#4-The Prospects Get Brighter for the Protection of Children as the Nobel Peace Prize Is Awarded to a Child and for the Protection of Children (and Not to Pope Francis)

This week while searching for a topic I felt like sharing on the blog I looked at some of the websites suggested on the right hand side of the class Argumentation and Critical Thinking Blog. I had never visited many of these sites and wanted to see what information I could find. I wanted to find an article where most, if not all of the information was cogent. I think I found a pretty good article that fits that description. I visited the Justia site and found an interesting article in the Civil Rights section about the Nobel Peace Prize. The article is titled, “The Prospects Get Brighter for the Protection of Children as the Nobel Peace Prize Is Awarded to a child and for the Protection of Children (and Not to Pope Francis).” The article states that the Norwegian Nobel Committee received the most nominations in history this year. It also said that before the announcement the media focused on Pope Francis and Edward Snowden. The Pope was the favorite to win.

The Committee made the historic announcement that the winners would be Malala Yousafzai and Kailash Satyarthi for their work on the education and protection of children. This was so historic because it is the first time a child has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. (Malala is still 17.) A few years ago, instead of being a hero for speaking out on behalf of children she would have been one who should “be seen and not heard”. It is also historic because it is the first time the award has been awarded solely for the protection of children. The article goes on to say that both recipients have been outspoken about the education of children and the need to rescue children. Interestingly, the award generated opposition to Malala in her homeland. The article stated that because this prestigious award was given to a child it should give hope to children who are “crushed by fanatical Muslims,” and give hope to oppressed children’s advocates worldwide.

It is said that this is an important moment in the civil rights movement for children. I had never heard of such a thing so this intrigued me. In the history of the Nobel Peace Prize “ninety-five Nobel Peace Prizes have been awarded, to 88 men, 15 women, and 22 individual organizations.” Even more interesting is that the typical categories have been for the “peace movement,” “negotiation,” and “world organizing.”  A few other awards have been given for humanitarian and human rights issues. In 2003, the award was given for women’s and children’s rights, but this is the first time children have been the main focus.

Here is where the article gets really interesting. The article talks about how the “scourge of child sex abuse and trafficking is impossible to overestimate.” Then the article takes a turn and says that the Roman Catholic Church, which Pope Francis is the leader of, has been the “institutional home for clergy abusers and bishop abettors in large numbers over many decades, if not centuries.” It claims that the Pope was nominated for his peacemaking gestures, but he has had a “sorry history of cover-up in Argentina.” It claims that the Pope has moved slowly to protect children and punish abusers.

 The article claims that if the Pope would have won the award it would have sent an implicit message to all of the victims that their “needs have been considered second-order.” Instead, by awarding two individuals who have tried to help children and protect children they sent the message to the powerful people that argue they should have won the award because they have made so many other fine contributions that the endangerment of children is not acceptable no matter what other good you have done.

The article says that Pope Francis has a long way to go before he could receive the Nobel Peace Prize. The world and those who thought Pope Francis should win have a long way to go and “much left to do to protect our children.”

This article made me think about a few different things. I was so happy that these two individuals won the award so that the education and protection of children could come in the spotlight. I was interested in and agree with the statement that this is “an important moment in the civil rights movement for children.” I hadn’t really thought about children needing a civil rights movement, but obviously they do. The article mentioned that we have a problem here in the United States as well and referred to an article titled,God v. The Gavel:the Perils of Extreme Religious Liberty which talks about children here in the states who are in danger and need rescuing. I had not really thought about the problem we have right here in our own backyards.

I think this article is cogent in the reporting of details. Some might say that it makes a few generalizations when speaking of the Catholic Church and those who were speculating on who would win the Nobel Peace Prize and why. I think the information in the article is cogent and is backed up by other news sources and articles that show the problems within the Catholic Church. I do not think it is a problem only in the Catholic Church, but the information given is cogent. I also think it is a cogent statement to say that those who speculated that the Pope would win did probably not think about any of the bad things the Pope and Catholic Church have done or the Civil Rights of Children.

 

#3-How a presidential candidate’s personal life changed political journalism

 

 

I was watching tv with my husband last week when a story came on that interested me. The story was on Thursday, October 2, 2014 on PBS News hour. The story is about Politics and Journalism. It states that in 1987 a presidential candidate’s extramarital dalliance was made public. This was the first time that journalists had reported about a political figure’s personal life in that way. The interview was with Matt Bai, the author of the book titled “All the Truth Is Out: The Week Politics Went Tabloid.”

The question is asked if politics changed or journalism changed. Bai says he thinks that both of them changes. He says it was not like a light switch came on, it was more like everything had been stirring in the culture in the mid-1980’s and the decision was made to treat a presidential candidate differently than they had been treated before.

The next question was asked if Bai believed the change was for the better or the worse. Bai says he believes things changed for the worst, adding that not everything that came before that was great. He says that there was a certain “coziness and Clubbiness” prior to that. Young journalists started questioning that.

Bai says he thinks that after that story, the ethos of political journalism shifted from covering ideas and world views and agendas to exposing the lies. There was a new focus on scandals. It reduced people to narrowly defined moments in a person’s life. It was usually their worst moment.

Bai says that he remembered that from that campaign on character was the central part of the narrative of who a candidate was and how voters made their decisions. He asks, “in what context do you define a person’s character, because it encompasses a lot of things. Do they duck votes? Do they lie to their constituents? Is there corruption? All of these things are all a part of public character and private character as well.” He says that the shift began to disqualify someone based on one instance even if it has nothing to do with their position. When the candidate in 1987 was caught on a weekend cruise with a model he was asked whether he thought adultery was something presidential candidates should engage in.

What motivated Bai to write the book is the fact that because Hart, the 1987 presidential candidate, was the first to be caught he is still trying to undo the stigmatism years later. It has been hard for him to overcome the guilt and the unfairness because he sees politicians like Bill Clinton move past scandal and succeed. Hart is not willing to do the things other politicians will do to rehabilitate his image. Bai says that is the “gripping, compelling, human story that really transcends politics.”

Bai is asked how come he thinks other politicians who are caught in scandals cam overcome them. Why are they a success and Hart is not? Bai says that some people believe politicians have just learned to work through all of it and the public is desensitized. He thinks that we have actually changed the definition of political leadership and the definition of fitness. He thinks some people were driven away because they did not want to be under the microscope and we reward those who will do anything, subject their family to anything, tell lies to evade traps and find their way into office.

The final question for Bai is whether or not the reporters who told the story about Hart had any regrets for doing so. Bai says that they all seem to feel satisfied with what they have done. He says he understands because any one of us may have done the same thing. He just feels bad because he thinks it is misremembered. He says it is the job of the journalists who were there and those who came after to stand up and say that they have the record wrong and they need to think about the ramifications of what they do as an industry. The person giving the interview says that he thinks Bai’s book is an interesting read and should be required for a journalism class.

The reason this story interested me so much is because we had been talking about how we need to hear both sides of an issue and then do some critical thinking before we let our biases and our prejudices make a decision for us. We tend to jump to conclusions and to assume the worst in people if we are not careful. We need to think about the ramifications of our quick judgments and decisions. I also find this interesting because it is true that Journalist need to consider the ramifications of every story they present as facts and news.

This story was cogent for me. I think Matt Bai was honest about the facts that happened when he believes journalism changed for the worse. He said it was not perfect before, but when Hart's scandal was exposed, journalism changed. History will show that it is cogent to say that character became the central focus of a political campaign after that. Even though an affair does not really affect how a president will do his job, it is something that has become a focus now. The story is cogent for me because it has historical facts to back it up.

 

Common Core: Rotten to the Core or Common Core for the common good?

Imagine that you are hungry and need some food to improve your situation. A group of people give you an apple. You look at the apple and it has some blemishes and a bruise or two. Do you say the apple is rotten to the core, or would you take the apple and eat the parts that are good and cut off the bad parts? The argument states that the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are rotten to the core, but I would like to suggest that the common core, while not perfect, is a step toward the common good.

The argument states that Common Core is a nationalized education K-12 program that is led by private interest groups with the power being centralized in the federal government who have a national agenda. The definition of the word Nationalized is to put under state control or ownership. Clearly not a Federal program. According to the Core Standards website, “The state-led effort to develop the Common Core State Standards was launched in 2009 by state leaders, including governors and state commissioners of education from 48 states, two territories and the District of Columbia, through their membership in the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). State school chiefs and governors recognized the value of consistent, real-world learning goals and launched this effort to ensure all students, regardless of where they live, are graduating high school prepared for college, career, and life. The standards are informed by: the best state standards already in existence, the experience of teachers, content experts, states, and leading thinkers, and feedback from the public.”

The Common Core State Standards Initiative was also in partnership with Achieve, Inc.; ACT and the College Board. Achieve is an independent, bipartisan, nonprofit education reform organization based in Washington D.C. that helps states raise academic standards and graduation requirements, improve assessments, and strengthen accountability. The National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) received nearly 10,000 comments on the standards during two public comment periods. Many of the comments from teachers, parents, school administrators, and other citizens concerned with education policy helped shape the final version of the standards.

The misconception of the CCSS being a federal government program undoubtedly happened because the Obama administration saw the group had come up with a great set of standards and decided to latch onto it as if it were their own program. Enter No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the program in place before the CCSS. All schools had to fill out 40 check boxes to get a 100% grade by the year 2014 or they would be considered a failing school. Many states were opting out of NCLB.  States had to fill out a waiver if they did not think they would get 100 percent under NCLB by 2014. Part of the waiver said states had to list standards that they have in their state in order to be applicable for this waiver. The federal government couldn't dictate what the standards would be.  Most states were using the standards that the governors (NGA), superintendents (CCSSO), and Achieve had put in place (CCSS) because they worked.  Oklahoma was one of the states who tried to get a waiver. The governor signed a bill that repealed the Common Core so they had to come up with their own standards. Oklahoma didn't have anything in place when they applied for the last waiver so they were denied.  Indiana got their waiver approved because they came up with standards that were rigorous enough to work and Oklahoma did not.

Because the Federal government denied the waiver to Oklahoma many people think CCSS is under the federal government. This is not true. The CCSS are great and many people like the standards. The problem is they don't want the federal government having control of education in the states. What they don't understand is that the federal government tied themselves to the standards and to NCLB with the waivers so it looks like the federal government is running the program when they're not. The real question seems to be is it that people don’t like the CCSS or do they not like the federal government getting involved with the CCSS?  According to Laura Hesson, the Washington County School District School Board Vice-President, “Districts choose the curriculum and there's hundreds of things that they have in the curriculum and the teachers choose which standards they will teach that year.” According to Achieve.org, “The federal government will not govern the Common Core State Standards. The Common Core was and will remain a state-led effort. States and local school districts will drive implementation of the Common Core.”

The argument also states that the common core is the cause of a decline in educational standards in the last few years. Some people think that we are a year to two years behind other states and countries because of the CCSS. They claim that in math for instance, students are not taught Algebra until 9^th grade. This is not true. The standards show that there are pieces of algebra taught before the eighth grade. Students have pieces of algebra, geometry, and trigonometry taught each year and they get more and more complex. All the pieces are taught at a low level for Math I, at a higher level for Math II, and at an even higher level in Math III. If the data and statistics really show we are behind other states and countries now, then the question is, where were the students before implementing the CCSS because we have raised the bar and the math is now more rigorous then it was a few years ago.

Another argument stated is that seniors in schools who have the CCSS are not prepared for college. The claim is that students will need to take more math classes at a 2 year college just to be admitted to a 4 year university. This begs a few questions to be answered. Where does this data come from? The seniors who are still in high school right now are the first class of students who have had the CCSS all 4 years of high school. Students had Math I as a freshman, Math II as a sophomore, and Math III as a junior.  During their senior year they are prepared to take a college math class if they want to because they have completed all the required Math classes. How many students four years ago as seniors were prepared to take college math? Because the current seniors are the first to go through all the common core standards where's the data coming from that says they're not prepared for college and that they have to take extra classes before they're ready for a 4 year university?

One final argument of the CCSS is the belief that data gathered from assessments is given to the federal government. According to the CCSS website, “There are no data collection requirements for states adopting the standards. Standards define expectations for what students should know and be able to do by the end of each grade. Implementing the Common Core State Standards does not require data collection. The means of assessing students and the use of the data that result from those assessments are up to the discretion of each state and are separate and unique from the Common Core.” They are working on a common assessment that states can adopt and use, but states can choose whether or not to use these assessments. The Utah State Office of Education (USOE) has had a student level data warehouse since 1998. The USOE has reported aggregate data to the federal government since the 1970s. The new computer adaptive assessment system (SAGE) will not change any of the data that are collected or reported. The USOE DOES NOT collect information on political affiliations or beliefs; sexual behavior or attitudes; religious practices, psychological or behavior testing, DNA, student address or e-mail, or income of the student or family. The state of Utah has received money from the Federal government to improve the security of data collection, but it was not “Race to the Top” money and does not have a connection to the Common Core.

When it comes to the CCSS the one thing everyone can agree upon is that they have become a highly debated topic. While I agree that the CCSS are far from perfect or the end all fix all for our education system, I do think it is a step in the right direction. Michael Cohen, President of Achieve said, the standards “provide a clear path – from kindergarten to high school graduation – for college and career readiness for all students. Importantly, they provide teachers, administrators, parents and students with the information they need to succeed.”  We can choose to take a bite out of the sweet part of the apple by embracing the CCSS and improving education for students in our nation or we can continue doing things the way we use to do because the Core is not quite perfect.

#2-Supreme Court Will Consider Abercrombie's Religious Discrimination Case

A model at the front entrance to the Abercrombie & Fitch flagship store in New York City.

I was looking around on the NPR Website and came across an article about a Supreme Court case which intrigued me. Because this article was a Supreme Court Case, I wanted to know if the reporting was cogent or fallacious. The case will look at concerns about Abercrombie & Fitch and their hiring practices. The issue is whether or not A & F discriminated against a woman who wore a head scarf.

Bloomberg explains:

"Samantha Elauf was 17 in 2008 when she applied for a sales job at an Abercrombie Kids store in a mall in Tulsa. She had been told by a friend who worked for the retailer that wearing a hijab wouldn't be a problem—as long as it wasn't black. Sales associates can't wear black at Abercrombie.

"During her interview, Elauf wore a head scarf and the assistant manager scored her style a 6, which was good enough to be hired. When the assistant manager sought approval for Elauf's hijab, though, a supervisor said the head scarf didn't meet Abercrombie's look policy. Hats are not allowed at Abercrombie. The supervisor later said he didn't know that Elauf wore the scarf for religious reasons. Elauf wasn't hired."

A lawsuit was filed and Elauf won; however, an appeals court reversed the decision and said that she should have asked for a religious exemption during the interview.

The Supreme Court will have to decide if Abercrombie & Fitch knew that she wore the scarf for religious reasons or if she just did not fit their “look book”. They will also have to decide if a retail company can even have a “look book” or if that is discrimination.  This is very interesting and I will be interested to see how the Supreme Court decides. It seems that you could argue the case either way. I am jumping to the conclusion that A & F knew she wore it for religious reasons and that she would have had it on every time she came to work or they would have just told her about their policy to not allow hats and let her decide to take it off or leave.

A few years ago Hollister was in our mall in St. George. I was surprised to find out that they discriminate on people according to their size. I have a son who has huge thighs and another who is 6 feet 7 inches tall. I could never find jeans that would fit them. One day I asked why they never had the sizes I needed in stock and the worker said that they only sold clothes to smaller and average size people. If a person is too tall, too fat, or has too big of thighs (as my football son did) the company did not want them wearing their label. The store had a reputation of supplying clothing only to those who were the perfect size and no one else had the right or privilege to wear their clothing. I had to shop somewhere else for their jeans. I just figured it is their store and their reputation and my boys did not fit in.

Religious liberty was central to the Founding Fathers’ vision for America and I am all for equal opportunity employment. I definitely think the First Amendment is important. I also think a company has the right to decide who they hire if their store or business depends solely on its appearance and reputation. If the clothing store wants to attract a certain kind of shopper they should be able to choose who they hire. They can require certain reasonable dress code restrictions and should be able to enforce them. It seems like a person would not really want to work at a business they were not welcome at. I guess it is just so easy to sue a company over discrimination these days. Having said all of that I can see how it gives the company a right to say that anyone they do not like does not fit their “look book”.  

I think this article is a bit one sided and even fallacious because it leans toward the fact that A& F are guilty of discrimination. The article points out another time that the company was in trouble over alleged discrimination and how they ended up paying a $71,000 settlement and agreeing to change its policy. Some of the facts in the article are cogent, but because of the way it is written it is fallacious and one sided on what facts the writer chose to report. The writer is telling you what they want you to hear which is that A & F discriminates against people. I will be following this story to see how it turns out.