50 Years Later, How Much Has Changed?

On March 7th, 1965, an estimated 600 brave Americans walked solemnly across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in a march for voting rights that marked the "political and emotional peak of the American Civil Rights Movement".  Now known as 'Bloody Sunday,' this day was a horrifying example of police brutality - clubs, tear gas, hand-to-hand combat, and more was used to physically beat down the marchers until they were forced to turn around. But mentally, they were undeterred. They came back even stronger two days later, on what is now called 'Turn Around Tuesday,' and again on March 21st, when they were finally able to finish their march to Montgomery. The determination of the marchers gave "courage to millions," and their actions will forever be seen as some of the most remarkable in American history.

Flash forward 50 years, and we wonder, how much has changed? 

Peaceful Protests: Selma 1965 vs Ferguson 2014

On Saturday, President Obama visited Selma to commemorate the sacrifices the marchers made for the Civil Rights movement, and in his speech, he pointed out that "Right now, in 2015, 50 years after Selma, there are laws across this country designed to make it harder for people to vote. As we speak, more of such laws are being proposed." Not only is it true that more voting restrictions have been placed, but we seem to be seeing police brutality to this day that is eerily reminiscent of that in 1965.

Police brutality: Selma 1965 vs Ferguson 2014

It is indescribably unfortunate that despite the sacrifices of those involved in the Civil Rights movement all those years ago, things like this are still going on today. And while strides have been made in the fight for racial equality in America, "This nation's long racial history still casts its long shadow upon us. We know the march is not yet over, the race is not yet won" (Obama in Selma, March 7th). As proven by yet another shooting of an unarmed black teen two days ago and the whitewashed Oscars two weeks ago, Obama is absolutely correct in saying that "the race is not yet won." It seems that right now America is in its own, modern form of 'Bloody Sunday.' But, hopefully soon, justice can be found for Trayvon, Michael, Eric, and the countless others who have died for the crime of being black in America. Hopefully soon, we will be able to overcome years of systemic racism and march all the way to Montgomery, and equality.

Black Lives Matter at the Grammys

In the few days after the Grammys air, it seems that all the buzz is about who wore what, who won what, who lost what, and who interrupted who onstage. But this year, amidst frivolity of it all, some artists strived to take advantage of the 25.3 million-person audience and convey a more serious message.

One artist, Prince, gave a subtle nod to the "Black Lives Matter" movement in his presentation speech for Album of the Year: "Albums, remember those? Albums still matter. Like books and black lives, they still matter.”

In a more visually impactful fashion, artists Pharrell and Beyoncé showed their support by incorporating symbolic gestures into their performances. During a pause is his song, "Happy," both Pharrell and his backup dancers (many wearing hoodies, alluding to the Trayvon Martin case) took a moment to raise their hands in the air, the symbol for the Black Lives Matter movement after the Michael Brown case this last August.

"Hands up, don't shoot"

Then, towards the end of the evening, Beyoncé gave a similarly riveting performance. As she sang the gospel song, "Take My Hand Precious Lord," her background dancers can also be seen exhibiting the "Hands up, don't shoot" gesture. Seeing as Beyoncé doesn't typically give such solemn performances, this was even more impactful.

Beyoncé closing out the 57th annual Grammy Awards
 with a powerful message

To add on to that, Beyoncé's song gave way to a performance of Selma's "Glory," by Common and John Legend. With images from Selma playing in the background, it was clear that the goal was to have the viewers make the connection between past and present and to reflect on it. With the current state our nation is in regarding civil rights, it's crucial that we recognize that something needs to be done. To see that these artists using their influential power to make a change is huge, considering what a crucial part media plays in all of our lives. I hope to continue to see performances such as this that keep the Black Lives Matter movement at the forefront of everyone's minds because no change will ever be made if we let it just fade away.

A Picture's Worth a Thousand Words

In 2010, self-taught photographer Brandon Stanton set out to create his blog, Humans of New York (HONY), with simple intentions: to photograph around 10,000 New Yorkers and plot their photos on a map. But five years, one book, and over 14 million followers (on Facebook, Instagram, and Tumblr) later, Stanton is doing more than just sharing stories - he's changing lives.

It all started on January 19th when Brandon photographed Vidal, a 14 year old boy from Brownsville, Brooklyn:

Even just hearing what Vidal said about Ms. Lopez, Stanton was inspired (and clearly, by the number of likes on this photo, many others were too). He decided he would look into Vidal's school, Mott Hall Bridges Academy (MHBA), a school situated in an area with one of the worst crime rates of NYC.

Upon photographing and interviewing Ms. Lopez (image below), Stanton learned of a plan that she had been trying to put in place, but was unable to due to insufficient funding. Ms. Lopez's goal was to send a select number of her sixth grade class to visit Harvard University, something that could have a tremendous impact considering many of the scholars have never left their small region of NYC. In an effort to help out a principal and school that clearly deserves it, Stanton set up the Vidal Scholarship Fund on the popular crowd funding website Indiegogo. And the response was overwhelming. In only 45 minutes, the scholarship reached its initial goal of $100,000 and now, just over a week later (and still over a week left), it has surpassed one million dollars.

In an update, Stanton revealed that because of the massive amount of donations, MHBA will be able to send its entire sixth grade class to visit Harvard for the next ten years.

The impact that Stanton has had on this community is unimaginable, especially since it all started with a single picture. But all of the recognition must go to the amazing teachers and administrators at MHBA. Despite all of the obstacles they face, they have worked as hard as they could to make sure that their scholars get the same level of education and the same treatment that students in any other school in any other neighborhood would receive. It's obvious that this kind of event doesn't and can't happen often, but the fact that it is going to a school with such inspiring leaders and scholars is all the better. Hopefully, other inner-city schools across the country will find their HONY and be able to reach their full potentials, just like MHBA.

Ms. Lopez's First Portrait: 

Keep up with the Vidal Scholarship Fund here.

Amazon's Next Big Move

Amazon's pilot series won big at the
Golden Globes - taking home both
Best Series and Best Actor (Jeffrey Tambor)

After the wild success of its first self-produced TV show, Transparent, it's no suprise that Amazon would want to keep that fame coming. That's why earlier this week, Amazon Studios announced its next big venture: the film industry. Starting this year, it "will produce and acquire original movies for theatrical release and early-window distribution on Amazon Prime Instant Video." The online retail giant expects to produce around 12 movies per year that will first premier in theaters nation-wide and then be accessible through Prime Instant Video only four to eight weeks later. This is a huge business move for Amazon - not only will it bring in millions from the movies themselves, but it is expected to drastically increase Prime subscriptions (because of the early online releases). On top of that, it keeps Amazon caught up with Netflix, who announced last September its plan to release several new movies in IMAX and on Netflix, simultaneously.

Albeit a great idea to the producer and the consumer (who wants to wait 16 and a half weeks to buy it on DVD, right?), it spells trouble for the movie theater chains involved. Early online releases greatly decrease the theatrical window (time in which a movie is solely dedicated to the theaters). When this happens, companies like AMC and Regal Entertainment earn a substantially smaller profit, which obviously makes them weary of agreeing to show movies that this apply to.

If Amazon, and Netflix for that matter, can manage to get the approval of major movie theater chains for their projects, this could be a big turning point in how the film industry functions. Since the introduction of the theatrical window concept in the 80s, the length (of the window) has been slowly, but steadily, decreasing. With Amazon's plan cutting it by about 2/3 and Netflix essentially eradicating it, things aren't very appealing to the movie theaters. But, if they do manage to strike a deal, could web-based production companies (such as these two) be the new face of cinema? Or will the necessity of the theatrical window conquer, leaving Amazon and Netflix in a niche production market?

A New (But Familiar) Future for American Higher Education

In the early 1900s, America made the progressive decision to make attaining a high school education more achievable by creating schools that were both less financially and less academically demanding. While many European countries continued to only offer costly, rigorous secondary education, America's high school graduation rates skyrocketed past its competitors, leading America to have the most highly-skilled workforce in the world by the mid 20th century. In the decades since, those other countries caught on and soon not only matched, but exceeded, America's educational prowess by offering a tuition-free college education as well. Due to both increasing economic inequality and increasing college tuition costs, the number of Americans with a solid education fell into a steep decline. Over time, America found itself quickly slipping behind the countries it was once so far ahead of and has been unable to recover. But just this week, President Obama announced a proposal that could finally put America back in the running and hopefully, somewhere down the road, return it to its former glory as an educational powerhouse. 

Dubbed "America's College Promise," this proposal would, if approved by Congress, offer any student willing to work for it at least two years of community college for free. All tuition costs would be paid for by federal and state funding, saving students around $3,800 annually. In return for the free education, these students "must attend community college at least half-time, maintain a 2.5 GPA, and make steady progress toward completing their program." Community colleges in states that choose to take part would offer "1) academic programs that fully transfer credits to local public four-year colleges and universities, or 2) occupational training programs with high graduation rates [that] lead to in-demand degrees and certificates." It is estimated that by 2020, 65% of jobs will require some level of higher education and, according to the official White House blog, "students should be able to get the knowledge and the skills they need without taking on decades' worth of student debt."

Although this proposal doesn't quite match the level of education accessibility that countries such as Sweden and Germany currently have, it's a promising start that mirrors the beginnings of the early 1900s high school reform. If passed by Congress, this plan could bring not only the same outcome that we saw with the high school reform, but it could also lessen the staggering economic inequality that plagues America today. But the question remains, could this proposal truly be start of America's return the the forefront of education? Or have we already dug ourselves in too deep?

What's the Real Age of Maturity?

In September of last year, 17 year-old Cassandra C was diagnosed with Hodgkins Lymphoma but steadfastly denied chemotherapy treatment. Even knowing that the chemo would give her an 80-85% chance of survival (without chemo she will only live 2 years), Cassandra stated that she "does not want poison in her body." Seems simple - she, now only six months away from legal adulthood, should be able to make choices regarding what goes into her own body, right? Not to the Connecticut Supreme Court. In December, after a failed attempt at court-ordered chemotherapy, the Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DFC) took Cassandra from her home (and her supportive mother) and put her in a closely-monitored hospital room. Citing her youth and her mother's distrust of physicians, the DFC claims it has the right and duty to remove a "child" from the care of a parent who's medical decisions, without intervention, would put the child's life at risk.

What's interesting is that the DFC hardly regards Cassandra's decision as her own, saying that she lacks the maturity for it. But how can her youth (and supposed immaturity from it) be a factor in her ability to consent when, for those her age and younger, it is seemingly disregarded? 17 year olds can choose to enlist in the army and donate blood. 16 year olds can get drivers licenses. 12 year olds can be tried as adults. It's clear that there is no defined line that determines when someone can make heavy life decisions. According to Cassandra's lawyer, "you don't go to sleep a 17-year-old knucklehead and wake up an 18-year-old sage."

In the hearing being held tomorrow regarding Cassandra's rights, the major question will not be whether or not it is logical to be treated with life-saving chemo, but when does she truly earn the constitutional right to deny it? And how much should this major decision be respected when it's coming from a "minor"?

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?