Work Plan: History of a Public Controversy, Vaccine Mandates

TED Talk Work Day Activity Summary

Duties of each member:

• Reba – park ranger, research history of controversy, film/edit first segment
• Divyesh – goalkeeper, research argument for vaccine mandates, film/edit third segment
• Rachael – record keeper, research argument against vaccine mandates, film/edit second segment, put all segments together for final video

Timeline:

• Over Thanksgiving break, continue researching, finalize the script, and begin editing individual segments. 
• Have individual video segments completed by Friday, December 2. 
• Have segments of video combined by Sunday, December 4 to submit to peer review discussion. 
• Have final drafts of individual segments finished by Wednesday, December 7.
• Submit final video on Friday, December 9. 

Day 1:

Our group discussed many topics, including affirmative action, vaccine mandates, artificial intelligence, death penalty, minimum wage, gun control, and animal rights. 

We decided on vaccine mandates.

Day 2:

We decided to divide up the work equally, with each person researching one topic and creating a segment on that topic. We researched our topics and discussed the information we learned together. We talked about ways to make sure that our video was unified, since that might be difficult with three people editing three different sections. 

We also identified the most important parts of our research:

• Vaccine mandate definition – a requirement that states you have to be vaccinated in order to do certain things like working, traveling, and attending school 
• History of vaccine mandates
  • First mandate started in the 1850s in Michigan
  • 1990s: Childhood vaccination initiative
  • Today, nearly all states have laws pertaining to children up to 12th grade that require students to have certain vaccines in order to attend school
• Arguments against vaccine mandates: 
  • Religious beliefs
  • Concerns about safety
  • Lack of information
  • Limits personal freedom 
• Arguments for vaccine mandates: 
  • The science shows that vaccines are effective in preventing diseases.
  • Autism isn’t brought on by vaccines.
  • Vaccines save money.
  • Vaccine mandates do not infringe on rights

Day 3:

We each did more in-depth research in the time between days two and three, and then we discussed our research when we met on day three. We decided how to organize the video, including the types of pictures and videos we should include. We began writing our script and gave each other feedback on the information and visuals that we each planned to include. 

Framing the issue

Vaccine mandates are a public controversy because people have differing opinions on if mandates are ethical or not. While some people believe that it is one’s role to get vaccinated for the good of the entire community, some believe that vaccine mandates infringe on personal rights and prevent people from making their own decisions for their health. People against vaccine mandates also emphasize that, if a government pushes for vaccine mandates, then there might not be anything stopping them from pushing more mandates and stripping away more rights in the future. 

We will use charts, statistics, and medical research to show how effective vaccines might be for those who are strong proponents of them. We can have information on their side effects and how they might affect health for those concerned about side effects. 

Framing questions:

1. Where do we draw the line between infringing on rights and protecting the community?
2. Is it the government’s responsibility to overlook the community’s health or to protect fundamental rights?
3. Should medical professionals be allowed to have a say on pushing for vaccine mandates?
4. Are medical centers ultimately responsible for possible side effects and health issues resulting from vaccines?
5. How could enforcing vaccines change the way society views personal freedoms in the future?
6. How much power should schools and universities have when it comes to deciding whether or not to have immunization mandates for students?

Topic: Impact of AIDS on Public Opinion of LGBTQ Rights

Thesis statement: Following the 1980s, a swift transformation in American public opinion toward homosexuality was induced by the increase in activism and subsequent visibility of the gay community as a result of the outbreak of AIDS.

• Intro
  • People with AIDS, especially LGBTQ individuals, were isolated and shamed by the American public, yet the condition acted as a catalyst for the shift toward the acceptance of the gay community following the 1980s. This paradox leaves us with a lingering question: how can the very disease that caused an increase in the stigmatization of LGBTQ individuals simultaneously influence the public’s greater acceptance of the community?
• Body
  • Main idea: The AIDS epidemic influenced an increase in gay rights activism, resulting in greater visibility of the LGBTQ community to the American public.
    • Large-scale protests were successful in gaining national attention
      • Ex: National March on Washington
    • Sparked dialogue about gay rights among those who previously thought very little about LGBTQ issues 
    • New representation of the gay community in news outlets began the process of normalizing the existence of LGBTQ people and discussion of gay rights issues
  • Main idea: This increased visibility of the gay community caused a surge in the number of LGBTQ individuals openly expressing their sexualities.
    • As media outlets began to report on the hundreds of thousands of LGBTQ individuals that showed up to protests like the National March on Washington, Americans began to realize that homosexuality was not as uncommon as they had once believed. 
    • This realization coupled with the normalization of discussions about homosexuality created an atmosphere in which members of the LGBTQ community felt more comfortable coming out than they had in the past, leading to greater numbers of openly-gay individuals in the United States. 
    • The increase in LGBTQ people coming out led to a greater presence of openly-gay individuals in the lives of heterosexual Americans. 
  • Main idea: The surge in the number of openly-gay individuals, which promoted connections between heterosexual and openly-gay Americans, caused the change in public opinion in the United States toward LGBTQ acceptance.
    • The increasing number of interactions between straight and openly-gay Americans, whether in the workplace, on the street, or at the dinner table, reduced the stigma surrounding homosexuality. 
      • Critic Samantha Schmidt explains, “The more connections Americans made with gay or lesbian people, the more positive their attitudes toward them became – a trend social scientists call ‘the contact hypothesis.’” 
    • As their own family members, friends, and acquaintances started to openly express their sexualities, straight Americans began to define members of the LGBTQ community by more than just their sexuality
• Conclusion
  • Concluding remark

Slides:

#1: 

#2: Image from the National March on Washington

#3: Newspaper clips

#4: Graph

• The most helpful feedback I received in the peer review workshops was to break up my paragraphs. I agree that they were too long, which could make it difficult for the reader to be engaged with the piece and follow along with all of my arguments. As I was proofreading, I even found myself having trouble staying focused at times.

• I made many interesting discoveries as I researched the changes in Americans’ attitudes toward the LGBTQ community. The discovery that interested me the most was that even though the AIDS epidemic itself resulted in stigma surrounding the gay community, the increased activism and subsequent wave of LGBTQ people coming out caused by the outbreak of AIDS led to an increased acceptance of the community.

• The most important point for my reader to take away from my paper is that even though there has been a significant increase in the acceptance of the LGBTQ community in the United States, the shift has reached a plateau in recent years. There are still large groups of people who hold negative views toward gay people, and there is still much work to be done to promote the inclusion, equality, and acceptance of the gay community. 

• This project has helped me develop as a writer because it pushed me outside of my comfort zone, since it is unlike any other paper I have written before. Typically, the essays I am assigned follow a three paragraph structure that I am comfortable with, and I do not have to put much thought into the organization of my paper. However, with this assignment, the structure is much more complicated, and I had to reorganize and rearrange the paragraphs to figure out the most effective organization. I have also gained better research skills and am much better at determining the reliability of sources.

Intro

• Hook–introduce the reader to the topic that Americans have become more accepting of LGBTQ+ community
• Thesis: An increase in activism and visibility of the gay community as a result of the AIDS epidemic influenced a shift in the attitudes of Americans toward the LGBTQ+ community. 

Review of the shift 

• Overall, U.S. has become more accepting of the LGBTQ+ community 
• Late 1980s – present
• Evidence that a shift has taken place: https://www.norc.org/NewsEventsPublications/PressReleases/Pages/american-acceptance-of-homosexuality-gss-report.aspx
  • The change toward acceptance of the LGBTQ+ began in the late 1980s after years of remaining relatively constant.
  • In 1987, 75 percent of people felt same-sex relations are “always wrong.” By 2000, that number dropped to 54 percent and by 2010 was down to 43.5 percent.
  • Support for same sex marriage went from 11 percent approval in 1988 to 46 percent in 2010
• Include observations from primary texts from both before and after the shift

Analysis of Causes 

• The AIDS crisis resulted in an increase in activism – https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/stonewall-milestones-american-gay-rights-movement/ 
  • March 10, 1987 – AIDS advocacy group ACT UP (The AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) is formed in response to the devastating affects the disease has had on the gay and lesbian community in New York. The group holds demonstrations against pharmaceutical companies profiteering from AIDS-related drugs as well as the lack of AIDS policies protecting patients from outrageous prescription prices
  • October 11, 1987 – hundreds of thousands of activists take part in the National March on Washington to demand that President Ronald Reagan address the AIDS crisis.
  • May – June, 1988 – the CDC mails a brochure, Understanding AIDS, to every household in the U.S. Approximately 107 million brochures are mailed.
  • December 1, 1988 – the World Health Organization organizes the first World AIDS Day to raise awareness of the spreading pandemic.
• AIDs crisis resulted in many people coming out
  • In 1978, almost a decade after Stonewall, gay rights activist Harvey Milk gave an impassioned plea: “Every gay person must come out.” In the decades that followed, more and more Americans started coming out to their loved ones, some galvanized by the pain of the AIDS epidemic. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/americans-views-flipped-on-gay-rights-how-did-minds-change-so-quickly/2019/06/07/ae256016-8720-11e9-98c1-e945ae5db8fb_story.html 
  • Activists were successful in expanding awareness of how many Americans were (often secretly) gay, which had a snowball effect. One of the triggers for the expansion of same-sex marriage was people coming to understand that they knew gay people who were affected by bans on marriage. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/07/americas-increased-acceptance-gay-people-isnt-about-schools/
• Increased visibility –
  • Once the gay community began to speak out about the crisis, they became more visible. This visibility led to the U.S. becoming more accepting of LGBTQ+ individuals.
  • Growing visibility of gay people in popular culture

• Actress Ellen DeGeneres came out on national television in April 1997 and the NBC sitcom “Will & Grace” had taken off
• The more connections Americans made with gay or lesbian people, the more positive their attitudes toward them became — a trend social scientists call “the contact hypothesis.”
  • https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/americans-views-flipped-on-gay-rights-how-did-minds-change-so-quickly/2019/06/07/ae256016-8720-11e9-98c1-e945ae5db8fb_story.html

Critique of the shift

• Attitudes are still divided on the morality of this shift: https://www.norc.org/NewsEventsPublications/PressReleases/Pages/american-acceptance-of-homosexuality-gss-report.aspx
  • Large generation gap on the issue of same-sex marriage and opinions on the LGBTQ+ community
  • While 64 percent of those under 30 back same-sex marriage, only 27 percent of those 70 and older support it.
  • In 2010, 26 percent of the people surveyed who were under 30 said they felt same-sex behavior is “always wrong,” while 63 percent of the people aged 70 and older held that opinion.
  • Public attitudes are very divided on the topic: Although 44 percent of the people surveyed felt that sexual relations between two adults of the same sex is always wrong, another 41 percent thought such relations were “not wrong at all.”
• Points to be included: What does this division indicate? How might this division be resolved?
• Greater significance of the shift/why it ultimately matters – important to understand of the history of the gay community in order to continue to promote their equality and inclusion

Conclusion

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/americans-views-flipped-on-gay-rights-how-did-minds-change-so-quickly/2019/06/07/ae256016-8720-11e9-98c1-e945ae5db8fb_story.html 
  • And attitudes about same-sex marriage have remained mostly frozen since 2017. “The positions are hardened,” Haider-Markel said.
  • Statistically, once support for an issue reaches a majority like this one, movement toward 100 percent becomes much more difficult, Flores said, meaning that until a major shift occurs there will continue to be a core group of conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage.
• The trends in American’s attitudes toward the LGBTQ+ community have paused, but eventually will continue again

1. My chosen focus for the Paradigm Shift project is gay rights, specifically how the attitudes toward LGBTQ+ people have changed in the U.S. In this project, I will cover roughly the past 30-40 years. Over this time period, there has been a dramatic positive change in the way that the U.S. perceives the gay community. One of the major factors that caused this shift is the AIDS crisis, which resulted in a large number of LGBTQ+ individuals coming out. Once the gay community began to speak out and became more visible, the U.S. became more accepting of LGBTQ+ individuals and began to move toward equality.  
2. The shift in how the U.S. views LGBTQ+ rights needs to be explored because it is important to understand of the history of the gay community, especially the challenges that were overcome in the fight for equality. In order to continue to promote the social equality and inclusion of marginalized groups such as this one, it is vital that we analyze both historical and current attitudes toward them. 
3. A major point of contention related to the shift in attitudes toward LGBTQ+ people is how to evaluate a shift that a lot of other people know about but interpret differently from each other. While a large number of people are in support of LGBTQ+ rights, there are still many in the U.S. that believe that the shift toward a more accepting society is not positive. Other points of contention are how the shift can be appropriately measured and where to locate the origin of the shift. 
4. I will mainly focus on the fact and quality stases. Some questions I will focus on include:
   1. Did something happen?
   2. What are the facts?
   3. Is it a good or bad thing?
   4. Whom might this affect?

1. Opening/Context
   1. Sojourner Truth was an emancipated slave who gave the speech “Ain’t I a Woman” at the 1851 Women’s Convention in Akron, Ohio
   2. Could not read or write so speech was transcribed by others 
   3. Her words as we read them are not actually her words but a representation of her words by whoever transcribed them
   4. “These secondary rhetors were mindful of audience and purpose, their audience and purpose, which may have been a different audience and purpose from what Truth intended” (Siebler).
   5. Two versions of Sojourner Truth’s “Ain’t I a Woman”
      1. First version published three weeks after convention by Marcus Robinson in the Anti-slavery Bugle, an abolitionist publication edited by Robinson
      2. Second version transcribed by Frances Gage twelve years after Truth delivered it
   6. Versions are very different from each other
   7. Robinson’s version probably more closely reflected what Truth said/intended to say than Gage’s version
      1. Truth worked with Robinson on his transcription of the speech
      2. Robinson and Truth were good friends who worked together on issues of women’s and slave’s rights
      3. Gage relied on notes and memories that were more than a decade old and there is no record that Gage worked with Truth on the transcription of her words
   8. Thesis: Gage takes liberties while transcribing Sojourner Truth’s speech, altering her original words in order to increase the effectiveness of her speech for his white audience. Frances Gage’s version of “Ain’t I a Woman” relies on dialect, humor, and appeal to the audience’s sympathy as well as Truth’s credibility in order to convince the audience of the need for women’s rights. 
2. The incorporation of dialect in Gage’s transcription of “Ain’t I a Woman” portrays Truth as a stereotypical emancipated slave.  
   1. Robinson’s version is written without dialect
   2. Dialect in Gage’s speech
      1. Dialect is represented to communicate identity or perspective
      2. The dialect Gage represented is a white woman’s version of how a southern, uneducated Black woman would sound
      3. Since Sojourner Truth was born and raised in the North, her first language being Dutch, she would not have a dialect that resembled the stereotypical “slave dialect.”
   3. Included dialect to make the speech more effective for the audience
      1. Writers typically do not represent dialect when transcribing speeches
      2. Relying on stereotypes
      3. “Gage’s version creates an image of a racially romanticized picture of Sojourner Truth, creating the ex-slave that many people still need and use today” (Siebler)
3. Gage’s use of humor and satire places the readers in the excitement of the moment and makes the audience more inclined to engage with Truth’s speech.  
   1. Robinson’s version reads less dynamically and makes a general call for equality and freedom with less humor
   2. Gage punctuates the speech with narrative asides that document the applause and appreciative response of the audience
   3. The use of humor and satire as represented in Gage’s text also adds depth to the speech
   4. Audience is rooting for Truth and feel that they are facing her resistant audience with her
4. Gage uses religious rhetoric and fabricates Truth’s personal experiences, capturing the sympathy of the audience and demonstrating Truth’s credibility.  
   1. Religious rhetoric 
      1. References to both Adam and Eve and Lazarus
      2. Gave Truth more credibility in the eyes of the white, religious audience
      3. Added ethos, as Truth was seen as more pious
   2. Personal experiences
      1. Gives her more credibility 
      2. Gage’s version: “I have borne thirteen children and seen them almost all sold off into slavery, and when I cried out a mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard — and aren’t I a woman?”
         1. Emphasizes a connection to the women in the audience as well as makes a point about the inhumanity of slavery
         2. This example does not appear in Robinson’s version
         3. Truth probably did not use this example, especially because it is not true
            1. Truth, by her own account, had only eight children, and they were not slaves to be sold but indentured servants. It was Truth who left her children behind when she fled slavery, carrying only the youngest with her
         4. Robinson likely made this up to appeal to the emotions of his audience and make the speech more provocative 

I feel that I did well on the content of my civic artifact speech. I began with a topic that many people in the class were familiar with, and I think that the introduction to my speech transitioned well into the thesis. I had a developed thesis, and I explained the ideologies embedded in the corset as well as the commonplaces it highlights. I described the history of the corset and how it has created a sense of community for women from the time it was perceived as oppressive to its modern-day symbolism. However, I could have used better transitions and verbal signposts to help separate my main points for the audience. 

An area I could have improved in was my oral delivery of the speech. Despite having practiced for a significant amount of time, I did not perform as well as I had hoped I would, especially in the second half of my speech. I did not vary my oral style like I planned to, use gestures, or maintain consistent eye contact throughout the whole speech. I also used verbal fillers unintentionally as a result of nerves. Toward the second half of my speech, my legs began to shake pretty intensely, which threw me off and caused me to forget a lot of the speech. I relied on my notes a lot more in the second half of my speech and took long pauses between my thoughts. 

Three things happened that I was unaware of. I did not use many gestures or move my hands much throughout the speech. I also did not look around the room and make eye contact as much as I thought I did. Finally, I did not realize how long my speech was. I timed it while I was practicing, but I spent longer in class than I did while practicing. 

1. Opening – (display picture of Urban Outfitters corset)
   1. For months now, the bestselling Urban Outfitters corset has been plastered all over Instagram feeds and has become a staple in any girl’s wardrobe. These tops have become so popular that you can’t leave your dorm without spotting someone wearing one. And Urban Outfitters isn’t the only brand selling corsets. You can walk into almost any women’s clothing store and see at least five variations of a corset top. 
   2. These corsets, while seemingly unimportant, are much more than fun fashion pieces.
   3. Statement of the thesis: The corset represents the historical oppression and objectification of women while also symbolizing freedom of self-expression in fashion and female empowerment.
2. Body
   1. Throughout history, corsets have been worn by women to shape their bodies into desired silhouettes, emphasizing a smaller waist.
      1. Women lacked a voice in society and were treated as objects for the male gaze
      2. Were expected to wear corsets at all times – even while carrying out their household and childcare responsibilities 
      3. Corsets made with heavy fabric and had bone or metal inserts
      4. Caused negative health effects 
         1. Wore corsets so tightly that breathing was restricted, causing faintness
         2. Compressing the abdominal organs could cause poor digestion
         3. Over time, the back muscles could waste away
         4. In severe cases, long term lacing led to a deformed rib cage (Isaac)
      5. Symbolic of female oppression, corsets represent the great lengths women were expected to go to in order to fit the patriarchal beauty standard. 
   2. The 1980s marked a shift in the use of the corset.
      1. Jean Paul Gaultier’s Dada collection (1983) – corseted dress 
         1. Transforms corset from underwear to fashionable outerwear
      2. Vivienne Westwood (1987) – created her own version of the corset as a fashion statement (“Corsets in Context: A History)
      3. As new ways of wearing the garment emerged, the corset became a symbol of female empowerment rather than oppression.
   3. The modern corset unites women in expressing their femininity, creating a sense of community as women continue to fight against patriarchal norms and reclaim their identities.
      1. Response to the centuries of sexism and misogyny that women have endured
      2. Now freely choose to wear corsets instead of being forced into it by society’s expectations – “reclaiming” the corset
      3. Feminism is at the corset’s core – 
         1. Women should be able to dress how they want
         2. Free of the expectations and desires of men
      4. Whether viewed as oppressive or liberating, the corset unites women of all different backgrounds. 
3. Conclusion
   1. The modern corset comments on the historical oppression of women, empowering women to dress however they want without the pressure to conform to patriarchal standards.
   2. The next time you see someone wearing the Urban Outfitters corset, remember that there is a much deeper meaning behind it than simply being a trendy clothing item.

Works Cited

“Corsets in Context: A History.” Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, 29 Mar. 2016, https://www.famsf.org/blog/corsets-context-history. 

Isaac, Susan. “The Dangers of Tight Lacing: the Effects of the Corset.” Royal College of Surgeons, Royal College of Surgeons, 17 Feb. 2017, https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/library-and-publications/library/blog/effects-of-the-corset/. 

Throughout history, corsets have been worn by women to shape their bodies into desired silhouettes, emphasizing a smaller waist. To fit in with societal norms, women were expected to continue their usual household chores and take care of their children, while also being expected to wear the corset at all times. These garments were made with heavy fabric, with bone or metal inserts, and often had negative health effects on the women who wore them. 

Women often wore corsets so tightly that their breathing was restricted, leading to faintness. Compressing the abdominal organs could cause poor digestion, and over time the back muscles could waste away. In severe cases, long term lacing led to a deformed rib cage. Symbolic of female oppression, corsets represent the great lengths women were expected to go to in order to fit the patriarchal beauty standard. 

The 1980s marked a shift in the use of the corset. In 1983, Jean Paul Gaultier’s Dada collection presented a corseted dress, transforming the corset from underwear to fashionable outerwear, and in 1987, Vivienne Westwood presented her own version of the corset as a fashion statement. As new ways of wearing the garment emerged, the corset became a symbol of female empowerment rather than oppression.

Once associated with the wealthy elite and then adopted by the middle and working classes in the 17th century, the corset has become increasingly available to people of different economic statuses. Today, corsets have become popular fashion products, and they are so accessible that they have become symbols of liberation for women of all socioeconomic backgrounds. 

The modern corset unites women in expressing their femininity, creating a sense of community as women continue to fight against patriarchal norms and reclaim their identities. Women now freely choose to wear corsets instead of being forced into the garment by society’s expectations.

The corset represents the historical oppression and objectification of women while also symbolizing freedom of self-expression in fashion and female empowerment. Whether viewed as oppressive or liberating, the corset unites women of all different backgrounds.