Sam Chapman
Nick Henson
Writing 122
1/29/09
Peer Edited by: Lisa Gonia
Learning to Learn
You’re sitting in your least favorite class staring at the clock praying for some kind of time lapse miracle to take place because you’re bored out of your mind. Your teacher has been lecturing for what seems to be decades, and you think to yourself, isn’t there any way this could be slightly interesting or possibly even fun? Paulo Freire would say ‘yes’. Freire would refer to your professor’s style of teaching as a ‘banking style education’. The ‘banking style education’ concept is the idea of systematically learning and processing information in a linear and sequential format used in many traditional teaching formulas such as those many of us have experienced in the K-12 education. The banking style of teaching should be toned down and used only when necessary because a full education cannot be gained without communication between the teacher and his or her students, nor can it be gained without students communicating with one another.
Lucky for us, Friere created a solution to replace this misguided emphasis on memorization and wrote learning that the banking style of education imposes. This solution is known as ‘problem-posing’. The ‘problem posing’ practice in teaching requires every student to think on their own, rather than have the teachers think for them. Friere believed “Education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and teachers and students” (244) This is the key concept of problem-posing in that it takes both the teacher and the students to create a learning process that both sides can benefit from, erasing the robotic repetition of boring lectures and sleepy students.
Freire defines the rival banking concept as an oppressive one “in which the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filling and storing deposits” (Freire 244). By this, Freire is talking about the theory of banking where the role of the student is to be a container and the role of the teachers is to fill the containers with knowledge. In some aspects this method of teaching seems to be necessary for classes that require memorization, such as mathematical formulas and spelling tests; however, Friere would argue that the banking style of education is not a suitable concept because it keeps students from learning the meaning of answers, rather than just the answers themselves. Referring to the banking concept, Freire says “It is the people themselves who are filed away through the lack of creativity, transformation, and knowledge in this (at best) misguided system” (244).
Now think back on your education and determine which method dominated the bulk of your education? Chances are it was the banking concept. As Freire illustrates, some teachers are not even aware of how they are teaching. A curriculum in and of itself is an example of the banking concept. The school administration passes down the content that teachers are required to use in the classroom. Many teachers resort to the banking concept of teaching in order to cover required material with limited class time, large class sizes, with little time left for interaction. These obstacles sometimes result in creating what Freire would claim is instruction of absolute ignorance and a characteristic of oppression because it does not involve the Socratic method of teaching and learning. This idea of a using only one stagnant method to teach students is completely unrealistic because learning styles differ widely among students. Students should be allowed the freedom of expression and dialogue that collaborative learning allows on the subject matter that they are learning about in order to grasp the entire concept. A student can be taught to memorize every U.S. President elected, but without asking questions, this student will never know the significance and impact each president had. Many of the world’s greatest philosophers would have not gained their status without using the problem-posing approach. As my senior English honors teacher said, “Socrates would have taught nothing if his student had not asked the questions they did.” Ironically enough, the problem-posing theory Freire presents poses some problems that must be addressed if it is ever going to be taken into serious consideration before it becomes implemented with our public school systems. Problem-posing requires teachers to be highly skilled not only in the art of teaching, but the art of passionate discussion, facilitation, and collaborative learning as well. For these methods to work properly, the teacher must also be ready to regulate a classroom with 25+ students, which can be a challenge to say the least, even assuming that all students want to engage in the issue at hand.
The Citizenship class I took my senior year of high school is an ideal example of how the problem posing theory can work effectively in the classroom. That class is one that incorporated discussion, group projects, and real world situations into the curriculum, generating a raised level of awareness among about what was going on in the world around them. My Citizenship class gave me a chance to gain knowledge and, more importantly to me, gave me the chance to express my feelings, opinions, and passions in their entirety. Mr. Meeuwsen, my Citizenship instructor, was a man of passion, a rare quality to find in my public high school. On the second day of class, Mr. Meeuwsen and I got into our first debate. The subject was the American flag and what it represented to each of us. Mr. Meeuwsen started off by giving us his view on why everyone should stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. His justification is what got me fired up. He believed that if you did not stand for the Pledge you were not respecting what our country represents and that was an unpatriotic gesture. I decided I had heard enough of his opinion to validate my own. The fire had been lit and the curriculum for the day was forgotten. For the entire 50 minutes of class, it was a back and forth debate between Mr. Meeuwsen and myself. My stance was that the flag does not define who I am as an American and most certainly does not make me unpatriotic because I don’t stand up for it.
Towards the end of the class people were looking at us if we were about to have a cage match. After the bell rang Mr. Mueewsen came up to me and asked if the conversation was to intense to discuss in a public arena. Even though I was still heated from the discussion we had a short chat on how it was really one of the most amazing discussions I’ve ever had with a teacher during class. We decided to expand on this idea of more heavy verbal dialogue in class in hope of stimulating some other minds to clash with our own. By the second week we had students that I had never heard a word from in years revealing their real opinions and ideas. Finally, a class we students could look forward to attending! Freire says that “Students, as they are increasingly posed with problems relating to themselves in the world and with the world, will feel increasingly challenged and obliged to respond to that challenge.” (250) Right then Freire’s philosophy had been proven correct. Students started to feel like what they had to say mattered, and it did.
I recently came in contact with Mr. Meeuwsen via e-mail and asked him to recall his side of this inspiring experience. He responded with his fundamental beliefs that could easily been seen as a mirror image of Paulo Freire’s problem-posing theory. One of Mr. Mueewsen’s philosophies was that “Kids want points, at least most kids, and it is the rare student who really tries to learn from reading or doing assignments”. I think that is why I like to discuss ideas and ask questions because then you get to see students perform and show what they know. You can tell who is thinking and who is not.” Problem-posing is not only effective in the classroom, but it generates interest outside of the classroom. After high school, reality comes knocking at the front door, and if you’re not yet packed up and ready to go, it will leave without you. This is where we find the strength in our diverse culture. Within the depths of every school, there are teachers waiting for you to stand up and ask the question, ‘Why?’
Work Cited
Paulo Freire, The “Banking” Concept of Education. Ways of Reading 8th Edition,
David Bartholomae. Boston/New York 2008, pages 242-254. Textbook
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Friday, November 14, 2008
America’s Role as a Global Leader in Stem Cell Research
The United States has the responsibility to lead the world in embryonic stem cell research because it is a powerful technology that could be used in both positive and negative ways. If the U.S. government would approve use of new stem cell research, rather than relying on existing stem cells or adult stem cells, our nation could play a larger role in saving more lives here and around the world. Embryos currently can be made in a test tube by combining an egg with a sperm, with permission from the donors. They can also be collected from a miscarriage or an aborted embryo; however, the United States has prevented use of federal funds for both of these available options, mainly due to differences in religion, perceived ‘right to life’ issues, and certain ethical concerns. We must ask ourselves as a country why we can’t jump back into the scientific race to save many lives. As one of the most powerful countries on the planet, do we not have an obligation to help ourselves and other countries that don’t have our resources, money or power? If using research on live stem cells received federal funding again, the U.S. would have the opportunity to jump ahead because we could produce the processes and technology to cure major diseases to treat things such as blood disorders, bone marrow transplants, leukemia, lymphoma, cancer, birth defects and many more obstacles we could not otherwise overcome.
As previously mentioned, when it comes to live stem cells, there are two options for development of research embryonic cells. The first is to obtain embryonic stem cells from living embryos. To obtain living embryonic stem cells scientists must either grow them in a test tube using a fertilized egg or they can extract them from embryos that have been miscarried or aborted. By scientific definition an embryo is a collection of cells, not a separate living being and cannot become one outside of the womb. To those who believe human life starts at conception, using embryonic cells means destroying the potential for human life. We should ask them to consider that science is the entity that created the embryos and that from the same test tube, vast scientific advancements can be gained from sacrificing only one artificially created embryo to obtain large numbers of cells with which a multitude of existing human lives can be saved. The second option is to use adult stem cells. It is true that adult stem cells do not require the destruction of an embryo and can be used for maintaining and repairing tissue, which makes them useful in transplants and loss of bone marrow. However, adult stem cells are much harder to cultivate and are very limited in the types of cells they can become. Even though adult stem cell research is backed by federal funds, unlike adult stem cells, live embryonic stem cells can become almost any type of cell, and they are more easily cultivated. Last but certainly not least, embryonic stem cells carry the greatest potential for developing future therapies and cures for diseases. Let me make it crystal clear that I am not seeking permission from the government to create embryos for scientific research, but rather to allow researchers to take cells from the embryos that are no longer needed for the implantation process when treating infertility. Instead of discarding these embryos, the government should allow the use of these embryos to further explore the potential they obviously possess. There is no just reason for the U.S. to be throwing away embryos that could be saving lives instead of sitting in the bottom of a scientific garbage can.
On August 9th, 2001, President George W. Bush announced that federal funds may be awarded for research using human embryonic stem cells only if the following criteria are met: 1) the derivation process (which begins with the destruction of the embryo) was initiated prior to 9:00 P.M. EDT on August 9, 2001; 2) the stem cells must have been derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes and was no longer needed; 3) informed consent must have been given for the donation of the embryo and that donation must not have involved financial inducements. (stemcells.nih.gov). This was a monumental step backwards for America in the race for scientific representation, but was seen as a huge advancement for conservative anti-abortionists. Anti-abortion activists and conservatives alike came to an agreement that this action taken by President Bush is as far left as we should go on the issue of stem cell research. If we truly do see ourselves as leaders in this generation of research, we must permit new embryonic stem cell research methods to be implemented and fund the basic science to do so.
History has proven that scientific research may have significant costs for the few, but that the same research can create positive results for the many. As an example, many current vaccinations save millions of lives, but may cause injury or death to a small number. Even President Bush can’t deny the advantages over the disadvantages of vaccinating the masses. As you can now see, in the case for embryonic stem cell research, our government has forced scientists into a corner. They must use adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells already available frozen and reserved from 2001. Scientists that work for private research firms have no limitations as long as their funding is available from private sources. Privatized stem cell research in America is a 150 million dollar a year industry. Think about how much more money and how many more researchers could be utilized if the government was to add funding for this basic science to research institutions and universities. Countries all over the globe are making new discoveries with embryonic stem cells every day with their version of federally backed funds. We should consider what other countries have already begun to do with regard to this research. Great Britain provides a good example of a country that took on the research of embryonic stem cells four years ago and recently expanded that funding to include the creation of a specific stem cell research facility, all at government expense. With government backing the scientific research, they have already begun to make advancements beyond what the U.S. has been able to accomplish under the current regulations. Using cells from 2001 is not going to show new results for the year 2008. What happens when we use up all of the stem cells from 2001? In what way are we making progress if we cannot continuously test embryonic stem cells? Yes, the scientists here in the U.S. are allowed to conduct research on embryonic stem cells in privately funded facilities and thanks to that we still have a chance at gaining some serious ground in embryonic stem cell breakthroughs, but without sufficient funding we will keep falling behind other countries that have government support for embryonic research.
When President Harry Truman decided that is was necessary to drop an atomic bomb, it created serious controversy for the masses. The American government conducted the research necessary for the development of this weapon and was willing to assume the responsibility for the effects of dropping that atomic bomb on Japan in WWII. We dropped the nuclear bomb to end a conventional war and save American lives. Although considered horrific in many people’s eyes, this act did have a positive effect at the time by ending the war in the Pacific and helping defeat the Germans in Europe. In this case, Americans made a very difficult choice in order to play an enormous role in ending the war and saving American lives. In comparison, embryonic stem cell research has already proven its positive worth and will save many more lives with the acceptable destruction of only a few artificially created groups of cells. In my opinion we are ready to assume the responsibility for the power to embrace embryonic stem cell production and research and save lives now. In this day and age we, as Americans, are the leaders in taking lives by conducting two wars at once. With the technology America possesses, we must use our power to save as many lives as we have taken.
A step forward has been made. While President-Elect Barack Obama is gearing up to take control of our country, he immediately made clear after his election that he plans to lift the Bush Executive Order banning funding for the creation of new embryonic stem cells for research purposes. This is the change that not only scientific researchers need, but a change that Americans can be proud of supporting. Once again we should be ready and willing, more than ever, to take this responsibility and make funding available for the expansion of our own capability to change the world , and President Barack Obama is the man who will lead us in that change.
As previously mentioned, when it comes to live stem cells, there are two options for development of research embryonic cells. The first is to obtain embryonic stem cells from living embryos. To obtain living embryonic stem cells scientists must either grow them in a test tube using a fertilized egg or they can extract them from embryos that have been miscarried or aborted. By scientific definition an embryo is a collection of cells, not a separate living being and cannot become one outside of the womb. To those who believe human life starts at conception, using embryonic cells means destroying the potential for human life. We should ask them to consider that science is the entity that created the embryos and that from the same test tube, vast scientific advancements can be gained from sacrificing only one artificially created embryo to obtain large numbers of cells with which a multitude of existing human lives can be saved. The second option is to use adult stem cells. It is true that adult stem cells do not require the destruction of an embryo and can be used for maintaining and repairing tissue, which makes them useful in transplants and loss of bone marrow. However, adult stem cells are much harder to cultivate and are very limited in the types of cells they can become. Even though adult stem cell research is backed by federal funds, unlike adult stem cells, live embryonic stem cells can become almost any type of cell, and they are more easily cultivated. Last but certainly not least, embryonic stem cells carry the greatest potential for developing future therapies and cures for diseases. Let me make it crystal clear that I am not seeking permission from the government to create embryos for scientific research, but rather to allow researchers to take cells from the embryos that are no longer needed for the implantation process when treating infertility. Instead of discarding these embryos, the government should allow the use of these embryos to further explore the potential they obviously possess. There is no just reason for the U.S. to be throwing away embryos that could be saving lives instead of sitting in the bottom of a scientific garbage can.
On August 9th, 2001, President George W. Bush announced that federal funds may be awarded for research using human embryonic stem cells only if the following criteria are met: 1) the derivation process (which begins with the destruction of the embryo) was initiated prior to 9:00 P.M. EDT on August 9, 2001; 2) the stem cells must have been derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes and was no longer needed; 3) informed consent must have been given for the donation of the embryo and that donation must not have involved financial inducements. (stemcells.nih.gov). This was a monumental step backwards for America in the race for scientific representation, but was seen as a huge advancement for conservative anti-abortionists. Anti-abortion activists and conservatives alike came to an agreement that this action taken by President Bush is as far left as we should go on the issue of stem cell research. If we truly do see ourselves as leaders in this generation of research, we must permit new embryonic stem cell research methods to be implemented and fund the basic science to do so.
History has proven that scientific research may have significant costs for the few, but that the same research can create positive results for the many. As an example, many current vaccinations save millions of lives, but may cause injury or death to a small number. Even President Bush can’t deny the advantages over the disadvantages of vaccinating the masses. As you can now see, in the case for embryonic stem cell research, our government has forced scientists into a corner. They must use adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells already available frozen and reserved from 2001. Scientists that work for private research firms have no limitations as long as their funding is available from private sources. Privatized stem cell research in America is a 150 million dollar a year industry. Think about how much more money and how many more researchers could be utilized if the government was to add funding for this basic science to research institutions and universities. Countries all over the globe are making new discoveries with embryonic stem cells every day with their version of federally backed funds. We should consider what other countries have already begun to do with regard to this research. Great Britain provides a good example of a country that took on the research of embryonic stem cells four years ago and recently expanded that funding to include the creation of a specific stem cell research facility, all at government expense. With government backing the scientific research, they have already begun to make advancements beyond what the U.S. has been able to accomplish under the current regulations. Using cells from 2001 is not going to show new results for the year 2008. What happens when we use up all of the stem cells from 2001? In what way are we making progress if we cannot continuously test embryonic stem cells? Yes, the scientists here in the U.S. are allowed to conduct research on embryonic stem cells in privately funded facilities and thanks to that we still have a chance at gaining some serious ground in embryonic stem cell breakthroughs, but without sufficient funding we will keep falling behind other countries that have government support for embryonic research.
When President Harry Truman decided that is was necessary to drop an atomic bomb, it created serious controversy for the masses. The American government conducted the research necessary for the development of this weapon and was willing to assume the responsibility for the effects of dropping that atomic bomb on Japan in WWII. We dropped the nuclear bomb to end a conventional war and save American lives. Although considered horrific in many people’s eyes, this act did have a positive effect at the time by ending the war in the Pacific and helping defeat the Germans in Europe. In this case, Americans made a very difficult choice in order to play an enormous role in ending the war and saving American lives. In comparison, embryonic stem cell research has already proven its positive worth and will save many more lives with the acceptable destruction of only a few artificially created groups of cells. In my opinion we are ready to assume the responsibility for the power to embrace embryonic stem cell production and research and save lives now. In this day and age we, as Americans, are the leaders in taking lives by conducting two wars at once. With the technology America possesses, we must use our power to save as many lives as we have taken.
A step forward has been made. While President-Elect Barack Obama is gearing up to take control of our country, he immediately made clear after his election that he plans to lift the Bush Executive Order banning funding for the creation of new embryonic stem cells for research purposes. This is the change that not only scientific researchers need, but a change that Americans can be proud of supporting. Once again we should be ready and willing, more than ever, to take this responsibility and make funding available for the expansion of our own capability to change the world , and President Barack Obama is the man who will lead us in that change.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Important influences of my life
Important Influences on My Life
My parents have been the most influential people in my life to this day. Teaching me about things I would eventually learn on my own, and teaching me how to find information out for myself, instead of believing whatever I was told without question. I was shown how to wonder, discover, and discuss information and opinions whether they were reliable, true, or just different than my own. I feel like talking about my parents in this way is like writing their names down as references for a job application because I didn’t have any others. In this case, my parents are not my scapegoat subject, as choosing to write about parents may be for others, but rather the truth as to the explanation of how I became the person I am today.
In my generation as a child, most kids grew up watching television day and night, listening and watching any and everything that would jump out of that box. Although my T.V. time was limited when I was little, I can relate to this, but with a better ending than most kids who believed everything they saw on T.V. Every night my parents would make a weekday habit of having a nice family dinner with The Nightly News with Jim Lehrer playing along in the background. If for some reason we didn’t have anything to talk about at the table that night, we would scramble up our own personal opinionated conversations from whatever was going on in the news at the time. Hearing the ways my parents openly discussed political views and expressions influenced me more than I ever knew.
Yes, they are liberal parents, but not the stereotypical liberals to say the least. They believe in liberalism where you have the freedom to believe in whatever you want as long as you have some sort of creditable argument or information to base your viewpoints on. This kind of dialogue was where I first experienced the Socratic manner of learning without even knowing it at the time. I learned about this manner of investigation more formally this year in class. I now carry it with me in every aspect of life. Questioning that which doesn’t make sense, for better or worse, eventually leads to the truth, and that is what I like to strive towards.
The other thing my parents love to do besides debating world policy and politics is to travel. Covering twelve countries before the age of 14 definitely aided my efforts to discover the huge amount of diversity this world has to offer. Experiencing a half dozen cultures taught me how to be extremely open-minded towards all ideas and beliefs. Seeing how much freedom we really do have compared to other countries makes me happy to know that we still have the power to
influence and change our political way of life for the better of our society if we want it bad enough.
With the philosophy that I have developed with my parents’ heavy influence, I believe that I can do anything I set my mind to do. Heading to the University of Oregon with the mindset I have now, is going to be an exciting adventure in a new way and I am confident that I can be successful in any area I choose to study. I hope you think so, too.
Submitted by Samuel C.L. Chapman, Dec. 30, 2007
My parents have been the most influential people in my life to this day. Teaching me about things I would eventually learn on my own, and teaching me how to find information out for myself, instead of believing whatever I was told without question. I was shown how to wonder, discover, and discuss information and opinions whether they were reliable, true, or just different than my own. I feel like talking about my parents in this way is like writing their names down as references for a job application because I didn’t have any others. In this case, my parents are not my scapegoat subject, as choosing to write about parents may be for others, but rather the truth as to the explanation of how I became the person I am today.
In my generation as a child, most kids grew up watching television day and night, listening and watching any and everything that would jump out of that box. Although my T.V. time was limited when I was little, I can relate to this, but with a better ending than most kids who believed everything they saw on T.V. Every night my parents would make a weekday habit of having a nice family dinner with The Nightly News with Jim Lehrer playing along in the background. If for some reason we didn’t have anything to talk about at the table that night, we would scramble up our own personal opinionated conversations from whatever was going on in the news at the time. Hearing the ways my parents openly discussed political views and expressions influenced me more than I ever knew.
Yes, they are liberal parents, but not the stereotypical liberals to say the least. They believe in liberalism where you have the freedom to believe in whatever you want as long as you have some sort of creditable argument or information to base your viewpoints on. This kind of dialogue was where I first experienced the Socratic manner of learning without even knowing it at the time. I learned about this manner of investigation more formally this year in class. I now carry it with me in every aspect of life. Questioning that which doesn’t make sense, for better or worse, eventually leads to the truth, and that is what I like to strive towards.
The other thing my parents love to do besides debating world policy and politics is to travel. Covering twelve countries before the age of 14 definitely aided my efforts to discover the huge amount of diversity this world has to offer. Experiencing a half dozen cultures taught me how to be extremely open-minded towards all ideas and beliefs. Seeing how much freedom we really do have compared to other countries makes me happy to know that we still have the power to
influence and change our political way of life for the better of our society if we want it bad enough.
With the philosophy that I have developed with my parents’ heavy influence, I believe that I can do anything I set my mind to do. Heading to the University of Oregon with the mindset I have now, is going to be an exciting adventure in a new way and I am confident that I can be successful in any area I choose to study. I hope you think so, too.
Submitted by Samuel C.L. Chapman, Dec. 30, 2007
Violating a norm
Violating a Norm
I decided to violate a norm that I have previously seen violated in middle school. Given that I am now six years older than I was back then in middle school, I knew that the reactions would differ now that I live in a more mature environment. Any bathroom in America is a filled with norms. Washing your hands after you use the bathroom, flushing the toilet when you are done, or not using the same urinal or toilet at the same time as someone ells. The bathroom to society is simply a sacred place where we reveal what is not to be revealed in public, and excrete bodily fluids from it. You stand close to the urinal so others cannot see your extremities, and you close the door on the stall so people do not see you making funny faces. I dug deeper into some of the most simplistic norms that a bathroom contains and found one in particular that pertains to the Men’s bathroom. The zipper on a males pant is a vital tool to peeing with ease. All guys know that buttons suck because it looks like you’re playing with yourself jumping up and down to try to fit the buttons in the correct hole. If you have no hole in which to pee out of, you pull down the front of your pants and do your business. One day in middle school I witnessed a very funny friend of mine break a few norms that I found very interesting and ironically hilarious. As I watched him enter the bathroom not only did he choose to use a urinal right next to another boy already peeing, but he pulled down and pants and underwear to pee, obviously exposing his pale butt to everyone who glanced in the general direction. Now in this setting, the act was seen as one of immaturity and comedy, never being taken seriously for one minute. I decided to bring the trial to my COL 150 bathroom in between classes when there was a high amount of bathroom traffic. As I walked in I decided not to take the experiment over the line and pull my pants down and pee in a urinal directly next to someone, so I spaced myself using the urinal on the far left, dropping my pants and letting fly. The student two urinals away from me slightly looked in my direction and immediately looked back down at his own stream and seemed to try a little harder so he could get out of the bathroom as fast as he could. The idea of him being uncomfortable with me being half naked was no surprise to me. Unfortunately only one other test subject entered the bathroom while my experiment was still taking place, however he quickly decided that the bathroom he had chosen had been the worst decision he had made all day results in a quick turn around and walk out the door motion. The norm I violated is clearly one of peoples personal comfort zone.
I believe it is safe to say that most men do not expect to see the backside of a half naked man peeing when they walk into the bathroom, therefore I violated an unspoken norm.
I decided to violate a norm that I have previously seen violated in middle school. Given that I am now six years older than I was back then in middle school, I knew that the reactions would differ now that I live in a more mature environment. Any bathroom in America is a filled with norms. Washing your hands after you use the bathroom, flushing the toilet when you are done, or not using the same urinal or toilet at the same time as someone ells. The bathroom to society is simply a sacred place where we reveal what is not to be revealed in public, and excrete bodily fluids from it. You stand close to the urinal so others cannot see your extremities, and you close the door on the stall so people do not see you making funny faces. I dug deeper into some of the most simplistic norms that a bathroom contains and found one in particular that pertains to the Men’s bathroom. The zipper on a males pant is a vital tool to peeing with ease. All guys know that buttons suck because it looks like you’re playing with yourself jumping up and down to try to fit the buttons in the correct hole. If you have no hole in which to pee out of, you pull down the front of your pants and do your business. One day in middle school I witnessed a very funny friend of mine break a few norms that I found very interesting and ironically hilarious. As I watched him enter the bathroom not only did he choose to use a urinal right next to another boy already peeing, but he pulled down and pants and underwear to pee, obviously exposing his pale butt to everyone who glanced in the general direction. Now in this setting, the act was seen as one of immaturity and comedy, never being taken seriously for one minute. I decided to bring the trial to my COL 150 bathroom in between classes when there was a high amount of bathroom traffic. As I walked in I decided not to take the experiment over the line and pull my pants down and pee in a urinal directly next to someone, so I spaced myself using the urinal on the far left, dropping my pants and letting fly. The student two urinals away from me slightly looked in my direction and immediately looked back down at his own stream and seemed to try a little harder so he could get out of the bathroom as fast as he could. The idea of him being uncomfortable with me being half naked was no surprise to me. Unfortunately only one other test subject entered the bathroom while my experiment was still taking place, however he quickly decided that the bathroom he had chosen had been the worst decision he had made all day results in a quick turn around and walk out the door motion. The norm I violated is clearly one of peoples personal comfort zone.
I believe it is safe to say that most men do not expect to see the backside of a half naked man peeing when they walk into the bathroom, therefore I violated an unspoken norm.
Looking in the mirror
Skinny, ginger, white, all are descriptions of myself that I hear on a daily basis. I don’t find any of these terms offensive, but rather realistic. In this day and age being makes me a minority. Ginger, referring to my hair of course, would just be the term my friends use for me when they need my attention. White would be the exact color of my skin. If you saw me with my shirt off you would know why I picked it as a descriptive word for myself.
I believe the social box that encloses me is the same box that encloses society; we all just tend to look at it from different angles. Between the ages of zero and twelve I traveled through 12 countries. I feel it is safe to say that the things I witnessed and experienced in every country I visited have helped shape the person I am today. Without realizing it, I was subjected to many of society’s cultures, beliefs, and reasoning’s. Seeing these things first hand at such a young age opened my eyes to new ideas on how the world and its people work. I give my parents all the credit for everything I have accomplished. The only influence they held over me growing up was to find out for yourself and to believe what you want to believe. Naturally I turned out much like them and couldn’t be happier. When I looked at myself in the mirror, naked, I started to wonder how others would think of me naked. What if America suddenly turned into a nudist colony? I’m sure another baby boom would shortly be on its way. Would we choose different people to be our friends based on what is underneath our clothing? If we did how would countries who wear clothing on a daily basis see us? Would more women be comfortable with being naked since the size of their extremities can be observed with clothing on? I would imagine a large majority of men would not be comfortable walking around naked due to the fear of comparison to other men.
When I look in the mirror I question society, just as it questions me.
I believe the social box that encloses me is the same box that encloses society; we all just tend to look at it from different angles. Between the ages of zero and twelve I traveled through 12 countries. I feel it is safe to say that the things I witnessed and experienced in every country I visited have helped shape the person I am today. Without realizing it, I was subjected to many of society’s cultures, beliefs, and reasoning’s. Seeing these things first hand at such a young age opened my eyes to new ideas on how the world and its people work. I give my parents all the credit for everything I have accomplished. The only influence they held over me growing up was to find out for yourself and to believe what you want to believe. Naturally I turned out much like them and couldn’t be happier. When I looked at myself in the mirror, naked, I started to wonder how others would think of me naked. What if America suddenly turned into a nudist colony? I’m sure another baby boom would shortly be on its way. Would we choose different people to be our friends based on what is underneath our clothing? If we did how would countries who wear clothing on a daily basis see us? Would more women be comfortable with being naked since the size of their extremities can be observed with clothing on? I would imagine a large majority of men would not be comfortable walking around naked due to the fear of comparison to other men.
When I look in the mirror I question society, just as it questions me.
Administration Racism
Dear Editor:
Bandannas have been a fashion statement since the 60's. I personally often wear a bandanna because it holds my hair out of my eyes. It is unfortunate that many advisers in the higher ranks believe that we might have "gang affiliations" if found wearing any type of colored cloth on our heads. I have worn bandannas since I was a freshmen with no problem.
Today I wore a blue bandanna all the way up till lunch with no harassment from teachers with very few problems. One of our Vice Principles stopped me in the hallway and told me to take it off. I asked her when the last time gang violence was present in school. She couldn't answer that question because she already knew the answer was a long time ago. She simply told me my feelings and or opinions on the issue didn't really matter because it's flat out against the rules to wear any "gang affiliations". I told her I thought it was absurd to make me abide by a rule that not one teacher has ever enforced upon me.
If we are having rules like this one enforced now on something so small as a piece of cloth wrapped around my head, then the school should start truly cracking down on short skirts, offensive language, and baggy pants since those are all "against the rules." Administrators might as well tell Muslim students they can't wear turbans because it reflects "terrorist affiliations".
I have been talking to one of our Administrators face to face for days on end with my bandanna clearly on my head without him telling me to take it off. I've seen him spot a student of Spanish origin with a bandanna on and told him immediately to remove his bandanna. This rule is not only being ignored by the staff, but it is creating racism for minorities in our school.
No matter what it takes, whether it be seminars to be held on real gang symbols, or actually enforcing the rule upon all students this fashion bashing needs to stop or be appropriately handled now.
Bandannas have been a fashion statement since the 60's. I personally often wear a bandanna because it holds my hair out of my eyes. It is unfortunate that many advisers in the higher ranks believe that we might have "gang affiliations" if found wearing any type of colored cloth on our heads. I have worn bandannas since I was a freshmen with no problem.
Today I wore a blue bandanna all the way up till lunch with no harassment from teachers with very few problems. One of our Vice Principles stopped me in the hallway and told me to take it off. I asked her when the last time gang violence was present in school. She couldn't answer that question because she already knew the answer was a long time ago. She simply told me my feelings and or opinions on the issue didn't really matter because it's flat out against the rules to wear any "gang affiliations". I told her I thought it was absurd to make me abide by a rule that not one teacher has ever enforced upon me.
If we are having rules like this one enforced now on something so small as a piece of cloth wrapped around my head, then the school should start truly cracking down on short skirts, offensive language, and baggy pants since those are all "against the rules." Administrators might as well tell Muslim students they can't wear turbans because it reflects "terrorist affiliations".
I have been talking to one of our Administrators face to face for days on end with my bandanna clearly on my head without him telling me to take it off. I've seen him spot a student of Spanish origin with a bandanna on and told him immediately to remove his bandanna. This rule is not only being ignored by the staff, but it is creating racism for minorities in our school.
No matter what it takes, whether it be seminars to be held on real gang symbols, or actually enforcing the rule upon all students this fashion bashing needs to stop or be appropriately handled now.
Why should bicyclists obey the laws of the road?
Everyone living on a college campus sees things they agree and disagree with, almost on a daily basis, from political activism to the occasional campus streakier. When it comes to safety, one issue in particular needs to be brought to the attention of students who travel on campus. Bikes have been the transportation craze here at the University of Oregon for many years. It is cheap and convenient to get from point A to point B in a short matter of time on a bicycle. It is easy to move at a faster pace than pedestrians and cars stalled in traffic; however, the growing use of bikes on the road makes safety the first and most important issue. There are laws created for our safety that must be enforced upon all bicyclists to the fullest extent to completely ensure the safety of all students on the streets, in their cars, and on their bikes. The laws of the road not being enforced by public safety and the Eugene police, create an illusion that makes it acceptable to break such laws. Bicyclists should obey the laws of the road because the risks they take effect the safety of everyone on campus.
“An unjust law is no law at all.” (St. Augustine) Laws that do not apply to everyone are unjust and ineffective. You would be ridiculed for saying that everyone under six feet tall would have to eat in their dorms while everyone over six feet tall gets to eat where they want. That is called discrimination and I know that we have laws against it. Picking and choosing who can do certain things and who cannot is not the job of the law. The job of the law is to equally enforce the same laws on everyone.
Chapman 2
When I see people risk their own lives by going through a stop sign without stopping or riding in the wrong direction on a street, I start to think about why they would make such a decision. Are they in such a rush that safety just becomes an invisible reality? Running stop signs is not the only law cyclists are disobeying. Wrong-way riding is also against the law. It’s one of the leading causes of crashes, accounting for 15% to 20% of all crashes with cars. First, a large majority of bicyclists seem to feel it is okay to disobey traffic laws because they are not motorists and do not consider themselves to be in the same category. Secondly, most cyclists are completely unaware that the laws which motor vehicles are required to obey are the same laws for anyone who travels on the road including bicyclists. This would include stopping at stop signs, signaling turns, and making yourself visible at night so everyone knows you are there. Thirdly, who will tell cyclists they can’t just ignore these laws of the road? Here in lies the problem. The police and public safety are taking no action to prevent bikers from running stop signs, to address the need to wear safety lights at night, or even signaling to make a turn. Not only does this lack of enforcement of existing laws on campus contradict to the traffic laws, but makes the laws look like a joke or unimportant at best. This choice of non-action by the police, public safety, and disobedient bikers is why I have decided to bring this issue into view for all to debate. Without enforcement of a law, what is law? The way I see it, it is just a set of rules no one needs to abide by because no one is there to enforce them. All the current road laws were made to protect us from ourselves. I drive a car and ride a bicycle during the day and at night, as many people do. Driving a car comes with a set of rules that happen to be enforced every day, all the time. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for riding a bicycle. If I run a stop sign in my
Chapman 3
car, chances are that I will get pulled over and will face a fine anywhere from 75 to 400 dollars. If I ride my bicycle through a stop sign, I break a law and move on without any punishment.
To insure my claims that there is little or no enforcement on bicyclists, I asked the department of public safety office for an interview with a campus police officer, and the one I met with preferred to remain anonymous. The first question I had for her was if she had ever issued a citation or ticket to a bicyclist. In her career she had issued one citation for a bicyclist a few years back. After that statement she informed me that campus police officers are no longer allowed to make traffic stops of any kind without probable cause. I then asked her if campus police are not enforcing the bicyclist law, then who is? Apparently, Eugene police officers are the only authorities who have the consent of the city to make traffic stops regarding bicyclist: however, she added that , even they are rarely found making such stops. Being under staffed is the reason the officer said these laws go unpunished. She believes that if the public safety department was not understaffed, sporadic citations issued to unlawful cyclists would be the way to reduce the violations that are crowding our streets and sidewalks today. Even with good ideas of how to stop the traffic violations, the officer noted that when public safety brought up the issue to the university, they did not take them seriously. The university told them that their job is to focus on crimes not violations. So my question for the university is what happens when these violation create injuries or death? Who is responsible for the violators disobeying a law that is not enforced by public safety? On my way out of the public safety office I managed to grab a pamphlet with the heading “Bicycling and the University of Oregon, a how-to guide for safe, easy bicycling on campus”. Inside this pamphlet I made a startling discovery. After the officer
Chapman 4
told me that the university took away their authority to make traffic stops, I came upon a contradicting section. I quote from the pamphlet, “If you break the rules, you will be cited. Aside from moving violations-which are enforced on campus by the Eugene Police department and the UO Department of public safety”. It states that you will be cited by the department of public safety when I was just told they no longer have that authority. The officer did suggest that if the issue were brought up by a tuition paying student, the issue might create a bit more bang for its buck.
Bike laws need to be enforced because there are too many uninformed, careless bicyclists riding on the streets. This non-action from the University of Oregon cannot be tolerated any longer. No one is going to take the law seriously if it’s never enforced. If no one abides by the law, how safe can we really be? The unjust laws need to become realistic laws, or abandoned all together. Otherwise they should not be defined as law, but rather guidelines that are no more significant than the paper they are written on.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
