Welcome to our new home!

Hi class! This is where we'll be having free and uncensored discussions from now on (I promise to post the full story behind this switch later, but for now we have visual texts to analyze).
INSTRUCTIONS: Choose at least one image below and write a comment that describes the following:
     * your own reaction(s) to the image - how did you feel when you first saw it? As you examine it more closely, (how) do your feelings about it change?
     * the claim that the image is making - what is it trying to say? Bonus points for explaining what type of claim it is (fact, definition, evaluation, causation, and/or policy (it might even be more than one).
     * your analysis of which rhetorical appeal(s) the image is using to make its claim - logos, pathos, ethos? (Note that many visual texts will use at least one of these, often two, and occasionally all three. Don't feel like you MUST identify all 3 appeals every time; just describe what you see.)
     * the intended audience(s) the image wants to reach. Who do you think this message is intended for, and how does it want to make them feel? What (if anything) does it want to urge them to do?


You may, of course, choose to talk about more than one image. We'll go over these in class on Monday; I will post a revised course schedule this weekend that adjusts for the snow day last week.

My Experience with Violence & How We Can Help

As a 19 year old starting college, I really am starting to see the world in a different light than I once did. As a child, as cliché as it sounds, I thought that the world was peaceful, happy and safe. Unfortunately now, I cannot say that, because in reality we are facing dangers every time we leave our house without the fear of gun shed or being taken by someone and violated. Even though these dangers are everywhere, I still try to live my life to the fullest, but as a young adult now really entering the ‘real world,’ I feel I can now really form my opinions and feelings on the issues in the world today. There is one form of violence that stood out to me directly.
Something that really does affect me is sexual abuse, I think it is one of the most prevalent and life altering violence there is. It is demeaning, and the victim is never the same anymore. I would like to say that it’s not very common, but unfortunately that’s not true. I finally realized all of harm that was actually going on in the world in 2009, when a friend of mine took me to a youth group that she and a number of my friends went to every other Saturday night. I was hesitant in going, as I was a very shy 15 year old girl, but I was finally convinced, and it changed my life forever.
The group was called Y.A.S.O., which stood for Young Adults Speak Out (http://yasolockport.tripod.com). Everyone that attended sat in a giant circle and talked about the issues in the world, in schools, and effecting the youth today. As I looked around the room, I thought to myself, these are very different people. People I have never seen before, weird people, but you could visibly see the friendships that were formed. As people gathered before the meeting, everyone greeting and hugging one another; no matter how different they all were, their ties were unbreakable.
When the meeting started, the hearts poured out. Our topic was domestic violence, and as we bounced from person to person, waiting for their opportunity to speak, I was in tears, and so were those telling their stories. They talked about abuse at home, of anger, of factors that affected them at home. I couldn’t believe what was going on. In a group of 40 or so young adults, over half had been victims, from abusive parents, friends, and even significant others. I couldn’t believe it. From that moment on my life changed.
Our topics have varied from bullying in school, abuse, suicide, and other forms of violence. We have done a lot to help those in our group from counseling to even help getting them out of harmful situations. We have partnered with Guardian Angel Home, and have had [state representative] Emily McCasey visit, who, as a result of her visit with Y.A.S.O., helped get laws dealing with abuse passed in Illinois. We also recently have had C. Desir visit us, author of Fault Line, a book dealing with the story of a rape victim. She told us her story of her past as well as what she does with rape survivors and her reason for writing her book. I have poured my heart and soul into this group, and as our 5 year anniversary approaches, I look back at all we have done and continue to do, the lives we have touched, and the unbreakable friendships I have made. I am now a co-leader of the group and I get to choose topics to talk to our group about. We are real, and we address the issues that are hard to talk about and we make progress. We are not a large non for profit group, or well known, but we are making a difference, and are always welcoming new people to join and talk about the issues of today.
Life is not rainbows and sunshine, but with the help of those willing to make a difference, we can start the steps to get back to the peace we really need. We can get there. The abuse and violence needs to stop, and now the question is, how do we do it? Is any step to small or can any small contribution make a difference? What are you doing to advocate against violence?

Alyssa G.

The "R" word (or, "College courses must be appropriate for 5-year-olds")

Here's the email I sent to support@edublogs.org this morning - feel free to contact them yourself if you wish. I'll post their reply here as well:

Rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape.

This is a test to see whether I'll be allowed to actually make this post. You see, one of my students recently attempted to post on our course blog about the topic of preventing rape and other forms of sexual violence, as well as providing recovery support to survivors. She received a message informing her that her post was not approved by the site because it contained the word "rape" "too many times." As I sat in stunned disbelief, many other students in the class reported that their comments on a previous post had been blocked as well for containing "too many" uses of the offending word "rape."

I'm curious: how many times is "too many?" Three, four? Some of the students found a way around Edublogs' policy by substituting terms like "sexual violence" or "sexual assault" - which we all agreed have slightly less of an emotional impact. Apparently Edublogs agrees too, since those terms are not flagged for overuse. But the effect of dampening down the language we use to discuss a horrifying, violent crime is not a helpful one.

While I'm sure Edublogs' policy on flagging such "trigger" words is well-intended and meant to protect users from threats or jokes, it does a great disservice to survivors of rape and their loved ones, and to the rest of society which MUST confront the issue head-on rather than slink around it. Silencing discussion, even on a micro level and from noble intentions, is not the solution. As I"m sure you know, there are plenty of other ways to make threats or inappropriate jokes without using the dreaded word "rape." Normally I support my statements with evidence, but I refuse to provide any specific example here; a 10-second search on Google of "Justin Bieber rape jokes" and such will provide more than enough examples.

I chose to use a course blog this semester to engage my students in real-life writing for public audiences, and I selected Edublogs from among literally dozens of other platforms - I have even upgraded to an Edublogs Pro account, for which I pay the monthly fees myself. I have not yet researched other blog sites which may have less prohibitive one-size-fits-all policies that do not consider context or moderation, but I am prepare to do so if my class will not be able to have free and productive discussions using your platform.

I look forward to your reply, which I plan to post on this blog as well.

Thank you,

Dr. Val Perry Rendel
Lewis University, Romeoville, IL 60446

UPDATE: Well, that didn't take long: 

Hi,

Can you verify - was this message shown when writing a comment and not a post?

The actual message would have been:

"Sorry, your comment has been rejected because it contains one or more of the following words: rape.

Please try posting your comment again, but without these words."

So this means it has nothing to do with the number of times the word was used.

The reason for the banned word list is actually to fight comment spam - which is a major issue we face. Our platform is used by students as young as five years old, so we must ensure they aren't left comments by bots or mal-intending people that are inappropriate.

We provide more flexibility over the banned list on our Edublogs Campus (http://edublogs.org/campus) networks.
Thanks!

 

Barry

Support Ninja

Edublogs

I took Barry the Support Ninja's advice and checked out the Edublogs Campus site, which of course is not free. I've sent a request for a price quote, and also inquired about the nature of this rape-spam he claims they get a lot of. (I mean, I know spambots are a real problem, but is "rape" really a commonly-used word in that context? It seems like, if you were trying to avoid spam, you'd want to flag terms like "diet" or "weight loss.") Anyway, once I find out more information, we can talk tomorrow (and possibly vote) on whether to continue with Edublogs or switch to a different platform.

Part III:
Here's the reply I got just now (8 p.m. CST):

Hi Val

I'm sorry but as Barry explained Edublogs.org is used by students as young as 5 years old. Our banned word list for comments is necessarily to protect younger students from being exposed to comments that contain inappropriate words and to prevent them for submitting comments with these inappropriate words.

We appreciate with older students that some of these words aren't considered inappropriate however we do need to block them on Edublogs.org. On Edublogs Campus networks the blog support team from their institution is able to edit the banned word list because the requirements on their community.

Thanks
Sue Waters
Edublogs Support Manager

And here's what I fired back in a fit of pique (I don't appreciate being lied to about some mythical spam problem):

This is the second time you've referred to "kids as young as 5 years old," and it's not an effective persuasive strategy. Did you know kids as young as 5 years old get raped? All your policy does is reinforce their silence and shame - don't talk about it, and it won't be an issue.

SO THAT WENT JUST GREAT THEN


But wait, it gets even better!

Hi Val,
Our policy to ensure the safety of students and educators who use our service. The banned word list only applies to comments submitted on posts and not to post published on blogs. Not every user moderates all comments on their blogs.

There are several reasons why the words are on the list. Some words are on the list because they are common words used by comment spammers while other words are on the list because some people will use words in inappropriate ways and we can't afford comments with these words to be published on class blogs or younger student blogs. For example, words like Viagra, casino, gambling are on the list because they are words used by comment spammers while words like rape are more likely to be used inappropriately by a student or someone who wants to cause issues.

Thanks
Sue Waters
Edublogs Support Manager

 Here's me again:


Define for me please an "inappropriate" vs. "appropriate" use of the word "rape." I can't help but notice that you are skirting the issue and hiding behind your script as a way of refusing to engage with the very real problem of silencing discussion of a crucial issue. Who knows, perhaps one day my class may even want to discuss Viagra during a discussion of what sorts of medications should and should not be covered by insurance companies. That would be a useful and productive learning experience. We will be having it on a different blog site.

In all seriousness, I know you're doing your job and enforcing the policy, but i's a stupid policy that does more harm than good. You refuse to see that. If you can't at the very least provide an option to allow such words with strong moderation (I'd have been willing to sign an agreement promising to moderate comments, on the understanding that repeated unmoderated violations will result in the shutdown of the site, but I guess that's not an option).

Too bad you couldn't be more flexible.


AND NOW, THE PUNCH LINE (sent 1/31/2014 at 10:33 a.m. CST, exactly 27 minutes before my class starts):


Hi Val,

At this point, you've crossed the line where we are no longer willing to continue the discussion.

I've refunded your most recent payment, shut down your site and attached an export of the content that you can take elsewhere.

There are much better ways to have debates and discussions, and we are under no obligation to take abuse from our customers and can refuse the right to serve anyone.

Best of luck.

There will be no further contact from anyone on our team.

Thanks!

Ronnie Burt

Director of Operations

Edublogs | Incsub

Timezone: Austin, TX (UTC/GMT -6 hours)

Twitter: @ronnieburt

GAME OVER MAN. And that's the way it is, folks. We're happily settled at a new - and free- blog platform, where we'll be able to say all the naughty words we want. Maybe even some that aren't in the dictionary!

At least I got my eight bucks back. :D

 

Claiming claims

The polar vortex deep freeze has interfered with our class schedule, as well as slowed down my router. I've been looking over your claims worksheets based on the "Public Enemies" Wired article, and we'll take some time at the beginning of Wednesday's class to go over them together. Think of a claim as any statement that some could realistically disagree with and/or provide evidence for.

Claims of fact: These are statements that argue whether a thing is true or not. Here's a good one from Emily (taken directly from the article): "Compared with its pace in 2012, the homicide rate this year has decreased." This is a fact that should be easy to prove or disprove by looking up the FBI crime stats, right?

Here's a trickier example; let's take a claim such as Chicago has the highest rate of gun violence in the U.S. If you were to make this claim, you would want to support it by citing specific, credible evidence. If you are going to make a counterclaim, however, you can't just say Chicago does not have the highest rate of gun violence in the U.S.  Then we're just arguing like kids: "Does not!" Does so!"

So what is a good counterclaim of fact, and how can we support it? The article does state that "Last year more than 500 people were murdered in Chicago, a greater number than in far more populous cities such as New York and Los Angeles." This is true, but BE CAREFUL of assuming this means Chicago has the highest rate of gun violence - it's not even in the top 5 most dangerous U.S. cities. So if someone tells us that Chicago is the murder capital of the U.S., they're making a claim of fact - it's just that, in this case, the "fact" is not true.

Claims of causation: Ronald make a claim of causation in the article: "“If Facebook and all that wasn’t here, JoJo and them would still have their lives.” He's claiming that Facebook caused Jojo's death. Austin makes a similar claim: "Social media harassment such as drilling is getting people killed." What kind of counterclaim of causation could be made to this (besides the generic "Facebook did not cause Jojo's death")? Darrin argues that the deep rivalry between street gangs is to blame for this violence, not the medium of Facebook itself.

Here's a good claim of causation from Brett: "Gun violence among inner-city youth in the Chicago area has become more frequent because of online altercations." This could also be restated as a claim of evaluation: Street gang presence on Facebook is bad {because it increases the risk of violent altercations).

So what counterclaims can we make in response to these? Savannah offers this one: "Gang related deaths would still occur even without social media." This could be taken further to claim that The ultimate cause of rising gang violence is due to other factors [such as poverty, easy access to firearms, etc.]. Alyssa, Victoria and Diana point out that the presence of gangs on social media causes police to be able to better identify and prevent violent conflict between rivals. This can also be restated as a claim of evaluation: Street gang presence on Facebook is good because it helps law enforcement stop violent crime before it occurs, or identify and arrest violent offenders.

Several of you made claims of policy arguing that Facebook should not allow the posting of such photos and videos. Who might disagree with this claim and why?

To be continued tomorrow!

Victim stereotypes

(Student blog post #1 - Alyssa D.)

I chose to be the first student blog post for this semester in College Writing II but I’m not exactly sure where to begin. I know my post has to pertain to violence but there’s so many angles of violence to choose from and they all equally need some attention. Though, when I think of violence the first thing I think of is rape. Growing up, we are told repeatedly about the sexual predators that live nearby and to never travel alone in the city or at night. For a girl, you don’t grow up without being taught to fight back in dire situations such as rape or assault. About 90% of the victims of sexual assault are female. This evidence gives far more protection and support for the female victims creating another problem. Since there is so much attention given to the female victims’ emotional care and future safety; the other 10%, male victims, get thrown on the back burner.

            Men get raped too. It’s a harsh statement to make but it certainly needs to be said. I found an organization dedicated to male rape victims, after weeding out loads of female rape victim organizations.

            As I scrolled down through the Victim’s Response column, I was shocked due to societies approach towards male rape. Society has actually built the idea that male’s should be able to defend and protect themselves therefore they are unable to be raped. Umm… WHAT?! If you scroll back up to the top where there a few key stats, this will strike you: “71% of male victims were first raped before their 18th birthday”(Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006). Most male victims were under the age of 18 when they were raped and somehow we expect all 1-18 year olds to defend themselves. These are just children. Helpless children are taken advantage of by some satanic sexual predator and yet we can’t see past their gender?

This causes a domino effect. Society’s views on male sexual assault are causing males to blame themselves for the rape even though they are victims. “It is common for a male rape victim to blame himself for the rape, believing that he in some way consented to being raped” (Brochman, 1991). It’s disheartening to read the word ‘common’ in the previous quote. Why must males be victimized after already being victimized? Don’t they deserve a break just like the women?

The article explains why a male victim might ejaculate during intercourse. I had never heard of this concept and was very confused but I also had society’s beliefs rattling in my ear as I was trying to keep an open mind on the subject. To sum up this concept, a boy/man has the ability to ejaculate even during rape because of the body’s natural instincts. This can leave the victim confused and self-blaming which is so incredibly wrong! Girls are almost always fully educated on rape and rape prevention but boys fail to know more than what they hear from the perspective of a woman.

Our schools should take the time to properly educate both genders on sexual assault and abuse. This will likely lessen the blame that boys/men often put on themselves which can be detrimental to their well-being. Often, severely depressed or troubled rape victims find no point their existence and take their own lives. Imagine the affect that we could have on rape victim suicide rates. Education may seem like a huge undertaking but if even one more suicide was prevented due to a victim’s ability to not blame themselves, then it will have been worth every ounce of effort.

I conclude this blog with a question: What are your thoughts on male sexual assault and how has society molded your views towards female vs. male victims.

Familiarity + Context + Devil's Advocate = Meaningful Discussion

The title is from the first reading of the semester, and we're having more than enough opportunity to apply that formula.

Yesterday in class we talked about the campus shooting at Purdue University, which is just two hours away. One student sent me an email with a link to the story, with this comment:

I feel like a week ago I was so oblivious to the world around me. The more we talk about guns and violence, the more I seem to realize this isn't a safe world. It's nuts that something so devastating can happen so quickly!

Of course I was glad the student was engaged with the subject and becoming more aware, but I also felt a twinge of dismay that young people in general are so oblivious to the political, social, and physical dangers that surround us.

After yesterday's discussion, I realized I had no idea what I was talking about.

Most, if not all, of them have grown up with lockdown drills. IN MIDDLE SCHOOL. (Of course now even elementary schools are holding "active shooter" drills.) One after another, they shared stories of their teachers turning off the classroom lights and locking the door, everyone huddling together in a corner and staying quiet. Some of them have been taught to throw things at an attacker, which I thought was a joke when I first heard about it. Of course the kids don't take it seriously; they giggle and talk and joke, because they're kids. Who are not supposed to have to deal with this. They've grown up post-Columbine and, to them, this is simply the way the world is.  That's not willful obliviousness; it's normal to them. Which is far, far worse.

Apparently kids aren't the only ones not taking the threat of school violence seriously:





"I'll have the T.A. tackle him if he comes in," jokes professor Rebecca Trax, who I sincerely hope is fired for her idiocy. (You can read the rest of the article here.)

What would we do in such a situation? The consensus among the class was to escape out the window - fortunately we're on the first floor, though our windows are the old-fashioned kind that crank open only about 12 inches. We decided that we'd have to smash them with a chair or table, and get out that way. And, like Liviu Librescu, I realized I would have to be the last one out of the room.

I never imagined this kind of class discussion when I went to grad school to pursue a life of the mind.

They wanted to talk, though, which of course we did. (There's always time to write later.) Everyone was limited to two speaking turns, holding up cards numbered "1" and "2" that I collected each time they spoke. We have some quiet folks, and some that are very...um, eager. About a third of the class knew someone at Purdue, including me (our regional director of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America is a professor of neuroscience, and her Facebook status about "sheltering in place" was what first alerted me to the shooting). One received a text photo from a friend, showing students huddling in the basement of their class building, which I'll include here when I get a copy. Another questioned whether the incident should be defined as a campus shooting, since the shooter targeted a specific individual, apparently not intending to harm anyone else, and immediately surrendered to police after the killing. "It could have happened anywhere," which of course is true. A few drew comparisons between our previous exercise of writing a campus policy to address/prevent  campus violence, and wondered whether any kind of policy could help them if the worst actually happened. (Purdue's safety procedures are available as videos on YouTube rather than written.) Some said that they would not think to watch the videos in a moment of crisis for instructions on what to do; others pointed out that having any kind of instructions ahead of time (rather than during an actual emergency) could be valuable and prevent people from "freezing up." But can you ever really be "prepared" for such a horrific scenario? One student said his high school teacher used to keep a bat and a crowbar behind his desk, in case an attacker threatened the class. Others shared memories of the "red-paper-green-paper" system of alerting first responders whether the students in the classroom were ok or needed help.

It was a good and necessary discussion, and while I was glad to see them really thinking and talking about it (referring back to specific things others and said and being respectful whenever they disagreed), I saw that some of the Devil's Advocate job would fall to me. So I took a deep breath, and asked the question that comes up every single time this happens: "What about a gun? A crowbar or a bat isn't going to do much good against someone armed with a  long-range weapon. Would having a gun in the classroom make us safer?"*

The consensus, to my relief, was no. (One student who has military training was especially adamant that "that's not a good idea at all.") But their reasoning took me totally by surprise: while I thought, "God no, I wouldn't want to have to keep a gun in the classroom, because a disgruntled student might get ahold of it and shoot me or someone else," their thinking was "The teacher might get mad at a student and shoot them."

My first instinct was to laugh. (From shock, not because it was funny - though I didn't.) Because they followed that with stories of teachers in high school, even middle school, who hit students, choked them, threw things or screamed at the... in other words had serious anger issues that could have been a thousand times worse with a ready weapon at hand. A student from Arizona, who reports a very different gun culture there than in Chicago, summed it up by saying, "If I knew professors were armed, I'd be out of that school so fast. I'd choose somewhere else to go to college."

It never occurred to me, prior to Virginia Tech, to ever be afraid of my students. But it never occurred to me until just over 24 hours ago to think that THEY might potentially be afraid of ME, or of anyone charged with mentoring and protecting them. It was a sickening thought. Is this the kind of America we want to live in?

Many of us (myself included) were more comfortable withe the idea of armed, trained security officers in classrooms or hallways - an idea that I didn't embrace until after Newtown. But the people who study violence in school settings have come to the conclusion that very few, if any, of the preventive measure we're now trying are effective. One student asked, "Were there any laws passed after Newtown?" And boy, there's a question that will take awhile to answer:

Of the approximately 1500 state gun bills introduced after the massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school, committed by a mentally ill young man whose mother bought him an arsenal, only 109 have become law: 39 restrict access to guns, and 70 make guns easier to obtain and carry. This is due in large part to the influence of the NRA, a powerful political lobby that helped defeat the Manchin-Toomey bill that would have required federal background checks for all gun purchases.

"Background checks wouldn't have prevented [fill in the blank]," people can (and do) say. And that may be true. But then we're back to doing nothing.



After this post, I'm turning the blog over the students for each of them to write a post on a topic of their choosing. Keep watching this space. 



*I for one am pretty firmly convinced by the evidence that more guns do not make us safer, and in fact contribute significantly to nonjustifiable homicide and injury rates. But the concealed-carry lobby claims that crime is lower in states where everyone (presumably) carries a weapon; I wanted to find hard evidence that this isn't true, but it looks like the answers are inconclusive at best. [FIND LINK]

Student thoughts

Here, as promised, are my students' responses to the question of whether the university should have a system in place to report people and/or activity that may pose a potential threat to the safety of the campus:

Lewis University should have a system of spotting and reporting potential threats because not only can many lives be saved, but also further educate the university. Campus security can be alerted to report on threats; they will also investigate the report before they may act, depending on the level of the threat. Once the investigators realize there is a threat, they will act upon the report. The student will need to talk to someone about the threat. The student will initially have to take time to talk to the individual.

This is a common-sense approach to specific threats, such as someone making a specific statement of intended violence against an individual or the campus community. I wonder, though, about the wisdom of approaching the individual in question....as my class loves to say, "It depends." There would also be a big difference between "Hey, you're freaking us out and we're scared of you" and "Hey, are you ok? We care about you and are worried about you."

Here's another argument in favor of a less-draconian reporting policy than the one we have now:

The current Threat of Harm policy should be modified to be less severe and easier for students to use. The system should allow for anonymous texts reporting suspicious activity. People who may pose a potential threat may act in a manner to avoid detection, but paranoia may cause them to be identified more easily. Anyone who is found to have made a fraudulent charge of threat against an individual will be treated as though they were guilty of the same offense. The policy should be modeled on the U.S. Army's Sexual Harassment/Assault Response Policy (SHARP). Above all, it should be emphasized that reporting threats is not the responsibility of any single person; no policy can be 100% effective, but, like drunk driving, incidents of threat and/or violence can be reduced. It's better to have such a policy in place and not need it than vice-versa.

I remember Illinois State University was working on a system to text Emergency Services while I was there, and 9-1-1 call centers are planning to implement this system as well.

Reporting behaviors that we are not accustomed to would potentially stop a bad situation from happening. Not every report will uncover a genuine threat, but at least if someone reports someone's suspicious behavior, someone could be having a hard time personally at home, and maybe that could potentially stop the threatening behavior. Privacy is an issue as well, and all reports should keep names of those accused private until all leads are sorted out. If a case is severe enough, require mandatory counseling [of the suspect] and take further action as necessary. Reports can be made via an anonymous tip line connected to campus police, or you can file a report with them directly.

And a final argument against:

Lewis University should not have a policy that asks students to spot and report threats. In many ways this can be detrimental to the learning environment, as well as the overall atmosphere of the campus. Lewis is blessed with diversity among its staff and students, which can account for many different behavior patterns that might be noticed. What specific traits or actions constitute a threat, as opposed to a person who is simply having a bad day? Once accused, innocent or not, the person's reputation is now shattered. Students begin to live in constant fear of being blamed for being "different," or accusing someone and eventually discovering that they weren't even remotely a threat.

Question of definition: What constitutes a "threat?" A verbal statement of desire or intent to harm, an online posting, physically aggressive behavior, or just a "gut feeling?" (How) are we going to distinguish between simple smack-talking and a credible threat?

Question of evaluation: Is this really the best way to prevent violence on campus before it occurs? How does this policy compare to similar policies in place at other schools?

Question of causation: What is the best possible outcome of such a policy? What is the worst?

Can you think of others? Leave them in the comments!

Supplemental reading:  U.S. Schools Keep Trying Wrong Fixes to Deter School Shootings

Irony, anyone?

Even well-intended people get caught up in the cycle of violence.

"Hey, the rape guy lost!"

That's a little joke from the last midterm elections. The punchline is, "Which one?"

(Un)fortunately, it looks like we'll have LOTS of reading material for this class. Since I don't want this blog to simply be Your Daily Roundup of Gun Violence, I'll limit it to one. This guy, like the Sandy Hook shooter, had a fascination with serial killers and guns.

Does that mean that everyone with a fascination with serial killers and/or guns should be treated as a homicidal psycho? Of course not. The thing is, it's hard to profile mass shooters: they don't really fit the stereotype of sullen, antisocial loners. The kid responsible for Tuesday's middle school shooting in Roswell, NM was smart, popular, and well-liked. So was the kid at Arapahoe High School who killed Claire Esther Davis. Some "snap" and suddenly become violent, while others plan their attacks in great detail and even tell others about them ahead of time. It's that latter thing that's most relevant to our class:

We're currently addressing the question, "Should Lewis University have a policy to report potential threats?" We've interpreted it specifically in the context of a possible school shooter. (We kinda have a policy already, though it seems meant to apply to immediate threat and is drastic enough that step #1 is barring the suspect from campus.) Their answers should be interesting, and I'll share them here. This is part of an exercise in analyzing claims of fact, definition, evaluation, causation, and policy. (Ultimately their service projects will involve policy proposals.) Someone brought up the very good point that stricter gun laws will not solve the problem of guns falling into the wrong hands. Before I got to play Devil's Advocate, someone else beat me to it: even if these measures aren't 100% successful, at least we can make SOME progress and work harder to save more lives.

It's very true that laws do not prevent crime. (There's still crime.) But my own view is that sitting around doing nothing, not even trying, is unconscionable. There's plenty of compelling evidence that, when implemented and enforced correctly, gun laws work. (Remind me in a later post to talk about the myth of Chicago as the murder capital of the U.S. - it's not even in the top 5.)

Here is the argument from analogy in a nutshell: two things are similar, so they are caused by similar things and can be treated in similar ways.

Example: People die because of cars, knives, hammers, bathtubs, swimming pools, bleach, etc. Yet we don't make those things illegal, or require background checks for them, so we should not do this with guns either.
Counterexample: Violent crime is like drunk driving. We can and do have laws against it, educational awareness programs that work to prevent it, and we have made great progress in reducing the rates of drunk driving in the last 30 years. It still happens, but not nearly as much as it would if we took away the laws surrounding it.

There are some things that are clearly wrong and should be prevented at all costs. Like rape. Oh wait, not everyone agrees rape is always a crime! Take State Senator Richard Black (R-VA), for instance. He thinks spousal rape is hard to prosecute (which it can be), so it shouldn't be criminalized. “How on earth you could validly get a conviction of a husband-wife rape when they’re living together, sleeping in the same bed, she’s in a nightie, and so forth, there’s no injury, there’s no separation or anything.” So hell with it, let's just make it legal.

Sometimes even entire nations - Japan, for instance - think rape is ok in specific circumstances.

A somewhat-less-horrifying-but-still-disturbing example can be found closer to home: the Chicago Westin River North has decided that its employees should not be subject to an anti-sexual-harassment policy adopted by a conference that wanted to use it as their venue. I had a Facebook discussion that started out fine and then suddenly wasn't:



David (who I don't know) is doing a good job of being Devil's Advocate. He also resorts to a fallacy known as Godwin's Law, or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies. (See, not all arguments from analogy are sound - this is called False Analogy.) He thinks I've insulted him. That wasn't what I meant, but maybe I didn't make it clear enough that I was talking about the Westin, not him. I also made the mistake of commenting on the Elkhart news article in the first link above, and don't think I'll be posting screenshots of the replies, because URGH. Having a civil online debate is next to impossible even when your intentions are good.

So what do you think? Is the hotel effectively saying to its employees, "Go ahead and sexually harass people, it's ok," or are they simply maintaining a neutral position? Is it even possible to be neutral on a subject like sexual harassment/violence? Even if you could, why would you ever want to be?

Keeping track

This happened yesterday: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/us/florida-man-is-shot-to-death-for-texting-during-movie-previews.html?_r=0

This happened today: http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-roswell-new-mexico-school-shooting-20140114,0,6029109.story#axzz2qREyRcUX

Tomorrow this happens: http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/10/01/supreme-court-to-consider-gun-bans-for-domestic-violence-convictions/

Ready, set....

The spring semester begins tomorrow. I honestly don't know how that happened. I've had this course planned since mid-October, had the blog set up since November, I have a course calendar ready and Blackboard shell set up and 140 links to readings, videos, podcasts, etc. And yet I still feel like I'm not ready. Is it possible to overplan a course?

The best thing to do about your writing anxiety, I tell my students, is to write about it. That works for other stressors too. So, practicing what I preach, what am I afraid of? I think I'm afraid of not doing a good job, of teaching a class that's boring, or worse than boring. What if I mess it up? What if my own strong feelings conflict with their opportunity to learn? I don't think they will...but what if they do?

It might help to lay out my thoughts on a few things:

Almost all of the 140 links I've chosen are related to gun violence - its causes, preventions, rights vs. responsibilities of gun owners and gun legislation. It's obviously a topic I care about passionately. Yet it can't be the sole focus - there are other forms of violence that affect me and infuriate me as well, like rape culture, like domestic violence, like terrorism, like.......there is no form of violence that I DON'T care about finding a solution to. So why aren't more of my course readings about other topics?

It's because of my emotional attachment to that one subject. The vast majority of sources I've got lay out compelling data, research, history, testimonial, evidence, and everything else that would make Aristotle proud. Yet, if I'm going to be honest, it's not the evidence alone that drives my position on this issue. I DO think the weight of evidence is on the side of sensible gun regulation (NOT banning - no one wants a ban. Well, no one rational.) Even the majority of gun owners agree on this, that handing out any kind of gun to anywhere anytime with no questions asked is maybe not such a great idea. But very often writing classes - including mine - emphasize the logic and data and evidence and push the emotional issue to the side, as if it's not as valid. And emotion IS what most people - including me - operate on. I do my best to stay rational and examine the evidence, being willing to at least reconsider a particular view if it doesn't quite match with reality. (I've come to reconsider my views on concealed carry and armed guards in schools, for instance.) But I'm not going to discount the very real emotional impact violence has on me, and on everyone, and I don't want to.

What I want is for my students (and EVERYONE) to be aware of and study their emotional reactions to issues, without discounting them. Emotion is a big part of who we are. It shouldn't be the only factor, but it's an important thing to examine and respect. I want them to be able to articulate clearly, to themselves and to other audiences, exactly how they experience and use emotional persuasion, and why. That's social constructivist learning. That's writing as a social action.

Here's a piece that does a better job explaining what I aspire to: http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/12/guns-in-the-classroom/281663/ (sorry for link, couldn't get it to embed. Blogs are hard.) . And also, here's an email I got from a colleague I wrote to about this class that encouraged me that this could be done: "all credit to you for wanting to teach such a course!  My recurring dream is that every FYW instructor across the land will have students write about important civic issues, just as the early rhetoricians did 2500 years ago.  Such pedagogy is especially important today, I think, with so many of our students facing severe financial pressures and having so little confidence in the future."

I think his point about the future faced by college grads is a good one, and one I hadn't really thought of. What's college for? Some would say getting a degree so you can get a good job, and that's true. But it's also about becoming a fully awake person, knowing how to think about the issues that surround you, not just complete a bunch of empty assignments and tasks devoid of any relevance.

So if your views on guns and gun violence are different from mine, use this class as an opportunity to sharpen your own views and get them out there where they can be seen and heard. Support them with credible evidence, and make specific, well-researched suggestions about how we should be addressing this issue legally, socially, emotionally, psychologically. Tell me what YOU'RE going to do specifically. How are we going to stop - or better yet, prevent - the next school shooting? If you care about stopping sexual violence (against both men and women), find ways to do that. Maybe you care about violent video games and movies, and want to argue that they do or don't contribute directly to a culture of violence (I happen to think they don't - look at Japan). Maybe you're a language nerd like me, and want to investigate how and why violent metaphors and images show up in so much of our language. Maybe you want to help with Chicago's gang problem, or work to end the poverty and racism that so often is entwined with violence. Or are you a crusader for civil rights, civil liberties, want to end bullying or discrimination and hate crimes against LGBT folks, or any number of other paths that lead to/from the topic of violence?

What kinds of violence do YOU care most about addressing?

What do YOU want this class to be?