Blog entries must be 200-400 words in length and must be submitted as comments to the main thread before the next class period.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Winter Class (3)
For this week's blog post, please briefly describe one of the articles your group discussed in class and then write a response to that article, including what you took away from it.
The article my group read was about Invisible Children. This article assessed the work of the Invisible Children against Joseph Kony, a leader in Africa responsible for forcing children to fight for him. He has been responsible for many atrocities regarding children and their lives and safety. The children are in desperate need of help. Invisible Children's goal is to ultimately help these children but they focus mainly on awareness. They have created action packages that can be purchased to spread awareness. They also created a video that went viral and had millions of views. Unfortunately, the American public paid much attention for a short amount of time and then forgot about the issue for the most part.
In my group, we talked a lot about the effectiveness of the awareness goal.. We decided that for some issues, the best way to approach them is to get many people as aware as possible--but this may not be one of them. It is important to have people aware, but it is even more important to find people passionate about creating change and putting a lot of effort into the cause. This cannot be done with an action package and a five-minute video. Invisible Children should have focused on finding a smaller amount of passionate people and using their time and efforts to get larger organizations and the government to collaborate and work for change with them. For such a large goal and an international goal, Invisible Children will most likely need the help of the government eventually.
I learned that all causes can't be treated the same. Depending on the nature of the cause, a different plan of action will be necessary.
My group read the article about TOMS shoes. Our article was actually a critique of another article, which raised some issues with TOMS. The first issue raised was whether or not TOMS was actually a viable business model; are TOMS shoes fashionable enough. As the author of our article explains, not only have teens to twenty-year-olds always embraced shoes with unchanged, basic styles, such as Chucks and Vans, but also being a charitable organization was going to make it even harder to knock TOMS out of the market. The second criticism was whether TOMS buy one, give one model was enough to drastically effect the social problem. The author does not argue much with this point, but rather suggests that as TOMS grows, so will their charitable contributions. One thing our group saw as a downside was that TOMS never draws their costumers into a deep connection with their charity. We felt as though sometimes the mere act of buying the shoes was enough to ease the person mind into think they had done a great deed. We felt that the gap between the buyers and TOMS would lead to no real solving of the social problem; yes TOMS is donating shoes, but how far will that go if no one is actively working to solving the problem that giving them shoes will solve. Though I do realize now that they explain their goals and donations more clearly online, I still think they could take a more proactive approach to the issue. Another key issue we talked about was their profit versus charity. We were concerned with what was more important to TOMS, running a successful business or being a charity. We know that TOMS is a for profit company, which would imply they are more business side, but at the same time they do not sell stocks, which would imply they care less about money and more about charity. What I learned most from our, and the other articles, is that you must focus on the real social issues effecting the people and not try and make people feel like they have “solved” the issue because they have donated or bought merchandise.
My group read the article that talks about Boy Scouts of America. The article reports that the organization, after much debate, has decided to exclude homosexuals from participating; the decision was unanimous among the special committee. Quotes from the Boy Scouts’ spokesman and chief executive explain their reasoning behind the exclusion. They say that it was a sensible decision for the century-old association and that many parents support the Boy Scouts new condition. The article also provides thoughts from gay-rights activists. They retaliate by saying that Boy Scouts of America is teaching young boys hateful characteristics. In my group, many of us were very saddened by the article. The group activity asked us to list pros and cons based on the mission statement, but we failed to compile many pros. When words such as “ethical” and “moral” were included in the organization’s vision we couldn’t see how discrimination could also be accepted. We thought the Boy Scouts of America were being slightly hypocritical. They claim they want to teach “young people to make ethical and moral choices”, yet a policy is being put into action that devalues an entire group. We were shocked that this organization would publically take a stand against homosexuals. When we met in larger groups, however, a guy explained his experiences as a Boy Scout, and he gave me some perspective. He explained that at a corporate level they announced the exclusion of gays, but that private troops could manipulate the “rules” if they chose. I learned that Scout Leaders have much power over their assigned troops, which brings hope for the young boys rejected by the new, intolerant policy. I learned that the special committee may have made the radical decision to exclude gays, but that doesn’t mean every individual involved in the organization has the same narrow mindset.
Our group discussed the article about Boy Scouts of America. This article informed us that the organization has decided to uphold its ban on allowing gays to be a part of the group. This policy had been under review for the past two years. During this period, there has been much controversy over what the group should be obligated to do.
Our group was disturbed by this article. We discussed how by excluding gays, Boy Scouts of America is teaching young scouts to be exclusive and judgmental. We found this ironic considering the Scouts’ mission is “to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices.” It does not seem very ethical or moral to teach young boys to be discriminatory. In support of the organization’s decision, we did acknowledge that the group is upholding their traditional values and beliefs. However, we also said that even if homosexuality is against someone’s personal morals, he or she must consider how those beliefs affect others. By excluding gays, the message is sent that they are not as good as others.
When we got into larger groups to share about our different articles, someone has been involved with Boy Scouts for many years mentioned that this policy really only took effect at the national level. Individual troop leaders determined who was allowed into their troop, and many were very tolerant. Several people said that they knew of homosexuals that were a part of Boy Scouts. This was interesting to hear, and I was glad for the insight. It seems that the organization has an official anti-gay policy, but this policy does not necessarily affect group membership at the local level.
What I took out of this article is that no matter what, people must be our first priority. Regardless of personal values, we must remember that everything we say and do affects other people. No matter what my personal beliefs are, I am going to make sure that I treat everyone as equally important. Especially as a volunteer, it is important that my message is love—not judgment—to the people I am serving.
My group read and discussed an article concerning TOMS shoes. TOMS is a for profit company that for every pair of shoes that the company sells, a pair of shoes is donated to a child in need. This article addressed and examined concerns with the TOMS company that were presented in another article. One concern was whether or not TOMS had created a stylish enough shoe to support both their business and their charity. Our group agreed, that yes, they have. We all know that TOMS is a popular shoe on campus and we were sure that this is because, as the article pointed out, it is in a similar fashion to other classic shoes such as Vans and Converse. A second concern that the article brought up and that seemed to be the underlying focus of my group’s discussion was the disconnectedness of charity that TOMS provided. We acknowledged the fact that by creating a popular shoe, TOMS provided a way to incorporate more people in providing for the underprivileged. However, because TOMS is what the article calls a “charity aggregate”, TOMS consumers lose the sense of personally engaging in hands on charity work. The people who bought the shoes, and in turn, provided a pair of shoes for a child, do not get to see their contribution followed through. I think that this was made apparent within our group as nobody, not even a member who owned a pair, knew how TOMS operated. We weren’t sure where the shoes were going, if the donations were dependent on being bought online or in a store, or how the shoes were distributed. In fact some people very well knew of the shoes, but did not know that TOMS also donated shoes. Although, we admitted that we could probably find this information online. A final concern was how TOMS operated both their business and their charity. Since they were for profit, it made it seem to us that they weren’t fully invested in their charity work. The article addresses this issue when it raises the question as to the reasoning behind the donations. Was this a business tactic in order to draw more customers by the appeal of the feeling for doing good deeds? We weren’t sure. What I took from this is that there is an appeal for people to help; whether it is the satisfaction they get from volunteering or simply wanting to improve another person’s situation. However, this sense of personal connectedness to the charity is easily lost in big companies such as TOMS, where the value of volunteering is scrutinized and the direct, engaging work is eliminated.
Our group read the article over Invisible Children and Kony 2012. Invisible Children and Kony 2012 were awareness campaigns that relied on social media to get their word out. Kony 2012 spawned a 30 minute video that went VIRAL real fast. Unfortunately it also was forgotten real fast. All I knew coming into class and before reading the article was that there was a video and that my friends kept pestering me to watch it. After discussion I learned that Invisible Children was the first awareness campaign to inform the American public of the atrocities of Kony. Kony recruited children to fight as part of the Lord's Resistance Army in countries in Africa. Invisible Children led to a couple of advisors being sent over to advise on how to go about getting rid of Kony. Kony 2012 was the second wave of the awareness campaign to keep the advisors there. Both of these campaigns relied solely on awareness. In fact 1 million dollars of 8 million raised, went to making the viral video. The article mainly focused on, "where does the rest of the money go" and yeah awareness is great and all but is it really that great if nothing is done about it. Both of these campaigns don't explicitly tell us how we can help. Most just assume donating to them will help end Kony's reign, but they really just donate to perhaps make more wristbands and posters and videos. I didn't really care for the campaign when it came out in the spring, and after reading the article I'm still relatively apathetic, although if these campaigns gave clear results of what they actually accomplished I probably wouldn't be. Relying on the empathy of people is not a sure fire way to get something done, especially if there are no clear guidelines on how to get it done set.
Our group read "Toms Shoes: a Doomed Vanity Project?” where Forbes Contributor James Poulos focuses on the opinions given by Cheryl Davenport in her critique on the Toms shoes company. One aspect the article touches on is Davenport's view that the company does not have significant impact in helping the less fortunate. In turn, Poulos poses several questions about or elaborates on her comments. This article certainly allowed me, as well as my group, to think more about the reasoning behind Toms shoes purchases. As someone who owns several pairs of Toms, it was seemingly difficult for me to read about Davenport's idea that people who own the shoes may have a false, yet conceited sense of saving the world. First of all, I refute this opinion because I know that I and many others do not hold ourselves upon a pedestal so high. This is not to say I don't have confidence in making change and helping others, but rather that I understand the small scale of help that a Toms purchase provides. But who's to say that small acts of charity aren't important? These acts build upon each other to create something larger than ourselves –than our own lives. On another note, regardless of whether people think too highly of themselves for owning the shoes or don't even give a care about the charity incorporated, people in need are still receiving shoes. Perhaps people don't have an entirely accurate view of how their Toms purchase impacts others, but at least it has the potential to initiate thought about ways to help others.
Our group discussed the Article regarding Boy Scouts of America. This article showcased some of the values this organization stands behind and one of those values was discrimination against homosexuals. They do not allow homosexuals to become members. Their reasoning for this is that the Boy Scouts wish to carry on the fundamental ideals and viewpoints that their founders created for the organization. However, holding on to such outdated and old fashioned mind states has caused some controversy among the group and those funding the operation. By excluding a certain group of people they are showcasing their unwillingness to treat all humans equally. The Boy Scouts of America contends that its policies are essential in its mission to instill the values of the Scout Oath and Law onto its members. Strangely, the Oath requires members “To help other people at all times”. The discrepancy comes from the fact that the Boy Scouts of America is a private organization and holds the right to express and defend common interests.
What I took away from this Article is that even though no legal action has been taken against this type of discrepancy it is still obvious what the organization carries discriminatory viewpoints and motives. In our group we came to a conclusion that “you can never make everybody happy”. There will always be a wide spectrum of beliefs and viewpoints the only thing we can seek to do is make sure everybody respects others and reach a point where they understand that it is neither appealing nor acceptable in any way to discriminate against a certain group of people.
One of the articles my group read is about the Boy Scouts of America setting a ban against the inclusion of gay boys and men in their organization. After reviewing it for two years, a committee within Boy Scouts decided that this ban should be upheld. While the rest of the country is fighting for equality and inclusion of members of the LGBTQ community, Boy Scouts took a step in the opposite direction. They are teaching young, impressionable boys that some of their peers should be seen as inferior because of their sexual orientation. There are actually many cons about Boy Scouts making such a blatant, discriminatory move. The organization could have taken this opportunity to teach its members that diversity is a positive aspect in a population or a community. This could be a chance to teach the young boys to get along with and accept people who are different than themselves. It also could have been a huge step against bullying and passing judgment in the schools the boy scouts attend. To me, Boy Scouts of America is supposed to produce respectable leaders. How is it respectable if these boys grow up thinking they are more valued than another human because of who they are attracted to? I also have wondered many times how this ban impacts young boys who are involved with Boy Scouts and are in the process of coming out as a member of the gay, transgender or bisexual community. Instead of providing a safe environment for them to be who they are, Boy Scouts creates just another place where they will be looked down upon and kicked out. My overall take away from this article is that Boy Scouts of America wants to produce leaders who fit a very specific ‘mold.’ It’s disappointing that an organization that seems respectable has taken such a large step backward in equal rights and equal opportunity.
The article my group read was about Invisible Children. This article assessed the work of the Invisible Children against Joseph Kony, a leader in Africa responsible for forcing children to fight for him. He has been responsible for many atrocities regarding children and their lives and safety. The children are in desperate need of help. Invisible Children's goal is to ultimately help these children but they focus mainly on awareness. They have created action packages that can be purchased to spread awareness. They also created a video that went viral and had millions of views. Unfortunately, the American public paid much attention for a short amount of time and then forgot about the issue for the most part.
ReplyDeleteIn my group, we talked a lot about the effectiveness of the awareness goal.. We decided that for some issues, the best way to approach them is to get many people as aware as possible--but this may not be one of them. It is important to have people aware, but it is even more important to find people passionate about creating change and putting a lot of effort into the cause. This cannot be done with an action package and a five-minute video. Invisible Children should have focused on finding a smaller amount of passionate people and using their time and efforts to get larger organizations and the government to collaborate and work for change with them. For such a large goal and an international goal, Invisible Children will most likely need the help of the government eventually.
I learned that all causes can't be treated the same. Depending on the nature of the cause, a different plan of action will be necessary.
My group read the article about TOMS shoes. Our article was actually a critique of another article, which raised some issues with TOMS. The first issue raised was whether or not TOMS was actually a viable business model; are TOMS shoes fashionable enough. As the author of our article explains, not only have teens to twenty-year-olds always embraced shoes with unchanged, basic styles, such as Chucks and Vans, but also being a charitable organization was going to make it even harder to knock TOMS out of the market. The second criticism was whether TOMS buy one, give one model was enough to drastically effect the social problem. The author does not argue much with this point, but rather suggests that as TOMS grows, so will their charitable contributions.
ReplyDeleteOne thing our group saw as a downside was that TOMS never draws their costumers into a deep connection with their charity. We felt as though sometimes the mere act of buying the shoes was enough to ease the person mind into think they had done a great deed. We felt that the gap between the buyers and TOMS would lead to no real solving of the social problem; yes TOMS is donating shoes, but how far will that go if no one is actively working to solving the problem that giving them shoes will solve. Though I do realize now that they explain their goals and donations more clearly online, I still think they could take a more proactive approach to the issue.
Another key issue we talked about was their profit versus charity. We were concerned with what was more important to TOMS, running a successful business or being a charity. We know that TOMS is a for profit company, which would imply they are more business side, but at the same time they do not sell stocks, which would imply they care less about money and more about charity.
What I learned most from our, and the other articles, is that you must focus on the real social issues effecting the people and not try and make people feel like they have “solved” the issue because they have donated or bought merchandise.
My group read the article that talks about Boy Scouts of America. The article reports that the organization, after much debate, has decided to exclude homosexuals from participating; the decision was unanimous among the special committee. Quotes from the Boy Scouts’ spokesman and chief executive explain their reasoning behind the exclusion. They say that it was a sensible decision for the century-old association and that many parents support the Boy Scouts new condition. The article also provides thoughts from gay-rights activists. They retaliate by saying that Boy Scouts of America is teaching young boys hateful characteristics.
ReplyDeleteIn my group, many of us were very saddened by the article. The group activity asked us to list pros and cons based on the mission statement, but we failed to compile many pros. When words such as “ethical” and “moral” were included in the organization’s vision we couldn’t see how discrimination could also be accepted. We thought the Boy Scouts of America were being slightly hypocritical. They claim they want to teach “young people to make ethical and moral choices”, yet a policy is being put into action that devalues an entire group. We were shocked that this organization would publically take a stand against homosexuals.
When we met in larger groups, however, a guy explained his experiences as a Boy Scout, and he gave me some perspective. He explained that at a corporate level they announced the exclusion of gays, but that private troops could manipulate the “rules” if they chose. I learned that Scout Leaders have much power over their assigned troops, which brings hope for the young boys rejected by the new, intolerant policy. I learned that the special committee may have made the radical decision to exclude gays, but that doesn’t mean every individual involved in the organization has the same narrow mindset.
Our group discussed the article about Boy Scouts of America. This article informed us that the organization has decided to uphold its ban on allowing gays to be a part of the group. This policy had been under review for the past two years. During this period, there has been much controversy over what the group should be obligated to do.
ReplyDeleteOur group was disturbed by this article. We discussed how by excluding gays, Boy Scouts of America is teaching young scouts to be exclusive and judgmental. We found this ironic considering the Scouts’ mission is “to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices.” It does not seem very ethical or moral to teach young boys to be discriminatory. In support of the organization’s decision, we did acknowledge that the group is upholding their traditional values and beliefs. However, we also said that even if homosexuality is against someone’s personal morals, he or she must consider how those beliefs affect others. By excluding gays, the message is sent that they are not as good as others.
When we got into larger groups to share about our different articles, someone has been involved with Boy Scouts for many years mentioned that this policy really only took effect at the national level. Individual troop leaders determined who was allowed into their troop, and many were very tolerant. Several people said that they knew of homosexuals that were a part of Boy Scouts. This was interesting to hear, and I was glad for the insight. It seems that the organization has an official anti-gay policy, but this policy does not necessarily affect group membership at the local level.
What I took out of this article is that no matter what, people must be our first priority. Regardless of personal values, we must remember that everything we say and do affects other people. No matter what my personal beliefs are, I am going to make sure that I treat everyone as equally important. Especially as a volunteer, it is important that my message is love—not judgment—to the people I am serving.
My group read and discussed an article concerning TOMS shoes. TOMS is a for profit company that for every pair of shoes that the company sells, a pair of shoes is donated to a child in need. This article addressed and examined concerns with the TOMS company that were presented in another article.
ReplyDeleteOne concern was whether or not TOMS had created a stylish enough shoe to support both their business and their charity. Our group agreed, that yes, they have. We all know that TOMS is a popular shoe on campus and we were sure that this is because, as the article pointed out, it is in a similar fashion to other classic shoes such as Vans and Converse.
A second concern that the article brought up and that seemed to be the underlying focus of my group’s discussion was the disconnectedness of charity that TOMS provided. We acknowledged the fact that by creating a popular shoe, TOMS provided a way to incorporate more people in providing for the underprivileged. However, because TOMS is what the article calls a “charity aggregate”, TOMS consumers lose the sense of personally engaging in hands on charity work. The people who bought the shoes, and in turn, provided a pair of shoes for a child, do not get to see their contribution followed through. I think that this was made apparent within our group as nobody, not even a member who owned a pair, knew how TOMS operated. We weren’t sure where the shoes were going, if the donations were dependent on being bought online or in a store, or how the shoes were distributed. In fact some people very well knew of the shoes, but did not know that TOMS also donated shoes. Although, we admitted that we could probably find this information online.
A final concern was how TOMS operated both their business and their charity. Since they were for profit, it made it seem to us that they weren’t fully invested in their charity work. The article addresses this issue when it raises the question as to the reasoning behind the donations. Was this a business tactic in order to draw more customers by the appeal of the feeling for doing good deeds? We weren’t sure.
What I took from this is that there is an appeal for people to help; whether it is the satisfaction they get from volunteering or simply wanting to improve another person’s situation. However, this sense of personal connectedness to the charity is easily lost in big companies such as TOMS, where the value of volunteering is scrutinized and the direct, engaging work is eliminated.
Our group read the article over Invisible Children and Kony 2012. Invisible Children and Kony 2012 were awareness campaigns that relied on social media to get their word out. Kony 2012 spawned a 30 minute video that went VIRAL real fast. Unfortunately it also was forgotten real fast. All I knew coming into class and before reading the article was that there was a video and that my friends kept pestering me to watch it. After discussion I learned that Invisible Children was the first awareness campaign to inform the American public of the atrocities of Kony. Kony recruited children to fight as part of the Lord's Resistance Army in countries in Africa. Invisible Children led to a couple of advisors being sent over to advise on how to go about getting rid of Kony. Kony 2012 was the second wave of the awareness campaign to keep the advisors there. Both of these campaigns relied solely on awareness. In fact 1 million dollars of 8 million raised, went to making the viral video. The article mainly focused on, "where does the rest of the money go" and yeah awareness is great and all but is it really that great if nothing is done about it. Both of these campaigns don't explicitly tell us how we can help. Most just assume donating to them will help end Kony's reign, but they really just donate to perhaps make more wristbands and posters and videos.
ReplyDeleteI didn't really care for the campaign when it came out in the spring, and after reading the article I'm still relatively apathetic, although if these campaigns gave clear results of what they actually accomplished I probably wouldn't be. Relying on the empathy of people is not a sure fire way to get something done, especially if there are no clear guidelines on how to get it done set.
Our group read "Toms Shoes: a Doomed Vanity Project?” where Forbes Contributor James Poulos focuses on the opinions given by Cheryl Davenport in her critique on the Toms shoes company. One aspect the article touches on is Davenport's view that the company does not have significant impact in helping the less fortunate. In turn, Poulos poses several questions about or elaborates on her comments. This article certainly allowed me, as well as my group, to think more about the reasoning behind Toms shoes purchases.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who owns several pairs of Toms, it was seemingly difficult for me to read about Davenport's idea that people who own the shoes may have a false, yet conceited sense of saving the world. First of all, I refute this opinion because I know that I and many others do not hold ourselves upon a pedestal so high. This is not to say I don't have confidence in making change and helping others, but rather that I understand the small scale of help that a Toms purchase provides. But who's to say that small acts of charity aren't important? These acts build upon each other to create something larger than ourselves –than our own lives.
On another note, regardless of whether people think too highly of themselves for owning the shoes or don't even give a care about the charity incorporated, people in need are still receiving shoes. Perhaps people don't have an entirely accurate view of how their Toms purchase impacts others, but at least it has the potential to initiate thought about ways to help others.
Boy Scouts:
ReplyDeleteOur group discussed the Article regarding Boy Scouts of America. This article showcased some of the values this organization stands behind and one of those values was discrimination against homosexuals. They do not allow homosexuals to become members. Their reasoning for this is that the Boy Scouts wish to carry on the fundamental ideals and viewpoints that their founders created for the organization. However, holding on to such outdated and old fashioned mind states has caused some controversy among the group and those funding the operation. By excluding a certain group of people they are showcasing their unwillingness to treat all humans equally.
The Boy Scouts of America contends that its policies are essential in its mission to instill the values of the Scout Oath and Law onto its members. Strangely, the Oath requires members “To help other people at all times”. The discrepancy comes from the fact that the Boy Scouts of America is a private organization and holds the right to express and defend common interests.
What I took away from this Article is that even though no legal action has been taken against this type of discrepancy it is still obvious what the organization carries discriminatory viewpoints and motives. In our group we came to a conclusion that “you can never make everybody happy”. There will always be a wide spectrum of beliefs and viewpoints the only thing we can seek to do is make sure everybody respects others and reach a point where they understand that it is neither appealing nor acceptable in any way to discriminate against a certain group of people.
By: Eyad Gharaibeh
Group: Atlanta
One of the articles my group read is about the Boy Scouts of America setting a ban against the inclusion of gay boys and men in their organization. After reviewing it for two years, a committee within Boy Scouts decided that this ban should be upheld. While the rest of the country is fighting for equality and inclusion of members of the LGBTQ community, Boy Scouts took a step in the opposite direction. They are teaching young, impressionable boys that some of their peers should be seen as inferior because of their sexual orientation.
ReplyDeleteThere are actually many cons about Boy Scouts making such a blatant, discriminatory move. The organization could have taken this opportunity to teach its members that diversity is a positive aspect in a population or a community. This could be a chance to teach the young boys to get along with and accept people who are different than themselves. It also could have been a huge step against bullying and passing judgment in the schools the boy scouts attend. To me, Boy Scouts of America is supposed to produce respectable leaders. How is it respectable if these boys grow up thinking they are more valued than another human because of who they are attracted to? I also have wondered many times how this ban impacts young boys who are involved with Boy Scouts and are in the process of coming out as a member of the gay, transgender or bisexual community. Instead of providing a safe environment for them to be who they are, Boy Scouts creates just another place where they will be looked down upon and kicked out.
My overall take away from this article is that Boy Scouts of America wants to produce leaders who fit a very specific ‘mold.’ It’s disappointing that an organization that seems respectable has taken such a large step backward in equal rights and equal opportunity.