By: Colin Gillespie On Thursday, March 2nd, I attended the deliberation entitled “We are Talking About Race.“ This deliberation addressed how the United States should approach the idea of race. Race is a part of our lives, and accepting and promotion diversity is the key to promoting a healthy culture. There were there ways that were introduced for talking about and learning issues delaying with race. One is education, another is community-level actions, and the third was the concepts of safe zones.
When it came to teaching people about different cultures and ethnicities, everyone in the discussion agreed that this was a subject that should be taught universally. So, instead of whether or not it should be taught, we discussed who should teach it. One proposal was that it should be the job of parents. While our group agreed that his was a good idea in theory, that it is basically what is currently in practice, and it is not working out so well. If a person has racist parents, then all they will learn from their parents is racism. However, if we can get everyone to learn, then this problem disappears for the next generation. The discussion then moved on to schools, where most people thought that having diversity classes in educational level besides college was a god idea. Everyone definitely agreed that it should be in high school. One proposal was it to start in elementary school, so people are exposed to an accepting worldview as early as possible. Next, we moved onto the discussion of the community. We discussed ways that a community could encourage diversity. One way we talked about was having events that, while not having any one culture as its center point, allows for many different cultures to participate and show off. An example of this is a block party type event. There, each family can show off what s unique to them, and all of their neighbors can see it. While, on the outside, this is not about race and culture, it allows for a diverse neighborhood to include everyone to many different backgrounds. Another way is specific cultural events, like Cinco De Mayo, allowing different races and background to have their own day in the lime light. We also talked about how events like this that currently exist need to be better promoted. For example, Pen State has many of these events, but a majority of the student body is unaware. One suggestion was that notices for these events should be hung up on the inside of bathroom stalls, as this is one place that we know that everyone will see them. This is because you are stuck there for a significant period of time, with nothing better to do than read the paper in front of you. The third, and most controversial method discussed was the idea of safe zones. These are areas that people can talk about issues relating to race without fear of anything bad happening. While we agreed that these are good in theory, that in practice they may do more harm than good. One problem that came up was that a safe zone may be dominated by one minority, making it a safe zone for only that group. Another issue is that people may not want to talk even with a safe zone, that it is not enough to bring people together. A third problem was that safe zones would result in less progress, as people would not want to address the issue outside of the safe zones, limiting progress outside these bubbles. While we by no means solved the issue of race in the space of an hour and a half, I definately learned a few things. One topic mentioned is that people usually pick to be with people who are the same as them, because it is what makes them feel more comfortable. I am currently writing this on a bus ride home. I realize that, when I sat down, I did the same thing. I looked at the empty seats, and picked one next to a white male that was approximately the same age. But, now I know that I do this, I can try to avoid it to increase my own diversity, as knowing is half the battle.
0 Comments
Colin Gillespie On Thursday, March 2nd, I attended the deliberation entitled “Take Back our Campus: Preventing Sexual Assault at Penn State. “This deliberation addressed the topic of sexual assaults on college campus- their prevalence, the vernal attitude towards these incidents, and ways to combat this. In the deliberation, three methods of combating sexual assault were discussed. They were to deal with the prevalence of alcohol, ensure that people knows that help is available, and encourage bystander intervention.
Of the three approaches, the first one was the most thoroughly discussed. Everyone in the group agreed that alcohol consumption could be directly linked to an increase in the number and severity of these incidents. Drinking alcohol lowers one’s inhibitions and decision making ability, or can lead to someone passing out. Someone at the table related a story about a time when they saw someone, very drunk, being escorted home by a friend. They remember thinking about how glad they were that she had a fiend there, as who knows what could have happened without that friend. While everyone agreed that alcohol was a problem, we couldn’t come up with a solution that we felt would solve the problem. First and foremost, we talked about how drinking alcohol is firmly embedded in the culture of college, and that nothing can ever make that go away Furthermore, with the sudden liberation when attending college, people who never had the chance to drink no have it available 24/7. This sudden shock, both cultural and physical, is more likely to increase the odds of someone going overboard. From this, we moved onto increasing the avalabity of help. While we all agreed that having more help was a good thing, we did not think that this would be enough. One person brought up the Safe Walk program, something that exists currently to help people get home safely. She said that the only time that she tried to use it, she was told that it would take someone at least 15 minutes to get to her. When you need someone’s help, you tend to want it right then. Another program that was discussed was a code word system for bars, that if you ordered something specific from a bar, then the bartender would know to do something for you. For example, one code word would mean that you need an Uber ride, another means that you need someone to escort you out because of the people around you we remaking you feel unsafe. Someone suggested that posters for this could be placed in the girl’s bathroom, allowing people to see them more consistently. However, we also discussed problems with this, the biggest one being that it affects very little of the cases. On campus, a lot of the partying happened at frat houses, where they would be no one to run this system. Finally, we discussed bystander intervention, that people should break up or warn off people. While our group agreed that this works well in theory, we were uncertain as to how well this would actually work. Because an outsider is, by definition, outside of a group, he does not know the dynamics of that group. What someone might see as sexual assault may be a boyfriend and girlfriend making out vigorously. Ultimately, we could not come up with a consistent way form people to recognize sexual assaults happening. All we could say was to use your best judgment, and to not be afraid of being wrong. We agreed that stopping sexual assault this was good, we just did not know how. At the end of the discussion while we did not come up with any ways that the problem could easily be addressed, our awareness was definitely increased. We just hope that little improvements, added here and there, can add up to make a big change. By: Colin Gillespie On Monday, February 27th, I attended the deliberation entitled “A Cure for the Incurable?: Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide.” In this deliberation, we discussed whether euthanasian and physician assisted suicide should be allowed or banned. There were three main avenues discussed. One was that the patient has every right, including the right to choose when he/she dies. No one can take that right from him. On the other hand, there is the argument that every patient has the right to life, and that no one, including himself, can take that from him. Bridging these two viewpoints the idea that it could exists, but under strict regulations. Only in certain cases, and in a certain way, may this be an option. The following are the arguments that came up during the corse of the discussion.
Throughout the conversation, the arguments for and against could be split into moral, and practical considerations. In addition to the aforementioned right to die, the other main moral argument for euthanasian was the ending of suffering. There are some conditions and diseases that medicine, at its current state, is incapable of curing. If a person is dying a painful, inevitable death, then it was argued that they should have the option to end their own suffering slightly faster than nature intended, especially if all medicine could do is prolong that suffering. Besides these two, most argument on the pro side fell into the practical realm. Allowing this practice would significantly lower hospital fees, both for the patient’s family and the government, as a significant percentage of medical bills originate from the final two months of a hospital-ridden person’s life. Furthermore, it allows for their organs to be donated, as their method of death would not invalidate their organs. Of course, everyone make sure to say that these arguments were by no means intended to belittle the cost of a human life to the mere sum of its parts. They are saying, that by allowing someone to choose when and how they die, that there are also practical side benefits. The main practical argument against euthanizing was abuses of the system. If euthanatizing was allowed, especially without the patient’s consent, then a scheming person could use this to legally kill someone else. Besides this, the arguments were moral. For one, there is the societal taboo against suicide, originating from religion. Most religions believe that those who end their own life are eternally damned, thus this puts many religions against the idea. Furthermore, there is the emotional baggage that would be placed on the physicians. A Doctor swears to “first, do no harm.” The knowledge that he is killing, or allowing the death of his patients would go against what many doctors believe. No one should be asked to be in this situation. The regulation approach is designed to bridge this gap. By utilizing existing rules where it is allowed, it is arguing that this should be implemented carefully. People said laws should be put in place restricting the circumstances under which a person has this option, Furthermore, they must submit multiple request over an extended period of time, showing that this is not a spur of the moment decision. Finally, they must be referred to a mental expert, and have all of their potions explained to them. In the beginning of the discussion, everyone in the room stated that they were essentially in the middle, that they believed that it should be allowed, but with heavy restrictions. Afterword, most people said that they were still essentially in the same place, with may expressing surprise about how prevalent this practice currently was. |
Categories
All
|