There is a lot that any person can learn from this scandal. Any person either involved in the case, as a Penn State faculty, Penn State student, child, parent, or friend of a victim has been affected. Our lives have been affected, but we still remain ourselves. When people say “We Are…” we identify as a group—we identify as Penn State; however, we must stay true to whom we’ve always been. We were not always Penn State, it has become a part of us, but it is not wholly us. We are individuals first and foremost and for the events that have recently occurred to be placed on our whole identity is not fair. Nevertheless, we must use this as a reason and a time to reflect. We’ve been faced with a challenge to find out if we were placed in the shoes of a witness. We saw the repercussions of those people’s actions and we now have been given the extra chance to not commit their same wrongdoings. We must be true to our values and make actions based on how we would like to be helped. For instance, if you had been a victim in the showers with Sandusky, would you have wanted it to have been reported? If that person being violated in the showers were your child, would you react differently? Do you believe that you have a moral duty to help anyone in the face of danger? My answer would be yes. It is our responsible as citizens to help each other when in need. Report anything and everything, don’t leave things up to chance because you may never know how badly people need you to speak for them. As an education major, I feel strongly about this situation and believe that we must speak for the unspeakable.
It is when we went home for break that I truly realized this individualism. Everyone at home asked what was going on at school and if I participated in the riots and other activities in the recent weeks. They then brought up whether it will affect our number of applications and our reputation and that is what I believe is completely irrational. The actions of the football coaches and high-up administration do not define us. They do not define the students, the professors, or the faculty. It does not affect the grades I earn or the degree I receive. We will move past this and we will grow from it. As witnesses of this scandal, we have gained more than just an education here at Penn State, we have learned life lessons and we have learned what not to do. It is how we have reacted to the situation that has defined us.

We’ve been characterized. Based on the actions of a fraction of our student body, we will forever—or at least for a long, long time—be viewed as animals. Based on the recent Sandusky scandal, we’ve been in the limelight; we’ve been placed in a fishbowl with seemingly no end in sight.
The media portrayed us as people who support Joe Paterno despite his involvement in some way/shape/form in the scandal; they make us appear to not care about child abuse. However, what the media didn’t show on Wednesday night, was the large majority of us who did not participate in the riots. It was estimated that 1,000-2,000 students participated in the riots, well then why not show what the other 95% of us were doing that evening. My roommates and I all surrounded the TV and watched the media coverage from our living room, we did not take part in the violence and vandalism, we spoke intelligently and calmly with each other, all expressing our own viewpoints and opinions on the recent events. This is who I believe “we are”.
We Are…also the 10,000+ students that centered around Old Main for a candlelight vigil for child abuse victims on Friday night. We Are…students who supported our team until the very last second of their Senior game because they did not commit these disgusting acts, because they worked hard all season and don’t deserve to be associated with the poor acts of the administration and coaches. We Are…much more than the media portrayed us as, We Are...a family who cares.
As I sat on Facebook and Twitter this week, I saw statuses and tweets from non PennStaters who wonder how we could ever support Joe Paterno during any of this, I saw statuses that said that we should have cancelled the game because we didn’t deserve to play. In class, as Sam asked us via a clicker question if we thought that Joe Paterno was treated unfairly, 80% of agreed, he then said that the issue between the media and us is that 98% of the media believes that us 80% are out of our minds. Maybe they’re right, perhaps we are, but we must see all of the good that that one man has done. Many like to say he is the figure head of our University, but we all are much more than Joe Paterno—yes we love him and support him—but he is not all that we are or all that we stand for. He made mistakes, he did not act to his fullest and he even admits that; however, for the media to characterize us as crazy and violent is just as wrong. We Are…a family with/without Joe, We Are…much more than the actions of our administration, We Are…a University of Honor, We Are…Penn State.

As I walk around campus I more often than not, hear groups of students speaking in a different language. I pass groups of various races speaking in their native language and have developed a different opinion over the past two years. As a freshman I was frustrated by the fact that they did not speak English, I often found myself thinking that if they live in America, they should speak English. However, after passing these groups on a daily basis, I’ve begun to think that if I visited their country, I would speak my own language with my friends and family. If I traveled to Italy, I would still speak English to my family and friends regardless of the length of time I spent there, be it a week, or 10 years. I then also take into consideration my travel to California and the West Coast, and find myself remembering that the primary language spoken in fast food restaurants and other stores were Spanish rather than English. I suddenly became part of the minority in that I was unable to speak the language being spoken in these public places. I was shocked, to say the least. However, over time I am realizing that if the majority of the population in these geographic regions speak Spanish or another language, we should cater to that language. Nowhere does it say that English is the primary language of the United States, we just assume that it should be. With the influx of immigrants, students, and adults from other countries visiting the US or moving here permanently, the realization that English should be the only spoken language is diminishing more and more. I believe people’s comfort level with this issue is largely concerned with their home communities. Growing up in a largely white, suburban, middle/upper class environment, I never dealt with a variance in language. Everyone spoke English and it was never a problem. However, even here in State College I have noticed the larger percentage of ESL/ELL students in the elementary schools and the more massive amounts of immigrants who have a different native language. The geographic region we grow up in greatly shapes our opinions and comfort with people speaking different languages around us. In class we discussed the fact that white people will eventually become a minority and as this occurs, it only seems realistic that more and more languages will be represented in the US. A year later, after initially being annoyed that students were speaking different languages, I have come to respect our differences and have begun to acknowledge the breadth of diversity that our campus has. I am beginning to realize that there are far more important things to concern us with rather than a language difference.

I would view the issue of having only white students in this video if it were a larger number of students. Yet, there were only approximately 11 students in the video. We are not discussing a thousand white students joining together for a video, ONLY 11. According to the admissions website, 15% of students here at University Park are of "color"--meaning black and brown students--thus, of the 11 students in the video, 1.65% of the students should have been of color. In other words, based on the diverse population of students, one to two students in the video should have been of color, we're not talking hundreds of students, only one or two. There are plenty of groups around campus that do not accurately represent the population of different races on campus, so is it really fair to pinpoint this one video? I think it would be more accurate to find out the number of students in the Lion Ambassador organization, and ensure that those population distributions are accurate. In other words, if 20% of the Lion Ambassador members were of color, than there should have been one or two students of color representing their organization in the video, likewise with the members of the armed forces. The video should not be held accountable for representing the diversity of Penn State, but rather the diversity of the individual organizations responsible for the organization.
Also, is it moral to place a student of color in the video, simply to attend to the fact that there are not any students of color in the video? Is it the producer's fault that students of color were not a part of the making of the video? I, personally, do not believe that a colored student should be placed in the video to avoid conflicts and avoid the fact that there weren't any colored students involved. Those who created or were a part of the video should accurately represent the group of students who represent the organizations and the production of the video. If we begin to cater to the people and give credit or "air-time" to students simply to add diversity, are we truly adding diversity then? To answer this question, I like to think about if I saw an all black or colored video, would I critique the video claiming that they don't have any white people involved? Or, if that organization addressed me and asked me to be in their video, would I want to take part in it simply because I'm white? I believe that the representation of different races should be natural, different races should be represented based on the fact of who was involved in the creation of whatever it is, be it a video, movie, poster, etc.

I would venture to guess that I am between stages two and three; however, there are certainly times where I find myself back in stage one. From a white person’s perspective/outlook, I cannot deny that I don’t see a difference between races; I believe I find myself more aware of it than unaware of it. Since this class, and since coming to Penn State, I feel as though I have progressed to stage three in which I find myself noticing the inequality and privilege that exists between races. It’s hard to miss seeing the “black section” in class, or notice a group of Asians walking clustered together, speaking in their native language. I often find myself wondering if they view it the same as I do, and constantly see groups of white people hanging out—or is that just normal? As we learned in lecture, minorities and people of color often associate with others of the same race to become better acquainted; they are often overwhelmed by the amount of white people and keep to themselves because its sometimes easier than integrating themselves in. Coming from a mainly white suburban town, it wasn’t common to have black neighbors or any other races for that matter. Although, the interesting aspect of this was that other races were never targeted or acknowledged for being very different. I strongly believe that the environment I grew up in greatly influenced the stage I am in.
I believe my friends and families stage placements are slightly different than mine. For instance, my grandmother—given her age and the period she grew up in—views race primarily from an “us and them” perspective. When I dated a black guy, my mom strongly advised that I did not bring him around my grandmother until I was certain it was a serious relationship. I cannot blame her for the way she thinks because of the environment she grew up in; however, I am disappointed in the fact that her views haven’t changed as time has progressed. The majority of my friends are white and thus they are more than likely in the same stage I am; however, my Spanish friend (born and raised until she was 10 in Spain) does not allow race to affect her views of others; yet she does not react against hypocrisy.
I find it difficult to determine my own racial identity stage, as it requires me to assess my own beliefs, thoughts, and actions. It requires me to be completely honest with myself and not put myself at a false stage. I feel as though the stage at which I am in will constantly be changing or developing throughout my life, thus as time progresses, hopefully, I will too.

Separating conjoined is often a choice that is determined at a very young age. Unfortunately for Abby and Brittany, this was not a choice. It was pre-determined for them that they would be together forever. There is no doubt that it was an issue of determinism in that it was a result of environmental factors, there was no choice in whether they would be conjoined. The free will aspect of the issue is how they respond to what was pre-determined. They could easily be very bitter and resentful towards everyone for the stares they receive and the daily struggle of being conjoined; however, they don’t. They are some of the most optimistic people I have ever seen. They did not let the fact that they are struggling between being independent while also being conjoined affect their aspirations of being mothers, having careers, or even getting their license. They are constantly overcoming these triumphs, which is wildly admirable due to the fact that no one has attempted to do what they are doing. There is constant confusion as to whether they are 2 people or 1, constantly left wondering would they receive one salary or two, do they have to take individual academic tests, apply to colleges as two identities? The questions will never cease as they take on this new adventure of life; however, with their profound optimism, there seems to be no telling what can stop them. They’re using their free will and their choice to make the most of the situation that has been determined for them which cannot be easy. We as “normal” people struggle with our own self-image, constantly fearing how others will view us. However, this seems ridiculous when compared to Abby and Brittany who will never be able to walk anywhere or does anything without having people notice the obvious. They are medical marvels, but more importantly, they are people. As I watched in the video, they celebrate birthdays, have crushes on boys, and bicker like any of their peers, with just one slight difference—they share a body. It’s understandable for people to have great interest in them and how they go about their lives; however, it’s important to respect that they are trying to fit into the “normal” category just like anyone else and the more we point out their differences (just like race, gender, or ethnicity) the harder it is for them to drop below the radar. After watching multiple videos and TV shows about Brittany and Abby, I have come to find that they truly are not any different than any of us, while its mind-boggling to watch, after a few videos it no longer seemed so foreign. It was DETERMINED for them to be conjoined; yet it is their FREE WILL to react and cope with a positive attitude. These girls are amazing.

Let’s first make the assumption that this question assumes the way straight women dress to gain attention from heterosexual men. With that being said, women dress the way they do because society has taught them that dressing and acting in a certain manner will draw attention from men. The short, tight skirts, the low cut tops, and the ridiculous heels that make us walk at a much slower pace to avoid a sloppy fall to the ground is the “dress” I am referring to. It is common for women to desire attention from men in the same manner that men like receiving attention from women; however, in our society it has become more work for the woman than it has for the male. In history, we called it chivalry, although we now refer to it as “dead”. Men are rarely holding doors, standing when a woman enters a room, or delivering flowers and walking to the front door. The courtship and manners that once occurred between men and women in the realm of dating and relationships is fading. There is a new sense of communication and dating in which women feel the need to dress more provocatively, be more flirtatious, and more expressive. The male role in comparison, has become more relaxed as they now wait for women to “flaunt” and they then choose who they want to approach. Thus, if you were a woman, why wouldn’t you want to look your best? Why wouldn’t you try to make yourself look as desirable as possible for men? The answer to this is that we’re not all like this. Although we all want the attention, some of us have morals—some of us have reputations and images that we don’t want associated with dressing in a “certain” way. There are different types of “attention” that you can receive based on the different ways you dress. If you dress like a hoe, you’re going to be treated like one, if you dress in a way that will still get attention, but also demands respect, you won’t need to trade in your dignity in return for a man’s attention. Another reason women may dress in a certain way is because it can make them feel better about themselves. There is a feeling that you get after doing your hair and putting on a flattering outfit that makes you feel as though you are put together and have made yourself look good. There are numerous explanations for why women dress in certain ways and why some women choose to avoid those “ways” completely. It’s all about the desire to impress and how much effort you’re willing to put forth; but the important aspect of all of this is that regardless of the attention they may receive, women must do it for themselves to feel comfortable and satisfied with themselves, they cannot wait for others to tell them so.

I believe this is an unbelievably difficult question to answer. I don’t think it is a decision for a parent to make. Every person is allowed to have his/her personal beliefs about whether being homosexual is appropriate, accepted, or ignored; however, it is not the decision of the parent, friend, or peer to make for someone.
After discussing it in our recitation, I believe being gay is a biologically determined trait, it is not chosen. This is largely based on the numerous small children you see who you can immediately decide will later be gay, they do not choose this for themselves, rather it has been chosen for them.
Due to the fact that is biologically determined, I do not think it is fair to the child to decide to accept or not accept him/her because of something that is outside of his/her control. Ultimately what will happen if you do not let your child determine his/her gender, he/she will never feel comfortable. If you tell a boy that he cannot be gay, or will not be accepted if he is gay, he will either rebel and become distant from you (as a parent), or the boy will suppress his desire to be gay and will lead a life that he is not meant to lead.
Homosexuality is becoming more and more acceptable as time progresses. If we look back only 20 years ago, it is clear that immense progress has been made. One of the most valid reason for a parent to not allow their child to choose his/her gender would be based on concern and care for their child. It is a simple fact that it is more difficult to be different—to be homosexual; however, parents cannot protect their child from everything. There are certain aspects in life that need to be addressed despite the difficulty or struggle that could result from certain decisions.
There is a point in parenting where a parent must loosen the grip on their child and allow him/her to make their own decisions. “Choosing” a gender—deciding to express what has been biologically determined—is one of these necessary decisions for children to make. It would be terrible for a person to go through life wishing they had been someone else, made different decisions. A parent may make the gender decision for their child out of care and concern for their well-being; however, life is about happiness and happiness is different for everyone.
The better question is: would you let your child choose to be happy? It is fine to educate your child so that he/she makes the best, most sensible decision, but in the end, it is their decision, it is their life; allow them to do with it what they please.

I think the better question is, why would we want to? Why does anyone feel the need to? Thus far, I’ve spent 14 years in school, not including pre-school and kindergarten. I’ve learned a plethora of words and have continued to increase my vocabulary every day. Teachers are often encouraging to write more academically, to further develop our ideas, and to eliminate vague words and terms. With that said, people are constantly reverting to foul language such as bitch, whore, “n”, and a million others. Rather than using a more descriptive language, we decide to use words that are so vague in meaning and have far too many definitions to too many people. There are so many social rules with regards to the use of the “n” word, that people constantly need to watch who they say it around, who is allowed to say it, how they mean it, and others. Instead, avoid it. Avoid the controversy, be more educated and use words that better convey the message you are trying to reach.
This is all far more easier for me to say as it is a word that has never even entered my vocabulary. I’ve never had to fear when and how I say it, because I simply never use it. In my small suburban town, it is a rarity to hear it being thrown around. I live in a well-educated area where if the term is used, people are quick to frown upon it, regardless of the race of the person using it. Granted we are all taught not to avoid our problems and to face them straight on; however, this is one problem that will never be solved. There are certain topics in politics and in society that people will always have different stances on. Sometimes the “n” word will be a friendly term used between friends, sometimes it will be used as a hateful word, and sometimes (most often) it will be misinterpreted. My philosophy on the word is that if there is enough doubt in your mind that it will be taken incorrectly, don’t use it. If it is easily avoidable and you can use a different word that conveys the same meaning you are trying to get across, be more creative.
There are organizations around the Nation that are attempting to stop the use of this often offensive word such as the site: abolishthenword.org, the book: The N Word: Who Can Say It, Who Shouldn't, and Why, and even the documentary: The N Word. As a future educator, I constantly wonder how I would approach the topic of this word, or any other term or phrase that is not socially acceptable to everyone. The best way I can come up with to attend to this problem, is to tell them to rise above it, be smarter, be brighter, be more creative.

As we finished our recitation today on the topic of free-will vs. determinism, I found it unbelievably appropriate for the Haiti Project to be introduced today. After watching numerous videos about the entrepreneurs and community projects it is clear that despite the environment that these people have been left in, after the devastation in January 2010 and even prior to that event, their free will and choice to make something of their lives has shown through. Yvrose Noncent takes a shoe through every single process, she keeps her pieces and fabric in trash bags (like many of the other entrepreneurs) and spends tiresome hours and days to form a handful of items. Madame Lamour, who makes beautiful floral arrangements, has the products to open a store of her own; however, does not have the means to do it. Her free-will is dying to show through and preside over the deterministic environment she is in; however, she is limited by resources and the lack of bulk material. In regards to the Hospital community project, jobs for Haitians as well as meals and gowns can all be created with just a little support.
After watching numerous videos, it is clear that without all too much effort, we can increase the lives of the Haitian entrepreneurs. With a simple helping hand, their businesses can begin to strive in the way that they have only dreamed. If Yvrose simply had mannequins to display her dresses, or additional shoe mannequins for her five employees to work with (rather than one), I can only imagine how much her production would increase.
We, as a society, often jump to the conclusion that people in underprivileged countries do not strive to succeed. We often assume that they do not have the same drive, passion, or enthusiasm to better their standards of living; however, these entrepreneurs are changing that image. They are clearly representative of others in Haiti and other developing countries who are all working to their fullest capabilities to get by from day-to-day and support their numerous family members—some of which don’t even live in the same city like Sonia Joseph’s. The stories of these entrepreneurs have just begun to spark my interest in the Haiti project and I am just beginning to brainstorm the various ways in which we can DO something. How can we assist these entrepreneurs in a way that will not just help them for a short period of time, but will have an effect on their future production of goods. Maybe that means aiding in the purchase of a “finisher” machine for Yvrose, or finding a bulk supplier of floral items for Madame Lamour, or even finding a donor for textiles and fabrics for the Hospital Project. Regardless of what the action is, action needs to be taken to encourage these people to continue making the correct decisions and to keep believing that they can be successful at what they aim to do.