Unfair Admissions Considerations

Link: http://www.good.is/post/college-admission-race-conscious-but-need-blind/

Khan, Shamus. “College Admission: Race-conscious but Need-blind.” GOOD Education.

GOOD Worldwide, LLC., 7 June 2010. Web. 27 September 2011.

In “College Admission: Race-conscious but Need-blind,” author Shamus Khan addresses a very popular topic in today’s college admissions race. He has two main issues. The first is that colleges should not be what he calls “need-blind.” In other words, colleges should take the wealth of the applicant’s family into account when deciding on admission and financial aid. The other is that colleges should take race into consideration in order for our country to become more integrated.

Khan’s intended audience is undoubtedly the admissions officers of colleges who are “need-blind” or “race-conscious.” However, his writing also appeals to people who want to know more about the subject – for example, teenagers who are applying to college and their parents. His writing is meant to be both persuasive and informative. He wants to show college admissions what the problems are and persuade them to fix these problems.

Khan addresses the fact that some colleges claim to use only the “hard work and talent” of students when making admission decisions. According to Khan, however, colleges should not be “need-blind” because this provides an unfair advantage for wealthier students. He writes that students from poorer backgrounds probably never had “private tutors… enrichment camps… piano lessons… cultural tours of Europe.” He also states that they most likely attended underfunded schools. His main point here is that poorer students simply do not have as many opportunities as their wealthier peers.

Khan’s second topic, race, is supported using factual evidence. He says that in 1951, African American students made up only 0.8 percent of Ivy League schools compared to 8 percent today. He uses this evidence to support his claim that NOT taking race into account would send us right back to the bottom of the proverbial hill. He ends his article with the haunting statement, “There is a missing revolution in our nation: one in which poor and average Americans can have a fighting chance of acquiring the kind of education and advantages that elite education provides.” This brings the writing full-circle by mentioning the need-based admissions once more.

Khan’s article is very biased. He is a college professor, but he is writing from the point of view of an underprivileged student. He very obviously leans towards colleges dropping “need-blind” policies and taking race into account. In fact, he states these opinions directly.

This article makes some very valid points. College should be an option for everyone. However, race simply should not be a factor. It shouldn’t make any difference if an applicant is African American, Caucasian, Asian, or any other denomination. The only thing colleges should take into account is the abilities of the individual student. As far as need goes, college should be an option for everybody. However, hard-working students that just happen to be from wealthy families should not be punished either. Financial aid solves this problem in part. However, shouldn’t wealthy students whose parents are NOT paying for their college receive financial aid benefits as well? It is very difficult to decide where and to whom aid should go.

This is a perfect topic for me. I have already turned in many college applications, and I am interested to know how race and the income of my family could affect both my admission and financial aid packages. It’s a good subject for others as well because many of us are going through these same processes and college admissions decisions will greatly affect us in coming months and years.

Freedom of Religion vs. Law

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/us/14amish.html

Hamill, Sean D. “Religious Freedom vs. Sanitation Rules.” The New York Times. The New
            York Times Company, 13 June 2009. Web. 27 September 2011.

In “Religious Freedom vs. Sanitation Rules,” author Sean D. Hamill draws on a very intriguing subject – where does religious freedom intersect into law? In the United States it is common knowledge that anyone is free to practice any religion they choose. In fact, it is the first amendment in the Bill of Rights. But in this article Hamill wonders where the line should be drawn. He uses an Amish community as a perfect example. The Amish say it is against their religion to have modern new tanks for their outhouses, but the state says their hand-made tanks are against regulations and standards. Which wins out – freedom of religion or law?

The author does not have a clearly intended audience. This article seems to be meant simply for the public in general. His intent is to draw on both sides of the argument – the view of the Amish and the view of the government.

The article begins with the story of Andy Swartzentruber, an Amish man who served 90 days in jail after refusing to upgrade an outhouse located on his land. The state said his methods for removing the waste – collecting it beneath the outhouse and then dumping into a field – were unsanitary. Swartzentruber said the safety measures required by the state were “too modern.”

Hamill uses this example to very clearly show how law and freedom of religion can overlap, ultimately causing some major problems. In the article he goes on to tell the stories of other people in the Amish community who faced similar outhouse-related problems.

The article may seem like it is based solely on the Amish. The majority of it is used to explain Swartzentruber’s predicament. However, there is a much deeper message here. In writing this piece, Hamill’s purpose was not simply to enlighten others on the plights of the Amish community. It was to show an example of the “gray areas” where laws and freedoms collide.

Hamill did not use bias when writing his article. It was very straightforward. He uses direct quotes from both the Amish and government officials affected by the situation. For example, he quoted a neighbor to the Amish who said, “The rules should be the same for everybody...” as well as an Amish man who replied, “Our forefathers, that’s why they came across the sea, for religious freedom.” These are two very different points of view, and Hamill leaves it up to the reader to decide which is correct.

We are guaranteed many freedoms in our constitution, but it is not always easy to discern how far these freedoms extend. Religion and laws sometimes do not coincide. However, it is true that every person should have to live by the same rules and standards. Unfortunately, in situations like this, that may intrude on certain peoples’ way of life. For this reason, it is extremely difficult to form an opinion on this subject.

This is a topic that I am very interested in pursuing. It is fascinating to me that one part of our legal system could contradict another. It would be an easy topic to delve into further, and I’m sure there is much information available. It would also be easy to find other specific examples to support an opinion on either side. The only problem I see is MAKING an opinion. It may seem easy to say, “Oh, of course you have to follow the law,” but first a person must put themselves “in the shoes” of an extremely religious group of people like the Amish. For these reasons, I think this would be a great topic for others as well.

Are We TOO Free?

Klein, Joe. “Arms and the Unbalanced.” TIME 24 January 2011. Print. 20 September
        2011.

In “Arms and the Unbalanced,” author Joe Klein addresses problems surrounding too much freedom. He supports his argument using examples of treatment of the mentally insane and the right to bear firearms. He also makes his writing personal by including the story of congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the woman whose progress was observed by thousands after she and multiple others were shot by a schizophrenic man at a political rally.

Klein’s main intent is, at first, masked by his explanations of mental illness and gun laws. But he makes it very clear when, at the end, he says, “Beneath these two issues… lies a deeper one: Where does one draw the line between freedom and anarchy in a democratic society?” This, simply put, says that it is difficult to decide exactly how much freedom is TOO much. The article could be intended for any person in a country considered to be “free,” particularly the United States.

Klein supports his argument well. He begins with the history of mental illness. According to the article, most “mentally dangerous” people were sent to institutions in the 1950s. However, very few towns were willing to have these institutions in their backyards. Therefore in the 1960s, the huge number of mentally unstable people became a problem. Klein claims the American Civil Liberty Union, which supported legislature that does not allow mentally ill people to be sent to institutions like the type that were popular in the 1950s, is partially responsible for lack of mental illness programs today.

He also points blame on the National Rifle Association for pushing the right to bear arms individually in recent years, and (in an offhand way) the Supreme Court for ruling that local governments cannot set gun laws. He uses the powerful example of, “Loughner could simply walk into a gun store, buy his Glock and… He carried it into a political rally. And used it.”

Klein’s writing is very obviously biased. Throughout the article, he hints that freedoms surrounding mental illness and gun use are not stringent enough. He further supports these views by ending with the message that people today have “excessive liberties” and inferring that a balance must be reached.

Politicians have debated for years over just how much independence individuals should have. There will never be a set solution. Someone will always abuse the powers are given, while others will not use them enough. Unfortunately, there are people who threaten the rights of others every day. The best example is stated in the article - the man who used his freedom to buy a gun and then chose to kill people with it.

This topic interests me, but I don’t know if it would be a good one for me or anyone else to write an argumentative paper on. I’m not quite sure which side I support. Freedoms all really come down to individuals. I have never believed in people being punished for someone else’s wrongdoing. However, Klein makes some valid points in his argument that we might be just a little too free. Therefore, I find it hard to form an opinion on this matter. It would be a good subject for anyone who feels strongly about how much independence people should be allowed.

Misleading Labels

Walsh, Bryan. “Where’s The Beef?” TIME 7 February 2011, 50-51. Print. 20
           September 2011.

In “Where’s The Beef?” author Bryan Walsh discusses the popular issue of what is actually in the food we eat. He supports his argument with an example of a lawsuit filed against Taco Bell concerning the percentage of actual beef in their meat. He then moves on to and supports his main point – that we ultimately cannot trust labeling.

By writing this article, Walsh intended to raise awareness of the fact that we never really know what we are putting into our mouths (especially when fast food is concerned). He most likely meant for his audience to be the average American or any other person who indulges in McDonald’s every once in a while. After all, the ingredients in our meals affect us in many ways we are unaware of.

Walsh’s argument revolved around his example of the Taco Bell case. To summarize the lawsuit, a woman was unimpressed with the quality of her taco meat. She sued Taco Bell, saying their beef was not actually beef at all (or an extremely low percentage of it).

Walsh uses evidence from a few different sources, and it is difficult to decide which one to believe. However, that is part of the nature of the subject – it is hard to find the truth when it comes to food labeling. He wrote that Taco Bell claims their meat is 88% beef, the USDA says 40%, and the lawsuit says 35%. So who should consumers trust?

This leads to questions about the ingredients in other meals. And it’s not just about meat. Many people are unaware of the extreme amounts of additives in their food. For example, as Walsh quoted, “A McDonald’s Chicken McNugget… has an ingredient list that looks like a page from a chemistry textbook.”

Walsh also provides examples of other misleading labels. For example, McDonald’s “Fruit and Maple Oatmeal” does not actually contain maple syrup, and Juicy Juice’s “100% juice” claim is correct, but not usually about the actual type of juice inferred on the label.

Walsh wrote his article with just a hint of bias. While he does compromise slightly by saying that none of these ingredients will actually HARM you, he obviously supports more truthful food labeling. He ends with a kind of call to action, but he changes his tone slightly by saying that “The scandal in fast food isn’t what’s missing; it’s what’s there.” By doing this he acknowledges that labeling is often untruthful but also encourages people to look closer to other things like calorie and fat content.

Fast food companies should definitely be more truthful when it comes to food labeling. People deserve to know exactly what they are eating. If more lawsuits like that against Taco Bell come out, people may stop trusting fast food chains altogether. It would benefit the restaurants and the people who eat there if they were to tell the truth from the start.

This would be a good topic for me. It has always interested me that commercials and advertisements could lie about the products they promote. I could expand the subject beyond food and into other areas like infomercials as well. For this reason, I also believe this would be a good topic for others. It’s interesting and affects every single person who has ever eaten at a fast food restaurant or bought something based on an advertisement.

Wind Energy Controversy

Link: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1115667,00.html

“Energy: War of the Winds.” Time Magazine. TIME Inc., 9 October 2006. Web. 12  
             September 2011.

The article “Energy: War of the Winds” debates one of this century’s most highly controversial topics - clean energy, particularly in the form of wind turbines. Wind turbine farms have sprouted up all over the United States and Europe in the past ten years, and there are many people who do not think they are worth it. As the article states, the main concerns surrounding wind turbines are noise pollution and scenery disruption that lead to local dissatisfaction and drops in property value. However, wind turbines also offer what many see as irreplaceable benefits.

This article's purpose is mostly informational. It begins with an example of a woman who escaped the suburbs of Detroit for a picturesque beach on Lake Michigan only to learn that the dunes would soon be dotted with giant, towering white windmills. Of course, the woman was none too happy. However, this example is followed up with the views of one of her neighbors, a man who is grateful to receive yearly payments for renting out his land to the wind farm owners.

This leads into one of the article’s main points – money. This is the main draw for many people who allow windmills to be placed on their land. If everyone opposed windmills, it would be easy for them to disappear completely. However, farmers and ranchers cannot resist the draw of an extra couple thousand dollars a year.

Inversely, windmills can also lose people money. According to the article, a Michigan man’s property value dropped nearly $20,000 over the course of three years simply because windmills were installed in his area. It is also known to be difficult to sell homes located near wind farms due to scenery disruption, noise pollution, and annoying shadows created by the huge blades.

This article is not very biased. It states both sides of the story and supports both the opposition and the supporters throughout. One of its main goals is to highlight that wind turbine usage is very debatable and will continue to be in upcoming years. For this reason, it is probably meant for audiences that have not yet decided if they support wind energy or not.

Wind energy is a difficult subject. It is hard to decide which is more beneficial – ruining the skyline by installing gigantic metal beasts or clouding that same skyline with coal and oil smoke. At the present time, wind energy will probably be met with opposition no matter how convincing the pros are. However, as time goes on and natural resources run out, it will become necessary to harness the power of the wind. Eventually, people will not be able to argue against it.

Wind energy is a perfect subject for me because I have experienced it firsthand. I live about a mile from a gigantic wind project, and next year they will be installing turbines in the field next to my house. My grandpa has even signed his land off for a few windmills. I absolutely despise the blinking red lights at night and the sight of the dusty white blades churning away during the day. However, I would like to read up on the benefits as well. My opinion may be swayed if I find a few convincing arguments. I think this is a good subject for other students as well. Most people in this area have to deal with the windmills, so it is important for us to learn more about them before deciding if we support them or not.

The Great Stem Cell Debate

Link: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2c9171%2c641157%2c00.html

Kinsley, Michael. “The False Controversy of Stem Cells.”Time Magazine.TIME Inc., 23 May

2004. Web. 12 September 2011.

In “The False Controversy of Stem Cells,” author Michael Kinsley enlightens readers on the much-debated topic of stem cell research. His main objective is to highlight the similarities between the usage of embryos in fertility clinics, abortions, and stem cell research. He makes the valid point that stem cell research is considered more highly controversial (especially when compared to fertility clinics), even though the differences are minimal. Kinsley uses this argument to support stem cell research.

For those who are unfamiliar with the stem cell debates of recent years, stem cell research involves the use (and, many argue, destruction) of human embryos. It can be viewed along the same lines as abortion, except the embryos used are only a few days old.

Kinsley argues that stem cell research is unfairly portrayed. He makes a major point of comparing it to in-vitro fertilization. Fertility clinics create far more embryos than they actually need. When a couple finishes in-vitro, their extra embryos are either destroyed or frozen indefinitely.

To highlight the connections between fertility clinics and stem cell research labs, Kinsley uses the example of United States representative Dana Rohrabacher, who changed his mind about Bush’s research-restricting policies after his wife successfully used in-vitro.

Kinsley’s article is strongly biased. He argues that because stem cell research is controversial, fertility clinics should be as well. He also points out that embryos are incapable of any feelings or emotions and that “the lives of real people desperately awaiting the fruits of stem cell research are being weighed against a purely symbolic message.”

However, Kinsley does offer a small exception. He says that anyone who strongly opposes both abortion and fertility clinics has a right to also oppose stem cell research. “If not,” he concludes, “please get out of the way.” By ending the article this way, Kinsley more strongly emphasizes his pro-research opinion. He also attempts to compromise with the opposing side. Because of this, his intended audience can be either people who oppose OR support the research.

The points made in this article are very true. Many people do not consider them before deciding they are against stem cell research. For them to oppose one and not the other is unfair. Morals should be the same no matter what the subject. Some people may find that if they looked at the similarities between stem cell research and in-vitro fertilization, they would be more willing to accept the research that could ultimately save or improve thousands of lives.

Stem cell research and its many debates greatly interest me. There are many different sides to the controversy, and I enjoy collecting opposing points of view before forming my own opinions. For these reasons, this would be a good topic choice for my personal research paper. I believe stem cell research to be a good topic for others as well. Due to its highly controversial nature, there is a wealth of information available. Furthermore, it is an interesting topic that must be further explored before beliefs can be formed.