The Now 101

Recently I came across the controversy that has been occurring for some time concerning the student-athletes that are not being paid for their participation in sports. The contracts given to these students by universities state that students resign any form of economic compensation and that being a student justifies them not to get paid. However, when we take a look at the amount of profit being made in the NCAA March Madness, how can we not give students who are actually creating the revenue any kind of economic compensation?

As a fan of sociology, theorist Karl Marx quickly came to mind when I saw such exploitation of student-athletes. As many of us might be familiar with, or at least have heard of, Karl Marx is a renown economist that has been widely known for his critique on capitalism. Among his previous ideas, Marx argues that history is a class struggle that is defined though the transformations of the economy and that the division of labor is what shapes human life. These class struggles and division of labor is characterized through a 2 class system that he defines as the proletariat and the bourgeoise.

The bourgeoise are those who own the means of production (factories, jobs, real estate), while the proletariat are the ones who compete for jobs owned by the bourgeoise.  As a result, the proletariat must inhabit the mode of production - the way of doing something - that is being presented by the bourgeoise.

This is exactly what is happening in the case of student-athletes. Student athletes are told to sign contracts (a mode of production) that are written by those who are in charge, the NCAA and universities (the bourgeoisie). The idea that students must not be paid because they are amateurs and that events like these are simply for entertainment, Marx would argue, hide the real class relations in society, or as he would say, are ideal superstructures used to cover up and alienate the people from what is really happening: exploitation and the accumulation of capital for the bourgeoisie.

Capitalism represents a situation where the means of production is in the hands of a few (NCAA and universities) and where workers (student-athletes) are basically forced into these jobs as their only form of survival,  as are workers who were displaced by so many factories, machines, and technology.

Based on the Labor Theory of Value, "labor/productive activity is at root of all value" since we must work to survive. The theory holds 3 different values, use-value, exchange value, and surplus value. Use-value is the usefulness of something - NCAA being done for entertainment and students-athletes playing basketball, exchange value is the labor needed to recoup investment - the years of training and trainees for student-athletes, and lastly the surplus value which is basically new value created out of thin air. Surplus value is the difference between the price sold at and the cost of the production. Consequently, any extra money that becomes surplus to the different between the two becomes capital and revenue for the bourgeoisie and no extra pay for the workers.

The NCAA has taken advantage of contracts to the extent of creating video games and giving no type of compensation to the students who are portrayed in those video games as the basketball players. They in turn have received up to 1 billion dollars in the NCAA March Madness through the gear, video games, ticket sales, among other things. Yet claim that student athletics is what really matters. But does it?

If they are receiving so much money and not even paying students even some percentage for their hard work and dedication then does that put athletics its priority? No. If they really care about athletics why not get rid of all the sponsorship that takes place in the NCAA. Some universities state that paying players will only lower the funding for other sports, however I'm sure funding can be found in other programs from the school. Probably lowering budgets can result in the sufficient funds for other programs.  I certainly agree in a movement to unionize student-athletes because receiving an education for playing a sport is no longer seen as valuable, especially when we know that students in sports dedicate so much of their time to sports that their education can negatively be affected.

Barcelona takes the win with a score of 2 to 1 versus Real Madrid. The first half of the game was controlled by Real Madrid with a goal by Cristiano Ronaldo - best player in the world. But once again, Barcelona ties and takes the lead. Whoahhh!

She [Leslie Starr Heimov] noticed that in 2010, 85% of girls arrested [those involved in the sex trade] were from South LA. Compton, Long Beach and Inglewood, and 94% of the girls were African-American. Most of them were in foster care and not being able to learn how to gain connections and relationships. Pratt has helped dozens of under-age girls receive help and guidance.

Los Angeles county is finally planning a specialized court to handle the growing number of youth in foster care that are deceived into prostitution.  The court is proposed to provide an increase in the attention of judges, lawyers, social workers, and specially trained advocates.

Trauma Informed Care is an organizational structure and treatment framework that involves understanding, recognizing, and responding to the effects of all types of trauma. Trauma Informed Care also emphasizes physical, psychological and emotional safety for both consumers and providers, and helps survivors rebuild a sense of control and empowerment.

In the year 1964, tremendous change in the rights of all residents of the US occurred. Segregation in public spaces and schools was banned and discrimination in the work force forbidden. But if we were to analyze today's society with the enactment of the Civil Rights Law of 1964, has it really been banned? What if I told you that all those laws that were forbidden are actually taking place in present day, 21st century in the United States, and overwhelmingly targeting incarcerated individuals? What would you say?

The moment I heard this I became extremely shocked at how uninformed I was about the world around me  to the point of not noticing the discrimination that is openly occurring everywhere. Just in case you are still unaware of what I am talking about, here's a clue to help you understand: the Ban the Box campaign.

The Ban the Box campaign began in 2004 by the All of Us or None organization, a human and civil rights activists group that advocates for the formally and currently incarcerated individuals and their families. The organization has been fighting the employment system that has been around for many years, specifically in regards to the "box".

I am sure many of you, when filling out an application, have been confronted with the question, "Have you been convicted of felony? check one: yes or no", this is the "box" they are referring to. This is what the campaign is all about. As stated in the Legal Services for Prisoners with Children website, "The goal of All of Us or None is to strengthen the voices of people most affected by mass incarceration and the growth of the prison-industrial complex. Through our grassroots organizing, we are building a powerful political movement to win full restoration of our human and civil rights".

The Ban the Box campaign is basically trying vanish this conviction question, that appears in employment, education, and housing applications, in order to give a fair chance to individuals who have some sort of conviction in their history. Through out the years, this box has deterred many individuals from successfully integrating back into society, therefore they urge individuals to support their campaign in order to gain full restoration of there rights.

You may be wondering however, how is this box correlated with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Actually, the correlation is not a good one, but instead due to the box, everything that was abolished in 1964 has become acceptable for this community of formerly and currently convicted individuals, "These questions mean lifelong discrimination and exclusion because of a past arrest or conviction record."And this is simply unjust. Many individuals are trying to become  productive in the system we live in and not only provide for themselves, but also for their families; "Studies have shown that three out of every five formerly incarcerated folks remain jobless one year after they are released from prison." Seeing the boxed check for many employers is an application that has no value, no matter the competency they may have. 

I think putting ourselves in their shoes we can begin to understand the struggle they face when trying to get a second chance in society. They can't find jobs, they don't have the support and communication from society, housing does not allow them to live in certain areas (therefore not being able to live with their family and have the support they need), and employment becomes so much more difficult . 

However when you take look at the other side of the coin you see all the concerns that many individuals, family members, parents, and children have about taking off this box from applications. The feeling of insecurity can arise, no longer making individuals feel safe in the work place, education setting, and housing. As individuals we might not be as comfortable having someone who has been convicted with a felony, however banning the box does not mean that employers will not have the ability to do background checks. 

New jersey has also joined in with the Ban the Box campaign and in their fact sheet they state: 

Ban The Box laws do not prevent employers from conducting background checks. They do not
require an employer to hire an unqualified applicant. They do not eliminate an employer’s discretion to hire only people suitable for the position. They do not override any existing laws placing restrictions on eligibility for particular positions. They simply ask employers to consider an individual’s full application, providing a realistic opportunity for a person who has changed his or her life.

This makes it clear that background checks are still allowed and occurring with the enactment of these "Fair Chance Policy" (which advocates for the Ban the Box campaign).  The only ate ration to these will be that employers will be able to do these after the hiring process, in order to ensure equal opportunity in getting a job. 

In regards to the concerns of public safety, in the National Employment Law Project's Fact sheet it states that it reduces recidivism rates and increases public safety. Based on their research summary, 

A 2011 study of the formerly incarcerated found that employment was the single most important influence on decreasing recidivism, and that two years after release nearly twice as many employed people with records had avoided another brush with the law than their unemployed counterparts.

As shown, the public safety is overall increased with the equal and fair chance of applying for jobs. Recidivism rates were also shown to have decreased from a 52.3 to a 16 percent recidivism when employed for a year, while a decrease of 20% for even 30 days.

One last final point I would like to make is that the implementation of Fair Chance policies, just as was shown in the previous research summary for other locations that have implemented this police, will also help the economy in bringing more money to taxpayers and more to sales revenue. 



Overall, I do understand the concerns of many individuals regarding public safety but if we begin to give this opportunity to individuals who have been convicted with a felony, then as time progresses these results will increase for the better of society. Recidivism rates will decrease, the economy will improve, and most importantly felons will have the opportunity to live a life with the civil and human rights that they are guaranteed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964.