RSS Feed

‘RCL’ Category

  1. “The topic that shall not be named”

    January 17, 2013 by Lauren Parrott

    The Rock Institute at Penn State offers their readers an intro into the topic of race by outlining their ultimate goals in discussing the topic. In this article they propose a call to action to create an equal society. One of their initiatives includes promoting the recruitment, retention, and graduation of racial minorities both at the graduate and undergraduate levels.

    At first glance, this goal sounds like a positive equalizer. However, the issue is more complex than that. It can be argued that racism can be considered any response that classifies people on the basis of race. What people neglect to consider is that this can include positive responses. Granted, this viewpoint is highly debatable.

    In an attempt to equalize society, many have been trying to “level the playing field” in a way. However, this leaves us with difficult questions; is treating one group differently a contradictory practice? Is it necessary to assist these minorities? Or are we merely pointing out their differences?

    Morgan Freeman once stated, “How are we going to get rid of racism? Stop talking about it!”

    Is this statement true? If society stops discussing race, will is cease to be an issue? Or is this concept too deeply rooted in our culture?

    The Rock institute makes the claim that this theory is too integrated into the structure of our society to be simply forgotten.  They assert that the idea of race has been held onto by social constraints and inequalities in the distribution of wealth, of health resources, and of educational opportunities.

    This leaves us with the questions; Are these inequalities divided by race?

    Is there a fair way to make them equal?

    Or in an effort to make things equal, are we encouraging the distinctions between races?

     

     

    INFO:

    http://rockblogs.psu.edu/race/2010/09/new-design-launched-using-movable-type.html

    http://www.wrko.com/blog/todd/morgan-freeman-stop-talking-about-race

    Category RCL | Tags: ,, | 3 Comments

  2. Negative Image

    December 6, 2012 by Lauren Parrott

    Recently, one of our sororities on campus made a poor decision. Undoubtedly, many people have heard about The Nu Gamma’s Mexican-themed party. A picture of the girls dressed up in sombreros and ponchos has sparked criticism and a considerable amount of backlash. The picture portrayed many offensive and inappropriate stereotypes; including signs that read, “will mow grass for weed” and “I don’t cut grass, I smoke it.”

    As a Penn Stater it is important to remember that all of our actions are under the microscope. Everything that we do makes an argument for our school, whether positive or negative. The community aspect of Penn State has been, at times, our downfall. The representatives of our community have not been casting Penn State in a positive light. However, it is important for us as a whole to remember how we represent the unit.

    Yesterday I was stopped by a reporter and a camera crew that asked me if I knew what happened. They introduced themselves as a crew from the NBC today show. He asked if he could get my reaction for the segment about the picture, and I told him no.

     

    At the time I was not prepared to be the voice of our school. I did not want to be a negative representation. Our school’s image needs to be handled delicately. We, as a community, need to remember that what we do is not just a reflection of ourselves but the entire school. I would remind everyone to be conscious of the argument that you are making.

    Category RCL | Tags: ,, | No Comments

  3. The Lost Art of Democratic Debate

    November 14, 2012 by Lauren Parrott

    In the spirit of Ted talks, I recently watched a video called “The Lost Art of Democratic Debate” by Michael Sandel, a political philosophy professor from Harvard. In this speech he discusses the way people analyze and come to solutions to arguments. He does not discuss political banter as much as he examines the nature of how people decide their stance on an isuue.

    He quotes Aristotle saying, “Justice is giving people what they deserve.” That is an easy enough concept to grasp, however, he goes on to say that the difficult part is determining who deserves what, and why they deserve it. To know the answer to this, Sandel claims that we must first decide on the purpose of the action or the thing in question.

    Ultimately, what we need to consider are the essential qualities of the activity, and the qualities in said activity that are worth honoring. Using the example of abortion; we begin by trying to define the underlying conflict regarding human life. One stance takes the position that an unborn fetus is a human life and that, in itself, is worth preserving. However, the other stance holds that the essential quality is the women’s right to make decisions for their own body. Obviously there are many other positions on the topic and ways of interpretation; however, it does demonstrate Aristotle’s formation of a democratic debate.

    The Ted talk, offered valid points on how people examine controversy and reach the conclusions that they do. However, the title did seem misleading.

    Category RCL | Tags: ,,, | No Comments

  4. Vote for Christopher Lee (not Saruman)

    November 8, 2012 by Lauren Parrott

    Political candidates rely on rhetoric to win them elections. It doesn’t matter what their view is if they can’t convey their message in an articulate and persuasive way.

    This past Tuesday I went to the HUB to vote. I was walking to the polls when I was handed a sheet of paper by a nice looking old man. Apparently he was running for state representative. My initial reaction was that he was smart in targeting us. As college kids, we were probably the largest group with the least interest in whoever won the position he was vying for, and therefore easier to influence.  However, the pamphlet he handed me was a turn-off. The entire sheet was just a list of reasons not to vote for the other candidate; when I wanted to know what he supported.

    In a little box he listed his “values,” which included, clean water, clean elections, women’s rights, and Penn State. He might as well have added puppies and world peace to his “values.”

    After the election, I did some more research on him to see what I could find out. It took me nearly an hour to find out that he was a democrat. His entire election was based off of telling us how awful the “incumbent” was. If he ever talked about himself it was in overreaching claims. For example, the pamphlet said, “He’s on our side” and “Lee supports our values.”

    Persuasion isn’t an easy task. This candidate just seemed to be trying too hard to warrant any believability. Needless to say, he lost.

     

    Category RCL | Tags: ,,,, | No Comments

  5. Illegal Texting

    November 1, 2012 by Lauren Parrott

    For many people, election time is a stress-inducing flurry of marketing campaigns. People send out letters, call peoples’ homes, and promote commercials. However, there is one thing that they can’t do: text.

    Federal Law generally prohibits sending text messages to anyone who hasn’t given prior consent. This is supposed to discourage spamming text messages that cost people money if they don’t have an unlimited texting plan.

    However, one Virginia marketing and polling firm made efforts to get around this law. They set up questionable websites which sent out anti-Obama text messages. To get around the law, they technically sent out emails that showed up as text messages for people who link their phones with their emails.

    The company, ccAdvertising, is now being targeted by the media and actions are being taken to close this loop hole. CcAdvertising has a history of sending questionable texts and has been sued for this exact action.

    It is actually fascinating to see the lengths that people will go to in order to promote their ideas and their choice in candidate. Are text messages so much more effective that it warrants breaking the law?

    Here is one of those groundbreaking texts, “Medicare goes bankrupt in 4000 days while Obama plays politics with senior health.”

    How reliable is this argument? I wouldn’t put much faith in a statistic from an unknown source. Even with an outsider’s perspective, I can’t imagine that an advertising company can predict what will happen 11 years from now.

    Their argument is weak and it appears like a lot of work to go through to make claims so close to the election. Also, text messages in general are a less formal and less reliable form of rhetoric than a letter or an email. Granted, their message did get distributed, just not in the most favorable light.

    Category RCL | Tags: ,,,, | No Comments

Skip to toolbar