Eh.....Potentially..maybe..possibly dangerous?

Hi everyone, 

  Today was such a great class and I really want to thank everyone for being so honest and passionate about their opinions and experiences. This is a touchy issue that affects us all as Americans growing up in post-9/11. I hope you all enjoyed the discussion as much as I did!

We touched upon so many different facets of surveillance and entrapment, but one that we did not get to explore enough, was the rationale behind such “counter-terrorism” methods. Are they a sincere effort to stop terrorism? Or are there other implications and consequences of these efforts that are strategically employed? Imtashal and I spoke about the fear we experience every day, one that is pervasive in every aspect of our lives, of being labeled terrorists. While our rights are still theoretically in tact, because of the fear pervasive in the lives of Arab and Muslim Americans, due to these “counter-terrorism” efforts, we self-police, as Foucault would say, and suppress any political opinions or grievances we may have. Is this an "intentional" consequence, or simply a lucky coincidence? Similarly, why is the FBI going so far to literally create these terrorists? Does the constant reminder of terrorism reinforce our fear and thus our support and justification of the “War on Terror?"

Protecting vulnerable populations.

Hello to one and all. Thank you for an interesting class discussion.

As we discussed in class, the Federal Government has intervened and introduced regulations to protect the vulnerable populations. The most recent guidelines are the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects also known as The Common Rule. However, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "[h]uman subject research conducted or supported by each federal department/agency is governed by the regulations of that department/agency. The head of that department/agency retains final judgment as to whether a particular activity it conducts or supports is covered by the Common Rule" (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/commonrule/). The problem with that for me lies with the department head making the ultimate decision. There is an old saying, "who will guard the guards?" Who will put check and balances on him/her?

We want to make profound differences in the world. We have seen though that sometimes despite the best of intentions, things can often go wrong. We have hindsight and foresight beyond previous generations, therefore we are in a more educated position than our predecessors. How are we going to use this education to take preventive steps to reduce the chances of ethical violations such as those that occurred in the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, Willowbrook Study, Thalidomide and the likes from happening in the future. As future leaders, lobbyists, politicians, advocates etc, what can we do to safeguard the vulnerable population realizing that they need protecting but at the same time we do not implement measures that are so stringent as to stifle medical and clinical research? After all, human test subjects are vital to advancement in medicine and research. How do we achieve the greatest good while doing the least harm? (Although my preference would be to do NO harm. I know that is not possible though.) Do the current guidelines provide the necessary protections for the vulnerable populations? With the great advancements being made in science and technology, can you think of any preventive guideline that can be added so as to factor in the rapid advancement being made?

I know I have posed many questions, but some of them are just food for thought. No need to feel overwhelmed by them. Answer as you are led.

It Wasn't Supposed To Happen This Way... Or Was It?

Hello Everyone,

Our discussion of the mentally ill population and their status in our society is a very relevant topic today! How did we end up with the same problem, which Dorothea Dix tried to "fix" decades ago? I would like to yet again pose the question, having seen the failure of a social policy (deinstitutionalization) gone completely wrong (for many reasons); how do we amend the damage and find a sustainable and pragmatic solution? Is such a solution even possible without compromising the rights of both the mentally ill populations and population at large? Remember, is the incarceration of such population completely senseless, or is it something that is unsurprisingly a part of a plan to "keep them away"?

 

Also, think about the work you are doing at your agencies. What solutions are they looking to achieve and how would you evaluate them? Are they treating the "symptoms" or digging deeper and addressing the larger problem at hand?

Thank you all for having participated during Thursdays class! I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.

 

-Ana

Do We Need Another Hero?

Welcome back, Verons, and well done on an excellent discussion of John Gardner's Grendel.  It doesn't take you folks too long to shake off the rust!  It was a long(ish) read for us and I'm sure there are many things you considered that didn't make it into seminar. Please feel free to share them here.  I will start with two questions, one we touched on and one we didn't.

Grendel and Grendel both complicate the idea of the hero.  If Grendel is one of Western literature's first monsters, Beowulf is certainly one of its first heroes (and as we said in class, that is causation not correlation).  Part of what the novel lays out is that heroes (Hrothgar, Unferth, the unnamed Beowulf) create monsters; it is true that Grendel is legitimately "other," however it is not until the one-two punch of having the axe thrown at him while he is trapped in the tree and the Shaper's song that his otherness is put to use.  Gardner also suggests that this absolutely irresistible hero-monster story allows us to be blind to the other opportunity costs/collateral damage of the battle.  So my question is: is heroism necessarily counter to the aims of social justice?  Are there heroes that do not construct monsters?

Second, I'd like folks to share their answers to the final journal question.  When thinking about your topic this semester (and if you drew a blank here, you could think about this in terms of the issues engaged in by your agency), what is the hero-monster story of your topic?  Are there clear cut good guys/bad guys? Truths?  Who or what would be the "Grendel" of that story -- not the monster, but the the other perspective that would challenge our assumptions about your topic?

A Tale from the other side of the Experience

Hello Everyone,

I have so much enthusiasm writing the blog this week!!!  The semester has taught me a lot about myself.  What is even more exciting is that the professors were able to get a hold of Ana.  Ana brings a lot of knowledge about law school and the realities of what it will take to complete the schooling.  The reality is that not everyone, who wants to be a lawyer, may have the knowledge of what a lawyer does. There is not always that fame that is depicted on television.  Ana gives a very realistic account that making a step into law school is not the right direction for some people.  She also brought up a very good point that a law degree is flexible.  Often time’s people are rigid in the pursuit of finding a job within the major from their undergraduate education.  I believe if nothing else can come from this fellowship, we take away that there are multitude of paths in the pursuit of helping people.

At CASES, I was able to execute both the leadership events this week.  The events were both a success, the students want both speakers to come back.  Although the leadership event was a workshop, the result was many of the students got to network with people, who I work closely with.  Ultimately, this will build their own network and foster future connections.  In addition, this week at John Jay, I was part of a committee of club presidents, who organized a reggae charity concert and all proceeds are going to Habitat for Humanity.  This week just shows that helping people is just as simple as having an idea.

I love that Ana gave lots of insight about the stresses and rewards of being a lawyer.  She is truly a voice from the other side. Ana once sat in a classroom similar to our own and is now pursuing something close to her heart.  We all sat around the table and many of us were not sure about the future.  There are questions I have for the group. Now that we are at the end of the semester at our agencies and have sometime to experience the social justice world.  What are the differences/ similarities between how the theories /ideologies read about in text compare to the practicing of the work?  Take yourself back to the first day of the Vera fellowship and think about starting the experience “What have you learned thus far that you did not know coming in?         

     

   J.T.

Foucault! Foucault! Foucault!

Foucault suggestions that the existence of some practices, notions, forms of knowledge, social institutions and systems of government have led to the pavement of modern day culture. Examples such as the plague are used during Foucault’s explanations; he speaks about how the sick were isolated from society, with the purpose of creating a perfect community. The plague is just one example of the regulatory periods throughout history that were used to discipline society.

Foucault states that these practices were first created in secluded institutional settings such as prisons, hospitals, and schools but steadily have become methods of social regulation and control. The main reason for disciplinary power is to directly aim towards body (physical and mental) which can include endless amounts surveillance and examination that can allow a constant control of individuals conduct. Panoptism is a form of perfect discipline, an involuntary way of building a self-disciplined group of people or society. Panoptism installs the nervousness or anxiety of been watched onto unconscious individuals. Panoptism is almost a secret mental control, enforcing each mind to try to be the best person they can be and this way of discipline and surveillance, is everywhere in today’s society. Panopticism can be seen currently in many areas of NYC…at almost every high end shopping corner. Security cameras are located in many shops, but are they real or fake? The answer does not matter, in order for the security cameras to work; they must to be visible. Tall mirrors located around shops are an excellent effective way of monitoring both customers and staff. By seeing yourself perhaps shop lifting, or not doing your job you instantly feel that other people see your actions and you automatically self-discipline yourself. If you are to feel human emotions such as shame, then you try to create yourself into someone who would never have to be shameful of their actions; but only if you felt as if every action of yours was been watched…

My questions for you all are... Are we all 'docile bodies'? Do you think our lives are ordered or does it seem natural?

Do you think the recent access of the US government has gained via the Patriot Act (this Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records gathering within the United States), could easily look at it as acting like a panoptican?

Oh look below! It’s a cute kitten wearing a tiny hat! But wait - someone’s watching, and that someone is not happy! Poor kitty! Why this sudden violence? By using Foucault’s bases of the idea on the Panopticon, explain why this kitty was attacked? Is it because wearing a tiny hat might be cute, but goes against the institutional code that cats should not wear hats, and kitty is appropriately punished for failing to obey to a ‘docile body’?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mNB_VG_shc

Let's get the bad guys!

Yesterday's tour was an amazing experience for me. So many things that Mr. Giovanni said were surprising, even with my decent knowledge of how the criminal justice system works, and I left there feeling disheartened and saddened. He mentioned the common sentiment about the greatness of our criminal justice system, and asserted that this belief stems from the number of arrests made, and the speediness of processes, though usually at the cost of humanity.

As a nation, we justify policies such as stop-and-frisk, because they generate more arrests. There are many civil rights groups and individuals who condemn this practice because of the obvious abuses and inherent racism it promotes. Yet, there are many policies similar, in theory, to stop-and-frisk that are barely contested at all. It has been proven by the Associated Press that the NYPD enforces a policy of surveillance of the Arab, Muslim, and South Asian populations. The NYPD claims that this policy has helped weed out terrorists and has prevented attacks on our city. However, when the stories are looked at more closely, it is often the case that an undercover officer befriends a lonely Muslim and engages in talk about extremism and violence, in an effort to trap him into saying something that can be misconstrued, and hence easily label him as a terrorist. Professor Stein sent me the following short article yesterday because of the ethical questions it raises:

http://www.businessinsider.com/sweetie--the-scary-new-face-of-a-war-on-pedophiles-2013-11

Pedophilia, like terrorism, is a universal evil that everyone can agree upon and join in an effort to eliminate. While the aforementioned methods claim to weed out "terrorists" and "pedophiles" and eliminate the crime, are they actually creating these criminals?  Would these people have engaged in the crimes had they not been entrapped and enticed into doing so? This is a tricky situation because while we all want pedophiles and terrorists to be locked up, how far are we willing to go to do so?  If, in "fighting terrorism," we drop a drone on a village in Pakistan and kill a "terrorist" along with his wife and children, is it okay because we all want to be safer? Does this create a dangerous precedent? We would never allow the use of drones if it were not for our common belief that terrorism is an evil. But where do we draw the line then, in deciding for which crimes these methods are acceptable in eradicating? How far are we really willing to go to make arrests? Are we willing to target specific populations and entrap people into committing crimes? Unfortunately, It seems that we are, and with very little opposition.