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.

Bad question... lack of credibility to respond on the subject.

While I sympathize with Jill Manges in this incident, personally and honestly, I feel like it is completely out of my league to speak for her, about her, or on behalf of her. Same with being on the side of the university. I do not know anything about mental disorders, I only know what I have been told about the Manges case, mostly from the side of Manges, and as Alcoff would say, it's very hard and often times very problematic to speak for others.

I do feel that recognition is very important on this issue. As I stated before, I know very little to nothing about mental disorders, esp. PTSD. I feel like most of America is in the same boat, and that recognition of the lives of those living with PTSD is very much needed. By recognizing the complications of PTSD, how people start having PTSD, ways to deal with it, etc. we as a society and as an educational institution can then better handle these types of situations. Much recognition is needed. Many people, schools, universities, etc are very nervous about mental illnesses since events like Virginia Tech, Columbine, and the various other school shootings. Who is at fault for this nervousness? Is it the fault of the close-minded judicial affairs members, the result of society as a whole, the result of the lack of knowledge and recognition, or all combined? I don't know. Personally, I feel it is a combination of all, but I don't know anything about this. I'm in that majority of people who would benefit from knowing more about PTSD.

This is very hard for me. While in ways I understand both sides. I want to be on Mange's side, I want to believe that the way the university handled this is wrong, but again, I don't know. I really do not like this question we are presented with. I do not like the fact that we are to speak for or about someone most of us don't know personally, a case most of us only know what the media is discussing, and an issue most of us know very little about. Makes us all non-credible sources and actually makes our responses irrelevant. None of us have a PHD or even a degree in mental illnesses, none of us can dissect this subject enough to say who is and who is not right. Sure, the situation maybe could have been handled differently, but as much as I want to be on Mange's side, is as disappointed as I am in the way she has handled this. I kind of feel like others are being asked to fight a battle in which she gave up on. I understand her reasons for signing the documents in which she signed, but I feel like if she truly felt the university was wrong, if she truly wanted to fight this, she would have done such and not have signed documents agreeing with the university. I feel like, why should we fight a battle she gave up on? Again, I understand her reasoning for this, but I have to look at this from a personal level, and sure, I'm not in the situation, but I feel like if I were I would definitely fight the university until the end and care more about the injustice I feel I was receiving from the university than the money in the situation. Making things right is more important than money to me (and yes, money is an issue for me and my family, I don't have $4000 per semester to throw at EIU).

Maybe this will be upsetting to some people? Sorry, I don't mean it to be, I am only expressing my uncomfort with this situation and this assignment. Again, I am not taking any side in this situation, I am deciding to stay in the middle until I get the information I need to make an educational decision on this issue.

As for what Emma Goldman would do? Again, I don't know. I don't think I, or anyone else can say what someone would do after reading some articles in which a person wrote. Every situation is different for every person. Maybe she would start a huge rally to help Manges, or maybe she would decide she does not need to get involved. Ask Emma if you want to know what she would do(though, if you can figure out how to do that please let me know!), don't ask someone who doesn't even know Emma even on a nearly aqquaintence level.

APATHY on WWEGD

I think that in this case, there needs to be some outside intervention. Legal help, or help of an outside group specializing in this type of case could be beneficial.

I understand the mentality of the university is that of zero tolerance, however, they need to be more consistent. Unfortunately in the case of Post traumatic stress, they are reeling from the Virginia Tech incident. However unrelated these two cases are, the narrow focus of EIU is the ruling hand.

That is why I suggest the student in question's family and friends pull together to find an outside force such as legal representation (possibly free) or a specialty group to take on the cause. Without that, there is no threat to the University. They make and enforce the rules.

I agree with Dana on how there needs to be some definitive resolutions on how mental health is viewed and treated on campus. Part of the problem is apathy. The students can't even organize a potluck, much less a movement to help those with ptsd. This isn't a large liberal university. It is a small town conservative middle road university.

Radical ideas and change are far and few between here. The school is still debating the same dining hall issues it debated 7 years ago. If change and realization are going to happen, then there needs to be outside representation to blow the lid off of the situation.

STORM THE CASTLE!

 

            In order to correct the wrongs that have been committed by the institution the following must be done… There needs to be some sort of collective vision of how the University should handle cases of mental health issues.  There are a variety of resistance efforts that might be taken.  For example, this group should insist on a meeting with Judicial Affairs and the committee who is making these decisions to revamp the current system of dealing with mental illness.  My understanding is that the University has used silence to their benefit by insisting time and time again that they cannot speak about specific students.  Whether or not they can speak about students, certainly they can speak in generalities and shed some light on the (clearly misguided) process they use in dealing with mental illnesses (literally crossing items off of the form used for behavioral problems to make them fit awkwardly cases of mental health “disruptions”). 

            Education would also be a key factor to righting these wrongs; by educating the staff on things like PTSD, perhaps they would be better suited to deal with people suffering from mental disorders. Along these lines of education, concerned individuals would be wise to make strong parallels between mental illnesses and physical illnesses.  Would we force someone to sign a behavioral contract if they had diabetes?  Would we ask someone with cancer to guarantee that they would not have any sort of “relapse” into their past medical “behaviors”?  Would we tell someone with a pre-existing physical condition that they could not access services at the on-campus health services center?  I think it’s clear that the answer to all of these questions would be “no”; yet, this is exactly the parallel that could be drawn to how the administration is treating people with mental illnesses.  

            Before thinking about what Emma Goldman would do, let’s pause to think about what Nancy Fraser would do.  Fraser discusses three different types of injustice that all seem relevant in this case: cultural domination (being subjected to communication associated with another culture that is alien or hostile to one’s own), nonrecognition (being rendered invisible by dominant representations), and disrespect (being stereotyped in everyday life).  First, in this case, there is a sense of cultural domination with regard to people with PTSD and other mental illnesses.  To be put, for example, on a “behavioral contract” told not to “relapse” or else be dismissed from school, there is a real sense of cultural domination—for someone with a mental illness which, like other illnesses, is not under “rational” control, such a mandate must seem quite hostile and alien to your own understanding of your own body and mind.  Second, we see elements of nonrecognition in how the situation is being handled. By requiring a behavioral contract, the University recognizes the potential liability and problem (often bringing up references to Virginia Tech threats), but does not address the people with the mental health concerns as, first and foremost people (or even students at EIU).  Disrespect is pretty much rampant throughout this incident; for examples, we find utter disrespect in the way the University has chosen to:  a) villainize someone who has been exceptionally victimized; b) remove her from school due to issues that are out of their control; c) suggest that one-size-fits-all responses can work; and d) provide no choice or agency to victims of abuse (thus stripping them further of control over their own bodies).

            In answering the question of WWEGD, it seems clear that she would not work within the system, hold meetings, or form a task force.  She would, in effect, storm the proverbial castle!  Given her anarchist spirit, she would likely seize Dr. Nadler’s office (head of Judicial Affairs), protest during a Judicial Affairs hearing, or plan a take-over of the University Senate.  Goldman would gather as many people with mental illnesses as she could (along with allies) and storm the streets of Charleston (something that would surely alarm this sleepy community).  She would break outside of the university system.  She would demand better at any price necessary.

 

 

 

Case study

Eastern students absolutely have right to grievance about the unjust treatment of Manges. Witnesses of her epidsode including a professor and several peers all agree that her proposes no threat to others or herself. I would agrue that most of Eastern's campus would side with Manges. Admisistration along with Judicial Affairs holds the power to determine Jill's academic career which they have placed on hiatus. Injestice needs to be recognized and power needs to be redistributed.

I would advocate lobbying of the office of Judicial Affairs, Counseling Center, and the university's administration, as well as gaining advice from other universities. This information must be made available to the students, faculty, and staff to get them all to rally behind the cause and plan a campuswide demonstration.

Emma Goldman would speak out publically about the injustice and call her public to action.

Relevant Words from Red Emma

"Since every effort in our educational life seems to be directed toward making of the child a being foreign to itself, it must of necessity produce individuals foreign to one another, and in everlasting antagonism with each other."

"The motto should not be: Forgive one another; rather understand one another."

"The ultimate end of all revolutionary social change is to establish the sanctity of human life, the dignity of man, the right of every human being to liberty and well-being."

''Public school - where the human mind is drilled and manipulated into submission to various social and moral spooks, and thus fitted to continue our system of exploitation and oppression."

Journal Response (WWEGD)

The citizens do have a right to petition everything that is going on. They have the right to voice their concerns about what is going on at their institution. They are paying huge amounts of money and time at this institution, so if something is not what they want it to be they have the right to petition. However, I do not think the citizens will take their right, and petition what is going on. This institution has a history of being low key. I do not think that this is the time that this institution will be brought into greater limelight.

Using Fraser’s terminology what needs to be recognition is that calling of attention to mental health at institution. Fraser would call for every ones attention to help change the wrong doings of institutions. With Fraser’s term of redistribution would that be of calling an end to discrimination of policies that do not make people with disabilities as equal to those who do not.

I would ask for concerned citizens to first write to the school. Then once it is known that the people are not happy, set up a protest in where the concerned citizens can get their feelings out into the greater public. That is the only way to get their view across to the institution. Once the institution sees the protest, they will move into action to stop the protest and hopefully talk to the citizens and resolve a problem. If that all fails, then I would suggest that the people demand to talk to the administration of the institution to talk about what is going on and how the effects not just one person but everyone at the institution.

Oh what would little Miss Emma Goldman do? I believe that she would be out in the streets voicing her opinion and how this is hurting everyone at the institution. Miss Emma would be out there from sun up to sun down trying to get the attention of the administration to come out and talk to the concerned people of this institution.

On a side note. While reading this and doing this assignment, I found myself sitting on the middle of the fence not knowing where to go. I can see both sides of the coin. Maybe because something like this happened to a very close friend of mine here at school or that I have some but limited knowledge of written policies and the legal jargon behind it. It is sad to see things like this happening in our own backyard. Is it that time where the silence is broken here at school, the silence of no protests? We will just have to wait and see. History can be in the making here at OUR school EIU.

WWEGD | Journal Response

I've been up and working nonstop for 20 hours. Let's give this a shot.

Emma Goldman would have taken care of this business 2 months ago. Rather than slowly and impotently petitioning for the establishment to act out of the kindness of their hearts, she would have organized a band of irate people to disrupt every possible hearing and stage talks and demonstrations -- and direct action -- until she was blue in the face and probably in prison.

She'd maybe invite Manges back on to the campus during her banishment so that everyone in the street could watch the cops drag her away. She could, as I recommended early on, understand that the establishment is not on our side and acts in the special interest it serves; and use nontraditional means of direct discourse (if I see one more letter to the editor I'm going to vomit...) - disruptive public spectacles and the like. Such acts are required in a society such as ours where apathy is consciously cultivated by a public relations-driven system of rulership that views the people as "ignorant, meddlesome outsiders" who require a "specialized class" of people to manage the affairs of a population that is unable to know what's good for them.

Hold on a second. Phone's ringing. It's Linda Alcoff. She says "stop speaking for others." If anyone's got to lead the charge, it has to be Jill. So, at that, I'll reserve my recommendations.

The demand for recognition of the needs of PSTD sufferers and related individuals is clear. Knowing others with PSTD myself, its not uncommon to hear them express disdain and mistrust of the EIU counseling staff in being equipped to handle the issues respectfully and effectively while under the auspices of the university. Unlike a strictly medical practise, a college-based health centre must also shake hands with an often-draconian university discipline system that simply ousts troublesome, "distracting" students. In this case, advocates would like the EIU establishment to recognize mental illness and psychic scars as a health issue to be delicately handled, not a disciplinary issue to be handled swiftly and harshly.

This is where redistribution comes into play. Alongside recognition of the needs and struggles of those with PSTD and other mental illness, an effort must be made to provide the resources for these individuals to cope with and overcome their challenges whilst simultaneously completing their education. For instance, I hear that the school issues a "contract" to students who show signs of a serious mental illness. It's portrayed as an agreement to say "you and the school will work together to help you out," but in reality its a message that says "get better or we're going to throw your ass out on the crooked Charleston sidewalks." Is that any way to treat someone with a mental illness. Is that any way to treat a *person*?


I wouldn't say this otherwise, but Emma Goldman is in the title of the assignment and I figure I'd just lay down some anarchist spirit:

The government and the establishment at the university is not your friend, and it won't respond to your timid pleas and ideological coupons. Either demand things of your rulers or throw them out and do it yourself. Tear up your petitions, recall your letters to the editor. Never have the liberties and dignities of people been granted to us out of the kind hearts of our rulers -- we've always had to stand up and *take* them. This is no exception, and if you expect anything different then enjoy the apathy that guaranteed to follow.

Also, let the girl speak for herself. This is perhaps the ultimate act of both recongition and redistribution: personal agency.

I haven't spoken much on this issue, and there's a reason. Despite our ruminations on how this is a struggle for the dignity and "rights" of the mentally ill and psychically-scarred as equal, capable members of society, there's been far too much haste in speaking for them.

Of all the different voices I've heard in the melee, Jill's -- and those in similar situations -- have been the feeblest. In fact, I didn't hear a damn thing from anyone suffering from a mental illness until long after the issue had transpired and all of the demagogues and establishment representatives had a chance to wind themselves. I'd heard enough of everyone else speaking in her stead.

Plus, I also heard the DEN trashed a story by some girl (Nichole was her name) who wanted to weigh in on the issue -- definitely not kosher, and counterproductive to say the least.

Let's take a lesson from Alcoff and *listen* to Ms. Manges and others struggling with mental health issues -- and we can follow their lead and let *them* articulate their own concerns, needs, fears, and desires -- not what we, the rest of the 'normal' world, thinks they want.

That, in effect, is the greatest way to both recognize and redistribute - allow them to assert genuine, personal agency and help them create the resources necessary for them to get on.

Take care and control. :)

Response to WWEGD

This particular case is one that resonates strongly with each and every one of us. Not because we may or may not know Jill, know what she has been through, or know struggle she faces every day with a disability such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Yet, because we all attend the same University as Jill we should all feel a slight bond to her case.
PTSD is something that can affect any person that is forced to endure an upsetting situation, or many harmful situations, that cause a disturbance in their mental state currently or in future incidents. In reference to the Manges case it should be seen as unfair to her present condition to be forced out of a living arrangement that is allowing her to make her life better, to not back down, and to move on with her life. Though she is one of the few to suffer from this disability it is not right to force her to put her academic life on halt when she has already faced so much turbulence in her past.
The frustrating thing about this case is that they are such a minority. Mental disorders are such a taboo topic in our society today, even though many of us know at least one person who suffers from this, many times silent, disorder. This minority is struggling to be recognized and is only publicized when such events as the Manges case are brought to our attention. This group should not be kept silent and/or be ashamed of the struggle they face day to day. Their stories should lead to the recognition that they deserve, which in turn will lead to the proper redistribution owed to them.
Now to answer the questions posed to about what Emma Goldman would do in this situation. She would let her opinion be heard, not only learn about the present context of the situation but act in response to it. She would fight for Jill’s rights as well as any person past, present, or future struggling with oppression.

-Protest Songs-

This is sort of in response to an earlier post by Chris. This is a protest song by Pink that I wrote a paper on two semesters ago. I just wanted to show that protest songs are still written, but they don't get that much air time on radios. At least I don't think they do. I got this song on a mix cd my uncle gave me, but without that I know I never would have heard of it. But I thought it was really compelling and it definitely made me think.

PINK LYRICS"Dear Mr. President"(feat. Indigo Girls

Dear Mr. President,Come take a walk with me
Let's pretend we're just two people and
You're not better than me.I'd like to ask you some questions if we can speak honestly.
What do you feel when you see all the homeless on the street?
Who do you pray for at night before you go to sleep?
What do you feel when you look in the mirror?
Are you proud?
How do you sleep while the rest of us cry?
How do you dream when a mother has no chance to say goodbye?
How do you walk with your head held high?
Can you even look me in the eye
And tell me why?
Dear Mr. President,
Were you a lonely boy?
Are you a lonely boy?
Are you a lonely boy?
How can you say
No child is left behind?
We're not dumb and we're not blind.
They're all sitting in your cells
While you pave the road to hell.
What kind of father would take his own daughter's rights away?
And what kind of father might hate his own daughter if she were gay?
I can only imagine what the first lady has to say
You've come a long way from whiskey and cocaine.
How do you sleep while the rest of us cry?
How do you dream when a mother has no chance to say goodbye?
How do you walk with your head held high?
Can you even look me in the eye?
Let me tell you 'bout hard work
Minimum wage with a baby on the way
Let me tell you 'bout hard work
Rebuilding your house after the bombs took them away
Let me tell you 'bout hard work
Building a bed out of a cardboard box
Let me tell you 'bout hard work
Hard workHard work
You don't know nothing 'bout hard work
Hard work
Hard work
Oh
How do you sleep at night?
How do you walk with your head held high?
Dear Mr. President,
You'd never take a walk with me.
Would you?

I just thought this was interesting and wanted to share it with everyone. That is all!

Case Study

This case shows that schools are still pretty shaken up about what happened at Virginia Tech and are making every problem that happens on campus a major conflict. Through out campus, the majority of the decision making goes through Administration. They have the power to make any rule and stand by it. The students are what make up this institution and the Administration would not have a university if we were not here. Seeing as how Administration is able to make any rule, they are also able to choose what happens to those who "break the rules".
Those with mental illnesses just want to be treated like any one of us in society. Jill Manges could not help herself when the incident occurred. What if she sneezed? Would they still kick her off campus? Doubtful; for redistribution, the rules need to be changed. They need to work around and for a student, because that is why the administrators are here; to help students succeed and help the students if they are in trouble.
To advocate this situation, I would definitely go look over the rules and policies and see if there is any way to stop the administrators from kicking her out of school. The students that were in the class should help her out and stand up for her, knowing that what happened was not her fault, while standing by her side, protesting and yelling. Emma Goldman would be right there in spirit with us, rallying and chanting, knowing that this is what needed to change, and she would take action.

WWEGD?

I would say yes that citizens of this institution do have a potential grievance to file against the university for their handling of this situation. I think so because, like Adam said, it is very easy for the institution to interpret their codes of conduct and rules for situations like this any way they want, depending on whatever situation arises. This is unfair for the students because we are the victims of their interpretations, depending on how they choose to handle any given situation. This leaves us under recognized and underrepresented.

However, while I feel that most students will recognize the need of a grievance, none will take any action towards that end. I think this is true because many students and people our age have a hard time taking any stance on any issue unless it is directly affecting them at that particular moment. This is a subject we have already discussed in class. It is possible to appreciate the fact that this is an unfair situation, but at the same time it is very easy to go along with the mentality that it doesn't affect me so I don't need to do anything. I don't support this idea of apathy, but at the same time I can find myself getting caught up into it. I think we all do to some extent.

In thinking about Fraser's article and her terminology, I would say in this situation these groups suffering from PTSD are suffering from injustice from the institution described by Fraser as, "The second understanding of injustice is cultural or symbolic. Here injustice is rooted in social patterns of representation, interpretation, and communication." She cites examples of this situation as cultural domination, nonrecognition, and disrespect. I would say individuals suffering from PTSD are met with a lack of understanding, lack of respect, recognition, empathy, and the list goes on. They are a minority in our culture, and are misunderstood by the dominant group. Overall, I think that this group of individuals is mostly in need of recognition. Once recognition is received and understanding is increased, that is when redistribution can then occur. However, without recognition no redistribution can take place because it isn't being seen as necessary. Once recognition occurs and communication increases, that opens the door for redistribution.

Now answering the overall questions, what would emma do? Emma is a bit of a rock star, so I think she would immediately see how this can affect us all. She would understand that while she may not suffer from PTSD, she is still a part of the culture that is not representing this group and she could see how one day that lack of recognition could affect her. I think Emma would find a way to relate what is happening in this situation to everyone, she would relate it to something we can all identify with. In doing this Emma could show us all how this lack of recognition is not just bad for individuals with PTSD, but one day it could affect each and every on of us. After Emma convinced us of this, I think she would organize a protest or a march or public demonstration to advocate for this cause, to gain awareness, and support. If I had Emma Goldman's rhetorical abilities, this is what I would do. I would simply try to find a way to relate this situation to all EIU students, then I would find a public way to advocate for the cause.

Case Study

A case like this one shows potential social issues for a group which is, in many ways, invisible at EIU: those with mental illnesses. Only major occurrences like this one bring this group to the attention of the public and the student body. It is important to address the grievances that people will have with the case, how it factors into a recognition/redistribution model, and what could be done.
The major grievance for the students and staff of EIU should be how the Administration views their rules and policies, and also, how they shape them to their advantage. By being the empowered control here, the Administration is able to make the rules fit to the way they want them to be. They are able to choose the result because they choose the interpretation of the rules. Not only does this effect those with mental illnesses, but any of us could be put in a situation where the control uses their interpretation of the rules to discriminate against us.
When you consider the targeted group in this case, you should consider what goals they have. Those with mental illnesses want to be recognized as functioning members of society and to be able to be part of a normal classroom setting. The redistribution comes in the form of a desire to change the current EIU rules and policies to be more considerate of this group. This is another case where more recognition will lead to more redistribution.
There are a few options that those concerned about this case can do. I would suggest they investigate what exactly the rules are here and how the Administration interpreted them. If they feel Manges was wronged, they should rally support behind her. Emma Goldman almost certainly would have put together a protest to get her back in the classroom. She would have had a bold, no-nonsense speech put together and she would have said exactly how she felt. Goldman was a woman of action and she would have made sure the just outcome prevailed.

Labor Movement Love songs

labor movement AND THE SONGS WITHIN

Here is a pretty great website I used in my last paper written on Billy Joel's "Allentown". The song was written in response to the labor crisis and the economic desparity of the 70's and 80's. The song had always been a favorite of mine.

Well were living here in Allentown

And they’re closing all the factories down

Out in Bethlehem they’re killing time

Filling out forms

Standing in line
Well our fathers fought the second world war

Spent their weekends on the jersey shore

Met our mothers in the U.S.O.

Asked them to dance

Danced with them slow
And were living here in Allentown

But the restlessness was handed down

And its getting very hard to stay

Well were waiting here in Allentown

For the Pennsylvania we never found

For the promises our teachers gave

If we worked hard

If we behaved
So the graduations hang on the wall

But they never really helped us at all

No they never taught us what was real

Iron and coke

And chromium steel

And were waiting here in Allentown

But they’ve taken all the coal from the ground

And the union people crawled away
Every child had a pretty good shot

To get at least as far as their old man go

tBut something happened on the way to that place

They threw an American flag in our face

Well I’m living here in Allentown

And its hard to keep a good man down

But I won’t be getting up today

And its getting very hard to stay

And were living here in Allentown
(Here is a link to youtube to see the video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=aqApW2Rrbhk)

I thought the site was great about it's analyzation and dissection of protest songs. It details the history of the protest song and it's uses and metamorphasis through time.
And, although this is a pop song, at the time it was considered and historically it is still, a protest song. Albeit a a popular one.
Here is the site, I am sure you will see how profound it is: http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/lpop/etext/lsf/richm23.htm

Case Study- What Would Emma Goldman Do?

This is your next journal assignment: Due October 30th

A recent event on a college campus has prompted a journal on higher education (Inside Higher Ed) to write a full-length article about some current problematics concerning mental health and the college classroom. This article has sparked a heated online debate between administrators, teachers and students a like. For a university to get profiled in a journal like this is a big deal.

Read more about "Student, Interrupted"

Imagine this happened at your university and a group of concerned students and faculty wanted to question the university’s handling of this situation while putting pressure on the institution to think more carefully and thoughtfully about how they handle cases of PTSD (especially in light of the many veterans that are coming home from the war).

Do citizens at this institution have a potential grievance to petition (i.e. concern over discriminatory policy, an unjust hearing of Manges, ect)?
Using Fraser's terminology, what needs should be redistributed and what needs must be recognized?
What would you advocate a group of concerned citizens to do?
But more pointedly, What Would Emma Goldman Do (WWED)?

Game Over?

Media reform has many VERY strange outlets, here is one that works on a completely different level. Please visit http://www.stopbigmedia.com/=whackamurdoch and leave a comment.

Saturday's Unity March (Urbana)

Whatever happened...

... to that older gentleman in our class? I believe his name was Robert.

Virginity Pledge Card

Pledge card from an abstinence-only sex education program.

What to reform?

Found a critique of media reform that poses a few very good questions and would like to share it.
Bishop, Ed. (2005). Reform the Public. St. Louis Journalism
"Several years ago, Monsanto was facing billions of dollars in lawsuits and cleanup fees for PCB pollution around several of its plants in Alabama." Monsanto then broke with their chemical division and created a company called Solutia. The company eventually went bankrupt, leaving no money for cleanup, no pension fund, and no health insurance for retirees. The CEO received 25 million when the company went bankrupt and probably saved investors even more. All this was reported locally, and it was all completely legal. This is not the exception, businesses often ask for legislation to be stalled for moves such as this one. This too is also covered. The author started with this assumption:
"Give the public good information and they'll take care of the rest" Do you agree?
It is possible that the public needs more than just information to stand against this kind of thing?

Legalization Media

I thought this video was interesting and made some great talking points. Media is a powerful tool in the hands of any social agitation, and it's great to see it used effectively by the Legalization Movement.