Advocacy Project Memo

For my advocacy project I decided to do something different from my issue brief, however, it is closely related to the topic of my civic issue blog: toxic masculinity. In my project, I introduce the topic by looking at Gillette’s “The Best Men Can Be” video, in which Gillette shows many harmful habits and behaviors that men have historically taken on. However, the video received terrible backlash, mainly because men did not like hearing that their current behavior is a function of toxic masculinity or simply poor standards. As a result, I chose to create a photo essay in which I feature many different ways in which men can improve. By choosing this method, I am directly trying to connect with the same men who wrote off the Gillette video. Some of these men clearly felt threatened by the vast amount of critique posed by Gillette. By including small, measurable ways of improving as a man, I am helping men make small steps to veer from toxic masculinity. In addition, the essay serves as a resource for them to use in their path to becoming a better version of themselves.

There is a clear sense of exigence as presented by not only the video itself, but the many social movements including the “#MeToo” movement. Such a need for improvement within our society is clearly prevalent. As a result, there is a dire need for men to become more accountable and present in these social movements. It is time for men to step up to the plate in all facets of society, not just in the way we treat women. As mentioned previously, the paper is meant to recognize the thoughts of men who feel overwhelmed or threatened by the video. It encourages small, meaningful change in areas including sexual and relationship violence, emotional awareness, and awareness of aggression. While Gillette touched on many more topics in their video, these subjects are of utmost important during a time when domestic abuse is an epidemic.

Throughout the project I mention two potential partners, including Men Against Violence as well as Stand for State. Both of these organizations are located at Penn State, but also work under a brand or name that is present across the United States. By mentioning these partners, the essay presents resources for readers who want to become more involved in the topic. Further, it enables readers to make small connections for self bettering as men.

Advocacy Project Partner

For my Advocacy Project I am going to partner with the Global Mental Health Program of Columbia University. Towards the end of my blog post you will find a link to their website. This same link will also feature a link to an advocacy piece they have conducted. Their advocacy piece specifically focuses on masculinity, toxic masculinity, and how men can improve their behavior. The Global Mental Health Program of Columbia University helps tackle issues related to mental health in three main ways: education, training, and research. Mental health has been coming up more and more as people start seeing it as an issue worth talking about. Further, as suicide rates continue to jump upwards, mental health controversy has been on the rise. Media and film are also paying attention to mental health, as shows like 13 Reasons Why are appearing on Netflix and other mediums. Without enabling people to speak up about how they are feeling, mental health issues will continue to leave families and communities devastated. More people are giving their attention to mental health and the various ways in which we can better support across the world.

As a university, Columbia stands as one of many educational institutions which are trying to help solve mental health problems. Their platform is not entirely unique, in that many other groups are attacking the issue from a research perspective. However, their audience is certainly focused towards people who are struggling with mental health problems. In addition, young adults or college students who fall under the same label are of particular emphasis when it comes to the audience.

Some constraints that they may face are certainly posed by the issue of mental health itself. There is only so much you can do for a person who is depressed and there are only so many resources you can supply them with. That being said, research and education almost always have a positive effect no matter how difficult of a problem there is at hand. Other constraints are posed by the funding limitations of mental health research and resources. Without proper funding, advocacy campaigns such as this one are only capable of making change in small capacities.

https://www.cugmhp.org/2019/01/18/masculinitytoxicmasculinitythebestmencanget/

https://www.cugmhp.org/

Issue Brief Draft

Hook:

  • Stories of students and faculty feeling alienated and out of place due to the color of their skin or where they come from.
    • Samia
    • Benji
    • PRCC Director – Carlos Wiley
  • Penn State is satisfied with meeting the bare minimum requirements of diversity initiatives
    • This is symbolized in our long standing love of yelling the “we are” chant which represents a time when the Penn State football team welcomed the first black college athletes. However, at the same time, black students were required to live in a separate, segregated, off-campus location. In short, we have always been and still are numb to the real story of people of color at Penn State. We stop after checking off the boxes instead of digging into the real struggle and disadvantage of the black community in “Happy Valley.”

transition into →

Context and Historical background

Recent history of racism and issues of race relations at PSU

  • Demographics of admissions
    • Compare to other universities
  • Deliberate how widespread of an issue this is
    • Mention affirmative action as an effective means of fighting the issue – but not enough
  • Express sentiment “if you lower the bar enough, you can always clear it.”

THESIS:

Penn State not only fails to meet its diversity initiatives, but needs to improve upon its current requirements to create a more welcoming campus for people of color.

Breakdown of Issue Brief:

Breakdown current diversity plan of 2016-2020:

Goal #1:      Create a Welcoming and Inclusive Campus Climate

  • In what ways is campus not welcoming and inclusive

Goal #2:      Advance and Build a Diverse Student Body

  • Statistics to prove that we are not diverse
  • Pick up on narratives from introduction

Goal #3:      Advance and Build a Diverse Workforce and Management

  • statistics
  • Use paper written by professor on what it means to be black at PSU

Goal #4:      Develop a Curriculum That Fosters United States and International Cultural Competencies

  • Not sure on this one yet

Analyze the success of SMART:

  1. To assist in the recruitment of underrepresented student populations.
  2. To assist the Penn State community, faculty, staff and support services with developing positive relationships within the diverse student body.
  3. To increase retention and graduation rates of minorities by incorporating the use of workshops and conferences focused on student success.
  • Luis and Victoria
    • Two students recruited by SMART
      • How effective was it?
      • How did scholarship play a role?
  • How can SMART be expanded to increase its effect
    • Compare to other diversity programs at schools across the country

Reports and Opinions on PSU Diversity

  • ranked at #1,453 in the nation (College Factual)
  • Dr. Errol A. Henderson reports of racism and discrimination
  • “why from 2010-16 did black students graduate from Penn State at a rate of 70.5 percent when their white counterparts graduated at 87.5 percent?”

Conclusion:

  • Positive note on the growth and inclusion improvements of the past
    • Where we are with gender diversity has come along way → we can have hope in doing the same with racial diversity here at PSU
  • Dr. Errol A. Henderson report quote

https://www.collegian.psu.edu/opinion/letters_to_editor/article_56c889e0-19d6-11e9-918c-4b0acfadb892.html

https://news.psu.edu/story/555134/2019/01/21/campus-life/martin-luther-king-jr-rec-hall-jan-21-1965

Deliberation Reflection

During the Deliberation Nation event, I attended the deliberation titled, “Old MacDonald HAD a farm, but now there’s GMOs: Genetic Engineering and Capitalism.” While I’m still wrapping my brain around the title of their event, I found the deliberation to be extremely informative and overall quite successful. I only have my own deliberation to compare theirs to, however, I walked away with a wealth of information from the event about a topic that I thought I already knew a lot about. GMOs, a publicly discussed issue that has emerged in the last decade, is often known as a subject based in ignorance. Many people falsely believe that GMOs are some chemical modification to their food that is inherently bad. In reality, GMOs present a wide range of positive factors to the food industry worldwide. During the deliberation, the three different groups explained the many effects of GMOs, including nuances that benefits or hurt different communities. Further, they clarified how the law relates to GMOs, and the many disputes between larger companies and more local farmers. While GMOs can present positive benefits to a wide range of communities, small farmers are often victims of industry changes. Also, GMOs can reduce genetic variation amongst species, meaning that diseases or environmental changes are even more detrimental. These are just some of the factors that were introduced by the hosts of the event.

While reflecting, it would be a disservice to not mention the two special guests who were at the deliberation. I cannot remember either of their names, however, two retired professors, one of which who had written a book about GMOs, drove much of the conversation. In areas that they felt were underrepresented in the deliberation, both of them spoke up and brought up invaluable perspectives. Further, they mentioned ongoing research which may not have been readily available to the students who prepared for the event. As a result, the conversation mostly centered between those prompting questions or ideas, and the two professors. Other people certainly chirped in from time to time, bringing in other perspectives, however it was mostly a back-and-forth between the two parties.

I thought that the first approach was lacking, and could have been changed entirely. Their approach was based on the idea that there should be absolutely no GMOs. And while I understand the event was supposed to incorporate three leveled approaches, there was almost no reason to completely ban GMOs. A better approach could have been to seriously regulate GMOs until they are proven to have no drawbacks or issues. The first approach quickly became void in the discussion, making me question whether it even belonged in the event overall.

In conclusion, the deliberation event was a huge success, from which I gained a wide range of informative knowledge. All perspectives were included in the event, and the conversation was particularly rich and authentic due to the two special guests being in attendance.

Brainstorming

Currently, for my “This I Believe” podcast I am considering two main ideas. I’m fairly certain that I will go with my first idea, so I will spend more time explaining that, however, I will still go over my second idea. My first idea talks about the power of opening up or being vulnerable in order to break down barriers and connect with people. This past summer I did reentry work where I helped people reconnect to society after being in jail. The second person I worked with was extremely difficult, mostly because he could tell I came from a completely different world where I did not have to struggle with the problems that he did. There were clear, obvious differences between us and the way we grew up. When we met for the first time, he said to me “I’m not fucking around with some white pussy.”  It certainly caught me off guard, however, his response made complete sense. At the time, it would have made sense to be offended and step away from the situation. Instead, I decided to laugh, explain to him the times in my life where I completely felt like a “pussy” and move the conversation forward from there. Within an hour, we were joking around over breakfast sandwiches and starting to talk about how we could get his life back on track. It was certainly not a miraculous act, but opening up, taking that criticism, and validating his initial thoughts played a key part in breaking down the barrier between us. Beyond the story, I would like to explain other moments where people could take some sleep before becoming defensive. In doing so I believe people can learn from others and better appreciate themselves.  

My second idea is a little more lighthearted, and that might be very well why I choose to write about it instead. I’ll start by explaining the story and then talking about the associated “lesson.” Currently, I have four tattoos, a couple of which are a little goofy and could certainly catch someone off guard. However, they all represent meaningful things to me even if they aren’t the most aesthetically beautiful pieces of body art you have seen. With that being said, I have wondered if they could turn someone away, or worsen a person’s opinion of me. More importantly, I wonder if somewhere out there is my soulmate who would take one look at my tattoos and shut the door before I had a chance to explain why I had them. I say that partially joking, however just this fall I was talking to a girl for about two months and things were going great. But when she learned about my butt tattoo (lol) her skepticism grew massively. Very quickly, we stopped talking after that moment. For the most part, I blameless on her discomfort with my tattoos. In my podcast, I would like to discuss balancing personal wants and opinions with the rest of the world and assumptions of how you could be perceived. Aside from just tattoos, there are plenty of things a person could subscribe to which do not jive with public opinion or expectations.

For my civic issue blogs, I am most interested in talking about how and when some men gain a sense of power or privilege in the world. Instead of talking about the societal factors that give a man privilege, I would like to focus on how it becomes natural for a man to feel comfortable when they are in control or hold a sense of power in the situation. We frequently hear the phrase “male privilege,” and follow up with numerous ways in which society is set up to benefit men. However, it is less common to talk about the more psychological or sociological ways in which men take on habits that are reflective of this.  

Secondly, I would like to talk about the more typically discussed ideas surrounding gender equality. More specifically, this would include various social, political, and economic reasons why we see inequality across gender in the United States. I would like to talk about the most recent improvement in this area and how these examples can be replicated or furthered to improve gender norms in the United States.

LGBTQ Community in Church

For my paradigm shift essay, I plan on writing about how millennial’s perspectives on church have changed. More specifically, for this blog post I will focus on the LGBTQ community, how it has changed within the church, and how churches have changed in order to welcome a group that has largely been excluded from god’s kingdom. To start, it is important to understand that Christian churches across America often use parts of the bible such as Leviticus to condemn homosexuality. The bible reads, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination,” (Chapter 18 verse 22) and “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them,” (Chapter 20 verse 13). Clearly, there is some proclaimed negativity towards those who are gay within the contents of the bible. However, it is up to a church and its people to decide whether this scripture is truly the word of God, and to what extent it should be followed. For all of history, there have been countless accounts of people taking particular parts of the bible and using it for their own purpose or needs. With that being said, each church can create their own ideology surrounding the word of God, as evidenced in the many different forms of church and religious practice.

 

Photo by Angela Jimenez

A pastor of a Lutheran church in Denver, Colorado, Nadia Bolz-Weber, has seen and experienced LGBTQ discrimination within churches all across the world. In response she has been working on a book which will be released in January of 2019, calling for a revolution in the church to longer treat LGBTQ community members with “harmful and antiquated ideas,” (Bolz-Weber). However, while movements like this are occurring all over the world, they are met with conservative ideologies in places like the evangelical church. In short, more conservative people use out-of-context bible passages to back their argument while the LGBTQ+ community use a Christ-like ideology to support them. Stagnation arises in the fact that both arguments are supposedly backed by God, however more liberal minded people would say an old bible passage does not necessarily represent what God would want. Without a progressive stance on social issues, people often leave the church. A historian at Messiah College claims that young people will leave the church if their denomination has a conservative view on something like gay marriage (Ladika). Along with this, abuse scandals within churches, most often catholic churches, frequently feature gay priests sexually abusing youth members of the church. Sexual abuse scandals, while slightly off topic, remain a large issue leading to the decrease in church participation for millennials.

 

Image

Commonplaces Formed within the Opposition

Across many groups like Proud Boys there seems to be a general trend of taking passionate or angry people and sending them in a direction with an undeniable claim. At the root of this passion is a feeling of being persecuted or made out to be the “bad guy.” While Proud Boys stands for policies that are not hand in hand with that of Nazis, their policies  do represent a far-right ideology. Proud Boys want to “close the borders” however, closing the borders is just obscure enough of an idea that it does not inherently support white supremacy or xenophobia, even though many of us immediately think so. As such, they take advantage of a commonplace amongst liberals and anyone who skip a couple steps and denounce them as Nazis or white supremacists. In creating this hostility, they can emerge as a more intelligent group, navigating through false assumptions to support their own agenda.  

Proud Boys member Tattoo

At the same time, Proud Boys relish in this space between a far-right group and a white supremacist group because they draw in a wide range of people. Those who take to this commonplace, this somewhat radical space, can easily join and uptake the ideology of the group. Regardless of the debate as to whether they are a radical group, some people may be drawn to a group that is being dissented by those “crazy liberals.” In a time period where more and more white people are feeling discriminated against, individuals may spring to join a union of people who feels marginalized in the way that they do. In some sense, Donald Trump has continued a trend of white Americans fighting to hold power that is being usurped by new laws and policies. Groups like Proud Boys relish in this fight, this response to national change, and manifest their struggle in the form of a far-right ideology. 

Additionally, people can join who first and foremost want to support the agenda of Proud Boys. Some people may feel like “giving everyone a gun” is extremely important to them and as a result, Proud Boys serves as a perfect place for them to participate in politics. America is full of people who love their guns and want to keep their guns. In developing an ideology that fits a more conservative opinion, Proud Boys draws in a wide range of passionate, right-leaning people. The same thing could be said for their stance on prisons and drugs. By creating general stances, the radicalness of the stance itself becomes less of an issue because more people can tap into the basics of what they are aiming to do. 

Proud Boys creates a space for people who at the very least feel they are political victims of the United States Government and allows them to speak out. In speaking out, they are unified through radical, yet abstract policies that give them an undeniable passion. They may come off as Nazis or white supremacists, but because there is no clear sign of such qualities, they consequently grow from a commonplace of liberal hate and intolerance.  

Is the Criminal Justice System Broken?

I just sat down and watched a video published by the Atlantic called “Is the Criminal Justice System Broken?” in which people give their civic opinion on how our prisons and the justice system are functioning in America. Many of the speakers within the short 3 minute long video are professors or researchers in various areas related to criminal justice, sociology, race relations, and more. What stuck out to me initially was that as each individual discussed the issues at hand, they did not come to any large conclusions quickly. Instead, they logically, step-by-step explained how what we know already could connect to another concept, and then how that concept could connect to something else. While they explained what they knew, their ideas did not discount the good that is present in the criminal justice system and the law force.  The video even started with the an individual named Ray Kelly, a former Commissioner for the NYPD, talking about the good the police force has done in the last 30 years. Rhetorically speaking, it is almost essential from an empathetic standpoint to acknowledge what radical protesters and changemakers often forget. Since this video was published in 2015, we can imagine how deeply passionate people are with regards to fighting police brutality in America. In response, the United States saw a wave of mostly conservative white people supporting police and suggesting that punishments always fit the crime. This argument usually expands to the idea of discounting race and suggesting that there is equality across the criminal justice system. I would argue that the video takes on a moderate perspective of a deeply polar issue in America, allowing for a larger, well-received message to be delivered.

As more realistic ideas are exposed in the video, we see a reevaluation of concepts that might be accepted as true in the world. The video concludes with Ta-Nehisi Coates, National Correspondent of the Atlantic, saying, “I think our criminal justice system is working as intended. It is only broken to the extent that our society is broken.” If he were to stop at the first sentence, watching civil rights advocates would spit out their water and prepare a refutation speech on the spot. However, Coates continues to elaborate and distinguish a need for civic correction as we approach this issue of mass incarceration and injustice. To say that something is broken does not fit the narrative when in reality it’s a fully functional mechanism simply aimed in the wrong direction. I find that some Americans have a tendency to claim some part of society is broken, whether it be jails, or gun laws, or immigration laws. When we work in this mindset that it is broken, instead of misdirection or in need of being repurposed, we end up trying to fight an all too large issue. The saying “Don’t fix it if it ain’t broke” might just perfectly explain the hidden message within the video. Speakers within the video are calling for moderation as we attack governmental institutions far beyond our individual reach. This video is a reality check for the passionate advocates who might be trying to tackle too much at once, but more importantly, in an inefficient way.

Michelle Alexander’s 2017 Drug Reform Speech

When we talk about huge, overarching issues in America or the world, there is often a dire need for change. After horrifying terrorist attacks like the Boston Marathon Bombing, all people from ordinary kids like you and me to politicians in DC find themselves asking “what can we do to stop this?” When school shootings never stop reoccurring across the United States, we collectively go on strike with regards to accepting the norms. Instead, there is a collective to fix some broken part of the system. In issues like this, there is always something agreeably wrong, a bad guy, a force that we can fight. However, when we talk about something drug reform, the discussion is not nearly as unidirectional because we have two major contrasting solutions. For a long time our country has maintained that fighting the war on drugs will be most beneficial, and so our policy has followed suit. But, as years have passed this approach has shifted in lines with atrocities across drug culture and prisons in the United  States. Now our country as a whole is no longer seeing the large body of drug addicts in this country as the “bad guys.”

Michelle Alexander, possibly my favorite person on Earth, spoke at the International Drug Policy Reform Conference in 2017. This speech comes after nearly two decades as serving as a civil rights advocate with a special emphasis on exposing and challenging racial bias in the criminal justice system. She is arguably most famous for her book titled “The New Jim Crow.” And in her work she has come to some startling conclusions, suggesting that our nation’s criminal justice system functions “more like a caste system than a system of crime prevention.” Such a statement is startling for most Americans, and for myself certainly before I read her book. The logic behind the statement is as follows: our country supports both on an infrastructural and small level, policies that put more people of color in prison. Even when studies control for the type and severity of crimes, black people are drastically more vulnerable to being put behind bars. However, the caste system, or this idea of the “new jim crow” becomes incredibly more apparent when you look at the conditions in prisons. Prisoners are subjected to slavery-like conditions in which they are forced to undergo long days of manual labor where they are making next to zero money. Further, this money is heavily taxed, ensuring that prisoners work for a dehumanizingly, next to nothing income. This unpaid labor in combination with black people being inevitably more likely to be jail ensures a process that is far too reminiscent of our country’s never-ending history of taking advantage of black people.

The New Jim Crow

However, Michelle Alexander’s commentary is not driven by some fight against a certain group of people. The exigence of the situation does not derive itself in the same way that gun reform does. Instead Alexander exposes a duality to the exigence of the situation. There is some need to act now, to change what is currently ongoing in our country, however Alexander wants to modify this passion, to suggest another side to what is going on. When she talks about drug reform, a suggestion to our country to focus more on recovery and rehabilitation, rather than some sweeping approach to lock up all drug users, she suggests that racism be at the center of the reform. In some ways, she enlists those who feel passionate, but adds a second rhetorical device in the form something so near-to-heart such as racism, and throwing it into the discussion. She explains how race functions in this movement, articulating, “ If the overwhelming majority of the users and dealers of opioids today were Black rather than white, we wouldn’t have police chiefs competing with each other over whose department is showing more compassion to people struggling with drug addiction or drug abuse,” (Alexander). She asks us to be cognizant of how our country’s opinion on drugs is shifting with regards to race.

There is an immediately apparent commonplace employed in her speech. The speech takes place at an international drug reform conference. Those listening to her are passionate advocates interested in helping drug reform on some level. In leu of this, Michelle Alexander aims to translate their passion into a fight that acknowledges the role of racism. She takes their common shared idea, and enlists her own suggestion, her own modification in order to create a better path for change.

Image result for michelle alexander keynote speech

Michelle Alexander proposes a problem that the audience is aware of, capitalizing on their immediate passion. However, she also modifies this passion through shared ideas and experiences that help the audience to better understand how the ”New Jim Crow” functions in the war on drugs. Rhetorically speaking, she has all she needs, a shared desperation for change with and a clear history that she has “walked the talk.” That being said, her speech gains its backbone as she articulates how this discussion needs to change direction, absorb this new perspective, and continue on with the same passionate people involved.

 

You can find a link to her speech here.

The Rhetoric in Brokenness

About six months ago I was back in high school, dreadingly walking from class to class when a CNN alert popped up on my phone, reporting a shooting in none other than a locker-filled institution comprising thousands of kids just like me. It was the infamous Parkland shooting in Stoneman Douglas High School. While it reawakened the never-ending gun debate, there was an immediate distinction to both the shooting in Parkland and the national response. Even my high school, as distant and safe as it may have seemed, began to kick and scream because there was some indescribable desperation that millions of ineligible voters I like to call “high schoolers” were acting on.

One month after the shooting, the nation rallied in the March for Our Lives movement, during which Emma González, delivered an incredibly powerful and articulate speech. She stood up in front of thousands of crushed people at a time when everyone wanted to turn their brokenness into a fierce, aggressive, political fight against those thwarting gun reform. In her speech, González calls to her audience, “everyone who has been touched by the cold grip of gun violence understands” as if the pain is felt by those who can still hear the gunshots ringing in their ears. In some ways her speech feels like a rhetorical echo of suffering so that the old, corrupt, white males in power might hear how those marching are feeling.  You could call this persuasion, however, I believe it is this desperation to translate cold, heartless agony into a beautiful activism that fuels the rhetoric in her speech. And so it is almost shallow to call her speech “persuasive” when it encompasses a message that is so vulnerable and human. In our discussion about Lloyd Bitzer’s piece “The Rhetorical Situation,” students struggled to separate persuasion and rhetoric. However, if you watch her six-minute-long speech you will “feel” rhetoric. When Emma says “fight for your lives before it’s someone else’s job” she uses the dire fear of gun violence to tap into the vulnerable who might actually step up to the plate and do something. At the same time, I am sure that if you have a Ph.D. in rhetorical analysis or some fancy degree in the hard sciences, you are laughing at the idea of “feeling” rhetoric. But as I sit here watching a six-month-old speech delivered by Emma González, trying not to cry, I am absorbed by the emotion flowing through her and the audience. Rhetoric soaks the audience in this passion for beautiful change while persuasion, well, it persuades.

Emma González delivered a speech at Washington’s March for Our Lives on March 24. Credit: Washington Post

Kairos is immensely prevalent in her speech. I know of very few more powerful reasons to act than the dread of kids being killed in school. You can sense the Kairos in every moving word and in each heavy second of silence. In the same way that MLK Junior’s “I Have a Dream” speech was fueled by the high-pressure fire hoses a few months earlier, González tapped into her audience through a detailed elaboration of something unacceptable. In history, some of the most rhetorically compelling speeches have come during times of great need. Emma González’s speech not only enacts change because of how horrifying the shooting was, but because she chooses to deliver her speech with brokenness and vulnerability that most Americans can relate to.