Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools

For those of you who grew up like me, you probably have never really thought about the injustices in the public school system because they don't apply to you. However, you probably have noticed that schools in nicer neighborhoods are typically better than those in worse neighborhoods. It's time to think beyond just that fact and find the consequences of public school systems based on property taxes. You are born into a class. The children born into nicer neighborhoods get access to the best schools, find it easier to get into a college, and have a variety of job choices available to them. This knowledge has motivated me to work hard in school. Knowing what the finish line looks like gives me an incentive to show up to class and work hard. Since there are a variety of colleges within my reach and an endless amount of career choices to pick from at these colleges, I have been motivated to not only show up to school, but to work hard too. How hard I study is a reflection of what I know the reward will be. People who don't succeed are not necessarily born lazier than me. When their schools do not promise a successful future for them, they have no reason to show up and try hard. If my school did not have the right teachers or supplies to provide an adequate opportunity to get me farther in life, what would the point be in showing up or trying? If dropping out of school and working minimum wage jobs is the only known way of providing food and shelter, then why would I choose to go to a school where nothing is promised instead?
In the last chapter of Jonathan Kozol's novel Savage Inequalities, Kozol takes the reader into the towns of Alamo Heights and Cassiano, both in the city of San Antonio. The two towns are just seven minutes away from one another. To the children in Cassiano, Alamo Heights seems an impossible distance away. My past four blogs on previous chapters in this novel explain the inequalities. Something new struck me in this last chapter. A social worker from one of the schools in Cassiano explains the future of many of the children. She says, "Many of these teen-age girls helping their mothers to make supper will be pregnant soon. They will have children and leave school. Many will then begin the daily trip to Alamo Heights. They'll do domestic work and bring up other people's kids. By the time they know what they were missing, it's too late."
The last sentence in this quote is what generated my thoughts and questions at the end of the first paragraph. Society likes to look at the poor and unsuccessful and blame it on laziness. However it is unjust to compare the amount of school work done by the children in Alamo Heights to the children in Cassiano without comparing the history and more importantly the environments. The human brain works on a reward system. Every behavior we do is a result of reinforcement or punishment. To children in Alamo Heights, they know they will be rewarded with college, a job, and a substantial income, if they attend school. To the children in Cassiano, their school provides no promise of any of these things. Instead, when they drop out of school and work minimum wage jobs they are rewarded with minimum wage, the only known way to provide food and shelter. The powerful words, "By the time they know what they were missing, it's too late," say it all. The children from Cassiano are not exposed to a decent education until they work for families in Alamo Heights and see the schools over there. They do not understand the importance of education until they see how a good education can give someone a entirely new future. Now that they are exposed to good education and what good it does, "it's too late". Then they go back to Cassiano and learn even more. They learn their children are not equally worthy as the Alamo Heights children in receiving an education. They learn their place in the world is somewhere along the lines of housekeeping. This was predetermined for them from the second they were born into a Cassiano family.
This novel has opened up my eyes to injustices, the simple unequal education between the rich and the poor. This novel has made me understand others. Instead of judging and labeling others as lazy or chastising those who don't attend school, I now understand the problem is much bigger than the individuals choice to attend school or not. It's a problem the entire public system is to blame for. It's not just districts with the high dropout rate's problem, but schools like mine with the high graduation rate's problem as well. The most important thing I got out of this novel was a gratefulness for my education. I've learned not to take my education for granted, because not everyone has it in this "democratic" country. Above I mentioned it's everyone's problem. I was given a good education, and there's no need to feel guilty for what I have. Just as the children in Cassiano did not choose to be born into that town, I did not choose to be born into mine. But I do have control over how I use what I've inherited. I will take advantage of the education given to me, and use it to help others less fortunate than me. Kozol might have showed me the injustices in the the public school system and the injustices placed upon America's children, but the message I got was that it doesn't have to stay like that.

DO NOT SHOP AT LOWE'S

Home Depot is better.
Seriously though, Lowe's recently pulled ads from the reality TV show All American Muslim on TLC. Why? Well apparently it is misleading to portray a Muslim as a real American.
It all started and ended with the Florida Family Association. This Christian conservative group convinced Lowe's and 65 other companies to pull ads from the TV show. Again, why? I took the chance to go on their website where I read, "The show profiles only Muslims that appear to be ordinary folks while excluding many Islamic believers whose agenda poses a clear and present danger to liberties and traditional values that the majority of Americans cherish."
Wow. This organization actually thinks they are saving American values by opposing this TV show. What about the American values that give all individuals the right to practice their own beliefs and religions. The Florida Family Association argues because some terrorists happen to be Muslim, it is necessary to be racist and stereotype every Muslim as a terrorist. There are so many ways I could respond to that, but since no one wants to read this blog post for an hour I'll start with this. Many convicted serial killers in America are white Christian middle aged men, yet many American TV shows portray white Christian middle aged men as just normal people, usually as faithful husbands and loving fathers. The truth is, just because many serial killers fit the characteristic of a white Christian middle aged man, does not mean all people with those characteristics are serial killers. There are many more that aren't than those who are. Same for Muslims. Although many of the terrorists in the world are Muslim, there are still many more Muslims who are not terrorists than those who are terrorists. It's funny how this conservative organization has no problem with their race being portrayed positively, but when it comes to other races they find it wrong. The truth is, the show All American Muslim is just what American society needs. After 9/11, the lives of American Muslims have been hard because the terrorists in charge of the attack were Muslim and American brains are now unable to differentiate between the two. Somehow people see the religion of Islam to coincide with terrorism. If you are a Muslim you are automatically a terrorist. If they took a minute to study the religion they would find Jihad does not mean killing innocent people. In fact, killing innocent people is against Islamic Law. Many human rights activists in our country, like Malcolm X for example, happened to be Muslim. There is definitely no automatic connection between Islam and terrorism. Before Lowe's makes a decision to pull ads they should pay more attention to what kind of message they are giving in doing so. Since Lowe's pulled their ads from the TV show the message they are sending is that Muslim's are all terrorists and cannot be treated like the proud and faithful Americans most of them are. Unless Lowe's comes out with a statement changing their viewpoint I do not plan on shopping there and I suggest you don't either.

Invisible Children: One Organization. One Goal.

Invisible Children started as the story of three young filmmakers. They set out to Africa to investigate the genocide in Darfur. When they were told a lot of refugees were relocated in Uganda, thier mission led them there. In Uganda they discovered a whold new conflict. Children being abducted by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) and forced to become child soldiers. The filmmakers soon became englufed in the conflict when they found out this conflict affects every child and every person in these villages of Uganda, not just the child soldiers. All of the people live in constant fear of the LRA and almost everyone has lost loved ones to the LRA.
After watching thier documentary, one simple line recited by the narrarator lingered in my mind. "They sing praises to God for making it to the shelter every night." Every night all the children have to go sleep in a shelter to hide from the LRA and to prevent from being abducted and turned into child soldiers. What lingered in my mind was that they were thanking God for making it to the shelters. I viewed having to even go to shelters every night as such a negative thing that I would not be thanking God for putting me in a situation where I had to sleep in a shelter. I realized their lives are filled with so much hardships that little things like this they are grateful for and they are forced to look for the good in everything or else they will have no happiness in their lives. A feeling of guilt came over me. I know there is no need to feel guilty, it's not my fault, but I still couldn't help it. I guess I felt that way because I know I didn't do anything to deserve the great life I have. I mean, literally all I did was be born into my life and then everything was given to me by my parents and my country. The children in Uganda did not do anything to deserve to be born into their lives either, to get just one meal a day, and to live in fear of the LRA. The truth is, you cannot help what family you are born into. The fate of one's childhood is of no control to anyone. The point of this blog is not to make me seem like a Holden Caulfield, so I am not going to stop with this cynical idea. The truth is, everyone was given life and given it differently. Instead of sitting and feeling horrible about all the bad in the world, beleive it or not, there are ways to do something about it. Maybe I was born into my life for a reason. I can use all the resources available to me, like my education, to help those in need.
Invisible Children is the perfect example of this. Three kids who saw an injustice, and did something about it. They knew just giving some charity money would not be enough because these African children would still not have the same freedoms of American children. They started the organization Invisible Children, and actually made a difference. They got Obama to sign the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act which was unanimouly backed by Congress. Instead of just raising money and providing short term relief, they wanted to do something to change the future for these children. They realized these children are equally human to American children and are working to change the unfortunate fate these Ugandan children were born into. One day I hope to turn that guilty feeling I had into something greater. I look to Invisible Children and the way in which it began as a role model. I hope to make something positive from my privileged life, and use what I was given to give others what they weren't: life, love, safety, freedom and happiness. Although many people are deprived of basic rights, it is not a bad thing to have more than you need. It's what you do with what you have that will impact the purpose and accomplishments of your life.

THE DEBATE ON ABORTION

After reading facts from both sides of the abortion argument I have to side with prochoice.
It's clear that the debate goes beyond just facts because both sides argued "facts" that contradict each other. According to NARAL, abortion can be safe and harmless. According to NRLC, abortion is dangerous and harmful. To make an educated decision on the moroality and legality of abortion, you have to look at the facts on both sides and make a decision on what makes more sense. The way I see it, is people are so attached to this issue that you cannot really change someone's mind one way or another. Therefore the best option would be letting them choose for themselves if they want an abortion or not. PRO CHOICE would be the solution. It makes perfect sense. In a democracy one opinion is not pushed onto everyone and one religion is not pushed onto everyone. Each American gets to choose what religion they want to follow or not to follow any religion. Logically, abortion should be treated the same way.
Legally, I guess I can see why parents would have to consent to thier child's decision to have an abortion. You can argue that a child still owns their body, but then children should be able to get tatoos, piercings, plastic surgency, and other major life altering procedures done at a young age. Personally though I don't think it should be necesarry. The reason consent is needed for most of the medical procedures above it because teens don't have fully developed frontal lobes and therefore need thier parents to guide thier important decisions. However with this information, a teen without a frontal lobe is less likely to be able to manage raising an infant and giving it the amount of care it needs. Having an abortion would allow that teen to continue growing and developing so that later in thier life they can have and raise a baby without the stress of being a teenager. I think if a daughter wants to go to a clinic and have it done, they should be able to. I also understand though why a law would be made  to make sure parental consent if present.
A father should have to be notified about the abortion. The father should not get to have a say in the abortion though. It's the woman's body, not the man's. Since it is the man's DNA in the fetus, it should get to know if it is being aborted.

PIZZA IS NOT A VEGETABLE

So, the latest news in politics is that congress is trying to pass legislation that pizza is a vegetable and counter Obama's legislation in trying to make school cafeteria food healthier. The sad truth is that childhood obesity has tripled in the past 3 decades and I'm sure some of it is tributed to kids counting the tomato paste on thier pizza as a healthy food choice. Obama's legislation was trying to benefit  youth in our society by giving kids at least one nutritional meal a day. So how and more importantly why is congress (the GOP) trying to investigate the definition of a vegetable and include pizza in that category? Corporations. Corporations. Corporations. Money. Corporations. The frozen pizza industry bribes legislators and obviously has a greater influence (more money) than the kids in our society. This shows just how powerful the corporations are and how they use their power. It shows how our elected politicians prioritize money over the health and common good of its people. The people with money (corporations) control our laws. Is this a democracy? No wonder streets around the world are being occupied with people trying to change these ways and limit the power of corporations. If you want to fight for the belief that pizza is not a vegetable sign this petition. 
"School lunches are hard to change -- and it doesn't take a doozy like 'pizza is a vegetable' to know that the corporate interests have more money and more Washington lobbyists than kids do. That's why pizza was classified as a vegetable during the Bush years. The Obama administration made that common-sense change, but the Republican Congress wants to take us back to the money-for-influence status quo." (Democrats.org)
It's time to start putting real people's needs before corporations' needs. America get your priorities straight starting with choosing real vegetables over pizza. I wouldn't be surprised if my generation was the first to not outlive our parents' generation.

Death Penalty Over in Illinois

The abolishment of the death penalty in Illinois was just. The decision was not based on opinion, but on facts. Even if you are for the concept of a death penalty, you should still agree with Illinois's reasoning behind abolishing it. Before the death penalty was abolished, its existence was not serving its purpose. Its goal is providing justice by killing those who murdered, was not what was happening in the state. The same reasoning was used by Gov. Ryan in 2003 when he decided to commute all persons on death row. Ryan talked about the 17 men on death row in Illinois that were later proved innocent. Those of you who are for the death penalty probably think so because its your definition of justice. But I am assuming that killing innocent people is not your idea of justice. The death penalty contradicts itself because its purpose is to stop innocent people from being killed and provide justice, but the system itself kills innocent people. The most powerful part of Ryan's speech was when he spoke of newly freed Anthony Porter. He said, "I watched in surprise as freed death row inmate Anthony Porter was released from jail. A free man, he ran into the arms of Northwestern University Professor Dave Protess, who poured his heart and soul into proving Porter's innocense with his journalism students." Reading this I immediately felt for Anthony. A horrible feeling came over me when I realized this innocent man was within 2 days of being executed because of our justice system. I thought, what if that was me? I was innocent but it didn't matter because the way the death penalty works is 12 people on a jury vote if you're going to live or die. It's that simple, they get to choose between life and death for somebody. This bothers me. It's that simple, just a yes or no vote and then it's ok to kill someone. If it weren't for the Northwestern students and their journalism project this innocent man would have been killed and there was nothing he could have done about it. With our justice system and the death penalty being final, it is that easy to kill innocent people. This is why Gov. Ryan commuted all persons on death row to life in prison without parole. That way those who need to can work to prove their innocence.

It took a few years after Gov. Ryan's blanket commutation for the death penalty to be eliminated in Illinois completely. Ultimately it was because of the same reasoning Ryan gave. The article from the New York Times on Illinois's decision to abolish the death penalty said "The debate over the death penalty was transformed. Suddenly, it was about accuracy." Again, the decision was just because when Pat Quinn signed the bill to abolish the death penalty, he did not do it because of his personal opinion. He did it because it was unlawful to execute innocent people and in reality that's what the death penalty does. The death penalty's lack of accuracy justified the decision to abolish it.

My last reason for it being just to abolish the death penalty was based on a personal experience. In my Issues class we did a project on the death penalty. The class is the clemency board and we hear a lot of death penalty cases as if they are happening now and vote for commutation or not. For many of the cases our class voted different than what went down in real life. Most of the time the class voted for life, and in real life the person was sent to death. This showed me the reality that while one jury might vote death , another jury might vote life. To me, it doesn't seem fair someone's life is dependent on which jury they get. If they had gotten a different jury, then maybe they would still be alive. This is not a just way to kill someone. However, a jury system is essential to democracy. Therefore, in a democracy the death penalty is unjust.

Ryan's speech commuting all persons in Illinois on death row stated "half of the capitol cases in Illinois had been reversed for a new trial or resentencing. Nearly Half!" What does that show about the fairness of America's Justice System?

Savage Inequalities: Children of the City Invincible

In this chapter of Jonathon's Kozol's novel Savage Inequalities, he focuses on the opposing side to his argument. His argument is America's schools are not equal and therefore America is depriving its children of their rights to equal opportunity. Kozol addresses the counterargument, "Much of the resistance, it appears, derives from a conservative anxiety that equity equates to 'leveling.' The fear that comes across is that democratizing opportunity will undermine diversity and even elegance in our society and that the best schools will be dragged down to a sullen norm, a mediocre middle ground of uniformity." When I shared this with my dad, he agreed with this argument. He said not only in education, but in health care too. He believes if the government got involved in equalizing health care for everyone then the quality of it might decrease. Maybe for people like my family and me who are privileged to the best health care it would go down a little. But how can the quality of health care decrease to the majority of people who have no health care at all? The way I see it is for them any kind of health care is automatically an increase from their no health care. This idea applies to schools as well. So people like me might have to give up their extraordinary education to a normal education so that so many other people without an adequate education can also get a normal education. Does this sound so bad? Are we that selfish that we only see this idea of equal education as "leveling down" because for us there would be a decrease in quality. Of course no one looks at the "leveling up" for so many more people as a reason to go through with it. Instead, it's all about ourselves. I have to wonder if having a mediocre education would be that bad. If I maintain my values, I will still get good grades in school and go on to college. So I don't go to Harvard, big deal. Is it really that bad? Should I measure the success of my life by being the best at everything? Do I need the best education? Or realistically can I have a good life with a pretty good education, even if it's not "the best"? The way I see it is that other people need help, and people like me have the opportunity to help them. Like everything else in life, it takes sacrifices. I see it as an obligation. I don't expect everyone to see it as an obligation, after all they've worked hard and made sacrifices so their kids can have this splendid education. The people who don't see it as an obligation, I hope they would do it because they want to, not because they're obligated to. After all, they know best how important education is because of the sacrifices they've made for their own children's education. Do they not want this for all children?
The people opposing the equalization of the public schools do not see the irony in their argument. They spend a lot of money on lawyers and the services of experts to say that money is not the real issue. Kozol writes, "Do they really ask us to believe that laws of economics, which control all other aspects of our lives in this society, somehow cease to function at the school-house door?" The other side argues money is not important in bringing up the quality of education in many schools. If money is not what's important, then they should have no problem giving up some of their money to the other schools. Those with money and a good education cannot logically expect poor people without an adequate education to believe them when they say money isn't important.

"Equal" Justice System? Why Private Prisons Corrupt Our Legal System and Oppress Our People

I hope you have read these two cases and thought about our justice system. In case you are confused I'll break it down for you.

A white upperclassman caught behind a $3 billion dollar fraud was sentenced to 40 months in prison. A poor black man who stole $100 dollars and then turned himself in out of guilt was sentenced to 15 years behind bars.

Let's start with Roy Brown. When robbing a bank he was offered a stack of bills. He took ONE bill. He was not interested in having as much money as possible, he just wanted food and shelter. The next day he returned the money out of guilt and turned himself in to the authorities because his "mother didn't raise him that way". Does this man sound like a danger to society? Even if your answer is yes, is he more of a danger to society than a CEO who was ok with a $3 billion fraud all to get more money that he didn't need but wanted for power? Someone who would risk the consequences he now faces for money? Versus a man who had no intention of hurting anyone but desperately needed some money to stay alive.

How did this happen? I'm sure you are thinking this... he has a home now. The fact that he is happily in jail getting three meals a day is a whole different problem. What about the other men like Roy Brown who have families and prison isn't some safe haven for them? The private prisons in our country can bend a judge any way they want. Like the CEO they'll do anything to make more money. In Roy Brown's case, they found some law stating robbery is a 15 year sentence and presented it to the judge. Whatever happened, I can guarantee you that without private prisons and their will to make money this man would not be behind bars for 15 years. Private prisons are a business who use these poor men as their slaves. Yes private prisons save government spending, but at what cost? "Incarcerating people for profit is in a word wrong" and "As long as our government permits private prisons for profit to operate as legal businesses, the American Criminal Justice System will never have the capacity to develop a credibility that the people of this great nation can respect and feel morally comfortable with" (National Public Service Council to Abolish Private Prisons).

When I first saw these cases paralleled like this I thought, how is this possible? What are the causes? Perhaps that too many Americans have one triumphing goal of making as much money as possible because in this country money is power. It's embedded in our government and society. Its effects are scary and morally wrong. It takes good people and makes criminals out of them where the cycle repeats itself and naturally creates more criminals. We tell more and more people in the name of money we will put their rights aside. What that does is push them farther and farther until they have no other option but to sit and suffer or fight to survive often through criminal acts.

I love living in America. Being white and being in the middle class or higher and living in this country is great. We have so many rights other people around the world are deprived of. I have to think about how I would feel if I was part of a poor minority. Would I feel safe in this country? Equal? Would I be proud to be an American? Or would I feel like a peasant living among nobility where I am not entitled to the same rights and freedoms as the aristocrats and the royalty around me. Back to myself, I don't blame these people for acting in the ways they do. Men like Roy Brown are not evil. That's clear from the reasons behind why he turned himself in. His desperate attempt to acquire food and shelter for survival was an act of crime. The criminal act itself is not the cause of all these mens' troubles, but the symptom. What causes these acts of desperation? Well when these people feel like they have nothing to lose, some values go out the door. By segregating them, giving them less than adequate education, and depriving them of the means to compete in our society, America is cheating them. It's no wonder they are the way they are. By treating them differently, our justice system is just one more part of American society that tells them they are not like us. Can we blame them for not acting as noble as us?

NO ON 26: The New Battle on Abortion. It's Moral and Constitutional Violations.

The state of Mississippi has proposed a constitutional amendment (amendment 26) to face the voters on Nov. 8. It's new definition of "Personhood" would make basically all forms of abortion considered murder and therefore illegal. My response is mainly to things said in this New York Times article. It also gives good background information on the Yes On 26 campaign. This debate is not restricted to Mississippi, but starting to sweep the United States, even on the federal level. Here are some reasons to consider voting no.
1. Even if you are against abortion, for religious or nonreligious beliefs, know that religion is not a reason to justify law in the United States. As a democracy, our constitution states the separation of church and state. We base the values behind our law on the lawmakers' and the voters' individual beliefs, not on a religion. This is why it would be unconstitutional to ban abortion for the reason Brad Prewitt, executive director of the Yes On 26 campaign, has given. He stated, "Personhood is bigger then just shutting abortion clinics; it's an opportunity for people to say that we're made in the image of God." By bringing up "God" he is clearly trying to appeal to the religious crowd. He is saying abortion is wrong because its aborting someone "made in the image of God". He believes it's wrong ultimately because of "God". If he and many other American's find abortion against their religion, when they have to make the choice they can choose to not have an abortion. However, it is unconstitutional to impose that religious belief onto everyone. Voting no would be keeping our original value of separation of Church and State.
2. If abortion is to become illegal, then doctors would be hesitant to save women with life threatening pregnancies. I believe in all cases it's more important to save the pregnant mom, then try and save the embryo. If the mother dies, its very likely that the embryo she was carrying will die too. Simply because it doesn't have a support system to keep it alive anymore. It's not ready to function on its own, hence it wasn't "born" yet. So by not saving the mother, you are probably going to kill the mother and the embryo. If you save the mother even if it means harming the embryo you have only killed the embryo, not the mother and the embryo. Also doctors have a number one responsibility to try their best to save lives. We do not value one life over the other, so by not destroying the embryo that is killing the mother, they have assisted in the murder of the mother.
3. Stare Decisis (let the law stand). In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court of the United States "deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny." It speaks for itself that the Supreme Court, highest law in the United States, values abortion as a "fundamental right". It subjects all laws against abortion to be closely watched. I hope as Americans you all closely watch Yes On 26 and decide if you want a law making it murder if someone aborts the baby that results from a rape or incest, or an embryo made in a lab. A law that makes some birth control illegal and murder as well. Since when are we classifying the right to one's body in the same category as shooting a gun through someone else's chest?

THE DEATH PENALTY: GANDHI AND BUDDHA WOULD BE ASHAMED

The death penalty is a broken system. One reason is because of its ability to differentiate between different races and different classes. Poor defendents are less likely to have access to a good lawyer than a wealthier person defeding against the death sentence. This is already one quick flaw in our equal justice system. Our history in America is filled with times when blacks were less valuable to society than whites. This mindset of these hundreads of years still exists to some extent, no matter how the law is. There is a possiblity that a jury might look at a black man and think he has nothing to contribute to society just because that's how history has trained our brains to think. Even on a subconscience level, blacks are not on an equal level with whites and it's not fair to kill them because of their skin color.
65% of voters in states where capitol punishment exists support the death penalty. This 65% represents an even bigger percentage of our society that values power over everything. When something happens to someone, it's human nature to want revenge. To do the same thing back so you don't appear weak. So you are always the winner in this game of life. We turn to the death penalty because when someone takes away the life of a loved one, we need to get even. We think coping is done best with revenge. We were hurt so bad by the action and the best thing to possibly do now is do the same thing back. But wait! That's not what I learned my whole life. Even in pre-school, I learned if someone hits me, I don't hit them back. I tell the teacher who will probably put the kid in a timeout. It's the basics of moral behavior. You do not get to do something wrong to someone because they did it to you. They will get a punishment to learn what they did was wrong.

Gandhi and Buddha are two of the many historical figures widely known for their will power to do what is right despite the most trying circumstances. I would like to assume our society looks up to their morals, ethics, and values. Their philosophy is the road to world peace. Should we not strive to fulfill their beliefs? These two quotes preach forgiveness not revenge. I believe in a society that models this philosophy. The death penalty has not proven to save money, or to deter crime. It is a moral our society has, that the worst crime deserves the ultimate punishment. It is a moral of revenge, contradicting what both Gandhi and Buddha preached in their lifetimes. The death penalty is the family's revenge on the person who killed their loved one. I don't know how I would react if someone were to murder a family member of mine. I can tell you that I hope I would be the bigger person and not turn to revenge, but to making it right. Putting the person in their "timeout" where they have a lifetime in jail to be reminded what they did was wrong and not accepted by society. I hope that I wouldn't want to hurt their family the way the murderer hurt me. The temptation individuals in our society have to appear strong and powerful is why so many Americans support the death penalty. It is easy and instinctual to get back at someone who has hurt you. However, I do not think that is a healthy way to live. The easy thing is usually not the right thing. Killing someone might make things even, but it does not bring love and happiness into the world. It will not bring back that innocent person, and it is not a healthy way to cope.

Savage Inequalities: Public Education in New York

"Public Education in New York" is the third chapter in the eye opening novel Savage Inequalities by Jonathan Kozol. The brilliance in Kozol's writing is shown by how he opens up this chapter. It's a quote from Lord Acton from roughly 130 years ago on the United States.
"In a country where there is no distinction of class, a child is not born to the station of its parents, but with an indefinate claim to all the prizes that can be won by thought and labor. Americans are unwilling that any should be deprived in childhood of the means of competition."
The last sentence really struck me. If you don't see its connection to our public school system then hopefully this blog will help you see it. I agree with the philosophy behind this quote. No one "in childhood" "should be deprived of the means of competition". Well if the way to "all the prizes" is through "thought and labor" then every child should have the "means of competition". Instead of reorganizing the quote I'll put it into my own terms. No child should be deprived of access to an education because in our society its supposed to be our way to success. We aren't what we were born into, but what we make of ourselves. We're not supposed to be a result of our parents money, but of our hard work. There is a big difference between this quote from 130 years ago, and our society today.
Here's one of Kozol's many examples. "In a class of 22, there are two black children and three Asian. There is a sink and a computer... Walking next into a special class, I see twelve children. One is white. Eleven are black. The room is half the size. There is no computer and no sink." This emphasizes that Americans in today's society are not unwilling to deprive children of the means of competition. The mostly black class is not given the same advantages as the mostly white class. They do not have any of the means to put themselves in a position to strive for "all the prizes" or success in general. A student in the gifted program at the school knows she is not just smarter than the other kids because she was born that way. She says, "We know certain things that other kids don't know because we're taught them." She is simply stating that she was given access to these means of competition by having the ability to learn certain things. Other students' disadvantages are not a result of themselves, but of the fact that they were never taught the same things other students in gifted programs were. They were not given the same means of competition and they can ever be a part of the same race. They are at a disadvantage in becoming successful, unlike the students in the gifted program who are taught more things and handed success. This does not sound like the America Lord Acton wrote so fondly about.

How the Death Penalty Works and Shocking Facts That Might Make You Reconsider It

There are numerous steps taken before the Death Penalty is decided for any specific offender. All the steps and also the amount of time they take do protect the rights of the offender. A long trial takes place first to decide whether or not the person on trial has committed the crime. If convicted, then a separate trial takes place to decide the punishment. If the Death Penalty is being pushed the the prosecution the offender has the right to present his case in court. Any factors that might make him not worthy of death are seen by the jury before they make their choice. If the jury decides to use the death sentence in a particular case, the offender is still not out of luck. He then can appeal his sentence. If the offenders first try is not successful, he can try appealing again to the Supreme Court. All of these appeals are multi step processes with all the factors are looked at again to confirm the decision to execute.

In America's past, there have been five main methods of execution. All of them seem "cruel and unusual" except lethal injection. Hanging, shooting, electrocution, and gas chambers all seem too torturous to me. It all seems backwards and wrong. It screams savage to me and I like to think my government is above that. The reason lethal injection is not as bad is because the person is first put to sleep and therefore unconscious when they are paralyzed and go into cardiac arrest. This method seems pain free and therefore less brutal. It also has the lowest possibility of mistakes than the others. Some other methods either are not instantaneous, or mistakes can be easily made making the death that was supposed to be instantaneous not instantaneous anymore. If it was up to me though, all forms of the death penalty is "cruel and unusual" punishment since a less extreme punishment that has the same effect is always possible. Life in prison keeps the offender from harming the rest of society anymore without having to kill the offender.
According to deathpenaltycurriculum.org the homicide rate is pretty similar in most of the states with a large population and similar lower rates in states with smaller populations. This is no direct relationship with homicide rates and states that use the death penalty. This highlights the idea that the death penalty is arbitrary. Having the death penalty does not show a decrease in the homicide rate, therefore is killing someone after they have already killed someone necessary. Again, they will be of no harm to society if locked up in jail their whole life.
Back when the death penalty was legal in Illinois, there statutes for crimes resulting in possible death sentences   were not anything horrible. It goes into detail basically on any type of murder that someone commits. Murder being premeditated, and not manslaughter which would be an on the spot impulse. None of the conditions on the statute struck me as "the punishment did not fit the crime". The fact that I'm against the death penalty is based on other points. So then why did Illinois abolish the death sentence? According to the Death Penalty Information Center, there have been 20 people in the state of Illinois freed from death row on the count that they were innocent all along. 20 people may not seem like a lot at first. Picture yourself on death row, knowing you are innocent. 20 people were set free, but I have to wonder how many never got that lucky. There must have been many people who were killed that were in fact innocent. To be honest, even just one mistake is one too many. Taking an innocent life is unimaginable, which was why the death penalty was created in the first place. However, my home state of Illinois probably realized the irony in the death penalty and that it has killed innocent people. This is perhaps one of the reasons Illinois does not use the death penalty anymore.
Some more reasons to be against the death penalty:
-"88% of experts rejected the notion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder."
-"A study in California found that those who killed whites were over 3 times more likely to be sentenced to death that those who killed blacks."
- The South has the highest most executions, but also the highest homicide rate.
-"The California death penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million per year beyond the costs of keeping convicts locked up for life."
- Source: Death Penalty Information Center
What do all of these facts mean? First, that the death penalty does not directly prevent people from killing. Second, that getting sentenced to death might not be just based on the crime, but also based on race. And third, for those of you who argue you don't want your tax money to go to some inmate, you might want to reconsider the idea that executing someone might cost more than keeping them locked up their whole life. For the record, if you find money more important than the value of a life you have other problems to deal with than your thoughts on the death penalty anyways.

Savage Inequalities: Other People's Children

If you've been following my blog, you would know that Savage Inequalities is a book I'm reading about the inequalities in the public school system. It is a thought provoking novel written by Jonathan Kozol to expose those inequalities and hopefully inspire the reader to want to do something about it. The chapter I'm replying to is called "Other People's Children". It was given this name because of the chapter emphasis on how some people from the more wealthy part of society don't want "other people's children", mostly the poor, to be integrated and ultimately competing with their own children. The chapter is filled with many more reasons why the schools are so unequal. Kozol quotes a Chicago mother, "The same bank presidents who offer gifts to help our segregated schools, are the ones who have assured their segregation...they are the ones who send their kids to good schools in Winnetka and who vote against the equalizing plans to give our public schools more money. Why should we trust their motives? They may like to train our children to be good employees. That would make their business more profitable. Do they want to see our children taking corporate positions from their children?"
This passage really spoke to me. In a world where people only care about money, and will do anything for it, I don't have a hard time believing or agreeing with this mother. The principles of these inner city Chicago high schools know they can get funding for classes that are more job oriented. Classes teaching students filing skills, not math but "business math", and cosmetology". Classes training students to be good employees. The CEO's and corporations thrive on these workers. I understand why principle of these high school would take the money to fund these classes. It is better than nothing and at least these kids can have basic skills they need to find a job. However, I cannot help but be upset that it teaches these kids they will never be anything more than a secretary. I believe they should be pushed and offered classes where they can learn what interests them, and have dreams to be whatever they like. This book has started to open my eyes even more to problems that are so close to me, yet that I am so segregated from. If I have learned anything, it's that I've been taking my education for granted. I plan on using my good education and turning it around to someday be able to make a difference in the lives of other students less fortunate then me.

Gilad Shalit- A Sign For Peace

If you know anything about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, you would know who Gilad Shalit is. He was kidnapped by Hamas and held captive until Israel would agree to release many Palestinian prisoners. Because many of the Palestinian prisoners are criminals who caused the deaths of many innocent Israeli's, for the past almost 5 years Israel has not been able to agree to this negotiation. However, as of today the Prime Minister of Israel, Netanyahu, has finally made an agreement with Hamas. Gilad Shalit will be coming home to a warm welcome in his homeland of Israel despite people's varying opinions.
I would like to give my input on this historical event. I do not underestimate what this treaty's impact is on the conflict. I always knew peace, especially within my generation, is possible. Now, I hope the world can see it too.  Especially at a time when many people have lost hope, I hope the world will look at this event and not just see "Gilad Shalit is free". No. I hope they see this was a negotiation done by Israeli's and Palestinian's, that sacrifices were made on both sides, and that peace is possible between the two. This issue did take almost 5 years to resolve, and I'm not saying the conflict will be resolved overnight. But it's possible and Gilad's release reminds us all that there are people on both sides who do want peace.

Drug Testing, Strip Searches, and School Officials. The Constitutionality of Searches Within a School.

In both Vernonia School District v. Acton and Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 v. Earls, students and their families filed suit against their public schools for prohibiting the student from an after school activity because he/she would not submit to drug testing. In  both cases, the court backed up the schools. In Vernonia School District v. Acton the court said, "The decreased expectation of privacy, the relative unobtrusiveness of the search, and the severity of the need met by the search- we conclude Vernonia's Policy in reasonable and hence constitutional...". In Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 v. Earls the court said, "Because this Policy reasonably serves the School District's important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students, we hold that it is constitutional." The main point used by the court in both cases was that preventing drug use in students is a obligation and challenge for the schools to uphold. Because drug testing is a search that helps prevent students from using drugs, the schools have the right to do so.
I agree with the courts ruling. Mainly, because the goal of the government is not trying to catch students doing bad things and punish them. If that was the case, then it would be an invasion of privacy. Passing a drug test is not that hard. Here's the secret. Don't do drugs. The system of Drug Testing in extracurriculars has a goal to get students to stop using drugs. The school is looking out for the students best interest, thier health and safety. I do agree that trying to catch someone doing something illegal without probable cause is violating the first ammendment, but again this is not the case here. The schools are not hoping to catch students involved with drugs, but hoping to stop students from using drugs. I can assure you the school hopes for negative results in every test they do.
The case Safford Unified School District v. Redding had a differing holding in the Supreme Court. To sum up the case, a 13-year-old girl was strip searched based on a classmate's uncorroborated accusation that she previously possessed ibuprofen. The strip search failed to uncover any ibuprofen pills. The article says "the Supreme Court recognized that school officials had no reason to strip search Savana Redding and that the decision to do so was unconstitutional". I agree with this. It's different than the cases reguarding drug testing I spoke about above. With drug testing, schools are trying to encourage students to stop using drugs. With this search, the school humiliated this 13 year old girl just to try and catch her doing something wrong. She speaks about the incident, "I held my head down so that they could not see that I was about to cry." To do this to her, strip search her, was not the appropriate thing to do. Did they have probable cause? Well somewhat, but not enough to strip search her. Another 13 year old student, while getting caught with pills accused Redding of having given them to her. To me that sounds like someone trying to get out of a punishment when caught red handed. This other student wanted to blame someone else and get out of trouble. I'm not saying the school should just ignore this accusation. It might be reason enough to search her backpack and locker. However, before humiliating this girl and invading on her body the school should have gotten a little more knowledge on the accusation which was in fact false.

Freedom of Speech vs Disrupting the Peace at University of California Irvine

This blog is a response to this article.
At University of California Irvine while the Israeli ambassador on campus was giving a speech, many Muslim students stood up, interrupted his speech, and shouted over him attacking his viewpoints. This video was taken during the speech and shows just what happened. The students were arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for "violating a law against disrupting public meetings." The students argued they were within their first amendment rights of free speech and they were convicted solely because they were Muslims. The University asked the District Attorney to drop the changes claiming the University had already punished them. The group Jewish Voice for Peace supported the Universities request to drop the charges.
I have two responses to this article. First, I do not agree with the students' arguments that they were exercising their freedom of speech and did not do anything wrong. Freedom of speech does not give you the right to say what you want when you want it. They have the right to their opinion and can express it freely without having to disrupt a public speech. What they did was not only disturbing the peace, but it clearly interfered with the learning process on campus. They can bring in their own speakers, or even get a sanctioned time in a lecture hall to express their ideas where no one would have the right to interrupt them.
My second response is that I do agree with the idea that this was a trial that should not have taken place. They violated a school rule against disrupting public meetings, and the school was right to punish them. However, the fact that they were convicted in court I do believe was somewhat bias to their religion. In court I think it was more about what they said, then the idea that they said something. What they did was wrong, but a misdemeanor might be taking it too far. At most give them a warning. If they did not learn from the schools punishment and continue to engage in this behavior, the school can expel them. Because what they did was not a serious danger to society, there's no need to take it any farther. Especially when there's the possibility of a bias jury.

Savage Inequalities: Life on the Mississippi

The nonfiction novel Savage Inequalities by Jonathan Kozol shows the horrifying truth of the inequalities within the public school systems. It follows a school in East St. Louis, Illinois named after Martin Luther King Jr. I never thought about the symbolism behind even just the name of the high school until Kozol pointed it out. In the chapter titled Life On The Mississippi Kozol.writes, "The irony of naming segregated schools for Martin Luther King." The school is also described as, "full of sewer water and the doors are locked with chains. Every student in that school its black." Then it concludes, "It's a terrible joke on history." I feel like since the civil rights movement as we learned in history is "over", people kind of forget about any race inequalities. They say "look we have a black president" and think that we're equal. In the all black town the school system is horrible. It's not the childrens' faults that they were born into this school system. Blame the parents? Think again. Kozol states, "Blacks were drawn to East St. Louis from the South by promises of jobs." If history is to blame, then who's responsibility is it to fix the problem. My answer is the government backed up by its citizens. We have to start caring about other people, and stop only thinking about what's best for us. This school needs help. It needs funds and motivated teachers. This book has opened my eyes to show me that the civil rights movement is not over until people are not only equal by law, but by education as well.

Speech Codes on Campus

Colleges should definitely be allowed to ban certain speech on campus. Maybe the literal speech, but more symbolic speech. If you don't agree then maybe after this example you'll change your mind.
"Photographs from Delta Sigma Phi's party showed fraternity members in blackface and KKK costumes. Some even went so far as to simulate the lynching of a member in blackface wearing a T-shirt bearing the name FUBU. (The FUBU line of clothing was created by African Americans and marketed "FOR US BY US.")" ("Jim Crow on Fraternity Row", Tolerance.org).
This speech was clearly not showing a political idea, rather poking fun at the African American race. One picture has a white guy with black face paint on and a rope around his neck. These actions are not only wrong because they are incredibly insensitive, but because they portray illegal hate crimes that target a specific race. These reasons are why this type of symbolic speech should be banned on campus.
DePaul University, a college I hope to attend, is one of the many colleges that have these so called speech codes. It states that the college has the right to remove any "displays that advertise commercial products/services; advocate the use of alcohol or drugs; are discriminatory; unlawfully harass by abusing, assailing, intimidating, demeaning, victimizing, or having the effect of creating a hostile environment." (Fire.com). This speech code does not affect how I view the college. Although I can see the argument that this infringes on students' First Amendment rights, it does not bother me personally. I see it as the schools responsibility to protect all of its students, obviously including the minorities. On campus, the college should be able to make rules in order to protect its students. If the students don't agree with the college, they don't have to go to that school. If the situation above happened at DePaul, I think DePaul would not seek a harsh punishment for the students who put those pictures up. Instead they would force them to take them down because of the policy I posted above. It says that DePaul has the rights to take down and displays that are discriminatory or show harassment. The students might also get another punishment though for the act of harassment, because those picture portray lynching and other forms of discriminatory and nondiscriminatory harassment. I agree that the school should have the right to take those pictures down for those reasons, and also to carry out a minor punishment for the actions in the pictures.
FIRE, an organization that protects the rights of students, has its own beliefs on when speech codes are acceptable and when they are not. They think all actions displaying one's own ideas should be allowed because they are protected under the First Amendment. However, harassment is not protected and therefore should be banned. I agree with their ideas and think they are fighting for a good cause. However, I also understand why some school have certain speech codes and I personally don't mind them. I do think that some people would feel like their rights were violated and should then join with FIRE to fight for their beliefs.

10th Anniversary of 9/11

I never really understood September 11th until I watched the documentary "9/11". I was young when it happened and although I remember it every year, I really got what actually happened. This film made it all clear to me. I learned something about my country from this film. No matter what happens to the United States, it never gives up. The firefighters exemplified this in the movie when they continued to go back to the site over and over again, no matter what had just taken place. They were determined to do all they could to fix or alleviate what had just happened.
An article on CNN's website titled, "We Must Pay Our Debt to 9/11 Heroes," was Senator Kirsten Gillibrand views on post 9/11 effects. She states, "More than 30,000 responders and survivors from across the country have had to be medically treated because of their exposure to ground zero toxins." On that day in 2001, Americans rushed to help however they could. They all wanted to help save whoever they could and assist in the clean up. No one had time to think of how the conditions would effect their health in years to come. At the time rescuing a devastated city was more important. Senator Gillibrand is for a law that would ensure all these 9/11 heroes proper medical treatment to all World Trade Center related diseases and health defects. I have to agree with her. The firefighters and even just the ordinary people who came out that day and acted as our heroes cannot be forgotten or left behind. Although it has been 10 years we cannot forget what they did. As fellow Americans it is now our duty to help them as they have already sacrificed to help us.
How has 9/11 impacted my life today? I grew up post 9/11 and can't really compare my life now to how I lived before it happened. I hear that before 9/11 you could actually get on a plane with a bottle of shampoo. This change has to be one of the least significant ones. For me growing up post 9/11, I have lived with racism towards Arabs and Muslims my whole life. I can't compare to how it was before 9/11, but I do know that it is prevalent in my country. Just because my country sees them equal by law does not mean they do not face racism in their every day lives. I've always been raised to treat others equally and not to discriminate, but I also grew up around all the jokes. "That guy over there with the head-wrap... stay away he's probably got a bomb on him." Just because someone may say it in a joking matter, does not erase the fact that those stereotypes exist. The fact that someone finds it funny shows subconscious racist thoughts. How did America, the country where all men are created equal, get this way. 9/11 was such a tragedy to all Americans that perhaps they were looking for someone to blame for everything we lost. This seems counterproductive. After such a tragic event, America should be coming together and embracing everything it stands for. That is true victory. Not forgetting our core beliefs and starting to discriminate against others. Some say America has lost its integrity after 9/11, but I don't see it. The immense amount of firefighters and citizens that came out to help that day show what great character exists within our country. If America continues to discriminate or stand by as others do, only then will we start to lose our integrity as a free and equal democracy.

CAN SCHOOLS VIOLATE THE FIRST AMMENDMENT RIGHTS OF STUDENTS?

Can a school take away the first ammendment right of a student and then go ahead and say it was in the best interest of the student? Wouldn't the best interest of the student be their first ammendment rights? Well, no. Very often two values overlap eachother. In these cases sacrifices are to be made. I hope we would all want the kind of government that looks out for our safety and well being. We see freedom of speech as a way to ensure our safety as free people. But, what if that speech offset a reaction that posed a danger to society. Surely physical safety is as important as freedom. One would not exist without the other. So in order to get that balance, the governent is and should be allowed to ban certain "speech". We see this in schools. Certain language or even symbolic speech has the potential to hurt other students. It could directly lead to physical bullying, or lead to students commiting suicide. The school is doing a good job by preveting certain "speech" that might cause one of these. Freedom of speech is important, but safety is important too. The schools are acting for the better of the students by limiting freedom of speech to some extent.

I Shall Not Hate by Izzeldin Abuelaish

The dedication reads, "To children everywhere. Their only weapons are love and hope...". I could tell I would enjoy this book after reading and agreeing with this cheesy but hopeful dedication. I picked this book up after participating in Hands of Peace this summer. A program where teens from Israel and Palestine come to Chicago for the summer and join with Americans in coexistence dialougues. The author of this book is a Palestinian doctor who despite of his traumatic and violent life, has chosen to advocate integration between both groups of people as a way to solve the conflict and achieve peace. He preaches that learning and understanding the other side is a key component in living in peace. I have to admit that growing up in a Jewish Day School where I have learned only one side of the conflict makes it hard to read this book comfortably. His memoir presents ideas that make me challenge previous beliefs I've held so close to me from a very young age. Ultimately if I have learned anything from the book, it's that conflict can be resolved by a mutual understanding of pain and suffering. Dr. Abuelaish believes that once the two sides can feel for each other and understand each other, they will want to find ways to negotiate and stop all the killing and fighting. I realized that this applies to me too. I should try to understand his points of view, and why he thinks that way. I don't have to agree with everything he says, but I can hear his story and try to understand where he is coming from. Although I have just started this book, it has already taught me to be conscience of all points of view. I think this has made be grow as a person to become less bias which will enable me to be a better peace activist. If you have any interest or connections to the conflict, I strongly recommend this book. It will open your eyes to a new way of thinking and give you hope that peace is possible in the Middle East.

DO THE RIGHT THING

In the Spike Lee's movie Do The Right Thing, he portrayed many of the black stereotypes of the 1980's. It compared how different races one another and the relationships between them. In the book Native Son, Richard Wright invented the character Bigger, a black young adult involved in a gang and responsible for murdering a white woman. At the end of the book he wrote a piece How "Bigger" Was Born explaining how he came up with the character Bigger and all of his actions. In this piece he talked about the risk he took in portraying all the black stereotypes. People critiqued him and wanted to know why he couldn't show black lawyers and business men. By using Bigger to analyse his thoughts and what made him to these controversial and stereotypical actions, people now looked at the problem that led Bigger to do that. Just like in the movie it focused on the black characters and events that led them to do what they did. By making a plot around a day in a black man's life, one looks past the stereotypes and understands for the first time what caused that black man to do what he did. Both pieces relate because yes, they do contain stereotypical actions, but they show that those are not the core problem. A common understanding between races on what makes them feel the feelings that cause them to act a certain way will help the problem. If people are willing to change how they act towards one another than these stereotypical actions will go away.
I got something new out of this movie. It showed that it is not impossible for blacks and whites to understand each other, but that each side needs to make the effort to do so. Radio Raheem shows how love and hate coexist within someone, but that individual has the power to choose which one to live by. Buggin' Out viewed the wall in Sal's Pizzeria as a symbol of racism towards blacks because they were not included on the wall. Sal's intention however was not to show any hate towards blacks, rather to show pride for his ethnicity, Italians. Sal did not understand how his intent had a different impact of Buggin' Out. The end of movie resulted in violence, but what did that accomplish? It just showed both sides' disapproval of the other, but not why. If nonviolent action occurred and both sides made an effort to talk, negotiate, and understand the other side, the problem could have been fixed. I believe the core problem of hate, prejudice, and discrimination is that two different sides don't understand the one another. It appears they are so different because at first they look different. However, often both races want the same thing and have the same values. They just have a different ways of showing and interpreting them. I think the movie wanted to show how violence did not accomplish anything. To show the emphasis on violence in the movie, I believe Spike Lee refrained from using guns. Some scenes could have been a lot quicker with a simple bullet shot, but by using intense physical human contact it emphasized violence even more and made me view it as ludicrous.

Power- Document 7- Schools For The Community

Karriema Jordan was a black girl in the eighth grade fighting to change the school's curriculum to help develop an identity for black students. One effective way the school handled it was bringing black teachers into the schools. These teachers cared more about the kids and were less focused on just being there because it was their job. They also started teaching a broader range of history on third world countries as well. Karriema Jordan now learned about African history and other black history instead of just European history. Learning about important impacts her ethnicity had in history gave her and many other black youth an identity. This made them proud to be black, and when they embraced themselves it led them to start striving to do great things. She says, "You weren’t an outsider in your own school. They were part of your environment. I mean, they were black. You can identify with them and they can identify with you." These teachers really made a big change in Karriema's attitude toward school. She felt more connected and was more interested in her studies now because she was studying something more meaningful to her. She felt connected to her studies. By having black teachers and learning about her culture Karriema found that blacks are just as important, just as human as anyone else. Being a minority only holds you back when you think you can't do something because you are a minority. If you have an strong and proud identity and believe you can do great things for yourself as any other human than you will have a much easier time achieving those great things in your life.