First Seminar Thoughts and new attitude towards writing for class

Hello Everyone,

I just wanted to say I am genuinely excited for this class based on the brief discussions we have had so far.  Out of our conversation about the homage that was A Kind of Genius: Herb Sturz and Society’s Toughest Problems, we discussed the unreliability of Statistics (both Qualitative and Quantitative), whether someone can truly be non-ideological and the “stakeholders” who supposedly benefitted from the work of the genius we know as Herb Sturz.  Through the latter speaking topic of stakeholders, we see that the question of who benefitted from his work would bring unsure and somewhat unflattering answers about the effects of Sturz’s work.  The book never mentions where the homeless go after they have been cleaned up and the neighborhoods they once dwelled are no longer affordable to live in.  Page 190 exemplifies the concept of gentrification in the two picture comparisons that referred to the minority men as derelicts (a problematic term which is reminiscent of when President Bush called African Americans in New Orleans “refugees” after Hurricane Katrina). This idea brought me back to when Professor Stein mentioned in class that with every empire, like the one Herb Sturz has built with Vera, there is colonization. 

I personally was tentative about mentioning the ideas of gentrification, but after the underlying issues we were able to bring about in class, I feel like I could have written a much better paper after Thursday.  With this in mind, I will definitely push myself in my writing to question even the best of examples of successful initiatives in social justice as Sturz has accomplished.

With that I leave you with a short video that talks about the setbacks of gentrification that started in the Lower East Side as told by filmmaker and Brooklyn native, Spike Lee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78Pm5cZ8qrA

-Spencer

Welcome!

If you are reading this, you have made it to the blog site!  May this be the hardest thing you have to do this semester!  Many thanks to all of you for a great start to the seminar yesterday and to Spencer for leading us in conversation this week.

Hello everyone,

First of all I like to wish our Professors a very Happy Mother’s day.

To all of you, thanks so much for such a great class, everyone was wonderful, with so much to contribute to the topic. I was so glad so what an ardent topic this is and that everyone fells as passionate as I do and that you all had so much to say about it.

The topic of immigration is one that provokes many heated debates and one that will probably not be resolved any time soon. The reality is that immigration affects us all, whether we ourselves are immigrants or our families migrated to the United States or because we find that in some economic or social aspect, immigration affects our lives and our society. The question in reality is, how does the government deal with the issue of immigration and how can it be done in a more humane, civilized and non-discriminatory manner? I do not know that this question can be answered or if the solution is evident and if we can get there.

As we began our class I asked everyone to give their definition of an “illegal immigrant.” The interesting thing, (not really surprising), was that almost each one of us said an “illegal immigrant” is a Hispanic/Latino, probably a criminal, who crosses the border (Mexican border, obviously). We all agreed that most people do not consider those who overstay their visas as “illegal”, nor do most people consider immigrants from other, non-Latino nations, as “illegal.” My question then is: Is the immigration issue really about the economic hardship that immigration, (legal or otherwise), inflicts on our nation and our citizens?

Given the New York Times article, Professor Stein read for us and the views of some “highly educated” individuals regarding Hispanics and our IQ’s: Do we seriously believe there can be any real change to the immigration policies and the way immigration laws are enforced?

My last point, which is the reason I chose this topic, is the criminalization of immigrants and the inhumane manner in which immigrants,(legal or unauthorized) are treated, detained, imprisoned and punished for offenses that are not categorized are ‘criminal offenses.” In the Parenti reading we learned about many instances in which laws were bent and even broken in an effort to crack down on immigration and to prevent, “illegal immigration” and the crimes provoked by said immigration practices. What I do not understand is how we justify breaking the law and circumvent around the civil rights, imparted by our Constitution, in order to justify certain illegal actions perpetrated by many governmental offices and officials. To this point I do not really have one particular question but rather I would like to hear what your opinions or views are on the following: the retroactivity of the 1996 immigration reform, IIRIRA, the deportation of legal residents as well as US citizens for previous crimes already convicted, sentenced and punished for, the Double Jeopardy clause of our Constitution and also the manner in which many immigrants are held without hearings and deported without the right to contest deportation. What are your views on the US government willingness to circumvent so many or legal rights and violate human rights to protect national security and control immigration.

Reevaluation of the "Sex Offender"

Hello Everyone,

Thank you all for a great class! We dove into many different layers of the meaning behind a “sex offender” and analyzed the various perspectives of the stakeholders. I will start off by giving a breakdown of what happened in the seminar. For those of you who were unable to make it, make sure you share your opinions in your post :) We began class by going around the room and having everyone state their definitions of a “sex offender,” where/how they developed that meaning, and whether their definitions changed after the readings and videos. Joe stated that his definition is someone who “violates a personal sexual space,” while other Verons made references to the media for how they developed their definitions. Shows such as “To Catch a Predator” and “Law and Order” made such influences. After the definitions and a brief discussion, we then did a workshop in which everyone was divided up into three groups, the policy makers, the reentering sex offender, and the victim’s families. The purpose of the workshop is to evaluate the current sex offender laws. The groups were required to present a three minute speech stating why they feel the current sex offender laws should stay the same, or change. To start off the official blog post, we will dig into an idea that Meiner’s highlights in her article… the actual sex offender registry and who it is meant to protect.

In the Meiners’ chapter, she speaks about the social construction of "children" and "childhood." She highlights that the image of a child is constructed by adults and their memories of their own childhood experiences, fears, fantasies, etc. The social construction of the child currently revolves around the idea of their innocence and vulnerability. They are “pure, unpolluted beings free from sin and guilt.” My first question to you is: Does our notion and understanding of “children” shape our views on sex offender laws and what we believe to be “effective?” What defines a “child?” Do our personal views play a role in shaping what we believe their protections should be?

A second point that stood out during our discussion was in regards to sex offender registries. The issue was brought up about how we have sex offender registries, but no registries for murderers, rapists, etc. We spoke about the stigma and negative connotation that the “sex offender” labels place on the individuals. Profession Waterston even mentioned how labeling demonizes. There is a lot of distortion in the registries and as we discussed in class, there is a disparity between the “sex offender” who urinates in public versus a father who molests his daughter throughout her childhood, but people of the community don’t always recognize this. My second question to you is: Do you believe that there should even be a sex offender registry and how “effective” is it? What do sex offender registries even do?

My last question to you all deals with “treatment.” Do you feel that there is an effective treatment program for sex offenders? If so, what is it? If you do not believe there is an effective treatment, why not? 

Feel free to express any other thoughts on the class. Once again, thank you for a great class!

I must say Thursday class was Epic! (yes Nicolas I’m borrowing your catch phrase J)

Let me start by saying that Tuesday Vera fundraising event was incredible and I would like to thank Professor Stein, Professor Reitz, and Professor Waterston for setting up the event. I was in total awe of the spectacular event that unfolded that evening. I would also like to thank Professor Waterston who was able to make it to the event; we all wish you a speedy recovery. Additionally, thank you to all the mentors, Vera alumni and the new upcoming class who were able to attend. I would also like to congratulate the recipient of this year “Mentor of the Year” award to Ms. White. As the event unfolded, I had a feeling of nostalgia because of the change of perspective. When I attended the event last year, I was excited as a newly accepted student; the speeches were passionate and incredible with Timothy Fowler giving a riveting speech alongside the rest of the Vera class. After they spoke, maybe I was the only one but the thoughts that were running through my mind were how I am going to live up to that. Throughout the year, I feel we all lived to the expectations that the last class has left us. I believe that next year’s class will do the same and thereafter. Only this time our perspective is switched to alumnus.

Onwards to Thursday lesson, that class was such a great experience for me, and I am sure my peers can agree. We did two readings one on Kill the Man by Mary Wings and Lawns by Mona Simpson. We first started with the poem Metaphors by Sylvia Path.

An occurring theme that came from each of these stories was the lack of empowerment by each of the victims and the lack of control to solve their respective problems. In the poem “Metaphors”, throughout the poem the women had no control over the situation that she was there for the purpose of recreation. When asked how to describe the woman in the poem, Andre used the word “subjugated,” while Professor Stein used the word “powerless.” In Lawns, Jenny finds herself in a similar situation; however she was being sexually abused by her father.

One of my questions for the class relates to our discussion of Lawns. Professor Stein explains that everything is paradoxical, human behavior is similar. Do you believe this is an occurring theme in the stories? Another question I have based off the Lawns and Kill the Man reading is, do you believe that the victims are being demanded to change is an effective mechanism to fighting back? For example, Jenny makes the decision to tell her mom only after the dad visit.

In the Lawns’ reading, Professor Stein made a response that in my mind was very important; in the story, Jenny believed that she was in control of the relationship between herself and her dad.  Professor Stein explains that the victim need to believe that they have some form of control, which would allow the creation of a new perspective that, is faulted. What do you think of Professor Stein comment do you believe that relates to victims of today? 

What was a tremendously challenging and incredibly interesting class discussion

BY SALLY ABDELGHAFAR  (posted by Prof Reitz)

Thank you to all of you who were able to come to class on Thursday; I hope you enjoyed the class as much as I did. Everyone’s willingness to discuss in depth some of the moral grey areas generated insightful conversation as well as highlighted some areas that needed to be explored more. Professor Waterston we all still miss you very much! I know that your insight as an anthropologist would have provided a missing perspective, in terms of cultural relativism, that would have fostered further debate.

We started the class by retracing some of the claims that Martha Nussbaum advocates for in her “capabilities approach.” Plenty examples were given to provide some concrete examples to the abstract list of capabilities that Nussbaum puts forward. For example, Michelle mentioned that freedom of imagination should include any experience that an individual should be able to reflect on their own views and ideas without being fearful of being shamed or made fun of. Then, we analyzed the impact of culture through the gender workshop. As most of us acknowledged and/or realized, culture significantly impacts and changes what the capabilities approach may look like. The exercise involving the choice between legalizing female genital mutilation (fgm), also known as female cutting, or the use of the burka at first produced more in favor of legalizing the burka rather than the practice of fgm. However, several students changed their initial positions after some disagreement over the role of government. At the end of the class, I posed the question “what was the most messed up thing that you know.” Most the examples used involved commonalities of oppression that are grounded in human experience. With this in mind, do you guys agree with Nussbaum’s major claim that human experience should be the foundation for human rights rather than theories dealing with rights, duties, and other sources that are grounded in metaphysical support or the belief in a higher power? Or, as Professor Reitz said, do you feel that grounded human rights frameworks in experience may seem imperialistic?    

Professor Stein and I disagreed over the legalization of female genital mutilation. I argued that legalizing it would create a safer environment for individuals who undergo it because criminalization may create a black market that has been embraced in many cultures. On the other hand, Professor Stein asserted that having this system sponsored by the state would send a message that it is okay, and it would also undermine aspiration to eliminate it. Since we did not get a chance to finish this discussion towards the end of class, I am wondering what line of thinking is more persuasive?

One of Nussbaum’s main points throughout her article is that individuals should be critical of situations in which an individual has had one of her capabilities restricted, e.g., right to bodily integrity.  In other words, we, as activists, should focus on making sure individuals have the ability to function in certain ways without being critical of the way they function. So, for those of you who disagree with the practice of female genital mutilation, would you still object to the practice if an individual who had access to all the capabilities still choose to undergo the procedure?

A World Shaped by Implicit Bias

Hello my loves,

Thank you all for your wonderful contributions to the class discussion on Thursday. Especially since the topic of implicit bias is extremely complicated, anecdotal experiences as well as scholarly views are equally helpful to understand the implication of implicit bias within the context of social justice.

In class we discussed the concept of cognitive system one and two; one being rapid, intuitive, and error-prone, while the latter tend to be more deliberative, calculative, and slower. Our instinctual feelings are mostly the product of system one, which reflects our bare emotions, such as anger, fear, joy, and repulsion. Some of us may like to think that their behaviors are independent from cognitive system one, because it is easier to believe that we have conscious control over our own behaviors. But we might be surprised to learn that there, in fact, are a great degree of interconnection between unconscious thoughts and our actual behaviors. We could, however, cultivate and rationalize our cognitive system two, through, for instance, moral and literal education. Whenever we encounter an incident, our initial feelings and thoughts are derived from system one, though some of us may express this bare emotion more explicitly than others. It will take longer before the authority of system two kicks in, such as the role of our ethical beliefs and logical thoughts. Unfortunately, there aren’t always enough time for people to make rationalized decisions basing on their system two. Although it often takes less then a minute for some one to unconsciously exhibit bias driven behaviors, but consequences can be dreadful. These examples can be seen through those white pedestrians in Staple’s story, police officers who shoot at unarmed young minority men, and even George Zimmermann.

For my first question, I want to re-raise a topic we discussed in class. Some scholarly suggested the option of utilizing law, education, or therapy to “encourage a system two override of the system one impulse.” Do you think it is feasible to adapt this approach in police recruit, legal training, and hiring process of government positions? This question is worth further discussion because it is important to explore possible means to combat implicit bias buried deep in the criminal justice and political spheres.

Most of our discussion on Thursday evolves around the social phycology perspective of implicit bias, and I know that some of are dying to pour out their thoughts on our readings. Here is your chance! Please choose ONE question from below to discuss whether implicit bias is capable of creating a biased social atmosphere that permanently cripple individuals’ self-perceptions.

Option 1) Why would Staples adopt “tension-reducing measures” to alter public place, and what is the significant behind a perfectly innocent man’s conscious efforts to “decriminalize” his physical appearance? 

Option 2) What do you see as the main contributing factor(s) in staples, Trayvon Martin, and Kimani Gray’s terrifyingly similar unfortunate encounters? Also, what do their tragic personal experiences suggest about existing collective social sentiment toward young minority men? 

Sylvie