The documentary Very Young Girls leaves us with a rather optimistic view of the situation that leaves me not sure where to stand on how to address the situation. On one hand, the film opens with a compelling snapshot that human sex trafficking in urban America is a real problem. The majority of the movie shows the aftereffects of the life on the victims and how the GEMS program comes to their aid. At the conclusion, most of the featured victims are shown to be making progress, with only one or two exceptions.
The focus of the film was on the personal stories of the victims, with less focus on the problem itself. In that way, the movie, as a whole, functions more as oral history than a public service announcement. Critically, the film could have explored more solutions to the entire problem. While the work that GEMS does is excellent and has made progress, the root of the problem is not addressed in the film. In VYG, GEMS is presented as helping victims only after they have become victims, with rehabilitation efforts. The opening of the movie was the most compelling because it showed the victims' fall into trafficking--the very thing that needs preventative measures.
The 45 second footage of the education meeting for johns and Carolina's 30 day jail sentence show the failure of the criminal justice system to address the problem in perspective. Additionally, the interviews with the girls about their entrance to prostitution and their parents show a wealth of issues that cause the problem in the first place, from education, to poverty, to social patterns and dynamics. Unfortunately, due to the sense of closure presented in the film, the casual viewer would not realize the depth of work that still needs to be done.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Analytically Elevating
[At the time of this writing, I was a senior at University of Illinois Laboratory High School.]
For the majority of my time here, the elevator has been officially closed to students. Without getting into specifics about "sand" or lettuce (though the true culprit was eventually discovered), student elevator privileges have been a point of contention for some time. When my brothers were here (fall 1993 to spring 2000) the elevator was completely off-limits, though "you could unlock it with dimes." Shortly after Ms. Kovacs arrived, she fought to open the elevator to the students. But by the time I arrived here, bad student conduct saw it closed again and again until it was made permanent. How could the student body be so careless? Digging through my email archives, frequent issues cited included:
The first question to consider is "What guidelines are we looking for in elevator usage?" This is my list:
Really, that's it. With specific reference to the elevator, these two concerns are all the complaints and drama boil down to. Anything else is simply remaining civil.
With this in mind, what rules should we establish to maximize both student privileges and success of the guidelines? I present the following:
Analytically, these rules satisfy the guidelines. They specifically avoid situations where individuals are inconvenienced by improper elevator usage, and they also avoid inconveniencing students at large as the overbearing blanket ban does now. At the same time, they avoid being too arbitrary with the terms of general conduct. You could summarize the last three as "Don't be a moron."
As a side note, there is no reason why one-floor elevations should be prohibited. That particular quibble exists in the interest of saving time, which is already addressed. In theory, it could cause others to wait longer, but considering that the rules already account for peak traffic jams, such a scenario is called a corner case in computer science. Also, I avoided adding rules that micromanage general student behavior and attitude. The complaint about running from halfway down the hallway has little to do with the elevator per se.
Uni High should be known as a place where the spirit of the law trumps the letter of the law (as long as it is in good faith). I used to hear the word trust used often. If someone safely rides the elevator when traffic and waiting times are not issues, there is zero reason for them to get in trouble.
I will keep working on this, and I hope to see some progress made.
For the majority of my time here, the elevator has been officially closed to students. Without getting into specifics about "sand" or lettuce (though the true culprit was eventually discovered), student elevator privileges have been a point of contention for some time. When my brothers were here (fall 1993 to spring 2000) the elevator was completely off-limits, though "you could unlock it with dimes." Shortly after Ms. Kovacs arrived, she fought to open the elevator to the students. But by the time I arrived here, bad student conduct saw it closed again and again until it was made permanent. How could the student body be so careless? Digging through my email archives, frequent issues cited included:
Most of these are valid points, and I would personally question any student who engaged in such misbehavior. However, all this led to this:
- Students running from at least halfway down the hallway and jostling and running into other students on their way to the elevator.
- Students running and then jumping into the elevator.
- Students yelling for the elevator to be held as they are running down the hallway.
- Students riding the elevator when they only need to travel up or down one floor.
- Students crowding the elevator with more than 10 people.
Students may use the elevator [only] IF:Drawing from my previous blog entry, I can tell that the entire situation needs some constructive thinking, so we can increase student liberty and avoid more of this:
- they are injured and can't walk up/down the steps
- are caring a large instrument or school needed item--check in the office
- with a teacher and have been asked to ride with them
- after school activities--use the elevator to get to the proper floor
- with a pass from the office
DO NOT RIDE THE ELEVATOR BEGINNING MONDAY FOR TWO WEEKS;
THIS IS AN HONOR SYSTEM--VIOLATE IT AND THERE WILL BE CIRCUMSTANCES.
The first question to consider is "What guidelines are we looking for in elevator usage?" This is my list:
- Prevent physical and mechanical damage to the elevator.
- Allow faculty, staff, and the injured timely use of the elevator.
Really, that's it. With specific reference to the elevator, these two concerns are all the complaints and drama boil down to. Anything else is simply remaining civil.
With this in mind, what rules should we establish to maximize both student privileges and success of the guidelines? I present the following:
Evan's Rational Elevator Rules
- Students may not use the elevator during five-minute passing periods, including 7:55-8:00 am, with the following exceptions:
- significant injury
- transporting a large or heavy object
- with a teacher (at the teacher's discretion)
- with a pass from the office
- At other times, when the halls and stairwells are not busy, including free periods, lunch, and before/after school, students may use the elevator.
- Do not crowd people in the elevator. Be smart.
- Be gentle in and around the elevator.
- Do not hold the elevator excessively.
Analytically, these rules satisfy the guidelines. They specifically avoid situations where individuals are inconvenienced by improper elevator usage, and they also avoid inconveniencing students at large as the overbearing blanket ban does now. At the same time, they avoid being too arbitrary with the terms of general conduct. You could summarize the last three as "Don't be a moron."
As a side note, there is no reason why one-floor elevations should be prohibited. That particular quibble exists in the interest of saving time, which is already addressed. In theory, it could cause others to wait longer, but considering that the rules already account for peak traffic jams, such a scenario is called a corner case in computer science. Also, I avoided adding rules that micromanage general student behavior and attitude. The complaint about running from halfway down the hallway has little to do with the elevator per se.
Uni High should be known as a place where the spirit of the law trumps the letter of the law (as long as it is in good faith). I used to hear the word trust used often. If someone safely rides the elevator when traffic and waiting times are not issues, there is zero reason for them to get in trouble.
I will keep working on this, and I hope to see some progress made.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
A Reaction to Reactions
[At the time of this writing, I was a senior at University of Illinois Laboratory High School.]
It was about a year ago that the school administration proposed modifying the fall finals schedule to work so that the eight class periods of the day each got a block of time, instead of constructing a special three-day schedule where all members of a class meet at once. There were perfectly good reasons for this, yet the events that followed severely disappointed me in the students here.
In particular, the Class of 2012 flew into an absolute outrage as if the new finals schedule was an atrocity exacted on them by a cold and unfeeling administration. Soon after, a Facebook group was started named, "WE ARE UPSET WITH THE NEW FINALS SCHEDULE" and just about the entire student body present on Facebook was invited to join. The posts in this were simply complaints about how awful it was that the seniors could not use the previous wealth of free time during finals to "study." (It should go without saying that such a last-minute cramming technique is not advisable.) Students also complained how "unfair" it was that sections of class met separately and how they were all disadvantaged by the potential for cheating by others. I started a public Google Document for people to collect tangible ideas for solutions since they consider it a problem worth fixing, and I got nothing more than what I wrote myself.
But the general problem certainly isn't limited to one specific group. At the end of my sophomore year, the schedules my class received for junior year seemed to have a lot of problems. So, I thought constructively and made a Google Document and shared it with the class to collect legitimate concerns. After a few days when activity slowed, I submitted it to the administration. There must have been some failure in communication, because I felt some note of offense by those I talked to. Indeed, I must have been misrepresented behind the scenes (perhaps at faculty meetings) because in the fall of the following year I was asked about my "schedule bitch blog" by a faculty member.
Particularly in the student body, there is not enough thought given to giving calm and constructive responses to a perceived issue. I see examples of people holding a difference of opinion with some decision made higher up, and instead of talking it out to actually fix the problem, they hold it as a grudge or complain to others in a rather vitriolic fashion. I don't understand why it is common to misrepresent people who make decisions which happen to inconvenience you and play the victim in such a situation.
Creating antagonism may fulfill some primal human need for conflict and revenge but we should really be beyond constructing "us vs. them" distinctions instead of focusing on the problem itself. In the aftermath of the finals schedule firestorm, the faculty were disappointed in the sheer hysteria of the situation, especially considering how the problem was not actually that significant. On the other hand, my schedule document resulted in many of the problems actually being resolved.
The best course of action is to take a step back and consider the problem objectively. This is age-old advice, and I am glad to see it implemented here when role models do follow it.
It was about a year ago that the school administration proposed modifying the fall finals schedule to work so that the eight class periods of the day each got a block of time, instead of constructing a special three-day schedule where all members of a class meet at once. There were perfectly good reasons for this, yet the events that followed severely disappointed me in the students here.
In particular, the Class of 2012 flew into an absolute outrage as if the new finals schedule was an atrocity exacted on them by a cold and unfeeling administration. Soon after, a Facebook group was started named, "WE ARE UPSET WITH THE NEW FINALS SCHEDULE" and just about the entire student body present on Facebook was invited to join. The posts in this were simply complaints about how awful it was that the seniors could not use the previous wealth of free time during finals to "study." (It should go without saying that such a last-minute cramming technique is not advisable.) Students also complained how "unfair" it was that sections of class met separately and how they were all disadvantaged by the potential for cheating by others. I started a public Google Document for people to collect tangible ideas for solutions since they consider it a problem worth fixing, and I got nothing more than what I wrote myself.
But the general problem certainly isn't limited to one specific group. At the end of my sophomore year, the schedules my class received for junior year seemed to have a lot of problems. So, I thought constructively and made a Google Document and shared it with the class to collect legitimate concerns. After a few days when activity slowed, I submitted it to the administration. There must have been some failure in communication, because I felt some note of offense by those I talked to. Indeed, I must have been misrepresented behind the scenes (perhaps at faculty meetings) because in the fall of the following year I was asked about my "schedule bitch blog" by a faculty member.
Particularly in the student body, there is not enough thought given to giving calm and constructive responses to a perceived issue. I see examples of people holding a difference of opinion with some decision made higher up, and instead of talking it out to actually fix the problem, they hold it as a grudge or complain to others in a rather vitriolic fashion. I don't understand why it is common to misrepresent people who make decisions which happen to inconvenience you and play the victim in such a situation.
Creating antagonism may fulfill some primal human need for conflict and revenge but we should really be beyond constructing "us vs. them" distinctions instead of focusing on the problem itself. In the aftermath of the finals schedule firestorm, the faculty were disappointed in the sheer hysteria of the situation, especially considering how the problem was not actually that significant. On the other hand, my schedule document resulted in many of the problems actually being resolved.
The best course of action is to take a step back and consider the problem objectively. This is age-old advice, and I am glad to see it implemented here when role models do follow it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)