Asian Americans have been given the label of "model minority" because of their seemingly superior intelligence and work ethic. They are viewed as being more productive and achieving higher job status than other minorities. In Ronald Takaki’s essay, The Harmful Myth of Asian Superiority, he offers facts to dispel the myth of Asian superiority and its harmful claims.
If I held the viewpoint that Asian Americans are more economically successful than Americans or African Americans, Takaki would strongly disagree with me. Takaki offers many statistics to support his claim that Asian Americans are not achieving the status that they are being credited for. Takaki's essay, that originally appeared in the New York Times, included the following statistics. The article stated that twenty-five percent of the people in New York City’s Chinatown lived below the poverty level in 1980, compared with 17 percent of the city’s population. Refugees from from Laos have unemployment rates that reach as high as 80 percent. Also in 1988, only 8 percent of Asian Americans were "officials" and "managers," compared with 12 percent for all other groups. He also states that, in 1988, Koreans in the New York metropolitan area earned only 69% of the median income of non-Asians.
A fact that I found surprising was that more than three-quarters of Korean greengrocers came to America with a college education. Many had been engineers, teachers, or administrators in Korea. This fact made me question if Americans were not willing to give them opportunities because of their Korean ancestry. Further more, some Americans may hold prejudices against Koreans because of events that occurred during the Korean Conflict. Perhaps Korean immigrants may have if found it easier to start their own businesses than to try to enter the work force in an unfamiliar and different culture.
My first thought when reading Takaki's essay was that he may be bias because of his own Asian background. I wondered if he held any prejudices because of personal experiences or those of his family and friends. As I read Takaki's supporting facts, his claim that Asian Americans are no more successful than the other minorities began to have merit. I realized that I have been guilty of assuming the "myth of Asian superiority." The media, especially television programs, portray Asians as very intelligent and focused on education. There have been many articles written about how American students are falling behind in academic performance when compared to Asian students. Stories about a few Asians attaining economic success leads Americans to assume success is occurring for all Asians.
Ronald Takaki does an adequate job of supporting all of his claims with solid facts throughout his essay. He convinces his readers to share his views and to feel the same way he does after reading his facts. By the end of the essay you have a sense that Asians as a whole are not as successful as Americans perceive them to be.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Epstein: Organ Sales Should be Legalized
Richard A. Epstein views potential legal organ sales as a way to end the huge organ waiting lists. He believes that our country should legalize organ sales so people can be given a second chance to live. Epstein explains how the government should take action due to the increasing organ waiting lists. He supports his argument of legalizing organ sales by explaining how we give praise to those donate organs, but then, “Why condemn sales?” He is basically saying that if sales were made legal, it would be almost the same idea of donating because the person still has to recover from surgery and take huge health risks. He also supports his argument through expressing it is better to have 100 people with one functioning kidney than 50 people with two kidneys and 50 people with kidney failure. That is such a concrete statement by almost stating the obvious that organ sales will simply save lives. Another way he supports his claim is organ donations are never a done deal. When someone dies, their family members can veto the donation card and then the organs will not be taken out for donation. Epstein is saying that there are plenty of organ donors, but there are sometimes family members who just can not handle the corpse being taken apart for organ donations. That is why he states an excellent point that the organ waiting lists are always increasing. He sees that as such a sad fact and the only way would be to legalize organ sales.
Epstein does give a few good points that maybe it is okay that organ sales are illegal. He allows for the concerns of the opposing side to be acknowledged. Epstein writes about the risks that come with live donors, such as they have to recover from surgery and risk their own life to give to another. The risks Epstein names off are alcoholism, hepatitis, and AIDS when it comes to organ donation, just like blood donation. Maybe the people who would sell organs would just be desperate, and that is basically saying the poor would be the ones who would donate the most. Epstein sees this as favoring the rich and not the poor; he does not want the poor to have to sell their own body just because that is all they have left, yet it would still benefit people who are dying. This explaining of dangerous risks does not outweigh the benefits.
Epstein’s argument of legal organ sales is quite persuasive in how he gives excellent examples of how society would benefit. The statement that was most persuasive was, “We need to get past our own squeamishness and give those who need it another chance to live.” Epstein believes that with the growing waiting lists for organs, something needs to happen. He wants the government to do something and that is why he points out so many more benefits than downfalls of legalizing organ sales. Epstein’s style with expressing benefits, while at the same time expressing risks, gives the reader a way to think for themselves. He wants society to believe organ sales will help so many people, which is why he supports his argument with just how it will help people who only want to live and get their life back.
Epstein does give a few good points that maybe it is okay that organ sales are illegal. He allows for the concerns of the opposing side to be acknowledged. Epstein writes about the risks that come with live donors, such as they have to recover from surgery and risk their own life to give to another. The risks Epstein names off are alcoholism, hepatitis, and AIDS when it comes to organ donation, just like blood donation. Maybe the people who would sell organs would just be desperate, and that is basically saying the poor would be the ones who would donate the most. Epstein sees this as favoring the rich and not the poor; he does not want the poor to have to sell their own body just because that is all they have left, yet it would still benefit people who are dying. This explaining of dangerous risks does not outweigh the benefits.
Epstein’s argument of legal organ sales is quite persuasive in how he gives excellent examples of how society would benefit. The statement that was most persuasive was, “We need to get past our own squeamishness and give those who need it another chance to live.” Epstein believes that with the growing waiting lists for organs, something needs to happen. He wants the government to do something and that is why he points out so many more benefits than downfalls of legalizing organ sales. Epstein’s style with expressing benefits, while at the same time expressing risks, gives the reader a way to think for themselves. He wants society to believe organ sales will help so many people, which is why he supports his argument with just how it will help people who only want to live and get their life back.
Richard A. Epstein's Persuasion Methods
Throughout Epstein's column he continually states his idea that sales of organs should be legalized. While understanding others' points of view, he believes that to decrease the number of people on waiting lists, the government should allow others willing to sell their organs. With his position stated and supported by the many beliefs of others proved wrong, Epstein tries to prove to his readers that selling organs will be a positive outcome.
In the beginning of Epstein's column he starts off asking the most important question, "Why condemn sales?". Right away he states his opinion that there are many people out there that are in desperate need of organ transplants and few people are able to help. By selling organs, Epstein believes that the number of needed organs will go down as the number of people wanting to help goes up. He then goes on to include voluntary exchange. Here he is encouraging people to donate there organs, but is simply stating that although some are willing to donate, the number of people are still not enough to make an impact. Epstein makes a very good point when he says that a "mother might well give her kidney to her son. But when asked to donate to a stranger, she would probably recoil at the obvious costs"(103). Donating to family no one stops to think about the costs. They are family so it is expected of you. But when asked to help a stranger, people begin to worry about the costs because then their health or life seems to be more precious.
Epstein is good about taking the opposing side's concerns and turning them around to state the obvious or the better side of the problem. An example of this is when Epstein states, "we are told that organ sales must be banned because individuals verge on irrationality, unable to make informed judgments about the risks they assume" (104). With this said Epstein turns around and asks why complex surgeries also test rational decision making and why we do not ban experimental treatments even though patients are easily confused then too. He makes a good point. The opposing side states that we are doing things without the patient’s knowledge of the risks, but at the same time we are already doing this in other situations. Experimental treatments are dangerous and can sometimes cause death. How is it any different when we transplant an organ with similar risks as being dangerous and may cause death?
Another example of Epstein twisting the opposing side’s concerns is when they introduced the idea that if people were allowed to sell organs then the rich people would be favored over the poor. Just as Epstein says, the rich are already favored in today’s society. He has a good point when he says that nothing is preventing the government from helping the poor purchase organs with tax dollars. It seems that no matter what the opposing side throws toward Epstein as an excuse for banning organ sales, he always has another come back that will benefit from sales.
By using examples of opposition/rebuttal, Epstein can clearly persuade his readers. Being able to take others’ questions and concerns and answering them with little hesitation causes others to be further persuaded. In my own personal perspective, I am most persuaded by people who take action and believe in what they are trying to get across to others. If they know their facts and are able to answer questions of others without hesitation, it has a stronger hold on people.
As Epstein states his opinion and further supports himself by answering the opposing side’s questions, he further draws in his audience. He holds strong in his beliefs and does not hesitate when opinions or concern rise up. He simply turns the problems around and finds the better side to focus on. Throughout this column I believe Epstein did a great job persuading me in believing that organ selling should be legalized.
In the beginning of Epstein's column he starts off asking the most important question, "Why condemn sales?". Right away he states his opinion that there are many people out there that are in desperate need of organ transplants and few people are able to help. By selling organs, Epstein believes that the number of needed organs will go down as the number of people wanting to help goes up. He then goes on to include voluntary exchange. Here he is encouraging people to donate there organs, but is simply stating that although some are willing to donate, the number of people are still not enough to make an impact. Epstein makes a very good point when he says that a "mother might well give her kidney to her son. But when asked to donate to a stranger, she would probably recoil at the obvious costs"(103). Donating to family no one stops to think about the costs. They are family so it is expected of you. But when asked to help a stranger, people begin to worry about the costs because then their health or life seems to be more precious.
Epstein is good about taking the opposing side's concerns and turning them around to state the obvious or the better side of the problem. An example of this is when Epstein states, "we are told that organ sales must be banned because individuals verge on irrationality, unable to make informed judgments about the risks they assume" (104). With this said Epstein turns around and asks why complex surgeries also test rational decision making and why we do not ban experimental treatments even though patients are easily confused then too. He makes a good point. The opposing side states that we are doing things without the patient’s knowledge of the risks, but at the same time we are already doing this in other situations. Experimental treatments are dangerous and can sometimes cause death. How is it any different when we transplant an organ with similar risks as being dangerous and may cause death?
Another example of Epstein twisting the opposing side’s concerns is when they introduced the idea that if people were allowed to sell organs then the rich people would be favored over the poor. Just as Epstein says, the rich are already favored in today’s society. He has a good point when he says that nothing is preventing the government from helping the poor purchase organs with tax dollars. It seems that no matter what the opposing side throws toward Epstein as an excuse for banning organ sales, he always has another come back that will benefit from sales.
By using examples of opposition/rebuttal, Epstein can clearly persuade his readers. Being able to take others’ questions and concerns and answering them with little hesitation causes others to be further persuaded. In my own personal perspective, I am most persuaded by people who take action and believe in what they are trying to get across to others. If they know their facts and are able to answer questions of others without hesitation, it has a stronger hold on people.
As Epstein states his opinion and further supports himself by answering the opposing side’s questions, he further draws in his audience. He holds strong in his beliefs and does not hesitate when opinions or concern rise up. He simply turns the problems around and finds the better side to focus on. Throughout this column I believe Epstein did a great job persuading me in believing that organ selling should be legalized.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Final Summary on Bok
Derek Bok wrote in the Boston Globe an essay about First Amendment rights. My understanding is as follows:
When I read Bok’s essay, I was trying to figure out for myself if I would have been offended either by the Confederate flag or by the swastika. This became an argument on First Amendment rights, and who decides how it should be interpreted. I would like to share my opinion.
Bok was the president of Harvard University before he wrote this essay and the issue had come up. I think there are a lot of people around today who expect others to walk carefully around them. They do not expect anyone to offend them and they will surely make it known when others cross the line.
Symbols can have so many meanings and therefore so many more interpretations. What I think a swastika stands for and what someone twenty years younger than me thinks a swastika stands for will be two different ideas. When we live in a free society, there are so many more touchy areas or subjects that a dictatorship would clarify. In those countries they are not allowed to display a Confederate flag or a swastika, it is against the law and is not done. Being in America, we need to think a little bit what others might interpret offensive and be a little more understanding. We should learn to get along with our neighbors and even just get to know our neighbors.
We are so wrapped up in our own lives that we are blind to what is going on in our cities. People don’t need to be judged by what they look like, how they dress, or what nationality they are. We are so quick to look at someone and form an impression of them and we have not even spoken to them.
Bok is writing on how to call the shots when a controversy comes up. I don’t think that a private university should have different rules on this subject than a public university. The First Amendment rights are subject to our interpretations. Each governing body has to react when controversy arises and that is their job.
All of us as human beings need to start showing some consideration of others and their right to free speech. When we disagree with something that is displayed or written in plain view, maybe we could talk with the person who wrote or displayed this and come up with a new understanding of each other’s beliefs.
As Bok says in his last paragraph, we should try to talk with each other, come to an understanding and stop all of the fighting and offensive behavior. We could find a compromise that would at least stop us from arguing. I was in the military and these kind of things came up all of the time. Yes, there were some fights, there were some punches thrown, and lots of negative words were shouted at each other. We had to find a way to work together no matter who you shared a foxhole with. It can be done and sometimes it is just an agreement to disagree. Respect each other for who we are and try not to let personal differences create fights that last for eternity.
When I read Bok’s essay, I was trying to figure out for myself if I would have been offended either by the Confederate flag or by the swastika. This became an argument on First Amendment rights, and who decides how it should be interpreted. I would like to share my opinion.
Bok was the president of Harvard University before he wrote this essay and the issue had come up. I think there are a lot of people around today who expect others to walk carefully around them. They do not expect anyone to offend them and they will surely make it known when others cross the line.
Symbols can have so many meanings and therefore so many more interpretations. What I think a swastika stands for and what someone twenty years younger than me thinks a swastika stands for will be two different ideas. When we live in a free society, there are so many more touchy areas or subjects that a dictatorship would clarify. In those countries they are not allowed to display a Confederate flag or a swastika, it is against the law and is not done. Being in America, we need to think a little bit what others might interpret offensive and be a little more understanding. We should learn to get along with our neighbors and even just get to know our neighbors.
We are so wrapped up in our own lives that we are blind to what is going on in our cities. People don’t need to be judged by what they look like, how they dress, or what nationality they are. We are so quick to look at someone and form an impression of them and we have not even spoken to them.
Bok is writing on how to call the shots when a controversy comes up. I don’t think that a private university should have different rules on this subject than a public university. The First Amendment rights are subject to our interpretations. Each governing body has to react when controversy arises and that is their job.
All of us as human beings need to start showing some consideration of others and their right to free speech. When we disagree with something that is displayed or written in plain view, maybe we could talk with the person who wrote or displayed this and come up with a new understanding of each other’s beliefs.
As Bok says in his last paragraph, we should try to talk with each other, come to an understanding and stop all of the fighting and offensive behavior. We could find a compromise that would at least stop us from arguing. I was in the military and these kind of things came up all of the time. Yes, there were some fights, there were some punches thrown, and lots of negative words were shouted at each other. We had to find a way to work together no matter who you shared a foxhole with. It can be done and sometimes it is just an agreement to disagree. Respect each other for who we are and try not to let personal differences create fights that last for eternity.
Brownmiller Summaries Comparison
I read summaries written by Suzannah, Kaleena, and Matt. We all have the same basic idea that creating pornography is protected under the First Amendment. The differences we have is deciding who shouold be the ones to regulate where pornography is displayed.
I originally thought that the government should control where pornography is displayed, but after reading Matt's blog, I may have changed my mind. Matt said that if we let the government control where to display porn what else are they going to want to control? The domino effect of our country taking over everything in our "free country" is not a pleasing thought.
We all agree that pornography has become confused with art, but the laws need to be changed and redefined in order to clearly distinguish between the two. If that is not done this cycle will just continue on as it has for the last forty years.
It is interesting to read my classmates views on the same article. I especially find it intriguing how we can all interpret something just a little bit differently, but still end up at the same conclusion.
I originally thought that the government should control where pornography is displayed, but after reading Matt's blog, I may have changed my mind. Matt said that if we let the government control where to display porn what else are they going to want to control? The domino effect of our country taking over everything in our "free country" is not a pleasing thought.
We all agree that pornography has become confused with art, but the laws need to be changed and redefined in order to clearly distinguish between the two. If that is not done this cycle will just continue on as it has for the last forty years.
It is interesting to read my classmates views on the same article. I especially find it intriguing how we can all interpret something just a little bit differently, but still end up at the same conclusion.
Expanding Bok's Summary
Kelsey Webb
May 25th, 2007
Derek Bok served as the president of Harvard University from 1971 to 1991. During his last year of presidency in 1991, Bok published an article in the Boston Globe discussing free speech and “Expression on the Campus.” Basically, Bok describes the importance of free speech but also the importance of a mutually respected community. “We are faced with a clear example of the conflict between our commitment to free speech and our desire to foster a community founded on mutual respect.” Bok declares that this is an issue our society has had to and will continue to have to face. After completing my own summary and reading the summaries by Brenda, Taylor, and Laura; I have found similarities and differences.
All four of us agreed that the issue at hand is important and some course of action must be taken. We also agreed the best course of action was speaking with the students because setting restrictions could possibly create more problems than solutions. However, I included more references to the Supreme Court’s opinion than others did. Also, I referred to the main issue being freedom of speech/expression rather than the issues that the Harvard students’ actions caused.
Basically, all four had the same concept of Bok’s essay. We all perceived the essay in the same way; most likely the way Bok intended readers to interpret it. When writing summaries, it’s difficult to create one’s own “version” because the purpose is to regurgitate what the author actually wrote, without exactly copying it. Despite this difficulty, I believe it is possible to have a certain “spin” on a summary that would make it different than others. I might interpret a point slightly different than the next reader. These differences would make our summaries unique.
This exercise proved how affective summarizing can be. As I skim the reading for the week, I simply do just that; skim. When I actually have to summarize an article in my own words, paragraph by paragraph, I really interpret the author’s meaning. I will remember the Harvard incident and how it relates to free speech much longer than I’ll remember the checklist for critical thinking. Summarizing may be an editorial exercise, but I believe it is ethical as long as the guidelines between plagiarism and paraphrasing are understood.
It’s reassuring to read other summaries that are similar to my own. It’s also interesting to look at the differences between others’ opinions. Summarizing articles can really help a reader understand and remember the context of the message. Bok’s opinion will find a place in my brain, as will the other tools gained from this exercise.
May 25th, 2007
Derek Bok served as the president of Harvard University from 1971 to 1991. During his last year of presidency in 1991, Bok published an article in the Boston Globe discussing free speech and “Expression on the Campus.” Basically, Bok describes the importance of free speech but also the importance of a mutually respected community. “We are faced with a clear example of the conflict between our commitment to free speech and our desire to foster a community founded on mutual respect.” Bok declares that this is an issue our society has had to and will continue to have to face. After completing my own summary and reading the summaries by Brenda, Taylor, and Laura; I have found similarities and differences.
All four of us agreed that the issue at hand is important and some course of action must be taken. We also agreed the best course of action was speaking with the students because setting restrictions could possibly create more problems than solutions. However, I included more references to the Supreme Court’s opinion than others did. Also, I referred to the main issue being freedom of speech/expression rather than the issues that the Harvard students’ actions caused.
Basically, all four had the same concept of Bok’s essay. We all perceived the essay in the same way; most likely the way Bok intended readers to interpret it. When writing summaries, it’s difficult to create one’s own “version” because the purpose is to regurgitate what the author actually wrote, without exactly copying it. Despite this difficulty, I believe it is possible to have a certain “spin” on a summary that would make it different than others. I might interpret a point slightly different than the next reader. These differences would make our summaries unique.
This exercise proved how affective summarizing can be. As I skim the reading for the week, I simply do just that; skim. When I actually have to summarize an article in my own words, paragraph by paragraph, I really interpret the author’s meaning. I will remember the Harvard incident and how it relates to free speech much longer than I’ll remember the checklist for critical thinking. Summarizing may be an editorial exercise, but I believe it is ethical as long as the guidelines between plagiarism and paraphrasing are understood.
It’s reassuring to read other summaries that are similar to my own. It’s also interesting to look at the differences between others’ opinions. Summarizing articles can really help a reader understand and remember the context of the message. Bok’s opinion will find a place in my brain, as will the other tools gained from this exercise.
Monday, May 28, 2007
To Test Or Not To Test?
In Goodman's writing, he proposes getting rid of testing students altogether. Many students that have a difficult time taking tests would be all in support of this. Instead of having a big final test, have several quizzes during the sememster. Also grading daily work would be a good indicator of how the student is doing in the class. Many college classes rely on only testing for the students grade. Some students do not do well with the pressure that comes with this kind of grading. The pressure to do well on tests starts as early as first grade. A child that young does not understand the difference between an A and an F letter grade. The tests at that age level are very short. Say a student receives a grade of 8 out of 10 on a spelling test. The corresponding letter grade would be a low B. How accurate to a students ability can that really be?
In Gardner's writing, he has a good point about testing for apptitude and not for speed. A student who takes fifteen minutes longer to complete the SAT than another student does not by any means suggest that the slower student is not as smart. The slower student possibly double checked every answer while the faster student just answered the questions as fast as he could. True there are jobs out in the real world that will require an employee to be a fast thinker, but that doesn't mean they need to be tested on that before entering college.
In Ravitch's writing she defends testing, by saying it is a neccessary part of learning. She mentions testing for a driver's license. There should be more emphasis on the actual driving part of the test than whether or not the applicant knows exactly how many feet to turn on their blinker before turning in the written part of the test. Too much emphasis is put on written tests when many things should be demonstrated to a test giver that the student is competent.
In Gardner's writing, he has a good point about testing for apptitude and not for speed. A student who takes fifteen minutes longer to complete the SAT than another student does not by any means suggest that the slower student is not as smart. The slower student possibly double checked every answer while the faster student just answered the questions as fast as he could. True there are jobs out in the real world that will require an employee to be a fast thinker, but that doesn't mean they need to be tested on that before entering college.
In Ravitch's writing she defends testing, by saying it is a neccessary part of learning. She mentions testing for a driver's license. There should be more emphasis on the actual driving part of the test than whether or not the applicant knows exactly how many feet to turn on their blinker before turning in the written part of the test. Too much emphasis is put on written tests when many things should be demonstrated to a test giver that the student is competent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)