Thanksgiving break was a welcome change of pace from the exciting world of peer review, paper writing, and work; I hope everyone else felt the same, but I thought there was something from break that I might share with the class. Sicko, Micheal Moore's new documentary on the health care industries lack of attention for 50 million who were denied basic coverage and the rest of the country who live with a low level HMO, has stapled visions of disparity in my mind for years to come. But more to the point, congress will be looking at Health Care Reform in the coming election year, in particular, HR 676. This bill would provide socialized medicine for all United States citizens and remove health care companies as the capitalistic top of the health care pyramid. Please see michealmoore.com, the section in concern: what-can-I-do, and look over this bill. This may be our one great chance to become the last civilized modern country to take care of its citizens with socialized medicine.
On a side note, did anyone know that British hospice actually pay for travel expenses to and from the hospital? What about the ability for doctors to make house calls free of charge?
For more see Sicko, unfortunately at Blockbuster only.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Monday, November 5, 2007
RPA Website
[edit 9 November: the site is complete!]
Evening.
I thought I'd let everyone in on a peek at the upcoming Rhetoric and Public Advocacy website I've been designing for the department. It should be up very soon, once the Communication Studies heads find time to address us.
www.russell-publications.com/RPA
The text on the site is pretty much placeholder, but feel free to leave me feedback on what you think of the look, feel, and design. Thanks a bunch! :)
Scott
Evening.
I thought I'd let everyone in on a peek at the upcoming Rhetoric and Public Advocacy website I've been designing for the department. It should be up very soon, once the Communication Studies heads find time to address us.
www.russell-publications.com/RPA
The text on the site is pretty much placeholder, but feel free to leave me feedback on what you think of the look, feel, and design. Thanks a bunch! :)
Scott
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Case Study
I think the most telling part of this issue is the lack of qualification and preparation of the individuals conducting the Judicial Board hearings. While they do go through a period of training following the guidelines of the code of conduct, it is ultimately based upon the judgment of those individuals who may very well be uneducated about post traumatic stress disorder and various other sensory disorders.
Manges' "outburst" may have been disruptive to the learning environment and therefore a violation of the code of conduct, but she should have been given reasonable accommodations so that she could continue with her education and healing process. Instead she was forced to chose between two equally bad options and have even more attention drawn towards her disorder. These types of knee-jerk reactions by institutions reflect a lack of understanding and willingness to treat a particular situation individually.
There needs to be a recognition of the needs of individuals with disabilities, meaning that institutions such as EIU need to implement programs that train individuals on how to handle situations similar to Jill Manges' instead of providing blanket codes of conduct that treat every situation the same. A redistribution of needs is in order as well; students will disabilities need to receive the same opportunities to learn as any other student, they should not simply be given their money back and swept out of the university in a neat and tidy fashion. With today's advances in technology, why not implement a program with WebCT that can allow students with disabilities to get lecture notes and study guides, and meet with instructors during office hours for any specific questions or concerns? Or simply offer a full schedule of online classes? There may be better options, but the most important thing is to make the institution address the problem, not sweep it under the rug.
There is no excuse for any institution to have brash, knee-jerk reactions to solvable situations. This wasn't a terrorist attack, this wasn't something that came out of nowhere; it was a symptom of a known disorder that an institution was obviously under-prepared to handle. In my opinion, concerned individuals should approach the administration and do not settle for generalized explanations and excuses. Make them aware that the people of this campus will not stand for any sort of discriminatory practices, and legal action will be brought against the institution if proper action isn't taken.
Manges' "outburst" may have been disruptive to the learning environment and therefore a violation of the code of conduct, but she should have been given reasonable accommodations so that she could continue with her education and healing process. Instead she was forced to chose between two equally bad options and have even more attention drawn towards her disorder. These types of knee-jerk reactions by institutions reflect a lack of understanding and willingness to treat a particular situation individually.
There needs to be a recognition of the needs of individuals with disabilities, meaning that institutions such as EIU need to implement programs that train individuals on how to handle situations similar to Jill Manges' instead of providing blanket codes of conduct that treat every situation the same. A redistribution of needs is in order as well; students will disabilities need to receive the same opportunities to learn as any other student, they should not simply be given their money back and swept out of the university in a neat and tidy fashion. With today's advances in technology, why not implement a program with WebCT that can allow students with disabilities to get lecture notes and study guides, and meet with instructors during office hours for any specific questions or concerns? Or simply offer a full schedule of online classes? There may be better options, but the most important thing is to make the institution address the problem, not sweep it under the rug.
There is no excuse for any institution to have brash, knee-jerk reactions to solvable situations. This wasn't a terrorist attack, this wasn't something that came out of nowhere; it was a symptom of a known disorder that an institution was obviously under-prepared to handle. In my opinion, concerned individuals should approach the administration and do not settle for generalized explanations and excuses. Make them aware that the people of this campus will not stand for any sort of discriminatory practices, and legal action will be brought against the institution if proper action isn't taken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)