Contemporary Slavery

Human Trafficking
 

By: Maria Brown

 

Is it possible to end modern day slavery? In a word, yes! 

Contemporary slavery is a global problem. More than twenty-seven million people are bought, sold or traded in one of history’s oldest social institutions. There are numerous reports of exploited children as young as 3 years old. No one is safe. While it may seem that the problem is too big to solve, there are numerous things that can be done. 

Abject poverty pushed many of today’s enslaved men, women, and children into the hands of predators. Some were duped and others were unsuspectingly betrayed by those closest to them. In our enlightened era, how can a brothel pay as little as $800 to a poor father for his fourteen year old daughter, and the father believe he has no other option?  Economically solvent people can never understand 'prostitution desperation', or how persons unsuitable for prostitution end up as bonded labor working 15 hours per day in foreign households.  

Poverty cannot be eradicated without access to education and the skills required to compete for jobs that pay better wages. In many third world countries public or privately sponsored aid programs don’t exist, or if they do, they are inadequately funded to be of much value. Powerful countries like the United States should fund educational grants that subsidize training for targeted groups in countries with the highest at-risk population. 

Penalties for those who engage in human trafficking need to be more severe. According to AbolitionMedia.com, "In 2006 there were only 5,808 prosecutions and 3,160 convictions worldwide. This means for every 800 people trafficked only one person was convicted." It is time to stop turning a blind eye and take a stand to abolish modern day slavery.  

Ending human trafficking begins with the introduction of educational opportunities in those countries hardest hit. It ends with the worldwide prosecution and eradication of those committing these crimes against humanity.  Collectively society can end human trafficking.

Edited by Barbara Latimer

Human Commodity: Too Big to Tackle

By: Mikki Dixon

 

 

 

 

The U.S. State Department's definition of human trafficking applies to people who are subjected to forced labor, sex trafficking, bonded labor, debt bondage for immigrant workers, involuntary domestic servitude, forced child labor, child soldiers, and child sex trafficking. The number of people forced into these types of slave arrangements is greater now than at any other time in history. Contemporary slavery is, indeed, a global problem, and one too large for any law enforcement or government agency to tackle, even when combining forces.  

“The government of the country should prohibit severe forms of trafficking in persons and punish acts of such trafficking”. That policy according to the Trafficking of Persons Report for 2012 will lead to a reduction in the number of human trafficking victims. It's disheartening to accept what the quote implies about prevailing attitudes toward combating human trafficking. Countries aren't being encouraged to prohibit human trafficking all together, but only to prohibit “severe” forms of trafficking. 
 

As the economic divide widens, more and more disenfranchised people will fall prey to predators who view human trafficking as a commodity business with unlimitless profits to be made. These profiteers do not have a social conscious and will continue until forced to stop. Placing some responsibility for these conditions on the victims may spur controversy, but some of these criminal activities could be limited if more people sought to improve their situations where they currently reside instead of trying to pay unscrupulous individuals to illegally transport them into another country, thus creating bonded or debt labor situations for themselves.

I agree education should be encouraged to aid those who wish to improve their living conditions, and governments should be encouraged by their citizens to prosecute traffickers to the fullest extent of the law. Regrettably however, this is something else I don't see  happening anytime soon.  Society lacks the resolve and means to end human trafficking. 

Edited by Barbara Latimer

 

Movies Enlighten and Entertain

Zero Dark Thirty

By Barbara Latimer

Thirty minutes after midnight in darkness and secrecy . . . the decade-long manhunt for Osama bin Laden was finally over. The al-Qaeda leader and mastermind of the most egregious attack on the United States (U.S.) in contemporary times was found and killed in an exchange of gunfire with elite Navy Seals.  The elimination of bin Laden became the most politically significant news story of 2011 in the U.S.

The movie Zero Dark Thirty is an historical dramatization of the epic journey and sacrifice of the dedicated intelligence and military operatives who finally gave America justice. The film’s director, Kathryn Ann Bigelow, meticulously filmed and brought the bin Laden mission to life based upon the perspective of the men and women who lived it.  The dialogue is at times intense and combative, and there are several scenes that summon powerful emotions for the audience. On cue, however, the film diverts the viewer’s attention to the dangerous world of terrorism and the steadfast debt the American public owes to those who protect them.

As with all great movies, there has been some political controversy with the film’s insinuation that waterboarding and other forms of torture were used as interrogation tools against al-Qaeda militants and sympathizers.  For most Americans however, the film reflected realism based on our understanding of the irrationality of normal communications with extremists. The tone of the movie is apolitical – with a focus on storytelling that exulted the spirit and heart of the American people.

The film leaves no doubt that the U.S. is a country with a long geographic reach who will pursue its enemies to hell and back.

Edited by: Mikki Dixon

Zero Dark Thirty

By: Maria Brown

Zero Dark Thirty is a thrilling historical drama that highlights the take down and capture of Osama bin Laden. The movie walks the viewer through the entire United States' operation which included capture, interrogation, and torture. While the movie was certainly one of the most significant political news stories of 2011, there were others that were equally if not more significant. For example, the Occupy Wall Street movement had its own share of publicity and was addressed by President Obama himself. What started as a small New York City gathering grew to an international movement.

Zero Dark Thirty showcases the dangerous world of terrorism, but it also makes the viewer wonder how far is too far to go for revenge? It begs the question, how many lives have to be taken in the name of vengeance? The amount of money that was spent in pursuit of Osama bin Laden over the course of eight years could have been spent on many other things that the U.S. so desperately needed. I agree that many Americans were happy when bin Laden was captured because of the pivotal role he played in the attacks on the Twin Towers; however, I also think that many Americans were just relieved that the pursuit for him was over.

The controversy surrounding the movie is well understood. It should never be acceptable to water board, walk a person on a leash and/or humiliate a prisoner. This is even truer when the prisoner hasn’t had the opportunity to be tried before a court of law.  Human beings should be treated as such. The further we push the envelope on what is considered acceptable interrogation, and by extension torture, the more immune we become to its effects. It is important to consider, what type of world would we live in then?

Zero Dark Thirty brings to light the CIA’s hidden dirty little secret.  The secret is they will use “any means necessary” to get what they want, even at the expense of shredding the moral fiber that separates human beings from animals.

Edited by: Mikki Dixon

SATs: Still Relevant or Outdated?

SATs Scores Are a Sign of Intellect and Overall Academic Aptitude, Not Socio-economic Status

By: Mikki Dixon

Charles Murray asserts that the SAT should be abolished because it is not a true indicator of a student’s potential academic success. He claims socio-economic background and parent education achievement are better indicators of overall intellect and successful pursuit in academia. Murray  believes that intellectual students coming from a lower socio-economic status are placed at a disadvantage when taking the SAT because their parents could not afford the test-prep course available to upper-middle class counterparts. 

Murray acknowledges however that test-prep classes do nothing for students that a few hours of personal study could not accomplish on its own.  He contends that “once a few hours have been spent on these routine steps [studying], most of the juice has been squeezed out of preparation for the SAT.”  I am inclined to agree with this assessment because I believe intellectual, academically inclined students will be successful both in taking the SAT as well as in their college classes— regardless of their socio-economic background. 

Aptitude is something locked within the genetic code and is fostered by one’s family and educators.  It is something which cannot be taught, studied for, or bought at a high dollar value.  As such, anyone claiming aptitude can be bought is truly only referring to the hard work and effort put in by the student. Therefore, I whole-heartily disagree that the SATs should be abolished because it is still the best indicator of student success during the college years.

Edited by Barbara Latimer

Just Say NO to SATs!

By: Maria Brown

 

There is an ongoing debate over whether the SAT should be abolished. To that question, I answer with a resounding, "Yes!" SAT scores alone do not predict future college success. As a matter of fact, SATs have a much better chance of weeding out intelligent students that come from a lower socioeconomic status than they do highlighting the students that will thrive and succeed.

In 2012, the University of Minnesota published a study in Psychological Science titled “The Role of Socioeconomic Status in SAT-Grade Relationships and in College Admissions Decisions.” This study examined the relationship between socioeconomic status, secondary-school grades, college admissions and college freshman grade-point average. The study found that socioeconomic status and SAT scores are positively correlated, and that students from higher income backgrounds generally achieve higher scores having benefited from access to better schools, prep tests, tutors and more. The study didn't find that the higher performing SAT students were inherently more intellectual or smart.
 
As a result, colleges that heavily rely on SAT scores as a basis for admission are inevitably screening out diverse students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Bypassing a student for admission based on a biased test score, without regard to their cumulative high school grade point average, extracurricular activities or community involvement is arguably unfair and counter-productive. Strict use of the SAT as a predictive measurement of college success stacks the deck against lower income students who may be ill-prepared for the test, but most in need of the opportunity for economic advancement derived from attending college.

Instead of reducing everyone to a number on a piece of paper, colleges should screen and admit students based on the full scope of course work they have completed while attending high school. This will ensure that we continue to champion our best and brightest students and that everyone has a chance at the "American dream."

Edited by Barbara Latimer

 



 

 

 

THE ADOPTION DEBATE

Can I change my mind . . . ?

By: Barbara Latimer

            In 2010, Torry Ann Hanson put her adopted seven year old son on a plane back to his native Russia with a note explaining that she was unable to parent the child she described as "violent with severe psychopathic issues." She alleged he tried to burn down her home with everyone inside.  The international fallout was swift and extreme leading to a temporary suspension of all Russian adoptions to the United States. The core question can’t be addressed by a moratorium on adoptions. Assuming everything Hanson said was true, does that give her or any adoptive parent the right to return a difficult or sick child because of unfulfilled expectations?  

          In the past two decades, Americans have adopted approximately sixty thousand Russian children. Many of these children are discovered post adoption to have severe physical and developmental issues resulting from fetal alcohol syndrome. They have attachment/bonding issues. They will never be what the adoptive parents imagined, but then again, birth children aren’t always what we imagined them to be either. We work with what we have and do our best to support and love them.

Children once adopted are yours. You cannot return them like shoes that suddenly start to pinch or a purse that now seems too large for everyday wear.  There are no do overs. For Hansen, U.S. court assessed breach of contract damages amounting to $150,000, and monthly child support payments of $1,000 to the Russian orphanage are a debilitating reminder that adoptions are intended to be permanent . . . as should be expected.

Edited by: Maria Brown

Sixty Day Right of "Rescission" on Adoptions

By: Mikki Dixon

 

Under most conditions I agree that adoptions are forever, but there should undoubtedly be a “trial” period.  In some states birth mothers have sixty days to change their mind after giving a child up for adoption.  So, too, should adoptive parents have an opportunity to change their minds if they find the child requires greater care than they are capable of providing.  The reason being is although adoption agencies have a legal, ethical, and moral obligation to disclose any and all health issues of the adoptee, full disclosure is not always what takes place—especially in overseas adoptions.

It is only within the last decade that the pervasive neglect experienced by infants and children in orphanages in the former Soviet bloc has come to light.  Had it not been for the Human Rights Watch (HRW) investigations into conditions in these orphanages, the world may never have known about the rampant neglect, complete lack of touching, and nurturing withheld from these children.

The National Institute of Health's study of human development asserted there is a “sensitive period” during which it is critical for children to receive nurturing and physical touch in order to stave off a lifetime of mental illness and behavioral problems.  That time period is from birth to ten years old.  LiveScience.com contends that in studies of the human brain, children who are deprived of a consistent and loving touch have significantly less grey and white matter in addition to having a 10% smaller hippocampus than children who receive nearly constant direct contact in nurturing homes.

What does this lack of nurturing translate to exactly?  It’s simple.  Children who do not receive nurturing as infants have decidedly lower IQs and severe psychological problems which last a lifetime.  Sometimes this is referred to as the “runt” syndrome or “failure to thrive.”  

It is with this in mind that I advocate a trial period during which the prospective parents have an opportunity to see if the adoptee is a good fit or better suited for another family equipped to handle his or her individual difficulties.  Perhaps this seems callous but my rationale is this: it takes very special people to take care of a special needs child—not everyone can do it.  The trial period would protect both the parents and the child.

Sources:

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/russ98d.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18096809

http://www.livescience.com/21778-early-neglect-alters-kids-brains.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maia-szalavitz/how-orphanages-kill-babie_b_549608.html

edited by: Maria Brown 

DO INTERNSHIPS ADD VALUE?

Internship Importance by Barbara Latimer

Wow!  I cannot believe graduation is right around the corner and I’ll soon bid CSU farewell. I will no longer be a student, but someone’s employee. Am I ready for that?  The answer is a resounding YES. I have learned what I should have from my instructors academically, and I have completed an internship in my selected field of study. That internship opened doors for me.

Internships may be paid or unpaid, but all should be structured to maximize the intern’s opportunity to learn about their chosen profession. The intern performs as if a professional employee, and in exchange receives mentorship, training, and supervision. Student interns should take advantage of the opportunity to observe their surroundings and emulate the appropriate business attire, communication, and work ethics. The most effective internships will reveal any additional prerequisites a graduate may need for an in demand occupation, and make available professional networking opportunities.

Finding employment after graduation in today’s challenging times can be difficult, but the task is inarguably easier when a student has completed an internship. Having ‘real world’ relevant work experience prior to graduation is a competitive advantage, and this is especially true in a weakened job market.  I would encourage everyone to seek out an internship.

Edited by: Maria Brown

Networking Is In!

By: Mikki Dixon
 

Internships are not without merit.  Internships aid students in narrowing down their respective fields of interest, but offer little to no real world work experience.  Internships generally entail menial work better suited to someone with a high school education, the pay is usually minimum wage, and it offers no guarantee of a job offer after the internship is concluded.  In fact, the vast majority of internships do not lead to long-term job opportunities.  In the ever-changing landscape of job hunting, the single best way to secure gainful employment is networking.

Career counselors agree that networking is the best way to find a job in today’s shaky economy.  In days past, perspective employees had to hand deliver their resume to their potential employers.  At which point, the job searcher could meet someone inside the company face-to-face.  Those days are long gone.  Nowadays resumes and cover letters are submitted electronically.  Since the act of applying for work has moved entirely online, perspective employees no longer have the advantage of becoming a “face” and a “name.”  Now they are relegated to being just another number.

Career networking is no longer an “extra;” now it’s a necessity.  Landing a job in today’s market it is all about who you know and what kind of impression you have left with that individual.  It’s important to be “LinkedIn,” and to attend networking events such as luncheons and dinners.  More importantly, one needs to do everything possible to volunteer in their career of interest, particularly if their intention is to change career fields or if they are graduating from college and need experience in said field.  This networking not only provides experience in the field, but it also provides him or her with important networking opportunities.

If anyone has interest in narrowing down and deciding whether or not he or she is interested in one field, an internship is the obvious answer.  If he or she actually wants to find a career, the clear choice is to invest copious time networking.


Edited by: Maria Brown