Letter to the Editor

My goal in writing my letter to the editor was to get people talking about the inequality involved in California's ban of gay marriage. I posted it a few weeks ago if you're interested. I was very disappointed when I got no responses to my letter; I had really wanted to start a dialogue on my campus. Then almost a month later, Mr. Darrell Woodman responded to my letter, here is his response:

"Ms. Phillips, I first want to commend you for taking the time to write your letter about something you feel strongly about. I am sorry that you feel the ban on same-sex marriage violates the idea of equality. However, I want to remind you of the concept of "government of the people, by the people, for the people." Obviously, this is from the Gettysburg Address, but speaks volumes of what our government is to be. Mainly, the government is supposed to reflect what the people want. Case in hand, the people of California shockingly stood up and voted for the ban on same-sex marriage. Hence, the people spoke and it doesn't matter what one liberal judge says about it being constitutional. It is interesting that you use a quote that references the "Creator" to make your argument, since God is clearly the establisher of marriage in the first place and set it forth then as a union between one man and one woman � but that's another letter. I support the ban and applaud the people of California. While I think some sort of civil unions could be accommodated, I think that marriage is off limits. My main gripe is how those on the other side of the issue protest. Invading and disrupting church services and naked bike rides through town only hurt their cause. If you lose a vote, either accept it or move. I accept the recent presidential election results and am preparing to embrace socialism and have practiced throwing my money out of my window as I drive home daily. Sometimes things don't seem equitable, but we have to accept, adapt and move on � just show some class and respect in doing so."

Darrell Woodman

Senior, School of Management

I was really happy that someone had responded to me, even if I didn't agree with his views. Here is what I found out: When wanting to start a dialogue in the newspaper, you need to be pretty offensive so that people feel motivated to write in and argue with you. Unfortunately, I didn't understand this at the time I wrote my letter to the editor. Luckily, Darrel Woodman went ahead and outraged people enough for them to write in. Since his letter arguing with me was posted, the following letters have been in the newspaper. I thought you might like to read them.

"Mr. Woodman, I was honestly disturbed by your logic regarding your argument to accept California's vote to ban gay marriage. You go on to say, "... the people spoke ... If you lose a vote, either accept it or move." To me, this is disturbing. Did the abolitionists of the 19th Century accept the injustices of slavery? Did the activists for women's suffrage just accept the fact that they couldn't vote? Did the civil rights activists of the 1950s and 1960s just accept segregation? Hell, did the Founding Fathers just accept the Stamp Act, the Townshend Acts or the Tea Act? Hell no! Could you imagine what our country would be like if people had the attitude to "accept it or move"? I couldn't imagine anything more American than what the protesters in California are doing, more power to them."

Chris Daisey

Sophomore, College of Education

"This letter is in response to Darrell Woodman, who responded to the ban on gay marriage ("Accept California's vote for ban on gay marriage," Dec. 2). Sorry to burst your religious bubble, but marriages were performed long before the conception of Christianity. Leaders who converted to Christianity and tried to ensure control over the populace and their actions to create solely Christian nations in the Middle Ages made marriage a religiously-controlled event. They had to try many things to control the masses the way they wanted to, which included killing "pagans" (which meant anyone with a difference of opinion from the church) who did not go along with the church's decisions. To marry illegally was very bad for those involved, but before the influence of tyrannical Christian leaders and the religious leaders who were controlled by them, marriage was between two people who loved each other and wanted to be married. Most of the time if the village members agreed upon the marriage, it was seen as a legal, binding marriage. My, how far we've come."

Shannon Oelslager

Senior, College of Liberal Arts

"Dear Mr. Woodman,
I read your letter on Dec. 2 and all I can say is I hope you are just trolling here; but in case you aren't, I would like to point out the huge flaw in your argument. While America is supposed to be "the government of the people �" it is not supposed to be allowed to oppress the minority in doing so. James Madison was famous for his support of the idea of majority rule with minority rights. This means that while the majority can and should guide policy decisions, they cannot decide to take away rights from people in the minority. In short, the minority is to have equal rights with the majority, no ifs, ands or buts about it.

Second, I would like to look at your comment on "god" defining marriage. If the Christian god defines marriage, then what about the billions of non-Christians who get married? Under this definition of marriage, you've pretty much said that only Christian marriages are valid, and considering that would never get passed into law in this day and age, then the argument of god has no place in the matter. Take your fairy tales and go play somewhere else while the big people are talking about serious issues.

Lastly I'd like to call you out on your jab that Obama is a socialist. As someone who understands and agrees with socialism, I am offended. If Obama was a socialist, I wouldn't have felt dirty after I voted. The plain truth is that Obama is a rich capitalist just like every other president we've had. If we ever elected a socialist, we wouldn't be in the crisis we are in now. Instead we have four more years of "free trade" economics and the strife that comes with it."

Dustin Ratliff

Sophomore, College of Liberal Arts

"I would like to thank Darrell Woodman for finally inspiring me to write to this publication. It seems Mr. Woodman is quite confused on how our government works. See, you're under the impression that we're an actual democracy; while it's true to a point, we're actually a democratic republic. Its goal is to make sure all the people get represented and not just an oppressive majority.

I'd imagine that if Mr. Woodman had been born 40 years earlier, he'd be making the same comments about African Americans getting civil rights, as the majority was against that as well. It's the government's responsibility to ensure that all people have the same rights. Oh, and the whole civil union thing? Remember that whole separate but equal thing and how well that worked?

I especially loved how Mr. Woodman wants us to sit by content with every decision made by the government as well. There's a reason why we have the right to protest.

Finally, I was unaware that the Christian "god" was the one who created marriage which is interesting as that "god" didn't come around until millenia after people had been getting married. Oh, and thanks for that lovely jam about socialism. I'd just like to ask that as you're protesting (gasp!) by throwing your money at the window, you do it at College Station. We could use the rent money, yo."

Josiah Berry

Junior, College of Technology

"Darrell, your own phrase, "Sometimes things don't seem equitable, but we have to accept adapt and move on�" is in direct contrast with the core values of American government. When something does not seem equitable, it is our own duty to fight for a change. If one side gives up the argument, stands aside and lets the opposition dominate without critique, that is akin to tearing a star off the flag and setting it ablaze. People who don't want California's ban cited in possible future policies in their own state have a right to oppose it. For every cause, there are those who try to help, but are more of an embarrassment; let's not pretend that there has ever been a perfectly civil and by-the-book revolution. However, if "accept it or move" is your approach to things you do not approve of, I highly suggest you consider the case of your disapproval of Phillips' remarks."

Casey Drummer

Freshman, College of Science

Associations

The other day I was walking home from campus and I was struck by what I saw on the people passing me. Most of them bore marks which associated with sororities, Obama supporters, Engineering Societies, Nursing majors, The Association of College Republicans, fraternities, the band and the like.


I realized how happy I am to not be associated with any of those things. In fact, I'm not associated with much of anything at all. I'm not in any clubs, I have a major but I don't have any shirts proclaiming, "Sociology Majors Do It Better" or any rubbish like that. I was an Obama supporter but that was after careful consideration, not just because I'm always a Republican or a Democrat. I actually enjoyed having candidates vie for my vote rather than feeling obligated myself to try and convince people to vote one way or another. I choose to live with the people that I live with, and I'm free to go about my business as I please, not forced to participate in inane community or spirit building exercises. I have to go to classes, but I'm not forced to go to any practices where I must run for miles in order to be associated with a sports team.

There is something that just really turns me off about being associated with things. I want to be an amalgamation of my individual likes and dislikes, which are unique to me. I love not having an idea of how I feel about a thing until I am presented with the facts of it and get to decide for myself, as well as not having pressure from some group which expects me to feel one way or the other.

I guess that I don't think bonds should be formed just because of agreement on a subject. I don't want to go to cookouts with you because you are also an Obama fan. I don't want to wear matching shirts because we are both atheists or Christians. That is not enough of a link to make me want to spend time with you. In fact, some of the most interesting people think very differently about the world then I do.

Anyways, I guess if I have to be associated with something, I would like it to be justice, loyalty, honesty, and things like that. Instead of someone saying, "Savannah's a Democrat, she'll probably answer like this..." I want them to say, "Savannah believes in justice, she'll probably answer like this..."
Those are really the only things I can think of that I want to associate myself with, not Future Farmers of America or any such silly thing.

The Dolphins Make Me Cry

In honor of Ms. Britney Spears' birthday today and the dropping of her new album Circus, here is a post about music.

Do any of you ever have this problem? You're listening to a song you've never heard before and you're really enjoying it. Suddenly you hear the dumbest, most awkward, senseless, or repulsive lyrics ever. The song is ruined for you.
Or maybe you're listening to a much loved song for the millionth time, when suddenly a line that used to sound like, "blah rah lah" clarifies itself in your brain to make lyrics that are suddenly understandable and utterly horrifying. This song is also ruined for you.
Maybe I'm the only one that lets song lyrics absolutely ruin songs for me, and I will be willing to accept that none of you care or can relate to this. It's just that today while listening to my adorable little red i-pod shuffle, this happened to me like 10 times in a row. I'm going to list some of the offending lyrics, and you can let me know if I'm overreacting.

First song: "She Wants to Move by N.E.R.D.


This song is one that I have enjoyed many times before. I really liked it... until today. I heard the lyric, "Her ass is a spaceship I want to ride." This occurs at about 1:16 in the song. The lyric in itself is pretty ridiculous but there is something about the way Pharell sings it that just seriously makes it not ok for me. Especially when that guy in the background echoes "Her ass." Weird.

Song 2: Spazz by N.E.R.D.
I am not picking on N.E.R.D. It just so happened that my i-pod wasn't on shuffle mode so I got these two songs in a row. This song had me going with an AWESOME opening beat and then suddenly, the first lyric:


"I'm a little teapot short and stout.." ???!?!?!?!?! OK no. That is not ok. I want some lyrics about pimps and hos and dirrrty cash and my ride. NOT A NURSERY RHYME. Wow. So not cool.

Song 3: Upgrade U by Beyonce and JayZ
Unfortunately embedding for the actual music video was disabled so heres a fan made video so you can hear the song:

Ok I'm loving this song. It's awesome right? And I love Beyonce and Jay. Let's face it, Jay is one of the greatest lyricists of all time. So WHAT was he thinking? Jay sings, "Cuz that rock on your finger's like a tumor." (2:55) Really Jay? Like a tumor? I mean I know it rhymed, but I don't want to be jamming to this song and then suddenly be contemplating finger tumors. No.

Song 4: Flashing Lights by Kanye West
Ok, I could write a whole post on my hate for Kanye lyrics. While he's a good producer he absolutely sucks as a rapper. Today I was listening to this song by Kanye:


when I heard the lyrics, "'Til I got flashed by the paparazzi ,damn these niggaz got me. I hate these niggaz more than the Nazis." (1:18) Wow. You're so clever Kanye, really, but a tip for next time: don't say you hate the people paid to take pictures of you so that you can remain in the spotlight as a rap star more than people who committed genocide and tried to take over the world.

Anyway, there were quite a few more but these were all I could remember. I realize they're all rap songs that I'm talking about and I want you to know that this especially upsets me. Amazing and witty lyrics are what drew me to rap in the first place. All I'm saying is try a little harder people!

Excerpt of a 2 Hour Long Rant

Pet Peeve of the Month: *People who don’t know when to talk about me behind my back.* I encountered someone this past weekend who was entirely uncivilized.

This person, who I'll call 'Rick' (just because I feel that the name Rick really portrays this person) was they type of person who tries really hard to be 'real'. He likes to pretend that he says what he thinks and is just honest and blunt with you because, hey, we're all friends here. Wrong. No. We are not all friends here. I take offense at you when you are offensive.

Listen, I can identify genuine people easily, and while being genuine is definitely not one of my fortes, I can appreciate a genuine person. I still think being genuine is uncivilized, but at least they speak their mind in a way that makes you feel like you can trust them, and I think they make good friends.

Rick is not genuine. He has no censor button. It’s like someone told him that people are endeared to you when you are genuine, but he missed the genuine boat and got on the rude boat.

Here are a few examples from this weekend:

WNB (Me): "My ankle was really hurting me, and I was worried, until I realized I had just been wearing my shoulder bag on the same shoulder all semester and it was doing something to my posture and my ankle."
Rick: "Oh, so are real backpacks not 'in' at your school, and that's why you wear a shoulder bag even though it hurts you?"
WNB: "Wait, what? I had no idea my shoulder bag was hurting my ankle, what are you talking about?"
Rick: "Haha, nevermind."
We can tell that this is not genuine but obnoxious by how Rick demonstrates bad faith in this conversation. He says something rude which didn't stem from ignorance as evidenced by the way he backs down when confronted about his intentions.
Another example:
While sitting and talking, conversation turns to my love of celebrity gossip.
Rick rolls his eyes and says: "Celebrity gossip is so shallow though."
WNB: "That's what I like about it. I think the same things that make me like sociology make me like celebrity gossip. I love knowing what’s going on with pop culture and our society."
Rick: "Oh well if you're approaching it from a sociological standpoint then that's ok, I guess."
WNB: "No, I'm not. It's just fun. It's just a hobby. Besides, I can't think of anything not worth learning about."
Rick: "I think some things are not worth learning about, and that would be one of them."

*Listen kids, I am neither embarrassed nor ashamed of my hobby of reading celebrity blogs. I think they’re fun and entertaining, and I enjoy knowing what's going on in the world of celebrities. Knowing about celebrities is just a hobby, like knowing all about your favorite sports teams. *

When he insinuated that reading celebrity gossip is only ok if approached from an academic standpoint it reeked of a pretentious, and phony academic. Not to mention the fact that it is downright RUDE to tell someone their hobby is lame and insinuate they are shallow to their face.

I'm not saying that people can't disagree with me about the worth of celebrity gossip or secretly think I'm a fashion conscious schickimicki. The problem comes when they feel the need to tell me that to my face.
As Kathy Griffin says, “I was raised right. I talk about people behind their backs.”

Maybe you found this rant unfounded, obnoxious or ignorant. Fine, you're welcome to your opinion. Just please, do me a favor and don't tell me about it, talk about me to someone else behind my back.

We are where we live? I hope not!

Hey.
I thought that you might find this website interesting:http://www.claritas.com/MyBestSegments/Default.jsp?ID=20&SubID=&pageName=ZIP%2BCode%2BLook-up
I am pretty sure that it is for advertising market research, but I had a lot of fun messing around with it, so I thought you might too.

The deal is, you enter in your zip code and they tell you the segments of the population that live in your area.
An example:When I entered in my current zip code, I got 5 segments of the population. Here is one

Suburban Pioneers represents one of the nation's eclectic lifestyles, a mix of young singles, recent divorcees, and single parents who have moved into older, inner-ring suburbs. They live in aging homes and garden-style apartment buildings, where the jobs are blue collar and the money is tight. But what unites these residents--a diverse mix of whites, Hispanics, and African-Americans--is a working-class sensibility and an appreciation for their off-the-beaten-track neighborhoods. 2007 Statistics: US Households: 1,171,495 (1.03%) Median HH Income: $33,448 Lifestyle Traits Eat fast food Do needlepoint Baby Talk magazine King of the Hill in syndication Suzuki Verona

Skip if you hate cute cat things.

Philanthropy

Brent and I went to a book sale at the public library yesterday. We bought 6 new books each. They were all a dollar, which I initially thought was a little pricey, but some of the books I ended up getting had to have cost around 30 dollars new. This was my stash:
'Handbook of Modern Sociology' -Modern is a relative term as this book was published in 1964.
Volumes 1 and 2 of the 'Survey of Social Science' -This means I only will know Sociology things starting with the letters A-H.
'A Sense of Sociology' by Lee Braude- The back says it will tell me what the career-paths of Sociologists are... something I have been dying to find out.
'Philanthropy: Voluntary Action for the Common Good' by Robert L Payton- This is basically an in-depth look at philanthropy in America.
'Me: Stories of My Life' by Katharine Hepburn
Anyways, I am pretty happy with what I picked out. Not a lot of books for light reading, but I'm trying to start my own reference library for when I do research next semester.

I've been thinking a lot about Philanthropy lately. I looked online for the actual definition:"loving mankind," from phil- "loving" + anthropos "mankind."
I've been wondering if this is actually possible, to love all of mankind.
Soren Kierkegaard said that when it comes to love, the particular is higher than the universal. Isn't this true? Is it possible to love everyone as much as you love your family? Are there different levels of love, a top tier for those special few and on down the rungs until you hit mankind? I don't think love works like that. I feel like if you love someone, that you group them in the category with all others that you love.

Stalin said, "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." You know how much America loves a poster child. On commercials asking us to donate money to starving kids in Africa, they always introduce you to one child and tell you his story. They know people won't donate based on the love of all people in a continent, but people will donate thinking, 'That's so sad, I want to help that boy.' Can we love only an individual? Do we have to know the person, and their specific story in order to love them? I agree you can feel pity or compassion for all mankind, but that's different from love, isn't it?

Marx loved the workers and hated the owners of the means of production. He was all about dividing people into two specific groups. I've often wondered if his love of the Proles had only to do with their situation. If they had a coup and took over the means of production, would Marx then have loved the new Proles, the guys he hated yesterday? Majorities turn into minorities all the time. Can we actually love a whole group of people just because of their situation in life? Is this really love, or something else? In order to be a true Philanthropist wouldn't you also have to love the new majority, the new oppressors?

There are lots of jerks who are oppressed. Are we supposed to ignore their jerkiness because of their state? In this way I guess not knowing the individual is actually helpful in loving them. If I knew that the man we were donating money to was a wife beater, it would seriously inhibit my ability to love him. This actually happens to me all the time at football games and amusement parks; I love mankind more before I meet them.

I guess I'm starting to believe that true Philanthropy is impossible. I think that I believe compassion for large groups of people is possible, but I don't agree that you could love the whole world. I don't even think I could love all of my University, or all of my professors or all of my friends.
I was a little depressed about this before, because the idea of loving all of mankind is so romantic and selfless.
Now, I'm beginning to think that love is something too special for the whole world. I think this helps me appreciate those I do know and love because I'm aware that I can only be so big, and know and love a finite number of people.

Equality for All

I am extremely saddened to learn that Californians voted ‘yes’ on Proposition 8
to re-ban same-sex marriages, after a judge already ruled that the ban was
unconstitutional. It is one of first times that Americans have voted to take
away an existing right from a group of people. President-elect Obama’s historic
win which overcame decades of discrimination against African Americans was
bittersweet because other groups are still being actively discriminated against
in this county. I find the decision to re-ban same-sex marriages in direct
conflict with Thomas Jefferson’s words in The Declaration of Independence, “We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these
are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Equality is the sentiment our
country was founded on, and one we should strive to uphold.

A True, First Person Account

I thought that I would tell you about a little book that I picked up at the Goodwill the other day. Brent and I went to find Halloween costumes, and ended up spending the whole time with our heads tilted sideways in the book section reading the titles.
One of the 10 books that I ended up buying was called:
The Real World of Fairies: A true, first person account
by Dora van Gelder
I googled the title and came up with this image from a revised version. You will note that the word 'true' was taken out of the title, but my version, published in 1988, still said true.
My copy is also acid green with a pink and orange fairy on the cover, mid-hop.
This book is exactly what it sounds like, only maybe a little bit stranger. According to the back of the book, the author Dora van Gelder, "...grew up pretty much alone on her father's plantation in Java, where her only playmates were the flower and shrub fairies."
In case you hadn't gathered this already, the lady is insane. In her book, van Gelder describes interactions she has had with fairies, as well as with angels (angels, you guys, angels) who are in charge of the fairies. She also describes all the types of fairies in the world, here is a short list and description:
Earth fairies: split up into surface creatures (tree spirits, mountain fairies, the common garden fairy) and under the surface creatures (rock spirits which are like tree spirits but much less intelligent, and gnomes).
Water fairies: 3 main kinds- Water Babies who live on the surface of the ocean and in bays and look like fat, human babies, Fairies of the Middle Deeps who live on the high seas, are 5-7 feet tall, blue-black in color and look like Russian wolf-hounds (no lie, you guys, it says that), and a third kind, un-named, who lives in the 'great depths of the ocean' and look like great gorillas covered in dark blue fur. Gelding says they are hostile to humans, so watch out for these!
RUSSIAN WOLF-HOUND

Fire fairies: 2 kinds- small ones who are 2 feet high and that look like just a foggy outline, and big ones who are 14 feet tall, live in volcanoes and who Ms. van Gelder calls "salamanders".

There are many more types of fairies and descriptions of fairies but I just wanted you to understand the nature of this book. It was published by 'The Theosophical Publishing House'.

According to Wikipedia, Theosophy is a doctrine of religious philosophy and metaphysics. This is their symbol:

I went to the publisher's website (http://www.questbooks.net/) and found a list of some of their other top sellers:
Grammar for the Soul: How a Mere Comma Can Make Your Day,
Yoga of Time Travel; How the Mind Can Defeat Time,
The Healing Powers of Tone and Chant, and
Sacred Space, Sacred Sound; The Acoustic Mysteries of Holy Places.

A Few Things

Hey guys.

I just wanted to tell you about a few interesting things I've learned lately. I'm wondering which areas of Sociology you're most interested in hearing about, so that I don't bore you talking about only Urban Soc or something when you really want to be hearing neat things about Social Movements or Criminology.
Let me know which of these you find interesting. In this first part, here’s a little Urban Soc and Criminal Justice. Social Stratification, Criminology, Social Movements, and Sociology of Religion to come.

Social Conflict and Criminal Justice class:
This came up while discussing conformity: "Because people pay attention to the views of those they know, different groups can converge on dramatically and sometimes amusingly different actions and beliefs. 'Many Germans believe that drinking water after eating cherries is deadly; they also believe that putting ice in soft drinks is unhealthy.'" I found this interesting because Luke said in his blog (http://entzaubert.blogspot.com/) that he found it weird that no where in Berlin could he get an ice cube. Perhaps this is why!

ALSO: If a Republican judge is sitting on the bench with two other Republican judges, she is VERY likely to vote along conservative lines. The same goes for a Democrat with other Democrats. Sunstein calls this 'ideological amplification'.
However, a single Democrat sitting with two Republicans is more likely to vote like a Republican, and vice versa. This is called 'ideological dampening'.

Now, Pay attention, because this is where it gets weird!
We actually did the experiment that is outlined in Sunstein's book in my Social Justice class today.

A student was given a mock-court case and asked to decide the defendant's punishment on a scale of 1-10, 10 being the most severe. According to response, the student was put into a group with other students. "When a majority of individuals...initially favored little punishment, the student-jury's verdict showed a 'leniency shift,' meaning a verdict that was systematically lower than the median rating of the individual members before they started to talk." (Sunstein, pp5)
Sunstein goes on to say that when the majority of individuals initially favored strong punishment, the group produced a 'severity shift'.
"When members of a group are outraged, they end up still more outraged as a result of talking to one another."
The mock-jurors ended up giving a harsher punishment than any of them thought was fit using their individual value system.

Do any of you guys have an idea about what causes this? I have a few, but I'm interested to hear what you think!

Urban Sociology class:
An economic ghetto (also know as a 'slum') has a lot to offer people, according to my teacher. He says some of the opportunities that slum's offer are:
Anonymity: they're good to get lost in if you're a criminal
Economy: some people who aren't very poor live in ghettos to save money
Easy access to vices: drug addicts, alcoholics and gamblers can live cheaply and enjoy themselves
Humanitarian opportunities: you can run a soup kitchen, minister to the poor etc.
So basically, not just poor people live in slums. People who could live elsewhere choose to live in them because of their great opportunities.

He also said that researches have done studies and found the same level of resident satisfaction in these ghettos as with people who live in suburbs. These communities are very functional, and the people that reside in them all know each other. They just gather around the soup kitchen, instead of working class neighbors who gather round the bar, and middle class neighbors who gather in that special room they that no one but company is allowed in with the plastic on the furniture, and the upper class who gather round the country club.

The Capitalist Bourgeoisie Trying to Block Proles from the Rocks and Stocks

In Statistics class today (the one part of social research I HATE) my teacher showed a video.


I thought it was pretty funny, but most of the kids in my class were way too cool to laugh. I love it when people take sort of nerdy, academic things and make them fun.

I was inspired to write my own lyrics to 'Give it to Me' by Timbaland. In case you aren't familiar with the song, Nelly Furtado, Justin Timberlake and Timbaland all sing a verse. In my new and improved Sociology version, the verses are sung by the father's of modern sociology, Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim and Max Weber respectively. For example, where Nelly had sung, "I'm a supermodel and mami, si mami," Marx now sings, "I've shaped Socialists and Commies, yeah Commies." How awesome does that sound? So, as soon as I can find a just instrumental version of that song, I will record it and post it on here.

Smoking in Public

Here's a little something that I learned in class the other day that I thought you guys might find interesting.
We are reading a book called, "Why Societies Need Dissent" by Cass R. Sunstein. It's really very interesting, I recommend it.
Sunstein talks about two experiments at the beginning of his book, by Solomon Asch and Stanley Milgram. I'm sure you guys are familiar with these experiments but just in case you're not, here's a link to read about them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

Seriously guys, if you don't know about these experiments read about them, they're way interesting and also a little terrifying.

I want to discuss conformity's importance in regard to the law.
You guys, some laws are effective even when never enforced. To use an example from Sunstein: smoking in public places.
Apparently, practically no police departments ever issue citations about smoking in public places. This is a law that is rarely, if ever, enforced. So why-oh-why do people obey it? This can't be explained with criminal justice's usual crime/punishment explanation!!
Here's Sunstein's explanation: The law expresses the majority's opinion. Thus with especially visible crimes, such as smoking in public, the majority is very likely to voice their opinion and shame the perpetrator. The law isn't self-enforcing, the majority of people enforce the law over the minority!
Imagine for a second, seeing someone park in a handicapped spot who isn't handicapped. I, for one, might give them dirty looks, and try and talk loudly to friends about how I hoped that no one ACTUALLY handicapped came along because they would be screwed! People are less likely to park in handicapped spots because they are afraid of public shaming, then because they are afraid of a ticket.
As illustrated by the Milgram and Asch experiments, people desperately want to be accepted by their peers, even to the point of doing what goes against their belief system and intelligence. So, visible crimes that go against public opinion are most likely to be self-enforcing.

One more thing, there was a study done on the citizens of Minnesota regarding tax payment. "When people were told of the risk of punishment, levels were unaffected. When people were told that taxes are used for important goods and services,... compliance levels remained unaffected. But when citizens were told that over 90% of people fully comply with the tax laws, compliance increased. Apparently, those who violate the law are ashamed to learn that their conduct is worse than the overwhelming majority of their fellow citizens." -Sunstein

Isn't that crazy? People want to fit in so much, it makes them not break laws, even non-visible ones. This keeps reminding me of The Emperor's New Clothes. People will go along with just about anything if everyone else is too.

Minorities and Crime

Someone on campus got robbed last night. The University administration sent out an e-mail to all of the students saying to be on the look-out for two black men wearing certain clothes, because that was the description the victims gave of the robbers.

I was with my boyfriend when I got the e-mail. I read it to him, and we proceeded to discuss the fact that it was two black males who had committed the robbery. I guess it stuck out to both of us because we go to a Midwestern university where the African American population is very small.

I said that I wasn't surprised that it was two black men. Now hopefully you guys know me better than to assume I was being racist. Because, you guys, I wasn't. Sociology has provided us with the foundation for Criminology, which can help explain this phenomenon while being SUPER interesting.

If I may, let me give you a few reasons why it makes more sense for African Americans to have committed this robbery on my Midwestern University campus.

First I'll turn to one of the founding fathers of Sociology, Mr. Emile Durkheim.

He has an in-depth theory but let's just talk about what relates to the topic at hand. Durkheim believed that human beings control their criminalistic urges because of connection to social groups and institutions. He belived that this connection created, "a moral conscience and discipline."
To Durkheim, criminals are those without social ties. Social ties ---> morals---> crime/lack of crime.
Considering this, one could understand that minorities might not have as many social ties to the community and university as the majority. Because of the separation and lack of social ties that it is easy to feel when surrounded by individuals unlike yourself, Durkheim might say that it is to be expected for minorities at a mostly white University to commit more crimes because they don't feel the moral connectedness to the immediate society.

There are many more theories which I could discuss to contribute to the phenomenon of minorities and crime rate, but I'll just talk about one of the most interesting.
The second theory I feel like mentioning is Labeling Theory. Labeling Theory is "the linguistic tendency of majorities to negatively label minorities or those seen as deviant from norms." The problem with majorities labeling minorities as deviant is that it occasionally makes the minority take on the characteristics of a deviant because of the label he was given, in sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Labeling Theory looks something like this (by the way, don't forget that deviance isn't necessarily crime):
Deviant Act--> Social Reaction --> Negative Label --> Degradation Ceremonies --> Self- labeling--> Deviance Subculture Forms--> Deviance Amplification --> Secondary Deviance.

Frequently, after individuals self-label and begin to view themselves as bad, they move on to committing actual crimes, instead of just committing behaviors viewed by the majority as deviant, such as loitering or skateboarding.
Being a minority at a mostly white University can lead to a negative label, even without any initial deviant act. With enough reinforcement, the minority can actually begin to believe they are bad, and then the cycle continues from there, culminating in crime.

Interesting stuff, huh? There is nothing inherently more criminal about African Americans, or any other race. Minorities, no matter what their race, are more likely to be criminals.

What's your major?

Hey there.
One of the things that I love about sociology is that everywhere you look, you find it. Practically every time something happens that involves people, there's sociology, begging to help us analyze the situation.
While I think this is AWESOME, believe it or not you guys, some people find my love of sociology annoying (boyfriend, friends, classmates, people I ride with on the bus). This used to bug me, but it's ok because now I have YOU to talk to about it!

So anyway, a few weekends ago my roommates invited some guys who live in our apartment complex over to play beer-pong. Even though I had school the next morning, I had to partake you guys, because I'm a social scientist and this situation might have needed analyzing!

Ok so, I'm watching these guys play beer pong and no one is really talking so it's extremely awkward. I decide to try and break the awkward ice and try and think of something to say. Finally I come up with, "Who's winning this game?"
OMG you guys, one of the kids turns to me like I have just asked the most stupid question in the history of the WORLD, and says to me with a sneer, "What's your major?"

Now, I hope that you guys can see what he was insinuating with this comment. If it's been awhile since you've been in college, let me remind you of some things. In University, there are 'smart' majors, and 'dumb' majors. Unfortunately, majors like psychology, elementary education, sociology, and a various assortment of other liberal arts type majors are considered 'dumb' majors because people don't view them as challenging or selective.

This kid was insinuating that I must have a 'dumb' major, because I had just asked a dumb question. I almost flipped you guys.
But then, there was sociology, making the situation interesting instead of infuriating.
I began thinking about Blau and Duncan's research on Occupational Prestige, where they came up with an equation to rank occupations by prestige (income x education = prestige). At the top of the list are things like: lawyer, chemist, and medical technician, and at the bottom: bill collector, telephone solicitor, and janitor.

It is obvious that in the sociological organism that is a college campus, students and professors have our own rankings of prestige by major. How do we determine what is prestigious or not? Are we all in consensus on the ranking of these majors? Do we have a special esteem for our own major, thinking it the most difficult or prestigious?
You guys, I began to think all of these things! Obnoxious jerk forgotten, I began to get really excited. The next day I talked to a few of my professors and next semester I'm doing a study of students at my school to try and develop an equation for Major(ial?) Prestige.

It will be a lot of work, but it will be super interesting. So, there you have it guys. Sociology is always there, and always interesting. But SERIOUSLY, I should have killed that guy.