No Drug Left Behind- Rethinking our approach to the WOD

For anyone interested in seeing the rest of the great documentary I showed in class, here is the information (and it should still be on Netflix):

"The House I live In"
By Eugene Jarecki

I would like to thank everyone for being so engaged in class! It turned out way better than anticipated.

Reflecting back on the question that Prof. Stein posed to me after the clip, I failed to mention that while I do support the "War on Drugs," I do so for its purpose/principles rather than its current application and administration. I can already hear Prof. Waterston asking me to specify and define the principles, so I will do so: to stop the problem of harmful drug use and addiction, and to eliminate the illicit drug economy along with all the all the dangerous criminal activity that maintains it. Where I disagree with the WOD is the overwhelming racial discrimination, the misguided and suspicion criminalization of marihuana (a substance proven not to be deadly), and the fact that it distracts from root causes which create the need for self-medicating. Moreover, I am disgusted by the obvious misuse of police discretion and power as well as the harmful impacts the WOD has had on indignant communities nationwide. Nevertheless, whether or not this was the case initially, drugs are now a problem that must be addressed (look to the multi-billion dollar drug industry for evidence of such). Rather than doing away with the WOD, I think it must be refocused. Perhaps changing the name or removing those who profit would help to address these issues. Moreover, perhaps funds previously used for treatment can be restored to their original purpose.

With that said, I would ask the class to focus on possible solutions, not the problem we already know exists. What are some creative ways we can address the issue of how to fix the WOD? The issue of drug abuse? For this exercise, I ask that you try and be as specific as possible and remain on the topic of drugs (as opposed to poverty, flaws of capitalism, etc.)

And to help, here is what should be a familiar quote from Einstein taken from last semester's lesson on Charity: "you can't solve a problem with the same mindset that created it."

Discretion, Discretion, Discretion...

Below is the link to the article Peter Kiers mentioned:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/nyregion/new-york-courts-meet-elusive-goal-from-arrest-to-arraignment-in-under-24-hours.html?hpw&rref=nyregion&_r=0

Many of the questions raised during the tour are key to understanding how the system actually functions in its day to day operations. For example, is there any disparity between males and females who are RORed? Although Mr. Kiers pointed out that most defendants arraigned are men and that RORs seem to be distributed equally regardless of gender, he failed to mention that the arresting officers and the precinct have a large amount of discretion which influence who actually makes it to arraignment. In other words, a male and female may both be arrested for the same crime (e.g. Jumping a train turnstile) and have similar criminal histories, but police may decide to release the woman with a ticket at the precinct but send the male to central book to be processed. Once in central booking, the defendant now has to face the district attorney's office which can decide to decline prosecution, to change what the defendant is being charged with, or to even add more charges. After about 24 hours of processing, the defendant finally stands before the judge. 

During the tour most may remember that I asked Judge Yavinsky "what factors help you decide whether to set bail, release, or remand a defendant?" to which he responded, "do you want the book answer or the REAL answer?" His response captures the very reason why I asked the question. During all my time in court, much of how the judges make their decisions seem completely arbitrary. Judge Yavinsky admitted that ten judges will give the same defendant 10 different dispositions. In my opinion, this system is saturated with arbitrary discretion at every single level. Sometimes, it seems as if standing in the way of going to Rikers or going home is whether or not the judge is having a good day. Do not misunderstand me, some level of discretion is necessary otherwise we would have computers administering cold justice based of formulas and algorithms, but there needs to be some level of uniformity and objectivity, not "subjective objectivity." 

My fellow Verons, am I the only one who thinks this degree of discretion is dangerous? Shouldn't oversight and accountability be streamlined? This unchecked systematic discretion breeds discrimination. 

Let's get uncomfortable.

Hi all!

First, I want to thank all of you for really being involved in this class! I know that people sometimes feel uncomfortable (which I encourage!) speaking about gender and although I think you all could have been pushed a little more (but were very conscious about being politically correct), I'm really glad we moved into a place where we could have some real dialogue!

To start this blog entry, I want to pick up with where we left off in class on Thursday: the idea of a cisgendered (a gender identity where an individual experience of their own gender matches the sex they were assigned at birth) male's role in feminism. I think we started this conversation because I made the comment that men cannot be feminists. Men, instead, can be feminist allies. To clarify this point, we have to understand feminism as a movement that is not about prioritizing the feelings of cismen as above or equal to our own. Feminism is a movement that has been built on the suffering of women and other people who experience gender-based oppression, and therefore cismen cannot be feminists. So on this point, I want those of you in class who had a hard time understanding why men are not, and should not be referred to as, feminists to explain why you think it is important (or "essential") for men to be feminists?

Also, there were several things that we weren't able to get to in this class that I want to briefly discuss here! When we went through the characteristics we placed in our "Man Box" and our "Woman Box," there was a trend that I hope you all noticed-- this underlying notion that men are aggressive and woman are vulnerable Some of the traits put up were also traits that were more biological than environmental, which I thought interesting (and very important to note). In the reading, we come across this notion as well, for example, when speaking about conception as “involving an aggressive active male cell (the sperm) seeking out and penetrating a passive, immobile female cell (the egg)” (Helliwell, p. 804). If we have this idea of some traits being inherent depending on your biological makeup, how does this translate into the perpetuation of our rape culture? More simply, if we see men as "naturally" aggressive, and women as "naturally" passive, how do we view sexual violence and whom do we hold accountable for sexually violent acts?

I apologize for not being able to get to the advertisements that you all brought to class, but I'll link you to the TEDTalk that inspired that activity (here). Caroline Heldman makes a lot of good points that I think everyone should be aware of (e.g. self-objectification).

Housekeeping:
Here is the comic that I mentioned in class that, I think, explains beautifully about this mythical concept of the Friendzone and The Nice Guy™


I want you all to be honest in your answers because that is the only way that we can all learn and grow, but I leave you with this quote:

"My mistrust is not, as one might expect, primarily a result of the violent acts done on my body, nor the vicious humiliations done to my dignity. It is, instead, born of the multitude of mundane betrayals that mark my every relationship with a man—the casual rape joke, the use of a female slur, the careless demonization of the feminine in everyday conversation, the accusations of overreaction, the eyerolling and exasperated sighs in response to polite requests to please not use misogynist epithets in my presence or to please use non-gendered language (“humankind”).

.... 

There are the occasions that men—intellectual men, clever men, engaged men—insist on playing devil’s advocate, desirous of a debate on some aspect of feminist theory or reproductive rights or some other subject generally filed under the heading: Women’s Issues. These intellectual, clever, engaged men want to endlessly probe my argument for weaknesses, want to wrestle over details, want to argue just for fun—and they wonder, these intellectual, clever, engaged men, why my voice keeps raising and why my face is flushed and why, after an hour of fighting my corner, hot tears burn the corners of my eyes. Why do you have to take this stuff so personally? ask the intellectual, clever, and engaged men, who have never considered that the content of the abstract exercise that’s so much fun for them is the stuff of my life."

- Shakesville

Much Love!

The danger of a single story

Hello Everyone,

            I am grateful for the readings of “Lawns” and “Kill the Man for Me” because the hero-villain dynamic is not clear cut. As a cohort, we struggled with the idea of Jenny father being innocent and Jenny carrying guilt. We praise the “heroine” in Kill the Man for Me after killing her abuser but do not like the idea of vigilante justice. The stories force us to read closely and critically to understand the characters. Each character has a multitude of different actions that contradict such as, Jenny’s body betraying her by reaching orgasm knowing the father’s actions are wrong and the battered woman plotting to kill her abuser.

            The stories are written in simple language but have complex themes. Themes such as power and control are not seen as one thing, but have separation to help understand the differences. We need to understand the dichotomy that exist in life, which does not separate the good from the bad but meshes it all together. As readers of the stories, we must be aware of the author’s intentions.  Mary Wings purposely does not give her female character a name and writes the story in the first person with an added perspective. Does Wings want to place the reader in her characters shoes?  Mona Simpson also writes in the first person and gives the name of her main character on the second to last page of her story. Does Simpson bait our feelings in her story by not naming her character until the very end?

I will end with some more questions do not feel an obligation to answer them all. What is the danger of telling a single story?

 At your agencies, are you given the entire story to work with? Is it ever possible to have the entire story?  

How would having the side of Jenny’s father or the battered woman’s abuser help us understand their stories?

J.T.