A Step in the Right Direction

 Goodell states that this new process will handle
violence within the NFL "firmly,
consistently, quickly"

This past week, NFL fans and justice-seekers alike finally heard the news they've been waiting for: the NFL will be taking a new, more affective approach to dealing with domestic violence within the league. According to Commissioner Roger Goodell, this new process is "significantly more robust, thorough and formal," something that is much needed after a long year filled with back to back scandals. Two major changes to the policy include the NFL conducting its own investigations by hiring a "highly qualified individual with a criminal justice background" (this individual will also determine punishment) and having any and all league personnel (players, coaches, owners, etc) charged with a crime go on immediate leave, with pay. These changes stem from mass criticism of Goodell's poor handling of past incidents, many claiming that Goodell was given far too much power over a situation that he didn't have the skills to handle. The hope now is to remove any ambiguity with the crime (and the punishment) that has existed in cases such as Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson.

Although this policy is a huge improvement over it's predecessor, there's still a substantial amount of growing to do, namely in its concern for the victim. According to the National Organization for Women, "there is no guarantee that economic support will be there for as long as it takes for a victim to get back on her feet, and no indication that the NFL even understands that a six-game unpaid suspension could spark even higher level of violence." I believe this oversight could potentially lead to another crisis for Goodell, but that it the changes they did make will make a huge difference.

If this policy works as well in reality as it sounds like it would on paper, I think that we will begin to see more justice in the punishments given by the NFL and as a result, less domestic violence cases. If the policy doesn't live up to its expectations, then the question remains: what can the NFL really do to discipline the staff and players?

Another Movie, Still No Progress

A little while ago, I wrote a blog post about Hollywood's extreme whitewashing in the upcoming film Exodus: Gods and Kings (here). This week, another one has come to my attention: Pan. Set to be released July of next year, Pan is Hollywood's newest rendition of the well-known story, Peter Pan. The character under heavy scrutiny is Tiger Lily, who was cast in March as Rooney Mara. Tiger Lily, traditionally portrayed as Peter Pan's close friend and the princess of the Indian Tribe of Neverland, was (logically) expected to be cast as a woman of color. When this news came out, it sparked a massive controversy: Tweets, hashtags, and petitions protesting this decision swarmed the internet in the following weeks.

Mara's controversial cast portrait (as 'Tiger Lily') in
comparison with the original animation

While Mara has the credentials to be playing such a major role (much like the white leading actors in Exodus), that does not mean that appropriate racial casting should continue to be pushed aside. It is blatantly obvious that Mara is far from being of American Indian descent, and there isn't a way to get around that with makeup or costuming that wouldn't come off disrespectful. This includes the bewildering choice to put red makeup around her eyes in her cast photo, which obscenely perpetuates the "redface" stereotype.

To make things worse, director Joe Wright stated in March that he was "planning to create a world that [is] very international and multiracial," and it has turned out to be just the opposite: the entire cast is white. Given a movie known for its extremely racist portrayal of American Indians, directer Joe Wright had an opportunity to advance the film industry (much like the casting of Mizuo Peck as Sacajawea in Night at the Museum did). Instead, he chose to take another step backwards. This industry has an unfathomable influence on society and the younger generation, and until it can understand the seemingly clear boundaries, how can we expect anyone else to?

Innovative or Unconstitutional?

Earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal released an article detailing the Justice Department (DOJ)'s newest criminal surveillance method: aerial phone tracking. Essentially, a small black box on the plane (called a dirtbox) mimics a cell phone tower so that the target's cell phone will connect to the plane instead of a real tower. Once connected, the dirtbox collects information from the phone that identifies the owner and, most importantly, gives their location (within approximately 10 feet).

While the DOJ neither refuses nor denies the existence of this program, it could prove to be either a very positive method or a very negative one. If the suspect is indeed carrying their phone, it would allow law enforcement officials to be 100% sure of the suspect's location, when they wouldn't have been able to before. But at the same time, if the suspect figures out that he/she has been tracked, he/she could set the officers up, potentially putting them in a very dangerous, life-threatening situation. On top of this risk, the announcement has created a controversy among a plethora of civil rights groups.

Many groups are arguing that since this device reportedly collects the personal data of thousands of Americans (without their consent) while searching for its one suspect, it is in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Despite these claims, the DOJ maintains that "all federal investigations are consistent with federal law and are subject to court approval," adding that the dirtbox does not save any information that does not pertain to its current investigation.

If this report is accurate and this program is currently in action, should it be shut down on the grounds of unconstitutionality and overall risk? Or is it worth it because it might have the potential to greatly advance law enforcement efficiency?

Google's Next Big Thing

Google is known for its big ideas - driverless cars, Google Glass, diabetes-detecting contacts, and more. Just a few days ago, Google X (Google's semi-secret research facility) announced its newest venture: a nanoparticle pill that could identify cancers, heart attacks and other diseases before they become a problem. Though still in its infancy, Google X has described it as "analogous to sending thousands of doctors down into the population of a large city to monitor what is going on with individuals." When it detects that something's amiss (i.e. high sodium levels, plaque indicating an eminent heart attack, or even cancerous cells), it sends a "message" to an external device that then notifies the wearer. Google says this project could take anywhere from 5 to 10 years to complete, but when it's finished, it will revolutionize the medical industry. 


With this pill, people would be able to upload data into the cloud (which raises some concern) and send it to their doctors, therefore eliminating the need to have as many doctors and/or doctors offices. There wouldn't be any need for the blood and urine tests traditionally required to find an illness, seeing as "we’d simply swallow a pill and monitor for disease on a daily basis." We would know everything that is going on in our bodies, at all times. As a result, the amount of lives that would be saved is unimaginable. Not only would illnesses be detected sooner, but new treatments could be found for ones with currently unknown causes. This pill would turn reactive care into proactive care.

Although this could be one of the biggest scientific breakthroughs in history, would it considered "playing God"? Is it too risky too have personal medical data on the cloud? Or is it exactly where medical care should be heading, to keep up with the way society is transforming technologically?

Which is More Important to Colleges: Athletics or Academics?

21 years ago, the University of North Carolina began offering fake classes to many of its student athletes so that they may maintain eligibility for their respective sports. 3 years ago, this academic fraud was uncovered by the NCAA but eventually pushed aside as not a significant problem. Then, a counselor who worked closely with student athletes at UNC during this time, came forward with new information and staff members involved, all of which was news to university administrators. This prompted an 8 month investigation by Kenneth Wainstein (former U.S. Justice Department official and current chair of a White Collar Defense and Investigations Group hired by UNC), and as of four days ago, it has been found that the counselor was telling the truth, and that this scandal was much larger than anyone realized.

Julius Nyang'oro, former chairman
of the UNC department that ran
the "shadow courses," was indicted
on fraud charges last December

Over the span of 18 years, at least 3,100 sudents (1,500 or more of whom were athletes) were enrolled in this "shadow cirriculum" - classes that had no designated instructor and gave out all high grades, regardless of work quantity or quality. According to Wainstein, “By the mid-2000s, these classes had become a primary - if not the primary - way that struggling athletes kept themselves from having eligibility problems.” These athletes (some of whom couldn't write, couldn't read multisyllabic words, or couldn't read at all) were offered a free, high quality education that that they were completely unqualified for. But instead of at least taking advantage of that by working hard and actually earning a spot in the school (and on their teams), they decided to cheat their way out of it. And all with school officials endorsing their decisions.

While all 9 of the staff members Willingham mentioned in the original investigation were proven to be involved and subsequently fired, justice didn't come soon enough. How could something like this have gone on for so long, undetected and unresolved? And anyway, shouldn't the goal of an educational institution be to push students to succeed both in and out of the classroom, not one or the other?

While what occurred at UNC may have been extreme, it is well known that acclaimed colleges across the country have a habit of accepting less academically qualified athletes over more academically qualified non-athletes. What does it day about the American education system if colleges, of all places, are deprioritizing student's academic abilities in favor of their athletic abilities?

Is a Full Night of Sleep Possible for High Schoolers?

For most high school students across the nation, there is no sound worse than the shrill ringing of an alarm clock in the morning - a sound that often comes after a painfully long night of homework and a painfully short night of sleep. Although being tired seems to simply be a fact of life for many teenagers today, it shouldn't have to be.

Numerous studies, conducted both recently and in the past several years, have clearly shown the need for students to get a sufficent amount of sleep. According to the American Acadamy of Pediatrics (AAP), "The research is clear that adolescents who get [8.5-9.5 hours of] sleep have a reduced risk of being overweight or suffering depression, are less likely to be involved in automobile accidents, and have better grades, higher standardized test scores and an overall better quality of life." Additionally, almost 30% of sleep deprived students (less than 9-10 hours per night) surveyed in 2006 by the American Sleep Foundation reported falling asleep in class at least once a week (New York Times Article). 

However, because of hormonal changes causing teenagers' sleep cycles to shift (go to bed late/wake up late) and extracirriculars/excessive homework keeping students up into the waking hours, it is not reasonable to simply request earlier bedtimes. Because of this, the AAP has been calling for years for schools to shift start times to at least 8:30 a.m., but still "an estimated 40 percent of high schools in the U.S. currently have a start time before 8 a.m.; only 15 percent start at 8:30 a.m. or later. The median middle school start time is 8 a.m., and more than 20 percent of middle schools start at 7:45 a.m. or earlier."

All of this research has been made very clear to high schools nationwide, so why does it seem like everyone is as sleep deprived as they've always been? And since it is clear that starting school later can't completely fix "one of the most common – and easily fixable – public health issues in the U.S.," what more can be done?

Death with Dignity

In January of this year, 29 year old Brittany Maynard was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer and given only a few years to live. Then, only 70 days later, she was told that her tumor had grown aggressively and that she only had six months left, six months that would include excruciating pain, violet seizures, and gradual loss of vocal and motor skills. She had just begun her life with her new husband and hoped to have a family, but now it was all being taken away. After hearing this news, Brittany knew that allowing her cancer control her remaining time would not only cause her to suffer immensely, but her loved ones too. That's why, on November 1st (just after her husband's birthday), Brittany will be given pills that will allow her to pass away peacefully, on her own terms: music playing, family by her side, and in the comfort of her Oregon home.

 Though known commonly as assisted suicide, Brittany stated in an interview that "When people use the word suicide, it’s highly inflammatory and just incorrect because I am already dying from cancer. And people who commit suicide are typically people who want to die, and are killing themselves... I don't want to die. But I am dying. Death with dignity is the phrase I'm comfortable using. I am choosing to go in a way that is with less suffering and less pain." 

Death with dignity, despite being a highly controversial topic for many years, allows for those with terminal illnesses to live their life to the fullest, pain-free. It gives them a sense of control over something that can seem uncontrollable. It gives peace of mind in knowing that all of the horrible things that come with terminal illness "are not mandatory." Especially in Brittany's case, where a cure in no where in sight, there is really no point in undergoing gruesome treatments that will only delay, and worsen, her inevitable passing. Currently, this practice is only legal in five states, but Brittany is fighting for a change. Fighting for death with dignity to be a "healthcare choice," and therefore a "freedom." 

With large organizations and people such as Stephan Hawking supporting this cause, I believe a change is on the horizon. After all, shouldn't the only person who can decide your threshold for suffering be you?

View Brittany's full story here:

Racism on the Big Screen

While watching trailer after familiar trailer at the theater earlier this week, one really caught my eye: Exodus: Gods and Kings. As it played, I began to recognize the well-known actors and actresses who were playing lead roles: Christian Bale, Sigourney Weaver, Joe Edgerton, Ben Kingsley, and more. While all are extraordinarily talented, it puzzled me. Wasn't this film supposed to be set in ancient Egypt? And if so, why are the lead roles being portrayed not by those of African or Middle Eastern descent, but by those of European descent?

This remained on my mind for quite some time, and, after looking deeper into it, it proved to be even more troubling than what I thought. Not only were white, American/British actors cast to play the royalty of ancient Egypt (let alone cast at all), but when they chose to include people of color, it was mainly for the roles with the least dignity (such as theif, slave, assassin, "lower class civilian", and servant). 

Racially-biased casting is even more evident in this powerful image from Exodus. 

Besides being wildly historically inaccurate, this sends a very strong message to the viewers -  specifically younger ones. It gives the idea that white supremacy was not only a concept developed in relatively recent world history, but that it has been around for thousands of years, and in places not even inhabited by a white population. It gives the idea that giving white actors/actresses wigs and spray tans is an acceptable way to uphold the integrity of a very well-known story. It gives the idea that getting big (which the film industry often interprets as white) names in the credits is more important than respecting a culture and staying true to that story.

I still cannot believe that despite the progress we've made, films cast such as this one still exist. How could this be acceptable? And if something as powerful and impactful as the film industry can't be counted on to display good standards of racial equality, how can we ever expect racism in the real world to change?

Has Apple Reached it's Peak?

This past week, as I'm sure all of you know, was massive for Apple. With the release of iOS8, the iPhone 6, and the iPhone 6 Plus, this would seem to be a time of wild success and growth for Apple. However, it has proven to be quite the opposite.

Shortly after these products became available to the public, problems (ranging from inability to make phone calls on iOS 8 to the rare, but evident, cases of bent iPhones) began to arise faster than they could be dealt with. If unprecedented, this bad publicity could have blown over quickly, but recent events such as the non-consensual U2 download and the iCloud hacking incident are making it difficult. This is not to say that everybody is displeased with Apple at the moment or will be in the future, but how much can one company take before all of it's competitors begin to outshine and outperform?

In fact, ther companies have already taken this opportunity to push themselves ahead by bashing Apple's recent mistakes in humorous advertisements. Some of these companies include Samsung, LG, and even Kellogg (Pringles) and Nestlé (Kit-Kats). 

Although I don't personally think that Apple will reach it's end any time soon, it definitely isn't the star it once was and I don't see them being the at (or near) the top in the US for too much longer - especially with other companies passing them up by beating them at their own game. 

Social Media Can be More Than Just a Distraction

A few days ago, I heard about a new program being tested at Brockenhurst College in the UK that aims to give social media a more positive role in classrooms there, and across the globe. Developed by IBM, this private social media program not only allows students to contact teachers and view grades (like other popular applications Canvas and Blackboard), but also to build a stronger connection between the school and its pupils. 

Before the school year even starts, teachers can prepare using something that IBM calls "predictive analysis." This tool gives the teachers data from their students' previous years so that they may have a better understanding of how each individual learns. And if a student appears to be struggling in a certain class, that teacher can reach out to his/her colleagues to corroborate using data and find a solution. Brockenhurst College Principal Di Roberts calls this "a development of what we already do," as the recorded statistics can provide an additional, potentially more solid analysis than solely the previously relied on human observation. 

Another slightly more controversial side to this program gives the school the ability to monitor students' personal social media accounts (with consent). This would be used to find "keywords" (such as "I'm bored") in posts, tweets, statuses, etc. and use them to track students' stances on teachers and classes.  Roberts states that "students do deserve to have their privacy" but does believe that this tool could enhance the learning environment at Brockenhurst. 

Though it's still just in the trial stages, this program could massively improve the way schools are run around the world, especially as educators begin to integrate more and more technology into their curriculums. I feel that providing teachers with a more solid understanding of how students are functioning can improve the crucial teacher-student relationship and the students' overall engagement in the class. And despite the fact that I might not consent to personal social media tracking, I believe it is a good start to a very successful program. Although social media is often the biggest distraction of high school and college students everywhere, IBM is finding ways to use it to foster a more productive learning environment. 

Is Goodell Really Doing Good for the NFL?

In 1994, after months of mishandled situations, baseball reached its tipping point. Now, twenty years later, is the NFL facing its own?

Throughout this week, deemed the "week from hell" by some, I have heard story after story of abuse performed by well known NFL players, one stand-out being Ray Rice. As many people have heard, Rice beat his wife (then fiancée) to unconsciousness in a hotel elevator back in February. After at first being suspended for only two games, his penalty was increased to an indefinite suspension when the video was released last Monday. Though an appropriate punishment, it may have been long overdue, as a law enforcement official claims to have sent Roger Goodell, the NFL Commissioner, the video in April. In the backlash from this claim, Goodell remains that neither he nor anyone working with him had seen the video prior to Monday. With an FBI agent now on the case, the truth will be out soon enough, but until then, how are we to know who to believe?

Goodell's possible mishandling of the Ray Rice case, the Adrian Peterson child abuse indictment, plus many more recent domestic abuse incidents in the NFL left Goodell under massive scrutiny and  many are asking for his resignation. Nita Chaudhary, co-founder of UltraViolet, declared, "It is time for Roger Goodell to resign, and for the NFL to get serious about its commitment to ending violence against women within the league. "

Banner reading "#GoodellMustGo" flies over MetLife Stadium today

Whether or not Goodell had seen the elevator footage of Rice in April, I feel that it is time for him to step down. With there being far too many (and far too often) NFL abuse stories in the news, how well can Goodell really be handling things? And with doubt piling up as he was a no show for a long-scheduled appearance, how long does he expect to keep up his charade?

A Deadly Tradition

As the school year is still just beginning and fraternities and sororities across the nation are selecting their newest members, the spotlight turns to a longly-controversial topic: hazing. While some rituals can be low-key and potentially less alarming, others can develop to be life threatening. Between the years 1970 and 2012 alone, there were a total of 104 lives lost to unnecessary and excessive hazing rituals.

Earlier this week, I came across a New York Times article detailing the events at Cornell in February 2011. Somewhat different than others, the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity's annual hazing consists of having the freshmen kidnap then upper classmen and running things the other way around. After a night of excessive drinking and bizarre foods, sophomore George Desdunes was left tied up and unconscious in the campus' library until he was found there the next morning, dead. Although this fraternity's ritual allows for a pledge to pull out at any time, I still wonder how much choice George had. 

According to the article, "though hazing has been illegal at the university since 1980 and in New York State since 1983, 60 percent of the universities fraternities and sororities were found responsible for hazing actives over the last decade." If this has been going on for so long , what have we been doing to stop it aside from just making it illegal? And what could we or should we have done years ago to make the limits more well known? Being a junior in high school and beginning to think about college and the teams/clubs/sororities that I might join, I feel that hazing is a topic that needs to more attention. However, this is not to say that pledging to a fraternity, sorority, or other club is always a bad thing, especially when you're going into college and looking for a large group of friends or even just a sense of community. As long as alcohol, the root of an estimated 80% of hazing deaths, remains absent or minimal, hazing can be curbed. It's just a matter of knowing how much is too much.