'On Campus, the '60s Begin to Fade as Liberal Professors Retire' in today's NY Times addresses the ideological shift occurring in many college departments. Researchers Neil Gross and Solon Simmons conducted research on the political attitudes of professors teaching in programs where undergraduate degrees were awarded, and found that more professors are identifying themselves as moderates than in the past. Not surprisingly, the field with the largest percentage of self-identified liberals is the social science group.
What I think is most interesting is how the meanings of these words, 'moderate' or 'liberal' or 'conservative' are supposed to encompass the entire political philosophy and practical opinions of individuals, especially professors who may often have nuanced opinions due to their extensive training and research in a particular area. Further, in the sociological field a person's political leaning is becoming less relevant because of the current focus on quantitative research, which requires strict adherence to methodological and statistical norms.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Celebrate the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Today is the 44th anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed segregation, created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and protects African-Americans and women. Also this is the day the Deceleration of Independence was adopted by the Continental Congess, although it was not approved until July 4, 1776. Finally, on this day in 1777 Vermont became the first American territory to abolish slavery.
We still have so much to address and overcome in this society in terms of institutionalized and normalized systems of discrimination, but at the same time it is important to celebrate milestones such as this one. Happy July 2nd!
We still have so much to address and overcome in this society in terms of institutionalized and normalized systems of discrimination, but at the same time it is important to celebrate milestones such as this one. Happy July 2nd!
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Othering a Problem, or Why I Hate Buying for Charity
This is a recently aired commercial for Pampers diapers in which the company promotes purchasing its product by the fact that they will donate one vaccine to a child for each pack of diapers purchased.
This whole idea to buy things for charity, that problems happen to 'other' people overseas in different clothing, and that white people are the ones who can solve other people's problems by just buying shit is just so ridiculous.
First of all, if your concern is the health and safety of children perhaps you should re-think buying disposable diapers and/or perhaps donate money directly to a charity doing work you consider important for this cause. Yearly, $300 million is spent on diaper disposal (this doesn't include diaper production) and on average children use 5,000 diapers until they are potty trained. I bet $300 million buys a lot of vaccines, or other things, like clean drinking water and educational services.
Second, the United States doesn't do such a good job of vaccinating its own children. Case in point: I'm currently working on a community quality of life report for my region. I am working on health indicators, and just received information about 2007 vaccination rates for this area. My county has a 55.7% vaccination rate for adequate vaccinations for 2-3 year olds. So I don't see how this is just a problem for children in other countries, it is a problem for children in the United States. Now, state by state the vaccination rates are generally in the 90th percentile, according to the CDC, but obviously there is a lot of variation from community to community, as I have found out. Furthermore, the state-wide vaccination rates are often based on interviewed samples, and thus do not represent the total state population.
But I guess it's just more palatable for consumers if the issue of child vaccination is contextualized as a developing world, non-white people problem. If consumers do care, they can conveniently just pick up some diapers and somehow expect to help other people. What ever happened to just giving money to charity? Like with breast cancer 'branding', I often wonder how much actually goes to the designated cause and how money and resources could be used more efficiently by just being given to the charity or organization directly.
If you read the fine print on the commercial, you will see that US $0.05 is donated per package of Pampers to buy a vaccine. FIVE CENTS. A consumer could just buy generic diapers, save a buck and donate that dollar to UNICEF and then UNICEF can provide 20 vaccines. But if consumers were told this and decided to save their diaper money and donate money directly, Pampers couldn't market themselves as the 'ethical' diaper company and make money off the fact that they donate to UNICEF.
This whole idea to buy things for charity, that problems happen to 'other' people overseas in different clothing, and that white people are the ones who can solve other people's problems by just buying shit is just so ridiculous.
First of all, if your concern is the health and safety of children perhaps you should re-think buying disposable diapers and/or perhaps donate money directly to a charity doing work you consider important for this cause. Yearly, $300 million is spent on diaper disposal (this doesn't include diaper production) and on average children use 5,000 diapers until they are potty trained. I bet $300 million buys a lot of vaccines, or other things, like clean drinking water and educational services.
Second, the United States doesn't do such a good job of vaccinating its own children. Case in point: I'm currently working on a community quality of life report for my region. I am working on health indicators, and just received information about 2007 vaccination rates for this area. My county has a 55.7% vaccination rate for adequate vaccinations for 2-3 year olds. So I don't see how this is just a problem for children in other countries, it is a problem for children in the United States. Now, state by state the vaccination rates are generally in the 90th percentile, according to the CDC, but obviously there is a lot of variation from community to community, as I have found out. Furthermore, the state-wide vaccination rates are often based on interviewed samples, and thus do not represent the total state population.
But I guess it's just more palatable for consumers if the issue of child vaccination is contextualized as a developing world, non-white people problem. If consumers do care, they can conveniently just pick up some diapers and somehow expect to help other people. What ever happened to just giving money to charity? Like with breast cancer 'branding', I often wonder how much actually goes to the designated cause and how money and resources could be used more efficiently by just being given to the charity or organization directly.
If you read the fine print on the commercial, you will see that US $0.05 is donated per package of Pampers to buy a vaccine. FIVE CENTS. A consumer could just buy generic diapers, save a buck and donate that dollar to UNICEF and then UNICEF can provide 20 vaccines. But if consumers were told this and decided to save their diaper money and donate money directly, Pampers couldn't market themselves as the 'ethical' diaper company and make money off the fact that they donate to UNICEF.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)