Junior Theme Part 1

This week in American Studies has been completely focused on kick starting our Junior Theme papers. I have dreaded the thought of this assignment since I was in 8th grade when my brother did his. Now it is my time to write this monster of a paper.

I started the week browsing around for topics and has a list of 5 possible directions to send my paper in. They were abortion, gun control, minimum wage, laziness and technology, and nutrition labels. I am a very passionate advocate for the pro-life view on abortion, and thought that this would make a fantastic topic to write my junior theme on.

I did a good amount of research to get arguments from both sides on the issue of abortion and thought that there was no possibility of doing any other topic. Mr. O’Connor then shut that topic down because of how difficult it would be to make the paper NOT an argument for my side, and instead a more balanced and historical look at abortion.

I had no idea what to do from here because I had banked so much into the abortion topic. I later met with Mr. Bolos to discuss ideas with him. I had written “nutrition labels” basically just to have a 5th topic so it looked like I was working harder. Bolos saw this and explained to me some unknown details about the food industry that really fascinated me. He showed me a book called The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan, which goes into an in depth analysis of the food industry and how it works.

Right now I am thinking that my paper will be based around the question, “Why does the American diet look the way it does?”. I’m guessing this will change, and will keep posting blogs as my topic takes different forms.

Why do You Stand?

It is not often that you hear an elite level athlete make a statement about society that angers many people. Statements that athletes make are normally minimal and not detailed, so that there will not be too much controversy attached to their name. Kobe Bryant did just this recently, calling out black America, specifically the Miami Heat, for collectively taking one side in the Trayvon Martin case.

Bryant said about the situation, “I won’t react to something just because I’m supposed to, because I’m an African-American. That argument doesn’t make any sense to me. So we want to advance as a society and a culture, but, say, if something happens to an African-American we immediately come to his defense? Yet you want to talk about how far we’ve progressed as a society? Well… then don’t jump to somebody’s defense just because they’re African-American. You sit and you listen to the facts just like you would in any other situation, right?”

Bryant’s words carry a lot of truth. He says that his reason for doing things will not be because his fellow African-Americans do it. That would just create more stereotypes and be counterintuitive to any anti-racism movement. Bryant says that people need to defend others based on evidence, not based on skin color.

I am not here to take a side on the whole Trayvon Martin case. Obviously I think it is horrible that someone died. I do happen to agree with Kobe, because his words are so insightful. I see people all around me in my life make decisions and take stances without actually looking at evidence, and instead going with the crowd. This lesson that Bryant gives transcends the world of racism and can be applied to many different things. Some people hold political views without doing any research as to what exactly they believe and why they believe it. Instead, they let other people think for them, like the media. If you take a stance on an issue, make sure you are taking the stance intelligently, and not just going with the flow.

Read more here.

Comment below to weigh in.

Freedom of Religion in Business

Right now Hobby Lobby is waiting on a decision from the Supreme Court. The controversial issue right now is whether or not companies can refuse to pay for certain contraceptives based on religious reasons. Hobby Lobby does not wait to pay for two forms of contraceptives, IUDs and morning-after pills, because they see those as abortion.

On Tuesday, the Hobby Lobby lawyer Paul Clement was questioned intensely by the Supreme court. Here are a few of the questions and responses:

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: What about employers who have religious objections to health plans that cover other basic medical procedures — blood transfusions, immunizations, medical products that include pork?

Clement: Each would have to be evaluated by the courts to see if it is fully justified and accomplished by the least restrictive means.

Sotomayor is taking Clement’s logic to the extreme, and asking what would happen if a company opposed to something on religious grounds that was considered basic by all. Clement responded that every instance would have to be handled in a case by case manner, weeding out cases that are obviously preposterous from reasonable ones. He applies the same argument moments later when another justice jumped in.

Justice Elena Kagan: Using that reasoning, an employer might have a religious objection to complying with sex discrimination laws, minimum wage laws, family leave laws and child labor laws, to name just a few.

Clement: Just because claims are being brought doesn't mean that they will all win. The courts, he said, can "separate the sheep from the goats."

I think this is a great defense because it shows that Hobby Lobby’s view really is reasonable and down to earth. Yes, they are taking a stance on a controversial issue, but it is not as if their side cannot be defended through logic and reasoning, like the instances Kagan brings up.

Clement continues to do a very solid job defending this viewpoint, and you can continue to read the dialogue here.

I agree with Clement’s claims and I believe that a company needs to have religious freedom like individuals have. Companies are individuals working together, and everything that comes out of a company is from individuals. If a company cannot voice an opinion and exercise the freedom of religion, then we need to take a look at our government is using the Constitution. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. It’s right there in the Constitution. The free exercise of religion is not to be prohibited, plain and simple. Forcing a company to pay for something it has moral issues with because of religious standards it hold itself to is unconstitutional and un-american.

Collegiate Compensation

Today the Chicago district of the National Labor Relations Board decided that football players at Northwestern University qualify to be employees and can unionize. This decision is highly controversial, being that many people agree with this decision, while others find it terrible.

The side that agrees points to the amount of time spent playing football by the players, and that their scholarships are determined by on the field performance. They argue that since the universities rely on the players to generate the billions of dollars that come from college athletics, the role the students hold is that of an employee. Former Northwestern QB Kain Colter, an avid supporter of the ruling, said “For me this was just an opportunity to make things right and stick up for future generations and make up for the wrongs of past generation.” Obviously, he sees the potential of unionization and salaries as a good thing.

On the other hand are those who would end up with less money, those that work for the NCAA and the individual universities. Northwestern released a statement shunning the ruling saying “Northwestern believes strongly that our student-athletes are not employees, but students.” The advocates of the current system note that the way things are have helped millions of students attend college.

I happen to agree with the universities and the NCAA. Student-athletes willingly go to college to play sports, but to also be students. They are students who play sports. Not employees who go to school. Should high school football players unionize as well? Tickets are sold to attend the game, and money is made through those tickets to watch the students play. Obviously the answer is no, and the answer should be the same at a collegiate level. Student athletes are still students attending school who play sports. Until someone becomes a PROFESSIONal, when it is their PROFESSION to play a sport, they should not receive monetary compensation. Sports are extracurricular activities at schools. School is first, sports are a game on the side. No matter how hard you work at the game or how much time you put into it, it is still 2nd to education.

Read more here.

Comment below to weigh in

Enabling the Disabled

A few days ago on friday March 14th, our school got a great opportunity to watch a basketball game between New Trier and Lake Forest. It was not a varsity game though. It was an exhibition between students from both schools’ special needs programs. Every fan cheered as the players performed for a large crowd of faculty, students, and parents. Activities like this are so important if we want to respect and encourage those with special needs.

I think that here at New Trier High School we do a fantastic job of supporting people with special needs, and it is fantastic that those people are so accepted here. However, that is not necessarily the case across the country. Mentally handicapped individuals are made fun of and laughed at in many places in our country.

Two teenage girls in Maryland were recently accused of physical abuse on an autistic 16 year old boy. The horrible acts committed include sexual harassment, forcing the boy into a frozen pond, threats with a knife, kicks to the groin, and dragging the boy by his hair. Reading about this story completely blew me away, that somebody could be so insensitive as to bully someone in that way, let alone someone with autism. The two accused girls recorded the whole incidence on a phone, so fortunately they will not get away without some sort of punishment.

I have no clue where these kids go to school or what the attitude towards mental disabilities are in their area, but I do know that these acts were wrong in every sense of the word. The school that the students attend needs to re-evaluate exactly how they promote the respect of those with special needs. I think the way New Trier does it is a fantastic model. Kids with special needs aren’t locked away in some isolated room. They instead are completely integrated into the everyday life of high school. I have been able to sit with some of these students at lunch and gotten to know different people that I would have never gotten to had it not been for this system. There are a lot of things I disagree with about my high school, but one aspect I know they have gotten right is the special needs program.

Thoughts? Comment below

Read more here

Discrimination or Protected Expression?

Today I was completely shocked when I read an article by an openly gay woman, Tammy Bruce. In the article she defended Arizona’s religious freedom bill, that just got vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer. This bill would protect businesses if they chose to deny services to homosexuals. The main places where this applies is with wedding photographers and bakers who do not want to serve gay couples.

Many see this bill as allowance of direct discrimination against homosexuals. One person who holds this view is Jan Brewer. She did not feel like religious freedom was being restricted in any way, saying “I have protected religious freedoms when there is a present concern. And I have a record to prove it.” Forcing religious businesses to serve homosexuals was not a concern to her.

Tammy Bruce completely disagreed. She compared what people who believe homosexuality are going through is wrong, to what homosexuals have to go through, saying “Of all the people in the world who should understand the scourge of living under constant threat of losing life, liberty or the ability to make a living because of who you are, it’s gays.” She defends these businesses because she does not want to see civil liberties stripped from people, even if it might affect her in a slightly negative way.

I think that Tammy Bruce is right here. The first amendment guarantees religious freedom and freedom of expression without the government restraining them in any way. If a business does not want to condone the actions of an individual, based on their religious views, the business is guaranteed that right. Not offering service is their way of expressing their religion. Some people see homosexuality as ok, while others do not. If those who opposed the religious freedom bill wanted to show tolerance at all levels, they would tolerate the other point of view and not force their own views. Selective tolerance is not real tolerance, it is just the pushing of an agenda.

I would change one key part to this bill though. I only think it is ok to deny service to someone based on a specific action of theirs if the seller finds the action to be morally wrong and the service or good being provided would enable/help the buyer to do said action. For example, if a baker believed homosexuality to be morally wrong, he or she could refuse to bake a wedding cake for gay couple's wedding, since it would condone homosexual actions. However, if a gay couple went to the same bakery for a birthday cake, the baker could not deny that good since it does not enable or condone homosexuality. Along those same lines, if a Christian church approached a Muslim construction manager to build a church building for them, the construction manager could deny them that good if he or she felt morally compromised. A 7-11 owner could deny the selling of contraceptives to people who are not married if he or she believed that pre-marital sex is wrong. This would protect people's religious rights and rights to expression, while eliminating ignorant discrimination.

Feel the need to weigh in? Comment below with your thoughts

Read more here.