If Sandusky were black or Latino, the circumstances surrounding this scandal would be severely different. For example, I speculate that the riots would be equal in damage, violence, and passion, but there may be some racial implications. We cannot neglect the influence of alcohol and its additions to the protests; inevitable, but not appropriate, form of coping in a scandal of this magnitude. The impact that the Sandusky case left on our university is daunting, largely because of the overwhelming pride Penn Staters hold. This being said, many of the events that ensued last week were not a direct reflection of our university’s integrity and our students’ characters. Our reactions were driven by quick impulse, and frankly, many students are paying the legal consequences for not thinking things through. If Sandusky were a minority of color, I am confident that there would be a handful of Penn State students who become racists overnight. Evidently, during times of crisis, hardship, and media propaganda, people are likely to display behavior that is typically uncharacteristic. Let’s be realistic: Pennsylvania is not known for its cities and urban areas because the state is mostly rural and country oriented, making natives prone to undesirable character traits that, in essence, perpetuates racial inequalities.
Even during times of complete peace, I observe unintentional remarks and behavior that would normally be deemed prejudicial. I assert time and time again that it’s not entirely your fault for being deprived of a cultural background outside your own, that’s what you were exposed to during your upbringing. Sometimes, ignorance is defined by your lack of exposure and not your lack of intelligence. I strongly believe that if Sandusky were black or Latino, there would be thick racial tension on the Penn State campus. Students who have not a single racist bone in their body will experience unwanted apprehension and defensiveness. In leman terms, picture our community feeling reluctant to interact with other races. Diversity thrives at Penn State and this is not a concerning issue, but is Sandusky were Latino or black, and racial outbreaks were to surface, every Penn State person and affiliate will feel some form of reluctance or skepticism in hanging out with their minority friends. This is not because you promote the hatred but perhaps it’s because you wish not to exacerbate the circumstances of the issue. You may not be entirely at fault and you will likely still interact with your friends regardless of the situation, but that slight second where you had to reconsider may manifest if left uninterrupted. Of course, this would be under the presumption that massive racial division was reached and the entire country was undergoing tension. The turning of moral, impartial, character-holding people to hesitant, easily influenced, perception-fixators will burn many bridges, cause distinct racial separation, and produce substantial inequalities.

I feel that the Penn State student body is behaving within some of the 5 stages of grief, but not all.

The Penn State community has not quite accepted the release of Joe Paterno, as evident through the protesting and rioting that’s occurred. Most of us agree that his release was unfair and we choose to incite a riot that caused significant damage to the local area. Furthermore, it diminished our reputation as a leading institution in the Pennsylvania area. Our failure to accept this incident is also supported through the non-violent protests, such as the large vigil that was assembled the other night. Although this purpose was directed to the victims and the overall goodness within our hearts, it pays tribute to the injustices represented by the actions of our school’s administration. Our inability to accept Joe Pa’s termination is understandable because most Penn Stater’s feel that his release was a direct insult to his lasting contributions. Through these accomplishments he set a legacy that we all take pride in. Accepting his termination implies that we find recent injustices to be acceptable. Although there are few students who agree with the executive decision, they too realize that the majority of the school disagrees with the ruling.

Candidly, the Penn State student body is expressing denial in many ways. We are denying many facts to the case, such as, the strong uncertainty regarding the case. Many of us are unsure as to who know what, and to what extent. We are denying the fact that our institution made a mistake many years ago, and they are not covering their mistakes with a decision that seems drastic and futile to the victims. We are denying the fact that our school has not only enabled a perpetuator to thrive but that we also made a complete mockery of our school by rioting. We are denying the fact that many outsiders are vehemently against our views because there is plausible incentive for them to feel that way. Most outsiders aren’t fully aware of how we appreciation Joe Paterno’s legacy, but we also do not consider the severity to this case. This case is very sensitive seeing as child molestation a gruesome crime and the immediate firing of Joe Pa and Graham Spanier reflects that with severe crimes come severe consequences, even to those not directly responsible. There seems to be a lapse in certainty regarding how the people involved mis/handled the case, and this is where most of our denial comes from.

There is little to no challenge that the Penn State student body is angry. Our uncontrollable rioting was driven mainly by the angry minds of Penn State students. The angry feelings of our students compelled them to commit crimes that they ordinarily would have recognized as a consequential wrong doing. As they were blinded by the events and the producing results, our community foolishly committed acts that are not only immoral and illegal, but also very ineffective to the cause. Our cause is to ensure justice, to show our respect to those who’s suffered, and represent ourselves in the responsible and respectable image that we have ALWAYS been under.

I don’t quite see much bargaining from the Penn State student body. Although many of us were present during the news conferences its meetings were comprised mainly of questioning and answering, not requesting and fulfilling. The Penn State has had little to no contribution to the firing of Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier and any form of bargaining would be futile. The inevitable occurrences of the scandal led to a violent riot rather than a peaceful protest, where bargaining is typically most effective.

Many of us have been affected emotionally. There are Penn Staters out there who are absolutely torn about the incident and its results. Students are crying, revolting, and rioting which by my speculation may be attributed to our denial, anger, and failure to accept. Perhaps if we could make improvements in said areas, we would not be so depressed and emotionally distraught by the release of Joe Pa. The hideous crimes against the real victims is unquestionably the most emotional stimulant.

In an effort to successfully invoke a movement there needs to be organized and well executed protests. Through these protests, our concerns can be addressed clearly and most effectively as politicians, government officials, and law-makers are all made aware. Of course, it would be imperative as equally as it would be a necessity to have solid grounds for your movement. Your impetus must be ethical and free of improprieties if you attend on proceeding without intervention from the law. The cause will need to be intelligently formulated with the purpose of transferring it a document, such as a new law or bill waiting to be reviewed. If I were to begin a protest, I would not make it based on a cause that has been or is currently being fought for. The repetition I am about to describe will be found most intriguing and, frankly, accurate.
The NAACP conducted a march last semester that travelled all throughout campus and manifested so large that police were on post in case of a riot. Of course, there was no need to incite a riot because the battle was against rising tuition – the same cause driving Occupy Penn State to its current state. If both organizations were to collaboratively plan a protests against rising tuition, there outcomes would be far more satisfying. I believe that our goals and aspirations can come to realization with efficient strategizing and planning, and this pertains to almost every case context. Protestors all across the country are being led by brilliant individuals who are successful in their preparation and planning, however, there are entities who do not quite possess the leadership needed to start a movement. Impeccable leadership is needed to run an organization, but it requires significantly more skill and knowledge to carry out boycotts, sit-ins, marches, and many other forms of protest. I am arguing that a crucial component to starting a movement requires planning at the beginning, middle, and end; PRE-peration, preparation the, post-preparation.
Candidly speaking, it is not feasible for a movement to be caused solely by uneducated minds and the absence of leadership. If both skills can be implemented by accomplished leaders with insurmountable knowledge, then the outcomes to their movements are guaranteed to be in greater consistency with their initial efforts (it is predicted that their demands will not be made fully). The presumption that their entire list or set of demands that are derived from their overall cause is grounded on the idea that law-makers and government officials will only be inclined to meet some of their needs. In accordance to my initial theory, the original founders and leaders of the movement need to realize that there needs to be some form of exaggeration in their construction of what they desire.

Racism is a term that is used to describe an episode where a person is being treated unequally due to his racial identity. An act of racism must clearly and purposefully be prejudicial. With intent clear and irrefutable, the racist individual will expectedly take action that makes the victim feel uncomfortable and offended. There is sometimes confusion in establishing when it is most appropriate to deem a person racist, or have an incident qualify as racism driven.
In many cases, the word racism is used in the incorrect context. Sometimes, people will exaggerate their encounters because they believe it will better their chances of earning justice. On the other side of the token you have experiences that are misconstrued and falsely retold, which can be quite dangerous if the truth comes up missing. Racism is most detrimental in matters of police brutality, employment seeking, university acceptances, and many others. I do not believe that racism is as profound in other areas as they are in the examples provided. Racism should never be tolerated nor shall it be promoted, but we must also not be foolish as to confusing this term with ‘profiling’. Racial profiling is substantially less problematic but equally as unjust. When we treat a person based on our perception of what they are capable of, are simply reacting to human instinct. If we treat a person solely based on what we think their race is capable of, then we have a problem. A person’s race has never, in the history of mankind, had any effect on a person’s choice of action and/or judgment. There are no studies that show black people are biologically compelled to steal just as there is no evidence to suggest there is a correlation between being white and the inability to dance. If we were all to open our minds, and eliminate all stereotypes we posses, then we can successfully obliterate racism. Racism is nothing more than a frame of mind help by people who were deprived of culture during their youth. These people spent their entire lives with little to no multicultural influence, and therefore became ignorant to other traditions and idealisms. I have been racially profiled many times, but the times where I was a victim of racism most likely resulted in some physical confrontation. Racism is disastrous to our way of living; we should not be destroying our own population because our entitlement to “speak as we wish” has gone a little too far.
If you know a person who is victim to racism, you must embrace their demand for consolation. You must make them aware that the racism embedded in certain people is a poison and they shall forever be cursed as their racism remains present.

Affiliation with a person or group that identifies differently than you, in terms of race and ethnicity, is not a crime. In fact, we should be commending those who step in the direction of diversity. To associate yourself with friends from various backgrounds is much more interesting than placing constraints on who you befriend. The term “poser” isn’t a word used currently, but tracing back to High School, I am sure it’s a word used to refer to those who pretend to be somebody they are not. As a Latino, the action of hanging out with a friend who is not Latino does not insinuate that I wish to be identified in the same ethnic category. The friends in my circle are not my friends because of any racial characteristics, but simply because we share something in common that assembles us amicably and benevolently. If there were someone out there whom I disliked for understandable reasons, then there would be difficulty in assembling us benevolently. In this hypothetical scenario, if the individual whom I disliked had qualities, such as being annoying and very outspoken, then I would identify him using those characteristics. I would have no inclination to factor in the person’s race or cultural display as a reason for my dislike.
Penn State promotes multiculturalism and diversity quite efficiently, and we are continuously improving. This is significant to my argument as you consider the many interactions that we all have with people from different backgrounds. I believe that if I were to hear somebody utter the word “poser” when referring to someone who is integrating soundly and harmlessly, I would point out that he is jealous and wishes he possessed the social skills to expand his small network of friends. Absent is the evidence implicating individuals, who have diverse networks, of pretending to be somebody that they knowingly aren’t. The act of imitating or misrepresenting a culture that you clearly do not belong to is blatant and impossible to conceal. Therefore, the pretender in the group is always noted and criticized for their lack of authenticity. I remember when I was growing up and I was learning to distinguish between real friends and fake, I would consider to myself how loud or boastful some of my friends were, because that’s usually a clear indicator of who’s living a tale. Even in current day, I have a keen eye for indentifying those who possess pretentious qualities, such as the propensity to lie and answer vaguely. The previously mentioned claims embody the qualities of a “poser”, but realize how culture, race, religious affiliation, and even sexual orientation were NOT mentioned. I conclude my argument with the reminder that diversity promotes higher academic and professional success, and it is essential to diversify all boundaries so as to produce a thriving civilization.

Our heavily invested tax dollars toward the war effort is detrimental to our economic state, and our representation of morality. Standing as one of the richest and most powerful leading nations of the world, the United States of America should not be advocating warfare that is harmful to women or children. For obvious ethical implications, the United States must be careful in which actions we condone because we do not wish to be portrayed as a hypocritical nation that contradicts ours democratic views. Furthermore, we should remind the public that the purpose, primarily speaking, of continuing with war is to combat terrorism and terrorism expansion. With high optimism do I hope that our involvement with the War is not interpreted as a malicious movement where children and women are all at risk. The video of the injured children is, in fact, highly disturbing but it should serve as a rude awakening for those who have not expressed their views of the war simply because “they do not care”. I am not writing this with the intent to sway a person in any particular direction. I believe that each U.S. citizen is entitled to his or her belief with regard to the war however, negligence and ignorance should not be the root cause for those who choose to not intervene. In other words, if you wish not to get dirty in the controversial arguments of politics and war, that’s understandable. But the option to not intervene should not be because you have no concern or because you do not possess adequate knowledge. Instead, those who choose to not express themselves should state how they wish to have little to no involvement with the war because they are opposed to the subject entirely, and that if they were given a choice, they’d abolish the war efforts altogether. I could see why there are many groups of people that vehemently oppose war funding, but we must refrain from being so narrow-minded. Military operations will not always be successful, and it is tragic that bystanders are caught in the midst of fire. But to allow terrorism to manifest and to allow our country to be perceived as weak is not worth the mere probability of a child or woman being harmed. Therefore, we should take actions that ensure innocent bystanders aren’t being harmed as opposed to denying the funding of war altogether based on the mere probability of a child or woman being harmed. In essence, the war that our country is currently involved with is not completely wrong; misplaced funding and unexplained taxes are the problem. The social inequalities and economic disproportions that take place in Washington, Wall Street, and many other important political places of business are gradually diminishing our nation’s values and platform of principles. If I were to provide advice to our nation, I would encourage efforts that revolve around the long-term interests. The condition and reputation of our nation in the future has yet to be determined but if we were to withdraw from war right this instant, we would appear as a weak nation populated of cowards.

Women have a tendency to dress in a particular fashion that may or may not make them less of a lady, as per the perception of society. When we base our views of a lady on the way she dresses, we are essentially casting pre-mature judgment. I believe this is true because women, like men, have the inclination to pursue fashionable trends. I'm sure we can all recall a moment in our lives when we've followed a fashion trend although it did not quite fit your style. I am not dubious that women want to be treated with the utmost respect and honor however, societal perpetuations in the social setting make this task very hard. An example of a societal perpetuation would be, as mentioned earlier, the inclination to dress as others do or perhaps act as others do. Now, when reenacting the behaviors of another person, or rather the majority of persons, we are losing our sense of individuality and self-identity. Men and women are both likely to make this mistake but it's more visible among women because they have very clear-cut indicators, such as the way they dress. I believe that if women display forms of conduct that do not exemplify finer womanhood and/or constitute as lady-like, then it is not pre-mature to form an opinion of what she represents. In comparison to the way a person dresses, his or her behavioral tendencies do provide for an accurate presumption of the person’s principles and values. My views on this matter apply to males, also. Males are equally capable of perpetuating behavior that is not particularly honorable. My initial example involved the consumption of alcohol and the consequences of exceeding one's limit but I then realized that both men and women are capable of this. Let's discuss the idea of stronger manhood. If a male fails to meet the requirements or qualifications as per the perception of society and its respected standards, what kind of ideas or opinions do we draft of that person? If a person is not strong and mechanically handy, is he less of a man? If an individual is too aggressive and physical is he deemed too manly? These are uncontroversial questions that do wonder in the minds of many boys who are transitioning to manhood. My personal belief around gender stereotypes hold that men worry less about the way they dress, unless it's feministic, because it does not have any bearing on his manhood. Whereas, women worry much more about the way they dress because a LADY is EXPECTED to act proper, look classy, and think morally. In conclusion, I feel that women are hypocritically demanding certain forms of treatment but are dressing in an entirely opposite way.

Women have a tendency to dress in a particular fashion that may or may not make them less of a lady, as per the perception of society. When we base our views of a lady based on the way she dresses, we are essentially casting pre-mature judgment. I believe this is true because women, like men, have the inclination to pursue fashionable trends. I'm sure we can all recall a moment in our lives when we've followed a fashion trend although it did not quite fit your style. I am not dubious that women want to be treated with the utmost respect and honor however, societal perpetuations in the social setting make this tast very hard. An example of a societal perpetuation would be, as mentioned earlier, the inclination to dress as others do or perhaps act as others do. Now, when reacting the behaviors of another person, or rather the majority of persons, we are losing our sense of individuality and self-identity. Men and women are both likely to make this mistake but it's more visible among women because they have very clear-cut indicators, such as the way they dress. I believe that women display forms of conduct that does not constitute as lady-like, or does not exemplify finer womanhood, then it is not pre-mature judgment when you form opinions and views of her and what she represents. In comparison to the way a person dresses, his or her behavioral tendencies do provide for an accurate presumption of the subject's principles and values. My views on this matter apply to males, also.

If a person does the crime, he must do the time. However, when the crime isn’t even committed let alone proven to have been committed, our people should not be treated as outright criminals. These unfair presumptions insinuate the idea that minorities come from much harder environments than the majority. Therefore, their life may be filled with adversities, some of which involve the law, that substantially impact their future endeavors. In conclusion, I believe that a person’s race influenced the probability of whether a charge will be filed in criminal suit. Once again, each man is responsible for their own actions, regardless of race. I am simply arguing that our Latino people are placed in the same category as other minorities who do not share the same principles that our culture instills. Our people are constantly being portrayed as something so horrific but the truth is that the critics are too threatened and intimidated by the mere thought of being a part of an inferior party that they would resort to propaganda and inaccurate stereotypes.

Furthermore, Latinos and West Indian people are more likely to suffer from police injustices and things of the like. Such factors are profoundly preventing young people of color from a successful future. Even in modern day there exists this horrid act, way of thinking, or simple conduct that we call racial profiling. Racial profiling implicates our people of being guilty without probably cause or even a shred of supporting evidence. As police take into consideration the subject’s age, occupation, race, car model, and colleagues or associates, he is automatically drafting a predetermined opinion of who he thinks the subject is. As the police cast their inadvertent judgement, minorities are being fined, imprisoned, and deprived of civil rights simply because cops are fucking pigs, sometimes. Cops will insult you, degrade you, and even harass you, to satisfy their own insecurities.