Should the US Federal Government have any control over public schools?

The Federal US government should not have any control over how public primary and secondary schools are run.

By Jason G.

Because the US Constitution does not mention education specifically, the states have plenary (absolute) power to enact statutes concerning education so long as these statutes do not violate the provisions of the United States Constitution. In this age of political pundits and mouthpieces, of grand standing and politicking, we hear all too often about the evils of a large Federal Government run amok. The US Department of Education appropriates a large sum of tax payer money to local public schools every year. This makes the Department of Education, the DOE, a large target when the talk show hosts need content for their shows and gives our legislators talking points when they make speeches. In reality, while the Federal government does spend nearly $60 billion a year on public education, local and state governments spend MUCH more. In 2009, all local and state governments spent $536 BILLION on public education! According to the National Center for Education Statistics, of the $536 Billion, the State of Georgia and all local governments in Georgia spent $26.5 billion in the same year (http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/expenditures/tables/table_01.asp ).Why do we hear so much about the Federal government controlling schools and only hear about local school systems if they are about to lose their accreditation?

One reason may be that all Federal US government education money comes with strings attached. Although they only contribute around 10% of school funding, the federal government requires institutions who accept their money to obey their rules. Standardized testing and forced integration (busing children from one district to another in order to artificially balance schools racially) are results of the Federal government's guidelines. Schools with higher indigent student populations tend to get more federal resources as a result of Bill Clinton's Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 and George Bush's No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, both of which are re-certifications of Lyndon Johnson's Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. Because of this additional federal money going to poorer schools, the local and state governments spend their money differently to compensate schools who don't qualify for need based federal grants. One last item of note in the NCLB of 2001 was the introduction of satisfactory performance for schools receiving aid. This means standardized testing to prove the schools are making progress.

Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington DC are a few of the multiple large school systems on trial for teachers and administrators cheating on standardized tests. Why would they cheat? Not to help the students, but to help protect the precious stream of federal dollars flowing into their schools. The current Federal guidelines encourage improvement at all costs and if the actual students are not able to perform, the administration and educators need to cheat to keep the scores up.

If the state and local governments already provide the vast majority of the resources needed to keep schools running, why allow any Federal government involvement in the affairs of the state and local governments. Is the 10% federal money helping to make our students excel at anything? Federal money and guidelines are only making problems worse and both should stop.





Standardized Testing is NOT the Problem
Kristin T.

The Federal Government has had control over public school systems since the very beginning of formation of public schools. Today, their control is based on funding for the strapped for cash public entities. Since the government provides funds for schools that score well on standardized testing, the best schools with the brightest students are receiving the most funding. Many citizens are concerned with what happens to the lower ranking schools with lower scoring students- perhaps students that know English as a second language or students that are considered special needs. But because the Federal Government only funds about ten percent of all public school’s needs, maybe the schools that score lower on their standardized tests should boycott Federal Funds and find better ways to make ends meet- bake sales, cheerleader car washed or increased sporting event fees. If schools don’t want to play by the rules they must find an alternative.

 

Studies increasingly find that student testing, INCLUDING large-scale and high-stakes standardized tests, positively effect student’s achievement. If standardized tests force students to be more serious about their academics, why shouldn’t the results be used to reward schools that work harder in preparing students for these results? George W. Bush was quoted during a discussion an a local Elementary School in Tennessee about standardized testing,

"You don't know unless you measure. Listen, I've heard every excuse in the book about measurement. You know, 'You're testing too much.' 'You're teaching the test.' And, you know, 'Don't test.' If you don't test, you have a system that just shuffles the kids through, and that's unacceptable. It's unacceptable to quit on a kid early and just say, 'Move through, and hope you learn.' What you've got to do is measure to determine where they are, and then you can compare districts and compare States. And as a result of strong accountability measures and good teachers and more funding, the results are positive.”

(Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush, 2004, Volume 1, published in 2007)

The results ARE positive. More funding, better teachers, better qualified students… and all the schools have to do is prepare their students for a standard test that everyone should take. Nobody LIKES to be tested, in fact, most of us hate it. But the results of these standardized tests are utterly necessary.  

FILM REVIEW

FLIGHT: FROM ADDICTION TO REDEMPTION
By Tony R. B.

Denzel Washington as an Airline Pilot, Captain
"Whip" Whitaker, and drug and alcohol addict.

The theatrical trailer for the movie Flight (2012), starring Denzel Washington, which showcases some of the films dramatic and visually stunning moments (there is a scene where the wing of a passenger airplane decimates the steeple of a church), provides reason enough to see the movie. And the inclusion of Washington, as the lead actor, in any film is certainly a movie draw for me, especially a film that appears to embody all of the awesome elements of a big budget special effects disaster movie. Yet this film does something uniquely unexpected and completely surprising. The director, Robert Zemeckis, brilliantly departs from what might be a fantastic airplane destruction film, and chooses instead to take viewers on an emotional and unpredictable journey through the not-so-pretty world of addiction and enablement towards one that is inherently framed by self-sacrifice and redemption.

Captain Whitaker and his Co-Pilot just before the fatal
take-off and crash that killed eight passengers.

William “Whip” Whitaker (played by Washington) is a seasoned commercial airline pilot who miraculously crash lands his plane after a mid-air catastrophe, saving all but eight passengers. After the crash, Whip is hailed as a hero, but as more details become known about events leading up to the crash, more questions than answers arise regarding who or what was really at fault? For instance, we learn that Whip drinks too much, uses cocaine excessively, and has unadulterated sex with various women including one of his own flight attendants, Katerina (played by Nadine Velázquez), who is among the casualties of the crash. From the very first scene, it is disturbingly apparent that Whip has issues with addiction. The true extent of his problems is not so obvious―at first, but one thing is evident―he never publicly or privately admits that he has a problem, at least not until the end of the film. To complicate matters, there are a variety of social enablers in his life who allow Whip to continue his destructive behavior either by virtue of active participation, passive resistance, or simple acquiesce.

Shown clockwise from top: Washington,
Cheadle, Reilly, and Goodman

First, we meet Harling Mays (played by John Goodman), who is Whip’s drug dealer and “friend.” Harling actively perpetuates Whip’s substance abuse by supplying him with the means of self-destruction (i.e. alcohol and cocaine) on a regular basis and is, thus, seen as the consummate social enabler. He displays no regard or regret, nor assumes responsibility, for the negative consequences that result from Whip’s drug usage. Secondly, Whip begins a romantic relationship with a recovering addict named Nicole (played by Kelly Reilly). Through his dysfunctional relationship with Nicole, we see a man trying to find happiness, yet is incapable of doing so because he is flawed and tortured by the constant pain he inflicts on others closest to him. Nicole knows Whip is an addict, yet she is not courageous enough to demand that he quit. Instead, she quietly and passively leaves him to face his demons alone. Lastly, while preparing for the legal dilemma facing him, we meet Whip’s attorney, Hugh Lang (played by Don Cheadle), who is a brilliant litigator with a winning track record for getting his clients exonerated. Through various legal maneuverings, Lang arrogantly anticipates Whip’s vindication despite his knowledge of Whip’s addiction to alcohol and cocaine; he is even successful at suppressing a toxicology report, which confirms that Whip had been drinking while flying the plane when it crashed. Thus, Lang’s actions represent the ultimate act of acquiesce, which enables Whip to travel down his dark and desperate road unchallenged.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) hearing to determine
Captain Whitaker's (Washington) involvement in the plane crash
that killed eight people, including flight attendant, Katerina (shown). 

Finally, during his NTSB hearing, details of empty alcohol bottles found in the plane’s trash are uncovered, as well as Katerina’s toxicology report showing that she had been drinking that day, resulting in a foregoing conclusion that she somehow contributed to the plane's crash. In a moment of unusual clarity and sacrifice, Whip makes a selfless confession about his own intoxication level while flying the airplane that fatal day. Thus, in order to maintain the good name of Katerina, he finally admits to himself (and to others) that he is an addict and a danger to the public. Whip is subsequently sentenced to prison where his narrative is shared with other inmates as part of a support group discussion and where he insists, ironically for the first time, that he actually feels “free.” And by the end of the film, we realize that the title, Flight, is not just about a tragic airplane story; it is an allegory for the often painful, lonely, dark, and tragic journey that one, struggling with addiction, has to endure before finally discovering his own path to redemption.

See the theatrical trailer here: http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2384176153/

Flight: – not to be confused with Flight of the Condor

By Cassandra M.

The movie Flight starring Denzel Washington gives a different spin on survival under the most unforeseen set of circumstances. How many times can one person be saved after surviving a plane crash? Apparently, William “Whip” Whitaker embodies the spirit of felines that are said to have nine lives. In this riveting movie, Denzel Washington plays the character of pilot Whip Whitaker who has a reputation for being a great pilot.  Anyone on the ground witnessing a plane falling from the sky in an inverted position would assume they were looking at what would later be described as one of the worst plane crashes in history. They would be wrong. Especially since the pilot at the controls is none other than Whip Whitaker, pilot extraordinaire. Similar to the heroic actions of real world pilot, Chesley Sullenberger, who landed a US Airways jet in the Hudson River, Whip’s (Denzel Washington) calm demeanor during the plane’s mid-air malfunction and miracle landing is seen as a feat of epic proportion with Whip hailed as a hero.

Unfortunately, when Whip is confronted about the possibility of pilot error being the cause of the crash, he dons his rose colored glasses and only wants to remind people that, “no one could have landed that plane like I did, no one.” Yes, the majority of the passengers were saved, but do you really want to fly with a pilot who was up all night drinking and doing drugs?

Thus begins the on-going storyline of everyone coming to the aid of Whip but Whip. After crash landing the ill-fated flight, Whip and the passengers are assisted on the ground by a group of parishioners who just happened to be in the same field the crash occurred in having a baptismal service. Throughout the movie, there are a number of people who try to save Whip from imminent and continuous danger at his own hands.

During his stay in the hospital, Whip meets Kelly Reilly (Nicole) who survived a near death experience of her own when she overdosed on drugs. Nicole and Whip are drawn together by an unusual set of circumstances and Whip invites her to live with him at his boyhood farm where he has moved to avoid the media and reporters. Whip had earlier disposed of all the alcohol and drugs he had in numerous locations in the house and on the property. One would think from these actions that Whip has finally come to the realization that he does indeed have a problem but before the day ended, he had begun restocking his alcohol supply. With the threat of possible prosecution looming over him, Whip reverts back to his dependence on drugs and alcohol concerned with the possibility of prosecution if the results of his blood tests become known.  Nicole tries to help Whip with his addiction problem by inviting him to join her at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, but Whip only stays for a short time since he feels his drinking and drug use is under control.  When Nicole realizes that Whip’s drinking and drug use is only getting worse, she packs and leaves before she too succumbs to the ever present drugs that are a constant reminder of how close she came to ending her life.

Whip’s attorney comes to his rescue when the lab results are excluded from the investigation results by his attorney, Hugh Lang (Don Cheadle) who has to continually stress to Whip that he needs to stop drinking in order to walk away from the incident with no jail time.  Whip ignores Lang’s pleas and continues his drug and alcohol use.

Unlike Flight of the Phoenix where the crash victims band together in order to survive, Whip is left to his own survival or demise as he is aided by another survivor who was not a passenger on the flight. In the end, Whip comes to his own rescue when he admits during a public hearing of the plane crash that he was intoxicated and on drugs during the mishap. In an effort to save the reputation of a crewmember, Whip eventually saves himself and others through his confession.  Director, Robert Zemeckis did an outstanding job of directing the film’s cast in this pivotal portrayal of unlikely people coming to the aid of others.

Abolish the SAT?

ABOLISH THE SAT
By Kristen T.
Edited by Tony R. B.

Charles Murray, author of “Abolish the SAT”, provided me with new insight into the familiar, yet dreaded test. Murray proposes and gives ample examples to why the SAT should never be administered again. Murray uses information gathered and published in 2001 by the University of California that analyzes the relationship between high school grades, SAT scores, achievement test scores and freshman grades in college. Unsurprisingly, the results yield that SAT scores are inherently useful at predicting--well, nothing. Murray goes on to argue the removal of the SAT completely and I could not agree more with him.

When I was preparing to take the SAT, I felt I had an advantage over other students because I usually tested very well in almost every subject. Still, I dreaded taking the SAT partly because doing so was a waste of time. Moreover, I felt that my eventual score did not truly reflect my academic ability any more than my high school report card did--and I was correct. For instance, I scored extremely well on the SAT but continued to receive merely "decent" grades throughout school. Thus, the vast differences between my SAT scores and my grades continued to astound both me and my family.

While having a standardized test to measure student's academic abilities sounds like a great idea, the truth is that it has never been proven to work for two reasons: (1) There are too many variations to take into consideration and (2), the test is not able to adequately gauge student’s skills overall. So why waste both student and admission officer’s time worrying over the results of the dreaded test? Perhaps it has something to do with the enormous pay day that the College Board collects by administering the test. In the end, the SAT is nothing more than a "meal ticket" for the board, and is both confusing and misleading to students and parents. 




ANYONE IS CAPABLE OF EXCELLING ON THE SAT
By Jasmine Alexis C.
Edited by Tony R. B.

Arguably, the SAT is a common assessment that continues to frighten students and parents. Moreover, many negative inferences are associated with the SAT, partly because it requires a significant amount of study and preparation prior to taking, and a great deal of emotional pressure to perform well exists in order to be accepted into college. While some may argue that the SAT provides little academic value, may not effectively measure student intelligence, or that it favors the elite, in truth, the SAT establishes a common standard for college acceptance and forces college-seeking students to aim past mediocrity. In addition, the SAT is fair for college admissions in that it challenges students to think critically, is reasonable for upper-class high school students to complete, is demonstrative of what students should be learning, and is offered regardless of one's ethnic, financial, and educational status.

With regard to the emotional stress associated with the SAT, cramming for any test can place strain on students and add unnecessary stress to their young lives. While stress is not healthy for anyone, the SAT, itself, is not inherently responsible for this stress. The stress comes from the pressure that family, friends, teachers, and colleges place on students to do well. However, this is not an issue if most students spend adequate time preparing for the SAT in advance--as many of the elite do. One may argue that upper-middle class students perform better on the SAT because they have access to resources that help them prepare better--unlike the poor. I beg to differ. The poor have just as many opportunities. First, while economically challenged parents may not be able to afford private tutoring, many schools offer free SAT prep, and the College Board offers practice tests online. Secondly, most high schools provide freshmen and sophomore students the opportunity to become exposed to the SAT by taking the PSAT (practice SAT), which is similar to the SAT. And finally, students can always study independently.

Lastly, doing well on the SAT requires one to study for it, and those who put in the work typically do well. According to Murray, prestigious colleges are interested in any student with demonstrated intellectual capability--regardless of ethnicity or income level--in order to create diversity within their schools. They want all children, not just the elite. And because of the equal opportunity that exists, less privileged students have as much chance at excelling on the SAT as anyone else. It may require more effort, and it may require more creativity to prepare for it, but they, too, can do well.

In brief, intelligence is not based on color, background, or great genes as Murray claims; intelligence is based on one's willingness to learn and study. It has more to do with drive, determination, and perseverance. And being challenged is necessary in order to excel in life, for one cannot truly grow without overcoming challenges. Why, then, should anyone be allowed into a prestigious university without having challenged themselves? The SAT can be a challenge for most students. However, it is only a challenge because it requires extensive study and preparation as well as critical thinking, which is all one does while attending college.

 

Should Guns Be Allowed in Schools?

Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic- No Guns Allowed!

By Cassandra M.

The placing of guns in the hands of educators is not an adequate solution for protecting students and faculty from harm. If guns are placed in schools, criminals and those looking to cause bodily injury to others will have additional avenues to access weapons.  No amount of training given to educators can take the place of a trained professional with years of experience handling guns.

The added knowledge of knowing a gun is on the premises could cause undue stress and possible departures of tenured teachers and other essential staff. The departure of staff could prompt parents to withdraw their children and a reduced enrollment would lead to a reduction in force and school closures. If guns are allowed in schools, school systems will be open to possible lawsuits from parents and the neighboring communities if the guns meant to protect the schools fall into the wrong hands. The Connecticut Education Association polled 400 teachers in January to ascertain their position on allowing guns in schools. Surprisingly, only 3% supported the effort. Currently there are only 18 states that allow the carrying of concealed weapons on school grounds.

After the Sandy Hook tragedy, many schools positioned armed security guards or stationed police on their grounds in order to combat fear and protect against other tragedies aimed at schools. In addition to added security personnel, school doors remain locked during school hours allowing entry only after proper identification is received. These are just a few examples of safety measures that can be put in place verses arming educators with guns.  

History continues to show how harmful guns are in the hands of the inexperienced user and those unfamiliar with how to react in emergencies. There is too much that can go wrong if a loaded weapon is placed in the hands of someone whose vocation is that of an educator. The educators and students have enough to be concerned about without adding an additional layer of stress. The safety of teachers and children should remain the responsibility of those whose job it is to serve and protect--the police officers.

Let's stop making schools such easy targets!

By Jason G.

Public School staff should be required to carry firearms daily.

Throughout history, schools have been the target of violent criminals. If they aren't sexual predators preying on little kids, they are insane people climbing clock towers to shoot at college kids. Why are schools such attractive targets for people wishing to do harm? Because social norms and mores dictate that the school should be a nurturing environment, staffed primarily by women. So, in the eyes of a criminal, a school becomes a big building full of young, vulnerable people who are being cared for by a group of women. Since violent crimes are primarily committed by men, this presents a very easy target. As a society, we have made our teachers, administrators, and students one of the easiest targets for violent crime. As women are often less physically powerful than men, they need another way to assert force and defend themselves and our children.

The answer to the problem lies in changing society's perception of our public schools. We need to turn the idea that schools are easy targets on it's head. If we, as a society, require compulsory firearm training for all teachers and administrators and require a firearm in each classroom, the “easy target” perception will change. Once potential violent criminals see a school as a place to get shot and killed, they may look for another venue to wreak havoc. A recent example of this deterrent effect is the city of Kennessaw, Georgia, where all home owners within the city limit are required to own a firearm. Kennessaw seems like a really bad place to take up home invasion as a hobby. Because of this deterrent effect, the number of violent crimes and break-ins are much lower than the Georgia average.

In the case of mentally insane people, this deterrent will not be effective, but their harm could be limited by an armed teacher. How far would Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold have gotten had they been shot as soon as they began their rampage in the Columbine High School? How many fewer people would Seung-Hui Cho have killed at Virginia Tech if there had been even one armed teacher? We will never know. It is too late for us to save those children.

Since we as a society have already failed to protect these children and dozens more throughout the years, their blood is partially on society's hands. We have allowed this to happen and need to go about changing it today. 

We need to properly train and arm all Public School teachers and administrators.

Internships, Love Them or Leave Them?

Internships: We love them!

By Jason G
 

Hooray! I've almost made it through 4+ years of college! Wait, you're telling me I need to pay tuition to go work an internship before I can graduate? Many internships are unpaid jobs? Why would I pay to go work for someone for free? This stinks!  While all of these are normal reactions from students, internships are very much a positive--and necessary--part of a college education that greatly outweigh any negative connotation, which might be associated with them.

Many students argue that since an internship is not set in a traditional classroom, it is not a valuable learning experience. This could not be further from the truth. Working through a good internship, in the right field, teaches real world skills one can not get solely from classroom training. Moreover, after graduating, most students will use the experiences from their internship to help them land a permanent job since employers will seldom hire inexperienced candidates. So how does one gain experience? They do so by working an internship, in a particular field, to gain real world experience.

Most of the full time job duties in the workplace will only be based on things learned in school. Once hired, the real learning curve starts where you either sink or swim in the actual workplace. For instance, learning how to work with different personalities, networking and making many professional connections, and gaining real world experience. It is not reasonable to think these skills can be taught in a classroom environment. Did you ever wonder why nurses and doctors have to fulfill such a long residency? It is because no one wants an inexperienced nurse to stab them with a needle! A residency is just like an extended internship. Overall, experiential learning is as important as the book learning you did throughout your college career.

The Ugly Truth of Internships

By Cassandra M.

 

Although most of what Jason writes about internships is true, it is not true that if a

student is successful in completing an internship that a permanent job can be secured. While it is

possible for students to learn necessary skills by participating in an internship, sometimes those skills are not always the one's needed to survive in today’s marketplace. For instance, my current employer hires interns on an annual basis during the summer for eight to ten weeks depending on the student’s schedule. The interns work in almost every department of the organization, including the mail room. Over the past three years, some of the same interns have returned, but only a few have been hired.

An intern in an office environment, to some, means having someone around to do the tedious tasks that no one else wants to do or the jobs that have been put off because you  know the interns are coming. So it could be a positive experience for both the employer and the intern under the right circumstances or it could be a situation where an intern ends up being the office lackey. Who wants to brag to their friends that they learned how to sort and distribute mail over the summer? 

The good thing about being a college student is that most will gain experience working in an environment where they are exposed to a diverse group of co-workers and the public, and learn time management skills necessary for competing and surviving in a work environment. Furthermore, an internship does not necessarily afford students the life lessons they will learn when applying and securing a position that not only gives them hands on experience but also monetary compensation for the work they accomplish. Unfortunately, with most internships the only compensation a student can expect to receive is a heartfelt thank you and maybe a farewell gift.  While the student will be able to list the internship on a resume as an accomplishment, it will probably be most suited under the heading of community service for all the weight it will carry in securing a position.

Are Social Policies that Classify People based on Race, Color, or National Origin Good or Bad?

The Dangers of Classifying People by Race and Culture
By Tony R. B.
“A strong sense of identity gives man an idea he can do no wrong; too little accomplishes the same.”  – Djuna Barnes, Author/Novelist

History has all but demonstrated that there is little value that comes from any social policy, which seeks to classify individuals based on race, color, ethnicity or national origin. Arguably, such policies exacerbate sentiments of inferiority among some (and superiority among others), while normalizing social tendencies toward separation and differentiation among all. Moreover, these social labels, or scripts, have tremendous psychological implications concerning how we view and/or accept ourselves and others who are “unlike” us.

According to sociologist and author Diana Kendall (2011), the question of one’s “race [and ethnicity] is based on the genetically transmitted physical characteristics of a group of people…classified [by] a common history, nationality, or geographical location” (49). Kendall further asserts that since one’s race is mostly attributed to such innocuous phenotypes like skin color, body type, and hair texture, then to rely on such characteristics―to classify and separate one individual from another―is not only irresponsible but immoral (50). Thus, if classifying people for socio-economic, political, and educational reasons is indeed a necessary endeavor, then it would appear more practical to simply categorize all people as one race―the human race. Regrettably, history has all but proven that our great nation, which is emblematic of so-called democratic virtues and norms, has always been obsessed with socially constructed labels and scripts. And although ours is a uniquely diverse republic, we still find it necessary to catalog our nation’s people into distinctive "in-groups" and "out-groups," which among other things perpetuate destructive social biases and stereotypes (McCallion 2007).

For this reason, my understanding of who I am is, at times, difficult. My American identity, for example―carved from the splintered and tragic history of a forgotten tribal lineage and sewn together instead by slavery, Jim Crow and various contemporary social policies like Brown v. Board and Affirmative Action―remains virtually unknown to me. For that matter, my culture is never quite as simple or easy to define or explain. Intellectually, I understand that I am of African descent―born in the United States of America. Thus, the question then becomes, am I to be considered African-American―or simply American? There was a time when I was once called Nigger, and then Negro, later on I was Black, which was followed by Black-American, and eventually Afro-American. It seems that every generation or so I am to be invariably reclassified for the purpose of being socially categorized (or stigmatized depending on one’s perspective), according to pseudo designations, created by cold bureaucracies, and enumerated on every job application, college application, consumer survey, and census form next to tiny boxes that I and others will inevitably check without question or much consideration.

And yet, for every new label that has ever been created to define my race or culture or ethnicity, the only true beneficiaries are those with political, social, and educational influence who aptly assign both bias and stereotype upon me depending on the cultural “out-group” I happen to land in (McCallion 2007). This is perhaps why my culture is sometimes difficult to define or explain―because; it appears that mine has been defined for me.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sources

Kendall, Diane. "Racial and Ethnic Inequality." The Intersections Collection: Pearson Custom Sociology in the Twenty-first Century. Pearson Learning Solutions. Boston, MA. 2011. Print.

McCallion, M.J., Ritzer, G. (ed). "In-Groups and Out-Groups." Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology.
           Blackwell Publishing. Blackwell Reference Online. 2007. Web. 02 Feb. 2013.

           <http://www.sociologyencyclopedia.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405124331_yr2011_chunk_g978140512433115_ss1-48#citation >

It’s Human Nature

By Jasmine Alexis C.

Although Tony Brooks makes very valid points supporting the prohibition of classifying people by race, color, ethnicity, or national origin, he fails to take human nature into consideration. Classification is not merely a socially or politically based agenda. It is human nature to create labels. Prohibiting this classification, that can be traced from the beginning of time, will result in people not being able to be themselves, the diminishing of cultural traditions, and, eventually, a “Big Brother” society. It may seem that dismissing labels would give individuals and society a sense of freedom; however, the lack of distinction will result in one, uniformed culture, which could very easily lead to a tyrannical society.

America prides itself on being a melting pot filled with people from various backgrounds, religions,and cultures. In America, we have freedom, and we have laws to protect those freedoms. These freedoms allow us to worship whomever and however we wish and practice cultural traditions that have been passed down from our ancestors and are based on the cultures of our countries of origin. America gives us freedom to embrace our own personal cultures, instead of forcing us to assimilate to a specific culture and its practices. Many people come to America for this freedom—not to dismiss their culture and ethnicity but to embrace it freely in a safe environment. Many people from various cultures take pride in their ethnicity. For example, in the Hispanic culture, a Puerto Rican takes pride in being a Puerto Rican and will get very offended if one were to call him or her Mexican, Dominican, or any other Hispanic nationality. (I am talking about American Hispanics, not just those still living in their native lands.) These people do not migrate to the United States in order to forsake their culture, race, ethnicity, color, etc. They come for better opportunities. These people do not care that the jobs they are applying for ask them their race, because they are proud of their race. They are not ashamed and do not take offense, because there is nothing offensive with pointing out our differences. Our differences is what make this world so worth-while and worthy of exploration.

Now, imagine for a moment that each state in the United States were to abolish classifying people according to their race, color, ethnicity, or national origin. It would take decades for people to actually catch on, because even after the states stop classifying people, people will still classify themselves. Why? It’s human nature! However, let’s suppose that people do assimilate to the prohibition of racial classification. Eventually, people would forget their native cultures. America would no longer be a melting pot. Everyone would be a standard American—whatever that is—though, physically, there would still be differences. Culturally, however, people would forget where they came from, because there would be no importance in race and ethnicity. There would be no Puerto Rican Day Parade in New York City. There would be no Caribbean Festival. Everyone would be Americans, which all U.S. citizens already are—but there would be no more cultural make-up of the United States. Everyone would eventually become the same, except physically. People are not color-blind. Therefore, people would still notice the differences. And guess what. People would then label one another as “dark Americans,” “light Americans,” “brown Americans,” etc. Whether the state labels individuals or not, the people will always do it. Just like in the African American community there are many distinctions as well. I am considered a light-skinned African American woman. I’m not just African American or black to most African Americans—sadly—but it’s true. There will always be people who label others based on color. Is part of it social and political? Yes. Is part of it discriminatory? Yes. Is most of it human nature? Of course!

So is the prohibition of the classification of people based on race, ethnicity, and nationality beneficial or pernicious? It is clear that it is beneficial. One might say from my argument that it would not seem to make a difference anyway, since people will label themselves regardless. However, the lack of labels will result in a lack of self-pride, which will result in one, uniformed culture in America, which will, then, end our freedoms. It is our differences that give us our freedom. Without different religions, there would be no freedom of religion. Without different ethnicities, there would be no freedom of expression and culture. If you take note, you will see that countries with little to no diversity tend to have the least amount of freedom. Diversity is good, and labeling that diversity is not bad. It’s human nature. Need more proof? American Indians. Before the “white man” came and took over the United State of America, the natives had different tribes. They labeled themselves based on their tribes. Even back in the Bible days people were labeled according to their nations. God even set a group of people apart and made them His chosen people—the Israelites. If God Himself labeled people, how dare we not?

Not classifying people may seem fair, but that one policy can, ironically, create tyranny. Think about it. Communism was based on “equality”—everyone being the same, no labels or classification. Well, being American, we all know the dangers of communism. Need I further explain?

*I am Jasmine Cason, and I approve this message*

 

The Big Game to get the Atlanta Falcons a new stadium

The Falcons Proposed New Stadium 
By Kristen T.



The Proposed Stadium

The proposal for the Atlanta Falcons’ new retractable roof stadium is outrageous. The Georgia Dome, the current home of Atlanta’s NFL team, is relatively new--being only twenty years old. While the current stadium does not have a retractable roof, it is in great condition, can hold 71,228 fans and has hosted numerous sporting events aside from being the home of the Falcons. The Georgia Dome held sporting events in the 1996 Olympic Games, two Super Bowls (1994 and 2000), NCAA Men’s Final Four Basketball, professional wrestling and bull riding. To imply that the building that hosted Olympic Games is no longer adequate for a mere average NFL team is preposterous.



The Georgia Dome

Atlanta has been deemed the worst sports town for fans- that is, our town is the least enthusiastic about our hometown sports. Arthur Blank, the owner of the Falcons, believed that the team's decent win record in the 2012 season would increase fan support enough that the public would be in favor of the proposed stadium. Unfortunately, after their NFC Championship loss to the 49’ers, the fans lost all interest in the Falcons, and the $948 million stadium again. In addition, with the economy in poor condition, as it is with educators taking furlough days, spending $500 million of state and city money on something that is unnecessary does not make a lot of sense.

Arthur Blank

Arthur Blank has approached Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed telling him and other officials that Los Angeles, one of the top media markets in the country, has made it clear they are interested in moving the falcons to southern California. While Arthur Blank is a suave businessman, this isn't the most effective negotiation tactic. While the move would cause Atlanta very little fan upset and monetary loss, it most certainly wouldn't cause $948 million of loss like a new stadium for a losing team would cost. 










A New Stadium: Good for Falcons―Great for Atlanta
By Tony R. B.

By now, most have heard that The Georgia World Congress Center Authority (GWCCA) and the Atlanta Falcons have agreed to build a new retractable roof stadium, located on one of two potential sites on the Georgia World Congress Center campus. The proposed stadium will not only serve as home to the Atlanta Falcons―when the lease to the Georgia Dome expires in 2020―but also to other sports activities, conventions, and entertainment events. Notwithstanding the advantages of this effort, there is still plenty of opposition to the construction of a new multi-million dollar stadium, with disparate views on the matter ranging from concerns about community gentrification to baseless claims of increased cost to taxpayers. The inherent reality, however, is that a new stadium not only benefits the Falcons and their fans, but also the surrounding community as well as the state of Georgia.


An artist rendering of the new Atlanta Falcons

Stadium, featuring a retractable roof (2012)

First, the retractable roof stadium is a unique and eye-catching sports venue, providing a league-worthy game day experience for fans, and allows the team to remain competitive on the field for years to come. In addition, a new arena/stadium cements a long-term solution for the Falcons―pending the end of their lease at the Georgia Dome―and retains the successful partnership between the GWCCA and the Falcons in the years following (New Atlanta Stadium 2012-13). 

Second, the Atlanta Falcons, along with the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, have a history of investing in projects that enhance communities and improve the quality of life throughout the neighborhoods near the Georgia Dome as well as the proposed new stadium (New Atlanta Stadium 2012-13). Furthermore, The Falcons have publicly pledged to make significant monetary investments in these communities as a result of the new stadium. All of which underscores a long standing commitment by the franchise to enhance the surrounding Atlanta communities.

Two potenital sites on the GWCC campus under consideration

Finally, when the stadium is complete, the state of Georgia will own an asset that is one-third of its cost, and the Falcons will not only pay rent of $2.5 million per season, but public funding for the stadium’s construction will originate from an existing hotel-motel tax, which is paid by visitors―not local residents (Carasik 2012). In addition, there are significant economic benefits resulting from the project. For instance, over the three-year construction period, “this effort is estimated to add more than 4,500 new jobs to the state’s economy and generate more than $400 million in total economic [gain]” for Georgia. Furthermore, a new stadium helps to retain several events currently held at the Dome like the SEC Championship game, the Chick-fil-A Bowl, and the Bank of America Football Classic, which generate combined annual revenues of over $450 million dollars, and arguably benefits the state and its economy (New Atlanta Stadium 2012-13).

In brief, while opposition continues to exist for this project, at its core, a new stadium is unquestionably a tremendous economic and aesthetic benefit to the Falcons, the surrounding communities, and the overall economy, and represents a smart investment win for the team, the fans, all of Atlanta sports, and the state of Georgia.

____________________________________________________________________________

Sources

Carasik, Scott. “Atlanta Falcons Need a New Stadium for the Long Term.” Bleacher Report. December 2012. Web. 27 Jan. 2013. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1440200-atlanta-the-falcons-do-need-a-new-stadium-for-the-long-term-with-limited-psl     

New Atlanta Stadium. Atlanta Falcons. 2012-13. Web. 27. 2013. http://newatlantastadium.com/

Faux Friendship

Faux Friendship In High Demand. Genuine Friendship--Obsolete

By Jasmine Alexis C.
 

According to William Deresiewicz, Social media has significantly eroded the true meaning of friendship. Today, we easily "friend" one another while surfing the net, whereas, in early civilization, friendship was not only earned, but  taken very seriously. Thus, Deresiewicz is correct in his assessment of the contemporary model for friendship.

For instance, Deresiewicz discusses David and Jonathan’s friendship using scpriptural references (1 Samuel 18:1-3): “The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul,” and “Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.” Accordingly, David and Jonathan shared a deep soul tie that bound them together, despite differences, character flaws, or disagreements. This is one of the first mentions of friendship in the Bible. According to these scriptures, friendship is based on love. Love, as 1 Corinthians 13:4 describes it, is patient, kind, is not envious, and does not boast. It is not self-seeking, and it always trusts. Compare friendships today with this definition and one can easily see that if friendships are supposed to be based on love, then friendships do not really exist today. Technology has made us impatient and kindness is not all that common these days. People tend to boast on social networks—describing their accomplishments, posting photos of themselves on vacation or doing fun things to imply that they have such a wonderful life. Some people even post a great deal of pictures of themselves when they find themselves attractive in order to gain numerous “likes.” Facebook is for the attention-seeking, which in biblical terms can be called “self-seeking.” Deresiewicz hits the nail on the head when he states, “Modernity believes in self-expression” (150). There is a lot of emphasis on “self” in modern society, which makes [genuine] friendship hard to develop.

Deresiewicz asserts that friendship as we know it in modern society, has become more of a feeling versus a relationship (152). Relationships are two people coming together as one to pursue a common goal. It is a bond, and that bond is supposed to be held together through thick and thin. However, today people change friends as often as they change clothes. Facebook romantic relationships often end fast as well. One day someone is in a relationship, and the next day that person is single. A month later, that same person is in a relationship with another person, and the saga continues. People are seeking feelings instead of pure companionship. People want to feel good about themselves. Having someone else like (and “like”) them makes them feel good about themselves. Getting attention from numerous people because of their new relationship announced on Facebook, or because of their new photo, boosts their self-esteem and ego. The focus does not reflect friendship, which is what Facebook is supposed to represent— connecting with friends—instead, the focus reflects “Self” and Self’s egotistical needs.

Finally, Deresiewicz claims that friendship has evolved from offering “moral advice and correction” to, now, offering “nonjudgmental” and “unconditional” acceptance and support (150). While I do believe that friendships should offer unconditional acceptance, since it should be based off love, which is unconditional, I do agree, however, that people do not give sound moral advice anymore because of the fear of offending the “friend.” True friends do not get offended when corrected, because they trust their friend and know that the common goal is growth—together. Therefore, they should take the friend’s advice into consideration. I have noticed that people are too afraid these days. It is as if everyone is walking on eggshells because no one wants to say the wrong thing. If a person has to question whether it is wrong to address their friend regarding a certain immoral behavior, then maybe the two aren’t really friends. That does not give people the license to be mean to their friends, but people should be able to communicate fearlessly and genuinely with their friends. But like Deresiewicz stated, “We want our friendships fun and friction-free.” (Please, do not confuse “friction” with “drama,” though I’ve noticed modern society thrives off that). True friendship has friction. If everything is smooth and delightful all the time, then question the friendship. The proverb says, “As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend” (Proverbs 27:17). Friendship consists of friction, because that friction is what shapes each other into two mature, wholesome people.

Will you be my friend? William Deresiewicz doesn't want you to be.

A rebuttal by Jason G.

In his essay entitled “Faux Friendship,” Dr. Deresiewicz not only has the audacity to have a hard-to-spell-last-name, but also feels he is justified in marginalizing people's friendships. I couldn't disagree with him more. His writing obviously draws from a lifetime of privilege, social ease and popularity. He was educated in a famous Ivy League school and makes his living passing judgement on the rest of us. He is proposing that unless you have the time and self esteem to forge intense platonic relationships with others, you don't actually have friends. 

How dare you sir?

If a 16 year old is too meek to muster the courage to talk with people face-to-face, outlets like Facebook give them an avenue to help build the nerve to interact with these people in person. Either Dr. Deresiewicz never had an awkward moment as an adolescent or is too old to remember ever being paralyzed by the thought of having to speak to some random individual.

While many so called “friends” on Facebook are nothing more than place holders for personal relationships, Facebook has become the gateway to real interactions for many socially awkward people. Discounting the quality of friendships for an entire group of anything-is-better-than-being-aloners shows how out of touch this “educated” man really is. Of course we all would love having the time and opportunity to spend countless hours forging best friendships all day, but (unlike Dr. Deresiewicz) the rest of us have jobs and personality disorders to tend to instead. In brief, Social networking websites, among other things, allow us to remain in contact with our past and present friends and we shouldn't be made to believe that our modern relationships are any less genuine than, say, Jonathan or David's friendship.