Hello Spring breakers!
Please write your blog post on at least two out of the three articles that you discussed in class. The three articles were about Toms Shoes, Livestrong, and immigration.
Remember, your blog posts are due by the start of the next class.
Let us know if you have any questions at albreaks@ku.edu!
Our group spent the majority of the time discussing the Toms Shoes article and we never came up with exact answers about most things. However, our discussion did lead to some interesting questions.
ReplyDeleteWe discussed whether or not we thought that Toms should be focusing their efforts on fixing the root of the problem – the reasons children don’t have shoes – rather than covering up the issue with a band-aid. Couldn’t there be more organizations like Kiva.org, a microfinancing institution that allows people all over the world to lend money to entrepreneurs, particularly in developing countries? I believe that we should be trying to find mutually beneficial options that can impact the fundamental causes of world issues.
Additionally, we questioned whether or not the Toms Shoes business model was successful in fostering positive change. Can a for-profit model do more than a non-profit? I honestly can’t say – we were split. This conversation led us into discussing what a non-profit can do, that a business can’t. I believe that the mission, strategy and members involved in a non-profit organization provide the largest difference. The mission is focused on creating positive chance, while a business model may be focusing on magnitude and growth.
Intent was another focal point of our analysis. While I appreciate that Toms wants to help, in comparison to the majority of large corporations who couldn’t care less, I’m not a fan of the whole “making westerners feel good about themselves” point to Toms. Whether or not that was the company’s intention, I can’t be sure, but it’s what our society has made it.
In terms of the immigration article, we discussed the importance of language as it can either help or hurting a cause. In no other sector are a people referred to as “illegal” and using “undocumented” could be a more effective means to achieve equity in our country.
Some people in our group were split ¬– while they seemed to understand the issue at hand, they did not understand the importance of a word in determining how a group of people are addressed, particularly because terminology changes over time. For example, we cited the example of calling African American people “colored” during the civil rights movement.
These issues are complex and many won’t ever receive answers. But until then, I truly appreciate our intent to try.
-Natalie Parker
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy group spent most of our time discussing the Livestrong article. The article itself focused on how Lance Armstrong affected the foundation in a negative way. From his doping accusations, people started doubting the credibility of Livestrong because he was one of the founders. Many sponsors claimed they would be dropping out, but only after the scandal passed.
ReplyDeleteMany of my group members were upset by Armstrong's actions and felt that it wasn't fair for us to think he was an amazing, talented athlete who overcame cancer and won seven Tour de Frances. Some even said that they wouldn't wear the Livestrong bands because it shows a support for a false idea, one that came as a result of Armstrong's success. Other members pointed out that he was the only one who was really punished for doping when almost all of his fellow team members did as well. In fact, you would have to go back around 23 people in the Tour de France to find someone who "legally" won, without doping.
I guess for me, I have never cared about this sport and was never really invested in any athletes, period. To me, they were just people and I didn't hold them up to some crazy standards. But most of all, the point of the article was the Livestrong Foundation, which is a great organization. I agree with a lot of what my group had to say regarding Armstrong, but I had slightly different thoughts on Livestrong. Everything its done and everything it has contributed to cancer research didn't disappear as soon as Armstrong's allegations came out. I might associate Armstrong with Livestrong since he did create it, but I don't attribute the work the foundation has done solely to Armstrong. Many people worked hard to make a genuine difference in the lives of others, and the appreciation I have for that organization and others like it won't vanish because of one person's choice.
Another article we discussed was about the Toms shoes organization. From what I heard, the article was about that fact that Toms wasn't a non-profit, and many people thought it was. Although it donates a pair when someone purchases shoes, it does gain a profit from the shoes. I've never paid much attention to this organization, although I think it's a great idea. But coming from someone who doesn't know much about Toms, I never have heard that it donates its profit to Africans or an African charity. I only heard that it tries to give shoes to those in need. So I don't think it's fair to penalize a company for doing something it never said it would do. And the issue of whether we should be donating shoes to kids in Africa. From someone who's been to Africa, I've seen plenty of children without shoes or with extremely worn shoes. These children would be thrilled to receive a free pair of brand new Toms. I haven't met a child in Africa, or anywhere else in the world, who isn't thrilled to receive some kind of gift. So for those people who can't personally fly to Africa and give a child a pair of shoes themselves, this is at least one way to help.
I will begin with the article that my group read, the article on immigration.
ReplyDeleteImmigration is an issue that I think affects most Americans; it is often an issue that politicians take a strong stand on when running for office, and issue that most Americans have some form of opinion on.
The article begins with “José Manuel Godínez – Samperio, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico says that he wants to be called ‘undocumented’ because ‘illegal’ is ‘dehumanizing’ and ‘justifies the oppression against immigrants’” (Costantini).
Immediately the attention of the reader is grabbed because it causes the reader to question their personal opinion on whether or not the term “illegal immigrant” is one that they believe to be offensive.
Personally, I never thought of the way that I spoke of immigrants. I feel as though most Americans try to be “politically correct”, but how often does what we may think is “politically correct” actually offend someone?
I never thought that calling someone an “illegal immigrant” could be offensive until I read this article and saw it from someone else’s point of view.
Although the article over Toms Shoes seemed to be interesting, I was fascinated by the responses of those who read the Livestrong article.
Obviously over winter break most everyone heard about what Lance Armstrong admitted to doing during his time as a professional athlete. Unfortunately, this has changed the face of an organization that was truly making a difference in peoples lives.
Livestrong and Lance Armstrong go hand in hand to most Americans, Armstrong being the face and voice of the organization for so long. Unfortunately because of this connection, Livestrong has taken a serious loss in donations since Lance Armstrong coming about out his drug use.
Although a tough lesson to learn, and although it is sad that an organization that was doing such good as Livestrong does for cancer patients, I hope that other organizations can learn from their mistake. Depending on celebrities for donations can only go so far, having one organization trying to do good depending on one person is too great of a calling, if organizations feel as though they need celebrity spokespeople, they should have multiple, with minimal roles, rather than a single celebrity in which they place the entire morality of their organization on.
During last class, we talked about three articles, which were about Toms Shoes, Livestrong, and immigration. My group had the immigration article. After I read it, I think I should begin to use the word “undocumented” instead of “illegal immigrant”. In the article, it says that “there is nowhere in the legal field that the phrasing ‘illegal immigrant’ has been the norm.” (Rosa) Since there isn’t a phrase like this, we all should stop using it. To me, the word “illegal” sounds like the things that I would stop from happening, behaviors that I would punish, or people who I would isolate. On the other side, the word “undocumented” leads me to think about how to make things right, and how to help them to get things documented. I think there is different meaning behind those two words. We all should be careful to choose the language we speak.
ReplyDeleteThe other article that I thought a lot about was the Toms Shoes article. There are many people judge the company that it did not full contribute its profit to the society. However, here I would like to defense the company. This is a profit company, which means that the company needs to generate incomes to “feed” their employees and protect their employees and their family members. Therefore, Toms Shoes Company does need the necessary gain to survive in the market. Also, the company is doing all the work for the social responsibility; however, it is not a mandatory work for the company. Thus, I do not think people should excuse the company of no doing enough charity work they were done.
Our group was assigned the Livestrong article, so we spent the majority of the class period discussing that one. The article was about how Lance Armstong hurt the Livestrong foundation. Since he was accused of doping and he was one of the founders of the foundation, people became angry with him as well as the foundating and many threatened to leave and not support it anymore.
ReplyDeleteOur group had strong conversations on this topic. All of us had our own opinions, however when it came down to it, our main idea on this issue was the same. Many of our group members were pretty upset with this scandal. Some said that they would never again wear one of the livestrong bracelets and others said they get angry when they see other people wearing them. Even though Armstrong overcame cancer and won seven Tour de Frances, they still think it was unfair because they had a false impression of him. Others had a good point. Others pointed out that Lance was not the only member of his team to dope, but he was the only man who was severely punished and had all the media attention.
During our group discussion, I sat and listened most of the time. I really did not have an opinion strong enough to feel comfortable contributing. I thought it was very interesting to hear everyone’s opinions and arguments on this controversial subject. I agreed with all the points my group made.
We also discussed the Toms shoes organization article with another group. This was interesting as well. The article seemed to be about the fact that people thought the Toms shoes was a non-profit organization, but they were wrong. They get a small percentage of profit from the shoes, which made people very angry. I think this organization is a great idea, even after knowing we were unaware of this in the beginning.
Our group mainly discussed the Lance Armstrong article and the Toms article. After reading the article on Lance Armstrong, our group came to the conclusion that it is unfair for the Livestrong Foundation to lose credibility because of lance Armstrong’s actions. While his actions cannot be condoned, the foundation should not have to suffer. The fact that Lance Armstrong personally gained profit from his campaign was also addressed. While it is a little unsettling that Lance Armstrong was making money off of a campaign allegedly dedicated to cancer awareness, the fact remains that the foundation still contributes to efforts in cancer treatment and support for cancer victims and their families. Overall we decided that the foundation should not suffer just because of the actions of its figure-head. A possible solution to this problem could be for the foundation to formally state that it does not support the actions of Lance Armstrong.
ReplyDeleteWhile my group did not personally read the Toms article, we participated in the discussion after hearing what the article was about from another group. We discussed the idea presented in the article that the Toms company could do much more than it does to support third-world communities. However, we discussed the topic that Toms has never claimed to be a non-profit organization. The company is a shoe business that has also decided to make a contribution to those less fortunate if people who are more fortunate chose to buy their shoes. The people who run the company have to make some sort of living, and they simply decided to make a contribution to those in need. The person who wrote the article had some ideas about how to make an effective non-profit organization that could perhaps be put to use for a different company.
My group was assigned the immigration article to discuss. The article focuses on changing the term “illegal immigrant” to something that sounds less dehumanizing, like “unauthorized” or “undocumented.”We discussed how important it is to be conscious of the connotation that some words take on because it would do little good to offend someone that you are trying to help.
ReplyDeleteThe term “illegal” makes it seem as though each situation involving an undocumented immigrant is black and white. In reality, there are many gray areas involved in the immigration debate. For instance, children who are brought over the border with their parents have no real say in the matter. Should they be deemed illegal for something they had no control over? Besides ignoring all the gray area involved, the term “illegal” groups these individuals with criminals whose crimes seem exponentially worse than coming into the country unauthorized.
Unfortunately, even if the terminology is changed, there is the chance that the new term will continue to take on a negative connotation. This has been seen before. “Retarded” used to be the “politically correct” way to refer to individuals with mental handicaps. However, this took on a negative and offensive connotation, so the word “handicapped” was stressed. Recently, though, “handicapped” is beginning to also be considered offensive, so “mentally challenged” is taking its place as the politically correct term. It all depends on how the term is used, so if a negative stigma still surrounds unauthorized immigrants, the terms “unauthorized” or “undocumented” will become negative as well.
Along with the immigration article, we also discussed the article about Toms. The whole article seemed to only criticize Toms for trying to make their philanthropic mission a business model but it does not offer an opinion as to how Toms could fix the issues. Toms is a business first, and they never claimed to be solely a philanthropic institution. In this case, is it fair to criticize their business model? This links back to the article we read a couple weeks ago. Do these people truly want help, or is Toms just pushing themselves into these communities for their own benefit?
We discussed other possible ways that Toms could make a bigger impact in the communities. For instance, they could open a shop in a community. This would provide jobs and ways for members of the community to provide for themselves. It would be a more sustainable solution than just providing shoes.
I was unable to attend class last thursday so I just read the 3 articles on my own.
ReplyDeleteThe Lance Armstrong article was interesting to me. I think, first off, that it is very sad that Mr. Armstrong was caught up in doping. I have always been a fan of his and I think that doping is a terrible act. As far as the article goes though, I think that his organization will definitely take a hit (which is to be expected). I think it was a good move for Lance to step down as a leader of the group to separate himself from the organizaition in order to minimize damage. I think that of course the organization is an amazing cause. I just hope that all their financials are legit and for the cause they claim to be for. I think that just because the organization was started with Mr. Armstrong does not mean that it should go down with him. i think the brand and the cause is bigger than him and people should continue to support it.
The other article I would like to comment on is the linguistic debate over what to call citizens without authority to live in a certain country. I thought it was interesting to read, and I definitely sided with the linguists who felt that 'illegal immigrant' is an oxymoron. I think that the term 'unauthorized' would be the best and most accurate term to describe these people.I have always felt that 'illegal immigrant' has a very negative connotation to it and I don't think that it should be used anymore.
Cody Neuburger
The two articles that I found most compelling from class were the Livestrong article and the Toms Shoes article. I am upset about Lance Armstrong and I do believe that his actions will have a great impact on the Livestrong Foundation. Lance Armstrong stood for someone who had survived cancer and then lived on to be a world-class athlete. He is now a former athlete who lied, cheated, and stole his medals from other bicyclists who were not doping. I would also like to mention that he inspired a family member with cancer to continue fighting and I now feel slightly betrayed. If he was able to cheat his way through various competitions, how can we be sure that his foundation is being truthful and not misusing funds? Although I do believe in the work that Livestrong provides, I will probably always associate it with Lance Armstrong. Despite my misgivings, I hope Livestrong is able to move forward and fulfill their mission but they must part ways completely with Lance Armstrong.
ReplyDeleteThe other article that I felt strongly about was concerning Toms Shoes. I am conflicted about Toms Shoes. First of all, I don’t like their shoes. The one pair I bought did not last very long and I never felt compelled to replace them. However, I think any time a corporate retailer tries to support a charity or help anyone’s lives, it is a good thing. My group felt that Toms Shoes should build factories or provide some sort of job training program so that real jobs will be provided to those in need. I think that is an amazing goal, but somewhat unrealistic for a for-profit retail company. The article says that Toms Shoes does not solve any problem and that Toms Shoes may not be a long lasting brand in the long run. While only time will tell for the second point, I believe Toms Shoes is doing what they can to help. They started out with the “buy one give one” shoe model. They have expanded their brand so that now they have that same model but for eyesight. The company is trying to continue their vision and eyesight is a great way to help those without access to doctors or optometrists. Yes, Toms Shoes could be devoting 100% of their profits to charity, but in a world of fashion retailers who are often found to use sweat shops I think Toms Shoes shows how a company can be both for-profit and try to help the community.
-Rebecca Howard
The main topic of our group’s discussion was the business model and application of Toms Shoes Company. Where we were hung up was whether a bandwagon approach to philanthropy such as Toms was better for the common good or if a more exclusive and specialized model had a greater benefit such as Peace Corps. Both had an admirable goal to do good and yet with a power of numbers approach we had to question the sustainability. Kids’ feet grow. Yes, Toms attempts to replace the shoes as the kids sizes change. Yet, for one child to go through 1th grade to 12th grade with the proper foot wear it would take at least two pairs a year. That is 24 pairs. Each pair given is match by a purchase. In addition, causes come in trends based in media and the politics of the moment. The Toms Company has grown to fad status. This is due to the fact that products truly have a power of social image. In my design classes we always discuss the importance of being aware of this and using it to your advantage. Toms has branded themselves with a distinct aesthetic which is now associated with charity work. Those who buy TOMS have this in mind either consciously or unconsciously. This, however, is not exclusive to Toms it is the same as those who buy Jimmy Choo’s shoes with the image of affluence in mind. Even in Malcolm Gladwell’s TED talk, Spaghetti sauce he discusses how Dijon mustard was branded to be the elite type of mustard. In Toms using this to their advantage it is a positive use of this cultural element of design; however, the fact that it is for profit puts its true make it rely on the general public’s opinion of the product for it to continue to have any kind of results.
ReplyDeleteThat same question of sustainability came up when we were discussing the Livestrong charity. Their weakness comes with their reliance on the public image of Lance Armstrong. At this point after a recent scandal in the public eye, opinions of the athlete have been altered and the strength of the charity could be affected. We concluded that it was dangerous for charities to rely so much on such a feeble thing as image and public opinion of products and celebrities.
-Ashley Bragg
During class my groups discussed the Livestrong and Toms shoes articles. I found both articles interesting because I had never critically thought about how some companies profit from service opportunities. I found the Toms article very intriguing because I had never questioned if the people receiving shoes from the company found their service helpful. I would love to first hand see what goes on in the places the shoes are sent. My group discussed the difference between Toms and other organizations that do similar things, like the knock off brand, Bobs. Bobs claims to be doing the same things, but at a cheaper price, which raises the question as to why Toms are so much more expensive. I believe the answer is for a higher profet for the company, which I'm not sure is right or wrong. When we discussed the Livestrong article we talked about what happened with Lance Armstrong and if his bad decisions hurt the good the company did. I feel as though the mess Armstrong got himself into shouldn't be a judgement of whether or not he sincerely wants to help others battle cancer. I think Livestrong did a lot of good for raising money and that him denouncing his winnings shouldn't have anything to do with their efforts to help others. We discussed how many companies detached themselves from Livestrong after Armstrong denounced his titles, which I find off putting. If those companies truly wanted to help battle cancer perhaps they wouldn't have pulled out because there was less money involved. I think with both Livestrong and Toms, there is a question of whether they are more concerned with making money, or helping others. Although I understand that companies have a lot at stake and need to sustain themselves, but I'm not sure if I think its right to make a profit from service to others. There is a fine line between how much you give and take when you participate in service, and when money involved those lines are blurred.
ReplyDelete-Erin Dvorak
While discussing in my group, we came to three conclusions:
ReplyDelete1. Morphology can be offensive.
2. Toms is a pseudo-charity
3. Don't lie to Oprah.
For the first subject, I think the argument was petty. Sure, it can be insensitive to call someone illegal, but that insensitivity wasn't intended, and I don't think people should take offense to it. There are two types of immigration, illegal, and legal, and so the English language requires us to specify what type with one of those words if we want to only speak about the crime. And a person immigrating is an immigrant, so there's a logical conclusion to be drawn that it's purely a morphological problem (When you refer to a person immigrating illegally) in English that a person ends up being illegal. Sure, that may be insensitive, but all crime-nouns are. You can bet that most rapists bring something to society as a whole, but they aren't even people any more: they're rapists. That noun will describe them forever, even if they weren't guilty. Murderers, arsonists, and pirates all have the same problem. The words are insensitive, but it's a feature of English that certain verbs can be turned into nouns, and these nouns are labels you'd rather not have.
Toms isn't a charity. They never claimed to be. I don't think anyone should expect anything from the one for one movement, except for Tom to attempt to sell more shoes. Sure, they're cute shoes, and sure, they're trying to sell shoes with a cause, but their goal at the end of the day is to sell shoes. I think it's misleading how they present themselves, but is giving away free shoes really a bad thing, no matter how shady those free shoes may be? Don't expect anything, and you won't be disappointed.
And for the final point, don't lie to Oprah. You're going to have a bad time.
After reading the article about the ‘undocumented immigrants’, my first thought is that although undocumented immigrants are indeed illegal in some way (as they may enter the country illegally or work without any authorization in a restaurant), they shouldn’t be called ‘illegal persons’. The word illegal has too much negative impact on the image of a person, because it may relate the person to other types of criminals or illegal activities. I also find it interesting that in my native language (Chinese) ‘illegal immigrants’ is always used to describe such persons. When I asked my friend what he thought about the wording ‘illegal immigrant’ (in Chinese), he asked me instead, ‘is there another word for it?’ It makes me think such issue may have risen from the unique culture of the United States known as an immigrant country. These undocumented immigrants cross the boarder in order to seek for a better life. They may work harder than many other people, but they are often not treated well or equally by others because they are ‘illegal’. I don’t think calling them ‘undocumented’ will solve such problem, but it is definitely more neutral sounding.
ReplyDeleteTalking about the Toms Shoes article, it is a very common business strategy for prompting more sales, which can be found in many products in a supermarket. No matter the intention is for charity or not, their strategy is very good at buying consumer’s sympathy and indeed has made them a lot of money. As long as they keep their promise, I think it is fine to do so. Whether the price of their shoes is too high or not, it is a choice of a consumer.
My group had the Toms Shoes article. Basically the article was a review of another article written about Toms shoes. The company often gets criticized for its inability to really solve a social problem. In the article we read, the author states that the company never intended to solve a social problem but rather that it aims “to make western consumers feel good” in a way and to simply sell shoes as its primary product. Davenport (the author of the article being critiqued) believes people shouldn’t try to feel good about buying something to help a social issue unless definitive steps are actually taken to try to fix the problem.
ReplyDeleteMy group generally agreed that the shoes are decent, but still a bit overpriced and that the idea of donating an additional pair of shoes is a neat idea. Because the sole goal of Toms is not to give shoes to every barefoot person, we did not feel like Toms is in the wrong. We felt there were plenty of things Toms could do to better help others in the global community, but that the company was still doing a cool thing.
When discussing the Livestrong article, everyone kind of rolled their eyes at the idea of Lance Armstrong and his doping to get ahead. This issue has been in the news a lot recently so I think my group was kind of tired of hearing about it. We talked about the impact of celebrity endorsements and how it is unfortunate that an organization with good solid values is tarnished when its spokesperson goofs up. We talked about how the home of Sporting KC, Livestrong Sporting Park, would be changing its name. We thought that using a celebrity to act as the face of a non-profit group can be very beneficial but it also has its risks.