The separation of church and state is a concept that has been misinterpreted and blown out of proportion more times than it’s possible to keep track of. It defines the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state. Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It includes this excerpt:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” [1]

He’s explaining that the Bill of Rights impedes the establishment of a national church which, in turn, prevents the government from interfering with a person’s right to expression of religion. After all, English protestants came to America seeking religious freedoms. That was a main pillar in the development of America as a colony of England.

Over time, the phrase has been so widely used and interpreted that it’s lost some of its salt. The separation of church and state is also tied to more broad religious freedoms such as being able to practice whatever religion you choose in the way you see fit. The United States was founded on biblical principles, most of which serve our country well and support the values of most American citizens, christian or not. However, we cannot claim to be a religiously inclusive nation while our laws only respect one religion.

In addition, having legal freedoms yet being oppressed by the general societal stance isn’t true freedom. For example, muslims are legally permitted to practice their religion in America as they see fit but after the Twin Tower attacks on 9/11, animosity towards Muslim Americans has skyrocketed. One in four Muslims either knows someone who has or have personally experienced an act of anti-muslim discrimination, harassment, verbal abuse or physical attack since 9/11. This discrimination and negative stance towards the entire culture isn’t just affecting those on the receiving end of it. European Americans are being misinformed about the reality of the situation. This extreme instance of widespread prejudice has blinded the rest of us to the truth about the groups involved, resulting in their oppression and our ignorance.

Because of the censorship in schools on what pertaining to religion can and can’t be taught, a lot of the details we learn about the 9/11 attacks comes from outside and often biased sources and so forms our own opinions on what actually happened. This is the reason we need to properly educate people on as many religions as possible. Religion is incredibly controversial and a lot of the friction could most likely be reduced if more people truly understood what they were arguing about. This education needs to start early, in our middle and elementary schools. Far too often, children grow up with convictions they adopted from their parents. Their beliefs aren’t even their own but if they heard it from their parents it has to be right..right? Sadly, that’s not always true. You have complete control over how you view the world but depending on the lens you’re using, what filters through will be vastly different. By properly educating our citizens about different religions and cultural practices, we’re giving them a better opportunity to make informed decisions about their how they interact with others.

While I truly believe in this concept, there are far too many rigid restrictions for this to flow smoothly. When the separation of church and state policy was adopted by the United States, it prevented one problems but started another. With the way the policy is currently being enforced, teaching students in public schools about religious practices becomes very difficult because the government can’t be seen throwing support behind a religious movement. This also prohibits the government from providing any funding or support to a private school, especially those with a religious affiliation. However, there is a loophole. Separation of church and state prevents government funded schools from teaching religion so in 2000, the public school district in Modesto, California began teaching about religion. The World Religions program is heavily regulated and monitored. Each class receives the same textbooks, study guides, visual aids, and lesson plan as every other class in the district. As long as the instructors aren’t giving more attention or support to one religion over others, the plan works and has worked brilliantly.

A group of researchers from the First Amendment Center has been following the program since its inception. The team admitted they were unsure of what their investigation would conclude. Students enrolled in the program were interviewed before, during and immediately after the course ended and then again six months later. They found that the student body involved became far more tolerant of other religions and cultural practices and even more likely to stand up for them and protect the religious rights of others. Students themselves said that the course had broadened their views and prepared them to fight back against faith based bullying. [2Perhaps the biggest concern of parents in the district is that it would weaken the faith of children who were raised with a religious background. Contrary to expectations, this increased tolerance resulted in no change in the faiths of students. Students who entered the program with religious convictions ended the course with the same convictions. [2]

With religion and religious beliefs being such a controversial topic, particularly in America, we need to take great strides as individuals and as a nation to mold our country and communities into those that cultivate and reflect the diversity growing within them. Diversity should not divide us. It should better prepare us to face controversy and handle it fairly and with an open mind.

Citations

1. “Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury BaptistsThe Final Letter, as Sent.” Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998). N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2016.
2. Kilman, Carrie. “One Nation, Many Gods.” Teaching Tolerance. N.p., 2007. Web. 30 Oct. 2016.

A term that’s definition is debated throughout the world is a father. It takes a true man to be a true father, because the two go hand in hand. In order to define a father, a man must first be defined. A man is someone who is of good moral standing, does what he needs to do in order to succeed, is true to his word, and cares deeply for others. An example of a true man as oppose to a self proclaimed man is that any man can get a woman pregnant, but it takes a special one to step up and be a father. This idea of stepping up to the plate is the main difference between a self proclaimed man and a true man.

Google defines the word father as “a man in relation to his natural child or children”. This definition is more than lacking luster; it lacks the essence of what a father is. A father in today’s society is considered a provider, protector, teacher, friend, exemplar, patriarch, disciplinarian, and spiritual leader. These eight attributes of a father in today’s society sheds light on what father should be but not who can be a father. Any man who stand ahead of the curve for a child and leads them to bettering themselves is truly a father.

My father in particular is a great man. He took in my eldest brother as his own when he married my mother even though he was not his biological child. At the mere age of 3, my  brother did not know the significance of what my father had chose to do. My father chose to lead the path for this bastard child even though he did not have to. He decided to provide, protect, teach, be a friend, exemplify, be a patriarch, disciplinarian, and be a spiritual leader for this child even though my father had no offspring of his own. Due to men like my father who step up and be the father other men were not ready to be, the definition by google stating a father is “a man in relation to his natural child or children” is false. My father was more of a dad than my eldest brother’s biological father could ever be.

Father’s teach in many different ways. Some ways fathers teach are through example, as a patriarch, through disciplinary actions, and through spiritual leading. My father did and continues to do all of these things. First and foremost, my father is a pastor; spiritual leading came with the territory of being him. he constantly reminds his children of what God has planned for us and how we should stay focused on him. Because of actions such as this, his moral standing has always been exemplary and was always the example of what a man and a father should be. My father constantly used bible quotes over the years to back anything he does. One of his favorites to quote was Ephesians verse 6  chapter 4, which states, “And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training an admonition of the Lord”. With that said, he still had no problem chastising his children in order to help them understand right from wrong. In this aspect, the disciplinarian came out.

One action that always must be met in order to be considered a relatively good father is being “a man of your word”. A mans word is his bond. This aspect ties back to one of the most important attributes of being a father. Teaching what is right through example. If a father tells his children he will do something, it is a promise. A promise should never be broken or trust is lost. Without trust, a father cannot be a friend to their offspring. They can show kindness and compassion, but the level of interest cannot be faked. When keeping ones word is not seen as a priority, the bond is broken. The level of trust falls, and the relationship between the father and child suffers. If a man does not do everything in their power to keep their word to their children, they are not truly a father.

Although society has been changing and roles of mothers and fathers have been shifting, a father throughout time has always been the provider and protector of not only their children, but the family as a whole. In order to provide, fathers through the ages have gotten jobs that they may have not wanted to do, but they always made sure their family had the food on their table and a roof over their head. Fathers also have always been the protector of the family through different means. For some it’s a physical manifest of fighting an individual in order to protect his family; for others, it’s keeping their children out of the streets and getting an education.

According to google, a father is simply  “a man in relation to his natural child or children”. This false definition does not meet the standards of societies definition of a father, nor my own. A father does not need to be the biological father to his children, but rather a spiritual and moral leader that guides their children to a better life. This is done through teaching, being a trusting friend, protecting/ providing, leading by example, being man of good moral character, chastising children when needed, and being a spiritual leader. Without these qualities, no man can consider themselves a father let alone a great one.

Sources:

1. https://www.facebook.com/FamilySharecom/. “9 Qualities of a Good Father.” FamilyShare – Discover How to Improve Your Family Life and More. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2016.
2. Ephesians. King James. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

For the past couple of years all we have been accustomed to is watching Television and seeing a story about an unarmed black being killed by a cop. This has stirred itself into a movement, or a as I view it a civil war. Race tensions are almost as high as those from the 1960’s. The war between cops and black Americans has grown into a world epidemic. When we look at the definition of racial profiling it is said to be, “the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual’s race, ethnicity, religion or national origin.” The definition proposes the argument that white officers arrest and/or kill African American citizens purely based off of the color of their skins and no actions. I find it hard to ever prove that a cop is racial profiling anyone. A law enforcement officer must have a reason for an arrest and must have a valid reason for firing their gun otherwise it would simply be murdering. This issue must be looked at not as a whole but as a singular person to person psychological issue. Racism is a noun, it describes either a person, place, or thing. So when a person describes an entire police department as racist it is just silly. Racism distinguishes one whole races from another whole race, grading the worth of each one to another. Therefore, when a police department holds staff with more than one race, by definition it is nearly impossible to title it as “racist”. When we move to the statistics and facts of police killings it is pretty clear that these two terms are no where present and easily misconstrued.

When we begin to look deeper into the arrests and killings involved with police officers some interesting statistics show up. First, lets look at where the common everyday African American citizen lives. According to pbs.org, since 1999 it has been recorded that close to 70 percent of black families or individuals live in the cities or inner-ring suburbs of America. Next, when we begin to look at crime rate in America we find out that most of the United States crime takes place in the Cities of the United States. According to the “New Observer” the worst murder rates take place in Detroit, New Orleans, Newark, St. Louis, and Baltimore; these all being majority black communities. Therefore, is it fair to say that cops are racially profiling these areas because of race, or are these people just looking at the facts and doing their job? The most interesting fact is that of the arrests themselves. Even though these communities are dominantly black statistics presented by the FBI say, “In 2013, 68.9 percent of all individuals arrested were “white,” 28.3 percent were black, and 2.9 percent were of other races. Furthermore, the FBI report claimed, “white” individuals were arrested more often for violent crimes than individuals of any other race and accounted for 58.4 percent of those arrests.” (newobserveronline.com) The article goes on to say that whites account for the most juveniles as well. So if more non-African Americans are being arrested each day in dominantly black communities how is discrimination, racism and racial profiling such immense topics of conversation? The answer is within itself, the media.

The media coverage of crimes involving African Americans has increased immensely over the past 2-3 years. Though it has been statistically shown that more whites are arrested throughout the year, the coverage of African American arrests and assault from police have overlapped the facts. The perception of the public is highly influenced by the media. If the media is always showing the wrong from officers or stories involving a white cop and a black criminal of course the public will grow a an image of racist police officers. Public perception is everything. This was imminent in the financial crisis of 2008. The public perception began to dwindle as more media coverage bashed the banks for losing money. People began to get scared and pulled out of their shares out of pure fear presented by negative coverage. Over 70 percent of crime coverage is based around African American arrests or killings. (Colleluori and Angster) The media deceives our perception and makes an issue out of nothing because it produces rating and controversy. Like the famous actor Morgan Freeman said in an interview on a news station, the reason there is still racism is because we keep talking about it. Think about that, if we simply stop talking about racism it will slowly go away. African Americans have the same rights as whites, they are recognized as everyday citizens with the same opportunities. It isn’t the 1950’s anymore and it will never be like that again. So when we go back to thinking about racial profiling and discrimination, is it the police that are targeting black or is it the media itself for commerce?

Works Cited:

https://mediapromotesracism.wordpress.com/

http://newobserveronline.com/new-fbi-crime-figures-confirm-black-towns-dangerous-white-areas-safest/

Smartphones have been a great advancement in technology and in society. Like any other tool they help us with our daily tasks such as keeping us close to public safety officials, allowing us the ability to transfer money that helps us manage our lifestyles, and being able to check the safety of our families with a push of a button. Having the ability to talk to someone miles away has made life convenient and full of contentment for modern day people. It is safe to say that the phone is one of the most important tools ever made along with electricity, the telescope, and the wheel.

The practice of sending information has been a valuable assist to forming society since the renaissance. To be able to inform, people can be the difference between life and death in a state of war. The phone is another staple to humanity such as U.S presidents are to the development of America. However, not all presidents are helpful -to the well being of the country as such not all uses of phones are beneficial to our daily lives. Recently phones have been the bane of our daily progression as we constantly check our phones as we work. Our phones have been given as much responsibility to their owners as their owners’ function in society. Moreover, phones help us get things done. Now think for a moment about how someone could use that tool that helps you with getting things done with different intentions for its uses than to its owner’s purpose. There you have an issue; the privacy of one’s belongings is one of the most sought-after luxuries humanity has set for itself. The foundation of America was fought for the individual privacy to practice any religion. Forward two hundred and forty years into the future and we find us with a similar conflict with individual ownership boundaries. Most recently this conflict has been brought to light with news of terrorism in America. In 2015, a terrorist attack occurred in San Bernardino, California. The terrorist attack was a mass shooting carried out by a Pakistani couple that aimed their sights at a San Bernardino country department of public health Christmas party, where 16 people were killed and 24 people suffered non-fatal injuries. After being pursued the couple were killed in a shoot out with police. In all, a total of 40 people were harmed with the intent of causing terror in America. While investigating the remains of the couple, the FBI found an Apple Iphone that is understood to hold information on the couples’ activities. The modern day conflict with privacy was that the FBI wanted Apple to open the Iphones encrypted system to investigate the information that it holds. How does one feel when their government pursues access to one of the most powerful tools in the current age? Giving the FBI that kind of power is a serious bridge of trust. The FBI has made a case with the Department of Justice that would put Apple in the position to hold responsibility of the phones property having been the manufacturer. Apple being the entity that it is was adamant to allow the case to follow through without debate first. The company stands against the FBI when considering how much power they could give the government with just one case to decrypt a single iphone. Beyond this instance the government can use this knowledge to perform whatever surveillance deemed useful, which is a lot of power. The debate over whether Apple can be held accountable for it’s products second party uses after developing an issue with a third party can show the conflict of interest between the American people and the consumers of technology

Definition Argument A08

Its so bad but yet so good.  Junk food is broadcasted everywhere it is as if we just can not get away from it.  It is even worse when it is your only option when you go to a sports game of any kinds concession stand starting anywhere from little league baseball games leading all the way up to the concession stands at a professional sports outing.  “Unlike school lunchrooms, which must meet USDA regulations, high school concession stands remain mostly exempt from government health intervention, which many groups fear would decrease concession stand sales and customer satisfaction. ” (Food&BrandLab, pg.1)  The reason this issue has never been resolved is because it is thought that sales would plummet.  Obesity has been in the most recent years a big problem which affects all ages, genders, and races.  Sports games make it easy to decide on getting a cheeseburger, candy, or a sugary soft drink or maybe all of the above.  Their job is to promote options which they can profit the most off of.  Its time we begin to demand immediate change and a call to action on the food being served at concession stands.

It is not bad enough that you cant watch television for ten minutes without having a Sprite commercial come on but it is also integrated into events such as Super Bowl halftime shows “Brought to you by Coca-Cola grab one today”.  I do not remember the last time I went to an Eagles game where I didn’t feel pressured into buying a beer, Pepsi, or a cheesesteak.  Since I bought one maybe my brother, or my sister might do the same thing or one up me and buy a large combo instead of the medium.  It is time we bite back at obesity and start fighting obesity.  Sparking change where eating junk food is a tradition and that would be at a concession stand located near you.

Works Cited

                            Laroche, Helena. “Concession Stand Makeovers: A Pilot Study of Offering Healthy Foods at High School Concession Stands.” Food and Brand Lab |. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Oct. 2016.    

                                                               Laroche, Helena. “Concession Stand Makeover.” Food and Brand Lab |. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Oct. 2016.                          

Is Tinder a Dating App? A Hot Debate

                     Human beings (or at least most human beings) require relationships for healthy and satisfactory lives, we are by nature, social creatures. The relationships we choose to partake in can take many forms from platonic friendships to romantic partnerships. Titles of these different types of relationships, identities, as well as orientations are spidering into all different types of scales and spectrums and can become quite confusing. That being said, in the age of technology, finding acquaintances that will help us to create our relationships and identities is becoming increasingly easier. Social media tools such as Twitter, Facebook, and the holy-grail of Instagram have made meeting new people especially easy. However, to further these attempts, the existence of dating services such as Eharmony and Tinder have made finding romantic/sexual partners (specifically) even easier. At a first glance, Tinder and Eharmony belong on the same playing field, but actually these two different examples are playing for two different teams.

                           Both companies are online services that aim to bring single persons together to create some sort of partnership (whether it lasts for one vodka cranberry or one lifetime is irrelevant right?). At their root, yes they are similar, but the results of the services they provide often go in two separate directions. Tinder has become synonymous with quick and easy hookups that do not go much further beyond first names and one night stands. While Eharmony is more of a household name that your sister’s-friend’s-cousin met her fiance of 2 years with, and boy she couldn’t be happier. As Nick Bilton of the New York Times puts it, “And all that swiping has given Tinder the nickname “the hookup app,” for its reputation for one-night stands-though the company tries to distance itself from the label.” Whether the company enjoys being known for it’s hookup status is irrelevant, because that is exactly what it does.

                            The differences between dating apps and dating sites is even more clear when discussing the methods used to create matches. Companies like Eharmony and Match.com utilize “love algorithms” while Tinder capitalizes on men (and women’s) mere physical attraction. Bilton characterizes Tinder in the same way someone would approach another in a bar-type setting; a person does not walk in and fill out an application and wait for a message, they see someone they find visually appealing and offer to buy them a drink or ask for a dance. This is perhaps the biggest difference between apps like Tinder and sites like Eharmony, the reason more hookups happen with Tinder is because it is rooted in physical desire while Eharmony makes attempts at establishing emotional connections between users. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic wrote a piece for The Guardian, and within it he sums up the difference between the face-based Tinder and emotion-centric dating site, “This has been an important lesson for data enthusiasts who have tried to sterilise the game of love by injecting rigorous decision-making and psychometric algorithms into the process. Well, it turns out that people are a lot more superficial than psychologists thought. They would rather judge 50 pictures in two minutes than spend 50 minutes assessing one potential partner.”

                            Tinder is not the only hookup hub of the internet. Grindr is a location based app meant for gay/bisexual/queer men looking for partners and is also well known for its resulting sexual encounters. HER which was previously known as Daatch, is also a location based app (similar to both Tinder and Grindr) that is meant for lesbian, bisexual, or queer women. Grindr and HER fall into categories slightly different from Tinder because they focus on LGBTQ communities distinctively, while Tinder offers both “heterosexual and homosexual” search options. LGBTQ communities have their own stereotypes revolving promiscuity and sexcapades, and their connection to the technosexual landscapes that differ from the heterosexual experiences that dominate Tinder.

                  Despite the target audience, one difference does prevail between dating services, some are free and some cost money. Eharmony and its lesser known counterparts charge, sometimes a hefty fee for its usage; while Tinder and its counterparts are cost free (besides some gimmicky in-app purchase options). The users of expensive dating agencies are typically older and more invested in finding a serious relationship. A study was performed through Winthrop University’s psychology department in which the risk taking behavior, age, and gender were examined in users of free versus paid dating programs. The results generally stated that those not looking for long term relationships were more likely to use free dating services (like Tinder) and more men used free dating sites (Grom). In addition, Emily Grom reports “Sixty percent of paid site users expected to meet their perfect match and less than 1 % expected to just hook up.” Despite these findings, there are those that disagree with defining Tinder as an app that is used by most for sexually driven purposes. At times, it is seen as a successful way to meet new people and potential long term partners. It would be impossible to dismiss that healthy long-lasting relationships can result from Tinder, in fact many have, however there is a clear trend that forces Tinder into the new-age category of “hookup apps”.

                    Considering that some people do not even know that Tinder exists, discussing the subtle differences that define it as a hookup app (compared to dating websites) may seem irrelevant. Yet, walk down the hallway of any given dorm room and buzzwords like “swipe left” or “new match” will be in abundance. From the perspective of a college student the presence of social media and dating services is incredibly large and even distracting, which is why open avenues of dialogue surrounding them are not only important but also beneficial. Understanding how to navigate this new world of technology is necessary for those being brought up in an age where it demands their attention. Knowing what sets Tinder apart from the rest may not aid in getting a college degree but it does help when it weaves its way into most dining hall conversations.

Discrimination still plays an incredibly large role in society today. Varying throughout many groups, races, genders, etc., people are currently continuing to live through the struggle of being judged based off of physical appearance. The dictionary defines the word discrimination as “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.” Much like any other definition of most words, digging a little bit deeper than a textbook interpretation to fully comprehend the word is a necessity. In relation to the researched topic at hand, discrimination is heavily incorporated in the enforcing of laws, and routine traffic stops in particular.

The concept of discrimination is morally wrong and unjust however it is looked at. What is even worse is that this group of minorities being discriminated against are now potentially getting into trouble with the law based on how they look. In Christopher Ingraham’s article, “You Really Can Get Pulled Over For Driving While Black, Federal Statistics Show,” proclaims, “Perhaps most troubling from a civil liberties perspective, nearly five percent of blacks weren’t given any reason for why they were stopped, compared with 2.6 percent of whites and 3.3 percent of Hispanics.” This quote speaks volumes toward the issue at hand. Astoundingly, nearly double the amount of African Americans as compared to caucasians are not even informed as to why they are pulled over. This is where the line must be drawn. There is already no room for racism and discrimination, and now it has been blown so far out of proportion that these people being discriminated against have to pay money for it and possibly have a tainted record.

On the other hand, while discrimination is real and potentially harmful in today’s society, it is also interesting to take into consideration what race the police officers happen to be in the same situation. For example, the statistics show that roughly five percent of African Americans are not given a reason for why they are stopped, but would these traffic stops be considered equally as discriminatory if the police officer making the stop was a minority as well? It is most certainly a very intriguing factor in all of this, because if a black police officer pulls over a black man, very few people’s initial reaction is that the cop is racist. Whereas if it were a white cop in the same situation, the very first thought that comes across most everyone’s mind in society today is that it was for discriminatory purposes. This does not automatically make it acceptable for a black police officer to pull over another black man without a reason, but in the big picture, it simply raises suspicion about an officer’s motive.

One of the worst parts about this issue is that the discrimination does not begin and end with simple traffic stops. From illegal searches of a vehicle to license suspensions and tickets, how an officer chooses to discipline a man or woman that they went out of their way to pull over because of their appearance can be equally discriminatory. Recently, it has even been escalated to these citizens having their lives taken away from them in what could have just been a routine traffic stop. Just recently this past July, a Minnesota police officer shot and killed a black man after pulling him over for a broken tail light. In this instance, it is not clear that he was pulled over because he was black, given that there was a tail light out. Nevertheless, this is something that is rarely ever heard about with a white man on the fatal end of gunpoint. It has gotten so bad that in many places, whenever a police officer even approaches a minority, people take their phones out to record what happens in anticipation of it going awry. When it becomes expected that these stops will go wrong to this extent, something must be done about it.

If our country chooses to turn a blind eye to this, we have seen that a revolt is not unrealistic. In her article, “The Big Question About Why Police Pull Over So Many Black Drivers,” Kim Soften asserted that following the fatal shooting of Philando Castile, snipers in Dallas killed five police officers and injured more. This country is not far from potentially going into a civil war between police and African Americans, and the root of it all is none other than the negative power of discrimination.

In conclusion, many different problems stem from judging and disciplining somebody based off of their race and appearance. Racism and discrimination have been around for hundreds of years in this country and it would be nice to be able to say that we have come such a long way as a country, but the fact that this is still an issue in 2016 is proof that laws may have changed, but many people’s mindsets have not. It is that toxic belief in discrimination that has set the progress of this nation back.

Works Cited

Ingraham, Christopher. “You Really Can Get Pulled Over For Driving While Black, Federal Statistics Show” The Washington Post. 09 Sept. 2014. Web. 30 Oct. 2016

Soften, Kim. “The Big Question About Why Police Pull Over So Many Black Drivers” The Washington Post. 08 July 2016. Web. 30 Oct. 2016

What’s My Race?

Self identifying race has never been more important to Americans than it is now. There has always been confusion when choosing people’s races on censuses, college forms, or any other event where there is the option to choose which race they identify as. The main reason for this confusion would be: How do they know what race they are? A person can see race as a category based on physical appearances and another can see it as a biological and cultural-based category. Most of the time, for censuses, Americans tend to change the race they identify. America is extremely diverse that the 2010 census includes an option to check multiple races and a final option for “Some Other Race” if some one couldn’t choose one of the listed races. The fact is, race can’t be defined as easily as black and white because our nation is filled with so many colors.

Specifically, people of mixed race face the conundrum of which race they should identify as when applying for colleges. One example would be Natasha Scott who has an African American father and an Asian mother. In 2011 when she was applying for college, she had to choose whether to identify as African American or Asian. The reason as to why this was a difficult choice was because if she put African American she would be more likely to be accepted into colleges than if she put Asian. She wasn’t sure if identifying as the race with more benefits was morally right. She is both races, but in this case, chose to be the one most beneficial to her.

As mentioned in the first paragraph, race is can be based on a person’s physical characteristics. 27 year old Brazilian Lucas Siqueira was denied a Brazilian government position because he identified himself as mixed race, but was considered Caucasian by the government. His looks made him White to the populace, but he considered himself Afro-Brazilian. So which race is he? This is what makes self-identification of race so important. Either a person can choose their own race, or others can choose for them. Neither is fully accepted as a way to determine one’s race.

Also mentioned in the first paragraph was how race can be based on a person’s biological make up and culture. In American history, a man was deemed Black if they had even a drop of Black blood in them. This was deemed the “one-drop rule.” Even if a man had White parents, White grandparents, and White great-grandparents, if his great-great-grandmother or grandfather was African American, he was considered Black. In this case, a person would have the right to identify as any race if they have even the tiniest amount of that race in their blood despite their physical appearance not matching their biological relations.

Works Cited:

“For Affirmative Action, Brazil Sets Up Controversial Boards To Determine Race.” NPR. 29 September 2016. Web. 31 October 2016.

“Millions of Americans changed their racial or ethnic identity from one census to the next.” Pew Research Center. 5 May 2014. Web. 31 October 2016.

“Minority Rules: Who Gets To Claim Status As A Person Of Color?” NPR. 16 May 2012. Web. 31 October 2016.

“On College Forms a Question of Race, or Races, Can Perplex.” The New York Times. 13 June 2011. Web. 31 October 2016.

Who’s Free in America

In America, there is a vast amount of unjust laws specifically created to unjustly send people to jail. More specifically, the 3 Strike Law, War on Drugs Act and the Stop and Frisk law, were designed to send people to jail, mostly whom are people of color. America doesn’t see anything wrong with these laws because people of color have been stereotyped as criminals. If it were possible to brainwash the majority of people to place a negative stereotype on the minority, mistreatment of the minority will be justified. This has given the government and law enforcement the green light to harass, imprison, and abuse people of color with little to no consequence.

There was a law passed in New York called Stop and Frisk, that goes against our 4th Amendment right. In the Constitution, the 4th Amendment states that, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warren’s shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath of affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Being a person of color isn’t illegal, nor is it probable cause for the police to stop and frisk someone.

Stop and frisk made it legal for police officers to stop, search, and question any individual they thought had drugs, weapons, or other illegal contraband on their person. It is nearly impossible to see anything someone has on their person if it is hidden by their clothing. To conclude that someone is possessing something illegal just by looking at them is stereotyping. This law is a legal way to racially profile an individual. It is not a coincidence that, African American and Latino communities located where Stop and Frisk is active are overwhelmingly targeted. Someone can be walking home innocently, and be stopped by police just because the police officer felt like it or stereotyped them as being a criminal. In the article “Stop-and-Frisk Campaign” on the “nyclu.org” they stated that “innocent New Yorker’s have been subject to police stops and street interrogation more than 4 million times since 2002.” This is a big problem that needs to be solved. This is a clear violation of rights, but America has let this law be active. Most Americans are not affected by stop-and-frisk so it is regularly ignored. On the behalf of the people living in the inner city, we feel like our rights are violated and we are discriminated against because of stop-and-frisk.

Stop and Frisk was designed to arrest people, mostly whom are people of color, who were deemed suspicious of being involved in illegal activity.  These police officers have preconceived notions that people of color are criminals, will prevent law enforcement from doing their job correctly. Some people who are on the outside of the Black community might think that it works. For example, when talking about Stop-and-Frisk, Donald Trump said, in the “Presidential Debate,” that “it worked very well in New York, it brought the crime rate way down but you take the gun away from criminals that shouldn’t be having it.” This shows that people that stereotype, don’t see that it is unconstitutional. People like Donald Trump will never know what it’s like living in America and getting discriminated against just for simply walking down the street. Even if it worked as a deterrent, there is very little way to tell if someone is involved in illegal activity, when banking on suspicion. Suspicions are opinionated and is not something that should be a basis for a law. Laws affect our country in its entirety and they have to be based upon facts not opinions.

To target a group of Americans, and strip them of any right stated in the constitution is clearly unconstitutional. It is the government’s responsibility to ensure Americans that their constitutional rights will be protected. To allow stop-and-frisk, the government is not upholding the constitution. Furthermore, laws before this were designed with prejudices and were deemed reasonable.

The war on drugs act was created by President Richard Nixon in 1971. In the article “The United States War on Drugs” it’s written that “He proclaimed, America’s public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse.” In all actuality, he knew he had two groups of people who could hurt his presidency. On one and he wanted to get rid of the Hippies, who were against the war, and on the other hand he wanted to get rid of the Black Panthers, who were protecting the Black communities against discrimination and police brutality at all costs. To extinguish the two groups, Nixon associated the Hippies with marijuana and Black Panthers with heroin. This enabled law enforcement to eradicate both communities. As the age of the Hippies went away, so did the need to eradicate them. After the Hippies were extinguished, Latino’s took their place as the second target group. As for the Black Panthers, the Black communities never could recover from the connection with heroin. Even after the Black panthers were eradicated, the Black communities were still subject to mass incarceration due to drugs. They had no one to protect them against the very government that is supposed to protect them. This way of being tough on crime extended too many presidencies after Nixon.

Bill Clinton signed a crime bill in 1994, which enacted the three-strike law. The three-strike law was implemented to ensure that repeat offenders are kept in prison to serve 25 years to life sentences after committing a third offence. This meant that fewer people were being released from prison in turn, increasing the prison population. Clinton wanted to show he was tough on crime during his campaign so he acted. Clinton followed passed presidents who wanted to show they were tough on crime so he passed laws which created a spike of mass incarceration. Coinciding with the war on drugs act, the three-strikes law filled prisons with a population of majority Blacks and Hispanics. Bill Clinton took a page from Nixon’s book when he signed the crime bill in 1994. In the leading state of California, the prison population reached unthinkable numbers following this bill. By 2011 the prison population rose to almost double the prisons’ designed capacity. This overpopulation is the primary cause for the unconstitutional conditions found existing in the California prisons because it goes against health and safety regulations. Matthew Cate said, on “CNN.com” that “the governor and I strongly disagree with this ruling.” In the same article in 2006, “CNN” stated that “implementing the court’s ruling would result in up to 58,000 prisons being released.” These prisons are populated by mostly Black’s and Latino’s and it can be speculated that the reason this problem is being over looked is because the population is mostly Black and Latino.  

America is supposed to be a free country, but these shocking truths are showing that freedom in America depends on politic views or ethnicity. It might be criticized as being un-American when Black’s and Latino’s say they don’t feel free but experiencing life from their perspective’s might show why they question freedom in America. 

Works Cited 

New York Civil Liberties Union. http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices. NYCLU Web. Accessed 31, Oct, 2016

Debate over whether standardized testing is an adequate measure of student success is centered around the idea of test equity. Standardized testing has one main purpose and that is to compare and assess students based on one standard. If every student does not receive the same opportunity to receive a high score, then the test is not equitable. Therefore, if test equity is not achieved then testing has not met its purpose and cannot be used to measure student achievement.

Putting children on the same level when taking high stakes standardized tests is test equity. Students should take a test that matches their culture and lifestyle. For example, the minority children described in Robert Green’s “The Impact of Standardized Testing on Minority Students,” demonstrate how the current test inequity harms minority children. Green argues that the current method of administering standardized tests, giving the same test to every one with little to no exceptions, is not equitable  at all. A minority student who speaks English as his or her second language is expected to understand the same vocabulary as a white child who has been exposed to the English language since birth. A poor black student is expected to have the same “common knowledge” as a wealthy white student despite a clear difference in life experiences. Sure, the questions on the page are the identical but the opportunity to receive a high score is different for every student. As of now, standardized tests for the most part favor Caucasian middle to upper class students. Test equity could be achieved by tailoring tests to students instead of attempting to tailor the students to the test.

Others, who do not agree with the aforementioned definition of test equity, often mistake test equity for test equality. James Aycock illustrates this definition in his article, “Teacher Voice: In Defense of Standardized Testing.” Aycock argues that every test and testing method has to be identical. This is because standardized tests are vital in determining what students know. The scores from tests give teachers the insight they need to determine what skills their students have mastered and which still need work. Since all students received the same test, teachers are able to make generalizations about the student body based on the scores.  According to this mindset, it is okay that minority students or lower class schools may produce lower scores than their wealthy  majority counterparts. They argue the tests are equitable but the education leading up to the tests is not. However, by Aycock’s own definition, the tests are not equitable. It is nearly impossible to give hundreds of thousands an identical test where no child has advantages or disadvantages due to factors such as class or race. The tests that Aycock describes as vital do achieve test equality but do not achieve test equity.

For example, take the Interaction Institute for Social Change’s “Equality vs. Equity Scenario.”  There are two people standing in front of a fence trying to watch a baseball game. They are both given one crate to stand on which makes one of them able to see over the fence while the other is still too short. This is equality since they are being given equal treatment. In the second image, the taller man keeps his one crate while the shorter man receives two crates. Now, both men are at the same height and able to view the game. This is equity because both men are receiving the same opportunity to watch the game. The treatment is fair and impartial. In the context of standardized testing, these definitions are upheld. Giving all students the same exact test, despite language, class, and other barriers that may help or hinder their scores, is test equality not test equity. Test equity is achieved when all students are given the same opportunity to receive a high score with their differences taken into account.

All in all, test equity and test equality are two completely different things and the importance and value of each will be important in determining the future of standardized testing. Having true test equity would mean ensuring that every student has the chance to receive a passing score with hard work. The test itself should not determine whether a student passes, the knowledge of the student should make that determination. Test equity also helps to lower the devastating effects of high stake testing. As of today, where test equality is achieved but not test equity, thousands of lower class and minority communities are suffering. Lower scores are more prevalent in those communities which means less funding and less academic progression for the students. Every community receives the same test, in order to achieve test equality, so the higher class communities prevail while the lower class minority communities suffer. With true test equity, tests would be more accommodating to the culture and dialect differences between groups. Therefore, all students would be capable of receiving the same score and only their knowledge would dictate the final grade.

Works Cited

Aycock, By James. “Teacher Voice: In Defense of Standardized Testing.” SCORE. N.p., 20 May 2014. Web. 30 Oct. 2016.

Green, Robert L., and Robert J. Griffore. “The Impact of Standardized Testing on Minority Students.” The Journal of Negro Education, vol. 49, no. 3, 1980, pp. 238–252.

Macguire, Angus, and IISC. “Illustrating Equality VS Equity.” Interaction Institute for Social Change. IISC, 01 June 2016. Web. 21 Nov. 2016.