For my Advocacy Project I advocated for Green2Gos. I attached some pictures here to show the table I had, some pictures of the pledge students signed, and a video attached that shows a conversation with 2 students and a presentation I gave at a student council meeting.

My pledge says: “I will do my best to reduce my food waste on and off campus by not taking more than I need and saving my leftovers in a Green2Go. I pledge to avoid disposable items and instead use reusable utensils and Green2Gos to reduce my waste. *write your email if you want to be signed up for Mainstream: Penn State’s Sustainability Newsletter*”

I attached a link to a video showing me advocating at Redifer and at Schreyer Honors College Student Council.

I attended a deliberation on 2/21 for Beth Parfitt’s class. My friend was on the deliberation team, so I wanted to go to her event and participate. It was about abortions on the basis of down syndrome testing. This deliberation was set up very differently than our deliberation. It took place in a classroom during class time, which I think made it difficult for students to show up to. However, it was a very interesting topic and I was excited to attend.

I believe only me and another person were able to show up because it was during class time, however I enjoyed the conversation. I feel like I participated a lot because me and the other girl were the only ones not in the class nor part of the deliberation team. However, I got some really interesting perspectives, and I feel that this issue is more of an ethical issue than my deliberation was (binge-drinking). I feel that most people have differing opinions on abortion, while not many people have differing opinions on binge-drinking (although there are plenty of differing opinions on how to approach it).

One of the things that was most interesting to me was the assumptions that people brought to the table. One girl said that a “perfect society” was one where no one had disabilities. However, I’m not sure that I agree. I understand that no one wants to be disabled and that disabilities (physical or mental) can be straining and difficult. However, I do not think it’s ethical to say that (essentially) getting rid of disabilities is the way to make our society better. I think that we learn a lot from hardships and from people who experience life differently than the average person. So I think that this conversation came from a perspective with the assumption that people with down syndrome are bad and unwanted.

I think that there were a couple of really interesting arguments made about how aborting on the basis of down syndrome sets a precedent for aborting for any reason. So if we allow abortions for down syndrome testing, why not allow abortions for those that cannot afford a child and then so on and so forth. Eventually it’s possible that abortions are legal for any reason. (That may be a good or bad thing depending on one’s views). I also think that there could be a precedent set of NOT allowing an abortion on the basis of down syndrome, ultimately leading to abortions in general becoming illegal. If you can’t allow an abortion on the basis of down syndrome, can you allow an abortion on the basis of other disabilities? What about monetary reasons?

I think what separates abortion on the basis of down syndrome from other reasons is the question of the quality of life for the child. It was a really interesting discussion to try to gauge the quality of life for someone with down syndrome, and how that differs from other situations in which a parent may consider abortion.

On February 22 I went to Jonathan Haidt’s talk “What Capitalism Does for Us and to Us.” He spoke at the Business Building tailoring his conversation to business students. Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist and Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business. He focuses on the psychology of morality and moral emotions.

Haidt talked about the discrepancies in how people view capitalism. As he explained, many people view capitalism as a giant vampire squid (complete with pictures), however others view capitalism and the most amazing part of America. Some people think that trade teaches everyone to be the same. According to Haidt, Industrial Revolution creates more prosperity, and the United States middle class helped create our economic system. Haidt mentioned how in the free market, you can usually only win by making other people better off. He said that capitalism was not evil.

Haidt discussed the differences between communism and capitalism in a “1948 experiment” which was when North Korea was founded. Haidt compared the prosperity of North Korea and South Korea, showing that capitalism was more prosperous than communism.

Another interesting topic that Haidt discussed was happiness. He said that GDP per capita is the best predictor of a country’s happiness. (Later he says that more money doesn’t always make someone happier, which does not agree with this point. During the questions section someone pointed this out and he said that he had never realized that contradiction before.)

According to Haidt, America is more divided now than during the civil War. He said the political gap is 36 points in 2017 while it was 15 during the 1900’s. This is a huge jump between those two time periods, showing how much America’s politics have changed over the years.

Haidt discussed tame and wicked problems: tame problems are like cholera where people can work on them meanwhile wicked problems are difficult and everyone thinks differently about it. The right knows the answer to our economic problems: lower taxes while the left also knows the answer: no more racism (although racism should end, that isn’t what the left thinks the answer is exactly to our economic problems…but that’s how Jonathan Haidt worded it). Wicked problems can only be defined by the background of people’s values. So it’s important to have diversity in values which leads to political diversity. Through this people can argue their way to a solution, instead of immediately agreeing with their partners and not finding the best solution. Haidt believes that people can only solve problems if they’re on different teams because there is some truth to both sides.

Haidt had a very interesting talk, although I did not agree with everything he said. I do think that it’s necessary to have diversity of thought, but I think that he was a little too nice to capitalism than need be. I don’t think he talked about the downfalls of capitalism, and failing to recognize its faults means a failure to fix our economic system. I think that capitalism could be improved upon if we focused on what its problems are, and that could help make all of America more prosperous.

I attended the “Plastic State University: Reducing Single-Use Waste” deliberation on Friday February 22. Both mine and the other half of my class’ deliberations had a lot of similarities, including the size, almost universal agreement on the necessity of fixing the problem, and the set up/location of the deliberation.

Although both deliberations were on well known topics, single-use plastics tends to be treated as more of a scientific problem, while binge drinking is seen as more of a social issue. In creating an information base, it was more important for the plastics moderators to explain the science behind single-use plastics and eco-friendly programs at Penn State. Most people understand the inherent issues with binge drinking, so moderators for the drinking deliberation did not have to explain as much as in the plastics deliberation. The audience may have felt like they learned more from the plastics deliberation because the moderators had to create the information base that the binge drinking deliberation already had.

The plastics deliberation set up their deliberation to discuss a multitude of solutions, but the binge drinking deliberation discussed only three solutions. There was more creativity in the discussion of the plastics deliberation. Both methods of discussion fostered productive and informative conversations. The plastics deliberators discussion covered more topics, but the binge-drinking discussion was more focused.

In both deliberations the moderators made discussing the pros and cons very important. In the binge drinking deliberation students started discussing the cons too early in the conversation, but the moderators did a good job of trying to steer the conversation back to pros. The pros and cons sometimes overlapped; some people thought that the truth-style campaign, could be harmful and influence people to partake in embarrassing activities, while other people thought it would influence students to not embarrass themselves. So some people’s pros were other people’s cons and the tradeoffs were discussed (is it worth having this campaign if it may prevent some students from drinking, but may also encourage others to do embarrassing things). For the plastics, an interesting tradeoff/con suggested was that disabled people may need single-use plastics because it may be too difficult to have a green-to-go that they have to bring back to the dining commons.

The microphone made a difference in distributing speaking opportunities. Both deliberations took place in Webster’s and it was difficult to have a deliberation in a small space where it was relatively loud. I think that the microphone helped distribute speaking opportunities more for the plastics deliberation, because the moderators were able to pick who got the microphone and everyone had to listen to the person with the microphone. However, the microphone became too much of a hassle for our deliberation because of the cord and difficulty in getting it to everyone. Although I thought that without the microphone the binge-drinking moderators did a good job of distributing speaking opportunities, it was clear that the people in the front participated more than the people in the back. Most people raised their hands, and the people in the back did so less often. However, towards the end people stopped raising their hands, and on occasion someone would talk too much and it was difficult for the moderators to pick who spoke.

In both deliberations the moderators remained neutral during the discussion, while considering a range of ideas. In the plastics deliberation, for example, we spent a lot of time on the eco-coin. The delibertators built off of what others said, and many people talked about the eco-coin even though they had never heard of it before. It was clear that those in the discussion listened to what other people were saying, and had a genuine conversation rather than simply speaking for themselves. I think that this was also done in the binge drinking deliberation, especially when we spoke about disagreements between the community approach. The disagreements showed that students were listening and reacting to what someone else said, and then explained their point of view (deliberators argued over whether students will stop drinking if they see there are fun things to do besides drink, or if they are going to drink anyway).

In both deliberations everyone was respected. With binge drinking it was more important that people felt comfortable speaking about drinking or their experience with drinking culture. When one student spoke about Penn State’s Responsible Act Protocol, the deliberators did not judge her nor make her feel bad for sharing a personal story. There was no problem with respect in the plastics deliberation; everyone in the group showed that they care about the environment. To foster a good conversation, it is important that everyone feels respected. All of my classmates did a great job of making sure the conversation was respectful and productive.

I love Shirley Temples. They are my favorite drink ever, but not because of the taste. During my grandfather’s last day, he noticed that he was surrounded by all of his family. But he was starting to lose reality, and thought that the nursing home he was in was actually his house. So he went around the room, and asked everyone what drink he could get them, to be a good host. I told him I wanted a Shirley Temple, completely aware that he would not be able to get that for me. Since then, I’ve ordered Shirley Temples at almost every opportunity I can, because it gives me a chance to remember and appreciate my grandfather, something I should have done when he was still with me.

I believe that everyone should take time to appreciate their grandparents. I grew up only knowing one grandparent, as my other grandparents passed before I was born or when I was too young to remember. When I was in elementary school, I spent a lot of time after school with my pop-pop. But as I moved into middle school, I became more focused on spending time with my friends than my family. I would skip out on going to my pop-pop’s house to go to the mall with my friends. I would miss family dinners to go to a movie. I took my relatives’ time for granted. I thought I had longer with my pop-pop and I could always spend time with him later but see my friends now.

At the end of 8th grade my pop-pop had a bad fall. He had a head injury that landed him in the hospital. Little did I know that he would continue to be under special care for the rest of his life. That summer I spent as much time as possible with him. The week that he died I spent every day with him, I ate most meals in the nursing home, and I made sure that I spent as much time with him as possible. But it wasn’t enough.

I miss my pop-pop. I would give anything to be able to spend more time with him, but that’s not possible. I regret the time I could have spent with my pop-pop but didn’t. And I am certain to avoid that mistake again. From his death, I’ve learned is that it’s important to take time to appreciate the ones around you. Life is fragile, and I find value in recognizing that it is finite.

I took my grandfather for granted. I used to take my parents for granted, but when I got to college, I realized how important they are to me. I call them everyday, and feel so appreciative when they come to visit or when I can come home. I compliment my friends when I am thinking something positive about them. Not expecting a compliment back, but to emphasize that I appreciate them and have positive things to share. I celebrate birthdays, because they are the perfect opportunity to express how much I care about my loved ones. I drink Shirley Temples, because it reminds me that life is finite, and there is a lot of beauty in the fragility of life.

I want to write my “This I Believe” about the fragility of life. I think specifically I want to talk about appreciation, and how it’s important to take the time to appreciate others because life is so fragile. I have a couple of stories that I could use to show this idea. I could talk about losing my grandfather or when my mother was diagnosed with breast cancer. When I was in middle school I stopped going to my grandfather’s house as much with my family, but instead spent time with my friends. I stopped putting an effort in because I never really thought much about his health. Then at the beginning of the summer he fell and hurt his head. That summer his health quickly declined, and in that August he passed away. Although I spent a lot of time during the last three months with him, I regret not spending more time with my grandfather. I’m very jealous of people who still have time left with their grandparents, and I feel strongly that everyone should take the time to appreciate their grandparents (and everyone else around them).

When I was in 6th grade my mom was diagnosed with breast cancer. I feel that after that I became much more aware of her mortality, and I value my time with her a lot more now than I did when I was younger, because I realize that at some point I will no longer be able to spend time with her. I think that this story also shows how important it is to value loved ones and appreciate the time one has with them.

I want to write my passion blog about baking again. I think that that was really enjoyable for me and for my readers. I also want to bring in my baked goods to class more often, as well as expand my recipes. I think it would be interesting to see how the social aspect of baking is different in my second semester, now that I’m more familiar with the people on my floor and the ones who I would give my baked goods to.

I want to write my civics issues blog about politics, specifically focusing on politically polarizing topics as well as the development of modern political parties. I want to investigate why a lot of voting citizens’ loyalty appears to lie with political parties rather than political issues.

“This I Believe” podcast:

1. I want to write about how I think that most people are genuinely good people, and I find it very important to value every person and recognize that they are human. I could write about how I misunderstood people or judged them without getting to know them, and how in the end I realized that they were a lot better of a person than what I first thought.
2. I think that I learned a lot of valuable lessons from when my mom was diagnosed with breast cancer/when I lost my grandfather. So I think that I could use those story to write about how it showed me the fragility of life and the importance of valuing the people I love.

Passion Blog:

1. I am interested in writing about baking, focusing this semester on new recipes in addition to how baking affects the mood on my floor. I was really interested in writing about the social aspect of baking rather than the recipes, and I want to continue to do so, but also explore and improve my baking.
2. I am interested in writing about crime, specifically when people are falsely accused of crimes and how it affects their life after.

Civic Issues blog:

1. I want to explore politics more because I feel like I need to learn a lot about current issues, specifically political issues. I think it would be really interesting to write about political parties and why they are so split in today’s society.
2. I am also interested in education. I think it would be interesting to write about college sports, especially at a football school like Penn State.

When I started the RCL class, I thought that it would be an English class with a couple of papers and a couple of projects. I expected to read some books and analyze them and move on. I never really discussed how rhetoric affected civic life.

I previously thought that rhetoric was only something that could be used in books. But through this class I can see that it’s about making an argument through writing or speech; some images can even make arguments. I previously thought of civic life as being a “good citizen” by voting or recycling. But I learned it’s more than that; civic life involves establishing a community and changing society for the better. This can happen through voting or through recycling, but the society is what ultimately benefits from civic life.

I did not expect to learn about how rhetoric and English plays a role in human society, but I can say with confidence that I have learned a lot about rhetoric’s role in today’s world. I never really thought of TV shows to be rhetorical, but after preparing my speech and paper about 13 Reasons Why, I learned a lot about the impacts of the different rhetorical devices used in TV shows. Hyperbole, for example, was a huge factor in creating 13 Reasons Why into a stagey melodrama that affects societal views on suicide.

I think that the second project, where we had to thoroughly research a topic, made me more aware of civic issues in our society and the shifts that we have faced throughout history. Although smoking, my topic, is something that I have grown up learning about, I found it very beneficial to learn what drove the societal shift away from smoking, as well as the shift back to e-cigarettes.

I am extremely excited about our last project. This has taught me a lot specifically about civic life at Penn State. Our project is about inclusion of transgender students in college dorms, and I find it very beneficial to see the rhetoric made about transgenderism, as well as how our culture in State College handles inclusion. I never really thought that rhetoric would apply to a topic like transgenderism, nor that transgenderism is a part of civic life.

• A brief history of transgenderism on college campuses/college dorms/including females
  • In 2018, a man would not bat an eye at sharing a classroom with a woman. Although this is something that is almost never debated, and almost universally accepted, it was not always. In the 1800s, it was argued over whether women should be allowed in previously all male colleges. Institutions funded separate schools for women, instead of allowing them to integrate with the men. And women were often discouraged from going to schools that technically allowed women. The idea of gender inclusion has changed drastically over the years. Although now, women are included and integrated into college environments, the same cannot be said about transgender students. Many feel that transgender students should live in a dorm that reflects their born sex, although others feel that transgender students should live in a room reflecting their gender identity. Some previous solutions provided were to offer housing separate from other students, so they could live in a room by themselves where they did not have to worry about matching their roommate gender with their own. Or, there are housing options specifically for transgender students. However, would that be truly inclusive of the transgender students? Or does it take from their college experience, by exiling them from the typical college dorm, and instead keeping them separate to keep them safe?
• Legal history – title IX and dear colleague
  • Title IX was originally created to prohibit sex discrimination in any educational activity receiving federal financial support. Although its original intention was to eliminate gender discrimination in athletics/educational programs/activities, it has evolved to combat other forms of discrimination, harassment, and violence. In recent history, with the increasing emphasis put on LGBTQ+ rights, Title IX has changed to reflect the changing attitudes towards gender identity. Under the Obama administration, in 2015, the department of Education reaffirmed their policy of “prohibiting recipients of federal financial assistance from discriminating on the basis of sex, including gender identity and failure to conform to stereotypical notions of masculinity or femininity.” Although “regulations permit schools to provide sex-segregated restrooms, locker rooms, shower facilities, housing, athletic teams, and single-sex classes under certain circumstances” these schools must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity according to the letter written by the department. And this idea was emphasized in the Dear Colleague letter released by the government, the following year, stating that “discrimination based on a student’s gender identity, including discrimination based on a student’s transgender status” is not permitted. And, according to this letter, a medical diagnosis or treatment is not required for being treated consistently with one’s gender identity.
  • Under the current Trump administration, however, the Education Department is changing their rules with civil rights complains about transgender students and bathrooms. They are no longer investigating such complains, and Betsy DeVos (Education Secretary) rescinded previous guidances, and instead grants states and individual school districts the ability to determine how to accommodate transgender students. They believe that transgender students are not given the right to use the bathroom of their choice according to Title IX. They claim that although Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, it does not on the basis of gender identity. So, because bathrooms have regulations to provide separate facilities based on sex, the current administration argues that regulating bathroom use by transgender students is not discrimination prohibited by Title IX. Similar sentiments may be felt about college dorms, because similarly to bathroom use, college dorms are typically divided by gender. And since the new administration does not believe that Title IX protects gender identity discrimination, the new administration may prohibit students from living in dorm rooms with students of the opposite gender that they were born with (regardless of their current identity).
  • Penn State made a change in their culture because of the changes from the Obama Administration. Penn State released in their NonDiscrimination Policy that includes that the University does not tolerate harassment or discrimination against people due to their “sexual orientation, gender, perceived gender, and gender identity”
  • The Association of Residence Hall Students decided to create gender inclusive housing beginning the academic year from 2016-2017.

Outline of TED Talk

• Introduction:
  • Smoking in the adult population has fallen 25% over the past 49 years. This is a significant decline in smoking. Scientific research has changed how society perceives smoking. Smoking levels among teenagers are a lot lower now, however there have been an increase in e-cigarette use among teenagers.
• Smoking Body Argument:
  • When I was researching changes in smoking, I came across a study that shows that a lot of the reason for the decrease in smoking is an improved understanding of the health risks and concerns about secondhand smoke. Socially, smoking is not as accepted as it was in the past. There are even legal restrictions on public smoking. Media, increased knowledge, and changes in taxes have influenced how Americans view smoking.
• E-Cigarette Body Argument:
  • Although culturally views on cigarettes have changed, e-cigarettes, particularly vapes, are becoming more popular in teenage culture. I wanted to research why teengaers think that vaping and juuling is “cool” and what is different about how we culturally view cigarettes and e-cigarettes.
  • There is little research on the effects of vaping, as it is a new phenomenon. Many students argue that smoking vapes or juuls is not harmful, however the science behind vaping and juuling is still widely unknown
• Take-Away:
  • Science has greatly changed our culture. It is important to look at scientific research and make informed decisions. One shouldn’t vape just because it’s what is currently culturally “cool” but should take their health into great consideration.