First off, thanks for the now over 1100 views. That means- on average- 300 people read this blog a month. Hopefully, in some small way- that is me provoking thought and logic and positive change.
I wanted to bring to your attention a small artilce I read today by LZ Granderson of CNN about the gang violence in Chicago and looking at the gangs as terrorists instead of "just gangs". I am thinking about using this article in a larger writing later this month, so let me know what you think about it in the comments below or by emailing me at mlchrzan@outlook.com.
LZ Granderson
The article- titled "Treat Chicago gangs as terrorists" is linked here. From what I can piece together, it is strange to me how attacks on citizens by citizens is seen as no big deal- something to be handled by local authorities. Yet, we kill ourselves by the hundreds each day- especially in major urban centers riddled by gang violence. However, if someone from another country kills Americans- all hell breaks loose, such as in the Boston bombings case and I think Granderson does a great job of making us realize that hypocrisy. Gangs- American gangs- take more American lives each day than that one attack. Yet no tears are shed nationally for these victims and no stronger action is taken to disband these domestic terrorists (which gangs do fall under the denoted definition of terrorists). We must then ask ourselves- are we really that concerned with American lives? Are we really that concerned with life at all?
I am so sorry I haven't written a post in so long. April is a very hectic month for me as far as student group performances and finals and papers and projects and just life haha. But recently there have been a couple of stories that have peaked my interest when thinking about social justice and keeping my theme of impartiality going I was curious to see if I could write on the story of one Suzy Lee Weiss.
Suzy Lee Weiss on Good Morning America
For those who have not heard the story that garnered her a spot on Good Morning America, feel free to watch the video above see the link in the next paragraph for her article.
I'll start with her side. I can not find very much information on Suzy Lee Weiss (probably best). From what I can find she is a child from a well-off family and a high school senior graduating and apparently attending the University of Michigan in the fall, if the end of the GMA video is any indication. So keeping what I do know out of mind, I went back and re-read her op-ed titled "To (All) the Colleges that Rejected Me" in the Wall Street Journal.
When trying to do so I found out very quickly that that would be next to impossible; she writes the articles based on the stereotypes she feels she lacks. She writes in the article "If it were up to me, I would've been any of the diversities: Navajo, Pacific Islander, anything." Her entire article is about how who she is has kept her out of her dream schools. I can understand where Suzy is coming from, however. She worked hard throughout high school- academically at least- and has some amazing numbers behind her to prove it. She apparently has also done some community service according to her interview. College admissions to these tops schools- and just in general- have become increasingly competitive and if that is what Suzy was trying to evaluate she did do that-although how she did it seems to be the problem and where her logic was flawed.
Now, onto the other side. In her article, Suzy using some very emotional language. She says things such as:
"I also probably should have started a fake charity."
"I would have gladly worn a headdress to school. Show me to any closet, and I would've happily come out of it. "Diversity!"
No wonder people are making a fuss; perhaps it is because of the tone of the writing. Suzy notes in her interview that she wrote this piece at the advice of her sister (who just so happens to have worked for the WSJ) the day she was "in tears" over her rejection from numerous schools. I believe that could be the problem. It doesn't seem like this is a satire. It is more like an emotional outrage of her trying to demerit anyone who had characterisitcs she felt she didn't that got them into the school instead of her. That is what can be best gathered from the tone of herarticle (the worst being that she is a racist. Let's not go that far).
The admissions process and decisions for every school in this country are different. Thousands of students- some with those criteria she mentions and the numbers she has- get rejected. The thing to remember is that all the numbers and activities are not quotas to be filled. There aren't a certain number of spots for kids who did band, or choir, and black kids that did 4 extracurriculars, etc. There are just open seats and college leave them open to students who they feel will add to their environment- in any way. Diversity has more meaning than just ethnically. It is attitude, geography, socieoeconomic status, and many other things can be considered diversity and finding the right blend of diversities is what college strive for so that they can become these microcasms of learning and understanding our fellow men through interaction at great instituions of learning.
Perhaps that is where Suzy was confused. When the colleges said "Just be yourself" they didn't mean be you. They meant show you. Show them who you are through your extracurriculars, through you're heritage, through your charity, through anything you can show us, show us your character and how you define yourself and shape the world around you. She shouldn't be angry because some students found ways to describe themselves- show themselves- and build that character that she so easily showed she lacked.
In my research (read: Googling) I ran across one article response that truly spoke to what I believe logically follows from this topic. In the article its author, Kendra James, writes
In an ill-advised appearance on The Today Show, Suzy argues that the necessity of diversity means that colleges are judging applicants using factors (read: race) that the applicants have no control over. “Anyone can relate to this,” she says.
Actually Suzy, no, they can’t. I mean, we could start with fact that most of us don’t have the luxury of being able to cry over our failings publicly in a nationally published papers where our sisters just so happened to work once upon a time. Plus, in singling out diversity as your issue, you’re eliminating half the college applying population from your debate. By your logic, if a white girl with your background doesn’t get into an Ivy League college, it’s because there weren’t enough spots for white students that year. But, if a non-white girl with an identical profile is rejected, who do they blame? No one. They don’t have the excuse; they simply weren’t good enough. We don’t get to make ourselves feel better by engaging in a smear campaign against the fictional Cherokee girl that took our Ivy League slot.
Another of Suzy's quotes is
Diversity is a wonderful thing. I think all colleges should have a holistic approach to every college applicant. I do, however, think that in this day in age we're being judged on things that we cannot control as opposed to things that we can.
The err in logic here is that we can control who we are and how we will represent ourselves and out impact on society. Even if it is in the smallest of ways- how those experiences build our character is what colleges want to know and what Suzy lacked. Her story speaks to a common misconeption about how we see achievements in the United States. You aren't being judged on what you did when applying to college, or to anything for that matter. You are being judged on what those things did to you and who you have become as a result of your experiences.
Justice is never not worth fighting for. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere; so we fight everyday and we struggle and we become a voice for those who are voiceless, a noise for those who can't beat the own drums or toot their own horns. We should never tire from demanding what is right in this world. And we can all debate what right is and where that notion comes from but in the end we all know the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And I would go so far as to extend it. Expect what is good for others as you would expect for yourself and when you see disparity, do what you can to help. It may not be much. But whatever you can.
If everyone on the planet jumped at the same time we could knock the Earth off it's axis a little. So if we all do a little something, something amazing could happen.
In 2009, the DOJ’s most recent year for data on prison populations, there were more than 150 percent more black males in college than incarcerated. Given the declining prison presence of African Americans—incarceration rates fell sharply between 2000 and 2009, and remain on a downward slope—and the growing presence of blacks in higher education, the difference between the two populations is likely larger.
The first thing that came to my mind was: YESSSS!!! Then I read the article..
While I am happy the numbers are there, the reality is so much more dismal and to see a pure lack of understanding for that in this piece is disheartening. Don't let the facts get in the way of the truth.
The way the author disregards the fact that black males are still disproportionately represented in community colleges and alternative higher education due to a lack of opportunity in public elementary and secondary education (which the research article he wrote this piece on acknowledges) is a disrespect to many who are working towards building up those systems.
For instance, at the University of Michigan, where I am currently an undergraduate, there are more International students enrolled than African American students, with one of the most African American populated cities (my hometown of Detroit) less than 50 miles away.
And this is not to say, of course, that those institutions can not serve those students well. But there is a definite lack of opportunity when compared to schools like Harvard, Berkley, or Michigan, further disenfranchising this community.
Another fact that I believe should be included in the research and should have been a apart of his analysis is the fact that the research article implied that many schools did not report to the 2001-2002 data, which could mean that there has not been that great of a change, while the number of African American males incarcerated seems to have remained stagnant. This implies that nothing has changed, we still incarcerate many black males who are victims of a failing system instead of righting their path to truly see these two data sets become inversely proportional. That complacency is saddening.
I will say, however, the fact that more Black males are seeking higher education of any kind is elevating as a Black male to hear, but to say that this number makes everything ok, which is the sense I got from the article (especially the last line), shows true ignorance on the part of the author and anyone who doesn't ask for a deeper understanding of this complex issue.
I don't profess to have all the answers but as someone who is a part of these numbers and someone who will make it his life's work to change them for the better, that ignorance can not stand alone.
So That's Where I Stand.
Today, while browsing the internet and coming across some good ol' Sunday morning politics, I came across a story that ended with a statement from some who represents the NRA that not only peaked my interest but seemed so immoral that it couldn't get passed up.
"The National Rifle Association distanced itself Tuesday from a comment made by a lobbyist for one of its “chartered organizations” in Wisconsin, who said recently that gun rights proponents need only to wait out the “Connecticut Effect” before passing laws loosening restrictions on guns." (full story here)
"The brush-off came three days after Welch was recorded telling an audience at a Wisconsin state NRA meeting that the group has 'a strong [lobbying] agenda coming up for next year, but of course a lot of that’s going to be delayed as the 'Connecticut effect' has to go through the process.'" (full story here)
Wisconsin lobbyist Bob Welch, shown here in this 2004 photo handing out literature during his Republican primary run for the U.S. Senate.
Now, before I talk more on what I think, I went and looked up information on Bob Welch. I couldn't find much, but here is what I found. According to his lobbying firm:
"A graduate of MATC and Ripon College, Bob is a land-surveyor by profession, and served in the State legislature for twenty years. Bob was elected to the Wisconsin State Assembly in 1984, quickly rising to leadership positions. After ten years of service, Bob was elected to the State Senate in 1995, serving until 2004. The eventual sale of the surveying business allowed Bob and Jeanne to expand and diversify the services of The Welch Group. An active member of national political organizations, Bob has expertise in both national and international policy and business." (Source)
That's about all I can find that speaks to his character from him officially. I am trying to stay unbiased on forming an opinion of him, outside of this comment, but cant seem to find much. If anyone knows more please email me at mlchrzan@outlook.com. But right now, seems like he is no different from those who would knowingly surrender what is best for everyone in place of personal gain. Not my type of person and not one I particularly care for either. So, now onto what I think, after finding all of this...
I hate that this is what had to happen to make this a reality with all my heart and soul, but do you know what's the glimmering sparkle of hope for the Newtown shooting? It's outside of the talk on gun violence (and violence in general) that has been LONG overdue. It's that, for the first time in this type of situation happening, and it has happened FAR too often, I don't know the name of the shooter. I know little to nothing about the shooter. Every time someone talks about it, they talk about the tragedy of almost 30 lives being lost, a number of those being children. They talk about the 2 administrators that immediately ran to protect their students after they heard the first shot. They talk about the teacher who hid her 30 students in cupboards and took the bullet for them. They talk about what should be talked about so that we can finally enact common sense, positive, change that we all so desperately need. I hate silver linings. But I understand how dark it would be without them. Don't let the "Connecticut Effect" pass. Especially not before we get some shred of future peace and justice for those children and educators. Silver linings. Got to hate 'em. So no, Mr. Welch, the 'Connecticut Effect' will not pass so that you can continue lobbying. Because people, the people who those you lobby to, are tired of the games and the antics that halt progress and, eventually, hurt us all. We're tired and we want change and we will get it. That's Where I Stand
Today, I saw something on Tumblr that really spiked my interest in a topic that I had not actually thought to ever discuss. However, as someone who wants to try to always do what's right, it can't mean just right to me, or even what is right to my part of the world. It's about that notion of what's right that so many scholars before me held up that I now take on as my own.
Being 'right' is made to be very subjective in today's world. However, I believe 'right' is not subjective but objective; it is not something we each define on our own but is a notion, a higher notion, of respect for life and humanity that should come as natural to us as breathing but at times leaves our minds as quickly as breath leaves our lungs. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere*, after all, and we should all be astounded and offended by injustice, NOT complacent because of it's prevalence. I hold true the fact that there are things 'right' for each of us as individuals. But I also challenge the idea that what we hold as unrighteousness in one domain should be considered okay in another. We should not be hypocrites to ourselves.
In light of that idea I quote Judith Butler, speaking at Brooklyn college 2 days ago on the topic of the Israeli democracy.
Judith Butler
“If Israel is to be considered a democracy, the non-Jewish population deserves equal rights under the law, as do the Mizrachim (Arab Jews) who represent over 30 percent of the population. Presently, there are at least twenty laws that privilege Jews over Arabs within the Israeli legal system. The 1950 Law of Return grants automatic citizenship rights to Jews from anywhere in the world upon request, while denying that same right to Palestinians who were forcibly dispossessed of their homes in 1948 or subsequently as the result of illegal settlements and redrawn borders. Human Rights Watch has compiled an extensive study of Israel’s policy of “separate, not equal” schools for Palestinian children. Moreover, as many as 100 Palestinian villages in Israel are still not recognized by the Israeli government, lacking basic services (water, electricity, sanitation, roads, etc.) from the government. Palestinians are barred from military service, and yet access to housing and education still largely depends on military status. Families are divided by the separation wall between the West Bank and Israel, with few forms of legal recourse to rights of visitation and reunification. The Knesset debates the “transfer” of the Palestinian population to the West Bank, and the new loyalty oath requires that anyone who wishes to become a citizen pledge allegiance to Israel as Jewish and democratic, thus eliding once again the non-Jewish population and binding the full population to a specific and controversial, if not contradictory, version of democracy.”
Butler, in addition to her rather impressive academic credentials, is a Jewish woman who has been criticized for supporting the BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) movement.
She made the following response to her critics back in August:
"I am a scholar who gained an introduction to philosophy through Jewish thought, and I understand myself as defending and continuing a Jewish ethical tradition that includes figures such as Martin Buber and Hannah Arendt. I received a Jewish education in Cleveland, Ohio at The Temple under the tutelage of Rabbi Daniel Silver where I developed strong ethical views on the basis of Jewish philosophical thought. I learned, and came to accept, that we are called upon by others, and by ourselves, to respond to suffering and to call for its alleviation. But to do this, we have to hear the call, find the resources by which to respond, and sometimes suffer the consequences for speaking out as we do. I was taught at every step in my Jewish education that it is not acceptable to stay silent in the face of injustice. Such an injunction is a difficult one, since it does not tell us exactly when and how to speak, or how to speak in a way that does not produce a new injustice, or how to speak in a way that will be heard and registered in the right way. My actual position is not heard by these detractors, and … [i]t is untrue, absurd, and painful for anyone to argue that those who formulate a criticism of the State of Israel is anti-Semitic or, if Jewish, self-hating."
Humanity, then, is not a subjective thought or a fleeting feeling. It is helping your fellow man and affording them those respects and rights you would expect no less of for yourself.
I would expect no less, then, for the Palestinians who are struggling against Israel.
If you have something you would like to add to try and change my opinion, please let me know! I do claim a lot of ignorance to of the history behind this struggle and even how it plays outs currently and would like to know more from both sides. You can comment here or email me at mlchrzan@outlook.com
