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.

Shaming American Values

The U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee recently uncovered the hidden horrors of what the C.I.A has been doing overseas: brutally torturing terrorism suspects during interrogations through practices including water boarding and prolonged sleep deprivation. The C.I.A committed immoral and inhumane crimes that disregarded American values, and polluted the image of the United States.

According to a New York Times article by Mark Mazzetti, the Senate looked at a series of reports from a C.I.A facility in Thailand. The reports say that "the [torture] sessions became so extreme that some officers were 'to the point of tears and choking up,' and several said they would elect to be transferred out of the facility if the the brutal interrogations continued". The C.I.A did not give in to the humane requests of its officers and "rejected [their] questions" regarding the "utility" and "legality" of the torture practices. I found this particularly shocking. I would not guess that this was the U.S. government based off of these actions.

However, what is arguably more concerning than the C.I.A brutalizing its detainees is that the C.I.A deceived the U.S. government and hid from the American people what it was truly doing. This deception was not limited to the interrogations, "The report also said that the C.I.A's leadership for years gave false information about the total number of prisoners held by the C.I.A., saying that there had been 98 prisoners when the C.I.A records show that 119 men had been held" (New York Times). The report also concluded that at least 26 of these men were wrongfully held. This sounds almost like part of the U.S. government has gone rogue.

Apart from the fact that the C.I.A's victims were not on U.S. soil, they were still treated in ways which the U. S. Constitution explicitly forbids. And all Americans should believe that everyone is deserving of the basic human rights that Americans receive everyday. Nobody should face excessively cruel punishment or be unrightfully held captive. The US must monitor what it is doing over seas more closely to avoid creating this image for itself, one that makes the country appear weak by showing that it cannot stick to a strict set of values.

What should be done to punish/correct the CIA? What can be done to prevent the U.S. from committing crimes in foreign territory in the future?

The Murders That Are Ignored

I know as much about the gang violence in Chicago as anyone who pays any attention to the evening news. I know that Chicago does have a gun control problem and more murders than any other city in the United States. However, as one of my older relatives recently brought to my attention, Chicago is not even in the top ten U.S. cities in terms of highest murder rate when adjusted for population. This statistic got me thinking that maybe the city is relatively not so violent. Maybe the city has been misjudged, and is merely typical for a city in a country that loves to give citizens firearms. Then, on Facebook this past week, I came across a startling thirteen minute documentary about violence in Chicago, specifically the city's South Side. The video quickly ended the debate in my mind over whether people have the right idea about Chicago's violence issue. (I would highly recommend watching at least a few minutes of it).

According to the video, in 2012 alone, more than 440 school age children were shot. The narrator explains that "this can be attributed to the city's one-hundred thousand gang members" who are constantly battling- literally fighting- for control of different "territories". The narrator then proceeds to interview and follow around some gang members. Those interviewed explained how shockingly easy it is to acquire handguns, and then, after some persuading, reveal that they are in fact armed while walking around their neighborhood. They have grown up in an area where one needs to be prepared to fight for their life at a moments notice.

The narrator also explains that the gun issue does not originate in the city itself, which does actually have very strict gun laws. The real problem come from the suburbs, he explains, where guns can easily be legitimately purchased before being sold on the streets illegally. The superintendent of the Chicago police supports this (at 7:00) saying that guns are what puts Chicago ahead of other cities in terms of violence. He then shows a collection of 125 firearms, ranging from pistols to assault rifles, all of which were taken off the street in one given week. Regardless of whether Chicago ranks first or fiftieth in terms of murders, hundreds of children are shot each year because of the accessibility of these lethal weapons.

The narrator opens with the line, "Chicago is in bad shape", generalizing that the whole city is a bad place based off of particular areas, the ones explored in the documentary. The opening line reveals something particularly problematic with how "we", as a society, deal with issues, in this case gun violence. The very fact that the narrator opens with such a line indicates that he feels a need to convince his audience that there is a problem in their city that demands attention. The assumption there is that it would otherwise be ignored for the most part. This made me realize how typical it is in our society to wait for tragic events (e.g. Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin) to work towards change. Does Chicago need it own version of a Michael Brown tragedy (one involving simply a gun issue, not a police issue) to spark a change, to inspire people to react to the 440 school children who were shot in 2012, to help the citizens fearing the war zone they must call their neighborhood? Or will people finally choose to be proactive, correcting the gun problem before it is too late?