Illegal Immigrants: Misjudged? by Adrianna Blount

Note: This post was written by a student in the spring of 2018.

Historically, the United States has been referred to as the country where dreams come true. Not only is the country of dreams full of opportunities, the United States has also earned the nickname “the Melting Pot” of the world, since people from all countries and nations come to live in freedom. Although the United States has freedoms and opportunities, diversity can be seen as a threat to the economy and the native-born citizens as more and more illegal immigrants appear to flood the nation. Illegal immigrants may suffer the consequences of having mixed-status families, such as undocumented parents of U.S. citizen children. Immigrants, in general, should receive educational benefits because they provide for their families, all the while helping the economy rather than crippling it, as some might suggest.

Immigration to the United States is not something of a new concept but rather is the entire foundation of the nation. Through Springer Science & Business Media, Roberto Gonzales (2009) states in an article that “as of 2005, there were 14.6 million people living in a little more than six and a half million undocumented families, and there were an estimated 1.9 million undocumented children under the age of 18” (p. 420). There are also families with different legal statuses that exist in the U.S., which can be referred to as mixed-status families. There are many cases in which the children are U.S. citizens while their parents are undocumented, which, quite obviously, causes problems for these children. An article written in Social Work demonstrates that since deportation policies are geared toward the undocumented parents, citizen children could possibly be left behind in their native country to be cared for by someone not known to them, or they could possibly be taken to an unfamiliar country with their parents. This article also mentions what Justice Brennan thought about this particular issue during Plyer v. Doe in 1982, in which he states that “condemnation on the head of an infant is illogical and unjust…no child is responsible for his birth, and penalizing the…child is an ineffectual—as well as unjust—way of deterring the parent” (as cited in Zayas & Bradlee, 2014, p. 168). Children do not get a say in the given circumstances and should not suffer consequences for their parents’ attempts in giving them better opportunities in life.

Furthermore, children, whether legal or not, deserve to receive an education, especially in the country known as “The Land of Opportunity.” An article written in Berkeley La Raza Law Journal explains that the DREAM Act is “a legislative effort that can generally be characterized as an attempt to fulfill two goals: ‘(1) allowing and assisting undocumented children to attend college; [and] (2) creating a legalization process for the undocumented children.’” This article also elaborates on ex-President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which “offers qualified applicants ‘deferred action’ from removal, as well as the opportunity to apply for two-year work authorization.” During the case of Brown v. Board of Education, the Court stated that to deny a basic education to these children also denies them the possibility of being able to contribute in the progression of the United States (Federico, 2013, p. 9, 16). Children should not be rejected in obtaining the opportunities to get an education because they did not have a choice in the matter.

Some people argue that immigrants harm the economy and do not do anything to benefit the United States. However, the results of immigration are actually the opposite and help the economy, which allows the United States to prosper. A well-written article in the International Social Science Review expresses how immigrants bring diversity to the United States, that is American culture. More specifically regarding the economy, this particular article quotes the National Research Council in that “immigrants add as much as $100 billion to the economy each year and they will pay more in taxes than they use in government services [including receiving an education] over their lifetimes.” This clearly states that immigrants pay taxes, but this particular article also continues to explain how immigrants are also consumers in the economy, which generates even more money into the economy. Immigrants, as consumers, “buy cars, cell phones, food, [etc.]…pay taxes, contribute to society culturally, and have demonstrated their willingness to engage in hard work. They may or may not have documents, but their contributions to American society cannot be denied” (Marietta, 2006, p. 66). Undocumented parents work hard to provide better opportunities for their children and, in doing so, allow the economy to prosper, which keeps the United States going strong.

Personally, I have seen a family from Mexico work hard to make sure their children get an education and gain opportunities that are not available in Mexico. For instance, my father owned a construction company he started himself and hired many people from this one family to work for him. These parents were undocumented; however, the children are U.S. citizens. The children were able to attend school while their parents continued to work to provide for their families in the country and also be able to send money to their family left behind in Mexico. Also, these adults were able to learn English and learn about American history as well as current events. With that, they were able to take the citizenship test and continue to provide for their families while keeping the economy strong.

Immigrants, specifically illegal immigrants, are often seen as a threat to the American economy and therefore are condemned for being allowed to receive an education. Many mixed-status families suffer the consequences for attempting to follow their dreams for a better life full of opportunities not only for them, but also for their children. The ability to receive an education allows for these children to have the possibility of contributing to the continued growth of the United States. These children also deserve the right to an education given that they did not choose their circumstances and, therefore, should not be punished for it. Not only do these children have the potential to contribute, but their undocumented or documented parents work hard and help the American economy prosper.

References

Federico, R. (2013). Lifting the “lamp beside the golden door”: An argument for immigration reform, advocacy, and transformation through testimonies. Berkeley La Raza Journal, 23, 3-34. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1254&context=blrlj  

Gonzales, R. (2009). On the rights of undocumented children. Society, 46(5), 419-422. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/1561812/Gonzales_Roberto_G._2009._On_the_Rights_of_Undocumented_Children._Society._Volume_46_Number_5_419_422           

Marietta, M. (2006). Undocumented immigrants should receive social services. International Social Science Review, 81(1/2), 61-66. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41887260?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents     

Zayas, L. H., & Bradlee, M. H. (2014). Exiling children, creating orphans: When immigration policies hurt citizens. Social Work, 59(2), 167-175. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/sw/article-abstract/59/2/167/2276173?redirectedFrom=PDF

The Healthiest Lifestyle by A.F.

Note: This post was written by a student in the spring of 2018

Living a lifestyle that is truly healthy is not commonly achieved in the world today. Many people attempt to stay physically active and challenge themselves mentally as ways to stay healthy. However, the most important factor to living a healthy lifestyle is choosing to have a wholesome diet and make wise nutritional choices. Does something as seemingly insignificant as what a person eats in a day ultimately affect their overall health and mental function? This is something often overlooked or seen as irrelevant to a person’s well-being, despite the major effects unhealthy eating can have on someone’s vital organs and hormonal levels. The food that someone consumes in a day and how they fuel their body affects their energy, mood, and ability to focus. However, a well-balanced diet is not always a part of people’s lifestyles. As people continue to choose foods that give no nutritional benefit, they might think the harm and results to their bodies will be minimal. Most people don’t realize until it is too late that these choices result in permanent bodily damage. A person’s choice to eat whole foods or home cooked meals as opposed to processed and fast food significantly impacts how they feel emotionally, mentally, and physically.

            There are many unfortunate things that can result from choosing unhealthy foods as meals or snacks on a daily basis. A common disease that results from continual intake of fast food and other junk foods is obesity. Obesity is the result of someone eating more calories than their body burns off. This can lead to the risk of more life-threatening diseases such as diabetes or cancer. This also results in difficulty of movement and completion of average day-to-day activities. Daniel Keren (2005), in his article “Meeting the Challenge of Obesity”, interviews an endocrinologist who attributes the increase of obesity in people of all ages to fast food restaurants that have menus primarily filled with meals that are high in fat and large in portion sizes. Additionally, the American Psychological Association (APA, 2018) stated, “Obesity is also frequently accompanied by depression and the two can trigger and influence each other.” These studies as well as others reveal some of the risks and unfortunate side effects fast food and unhealthy eating can have on how humans function and feel emotionally as well as physically.

            Other conditions that can result from an unhealthy lifestyle are Premenstrual Syndrome, anxiety, and depression. Many girls who experience extreme symptoms before beginning their menstrual cycle are diagnosed with Premenstrual Syndrome. A study conducted by Electronic Physician explains that “decreasing consumption of salty or high-caffeine foods, and eating low-fat high-fiber food improves symptoms [of PMS] by decreasing estrogen level” (Mohebbi, Akbari, Mahmodi, & Nasiri, 2017). Similarly, the results of an experiment covered in an article for Atherosclerosis revealed that those who ate an unhealthy diet had different levels of anxiety and depression than those who consumed healthier foods (Bonnet et al., 2018). Though diet may be disregarded as something that can help or worsen PMS, anxiety, and depression, it can have a strong influence over the intensity of the symptoms experienced in these diseases.

            The way people eat also affects their mental function. Fueling the body with food that is high in protein, healthy fats, and vitamins provides the mental strength to think clearly and comprehend information. Those who rely on junk food and caffeine to give them what they need to function will eventually crash due to consuming nothing of nutritional and sustaining value. A study conducted by J. Zahra and colleagues (2013) revealed that school children who ate junk food on a daily basis experienced mental and physical challenges. As Eva Selhub (2015), a writer on the Harvard Health Publishing website, explained, “like an expensive car, your brain functions best when it gets only premium fuel…unfortunately, just like an expensive car, your brain can be damaged if you ingest anything other than premium fuel.” When humans fuel their bodies with substances with little to no value, brain cells are slowly damaged and the ability to function in a way that is mentally, physically, and emotionally healthy is compromised.

            Though there is evidence of people who have diseases or health issues that are linked back to unhealthy diets, many will argue that there are plenty of people who have unhealthy diets and are perfectly fine. However, those who are making unwise eating choices might not see their health decline in ways such as weight gain or other physical issues until they are older and their metabolism has slowed down. A writer for Healthline explained that some of the effects of long term constant intake of fast food can be difficulty of breathing, dental issues, risk of high blood pressure, skin breakouts, and much more (Pietrangelo, Carey & Holland, 2017.) People who constantly eat unhealthy foods are likely to experience these side effects as their bodies react to the unwholesome meals being consumed and internal damage slowly occurs. This damage might not become evident immediately, but someone feeding their body nothing but unhealthy substances is unlikely to walk away with a perfectly healthy body (Selhub, 2015). Ultimately, whether it is obvious to the person or not, those who do not provide their body with the nutritional values it needs will have underlying health issues and will be more likely to develop illnesses and diseases.

            Healthy eating is vital to maintain a lifestyle that is wholesome and strong. Someone can be active and in shape, and challenge themselves mentally on a regular basis. However, they are not truly healthy unless they have taken the action of improving their diet and feeding their body the nutrition that it needs. Ultimately, those who eat a diet that can provide the energy, mental capabilities, and emotional stability a person requires to function will live the healthiest and happiest lifestyle.            

 

References

American Psychological Association. (2018). Mind/body health: Obesity. APA.org.

 http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/obesity.aspx

Bonnet, F., Irving, K., Terra, J., Nony, P., Berthezène, F., & Moulin, P. (2005). Anxiety and

depression are associated with unhealthy lifestyle in patients at risk of cardiovascular disease. Atherosclerosis, 178(2), 339-344. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2004.08.035

Keren, D. (2005). Meeting the challenge of obesity. Kashrus Magazine, 26(1), 134-145.

doi:http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.ololcollege.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=6&sid=985d108e-3bbc-48d8-b4a0-ecead8e78471%40sessionmgr4010

Mohebbi, M., Akbari, SAA., Mahmodi, Z., & Nasiri, M. (2017). Comparison between the lifestyles of university students with and without premenstrual syndromes. Electronic Physician, 9(6), 4489-4496. doi:10.19082/4489

Pietrangelo, A., Carey, E., Holland, K. (2005-2018). The effects of fast food on the body. Healthline. https://www.healthline.com/health/fast-food-effects-on-body#1

Selhub, E. (2015). Nutritional psychiatry: Your brain on food. Harvard Health Publishing. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/nutritional-psychiatry-your-brain-on-food-201511168626

Zahra, J., Ford, T., & Jodrell, D. (2014). Cross-sectional survey of daily junk food consumption, irregular eating, mental and physical health and parenting style of British secondary school children. Child: Care, Health and Development, 40(4), 481-491. doi:10.1111/cch.12068

Too Old to Drive? by E.H.

Editor's note: The blog post below was written by a student in the spring of 2016.

Many practitioner and doctors recommend the family dictate when their elderly loved ones are not suitable to operate a vehicle anymore. When a family has to notify a beloved, elderly person that they are no longer suitable to drive, it can put an enormous strain of their relationship. Often, in my personal experience, the elderly person puts up a fight and refuses to stop driving. An elderly person not suitable to drive puts the elderly person and other innocent people’s safety at risk. If an elderly person had to pass a yearly driving test, a yearly mental exam, and a yearly physical exam after the age of seventy, this could greatly decrease unneeded accidents and the emotional toll that follows those accidents.

                As people age, their bodies are mentally and physically worn down. Elderly people’s eyesight is worsened, hearing is worsened, mental health and memory are also diminished. When their bodies become weaker and clumsier, elderly people tend to fall more. A study was performed by the Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics making a connection between falling and memory loss. The author stated that people over sixty had a substantial increase in the number of falls they took in a year; the more falls an elderly person had, the more of a substantial decrease they had in their eyesight (Nunes, 2014). Poor eyesight can cause an elderly person that is driving to hit objects, people or other cars. Elderly people driving with poor eyesight can put themselves and many other people at risk of being hurt or even killed if the accident is bad enough. Elderly people who are required to have their license renewed every year could decrease the accidents substantially because vision loss for elderly can happen very rapidly.

                Elderly people are also faced with mental illness such as dementia, memory loss, and Alzheimer’s disease. A journal article, Aging and Mental Health, stated the increased risk of these diseases and the cognitive effect these diseases have on an elderly person’s mental state (Chappell, 2008). A person who suffers from one of these diseases experiences symptoms rapidly. These symptoms cause them to not remember where they are or what they are doing, can cause them to get confused of directions, and get scared when they cannot figure out what to do. If an elderly person were driving when this happened, this could cause the elderly person to wreck or hit someone, putting themselves and others at risk. Because the symptoms overcome a person so rapidly, a mental health test every year could help prevent these unnecessary accidents.

                The Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination conducted a study to prove there was a substantial decreasing in hearing related to increasing age. The study tested 15,606 participants of all different ages, races, and genders with frequencies at 3 kHz, 4 kHz, and 6 kHz; the test concluded that as age increased the hearing threshold of all the tested frequencies worsened (Parks, 2016). As hearing is worsened, it can make it harder or impossible for elderly people with hearing problems to hear horns or other alerts drivers give to prevent accidents. With not being able to hear the car horn’s warning, it could cause an elderly person to cause more wrecks. Having a hearing test every year can determine if the elderly are suitable to drive based on their hearing conditions. This could help prevent unnecessary accidents, injuries, and even deaths.

                Taking all of the precautions can save numerous lives. Saving theses lives will save people from wasting time, save people from the emotional toll that can follow these accidents, and save families from having to fight with their loved ones if they are suitable to drive or not. The head of the Rehabilitation Counselling Unit at the University of Sydney reported that 30 percent of people faced negative psychological problems after being completely healed from being in an accident (After the Crash, 2016). If an elderly person were to get in an accident and the accident killed another person, they would have the potential to be charged with vehicular homicide. Vehicular homicide would have a financial toll on the elder, a mental and moral toll on the elder, a toll on the victims and victim’s family involved, an emotional toll on all the first responders, doctors, and nurses who have to treat the victims and elder after the accident, and the accident would even take an emotional toll on the lawyers, judge, and jury system involved in the legal aspect of it.

                It is often said by the counterview this would be defensive and disrespectful to make our elders take a driving test every year. Many older people argue that it is pointless and they know when they can no longer drive. But in 2012, The Center for Disease and Control Prevention stated there were 5,560 elderly adults killed and 214,000 adults were injured because of accidents caused by elderly (Older Adult Drivers, 2016). Putting a law in place requiring elderly people over seventy to renew could save thousands of lives. Is it worth risking thousands of lives in fear that we may offend our elders?

                If an elderly person is not fit to drive, it is hard for family to have the power to take the elderly off the road. Putting a law in place permitting not suitable elders for driving could save thousands of lives. The law could also save the emotional toll these accidents can have on the driver, the victims, and loved ones of the driver and the victims.

               

References

After the Crash- the mental battle. (2016, January 08). Retrieved April 20, 2016, from http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/geared/your_driving_skills/car_crashes/after_the_crash.html

Chappell, N. L. (2008). Aging and mental health. Social Work In Mental Health, 7(1-3), 122-138. doi:10.1080/15332980802072454

Nunes, B. P., de Oliveira Saes, M., Siqueira, F. V., Tomasi, E., Silva, S. M., da Silveira, D. S., & ... Thumé, E. (2014). Falls and self-assessment of eyesight among elderly people: A population-based study in a south Brazilian municipality. Archives of Gerontology & Geriatrics, 59(1), 131-135. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2014.03.004

Older Adult Drivers. (2015). Retrieved March 30, 2016, from http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/older_adult_drivers/

Park, Y. H., Shin, S., Byun, S. W., & Kim, J. Y. (2016). Age- and gender-related mean hearing threshold in a highly-screened population: The Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2010–2012. 11(3), 1-13. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150783

Water Fluoridation: the Silent Denial, by Alexander Ramsey

Editor's note: A student of mine composed this argument in the spring of 2016.

            As the typical person reaches for a glass of water, little thought goes into what they are actually consuming. As a developed society, we have placed a great deal of trust in our local government to provide us with healthy, refreshing, and clean water. In reality, you are ingesting a toxic soup of chemicals and additives. Some of these chemicals are harmless and placed in our water to ensure that the water remains potable. Others were added with or without your consent on the grounds of good dental hygiene and backed by hasty inconclusive research. The matter of water fluoridation has been at the forefront of the scientific and medical research battlefield for years with little hope of a cease fire. At an early age we are briefed by our family dentist on the importance of fluoride in regards to the health of our teeth. What the dentist neglected to explain was the part about how fluoride is a chemical, if ingested can cause adverse developmental and physical health effects throughout the body. This possibly harmful chemical has been placed into many water supplies throughout the nation. The fluoridation of the municipal water supply does not provide any measureable health benefits through its consumption but may do more harm than good.    

            The craze of water fluoridation started to take root within our nation about 50 years ago. According to an article entitled Doctored Water (2003) “more than 70 percent of our nation’s drinking water is medicated to treat the teeth, according to figures released by the U.S Census Bureau” (p.6). The process of water fluoridation is a very profitable endeavor for the big businesses involved. The industry with the most to gain through the fluoridation of the local water is the phosphate-fertilizer industry. Authors Coffel and Samuel (1992) warn in their article entitled The Great Fluoride Fight that “Fluosilicic acid, the most common fluoridation agent , is highly corrosive and a byproduct of phosphate-fertilizer manufacture…Stannous fluoride, used in toothpaste, is a by-product of steel-can recycling operation”(p.32). A person can come to see that through this new “miracle cure” a lot of money can be made by large business. This is one of the main reasons why the idea has been pressed on the American people in such a strong manner. The only people who are caught in the cross fire are people like you and me.

            The effects of this mass dental treatment has had wide spread effects that have been seen throughout the country. Most notably was the flurry of law suits targeted at the phosphate industry due to multiple cases of mass poisoning and local environmental damages. According to an article in the November 1979 issue of The Annapolis Evening Capitol, “Too much fluoride was dumped into the public water system and resulted in the acute poisoning of approximately 10,000 people” (as cited in Askeroth, 2003). In another case, Coffel & Samuel (1992) reported, “In 1990 the ADA (American Dental Association) was sued by 40 of its members who claim the Association is misleading the public about the safety of both fluoridation and mercury-amalgam fillings” (p.32).

            The leading argument for the use of fluoride in water is the idea that it prevents tooth decay and the common cavity. Studies have shown that when fluoride is applied topically to the surface of the teeth (not ingested), in small amounts, certain forms of tooth decay can be managed. When fluoride is ingested throughout a life time and at early stages of development, the effects can be wide spread and devastating. In 2007, a study was conducted in China to determine the correlation between the loss of IQ in children and the consumption of fluoride and arsenic within the local water supply. The study, conducted by San-Xiang et al. (2007) revealed fluoride to be “associated with neurotoxic effects in children” (p.115). Parents should think again before reaching for that fluoride enhanced water for their children. The developing mind of a child is not the only thing that is affected. In the early days of the fluoride craze, the American Dental Association warned that “even minuscule amounts of fluoride will cause osteosclerosis, spondylosis, osteoporosis, and goiter and we cannot afford to run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances in applying what is a doubtful procedure to prevent dental disfigurement among children” (as cited in Askeroth, 2003). Most of these degenerating cases are not realized until later years when it is already too late. Why would a strong, developed country like the United States allow this sort of thing to continue?            

            Most of the developed countries in the world have opened their eyes to the negative side effects of water fluoridation. An article in the Nutrition Health Review explains “countries in Europe…have strict laws against adding fluorides to drinking water supplies. Less than 2% of the drinking water in Europe is fluoridated” (Askeroth, 2003). Doctors within the United States have long debated if fluoride is really necessary in our water. In other countries the debate has caused certain doctors to change their stance on the issue, even admitting to having used “bullying tactics” to further water fluoridation (Askeroth, 2003). Do they know something we do not? The answer is a resounding no. Until recently, the U.S has turned a blind eye to evidence that has been brought forth in the last 50 years showing fluoride to be dangerous. In a recent article published on Time.com, author Alexandra Sifferlin (2015) reported that “…the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released its recommendation for an optimal concentration of fluoride at 0.7 milligrams per liter of water. The previous recommendations, released in 1962, allowed for between 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams per liter” (p.1). The good news is that the U.S is starting to move in the right direction of understanding the effects of fluoride and working to minimize the overall daily exposure. Although the thought is not completely abandoned, the country is slowly realizing that citizens are still utilizing the topical benefits of fluoride through other means.  

            In summary, we have shown the idea of water fluoridation to be a complex and lengthy argument debated on by the scientific community for years. The whole of the fluoride argument rests on the hopeful idea of better dental hygiene for America and possibly the world. The facts and research show us the real health risks to this extra additive to our water. It is important for citizens to research and understand for themselves what goes into their drinking water. Water is one of the most precious commodities on earth and should be used as a tool for the betterment of our health.

                                                                    

References

Askeroth, J. (2003). Doctored water. Nutrition Health Review: The Consumer's Medical Journal, (86), 6-8.

Coffel, S., & Samuel, D. (1992). The great fluoride fight. Garbage, 4 (3), 32.

San-Xiang, W., Zheng-Hui, W., Xiao-Tian, C., Jun, L., Zhi-Ping, S., Xiang-Dong, Z., & ... Zhi-Quan, W. (2007). Arsenic and fluoride exposure in drinking water: Children's IQ and growth in Shanyin County, Shanxi Province, China. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115 (4), 643-647.

Sifferlin, A. (2015). U.S. says there should be less fluoride in drinking water. Time.Com, N.PAG

Too Many Electronics, Too Early, by M. Penrod

Editor's note: A student, M. Penrod, wrote the following argument for my WRIT 1311 class in the spring of 2016.

Ten years ago, people could walk outside of their house and see children running around with their friends, riding bikes together, or even doing less active activities, such as blowing bubbles or drawing on the sidewalk with chalk. If you walk outside today, you will not find any children participating in these activities. Instead you will find children inside with their attention fully captured by a small electronic screen or engrossed in a video game that is more important than the reality that they live in. More and more often, children are being exposed to electronics as early as one year old and are becoming attached and dependent on these devices as a source of entertainment. These striking events have shown that an early exposure to electronics is having serious social effects on children of the next generation.

In the first three years of a child’s life, their brain is about 85% developed (Lally, 2012). These first three years are crucial for social and cognitive development in a child because by the time a child is three years old, they should know how to talk and how to interact with other children. Psychologists have noted that, “play is more than what children of preschool age do to pass the time. Instead, play helps preschoolers develop socially, cognitively, and physically” (Feldman, 2015, p. 179). When you take away the play aspect of a child’s life, they are not able to develop fully and this will cost them in the future. Psychologists have established different stages of play that preschoolers go through that aide in their social and cognitive development. People need social interaction in order to maintain a healthy mindset. It can be concluded that if electronics are substituted for active and creative play, then children will not build upon their imagination, therefore affecting the creative abilities they need in life to solve problems. Problem solving skills are essential for a person’s success in life because people are faced with new problems every day and these skills help them resolve their issues and move on. People without these skills will have a harder time overcoming simple obstacles and will become more stressed out over these situations. 

It is a known fact that children learn the most effectively by visual representations. The top visual influence in a child’s life is the television. Scientists have recorded that the average child watches more than twenty-one hours of TV in a week (Gentile, 2004). Popular TV shows for children often exhibit violence and crude references that are not appropriate for them. These subtle remarks and violent outbursts can have long term effects on the young viewers and can easily be the cause of an increase in aggression in children as they grow older. As a result, it is encouraged by pediatricians that parents should monitor programming and encourage alternative forms of entertainment, such as reading, athletics, hobbies, and creative play (American, 2001). By encouraging outdoor activities, children will be able to stimulate the “motor movement” area of their brain and also engages their creative juices while they are interacting with other children. Not only do TV shows have negative effects on child viewers, but video games do too. It has been recorded that adolescents spend anywhere between thirty-five and fifty-five hours playing video games or playing on other media devices (Gentile, 2004). Popular video games among male adolescents are often very violent and have been connected with aggressive behavior in the video game player when they are not playing these games (Feldman, 2015, p. 189). If these young, developing, boys continue to play these violent video games, then they will be more likely to be aggressive and violent as adult men.

On several T.V. shows that adolescents watch, they get the wrong idea of what a family is. In our society, divorce is a common principle that is brushed off as nothing major. In the past, couples getting a divorce was almost unheard of and, to some people, frowned upon. This idea is demonstrated in many shows that present a single mom or father taking care of their children. One of T.V.’s most popular shows, Grey’s Anatomy, demonstrates this principle. Main characters are seen starting relationships and the audience follows them as the characters go through their ups and downs. On several occasions the audience sees the characters hit a major bump in their relationship and they either end the relationship or file for a divorce. Even though the show is not intentionally conveying this message, teens are seeing and learning that it is easier to terminate the relationship instead of working through the problems you are facing and rebuilding the relationship afterwards.

Not only will an electronics-addiction affect the families yet to come, but it is also affecting the ones in the present. Parents are often seen giving their young children their smart phones in public places in order to keep them from screaming or even talking.  Children will become accustomed to this pattern and will expect to be given the cell phone every time they go out with their parents. Children and adolescents are becoming addicted to surfing the internet or playing games on tablets and are showing signs of not being able to function without their devices. Psychiatrists have concluded that future generations will become more agitated when things do not go their way because “everything can be ‘now’ and on their terms, from mixing their own hip-hop music choices (on iPods), to when (via [DVR recorders]) and where (arranged by cell phone) they watch their desired television shows” (Brody, 2006). The patience in the next generation will be little to none, and will have negative effects on the generation after.

Some people would argue that electronic advancements have a positive effect on a child’s access to information and communication. While computers and tablets do help with research and school projects, they are also easy distractions to the students that are using them. There is something hypnotizing about using a computer or tablet for your own personal interests. Electronics have made it possible to maintain long distance relationships with family members and friends that have moved away, but children are abusing this privilege because they are using technology to make new friends from behind a screen instead of in person. Relationships cannot be built through a screen because you are missing a key fundamental interaction for good relationships, face-to-face conversations. Because adolescents and children are not experiencing this interaction, they are becoming socially awkward and will not have the right background knowledge for social interactions in the future. It has been noted by writer, Carolyn Gregorie, that people today are adapted to holding conversations with others while being interrupted by an electronic device (Gregorie, 2013). Eye contact in a conversation is the most crucial aspect because that allows the other conversationalist to know that they are being heard and listened to.  Limited eye-contact experience can hinder children and adolescents when they are older and trying to get a job because they may have a difficult time looking their interviewer in the eye when they are speaking. This simple, unprofessional action can be a deciding factor when it comes to giving the applicant the job or not. 

Even though electronics have had a great impact on scientific advancements, they have had a negative effect on younger children and adolescents that use these devices daily. These children have not been able to develop fully, which will impact their future successes in social and professional encounters. Children and adolescents have also been heavily influenced by the suggestive violence and social acceptances in T.V. shows and video games that they watch and play. Indeed electronics allow for speedy communication and information gathering, but adolescents are becoming accustomed to these quick processes and will soon rely on their devices to do things for them in the future.

References

American Academy of Pediatrics: Children, adolescents, and television. (2001). Pediatrics, 2, 423-6.

Brody, M. (2006). Understanding teens in this age of digital technology. Brown University Child & Adolescent Behavior Letter, 12, 8.

Feldman, R. S. (2015). Discovering the Life Span (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. 179, 1.

Gentile, D., Oberg, C., Sherwood, N., Story, M., Walsh, D., & Hogan, M. (2004, November). Well-child visits in the video age: pediatricians and the American Academy of Pediatrics' guidelines for children's media use. Pediatrics, 5, 1235-1241 7.

Gregoire, C. (2013, July 28). How technology is killing eye contact. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/28/why-youre-not-making-eye-_n_4002494.html

Lally, R. (2012, February 22). The human brain from birth to age 3. Retrieved from http://forourbabies.org/2012/02/22/the-human-brain-from-birth-to-age-3-2/

The Question of Embryonic Stem Cells

Editor's note: A student (who prefers to remain anonymous) composed the argument below for my WRIT 1311 course in 2016.

Human embryonic stem cell research is a highly debated issue. It causes great moral and ethical dilemmas. Some people feel that embryonic stem cell research can lead to many great breakthroughs in science and medicine. Others believe that it deprives a human being from having a life, and for this reason, should not be used in research. I believe that taking human embryonic stem cells for research is unethical and should be illegal. The embryo has the ability to develop into a human being. Cloning is not a more ethical way of obtaining embryonic stem cells and should not be used to obtain human embryonic stem cells. Lastly, obtaining adult stem cells is more ethical because it does not involve destroying an embryo and it has been used to treat many diseases.

            In an article written by lawyer Mattie S. Kollmann (2010), she explains what stem cells are. She states that stem cells can be found in many places in the body. They are found in bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, and embryos.  Stem cells are unspecialized and after long periods of being dormant, can restore themselves through the process of cell division. They have the ability to develop into specialized cells for a particular function such as becoming specific to organs and tissues. Stem cells can also be used to repair body tissue and can treat diseases such as Type 1 Diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and Alzheimer’s disease (Kollmann, 2010, p.146). 

            Human embryonic stem cell research should be illegal because it takes away the right to life. Fritz Allhoff (2005), a professor at Western Michigan University, points out that obtaining human embryonic stem cells involves the destruction of the human embryo, which can cause great moral dilemma. He notes that stem cells come from the blastocyst.  A blastocyst has two layers of cells, the trophoblastocyst on the outside and embryonic stem cells on the inside.  The outside layer is removed and then the stem cells are then extracted. This results in destroying the embryo (Allhoff, 2005, p. 29). I feel that destroying the embryo is unethical. It prevents it from developing into a human being.  Every human being should have the right to live and destroying embryonic human stem cells prevent this from happening.

            Cloning of embryonic stem cells is not a more ethical alternative to obtaining stem cells. Researchers at Oregon Health and Science University have used cloning to create human embryonic stem cells.  These researchers used the skin cells of a baby who suffered from a genetic disease. The cells were combined with human eggs to create an embryo and then the stem cells were retrieved from the embryo. This technique was the same one used when creating Dolly the sheep.  In the case with Dolly the sheep, though, the embryo was planted inside a mother sheep. Concerning the baby, the embryo was not planted inside a mother and the researchers who created this embryo did not plan on implanting their embryos into a human. They also noted that their technique could not produce a baby that was able to sustain life  (Pallock, 2013). In this case it is not moral and is still destroying an embryo.  It prevents the human embryo from having a life. In the article Cloning is used to Create Embryonic Stem Cells, Cardinal Sean O’Malley, Archbishop of Boston, reports that even for therapeutic purposes, human cloning is unethical because it “treats human beings as products, manufactured to order to suit other people’s wishes” (as cited in Pallock, 2013). Human beings should not be used as products to fulfill the desires of other people.

             A more ethical alternative to obtaining human embryonic stem cells is obtaining adult stem cells. Using adult stem cells does not pose moral and ethical issues like embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells can be found in bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, and various other parts of the body.  Methods for obtaining adult stem cells do not involve destroying an embryo and, therefore, do not deny the right to life.  The Indianapolis Business Journal (2010) has noted that adult stem cell transplants have become lifesaving to people suffering from leukemia, lymphoma, and other cancers (“Adult Stem Cell Research,” p. 22). In another article, Alex R. Szeles (2010), a business executive, who was given two years to live after being diagnosed with cancer, also states “Adult stem cell transplants have miraculously extended my life and the lives of countless others around the globe” (p. 14). As seen with Szeles and numerous other people, adult stem cells have been used to save lives and do not involve the destruction of an embryo.

            People who are for embryonic stem cell research may argue that the embryo does not possess the qualities of a conscious human being and, therefore, does not have the right to life. They say that the embryo is just a bundle of cells. People who have this view do not consider that the embryo is a developing human being. In an article written by Kristina Hug (2006), an assistant researcher in medical ethics at Lund University, she argues

Human embryos differ from other human beings not in what they are, but in their stage of development. A human embryo is a human being in the embryonic stage, just as an infant or an adolescent is a human being in the infant or adolescent stage of its life. (p. 108)

The National Institute of Health (2015) also reports that during the embryonic period of fetal development, the embryo’s major organs such as the brain, spinal cord, and heart start to develop. The embryo grows at a rapid pace and some external features begin to develop (Fetal Development). All of this contributes to the development of a living human being and human embryos should not be considered anything less than a living human being able to sustain life.

            In conclusion human embryonic stem cell research should be illegal.  It is not ethical and causes lots of moral dilemma. Every person has the right to live and continuing to do human embryonic stem cell research denies the human embryo of his or her right. Using adult stem cells has been shown to help cure various diseases and cancers. It should get more attention because it does not come with the ethical issues of human embryonic stem cell research.

References

Adult stem cell research surges ahead. (2010). Indianapolis Business Journal, 31(24), 20

Allhoff, F. (2005, November/December). Stem cells and the Blastocyst Transfer Method: some concerns regarding autonomy. American Journal of Bioethics, 5(6), 28-30. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16282110

Hug, K. (2006). Therapeutic perspectives of human embryonic stem cell research versus the moral status of a human embryo: Does one have to be compromised for the other. Mecdicana (Kaunas, Lithuania), 42(2), 107-14. Retrieved from http://www.eurostemcell.org/files/Hug_Medicina%20(Kaunas)%202006%3B%2042(2).pdf  

Kollmann, M. S. (2010). Taking the moral high road: Why embryonic stem cell research should be strictly regulated. Faulkner Law Review, 2(1), 145-192. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/faulklr2&div=9&id=&page=

National Institute of Health. (2015). Medical encyclopedia. Fetal development. Retrieved from https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

Pollack, A. (2013, May 15). Cloning is used to create embryonic stem cells. The New York Times. Retrieved from   http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/science/scientists-use-cloning-to-create-embryonic-stem-cells.html?_r=0

Szeles, A. R. (2010). Adult stem cell research is good business. Central Penn Business Journal, 26(25), 14.

Single-Sex Education

Editor's Note: Another former student of mine, who also wishes to remain anonymous, wrote the argument below in 2013.

            In the Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, Juliet Williams (2010) notes that in the past ten years the number of schools in the United States using a single-sex educational model has grown "from a reported eleven single-sex public schools in 2002 to more than ninety today, with hundreds more schools providing single-sex classrooms within co-educational institutions" (p. 555). Research has proven the benefits of same-sex schooling, especially for girls. The Department of Education should strongly consider increasing the availability of same-sex education, either in a segregated classroom or segregated school setting.  

            One of the main reasons that same-sex education should be considered is because even though same-sex education is beneficial for any child, it is especially beneficial for girls. In an article published in Sex Roles, Rebecca Bigler from the Department of Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin and Margaret Signorella (2011) from the Department of Psychology at Penn State Greater Allegheny, believe "...the exclusion of boys from classrooms was viewed as an effective and acceptable means of promoting gender equality by improving girls' academic achievement and mental health" (p. 661). In another article from Sex Roles, Isabelle Cherney and Kaitlin Campbell (2011), both from the Department of Psychology at Creighton University, point out that studies have demonstrated that girls in single-sex schools tend to have higher levels of self-esteem than girls in coeducational schools (p. 714). Girls that have higher confidence tend to choose careers in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields, also known as the STEM fields. Concentration on the STEM curriculum, especially where girls are concerned, is an educational goal that has drawn a lot of attention recently. Consequently, Cherney and Campbell (2011) suggest that "single-sex environments might mitigate or foster some experiences that may lead girls to be motivated to pursue careers in STEM fields" (2011, p. 714).

            Same-sex education should be considered because historically United States students do not rank nearly as high as those educated in other nations. Interestingly, those other nations that are highly ranked have long used same-sex classrooms and/or schools. Bigler and Signorella (2011) observe, "[g]ender-segregated education is prevalent...in Australia, Belgium, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and South Africa" (p. 659). In order then to compete with students on a world level, it is important that we employ methods that appear to work. Bigler and Signorella (2011) report that "[t]he creation of single-sex schools is the latest in a series of reforms (e.g., charter schools, vouchers) aimed at providing all American children with a quality education" (p. 661). Historically single-sex education has been confined to private and parochial schools. However, Williams (2010) states that "[s]ome advocates have pointed to studies which suggest that single-sex education may produce its most significant results with children from low-income and minority backgrounds" (p. 574). If this is indeed the case, and we are able to educate even our low-income and minority background children at a higher level, this will contribute to the overall goal of raising educational scores on a national scale.

            Another reason that same-sex education should be a consideration is because recent studies have shown that boys' and girls' brains work differently from each other. This "...'brain-based research' is cited to justify sex-differentiated [teaching methods] [based] on generalizations about the different learning styles of boys and girls" (Williams, 2010, p. 562). Schools used this "brain-based" teaching approach by giving both groups each a different atmosphere and teaching methods; for example, some schools are using dimly lit rooms to minimize boys' distractions, employ hands-on active lessons while teaching boys the alphabet, and work with girls using flashcards and games (Williams, 2010, p. 563). Some schools have noticed that boys like competition, for example, and can accordingly employ teaching methods, while girls prefer a calmer setting. All of the examples work to teach boys and girls in a "brain-based" way. Bigler and Signorella (2011) criticize "[i]ndividuals who claim that sex differences in children's brains make it difficult (if not impossible) to educate male and female students within the same classroom..." (p. 662).

            Some opponents may find legal problems with segregating our children. They argue that it possibly violates Title IX, which forbids anyone to be excluded on the basis of sex. However, in at least one instance the courts "determined that attendance at both the all-male and all-female single-sex schools in Philadelphia was 'voluntary' and that the educational opportunities at both schools were both 'essentially equal'" (Williams, 2010, p. 565). Additionally, opponents may insist that we are stereotyping our children according to cultural beliefs. However, if we are to recognize that sex differences, at least where learning is concerned, are biological, and not cultural, then this argument fails.

            Given all of the information, the Department of Education should strongly consider increasing the number of same-sex segregated classrooms and/or segregated school settings. Current data indicates a trend towards more public school systems acknowledging the benefits of sex-segregated learning environments. For example, the National Association for Single-Sex Public Education (NASSPE) reports that in 2002 there were only 12 single-sex schools in their listing and, by 2011 that number had grown to 110 (Bigler & Signorella, 2011, p. 660). The number of single-sex classrooms increased by even more. Given this trend, plus the fact private and parochial schools have already recognized the benefits of single-sex education, research indicates that single-sex education, either in a classroom setting or in separate schools, may be the best option for not only our children's benefit but for our country as well.   

References

Bigler, R., & Signorella, M. (2011). Single-sex education: New perspectives and evidence on a continuing controversy. Sex Roles, 65(9/10), 659-669. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0046-x

Cherney, I., & Campbell, K. (2011). A league of their own: Do single-sex schools increase girls' participation in the physical sciences? Sex Roles, 65(9/10), 712-724. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0013-6

Williams, J. A. (2010). Learning differences: Sex-role stereotyping in single-sex public education. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, 33(2), 555-579. Retrieved from http://harvardjlg.com/