P1. Good people often fail to act. Although people like to think that they think for themselves, most are greatly influenced by the effects of group dynamics. When people are in a group, they feel a pressure to conform to the group’s values and social norms. Solomon Asch showed that most people will conform to a group’s answer despite being certain it was the wrong one. Humans have evolved to live in groups. When acceptance means survival, conformity can be a beneficial trait.

P1(a). The bystander effect is a phenomenon where the number of people in a group is inversely related to the likelihood of a person intervening. A person is more likely to get help if only one person sees him or her than if hundreds of people walk by them. When a person is alone, he or she feels a greater responsibility to help another. When multiple people are able to help, each feels less responsible because others have the ability to help. A person in a group looks to others for the appropriate response. If others are passing by, then refusing to help seems to be the proper response. The result is a person in need being ignored by seemingly apathetic witnesses. This phenomenon is called the bystander effect.

P1(b). Psychologists started studying the bystander effect after the infamous murder of Kitty Genovese. Psychologists used the bystander effect as an explanation of the seeming lack of action taken by the supposed witnesses. Although the bystander effect is a true phenomenon, the event that first inspired research on it is otherwise unrelated. Contrary to popular belief, the bystander effect does not apply to the witnesses of the Kitty Genovese murder. This belief still persists due to the news article written about the murder. The legend refuses to die.

P2 10 days after Kitty’s murder, The New York Times published an article with the memorable title, “37 Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call the Police.” This article has distorted the public’s view of the murder. It implies that 37 people watched a person get murdered without helping. The bystander effect is the only explanation for this false scenario. The actual events are not explained by the bystander effect. The bystander effect only applies to groups. The actual number of witnesses that understood the gravity of the situation was seven. These seven  people were not all together and and had no way of knowing that others were watching. These people were either alone in their apartment or with one other person. The bystander effect is negligible in a group of two. The bystander effect also relies on a person looking to others for an appropriate response. This would be impossible if the witnesses were in other apartments and all looking through their windows.

P2(a). Another misconception is that the witnesses took no action. One man shouted at the murderer to leave the victim alone. This was effective and scared him off. Another witness claims that his father called the police and said that a woman was beat up and staggering. When the murderer came back for his second attack, a witness alerted another resident who called the police and held Kitty in her arms until the ambulance arrived. Multiple witnesses intervened with the murder in varying degrees. Assuming that the other witnesses understood that a woman was being murdered is unfair. The murder happened in a well off neighborhood with a low crime rate. It would be outrageous for the witness to hear someone yelling and to jump to the conclusion it was a murder. One couple that the yelling was a lover’s quarrel. A sensationalist article has distorted our view of this murder and unfairly demonizes the witnesses.

P3 Although the bystander effect doesn’t apply to Kitty Genovese’s murder, it is very real. The smoke filled room experiment done by John Darley and Bibb Latane demonstrated the bystander effect in a controlled environment. While a subject was taking a questionnaire, smoke would come under the door and start filling the room. When the subject was alone, they reported the smoke 75 percent of the time. When the subject was in the room with two confederates that were told not to react to the smoke, they only reported it 10 percent of the time. When three subjects were put together, they reported the smoke 38 percent of the time. This experiment proves that the bystander was at play. If the bystander effect had no influence over the subjects, then the group of three should have reported the smoke over 98 percent of the time. If each subject has a 25 percent chance of ignoring the smoke while alone, then three only have about a 1.6 percent chance of ignoring the smoke. This huge deviation can only be explained by the bystander effect. This experiment also gives insight into how people think in groups compared to when alone. When alone, the subject saw the smoke and realized it could be a threat. The subject then reported it. When in a group, the subjects would look at each other before reacting. They looked towards others for the appropriate response.  Because the others didn’t react to the smoke, the subject assumed that the smoke was not a threat. Since everyone is looking at others before reacting, it gives a false impression that no one is alarmed by the smoke. The result is everyone in the group act apathetically towards the smoke.  If no one takes the initiative to be the first to help, no one else will help.

P4 The real world demonstration of the bystander effect was in 2009 when a sophomore was raped and assaulted by 10 people while another 10 watched. She was found nearly nude, covered in scrapes and bruises, with head trauma, and a near fatal blood alcohol levels. Although alcohol was involved, it does not explain this atrocity. The witnesses understood what was happening. Some even announced it to others. There were multiple ways the witnesses could have stopped this. The simplest way would be to call 911. In 2009, 80 percent of teens had a cell phone. Help was just a phone call away. They could have told one of the chaperones from the dance. The chaperones would have stopped the rape and called the cops. They could also have stepped in and stopped the rape themselves. Instead, the girl was found by chance. Someone had heard a student talking about the rape and called the cops. The only explanation for this is the bystander effect. The witnesses likely saw each other just watching and thought that was the appropriate response. This incident showed how real and how powerful the bystander effect can be on witnesses.

It is hard to imagine why ordinary people don’t help when they see someone in need. I that remember in Little League 2 kids would be in position to a catch a fly ball. Either player could catch the ball but instead they let the ball land between them. Each player wrongly thought that the other would catch the ball and that they didn’t need to.  This is a similar concept to the diffusion of responsibility. The diffusion of responsibility is an explanation of the bystander effect. When a person is alone and sees someone that needs help, they feel that they are fully responsible for helping them. When that same person is in a crowd, that responsibility is split between everyone in the crowd. Because everyone has the ability to help, each person wonders why it has to be them to help. This explains why larger crowds are under a greater influence of the bystander effect; people feel less responsible for helping.

The bystander effect seems to originate from the way we socialize and conform to group norms. It is a part of humanity; it’s not a learned behavior. Children were researched to find if they were affected by the bystander effect. Five-year old children and adults had similar results. They helped a person in need more when they were alone and less when around others. The study concluded that it was most likely due to the diffusion of responsibility instead of social referencing like in the smoke filled room experiment. Although children easily pick up behaviors from the people around them, their diffusion of responsibility was likely part of their nature.

P5 A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It seems strange that after all of these years people still don’t understand the inaction of the witnesses of the Kitty Genovese murder. People have misconceptions about this murder because they don’t have enough information about it. Almost 60 percent of people surveyed said that they only read headlines. It is likely the actual number is high due to some being embarrassed and unwilling to admit that they only read headlines. If the majority of people are basing their opinions off of the title alone, it makes sense that they have a warped view of the actual story. They have never heard any interpretation of the story. Even if the other 40 percent of the people read the article, they would still be influenced by the headline. Headlines are meant to grab the attention of the reader. Unfortunately, they also influence the reader. A study has shown that misleading headlines impair information processing. A headline interprets a story for the reader and creates a bias in the reader before they get a chance to read the article themselves. After reading the headline,” 37 Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call Police,” the readers were already influenced to the interpretation of the writer. They read the article with a bias in their head and fail to interpret the information for themselves.

P6 The misleading headline didn’t only influence people while they were reading the article. Misleading headlines like the one used in the article change which details the reader remembers from the article. People are more likely to remember details that are related to and support the headline and dismiss other information. They are also more likely to remember the headline even if it is not proven or supported by the article. This means that it is likely that readers remember the headline that told them that 37 people watched a woman get murdered but forget that a man intervened by yelling at the murderer and that a woman called the police and stayed beside the body while ambulances arrived.

P7 Headlines can also invoke an emotional response from the viewer. A headline like, “37 Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call Police,” invokes a very strong response. It makes the reader angry at the bystanders that failed to act, upset a person was so close to help but didn’t receive any, and confused why the witnesses didn’t call the police. These emotions influence how well the reader can rationally think about the article. A study published in The Frontiers of Psychology has shown that mood can affect how well a person does on intelligence tests. People in a good mood perform better than people in a bad mood. Therefore, it is likely mood also affects how well a person can read an article and form reasonably opinions about it. After reading a title that makes the reader angry and upset, they are not in a good state of mind to read the article. Because they were impaired by their emotions, they were less adept at forming reasonable opinions.

P8 After forming these misled beliefs on the murder, people failed to change them when presented with newer and better information due to simple biases. Everyone is subjected to confirmation biases. We like to be right and we trust ourselves to have the right opinion. After all, we were the ones who formed it. People tend to embrace information that supports our belief and ignore or even attack information that contradicts it. People ignored evidence that showed that the original article was wrong or misleading. Without giving new evidence a chance, it is impossible for someone to change their opinion. Because this article was likely the first information the readers received about the murder, the readers were subjected to the first impression bias. People tend to give more weight to information they received earlier. The information used to create a first impression is more important to a person and is harder to refute. These biases make it difficult to effectively argue and change people’s minds. The result is people holding onto their old beliefs and opinions.

P9 Psychologists explained the witnesses’ of the Kitty Genovese murder apathy to be a result of the bystander effect. This explanation is flawed since it is based on a severely warped version of the Kitty Genovese murder. The bystander effect was created to explain a fictional story. I agree with this objection. The bystander effect is not a reasonable explanation of the true story of the murder of Kitty Genovese. Some believe that the bystander effect is a myth itself.  However, just because the bystander effect doesn’t apply to the true story of the murder doesn’t mean it can’t explain other events. The murder was the start of research that eventually showed that the bystander effect.

P10 The murder inspired experiments that attempted to quantify the bystander effect. The smoke filled room experiment seems to support the idea that people in groups are less likely to act. Others aren’t convinced. It can be difficult to draw conclusions from studies when humans are the research subject. When asked why they didn’t react to the smoke, the subjects said they assumed it was part of the experiment. They didn’t believe that they were in any danger. If the subjects didn’t know that they were in an experiment, it is reasonable to conclude that they would have acted differently. Although this sounds reasonable, it doesn’t explain why the subjects that were alone were so much more likely to report the smoke than the subjects in a group. The disparity between the groups shows that there is a group dynamic at work and that the subjects were under social pressure.

P11 Humans can be loving and compassionate at times. We can also be apathetic and cruel. The bystander effect shows that well meaning, normal people can ignore a person in need. Unfortunately, the bystander effect is a real phenomenon despite its shaky foundation. Social dynamics affect us everyday. They can be a positive or negative influence. By learning more about them, we can negate the negative effects. By being aware of the bystander effect, we can make sure people in need aren’t ignored.

“Police: As many as 20 present at gang rape outside school dance.” CNN. Cable News Network, 28 Oct. 2009. Web. 06 Mar. 2017.

“Solomon Asch’s Experiment on Conformity.” Psychminds Everyday Psychological Discussions. N.p., 01 Sept. 2013. Web. 1 Mar. 2017.

Benderly, Berly. “Psychology’s tall tales.” American Psychologica Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Mar. 2017.

Ecker, Ullrich , Stephan Lewandowsky, Ee Pin Chang, and Rekha Pillai. ” The effects of subtle misinformation in news headlines. .” PsycNET (2014): n. pag. APA. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.

Gansberg, Martin. “37 Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call the Police.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 Mar. 1964. Web. 06 Mar. 2017.

Jung, Nadine, Christina Wranke, Kai Hamburger, and Markus Knauff. “How emotions affect logical reasoning: evidence from experiments with mood-manipulated participants, spider phobics, and people with exam anxiety.” Frontiers in Psychology 5 (2014): n. pag. Web.

Konnikova, Maria. “How Headlines Change the Way We Think.” The New Yorker. The New Yorker, 17 Dec. 2014. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.

Lenhart, Amanda. “Cell phone ownership.” Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. N.p., 18 Mar. 2012. Web. 06 Mar. 2017.

Latane, Bibb and John M. Darley. “Group Inhibition of Bystander Intervention in Emergencies.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 10, no. 3, Nov. 1968, pp. 215-221. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1037/h0026570.

Color Blind America:
The Issue of Race and Immigration

p1. When the name America is mentioned, many different phrases can come to mind, but the phrase “the land of the free” is the most apparent. The freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and a variety of other freedoms are allowed in America for her people, but not every person experiences these freedoms equally. It seems counter intuitive put an emphasis on this idea but have it be overshadowed by two driving forces, racism and discrimination. Being the biggest inhibitors of these freedoms for immigrants and people of color, racism and discrimination causes a variety of problems for those on the receiving end of it all. But what really is racism, and how can it have unfair consequences for those in the self entitled “land of the free”?

p2. The first of these freedoms, is the right to free speech, however, in regards to racism, especially towards immigrants, people uses it as an argument advocating their right to be racist. On the surface, people do not really challenge the first amendment in this way, but it is a strange argument when examined thoroughly enough. Originally the first amendment was to protect an individual’s, or mainly News outlets, the right to produce articles of various opinions with no repercussions. The same applies for people’s actual opinions, but racism is a strange object where some people can claim it is an opinion and some can claim it is not. This is why when people claim the first amendment, in regards for racism, there is not really a way to decide if it is a solid argument. Most would claim not, racism is a terrible thing, but with no way to determine if racism is a learnt trait or an opinion the first amendment claim could very well be a solid argument.

p3. To really dig deep into just how and what the effects of racism do, look at how Caucasian people used racism as a way to solidify their power within America as the dominant people but as time went on that grasp of power faded as time flowed into the twenty first century. Take sports as an example, “Related stories of Black male athletic dominance on the playing field of mainstream American sports such as football and basketball leading to the alleged marginalization of young White boys who are turning away en masses from these sports reverberate in new millennium American culture to assert that White (male) power and privilege in American society is eroding. This excerpt from White Power and Sport-Journal of Sport and Social Issues, By Richard C. King, depicts a strange phenomenon that white folks are creating. This invasion of activities by “other people” is taking away the spotlight from white people apparently. And that is the mentality white supremacy created, that if these folk can come take our sports what else can they take, but this power thought has weakened, and if this power has weakened so much how come racism is still alive today? Racism has been so ingrained in Americas history, that it is extraordinarily hard to shake off this habit.  So why can’t people just stop using this bad concept?

p4. If looked into hard enough, there are still minute blips of racism in films and TV, and, when it piles up, it can form uneducated stereotypes. When watching shows, most scenes where crime or drugs are involved it always depicts an African American man or a Spanish male in some back alley with a gun hidden somewhere on said person. Why is that the scene that’s always depicted? It stems from those who struggle within the low class and poorer areas of town or city, or the ghetto as it’s commonly referred to as. A couple shows come to mind when picturing this type of scene, mainly it’s the family sitcom from the 90s and early 00s. For those watching this puts an image in the viewers’ head that these type of people exude the prescience of danger and should be thought lesser of. This is how modern racism gets indoctrinated in the minds of the new generation, these uneducated stereotypes.

p5. It is not just the stereotypes that gets into the brains of the viewers, it is also the appeasement of white folk that can cement racism. When a person of color feels the need they have to appease a portion of white folk in order for their message, show, book, art, etc. to be noticed, then something is wrong. When BET emerged back in the late 80s, there were some difficulties when producing shows. In A Racial Divide Widens on Network TV, by James Sterngold, this such issue occurred “This has led to bitter feelings among many black producers, writers and actors, who say they are often asked to make their shows less overtly black in a largely vain effort to attract white viewers. These requests often take the form of demands to ”broaden the appeal” of the shows, code for adding more white characters”. When creating a show or book dedicated to a specific race, but having it be diluted down so that white audiences will not be shocked is not really a form of freedom of speech.  That is why the argument can be seen as flimsy and not as a matter of opinion, and that is exactly what the grasp of racism has done to this country. It has made it unsafe for people of color to freely discuss their heritage, religion, and culture without the prying eye of white folk claiming that it is a danger to them for other races to express themselves, and this is why hate crimes spring up, from the mentality that these regular people living their lives is a direct attack on the lives of white people, so they begin to “defend” themselves.

p6. Understanding how and why racism came about, and why people feel the need to “defend” themselves only partially helps when understanding the widespread racism that happens now, especially towards immigrants. Certain ideas about other races have stemmed from historical events. Pearl Harbor, 9/11, and other historically recent events cause fearing Americans to be more “alert” around those that look like they committed acts like that, but racism is not a viable defense mechanism, especially decades after the events, so why does it keep happening? Like previously mentioned, racial stereotypes start to appear when young, and eventually wind up as full blown racial views as time and occurrence go on. And like television, film, and other sources of media portray these stereotypes so, People will always keep in mind certain things. With thoughts like these, people will always be quick judge. For Example, a poor African-American family lives in a “sketchy” neighborhood, even sub-consciously, a white American will start to guess and assume about what life is like for them. “Do they sell drugs, do they steal, do they have a complete family?” even if one doesn’t outright focus on these preconceived notions, they cross the mind eventually.

p7. These notions “plagued” white America when former president Barack Obama first took office.  One strange results to these notions came about in “white denial”. According to between Barack and a hard place by Tim Wise, “White folks by and large failed to see what all the fuss was about when president Obama took office”.  To see the emergence of “white denial” is stunning to see when the first Black president, ever, gets inaugurated, and “white America” still doesn’t see how monumental of an event that was is almost astonishing. The polarity of what it is today however, going from the first black president of the United states and a somewhat frightened “white America” to a man who is every ideal and belief of said “white America” goes to show how powerful these harmful ideas of “another people” can really be harmful and influential they are in America.  America was so quick to go back to a “comfort zone” of a white president, which they didn’t care who it was, or what their platform was built on. It was normalcy, something humans desire when things get too out of hand for them.

p8. The results of the recent presidential event was even nicknamed a “white lash” at the rest of America, so in a sense this can be seen scale model effect, when compared to racism in America as a whole. The idea of a black president stunned and infuriated that jokes about certain things going wrong would always have the punch line of “thanks Obama”. Because, for a time, most of “white America” genuinely believed that it was his fault for a majority of their issues. He became an escape goat, and while every president has issues tied with their presidency that people do not agree with, they were never the butt of a joke. So the cries and fears people had for having a black president caused jokes, rumors, and other assorted things associated with him to spread throughout America, leaving some with a diminished view of him. And this is what happens with racism in America, it spreads like a rumor.

p9. The cause and effect of Barack Obama’s presidency can be compared to other events too. The aforementioned events,such as, 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and others caused Americans, mostly white, to act in a “defensive manner”. recently after said events, people being on edge was to be expected, it was chaotic and frightening for many during the time, but as time went on, feelings diminished, but some people stuck with their “gut feeling” about other races. After 9/11 specifically, things like the TSA started to crackdown to ensure the safety of people, however random searches soon became “random”, that meaning if someone was Middle Eastern, and or wore a turban they would be called in for a search. It comes from the premise of equation.  Al-Qaeda, a Middle Eastern terrorist organization caused the planes to crash, so many white American equated middle easterners to Al-Qaeda, so racism and Xenophobia against middle easterners, and those of the Islamic faith, grew rampant.

p10. Racism and Xenophobia against Middle Easterners also spread so rapidly after 9/11 because of the media. Networks like Fox News were quick to jump the gun on anything related to Muslims, but mainly the television trope of combating terrorist caused a rise in prejudice, especially thanks to shows like JAG and 24. An excerpt from Arabs and Muslims in the media: race and representation after 9/11 by Alsultany reads “…Bauer subverts a nuclear attack by the apparent “Middle Easterners” partially orchestrated by the Araz family, which has lived in the united states for years, secretly conspiring, with other to attack this country and murder hundreds of thousands innocent Americans”. Plots like this aroused the suspicion of White America, causing widespread distrust, against both longtime residents, and new ones escaping from hardship

 p11. Having a core understanding of what racism really is, and how it has affected this nation, a couple of statements can be drawn from this. The most common few being “this country was built on racism, it will never go away,” or “You can’t change the way people think,” or “if it were not for those aggressive protection laws in airports or other places, this country would be in a far worse situation.” While there is plenty of evidence to support these claims, overall they are weak, flimsy arguments, but why is that? If there is evidence to support these claims how can they be weak? It’s the same way someone can have mounds of evidence on something else, but it can still be proven wrong. These statements are used by those who generally are not the most progressive, and will usually come out when situations like marches, or airport scandals, or other things within the news. These statements are the only real opposites to Racism and Immigration discrimination being terrible things. These statements let people beat around the bush, coming out and saying “oh well this kind of stuff happens” or something along those lines. These statements are the only “real” rebuttals to racism and discrimination, and they are the primary inhibitors of  progress not being made in this country.

p12. Breaking down these three statements is the only real way to understand just how they inhibit change. So when people say “this country was built on racism” this is what they really mean. During the 1800s to 1900s Slavery was a huge proprietor to this country’s wealth and well-being, and in reality this country was literally built on the backs of black men, women, and children, but it was white people who took the credit. Racism was used in the form of a power. Degrading, insulting, and outright dehumanizing other races, especially black slaves in America, is how White people held dominance for such a long time. And it can be seen today too with immigration, especially after 9/11. White America has a huge stigma against Syrian Refugees, they claim that those refugees are a threat to their job security and their families. When in reality, people are more likely to die to a radical White American, than any Syrian refugee. History tends to repeat its self, and we live in a time that is all too similar to the red-scare, except this time, Racism is being used as a means to “snuff out” potential threats within America. There are no real threats these people of color are showing, they are more in danger than White America is. So the phrase “this country was built on racism” is most definitely true, but it is a lazy argument that inhibits progress simply because people do not want to admit that their grasp of power is being weakened by a multitude of factors.

p13. A counterpart to the previous argument is ” you can’t change the way people think”. This statement is brought out when people are too stubborn or lazy to take the time to see the problems another race or gender faces.  This argument is made for older people who may be too “set” in their ways to try and change now, but can apply to younger people as well. This reveals a critical weakness in that argument, that being these people have lived through some of these civil movements and changes in the country and have learned nothing and refuse to change. Partial blame can be put on how people were raised. Parents teach a majority of knowledge to their children without even knowing sometimes, but TV and the education system play a big role in this too. This is most apparent with “white Privilege”, the invisible weight that most Caucasians are not explicitly taught to recognize. Doctor Peggy McIntosh, sheds some light on this ignorance in her work White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack. She states “My schooling gave me no training in seeing myself as an oppressor, as an unfairly advantaged person, or as a participant in a damaged culture. I was taught to see myself as an individual whose moral state depended on her individual moral will. My schooling followed the pattern my colleague Elizabeth Minnich has pointed out: whites are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average, and also ideal, so that: when we work to benefit others, this is seen as work which will allow “them” to be more like “us.”” Most white people who cannot change their thinking due to this subconsciously taught problem, which was more apparent with things like segregation back in the 50s. And using terms like “We” and them” helps tear the divide even more. So the real reason people who can’t change their thinking is because it takes an effort to understand privilege, the struggles of others, and how everything is interconnected, but with the right teachings this change of thought can most definitely happen. It’s a weak excuse to try and brush aside ignorance under the guise of “some people can’t change”. People can learn about different issues, and be more enlightened to what goes on in the world around them, but white privilege inhibits that change.

p14. The last arguments is “if it was not for those aggressive laws, America would be a much different place”. While effective, it does not excuse racism and discrimination. Strong laws, like random searches, have protected us in airports, and have stopped many potential threats, but sometimes these searches aren’t entirely random.  For immigration, seeking out and detaining every immigrant to uncover a “terrorist coup” after 9/11 has been an abused extreme. A piece from Victor Romero’s Decoupling Terrorist from Immigrant :An Enhanced Role for the Federal Courts Post 9/11 reads “…Following the September 11 attacks, The Immigration and Naturalization service (INS) arrested and detained approximately one thousand mostly Arab and Muslim non-citizens for immigration code violations in an effort to uncover possible terrorist among them.”  Regardless of violations, hunting and arresting inherently innocent people under the guise of “suspected terrorism” is not the way a county should handle the issue.  Things like this happen too often for it to be called random, and it isn’t often someone of a different faith or race. So while they are good safety measure, airports and organizations like the INS, tend to racial profile or stereotype, instead of actually conducting random searches. While tightening a growing immigrant population is beneficial for a growing country with limited resources, painting new immigrants as untrustworthy and threats until proven otherwise is not the way to do it.

p15. “America, land of the free” is a color blind nation so set in its ways, they refuse to take down the eye sores that are racism and discrimination. Whether its because we are too lazy, or the weeds are too tough to pull out, we sit in a nation divided by the forgotten burden of one side, and the struggles of surviving on the other. America is not black and white, however the media, and other sources trick us into thinking that it is. These two giants harm the nation and her people, and with more and more examples appearing everyday, people can see the true damage that is done.  Racism and discrimination will eventually bleed this country dry.

Works Cited

King, C. Richard. “White Power and SportJournal of Sport and Social Issues.” Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 10 Feb. 2007. Web. 07 Mar. 2017.

Sterngold, James. “A Racial Divide Widens on Network TV.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 28 Dec. 1998. Web. 07 Mar. 2017.

Alsultany, Evelyn. Arabs and Muslims in the media: race and representation after 9/11. New York: New York U Press, 2012. Print.

Wise, Tim J. Between Barack and a Hard Place Racism and White Denial in the Age of Obama. San Francisco: City Lights, 2009. Print.

Romero, Victor C. “Decoupling Terrorist from Immigrant: An Enhanced Role for the Federal Courts Post 9/11.” Journal of Gender, Race and Justice 7.1 (2003): 201-212.

McIntosh, Peggy. “White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack.” (1988): 31-36.

From Earning to Learning

The purposes of grades in education systems is to measure how well students are learning by creating motivation for students. If we take a closer look, grades can have the opposite effect on both of their main purposes. If  grades are supposed to measure learning, but they actually take away from learning, then grades really accomplish nothing. They are also supposed to create motivation to learn, but actually end up just creating motivation to earn good grades, especially in college. Without any type of grading system in place for grades K-12, we wouldn’t know how well students are making progress in the classroom or understanding the topics that are being taught to them; however, many times the focus of students is not on the material they are learning with our current grading system. Grades measure the ability to get good grades, and little else.

According to James D. Allen states in vol. 78 of The Clearing House’s Grades as Valid Measures of Academic Achievement of Classroom Learning, that the main goal classrooms have is to gain academic knowledge in a particular subject. By grading students’ work, teachers get to see who is absorbing the information they teach. Kyle Spencer states in Education Digest’s Standards-Based Grading that “grades were designed to see which students should be promoted to the next level.” Recording grades is a way to this. Writing grades on a academic report displays the student’s academic achievement over a course of study, and compares students to one another so we know where the bar is supposed to be set for the entire class. Since a written record of grades is recorded for each student, then guidance counselors, other teachers, parents, employers, and colleges have access to see what level of knowledge students have in a certain subject. Several different grading systems exist, and the one used commonly today is the ineffective.

The system currently used in most schools is the traditional A-F letter scale system, where students are rewarded with an A for satisfying the teacher’s standards, and those who do not satisfy standards are left with an F, leaving the work in between with a B,C, or D. Each subject they take earns one letter.  This system often takes missing assignments, homework, attendance, compliance to rules, and participation into consideration. For example, let’s say that a 7th grader finishes with a B+ in a science class. We don’t know how much of that grade is determined by factors other than academic knowledge, which demonstrates how students easily manipulate the system. We don’t know whether that student actually absorbed almost all of the course material, gathered just enough material to make good arguments, had perfect attendance and completed all assignments but didn’t do particularly well on tests, or gathered little and argues poorly but did better than other classmates who are even worse. Allen notes that some teachers believe that “effort, student conduct, and attitude” should influence final grades, since they want students to be well-rounded. Each teacher sets their own standard to what they perceive is a good student. Yes, they still measure academic knowledge, but include other factors that are not relevant to that knowledge. This can potentially leave grading practices unpredictable. Sometimes important life decisions are made based off a student’s grade, so it’s critical that grades are predictable and valid.

One important life decision that is directly impacted by grades is picking a college to go to. Corrine Ruff states in Why Do Colleges Still Use Grades?  that grades are a “quick and dirty way of summarizing student outcomes for parents, graduate schools, and employers. ” The main factor colleges look at when deciding whether to accept or decline students is their GPA. Colleges want to see how students performed in subjects to see if they will be a good fit for their school. This provides motivation for students to achieve high grades. If students want to get into their dream college, then they need to work hard. The belief behind using grades as a motivation that is that using grades as consequences motivates students to want to do well. If students earn good grades, they will be rewarded, and if they don’t, there will be negative consequences. By placing so much pressure on students to earn a high GPA, learning is not a main priority for students. They don’t focus on how they can understand complex topics, but more on how they can get an A on their next test or assignment. If grades are supposed to be used as motivation to get into a good school or impress your parents, then why are they still used in college?

Corrine Ruff states in Why Do Colleges Still Use Grades?, that grades originated in the 19th century in an industry-focused economy. Employers wanted to hire people who understood how to process things, so using a traditional method of grading was efficient. In our current economy, jobs are more information based. Instructors and employers are more focused on what information students learn and what they can do with that knowledge, which is why employers aren’t necessarily concerned with GPAs. They know that a GPA doesn’t define what a student has learned. A more modernized system, especially for colleges, might be beneficial.

Most college students aren’t as concerned with their grades as they were in grade school and high school because the motivation factor is gone. They already got into college, so they don’t need a high GPA. They are adults now, so approval from their parents is less concerning to them. They also that know employers usually don’t look at GPAs. College students are more self-motivated. They are paying for their education, so not taking advantage of it would be a complete waste of money; therefore, actually wanting to learn becomes more prominent. College students want to learn the information and skills that will help to land them a successful job, and grades can actually get in the way of that. Ruff notes that, “grades actually get in the way of student learning. When professors cap the number of top-end grades, he argues, students enter into a fierce competition with one another, and so their interest in learning the actual material wanes.” So why not change the system? Making a more modernized system that measures mastery in each subject specifically, and maybe employers will be interested in looking at grades.

The traditional grading system, which rates students on a letter scale to measure their learning, is not effective for measuring how well students learn. Not only is the system pointless for college institutions, it can actually prevent students from learning in the grade school and high school level. Most of us agree that there needs to be something in place to measure how well a student learns for teachers, parents, and employers. Alfie Kohn states in “The Case Against GRADES,” that collecting information doesn’t require tests, and sharing that information doesn’t require grades.” In other words, better options are available to share a student’s learning with those who are concerned. The traditional grading system measures how well a student can earn grades based on a teacher’s standards, and hinders them from learning.

Kohn, in the “The Case Against GRADES,” points out that one of the reasons the traditional grading system does not do a good job of encouraging students to learn is that it takes away students’ interest in a given subject. They do not care about the content itself, but rather if the content will show up on their next test or assignment. If we implemented a system other than the traditional grading system, students would be choosing what’s important to learn on different priorities, not just by asking the question, “is this going to be on the test?” The system also prevents students from taking “intellectual risks.” For example, grades can make students take the easy way out when given an assignment. If given the choice to do a project on a topic that the student is familiar with versus a topic that they never heard of before, chances are the student will choose the familiar one in hopes of getting a high grade. Grades are supposed to be a motivation tool, but they only provide motivation for gaining the ability to earn good grades, not learning.

Students know how to work the system when it comes to grades. It is easy for them to quickly pick up on how a teacher grades. With the current system, teachers grade very differently. They can set their own standards and expectations. Most teachers include other factors in their curriculum that have nothing to do with how much a student learns in a subject. For example, students can realize that if they show up to class, are on their best behavior, and show that they are putting in at least some effort, they can earn a good grade without not actually learning much at all. For example, students could possibly earn an A in a social studies class by being loud and aggressive in classroom debates. Or maybe students can earn a A on english paper by figuring out that adding in a lot of quotations in their work will impress their teacher, but the overall quality of the paper isn’t good. Being loud in debates and copying quotations doesn’t show mastery in any academic subject. This teaches students the wrong mindset for the future. If students know how to get good grades, then there is no motivation for learning. After all, parents care only about grades and colleges care only about high GPAs, so why would students care about actually learning if they know how to get good grades? Kohn states that “Grades don’t prepare students for the real world—unless one has in mind a world where interest in learning and quality of thinking are unimportant.”

Although one of the primary purposes of grading is to provide motivation, grades can discourage students, creating a factor that serves as yet another distraction to learning. Being constantly compared to the grades their classmates receive can significantly lower self-esteem. Students who continuously receive low grades may see that as a reason to stop trying, especially if a single low grade ruins their chances of getting a good final grade in the class. Theodore Carey and James Carifio note in “Minimum Grading, Maximum Learning,” that “students who expend high effort and fail will often work to protect their perception of their ability by adopting avoidance strategies. If exerting high effort is seen as a threat to self-worth, exerting low effort becomes a way of preserving it.” So if someone spends a lot of time and effort on an assignment, but receives a low grade, then the chances are low that the same amount of effort will be used on the next assignment. The amount of effort a student gives revolves back to the main problem with grades. If grades were not focused on the ability to receive good grades, then effort would not be as big as an issue.

The only goal for students is to perform well enough in the classroom to get them to the next step in their education. Usually, students do not have a desire to learn information and skills that will help them in the real world, since all they have been taught is the importance to earn good grades.  As stated in “The Case Against GRADES,” “The more students are led to focus on how well they’re doing, the less engaged they tend to be with what they are doing.” Focusing on what grades are earned instead of what is being learned can lead students to have a hard time adjusting. Realizing that grades are not as important as they were said to be, college students now have to be fully engaged in what they are doing, while still having grades in the back of their mind as a distraction.

Even though the idea of completely getting rid of a traditional grading system may sound good, it leaves a very valid concern for us to consider. Any new system must encourage effort without grading for effort. As noted in “An Examination of the Impact of Grading Policies on Students’ Achievement,” the original purpose of the traditional grading system was to “motivate students to work harder” by grading them on the amount of effort they give. That model inappropriately rewards work alone instead of measuring results. In the real world, it’s important to many employers to hire someone who is hard-working, motivated, and can work well with co-workers, compared to someone who is very intelligent but is lazy and doesn’t know how to work well with people. The solution is to keep grades for k-12 that encourage effort and good behavior instead of grading it. In other words, a system that gives the best grades to students who act like good employees: standards-based grading.

The main goal of standards-based grading is measure a student’s level of “mastery” in a subject.  It’s based on a set of standards, which doesn’t include teachers’ own preferences for what they want to include in their grades. Factors like effort, homework, attendance, participation, and behavior are not included in these standards, which makes grades focused on academic achievement only. Instead of clumping in several different factors that don’t pertain to academics, it breaks down every subject into sections that students receive a grade in. For example, in “Standards-Based Grading” Kyle Spencer shows a sample report card for a science class. The science class is broken down into sections that include, ” the basis of scientific inquiry, continuity of life and the changes of organisms over time, unity and diversity of life, and ecological relationships among organisms.” Students are graded on each individual topic to see how of each subject they grasp. Standards-based grading is much more predictable, since students’ GPAs are not altered by any other factors besides how well they understand concepts. Although standards-based grading is more predictable is in measurement, it is still easy to wonder how effort is incorporated into this system.

Although there are some exceptions, most people are not born geniuses. The majority of students will have to work hard to fully understand subjects. With standards-based grading, it’s very hard for students to “cheat the system.” With the traditional system, students know that by showing they put in effort, it can cause a teacher to boost their grade. They aren’t actually putting in effort to learn, but rather to please their teacher and earn a high grade. On the other hand, the standards based system puts more emphasis on students to be more interested in what they learn. For example, if a student is being graded on the topic of “physical, chemical, and cellular basis of life,” then that student has to have done plenty of research on that specific topic before receiving mastery. Students have to put in effort with the standards-based system to learn complicated concepts if they want to be successful. But what motivates students to want be successful?

One of the biggest motivational factors for students when a standards-based system is in place is getting into college. Students can strive to earn high GPAs that only include mastery in several subjects. Standards-based grading makes students more prepared for college and the real world. Not only does it make sure students fully understand topics, but it provides a sense of more self-motivation. Students are more focused on putting in effort for themselves so they can get into college and eventually land a good job. With the traditional system, students will often only show effort to please their parents and teachers, since they are graded on it. In the real world, people don’t have someone to watch over them to make sure they put in effort.

More predictable grades not only help students out, but also help out colleges. For example, colleges can be sure they are accepting a student who fully understands subjects. With a traditional system, they wouldn’t be able to tell if the student they accepted earned straight A’s, but 50% of those A’s came from factors that had nothing to do with learning. Standards-based grading is also beneficial when working towards a college system with no grades at all.

Currently, employers don’t necessarily look at GPAs from college when looking for potential people to hire, so why have grades at all? Employers want someone who is knowledgable, hardworking, and knows how to deal with people. With a traditional system, its’ impossible to tell how hard-working or knowledgeable a person is, since everything is clumped together. With the standards-based system, at least we can be 100% certain that a person is knowledgeable and understands important concepts, and most of the time, the person had to put in hard work to achieve these things. This is why it makes more sense to not have grades in college when schools use a standards-based system. We know that students who get into college already have the skills to obtain knowledge in given areas. Professors can provide written feedback on assignments, but not necessarily give students letter or number grades. This leaves college students to only focus on what they’re learning so they an be successful in their career paths.

Works Cited

Allen, James D. “Grades as Valid Measures of Academic Achievement of Classroom Learning.” Clearing House, vol. 78, no. 5, May/June 2005, pp. 218-223.

Carey, Theodore, and James Carifio. “Minimum Grading, Maximum Learning.” Principal Leadership 11.7 (2011): 42-46. Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 20 Feb. 2017.

Elikai, Fara, and Peter W. Schuhmann. “An Examination of the Impact of Grading Policies on Students’ Achievement.” Issues in Accounting Education 25.4 (2010): 677-93. ProQuest. Web. 20 Apr. 2017.

Kohn, Alfie. “The Case Against GRADES.” Educational Leadership 69.3 (2011): 28-33. Educational Administration Abstracts. Web. 6 Feb. 2017.

How Much Information Is Too Much 

         Facebook and all technology is a luxury and entertainment item in our lives. Our society revolves around internet and technology. If we like it or not our world is evolving and making advancements that force us to use technology. Social media plays an important role in impacting our views and beliefs and allowing us to seek help, advice and guidance from people we have never meet. Facebook allows anyone with an account to view their “friends” page and find any information they would like to know about the person. That is why it is extremely important when posting personal information about yourself that we keep it limited. We never know who is on the other end of the screen and what information they are looking for that will result in dangers. In the article “Dangers of Myspace and Facebook with Sexual Predators” by Micah McDunnigan, he talks about sexual predators hiding behind fake profiles to lure victims, using their profile information to stalk the victims in real life or evening hacking into account to blackmail them.

        Facebook has become the “go to” social media networking site in the world allowing people to connect with family members from across the country, meeting people with the same beliefs and views either politically or spiritually, or reuniting with those you went to high school or college years ago. Facebook receives hundreds of new members everyday, it has hit a billion users after nine years since it first launched. Even though there is no way to entirely eliminate the dangers of predators on Facebook users can take precautions from becoming victims. Users should take steps to make sure there privacy settings are on and only people they know in the real world can see their profile and what they are posting. By having a secure password and changing it often users can lower the chances of someone hacking them. Finally users can protect themselves by only talking to people they know outside of social media.

       Today’s generation has had the privilege of growing up with the latest technology which allows them to learn how to use most electronic devices before adults and parents can figure it out. This experience has allowed today’s generation to become so comfortable with posting personal information online thinking that they cannot be touched because they are behind a screen. Teens feel an element of control and invincibility by sharing personal information they have chosen to share. They are so caught up with the feeling of control and popularity they find online instead of the real world that they allow anyone to befriend them through social media. “52 percent of online teens say they have had an experience online that made them feel good about themselves.” Not realizing who they are allowing to follow them they are exposing themselves to the dangers of sexual predators accessing their personal information. Facebook does not provide enough security and privacy settings that will completely block predators from viewing their profile page.

Teenagers tend to have the most Facebook “friends” compared to adults. According to the article “The Dangers of Facebook” the average Facebook user has 135 friends, each of those friends has average of 135 friends as well. Most teenagers and young adults don’t realize that sharing posts with your “friends” is not safe because it exposes all your posts to tens of thousands of strangers. The average Facebook user is connected to 80 community pages, groups and events says “Eye Guardian“. Facebook accounts should be monitored by parents because your child’s protection and well-being is at stake. A parent’s job is to protect their child and do everything they can to prevent them from harm. It is extremely important for a parent to maintain active in their child’s lives online and in the real world.

       Before Facebook became popular sexual predators would have to leave their house seeking their next victim. Now they do not even have to leave their house lowering their chances of anyone seeing their face and getting themselves caught. Young adults are prime targets they are at a stage in their lives were their parents give them enough freedom where parents are not hovering over their child’s every move. They also act on impulse causing them to post everything that comes to mind even when they know it might get them in trouble. Young adults do not notice that even posting things about their personality traits or likes and dislikes might draw predators. Predators often target a certain group that attracts them. It might be blonde hair, blue eyes, and girls that have bubbly personalities. It also might be brown hair, brown eyed girls that are attracted to having the spotlight on themselves and like attention. It all depends on what the predator is attracted to. It usually is related to someone that has come through their lives and has made a big enough impact, either in a good or bad way, that has made them go for a certain type.

        The Internet is becoming a dangerous place for teenagers and young adults whose online profiles attract sexual predators. The U.S Department of Justice has joined with nonprofit groups to promote public service campaigns to warn those using Facebook that personal information posted online can lead to abductions and sexual abuse. Facebook has allowed sexual predators to attract victims from the comfort of their homes. Predators are able to learn about their victims solely from their posts on their profile: they learn about their likes or dislike, personality traits, and day to day routines. Predators have websites of their own to talk anonymously to one another on different ways to attract victims and where and who are the easiest targets. It is extremely important for teenagers and young adults to pay close attention to what they are sharing online and who they are sharing it with.

         According to the Journal of Adolescent Research the news is filled with stories of the dangers that exist for teenagers and young adults today. From the risks of drugs, alcohol, and risky sexual behavior, we now add the dangers the internet brings: predators, lurkers, and access to inappropriate information. Young girls are blindly posting personal information about their daily routines and their identities, setting themselves up for disaster. They are single handily giving predators everything they need to know to gravitate towards them, making them easy targets. Despite all the dangers, online communication is used by almost 2.1 billon users worldwide causing the young generation to spend most of their time indoors and in front of their electronic devices instead of outside and being active.

       When teenagers are on social media they feel a sense of freedom and the ability to express themselves that they might not feel due to stress of fitting in and being “normal”. The ability to fit-in during teenage years can be stressful to some that they find outlets through social media. Facebook is where these vulnerable teens open up to others they might have never talked to before or even just some random stranger. Looking for someone that can relate to their issues teens attract to anyone that gives them the attention they are seeking for. This can lead the teenager to be in potential dangers due to being unaware of who they are talking to and who the stranger really is and what their intentions are.

        Media stories about online predators who use the Internet to gain access to young victims have become a reoccurring news headline since the late 1990s, when internet use by teenagers became wild fire. These cases usually consist of sexual predators using information publicly broadcasted to identify potential targets, they then contact them using false identities to cover up their age and intentions. They then persuade the teen to meet them or stalk and abduct them. The article “Online Predators and Their Victims” states that news reports have suggested that law enforcement is facing an epidemic of these sex crimes perpetrated through a new medium by a new type of criminal.

       Sexual predators have become very good hackers. A recent story by the Associated Press says predators in Indonesia were using Facebook to collect young teenage girls, and then kidnap and traffic them. When a 14-year-old girl received a Facebook friend request from an older man, she accepted it out of curiosity. The girl was quickly attracted to the attention the older man was giving her. They exchanged phone numbers and the predator convinced the young teen to meet him at a mall. This led to the young girl facing up against a 24 year old predator, he kidnapped, drugged and raped her. According to the article, there were seven more girls that month who fell into the same exact trap. Young teenagers are too trusting in Facebook. They think no harm can happen in talking to random people online. Teenagers have to be very carful who they are allowing to follow them and how much personal information they are posting.

        It is challenging to detect who can be a threat or not on Facebook, especially when teenagers main concern is how many “followers or friends” they have on Facebook. Teenagers have this outlook that if they have the most friends on social media they are popular in real life. This is one thing that sex offenders look for, the number of friends or followers the at risk teens have, if the number is high they know that they will accept anyone. Teenagers need to make sure they are only allowing those they communicate with in the real world to follow them on Facebook. Predators may also use the contact information from the victims profile to arrange meetings in real life, where then they can strike and victimize their target. This is why it is extremely important when setting up a Facebook account that you manage your privacy settings where only the people you befriend can see your posts.

        Sexual Predators can use Facebook to take their actions a step further to physically stalk their victims. This is why when posting it is very important to keep in mind to avoid posting where events are taking place and at what times and turn the location off in your privacy settings. In Micah McDunnigan’s article he states the dangers of posting personal information and interests and schedules. Predators can then use this information to locate and stalk their victims in the real world and not just online. According to an article in the Journal of Adolescent Health quoted by Enough is Enough, 65 percent of online sex offenders used social media sites to collect home and school information about their victims. Posting the at risk teens location makes it especially easy for a predators to find them.

      Online offenders differ from offline offenders in demographic and psychological variables. Online offenders were more likely to be Caucasian and were slightly younger than offline offenders. According to the article “The Characteristics of Online Sex Offenders: A Meta-Analysis” online offenders had greater victim empathy, greater sexual deviancy, and lower impression management than offline offenders. Online offenders have been categorized as those who use the Internet to initiate contact with minors. The Internet is another way that allows sexual offenders easy access to child pornography and potential victims. Online offenders are found to be better educated and more intelligent than offline offenders. Psychological studies have shown that online offenders also have fewer cognitive distortions and greater empathy than offline offenders.

       The U.S Supreme Court considers whether social media is a privilege or a right in modern society. North Carolina is one of five states where convicted sex offenders are not permitted to use social networking sites. And in the article “Do Sex Offenders Have A Free Speech Right To Use Facebook” by Allee Manning, Lester Packingham Jr. did just that he simply posted about a traffic ticket dismissal to warrant his arrest. He violated North Carolina’s law of protection of past and potential victims. Social media sites are an access point for those targeting teenagers and many as four percent of youths aged 10-15 have received unwanted sexual claims according to a 2008 survey. Almost everyone is on Facebook that it has become second nature to having internet access. This meaning that a majority of criminals are signed up as well. Jam Kotenko talks about the scary reality that most sex offenders count on that Facebook can not control you joins. According to a report, the number of sexual assault cases has reached a high in only four years since 2009 reports have increased form 139 to 164. Half of the cases involved victims under the age of 16 according to Jam Kotenko article “Scary Statistics Show that Sex Offenders are Taking Over Social Media.”

      Some might say that parents can not control and monitor every move their child makes in their lives. And those parents that do, are labeled as the “controlling” and “overbearing” parents that tend to push their kids into wondering off and rebelling during their teenage years. Being that these teens were never able to make decisions for themselves do to their overbearing parents they start to experiment and follow those they tend to see as the “cool kids”. Middle and High School are were young teenagers tend to experiment now that they have built their mindsets and their personalities are starting to form. Social Media users are majority of the time young teenagers talking about their likes/dislikes, activities going on in school or after, or where everyone is hanging out this weekend. It is also where drama tends to start the most.

       This is a serious problem that requires parental control and developmentally prevention strategies for teens. It is imperative that young teens are informed with awareness and avoidance skills while still educating older teens about sexual relationships with adults and warning signs. In the N-JOV study, 73% of victims who had face to face encounters with sexual predators, did so more than once. There were 6,594 arrests nationwide for statutory rape in 2000. “Myths,realties, and implications for Prevention and Treatment” recored 500 arrests for Internet-Initiated sex crimes, 95% of which were unforced. Internet-Initiated sex crimes account for 7% of all statutory rape arrests.

     Parents can only control their children so much because they have to let them make their own mistakes and learn from their consequences. Although parents can prevent horrific events from happening to their children by informing them and constantly reminding them of the dangers that can occur in this world. Parents can speak to their children about “How Much Information Is Too Much” by warning them to not talk or befriend strangers, not sharing their location, or posting where you are going to be at a certain time. Parents also have the right to look through their teens profile page and make sure they are not posting anything that can potentially put them-self in harms way. It is essential to have an open and trusting relationship with your child where they can open up about their feelings and understand the do’s and don’ts of Facebook.

       Parents can only warn and protect their child to a certain extent. It is the teens responsible to understand and be aware that they are not invincible just because they are behind a screen. Teens have this belief that horrific events will not happen to them but what most do not understand is every teen believes the same yet social media accidents happen more often than anyone thinks. According to Pure Sight Statistics one in five U.S teenagers who regularly visit Facebook say they have received an unwanted sexual solicitation. Solicitations were defined as requests to engage in sexual activities or sexual talk, or give out personal sexual information. 75% of children are willing to share personal information online about themselves and their family in exchange for goods and services.  It is extremely important to apply privacy settings to your Facebook account. It does not fully protect you from all social media predators but it does help and make you less of a target.

        As a parent it is very important to notice the warning signs when your child is suffering from a social media dilemma. One of the most important signs are changes in school work, grades slipping. Another sign is losing sleep, your child might be constantly tired or complaining to get up in the morning. If you notice that your child is distracted most of the times and always has their mind else where, these signs are crucial for parents to talk to their teens and find out what is going on and try to resolve the situation. Parents talking to their teens and warning them of Facebook dangers can be the make or break decision weather your child is a victim of social media predators.

Work Citied

O’Donnell, Andy. “Know the Dangers of Oversharing on Facebook.” Lifewire. N.p., n.d.   Web. 27 Feb. 2017.

Manning, Allee. “Is Using Facebook A Free Speech Right? Supreme Court Weighs Case.” Vocativ. Vocativ, 01 Mar. 2017. Web. 06 Mar. 2017.

There is an island of garbage in the Pacific Ocean that is nearly twice the size of Texas. While it is not the only garbage patch, or trash vortex in the world, The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is the largest accumulation of garbage on earth and it is getting larger every day. Litter from Los Angeles to Japan ends up in the ocean and accumulates in one large heap due to ocean currents. Although the patch is the result of worldwide neglect, it seems that nobody wants to take responsibility for it. The great Pacific Garbage Patch is a stain on the Earth and an embarrassment to humanity. Worldwide attention needs to be given to cleaning up the patch to prevent planet-altering consequences.

Human beings make a lot of trash. In an article on ocean debris, National Geographic reported that roughly eight million tons of plastic made its way into the ocean. That is eight million tons of potential microplastic fibers. Microplastic is a term used to describe small splinter-like pieces of plastic in the ocean. Since plastic does not decompose, the plastic is at the mercy of the sun and the ocean waves. Over time the plastic breaks down into tiny pieces of plastic, this process is called photodegradation.

Microplastics are very bad for the environment. Microplastics are not like most other plastic in that they are not one hundred percent buoyant. In other words, the tiny particles float freely in the current. One theory is that it is like an iceberg, where the majority of the mass lies below, stretching down. The patch is immeasurably large, because there is no way to calculate how far down or how far out the cloud of plastic garbage stretches.

This cloud of microplastics is growing larger and larger with every piece of plastic that enters the ocean. If the cloud gets big enough, it could effect the environment in irreversible ways. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch will keep growing until it is big enough to block out the sun in certain areas of the ocean. This would cause families of plankton to be killed. Phytoplankton feed on energy from the sun, without sunlight the phytoplankton will die. In his article on Earthobservatory.nasa.gov, Robert Simmon states those phytoplankton are the foundation of the aquatic food web. If phytoplankton are being killed by the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, many species of fish could be killed, or even go extinct.

Blocking out the sun is not the only problem that plastic debris can have on the environment. Author Jocelyn Kaiser wrote for science magazine that the plastics could leach toxins into the ocean. BPA plastics are known to have unhealthy chemicals in them, and those toxins would be released into the ocean, harming marine life.

Microplastics are detrimental to the wildlife of the ocean. Animals of every kind consume these plastic pieces, mistaking them for food. The plastic then stays in the system of the animal, and eventually lead to death. Fish eat the plastics, mistaking them for plankton or smaller fish. Sea birds will often feed the microplastics to their hatchlings, thinking they are fish eggs. Microplastics are the cause of millions of cases of punctured organs, and death in millions of animals.

New York Times published an article by Lindsey Hoshaw saying that the toxins from the plastics could end up harming human beings as well. When the fish mistake the pieces of plastic for plankton, they ingest the chemicals and toxins. Hoshaw goes on to say that those fish can transfer the toxins into the predator that eats it. In this case, human beings are the predator. The fish that is served to millions of people every day is potentially contaminated with toxic chemicals from the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

Charles Moore discovered the Great Pacific Garbage Patch in 1997. The reason it took people so long to find it is because the plastic sits just below the surface. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is not exactly an island of garbage. The microplatics sit below the surface, making the patch invisible to satellite imagery. Basically, human beings have been creating this massive problem for an immeasurable amount of time. The garbage patch has been growing for decades, and it is not being dealt with.

Cleanup efforts have been made in the past, but none have been successful. According to howstuffworks.com in an article by Julia Layton, most experts believe that cleaning up the patch is next to impossible. Three problems arise when the great pacific garbage patch is studied. The first problem is that the patch would be incredibly expensive to clean up. The patch is in the middle of the ocean, hence why it took so long to find it, so boats would be needed. The fuel for the cleanup boats alone would bankrupt any organization that decided to take the challenge of cleaning the patch.

The second problem with cleaning the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is that it is so incredibly massive. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is about two times the size of Texas. Experts say it may even be larger, due to the fact that the depth of the patch is unknown. The patch is simply too big, and the cleanup would take a very long time.

The third problem is the microplastic. Photodegradation results in trillions of tiny plastic fibers. Layton compares cleaning the microplastics out of the ocean to cleaning sand particles out of a Jacuzzi. No cleanup crew has been able to overcome those three problems. If a solution could satisfy those needs, it could solve the garbage patch issue.

Because of these three issues, no country has been willing to undertake the task of cleaning up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. The patch is the result of years of worldwide neglect, and shortsightedness. The patch is the fault of human beings and human beings alone, and thus should be the responsibility of human beings. No one group is responsible for the trash. The entire world has been throwing garbage into the ocean for years, and it is getting to be the time to face the consequences.

The Geneva Convention is a term that is used to refer to a set of rules that are recognized around the globe. These conventions contain things such as war crimes. An example of this is chemical warfare. Chemical warfare is illegal according to the Geneva Convention. After World War One, everybody saw how devastating and uncontrollable chemical weapons could be, and decided that they should be banned. The world collectively agreed on something, and that was a beautiful moment in human history. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is a problem of the same magnitude. It is an ever-growing cloud of pollution in the oceans of the world, and humanity is almost turning a blind eye. It is a problem caused by countries around the globe, and should be dealt with as a collective effort.

No one country has come to take responsibility for the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Unsurprisingly, the nations of the world are not lining up to take on a large-scale, expensive project such as this. That is an understandable notion, which is why the patch should be a worldwide effort. If the countries of the globe were united for the purposes of the betterment of society, the Garbage Patch would not be so expensive. With the combined economies and minds of the world, the garbage patch becomes a much smaller problem.

Having the support of the nations of the world would also solve the size issue. Compared to the entire globe, Texas is not very big. If every country sent a fleet of clean up barges, it would only be a matter of time before the garbage was collected, however the patch problem would still not be solved.

The problem with clean up boats is in the microplastics, and the other debris that is below the surface. Clean up boats can only do so much when presented with a problem this massive. Boats with nets could not, as put by Layton, clean sand out of a Jacuzzi. The plastic is the root of the issue. With the intangible pieces, and the blockage of the sun, and the leeching toxins, the plastic is the single worst thing that has happened to the ocean.

If the plastic is the root of the issue, than it could possibly be the root of the solution as well. One idea for the restoration of the ocean is to make plastic manufacturing more expensive. If big factories have to pay more for the plastic that they use, they would be likely to look into cheaper alternatives, such as biodegradable plant products. Some plant-based products are just as versatile and useful as plastic, but they are not used as often due to their hefty price tag. If the price for plastic were raised above the price for green plastic alternatives, the global plastic manufacturing would slow to a halt.

The raised price on plastic could come in the form of a plastic tax. Any company that exceeds a certain amount of plastic produced in a year would have to pay a fee. The money paid in the fee would go towards the cleanup efforts of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, as well as research to find a solution for removing the existing microplastics.

Microplsatics present a unique problem. They are unlike any issue that mankind has had to face yet, and thus require a solution that is unlike any that mankind has come up with. An unorthodox problem requires an unorthodox solution. If the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is a Jacuzzi, and the plastic is the sand, treat the problems equally. What would the solution be to getting sand out of a Jacuzzi? The answer is a filter.

An example of an unorthodox solution can be found in the Jones Falls River of Baltimore City. Baltimore City has a trash problem, as many cities in the United States do. All kinds of trash from cigarette butts to traffic cones can be found in the harbor of Baltimore city, much of which has washed in from the Jones Falls River. The Jones Falls River flows directly through Baltimore City, and as it does so it becomes filled with garbage. The garbage is then sent straight into the harbor, or at least it used to be.

Mr. Trash Wheel is a barge that rests at the end of the Jones Falls River. As the Trash flows down the river, it is funneled into the mouth of this barge. Using solar panels, and the current of the river, the Trash Wheel collects all of the garbage and puts it into a dumpster. Essentially, Mr. Trash Wheel is a gigantic filter. As of today, the trash wheel has collected 367,930 plastic bottles, 459,927 polystyrene containers, 8,905,600 cigarette butts, 6,394 glass bottles, 251,217 plastic bags, 338,079 chip bags. The garbage patch is then incinerated to help produce electricity for the city of Baltimore. Mr. Trash wheel proved to be so effective for the City of Baltimore, that another one was installed in the city of Annapolis.

The Trash collected by Mr. Trash wheel is all surface garbage, meaning it is unlike the microplastics found in the garbage patch, but that does not mean that the lessons learned from Mr. Trash wheel are completely non applicable to the situation of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Utilizing the power of clean energy, Mr. Trash wheel has cleaned up the waters of Baltimore city. If funding was given into research on that topic, a clean solution could be found for cleaning up the microplastics below the surface. In the form of some kind of filter, a Mr. Trash Wheel 2.0 could be the solution.

Between adding the plastic tax, and designing a clean energy-powered machine, there is a lot of work to be done to clean up the garbage patch. That is the reason that the patch needs to be on the minds of the leaders of the world. If the patch became a worldwide effort, adding the plastic tax would be feasible, and the research required to clean up the microplastic would better society forever.

This is all very optimistic thinking. Getting the attention of the world is not an easy task, and it is rarely done. It took chemical weapons to get the attention required for the Geneva Convention; hopefully the garbage patch does not have to take the lives of people in the same way to gain the attention it deserves.

The nations of the world are acting like children who broke something expensive when it comes to the garbage patch. Every country is blaming one another and cannot see that it is not the fault of any one nation. Nobody is claiming responsibility even though everybody is in fact responsible.

Politicians have made conservation efforts for years. Theodore Roosevelt invented the National Parks service to protect the beautiful landscapes of America from development. When animals are endangered, they get special treatment and breeding to renew their species. Why is it that the ocean is not treated with the same respect?

The ocean is one of the single most important things on this earth. No living thing can survive without water. The ocean is what makes Earth unique from the other planets in the solar system, and human beings use it as a trash can.

It is an easy problem to ignore for now. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch was not even truly discovered until 1997. This means that the patch had not yet made a noticeable impact on the ecosystem of the ocean. After all, a pile of garbage halfway around the world is hardly a pressing matter, or at least that’s how it’s viewed.

The most frustrating thing about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is that it is not a problem that should have happened in the first place. Pollution is not unavoidable if everybody treats the earth with the respect that it deserves. The Great Pacific Garbage patch is the sole fault of a lack of attention. Entire ecosystems are put at risk because of a lack of attention. Human beings are lazy and arrogant, and just throw their trash wherever they want, and the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is what comes of that sort of behavior.

The patch is not a problem that should have happened at all, and human being should be embarrassed that it exists. Human beings like to think of themselves as the only important life on Earth, but that simply is not true. The fact that throwing garbage into the ocean is so common that there is an island of over one million tons of trash is unacceptable behavior. Human beings made a mistake and it is time for human beings to fix it and make sure it never happens again.

The fact of the matter is that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is like a cancer tumor on the earth. It is growing every day and making itself into a bigger issue than it was the day before. It is a problem that requires worldwide attention and effort, despite its costs. The patch will not be an easy problem to solve, but solving it is necessary. A mistake was made by the human race in the form of pollution, and it needs to be fixed.

Works Cited:

Hoshaw, Lindsay. “Afloat in the Ocean, Expanding Islands of Trash.” New York Times. 10 Nov. 2009. Web. 06 Feb. 2017

Campbell, Colin. “Rank record: Mr. Trash Wheel gathers 1 millionth pound of trash from Jones Falls.” Baltimoresun.com. N.p., 20 Oct. 2016. Web. 19 Feb. 2017.

Parker, Laura. “Eight Million Tons of Plastic Dumped in Ocean Every Year.” National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 14 Apr. 2015. Web 19 April, 2017

SImmon, Robert. “What are Phytoplankton.” NASA. Earth Observatory. 13 July, 2010

“Ocean Trash: 5.25 Trillion Pieces and Counting, but Big Questions Remain.” National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 24 Mar. 2017. Web. 27 Mar. 2017

Layton, Julia. “Could We Clean Up the Great Pacific Gatbage Patch?” Hoestuffworks Science. Howstuffworks, 04 Feb. 2010. Web.

People Need Planned Parenthood

P1. One of the greatest things about the United States is that we have such accessible healthcare.  Over the years former president, Barack Obama, did a wonderful job with the creation of Obamacare, which provides healthcare to millions of individuals all across the country.  Along with Obamacare, there is another institution that a plentitude of individuals turn to everyday, and that is Planned Parenthood.  Although Planned Parenthood is known mostly for abortions, it’s main purpose is actually to deliver various medical services to people who might not be able to afford such services on their own.  According to the Planned Parenthood website, “The clinics also provide many other healthcare services to women, men and children.” Recently, our current President Donald Trump spoke of cutting government spending on Planned Parenthood completely.  Such a drastic change with the healthcare system would strongly impact millions of people who might not be able to always afford healthcare.  Planned Parenthood has become a vital and established institution that provides many benefits for United States citizens, and if it were to be defunded, an extremely negative chain reaction would occur.  If the government chooses to defund Planned Parenthood, millions will lose access to healthcare, sexually transmitted diseases could become an epidemic, and women will lose their ability to get abortions under the Hyde Amendment.

P2. In today’s society people tend to only think about the information that is put right in front of them.  This tendency really has negatively impacted Planned Parenthood’s livelihood.  Most of what is heard about Planned Parenthood is that it’s main purpose is to provide abortions.  While that is true, it is not the main reason this institution was created.  Planned Parenthood was first founded as a birth control clinic, by women’s rights activist Margaret Sanger, in the early 1900s.  The clinic came to fruition right after birth control had become legal in the United States.  Back in these times the main forms of contraception were male and female condoms, since the pill was not fully developed yet.  Sanger’s goal was to make women aware of their bodies and their reproductive systems. In the following quote, the author’s at biography.com relay how Sanger first started off her feminist movement, “Sanger started her campaign to educate women about sex in 1912 by writing a newspaper column called “What Every Girl Should Know.”  This column was what started her movement towards women’s rights.  Sanger’s passion for women’s rights is what ultimately got the ball rolling with the major development of Planned Parenthood as a nationwide known and trusted institution.

P3. From the start, Margaret Sanger’s goal was to make women not have to suffer through getting pregnant and having to undergo illegal abortions.  Sanger wanted to stop the pregnancies before they happened, to prevent even the thought of an abortion from coming into play.  Information provided by Planned Parenthood itself says that, “Through her work, Sanger treated a number of women who had undergone back-alley abortions or tried to self-terminate their pregnancies. Sanger objected to the unnecessary suffering endured by these women, and she fought to make birth control information and contraceptives available.”  Sanger saw first hand what these women had to go through and wanted to put an end to it once and for all.  Her passion created a wonderful institution that has now grown to not only treat women, but men and teenagers as well. 

P4. Planned Parenthood has been a trusted healthcare provider for many years, and continues to provide outstanding service to it’s patients.  “The organization’s earliest roots date back to 1916, when social activist and nurse Margaret Sanger opened the first birth control and family planning centre in Brooklyn, New York, at a time when contraception and abortion were illegal.” This institution has been a trusted organization for over one hundred years now, and it should continue to stay that way.  With such passion and devotion, Sanger created an institution that revolutionized women’s healthcare forever.  Now in present day, not only does Planned Parenthood provide reproductive care for women, but men as well.

P5. Currently, Planned Parenthood provides many different healthcare services.  A lot of social media focuses on how Planned Parenthood is the highest abortion provider in the United States, “In its 2013-2014 report, the organization said while it provided over 327,000 abortions procedures, that amounted to just 3% of its overall services provided.”  While yes, this is true, what people might not know is that this institution also prevents hundreds of thousands of unwanted pregnancies per year.  The goal of Planned Parenthood is to stop unwanted pregnancies from occurring, so that abortions do not need to be performed.  That is why they provide birth control and sexual education to millions of women and men all over the world.  Without Planned Parenthood here to provide these necessary tools to the public, millions would go without birth control, and thousands of unwanted pregnancies would occur.

P6. When it comes to Planned Parenthood actually performing abortions, there are many rules and guidelines put in place by the government that Planned Parenthood abides to.  Abortions are only performed under Planned Parenthood’s supervision when the woman who is pregnant has a situation that applies to the federal government’s 1977 Hyde Amendment.  Planned Parenthood’s website states that “The 1977 Hyde Amendment dictated that federal Medicaid funds could only be used to fund abortions in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother. However, some states have expanded cases in which they will provide funds. Currently, 17 states allow funds to be used for “medically necessary” abortions. In  cases that these states count as medically necessary but that are not permitted by the federal guidelines, states cover the cost alone.”  Planned Parenthood only provides abortions in very dire measures, which seems to be very reasonable.

P7. No, abortions are not a pretty thing, but what everyone needs to realize is that they are sometimes necessary.  In some cases, there are such major issues with a pregnancy that it needs to be terminated.  This is extremely heartbreaking and abortions should never be a first option, but sometimes they are the only option.  Planned Parenthood provides this option safely, and with the government’s blessing.  Without Planned Parenthood around to provide abortions in a government approved matter, women are just going to go find other ways to get an abortion, which might not be the best and safest option.

P8. Nobody likes the idea of abortion.  Ending a human life is not something to take lightly, which is why Planned Parenthood takes it so seriously.  Abortions are extremely serious.  The argument that abortions are unethical because a human life is being ended is a valid point, but this point is overridden when it comes to the unfortunate need of such procedures.  It is completely understandable to be upset about what actually goes on when an abortion is performed, but this is where everyone must take a step back and look at the bigger picture.  Abortions are going to happen, just like how pregnancies are going to happen.  These things can never be fully prevented, but they can be controlled to a certain degree.  In the effort to prevent them, it makes sense to have a government appointed institution in charge of trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions.  Preventing unwanted pregnancies and abortions is an important issue in America, and Planned Parenthood truly assists in stopping such things from occurring.

P9. Not only does Planned Parenthood help to stop unwanted pregnancies and abortions from happening, it prevents sexually transmitted diseases from being spread.  Every year Planned Parenthood hands out millions of condoms.  Condoms are the only known form of protection against STD’s.  Unfortunately, condoms can be expensive and not everyone can afford them.  According to the Washington Post, “Planned Parenthood states that 80 percent of its patients are low-income,” which most likely means these people are going to Planned Parenthood because they cannot afford to buy condoms or birth control.  If Planned Parenthood were to be defunded, this would cause millions to go without protection against STD’s.  This could “lead to a potential outbreak of STDs,” all across the country.  Sexually transmitted diseases are very dangerous, and most often cause very bad complications.  According to the CDC, millions of sexually transmitted diseases are contracted every year.  We have these statistics because people have the ability to go and get checked out if they feel that they could have an STD.  Without Planned Parenthood,  the number of STD’s reported per year would most likely decrease, but the actual number of people contracting STD’s would most likely increase.  If people do not have the power to find out if they have a disease, they cannot be treated for it.  This leads to the spread of diseases to many more people.

P10. One in every eight people who live with HIV do not know it because there are sometimes no symptoms at first.  1.2 million people in the United States have contracted HIV. If not caught in time, HIV turns into AIDS, for which there is no cure.  There is not a cure for HIV either, but if caught in time it can be prevented from turning into AIDS, which is a terminal disease.  Without Planned Parenthood there to provide things such as STD screenings, Pap smears, and different types of birth control, the rate of STD’s in America could skyrocket to an all time high.    

P11. In order to prevent illnesses, such as STD’s and AIDS, medical screenings are a necessity.  Every year Planned Parenthood provides countless numbers of medical testing for people in the United States, but if President Trump and congress choose to defund government spending towards Planned Parenthood, these services are not going to be accessible to everyone.  Statistics found by Michele Ye Hee Lee of the Washington Post say that, “According to the 2013-14 annual report, Planned Parenthood’s affiliated clinics provided 10.6 million services for 2.7 million clients in 2013.  “Other women’s health services” are pregnancy tests and “prenatal services,” which are described as “care you receive from a health care provider, such as a doctor or midwife, during pregnancy.” These services may take place at a Planned Parenthood clinic, or may be referred out to another provider. “Contraception” includes emergency contraception kits, vasectomies and female sterilization procedures. “Other services” includes adoption referrals and family practice services for men and women.” 

P12. Prenatal services are vital to the health of men, women, and teenagers; with Planned Parenthood people can get what they need at little to no cost.  Generally, any medical service is relatively pricey.  For instance, a simple check up to the doctor could cost hundreds of dollars, which is not always affordable for middle to lower class citizens.  Most of Planned Parenthood’s clients come from low income households.  Without Planned Parenthood around to help these people, their health would be sure to suffer.  Information provided by Planned Parenthood itself states that, “An estimated one in five American women visits Planned Parenthood health centers during her lifetime. Without Planned Parenthood’s approximately 650 health centers across the country, many patients would not have timely access to basic preventive health care services.”  One in five women is a fairly large amount, when considering our country’s population is around three million.  That would mean one in five women would not have access to things like birth control, STD screenings, and gynecological check ups. 

P13. A very large number of women would suffer from defunding Planned Parenthood, but a large number of men would also suffer.  Men go to Planned Parenthood mainly for STD testing, but there are also other services provided.  When a man goes to a Planned Parenthood clinic, he has a number of services available to him.  A few options include; cancer screenings, physical exams, and infertility testing.  Facts sourced from familiesusa.org state that, “For many individuals, Planned Parenthood is their primary source of care and the provider they most trust with their health care needs. A Guttmacher report found that, among women who receive care from a family planning center like Planned Parenthood, nearly 4 in 10 report that it is their only source of health care.”  If for every four in ten people rely on Planned Parenthood as their only form of healthcare, the defunding of this institution would be detrimental to the little access to healthcare these people have. 

P14. One of the reasons Planned Parenthood is so great is that it provides healthcare to everyone, but the majority are middle to lower class individuals.  Statistics found on familiesusa.org confirm that, “In 2013, 78 percent of Planned Parenthood patients had incomes at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty level, which is $36,375 a year for a family of four. Half of Planned Parenthood patients are covered through Medicaid, which serves low-income individuals and families.”  All people deserve to have healthcare.  It is not fair that the small percentage of the upper class in the United States can afford the best health services around, while everyone else is struggling to afford an appointment at the doctor’s office.  Planned Parenthood makes this problem greatly helps to minimize that problem.  It is so important that every single citizen of the United States has full access to healthcare.   The factual website familiesusa.org also states that, “Alongside other safety net providers like community health centers, Planned Parenthood is an important partner in providing high-quality care to underserved communities. If Planned Parenthood centers are closed or defunded, there is no guarantee that other health care providers will be able to serve their patients.”

P15. In conclusion, it is clearly seen that Planned Parenthood is a prominent and vital institution in the United States.  The number of healthcare services it provides every year is utterly amazing, and without such a great place to go for healthcare, many individuals could be finding themselves without any access to medical services at all.  If the American government chooses to defund Planned Parenthood, they will be taking away millions of peoples’ access to healthcare, and for many people Planned Parenthood is their only form of medical care.  This decision would truly be like taking a step back into the times of Margaret Sanger, when she was fighting for women’s reproductive healthcare rights.  It would be a grave mistake for this country to take steps backwards, towards times when not everyone was equal.  For this country to keep it’s people safe, healthy, and informed; Planned Parenthood is absolutely necessary.

Works Cited

http://www.biography.com/people/margaret-sanger-9471186 “Margaret Sanger.” Biography.com. Ed. AE Networks Television. A&E Networks Television, 08 July 2014. Web. 17 Apr. 2017.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-heartland/who-we-are/history Online, Planned Parenthood. “Our History.” Planned Parenthood. PP, 22 Nov. 2016. Web. 17 Apr. 2017.

http://www.loyolamaroon.com/10013950/oped/opinion-defunding-planned-parenthood-disaster/ “Opinion: Defunding Planned Parenthood Would Be a Disaster.” The Maroon. Ed. Op Ed Opinions. Loyola Maroon, 06 Apr. 2017. Web. 17 Apr. 2017.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/2015/std-surveillance-report-press-release.html C, C. D. “Reported Cases of STDs on the Rise in the U.S.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 17 Nov. 2015. Web. 17 Apr. 2017.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/08/12/for-planned-parenthood-abortion-stats-3-percent-and-94-percent-are-both-misleading/ Lee, Michelle Ye Hee. “For Planned Parenthood Abortion Stats, ‘3 Percent’ and ’94 Percent’ Are Both Misleading.” The Washington Post. WP Company, 12 Aug. 2015. Web. 17 Apr. 2017.

https://www.istandwithpp.org/defund-defined/impact-defunding-planned-parenthood Parenthood, Planned. “The Impact of Defunding Planned Parenthood.” Planned Parenthood Action Fund. PP, 1 Jan. 2017. Web. 17 Apr. 2017.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/health/planned-parenthood-by-the-numbers/ Strickland, Ashley. “Planned Parenthood: Fast Facts and Revealing Numbers.” CNN. Cable News Network, 17 Jan. 2017. Web. 17 Apr. 2017.

Family Usa. “Four Reasons Planned Parenthood Is an Essential Health Care Provider.”Families USA. Familiesusa.org, 17 Jan. 2017. Web. 17 Apr. 2017. “Four Reasons Planned Parenthood Is an Essential Health Care Provider.”Families USA. Familiesusa.org, 17 Jan. 2017. Web. 17 Apr. 2017.

Say No to Animal Testing

P1. Unwillingly animals put their lives on the line for us humans, but shouldn’t we be the ones protecting them? When it comes to research for medicine, researchers have found the need to use animals to be the key in order to find out how the chemicals would affect humans. Now, when it comes to medical research, laboratory animals have been getting harder and harder to get. Many animal rights activists are finding ways in order to decrease the number of animals being harmed. It seems counterintuitive that medicine is being created to help humans but at the same time harming animals in the process. There could be another way to find out the results of medicine rather than testing these harmful toxins on innocent animals. Few have said if they knew a certain type of medicine was injected into an animal they would not have gone through with the injection. On the other hand, people look back and are glad the medicines have gone to such an extent because without these findings, they would not have been alive for many more years. No matter what, there are easier and quicker methods for testing without harming any animals or humans in the process.

P2. When medicine is being created, researchers go right to animals in order to see the potential effects it has on us humans. It hurts to think researchers able to purposely put innocent animals through pain knowing there is no happy ending for them. Even though this results in someone else’s benefit, it only hurts the other. Animals are left suffering in pain for us. The effects of these tests result in many problems for the animals later on. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, PETA, has shared because of these tests, “monkeys are becoming addicted to drugs, cats are deafened and have holes drilled into their skulls, sheep and pigs have their skin burned off, and rats have their spinal cords crushed.” None of this is, or sounds, ethical and animals should not be looked at as this type of resource. These researchers do not see the bigger picture when it comes to the animals lives. Animals are not put on this planet for the accessibility of medical research.

P3. A laboratory in Silver Spring, Maryland called Institute for Behavioral Research was locked down with a warrant and were found to have many monkeys left in bad shape. Most of them had many open wounds, malnutrition, no fur and left in anger and misery. Their ability to move was slim to none and were left with nothing but being vulnerable. This group of people forced the monkeys in a “dark, blood-spattered refrigerator and a jerry-rigged restraint chair, tying them down with duct tape and burning them with a cigarette lighter, squeezing their flesh” only to have their limbs tested. They were left with nothing but pain.

P4. Yes, most tests performed on specific animals will show parallel results to humans but PETA stated “there’s no guarantee that drugs are safe just because they’ve been tested on animals.” If there is no definite answer to how it affects humans directly, why do researchers continue to use them? There is no better reasoning to stop animal testing than hearing “alternative scientific tests are often more reliable than animal tests,” directly from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Right then and there, doctors should rely on tests that do not use animals, giving their patients the best possible treatment they can get. Countless tests showed human skin cells compared to traditional animal tests to be more accurate in identifying chemical skin. The simplest change of not using animals could make the biggest difference in somebody’s life.

P5. Ray and Jean Greek cofounders of Americans for Medical Advancement reveal “Medical advances are responsible for Americans living longer and better lives.” Without the science of medicine, lives would be completely different today. This organization discusses how using animals for experimentation did not make a difference in the surgical field. Yet, researchers will still argue animals are invaluable to science no matter how ridiculous the experiments are. While using animal testing, 198 medications were put on shelves, until 102 of them had to be taken down because of the wrongful founding’s that would be in humans and not animals. Another example of animal experimentation going wrong is when chemicals tested for cancer showed nineteen out of twenty positive for animals and zero out of twenty for humans, leaving researchers with no correlation between the two. This simply means the bodies between animals and humans are clearly not the same.

P6. It would be more appealing, especially as a patient, knowing the medicine that is put into my body is found to be from a more reliable source. The risk of knowing if a treatment will or will not work on a disease only gets the hopes up of the fighting people in need. When researchers use animals for testing, they are able to prove a safe solution for animals, but not necessarily for humans. The small percentage that this could happen could make a huge difference. According to Meredith Cohn, reporter from The Baltimore Sun, physicians still see the “basic research and drug and chemical tests still rely heavily on animals.” That should not be the case, the bigger and more important tests are even starting to move to non-animal testing. More researchers are finding a way to “incorporate human-based needs” however, “there is no comprehensive substitute for animal testing and research.” Everyone, even the doctors, are aware of how harmful testing is to animals, yet no one has put enough effort in to stop it. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals declared these experiments are “cruel, expensive, and generally inapplicable to humans”, so a handful of scientists have finally stepped forward to find a different method. They are in the process of ending animal testing and finding tests that are “relevant to human health”. These upcoming tests with include newer technology, human cells and tissues, and even human volunteers to give the best possible reaction. Not only will it enhance the medicine for human diseases, but it is a method that is much cheaper and easier to perform.

P6. There has always been insignificant alternative testing that has not been used, yet there are many benefits if they were used. The organization New England Anti-Vivisection Society, NEAVS, expresses when no animals are used for experimenting its creates “cruelty-free products” and makes the world “more environmentally friendly.” This could increase consumers’ willingness to buy more products if they knew it was not included in animal testing. NEAVS also argues by using non-animal testing it is “more cost-effective and practical”, leaving there no question not to use animals. Researchers would be able to fix two major variables, with one minor adjustment, making their lives much easier. While animal testing takes weeks to perform and record substantial information, other tests take “as little as 3 minutes to four hours.” NEAVS has found by experimenting chemicals without animals, researchers can “test hundreds of chemicals in a week for a fraction of the cost.” Since then, there has yet to be any red flags from non-animal testing.

P7. Although nothing is put into action, there are alternative methods available. Lately, there has been growing news of another way to find out the results of medicine rather than testing these harmful toxins on innocent animals. Since these methods have been found helpful, this should be more popular than using animals yet it is not. The methods not including animals have been found to be much quicker, easier, and cheaper. In order to get these tests done more efficiently, humane research would be conducted using “studies of human populations, volunteers, and patients.” Animal research is “well-funded” which is a contributing factor to why they are still continuing present day. If other tactics for medical research was available along with funding, those would be increasing instead.

P8. Backing away from animal testing, there are four available up and coming non-animal testing methods becoming known. These alternative testing’s have nothing bad going for them and can only prevent the poor treatment of animals.

P9. To start off, there is “In Vitro” testing. Where Harvard’s Wyss Institute has developed, a technique called “organs-on-chips” which has human’s cells grown in the system in order to double as the function of human organs. PETA shares that this method has been shown to “replicate human physiology, diseases, and drug responses” more accurately than animal testing. This chip has already been bought by researchers and used instead of animal experimentation. Also, there is a new cell-based and tissue model test that has been introduced to test the reliability of “drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, and consumer products.” By using human cells replicating the traits of human skin, this method gets rid of testing for guinea pigs, mice, and rabbits.  These animals would not have to be shaved down and put in painful tests waiting for the results of the test normally. Instead, using this duplicate skin researchers are able to evaluate from that source rather than anything else. At the European Union Reference Library, researchers have found tests that the use of human blood instead of putting rabbits through this painful test is quite more successful. The blood is used to identify any red flags that would pollute the human body and result in fevers when it accesses the body. In the end, it gives the result of anything that would be harmful directly from a human source.

P10. In the technological field, there have been few advanced systems created in order to deal with the human body. For example, animal testing and drug tests can soon be taken over by this computer-generated testing. Researchers have computer models that mimics the human biology and the growth of diseases within. This method will be able to find new ways and new drugs to help the human body react to any illness. Quantitative structure-activity relationships, QSARs, is a computer based system that will get rid of animal testing by using the known knowledge of human biology. This way will avoid animal experiments involving chemicals and any other harmful tests. This way is much quicker and definitely much simpler.

P11. Human volunteers have also come forward to help not just themselves, but everybody else. Micro dosing is a technique that gives volunteers a “small one-time dose” which allows researchers to observe the body. The drug will be watched in order to see how it affects the body making this method able to banish certain animal testing’s all at once. Using this method gives information letting researchers know the safeness of a drug and how it will react to a human in the long-run. Rats, cats, and monkeys will not have to have their brains damaged any longer thanks to the advanced brain imaging and recording approach. This method allows humans to have their brains studied by researchers and even temporarily solve their condition.

P12. When it comes to chemical testing, human tissue is proven to give more accurate results than using animals. A researcher’s job is to find the best possible answer to the problem they are presented with, meanwhile non-animal testing is producing the results they need. Since this method could leave a patient potentially dead or alive, researchers should take the opportunity to participate in such a method. Doctors are finally able to realize animal testing is not doing their job and that they need to find a new solution. The former U.S. National Institutes of Health director Dr. Elias Zerhouni expresses, “We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans.” This is the first step in the right direction in order to cease animal testing.

P13. In the effort to teach not only medical students, but save people lives, there has been a human-patient simulator. What is better than learning how to react with problems from the human body by using a human body? Life-like computerized human-patient simulators have been constructed in order to teach students the most accurate way to treat a patient. This excludes any animals, such as pigs, goats, or dogs, to be cut up. The simulator breathes, bleeds, talks, and reacts just as a normal human would. Medicines will be injected and act as if it was on a real-life person, allowing students to learn lifesaving skills on the spot. No animals will be touched or need to even be present in order for any of these new methods to take place.

P14. Having said that, when it comes to finding another method of finding cures, there is nothing that would be able to replace all the animals in research. Yes, even though there are other procedures available to not harm animals, there is a positive to using them. The bodies of mice, rats, fish and birds have all been found with similar a similar body system as humans. Because of that, animals are just as susceptible to diseases as humans are, allowing researchers to find the cure on them just as easy.

P15. On the other hand, without knowing or hearing of these effective methods, researchers will not move away from their comfortable setting of animal testing. Scientists are aware “animals are necessary to medical research when it is impractical or unethical to use humans.” The American Physiological Society, APS, states animals are “susceptible to many of the same health problems, and they have short life-cycles so they can easily be studied throughout their whole life-span or across several generations.”. This does not change the long-time, damaging effects animals are left with. They are aware of the toxic lifestyle they are bringing the animals into, but believe it is easier to work with them than humans because they can “easily control the environment”. It is said, the main reason animals are used intentionally is because it would be wrong to expose humans to a health-risk when they are trying to track the disease in the first place. Once the animals are tested and are able to show the medicine reacts good, it will then be injected into a human volunteer so further-prove the tests. The APS talks about how animal testings are performed first in order to “give medical researchers a better idea of what benefits and complications they are likely to see in humans.” Yet, it has been proven animals do not necessarily need to be used in order to see the outcome of a certain medicine. There are ways to avoid using animals as resources, but researchers are able to control the conditions with animals, rather than humans. Once the tests are proven to work, they are then brought to volunteers and given the drugs as well. Scientists cannot risk giving humans medicine for a disease they have without knowing the consequences. On the other hand, they are aware of the same damages animals are introduced too, yet still decide to use them.

P16. The only reason people continue to use animal testing for medical research is simply because they make money from it. The Greeks stress, “Animal experimentation does not continue because of the great medical strides that are falsely attributed to it.” There is simply no other logic to continue harming animals if it were not for money. With quicker and easier alternative methods, available: vitro testing, human tissue, and technological advances, the funding should be put to that instead.

P17. When it comes to chemical testing, human tissue is proven to give more accurate results than using animals. A researcher’s job is to find the best possible answer to the problem they are presented with, meanwhile non-animal testing is producing the results they need. Since this method could leave a patient potentially dead or alive, researchers should take the opportunity to participate in such a method. Doctors are finally able to realize animal testing is not doing their job and that they need to find a new solution. The former U.S. National Institutes of Health director Dr. Elias Zerhouni expresses, “We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans.” This is the first step in the right direction in order to cease animal testing.

P18. Although not all researchers see eye to eye, using animals for chemical testing is not illegal, but it certainly is not ethical. The law not to test on animals when there are better and easier alternatives available should be stressed immensely. According to NEAVS, three states have “already passed legislation mandating that federally approved non-animal alternatives, when available, be used for product testing in place of animals.” This will gradually lead to “cruelty-free research and testing” to be the “status quo.” NEAVS strongly believes since science “promotes better health and well-being”, they can do the same to “protect animals lives.”

P19. All in all, there are numerous outcomes from non-animal testing. Not only are animals free from being in agonizing pain, but there is a better chance humans can live through a disease. Non-animal testing is growing but until it is completely vanished, animals are out there being harmed for no reason and giving possible false results for the ones in need. Thanks to the non-profit organization New England Anti-Vivisection Society, the public is able to see “Science finally moving forward to realize the premise that the best test species for humans are humans without harm and with enormous benefit to humans.” There is no reason not to be involved in this type of testing when it can only help for the better.

Works Cited

“Alternatives to Animal Testing.” PETA. N.p., 2017. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.

“Animals in Medical Experiments.” N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Mar. 2017

Cohn, Meredith. “Study Aims to Check If Other Methods Can Replace Animal Testing.” Baltimoresun.com. Baltimore Sun Media Group, 12 Mar. 2017. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.

Greek, C. Ray, and Jean Swingle Greek. “Animal Testing Is Not Essential for Medical Research.” Animal Experimentation, edited by Cindy Mur, Greenhaven Press, 2004

“If We Don’t Use Animals, Wouldn’t We Have to Test New Drugs on People?”
N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Mar. 2017.

Newkirk, Ingrid. “Animal Testing Is Cruel and Does Not Benefit Medical Research.” Animal Experimentation, edited by Cindy Mur, Greenhaven Press, 2004

Society, New England Anti-Vivisection. “Animals in Science /….”
Animals in Research and Testing. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Mar. 2017.

Society, New England Anti-Vivisection. “Alternatives to Animals in Science.” In Testing. NEAVS, n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.

“Why Do Scientists Use Animals in Research?” American Physiological Society Why Do Scientists Use Animals in Research? N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Mar. 2017.

P1. Hate crimes have long been a problem in American society. From the lynching of African Americans in the time of slavery and for a period of time post slavery, to the murder of Emmit Till in 1941, Jim Crow laws that were in place until 1965, and more recently the targeting of Muslims after 9/11, as well as the Charleston Massacre in 2015. Hate crimes are a reality in this world and can be motivated by many different reasons. The term “hate crime” arose from a 1968 Statue that was created and made it a crime to use or threaten to use, force to willfully interfere with any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin and because the person is participating in a federally protected activity, such as public education, transportation, employment… etc. Terrorism is defined as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.The hate crime statue is a great thing because targeting a group of people for their race religion or sexual preference is terrorism. So it is counterintuitive that a country fighting terrorism is participating in terrorism many times on a smaller scale but not always.

P2. Hate crimes are many times tricky because people do not get convicted for hate crimes. Perpetrators are tried for the crime they committed (assault, murder, robbery… etc) and if discovered that the crime was motivated by any kind of prejudice, it may allow the court to extend the sentence of the person being tried. However it is left to the prosecutor to find the motivation of the crime unless the suspect openly admits his motivation and present it to the court which will then arrive at a conclusion.

P3.The New York Times reports hate crimes and incidents in a section called “This Week in Hate.” One of the articles was about Rejpreet Heir a young women born in Indiana who was riding the subway when she was verbally assaulted by a man. He began by asking her if she knew what United States Marines had to see and go through for this country because of people like her. The man was clearly referring to the conflicts going on in the middle east involving ISIS and other terrorist groups that identify with the muslims religion. Heir has brown skin and resembles someone who might be of middle eastern descent, which is why the man targeted her. The then proceeded to say that she did not belong in this country saying “I hope you get sent back to Lebanon.”

P4.There are many morally wrong aspects to what this man did such as targeting a random civilian to take out his frustration for the issues happening today. Heir did not initiate the man she was just taking a ride on the subway, she was targeted by the man’s prejudice. However what I find the most counterintuitive is that this man is wrongly discriminating and harassing someone who is part of his group. Just like the white man who committed the abuse, Heir is an American citizen who was born in America, which is something the two have in common. In the middle east a radical group of Muslims by the name of ISIS are killing people who don’t follow the extreme beliefs that they do. Although not as severe, in a sense the man was doing the same thing by publicly humiliating this women who he believed had opposing beliefs and belonged to that group of people.

P5. By law that incident that occurred on the subway was not considered a hate crime punishable by prison its simply one of thousands of discrimination acts that happen daily. However one can argue that although the act was not physically violent it was verbal and mental abuse. Heir was publicly embarrassed for something she absolutely nothing to do with her. She has to deal with the mental damage done by the words he said. She felt rejected by her own group of people as she is an American and another American was excluding her from the group labeling her as Lebanese while the people around simply acted as bystanders and did not come to her aid. Although no violent acts were caused the man was clearly motivated by his own prejudice.

P6.That however is not always the case there have been many times when people have crosses the line of verbal abuse.  Jude Joffe-Block a journalist for NIOT.Org reported on an incident in Phoenix AZ. A homosexual couple moved into a neighborhood. In the months following their move they experienced a number of break ins, and vandalism to their property. However no arrest were made and no one can actually prove that the crimes committed were motivated by prejudice. However one can assume is motivated by hate if these acts vandalism are not a regularity in the community. The police department has just allowed this to keep occurring because there is no solid proof of this being a hate crime. It is just another instance that shows how difficult it is to classify a crime as a hate crime.

P7. In the first couple of weeks of President Trump being in office reporting of hate crimes have surged. Trump received much of his support for his views on immigration stating that immigrants bring crime to America. In reality immigrants commit less crime than native born American citizens. However his promises of building a wall, deporting millions and closing our borders gained him a tremendous following. While in offie we have seen that his immigration policies and remarks have been ineffective and he ended up doing more harm than good. Now prejudice is at a high and demonizing the people we live with is tearing apart our country not growing us together. It is almost as if people are afraid of minorities becoming the majority which is still far from happening so they begin to spew hate and prejudice to avoid that happening. However the motivation behind hate crimes is much more complex.

P8. People do not just wake up one day and decide to begin to hate a certain group of people enough to commit a crime against them. However the motivation behind hate crimes is not as simple as prejudice towards a group of people. Many times people just try and find a scapegoat for issues they cannot explain or resolve. It expands to peoples mental health, their place in society, their self esteem and just the nature of humans in general. Hate crimes have extremely negative affects on the mentality of those targeted. Ervin Staub, PhD, professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst says, “When people are victimized as individuals or as a group, it creates a diminished sense of self, a view that the world is a more dangerous place.” This only increases the divide between groups in America which leads to more civil issues and puts us further and further away from conflict resolution.

P9. A study was conducted at the University of California studied 550 perpetrators of hate crimes to find commonalities in their backgrounds and motives to find the real cause of Hate crimes. What this study found is that perpetrators of hate crimes are not psychopaths or clinically mentally ill. However they are usually very troubled individuals who have high levels of aggression and antisocial behavior. Psychologist Edward Dunbar, PhD,”These people are not psychotic, but they’re consistently very troubled, very disturbed, very problematic members of our community who pose a huge risk for future violence,.” This makes a lot of sense because people who are anti-social are usually very closed off to the world and only know themselves and their kind of people. For example Person 1 has a Muslim friend and understands that not all Muslims are bad and it is only a very small percentage of Muslims who have radical beliefs and are willing to kill and commit acts of terrorism to protect their radical beliefs. Then there is Person 2 who has never had a Muslim friend or has never met a Muslim they are more likely to believe that all muslims are the same way because of the grouse acts of a very small group of people that are portrayed all over the media. With them dealing with high aggression as well they are quicker than most other people to jump to the conclusion and stereotype an everyday person and initiate aggression towards them. The article in the New York Times that told the story of Rajpreet Heir who was verbally abused by a white man on the subway. He told her that her people were the cause of all problems going on in the middle east and that he hoped she would get sent back. Rajpreet has absolutely nothing to do with anything going on in the middle east and was simply profiled and attacked. This man probably does not personally know any other muslim people.

P10. That leads into another cause for hate crimes and that is in a time of crisis we as humans protect ourselves and our own people.”We’re in a mode where we feel like we have to protect ourselves, where we feel that everyone who is clearly not ‘us’ needs to be scrutinized,” says Ervin Staub, PhD. The man on the subway that verbally abused Heir asked her if she had ever seen a marine and if she understood what they had to go through. It is very possible that this man may be a veteran or he may have family in the military serving overseas. Those are his people he sees it unfair that they have to risk their lives fighting to protect countries other than his own. In many ways this is not a very far fetched idea,Charles Judd, PhD explained,”When you meet a person who’s a member of an outgroup, you’re less likely to individuate them, to pay attention to individual characteristics, than when you meet members of your in group.” We live in a diverse world and people have grouped together to survive since the beginning of time. The reason this does not work very well in America is because there is no determined rules of what you must look like and believe to be an American. Americans come in all different ethnicities, religions and sexualities. This diversity leads to people forming smaller groups such as White America, Black America, LGBT, Latinos… etc. People stick together with the ones they have the most in common with. This becomes a huge problem because we are all Americans and should be in one group not divided. So when someone sees their group or their “America” being affected in a negative way then they begin to blame others they find a scapegoat for their problems and stereotype people into larger groups that they may not belong to. While most Americans will not act upon these feelings of mistrust for other groups, a small percentage of the population will participate in name hurling and even go as far as full blown hate crime.

P11. There are levels to the motivation behind hate crimes. For the people who are troubled and anti social that maybe are more controlled, now have a group of people who find it acceptable to commit these crimes. Durning Trump’s presidential campaign he targeted different communities in a very negative way. When he said that many of the immigrants coming from Mexico only brought crime, it made it acceptable for people to dislike people from Mexico because it initiates the mindset that if some of them are brining crime their people as a whole must be bad. when in reality “the percentage of the population that is foreign-born grew to 13.1 percent from 7.9 percent between 1990 and 2013. F.B.I. data shows that the violent crime rate dropped 48 percent during that time and today remains near historic lows.” (Soros NY Times) The same issue arose when the travel ban was placed. It ignited the mentality that if the President of the United States said that people from select countries could not enter the country they must all be bad. There are many examples of this going on in the world today. When people find a scapegoat that is widely accepted it becomes okay for them to act aggressively towards that scapegoat. So if people who previously did not have a reason to commit a hate crime and showed aggressive and antisocial behaviors now have the motivation to do so as its accepted by the group the group they identify with.

P12. Overall these tendencies in character are usually a direct cause of a persons up brining. If a child grew up in a home where things were dealt with violence or verbal abuse, they are more likely to grow up and handle their problems in the same manor. Also the way they interacted with others while growing up plays a huge part in the motivation behind hate crimes. If people grow up only knowing other people like them it creates an in group bias because they do not know about outside groups. The less people know about other groups the less they empathize with them which makes it easier to go against them and commit these hate crimes. Overall hate crimes are not just about prejudice they are much deeper and it speaks to the character of the way people are raised in America.

P13. Not everyone agrees with the hate crime statue of 1968. In the Declaration of Independence it says, “All men are created equal,” but how true does that hold today? Today in age people have their own opinions about everything. America is the land of the free which allows many different ideas to flow. As the last presidential election advanced the American people began to see many clear divides within the American people. On the topic of hate crimes there are many people who believe hate crime laws should not exist, because rather than help avoid conflict and unify people it is creating a larger divide and reinforce that Blacks are different than Whites. While the opposing side does not believe people should not be punished for their crimes they just believe that the hate crime laws should be repealed and not affect the case.

P14. The argument that hate crimes do not exist and hate crime laws to more damage than good. This would be a valid argument if and only if all people were treated equally. America has an extensive history of racism and inequality starting from the time this land was settled. The white man came and took the land of the native Americans. Fast forward a few years and later came the importation of African American slaves. They were treated poorly like animals and were not seen as human. After the Civil War when the slaves were freed, America was still a white mans country, African Americans were still extremely mistreated and had little to no opportunity to get ahead and live a normal life equal to that of the white man. This carried on for over one hundred years until the civil rights movement, but prior to the civil rights movement Blacks and Whites were segregated and Blacks got the short end of the stick with poorly maintained schools and public amenities. Although we have come extremely far as a country we are far from seeing everyone as equal, and its no longer just an issue of African American and Whites, now there are hispanics, asians, and people from the middle east. If hate crime laws were not in place it is very likely that this country would still be like it was before the civil rights movement, because the majority will control everything while the minorities have no power or say.

P15. Another topic people may argue is that the justice system in America has been proven to be in favor of the middle and upperclass caucasian male. There are countless examples of the same crime being committed by people of two different races and the evidence shows that the caucasian person most of the time gets a lighter sentence. For example more recently the case of Brock Turner and Cory Batey. They were both college athletes who committed rape while girls were under the influence. Turner only received 6 months but ended up receiving no jail time because the judge felt that Brock was truly sorry and was an outstanding athlete. Cory Batey on the other hand received 15 years of prison. The crime was very similar almost identical while part of it could’ve been that Brock had a better lawyer however the drastic difference severity of punishment is astonishing. Another issue going on in America is police brutality towards minorities. Over the past couple of years there have been multiple murders of unarmed minorities by police officers. Many times the police officers who committed these offenses were let free. The divide in America is too deeply embedded in our way of being that for everyone to be equal is not a realistic goal. Which is why I emphasize that hate crime laws are necessary because it does help even the scale and the system can sometimes work for people who deserve justice.

P16. Hate crimes are very real and relevant especially in todays world. Although a good statue is in place a better one needs to be presented. One that makes it easier to differentiate hate crimes, because hate crimes are a form of terrorism the same issue that we are fighting for overseas. ISIS killing innocent people who don’t follow their muslim values is the same as attacking a hispanic person who may be an American Citizen simply for not being white or for being hispanic. It happens everyday in America, minorities being attacked it is not publicized because its not a good look for the country but it does indeed happen. Finally even though everyone is equal and no one race religion or belief is superior to others everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, no one should be dehumanized for being themselves. There should be no divide, we should unite all together as Americans more than anything else. That is the only way this country will continue to progress.

Work Cited

-Monitor on Psychology. American Psychological Association, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2017.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov01/hatecrimes.aspx

-North, Anna. “When Your Commute Includes Hearing ‘You Don’t Belong in This Country’.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 24 Mar. 2017. Web. 17 Apr. 2017.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/24/opinion/when-your-commute-includes-hearing-you-dont-belong-in-this-country.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FHate Crimes&_r=1

-“Hate Crime Laws.” The United States Department of Justice. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2017.

https://www.justice.gov/crt/hate-crime-laws

-Soros, George. “George Soros: When Hate Surges.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 Mar. 2017. Web. 17 Apr. 2017.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/opinion/george-soros-when-hate-surges.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FHate Crimes

-“There Is No Such Thing As A Hate Crime.” A Libertarian Future. N.p., 27 Aug. 2015. Web. 18 Apr. 2017.

https://alibertarianfuture.com/big-government/police-state/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-hate-crime/

–Discrimination by Default:

–Anger and Racial Politics : The Emotional Foundation of Racial Attitudes in  America

–Hate Crimes and Ethnoviolence : The History, Current Affairs, and Future of Discrimination in America

–Discrimination Across the Ideological Divide: The Role of Value Violations and Abstract Values in Discrimination by Liberals and Conservatives

–

Out of Your Head

When you have a broken leg you’re given a cast. When you have an ear infection you’re given a pill. No one questions it, no one says that you’ll get over it without the help of the medication you’ve been provided with. So why is that any different from mental illness? “It’s all in your head!” Yes, that’s right, it’s all in the head. In patients with depression, there is a lack of serotonin, “a natural substance in the brain that helps in the brain that helps maintain mental balance” in a person and many medications such as, Fluoxetine or more commonly known as Prozac, increases the amount of serotonin that helps keep moods under control. Though the medication is still just as effective as, say a medication to cure period cramps such as Midol, it does take a while to kick in because a neuro sickness is much more intense and since it’s located in the brain, it could take the brain longer to adjust to the new way thoughts are being processed.

The stigma surrounding mental illness and medication stands in the way of proper mental health care. People without mental illness, those who support the stigma, are those who tell the mentally ill that it’s all in their head and that they are going to get over it eventually. Would you say the same thing to someone with diabetes? Most likely not because diabetes is a serious disease. “But it can be medically proven!” Yes, and so can mental disorders. According to Natasha Tracy in Biological Evidence for Depression – Mental Illness Exists, it is proven consistently that genetic factors are the reason for 30%-40% of cases of Major Depressive Disorder. Meanwhile the other 60%-70% is due to stressors in life. There’s also a hormone called cortisol that is linked to stress. Normally, once the stress has passed the cortisol decreases, though for those suffering from depression, their cortisol levels remain permanently elevated. This hormone can be measured in saliva. It repeatedly proves to be a major source of Major Depressive Disorder.

It has been known for people to compare mental illness to a physical injury when the stigma is presented. Stigma holders say things such as, “A broken leg shows up on an x-ray! Depression doesn’t!” Actually, yes it does. Neuroimaging of Depression proves that “structural abnormalities and decreased brain volumes have consistently been found in several areas of the brain of those with MDD (Major Depressive Disorder). Though brain volumes in patients with untreated depression shrinks with length of the illness, the loss cannot be explained. It can be stopped or reversed with treatment. Even though these brain abnormalities found in neuroimaging can decrease, that doesn’t mean that the patient is cured. A group of neurotransmitters called Monoamines have been studied and its counterparts (Serotonin, Dopamine, and Noradrenaline) have proven to increase the concentration of monoamines and been found to have antidepressant effects. Although there is research that supports the claim that dopamine levels are always low in depressive individuals. However, there are new antidepressants which are promising in “hard-to-treat depression.”

Let’s get technical here. What are antidepressants exactly? They are a medication used to treat depression, obviously. However, they are also used to treat anxiety, pain, insomnia, and, though not FDA-approved, they are used to treat ADHD in some adults. Everyone can respond differently to the medication, so testing out different ones is what some people do before finding the right medication that doesn’t make them want to die. These reasons aren’t known yet. Then as for other disorders they have their own medications. Anti-anxiety medications help with symptoms such as panic attacks and extreme fear or worry, and are commonly known as benzodiazepines. They’re known as secondary treatments when, in the case of panic attacks or social anxiety disorder, SSRIs and antidepressants come first to them. Next is stimulants to increase alertness, attention, and energy, as well as increasing blood pressure, heart rate, and respiration, mostly prescribed to treat patients diagnosed with ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). More heavily advanced drugs are the antipsychotics, mainly used to treat psychosis, loss of touch with reality, hallucinations, or delusions. They can be used to treat schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, and can be combined with other medications to treat delirium, dementia, ADHD, severe depression, eating disorders, PTSD, OCD, and generalized anxiety disorder. And finally we have mood stabilizers to treat bipolar disorder and mood swings associated with other disorders. One stabilizer, lithium, is approved to treat mania, and studies have shown for lithium to have anti-suicide benefits. They can also healthily treat depression, schizoaffective disorder, disorders of impulse control, and certain childhood mental illnesses. As you can see, there is a lot of eclectic medication used to treat mental disorders, most of which are proven to be extremely effective.

Medication in mental illnesses can mean so much more than just medicine to stop the sadness, or the voices, or the panic, etc. It’s something necessary for those mentally ill people to get through their days. Without their medication, it can be hard for some of those to get out of bed in the morning, not to mention getting in their car and driving to school and/or work. Years without medication can lead to self-harm, damaging thoughts, suicidal thoughts, and the destruction of relationships with others. Medication can also be therapy. A specific disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, can only be treated by DBT, Dialectical Behavioral Therapy, therapy since no medication has been discovered yet. Medication also means drugs. Not drugs like mushrooms, but marijuana is a great medication for anxious and depressive patients. But unfortunately people hear the word “medication” and their mind goes to “drugs” which, because of stigma, leads to negative thoughts about the person taking the medication. That’s not true though, because the definition of a drug is “a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced to the body. The stigma against drugs is that they are all awful and should be avoided at all costs. This is really only to drugs like mushrooms, heroin, acid, etc. Further on, this disproves that medication is a bad thing, and proves that it can be helpful to those who need it, who desperately need it.

There are a lot of instances in the United States where mental health issues fall into the hands of young teenagers who have no idea how to handle the situation. The most common mental disorders found in teens are Depression, Social Anxiety Disorder, Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), Panic Disorder, and Bipolar Disorder. A teenager with any of these disorders left untreated can lead to something more extreme such as self-harm which then leads to an addiction of self-mutilation. Since these are still children who are dealing with these issues, parents come into the picture in a large part, and there is a chance that if kids feel that if their parents were to find out they were harming themselves, their parents would go on a tangent about it. In fear of being scolded and not getting the help they need, the teenager hides their illness and puts on a façade that they are happy, when in reality their life is getting so difficult to deal with that they are considering ending it themselves.

It’s no secret that the stigma on mental health goes back to the time when most millennials parents were born. During the nineteen sixties, seventies, eighties even, mental health wasn’t as engraved in society as it is today. The new generation these days are exposed to far more than their parents were because of the internet and because of this, kids from the tender age of ten and older are exposed to an endless array information to search. This can be both positive and negative. The positive attributes of the way teens can find information is that they can learn about mental illness, find out whether to question if they have it or not, converse with others who have the same illness, and learn ways to cope with it. The negative effects through is that they are able to find ways to hurt themselves. They can find horror stories of parents punishing their children for their self-harming behavior, or even parents adding fuel to the fire and dismissing their child’s illness instead of assisting them in getting the help they need. Doing this both feeds into the stigma on mental health, and worsens the patients disorder.

Addiction plays a large part in mental illness. If the illness is left untreated, people will go to extreme measures to find a way to stop the symptoms themselves. In younger patients, the most common addiction becomes the addiction of self-harm which can be carried out by cutting, burning, or even breaking their own bones. Others become either drug addicts, alcoholics, or even nymphomaniacs. They will take anything to numb the pain they are feeling, or anything to make them feel like they are alive, and not being taken over and controlled by this illness bouncing around in their heads. This kind of behavior can be seen as reckless and irresponsible, which is what most of society would say about someone who abuses these resources, rather than stopping and thinking, “Maybe this person needs help.” Not only does the stigma lead to addiction, but it can also create self-stigmatizing. This is when the patient starts to question whether they have the disorder themselves and discrediting their disorder, which is dangerous.

Let’s say a young teenage girl has been dealing with a lot of issues due to her sexuality. She gets scared, she thinks of what her friends and family have said about the subject over the years, and she decides to stay in the closet. Doing so, she grows depressed, she grows anxious. Then at school she gets bullied physically and emotionally after being outed by a boy who just wanted to have a laugh. This takes a toll on her. She loses friends, and herself, becoming scared and feeling alone. She begins to take a blade to her skin and she doesn’t tell anyone because she doesn’t think her condition is serious enough, though it is growing more serious each and every day. She talks to her friends about it but they dismiss it. The internet is making her think she’s faking her symptoms so she sits back and tells herself that she’ll get over it on her own. She tries to take her own life when they don’t. After that she’s placed in the Adolescent Mental Health Unit for a week and gets diagnosed with depression and for once she feels validated by someone and is getting the help she needs. Though it took way too long to get there.

That is exactly what the stigma is doing. If she could have been honest about what was going on in her head in the first place without a fear of judgement or ridicule, she would have gotten the right help she needed before the self-mutilation or suicide attempt to have someone take her seriously. It should not take someone coming close to taking their own life to get the proper help they need. Not all people with depression, bipolar disorder, OCD, ADHD, etc. want to kill themselves, no but eventually some of them do. This stigma causes death. And it has to be stopped so the patients without doctors can get the doctors they need, the medication they need, the help they need. The mental health movement needs to go forwards, not backwards.

“It’s all in your head,” isn’t as false as a statement as some people make it out to be. There’s an unprecedented number of people in this world who have been made to believe that mental illness is not an actual “sickness.” These people contribute to the stigma, either making it hard for people to get help (if they are a politician), or they make mentally ill people ashamed or afraid to get help. The most commonly used arguments are the following: Depression is just extreme sadness, anxiety is just a nervous habit, and bipolar disorder is crazy mood swings. In Thomas Szasz’ writing, “The Myth of Mental Illness 101” he says that “illness refers to a bodily lesion, that is, to a material – structural or functional – abnormality of the body, as a machine.” Meanwhile, the definition of illness is “a disease or period of sickness affecting the body or mind.” An illness does affect the mind, proving mental illness to be an actual illness. The brain is an organ that works like the rest of the body’s organs, so why should mental illness not be classified as an illness?

Mentalism. Otherwise known as sanism, is a form of discrimination because of a mental condition a person has. Phrases such as, “How can there be something to discriminate if mental illness is all in one’s head?” or “People don’t get discriminated for mental illness, that’s bull.” Discrimination can come in many forms, some not as prominent as others. The definition of Discrimination is, “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things.” Let’s say that there’s a person who had just been discharged from an inpatient facility where they’d been living, working on themselves for the past month. Random people walking along the street know what the building is, and they stare at the former patient. They take their children and direct them other way, they eye the person and their minds go, “this person is crazy.” No, they are not crazy, they just spent a month trying to rehabilitate themselves and find new ways to cope with the issues that life has handed to them. They did not ask for this illness to be served to them like a steak at a steak house, but here they are. Diagnosed and living with this illness that has the potential to kill them. No one discriminates cancer patients for having cancer. It’s something they can’t control, same as mental illness, which is lost in the minds of neuro-typical people.

In an article named, “I Don’t Believe in Mental Illness, Do You?” Michael Cornwall argues that mental illness is not an illness, but it is madness. Cornwall says he sees people with “mental illness” as “a person who may have various experiences of human emotional suffering which sometimes takes the form of madness.” He makes a strong argument about how “our culture and world is rife with polarizing beliefs,” and goes into detail about how a leader of a peer recovery group had said that full recovery was achievable, so another peer called him a Nazi. He then feared that if a mad person were to hear this, they would believe another holocaust is in the works, and that they would contribute to that. He’s basically saying that a mad person would be triggered by a small event such as that above, and their madness would spiral. Madness used to mean mental illness, yes, but there’s some kind of demeaning meaning behind the word now when referred to that. Ask anyone with a mental illness if they’re “mad” their response would most likely be something along the lines of, “Yes, I’m mad because you asked that question. And no, because I just have a disorder.” Mostly it’s been the entertainment industry that’s responsible for turning madness into a demeaning term. Usually writers or directors instruct the killer in the movie to be considered mad. The Joker, Freddy Kruger, Mike Meyers. All characters that have the potential to be mad. But that’s not the case with the majority of the mentally ill population.

Society has created this so-called stigma against mental illness. The sad fact is that the neuro-typical population believe there cannot be a stigma since mental illness does not exist. Though it does exist. The definition of stigma is, “a mark of disgrace associated with a particular circumstance, quality, or person.” An example of marks of disgrace against mentally ill people is the fact that they are called crazy, unstable, violent, mad, dangerous, or insane. Those kind of words can tear a mentally ill person down more which contributes to their illness, making it even harder for them to find ways to feel better about themselves. It is very hard for people with mental illness to keep jobs. For people with depression, they struggle getting out of bed. Sure, the people are medicated but the medication for mental illness is often slept upon and is very hard for those who need to be treated to get. And even with the medication, the symptoms are not completely gone. It takes years of therapy to get to the point where someone can finally feel okay again, or even well enough to get out of bed. Some stigma’s against the illness is that everyone has these symptoms sometimes, so how can it be specific to someone? Brains are different. They can be compromised, and some people have too much going on in their brain and chemicals are mixed, which can cause an illness.

In conclusion, at the end of the day mental illness is an illness and people need to accept that. Sure, the neuro-typical population is learning to come around, but we as a society still have a long way to go before the stigma ends. There is such a thing as stigma against this illness and it needs to be stopped because if it isn’t then the people who are plagued by this illness will not get the help they need to continue living on this earth without being plagued by their illness. Most importantly they will get to live, something that people with mental illness find very hard to do on most days. Validation is one of the things they need to feel better about themselves. Do not tell them it’s fake. Do not tell them it’s all in their head. Do not tell them that others have it worse. Do not worsen their illness. Accept it and support them.