A Student's First Amendment

We recently discussed the first amendment in class. We even took a quiz that portrayed different situations and we decided if it should be protected by the first amendment or if it is limited. A couple of the situations we discussed involved the sticky situation between students and the first amendment. It was concluded that students are allowed to express themselves in anyway as long as it is not a disturbance to the classroom environment. One situation that has recently occurred falls right under this category. Sara Dickenson, a senior at East Haddam high school, was considered a disturbance by wearing a breast-cancer sponsored bracelet that read, “Keep a Breast”. Many teachers found this writing to be to provocative. One teacher even threatened to give her a detention for wearing it. Dickenson believed that this was a violation of her first amendment. She wore the bracelet in honor of her grandmother who died of breast cancer. Dickenson wanted to spread awareness. The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut seemed to agree with Sara, and argued that her bracelet had no disturbance in the classroom environment. Sara also mentioned that, “… kids in [her] school walk around with hair that is absolutely neon pink… well, [she] really feels that neon pink hair is much more of a disturbance than a white bracelet.” Now, the final ruling from the US Supreme Court clearly states that, “School officials may forbid speech only when it threatens to materially or substantially interfere with the operation of the school”. And, as such, after two years, East Haddam officials finally allowed Sara to freely wear the bracelet. Now to me, this whole situation seemed unnecessary because I feel Sara was never a disturbance to the classroom environment. However, I do see the teacher’s point, but I do wonder where do you draw the line for something to be considered a disturbance in the school? A bracelet with provocative writing? Neon pink hair? Or even a shirt with provocative writing?

Americans and Football

Sunday nights are usually dedicated to watching football on the T.V. in most households. It is even stated in the article, In N.F.L., the Show Goes On and On, that the most watched T.V. show this past T.V. season was NBC’s “Sunday Night Football”. However, many football fans are starting to complain about the pace of the game. By that I mean there is too much stopping and starting in the game due to the replacement officials, thus interrupting the flow of the game. The officials constantly stop time to either huddle to discuss calls; or talk to sideline officials, or even go over incorrect yardage mark offs. In the past two weeks the average game time was three hours and fourteen minutes, about a half an hour longer than expected. Basically the officials, as Even Jon Gruden, an ESPN analyst, stated were, “taking a long time to organize justice here”. All of the “discussing” between the officials slows down the game tremendously, and many Americans are not happy about it.

What I find most interesting about this situation is how Americans have a need to be constantly entertained. Even football, a pretty violent and upbeat sport, can seem boring when there isn’t constant action being shown. If nothing exciting is being illustrated on the screen, like officials just talking, or a commercial being played, Americans tend to either switch the channel or find something more interesting to do because we constantly need to be entertained. If slowing down a football game causes for this must attention and frustration, I wonder how much longer Americans will have the capability of just sitting still without being entertained?

Still on Strike

      Two whole weeks have gone by and students in the Chicago public school are still not in school. The Chicago teacher's union continues to strike in hope of receiving a contract that suits their needs. It was said that teachers would be in school by friday, however they now say the earliest would be Tuesday. Fortunately, a contract was made, and the union leaders described it as a "good contract", yet it is still not signed. Kevin Hughes, a delegate, stated that the union should take at least another day to review the contract. While teachers continue to focus on the strike, Mayor Rahm Emmanuel is disgusted by the whole situation. He believes the "children of Chicago are [being] played as pawns in an internal dispute within the union". He also continues to express that children in CPS are not receiving the education that "matches their potential". While the teachers in the CPS district certainly deserve a better contract, the students deserve to continue receiving an education. To add, parents of these children are not sure what/how to continue watching their kids when they usually would be in school. These teachers should continue to fight, but I do believe they should go back and teach. These students have been out of school for over a week, and there is a tentative contract at hand, there is no need for the teachers to not go back and teach.

       A strong American belief is to fight for what you want, and the teachers of the Chicago union are doing just that. However, if the teachers do not return to the classrooms soon, new precautions will be made, and the teachers will definitely not get what they want. Therefore, how far should the teachers continue going? Keep striking until they get all that they want? Or settle for now, and go back to the classrooms?

"The American Dream"

I have always believed that those who work hard deserve to receive what they worked for. My belief, although still reasonable, seems to be out of date, according to Thomas L. Friedman. He supports his claim by pointing out the progression of technology and globalization, and how it is “wiping out lower-skilled jobs faster, while steadily raising the skill level required for new jobs”.  Therefore, working hard is not praised, but rather expected in the work force. Employers, according to Van Ton-Quinlivan, the vice chancellor for work force and economic development at the California Community Colleges System, are searching for “ready now” employees, employees who know exactly what to do before even starting the job. Next on the list are the “ready soon” employees, those who need little training, but can still fit right in. Then come the “work ready” group, workers who have a college education, but need a lot of training, and lastly are the “far from ready”. These people are the ones with no college education, but are ready to work hard. The unemployment rate for high school dropouts ranges from 8.8-12.0 percent. As you can see, working hard only gets one so far, you need a college education and even experience to help back up that hard work ethic.

The beliefs behind the so-called “American Dream” seem to contradict with the way America is heading. The “American Dream” is something that brings hope to America. I mean personally it makes me feel inspired. However, Friedman makes a good point, working hard can only get you so far. As such, I begin to wonder how long the inspiration of the “American Dream” can continue on before to many Americans become disappointed. I feel the spirit behind the “American Dream” is immortal, but I do think people will come to the realization that technology is constantly expanding, and being a hard worker is just not enough anymore. Could the “American Dream” be in jeopardy?

As the incoming freshman begin their year at Penn State University, mixed emotions are shared about their new college due to the scandal of Jerry Sandusky in 2011. At the beginning of every year, the freshmen are brought to convocation for a warm welcoming. In the arena, everyone shouts “WE ARE…PENN STATE”. Many now question the meaning of “Penn State”. Some students look beyond the shocking incident and focus on the positive aspects of their new college by wearing shirts that voice, “I still bleed blue and white” or “Penn State proud”. However, there are those who still can not get over the incident, and share their opinion by wearing shirts that scream, “We are…still pissed off” or “Overstepping their bonds and punishing the innocent since 1906”. Students are speaking their mind, as they should, but therefore are determining the meaning of Penn State. As a result, as the student body president, Courtney Lennartz agrees, the incoming class is extremely important.

I understand how sickening the whole situation is but just as Thomas Palchak, former graduate of Penn State, states "what you see now is the collective community being penalized for the sin of one single person." I do not completely agree with the fact that only “one single person” was involved, but I do agree on the fact that not everyone from Penn State was involved. As such, the “collective community” should not all be penalized, and it would be a shame if they all were.  While Penn State should take MAJOR precautions in rebuilding their reputation, I do believe Penn State still holds enough good qualities to rebuild a stable reputation. Still, it does make me wonder how long will Penn State be shown under a bad light? 

                         

                      Penn State band students practicing on the first day of school.