When does Police Defense become Police Brutality?

Taking it Too Far...

Often times we hear of brutal acts committed by the police towards civilians. We tend to gaze in shock and sometimes even offer our own personal opinions amongst ourselves, but how many times do we truly assess what’s going on and how often it is occurring. Do we ever further our research on the many countless attacks that have taken place thus far? In fact, if you simply Google the phrase “police brutality’ you would be surprised how many hits you get and the grotesque images. For instance there is a website that is dedicated to the “Top Thirty Cases of Extreme Brutality,” (http://brainz.org/30-cases-extreme-police-brutality-and-blatant-misconduct/). Now to some, that may not appear as a large number but when you read these horrific stories you receive somewhat of a “wake up call.” Now within all these cases the police have argued that they: feared for their lives, have reasonable evidence to believe the suspect was armed, or have created some lousy excuse to justify their actions. Knowing this the question remains: When does police defense become police brutality, what is justified as going too far?

In Galveston, Texas a twelve year old girl was mistaken as a prostitute, based mainly on the tightness of the shorts she was wearing, and taken into custody by police. The little girl, Dymond Milburn, went outside her mother’s house one evening to switch the circuit breaker. While she was outside a blue van pulled up in front of her house and three men grabbed her and tried to place her in it. At the time the young girl was unaware that these men were undercover police officers, who had mistaken her for a prostitute. Dymond immediately began to panic and grabbed the nearest tree as she screamed for her father. The officers decided that she was resisting arrest and began to brutally attack her with both their flashlights and fists. Her parents eventually heard her yelling and rushed outside to find them attacking their daughter. She was transported to the hospital following the beating where she had bruises, cuts, double vision, a bloody ear, and both eyes were blackened. Three weeks following this incident both Dymond and her father were arrested for allegedly assaulting a public servant.

By this brief description one may not be convinced that the police did anything wrong. However, with further investigation it is clear that this was another brutal attack by law enforcement. The police did not have the correct address that was given to them in the call. There was also a description of the alleged prostitutes that they were supposed to be looking for: “three white females,” this young lady was African American. The three police officers’ main defense is that Dymond and her parents were well aware of the fact that they were police because they had on shirts and badges that identified them as such, and stated it verbally. They also stated that when Dymond began to try and run away from them she yelled “F**k you, I hate the police.” The officers also said that Milburn struck one of them in the face however, this contradicted with their original story in which they stated she ran to hide behind a bush and when they try to obtain her she began to cling on to it. So the question remains was this act legitimate?

The answer is not at all. Too many times the police get away with doing whatever they want and however they wish to. They excuse their actions by saying “I felt threatened” or “the individual wouldn’t cooperate, my safety was at risk”. But who’s to determine what’s threatening or not? How do you know when the officers were only protecting themselves and when they were using their authority to their advantage? Is there anything one can implement to even stop this from reoccurring so many times? At this time, no, because it is solely based on the character of the officer and/or his judgment. So at the end of the day individuals will just have to face the fact that if you’re at the wrong place or even in the same vicinity, at the wrong time you may just find yourself to be a victim of so called “police defense!”

Sources:
http://cfcamerica.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=458:pre-teen-12-years-old-sues-officers-for-assault-arrest&catid=3:news&Itemid=1
 
http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=85aa1df1635a3bbb
 
 
By: Jazmon Kearse

Justice For the Mentally Retarded by Chelsea Johnson

When reading the anecdote at the beginning of Raven's post I was horrified. I was appalled by the way the man's family had treated him all of his life. It is no wonder that he would go to commit such a heinous crime. But it then made me ask: Why should he not be removed from society? I am not surprised that he is dangerous after the way he was abused his entire life. However, if a mentally handicapped person is a danger to society, I believe he too should face consequences so that he is unable to kill again. Raven gave many reasons why its easy for mentally ill to be wrongly accused, but her anecdote concerned a guilty person so the scenario and justification for not using the death penalty does not work. Yet, I agree with Raven that the death penalty is not the answer, but possibly a prison for the mentally ill or a mental institution is appropriate. The death penalty is never the best choice, because so often people are wrongly accused. We can never take back a life. I feel that by locking a perpetrator up in a prison for the rest of his life we are still making him face grave consequences where his life will never be the same. However, in that case, we still have the opportunity to set him free if he is proven innocent. Beyond reasonable doubt is not enough when concerning a human being's life.

Justice For the Mentally Retarded By: Raavin R Evans

        “A difficult breach birth left Johnny Paul Penry with organic brain damage, which was compounded during infancy and early childhood by his mother's brutal beatings. A paranoid schizophrenic herself, she hit her son on the head, broke his arms several times, dipped him in scalding water, burned him with cigarette butts, and forced him to eat his own feces and drink urine. She routinely locked him in his room without food, water, or sanitary facilities for twelve to fourteen hours at a time, then beat him when he could not help defecating in his room.

      

          Johnny Paul Penry dropped out of first grade, and as an adult his mental age is still comparable to the average six and a half-year-old child. His I.Q. has been measured between 50 and the low sixties. (The average I.Q. is 100). His aunt spent a year just trying to teach him to sign his name. In 1979, Penry was accused of the murder of Pamela Mosely Carpenter in Livingston, Texas, and he confessed to the police. Although he could not read or write, name the days of the week or months of the year, count to one hundred, say how many nickels are in a dime, or name the President of the United States, Penry was sentenced to death by a Texas jury.

     
       Ruling on Penry's appeal, the U. S. Supreme Court held in 1989 that the U.S. Constitution did not prohibit the execution of persons with mental retardation. It overturned Penry's sentence and ordered a retrial, however, because the jury's instructions did not permit it to give effect to the mitigating evidence of Penry's mental retardation and childhood abuse. At Penry's second trial, the judge presented the jury with essentially the same flawed sentencing instructions as at the first trial and Penry was sentenced to death once more. The Supreme Court has stayed his execution pending consideration of his appeal. Oral argument in his case is scheduled for March 27, 2001”

          Dating back as early as the Fifth Century B.C.'s Roman Law of the Twelve Tablets, in the Seventh Century B.C.'s Draconian Code of Athens, in the Fourteenth Century B.C.'s Hittite Code and in Eighteenth century B.C. in the code of King Hammaurabi of Babylon, the death penalty has been the most favorable method of punishment by lawmakers for individuals who committed heinous crimes. The use of the death penalty is internationally. With a focus on the death penalty in America, Britian had the most influence on America’s use of the death penalty. The first known execution was in the new colonies, in the Jamestown colony of Virginia in 1608 of Captain George Kendall. The death penalty has had a constant revolution of suspension and reinstatement. Before the 1960’s in America, the death penalty was considered legal and moral, because the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments were interpreted as permitting the death penalty. Later the use of the death penalty was considered as "cruel and unusual" punishment, and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. In June of 1972 with the Furman v. Georgia Supreme Court Case, The Supreme Court effectively voided 40 death penalty statutes and suspended the death penalty. Several years later, in January of 1977, execution resumed with the execution of Gary Gilmore.

       Since the introduction of the death penalty, the most utilized methods of the execution have been hanging, firing squad, gas chamber, electrocution, and the most recent, lethal injection. Currently there are 34 states that permit execution, and Texas being the number one state to date to have utilized the death penalty most often. To this day there is still much debate about whether or not the death penalty is unconstitutional. Before 2002, there was a lot of controversy surrounding the topic of whether or not individuals who are mentally retarded should be executed.

           In 1976, the death penalty was reinstated, and up until the banning in 2002, approximately thirty-five people who were mentally retarded had been executed. Individuals who are a part of such groups such as Human Rights Watch opposed the execution of mentally retarded individuals because they believed that mentally retarded individuals were incapable and had limited ability to reason along with navigate within the world. Unlike other adult criminals who do not mentally retarded, those deemed mentally retarded have grave difficulties with communication, learning, logic, strategic thinking and planning. Some may argue that it depends on their level of retardation to decide whether or not they have such difficulties. But, whatever their degree of retardation, they have difficulty learning from experience and understanding causality.

       In 2001, Governor Rick Perry of Texas decided to veto a bill that would cease execution of inmates who were considered mentally retarded. Others like Perry argue that these individuals know right from wrong, thus they knew that the crime that they were committing was wrong. Those who oppose this notion highlight that to question whether or not an individual knows right from one, is a test of criminal insanity, and most mentally retarded people are not insane.

      Often times the question of whether they committed the crime or not is up for debate because it is very easy to get a confession out of individuals who are mentally retarded. According to many health experts, this is easy because because retarded people often are susceptible to suggestion and eager to please the authorities. Also, Timothy Derning, a psychologist who has been an expert witness in capital cases around the country revealed that although they may know right from wrong they don't trust their own opinions, which causes them to confess.

           Although the execution of mentally retarded individuals no longer occurs, it is shocking and disappointing that this ruling was not made earlier. Lives that could have been spared have been lost, and no use of precedent can bring them back. Although that fight has been won, the next battle to be won is the elimination of the death penalty as a whole.

Parents Can Help the Problem!

Parents Can Help the Problem! By Ashley Calloway I agree with the author. I feel that TV in the 21st century has truly been detrimental to the minds of young children. Shows such as Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers Neighborhood are no longer aired at prime time slots, causing children to turn to other scheduled programming. As Shaunte and Jazmon previously stated, the content of children’s television shows is getting worse as time goes by. But I believe that rather than focusing on the negatives, parents should address the problem and take the initiative to protect their children from the harmful images they are subjected to. As parents, they have the ability to control what a child watches and how often they watch television. I feel that parents in America do not take it upon themselves to implement rules regarding the television and ignore the issue at hand. As a parent, you must pay close attention to the shows your child is watching and even watch the shows with them. This is a good way to regulate access to violent television because the parent is seeing the content on a first hand basis. This also allows for bonding time between the child and parent. A good way to control the amount of television children watch is to remove the remote from their room. This enables the parent to know exactly when their child is watching television and what they are watching. Majority of major cable networks also provide parental settings in which parents create a password and stop certain shows from being shown. I feel that all the blame cannot be placed on the entertainment industry and producers of these shows. Although they are generally responsible for the content they present, parents can also take the initiative to protect their children from the images displayed. Pop culture is filled with many controversial issues but there is always to sides to a story. As people in the 21st century, we must take note to societies faults and try to fix them rather than constantly complain.

Is Television Viewing Harmful to Children? by Shaunte Francis

Is Television Viewing harmful to children? This question has been asked many times in the past and the most frequent answer is yes. Many people feel as though television has no positive effects on children and that children should not watch television at all. Violence on television, inappropriate behaviors, and how they negatively affect children has been an ongoing debate for a very long time, which is why I chose to touch on this topic.        

Pediatricians recommend that children younger than 2 years old should not watch television at all, meanwhile three-quarters of American children currently live in homes where a television is on most of the time. Previous research has concluded that babies and toddlers who watch television for long periods of time have a significantly higher risk for developing Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) by the time they are 7 years old.Heavy television viewing throughout childhood has also been shown to contribute to behavioral and sleep problems. Children usually imitate what they see, so if a character on television is behaving violently or aggressively, the child is more likely to behave in the same manner.

Those who believe that television is harmful for children fail to look at the positive effects that it actually does have on our youth. Television is a significant influence in the socialization of children, and it can be filtered through a variety of sociological mechanisms such as the family. Children's viewing preferences are influenced by what they perceive their parents would want them to watch, and parents who emphasize family relations and the interpersonal nature of those relations are the ones in control of their children's viewing behaviors. Television itself is not to blame, but rather the parents who allows their children to watch certain programs and do not look after their children. Yes, parents may not always be around to monitor their child's every move, however, that is where values instilled in children by parents come into play. To me, it is like being able to determine right from wrong, and as children, it is quite easy to distinguishh between the two.

          Educational programs such as Sesame Street as well as many others, allow frequent viewers to obtain higher grades in Math, English, and Science as opposed to children who do not watch the programs. Children's television programs enhance self-esteem and their understanding of others' feelings and behaviors. Mister Roger's neighborhood was the primary, best-designed program that aimed at addressing the social and emotional development of young children. In experimental studies with pre-school children, this television show enabled them to increase thier pro-social behaviors which included sharing, helping, and cooperating with others.

          According to kidshealth.org, coming up with a family TV schedule, watching television with children, and talking to them about what they see on TV are practical ways to make screen time more productive. For instance, if something that you do not approve of appears on the tv screen, take time out to ask the child thought provoking questions such as "Do you think it was ok when those two mean got into a fight?." Television can be used to explain situations and express feelings toward difficult situations such as sex, love, drugs, etc. Adults can teach their children to question and LEARN from what they see on tv. Therefore television is beneficial, not harmful, and since television is here to stay, parents must view it as a resource and not necessarily a menace.

The Nonsense on TV...
Response By: Jazmon Kearse

As a child I was taught at the young age to know the difference between real and fake. My mother made sure we comprehended that you couldn't imitate what you always saw on television. I mean honestly I believe that if you educate your children first whatever appears on the television will not reflect their way of thinking. However, with me being a parent now I have taken on a new approach.




When I was growing up there were lots of cartoons and educational shows, but now they all seem to have either been cancelled or only play for a short amount of time. For instance while I was home with my son I would try to find some television shows that he could look at and/or hear that would soothe him, but I seemed to only find these ridiculous cartoons. For instance I liked the Backyardigans but was skeptical about it when I learned that the two characters that are supposed to represent the African Americans are named Uniqueqa (Not sure if the spelling is right…but you get the idea) and Tyrone. I mean seriously? Were there not any other names available? There’s also this show called Max and Ruby. Now these two little rabbits live all by themselves with not a parent insight. And the entire episode consists of Max doing what he’s told not to do repeatedly and Ruby telling him he’s wrong. All this teaches is obedience, there’s no educational aspect of it at all! Then I noticed that after 11am Nick Jr. ended and these brutal cartoons come on.



There’s Fairly Odd Parents where Timmy Turner is either getting beat up or creating some sort of chaos. And SpongeBob Square Pants where he always has some sort of ridiculous problem or is getting into spats with Squidwird. This represents once again another cartoon of no substance. Then when I turn to the Disney Channel there’s a group of “non-masculine” men singing and dancing around the screen. Now I have no problem with homosexuals, before anyone jumps to any conclusions, I am just saying can we not introduce children to this at the prime ages of six and under!



I mean where’s the shows like Gullah, Gullah Island, Allegra’s Window, and Rugrats where you learned life lessons and about using your imagination. I know that eventually my son will grow up and want to watch television but the question is if there’s violence in children’s shows now what will be in those of the future.



I hear what you are saying that if you sit and talk with a child about what you watch that you can prevent them from being affected by the media. But let’s be honest if a three year old child flips through the channels trying to get to Nickelodeon and sees a man and women partaking in sexual intercourse, how would you go about explaining that? I can’t say who is wrong or right on this topic but I will say that as a parent I know that I am very reserved about whether or not Kaden will be watching television as often as he wishes.

AMERICAN: To Be or Not To Be

By Jessica Davis

Illegal immigration is a topic that has pervaded many areas of discussion in the past decade. It has become a platform for many political campaigns, an economic factor for our country and a cultural adjustment for many Americans. Supporters of illegal immigration argue that America is neglecting its tradition of being a melting pot that encourages immigration and cultural diversity. However, I strongly feel that this erroneous statement distorts the idea of the tradition of diversity in America to support a one sided view. I am the daughter and product of a first generation Jamaican-American family that immigrated into this country 50 years ago, so being culturally accepting is not a challenge to me. However, to see the country that I love become saturated with illegal immigrants causing economic and social despair, and be disregarded by politicians as a “too far gone” issue is revolting and should in no way be acceptable.


Many supporters claim that there are many benefits to securing illegal immigrant rights that allow them to remain in the country. However, I must plead to attest to the substantial negative effects of illegal aliens. Supporters argue that illegal workers are occupants of “menial”, low paying jobs that natural born Americans “won’t work.” However, with the unemployment rate at 9.8% (Sept. 2009) I’m sure Americans struggling to feed their families and keep their homes would be willing to work these jobs….IF they were available. Also, these jobs that were once available as part time jobs for teens and the elderly are now consumed with under the table workers. Another fact is that because these jobs are being replaced by undocumented workers who do not have tax pulled from their paychecks, our government (which is already in an economic crisis) is losing even more money causing a reduction in money for education, health care and social programs. The aforementioned services are all offered to illegal immigrants at little or no cost to the immigrant. So where does this money come from? I’ll tell you! YOUR pocket! The money that you earned working a part time or summer job is being used to pay for illegal immigrants to fed, educated and medically cared for on a daily basis. So now the fact remains that illegal aliens are benefiting from an economy to which they have contributed nothing. The last argument I will make (but definitely not the last argument on the topic) is the fact that because the U.S. is not properly monitoring who enters the country, we are being invaded with people who in their country of origin had committed acts of violence and are criminals fleeing persecution. Why should our country be polluted with people who have attitudes of lawlessness and couldn’t fathom the idea of a legal system if their life depended on it? With horrible violence related directly to drug cartels and illegal criminals at an unbelievable high, why isn’t now the time to crackdown on naturalization laws?

There are reasons that the process to becoming a naturalized citizen is both extensive and encompasses various costs. These requirements ensure that those who desire to be American citizens truly WANT to bear allegiance to this country. It makes sure that economically our country is not hurt by an influx of immigrants and it reemphasizes the idea of lawfulness that our country once was prided. If illegal immigration is brushed off and ignored what will be the motivation for legal immigration and the observance of the very necessary naturalization process? If illegal immigration is able to continue without consequence or penalty, this occurrence will have a horrific snowball effect that could lead to the downfall of lawful structure our country observes. Is this really what America wants?

Campaign For Change: Anorexia in Fashion

By: Ashley Calloway

For years the fashion industry has prided themselves on upholding a very strict criteria for their models. Designers such as Emilio Pucci, Chanel and Dior only work with models that are beautiful as well as a size zero. Due to the fashion industry’s obsession with size, models have been known to develop a series of eating disorders with the most common being anorexia. A study done by the Model Health Inquiry showed that around 40% of models suffer from an eating disorder (medicalnewstoday.com). As models try to disguise their sickness by drinking large amounts of water, it is not unknown that these young women are endangering their health for the sake of the catwalk.

One would think that the industry would want to address this issue, but they are the ones imposing this size zero body image. It took the courage of photographer Oliviero Toscani and the Italian fashion line Nolita to initiate the debate on anorexia in the fashion world. Their campaign focused on anorexic model Isabelle Caro, whose sickness has gone beyond her. The photo shows the reality and danger of anorexia and promotes social awareness. Although risky, I feel that this campaign is groundbreaking because people within the industry are addressing the problem. Some critics feel that the campaign would actually encourage aspiring models to copy the image presented on the billboard (cnn.com/Europe). But due to the severity of the campaign, very skinny models were actually banned from the Madrid and Milan Fashion Weeks; this is an impactful statement in itself, inspiring models to remain healthy. I feel that this campaign was very effective in clearly displaying its message as well as served as an eye opener for thousands of people and the models themselves. This is a very progressive first step to fighting the battle against anorexia in fashion.

(Sources: CNN Europe http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/26/anorexia.model/, Medical News Today http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76241.php)

Toddlers in Tiaras By: BriElla Nelson

After a marathon of one of my favorite shows, The Game, I was flipping through the channels and came across one of TLC’s shows Toddlers and Tiaras. This is a documentary about children between the ages of one and seven and their parents while they are tediously prepped for beauty pageants. As a former pageant contestant I immediately connected with the young children and their struggles. It wasn’t until later that I realized there could be potential issues with exposing these children into the pageant world.
First, these children are in there most formative years where they are constantly absorbing information from their surrounding that will potentially structure their character. Many of the parents on this show put great amounts of money into making their children “beautiful”. They buy wigs and hair extensions, false teeth, take them to tanning salons and even spend thousands of dollars on costumes, lessons, and pageant coaches. To put so much money into appearances shows these children that outer beauty is most important. Also these children spend the majority of their time preparing for their appearances in front of the judges. The stress of competition and performing for crowds that is put on these children forces them to grow up and lose a lot of their childlike innocence.

Pageants can be beneficial in some aspects. They tend to increase the participants self-esteem, confidence, and manners. Many parents enroll their children in pageants to raise money for their education. Pageants expose children, who otherwise would not travel around the world, to different cultures, lifestyles, and people who are not like themselves.

As I watched this show I saw these positives and negatives and the effects they had the attitudes of the children. They were sometimes very confident in their performances. Other times they were very mean and unruly to their parents and treated them as there assistants. Then they would quickly transition into a tantrum and remind the viewers that they are in fact young children. It makes you wonder, it is really fair to force these children to deal with real life issues such as rejection and body image at such a young age?



Response By: Raavin R Evans


     The chosen topic, although not very popular or controversial as other mainstream topics, this topic is very important and interesting and has an influence on how individuals view themselves and others around them. Like you Ms. Nelson, I two have watched Toddlers and Tiaras and have had the discussion several times on how subjecting young children to such extreme conditions such as having false teeth along with wearing make-up and other “beauty secrets” in the pageant world, can have a drastic effect on them both positive and negative. From your argument I am assuming that you feel that there are more negative aspects of subjecting young children to pageants. If my assumption is accurate, personally I agree that the extensive involvement in pageants at a young age can have more negative effects than positive ones on a young child.

     Although pageants can aid to self-esteem, manners, allows exposure to different cultures, along with being monetarily beneficial, these positives do not outweigh how these children childhoods are stripped away from them. One episode that I remember watching, one child was asked if she liked being in pageants in which she replied “no” that she did not. After her response her mother instantly said that the child was just a little upset and in fact she loves being involved in pageants. Whether that statement is true or not, that response raises the question of parents living through their children and if pageant moms go a little too far? As stated earlier pageants can be positive; but what is learned in a pageant can also be learned elsewhere. Manners can be learned in etiquette courses and even summer youth programs that are offered for free or at a discounted rate if there is a hardship. Self-esteem can be gained by a simple “Honey you are beautiful” from a parent to a child, although there are other ways to increase a young child’s self esteem.

     As mentioned in your blog, the negatives of a pageant include but are not limited to this false sense of beauty along with creating a false sense of what “winning” means. On the very same episode that was mentioned earlier, it was one youth who did not win the pageant, although I could understand how she was hurt, when the young girl stated that she did not win because she was not beautiful enough, that phrase alone coming from an innocent child really took be by surprise. Pageants also create a need for material things, which life in general is more than false teeth, pretty dresses and extensions. It does not make sense for any youth to be deprived of sleep, because those hours that would have been for sleeping have been dedicated to dance lessons, picking out costumes, getting extensions, and learning the right pageant walk. Also it is not fair for these children to have the chance at a real childhood taken away from them against their will.



Toddlers in Tiaras By: Jasmine Sadat

"Pageant"...
According to an online dictionary, the meaning of pageant is a pretentious display or show that conceals a lack of real importance or meaning. I'm not sure how I fell about a young girl or boy doing such a thing. At this tender age these kids are supposed to playing with dolls not be a doll.

The fact that pageants are also performed by adults I believe that it takes a toll even on adults. Such activities should not be a part of a child's life. The one thing I can say is that I do not think pageants are bad; I don't think a child should make this a career. I watched the show a few times and to me it seems like the parents are living through their kids. I agree with the statement that often times the parent talk to their kids as if they are their assistants. This type of behavior is unacceptable.

Toddlers flaunting around wearing make-up and heels is an adult act. The idea that they are competing to see who is the prettiest blows me. To formulate such a mindset at a tender age will only have a negative turnout as that child grows up. There are exceptions but majority of the time there are not. Acting thirty years older than they are just isn't healthy. From personal experience, a child at that age mock and absorb everything is this has an impact on their lives.

I blame the parents. I believe that a parent should not make their seven year old daughter (or son) a business partner. This not only happens in the pageant world but it also happens in the entertainment world. This childhood celebs do not live a successful childhood or adulthood. Look at the Olsen twins, Hillary Duff, Michael Jackson, Lindsay Lohan, and Britney Spears.

Although many of the pageants do have some positive outcomes but I just don't condone it at a young age. These kids are not puppets. Honestly, the way the look wearing wigs and hair extensions, false teeth, tans, and costumes looks ridiculous. I agree, to put so much money into appearances shows these children that outer beauty is most important. Let these children grow up and let’s try to hold on to their innocence.

Response by Shanika Simmons


good hair:

I watched the film as well. It was funny how much women put in to getting good hair. I do not think that black women should go through the extremes such as spending $1000 on weave and getting strong perms. I think the film was very informal. Black women put to much effort in having good hair. I think it is the woman's decision. If she wants to spend $1000 on weaves or get perms constantly, then that is what she wants to do to feel beautiful. I am not natural, but will not wear weaves.

The fact of the matter is that hair is important. Society is a strong force that makes us make decisions. Those who have "good hair" may be more likely to get the better job. Those who have "good hair" may be more attractive to the opposite sex.

"Good Hair" By- Jasmine Sadat

On Friday October 9, 2009, comedian Chris Rock came out with a documentary about the different textures of hair. This “funnyman” tries to tackle a serious subject in his documentary “Good Hair”. The film explores the many issues that come with having "black hair." Chris Rock explains: "I have daughters, and I'm really dealing with them and their hair a lot, and my friends have daughters, and we talk about our daughters' hair issues. I had no idea of the business of hair. I had no idea that it was as organized as Apple or Microsoft or General Motors. I had no idea the chemicals could be scary and damaging."


In the film, Rock examines why some African-American women feel they need long, silky, straight hair to fit into white society. In today’s world, why do black women need to have long silky hair? Has being the need to look more European really taken over our community? Chris Rock explain on the Oprah show that he immediately became interested in the science of black women’s hair when his daughter, Lola, came up to him crying and asked, “Daddy, how come I don’t have good hair?


To some this movie made black women upset. Although the film was funny, is it really? Is it funny to laugh at how black women chose to go through extreme measures to have “good hair”? If you are sitting in the movie theatre and a woman, who has “good hair”, is laughing at the jokes would you be offended? The problem at hand is that is it okay for us, black people, to laugh at the fact we don’t have “good hair” but not okay for others to laugh?


Black people should embrace their natural hair and accept what God gave them. God has already blessed women of color with curves and our amazing charisma. I believe that other races are already trying to imitate us with plastic surgery. Other races are plumping their booties, lips, and hips. Why is it that we are trying to look different?

No Matter What I'm Wearing, Okay So It Does Matter?

Is presentation everything?

We live in a world where what we wear determines who we are, and who we are destined to be. I have never noticed how much someone’s appearance can affect their future until I got to college. While surfing the web I stumbled across America Ferrera, who happens to be the star the hit T.V. show “Ugly Betty”, however, she was not in costume. She was absolutely gorgeous. “Ugly Betty” was created to make a statement about fashion and beauty: you do not have to look the part to get the job. But the irony of that situation is the statement. If someone did not have to look the part the series would have never even originated. Looking at Ferrera in costume and not in costume, one would automatically choose the Ferrera who wears the makeup, curls the hair, and dresses with a sense of fashion to work for a fashion magazine over someone commonly known as Ugly Betty.


Consider RuPaul, a drag queen who has been seen in both drag and as a male. He is known for being in drag and has his own show entitled “RuPaul’s Drag Race”. However, do you think that he would have gotten a job in the white house dressed in drag? The answer that I have come up with after hours of thinking is NO. He could be the best candidate for the job in terms of credentials, but because he does not look the part he could not get the job. Maybe dressed as a man he may be able to get the position, but in drag? Never.


Furthermore, we all know of the Morehouse dress code I presume. Basically guys are dressing like women and it is supposedly a distraction to other students, detrimental to the schools name even, and a potential cause for declining donations from alumni. How can someone’s outer appearance cause such uproar in not only the AUC but the media as well? It does not matter how smart they are or how they keep the rating at number three HBCU in the country, how they bring in over $36,000 in tuition money per student, room and board and fees, but because they dress like women the things stated are not valid. Or maybe they are, just not good enough to give the students license to dress any type of way. It is not a bad thing that the school encourages a look, but it is in my opinion a bad thing to infringe on someone else’s freedom of choice. I guess the option to enforce a dress code is okay at a private institution. Or is it?

I say dress how you want and see how far it gets you. If someone wants to dress like a woman when they are men that is their business. However, people should understand that their outer appearance does weigh heavily on how they are perceived down to their potential career options. It may not be fair but it is what it is. The aforesaid holds true because some people do not understand that life is not about what you look like, whether it is about how much you as a person can bring to the table, the knowledge you hold, how you treat people and how well you do it. I once heard something that really stuck with me: “In order to guarantee or deny your entry into heaven it depends on how you answer these two questions; Do you have joy in your life and have you brought joy to the lives of others?” Not how well you dress or what gender you decide to identify with in terms of clothing.



Sascha Betts

Response by Sasha Mills: Have HBCU's lost their Niche?

Interesting topic to bring up. Recently, I have been hearing from my professors in my sociology courses that some discussion is currently taking place in regard to removing the HBCU title from Spelman College. Some people argue that the title should be removed for diversity reasons and claim that it will bring more attention to the college if that phrase was removed.I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. Historically Black Colleges and University is not a negative connotation. The truth is, although Spelman was founded by white women, it was an institution created for women of African decent. With that being said, Spelman College will always be a HBCU if we have the title on paper or not.

We should not be concerned with how many white or non-African's attend OUR institution. That will never be a threat to us. Spelman College will never change it's curriculum, standards, values, beliefs, mission statements, etc., for anyone. One thing is for certain: at Spelman College the majority will always be people of African decent. Most of the non-Africans that come to Spelman are here for domestic exchange and usually the case is that they end up loving Spelman and wanting to enroll here full-time. That to me is flattery.

As far as the Hawaiian young lady winning the Miss Hampton pageant; I personally feel like we cannot be upset at the fact that she won the pageant and that she is now representing Hampton even though Hampton is historically Black. We would not be upset if a African American girl won a pageant at a historically white institution.

However, I was upset when I heard of the white young man who won valedictorian at Morehouse. The reason is that he did not even attend Morehouse all four years so I think he should not have qualified. I was not mad at the fact that he was white; moreso that he was not enrolled at the institution for all four years and here he comes all of a sudden winning valedictorian. The fact that he was white probably added to the equation as a whole, but that was not my initial complaint.

The intergration of Spelman College is an interesting topic. If administration ever decideds to remove HBCU from our title, then we as the student body should petition immediately.

-Sasha Mills

To Research or Not To Research

Billions of dollars have been used for the research of stem cells. Recently there has been great debate about the funding of this research. Former President Bush chose to allow the federal funding of research of privately produced human embryonic stem cells only. On March 9, 2009, President Obama overturned Bush's ruling, allowing US Federal funding to go to embryonic stem cell research, but they must follow the NIH guidelines.

Stem cells are advancements in medicine.  Stem cells are defined by their ability to grow into almost any type of cell.  For example, cells that were lost in the treatment of cancer through chemotherapy or radiation can be replaced by stem cells. Stem cells can be found in three main places. Adult cells come from bone marrow or the peripheral system. Adult cells are plentiful and are exact DNA matches because they come from the patient’s body. They are not rejected by the patient’s immune system. Stem cells can also be found in the umbilical cord.   It is the second rich source for stem cells. If the family has planned ahead, umbilical cord cells can also be a perfect match.  Cord cells are taken after pregnancy and stored in cryogenic fell banks and saved for the child. They may be used for other family members, but the farther the relationship, the harder to have good match. The last source is from the embryo. These cells are called embryonic cells.

The controversy comes in with the embryonic stem cells. In order to receive these cells, the embryo must be destroyed.  People oppose this method because they value life from the moment of conception. Also, based on medical research embryonic stem cells are not the best options. About 20 percent of mice that were treated with embryonic cells for Parkinson’s disease have died from brain tumors. Those against embryonic stem cells research think that money should be put towards researching Adult and Umbilical cells.

Adult stem cells don’t have the same features as those from the embryo. Human embryonic cells have a potential for universal application. Researchers argue that the embryo does not have any human features. The embryos are not eggs fertilized in the woman’s body, but come from eggs that have been fertilized through in-vitro. They fertilize 8 to 9 eggs at a time to maximize the chances of implantation they stress that new life will not be made in order to help with their research or experiments. There are many fertilized human cells being banked but are not available for research. Researchers try to advocate for using the embryonic cells that will be destroyed by the fertility clinics. These could be used for research. Researchers rely on federal funding. The research can potentially help with treating diseases like Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s.

So, should the government fund the research for stem cells? Does the life of an embryo outweigh a person dying with cancer or Parkinson’s?  Based on how a person values life and the advancement of medicine, this answer could range tremendously. 

By: Shanika Simmons

Response by BriElla Nelson

Stem cell research has been proven to be very beneficial in the health care industry. It has helped find a common treatment for leukemia, lymphoma and other inherited blood disorders, bone marrow transplants. Scientist claim that the research has also brought them closer to finding treatments for type 1 diabetes and advanced kidney cancer. Stem cell research can potentially help treat a range of medical problems such as:
• Parkinson’s Disease
• Alzheimer’s Disease
• Birth Defects
• Spinal Cord Injuries
• Replace or Repair Damaged Organs
• Reduced Risk of Transplantation (You could possibly get a copy of your own heart in a heart-transplantation in the future)
The topic of stem cell research is a lot like abortions and just as controversial. People feel that embryos are still human lives and should not be destroyed for research. Just as I feel the government should not be involved in the decisions of mothers to carry their births full term, I believe the government should not be involved in funding research that uses embryo stem cell research. Since the underlying reason why many are against this type of stem cell research is religious, the government should steer clear of taking a side on the matter, due to the supposed “separation of church and state.”
Thus said, to avoid conflict and controversy, the government should only fund projects that use alternate methods such as bone marrow cells or adult cells (not embryo cells); should it chooses to become involved in stem cell research at all. Outside organizations that are for stem cell research should fund the research that uses embryo cells.
Because of the good it can cause and the lives that can be saved I say keep the research coming, but don’t use my tax dollars for it!

Have HBCUs Lost Their Niche? By: Courtney Warren

Some of the top black institutions, like Spelman and Morehouse College and Hampton and Howard University, are beginning to become increasingly integrated with other races and ethnic groups. Many are beginning to believe these black institutions amongst others have lost their niche in which they were founded upon. These institutions are no longer here to serve the needs of African American students; instead they are presently assisting the needs of all races including whites, Hispanics, and many others that are seen as the minority at HBCUs. Once a breeding ground for some of the most prominent African Americans and over eighty percent of undergraduate African American students, HBCUs are now a haven for these minorities. I pose the question: Is it true that these Historically Black Colleges and Universities have indeed forgotten what they were founded upon or are they opening up doors that predominantly white institutions have done for some of our people?

            Personally, I believe that HBCUs have become blinded by the idea of integrating their campuses and as a result they have become unconscious of the negative effects of their actions on their institutions.

            HBCU campuses all around the United States are beginning to become a lot more colorful.  Many of these students are enrolled at these schools because they are awarded “minority” scholarships, while others choose to register for the HBCU experience. Whatever the case, the numbers of these minorities have been rapidly increasing since the 1990s.  The integration of HBCU campuses has begun to change the scenes of campus life and activities.

For example, the newly crowned Miss Hampton University for the 2009-2010 academic school year is not an African American, but a young Hawaiian student. This has led to great controversy because many feel that the face of Hampton University should reflect the history of the school, which is that of African American ancestry. Another example of how HBCUs are slowly evolving could have been seen at Morehouse College in 2008 when they had their first white valedictorian in the school’s 141-year history. From these occurrences at HBCUs it must be asked again: Have these colleges and institutions forgotten what they were founded upon? The answer is YES. HBCUs have become oblivious to the mission of Historically Black Colleges and Universities by actively changing the meaning at these schools.

            HBCUs were founded because there was no structured higher education system in act for African Americans. After the Civil War there was much encouragement for higher education for African Americans, and the Plessey v. Ferguson court case made the idea of having black institutions into a reality. The verdict of this particular case granted the “separate but equal” doctrine whose main goal was to state that “separate” facilities for blacks and whites were constitutional if and only if they were equal. This was quickly extended to cover many different areas including restaurants, theatres, restrooms, and public schools. Now as we look at the history of the formation of HBCUs, the ruling can be made that today, HBCUs have lost their purpose and as a result slowly lose their credibility from their students and alumni.

Legalization of Marijuana Response

It was a great pleasure reading your post, because I too believe that marijuana should be legalized in the United States.  I am not convinced that one of the strongest arguments is that is would help in the economy. Over the years, it is true that some states have given in and made the stand to legalize this drug, but what type of tangible improvements can be seen in these states?

            I would suggest that the significance in legalizing the drug would ultimately eliminate the high arrest of minorities, i.e. Blacks and Hispanics. Instead of chasing these people who are seen more of a saint compared to those who are in our communities shooting and killing, why not put a ticket on the drug or even legalize the drug indefinitely.

            Being college students, we all probably know many students who actively participate in this recreational activity. They go through “hell and high waters” to get what they want. If the law were passed for marijuana to be legal, they would no longer have to result to drug dealers in order to get their supply. Instead, they could go to the nearest drug store and get it legally.

            To me the question is not if marijuana should be legalized, but when will the government realize that the need for change is now and it begins today.

-Courtney Warren

Legalization of Marijuana By: Sasha Mills

The first documented use of cannabis sativa, also known as marijuana, dates back to around 2500 B.C. in the Chinese cultures. Marijuana was discovered to produce a mild exhilaration feeling and was found to be an effective pain reliever. Since then, marijuana spread throughout the world. It wasn’t until the 20th century when most states passed laws banning the possession and cultivation of marijuana.


In 1996 the state of California passed Proposition 215, which allowed marijuana use for medical purposes. Here we are in 2009 and 6 other states and the District of Columbia passed similar laws despite the Supreme Court’s position on the issue. The controversy of the legalization of marijuana has split into two groups: Pro-Marijuana and Anti-Marijuana. The question I always ask myself in such debates is: why not? The main argument for Anti-Marijuana advocates is that marijuana is a gateway drug which leads to the usage of harder drugs such as cocaine and heroin. If the fact that marijuana is a gateway drug is truly a concern, then why is tobacco legal? Tobacco is the number one addictive drug. Alcohol, which has far worse effects than marijuana and is also addictive, has been legal for 76 years. Both tobacco and alcohol are two drugs that have worse effects than marijuana but remain legal. If legislators want to maintain prohibition of marijuana for those purposes then they ought to be consistent with their beliefs and illegalize tobacco and alcohol as well.

Alcohol was legalized during the time of the Great Depression by President Franklin Roosevelt. It was used as a strategy to strengthen the economy. With the United States current economic situation, why not legalize and regulate marijuana sales and collect taxes from it? By legalizing marijuana our government would generate revenue while saving money at the same time. We would not have to waste money on locking people up for victimless drug crimes and law enforcement officers can spend their time fighting crimes that actually harm innocent citizens. Drugs are not the cause of crime—drug dealing cause crimes. If marijuana were legal, the dealers would go out of business which as a result will cause a decrease in crime.

The reality is over 25 million Americans use marijuana in some form. It is a waste of money and time fighting a battle that clearly cannot be won. Rather than wasting time and money fighting marijuana use, why not legalize it, collect taxes, make money, and save money all at once. Yes, marijuana is a drug but so is alcohol and tobacco and the fact is marijuana has less hazardous effects short-term and long-term. The government just does not want to face the fact that they will never win the war on drugs. Honestly, I believe that the only reason anti-marijuana supporters stand their ground is their fear of losing votes. Legalizing marijuana and regulating the sales, will have more positive effects on society than negative.

Please take a moment to watch this 6 minute video of Ron Paul debating Stephen Baldwin on the issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufekh_SwZd0

Should juvenile offenders be tried, sentenced, and jailed as adults? : Commentary by Gaybrielle LeAnn Gant

Gaybrielle LeAnn Gant

Should juvenile offenders be tried, sentenced, and jailed as adults?

In recent news the world learned about the tragic beating death of Derrion Albert. In correlation to the devastating and senseless murder, cell phone footage of the incident has surfaced. The graphic video of the Thursday afternoon violent episode, which took place outside of a high school on the South Side of Chicago, emerged on local news stations over the weekend, and has been broadcasted on many media outlets across the world. The shaky and garbled video footage shows a group of teens viciously kicking and striking 16-year-old Derrion Albert, who was and innocent bystander, walking to a bus stop after being dismissed from school. Albert was inadvertently caught up in the mob of street fighting as he was walking by. Albert, a sophomore honor roll student at Christian Fenger Academy High School with no history of violence or gang affiliation was struck multiple times in the head with splintered railroad ties, he was punched and kicked as well as stomped multiple times by numerous members of the mob, even after he was knocked to the ground. On Monday, murder charges were brought against four Chicago youths who were involved in the violent events that took place last Thursday, which led to the tragic death of Derrion Albert. Prosecutors charged Eugene Bailey, 18, Silvonus Shannon, 19, Eugene Riley, 18, and Eric Carson, 16, all four teenagers from Chicago with fatally beating Albert. Each suspect was charged with first-degree murder, which in Chicago is a minimum of 25 years with possible life sentence.

According to the American Bar association, Juvenile courts usually hear cases involving persons between the ages of ten and eighteen. (The upper age may be lower in some states.) If the prosecution charges an older juvenile with a particularly serious or violent offense, the district or prosecuting attorney may request that an adult court try the juvenile as an adult. In some states, juveniles fourteen or older and charged with serious acts like murder, rape or armed robbery are handled in adult courts unless the judge transfers them to juvenile court.

According to a study done by The Sentencing Project on Juveniles in Adult Prisons, the research found that Juveniles who receive custodial sentences in the criminal court usually serve their sentences in adult prisons and jails. In June 1998, more than 6,500 juveniles were held in adult jails either tried or awaiting trial as adults. The 36 states supplying data to the National Corrections Reporting Program report that, juveniles accounted for 5,600 (2%) of new court commitments to state adult prisons in 1996.9. Of 15,620 youth under the age of 19 serving sentences in adult prisons at the end of 1997, 1,484 were under age 16.

On the topic of Juvenile offenders being tried, sentenced and jailed as adults, Researcher and Journalist Mike Allen claims that “report after report have concluded that trying teens as adults does nothing to deter crime -- and that sending teens to adult prison makes them more likely to become repeat offenders”. While I agree that sentencing a youth offender to a term of punishment to be carried out with adult offenders may continue the devastating cycle of violence in our culture, I do not agree that juvenile offenders should receive a smaller sentence or easier punishment on the basis of the affects of cross imprisonment. Instead I would argue that the justice system of America must evolve to adequately evaluate and implement punishment and reform that is conducive to the development of juvenile offenders. Youth crime in America is becoming an unavoidable circumstance that is poisoning our culture and hindering many of our youth from the ability to pursue fulfilled and successful lives. Just as Derrion Albert was an innocent bystander who loss his life to reckless and senseless acts of violence, our world has lost its viable claim of goodness to acts of hate against humanity.

Something must be done… Not tomorrow and not when the government is adequately over arguing the cases of health care reform, unjust politics and the influx of income made and redistributed illegally and unethically. Our world MUST focus on our youth. TODAY, right now! We are loosing the right to continue to call ourselves ethical and moral beings, when everyday, another youth, another child, when one more innocent life is lost to violence.

So again the question arises, Should juvenile offenders be tried, sentenced, and jailed as adults? I would argue that a Juvenile offender should be charged in compliance to their competency of their actions and in a way that healthily reestablishes the concept of reform in their lives. The death of Derrion Albert is tragic, painful and devastating. The reality that the four youth that killed him, did so without hesitation or regard to his right to life is a moral failure. Not only by them, but also by the entire community of America that continues to reproduce and facilitate the promotion of violence, and crime without hesitation.

It is argued that allowing juvenile offenders to be tried, sentenced, and jailed as adults challenges the morals and ethics of our American culture. However, this argument also challenges the moral and ethical actions of all Americans who continually stand by and allow this epidemic of senseless murder and violence to continue. Who are we as human beings, where is the resilience of compassion that used to exists within our country?

"Apparently, if a teen-ager is locked up with an adult offender, he or she gets more than just a cell mate, the teen gets a role model." according to Vincent Schiraldi, the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services Director in DC. So I ask, where are our ROLE MODELS who will step forward to redefine the case for our humanity and take back the cause of raising our youth in an environment where murder, gangs, and crime is not their way of life.

The issue of trying juveniles as adults, sentencing them and jailing them involves a range of legal, ethical, developmental, emotional, and pragmatic issues that need to be discussed. Issues that we, as a community MUST face together, outside of blame, regardless of cultural differences or backgrounds, aside from income and educational standards. Trying juveniles as adults calls into question our ability to provide a stable environment of humanity in which they can grow and learn, and reproduce actions of positivity and not destruction.

This is a call for the world’s Role Models…when will you stand up and lead our children…

Should juvenile offenders be tried, sentenced, and jailed as adults? Response by Isis Rose

I really enjoyed your post.

I think the real issue in America is that it is difficult to distinguish children from adults in general. If you look at a sample of American teenagers, chances are, most of them are partaking in "adult" activities--sex, pregnancy, alcohol use, crime, etc. If a teenager or young person is adult enough to participate in adult activities then they should face the consequences of those actions.

It is tragic what happened to Derrion. I think anybody who intentionally takes a life MUST receive the maximum sentence. Arguments that legal patrons make is that children or teens that are tried as adults become repeat offenders or find incarcerated “role models”. If this is true, I agree with Gaybrielle that more programs need to be implemented for young people in order to prevent crime in the first place. We need to establish stronger communities where young people won’t have to resort to violence and crime and take the higher road the way Derrion did.

Also, I believe 18 and 19 are appropriate ages to consider someone an adult, especially for capital crimes. Homocide, grand theft, rape, are examples of crimes for which I strongly believe 18 and 19 year olds should be tried as adults. If the African American community does not like the idea of our young men incarcerated and tried as an adult at 18 or 19, it’s time for us to start making some real changes in our communities.

On the other hand, youth under the age of 16 should be tried in juvenile courts but serve the same amount of time as they would in an adult prison if they commit a capital crime.

Gaybrielle is right. We HAVE failed as a country. This crime against an innocent teenager is not an isolated incident. Chicago has lost hundreds of young people in just a couple of years to violence. At Spelman, we just lost a student to senseless violence. Whether or not the young perpetrator is tried as an adult, ultimately it is not the legal system that is going to uplift our youth. We cannot expect the government or the media or Barack Obama to eradicate the violence that has been plaguing our communities for decades. It is time for us to hold each other accountable, take back our neighborhoods, and not feel helpless against young terrorism.

Some Women, On Occasion

by Chelsea Johnson

                At Spelman, I often hear complaints about the lack of financial aid given out to students, our meager resources, and our deficiency in technology. These problems are widely known and universally regarded as issues in our college community. However, there is much less passionate discourse on the importance of student and alumnae giving.  Schools that have an abundance of resources acquire them because their alumni give back. If we were to increase not simply the amount of money Spelmanites give back to the school, but the percentage of us who donate, our school would better be able to address our aforementioned concerns.

                I realize that Spelman women feel that they have already had to pay enough tuition to Spelman in the first place. Spelman is expensive. Students already have enough loans, and the recession is not making anything any easier. However, if every student gave just one dollar, potential donors would see that Spelman women value the educations that they are receiving.  Our giving encourages outside organizations to give as well.  Outside donors want to give to schools where graduates express confidence and gratitude to their institution themselves. We can’t convince people who have real money to use it to benefit Spelman if they see through the numbers that we as Spelmanites are making almost no effort whatsoever to uplift our own school.

                Spelman has encouraged its students and graduates to give back through the “Every Woman, Every Year” campaign with some success. This program promoted annual giving as opposed donating only during reunion years.  This initiative increased alumnae giving from 16% in 2006 to 28% in 2007 according to reports by the school. I am excited about these results, but they also make me wonder what is in the minds of the remaining 72% of alumnae. 72% of Spelmanites are not sufficiently grateful for the preparation Spelman gave them for their lives to remember to send in some funds. 72% of Spelmanites do not care enough about the Spelman legacy to want to ensure it for their children. 72% of Spelmanites do not appreciate their education enough to give just one dollar back.

                Other schools have the ability to meet financial need and reward talented students with scholarships because their graduates give back. As much pride, love, and gratitude we as Spelman women have for our school, it saddens me that many of us do not donate.  It is not the size of the donation that proves our love; it’s the existence of the donation in the first place.  We should recognize that it is only through proper funding that we can ensure that the Spelman experience will be available for women of color for generations to come.

ALL STUDENTS, ALL THE TIME (RESPONSE)by Nia Newton

Chelsea makes a great point throughout her arguments, and although I would love to play devil’s advocate, I really cannot. I totally support her claim. Spelman College does receive a lot of complaints about the lack of funding that it has for its students. We cannot as a whole blame it on the school. This is private education; therefore we rely on the donations that people give to the school. So my response is not that women of Spelman should not give back, but how do we promote giving back. I believe that the “Every Woman, Every Year” campaign has done an outstanding job; however, it is not enough. I believe that it is the job of current students to start calling for some donations.

Do telemarketers get you upset? I know that I find them annoying, but I also know that when they call I listen for the reason why they have to call, then I hang up. Maybe as Spelman College Students we need to volunteer calling alumnae and asking for donations. We could set it up the same way that we set up the calling for Spel-Bound girls. It is the same idea, different audience. We need to work together to obtain funds for our fellow Spelman sisters.

Homecoming booths are another great idea towards raising funds. We all know that there is a large amount of alumnae coming in when its homecoming time. We need to start taking advantage of this. Instead of walking around aimlessly, we as Spelman College Students could rent out a booth just to raise donations for scholarships and funds for the school.

Although these are only ideas, ideas are the first step to taking initiative. We cannot just expect donations; we must earn the donations. Working hard always profits!

Give ME a Break Response by Ashley R. Jones

In the past, I feel that celebrities were given a slap on the wrist for their wrongdoings, and many times they still are. However, more recently celebrities have been used to set an example of what will and will not be tolerated. For example, Michael Vick, Plaxico Burress, and T.I. are all celebrities who have done wrong and have to face the consequences.

On the other hand, celebrities that act out like Chris Brown are given what many feel like is a slap on the wrist. I am not condoning Chris Brown’s actions, but this wrongdoing was his first offense, and first time offenders are not punished as harshly as second and third time offenders. However, Chris Brown is being made an example for his wrongdoings because currently his career is to say the least idle.

As far as Kanye West, not only were his actions uncalled for, they were highly disrespectful. Kanye West is a revered artist who could have asked to be on any talk show or radio show anywhere in the world to speak out against the results of the ‘Best Female Video’ award, and people would have listened and probably respected and agreed with his opinion. But for him to interrupt a precious moment for a seventeen year old rising star, was inappropriate. His apology is futile and in my opinion should not be accepted. I understand that he may not have been able to mourn his mother’s death properly due to his celebrity status, but that should not be used as an excuse for what he did. The reasoning behind what he did may have something to do with the bottle of Hennessey that he was drinking and photographed with on the red carpet. Nevertheless, this is not Kanye’s first time openly expressing his opinion and like before he goes on without being penalized. However, if he were penalized for expressing his opinions, the debate about freedom of speech would arise, but freedom of speech is not Kanye’s problem. In my opinion, his problem is being tactful. In order to continue to be a highly respected artist, Kanye needs to learn to be more respectful, tactful, and disciplined. Our youth look up to him, and he needs to realize that and set an example for them.

In order for celebrities such as Kanye West to begin to realize the adverse affects their comments and actions have on people, we the consumers of their music, movies, etc. need to hold them accountable. Just like we write and e-mail politicians about their actions we need to do the same for celebrities so that they can get their act together not only for us but for the youth that admire them.