I had dinner with a former student, Alex Keeling, in Washington, DC, over the summer. Alex is extremely intelligent, and leaves me in his dust. We spoke of the coming election, and he predicted a win for Clinton. I appreciated that, but did not want anything to seem so easy. It never is. Don't count your chickens before they hatch. . . etc. We spent several hours at a Afghan restaurant, talking politics. He works for the government, but was curious what a Trump presidency would look like. Me, I was worried. It didn't seem to phase him. This surprised me very much. What comes, comes. I could not wrap my mind around such a thought. When the election came and went, my daughters were very upset. My family was quietly excited. My friends were in shock. The world turned upside down.
We are now 100 days in to a presidency that defies all traditional logic. With all the lessons I shared about how government works, I am reminded why the social studies is an art, not a science. You can tell yourself that the world makes sense, that it can be quantified, but I am telling you right now, there is a human side to this world defies logic. Above everything, we strive to remain human. And, everyday we learn something knew about the human nature.
Saturday, April 29, 2017
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Date Rape and College Campuses
On this first day (with students) of a new school year, NPR ran a piece on date rape. In a further step to curb the crises, app developers have several new tools out for smart phones. One mentioned on the program was "Circle of Six". I think this is a great idea, and I highly promote it. I am curious, though, to take it to the next level. The idea behind the app is that you preprogram six friends numbers into the phone, with a message of "I need help with a bad date", and in a bad situation, you hit one key, and the message goes out. That is great, and I don't want to deride from the potential power to help this will be. I am curious about the psychological effects of the six if they miss the text. Again, this is not to say the product should be redesigned or taken off the shelf. Simply asking questions. What if you miss the text, out on the town, unable to effectively think straight. What if you have your phone turned off? What if? I guess that is why it is six people, in the hope that one will be around. What if the attacker is in the circle of six, as most date rapes are associates/friends?
The app is being tested on a college campus for two years. That has got to be tough for the school to allow the program to come in, as it requires that the school admit that date rape exists. We all know, logically, that date rape happens at major institutions, including colleges, high schools, and the military, as well as in every day life. Saying that publicly does not mean that a school is willing to do the same. No school publishes their level of attacks. There is an incentive to get the numbers down, but you still don't want to brag. The organization in no way allows or encourages the action, but they still take all responsibility, and are expected to work to curb the actions. But to do it discreetly. That is what intrigues me about a school choosing to pilot the program. Colleges (school) are very risk averse. On the surface, every parent agrees that they want their child's school to do more to protect the students. But, to openly admit you have a problem is to put an active bug in the mind of every parent that there is a need in the first place. Mental illness is a major issue in the world, and everyone is willing to reach out to others to share phone numbers and encouragement, but ultimately, how many of us are willing to take the long journey for treatment and support that our friends require when they do admit to it? The stigma attached to these issues is so large, it is a surprise that anyone is willing to take on the task. Great work, William Woods.
Another app just out (I don't remember the name), allows a victim to catalogue the incident, then do three things: Report immediately, save the details for later (time to process, understand, cope), or to put the perpetrator on the radar, and report if another issue arises with the same person. Interesting. Power is shifting. And I am glad.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Our Poor Children. . .
As I write this, I am 38. I dated in high school. I took the car on Friday nights, and I did what I liked. I had a curfew, further reinforced but the fact that I had to work Saturday morning at 530 AM. Just the same, I spent time out. I did things that I shouldn't have. I explored. I adventured. I misled my parents. I was a kid. And the key to it all, there was only one way to get caught. My mom or dad had to catch me. They had to get in a car, and track me down. If I came home late, I could argue that I misunderstood the curfew time before I left. If I said I was going to the movies, but decided to park instead, who would know? Not anymore. When my children begin dating, they will presumably have a cell phone. With a cell phone, I can call them at any point. If I call them, I will expect a response. Not a text, not an email. I will expect my phone call will be answered. I expect to speak to whatever friend they are supposed to be with. The technology will be so effective that I will be able to pinpoint the location of the phone my child is talking to me on down to the house on the block. I can look up who lives in the house. I can check to see if that person is hosting a party (via social media outlets, because who wouldn't publicize a party). With modern technology, I can track the speed, driving habits, and location via an app. WIth social media, my children will be encouraged to share their private lives with all their friends, unwittingly tipping me off to things they may not want me to know. And truly, some of it may be things I didn't want to know, either. Life was a lot different when I was a kid. For better or worse, the world has changed.
Friday, December 20, 2013
Duck Dynasty Faux Pas
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/gop-politicians-defend-39-duck-dynasty-39-star-184932178--abc-news-politics.html
So, Phil from "Duck Dynasty" stated his personal beliefs to a national magazine. Should the magazine have censored his comments, as they were possibly hurtful and damaging to his career? Did it benefit the magazine to ask questions that led him to make comments that were seen as crude and destructive? Who is responsible for his words? In this society, a free society, with freedom of speech and freedom of the press, Phil solely is responsible for his comments. What he says in an interview to the press is his responsibility. Once it is out of his mouth, the magazine has a duty to its own profits to print what might catch attention, regardless of the consequences to Phil and his own income source. No one would disagree with that.
Phil is entitled to his opinion. If this is how he feels, no one thinks they can truly change his heart. But, as a public figure, his words have power. When he makes a comment like what he did, comparing homosexuality to bestiality and multiple partners, his words carry more weight. If he said this in his church, a bar with his friends, or in his own home (without cameras rolling) he has every right to speak his mind. Unfortunately, when his thoughts become public, he is responsible for them. Again, no one attempted to censor him. No one has tried to block the publication of his words. What he said is inflammatory because we are in a time of change, and the nation is trying to find a way forward. The past is easy to go back to, because we know where we came from.
This issue is being framed as an attack on religion and on free speech, both protected in the Constitution. The only problem with this line of attack is that the Constitution was designed to protect individuals (through incorporation) and states (originally the purpose of the Bill of Rights) from federal intrusion in these areas. As an individual I am allowed to say what I choose without the government acting against me. I cannot, however, criticize another man without the threat of him acting against me. If I criticize my boss, he has the right to punish me. As a student, freedom of speech is limited somewhat. Students cannot cuss or disparage other students. There are numerous examples of freedom of speech carried out. But, it can only be protection from a public (government entity) punishing an individual or group. The government is not stepping in to restrict the thoughts or words of either Phil or other conservatives that may find comfort in his words. The government has remained silent on this. While private organizations (A + E is a private company) have spoken out about their disagreement with his words, GQ, A+E, GLAD, and the NAACP are all private organizations, and have as much right to publicly criticize his views, both public comments and religious views, as he does to criticize others. Ultimately the buyers money will decide who is right in this. It is not the choice of a few to misuse the Constitution to their own personal benefit.
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana governor, has expressed his dissatisfaction with the controversy by comparing it to Miley Cyrus. No one has censored Miley Cyrus, he argues, but they have a religious man like Phil. Miley Cyrus does not have a long term contract with a television company. She (I assume) has a contract with a recording company. That company found her performance at the VMAs beneficial financially to themselves. There was a lot of public outcry both from the mainstream media, the left and the right about Miley Cyrus' performance. But, record sales stayed high. In the case of Phil, there was outcry from many sources for his comments. The company that holds his contract (A+E) felt they wanted to distance themselves from this controversy. They chose to suspend his contract, and they had the contractual right to do so. If Miley were still working for Disney, presumably they would do the same. Miley was just working for a company that allowed greater latitude. That is the difference. This is and never was an issue of the First Amendment, and freedoms from government intrusion. It is the freedom of companies to choose what is in their own self interest. Please don't muddy the waters.
So, Phil from "Duck Dynasty" stated his personal beliefs to a national magazine. Should the magazine have censored his comments, as they were possibly hurtful and damaging to his career? Did it benefit the magazine to ask questions that led him to make comments that were seen as crude and destructive? Who is responsible for his words? In this society, a free society, with freedom of speech and freedom of the press, Phil solely is responsible for his comments. What he says in an interview to the press is his responsibility. Once it is out of his mouth, the magazine has a duty to its own profits to print what might catch attention, regardless of the consequences to Phil and his own income source. No one would disagree with that.
Phil is entitled to his opinion. If this is how he feels, no one thinks they can truly change his heart. But, as a public figure, his words have power. When he makes a comment like what he did, comparing homosexuality to bestiality and multiple partners, his words carry more weight. If he said this in his church, a bar with his friends, or in his own home (without cameras rolling) he has every right to speak his mind. Unfortunately, when his thoughts become public, he is responsible for them. Again, no one attempted to censor him. No one has tried to block the publication of his words. What he said is inflammatory because we are in a time of change, and the nation is trying to find a way forward. The past is easy to go back to, because we know where we came from.
This issue is being framed as an attack on religion and on free speech, both protected in the Constitution. The only problem with this line of attack is that the Constitution was designed to protect individuals (through incorporation) and states (originally the purpose of the Bill of Rights) from federal intrusion in these areas. As an individual I am allowed to say what I choose without the government acting against me. I cannot, however, criticize another man without the threat of him acting against me. If I criticize my boss, he has the right to punish me. As a student, freedom of speech is limited somewhat. Students cannot cuss or disparage other students. There are numerous examples of freedom of speech carried out. But, it can only be protection from a public (government entity) punishing an individual or group. The government is not stepping in to restrict the thoughts or words of either Phil or other conservatives that may find comfort in his words. The government has remained silent on this. While private organizations (A + E is a private company) have spoken out about their disagreement with his words, GQ, A+E, GLAD, and the NAACP are all private organizations, and have as much right to publicly criticize his views, both public comments and religious views, as he does to criticize others. Ultimately the buyers money will decide who is right in this. It is not the choice of a few to misuse the Constitution to their own personal benefit.
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana governor, has expressed his dissatisfaction with the controversy by comparing it to Miley Cyrus. No one has censored Miley Cyrus, he argues, but they have a religious man like Phil. Miley Cyrus does not have a long term contract with a television company. She (I assume) has a contract with a recording company. That company found her performance at the VMAs beneficial financially to themselves. There was a lot of public outcry both from the mainstream media, the left and the right about Miley Cyrus' performance. But, record sales stayed high. In the case of Phil, there was outcry from many sources for his comments. The company that holds his contract (A+E) felt they wanted to distance themselves from this controversy. They chose to suspend his contract, and they had the contractual right to do so. If Miley were still working for Disney, presumably they would do the same. Miley was just working for a company that allowed greater latitude. That is the difference. This is and never was an issue of the First Amendment, and freedoms from government intrusion. It is the freedom of companies to choose what is in their own self interest. Please don't muddy the waters.
Friday, November 8, 2013
Like a breath of fresh air. . .
Having worked in both public and private schools, I can see their is so much more than just the basic argument of cost that is so often made. Private school tuition for a high school is approximately $8000 in the area. The prices go up, but rarely lower than that. Public schools report spending approximately $12,000 per student. So why does it cost so much more at a public school? Are private schools just that much better? Let's break down some of the variables that account for the differences. This is completely anecdotal, but I hope to show how the simplistic arguments can be deconstructed.
--- Typically, private school teachers are paid less than public school teachers. They trade uniforms, conformity, and the ability to kick out students that don't conform (a little discussed secret) out of the school. The pay tends to be a 20 to 30% difference. That is a huge tradeoff. To help offset it, often there is a discount for the children of teachers to go to the school.
--- Private schools tend to ask a lot of their teachers, giving extra assignments (extra teaching loads), coaching duties, and different assignments. The compensation will not be equal to a public school teacher, but the sense of commitment will be used to guilt. In public schools, a union restricts the work hours, work load, and assignments.
--- Public schools service everyone. EVERYONE. Documented or undocumented. All students in a district are served. Whether you have money or don't, public schools provide opportunities. Whether you have special needs or you are an over achiever, public schools serve you. Private schools are able to pick students, refuse others, and can ask any student to leave. Offenses leading to expulsion may be drugs, fighting, language, disrespect, or just non-compliance. It doesn't take a lot to be removed from a private school. Public schools don't have that luxury. They must handle every student, regardless of the home situation, the stressors, the choices families make. Bruised, angry children, from broken homes, lashing out at a system that they feel has failed them are beside students from picture perfect homes. Both deserve an education, and only public education commits fully to caring for them.
--- Special education has never been a priority for private schools. The cost is too high, and the law has not mandated them to do anything. Public schools, on the other hand, have a legal obligation. Special education teachers are often overloaded, and work diligently to care for those most vulnerable in our society. But, because of their special situation, they often act as a second teacher in a classroom, or deal with fewer students. Often, public schools bring in aides to help out students with extra needs. All of this drives up the cost of education, and is unique to the public sector. A private student with a Individualized Education Plan is by law required to be transported to a public school by the public school for anything that the private school can not offer.
--- Public schools have social workers, Student Resource Officers, and numerous people to help bridge the growing gap between the haves and the have nots in society, and the children caught in the middle. This is just good business, but again, drives up the price.
--- Technology is better in public schools, usually, and the variety of programs offered (at a loss) is much greater. Technology classes, real world skills, vocational technologies, etc. are offered at public schools, but are not at private schools. Most private schools call themselves college prep, and have no courses in vocational technologies. The cost is too high. But, not all of our students are college bound. Some have skills and interests that aren't college specific.
Enough of a rant. Understand that my descriptions were large, and wide. They won't fit every situation, but they are for the most part accurate. Both school systems have a purpose. But the argument is not as simple as private does it better. They do a lot of fundraising, a lot of cherry picking, and a lot of demanding. Teaching has never been about the money for teachers. Don't reduce education down to a simple argument over money. It is so much more complex.
--- Typically, private school teachers are paid less than public school teachers. They trade uniforms, conformity, and the ability to kick out students that don't conform (a little discussed secret) out of the school. The pay tends to be a 20 to 30% difference. That is a huge tradeoff. To help offset it, often there is a discount for the children of teachers to go to the school.
--- Private schools tend to ask a lot of their teachers, giving extra assignments (extra teaching loads), coaching duties, and different assignments. The compensation will not be equal to a public school teacher, but the sense of commitment will be used to guilt. In public schools, a union restricts the work hours, work load, and assignments.
--- Public schools service everyone. EVERYONE. Documented or undocumented. All students in a district are served. Whether you have money or don't, public schools provide opportunities. Whether you have special needs or you are an over achiever, public schools serve you. Private schools are able to pick students, refuse others, and can ask any student to leave. Offenses leading to expulsion may be drugs, fighting, language, disrespect, or just non-compliance. It doesn't take a lot to be removed from a private school. Public schools don't have that luxury. They must handle every student, regardless of the home situation, the stressors, the choices families make. Bruised, angry children, from broken homes, lashing out at a system that they feel has failed them are beside students from picture perfect homes. Both deserve an education, and only public education commits fully to caring for them.
--- Special education has never been a priority for private schools. The cost is too high, and the law has not mandated them to do anything. Public schools, on the other hand, have a legal obligation. Special education teachers are often overloaded, and work diligently to care for those most vulnerable in our society. But, because of their special situation, they often act as a second teacher in a classroom, or deal with fewer students. Often, public schools bring in aides to help out students with extra needs. All of this drives up the cost of education, and is unique to the public sector. A private student with a Individualized Education Plan is by law required to be transported to a public school by the public school for anything that the private school can not offer.
--- Public schools have social workers, Student Resource Officers, and numerous people to help bridge the growing gap between the haves and the have nots in society, and the children caught in the middle. This is just good business, but again, drives up the price.
--- Technology is better in public schools, usually, and the variety of programs offered (at a loss) is much greater. Technology classes, real world skills, vocational technologies, etc. are offered at public schools, but are not at private schools. Most private schools call themselves college prep, and have no courses in vocational technologies. The cost is too high. But, not all of our students are college bound. Some have skills and interests that aren't college specific.
Enough of a rant. Understand that my descriptions were large, and wide. They won't fit every situation, but they are for the most part accurate. Both school systems have a purpose. But the argument is not as simple as private does it better. They do a lot of fundraising, a lot of cherry picking, and a lot of demanding. Teaching has never been about the money for teachers. Don't reduce education down to a simple argument over money. It is so much more complex.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Freedom Riders, PBS
Wow, I forgot this was coming on. What a great documentary. So powerful. The Civil Rights Movement could only gain that much steam with the power of cameras and television. Unfortunately, I missed parts, so I'll have to come back and watch it online:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/freedomriders/watch
Here are some key points that caught my attention:
1. There is a segment where the story of the Riders is broadcast in the Communist Bloc. This is intriguing, because it put the abstract ideals America stands for in stark contrast a concrete reality shown to the world. That was a Cold War blow, and it is often something overlooked.
2. The prison system where the riders were sentenced, and the labor they were pressed in to for their challenging the system. Wow. The chain gang is an interesting experience.
3. Robert F. Kennedy (Archival):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/freedomriders/watch
Here are some key points that caught my attention:
1. There is a segment where the story of the Riders is broadcast in the Communist Bloc. This is intriguing, because it put the abstract ideals America stands for in stark contrast a concrete reality shown to the world. That was a Cold War blow, and it is often something overlooked.
2. The prison system where the riders were sentenced, and the labor they were pressed in to for their challenging the system. Wow. The chain gang is an interesting experience.
3. Robert F. Kennedy (Archival):
"A great change is at hand, and our task, our obligation is to make that revolution, that change, peaceful and constructive for all. Those who do nothing are inviting shame as well as violence. Those who act boldly are recognizing right as well as reality." -- Wow. I am called to act. How do I act like I didn't hear this?
I am curious what others thought of the show.
Does Prison Socialize?
I came across this today, and it reminded me of the movie Shawshank Redemption, which was actually written as a novella by Stephen King originally. The scene I am thinking of is with the older man, I don't remember is name. He asks to use the restroom. The employer looks at him as if he is a fool. But, his entire adult life, that is exactly what he has done. He doesn't know how to live without the direction of the guards. He has been resocialized, or institutionalized. I experienced a similar effect when I came home from Basic Training. I missed the routine, the lack of decisions (I almost wrote choices), and the lack of responsibility. It was like a vacation in some respects. Anyway, it can be overwhelming to reenter life, and its complexities when you have been out of it for so long. The following article is about a man who sought to go back to prison.
CHICAGO (AP) — After spending
most of his adult life behind bars, 73-year-old Walter Unbehaun decided to rob another
bank in hopes of getting caught. He felt more comfortable in prison, court
documents allege, and wanted to spend his final years there.
So the balding, gray-haired South Carolina man leaned on a cane as he walked into a bank in suburban Chicago over the weekend and used a novel stickup line: He had just six months to live, so he had nothing left to lose, according to a federal complaint citing his post-arrest interrogation.
Unbehaun also allegedly lifted his coat to
show a teller a silver revolver shoved into his waistband.
Investigators say Unbehaun, of Rock Hill,
S.C., walked out of the Harris Bank in Niles on Saturday with $4,178
in his pockets. He wore no disguises, so law enforcement quickly tracked him
down using surveillance-camera photos of him holding up the bank, the complaint
said.
When authorities stopped Unbehaun on Sunday outside a motel room where he was staying, he immediately threw down his cane and surrendered, saying he knew they were there because he robbed a bank the day before, according to the complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago.
Unbehaun told investigators hours after his arrest that he had spent most of his adult life in prison and "felt more comfortable in prison than out."
"He wanted to do something that would guarantee that he would spend the rest of his life in prison, and he knew that robbing a bank with a loaded gun would accomplish that," according to the complaint, signed by FBI agent Chad Piontek.
Contacted on Tuesday, Unbehaun's defense attorney, Richard McLeese, declined comment.
Unbehaun's most recent stint behind bars
ended in 2011, when he was released after serving 10 years for a 1998 bank robbery. His
Illinois record alone includes multiple other felonies dating back decades.
Unbehaun made an initial court appearance Monday in Chicago and was ordered to remain in jail pending further court procedures. No additional hearing dates were set.
If he is eventually convicted on the new bank robbery charge, he could be sent to prison for up to 20 years.
http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-elderly-ex-con-robbed-bank-hopes-prison-010514734.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)