Disadvantage

After watching the Rodney King Documentary I put more thought into what it's like being the group of people at disadvantage of everything. The treatment and interactions of most, not all people with African Americans has never really advance to "equal, friendly, kind". Not only where they slaves at one point, but throughout history they've always had to prove they were more than, the close minded racist and discriminatory views of others. African Americans are always labeled in such negative ways and perceived as wild, aggressive, inferior, so many derogatory labels. That when they see one of their folks getting beat/killed by the police or others they aren't even surprised. All these years and events in history, seems to me like they teach some humans nothing. Why do the African American folks always have to be put at disadvantage in every situation? Is it just for the fact that they have a different skin color, or is it because since long time ago in a series of events we decided that they would always be inferior. As a nation the population won't ever agree on one specific thing. Yet why is it so hard to agree that African American people are just as human, just as outgoing, as any other human being.

Police

A few years ago during my sophomore year, I just got out of cross country practice and started walking home. I just passed Rengstorff Park when a police car stopped me. I was confused as to why I had been stopped, as far as I knew I did not look suspicious, nor have I done anything wrong. The police man was alone in his car and never bothered to get out. He pulled over beside me while I stood there shaking. He asked me where I was going so late at night. With a little bit of attitude I told him it was 7 o'clock. He asked where I was going, where I had been before this, where I was going at the moment, and even asked if he could look through my backpack (um no the f*ck you can't). After he asked a few questions, already irritated I asked "Is there a real reason why you stopped me?" He told me he was just "doing his job". I asked him again, "but why did you stop me", no response. After about 20 minutes of random unnecessary questions he finally drove off. A few months later, I read an article about a police officer who had been suspected of having child pornography. He was the same officer who had stopped me, and harassed me a few months back. I was so angry, and afraid, and disgusted. It was just so easy for him to take advantage of the uniform and badge he wears. Children are supposed to be able to trust the police, not question them or their morals, these officers have a duty not to betray the communities trust. After that moment, and a few other incidents I have encountered with the police, it became close to impossible to trust anyone in uniform. 

 

Black on Black Prejudice

While I was looking through my news feed on Facebook  I came across a vine of the Fresh Prince of Bel Air titled "Black on Black Prejudice". Will Smith and his cousin Carlton are trying to join a black fraternity. The leader said that Carlton wasn't a good example of a black person, that he's a sellout because he has a big house and dressed like a white person. When Carlton hears about this he argues that the leader is a sell out because there isn't an authentic way to be black that being black isn't something you can try to be it's something that you are. Watching this vine made me think about the article titled 'Acting white' and being black? It's about president Obama and the experiences and labels people put on him in high school. And the idea he said when he talked "about how black Americans use this "group think" psychology to bully other blacks, keep them from expressing themselves as individuals and stop them from assimilating into the broader culture of America". Showing that people make it seem like there is a certain way a black person has to act when in reality there isn't a guideline to be black.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GywhZCHvqXA

The "N Word"

After reading all the articles, something really stood out to me. The "N Word". We all know what it is, and most of us would agree that the word is derogatory. I used to think that just saying the "N Word" would be alright. Because when I say the "N word", I don't actually say the actual word. However, awhile ago I was watching Louis CK's Hilarious. One of the segment he did really opened my eyes to how specific words are used, even the "N word"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF1NUposXVQ

The video is about 3 minutes at most. If you could watch it, I would very much appreciate it. It might open your eyes to how even the simplest word can have so much meaning.

Pistol whipped detective

I was somewhat perplexed by this. I understand that yes, police brutality is a sticking point in the media, but I also believe that officers have a responsibility to not let the media faze them in their duty. I feel very sorry for this officer, but they should operate as they were trained. Training does not seem to be an issue. It is unfortunate cops are being put in this position or feel that way. In my opinion violence is definitely needed sometimes when someone's life is in danger. I wonder what prompted the spectators to take pictures? And the rude remarks made toward the cop; are those due to general dislike for the police? Why bother to degrade public service members?

OTL N Word Special

The beginning to this video really had me in awe. I had only heard of the Baptist church bombings of the 4 young girls, but I wasn't aware that one had survived. It was really compelling and, to me, was a great way to engage someone about what the topic is following up to be. 

I had to agree with the high school students, the N word has changed its meaning as we are a generation who doesn't really see much to the word other than a "homie." I hear the word "nigga" all the time, always directing to a friend. But I think there's a difference when you call someone a straight "nigger." I understand how the word can hold so much anger when it's used because the background behind goes back hundred of years of racially discriminating blacks, and it has been known to be a word of hate. However, it's a confusing topic because it is fine to call each other "niggas," yet when "nigger" comes out, you don't know what type of reaction someone would have. 

Shaun King Controversy

Controversy has followed Shaun King around for all his life. Because he is black skinned and his father is white, they all claimed that the man he claimed was his father couldn’t be. King says it is sad that most of his personal information has been forced out to the public, as well as his past has been opened up, including who he has been sexually active with, as well as his criminal/imprisonment record. "Never have I once identified myself as white. Not on forms, not for convenience or privilege, and not for fun and games, have I ever identified myself as white. I was never a white guy pretending to be black. Not once, ever, did it occur to me that I was being phony or fraudulent or fake.” King received a scholarship from a school, Morehouse college, which was later canceled because of one of his spinal surgeries. King said he was beaten by a "racist mob of rednecks" so badly that he missed almost two years of high school and college while recovering from fractures to his face and ribs as well as severe injuries to his spine. King also lost his scholarship because of ongoing spinal surgeries. The Black Lives Matter Movement was scared that its reputation would be discredited because King was not fully black. Ultimately, race matters too much in this country. Why does it matter what color skin we are? Shouldn't we all just see each other the same, with the same opportunites, same people, and same country. We are all Americans, doesn't matter if we're black or white. We are all Americans, even though the world hasn't accepted this yet.

Justice For King

At the beginning of the Documentary on Rodney King, Hip Hop and the LA Riots, I was confused and disgusted on the acts the African Americans were committing.  I believed that attacking people who weren't black were being beating up and assaulted, and burning down buildings was completely wrong. But when It went into depth about why they did it or what was their motivate, It made me understand that those acts were due to injustice because of their race and skin color. They wanted to assault people; drag them out of their car like rag dolls and beat them up to send the police a message that what they did to King was tolerated, especially when they were found innocent.  Not every African American approached the problem the same way, some prayed and tried to send the word out that what African Americans were doing to their town was incorrect. They had back history that made African Americans grow anger thinking that history would never change. Psychologically, they did it because everyone was commuting crime, therefore they all believed it was morally and ethically correct. Its sad to admit that police brutally against colored people still exist. I predict that as  more police brutally increases throughout years, the L.A riots could reoccur.

'Speak English'

I think this video was so surprising because we live in a time and part of the U.S. where most people are accepting of different cultures and ethnicities. I do not agree with what the woman is screaming at the mother, but I have a guess, or some understanding of where her opinion may be coming from. As we can tell, she is an older woman who may have had parents or relatives immigrate to the U.S. long ago. My grandma is an immigrant. When she tells me stories of her childhood and when she came to America, she explains to me how she had to learn English in order to find work. Times have changed and now immigrants can find work where they do not necessarily need to be fluent in English. My guess is that the old woman in the article heard similar stories and believes all immigrants should learn English, just like her family.

After watching the video, I am thinking the woman was more upset about the immigrants being there in the first place, not so much about whether they spoke English or not. Do you think the old woman had the right to feel upset? Do you think immigrants should make an effort to learn English? Or should schools in the U.S. put more emphasis on teaching foreign languages starting in primary schools, all the way through universities (required for all to take)? Or do you think things are fine as is?

Pistol-whipped detective

The detective that got pistol whipped was a surprising story for me. At the moment police brutality is a national problem. Police officers are accused of over using their power. What's circulating in the news really downgrades the image of the police in general.
In this article a detective pulled over a speeding driver who then got violent with the detective. In all situations, the police needs to protect themselves. But in this case the detective did not want to use force because he didn't want to be accused of shooting an unarmed man. The current police brutality situations did not appeal to him. Since he did not use violence he got beat up and pistol whipped. What was really stupid was that the pedestrians around him just took photos and posted them on social media shaming the police. But what really was going in their head? Just because there was police brutality recently doesn't have  mean that all police officer's act hat way. He could have protected himself but he didn't. Shouldn't that have proved something to the public ?
Should the detective have used violence for his safety?

Shaun King

I recently read an article about Shaun King and his influence in the movement, "Black Lives Matter". He was one of the main people advertising and trying to make a difference. After many years of oppression, many different Shaun King talked about his experiences and how  black people have had to overcome. However, Shaun King was not biologically black. He was told that he was African-American at a young age, but later in his life figured out he wasn't. King was criticized for lying and he responded with some tweets saying, "First off, the key facts about my biological relatives are all wrong. They tried, but my family, like many of yours, is one big mess". I think that even if you aren't biologically black, you should still be able to be apart of the movement. Oppression occurs everywhere, and if people are influenced by others actions, then let them be part of the movement. All humans are born the same. The only thing that seems to separate us is our different experiences in our lives and our thoughts towards different aspects.

In the “CNN: Rodney King” video many of us cringe when we watch the outrage in which was occurring. Non black people who drove through the neighborhood didn't stand a chance. The African Americans in which were rioting through the streets would not just break your car windows with rocks and stomp on the hood of you car. These men took it to an extreme, they would snatch people out of their cars stomp on their heads, and chuck bricks at peoples faces. This riot was seen all over the nation and the black people didn't think twice about taking those actions. They believe that revenge was needed due to how long slavery went on for and how often black get brutally assaulted by cops.

10 Facts: Case Studies

1. In Seattle, students pick their high school and apply
2. You cannot strip search someone at school no matter the situation
3. You do not have to pledge allegiance to the flag if you don't want to
4. University's can only include race as a part of their admission process if it is accessed under "strict Scrutiny"
5. A school does not need a warrant to search your belongings if it is on school grounds
6. It is allowed for schools to drug test for sports and other extra-curricular activities
7. Public Schools must be governmentally funded
8. 4th and 14th amendments seem to be violated the most, or is it because these are the easiest to argue against in court because there are such fine lines?
9. Schools cannot teach based on religion anymore in public school, but must teach based on scientific fact.
10. Affirmative Action is legal

Privilege Articles

I found it kind of shocking the fact that there are so many people who get a lighter sentencing, if any, based on their background. In the video from the articles, it said that in the years 2009-2014, out of 90% of male college basketball and football players who had committed a crime, 70% of those men had the charges against them dropped. Not only that, but non-athletes in general are over two times more likely to be prosecuted than athletes. The University of Florida running back, Chris Rainey, was involved in 8 criminal incidents during his time at Florida, but only ever faced charges on one of those incidents. If we knew that the president, or a coach, or a local police officer had criminal charges dropped against them just because of their social status, wouldn’t that make people uneasy? Where do we draw the line and say that enough is enough and disregard one’s social status in order maintain the law?

Rodney King and Case Studies

Watching the documentary on Rodney King made me realize how complicated court cases truly are. There is so much information that the judge needs to consider, including eyewitness accounts, evidence, and the testimonies of those being tried. Although one may think eyewitness accounts tell the whole and true story, that is not always the case. Often, when a case has more than one eyewitness, they could all tell different stories. In the Rodney King case, one eyewitness claimed she saw King running away and was then struck down by a stick. Another claimed that King was resisting, which explains why the cops continued to strike King. Both eyewitnesses had similar accounts, but they also had their differences, which can change the outcome of the entire trial. Witnesses were able to provide the case with video evidence. Video footage does not lie, but there are factors that the judge must consider. Although the judge can see in the video that the cops were striking King aggressively, he does not know the events that lead up to what was captured on video. Even video evidence does not tell the whole story. So, to find out that missing information the judge must hear from those involved. He must consider each of the cops' testimonies. In this trial, King did not testify, but if he did, the judge would have had to consider his side of the story as well.

Do you think this case could have been less complicated? What might have occurred if Rodney King testified (pretending the lawyers did not mention his criminal history, swaying the jury)? Do you think both King and the cops were at fault?

Rodney King Issue

On Friday, we were talking and watching a video about Rodney King's trials and how the incident unraveled. I personally think it was unfair for the trials to be moved to a predominantly white community because the scene took place in the diverse area of Los Angeles. In the trial, the officers who beat King claimed to think that he was on PCP or drunk. To me, I think one should be sure and test rather than going full force leaving his bones broken, whether he was in a high speed chase or not.
Lately, I've noticed how officers take advantage of their badge, but I don't think its only to minorities. In videos uploaded not too long ago to Facebook, I've seen a black cop shooting a black man and killing him, while bystander's taking videos called him a traitor. I've seen a white man being beaten as well for no apparent reason, and was not breathing after the officers had stopped kicking him in the head. I think the whole issue with police brutality is occurring because of the fact that the other officers around aren't doing anything about it but tagging along. One man can't take on 5 others, evidently he's getting jumped. If one officer were to speak up and defend the person and/or their rights as an American, I'm almost 100% sure that those citizens wouldn't have died.
However,I think the issue varies. The crime usually seems to influence the reaction officers give to their suspects.

Privacy

Today in class we watched a documentary about celebrities and their complex relationship with paparazzi. We briefly discussed about celebrities and their children being thrown into the spot light. Personally I feel that there should be a law or some sort of rule that prevents paparazzi from taking pictures of children. Don't you think there is something wrong with the fact that grown men and women are following young children taking their pictures to make money? There needs to be some sort of privacy for children to allow them to grow up like a "normal" kid. Imagine being 4 years old walking down the street and these strangers with huge camera lenses hovering and fighting over you. Even celebrities get overwhelmed by the lack of privacy they have, imagine how terrifying that might be for a child. These kids, their brains are still developing, how do you think it might impact them growing up when all they see from the outside world is constant aggression over a picture and hostility? These kids should not have to suffer through all that exposure at such a young age. Their parents are the celebrities, not the children.

Is there a Split in Society?

Throughout our country, their tends to be a common split between the rich and the poor. This is mainly due because of big businesses and Laissez-Faire. With businesses having so much power, the CEO's of theses corporations can do what they want with their money, while the people working for them make low wages. The families at the top of the social class can contribute and give a lot to their kids. However, some families in the lower classes may not be able to give their kids all the stuff wealthier families can. The real question is, does this put the kids on the lower class at a disadvantage? What are the necessities that should be provided to all kids to give all kids the same opportunities? Should families provide it or should the school provide it? How can we give every kids the same opportunities as the next? These questions just make me question society and if everyone does receive equal opportunity.

Case Studies: 10 Interesting Facts

1. While Americans do take pride in their country, this patriotism cannot be forced upon citizens in any way.
2. It is your choice whether to pledge allegiance to the flag or not. 
3. Privacy is important, but in a public school setting it is limited therefore students may legally be subjected to random drug tests if this is what the school feels is necessary. 
4. Schools cannot accept/reject students simply based on skin color. 
5. Anything found during a search that was not listed under the warrant for the search cannot be seized without proper license to do so. 
6. When it comes to the theory of evolution versus intelligent design, if a school wants to teach the latter, the former must also be taught as an alternative theory. 
7. The quota system that some schools may have in order to create a more diverse student body is unconstitutional and unethical. 
8. A school cannot strip search a student no matter what it is they are searching for. 
9. If a school wants to create a more diverse student body starting with the application process, they must do so with just cause other than race. 
10. It seems as though most Americans value their 4th and 14th Amendment rights more highly over the others. 

Stuck in ESL

Recently we have talked about some case studies and how some people are treated differently based on their skin, culture, beliefs. One of the thing that strike me was the immigrants that came to America with little to no English ability. I was once that girl. English was not my first language, and when I first moved to America is second-grade, I was treated as if I were stupid.

I came to America right in the beginning of 2006. I lived in Houston for four months before moving to Los Altos. Things were a bit different around here. I still remember how my classmates would say bad stuff about me in English. Unfortunately, by the time I had come to Almond Elementary School, I've already begin to understand English little by little. 

I was put into ESL class, and my teachers treated me differently. Instead of being assigned the regular homework, I would get an easier version. Sometime it wouldn't even be the same assignment. Once you are enrolled in ESL, they will test you every year for you fluency. By the time I got into 6th grade, speaking, listening, reading, and writing in English was already natural to me. Well, I still suck at grammar -.-

I tried to op-out of ESL, but I was still put inside of it. When I got to Los Altos High, I had to leave class to take that test. I told the lady that I don't need these tests. She didn't really believe me at first, but after I took the class, she was surprised how well my English was. After that, I was op-out of it forever. I was so glad that I was no longer associated with ESL, but thinking back at it, I wondered why I was so happy about it.

I believe that ESL and special ed classes are very beneficial for those who need the extra support. Without it, I don't believe I could have got to where I am today. But I also think the reason why I didn't want to be associate with it anymore is because of the stigma. Often time, we think that people in special ed classes are mentally retarded or disabled, which is not true at all. 

What do you guys think about ESL and special ed classes? What about the privileges given to these students such as extensions? 

Presentation notes

1. Can't be searched without probable cause
2. affirmitive action made illegal
3. school don't need a warrant to search if on school grounds
4.when in school laws are modified a bit
5. schools can have both intelligent design or actual sciences but not just ID
6. flag salute isn't required anymore
7.When choosing a HS the tiebreakers aren't race
8.when in school teachers are the parents
9. virginia cut funds to public schools and gave tuitions to white students to privates. making blacks have no education
10.federal government forced virginia to refund the public schools

Padlet Wall

In large group yesterday, we were all asked to come up with labels that we had heard and/or have used within our smaller table groups. My table group had good overall discussion and came up with a good list. When we were asked to come together as a class and post words from our lists anonymously on Padlet, it started off well even though most of the words were derogatory. As time went on, the words seemed to get more offensive, and some "words" turned into phrases, such as "my mixtape is fire" "add me on snapchat" and "lick my balls bitch". I was curious as to how to comments escalated so quickly and it makes me uneasy to know what people will say while they are protected by online anonymity. This actually makes me think back to a few weeks ago when we read the group articles about teenagers who were killing themselves based off of things said to them through ask.fm. Obviously it isn't the same situation, but then again, it's the same action of hiding behind computer screens when one knows that they have anonymity. So why is it that we keep abusing this internet anonymity if we have already seen the consequences of it?

Stereotypes

In class, we've been referring to stereotypes, but do you believe you are a part of the prejudice? A lot of people say they are not racist or judgmental, but often those are the people making jokes about different races in the quad. Even myself, I am aware that I have judged based off some stereotypes in my time. I believe that everyone has a bias towards their religion and talk it up, but are you aware of it? Every culture would like to believe their superior and it is shown through different traditions and rituals. Everyone wants to be dominant, this influences us to put down other cultures to make ourselves feel better due to insecurity. It seems as if there is no way to stop prejudice, but it is possible to limit it and be aware of what you are saying. If we could keep to ourselves and see from other peoples perspective, the world could be a better place.

What is MY First Amendment?

The importance of the first amendment is dramatically important because of that it is a well known amendment. Although it has changed  thought when it was first introduced on June 8, 1789, the meaning on the first amendment and many others have changed. That is because of dramatic and horrifying events that occurred thought the centuries. Due to those events those rights have been adjusted today in the 21st century. One example that can clearly show the change of the first amendment is school rules and environment. At a public middle school or high school, the administration restrict the rights of students. First of all, schools throughout the country have created dress codes that prevents students from wearing what they want, preventing them from expressing themselves. The schools claim that they created those rules to prevent students from creating a bad environment, distracting classes, and to protect and provide safety for the rest of the school. From several cases I studied and looked more deeper into as I was doing my Law and Society project, I saw how the meaning of the first amendment, that people find the most important in society, has changed. A human cant be guaranteed to fully have the right to express or have the freedom of speech in a public school or transportation without  having someone file them as doing something wrong or inappropriate. Is the government violating our fist amendment because others had to ruin it and violated THEIR OWN rights? Is it our fault? 

10 Facts From Presentations

1. Despite being in America, an institution cannot impose patriotism of any case in an institution
2. Establishment Clause in the First Amendment protects against establishing anything favoring a religion as well as forcing upon anyone beliefs that go against their religion (atheism is a religion)
3. Teachers become parental figures for students to protect "children"
4. Equal protection clause in 14th amendment that racial quota in colleges was unlawful
5. 4th Amendment search and seizure rights still apply on campus, but warrants aren't needed to search students property on campus.
6.  Funding cannot be cut for public schools to further racial inequalities
7. Students do lose some rights to privacy once they enter on campus
8. Schools are allowed to drug test for extra-curricular activities
9. Schools cannot admit solely based on race
10. Public schools cannot teach solely intelligent design, because it is ruled as a form of creationism (religious)

10 Facts Presentations

1.  Teachers becomes "parental figures" when on school campus.
2.  No warrant needed for schools to search students.
3.  Pledge of Allegiance violates 1st and 14th amendment.
4.  Schools can't discriminate students, when selecting.
5.  Public schools must have funding.
6.  Drug testing allowed on students.
7.  Can't have spots for certain races in schools.
8.  Nobody should have their right to education denied.
9.  Fair selection process.
10.  1st, 4th, 14th seemed to be most violated rights.

10 things I've learned from the Case Studies

1. Public schools cannot force kids to salute to the U.S. flag.
2. Students lose some of their rights to privacy when they are on school campuses.
3. Schools do not need a warrant to search a students belongings.
4. Schools have to teach evolution based science, they cannot be teaching religion (public schools).
5. Schools cannot discriminate against any students, they must accept those who are qualified for their school.
6. There are certain situations where affirmative action was allowed for schools to use it.
7. Schools are allowed to drug test students if they are participating in school related extra-curricular activities.
8. Schools have the right to affirmative action and using the top 10% of the class admission style.
9. Schools cannot admit solely based on race.
10. There must always be funding for public schools; private schools cannot have all of the funding.

10 Things I Learned from the Case Studies

1. Students have very limited rights within the schools system and environment for their own safety and for the safety of others.
2. Funding can not be cut in order to shut down public schools. Education is a right that must be upheld.
3. Schools have the right to search students, even if personal belongings are being searched (as opposed to school property such as lockers). 
4. Affirmative action is no longer in effect in the state of California because the quota system only furthered inequality.
5. Saying the pledge of allegiance can not be forced because it infringes on a students right to free of religion. 
6. Public schools can not teach or impose religion on students.
7. Intelligent design can not be taught alone (without the teaching of evolution) because it imposes a certain religious belief that is not held by all people.
8. A school does not need any sort of warrant to search a students belongings and anything found is fair game.
9. Drug testing students for extracurricular activities is legal because it is a precautionary action that aims toward lowering drug use within the school. 
10. Race can not be a tiebreaker for students that are being admitted to schools.

Top 10- Case Studies

1. Students cannot be forced to say the pledge of allegiance because you would be violating the 1st and 14th Amendments if you told them they had to. The teachers considered it "insubordination" if the students did not salute the flag, but the court later ruled in favor of the student.
2. It is not a violation of the 4th Amendment if a school was to drug test a student before their participation in a school based extra curricular activity. The school's job is to maintain discipline, health, and safety.
3. It is unconstitutional to cut funding for public schools and then give tuition grants to those going to private schools.
4. Education is a fundamental human right. No person should be denied their right to education.
5. Any quota system violates the Civil Rights Act.
6. The Civil Rights Law outlaws discrimination based on race. No person should be denied because of the color of their skin.
7. The Exclusionary Rule basically states that if you were being searched for one thing, but another thing was found, you cannot get in trouble for that other thing they found. They would have to go and get another search warrant for that thing and then search again.
8. (I am a bit unsure about this, but this is what I took away from the presentation) If you lie, this gives someone the right to search your things. (TLO Case- she lied to her principal about smoking in the bathroom, so he searched her things)
9. Public schools cannot teach religion. They would be violating students' freedom of religion.
10. Schools have the right to admit the top 10% in order to maintain diversity.

Generalize

A few days ago, we had a discussion in class about stereotypes, focusing more towards African Americans being "dominant" in sports. During the conversation, Mr. Stewart asked if they (Africans), believed the stereotype that they were athletically dominant in sports. This lead me to think about the consequences that are being thrown out there to generalize people as a whole. If everyone decides to believe that all black people are talented athletes, what do you think is going through a young black boys mind, when he can't make the basketball team? It's the idea that he's black and he can't excel in the one thing people expect him to be good at, which leads to this feeling of not belonging, or not being "good enough". Although some of the stereotypes being put out there are "good", we still shouldn't generalize people as a whole, because most of the time it isn't true, and you never know how it might impact someone.

Morals vs Rights

The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." As I was watching the case studies, I realized there was no choice, but for the court to rule people like Franken and Dr. Pierce innocent. After all, they were only practicing their freedom of speech. The whole time, all I could think about was morals and ethics. They should not be questioning the First Amendment, but should be questioning these people's morals. If we did not have the First Amendment, how do you think these case studies would be different? In the Dr. Pierce case study, if terrorist attacks had not occurred, do you think the case still would have been taken to court? What is the turning point at which people start questioning our rights? While we were watching the case study on Prussian Blue, I could not help but notice laughter breaking out across the classroom. People in my class thought it was funny because we live in a society that is very accepting of differences, so to see those girls writing songs about white supremacy, my classmates could not help but laugh. How would everyone's reactions differ if we lived in the South in the 1800s?

In class we talked about African Americans. We discussed their height and the percentage of African Americans in the NBA. 78% of players in the NBA have African decent. What a lot of people would take from that data is that African Americans are born better athletes then most of the other races. This is not necessarily the case. If they were born better athletes then all the other races then why don't they dominate all sports? Look at baseball for example, yes blacks have a higher percent of pro's who play basketball and football but baseball is dominated by whites. Only 8.2% of baseball players are African American. This all ties together to how African Americans are raised. I think that the reason they dominate basketball and football is because their culture and priorities in life. For must of us growing up in Los Altos, our first priority is school, going to college and getting good grades. On the other hand, for the majority of African American families growing up, sports come first. This could be the main reason in which black people dominate at their sports and the reason why we think they are more athletic.

"The Best That Never Was" Reflection

Watching the documentary on Marcus Dupree, I defined whether a personal was morally positive or negative by if I believed that they did what they did because it was the best option available to them and it seemed appropriate, I put them as morally positive. For example, take Barry Switzer. He was on Marcus all the time because that's how he is for all the other players. He pushed him so he could be even better than he already was. Morally, I agreed with his motives. Ethically, I deemed him as ethically positive. The way I categorized between ethically positive or negative was the way they carried out their morals, or motives. His motives were fair and so was the way he carried them out. He wasn't soft or treating Marcus special just because Marcus was undeniably the best. He treated him like any other player and I think that was the ethically right thing to do in this case. Most of the people in the documentary, I placed as morally positive but ethically negative. Take the college recruiters for example. They all wanted Marcus to sign with their team. They all had good motives but the way they carried it out wasn't appropriate. They were offering Marcus thousands of dollars, which was illegal, and moving near him so they could have a better chance of recruiting him. I thought that was a bit ridiculous. So in that case the recruiters had the best intentions but didn't carry them out in a way that was appropriate.

Conditionality of Morals and Ethics

In our socratic we spent a lot of time discussion the conditionality of a person's morals and ethics. The main focus was not the difference between the two but rather how they are similar in the way that both are very conditional. The way you act and think is typically affected by the people you surround yourself with and the environment you are in. When you are with your parents, you are more likely to act more polite and conservative whereas with your friends you feel like you can relax and just have fun. The change in scenery and the people you are talking to determines which set of morals and ethics you follow. People typically have multiple sets of morals and ethics that they follow and therefore have different reasons as to why their actions are morally/ethically positive. An example we talked about was sharing information about the basic topic(s) of a test that you had in a class with someone who is about to take the same test. While we typically say it is immoral and unethical to cheat on a test, we find ourselves still sharing this information with our friends with the excuse that as long as you aren't saying exactly what is on the test and are only sharing concepts, it is not really cheating. However, we also said that the most ethical and moral way to redeem yourself from this is to take responsibility for your actions if you were to get caught doing something that is deemed unethical.

Socratic Reflection

I thought that the socratic seminar  today went pretty good. I believe that there is still a lot of room to improve but this being our first socratic I thought it went pretty smooth. There where just a lot of awkward pauses throughout the discussion when people didn't know what to say or when we would answer a question and not know how to contribute or move on to the next question. I also noticed that in both groups people kept restating the same answer when it came to if ethics and morals where conditional or not. I also felt that the people that did speak during the discussion had some strong insightful points that kept the conversation going, but a lot of people did not contribute to the conversation. Overall I thought this was a decent socratic because there was a lot of insightful thoughts and everybody felt comfortable and showed each other good body language and eye contact.

Stereotypes

In class today we have been talking about stereotypes so I thought I should share a stereotype about Los Altos, "A city across the train tracks from Mountain View. Full of old people and rich white kids who act ghetto because they know they're so far from the hood they won't get shot"(Urban Dictionary).  This is taken off of Urban Dictionary, and obviously Urban Dictionary is not the most reliable source, but it composes of real people posting real stereotypes. Some may think this stereotype to be true, but why is that? We in Los Altos are so far from the ghetto and I feel like this assumption is false. If you look up videos of the ghetto, and the type of people that live in the ghetto, they are completely different from people here. All stereotypes come with some truth, but that may only apply to a few people and does not apply to all people who live in Los Altos. There are stereotypes about every group of people, and I advise that before you automatically believe these mostly false assumptions, think about your own experiences with the types of people who are being stereotyped, and you will find that these assumptions are for the most part false. Instead of following what other people say, make it a goal to use real experiences, not assumptions, to come to your own conclusion. 

So recently we have watched the movie Bigger Faster Stronger which showed us multiple points of views concerning the use of steroids. According to many studies steroids can affect the brain . The uses will affect all their life.Their life will be different and they may not function normally which could affect their families and their surroundings such as children. Steroids are associated with strokes and heart clotting. Shouldn't those side effects keep people from using them. But then the mentality comes in. Many find it normal and some don't. In the movie Chris Bell and his brothers all had hero's has children and they where all professional boxers and body builders. These super stars made it look like that if you work hard enough you can get the gigantic muscles and  lift 500 pounds.
But when they figure out their models where using steroids it seemed that the drug is the only way to the muscle dream. But this raises a question. Which should be more influential? The bad long term effects or the society that can influence you ethics and your morals? Has medial and marketing gone too far to sell a product. One example is the model on the bottles of muscle powder and pills. Many consumers pay a lot believing that one day they will reach that perfect body with those powders, pills and drinks. Those product can go over 60 dollars.  But behind the scenes, the model took steroids in addition to the product. The public is being lied to. What if everyone knew about it? I certainly did was not aware even though the model seemed fake. What's your take?

Influence of Culture in Sports

 In class today we were talking about sports and if black people were more athletic in general. There are many theories about this; however, mine is that it refers around culture. Living in Long Beach, California, there is a whole different vibe when it comes to sports. Some people believe to get out of Long Beach and to something better, they need to due it through sports. In Los Altos, the main focus seems to be academics and sports come second. On the other hand, Long Beach sports are make it or break it. At Long Beach Poly High, around 200 kids try out for the football team a year, in hope of receiving a full scholarship from their dream school. Unfortunately, there are only 100 spots on the team and 11 on the field. In Los Altos we have 45 kids on our football team. This goes to show the difference in culture and the communities. It seems to pay off for those kids who do play at Poly. They had multiple division 1 commits going to USC, UCLA, etc. IT goes to show that hard work pays off.

Steroids and How This Relates to Society

Recently, we have talked about the morals and ethics of steroids, and how that correlates to cheating or advantage in competitive playing fields. Importantly, it should be considered that, cheating is a completely relative concept, and rules are only delegated by the institutions that set them into motion. Similarly, when we look at the competitiveness of American sport and society, it can be in some way understandable that some people may be tempted to partake in such an enhancement, if society always badgers them to be the best they can be. However, if this enhancement is also a choice, wouldn't we have the free will to decline unnatural enhancement? This also relates to supplements, that are not regulated as steroids are, but are tools at the hands of corporate America, to "enhance" those that feel as if they need it, without going out of legal boundaries.
From this, maybe we should analyze, not the idea of cheating itself, but the hold that institutions have on supplements, as well as steroids in the context of illegality. Why is one enhancement illegal, while another is legal? Similarly, why is one completely at the will of a free market, and another under the pressure of an act, making it illegal. Only three recorded deaths stand on record related to steroid use. Now, this does not mean the drug is not inherently dangerous, but it does mean that propaganda, as well as politics, has blown the idea of steroids out of proportion ("roid" rage etc). As it seems, there is one drug we criminalize, and another we completely allow to be trapped in the deregulated monetary flow, America cherishes.

Modern Technologies and How They Go With Morals and Ethics

I think today the main point that I saw brought up was how technology has influenced/changed our morals and ethics today. In the socratic, the overall consensus seemed to be leaning towards morals and ethics are naturally worse due to social medias, but also people's sense of ownership to social medias having to be relinquished. I have been thinking about this idea for the rest of the day, whether technology has made a positive or negative impact on our ethics and morals as a whole. Going back to the articles we read at the beginning of the year on rape, teenage drinking, and internet bullying etc, I believe that teenagers and young adults morals and ethics have become worse because of the internet and social medias. Younger people especially believe that they can get away with more on the internet, which stretches their morals of what they are willing to post online, especially on anonymous sites. While some people do not believe in bullying, this could change because of popular opinion amongst a group of people they hang out with, as well as less consequences that can go along with cyber bullying anonymously. The internet and social medias are more dangerous because there are less consequences that go along with our actions, which ultimately stretches our morals and ethics to larger boundaries than what we would say through a text message or in person. I believe that people today set morals and ethics for themselves and their communities more out of fear than out of belief in most cases. With the lack of consequences (fear), there are fewer moral standards that people abide by while on the internet.

Socratic seminar reflection

Notes: 

• ¨both morals and ethics always change¨
• ¨ethics change based on who you are around¨
• ¨some people disregard what other people say based on their morals, thinking what's right or what's wrong¨
• ¨people can just shut down their social media¨
• ¨how do we pick our morals?¨

Observations: Everybody was listening and respecting each other when they were talking, there was a good conversation going on between students back and forth.Very god comments were being made everything went very smooth.

Socratic Reflection

Here are the notes I took during the discussion:

-Morals are more categorical because they come from individuals while ethics are conditional

-Always change because of the situation of the scenario, varies per person

-Depending on where you live there is a common sense of morals so people know how to act, morals are similar, ethics could change based on who you are

-Do you guys think there is a certain situation where you could (make sense to) go against your morals or ethics?

-You can’t steer away from your morals but your ethics change wherever you are

-Maslow's hierarchy of needs, morals are not essential 

-Need to distinguish difference between morals and ethics

-Morals are conditional (relates it to cheating on tests)

-If you think about something you are as guilty you are doing it

-A couple of people did most of the talking

-Everyone does immoral things until you are stopped

-Unethical behaviors lead to more unethical behaviors

I thought our socratic seminars were great starting points for this year. There is definitely room to grow. I think as our class becomes more comfortable with each other, more people will be willing to contribute and participate in the discussions. Today, I felt like only a few people did most of the talking, while others were silent most of the time and only spoke up once or twice. For a meaningful discussion, I believe it is important for each person to participate equally (for the most part). I thought the first socratic group's discussion was interesting and I found it hard not to jump in with my own comments. It was interesting to hear everyone's opinions on morals and ethics. After all, everyone has their own morals and ethics. I wish their discussion had gone more in depth with a specific question. I felt their discussion skimmed the surface and was repetitive at times. Overall, great start!

2nd Period Socratic

I think that 2nd period had a good discussion to start off the year. We actually began our discussion based off a question that had to do with airport security, and its famous racial profiling. Many of us could agree that most people are randomly checked at some point in their life while going through security, but most could also see that it is common to be "randomly selected" based off of your race. Is it it ethical to racially profile people at the risk of security vs. freedom? And who is to decide?

Socratic Reflection

The group had very insightful thoughts about a very tricky topic to discuss.  Although having great ideas, also came some rusting off some dust with the first Socratic Seminar of the year.  Too many pauses and awkward interactions amongst the small group.  Some key topics that came up included "Adult Figures vs. Kids" talking about unethical behavior amongst interactions of a student and teacher.  Should teachers be held accountable just likes students for unethical behavior?  Is it unethical and unmoral to play favorites?  Another key topic that was present was "Where Do Our Morals Come From?"  Some ideas that came up were parents, religion, consequences for actions, environment grown up in and more.  Also shout outs to MJ for taking control of the conversation and Megan for including other people in the conversation.

Socratic Discussion

I didn't have high expectations for the first socratic seminar of the year, many students had not even participated in one before. Although, I was impressed that everyone seemed comfortable sharing their thoughts even though there are a lot of new faces in our class. I think both groups showed good body language. For the most part everyone seemed to be paying attention and attentively listening. Most people asked clarifying questions which helped the group get to the bottom of the overarching question. Few people connected the topic of conversation back to Marcus Dupree or to The Weight of the Nation, which I think would have been beneficial to the overall understanding of this past unit. Although, the group did seem to have an excellent grasp on morals and ethics and the difference between the two. Overall, I was impressed with most peoples' comfort level in a new group setting.

Socratic Seminar Recap

After watching today's discussions, I was neither disappointed nor impressed.  It was our first socratic of the year so I didn't expect too much.  Both groups had strong moments where the discussion flowed smoothly and insights followed insights, but there was a lot more silence misdirection than there should have been.  I don't believe everybody spoke, but those who did speak didn't fully work on expanding the conversation.  It seemed that each topic went only one way and there was not a lot of connections made between topics.  I didn't hear much about what we've been learning in class.  I heard more of people's strong opinions and not a lot about stuff we learned from the past 3 documentaries we have watched.  I'd say that everybody needs to work on thinking evidence for every claim they make and instead of introducing claim after claim, people need to contribute to others ideas and expand on those before introducing a new idea.

Socratic Feedback

Here are my notes:

• The conversation(s) were somewhat choppy. Instead of building off of what peers said, the conversation started and stopped with new questions frequently being proposed (more towards the beginning but it was present throughout).
• Good use of examples to support arguments and points.
• Broader discussion than we (group one) had. Covered more ground and focused less on the things we discussed.

So basically, I noticed the conversation didn't flow as well as it could have. Kinda had awkward pauses that ended once a new question was added. Other than that, the group used good examples and covered lots of different things, so, all-in-all, the discussion was beneficial towards the betterment of everyone's understanding of ethics and morals.

Socratic Discussion Feedback

I think that overall the discussion in both groups was lacking strong insight. Most of the people in my group seemed to constantly state the same thing over and over again about if ethics and morals were conditional or not. In the second group I feel like their conversation was also a little off topic, but they offered up some interesting aspects that my group did not. For example, Ivonne brought up the idea about cyber-bullying and how easy it is to avoid by simply logging out of the account or deleting it. To me, it seems as simple as that as well, but to some people they truly don't understand how having an account where you can cyber bully others and receive hate as well is dangerous to everyone involved. A lot of people do not realize that when they are sending things anonymously online that they are unethical because they are hiding themselves behind the "anonymous" screen. A lot of times these people can be in denial and not even think about how what they are doing is unethical. I think that happens with a lot of other things as well and is truly the root of why people break moral and ethical obligations so easily, which is because they simply do not even realize they are breaking these obligations. Also mentioned in the second discussion which I found interesting was that some people stated that they really didn't think that they had strong morals and ethics. What I got from this is another reason why I think people break these obligations, which is because they are not even aware of what their moral and ethical standards are to begin with, so they do not think about them when it comes to making these types of decisions. Or, on the other hand, they do not think they have these moral and ethical standards because it seems too simple to them, like obviously they wouldn't cheat or lie because that's just not okay, so they aren't even realizing that, that is actually their morals they are following. Overall I think the second group had more to offer to the discussion because they had more insightful things to say that got me thinking.

Deflategate

As a football fan and player, I have been following the news of Tom Brady’s possible suspension.  Whether or not Brady did deflate the footballs at a playoff game, Roger Goodell, the NFL commissioner, should not be the only person in charge of deciding if Brady will be suspended. I am glad that this case has finally been brought to the attention of a federal judge.  In any type of organization as large as the National Football League (NFL), legal decisions should not be based on one man’s opinion.  I believe this case along with many others are part of a larger issue, which is how legal situations are handled in the NFL.

When Ray Rice, the Baltimore Ravens running back, was accused of domestic violence last year, Goodell only initially suspended him two games.  When the video of Rice violently attacking his wife in a hotel elevator was released to the public, Goodell changed his punishment.  I believe Goodell’s original intentions were to favor the Ravens and lessen the severity of Rice’s actions.  But, how is this fair? It is never okay for any man to beat his wife, and excuses shouldn’t be made for professional athletes.  The NFL should really think about creating a committee, of both males and females, to handle legal situations or have them all handled by outsiders like the Brady case is now. 

You can read more about both cases in the following articles: 

http://news.yahoo.com/nfls-brady-back-court-fight-deflategate-suspension-143147658--nfl.html

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/11551518/how-ray-rice-scandal-unfolded-baltimore-ravens-roger-goodell-nfl

Group Seminar Discussion

They talked about if different people should get different consequences for breaking about the same sort of ethical thing. Such as a teacher lying about a student's grade vs a student cheating on a test. I think yes because they are both varying degrees of unethical. Also there is some sense of security to be made as well as bonds of trust between the teacher and the student. We all follow the same ethics but maybe not morals. Ethics creates fairness for everyone. Morals come from role models but also from trial and error and what the consequences are. TV and internet can sometimes create better morals but also create worse morals.

The Weighted Difference

“The Weight of The Nation” documentary made me think carefully about my eating habits and exercise routine. I have realized in the last few years that my metabolism has started to slow down and weight has been more easily gained. Even though it isn’t as likely for adults who weren’t obese as children to become obese as adults it’s still something that worries me in the back of my mind. Like one woman said, gaining 3 pounds in one year isn’t that big of a deal, but if you gain 3 pounds every year for a decade that 30 pounds. That’s a huge difference. How does that weight gain affect your health? Half of my family is extremely overweight and I constantly worry about their future health problems. Would it be morally respectful to encourage my cousin to lose weight if it meant that she would be healthier in the long rong? Or would she take it offensively and my concern would hinder our friendship?