The Sandusky scandal has been one of much confusion and turmoil. Even if you took the time out to read the history of the case, you may still feel inundated with random facts that may or may not draw an entire conclusion in your head. Most of the student body’s opinion on the situation has been formed through word of mouth recollection, other people’s opinions, and if you are ever so luck, the opinion of Sam Richards. Many rely on facts and figures to draw concrete answers to complicated questions, however, in this case where no one really knows who know of what, it is hard to find solid ground. Amidst scattered confusion, it was hard enough to come to terms with the fact that trusted individuals and revered figureheads of the Pennsylvania State University were involved in such a grotesque dishonor to our culture as Happy Valley Citizens. To be asked to hypothesize about those involved is a daunting task. However, I do think that changing the gender of those involved would have a series of events.

If you even barely communicate with any peers or colleagues who attend other Universities, the first thing they say to you is a crude or crass joke about the occurrences surrounding our school the past two weeks. Even Saturday Night Live, a nationally syndicated comedy sketch show, took the time out to devote a scene to the events that took place, employing the devil himself as the only person unaware of the events that happened. The devil said “evil isn’t what it used to be” referencing that even the devil could not orchestrated such terrible events at Penn State. Even those who do not typically watch cartoons found themselves Youtubing the clip of the recent South Park episode, which repeatedly joked about the current state of our University. If the culprits and accomplices involved in this matter were female, I think there would be even more jokes and comedy surrounding our school. If the victims were female, however, I think there would be a lingering sense of normality. Not that I believe in this stigma, but there would be a consensus that little girls get molested far more often than little boys. In fact, not only are those statistics more similar but it is actually that molestation by little boys is left often reported. Overall, I sincerely think that if women held these esteemed positions such as President of the University, or Head Football Coach, or revered Second Mind mentor that there would still be a great mourning over the State College area. There would still be riots, media trucks being turnover, sadness for the victims, and candle light vigils. Changing the gender of those involved does not change what heinous acts were done or the fact that no one did anything about it.

I think the five stages of grief is a process applicable for many occurrences other than death. Sudden occurrences like natural disasters, losing a job, moving to a forgein land with no support can all effect people similarly and could cause them to fall into any stage of the grieving process. I do believe the Sandusky Scandal and the way it has unfolded through the entire Penn State administration had caused Penn State students to enter into the five stages of grief.

Denial- I am not completely sure if the Penn State community ever entered into this stage of grief. One could argue that we were certain of the crimes committed, however, we may have been in denial about the extent of Joe Paterno’s involvement in the crimes committed. During this stage, we may have asked ourselves: did he really know?

Anger- I know that the stages of grief do not always have to begin in this stage but for Penn State student, it did. Students were outraged and appalled. Shock and disgusted with the allegations of Sandusky, angry that anyone could let this remain under the rug for so long, and then irate with the abrupt news of our dearest Head Coach being fired. We are angry because we feel like he was the scapegoat in the occurrence. Yes, he could have done more to help those kids and bring light to the sadistic actions of someone that worked underneath him. However, the men who were charged with purgery and conspiracy are still on the payroll of PSU and we are responsible for their lawyer fees. I think this is what angers us the most.

As the days, weeks, months, and years roll by the Penn State community will continue to wallow in these stages. Bargaining or justifying as I like to call it is where we try to ask ourselves the hard questions. Are we all to blame? Will we ever recover? This is also where we will try to find the logic in this immense tragedy. Once the new season begins, and the players take field without their beloved coach, we will begin depression. Once I come to terms with the fact that I will never be able to go to a Joe Paterno coached Penn State football game, I will enter depression. How deep or shallow the depression may be, no one knows. However, we will reach that indefinitely. I am not hopeful at this time that we will ever reach acceptance. Acceptance in this case is the notion that child abuse ‘just happens’. And if it is not one pedophile, it is the next. Acceptance means that we will stop believeing it what we believe in during these tumultuous times: that no one is above becoming a bad person and that we have to constantly work at becoming a good person.

Big Business, and government for that matter, is dominated by low ethical standards and attitudes of maximizing profit. I mention big business because as Sam said in class, the game of corporate business and government are played by the same players or players of the same social and economic circles. In order to survive in this cut throat, capitalist industry and own a successful business, it is almost evitable to conform to big businesses reputation of low ethical standards. On one hand, I would try to push my ethics aside and create the most profitable business plan to ensure the success of my business. I think that I would hire illegal immigrants, especially if I was owned a business in agriculture. Furthermore, if my business had positions that Americans, historically, were not willing to fill, I would have no choice but to hire workers who were willing to do the job. I do not think I would risk a booming business or “or let the tomatoes rot” in an effort to maintain my personal ethics. It is often to maintain your personal beliefs among a myriad of others who are letting theirs fall to the way side and becoming successful by doing so. If you play devil’s advocate, you see, if even for a second, that maintaining your ethical beliefs as they pertain to business would not make much of a difference.
On the other hand, I think it would fall under my ethical beliefs to help someone less fortunate. Anyone who has the will to work hard and is not ‘too good’ for manual labor, is someone that I would hire, especially if I was working in an agricultural sector. I would not have to work about employees arriving late to work or calling off or all of a sudden quitting one day. Also, most of illegal immigrants are working to send money back home to help their families in struggling countries. This could be considered foreign aid. Then, once they have enough money saved up, their family could attempt to enter the country legally. I know this theory could be considered far-fetched however, I think providing a better life for their family is what immigrants come to this country for. Whether or not they plan to stay and become citizens has no bearing on the fact they are working to earn monies to either help their family when they come to this country or allow them to live comfortably back in their home country. My personal beliefs would be in accordance with allowing a skilled, hard worker to be employed under my company. The fact that they are illegal should not be the duty of the company to control, but rather it should be the duty of the government to control their borders.

How do I feel about white people the minority in the future? In class, Sam quoted a statistic that in about thirty years Whites will be the minority in America. I think it is very interesting that we have such a limited scope of the world and always compare huge issues in terms of America’s state of being. We are the most powerful country in the free world however that does not mean the way we think is correct. Whites, from a world perspective, are already the minority. However, I guess if we have to plan our governmental and social politics based on our country make-up alone we should explore the issue of Whites becoming the minority.
If I had to imagine our country being inhabited by citizens from other countries or even just different skin tones, I believe it would be much like major metropolitan and urban areas. In my hometown of Philadelphia, there are only a small percentage of White people. Even that small percentage is not integrated or evenly dispersed throughout the city. They reside in certain areas so you rarely see them living their daily lives unless you travel to that area. Also, minorities seem to function as a collective group. African Americans and Latinos is particular rarely distinguish themselves as an individual group. Minorities band together as a unit and support each other. The power felt from being a majority in this cases does not cause unrest between the more dominant and less dominant group but rather, connects the groups that make up the majority past boundaries that once seemed like The Great Wall of China.
When America becomes a country where minorities are the majority, everything will change. From public policy, to health regulations, to economic conventions, there would be many changes to the governmental regulatory body. I could hypothesize that certain laws might be changed not necessarily to disservice the minority, Whites, but to be more equal in terms of how it favors all people. I think there would be more liberal and democratic values played out through that in power being that a large percentage of Minorities are democratic and of middle class socioeconomic status. There would less tax breaks for the rich and more in favor of small business owners and the working middle class. Laws would be made in favor of those trying to come to our country for a better life. Even the security practices would differ. Stop and frisk and racial profiling would be extinct.

In class, we watched a video with a dread locked man on CSPAN shouting that all we need to do to rid the world of its evils is to murder all white people. I do not think that if the world was black centered or full of black supremacy if would mirror the sentiments of this character. To me, black supremacy would be more like the “Black is Beautiful” and the “Black Power” movements than the sentiments of the Black Panther movement. Seeing the world through the eyes of black supremacy would seem more like empowerment than uprising and racism. Personally, if I was given the “upper hand” as a black woman I would not use my advantage to keep anyone else down or hold anyone else back but rather, I would use my new found position of authority to encourage my own race to do more and do better. Maybe it is naïve or too optimistic to think that Black supremacy would be more like Doctor Martin Luther King Junior and less like Malcolm X. Black supremacy would work towards the advancement of all people that were once oppressed or disenfranchised. Black supremacy would not keep others down simply for the sake of doing so. I think that if the tables turned today, they are not many Black and Brown people that would be able to put effort into excluding another group on the basis of race and or skin color. Maybe the first 5 minutes would be Black and Brown people, taking out their frustrations of 300 plus years worth of slavery and disenfranchisement. However, I do not think it would last beyond that point.
However, I am not sure how this question would be answered if the tables were turned from the beginning of time. What if Native Americans were the ones to enslave the White people who “discovered” our country? What if Native Americans convinced Black and Brown people to join forces with them in forcing Whites into slavery? What if Whites fought for years to secure their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of voting? I think the position of Black supremacy would be much different if it had started that way before the foundation of these yet to be United States. I am actually uncertain as to how the issue of civil rights and the movement that surrounded it would have played out if it was White people fighting for it. There is a stereotype that Black people are more aggressive and hostile in general in comparison to their White more subdued and peaceful counterparts. Who knows if Black supremacy would have ever allowed for legislation to include White people?

I think the fact that this post was initiated by a man, is particularly interesting. However, I digress. I would like to tackle the topic of women’s dress in the two parts, specific to the way the question was posed. One, why do women dress a certain way? And two, why do women dress a certain way and want to be treated differently? In order to fully understand the female psyche you cannot cram both questions into one because they deal with two different issues.

Why do women dress a certain way? Well, I would like to ask what is this “certain way” you speak of? I thought we were long past the days in which women showed ankle and men’s cheeks flushed. After the feminist movement and the burning of the bras, women bodies were symbols of beauty. Many a statue was chiseled from stone to mimic the unique curves of a woman’s peaks and valleys. She should not have to hide them for fear of being labeled a whore or a slut. Last time I checked, whores were such because of what they did not because of what they wore. Women choose to dress in a “certain way” because it reflects their self esteem and confidence. Women choose to dress in a “certain way” because they simply have the choice to do so. Women choose to dress in a certain way because we see how dressing “a certain way” warrants male attention. Simply, If you guys did not respond to it we would change our thought pattern.

Why do women dress a certain way and want to be treated differently? I was having a conversation with a group of intellectuals, when a man, who I deem on the lower end of the intelligence scale, said “Not all women deserve to be treated with respect, they have to earn it.” It is my personal belief that all people regardless of gender should be treated with respect. It is a right not a privilege. If I choose to wear a short skirt, I cannot blame you for forgetting to look at my eyes. But, I do not excuse you for showing me a level of respect beneath a woman who is wearing a turtleneck and jeans. I don’t dress a certain way to play a trick on men and see how different they will treat me. I walk around with the assumption that men will treat me as myself regardless of what I am wearing. Because humans rely so much on visual sensory cues, we often dwindle down our impressions of people to what they wear and how they wear it. Whhy do you think, two people with equal credentials can end up at separate ends of the corporate totem pole? But once again, I digress.

The United States of American is a sort of haven to the rest of the world. Because of this citizens of this country, many times, use the luxury of this country as a reason not to be concerned with the state of other countries and continents. To put up blinders to your fellow human beings is a state of dangerous ignorance that everyone should be working everyday to avoid. Watching the videos from the Haiti Project was not an eye opener but rather a call to action to impact situations that we already knew were happening. Haiti has been one of the poorest countries in the world for years. However, with the devastating impact of earthquake that hit last year, this country has reached the lowest of the lows. It surprises me how programs like Haitian Partners for Christian development can birth from such devastation. The videos I watched were awe inspiring. How can people living among such devastation still find muses to inspire artwork, designs, philanthropic work and countless other endeavors?

At times when tasks seem so large, it is hard to think that your two little hands could have any impact at all. While watching the videos, even I had a hard time thinking of ways to help these people and their businesses. However, we have to remember that even offering a little assistance progresses their state pass the point that it is currently in. I think that as far as Euclid and Yvrose who have one or no mannequin to work with, we could bid companies to donate mannequins. We could present it as a way for companies to be proud of their efforts to help Haiti and even look into getting Government recognition of those companies who help in this effort. Event partially defective mannequins could serve the designers a purpose in some capacity. We could raise money to pay for the shipping and postage to send them the mannequins. I think finding donations and raising money for the shipping would be more effective that just throwing money at the situation. Many times, the money we send to the countries never reaches the people we intended. Money, without a clear financial plan or strategy does not solve the problem because the money may get used for something different and not better the specific situation at all.
Because I want to become a Registered Nurse, health initiatives are near and dear to my heart. Community Health, especially, is a genuine interest of mine. The health infrastructure of other countries is particularly interesting because the United States is so advanced in some regards. The Hospital Project, I believe, will be beneficial because of the two fold mission: 1) providing jobs and 2) providing medical services.

First, I want to start by trying to decipher what Sam actually meant by his outburst that “Gay marriage does not matter.” I think in the context of our lecture about both socio-psycho cognitive and socio-structural causes of inequality, Sam meant that instead of arguing about what we cannot control (or what some feel they cannot) like our sexuality and/or sexual orientation, we should be actively trying to change the things we can. Examples of things we can change could include but are not limited to: who we vote for, if we vote at all, etc. Politicians are one group of people that pull the strings that Sam was referring to. I don’t think at all that Sam was trying to downplay the issue of Gay rights and civil rights for all people. However, I do think he was trying to challenge how we identify a problem or an issue and who we approach with conflict surrounding that problem.
Secondly, in answering your question about the real issues, I think that this topic is fleeting and is never consist between more than 2 people. What is important to one person living on a square city block may be irrelevant to the person living 2 doors down. Religion, politics, death, and money are the real issues that I think can be applied across cultures, genders, and ideologies. However, it is when you start to dissect those topics and branch off from them is where you lose some followers and gain others. Which denomination of Christianity is right? How many genders are their really? Why can’t we all just vote Independent? How should money be invested for our future? These are all questions that both spark people up and shut others down. We have to be careful around these issues. See there, even in my effort to be politically correct, I have lost some readers.
Let’s get down to the nitty gritty shall we? My real issues are: education, real relationship with God, providing for the family I was born into, providing for the family I will birth, landing a secure job, going to graduate school, paying off school loans, traveling the world, war, famine, robbery, drug addiction, unemployment, poverty in the U.S., poverty around the world, having health children, making a difference in my community, fighting statistics, finding my purpose in God, living my purpose in God, human rights, civil rights, global rights, fighting sweatshop production, recycling, leaving my mark on Penn State. As I stated above, my issues may not be your REAL issues. Does that make them less important? It is all relative to your thinking, ideologies, and moral belief structure that you hold true to.

What is Black? What is African? What is African American? If Sociology 119 blogs are a place where I can be blunt and honest, then that is what I am about to do. I think comments like this are a part of the inherent ignorance that plagues the United States. Ignorance – not knowing or wanting to know. I will issue a pardon to the gentleman in the video: at least you are on a quest to increase your knowledge. This video also reminds me of when I was younger and I thought that all white people looked similar. It almost sounds silly to say that all people of a group look alike. It is much more mature to say that people look different but they carry inherent similar physical traits. Likewise, it is much more knowledgeable to realize that people can be grouped together for their physical traits but still maintain and represent their distinct cultural and ethnic qualities. I do not see why something as simple as people coming from different countries is so confusing. Frankly, it is just plain rude.
On the other hand, maybe putting groups of people under an umbrella based on their geographic location is what we are used to. Maybe classifying things down to their simplest forms is what we were taught to do ever since we learned about lowest common denominators in third grade. For example, we tend to classifying people descending from countries in Asia, as simply Asian. Whether Korean, Japanese, Filipino, etc. we tend to say they are Asian (God forbid you say Oriental, but that is definitely a different blog post). However, what is different about that example of simplifying classifications of people is that it was based on geographic location and not skin color or tone. Simply saying citizens of Ghana, Trinidad, and Barbados are simply Black is denying them the courtesy that we extend to everyone else.
Religion, race and politics are the three most taboo subjects known the mankind. This fundamental common knowledge is why we should be extremely careful of using language that strips people of what is as inherent to them as the skin on their bodies. Someone’s ancestry can be as trialed and tragic as the slave trade. Someone’s ethnic background could indeed trace back to the slave trade! Whatever the heritage, the right to be recognized as whatever you choose to be called is a right that can never be taken away. The assumption that all people with darker brown skin fall into the same culture is a dangerous one. When in doubt never assume, after all when you assume you make an ass out of you.

Pale skin, unfortunately, is not attributed to being healthy. Why else would concentration camps inmates use their own blood to smear on their cheeks to mask their pale and frail states of being? Without noticing it, we are attracted to healthy individuals. The attraction to tan, plump-skinned individuals may not be personal preference, but rather innate, selfish, obligation to pass on our genes. What can I say? I like to play both sides of the same coin.