An article published in the Michigan Messenger yesterday discusses the plans of the Republican Party in Macomb County to challenge voters’ eligibility based on matching their names and addresses to those published on a list of foreclosed homes. Macomb County is reported to be “a key swing county in a key swing state”.
In Michigan, parties are permitted to have representatives present to challenge voter qualifications. Such challenges can be made “provided they [the election challengers] ‘have a good reason to believe’ that the person is not eligible to vote.” The use of the foreclosure listings to challenge a voter’s qualifications is based on challenges being permitted to verify that the voter is a resident of the election district. The Republican Party’s logic in making these challenges based on the foreclosure list is that one a house is foreclosed upon, the person will no longer be living there and as such cannot use that address to meet residency requirements. However, what the Republican Party apparently is failing to recognize is that many people maintain residency of their property throughout the foreclosure process, often times negotiating with the mortgage company to settle their debt and still keep their property.
The primary issue with the use of these challenges is that minorities will be disparately impacted. Minorities comprise over half of all borrowers obtaining sub-prime loans – the type of loan that is most frequently defaulted upon. Not only are minorities, at least in Macomb County, a majority of the sub-prime mortgage holders, but they are also largely Democratic. As such, to disallow these votes, statistics would suggest that more Democratic votes will be disallowed than Republican votes.
In addition to disqualifying these voters, these challenges will cause delay in everybody’s voting process. While votes are being challenged, those in line will either wait patiently or most likely decide the wait is not worth their effort. Many are already disillusioned with the voting process since the installation of electronic voting equipment, and it is not unthinkable that added delays such as this will cause many potential voters to leave before casting their votes. Some people may be chased away from polling places by just hearing that such challenges may be occurring and that the process could be delayed.
It is understandable that counties have their own election procedures that must be followed and that the qualifications of voters must be determined. However, the way the Republican Party is handling such verification seems to have burdens that outweigh any of the benefits. A list of foreclosed properties does not seem like a very accurate account of these voters’ living conditions, and requiring voters to provide proof of their residency could disqualify many valid ballots. To add in the burden it has on all other voters, discouraging them from casting their ballots, really makes this plan troublesome.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Colgate slammed for Twittering
The Chronicle of Higher Education had an article online yesterday that discussed Twitter, a service for friends, family, and co–workers to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?
The article received mixed reviews from readers. I tend to agree more with the comments that are critical of the article . . . I too expect more from the Chronicle. I don’t twitter, but my husband and several of my friends do. I’m always slightly amused when I catch a quick glimpse of some of the things that are posted on Twitter, but for the most part, it just isn't my cup of tea.
I guess my biggest complaint with the article is that it is the writer is quite presumptuous and unprofessional. Mr. Carlson doesn’t even give Colgate credit for trying something new to reach its students. Undergraduate students are particularly fond of Twitter and it serves no purpose to criticize and mock Colgate’s efforts in trying something novel.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Library 2.0 Programs/Sites and Their Possibilities (Part II)
Facebook: I was kind of critical about Facebook a few months ago for its marketing approaches and the silliness of most of their programs. And then cruel irony intervened, and I became hooked shortly thereafter, to the point where it’s now become a daily “must-visit” site. This consistent interaction has really helped me to clarify Facebook’s strengths as a networking tool. Its interface is miles ahead of MySpace; it offers users several forms of communication that, altogether, can conceivably serve as a replacement for e-mail; and it’s extremely simple to locate people with a minimum of information. It also is averaging well over 100 million unique visitors a month, and has surpassed MySpace in overall popularity.
All of the above factors offer more than enough justification for libraries to consider how to integrate Facebook as a means of patron outreach. Several public and university libraries now offer a Facebook application that links to their catalog; user response seems to be modest so far, but it’s a useful effort. Chad Boeninger mentioned how he offers reference services through his Facebook profile, which also has potential. Yes, the marketing factors and clutter present drawbacks, but they’re worthwhile risks; the site’s features and amount of users are too good for libraries to ignore.
Instant Messaging/Skype: Instant messaging (IM) and Skype basically offer two different ways for libraries to provide real-time reference services; Ohio University offers both at their “Ask a Librarian” page. The logistics of using IM as a reference tool is pretty straightforward, and OU makes it even easier by offering a Meebo “Ask Us Now” client that automatically connects patrons under a guest screen name. Assuming that librarians have a regularly available schedule to answer questions, it has a lot of upside.
Skype—an Internet calling program—is a bit more complicated, as it requires a video camera. Boeninger mentioned that OU decided to set up a dedicated video kiosk in Alden Library for students to call reference librarians through Skype. (He personally takes calls whenever he is available at his desk; I think it’s the same for some of his colleagues, but I’m not certain.) This might not be such a great option for smaller libraries, but works rather well for OU, and is viable for similarly-sized academic libraries.
All of the above factors offer more than enough justification for libraries to consider how to integrate Facebook as a means of patron outreach. Several public and university libraries now offer a Facebook application that links to their catalog; user response seems to be modest so far, but it’s a useful effort. Chad Boeninger mentioned how he offers reference services through his Facebook profile, which also has potential. Yes, the marketing factors and clutter present drawbacks, but they’re worthwhile risks; the site’s features and amount of users are too good for libraries to ignore.
Instant Messaging/Skype: Instant messaging (IM) and Skype basically offer two different ways for libraries to provide real-time reference services; Ohio University offers both at their “Ask a Librarian” page. The logistics of using IM as a reference tool is pretty straightforward, and OU makes it even easier by offering a Meebo “Ask Us Now” client that automatically connects patrons under a guest screen name. Assuming that librarians have a regularly available schedule to answer questions, it has a lot of upside.
Skype—an Internet calling program—is a bit more complicated, as it requires a video camera. Boeninger mentioned that OU decided to set up a dedicated video kiosk in Alden Library for students to call reference librarians through Skype. (He personally takes calls whenever he is available at his desk; I think it’s the same for some of his colleagues, but I’m not certain.) This might not be such a great option for smaller libraries, but works rather well for OU, and is viable for similarly-sized academic libraries.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Another Develoment in Cell Manipulation
The Washington Post has an article on-line today discussing scientists’ recent success with transforming living cells within living subjects. As the article indicates, this may eventually lead to great progress in curing disease, but will most assuredly cause controversy and debate.
The cells transformed were those from within a mouse’s pancreas that, when flipping what the scientists deemed were the key molecular switches, converted a common cell into an insulin-producing cell. While there will be numerous tests which will take a good length of time, this indicates that there is potential in humans to perform a similar procedure in order to cure diabetes. The scientists hope that such treatment can also be applied to those with heart disease and other illnesses.
Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has already stated his support for this proposed method as he hopes it will end the need for stem cell research. Unlike stem cell research, where the cells to be converted are taken from dead embryos, the cells in this procedure would be able to be taken from a living person.
Still, many claim that stem cell research is needed, especially as this new procedure has yet to be performed on cells from any other living specimens aside from mice. It is uncertain how the procedure will transfer, and advocates of stem cell research claim that this new procedure may not be as useful.
The only problem I see with this new procedure is that advocates of stem cell research make a very valid point – this new procedure may not transfer over to humans. However, with research already being done to examine this potential roadblock, it seems that scientists are hopeful that they will be able to apply a similar procedure on humans. To be able to take cells from a living person and convert those into useful healthy cells that can cure disease would be ideal. It would avoid the issues associated with stem cell research, while meeting the goals that stem cell research was attempting to reach.
The cells transformed were those from within a mouse’s pancreas that, when flipping what the scientists deemed were the key molecular switches, converted a common cell into an insulin-producing cell. While there will be numerous tests which will take a good length of time, this indicates that there is potential in humans to perform a similar procedure in order to cure diabetes. The scientists hope that such treatment can also be applied to those with heart disease and other illnesses.
Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has already stated his support for this proposed method as he hopes it will end the need for stem cell research. Unlike stem cell research, where the cells to be converted are taken from dead embryos, the cells in this procedure would be able to be taken from a living person.
Still, many claim that stem cell research is needed, especially as this new procedure has yet to be performed on cells from any other living specimens aside from mice. It is uncertain how the procedure will transfer, and advocates of stem cell research claim that this new procedure may not be as useful.
The only problem I see with this new procedure is that advocates of stem cell research make a very valid point – this new procedure may not transfer over to humans. However, with research already being done to examine this potential roadblock, it seems that scientists are hopeful that they will be able to apply a similar procedure on humans. To be able to take cells from a living person and convert those into useful healthy cells that can cure disease would be ideal. It would avoid the issues associated with stem cell research, while meeting the goals that stem cell research was attempting to reach.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Library 2.0 Programs/Sites and Their Possibilities
Earlier this month I attended an OHIONET workshop entitled “What’s the Point of Web 2.0?” Presenter Chad Boeninger, a reference librarian at Ohio University, had a simple answer: for libraries, the main point of Web 2.0 is patron outreach. Library 2.0 approaches allows librarians to 1) provide better learning experiences; 2) “shift time” by accessing audio/video/text on their own schedule; and 3) have opportunity to provide feedback for what they learn. This is one of the most straightforward (and best) arguments I’ve heard in favor of utilizing 2.0 technologies in a library setting.
But what kind of technologies can libraries use to their advantage? Boeninger touched upon several different examples, and what follows is my attempt to consider the significance for some of them.
Free weblogs (Wordpress, Blogger): Boeninger primarily focused upon the idea of using blogs as a supplemental learning tool. In his words, blog authors can “create dynamic content” that reaches students and (potentially) non-students alike. (He provided two good examples here and here). As far as I can tell, there’s very little downside in using blogs this way; it’s relatively easy, accessible, and provides a lot of flexibility for creativity.
What about using a blog primarily as a platform for professional development? That’s what we’ve tried to do with Nota Bibliothecae, and many other law and academic libraries are using their blogs in the same manner. The upside is that it’s provided a creative learning experience for us, as well as a chance to reach readers with whom we otherwise wouldn’t have contact. It also has raised a host of questions that are likely familiar to some other “lawbrary” and academic library blogs: Who is our audience? What kind of interaction might (or should) we have with the blogs of our colleagues? What should be the direction of our content? These are things we’ll have to consider as we continue updating.
Twitter: Twitter is already a quite popular form of communication, and its “micro-blogging” format is an attractive alternative to operating a “normal” blog. One relevant example for libraries that Boeninger provided was from the Ford Library at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business. The library recently established a Twitter page, but also displays updates (or “tweets”) on their own site as well. Right now, it appears that Ford is using Twitter as a general news service, which is a no-brainer—it’s quick and couldn’t be simpler. It would be helpful to know how many visitors their Twitter and “Library Information” pages are receiving as a rough gauge of its popularity, but they’re on the right track. Another possibility would be using Twitter as an emergency notification system, particularly in cases of inclement weather.
Next post: Facebook, instant messaging, and Skype.
But what kind of technologies can libraries use to their advantage? Boeninger touched upon several different examples, and what follows is my attempt to consider the significance for some of them.
Free weblogs (Wordpress, Blogger): Boeninger primarily focused upon the idea of using blogs as a supplemental learning tool. In his words, blog authors can “create dynamic content” that reaches students and (potentially) non-students alike. (He provided two good examples here and here). As far as I can tell, there’s very little downside in using blogs this way; it’s relatively easy, accessible, and provides a lot of flexibility for creativity.
What about using a blog primarily as a platform for professional development? That’s what we’ve tried to do with Nota Bibliothecae, and many other law and academic libraries are using their blogs in the same manner. The upside is that it’s provided a creative learning experience for us, as well as a chance to reach readers with whom we otherwise wouldn’t have contact. It also has raised a host of questions that are likely familiar to some other “lawbrary” and academic library blogs: Who is our audience? What kind of interaction might (or should) we have with the blogs of our colleagues? What should be the direction of our content? These are things we’ll have to consider as we continue updating.
Twitter: Twitter is already a quite popular form of communication, and its “micro-blogging” format is an attractive alternative to operating a “normal” blog. One relevant example for libraries that Boeninger provided was from the Ford Library at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business. The library recently established a Twitter page, but also displays updates (or “tweets”) on their own site as well. Right now, it appears that Ford is using Twitter as a general news service, which is a no-brainer—it’s quick and couldn’t be simpler. It would be helpful to know how many visitors their Twitter and “Library Information” pages are receiving as a rough gauge of its popularity, but they’re on the right track. Another possibility would be using Twitter as an emergency notification system, particularly in cases of inclement weather.
Next post: Facebook, instant messaging, and Skype.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Mentally Ill Co-Conspirator to be Executed in Texas
In the news this morning is an article discussing the next planned execution in Texas. Aside from the fact that there is already much controversy surrounding the death penalty, this case is causing greater debate as: (1) the prisoner in question did not actually kill anybody, and was only a co-conspirator to the murders giving rise to his execution; and, (2) the prisoner in question is mentally ill.
Texas is one the few states in the country that allows the execution of conspirators to commit murder, whether they actually take an active role in the murder or not. Those in support of this policy claim that the execution of conspirators deters crime and allows closure for a victim’s family. However, those opposing this policy claim that executing a person who has not actually killed anybody “violates the most basic principles of justice.”
As to the other controversy, the Supreme Court banned the execution of mentally ill prisoners in 1986, disallowing the execution of anybody who was not fully aware of the reasoning for their punishment. However, the Supreme Court never established rules in how to determine a prisoner’s mental competency; as such, such decisions in Texas are left to the governor or jury on a case-by-case basis.
With the combination of these two factors, this case becomes even more problematic. Many are arguing that without this mental illness, this prisoner would never have been convinced to take part in this conspiracy. Aside from not understanding the reasoning for his punishment, many claim that he never actually had free choice in his initial participation. However, even after this theory was argued in the court, the prisoner was found guilty and was sentenced to be executed.
To not account for the propensity of mentally ill conspirators to be more suggestible than other conspirators when issuing a death sentence seems to punish a person for something they did not understand, or basically had no choice in doing. Depending on the level of mental illness, this suggestibility will vary, and such variation should play a part in determing the severity of the sentence when a jury or Judge issues a judgment, especially when execution is one of the options.
With the failure to establish guidelines for determining when a mentally ill prisoner can and cannot be declared competent for the purposes of their execution, this decision is left in the hands of those who may not be qualified to make this judgment. Whether it be the jury or the presiding judge or somebody in the local government, they most likely are not able to make psychological evaluations. In fact, these individuals most likely have very minimal contact with the accused, and in these situations they only have the opportunity to make judgments on what they hear in the court proceedings.
I cannot make a judgment on whether this execution is proper or not by merely reading this article. I cannot make a definite judgment on whether the proper tests and analysis were performed in order to determine this prisoner’s competency because the article does not indicate how this competency was established, if in fact it was established. The only thing I can feel somewhat comfortable in concluding is that if there were established procedures, including a separate set of guidlines for when the mentally ill person is a conspirator and not an overt actor, issued by the Supreme Court or the government, then there would still be controversy, but at least everybody would have guidelines to refer to when making these difficult decisions.
Texas is one the few states in the country that allows the execution of conspirators to commit murder, whether they actually take an active role in the murder or not. Those in support of this policy claim that the execution of conspirators deters crime and allows closure for a victim’s family. However, those opposing this policy claim that executing a person who has not actually killed anybody “violates the most basic principles of justice.”
As to the other controversy, the Supreme Court banned the execution of mentally ill prisoners in 1986, disallowing the execution of anybody who was not fully aware of the reasoning for their punishment. However, the Supreme Court never established rules in how to determine a prisoner’s mental competency; as such, such decisions in Texas are left to the governor or jury on a case-by-case basis.
With the combination of these two factors, this case becomes even more problematic. Many are arguing that without this mental illness, this prisoner would never have been convinced to take part in this conspiracy. Aside from not understanding the reasoning for his punishment, many claim that he never actually had free choice in his initial participation. However, even after this theory was argued in the court, the prisoner was found guilty and was sentenced to be executed.
To not account for the propensity of mentally ill conspirators to be more suggestible than other conspirators when issuing a death sentence seems to punish a person for something they did not understand, or basically had no choice in doing. Depending on the level of mental illness, this suggestibility will vary, and such variation should play a part in determing the severity of the sentence when a jury or Judge issues a judgment, especially when execution is one of the options.
With the failure to establish guidelines for determining when a mentally ill prisoner can and cannot be declared competent for the purposes of their execution, this decision is left in the hands of those who may not be qualified to make this judgment. Whether it be the jury or the presiding judge or somebody in the local government, they most likely are not able to make psychological evaluations. In fact, these individuals most likely have very minimal contact with the accused, and in these situations they only have the opportunity to make judgments on what they hear in the court proceedings.
I cannot make a judgment on whether this execution is proper or not by merely reading this article. I cannot make a definite judgment on whether the proper tests and analysis were performed in order to determine this prisoner’s competency because the article does not indicate how this competency was established, if in fact it was established. The only thing I can feel somewhat comfortable in concluding is that if there were established procedures, including a separate set of guidlines for when the mentally ill person is a conspirator and not an overt actor, issued by the Supreme Court or the government, then there would still be controversy, but at least everybody would have guidelines to refer to when making these difficult decisions.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Phil Donahue to receive Ohio Citizen Action Award
Ohio Citizen Action will present the 2008 Howard M. Metzenbaum Ohio Citizen Action Award this year to Phil Donahue on Sunday, September 14th at 7:00 pm at the Cleveland Institute of Art's Cinematheque. There will be a showing of Donahue’s stirring documentary Body of War, a question and answer session with Donahue and a coffee and dessert reception.
The Metzenbaum Award is the highest honor given by Ohio Citizen Action. Since 1995 the award has been presented to Ohioans who best reflect Senator Metzenbaum's example of principled tenacity. This year's award will be presented by Senator Metzenbaum's daughter, Susan Hyatt.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Organ Donation After Cardiac Death
An article from the Associated Press yesterday discusses a new controversy in the field of medicine – when to declare a person dead for the purposes of organ donation. This comes about after three newborns that had been placed on life support, but not yet meeting the legal criteria for going forth in harvesting their organs, were taken off of life support measures in order to allow for organ donations to other babies.
The standard for declaring somebody dead for the purpose of organ donation has been that the person no longer has any working brain functions. However, in the case of these newborns, they continued to exhibit brain functions, albeit minimal. Instead of using the brain functioning standard, the doctors in this case were able to harvest organs under a procedure known as donation after cardiac death.
Many organizations, including the federal government, are encouraging this type of donation. Instead of requiring a child to exhibit total lack of brain functioning while donees in dire need of these organs to allow them to continue living wait, this procedure allows families the option to donate and creates a larger supply of needed organs.
One of the biggest criticisms of this procedure centers on the fact that it involves children. The other major criticism is the fact that many claim that this donation process violates laws governing when organs may be harvested. In the case of the newborns, the doctors quickly transplanted organs soon after the life supporting measures were removed. It has been argued that the doctors did not wait long enough as they performed the transplants before the donor was declared dead, and the fact that the hearts could be restarted indicates that these donors could not have legally been pronounced dead as they had lost neither total heart nor total brain functioning.
It is understandable that many argue for the protection of children, especially newborns. For some, it is much harder to accept procedures such as these as the newborns in this instance obviously had no choice in the matter and were alive by medical standards. With modern medicine, many believe that more can and should be done in these cases rather than use these children as donors.
However, in these cases the parents were given free will and as legal guardians they have to make the best choice for their child. It cannot be easy to make such decisions, but in doing so these parents had the opportunity to save the lives of three other children. Had they waited for their child to lose all brain function, it is uncertain what the status would have been on the three children that received the donated hearts. The donors’ hearts may have deteriorated beyond medical use, and the three donees may have not had the chance to receive the hearts. From the article, it seems certain that death was imminent for the three donor children, and by allowing the parents to make this decision they were able to help out other families that may have not been able to wait.
The standard for declaring somebody dead for the purpose of organ donation has been that the person no longer has any working brain functions. However, in the case of these newborns, they continued to exhibit brain functions, albeit minimal. Instead of using the brain functioning standard, the doctors in this case were able to harvest organs under a procedure known as donation after cardiac death.
Many organizations, including the federal government, are encouraging this type of donation. Instead of requiring a child to exhibit total lack of brain functioning while donees in dire need of these organs to allow them to continue living wait, this procedure allows families the option to donate and creates a larger supply of needed organs.
One of the biggest criticisms of this procedure centers on the fact that it involves children. The other major criticism is the fact that many claim that this donation process violates laws governing when organs may be harvested. In the case of the newborns, the doctors quickly transplanted organs soon after the life supporting measures were removed. It has been argued that the doctors did not wait long enough as they performed the transplants before the donor was declared dead, and the fact that the hearts could be restarted indicates that these donors could not have legally been pronounced dead as they had lost neither total heart nor total brain functioning.
It is understandable that many argue for the protection of children, especially newborns. For some, it is much harder to accept procedures such as these as the newborns in this instance obviously had no choice in the matter and were alive by medical standards. With modern medicine, many believe that more can and should be done in these cases rather than use these children as donors.
However, in these cases the parents were given free will and as legal guardians they have to make the best choice for their child. It cannot be easy to make such decisions, but in doing so these parents had the opportunity to save the lives of three other children. Had they waited for their child to lose all brain function, it is uncertain what the status would have been on the three children that received the donated hearts. The donors’ hearts may have deteriorated beyond medical use, and the three donees may have not had the chance to receive the hearts. From the article, it seems certain that death was imminent for the three donor children, and by allowing the parents to make this decision they were able to help out other families that may have not been able to wait.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Book Review: Sex and the Soul
Freitas, Donna. Sex and the Soul: Juggling Sexuality, Spirituality, Romance, and Religion on America’s College Campuses. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
“Hooking up’s defining characteristic is the ability to unhook from a partner at any time,” declares Laura Sessions Stepp in her 2007 book Unhooked. Sessions Stepp, a Washington Post reporter who often writes about youth trends, goes on to define hooking up in terms of detachment: it can range from a single kiss to intercourse; occur in public or in private; involve close friends or complete strangers; and spark a relationship or simply be the relationship in itself. The practice of hooking up among high school and college students certainly isn’t new, but Unhooked was the first book-length study devoted to hook-up culture.
Mainstream media quickly picked up on Sessions Stepp’s argument that hooking up was detrimental to young women. Yet her work fails to justify such attention. Though there are references to several scientific studies, she profiles just nine girls, all of them from similar economic and geographic backgrounds. Equally as limiting is her tone, which at points is unnecessarily scolding to young women. As Rob Horning wrote about Unhooked last year, “[W]hatever young women choose to do sexually needn’t be pathologized automatically; it seems that the search for explanations for whatever sexual behavior a woman exhibits is ultimately an attempt to wrest it from her.”
This is why Donna Freitas’ new study Sex and the Soul is a welcome arrival. Freitas shares many of Sessions Stepps’ concerns, and finds that hookups often do not help college students “discover the thrill of sexual desire or romantic passion, of falling madly in love and expressing this love sexually.” What’s different is that she maintains a consistently feminist stance by contending that it requires a community effort for students to have a healthy sexual environment. Freitas also presents an impressive amount of qualitative evidence in exploring how hookup culture affects both young men and women on college campuses.
Indeed, methodology—presented within clear and concise writing—is the heart of Sex and the Soul. Freitas’ research questions involve whether religion and spirituality might help bring about positive changes for campus culture. Over 2,500 students at seven different institutions took part in her online survey about “sexual experiences and religious and spiritual commitments.” From that group, she interviewed more than one hundred students, and their responses comprise much of the book’s content. There’s little to criticize here; the schools range from small evangelical colleges to large public universities, and the distribution of students by gender, race, and sexual orientation is fairly diverse.
While the results of Freitas’ investigation “defy easy summary” (in the words of foreword author Lauren Winner), there is plenty to consider. The two main categories of difference that ultimately emerge are “evangelical” and “spiritual.” At evangelical colleges, students share a public faith, and mostly view sex and religion as “inseparable” from each other. Conversely, those at Catholic and other private and public institutions tend to be more privately spiritual than openly religious, and tend to keep their sex lives and spirituality separate from each other. Evangelical schools promote a culture of sexual purity and chastity, while hookup culture has a strong presence at “spiritual” schools.
These categories appear to be a bit too binary at first, but Freitas observes common traits and nuances between them. Many of the self-identified spiritual students that she interviews express unhappiness with how hooking up makes them feel about sex and romance. In fact, spiritual students, much like evangelical students, largely define romance as being free of sexual intimacy. Yet the same problem exists with purity culture as well. As Freitas writes, “The depth and intensity of…stress and anxiety around sex, sin, and shame among [evangelical] students are hard to overstate.” The only real exception is LGBT students, who instead face the “more basic” question of “what it means to be a sexual being with a minority sexual orientation.” Ultimately, no group is getting what it really wants.
What causes this discomfort, regardless of whether one is spiritual or religious? Freitas identifies peer pressure as a major factor. At spiritual schools, even though students say they want romance, they have perpetuated the practice of hooking up to the point where “the first hookup seems to have replaced the first date.” And there is a great deal of sexism involved in this change, for the language and activities of hooking up often emphasize male pleasure and female subservience. By stressing abstinence outside of marriage, purity culture also lapses into misogyny; men become the pursuers when it comes to relationships, while women—who face more pressure to remain virginal—become the pursued.
Yet the rigid gender roles of purity culture point to an additional factor—namely, that college campuses themselves are also responsible for the state of things. For example, evangelical students aren’t the ones who create strict rules and guidelines on their campus that often result in resentment and mistrust. And when spiritual colleges emphasize personal freedom over a specific value system, then there shouldn’t be much surprise when some students end up floundering. In this regard, Freitas thinks that evangelical schools have a slightly healthier model that their spiritual counterparts. Nevertheless, she thinks that both types of colleges can do better in helping students achieve a healthier connection between sex and the soul.
So what, then, are some plausible solutions to counteracting hookup culture? Unfortunately, this is where Freitas’ analysis lags a bit. It’s understandable that she criticizes the lack of overarching values systems at spiritual colleges. But how do those colleges address that problem when they face increasing competition from new educational providers? If anything, they will likely default more to a type of “pluralism as its own value” model as a means of attracting applicants. Or—to pose another question—are there historical examples for colleges to follow that would allow them to remain pluralistic and promote a plausible set of values for their student bodies?
Similar questions arise regarding evangelical colleges. In her conclusion, Freitas presents Lauren Winner’s work as a positive alternative to the sexism of purity culture. And it’s true that Winner’s 2005 book Real Sex sharply critiques some of the more egregiously false claims that purity culture has embraced. Yet her study also presents a quite orthodox approach to Christian sexual ethics, where any sex outside of heterosexual marriage is sinful. The point is that even if the values systems and community-based approach of evangelical campuses are admirable, will they really allow students more wiggle room when it comes to sexual propriety? It’s highly doubtful. The point is that as unique as evangelical approaches are, their particular religious grounding simply doesn’t translate well to other colleges.
But Freitas does present a quite reasonable solution at the end of Sex and the Soul—a small guide for parents, counselors, and other adults as a means of staying attuned to students’ concerns about sex, religion, and spirituality. This suggests that while it will take more consideration to develop system-level solutions to hookup (and purity) culture, there are approaches on an individual level that can make a difference. And it’s important to remember that she does best at critiquing the disjunction between students’ sex lives and their spiritual awareness. Thanks to her host of statistics, interviews, and analysis, any future research on this topic will have to start with her work.
“Hooking up’s defining characteristic is the ability to unhook from a partner at any time,” declares Laura Sessions Stepp in her 2007 book Unhooked. Sessions Stepp, a Washington Post reporter who often writes about youth trends, goes on to define hooking up in terms of detachment: it can range from a single kiss to intercourse; occur in public or in private; involve close friends or complete strangers; and spark a relationship or simply be the relationship in itself. The practice of hooking up among high school and college students certainly isn’t new, but Unhooked was the first book-length study devoted to hook-up culture.
Mainstream media quickly picked up on Sessions Stepp’s argument that hooking up was detrimental to young women. Yet her work fails to justify such attention. Though there are references to several scientific studies, she profiles just nine girls, all of them from similar economic and geographic backgrounds. Equally as limiting is her tone, which at points is unnecessarily scolding to young women. As Rob Horning wrote about Unhooked last year, “[W]hatever young women choose to do sexually needn’t be pathologized automatically; it seems that the search for explanations for whatever sexual behavior a woman exhibits is ultimately an attempt to wrest it from her.”
This is why Donna Freitas’ new study Sex and the Soul is a welcome arrival. Freitas shares many of Sessions Stepps’ concerns, and finds that hookups often do not help college students “discover the thrill of sexual desire or romantic passion, of falling madly in love and expressing this love sexually.” What’s different is that she maintains a consistently feminist stance by contending that it requires a community effort for students to have a healthy sexual environment. Freitas also presents an impressive amount of qualitative evidence in exploring how hookup culture affects both young men and women on college campuses.
Indeed, methodology—presented within clear and concise writing—is the heart of Sex and the Soul. Freitas’ research questions involve whether religion and spirituality might help bring about positive changes for campus culture. Over 2,500 students at seven different institutions took part in her online survey about “sexual experiences and religious and spiritual commitments.” From that group, she interviewed more than one hundred students, and their responses comprise much of the book’s content. There’s little to criticize here; the schools range from small evangelical colleges to large public universities, and the distribution of students by gender, race, and sexual orientation is fairly diverse.
While the results of Freitas’ investigation “defy easy summary” (in the words of foreword author Lauren Winner), there is plenty to consider. The two main categories of difference that ultimately emerge are “evangelical” and “spiritual.” At evangelical colleges, students share a public faith, and mostly view sex and religion as “inseparable” from each other. Conversely, those at Catholic and other private and public institutions tend to be more privately spiritual than openly religious, and tend to keep their sex lives and spirituality separate from each other. Evangelical schools promote a culture of sexual purity and chastity, while hookup culture has a strong presence at “spiritual” schools.
These categories appear to be a bit too binary at first, but Freitas observes common traits and nuances between them. Many of the self-identified spiritual students that she interviews express unhappiness with how hooking up makes them feel about sex and romance. In fact, spiritual students, much like evangelical students, largely define romance as being free of sexual intimacy. Yet the same problem exists with purity culture as well. As Freitas writes, “The depth and intensity of…stress and anxiety around sex, sin, and shame among [evangelical] students are hard to overstate.” The only real exception is LGBT students, who instead face the “more basic” question of “what it means to be a sexual being with a minority sexual orientation.” Ultimately, no group is getting what it really wants.
What causes this discomfort, regardless of whether one is spiritual or religious? Freitas identifies peer pressure as a major factor. At spiritual schools, even though students say they want romance, they have perpetuated the practice of hooking up to the point where “the first hookup seems to have replaced the first date.” And there is a great deal of sexism involved in this change, for the language and activities of hooking up often emphasize male pleasure and female subservience. By stressing abstinence outside of marriage, purity culture also lapses into misogyny; men become the pursuers when it comes to relationships, while women—who face more pressure to remain virginal—become the pursued.
Yet the rigid gender roles of purity culture point to an additional factor—namely, that college campuses themselves are also responsible for the state of things. For example, evangelical students aren’t the ones who create strict rules and guidelines on their campus that often result in resentment and mistrust. And when spiritual colleges emphasize personal freedom over a specific value system, then there shouldn’t be much surprise when some students end up floundering. In this regard, Freitas thinks that evangelical schools have a slightly healthier model that their spiritual counterparts. Nevertheless, she thinks that both types of colleges can do better in helping students achieve a healthier connection between sex and the soul.
So what, then, are some plausible solutions to counteracting hookup culture? Unfortunately, this is where Freitas’ analysis lags a bit. It’s understandable that she criticizes the lack of overarching values systems at spiritual colleges. But how do those colleges address that problem when they face increasing competition from new educational providers? If anything, they will likely default more to a type of “pluralism as its own value” model as a means of attracting applicants. Or—to pose another question—are there historical examples for colleges to follow that would allow them to remain pluralistic and promote a plausible set of values for their student bodies?
Similar questions arise regarding evangelical colleges. In her conclusion, Freitas presents Lauren Winner’s work as a positive alternative to the sexism of purity culture. And it’s true that Winner’s 2005 book Real Sex sharply critiques some of the more egregiously false claims that purity culture has embraced. Yet her study also presents a quite orthodox approach to Christian sexual ethics, where any sex outside of heterosexual marriage is sinful. The point is that even if the values systems and community-based approach of evangelical campuses are admirable, will they really allow students more wiggle room when it comes to sexual propriety? It’s highly doubtful. The point is that as unique as evangelical approaches are, their particular religious grounding simply doesn’t translate well to other colleges.
But Freitas does present a quite reasonable solution at the end of Sex and the Soul—a small guide for parents, counselors, and other adults as a means of staying attuned to students’ concerns about sex, religion, and spirituality. This suggests that while it will take more consideration to develop system-level solutions to hookup (and purity) culture, there are approaches on an individual level that can make a difference. And it’s important to remember that she does best at critiquing the disjunction between students’ sex lives and their spiritual awareness. Thanks to her host of statistics, interviews, and analysis, any future research on this topic will have to start with her work.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
American killed in Beijing as Olympics begin
The Olympics' opening ceremony was a spectacular show, but the beginning of the games began with the stabbing of two American tourists. One of the victims has died. The attacker jumped to his death in this rare daylight stabbing. The assailant also stabbed and injured a Chinese tour guide with the Americans. He then committed suicide by throwing himself off the Tower. The killing was a rare instance of violent crime against foreigners in tightly controlled
I find it interesting that the media is already calling this a rare daylight stabbing – an “isolated act not directed at Americans.” The embassy went as far as to say “we don’t believe this has anything to do with the Olympics.” Not to be cynical, but what else would it have to do with? American tourists at the Olympics were attacked. Communist leaders may be afraid that any negative press might take the shine off the games – well this certainly won’t help. Murdering tourists at the Olympics will definitely tarnish the games.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Waterboarding at Coney Island
An article this morning reports that waterboarding has been brought to America, with a twist. People at Coney Island in New York now have the opportunity to see waterboarding performed firsthand, as demonstrated by robotic actors.
According to the article, the waterboarding being demonstrated is faithful to how many claim it is being done by the United States military; the robot actors include a hooded man and a person dressed in an orange jumpsuit with water being poured over his head. People watch through barred windows, and are able to see the disputed procedure by inserting one dollar into a bill acceptor near this window.
Signs describing the demonstration as a “Waterboard Thrill Ride” and using Spongebob Squarepants (stating that "It don't Gitmo better!") as advertisement would seem to be aimed at downplaying the seriousness of this interrogation method. However, the aim of the creator is completely the opposite. In the article, Steve Powers that he wants “people to understand the psychological ramifications of this."
He also claims that people are able to see the physical pain inflicted, even through the barred windows they watch through. Two patrons interviewed by the article seem to agree that this display was shocking, which I imagine is what the creator wanted. However, while one of the individuals interviewed is glad that people are gaining a better understanding of waterboarding, the other seems to write off the procedure as just another horrific incident of war that people don’t need to see.
What seems good about this display is the fact that it appears to respect these divergent viewpoints. It is not being forced upon anybody, and in fact can only be viewed by a person willingly inserting money at the display. For those who do not wish to view the display, they merely have to keep walking. Also, it appears that the fact that people watch through barred windows would make the display private enough that those happening to pass by would not be able to view it unless they really tried.
Bringing this practice to the attention of people in this way is very interesting. Obviously, by using robots nobody is actually being hurt in this demonstration. Still, it seems that the message is getting across. Many who have read about waterboarding can now get a more concrete handle on what actually happens and potential long-term effects. By providing the choice to people to view this display, I think that a valuable service is provided in educating people as to this practice.
According to the article, the waterboarding being demonstrated is faithful to how many claim it is being done by the United States military; the robot actors include a hooded man and a person dressed in an orange jumpsuit with water being poured over his head. People watch through barred windows, and are able to see the disputed procedure by inserting one dollar into a bill acceptor near this window.
Signs describing the demonstration as a “Waterboard Thrill Ride” and using Spongebob Squarepants (stating that "It don't Gitmo better!") as advertisement would seem to be aimed at downplaying the seriousness of this interrogation method. However, the aim of the creator is completely the opposite. In the article, Steve Powers that he wants “people to understand the psychological ramifications of this."
He also claims that people are able to see the physical pain inflicted, even through the barred windows they watch through. Two patrons interviewed by the article seem to agree that this display was shocking, which I imagine is what the creator wanted. However, while one of the individuals interviewed is glad that people are gaining a better understanding of waterboarding, the other seems to write off the procedure as just another horrific incident of war that people don’t need to see.
What seems good about this display is the fact that it appears to respect these divergent viewpoints. It is not being forced upon anybody, and in fact can only be viewed by a person willingly inserting money at the display. For those who do not wish to view the display, they merely have to keep walking. Also, it appears that the fact that people watch through barred windows would make the display private enough that those happening to pass by would not be able to view it unless they really tried.
Bringing this practice to the attention of people in this way is very interesting. Obviously, by using robots nobody is actually being hurt in this demonstration. Still, it seems that the message is getting across. Many who have read about waterboarding can now get a more concrete handle on what actually happens and potential long-term effects. By providing the choice to people to view this display, I think that a valuable service is provided in educating people as to this practice.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Two Recent Takes on Food and Responsibility
--I’m not really a fan of the New York Post, but their brief profile on Steve Dublanica—a.k.a. “The Waiter”—is notable for a couple of reasons. First, it represents the public unmasking of Dublanica, whose blog Waiter Rant inspired his “new book of the same name.” Secondly, Dublanica raises a salient point regarding restaurant dining:
“ ‘You need to know where your food comes from,’ he says. ‘The same thing holds true for restaurants. You should know that the waiter doesn't make a salary and a tip [or] that a good percentage of restaurants don't treat their employees well.’ ”
Is this somewhat obvious? Sure. But I think it’s a good reminder; even if a restaurant or food-related business is sourcing organic ingredients and humanely-raised meat, their responsibility—and our responsibility as diners and consumers—doesn’t stop there. This means being willing to criticize the establishments that we otherwise love (A good example is Whole Foods: great produce despite the high prices, excellent commitment to paying a living wage, shaky record regarding unions.)
--Gordon Atkinson offers a thought-provoking entry on hunting and gun control at his blog Real Live Preacher. In response to the recent shooting at Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church, Atkinson first describes his family’s history of hunting for food. He then praises both “careful hunters” and “gentles vegetarians”; criticizes irresponsible gun ownership and those complicit in consuming factory-farmed meat; and finally circles back to gun control and the possibility of finding common ground. This line of thinking isn’t perfect—he generalizes a bit too much, and really unpacking all of these issues would require a much longer essay. Still, I found one passage to be particularly striking:
“Honest and careful hunting of the type that leads to frugal living, care for the land, and respect for what it means to take the life of an animal is a good thing. It’s a natural thing. It’s much better than dropping into a fast-food restaurant and eating meat that doesn’t cost much or cost you anything in time and trouble. The meat industry treats animals as things. They grow up in pens and cages, do not live decent animal lives, and are killed with no sense of compassion, stewardship, or conservation.”
For years, I’ve been ambivalent about hunting deer, especially with regard to my home state of Indiana. One the one hand, Indiana’s deer-hunting season is crucial to controlling overpopulation, and there are enough restrictions to encourage responsibility. And deer hunting also has a practical food value, especially when processed venison can go to food banks. On the other hand, I have a hard time grasping why anyone would experience enjoyment while hunting, and I’m prone to lapsing into generalizations myself when it comes to shooting deer for sport.
Yet as Atkinson, points out, this is a hypocritical stance on my part considering how much meat I’ve consumed from fast food chains over the course of my life. He’s correct to note that there’s a huge difference between reckless hunting and conservationist-based hunting. For omnivores who stand disconnected from the source of their meat, there are valuable lessons to learn from the latter.
“ ‘You need to know where your food comes from,’ he says. ‘The same thing holds true for restaurants. You should know that the waiter doesn't make a salary and a tip [or] that a good percentage of restaurants don't treat their employees well.’ ”
Is this somewhat obvious? Sure. But I think it’s a good reminder; even if a restaurant or food-related business is sourcing organic ingredients and humanely-raised meat, their responsibility—and our responsibility as diners and consumers—doesn’t stop there. This means being willing to criticize the establishments that we otherwise love (A good example is Whole Foods: great produce despite the high prices, excellent commitment to paying a living wage, shaky record regarding unions.)
--Gordon Atkinson offers a thought-provoking entry on hunting and gun control at his blog Real Live Preacher. In response to the recent shooting at Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church, Atkinson first describes his family’s history of hunting for food. He then praises both “careful hunters” and “gentles vegetarians”; criticizes irresponsible gun ownership and those complicit in consuming factory-farmed meat; and finally circles back to gun control and the possibility of finding common ground. This line of thinking isn’t perfect—he generalizes a bit too much, and really unpacking all of these issues would require a much longer essay. Still, I found one passage to be particularly striking:
“Honest and careful hunting of the type that leads to frugal living, care for the land, and respect for what it means to take the life of an animal is a good thing. It’s a natural thing. It’s much better than dropping into a fast-food restaurant and eating meat that doesn’t cost much or cost you anything in time and trouble. The meat industry treats animals as things. They grow up in pens and cages, do not live decent animal lives, and are killed with no sense of compassion, stewardship, or conservation.”
For years, I’ve been ambivalent about hunting deer, especially with regard to my home state of Indiana. One the one hand, Indiana’s deer-hunting season is crucial to controlling overpopulation, and there are enough restrictions to encourage responsibility. And deer hunting also has a practical food value, especially when processed venison can go to food banks. On the other hand, I have a hard time grasping why anyone would experience enjoyment while hunting, and I’m prone to lapsing into generalizations myself when it comes to shooting deer for sport.
Yet as Atkinson, points out, this is a hypocritical stance on my part considering how much meat I’ve consumed from fast food chains over the course of my life. He’s correct to note that there’s a huge difference between reckless hunting and conservationist-based hunting. For omnivores who stand disconnected from the source of their meat, there are valuable lessons to learn from the latter.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
FDA to Regulate Tobacco Industry?
Yesterday, the House of Representatives approved legislation that would grant authority to the Food and Drug Commission to regulate tobacco products. However, according to the New York Times, it appears as if any such legislation will be vetoed by the President.
Proponents of the legislation argue that granting the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products would aid in reducing teen smoking and health issues related to smoking. With this authority, the FDA will be able to regulate advertising and set guidelines on who can purchase these products and where.
Those opposing the legislation claim that this places too large of a burden on the FDA. The FDA would be responsible for approving all new tobacco products, taking away time from monitoring other products. Some even claim that, by having FDA approval, consumers will have the impression that these products are safe, when in fact there will still remain many of the health risks currently associated with tobacco products.
Surprisingly, tobacco companies are split in their support of this proposed regulation. Some companies claim that this legislation will require mergers, or closing, of companies as only large tobacco companies will be able to comply with any new standards and guidelines. However, other tobacco companies, both large and small, are fully behind this legislation.
As a non-smoker, it is easy for me to jump on the bandwagon and say that the tobacco industry definitely needs some regulation, and that the FDA is the agency to provide these regulations. While I do see that opponents of such legislation make some valid points, the potential benefits to be garnered from this legislation seem to outweigh many of these negatives. This legislation would still allow those who choose to use tobacco products the opportunity to do so, while attempting to minimize risks, to the extent possible, and hopefully reducing the number of underage smokers.
Proponents of the legislation argue that granting the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products would aid in reducing teen smoking and health issues related to smoking. With this authority, the FDA will be able to regulate advertising and set guidelines on who can purchase these products and where.
Those opposing the legislation claim that this places too large of a burden on the FDA. The FDA would be responsible for approving all new tobacco products, taking away time from monitoring other products. Some even claim that, by having FDA approval, consumers will have the impression that these products are safe, when in fact there will still remain many of the health risks currently associated with tobacco products.
Surprisingly, tobacco companies are split in their support of this proposed regulation. Some companies claim that this legislation will require mergers, or closing, of companies as only large tobacco companies will be able to comply with any new standards and guidelines. However, other tobacco companies, both large and small, are fully behind this legislation.
As a non-smoker, it is easy for me to jump on the bandwagon and say that the tobacco industry definitely needs some regulation, and that the FDA is the agency to provide these regulations. While I do see that opponents of such legislation make some valid points, the potential benefits to be garnered from this legislation seem to outweigh many of these negatives. This legislation would still allow those who choose to use tobacco products the opportunity to do so, while attempting to minimize risks, to the extent possible, and hopefully reducing the number of underage smokers.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Barack Obama's Years at the University of Chicago Law School
The NYT published an interesting profile of Barack Obama’s years at the University of Chicago Law School in Teaching Law, Testing Ideas, Obama Stood Apart. It chronicled the 12 years that he spent as a lecturer, offering classes on constitutional law, voting rights, and campaign finance law, and a seminar on racism. (Click here for statement regarding Barack Obama from the University of Chicago Law School website). Obama’s wife Michelle recently criticized the law school experience as narrowing instead of broadening one’s perspectives. (Click here to read the full interview). From everything that I read, it doesn’t appear that was the case in Barack Obama’s classroom.
From the article:
At a formal institution, Barack Obama was a loose presence, joking with students about their romantic prospects, using first names, referring to case law one moment and “The Godfather” the next. He was also an enigmatic one, often leaving fellow faculty members guessing about his precise views.
Of particular interest, the article includes links to a syllabus and several exams from his classes.
My hat is off to Obama for being offered a tenured position without meeting the
Thursday, July 24, 2008
House Passes Measures to Aid Housing Market
The New York Times reports this morning on proposed government measures that are aimed at helping the current housing market. The measures would help to ensure the continued existence of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and would provide measures that would allow borrowers to refinance their mortgages with government-insured loans. It is expected that President Bush will sign this legislation, “despite his opposition to the inclusion of nearly $4 billion in grants for local governments to buy and refurbish foreclosed properties”, as the need to reestablish faith in the housing market is seen as such a high priority.
Only forty-five Republicans voted favor of this legislation, a fact which some see as a attempted separation from President Bush in an attempt to ensure their re-election in November. However, the House Republicans stated that this was nothing more than a vote against a measure that “puts taxpayer money at risk while potentially bailing out irresponsible borrowers and greedy lenders.”
Some describe these measures as a major step in the government’s attempt to reestablish a balance in the housing market, some ranking this move in the same league as the creation of the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation created as part of the New Deal for many of the same reasons. However, as is the case in most legislation, there are many who are not convinced that this legislation will have the desired affect.
It is still unsure as to whether the existing downward trend in the housing market will actually be affected by these measures, and many raise concerns about the government stepping in to save Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when many had believed that the government would never spend taxpayer money for such a purpose. Other worries are raised in an Associated Press article; such worries include the fact that only first-time home buyers, whose income is under $75,000.00 ( $150,000.00 if married), who purchase a house between April 9, 2008 and July 1, 2009 will be able to take advantage of the tax breaks offered by the legislation. Even if they are able to take advantage of these tax breaks, such money will be paid back over a fifteen year span, albeit tax-free.
There seem to be a number of concerns that may cause these intended measures to fail. It appears as if the assistance provided to home buyers may be too narrowly tailored to help enough people, and/or it may be too late to turn around the housing market in the short time frame anticipated. Signs, unfortunately, point to failure for these measures, which causes even greater concern about the use of taxpayer money to bail out the two large mortgage companies; while it may be necessary to do so to steady mortgage interest rates, a slow to non-existent turn around in the housing market may require the government to expend more money than is economically appropriate or feasible.
Only forty-five Republicans voted favor of this legislation, a fact which some see as a attempted separation from President Bush in an attempt to ensure their re-election in November. However, the House Republicans stated that this was nothing more than a vote against a measure that “puts taxpayer money at risk while potentially bailing out irresponsible borrowers and greedy lenders.”
Some describe these measures as a major step in the government’s attempt to reestablish a balance in the housing market, some ranking this move in the same league as the creation of the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation created as part of the New Deal for many of the same reasons. However, as is the case in most legislation, there are many who are not convinced that this legislation will have the desired affect.
It is still unsure as to whether the existing downward trend in the housing market will actually be affected by these measures, and many raise concerns about the government stepping in to save Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when many had believed that the government would never spend taxpayer money for such a purpose. Other worries are raised in an Associated Press article; such worries include the fact that only first-time home buyers, whose income is under $75,000.00 ( $150,000.00 if married), who purchase a house between April 9, 2008 and July 1, 2009 will be able to take advantage of the tax breaks offered by the legislation. Even if they are able to take advantage of these tax breaks, such money will be paid back over a fifteen year span, albeit tax-free.
There seem to be a number of concerns that may cause these intended measures to fail. It appears as if the assistance provided to home buyers may be too narrowly tailored to help enough people, and/or it may be too late to turn around the housing market in the short time frame anticipated. Signs, unfortunately, point to failure for these measures, which causes even greater concern about the use of taxpayer money to bail out the two large mortgage companies; while it may be necessary to do so to steady mortgage interest rates, a slow to non-existent turn around in the housing market may require the government to expend more money than is economically appropriate or feasible.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Library Safety and Security, Part II: Practical Security Measures
(See Part I here)
When I look over my notes from last month’s Ohionet workshop on library safety and security, one sentence particularly stands out: “Address [improper] behavior regardless of contextual causes.” While our workshop leaders (Dave Ferimer and Robert Wood) made this suggestion with specific regard to child behavioral issues in a library, it’s just as valuable on a general scale as well. In every library, there are certain rules by which every patron needs to abide; making exceptions because of contextual factors isn’t a sound or safe policy. In this regard, a private law school library like Zimmerman should be no different than a public library branch like Dayton Metro.
Yet because Zimmerman and Dayton Metro are quite different types of libraries, do they always require the same approach towards bad behavior, even if they share the same principle against tolerating it? For example, many of the public librarians at the workshop were describing a fairly consistent struggle to maintain order in their environments. (Even for those not facing significant safety concerns, there were still maddening problems such as teenagers taking CDs into bathrooms and smashing them on the floor.) In comparison, aside from a couple of serious rules violations this year, most of the day-to-day problems at Zimmerman concern food and drink violations. Zimmerman also chooses to restrict patron access at certain times of the year, which obviously isn’t (and shouldn’t) be an option for public libraries.
Still, there are fair and practical security measures that both types of libraries can take without singling out any individual patrons or groups unfairly. Here are three examples that Officers Ferimer and Wood presented during the workshop:
--It helps to post a visible set of rules that 1) are clear and concise, 2) include a concrete consequence. One Ohio public library has a “code of conduct” that lists the following:
--“Disruptive behavior of any kind is not permitted.”
--“Library staff [members] have the authority to determine what is disruptive.”
--“Disruptive customers will be asked to leave library property.”
This code of conduct is quite clear and concise, and it lets patrons know exactly what will happen if they are disruptive. I also like the fact that the second point allows staff members some autonomy in defining whether or not someone is being disruptive. Staff members that feel empowered will likely correspond to a better library environment for everyone, which will in turn help staff morale. In Zimmerman’s case, it might be helpful if we had a better way of visibly conveying our food and drink policy to patrons and library students, along with listing a consequence or two (getting rid of the food/drink, leaving the library until has consumed food/drink).
-- If a patron refuses to leave the library after a staff member confronts them for breaking the rules, it technically constitutes a criminal trespassing violation. In order to have their local police department enforce violations like these, Akron-Summit County Public Library has an official form that they can serve to the patron. The form advises the patron that they are not allowed onto library premises (for either a set period of time or indefinitely), and that any further violations “may result in prosecution for the charge of criminal trespass!” This is a sound option for managing serious cases, and (to the best of my knowledge) would be helpful for both public and private libraries. Even with only two major rule violations in the past year, Zimmerman could have benefited from a trespassing form in one particular case.
--There was a lot of discussion at the workshop about managing, documenting, and resolving unacceptable behavior that becomes threatening or violent. Documentation can be particularly difficult because it’s easy to forget key descriptive elements—the person’s physical appearance, what they said, weapons, and any related activity—after a stressful situation. Accordingly, Cleveland Heights-University Heights Public Library has an online report form that allows its staff to input and submit a thorough description of major incidents. That is an excellent policy, and it’s something that I’m recommending that Zimmerman implements soon. Such a form doesn’t necessarily need to be online, but having a way of quickly documenting what happened provides a potentially vital security benefit, regardless of whether the library is public or private.
When I look over my notes from last month’s Ohionet workshop on library safety and security, one sentence particularly stands out: “Address [improper] behavior regardless of contextual causes.” While our workshop leaders (Dave Ferimer and Robert Wood) made this suggestion with specific regard to child behavioral issues in a library, it’s just as valuable on a general scale as well. In every library, there are certain rules by which every patron needs to abide; making exceptions because of contextual factors isn’t a sound or safe policy. In this regard, a private law school library like Zimmerman should be no different than a public library branch like Dayton Metro.
Yet because Zimmerman and Dayton Metro are quite different types of libraries, do they always require the same approach towards bad behavior, even if they share the same principle against tolerating it? For example, many of the public librarians at the workshop were describing a fairly consistent struggle to maintain order in their environments. (Even for those not facing significant safety concerns, there were still maddening problems such as teenagers taking CDs into bathrooms and smashing them on the floor.) In comparison, aside from a couple of serious rules violations this year, most of the day-to-day problems at Zimmerman concern food and drink violations. Zimmerman also chooses to restrict patron access at certain times of the year, which obviously isn’t (and shouldn’t) be an option for public libraries.
Still, there are fair and practical security measures that both types of libraries can take without singling out any individual patrons or groups unfairly. Here are three examples that Officers Ferimer and Wood presented during the workshop:
--It helps to post a visible set of rules that 1) are clear and concise, 2) include a concrete consequence. One Ohio public library has a “code of conduct” that lists the following:
--“Disruptive behavior of any kind is not permitted.”
--“Library staff [members] have the authority to determine what is disruptive.”
--“Disruptive customers will be asked to leave library property.”
This code of conduct is quite clear and concise, and it lets patrons know exactly what will happen if they are disruptive. I also like the fact that the second point allows staff members some autonomy in defining whether or not someone is being disruptive. Staff members that feel empowered will likely correspond to a better library environment for everyone, which will in turn help staff morale. In Zimmerman’s case, it might be helpful if we had a better way of visibly conveying our food and drink policy to patrons and library students, along with listing a consequence or two (getting rid of the food/drink, leaving the library until has consumed food/drink).
-- If a patron refuses to leave the library after a staff member confronts them for breaking the rules, it technically constitutes a criminal trespassing violation. In order to have their local police department enforce violations like these, Akron-Summit County Public Library has an official form that they can serve to the patron. The form advises the patron that they are not allowed onto library premises (for either a set period of time or indefinitely), and that any further violations “may result in prosecution for the charge of criminal trespass!” This is a sound option for managing serious cases, and (to the best of my knowledge) would be helpful for both public and private libraries. Even with only two major rule violations in the past year, Zimmerman could have benefited from a trespassing form in one particular case.
--There was a lot of discussion at the workshop about managing, documenting, and resolving unacceptable behavior that becomes threatening or violent. Documentation can be particularly difficult because it’s easy to forget key descriptive elements—the person’s physical appearance, what they said, weapons, and any related activity—after a stressful situation. Accordingly, Cleveland Heights-University Heights Public Library has an online report form that allows its staff to input and submit a thorough description of major incidents. That is an excellent policy, and it’s something that I’m recommending that Zimmerman implements soon. Such a form doesn’t necessarily need to be online, but having a way of quickly documenting what happened provides a potentially vital security benefit, regardless of whether the library is public or private.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Red Cross Fails to Properly Screen Blood Donations
The New York Times Web site has an article this morning discussing current and persisting issues with the American Red Cross and their blood donation procedures. The article states that despite a total in fines of $21 million dollars in the past five years, the Red Cross has failed to implement measures to insure that donated blood is disease free.
The issues have apparently become so serious that the commissioner for the Red Cross attended a board meeting for the first time ever, warning “members that they could face criminal charges for their continued failure to bring about compliance.” The possibility of splitting off the blood services portion of the operations from the remainder of the organization has also been discussed; such a move would be similar to what the Canadian Red Cross has previously done.
According to the article, the major issues appear to be “shortcomings in screening donors for possible exposure to diseases; failures to spend enough time swabbing arms before inserting needles; failures to test for syphilis; and failures to discard deficient blood.” As some may expect, such failures have lead to diseases such as hepatitis, malaria and syphilis when performing blood donations using this blood; to date there appear to be no reports of transmission of HIV or hepatitis B through this blood, as the Red Cross does ensure that all blood are tested for what are considered the more serious diseases.
The Red Cross controls 47% of the nation’s blood supply and close to five million blood transfusions were performed in 2007. The Red Cross’, or any organizations’, failure to perform proper screening of blood donations could cause and apparently has caused unnecessary problems to the person receiving the blood. It is good to hear that the Red Cross is at least performing an adequate duty of screening for these more serious diseases that can be passed through tainted blood. Although it is implausible to think that every batch of diseased blood can be caught, the Red Cross needs to ensure that they take their success in screening for diseases such as HIV and hepatitis B and apply these measures in testing all donated blood for any type of infectious diseases in order to reduce these risks as much as possible.
The issues have apparently become so serious that the commissioner for the Red Cross attended a board meeting for the first time ever, warning “members that they could face criminal charges for their continued failure to bring about compliance.” The possibility of splitting off the blood services portion of the operations from the remainder of the organization has also been discussed; such a move would be similar to what the Canadian Red Cross has previously done.
According to the article, the major issues appear to be “shortcomings in screening donors for possible exposure to diseases; failures to spend enough time swabbing arms before inserting needles; failures to test for syphilis; and failures to discard deficient blood.” As some may expect, such failures have lead to diseases such as hepatitis, malaria and syphilis when performing blood donations using this blood; to date there appear to be no reports of transmission of HIV or hepatitis B through this blood, as the Red Cross does ensure that all blood are tested for what are considered the more serious diseases.
The Red Cross controls 47% of the nation’s blood supply and close to five million blood transfusions were performed in 2007. The Red Cross’, or any organizations’, failure to perform proper screening of blood donations could cause and apparently has caused unnecessary problems to the person receiving the blood. It is good to hear that the Red Cross is at least performing an adequate duty of screening for these more serious diseases that can be passed through tainted blood. Although it is implausible to think that every batch of diseased blood can be caught, the Red Cross needs to ensure that they take their success in screening for diseases such as HIV and hepatitis B and apply these measures in testing all donated blood for any type of infectious diseases in order to reduce these risks as much as possible.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
On-line Classes and the Cost of Gas
With the rising cost of gas, many businesses are seeing changes in consumer activities. Some are choosing more fuel efficient automobiles, while others are reducing their travel or overall spending. Educational institutions also appear to be noticing some changes in their consumers’ behavior. According to an Associated Press article, many colleges and universities are seeing an increase in those preferring to take classes on-line.
Prior to gas prices reaching $4.00/gallon and above, there was already an increasing number of students who preferred to enroll for on-line courses. However, with the latest surge in gas prices, administrators are seeing an even greater increase in enrollment in such courses. While the reasons for students choosing on-line over in person classes are usually not sought by these schools and universities, a clear link has been cited between the cost of fuel and this increase.
Students can enroll primarily in two categories of on-line classes. The first is what most think of when considering on-line coursework – the student logs into the class at their convenience, and communicate to professors through chat and e-mail. The other option mixes in person and on-line classes in that the student is required to log in at class time, and is able to communicate with others in the class via microphones and cameras.
This move towards on-line education is requiring professors to adapt to the new technology. In the article, it is stated that many professors are uncertain about the efficacy of these on-line classes. As would be expected, many of these professors would prefer to have their students live in their classroom, but current economic conditions do not always allow for this.
Computer technology has greatly increased the possibilities in our lives. They have created conveniences and cost-saving alternatives. However, with all new methods and technology, there are drawbacks. In the case of on-line education, one issue, at least when some exclusively on-line schools started popping up, is the fact that there is a risk of diploma mills. These “schools” would basically issue a degree for merely paying the tuition; no class work or learning was required. Many of these diploma mills were caught and shut down, but one would think that there is still a risk involved with similar schemes reoccurring. However, if students take these classes at reputable schools such as Villanova (mentioned in the article as providing such opportunities), these risks would be reduced.
Related to these fears of diploma mills is the fact that many businesses became wary of hiring students who attended these on-line schools. Even if students attend on-line classes at reputable schools, businesses, like professors, will need some time to adapt to the fact that more people are now choosing to attend school solely through the Internet. As this educational method becomes more widespread, it is hoped that the acceptance of students with degrees acquired through on-line coursework will be more easily accepted.
Finally, with taking classes solely on-line and communicating only through e-mail and chat, there is a loss of the close connection between the teacher and student. Some classes would seem to require such contact and not lend themselves as easily to on-line education. Some see college as a time to work with the peers you will eventually be entering the “real world” with, and sitting alone in front of the computer does not necessarily lend itself well to this networking and group work.
All this said, on-line learning definitely works at least in some situations and for certain categories of students. This educational method provides valuable knowledge to students while allowing them to reduce their costs of attending. The trick becomes how to offset the negatives listed above so that students will truly be able to take advantage of these positives.
Prior to gas prices reaching $4.00/gallon and above, there was already an increasing number of students who preferred to enroll for on-line courses. However, with the latest surge in gas prices, administrators are seeing an even greater increase in enrollment in such courses. While the reasons for students choosing on-line over in person classes are usually not sought by these schools and universities, a clear link has been cited between the cost of fuel and this increase.
Students can enroll primarily in two categories of on-line classes. The first is what most think of when considering on-line coursework – the student logs into the class at their convenience, and communicate to professors through chat and e-mail. The other option mixes in person and on-line classes in that the student is required to log in at class time, and is able to communicate with others in the class via microphones and cameras.
This move towards on-line education is requiring professors to adapt to the new technology. In the article, it is stated that many professors are uncertain about the efficacy of these on-line classes. As would be expected, many of these professors would prefer to have their students live in their classroom, but current economic conditions do not always allow for this.
Computer technology has greatly increased the possibilities in our lives. They have created conveniences and cost-saving alternatives. However, with all new methods and technology, there are drawbacks. In the case of on-line education, one issue, at least when some exclusively on-line schools started popping up, is the fact that there is a risk of diploma mills. These “schools” would basically issue a degree for merely paying the tuition; no class work or learning was required. Many of these diploma mills were caught and shut down, but one would think that there is still a risk involved with similar schemes reoccurring. However, if students take these classes at reputable schools such as Villanova (mentioned in the article as providing such opportunities), these risks would be reduced.
Related to these fears of diploma mills is the fact that many businesses became wary of hiring students who attended these on-line schools. Even if students attend on-line classes at reputable schools, businesses, like professors, will need some time to adapt to the fact that more people are now choosing to attend school solely through the Internet. As this educational method becomes more widespread, it is hoped that the acceptance of students with degrees acquired through on-line coursework will be more easily accepted.
Finally, with taking classes solely on-line and communicating only through e-mail and chat, there is a loss of the close connection between the teacher and student. Some classes would seem to require such contact and not lend themselves as easily to on-line education. Some see college as a time to work with the peers you will eventually be entering the “real world” with, and sitting alone in front of the computer does not necessarily lend itself well to this networking and group work.
All this said, on-line learning definitely works at least in some situations and for certain categories of students. This educational method provides valuable knowledge to students while allowing them to reduce their costs of attending. The trick becomes how to offset the negatives listed above so that students will truly be able to take advantage of these positives.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Library Safety and Security, Part I: Dayton Metro Library and Patron Perception
I recently ran across a Daytonology post from earlier this year about Dayton Metro Library's high volume of homeless patrons at its main branch. The main library is right next to the heart of downtown, while Cooper Park is located directly behind the building. The park's usage has been a particular source of controversy over the past few years; it used to serve as a site for homeless feedings until the city banned them in 2005. Now, with only one daytime homeless shelter in Dayton, Cooper--along with the library--remain a relatively safe rest area for the homeless.
As for the complaints that the Daytonology reader and blogger express, I'm a bit torn. On one hand, they're expressing questions and frustrations that are familiar to other libraries. I attended an Ohionet workshop a couple of weeks ago entitled "Dealing with Unacceptable Behavior in the Library: Protecting Patrons and Staff." Our library has witnessed a couple of serious rule violations this year involving non-student patrons, and I figured that we needed to clarify some safety procedures for managing future problems. But working in a private library that predominantly serves law students must have sheltered me, because I was initially surprised at how almost all of the public librarians and staff at the workshop expressed concerns about pervasive problems that they face. Some of these problems (such as vastly inappropriate sexual and bodily activity) pose quite a threat to the role of their public libraries as safe and democratic spaces. Concerns about drugs, prostitution, and homelessness at Dayton's mail library--as well as how those activities may affect staff morale and patron accessibility--should be no different.
Yet on the other hand--and at the risk of remaining naive--I would still agree with some of the more skeptical comments to this post. I normally go to the Wilmington-Stroop branch that is closest to my apartment, but have been to the main branch enough times to know that the homeless most certainly have not "overrun" it. I would also want to know more information about drug activity (admittedly, a possibility) and prostitution (quite a stretch) directly from librarians and staff before making such claims. And even in the case of illegal activity, it's reprehensible to automatically assume or insinuate that the homeless are the root source of the problem. Yes, the presence of homeless people during the daytime may still raise questions concerning space and usage. But as one commenter rightly notes, "If there is outright illegal activity going on there, then the staff and security guards are perfectly within their rights to tell a perpetrator to hit the bricks. If someone is not being disruptive, however, [then] they have a public right to use the public library."
So we must face the reality that there are several safety and security issues that can adversely affect patron perception of the libraries that they use. But they--we--also have to avoid lazy generalizations and stereotyping that can cloud one's assessment of these issues. How is this possible? I'm certainly not an expert, but I want to explore this topic a bit further in my next post, considering both public libraries and university libraries like Zimmerman that are more limited in access.
As for the complaints that the Daytonology reader and blogger express, I'm a bit torn. On one hand, they're expressing questions and frustrations that are familiar to other libraries. I attended an Ohionet workshop a couple of weeks ago entitled "Dealing with Unacceptable Behavior in the Library: Protecting Patrons and Staff." Our library has witnessed a couple of serious rule violations this year involving non-student patrons, and I figured that we needed to clarify some safety procedures for managing future problems. But working in a private library that predominantly serves law students must have sheltered me, because I was initially surprised at how almost all of the public librarians and staff at the workshop expressed concerns about pervasive problems that they face. Some of these problems (such as vastly inappropriate sexual and bodily activity) pose quite a threat to the role of their public libraries as safe and democratic spaces. Concerns about drugs, prostitution, and homelessness at Dayton's mail library--as well as how those activities may affect staff morale and patron accessibility--should be no different.
Yet on the other hand--and at the risk of remaining naive--I would still agree with some of the more skeptical comments to this post. I normally go to the Wilmington-Stroop branch that is closest to my apartment, but have been to the main branch enough times to know that the homeless most certainly have not "overrun" it. I would also want to know more information about drug activity (admittedly, a possibility) and prostitution (quite a stretch) directly from librarians and staff before making such claims. And even in the case of illegal activity, it's reprehensible to automatically assume or insinuate that the homeless are the root source of the problem. Yes, the presence of homeless people during the daytime may still raise questions concerning space and usage. But as one commenter rightly notes, "If there is outright illegal activity going on there, then the staff and security guards are perfectly within their rights to tell a perpetrator to hit the bricks. If someone is not being disruptive, however, [then] they have a public right to use the public library."
So we must face the reality that there are several safety and security issues that can adversely affect patron perception of the libraries that they use. But they--we--also have to avoid lazy generalizations and stereotyping that can cloud one's assessment of these issues. How is this possible? I'm certainly not an expert, but I want to explore this topic a bit further in my next post, considering both public libraries and university libraries like Zimmerman that are more limited in access.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Failure of DOJ to Disclose Fact May Alter Supreme Court Decision
In a rare move yesterday, the United States Justice Department has admitted an error in not informing the United States Supreme Court of a material fact that may have affected a pending case. The New York Times reports that the Justice Department’s failure to notify the Court of legislation that makes the rape of a child by a member of the military a capital offense caused Justice Kennedy to write an opinion in Kennedy v. Louisiana that contained mistaken facts.
In the Supreme Court case, the constitutionality of the death penalty being applied to child rapists was challenged. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that such a penalty is improper. However, Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, set forth as part of the reasoning for this decision the fact that only six (6) states allow a person to be sentenced to death for such an offense. In addition, Justice Kennedy found that since child rape was not a capital offense under federal law, Louisiana’s imposition of the death penalty was unconstitutional.
However, prior to the ruling, Congress had set forth that, as far as the military is concerned, child rape is a capital offense. Additionally, President Bush issued an executive order which added child rape as a capital offense to the Manual for Courts-Martial. Government lawyers failed to inform the Supreme Court, whom they knew was hearing this challenge, that child rape, at least in some circumstance, was a capital offense under federal law, leading the Court to include this misstatement in its opinion.
The Solicitor General’s office did not file a brief with the Court, and none of the briefs filed by others brought this fact to the attention of the Court. After the opinion was issued, this error was pointed out on an individual’s military law blog, and then later by the New York Times. Until such time, it is presumed that the Supreme Court justices had no knowledge of their error.
Parties to a case can request a rehearing in front of the Supreme Court. With these new facts being brought to light, it would seem likely that Louisiana would ask for such a rehearing. If so, it remains uncertain as to whether any change in the ruling would be made. Additionally, there may be questions as to whether the addition of child rape to the list of military capital offenses is constitutional.
It seems interesting that such a seemingly major error was made in a case such as this. It is implausible to think that the Supreme Court has the time to stay up on every law and change Congress makes, but it seems that many were aware of the case docket and issues within the Department of Justice. To not inform the Court of such a material fact has most likely rendered a decision that would be different had the item been disclosed. Especially with the Court divided 5-4, all it would take would be for this information to sway one Justice for the decision to be reversed. Whether the decision is reversed or not, it is hoped that, at the least, the case be heard again and judged with all relevant facts being disclosed to the Court.
In the Supreme Court case, the constitutionality of the death penalty being applied to child rapists was challenged. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that such a penalty is improper. However, Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, set forth as part of the reasoning for this decision the fact that only six (6) states allow a person to be sentenced to death for such an offense. In addition, Justice Kennedy found that since child rape was not a capital offense under federal law, Louisiana’s imposition of the death penalty was unconstitutional.
However, prior to the ruling, Congress had set forth that, as far as the military is concerned, child rape is a capital offense. Additionally, President Bush issued an executive order which added child rape as a capital offense to the Manual for Courts-Martial. Government lawyers failed to inform the Supreme Court, whom they knew was hearing this challenge, that child rape, at least in some circumstance, was a capital offense under federal law, leading the Court to include this misstatement in its opinion.
The Solicitor General’s office did not file a brief with the Court, and none of the briefs filed by others brought this fact to the attention of the Court. After the opinion was issued, this error was pointed out on an individual’s military law blog, and then later by the New York Times. Until such time, it is presumed that the Supreme Court justices had no knowledge of their error.
Parties to a case can request a rehearing in front of the Supreme Court. With these new facts being brought to light, it would seem likely that Louisiana would ask for such a rehearing. If so, it remains uncertain as to whether any change in the ruling would be made. Additionally, there may be questions as to whether the addition of child rape to the list of military capital offenses is constitutional.
It seems interesting that such a seemingly major error was made in a case such as this. It is implausible to think that the Supreme Court has the time to stay up on every law and change Congress makes, but it seems that many were aware of the case docket and issues within the Department of Justice. To not inform the Court of such a material fact has most likely rendered a decision that would be different had the item been disclosed. Especially with the Court divided 5-4, all it would take would be for this information to sway one Justice for the decision to be reversed. Whether the decision is reversed or not, it is hoped that, at the least, the case be heard again and judged with all relevant facts being disclosed to the Court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
