Since it's prison, it's OK

While continuing my research for my Junior Theme, I found an article about rape and sexual assault in prisons. I'm not a professional on this issue, and I have never been to prison so I do not know what prison is really like, but I know it's not a place where I would like to live. I wasn't surprised, however, when I saw that around 80,000 male and female prisoners report sexual assault each year. This number isn't completely accurate, since many prisoners don't report sexual assault and harassment with a fear of being punished, yet it is still very high.

In 2003, a law was passed (the Prison Rape Elimination Act) to stop sexual assault in prisons. There were rules passed with the law, for example screening the prisoners to see if they were a possible threat before placing them in a cell, but only two states actually listened and followed the law. The ACLU estimated that around two million prisoners were sexually assaulted during the time it took to finalize the law (around 9 years), yet states have not changed their opinion on disobeying the law. The article states that "prisons protect rape culture to protect themselves", which is interesting to me. In fact, 50% of prison rape occurs between a prison guard and a prisoner. In my opinion, this is the most alarming fact in the article. Why do prisons employ men and women who hurt prisoners? I realize that prison guards main job is to keep the prisoners in line, but part of their job is protecting them as well. They are supposed to look out for the prisoners and make sure they aren't being further harmed while in prison, which is why I was shocked that such a high percent of rape was from them. 

I realize that people are arrested for a reason. I like to believe, as many Americans do, that prisoners deserve to be in jail. However, I don't think it is okay to let horrible things happen to them while in prison; they are already being punished for what they did. I don't think our society should be fine with prisoners being raped since they did something bad so they "deserve" it. I think that rape and sexual assault is something that should never be wished upon anyone, no matter the person. 

The Curse of Rikers Island

While exploring and researching mental illness in prison, my topic for the junior theme, I came across an article about a specific prison inmate. Michael Megginson is a prisoner at Rikers Island and was arrested for stealing a cell phone. In comparison to other prisoners and the crimes they committed, his didn't seem like a big deal. However, Megginson has become one of the most violent inmates at Rikers since his arrest. Why is that?

Megginson was diagnosed with mental illness from early on in his childhood. Although the article doesn't state his specific diagnosis, he is said to have had behavioral problems leading to violence for a long time. He came from a damaged family with many victims of mental illness themselves. He had been in and out of mental institutions, and while at Rikers he seemed to worsen, becoming very violent to himself and others. If he hadn't been so violent while in jail, he would've been released by now, according to his lawyer. He has been transferred to a state psychiatric prison hospital for the meantime, but no one can agree on where he should reside. Does he belong in prison again, or at a psychiatric hospital?

I think the argument over where to "keep" Megginson is interesting. Does he need to be kept anywhere? It seems as though his family and officials are arguing over a boat or a car, not a human being. I understand that he is violent and dangerous at times, but isn't there something to be said about healing with your family? I think everyone believes that being in prison worsened his condition, so I wonder why they're so eager to keep him away again, even if it is in a hospital.

Is It OK?

Last week in class, we examined an article from the New York Times about the only thing on upperclassman's minds: college. The day after we discussed the article, both of my parents sent me the article. After reading the article a second time, I decided I had some of my own thoughts, because who doesn't like talking about college?

In the article, Bruni examines the application process of two students, one being a past NT graduate. Both students were very successful in high school, in terms of grades, and were rejected from their top choice of colleges. They ended up going to their "safety" schools, and thrived at college. The article states that Peter Hart, NT graduate, felt that he was a "very competent person" once he arrived at Indiana, one of his safety schools. To me, this is very interesting. I think our school is so competitive and I don't think it's common to feel competent in all of your classes. We strive for perfection at our school, and are easily disappointed. All teachers and parents tell students that our school is unlike any other, and I think that most students have a hard time believing them, or at least I know I do. How is a student supposed to step back and look at the big picture, realizing that levels don't mean anything or making varsity isn't the end of the world, if it's all they've ever known?

I also think it's a little unfair of Bruni to use Hart as an example for his article. After college, he quickly found a job, and is now "in graduate school — at Harvard". My biggest problem with this statement is the fact that Harvard is emphasized by being separated from the sentence.  It seems that Bruni is trying to show that although he didn't go to an Ivy League for undergrad, as long as he ended up at one at some point he is "successful". But how do we define success...by having lots of money? Does going to an Ivy League school automatically mean a student will be rich when they're older? I don't think so, in fact, I believe that what you do at college is more important than what school you actually attend. But I think that's hard for us high school students to realize, especially at a place as competitive as New Trier. Don't get me wrong, I love most aspects of my school, but I think there is an added pressure to the students who attend, whether its from teachers or parents, or sometimes the worst ones, themselves. 

A photo from Bruni's article

It's hard to believe that "It's Ok" if you don't get into any of the schools you want to go to. I haven't gone through the process yet, but I find it unlikely that I will feel completely okay if I don't get in to a school I really want. Bruni states that 70-95% of applicants are declined from elite colleges every year. So how do we change our philosophy, or our parents philosophy, into believing that going to an elite school isn't crucial to our future?

Stop the Yakking

I remember the first time I heard the words "Yik Yak". I was in Chemistry class, and someone in my class asked me if I had posted anything on the app yet. At that point in the morning I didn't know what it was, but by the time I saw my friends at lunch it was all anyone could talk about. It was all the rage until teachers found out and quickly shut it down, blocking it from the schools wifi. We had discussions in advisory, and a week or so after that first day, no one really talked about it anymore. It was old news.

While at our school Yik Yak seems to be a thing of the past, different college campuses have been experiencing what we did a year later. At Eastern Michigan University, for example, students in a lecture hall were "yakking" during a lesson and the teaching assistant showed the professor the posts about her after class, many of them rude and inappropriate. The professor went to the university officials, showing them the posts, but the officials couldn't really do anything about it in the end, since Yik Yak is anonymous. While at our school, it was easy to track down students who posted it through the schools wifi information, it's not as easy for college campuses to do the same (many use their phones wireless data instead of the school).

Yik Yak was created in 2013 with the intention of creating a different kind of social media network that wasn't based on friends or followers, and you could see others posts within a 1.5 mile radius. However, in my opinion, more bad than good has come out of the app. At our school, the biggest issue from the app was that it created anonymous cyberbullying, even more hurtful than other social media sites. Our school wasn't the only school to ban the app; many other schools and students have petitioned against the app. 78,287 people support the petition to stop Yik Yak on change.org (a petition started by a victim of the app). While the app may not be deleted, I think it should be banned in college campuses as well.

I know someone who was written about on the site, and I saw the damage it caused. I don't think it was ever used for good at our school, and although I don't have experience anywhere else, I can't imagine a school where no bullying occurred. No one should have to suffer anonymous cyberbullying; regular cyberbullying is bad enough.

Secret Email Gone Viral

Recently, newspapers have exposed that secretary of state Hillary Clinton has a private email which she has been using for her work--government work. Federal officials are supposed to use emails that are given to them, ending in ".gov", so that the government can see their activity. This information has led to questions about whether or not it is okay for government officials to have their own email, and if they should be allowed to use it for their work.

According to the NY Times, Clinton released over 55,000 pages worth of information obtained from her email. The problem, however, is that she could have deleted important information or anything she wanted to hide. Since she was the one to release certain emails, she obviously chose what to expose to the media and what to keep for herself. A personal email lets her delete certain emails as well, without the government having access to all of her emails. It's also a little dangerous to her because hackers and spies could have easily gotten into her private email, while government's emails are heavily guarded and very secure. This raises the question, should she have been able to have her own private email?

I see both sides of the argument. I realize that it was against government policy, and that it makes her seem a little more shady, but I also think she should be able to have her own email for personal information. In my opinion, even government officials should be able to have a private life separate from their work and what the media sees. I can see why she would want her own email, but I think I don't think she should have used it for her work. If she had just used her personal email for family and friends, I don't think that would have been a problem. Since she was using it for government work, however, I can see why this raises concerns about her privacy. Also, the number of pages of emails she submitted is a little surprising to me; it seems like a lot of information, which means she used that email for a lot of her work. I think this may hinder her campaign at running for president in the next presidental election, because enemies will use it to their advantage and some may not trust her. Overall, I think it was a mistake to have one and use it for her job, when it's clear that most government officals did not.

#NoGirlsAllowed

Welcome to the Oscars, an awards ceremony highlighting middle aged white men for their work in films this year. Just kidding...but not really. It's 2015, and females are still scarce in categories that are not Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress, or Best Dressed. Kathyrn Bigelow won the award for best director in 2010, which was the first and only time a women has won that category. This year marked the 87th Oscars, yet there has only been one female ever to take home the Oscar. Is it because there hasn't been female directors worthy of the title?

Although Selma was up for best picture, most critics say it got snubbed for the other categories, including best director. The director of Selma was Ana DuVernay, an African American female. The problem isn't that there weren't enough "Oscar winning movies" directed by females, clearly, so what is it? I can't say I know why this is still happening in 2015, but I can guess a few reasons, one being that the majority of the Academy's Board of Governors (the people who chose who gets to vote) are male. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is 94% white, as of 2012, and 77% male. Do they believe that females aren't intelligent enough to vote on the best films of the year? In my opinion, this may be the case.

However, I noticed a couple of empowering moments for women during the awards show. During Patricia Arquette's acceptance speech for supporting actress, she said (regarding women), "It’s our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America."  She received backlash for this quote, and responded by saying she "doesn't care if people are pissed. The truth is that wage inequality adversely effects women". I think this was an important message to spread, and even though some think it might not have been the right time for this speech, it did reach millions of people. I wonder if most of her critics are females or males, because I think there would be a different reaction depending on the gender of critics. 

Reese Witherspoon, an actress nominated in the Best Actress category, also shed light on how women are perceived at the awards show. While she was interviewed on the Red Carpet (social media's favorite part), she told viewers to #AskHerMore. Instead of just being asked who she was wearing and details about her appearance, she wanted to be asked about her work in her latest movie. Although I had never thought of this before she brought it up, I soon after realized how true it was. Women are always praised and questioned about what they are wearing on Red Carpets as well as tabloids and television shows (Fashion Police is dedicated to criticizing celebrities fashion). For male celebrities on red carpets, reporters might ask who they are wearing, but it's not as big of a conversation topic. They are more interested on their work in films and life outside of the wardrobe. 

In the future, I hope that we look past what women are wearing and focus more on what really matters, on the inside (I know, cheesy). Hopefully Arquette and Witherspoon are just the beginning to a new kind of awards show. 

Fighting Fire with Fire

While thinking about my upcoming college visit next weekend, I found an article about college campuses and guns. When I first saw the title of the article, I was a little startled; I don't usually think of those two things in the same sentence. As I read on, I was even more surprised to see that colleges are considering allowing students to carry guns on campus for self protection. 

Certain colleges have been exploring the idea of allowing guns on campus as a solution to rape and other sexual assaults. The article argues that guns won't help against these crimes at all, really, because most assaults happen in social situations. I think I agree with this statement. I don't think that any student would bring their handheld gun to a party just in case they're in a bad situation--having a gun could get really bad, really fast. In my opinion, the gun is only effective if you have it physically on you at all times; you can't just leave your gun in your coat at the door. I don't think this would be a solution to sexual assault at all, even though it may intimidate sexual predators. 

Carrying a gun on a college campus is banned in 41 states, however some have been pushing to change this law. There are currently eight states that allow concealed weapons on campus. I wonder why these specific states (Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah and Wisconsin) allow guns on campuses, while the majority of states don't allow it. In addition to possibly preventing sexual assault, supporters believe that it may prevent mass shootings on college campuses as well. By prevent, I mean that carrying a gun may help teachers and students to defend themselves in case of attack. Lawmakers have been discussing this bill in 10 states this year. I understand why college campuses feel like they need to ensure the safety and protection of both their students and staff, but I don't think they should use guns to solve the problem of guns. I think that colleges should first think about the kind of security they have at their school, then discuss different, less harmful and potentially very dangerous ways to help their students. For example, maybe colleges could create a mandatory self defense class for all freshman entering the school. They could also train teachers of what to do in case of danger and attack, if the school was worried about another possible school shooting. I think in order to solve the problem, we need to step away from the guns. 

Do we need to fight fire with fire?