An Act of Reconstruction

I read a book recently called The Year of Fog by Michelle Richmond. One of the themes in the book is the reliability of memory, about how we often are unable to remember the small details that matter the most. This book explores the boundary of memory, a topic that we have talked a great deal about in class this year, and one that I find to be increasingly interesting the more I learn about it. Here's a passage from the book:

"A common misconception is that memory is like some kind of computer that stores and retrieves information. The truth is, memory is an act of reconstruction. Every time we remember an event, we piece together rough drafts of the of the event based on our lifetime of experiences... Memory is not unlike a photograph with multiple exposures. One event is layered on top of another, so that it is impossible to distinguish the detail of the two. The older we get, the more multiple-exposure memories we have. Temporal relationships become elastic. As the years progress and we experience more and more, the mini-narratives that make up our lives are distorted, corrupted, so that every one of us is left with a false history, a self-created fiction about the lives we have led" (Richmond 162-63).

The idea that my memory is not a reliable way to remember the past, that what I know may not be the truth, that my memory could fail me when I need it the most, kind of scares me. In this quote, it talks about how our experiences following an event are reflective in how we remember that event. But the question I have is not how our future influences the way we remember our past, but how does the way we remember our past- our reconstructed memories- influence our future?

35 Years of Lost Time

I read a really interesting article the other day about James Bain, a man who was exonerated earlier this week after serving 35 years in jail for a crime he didn't commit. In 1974, when he was 19 years old (pictured left), Bain was arrested for kidnapping and raping a 9-year old boy. Regardless of his confirmed alibi, Bain was sentenced to life in jail. But thanks to new DNA-testing techniques, it was recently determined that Bain could not have commited the crime.

How could the court have made this mistake? Rationally, I understand that mistakes happen, but isn't the point of the justice system to prevent things like this from happening? It made me kind of mad to think that this man wasted so much of his rightful life behind bars. But my own feelings aside, what surprises me is that Bain is not bitter. Not in the least bit. "No, I'm not angry," he said. "Because I've got God." He has decided not to dwell on the past, but instead embrace what his future holds- a future that until recently held nothing- understanding that being angry would only result in more time being lost.

On the bright side, one good thing for Bain is that he is entitled to $1.75 million. A few years ago, Florida passed a law that entitles inmates found innocent to $50,000 per year they spent in prison. Do you think this is proper compensation for 35 years behind bars? How do you compensate for taking away something away that can never be returned, that you can never get back?

Photo courtesy of CNN Justice

Is Education Stifling Creativity?

After reading Mr. O'Connor's blog post about creativity, I started thinking a lot about how creativity affects education, but more about how education affects creativity. I came upon a video of Sir Ken Robinson giving a speech called "How Schools Stifle Creativity" at the TED conference in 2006.

This video showed me a perspective that I was lacking as a student myself. Mr. Robinson believes that although we are all born with great innate talents and creativity, our creative abilities are not recognized in traditional schooling curriculums and we are therefore rarely able to apply them in settings where they should matter the most, in places where it has the greatest potential to grow if given the opportunity.

Education is narrowly focused to the output. As Mr. Robinson puts it, the goal of public education is to produce young adults that have the cognitive ability to be "college professors," a profession where factual education trumps creativity. He makes the argument that "We don't grow into creativity, we grow out of it... we get educated out of it." I've never given this idea much thought, and right after I watched the video, I didn't think I agreed with Mr. Robinson's perspective. But after pondering it for a while, I have realized that traditional schooling environments don't give kids and young adults the opportunity to regularly tap into their creative abilities, and since it is not actively being used, it becomes useless.

Where do you stand on this issue? Do you believe that school systems are stifling (not necessarily intentionally) children's creativity, or not? Does academic accomplishment define success? How does creativity have a role in success?

Invisible Racism

In People magazine a few weeks ago, the cover article was about children who vanished without a trace. Recently, I was reading some reflections on this article, and there was one that made me think about how race silently continues to impact America: "Being the founder of the blog Black and Missing But Not Forgotten, I was happy to see that your cover included two missing blacks. It's a relief to see that someone knows it's not just whites who vanish."

This quote made me realize that inequality between the majority and minorities in America continues to be a problem today, just not as explicitly and not in the same way it used to be. The purpose of Black and Missing But Not Forgotten "is to raise awareness of the racial disparities in mainstream media's reporting of missing persons of color... to draw more attention to missing minorities and help bring them home." The founders of this blog believe that the media pays less attention to minorities than to the majority. But why? This doesn't make any sense to me. We're all American, so for the media what makes missing whites more important than missing blacks?

According to Ernis Suggs, vice president of print for the National Association of Black Journalists, "There is a certain level of interest, a certain fascination with White missing persons... Americans identify with who they want to be." After processing this quote, it occurred to me that there are people that still equate being white with being American, while they should equate being American with being American. Although inequality between races does not affect the public the way it used to, it's clearly still an issue. In class, we have talked a lot about how the media chooses what information to feed to the public. In this situation, what gives the media the right to write stories pertaining to some races more than others? Are they the root of this invisible racism?

Forest Kindergarden

Earlier this year, I blogged about the idea "experience is education," that children need to experience something to fully understand it. Recently, I read an article about forest kindergardeners, a concept that directly addresses the importance of learning through experiencing. Forest kindergarden has been popular in Europe for years and is now gaining popularity in the United States. The 23 forest kindergardeners at the Waldorf School at Saratoga Springs (there are over 100 Waldorf Schools across the nation that offer a variation of the same program) spend at least three hours every day outside, warm or cold, rain or shine. These kids- ranging in age from 3 to 6- have no academic curriculum until first grade. For them, nature is their classroom and the sky is the limit. 

Using their natural surroundings, these children are able to make discoveries that are not possible in a traditional classroom setting. With their imagination and Saratoga Spring's 325 acres of land, there are an infinite number of things to explore and examine.

I see nothing wrong with this type of education for young kids. I think that experience can only enhance and reinforce education, and this forest kindergarden supports this. According to the Waldorf Schools, this type of schooling for young children is favorable because "research has shown that free play in nature increases children's cognitive flexibility, emotional capacity, critical thinking, problem solving, creativity, use of imagination, self-esteem, and self-discipline. It makes them smarter, more cooperative, healthier, and happier." So if forest kindergarden has all the above benefits, what is the downside to this type of early education? Should schools across America continue to adapt this type of program, or does traditional preschooling provide a better learning environment?

Ho Ho Ho. What Do You Want for Christmas.. The Swine Flu?

At a mall near my grandparents house in Michigan, there is always a large Christmas display in the weeks leading up to Christmas. As expected, children line up to tell Santa what they want for Christmas, a harmless tradition that brightens a child's day.

Last weekend, I was at this mall but since it was before Thanksgiving, Santa was not yet there and no children were waiting to sit on his knee. But soon, thousands of children would line up to tell Santa what they wanted for Christmas. As we passed the tree and seat where Santa would sit, my mom shared with me something she had heard on the news earlier that morning. Due to the H1N1 epidemic, sitting on Santa's lap is not favorable this holiday season. Because his suit is not washed every day and Santas are in constant contact with children all throughout the holiday season, the spread of germs easier. This puts both Santas and visiting children at high risk for getting the virus.

I couldn't help but laugh. This is such an innocent tradition that many kids will be unable to partake in this year due to fear of the flu. But is this kind of alarm necessary? Do we have reason to be this worried? I understand that H1N1 is a highly contagious strain of the flu, but are we being overprotective and worrying too much?

How Did They Get In?

I'm sure many of you have heard about Tereq and Michelle Salahi, the couple that crashed the White House state dinner on Tuesday night. According to Would-be Reality TV Stars Crash Obama Party, the couple was not on the guest list, but still managed to make it through the White House security and mingle in the same room as the other 300 plus guests in attendance. This being said, the couple was screened for weapons before entering, and therefore posed a minimal threat to President Obama and the other guests. 

Earlier this year in a preliminary interview for "The Real Housewives of DC," Michelle Salahi said, "President Obama has made it very accessible for anyone to visit the White House, so that's like a big thing right now." She and her husband proved this to be true on Tuesday night when they crashed the party. 


But I'm left to wonder how the Salahis were able to do this. The White House is one of the most secure places in America; It has to be for the President and his family to safely live there. But if it's one of the most efficiently guarded places in America, how can there be a large enough flaw in security that the Salahis were able to enter without difficulty? Is the President really safe? How does this mistake reflect on our country as a nation?

Is Facebook Blurring Boundary Lines?

Tuesday afternoon, I had a conversation with my 11-year old brother about his day at school. We pretty much have these conversations daily and they never sieze to be entertaining. You see, his teacher (I'll call her Ms. Smith for privacy purposes) refers to herself as "Smith-zilla," often saying things like, "I didn't drink enough coffee this morning, so don't upset me or Smith-zilla will come out of her cave."

This being said, her teaching tactics aren't exactly conventional. But on Monday, my brother told me that over the weekend, Ms. Smith had sat down at her computer with a list of her 6th grade students and searched each one on Facebook. While looking, she found that one of her students did have a Facebook page. Since the page wasn't blocked or protected, she was able to read this student's wall-to-wall conversations and look at her pictures even though the two of them were not friends. Then on Tuesday morning, she confronted this student and shared what she had learned about her personal life.

At first I thought this was out of line and not something a teacher should be doing. But the more I thought about it I realized that she wasn't technically doing anything wrong. Teachers have rights to Facebook, as do students, so there isn't anything preventing teachers doing this, but should there be? Is this a morally wrong thing for teachers to do or do teachers have the right to do this? Is it an infringement on students' privacy?

The moral boundaries over the years have been so blurred that there is little separating teachers and students. I remember my mom telling me that when she was a kid, she didn't even know her teachers' first names. Now, students and teachers interact through social networking tools. This is how much our society has evolved over one generation.

Is a Pencil a Weapon?

I was flipping through the Chicago Tribune on Sunday morning and I saw an article about an 11 year old boy who poked a classmate in the knee with a pencil. Harmon Dehnert, who suffers from severe ADHD, was expelled from his school until next fall for this "act of violence." As to why he was expelled, the Plainfield Community Consolidated School District 202 board (in Plainfield, Pennsylvania) "unanimously decided Harmon used the pencil as a weapon and expelled him on Oct. 26."

I understand that this school is trying to protect their students from weapons and violence, but I think this punishment is harsh and unnecessary. All kids make mistakes, and I think Harmon made a small mistake that was blown out of proportion. First of all, his ADHD had a huge impact on this situation-- Harmon does not have someone monitoring his actions in class, and his ADHD is a known cause for his lack of focus and periodic outrages in the classroom. This being said, this incident could have easily been prevented if there was a teacher helping him stay on task in class.

Had Harmon been carrying or using a more threatening "weapon," I think this punishment would have been appropriate. The father of the poked child says that his son is fine, but asks the question, "what if it had been his eye instead of his knee?" I think there is a big problem with this argument as the basis of Harmon's expulsion. Yes, it could have been his eye, but it wasn't. The school board is overlooking what actually happened and instead focusing on what could have happened. But if you apply this idea of "what could have happened" to the whole school, anyone could poke another's eye out, and therefore everyone- not just Harmon- poses a danger. For this to be a logical argument, pencils would have be seen as weapons throughout the school, not just in this particular situation.

Due to the basis of Harmon's expulsion, I think this article raises an interesting question, one that is relevant now in a time of frequent school shootings and acts of violence at school. Do you think Harmon's punishment is fair? What constitutes a weapon? And more importantly, what constitutes an act of violence?

Running Away from the Economy

In a lot of ways, the current economic issues in the US haven't significantly changed my life in any way, and because of that, it's hard for me to understand and relate to other teens that are struggling. However, after reading a New York Times article titled "Running in the Shadows: Recession Drives Surge in Youth Runaways," I became aware of just how greatly many American teenagers are being affected by the economy.

Since the economy has taken a turn for the worse, the number of children leaving their homes for life on the street has increased drastically. For some parents, the inability to provide for their families financially has put increasing pressure on their children, creating an unstable living environment. "Foreclosures, layoffs, rising food and fuel prices and inadequate supplies of low-cost housing have stretched families to the extreme, and those pressures have trickled down to teenagers and preteens." For many of the Medford, Oregon teenagers interviewed in this article, these pressures create a burden that they are unable to carry. For them, this means that living on the streets is easier than living at home. On the streets, these kids aren't affected by the ups-and-downs of the economy the same way and they don't have to rely on others (like their parents) to create a stable living environment. They can create stability for themselves.

Fourteen-year old Betty Snyder is now living in a local park with other runaways. Here, she has the support of others who understand her situation, support that was lacking before she left home. As to why she ran away, she says "I'm just tired of it all, and I don't want to be in my house anymore. One month, there is money, and the next month there is none. One day, [my mom] is taking it out on me and hitting me, and the next day she is ignoring me. It's more stable out here." For moms like Betty's, providing for their children has become increasingly difficult as the economy worsens, driving kids like Betty to run away from their homes and fend for themselves.

Yes, we are all suffering from the economy, but clearly some people are impacted more than others. I think it's sad they had to resort to this option, but given the circumstances, these kids have worked so hard to remove themselves from their families and create lives for themselves regardless of the limitations the economy put on them. Although many of these runaway kids, including Betty, seem content with life on the street, they often have to resort to illegal activity (like selling drugs) to earn money. This being said, there's a good chance they could get caught, and it's only a matter of time before their newfound freedom from economic struggle is compromised. In trying to protect their freedom, what can we do for these kids? How can we help them? Can we help?

Politics in the Classroom

Today I attended a session of All School Forum, which is a group of New Trier students, faculty, and parents that get together once a month to discuss various topics relating to school. The topic of this afternoons discussion was "Politics in the Classroom." Following this discussion, I was able to conclude that people feel very differently about this issue. Some people feel very strongly that teachers remain unbiased towards their political stances in the classroom, while others feel that teachers should express their political opinions as a means of discussion.

Going in to this discussion, I had not previously given it a lot of thought. Personally, I think that it's okay for teachers to share their political views with the class as long as they do not impose their values on their students. But at the same time, knowing that your teacher doesn't support a certain political stance gives more students the confidence to talk about their own political views without feeling that they are being judged by someone superior to them-- their teacher. In my modern world history class last year, my teacher was very adamant about not sharing her political views with the class. However, her apparent lack of an outward political stance helped propel political discussions in class. As a group of students, we were able to share our own political views with one another and have debates that revolved around politics. Since our teacher didn't support either side of the arguments, she was able to be an objective voice of reason, asking questions that pertained to both sides of the discussion. This helped to guide discussions in a way that I think is more helpful and educational than if she had supported one side of the discussion over another.

Do your teachers often express their political views in class? Do you think that it's appropriate for teachers to share their political views with their students? How does doing so (or not doing so) effect what we learn as students? If you're interested, read Mr. Bolos' blog post about this issue.

Experience is Education

I recently read a New York Times article titled A Moo-Moo Here and Better Test Scores Later. This article talked about Harlem Success Academy, an urban New York school that is trying to better educate kindergardeners about rural life. According to this article, these efforts are being made to help students score higher on New York State's english and math standardized tests, which students begin taking in third grade. Apparently, there are many questions on these tests that relate to or are asked in the context of farming, which is something that many urban students are unfamiliar with. By taking fieldtrips to farms and familiarizing them with typical farm life and activities, the students are able to make better connections, ultimately increasing their test scores when they take the tests in third grade and beyond.

Near the end of the article, it talked briefly about how some people feel that these field trips come at the cost of other learning opportunities, and that they are unnecessary. Having talked a lot about opportunity cost in class this year, I thought this was a relevant argument. When I was a freshman, my english class talked a lot about the phrase "experience is education," which I believe to be true. Abagail Johnson, a teacher at Harlem Success Academy, shares this view point. "'[Children] are good at reciting and remembering things,' she said, 'but they can’t make the connection unless you show it to them.'" If this is the case, and experience is education, then experiencing farm life is essential for children to understand it. And if they understand it, they will do better on New York State's standardized testing in the future, which is the goal of the fieldtrips. This may come at the cost of other learning opportunities, but so do all educational fieldtrips. It doesn't sound unnecessary to me.

Do you think that the efforts taken to familiarize these children with farm living is unnecessary? What is the opportunity cost of this experience? Do you agree with the statement "experience is education"?

Selective Reduction

Any expecting mother wants to do what’s best for their child while at the same time knowing their own limits. That’s what I learned from reading Grievous Choice on Risky Path to Parenthood, a New York Times article that is part of a series about twenty-first century fertility treatments in America.

This series opened my eyes to the lengths women go to get pregnant, as well as the risks associated with the options they choose. The particular article I read was about two women, Amanda Stansel and Kiera Sorrells, who chose to become pregnant through intrauterine insemination, which consists of multiple injections into the uterus. Following the treatment, both women found out that they were carrying not one, but multiple babies. Amanda Stansel was carrying six and Kiera Sorells was carrying five.

But with the initial shock that they were carrying more than one baby came some more tough information to digest: doctors support and suggest a process known as selective reduction, where some of the fetuses are eliminated early in the pregnancy giving “others the best chance for survival.” With this information, both families were forced to make a decision that would affect the rest of their lives. By keeping all of the babies, there is a great chance that some- if not all- could die, and those that do survive could have severe disabilities. By eliminating some of the fetuses through selective reduction, it gives the remaining babies a chance for better lives, but there is no guarantee that these babies will be fully healthy, either.

Faced with this decision, the two families opted for different solutions. The Stansels decided to carry all six babies while the Sorrells decided to eliminate two of their five fetuses using selective reduction. Unfortunately, neither Mrs. Stansel nor Mrs. Sorrell gave birth to all healthy children. The Sorells lost four of their six babies, one of which died last night after battling Phenomena for the past month. The Stansels lost one of their three baby girls fourteen months after she was born.

Regardless of their painful losses, both families feel that what they did was right. I fully support both of their decisions and I respect how difficult it must have been for them. I'm not saying that either family was wrong. They both did what they thought was best for their children, which is all they can do as parents. When faced with this heartbreaking dilemma, how do you know what the right thing to do is? Do you do what the Stansels did and carry all your babies hoping that you will defy statistics and all your children will be healthy? Or do you do what the Sorrells did and go through the process of selective reduction with the hope that the remaining babies will be born healthy and live longer lives? Is there a universal right, or just what's personally right for you?

I found the stories of these two families deeply touching. If this story resonates with you and you want more information, the Stansels keep a blog documenting their decision as well as their lives since giving birth. The Sorellses have created the Zoe Rose Memorial Foundation (in honor of their daughter that passed away) to help parents giving birth to premature children.

Racial Biases

In class this week, we have been talking a lot about the issue of race and how it was constructed. This reminded me of a story I heard a few weeks ago about a fight that took place at Fenger High School, which is a predominantly African-American school on the South Side of Chicago. This fight was between two large black gangs in the area. Unfortunately, Derrion Albert got caught in the middle and lost his life.

Today, I saw a New York Times article that followed up on the death of 16 year-old Derrion Albert. Although it addressed the fight that took his life, it more generally addressed what Chicago Public Schools can do to make the South Side of Chicago a safer place for the young students that live there.

When I heard the story about Derrion Albert, I instinctually created my own opinion about the people living in his community, as well as the crimes they commit. Whether knowingly or not, we all create biases when we hear stories about perpetrators and victims. It's only natural to want to choose a side. I know that there are areas in the South Side that are more unsafe than others, and I also know that these areas tend to be predominantly African-American. By association, I assume that the African-American people living in these areas contribute to their unsafe environments. Those at risk of getting hurt as well as those who commit the crimes are black; Both the victims and the perpetrators are African-American.

But my question is this: do the biases we create about the people in this situation extend to generalize our biases about the entire race? Do stories like this one fuel our racial biases? How do they influence the way we perceive certain races?

Parallels of Acceptance

Last week, I was searching the New York Times website and I saw an article called Coming Out in Middle School . I read the first page of this article, but I didn't have to read the whole thing to understand that it addressed the hardships of gay teenagers who expressed their sexuality. But when I thought about how these teens often weren't accepted for who they were, it made me sad. In society, there are many people who do not support gay rights. They judge gay men and women based on one trait-- a single trait that dominates over the rest because it is different. Because of this judgement, gay men and women are not always treated as equals.

In a way, this is a direct parallel to the way blacks were treated in America following the Civil Rights Movement. Legally, they had equal rights, but that doesn't mean that all people accepted them to be equals in society. Many of them were still outcasted for the color of their skin, a single different trait that somehow made them less-than in society.

The acceptance of African Americans and gay men and women in society is similar. Will this unbalance in society evolve with humans and continually exist in America? Or is there a way to stop it?

Never Again

In class on Friday, we briefly talked about the phrase "never again." This reminded me of a book I read last year, The Blue Sweater. In this book, Jacqueline Novogratz shares the journey she took trying to make a difference in third world countries, specifically Rwanda. In an effort to give poverty-stricken women a sense of success, she created a microfinance company in Rwanda.

Before the Rwandan Genocide she was able to impact a significant number of women in the country. However, following the Rwandan Genocide in 1994, Rwanda was left in terrible condition. Those who had lived in poverty prior to the Genocide were worse off then they had ever been. Immediately following the Genocide, Jacqueline reevaluated her contribution to poverty-stricken nations, as well as her ability to help them. She states,

“It is against the backdrop of the horror of genocide that I now concentrated on understanding the potential of philanthropy to effect change in the world. Rwanda would always remind me of how serious the work of change is, how we have to build accountability into all aspects of development—and of philanthropy—and how the world really is interconnected. I would feel ashamed when I would hear people say ‘never again’ in the media, feeling that these words would be empty unless we helped build a stronger world economy in which all people could feel they had a vested interest in society” (137). 

As a country, we have the ability to put meaning behind this phrase. With the resources we have in the United States, do you think we are doing all we can to ensure that “never again” is a realistic goal, or do you think that genocides are likely to continue in third world countries and “never again” is a meaningless phrase?

Tough Love

While I was watching the news a few days ago, I was taken aback by a story about a six year old boy named Richard Chekevdia. In November, 2007, Richard's father, Michael Chekevdia, won temporary custody of his son, and shortly after, Richard and his mother disappeared. Last week-- after missing for two years-- Richard was discovered living in a small room between the walls in his grandmother's house. When I heard this story, I could not magine how a mother could think it was okay to do this to her son. To me, a mother is a person who should go to great lengths to make sure her child lives the best life possible. She should be selfless before she is selfish, putting her child before herself. However, by compromising his standard of living, Richard's mother acted selfish. Maybe that was her way of protecting her son, but it doesn't sound like motherly love to me.

If a mother would go to such measures to keep custody of her son, why would she compromise his standard of living by confining him to such poor living conditions?

Money Well Spent?

      While browsing the web this afternoon, I came upon a New York Times article called "My Brain on Chemo: Alive and Alert." In this article, the author, Dan Barry, wrote about his struggle with cancer and chemotherapy. When reflecting back on this experience, he says, "Depending on one’s perspective, I was both unfortunate and fortunate. Unfortunate in that I endured all the concomitant fears and indignities, twice. Fortunate in that I had the option of chemotherapy, twice. Not all cancers respond; not everyone is so lucky."
       Dan Barry is right. Not everyone is so lucky. But this made me think about the availability of cancer treatment in the United States. Foundations like The American Cancer Society raise millions of dollars every year. There is no doubt in my mind that this is a good thing, but I do question where the money is used. A majority of the money raised during fundraisers like Relay For Life goes to cancer research, and very little goes immediately to cancer treatment. Personally, I think that curing those who are already facing cancer is equally as important as preventing people from getting cancer in the future curing cancer in the future begins with curing cancer now. Is the right way to find a cure to cancer by treating what already exists or by researching the cause?

Remembering Ted Kennedy

When accepting an honorary degree from Harvard University in December of 2008, Ted Kennedy said, "We know the future will outlast all of us, but I believe that all of us will live on in the future we make." Unfortunately, as of this past Tuesday, August 25, Ted Kennedy's future has outlasted him. In the days following his death, Americans have reflected upon his life. While watching his funeral Saturday morning, I realized how many people Ted Kennedy was able to impact during his lifetime. Countless people spoke on his behalf, listing accomplishments and qualities that made him an honorable man. The heartfelt eulogies given by his sons, and the stories they told, were first-hand accounts of this impact. However, it was something said by President Obama that made me think twice about the power one human can have on the world. "Ted Kennedy's life's work was not to champion those with wealth or power or special connections. It was to give a voice to those who were not heard, to add a rung to the ladder of opportunity, to make real the dream of our founding" Through this quote, it was apparent to me that Ted Kennedy was able to give a voice to many that would not have been able to speak without his help. His life fulfilled a purpose. This made me reflect on my own life, wondering if it is possible that I have the same ability to impact others lives. At what point in your life can you know that you have made an impact? How large of a difference do you have to make to ensure that you will be remembered?