Charitable segregation: Difference between revisions
(Creating page) |
(Creating page) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
It is important to note that charitable organizations have the freedom to choose their focus and target beneficiaries based on their missions and goals. However, promoting inclusivity and ensuring that assistance is accessible to all individuals in need can be more effective in addressing systemic issues and building stronger and more equitable societies. | It is important to note that charitable organizations have the freedom to choose their focus and target beneficiaries based on their missions and goals. However, promoting inclusivity and ensuring that assistance is accessible to all individuals in need can be more effective in addressing systemic issues and building stronger and more equitable societies. | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
{{NoteAI}} | {{NoteAI}} | ||
==Charitable | ==Charitable segregation appears in the following literature== | ||
Jones C., Symeonidou S. (2017 | Jones C., Symeonidou S. (2017). The Hare and the Tortoise: a comparative review of the drive towards inclusive education policies in England and Cyprus. ''International Journal of Inclusive Education'', ''21''(7), 775-789. Routledge.https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1283715 | ||
Latest revision as of 16:15, 25 September 2024
Date and country of first publication[1][edit | edit source]
2017
United Kingdom
Definition[edit | edit source]
Charitable segregation refers to the practice of separating or segregating charitable activities or organizations based on certain criteria, such as race, ethnicity, or religion. This practice may be driven by a desire to focus resources on specific groups or communities, provide targeted support, or address specific needs. However, it can also contribute to social divisions and exclusion.
In some cases, charitable segregation may be intentional, with organizations explicitly stating that they only serve specific groups or populations. This can be seen in charities that focus on specific ethnic or religious communities, or those that prioritize assistance for individuals of a certain gender or age group.
While charitable segregation may stem from a genuine desire to address specific needs or provide culturally appropriate support, it can also perpetuate inequality and exclusion. By singling out certain groups for assistance, it can reinforce divisions and limit opportunities for cooperation and understanding among different communities.
It is important to note that charitable organizations have the freedom to choose their focus and target beneficiaries based on their missions and goals. However, promoting inclusivity and ensuring that assistance is accessible to all individuals in need can be more effective in addressing systemic issues and building stronger and more equitable societies.
See also[edit | edit source]
References[edit | edit source]
Notes[edit | edit source]
- ↑ Date and country of first publication as informed by the Scopus database (December 2023).
At its current state, this definition has been generated by a Large Language Model (LLM) so far without review by an independent researcher or a member of the curating team of segregation experts that keep the Segregation Wiki online. While we strive for accuracy, we cannot guarantee its reliability, completeness and timeliness. Please use this content with caution and verify information as needed. Also, feel free to improve on the definition as you see fit, including the use of references and other informational resources. We value your input in enhancing the quality and accuracy of the definitions of segregation forms collectively offered in the Segregation Wiki ©.
Charitable segregation appears in the following literature[edit | edit source]
Jones C., Symeonidou S. (2017). The Hare and the Tortoise: a comparative review of the drive towards inclusive education policies in England and Cyprus. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(7), 775-789. Routledge.https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1283715