Hello all! Yesterday, we had a stimulating conversation in
class about several concepts including:
· Certainty
Ø
Knowing for sure these events happened
· Context
Ø
The background story given in literature and
· Change
Ø
To make
something different than the way it is. In this specific situation I will be
referring to social change.
After
reviewing my notes the concept of social change really stuck out to me. I was
struck especially as we examined the photographs in the Sturz biography. When
taking a closer look at the Manhattan Bowery pictures, we were able to see the
drastic change to the area and how it affected those who lived in that area
(the community). The Bowery being the largest Skid Row in NYC at the time was
seen as a problem by Sturz and found a way to clean up the alcoholics that
decorated the streets. His solution was detoxification programs that lead to
commercialization of the area, as the alcoholics were no longer present.
This example in the book created several
thoughts in mind about current changes in society, how they are compared to the
past and how they affect the community. A specific situation would be the
uniforms worn by NYC police. We know it is common practice across the globe for
police wear specific uniforms. In my Research Methods of Criminal Justice
course my class delved into deep discussion about the military modeled police
uniforms. Leaving the Columbus Circle train station I found myself stunned to
see police in thick helmets, NYPD labeled military uniform and the semi
automatic weapons they carried. At the brink of the Ferguson riots and the
increase violence against police I believe that these uniforms were in a way an
act of preparation in the event of such violence to happen here in NYC or even
a way to deter criminal activity, so in a way a small solution. As I continue
to see these uniforms, it makes me ask several questions. When did this rising
"militarism" of the police force come into play? I wonder what
messages these uniforms are conveying? I wonder if people feel safer or unsafe
because of them? With that being said I would like you guys to post about a
certain change in society that caused you to question whether or not it is
going to effective, what is the meaning behind it and most importantly your
feelings about it and how you think others feel. If possible provide visual
aides in connection to your post.
28 comments:
I really liked your example of this recent change in policing and police presence, Jessica. I often hear that the apparent militarism of police came about after 9/11. As for feeling safe or not, I think I would say that the new military-style uniforms conveys a sense of urgency, but also safety, in that we know the city faces dangers on a regular basis, but that we now have more resources to prevent another devastating occurrence of terrorism.
So the issue I would like to explore and discuss is youth justice in New York State. Currently, New York is one of two states (North Carolina being the other one) in the US that still considers youth ages 16-17 who have committed a crime as adult offenders. As a result, many have come to question whether or not youths are being properly treated in the system or if they are being judged to harshly for their actions. In addition, this categorization of youths as criminal responsible adults raises concerns in the area of incarceration, because under the law, a 16 year old criminally responsible youth would be placed into prison with inmates much older than them.
So what are the risks? We can note the possibility that the increased exposure to criminals (many of which have committed much more serious/heinous crimes than the 16 year old youth) may lead the youth offender to adopt the behavior of these more serious offenders. This can happen subconsciously, or it can be a very conscious attempt to fit in and survive prison. While taking this into account, wouldn’t such exposure to criminals increase the chances that the youth would recidivate in many cases? As we can see, the issue is highly debatable and the need for change is evident.
There is the obvious approach to this issue, which is to alter the law and redefine what it means to be a criminally responsible adult. Others, however, have pursued other methods to ensure that youths are getting age appropriate justice for their actions. In response to the issue, Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman designed and implemented the Adolescent Diversion Program (ADP for short) in New York in 2012 in an effort to revise the youth justice system. This is the change that I would like to discuss—the treatment of youth offenders within the system. Rather then treat 16 and 17 year old youths as adults within the system, the ADP now provides youths with the opportunity to be tried in a youth court with different standards, join a support group, and enroll in treatment programs (drug, alcohol, etc.). All youths with a misdemeanor and some with non-violent felonies are eligible for admittance into the program. The ADP was put into effect in nine counties across New York State with the goal of providing community support to youth offenders and reducing the possibility of recidivism (Side note: Interestingly enough, the NYC Criminal Justice Agency also evaluates the offender based on community ties/support as an indicator of future recidivism. The stronger the individual is tied to her community, the more likely he or she is statistically to return to court after being released on his or her own recognizance). Locally, we have the Center for Court Innovation, the Midtown Community Court, and the Red Hook Community Justice Center that currently operate the ADP program. Upon completion of the program, the youth will have the charges against him or her dismissed by the court.
You can read more about the ADP here:
http://www.courtinnovation.org/research/adolescent-diversion-program-court-system-pilots-new-approach-young-offenders
The ADP is an example of an alternative to incarceration and diversion program. Alternative to incarceration, as suggested by its name, is the idea that an individual charged with a less serious crime, usually a misdemeanor, does not have to serve prison time and is instead, enrolled in a program or required to do community service. Diversion is the attempt to divert/distract (for a lack of a better word) youths from engaging in criminal behavior, usually through implementing supervised afterschool programs and activities (tutoring, sports, music etc.). If we remember in the biography, Herb Sturz addressed the issue of youth delinquency. Sturz observed that youths were most likely to commit crime between the times of 3pm and 6pm, which is usually the time they are most free because their parents are still at work. By providing supervised activities in the form of afterschool programs, Sturz hoped to deter youths from going out with friends and engaging in criminal behavior through youth diversion initiatives.
While it is hard to provide a before and after visual, we can get a preview of the program’s social effects through statistical analyses. While the rate of re-arrests for ADP participants of misdemeanor crimes to nonparticipants is fairly equal (33% vs. 345), the rate of felony and violent felony arrests is statistically better in ADP participants in comparison to others (7% vs. 9%). Perhaps the most notable impact of the ADP, however, was the significant decrease in the rate of recidivism among offenders at the highest risk of recidivating between ADP participants and non-participants (52% to 61%) (risk for recidivating is determined from factors such number of arrests, sex of individual, and any past bench warrants). Evidence then suggests that the program is most effective in reducing recidivism among high-risk youth offenders. We can also note that the program is fairly new and has a lot of room to improve and grow.
More statistics and data can be found in the 2014 evaluation and report of the program:
http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/ADP%20Y2%20Report%20Final%20_v2.pdf
I am supportive of the ADP and I think that it is an effective way to deter crime and reduce recidivism. While some may argue that the ADP is not holding these youths accountable to the law and being treated like adults in the system, I would point to the idea that permanently tainting a youth’s record at so young an age will be detrimental to his or her future and hinder one’s chances at higher education, employment, and affordable housing. Thus, the youth’s opportunities will be severely limited, which in some cases, will increase the likelihood that he or she engages in criminal behavior in the future. Would it really be rational to permanently taint someone’s record because he or she jumped a turnstile (or something of that nature)? The ADP provides an alternative for youths to be tried age appropriately and gives them access to services that may reduce the likeliness of recidivism. I think that most people would be supportive of a system that fosters youth development by altering the possibility of a future of crime through support groups and mentors. In conclusion, I would like to note that by giving the youths a chance to have the charges dismissed, we are directly holding them responsible for their crime and actions by upholding the idea that they must complete the program for this to happen. And thus, by giving them this opportunity/responsibility, we are promoting the idea of accountability and individual responsibility to adhere to the law.
Jessica – I find myself agreeing with you on the rise in militarism of police efforts. I think the effort comes from a very specific mindset. Your example makes me think about the broken glass theory, to broaden the scope. While generally and initially perceived as a positive thing, the broken glass theory dictates that if small crimes are committed without punishment it provides room for larger crimes to be invited into a neighborhood. As such police, specifically in New York for example wish to make quality of life offenses (loitering) a target for police: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/nypd-bratton-releases-report-broken-windows-works-article-1.2204978. This type of policing tends to alienate the public and leads to a slippery slope in terms of WHO is being punished and WHY. Alternatively, community policing has been an interesting ideal for myself: https://www.bja.gov/evaluation/program-crime-prevention/cbcp1.htm. Essentially community policing believes in having the community work WITH the police to identify the problems that they deem the most important and HOW they would like those issues solved. This type of policing has worked in countries like Japan and is being implemented slowly elsewhere: http://www.economist.com/node/230164. In terms of change, I think this could produce fantastic results.
Nicholas- I think you raise a GREAT point about our treatment of juveniles. There is a campaign called Raise the Age and I am not sure if you have heard of it. The goal is centered around exactly what you were talking about. The website is: http://raisetheageny.com/get-the-facts but maybe it is something you would be interested in!
Some startling facts that come from this issue are:
1. New York allows children as young as 7 years old to be arrested and charged with acts of juvenile delinquency
2. Nearly 50,000 16- and 17-year-olds are arrested and face the possibility of prosecution as adults in criminal court each year – the vast majority for minor crimes (75.3% are misdemeanors).
3. Youth are 36 times more likely to commit suicide in an adult facility than in a juvenile facility.
You make a great point on the fact that children who's brains are still developing are forced to adapt to a very tense environment in order to survive. We need to be aware of both the long and short term effects of our current laws.
In response to the prompt I believe that change is inevitable. I’ve generally heard people say that society is going downhill or society has changed for the worst – but what we fail to realize is that we ARE society and thus we have an obligation to speak out about work works (or doesn’t) for us! A change I have recently seen that I believe has great potential has been an increase in alternative sanctions for those who would be typically labeled “criminal offenders.” Being at John Jay, the school of criminal justice, has allowed us particular insight into the world of crime, “offenders”, “victims”. Movements for restorative justice have been moving away from the use of labels and the stigmas carried with them. “Restorative justice works to resolve conflict and repair harm. It encourages those who have caused harm to acknowledge the impact of what they have done and gives them an opportunity to make reparation. It offers those who have suffered harm the opportunity to have their harm or loss acknowledged and amends made” (Restorative Justice Consortium 2006). There are a few key principles of the restorative justice system that I find highly effective:
1. Victim support and healing is a priority
2. Offenders take responsibility for what they have done
3. There is a dialogue to achieve understanding
4. Offenders look at how to avoid future offending
5. The community helps to reintegrate both victim and offender
(Liebmann, 2007, p. 26).
This form of justice moves us away from retributive and towards a healing approach. This has been replicated in many forms through the world: New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland, etc. I believe this type of program holds great potential. Success have been seen here in the United States: http://johnjayresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/rec20111.pdf
I question whether this model of justice will prevail because unfortunately it stands in competition with tough on crime policing that is still the dominant model. Additionally the program is mostly offered to juvenile offenders, which I believe is an unnecessary limitation. If one of the aims is victim support and healing – why should the age of their offender matter? Additionally the model is often treated differently to adapt to cultures internationally but there are pros and cons of this that must be considered. Without a rigid model to follow cultures and countries can adapt this into their own customs to find what works the best. However this leaves a great risk of abuse of the system or neglecting vital components of the program. For example, who “leads” the program, volunteers (in that case we must think about who has the time and resources to volunteer this much time and is this population representative of their community as a whole), who is training, how is the program being sponsored, what can the “leader” impose, will there be coercion of the program (read forced apologies) etc. If the overall objective is to bring local communities with one system I argue that there should be some oversight to ensure that all needs are being met on behalf of the victim and offender. Again much like Nick’s response, these programs are relatively new and need both establishing authority as well as gaining experience in order to become truly effective. I very much believe however that these changes are necessary in order to better serve all members of the community.
Before becoming aware about the sex worker movement, I was heavily involved in research on sex trafficking and how it came to harm men, women, and children. It wasn’t until my junior year of college, after taking an independent study course, that I began to analyze my perspectives on sex work and how it relates to human trafficking. Through this I was able to see how religious and radical feminist ideologies of the early 21st century have silenced the voices of sex workers. Not only does this apply to women, but also men, and members of the LGBTQ community. Ronald Weitzer, a sociologist, explains that that sex trafficking is a social construction, and how ideologies institutionalize a moral crusade. According to Weitzer, there are two paradigms within sex work and sex trafficking. The first is the Oppression Paradigm, which insinuates that sex work damages the marriage/family institutions as well as promoting violence against women (2011). On the other hand, the Polymorphous Paradigm acknowledges the broad constellation of work arrangements, power relations, and personal experiences among participants in sexual commerce, unlike the Oppression Paradigm which stems from opinion based arguments (2011). However, the rights of women and the social construction of gender roles deeply embed the Oppression Paradigm within society. To this extent, it is inferred that sexual commerce is a change that society does not want to accept. It is still retained that a woman’s sexual purity is of prime importance within many cultures and faiths. Using sex as a means to obtain financial stability is considered a moral crime, but also a major health concern. Sex workers have been denied access to health care because of stigma and discrimination, especially those who are LGBTQ. Sex workers face a number of social, cultural and legal barriers that place their lives in danger because they are not getting the services they need. This calls in question as to whether or not this change will be effective, that is…the acceptance of sex work. The answer is that it will not be effective...for now. The movement itself has been at battle for centuries, with religious institutions as well as police and the law. Although pornography and stripping are legal, prostitution is not. It is because of the laws placed on prostitution that criminalize sex workers who either have to resort to sex work, or do it because they enjoy it. Before being educated on sex work and the criminalization of sex work, I chose to look through the lens of the Oppression Paradigm as described by Weitzer. However, seeing how the criminalization of sex work actually does more harm than help, made me realize that we are killing off a portion of our population. Since the law infringes on their right to work, sex workers do not receive adequate healthcare and social services. Although there are a number of non-profit organizations willing to offer their services, it is not enough. Sex workers not only experience brutality and harassment, but are murdered. This calls attention to the murdering of trans-men and women. From my encounters with people, and engaging in conversations on this specific issue, people are reticent. Its almost as if we are ashamed to speak about sex in general, that it's a private matter when in reality it is a part of our very existence. This is why sex education is implemented within our public school systems. However, our culture(s) tend to reject homosexuality and safeguard a woman’s sexual purity (this also applies to rape). I would agree that people are ignorant to the fact that we are placing people in danger because of how they chose to work. A majority of the people who are sex workers do so for financial reasons. However, society’s social constructions on gender and sexuality inhibit sex workers from receiving the services they need. Most sex workers are placed in jail repeatedly. Picture that every week you appear in court, are convicted, jailed for a couple of days, then start over again after a few weeks pass. Sounds monotonous to me.
Prostitution Laws:
http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article230.htm
Paradigm Citations:
Weitzer, R. (2007). The social construction of sex trafficking: Ideology and the institutionalization of a moral crusade. Politics and Society, 35 (3), 447- 475.
Weitzer, R. (2011). Sex trafficking and the sex industry: The need for evidence-based theory and legislation. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 101(4), 1337-1369.
Stigma:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lsx61c75281r2l4fwo1_1280.jpg
http://stjamesinfirmary.org/wordpress/?page_id=1673
Sex Work and the Law:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUfcouJch7U
Rejection of Condoms as Evidence:
http://www.nocondomsasevidence.org/
Hi Gaby! I'm sure you've read about sex work internationally but an interesting article looks at Mexico's brothel and whether it should influence US policy: http://www.businessinsider.com/galactic-zone-shows-why-we-should-legalize-prostitution-2013-10
"First, the Zone appears to have broad popular support. In Tuxtla, “prostitution is generally accepted (and sometimes valued) as long as it is confined and invisible,” which is precisely what the Galactic Zone accomplishes. Second, Zone workers have a “great deal of freedom and exercise control over their work.”
Of course then we have to look at, what you said, the stigma about being a sex worker but it poses an interesting question for us. Does the chicken come first or the egg? Do we legalize it in hopes of making it more accepted - or wait for it to become more accepted to make it legal?
Hi Jessica, great start for the blog and analysis. Several practices and policies are implemented with the intent to mitigate destructive societal practices, but just because the intent is to make things better- doesn't mean it does.
Gabby, I like how passionate you wrote about your sex work research. Your example is definitely aligned with our blog prompt. This may come across as cynical, but to me, the criminalization of prostitution was not implemented with fair intent to sex workers- as I previously claimed that some policies are. If this were the case, then Americas argument to criminalize prostitiution is severely flawed under the thought that doing so would provide for safer environments for the worker. As Gabby mentioned, the criminalization of prostitution has evidently brought a rise in even greater dangers, like restricted health attention (if any) and no protection (if raped, battered, ect.) to name a FEW. In the eyes of the law, sex workers are not human, as they are outwardly stripped of our "natural" human rights. (prostitutes to be clear- as "porn stars" are also considered sex workers but yet, idolized for their public display...& $ on the books.) IF the welfare of "exploited women" is truly considered, sex trafficking would be the focus of public attention- not prostitution.
Over the weekend I've been applying to a series of graduate school visitation programs that target underrepresented students- as an effort to recruit a more diverse group within their PH.d & masters programs. I noticed how much of a benefit it is for me to be a Ronald McNair Scholar as all of these visitation programs emphasize that priority will be given to these types of "student scholars" (Gates, Meyerhoff, Mellon Mayes ect.) As a result, when I first read our blog prompt, my first thought was the implementation of Affirmative Action in Public Universities.
Now, I know I'm not suppose to cite wikipedia, but for this post and this post only, I think it's necessary. According to wikipedia:
"Affirmative action or positive discrimination (known as employment equity in Canada, reservation in India and Nepal, and positive action in the UK) is the policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination within a culture."
Affirmative action is used in public institutions, more than not, because of unfair platforms that are given to many underrepresented youth within the school system. For example, a child that grows up in Beverly Hills California is evidently presented with more opportunities for advancement within academia than a child that was raised in Detroit MI. The truth of the matter is, money very well dictates what a child is exposed to and if one child is given a year round program to studying for the SAT's compared to a child in a school system that cant financially support such a program--their chances of getting in to a great college is severely skewed in the "rich" child's favor. This does not mean that one child is any less smarter or any less capable as the next- the implementation of Affirmative Action understands this and works to accommodate the above circumstance.
It was important for me to cite wikipedia because I found it interesting, and very relevant, on how the attitudes of Affirmative action is displayed in various areas of the world (granted- if this definition is in fact true) with the Americas interpretation as the most controversial. The definition of affirmative action as "positive discrimination" is up for debate, because how can discrimination be considered positive? This is the counter attitude of affirmative action that has hindered the country from having a concrete legalization of the matter, with the Supreme Court announcing to revisit the matter this past June. see link here: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/06/30/supreme-court-will-once-again-consider-affirmative-action-college-admissions
The issue of affirmative action has also brought about the questioning of credibility and belonging in many public institutions. Harvard, The University of Michigan and NYU students, to name a few, have started campaigns to combat the attitudes of their student body who feel as if the only reason they got into college was because they were black/underrepresented, "I too am Harvard" as one of the largest ones. See link here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/03/05/black-students-harvard-tumblr/6013023/
I feel Affirmative Action is more than necessary, but there are obviously a few subject matters that need to be addressed for its widespread acceptance.
It is interesting that your post is about the militarism of the police because my placement at the Immigration and Justice center does a lot of work with the NYPD. Actually, this entire week we have been discussing policing and some of the problems that they are currently looking in to. One of my mentors brought up that before 9/11 CIJ was working closely with NYPD, but has since distanced themselves. Currently, they are doing a lot of work centered on policing with a focus on Middle Eastern communities and language access. The have just released a report on cultivating community policing within the Middle Eastern and Muslim communities which can be read Here.
Back to your question, the only reason that the NYPD would switch to more military style uniforms is to intimidate the public. Officers become less approachable, and more authoritarian-like. The way the NYPD dresses also mirrors some of their more controversial practices such as their surveillance of Muslim community and school organizations. They have even blatantly stated in their 2007 Report on Terrorism that a terrorist is identified as someone who practices Islam in general by praying or dressing in traditional Islamic garments. The report states, ““Individuals, who are attracted to radical thought, usually live, work, play, and pray within these enclaves of ethnic, Muslim communities — communities that are dominated by Middle Eastern, North African, and South Asian cultures.” This ‘war on terror’ is nothing more than a ‘war on Muslims’. This becomes problematic because it creates stigma and helps to propel the rising Islamophobia and hate crimes seen after 9/11. I remember coming back to NYC last year, a South Asian man had just been pushed onto the train tracks because he was mistaken as a Muslim, and my friend Courtney from Texas reminded me nearly every time we talked about the situation. I became hyperaware of my surroundings, even one time elbowing a man below the waist because he inched to close to me and I was afraid he would push me into the tracks. It also limits freedom of speech because Muslims, particularly student fear speaking out at school MSA’s (Muslim Students Associations) because their words might be taken out of context by an undercover student and they can find themselves on watch lists, or being questioned by the NYPD . This war on people is not specific to just Muslim communities, the NYPD targets predominately black and Hispanic communities as well.
Race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality all play a role in whether an individual feels safe around police. Most communities feel that the NYPD is at war with the people they are trying to protect. They don’t feel safer because they feel targeted. Personally, I think the only people that feel ‘safe’ by the NYPD are white communities. Communities of color, like Muslim communities feel targeted by the police because they are often mislabeled as dangerous, and are more likely to be victims of police brutality. Statistics show tha young black males are 21 times more likely to be shot by police than their white counterparts. Source
A certain change in society that I am currently questioning is the Supreme Court’s ruling on same sex marriage. I am not questioning the ruling itself, but the outcome of tolerance that the community expected as a result. Initially, I thought it would lead to a more tolerant generation, but I am beginning to doubt that. The RULING made same sex marriages legal in all 50 states, and I was thrilled when I heard about it. I was in Egypt, and the news made it that far. Egyptians were talking about it everywhere. While marriage equality is the major priority of the white LGBTQ community (priorities of LGBTQ communities of color differ and range from youth homelessness to HIV/AIDS), I thought of it as a necessary stepping stone even though personally I prioritize other issues, the most important to me being homelessness within the community. I naively believed that the United States would be overjoyed, maybe not older generations, but certainly mine. I was wrong. I think what it did was spur more hate against the LGBTQ community. While people were silently unsupportive of marriage equality, they are now more vocal about it. My facebook wall is currently a mix of support for LGBTQ right, and hate. I wish it was even just hateful words, but it’s threatening posts which is not surprising to me since I grew up in a small conservative town in Texas. Last time I looked at statistics, roughly 40% of Americans did not support marriage equality, and in my town the numbers are more like 80%. My biggest fear in all of this is that children will grow up hearing about the problem of gay marriage, the problem of being gay in general, and will grow up even more bigoted and narrow-minded than their parents.
Great posts everyone!
One change in society that I would like to focus on is public restrooms. Historically, bathrooms were either gender neutral or labeled men only. When there was an increase of women in the workforce there were concerns about the lack of restrooms accessible to them. This eventually led to public restroom segregation. “In 1887, Massachusetts was the first state to pass a law mandating women's restrooms in workplaces with female employees.” (Brown, 2014). By the 1920s most states have followed suit. Now new public restroom issues are gaining attention because of the progress of transgender rights groups. For those of us who do not struggle with gender identity and have followed gender norms since our days as toddlers, we may not understand or have the ability to place ourselves in the shoes of others who face anxiety-inducing decisions when it came down to choosing a restroom. I read about cases of children in elementary school choosing to not go at all to avoid the stress. But not going at all could have consequences on their health. In response to such unnecessary stress for certain groups, gender-neutral restrooms have been reintroduced. However, those who are transgender or choose to identify as non-binary are singled out when they use gender-neutral bathrooms in a setting such as a school. To answer the prompt, I’m not sure if adding a few gender-neutral restrooms to schools and workplaces will be the most effective solution. It may reduce the stress certain communities face when choosing which restrooms to use. It may also be the answer for those people who think people might “identify” as a gender they are not just so they can prey on people of the opposite gender in gender segregated restrooms. Either way it causes people to be classified as “others” and brings on other issues such as bullying. So I’m not sure if adding a few gender-neutral bathrooms and keeping male and female restrooms will be the most effective. Maybe requiring all restrooms to be gender-neutral may have potential. However, another challenge would be adhering to or updating building codes. The building codes across states require separate men and female bathrooms and provide the guidelines to the number of toilets and urinals public entities must provide based on occupancy (Brown, 2014).
I know someone who was once female in high school that now identifies as male in college. One day I actually ran into this person in the men’s restroom and it was awkward for about two seconds then I was over it, it was no big deal. However, I don’t know how a girl would feel in the women’s restroom crossing paths with someone she once knew as a male. Either way I think this kind of situation could become normal over time. People will stop thinking of transgender people as predators in a place meant only for ridding the body of waste. It took me 2 seconds but it might take others days, years or even generations.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/de/16/b0/de16b0270c66984d4a6da6dc69e5ec2f.jpg
http://www.employmentandlaborinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/328/2014/09/all_gender_bathroom.jpg
I’m not sure if the person in the middle is actually transgender or just pretending to be in a women's restroom
http://www.advocate.com/sites/advocate.com/files/2015/03/Hughesx633_0.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpkePVL9BJA
http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/11/gender-neutral-bathrooms-building-codes
Monero, I am so glad you decided to write about the reintroduction of gender neutral restrooms! This is a topic I am very passionate about as a gender studies student, and in fact, discussed creating them at my old school and sent some of the people in charge reading material about the benefits of gender neutral restrooms. One of my favorite pieces about gender neutral restrooms is called “Peeing in Peace” and can be read HERE. I encourage all of you to read it as this is an important issue that needs to be addressed in all schools and workplaces.
Here are some of my responses to some of your statements.
1. You stated that students may be singled out for using gender-neutral restrooms. Most schools do not go around stating that gender neutral bathrooms are available on campus, and even here at John Jay I was only able to find that information by visiting the Women’s Center and then later an email was sent out to all the John Jay Gender Studies majors and minors.
2. Gender-neutral restrooms can be used to pray on individuals of the opposite gender. As a womxn, I am very concerned about my safety. As a man you may be unaware that most women’s bathrooms in schools have emergency levers you can pull down if being attacked. In the guide “Peeing in Peace” it states, “The truth is that the current bathroom situation does not adequately ensure women’s safety. Putting a sign that says “women” on the door of a bathroom does not stop people who want to harm women from entering. Thinking that a sign will create protection might actually increase the potential for violence in bathrooms because if someone did intend to assault a woman in a bathroom, they would certainly know where to look. In doing bathroom activism, it is important that we help people realize that something as symbolic as a sign on a door does not provide any real safety or protection.” (4) Furthermore, as a womxn who lives alone, for my own safety I typically include only my first initial on the door so it reads N.Amin, or my last name only, Amin. In doing so, it gives the impression that a man is present, and it is less likely that I would have an intruder looking to prey on me because I am a womxm living alone.
3. I think the picture you posted is interesting. It could be a man in a womyn’s restroom, or it could be a transwoman going through a change. I know I have met a few transgender individuals who are still transitioning and it could be an awkward period. It’s normal that people are confused at this stage because they have the physical characteristics of both sexes.
All in all, I think gender neutral restrooms are effective. They eliminate harassment and confrontations that typically happen in gender-specific restrooms. It may be awkward for some people at first, but I’m sure white people felt uncomfortable once bathrooms were unsegregated. People will get used to it!
Thanks again for an interesting post. Please let me know what you think of the guide.
Considering all the topics and issues everyone has raised, I wonder how we figure out how to tackle them? How do we prioritize which to tackle first, second, third?? Which are easier and harder to address? Why do some issues appear on the front page of the newspapers at a certain time and at other times, they do not even though the "issue" may be burning, still.
For example, over the past several weeks, we have seen the heartbreaking images and information about what is labeled the refugee "crisis." The word "crisis" suggests this is something that is happening now--it is sudden, an acute situation, an event or a momentary thing (not a chronic situation). Yet this issue has been going on for quite a long time. Check out what the anthropologist Mauricio Albahari has been saying about this Albahari2013. He also has a new book coming out that should be read by every global leader in the world who purports to care about the humanitarian "crisis" and by every citizen of the world who needs to hear what has been going on for a very long time: CrimesofPeace.
I hope the hyperlinks work. After seeing that Nancy was actually able to create hyperlinks, I looked up how to do it. Hope I did it correctly.
To answer the question of why some issues appear on the front page of newspapers and others do not, I think it’s a matter of who has the ability to make them appear and why would they want it to appear (What do they gain from putting on the front page? How much do people in the area want to hear about the issue so that it will sell papers? Because in the end it’s all about selling papers. Is there anything at stake by publishing the issue?). The Syrian refugee crisis didn’t make it on the front page, or even in newspapers until Obama had said that he wanted to intervene about six months ago.
Your hyperlinks did work, and I was able to read both. What I found interesting was in the article about Albahari’s book it stated, “Since 2000, at least 25,000 people have lost their lives attempting to reach Italy and the rest of Europe, most by drowning in the Mediterranean.” That’s incredible! You would that many countries in the EU that are constantly affirming their commitment to human rights would take in more refugees and grant the temporary asylum, but looking at statistics on Syrian refugees in the last few weeks conclude that the EU doesn’t want them. The countries with the most power that have the resources to support the refugees are the ones that are taking in the least. David Cameron stated that Britain will take in 20,000 refugees over five years meaning a mere 4,000 a year and granting them ‘humanitarian status’ instead of ‘asylum status’. More can be read on BBC and you can also see a chart of countries that are taking in the most refugees. Jordan and Egypt, both which have taken in more refugees than Britain are unable to support them: Jordan, because its already taken in more Palestinian refugees than any other country and Egypt because there is a lot of political turmoil and instability. What’s not shown in the chart is how the Gulf states (the richest states in the Middle East) have taken in 0 refugees. Chart Here
A particular change in society that makes me postulate if it will be effective or not is the gentrification of Harlem. I state Harlem specifically considering how I live in Harlem and have more knowledge about it, in contrast to other gentrified/gentrifying areas. Like we brought up in class this past Thursday, in the biography of Sturz, we critically evaluated the before and after pictures of the bowery, and in doing so we raised a very pivotal question, which was “where did these people go?” This question resonated with me considering how this is a thought that is overlooked, needs to transparently answered, and is currently appearing as if history is about to repeat itself.
In comparison to the Bowery, Harlem faces a very similar if not identical circumstance. With the issue of the east side 125th street area being widely populated with overtly drug addicted individuals, and the influx of upper-class people coming into Harlem, something is finally being done after years of living in the issue. My apartment building is only three blocks away from the old “Bowery” and I have a firsthand experience of the constant years of blatant neglect. Although, I am glad that steps are starting to be taken by officials in order to take these people off the street (really just had a struggle with calling them, “these people”) I am concerned about where they will go as well as how this initiative will be implemented by officials. History indicates that in times when private developers/public officials seek to redevelop land, it’s at the expense of the current residents. Considering how it is illegal to forcibly remove people from an area without following proper protocol, the people who are in charge find a way to circumvent that process, whether that is by raising rent, mixing market rate and affordable housing, and incarcerating people, which we all know further prevents people for being both eligible jobs and housing. I fear that this is going to happen to the neighborhood that I was born and raised in. As I witness the rent continuously rising, residential buildings being constructed, and the demographic transformation, I am pessimistic that Harlem is undergoing the same transformation as the Bowery. Furthermore, Harlem is rich with history and I do not want to demolish that by removing the predominant population. If a transition is to happen, this transition needs to factor in, have sensitivity too, and preserve the communities culture.
According to the book, “The New Jim Crow” housing is fundamental in preventing individuals, particularly ex-offenders and former addicts from committing previous detrimental acts. Without housing, people are denied from a multitude of opportunities such as employment, education, and voting just to name a few. The displacement of these people can lead to unforeseen inequities for the residents of Harlem, as this can be downward spiral for the community.
I think others are concerned about the state of their community but are not taking any measures to preserve the community. Attached below is a link to a article about Next-Gen NYCHA which is an initiative lead by Mayor Bill De Blasio and NYCHA Chair and CEO Shola Olatoye to revitalize NYCHA by creating market-rate housing in affordable housing complexes. This is a worry for many NYCHA residents who believe that this is going to cause gentrification and move the current residents out of the neighborhood.
http://citylimits.org/2015/07/16/tenant-leaders-dispute-their-role-in-shaping-nycha-development-plans/
FABULOUS BLOB VERONS!!!! Excellent insights, historical context and links! So rich. I'm so impressed.
First, Marcus, what do you think can be done to address gentrification? What are examples of places that have done this? Check out the Pilsen neighborhood in Chicago as an example: http://depauliaonline.com/news/2015/05/17/pilsen-community-fight-gentrification-with-murals/.
Second, Raise the Age is a critical campaign for all of the excellent reasons sited above by Nick and Jasmine. Unfortunately it's not that simple. It's also critical to understand why some activists are critical of this change and want to ensure that the proposal addresses the below concerns.
1. When youth 16 and over are arrested they have the right to due process.
2. Raise the age would mean that youth under 18 would be processed through Family Court: Parens Patriae, the Court becomes the parent of the child. Administration of Children Services (ACS) oversees youth justice services for youth under 16. ACS contracts out service provision for "juvenile justice" youth through private agencies. Thus when a youth is arrested for committing a status offense (the majority of youth justice cases are status offenses), i.e. running away, violating curfew or being truant, the youth are vulnerable to being placed in private institutions for sometimes up to a year or more. If they are over 16 in the current system they may just receive a ticket or be put on probation. These private placements are sometimes as punitive as jail, and conduct minimal and substandard reentry/community work. Thus significantly increasing the chances of recidivism.
When critiquing the youth justice system we must analyze family court proceedings and the outcomes for youth in private agencies. Stays in these "rehabilitative" placements can lead to further penetration into the system.
This link highlights the Raise the Age proposal to the Governor: http://www.nyclu.org/content/regarding-legislation-raise-age
The proposal that went to the Governor addressed the concerns above through "adjusting" sentences for status offenses. Unfortunately on June 23rd the NYS legislature only passed ONE of the several recommendations in the Raise the Age proposal. Read here to see which one it was and to get involved: http://raisetheageny.com/.
Hah! *BLOG not BLOB. No, it's not a Freudian slip;). Great job!
AND check out this fantastic Article The Danger of Drug Scares: Why It's Time to Turn Down the K2 Hysteria http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julie-netherland/the-danger-of-drug-scares_b_8105356.html
Dr. Julie Netherland got published today in the Huffington Post about East Harlem. Julie is my colleague and co-teacher for our ISP 321 Drug Policy class. She's a Director at the Drug Policy Alliance.
This short article speaks concisely and directly to Marcus's questions about gentrification, homelessness and drug use in Harlem.
Wow! History does repeat itself. What Julie writes about today, I wrote about in that chapter of "Street Addicts in the Political Economy" that I emailed you, Professor Rose (1993!). If Verons are interested in that chapter, I just put it in e-reserve.
I think Professor Rose and Jasmine raised great points about the issue of youth justice and the treatment of youth in our system. I also see some interesting parallels in the goals of the Adolescent Diversion Program and the Raise the Age campaigns. Both seek to provide age-appropriate services to youth offenders in New York State. There are, however, some compelling arguments made on the raise the age website that I would like to address:
First, Raise the Age argues that the the human brain is not fully developed until aged 25. I do like how the organization has used scientific evidence as support for their campaign. However, inclusion of this fact as evidence raises more questions in how we deal with individuals under 25. For example, should a 16 year old youth charged for jumping a turnstile receive the same treatment by the system as a 22 year old who is charged with the same crime because both offenders have brains that are not fully developed? Should we treat all offenders aged 25 and up the same because their brains are now considered fully developed? Should there be more categories created for offenders, rather than having the categories of youth and adult offender? Should these categories be made based on age, development of the brain, or other factors? Thus, inclusion of this statement evidently raises more questions as to how we continues to improve the system for juvenile offenders.
Second, I think that it is absolutely ridiculous that New York State allows 7 year old youths to be arrested and charged with an act of delinquency. I can't even put into words how crazy this concept is. it just doesn't make sense to me. But bringing this into the argument creates sort of a pathos appeal that I believe can draw strong support for the cause.
Third, the Raise the Age campaign states, "Studies have found that young people transferred to the adult criminal justice system have approximately 34% more re-arrests for felony crimes than youth retained in the youth justice system.vi Around 80% of youth released from adult prisons reoffend often going on to commit more serious crimes". This is almost the exact argument I made supporting the ADP. Statistical evidence then suggests that transferring and processing a juvenile through the adult system has a negative impact on the youth, leading to a greater possibility that he or she recidivates after being released, as compared to youths processed through the family court/youth justice system.
With that being said, how do we address all the problems and work towards fairness in the justice system for all? We see that even examining the issue of youth justice raises many other questions in how we can improve the system in other aspects.
Source for the post above (creds to Jasmine for posting it first): http://raisetheageny.com/get-the-facts
Nancy, I also really your post and arguments against the social stigmatization of Muslims and the improper stereotypical portrayal of a terrorist as someone who is dressed in traditional Islamic garments and prays daily. Obviously, this association of a stereotypical terrorist with a follower of islam has damaging effects to society and can create an unsafe environment for a Muslim to practice his or her religion. I think that the basis of freedom of religion, as stated in our constitution, involves not only being free to practice one's religion, but to practice one's religion without being stigmatized and labelled because he or she chooses to dress in a certain way to honor his or her religion. Essentially, freedom of religion involves the freedom to practice his or her beliefs and freedom of any forms of harassment for their religion
Andrene, I also find your post about affirmative action very compelling. I think that you make a god argument about the benefits of having affirmative action in our schools and universities. Based on your claims, I can see the positives of having a similar system in our schools. The implication that I see in this, however, is as such: Can we ensure that an individual from Beverley Hills and Detroit get fair consideration in the college admissions process with affirmative actions in place, without discriminating either party? Is it even possible? I also often hear that affirmative action is primarily based on race (maybe because area of residence often shares association with one's race). Is that true sometimes? That may be a rumor, but I just wanted to get some clarification on the issue.
Fantastic Professor W!
To answer your questions, I'm going to have to go out of order for a bit. To my understanding, no, affirmative action is not primarily based on race. Yes there are definite correlation between the area of residence associating with race as you claimed, so at the forefront, the biggest argument is of race. But as scholars, we all know that race isn't in fact real, racism is. Take a look at Audrey Smedleys "Race as biology is fiction, Racism as a Social Problem is real": http://aaronhood.net/wp-content/SocialConstructionRace.pdf
There's a segment in there that speaks about public policy specifically.
Hope this helps!
Great response Andrene! We will be discussing the social construction of race in the class.
Post a Comment