I'd like to use this final blog post as a way to express my feelings for this blog and how I think this semester went in First Year Seminar. Blogging did not at all come naturally to me, simply because I couldn't find things that were interesting enough to me to talk about. I always tried to get ideas about first amendment rights and racism to go along with the theme of the class, however these honestly aren't things I am very passionate about. It may have gone better for me had I worked a little harder to find things I am really interested in and passionate about.

However I do believe that blogging is a great way to get us into the habit of writing, especially for those who didn't have to do a lot of writing in high school. Constantly writing these smaller posts as opposed to writing large essays every couple of weeks is a great way to get us started and get used to doing college level writing. It also helps us get ideas for how we can get our names out there for the future when trying to get into a career. It is like a stepping stone to making a website or something that one could use to show future employers to show who you are and why you should be hired. I believe blogging in this class was a great way to get us acclimated with college writing.

The class itself went well throughout the semester. We learned a lot in terms of history along with racism and constitutional rights in America. Besides that we also learned a lot about how to succeed as a college writer, and how to start getting ready for your career. I took a lot out of the classes where a guest came, like when the students came to talk about resumes. This class was a success and I am happy I took it and was able to learn all these new things.

Recently there has been an incident involving freedom of speech in the town directly next to my hometown. There was an incident in Duxbury high school where a gym teacher was fired and had his teaching license revoked for reasons that were not all that clear. This isn't the real problem though the real problem came after he was fired. To show their distress as the teacher was loved by many students and no one believed he should have been fired, students began to wear "Free T" shirts they made, because his name was Coach T. The school administrators have told the students that they cannot wear them and they cannot do anything to express their feelings about the issue. This is completely against the students' first amendment rights to freedom of speech, as they are being told they cannot speak there minds about the issue, and are punished if they do. Students are given detentions if they wear shirts, and are being threatened with suspension. I couldn't believe something like this was happening in the town right next to mine, and I am shocked by the way the school is dealing with this situation. First amendment rights do count in public school, and the administration has no right to tell the students what to think or what they can or can't say.

The NSA has been part of a campaign recently trying to make it legal for them to spy on Americans by tapping into their phones, reading their texts, and basically knowing everything we do. To them this is a way to keep everyone safe from the evils in this country. They believe they would be able to stop crimes before they are committed by using this spy technology. However, is it right for them to be able to listen in to all of our private calls? As shown by this article, there is a bill going to Obama's desk giving the NSA unprecedented authority to collect and store data belonging to American citizens. They are also insisting that tech companies redesign their products to make them more surveillance friendly. Basically they are making it so no one will be able to have any privacy anymore.

No one in this country should have the power to know what everyone is doing and thinking. We as Americans deserve to have some privacy, and this is practically violating our fourth amendment rights against unreasonable searches. Our information is being given to the government for no reason, other than the fact that they want it. This is a very dangerous situation we are in, as it is almost like we are turning into George Orwell's 1984, with everyone being watched and listened to at all times. This NSA spying needs to stop soon, before it gets out of hand.

There has been a lot of upset recently about the Ferguson incident, and now another problem has erupted in New York. In July, an unarmed man was killed when he was put in a chokehold by an NYPD officer. He was being arrested for selling untaxed cigarettes, and things quickly got out of hand. The case has gone through the courts and they decided not to indict the officer for the killing of this man. This has caused an outrage among society as it is another instance where police officers get away with doing something illegal.

It is absolutely ridiculous that the police officer will get off scot-free for this atrocity. The man was unarmed, and based on the video he didn't seem to be resisting arrest much. The man continually saying that he can't breath should be a sign to stop choking him, and the police officer should know this. Things got completely out of hand, and this police officer is not getting punished for doing something completely illegal. The fact that it was a white police officer killing an African-American man does not help the situation either. Now more questions arise, like why don't we see nearly as many white people being killed and arrested by the cops as black people. Events like this and Ferguson are raising a lot of questions that the government is not answering well. If things like this continue to happen, there will be a lot of problems for our country.

Watch this video to learn more about the incident:

Yesterday in class we watched a documentary about the progression of racism in America. It made some interesting points that many people don't think of. Although slavery ended years ago and African-Americans are technically equal, racism is still a thing that seriously affects this country. It highlighted the racism that was show in the Obama election. People were calling him names and refusing to vote for him simply because of his race. With how progressive we have become, how can there still be people who say "I won't vote for a nigger."? The narrator was a man who has long spoke for African-American rights, and he made the point that race is not something we can simply ignore. So many politicians say everyone should be colorblind when it comes to race. However what they don't know is that this is impossible. We can't simply ignore all the things black people have had to deal with over the years, they should be treated fairly, but race is not something that can be ignored. We should be aware of race and the things that have been caused because of it, trying to continue to improve the ways we deal with differences, not pretending like it has never affected anything and that nothing ever happened because of it. That isn't fair to all of the people that have worked to get us to a place where we can elect a black president.

Tim Wise - documentary filmmaker

My group was part of a Moot Court case about the Supreme Court Case Brown v. Board of Education today. We argued for desegregation, while the other group argued that segregation is okay. Both groups gave there three points, and it ended up being a tie between their arguments.

The opposing team, Team Schenck, argued for segregation in schools, and made good points anticipating arguments for the other team. They said that is was completely constitutional to have separate but equal facilities for African American children because of the Plessy v. Ferguson case. They also pointed out that although black children may feel inferior because they are separated from whites, they would still feel inferior if they were in the same schools because they know that whites don't like them, so if anything it would cause more of a problem. There were some very strong arguments from this group for segregation of schools.

Team Sullivan, my team, argued for the desegregation of schools. I argued that although Plessy v. Ferguson said separate but equal is okay, the situations black children and white children are in are not truly equal, which undoes the decision in that case. Also, the way being separated that African American children are is detrimental to their learning because of the "badge of inferiority" that is put on them. We also made the argument that because African Americans are citizens, they have rights based on the 14th amendment saying that they should be able to attend the same schools. These arguments were very good and worked well with the time we were thinking in.

Both arguments were very well thought out, and although it was decided as a tie I believe Team Sullivan had a better argument because they had arguments for what the other team was saying, as well as speaking well for the time that we were thinking in.

Ebola is a disease that has been affecting the country recently in more ways than one might think. It originates from certain parts of Africa, and the first man in America to die from it was a Liberian man, Thomas Eric Duncan. Obviously the threat of Ebola is putting stress on the country as a whole, and the media doesn't exactly make people's anxiety about it go down, but there is another aspect to this new disease that many aren't thinking about. Ebola is starting to cause people to discriminate against african people.
Two students from Nigeria were recently refused admission to a Texas college simply because they were from a country with Ebola. The college's reasoning was that they don't want the disease to spread through their school, but is it fair for them to discriminate against these people? If they are refusing applicants from countries that have Ebola, shouldn't they not allow American applicants since there have been cases of Ebola here? Read the full story about the college here. From these questions much debate arises about what the right thing to do is and how to keep Ebola from spreading while trying not to discriminate on others. The possibility that any person originally from one of the Ebola countries, or possibly anywhere in Africa, could be discriminated against and treated unfairly is very much alive.
Should people from these countries not be allowed to come to the United States? Should anyone from these countries be quarantined, along with people who have been in contact with them? These are questions that need to be answered. Ebola causes much controversy because while the ideas that people have to stop it could be effective, they may infringe on certain people's constitutional rights. Ebola is definitely a serious issue and needs to be taken care of immediately, but the government as well as society needs to keep in mind the other affects that it is having and must not discriminate on people just because there is a possibility they have Ebola, because technically there is a possibility for any of us to have Ebola.

Today in class we had a moot court about the case Plessy v. Ferguson. Plessy v. Ferguson was a Supreme Court case where a man who was only one eighths African American boarded a train in a whites only car and was asked to vacate and go to the blacks only car. He argued that this went against the equal protection clause as he was not being treated equally with the other white people.

Team Jefferson was arguing the points for Plessy in that the law is unconstitutional because it is a law of general applicability but it is not behaving like so because it is not content neutral. If there is going to be different cars for different races there should be an asian car, native american car, etc. The team said that the railroad is a common carrier for the public so it can not distinguish between race, as it goes against the equal protection clause. Also, Plessy is only 1/8 black, and 7/8 white. He was able to buy a ticket for the white car because he does not look like he is black. No real distinction could be made, and he can't stay in both cars. "Should 1/8 of him stay in the black car and 7/8 stay in the white car?" This just wouldn't happen, so he should not be discriminated against and should be able to stay in the white car because he is almost completely white.

Team Lincoln argued against Plessy saying that asking him to go into the other car did not violate the equal protection clause because the black car was equal to the white and Plessy was still allowed to stay on the train. One argument they made is that Plessy knowingly broke the law because he knew he was 1/8 black, so he should have known he was not supposed to be in the white car and he may have gone in to cause this disruption. Also, Plessy was simply asked to go to a separate and equal car, not leave the train altogether, so he had equal protection. They acknowledge that the law distinguishes between the two races, but does not discriminate between them. "The law does not stamp blacks with a badge of inferiority." The argument is that Plessy was not discriminated against, he was simply distinguished from the whites.

It seems like Team Lincoln's argument was better because they acknowledged what Team Jefferson said about distinguishing between race, and pointed out that it is not against the law to distinguish, as long as they are not discriminating. Today's moot court went very well because both groups had valid arguments and brought out all of the different points that could be made in this case.

First amendment rights continue to be taken away, as shown in a recent article. The U.S. Forest Service recently came up with the idea that anyone who takes a picture in America's national parks must pay a fine of $1,500. This is just absurd because professional photographers already have thousands of dollars worth of equipment, it would apply to camera crews for the news, and even people that can take pictures with their cell phones. Needless to say, the people did not react well to this, and the USFS continues to try to adjust their policy to make it possible. This goes against the first amendment because being able to photograph the natural things in the country should be freedom of expression, and putting a fine on that is just not right. Read more about it at This Link.

There was a debate today discussing the court case of State v. Mann, where a white man rented a slave and shot her. He was taken to court because the slave was someone else's property. This case was basically between two groups, one for and one against slavery. Both sides made good points discussing religious and economic factors. 

The side that was against slavery said how many slaves were shipped over from Africa unwillingly and how we are involved in race-based slavery, both of which are condemned by God. They also said that the slave was someone else's property, so he had no right to shoot her because he would bring her back to her owner not able to work as well. The most interesting argument was that because of the Three Fifths Compromise, a slave is three fifths of a person, and therefore has more rights than an animal. There are several laws against cruelty to animals, so therefore, there should be at least equal laws for slaves.

The side that was for slavery said that slaves are not full people and do not deserve the same rights, and that the Three Fifths Compromise was made for political reasons, not to state what rights a slave may have. They also stated that the Bible directly condones slavery, and it fulfills bible’s definition of the slave because they get housing, food, and friendship. The group also stated that slavery is necessary for economic success in the south. In respect to the case of State v. Mann, when Mann was given the slave, all rights involving the slave were transferred to him, so he had the right to shoot her because she was his property at the time. Another point that was made is that if a slave owner damages a slave, the harm is to the owner for not having someone to work, so there is no need for more punishment.

The side that was pro slavery seemed to have a better argument because they had more economic arguments and they were ready for the arguments the other group made and had counter-statements. The debate was very close, but the pro slavery group ended up winning for these reasons.

A recent article in the Wake Forest newspaper talked about an interesting way for the school to get rid of bias in the school. As stated in the article, Campus Reacts to Bias Report System, they are implementing an online system to report acts of bias anonymously in the school system. This is a way to make sure student's first amendment rights are not infringed upon. A student could say what happened and the school would take measures to fix the problem and make sure nothing like that never happens again. People are worried that students wouldn't take it seriously, but if they can start utilizing this system it would be a great way to stop discrimination and protect people's first amendment rights. More places should try to implement this system because it is a great way to get people to start thinking about their rights and how they can protect themselves and others. With this system everyone can get their thoughts out there without feeling like they can get in trouble, the only problem that could arise is if nothing was done about the biases that are being posted. However, if the system is used the way it is supposed to, it will be the next step to us getting rid of unfair biases that cause problems constantly in our society.

A Senate candidate in New York has begun to praise anti-gay laws in Uganda. As shown in this article, the candidate believes that gay marriage should not be accepted, and people should comply with the laws of Christianity as Uganda has.

This is an example of the countless number of times people's rights are taken away because they are a little different. This man believes our country should be like Uganda and do everything based on what Christianity believes in, but isn't that the exact opposite of the ideas our country was founded on? The United States may be a primarily Christian country, but it was founded on the idea that everyone has certain rights and we have laws in place that should protect people from being treated differently for looking or acting different from the norm. With his idea people are not free to do what they want, and gays would not be able to get married. The people of this country should be progressing to an area where people accept each other and do not discriminate based on what people look or act like. This is an example that there is still work to be done if we want to be the free country we say we are.