Racial profiling is the inclusion of racial or ethnic characteristics in determining whether a person is more likely to fit a specific category. Originating hundreds of years ago as a police aid, racial profiling is still a major issue of debate today. For example, police use racial profiling to identify individuals more likely to commit a particular type of crime, yet some people then become targets of investigations solely on their race. In “Blind Spot”, an article by Randall Kennedy, the author states "The racial profiling controversy-like the conflicts over affirmative action-will not end soon.”(p.182)
The controversy of racial profiling in the United States arose in December 1941, as a direct result of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The Alien Land Law was then passed against Japanese landowners, forcing countless Japanese-Americans to forfeit their property and enter internment camps for the remainder of the war. The threat of attack to our nation superseded the individuals’ civil rights.
The use of racial profiling has recently stimulated new controversy as a result of the recent terrorist attacks on the United States. As soon as the connection was made between Arabs and the attacks, the entire race became suspect. Police started searching Middle Easterners without provocation. This was another case of racial profiling that was accepted by the public despite its breaking of civil liberties. The concern for safety once again surpassed the individuals’ freedom for which this country stands. One of the major debates of our time continues to question the limiting or even disregarding of individual rights in order to protect the nation.
In Kennedy's article, “Blind Spot” he discusses the fact that law enforcement uses race to make assumptions about what types of people are more likely to commit a crime. Kennedy states that the Supreme Court agrees with this practice as long as race is only one of the factors they are basing their decision on. Civil rights activists, however, disagree, stating that most racial profiling is based solely on race, without any other factors playing a part.
Another strong point is made in the article, “What Looks Like Profiling Might Just Be Good Policing”. The author Heather MacDonald feels that bringing up the issue of racial profiling could result in law enforcement having a more difficult time making arrests. She states that over the past decade the nation has witnessed a decline in crime. However, over the last decade tensions have increased between police and people living in urban communities. She feels this is due to the fact people feel that they are being discriminated against solely because of their race. MacDonald gives an example of a criminal mugging and beating up pedestrians. “The victims stated that the man was a dark-skinned Latino or a light-skinned African American”. (p.158) Would law officials be unfairly discriminating if they were to single out suspects fitting this description? In conclusion, the issue comes down to the value of safety over freedom. It is a matter of opinion, that cannot truly be decided by logic or reasoning. Ironically enough, one’s race plays a large part in determining what side of the issue one might support. Also, some feel that if individual rights are lost for even one person, the possibility exists for them to be lost for all. The controversy of the racial profiling is the first of a long set of debates to come, on the topic of governmental power.
Kennedy, Randall. "Blind Spot." Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Educational, Inc., 2007. 180-182Siggins,Peter. "Racial Profiling in an Age of Terrorism" Markkula Center for Applied Ethics forum March 12, 2002Kosuth,Dennis. "Memories Of Racial Profiling" Interview with Roger Shimomura. Socialistworker.org October 19,2001.p.9
Mac Donald,Heather. "What Looks Like Profiling Might Just Be Good Policing" Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Educational, Inc., 2007.184-188
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
race
Race, a subject which is hard to discuss without offending, is inexorably tied to all of our lives. Whether we like it or not everyone is categorized by race. Much of our angst comes from not knowing how to define race or how it effects our interactions. While a more juvenile, dare I say, European version of race separates people by color. Science has proven that the color of a person’s skin has about as much validity as the color of a person’s hair or eyes. The remaining traits are a combination of features that all races share. Taking this into consideration one may wonder why racism, whether intentional or not, is so prevalent in society.
In an article by Sasha Polakow-Suransky, a person with Arab features was treated poorly by a middle aged black person. While being offended this individual still had the presence of mind to confront the profiler and dispel a possibly volatile situation. Also, as stated by the Zogby International poll, the approval rating for racial profiling of Arab-Americans peaked at sixty percent in September of 2001(Polakow-suransky). At first it may seem that only people of African descent are victims of racism, but the previous examples prove that prejudice can exist in all individuals. Constantly on our minds, the dangers of Muslim radicals seem to have replaced racism against the black minority.
In an article by Sasha Polakow-Suransky, a person with Arab features was treated poorly by a middle aged black person. While being offended this individual still had the presence of mind to confront the profiler and dispel a possibly volatile situation. Also, as stated by the Zogby International poll, the approval rating for racial profiling of Arab-Americans peaked at sixty percent in September of 2001(Polakow-suransky). At first it may seem that only people of African descent are victims of racism, but the previous examples prove that prejudice can exist in all individuals. Constantly on our minds, the dangers of Muslim radicals seem to have replaced racism against the black minority.
Essay 3
Racial profiling has been around for many years and seems to still be going strong in today's society. Some say racial profiling is unfair but others agree it is common sense when trying to protect the country. In the article Blind spot by Randall Kennedy the author states "The racial profiling controversy-like the conflict over affirmative action-will not end soon."(182) This proves true as racial profiling has been around for many years and doesn't seem to be letting up. Roger Shimomura also agrees with that fact he states "The comparison of the tragedy at the World Trade Center to Pearl Harbor brings back memories of racial profiling in World War Two when innocent Japanese Americans were placed in internment camps, and now Arab Americans are suffering the same indignity."(9)
The idea of racial profiling was highlighted in December of 1941. This is when pearl harbor was attacked by the Japanese navy. In the wake of these attacks Attorney General Warren called upon district attorneys to enforce the Alien Land Law against Japanese landowners. Warren felt that having Japanese people in California would bring about more attacks such as pearl harbor. Eventually lead to the exclusion of all Japanese from within 200 miles of the California coast. Many believed that this was unfair but others argued that the discrimination was necessary for the security of the country.
The issue of racial profiling was also brought up after the 9/11 attacks on America. Once it was established that the attacks on America were caused by Al Queda, an alliance of Islamic militant organizations. Federal and local law enforcement starting looking into men from middle eastern countries. Was this a case of racial profiling or was it just America taking precautions to avoid another devastating attack on our soil? Colleges through out the country were contacted by federal officials trying to obtain records on middle eastern men that had entered the country in the past two years. They were checking on what these men majored in and how often they missed class. Airports became much more suspicious of men from the middle east traveling on airplanes. Racial profiling is a very touchy subject in America. Just because a person is a male of middle eastern decent should he be treated any differently than a Caucasian male?
In Kennedy's article Blind Spot he discusses the fact that law enforcement uses race to make assumptions about what types of people are more likely to commit a crime. Kennedy states that the supreme court agrees with this practice as long as race is only one of the factors they are basing their decision on. Civil rights activist however disagree they feel racial profiling is based solely off race.
In the article What Looks Like Profiling Might Just Be Good Policing the author Heather Mac Donald feels that bringing up the issue of racial profiling could result in law enforcement having a more difficult making arrest.She states that over the past decade the nation has witnessed a decline in crime. However over the last decade tensions have increased between police and people living in urban communities. She feels this is due to the fact people feel that they are being discriminated against solely because of their race. Mac Donald brings up the example that a man with a gold tooth was robbing and beating up pedestrians. The victims had said the man was a dark-skinned Latino or a light-skinned African American.(185) According to some if law officials were to single out males fitting this description they would be discriminating. Others feel that a male fitting this description should be questioned.
In conclusion even though racial profiling can not be justified sometimes people feel it is a nessessity. Racial profiling has been around for many years and seems to not be ending anytime soon. In some cases it has shown to be a valid way of keeping American's safe. In other cases it has turned out to be a form of discrimination. But when it comes to providing security and keeping America safe sometimes it is better to be safe than sorry,not matter what the consequences will be.
Kennedy, Randall. "Blind Spot." Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Educational, Inc., 2007. 180-182
Mac Donald,Heather. "What Looks Like Profiling Might Just Be Good Policing" Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Educational, Inc., 2007.
184-188
Siggins,Peter. "Racial Profiling in an Age of Terrorism" Markkula Center for Applied Ethics forum March 12, 2002
Kosuth,Dennis. "Memories Of Racial Profiling" Interview with Roger Shimomura. Socialistworker.org October 19,2001.p.9
The idea of racial profiling was highlighted in December of 1941. This is when pearl harbor was attacked by the Japanese navy. In the wake of these attacks Attorney General Warren called upon district attorneys to enforce the Alien Land Law against Japanese landowners. Warren felt that having Japanese people in California would bring about more attacks such as pearl harbor. Eventually lead to the exclusion of all Japanese from within 200 miles of the California coast. Many believed that this was unfair but others argued that the discrimination was necessary for the security of the country.
The issue of racial profiling was also brought up after the 9/11 attacks on America. Once it was established that the attacks on America were caused by Al Queda, an alliance of Islamic militant organizations. Federal and local law enforcement starting looking into men from middle eastern countries. Was this a case of racial profiling or was it just America taking precautions to avoid another devastating attack on our soil? Colleges through out the country were contacted by federal officials trying to obtain records on middle eastern men that had entered the country in the past two years. They were checking on what these men majored in and how often they missed class. Airports became much more suspicious of men from the middle east traveling on airplanes. Racial profiling is a very touchy subject in America. Just because a person is a male of middle eastern decent should he be treated any differently than a Caucasian male?
In Kennedy's article Blind Spot he discusses the fact that law enforcement uses race to make assumptions about what types of people are more likely to commit a crime. Kennedy states that the supreme court agrees with this practice as long as race is only one of the factors they are basing their decision on. Civil rights activist however disagree they feel racial profiling is based solely off race.
In the article What Looks Like Profiling Might Just Be Good Policing the author Heather Mac Donald feels that bringing up the issue of racial profiling could result in law enforcement having a more difficult making arrest.She states that over the past decade the nation has witnessed a decline in crime. However over the last decade tensions have increased between police and people living in urban communities. She feels this is due to the fact people feel that they are being discriminated against solely because of their race. Mac Donald brings up the example that a man with a gold tooth was robbing and beating up pedestrians. The victims had said the man was a dark-skinned Latino or a light-skinned African American.(185) According to some if law officials were to single out males fitting this description they would be discriminating. Others feel that a male fitting this description should be questioned.
In conclusion even though racial profiling can not be justified sometimes people feel it is a nessessity. Racial profiling has been around for many years and seems to not be ending anytime soon. In some cases it has shown to be a valid way of keeping American's safe. In other cases it has turned out to be a form of discrimination. But when it comes to providing security and keeping America safe sometimes it is better to be safe than sorry,not matter what the consequences will be.
Kennedy, Randall. "Blind Spot." Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Educational, Inc., 2007. 180-182
Mac Donald,Heather. "What Looks Like Profiling Might Just Be Good Policing" Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Educational, Inc., 2007.
184-188
Siggins,Peter. "Racial Profiling in an Age of Terrorism" Markkula Center for Applied Ethics forum March 12, 2002
Kosuth,Dennis. "Memories Of Racial Profiling" Interview with Roger Shimomura. Socialistworker.org October 19,2001.p.9
"Power Of Illusion"
For centuries societies around the world have acknowledged and, in one way or another, lent their support to the idea that individual human beings are categorized by their ethnicity, or race. This notion continues to be supported throughout history and modern times causing reoccurring upheavals and the passing or repeal of laws and regulations even today. However, understanding the course that the concept of racism has taken throughout history is key to understanding how it effects us today. This helps make it possible to celebrate racial similarities, as well as differences that make each person a unique part of the human race.
In ancient times, racial ethnicity had little to do with status. In fact, status was widely recognized by social standing. For example, the marriage of John Rolfe and Pocahontas was controversial during it‘s time due to the fact that she was a Princess to her people, where he was a commoner to his. It was their differences in social status that created such an uproar in both communities, not that he was European or she Indian. Slavery in America began with indentured servants (laborers under contract in exchange for food, land, etc.) serve as a precursor to ‘non-white slavery‘. These servants were poor Europeans, who often ended up under contract indefinitely. It wouldn’t be until the rise of African American slavery in America that the term ‘race’ would acquire distinct recognition in society.
The Public Broadcasting Service recently created an interactive website regarding the issue of race. The purpose of this website is to educate society about the real differences that separate human beings and show viewers that physical characteristic are not indicative of race, and help the audience understand the history of race. Research on the human body (from DNA to skin tone) has made it possible for people to understand that there is no scientific basis for the concept of race. In other words, race is simply another word for ‘stereotype‘. In fact, the PBS website claims there is more diversity within a race than between them. However, with racism and stereotyping being so engrained into modern society, it leaves an individual to wonder if there ever can be a world without ‘race’. Perhaps it has become a fundamental part of each individual.
Everyday people are faced with the issue of racism. Many believe they are not racist, but there are others who believe that is not probable. To them racism shows itself in numerous ways, often so subtle that it goes unnoticed. An article in Newsweek, written by Carol Paik, discusses seemingly harmless interaction, when examined closely enough, reveals hidden tendencies for all humans to see people through racial lenses, rather than seeing the individual. She is Korean-American and at times has been mistaken for another Asian or Korean. This bothered her until she mistook a strangers child for her own. The stranger was Caucasian, but the child was Asian. She urges the reader to take a closer look, as well as asking those who have been victims of racism to realize that others may simply be ‘distracted, overeager, careless, tired’, not necessarily meaning harm. On the other hand writer Kent Garber reports a case where a black professor at Columbia University found a noose hanging from her office door. There have been other reports of nooses being found in Louisiana, Connecticut and New York. The noose itself symbolizes the segregation that existed between the whites and blacks in previous decades, saying the hate is still alive.
The concept of race has taken on a connotation all it’s own. It’s meaning is a mix of human emotions from hatred to anger to tolerance to acceptance. The word itself gives the spine rigidity, often accompanied by defensiveness. When you look at it’s place in history and throughout daily life, you can see what race really is. A sate of mind.
Works Cited
Public Broadcasting Services. “Race - The Power of Illusion.” California Newsreel. Ford Foundation. 2003. March 16, 2008. http://www.pbs.org/race.
Garber, Kent. “Nationwide, a Noose too Far.” U.S. News & World Report. Vol. 143 (2007) p12.
Paik, Carol. “I’m Not What You Think Of Me.” Newsweek. Vol. 151. (2008): p 20.
In ancient times, racial ethnicity had little to do with status. In fact, status was widely recognized by social standing. For example, the marriage of John Rolfe and Pocahontas was controversial during it‘s time due to the fact that she was a Princess to her people, where he was a commoner to his. It was their differences in social status that created such an uproar in both communities, not that he was European or she Indian. Slavery in America began with indentured servants (laborers under contract in exchange for food, land, etc.) serve as a precursor to ‘non-white slavery‘. These servants were poor Europeans, who often ended up under contract indefinitely. It wouldn’t be until the rise of African American slavery in America that the term ‘race’ would acquire distinct recognition in society.
The Public Broadcasting Service recently created an interactive website regarding the issue of race. The purpose of this website is to educate society about the real differences that separate human beings and show viewers that physical characteristic are not indicative of race, and help the audience understand the history of race. Research on the human body (from DNA to skin tone) has made it possible for people to understand that there is no scientific basis for the concept of race. In other words, race is simply another word for ‘stereotype‘. In fact, the PBS website claims there is more diversity within a race than between them. However, with racism and stereotyping being so engrained into modern society, it leaves an individual to wonder if there ever can be a world without ‘race’. Perhaps it has become a fundamental part of each individual.
Everyday people are faced with the issue of racism. Many believe they are not racist, but there are others who believe that is not probable. To them racism shows itself in numerous ways, often so subtle that it goes unnoticed. An article in Newsweek, written by Carol Paik, discusses seemingly harmless interaction, when examined closely enough, reveals hidden tendencies for all humans to see people through racial lenses, rather than seeing the individual. She is Korean-American and at times has been mistaken for another Asian or Korean. This bothered her until she mistook a strangers child for her own. The stranger was Caucasian, but the child was Asian. She urges the reader to take a closer look, as well as asking those who have been victims of racism to realize that others may simply be ‘distracted, overeager, careless, tired’, not necessarily meaning harm. On the other hand writer Kent Garber reports a case where a black professor at Columbia University found a noose hanging from her office door. There have been other reports of nooses being found in Louisiana, Connecticut and New York. The noose itself symbolizes the segregation that existed between the whites and blacks in previous decades, saying the hate is still alive.
The concept of race has taken on a connotation all it’s own. It’s meaning is a mix of human emotions from hatred to anger to tolerance to acceptance. The word itself gives the spine rigidity, often accompanied by defensiveness. When you look at it’s place in history and throughout daily life, you can see what race really is. A sate of mind.
Works Cited
Public Broadcasting Services. “Race - The Power of Illusion.” California Newsreel. Ford Foundation. 2003. March 16, 2008. http://www.pbs.org/race.
Garber, Kent. “Nationwide, a Noose too Far.” U.S. News & World Report. Vol. 143 (2007) p12.
Paik, Carol. “I’m Not What You Think Of Me.” Newsweek. Vol. 151. (2008): p 20.
Essay 3 - Draft
The Definition of Racial Profiling
Racial profiling is generally defined as the use of a person's race to categorize them. The negative implications of racial profiling can block a person from financial opportunity, educational opportunity, and due process before the law. This third area, due process before the law, is the most controversial. This essay examines some of the underlying reasons for and the definitions of racial profiling used in police work.
One of the most publicized and polarizing incidents of law enforcements agents leveraging the technique of racial profiling occurred on the New Jersey Turnpike on the night of April 28, 1998 when the New Jersey State Troopers stopped, and eventually shot three men. In this particular incident, NJ State Troopers John Hogan and James Kenna stopped a van on the Turnpike for speeding. The occupants of the van - Keshon Moore, Daniel Reyes, Leroy Jarmaine Grant and Rayshawn Brown - were traveling to North Carolina. Testimony as to the sequence of events after the stop differs depending on which side of the story the witness is representing. The end result was that three of the four van occupants suffered gunshot wounds. Of the four, three were black men, one was Hispanic. No weapons or contraband were found in the van (Kifner).
This incident proved to be the pivotal example of racial profiling in the public discourse. On one side, the view was put forth that this was a clear example of a programmatic practice employed by the NJ State Police that had been in use for decades. The other side, in defense of the actions and responsibilities of the law enforcement community, argued that the troopers were reacting to the perceived threat of the vehicle being used as a potentially lethal weapon. The van driver did acknowledge that van was rolling after initially stopping due to an inadvertent shift into reverse gear.
In chapter 6 of What Matters in America entitled, Can Racial Profiling Be Justified, several articles present an analysis of the use of racial profiling by law enforcement agents. There are certainly situations where a person's racial characteristics are a vital identifying element that can be used to prevent a crime or apprehend a criminal. But the majority would agree that the use of race alone, especially with no specific crime being suspected, is unlawful. What is most dangerous, and was identified during the investigation of the April 1998 incident, is the institutionalization of the practice by a powerful public agency. In this case the New Jersey State Police.
In an article written for Reason magazine, Gene Callahan and William Anderson envision an even larger institutional force behind this abuse of civil rights. Callahan and Anderson see three sources behind this type of policing, all driven by the so-called War on Drugs. In the article they claim; "The sources include the difficulty in policing victimless crimes in general and the resulting need for intrusive police techniques; the greater relevancy of this difficulty given the intensification of the drug war since the 1980s; and the additional incentive that asset forfeiture laws give police forces to seize money and property from suspects (William Anderson)." In trying to define unlawful profiling, based upon a person's race, the question becomes where does an individual law enforcement officer's intuition and reaction to a specific situation end and where does a systematic abuse of civil rights begin? In his article "Blind Spot" (181-182) Randall Kennedy extends the definition of racial profiling to include any judgments made by law enforcement that include a person's racial characteristics even if race is only a fractional part of the decision criteria. The law enforcement community, including public prosecutors, would probably disagree with such a broad interpretation.
Whatever the definition, profiling is easily identified after it has been experienced. Given human nature, there will always be individuals who are disrespectful of the rights of someone from another race. When this type of behavior is institutionalized or politically-driven it is even more of a danger to all members of society.
Works Cited
Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education, Inc., 2007.
Kennedy, Randall. "Blind Spot." Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Educational, Inc., 2007. 180-182.
Kifner, John. "Van Shooting Revives Charges of Racial 'Profiling' by New Jersy State Police." New York Times. New York, 1998 10th May.
William Anderson, Gene Callahan. "The Roots of Racial Profiling." Reason Magazine. Los Angeles, August/September 2001.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Do campus speech codes violate students rights?
“Congress shall make no law….abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”.
Free speech is crucial for the growth and stability of this nation. We have achieved so much through the various ideas of those whom may have offended many others with their ideas. Speech codes do violate student’s rights and as a student we are attending college to learn as well as build and grow with our ideas and values. When we restrict speech and violate our first amendment rights we are halting the flow of ideas which are a necessity for the growth of students. Students should be allowed to assemble and speak without fear of reprisal as long as they are not causing physical harm for others, making school a hostile environment for others, harassing, and/or using vandalism as a way to put their views out.
Whether our views and ideas are correct this is the only way we will all learn what others in the world feel and how to live and deal with those views. If someone’s feelings get hurt in the process that is just the price we will have to pay in order to sustain our first amendment rights. A person should be able to assemble peacefully and have free expression anywhere on campus and be able to say anything they want as long as it is done so in an acceptable fashion, so long as it does not disrupt the education of other students. Speech zones typically limit who can actually see the assembly and are unfair and unconstitutional because it is restricting the freedom of speech to a few key areas on campus. Universities should not feel compelled to make a determination regarding what groups they feel will be disruptive and what groups have to assemble in these designated speech zones because that shows impartiality and bias behaviors. Society should not just be so willing to give up on our rights just because someone’s feelings may be hurt in the process, especially when so many men and women have died and are still dying to protect these rights.
Free speech is crucial for the growth and stability of this nation. We have achieved so much through the various ideas of those whom may have offended many others with their ideas. Speech codes do violate student’s rights and as a student we are attending college to learn as well as build and grow with our ideas and values. When we restrict speech and violate our first amendment rights we are halting the flow of ideas which are a necessity for the growth of students. Students should be allowed to assemble and speak without fear of reprisal as long as they are not causing physical harm for others, making school a hostile environment for others, harassing, and/or using vandalism as a way to put their views out.
Whether our views and ideas are correct this is the only way we will all learn what others in the world feel and how to live and deal with those views. If someone’s feelings get hurt in the process that is just the price we will have to pay in order to sustain our first amendment rights. A person should be able to assemble peacefully and have free expression anywhere on campus and be able to say anything they want as long as it is done so in an acceptable fashion, so long as it does not disrupt the education of other students. Speech zones typically limit who can actually see the assembly and are unfair and unconstitutional because it is restricting the freedom of speech to a few key areas on campus. Universities should not feel compelled to make a determination regarding what groups they feel will be disruptive and what groups have to assemble in these designated speech zones because that shows impartiality and bias behaviors. Society should not just be so willing to give up on our rights just because someone’s feelings may be hurt in the process, especially when so many men and women have died and are still dying to protect these rights.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Hate Cannot be Tolerated
Who decides what is considered offensive speech? Does hate speech result in violence?
Is all form of speech protected by the Constitution? Richard Delgado, an author and a professor at the University of Pittsburgh writes that students' civil liberties are highly important and that students have a right to a non-hostile environment. Schools are being forced to take action in response to the conduct of some who chose to launch verbal assaults on certain minority groups.
The author, Mr. Delgado explains that civil liberties activists, students, faculty and administrators fear that restricting speech in any form is a violation of the First Amendment right. He writes that a broad ban on certain words is not effective, and would limit conversations containing controversial subjects.This action could also be declared unconstitutional, as it should be, declares the author. Mr, Delgado explains that these types of conversations are not considered hate speech by most, including the court system.
Federal court has enacted a "Hostile Environment" (127) law against schools that tolerate environments of hate. The author states that even with this law in effect, hate speech still exists in schools in the form of graffiti or fliers. In these cases, Mr. Delgado explains the victims of hate speech cannot talk back against the hate speaker because they are written anonymously. This form of delivering hate speech is not meant to be open for discussion and sent by "cowardly speakers"(127). In some cases when the victim did respond, a hate crime was committed in retaliation, explains the writer. In schools where these crimes were publicized, there was a drop in enrollment for students of color according to the author. Mr. Delgado writes that Federal Courts are aware of the events taking place on campuses today and have allowed punishments to take place for actions such as cross burning and hate speeches. The author supports this action and states that the conduct of "bullies and bigots" must be regulated in some way (128).
Works Cited
Delgado, Richard. “Hate Cannot Be Tolerated."
Goshgarian, Gary. "What Matters in America." New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 126-128.
Is all form of speech protected by the Constitution? Richard Delgado, an author and a professor at the University of Pittsburgh writes that students' civil liberties are highly important and that students have a right to a non-hostile environment. Schools are being forced to take action in response to the conduct of some who chose to launch verbal assaults on certain minority groups.
The author, Mr. Delgado explains that civil liberties activists, students, faculty and administrators fear that restricting speech in any form is a violation of the First Amendment right. He writes that a broad ban on certain words is not effective, and would limit conversations containing controversial subjects.This action could also be declared unconstitutional, as it should be, declares the author. Mr, Delgado explains that these types of conversations are not considered hate speech by most, including the court system.
Federal court has enacted a "Hostile Environment" (127) law against schools that tolerate environments of hate. The author states that even with this law in effect, hate speech still exists in schools in the form of graffiti or fliers. In these cases, Mr. Delgado explains the victims of hate speech cannot talk back against the hate speaker because they are written anonymously. This form of delivering hate speech is not meant to be open for discussion and sent by "cowardly speakers"(127). In some cases when the victim did respond, a hate crime was committed in retaliation, explains the writer. In schools where these crimes were publicized, there was a drop in enrollment for students of color according to the author. Mr. Delgado writes that Federal Courts are aware of the events taking place on campuses today and have allowed punishments to take place for actions such as cross burning and hate speeches. The author supports this action and states that the conduct of "bullies and bigots" must be regulated in some way (128).
Works Cited
Delgado, Richard. “Hate Cannot Be Tolerated."
Goshgarian, Gary. "What Matters in America." New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 126-128.
BLOG 8
There is no doubt that the Constitution is held high in value by the majority of citizens in the United States. This historical document begins by stating that a person has the right to freedom of speech and to assemble peacefully to express a personal stance on any topic.
There has been an increase in “free-speech zones” at colleges across the country, many arguing that they are unconstitutional. Those who agree with this viewpoint believe that the First Amendment is no longer being upheld if any stipulation is put on the demonstration of personal expression (p.123). It is a fact that the Constitution states a persons right to freedom of speech and assembly. However, the document does not make any clear guidelines as to whether or not these rights could possibly be restricted in ‘location or manner’ (p.123).
There are those who do not believe that colleges who utilize free-speech zones are not in any way violating the First Amendment. If particular subject matter is related to a controversial topic, such as race or religion, the college is responsible for anything that may result from a public display of those viewpoints. Is it unreasonable for the college to do the best it can to respect all students and the opinions they hold. Requiring a demonstration to remain in a particular area allows those who do not wish to participate in the protest or who feel too uncomfortable to walk past the option to find other routes to their destination. Those protesting still have their right to speak their beliefs while respecting the fact that they are not the only ones on campus who have a right to those or opposing beliefs (p.128).
Freedom of speech is an important factor in learning and sharing, but it has also been seen as a potential source of hate and violence throughout history (p. 130). College is a place where people seeking knowledge should be able to express themselves, while feeling safe from accusation and judgment for their beliefs.
Chaykun, Denise. “ Free Speech Sucks! . . . But Censorship Sucks Even More.” .” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 129-132.
Delgado, Richard. “Hate Cannot Be Tolerated”. .” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 126-128.
Silverglate, Henry A. “Muzzling Free Speech.” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 122-124.
There has been an increase in “free-speech zones” at colleges across the country, many arguing that they are unconstitutional. Those who agree with this viewpoint believe that the First Amendment is no longer being upheld if any stipulation is put on the demonstration of personal expression (p.123). It is a fact that the Constitution states a persons right to freedom of speech and assembly. However, the document does not make any clear guidelines as to whether or not these rights could possibly be restricted in ‘location or manner’ (p.123).
There are those who do not believe that colleges who utilize free-speech zones are not in any way violating the First Amendment. If particular subject matter is related to a controversial topic, such as race or religion, the college is responsible for anything that may result from a public display of those viewpoints. Is it unreasonable for the college to do the best it can to respect all students and the opinions they hold. Requiring a demonstration to remain in a particular area allows those who do not wish to participate in the protest or who feel too uncomfortable to walk past the option to find other routes to their destination. Those protesting still have their right to speak their beliefs while respecting the fact that they are not the only ones on campus who have a right to those or opposing beliefs (p.128).
Freedom of speech is an important factor in learning and sharing, but it has also been seen as a potential source of hate and violence throughout history (p. 130). College is a place where people seeking knowledge should be able to express themselves, while feeling safe from accusation and judgment for their beliefs.
Chaykun, Denise. “ Free Speech Sucks! . . . But Censorship Sucks Even More.” .” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 129-132.
Delgado, Richard. “Hate Cannot Be Tolerated”. .” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 126-128.
Silverglate, Henry A. “Muzzling Free Speech.” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 122-124.
Your Right to Free Speech at CCCC
The Cape Cod Community College Academic Policy and Procedures Manual, Article III, Section H: Students Rights and Responsibilities states: "Students rights include the opportunity to pursue higher education; freedom to pursue the rights of citizenship, association, inquiry and expression (…)." In addition, Appendix H, of the manual contains a list proscribing the types of conduct that may land a student before the College's Judiciary Committee. Several of the items in this list do address actions involving student speech. There are few if any other policies published; at least on the college's website. Within Cape Cod Community College's policies there is no specific code of speech that would be comparable to those cited in Chapter 4 of "What Matters in America." (Goshgarian) Speech used to inflict harm on an individual, to disrupt the normal flow of campus activity, or speech used to obstruct campus law enforcement officers from performing their duty are specifically mentioned. There is no mention of the use of special speech zones as described in "Muzzling Free Speech" (Silvergate) in the CCCC policies either. Item 8 states that "Violation of published college policies, rules, or regulations" could be reason for disciplinary action.
After reading and considering the perspectives in Chapter 4 of "What Matters in America" (Goshgarian), this would lead to the assumption that the rights of students on the CCCC campus are not at risk for violation. When looking for higher authority on the matter, the General Laws of Massachusetts provide for possible imprisonment of anyone who might even attempt to interfere with your constitutional rights (MGL Ch 265 Sec. 37). Those rights, at least as they relate to free speech, are expressed in the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This amendment, the first of ten amendments known collectively as the Bill of Rights, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press..." This is strong protection against restrictive speech codes.
Unless the laws and policies change all the way up and down the line, the CCCC student is safe to speak their mind - as long as it doesn't disrupt the flow of traffic through the parking areas.
Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007.
Silvergate, Harvey A. "Muzzling Free Speech." Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Educational Inc., 2007. 123-124.
Free Speech?
Amendment I: Freedom of religion, speech, and the press; rights of assembly and petition. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assembly, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The first amendment of the bill of rights grants any person the right to say what is on their mind; peaceably. If an individual decides to speak his mind by running naked down the street at 2 a.m., it is not an exercise of first amendment rights.
The issue of free speech is continuously tied to racial slandering. It is true that people shouldn’t have to subject themselves to hateful behavior but it is a stretch to label all free speech as an opportunity to slander minorities. Prejudice is defined as “a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation. I feel that most people exhibit prejudice in their lives, or at least realize they were about to and learned from the experience.
When the Administration of a learning Institution finds itself making decisions that opposing groups feel heartfelt about they have to be careful to avoid their own prejudice. On one hand the institution is a leader; it is responsible for the education of many people and must strive to be at its best, even when public opinion says no. Unfortunately if this policy is adhered to an institution may find itself teaching to empty halls. As one example stated in the article Hate cannot be tolerated, people of color will enroll in different institutions where the environment is healthier (Delgado 126).
When it comes to minorities I feel that many play the “race card” frequently. I myself have been a victim of racism at the hands of the so called “minorities”. To label all people of color racist or to limit the freedom of all for the actions of a few would categorize me as prejudiced as well. Sure, there are some mean people in this world. The reasons are many but the results are the same and the bully feels better after. Personally I would rather have unlimited speech in any manner. Simply for the fact that I know prejudice exists and if I’m going to avoid it I need to know where it lives. I would rather take a barb in public than a bat in an alley.
Delgado, Richard. “Hate cannot be tolerated.” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 126-133.
The issue of free speech is continuously tied to racial slandering. It is true that people shouldn’t have to subject themselves to hateful behavior but it is a stretch to label all free speech as an opportunity to slander minorities. Prejudice is defined as “a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation. I feel that most people exhibit prejudice in their lives, or at least realize they were about to and learned from the experience.
When the Administration of a learning Institution finds itself making decisions that opposing groups feel heartfelt about they have to be careful to avoid their own prejudice. On one hand the institution is a leader; it is responsible for the education of many people and must strive to be at its best, even when public opinion says no. Unfortunately if this policy is adhered to an institution may find itself teaching to empty halls. As one example stated in the article Hate cannot be tolerated, people of color will enroll in different institutions where the environment is healthier (Delgado 126).
When it comes to minorities I feel that many play the “race card” frequently. I myself have been a victim of racism at the hands of the so called “minorities”. To label all people of color racist or to limit the freedom of all for the actions of a few would categorize me as prejudiced as well. Sure, there are some mean people in this world. The reasons are many but the results are the same and the bully feels better after. Personally I would rather have unlimited speech in any manner. Simply for the fact that I know prejudice exists and if I’m going to avoid it I need to know where it lives. I would rather take a barb in public than a bat in an alley.
Delgado, Richard. “Hate cannot be tolerated.” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 126-133.
Do Campus Speech Codes Violate Students' Rights?
Traditionally our country’s colleges have been the first place to find discussion of new and changing ideas despite conflicts. So it stands to reason that at a time when the nation is divided on the issue of whether or not to restrict freedom of speech, the colleges will be the first to experience restrictions. Currently, most colleges strive to increase their diversity which, in turn, supports conflicting opinions and perspectives. Some opinions and discussions are negative and/or controversial to certain groups, which means that conflict brought about from those opinions and their counter-points may distract bystanders who are drawn into the issue, willing or not.
While colleges and universities are essential places for debate, that is not there primary purpose. I feel that they are first and foremost, places of education. As this college’s mission statement begins “The students' education is the first priority at Cape Cod Community College.” If something gets in the way of its primary objective, the college should do what it can to stop the disturbance and focus on education. When verbal conflict gets in the way of a productive learning environment, it is the responsibility of the management and community to put the conflict aside for a more appropriate place and time. People who are unwilling to stop temporarily for the benefit of their fellow students have no place in a communal learning organization and should not be permitted to continue to pursue their education.
The right to free speech struggles with the dilemma where everyone wants the right to have their voice heard but no one wants to be hurt by someone else’s words. But, if young people are denied unbiased education, then there will be no free speech anyway, as all opinions they have would have been forced on them before they had the opportunity to develop their own.
Race
The United States is a country of freedom where we
have many races, religions, traditions, and languag es.
As Americans we are raised to believe in the values of
justice an liberty. We believe thatwe are entitled to certain
rights, opportunities, and protections as citizens. America
makes the differences because we agree to have the right
to liberty, life and pursuit of happiness. But difference can
also turn an issue, where our rights can been violated by our
system.
Some people may marginalize a group of people based on
characteristics such as race, social class, physical appearance,
religion, and ethnic origin. It is clear based on the article how
after September, 11 classes such as American Blacks and
individuals from the Middle East have been affected.
According to the article police officers decided to search a
passenger, because he bought a first class ticket with cash,
and is apparently o Arab ancestry. In another incident,
officers from Los Angeles Police Department ere most likely
to ask black an latino drivers to step out of their cars after
stopping them.
Also another case is about police having received a call about
young Hispanics with guns. The police invaded the home of a
decent black man and made him get against the wall, put
handuffs on his knees and was told to be quiet when he tried
to ask questions.
Many people immediate equate racial profiling with discrimi-
nation against African American and Latinos. But racial profi-
ling takes many forms and affects many different groups.
After the terrorist attacks on September, 11, the focus of racial
profiling shifted to Arab American and people who looked like
they could be from the Middle East .
According to a recently released report from Human Rights
Watch, the federal government received reports of 481 anti-
muslim hate crimes in 2001, 17 times the number it received
the year before. it noted that more than 2000 cases of
harrassment were reported to Arab and Muslim Organizations.
Moreover some groups have privileges, including jobs, promotions,
tenure, the ability to speed in a school zone and get off with a
warning. Wheter one considers these things rights or luxuries,
they are the aspects of citizenship that make one feel accepted in
and loyal to one's community and culture.
The problem with defining racial profiling is, the extent of the
discrimination which may be relatively small when race is the only
factor among many, but even a little racial discrimination should
require lots of justification.
have many races, religions, traditions, and languag es.
As Americans we are raised to believe in the values of
justice an liberty. We believe thatwe are entitled to certain
rights, opportunities, and protections as citizens. America
makes the differences because we agree to have the right
to liberty, life and pursuit of happiness. But difference can
also turn an issue, where our rights can been violated by our
system.
Some people may marginalize a group of people based on
characteristics such as race, social class, physical appearance,
religion, and ethnic origin. It is clear based on the article how
after September, 11 classes such as American Blacks and
individuals from the Middle East have been affected.
According to the article police officers decided to search a
passenger, because he bought a first class ticket with cash,
and is apparently o Arab ancestry. In another incident,
officers from Los Angeles Police Department ere most likely
to ask black an latino drivers to step out of their cars after
stopping them.
Also another case is about police having received a call about
young Hispanics with guns. The police invaded the home of a
decent black man and made him get against the wall, put
handuffs on his knees and was told to be quiet when he tried
to ask questions.
Many people immediate equate racial profiling with discrimi-
nation against African American and Latinos. But racial profi-
ling takes many forms and affects many different groups.
After the terrorist attacks on September, 11, the focus of racial
profiling shifted to Arab American and people who looked like
they could be from the Middle East .
According to a recently released report from Human Rights
Watch, the federal government received reports of 481 anti-
muslim hate crimes in 2001, 17 times the number it received
the year before. it noted that more than 2000 cases of
harrassment were reported to Arab and Muslim Organizations.
Moreover some groups have privileges, including jobs, promotions,
tenure, the ability to speed in a school zone and get off with a
warning. Wheter one considers these things rights or luxuries,
they are the aspects of citizenship that make one feel accepted in
and loyal to one's community and culture.
The problem with defining racial profiling is, the extent of the
discrimination which may be relatively small when race is the only
factor among many, but even a little racial discrimination should
require lots of justification.
Do Campus Speech Codes Violate Students' Rights?
The first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." With this stated, how come some universities feel that they have the power to censor that right? Some colleges such as the University of Houston have implemented "free speech zones." This is a place on campus that ables a person to speak "freely". However choosing where a person is able to share their ideas goes against the First Amendment.
Harvey Silvergate the author of "Muzzling Free speech" feels that "free speech zones do not solve the issue of restricted speech. Instead they have a chilling effect on campus discourse and are a dangerous threat to ideals of free speech." (p.122) Silvergate is not alone in his views of censoring speech. Denise Chaykun, a student at Bucknell University shares his beliefs. Chaykun attends a school that has a speech code and she feels that "censoring free speech is a bad idea."(p.129) She feels that "Bucknell University has also been faced with the dilemma of whether to protect feelings or protect ideas." (p.132) Allowing people to use free speech means that you allow people to express how they feel. People come in many different shapes, sizes and colors. They also come with many different views about every aspect of life. When people are allowed to express those views they are bound to be disagreements. But just because someone has a strong belief in something and wants to express it by using freedom of speech does not mean that they are right or wrong. Part of life is about learning from one another, people need to express their ideas so they can get input from others, whether that input be positive or negative does not matter.
Censorship is a way of judging someones beliefs. An example of this unfair censorship was demonstrated at University of Houston. The university allowed an anti-abortion exhibit on the campus, then denied a Pro-Life group exhibition. The university stated the reason they did not allow the Pro-Life group was its "potential disruptiveness".(p.124) In the end when a university decides whether or not to allow free speech they are placing judgement on how they feel about a topic. The Bill Of Rights states that everyone person is allowed to have Freedom of Speech therefore no one should have the right to put such limitations on that right such as time, place or manner.
Silverglate, Henry A. “Muzzling Free Speech.” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 122-124.
Chaykun, Denise. “ Free Speech Sucks! . . . But Censorship Sucks Even More.” .” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 129-132.
Harvey Silvergate the author of "Muzzling Free speech" feels that "free speech zones do not solve the issue of restricted speech. Instead they have a chilling effect on campus discourse and are a dangerous threat to ideals of free speech." (p.122) Silvergate is not alone in his views of censoring speech. Denise Chaykun, a student at Bucknell University shares his beliefs. Chaykun attends a school that has a speech code and she feels that "censoring free speech is a bad idea."(p.129) She feels that "Bucknell University has also been faced with the dilemma of whether to protect feelings or protect ideas." (p.132) Allowing people to use free speech means that you allow people to express how they feel. People come in many different shapes, sizes and colors. They also come with many different views about every aspect of life. When people are allowed to express those views they are bound to be disagreements. But just because someone has a strong belief in something and wants to express it by using freedom of speech does not mean that they are right or wrong. Part of life is about learning from one another, people need to express their ideas so they can get input from others, whether that input be positive or negative does not matter.
Censorship is a way of judging someones beliefs. An example of this unfair censorship was demonstrated at University of Houston. The university allowed an anti-abortion exhibit on the campus, then denied a Pro-Life group exhibition. The university stated the reason they did not allow the Pro-Life group was its "potential disruptiveness".(p.124) In the end when a university decides whether or not to allow free speech they are placing judgement on how they feel about a topic. The Bill Of Rights states that everyone person is allowed to have Freedom of Speech therefore no one should have the right to put such limitations on that right such as time, place or manner.
Silverglate, Henry A. “Muzzling Free Speech.” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 122-124.
Chaykun, Denise. “ Free Speech Sucks! . . . But Censorship Sucks Even More.” .” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 129-132.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Final draft Violence On Television Vs. Violence In The Home
People have many different points of view when it comes to the topic of violence in children. The American Psychological Association believes that child are more prone to become violent if they witness acts of violence on television. However others such as Mike Males author of "Stop Blaming Kids and TV" suggests that youth violence comes more from children seeing violence from their parents. When comparing and contrasting children seeing violence on television and children witnessing violence from their parents there are many similarities. However there are also many ways in which these two points have their differences.
The American Psychological Association feels that violence on television has an effect on today's youth. They conclude if you want to change juvenile behavior turn off the television. Psychological research has shown three effects that seeing violence on television can have on children. It states children can become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others. Children could become more fearful to the world around them after seeing violence on TV. Also children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways to others.
Mike Males feels that television is not to blame with youth violence. He believes that children learn violent behavior from their parents. Some say that "if you want to change juvenile behavior change adult behavior". Children that experience such acts as domestic violence,alcoholism or drug addiction from their parents are more likely to follow in those footsteps.
There are some similarities in both these arguments because children are still witnessing violence whether it be on television or in real life. If a child is used to seeing violence as a part of their everyday life, whether it be on television or in the home the child could be more prone to acting violent toward others. This is because that is what they are used to seeing. Another similarity is that a child could become more fearful of the world around them. If a child sees acts of violence on TV such as child abuse the child could become fearful thinking that could happen to them. If a child sees abuse in real life the child could also become fearful of the world and trusting people. Children could also become less sensitive to the pain of others if they witness violence on TV or from their parents. If a child sees domestic abuse on TV they could think that behavior is normal. This is also true with seeing domestic abuse in the home with their parents. The child could think this is normal behavior so when they see it happening out of the home they could be less likely to do anything to stop the situation.
There are also many differences with witnessing violence on TV and from witnessing violence from their parents. If a child sees violence on TV they might be able to distinguish that is is fiction. This would help the child to not become fearful to the world. The child would realize what they are watching is not real. Where as if a child sees violence in real life that could make them fearful because it is reality. Another difference with knowing fiction from reality is that a child would know if a child sees violence on television they know that is fake. The child could then distinguish between right and wrong. If they see a parent acting violent and that is someone they look up to they may feel that behavior is acceptable.
In Conclusion both cases show how influential children are and how violence can have an effect on their lives. Even though both sides argue where children get violence from, they can both agree that either way violence has negative effects on children. Both sides try to blame one another for how children are influenced. However in trying to place the blame and state their differences in the end they actually pointed out many similarities of the two points.
American Psychological Association." Violence on television-What Do Children learn? What Can Parents Do?
Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 248-252.
Males, Mike. "Stop Blaming Kids and TV." Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New Tork: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 267-271.
The American Psychological Association feels that violence on television has an effect on today's youth. They conclude if you want to change juvenile behavior turn off the television. Psychological research has shown three effects that seeing violence on television can have on children. It states children can become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others. Children could become more fearful to the world around them after seeing violence on TV. Also children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways to others.
Mike Males feels that television is not to blame with youth violence. He believes that children learn violent behavior from their parents. Some say that "if you want to change juvenile behavior change adult behavior". Children that experience such acts as domestic violence,alcoholism or drug addiction from their parents are more likely to follow in those footsteps.
There are some similarities in both these arguments because children are still witnessing violence whether it be on television or in real life. If a child is used to seeing violence as a part of their everyday life, whether it be on television or in the home the child could be more prone to acting violent toward others. This is because that is what they are used to seeing. Another similarity is that a child could become more fearful of the world around them. If a child sees acts of violence on TV such as child abuse the child could become fearful thinking that could happen to them. If a child sees abuse in real life the child could also become fearful of the world and trusting people. Children could also become less sensitive to the pain of others if they witness violence on TV or from their parents. If a child sees domestic abuse on TV they could think that behavior is normal. This is also true with seeing domestic abuse in the home with their parents. The child could think this is normal behavior so when they see it happening out of the home they could be less likely to do anything to stop the situation.
There are also many differences with witnessing violence on TV and from witnessing violence from their parents. If a child sees violence on TV they might be able to distinguish that is is fiction. This would help the child to not become fearful to the world. The child would realize what they are watching is not real. Where as if a child sees violence in real life that could make them fearful because it is reality. Another difference with knowing fiction from reality is that a child would know if a child sees violence on television they know that is fake. The child could then distinguish between right and wrong. If they see a parent acting violent and that is someone they look up to they may feel that behavior is acceptable.
In Conclusion both cases show how influential children are and how violence can have an effect on their lives. Even though both sides argue where children get violence from, they can both agree that either way violence has negative effects on children. Both sides try to blame one another for how children are influenced. However in trying to place the blame and state their differences in the end they actually pointed out many similarities of the two points.
American Psychological Association." Violence on television-What Do Children learn? What Can Parents Do?
Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 248-252.
Males, Mike. "Stop Blaming Kids and TV." Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New Tork: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 267-271.
Essay 2, Final Version.
Does Television violence affect behavior in children?
This question is a fairly common topic of conversation these days. Whether a person believes television violence affects a child's behavior or not the majority of people today have strong views on this subject. The average child spends 1500 hour's watching television a year according to an article published by Oklahoma State University. No matter what a person's opinions may be on this subject it is obvious that there is some form of an impact just based upon the number of hour's a child spends watching television.
There are various view points on this subject and whether or not violence on television affects children. The national Institute of Mental Health reported almost twenty years ago that “television violence could be dangerous for children” and that “violent programs on television lead to aggressive behavior by children and teenagers who watch those programs”. The American Psychological Association gathered this and other information from multiple agencies and stated that based on this research that there are three shown major effects of seeing violence on television:
1.) Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others.
2.) Children may be more fearful of the world around them.
3.) Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways toward others.
“An American child will have watched over 8000 murders on television by the time they reach twelve years of age”. This information is an estimate from the Cultural Indicators Project headed by George Gerbner, an advocate for committees to vote on television content. Gerbner argues that “the alienating culture of television has replaced other forms of communication that once tied the family and community together”. According to the American Psychological Association parents have a lot of power to moderate the influence of television aggression on their children.
Some examples are:
1.) Limiting the number of hours of television viewing.
2.) Watch an episode of your child’s show and talk with them about it.
3.) Ban offensive programs and restrict what they are allowed to watch to something that they feel is more beneficial, such as documentaries, educational shows and so on.
4.) Encourage other activities.
5.) Encourage children to watch programs that demonstrate caring, helping, and cooperation.
There are many opposing arguments to the fact that television violence can influence behavior in children and teens. Mike Males, author of Stop Blaming Kids and TV, states that “television violence bears little relation to real behavior”. He writes that Japanese and European kids behold media as graphically brutal as that which appears on American screens, but seventeen-year-olds in those countries commit murder rates lower than those of American seventy-year-olds. Males, also writes that youth’s in different parts of the U.S. are exposed to the same media but display drastically different violence levels. According to this article, America’s biggest explosion in felony violent crime is not street crime among minorities or teens of any color, but domestic violence among aging, mostly white baby boomers. The department of Health and Human Services reported that 565,000 serious injuries reported in 1993 were inflicted from parents on their children. Males writes that between the eighteen years a child is born and graduates high school there will be fifteen million case of real violence in American homes and that of that fifteen million there will be forty thousand death’s to children.
Tim Goodman, author of Hate Violence? Turn It Off! Reminds everyone that “Violence as entertainment, or as a realistic expression of what is going on in the world, will never appeal to some people. But no one is forcing them to watch. There are dozens of other channels, hundreds of other programs. There’s also an off button.”
Goodman states that “Television is not the problem in our society. It may always be the scapegoat, but it’s nothing more than a bastard machine, not half as disturbing as the real thing”.
There have been many arguments to date that have involved television and whether or not violence on television affects children in negative ways, this has always been and will always be a very sensitive subject for all parties involved. Society as a whole is going to have to come to a decision of whether or not television violence has a negative impact on our children and we are going to have to decide what to do about it.
Goshgarian,Gary. What Matters in America.
New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007
Goodman,Tim. "Hate violence? Turn it Off!".
Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America.
New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007
Males, Mike. "Stop Blaming Kids and TV."
Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America.
New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007
Gerbner, George. "Television's Global Marketing Strategy".
Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America.
New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007
American Psychological Association. "Violence on Television".
Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America.
New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007
Oklahoma State. "Television & Viewing Habits".
Parenting Issues. Children & Families.
www.fcs.okstate.edu
This question is a fairly common topic of conversation these days. Whether a person believes television violence affects a child's behavior or not the majority of people today have strong views on this subject. The average child spends 1500 hour's watching television a year according to an article published by Oklahoma State University. No matter what a person's opinions may be on this subject it is obvious that there is some form of an impact just based upon the number of hour's a child spends watching television.
There are various view points on this subject and whether or not violence on television affects children. The national Institute of Mental Health reported almost twenty years ago that “television violence could be dangerous for children” and that “violent programs on television lead to aggressive behavior by children and teenagers who watch those programs”. The American Psychological Association gathered this and other information from multiple agencies and stated that based on this research that there are three shown major effects of seeing violence on television:
1.) Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others.
2.) Children may be more fearful of the world around them.
3.) Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways toward others.
“An American child will have watched over 8000 murders on television by the time they reach twelve years of age”. This information is an estimate from the Cultural Indicators Project headed by George Gerbner, an advocate for committees to vote on television content. Gerbner argues that “the alienating culture of television has replaced other forms of communication that once tied the family and community together”. According to the American Psychological Association parents have a lot of power to moderate the influence of television aggression on their children.
Some examples are:
1.) Limiting the number of hours of television viewing.
2.) Watch an episode of your child’s show and talk with them about it.
3.) Ban offensive programs and restrict what they are allowed to watch to something that they feel is more beneficial, such as documentaries, educational shows and so on.
4.) Encourage other activities.
5.) Encourage children to watch programs that demonstrate caring, helping, and cooperation.
There are many opposing arguments to the fact that television violence can influence behavior in children and teens. Mike Males, author of Stop Blaming Kids and TV, states that “television violence bears little relation to real behavior”. He writes that Japanese and European kids behold media as graphically brutal as that which appears on American screens, but seventeen-year-olds in those countries commit murder rates lower than those of American seventy-year-olds. Males, also writes that youth’s in different parts of the U.S. are exposed to the same media but display drastically different violence levels. According to this article, America’s biggest explosion in felony violent crime is not street crime among minorities or teens of any color, but domestic violence among aging, mostly white baby boomers. The department of Health and Human Services reported that 565,000 serious injuries reported in 1993 were inflicted from parents on their children. Males writes that between the eighteen years a child is born and graduates high school there will be fifteen million case of real violence in American homes and that of that fifteen million there will be forty thousand death’s to children.
Tim Goodman, author of Hate Violence? Turn It Off! Reminds everyone that “Violence as entertainment, or as a realistic expression of what is going on in the world, will never appeal to some people. But no one is forcing them to watch. There are dozens of other channels, hundreds of other programs. There’s also an off button.”
Goodman states that “Television is not the problem in our society. It may always be the scapegoat, but it’s nothing more than a bastard machine, not half as disturbing as the real thing”.
There have been many arguments to date that have involved television and whether or not violence on television affects children in negative ways, this has always been and will always be a very sensitive subject for all parties involved. Society as a whole is going to have to come to a decision of whether or not television violence has a negative impact on our children and we are going to have to decide what to do about it.
Goshgarian,Gary. What Matters in America.
New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007
Goodman,Tim. "Hate violence? Turn it Off!".
Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America.
New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007
Males, Mike. "Stop Blaming Kids and TV."
Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America.
New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007
Gerbner, George. "Television's Global Marketing Strategy".
Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America.
New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007
American Psychological Association. "Violence on Television".
Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America.
New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007
Oklahoma State. "Television & Viewing Habits".
Parenting Issues. Children & Families.
www.fcs.okstate.edu
The Big Debate: Final Draft
Since mankind began, opposing viewpoints on an infinite number of issues have existed. It cannot be denied that the television industry has become a permanent fixture in contemporary society. Opinions on whether television has been valuable or detrimental to society vary widely. The ongoing debate in recent years is whether or not television directly influences tendencies towards violence in children. There are some who believe that the media has gone too far in it’s display of aggression, leading to government application of censoring. However, challengers of this viewpoint believe that a child’s tendencies, whether positive or negative, are innate traits that can be nurtured or overcome through familial and societal interaction. Although resolution on this subject matter is nowhere near, it remains important that individuals evaluate each side of the debate in order to firmly establish their own beliefs. Each individual must be prepared to confront the unavoidable compromises required of this ongoing issue.
Research in recent decades have revealed that watching television is a large part of daily life for many children. Studies have made claim that violence on television leads to children becoming less sensitive to others anguish, more fearful of their surroundings, and more likely to act in aggressive ways (pp. 249). In essence, the children of the current culture have become desensitized to violence and its impact upon the world at large. Even children who do not show any inherent aggressive qualities are less likely to call attention to violent acts or attempt to stop them (pp. 249). Research scientists are not the only group documenting such findings; parent also provide testimony to the impact of television upon their children. It is for this reason that many guardians look to the government for peace of mind. The rationale is that the government is able to shield society’s adolescents against violence through censorship, channel blocking, and tools like the television rating system (pp 259). However, many see this as a violation of the First Amendment, which provides American citizens with freedom of speech (pp. 265).
The argument provided by groups against censorship is that an individual can easily change channels or turn the television off if they find what a child is watching offensive. Certainly, it is rational to believe parents have a responsibility to monitor the content. Many children gladly take in the variety of entertainment that television offers. Is it unreasonable to believe that perhaps children have been adversely effected by TV violence? Arguably, this does not diminish a child’s responsibility to maintain control over themselves, even at a young age.
With children in modern day society facing violence on a daily basis, it is not unreasonable to expect that violence among children has indeed increased over the years. Violence on television is not simply ‘theatrics’, but a recurring theme in real-life news reports. In light of this fact, it is feasible that television may influence behavior of young viewers as much as the physical environment in which they live. However, it is important to note that much of the research available does not take into account race, sex, or geographic location (pp. 269) These environmental and socio-cultural aspects of a child’s environment may modulate the influence of television.
Aggressive behavior in children may seem to be the most common source of violence in our society, but research shows that domestic violence inflicted by middle age white men is the most prominent kind of violent crime (pp.269). Violence occurs in all age groups, races, genders, religions, lifestyles, and so on. It is not the research itself that is misleading, but rather the context in which it is presented.
The degree to which television may influence children is a legitimate concern. Tools such as channel blocking have given guardians the ability to monitor a child’s television viewing habits. New technologies may help regulate the benefits and detriments of television in the coming years. However, it should not be denied that other important factors contribute to the rise in violence among adolescents. An in depth understanding of both sides of the debate, as well as a necessary look at all factors related to violence among children, will provide a greater awareness that can lead to positive change.
American Psychological Association. “Violence on Television - What Do Children Learn? What Can Parents Do?” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters In America. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 248-251.
Gerbner, George. Television’s Global Marketing Strategy Creates a Damaging and Alienated Window on the World.” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters In America. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 262-265.
Goodman, Tim. “Hate Violence? Turn It Off!” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters In America. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 258-260.
Research in recent decades have revealed that watching television is a large part of daily life for many children. Studies have made claim that violence on television leads to children becoming less sensitive to others anguish, more fearful of their surroundings, and more likely to act in aggressive ways (pp. 249). In essence, the children of the current culture have become desensitized to violence and its impact upon the world at large. Even children who do not show any inherent aggressive qualities are less likely to call attention to violent acts or attempt to stop them (pp. 249). Research scientists are not the only group documenting such findings; parent also provide testimony to the impact of television upon their children. It is for this reason that many guardians look to the government for peace of mind. The rationale is that the government is able to shield society’s adolescents against violence through censorship, channel blocking, and tools like the television rating system (pp 259). However, many see this as a violation of the First Amendment, which provides American citizens with freedom of speech (pp. 265).
The argument provided by groups against censorship is that an individual can easily change channels or turn the television off if they find what a child is watching offensive. Certainly, it is rational to believe parents have a responsibility to monitor the content. Many children gladly take in the variety of entertainment that television offers. Is it unreasonable to believe that perhaps children have been adversely effected by TV violence? Arguably, this does not diminish a child’s responsibility to maintain control over themselves, even at a young age.
With children in modern day society facing violence on a daily basis, it is not unreasonable to expect that violence among children has indeed increased over the years. Violence on television is not simply ‘theatrics’, but a recurring theme in real-life news reports. In light of this fact, it is feasible that television may influence behavior of young viewers as much as the physical environment in which they live. However, it is important to note that much of the research available does not take into account race, sex, or geographic location (pp. 269) These environmental and socio-cultural aspects of a child’s environment may modulate the influence of television.
Aggressive behavior in children may seem to be the most common source of violence in our society, but research shows that domestic violence inflicted by middle age white men is the most prominent kind of violent crime (pp.269). Violence occurs in all age groups, races, genders, religions, lifestyles, and so on. It is not the research itself that is misleading, but rather the context in which it is presented.
The degree to which television may influence children is a legitimate concern. Tools such as channel blocking have given guardians the ability to monitor a child’s television viewing habits. New technologies may help regulate the benefits and detriments of television in the coming years. However, it should not be denied that other important factors contribute to the rise in violence among adolescents. An in depth understanding of both sides of the debate, as well as a necessary look at all factors related to violence among children, will provide a greater awareness that can lead to positive change.
American Psychological Association. “Violence on Television - What Do Children Learn? What Can Parents Do?” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters In America. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 248-251.
Gerbner, George. Television’s Global Marketing Strategy Creates a Damaging and Alienated Window on the World.” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters In America. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 262-265.
Goodman, Tim. “Hate Violence? Turn It Off!” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters In America. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 258-260.
Essay 2, Does television violence influence behavior in children?
Is Hollywood ruining out children? Is violence on television used as a scapegoat for bad parenting? Does violence in the media prepare children for the real world? To answer these questions, one must first explore the different aspects outlined in this essay.
”Hollywood has been blamed for the downfall of the nation's morals and has been a scapegoat for parent's poor parenting skills,” states author Tim Goodman. While sexual images have been banned from television, violence has been shown on a daily basis. Mike Males, an author of several media books, states that there is no proof that children are influenced by what they see on television. He writes that Mothers Against Drunk Driving accuse certain beer marketers for using frogs for advertising which targets teens and may influence them into drinking. A survey by USA Today found that while teens found these ads amusing, they did not consume alcohol as a result of watching them. Mr. Males writes that youths learn behaviors from their parents, not television. He feels that kids are taking the blame for being violent when it is actually the parents who are at fault. Tim Goodman writes that parents need to "vote with their remote" (Goodman, page 258) and stop ruining television for everyone. Parents have pressured elected officials into taking action and as a result a ratings system is in place as well as V-Chip which shifts parental responsibility to the government, he claims. Mr. Goodman writes that this sort of censoring is a violation of the first amendment right, the freedom of speech. Embrace freedom by changing the channel if its not deemed appropriate, he suggests.
There are counterclaims that children who view violent shows on television suffer long term adverse effects. The American Psychological Association gathered data from various psychology research agencies which has shown that there are three major effects on children who view violence on television:
- Children become less sensitive to pain and suffering of others
- Children may become more fearful in the world
- Children are more likely to have aggressive tendencies towards others
Violence sells, according to George Gerbner, a professor and director of media violence research. Violent images are marketable because they need no translation and speak any language, he writes. The media contributes to the growing exposure children have to violence by creating a “Culture of Fear “ states Jonathan Alter, an author and editor for Newsweek. Media focuses on the violent issues in society causing the public to have an exaggerated sense of fear. Millions of youths face real life violence in their homes while the focus is placed on the media according to Mr. Males. The American Psychological Association reminds the reader that parents have a tremendous power to control their children’s exposure to violence. By being aware of what their children watch, talking to them about violent images, allow and encourage them to see alternative shows, or limit their television time altogether they hold the key to molding less aggressive and more productive young adults.
Alter, Jonathan. “Who’s Taking the Kids?”
Goshgarian, Gary.What Matters in America.
New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 92-93.
Goodman, Tim. "Hate Violence? Turn it Off."
Goshgarian, Gary.What Matters in America.
New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 257-260.
Males, Mike. "Stop Blaming Kids and TV."
Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America.
New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 267-271.
World Wide Web
Gerbner, George. “Television’s Global Marketing Strategy Creates a Damaging and Alienated Window on the World.”
Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America.
New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 261-264.
ESSAY 2 Does the Media promote a culture of fear?
Does the media promote a culture of fear? The first answer one would come up with is yes, it appears so. All one has to do is turn on the television to make that belief seem true, yet this may be an incorrect assumption. In order to answer this question we must know who the characters are and what roles they play. In this case the characters would be the media and the population.
In his article “Heads Above the Hype,” Peter Phillips wrote, the media is a corporation (Phillips). More realistically it is a conglomerate of a limited number that can be considered a corporation and thus a business. The business of the media is to inform us, the population, whether or not they do that in an unbiased way remains to be seen. For example the media is quoted as saying they are” just giving the people what they want.” For starters how do they know what we want and what happened to unbiased news reporting? One way to realize how they “give us what we want” is to think of privacy issues. As stated by David Plotz in his essay published in GQ magazine, that companies know what you want by monitoring your activities, such as credit card purchases and stores visited, allows the big business to cater to your needs specifically (Plotz 57). This in turn allows them to advertise to you only the things you may buy. If this is applied to the media then news outlets will be able, as time goes by, to cater their news to suit the tastes of the viewer. If people continue to watch violence then we will continue to get more violence. In this light it seems easy to see where the media outlets are coming from.
The other character in this game is the population. If you as an individual had only two choices on television: reports of violence or reports of theft which would you watch and why? Most people would probable watch the violence. The answer could be that it is more entertaining or perhaps it makes us feel better knowing it’s them not us. For all the excuses about violence on television a simple omitted fact is that more child violence occurs in violent homes, from violent parents. Or that most children start smoking or drinking by watching addict parents, as summarized from an article written by Mike Males (Males 270). It should also be noted that Jane Ellen Stevens mentioned a new form of epidemic called violence epidemiology that began taking shape beginning in 1977. Stevens wrote about her involvement with this disease in her book entitled “The Violence Reporting Project: A New Approach to Covering Crime.” This idea explains how violence in society is a sickness just like any other ailment that people suffer. This ailment has quantifiable causes and consequences…that manifest into long term fear and mistrust of members of a community (Stevens 112).
Could it be possible that we are stuck in a vicious circle? Are we a victim of mass media or are we a victim of ourselves? It could be stated with an abundance of research and finger pointing that the media promotes fear in our culture. Unfortunately it is not that simple. Yes, it can be proven that the media is biased and pushes the idea of danger into our thoughts but it isn’t simply to promote fear but to keep ratings and make money. The media would push whichever idea would make the most money even if it was pink unicorns, they don’t care; money is money. Likewise the society we live in would have violence and fear from it regardless of whether or not a reporter was there to record such things. The issue of media hype and a fear culture may best be described as opposite sides of the coin not seeing the forest for the trees. Regardless of what the media may or may not do it is still the people that commit the violence and watch it on television. This would imply that the fault lies with the people and not the business that is dependent upon them for survival.
Males, Mike. "Stop Blaming Kids and TV." Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 267-271.
Plotz, David. “Privacy is overrated.” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 56-62.
Phillips, Peter. “Heads Above the Hype.” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 104-107.
Stevens, Jane Ellen. “The Violence Reporting Project: A New Approach to Covering Crime.” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 110-114.
In his article “Heads Above the Hype,” Peter Phillips wrote, the media is a corporation (Phillips). More realistically it is a conglomerate of a limited number that can be considered a corporation and thus a business. The business of the media is to inform us, the population, whether or not they do that in an unbiased way remains to be seen. For example the media is quoted as saying they are” just giving the people what they want.” For starters how do they know what we want and what happened to unbiased news reporting? One way to realize how they “give us what we want” is to think of privacy issues. As stated by David Plotz in his essay published in GQ magazine, that companies know what you want by monitoring your activities, such as credit card purchases and stores visited, allows the big business to cater to your needs specifically (Plotz 57). This in turn allows them to advertise to you only the things you may buy. If this is applied to the media then news outlets will be able, as time goes by, to cater their news to suit the tastes of the viewer. If people continue to watch violence then we will continue to get more violence. In this light it seems easy to see where the media outlets are coming from.
The other character in this game is the population. If you as an individual had only two choices on television: reports of violence or reports of theft which would you watch and why? Most people would probable watch the violence. The answer could be that it is more entertaining or perhaps it makes us feel better knowing it’s them not us. For all the excuses about violence on television a simple omitted fact is that more child violence occurs in violent homes, from violent parents. Or that most children start smoking or drinking by watching addict parents, as summarized from an article written by Mike Males (Males 270). It should also be noted that Jane Ellen Stevens mentioned a new form of epidemic called violence epidemiology that began taking shape beginning in 1977. Stevens wrote about her involvement with this disease in her book entitled “The Violence Reporting Project: A New Approach to Covering Crime.” This idea explains how violence in society is a sickness just like any other ailment that people suffer. This ailment has quantifiable causes and consequences…that manifest into long term fear and mistrust of members of a community (Stevens 112).
Could it be possible that we are stuck in a vicious circle? Are we a victim of mass media or are we a victim of ourselves? It could be stated with an abundance of research and finger pointing that the media promotes fear in our culture. Unfortunately it is not that simple. Yes, it can be proven that the media is biased and pushes the idea of danger into our thoughts but it isn’t simply to promote fear but to keep ratings and make money. The media would push whichever idea would make the most money even if it was pink unicorns, they don’t care; money is money. Likewise the society we live in would have violence and fear from it regardless of whether or not a reporter was there to record such things. The issue of media hype and a fear culture may best be described as opposite sides of the coin not seeing the forest for the trees. Regardless of what the media may or may not do it is still the people that commit the violence and watch it on television. This would imply that the fault lies with the people and not the business that is dependent upon them for survival.
Males, Mike. "Stop Blaming Kids and TV." Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 267-271.
Plotz, David. “Privacy is overrated.” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 56-62.
Phillips, Peter. “Heads Above the Hype.” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 104-107.
Stevens, Jane Ellen. “The Violence Reporting Project: A New Approach to Covering Crime.” Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 110-114.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Essay 2 Final Version
Does "Big Media" promote a culture of fear, yes or no?
Are global media conglomerates delivering portrayals of the human condition or are they determined to define the human condition. Tear-jerkers, tragedies, and the late-breaking news has been a staple of the entertainment and information businesses for centuries. But now there are academics and politicians who feel that we have nothing to fear but the media itself. Here are two sides of the argument.
Some say yes; "Big Media" is promoting a culture of fear. In today's world much of the production and distribution of television programming, movies, newspapers, magazines, and publishing are controlled by large media corporations. These corporations, or Big Media, are global in scale. These global operators have learned that programming aimed to touch deep, basic human emotions is very effective at reaching and retaining viewers and readers. People's fear seems to be one of the easier buttons to push.
As with any modern, multi-national industry, the media companies have directed significant resources toward the research and development of effective tools and techniques which they use to deliver their content. Some of these tools are highly technical and have direct application outside of the media-centric world, such as the computer animation techniques of Disney/Pixar. Some of the techniques are obviously aimed at more primitive instincts and behaviors of the viewing public. In "Heads Above the Hype" (Phillips) by Peter Philips, the author identifies the typical content of broadcast television and newspapers as "Washington sex scandals, celebrity exposes, gruesome murders, schoolyard attacks, gangs, crime, [and] corruption." When questioned as to why this content is presented, Big Media responds "we are just giving the public what it wants." By giving the public what it wants these companies ensure repeat business, meaning that viewers and readers always come back for more. Repeat business is valued by Big Media's advertising sponsors who are the primary source of revenue. In order to deliver the viewers and readers demanded by the advertisers the media companies rely on titillating the basic human emotions. Fear being the primary emotion, as noted several times by Myrna Blyth in "The Female Fear Factor." (Blyth)
Global media companies have reaped the rewards of their research investments. Their lessons are well learned. Fear and drama draw viewers, viewers draw advertisers, to this end media companies promote fear to sustain and grow their business.
So, producers and distributors of modern media content have been indicted. The offense with which they have been charged is "promotion of a culture of fear." There are numerous plaintiffs, an example being George Gerbner, Professor of Communication at the Anenberg School of Communication, Philadelphia. In an article published in The Ecology of Justice "Television's Global Marketing Strategy Creates a Damaging and Alienated Window on the World," (Gerbner) Professor Gerbner states that "the more television people watch, the more they are likely to be afraid to go out on the street in their own community."
The contrarian argument would ask why? Certainly, watching too much television could cause one to be unable to go out onto the street, especially if the viewing is paired with an over-indulgence of Yodels. But citing fear as the reason for not venturing outside is less obvious. Fear is a basic human response that has developed as man has developed from cave dweller to modern times. Some of this response is an instinctive reaction based deep in our nervous system. Modern humans only experience this type of fear infrequently; our life does not include the daily exposure to life and death circumstances that our ancestors experienced. The rest of this response is learned from our environment. For the first 5-10 years of our lives that environment is dominated by the confines of family and home. Development of unusual reactions to stressful situations would be learned from that environment not exposure to media content. One interpretation of "Who's Taking the Kids" (Alter) by Jonathan Alter could be that it is in fact parents who may be instilling fear in their children, from parental reaction, or overreaction, to what they see and hear in the media. The article makes the point that simply digging further into the facts behind the hype blaring from the tube might put the statistics into perspective. In "Stop Blaming Kids and TV" (Males) by Mike Males the author also provides many examples showing that one's environment has more influence on behavior than exposure to certain types of media. One of Male's overriding themes is his theory that children mimic not only their parents but other influential adults and fear is certainly contagious.
Big-time media does produce and distribute content that is meant to strike at our deepest emotions; that is the definition of entertainment and the arts. But the indicted media companies have much less control over the development of our emotions, behaviors, and reactions than our family, friends, educators, and civic leaders. These media companies are not promoting fear, it is already out there in spades.
In summary, the answer to the question probably depends on one's emotional attachment to what they view, read, and hear. The offerings of "Big Media" can inflict anxiety if taken to heart. If these offerings are kept at arm's length, then the effect probably won't be felt so deeply.
Alter, Jonathon. "Who's Taking the Kids?" Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 93-96.
Blyth, Myrna. "The Female Fear Factor." Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 96-102.
Gerbner, George. "Televisions Global Marketing Strategy Creates a Damaging and Alientaed Window on the World." Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 261-265.
Males, Mike. "Stop Blaming Kids and TV." Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New Tork: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 267-271.
Phillips, Peter. "Heads Above the Hype." Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America. New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. 104-107.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Does Television Violence affect behavior in Children?
There have been many arguments to date that have involved television and whether or not violence on television shows affects children in negative ways. This has always been and will always be a very sensitive and touchy subject for all parties involved.
There are various view points on this subject and whether or not violence on television affects children. The national Institute of Mental Health reported almost twenty years ago that “television violence could be dangerous for children” and that “violent programs on television lead to aggressive behavior by children and teenagers who watch those programs”. The American Psychological Association gathered this and other information from multiple agencies and stated that based on this research that there are three shown major effects of seeing violence on television:
1.) Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others.
2.) Children may be more fearful of the world around them.
3.) Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways toward others.
“An American child will have watched over 8000 murders on television by the time they reach twelve years of age”. This information is an estimate from the Cultural Indicators Project headed by George Gerbner an advocate for committees to vote on television content. Gerbner argues that “the alienating culture of television has replaced other forms of communication the once tied the family and community together”. According to the American Psychological Association parents have a lot of power to moderate the influence of television aggression on their children.
Some examples are:
1.) Limiting the number of hours of television viewing.
2.) Watch an episode of your child’s show and talk with them about it.
3.) Ban offensive programs and restrict what they are allowed to watch to something that they feel is more beneficial, such as documentaries, educational shows and so on.
4.) Encourage other activities.
5.) Encourage children to watch programs that demonstrate caring, helping, and cooperation.
There are many opposing arguments to the fact that television violence can influence behavior in children and teens. Mike Males, author of Stop Blaming Kids and TV, states that “television violence bears little relation to real behavior”. He writes that Japanese and European kids behold media as graphically brutal as that which appears on American screens, but seventeen-year-olds in those countries commit murder rates lower than those of American seventy-year-olds. Males, also writes that youth’s in different parts of the U.S. are exposed to the same media but display drastically different violence levels. According to this article, America’s biggest explosion in felony violent crime is not street crime among minorities or teens of any color, but domestic violence among aging, mostly white baby boomers. The department of Health and Human Services reported that 565,000 serious injuries reported in 1993 were inflicted from parents on their children. Males writes that between the eighteen years a child is born and graduates high school there will be fifteen million case of real violence in American homes and that of that fifteen million there will be forty thousand death’s to children.
Tim Goodman, author of Hate Violence? Turn It Off! Reminds everyone that
“Violence as entertainment, or as a realistic expression of what is going on in the world, will never appeal to some people. But no one is forcing them to watch. There are dozens of other channels, hundreds of other programs. There’s also an off button.”
Goodman states that “Television is not the problem in our society. It may always be the scapegoat, but it’s nothing more than a bastard machine, not half as disturbing as the real thing”.
Goshgarian,Gary. What Matters in America.
New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007
Goodman,Tim. "Hate violence? Turn it Off!".
Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America.
New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007
Males, Mike. "Stop Blaming Kids and TV."
Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America.
New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007
Gerbner, George. "Television's Global Marketing Strategy".
Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America.
New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007
American Psychological Association. "Violence on Television".
Goshgarian, Gary. What Matters in America.
New York: Pearson Education Inc., 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)