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: