Employee-Student-Athlete

The Chicago District of the National Labor Relations Board recently ruled football players at Northwestern University as employees of the university and granted them the ability to unionize. This decision was made due to the time commitment to the sport, along with the fact that their scholarships were given based off of their athletic performance. While some may argue against this and that it will ruin college athletics in the future, I completely agree with the decision. 

It was argued that the players perform similar tasks and follow similar rules to those of an employee, which are also very similar to paid professional football players in the NFL.  Now we call these football players "student-athletes" (as in: student first, athlete second), yet these rules and regulations they have to follow are strictly for them as players, and not for the common student. While there are rules that both students and athletes have to follow, the punishments can be drastically different. Lets say your R.A. catches you lighting up a joint in your dorm, yeah you'll be written up, maybe some trouble with the police and worst case scenario you have minimum community service hours when its all said and done. Now if the second-string wide out get caught, they will face punishments with not only the school, but the team, and possibly even the loss of a scholarship. And losing their scholarship for a considerable amount of players means dropping out of college altogether because of the price of tuition. If we not to call them employees, colleges must leave players be to disciplined by academic authorities alone, and not additionally by athletic authorities.

The name "student-athlete" interesting in of itself. The term was invented 60 years ago by the NCAA to insure that players were primarily students and athletes second. The term was created to "prevent the exact ruling that was made [earlier this week]," says Ramogi Huma, president of the National College Players Association. Back in January I blogged about North Carolina basketball players' academic skills, some reading at a third grade level, if not at all. If players were truly "students first," colleges would hold them more academically accountable, and probably wouldn't fathom the idea that some of them were altogether illiterate.

How do you feel about the ruling?

Why or why not are college athletes employees?

Money Well Spent...?

As we get closer finishing our high school careers and shipping off to college, students' dreams of playing sports at the colligate level are within reach. But half the battle of earning that scholarship is the work you put in the classroom, hence the title student-athlete. Academics are even more important for Division III scholarships where the market for sports isn't as big, and where the schools are mostly private and want to maintain a high standard for academics.
As much as we would like to believe that being a student-athlete stays true to its title, more and more investigations are proving that the balance of sports and studies isn't exactly equivalent. The University of North Carolina, praised for its dominant and historic basketball program, is one of the schools under investigation. Here at New Trier, we all love test scores, so I'll give you some: 34 basketball and football players were admitted into the school with SAT scores lower than 400 and ACT not reaching 16 (CNN). It's sort of cringing to think that there are kids from low-income families who have the grades to get into college and could really use the scholarship money, but instead its given to athletes who might end up leaving school after a year to play professionally. Chicago Bulls point-guard Derrick Rose didn't even take his own ACT, but managed to earn a full scholarship to the University of Memphis. Rose left after one season to play in the NBA.
To most Americans, a good education is the path to a better life. Yet we are cheating ourselves and deserving students the access to that education when we let sports and entertainment override our values.

What do think about these scholarships? What can be done to change this?

"It's just Vapor!"

The other day I was changing in the locker room after gym when all of a sudden, a cloud of fruity smelling smoke fogs over my head. The origin of this mysterious smoke turned out to have been coming from a couple of kids puffing an electronic cigarette, or e-cig for short. The common response from young e-cig smokers is usually "Dude, relax! Its just vapor!" Well technically the smoke releasing from an industrial factory is "just vapor," but you don't see people smoking the same chemicals. That ignorant response bugged me, and sparked an interest of research on the product. A commercial for Blu Electronic cigarettes I found surprised me when the the same excuse, that is was "only vapor," was used. The commercial claimed the product to be a "safer alternative" to smoking regular cigarettes. They are safer by the fact that there's no tobacco present, but that also means e-cigs aren't regulated by the FDA. This means that companies like Blu are not required to disclose the contents of whats inside. Most of the vapor is nicotine, and health experts are not sure of the effects of inhaling pure nicotine in large quantities. Electronic cigarettes haven't been around long enough for long term effects of smoking them to be determined.  

The commercial's main theme is "freedom," which we as americans cherish. But because of how much of this product remains a mystery, how much freedom should be given? Chicago has seemed to already to be taking the "freedom" into their own hands. Rahm Emanuel stated today that electronic cigarettes will be banned in most indoor public buildings. So sorry locker room smokers, looks like your fun is up.

What do you think about e-cigs? What amount of "freedom" should be given?

Info on E-Cigs: here

Brooklyn's Finest

It has come to my horrific realization through of the Prison-Industrial complex my American Studies class had been discussing a few weeks ago, the american justice system isn't as just as it should. In summary, the PIC can be described in a quote by Salon: "Imagine living in a country where prisons are private corporations that profit from keeping their beds stocked at, or near, capacity and the governing officials scramble to meet contractual 'lockup quotas.' Imagine that taxpayers would have to pay for any empty beds should crime rates fall below that quota. Surprise! You already live there." To keep jails full, the NYPD has intervened the new "Stop and Frisk" program. This tactic allows officers to light pat down, or frisk, any individual they deem suspicious. Although it is supposed to make the city safer, all it seems to be doing is justifying racial profiling of police officers. The chart above illustrates the dominance of Black and Latino frisks compared to White or Asian New Yorkers. The NYPD continues to defend these numbers with claims that minorities are disproportionately involved in violent crime, giving justification to the overwhelming number of minorities stopped. Although, in only 10.5 percent of stops did police refer to violent crime as the reason of the stop and frisk. And only 1 out every 10 stops ended with an arrest (NY Mag). If we cherish our freedom so much in America, why is it that we lack the freedom to walk down a city sidewalk in peace? I would even make the argument that more laws are being broken because this practice was put into place. These stops are not just a hassle for minorities, they can also be abusive and criminal. A seventeen year old Harlem native, Alvin, has had his fair share of frisks. His story runs a little long, but it's worth watching. Please excuse the explicit language.

In my opinion, being a "f***king mutt" isn't isn't exactly suspicion. The entire practice is unjust and unconstitutional. When a police caption tells his officers to go out and "violate some rights," the program, as well as the entire NYPD, needs to be reconsidered. It's interesting that the ones upholding the law end up breaking more than most of the people their stopping. 

A Continued Abuse

Over the past few years, the United States has started pumping oil on our own land, and we haven't slowed down. Every year it seems that more and more states are producing more and more oil, take North Dakota for example, who now pumps over one million barrels a day (MacPherson). Now some think America's boom in oil production is for the better because it loosens our dependency on foreign oil (specifically the Middle East). Believe it or not, we are currently producing more oil than Russia or Saudi Arabia. Even though, oil prices haven't fallen. Greed much? But that isn't the only issue presented.
Let's flash back to 2010. The BP oil spill in the Gulf caused havoc for the wildlife and people living on the southern coast. As a nation, we were disgusted by the event. But the biggest reason why we were upset was because it happened on our home front. Let's be honest, if BP spilled in the Red Sea, I don't think Americans would have given the same reaction. But looking back on it, it doesn't seem like it was such a big shock. With pumping oil and handling it, spills are bound to happen. Now obviously its not usual to see them as big as BP's, but nevertheless it happens. It baffles me that we support American-based drilling when three and a half years ago we faced the very real consequence of it. And it isn't like that was a one time thing. In North Dakota nearly 300 pipeline spills have gone unreported since 2012 (MacPherson), threatening the "land and water supplies" of the people who live there. When will we learn our lesson? With many alternative energy sources popping up left and right, such as wind and solar power, why do we continue to put ourselves through the polluting and harmful effects of homeland drilling? 

Leave your opinion below.

Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/28/pipeline-spills-north-dakota_n_4170133.html?ref=topbar

Picture: http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/10/10/20600-barrels-fracked-oil-spill-north-dakota-publicity-halted-due-government-shutdown

The Washington... what?

It's another Sunday, and the NFL is back for another round of match ups. With the Bears not playing this week, I decided to watch the Denver Broncos square off against the Washington Redskins. As the Redskins added another loss to their not-so-pretty record of now 2-5, the team is under some pressure to start turning things around in the weeks to come. But for Washington, the scrutiny doesn't stop at the team's performance. The team name, Redskins, has caused lots of controversy, primarily from the Native-American community. Now the league commissioner hasn't really expressed much of a feeling  whether or not the name should be changed, and the Redskins owner, Daniel Snyder, claims that the name "will never change." But as much as the name is embedded into the history of the team, and even if fans don't feel as if its a derogatory term, the fact remains that it still is one. Naming a team the "Redskins" is no different from cheering for the "Negros," but that name wouldn't see a second of daylight in any sport. You wouldn't go up to a Native American on the street and call them a Redskin, so why do we as fans feel that this isn't a problem? It bothers me that the franchise is allowed to trademark the name that's the same as the n-word to Native Americans, and sell jerseys for over $100 with Redskins written in bright yellow across the chest.
Hopefully we will come to realize in the near future that the name should get the boot, see the NFL take a turn for the better and ditch the racism.

Do you feel the name needs to be changed? Why or why not? Leave your opinion below.

Image: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2013/09/22/sign-at-fedex-field-defends-redskins-name/

Insta-Ad

The other day, while scrolling through my Instagram news feed, I was horrified to come across a post from Instagram stating that ads will appear in my news feed in the near future. Just terrific. Instagram hopped on the old sell-out bandwagon, taking a first-class seat right next to Facebook. The app was already worth one billion dollars (New York Times), but apparently that wasn't enough for the people who run it. It seems sort of ironic how social media sites, whose entire purpose is to create a personal experience online are invading user's private sense of community by adding advertisements. That was the nice thing about Instagram, and that's why I started using Instagram much more frequently than Facebook. Since Facebook starting implicating advertisements, the site has slowly grown into a jumbled mess of companies shoving there products down my throat. Whereas Instagram is clean cut and really personal. It shows me what I want to see, and I'm in control. That's whats great about it. And Instagram claims to show adds that are unique to the user. But many companies have already created their own accounts, so if I ever wanted to check out a certain product it would only be a few clicks away. I'd be much more interested that way, rather than an ad jumping up on me unexpectedly. Many other users seem to be outraged as well, leaving comments on Instagram's announcement like "Ads! Omfg. I'm out, no more Instagram" or "The day this place gets ads is the day I delete my account."
It's funny because in the Social Network, the movie based off the rise of Facebook (who now owns Instagram), says "You don't want to ruin it with ads because ads aren't cool." Weird, right?

Will you continue using Instagram when it gets ads? How will they change your experience on Instagram? Feel free to leave your thoughts below.

Instagram value: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/facebook-buys-instagram-for-1-billion/

Image: http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/24/first-look-at-instagram-ads/