Civics Issues 2

In the last edition of my civics issues blog, I posed a question that would set up the arguments for and against affirmative action. Affirmative action is an issue that has produced many polarized opinions around it. At the core of the issue is the question I asked in my last blog: Is it constitutional to admit or deny someone to a university ONLY because of their race? This question is very important and has no simple answer. There are many sides to this issue and I hope to cover them all.

 

Those in favor of affirmative action have many valid arguments for it and raise many important questions. If we look at the demographics of the job markets in this country, we see what many would consider a sizeable problem. Minority groups such as African Americans and Latinos are desperately underrepresented in professions that require extensive schooling.  If we look at doctors across the United States we see that over half of all doctors are white, while less than ten percent of all doctors are African American or Hispanic combined. Proponents of affirmative action see the roots of this problem in the decades of social and political infrastructure contaminated by racism.  Our country has not recovered completely from the pre-civil rights era of blatant educational and occupational racism.  Those in favor of affirmative action believe that by evening out the racial ratio in college admissions, and then the problem of the racial imbalance in the job market will be “fixed”.

 

The opposing viewpoint of this is one of far less optimism.  I, and opponents of affirmative action, do not believe this idyllic “fix” for the racial ratio problem is the right solution. At the surface, it may seem like a good idea to balance the race problem in universities in order to balance the job market in the future, but I see many problems in this. This solution fails to recognize why colleges and universities would be overrepresented by whites if affirmative action didn’t exist. The reason why the ratio of whites to minorities in colleges is not representative of the population as a whole is because primary education is not available or of a high quality to everyone and minority races tend to be more deprived of a solid primary education base than whites. The way I see it, there are three steps in this race problem; first we have primary education, then college level education, and finally the job markets. The reason why universities are out of racial balance is because in general, and I emphasize “in general”, whites have more access to a quality primary education than minorities. This then means more whites and qualified to enter into universities and then the job markets. I believe this is a huge problem, but does not get fixed at the university level. In order to truly level the playing field for all races, we must invest in our primary education system. Inner city schools are typically majority African American, and have a much higher drop out rate in high school. If we fix the primary education system in this country, then we can work our way up. “Fixing” the problem at the university level doesn’t actually fix anything. It helps cover up the problem, but does not address the true issue here. To change the infrastructure, we need to start at the bottom and work up. We cannot start in the middle.

 

 

 

Another aspect of the argument in favor of affirmative action in college is the notion of university cultural diversity. Those in favor believe that colleges have the right to consider race as a factor for admission because a culturally diverse environment fosters the educational environment, thus promoting the educational system as a whole.

 

This is been shown to be true in that a culturally diverse educational environment tends to produce more culturally diverse graduates and eventually employees. However, the problem I have with this is the lack of distinction between race and culture. Last blog I talked about the Supreme Court cases and how the Court upheld the right of a college to foster a culturally diverse environment. My question is: Who is to say that racial differences equates to cultural differences? The country is full of many different people from a nearly infinite number of social and cultural backgrounds. Each community and town in the country has a different sub-culture unique to those people that live there.  So is it justifiable to say that my neighbor who is African American and who has had the same upbringing as my white self, and comes from the same cultural subset of this country as me is more “diverse” simply because of the color of my skin? This is my biggest problem. Race is not a reliable indicator of cultural diversity in many cases and colleges should look for other ways to screen out culturally diverse people to admit.

 

Next blog I will talk more about the Supreme Court case coming up and the details about it. But I will leave you with another question: Do you think, by your own college experience, that racial diversity within a college population creates a culturally diverse learning environment?

 

 

Sources:

 

Procon.org

Nytimes.com

Civilrights.org

WIP 5

To be a good moderator, I think it is most important that the moderator lets each viewpoint on an issue be given equal weight in terms of focus in the conversation. I think it is more important that the moderator focus on evening out time spent talking on each viewpoint than time spent talking by each person. Sometimes unpopular viewpoints get underrepresented by the conversation and its important for the moderator to not let a popular viewpoint take over the conversation. That said, the point of the deliberation will ultimately be to reach some sort of understanding or consensus. Eventually it will be the moderator’s job to steer the conversation away from simply expressing ideas, to finding compromises and solutions. My hope is that this will all happen naturally in a deliberation, but if that were the case then there would be no need for moderators. I think its most important for the moderator to keep the conversation balanced well, and moving in the right direction. In some cases, that may mean a lot of intervention, while other deliberations may require less interference. I’ll just have to wait and see for next week. Maybe after next week, my philosophy will be different.

2013: A Look Ahead

I debated whether or not I should write a blog this week about a chick flick in the theme of Valentines day, but decided instead to look to the future. 2013 is a HUGE year for movies. There are a ton of new movies coming out and I wanted to go over a few that I am looking forward to. Most of them are sequels to movies that came out in the previous year that I am completely stoked for. Hope you all agree. Here it goes:

 

1. Star Trek: Into Darkness     May 17th

I absolutely loved the new version of Star Trek they made a while back with Chris Pine starring. I think this film was made beautifully with a captivating plot and great special effects. I have been a Star Trek fan my entire life and was able to relate this movie to other Star Trek movies and shows, but I felt it was a good stand alone movie to get people who have never seen a Star Trek film into the series. I really hope this one is as good as the last one.

2. The Great Gatsby     May 10th

The-Great-Gatsby-

First off, if you haven’t read this book, do it. It is a fun and quick read that would be well worth it to read before watching the movie. This one could either be fantastic or a bust. If they stay true to the book, I think it’ll be good. There is only one person I would cast as Gatsby, and that is Leonardo Di Caprio. I love anything with him in it and I hope this follows suit.

3. Hunger Games: Catching Fire     November 22nd

THE-HUNGER-GAMES-CATCHING-FIRE1

Again, this could be blockbuster or bust. I haven’t read the books so I really can’t say what I expect from it. All I know is that the first one was very interesting to me and I hope they build off of that to create something great here. I feel like most people will see this one no matter how good or bad it is. At least see it for Jennifer Lawrence.

4. Monsters University        June 21st

Monster-University-monsters-university-33232617-1680-1050

The original Monsters Inc. came out when we were just kids. I think it very odd that they are releasing a new one now, but it has a lot of potential. Monsters Inc. was one of the classics from Disney Pixar and appealed to a wide audience. The problem with waiting so long is that now they have to make it appealing to us (people who saw the first one as kids and are now considerably older) and kids. I hope they do this well and this is a hit.

5. Iron Man 3     May 3rd

iron_man_3_official-wide

The only thing this movie needs in order to be successful is a bunch of crap blowing up, and Robert Downey Jr. being all sassy (while blowing crap up). That said, it would be nice if they continued the plot off the last Iron Man and the Avengers movie to create this complex network of comic book Avengers movies. I didn’t like the 2nd one as much as the 1st, so I hope they go back to the blockbuster feel of the 1st.

 

Anyways, these are just my top five movies coming out this year. Let me know what you guys are excited for!

Honorable Mention: Man of Steel, Captain Phillips, Much Ado About Nothing

 

Skyfall does not win at all

In a little more than a week, the latest installment of the James Bond series will be released to DVD for your viewing pleasure. Except viewing this film was anything but pleasurable. Lets get a little background here. The James Bond series was recharged with the release of the film Casino Royale starring a new actor to play Bond: Daniel Craig. Craig acted the Bond part perfectly making Casino Royale an instant hit. Then came the mediocrity of Quantum of Solace that was really a plot set up movie. Everyone thought the next Bond movie would be in-your-face and fantastic. But this movie was simply disappointing.

skyfall-ceasefire-magazine

The best way I could describe how this movie failed was that it simply wasn’t a James Bond film. It WAS a good action film, just not a James Bond film. Lets look at what makes a movie uniquely Bond: It needs a dark villain who tries to gain money or power somehow. It needs Bond to come up with a plan that outsmarts the villain. Bond needs to be hardcore, confident, and unwavering in his demeanor. And above all, there needs to be a Bond girl (I am not sexist by promoting this. I am simply stating that the movie is geared toward the male audience and based on every single other Bond movie, a Bond girl is to be expected.) Why did this movie fail in my mind? It didn’t do ANY of this. 1. The villain’s character was just made to spite Bond, and he was not witty at all. He had no motives or depth or plan to take over the world. 2. Half the movie was about Bond’s internal struggle with his past and his duty to his country. I don’t care what Bond is struggling with on the inside, I just want to see him take out the bad guys. 3. Bond is outsmarted at every turn and is beat down by the villain. Bond should never be portrayed as vulnerable, and the “master plan” to catch the villain should not be to just sit and wait and shoot him. 4. There was no strong female character attached to Bond, therefore there was no romance, a key element of every Bond movie.

Skyfall-wallpaper

All said and done, I was terribly disappointed by this movie and was hoping for a lot more out of it. Leaving the theater, I did not feel as though I had just watched a movie that belonged to a series I know and love. At best, Skyfall was a decent action movie with lots of explosions and a cool intro song by Adele. If for some reason you were on the fence about the movie and were going to wait until it came out, you are just wasting your time. I would not recommend this to anyone who wanted to watch a James Bond movie.

 

Grade: D+

Verdict: If you weren’t excited enough about this movie when it came out to see it right away, don’t see it at all. Please.