Amendments, known together as the Bill of Rights, what they considered to be the fundamental rights of any American. Among these rights are the freedom of religion, speech, and the press, the right of peaceful assembly, and the right to petition the government to correct wrongs. Other rights guarded the citizens against unreasonable searches, arrests, and seizures of property, and established a system of justice guaranteeing orderly legal procedures. This included the right of trial by jury, that is, being judged by one's fellow citizens. The great pride Americans have in their Constitution, their almost religious respect for it, comes from the knowledge that these ideals, freedoms, and rights were not given to them by a small ruling class. Rather, they are seen as the natural "unalienable" rights of every American, which had been fought for and won. They cannot be taken away by any government, court, official, or law. The federal and state governments formed under the Constitution, therefore, were designed to serve the people and to carry out their majority wishes (and not the other way around). One thing they did not want their government to do is to rule them. Americans expect their governments to serve them and tend to think of politicians and governmental officials as their servants. This attitude remains very strong among Americans today. Over the past two centuries, the Constitution has also had considerable influence outside the United States. Several other nations have based their own forms of government on it. It is interesting to note that Lafayette, a hero of the American Revolution, drafted the French declaration of rights when he returned to France. And the United Nations Charter also has clear echoes of what once was considered a revolutionary document.

The American System of Government The governmental systems in the United States - federal, state, county, and local - are quite easy to understand. They are quite easy to understand, that is, if you grew up with them and studied them in school. One foreign expert complained, for example, that the complexity of just the cities' political and governmental structure is "almost unbelievable." The "real Chicago," he explained, "spreads over 2 states, 6 counties, 10 towns, 30 cities, 49 townships, and 110 villages. Overlaid upon this complex pattern are 235 tax districts and more than 400 school districts ..." There are, however, several basic principles which are found at all levels of American government. One of these is the "one person, one vote" principle which says that legislators are elected from geographical districts directly by the voters. Under this principle, all election districts must have about the same number of residents. Another fundamental principle of American government is that because of he system of checks and balances, compromise in politics is a matter of necessity, not choice. For example, the House of Representatives controls spending and finance, so the President must have its agreement for his proposals and programs. He cannot declare war, either, without the approval of Congress. In foreign affairs, he is also strongly limited. Any treaty must first be approved by the Senate. If there is no

21

approval, there's no treaty. The rule is "the President proposes, but Congress disposes." What a President wants to do, there fore, is often a different thing from what a President is able to do.

Congress Congress, the legislative branch of the federal government, is made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives. There are 100 Senators, two from each state. One third of the Senators are elected every two years for six-year terms of office. The Senators represent all of the people in a state and their interests. The House has 435 members. They are elected every two years for two-year terms. They represent the population of "congressional districts" into which each state is divided. The number of Representatives from each state is based upon its population. For instance, California, the state with the largest population, has 45 Representatives, while Delaware has only one. There is no limit to the number of terms a Senator or a Representative may serve. Almost all elections in the United States follow the "winner-take-all" principle: the candidate who wins the largest number of votes in a Congressional district is the winner. Congress makes all laws, and each house of Congress has the power to introduce legislation. Each can also vote against legislation passed by the other. Because legislation only becomes law if both houses agree, compromise between them is necessary. Congress decides upon taxes and how money is spent. In addition, it regulates commerce among the states and with foreign countries. It also sets rules for the naturalization of foreign citizens.

The President The President of the United States is elected every four years to a four-year term of office, with no more than two full terms allowed. As is true with Senators and Representatives, the President is elected directly by the voters (through state electors). In other words, the political party with the most Senators and Representatives does not choose the President. This means that the President can be from one party, and the majority of those in the House of Representatives or Senate (or both) from another. This is not uncommon. Thus, although one of the parties may win a majority in the midterm elections (those held every two years), the President remains President, even though his party may not have a majority in either house. Such a result could easily hurt his ability to get legislation through Congress, which must pass all laws, but this is not necessarily so. In any case, the President's policies must be approved by the House of Representatives and the Senate before they can become law. In domestic as well as in foreign policy, the President can seldom count upon the automatic support of Congress, even when his own party has a majority in both the Senate and the House. Therefore he must be able to convince Congressmen, the Representatives and Senators,

22

of his point of view. He must bargain and compromise. This is a major difference between the American system and those in which the nation's leader represents the majority party or parties, that is, parliamentary systems. Within the Executive Branch, there are a number of executive departments. Currently these are the departments of State, Treasury, Defense, Justice, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Resources, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Energy, and Education. Each department is established by law, and, as their names indicate, each is responsible for a specific area. The head of each department is appointed by the President. These appointments, however, must be approved by the Senate. None of these Secretaries, as the department heads are usually called, can also be serving in Congress or in another part of the government. Each is directly responsible to the President and only serves as long as the President wants him or her to. They can best be seen, therefore, as Presidential assistants and advisers. When they meet together, they are termed "the President's Cabinet." Some Presidents have relied quite a bit on their Cabinets for advice and some very little. The Federal Judiciary The third branch of government, in addition to the legislative (Congress) and executive (President) branches, is the federal judiciary. Its main instrument is the Supreme Court, which watches over the other two branches. It determines whether or not their laws and acts are in accordance with the Constitution. Congress has the power to fix the number of judges sitting on the Court, but it cannot change the powers given to the Supreme Court by the Constitution itself. The Supreme Court consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices. They are nominated by the President but must be approved by the Senate. Once approved, they hold office as Supreme Court Justices for life. A decision of the Supreme Court cannot be appealed to any other court. Neither the President nor Congress can change their decisions. In addition to the Supreme Court, Congress has established 11 federal courts of appeal and, below them, 91 federal district courts. The Supreme Court has direct jurisdiction in only two kinds of cases: those involving foreign diplomats and those in which a state is a party. All other cases which reach the Court are appeals from lower courts. The Supreme Court chooses which of these it will hear. Most of the cases involve the interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court also has the "power of judicial review," that is, it has the right to declare laws and actions of the federal, state, and local governments unconstitutional. While not stated in the Constitution, this power was established over time.

Checks and Balances The Constitution provides for three main branches of government which are separate and distinct from one another. The powers given to each are carefully balanced by the powers of the other two. Each branch serves as a check on the others.

23

This is to keep any branch from gaining too much power or from misusing its powers. The chart 20 below illustrates how the equal branches of government are connected and how each is dependent on the other two. Congress has the power to make laws, but the President may veto any act of Congress. Congress, in its turn, can override a veto by a two-thirds vote in each house. Congress can also refuse to provide funds requested by the President. The President can appoint important officials of his administration, but they must be approved by the Senate. The President also has the power to name all federal judges; they, too, must be approved by the Senate. The courts have the power to determine the constitutionality of all acts of Congress and of presidential actions, and to strike down those they find unconstitutional. The system of checks and balances makes compromise and consensus necessary. Compromise is also a vital aspect of other levels of government in the United States. This system protects against extremes. It means, for example, that new presidents cannot radically change governmental policies just as they wish. In the U.S., therefore, when people think of "the government," they usually mean the entire system, that is, the Executive Branch and the President, Congress, and the courts. In fact and in practice, therefore, the President (i.e. "the Administration") is not as powerful as many people outside the U.S. seem to think he is. In comparison with other leaders in systems where the majority party forms "the government," he is much less so.

Political Parties Sometimes, the the Constitution says nothing about political parties, but overtime the U.S. has in fact developed a two-party system. The two leading parties are the Democrats and the Republicans. There are other parties besides these two, and foreign observers are often surprised to learn that among these are also a Communist party and several Socialist parties. Minor parties have occasionally won offices at lower levels of government, but they do not play a role in national politics. In fact, one does not need to be a member of a political party to run in any election at any level of government. Also, people can simply declare themselves to be members of one of the two major parties when they register to vote in a district. Democrats are thought of as associated with labor, and the Republicans with business and industry. Republicans also tend to oppose the greater involvement of the federal government in some areas of public life which they consider to be the responsibility of the states and communities. Democrats, on the other hand, tend to favor a more active role of the central government in social matters. To distinguish between the parties is often difficult, however. Furthermore, the traditional European terms of "right" and "left," or "conservative" and "liberal" do not quite fit the American system. Someone from the "conservative right," for instance, would be against a strong central government. Or a Democrat from one part of the country could be very "liberal," and one from another part quite "conservative." Even if they have been elected as Democrats or Republicans, Representatives or Senators

24

are not bound to a party program, nor are they subject to any discipline when they disagree with their party. While some voters will vote a "straight ticket," in other words, for all of the Republican or Democratic candidates in an election, many do not. They vote for one party's candidate for one office, and another's for another. As a result, the political parties have much less actual power than they do in other nations. In the U.S., the parties cannot win seats which they are then free to fill with party members they have chosen. Rather, both Representatives and Senators are elected to serve the interests of the people and the areas they represent, that is, their "constituencies." In about 70 percent of legislative decisions, Congressmen will vote with the specific wishes of their constituencies in mind, even if this goes against what their own parties might want as national policy. It is quite common, in fact, to find Democrats in Congress voting for a Republican President's legislation, quite a few Republicans voting against it, and so on.

Elections Anyone who is an American citizen, at least 18 years of age, and is registered to vote may vote. Each state has the right to determine registration procedures. A number of civic groups, such as the League of Women Voters, are actively trying to get more people involved in the electoral process and have drives to register as many people as possible. Voter registration and voting among minorities has dramatically increased during the last twenty years, especially as a result of the Civil Rights Movement. There is some concern, however, about the number of citizens who could vote in national elections but do not. In the national election of 1984, for instance, only 53.3 percent of all those who could have voted actually did. But then, Americans who want to vote must register, that is put down their names in a register before the actual elections take place. There are 50 different registration laws in the U.S. - one set for each state. In the South, voters often have to register not only locally but also at the county seat. In European countries, on the other hand, "permanent registration" of voters is most common. Of those voters in the United States who did register in the 1984 presidential elections, 73 percent cast their ballots. Another important factor is that there are many more elections in the U.S. at the state and local levels than there are in most countries. If the number of those who vote in these elections (deciding, for example, if they should pay more taxes so a new main street bridge can be built) were included, the percentage in fact would not be that much different from other countries. Certainly, Americans are much more interested in local politics than in those at the federal level. Many of the most important decisions, such as those concerning education, housing, taxes, and so on, are made close to home, in the state or county. The national presidential elections really consist of two separate campaigns: one is for the nomination of candidates at national party conventions. The other is to win the actual election. The nominating race is a competition between members of the same party. They run in a succession of state primaries and caucuses (which take place

25

between March and June). They hope to gain a majority of delegate votes for their national party conventions (in July or August). The party convention then votes to select the party's official candidate for the presidency. Then follow several months of presidential campaigns by the candidates. In November of the election year (years divisible by four, e.g. 1988, 1992, 1996, etc.), the voters across the nation go to the polls. If the majority of the popular votes in a state go to the Presidential (and Vice Presidential) candidate of one party, then that person is supposed to get all of that state's "electoral votes." These electoral votes are equal to the number of Senators and Representatives each state has in Congress. The candidate with the largest number of these electoral votes wins the election. Each state's electoral votes are formally reported by the "Electoral College." In January of the following year, in a joint session of Congress, the new President and Vice-President are officially announced. Federalism: State and Local Governments The fifty states are quite diverse in size, population, climate, economy, history, and interests. The fifty state governments often differ from one another, too. Because they often approach political, social or economic questions differently, the states have been called "laboratories of democracy." However, they do share certain basic structures. The individual states all have republican forms of government with a senate and a house. (There is one exception, Nebraska, which has only one legislative body of 49 "senators.") All have executive branches headed by state governors and independent court systems. Each state also has its own constitution. But all must respect re federal laws and not make laws that interfere with those of the other states (e.g., someone who is divorced under the laws of one state is legally divorced in all). Likewise, cities and local authorities must make their laws and regulations so that they fit their own state's constitution. The Constitution limits the federal government to specific powers, but modern judicial interpretations of the Constitution have expanded federal responsibilities. All others automatically belong to the states and to the local communities. This has meant that there has always been a battle between federal and states' rights. The traditional American distrust of a too powerful central government has kept the battle fairly even over the years. The states and local communities in the U.S. have rights that in other countries generally belong to the central government. All education at any level, for example, is the concern of the states. The local communities have the real control at the public school level. They control administration of the schools. They elect the school board officials, and their local community taxes largely support the schools. Each individual school system, therefore, hires and fires and pays its own teachers. It sets its own policies within broad state guidelines. Similarly, there is no national police force, the FBI being limited to a very few federal crimes, such as kidnapping. Each state has its own state police and its own criminal laws. The same is true with, for example, marriage and divorce laws, driving laws and licenses, drinking laws, and voting procedures. In turn, each city has its own police force that it hires, trains, controls, and organizes. Neither the President nor the governor of a state has direct power over it. By the way, police departments of

26

counties are often called "sheriffs' departments." Sheriffs are usually elected, but state and city police officials are not. There are many other areas which are also the concern of cities, towns, and villages. Among these are the opening and closing hours for stores, street and road repair, or architectural laws and other regulations. Also, one local community might decide that a certain magazine is pornographic and forbid its sale, or a local school board might determine that a certain novel should not be in their school library. (A court, however, may later tell the community or school board that they have unfairly attempted to exercise censorship.) But another village, a few miles down the road, might accept both. The same is true of films. Most states and some cities have their own income taxes. Many cities and counties also have their own laws saying who may and may not own a gun. Many airports, some of them international, are owned and controlled by cities or counties and have their own airport police. Finally, a great many of the most hotly debated questions, which in other countries are decided at the national level, are in America settled by the individual states and communities. Among these are, for example, laws about drug use, capital punishment, abortion, and homosexuality. A connecting thread that runs all the way through governments in the U.S. is the "accountability" of politicians, officials, agencies, and governmental groups. This means that information and records on crimes, fires, marriages and divorces, court cases, property taxes, etc. are public information. It means, for example, that when a small town needs to build a school or buy a new police car, how much it will cost (and which company offered what at what cost) will be in the local newspaper. In some cities, meetings of the city council are carried live on radio. As a rule, politicians in the U.S. at any level pay considerable attention to public opinion. Ordinary citizens participate actively and directly in decisions that concern them. In some states, such as California, in fact, citizens can petition to have questions (i.e., "propositions") put on the ballot in state elections. If the proposition is approved by the voters, it then becomes law. This "grass roots" character of American democracy can also be seen in New England town meetings or at the public hearings of local school boards. Adding this up, America has an enormous variety in its governmental bodies. Its system tries to satisfy the needs and wishes of people at the local level, while at the same time the Constitution guarantees basic rights to anyone, anywhere in America. This has been very important, for instance, to the Civil Rights Movement and its struggle to secure equal rights for all Americans, regardless of race, place of residence, or state voting laws. Therefore, although the states control their own elections as well as the registration procedures for national elections, they cannot make laws that would go against an individual's constitutional rights.

Special Interest Groups Americans, always concerned that their politicians represent their interests, often form "pressure" groups, political lobbies, public action committees (PACs), or special

27

interest groups (SIGs). Such groups seek to influence politicians on almost any imaginable subject. One group might campaign for a nationwide, federal gun-control law, while another group opposes it. Tobacco companies in North Carolina are not too happy about the strong health warnings that must be put on their products. Some religious groups call for pupils being allowed to pray, if they wish, in school, or they campaign against state and federal money being given for abortions. Ethnic groups often want certain foreign policies put into effect with their friends or foes. Tax payers in a number of states have protested against rising taxes and initiated legislation setting limits to taxation. Some labor unions want illegal immigration controlled. And, not surprisingly, some pressure groups want pressure groups stopped and lobby against lobbyists. Such groups of citizens have also helped to weaken the political parties. Each individual politician must pay close attention to the special concerns and causes of his voters. What is amazing is how well so many different governmental groups, with their many ethnic and cultural and business and geographical interests, do seem to manage the affairs of those they were chosen to represent. But then, the great variety of local, regional, and state governments does help to fulfill wishes of the many different constituencies. If New Yorkers want their city-owned university to be free to any city resident, that is their business. If a small town in the mountains of Colorado decides that snowmobiles have the right-of-way on city streets, that's theirs. And if a county in Arkansas decides that fireworks or hard liquor will not be sold within its limits, well, that's its right, too.

Political Attitudes It's often been said and does seem to be true: Americans seem almost instinctively to dislike government and politicians. They especially tend to dislike "those fools in Washington" who spend their tax money and are always trying to "interfere" in their local and private concerns. Many would no doubt agree with the statement that the best government is the one that governs least. In a 1984 poll, for example, only a fourth of those asked wanted the federal government to do more to solve the country's problems. Neighborhoods, communities, and states have a strong pride in their ability to deal with their problems themselves, and this feeling is especially strong in the West. Americans are seldom impressed by government officials (they do like royalty, as long as it's not theirs). They distrust people who call themselves experts. They don't like being ordered to do anything. For example, in the Revolutionary War (1776-83) and into the Civil War (1861-65), American soldiers often elected their own officers. In their films and fiction as well as in television series, Americans often portray corrupt politicians and incompetent officials. Anyone who wants to be President, they say with a smile, isn't qualified. Their newsmen and journalists and television reporters are known the world over for "not showing proper respect" to governmental leaders, whether their own or others. As thousands of foreign observers have remarked, Americans simply do not like authority.

28

Many visitors to the U.S. are still surprised by the strong egalitarian tendencies they meet in daily life. Americans from different walks of life, people with different educational and social backgrounds, will often start talking with one another "just as if they were all equal." Is everybody equal in the land that stated - in the eyes of God and the law - that "all men are created equal?" No, of course not. Some have advantages of birth, wealth, or talent. Some have been to better schools. Some have skins or accents or beliefs that their neighbors don't especially like. Yet the ideal is ever-present in a land where so many different races, language groups, cultural and religious beliefs, hopes, dreams, traditional hates and dislikes have come together. All in all, what do Americans think of their system of government? What would "We the People" decide today? One American, a Nobel Prize winner in literature, gave this opinion: "We are able to believe that our government is weak, stupid, overbearing, dishonest, and inefficient, and at the same time we are deeply convinced that it is the best government in the world, and we would like to impose it upon everyone else." Of course, many of today's 240 million Americans would disagree in part or with all. "Who is this one American," they might ask, "to speak for all of us?"

********************************************************************** **********************************************************************

ASSIGNMENTS 1. Give English definitions to the following explanations: a) a country where power is held by the people or the representatives that they elect b) the group of people who are responsible for governing it c) an organization or group consisting of smaller groups or states, especially one that exists for business or political purposes d) a section of a formal agreement or document which deals with a particular point e) the system of laws which formally states people’s rights and duties f) a department of the government that has a particular function g) to change a law in order to improve it or make it more accurate h) the elected group of politicians that is responsible for making the law in the United States i) the smaller and more important of the two parts of Congress j) the less powerful of the two parts of Congress in the United States k) something that consists of a law or laws passed by a government l) the branch of authority in a country which is concerned with law and the legal system m) a court which deals with appeals against legal judgments

29

n) an area for which someone is elected as the representative in a government o) a person who is elected to make sure that the law is obeyed in a particular county p) a group of people who represent a particular organization or campaign and try to persuade a government or council to help or support them

2. Translate the words and word-combinations from English into Russian and from Russian into English rapidly without any stops: П роти в остоять, и знури тельная в ойна, Articles of Confederation, мало к чему обязыв аю щ еесог лаш ени е, powers for defense, taxation, при ни мать г олосов ани ем, The bill of Rights, “checks and balances”, duty, в ысш ая в ласть, Supreme Court, поправ ки к консти туци и , peaceful assembly, обжалов ани е, have clear echoes, законод атель, “the President proposes, but Congress disposes”, палата пред став и телей, прав о законод ательной и ни ци ати в ы, the department for Treasury, д епартаментю сти ци и , в нутренни х д ел, federal judiciary, г лав ный суд ья, associate justice, зани мать пост, court of appeal, ф ед еральный окружной суд , veto, override a veto, г рад острои тельный над зор, “accountability”, “ни зов ой” характер амери канской д емократи и .

3.Translate the article into English using the structures in brackets: С Т РУ КТ У РА АМ Е РИ КАН С КО Г О Ф Е Д Е РАЛ И ЗМ А Т в орцы амери канской консти туци и созд али си стему « консти туци онных проти в ов есов » (the system of checks and balances), основ анную на точно установ ленных консти туци онных нормах, отв ед енных законод ательной, и сполни тельной и суд ебной в ласти . С и стема « консти туци онных проти в ов есов » опред еляет (to specify) также и в заи моотнош ени я ф ед еральной в ласти (federal branch of government) с амери кански ми ш татами . В обязанности ф ед ераци и (federal duty) в ли це прези д ента (in the President person) в ход и т защ и та терри тори и ш татов от в неш нег о в торжени я (invasion). В чрезв ычай ных си туаци ях (state of emergency) св ои в оенные полномочи я (powers) г лав нокоманд ую щ ег о (Commander-in-Chief) прези д ент может осущ еств лять и в нутри страны, и спользуя в оенную си лу на терри тори и лю бог о ш тата д ля в осстанов лени я законности и поряд ка (to restore law and order). В ели ка в С Ш А и роль В ерхов ног о суд а. О н в прав е отменять законоположени я, если сочтет и х незаконными (to declare presidential acts unconstitutional), в клю чая и те, которые под пи саны прези д ентом. О д нако реш ени е об и спользов ани и ф ед еральных в ооруженных си л – прерог ати в а (prerogative) прези д ента. Ш таты и мею т св ои консти туци и и св ои св од ы законов . Н о од ни м и з основ ных при нци пов амери канског о ф ед ерали зма яв ляется в ерхов енств о (supremacy) ф ед еральног о прав а по отнош ени ю кправ ов ым си стемам ш татов .

30

Ш таты не мог ут в ступать в межд ународ ные сою зы, заклю чать межд ународ ные д ог ов ора (to conclude a treaty), в ыпускать д еньг и , не и мею т прав о на в ыход и з сою за. Н ад зор за д еятельностью ад ми ни страци и ш тата осущ еств ляет г убернатор. О н и меет также и законод ательные полномочи я, но в се ег о д ейств и я нед олжны и д ти в разрез с (to be in conflict with) консти туци ей С Ш А. Амери кански е ш таты в сег д а счи тали себя частью , св язанной с прези д ентской в ластью и в ластью К онг ресса. С и льные прези д ент и си льный Конг ресс яв ляю тся д ля ни х основ ами (to be the basis/foundation of) и х собств енной стаби льности и благ ополучи я.

4.Talking points: 1)Why can the birth of the United States of America be called “ a truly revolutionary act”? 2)What are the fundamental principles of the American system of government? 3)Point out major differences between the function of political parties in the U.S. and in Russia. 4)Explain the functions of the different branches of government in the U.S. Compare them with those in Russia. 5)What is the relationship between federal, state, and local governments and what are their different responsibilities? 6)Discuss the factors that may account for the low voter participation in national elections in the United States.

31

II.

ECONOMY, LABOR, AND

WELFAIR

Economy The American economy had to be built, as they say, from the ground up. Those immigrants who were not willing to work hard - or work with their hands as well as their heads - seldom did well in the New World. In the beginning, of course, there were simply no farms or houses or factories. Whatever was needed had to be made by the settlers themselves. Or it had to be imported at great expense. The tremendous ingenuity and inventiveness of Americans has been traced to this pioneer time and spirit. "Do-it-yourself," then, is hardly a recent trend or a middle-class hobby in America. There were few skilled craftsmen available and no established class of agricultural workers, or peasantry. Therefore, if a new way to do the work couldn't be found, it just didn't get done. What was achieved in the first hundred years following independence is amazing. By 1890, for example, the U.S. was producing more iron and steel than Great Britain and Germany combined. By 1900, according to several criteria, the U.S.. had become the greatest industrial nation, and its citizens enjoyed the highest standard of living in the world. In 1913, the United States accounted for more than a third of the world's industrial production. By the post-World War II era, the United States was producing 50 percent of the "gross world product." Today, the American economy no longer dominates the world as it clearly did then. But with only about 5 percent of the world's population and about 6 percent of its land area, the U.S. still produces around 25 percent of the world's industrial products, agricultural goods, and services. America has not dropped behind other nations: its gross national product (GNP) has tripled since the end of the Second World War. Rather, the rest of the world has caught up, or closed the distance. Despite its fears - often voiced - that it is no longer at the top in almost every area, America remains the world leader in a great many. Among these are, for instance, biochemical and genetic engineering, aerospace research and development, communications, computer and information services, and similar high-technology fields. In such areas American companies are faced with intense competition throughout the world, sometimes from foreign firms which are supported by groups of nations and their governments. Still, America's private industries are doing quite well. American firms which sell passenger aircraft or computers retain the largest share of the world market. Similarly, many countries now have their own Silicon valleys, but the first and biggest computer research and production area is still Silicon Valley, near San Francisco, where some 4,000 high-tech firms are located. And the best-selling car in the world is a Ford (the Escort). In the poker game of international business, foreigners still choose to put their money in the American game first. Foreign investment in the U.S. in 1984 amounted to some $164 billion, with the United Kingdom ($38 billion), the Netherlands ($33 billion), Japan ($16 billion), Canada ($15 billion), and West Germany ($12 billion) as leading investors. While its industrial and technological skills are well known, what many people, including Americans, don't know is that the United States is also the world's leading

32

agricultural nation. America is by far the biggest supplier of grains, growing 20 percent of all the world's wheat, corn (maize), oats and sorghum. Similarly, American farmers and ranchers are responsible for 14 percent of the world's dairy products, 17 percent of 40 all its meats, 27 percent of its vegetable fats and oils, and over 60 percent of its soybeans. This is surprising, because America's share of the world's land that can be used for farming is less than 8 percent, and because only a tiny proportion of America's total population (less than 3 percent) is involved in agriculture. America not only feeds her own people - one of the few countries that does so - but a great many other people in the world as well. This is true, even though other countries such as the Soviet Union and China have more land under agriculture and more people working on it. Exports only account for less than a tenth of America's gross national product, but of this amount, almost one-fifth comes from agricultural goods. A problem facing American farmers is, in fact, that they produce much more food and agricultural products than ever before. The 1985 corn crop, for example, was the largest in history, and there are enormous excesses of wheat, rice, soybeans, and milk as well. Despite the dramatic decrease of the American farm population - from 23 percent of the total population in 1940 to less than 2.5 percent in 1985 - the agricultural output has increased more rapidly than the demand. This has lowered the price of agricultural products, and some farmers who bought more land or equipment when prices were higher are now in difficulty. Some 50,000 of the nation's 2.3 million farmers were forced to quit farming in 1985. Although this is only about 2 percent of all farmers, it received very much attention in the media, because Americans have always held a romantic image of the family farm. The small family farm might not be economical in an age of "agrobusiness," but it still has the sympathy of most Americans in much the same way the corner "Mom and Pop" grocery store once did. Many reasons have been offered to explain why the U.S. has been able to go from a small, struggling economy to the leading industrial and agricultural nation in such a short time. One reason, obviously, is its size and natural resources, but these alone do not account for its progress. Other countries share these, and some are superior in both. America's vitality, its so-called spirit of enterprise and initiative, has certainly played an important role. The American system of government, too, has encouraged citizens to vigorously pursue their own economic interest. The rapid progress of American industry and agriculture may also be traced to a characteristic which has often been called typically American. This is the constant willingness to experiment, combined with the desire to find new solutions to old problems. Social and geographical mobility have also played a part. When the older “smoke-stack” industries in the Midwest had problems, people moved – and were willing to move – to areas where they could find jobs. They were also willing to be trained for new ones. California and Texas are now the leading manufacturing states in America (California is also the largest agricultural producer). More than half of the over 100 million Americans in the work force in the mid-1980s were in white-collar jobs, with an additional 13 percent or so in service occupations. In spite of an economic depression and an unemployment rate of close to ten percent in the early 1980s, the American economy managed to create more than ten million jobs between 1982 and 1985. This is largely a

33

result of the some three million new businesses which were started in just five years. The unemployment rate in the mid-1980s was down to around seven percent. While this was certainly not good, it compared favorably with most of the other major economies. American business and industry has also greatly benefited from the major universities, their basic research, and willingness to support talent. Significant, too, has been “the spirit of enterprise,” in other words, taking a chance on both people and ideas, and letting those who are willing to work try to make something work. Unlike the tough old industrial barons of the 19th century, American entrepreneurs today are likely to be young, adventurous, and well educated. Above all, they are willing to take risks to achieve success. They are helped in this by that strange mixture of teamwork and competition, that appreciation of experience and expertise, which marks American business. Despite their emphasis on the individual, Americans often work well together in small groups. They respect the person with practical experience, with “dirt under his fingernails,” as well as the expert with the Ph.D. after his name. It is often the challenge, the desire to create something new or better, rather than the material results that motivates Americans, with financial success being merely an outward sign of achievement. Aware of this motivation, many firms in the U.S. today hire the best and brightest young minds, leave them alone with plenty of support and research facilities, and let them develop their own ideas. Even if only a few come up with something of interest - as did three Bell Telephone Laboratories researchers in 1948 when they invented the transistor - the investment has been worth it. Many Americans prefer to be their own bosses, and they are willing to trade security for the chance of "making it." Some 10 million Americans owned their own businesses in 1984, and four times that number (some 42 million) owned a part of businesses and industries through stock. Yet, despite its own claims, America is far from being a "free enterprise" market. Anyone trying to start a business is faced with many regulations, restrictions, and laws from all levels of government, federal, state, and local. The federal government sets laws concerning working conditions, transportation, minimum wages, and working hours (the minimum legal wage in 1987 was $3.35 per hour). Environmental protection and equal employment laws in the United States are among the strictest in the world. Such laws and regulations, standards and requirements represent the greatest contrast of the present business climate with that of the past. The American blue-collar worker is among the highest paid in the world, and his benefits and pensions also make him one of the most expensive. The average production worker in the U.S. earned $9.50 an hour in 1985, the highest wage of any production worker in the industrial West. In addition, many firms in the United States have profit-sharing plans for their employees. Through these agreements, employees receive a certain percentage of the profits the company makes. Profit shares may be paid out in cash or company stock at the end of the fiscal year or may be put into a trust fund and distributed to participants at retirement ("deferred plan"). This kind of profit-sharing started in the U.S. in the early 20th century. Proctor & Gamble began its profit-sharing plan in 1887, Eastman Kodak Company, and Sears, Roebuck & Company followed in 1912 and 1916. In 1984, some 20 million Americans

34

participated in plans to receive a share of company profits. In addition, around 82 percent of American workers in medium-sized and large firms were covered by a retirement pension plan from their firms. Recently a new trend has emerged which attempts to put employees and employers on much the same level. In some firms all employees own a part of the company and do all kinds of jobs. But all share in the profits or losses as well. This arrangement seems to give great incentive to employees. If one looks at America's industrial history, such developments are not surprising. Henry Ford became famous for his use of mass-production techniques. Perhaps more revolutionary, however, was the fact that, in 1914, he offered his workers a daily wage of $5.00 at a time when the national average was $2.40 and reduced the working day from nine to eight hours. The result was astounding: while mass production reduced the price of cars (Ford's Model T, the famous Tin Lizzie. cost $850 in 1908, but only $350 in 1926), better wages meant that more people could afford one. Millions of average Americans had cars - Ford alone had produced almost 30 million by the end of the 1930s - when elsewhere they remained luxuries or toys for the rich. This tendency to make new products available to and affordable for everybody is one obvious reason why American business has usually been supported by average Americans. Another reason for this widespread support of business has been the tendency of the "very rich" in America to give away much of their money before they died. American tycoons such as the Carnegies and Rockefellers, the Fords and Guggenheims, gave much of their wealth to charity, to hospitals, universities, libraries, museums, art galleries, and educational foundations. Carnegie, for example, felt that "the man who dies rich dies thus disgraced." During his lifetime, he gave away $370 million of his estimated $400 million "for the benefit of the community." This included enough money, for instance, to build 2,800 free public libraries. He was helped along - as corporations and the rich are still today – by America's tax laws. Simply stated, it is better to give money away to charities and other nonprofit organizations than to give it to the government in the form of taxes. Today, there are some 200,000 foundations, large and small, throughout the U.S. which fund research projects, support the arts, and contribute to various charitable and public causes. Few Americans like "big business," however. Starting with Theodore Roosevelt's administration (1901-1909), governments have broken up large corporations and monopolies. The first to be affected by "deregulation," that is, the removal of legal and administrative restrictions, were the big steel firms and the railroads. This process has continued to the present with the deregulation of banks and communications. A recent example is the airline industry. Deregulation has created enormous competition among American airlines. As a result, there are some 400 airlines in the U.S. today, of which 100 fly on interstate or international routes. Another example of this tendency to encourage competition by lifting restrictions is the transformation of the publicly regulated telephone company AT&T (American Telephone & Telegraph) into several smaller companies. Generally speaking, while the companies are not happy, the average citizens are. More airlines are now in competition for passengers, and several telephone companies now offer different

35

services and long-distance rates. Even the United States Postal Service is now in competition with private companies. Americans believe that "fat-cat" companies and businesses tend to get lazy and pay less attention to their customers. They are convinced that a choice of goods and services makes for better and cheaper ones.

Labor Labor laws, labor relations, and unions have a somewhat different history in the U.S. than they have had in other western industrialized countries. The main reason is that in America, employer and employee relations were not as much a battle between classes and sociopolitical philosophies as they were in other countries. The American worker has usually fought for "a bigger piece of the pie," better working conditions, and better health and retirement benefits, rather than social status, or mobility. His boss often didn't have a much different background than he did. The major difference between the employer and the employee was neither accent nor social class, but money and what it could buy. Other developments particular to American history were also important. For a long time there was a shortage of labor, especially of skilled workers. Most qualifications were acquired through experience on the job rather than formal training, and the skilled craftsman was in demand. As a result, wages were usually much higher in the United States than they were in Europe. As towns grew and the demand for manufactured goods rapidly increased, workshop owners began hiring more helpers to increase production. Soon workshops turned into factories and more and more workers were needed. Because many employers were in competition for employees, workers were often able to get better wages and working conditions than would otherwise have been the case. This, too, delayed the organization of labor unions. Although unions began to form before 1800, especially in the skilled trades, it was not until 1842 that workers in large numbers organized into labor unions. In the mid-19th century, the rapidly growing industries were able to employ the hundreds of thousands of immigrant workers who poured into the cities, and the situation quickly changed. Many workers had to take whatever jobs they found at whatever wages were offered. Bad working conditions and overcrowded housing often sparked protest and confrontation between employers and employees, workers and the police. The most violent of these confrontations between labor and employers was the Great Railway Strike of 1877. Striking workers in Pittsburgh blocked freight trains to protest wage decreases. Federal troops and militiamen were called in to clear the tracks. In the course of the battle that resulted, a number of workers were shot and some 2,000 railroad cars were burned. The labor movement gained its greatest momentum between 1860 and 1900, the period in which the U.S. started moving from the towns to the cities, from the farms to the factories. This was also the time of many political reforms. America's literature, too, turned increasingly to "muck-raking,” that is, strongly criticizing social conditions and pointing out the obvious sins and failing of big business and industry. Altogether, in the ten-year period between 1880 and 1890 there were some 10,000

36

strikes. Many of these strikes were violent on both sides, with the forces of government more likely to be siding with business. As late as the 1930s, violent strikes were not uncommon. In the automobile industry, for example, there were many violent confrontations and sit-down strikes before the companies accepted the fact that unions were there to stay. Major legislation during the 1930s, however, brought many long-overdue benefits to American workers. The Social Security Act of 1935, for instance, created a system of governmentsponsored unemployment insurance and old-age pensions, and the Fair Labor Standards Act regulated wages and working hours. By then, the unions had become forces that could not be ignored. In 1886, several unions of skilled workers came together to form a central union, the American Federation of Labor (AFL). Four years later, it had some 500,000 members, and by 1904, it had 1.75 million members. At this time, although many workers in Europe were joining revolutionary labor movements, most American workers were not interested in destroying the basic system, but in reforming it for their own benefit. They were most concerned, for example, with the day-to-day welfare of workers and their families. The AFL's approach to labor problems was so-called "bread and butter" unionism. The union demanded higher wages and fewer working hours; a greater share in the wealth that they helped to produce. By the end of World War I, the federation had 5 million members. By 1955, when the AFL joined together with the CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations) to form one large group of unions representing skilled and unskilled workers, the active membership had reached 15 million. The industrial unions were most powerful in the period immediately following World War II. In all the major industrial areas and industries in the United States, union membership was required. Nothing was built, made, manufactured, transported, shipped or moved without the agreement of the unions. States that were not fully unionized, where workers did not have to become union members to do certain jobs, might try to attract industries with the promise of lower wages and taxes. But a car company that wanted to assemble automobiles in the South, for instance, could not do it if the engine factory in Detroit, Michigan went on strike. In 1947, Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act. One of its provisions outlawed the "closed shop" which required employers to hire only union members. It also permitted the states to pass "right to work" laws which forbade agreements requiring workers to automatically join a union after they were hired. Nonetheless, union membership remained a requirement in many states and industries, if no longer by law, then by practice. In 1985, for example, 95 percent of all General Motors employees were union members and 90 percent of all Ford employees. Today, some industrial firms have been attracted to locations in states where labor unions are not so strong, where wages are often lower, and where safety and pollution regulations are not so strict or so strictly enforced. The decline of some industries, such as the steel industry, along with the rise in the number of white-collar, technical, and service jobs has also harmed the traditional, blue-collar unions. Yet, at the same time, groups such as teachers, firemen, and even policemen have formed unions of their own.

37

Twenty or thirty years ago, it would have been shocking for these civil servants to strike for their demands. Today, Americans have learned to tolerate these strikes, too. Schools in some areas such as Chicago have remained shut as the result of teachers' strikes for up to three months. Parents who suddenly found their children at home all day put great pressure on city officials to settle the strike. Firemen and policemen have also gone on strike in many areas, sometimes "illegally," but usually quite effectively. A now popular form for the policemen's strike is the "Blue Flu." The policemen, in their traditional blue uniforms, all become "ill" on the same day. Amazingly, just enough policemen needed to prevent a disaster always remain "healthy." In 1980, there were close to 4,000 industrial disputes and a total of 33 million man-days lost due to strikes. While there are more and more professional and technical unions, the many other industrial unions face the same problem that other unions in the western world do. This is what can be done about those jobs that will no longer exist in companies adopting modern technology, or in industries which are no longer competitive. Some unions have decided that job security is more important than pay increases. For the first time in their histories, a few have actually accepted lower pay to help save a company. This happened, for example, in 1980 with Chrysler. Employees agreed to take a reduction in their wages to prevent large-scale layoffs and help the company to become profitable again (which it did). This, however, is very much the exception. Most unions still demand agreements which call 651 for a shorter work week. And most agreements include "fringe" benefits such as medical and life insurance, profit-sharing, pensions, and healthcare plans. In 1983, almost 75 percent of Americans (men, women, and children) were covered by private or government health insurance, 60.7 percent (over 140 million Americans) by insurance related to employment. Many Americans were thus covered by two insurance systems. Still, some 35 million Americans (or 15.2 percent) were not covered by any health insurance. In other areas of business, however, companies do not need to be forced to the bargaining table. They are worried about losing good employees to their competitors. This is especially a problem in many high-technology industries and businesses. Many of these firms, therefore, try to keep highly skilled employees by offering them benefits and working conditions without unions having to demand them. In addition to various profit-sharing and pension plans, many large corporations offer their employees the use of swimming pools and golf courses, or art classes, and free daycare centers for their children. Today, the word "head hunters" does not refer to people who track down criminals, but those independent agents who lure away a company's best employees with offers of better working conditions and benefits.

Welfare The images from America's past reflect how health and welfare concerns are viewed in the United States. The first image is that of the self-reliant frontiersman.

38

Armed with only an axe, a rifle, a Bible, and a strong will (and sometimes a bottle of whiskey against "snakebite"), he goes out into the wilderness alone and survives. He asks no man for help ("God helps them that help themselves"). The second historical image is that of the pioneer community, the groups that circled their wagons for protection, shared their food, me helped each other when things got rough. They came together to build each other's houses. They had great barn-raising parties in which everyone took part. All together helped to build the community school, hire the teacher, find the doctor, fight the fire and pay the sheriff. When a neighbor needed help, the help was there ("A friend in need is a friend indeed"). There is some historical truth in both images. Obviously many millions did make it in America with more than a little help from their friends. Others had enough ingenuity, pluck and luck to make it on their own. The famous rags-to-riches and poverty-to-power stories had and have real- life parallels. But there are also the many who didn't succeed in America. There were those who, working long hours in factories or "sweatshops," were too tired to educate themselves when the day was done. There were also those who couldn't move to where the grass was greener because they were kept where the cotton grew. Social welfare in the United States has always been torn between the concepts of the independent, self-reliant individual and the interdependent, caring community. Generous to other nations, Americans have been much less charitable at home. They have often appeared to be more compassionate towards victims of earthquakes, drought and famine than towards people in need in their own land. There seems to be some truth in the observation that Americans very often are too proud to ask for help and welfare. Education and technical skills have long since replaced the axe and the hunting rifle. But some Americans still feel that people who can't find some kind of work somewhere deserve in part what they get or don't get. The welfare situation improved greatly through the social welfare legislation of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the mid-1930s. Today, of course, there are many federal, state and local programs that help the unemployed, shelter and feed the homeless, and care for the sick. Local community institutions, churches, charitable groups, and voluntary service organizations also play a large part. There is no single welfare system, but rather a mosaic of measures created to help those in need. If someone loses his or her job, for example, there may be a number of benefits he/she is entitled to, ranging from full pay up to a certain period, reduced percentages thereafter, state unemployment compensation, eligibility for retraining, pension plan, and payments from a company-sponsored or private unemployment insurance. Health costs may also be covered by union contract with the management. In case of longterm unemployment, federal funds can be claimed. The federal government sets nationwide standards for the minimum hourly wage level, or the official poverty level (see Chapter II). It finances and organizes national programs such as Social Security, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the Food Stamps program, Unemployment Insurance and Workmen's Compensation, Supplemental Security Income, Medicare, and Medicaid. These different programs help alleviate financial problems for the elderly and/or those who

39

cannot work or afford proper nutrition and health care. In 1986, over $450 billion was spent by the federal government on social welfare. Although programs and amounts of support vary greatly among the states and depend on the individual social and economic situation of the recipient, the following figures give some rough idea of the nature of these payments. For example, the average AFDC payment per family (more than 11 million individuals) in 1984 was $320 a month. The average monthly payment to Social Security Retirement recipients (some 30 million individuals in 1984) was $417 per month. Nearly 4 million disabled workers received $400 a month under the Social Security Disability Insurance program. Some 2 million unemployed workers received $480 a month for 26 weeks (with an additional thirteen weeks during recessions). The medical costs for some 20 million individuals were covered by Medicaid in 1984. And more than 20 million people received food stamps with an average value of $46 a month. These figures, of course, are only averages and give only a very general impression of the nature and extent of state and federal programs and payments to those in need. There are, however, astonishing differences in the degree to which states provide welfare support for their citizens. Counting state and local funds only, the state of New York spends about $385 a year for each one of its citizens on its poor, while Arizona only spends $68, and Florida $78 per capita of their populations. Obviously if one is poor or sick, it is better to be in New York than in Arizona. Likewise, although the states should be spending an equal amount of money when given federal funds (federal grants often require matching funds from states and local communities), each state's welfare department assesses its own citizens' needs. As a result, in the AFDC program, designed to benefit children being raised in singleparent families, Alaska pro-des over six times as much assistance (in 1986, an. average of $730 per month to a parent with two children) as does Alabama (only $118 per family. Some states provide a lot of help, and others, giving very little, seem to hope that their poor will go elsewhere. Since the 1970s, a number of states have started so-called "workfare" (work + welfare) programs which require welfare recipients to work or to participate in job training programs. In about half of the states, programs are in effect which try to place welfare recipients in public-service jobs. Families with preschool children are exempted from work requirements. By providing remedial education, vocational training, and child care, state governments want to encourage welfare recipients, especially families receiving AFDC, to get jobs with decent wages and prospects for long-term employment. Some of the states' work-fare programs have met with good success. In Massachusetts, for example, 20,000 welfare recipients were placed in jobs within two years. California's new welfare-reform law provides for up to two years of training for unfilled jobs to welfare recipients, and free child care. Other states have started similar efforts to help people get off welfare and into permanent jobs. By law, health care is available to those without any money or insurance. States, counties, and cities all run or support hospitals, mental institutions retirement homes and shelters for the homeless. Again, the quality of care varies with the state, county, and community. Some spend a great deal, others the bare minimum. Universities and similar institutions also often support and staff free health and dental clinics. Most

40

large universities sponsor free legal aid clinics that provide legal assistance and advice for a token fee. What makes the U.S. different from many other countries is the degree to which payments for health, retirement, and even housing come from private sources. Workers in industry and white-collar employees expect health insurance agreements for them and their families, benefits, and pensions as part of their contracts. Companies and employers often pay a large part of these benefits. Many unions offer unemployment benefits to their members, supplementing governmental sources. Some unions also have their own retirement plans and several even own and man age retirement communities. When employees strike, therefore, they often ask for "fringe" benefits, better retirement payments, better or fuller medical care, and so on. Similarly, when an individual is considering working for a business or even a city or state government, or changing jobs, some of the most important considerations are, for example, retirement benefits, family health and dental plans, or life insurance. In many cases the benefits Americans receive from such sources exceed those from the governmental programs available to everybody. Still, there are many individuals who have never worked, or have never been able to, or who have remained unemployed for long periods. These people are forced to rely on the basic governmental programs and no one who has to do so can live comfortably. Yet, the two images remain, and those who have made it sometimes find it difficult to understand or remember the problems of those who haven't. It is not a lack of awareness, usually; rather, it has something to do with distance and size. New York City's run-down tenements and the "white trash" of Appalachia, for example, are a world away from the sunny beaches of Southern California. It's a bit like trying to convince someone who leads a pleasant life on the Cote d'Azur that the sores of Glasgow and the poverty of Greece are his, too, because "we're all in this together." Many hundreds of thousands of volunteers and charitable organizations in the United States are doing their best to 90 help those in need. Most Americans would agree, however, that a great deal more needs to be done.

********************************************************************* ********************************************************************* ASSIGNMENTS 1. Give English definitions to the following explanations: a) skillfulness, cleverness, imagination, inventiveness b) more than a reasonable degree or amount c) forcefully, strongly d) traditional heavy industries, such as steel, iron, coal, etc. e) person who organizes and manages a business, especially one involving commercial risk f) capital owned by a company and divided into shares

41

g) h) i) j)

to come up, rise, come into view; to become obvious smth which encourages one to greater activity industrialist of great wealth and power money provided by an insurance company or public agency, esp. in time of sickness, old age, or unemployment k) searching for and exposing wrongdoing and corruption l) well-being, health; public relief for those in need m) to need, to demand; to claim or ask for by right and authority n) act of temporarily discharging employees; period of temporary inactivity o) to draw or lead away, as by promises of pleasure or reward p) negative term for poor whites as a class

2. Translate the words and word-combinations from English into Russian and from Russian into English rapidly without any stops: At great expense; criteria; отстав ать; to account for; прои зв од и тельность; to quit; restrictions; wage; благ отв ори тельность; мастер, ремесленни к; requirement; “ fringe” benefits; страхов ани е; pluck; “ sweatshops”; жалостли в ый, сострад ательный; eligibility; облег чать, смяг чать; to exempt from; си мв оли ческая плата; tenements. 3. Translate the article into English using the structures in brackets: О КРУ Ж АЮ Щ АЯ С РЕ Д А Д в и жени е за сохранени е окружаю щ ей сред ы (the conservation movement), т. е. защ и та при род ных ресурсов и жи в отног о ми ра, в перв ые было оф ормлено (to implement) какполи ти ческая прог рамма в С оед и ненных Ш татах. Т о, кчему стреми ли сь ег о участни ки , — это сохрани ть при род ныебог атств а св оей страны д ля послед ую щ и х поколени й. Н ачи ная с 60-х г г . амери канцы осознали , что С оед и ненные Ш таты стоят перед уг розой (to be in danger of) уни чтожени я мног и х св ои х при род ных бог атств . Т о, что случи лось созером Э ри , самым мелков од ным и з в ели ки х озер, стало убед и тельным тому при мером. Г ород ски е стоки и промыш ленные отход ы, хи ми чески е в ещ еств а и уд обрени я (fertilizers), попад ав ш и е в озеро, созд али уг розу и счезнов ени я бог атых запасов рыбы (stock of fish). Н еожи д анно озеро "умерло", и ми лли оны тех, кто пользов ался ег о песчаными пляжами и лов и л там рыбу, были поражены случи в ш и мся. Ф ед еральныезаконы, таки екакзакон о чи стом в озд ухе(the Clean Air Act) (1970), о контроле за чи стотой в од ы (the Water Pollution Control Act) (1972), об и счезаю щ и х жи в отных (the Endangered Species Act) (1973), позв оли ли (to lead to) д о некоторой степени улучш и ть положени е д ел. Т ребов ани я ф ед еральной ад ми ни страци и по мед препаратам и прод ов ольств и ю (the Federal Drug and Food Administration’s standards) (Ф Д А) яв ляю тся од ни ми и з самых строг и х в ми ре. Ав тори тет Ф Д А сред и амери канцев резко в озрос (to be strengthened) после тог о, как в 1961 г . она запрети ла (to ban) лекарств о тали д оми д

42

(thalidomide), что пред отв рати ло появ лени е на св ет д етей с в рожд енными д еф ектами (severe birth defects). Разумеется, в се ш таты при няли и св ои собств енные законы (to pass the law against smth), по которым, напри мер, строг о запрещ алось бросать г д е попало бутылки и банки , при менять ф осф аты в мылов арени и , сбрасыв ать в ред ные промыш ленные отход ы (industrial dumping of smth). К 1986 г . 40 ш татов и более 80 г ород ов и общ и н при няли законы, ог рани чи в аю щ и е (to restrict) курени ев общ еств енных местах и на работе. В ни мани е общ еств а кпроблемам заг рязнени я окружаю щ ей сред ы стало частью амери канског о образа жи зни . Д аже хорош о и зв естныебанки кока-колы не остали сь без в ни мани я (to be affected). С ег од ня в соотв етств и и с законом банки д олжны д елаться таки м образом, чтобы кольцо, открыв аю щ ее банку, нельзя было оторв ать и в ыброси ть. 4. Talking points: 1)What factors have contributed to America’s becoming the leading economic nation in the world? 2)What role have tycoons played in American society? 3)Why have measures been taken to control big business? 4)Point out some differences between labor relations in the U.S. and in other industrialized Western countries. What factors do you think might have contributed to these differences? 5)What programs and benefits exist in the U.S. that help people who are unemployed or sick? 6)“ Social welfare in the U.S. has always been torn between the concepts of the independent, self-reliant individual and the interdependent, caring community.” 7)Discuss this statement against the background of your knowledge of American history. 8)What are some of the arguments for or against comprehensive federal programs for the poor?

43

III.

EDUCATION

History Americans have shown a great concern for education since early colonial times. Among the first settlers, in fact, there was an unusually high proportion of educated men. In the Massachusetts Bay colony in the early 1600s, as the British historian Rowse has pointed out, "there was an average of one university man to every 40 or 50 families – much higher than in Old England." Some of these men, many of them graduates of Cambridge, came together and in 1636 founded Harvard College, 140 years before American independence. Other early institutions of higher learning were the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, established in 1693, and Yale, founded in 1701. Before the Revolution in 1776, nine colleges had already been opened in the colonies, most of them later becoming universities. From the 1640s on, Massachusetts required all towns with more than 50 families to provide a schoolmaster at public expense. Other colonies also made provisions for free public schools. In the course of the 17th century, for instance, free schools had been established in a number of places such as New Haven, Hartford, New London, and Fairfield. Many academies (schools offering a classical education as well as more practical training) opened throughout the next century, including the one established by Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia in 1751. The importance of education in American life was also reflected in the Ordinances of 1785 and 1787 which set guidelines for organizing the new lands to the west. They provided for one square mile of land in each township to be reserved for public schools. The movement for free public schools gained its greatest momentum in the 1830s, however. By 1850, every state had provided for a system of free public schools open to all and paid for by public taxes. By the same year, state-supported colleges and universities had already been established in many states. These included recently settled states such as Florida, Iowa, and Wisconsin which were admitted to the Union in the late 1840s. In 1862, Congress passed a law which provided states with public (federal) lands to be used for higher education, especially for the establishment of agricultural and mechanical-arts colleges. As a result, many "land-grant colleges" were established. These new state-supported institutions joined the large number of older, well-established, and well-to-do privately funded universities. They were important in the democratization of higher education in the United States. By 1900, there were almost a thousand institutions of higher education in the U.S. Among them were law and medical "schools" and hundreds of small, four-year liberal arts colleges. One of the latter, Oberlin College in Ohio, was the first to admit women on an equal basis with men, in 1837. There were many other institutions of higher learning which emphasized everything from the training of teachers to the pulling of teeth. Today, there are some 43 million pupils and students in public schools at the elementary and secondary levels, and another 6 million in private schools throughout the country. In other words, 88 percent of American children attend public schools and

44

12 percent go to private schools. Four out of five of the private schools are run by churches, synagogues, or other religious groups. Any year, about 12 million Americans are enrolled in the over 3,000 colleges and universities of every type: private, public, church-related, small and large, in cities, counties, and states. Close to 80 percent of the college students attend public institutions, while a little over 20 percent are enrolled in privately supported universities and colleges. All told, just over 50 percent of all high school graduates enter colleges and universities. The early emphasis given to education remains today. United Nations figures (1980) show that in the amount spent on education per capita, the U.S. is in ninth place in the world (behind Qatar, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Switzerland, and Canada). Most historians agree that a great deal of the economic, political, scientific, and cultural progress America has made in its relatively short history is due to its commitment to the ideal of equal opportunity. This is the ideal of educating as many Americans as possible, to the best of their abilities. From the early times on, especially in the northern and western states, the public policy was to produce an educated people. In these states, the large majority of adults were literate at a time when an education was still denied to most Europeans. There can be little doubt that American education in its aim to provide equality of opportunity as well as excellence has raised the overall level of education of Americans. It has encouraged more Americans than ever before to study for advanced degrees and to become involved in specialized research. The belief that the future of society depends on the quantity and quality of its educated citizens is widely held. It explains why a great many Americans are still willing to give more money to education, even during times of economic difficulty.

Control of Education There are two significant influences on American education which give it its present character, its size, and its great variety at all levels. The first influence is legal, or governmental. The second is cultural. The United States does not have a national system of education. Education is considered to be a matter for the people of each state. Although there is a federal Department of Education, its function is merely to gather information, to advise, and to help finance certain educational programs. Education, Americans say, is "a national concern, a state responsibility, and a local function." Since the Constitution does not state that education is a responsibility of the federal government, all educational matters are left to the individual states. As a result, each of the 50 state legislatures is free to determine its own system for its own public schools. Each sets whatever basic minimal requirements for teaching and teachers it judges to be appropriate. In turn, however, state constitutions give the actual administrative control of the public schools to the local communities. There are some 16,000 school districts within the 50 states. School boards made up of individual citizens elected from each community oversee the schools in each district. They, not the state, set school policy and actually decide what is to be taught.

45

There is, then, a very large amount of local control. In 1986, an average of 50 percent of the funds for elementary and secondary education came from state sources, 43 percent from local funds, and only about 6 percent from the federal government. Here, too, there are great differences among the states. In New Hampshire, more than 80 percent of the costs were paid from local funds, while in California, on the other hand, the state paid more than 85 percent of the costs. Yet overall, the public schools are very much community schools. They must have local public support, because citizens vote directly on how much they want to pay for school taxes. They must represent local wishes and educational interests, as those who administer the schools are elected by the community. The question whether private schools, church-supported or not, should receive public money is still hotly debated in the U.S. Two 1985 Supreme Court decisions have prohibited public school teachers from going into private religious schools to teach courses with funds supplied by public sources. There are a great many city or county-owned colleges and universities, and many are supported by the states. In general, colleges and universities, whether state or private, are quite free to determine their own individual standards, admissions, and graduation requirements. Both schools and universities have self-governing groups, associations or boards which "accredit," that is, certify schools and universities as meeting certain minimum standards. Yet membership in such groups is voluntary and they have no official, governmental status. The major result of this unusual situation is that there is an enormous amount of variety and flexibility in elementary, secondary, and higher (university) education throughout the nation. For example, although all states today require that children attend school until a certain age, it varies from 14 to 18 years. Or, as another example, in about 60 percent of the states, local schools are free to choose any teaching materials or textbooks which they think are appropriate. In the remaining states, only such teaching materials may be used in public schools which have been approved by the state boards of education. Some universities are virtually free to residents of the state, with only token fees. Others are expensive, especially for out-of-state students, with tuition fees in the thousands of dollars each year. Some school systems are, like their communities, extremely conservative, some very progressive and liberal. These and other substantial differences must always be considered when describing American schools. Because local and state taxes support the public schools, there are also significant differences n the quality of education. Communities and states that are able or willing to pay more for schools, buildings, materials, and teachers almost it ways have better educational systems than those that cannot or do not. Thus, for example, the average expenditure per pupil for elementary and secondary education in the U.S. was $4,000 in 1986. But some states (such as Alaska, New Jersey, New York, and Wyoming) spent more than $5,000 per pupil. The average public school teacher in the U.S. earned $25,250 in 1986. But teachers in South Dakota made an average of only $18,100, while those in Alaska earned just under $41,500 a year. At the same time, states such as California, Michigan, Rhode Island, or New York paid their teachers an average annual salary of around $30,000. Attempts by the federal government to provide special funds to poorer areas and school districts have helped to some degree,

46

but the basic differences remain. Also, some Americans are worried that more federal help could lead to less independence and local control of their schools. On the other hand, local control of the schools has also meant that there is a great deal of flexibility. There is much opportunity to experiment and to fit programs to local wishes and needs. Typically, local high schools will offer courses of study which they feel best reflect their students' needs. Students at the same school will commonly be taking courses in different areas. Some might be following pre-university programs, with an emphasis on those academic subjects required for college work. Others might well be taking coursework which prepares them for vocational or technical positions. Still others might enroll in a general program combining elements of the academic and vocational. The range of courses available in high schools throughout the U.S. is enormous, including everything from computers in the elementary schools to car design and construction in the vocational programs. Just about anything, from Portuguese to pole-vaulting is being taught somewhere by someone. State-supported universities and colleges also to some degree tailor their courses of study to the needs of the states and the students. States with strong agricultural economies will often support major departments in related sciences. States with strong technological interests, for example California and Massachusetts, will often give much support to technological and scientific research institutions. What makes American education at the secondary level so different from most other countries is that all such programs, whether academic, technical, or practical, are generally taught under one roof. The American high school is therefore best seen as if it were a combination of all the various types of schools which are usually separated and kept in separate buildings in other countries. As often as possible, too, handicapped children attend the same schools that anyone else does. Although most high school students in America are following different "tracks," or courses of study, Americans feel that they should be kept together as long as possible. They feel that students pursuing different educational goals should learn together and thereby learn to get along together. A common error in comparing American secondary education with that of other countries, therefore, is to compare all American high school students with only the small proportion of students - usually an elite - who attend higher secondary schools in, for instance, European countries. An American high school includes all of the students within the age group, not just those with the highest academic achievement or interests.

Goals of Education The cultural influences on American education are just as important, but more difficult to define. Basically, Americans have always aimed for equal opportunity in education, regardless of social class, national origin, or racial or ethnic group. A high general level of education has always been seen as a necessity in this democratic society. Education in America has also traditionally served the goal of bringing people together, that is, of "Americanization." Schools in the U.S. served (and still serve) to bring together the hundreds of various cultural and linguistic groups, religions, and

47

social and political backgrounds represented by the millions and millions of immigrants. For the past several decades, nonetheless, public policy and legal decisions have increasingly emphasized special rights for ethnic and linguistic minorities in the area of education. For example, the Bilingual Education Act as well as recent court decisions have meant that children whose first language is not English must be taught in their mother tongue, be it Spanish, Navaho, or Cantonese. One result is that some 3.6 million students with limited ability to speak English received help given in their native languages in 1983. Another is that around 80 languages are being used for instruction in American schools. The view that education should help lessen differences in social background as well as those of ethnic or racial origin was and is widely accepted. This explains some of the special characteristics of the American system of education. One of these, for example, is the "busing" of children. The goal is to have in each school the same proportion of children from various racial or ethnic groups that exist in the city's population overall. Such programs also reflect the American view that education should help to reform society. But largely, education has been seen as a way of ''bettering oneself," of "rising in the world," as a fundamental part of the American Dream. Thus the millions of immigrants coming to America often tied their hopes for a better life to a good education for themselves and, most importantly, for their children. The social and economic mobility of Americans, which has so often been commented on by foreign observers, comes largely from the easy access to education that most Americans have enjoyed. The first step up whether the ultimate goal was money, status, power, or simply knowledge – usually started at the school door.

Higher Education The American ideal of mass education for all is matched by an awareness that America also needs highly trained specialists. In higher education, therefore, and especially at the graduate schools (those following the first four years of college), the U.S. has an extremely competitive and highly selective system. This advanced university system has become widely imitated internationally, and it is also the one most sought after by foreign students. Thirty-six percent of the more than 340,000 foreign students in the United States in the academic year 1984/85 were enrolled in graduate programs. While the American education system might put off selecting students until much later than do other systems, it does nonetheless select. And it becomes increasingly selective the higher the level. Moreover, because each university generally sets its own admission standards, the best universities are also the most difficult to get into. Some universities are very selective even at the undergraduate or beginning levels. In 1984, for example, some 15,600 individuals sought admission to Stanford University, a private university in southern California. Because these individuals must

48

pay a fee to even apply for admission, these were "serious" applications. Of that number, only 2,500 (about 16 percent) were admitted for the first year of study. It is interesting to note that 70 percent of those who were accepted had attended public - not private – schools. Many state-supported universities also have fairly rigid admission requirements. The University of California at Berkeley, for example, admitted about 65 percent of all "qualified" applicants in 1984. For Harvard, the figure is 17 percent (1984). Admission to law or medical schools and other graduate programs has always been highly selective. It is true, as often stated, that children who wish someday to go to one of the better universities start working for this goal in elementary school. Needless to say, those children who have attended better schools, or who come from families with better educated parents, often have an advantage over those who don't. This remains a problem in the U.S., where equality of opportunity is a central cultural goal. Not surprisingly, the members of racial minorities are the most deprived in this respect. Yet, it is still a fact today, as the BBC commentator Alistair Cooke pointed out in 1972, that "a black boy has a better chance of going to college here than practically any boy in Western Europe." In 1985, for instance, 19.4 percent of all Americans 25 years and older had completed four years of college or more. However, the figure for blacks was 11.1 percent and for Hispanics 8.5 percent. Compared with the figures from 1970, when the national average was only 10.7 percent (with 11.3 percent for whites, 4.4 percent for blacks, and 7.6 percent for students of Spanish origin), this does reveal a considerable improvement within just 14 years. Yet, the educational level is still relatively lower for some groups, including women. While 23.1 percent of male Americans had four years of college or more in 1985, only 16 percent of women had. The number of students who fail to complete high school, too, is much larger among minority groups. The national average of all 18 to 24-year-olds who did not graduate from high school was 22.1 percent in 1985. For white students it was 20.9 percent, for blacks 28.7 percent, and for Hispanics the figure was as much as 45.8 percent. Many different programs aimed at improving educational opportunities among minority groups exist at all levels – local, state, and federal. They have met with some, even if moderate, success.

Elementary and Secondary Education Because of the great variety of schools and colleges, and the many differences among them, no one institution can be singled out as typical or even representative. Yet there are enough basic similarities in structure among the various schools and systems to permit some general comments. Most schools start at the kindergarten level. There are some school districts that do not have this beginning phase, and others which have an additional "pre-school" one. There are almost always required subjects at each level. In some areas and at more advanced levels, students can choose some subjects. Pupils who do not do well often have to repeat courses, or have to have special tutoring, usually done in and by the schools. Many schools also support summer classes, where students can make up for failed courses or even take extra courses.

49

In addition to bilingual and bicultural education programs, many schools have special programs for those with learning and reading difficulties. These and other programs repeat the emphasis of American education on trying to increase equality of opportunity. They also attempt to integrate students with varying abilities and backgrounds into an educational system shared by all. At the same time, many high school students are given special advanced coursework in mathematics and the sciences. Nationwide talent searches for minority group children with special abilities and academic promise began on a large scale in the 1960s. These programs have helped to bring more minority children into advanced levels of university education and into the professions. Like schools in Britain and other English-speaking countries, those in the U.S. have also always stressed "character" or "social skills" through extracurricular activities, including organized sports. Because most schools start at around 8 o'clock every morning and classes often do not finish until 3 or 4 o'clock in the afternoon, such activities mean that many students do not return home until the early evening. There is usually a very broad range of extracurricular activities available. Most schools, for instance, publish their own student newspapers, and some have their own radio stations. Almost all have student orchestras, bands, and choirs, which give public performances. There are theater and drama groups, chess and debating clubs, Latin, French, Spanish, or German clubs, groups which meet after school to discuss computers, or chemistry, or amateur radio, or the raising of prize horses and cows. Students can learn flying, skin-diving, and mountain-climbing. They can act as volunteers in hospitals and homes for the aged and do other public-service work. Many different sports are also available, and most schools share their facilities – swimming pools, tennis courts, tracks, and stadiums – with the public. Many sports that in other countries are normally offered by private clubs are available to students at no cost in American schools. Often the students themselves organize and support school activities and raise money through "car washes," baby-sitting, bake sales, or by mowing lawns. Parents and local businesses often also help a group that, for example, has a chance to go to a state music competition, to compete in some sports championship, or take a camping trip. Such activities not only give pupils a chance to be together outside of normal classes, they also help develop a feeling of "school spirit" among the students and in the community. Standards Those who believe that American schools are more play than work overlook an important fact: a high school diploma is not a ticket that allows someone to automatically enter a university. Standardized examinations play a decisive role at almost every level of education, especially in the admission to colleges and universities. Students who wish to go to a good university but only took high school courses that were a "snap," or who spent too much time on extracurricular activities, will have to compete with those who worked hard and took demanding courses. There are two widely used and nationally-administered standardized tests for high school students who wish to attend a college or university. One is the SAT

50

(Scholastic Aptitude Test), which attempts to measure aptitudes in verbal and mathematical fields necessary for college work. The other is the ACT (American College Testing program), which attempts to measure skills in English, mathematics, and the social and natural sciences. Both tests are given at specific dates and locations throughout the U.S. by non-profit, non-governmental organizations. The tests are used by universities as standards for comparison, but are not in any way “official.” Each year, the SAT is taken by some two million high school students. One million of these students are in their last year of high school. Another million are in their next-to-last year. The CT, more commonly used in the western part of the U.S., is taken each year by another million high school students. With so many different types of high school and programs, with so many differences in subjects and standards, these tests provide common, nationwide measuring sticks. Many universities publish the average scores achieved on these tests by the students they admit. This indicates the “quality” or level of ability expected of those who apply. Similar testing programs exist at higher levels, as well. Someone who has already finished four years of university and wishes to go to a law or medical school is also required to take standardized tests. These tests have been agreed upon by the various law and medical schools and are administered nationwide at scheduled times. Like the SAT or ACT, these tests are not official or governmentally controlled. Other examinations, however, are official and usually quite difficult. For example, even after someone has studied for many years and earned a medical degree from a university, this still does not mean that he or she can begin to practice in the U.S. The individual states require still further examinations. Other pressures also operate at the university level. Most universities require mid-semester and final examinations. It is possible, as a great many students have learned, to “flunk out” of a university, that is to be asked to leave because of poor grades. And most students who have scholarships must maintain a certain grade average to keep their scholarships. Since tuition fees alone can be rather high (ranging from over $10,000 for an academic year in Harvard or Yale to under $1,000 at small public institutions) at most colleges and universities, a large number of students hold jobs besides studying. These part-time jobs may be either "on campus” (in the dormitories, cafeterias, students services, in research, and in teaching and tutoring jobs) or “off campus" (with local firms and businesses, in offices, etc.). In this way, for example, more than half of all students at Stanford University earn a significant part of their college expenses during the school year. In addition, there are work-study programs at a number of universities, and financial assistance programs which are provided by the states and the federal government. At Alaska Pacific University, for instance, about 71 percent of all students receive aid through the university, and 15 percent work part-time on campus. At Harvard about 40 percent of all students receive scholarships, and the average scholarship at Stanford is $4,500 per year. Students who must work as well as study are the rule rather than the exception. Students also cannot simply move from one university to another, or trade places with other students. Before changing to another university, students must first have been accepted by the new university and have met that university’s admission requirements.

51

The competition and pressures at many universities especially at the higher, "graduate" levels, are not pleasant. Nor are they evident in the popular picture of "campus life." However, this system has been highly successful in producing scholars who are consistently at the top or near the top of their fields internationally. One indication of this can be seen by looking at the textbooks or professional journals used and read in foreign universities and noting the authors, where they teach and where they were trained. Another indication, less precise perhaps, is the number of Americans who have won Nobel Prizes. Americans have won 146 Nobel Prizes in the sciences physics, chemistry, and physiology or medicine – since the awards were first given in 1901. This represents 38.5 percent of all recipients. The next closest country is Great Britain, with 63 Nobel Prizes. If the U.S. is still distant from the aim of educating everyone well, it has at least done a good job with many.

Adult and Continuing Education The concept of continuing (or lifelong) education is of great importance to Americans. Every year, over 20 million Americans (that is, about ten percent of all adults) further their education through participation in part-time instruction. Some estimate that as many as 45 million adult Americans are currently taking courses in universities, colleges, professional associations, government organizations or even churches and synagogues. Most participants in continuing or adult education have a practical goal: they want to update and upgrade their job skills. As a result of economic changes and the rapid advance of the "information age," the necessity to acquire new occupational skills has increased. Adult education thus fills a need of many Americans who want to improve their chances in a changing job market. This is one explanation for the continuing growth of adult education classes over the past several years. Of course, not all people who take courses in adult education do this for job-related purposes. Many simply want to broaden their knowledge or learn something they would enjoy doing such as print-making, dancing, or photography. Continuing education courses are provided mainly by community or junior colleges and mostly take place in the evenings. The types « courses adults enroll in range from hobby recreational activities to highly specialized technical skills. Courses in business, health care a health sciences, engineering, and education are most popular. While some 50 percent of people in adult education were enrolled in programs sponsored by educational institutions, about 15 percent were sponsored by business and industry. Over 80 percent of all companies today conduct their own training programs. Many large corporations offer complete degree programs, and some even support their own technical and business colleges and universities. In 1984, close to 6 million students were enrolled in industry-sponsored degree programs. It is estimated that some 8 million Americans are involved in corporate education of some kind.

52

Reform and Progress A major conflict has always existed between two goals of American education. One is the comprehensive, egalitarian education with the goal of providing equal opportunity. The other is the highly selective educational emphasis that aims at excellence and the training of academic and scientific elites. Some Americans feel that more money and efforts should be spent on improving comprehensive education. Others think that more money should be provided for increasing scientific knowledge and maintaining America's position in technology and research. And some people, of course, demand that more money be spent on both. A series of studies in the 1980s criticized American public schools. As a result, better training and payment for teachers has been advocated and more stress has been placed on academic subjects. But striking a balance between a comprehensive, egalitarian education and one of the specialization and excellence has always been a difficult task, and is likely to remain so. Schools and universities have also been asked to do more and more to help with, or even cure, certain social and economic problems, from the effects of divorce to drug problems, from learning disabilities to malnutrition. Most school systems not only have lunch rooms or cafeterias, they also offer to give free or low-cost meals, sometimes including breakfast, to needy pupils. They also employ psychologists, nurses, staff trained to teach the handicapped, reading specialists, and academic as well as guidance and employment counselors. Because of their traditional ties with the communities, schools are expected to be involved in many search areas. There is a growing belief among some Americans that the public schools cannot really handle all such social problems, even if enough money were available where it is most needed. Still, given America’s history and that of its people, their many backgrounds, needs, and desires, the fact that American education is sensitive to its weaknesses (and aware of its strengths) speaks wee for the future.

********************************************************************* ********************************************************************* ASSIGNMENTS 1. Give English definitions to the following explanations: a) subjects such as history or literature rather than science, law, or medicine b) a school that is supported financially by the government and usually provides free education c) a school for pupils between the ages of 11 or 12 and 17 or 18 d) where the children are taught for the first 6 or sometimes 8 years of their education e) activities that are not part of the course f) education for adults mostly in practical subjects

53

g) someone who has successfully completed a degree at a university or college and has received a certificate h) a test designed to find out how easily and how well you can do something i) the people who are looking for work and the jobs available j) following the idea that all people are equal and should have the same rights and opportunities k) someone with a physical or mental disability that prevents them living a totally normal life

2. Translate the words and word-combinations from English into Russian and from Russian into English rapidly without any stops: Зачи сли ть (в уни в ерси тет, на курс), сод ержать за общ еств енный счёт, ми ни стерств о образов ани я, a token fee, проф есси ональноеобучени е, undergraduate level, admission requirements, a graduate program, обязательные пред меты, под тянуться по пред мету, standardized examination, отсеяться и з учебног о зав ед ени я, high school,способность/од арённость, upgrade a skill, урав ни тельный, 3. Translate the article into English using the structures in brackets: "Ф У Н КЦ И О Н АЛ Ь Н АЯ Н Е Г РАМ О Т Н О С Т Ь " В наш и д ни при стальное в ни мани е уд еляется яв лени ю , и менуемому (to be termed) "ф ункци ональной нег рамотностью " (functional illiteracy). Е г о не след ует путать снег рамотностью в обычном смыслеслов а, т. е. снеумени ем (inability to) чи тать и пи сать. С тати сти ка (current figures) О О Н (Ю Н Е С КО ) показыв ает, что сег од ня 99% амери канцев , такжекак, напри мер, анг ли чан и ли немцев , яв ляю тся г рамотными лю д ьми . П роблема ф ункци ональной нег рамотности св язана (to be concerned with) с теми труд ностями , которые и спытыв аю т лю д и при чтени и и прав опи сани и в пов сед нев ных си туаци ях. О на может прояв ляться (to be interpreted as), напри мер, в ог рани ченных в озможностях (relative ability) лю д ей в оспри ни мать сод ержани е бланков ф ед еральног о налог ов ог о в ед омств а (incometax forms), печатных и нструкци й и ли в том, способен ли челов ек прав и льно состав и ть жалобуи ли напи сать заяв лени ео при емена работу. О бщ епри нятог о опред елени я (agreed-upon definitions) ф ункци ональной нег рамотности не сущ еств ует, и на практи ке при меняю тся самые разные кри тери и (vary widely) ее оценки . Н а протяжени и мног и х лет по в сей стране пров од и ли сь тесты, оцени в аю щ и е в баллах нав ыки чтени я (to define by grade level). "У ров ень чтени я д есятог о класса", кпри меру, и мел в основ есред ни й балл чтени я (the average reading score) д ля в ыпускни ков 10-г о класса ш колы. С ущ еств ует мног о под обных тестов разных в и д ов . О д и н и з кри тери ев оценки ф ункци ональной нег рамотности относи т к "нег рамотным" тех, кто чи тает на уров не ни же (at less than) 8-г о класса. Д руг ой кри тери й берет за основ у (to use) уров ень послед нег о, 12-г о класса сред ней ш колы С Ш А.

54

П о общ ему убежд ени ю (general agreement), д есятая часть амери канцев в той и ли и ной степени (to some degree) ф ункци онально нег рамотны в анг ли йском языке. Н еуд и в и тельно, что и менно те наци и , которые, под обно С Ш А, уд еляю т особое в ни мани е этой зад аче (this concept) и пров од ятобщ енаци ональные тесты (to have nationwide testing), обнаружи в аю т наи больш и е проблемы у себя. Как остроумно замети л (to put humorously) од и н амери канец, занятый в сф ере образов ани я, "пров ерка г рамотности при в од и т к появ лени ю нег рамотности ". Н апри мер, в Канад е, г д е в ысокпроцент и мми г рантов , д ля которых анг ли йски й язык не яв ляется род ным (non-English-speaking), нед ав но обнаружи лось, что мног и е и з ее г ражд ан ф ункци онально нег рамотны. Т о, что ш колы в С ев ерной Амери ке и и х учени ки постоянно под в ерг аю тся тести ров ани ю (to be continually tested), св и д етельств уето в ни мани и кд анной проблеме. 4. Talking points: 1)Describe the traditions of American education. 2)Describe the differences between the structure of the educational system in the U.S. and in Russia. Discuss their respective advantages and disadvantages. 3)Suppose you are a supporter of better comprehensive education. Write a short speech stating your arguments. 4)You are in favour of a more selective educational system. Write down arguments supporting your view. 5)What problems do minorities have to face and how does the educational system try to solve them? 6)Why do standardized tests play such an important role within the American system of education? 7)What are the advantages and disadvantages of local control over education?

55

С остав и тели : И ри на Ю рьев на В остри ков а О ксана В лад и ми ров на С уханов а

Ред актор – Т амара Д ми три ев на Буни на