Syracuse University: Facilitating a Voice for the Voiceless

In our blogging class about 2 weeks ago we had a screening of: 

source

Wretches & Jabberers

and apart from all of the issues and ideas it brought to light, I thought this would be a perfect opportunity to talk about, or rather, advertise Syracuse Universities (SU) presence in the facilitated communication community.  

It was very peculiar seeing multiple members of the cast wearing Syracuse apparel, which didn't seem as strange after our teacher, Lance Mannion, informed us that they had received some training at SU. 

Although, for some off reason, IMBD does not list them as part of the cast, Harvey Lavoy, and Pascal Cheng played supporting roles (as facilitators, discussed further down in this post) for the actors: Tracy Thresher and Larry Bissonette (here is a blog that describes their roles and lives).

Of the two "supporting actors", in 2006, Harvey [Lavoy] received a Certificate of Recognition as a Master Trainer in Facilitated Communication Training from Syracuse University". After a bit more digging, I found that IMBD lists Douglas Biklen as a co-producer with Geradine Wurzburg. Of these two producers, "Biklen is Dean of the School of Education; and is a Professor in Cultural Foundations of Education and Teaching and Leadership, faculty in Disability Studies, and the Senior Researcher at the Institute on Communication and Inclusion at Syracuse University". What ties to Syracuse University this great film has!

So without further ado, 

What is facilitated communication and it's relationship with SU? 

In 1992, Douglas Biklen founded SU's Facilitated Communication Institute. This institute has since been renamed to the Institute on Communication and Inclusion in order to "[represent] a broadened focus developed over the past 20 years, reflecting lines of research, training and public dissemination that focus on school and community inclusion, narratives of disability and ability, and disability rights. Its initiatives stress the important relationship of communication to inclusion".

Facilitated communication (FC): 

"Facilitated communication is a technique by which a “facilitator” provides physical and other supports in an attempt to assist a person with a significant communication disability to point to pictures, objects, printed letters and words, or to a keyboard."

A facilitator, or communication support person "supports", the communication aid user, or FC user, in communication.

For example, in Wretches & Jabberers, Tracy Thresher and Chammi Rajapatirana (amongst others) are users of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) devices for FC.
Tracy's facilitator in Wretches & Jabberers was Harvey Lavoy, and Chammi's was his mother.

For the record, FC has had a rocky road, BUT has been taking leaps and bounds in the right direction to depart from controversy.

Syracuse Universities Institute on Communication and Inclusion (ICI)
The ICI does research and provides training for those who want to become facilitators and trainers.

Current research:

• Master Trainer’s Research Project
• "to identify qualities, skills, characteristics and competencies of highly effective trainers in the practice of supported typing"
• Lexical Analysis Research Project
• "to examine a corpus of texts produced by both FC users and their facilitators for lexical traits and patterns"
• Independence Research Project
• "This study aims to understand how individuals who type to communicate work with their facilitators and trainers to develop greater physical independence and improvement of other typing skills during training sessions over a period of 4 months"
• Mothers’ Life Stories Research Project
• to understand "the perspectives of families and, particularly, mothers of individuals who type to communicate", in order to "[understand] the larger historical, social, familial, and even educational contexts that influence and effect people who type to communicate and their families. With a better understanding of these social contexts (schools, families, friends, professional, general public) [they] hope to improve support and opportunities for the families of people who type to communicate"

Training:

• Facilitator Training
• And Trainer of Facilitator Training

Syracuse University has continued to be heavily involved in aiding the voice of those previously thought to be voiceless for the past two decades. SU under the direction of Biklen have been large advocates for the idea of Presuming Competence, an idea outlined in this article by Biklen and Jamie Burke. Jamie Burke is a user of AAC devices, and graduate of Syracuse University. 

Here is a trailer of Wretches & Jabberers:

Nation of Lame: Fighting GMO Controversy With Sketchy Rhetoric and Fantasy

This post will be in response to an article on Nation of Change called "81 Percent of GM Crops Approved Without Adequate Safety Studies".

These are very important questions that the writer is addressing. I don’t want to say that she did a bad job presenting the material, but i feel that if my post was going to reach such a large reader base, such as Nation of Change, I would be more careful about what I said because people will really give it to you if you post sub-par content (just scrolling through her comment section, she really received mixed reviews). 

There are legitimate concerns about the safety of GMOs but a lot of activist are approaching the situation wrong. Here’s a great example of somebody doing excellent research to debunk the “top ten myths about GMOs” 

And besides that there is a lot of research pertaining to GMO safety.

HERE is an awesome blog that helps you navigate GMO safety assessments.

Side note, I’ve come to the realization that even though I’ve had some experience through biology and chemistry classes, I still am far behind the biotech and biochem PhDs doing this research. The GMO fight is not something that can be effectively done by "lay people" unless they have received extensive training on the matter. People are making outlandish claims based on things they think they understand (claims that would be laughable in academia). The only thing us “lay people” can do is push the agenda on scientific study and provide the funds necessary for its advancement (or the alternative, receive extensive education on the matter so we can conduct our own research). I try to avoid writing about dense science, and honestly, I find it difficult to read articles by freelance journalists on scientific matters for they often fumble through the material and in some instances create wicked conspiracies of misunderstandings. I picture a journalist walking into an operating room and criticizing the physicians technique. Journalists are good writers (usually), but I don’t trust their understanding any more than I trust my own (unless they were former biochemists etc...) It’s sad because people take their word as scripture. 

End Rant.

Okay, now begin blog post.

First I wanted to complain about this:

Sarich states: 

"A new study published by the risk-assessment journal Environment International states that of the GM crops approved for planting and marketing globally” 

while the source she links you to states: 

"The authors identified 47 GM crop plants that were approved by at least one food safety regulator somewhere.”

while the final source and scientific article states:

"Our search found 21 studies for nine (19%) out of the 47 crops approved for human and/or animal consumption.”

and lists in there results the years in which each “product” was "first approved somewhere in the world for human and/or animal consumption”.

It seems like a bad game of telephone. Each succession after the original lost important content/context. Where is she getting the “marketing globally part”, maybe i’m missing it...

The most important part of this article, a point that I feel the writer was trying to pass over without much though was their claims about industry-biased data. What I feel they don’t realize is why this practice is in place.

"The FDA policy (unchanged since 1992)²⁰ places responsibility on the producer or manufacturer to assure the safety of the food, explicitly relying on the producer/manufacturer to do so: “Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the producer of a new food to evaluate the safety of the food and assure that the safety requirement of section 402(a)(1) of the act is met.” source

FANTASY: I can understand public concern with “industry-biased data” but could you imagine the governments expenses (aka tax money) on research alone if the FDA had to personally fund the research to test EVERY product that came to their door. There are not enough scientists (or tax dollars) in america for that task.

As I continued to read, the large majority of these GM crop varieties may fall under what the FDA likes to call “biosimilar”.
  

In fact, after a short scroll, the FDA calls this specific example “substantial equivalence”. The answer to this whole article lies in this scientific paper, i’m not really sure what they’re trying to prove… It almost seems like common sense why there are not exorbitant amounts of studies out there.

"Substantial equivalence relies on the premise that the safety of GM food can be assessed through a comparison with compounds or organisms of known safety. "

"The test for substantial equivalence… assesses the toxicity of the new protein the plant has been designed to produce, such as an insecticidal protein or a protein conferring herbicide tolerance. Based on the safe history of consumption of that protein in its wild-type form, the protein is deemed safe (Kuiper et al., 2001). If the test for substantial equivalence shows no differences outside what could be obtained through natural variation, then food regulators may not require further examinations.” source

FANTASY: Why would any company spend valuable money and time on a something that is not required of them? This is the sole reason that there is a lack of scientific research surrounding GMOs; the research that has been done already has been excepted as sufficient evidence of their safety in Americas case, by the FDA. 

The crops are being approved because the genes that are being used have been approved. 

I guess I should also add that by the FDAs standards, is there a lack of research surrounding GMO safety? I believe the FDA feels they would be beating a dead horse if they required any more studies. This is a common practice in the scientific world, and in fact a key question when requesting grant money is "Are you repeating experiments that have already been undertaken?"

The third most important part of this that the study was not just for crops approved in the USA, in fact the study only states that the crop was approved “somewhere”. I would be intrigued to see data on just GM crops approved for human consumption (and feed I suppose) in the US vs. scientific studies outlining their safety for consumption. 

One complaint that I have about this scientific paper is the same complaint the writer of the article had (which is actually not their point but rather a weakness the paper stated it had): the study is limited to "long-term rat feeding studies of no less than 90 days duration”. The scientific article authors try to support their short coming with this statement: 

"The present review limited the search to only include feeding studies done on rats so that the results may be comparable. It is possible that more studies may be found if the search were to be extended to other animals. However, based on what has been found for rat studies, it is unlikely that any additional studies would involve a thorough safety investigation and a detailed report of all of the 47 approved GM crops possessing one or more of the three traits. Moreover, the rat model is the accepted OECD standard for toxicological studies of this type.” source

Allow me to paraphrase: “there could be more studies out there… we just didn’t look. But hey, our study is great and I doubt anyone could do a better job than us in comparing results, don’t worry about it. And if you’re worried about it, and us using one model, forget about it, the rat model IS THE ACCEPTED OECD STANDARD FOR TOXICOLOGICAL STUDIES OF THIS TYPE BECAUSE IT IS SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT TO OTHER MODELS”. 

Doesn’t that seem a bit hypocritical? The basis for the validity of their study is the basis for the invalidity of the FDA’s substantial equivalency. Toxicological studies are done in rats to determine safety in other animals, could this possibly be the same for a gene within a plant? Idk maybe this is a null point. 

My final complaint (I swear) came to mind when Sarich stated: "There are obviously other ways to conduct safety tests, but these were not conducted either.” She doesn’t offer any support for this statement, and the original article even states that "It is possible that more studies may be found if the search were to be extended to other animals.”

Devils advocate:

A two second google search gave me an awesome website to compare scientific results pertaining to GM crop investigation. 

I searched their website for Bt maize (a herbicide resistant maize):

The results highlighted studies done using the Bt maize in the following systems:

1. honey bees
2. arthropods
3. dairy cows
4. nematodes

and many others. It’s a shame this website hasn’t been updated since 2012.

I’m still stuck on the notion that I don’t think our government would feed us poison if they knew about it. If we’re all dying, who will pay the taxes? 

There’s also a lot of mistrust and disbelief in science’s current understanding of genetic information. But, it is surprising how much we do know and understand. There is ALOT of funding and consequently research going into something called gene therapy, it’s just incredible.
Gene Therapy 1
Gene Therapy 2

This all aside, I knew there wasn’t a huge research base surrounding the safety of GMOs but i would have never guessed that this was because the FDA already feels their safety has been established. 

Do I think there should be more research surrounding GMOs? Yeah, probably (if only just to end this argument). If only there was money in independent research to determine the safety of GMOs once and for all (I feel like that’s something people would do if they were really concerned). But then again someone will always point the bias-finger at whoever funds the research. It’s a sad paradox.

A Short Case Study on Bias

source

An expansion of useful bias through a classmates cat eyes. The post I will be exploring is "The Time to Embrace my Bias".
Basically a compilation of questions and ethical concerns.

I should probably start with a formal definition of the word:
Bias is an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective, often accompanied by a refusal to even consider the possible merits of alternative points of view. People may be biased toward or against an individual, a race, a religion, a social class, or a political party. Biased means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, not having an open mind. Bias can come in many forms and is often considered to be synonymous with prejudice or bigotry.<sup>[1] 

So, when is bias acceptable?

The Case
My classmate shared this:
"</sup>I remember in the seventh grade my English class was assigned a huge research project defending one side of an issue we felt passionately about. When I found out a very good friend of mine was writing a 20-page paper about how it was wrong to be gay, my jaw dropped. I just could not believe people so passionately felt that there was something so intrinsically wrong with someone, that the devil was inside of them, and that they were going straight to hell. And he just went off on me when I provided facts and basic humanity against his Catholic brainwashed argument.
My bias led my to defend a basic human right in the seventh grade, and it continues to do so now."

  My answer I suppose is my own bias, but for starters, bias is most definitely not acceptable in the forms of prejudice and bigotry. So where do we draw the line between you being bias and you being cruel?

We will call my classmate Anne, and her passionate classmate Gabrielle. 

Gabrielle, though we are given little information, is Catholic, and presumably a teenager, the sum of which led me to believe the opinions that he holds are not his own. Could the words that he speaks, and so passionately writes be not his own bias but that of another? Is Gabe a vessel of his priest or his parents interpretation for which he regurgitates and imparts? Quite possibly, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt. 
Now let's take Anne, a conservative catholic, I assume from the same part of Ohio as Gabe. Anne does not explicitly state this, but it seems fair to assume that she does not interpret the catholic teachings to be reflective of Gabes argument. Who is correct?

Can we accept Gabe's bias because it has foundation in his religion or does it's prejudice trump? Is prejudice ever justified?
<sup>I'm going to go on a limb and say no....
Is Anne's bias okay? Let's take our initial definition. Are there any merits in Gabe's ideals? Does Anne refuse alternative points of view? Is Anne lacking an open mind? The first is debatable, but Anne most definitely has maintained an open mind (especially with her religious background).

In my classmates post she states:</sup> 
"People often say [that] how you feel about an “issue” changes when you know someone impacted or involved personally. The issue is humanized, and you can finally see past whatever was shaping your bias before."

^{Previously in her post she stated that:
"}both of my mother’s sisters are gay. This was something that I learned at a very young age. It wasn’t something I had to accept. It just was."

^{Do you think Gabe would change his mind if he had a "humanizing" experience? I don't know, usually I feel it is hit or miss. Check out this article by PBS.
My classmate continues to states that: 
"}But I was also raised to know that not everyone can get past their own biases, and all I can do is be willing to be open, to try to understand where other people are coming from, and to fight for what I believe in. 

<sup>I hope this was just a phase for Gabe. 

The teachings of the Bible:</sup>

John 13:34-35 

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Matthew 7:1-5 

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

Fairweather Blogger

It's difficult to describe my blogging experience thus far... As a science enthusiast and major, I often find it difficult to write "on-demand", especially about things that I struggle to find interest in (non-science-e things). For this reason alone, I do not think I would be capable of pursuing journalism, or professional blogging if it did not revolve around my own time and interests. It is for this same reason that outside of a class environment, I do not see myself blogging routinely (not to say that I will depart from it completely).  This blogging class has taught me to pull myself up by my bootstraps and to think critically. My blog has become a space for myself to indulge in topics and events that I find particularly fascinating, and I recognize it as a safe space to express my opinions in more than 140 characters (twitter) outside of the sink hole that is Facebook. Building on this, I do not particularly want much publicity from my writings, I look more to my blog as a catalog of my thoughts, feelings, and opinions (I suppose I blog more for myself than the entertainment of others; God i'm selfish), and as a reference that I can refer to in times of vacillation, and look to as a tool of reassurance in my morals and standing on issues I have pondered. Blogging has taught me a lot about myself, for one, I have found a whimsical obsession with birds (healthy i presume for it has not affected my well being yet). Two, this connection with birds has opened doors to the world that I may not have not found without it (see: here and here). As far as accomplishment through blogging, I am far from success. Blogging has helped me on my journey to establishing a voice in writing and has given me a platform to express and if desired, share my opinions, findings, and interests. 

It would be unfair for me to choose a favorite post of my own for they are all my brain children (that's creepy). Through blogging, I have tried to maintain a congruency in my sanity and reasoning, using rhetoric and rationality to support my opinions. Though I say I hold no preferences, I have found myself quite proud of my "Open Letter to California, the FDA and Those on the Bandwagon of GE Salmon Opposition". I aim to hold this standard of research and skepticism in all of my posts. Research through blogging has taught me two things: you cannot trust anyone (especially writers, a lot of them have no idea what they're talking about) and that other peoples opinions are just that, opinions. DISCLAIMER: I am not trying to put down all bloggers or put myself above anyone, there are very well educated, and experienced professional writers and bloggers out there, many of whom look for truth and are honest in their claims, but there are also those who look to deceive and manipulate through diction. Who do you know to trust? Maybe this is why I find such comfort in the academic realm. Everything is fact checked, peer reviewed and when appropriate ripped apart; overall, I suppose, more reliable. In class, Lance Mannion, has often thrown around this idea:

There are opportunities to be payed off in blogging... Should bloggers be held to the journalists code of ethics? #hnr340aq
— Eric Merrell (@ercmrrll) November 11, 2014

This is a great idea, how do we make it the social norm to report truth? Then again, need this call for honesty exist a somewhat non-professional world? Back to Mannion's idea, I imagine backlash for using science as an example. People will say "well don't corporations pay scientists to fudge results?" They do, this is true, but their conclusions are invalid if they cannot be reproduced; the checks and balances of academia. This, i assume, is a similar environment to that of the professional journalist. Outlandish claims do not travel as far in academia as they do in the social media (check this out)... This post has turned into a debate over professionalism in an amateur world, should it exist?  Food for thought from a disposition of mine: your morals should be righteous and evident in everything 
you do... and of course the classic "honesty is the best policy." A little off topic, but definitely to be continued...

Music: A Connection for the Disconnected

A case for music in education.

Amy Becker Photography. Evan and his Guitar. Digital Image. 2014

“We are like islands in the sea, separate on the surface but connected in the deep.”

― William James

            It is easy to disconnect from the world around you. It happens everyday through loss, love, and depression, through fear, anger and anxiety, and through diseases, disorders and syndromes. But, as James says, the connections that we lose are merely superficial, and that no matter how far we may drift from the archipelagos that define normality, sanity and precedent, our connections lie much deeper than the feelings we can control; they lie in those that we cannot.

            It is with grave sadness that I present to you the fact that these connections, which lie deep within our souls, are being threatened by education cuts. When the economy takes a hit, the education system fights to preserve STEM classes (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) at the expense of the fine arts (music, art etc). Currently, many school districts are dropping music teachers and music programs, leaving children without music instruction at a time in their life where previous generations were exposed to the power of its study (Tan). The result of this loss in opportunity and experience may have more profound effects than what can be measured by standardized testing.

            To explore this relationship, I looked to my brother Evan Merrell. Music reaches Evan in ways I am at lack of words to describe. When Evan looks to music, it is not just as an academic endeavor or pleasurable experience, but rather a physical entity that moves and changes him; an experience I have never felt within myself.

            Evan, soon to be 18 years old, has experienced a life quite different from ordinary. Prior to Evans birth, the doctors were worried that he was going to have Down syndrome because of atypical results from a pre-natal screening. To investigate their concerns, they performed an amniocentesis to look for any abnormalities in his chromosomes, in which they found none.  Relieved by the negative test results, our mother went into delivery with peace of mind. Upon Evan’s arrival to our world, my mother says they knew immediately something was abnormal. At birth, Evan was a tiny baby with lots of dark hair, a high palette, beaked nose, broad thumbs and toes, a melody of features unfamiliar to the doctors in our area. After careful evaluation by professionals in the Kennedy-Kreiger Institute at Johns Hopkins, Evan was diagnosed with Rubinstein-Taybi syndrome, an extremely uncommon syndrome estimated to affect 1 in 100,000 to 125,000 newborns (“Rubinstein”). Evan’s prognosis remained unknown. An aspect of the syndrome involves cognitive impairment and growth deficiencies, mainly in stature. These disabilities presented issues for his ability to learn. To combat these attributes, it was decided that Evan would begin his academic immersion at age 4 through home therapy and a full-day early intervention program for physical therapy, occupational therapy and special training. It is safe to say that Evan’s therapy has helped him tremendously and is reflective in his current abilities. Evan presently is a senior in high school participating in a “pushed in to tolerance” program, which allows him to attend normal classes during days in which he can maintain stable social interactions. Evan has found a deep connection with music, and participates in many musical programs, including an entertainment industry class at his homeschool and a summer program with Sub Cat Studios.  Evan takes weekly piano lessons and explores music through the guitar, accordion and kazoo. Evan’s account of music in relation to his success as an individual is an ode to ability of our innate self to reconnect with the world around us.

            It was decided, that a stable social environment to conduct our interview could include any of the sit down restaurants in the area. So on a chilly, drizzly, Thursday evening, we (my mother, my brother and I) met at the Bonefish Grill in Fayetteville, NY.  As we exchanged greetings and excitement for dinner, Evan rocked anxiously in the back seat of her minivan. As Evan exited the car and approached the building he walked faster than both my mother and I, an exertion of his independence. Pushing through the heavy tinted rotating door with the help of my mother, Evan peered into the dimly lit social ambiance and ignited with sensory conflict. As he stepped carefully into this unfamiliar environment, the stability and comfort of something he knew all to well relinquished his insecurities; music. At medium volume, light enough to not interrupt your conversation, but loud enough to recognize the lyrics, “Rain” by Creed shot down from the overhead speakers. Evan picked up on this, and flourished in its presence, closing his eyes briefly and syncing the bob of his head to the beat of the music.

            Still in trance with the music, I interrupt his meditation with a few questions.

Eric “What is music to you?”

Evan “It is my ultimate stress reliever”, “It helps me get out of tough times.”

Eric “What is a tough time?”

Evan “Didn’t do well on a test”

His insight was evident and reflective in his responses to music tonight. Through Evan’s life, and my experience with him, a heavy influence on his emotional outbreaks have been sensory overload.  The American Music Therapy Association states that music presents many advantages for those with special needs, namely: decreased self-stimulation, increased socialization, improved behavior, decreased agitation, and increased attention (“Music Therapy”). But, need we limit the power of music to those with special needs? Are these “benefits” only of value to those we deem “simpler minds’? Could the complexity and intellect of the abled shield them from music’s influence? I say nay; we may be able to control our feelings on the surface, but music strikes a deeper cord, a cord strung deep within our being. Take for example your own life. When was the last time you were at a social event without music? Music increases socialization. When you are experiencing an off day, how many times do you look to music to lighten your mood? Music improves behavior. The benefits of music are universal, have been time tested, and remain relevant.

            The conversation was evolving, and I was continually humbled by his enlightening, yet concise answers. After our meal was served, I waited patiently to interrupt his classic dinner selection: a plate of fries accompanied by a glass of chocolate milk that is pictured below (“Evan”). As I delved into his insights, his answers to a series of questions caught me off guard.

Eric: “If I were to ask you to associate music with one word, what would it be?”

Evan: “funny” “because there are a lot of silly songs in this world”

Eric: “What do you think people will gain from learning music?

Evan: “When they’re going through tough times” “It helps them relieve stress” “Laughter is the best medicine”

Eric: “And what can that do for their lives?”

Evan: “It will change them forever.”

In a TED talk by Robert Gupta, a violinist from the LA Philharmonic, he reflects on his experiences with Nathaniel Ayers, an American cello prodigy who lost his way when afflicted by schizophrenia while attending the Julliard School of Music and became homeless. Gupta offers his interpretation of what music means to Ayers, and how it reconnects him to the world that slipped from below his feet. Gupta comes to the conclusion that “Music is medicine, music changes us, music is sanity” (“Robert Gupta”). Evan and Gupta reach a congruency with the thoughts of the Greek philosopher Aristotle. Aristotle states that music can fulfill many demands in an individual’s life; especially in it’s stress-relieving attributes. He states, not only can music be used for instruction, but also for purifying the soul and “as an agreeable manner of spending the time and relaxation from the uneasiness of the mind”. Aristotle does not cut his reflection short, but complicates the discussion by later admitting that it is evident passion for music exists in different degrees within people. But, this does not null the argument, for some, the passion that exists in music lies in other activities. Aristotle offers that enthusiasm for a passion is so influential, that it is able to overpower the soul. Indulging in their passions provides a sort of pleasure that restores their persona to tranquility, a medicine for imbalance (Aristotle). Is it fair to limit access to passions in our youth? Where would Nathaniel Ayers be if he did not find music early in life and grasp onto it with the very clasps of his soul? When Nathanial lost his sanity, music kept him grounded.  

Evan did not stop here in his profession of faith for the powers of music. Evan states that music is not just a remedy for human ailment; it is a tool for education.

Eric: “What do you think other people will gain from learning music?”

Evan: “They will gain a better understanding of the history…”

Jamie Myrick, an English teacher, made a statement to Sabrina Holcomb in her article “State of the Arts”, regarding the impact that terminating fine arts in education will have on the students education as a whole. 

 We’re losing the ability to hook our students with what their joy is...That joy is a natural bridge that can transfer over to math, history, and science. The things that are complex and heavy in these subjects become clearer when students do work they have joy in. 

What allows music into the crevices of our being, pulling people together by places that subjects such as math, history and science cannot reach? The Greek philosopher Socrates believed that: 

Musical training is a more potent instrument than any other, because rhythm and harmony find their way into the inward places of the soul, on which they mightily fasten, imparting grace, and making the soul of him who is rightly educated graceful… ("The Philosophers”).

How do we communicate his insights to the world with strong support from modern findings? Through science. Advances in research methods have allowed scientists to explore the brain’s responses to musical stimuli. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), a Finnish research group studied how the brain processes the components of music: rhythm, tonality and timbre. The results of their experiment provided sound evidence that the whole brain reacts in response to music, provoking areas associated with not just auditory stimuli, but also motor actions, emotions, and creativity (Vinther). Granted these findings are legitimate, it is no wonder music reaches deeper and connects vaster than other areas of study.

            The STEM field is important for building a foundation for students academic success, however the study of music provides a foundation for life and for some a gateway to advancement in academics that they may not have endeavored otherwise.

Eric: What do you want people who are trying to take music education away from children to know?

Evan: “Stop taking it away.”

Eric: Why should they listen?

Evan: “Because it’s a good influence on peoples lives.”

Evan speaks from his heart on the matter, and does not stand alone in his wishes. A teen newspaper, L.A. Youth, surveyed more than 1,850 teenagers on budget cuts at their schools. When asked “If your schools had to make cuts to save money, what should they cut first?”, the students placed Arts and Music at #7, behind the school newspaper, summer school, field trips, security guards, custodians and the library (Zhao).  By the time this survey was conducted in 2011, California had already faced massive budget cuts ($109 million) in funds planned for music and art programs.  This substantial defunding has resulted in 700,000 fewer students enrolled in music classes as compared to before the budget cuts (Dautch). When schools face decisions on where to cut funds, are the student’s opinions considered? I am going to assume not. Zhao’s article for The Huffington Post states that when the budget reaches the chopping block, school officials plan to start from the bottom of the list, cutting teachers, administrators and guidance counselors first. Wouldn’t you expect these positions to be necessary for maintaining effective education?

The powers of music reach far beyond what it is being made out to be by budget committees. My intentions for interviewing Evan were to gain insight on music education from the perspective of a special needs student. What I came across was something so powerful and out in the open, that I am embarrassed to have missed it.  Terminating music programs in schools will not just impact those with disorder and syndromes, it will impact all of us, because in one way or another we all face disconnection. The roots of music reach deep into the soil that grounds our very being, uniting and supporting us during times of distress and disability. Music is a therapy, a passion, a tool and a medicine. By reducing our youth’s access to its powers, we are compromising their futures and limiting their success. Keep music in our schools,

Evan: “ We need it.”

Works Cited

Aristotle. "Aristotle on Music." Aristotle on Music. Southern Methodist University, n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2014. <http://faculty.smu.edu/jkazez/mol09/AristotleOnMusic.htm>.

Dautch, Leif M. "Calif. Schools Need to Restore Music Education Programs." Education Week. Education Week, 4 Feb. 2014. Web. 31 Oct. 2014.      <http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/02/05/20letter-1.h33.html>.

Evan with his classic dinner choice., Bonefish Grill, Fayetteville, NY. Personal photograph by author. 2014.

Holcomb, Sabrina. "State of the Arts." National Education Association. NEA, 17 Jan. 2007. Web. 28 Oct. 2014. <http://www.nea.org/home/10630.htm>.

"Music Therapy." JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 162.18 (1956): 1625-626. Music Therapy. Web. 30 Oct. 2014.             <http://www.musictherapy.org/assets/1/7/bib_Special_Education.pdf>.

"Robert Gupta: Music Is Medicine, Music Is Sanity." YouTube. TED, 26 Mar. 2010. Web. 30 Oct. 2014. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_SBGTJgBGo>.

"Rubinstein-Taybi Syndrome." Genetics Home Reference. National Institute of Health, 27 Oct. 2014. Web. 31 Oct. 2014. <http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/rubinstein-taybi-syndrome>.

           

Tan, Sandra. "Buffalo School Music Cuts Hit Sour Note - The Buffalo News." The Buffalo News. N.p., 11 June 2013. Web. 30 Oct. 2014.             <http://www.buffalonews.com/20130611/buffalo_school_music_cuts_hit_sour_note.html>.

"The Philosophers Talk Music." Amazing Discoveries. Amazing Discoveries, 3 Feb. 2010. Web. 31 Oct. 2014. <http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception-music_philosophers_culture_plato>.

Vinther, Dann. "How Music Touches the Brain." ScienceNordic. ScienceNordic, 27 Dec. 2011. Web. 31 Oct. 2014. <http://sciencenordic.com/how-music-touches-brain>.

Zhao, Emmeline. "School Budget Cuts: How Students Say Slashes Are Affecting Them." The Huffington Post. N.p., 14 Feb. 2012. Web. 28 Oct. 2014.          <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/la-youth_n_1277182.html>.

Misogynist gamers, a walking contradiction.

During an e-visit from Melissa McEwan, writer of the blog Shakesville, a specific issue (Gamergate) was brought to light which really got me thinking about women's place in technology and why they would face such scrutiny... Not being able to think of much I put it on the back burner for the week until this evening. A series of fortunate events ensued.

I was doing some work with C-SPAN playing in background when I heard the American writer and biographer, Walter Isaacson, mumble an odd sentence that really threw my concentration for a minute "fewer women are going into programming than they used to". What? Did I hear that right? So, I did some googling,

Walter Isaacson wrote a book: "The Innovators: How a Group of Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution"

And who's on the front cover? A woman: Augusta Ada Byron Lovelace. I continued to google...

Lovelace is often referred to as the first computer programmer. Fascinated with the Italian mathematician Federico Luigi Menabrea's Analytical Machine, Lovelace translated this piece for an English publication. Charles Babbage, a friend of Lovelace's, asked her to expand on the article which is where her mathematical expertise took flight. Lovelace created what would become known as the first algorithm.

"Lovelace’s notes became one of the critical documents to inspire Alan Turing’s work on the first modern computers in the 1940s".

I continued to google... and came to this paper: Pioneering Women in Computer Science

Interesting to note that in the paper, they state that because of the war effort, almost ALL of the early programmers were women. They were often stereotyped because it was said that being a programmer required "patience, persistence and a capacity detail".

Intrigued by my findings I wandered a bit (per usual), found myself browsing reddit, and began to throw around a few key terms ending at the image below from this page. The first general purpose comupter in 1946... with two women working as programmers.

Jeeshum, I should stop using the internet, I could go on and on about this stuff all night.... Here's an article that explains a little bit about whats going on above. (See more in The Women of ENIAC)

Where did women hop off the progression train in computer science? Or did they see the possible dangers of developing games and avoid it? It would be impossible for them to have seen modern gaming coming, wishful thinking I guess...

What i'm trying to get at is that...
Misogynist gamers? But there might not be video games without women... 
How can you express hate towards the gender that set the foundation for your addiction? Maybe that's why you hate them? Addictions are rough, man.

How do we take the "bro" out of "brogrammer" and replace it with "pro". The pro that brought about major pro-gression? Progression that laid the foundation (long ago) for the great advancements we see everyday.
Not to say progression isn't occurring in the absence of women, but is progress slowed by their absence?


Pages of interest:
Women in computing
IT Gender Gap
Top Secret Rosies: The Female 'Computers' of WWII which is on Netlfix
The Wiki page for Women and Video Games (interesting read)

Meet California's New Death Ray

Source

This is the continuation of a previous post of mine (Wind Energy Is Killing More Than Carbon Emission's: Bird Fatalities)

Ok, fine it's not a death ray... but it's close.

Looks like a bunch of solar panels, right? Surprise, they're not. Meet the Ivanpah solar thermal power system, an alternative energy system located in the Mojave Desert (Southern California) that uses 300,000 software controlled mirrors to concentrate sunlight on boilers that sit on 459 foot tall towers.
The concentrated sunlight boils water which turns into steam and powers a generator which in turn produces electricity.

An incredible feat of engineering, and, might I add, very environmentally friendly.

Brightsource has gone extraordinary lengths to ensure environmental compatibility, claiming that they:
- Efficiently use the land (or at least less than competitors)
- Low carbon emissions and air pollution (yay)
- Low water usage (the water they use for the boilers is kept in a closed system), a majority of their water usage will be for cleaning the mirrors (I would hate that job)
- And a low impact on the land (keeping most of the lands natural landscape, using low impact pylons which allows vegetation and natural land contours)

The Problem
When building this facility, Brightsource acknowledged the risk of introducing concentrated solar flux to the air and the impact it could have on birds, but had no idea what the casualties would be. So, RESPONSIBLY,  they 

[asked the] U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) [...] to examine the causes of bird mortality at three solar energy facilities in California, including the Ivanpah project. The OLE biologists found that “significant avian mortality is caused by the intense solar flux that produces feather singeing.

Because of this, Ivanpah received MAJOR backlash from "drama" writers: example a, example b. These article throw around numbers left and right but none of their "estimations" are supported by any evidence....

But, a few more clicks led me to the actual Fish and Wildlife Forensics lab report. 

This report may look a little gruesome (mostly because of the pictures), but other than that, the findings are not as severe as the above drama writers make it out to be. In fact, the report even states that the collection of carcasses was opportunistic, and that they were making no attempt to quantify the deaths which would include carcasses taken by predators and scavengers. The only attempt to quantify the amount of bird casualties was done by Ivanpah, which according to them, only 321 avian fatalities were found between January and June of 2014, stating that only 133 were related to solar flux. Is this true? Who knows, we'll have to trust their methods I guess. 

Obviously Ivanpah is going to defend their practice, what good business wouldn't, especially when it has so many benefits.... Brightsource brings up a great argument for the justification of a few bird deaths at alternative energy's expense:

When considering the impact our technology has on birds passing through the concentrated sunlight, or solar flux, it is important to keep in mind the leading man-made causes of bird deaths:ii

• An estimated 1.4-3.7 billion birds are killed each year by cats;
• As many as 980 million birds crash into buildings annually;
• 174 million birds die from power lines every year;
• Up to 340 million birds perish from vehicles/roads;
• Approximately 6.8 million birds die flying into communications towers;
• As many as one million die annually in oil and gas fluid waste pits; and
• Up to 330,000 die each year from wind turbines 

Fine, you win this time... It's hard to argue that they shouldn't be allowed to continue their practice when there are much larger causes of avian murder (and suicide). It's hard not to jump at businesses over their impact of thing that we love, but this is the wrong battle to fight bird enthusiasts... another time, another place....