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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
