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!