Presidential (Dis)Respect

My eight grade Social Studies teacher, Ms. Wurst, once told the class “the only question to judge a President by is at the conclusion of their term is the country better or worse”. This is a complex, yet simple question. Inversely, no matter the man or woman in charge, it is every American citizen’s responsibility to do three things for our leader: Wish for his/her success in enhancing the welfare of our country regardless of the President’s political party, hold him/her accountable for the decisions, ideology, and legislation they enact and propose, and finally do our part as law abiding and responsible citizens to collectively enhance the welfare of our country. The disrespect that current President Barack Obama has and is encountering is blurring both his success as president and whether or not us citizens are living up to our end of the bargain.

The best word to capture Barack Obama’s time as president is indeed disrespect. I speak not from the perspective of any “racial” or “ethnic” member, but rather as an average American citizen. While I do not feel Mr. Obama has been a particularly exceptional President thus far, he at least deserves more respect from the media and citizens. I do not pity him for the attention he has received; it is fair given the United States’ President is one of the most recognizable persons in the world and being the first Black President of course carries that added interest. Further, his approval rate three years into his presidency is higher than both Bill Clinton’s and George W. Bush’s at the same interval during their reigns so the attention has not been as damaging as thought (although a ridiculously high approval rate from Black citizens certainly sways Obama approval).  

Still, the disrespect in Obama’s presidency is as visible as the sun on a clear July day in Miami. Here are but a few examples:

“You lie!” Those infamous words were spoken by Representative Joe Wilson (R. – S.C.) during an address which the “The president denied that health care legislation would provide free coverage for illegal immigrants.” (CNNPolictics.com). Wilson later said his outburst was “spontaneous.” Having attended Ohio State I have sat in lectures of over 500 students. I’d argue there were times when some of us did not agree with our professor yet we had enough respect not to interrupt him by yelling “You lie!” Agree or disagree, it is respect for our fellow man that makes us behave responsibly. To interrupt the President of the United States of America mid-sentence is by far the biggest display of disrespect most of us will ever witness this lifetime.

“I want my vote back.” On December 3, 2010, Kiss member Gene Simmons went on CNN for an interview in which he exclaimed how he wanted his Obama vote back because of his lack of approval for the President’s actions. Simmons said he voted for Barack because he wanted the world to see that a nation who once tortured its black citizens could support a Black president. Understood. To his credit, Simmons also said just as he doesn’t want the President to be a rock mogul, he doesn’t think a rock star such as himself should be the best critic of a president. Yet, the big picture remains that everyone feels they have the right to harshly criticize our president. That a credible news source such as CNN would consult a rock musician for his opinion of our president is not acceptable. When the Dixie Chicks slammed President Bush at the 2003 Grammy Awards for the War in Iraq they did not support they were booed off stage, music stations around the country pulled their music from the air waves, and their career has never quite resurged. The War is still going on and has been one of the country’s biggest sources of debt in our nation’s history, yet they were booed off stage. A rock star criticizes Obama for health care and tax cuts and there is silence. Do you see the hypocrisy?

The Birth Records. Donald Trump is making major headlines with the questioning of our President’s birth records. Only one word can describe this – absurdity. Trump has no political experience, once hosted a goofy reality television show (one episode contestants had to make their way to a printer while getting paintballs shot at them to show their “office skills”), and yet feels he has the right to question whether our President is a US citizen? That would have meant Obama got into Harvard (and was Law Review President), won the Chicago Senatorial Race, and won the Presidential Race illegally? No way. Matter of fact, if the man was skilled enough to do that I argue it only proves he is a genius! Arizona, coincidentally the state of Obama’s losing presidential competitor, is in the works of passing “The Birther Bill” to make sure presidential candidates are US citizens before running for office. I suppose that is tax dollars well spent? Ironically, representatives of the state say it has nothing to do with Obama. I suppose if you keep an umbrella open during a thunderstorm it has nothing to do with the rain either?

The Republican Party. The Republican Party has made it very well known that they are not Obama fans. The fact that only one member voted in favor of his proposed health care bill shows not so much that the Republican Party disagrees with Obama, but that they are not open to listen. In late 2010 the Republicans went on record as saying they would block all of Obama’s legislation until the “Bush tax cuts” were extended. It is not possible to be any more petty and childish. The tax cuts only affect roughly 3% of American citizens whereas legislation regarding health, education, ongoing wars, and other public affairs affects roughly all US citizens. Where is the logical thinking? To add on to what was previously mentioned, the Republicans are behind the Birther Bill and it was a Republican who shouted “You lie” during a presidential address. At least their disrespect is consistent.

Political interest and affiliation aside, I want nothing more but to see my President get the respect he deserves. George W. Bush will go down in history as one of the worse President’s in American history. Still, if he were in office today and I happened to be at a crosswalk with him I would not even think to yell absurdities or tell him how awful I think he is. There is a certain respect that my President has that should never be challenged (though now that Bush is not in office I think I’d call him fugly to his face without fear of punishment). Whether it is the media, average citizens, or fellow politicians, Mr. Obama has been outright disrespected and it reflects poorly on our nation and the progression of our social race relations.

As Samuel Jackson once said in an interview, “We grew up thinking we weren’t to be automatically respected, which is something kids don’t have today. We knew to get respect you had to earn it”. It the President of the United States of America hasn’t earned his respect, then let’s all insult and disrespect each other at will because no one else has earned it.

Thank you

Christopher Charles Ivory

Lay Off of Teachers, Layoff Tests, and Lay it on Parents

One of my proudest accomplishments was leading my fraternity, Kappa Alpha Psi, as Step Master for our May 2008 step show (Ohio State). The show was a bit of a Pepe LePue stinker. We only placed 3rd because there were four fraternities that stepped and one happened to be worse than us. Still, I was proud the show took place because it was a lot of work for my team, especially for me having coordinated the steps and taught them to the team. The elected Step Master had resigned just weeks before the show so I had to work like David Bowie, "Under Pressure", which is what Vanilla Ice sampled "Ice Ice Baby" from for all of you urbanites. Being the fraternity's Vice President, step show Chairman, and full-time student simultaneously was very draining. However, the most frustration resulted from dealing with late practices, members who were rarely on time, and a team that didn't work as hard as possible in practice.

The quarter before that step show I was asked by a friend to teach her sorority, Kappa Phi Lambda, steps for Greek week to perform during the variety show. Of course I would oblige to spending my nights teaching moves to an Asian sorority with enough eye candy to give my eyes ulcers, which I assume is the equivalent of “eye cavities”? One advantage my fraternity brothers had over KPL was they were much better dancers. Go figure, a group of 21 year old black guys could dance, amazing. Even if not as precise, my frat just looked more coordinated and rhythmic. However, my Asian sisters were excellent workers. What impressed me most about them wasn't what they did in practice, but what they had done amongst themselves outside of practice. Each practice those ladies were on time and it was evident that they had practiced with each other outside of my instruction. Teaching them was a joy, and was less stressful than teaching my frat brothers.

Teaching two distinct groups to step taught me not only the truth in stereotypes, but also a valuable life lesson about learning; the teacher is not always to blame, rather our students hold the power.

Diane Ravitch wrote an article that saddened me entitled "Why Teachers are Enraged". It discusses how teachers in the state of Wisconsin are attacking Governor Scott Walker's "efforts to reduce their take-home pay - by increasing their contribution to their pension plans and health care benefits - and restrict their collective bargaining rights". However, what really caught my eye was the following excerpt:

"Teachers' despair deepened last August when The Los Angeles Times rated 6,000 teachers in Los Angeles as effective or ineffective, based on their students' test scores, and posted these ratings online. Testing experts warn that such ratings are likely to be both inaccurate and unstable, but the Times stood by its analysis".

In a nutshell, this is what has become of the American public education system. Our system teaches to socioeconomically biased standardized tests, evaluates our students' capacity to learn by standardized test scores, and evaluates the effectiveness of our educators by their students' performance on these tests. Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Standardized tests are fundamentally flawed for various reasons, the biggest being that they are socioeconomically biased. Though many people prefer to describe the tests as "culturally biased", I believe the term "culture" is bland and overtly subjective. If hip-hop is its own "culture", who is to say what is and is not its own marginalized culture? Standardized tests are difficult to study for because they do not test content, but rather an accumulation of a lifetime's worth of cognitive patterns. Their preparation starts at home from birth. It is not a coincidence that students from economically advantaged public school systems are more likely to do well on the Ohio SATs and ACTs, for example. Cleveland Public schools have roughly tested 30% below the national average for standardized tests over the last decade and it just so happens to be one of the most impoverished cities in the nation. How is that the Cleveland Public Schools teachers' fault?

Those who are born to wealthier and more intelligent parents are more apt to academic success as indicated by such tests than are those who are not, regardless of race, gender, and favorite Desperate Housewife. Thank you Stephen J. Dubner and Steven Levitt for the evidence (as reported in "Freakonomics"), I hope you guys love Lynette as much as I do. This is not to say that socioeconomically disadvantaged students cannot perform well on these tests, but you cannot deny the likelihood that they will not perform as well as more advantaged students.

Sticking with Mr. Dubner and Mr. Levitt, they laid a pretty solid foundation for increasing the likelihood of our students’ academic success, which is best stated by being better parents and not pointing the finger at our teachers. By reproducing with better people we put our children in a better position to succeed, and this does not simply mean lying with "richer and smarter" people. To expand on this concept, Mr. Dubner and Mr. Levitt detailed how the Chicago Public Schools randomly assigned students to different high schools. Some schools were regarded as "good" and some were regarded as "bad". The students who recorded the best academic performance turned out not to be from those who went to the schools that were consensually regarded as "good", but instead were the students of the parents who wanted their children to attend the "good" schools. Meaning, the schools that the children eventually were assigned to had much less effect on their performance than did their parents' expectations and desire for their children to succeed. As you may imagine, the parents who had the greatest expectations from their children were typically on the wealthier and more educated side, so socioeconomics remains in play, yes, but still isn't an ultimate indicator. Love and discipline goes a long way as well.

Teachers need America's love and defense instead of being evaluated on their students' test scores. In order to be a public school teacher, one must have gone to and graduated from a college or university, as well as earned certification and passed multiple background tests. Given the awful pay of the average public school teacher, I whole-heartedly believe our teachers are here to help our students for no reason other than a love of teaching. Basing the quality of their teachings on their students' test scores is absurd. Consider the following parallel example: An oncologist only has a 30% survival rate of her patients. However, she specifically takes patients with only the most advanced stages of cancer, many of which are fatal. Is she a bad doctor? Conversely, another oncologist has a 92% survival rate of her patients. However, she only sees patients whose cancer has recently been detected and is usually not of a fatal strand. Does her low mortality rate make her a better doctor? While numbers do not lie, they can mislead, just like standardized tests scores.  

In order to fairly evaluate our teachers it is necessary to define their responsibilities. We need only to hold that our educators communicate information to students in a matter that is understandable and to maintain and enforce an environment that is conducive to learning. "That is it!” says Ricky Bobby. Our teachers should not be regarded as disciplinary figures, nor should they be held accountable for students' lack of desire to learn and retain information. If our teachers are failing to provide a safe learning environment or cannot effectively communicate with students the information at hand, then yes, bad teachers. While I'm sure cases of this exist I doubt that this is the criteria used in analyzing our educators. 

My seventh grade science teacher, Mr. Norris, once came to class very upset. He said he had received a complaint from a parent because the parent did not know her child was currently repeating the seventh grade. Yes, take a moment to think about that - a parent did not know that his/her child had failed a grade! Fast forwarding to high school, I recall a barrage of complaints my guidance counselor told me she received by parents who were upset that their children would not be attending spring graduation. How is it possible to not know your child will not be graduating on time by the end of their senior year? While this explains why I'm not friends with too many people from my middle and high school anymore, it says much more about the sad state of our parenting. If parents were analyzed by the LA Times based on their child's academic performance just as the teachers were, Gerber would undoubtedly sponsor a nation-wide child recall. As Pastor Rick Warren said in "The Purpose Driven Life", "There are no illegitimate children, but there are illegitimate parents". Preach, preacher man.

As always I am solution-oriented. I look forward to one day holding a political office that will bolster my vision to reduce the prominence of standardized testing, or at least enforce measures to reduce the systematic advantages and disadvantages presented by these tests. I agree that there needs to be some universal standards in place to evaluate our students for college and other academic institutions, and standardized tests just may be the solution. However, as it stands now these tests are not accurate indicators of academic capacity or the quality of our nation's undervalued educators. The best action we can take is to be responsible parents by enforcing discipline in our homes and making education a priority for our children. The simple gifts of love and discipline will benefit our children, alleviate some unfair criticisms of our teachers, and will hopefully deliver a Superbowl to Cleveland. Not quite on the last one, but I was on a roll. I digress.

In closing, lay off of our teachers, America. They are doing the best they can to build our country with the parts they are given. Be responsible parents and community members by placing value in our children's education. Then, when your child loses his or her step show competition, remember that the step master was not solely to blame. Maybe you should have been a better step teacher at home.

Thank you.

-Christopher Charles Ivory

EduKe$han 101

I want to be like Ke$ha when I grow up. I want to become an auto-tuned "artist" and spell "Chris" as "Chr!s". I have nothing against Ke$ha so I will not bad mouth her, but I will forever be bedazzeled as to how someone who sounds like they are intoxicated while recording can make it to my car's audio system? Amazing.

However, Ke$ha and similar "artists", intoxicated or sober, have a lot in common with American businesses at the high level. Music today is very interesting. The quality of music, like many conveniences we enjoy, has been cheapened. We live in an age where the concept "artist" has been lost to terms such as "singer", "rapper", "performer", and other nouns that describe someone who is capable of making a catchy tune or two for us to shake that bonobo to on a Saturday night, but lacks the talent for a lasting career. Ke$ha epitomizes this trend and sadly there exists similarities in areas outside of music. By the way, for those who do not know, a bonobo is a very sexually active monkey. Thanks, anthropology class. 

In a capitalist society the goal for competitive businesses and services is not sustainability or profit, but to maximize profitability. A few fundamental ways to increase profit are to increase the cost of goods or services (for consumers) while maintaining an equal production cost, lower the production cost, or lower the production cost and increase the cost to consumers simultaneously. Simple, right? The music industry has in fact reduced the production cost (and quality, of course) of what we hear, but has maintained the cost we pay for CDs, iTunes, and concert tickets. While I would rather go snorkeling at a BP water park than attend a Ke$ha concert, to each his or her own.
  

Ke$ha (and those involved in her production) holds the same business model as administrators of a college or university. Just as music of the Ke$ha flavor reduces to the quality of music without reducing the cost of consumption, college administrators continue to maintain or (usually) increase the cost of consumption without increasing the quality of education to its students.

I will use The Ohio State University, my great alma mater, as an example. I was highly upset when this past summer the parking meters on South Campus were no longer free after 6pm, but 10pm instead. As if that wasn't enough, it now costs $3 for 2 hours of parking opposed to the previous $2 for 2 hours. For students who take evening classes the benefit of these is the inconvenience of parking and walking much further. Ohio winters, hello? As if that isn't enough, football tickets went up an average of $7 per ticket for the 2010 season (reported by 97.1 "The Fan" radio). At an extra $7 per ticket, for 100,000 tickets, for five home games, that is an extra $3.5 million in the pockets of Brutus Buckeye. With all of the unnecessary increases no wonder five of our star players sold their Big X championship rings to come up with the extra money. Go Bucks.

Still, parking meters and football tickets are just scratching the surface and largely annoyances on my part. Tuition is the most important cost when considering higher education. By increasing the cost of tuition for enrollment each year, colleges and universities are adding disproportional benefits to the student population, namely increased debt. Consider college textbooks for additional evidence of disproportional cost-benefits. According to CNNMoney.com, college textbooks are among the top 25 mark-ups in all of America, meaning the cost to consumers is severly higher than the cost of production and distribution. Surely our students will be twice as fluent in the tongue of espanol by paying $150 for a spanish book and disc set that are valued at 60% less for the exact same content, correct?

Does an increase in the cost of education result in an increase of students' your earning potential? CNNMoney.com recently reported that, according to the US census, the average American salary has been roughly unchanged for 30 years, constantly hovering at about $33,000 per year. Yet, those in the top 1% of income earners in America, i.e. those making more than $300k per year, have nearly tripled their wealth in the same time period. With more people going to and graduating from colleges and universities than ever before, especially women, the cost we pay for education hasn't exactly been reciprocated in our personal checking accounts.

Even if tuition is not increased, consider the following: If an additional 200 freshman students are admitted into a university at $25,000 / year each, and there is no staff increase to accommodate this new group of partiers, your school just profited $5 million dollars. This may sound farfetched to those at small schools, but coming from an institution that is home to more than 50,000 students this isn't too surprising. While new facilities and equipment upgrades are necessary expenses over time, it is hard to imagine the cost of construction and maintenance is proportional to the profit received from such increases as previously stated. To quote Charles Barkley, I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Moving forward, does an increase in the cost of education increase the quality of education?

Again, let's consider Ke$ha to settle this question. The desired effect of music is for people to enjoy, and maybe even sing and dance to; get jiggy with it. In that sense, Ke$ha is successful as her music can be heard at most night clubs and usually sparks irresponsible young adults to sing and dance along to her songs like wild bonobos. However, all is not well that ends well in this case. The reason being is that albeit a desired ending, because the means of acquiring the end are of mediocre quality at best, there is no lasting effect or appreciation for the work. In just weeks, a Ke$ha song will go from favorite to permanently forgotten. No more bonobo dancing to “Don’t Stop”. While no song remains in the top 40 forever, the turnover rate of popular to not popular songs today as indicated by Billboard Charts is at an all-time high because today’s music simply lacks lasting quality.

Given the previous Ke$ha example, let's apply the same to education. The desired end effect to a college education is a degree and some sort of legal employment. While everyone who completes college is awarded at least a degree and should be in a better position to earn and sustain employment, I argue the quality of learned content has not been enhanced and somewhat deteriorated, especially in fields outside of law, medicine, and physical sciences.

One culprit of a weaker quality of education is the multiple choice test. Multiple choice tests do not necessarily test what students know. While multiple choice tests are not completely void of predicting understanding, they really measure students' ability to recall information from given context clues. Though more painful, students would learn more, and learn more effectively, if written assignments were of greater commonplace than multiple choice tests. Writing does not test recognizability alone, but rather it combines multiple cognitive functions: it forces empathic thinking from the writer to the perspective of the audience, tests the analyzation and interpretation of content, and leaves room to express thoughts in the author’s own unique writing style. Most importantly, writing enhances our ability to retain information more so than seeing what is in front of us. What do you remember better, that five page multiple choice final or the 5 page paper you had to write?

Another culprit to a deteriorated quality of education is the idea of a "well rounded" education. While it sounds good in theory, why take multiple courses you have no interest in and will never make use of the content? As a pre-declared Business major, I had to take Biology 101. I specifically remember a lesson about insect antennas. It is possible that one day my unborn, Heisman Trophy winning son will ask me, "Father, for what art those ants waving those sticks above their heads so frantically", and I will explain to the young, well-spoken and athletic lad how the ants are using their antennas as a compass. Nice to know, but was it worth the $250 per credit hour it cost to learn that? Yes, It is definitely beneficial to have knowledge outside of students' chosen are of study, but a full year's worth of classes not pertaining to one's specialization could be much better utilized perhaps via related work experience or independent study. Then again, maybe our knowledge of ants will prepare our defense against them when they attempt to bring Armegeddon to passage.

In closing, solutions and not simply stating the obvious are of greatest importance. Sadly, reducing the cost of education and increasing the quality of higher education is a massive task that very few people have the power to influence. I will get there eventually and am accepting law school donations to start my path towards the White House. However, I do have a suggestion for the masses - take control of your education! The likelihood of financial and professional prosperity without a college education is very slim today and will be true forever going forward. A college education has gone from an ammenity to a necessity. Get the most out of your education as possible. Take courses that encourage hard, transferrable skills, study for the overall understanding of the content and not simply to get the grades, and demand nothing less than excellence from your institution. Bland, yes, but really that is best we can do in addtion to taking an active role in political decisions affecting our collegiate education system. Remember, the customer is always right.

If all else fails, be like Ke$ha. Purchase a drum machine, chase down a few shots of the do-it-fluid, get behind a microphone, befriend Flo Rida, and keep hope alive. After all, someone has to make cheap hits, and it just may be you. Just don't be too disappointed when you are soon forgotten. Education, on the other hand, is forever.

Thank you.
-Christopher Charles Ivory

The GLBT Lesson

I do not care for makeup on a woman. To me, nothing beats a beautiful, natural face. However, I appreciate a woman's sometimes multi - hour effort to neatly, neatly, and yes, neatly apply makeup to her face if she feels it makes her more attractive.

I also am not a fan of baseball. It is too slow and technologically unprogressive. Still, I appreciate the coordination and skill it takes to knock a good one out of the park. That's what she said.

Why did I say all of that? For one, I habitually talk too much, but also there is a lesson to be learned: you can express appreciation for what you do not like or engage in. That is exactly how I feel about the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender (GLBT) community. Despite my preference for tight clothes, I am not gay, and I have no ill will towards those that are. Whether you support their lifestyle or not we really should be in admiration of the gay community's ability to organize, lead, and even bully. Let us further examine.

My senior year of college I wrote a paper about HIV/AIDS for my Science and Technology Second Year Writing class. Yes, I did just say I took my second year writing class my senior year. Nonetheless, HIV/AIDS was first discovered in the mid 1970s primarily amongst homosexual men in San Francisco, California and New York City, New York. Given the lack of knowledge of the disease at the time and considering its target audience, the greater gay-bashing public deemed HIV/AIDS to be the "gay plague". While this theory seems laughable today, it was actually quite logical to believe such at the time. Today, HIV/AIDS has shifted from being most commonly known as a "gay" disease to being a "Black/African" disease. I will spare everyone from conspiracy theories regarding the shift, but to quote Hillary Clinton, "If HIV/AIDS was a leading killer of White women there would have been a cure". I digress.

Through my research, I learned of how the GLBT community took up "lay activism". In "lay men's" terms, lay activism is action(s) taken to address and influence an issue by people who lack expertise in the area needing attention. Rather than sitting patiently and letting a "curse" kill off their population the gay community responded quickly and efficiently, organizing and funding such organizations as STOP AIDS and the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP). Their efforts brought forth medical breakthroughs to combat the disease, active prevention methods, and assurance of the fair distribution of medicine of those infected by the disease. While the disease is still more likely to be contracted by gay men than non-gay men the GLBT contributions to HIV/AIDS research has been remarkable.

The GLBT community has polarized America. The 2000s were dominated by talks of the legalization of gay marriage and same sex partner employment benefits, many of which swayed political elections. Most recently, the US military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT)" policy banning openly homosexual members has been repelled. So how is it that a population that is less than 1% of our country's population has been so effective in bullying their way through legislation? Well, Sherlocks, the answer is pretty simple - the GLBT community has shown us the power behind organization, educated members, and inclusion. I am particularly fascinated with the term inclusion as too many minority groups, and I don't limit that to race, further limit their support from outside sources by being too concerned with establishing themselves as a separate peoples instead of being amongst all peoples. Suddenly Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton come to mind. Go figure?

The GLBT community has marched together through their plights for respect and human rights, and have done so by understanding legal protocol and attacking the system from within. Many "ethnic groups" (really, everyone is ethnic, why do we say that?), for example, are losing ground in attaining need-based college scholarships because of their minority status, and I argue that now having a proclaimed basketball playing minority President has given the false impression of an entire group's success, and I do not mean an underrepresented group of basketball players. Just as the gay community took up lay activism, imagine how great these "ethnic" groups would benefit by becoming part of the legislation that has the power to influence scholastic awards, rather than let Ward Connerly get on his soap box? If you do not know of Mr. Connerly, you should for the sake of your children.

In closing, let us all take a lesson from the the gay community. The power of organization, education, and inclusion can go infinitely far towards achieving our goals. To quote Captain Planet, "The power is yours". Whether Captain Planet is a homosexual or not, the world will truly never know. But like our GLBT brothers and sisters have shown us, we each have the power to change what effects us.

Thank you
-Christopher Charles Ivory