"Losing Matt Shepard" Part 1

     On Wednesday, October 7, 1998, a Wyoming mountain biker found the body of Matt Shepard clinging to a fence. Matt Shepard was beaten and abused the day before by Laramie citizens Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson; Matt Shepard was gay. As a University of Wyoming student, Matt's death drew national news attention, and it put the town of Larmie, Wyoming "on the map". Beth Loffreda's book, Losing Matt Shepard, explores the life and politics in the victim's home town and state, while it views this tragic death from a variety of perspectives.
     Loffreda's book is divded into six chapters, and the first chapter covers the media's influence on how outsider's view Matt's death and the city of Laramie. Unfortunately, there were times when the rest of our nation viewed Laramie as a racist town in the middle of nowhere. Of course, there were individuals who were homophobic and presented their opinions very strongly. However, masses amount of the Laramie and surrounding communities gathered together for various memorial services while he was still in the hospital, on his death bed. This tragedy could have happened in any town in any state, and it just happened to strike Laramie as the first major gay-murder.
     Losing Matt Shepard sparked an interest with me because the idea of gay respect has always been strong with me. Regardless of the legalization of gay marriage, gay respect is an issue that just requires a change in the mindsets of others. It made me sick when I read about the homophobic protesters who were present at his memorials. Loffreda even noted that one picketer at Matt's funeral was carrying a sign that read, "Get Back in Your Damn Closet". Not only is it cruel to say that to a gay person, but it is extremely offensive, innapropriate, and overall rude to present that at a fuernal. I am not saying that everybody should be in support of the concept of homosexuality because everybody is different. However, I do hope that one day, everybody will respect each other's opinions about homosexuality.
     Branching out of Losing Matt Shepard, the idea of gay respect is an issue all around me; especially in the school environment. Although I feel that compared to other schools my high school is exceptional in terms of bullying, I know that it is far from perfect. Whenever I hear somebody use the word "faggot", at all, I feel sick in my stomach. Usually, but unfortunately not always, I will step in and tell the user that that word is just not cool. However, what annoys me even more is when teachers do not act upon the students' disrespect. In some of my current and past classes, teachers of all sorts have heard students use derrogatory words such as "faggot" and not done anything. To me, that teacher is absolutely not fulfilling his or her duties as a mentor.
    Moving back to Loffreda's book, the first part of it does exemplify the good that did come out of Matt's tragic death. For one thing, it brough light upon the issue of gay abuse and harassment. Plus, I respect the fact that many Laramie citizens emphasized that this tragedy could have happened anywhere. Matt's death gave many Americans a bit more perspective about the reality of our own nation. Matt Shepard is a symbol for the tragedy and horror that exists within our nation, but he is also a symbol for hope to come in the future.

That's Offensive!

     All over the country, Black Friday is a very busy day for many Americans. In support of the well-recognized shopping day, two friends and I decided to shop in Chicago in pursuit of excellent deals. I bought a new pair of Converse shoes, but besides that, we did not get much else, (for the most part). As we were walking toward Michigan Avenue, a very well-known shopping street in the city, we saw something that stopped us in our tracks. A woman and a man were standing next to a table-like-structure that displayed pictures of President Obama with an Adolf Hitler mustache. Immediately, as Jews, my friends and I were highly offended and we informed the people at the table that their picture was extremely offensive.
     Noticing quickly that they were not going to take down their posters, my friends and I made a quick stop at the Staples store down the street. We purchased two white poster boards and a black marker. Then we wrote "That is Offensive" on the poster boards with arrows pointing toward the Obama posters. For the next three hours, we all stood right next to the opposing table as we shouted, "That's Offensive". As a subtle joke, we even handed out blank sheets of notebook paper that had a list of the similarities between Obama and Hitler.
     Many pedestrians took pictures of us, cheered us on, and thanked us for sticking up for what we felt was right. We even got three more teenagers to go to staples to buy their own poster boards. It was a warming feeling to stick up for my morals instantly, and to spontaneously take a stand on something that we thought was clearly offensive. Even though the "offensive" images and table were never taken down, I am proud that we were able to make their message even less effective. The feeling of instant and spontaneous protest is a comforting feeling, and even though it can sometimes be annoying, I am grateful for the free speech that we have in America. If it weren't for free speech, we wouldn't all be pushed to stick up for what we believe to be just, and the world would not be the same today.

Abortion?

For most of my life, I have never had a clear opinion about the abortion debate.There are an immense amoutn of ethical, political, and religious factors that play into the debate, and it can seem to be too much to handle. Furthermore, I feel less of a pressure to form an opinion because I am a male. After reviewing the website for  NARAL-Prochoice America , the leading organization of the Pro-Choice movement, I concluded that the abortion debate, in a sense, is a vicious war. Both sides attack each other furiously, while attempting to defend their own honor. I was surprised to see that the abortion section of the NARAL website started off by attacking the "Pro-Life" movement. Plus, in my exploration of the NARAL website, the basic structure of the text was to first explain what their opponent's attacks were, and then defend themselves through a plan of action or a rebuttal. On the "Bans on Abortion After 12 Weeks" page, the author first wrote about the Federal Abortion Ban of 2003 which, according to NARAL, "is a criminal ban on a safe abortion method". Then, the text goes into explaining the errors of the Federal Abortion Ban of 2003, and then explaining that politicians should not have a part in abortions at all. They believe that it is the women's rights to or not to have an abortion, rather than the rights of the government. Furthermore, NARAL argued that "person hood" should not be defined legally because it may lead to the ban of abortion, birth control, and stem-cell research.  Overall, the vibe that I got from the NARAL website was that they want nothing to do with politics or government decisions. It seems that the Pro-Choice movement is very much "doing their own thing", and it seems that they are trying to "save" women and their rights by giving them the option of abortion. The website made the government seem to be an evil factor that is limiting rights and chocking society's freedom.
On the other side of the issue, the National Right to Life, (the leading Pro-Life movement campaign), website seems to be very welcoming. It is not as aggressive as the NARAL website, which is very relieving. The Pro-Life website seemed to be very clean and fair sine it presented all of the facts very openly and easily. As one who does not yet have a clear opinion about abortion, I would probably side more with the Pro-Life movement because the National Right to Life website did not "scare me off" as much as the NARAL website. Furthermore, the National Right to Life website made it seem as if they obviously held the correct opinion, because the scientific facts of person hood and development supported their viewpoints. Overall, the Pro-Life website seems to be very effective because it is very easy to access scientific facts, and it did not shove the Pro-Life opinion in my face.
No matter what the law says, I feel that abortion is still influenced by ethics and religion. Furthermore, as a minor, I feel that parents and adults should also have a say in an abortion decision. Of course, no teenager wants to tell their parents that they got somebody pregnant, or that they are pregnant. However, abortion is a very serious issue that must be made aware by the parents of both parties. Abortion is not just another "stupid thing that we do as teenagers" such as getting drunk one night. It is a very demanding issue both mentally and physically. Therefore, as children I believe that parents are responsible to give consent for abortion, because it is a very demanding and potentially traumatic decision.
I also believe firmly that the father should be notified of the mother's decision to have an abortion. Although it is the woman who is holding the baby, the father's DNA is still in her baby. Even though it is the woman who has the final decision, the father should absolutely still get a voice. I do not know if he should be required to give consent for the abortion. On one hand, it is his baby too and he should be allowed to bring that baby to life. On the other hand, he is not the mother that will have to care for the child for nine months, and for potentially the next several years of her life. However, I do feel that the father should provide his strong input on whether or not to get an abortion.
Moving onto the political argument of abortion, it seems that Illinois's abortion laws are very fair. According to NARAL's website, the state of Illinois provides abortions to women of low income, both parent and spousal consent are required, and Illinois's constitution provides greater protection of women's rights to choose than the U.S. Constitution itself. However, the Illinois state also limits health care options on abortion, and overall Illinois government is very mixed in the topic of abortion. Overall, I am in favor of Illinois's abortion laws because it is fair and involves more parties than just the mother and her whom. 

The Right Choice.

At the start of the death penalty unit in my Issues in Modern America class, I felt as if my overall opinions were similar to those of most of my peers; I did not know much background information about the issue, and my opinions were fueled by emotions rather than any hardcore evidence or facts. But, after completing the death penalty unit in class, I do not have a definitive opinion about whether or not to use the death penalty. However, I am definitely more knowledgeable about the system and its history, and I do know that I am not in support of the current death penalty system. In our current death penalty system, there is too much room for mistake, and too many men and women have been sentenced to death row and later proven innocent. In fact, this is one of the main reasons of why Governor Ryan initiated blanket commutation right before his term ended as Illinois’s governor; thus capital punishment was abolished in the state of Illinois. I stand behind the Governor’s decision to end the death penalty in Illinois because I feel that it was not a perfect system. In fact, in his January 13, 2003 speech Governor Ryan declared the death penalty to be an inaccurate system, “How many more cases of wrongful conviction have to occur before we can all agree that the system is broken?” (Ryan).

The death penalty system is not one that can measure the significance between a mass murderer, and an innocent person on death row. Many people have been wrongfully convicted in our country, and that is a good enough reason for abandoning the death penalty in Illinois. On February 5, 1999, fifty hours before his execution, Anthony Porter was set free from death row due to the dedication of a private investigator, journalism professor, and his students. The official trials and lawyers of Porter’s case did not prove his innocence before he was sentenced to death row, but rather he was proven innocent in the heat of his execution.           

In addition, there is plenty of room for racial bias in death penalty cases. Many times, minorities are discriminated upon in death penalty cases. Furthermore, blacks are more likely to be accused of holding a weapon when holding an innocent object than whites. Plus, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), "Approximately 90 percent of those on death row could not afford to hire a lawyer when they were tried" (ACLU). Many death-row inmates are a victim of poverty, and thus do not have an adequate legal representation at trial or on appeal. The death penalty system is unfair becaue it depends upon how much money the defendant has in order to afford a skilled attorney. Furthermore, the death penalty does not act as any more of a deterrent for criminals than does life imprisonment. “The vast majority of law enforcement professionals surveyed agree that capital punishment does not deter violent crime; a survey of police chiefs nationwide found they rank the death penalty lowest among ways to reduce violent crime.” (American Civil Liberties Union 2011).

Overall, I am in support of Governor Ryan’s decision of blanket commutation because the Illinois capital punishment system was one filled with bias, innacuracy, and flaws. It is far more just to abolish the death penalty system, than to risk the execution of innocent individuals.

The Death Penalty's Flaws

It is no question that the United States death penalty system brings about much controversy within the nation. David Keaton was wrongly sentenced to death in Florida until he was proven innocent, exonerated, and released free from prison. In responding to the justice system, his brother told Dateline,“Growing up black in this state, you know, you really didn’t have a chance when it came to a crime. You know, they say that justice is blind, but justice really isn’t blind.” Personally, even though I do not know what it is like to grow up black, I do not agree with the first sentence in Keaton's brother's statement. However, for the most part, I do agree with his second sentence since, psychologically, blacks are more noticed for crimes than whites are noticed for crimes. Since blacks are the minority in America, when they commit a crime it stands out more than when whites commit crimes. Plus, it has been proven that if two people, one white and one black, are holding an object such as a wallet or cell phone in their hand, one is more likely to think that the black person is holding a weapon and/or dangerous object. To skip straight to the point, I agree with the statement since I believe that the judicial system is not blind at all. In fact, our society is not blind. I believe that the majority of us all have "racism" lying within our subconscious, but not all of us bring out that racism. Therefore, even though it is unjust, I believe that the justice system does discriminate against race and socioeconomic class.


According to my Social Studies teacher, "There are currently over 3,000 men and women sentenced to death in the United States. Approximately 65 percent of American voters approve of the death penalty in states where capital punishment is legal" (Kramer). To be honest, I believe that the majority of American voters support the death penalty because they only explore the surface of the issue. I believe, that most Americans assume that the death penalty system is fair, and just, and that it only sentences truly guilty suspects to death. Of course, this is all my opinion, and I do not know for sure why the number of American voters that support capital punishment is so high. I feel that most Americans assume that if one is being punished to death, than he or she is truly guilty and must have committed a crime substantial enough for death. In addition, I feel that many Americans would think of the death penalty punishment as justice, and that it clearly exemplifies, "an eye for an eye". Overall, I feel that many American voters have not fully explored capital punishment's history, its controversies, and everything behind the law.


I can only imagine what the thoughts, emotions, and experiences that murder victims' families would encounter. I feel that if I were to be affected by the murder of a loved one, that my opinion would greatly change due to my new perspective. However, with the perspective that I have now, I think that I would want to encourage the victims' families to be the stronger individuals. Putting the murderer to death does not bring justice to their loved ones, but it only amplifies or disintegrates the pain of the victims' families. Just as their loved ones did not know when they were going to die, that should be the same for the murderer. He or she does not have the right to bring closure to his or her life with a set execution date. Furthermore, I feel that life imprisonment is the right choice for the murderer because it ensures the safety of society, and it also punishes the murderer; it forces him or her to live with his or her actions forever. In terms of the victims' families emotions playing a role in the decision, I feel that they should not have a part in the legal system. If religion is separated from the law, so should emotions. However, emotions are very hard to keep out of the law and out of legal decisions. It is emotions that feed our very morals which are the basis of this country. Overall, I feel that there is no definitive way to keep emotions out of the legal system. Plus, there is no perfect answer for the victims' family members. The death penalty, and the murder of a loved one, is simply a confusing and jumbled puzzle in our society. It is up to us Americans how we decide to unscramble the puzzle of the death penalty system.

Stairway to Heaven... literally.

Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is a delicate issue for most people, and one that cannot be taken lightly. For the most part, every single state follows the same steps/stages of the death penalty; some states have different procedures. The process is split up into various stages, which have sub-categories as well, starting with the Pre-Trial. In the Pre-Trial, leads are formed based upon witness testimonies and potential suspects. I believe that this step in the process is a fair process that does not intend to prove an innocent suspect guilty, unless given enough evidence. With the Preliminary Hearing, it is decided whether or not the accused suspect has enough evidence to prove him or herself guilty. If one is proven to be guilty with the evidence, then he or she goes before a grand jury, (usually about twenty three people), and it is decided based upon the evidence if a trial can be held with charges. The Pre-Trial stage cannot move forward unless there is sufficient evidence against the suspect. Therefore, the Pre-Trial stage is one that tries to protect the suspect's innocence, unless evidence points in a more guilty direction.
The second section of the process, which is the Guilt Phase Trial, is in favor of the defendant's innocence. The jurors of the trial are to be "unbiased", and to consider the aggravating and mitigating evidence in the case, not their own personal opinion(s) about the death penalty. Both the prosecutor and the defendant are able to provide evidence, and provide insight on whether or not the defendant is guilty. Plus, the defendant is presumed to be innocent, until proven otherwise. With this process, the judge also sets guidelines for the jury to ensure that they follow the law as well. This is indeed an "innocent favoring" process because the defendant is presumed innocent, unless further evidence or points prove him or her to be guilty.
I believe that the third stage of the death penalty is constructed to ensure the defendant proven guilty. The aggravating facts in the case that are considered by the jury are meant to amplify reasoning to execute the defendant. In addition, the migrating facts do nto justify or excuse the crime, but it can reduce the intensity of the penalty. Therefore, they may "lighten" the defendant's case, but in the end, do not help to abolish the reality of the crimes committed. Plus, statements are recorded into the record which inform the jury of the fiancial, physical, and psychological impacts that the crime has had on the victim and the victim's family. This completely points toward guilt for the defendant because it is almost guaranted that any victim and his or her family has suffered damage from the crime committed. Finally, in the jury sentence recommendations, the jury chooses either a death sentence, or life imprisonment without parole, or a significant numbe of years in prison. The judge then, depending on the state, will either take the recommendation into consideration, or may be required to follow through with the recommendation.
By time the defendant reaches the fourth, fifth, and sixth parts of the death penalty process, the presumption of innocence is removed from the defendant. In addition, a lawyer is not required for the direct appeal process, (the fourth step). I feel that these steps are generally fair, but only if the previous steps were treated fairly as well. There is a period of time after the sentence to attempt to bring in new evidence, which may help the defendant. Hopefully, if the system was played fairly and the defendant truly is guilty, by time the defendant reaches these step, he or she is proven guilty.
I feel that the seventh step, the clemency process, is a very stressful step since-for the most part- it puts the power all in one official. Even though a board can advice that official, he or she still holds the final decision all in his or her hands. Once the proven-guilty-defendant reaches the stage of the actual execution, it is very hard to prove innocence and remove the punishment of the death penalty. It is hard to stop the process that has been in motion for quite some time.
After reviewing the methods of execution involved in the death penalty- hanging, firing squad, electrocution, gas chamber, & lethal injection- I feel that none of them could be labeled as "humane". To intentionally kill another human being, regardless of the reasoning, I believe is not a humane act. Of course, I consider myself an optimist and I try to see the good in people. However, I feel that there are execution methods that are far more "humane"-if at all- than others. For example, I believe that the electrocution, gas chamber, hanging, firing squad. All of them have a potential for "quick" deaths, but also a potential for errors that result in a horribly painful death. Overall, I feel that all of the methods would be considered "cruel & unusual" since they kill another human being, however, the four that I mentioned above stand out from lethal injection.

President Obama's Big Step

This past Friday was an exciting day for me, and it all started with one text message. On my way to my eight period class, I got a text message from one of my close friends that read, "DUDE! Obama just sent 100 troops to Africa to fight off the LRA!".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before continuing with the current story in the blog post, here is a bit of a back story:
Invisible Children is a non-profit, media based, organization that is dedicated to ending the abduction and the use of child soldiers in Central Africa. For the past twenty-five years, a rebel terrorist group, called the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), led by Joseph Kony, has been abducting children from their homes and forcing them to become child soldiers in the LRA. Villages are terrorized, mass atrocities committed, and the child soldiers are brainwashed and forced to commit the same violence. Ever since the spring of 2011, I have had an firey and growing passion toward this war and to fundraise/advocate on behalf of Invisible Children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both ecstatic and confused, I quickly sent a text to one of my friends who tours with Invisible Children, asking her if this was true. Within the next hour, I received multiple text messages and notifications of the same news as well, slowly acquiring more and more information. A friend of mine even sent me a picture of an article, that gave me the first set of real information. I quickly found out, with the help of the Invisible Children Blog and CNN news, that President Obama had indeed sent 100 troops to Central Africa in hopes of apprehending  Joseph Kony. However, Obama's troops do not intend to engage in combat with Kony and the LRA, unless attacked. However, the American troops are there to advise and work with local authorities in order to eliminate the terrorist group.


Immediately, I was overcome with joy and excitement when I heard this thrilling news. In 2009, the LRA Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act, was passed by President Obama in an effort to aid the conflict and bring light upon the issue. To see this planning process now taking action is an incredible experience. All that I can hope for is that it lives up to its expectations. Hopefully one day Joseph Kony will be apprehended, the LRA will diminish, and Kony's child soldiers will return home. I just hope that that day is sooner rather than later, and that Kony will not have another opportunity to ruin lives. I can tell that we are moving forward with a big step, a step that will lead us to peace in Central Africa. Justice is just around the corner, we just have to go the distance in order to reach it. 


For more information on President Obama's decision and/or Invisible Children's response, please visit the following links: 


Invisible Children's Response
CNN

The War on Drugs... in Our Schools.

When I hear the phrase, "pee in the cup", I immediately think of my trips to the pediatrician's office, in which I empty out a urine sample in the privacy of a closed bathroom. Contrary to my immediate thoughts about this phrase, many other high school students associate this phrase with random drug testing in school. Veronia School District v. Acton and Board of Education v. Earls are both U.S. Supreme Court cases that deal with the issue of student drug testing. Both cases require mandatory drug testing for athletes and/or students involved in school extracurricular activities. The cases argue the idea that with school athletics and extracurriculars, there is an "unwritten" norm of privacy already violated: sharing rooms on trips, locker room changes, showering, etc. The cases also go on to argue that random and mandatory drug tests in season are necessary in order to prevent a strong(er) drug problem in the school environment. Personally, I love the idea of these drug testings, as they do promote the values of the school environment. However, I feel that this is the wrong approach. Morally, I feel that illegal drug use is inappropriate, and that it makes a person weak. However, I cannot avoid the reality of drug use that exists in our society today. I do not know what the perfect solution is to this drug problem, but I know that this solution will not benefit our society. It will only continue to push this issue, and to be honest, it may annoy many students. If the star quarter back of a football team gets kicked out of a game for drug use, that will ruin it for the whole team. If the lead in a musical is booted out before opening night, than the whole show is ruined unless there is an understudy. Therefore, I feel that required drug testing for students involved in athletics and/or student activities is a waste of time and money. 


Besides these two court cases, I also explored the issue of strip-searching in a school environment. In an article that I recently read, 13 year old eighth  grade student, Savanna Redding, was stripped searched for illegal drug use due to a tip from a fellow classmate. The entire article can be found here. Overall, this is completely inappropriate. The strip search of a young student is completely inappropriate, and equivalent to prison. If the standards of a school search have now reached those of a prison environment, than the school environment is now corrupt. A school should feel like a safe environment, and that value was contradicted in this search. However, an appropriate response to this "drug tip" would have been a dog search. A "drug detecting" dog could have sniffed around Redding, and thus saving her dignity. In fact, many drug-sniffing dogs have started to make visits at local high schools. According to a recent article about this topic, found here, "The point isn’t so much to make arrests as it is to just make it as hard as possible for anyone to bring drugs into school" (Clark). Reports have shown that drug presence in school has decreased since these drug-sniffing dogs have made a mark on the school with their random searches. Many think that this disrupts the school learning environment, but I feel that it is necessary in order to ensure a safe school environment. I am in favor of this system because it scares students away from the idea of bring drugs to school, with a fear of getting caught. I feel that drug-sniffing dogs have are the most reasonable way to combat the drug problems of our school systems.  

Traditions

As a Freshman in high school, driving through the middle of my town on the Friday night of the Homecoming football game was definitely an adventure. With the car doors locked, I remember watching the rowdy seniors, dressed in all black, as they ran from sidewalk to sidewalk, and blew their whistles loud enough for the whole town to hear. Smiling in amazement from the organized chaos around me, I slowly began to anticipate the day in which I could get this same crazy night for myself. Now, as a senior, I look back to last Friday night, and smile at the fun of it all. It is a tradition that most students at my high school look forward to ever since their first Homecoming game freshman year. It is the thrill of blowing the whistles, running around the crosswalks, and freezing or "mosh pitting" in the middle of the main intersection. Running around for hours, this tradition will definitely be a highlight of my senior year. However, if you were to ask me how this tradition started, or why the senior class runs around like a bunch of lunatics, I would not have an answer for you. In fact, I don't know if anybody in my grade knows why we do this crazy tradition. It is a strange thing that the action of a tradition can many times drown out the origins or the reasons behind it. However, I believe that the pure actions of a tradition are strong enough to keep the tradition alive, no matter what its origins.

For example, in a friend of mine's youth group there is a tradition for people to write funny "ransom notes" for others. Then, at the end of a youth group event, the people targeted in the "ransom notes" would recite a monologue from a movie, impersonate someone, serenade a stranger in another language, or do some other, non-discriminatory and non-hurtful, task. Even though this tradition is now one of the highlights of my friend's youth group, its origins are not so bright. The tradition started off in the 1970s when a girl would be teased in the youth group and given "ransom notes" in order to get her stuff back that was stolen from her. Now, that harsh story is long forgotten by most people in the youth group, and it has turned into a fun, healthy, and eventful tradition.

According to its definition, a tradition is something that is handed down. It is not necessary for the origins or intent of a tradition to be known in order for it to be considered a tradition. Rather, the mere action and continuation of a tradition is strong enough for it to last. In the end, I do not know why I ran around in the middle of my town with my fellow seniors. However, I do know that it was a blast, and it is something that I want future seniors to have the opportunity to experience as well. For me, that is a good enough reason for the tradition to last.

Conscious Racism or Just Good Fun?

For nearly a century, Minstrel shows took over the entertainment of thousands of Americans as white men would put on "black face", usually shoe polish, and paint their faces black. This perception of blacks as stupid, clumsy, uneducated, and childish was seen as an innocent form of entertainment during the Jim Crow era, (1870-1960). However, as our society evolved, and our morals began to rationalize themselves out, these Minstrel shows became more racist and less entertaining. Even though Minstrel shows are not common today, their foundations are still prevalent in our society today. "Ghetto parties" have been noted all throughout the country in this new millennium that we live in today. All across the United States, in college campuses and private functions, whites have been imitating the actions of the KKK, blacks, gangs, whores, and other stereotypical groups.

Through my reading of Jim Crow on Fraternity Row, I have come to justify even more my reasoning that racism within our society is still creeping around the corner for many. It is a sad thing to read about a college fraternity party that has conducted "pretend" lynchings, and to even ponder over the fact that these parties are just seen as "good fun" to those who attend them. I guess that the justification of those who participate in these parties can conclude that they are not actually being racist in a sense that they are beating up black college students, or threatening to lynch them. As long as the "racist fun" stays within the walls of their parties, than that is okay. However, the mere exposure to these racist acts are enough to allow it to seem "okay" to the party-goers.

I definitely feel that these behaviors should be banned or outlawed on campuses throughout the country. Fueling these "modern day minstrel shows", filled with racist entertainment, pushes our society's progress back years ago. We should be moving forward in acceptance and/or respect of our differences, not secretly mocking them. With the practice of accepting behaviors among the college campus, and punishing those that are destructive, the overall campus environment can become one that is safer and more accepting. A college campus is supposed to be one filled with the intention of learning, personal growth, and maturity. These behaviors mock all of those values, and do not bring any sort of progress or improvement to either the college or the students. There should be no tolerance for such destructive behavior on colleges' campuses. It originated from the past, and it should stay in the past.

At American University, located in Washington D.C., there is a restriction on computer use, the copyright policy, harassment, and sexual discrimination. In addition, there has been a case of restriction of videotaping during a public event. A journalist student from the school wanted to videotape a speech, but was punished for her act since it was claiming to have been "stealing from private property". In reality, the restrictions on speech do not affect my views on AU all that much. I still view the university as a well-respected, professional, institution. I do not mind the idea of restrictions within a private university setting, since there are many students at the university, all with different ideas, opinions, feelings, etc. I believe in the restrictions on speech in terms of harassment and sexual discrimination, since my morals agree with those restrictions. However, I believe that computer use-in terms of student access- should not be restricted as long as it is of public domain. In terms of videotaping during a public event, AU is a private institution. Therefore videotaping without consent during a presentation could be interpreted as "illegal". However, I believe that this all depends upon the situation. Videotaping a graduation speech is much different than videotaping a meeting between the dean and students. In addition, I would like to believe that AU would take action if parties such as "ghetto parties" and other discriminatory social events were being held on campus. The university could very well see that scenario as harassment and discrimination, which would require some sort of action/punishment toward the students.
Overall, I do not know how I feel about speech codes and the restriction of speech at a university and in an educational setting. One side of me is in favor of most of these speech codes, since they go hand-in-hand with my morals. I believe that discrimination, harassment, and other hurtful actions should not be tolerated in an educational environment. However, there is another part of me that does not want to implement these codes in order to strengthen, or toughen, the students. We cannot grow up in shelters and not experience the reality of discrimination and hate that exists outside of our campuses. It is important that students leave their universities and high school campuses, ready to take on the world, and ready to face any and all challenges. If speech codes restrict the possibility of personal disturbance in a university, than one may never grow to his or her potential. Overall, I believe that there is no right or wrong answer. Merely the debate over freedom of expression and speech codes pushes us to grow, and acknowledge our rights. We do not truly appreciate our rights until they are gone, and the restriction of expression really shows us what we can have. The day that we can draw a straight line in terms of what is allowed and what is not allowed to be expressed, is a day that I fear we will not see for a very long time. However, when that line appears, I hope that we are ready to draw a new line.

Reigniting Emotions

For quite some time, my emotions toward 9/11 were not as strong or empathetic as I would have liked. Suddenly, within one hour, that all changed. My senior Social Studies teacher had brought in a movie titled, "9/11". The bold film includes rare and raw footage inside the World Trade Centers at the time of the attacks, during clean up and rescue efforts, and footage of the courageous firefighters who worked diligently for several days on "Ground Zero". I vividly remember leaving class on the first day that we began the film; it was dead silent. Nobody said a word as we all exited the classroom. For me, my emotions swelled up inside of my body, and made everything else seem less important. I did not care about lunch, or saying "Hi" to friends in the hallway. What could possibly have been more important at that time than reflecting upon that film and the tragic events on 9/11? To be a survivor on that day, I have no idea how to comprehend that blessing. Is there a feeling of entitlement that comes with being a survivor? Many Firemen in the film expressed that very concept. What amazes me the most is the dedication that all of the Firemen and rescuers had to find even just one other survivor or body in the rubble. The losses on that day were enormous, and incomprehensible. To be a survivor of 9/11 is a struggle that I cannot comprehend.

Personally, I cannot remember living in a "pre-9/11" time. I do not remember airports with less security regulations, or ever having to not pack small toothpaste tubes. For me, the 9/11 "vibe" has become a part of my average life. I rarely second guess boarding a plane, since I already feel incredibly safe with the security in airports today. For me, the biggest struggle of 9/11 is comprehending its greatness and river of emotions that flows with it. I do not remember where I was, or what I was doing on September 11, 2001, so 9/11, in a way, is a disconnected event for me. However, I still attempt to feel a connection to that mournful day. Knowing that I was alive at the time, and impacted indirectly by the terrorist attacks, is enough for me to want to feel emotions toward the day. I do not remember September 11, 2001, but I will absolutely never forget its impact.

Living In a-Limited- Free Society.

I believe in the principles of humanity, those which were set forth hundreds of years ago, and those which are the very basis of our nation. The ideas of enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, and even Thomas Jefferson, are the basis of our historical documents and the foundation of the United States of America. This idea has lead our nation's leaders to great heights, as well as the creation of the first amendment: the freedom of speech, petition, religion, assembly, and press. How can all of our freedoms possibly coexist in this nation, with so many of us? There is a vast variety of individuals who live in America; how can they all possibly get along? If we live in a free society, what gives the government the right to regulate the law? We made this decision ourselves. For the most part, we are all free citizens of this country-we are not forced to be here. Living here, paying taxes, and participating in society, is a way of giving into the laws of this country and accepting the country's standards and rules.

But what makes somebody below the age of eighteen a "minor"? Just because one is a minor, does that mean that his or her rights are limited? Does that mean that if he or she were to run away from this country, that that act is illegal? In a sense, are we trapped here? Yes, and as long as we are here, we have to play by the rules. If one does not like how something is done, or does not like a law, that is fine-that is great! In order to change that law, the individual minor has to take action. Complaining to your principle or dean doesn't do anything, because we all know that you will just end up angry, annoyed, and losing that argument. Plus, you are not helping bring justice to those who will come after you. So, the moral is to not just complain and rebel without any intent of actual change. That may get your message across, but in a short amount of time it will mean nothing. It has to spark inspiration for either you or someone else in order to take effective action. Take action to change the law; change the rules. Behind every rule, there is a person. Find that person, and fix or change the rule by the right means. Whether that involves a lawsuit, petition, or any other sort of action, it can be done. Get others involved, make your voice louder, become a movement. Let's face it, in order to win this game, we have to play by the rules, and hopefully in the end, we will beat the game. It CAN be done, but only if you are willing to sacrifice a bit. The choice is yours: be a stubborn complainer, or be the change.

Moving Mountains

"All of the armies of the world cannot stop an idea whose time has come" -Victor Hugo-

I am not going to post a blog about how the youth of today is the future, and that adults should listen to us. Afterall, that topic has been covered a multiple of times, and hopefully by now we all get the idea that the youth of the past, today, and the future, will continue to innovate and "move mountains" in our societies. However, I am writing to tell you to not pay attention just to the youth of today, but to the optimists of today. It is the optimists of our society that make change. I believe that if we want to advance, if we want to improve, than there is no room for those who shut them down. Listen to them, become inspired by them, and help the optimists to lead our movements, lead our governments, lead our schools, our neighborhoods, and our societies. Together, we have no limits, not even the sky.