Antidisestablishmentarianism (If you can spell it, does it still exist?)

Dear Senator,

 

When Jefferson deliberated over how our government ought to be created, he envisioned a “wall of separation” between religious institutions and the national government that would effectively prevent any involvement of the religion in government and vice versa. However, Thomas Jefferson’s philosophical doctrine has had to face the complexity of religious-political quandaries, and as a result, may have been watered down. It is my belief that today’s members of the legislative branch ought to concern themselves more with striving for a secular government, by separating religious affiliation or rhetoric from their daily jobs, which include communicating to constituents and considering bills for passage. In order to provide a context for my sentiments, it is necessary to understand government’s role in either strengthening or weakening church and state separation. What actions has our government taken in the last century that have brought it to its current condition of church and state separation?

In the First Amendment, the “establishment clause” states that the government may not pass laws that intend to create a national religion. In order to prevent the Framers’ fear of excessive entanglement between government and religion, the Supreme Court has adopted a number of tests to determine whether an action violates the establishment clause. The so-called Lemon test, based on the Lemon v. Kurtzman case, has the most notable of establishment clause tests. Its three criteria are that a law must have a secular purpose, it must not advance or inhibit religion, and it cannot cause excessive entanglement between religion and government. The Lemon test has been influential since its conception in its namesake 1971 court decision. I would urge you to adopt this method of legal scrutiny as a standard for all potential laws you consider.

Many scholars would agree that religion plays little influence in contemporary law. For example, the 1992 Lee v. Weisman decision actually forbade nonsectarian prayers from being recited at public school graduations. In addition, the recitation of a voluntary prayer in public school was struck down in 1962 in Engel v. Vitale. This decision, despite being made by the Supreme Court and not Congress, is nonetheless a significant advance towards secularism in public institutions. Further back in the U.S. history, the 1878 Reynolds v. U.S. case determined that religious duty is not a defense for criminal indictment. This decision actually polygamy based on religious obligations, with the reasoning that permitting it because it is a religious law would force the acceptance of other harmful religious practices, including sacrifice. The Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 also demonstrates the separation of church of state in that it determined abortion a constitutional right, a belief that lies contrary to many religious doctrines. These two cases are examples, I believe, of the proper government action in response to  church and state-related debate.

Despite the passage of a number of laws limiting the mixing of religion and government’s secular intent, some scholars contend that religion has played a relatively strong role in public affairs. In the Engel v. Vitale case, for instance, twenty-two state governments wrote in to the Supreme Court to express their desire that school prayer stay constitutional. Our currency also does not undermine this point. Since the 1860’s, US currency has been inscribed with religious phrases like “In God We Trust,” which specifically has evoked protest due to its promotion of monotheistic religion. Eventually in 1956, the United States passed the aforementioned phrase as our national motto. Another thing that reinforces the perception of weak separation of church and state is President Eisenhower’s 1954 speech which pertains to the “In God We Trust” debate, in which he declares that through establishing it as the national motto, “[we] are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future.” It is a necessity that falls on the hands of you, Mr. Senator, to erase these past condonements of religion within the U.S. government through your own actions as well as those of your fellow lawmakers.

The extent to which our government and court system is influenced by religion has varied throughout U.S. history, but we have been consistent in allowing religious doctrine and rhetoric to seep into political discourse too much.    Despite the evidence that intimates a lack of church and state interaction, as in the Lee v. Weisman decision, there is little doubt as to the leverage of religion in major American political decisions. It is up to you, Senator, to correct these past wrongs and lead America down the path that our Framers would see fit; that is, to end the wrongful influence of religious ideology in the United States government.

 

-The Essential Advocate

Charity (And Why It’s a Fishy Story)…

Dear Senator,

In light of the upcoming talks in the Senate regarding foreign aid, I would like to illustrate to you some crucial points about this topic. As such, I will demonstrate the precariousness of foreign aid packages we send abroad, and how the result of foreign aid lies upon its administration even more than the money involved. As well, I will attempt to explain the notion that well-intentioned programs can end in poor results. Furthermore, this letter will hopefully get across to you the importance of being mindful of the complexity of delivering aid around the world, as well as in the domestic sphere.

They say if you give a man a fish, he will be full for a day, but if you instead teach him how to fish, he will never again go hungry. Indeed, the principles of charity and good will can sometimes be quite counterintuitive. Who knew that giving a stranger money for a day could create little or no benefit over time? Or perhaps worse yet, your money could be inadvertently funding his drug abuse. The approaches to helping others on both an individual and a global scale have been explored and brooded over by series of policy analysts, social scientists, and even typical citizens. Today, though, modern economics has a lot to say about this issue.

Charles Wheelan, author of “Naked Economics,” discussed in one chapter of his book the effects of thoughtful economic policy on  child laborers in the factories of Bangladesh. In citing work from the influential 21st century economist Paul Krugman, Wheelan proves his point that good intentions can go bad. He invoked an anecdote describing a 1993 Senate proposal that would ban sweatshop imports in the United States out of a sort of “common decency” for the laborers who were both underpaid and overworked. The proposal did effectively ban imports to the U.S., but it also led to the sweatshop shutting down, which led to many of its child workers having to resort to an even uglier line of work: prostitution. Maybe the question of which is the lesser evil explains why many people call economics “the dismal science.”

Economics is all about lining up individual incentives to form a plan of action. That is why charity, when assuming that all humans are purely rational agents, does not work coherently in this manner. Adam Smith, the founder of economics, affirmed this idea in his classic The Wealth of Nations; “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” This understanding that humans interact selfishly does not explain all of human nature, but Smith’s quote itself has been a cornerstone of economic thought for centuries after The Wealth of Nations was first published. It is now becoming clear that ideas of charity and altruism can form a wedge in Adam Smith’s model of human behavior.

Even when encountering the homeless in passing, some people say, without a lick of sentimentality, mind you, that these people should just find jobs. Without considering the causes of homelessness such as mental illness that put people at a permanent disadvantage in the job market, at a basic level this opinion towards the homeless is a valid one. Assuming we all enter the world from an equal vantage point, everyone should be responsible for themselves. But of course, the complexities of the real word tend to muddle ideals of self-sufficiency as family wealth, inherited intelligence, and access to education render some people more economically fit than others.

In recent history, the United States government has looked upon charity-oriented programs in a favorable light. FDR’s Social Security plan and Lyndon B. Johnson’s Medicare and Medicaid plans continue to operate today in spite of sharp criticism from the right over sustainability and both plans’ methods of helping the disadvantaged. Critics of welfare plans such as these three tend to draw attention to recipients’ increasing dependence on social safety net payments.

The consequences of federal aid are similar to the implications of international aid payouts in Africa. Charity in the form of international aid often yields a similar outcome to domestic welfare programs, and this  similarity is especially clear in African nations, many of which receive enormous aid packages from the world community. Aid packages are not inherently damaging to poor African nations, but their distribution once the money arrives is what initiates catastrophe on multiple levels of societal organization. Money is sent, but strangely enough, the hapless nations become worse off by their well intentioned endowments. Such countries fall into the trappings of greed, which in turn manifests in corporate cronyism, political corruption, and worst of all, a complete misappropriation of funds away from the neediest countrymen. Incidences of misconduct such as these which arise in poor African nations makes me wonder how far a $1 billion lump sum would go in helping the impoverished in contrast with a well-planned, comprehensive $10 million package. It’s all in the distribution; poor planning of aid could be worse than no aid being given at all.

Unfortunately, it may seem now like doing one deed that is actually good can be an arduous task. This is not totally untrue, but there are examples of people who have employed proper economics with their acts of kindness to make an impact that truly lasts. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is one such group that systemizes its philanthropy with rigorous measures of effectiveness to ensure the most positive effect on people in need. By treating its objectives in a businesslike way, the organization can increase its efficiency in seeking out and implementing the solutions that are integral to the Foundation’s purpose. Through this strategy, the Bill & Gates Foundation has reached all corners of the world, helping the needy in a surprisingly economical fashion.

       The study of economics can make a simple act of generosity very complicated. But if we truly want to help others, we must adapt our approach to the complex world we live in. Because good deeds can have a substantial impact on the world at large, a closer examination of our own altruism, and how to properly direct those feelings of selflessness is critical to ensuring the best result for all people involved in the act of giving. Long gone is the era when we could have simply handed a poor man the proverbial fish and then just turn the other cheek.

-The Essential Advocate

Essay VII,  III.I.MMXIV

Are we Losing Our Use of Language?

Dear Senator,

 

As head of your advisory committee, I wanted to illustrate to you one salient issue in the US that is the “problem du jour” facing the American public today. It is one with our public education and language competence among our students and graduates. Lack of literacy are currently a threat that we have observed to be compounded by the popularity of texting slang that condenses words to abbreviations. This has hence made it more difficult for the new generation of students to comprehend formal text in the prototypical literary canon of English courses. Nevertheless, texting is surely not a fad and its effects on children and young adults’ literacy will only grow. I give you an inquiry with which I intend to inspire thought: “Should we ground students in classic language conventions; that is, grammar, spelling, and sentence structure, or should we yield to rising 21st century customs with respect to the English language?” I believe that you, provided you examine this dilemma closely, can help ameliorate the ambiguity in our public schools through the proper course of action.

 

In today’s society, efficient communication has begun to override the power of beautiful language. Florid wording used in the composition of hand-written letters, novels, and other forms of communication may have gone by the wayside. No longer do writers typically mull over their words in a personal letter in order to express the most artistry. Indeed, texting language is adopted with haste by those who believe that aesthetics take second place to speed. So, is modern culture stripping away our sense of style and expression in our language use? The answer is drawn out, and cannot be stated as an unambiguous “yes” or “no.”

Time Magazine reported in 2000 that over the course of fifty years to date, the average 14-year-old’s vocabulary had diminished by 15,000 words. This is not surprising, since many people realize that words like “farewell” have been replaced by the terms “ttyl” and “g2g” (the latter means ‘got to go’). Eloquence may have taken a back seat in recent years because a word that length may take too long to punch out on an iPhone. Analysts of speeches and other forms of writing have relied on one sort of test that measures the comprehensibility of writing samples from the typical reader’s perspective; the Flesch Reading Ease has been applied by scholars and political scientists to quantify the reading level and complexity of politicians’ speeches, and from their findings, important conclusions can be drawn regarding the trend of vocabulary loss, which may possibly run in connection with the advent of new communication technologies.

In one article published by U.K.’s The Guardian, the aforementioned test had been administered on the various state of the Union speeches given by the Presidents, from George Washington to Barack Obama, and very clearly the information depicts an unmistakable downward pattern in the Presidents’ verbosity and use of language. For example, the fourth President, James Madison, was quoted as having stated, “It would have well accorded with the conciliatory views indicated by this proceeding on the part of France to have extended them to all the grounds of just complaint which now remain unadjusted with the United States,” This was a statement in his 1810 address regarding trade with France and the United Kingdom. In contrast, a look at the components of a modern speech given by George H.W. Bush in his 1990 state of the Union address reveals the succinctness and clarity of modern political discourse: “Education is the one investment that means more for our future, because it means the most for our children.” Perhaps as well, George Bush Sr.’s monologue demonstrates a widening gap in the use of complex language to convey ideas. However, our smaller societal word-pool is not necessarily a bad thing. To re-emphasize an earlier point about the ambiguity in such a change in society’s use of vocabulary, simplified language to deliver an opinion can be positive; it can reach more audiences and has strategic benefits in resonating with more listeners. As well, numerous writers and public speakers have asserted the importance of using simple language, including Ernest Hemingway and Mark Twain, two classic American authors. In addition, oftentimes the more concise quotations from history are remembered. “Veni, vidi, vici,” is a three-word phrase that embodies Julius Caesar’s whole life. His ambitions, his military acumen, and his carpe diem mentality are all encapsulated in a phrase that, ironically, holds its beauty in its own simplicity; “I came, I saw, I conquered.” Despite the years of dust collected over time since the adage’s first uttering, it stands as a concession from those who believe that verbal extravagance is key to English lexical mastery. Brevity has its uses just as much as length does in the expression of ideas to wider array of listeners. Apparently, so does the spelling error, to the agony of purists around the world.

Apple Computers’ famous catchphrase, “Think different” has inspired swaths of people to embrace the company’s personal computing devices. Recently, it has been preserved by modern culture to exemplify the late Steve Jobs’s unconventional mentality, and today it serves as a reminder that excellence is made through uniqueness. In spite of the indelible significance of this phrase, it contains a hidden spelling error. To be precise, “Think different-ly” is the proper way of writing it. But for some reason, the latter quote is not as eye-catching as the original in terms of appealing to a wider group of people, and hence the improper wording stays. Yet another example of incorrect wording is on the brand label of many popular cereals, most notably being Fruit Loops, wherein the word “fruit” is spelled with two O’s instead of the correct convention, which is to use the “u-i” letter combination. To the disdain of many book-lovers and logophiles alike, the bastardization of our language through dramatically reduced vocabularies and intentional spelling errors is rampant. Errors like these may be minimal at first glance, but in fact they may contribute to an overall problem of disrespect for our language’s rules and conventions, which in turn could lead to lower standards of literacy and poor articulation skills across the English-speaking world.

On the other hand, we could be leading a revolution. A revolution in modern language, that is. Every year, institutions compile new words into their already overflown stockpiles of words from yesteryear and enter in neologisms such as “emoji” (coined in the early 1990s) or “blogosphere” (coined in 1999). So perhaps the fancified verbiage we spoke with daily from centuries past is becoming antiquated before our very eyes. Language is becoming more suited to the common man as cultures diffuse through the internet and other high-speed technologies, and colloquialism is being appropriately reduced to necessary levels of application in our speech, writings, and literature. New words being invented every day to express contemporary concerns and interests are an example of how what may have been denounced as an atrocious debasement of our formal system of self-expression is now looked at as a great new thing, an entrance into an age where writing belongs to all of us, and language is accessible to even those who do not know the meaning of the word “extirpation.”

It is quite difficult to say unequivocally whether or not the current transformation of English is an advancement or a regression. Possibly our modern transfiguration of language is a step towards universal accessibility.  And so maybe the virtue in using big words is not lasting. There are many dimensions to our generation’s language debate, yet regardless of opinion, we must realize the colossal overhaul in the way we apply language to our lives everyday. It must be acknowledged, for better or for worse. However, texting and other new forms of language have come about, and our public institutions will either sink or swim depending on their reaction to this phenomenon.

-Essential Advocate

Essay VI,   I.XXVIII.MMXIV

I WANT YOU [To Be Yourself]

          The notion of individuality, or rather, the lack thereof, is a growing topic of concern for conscientious intellectuals today. Uniqueness and self-identity seem to run opposite the elements of our modern world as more and more things are designed to appeal to the masses and consequently, generalities overtake distinctions. Ostensibly, the complaint that one’s culture is in decline is more or less a whiny cliche amongst the idealists in our world. However, truth be told, our culture may very well be in decline, but each citizen (i.e. you) has the power to prevent such a calamity.

          Self-expression is at first glance something of an abstract word, but in fact the concept lies at the heart of each person’s being. Freud identified self-expression as the id, an essential part of the trio of drives that characterize each human being. It functions by seeking out pleasure, regardless of the consequences. Its equally eminent rival, the ego, regulates these primal motivations and seeks to “calm us down” in effect. The ego is involved in the internalization of social rules, whereby people learn to “simmer down” and behave like the group does. Certainly there is a psychological basis for individuality, and its mere expression on occasion can reshape our whole world by way of the domino effect.

          A great deal of evidence for the power of self-expression is concealed right under our banal reality. Countercultures exemplify the notion – the hippie culture, the Beat Generation, to name a few – they all represent groups of people who absconded from mainstream society in order to find a particular niche for self-expression. The Romantic movement, starting in Europe and then travelling to America around the early 19th century, helped uproot the norm by emphasizing a distinctly “poetic” world-view in response to the established principles of the Enlightenment, which adhered to scientific truths more than subjectivity and conscience. Regardless of the movement’s intent, the Romantic movement helped cause a ripple in the otherwise mundane fabric of society that, like good exercise, would lead to improvement over time.

          Today we see quite a few mediums of expressing our individual feelings, although at the same time as our world grows smaller we pass more and more judgment on our non-conforming friends. The internet is likely the  quintessence of our post-millenial age, and through blogging, Youtube, and social media we can express our sentiments to a wider array of people than ever before. In spite of the remarkable advances brought forth with the digital age, there is a caveat. In a way not unlike that of Orwell’s classic 1984, we are all being watched. Private affairs are becoming increasingly external, as demonstrated perhaps best by the 2011 Weiner scandal, in which a married Congressman was found to have sent lewd pictures via text to another woman. The proliferation of security cameras all around the London metropolitan area is another example of the contention associated with the changes in our world’s technology infrastructure. The classic argument, “What exactly is private?” comes up much more often today than previously, and concern about privacy leads even more people to stick to being average, being typical, being the status quo. There is nowhere to place blame for these inconveniences, and no one can blame themselves for being precisely normal. This is because “normal” is just the starting point for greatness. “Normal” represents the members of our species who fear an aberration from the regular elements of life. Building up from here, people who move past the burden of fearing what is different can reach heights that were thought to be unattainable by the majority, who have yet to move on from their trepidation of all things novel.

     All things having been said, our world has an dire need for individuals. Those who are strong enough not to blend in with the pack, be complacent with the everyday normal, and conform for conformity’s sake. Our world is fraught with brick walls that most people cannot overcome, especially the weak-minded. With practice, though, anyone can amass the conviction to do things differently. Next time you are out doing your daily routine, try to do something out of the ordinary (within reason). With determination and time put in, anyone can gather the confidence to stand out and be heard. Consider this a call to action for all individuals out there who are never content with what is, only what can be. There are too many people on the Earth for you not to be your own person.

 

Essay V,   XII.XXXI.MMXIII

The MBTI: Take It With a Grain of Salt

 

Dear Senator,

The second-term election is on the bound, and I wanted to inform you that your advisory committee has been putting in herculean efforts to ensure you a secure reelection campaign. With this, it is proper that you possess knowledge with regard to our campaign strategies. The committee has been employing the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to analyze portions of our electorate based on personality, which we believe presents itself in concentrations based on other factors, such as ethnic background and socioeconomic status.  The MBTI has been a linchpin of our campaign research, and I personally feel it would be to your benefit to offer you a synopsis of the MBTI and its uses within the context of political campaigns.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has been the crucible of corporate operations management since its creation in the early 1940’s. Based on the theories of Carl Jung, the Swiss psychotherapist and founder of analytical psychology, the MBTI was an extrapolation of Jung’s statements on personal archetypes. The invention of Katherine Briggs and her daughter Isabel Myers, the MBTI has garnered acclaim. The insights that the test provides its takers often lead to other questions; “Is this test truly accurate?” and, “Is my destiny already set in stone?” The cut-and-dry test results of the MBTI have been a source of perpetual mistrust amongst test-takers and others. Just as the test creates a dichotomy between character traits such as introversion and extroversion, one further dichotomy must be acknowledged between the staunch supporters of the MBTI’s exactitude and their counterparts who struggle to believe in the conclusive statements it makes about one’s psyche.

On a personal account of taking the test, I recall receiving the type “INTJ”, which should be a source of pride given the type’s rarity and advantageous qualities like intelligence. But more distantly, as I look back, I remember taking the test for the first time and getting different results – “INFP.” After receiving this score, I was delighted at the knowledge I just accessed about my own character. Learning of my purported personality type gave me a sense of mutual understanding. What these members wrote about themselves seemed to apply to me as well. The strange thing was, the results removed my self-attributed uniqueness and instead dropped me into a pool of other humans who acted and thought, apparently, just like me. One year later, I took another test that had one hundred questions (give or take a few) and received the INTJ marker. There was still the “I-N” piece, which indicates relative introversion and an intuitive nature, yet still half the characteristics were flipped. I propose that this change is because of a change in personality between testing periods and not inaccuracy of the test.

The MBTI is, in all honesty, a rudimentary analysis. By associating itself with turn of the century psychological breakthroughs, the test projects an aura of infallibility, accomplishment, and a priori knowledge. But the reality holds that we have more control over our tendencies than Katherine Briggs and Isabel Myers would infer. It is best to adapt an existentialist approach to the theme of individual archetypes. It is the man who creates himself, not vice versa.

The MBTI is held in high-esteem by certain professionals. Many organizational leaders rely on it to enhance communication between company members. But of course, with any notable work, it has its share of naysayers. Critics might be quick to point out that the two founders (Myers and Briggs) were not licensed psychologists but instead were students of Jung’s work. However, Briggs and Myers must be praised for applying to reality the dense Jungian theories that explain our behaviors. Albeit crude, the Type Indicator is deemed a somewhat reliable source by the majority of users. And even though its results become blurred when used on real people, the test gives us new levels of explanation for what was previously incomprehensible. The MBTI in essence gives clarity to the most complex component of human diversity: personality. While it is not exactly a pure science, it provides a good deal of order to the unpredictable nature of our own idiosyncrasies. So, if employed with a skeptical perspective, the Myers-Briggs test can still be an effective introduction to the psychology of our constituents, revealing their inclinations, preferences, and desires, thereby facilitating a better system of complying with our voters’ needs.

-The Essential Advocate

Essay IV,  XII.IX.MMXIII

Related articles

• Is Myers-Briggs any better than a horoscope? (matteroffactsblog.wordpress.com)
• Myers Briggs (beckamillard.wordpress.com)

To Be Or Not To Be: On the Cuba Embargo

Dear Senator,

 

Ever since the Bay of Pigs, things have been relatively hazy with Cuba. As a country 11 million strong under the grip of a communist dictator it terrified politicians in Washington. In fact, the notion of a communist dictatorship just a boat ride away from Miami was the realization of many politicians’ nightmares. It struck fear into the hearts of the legislators, especially those who preached a policy of containment during the Cold War.

Now it has been fifty four years since the ouster of the U.S.-friendly Batista and the installment of Castro as leader on the island. Due to circumstances such as a long-gone Communist Bloc and an softening of economic policy similar to the Soviet Russian perestroika, we need to rethink our agenda in order to foster a new relationship with Cuba and advocate for our own interests. After all, the new Cuban society seems like it is open to negotiations in the name of progress.

Just two days ago, the Global Post released an article detailing the establishment of a port on the northwestern coast of Cuba, which may soon be a radical accomplishment for its citizens. The government also acknowledged that this region would now be the nation’s first capitalist sector, facilitating trade between other countries, notably China, and itself. While China is ready to jump on the Cuba bandwagon and become the nation’s main trading partner, we need to angle ourselves into a deal right now before Cuba overlooks us in its economic strategy.

Ostensibly, the small island nation looks decrepit, devoid of any useful resources and human capital. But a closer understanding of the country may bring to light the country’s advantages. There is a high standard for healthcare in Cuba with its large population of doctors (6.7 per 1000 people) and its medical professionals are used in gestures of good will to send aid to friendly nations. Cuba has an abnormally large pool of trained professionals, for whom the Cuban salary is not sufficient, who could fill undesired jobs in the United States. Additionally, the rest of the population could be molded into a source of inexpensive labor, which is arguably a better alternative to outsourcing labor to China and racking up debt with our adversarial trade partner.

Evidently, the tensions that caused the Cuba embargo have evaporated decades ago. On top of that, Cuba seems to be opening up to capitalism on its own as it once did before its 1959 revolution. Even the Obama Administration favors a more lenient policy towards Cuba and the abolition of an embargo that just “doesn’t make sense.” Largely, opening up negotiations with our Caribbean neighbor could bring about the engagement of American investors and a new source of human capital that could reap unprecedented rewards for our country. The benefits of such a treaty outweigh any substantial doubts to the extent that backing out of a U.S.-Cuba deal would seem absurd. The clock has struck the right hour – it is time to reopen talks with our forsaken ally.

-The Essential Advocate

Essay III,   XI.XXVIII.MMXIII

Related articles

• UN General Assembly Votes Against US Cuba Embargo (nytimes.com)
• Obama to revise Cuba embargo (worldbulletin.net)
• The United Nations Vote on the Cuba Embargo – 22 Years In a Row (foreignpolicyjournal.com)

The Far-Out Influences of The Americans with Disablities Act

      

Dear Senator,

 

In response to your queries regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act and its impact on the United States legal system and private business affairs, I have assembled a succinct description of the policy’s history. Along with it I bring up a transformative legal case that applied the law to a major sports tournament which brought the ADA into the American spotlight.

The Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted by Congress under the George H.W. Bush administration in 1990. As one of the most progressive stances on civil rights yet in the United States, the ADA drew bounds of controversy for the proposals it established and the law’s sheer novelty to the American public. One of the best known cases regarding the interpretation of the ADA was the lawsuit of professional handicapped golfer Casey Martin against the PGA Tour Corporation, in which he sued the company for forbidding him to use a golf cart on the course despite his congenital leg disability. The court case of PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin set forth a new era of interpretation of such disputes regarding the right to accommodate a few while substantially affecting the larger group at hand.

The Supreme Court should rule that disabled people should be accommodated for within reasonable grounds. As well, a law regarding this matter should be limited to the extent that the accommodations need not be made if they substantially alter the nature of the activity. This should be the balance of two opposing arguments – the plight of the handicapped – and the convenience for the rest. Although I personally disagree with the ADA, it is only on the grounds that the policy panders too specifically to a minority of people (the disabled), and flagrantly leaves out any reference to the ease-of-access for the overwhelming majority. Such convenience of use for the majority can be impaired by an unequal policy that is contra-utilitarian in its approach; that is, it caters to the minority rather than the needs of most people.

Regarding the 2001 article on pro-golfer Casey Martin in TIME, due to Martin’s serious physical disability, fair exceptions should be made for him in order for him to fairly compete. However, any adjustments made for Casey Martin should by no means be the new rule, as disability accommodations come in a broad range of forms (and costs). Such extra acclimations for the handicapped can come at a lethal cost to concerned businesses. Extravagant prices doled out for these things can lead companies towards bankruptcy. Hence it should be mostly the business owner’s decision on how to aid his valued handicapped clientele.

My hope is that this brief letter has introduced you  to the subject of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I share the belief that your constituents have that this topic of accommodating to varying degrees for our disabled citizens is relevant to your success in the Senate. It, without a doubt, will be an important asset to your rapport with citizens in the future campaigns you may wish to undertake.

-The Essential Advocate

Essay II,   XI.XVIII.MMXIII

Related articles

• America’s Leadership on Disability Rights Should Not Stop at Our Shores (acslaw.org)
• Court case expands employees’ ADA parking rights (myparkingpermit.com)
• The Casey Martin Case: The Supreme Court Takes Up Golf

How to Restore Our Democracy… Through Debate?

Dear Senator,

 

It is a common concern that US schools are performing below their potential. That is, students are not reaping the benefits of their education like they should. Nevertheless, I have understood that one activity in particular can reverse this issue and turn our students into conscientious and motivated citizens. Yes, learning debate in our public schools just might be the trick to making the US as prosperous as possible. Here’s an explanation.

Debating is a skill long foregone by public secondary schools in the United States. The skill of arguing is no doubt important if you want to irk your colleagues at work or leave a friend frustrated and confused by your remarks. However, the real situational skill gained from the art of debate is how to comprehend contrasting arguments. Students learn how to think abstractly in the forms of ideas and use their heads to rationalize theories of all types. High school graduates who can think logically and profoundly when necessary have a tremendous advantage over their peers around the world who are lacking strength in this discipline. In terms of making American youth into intelligent, hard-working citizens of the world, the skill of debating is indispensable.

The leaders of our world, yesterday, today, and tomorrow practice debate to some extent. President Abraham Lincoln, talk show host Oprah Winfrey, and media mogul Ted Turner, to name a few, all practiced formal debate. It is certain that the skills involved in debate can lead to success as they foster so many things crucial for a wide variety of tasks throughout life, and career in particular. Edward Reilly, CEO of the American Management Association stated, “Critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity are the keys to keeping up with the relentless pace of change that confronts all businesses and their employees [these days].” All three aforementioned tools for success in business are adequately conquered by learning the careful art of  deliberation. The CEO’s past statement is actually contained within a study done by the American Management Association, in which a poll of 768 corporate executives were in agreement on American employees’ lack of expertise in these skills. It was concluded that employees’ facility for communicating well, among other debate-related subjects, was mediocre at best. It is clear enough that we need an introduction of these skills to the 16.3 million high schoolers in America.

Media biases, polarization of the political system, and commercial propaganda are all topics of growing concern for the country and its citizens. Many of our youth get unknowingly drawn into the whim of heedless political and economic ideologies because they lack the education to mentally separate right from wrong, serious from trivial, and the important from the irrelevant information thrown at consumers. Even the infamous dictator Hitler once mentioned, “How fortunate for governments that the people they administer do not think.” Perhaps such a statement held true for the Third Reich, but it is quite contrary to the intention our Founding Fathers had when they established our democratic nation. A government by the people, for the people must not perish from the earth if we have anything to do with it. Our citizens need to be educated in factual analysis, from high school onwards, if we still do desire to maintain the United States’ role as a benevolent chief of worldly affairs.

Students in the U.S. are in the position of deciding; their excellence will prove to the whole world our country’s strengths. However, if high schoolers today are not proficient in debate and the subsequent skills derived from it, their poor critical thinking skills and decision-making abilities will not be a source of satisfaction for our nation’s people. The ability to see multiple perspectives of an issue is no longer merely a complement to a professional’s portfolio of skills. Actually, it is more true nowadays that an employee’s many other skills will complement a core of strong critical thinking skills. Especially with American businesses now being affected by a global economy, differences in thinking that exist between cultures, ethnic groups, and various nationalities are ever-present in the world of business, social media, and just about every other realm of communication between different groups of people. Our secondary schools need to once again pay homage to the myriad of advantages that debate provides its students.

With the United States competing on a global level, with no-holds-barred in the fierce activity of international commerce, the ability to take apart the different sides of an issue would give American professionals a distinct advantage in an international marketplace. Debate as a pathway for teaching these skills is a perfect candidate for the job; students realize that differences in how people perceive the reality around them – paint a bigger picture – that of the greater human condition. The art of debate must be taught in our public schools.

 

-The Essential Advocate

Essay I, XI.XII.MMXIII