The Now 101

Beauty pageants continue to hold a very controversial position revolving beauty as physical appearance or persona. They have been claimed as misleading the public into believing that physical appearance is much more important than persona, and in many ways we can see how these ideas still continue to play out in beauty pageants but at the same time are contested.

For many years beauty pageants have been driven by weight, appearance and skin complexion, which are "ideal aspects" not only visible in beauty pageants, but also in magazines that continuously display women in photoshopped bodies that are far from perfect in real life. Nuestra Belleza Latina is one pageant that has recently crowned one of their contestants, Francisca Lachapel, and has showed both sides to the beauty pageant dilema.

Francisca Lachapel is an Afro-Latina women whose skin complexion is dark, body weight is "ideal", but her beauty, that of her physical, was not that of a queen's, as one of the judges claimed. I would watch the show every Sunday night and, personally, I think there were contestants more beautiful than the winner herself, however I am grateful that the pageant is not solely based on physical appearance.

Throughout the show Francisca's personality and attitude was always complimented by judges and the public (including me!). In comparison to the rest of the contestants, her charismatic, humble and sweet personality out shined everyone and really gave her a foundation to getting the majority votes to become the new Nuestra Belleza Latina.

On the other hand, no matter the victory of Francicsa, the "ideal aspects" that a queen must have continued to be visible during the show and perpetuated by their own judge, Osmel Sosa. Skin complexion has always been an important factor in identifying a queen, and being dark was not the "ideal". Based on an article in the Huffington Post,

Mr. Sousa measures beauty by the European standard, and he is not shy about saying it. In 1997 in a Latina Magazine interview, he described his bias against contestants with African features saying that "black Venezuelan women are not very beautiful," he continued saying that "he would only choose a black girl if she had white features, just painted black." He has been the head judge of the competition since it started. It was no surprise to anyone why Ms. Lachapel, who has clear Afro roots, was not Mr. Sousa's favorite.

I find this very disturbing and enraging to hear someone say a lighter skin color is preferable to that of a darker skin color. Beauty should not be decided on by skin complexion, and I think with the victory of Frncicsa we can see how people are disregarding this "ideal" skin complexion that has been a factor is identifying beauty for many years. Being dark, brown, or white is beautiful and no one should tell you its not.

For any high school senior, May 1^st marks the day that will most likely decide the next 4 years of their life. It is the last day students accept, decline, but most importantly decide on the university they will be attending. However, due to a drop in acceptance rates and an increase in tuition - even at state colleges - many students have been taking several years in community college in order to transfer into a university to then work towards their bachelors. Ultimately, if prospective high school graduates are not legacies nor privileged in a high socioeconomic standing, the current educational system has and will continue undermining the success of millions of students with college’s year-to-year reductions in the number of acceptances.

Just recently, information regarding the acceptance rates of UCs and private universities has showed a drop for mostly all 4-year institutions. Consequently, many students who have graduated this year have not been admitted to many of the colleges they applied, two of my friends included. Stephanie Reyes, a senior in Torrance High School, currently has a 3.9 GPA and was not accepted to any UCs or Cal States. The same situation occurred to her boyfriend who has a 4.0 GPA, is involved in extracurricular activities, and has a number of AP exams with scores of 4s and 5s.

The question now is: If obtaining a 4.0 GPA, passining AP exams with 4s and 5s, and having extracurricular activities isn’t enough, then what is? Shouldn’t these students be more than qualified to be accepted by a university when admission directors themselves state that “most of the students they turn down are such strong candidates that many are indistinguishable from those who get in”? So then why have acceptance rates of universities dropped and rejected so many?

In an article called “Best, Brightest andRejected: Elite Colleges Turn Away Up to 95%”, the author describes prestige and status as one factor for the rejection of hundreds of students. Many universities desire a label that portrays the university as highly competitive and selective, which undeniably contributes to the decrease in acceptance rates and ultimately to the undermining success of many students;“[o]ne of the ways that colleges are measured is by the number of applicants and their admit rate, and some colleges do things simply to increase their applicant pool and manipulate those numbers”. Colleges sent out emails in order to motivate students – well aware that some students will not get in– in order to increase their applications and become even more selective by only accepting a few.

But yet, what is of concern is that many of these students who are being rejected are equally as competitive and able to excel academically as those accepted. Rather than a reduction in acceptance this demonstrates a need for an increase. Colleges should not be as concerned about the number of acceptance rates that can make them seem highly competitive or selective when the goal of an educational institution is for students to learn, excel, and prepare for their future.

Students who are academically successful should not be forced to go to community college, where many of them are likely to spend several years to transfer - minority students being more probable to take longer – due to a drop in acceptance rates. Many of these students have gone through rigorous curriculums that have prepared them for a higher education and so sending them to community college simply undermines their success because of the lengthy process that results from a shortage in classes in community colleges, especially remedial ones. For certain students this lengthy enrollment process becomes impossible to the extent that some begin to lose hope and drop out. This process therefore leads to the waste of valuable human capital from students that were unfortunately denied acceptance and could not afford education at a 4-year institution.

Don’t get me wrong. Community college is a great way for students who want to start over, save money, get an Associates degree, or who were not accepted to the university of their choice to obtain an education. I myself transferred from community college and really appreciate the college experience that I received because it allowed me to become better acquainted and prepared for a 4- year university education like USC’s. However, community college is no longer an alternative route for students with the above reasons. Rather, it is becoming a must even for students who have been academically successful during their high school years. The hyper-competitive admission process is leading to the undermining of students – particularly low-income students of color- who become trapped in the institutional problems faced in community colleges, such as the insufficient availability of classes needed to transfer.

So then who pays the price for this hyper-competitiveness in universities? Is it the elite? Of course not. Students who are legacies and are in high socio-economic standing have the ability to pay for the cost of college while many those who do not - low-income, minority students - are systematically pushed out and excluded from attending competitive four year institutions. In order to rectify this there must be an increase of acceptances to halt the undermining of success of hundreds of students.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Bhp7i7WNcM

Throughout time, individuals have not only characterized themselves as men or women. Rather, there has been an emergence of other genders that have been used to define those who do not see themselves as either one. The town of Juchitan, located in Mexico, is well known for having a new gender known as the Muxes.

Just recently I came across a video in youtube that talked about Mexico's third gender called the Muxes. Similar to gay people, Muxes are men who feel trapped in their body and see themselves as women. Therefore based on socially constructed ideas of gender roles, Muxes adopt the life of a woman by wearing skirts, dresses, applying make-up, wearing heels, doing household chores, and more. However, unlike gay people who are attracted to gay people, Muxes are attracted to men.

To my surprise however, they have become highly integrated in Juchitan. The Juchitan residents annually celebrate the Muxes by hosting a festival called "Las Intrepidas Buscadoras del Peligro" (The Authentic Fearless Danger-Seekers). As Muxes, they are described by many as being different, bold, and daring individuals who do what they please, thus the origin of the festival's name. The festival consists of parading around the town announcing the festival, attending mass, and hosting a party where a new queen of the Muxes is announced.

In my opinion this annually celebrated festival symbolized the complete integration of the Muxes in Juchitan, especially when we take a look at Mexico's long legacy of patriarchy where ideas such as machisimo (beliefs that portray men as the authority figure and women as obeying the men) have been extremely present in the lives of Mexicans; however it does not symbolize full integration.

Machisimo has not only been correlated with the idea of males being the authoritative figures, but also with homophobia. As machistas, they believe a man must act like a man, they must be strong, protective of their family, the breadwinners, can not cry, must not behave as girls or like a man. As a result, Muxes and gays have been the targets of these individuals.

It was surprising to see that living in Mexico, in a patriarchal society, Muxes were accepted, however the patriacrhal aspect of Mexico has not completely vanished. There is a consensus that Muxes must not have a partner and are therefore doomed to live a life of "soledad" (loneliness) as a Muxe describes. To have a partner is seen as morally wrong and so they become highly appreciated because they are the children who take care of their parents when they are old.

I think this situation can be seen everywhere by societies who still carry patriarchal beleifs. In this case it was even more surprising to hear how individuals who said were accepting of Muxes and even celebrated with them at the festival refused the idea of allowing them to have a partner. This consequently shows patriarchy as the one of the factors that results in the inability for full integration for Muxes and also gay individuals.

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.

Since the adoption of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, Americans have annually celebrated the achievement of such “self-evident” truths and “inalienable” rights for all human beings. As a general consensus, citizens of the United States characterize their country and pride themselves in such a declaration that brings equal opportunity for everyone. However, equality for all has not been the case since the moment it was adopted. During the signing of the Declaration of Independence slavery was still allowed and slaves were obviously exempt from these rights. Many years after the declaration, the Jim Crow laws deliberately institutionalized racism and discrimination into the system, ignoring such principles of equality. But yet, even when the Civil Rights law outlawed these laws in 1964, discrimination continues to be present and legal today when discussing the lives of former and currently incarcerated individuals. These discriminated individuals, overwhelmingly Blacks and Latinos, are born into a criminal justice system that racially profiles, targets and criminalizes the minority, and sentences them with longer and harsher penalties. Therefore, it is absolutely vital to support and pass the Ban the Box campaign, a fight for the civil and human rights of the former and currently incarcerated that demands the banishment of the question, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime? Check one: Yes or No”, on job, housing, insurance, loan, and public benefits applications. Currently, “the box” has resulted in the legalization of Jim Crow laws against this group of individuals who are discriminated in applications due to their past mistake, prohibiting them from “life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness”, and equality.

Throughout the years, the United States has expanded greatly in its prison-industrial complex and criminal justice system that has only served to feed back into its own system. According to the Prison Policy Initiative’s graph on “State Policy Drives Mass Incarceration”, the population in state, local, and federal prisons have all increased, specifically that of the state prison population that had an increase of around four times compared to the 1980s. However, this is of no surprise when policies such as Stop and Frisk, that was originally meant to allow the stopping and frisking of individuals for a policeman’s “reasonable” suspicion of criminal activity, pushed police officers to do the opposite. In some occasions policemen were forced by their supervisors to fill certain quotas and obliged to push their values on equality away in order to stay in good standing. As a result, this practice only perpetuated racial profiling and continued a disproportionate criminalization of Blacks and Latinos who become labeled as such and make it hard to get out of the system. Michelle Alexander, a legal scholar, graduate and professor of Stanford Law School, discusses the gravity of such increasing rates of incarceration in her book, “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness”. Michelle argues that with the current criminal justice system it is visible that “rather than rely on race, we use our criminal justice system to label people of color ‘criminals’ and then engage in all the practices we supposedly left behind [in the Jim Crow era]” (2). These practices are currently visible through increased rates of incarceration and “the box’s” conviction question. We are no longer sentencing the criminal on their crime, but on their race.

As mentioned earlier, Ban the Box is a campaign that focuses on giving a second chance to individuals who are former and currently incarcerated by eliminating the question, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime? Check one: Yes or No”, on applications. The campaign began in 2004 by the All of Us or None organization that is committed to fight for the rights of these individuals, their families, and for a fair employment system. Their goal is to fight

"against the discrimination that people face every day because of arrest or conviction history…strengthen the voices of people most affected by mass incarceration and the growth of the prison-industrial complex…[and] win full restoration of our human and civil rights".

The campaign itself has also started the Fair Chance Initiative campaign that particularly deals with employment applications. The campaign also proposes to remove “the box” question in order to deny employers an opportunity to discriminate against job applicants who have been convicted of a crime or felony. This would campaign would drastically improve the lives of many individuals who, at the moment, are trapped, have no income and no real possibility of getting a job.

Currently with the job market, former and currently incarcerated individuals struggle immensely to find a job due to past conviction. According to the “Ban the Box Fact Sheet”, “in nearly 50% of cases, employers were unwillingly to consider equally qualified applicants on the basis of their criminal record…[while] [a]nother major survey reflected that 40% of employers will not even consider a job applicant…” This clearly portrays the discrimination that occurs in the job market, the application of the Jim Crow laws towards these individuals - that of discrimination, and a need to ban the box. With this type of exclusion, these individuals have a difficult time integrating back into society even when doing their best to fulfill their role as a citizen. They face barriers with housing, employment, and public benefits applications that do not allow them to pursue their “self-evident” truths and “inalienable” rights. Michelle Alexander describes the transition by saying that “former prisoners enter a hidden underworld of legalized discrimination and permanent social exclusion” (13). She also describes them as “America’s new undercaste” because they are not given an equal opportunity, but instead restricted and limited in their rights and seen as second-class citizens (13). This as a result commences a life-long battle for survival and a series of consequences for the former or currently incarcerated individual.

Through the filling out of applications, individuals are labeled felons and attached a series of deprivations, along with life long consequences. However, no matter the conviction, no one should be deprived of his or her rights to vote, get a job, live with family members, get public benefits, insurance, and more. However, safety concerns about banning “the box” have made people dislike the idea. Some have been misguided about the aspect of background checks, but that is simply a constant misunderstanding of the campaign. As stated in the New Jersey’s “Fact Sheet: Ban the Box”,

"Ban the Box laws do not prevent employers from conducting background checks. They do not require an employer to hire an unqualified applicant…[t]hey simply ask employers to consider an individual’s full application, providing a realistic opportunity for a person who has changed his or her life".

Just last year, New Jersey joined a number of states who have signed the Ban the Box laws through the “Opportunity to Compete Act”, meaning that employers withhold the background check after an offer of employment – a concern expressed by the Columbia Chamber of Commerce and Missouri Retailers Association. Once proposed to work, the employer may question the person about the conviction and is able to analyze the relationship of the job and record, in addition to their behavior since out of prison.

The Columbia Chamber of Commerce and Missouri Retailers have been first to express concerns about the time required to wait for a background check. They believe this background check to be extremely late in the hiring process, however, doing this before the offer will only allow for the discrimination of individuals with a conviction or felony. Research, like in the case of Devah Pager’s “The Mark of Criminal Record”, not only allows us to see the racial disparity between whites and blacks with similar resumes and appearances, but also between white individuals with felonies and black individuals with a clear record. The results demonstrated that while whites applicants are preferred over black applicants, “the negative effect of a criminal conviction is substantially larger for blacks than for whites”, putting blacks at a larger disadvantage. In similar studies, white applicants with felons are more likely to be hired than a black applicant with a similar education and skill set with no conviction. Overall, these studies continue to show the need for banning of “the box” because even when controlling for a conviction or non-conviction background, blacks are still put at a disadvantage. Banning the box will allow the employer’s decision of offering employment to be based on the qualification of the individuals. Therefore, these adjustments to employment practices will and have allowed for the decrease of discrimination and a real opportunity to land a job.

In an attempt to measure the results of the “Ban the Box” laws, its research summary called “Research Finds Fair Chance Policies Support Families and Communities, Increase Public Safety” shows that the adoption of “Ban the Box” laws, also known as the Fair Chance policies, have resulted in positive outcomes. The states that have implemented the Fair Chance policies by implementing equality in employment “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”. This effectively speaks to the safety concern of society and the effectiveness of the laws. Not to mention, the reduction of discrimination in the hiring process and the ability to provide for their family and themselves - a constant problem in the lives of many who had just gotten out of prison. In terms of the state, “removing job barriers for people with records helps the economy”. Therefore there is a gain in sales tax revenue due to their new possibility of a job and income and also annual savings of “$2 million by keeping them out of the criminal justice system”. In sum, the research summary was intended to show the effectiveness of the laws in states they have already been implemented and clearly they have been successful.

Given these points, there is an urgent need for the implementation of the “Ban the Box” laws all throughout the United States. Former and currently incarcerated people should not lose their rights due to a conviction or arrest. As individuals, we all make mistakes and deserve the opportunity of a second chance, but most importantly as citizens of the United States we should not have to fight for rights that have been guaranteed to us through the Declaration of Independence. Ban the Box allows us to not only keep those principles alive, but also banish the legalization of discrimination that was evident during the Jim Crow era. To be convicted of a crime should not be “your personal badge of inferiority” (95), as Michelle states it currently is. Society should not belittle anyone’s worth nor restrict their rights; they should make their re-integration to society smoother, less restrictive, and less discriminatory by banning the box. In the end they should be allowed to pursue their right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

Recently, erickaingram posted a blog about the trafficking of children under the age of 18 and the lack of infrastructure to help these youth in such underground system. She mentioned,

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.

I think this speaks highly to the connection between foster youth and sex tracking; the connection being a lack of support for the individual. In a youth gang intervention class I took last semester we discussed how youth who become involved in gangs suffer from a healthy development due to having no strong cohesion with the three social control agents that are responsible for a healthy development. The social control agents being family, school, and law enforcement. Therefore any breakdown in these can influence one to become involved in street activity and anything that prevents a healthy experience often times promotes and can be decisive factor to be pushed in street life.

Many adolescents in gangs do not have the support and guidance that they need from their parents, educational system (as I talked about in the school-to-prison pipeline, and law enforcement (as seen in the increased racial criminalization). Therefore these youth seek a connection elsewhere and accept the first person that offers them help, usually a gang member. This gang member, which shares similar characteristics to a pimp, gives the support, validity, assistance, and protection they were longing for (Prof. Hernandez). The youth become part of a "family" that allows them to feel safe and as a result are pressured because of this tie and bond to the gang. The individual no longer has an identity of their own, but becomes the identity of the gang; in the case of sex tracking, the girls' identity becomes the identity of the pimp.

I think erickaingram's blog accurately shows how foster youth and gang members both share the lack of support system that has drove them to being involved in a gang and/or in sex trafficking. Therefore I think that there is a need for Trauma Informed Care (TIC) for all youth who feel disconnected from these three social control agents. Fortunately, as stated by erickaingram,

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.

However I think that there is a need to implement TIC with employees working in this specialized court. As stated in the TIC website,

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.

Being able to recognize trauma and knowing how to respond to this will allow us to better target youth who are following in this gang or prostitution route. Officers should be able to send children whom they suspcion to be in traumatizing experiences, also known as adverse childhood experience (found in the ACE study), and to stop youth from going through this path by being aware of how to recognize and respond to it. They should know to what service they must transfer the youth to and what kind of help them need.