Noah Caruso A Band

Bias has played a prominent role throughout time in the development of people and society. While not everyone likes the idea of acknowledging bias, it is there. Bias exists everywhere, most notably in the courtroom. In  Errol Morris’s The Thin Blue Line, he explores the arrest of two men, Randall Adams and David Harris, for the murder of a police officer and the impact of bias and human error. Bias was used throughout the trial to determine the murderer based on the likelihood of an individual committing murder at a certain age.

While interviewing a private investigator that had worked on the case, she explained the reasoning behind the arrest of Randall Adams instead of David Harris, the more likely suspect to have committed the murder. She states that Adams was the “convenient age” for the arrest. Harris was only sixteen, and unable to be charged with the death penalty, while Adams, twenty-six, was able to be tried as an adult and given capital punishment. This presents the bias that all juveniles are innocent, that adults are more likely to be in the wrong and influence the juveniles. It is easier to convince a jury that a twenty-six year old man had committed murder than a sixteen year old boy.

While the age was convenient to prosecute Randall Adams, the evidence was not. The stories given by both Harris and Adams were the same, though Harris’s was two hours ahead of what actually happened. Crucial pieces of evidence were overlooked and suppressed for the sake of conviction by the prosecution. The prosecution was faced with two options: give a somewhat suspicion man jail time, possibly death, or prosecute a juvenile and have no repercussions because of the laws restricting punishment.

Not only did age play a part in the conviction of Adams, but where he was from as well. David Harris ran away from home with his parent’s gun, and stole a neighbor’s car, but was still a native to the town where the murder was committed. Randall Adams, however, had come to town only a few days before meeting Harris on the road, and sharing his motel room with him. Having a murderous sixteen year old from your town making headlines across the country is not desirable. This gave the prosecution even more reason to pin the murder on Adams. They were biased towards not only the youth of Harris, but where his roots are.

Adams was convicted for the murder of officer Robert Wood and sentenced to death. When an officer is murdered, authorities want the worst possible punishment for the murderer, in this case death. The death penalty was unable to be given to a sixteen year old, and they would not see the punishment fit for a murderer of a fellow member of the law. False witnesses were brought to the courtroom to testify against Adams as well as false evidence. Three days before his execution, Supreme Court Justice Lewis R. Powell Jr. granted a stay of execution, instead sentencing Adams to life in prison without a new trial.

Through the investigation by Errol Morris and his documentary, he was able to collect enough evidence to make a case that Adams was innocent and Harris was the one who committed the murders. Being that Harris was now older and able to be tried as an adult, there were no biases toward him and no evidence was suppressed in favor of Harris. While Harris was never charged with the murder of the police officer, Adams was granted freedom. After his release from prison, Harris was convicted of breaking and entering, attempted kidnap, and attempted murder. He was sentenced to death by lethal injection, with nothing interfering in the case or conviction.

This case and wrongful conviction is a clear representation of the unjust and corrupt court system, something Morris tries to demonstrate in all of his films. The film exploits the bias, though not always noticeable, that is present in society, not just the courtroom. Great measures were taken to ensure the conviction of the man the authorities wanted- an adult male from Ohio who is able to be charged with the death penalty, something they felt was deserved for the murder of another police officer. They crossed the thin blue line, the willingness to blur the truth in favor of justice and defense of their fellow officers. They wanted a death for a death, something that is unable to be given to a sixteen year old, and they let bias sway them into doing everything in their power to convict the wrong person.

Bias exists in the courtroom today as well, sometimes more noticeably than others. Whether there is more bias today as opposed to the time period of the murder is debateable. Aside from bias being based on age as it was in the case of Adams and Harris, bias is more based on race, gender, and as of late, sexual preference. Laws are being put in motion to prevent bias from affecting the conviction and defense of a suspect in the court of law, especially in extreme cases like Randall Adams.

Joie Nearn

January 15, 2014

Silver

The U.S court system has continued to get progressively biases toward certain cases. Being that in America there has been several cases that have displayed\ racial injustices such as Emmitt Till, Oscar Grant, Troy Davis and the most recent Trayvon Martin trail. The Trayvon Martin trial has enabled America to express their bias, towards discrimination.

Ironically the vast majority of the jurors that have taken part of the trail, were white americans. Meaning that they racially could not relate. According to a news article written by  Richard Gabriel one of the jurors stated “And it is a combination of skin color, idiom, nonverbal behavior, and personality that causes this cultural outgroup divide, not just her race.” These jurors wronged them the fact they could not relate with the witness Rachel Jeantel, which  based their verdict decision. Knowing that Zimmerman is much more similar, in race and background, the jurors disregarded everything that she testified. This allowed five out of six of the jurors to rule in favor of George Zimmerman.

Stereotypes have taken a major role in how the jurors and Americans function. Knowing the history of African Americans had their past with the law enabled the jurors of the trail to be more lenient towards Zimmerman. According to an article written by the Huffington Post “ The infamous Juror B-37 said that Zimmerman was not racially profiling young Trayvon, but was merely profiling him based on the fact that black men had been involved with burglaries in that neighborhood.” Knowing that Trayvon was African American made this juror believe that Zimmerman was automatically in correct for murdering him. Knowing that African Americans in the past have had serious issues with criminal behavior, made the jurors believe that Trayvon Martin’s death was vital.

Knowing that America became very involved, in this historic trail. Society began to believe that this outcome of this trail was because the jury was bias. There was only one juror of color on this trail. According to The Huffington Post “as the only juror of color states that George Zimmerman "got away with murder" and as the nation lurches through yet another tragic episode that forces us to deal with our racial legacy -- new ways of viewing race are surfacing.” Being that this juror was the only one of color she could relate in some way with Trayvon Martin which made her very remorseful for this young man's death.

The Implicit Association Test has been used to display your blind spots, in terms of our personal biases. Theses test are developed by Harvard University in Cambridge Massachusetts. These test are used to measure someone's automatic association between to objects. For example, in class we taken the Race IAT test, to measure Pleasant words and Unpleasant words with, African American Children and European American Children. While studying the results of this test it has been indicated that European Americans have a bias towards pleasant words and European American People. This demonstrates how the juror of this cases allowed bias to affect their decision against Trayvon.

In conclusion The  Trayvon Martin trail was one of the most controversial and disputed trails in the US history. The US court system is very unfair and bias.  The Trayvon Martin trial has enabled America to express their bias, towards discrimination. This has displayed that America needs to reavaluated their injustices.

1. "Trayvon Martin Case (George Zimmerman)." Trayvon Martin. N.p., 21 Jan. 2014. Web. 21 Jan. 2014. <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/trayvon_martin/>

2. "Race, Bias and the Zimmerman Jury | Houston Style Magazine | Urban Weekly Newspaper Publication Website." Race, Bias and the Zimmerman Jury | Houston Style Magazine | Urban Weekly Newspaper Publication Website. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Jan. 2014. <http://stylemagazine.com/news/2013/jul/16/race-bias-and-zimmerman-jury/?page=3>

3. Paterson, Eva. "Trayvon Martin and Implicit Bias." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 05 Aug. 2013. Web. 21 Jan. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eva-paterson/trayvon-martin-and-implic_b_3692331.html>

4. "Implicit Association Test." Implicit Association Test. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Jan. 2014. <http://projectimplicit.net/nosek/iat/>

The Influence of the Police

by Jesse Shuter

“I would like to begin this story Doctor by telling you that murder is a crime. It is not to be laughed about, made fun of, attempted, or even discussed by those not in a position to deal with the fact that it is a crime.”

“Tell me the whole story Steve, from the beginning.”

“It all began last July, or was it August, no wait it was May. Yes I’m certain it was May because it was springtime. I was doing my usual paperwork when I came across a very peculiar file. This file was especially peculiar because it was marked Top Secret from the date January 12. Usually the files that are brought to me at the Police Station are not marked in this way. Anything that is marked Top Secret is to be brought to me immediately. So as you must also be wondering, why was this file not brought to me earlier? Why was a file that is supposedly urgent from January being brought to me now in May?

So I open the file, and I read the thing that gets police commissioners all across America more apoplectic than anything else. A murder. I was especially frustrated because I had previously worked so hard to keep the streets of Philadelphia clean of murder and yet here one was. Then the weirdest feeling of deja vu overcame me. I felt like I had heard this case before before. Yet I was adamant that it was new. It was because of these mixed emotions that I was not prepared for, nor was I in a position to deal with what was to come in the next few days.

The next day, I officially sent out a warrant for the arrest of whoever murdered the man. I decided to take a look at the body in our analyzation lab. The body was on an examination table, yet there was no one in the lab examining the body. I quickly slipped on some rubber gloves and began taking a look for myself. It was a man, he appeared to be  in his late thirties to early forties. He was a white man, handsome, he had short brown hair that reminded me of my own. He seemed like the kind of man I would be friends with, and here he was in front of me dead with a bullet hole through his chest. I could have sworn that I knew the man, there was a feeling of longing, both for the knowledge of who this man was, and also who killed him. It was crazy that we couldn’t find him in the system. To be honest, it was this attachment to the man, that drove me to make such rash decisions about this murder. Finally, an officer, Jenkins was her name, came to me with news, regarding the man’s killer. Apparently two men came to turn themselves in. The interesting thing is it was the same crime. Both of these men were claiming to be the murderer of the same man.

I did the only logical thing to do in this scenario, I decided to interrogate both the men and see what each of them says about the murder. The first man was named Jack Jordans. His file said that he had graduated from UCLA and was now working as a successful architect. The file also said that he had a wife but no kids and that he currently lives in New York City. He was 34 years old. I decided to take a look at this guy wondering why he would commit a crime if he is as successful as his file says he is.

I started by examining him through the two way mirror. He was young looking for his age. He was a black man, strong looking. He was tall and had short hair. He looked up at the mirror and it almost seemed like he was scowling at himself in the mirror. I stepped into the interrogation room and asked Jordans who this man was that he killed and he said that he was a client of his named David Read. I asked him questions about the murder and why he did it. He wouldn’t give me much of a straight answer until I got in his face. I began raising my voice and asked him why he killed the man, he said that he didn’t know why, he just had to. I turned around and began walking away after getting all of the information I could from him. Then he spoke again, in a lower register, I heard him say “I killed him because he was a punk, like you”. I quickly spun back around, and yelled at him asking him to repeat that. He looked at me frightened, saying he didn’t say anything. I stormed out furious, the nerve of that man. He definitely seemed like the kind of guy that would want to kill, in more ways than one. After the interrogation I looked up David Read in our system, however, no one existed under that name.

The next man to claim that he was the killer of “David Read” was a man named Chase Stefano. According to his file he was a lawyer who graduated from Michigan University. He was just as successful as Jordans, it was almost uncanny how similar they were financially and otherwise. He too had a wife but no kids. It was weird that these men with seemingly great lives turned themselves in for a crime. I asked him a few basic questions about his family and his job, nothing I didn’t already know the answer to, but then I got to the juicy stuff. I decided to come out of the gate by asking him why he turned himself in. He said that he couldn’t live with the guilt. I looked at his face and he looked sad, also he wouldn’t make eye contact with me. I noticed some of his features, he was white first of all, he had blonde hair and green eyes. Despite the looming despair of the situation his held himself well. He answered all of my questions in a mature manner. I respected him, he seemed like a guy I would vote for to be president. He was well spoken and seemed to be telling the truth at all times, but I knew something didn’t seem right he didn’t seem like the kind of guy that would kill. He had a great life, why would he throw he it away. I even heard him whisper under his breath, “why am I here right now?”. That cinched it. The guy didn’t even think he should be here, clearly he was innocent.

After interrogating both men it was clear to me that Stefano was innocent while Jordans was lying for some reason. So I told everyone that Jordans was clearly the murderer, and that Stefano should be released. That was how it seemed, I heard this guy Jordans say horrible things, while Stefano admitted to not wanting to be here. It makes sense if you think about it Doc, most of the bad guys out there, the killers, are black guys. Haven’t you noticed that in the news. I hate murderers more than anything, and murderers are usually those African Americans that think they are too cool for the law. White guys stay clean. So I released Stefano and gave Jordans the chair for murder after a sentencing by the judge.

So Doctor what do you have to say to that, it all adds up, so why am I here. Just because I was diagnosed with some disease, doesn’t mean that I am crazy. Everything I told you was true, so why did the judge sentence me to come to sessions with you?”

In the year 1939, one of the the largest genocide attacks known to history began to take place in Germany under the control of Adolf Hitler. This was only possible because of the German Nazi’s use of propaganda that encouraged people to believe that what they were doing was the right thing to do. Many people before and during World War II used propaganda just as the German’s did, but it usually was not to support efforts that would impact people in a bad way. Today, it is a type of advertising that is often assumed to be negative in some way because of the affiliation that it had with Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. It is not anyones fault that many perceive it that way, however, people tend to associate the use of propaganda and Nazi’s and therefore the mass genocide, which is not an enjoyable memory. The use of propaganda with a negative outcome in World War II by the German Nazi’s, has greatly influenced the use of propaganda that is used in the world today and the implications that it supplies.

Some of the speeches given by Joseph Goebell, a Nazi during World War II, are specifically rich with the propaganda that had such negative effects on the world. His speech, “Knowledge and Propaganda,” given on January 9, 1928 is rich with examples of propaganda and its use .(Goebbel, Joseph. "Knowledge and Propaganda (1928)." Knowledge and Propaganda (1928). Calvin, n.d. Web. 20 Jan. 2014. <http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb54.htm>). This speech goes into detail about what he and the Nazi party thought of propaganda and how it supplied people with knowledge, hence the title. In this speech he says, “The greater and simpler the idea is, the more it relates to daily life, the more one has the desire to tell everyone about it.” The great and simple idea that the Nazi’s had was, Jews are bad and caused all of their problems and as a result, they should all be killed. Since the whole of Germany was struggling economically and was in major debt, the idea that it was someone else's fault that they were in a slump was easy for them to accept. They were all under the same circumstances and as a result, their mindsets were similar and this idea was simple enough, so everyone believed it was true and as a result, the best thing for their struggling country. The idea itself has a negative output and most Germans understood that and accepted the fact that they would be killing millions of people. Therefore, any propaganda that advertised this idea was negative and since it was used so often, propaganda having a bad outcome became normal to most people. This ‘normal’ even traveled from applying to only the people in Germany, to the people in America always viewing propaganda as a negative form of advertisement.

More currently though, there have been articles written about propaganda today and how it is used. One for example is by Mike Adams, The Health Ranger titled, “CVS pharmacy promotes flu shot propaganda using life-sized grim reapers.” (Adams, Mike. "CVS Pharmacy Promotes Flu Shot Propaganda Using Life-sized Grim Reapers." NaturalNews. NaturalNews, 19 Oct. 2011. Web. 20 Jan. 2014. <http://www.naturalnews.com/033917_CVS_flu_shots.html>). It goes on to talk about how the Influenza vaccination is experimental on each person who takes it and that it does not always have a positive effect on people. I found it surprising that this advertisement was called propaganda, but compared to the use of propaganda by the Nazis, it is a form of advertising that would have a negative impact, just as their propaganda was. In this case, the negative impact was scaring people. To show this straight from the article, “A CVS pharmacy is promoting flu shots using images of the Grim Reaper, the most widely-recognized symbol of death.” Since the vaccine can cause illness to anyone who gets it, the CVS is making sure that the people getting the vaccine, know it can be dangerous. It is mildly contradictory however, because it is trying to influence you to get a shot that could help protect you or even save you, but getting the vaccine could get you very sick or in the worst case scenario, kill you. This goes to prove my thesis, that since the German’s wild use of negatively impacting propaganda, in order for a piece of advertising to be classified as a piece of propaganda, it has to have a negative connotation or express a negative outcome. Also, the title of the article implies negativity with the use of the word propaganda and Grim Reaper, again, supporting my thesis .

Only since World War II has propaganda been associated with negativity, and even more specifically, since the German’s use if it. Before it was manipulated into its pessimistic ways, it was often used positively. Even up to, and during World War II, the American’s used it positively, even with the war efforts. There is a pamphlet that was created in 1944 called, “What is Propaganda?” by The American Historical Society that explains the purpose of propaganda and what is was during 1944. (American Historical Society. What Is Propaganda? Washington D.C.: American Historical Society, 1944. Healthyinfluence. G.C. Marshall. Web. 20 Jan. 2014. <http://healthyinfluence.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/AHA-War-Dept-Propaganda.pdf>.) In the chapter labeled, The Story of Propaganda, it speaks of how propaganda was used before the time of World War II, but it was not known to be a negative form of advertising. “Nobody would make the mistake of assuming that it is new if, from early times, efforts to mobilize attitudes and opinions had actually been called “propaganda,””What is Propaganda?” reads. Before World War II, propaganda had not been used in this negative light, which is what caused many people to believe that ‘propaganda’ was a new term. This only goes to prove that the Nazi’s use of propaganda was what made it so well-known and caused it to be affiliated with negative outcomes.

Advertising is how we get the greater majority of our ideas across to other people, but we don’t want to always use the same form of advertising because it can get old and boring. Advertising is part of our everyday lives. However, the use of propaganda with a negative outcome in World War II by the German Nazi’s, has greatly influenced the use of propaganda that is used in the world today and the implications that it supplies. Therefore, we do not use it as much as we would if it was not used in this way during World War II.

Even though our conscious bias may be the one we try to control and show, the subconscious bias is the underlying cause of many stereotypes and generalizations. Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People touches on many themes related to bias, including the automatic and reflective sides of the mind, and what roles they play in society. The definition of bias has been discussed for years, and makes understanding stereotypes easier once the bias is understood. Bias is when your brain associates certain things with each other, and tries to make quick decisions. Sometimes, these decisions are distorted from our own conscious ideas, causing bias. IAT tests, which determine your underlying bias in your subconscious, were created to find your hidden bias. Our bias is part of a system which controls society, and our brains are to blame for the associations that cause bias.

Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People, a book published in February 2013, and written by a social psychologist from Harvard (Mahzarin R. Banaji) and professor of psychology at University of Washington (Anthony G. Greenwald), touches on many themes of bias and how they relate to our brains. The title of the book “Blindspot” is a metaphorical way of refering to the section of the mind that contains our hidden bias. The book shares the experiences of the authors taking Implicit Association Tests (IAT’s), and explains the science of it. The book’s purpose is to help the general public understand their mental biases, and adapt ourselves to be more fair to the people of society.

According to Oxford Dictionary, bias means “prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair”. Many people believe that they don’t have a bias, whether it is subconscious or conscious. Racism is a controversial issue, and a lot of the public believe that they are not racist. However, there is a bias that most people have about skin color preference that they are unaware of. This underlying bias that we are unknowing of can be found through a simple Implicit Association Test (IAT). An IAT is a test that was created for determining the level of bias that we have. Harvard developed a racial profiling IAT test that gives a series of words and pictures of children of European-American and African-American descent/skin color. The point of the test is to see how fast you associate each skin color with pleasant and unpleasant words. My results astounded me. I am a person that is against racism wholeheartedly, and I don’t believe skin color matters in the grand scheme of things. However, my results of the IAT test showed that I have a strong preference for European-American children vs. African-American children. I wondered how I could be so bias on the inside, but not be bias on the outside. This is where the book Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People, played a role. The book talks about how humans have an automatic and reflective side of the brain. The automatic side of the brain is the subconscious side, and the reflective side is the conscious side. My automatic brain has a strong bias towards children of European-American descent, but my reflective brain has no bias towards either. IAT tests are great for figuring out your subconscious bias and can help in trying to be more fair to society. However, is it possible that our subconscious has more of an influence than we previously thought?

The subconscious brain is responsible for making us breathe and move, and is controlled mainly by the hypothalamus, located above the brain stem. It is the location of the quick, decision-making part of the brain, and there is no way for it to be controlled. In fact, our subconscious is so secretive, that common things in public influence our way of being without our knowing it. A study done by Yale tested whether or not subtle things would bring about any different behavior in humans. The studies found that humans were more likely to be tidy if there’s a faint scent of cleaning product in the air, or they become more competitive if a briefcase is visible. These tests not only prove that conscious behavior is affected by the subconscious brain, but that bias can be undetectable!

The subconscious and conscious are brought up in chapter four of Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People. The book refers to the subconscious as the “automatic” side of the brain, and the conscious side as the “reflective” side. The chapter mentions a situation from the famous sitcom “Seinfeld”. In this situation, Jerry, the main character talks with his friend George in a restaurant and acts like they’re a gay couple because a woman is eavesdropping on them. Later, the woman asks to interview Jerry, because he’s a well-known comedian. Jerry doesn’t recognize the woman, but proceeds with the interview. She asks questions for a column she is going to write while George is in the room. After a while, Jerry begins to catch on that the woman is from the restaurant, and she is a news reporter. He proceeds to try and convince the reporter that they’re not really gay, and quickly adds in “Not that there’s anything wrong with that!”. This situation proves that while Jerry’s conscious “reflective” side of his brain is gay-friendly, his “automatic” subconscious side of his brain does not want to be portrayed as gay because of all of the stereotypes that go along with it.

Bias is the cause of stereotypes and generalizations, and our subconscious brain is uncontrolled when it comes to issues like these. Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People is a very useful book that helps people try to keep their bias in control, and not let it affect their conscious choices. Knowing the difference between the “opinion” of your automatic and reflective sides of your brain will cause a greater sense of fairness and equality in our community and society. The distortion of the subconscious and conscious brain activity cause problems, and reading the book alone will give you a greater sense of right and wrong. Determining your bias can be done with IAT tests, and can bring you one step close to conquering it. If we can control the systems of bias that are part of our subconscious brain, we can create a more fair society that we live in today.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Banaji, Mahzarin R., and Anthony G. Greenwald. Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People. New York: Delacorte, 2013. Print.

Blind Spots in Reading

I love to read. I feel like I am obligated to say that as to not make people think I hate reading. Books are a passion of mine that I can’t prevent. It’s almost like an alcohol addiction. I can read a long book, and after finishing I get a book hangover. I read slowly because 1. I can’t read fast and 2. I tend to have better reading comprehension when I read slowly. I am always on Goodreads searching for books that in the same category as the books I read, so I usually don’t go too far out of my comfort zone.

The way I search for books leaves me with a large bias that I am too routine to get out of. I look back to see that it stems from forced school reading. Most books I have had to read in school have forced me towards historical fiction, political allegory, and sci fi. Genres I tend to stay away from include fantasy and biographies because of stereotypes, an unfamiliar writing style for me, and the bad experiences I have had with them.

Wondering to see if I am the only with this kind of bias I asked my friend, Jiwon Choi, questions relating to what kind of literature she had strong opinions about, whether positive or negative. The first question I asked her was, “What kind of books do you like?” which led me to a vague answer. She said, “I like fantasy, sci fi, and just fiction in general,” which  wasn’t getting me anywhere.So to polarize the question I asked her, “What kind of books do you hate with a passion?” in order to get a stronger response. In a very low yet strong voice she said, “I hate plays. I f****** hate plays. I hate Shakespeare with his old english and stuff. I hate poetry and graphic novels as well. I don’t like non-fiction. I can read them if I have to, but I won’t go out to Barnes and Noble to buy them.” That response was a lot more passionate than what I had anticipated for.

From these responses, I was able to discern how she would have developed these biases. When I asked what kind of books she liked she was relatively vague by not telling me much more than the fact that she liked fiction along with fantasy and sci-fi. This confirms a large bias that most teenagers have, which is liking genres that target the teenage audience. The reading level is relatively low which makes it easier to understand. Sci-fi and fantasy almost never come up in school reading, which draws teens towards it, due to the fact that school reading tends to be boring because you have to read a certain amount of pages every night. A lot of the books students have to read in school are for adults which can make some references difficult to understand and because most of the books are old, it hinders our thought of what the setting would have looked like since we have never encountered anything like it. This is one of the biases that is typical amongst teenagers that I don’t believe is as developed in myself as it is in Jiwon and other teenagers. I like books which are targeted towards adults such as 1984 by George Orwell and Catch-22 by Joseph Heller. While I do read some young adult novels such as The Fault in Our Stars by John Green, I don’t believe I have a preference towards these novels like most young adults do.

I got the response a teenager would say when asked, “What kind of books do you hate with a passion?” Jiwon’s response was a great example as she showed great passion by the fierceness in her voice and by cursing. Plays seem to be a common hatred among teens along. This is likely enforced by the large amounts of Shakespeare teens must read in school, whether it be Macbeth, The Taming of the Shrew, or Romeo and Juliet which is the case with Jiwon. She points out how much she hates his old english (which is commonly mistaken as Old English) and implies that the difficulty in understanding the author’s language is what caused her to hate Shakespeare, which in turn has caused her to hate plays in general. I share a similar bias on the plays of Shakespeare as the language makes it hard to understand and turns my attention away from remembering previous events by struggling to understand what is currently happening. Jiwon does show some individualistic taste which is definitely not true by the majority when she says she doesn’t like graphic novels. After she stating her opinion on graphic novels I asked, “Why do you hate graphic novels?” Jiwon said, “I don't like books with pictures. I want to be able to imagine the full book with no drawings. It makes my head hurt to read words while looking at pictures.” This shows her bias that having drawings can ruin imagining the scene when in fact it can enhance one’s imagination. This is the one bias most teenagers don’t have because they would prefer a book with drawings because it would be easier to read and cause less confusion, yet I can see that Jiwon doesn’t want the easy way out and she wants to imagine as much as she can without losing an understanding of the book. Drawings can simply just show you a possibility of what you could imagine. The only graphic novel I have read was Maus by Art Spiegelman. I felt as though it didn’t hinder my imagination, rather it made me imagine more of what the situation in a concentration camp in Nazi Germany would have actually looked like. In short, I believe graphic novels just broaden the imagination as opposed to ruining the experience for it.

After learning the genres she passionately disliked, I asked her,”What book do you hate and why do you hate them?” She said, “I hate The Catcher in the Rye , The Taming of the Shrew , both Invisible Man, all Shakespeare, and The Crucible.” I myself have not read any of these books but as I previously mentioned I have read a Shakespearean play. The fact that she said she hated The Catcher in the Rye piqued my interest because I want to read that book in the near future. I decided to question her about The Catcher in the Rye and not focus on the other books she mentioned. I asked her, “Why do you hate The Catcher in the Rye?” She responded, “The Catcher in the Rye had a lot of curse words. The main character had a negative attitude. I like protagonists as the main character rather than an antagonist.” From what her response was it’s easy to discern is kind of reader that prefers a happy attitude in the main character and for the main character to be protagonist. She dislikes book that have slander and negative atmosphere because Jiwon is a cheery person and her attitude is easily changed by the events in a book she is reading. Schools have enforced that slander in books is bad by forcing students not to use it and and not allowing students to read books with slander. I am the opposite though as I don’t care whether there is slander or not or whether the main character is the antagonist or the protagonist. The character’s attitude is not as important to me as the plot itself is. Although I don’t believe slander makes for a great book, I try to treat it as an unrecognized part of language. Slander is a useful indicator in a book to show when a character is angry, careless, or casual which may be hard to discern without slander.

Jiwon Choi  

Abortion: Anti or Pro?

    Abortion is one of the most debatable topics in the United States. When the topic is discussed, people tend to take one of the two standpoints: pro or against abortion. The controversy of moral and legal status continues to rage on between the two standpoints. People that identify themselves as Pro-Life is against abortion and people that refers themselves as Pro-Choice are pro abortion. However, you will always have an invisible scale that will even fail the best logic persuasion because there are a lot of factors when it comes to abortion. That is the pain that the mother went through while deciding to abort the baby or after aborting the child. Millions of women who have aborted their child go through the pain, loss, and emotional need to justify what was done. When you scale the issue down to this, it doesn’t become so debatable because no logic that is best will work. Therefore, considering the invisible scale of this issue, there is no “right or wrong” answer to the question of abortion’s legality because they believe their opinions on this topic are correct.

      In Palestine, there were a hundred participants in an abortion rally. They held signs, cheered on speakers, prayed, and sang. This event was the 2nd annual Northwest Families March for Life held for people who believe that abortion should be illegal. Each had a different reason for why they are against abortion, but the group had one main objective for this rally. They were seeking for a peaceful vigil to end abortion. In another article, Pope Francis denounced abortion as “horrific”. He believes that this “throwaway culture” has grown to encompass beings themselves. At his annual “State of the World” address, he has finally decided to speak up about how “evil” abortion is. When you compare the two articles, they have very similar reasons as to why abortion should be illegal, why they are against abortion, and what is so bad about abortion. A participant at Palestine, Cindy Guerrero stated, “Every pregnant woman feels her own way and has her own fears. I know it's a challenge to get her to see why abortion is not the answer." Also, Scott Kirkpatrick had a sign reading “remember the unborn”. On the other hand, Pope Francis has said, “Unfortunately, what is thrown away is not only food and dispensable objects, but often human beings themselves, who are discarded as unnecessary.” When comparing the reasons for being against abortion, both articles state that people are killing the unborn as a reason. They consider this as a crime and human trafficking because they consider the unborn fetuses as alive. They also talked about how people are murdering these unborn babies that might help the world become a better place later on.

    Meanwhile, there is also another stance in abortion: pro-choice. In the Huffington Post, a woman writes about how women who choose to abort a child is not an oxymoron. In the article, she stated that she became more pro-choice as she became pregnant. In The Guardian, actor Mark Ruffalo talked about why he supports abortion. The article also talks about the number of clinics left in some of the states. Lastly, it showed respect towards the well-known figures that stand up for abortion. When you compare the two articles, they both talk about unwanted pregnancy. They want women to be able to receive help easily from pregnancy they weren’t ready for. In the Huffington Post she said, “If a woman feels that it's the right time for her to become a parent, she should. If she feels that it's not, then she should have other options available: contraception, adoption, and, yes, abortion.” Meanwhile, Mark Ruffalo stated, “I don't want to turn back the hands of time to when women shuttled across state lines in the thick of night to resolve an unwanted pregnancy, in a cheap hotel room.” Both of them seem to have talked to or known people that suffered with unwanted pregnancy and didn’t know how to get help easily. The woman in the article from The Huffington Post said that she talked to numerous of people about how they waited until they were ready and how they felt when they had a child. Mark Ruffalo talked about how his mother had to suffer to get an abortion for a child she really didn’t want or wasn’t ready for. These two articles believe that if the mother has no intention of having the baby, the society should respect their decisions and offer help to them is what they are trying to tell everyone.

    Now, when you compare the two stances, you can see the prejudiced points of view that the two opposing sides have. The anti-abortionists believe that everyone deserves to have a chance to live. They consider women who decide to abort their child as “murderers”. They don’t consider what kind of situation that the mother is going through when they are deciding this matter. There are some that are against it because of religion reasons; the bible tells us that abortion is wrong. Life is something needs to be protected under all circumstances is their argument. Other reasons include: the mother should deal with the consequences if the pregnancy was a mistake and if abortions are easy to obtain, it will be a method of birth control. (SexInfo Online) On the other hand, the pro-abortionists believe that the mothers should have a choice to keep the baby or not. They believe that women should receive help easily because if they cannot access to help, they would need to get abortion illegally. Other reasons include: in cases of rape or incest, the fetus could remind the mother of the horrible experiences, all women should be prepared for their pregnancy, and the fetus is not a human being yet. (SexInfo Online)

     In conclusion, abortion is a topic that cannot have clear direct stances because there are so many reasons as to why it might be right to have an abortion in one situation, but shouldn’t be allowed in another. The prejudiced points that the Pro-Life side have are: they don’t consider the situation that the mother is in. If it really was a case of rape or incest, it would not be right for the having to have the baby, which may have her be reminded by the terrible experiences, and that giving up a child for adoption can be emotionally damaging to the child as having the abortion. There are many children who are emotionally damaged because the fact that their parents abandoned them. In these cases, it is right to have help accessed easily. This is not just a matter of protecting a precious life, it is the matter of the mother’s pain also. Pro-Choice doesn’t consider that not all situations should be allowed for the mother to abort the baby. When a woman aborts a child in a situation that isn’t right to have the child aborted, then that would essentially be a form of murder. Abortion can also lead to expose women with various of health risks.

    The only reason for this topic to be controversial is because of the prejudiced views. If everyone were to notice that this topic is more complicated than it is known already, this would not have been a big issue today. The end result is that there is no “right” answer because there are so many factors that we have look upon when deciding to have an abortion. The circumstances are what matters the most. You wouldn’t want to murder a fetus, but you wouldn’t want to emotionally and physically damage the mother, and perhaps the child’s feelings later on.

Works Cited:

Ferrarin, Elena. "Group Rallies against Abortion in Palatine." Daily Herald. N.p., 19 Jan. 2014. Web. 23 Jan. 2014. <http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20140119/news/701109566/>.

Withnall, Adam. "Pope Francis Denounces Abortion as ‘horrific’." The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, 14 Jan. 2014. Web. 23 Jan. 2014. <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/pope-francis-denounces-abortion-as-horrific-9058040.html>.

Erdreich, Sarah. "'Pro-Choice Mother' Is Not an Oxymoron." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 23 July 2013. Web. 23 Jan. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-erdreich/pro-choice-mother_b_3640718.html>.

Cochrane, Kira. "Mark Ruffalo's Pro-choice Stance on Abortion Rights Sets a Powerful Example." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 20 Aug. 2013. Web. 23 Jan. 2014. <http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/the-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson/2013/aug/19/mark-ruffalo-pro-choice-abortion-rights>.