Economic Stratification in Higher Level Education

The American dream largely bases itself upon the ideology that the United States of America is the land of equal opportunity. Through hard work and dedication anyone can achieve social and economic mobility.  The idea that everyone has the right to equal opportunity dates back to founding of the United States .  Yet, while the United States promotes itself as a nation of equality and freedom, in application a different reality presents itself.  Education in the United States, specifically higher level education, is widely seen as a frontier for economic mobility; however, access to higher level education is extremely stratified.  On January 18, 2017  The New York Times released data that maps out the average income and economic background of students for most colleges in the United States.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/lewis-clark-college

The data presented by the New York Times comes from a recent study on mobility in higher level education written by economist Raj Chetty and coauthors John Friedman, Emmanuel Saez, along with many others. In their study, Chetty and colleagues found that parent income plays a role in one's access to college, particularly colleges with high mobility rates. On one hand, students who come from the lowest income families are the least represented at the most selective private schools. On the other hand, “students who come from families in the top 1% attend Ivy League colleges at 77 times the rate of children in the bottom income”. The data also showed that earning outcomes for students going to the same college are similar regardless of economic background. Yet, the colleges that have the highest mobility rates are almost exclusively highly selective institutions (Chetty). Institutions where the majority of students are already in the top income percentile.  What this data illustrates is that colleges that grant the highest mobility rates are the least accessible for low income families.

The data from Chetty’s study paints an entirely different picture from the ideology the United States so heavily bases itself on.  Opportunity for education and in return, economic mobility is not equal amongst everybody in the United States.   For example the median family income of a student at Lewis and Clark college $130,900 a  year.  60% of the student body come from the top 20 percent and only 1.4% of students who came from a poor family became a rich adult (New York Times).  How is it that higher level education, which is seen as one of the main frontiers for upward economic mobility, can be so blatantly stratified in a country that promotes itself on equal opportunity and mobility?      

In order to understand the conflict between American dream as an ideology versus its application one must understand the political and economic system present in the United States.  The political system of the United States as stated before largely aligns itself along norms of equality and justice (Bowles and Gintis 53). According to Bowles and Gintis in their book,, Schooling in Capitalist America,  the central problem for the political system in the united states is to “insure majority participation and representation in decision making  while protecting minorities against prejudice of the majority”.   The economic system of the United States is reversed. The way the economy is set up currently in the US encourages “minimal participation and decision making by the majority, the working class, while protecting the minority, business owners and managers”  (Bowles and Gintis 54).  The hierarchical approach of economics in this country has created a stratification in which the minority holds most of the economic power over the vast majority of the American people which in turn offers little economic mobility within the hierarchy.  While many political reforms have been instituted throughout the nation’s history, to maintain the ideological standpoint of equality,  the hierarchical approach of the economic system continues present itself in numerous ways.  

Bowles and Gintis argue that a major tool used to stabilize and sustain the country’s  economic system is the “use of widely accepted ideologies and justification”.  While the political system and the economic system of the United States seem contrastingly different they function off of each other.  By granting lower level education to every citizen yet making higher education increasingly less accessible the economic System can still maintain an illusion of mobility while allowing the minority in power to remain at the top of the hierarchy.   

Works Cited

Bowles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis. Schooling in capitalist America: educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. Chicago, IL: Haymarket , 2011. Google Books . Web. 24 Apr. 2017.

Chetty, Raj, John N. Friedman, Emmanuel Saez, Nicholas Turner, and Danny Yagan. Mobility Report Cards: The Role of Colleges in Intergenerational Mobility∗. The Equality of Opportunity Project . N.p., 27 Jan. 2017. Web. 25 Apr. 2017.

"Economic diversity and student outcomes at Lewis & Clark." The New York Times. The New York Times, 18 Jan. 2017. Web. 27 Apr. 2017.

The Republican Fear of the Democratic Healthcare Reform

            Over 50 million, or 17%, of Americans were uninsured in 2010. That number was predicted to rise to 57 million in 2022 (Potter 2014). As a response, President Barack Obama issued in March 2010 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or better known by its nickname: ObamaCare. He aimed to reform the healthcare system and provide all Americans with affordable quality health insurance. Under ObamaCare, more people became qualified for health insurance and by 2013, 85% of Americans had health coverage (“Affordable Care”). People with chronic illnesses can now be guaranteed healthcare and be given treatment. ObamaCare tremendously impacted and improved so many lives as shown in this video.

(Gilson 2015)

            Ever since ObamaCare was passed and enacted, the Republican party had many criticisms. They advertised it to Republican supporters as a bill that did not fulfill its purpose. For example, conservatives believed that more people would work part-time to avoid taxes implemented by ObamaCare. In reality, part-time employment fell by 300,000 people and full-time employment grew by over 2 million people by 2014 (“Obamacare: conservative”). Now that Donald Trump is president, Republicans plan to repeal and replace ObamaCare with their own healthcare bill, TrumpCare. Why are Republicans so insistent on replacing ObamaCare when they could expand on and modify it instead? I wanted to gain insight into and explore this complex issue.

            Under Bill Clinton’s presidency in 1993, Hillary Clinton submitted a healthcare proposal known as the Health Security Act, or unofficially nicknamed as ClintonCare (Starr 2007). She wanted to provide universal healthcare as ObamaCare does today. However, people were not convinced that there was a healthcare crisis. Republicans especially were not supportive of the idea at the time.

            Republican John Chafee proposed his own healthcare reform bill in November 1993 called the “Health Equity And Access Reform Today Act” (HEART) in an effort to combat support for ClintonCare. He had backing from half of the Republican senate including leader Bob Dole and House of Representative Newt Gingrich. However, when Chafee attempted to move the bill forward, it was unsuccessful because of disagreement on healthcare mandates. The bill never made it to senate (Quadagno 2014).

            The ultimate reason for ClintonCare’s failure was due to the 1993 Kristol Memo. William Kristol feared that healthcare reform would become successful and diminish Republican support. In the memo, he said

"The long-term political effects of a successful... healthcare bill will be even worse—much worse.... It will revive the reputation of... Democrats as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government" (Marshall 2013).

Republicans wanted to stop ClintonCare at all costs. The Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA) led by Republican Bill Gradison created a television advertising campaign called “Harry and Louise” to oppose ClintonCare (“Harry and Louise”). In these video commercials, a depicted normal middle-class couple would talk about the downsides to having universal healthcare. Americans saw these advertisements for a year and were consequently discouraged from supporting ClintonCare, leading to its failure.

            With the pressure of the Kristol Memo, the Republican Party was afraid that they would lose party support if the Democratic Party ever successfully passed a healthcare bill. More of the middle class would vote Democrat instead of Republican. This fear drove Republicans to vote against the Affordable Care Act during its proposal and have a desire to repeal it today. A Democratic president established the act, and Republicans cannot risk losing their middle-class supporters to the Democratic party. Thus, Republicans such as Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich voted against ObamaCare even though HEART had very similar goals, as shown in the chart below.

(Mertens 2010)

            Today, Republicans are desperate to repeal ObamaCare. They have proposed a bill to replace it, and House of Representative Speaker Paul Ryan soon after pulled it back. He knew that it was not an adequate replacement of ObamaCare (Horsey 2017). The Republican Party would lose a lot of support if they did not properly replace the Affordable Care Act. They have no desire to modify and improve it because it is tied to a Democrat’s name, Obama. Instead, they would rather have a healthcare act under a republican representative such as President Donald Trump, so that the middle-class citizens will continue supporting them.

How can we improve as a nation if we remain so divided along party lines?

Bibliography

"Affordable Care Act Summary." Obamacare Facts. Accessed April 26, 2017. http://obamacarefacts.com/affordablecareact-summary/.

Clintonlibrary42. ""Harry and Louise" Health Care Ads (Clinton Administration)." YouTube. August 26, 2014. Accessed April 26, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd_xPNT1Fh8.

CNN. "Town halls erupt in anger over Obamacare repeal." Town halls erupt in anger over Obamacare repeal. February 12, 2017. Accessed April 26, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJmP8b2II8M&feature=youtu.be.

Gilson, Dave. "20 Obamacare stats the GOP doesn't want you to see." Mother Jones. March 23, 2015. Accessed April 27, 2017. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/03/obamacare-charts-stats-health-care-reform.

"Harry and Louise." Wikipedia. February 24, 2017. Accessed April 26, 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_and_Louise.

Horsey, David. "Paul Ryan's 'Trumpcare' does not entirely repeal or replace Obamacare." Los Angeles Times. March 9, 2017. Accessed April 26, 2017. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-trumpcare-20170308-story.html.

Marshall, Josh. "Stepping Back from the Heady Storm." TPM. September 24, 2013. Accessed April 26, 2017. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/stepping-back-from-the-heady-storm.

Mertens, Maggie. "Chart: Comparing Health Reform Bills: Democrats and Republicans 2009, Republicans 1993." Kaiser Health News. February 23, 2010. Accessed April 26, 2017. http://khn.org/022310-bill-comparison/.

"Obamacare: conservative logic versus liberal facts." Liberal Bias. March 26, 2014. Accessed April 26, 2017. http://liberalbias.com/post/3374/obamacare-conservative-logic-liberal-facts/.

Potter, Wendell. "The ‘good old days’ before Obamacare." Health Insurance Resource Center. October 25, 2014. Accessed April 26, 2017. https://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/2014/10/25/the-good-old-days-before-obamacare/.

Quadagno, Jill. "Right-wing conspiracy? Socialist plot? The origins of the patient protection and affordable care act." Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 39, no. 1 (2014): 35-56.

Starr, Paul. "The Hillarycare Mythology." The American Prospect. September 13, 2007. Accessed April 26, 2017. http://prospect.org/article/hillarycare-mythology.

Money for Knowledge

                In America, today there has been a problem with unequal funding in the K-12 education system.  The issue that has been going on for a couple of years is that the education system is being controlled by state government and local governments have little power. With this it determines the funding and school system of each city.  Very wealthy areas are receiving more money than areas that are high in poverty.  The Huffington Post states, “about 6.6 million students from low-income families in 23 states are harmed by local and state funding disparities.”

                Hartford, Connecticut experiences this situation.  In the Atlantic, it talks about the state being one of the wealthiest states in the nation, but kids in Hartford attend some of the worst schools in the country.  “While students in higher-income towns such as Greenwich and Darien have easy access to guidance counselors, school psychologists, personal laptops, and up-to-date textbooks, those in high-poverty areas like Bridgeport and New Britain don’t.” With this, the wealthier schools are spending $6,000 more per pupil per year.

                The reason for what is happening is most public schools in America are run by local cities and towns and by funded by local property taxes.  “High-poverty areas like Bridgeport and New Britain have lower home values and collect less taxes, and so can’t raise as much money as a place like Darien or Greenwich, where homes are worth millions of dollars.”

                Growing up in Magna, Utah where it is not one of the richest places in the state, not even in the top 50 in adjusted gross income. From kindergarten to 8^th grade I didn’t see this trend at all.  It was until my freshman year of high school when I noticed this come to full affect.   With most of Cyprus High on “Free or Reduced Lunch and pay,” we always received hand-me-downs from our district center.  We never got anything new and when we did, it was rarely used.   As I traveled to other schools for sporting events, I would see these schools would have better facilities, teachers, and overall education.  I have talked to friends that go to better funded schools about how they fell about this.  They answered back with that they are supplied with the best technology, and teachers. They are given personal laptops, IPads, and other tools that most schools do not receive.  This has been a problem in Utah for a while and we have marches and protests all the time about this.  What can we do to help solve and stop this problem?

                As I looked around there wasn’t much that I could find on how to   solve this.  There is a lot of talk about the government sending more money to each district.  The problem with that is even though there is more money given, the local funding is still into effect and that will be distributed where it is thought best to go.  Also in Utah, schools are receiving government grants that have the top SAGE scores. They choose the schools with the best average score of this standardized test and based off that they receive a certain amount of money. Even though there are small things that are being done to try and help this, there still are some questions.  What else can we do to fix this problem? Is this worth fixing? How long will this take?

Works Cited

·         Major Social Issues That are Prevalent in the United States

Geeta Dhavale - http://www.buzzle.com/articles/social-issues-in-the-united-states.html

·         The richest areas in Utah by ZIP code. Where do you fit? | Deseret News

Blaze Bullock - http://www.deseretnews.com/top/780/0/The-richest-areas-in-Utah-by-ZIP-code-Where-do-you-fit.html

·         School Funding Inequality Makes Education 'Separate And Unequal,' Arne Duncan Says

Rebecca Klein - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/13/arne-duncan-school-funding-disparities_n_6864866.htmlRead more at Buzzle: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/social-issues-in-the-united-states.html

·         Good School, Rich School; Bad School, Poor School

Alana Semuels - https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/property-taxes-and-unequal-schools/497333/

The Social Truth About Cigarettes

Cigarettes have been around for a very long time, yet in recent decades, strong campaigns against smoking cigarettes have emerged.  D.A.R.E. taught us students in elementary school that cigarettes were killers, and we should always “just say no.” Some time ago, a study caught my eye that claimed people with profile pictures on social media featuring cigarettes were more likely to be perceived as less attractive than without cigarettes. Obviously, this is a blanket statement that needs more prodding, so I started to do some research. I wanted to find out the true social consequences of cigarette smoking. With all the negative information we have about cigarettes, do we treat or view cigarette smokers differently?

The act of smoking a cigarette in plain view, smelling of cigarette smoke, or even casually mentioning “buying a pack” are all expressions given off, for which interpersonal reactions will vary. However, as a society, norms and deviances change vastly over time [and place]. So, while smoking cigarettes was acceptable in public in the United States a few decades ago, now it is prohibited. In my travels to Europe and from internationals, I’ve heard time and time again that smoking cigarettes in high school (secondary school) is much more common and accepted in several countries in Europe than in the United States. So, how deep does the stigma against cigarettes run? What does this mean for smokers and Big Tobacco?

Cigarettes used to be allowed everywhere. It is now a widely known fact that cigarette smoking is leading cause of preventable death in the United States, so that second-hand smoke became viewed as dangerous and thus banned from indoor places (a formal deviance). In the past few decades, many efforts have been made to staunch the distribution of cigarettes, including laws that banned the advertising of cigarettes to any audience under the age of 21, like on T.V., radio, and magazines. Cigarette ads also cannot present cigarettes as a way to be cooler or to attract the opposite sex. This helps to form the idea of informal deviance regarding cigarettes, meaning that while they are not illegal, they are no longer as socially acceptable as they once were.

Cigarettes are also highly taxed as an incentive for people not to smoke. While laws around the world often have restrictions on smoking, nearly 6 trillion cigarettes are still produced every year, which represents a 12% increase in the last two decades. Still so many are smoking, yet the social climate has changed as a result of anti-cigarette campaigns reminding all that smoking kills. The media certainly gives us a stigma, with campaigns boldly named “The Truth” feeding the public negative information about cigarettes and turning people against "Big Tobacco."

Some of the most shocking statistics I read included the slanted percentage of advertisements as well as smoking rates among minority and disadvantaged groups. According to the CDC, 15 out of every 100 adults smoke, whereas 26 out of every 100 adults living below the poverty line smoke. Moreover, in majority black city neighborhoods, there are up to 10 times more tobacco ads than in other neighborhoods. The consequences of more advertisements include increased chances of trying cigarettes and lower harm perceptions of cigarettes in minority and impoverished areas.

These discoveries make me think of the term stratification, which sociology describes as a system in which people are sorted in groups based on hierarchies. It is clear that in this kind of system, some groups have more advantages than others, precluding the creation of equal opportunities for everyone and thus social mobility. For poor people and minorities, they are victims of this in several ways. I had never realized that the fact that one was poor or a minority meant that they were more likely to experiment with, and get addicted to, cigarettes. The advertising industry targets most the people who can least afford to spend money on cigarettes and who can least afford good health insurance for nicotine-related diseases. Moreover, many studies show that smokers are less likely to get a job and generally earn lower wages.

Thus, my big discovery was not exactly how people view cigarette-smokers, but rather a significant factor in the stratification of - particularly striking to me - poor people. Cigarette production is increasing, the income gap is increasing, and so are the number of poor people. I do not claim causation at all, but find it interesting to examine this trend. And, of course, perhaps the discovery that poor people and minorities are more likely to be cigarette smokers brings back  original question, do smoking and the presence of a stigma have a correlational relationship? And how does the social group one belongs to fit into this equation?

I felt I had reached the culmination of my project when I discovered a fact sheet titled “Tobacco Use and Homelessness.” It suddenly seemed obvious that homeless people are more likely to be addicted to nicotine, and that they are less likely to quit smoking (two facts I discovered). Homeless people have even less access to healthcare and addiction programs than minorities. The National Coalition for the Homeless also reported, “Besides health consequences, the most common reasons for wanting to quit are personal appearance and presentation (similar to non-homeless smokers).” This information finally gave me some qualitative (and quantitative) data that I had been searching for all along; interviewed homeless people recognize the negative social implications that smoking has.

While I did not find exactly what I started out questioning and researching, I did get to put a microscope up to cigarettes in society. Cigarettes are something I am much more familiar with now as a college student rather than a small-towner attending an upper-middle class high school. Initially, I was put out of my comfort zone as I realized what a big impact cigarettes have on the social and economic lives of people, especially minorities and disadvantaged groups. Hopefully, this premise of questioning will bring about some discussion on the way this legal but harmful issue impacts people.

https://www.thetruth.com/articles/videos/stop-profiling-market-priority

http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/29195/advertising/cigarettes_advertising_what_is_allowed_and_what_is_not.html

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/smokers-struggle-find-jobs-get-paid-less

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/tobacco.html

Raising the Minimum Wage to $15 is Not as Nice as It Looks

Raising the Minimum Wage to $15 is not as nice as it looks

In 2017:

Oregon- $9.75 California - $10.50

Federal Minimum Wage - $7.25

There is constant discussion in every town from households, to businesses, to congress members concerning the creation of higher minimum wages. This was a popular topic of conversation around the election period and continues to be an especially hot topic among lower-income families, teenagers, and those living in poverty.

Bernie Sanders advocated “A Living Wage” in his presidential campaign and still preaches today as a member of congress that “Millions of Americans are working for totally inadequate wages. We must ensure that no full-time worker lives in poverty. The current federal minimum wage is starvation pay and must become a living wage. We must increase it to $15 an hour over the next several years. (berniesanders.com).

This concept of a “Living Wage” is more broadly defined as “A theoretical wage level that allows the earner to afford adequate shelter, food and the other necessities of life. The living wage should be substantial enough to ensure that no more than 30% of it needs to be spent on housing. The goal of the living wage is to allow employees to earn enough income for a satisfactory standard of living” (www.investopedia.com)

The living wage in the United States is “$15.84 per hour for a family of four (2 working adults and 2 children) in 2016.  “A typical family of four needs to work nearly four full-time minimum-wage jobs (a 78-hour work week per working adult) to earn a living wage. Single-parent families need to work almost twice as hard as families with two working adults to earn the living wage. A single-mother with two children earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour needs to work 143 hours per week, nearly the equivalent of working 24 hours per day for 6 days, to earn a living wage” (livingwagemit.edu)

THE CONCERN: The minimum wage does not provide a living wage for most American families.

THE SOLUTION: It seems to make a lot of sense to make the minimum wage a living wage, simply adjust the minimum wage to ≈ $15.

WELL… I’m going to use empirical evidence to show why I believe that minimum wage SHOULD NOT be adjusted to the living wage because it does NOT support poor families and people in poverty.  Its effects can actually be most detrimental to them.

Here is an example of a recent proposal in Illinois by NELP (National Employment Law Project)

“The Illinois legislature is considering a measure that would gradually raise Illinois’ minimum wage from its current $8.25 an hour up to $15 an hour by 2022. Analysis of the latest available data shows that, not just in the Chicago area but across the state, single workers without children will soon need $15 an hour or more just to cover the basics – and workers with families will need even more. The typical worker earning less than $15 an hour is an adult over 25 who works full time, but still cannot make ends meet. A $15 minimum wage would deliver a large raise for nearly 1 in 4 workers in Illinois. The economic evidence from other states shows that, if phased in gradually, a $15 minimum wage would be manageable for employers, while delivering broad benefits for Illiniois’ workforce.

Even in low-cost regions of the state, like Danville, East St. Louis and rural Illinois, workers will soon need $15 an hour or more just to cover the basics. For example, by 2022 a single worker in rural Illinois will need to earn $32,178 a year just to cover housing, food, transportation and other basic costs, according to the Economic Policy Institute’s family budget calculator.1 This translates to $15.47 an hour for a full-time worker. Similarly, in Danville and East St. Louis, a single worker will need to earn about $15.55 an hour by 2022 to meet basic living costs."

First of all, many who live in poverty are not affected by the minimum wage, either because they are not employed or because their wages, while low, are already above the minimum.  

Secondly, many of those most affected by the minimum wage are teenagers. Some may not reside in poor families. A study that examined the effects of minimum wages throughout the wage distribution concluded that “only 19 percent of the estimated earnings generated by the higher minimum wage went to families with incomes below the poverty line, while over 50 percent of the increases went to families whose income were at least twice the poverty level”(Smith, 115). .  Therefore, the minimum wage proposition that is allocated to helping poor people is not necessarily affecting them directly or even at all.

Finally, it is so often overlooked is the cost of employers to hire these minimum wage workers at an increased wage. To prove that a $15 minimum wage proposal will not only fail, but also cause an increase in poverty, I will look at employment effects of the first federal minimum wage.

The Employment Effects of the First Federal Minimum Wage – examination of one of the largest manufacturing industries in the South - “A longitudinal survey of 87 firms shows that employment, which had been rising, reversed course and started to fall, even though overall demand for the product and production levels were rising…even more strikingly, employment fell by 17 percent in the mills that had previously paid less than the new minimum wage, while it stayed virtually the same at higher-wage mills…In the first two years of the laws existence, there was a 23 percent decrease in the number of hand-transfer machines, 10 percent increase in fully automatic machines including with higher, more intensive use, and an increase in 27 percent of imports”(Smith,114). The existence of automated substitutes means that employers will employ fewer low-skilled workers when the minimum wage rises.

This all happened within two years of the minimum wage’s enactment!

These are the amount of jobs lost because employers need to reduce employment

 

            
                   

“When you raise the minimum wage, you can point to someone whose earnings just got a boost, whereas it is difficult to see the negative effects on workers who  couldn’t get jobs or who saw their hours cut because of the policy”(PBS).

In conclusion, the minimum wage increase will prove to be detrimental to low income, working class, and poor families. Employers have more of an incentive to hire less low-skilled workers when higher-skilled workers are willing to take the job now that it pays more. And employers have to employ as many workers now because they have to pay workers higher wages. The policy will clearly lead to a substantial loss in jobs, which leads to zero income for many poor families. Collecting zero income or low income in an already impoverished family can and will lead to poor nutrition, poor housing, negative effects on education, and poor medical care.

In order for the minimum wage to work, I think that employers should offer training or education services to increase the employee’s skills to make them more valuable to the labor force. Another way is for employers to somehow provide more benefits to workers support employees, allowing them make more profit and have more spending money.

Works Cited

Ehrenberg, Ronald G., and Robert Stewart Smith. 1994. Modern labor economics: theory and public policy. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.

Andrew G. Biggs and Mark J. Perry, "A National Minimum Wage Is a Bad Fit for Low-Cost Communities," American Enterprise Institute website, Mar. 26, 2014

"State Minimum Wage Hikes Already Passed Into Law Expected To Cost 2.6 Million Jobs, New Study Finds." ZeroHedge. N.p., 06 Jan. 2013. Web. 25 Apr. 2017.

Rugy, Veronique De. "Column: Why a $15 Minimum Wage Should Scare Us." PBS. Public Broadcasting Service, 09 Sept. 2016. Web. 25 Apr. 2017.

"A Minimum Wage for Farm Workers." Monthly Labor Review 83.7 (1960): 677-85. Web.

http://livingwage.mit.edu/articles/23-results-from-the-2016-data-update

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/living_wage.asp.

Kony 2012: Misinformation and Social Media

(Invisible Children 2012)

            I was scrolling through Facebook when I came across an article declaring “Both the U.S. and Uganda have called off the search for notorious warlord Joseph Kony and his followers, the Lord's Resistance Army, saying that Kony's power has dwindled to the point that he's no longer a threat.” (Domonoske 2017).  The article brought my mind back to the massively viral Kony 2012 social media campaign, and the many criticisms leveled against it.  Like millions others, I saw the Kony 2012 video when it came out and shared it on Facebook.  Later, criticisms of the Kony 2012 video began to spread.  I remember feeling foolish for sharing the video in the first place.  Seeing the new article on calling off the search for Kony got me thinking about the sociological aspects of the Kony 2012 craze.  How did a thirty-minute documentary style video become one of the most viewed videos on the internet?

            To summarize, the Kony 2012 video effectively pulled on viewer’s heart strings to raise awareness of Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony (Invisible Children 2012).  The video simplified and misrepresented the actual conflict with Joseph Kony.  It indicated that Kony was operating in Uganda and that Kony’s army, the LRA, had tens of thousands of soldiers.  However, in his article criticizing the Kony 2012 video, journalist Joshua Keating points that “Joseph Kony is not in Uganda and hasn’t been for 6 years,” and that “the LRA now numbers at most in the hundreds” (Keating 2012).  The idea behind the video was to raise awareness so that the US government would go after Joseph Kony.  This was a problematic message because US military action could result in more violence and conflict (“Fact Checking” 2012).  Invisible Children, the charity behind the Kony 2012 video has also been criticized for spending their funding on “staff salaries and making films that attract much publicity, but don't do much to help people on the ground” (Rozen 2012).  According to the New York Times, in 2011 only 32 percent Invisible Children’s funds went to direct services.  Clearly the Kony 2012 video was deceptive, and the foundation behind it questionable.

(Goodman 2012)

     

            The Kony 2012 video succeeded in going viral because it instilled a sense of responsibility in its viewers.  The video empowers viewers, making them believe that by spreading awareness they can make a difference.  Specifically, the video prompts viewers to share the video on social media (Invisible Children 2012).  As people started seeing their friends and family post the video on social media there is a social pressure to join in the cause and share the video yourself.  Sharing the video can also be seen as an act of impression management.  By posting the video on social media people create a public image of themselves that they are informed about worldly issues and trying to make a difference.  Celebrities like Justin Bieber and Oprah also played a role in spreading Kony 2012 (Goodman 2012).  Celebrities joining in on the cause added to the social pressure to share the video. 

            While social media initially spread the Kony 2012 video, it also propagated the many criticisms against it.  Social pressures shifted from supporting Kony 2012 to understanding that the video was problematic.  In my personal experience, five years later the Kony 2012 video is often the butt of jokes and seen as a corny internet trend backed by a for profit charity.  While it may have ultimately failed, the Kony 2012 phenomenon show us how people can be brought together and empowered by social media.  It also serves as an example of how misinformation, and criticisms of such misinformation, can spread online.

Works Cited

        Domonoske, Camila. "U.S., Uganda Call Off Search For Infamous Warlord Joseph Kony." NPR. NPR, 21 Apr. 2017. Web. 22 Apr. 2017.

        "Fact Checking The 'Kony 2012' Viral Video." NPR. NPR, 08 Mar. 2012. Web. 22 Apr. 2017.

    J. David Goodman and Jennifer Preston. "How the Kony Video Went Viral." The New York Times. The New York Times, 09 Mar. 2012. Web. 22 Apr. 2017.

        Keating, Joshua. "Guest Post: Joseph Kony Is Not in Uganda (and Other Complicated Things)." Foreign Policy. N.p., 07 Mar. 2012. Web. 22 Apr. 2017.

      "KONY 2012." Invisible Children. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Apr. 2017.

        Rozen, Laura. "Kony 2012: Invisible Children's Viral Video Sparks Criticism That Others Say Is Unfounded." Yahoo! News. Yahoo!, 08 Mar. 2012. Web. 

Big Tobacco and Racial Profiling- An "Equal Opportunity Killer"?

Big Tobacco’s “Market Priorities”

There is a recurring ad on YouTube that I have started noticing more and more, and it has to do with the tobacco and racial profiling. The ad featured someone from a social media organization called “Truth Initiative”, and she was spreading word of the way that “Big Tobacco” is targeting African-Americans as “market priorities”. She went on to explain that Big Tobacco is advertising up to ten times as many ads in black neighborhoods than in any other neighborhoods.

Upon further inspection, I discovered several other alarming truths. The menthol variety of cigarettes was the main tobacco product that was targeting these ethnic groups. Advertisements for menthol cigarettes, specifically the brand “Kool” menthols, would often feature African-Americans posing with a menthol in hand. The people in these advertisements were also often being presented as a classic representation of their race. In the photos attached we can see a man with dreadlocks and holding a trumpet - the mid 1900’s stereotype of an black jazz musician. Another advertisement featured a woman with hoop earrings. When I searched for advertisements promoting a different brand of cigarettes, say Marlboro for example, the ads had classic American cowboys posing with cigarettes. This plays a huge role in who buys what kind of tobacco product as it has the personal aesthetic appeal, something as personal as race.

Menthol cigarettes, for those who do not know, are a kind of tobacco product with a variety of chemicals and herbs that create a “chilled” and “icy” feeling while smoking. As a result they have been proven to be more addictive than non-menthol cigarettes, making them arguably the worst kind of cigarette you could get addicted to. Because of this, there has been an even larger push to the anti-tobacco use movement, especially against menthols. Menthols are facing a great chance of being banned in many states, and even more so in the European Union, where the same statistics on race and tobacco products apply. The proposed ban on menthols is very likely and still possible, though the recent events of “Brexit” have caused a delay in the European Union. The ban of menthols would result in a possibly healthier society, causing even more people to lean towards quitting smoking. However, one article suggests that, despite the obvious racial profiling and marketing priorities of menthol tobacco products towards African Americans, it would actually be more racist to ban them. An article by Milo Yiannopoulos and published by the DailyDot suggests that “The Menthol ban isn’t just stupid- it’s racist”. Yiannopoulos provides shocking statistics showing that seventy percent of all African American smokers use mentholated cigarettes. This percentage rises when only younger age groups are recorded.

When looking at mortality rates among African Americans and lung cancer brought on by smoking, results are varied. Lung cancer is the second most prominent cancer among African Americans, though it kills more of them than any other kind of cancer. The same article on the DailyDot states that menthol smokers have lower rates of cancer than any other kind of tobacco user, and that they also smoke fewer cigarettes a day than do plain tobacco smokers.

So what is the real issue here? The marketing priority of African- Americans for tobacco menthol products? Or the impending likelihood of a ban on an ethnic favored product? It is possible to write an essay on either side here, as both sides are experiencing a loss or some kind of harm. Racial profiling is not okay, market priorities is something that has always been going on. With the amount of African American tobacco users smoking menthols, would it then be wrong to take away a product they favor? I have no real answer for this controversial issue at the moment, but perhaps a ban on menthols is not a way to approach this challenge.

Works cited:

1. TOBACCO USE AMONG AFRICAN AMERICANS (n.d.): n. pag. Web.

https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0006.pdf

N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2017.

http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/comment/column/8071/the-menthol-ban-isnt-just-stupid-its-racist/

Initiative, Truth. "Tobacco Is a Social Justice Issue: Racial and Ethnic Minorities." Truth Initiative. Truth Initiative, 13 Feb. 2017. Web. 20 Apr. 2017.

https://truthinitiative.org/news/tobacco-social-justice-issue-racial-and-ethnic-minorities