Should there be a Naked Statue of Bill Cosby?

After being accused of sexual assault by more than thirty women, America's favorite comedian and renowned pop culture figure, Bill Cosby, was put to shame. Despite the fact that he has not yet been convicted of these alleged crimes, his once magnificent image has been tarnished nonetheless. His place in history as a progressionist for the portrayal of African Americans on television may even be ruined.

However, one high school artist from Massachusetts, Rodman Edwards believes that Cosby's punishment of shame, ruin and inevitable prison time is not enough. Edwards feels that two statues honoring Cosby- one of which is in Walt Disney World, the other in the TV Hall of Fame in California- should be removed and replaced (in a different location, such as an art museum) with something intended to shame the criminal: enormous bronze statues of the man standing naked with Fat Albert in place of his penis.

Rodman Edwards' Digital Proposal

As humorous as the proposal is, it is genuinely being considered. The statue will be presented at the Cory Allen Contemporary are showroom on February 20th, and the idea is being proposed to the Academy of Television Arts and Science Hall of Fame.

While it may be reasonable to argue that the previous works that honored Cosby should taken down, I am not so sure about arguing for this sort of replacement. Cosby's actions may have warranted many decades in prison, but should a buffoonish statue of him be added to his punishment as well? Maybe a better question would be: is this the way the situation should be handled?

With the severity of Cosby's alleged crimes taken into consideration, I am not sure that this kind of statue gets the job done properly. I feel as if it turns a series of horrible rapes and turns it into something that can be punished with an unusual joke that has no connection at all to the crimes except for maybe the lack of clothing. Also, it is important to consider that a statue is permanent, something put in place to preserve the memory of honorable people. And quite simply, though he had two of his own statues before, Cosby is sadly no longer a person to be remembered with one.

What do you guys thing about statues such as these being displayed in a contemporary art museum?

What America WANTS in a Sniper

The recent blockbuster, American Sniper, directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Bradley Cooper, is supposed to be based on the autobiography by ex-Navy SEAL Chris Kyle. However, in truth, the film strays from the storyline of the book significantly. Having read the book and seen the movie- both of which I would highly recommend despite the criticism about to follow- I know that not only are omissions made and events dramatized, but the characteristics and actions of protagonist Chris Kyle are different than shown in his best-selling autobiography.

A few additions may not seem so significant, but some of the changes struck me as too big to ignore. Take the portrayal of fellow SEAL Ryan Job for instance. In the movie, Ryan Job is shot in the face by an enemy sniper and dies in a military hospital soon afterward. In real life, Job was seriously wounded but still made it home to his wife and children. I couldn't help but wonder why the writer and/or director decided to make this change. One reason might have been that it set the protagonist Chris Kyle on a quest for revenge against the foreign enemy, which is well explained by this Slate article. So maybe a living man was shown to be dead in order to portray Kyle as a more noble figure, one who avenges his fallen comrades even if it mean taking a fourth tour of duty in Iraq, one more than normal.

This possible intention, of making Kyle appear like a better person in the movie, actually made sense after considering how different his stance on war is in the book. While in the movie Kyle goes to war entirely to protect his country and save American lives, in the book he explains the excitement and enjoyment that his line of work brings him. He admits many of his weaknesses on the battlefield, including thinking with his emotions not his head, and also reveals his ruthlessness as a soldier, "You'd have a violent explosion, a fire, and then no more enemy. Gotta love it". In the movie, something designed by producers, and intended to be approved of by the public, Kyle is never shown to have this love for violence and death.

But is this change okay to make? It does make for a more relatable and more noble hero figure. But, in a way, it may be hiding American civilians from the truth about our military. By portraying our soldiers are extremely virtuous and good-willed people, the movie may be presenting a skewed depiction of American involvement in the Middle East. And this may lead Americans to further believe what our country is doing is always right. Though as Kyle explains himself in his memoirs, he is not one-hundred percent perfect. He turns saving American lives into a bloodsport of killing as many enemies as possible. Yet, unless you read the book, you would never know the truth.

Is it okay for producers to change these aspects of a story when it is based on real life events, especially something as significant as the war in Afghanistan?

Few Men Are Created Equal

This past week, an article in the Economist, entitled "America's New Aristocracy", explained just that, what might be America's educational aristocracy. And although American ideals are strongly against inherited privileges (at least in theory), this aristocracy seem quite real. Certain children's educations are very different than others because of class differences, however, it may not simply be because of the educational advantages of more money. Children of wealthier parents may be gaining an advantage because of their parents brains.

The process begins before the children are even born. The article claims that "far more than in previous generations" smart and successful people are marrying other smart and successful people, resulting in a trend called "assortative mating" which leads to "bright children" and "stable homes". But this natural aptitude for intelligence is simply the foundation.

The intriguing claim is that the wealthier parents are creating a better environment for their children's brains to develop completely for free. According to the article, "children of professionals hear 32m more words by the age of four than those of parents on welfare". And keep in mind that over a third of the population was on welfare as of 2012. Therefore, regardless of which families have the money to afford neighborhoods with better schools, or expensive tutors, children of upper middle to upper class families generally live in an environment where their young, malleable brains are much more stimulated.

This difference between classes is unique. Nobody can say that this gives wealthier children an unfair academic advantage because, unlike with money, parents across all class levels have the ability to speak with their children. Though some busy parents may not have enough time to see their children, that issue is not specific to class. McDonald's store managers, surgeons, and businessmen alike all have to work late hours occasionally. Wealthy children should not be limited, as some argue they should with access to test prep, because that would only lower the typical student's ability. Instead, underpriveleged or struggling children should be aided. 

Encouraging and educating working class parents of the importance of brain stimulation for growing children could be essential. And if the problem cannot be partially corrected in the early home, then at the least, public schools should receive equal funding from state taxes. When underprivileged children are already starting behind, the playing field should at least be leveled in the public school system. Otherwise, only a portion of the population, the educational aristocracy, will continue to dominate college admissions. And eventually fair paying jobs. And at that point the cycle of the educational aristocracy with begin again.

The New Fad: Obesism

This past weekend, I attended a show, Panic on Cloud Nine, at Chicago's The Second City comedy club which provided some critical social commentary on sexuality in 2015. In one skit, a group of girls at a slumber party go around revealing secrets. The girls who reveal that they are secretly lesbian, transgender, or even secretly men are all responded to with huge acceptance, with the other girls saying that its not a big deal to be part of the "LGBTQ" community. The other girls kept saying, "It's 2015!" However, the skit ended with the last girl sharing her secret: "I think I might be gaining some weight". To this, the other girls shouted things like, "Fat ass!" and "You're disgusting!" I took this to mean that, in 2015, somebody can have any color of sexuality they please and no one will bother them, but if your obese, you will still receive all of the hurtful, prejudiced treatment that previous generations loved to use so much.

Despite the fact that this was a part improv comedy show- a hilariously funny one by the way-, I wondered to what extent this is true in my society today. I wonder if people with weight problems have truly been skipped or missed by the movement of tolerance and acceptance that has come with my generation. Of course, obese people are not denied any rights by U.S. law like homosexuals were denied the right to marry, but I wonder if they have been denied the right to fair treatment or freedom of bullying or hazing in some way.

So, I researched the issue on the omniscient internet, and found that overweight or obese individuals do face more struggles than their healthier weighing peers. According to a CNN article, obese middle-school children are sixty-five percent more likely to be bullied. The article then quotes Dr. Matthew Davis, a primary care physician and director of a children's hospital, on his thought about the potential underlying causes of this trend. "'We always have to keep in mind how we're modeling respect for others around multiple issues, including weight,' he says. 'Imagine how many signals kids get about weight just by hearing conversations by adults or seeing advertisements on TV. The messages are everywhere in terms of trying to control weight and be a different size than you are right now." Maybe Photoshop, the ubiquity of modern advertising and the messages it sends about body image have led children to this conclusion: fat is not desirable, skinny is attractive.  

If children are truly influenced into being anti-obesity from a young age, then perhaps obese people are facing injustice, however, not simply because of something like homophobia or racism like with other groups which have faced discrimination, but because of the modern age we live in. Obese children are not actually the demographic that missed out on the tolerance of the young generation, but they might be the new generation to be discriminated against in the ever-expanding world of digital perfection.

Racism Disguised as Diversity

In American Studies class today, we explored the issue of tokenism in modern television. After seeing Mr. Bolos's (my teacher's) presentation on tokenism specifically in network dramas, I, and most of my class for that matter, were convinced that tokenism is a very real phenomenon. We also agreed on the conclusion that tokenism is a means for TV shows to appear diverse, and therefore for the networks, writers, and advertisers to appear tolerant and accepting.

However, in network sitcoms, I think that the purpose of the "token minority" character goes beyond that single use. Although it may not be the case across the board, in a high number of the sitcoms that actually do include a minority, the minority character is exploited for the ethnic and racial jokes that their inclusion in the show socially permits. All minorities it would seem, except for African Americans (that seems to be the one race that networks are scared to touch). For instance, Gloria in ABC's Modern Family, Han in CBS's Two Broke Girls, and Timmy in CBS's Rules of Engagement all have ethnic jokes made at them. However, Donna, an African American, on NBC's Parks and Recreation never has her race mentioned. I have seen several episodes and scoured YouTube for clips of a black joke, yet found nothing. Meanwhile, ethnicity is a major component of the other not white and not black characters: Gloria (Hispanic), Han (Asian), and Timmy (Indian).

On Modern Family, Gloria is constantly mispronouncing english words and sayings and corrected by the cast. Gloria is also asked if she is legally in the country on multiple occasions, and it is mentioned that she has been deported twice. Han's character, on Two Broke Girls is one of the most exploited I have seen. Practically all of the screen time he has on the show is of him speaking with an exaggerated Chinese accent, emasculated by women for his height and apparent agelessness, or otherwise negatively stereotyped. One of the main characters also says in front of him, "You can't tell an Asian he failed. He'll go out back and throw himself on his sword". Timmy, in Rules of Engagement, also faces jokes about his Indian ethnicity. He is confused with Indian Americans, and questioned over the correct of his English, despite the fact that it is very proper. He is also overworked as an assistant to his boss, portrayed as very obedient and too
passive to stand up for himself, all the while being accompanied
by a fittingly boyish name.

Though they may be considered offensive to some, because of the laugh reel that is played after the ethnic jokes (laugh reels are not featured in Modern Family), the shows must believe that these are lines to be laughed at. Therefore, assuming that directors and producers link more laughs to more viewership, as it should be, these jokes are specifically included for the purpose of driving up ratings, and making money. Due to the extremely high prevalence of the ethnic humor only when ethnics are on screen, I suspect that the only purposes of minority actors in sitcoms are diversity and the extra laughs. It is possible that the performers are given their jobs on the shows mainly for those reasons. When the characters are used to repeat the same offensive jokes over and over again, as they very much are in these three shows, it is hard to believe that the actors are on set for any other reason.

If this is really the case, has television truly diversified?

Discrimination in Healthcare

Mr. Kramer at the Lee Specialty Clinic
Courtesy of The New York Times

Because of the accepting and tolerant community that I am so lucky to live in, I take it as a given that everyone is understanding of the special requirements of the mentally disabled. As I witness at my high school, New Trier on a daily basis, those with conditions such as autism and Down's syndrome receive assistance from a entire team of trained paraprofessionals and a growing number of students volunteers. To my surprise however, this might be something that is special about my high school. Many facilities, not just schools, but also dentist's and doctor's offices, do not accept or provide care to mentally disabled patients.

In a recent article by The New York Times, this issue is explored.  Mimi Kramer, a single mom working as a housekeeper, shares her experience with trying to find medical care for her thirty-three year old son who suffers from both autism and cerebral palsy. She tells reporters that she "has literally sat there with a phone book and called one [doctor] after another to try to get him [her son] in". She says that the response she gets most often is that "the [practice she calls] is not taking any new medicaid patients once they hear that he [her son] is challenged" (New York Times). And although I am unable to find a statistic to support this hardship as a trend- perhaps because the mentally disabled population is very small and because of the stigma surrounding the population- the article claims that the mentally disabled are "the most medically underserved population in the country". 

Reading about this issue, I could hardly believe it was current. Doctor's offices and dentist's offices that refuse special needs people service sound like they belong in the 1914 not 2014. Refusing service on the basis of ability also seems like a direct violation of civil rights laws. Though the reforms put in place after the civil rights movements of the 1960's did not protect the mentally disabled- or homosexuals for that matter- there is no reason for a change not to be made today.

Luckily, a change is beginning. It has been started not by the US government but by good-willed, individual facilities. The Lee Specialty Clinic in Kentucky is one such pioneer. According to the article the facility is one of the few of its kind designed specifically to treat those with intellectual disabilities, "The 17,000 square foot facility, offers certain amenities [tailored to the needs of the special patients]. A reception area with natural light and easy-to-clean cushions. Extra wide halls. Scales designed to weight people in wheelchairs. An overhead tram to lift patients into dental chairs." Ms. Kramer's son and others with mental disabilities are able to receive medical attention like everyone else thanks to institutions like this. However, the case is that many families drive hours to receive this type of care. Most still have no access to care like this. If only families across the country, regardless of neighborhood or income level, could receive the specialized care that New Trier High School and the Lee Specialty Clinic offer, the care that everybody deserves.