Too Little Too Late

Shame on the NFL. Why did it take the release of a graphic video depicting violence and abuse to make the NFL punish one of their own? The initial information the public received about Raven's star Ray Rice should have pushed the NFL to a zero-tolerance policy on domestic abuse. 

The NFL has gotten themselves in deep trouble with what seems to be the entire country. On Monday, TMZ released a video showing Rice beating his then-fiancée Janay Palmer in an elevator. After he knocked her out, he proceeded to drag her unconscious body outside by her feet. In March, a photo was released of Rice dragging Palmer out of the elevator, causing the NFL to give Rice an inadequate suspension of merely two games for the following season. However, the case made headlines again when this video was released. The public uproar forced the NFL to revisit the situation and impose a more severe punishment. Rice has been suspended indefinitely and cut from the Ravens. 

If Rice wasn't a well-known, professional athlete, his initial punishment would have undoubtedly been more severe. They took Rice's "celebrity status" and let that skew their judgement of right and wrong.  Goodell told CBS News news on Tuesday, “We assumed there was a video, we asked for a video, but we were never granted that opportunity”. I suspect the NFL knew more about the case than they led on a few months ago. The NFL claims they had never seen the video, but if they really hadn't, why didn't they investigate the case further? Doesn't the NFL have the power to demand more surveillance video at the time of the incident? 

I think that the NFL needs to seriously reconsider their position on domestic violence. In my opinion, they handled this situation poorly. They knew what he did was wrong, but chose to ignore a more severe punishment in order to keep a star player. Domestic violence is wrong. Just because Rice is a professional athlete doesn't mean he should be exempt from punishment for this crime. What's the message the NFL is sending?

Bill Gates...History Teacher?

When I decided to take American Studies, I thought it would be like my previous English and Modern World History class except combined instead of separate. I figured it would follow the same basic skeleton of the two classes, but I realized after the first day that I was completely wrong. We discussed the non-traditional curriculum for the year, which was unlike any other class I have taken: no tests, no point system, and no grades on papers. I was surprised, but after being in the class for a couple of weeks I began to adjust to the different approach, leading me to question the structure of other classes I have and will take in years to come.

           

While I was thinking further about this topic, I came across an article in the New York Times about Bill Gates’ recent involvement in history courses. Bill Gates has decided to team up with with history professor David Christian to produce “BigHistory”, a history course taught online through videos, articles and activities for high school students. It’s free and publicly accessible to virtually any teacher or student. However, this history course is unlike the generic history courses taught at school. "Big History" does not focus on one topic or class. "Instead, it put forward asynthesis of history, biology, chemistry, astronomy and other disparate fields,which Christian wove together into nothing less than a unifying narrative oflife on earth.” Since its release in 2011, the number of high schools using Big History has increased from 5 to more than 1,200 schools and more than 15,000 students this fall. The greatest challenge so far however, has been with Gates himself. Should Bill Gates, one of the world's richest men, have the power to alter our schools history courses completely? He has the money to fund it, but is he really an expert on history and education? And can these videos really be equivalent to the history classes we take today?

Bill Gates isn't a teacher or professor, and his expertise is not in history. He merely found Christian's old videos, liked them, and decided to expand on them. However, I feel that since he has the money and the means to introduce this history course, he should be allowed to do it. I think his intentions are genuine and I don't see why he should be denied the opportunity to introduce a new way of teaching. I can see why critic's object to this idea, because it is so different from traditional history courses. In fact, I think that's what makes it intriguing. Immediately after I read the article, I went to their website and watched the first video."Big History" is not as detailed and comprehensive as our history courses, therefore I don't think it should replace our history classes today.  Instead of taking place of history courses, I think that maybe it should be added in addition to a history course. It ties together more than just history, so I feel like it should be in it's own category. So, what do you think? Should we keep the old or introduce something new?