"Guns Don't Belong in the Hands of Administrators, Professors, or Students" Response, 6th of December, 2011

                In Jesus M. Villahermosa Jr.’s article “Guns Don’t Belong in the Hands of Administrators, Professors, or Students", he talks about how state legislatures are considering letting people carry guns on college campuses because of the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University shootings (Villahermosa). Nothing good can come of people carrying guns, and that is where Villahermosa stands. Carrying a gun is dangerous, and I would not feel safe being around somebody with a gun, nor if there were guns in the building was I in. There could be many consequences if students carry guns, and not everyone can be trusted. If something were to happen the school would be liable because it allowed the student to carry a gun and is responsible for the event. Even if students and faculty were to carry guns for protection, would they be able to protect people with them? A school shooting is a very stressful situation. And could that person really be able to shoot that person? Killing is wrong; nobody deserves to be killed on the spot, only as a very last resort. But if a student or faculty is the one to try to bring down the gunman, they might accidentally kill them or another person near them (Villahermosa). Students and faculty should not be even trained to use guns, because they should not even have them in the first place. If a person with a gun were to accidentally kill a bystander while trying to save them, they could still go to jail for killing them. They would have killed a human being, and they have to face the consequences. This thought alone should keep them from wanting to carry a gun around.

                Even if the students and faculty were not to carry guns, and they were to store them, where will they be put? Will they be safe from somebody who could be a potential killer? Will the guns be in a place where they can be accessed if there is a shooting situation? (Villahermosa) All these things Villahermosa mentions because they really need to be considered. Being a sheriff himself, he has been trained to do these things, and is more likely to help the situation of a shooting than a student or faculty, even if that student or faculty member is closer to the situation than he is. Policemen have accepted that they may have to kill the shooter, even if they are a teenager. They have accepted that if they hit an innocent bystander that they will be charged with manslaughter. They have accepted that they could face imprisonment for this (Villahermosa). They have been trained to handle the exact situation of dealing with a gunman, and who better than those who are trained for it to handle it? I do not think that those who are unqualified to carry guns should carry them; they would only end up hurting someone. If the time came where help was needed, the policemen should be the ones to help because if there is death, then it should only be dealt if absolutely necessary, and the policemen are also trained to determine how and when that is.

Villahermosa Jr., Jesus M. “Guns Don’t Belong in the Hands of Administrators, Professors, and Students.”            Chronicle of Higher Education 18 April, 2008.

"Texting: A Boon, Not a Threat, to Language" Response, 3rd of December 2011

In Kristina Mialki’s article, “Texting: A Boon, Not A Threat, To Language”, she discusses her thoughts on how texting is not deteriorating the English language as people think, but expanding it. I do not completely agree. Sure, it is adding new ways of speaking already-existent words to a person’s vocabulary, but I do think it is making the English language more sloppy to those who text. She says that texting “encourages creative use of language” (Mialki), but it just does not look like that to me.

I texted for a little while, and, in my experience, saw people being lazy with their words, not inventing new ways to use them. There are of course all of those acronyms for common phrases, such as LOL, OMG, WTH, or ATM, which mean laugh out loud, oh my god, what the hell, and at the moment, respectively. But really it is just the use of the same acronyms heard from others over and over again, and in this article the way she words it makes it seem like texters are inventing new words and shortened phrases in most of their texts. If they were to do this on a daily basis a lot of their friends would be asking them what it means, and with the quick-communication an short responses usual to texting I do not think most texters will want the hassle.

When texting, people that I have texted with at least, are generally lazy and do not put too much effort into typing out the words or using correct capitalization and punctuation. Sure, it’s easy, but after a while I saw it start to creep into their classroom assignments. I myself started to pick up habits that I would use while typing, such as using lowercase I’s when they were supposed to be capitalized, and starting sentences with lowercase letters.

“Not surprisingly, unwarranted fears that texting will destroy the language often focus on this group” (Mialki), is what Mialki says people are putting on young people. Though not likely that the group will be responsible for destroying the language, this age group has always been the source of new phrases and words that have been integrated into everyday language. These words, such as “bonkers”, or “wazzup” most likely originated with a play on words in youthful society. Young people are making long words shorter for the sake or shorter conversation, or laziness, I do not know, but it will be interesting to see how much more this plays out in the future. I do not expect language to become mostly three-letter words in the very distant future, but it sure is possilble. I sure do hope that the increased amount of texting and use of internet does not impede the use of proper grammar and spelling. Mialki mentions “Just as most young people know not to talk to their teachers the way they talk to their friends, they know not to write their papers the way they write text messages” (Mialki). But as technology becomes more and more integrated into the classroom, there is a chance that the “Textese”, as Mialki calls it, may start to push its way into the learning setting and I hope it does not do so in a bad way. I hope that if the English language integrates the use of acronyms such as LOL, it does so when the term is used by most of the population.

Mialki, Kristina. “Texting: A Boon Not a Threat to Language”. Practical Argument, Ed. Laurie G Kirszner and Stephen R Mandell. Boston:New York, 2011. 363-364. Print.

"Do Employers Using Facebook for Background Checks Face Legal Risks?" Response, 3rd of December 2011

                In Carolyn Elefant’s blog post, “Do Employers Using Facebook for Background Checks Face Legal Risks?” she discusses how employers generally like to look at the profile of somebody’s Facebook page to determine whether to hire them. Before they were told to stop “requiring applicants to submit photographs or inquiring about marital status or age to avoid accusations that they were rejecting a candidate for discriminatory reasons” (Elefant). Though they have access to the same things now, I do not think they should be stopped from viewing them. They should be able to research their applicants, but not for the qualities seen above. The employer should be able to see what kind of person they are, past just what is written on their resume and how they act at their interview. In an interview an applicant is probably more likely to lie than on the internet.

On social networking sites like Facebook people sometimes go wild bragging to their friends about doing drugs or drinking. The employer could get an insight to what this person is like, if they are rude or not. An employer would not want an employee that would come into work drunk or high, and act rudely towards customers. But, as important as it is for employees to come to work in a suitable condition, an employer should not deny them a job if they admitted to doing drugs or drinking on their profile. An employer perhaps should meet with this person first, to question them on these sort of things to make sure that poor performance at work does not result from their lifestyle outside of work. If they lied about this in the interview and the employer found out about it later on Facebook, then, most definitely, a meeting should be arranged.

                A Facebook page is open to the public, and it’s the user’s responsibility to maintain their public image if they do not want certain information shown to the public. There are privacy settings for most of everything, and the employer does not have to see what you do not want to see. Even if there are things that should not be seen by a potential employer, why is it there in the first place? People need to remember that the internet is public no matter what, and with enough digging a person can find anything you put on there. I personally would never put anything on my Facebook page that an employer would find to be something to consider my employment with them. I would not mind if an employer looked at my Facebook page because I feel that they have a right to, being responsible to the business that would be paying me. If I were to turn out to be a terrible employee they would have wasted money in hiring me and finding out later that it was a waste of time.

                Even with all the information out there, there is only so much an employer can judge to hire an employee. They have to keep their opinions out and not consider an employee for their gender, race, marital status, age, political status, and many more reasons (Elefant). But even the smallest amount of information is enough to tell what a person could be like once employed. If employers are very careful in how they make their decisions on hiring someone, not taking into account other things that have nothing to do with job performance, then using Facebook can be a helpful tool in checking out a potential employee.

 

Elefant, Carolyn. “Do Employers Using Facebook for Background Checks Face Legal Risks?”

                LegalBlogWatch.Typepad.com. Legal Blog Watch, 11 March, 2008. Web. 03 Dec. 2011.

"Alcohol and Those Under Twenty-One Don't Mix" Response, 2nd of December 2011

                In Joanne Glasser’s piece “Alcohol and Those Under Twenty-One Don’t Mix”, she discusses her belief that the drinking age should not be lowered and how she is working to keep alcohol from being a danger on Bradley University’s campus. I personally am not in opposition of lowering the drinking age. I do not see that there could be consequence from it, even though everyone thinks it will. Most underage drinkers drink alcohol in secretive situations, such as at parties or with friends with nobody around to stop them. I think they are most likely to drink too much in these situations because they would want to show off to their friends or just attempt to fit in with others who are heavy drinkers. If the drinking age was lowered, there would be less of this because there would be more casual drinking, and less of a need to satiate their thirst for alcohol In a situation that could possibly endanger them. Glasser quotes The American Medical Association who says, “There is no evidence that there were fewer campus alcohol problems when lower drinking ages were in effect" (Glasser).  I am not positive that a lowered drinking age will lower problems with alcohol, just as how before it was raised there was no decrease in campus drinking problems before it was lowered. The problems will not go away, because alcohol is usually easily obtainable for underage drinkers now and making the drinking age lower will probably only make it a little bit easier for these students to get alcohol.

Another point Glasser makes is that “The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says that in 1982, two years before Congress effectively raised the minimum national drinking age, 43 percent of underage drivers involvedin fatal crashes had been drinking. By 1998, just 21 percent had been" (Glasser). While this is a good point, there are other factors to consider. Nowadays there are more police officers looking out for drunk drivers, as well as campaigns advertised to college students made to educate students to watch out for their peers and to not let them drive drunk.

Glasser said in her article that she was doing many things to prevent student drinking. I think the things she has done are excellent. “Weekend, on-campus events dubbed “Late Night BU” provide out students with alcohol-free ways to have fun” (Glasser).  This is something that is being done on my own college campus as well and I think it is wonderful to have many things for the students to do instead of going to parties or staying in their dorms drinking. Especially the weekends, that is probably the most crucial time to keep a student away from alcohol, when they have no classes, and their homework may already be finished, they are free to choose and hopefully they make the right choice.

“Our alcohol education program has been expanded and integrated into first-year classes and residence hall programs” (Glasser). I like this because it can educate students that may not know how dangerous alcohol can be and perhaps change their mind on how much they drink. Especially first-years, who come fresh from home and high school and now are free to do what they want may make the wrong choice, and starting off college with that choice, I do not know how that could end well.

Glasser, Joanne. “Alcohol and Those Under Twenty-One Don’t Mix”. ChicagoTribune.com.

Chicago Tribune, 29 Aug. 2008.