Empathy and Outrage

I’ll start by saying that, at one point, I found myself so frustrated by Stolorow’s jargon that I fantasized choking the professor who assigned it. Until I realized that professor was me. Seeking to erase my grievous error, I called my co-professors suggesting that perhaps we could drop the article (not because I didn’t think it was important; just because, well, other important thing deserved our time and attention more, didn’t they?) I have Prof. Reitz to thank for her forbearance: she suggested that this might be a teachable moment if we could be patient enough to unpack it. And then I remembered why I had chosen the article in the first place.

Robert Stolorow has been a very influential writer in the psychoanalytic world, writing largely about serious mental illness, the meaning of symptoms, and the static, even rigid, philosophical beliefs that often underlie the clinical actions one takes in vivo, actions which we think (pretend?) are spontaneous responses to real time stimuli but which are more likely grounded in unexamined doctrinal (look it up) systems. In this piece, Stolorow ricochets from the easily accessible idea that some of us are Dr. Empathy and others are Dr. Outrage (comically extreme perhaps but often the shorthand with which we approach our clients/ patients/ defendants/ students/ to say nothing of the institutional world), to the obscure, even obfuscatory, language of the pseudo philosopher Incompatiblism? REALLY?? As Amy Poehler and Seth Meyers would say.

Stolorow is really just asking: can Dr. Empathy and Dr. Outrage be integrated into a consistent philosophical view, or are these positions irreconcilable to a degree we are rarely willing to admit? For example, we were all very facile about saying in our previous discussions that sure, we can empathize with the set of circumstances that “caused” someone to act grievously, while at the same time condemning the consequence of their actions. Stolorow suggests that to offer this bromide without weighing its implications, puts us in a state of philosophical inconsistency that threatens the legitimacy of either argument.

I think that the basic questions Stolorow sets forth, and that I pose for you, are these:

1) If we believe in determinism i.e. our actions are caused by either distal (for example, a bad childhood), or proximate (for example, poverty) events, how can there be any idea of moral responsibility? Moral responsibility implies that people have a choice about what they do; if we believe in free will than each of us is the architect of our actions and must assume responsibility for their outcomes. If you want to have it both ways, one question is: at what point is someone responsible/not responsible for their actions? How could you ever decide where what is determined ends, and what is chosen begins?

2) If we believe in moral responsibility, which implies that we have free will, and so we believe it correct to hold people morally responsible for their actions, than this (philosophically speaking) must be applied across the board. In other words, if you hold those in power responsible for their actions you must hold those not in power responsible for their actions or, conversely, if you excuse oppressed people from moral culpability because their circumstances dictated their actions, in order to be consistent, you would also have to understand the circumstances surrounding the crimes of those in power at any given moment. So another question is: how can you excuse one set of people but not another? Who determines who gets a deterministic pass and who doesn’t?


Finally, I will just say-to avoid our falling back on the same old answers-that I am asking you now to wear the philosopher’s hat and think about logical consistency. Each one of us can make a political argument about the way to proceed in the world; a political argument takes into account expediencies, stakeholders; and the felicity calculus: what brings the biggest bang for the buck in any particular circumstance, what is actually doable. The philosopher has no such care; s/he asks, as did Stolorow (p. 259) Can we transcend the traditional compatibilist-incompatibilist dichotomy? In simpler words, is it possible for Dr. Outrage and Dr. Empathy to share a lab coat? What would that look like?

Hope in sorting out confusion

Hope….
How much of it can one hold onto when one is constantly falling in and out of bureaucracies that condemn us to failure. Even those that truly do attempt to help the individual, agencies like Vera and all it’s spin offs that try to assist those who always get forgotten, can only but compartmentalize the issues and hone in on it that way. I would like to begin this discussion by suggesting a more holistic approach. I know this was mentioned in class by Jennifer Bryan, and she mentioned a few of the problems that said approach faced, but I think Vera itself should be more holistic and interconnected, just like the FBI, DEA, Bomb squad, the local police and other departments of security have some degree of an open communication in order to facilitate things, so should Vera to improve the level of helpfulness it can offer. Maybe a separate agency can manage that and the idea of a networking- mentoring system for CEO participants.
Although the concept of offering the participants of CEO with the opportunity to network with fellow CEO’s, employers, students and other people that otherwise might not be traditionally present in their immediate circle of assets sounds rather exciting, it does face a lot of obstacles. Time being a major problem as many of these people will not be able to find the time, the transportation or the mends necessary to attend. Others will simply not be inspired to go and might be well satisfied by just having a job.
On that note, I would like to introduce a point Professor Waterston brought up after the seminar when I told her I was not sure what to write about. She said that what moved her most, was that the people coming out of prisons and enrolled in programs like that of CEO are almost expected to be grateful for dead end jobs that are strenuous and monotonous not only physically but emotionally and mentally as well. “Is that really all I can look forward to?” asked Professor Waterston as she imagined and felt what many in that situation must feel. These feelings and thoughts were inspired in part by a five minute video clip on “cooperative community development in Cleveland based on Mondragon principles” that she had seen before. http://www.blip.tv/file/2749165
Professor Waterston said she felt strongly supportive for an option such PEP (prisoner entrepreneurship program) where many ex offenders that have now been released can work on realizing and creating their own business where they are or share ownership. In all reality however, how many people can be given such an opportunity? How many can we expect to save or help? I personally am still stuck on a moral dilemma. A friend told me Thursday after class (although rather extreme) as we were discussing this that why should someone who has committed a crime against society, such a rape be allowed to serve time, get out, and attempt to continue their life as if nothing happened? The victim will never be the same and that person he or she was before the rape is forever gone. Why should the rapist receive a second chance? Now I know that CEO participants are not rapists or high risk offenders, but they still committed a crime and are now forgiven, and given a job, which means it’s taking a job from a law abiding person. At the same time, why be so punitive and illogical and not give someone with a teenage mistake that got caught a second chance as he or she might very well not be that same person either? What I’m trying to get at is the risk of reforming the system from a punitive one, that might be quite extreme and cruel and even corrupt to a treatment system where the idea of repentance is completely gone and treats the inmates as medical patients that can be cured and rehabilitated. What does that say, if anything, about the natural goodness of people as opposed to just a medicated, taught goodness? Some people are just bad! And who benefits from either system at the end of the day!?
All that aside, CEO, Vera and the other agencies all have great potential to pragmatically improve society; after all, it’s all about the money and efficiency when dealing with the issues of a system that is so overpopulated. Yet we cannot forget our empathy and passion to genuinely and truly help others, which always brings me back to Herb Sturz, who found the balance between pragmatism, efficiency and a priority to help others in a way that only a “kind of genius” could do. It is very inspiring to follow his footsteps while I mesh out my own conflicting feelings of morality.

On Empathy in Our Judicial System

I think for the most part we all wish our judicial system took the human element more into consideration. However, I do not think that empathy in our court proceedings would necessarily be the best practice. Even with this apparent absence of empathy we see great disparities in how minorities are treated and how a cases' outcome can be influenced by what judge it is assigned to. Speaking with various people at my internship (Esperanza), visiting Brooklyn's family court (where juvenile cases are handled), and listening to Mr. Thomas Giovanni, I have learned of the huge amount of influence that judges wield in respects to sentencing and even as to how a trial is run. I have seen judges uphold every single objection raised by the prosecuting attorney, while the defense is rushed through their case and barely allowed to do their job. I have also seen thinly veiled racism and various off-color comments from judges that truly left a bad taste in my mouth.

Thomas Giovanni's anecdote regarding the young Irish man really stuck with me since our court tour. To sum it all up, a young white, Irish man takes a cab on St. Patrick's Day and for some reason snaps at the cab-driver who he winds up assaulting while hurling racial slurs his way. This is plainly assault and most likely a hate crime. In court, the judge sees that he comes from a pedigree of NYPD officers, tells him that from his upbringing he can see that he has great potential for good and wont sentence him to the prison term that he should get. I believe Thomas Giovanni said the young man wound up with one year of probation. Had he been "black,brown, or poor" the judge would've thrown the proverbial book at him. In this case, the judge saw past the crime and liked what he saw (white, family in law enforcement), made an assumption as to his upbringing, and cut him a break. To me this is an example of how a judge would misuse empathy if empathy was expected in our judicial system. Would a "minority" individual have gotten this break? I doubt it. Judges already exert a large degree of control over the fate of every single person that steps into his or her courtroom. Whether they choose to be empathic or not is their choice as we can see in Thomas Giovanni's anecdote.

Empathy can be, and i guarantee would be, distributed in a biased manner. We call for empathy from the very same judges we view as racist, time-constrained, and despotic. This just doesn't make any sense to me.

I think, as I mentioned in class, that empathy should come after sentencing. I do not plan to delineate exactly how our justice system should be run as i am neither well-versed in law (yet) nor delusional but maybe some policy changes or prison reform could make up for our judges' poor and biased judgments. Maybe a judge's job should be to interpret law as absolutely black and white. If you commit a particular crime, you should serve a certain prison or probation term. However, a committee of sorts, such as a jury of one's peers, could decide what happens to the individual as he or she enters the prison system or probation.

For example: Person A and Person B are both convicted for armed robbery which, lets say for now, carries a two year prison term. Person A is robbing to support a drug habit meanwhile Person B cannot find steady, meaningful employment due to not having any semblance of an education and crime is the only way he or she knows how to make some money. Person A should be sent into a rehabilitation program and then made to complete a drug education course while spending his or her sentence in a controlled, yet healthy environment. Person B meanwhile could be placed in various job training courses (not unlike CEO or WILDCAT) and made to obtain a GED or some vocational training also in a controlled environment (not necessarily a prison as we think of it today) as part of their sentence. Both individuals would, potentially and ideally, leave "prison" having gained something and can begin to piece their lives together. By addressing the circumstances and the motivations for the crime and giving the "criminal" the tools and knowledge to rise above those circumstances, their reasons for committing that particular crime would be eliminated. Their fates did not hang on the words, decisions, biases, or empathy of a single person. This is simply too much power to grant an individual. Also, it doesn't make sense to send both Person A and Person B to the same prison environment, specially under the prison system we currently have.

Simplifying a judge's job this way would leave little to no room for any bias, simplify his or her job, and possibly move the process along quicker. All by eliminating empathy, as it exists today, from court proceedings.

I am fully aware that the system I employed in my example is overly simple but I was just attempting to formulate a clear thought experiment to make my case that empathy does currently exist in the judicial system, is misused (bias), and that to demand it from judges is folly and will only lead to even further inequality and lack of consistency in the law. The key to bettering our judicial system, I think, is to interpret the law as black and white while humanizing how we deal with those we do convict. This is where, in my opinion, empathy would make all the difference.

But then again, what do I know? After reading this post over, i sound a little naive.

Where Do We Stand?

THIS IS VAUGHN'S POST.

Thursday's seminar was nothing short of amazing. "A Crisis in the Subjectivity of the Analyst" was one of the most thought-provoking readings this semester. There were a couple concepts discussed in the reading itself as well asin class that particularly intrigued me. The first was the recognition by Katiria that Straker was fearful of her wellbeing. I agree totally, however, I think she was always afraid of physical harm whether at the hands of those she initially saw as good (Stanley) or those she saw as evil (Apartheid). What I believe changed was her view of where she stood in the fight against this good and evil we've been at odds with for some time. Whether you're winning or losing everything seems to be worthwhile when you know you're fighting for the just. The moment that picture became blurry Straker lost her sight of the evil she saw in the beginning. Insome weird way all violence is perceived as bad even if it's in hopes of fostering change. How can change be fostered in a violent situation without resorting to violence as well? Katiria again brought up a valid point that yes, Dr. King accomplished it to some extent but even he used the threat of further violence by those who weren't as peaceful as he (Malcolm X, Black Panthers, and other militant groups.) The thought that people in general are inherently good ties into this very broad subject matter. I'm not sure where I stand on it. I don't think Professor Waterston got to finish her thought. On the one hand, I want to believe taht there is good in all of us. On the other, I'm not sure what the classification of good really is. Does the face that Stanley took part in this necklacing make him any less good than the millions of people who sit and watch conflicts just like these on the big screen for entertainment not doing anything to help the cause? Aren't spectators to be held just as accountable for their actions as those we deem as evil? Bringing the concept back full circle, judges in our criminal justice system hand out hundreds of thousands of sentences a year. Judges as well as appointed officials know that the flaws in the system prevent the exercise of any real justice. On the other hand they've also dedicated their whole life to a system that they don't want to believe is unjust. How many of these judges can we say make an effort to help the overall problem? So in that sense judges and government officials come into conflict with the same trauma of morality Straker faces, and if they don't god help us all!!

I must admit that I was a little anxious about the mentor's coffee all week. I was sitting in my room trying to think of what I was going to say, and thinking of ways not to embarrass myself. I felt it was important to let everyone how this internship had change my outlook on life. I feel I am more able to spot injustices in my community through the testimonies of my clients, and I feel more entwine with their suffering and share their need for justice. I feel I have become more human. I can no longer say this is wrong and walk away from an issue. I now understand how all people are interconnected and it is almost impossible to stop thinking about how to make things better. I have experience this compelling need for action after reading Kant or Marx, but it is different when you have a person in front of you telling you their whole lives and still not noticing how they are victims of their societal structure. I simply feel awful when the people blame themselves for being the victims, and not understand how outside forces shape their unhappy circumstances. After listening to all the student's testimonies I got the sense that everyone was in the same boat. I felt Neethu's discontent with our educational system after dealing with teenagers in her agency. I agree that it is not entirely the students fault to be in High School and not be able to read. Why are this students able to move up the grade ladder without mastering this basic skill? Why is it okay to leave this population ignorant?

I also got the feeling that a whole new door of career options has opened up for us this year. I used to feel upset when people asked me, "So what are you going to do with a Justice Studies degree?" I was mainly upset because besides law school, I had no clear idea what else I could do. I must say that now law school is not my only option, but it is still my first choice. I gotta to thank Vera for opening my eyes to life. Overall I though the mentor's coffee was a success because the students demonstrated how much they had grown due to their experiences in their agencies and through our great discussions in the classroom. I must say I agree with Danielle when she said, "I will be so jealous of me next year." I want to know how everyone felt about the mentor's coffee, and would also like to know how the Vera Fellowship has altered everyones outlook on life?

Our Visit to Vera

I must say that our visit to Vera was very inspirational! Being able to visit the main site (where everything happens) and having Michael Jacobson speak to us about Vera’s mission and its spin-off process for its agencies was mind-blowing. It reminded me of what our ultimate mission is at our agency – which is social justice and/or delivery of services to a population that is in dire need of it. He brought our attention to the quote of Herb Sturz’ that was inscribed on the wall: “Wonderful way of building knowledge is doing something” which really stood out in his discussion about the spin-off process. Although some projects (i.e. Project Greenlight) did not produce the results that they needed in order to keep it running, they at least tried to create an agency for that population.

What also caught my attention was how each of them ended up at Vera. In each case, they were at some point interns for Vera! I feel that we are very lucky to be a part of this fellowship and to be a part of this process where we can learn how social justice can be accomplished with organizations like Vera. As Michael said, “Vera is very different from other organizations as other organizations spin off their problems and Vera spins off successes.”

Professor Stein brought up an interesting question which was, “Why isn’t Vera dealing with the sex offender population?” The sex offender population is a growing problem, especially with child pornography. Although Karen Goldstein said that there isn’t a need in that population, I believe that it may also be due to the high recidivism rate with that population. I personally believe that sex offenders often times get a slap on the wrist and do not get sentenced to enough time for their crimes. What are everyone else’s thoughts on that?

It was also very interesting to hear from Michael about Vera’s involvement all over the globe, especially in China. I’ve visited China a handful of times and know that, because they’re a communist country, they don’t like outside help. China is also full of corruption within their system. In August of 2009, an outspoken politician, Xu Zhiyong was arrested for advocating for legal rights. An excerpt from the New York Times, “Xu Zhiyong, 36, a soft-spoken and politically shrewd legal scholar who has made a name representing migrant workers, death row inmates and the parents of babies poisoned by tainted milk, is accused of tax evasion. The accusation is almost universally seen here as a cover for his true offense: angering the Communist Party leadership through his advocacy of the rule of law.” China operates in a mysterious way… If one were to speak out about the country, they would either disappear or be imprisoned. This was why I was very surprised to hear that China actually reached out to Vera for help on interrogation research. Will it ever be possible to work together in unison with all other countries (even communist countries) with the mission of social justice for all?

The Simple Truth

"So there is knowing and there is knowing and there is knowing." I found "Speaking Truth to Power with Books" by Howard Zinn to be such an insightful piece. As someone who appreciates the power of words and books, Zinn's words were very meaningful to me. I have read it about five or six times now and each time I find some new insight into his words. Zinn writes that sometimes people think they know something but truly what they believe to be the truth is really false and books have the power to make people question what they know. He gives an example, which I'm sure all of us have experienced to an extent, about how students, teachers, and parents were stunned to find that Columbus was not the great hero he was presented to us to be. I remember learning something new every year in middle school and high school that contradicted what I had learned the previous year. When we face something like this it makes us wonder what else has been hidden from us and what lies we have been told. We begin to stop taking everything for granted and ask questions about the things that are presented to us. I think this is such an important function of books and writing--to make people analyze what they hear and read. It wasn't until I came to John Jay that I realized the importance of questioning surveys and studies. I learned to ask where was that study conducted? Who conducted it? What methods and subjects were used? Was it reviewed?...Zinn goes on to say that when you tell someone something they didn't know or reveal a truth to them, it can move them to do something about what they've heard. I loved the example he gave about Rachel Carlson because I remember reading a book by her when I was in middle school, and it moved me to become an enviornmental brat of sorts who went around to everyone saying things like "How long has that AC been on? Do you know you're releasing CFC's into the atmosphere?"
I think realizing the power of words is especially important for us as future social scientists and social justice workers. We often forget how important our writing can be as students who do and write/help write research. The research we write can affect policies and laws, change the criminal justice system, and impact the lives of people. How we word something, how accurate our information is, and how well written is, can all have an affect on the impact of the writing on peoples lives.
In class we discussed how writing has become dry, ambigous, and at many times unreadable or incomprehandable. We all know the difference between reading Professor Waterston's description of Nora and the Woodhouse women and a research article. One captures our attention and is fascinating and the other can often times be a boring or even torturous read even though the subject matter is usually interesting. However, in a field where quantitative studies are often considered superior to or more "scientific" than qualitative studies, how do we get people to take us seriously if we don't write dryly and plainly. If we insert more narrative into our writing, take out unnecessary words, and make our writing simple, will we lose the respect or interest of professors and other scholars? How do we find a balance between dry facts and pure emotional narrative?

IS IT A DEMOCRACY?

I remember discussing the use of Euphemisms in my ISP Literature class two semesters ago, and it was interesting the facts one can uncover if we deeply analyze why the government uses Euphemisms. Well, according to an article tittled Euphemism and American Violence by David Bromwich, Euphemisms served several purposes in American Capitalism: first, powerful language dominates and controls; second, it is a means of substituting harsh and offensive words with mild or vague terms; third, euphemism distorts the truth. In other words, David Brumwich could not have described democracy in a better way. Democracy cannot exist without the use of euphemisms. Imagine if we lived in a society in which the government disclosed everything to the public, Obviously we would not live in such a peaceful society. Perhaps people would not follow all the rules, laws, and regulations set by the government if they did not use euphemisms to manipulate the people. The government needs, at some point, to have control over who they govern, even if it may seem that we have control over them. It is true that the public elects their representatives and senators; however, public does not know what really goes on in congress, or what issues are discussed. The government discloses what they think the public will like, or at least, what will satisfy their to be informed. With that being said, lets take a look at a couple of passages from the article Euphemism and American Violence:

"If one extreme of euphemism comes from naturalizing the cruelties of power, the opposite extreme arises from a nerve-deadening understatement. George Orwell had the latter method in view when he wrote a memorable passage of "Polictics and the English Language."

Defenceless villages are bombared from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are improsoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Artic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one to name things without calling up mental pictures of them" (Bromwich, D. Euphemism And American Violence, p. 1, The New York Review, March 15, 2008).

The very truth here is that most of us are naive of what really happens around the world. U.S intervention in other countries is not always what it seems to be. According to David Bromwich and Tony Proscio, the powerful must rename their actions if they want to keep the public satisfied yet naive. Most of us may agree that the US military will not rveal to the American public that they "bombared defenceless villages, killing all their inhabitants, and setting the remainings on fire, or locking people up for years without the right to due process." If the truth was so told to the public as it happens, then what would be the sense of calling ourselves a democratic society. The government, as does the supreme court in its long and sophiticated interpretations of the laws, needs to use powerful language such as pacification, transfer of unreliable elements, or rectification of frontiers to soften things and give a more positive meaning to the truth behind these terms.

If we looked and analyzed closely these words, like Geargoe Orwell and Tony Proscio emphasize in their articles, would we understand the meaning of these words by just hearing them or reading them from some well-written article or passage? Think deeply, would you? I know I wouldn't. The dictionary definition of Pacification includes (1) reduction, as of rebellious district, to peaceful submission and (2) a peace treaty. The meaning behind pacification as noted by David Bromwich is definately not a peace treaty or a peaceful submission. Think about it? do these words make it easy for us to be well-informed of the things happening in our society, much less in underdeveloped countries around the world?

Just to clear any confusions in regards to this article, it was written to illustrate what was taking/took place during the Vietnam War. The actions of the military in Vietnam and other countries where there was US military involvement.

P.S. Sorry for posting my blog so late but I had been very busy.

Making House Calls

“Conventional readings of human rights violations fail to draw on current understandings of the social determinants of a wide variety of ills, leading a random appearance to what is, in fact, a highly predictable set of outcomes.” - Paul Farmer

“Imagine it’s a shock to pay poor people for their labor.” Paul Farmer’s method of getting Rwanda healthier involves a holistic approach where the entire community is involved in keeping themselves and their neighbors taking medication and… in increasing their vegetable intake? Sounds like what my mother always told me. Well, this basic strategy is working. “Accompaneros” (villagers, modestly trained in health care) have increased medication compliance rate to percentages higher than in the United States. Citizens of Rwanda are managing to keep themselves healthier than one of the most advanced countries in the globe.
Holistic doctors frequently prescribe to the benefits of a healthy diet to restore to health to individuals suffering from planter’s warts to cancers. Plus, its possible to save money when vitamins and minerals supplant long hospital stays. In Rwanda, an agricultural expert is on hospital staff, providing a short course to parents with malnourished children on how to make their vegetable garden more productive. A family’s ability to grow healthy crops leaves more to sell at local farmers markets, improving another economical issue, namely, incidence of poverty. Farmer’s model takes “a man who was once a terrible drain on society and makes him a productive member of society.” I’ve noticed this repeating theme in Sturz’s logic. To “take people who are part of the problem, and make them part of the solution” seeks to improve the living situations of those who have kicked into survival-mode, while only quietly imposing on capitalist ideals.
Paul Farmer describes the Guatamala locals’ reception to a workshop given by “slender” girls in “jeans” who “looked a lot like those of us who had come from Boston” : “They were being asked to respond to an agenda imported from capital cities, from do-gooder organizations like ours, from US universities with the “right” answers to every question.” The paradox here is that successful programs have been implemented from programs started in the United States. We have the time and utilities to research, to travel, to make house calls. That is part of the reason we go into other countries proposing a solution and greatly insist they work on it. (Naturally, we’ve also had our share of miscalculated efforts. The media-driven society we are, these are the efforts most frequently cited.) The question I want to raise is, after we’ve done our research, made our house calls, and proposed a solution, how do you convince an abused, skeptical population that we’re here to give more aid, so eventually, they’ll need less aid? How do you convince them its not that we want to get in their business; “it’s not charity, its solidarity”?

Amanda's Post on the failures of the Criminal Justice System

Last class we got a taste of the reality of the New York criminal justice system. Since we focused on particular incidents, I feel that I should focus this blog on the two readings and incorporate with Thomas Giovanni’s visit.

I would like to first start with Glenn Loury’s article, “Obama, Gates and American Black Man.” He begins his Op-Ed story with a quote by General Eric Holder, which truly encompassed racial problems within America.

“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot,” Mr. Holder said, “in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.”

I agree with General Eric Holder’s quote, we tend to just accept racial barriers and problems as being another hurdle in life. Of course there are those, like the NAACP, that focus all of their energy on ending these problems, but the point is when is it going to end? Loury compared the incident of Gates as an everyday issue that occurs to a black man in America, but because of his connection with Obama the incident was publicized. I fully agree with Loury’s article, we all in some way just live with these racial problems, and instead of taking them head on as a nation we sit on the sidelines like cowards.

Another point I found interesting was when Loury states, “However, such behavioral problems reflect failures elsewhere in our society — racial and class segregation in our cities; inadequate education for the poor; and the collapse of the family as an institution in some communities. Because of these failures, we have large numbers of under-socialized, undereducated and virtually unemployable young men in our cities and towns. (They are not all black, to be sure, but they are disproportionately so.) Domestic violence is a serious problem in many of our communities; drug trafficking and gang activity are important parts of the social economy of the inner city.” In other words, crime and violence in inner city neighborhoods is a representation of the systems failure to meet their needs. I have learned of a cycle called, Myrdals cycle, which entails that when a child from an inner city neighborhood drops out of school (the school happens to be the foundation of where that child will end up in life) they join gangs or contribute in violent actions, then this leads to a life in and out of the criminal justice system, and most likely drug consumption becomes a factor (most of these areas do not have good support systems.) It’s like a vicious circle that continues to occur, and its not a representation that a specific group isn’t “picking themselves up by their boot-straps,” but rather no one is giving them a chance to succeed.

This leads me to Paul Butlers book “Let Get Free.”

The use of rap and hip-hop has become an outlet, or more like an amplified voice, describing how these young individuals have faced the failures of the system. Paul Butler writes that the “Punishment should be the point of criminal justice, but it should be limited by the impact it has on the entire community.” (124) In other words, when someone is in and out of the system they bring back the burden and the attitude into their community. And the criminal justice system fails to see that they are not protecting New York, but breeding a dysfunctional mental state. Some say that there are vicious and murderous crimes that only people who act like animals commit, but you wonder if the criminal justice dehumanizes people, then what do they expect people to act like. So these artists take what they have seen and felt, and then they turn it into music so that others facing the same situation could understand that they are not alone. Rap can be seen as a minority’s political platform, their political outreach is in a different form, but the message is still there.

A famous activist and writer named Eric Dyson said that rap is a “subversive cultural didacticism aimed at addressing racism, classism, social neglect, and urban pain: the rap concert, where rappers are allowed to engage in ritualistic refusals of censored speech. The rap concert also creates space for cultural resistance and personal agency, loosing the strictures of tyrannizing surveillance and demoralizing condemnation of mainstream society and encouraging relatively autonomous, often enabling, forms of self-expression and cultural creativity.”(Michael Eric Dyson, Reader, pg. 403)

Many say that rap can lead to violent crimes. In my opinion, they are not imploring people to commit crimes but rather telling a story of how they started off in the criminal justice system and have risen up through the struggle and pain into someone successful. I think that rap shows that despite the evidence that the system wants us to fail, there is a way of fighting it and becoming something better.

Katiria's Post: Bornstein and more

Hi All: Katiria is having trouble posting, so I'm posting her entry:

There is no question about how impacting and interesting David Bornstein’s reading How to Change the World was. The reading brought forth a lot of questions and comments in our class discussion this past Thursday. For instance, did these normal everyday people discussed in How to Change the World significantly impact the world? Or is it truly necessary for someone to be a Brad Pitt or an Angelina Jolie to actually be able to make a difference? In my eyes it is unnecessary for someone to be famous to be able to make a positive impact in the lives of others. No matter how small the task as long as it makes a difference in one life this will have meant that this has significantly changed the world. I say this because I see aiding one person and making a difference in that one person’s life as something that will trickle down and have a ripple effect on others. With this I definitely believe these people mentioned in How to Change the World have already made a significant change in the world. Their actions have led to the acknowledgment of failures in the system that have caused in some systematic changes.

In relation to our discussion that quickly evolved, Professor Stein shared a quote from Slavoj Zizek, Violence in the seminar that left the class somewhat divided on whether to lean towards agreeing or disagreeing with its words. This quote was “Charity is the humanitarian mask hiding the face of economic exploitation”. This argument can clearly go either way, for charity or against it. Personally, I whole heartedly believe that charity can be a positive thing, especially when donating to the right organizations that truly help others. There are some people out there that are unfortunately in situations they cannot easily get themselves out off and it is a blessing for them to get any help they can possibly get. On the other hand, I can see myself agreeing with what Zizek expressed, from my perspective I feel that in reality there are many wealthy individuals that are using charities now in days, as a system of tax exemptions not truly not caring about who they donate to, what the cause is or if in reality their money is being put to good use and these people are being helped. They are simply caring about their tax returns. The discussions in the seminar regarding this quote simply blew me away. It was just so much back to back and I felt that there was so much more that could have been discussed regarding this topic and so much more that so many of us wanted to say that I felt this would be the perfect topic for our blog. So that we may have the opportunity to further discuss it and possibly respond to one another comments and give our thorough opinions because I feel that this is an opportunity to further or great learning experience.

Early Days at the Agency

This week's post is just a simple invitation to discuss your first experiences with your agency and any concerns, questions or surprises that came up. What do you anticipate some of the challenges will be?

You may also continue our seminar discussion on the Roberts book. Danielle mentioned that she found several inspiring "words to live by" in the text. What inspired you? What did you wish we had spoken about in class?

I am also aware that I'm writing this on 9/11 as CNN covers the reading of the names at Ground Zero. As you enter the world of your agency, working for justice in some corner of New York City, what might be the connections (if any) between the problems (and solutions) you see locally and issues of national security, international relations and social justice around the world.

You don't have to respond to all of these points, just the one(s) that speak to you. The most important thing is to jump into the blog, so comment away!

Return of the Vera Fellowship Seminar

Welcome 2009-10 Vera Fellows (otherwise known as Verons). Hopefully you are reading this having successfully followed the prompts. We will have a sign-up in class on Thursday. Each Fellow will choose a week to write the "post" -- usually within 24 hours of Thursday's class. Every week, all other Fellows (and Professors) will comment on the post. In order to get a sense of how that works, read the posts/comments from last year's seminar. You can also "check out" some of the links to things mentioned in students' posts (articles, songs, video clips). If you want something put here, just send the address to me (creitz@jjay.cuny.edu) and I'll make sure it gets up there. There are also links to the websites of the participating agencies.

Social repair through the arts

I would like to first begin by thanking everyone that made this class so successful! One of the things that drew my attention to this topic was how people tend to act on their impulses without empathizing the needs or views of others. It is interesting to observe how body language and our communication skills with people can either create tension or unity. My favorite portion of the class was how re-sculpting ones body helped alleviate a situation. This lead to my point how body language is so important with the client based population we serve. When I evaluate the placement for clients one of the things we observe is body language. Body language helps us determine whether they want to change their lives or if it because they have been mandated by parole or probation. As social justice workers we should also be aware of our body language because it displays our interest to assist them on their path to rehabilitation. Most of these individuals have been raised in homes where they were shown little to no affection. We need to be aware of our body language because we need to differentiate ourselves from the negative people in their lives. Most of these people have been unreceptive to receiving help because of the previous lifestyles they were accustomed to living. I also enjoyed stepping inside the character of others because it allows us to feel the frustration or stigma of others. Many times we tend to prejudge others without the interest of understanding their circumstances. Seeing how effective it was to step in the perspective of another person led me to this question: Might there be some type of social repair through the arts? .

In my opinion, the artistic approach seeks to eliminate the perception that society has about former prisoners and bring everyone's perspective into the larger picture. Might this be a realistic stepping stone for social change? Where do you think it is most needed, and what are the obstacles that will be encountered? In theater there are no bystanders, and there were so many solutions that each of us contributed. Going back to Ridhi's week: Do you think people would be willing to have more of an open mind, and more of a sense of moral responsibility to one another, through using this approach?

At Center for Employment they have been doing similar exercises as we did in class. It was interesting to hear that at first they were not willing to participate in these exercises but after they were drawn to these exercises and learned to positively see the perspectives of others. Do you believe that the government should have programs that include arts as part of a rehabilitative program?

Minding your own business

Thank you everyone for such a great conversation yesterday! We touched on so many different topics, all of which led to an incredibly stimulating conversation. One question that struck me was the question of moral responsibility. In class, Elizabeth mentioned the moral responsibility a neighbor might have to a DV victim. While I was drafting this blog, I kept coming back to the issue of responsibility we have toward each other. Yesterday morning I ended up in a discussion with my mentor, Jan, about moral responsibility and how individuals react to certain situations. We argued about how different circumstances cause different reactions, and while people are more than willing to help, certain situations will cause them to freeze and hesitate.

A few years ago, a woman was sexually assaulted in a train station while two different conductors looked on. While the conductors did call for help, they did nothing to physically stop the man. By the time the cops reached her, the woman had been raped twice and the man was long gone. The victim filed a lawsuit against the conductors and recently, a judge ruled that the conductors were in no way responsible to step in and help the woman, as long as they called for help. MTA stated that the conductors should not be expected to take the place of law enforcement. (http://www.nypost.com/seven/04012009/news/regionalnews/subway_rapist_victims_shock_162317.htm)

Another one of my CEO co-workers showed me a video of a woman who was beat up on the train by a random stranger in Spain, while other passengers looked on and did nothing. Incidents like these happen everywhere and it is always the onlooker’s moral responsibility that is questioned. My mentor’s statement that everyone claims they will help someone but very few are willing to act in the moment has truth to it. A lot of people might not get involved simply because it wasn’t their business. I myself might think twice about helping the woman on the train, for the fear of him turning on me would stop me. Should it be each person’s moral responsibility to look out for the safety of others? If so, is it possible to create a moral code of conduct? Is it possible to enforce such a code? 

Machinery of Justice

I was introduced to Camus in an ISP Philosophy class a few semesters ago. I decided to read The Stranger independently of school over the summer and it has maintained a special meaning for me. This could be because Camus’ writing is compelling and the story is brilliantly woven with substance and meaning. Or perhaps it is because within weeks of reading it I served on jury duty on a criminal case and could compare very clearly the fictional irrationality of law with the American Justice system in the real world. It also seems that I have been somewhat unable to escape many of the sentiments in this book over the past year.

I was recently, inadvertently, introduced to a band called Titus Andronicus. I saw them play at the Bowery Ballroom in February 2009, and though they are an indie/punkish band a genre of music which lends itself to energetic performances, theirs was one of the most emotionally charged, exciting and good I’ve ever seen. After poking around on the internet to learn more about them and listen to some more of their music, I learned that the Titus Andronicus is also one of Shakespeare’s earliest and bloodiest tragedies. At the end of the bands' song " Fear and Loathing," Titus Andronicus lead singer reads a monologue from a the play. The quote is by Aaron ( who is interestingly a Moor!) and it describes all the horrible deeds he has done in an a tone of such defiance that it gave me chills at how similar it felt to the last paragraphs of The Stranger.

I had two reactions to this. First of all how can people who are supposed to be indifferent commit such passionate acts to demonstrate or prove their indifference? ( Not only murder but the bands screaming) Second, is this simply a part of humanity? If everyone from Shakespeare to Camus to college kids from Jersey are feeling it .. maybe it’s just something we exist with.
Camus mentions the “machinery of justice”. Justice –such an abstract word- is most familiar to us in the realm of the criminal jus tice system. But this function of justice( the CJS) only exists within our conceptions of things like society, morals, and rights. Camus, Shakespeare and Titus Andronicus all seem to be expressing some defiance of a system that they deem to be meaningless, and by inference unjust.

As workers in the criminal justice and humanities fields we will be exposed to “the benign indifference of the universe” as Camus puts it. And we will be part of a system of justice that doesn’t feel very just at all. How much do you agree or disagree with Camus’ notion of the “machinery of justice” and in what ways do you think we can prevent ourselves from being overcome by it?

Is it the place or is it the people?

This past Thursday we got to the unanimous conclusion that violence should not be a part of our prison system and that it can be prevented. At this point, I would like to shift the focus on a different aspect. Probably, all of you heard about the Stanford Prison Experiment. As a quick overview, Philip Zimbardo a Psychology Professor at Stanford University created a mock prison. All the participants in the study were college students who volunteered to be part of the project. The students chosen to be prisoners went through the whole process of being arrested, booked, fingerprinted, placed and held in a cell. Their hair was shaved and each prisoner was forced to wear a heavy chain bolted to their right ankle. The guards were also college students who did not receive special training, but were advised to maintain the law and order in prison. The experiment was stopped after only 6 days because the “guards became sadistic and our prisoners became depressed and showed signs of extreme stress.” So my question is: Is it the setting that makes people violent, or people in a position of authority become violent?
Going back to our last week discussion about language, do you think that if we change the name of this institution and the people associated with it, we are taking away their authority? What would be the options of a new guard who doesn’t want to abuse his/her authority, if the other guards pressure him to go against his/her beliefs? Do you believe that more women correction officers may help reduce violence? Are prisoners more likely or less likely to comply with orders received from women correctional officers? Do you think that violence can be reduced and prisoners better rehabilitated if we create a more liberal prison model, such as prisons without cells and no tick walls (just some fences)? Is it even realistic to aim for a violence free prison system when we live in a violent world (the yesterday Binghampton shooting is just one example)?
Please feel free to take this in any direction you would like or to express your ideas and/or concerns on the topic.

Reflections on reentry, language, and ritual

Another Thursday, another morning full of thought-provoking conversation. As much as I'm yearning for break -- my thoughts are overly-provoked! -- I can only say that we are on a roll, people!
First, a shout-out to President Travis, who was so generous with his time, expertise and responses to your excellent questions (second shout-out). I'd like for the blog this week to be a space for you to reflect on yesterday's discussion or to continue last week's blog discussion, or even to make connections between things said yesterday and things said last week.
What I've been thinking about since yesterday, and this may be an occupational hazard, is how much language and ritual are part of the re-entry (and indeed broader criminal justice) conversation. From calling an ex-con (what we called them in my day) a "formerly incarcerated citizen" to graduation ceremonies from parole, the "softer" or more "meta" or extra-legal (? now all my language choices seem subject to critique) concerns in the criminal justice process seem to be central ones. But I am someone who pays professional attention to symbol, language, and ritual. What are you all noticing "on the ground" in your internships? Do people pay careful attention to language? Is the importance of symbolic gestures something you see factored into the decisions your agency makes?
Feel free to take this in a different direction. What struck you about our conversation with President Travis yesterday? What questions would you have wanted to ask in a second hour? I know I would have asked him about the choice to put an anti-apartheid anthem as the epigraph to his book. What connections does he want the reader to make between America's prison system and apartheid in South Africa?

Visiting the Mother Ship

Hello Verons,

I think we all were pretty impressed by our trip this morning to Vera. But what else were we? Since we don't have an official blog post-er this week, I thought I'd start a conversation about the many different ideas that were running through your head this morning (other than, can I actually take a second doughnut -- o.k. that was me). Did anything you learn help you figure anything out? Did it make you more confused? Are your internships this semester more the former or the latter? Any questions that you did not get to ask there that you would have wanted to?

As I said this morning, I was really struck by what a key skill flexibility is -- intellectually, personally, professionally -- and I wonder if you feel that you see that in your spinoff organization? Do you think that the things you are studying/doing are helping you develop that skill? And, in a nod to Professor Waterston, what kinds of larger conditions are necessary for people/organizations to be able to be flexible?

On a separate note, I will bring a thank-you card to seminar next week for everyone to sign, but feel free to shoot Tina an informal thank you at tchiu@vera.org.

Blog on!

...and the Jury says?

Thanks Fellows for such a great discussion yesterday.

Southchester, like many counties across the state (and across the country), is unequipped to deal with the number of individuals they have incarcerated. But the problem doesn't go away.

As we mentioned in class, go ahead and weigh in with a verdict: what should Southchester do? You can be yourself, but I'd like you to consider whether your opinion would change if you lived in Southchester, had a family, were elderly, were unemployed...
_________________________________________________________________
I have so much that I wanted to bring up in class, but there is so little time! (okay, fine, and I was a little nervous). A couple things I will throw out right now are:

- Consider what makes a jail different from a prison- very high inmate turnover, individuals awaiting trial (who are still "innocent" in the eyes of the law???), often more poorly funded, mostly members from that community...

- Who is housed in a local jail? In Dutchess, roughly 1 in 4 were diagnosed with a mental illness, and between 60-70% are non-violent drug offenders (or charged with a non-violent drug offense).

- Tim Joseph, a legislator for Tompkins County, spoke about how state officials use statistics inappropriately to bully county governments into costly expansions. He said, "They get a graph, they look at what it's done in the past twenty years, and they draw a line through it. They go out twenty more years, and they say that's what [the population] is going to be. Now if we project that to continue and continue, well, there won't be anyone left to guard us all."

As learnéd outsiders, the situation might seem silly. (It seems silly to me) But even if we introduce alternative programs, who would run them? How do we leverage political support? What happens if these programs do not achieve the results they are expected to? Will the community support these "soft" solutions? Can Southchester afford the risk?

Octavia raised an important selling point for private (and public) expansions- beds can be sold out to generate revenue for the town. Jobs will be created. Darakshan raised a good point too- no unions may mean we can employ more Southchester-ians struggling in this economy. While philosophically we may not support a private jail, can we sleep at night if we don't invest in a solution that gives our community the most jobs with benefits, saves our town money (potentially) and, perhaps, even generates income that can be reinvested into the community?


P.S. If you want- take a break from all your work and watch this short, totally unrelated youtube clip. I had this in my syllabus also- it is BRILLIANT in its marketing strategy... and I PROMISE you won't regret it. Weigh in on it too if you'd like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POFO0HGrpVE

Searching For A Remedy

America is a country like no other, where people come to find refuge from their own war torn or corrupt countries; countries that have been destroyed due to religious conflicts and other divisiveness. It is where dreams are made on just a dollar and where stars are born and legends are made. America offers an abundance of opportunities, and although it is not perfect, it has great potential. Yet with such auspices, America remains a glass ceiling for opportunities for many hard working people. Language, religion and culture are a few factors that have been cited to cause enormous division among people in America, making it difficult to arrive any one consensus.

Clearly no one as of yet at least, knows the answer to what makes a near perfect society or at least one that functions to equally benefit everyone. Many believe that diversity should be valued and maintain because it encourages innovation and cultural richness. Yet it is this diversity that highlights how different we are--- potentially driving us further apart from each other. Others believe that identifying with one culture encourages unity, solidarity and cooperation, though having one culture can be viewed as limited.

How do we truly see past the differences among us in order to advocate for each others interest and work in concert in achieving those interests? How important is it to get over who is what? Can there be one shared culture? Or are we just too torn to see our selves as one? And with the fast emerging bi-racial population, do they eventually create their own culture since they do not belong to just one?

Myself, I do not have a definitive answer for many of these questions. And as a mother of a bi-racial child I am sorting it all out. For now however, I am choosing to raise my daughter as an American, not part Irish or part Jamaican.

Envisioning Solutions

It is always much easier to identify the problem than thinking of solutions. What is even harder is implementing the solutions. This week we focused on violence against women and violence perpetrated by women. In focusing on the case of a group of women banding together to kill their batterer and female suicide bombers, we touched on the intersections between the society, the political environment, the opportunities available to women, the construction of womanhood, and culture. In addition we saw how the line between being a victim and a perpetrator blurs.

Therefore I am interested in ways that all of you think we may be able to counter the recruitment of female suicide bombers or prevent women from picking up the gun and shooting their batterer. Is the answer in assessing the needs of the community? Is it reconstructing gender? Is the answer to countering the recruitment of female suicide bombers in South Asia and the Middle East in educating the communities on sexual violence. Should the focus be on using women to reconstruct the society and then integrating them and giving them an active voice in the political process? If a particular community holds on to strict gendered roles, then should the international community or individuals from other societies step in?

How do we counter intimate partner violence? I just read that Chris Brown and Rihanna have reconciled and are back together. Statistics tell us that it takes women eight times before they leave. How do we intervene and prevent violence in intimate partner relationships. Obviously not every woman is going to leave their batterer, so should we put the focus on the male and treat him or punish him for inflicting the violence. Then how do we deal with cases in lesbian and gay relationships where intimate partner violence is also very high. How about male rape? Maybe the solution is not in gender but remodeling human psychology for wanting total power and control over others.

P.S. On a side note, I would like to invite all of you to check out and become followers of a blog by Students for A Greater CUNY. Last semester we spoke of how the 23 CUNY campuses do not have a sexual assault policy. Some of you took the survey on whether the campus you attended had a Sexual Assault Policy and 60-86% of the students reported they had no idea of their campus's sexual assault policy. This blog has been set up to have a transparent process for students and place pressure on CUNY officials to pass the sexual assault policy. Please help us and let your voice be heard. (http://cunypolicy.blogspot.com/ )

Embracing Research

In Tuesday’s class we touched upon many flaws of the U.S. legal system. Essentially, American courts operate via an adversarial system where truth is sought by opposing sides presenting evidence to a neutral jury. As we know, this is not how guilt is determined in all countries. France, for example, runs on an inquisitorial system where the judge plays a more active role in the court room. Though I am no expert on Islamic Law, Ridhi brought up they also conduct criminal proceedings quite differently. Since it seems inevitable that these proceedings will always be flawed in some way, I would like to focus this discussion on how and why certain suspects make it to trial to begin with.

In my social and experimental psychology class (the class in which I wrote a study proposal using the assigned reading), my professor informed us that one of the major differences between the United States and Europe (and Canada as well, I believe) is that Europe is more willing to allow academics to do legal research “behind the scenes”. Not only this, but they are also more willing to embrace the findings of such studies if it means that it will improve their legal proceedings. Knowledge of this makes our country appear corrupt and rather primitive. In the U.S., the same types of research tend to be viewed as an intrusion, an invasion of privacy. One of the hardest fields to conduct research on in the U.S. is in the area of interrogations and confessions, as American’s police force happens to be the most unwilling to let people conduct research on their techniques. Unfortunately, such confessions are viewed as a strong indicator of guilt by a jury.

Prior to this process of interrogations and confessions is the arrest itself. I recently have been learning about issue of “consensual” searches (In the book Speaking of Crime, by Solan and Tiersma, 2005). The authors go into great detail as to how a search could never be consensual based on the nature of the relationship between suspect and law enforcement (the officer being in a high position of power, and the suspect often unaware of their rights). They point out that in this area, even the Supreme Court is unwilling to acknowledge this power dynamic, stating it “impractical” to inform drivers of their right to refuse a search (even though some states have required this). Adding to this issue is the fact that these searches happen as a result of race. According to one study done in Florida on a freeway in Volusia County, “Their analysis of over one thousand police videotapes revealed that even though only around 5 percent of all drivers on that freeway were African American or Hispanic, over 70 percent of traffic stops involved drivers of those two ethnic groups… approximately half of all stops were followed by a search, and 80 percent of all searched automobiles belonged to black and Hispanic drivers”.

I think one of the major issues with our system happens before any formal legal action takes place. Police look for people who they believe to look like “criminals”. Why do you think these types of issues exist despite knowledge of such? What do you think the United States has to gain by maintaining a flawed legal system? Lastly, how can we tie this in to our recent discussion on physical attractiveness? I am sure we all have heard of situations of people (especially females) not getting arrested or “getting off easy” as a result of being attractive. Feel free to follow any of these avenues or other thoughts!

All in Favor of Socialism?

Yesterday Professor Waterston mentioned the Kibbutz system in Israel. When she brought this up I was reminded of these small communities in Scotland that I learned about several years ago (I believe they were called Shets) where the people in the community worked together and lived off the land. Next I thought of the Canadian family I work for, who cannot seem to go a day without mentioning how wonderful socialized medicine is. I’ve even been pondering the socialist ideals held by the Amish. While each of these communities has unique qualities (and perhaps flaws) they all claim to be working for the common good, and aim to improve the quality of life for everyone. The Jewish Virtual Library describes a Kibbutz as “a society dedicated to mutual aid and social justice.” Well, who wouldn’t want to be a part of a community working towards social justice? This got me thinking about the fear a lot of Americans have about socialism. We complain about social inequities but yet we are afraid to move towards a system that seeks to alleviate the stresses of social hierarchies. I’m wondering, specifically what types of people you think are drawn to communities like the Kibbutz, or the Shets, or even to socialist ideals? What are the characteristics of these people? Who is afraid of these systems? Are their fears legitimate? Who would benefit and who would lose out if our country were to turn towards a more socialist system? Please feel free to take this in any direction!

All Topics Large and Small

The beginning of the semester always feels like standing in the ocean, bracing yourself for a big wave and then the next thing you know you're on your hands and knees looking for your sunglasses and coughing up saltwater. Maybe that wave is the Blackboard snafus this week, registration woes, bookstore lines, confusing first weeks -- or the Vera Fellowship! Please use the few days you have to blog this week to bring up anything that is getting you down so far. Difficult transitions to new agencies? Issues with syllabi (including ours)? Unrealistic expectations of your various stakeholders? Share your first week concerns.

We also did not get a chance to talk about larger issues, such as what the new Obama administration might mean to the work of social justice, or how the ailing economy will affect the work that your agency is trying to do, the lives your clients are trying to recover, or your own thoughts on your future educational and career options. Share your comments on this exciting/troubling historical moment!

Last but not least, did anyone have a moment in class the first week when you thought "I'm glad to be back!" I did. I had a student last semester who ended up failing the course because of absences. This semester she is back, on time and incredibly well-prepared. I feel energized by how she managed to take the tough lesson of last semester and use it to turn things around. Resilience! Please share a positive first-week experience.