une femme qui possédait un magasin a été tuée par balle à cause d'une dispute au sujet d'un drapeau de la

fierté qu'elle avait accroché dans son magasin et son meurtrier s'est enfui des lieux et a ensuite été retrouvé
mort, ce qui a amené les gens à déposer des fleurs et des drapeaux devant son magasin cela a également
amené les gens à se demander si la liberté existe vraiment puisque cet homme a exprimé sa haine envers le
drapeau et la communauté en assassinant une femme innocente .
• One of these freedoms is represented by the Freedom of Speech artwork, which shows a regular
person speaking in front of an attentive and courteous audience. In his portrayal, Rockwell places
a strong emphasis on the freedom of speech that Americans enjoy.
• Norman Rockwell’s artwork that interprets the freedom relates to the title the land of the free
because in his paintings he conveys deep meanings and no censure . Moreover he had a certain
freedom and liberty to express his thoughts through his paintings with no limits and that proves
that the land values freedom of speech
• Rockwell's painting, known for its nostalgic and idyllic portrayal of American life, often captures
a sense of innocence and simplicity. His attention to detail and ability to convey emotions through
his subjects' expressions are remarkable.
On the other hand, the updated version of Rockwell's painting may incorporate modern elements
or reinterpret the original scene with a contemporary twist. It could reflect the changes in society,
technology, or cultural values since the time of the original painting.
•
Rockwell’s freedom of speech Updated version
Freedom of speech depicts a young man who appears More inclusive : a women of color is speaking out .
to be of the American working class , given his plain Women and people of color have always been left out
clothing over which he wears a plain , brown jacket . of the public debate .
Protruding from a front pocket of the jacket is a folded
document that appears to bear importance in the matter Might be a reference of #metoo or the “squad” (AOC,
at hand . This main character of the painting is Kamala Harris …) : influential women of diverse
standing in the midst of a meeting of importance to the ethnicities in Congress.
locality in which he lives and/ or works . He is
surrounded by older gentleman , wearing traditional
suits and ties , but who are looking at him with a
degree of curiosity mixed with consideration for the
young man’s oratory . The young man appears to be
unfazed by his modest attire in the midst of formality
focusing instead on the subject matter that concerned
him to the extent that he felt it necessary to attend this
meeting and speak his his mind .
He empty bench seat in front of the speaker is
perceived as inviting to the viewer .
Rockwell’s freedom of worship
The painting features some people praying and
showing their devotion to their respective gods. By
using a monochromatic palette, the artist conveys the
sameness of the people in the painting, creating a
feeling of unity among the people of different faiths,
painted in profile, all facing the same direction as if
collectively looking towards their belief in a higher
power.
Updated version
Not monochromatic anymore: diversity is enhanced.
Empowerment of each ethnicities/religions that cox in
equality.
The Muslim woman is the central figure because this
religion has been discriminated in the US since 9/11.
Natives are also represented as they have been nearly
annihilated and left out even though their cultural
1 practices are the original ones.
Rockwell’s freedom from want
The gleaming bird, presented by the family matriarch,
is the crowning glory of this feast, but despite this
appetizing spread, the people seated at the table do not
gaze hungrily at the fare before them, instead, they
appear to marvel at one another, rejoicing in the love
and togetherness that fill the room. As the work's title
implies, there is no want.
Freedom from Want may read as a polished, while,
middle-class, nuclear-family gathering, but. Freedom
from Want also explores the question of whom we
welcome at our table and into our lives.
Updated version
Not a nuclear family anymore: the idea of ”family" is
not validated through biological connection but can
include friends and neighbors who choose to play
significant roles in each other's lives.
'Thanksgiving Is one of the rare non-religious holiday,
so it's a very inclusive one: people of all ethnicities
and religions can participate. They all embody the
American dream: abundance and equality.
Rockwell’s freedom from fear
The painting shows children resting safely in their
beds, oblivious to the perils al this world, as parents stay
on the lookout.
Their mother tucks them in while their father holds a
newspaper describing the horrors of the ongoing
conflict. However, his attention is fully on his children
[and not on the alarming headlines.
The painting shows the concern of the parents is the
well-being of their children with the children being
symbolic of the future of America The imagery of the
Children draws on the notion that a parent will do
anything for their child and this translates into freedom
of any fear to engage the enemy and win the war
Updated version
This is not a WASP family anymore, but a black one,
and the newspapers headlines read ") can't breath"
which
'is a direct reference of Georges Floyd, the emblematic
victim of police brutality that black people are victim
of in the US.
| Not everybody can enjoy freedom from fear in the
US as the ethnic minority, and especially black people,
are endangered by the very institution that is supposed
to keep ALL citizens safe (the police)
• In the spring of 1942, Norman Rockwell was working on a piece commissioned by the
Ordnance Department of the US Army, a painting of a machine gunner in need of ammunition.
Posters featuring Let’s Give Him Enough and On Time were distributed to munitions factories
throughout the country to encourage production. But Rockwell wanted to do more for the war
effort and determined to illustrate Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms. Finding new ideas for paintings
never came easily, but this was a greater challenge. While considering his options, Rockwell by
chance attended a town meeting where a Vermont neighbor was met with respect when he rose
among his neighbors to voice an unpopular view.
• That night he awoke with the realization that he could best paint the Four Freedoms from the
perspective of his own experiences, using everyday scenes as his guide. Rockwell made some
sketches and, accompanied by fellow Saturday Evening Post artist Mead Schaeffer, went to
Washington to propose his ideas. In the summer of 1942, when he was contemplating the Four
Freedoms, Norman Rockwell was at the peak of his career and one of the most famous image
makers in America.
• Though he struggled for months with how Roosevelt’s ideas could most effectively be portrayed, he resolved to root
the universal, symbolic images in his own experiences and surroundings, using his Arlington, Vermont neighbors as
models. As was his complex, customary process, the artist’s thumbnail drawings and large scale charcoal sketches, no
longer extant, were followed by preliminary color studies in oil before he finished his paintings seven months
later. Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear were clearly conceptualized in his mind from the start,
but Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Worship presented greater challenges.
• For each painting, he carefully choreographed the expressions and poses of each of his chosen models, and worked
closely with his studio assistant Gene Pelham to photograph them for future reference. Freedom of Worship was
initially set in a barber shop with people of different faiths and races chatting amiably and waiting their turn, a notion
that Rockwell ultimately rejected as stereotypical. For Freedom of Speech, he experimented with several different
vantage points, including two that engulfed the speaker in the crowd.
• In the final work, the speaker stands heads and shoulders above the observers, the clear center of attention. In April
1943, one month after their appearance in the Saturday Evening Post, Rockwell’s original paintings began a sixteen-
city Four Freedoms War Bond Show tour to publicize the Second War Loan Drive. The U.S. Treasury Department,
realizing their potential to generate revenue through the sale of war bonds and to boost public morale, partnered with
the Post to sponsor the tour. ABOUT ROCKWELL, ROOSEVELT & THE FOUR FREEDOMS Rockwell, Roosevelt,
& the Four Freedoms is a tour exhibition organized by the Norman Rockwell Museum, that will travel to seven cities
across America and internationally to France.
The debate over deplatforming Trump has overshadowed how effective social media bans are at fighting extremism. Permanently revoking
users` access to social media platforms and other websites — a practice known as deplatforming — isn`t a new concept, but Trump`s high-
profile deplatforming has created new confusion, controversy, and debate. Many conservatives have cried ‘‘censorship,‘‘ believing they`ve bee
targeted by a collaborative, collective agreement among leaders in the tech industry to reduce their free speech rights. On January 13, in a long
thread about the site`s decision to ban Trump, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey rejected that idea. Many have expressed worries about the power socia
media companies have to simply kick out whoever they deem dangerous, while critics have pointed out the hypocrisy of social media platform
spending years justifying not banning Trump despite his posts violating their content guidelines, only to finally do it during his final weeks in
office. But thanks to Trump and many of his supporters, it has inevitably become a permanent part of the discourse involving free speech and
social media moderation, and the responsibilities that platforms can and should have to control what people do on their sites. Studies show that
deplatforming works We know deplatforming works to combat online extremism because researchers have studied what happens when
extremist communities get routed from their ‘‘homes‘‘ on the internet. Radical extremists across the political spectrum use social media to
spread their messaging, so deplatforming those extremists makes it harder for them to recruit and spread their influence. When internet
communities send a message of zero tolerance toward white supremacists and other extremists, other media also grow less tolerant and less
likely to indulge extremist behavior and messaging. As such, the message of zero tolerance that tech companies sent by deplatforming Trump i
long overdue in the eyes of many, such as the millions of Twitter users who spent years pressuring the company to ‘‘ban the Nazis‘‘ and other
white supremacists whose rhetoric Trump frequently echoed on his Twitter account. So far, all of this probably seems like a pretty good thing
for the affected platforms and their user bases. But many people feel wary of the power dynamics in play, and question whether a loss of free
speech is at stake. This outcry is common whenever large communities are targeted based on the content of their tweets, like when Twitter
finally did start banning Nazis by the thousands. The bottom line is that social media purges are not subject to the First Amendment rule that
protects Americans right to free speech. In essence, he told me, websites like Facebook and Twitter have replaced more traditional public
forums. ‘‘Some argue that certain websites have gotten so large that they`ve become the de facto `public square,`‘‘ he said, ‘‘and thus should be
held to the First Amendment`s speech-protective standards. ‘‘ In an actual public square, First Amendment rights would probably apply. But no
matter how much social media may resemble that kind of real space, the platforms and the corporations that own them are considered private
businesses rather than public spaces. And as Geronimo pointed out, ‘‘A private property owner isn`t required to host any particular speech,
whether that`s in my living room, at a private business, or on a private website. ‘‘ ‘‘The First Amendment constrains government power, so
when private, non-governmental actors take steps to censor speech, those actions are not subject to constitutional constraints,‘‘ he said.
Deplatforming is a tricky free speech issue, but when it comes to online extremism, there may be other issues to prioritize. In the wake of the
attack on the Capitol, a public debate arose about whether tech and social media companies were going too far in purging extremists from their
user bases and shutting down specific right-wing platforms. ‘‘A company making a business decision to moderate itself is different from a
• The debate over deplatforming Trump has overshadowed how effective social media bans are at fighting
extremism. Permanently revoking users` access to social media platforms and other websites — a
practice known as deplatforming — isn`t a new concept, but Trump`s high-profile deplatforming has
created new confusion, controversy, and debate. Many conservatives have cried ‘‘censorship,‘‘ believing
they`ve been targeted by a collaborative, collective agreement among leaders in the tech industry to
reduce their free speech rights. On January 13, in a long thread about the site`s decision to ban Trump,
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey rejected that idea. Many have expressed worries about the power social media
companies have to simply kick out whoever they deem dangerous, while critics have pointed out the
hypocrisy of social media platforms spending years justifying not banning Trump despite his posts
violating their content guidelines, only to finally do it during his final weeks in office. But thanks to
Trump and many of his supporters, it has inevitably become a permanent part of the discourse involving
free speech and social media moderation, and the responsibilities that platforms can and should have to
control what people do on their sites. Studies show that deplatforming works We know deplatforming
works to combat online extremism because researchers have studied what happens when extremist
communities get routed from their ‘‘homes‘‘ on the internet. Radical extremists across the political
spectrum use social media to spread their messaging, so deplatforming those extremists makes it harder
for them to recruit and spread their influence.
• . When internet communities send a message of zero tolerance toward white supremacists and other
extremists, other media also grow less tolerant and less likely to indulge extremist behavior and messaging.
As such, the message of zero tolerance that tech companies sent by deplatforming Trump is long overdue in
the eyes of many, such as the millions of Twitter users who spent years pressuring the company to ‘‘ban the
Nazis‘‘ and other white supremacists whose rhetoric Trump frequently echoed on his Twitter account. So far,
all of this probably seems like a pretty good thing for the affected platforms and their user bases. But many
people feel wary of the power dynamics in play, and question whether a loss of free speech is at stake. This
outcry is common whenever large communities are targeted based on the content of their tweets, like when
Twitter finally did start banning Nazis by the thousands. The bottom line is that social media purges are not
subject to the First Amendment rule that protects Americans right to free speech. In essence, he told me,
websites like Facebook and Twitter have replaced more traditional public forums. ‘‘Some argue that certain
websites have gotten so large that they`ve become the de facto `public square,`‘‘ he said, ‘‘and thus should be
held to the First Amendment`s speech-protective standards. ‘‘ In an actual public square, First Amendment
rights would probably apply. But no matter how much social media may resemble that kind of real space, the
platforms and the corporations that own them are considered private businesses rather than public spaces.
And as Geronimo pointed out, ‘‘A private property owner isn`t required to host any particular speech,
whether that`s in my living room, at a private business, or on a private website.
• ‘‘ ‘‘The First Amendment constrains government power, so when private, non-governmental actors take
steps to censor speech, those actions are not subject to constitutional constraints,‘‘ he said.
Deplatforming is a tricky free speech issue, but when it comes to online extremism, there may be other
issues to prioritize. In the wake of the attack on the Capitol, a public debate arose about whether tech
and social media companies were going too far in purging extremists from their user bases and shutting
down specific right-wing platforms. ‘‘A company making a business decision to moderate itself is
different from a government removing access, yet can feel much the same,‘‘ Twitter`s Jack Dorsey
stated in his self-reflective thread on banning Trump. In the end, it all boils down to one thing: When
extremists are deplatformed online, it becomes harder for them to commit real-world violence.
Conservatives` fear of being penalized for the violence and hate speech they may spread online ignores
that penalties for that offense have existed for years. What`s new is that now the consequences are
being felt offline and at scale, as a direct result of the real-world violence that is often explicitly linked
to the online actions and speech of extremists. The free speech debate obscures that reality, but it`s one
that social media users who are most vulnerable to extremist violence — people of color, women, and
other marginalized communities — rarely lose sight of. After all, while people who`ve been kicked off
Twitter for posting violent threats or hate speech may feel like they`re the real victims here, there`s
someone on the
tech and social media companies were going too far in purging extremists
from their user bases and shutting down specific right-wing platforms.
Many observers have worried that the moves demonstrate too much
power on the part of companies to decide what kinds of opinions are
sanctioned on their platforms and what aren’t.

Conservatives’ fear of being penalized for the

violence and hate speech they may spread online
ignores that penalties for that offense have
existed for years.
• Some people are concerned about Elon musk purchasing
 Freedom from want
• Nepotism
• Racism
• Fantasy
• Ideal lifestyle that
• Expensive concepts
Problems / criticisms is inspired by the
healthcare
four freedoms
• Façade
• White centered
• Homophobia
• Privileges
• Social inequalities
• Debts AMERICA • “Rags to riches”
• Expensive studies N DREAM
•

Who’s dream ? phrases

• Foreigners
• Minorities (poor “self-made men”
people , black people
people)
• Patriots
1. In the past, like in 1941, a major threat was the outbreak of a world war,
causing fear in Europe due to powerful countries like Germany, Italy, and
Japan. President Roosevelt aimed for a world where people wouldn't fear
attacks from other nations, even if achieving peace required military
action. He also envisioned a world with fewer large weapons for warfare.
• Today, there are different kinds of threats that make people worried. Some
are still about wars and armies, but there are also new problems like
environmental issues, strong beliefs, and politics. When we read the news,
we see dangers everywhere, like climate change, mass shootings, and
cyberattacks. People also have personal fears about money, their
appearance, their faith, and how they're treated. Fear can be used by some
people to control others, like terrorists who use it to gain power. People in
charge have also used fear to stop others from speaking out and doing
what's right. To fight fear, we must take action, not just for ourselves but for
those who are scared too. Our actions can help those in need and support
those who are targeted because of who they are. For example, if someone
isn't afraid of police brutality but knows it affects others, they can stand up
for those who are scared. It's about working together to beat fear and protect
our freedoms.
• Terrorists use fear as a powerful tool to get what they want. They make
people scared by doing violent and harmful things, and this fear can spread
like a dark cloud over a place. Sometimes, they use fear during or after
specific events, like attacks, to control and manipulate people. Other times,
they create a constant feeling of fear, like a never-ending threat, to make
people do what they want. It's like using fear as a weapon to gain power. But
it's not just terrorists; even people in power have used fear to stop others
from speaking up or acting for what's right. Fear can be a very strong force,
and it's important to stand up against it and help those who are affected by it.
• Governments can also use fear as a tool to control people and maintain
their power. This fear can come from the fear of punishment, like
going to jail or being physically harmed if you speak out or try to
make a change. They want to keep people from organizing, speaking
up, or fighting for what's right by making them scared. It's not just
terrorists; even those in charge can use fear to suppress the voices of
those who want to make a difference. So, fear can be a way for
governments to keep their authority and stop people from standing up
for their rights and freedom.
• Collective action is vital to tackle fear because when people come together
and work as a group, they become stronger. Fear can be overwhelming when
faced alone, but when many individuals unite, they can support each other
and make a more significant impact. By working together, people can help
those who are vulnerable and provide protection to those who are targeted
because of who they are. For example, if someone is not afraid of police
brutality but understands how it affects others, they can join forces to stand
up against that fear and work towards a safer, fairer world. So, collective
action is essential to combat fear and protect freedom and equality for
everyone.
The hate u give – Opening scene
• First watching : set the context ! ( who? Where? When? What is going
on? )
• Second watching : what are the rules when being pulled over by the
police ? ( 4rules )
• At the end of the scene , what values does the father want to pass on to
his kids ?
• Through this scene , what di we learn about being black in the US
nowadays
• This video is abt a father who’s talking to his 8 y/o daughter abt how
to react in case she gets arrested and what are the things she should do
some rules he told her abt are to stay calm , to answer the qst and not
to overtell and to put her hands where they can see them and avoid to
move them and to contact him incase it goes rlly bad
Unit 2 : Is meritocracia an American chimera ?
(puissance et influence ) libertés publique / liberté individuelles unite et pluralité

American dream

meritocracia merits

Well educated => high achievers

A chimera illusion ?
Fair // unfair ?
Social background at Upenn
71% of students from top 20%
(very rich)
+19% from op 1%
+Lowest shove of students from
bottom fifth (3%)
-> very few “poor” people
-> Amongst the highest median
incomes often graduation
-> However , most students were
already rich to begin with
Ethnicity at brown
- 50% women > men
- Full-time grad students
- 95,54% foreigners from another
state
- White + Asian = majority
- Rich/ inclusive learning
environment
- Brown uni’s a global hub of
talent and ideas
Legacy in the Ivy league
- Highly competitive admission
processes (9,2% : Princeton )
(16,4% Pennsylvania )
- Challenging for both legacy and
non-legacy applicants
- Legacy applicants had a higher
chance of admission compared
to all applicants
• This person is a very famous actor in Hollywood. People respect him a
lot, and he gets paid a lot for his acting. It's difficult to think of him
being poor. Even though his dad had a good job as an electrical
engineer, and his mom was a teacher, which usually pays well, things
got tough for him. His mom left the family when he was 11, and his
dad passed away not long after. So, he was left alone and didn't have
much money. But he worked hard from the very beginning of his
acting career. Now, he's one of the most popular actors in Hollywood
and has a lot of money. His net worth is $500 million.
• Movies : mission impossible
• Tuition fees in American universities are reported to be
overwhelmingly expensive – which might suggest that college
education is the privilege of the elite . Can it be argued that those
staggering tuition fees undermine the place of meritocracy in the US ?
• The affordability of attending universities in the United States has long been
a topic of concern and debate. With the sharp costs associated with higher
education, one might question whether college has become an exclusive
privilege reserved primarily for the elite. This leads us to a fundamental
inquiry: do these impressive tuition fees weaken the principle of meritocracy
in the United States? In this discussion, we will explore into the complex
relationship between the cost of education and the concept of meritocracy,
exploring how access to higher education has evolved in a nation that prides
itself on equal opportunity and social mobility.
• One of the most pressing issues in American higher education is the rising cost of tuition, which has
sparked extensive discussions and debates. The exorbitant expenses associated with obtaining a college
degree have raised concerns about whether higher education is increasingly becoming a privilege
restricted to the wealthier segments of society. This concern touches upon a critical question: do these
substantial tuition fees undermine the core principle of meritocracy, where individuals are supposed to
be rewarded based on their abilities and efforts, rather than their financial background?
• To delve deeper into this issue, it is important to consider the consequences of these impressive tuition
fees. Many argue that as the cost of higher education continues to rise, it creates barriers that can
hinder individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds in their pursuit of a college degree. Students from
low-income families may find it exceptionally challenging to access the same educational opportunities
as those from more affluent backgrounds, jeopardizing the concept of equal opportunity.
• Moreover, the burden of student loan debt, often accrued to cover these formidable tuition costs, can
affect an individual's financial stability well into their adult life. This may further exacerbate the
inequality gap and make it increasingly difficult for individuals to climb the social and economic ladder,
which runs counter to the idea of social mobility that the United States has historically cherished.
• Conclusion:
• In conclusion, the soaring cost of attending American universities has ignited a significant
debate about the accessibility and affordability of higher education. The substantial
tuition fees associated with college education have raised valid concerns about whether
the principles of meritocracy and equal opportunity are being compromised. As the cost
of education continues to rise, it poses a formidable obstacle for many aspiring students,
particularly those from less privileged backgrounds, potentially weakening the very
foundation upon which the American dream is built.
• Efforts to address this issue, such as increased financial aid, scholarship programs, and
initiatives aimed at reducing tuition costs, are essential in preserving the values of
meritocracy and equal opportunity in American society. The nation must strive to ensure
that education remains a pathway to success that is open to all, regardless of their
financial circumstances, to uphold the principles upon which the United States was
founded
The rising cost of tuition fees in American universities has become a topic of great concern. Many argue that these staggering
expenses make higher education seem like an exclusive privilege for the elite. This leads to a critical question: do these exorbitant
tuition fees undermine the principle of meritocracy in the United States? Meritocracy, the idea that success should be determined
by an individual's abilities and talents rather than their social or economic background, is a fundamental concept in American
society.
One of the primary arguments against the high tuition fees is that they exacerbate social and economic inequalities. Students
from lower-income backgrounds are often deterred from pursuing higher education because of the immense financial burden. As
a result, they may not have the same opportunities to develop their talents and abilities, undermining meritocracy. The system
appears to favor those who can afford higher education, creating a cycle of privilege. The issue of student loans also comes into
play when discussing tuition fees. Many students graduate with significant debt, making it challenging for them to fully invest in
their careers or take entrepreneurial risks. High student loan payments can deter individuals from following their passions or
choosing career paths that may be less lucrative but more aligned with their talents, thus limiting the scope of meritocracy.
High tuition fees can also limit access to education. While there are scholarships and financial aid programs, not everyone who
deserves a higher education can access these opportunities. This can particularly affect students who excel academically but face
financial barriers. It is important to recognize that meritocracy should not be limited to academic merit but should also
encompass one's potential and ability. On the other side of the argument, some suggest that high tuition fees do not necessarily
undermine meritocracy. They argue that America offers numerous scholarships and grants, which can level the playing field for
talented individuals regardless of their financial backgrounds. Additionally, proponents contend that the high cost of education
reflects the high quality and resources available in American universities, which can enhance the learning experience and
ultimately benefit students.
The issue of tuition fees in American universities and its impact on meritocracy is a complex and multifaceted one. While it is
evident that the current system does present challenges for lower-income students and may discourage them from pursuing
higher education, it does not necessarily negate the principle of meritocracy. The key lies in maintaining a fair and accessible
system that recognizes and supports talents and abilities, regardless of one's socio-economic background. Addressing the cost of
higher education and providing more opportunities for students of all backgrounds is essential to uphold the American ideal of
meritocracy. Achieving this balance is the way forward to ensure that everyone has a fair shot at success based on their abilities
The rising cost of tuition fees in American universities has become a topic of great concern. Many argue that
these staggering expenses make higher education seem like an exclusive privilege for the elite. This leads to a
critical question: do these exorbitant tuition fees undermine the principle of meritocracy in the United States?
First of all we will discuss the inequalities of privileges and second of all we will discuss the solutions that are
given by Americans to solve the issue of high fees
• One of the primary arguments against the high tuition fees is that they exacerbate social and economic inequalities. Students from
lower-income backgrounds are often deterred from pursuing higher education because of the immense financial burden. As a result,
they may not have the same opportunities to develop their talents and abilities, undermining meritocracy. The system appears to
favor those who can afford higher education, creating a cycle of privilege. The issue of student loans also comes into play when
discussing tuition fees. Many students graduate with significant debt, making it challenging for them to fully invest in their careers or
take entrepreneurial risks. High student loan payments can deter individuals from following their passions or choosing career paths
that may be less lucrative but more aligned with their talents, thus limiting the scope of meritocracy.
• High tuition fees can also limit access to education. While there are scholarships and financial aid programs, not everyone who
deserves a higher education can access these opportunities. This can particularly affect students who excel academically but face
financial barriers. It is important to recognize that meritocracy should not be limited to academic merit but should also encompass
one's potential and ability. On the other side of the argument, some suggest that high tuition fees do not necessarily undermine
meritocracy. They argue that America offers numerous scholarships and grants, which can level the playing field for talented
individuals regardless of their financial backgrounds. Additionally, proponents contend that the high cost of education reflects the
high quality and resources available in American universities, which can enhance the learning experience and ultimately benefit
students.
The issue of tuition fees in American universities and its impact on meritocracy is a complex and multifaceted one. While it is evident
that the current system does present challenges for lower-income students and may discourage them from pursuing higher education,
it does not necessarily negate the principle of meritocracy. The key lies in maintaining a fair and accessible system that recognizes and
supports talents and abilities, regardless of one's socio-economic background. Addressing the cost of higher education and providing
more opportunities for students of all backgrounds is essential to uphold the American ideal of meritocracy. Achieving this balance is
• The efforts and ability are the keys to success
• There are categories that doesn’t have the same privileges
• What if there was apportunities and access
• Ability and efforts
• It should be equalized
• 1950
• to what extends are some people privileged due to their wealth ?
• To what extends privileges due to the wealth cause an issue ?