Shannon Rafferty E-Portfolio

This I Believe

Click the link above to open podcast.

This assignment asked students to choose something they believe in strongly and write an essay and record a podcast about it.

I am grateful for both the negative and positive events that have occurred in my life so far. Each one has brought me to where I am today, and taught me a valuable life lesson. Without all the bad times, we would not be able to have the great times. I believe everything happens for a reason. Although we may not always see it at the time, every event in our lives has a purpose. Each mishap or mistake makes us stronger and wiser, and brings us closer to where we are meant to be.

I first learned this lesson while on a retreat my senior year of high school. One of the topics discussed was that each step in our lives has a purpose and that every event in our past makes up who we are today. At this time I had an “Aha!” moment because this lesson resonated with me and changed the way I looked at things. A little later in my senior year I would have to realize that sometimes this lesson can be tough.

When I was applying to colleges in the fall of my senior year, one of my top choices was University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I knew this was a reach for me and I worked hard to be able to get in. Unfortunately, the envelope I got back in the mail was small and did not contain an acceptance letter. At the time I was extremely upset and did not know what to do because it had been my first choice school. I then got my acceptance letter from Penn State, and I forgot all about UNC. I fell in love with the school spirit at Penn State and felt a sense of belonging as soon as I stepped on campus. I didn’t get into UNC because Penn State was a much better fit for me. I love PSU and I realize that I was meant to be here. If I had gone to UNC I would not have been able to experience Penn State football games, or joined my sorority, or met the many amazing people that I call my friends.

No matter how small an experience may seem, each one brings us closer to where we are supposed to end up. Whether they be negative or positive, they are essential to shaping our life experiences and our personalities. I am who I am today because of all the things that have happened in my past, and I will continue to learn and grow as I have new experiences in the future. I have learned over time that everything truly does happen for a reason, there are no coincidences. Each event in our lives has a purpose and teaches us something valuable.

This assignment required students to choose a paradigm shift that has taken place and explore the points of change that occurred within the shift. I chose the paradigm shift of women in the workforce.

The sight of a working woman today is not something that causes one to look twice. However, this was not always the case. It was a long struggle for women to get to where they are today, and there is still a long way to go. There were a few momentous occasions throughout history that caused a shift in the way women were viewed as workers, such as the need for workers during World War II, the Equal Pay Act, and the appointment of Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court. Women have made great strides in integrating themselves into the workforce alongside men and continue to do so today.

Throughout much of history, women have been viewed as inferior to men. In the 1800s and early 1900s, women were not allowed to hold the same jobs or positions as men. In 1890, women made up only 5% of all doctors in the United States (“Women’s History in America”). The reason that women were not accepted into many professions was that traditionally they were supposed to marry young and start bearing children. This expectation kept them from going to school and studying to become doctors or lawyers. It also kept women at home doing domestic work and caring for children rather than working outside the home. There was a large increase of working women in 1917 when the U.S. entered World War I (“Women of the Century”). Unfortunately, once the war ended in 1918 many women left their jobs and returned to domestic work, where they stayed for years after.

The jobs that women did occupy at this time were often in terrible factory conditions with meager wages. This reflects the image of women as inferior and undeserving of the same rights and status as men. Eventually women began to tire of being subservient to men and started to yearn for their rights. In the early 1900s strikes and protests began to emerge; women were finally standing up for themselves and asking for improved wages and working conditions (New York Teacher). With the advent of protests one would think that rights would come quickly to prevent violence and more uprisings. Sadly, this was not the case. Women’s rights were slow to come and it would still be many years before they achieved even a semblance of equality to men.

In the 1920s women became more independent and started to slowly gain rights (“Women of the Century”). Women’s suffrage was finally granted in 1920, which was a huge step towards equality for men and women. For the first time, women were able to vote on issues that mattered to them, which was extremely important in order to gain more rights. In 1923, the Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced, although it would not be passed in Congress until almost fifty years later. Despite these steps of progress, the Great Depression caused some setbacks. Due to the large numbers of unemployment, women were discouraged from “taking jobs” away from men (“Women of the Century). Some states even went so far as to pass laws prohibiting the hiring of women. World War II began quickly after this which greatly increased the number of women in the work force.

World War II was the first time that women were greatly encouraged to join the workforce. Nearly 6 million women took industrial jobs such as steel plants, shipyards, and lumber mills at the urging of the government and media (“Women of the Century”). Because the men were away fighting in the war, these jobs needed filling. Between 1940 and 1945 the number of women in the workforce increased from 25 to 36 percent. At the start of the war, only minority and lower class women took over these jobs (Sorenson). Eventually the need for more women workers was realized and married women and mothers were recruited. At this point in time, a major shift took place in the way women were viewed. It was now not only accepted, but also encouraged for women to have jobs outside of the home. Once they started these jobs, women began to actually enjoy them. They were able to learn new skills, contribute to the public good, and prove they could perform the same duties as men. Doing “men’s work” was crucial to this paradigm shift—it made men and women realize that women were capable of so much more than childrearing and homemaking. Unfortunately these lessons did not stick after the end of WWII.

With the end of the war and the beginning of the 1950s, women returned to the realm of domesticity (Sorenson). Many employers laid off their women employees and told them to return home. Those that did stay in the workforce were forced into lower-paying, traditionally female jobs. Once again the separate spheres for males and females were adopted, with men being the breadwinners and women the homemakers. Women who wanted to pursue a career were harshly criticized and referred to as “unlovely women,” “suffering from penis envy,” “ridden with guilt complexes,” or “man-hating” (“Women and Work After World War II). The thought was that these women were jealous of men and were trying to steal jobs from them. Tupperware parties rose as a solution to this issue. By joining the “Tupperware family” women could work without abandoning their own family. It gave them work they could do from home with flexible schedules, and it also did not have to be called work, it was simply throwing parties. Selling Tupperware gave women the income without being subjected to the stigma.

The 1960s brought some huge improvements for women. On June 10, 1963, Congress passed the Equal Pay Act (New York Teacher). This act made it illegal for employers to pay women less than what a man would receive for the same work. Women’s cries for equality were finally beginning to be heard and a shift in thinking was on its way. Another huge step for equality was made with the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Within this bill was a provision banning discrimination based on sex (“Women of the Century”). The 1960s also brought about the creation of the National Organization for Women (NOW). “NOW seeks to end sexual discrimination, especially in the workplace, by means of legislative lobbying, litigation, and public demonstrations” (New York Teacher). Throughout the 1960s more and more women were entering the workforce. By 1969, 43 percent of women were in the workforce as compared to 25 percent in 1940 (“Women of the Century”). This decade was extremely important in bringing about women’s rights and equality; there were many great advances that would last for years to come.

A shift in thinking was beginning to take place. It was becoming more and more accepted for women to work outside the home, and many women were taking advantage of this phenomenon. From the 1960s on, the percentage of women in the workforce rose without many significant drops. Congress continued to grant women rights, slowly but surely. Finally, women were beginning to see equality become a reality rather than a dream.

One event that demonstrated just how far women had come was the appointment of Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court. In 1981 she became the first woman to be appointed to a position on the bench (New York Teacher). Many people believed women had finally shattered the glass ceiling, although this is not entirely true (“The Glass Ceiling”). Her appointment did create great strides in proving that women can do the same work as men, but it did not completely eradicate all stereotypes and stigmas attached to working women. Unfortunately, the glass ceiling still exists today.

Women are well on their way to breaking through the glass ceiling but unfortunately there are still some barriers in place. Women are presumed to be less dedicated to their jobs, which means they must show more achievement than men in order to move up (“The Glass Ceiling”). Women on average earn only 78 percent of what men earn (United States Census Bureau). In 2011, 58.1 percent of women were in the labor force, as compared to 70.5 percent of men (“Statistical Overview of Women in the Workforce”). These discrepancies are evidence the glass ceiling has not yet been broken. Although women today are no longer looked down upon for having careers, they are still kept at a lower level than men. There has been a huge paradigm shift in the view of women in the workforce in the last century, but there is still more change that needs to be made.

Through the hard work of millions of women, it is possible for women today to have jobs and careers. Leaps and bounds have been made in the way of getting women equality in the workplace, and there are countless women throughout the course of history to thank for that. Through war and prosperity, discrimination and hardship, women have persevered and fought a hard battle for their rights. Looking back at how women were viewed in the early 1900s, it is clear that a huge paradigm shift took place, for the better. Without this shift, today’s society would still restrict women to domestic chores and would not allow them to work to their full potential.

Works Cited

“The Glass Ceiling”. Nytimes.com. The New York Times. 8 October 2011. Web. 24 October 2012.

New York Teacher. “Women’s Labor History Timeline: 1765- Present Day”. Nysut.org. NYSUT: A Union of Professionals. 3 March 2009. Web. 24 October 2012.

Sorenson, Aja. “The Image and Reality of Women who Worked During World War II”. Www.nps.gov. National Park Service. Web. 1 November 2012.

“Statistical Overview of Women in the Workplace”. www.catalyst.org. Catalyst. 19 June 2012. Web. 1 November 2012.

United States Census Bureau. “Women in the Workforce”. Census.gov. United States Census Bureau. Web. 24 October 2012.

“Women and Work After World War II”. www.pbs.org. PBS. Web. 31 October 2012.

“Women of the Century”. School.discoveryeducation.com. Discovery Education. Web. 31 October 2012.

“Women’s History in America”. www.wic.org. Women’s International Center. Web. 1 November 2012.

This assignment instructed students to write a persuasive essay which argues for a specific viewpoint or a specific action to be taken on a societal issue. I argued for a specific stance to be taken on the issue of the death penalty.

     The audience for this essay is the opinion section of the Sunday New York Times. This publication has a wide readership. The largest percentage of readers are between the ages of 35 and 44, and the majority of readers have either a college degree or a graduate degree. This essay argues for a question of value.

The death penalty is an issue that has the United States quite divided. While there are many supporters of it, there is also a large amount of opposition. Currently, there are thirty-three states in which the death penalty is legal and seventeen states that have abolished it (Death Penalty Information Center). I believe the death penalty should be legal throughout the nation. There are many reasons as to why I believe the death penalty should be legalized in all states, including deterrence, retribution, and morality; and because opposing arguments do not hold up, I will refute the ideas that the death penalty is unconstitutional, irrevocable mistakes are made, and that there is a disproportionality of race and income level.

The use of capital punishment greatly deters citizens from committing crimes such as murder. Many people’s greatest fear is death; therefore if they know that death is a possible consequence for their actions, they are less likely to perform such actions. Ernest van den Haag, a professor at Fordham University, wrote about the issue of deterrence:

“…capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because         people fear death more than anything else. They fear most death deliberately inflicted by law and scheduled by the courts….Hence, the threat of the death penalty may deter some murderers who otherwise might not have been deterred. And surely the death penalty is the only penalty that could deter prisoners already serving a life sentence and tempted to kill a guard, or offenders about to be arrested and facing a life sentence.” (Death Penalty Curricula for High School)

van den Haag brings forth the argument that capital punishment is the strongest deterrent society has against murder, which has been proven in many studies. “Since society has the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter murder…” (Death Penalty Curricula for High School). In a study conducted by Isaac Ehrlich in 1973, it was found that for each execution of a criminal seven potential victim’s lives were saved (Death Penalty Curricula for High School). This was due to other possible murderers being deterred from committing murder after realizing thatother criminals are executed for their crimes. Ehrlich’s argument was also backed up by studies following his that had similar results. Capital punishment also acts as a deterrent for recidivism (the rate at which previously convicted criminals return to committing crimes after being released); if the criminal is executed he has no opportunity to commit crimes again. Some may argue that there is not enough concrete evidence to use deterrence as an argument for the death penalty. The reason some evidence may be inconclusive is that the death penalty often takes a while to be carried out; some prisoners sit on death row for years before being executed. This can influence the effectiveness of deterrence because punishments that are carried out swiftly are better examples to others. Although the death penalty is already effective at deterring possible criminals, it would be even more effective if the legal process were carried out more quickly instead of having inmates on death row for years.

The death penalty also carries out retribution justly. “Deserved punishment protects society morally by restoring this just order, making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done.” (Budziszewski). When someone commits a crime it disturbs the order of society; these crimes take away lives, peace, and liberties from society. Giving the death penalty as a punishment simply restores order to society and adequately punishes the criminal for his wrongdoing. Retribution also serves justice for murder victims and their families. Some may see this as revenge, but this retribution is not motivated by malice, rather it is motivated by the need for justice and the principle of lex talionis (“an eye for an eye”) (Green). This lack of malice is proven in the simple definition of retribution: “retribution is a state sponsored, rational response to criminality that is justified given that the state is the victim when a crime occurs” (“Justifications for Capital Punishment). The death penalty puts the scales of justice back in balance after they were unfairly tipped towards the criminal.

The morality of the death penalty has been hotly debated for many years. Those opposed to the death penalty say that it is immoral for the government to take the life of a citizen under any circumstance. This argument is refuted by Immanuel Kant who put forth the idea that, “a society that is not willing to demand a life of somebody who has taken somebody else’s life is simply immoral” (ProCon.org). It is immoral to not properly punish a person who has committed such a horrendous crime. The criminal is also executed humanely; in no way is he subjected to torture or any form of cruelty. All states that use the death penalty use lethal injection; the days of subjecting a prisoner to hanging or the electric chair are long gone in the US. Inmates are first given a large dose of an anesthetic so they do not feel any pain (Bosner); this proves that the process is made as humane as possible so the inmates do not physically suffer. Although the issue of morality is very personal for many people, it is important to see the facts and realize that capital punishment does take morality into account and therefore is carried out in the best way possible.

The eighth amendment to the United States Constitution prevents cruel and unusual punishment. Many opponents of capital punishment say that execution is cruel and unusual punishment and therefore violates the Constitution. As was stated earlier, the recipient of the death penalty is treated humanely and is not tortured in any way, shape, or form. After the anesthetic is administered the person feels no pain; the only part of the process that could be considered painful is when the IV is inserted, but that is done in hospitals on a daily basis and no one is calling it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the death penalty as constitutional in cases they have presided over. In the case of Furman v. Georgia the court stated, “The punishment of death is not cruel, within the meaning of that word as used in the Constitution. It implies there is something more inhuman and barbarous, than the mere extinguishment of life” (Lowe). The Supreme Court has not found capital punishment to be unconstitutional, and therefore this argument for abolition is invalid.

Another argument put forth by death penalty abolitionists is the possibility of executing an innocent person. Many people that argue this overestimate how often this happens, it is an extremely rare occurrence and has not happened since the death penalty was reintroduced in 1976. Steven D. Stewart, the Prosecuting Attorney for Clark County Indiana, very effectively refutes this argument:

“…No system of justice can produce results which are 100% certain all the time. Mistakes will be made in any system which relies upon human testimony for proof. We should be vigilant to uncover and avoid such mistakes. Our system of justice rightfully demands a higher standard for death penalty cases. However, the risk of making a mistake with the extraordinary due process applied in death penalty cases is very small, and there is no credible evidence to show that any innocent persons have been executed at least since the death penalty was reactivated in 1976…The inevitability of a mistake should not serve as grounds to eliminate the death penalty any more than the risk of having a fatal wreck should make automobiles illegal…” (ProCon.org)

Stewart points out that death penalty cases are held to a much higher standard. Due process in these cases takes much longer so that the court can be absolutely sure that the person is guilty before sentencing him to execution. This helps to eliminate any errors that could lead to executing the wrong person. He also points out that although there is a small possibility for mistakes to be made, this does not mean capital punishment should be abolished. If everything that had the potential for harmful mistakes were outlawed, society would be extremely crippled.

It is true that there is disproportionality when it comes to the races and classes that most frequently receive the death penalty. It has been proven that minorities and those with lower income levels are overrepresented on death row. This is not due to discrimination; this is due to the higher rate at which these groups commit crime (ProCon.org). It has been argued that poverty breeds criminality; if this is true then it makes sense that those at a lower income level would more frequently be sentenced to execution than those at higher income levels (ProCon.org). It has also been proven that minorities are disproportionately poor, and therefore they would also be more likely to receive the death penalty. Ernest van den Haag said it best:

“Punishments are imposed on persons, not on…economic groups. Guilt is personal. The only relevant question is: does the person to be executed deserve the punishment? Whether or not others deserved the same punishment, whatever the economic or racial group, have avoided execution is irrelevant.” (ProCon.org)

It does not matter what race or economic status a person is, if he is guilty he must receive the appropriate punishment, which in some cases may be the death penalty.

Capital punishment can be a difficult topic to approach because people tend to have extreme views on it. The death penalty is an asset to society; it deters potential criminals as well as serves retribution to criminals, and is in no way immoral. The arguments against the death penalty often do not hold up when examined more closely. It is important that the nation is united on this issue, rather than having some states use capital punishment while others do not. The death penalty can be an extremely useful tool in sentencing criminals that have committed some of the worst crimes known to society. It is imperative that we begin to pass legislation making capital punishment legal throughout the United States so that justice can be served properly.

Works Cited

Bosner, Kevin. “How Lethal Injection Works.” How Stuff Works. Web. 29 March 2013. <http://people.howstuffworks.com/lethal-injection5.htm>

Budziszewski, J. “Capital Punishment: The Case for Justice.” OrthodoxyToday.org.                     August 2004. Web. 29 March 2013. <http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/BudziszewskiPunishment.php>

Death Penalty Curricula for High School. “The Death Penalty Prevents Future Murders: Agree.” Michigan State University Comm Tech Lab & Death Penalty Information Center. Web. 30 March 2013. <http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/node/6?>

Death Penalty Information Center. “States With and Without the Death Penalty”. Death Penalty Information Center. 2013. Web. 28 March 2013.                                                            <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty>

Green, Melissa S. “The Death Penalty: Specific Issues.” Justice Center, University of                    Alaska Anchorage. 24 March 2005. Web. 28 March 2013.                                                            <http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/death/issues.html>

“Justifications for Capital Punishment.” Justiceblind.com. Web. 30 March 2013.                          <http://www.justiceblind.com/death/dpsupport.html>

Lowe, Wesley. “Pro Death Penalty Webpage.” Wesleylowe.com. Web. 30 March 2013. <http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html>

ProCon.org. ProCon.org. Web. 28 March 2013. <procon.org>

YouTube video exploring the John F. Kennedy assassination.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d0BLBRR7VI&feature=youtu.be

This was a group project in which students were instructed to create a video exploring a controversial issue. My group chose the conspiracy theories surrounding the John F. Kennedy assassination.

Restore the Shore

Click the link to open the photo essay.

This assignment asked students to choose a cause they are passionate about and use any medium they wished to advocate for it. I chose the Restore the Shore organization that works to assist those in New Jersey affected by Hurricane Sandy. This cause is very close to my heart because I am from the shore area of New Jersey and many areas around me were hit hard by the hurricane.