31. January 2009 by student.

Many people live there lives in fear. Fear of being raped, mugged, robbed, etc. As we watch the news and notice that crime rate in certain areas drop many of our attitudes change slightly toward the subject of crime. Americans tend to see problems as more severe on the national level than at their own local level and perceptions of crime appear to be no different. Many people are affraid to walk alone in places at night. Women pick up on areas in which they tend to steer away from when walking alone with the feeling of it being a place where a crime could be committed. Men tend to not be as afraid as women are when walking alone or in a certain area of a neighborhood alone. Some men carry themselves as if they are very strong and unstoppable while others are timid, the more you show that you are affraid the more attention you are attracting to be a victim of a crime.

Posted in Social Problems | 2 Comments »

31. January 2009 by student.

The year is 2009, and the information age is in its heyday with no apparent end in sight. In fact many would say that it is poised for greater and broader uses limited only by man’s imagination. Yet for all that it is capable of, for all of the conveniences it brings, for all of the good that it can be used for, darkness still abides within the secret keystrokes of those who wish to inflict insult upon pain.

Ask Chelsea Gorman. As a Vanderbilt University freshman in 2007, she was raped near campus, shattering her life and throwing her into a tail-spin until she had to withdraw from school to put the pieces of her life back together. Having overcome panic attacks and the psychological torment and wounds of her attack, she returned to campus only to find that the story of her rape had been posted on the internet. What’s worse is that some of the posts actually claimed that she deserved what she got and displayed envy toward the rapist. That which she worked so hard to overcome and learn how to deal with on a daily basis was twisted with hate and contempt, and now a topic of gossip that other students spoke of openly and often on campus, even in front of her.

Chelsea’s story is not unique in any way. Although harassment of college students and adults on line is not as widespread, cyber-bullying has become commonplace among younger children. Cowards cloak themselves in digital anonymity and are rarely held to account while they wage a smear campaign that is not only damaging to their victims, but also shattering to that individual’s sense of trust; a value that is so important to us all. The emotional cost of the victim is enormous: anything from embarrassment, to lost jobs or relationships, to emotional trauma, and even suicide.

Online harassment is as old as the web and email, and a key element in the enactment of many of the nation’s anti-harassment laws from the boardroom to the classroom. However, from these ashes has arisen a new breed of harassment in the form of anonymous bulletin boards such as Juicy-Campus and rottenneighbor.com that actively profit from this source-less vitriol by providing forums where anyone with a computer and internet access can levy slanderous attacks and rumors upon whom they choose or deem deserving.  Many of these posts include personal information such as addresses, phone numbers, and even Google Maps© street level photos of the house or location in question.

“The business model of these sites is hate,” says Parry Aftab, a lawyer that specializes in Internet privacy and security issues. “They promote it by encouraging you to say outrageous things.” Traditional venues of smear such as broadcast TV or print media has recourse available toward them through the court system; however, a 1996 law passed by congress prevents website hosts from being held responsible for what is posted on their sites from people outside of their organization. So, by law, the type of defamation that would get the New York Times sued, is all well and good on those web-sites that promulgate hate and loathing, protected by our much prized right to free speech.

But what about our right to privacy? Gossip that at one time was contained within a relatively narrow social window is now broadcast to a much wider audience, and, because of the internet, becomes kind of a permanent scarlet letter, says Daniel Solove, a professor of law at George Washington University and author of The Future Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet. Professor Solove goes on to propose that American privacy law adopt a more nuanced understanding of privacy by recognizing privacy in public and providing better protections of our confidentiality.

Today’s internet can be likened to a young adolescent, who persistently tests his parents’ resolve and flex his muscle. As it continues to grow in size and strength (relative to its own limitless capabilities), it will continue to evolve into an entity that will become more amazing, exciting, frightening, and terrifying with each passing day. The internet’s capabilities are limitless and only the future knows for certain where it will take us, what form it will evolve into, and for what purpose we will use it; and we will indeed use it, and use it for reasons no one has even remotely considered.  Information that you once thought was confidential will no longer be confidential. The secrets that you whisper alone into the night will invariably find their way into the public domain. Personal privacy will ultimately become your own responsibility, and you alone will be the only veil that can completely shield the world from what you don’t want it to see. As Professor Solove points out in the closing statements of his book:

The questions the information age brings us are immense and complex; and there are no easy answers. Just when we think we have a handle on these problems and issues, technology throws another wrinkle. Yet steps can be taken to protect our privacy if we make an effort. We must. After all, it’s just the beginning. (The Future of Reputation. Page 205)

Posted in Social Problems | 3 Comments »

29. January 2009 by student.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution declares “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The meaning and scope of this right has been described as among the most contested of the rights codified in the Bill of Rights.What does this Amendment really mean?  Some historians believe the amendment was created so that citizens of the US could stand up and have weapons to rebel against their own government if the situation presented itself that their government proved tyrannical.  Not only is the right to own guns hotly contested but also who should own them and what type of guns should people be allowed to own.  Right now, private ownership of automatic assault rifles in the US is mostly illegal except in certain cases where special permits are issued, but what if we did fully legalize the use of these deadly and rapid firing guns?  Would bank robbers be mowing down a whole crowd of people as well as SWAT team members or would they stick to their pistols and shotguns?

Gun control laws and regulations exist at all levels of government, with the vast majority being local codes which vary between jurisdictions. The NRA reports 20,000 gun laws nationwide. A study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine notes 300 federal and state laws regarding the manufacture, design, sale, purchase, or possession of guns.

At the federal level, fully automatic weapons and short barrel shotguns have been taxed and mandated to be registered since 1934 with the National Firearms Act. The Gun Control Act of 1968 adds prohibition of mail-order sales, prohibits transfers to minors, and outlaws civilian ownership of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986. The 1968 Act requires that guns carry serialand implemented a tracking system to determine the purchaser of a gun whose make, model, and serial number are known. It also prohibited gun ownership by convicted felons and certain other individuals. The Act was updated in the 1990s with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act mainly to add a mechanism for the criminal history of gun purchasers to be checked at the point of sale, and in 1996 with the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Act to prohibit ownership and use of guns by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

 Firearms are the second leading cause of traumatic death related to a consumer product in the United States and are the second most frequent cause of death overall for Americans ages 15 to 24. Since 1960, more than a million Americans have died in firearm suicides, homicides, and unintentional injuries. In 2003 alone, 30,136 Americans died by gunfire: 16,907 in firearm suicides, 11,920 in firearm homicides, 730 in unintentional shootings, and 232 in firearm deaths of unknown intent, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Nearly three times that number are treated in emergency rooms each year for nonfatal firearm injuries.

Gun control is a serious problem in the US and we need to find solutions to this problem before more innocent lives are taken.  There is a big difference between political parties on this issue.  Republicans want less gun control and less government altogether.  They believe the right to own a gun is an inherited right and think that it should have little regulation.  Democrats on the other hand, favor more gun control in order to prevent school related incidences and unnecessary homicides.

Firearms are undoubtedly the most frequently used murder weapon across the board.  It is up to us to elect political leaders who sway in the directions of our own beliefs depending on the way we feel about the gun control issue.  More gun control will make our streets safer, but without guns how would we protect ourselves and our families from violent crimes? Guns are one thing that you cant live with and you cant live without, and right now the debate goes back and forth with no resolutions in sight.  I think because of the hot debate politicians continue to push the gun control debate further back on the political agenda, seeing as both sides are unlikely to reach a compromise any time soon.

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | 3 Comments »

29. January 2009 by student.

Right now, in the United States, someone is afraid to go to the doctor.

They’re not afraid because of the pain, or because they dont know whats wrong with them…they’re afraid of the inability to pay for the service.

The United States currently has a fee-for-service system where people are privately insured by companies and pay a copayment along with their provider in order to cover the medical costs.  It is however an extremely flawed system. Health care insurance costs have increased by double digit percentages and perscription costs have skyrocketed in the past few years.  A growing number of people seek insurance coverage through employers and thus if they lose their job then they are out of health insurance.  I personally think that the health care crisis is directly linked to the economic crisis going on right now.  People are afraid of rising medical costs and therefore consumers are spending less on buying things and saving more.  This is partially why the economy is in a downward spiral.  With recessive spending habits because of health care costs, consumers are causing major retailers such as Circuit City and Linens and Things to go out of business. With over 47 Million Americans uninsured, 8 Million of those being children, we need to find a solution to this problem and we need to find one now.  We’ve been putting off this problem for some time now, and now that our nation begins to surpass the 300,000,000 population mark, we cannot afford to put off this problem any longer.

        The United States is the only industrialized nation in the world to not use the Universal Health care system.  Consequently, the United States is ranked by the World Health Organization as 37th in both life expectancy and infant mortalities.  Uninsured Americans are less likely to use regular health care and have preventive services.  A form of universal health care would undoubtedly prove successfull in modern day American society.  Everyone would be insured and government spending would be cut because they wouldnt have to subsidize so many health care provider companies. 

Because of rising health care costs, many small businesses have dropped health insurance for their employees all together or are asking them to contribute to their insurance premiums, which many employees cannot afford to do. And, as we have seen with the laid-off workers, when employees lose their jobs they often lose their health insurance. This cannot happen anywhere else in the industrialized world, even though unemployment is rising in Canada and Europe. Every other industrialized country has some form of universal health care. None uses profit making, investor-owned insurance companies like ours to provide health care for their citizens.  In Canada, a country where universal health care is in full effect, 83.6% of their citizens are extremely satisfied with their health care service, as opposed to 96.3% of Americans being satisfied with their service, obviously barring the bills they have to pay after the service. 

      Opponents of universal health care are mainly Republicans who view health care as a personal problem.  To some extent it is true that people need to be fiscally responsible for themelves, but in the end if we dont switch to a form of universal health care, even the wealthy are in trouble.  Those Republicans, who are mostly business owners or wealth individuals with a high income that ties in someway with the economy, dont realize that their customers are not likely to spend money if they dont have money because of increased medical bills.  People dont want to spend their money and those companies will ultimately suffer.  Many Americans want lower taxes but more services.  This is called the tax service paradox.  Soon enough someone is going to dial 911 and no one will pick up the phone!

  Their are other alternatives instead of swithcing to complete universal health care, such as single-payer systems where citizens draw money from a single fund in order to pay health care expenses.  Medicare is an example of a single payer health care system.  Advocates of single payer health systems in America call their plan Medicare-For-All

Canada’s system is an example of single-payer health care. The national government provides part of the funding, provincial governments manage the hospitals (and provide the brunt of the funding), and doctors in private practice contract with the government for fee-for-service payments. Many Canadian citizens have supplemental health insurance, which covers expenses not covered by Canadian Medicare. Fees for doctors, hospitals and other providers are set by negotiations among doctors’ associations, provincial or regional governments, and the national government. Global budgets eliminate the cost of billing individually for huge numbers of products and services.  The provision of health care in Canada is done mostly via private practitioners, although most hospitals are public. Patients may go to any doctor or hospital in the country.

 Lack of universal health care is often cited as one America’s leading domestic concerns, yet states and the federal government have failed to enact long-lasting, viable solutions for reform and the United States remains the only industrialized country that does not guarantee health coverage to all its citizens.

President Barack Obama hopes to help improve the problems with out health care system that past administrations have put off for so long.  I dont know how we are going to solve the problem or who will solve it but hopefully we will have a time where all citizens of this country are covered and have health care and no one is afraid to go to the doctor because of a broken arm that could cost them upwards of $10,000 out of pocket.

Here are a few statistics that put the crisis in sharp relief:

FACT: One-third of adults (31 percent) and more than half of all children (54 percent) do not have a primary care doctor (National Medical Expenditure Panel Survey)

FACT: 46.6 million Americans, (15.9 percent of Americans — about twice the population of Texas) were uninsured in 2005. (U.S. Census - August 2006)

FACT: More than two-thirds of uninsured adults in the United States, worked in 2005. In other words, 39.8 million workers, who had no health care — more than the population of Canada.

FACT: Federal spending for health care totaled more than $600 billion in 2005, or roughly one quarter of the federal budget. (U.S. Office of Management and Budget)

FACT: The total medical expenditures for full- and part-year uninsured in 2004 came to nearly $124 billion — more than the combined appropriations in 2004 for Iraq and the anti-terror programs.

FACT: Of 23 industrialized countries, the United States had the highest infant mortality rates. U.S. rates were similar to those of Poland and Hungary. (OECD, Commonwealth Fund Scorecard, 2006)

FACT: The United States ranked among the bottom of industrialized countries on healthy life expectancy at age 60 — meaning Americans spend more years lived in poor health resulting from chronic illness or disability. (OECD, Commonwealth Fund: Results from a Scorecard, 2006)

FACT: Barely half — about 49 percent — of adults receive recommended preventive care and screening tests according to guidelines for their age and sex. (Commonwealth Fund Scorecard 2006)

FACT: Close to 100,000 Americans die annually from medical errors — more than double the number of Americans who die annually in car crashes (Institute of Medicine).

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | 4 Comments »

27. January 2009 by Mr. Andoscia.

Hello:

My name is Imelda Garcia. I am a legal immigrant from Mexico, though I am not a citizen. I have been working in the fields of Andosciaville for ten years. That’s where I met my husband, Carlos.  We have three children.  For three years we lived in the tent city outside of the farming fields on the edge of Andosciaville, but last year we save up enough money to rent a small apartment. My husband worked in the fields and did janatorial work at night and on weekends. My children and I work in the fields during the week.  We were able to build a good home.

Last week Carlos was arrested by ICE.  There is a problem with his paperwork.  We were told that his papers were not legitimate and that he was “illegal.”  He was taken to a central Florida detention center and I fear for his safety.  Because he has not been to work in a week he has lost his jobs. I cannot afford the apartment any more and will be evicted at the end of the month.  I will have to live in the tent city with my children (one of my children is sick and does not grow enough).

I need your help.  My husband and I have always worked.  We do not qualify for welfare because we are not citizens and do not have a social security number.

Sincerely

Imelda Garcia

Posted in Social Problems | 2 Comments »

27. January 2009 by student.

What if you couldn’t reproduce?

What if the reason that we are on this Earth, whether you think so or not, is to procreate and carry on our genetic identity to the next generation but you couldn’t?

There are things that have happened in our history that people cannot describe with words.  Things that we as a species have done that have scarred people, families, generations.  Some of these things we cannot take back and no amount of restitution could replace the harmful damage that is already done.  The topic I will discuss today is eugenics. Eugenics is the process in which undesirable traits are removed from a species by disabling particular specimens from reproducing.  Believe it or not, this practice has been exercised several times throughout history.  Humans have sterilized others in order to prevent a certain undesirable phenotype(trait displayed in human appearance) from carrying on to the next generation.   I recently did a case study in my Human Genetics class about eugenics and read several articles pertaining to eugenics and how we must lean from this horrible mistake in order to prevent it from happening in the future.

In the 1920s, eugenics, also known as “racial hygiene,” was a commonly accepted science in the United States, and many doctors accepted the misguided idea that “inferior” genetic traits, including low intelligence, needed to be controlled by preventing such people from having children. Eugenics became popular due to the support of many different public leaders and interest groups. They were driven by the idea that eugenics would be linked with humanitarianism. They believed they could help poor people by sterilizing them while simultaneously helping the human race eliminate “bad genes” from its gene pool. Under the eugenics laws of the day, people who made a negative impression upon social welfare and public health authorities could be branded as “feeble-minded” by court order and forced to undergo sterilization. From the implementation of sterilization laws in 1923 and through the next four decades among the 33 states that passed such legislation states with the highest recorded sterilizations were California with 20,108 sterilizations, Virginia with 7,450, North Carolina with 6,297, and Michigan with 3,786 residents sterilized. Ultimately, the 20th-century “eugenics” movement led to the sterilization of more than 67,000 Americans, before coming to an end in the 1970s. The practice was not only carried out on the feeble-minded and handicapped people.  In Nazi Germany, more than 400,000 people were sterilized against their will and another 70,000 died while resisting sterilization.  In Sweden, as recently as 1976 over 65,000 Swedes were sterilized in order to prevent defects, mixed raced individuals and those who were see as individuals who went against the mainstream norms of society such as homosexuals. 

Fred Aslin was 10 years old in 1936, when he was confined to the Lapeer State School, a closed psychiatric facility in the state of Michigan. His eight siblings were confined there as well. His father had died shortly before, and his mother was unable to care for the children on her own. Aslin, a former farmer in Indiana, had never understood exactly why he and his siblings were thrown into a psychiatric clinic, since neither he nor they were in any way mentally handicapped. “But we were poor, and we were Indians,” he notes. At the age of 18, he was sterilized against his will, as were four of his siblings.

In 1996, Aslin requested his files (to which he was entitled under the Public Information Act) and learned for the first time how the authorities had justified the forced sterilizations. “They termed us feeble-minded idiots, and wrote that our children would be like us or even worse,” he declares. He was so infuriated at the insult that he filed suit against the state of Michigan, seeking compensation. His claim was turned down last March because the statute of limitations had expired. But Aslin intends to fight on. If a higher court accepts his appeal, the consequences could be far-reaching. For Fred Aslin and his siblings were not an isolated case.

From 1907 onward, at least 60,000 Americans were sterilized against their will. The legal basis for these forced sterilizations was provided by so-called eugenics laws. Most compulsory sterilizations occurred in the 1930s and ’40s, but some states, such as Virginia, continued the practice until the late 1970s. Most of the victims were poor and members of minorities, and none of them received compensation, according to Paul Lombardo, professor of law and bioethics at the University of Virginia.

   The Decline of Intelligence in America: A Strategy for National Renewal is a book written by Eugenics supporter Seymour W. Itzkoff.  It talks about how the American society will decline because of the people with lower intelligence being allowed to reproduce:  Itzkoff analyses the problems and social pathologies of America and claims that they are related to the decline of general intelligence. His central idea is that new generations are coming from the lower end of the intellectual, and thus the social, scale. As a consequence, a population of permanently poor Third World Americans is emerging. In the second part of the book, he recommends policies intended to turn the trend. The solution proposed in this book is simple: the government should stimulate the finest to form families of the traditional sort in which children are conceived, born, raised, and educated to the highest levels for which they are capable, and the helpless should be encouraged and guided not to have children that they cannot rear and educate to functional cultural levels.

     It is crazy to think that people assume the solution to the problems in society is to eliminate a social class or genre of people in order to correct social injustices.  We do however practice eugenics in modern day society.  Cows and other farm animals who exhibit undersirable traits are sterilized so that they do not reproduce.  Is it ok for us to sterilize animals that exhibit undersiable traits?  Is it wrong for us to want plump and juicy beef cows and not ones that have a gene for them to be smaller than average?  I think that there is no place for eugenics in our society in any case and we must be wary, because just think.  There might be people out there that dont like you that think YOU should be sterilized and rendered unable to reproduce.
SOURCES:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/072100-106.htm

http://www.eugenics.net/

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/internat/pdinter/pdint178.html

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | 2 Comments »

24. January 2009 by student.

When on a business trip for my New England based company to Kansas City some years ago, I had stopped to fill my rental car up with gas before returning it to the airport. While standing there, minding my own business, contemplating the sales that I had attained and those that I failed to close and how I should modify my strategy for such encounters in the future, another car pulled into the pump next to mine. I barely gave the gentleman any notice at all, perhaps a quick glance in his direction and continued with my task and my revelry. Through the haze of my own thoughts, I began to hear a voice speaking happily and cheerfully, going on about a baseball game that was played the night before and how he had taken his Grandson to his first ball game and the fun that they had. I stood there in utter amazement that this grown man of fifty something was prattling on to no one at all. Then it dawned on me. He was talking to me. Telling me this wondrous story of one of the most wonderful days of his life with all the pride and joy that a grandfather could muster; and I nearly destroyed his experience with disinterest.

I thought about that experience the entire plane ride home. What happened to me? I was born country. Raised country. Taught to respect others, their thoughts, and their opinions; and knew and greeted everyone for miles around whenever we were to meet. The only answer that I could come up with was grim at best. Having relocated to New England for marriage and work, I had been systematically sucked into the fast paced, high power drive of the “business corridor” in search for that ever elusive brass ring. Through time and attrition, I had learned the ways and the habits of the typical New England Businessman whose mantra was “Get all you can, can all you get”. So self absorbed with my own success was I, that I was blinded to my own failures. My human failures.

That is when I decided that a change was necessary. Although the change was quite small, I was not prepared for the impact that it had on me and my life, and the new direction my life would take. What was the change? “Hello.” It is one of the first words that we learn as children, yet it is one of the last words we think to use as adults. Saying hello is more than just saying hello. It is an acknowledgement, an affirmation of another person’s existence and worth. An invitation to share with one another, even on the most basic of levels, a part of your life with that person, and his or hers with you; even just for a moment.

Sounds easy doesn’t it. It’s not. While I may be just a big ol’ teddy bear, at 5′ 11″ and 275 pounds, this fifty two year old teddy bear poses a formidable figure as compared to that 210 pound toe-headed teenager who graduated high school in 1974.  People are often and easily intimidated by what they see, and especially by what they do not know. Mistrust has become society’s catchword, making it difficult to extract a reciprocal greeting for the fear of “inviting someone in”. As adults we have become so task oriented, we assume that when someone speaks to us, they are in need of something or are looking to fulfill their own agenda at our expense. And children? A child’s face lights up with the purest joy and innocence when greeted, excited to have been noticed in a world built for adults. However, it is unfortunate that we live in an age and society where it is necessary for us to teach our children very early in their lives to be wary of adults, and even more so of adults that they do not know or have not met until they have passed Mom or Dad’s litmus test.

Friendliness is so rare in our society today, that when greeted, the other person is completely caught off guard and is often times disarmed rendering nearly all of his defense mechanisms useless, for a short time at the least. The greeted person can do nothing but respond in like manner, or be perceived as rude, cold, and unemotional. It boosts productivity when used in the workplace or school, promotes respect between people, and influences sociability. Amazingly, the people with whom you may not normally acknowledge because they may look a certain way, be dirty, or act a little off, might be the friendliest people in the world; and the ones who react the most warmly to your greeting. Perhaps it is because they are so accustomed to being ignored that this small gesture, this acknowledgement, is akin to being feted at the mayor’s table.

 So maybe by turning our inward gaze outward, truly seeing the people that we pass by each day, looking them in the eye, and saying one of the first words we learned as a child: “hello”, we can make the world, our world, a better place. I guarantee that after a month of it, your heart will feel lighter, you will feel more connected, and you will have a better sense of well being. Can you make the next grump you see open up? Try it!

Posted in Social Problems | 2 Comments »

20. January 2009 by student.

  I recently read an article about an Australian island (Macquarie) located between Australia and Antarctica.  I’m studying Marine Biology and Environmental Protection, so these types of stories are very interesting to me.  I also believe that too often people try to make a difference in nature and don’t think things all the way through to the possible consequences of thier actions.

The populations of penguins on this island were decreasing and local ecologists thought they had a good solution to increase the population.  There were a large number of feral cats on the island, which were thought to be killing the penguins and destroying the population.  The feral cats were removed and the problem should have been solved, right?  Unfortunately, this wasn’t the case.  As a result of the removal of the cats, the rabbit and rat population exploded.  These rabbits and rats have consumed 40% of the islands native plants along shorelines causing severe erosion.  The penguins on the island used these plants and rocky shoreline for cover and now don’t have the protection and nesting grounds, causing a decline in the penguin population.  In addition, it’s said that to cost to authorities to fix this is approximately 24 million dollars.

In conclusion, many people have great ideas for the protection of our environment, sometimes these ideas aren’t thought through far enough.  There are many situations where peoples efforts have worked wonderfully, unfortunately this is not one of those situations.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

17. January 2009 by student.

“Persecution for the expression of opinions seems perfectly logical.” When Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes first penned this thought in his dissenting opinion on Abrams v. United States (1919), America was left to speculate whether he was referring to the censorship impulse that can be found in the citizenry of this country both individually and collectively. As caring and responsible citizens of our society, it is not unrealistic that we would want a viable sense of security, order, civility, tolerance, well being, and more from our governing bodies, and the laws that these bodies enact. When confronted by those whose opinions seem to challenge or threaten these aspirations, many of us are tempted to sweep away this opposition under the guise of law and legislation. And to this point is the corner-stone of our right to free speech.

The First Amendment protects the right of citizens to express themselves in a variety of ways. With this in mind then, can public school students, as young citizens, engage in modes of expression from the words that they speak, to the ideas that they write, and even in the clothes that they wear? Every student should be encouraged to engage in political speech and expression, which is considered the type of speech at the core of the First Amendment, and that which the Founding Fathers considered essential to the development of a constitutional democracy. This belief was reinforced and made clear by the United States Supreme Court with the outcome of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969) by equivocating the wearing of certain apparel “akin to pure speech”. But wait a moment, the Supreme Court, in the very same ruling, also gave schools a caveat in that the expression or speech must be a “non-disruptive, passive expression of a political viewpoint”.

By establishing a protective standard for student expression that school and government officials cannot censor, the court also provided a means of challenge to those very same people to question the speech or expression based upon their belief, thought, or opinion that the articulation or demonstration would cause substantial disruptions of normal school activities, or invade the rights of others. Although students have the right to free speech and expression, they do not have the liberty to express themselves in an unlimited form or fashion. As a result, recent years have seen several students punished for their interpretation of what free speech is, and what it is not based upon the school officials’ reasonable forecast or expectation that the student’s expression would cause that substantial disruption to normal daily activities. Conversely, we have also seen school districts and administrations censured for over-stepping the bounds of censorship of these expressions.

                So how can we properly define freedom of speech and/or expression for school students without treading into the realm of censorship? This seems to be the central theme for numerous arguments and litigation across decades of cases heard by various courts throughout the country, ultimately leading back to the Supreme Court’s ruling that stated students “…do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression at the school house gate…” (Justice Abe Fortas Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969)). This watermark ruling provides students with a range of free-expression rights under the First Amendment; however, they are not free to express themselves in an unlimited form or fashion. The same court also stated unanimously in its decision of Chaplinskey v. New Hampshire (1942): “…It is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech…These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or fighting words – those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace…”

                These limitations were again reinforced in 1986 when the Supreme Court ruled in Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser that school officials did not violate the First Amendment rights of a student suspended for giving a vulgar and lewd speech before a student assembly by ruling “…the freedom to advocate unpopular and controversial views in schools and classrooms must be balanced against society’s countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior”. Consequently, while public school students do possess First Amendment freedoms, the courts allow school officials to regulate certain types of student expression.

                Defining and separating what seems to be acceptable and appropriate to what is deemed acceptable and appropriate for students appears to be an immense undertaking for many. It encompasses sexual orientation, sexual harassment, “fighting words”, obscenity, profanity, pornography, racial slurs and symbols, and so much more. All of which are being wrestled with in our courts on a daily basis with the claim that many schools are over-reacting to a few recent sensationalistic school incidents by clamping down on any student expression deemed offensive or disagreeable. Although school officials must ensure a safe learning environment, many fear that in so doing, school officials have ignored students’ First Amendment rights, and have ventured precariously into the realm of censorship.

No one should attempt to ignore or minimize the differences that are so important and abiding that makes us who we are: Americans. Instead, embrace and reaffirm what we share as Americans across our differences. First Amendment principles can and do work to advance the best interest of education and the nation, but only when they are understood and applied by a citizenry that is committed to advancing a common vision of the common good.

Posted in Social Problems | 3 Comments »

10. January 2009 by Mr. Andoscia.

Here are some elements I’m probably going to add to the social problems class to make it more realistic and inclusive.

1.  No Confidence/Recall Vote: About half way through the class I, as mayor, will offer an opportunity to recall the City Council.  If the decisions of the city council are disappointing groups will have the opportunity to throw the bums out!

2.  Concerned Citizens: Concerned citizens will either contact groups directly or through the blog with their concerns about social problem issues in Andosciaville. This will add a personal touch to the the class.

3.  Consequences for Decisions: When the council makes a decision I will research the consequences of that decision based on research for how those decisions work in other areas.  I may consult other experts for help in this.  Through the semester I will present those consequences to the class and the impacts on Andosciaville. You may find that your decisions created more social problems that need to be dealt with.  This means that groups and council members will have to do their research before presenting a proposal or creating a policy.

4. The budget that you create this semester will be used by the next class for the sake of continuity.  Right now the budget is rather simple. The elements you add will be continued into the next semester. So be careful what you hand down to your future generations.

This class is a work in progress.  As we go along offer ideas for ways to make the class better and more interesting.

Posted in Social Problems | No Comments »