Journal 9

          I think it is a great idea to integrate women into the military, especially considering all of the progressive thought floating around about equal treatment across the work force.  To be honest, I didn't even know that woman weren't integrated into combat.  While this integration, in my opinion, is long overdue, implementing it is a different matter.  I think we touched on a lot of important points in class, and that in order to successfully integrate by 2016, the military will have to participate in progressive thought and avoid the political confusion that often accompanies these type of movements.
          In order to properly implement anything, it is important to recognize the obstacles to completing such a task.  One of the obvious difficulties for integrating woman into the military is that woman are different from men...period.  First, woman and men are physically different and not all are equal.  I believe the standards for testing physical strength should be unisex, but genuine in making sure soldiers are prepared for the field.  Another issue regarding the difference between woman and men is their housing and bathing facilities.  Men and women have different needs when it comes to their bodies, and it is important to recognize this and handle it properly.  Aside from logistical issues, there are also a lot of issues holding over from an era when woman weren't equals in the workforce.  Despite what anyone says, pay and respect will have to be addressed early on to eliminate them quickly.  A final issue that I think should not be overlooked is what parents of female soldiers and society in general thinks about it.  Unlike the other obstacles, this cannot be fought head on and must be borne until it recedes.  Overall, I think it is a great idea and that if the military takes note of the things mentioned above, it will be handled well and be successful.

Journal 8

          At first, I wasn't sure what to think of Ms. Chapin.  She seemed like a nice woman, but a lot of times musician/activists can  be a bit..."goofy."  However, as soon as I heard her first song, of which I don't remember the name, I knew she was at least a talented  musician and lyricist.  After hear her music, which was an excellent hook o her presentation, I was much more willing to hear what she had to say.  I've heard a lot of stuff about the hunger issue in America.  However, I had never known about the state of poor people who merely get by on synthetic foods that, in effect, keep them poor.  It is interesting how much the poor quality of mass produced foods affects the people who eat them.  I agree with her on the importance quality food an good nutrition and look forward to figuring out ways to eat better personally.  Another thing that she briefly spoke of was Sodexo.  While I haven' looked up anything about them yet, I am curious to see what they've done that makes them so bad.

          Because Jen is a musician, her activism ties very closely and is easy to include in her work.  For other people though, it may not be as easy to be an activist.  First, one has to find time to do it.  One also has to decide what "it" is.  In my opinion, one must have a true connection with what they are an advocate.  For me, at this stage in my life, something that I find to be extremely important is the education of music for children.  I think music is something special that any human can appreciate.  Despite the importance of learning music as a child, many school's cut music programs in order to be more cost effective.  Something that I can do is volunteer at youth organizations, offering lessons to children interested in music.

Journal 7

          No one should expect someone else to be a Good Samaritan (GS).  The entire idea of a GS is someone who unexpectedly and magnanimously aided someone without cause or request.  The classic example from the Bible involves a man near death being helped by another man for no reason.  The GS had no obligation to help the dying man, nor was he asked to do so.  If someone is obligated, for personal or political reasons, to help, their actions are not considered GS-ly.  For instance, a doctor helping a patient is not an example of someone being a GS.  Similarly, a doctor helping a stranger who is having a medical emergency is not an example of a GS.  That is because a good doctor is not only expected to help sick people in pretty much any instance, but there is also a level of personal obligation when working in healthcare.  Of course, that may not always be the case.
          It wasn't the case in the situation we discussed in class: a woman in a nursing home who died due to a nurse unwillingness to break, a perhaps little known, policy.  This situation is sad, but not illegal.  However, neither of these things matter when looking at the concept of a GS.  Obviously no one in the situation ended up being a GS.  However, who would have been if they'd done something.  Just as the nurse did nothing "wrong" by not acting, she would not have been a GS.  This is because she has a reason for acting in both manners.  For not acting, she has company policy backing her up.  For acting, she would have the moral code and personal obligation that members of the medical community have.  The only person who could have been a GS is a either an unrelated member of the housing or a random person off the street.  Ultimately, no one in the situation was a GS because they were following orders, rules, or obligations and not acting out of "the goodness of their hearts."

Journal 6

          The scenario discussed in class was an interesting one, mostly because many people in the class were "hypothetically invested." Many of my classmates, including myself, felt that they needed to, and would help in said scenario.  I beg to differ.  While I think everyone who said they would help really would like to help the girl, there are two reasons they wouldn't.  The first reason, and the one we discussed in class, is the bystander effect.  In my opinion, it affects people in different ways.  For some, there is a fear of putting oneself out there, so they rationalize not acting by reasoning that someone more outgoing is surely going to do something.  For others, it may be that they are busy and on their way to something important, so they rationalize that someone with more time will surely act.  The second reason I think people would act is because they are not invested.  I have never had any experience with domestic abuse, so I am not as invested in this particular scenario.  For someone who has been abused or is a reformed abuser, they may have a deeper investment in the situation and become an advocate for the girl.
          Advocacy and activism, for the most part, aren't as grandiose as it seems.  Ultimately, they are about doing something to change something that affects you in some way.  Almost any advocate or activist was personally affected by whatever they are acting for now.  For instance, Malala and her father were obviously affected by the education system and women's rights issues before they decided to change the system.  This is important for people to understand.  In order to be a good advocate, you have to be invested. Why be an activist for gay rights or homeless people when you really couldn't care less?  If people advocate for things that are important to them, not only will they be more effective, but they will also change something that helps themselves and those they care about.

Journal 5

          Statistics are always interesting to observe.  While the numbers definitely indicate certain things and can help explain things, there are often other questions that statistics lead to.  The USI graduation statistics show a clear decrease in a classes original members as the class progresses.  It also shows how the percent of remaining/graduating students changes over the years.  While this information is important, it also helps to know the cause of the seemingly consistent decrease in class size.  Since the numbers do not reveal this, the cause must be gleaned through other sources.  One cause for this decrease, as we mentioned in class, is that USI is seen as a fallback school and a midway or transition school.  Meaning that many people come here with the idea that they are going to leave for a (in their minds) better school.  Another reason is the less than rigorous admissions process.  With lower admissions criteria, it is easy for an unmotivated student to get into USI, but not so easy for them to succeed here.  Regardless of cause, the numbers clearly show the decline in class size from beginning to end, but also show a slowly growing graduation percentage.
          As I have yet to finish the book, I am not entirely sure the connection between our graduation rate discussion and the theme of education.  Obviously, Malala believes in everyone right to education.  This belief was instilled in her by her father, who believed in the use of words rather than violence.  I think that education is so important to them because they must fight for it.  Many of us take for granted how "easy" it is to get an education in the US.  By taking it for granted, we've lost sight on what is important in a school setting: learning.  It is so easy to get wrapped up in the social aspects of certain schools and prestige, that we forget how great it is we have these massive communities to learn in.  Also in I am Malala, she talks about the movement against women in schools and how they deserve an education.  This can translate to our culture too.  However, rather than women, it is the impoverished that can't attend school.  Looking at the graduation rates, it is easily possible that some of the people that leave USI leave because they can longer pay for it.  This is truly a shame.  Intelligent and hardworking people, full of potential, come from all socioeconomic backgrounds, and education, even university level, should be easily accessible to them.  Finally, perhaps it is that attitude of students here vs. Malala's.  If the attitude of students here was as education oriented as Malala's, would the rates be higher?

Journal 4

          From a technical standpoint, any student who has cheated is technically academically dishonest.  However, like most things in life, this issue isn't purely black and white.  A lot of the reasons for cheating we talked about in class lend to this grey area of when cheating is a real issue.  In high school, I think cheating wasn't a big deal at the petty-busywork-assignment level because teachers typically gave homework for one of three reasons: for sheer busywork/not wanting to teach on a particular day, to create a grade "buffer" so that passing the course is easier, or to check for understanding.  I think teachers rarely give out homework "for the hell of it" because that would just make their grading more time consuming.  Therefore, I think it's safe to assume it is for one of the reasons above.  When you look at these reasons, all of them have some type of academic purpose, directly related to the material and grade of the course.  This brings up the question of why, then, is it "okay" to cheat in high school if there is still a clear academic component, even to such busywork.  I think, it has to do with attitude towards high school classes and what the end result is.  The ultimate goal of high school, nowadays, is to prepare students for either college or tech school or some other form of post-secondary education.  This influences the idea that high school doesn't really matter as far as a career goes, it is just a step.  Also, this lends to the idea that high school courses don't matter.  Which circles back to reasoning that cheating is okay.  Aside from reasoning that cheating is okay, some people understand and accept that cheating is wrong, but cheat anyway to gain scholarship money or acceptance from loved ones.

          Moving out of the high school and into college eliminates some of these issues such as the "it doesn't matter" mentality.  It also introduces new deterrents by way of strict rules ending in zeros in classes and the threat of dismissal.  These rules help to prevent students from cheating, but that doesn't mean the students are no longer academically dishonest.  In my opinion, academic honesty is more than not cheating.  It is a mentality of "my work is my own" and understanding why cheating itself is wrong.

          The number of people that admitted to cheating was rather large although not very surprising.  In fact, as some of my classmates speculated, I think that the few people who said "no" are either lying or lying to themselves about what cheating is.  While most of the class has cheated, I would venture to say that most of them are actually academically honest because I think they understand why cheating is wrong and have, since high school, refined their opinions on sharing work.  At least I have.

Journal 3

          I enjoyed this activity very much.  The in class portion was not only interesting, as it revealed something new about people's families, but also thought provoking as it made me reflect on my own views and those of my family.  Obviously, origin and upbringing play a huge role in our social perceptions and prejudices, and that is quite apparent in the class discussion.  Several of my classmates attributed certain familial opinions to things like culture, parental occupation, and religion.  For instance, an overwhelming majority of the class stated their families would not want them to date a person of the Islamic faith.  While I'm there is some racial prejudice involved, most of my classmates cited religious conflict as the reason for the answer "no."  The rest of the Muslim column further illustrates that there is little "ill will" towards Middle Eastern people , with only four people saying no to them as neighbors.  Something that was a bit disheartening was the number of families who would say no to dating an African American.  I understand that there is deep-seated prejudice against African Americans in the United States,but I also thought that prejudice wouldn't be present in the families' of Honors students.  I'm not saying that Honors students are superior to other students, but there is a correlation between excellence in education and more liberal views of the world.
          Throughout the class exercise, I was curious to see how my classmates' viewpoints differed from their families.  Overall, the class was more accepting and tolerant than their families.  One interesting, but not so surprising stat was that there was no change in the "Muslim dating" cell.  I think this reflects well on everyone because, again, this is primarily a religious matter and does not show a distinct underlying racial prejudice.  The most interesting, and sad, column for me is the "illegal immigrant" one.  I understand why many people would not want to date an illegal immigrant; there are many issues that can arise such as them getting deported, legal issues involving the citizen, and lack of acceptance by the family.  However, it was sad to see how many people said no to their citizenship.  While 4/5 of the class were fine with them as neighbors and friends, 1/2 of the class didn't want them to have citizenship.  That means that something like 2/5 of their class would deny their accepted friend and neighbor citizenship.  That is seriously messed up.  Now this may just be my opinion,but any person worthy of friendship deserves, at the very least, to have their friends want them to belong to the country.  Besides the strangeness of people not wanting their friends to citizens, the fact that half the class would not want illegal immigrants to be citizens, in my opinion, is ridiculous.  I understand that there are instances where people who are here illegally want to terrorize and harm America.  However, the immigration laws for this country can be ridiculous, and I believe that any person who respects the government/country and is willing to work deserves citizenship. (of course, this is simplified and I don't mean to downplay the necessity for background tests and citizenship classes)