I found this topic of conversation to be really enlightening because I never really thought about the racism that exists in our society. To say 'never' isn't really fair, I did believe that it existed to some extent but not to the degree that was showcased by the statistics in class. The incarceration statistics were abnormally disproportionate for the amount of minority that exists in our society and how they are represented in the jails and prisons. It would be easy to say, as someone mentioned above, that black and brown people have high residency numbers in inner city areas and that they are therefore exposed to more drugs and crime, so their environment can be counted as a factor and puts them more at risk, but now I'm finding it harder and harder to ignore the racism that exists in the criminal justice system. I used to have such faith in the justice system, because I really grew up thinking that would keep me safe. That is the so naïve. It is impossible to believe that people will act unbiased all the time. It’s impossible to make that assumption about society at large, but I just always believed that there was good and bad and people behaved how they behaved and the justice system would take care of the bad people when bad crimes were committed. I’ve seen a lot of videos and studies that displayed the racism that we saw in the “What Would You Do” video in class the other day, and that’s made me come to believe that most people, society at large, are inherently racist and society has conditioned us to be this way, but I always thought that prosecutors and judges and juries could really separate that out and not bring it to the court room. Now I’m beginning to second guess my beliefs. As much as I would hope that is not true, the facts speak for themselves.

In regards to the question posed in the video, I think that metal detectors and dogs etc exist in inner city schools because there is a propensity for crime to occur there more than at the suburban all white schools. Even though we know that is not true, drug user rates are high in the suburbs and rural areas too, I think that there is a high density in inner city schools and it seems like police feel as if there is greater likelihood that they will come out on top by doing that in inner city schools. There is a higher chance that they will be able to make arrests there than the other schools. It is not fair that that is what exists but it seems to be true.

I think the first question asked was how much of what is portrayed in the media do you believe to be truth? After this last year I think my views on the media have changed quite drastically. I always knew that the media skews what they are presenting, I would never have gone as far as to label it propaganda but now I'm not so sure if they aren't crossing that line, anymore. I used to think that most of what was being presented in the media was maybe about 90% truth, after all it has to be based on cold hard facts to some degree, but no thinking about it, I feel that the percentage that actually is true is a lot lower than that. I know there is always some sort of bias, whether it be a notoriously conservative newspaper or liberal talk show host or a radical blogger, I was always taught to take everything with a grain of salt, in order to account for that bias, but I never realized how twisted and warped some presentations can be. The events that happened at Penn State, late during the Fall semester forced me to see that. I have never before been a part of something (some piece of history or news) that has been presented in the media, and had the unfortunate ability to see what was actually happening and how journalists and reporters and talk show host were portraying it in the media. It was outlandish and appalling. I remember friends and family members asking how I felt about the situation that unfolded, in the following days, and the only real emotion I could use to adequately describe my feelings was "disgust," and that was mostly targeted directly at the media that was warping something of a manageable scale into something catastrophically huge. I guess I really can say that being a part of living history and being able to see HOW much was twisted by the media was actually a privelege. It made me more weary of things that I read and see. I usually don't find fault with liberal magazine and newspaper publications because I find myself siding with them, but this situation has made me more sensitive to the fact that I shouldn't take anything for absolute truth anymore.
To answer the second part of the question, I have always been pretty weary of media exploitation of things like what is happening in the middle east, and I try to read up on both sides of the story. I seek out publications that contradict each other and decide which incurs the least amount of bias. Also, if I am searching on the internet I try to find publications from local journalists, by typing in the country code into google before I enter my search terms - that way the only results returned are publications from that country.

I guess the one thing that really struck me this semester was the first time the class talked about how we are socialized to not see color-how we’ve grown up in a society that specifically teaches us to not recognize someone’s race.
I grew up in a homogenous suburban community where the majority of people were obviously white, but I feel like I have had many cultural experiences that would make you think twice before labeling me as just another average white girl from the suburbs. I have always counted these experiences as blessings, and felt that they made me a better person. They forced me to become friends with people that I normally might not have had the chance of meeting, which in turn opened my eyes to things that I might not have seen otherwise. My parents strived to expose me and my sister to things that challenged our way of thinking, and took us to a lot of events and introduced us to many people that could accomplish that.
When I was younger, I really didn’t appreciate the fact that my parents chose to really cultivate this in my sister and I, but as I got older I began to realize what they were doing. I began to admire their tolerance of people and things and places that are foreign or unknown and really appreciated that they cared enough to cultivate that acceptance in me. Since I grew up in an atmosphere that encouraged such acceptance, I guess I really just struggled with the negative connotation that Sam has attributed to the fact that our society is taught not to see someone’s race. I don’t personally agree that our society, as a whole, actually believes that. I think that our society is taught that race is a taboo that you shouldn’t “see” and so people don’t see color or pretend they don’t see color, but in my house, that really is the way it was. (I do understand the need to recognize one’s heritage or culture and blah blah but that’s not what I’m saying here..)

What I grapple with every time this comes up in class (and it is said quite often) is why it is such a bad thing for one person to not see someone else and label them with a color. I pride myself on being extremely tolerant of people who share a different opinion than mine, different race, sexual orientation, ethnicity or nationality and was taught that people are simply that- different. No better or worse, just different people. I continued to nurture that idea through my life, and I don’t like that sometimes this class makes me feel guilty, because of it.

In my opinion there are different answers to the two parts that this question poses. I believe that a lot of the choices girls make in regards to their hair are made because of what society dictates is beautiful. Sam touched on this subject only a little bit in class, because I honestly think that this is a topic of discussion that warrants its own time; more than just an acknowledgment in the one part of one lecture. (The prescribed idea of beauty that has been molded by our culture is a topic worthy of a full lecture.) We talk about the standard of beauty in this country, and although my subconscious knew that the American standard of beauty is "the white look" I don't think I was ever really aware about it until Sam brought that up in class. He mentioned that the women in this county look to the media, cinema/television, fashion magazines, Hollywood and the runways to know what is considered beautiful. I've watched my fair share of fashion shows and America's Next Top Model re-runs, so I am aware that there are many black models in the industry, all of whom are beautiful, but it never occurred to me that they are standing where they are because they have "white features." Looking back, it makes sense that the beautiful black woman on the runway does not have a wide nose, but rather it is more slender, and she doesn’t have wild hair, but rather it is usually styled and sleeked down in a beautiful way. Sam was able to get me to realize that the black model I am watching strut on the runway, that I would say is exceptionally beautiful, is in fact beautiful because she possesses features that fit into the "white look"- a look that I've been brainwashed to believe is attractive.
It really hit home for me, when Sam was talking about the colored girl who knows for a fact that she will not be on the cover of Cosmo Magazine any time in the near future, yet she is still ‘fabulously beautiful.’ That was the truest thing to come out of that lecture, and it is a shame. I wish that wasn't the way our society is, but it will unfortunately probably stay that way.
Going back to the original question: I believe that colored women who straighten their hair are attempting to either a) assimilate into this prescribed look of beauty, knowingly or b) have been brainwashed, like the rest of us, into thinking that straight, silky hair is the beautiful thing! I don't find that white women curl or perm their hair to look more like a colored woman. I think the answer to this falls under the category of simply wanting what you don't have.

The events that transpired over the last three months at Penn State have left us all a little disillusioned, but most of all, confused. Upon hearing the announcements, my emotions immediately went into hyperdrive. I think a lot of students would join me in agreeing that they didn't know what to think. There was no emotion that manifested itself over another and I was trying to come to terms with all of them. As the days went on, I found myself using one word to describe how I was feeling, time and time again; disgust. I wasn't disgusted with one man or one media source or one paper or one reporter or one rioting student or one acquaintance using social media to tarnish PSU's name, but was disgusted with all of them.

News story after news story broke, and with each report I found myself criticizing the accuracy of what was being presented to the world through that outlet, in that moment in time. I couldn't believe the negativity that seemed to surround every report talking about our coach, our school and my peers. Most accounts were gravely exaggerated, and I found myself becoming increasingly frustrated with the media.

I am not naive. I always knew that the media exploited version of the truth, but I have never before been a part of something where I could see what was actually happening and then see how the media's twisted into something else. It was baffling. It was unsettling to see how much of a difference there was between the two sides of the story. Until a few days ago, I wasn't going to do much with this new found realization. I was content in thinking that the media did a grave injustice to our university by bringing us into that whirlwind. I was happy to point my finger at the media and paint Penn State students and University as the victims. After listening to Sam talk in class the other day about how the media does this to everyone, I realized that he was right in that if this had happened at another school, I probably would have reacted how every non-PSU person reacted. From this I realized that everything portrayed in the media really needs to be taken with a grain of salt, no matter how true it may seem to be, and that I should think twice the next time I judge someone/something/some other institution for the "poor" decisions they make in the future.

I agree with Sam, in that, I sincerely hope that this video went under some serious editing. Although we as viewers know that what is portrayed in the video is not the whole truth, and we take what is presented to us as a piece of comedy, we still need to be cognizant of what the mission of The Daily Show is; to present real issues to the public in a way that makes them laugh. And boy did I laugh... The real issue here is that this level of ignorance exists in the world and it is appalling. How could one man (or group of people) be so stupid enough to wrongfully associate this one man, that they don't know ANYTHING about, with terrorism? I know there is a stigma attached to Muslims, and a lot of people do make that leap in their subconscious, but come on?! He even admits that he assumed the connection between Hamze and the Muslim Civil Rights group.

I identify myself as very liberal when it comes to most political matters, but I accept people who challenge my thinking. I respect Hamze for his conviction and I can admire him for his loyalty to his party and even his tenacity, after that blatant display of bigotry by his fellow local Republicans. I just can't believe Kauffman and his comrades can't notice their own intolerance... I know, grain of salt.

The real point here is that it doesn't matter what faith he subscribes to. He's his own person and is entitled to whatever he wants to believe. Ignorance only holds us back..

*Loved the shoutout to Say Anything. Cameron Crowe is great.