By: Nikko Genoese The Great Debate between College Dems and College Republicans was busy and widely marketed. Former governor of Maryland Martin O’Malley and former New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte were some of the biggest attractions for the Great Debate. Other attractions included some of the recent political firestorms taking place around the globe. The Great Debate was a place where young avid Republicans and Democrats came together to talk about “where we are and where we wanted to go” As an avid Republican, I did push the belief that we were on the right track. I have faith in the economic and foreign policy decisions that President Trump has made to an extent. I believe that his sole purpose is to get America and its citizens on the road financial prosperity and secured from foreign and domestic threats. I stood up with fellow Republicans for beliefs that the monetary and fiscal policies that he is putting in place will be different in the years under Obama for the better. We hold it to be true that when a president cuts taxes for everyone that the money generated from increased investment and consumption will out weight the deficit created by cutting taxes. Furthermore, we also believe that the decisions levied on the Keystone Pipeline and TPP were in the best interests of country. We also discussed with our collegiate counterparts that the president was meeting with leaders of every industry and was taking the steps to garner total political input in order to create the best legislation for those interests. Some of those groups include, but are not limited to the auto industry, labor unions, educational leaders, and many more. When it comes to foreign policy many Republicans believe President Trump is leading from the front with decisiveness and from a position of strength. In past years we have witnessed unpunished aggression from many countries such as Iran and China. Iran had captured and disgraced American Sailors on global television after a minute navigation error in the middle east. China also aggressed the Japanese, a U.S. ally, but annexing islands in the South China Sea with the intention of building military installations. We discussed with our Democratic class mates that was no longer the case. Both countries are now timid in committing acts of the same levels of aggression. China has since taking a reduce presence in the South China sea as tensions with N. Korea and the United States intensifies. Iran has also been less aggressive than in the Obama term and realizes that they will no longer get money in return for fake friendship. Another point of side discussion of students at the Great Debate was the military strikes ordered by Trump in the Middle East. The Republicans and Democrats alike felt that this was a strong showing of Trump’s foreign policy. The initial attack was felt to be warranted by my fellow classmates. They felt that it was the right course of action following the horrific murder of innocents by Assad. We also agreed that Syria would never be a peaceful state with a tyrannical dictator at the helm. Furthermore, we also agreed committing large amounts of troops to the battlefield in Syria would deepen economic deficits and cost would outweigh the benefit. The second strike in Syria was also widely accepted by both the college Democrats and Republicans because it served its purpose in deterring and destroying ISIS in that area. However, the Democratic students felt that it emboldened the enemy while Republican students felt in did the opposite, especially to North Korea and their allies. However, some areas where the Trump administration struck deep divides were Immigration and Domestic National Security. The left-winged students felt that it was unfair and not the American way to seclude refugees from the Middle East from our country’s security. They also felt that the Trump administration had over stepped its boundaries. They explained that he had targeted religion because he was triggered by racist beliefs that all refugees have a high chance of becoming embolden to do lone wolf acts of terror. Republican Students fiercely resisted those beliefs that Trump acted solely on his perception of the Muslim religion. Whether or not it was a small or large majority of the refugees that could potentially be lone wolf cells, the chances were too great. We also illustrated how there are many neighboring countries capable of taking on the burden and security risk. We also pointed out how lone wolf acts have become rampant in past years and recently high in European countries who took in refugees. In conclusion, we believe that all matter discussed were constructive communications between people of opposing political views. I also felt that the discussions before and afterward we much more interesting than the actual debate itself.
0 Comments
By: Julianne Culley Everybody would love to graduate college and say they didn’t have to pay a dime towards tuition. However, there are many tradeoffs to the general public, including enormous tax increases and potential for decreases in the overall quality of education that is being offered. To determine the right way to implement a solution for this civic issue, it is necessary to get down to the foundation of what problem this type of policy is trying to address. It seems the two main purposes of free tuition are: (1) to recruit top-tier talented minds from home and abroad to fill specialized careers that is or could be facing a shortage of workers and (2) to empower American students who are discouraged from continuing their education due to the high sticker price of attending college. With this in mind, I have! come to the conclusion that something must be done, although universal free tuition is not the answer.
There are two solutions that I think would work well in addressing the concerns that are coming from both sides. First, I think there needs to be economic incentive to enter fields that teach the skills for careers paths that are supposed to have shortages of workers. For example, geriatric care has been identified as a field that will have significant labor shortages in the coming years as the Baby Boomer generation ages. One way the government can ensure that there will be enough professionals providing care to the aging population is to subsidize students’s education bills after graduating with a degree that would properly train them for a career in geriatrics. This framework could be applied generally to many different fields. Additionally, the subsidized tuition would be a great incentive for students who are interested in the field, but don’t thi! nk they can afford the cost of attending school. It also could incentiv! ize bright students from other countries to study, and hopefully make a career, in the United States. The second solution I am proposing already exists to a certain extent. Federal student aid is not currently providing enough to meet financial need. At Penn State, I am likely to graduate with more debt than if I were graduating from an Ivy League school. This is hard to imagine when the sticker price at Penn State is nearly half that of most of the ivy schools. However, one thing that Ivy schools do differently then public schools is meet 100% of financial need. Since these schools have a more realistic interpretation then the government of how much of my education I can pay for, it can be less expensive for most Americans to go to the Ivy schools. If the government actually made an effort to meet students’ individual financial needs, students would be able to graduate with less debt. This would certainly cause an increase in taxes, but it would ! ;not cause nearly as drastic of an increase as universal free tuition. For that reason, I believe this is a viable compromise between the two sides of the debate on free tuition. Although free tuition is unfeasible, there are various other initiatives that can achieve the same goals, and require far fewer tax dollars. I am excited to see how this civic issue will affect the Presidential race in 2020. By: Julianne Culley The issue of making college tuition-free has recently come to the fore in American politics. The major argument for free public college and university education is the same as for free public education in general: like the free public elementary and high schools already existing in the United States, free public higher education provides educational opportunity for all and strengthens the American workforce.
Actually,! until fairly recently, the United States had a free or virtually free ! system of public higher education. In 1862, to provide educational opportunity for the “sons of toil,” the U.S. Congress passed the Morrill Act, establishing land-grant public colleges and universities on a tuition-free basis. For roughly a century thereafter, many American public colleges and universities either charged no tuition or a nominal fee for attendance. The State University of New York (SUNY) system—the largest in the nation—remained tuition-free until 1963. The University of California system, established in 1868, had free tuition until the 1980s. In recent decades, however, the situation has changed dramatically, with tuition costs soaring to dizzying heights at both public and private colleges. Between 1978 and 2013, American college tuition reportedly rose by 1,120 percent. This enormous hike in tuition has had a devastating impact upon educational opportunity. Unable to afford college, many young people never attend it or drop out along the way. S! tudies have found that the primary reason young people cite for not attending college is its enormous cost. Many other young people can afford to attend college only by working simultaneously at paying jobs (which takes time away from their studies) and/or by running up enormous debt. As recently as the early 1990s, most college students did not take out loans to finance their education. Now, however, nearly three out of four college graduates have borrowed to cover their college costs, running up a debt averaging $30,000 each. As a result, American student loan debt now totals $1.3 trillion. Paying off this debt at high interest rates constitutes a heavy burden for young Americans, and all too many of them either default on it or, to repay it, give up on their dreams and settle for working at jobs they dislike. The tuition squeeze on young Americans results largely from severe reductions in state and local funding for public colleges and universities, usually initiated ! by conservative, budget-cutting governments. Since 2008 alone, state fu! nding for public universities has dropped 16 percent. Indeed, there is considerable question as to whether public colleges and universities are still public institutions, for most of their costs—once covered by government funding—are now met by student tuition. Anxious to maintain or expand operations despite declining levels of government funding, college and university administrators cut campus costs by replacing tenured and tenure-line faculty with low-paid part-timers and underpaid full-timers in temporary positions. In 1969, tenured and tenure-track faculty held three out of four teaching positions. By 2013, this “regular” faculty held one out of five. Faculty morale and the quality of education have plummeted. In addition, campus administrators, faced with declining income, are increasingly inclined to accept funding from wealthy individuals and corporations that are reshaping higher education to serve their interests. From 2005 to 2013, two rightwing billi! onaires, Charles and David Koch, spent $68 million funding the kinds of programs they wanted on 308 U.S. college and university campuses. In New York, when Governor Andrew Cuomo initiated Start-Up NY, a scheme to provide a tax-free haven to businesses that moved onto or near public (and some private) college campuses, there was never any question about how SUNY’s chancellor and other administrators would respond. Instead of resisting this business takeover of university facilities and mission, they became leading cheerleaders for it. In these circumstances, free tuition would, at the least, restore educational opportunity to millions of Americans and lift the terrible burden of debt from the shoulders of young people. In addition, by bringing large numbers of new students and their funding to public colleges and universities, it would reduce the incentive for administrators to turn the faculty into less than sub-par. Furthermore, although private colleges might resent ! this enhanced funding of their public competitors, the resulting compet! ition for students might encourage them to decrease their astronomical tuition, thus providing them with a more economically diverse student body. By: Julianne Culley On March 2, 2017 I attended a deliberation regarding the topic of race. Given our current political climate this discussion intrigued me as race relations are intense and changing. We were presented with three approaches of where race relations take place those being education, community and safe spaces. In regards to the education approach the deliberator leaders brought up the idea of implementing classes that talk about race relations, racial sensitivity and racial recognition. An attendee in my small disc! ussion group had shared that her school has already implemented a class like this and initially the class was full of arguments but by the end of the year resulted in better ties between the different ethnic groups. However the main focus of our education and race discussion revolved around how schools teach history. Many shared that the only times they learned about black history was slavery and civil rights and black people are much more than that. Our history books seem to be surrounded by white success whether in America or Europe. So many inventions were created, places were found, barriers were broken and pieces of art were created by black people that we are not aware of because we are not taught it in schools. One of the attendees had mentioned the Harlem Renaissance is being skipped in public school history classes which is a shame and its influence and intellect should not be robbed from students. The second approa! ch presented was race relations in our community. We discussed the impo! rtance of ethnic and cultural clubs and events and how it is crucial that one exposes themselves to other ethnic groups so they gain respect and appreciation for it. My small discussion group agreed that Penn State flourishes with many ethnic groups and that the ethnic groups are able to share their culture successfully even on a campus that is a majority of white. The third approach was safe spaces and the possibility of integrating a racial safe space on campus. Safe spaces are a controversial topic and there are proponents and opponents who stand very strongly where they stand. My small discussion group was pretty split on the idea of safe spaces. Some thought that safe spaces hinder creating ties with others and stop conflict from being solved. While other believe that safe spaces are crucial to have as they are a place where one can freely go and talk without the fear of confrontation. Another attendee had brought up that college can be one's safe space if you are apar! t of the majority. Penn State may be a safe space for white people because white is the dominate race here while HBCU schools are safe spaces for black people because they are predominately black. My discussion group for the most part was open to implementing a racial safe space on campus especially given our current times and how politically active Penn State's student body is. Overall the deliberation shed light on many racial issues that I had never thought of and informed me on ways to strengthen racial relations here at Penn State.
Julianne Culley I attended a deliberation at Webster's Café in downtown State College to converse and discuss sexual assault on Penn State's campus and how to combat it. Three approaches were presented to us by the discussion leaders those being alcohol, help available and bystander intervention. The role alcohol plays in sexual assault is major and creates haziness to the truth of the story. We were presented with a question along the lines of "If the school banned alcohol do you think sexual assault numbers would go down?". My discussion group all agreed that banning alcohol on a college campus is just not going to happen and students will obtain it in other ways. Alcohol is an innate part of c! ollege culture and at a school like Penn State that embodies t! he cliché of a "party school" any action of banning alcohol will be met with rebellion from the students. It is unfortunate that many have to abuse alcohol to the point where they use it to prey on victims. A student should be able to go out and have fun at a party without the concern of being targeted because they are drinking. We then moved on to deliberate on the factor of help available. Our group acknowledged that Penn State has programs like SafeWalk and the Blue Lights but also believe that those programs have flaws but fixes can be made so they better cater to a campus of 45,000 students. In regards to the SafeWalk, the biggest flaw in the program is the wait time. One attendee had stated that when she previously used the app it said the wait time would be 20 minutes meaning she was going to have to stand on a corner late at night for 20 minutes. A solution the wait time ! was suggested of using gold carts. Golf carts would allow the auxiliary police to reach students quicker and in larger numbers. Our deliberation group also thought of the idea of having a person who sole purpose at fraternity parties is to be a guardian and a source of help for anyone who feels unsafe. The third approach presented to us was bystander invention. So many people see situations happening and do nothing about it because they either don't want to get involved or don't think the situation needs intervention. However, our group all came to the consensus that you should intervene if the situation seems odd at all because its better to intervene and be wrong than to do nothing and the situation become something much more for the victim. Also, it just discussed that bystander intervention has a double standard. When a girl interrupts a situation to help a friend its seen as sisterhood-ly but if a male where t! o interrupt a situation it could be met with remarks like "dude, s! top cockblocking me". This double standard is unfortunate because any nonconsensual situation is never "cool" and should be stopped immediately. Overall, the deliberation shed light on many topics surrounding sexual assault and gave me and the other attendees the resources and knowledge to help combat it on our campus.
Julianne Culley Millennials are a group that are much different than their baby-boomer predecessors. They don’t strive to create cookie cutter like households. They are widely educated, no matter their gender or race. They have normalized marijuana. They think innovatively and sustainably. And they have been the group hit the hardest by the tough realities of the cost of college. Millennials form a generation with more student loan debt than any other. Research shows that two-thirds of 2011 college graduates graduated with an average student loan debt of $26,600, or $27,500 when adjusted for inflation. Contrast that with 1993, when less than half of students graduated with debt, and those who did averaged $9,350, which is about $15,000 when adjusted for inflation. Racked up student loans have hindered the steps that one usually takes after acquiring their education like buying a house, raising a family, getting married, planning for the future, etc. forcing the millennials to take life routes different than those of their parent and grandparents.
With the added pressures that debt tolls and the already existing pressures of entering adulthood, what are millennials doing to deal? One common and ridiculed way that millennials are trying to stay afloat is by living with their parents. To relieve another added financial responsibility of being an adult, some millennials have opted out of renting or buying a home and are moving back in with their parents after college. This coping tendency has been proven to not be healthy for the family system. When a post-college student moves back in with their parents they are reversed back in time with less freedom than they enjoyed the past four years while at college leading them to grow frustrated with their parents. On the other side of the spectrum, parents are often led to moments of frustration too, as they believe their child who has just recently moved back in is lazy and wasting their education. Ultimately, the biggest problem with millennials not leaving home is that it causes major economic headaches. It’s about establishing your own home and family or, the lack of wherewithal to do so and the impact that has on the overall economy. Young adults who find themselves living at home are contributing to a decline in economic activity by not forming their own households.With so many millennials living at home, household formation has reached a 40 year low. Household formation helps fuel economic growth because of the goods and services that are bought to set up a new household. In addition, more people renting tends to make the rental market more competitive and fuel new construction. Another factor of adulthood that has become compromised by the tendency for millennials to have student loan debt is marriage. Marriages have been affected by student loan debt in two ways. One being people simply do not tie the knot because weddings are expensive . Sure, one could cheaply elope but with the growing trend of millennials believing a traditional ceremony to be “not necessary” and millennials having outstanding amounts of student debt, the days of extravagant marriage ceremonies are declining. Student loan debt also affects marriage as one who possesses the debt has been proven to be less attractive to prospective partners. The problems of your spouse become yours so, many millennials are often factoring in the other’s debt when contemplating marrying a significant other. Not only are the drowning debts of college hindering millennials from marrying but it’s also affected the amount of children they have or if they have any at all. Do you currently have over $245,000 in your bank account? Well most millennials don’t and that is how much the U.S. Department of Agriculture project it would cost a middle-income couple to raise a child to the age of 18 in 2013. For higher-income families, that cost ballooned to $455,000. Those numbers are officially sending many millennials to take their birth control pills. Many millennials feel it is irresponsible to have children while also being consumed by large amounts of student debt. Many make the argument that millennials are not having children because they are a selfish generation but really not having a child because you can’t afford it is an act of selflessness. The most detrimental effect of college debt on millennials has been the defocusing of the future. Many millennials have not planned for retirement not because they don’t want to or it doesn’t cross their mind but because they simply cannot.Young people today are actually saving less than their parents did at the same age. According to one analysis, couples with student loans from college will lose $134,000 in retirement savings over their lifetimes as a result of that debt. Millennials are ridiculed for being unprepared for the future and unconcerned about life’s responsibilities because of their often weak financial statuses, but that may just be because they were confronted with other financial hindrances that no other generation has before. Kerriana Moore Emmett Till was a young boy, about 14 years old. He was the type of son every mother prayed to have. He cooked, he cleaned, he built, he did bills – all without being asked to. He was well known around the town he grew up in and made a positive impression on everyone he came in contact with. Emmett Till was deeply loved by all of his family and friends. This precious and innocent life was taken away from him all too soon. Killed as the result of a hate crime, Emmett’s death caused an uproar in not only the African-American community, but the nation as a whole. His death would set off the Civil Rights Movement as his mother, Mrs. Mobley Till, would make sure the world knew who her son was and what happened to him.
On August 28, 1955, Mrs. Mobley Till got the call that no mother wants to hear. She and her son lived in Chicago and after days of being persuaded by her son, Mrs. Mobley Till reluctantly allowed her son to visit family in Mississippi. Three days later her son, Emmett, had been found dead in the Tallahatchie River in Mississippi. There were so many different accounts as to what happened the afternoon leading up to his death, but it is believed that he had whistled at a white woman. Her husband, Roy Bryan and his brother J.W. Milam, proceeded to kidnap Emmett the following night where they brutally beat and murdered Emmett before tying him down with a gin fan and dumping him in the river. The two men had been arrested and would be put on trial. The funeral service for Emmett would be one that would never be forgotten. When Emmett’s body was originally found, it was so disfigured that he was unrecognizable besides the fact that he was wearing a ring with his father’s initials in them. Although she was encouraged not to do so, Mamie (Mrs. Mobley Till), demanded to see her son and identify that it was her son. She examined him from head-to-toe, seeing how badly and brutally her son had been murdered. The individuals running the funeral had planned for it to be a closed-casket one but after seeing her son, Mamie knew something had to be done. Ever since she had heard the news about Emmett, Mamie hadn’t really allowed herself to grieve. She had been taking notes on what had happened, making sure that she would be able to give as much detail about her son’s murder to reporters. She decided that this would be open-casket funeral. She wanted the world to know and see what those two white men had done to her baby boy. Over the next few days, thousands of people would come to see the body of her son. Mamie decided that she would go to Mississippi for the trial. In her own words, she told reporters that she was ready to dedicate her life to making sure that what happened to her son would never happen to anyone else. A major force in the whole trial was the NAACP. They had tried to set out a case for the federal government and Mamie was beginning to see why it was vital for the NAACP to make that plea in Washington. This case was more than just about Emmett’s death, it was about the fight for racial equality and black rights. The role that media played – especially television – in covering the civil rights struggle would be one that was profoundly historical. The trial of Emmett Till’s death would be referred to as “the first great media event of the civil rights movement.” A photo of Emmett’s body was taken at the funeral and it surfaced everywhere, including being featured on the cover of Time Magazine. The intensity of the civil rights struggle would increase with the coverage of the trial of Emmett’s death. Another important aspect of the murder trial was the coverage of it by black reporters. They were a unique source of information, taking great risks to find out what happened to Emmett and making sure that everyone knew what happened to him. “It was as if they wanted to find the truth for the sake of the truth itself, for the sake of justice.” These reporters would prove throughout the trial that they were not only great journalists, but they were also advocates. Advocates for justice. Although what happened to Emmett was cruel and a tragedy, it sparked hope in people. They were angry, excited, and felt a call to action in ways they hadn’t been before. Adam Clayton Powell, a New York Congressman, called for an economic boycott of everything in Mississippi. Demands for an end to racial segregation, black voting rights, and anti-lynching legislation were made by people across the nation. In the end, the two men on trial for Emmett’s murder were determined to be “not guilty.” This caused a lot of uproar – it was evident that they had committed the crime. But it was no surprise either. Even though it was not the verdict she had hoped for, Mamie knew there would have one important difference if she had not done anything about Emmett’s death. If she had not done or said anything about his death, no one would have known about it, and no one else would have felt a call to action because of it. Emmett was a unifying symbol and his name and story would be spoken at numerous fund-raisers, rallies, and even congressional hearings. Following the death of her son, Mamie decided to go back to school. She knew she wanted to become a teacher and did just that. In 1973, she formed a group known as the Emmett Till Players. She worked with a group of students from her school and they would travel the country, performing before thousands of people, including the family of Martin Luther King, Jr. Through the years, other people would see the importance and significance of Emmett’s death. A documentary known as Eyes on the Prize, was an acclaimed documentary that focused on the development of the civil rights movement with events surrounding Emmett’s death starting the film off. In the summer of 1999, a play called The State of Mississippi v. Emmett Till was created and shown in theatres, displaying the life of Emmett Till and his murder. Not only did Emmett inspire activism, he inspired art as well. Poems were written by Langston Hughes and Gwendolyn Brooks. Emmett’s death would inspire others for years. As a result of Emmett’s death, other people began to feel inspired to take a stand. One of these people was a woman named Rosa Parks, who refused to give up her seat to a white man on the bus. Another individual, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a young activist who invoked hope into the hearts of many across America through his actions and his dedication to change. People throughout the nation were motivated to push for change. In 1957, Congress passed a civil rights act, the first to be passed since Reconstruction. Along the way, there would be many sacrifices. Even today, we as a nation and as a black community are following in the footsteps of Mamie, taking a stand and fighting for our long deserved freedom and justice. Mamie stated, “…so many people would look back at Emmett as the first. Indeed, they would point to my son…as the sacrificial lamb of the civil rights movement.” She was right. The sorrow of his death was leading others to have hope for a better future. hBy: Harshita Palegar Since the presidential campaigns started in 2015, immigration has been the main topic of discussion in many forums. Various candidates have many different approaches in terms of immigration policy ranging from extremely restrictive to having little restriction. This battle between national security concerns and harboring a place for anyone to enter the U.S. to create a new life for themselves has extended beyond the campaign realm more so than other campaign discussions in the past. Like other topics, immigration has reached family discussions, classrooms, and college campuses. However unlike other topics, immigration (specifically Trump’s immigration policy) has incited heated arguments from those on opposing sides. To find the best solution to deal with the immigration policy, it is important to understand the argument behind both parties and talk out the shortcomings and strong points of either side. Consequently, the deliberation I attended called “Make America ImmiGREAT Again” provided the platform and mediators to do just that.
When we first walked in, each of us were handed a pre-deliberation questionnaire to write down out initial thoughts on the issue at hand. We then started discussing amongst ourselves on our thoughts on immigration and what we think of Trump’s approach and his proposed policy. Although were many different schools of thought, people seemed to be divided between heavily restricted immigration policies and less restrictive policies as they got to voice their own ideas. On one hand, a small part of the room were avid supporters of the Trump administration’s current policies while the other staunchly opposed his extremely difficult immigration process. This initial conversation allowed everyone in the room to gauge who supported what side and how much support they gave to certain parts of the issue. To start off the discussion, the mediators introduced their first proposed approach which asked everyone what they thought the problems about the current immigration policy were. One person shared a personal story about his father, being a well-educated and successful man in the UK, having to wait for years in order to get his papers which caused some troubles. He stated that the immigration policy is already tough and that making it any tougher would deter people from wanting to enter into the U.S. Branching from that idea, people voiced how certain circumstance would not allow people from other countries to wait that long which would make the trapped in their countries and all out of options. The mediators then transitioned to the second part of the discussion which asked the audience about potential proposals for a more restrictive immigration policy. At this point, the discussion got more intense and I could see the group getting more polarized. Some of the supporters for this approach gave reasons in favor for the policy which included how illegal immigrants are costing more money than they are bringing in. The said person claimed that immigrants are costing the U.S. 128 billion dollars per year. The same group of people then went on to claim that people from Asia and Central America had a custom of having as many children as possible which was not true. They also pushed further by saying that people who immigrated from America should not keep their cultural aspects and should abandon them for American cultural values only. With those outrageous statements the rest of the room questioned where they got their statistic from, what information backed up their testimonials and they pointed out the holes in their arguments. At this point, the mediators had to divert the conversation back to a more policy based discussion rather than an opinionated one. The final topic of discussion advocated for a less restrictive form of immigration policy. Here, the rest of the group pointed out vital facts about the current and previous immigration reform and its consequences. The majority of the group pointed out that there has not been an incident of a refugee related attack in the U.S. but that all the known attacks were from home grown terrorists who have been living in the country for a while. Similarly, another person pointed out that the vetting process to get into the U.S. is already extremely strict and has many flaws in it. More importantly, comments were made about the importance of having other cultures make up the American population. Towards the end of the discussion, people were getting off topic and started discussing the flaws and strong points behind Trump’s immigration policy. Many of the attendees shared their own personal experiences which really struck a chord for many of those who attended. A woman sitting in the front described her time in other countries and how that differed from her life in America. She said that when she was abroad, people were curious about her culture, appreciated it, and understood that she was different. But in America, she felt the need to change who she was so she could be more “American”. One of the mediators even chimed in and shared how the immigration process affected his personal life. He told us that when election time came, his parents cried out of happiness and sadness. Happiness due to the fact that their son participated in an election but were sad because they could not vote even if they lived in the U.S. since 1991. After having attended this deliberation, my thoughts on immigration have not really changed. It was good to hear the other sides of the argument but it did not really affect my initial position. Entering the discussion, I was against the immigration ban and a stricter immigration policy. After hearing the claims and arguments from the opposing side, it was clear that there was not solid reason to make immigration any stricter. However, some of the statements made by the other side were reasonable such as national security being a top priority on the agenda. But, listening to the people who agreed with my opinion question the other side exposed some flaws in their statements. Overall, the deliberation made me see the other side of the spectrum but it did not sway my opinion on the current policies enacted in terms of immigration. By: Caitlin Donahue On Wednesday, I attended a deliberation that focused primarily on the politics of the multi-dimensional and complex issue of women’s reproductive rights. I chose to attend this deliberation not only because the topic interested me and seemed very relevant for society today, but also because I wanted to participate in an open and honest discussion about this particular issue with people who may have varying or different perspectives from mine. I consider this issue to be a very pressing and important concern in our society today and something that affects many people, and as something that needs to be addressed and talked about in an effective way rather than focusing on the polarizing pro-life or pro-choice sides of the argument. I was excited to meet with other people to consider the different ways in which this issue could potentially be addressed. Attending this deliberation turned out to be a good decision, as the conversation was very open, productive, thought-provoking, and allowed me to think about women’s reproductive rights from many different sides of the issue, rather than viewing it simply from my own perspective and set of personal beliefs.
The deliberation opened with a shocking and personal story about an eleven-year-old girl who was on birth control who was the sister of one of the deliberation’s moderators. The moderator asked the audience what we initially thought of when we were told of such a young girl who was already on the pill. Some people expressed that they felt the girl was far too young to already be engaging in sexual intercourse and that she did not actually need to be on the pill, whereas others recognized the possibility that the girl may have been on the pill for other particular medical purposes. After the varying responses from the audience, one of the moderators informed us that the eleven-year-old girl in the story was actually her sister. She had to be placed on birth control after doctors discovered that she had a cyst on her ovary that could potentially affect her fertility in the future. The pill helps to keep the cyst under control so she does not have to live in pain, and is therefore is a necessary and vital aspect of her health and well-being. This was a very powerful and effective way to open the deliberation not only because it was a personal story, but also because it showed that there are many different situations that birth control pills are needed for, and that they are not just for used as a contraceptive in all cases. I believe that opening the deliberation in this manner allowed the deliberation attendees to have a more opened-mind during the remainder of the discussion rather than continuing to view this issue from a pro-choice or pro-life perspective. The deliberation next moved to their approaches for possible solutions to the ongoing issue of women’s reproductive rights. One of the main questions that was posed during the deliberation was whether women’s reproductive rights, including the procedure of abortion, birth control pills, and other forms of contraceptives should be decided by the federal government or by the individual states. While discussing this, my group decided that this is a very hard question to answer, and a definite solution is difficult to imagine, which is part of the reason why this issue still remains a significant societal concern. We found that it was important and seemingly necessary that the federal government had some form of involvement in this issue in order to ensure that the various options regarding reproductive rights that are currently in place remain in place. However, if this were in fact primarily a states’ issue, our group felt that more people in a particular state might be pleased with the decision that their individual state makes rather than the issue being regulated by the federal government or forced upon them. If this was a states’ issue, then each state’s decision may be more reflective of that state’s population which could potentially allow the topic of women’s reproductive rights to not be as significant of an issue in our society. Our group also discussed the different religious and moral implications that a person may have against the concept of abortion or even various forms of contraception. Some people who hold such religious beliefs may be uncomfortable with the fact that their tax dollars could potentially be going towards programs and other things regarding women’s reproductive rights that go against their moral convictions or beliefs. However, although it is important to respect differing religious and moral beliefs, our group discussed this and agreed that these services, especially the basic forms of birth control, are medically necessary and should be readily available to the women who need them. Our group felt that since there are so many different circumstances for why a woman may make the decision to have an abortion or why she chooses to be on birth control, so therefore it is extremely important for people to realize that it is a personal decision and cannot be made by others. This means that even if someone is personally against taking birth control or abortion, they should understand that they do not have to personally take birth control or have an abortion, but that the option should be available to those who need them. Overall, our group agreed on many of the topics that were raised throughout this deliberation. Every member of the group seemed to be very pro-choice from the beginning of the deliberation, so it was interesting to see as we all opened up and tried to view and critically think about this issue from a different perspective. By: Matthew Eilbacher Gun violence is an issue that I have always realized the gravity of—it’s near impossible to miss the daily news reports of a seemingly endless number of homicides and suicides—yet, never really looked into beyond cursory observations of such reports and articles. However, attending the public issues forum included in the Talking Together About Guns series really opened my eyes to the true breadth of the problem of gun violence in America, as well as many aspects of this issue I had never even considered.
The forum’s participants were greatly varied, as many different age groups, races, genders, and political viewpoints were represented. This disparity in the types of people present lead to a truly constructive discussion that allowed us to see both sides on many different points, and argue for solutions and plans of action in a civil and productive manner. While we all were able to agree that gun violence is a serious issue in this country and one that requires immediate attention, there were several matters that lead to disagreement within the group. One of the more heated discussion points we deliberated was sparked by the adage that “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun”. The group was torn on the validity of this statement; while some believed it was necessary to allow people to have guns for protection purposes, others questioned whether doing so hinders more than it helps the fight against gun violence. The main argument against making guns available to the public lies in how rare it is that these “good guys with guns” are actually able to stop the “bad guys with guns”. According to a study conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, of 160 incidents of active shooters in the United States from 2000 to 2013, only 5 were ended by armed individuals who are not law enforcement personnel, while 21 were resolved by unarmed individuals who are not law enforcement personnel. Additionally, those in favor of restricting gun availability cite the high frequency of accidental shootings to support their position. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 3,800 people died from accidental shootings in the United States between 2005 and 2010. These numbers were proven to be directly linked to gun prevalence and availability, as a 2001 study reported that “a statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides”. The reality of the situation, and what opponents of widespread gun availability base their views in, is that the amount of firearms in a particular area and the ease with which an individual can procure these weapons determine the number of accidental shootings that occur. The leading assertion against the restriction of firearm availability is founded in the Constitution of the United States of America. People of this school of thought turn to the second amendment as their main point of contention, which grants us the right to bear arms. It would be unconstitutional, these individuals argue, to restrict people from purchasing and possessing guns, and thus, any constraints put in place to reduce firearm availability impede on the rights of American citizens. In our forum group, it was apparent that neither side would totally concede to the other when discussing possible approaches to solving this matter. Additionally, it would be foolish to believe this solution will come in the form of one extreme or the other: it is tremendously unlikely that guns are made illegal, as it is that all current restrictions on the sale and possession of guns are lifted. Thus, we instead aimed to seek solutions that reconcile the two, and find a middle ground. One potential solution we came up with was further regulating gun laws to cut back on the frequency with which accidental shootings occur. Implementing laws that allow Americans to keep their guns but require that they take certain safety precautions would greatly decrease the prevalence of unintentional gun-caused injuries and deaths. Some potential safety restrictions we discussed include requiring all gun owners to have a safe in their home where all firearms must be stored at all times, and trigger locks that would prevent young children from accidentally firing guns. Such measures would surely contribute to a decline in accidental fatalities, while not infringing on the desires of either side. Another main point of discussion during the forum was the need for automatic firearms. One participant felt particularly strongly about the need—or lack thereof—for such weapons. This individual argued that the manufacturing and sale of automatic guns does nothing but enable mass shootings, a notion I found quite interesting. I had never given much thought to this idea, but upon further contemplation, myself and most of the forum’s members realized that this argument had validity. The only conceivable need we could think of for automatic weapons was their use for sport; however, when considering the amount of killing power they possess, it seems absurd to attempt to justify keeping them legal for public use. In the majority of mass shooting cases that have occurred over the last three decades, automatic guns have been used. These weapons allow perpetrators to fire very high numbers of bullets in very little amounts of time, maximizing how many innocent people they are able to kill and wound before they are taken down themselves. The safety of the American public should be the priority in every situation, and making automatic weapons available to the general public is in extreme contradiction with that. I gained a wealth of knowledge from attending and participating in this public issue forum on gun violence, not only in the form of the fact and figures behind this issue, but in the form of differing perspectives, as well. In hearing the opinions and viewpoints of so many different types of people, I was able to broaden my own outlook on the components of gun violence in America, and gain a greater appreciation for that of others, as well. By: Matthew Eilbacher Upon first learning of the Talking Together About Guns series, I became extremely excited at the opportunity to attend as many of these events as possible. While I have always realized how serious an issue gun violence is in this country, I have never had a personal experience with guns myself, and neither, fortunately, have any of my friends or family members. Because of this, my experience with gun violence has come from a much more objective viewpoint rather than a subjective one; instead of being personally impacted by the devastating gun violence that plagues this country, my experience and knowledge of this matter are essentially limited to news articles that simply relay facts and statistics. Rather than hearing moving personal anecdotes about gun violence and the horrible turmoil it leaves in its wake, I see only the numbers that represent the lives lost as a result of it. While these by themselves are cause for significant concern, statistics do not have nearly the same effect as hearing the stories and seeing the faces behind the numbers.
Due to my lack of personal experience with gun violence and combined with the regularity with which it occurs in this country, I have almost become numb to this persistent and debilitating problem. Each day there are new reports of homicide, suicide, and mass shootings; we hear of such incidents so often that these egregious crimes have become normalized in today’s society. Joe Quint’s presentation on survivors of gun violence seemed to be the perfect opportunity for me to finally develop an understanding of the personal side of gun violence. Mr. Quint’s presentation consisted of a number of forms of media—including photos, videos, and voice recordings—that capture the stories of American men, women and children who have in some way been affected by gun violence. Mr. Quint, a photographer, effectively tells the stories of witnesses of gun violence, the loved ones of its victims, and survivors themselves, through not only words, but visuals as well; as each of these individuals spoke their story, an accompanying photograph was displayed on the screen. These images, all taken by Mr. Quint himself, encapsulate all the emotion and sentiment of the words being spoken, and it was this combined approach that really left a lasting impact on me. I was for the first time able to put a face to the numbers I so often see in the news, and appreciate the true impact gun violence has on the lives of so many each year. One story that particularly resonated with me was told by the mother of a teen who was shot and killed in the parking lot of a convenience store. The woman explained, through tears, how her son had been gunned down by a complete stranger because, according to his murderer, the music he was playing in his car was “too loud”. This anecdote in particular stuck with me for multiple reasons. The first is the sheer absurdity and irrationality of the killer’s motive behind shooting the innocent teen. For absolutely no valid reason at all, this sick man ended the life of another at such a young age. The problem of the availability of guns is made very clear here; individuals who would even consider committing such a crime should have no way of getting their hands on guns, and these horrifying scenarios will continue to play out on a regular basis if something is not done to solve this. The second reason this story had such an impact on me is the fact that it seems exactly like something I would see in the news and then forget about, never to think of it again. Homicides like this are certainly not rare, and the news coverage of this case would provide only the bare minimum facts and a picture of the perpetrator. However, the way in which Mr. Quint presented the same story allowed me to truly grasp and be moved by the gravity of such an instance of gun violence. Rather than simply reading that a teen had been shot and killed, I was able to hear the story from the victim’s mother herself, who went on to speak about how her son’s death had continued to impact her life and the lives of all his loved ones to this day, and how it will continue to do so for the rest of her life. The emotion and personal aspect of her account could never be captured by text alone. Seeing and hearing the mother speak of the tragedy she was forced to live through moved me more than any news report I have ever read, and every other story included in the presentation had the same effect. As a result, my perspective on the issue of gun violence has changed dramatically. I now see myself having a much larger stake in the issue; rather than viewing it as an issue that does not and will not ever affect me, I have gained an appreciation for the true urgency of the problem of gun violence, and more so, the significant impact each individual instance has on the lives of so many. The most important takeaway, in my opinion, that I gained from attending this event is to see each instance of gun violence—whether it be a homicide, suicide or mass shooting—as its own independent and devastatingly tragic case rather than merely as a number a part of a larger statistic. We must not lose sight of the far-reaching, destructive impact each of these gun-caused deaths has on the victims’ loved ones, because for each life lost to gun violence, there are hundreds of others still alive that have to live on in mourning. By: Matthew Eilbacher The following scenario is often used to describe the current state of gender equality in the workplace, and does a terrific job of illustrating the uphill battle that is a woman’s career in the workforce: two recent college grads with the same degree begin working at a company with the exact same job description. Both work the same number of hours, yet upon their hiring, one was offered a salary much higher than the other. If there is little conceivable difference in their performance, then how come one of these individuals is paid so much more? The answer is simple: the person with the higher salary is a man, while the other, who does comparable work for a significantly lower pay, is a woman. A woman’s career in the workplace is generally far more problematic than a man’s from start to finish; a man’s struggle to be hired, paid well and promoted falls well short of a woman’s, the latter having the system stacked against her in all aspects and levels of the workplace.
The discrimination against working women begins as soon as they enter the labor force—or attempt to at least. Hiring bias is a very serious and pressing issue in this country, defined as either the unconscious or conscious partiality employers have for hiring male employees over female ones. While this prejudice exists across all fields, it is perhaps most apparent in the disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). A study carried out by the Columbia Business School demonstrates that employers in these fields are far more likely to hire a man over a woman, even despite knowing that the latter is more qualified. The results of this experiment detail that employers were twice as likely to hire a man over a woman when gender was the only information made available about the candidates. Furthermore, and even more shocking, is that this same likelihood of hiring a male over a female was present when the employer was made aware that the woman was, in fact, more qualified. Such blatant and baseless gender inequality should not and can not be tolerated any longer. While most managers claim to be dedicating effort to reducing gender discrimination in the workplace, concrete results have yet to make themselves clear. Companies, and hiring managers specifically, need to be held accountable for their unwarranted prejudices when it comes to the labor force. As if earning a job in the first place was not already enough of a struggle, their fight ramps up even further afterwards; if getting hired is an uphill battle, asserting themselves in the workplace and earning what they deserve is a full-on war. According to the Women Are Getting Even (WAGE) Project, the wage gap is so wide that a woman will make a third less in a lifetime than a man with the same degree, and, on average, will make 80 cents to the dollar a man makes. Additionally, the difference in male and female salaries add up to more than $430,000 over a full career; to put that figure in perspective, the average price of a house in the United States in January of 2015 was $294,300. Another major issue women face is immobility in the workplace. Despite expressing identical desire for earning promotions, women receive these higher level positions at an alarmingly lower rate than men. According to a study released by Lean In and McKinsey & Co., women employees are 15% less likely to earn promotions than men employees. This is yet another instance of employer bias, as women are categorically unfairly treated and undervalued as compared to their male counterparts. When speaking on the matter of the feminine struggle for promotion, Sylvia Ann Hewlett, founder and CEO of the Center for Work-Life Policy, described it as so: “The way to get promoted is to do a diving catch…Women have a hard time taking on those assignments because you can dive and fail to catch. If a man fails, his buddies dust him off and say, 'It's not your fault; try again next time.' A woman fails and is never seen again." Not only are women unjustly held back from attaining higher level positions, but they are scrutinized more harshly for making mistakes, as well. Although a push for gender equality in the workplace was a major part of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, not much else has been done to combat this undeniable problem. While immense progress has been made in increasing the number of women in the workplace, we are still a far cry away from a truly gender equal work environment. Rather than being punished and neglected due to their gender, women should be rewarded for their merits in the same way as their male counterparts. Grand-scale change needs to occur, and if employers refuse to take it upon themselves to right this immense wrong any longer, there needs to be serious discussion and consideration of implementing laws and regulations that will help facilitate the culture change presently necessary in the United States of America. The Great Bathroom Debate: The Transgender Community’s Fight for Gender-Neutral Restrooms4/29/2017 By: Matthew Eilbacher The issue of transgender bathroom rights is one of the most heated discussion points in recent memory. The controversial subject sparked widespread debate when a movement began to take hold in 2012 that advocated for the installation of gender-neutral bathrooms at universities and high schools across the nation. The supporters of this movement are great in number and largely in favor of legislation allowing individuals to use the bathroom of the gender they identify as rather than the one they were biologically born as. Such considerable discord over the issue stems from its extremely polarizing nature. There is not much middle ground between the two extremes of the argument: either you are in support of allowing transgender individuals to use the opposite-sex bathroom or you are against it.
This movement and the debate that has ensued since its conception lead to the eventual introduction of legislation that would make this practice illegal in conservative states such as Maryland, Arizona, Kentucky and Florida. These bills require that individuals use the restroom that corresponds to the biological sex they were born as, not the gender they feel they are. In response to this proposed reform, the LGBT community and its allies launched a campaign of fervent protest and opposition, claiming such laws discriminate harshly and unjustly against transgender individuals, infringing on the rights granted to them in the Constitution of the United States. The chief argument against what the opposition refer to as anti-transgender laws is the emotional harm that comes with forcing such individuals to use bathrooms of the gender they do not identify as. Doing so demands that these people either endure seriously uncomfortable situations in the opposite gender’s bathroom or use only unisex bathrooms including those in the nurse’s office or teacher’s lounge. Reports show that the latter of these options lead transgender students to miss class time (as a result of having to trek all the way to one of the school’s usually scarce unisex bathrooms) and feel as though they are different from the other students and as though they are “quarantined”. The former option does not provide any upside for transgender students either, as a study conducted by UCLA discloses that roughly 70% of those forced to use the opposite bathroom report being verbally harassed and 10% report being physically assaulted. Those who subscribe to this school of thought also contend that forcing transgender individuals to use the opposite gender’s bathrooms creates more discomfort and awkwardness for non-transgender people, as there will now be people of both male and female outward appearances in both gender’s bathrooms. Another prominent argument for the opposition of bathroom laws is that such legislation is blatant and immoral discrimination, similar to the prejudiced injustices protested in other civil rights movements such as women’s and African Americans’ right to vote. They dispute the government’s right to force all individuals—not just transgender people—to disclose such sensitive and personal information such as their biological sex before using the restroom, claiming it is in direct violation of the Constitution. On the other hand, supporters of the proposed bathroom bills base their argument in the speculated dangers of having transgender women (biological men) in the same bathrooms as biological women. This group of people fear that allowing anybody to legally use either restroom will lead to sexual predators taking advantage of these laws, increasing the prevalence of sexual assault. Additionally, some parents argue that they don’t want adult men (biologically) using the same bathroom as their young daughters. Those who oppose transgender bathroom rights cite these privacy and public safety concerns as their leading assertions. Their response to their opponents’ allegations of discrimination is simple: there is currently no federal law that criminalizes sexuality or gender identity-based discrimination. Thus, while bathroom laws may be immoral in the eyes of certain people, they are not illegal. However, it may not be long until they are indeed against the law. In 2015, the Equality Act was introduced to Congress, which would legally protect LGBT individuals by extending anti-discrimination laws to include the categories of sexuality and gender identity, as well. While this legislation has not yet been passed, it is a sign that things are moving in that direction. I truly see merits to the arguments of both sides of this debate, however, I tend to side more with the supporters of transgender rights for several reasons. The first is that I believe that the argument that gender-neutral bathrooms will lead sexual predators to take advantage of the law is baseless and a total reach. The truth to the matter is that sexual assaults will occur with the same frequency regardless of bathroom laws; a sexual predator is not going to refrain from sexually assaulting someone just because it is illegal for him or her to enter the bathroom. Additionally, in states that have already passed legislation granting transgender bathroom rights, levels of sexual assault in bathrooms has remained unchanged. Another reason I believe that a federal legalization of gender-neutral bathrooms is in order is because I can not agree on a moral level with forcing transgender individuals to use a gendered bathroom they do not identify with. It is easy to put yourself in the shoes of one of these people to understand what they are going through: simply imagine being legally required to only use the men’s bathroom if you are a woman, or vice versa. It is important to understand that transgender individuals are not “going through a phase” or pretending to be something they are not. Instead, these people truly feel as though they merely have the body of their biological sex—all other aspects of their personalities and identities belong to the opposite gender. Therefore, when viewed in this light, it is for me impossible to justify the cruel discrimination they are currently the victims of. However, many people do not feel this way, and have their own beliefs and opinions on the matter. Thus, the outlook for a compromise in the near future looks bleak; transgender bathroom rights, and rights in general, will most likely continue to be a major problem in this country for years to come. By: Saran Polchan There is one thing you can be sure of in life: College tuition will rise every year. Prices rise and fall all around us, but tuition never seems to go down.Using the latest U.S. Department of Education data, from the 2003 to 2013 academic years, prices for undergraduate tuition, room, and board at public institutions rose 39 percent, and prices at private nonprofit institutions rose 27 percent, after adjustment for inflation.
According to Labor Department statistics, that is nearly twice as fast as growth in medical care. Tuition prices are still growing faster than household incomes. Even more disturbing, the annual cost of attending a private college can easily exceed the annual salaries that graduates earn during their first few years of work. Here’s why costs are going up so much:
David Hodge, president of Miami University of Ohio, attempted to explain in an interview with U.S. News. He pointed out that parents and students require more from a college today: increased security, accommodations for physical and emotional disabilities, career services and modern residence halls, fitness centers and food services. Meanwhile, insurance premiums for colleges have risen due to terrorist issues and active shooter concerns.
Any slippage in the rankings is extremely costly to the institution. In the educational marketplace, the costs to maintain these rankings will be passed on to the students in increased tuition.
Perhaps eventually the bubble will burst and when families can’t pay, the demand will decrease. When families are unable or unwilling to pay, colleges will be forced to reduce their prices. If you’re a parent of a college-bound teen, rising tuition should force you and your student to evaluate the benefits of each perspective college financially and make your decision accordingly. By: Saran Polchan Being a student that is out of state can be tough, you’re in a new environment that you never been to before it might be scary the first time and you might experience some culture shock. But the biggest shock of all is the big tuition cost you will have to pay compared to students that are from the state.
The differences are sometimes small, but some states add on a large price tag for out-of-state students. For example, out-of-state students at the University of California will pay $24,000 more per year than their classmates who are California residents. These higher price tags scare some students away from considering state schools in other states. But, it doesn’t have to be that way. While attending a state school as an out-of-state student isn’t right for every student, if price is what’s holding you back, then consider ways that you can lower your bill if the school has everything you want. Here are some tips that will help make going to an out-of-state college more affordable: 1. Attend a state school in an “academic common market”Some states have come together to offer lower tuition rates for out-of-state students. If you live in one of the states covered by the organization, you could pay a lower price to attend the institution. There are four academic common markets available for students to consider (note: not all schools in every included state offers in-state tuition to residents of every other state, so research carefully to see if you might be eligible for lower tuition):
Unfortunately, being in the state for one year as a college student does not count. If your family does move to the home of your dream school, make sure you have a paper trail to prove your residency such as getting a driver’s license in the state, registering to vote, and paying taxes. This may seem like a drastic move, but depending on your circumstances, it could make perfect sense. And, it could dramatically lower the cost of attendance. Though in the end you might have a change of heart and decide to not even want to go to that school as you would have enough time to think over it. Most students don’t tend to stick to their first choice when time comes to factor everything in such as, location, cost, campus environment, weather, size, study of interest, etc. 3. Seek waiversSome colleges offer scholarships and tuition waivers just to persuade top-performing out-of-state students to go to their school. When the opportunity arises, go for it what do you have to lose. Other schools provide waivers or scholarships to students who live in a neighboring state or students whose parent(s) attended the institution. Check with the state colleges you are considering to see if they have any special scholarships or waivers for you as an out-of-state student. 4. Military members and their dependents can attend state schools at the in-state tuition costPreviously, only some states offered in-state tuition to military members and their families. However, in 2014, H.R. 3230 was signed into law giving military members, veterans, and their dependents in-state status at public institutions throughout the United States. The military has a lot of benefits, it’s a great way to serve your country and reap the benefits the government can help you with. It may not be a luxury but you know what they say…… 5. Talk to the financial aid officeIf you really want to go to a particular college (it’s your dream school) and you’re worried about the cost for tuition just to attend your school as an out-of-state student, try reaching out to the financial aid office, they can help you. Many times, state schools have merit or need-based aid that they can award specifically to out-of-state students. Not every student will try to apply, but it could be a great opportunity to get a big chunk of your bill taken right off the top, this will take a lot of your shoulders. Aside from costs, there are a number of other factors that go into deciding if you should attend a state school as an out-of-state student. Check out our full list of things to consider to help you make the decision. Conclusion All in all, trying to go out of state with a lower tuition takes careful time to plan and have some considerations. It’s not always easy being away from home we all know that but if it is something you really wish to do and it’s your best opinion or dream school,then go for it. Nothing is stopping you except you yourself when you have all to the resources to do so. We have listed right here things you can do to help yourself lower that cost make it easier on to a out of state school really want to go to. And if you chose not to do an out of state education, wells that’s alright as it is not for everyone. Scholarship is also something can consider obtaining no matter if you’re a in-state student or out-of-state student. By: Saran Polchan During the 2016 Presidential election, one of the biggest issues that came up time and time again was the topic of higher education affordability. In the past, President Obama has tried to make community colleges free to eligible students a possibility, although we haven’t seen too much progress from that as of yet. Bernie Sanders advocated the issue the most in his campaign to making all public colleges free, and Hillary Clinton has proposed making it affordable to those that need the help. As with any political issue, there are pros and cons to it. PRO: More Lower-Income Family Students Might Be Able to Graduate CollegeSome students drop out because they don't have the ability or resources to pay for tuition all four years. Making college tuition-free would help these kids actually to be able to graduate. This would significantly improve college’s graduation rates around America, as students wouldn't feel the need to change to part-time status or be restricted from their education just because they are struggling for financial reasons. CON: Someone Will Need to Pay That MoneyIf America were to move to a tuition-free college policy, who is going to pay for it? The answer is taxes. Whose taxes are being increased seems to vary based on the situation, but it seems Bernie Sanders is pushing for the upper class in America are the target here. It's also a good possibility that it will affect the upper middle-class as well. Best case scenario is that it will be taxed mostly from Wall Street. The point is, someone has to pay for these fees to enable free college tuition in public institution. The uncertainty of who will do it scares the general public for the idea of free college tuition. PRO: Student Debt Won't Be a Concerning Problem That Millennials Have to Struggle WithIf a regular American college student can graduate with less than $10,000 in student loan debt, they are considered lucky. However, students from other countries that have tuition-free college have that luxury; most of their loans come from living expenses and books. Without the weight of student loan debt, more college graduates might buy houses rather than renting apartments. They might buy cars, spend more on healthy food, travel more: In essence, they could contribute more to the economy. CON: Younger Generations Won’t Know How to Handle FinancesCollege is full of learning experiences, one of which is learning how to work with a budget. College loans are often the first major financial dealing that people work with. Paying them off promptly proves you know how to budget your money, skills people use again and again when buying cars or houses. Without having to pay for school, that experience won’t exist, which might be trouble down the road for buying that house or car. Something that debt and financial trouble can teach you is the struggle and learn from your mistakes. PRO: Students Might Have More Freedom to Choose a Major They EnjoyWhether it is the influence of parents or knowing you need to pay loans back as quickly as possible, current students are often guided toward “practical” majors that have a more lucrative post-graduation income. If shelling out thousands upon thousands of dollars is no longer a factor, parents and students might feel more relaxed about studying for majors that don’t necessarily have a large paycheck associated with them. Interest and enjoyment from a field of study goes a long way in helping students stick with it and avoid burning out. This will allow more dreamers in our society be able to do what they want to pursue in life and make their own path without too much stress on their shoulder. CON: College Might Not Seem As ImportantIf higher education at public schools becomes free, it might appear to devalue a college diploma. It might also lead to students cutting more classes or not trying because they don’t have to “get their money’s worth” when they aren’t paying for anything. The current price of college drives students to complete their schooling as quickly as possible so as to reduce debt. Without that financial drive, we might see more laziness and lackadaisical behavior from our students. Top schools use their name and fame to raise the price of tuition which drive the demand and competition to get into the school. PRO: More People Would Go to CollegeBy negating the large bill of a college education, we could see an increase in the amount of students able to attend college. This then creates a more well-educated workforce and a population that has better critical thinking skills. This could lead to more innovation in all areas of society. CON: More People Would Have the Opportunity to Go to CollegeAs enrollment at public schools increases, so do the fees. Either more money would have to be given to the schools, or they would have to create waitlists. This means that the taxes for education-related purposes might go up, or funding for something else (such as military expenditures) might be diverted to pay the influx of fees. In addition to this, the large amount of graduates might oversaturate some areas of the workforce, leaving even more people with degrees working jobs that they are overqualified for. One Last Thought: What About Private Institutions? If all public colleges and universities are made tuition free, we could see the decline of private schools. Since these schools rely on tuition, endowments, and alumni donations for a good portion of their funding, competing with free public schools could force many private schools to close. This would reduce the amounts of job opportunities for professors and could result in the death of many fantastic programs. As of right now, the only state to have free public college tuition is New York which is a great step forward, but in other states, tuition is still very much a reality many college-seekers have to face. By: Saran Polchan According to a recent CNBC article, 24% of millennials expect to receive forgiveness for their outstanding student loan debt balances. It’s a good thing, then, that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau estimates that 25 percent of American workers could be eligible for student loan repayment forgiveness programs.
Here’s more good news: there are many ways of taking action to get a student loan forgiven. You can seek out programs that are career-based, meaning they provide aid for those in certain professions. Or you can look into plans based on your income level. Most of these are sponsored by the Federal government in one way or another (though some colleges do assist a select few of the students they graduate). Those suffering the burden of student loans may qualify for one (or more) of the nine types of forgiveness programs listed below. Public Service Student Loan ForgivenessThere are many programs available to help mitigate Federal student loan burdens — especially if you’re working in a public service position. Specifically, employees of the government, non-profit organizations, and other public workers may qualify for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. You need to be employed full-time by a public service organization. You also are required to make 120 payments on your loans before being eligible for forgiveness. Note that as long as you’re employed by an eligible public service organization, you’re covered. In other words, you probably qualify as a teacher — and you may also qualify if you work in a public school as an administrative staff member. Getting a Loan Forgiven Based on IncomeAnother way to get Federal student loans forgiven is to see if you qualify for an income-based program. According to Sophia Bera, CFP and founder of Gen Y Planning, there are three income-driven programs:
They’re also a little different from the public service programs. While those in public service positions can have student loan debt forgiven after 10 years, these programs forgive loans after 20 or 25 years. However, like the public service loan forgiveness program, these income-driven programs do require you to pay every payment on time – or you’ll be disqualified from the program. You also may need to pay taxes on the portion of your loans that are forgiven. Student Loan Forgiveness Programs for ProfessionalsMany student loan forgiveness programs are based on the career you choose after graduation. For those with professional degrees – think doctors, lawyers, and teachers – you have several options when it comes to shedding that student loan debt without paying it out-of-pocket and in full. Doctors can look into the NIH Loan Repayment Program. This can help repay 25% of a doctor’s student loan balance per year with a $35,000 maximum. That’s limited to doctors conducting research and who meet certain eligibility requirements. Lawyers can look into Equal Justice Works. This provides a list of law schools that offer loan repayment assistance programs. Afam Onyema graduated from Harvard University and Stanford Law School, and was able to decline corporate law job offers in order to establish a charitable organization thanks to repayment programs. “I can afford to do this work only because of Stanford Law School’s uniquely generous Loan Repayment Assistance Program (LRAP),” explains Onyema. “The school is systematically paying off and forgiving 85% of my $150,000+ debt.” Teachers can qualify for PSFL programs, they might also want to look into Teacher Loan Forgiveness. To get into this program, you need to teach at specifically designated elementary and secondary schools for five consecutive years to be eligible. If you began teaching after 2004, you’re eligible for up to $5,000 in loan forgiveness if you were a “highly qualified” teacher, and you can receive up to $17,500 if you’re a “highly qualified” math or science teacher in a secondary school, or special education teacher. By: Hugo Robinson To captivate an audience it is not only incredibly important to have an interesting subject matter but also to present that subject matter in a compelling and enthralling way. On Wednesday, March 1st, at 7:00 pm I attended the deliberation titled The Nation, The State, and You: The Politics of Women’s Reproductive Rights. Women’s reproductive rights vary across a broad spectrum of health issues, but the ones most frequently discussed and hotly debated are the right to abortion and the right to birth control. As this is an issue it is difficult not to have an opinion on, I will do my best to keep mine out of this blog and focus mostly on the aspects and results of the deliberation itself.
I never considered myself an expert on this topic, but up until the day of this deliberation I had no idea quite how uninformed I really was. The deliberation began with an intriguing example of a twelve year-old girl who needs to be on birth control because she suffers extreme discomfort when she is, and transitioned nicely into a breakdown of the three main plateaus of women’s reproductive rights: the national level, the state level, and the personal level. Nationally, abortion was declared to be legal in the 1973 landmark decision of Roe v. Wade. However, this decision provided for the possibility of varying levels of control of abortion within each state — the states are free to make laws limiting or restricting abortion, and many have done so. The truth of the matter within the United States is that rules and legislation regarding women’s reproductive rights are composed primarily by those who cannot sympathize with the thousands of women who may need birth control or an abortion for any number of reasons — and with the new government administration and their proposed strategies, it seems as if major healthcare cuts are in the works. Women aren’t given enough power to make decisions regarding their own bodies, simply put. In terms of presentation, the deliberation was very well done, and was largely a success. I was very captured by the information, not only because of how interesting the topic was to me but because of the great job presenting done by the group. It was clear that they were all very certain on what information they needed to know/were each responsible for, and after minor tones of nervousness in the first few minutes the deliberation took off running. I left the cafe feeling satisfied and informed, and would have recommended such an interactive, informative demonstration to anyone. I think that the most important part of any deliberation is the discussion aspect, and in this circumstance the presenters were perfect in striking the right balance between offering factual, important statistical information, and leaving the floor open to the groups’ participants to express their own opinions, questions, or view regarding the subject. I was delighted to be a part of this deliberation, and think that the group did an exceedingly good job in creating it! By: Shannon Kaminski This deliberation is the last deliberation I was able to attend, but it was definitely on a topic that I find very important to discuss. Sexual Assault is a growing issue on our campus as well as in our society and we need to find ways around the current state.
This group framed the issue in three ways-- Alcohol, Help Available, and Bystander Intervention. I thought all of these ways can contribute to changing the high levels of rape in today’s society. Approach #1-- Alcohol This approach highlighted the fact that alcohol plays a huge role in sexual assault cases, as it often makes lines of consent that seem clear without alcohol, very blurry. People aren’t sure about how far they can go, or whether the other party is comfortable, or if the entire experience is truly consensual because being under an influence can change everything. People often expect a “hookup” solely because they are going to be drunk, and so will some other party that will show interest. We discussed how alcohol consumption could be stopped, but the fact of the matter is, people aren’t going to stop drinking. We decided that, if anything, the university should implement safe drinking education, as well as a relaxed approach towards drinking so that students feel safe asking/seeking for help when they are in trouble and have been drinking. Approach #2-- Help Available While discussing this approach, our group realized that while we were given plenty of different resources for services to offer help to someone who feels endangered at night, or for people who have been assaulted, none of us still have that information, and are not sure how to access it. We also thought that SafeWalk is a great resource, but waiting for 15 minutes on a street corner for someone to come escort you home or offer you help seems to be pointless, and may even be counteractive. We decided that it may be up to the final approach, the bystander approach, to be the most effective plan at preventing sexual assault. Approach #3-- Bystander Intervention We talked about how sometimes being a bystander for a situation that could be potentially harmless for someone else can be uncomfortable, but that it is worth an awkward moment or two if it means saving somebody else from a whole new uncomfortable and terrifying situation. The problem is, a lot of people are unwilling to say anything. Because of this, we decided that our culture’s ideals need to change-- people need to learn to be confrontational, honest, and outright-- if they see someone who looks uncomfortable, all one needs to do is ask if this person is okay, or if they need help. This gets down to our community’s sense of unity. People need to feel connected to one another, people need to care about others, in order to be able to get involved in these types of situations. We also talked about how staying in a buddy system is usually effective, and that the implementation of “Angel shots” in all bars are a great way to give a man or woman on an uncomfortable date the option to opt out in a low-key and safe way. Conclusion The conclusion of this event was that bystander intervention is the best approach at fixing this issue. And the best way to make bystanders inclined to help is to give people a sense of community and compassion for their peers. If everybody cared about the well-being of the people around them, then the moment that someone seemed uncomfortable in a situation, people would be willing to confront it immediately. While the deliberation, in my opinion, did not frame the issue of sexual assault completely, I do think some progress was made while discussing the issue, and that a solution is possible through different programs and implements. By: Shannon Kaminski This next deliberation was one I was excited to attend because a lot of political talk is going on about Roe v. Wade and abortion rights currently, so I find it a relevant and significant topic to discuss.
In this deliberation, we were split into separate tables and went through each approach as a small group. After going through each discussion, we then collaborated as one big group to draw conclusions. The issue was framed based on who gets to decide about abortion and birth control, the nation, the state, or the individual. Approach #1- The Nation The first approach focuses on the nation’s involvement in reproductive/abortion rights. Currently, we have Roe v. Wade, which prohibits states from outlawing abortion- a constitutional right to every individual. We discussed how this is a very necessary law in place, because women have a right to decipher whether they can carry a baby, and then support a child when they are pregnant unplanned. Based on health conditions, circumstance (for example, sexual assault), and financial ability, it is not always an option for a woman to safely and healthily have a child-- and the government doesn’t, and shouldn’t have any say about the matter. With this said, federal funding for abortion is also prohibited, which is fair; as is the inclusion of contraceptives in health care plans. The prohibition of federal funding prevents those who don’t believe in abortion or the use of contraceptives from indirectly paying for other’s abortions or medications. We were adamant on the fact that contraceptives are a necessary medication for many people (not just for avoiding pregnancy) and should be treated as such in health care plans. Approach #2- The State The state level approach is a better option for local communities with different types of cultures and mindsets. We talked about the differences in beliefs that overpower certain areas, and realized that some places need more sex education at the teen level to make up for certain laws (for example, some places make it a lot harder to actually get an abortion)-- so there needs to be some sort of compromise in order to decrease the level of accidental pregnancies in the first place. Additionally, while some communities may find the use of contraceptives “taboo” and look down upon those who use contraceptives, there are other communities in which the use of contraceptives is almost universal. Overall, we decided that the sex ed in schools must be implemented so that teens know how to practice safe sex, and prevent accidental pregnancy. Parents who do not want their children learning about these things can choose to opt out of it, however it is very necessary for young adults to have the understanding and the acknowledgement that unplanned pregnancy can happen and how it can happen. I believe personally that the talk about the “birds and the bees,” is necessary for every highschooler to experience, as it is a natural part of becoming an adult. We also agreed with the majority of states having laws in place prohibiting abortion after a certain number of weeks of pregnancy, as this is for the safety of the mother, and for the morality-- a baby after 5-6 months is in a developed stage. State laws allow fine-tuned control of abortion access, which is necessary for different areas. Approach #3-- The Individual The final approach is what my group agreed was the only constitutional and fair approach at reproductive rights. Each person is different: each person has different health needs, different beliefs, different sex lives, different financial status’, and the list goes on. With this being said, everyone has their own reasons to either prevent or abort a pregnancy, and therefore has the right to decide for themselves. Conclusion At the end of this deliberation, we all agreed that it is only constitutionally fair if each person has a right to their beliefs and reasoning. While the national government can prohibit abortion after a certain amounts of time for safety precautions, it cannot take away a woman’s birth-given right. Thus, the only plausible approach to this issue is to give reproductive rights to the individual. |
Categories
All
|