Monthly Archives: July 2023

Technology Overuse

Savannah Cartwright

Imagine walking into work one day and being told by your boss a computer has been programmed to replace your job, you are no longer needed and you can go home. You go home and worry about supporting your family and having an income to support yourself. Imagine being escorted into the operating room and no surgeon is waiting for you, a robot is. The nurses tell you you are in good hands and this robot will perform your surgery flawlessly, yet you’re worried about how this will turn out. Imagine your children growing up lacking communication skills and not knowing how to maintain a simple face-to-face conversation. There are some cases where parents don’t know what to do because they don’t want to take away something such as their phones because it will make them upset, yet they want to see them interact normally with people around them. Our world is becoming more like this each day. These are the results when advanced technology and robots have stepped across human boundaries and into everyday lives. It has become a social norm. No one thinks anything of the ever-growing number of self-checkout stations. Not enough attention is brought to robotic surgeries and robot-performed operations. It is normal to see teenagers and young adults not able to get off their phones and have a real conversation with their friends and family. This has become part of our society. It will continue to become more common and progress if technology is not used properly. While technology is not bad in itself, the line needs to be drawn, the line of where technology helps humanity behind the scenes and is not so obvious. The awareness of the line separating the two extremes (using no technology or excessive use) needs to be known in order to practice a healthy (a balanced lifestyle concerning technology) amount of technology use in society. The line relating humans and technology is when technology starts to become the focus over the human race. It is when automation is valued higher than man. And just like technology advances and changes, society will as well, and the ones who care about the future of the world we live in must see how technology is affecting and even hurting it. To monitor this and prevent society from going too far, people need to recognize the effects and should be aware of it in their personal lives. Technology appears good, helpful, and progressive and these exact characteristics are what society seeks. But as the Roman playwright Terence said, “I hold this as a rule of life: too much of anything is bad.”

While technology is continuing to grow exponentially, knowing how technology has grown in the past is important in understanding how we should respond to it. Humans have a tendency or a desire to have something better and newer all the time. As Christians, we know the reason for this is people who do not have a relationship with Jesus Christ are constantly searching for something higher, whether one knows it or not. Also, as humans have turned more toward man and not God, there is a need to search for something better. One way human beings do this is to create and experiment with new technologies, ideas, and advancements. Doing this takes many hours of work and because of man’s ingenuity, many helpful creations created by mankind for mankind have occurred. Many areas have been advanced because of the hard work and time spent on creating something new and more efficient to help the human race. An example of this is cars have obviously progressed since around the late 1880s, when cars were invented. The level of expertise and knowledge has significantly increased because man has continued to work on and experiment with cars. The first computer was made around the mid-1930s; computers have gone from huge boxes to tiny, slim laptops that take up almost no room and can perform hundreds of advanced operations. Animation, the Internet, and entertainment have progressed as man has learned new things about technology and have made it a profession, a hobby, and an area for experimentation. Cell phones have similarly improved since the early 2000s. And because of how technology has progressed, misuse has occurred and negative effects have stemmed from this misuse. The future growth of technology is bound to happen and predictions have been made discussing the growth of robots and technology. The concern today is where technology can grow from here and how fast can it can be done. The answer to these questions lies in the patterns of growth in society and similarly, technology will continue to expand and predictions have been made concerning the rise of the robots for example, and how it will hurt the workforce and the individual. Although these human productions may not always be accurate, man is always learning something new and can look at technology’s growth as a basis for what is to come.

I will now define some terms that are key for understanding my thesis. The following definitions are from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Technology is “a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge.” By technical processes, I mean performing a task through technology or with the aid of technology. Overuse can be defined as “to use (something) too much: to use (something) excessively or too frequently.” In the context of my thesis, I am applying this definition to mean the excessive use of technology, phones, robots, etc. Also, the overuse of technology occurs when noticeable effects have become known to society that stem from when technology no longer holds a supporting role. The term workforce means “the workers engaged in a specific activity or enterprise” or “the number of workers potentially assignable for any purpose” depending on what level is being discussed: a particular business’ or the nation’s workforce. For my thesis, I will mainly be discussing the workforce as a whole, but will draw some conclusions to companies as well.

Understanding the effect technology can have on society is important if one cares about the future path society is on. If humans decide not to regulate the use of technology and let robots run the individuals, workforce, or even society itself, the human race will continue to see a detrimental change in many aspects of life, especially in society as a whole. If one cares about how society functions, how and why it exists, and the future of it, the use of technology must be considered and kept at a moderate usage so it is not the dominating force it could become.

In order to raise awareness of the consequences of the misuse and overuse of technology in our culture, I will confirm two main arguments: technology overuse harms the workforce and overuse of technology negatively affects the individual. I will then refute two counterarguments: technology saves companies money and time, and technology is primarily the new beneficial means of communication.

Technology overuse harms the workforce in three specific areas: the overuse of technology and robots in the workforce destroys communication skills, it can harm specific areas of the workforce such as the medical field, and it replaces opportunities for jobs. Technology overuse can destroy the communication skills of the individuals, and therefore, affect the business or workplace. Technology replaces the practice of speaking and communicating face-to-face among coworkers, employees, and employers. After exposure to using technology (for example, online communication or robots) instead of direct communication, one can lose the ability to read body language and respond properly to others. Robots are replacing face-to-face communication by how people have accepted this new idea of communicating as superior to discussions in person. Technology such as “Siri” and the Internet provide a wide range of information on thousands of topics and make it easily accessible. Because of this, problem-solving skills can be harmed and laziness is encouraged because of the ease of accessing a plethora of sources and information in seconds. The ability to solve “problems” ourselves is beneficial because one is not solely relying on another source (in this case, technology) to do it for them. When technology is used properly to aid human processes and researching information, it can benefit processes instead of cause harm because it is still playing the role it should: behind-the-scenes and not the controlling force. This can debilitate the workforce by technology replacing the aspect of conversing business-related topics amongst one’s coworkers. This affects the business overall because when relationships are not as deep, information relating to the task at hand is not communicated clearly; the overall state of the business can decline because of the lack of face-to-face discussion and clarity. People and work-related topics can still thrive under the proper use of technology. This is because humans are social beings and need to be constantly socially involved with others, on a causal level and a more formal level (Popova). While productivity is a forefront of a workplace’s goal, face-to-face interactions are still needed to have clarity throughout the workplace.

Cell phones, email, texting and social media have largely replaced face-to-face communications. One short meeting or conversation can eliminate multiple text messages, phone calls or emails. The ability to choose the people you interact with, as on Facebook or Twitter, isn’t an option in the workplace, whether dealing with fellow workers or with clients. Interpersonal communications, critical to building business relationships, are more complicated and require courtesies and listening skills not necessary in social media. Too much reliance on electronic methods of communication not only can increase unnecessary traffic, but can decrease vital personal interaction (Nestor-Harper).

A study performed by Forbes Insights who surveyed more than 750 business professionals showed eight out of 10 respondents preferred face-to-face communication in the workplace over technological ways to communication inside the business. One respondent said face-to-face communications “build stronger, more meaningful business relationships.” “Respondents overwhelmingly agreed face-to-face communication is best for persuasion, leadership, engagement, inspiration, decision-making, accountability, candor, focus and reaching a consensus” (Fusion). In its proper use, the workplace has plenty of opportunities for technology to be of use such as opportunities for research and experimentation, but as social human beings, the practice of face-to-face communication should not be forgotten.

A more specific workforce technology overuse has damaged is the medical field. While the negative aspects aren’t well-known among society, patients are the first to understand the faults. The medical field has implemented a growing number of robots with the goal of replacing jobs to help save money and save time. While this decision seems ideal, it has resulted in harming many patients, unnecessarily spending money, and wasting time training people to perform functions they should be doing without robot assistance. From 2000 to 2013, robots killed 144 patients during surgery, hurt 1,391, and malfunctioned 8,061 times during procedures (Thomson). These statistics show only how surgery has been negatively affected by the use of robots, let alone other medical procedures involving robotics. A specific case in which robots negatively affected the patient during surgery is the story of Teresa Hershey. Hershey was told by her doctor she should get her hysterectomy done by a robot yet guided by a surgeon. Hershey agreed to the notion because she was told the recovery time is significantly shorter because the surgery was going to be performed robotically. Teresa Hershey felt fine after the seemingly successful surgery and was able to go home the next day, but that night she felt a severe, stabbing pain in her stomach and was rushed to the hospital. A week of tests yielded no answer to the problem. A diagnostic surgery discovered the technology used for the hysterectomy poked a hole in her bowel. While there was a surgeon guiding this robot, the physical robot itself was the problem: the tools needed for this robot was the reason it poked a hole in her bowel. In attempt fix this problem, Hershey had ten corrective surgeries done. Even today, Hershey still cannot do some simple tasks such as taking out the trash (this simple action causes swelling and hardening in her stomach) because of the damage done.

Hershey along with many others have filed a suit against Intuitive, the company who provided the robot and trains surgeons how to use them (Baron). The robot used for this surgery is called a “da Vinci,” and it costs approximately 1.5 to 2 million dollars. Intuitive, just one surgical robot company, is facing many lawsuits, and there is a growing number of related reports against such companies. It isn’t necessary to spend up to two million dollars on a robot that sometimes is controlled by an actual surgeon when it could malfunction any second and injure a patient. Although human surgeons make mistakes as well, it is unnecessary to spend money on this robot that is an added threat to the safety of patients. A surgeon should perform the surgery, as is a surgeon’s job description, and let technology only aid in processes such as these and help research in the medical field. In the Hershey case, the robot used is not aiding the process because the robot performed most of the surgery, with a small level of control from the surgeon. Although the statistics of robots, for instance, killing patients in the middle of a surgery are not high enough to make this a well-known argument, there is simply no need to have robots try and become a controlling force in the medical field. These robots do more harm than good and should not be use for these purposes. Using technology properly in the medical field can save surgeons’ jobs by not replacing them with robots and continue to leave opportunities open for future surgeons. The ideas and the work ethic behind getting a degree, being educated, and working toward the goal of being a surgeon is a great motive (especially the idea of success, through helping and serving people, school and training), and companies who provide robots services are ruining this highly-valued motive. By this I mean people have respect for surgeons and professionals who worked to get to where they are. Although there is risk with any and every surgery, and human surgeons have made thousands of mistakes, replacing trained, adaptive human surgeons with pre-programmed unthinking machines, and spending millions of dollars in the process, is not beneficial.

Patients’ personal privacy is also at risk when too much technology is involved. Dr. Deborah Peel wrote in her article “The Future of Health Privacy,” “Health information privacy is an individual’s right to control the acquisition, uses, or disclosures of his or her identifiable health data” (Rotenburg, Horwitz, and Scott 174-175). The current use of computer systems and reliance on computers in the healthcare workforce is abusing patient consent for their information and control over personal health data. For example, personal health data in the United States are bought and sold millions of times a day by health data hackers, without the knowledge of the patient (174-175). This happens because the healthcare workforce now relies too much on keeping personal, patient-related information such as their record on computers and servers that can be hacked. While keeping records and patient information on computers, servers, etc. is not innately wrong, more attention and effort must be drawn to keep this information safer. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has spent millions trying to protect patient information, but it still occurs. Trust is lost and people will not go to the doctor as often or there will be a decline in desire to see doctors if people don’t trust them. A society of unhealthy people who won’t go to doctors because of a trust issue is a bad society to have. Reliance on such flawed technology in the medical field to the point safety of patients is threatened demands awareness raised in order to prevent the medical field from being subverted by robots and computers.

The third area technology has harmed the workforce is opportunities for jobs, especially in the recent past. Ironically, we experience a huge political concern of trying to lower the unemployment rate, yet owners of businesses and higher authorities in the workforce push employers to get rid of jobs by replacing people with robots. The future of job security rests on this. Shigeo Hirose, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, states, “Robot technology should not be used to interfere with natural human relations and deprive people of their pride and jobs, but should instead be the silent force behind the scenes to support the life of people” (Wallace 87-89). This quotation emphasizes robots should not be taking over the workforce yet should only aid humans in daily processes. Matt McFarland, a CNN technology writer and reporter, predicts 7.5 million jobs in America will be replaced within the next decade (McFarland). Yet already, in America, robots have made their appearance by replacing retail jobs, cashiers, fast-food workers, and more. Cashiers have been replaced by self-checkout stations and computers have replaced many jobs such as factory workers, assistants, bank tellers, and more that do not require a high-level degree. While self-checkout stations are productive, the amount of cashiers who have lost jobs from inventions such as these is high enough for awareness to be raised when talking on a national or global scale. Even further, according to Daily Mail, 38% of US jobs overall will be replaced by robots by the early 2030s. An example of a country who has dealt with this issue is China. China lost 15% of their manufacturing workforce, 16 million jobs, due to the use of robots. The main problem with technology and robots taking over jobs is the lack of total available jobs that could be given to those who do not have a college degree or simply need a job. If this idea continues, there will be a generation of more unemployed youth than the world has seen before and can lead to a higher crime rate and more opportunities for problems caused by the youth. Also, the idea is bad for the workforce because is shows how society values the machine over man. Society was not meant for automation to be valued higher than man, but it will become something different if this idea continues. This shows just how detrimental the overuse of technology can be. If is not regulated by companies investing time in researching the real benefits of robots in the workforce, the manufacturing workforce in America will suffer greatly.

If America cares so much about the unemployment rate, the ever-growing population of robots replacing people working in the fast food business, driving businesses, and most jobs that do not require a higher education, should be recognized by society. This can be done by owners, CEOs, and high authorities in the workforce conducting more research on how this issue will affect their business or company in the long run and what the real benefits are.

While the idea of automation and robots appeal to businesses, companies can still thrive while continuing to give opportunities for jobs even though humans cannot work around the clock. Companies need to realize that trying to take over the “no-education” workforce causes more harm than good for themselves and society. The overuse of technology can negatively affect the workforce more than people realize, and it is happening faster than most people know.

My second confirmation argument focuses on how the individual is negatively affected by the overuse of technology. One area where this has been a problem is young children. Parents who care about the well-being and development of their children should be mindful of the use of technology in the household for many reasons. The first is the actual wiring of the human brain. The human brain does not stop developing until around age 25 and when too much screen time is allowed, it actually changes the way the brain is wired (DeLoatch). “Too much screen time” can be when a child is “addicted” to gaming devices or the Internet, for example. This is detrimental to the child because the changing of the wiring of the brain can further affect other skills such as attention span and memory. Also, it is detrimental because if technology can change the actual wiring of the brain, it not developing naturally. The average child from age 8-12, according the CNN, spends four and a half hours a day on devices or technology. “Too much screen time” is when the average time spent on technology or devices is four and a half hours a day, a significant portion of a child’s day. Hours a day can have these negative effects (brain requiring constant stimulation, decreased attention span, and more) on a child in the long run. The development of a child to a teenager to an adult is affected by the side-effects multiple hours a day spent on devices brings to the brain and throughout the body.

Second, the distractions, constant movement, and high-level stimulation technology brings and requires affects a child’s attention and memory span in general. The quick flashes of light, ads, pictures, videos, etc. on devices such as phones, tablets, televisions, and the Internet cause thought processes to come to a halt, focus to be lost, and attention span to be shortened because of the constant distractions. When the constant ads and pictures are changing on the screens of devices, the brain changes to seem to need more stimulation more frequently. In the classroom, the distractions tablets and computers bring, take the children’s focus away from what it should be on, primarily, their schoolwork and their teacher. This has become a problem for the teacher and the students’ learning opportunities. The child in a learning environment, who is struggling to concentrate or learn, can affect the learning environment for the class, stunt their individual, overall learning capability, and make it difficult for the teacher to be able to respond appropriately to the needs of the child.

Third, when children become “addicted” to their devices, the natural childhood actions such as playing outside and being active are greatly reduced because there is a developed desire in the child to watch TV or play video games instead. One of the main reasons this is detrimental is the lack of exercise for children. “One of the biggest differences in the way that children live today is that they don’t get as much exercise as they used to.…Child obesity rates have risen drastically over the past several decades. In 2012, the child obesity rate was measured to be 18 percent, which is an 11 point difference from the obesity rate in 1980” (Patel). This article goes on to say when a child spends time outdoors, the child is overall healthier because of the exposure to Vitamin D, which aids in the process of keeping the skin healthy, fight infections, and keeps one’s sleep cycle regulated because it influences the body’s production of melatonin (which maintains the body’s sleep rhythm). And following this, the child isn’t cooped up in the house watching TV or on the Internet, and therefore, getting good exercise.

About one-third of American children and teenagers are overweight or obese, making childhood obesity the leading health concern for parents in the United States. Not so coincidentally, the American Academy of Pediatrics has estimated that the average child spends upwards of seven hours watching televisions, browsing the Internet and playing video games each day….As children spend more time sitting in front of the TV or computer, they spend less time outside running around and burning off calories and energy. Over time, combined with an increase in snacking, this can lead to significant weight gain.

This quotation by Elle Paula shows some evidence on how excessive use of technology contributes to weight gain and obesity. Parents should encourage children to go outside and play, set limits for how long children can spend on technology, and show them the negative effects it can have if rules aren’t set in place. Therefore, parents should limit the technology use for their child in order to not stunt or change the brain’s development, expand their attention and memory span (positive, focused learning environments), and help children get the amount of exercise needed to remain healthy.

Too much screen time negatively affects adults as well. Self-control is a huge factor concerning the technology usage in one’s life because if technology and devices are used in moderation in one’s life, people can continue to thrive and not experience most of the negative aspects of technology. Not becoming “addicted” to one’s devices and technology is the way to remain healthy with it. One of the negative effects on an individual is how the constant notifications of an e-mail, text, or someone liking a picture on social media cause distractions and makes it harder to fall asleep, therefore affecting the quality and time of sleep. An article from Michigan State University states, “our biological and nervous systems react to the light levels produced by these devices — particularly when we use them before bedtime. Our bodies can also react to the electromagnetic signals used with cell phones” (Olsen). These signals unnaturally affect our nervous systems, which does not benefit the body. A Dr. Becker mentioned in this article says sleeping with or by a cell phone means our bodies take in the electromagnetic signals produced by phones, which negatively affects the quality of sleep. Electromagnetic signals were not meant to be received by the body on a daily basis, so when this happens, brain tissue is negatively affected (Raz).

Another place where technology such as cell phones and tablets can debilitate the individual is the constant distractions and interruptions. This leads to everything taking longer and affecting one’s attention span. “Some research has shown that the excessive use of texting and time spent on-line contributes to mental fatigue and increased problems with memory, attention, concentration, and learning — particularly learning at a deep level” (Olsen). By “learning at a deep level,” the article means focusing on something time-consuming and needing to learn information at a deep, intellectual level. When the constant pull of notifications on cell phones takes our attention away from what it should be (work, school, daily tasks, etc.), focusing becomes harder on a more regular basis. Processing information is another area in which the individual can be affected. “The ways in which we take in information on the Internet are different from “traditional” types of reading. When we take in information on-line, we encounter a variety of visual and auditory information (words, videos, hyperlinks, ads, etc.). As a result, we read in a nonlinear way and may not process the information as deeply” (Olsen). Time spent on-line may not be as high quality as reading a book or journal, especially in an environment without distractions, an opportunity the Internet does not give. Also while skimming media headlines and information on technology, we sometimes don’t take the time to meaningfully process and analyze the information before we move onto something else. This shows the overuse of devices negatively affects the individual because it harms the way one processes information on a daily basis; a balance needs to be created between time spent on-line and other types of processing information in order to maintain a normal state of taking in information to the brain.

Relationships and human interactions are also areas of life that can experience the negative effects of the misuse of technology. Humans are made to be social beings, be in constant communication with one another, and build relationships. Ecclesiastes 4:9-10 says, “Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow. But woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up!” As Albert Einstein said, “Without the sense of fellowship with men of like mind, life would have seemed to me empty” (Popova). The importance of fellowship and relationships is shown in these two sources by how the Christian faith and even Einstein believes in constant fellowship for the better of a human being. Neuroscientist Matthew D. Lieberman declares our brains are physically wired to connect with one another. Lierberman says, “The neural link between social and physical pain also ensures that staying socially connected will be a lifelong need, like food and warmth” (Popova). This evidence shows the social aspect of our lives is just as important as our physical (reason for stating the “neural link,” an actual brain function). Our brains are wired, and even desire, to create relationships with one another as humans, and if technology and the distractions (social media, constant ads, etc.) it brings, are not monitored by keeping technology as a supporting role, the need for real interaction is no longer met as it should be. In addition to the idea humans need to be in fellowship with one another, deeper-level relationships are also important areas of life susceptible to technology’s deleterious effects. Technology also seems to lower one’s level of empathy. Thriving relationships, especially between adults, need to have some sort of face-to-face conversation. When there is no balance between the on-line aspects and in-person aspects of a relationship, the relationship will not be as strong and deep. Cell phones and social media have a tendency to focus on “me” and how “I” appear to other people on-line. This becomes a barrier for empathy in a relationship. When two people sit down, have meaningful conversations, and truly engage in each other’s lives and emotions, a healthy relationship thrives and levels of empathy and happiness are felt for the other person. This cannot happen through texting or on-line communication alone.

The first counterargument to my thesis is technology saves companies significant money and time. Many companies believe technology, especially robots can save the business and workforce significant amounts of money and time. Businesses becoming more efficient through robots is the new idea. The notion of the availability of robots and the fact they do not need a salary to sustain them is appealing to business owners. Robots do not need a salary to buy food, pay a mortgage, provide for children, etc; they have maintenance, repair, and updating costs, but do not get a salary. After the robot or technology is purchased, the money factor seems to disappear for most companies. Therefore, when companies are considering an investment to try something new, “modernize” their company, or are struggling financially, adding technology to the business seems attractive and helpful. For example, the average initial cost for a manufacturing robot is 250,000 dollars, plus maintenance and updating cost which can be at least 10,000 dollars a year (Conway). Many companies see this and believe this is cheaper than hiring an employee, when there is no significant difference in the price. Also, if a company is struggling to continue paying a certain number of employees, the consideration of robot technology is an appealing notion. A company could purchase a robot to do some simple jobs and fire several employees. For example, McDonalds has implemented, in some of their locations, screens and kiosks to order food instead of an actual person taking one’s order. This automatically gets rid of the amount of cashiers a company needs to maintain the business. One reason this was done was the concern over the fight for a higher minimum wage. Ed Rensi, the former McDonald’s CEO, stated, “I have said that robots are going to replace people in the service industry going forward,…And a self-service kiosk is nothing more than automation taking over people” (Wisner). This article goes on to say Ed Rensi agreed with the decision Wendy’s made of implementing self-ordering kiosks in over 1,000 stores by the end of 2017, because it would be cheaper for the company overall.

Yet while companies think they are completely benefiting from decisions like these, the cost and money factor is not as beneficial as it seems. The cost of a robot or technology alone is very expensive (average cost is $250,000 for an industrial robot) and maintaining and updating the technology is expensive as well. Ed Rensi also said it is cheaper to buy a 35,000 dollar robotic arm to bag fries instead of an employee. It is wrong to spend this much money on technology that is constantly needing updating, replacing, and maintaining because this portrays the idea that money is more valued than people. The business owners are the only ones who are benefiting from this because they are paying fewer employees. The employees are also being hurt by this because robots are replacing their jobs and are closing doors around the whole manufacturing workforce for jobs similar to the ones they had. The overall negative point coming from the recent spiked interest of robots is the idea that society and the workforce has moved away from valuing the people over non-reasoning machines. People are more important than profits and CEOs should care more about people because they are human beings, just like the CEOs themselves. The well-being of society depends on the well-being of individuals and if the workforce continues to implement the automation, the well-being of society can be negatively affected.

The “da Vinci” robot mentioned earlier used to help perform surgery costs about two million dollars. This robot that performs surgery is not worth the two million dollars that a company is spending, just for it to do a part of the procedure (in most cases, there is an actual surgeon operating the robot). A better way this money could be spent would be to aid in research processes for medicinal purposes and provide a safer way to keep patient information safe. The only ones who are benefitting from replacing jobs with robots are the employers because they are paying fewer people; it hurts people who need jobs, goes against the fight to create more jobs, and negatively affects society by closing job opportunities. The idea of the overuse of technology becomes a real problem when automation is put before the well-being of the people. Society is not in a good state if the importance and recognition of the ability of robots is valued higher than the functions and daily lives of the people who live in it every day.

Many companies also think the factor of robots “saving work” is so beneficial to the point where robots and technology are wanted everywhere. It is unnecessary and a waste of money to invest thousands to have a robot, for example, to transport medications and samples from one room to another in a hospital, when a person could easily do that. Businesses are only paying attention to the little things robots could do to help out a business and letting these be the deciding factor to invest thousands into automation for their company. While there are positive factors of how robots could help companies save some time and money, companies need to realize and conduct more research before letting their business be run by expensive robots who could malfunction and take away a person’s job. For example, researchers from John Hopkins University say, “Robot-assisted colon operations are significantly more expensive than minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery with no better results.” Also, “What we have found is that the robot is no better than laparoscopy and it costs more. It has no benefit” (Desmon). This quotation explains that while this technology is new and expensive, it is not necessary for better results over a laparoscopy, a procedure done by an actual surgeon. When companies can realize how to use technology in a way to help and not harm the company, technology can be used in proper proportions.

The second counterargument to my thesis is technology is primarily the new beneficial means of communication. As technology has exponentially grown over the past several decades, communication has advanced in many areas. One example of this is cell phones. Cell phones make it simple to access people and relate information to other people quicker than other means. Parents can have easy access to their children through cell phones. Cell phones make it a lot easier for children to text parents and tell them that their practice time has changed or provide a quick ability to call 911 in case of emergency. Technology can also help friends and family stay in touch through social media. Social media provides opportunities for an individual to share one’s life with others through photos or messages. “Before this technology, it would be next to impossible for you to find all your old friends and interact with them on an instant, share life and your past on instant. It would even be difficult to get new friends from other countries. But now that barrier has been removed by social networks” (Ramey). E-mails are another beneficial technology improvement to communication, especially in the workforce. However, Emily Drago, a writer in the Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications says, “Little by little, technology has become an integral part of the way that people communicate with one another and has increasingly taken the place of face-to-face communication. Due to the rapid expansion of technology, many individuals fear that people may be too immersed in this digital world and not present enough in the real world” (Drago 13). The emphasis on “real world” catches one’s attention because the digital world is not “real” in the ways words are said through technology, pictures and videos are heavily edited, and dangers of addiction to technology. Many people do not even realize how technology has affected “real life” even today. Drago goes on to say, “Recent advancements in communication technology have enabled billions of people to connect more easily with people great distances away, yet little has been known about how the frequent presence of these devices in social settings influences face-to-face conversations” (Drago 14).

Devices and cell phone interaction lowers the level of empathy in a person. A study by Przyblski and Weinstein from the University of Essex shows people who had conversations without the presence of a device had a higher level of empathy than those who had conversations with a device present. Having a higher-level of empathy is good and beneficial in order to grow the relationship and build trust between two people. Clarity across cell phones in particular is also a concern. In-person conversations and interactions have much more opportunity for clarity and understanding, whereas many things could be wrongly taken when they are stated over a text or social media. The main fix to this is to balance communication (not all communication over the phone). This idea is similar to how, most of the time, “long-distance relationships” are normally not as strong because of the lack of face-to-face communication and lack of clarity. While technology can help people stay in touch, the balance between screen time and real life experiences is always better for quality, lasting, healthy relationships and, of course, the individuals in those relationships.

The problem with the idea that technology only advances communication is that technology and devices are moving in the direction of replacing communication, not enhancing it. Technology, specifically social media and cell phones, are erasing the motive of calling someone (hearing one’s voice), let alone talking to someone in person, face-to-face. Because of technology, teenagers and young adults are not properly equipped with the communication skills needed to have a solid and sturdy relationship with someone. By solid relationship, I mean one that is founded on face-to-face interactions, not through text messages or Instagram. When technology is used to enhance and help communication, and not as the only means of conversing with someone, relationships can continue to thrive and not experience the negatives of misuse. Relationships will never be perfect, but when they are based on face-to-face interactions, they can thrive under proper use of technology. When possible, cell phones and social media should not replace face-to-face communication.

Yet when technology becomes “addicting,” it can be misused. An example of technology misuse regarding cell phones and social media is how teenagers can sit in a room together and not have much to say to each other but are on social media and sharing things with each other through their cell phones. Another example that is recognized is how couples go out to a restaurant and use their phones the whole time and hardly talk to one another. This shows how their cell phones are replacing true communication, not enhancing it. One can use technology to enhance a relationship by staying in contact when away or means of quick communication. This is not hurting a relationship because it is not replacing communication, it is helping it in a small way.

Another way technology does not solely advance communication is its inability to enable people to have tough or sensitive conversations through text. Tones and emphases can be taken wrongly and people can be hurt unintentionally. Also, texting allows people to intentionally hurt, bully, or threaten others, which is bad and causes many problems for kids, adults, and society. In this way, people are misusing technology and because of this, the relationship can falter. This happens because ideas are being communicated over a cell phone, and clarity is sometimes lacking. While technology, phones, and apps like FaceTime are nice to have when used correctly, people, especially young teenagers and young adults, need to understand that cell phones and social media can quickly become something detrimental, not beneficial to a relationship. There is a need for balance. Face-to-face communication and conversations are very important in a relationship because interaction builds trust, shows care and interest in the relationship, and always has an opportunity to strengthen the relationship. When these aspects of communication are practiced, technology can play the supporting role it was meant to play. The balance of technological and face-to-face interaction provides the foundation for a strong, healthy relationship among people: siblings, friends, spouses, etc. Learning how to use technology appropriately and learning how to create a balance between in person relationships and over technology is an important skill to acquire in society today.

Technology can be used properly in order to keep society running the way it functions best: where technology plays a supporting role throughout our culture. As citizens of a society that heavily influences the world, parents should start to address this rising problem by regulating technology’s use inside their homes. This will show their children the negative effects excessive use of technology can have on their personal lives and how much their parents care about them by keeping them healthy and developing properly. Another way society can control its use is if employers, CEOs, and other heads of businesses do further research on whether their businesses are really benefiting from technology’s extensive use. CEOs should value the individual over the machine and automation because they are human beings just like them who could benefit from having a certain job. “Too much” occurs when it is not a controlling force in the workforce and is closing many opportunities for jobs. Also, as Christians, work is viewed as one of our responsibilities in life. Genesis 2:15 says, “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.” Therefore, Christians understand the idea of work and should use technology correctly and moderately to help us in our work. Because of this, Christians should understand the effect having automated robots could have on society and how the overuse of technology can negatively affect everyday life. A third way we can prevent technology’s misuse is by not letting cell phones and social media, for instances, become addictive or prevent further growth in relationships. These are just three examples of how individuals can aid in this process of not letting technology be the controlling force in society today. The concept of controlling technology’s use in society is easier said than done because it is already so integrated in many areas of life, but I believe doing so will help people keep their jobs, help people maintain healthy physical and social lives, and help society continue to function with the human race in control of technology, not the other way around.

Works Cited

Baron, Ethan. “Robot surgery from from Sunnyvale facing lawsuits, reports of death and injury.” Ethan Baron, 22 Oct. 2017. Web. 13 January 2018.

Bhattacharjee, Puja. “How does your child’s screen time measure up?”. Puja Bhattacharjee, 15 Nov. 2017. Web. 18 February 2018.

Conway, David. “Robots Will Save Manufacturing Billions”. David Conway, 8 Aug. 2014. Web. 18 February 2018.

DeLoatch, Pamela. “The Four Negative Sides of Technology”. Pamela DeLoatch, 2 May. 2015. Web. 12 December 2017.

Desmon, Stephanie. “For colon surgery, robots cost more but aren’t worth it”. Stephanie Desman, 20 Dec. 2013. Web. 19 February 2018.

Drago, Emily. “The Effect of Technology on Face-to-Face Communication.” The Elon Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, 2015. pp. 13-16, http://www.elon.edu.

Ford, Martin. Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future. New York: Basic Books, 2015. Print.

Fusion, Jenn. “Face-to-Face Communication in Business”. Jenn Fusion. Web. 11 March 2018.

Liberatore, Stacy. “Watch out America, robots are coming for your jobs: Report finds 38% of US jobs will be automated by 2030”. Stacy Liberatore, 24 Mar. 2017. Web. 15 January 2018.

McFarland, Matt. “Robots: Is your job at risk?”. Matt McFarland. 15 Sept. 2017. Web. 30 November 2017.

Nestor-Harper, Mary. “The Disadvantages of Technology in the Workplace”. Mary Nestor-Harper. Web. 11 March 2018.

“Overuse.” Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com.

Olsen, Janet. “Digital Technology and mental health”. Janet Olsen, 25 Jan. 2016. Web. 27 November 2017.

Patel, Dhruvin. “Will Technology Ruing Your Children’s Development?”. Dhruvin Patel, 4 Mar. 2017. Web. 15 January 2018.

Paula, Elle. “Obesity in Children and Technology”. Elle Paula, 14 Aug. 2017. Web. 18 February 2018.

Phillips, Fred. “Technological Forecasting and Social Change.” ELSEIVER. Web. 17 December 2017.

Popova, Maria. “The Science of Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect.” Web. 13 January 2018.

Ramey, Karehka. “The Advantages and Disadvantages of Technology in the Workplace.” Karehka Ramey, 25 Feb. 2013. Web. 22 November 2017.

—. “Technology and Society-Impact of Technology on Society.” Karehka Ramey, 12 Feb. 2012. Web. 28 January 2018.

Raz, Amir. “Could certain frequencies of electromagnetic waves or radiation interfere with brain function?”. Web. 19 February 2018.

Reddy, Chitra. “Robots in the Workplace: Types-Pros and Cons.” Chitra Reddy, 2016. Web. 7 December 2017.

Rotenburg, Marc, Julia Horwitz, and Jeramie Scott, eds. Privacy in the Modern Age. New York: The New Press, 2015. Print.

Stibel, Jeff. Breakpoint. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Print.

“Technology.” Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version, Study Bible. Crossway Books, 2011. Print.

Thomson, Iain. “Robot surgeons kill 144 patients, hurt 1,391, malfunction 8,061 times”. Iain Thomson, 21 Jul. 2015. Web. 2017.

Wallace, Mark, ed. The Way we will be 50 Years from Today. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc, 2008. Print.

Wisner, Matthew. “Former McDonald’s USA CEO: Robots to Replace People in the Service Industry Going Forward”. Matthew Wisner, 1 Mar. 2017. Web. 27 January 2018.

“Workforce.” Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com.

Education Reformation

Leave a reply

Sarah Mertz Silva

Daily life is constantly changing: the way we interact with others and an ever-growing collection of knowledge about the world we live in, while we have retained complacency with our education system. Every day, children attend school from pre-school to 12^th grade. The current American education system has not changed significantly in almost two hundred years, and the education system we have now is practically the only system America has ever had. The way students are taught publicly or privately has an enormous effect on America’s ability to grow. Education is a means to the future. Proper education leads to a flourishing society and advances in different aspects of life, while poor education leads to slower advances and a struggling society. I would not suggest the current education system is completely failing, however, there are clear signs there is something inherently flawed in our system. In order to pursue genuine education as Americans, the education system must be reformed.

Before the Industrial Revolution, education was centered on virtue, religion, and family. It became compulsory for parents to teach their children to read in 1642. In 1647, towns with 50 or more households were required to hire a teacher to teach in a schoolhouse (“The History”). The Bible was the most common book used for teaching. Students weren’t divided by ages and grades (1^st grade, 2^nd grade, 3^rd grade, etc.) until the Industrial Revolution. The concept of teaching subjects by grade was also an industrial age concept. The current education system, modeled after the Prussian education system, characterized by the use of standardized testing, grade-based curriculum, and specialized education for teachers, comes from the Industrial Revolution, which will be discussed in the confirmation. Most states now use Common Core as the educational standard, a standardized system that designates which subjects must be learned by graduation in order to prepare for the future. All states share very similar standards, even those that don’t follow Common Core. It is important to note it is not the United States government who determines educational standards, rather the state governments do. It is difficult to reform the education system because for almost every aspect of the education system that needs reforming, another aspect must be changed first, or another aspect is a barrier to the change, e.g., the grading system and standardization poses an enormous flaw in our education system, however the need for grades and standardized tests to meet college requirements remains a barrier to possible change.

I will now define key terms and ideas in order to clarify the arguments discussed within my thesis. The first key term is the “education system.” The “education system” refers to the Prussian Model of Education that most 1^st-12^th grade schools in the United States, public and private, adhere to. The education system also refers to the basis for subject-learning, meaning by what point in time a student should have learned a specific subject, e.g., most students should have taken biology in or before 10^th grade. In contrast, the true purpose of education and learning is to better know the God who created it and to better understand His biblical truth. Isaac Moorehouse, the author of “The Future of School,” says there are six “indispensable elements” that must be implemented into one’s life within the transition of childhood to adulthood: confidence, experience, universal skills, network (“a relational Rolodex of people with a wide range of knowledge and resources”), abstract thinking, and special skills (for which I will instead use “real-world” skills) (Moorehouse 7). Real-world skills are skills such as filing taxes, money management, writing checks, understanding insurance, etc. The practical purpose of education is to promote those “indispensable elements” in order to positively prepare students for their future. In this thesis, I will focus on the effects of the current education system on middle and high school students.

A complete reform of the education system is not an easy task. It would likely take years for anything to drastically change, especially considering it has seemingly taken centuries for anyone to realize it should be changed. The first step is asking yourself what role you play in the education system. If you are a parent, you send your children through the education system from around four-years-old to around 18 years-old. In that time, your student is shaped and modeled by the information they are given, no matter how it is given. As parents, you must be concerned with how your students are being educated in order to properly prepare them for adulthood. If you are a teacher, you experience first-hand the difficulties of educating students in an environment that is so terribly limited. You see these students every day and you have been given the task of equipping them for the future. Students, you are the ones being educated. You are the future, and you of all people should be concerned about the American education system. The second step in reforming the education system is acknowledging that the system is flawed, and pinpointing which aspects are harming advances in the system, which I will do in this thesis.

To prove the necessity of a reform in American education, I will confirm three arguments: the American education system is too outdated, standardized tests and grades only hinder students’ desire to understand and learn, and the education system lacks a foundation for teaching students real-world skills. I will then refute two counterarguments: there isn’t necessarily anything wrong with the education system, rather the reason students have such a difficult time with school is they choose to participate in too many extracurricular activities, and being a student is one’s job until he or she graduates, so neglecting sleep is worth the long-term benefits of ample time spent in the classroom.

My first confirmation argument is the American education system is too outdated. The current education system began during the Industrial Revolution in the late 18^th through early 19^th centuries and has not significantly changed in almost two-hundred years. The Industrial Revolution marked an extremely important shift in America and Europe. Countries that were once agriculturally based became urban, with factories and mass-production drastically changing social, economic, and cultural experiences across the globe (“Industrial Revolution”). This industrialization affected almost every facet of society, including education.

In the 1800s, Horace Mann traveled parts of Europe to find a school system he thought was best. During that time, schools were usually run by the community or families, and Horace Mann felt as though America needed a standardized education system, where everyone had equal opportunities to learn, funded by taxes. As he traveled multiple countries in Europe, he noted the different education systems and concluded he liked the Prussian system the best. Mann strongly advocated for the implementation of the Prussian system in America (Burrus and Powell), and after his death in 1892, the Committee of Ten, a group of educators, decided on a 12-year, compulsory, standardized American educational system (Khan and Noer).

Beyond the fact the Prussian model came about during the Industrial Revolution, much of our education system revolves around preparing students to become factory workers, not doctors, engineers, artists, etc. During the Progressive Movement in the early 1900s, scientific management played a huge role in the standardization of the education system. Kevin Currie-Knight, a teacher in the Department of Special Education Foundation and Research at East Carolina University, says scientific management was an idea created by industrialist Frederick Winslow Taylor, where he wanted to figure out the best way to do every job in a factory. Kevin says, “Educators loved this idea because they thought, ‘Oh, we can use this too. We can figure out the one best way to educate so that we can make the best use of time, best use of resources, so that we don’t have to trust individual teachers, to figure out how to teach individual classes. If we can figure out the one best way, we can standardize this whole process’” (Burrus and Powell).

Author Seth Godin said, “The sole intent of the education system was to train people to be willing to work in a factory” (Next School). Isaac Moorehouse, founder and CEO of Praxis, describes the educational transition from childhood to adulthood as such: “What ought to be an organic, non-linear, highly individualized transition, much like that of a toddler from crawling to walking, is instead a formal, hierarchical, one-size-fits-all assembly line from student to worker” (3).

Salman Kahn, founder of Kahn Academy, and Michael Noer, a writer for Forbes magazine, also describe the education system as an assembly line, where children of a certain age are thrown into a bucket together and sent down the line where information is given to them at the same pace. Some students will understand the information in the given amount of time and others won’t (Kahn and Noer). Kevin Currie-Knight argues there might not be a better or best option for the school system, however, the industrial age system is not currently working well. He believes our current education system, where classes “organize into 40-minute periods per day” and students “do this for 40 minutes and then go down the hall and go in another room and do that for 40 minutes…” seems more organizational rather than pertaining to genuine teaching and learning (Burrus and Powell).

Common Core is a set of educational standards most of America now uses whose purpose is to “ensure that all students graduate from high school with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in college, career, and life, regardless of where they live” (“About the Standards”). 42 states have adopted Common Core as their educational standard; the rest use very similar educational standards with the same goal. Virginia, for example, uses SOL’s, Standard of Learning, as its educational standard, in which students take standardized tests to ensure the school is meeting the requirements for state standards. Both Common Core and SOL follow concepts of the Prussian Model, which means despite Common Core’s and SOL’s claims of preparing students for the future, they are really preparing them for the past.

There is one enormous problem with reforming the education system in a country where standards such as Common Core or SOLs exist. The majority of universities and colleges around America depend on GPA, the ACT, and the SAT to accept students, and nearly all of them require a minimum number of years of learning in select subjects, which is likely one of the greatest reasons the education system hasn’t changed. It’s just not that easy. This is not to say colleges and universities are stuck in the past also as they don’t necessarily follow the Prussian Model, however major changes in the current middle/high school system could potentially and would most likely lead to major changes in colleges as well. Let’s say Texas wanted to completely alter its method of education. Students in Texas would still be responsible for completing certain subjects by the time they graduate if they want to attend college, whether their middle/high school teaches it to them or not.

My second confirmation argument is standardized tests and grades only hinder students’ desire to understand and learn. The grading system of letters “A,” “B,” “C,” “D,” and “F” has not always existed. Before 1785, students would attend lectures and participate in weekly conversation with their professors. The students had completed a course when the professor “decided they had demonstrated an adequate mastery of the subject” and rather than receiving report cards and GPAs, professors would simply write letters of recommendation to potential employers. The first recorded letter grade system was from 1897 where the letter “E” represented failure, which was any score below a 75 (Palmer). Now to decide which system works better: grades or professor-determined mastery.

It seems as though professor-determined mastery is better than grades. Both grades and professor/teacher-determined mastery can easily lead to bias, however, professor-determined mastery is more likely to allow a student to advance when they have genuinely understood the material. Grades do not adequately represent a student’s understanding of the material, and allows a student to “advance” in education regardless of whether they truly have a knowledge of certain information or not. The concept of grades also came about in the Industrial Revolution, as it was a means of measuring factory product quality, such as “Grade A” meat.

It has been engrained in my mind since elementary school that a grade lower than an “A” means I have not tried my hardest. I very clearly remember how disappointed I was in myself in the fifth grade when I received my first report card with a GPA lower than a 4.0. I remember bawling my eyes out because I made an 87 on a science test in sixth grade. Part of my disappointment had to do with my immaturity, but even now, if I know I have tried my best and receive anything lower than an A, I still feel the same disappointment as I did in fifth grade. It’s not because I think one grade defines my identity, but because I have always had impressed upon me the idea trying my best equals an “A,” and according to that reasoning if I don’t receive an “A,” I must not have tried my best. There is an issue when the sole focus of the education system is to meet requirements. I don’t think I can recall a time when any of my school work was completed out of a pure desire to learn. I have taken courses I have genuinely enjoyed and from which I have taken away a great deal of knowledge, however, the pressure from society to complete every course with flying colors has always made me hate school.

I am not the only one who thinks this way. Jennifer Crocker, a psychologist at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, surveyed over 600 college freshman three times during the school year, asking students on what they based their self-worth. 80% of the students surveyed said they based their self-worth on academic achievement, 77% said family support, and 66% said performing better than others (Dittman). Many students also struggle with competition inside of the classroom.

Students have been given the impression doing “well” in school equals attending a great college, while doing “bad” in school equals no college at all. Though partially true, seeing as one cannot attend college without certain scores and grades, the ideology behind “good grades to get into college” really only teaches students to memorize and forget because we have to, not to learn and understand because we want to. I asked a few students from different grade levels and different high schools in my area, “In what ways, if any, do you feel pressured (by society, parents, competition, etc.) to receive good grades (meaning a B or higher), and how has this affected you personally? Do you feel disappointed in yourself when you receive less than a certain grade, and why?” I received a range of answers surrounding cultural, parental, and societal expectations concerning academic achievement.

12^th-grade student: Ever since childhood I’ve felt a certain obligation to perform well academically. As an Asian American, growing up I became very focused on achieving above average grades. I became very aware of the stigma of a model minority, meaning my average had to be above average. It was a very present ideal within my family and even culture, even though it was not as outspoken and instead, just expected. The impact of the stereotype had really developed mentally into a large part of my identity. It took a long time for me to realize this does not define me, and took even longer to finally start to deconstruct that idea. Aside from the stereotype as a major part, for any case the high expectations held for myself were not healthy. I focused so much on merit and achievement to create self-worth, and in the process of doing so I completely lost developing myself. A 93 became a loss, and a B meant failure to maintain the standard.

10^th-grade student: I feel pressured to get good grades because if I don’t I feel like no college will accept me and I won’t ever be successful. This affects me because I place all my value as a person in whether I pass or not. For example I got a B- on my report card last year… I felt like such a failure and I thought I had ruined my whole future.

12^th-grade student: I feel pressured by my parents to get good grades. This has affected me in that I am more likely to get frustrated with my work and less likely to enjoy school….

9^th-grade student: At times I feel pressured to get a certain grade because I’m afraid people will stereotype me as someone who should get perfect grades. At times I do get anxious when taking a test or a quiz because I’m afraid my grade won’t be as high as my friends.

Society tells students from a young age high grades are the only way to a successful future, and that is simply not true. All parents want their children to succeed, however, grades do not determine intelligence or success. In the present education system, grades are simply a means of determining one’s ability to follow directions and memorize, an attribute valued in the industrial age. Peter Tait, headmaster of Sherborne Preparatory School says, “We lose too many talented and intelligent people by defining intelligence through tests that are wholly inadequate and constricting. We need to look wider and encourage the entrepreneur, the inquisitive, the creative and the downright cussed in our schools to make the most of who we are and to bring out the richness and diversity of thought and ideas in our society.” In “Abolishing the ACT and SAT,” Chris Streetman argues the inability of standardized tests to show any growth in knowledge:

…the ACT is used to determine a student’s potential for academic success in college as well as students’ acceptance at college. However, the ACT does not necessarily measure progress. The Oxford Dictionary defines progress as a “forward or onward movement toward a destination” or a “development towards an improved or advanced condition.” The ACT provides a single score on one test taken on one day of a student’s life, measuring only the student’s academic achievement and aptitude on that day. Likewise, the SAT measures a student’s aptitude for college but fails to measure progress.

Unfortunately, many schools receive funds on the basis of the ACT and the SAT (Streetman). States rely on Common Core and SOLs to determine not only a student’s “understanding” of material but also the teacher’s efficiency in preparing students for these requirements. It is terribly difficult to encourage students to value learning and understanding when the very basis of many schools is limited to preparation for standardized tests.

The grading system and the use of standardized tests cause more harm than good. The purpose of education is to pursue and understand the Creator and everything He has placed on earth for us as rational beings to use for His glory, not to receive “good” grades, attend college, and get a job. God certainly does not call us to meet the minimum requirements and leave it at that. He wants us to value learning about His creation. Proverbs 18:15 says, “An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.” True wisdom and true knowledge come from seeking and knowing God. This is not to say there is anything wrong with doing well in school to attend college and pursue a career. Those are all things God desires for us as long as it glorifies Him. He wants us to try our hardest. He wants us to pursue our passions, and of course, He understands we have to make a living somehow, but God also wants us to have a desire to know Him. Standardized tests and grades only help students to learn at a minimum; they don’t give students the desire to learn. We must have a desire to learn about the higher things, the things God has placed on the earth to know Him better that won’t always be the pathway to a career or won’t necessarily build our resume. When we teach students on the basis of valuing knowledge because we are able to, because we have the capability of reaching out to the world around us and interacting with it, education becomes something of much more value to everyone.

My third confirmation argument is the education system lacks a foundation for teaching students real-world skills. Too often there is a disparity between what is taught in school and the knowledge needed to live in the “real world.” In some schools there are electives and optional courses for real-world skills (money management, filing taxes, paying bills, etc.) such as a personal finance class, but again, these classes are optional, and many students will only take the class because they need the credit or an “easy” A. One may ask, “why not teach this course in college when students are around the age to start doing these things anyway?” High school is required; college is not. In 2016, a little more than 30% of high school graduates were not enrolled in college (“College Enrollment and Work”). Unless it is necessary for your major, classes such as personal finance would likely be optional in college. The point is, states should require students to take a course on or involving real-world skills in order to graduate. According to EVERFI, “Only four U.S. states require at least a semester-long course devoted to the topic, and less than half of states require personal finance education to be integrated into other subject matter.” Only 26% of parents feel adequately equipped to teach their children real-world skills. More than a quarter of students surveyed by EVERFI do not feel prepared to handle finances after graduation, and many showed they had little to no understanding of basic concepts involving finance (“Survey Reveals”).

Schools spend a great deal of time teaching students information such as the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell while spending little to no time educating students about information that will be relevant for the rest of one’s life, and sometimes even before one graduates high school. No, learning about the mitochondria is not a bad thing. As I have previously stated, God desires for us to learn and understand because we have the opportunity to learn about the higher things; however, focusing all attention solely on the basics or the higher things will not benefit students in the way we would hope. There must be a balance between the basics and the higher things.

I started my first job the summer after 10^th grade. I was completely unaware of federal taxes. I had never heard of a “W-2.” All I knew was I had a job and I was making money. Fortunately, I had and have my parents to help me figure it all out, but for many students, their parents aren’t around to teach them these skills, which is why it is necessary for schools to teach students real-world skills. Though we should pursue higher education, pursuing knowledge for knowledge’s sake, I struggle to understand how it is any less important to teach students real-world skills.

The Internet is a wonderful tool students can use to learn about taxes and paying bills. Most American students have the opportunity at their fingertips to research these topics online, however, students also have the ability to research the mitochondria. They can discover the “Golden Rule” at the click of a button. The Pythagorean Theorem will pop up on Google in just 0.38 seconds, but we still extensively teach these topics in our education system. We don’t have to draw a line between teaching all of the sciences and real-world skills, or history and real-world skills, and so on and so-forth, simply because it’s “so easy” to research real-world skills on-line.

A required personal finance class would be fantastic, but it’s likely not practical in many schools. Fortunately, there may not have to be a class devoted to real-world skills to really teach things such as paying taxes and how they work. Economics is a great class to teach students how taxes work. Mathematics is another subject in which real-world skills could be incorporated into our education system. Real-world skills can be taught without forfeiting other important things.

Though the need for a meaningful education seems obvious enough, not everyone agrees on its importance or how to achieve it. The first counterargument I will refute is there isn’t necessarily anything wrong with the education system, rather the reason students have such a difficult time with school is they choose to participate in so many extracurricular activities. I would argue extracurricular activities are an equally vital part of a healthy and fulfilling life, just as homework or classroom experiences are. According to The National Federation of State High School Associations, nearly eight million American high school students participated in at least one sport in the 2016-2017 school year. That is over half of American high school students. Many students rely on athletics for scholarships to college, and approximately 480,000 students end up pursuing a sport through college (Thomas). The NCAA says,

And of that group [the 480,000 students] only a fraction will realize their goal of becoming a professional or Olympic athlete. For the rest, the experiences of college athletics and the life lessons they learn along the way will help them as they pursue careers in other fields. Education is a vital part of the college athletics experience, and student-athletes graduate at higher rates than their peers in the student body.

Likewise, I would argue the experience of high school sports teaches life lessons, encourages healthy friendships, and sometimes promotes time-management skills. Another benefit of high school sports is the aspect of exercise. Jasper Smits, director of the Anxiety Research and Treatment Program at Southern Methodist University, and Michael Otto, psychology professor at Boston University, concluded through research, “Exercise can help reduce depression and anxiety, and can be especially beneficial to people who lack access to traditional treatments, such as drugs or counseling” (Barrett). Tackling something new, such as learning an instrument, can help many students who struggle with depression (Griffin), which can be especially important considering approximately 20 percent of teens experience depression prior to adulthood (“Why Today’s Teens”). Group extracurricular activities allow for relationships some students may not be able to make inside of school, such as finding friendships in band or drama club. Considering high school is a preparatory stage for college, we must also consider extracurricular activities such as sports, playing an instrument, theater, and more play an enormous role in discovering our passions as human beings, so to ask students to cut out something they truly enjoy is completely ridiculous and contrary to God’s desire for us to explore our passions and gifts He has given us in order to glorify Him. Extracurricular activities are often required in order to attend college or pursue a specific career, such as required volunteer hours, a driving course, a nursing program, or an internship, which are never part of the standard “curriculum.”

Perhaps the issue is not the extracurricular activities, rather schools do not accommodate for extracurricular activities. On average, a high school student has 3.5 hours of school work to complete every night. In an article in the Los Angeles Times, Karen Klein says, “I’m no homework-denier. When you look at the research, it’s clear that homework, at least at the high school level, contributes to higher achievement. But I’m also in the camp that says kids, including teenagers, need well-balanced lives that include extracurricular activities, outside pursuits, physical activity, fun with friends and family, and just hanging around.” There is something wrong with a student attending school for 6-8 hours a day and still having 3.5 hours of homework to complete.

Let’s suggest a student is getting a healthy amount of sleep (about 9 hours) per night, which is above the average 7 hours high school students normally get (“CDC Reports That Insufficient”). That means in order to wake up at, say, 6 in the morning, the student would need to go to bed at 9 PM. The student is awake from 6 AM-9 PM, 15 hours, and about 12 hours is spent in school and completing homework (8 hours in school and 3.5 hours on homework). That leaves the student only 3 hours to eat dinner, spend time with family, shower, etc. without factoring in however much time is spent playing sports, attending lessons, etc. Most high school athletes return home from a game between 7 PM and 11 PM. Theater rehearsals can last for hours after school. Music lessons tend to be 30 minutes to an hour long. Chorus and band practices can last 2-3 hours long. There is something terribly wrong with this situation. Students are being asked to forfeit the things they enjoy, family time, sleep, etc. in order to achieve decent grades. As a Christian, I believe God calls us to enjoy our lives through glorifying Him. I do not think there is a better way to glorify Him than through using the talents and gifts He has given each of us, but school greatly hinders our ability to use our talents. This should not be the case. I am not suggesting getting rid of homework altogether, however, there must be some way to meet in the middle, where most of the homework completed at home can be completed or learned efficiently in school. Extracurricular activities are not the problem with our current school system.

Schools could adjust their end times or period times to accommodate for extracurricular activities. One way to minimize homework would be to use class time for discussion and interaction with the material, and home-time for lectures. In my advanced chemistry class, the only work we usually have outside of class is projects, which we rarely have. Our teacher uses class time for lectures, and then gives us class time to complete worksheets on what we have learned, which gives us ample time to complete the work, discuss with classmates, and ask our teacher questions (this usually means one week is spent on lectures and two days is spent on worksheets). This could be a potential model for many classes which would reduce work-load outside of class, and open up more time for extracurricular activities.

The second counterargument I will refute is being a student is one’s job until he or she graduates, so neglecting sleep is worth the long-term benefits of ample time spent in the classroom. Most schools start earlier than 8 AM. (Start School Later). According to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 73% of high schoolers and 58% of middle-schoolers do not receive a sufficient amount of sleep. Students aged 13-18 need approximately 8-10 hours of sleep at night (“CDC Reports That Insufficient”). According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “More than 4 in 5 (82.3%) of U.S. middle, high, and combined public schools require students to attend class at times earlier than recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and American Medical Association” (Start School Later). In adolescence, one’s sleep cycle shifts to a later time of 11 PM, with the release of melatonin occurring late at night and dropping during late morning, which explains alertness in teens in the later afternoon/night (Breus). On a school night, I usually go to sleep around 10:30PM-11PM, and wake up at 6:45 AM, which is less than 8 hours of sleep. Most students get less than seven hours of sleep per night. Researcher Carskadon says,

Even without the pressure of biological changes, if we combine an early school starting time — say 7:30 AM, which, with a modest commute, makes 6:15 AM a viable rising time — with our knowledge that optimal sleep need is 9 1/4 hours, we are asking that 16-year olds go to bed at 9 PM. Rare is a teenager that will keep such a schedule. School work, sports practices, clubs, volunteer work, and paid employment take precedence. When biological changes are factored in, the ability even to have merely “adequate” sleep is lost.

Students are expected to perform well in school while keeping up with everything else on a less than minimal amount of sleep. An article by the National Sleep Foundation states, “Teens spend a great portion of each day in school; however, they are unable to maximize the learning opportunities afforded by the education system, since sleep deprivation impairs their ability to be alert, pay attention, solve problems, cope with stress, and retain information” (Backgrounder: Later School). Sleep deprivation impairs one’s ability to concentrate and learn efficiently. It can also cause forgetfulness or weight gain/loss. Insufficient sleep can contribute to depression and anxiety (“10 Things to Hate”). The AASM says schools should not start earlier than 8:30 AM. The article “Teens Need More Sleep than You Think” says some of the benefits of starting school later are higher grades, improved relationships, fewer reports of sickness and tardiness, and a decrease in teen car accidents. The necessity of sleep cannot be ignored.

The best way for this problem to be fixed would be to adjust school start times by at least an hour. Class times could be shortened, as mentioned in my first refutation, which would allow for extra time at the end of the day. Summit Christian Academy, for example, adjusted the majority of classes to 35-39 minute periods for one week rather than 45 minute periods. Not only were teachers able to get through generally the same amount of material as usual, but we were left with 45 minutes at the end of the day before school would normally end. This could allow for a later start time. While Summit operates on an eight-period schedule, many schools use block-scheduling, where they may have 1.5 hours per class and half of the classes in one day. Many of these classes likely could be shortened to an hour and 15 minutes, leaving an hour that could also allow for a later start time.

The third and final counterargument I will refute is higher education occurs at a college level and is not necessary at the middle or high school level. As defined in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, higher education is, “education beyond the secondary level; especially: education provided by a college or university” (“Higher Education”). Higher education, however, should not be limited to the college and university level. I will define higher education as a desirable knowledge of information beyond what is deemed “necessary” to know before college. The sole reason “higher education” is considered education during college and university is because the middle and high school system limits what students need to know to whatever is standard and required by the state. Students should have a desire to understand and study beyond what is required, and the education system should promote that desire. Higher education is necessary before high school in order to promote the desire to learn and the desire to understand God. If we place the necessity and importance of education in boxes, where higher education is only necessary and important in college, we completely misunderstand and neglect the purpose of education. As previously stated, the purpose of education is to glorify God and learn more about Him because He has given us the ability to do so. Revelation 4:11 says, “Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”

In order to fully understand God, we must have a desire to study His creation within and outside of what is necessary to graduate. This concept is as simple as placing much less emphasis on graduating, going to college, getting a job, and retiring. I truly believe when God is placed at the center of our lives, everything else will come to fruition. Teacher’s attitudes and students’ academic diligence will reflect the level of importance God is placed at in their lives.

One may ask, “What if I don’t believe in God? What then is my purpose in pursuing education beyond what I need to lead a ‘fulfilling’ life?” Regardless of your belief in God, the way we live our lives and understand the world relies immensely on our determination to understand it. Many of our greatest discoveries came from people who had a genuine desire to study and know more, such as Albert Einstein, Galileo, or Louis Pasteur. Without these people’s desire to understand, our lives may not look the same today. The way we live our lives is dependent on our understanding of the world around us, which is why it is so necessary to study beyond what will get us a job. Imagine if everyone in the world had the desire to learn and study the way Isaac Newton did. How much more would we then be able to discover in the world and in ourselves?

Now that I have pinpointed the flaws in the education system and refuted arguments against my thesis, there must be a third step to take in reforming the American education system. The third and final step is figuring out how to go about the reform, and then taking action. Unfortunately, I do not believe there is any overt solution to the problem, but there are small steps that can help us all discover a better system than what we have now. I think the most obvious way to reform the system is to stop placing so much emphasis on grades and academic achievement. Of course, it is a difficult task. It is a change in the mentality of our parents, teachers, and students that will assist in the reform of the system. Perhaps even one teacher emphasizing the importance of learning instead of getting “good” grades could change the mentality of an entire class. It begins on a small scale, such as in my own school, Summit Christian Academy. With around 120 students, if every teacher at Summit emphasized the importance of learning over getting “good grades,” that is around 120 more students who will value education rather than grades. As stated previously, later school start times or earlier end times could immensely transform our system, benefitting student health, and likely academic effort. We can incorporate real-world skills into the subjects schools are already teaching.

Reforming the education system isn’t about students hating school or learning. It’s about how students shouldn’t hate school or learning. It’s about the need for genuine understanding, for a genuine desire to understand God’s design, and the need for our students to be healthy, energized, and prepared. Prepared not only to start their school day but to start the rest of their lives. The purpose of education has been set aside for too long. We are stuck in an education system that values standardization and trivial learning rather than genuine understanding and a desire to know more. Parents are sending their children through an education system that is not preparing them for the future. Students are stuck in an education system they are practically destined to struggle in. Though it is difficult, we cannot remain complacent. We must reform the American education system. An ever-changing society, combined with the God who “makes all things new,” has no room for complacent education.

Works Cited

“10 Things to Hate About Sleep Loss.” WebMD, WebMD. Web. 5 Feb. 2018.

“About the Standards.” Common Core State Standards Initiative About the Standards Comments. Web. 24 Feb. 2018.

“Backgrounder: Later School Start Times.” National Sleep Foundation. Web. 9 Dec. 2017.

Barrett, Carson. “How Does Playing Sports Affect Your Health?” Azcentral. Web. 26 Feb. 2018.

Breus, Michael J. “Teens Need More Sleep Than You Think.” The Sleep Doctor. Web. 9 Dec. 2017.

Burrus, Trevor. Powell, Aaron. “Why Schools Haven’t Changed in Hundreds of Years.” Audio blog post. Free Thoughts Podcast. 9 Dec. 2016. Web. 5 Feb 2018.

“CDC Reports That Insufficient Sleep Is Common on School Nights.” American Academy ofSleep Medicine — Association for Sleep Clinicians and Researchers, Web. 3 Feb. 2018. 5 Feb. 2018.

“College Enrollment and Work Activity of 2016 High School Graduates.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Web. 27 Apr. 2017. 24 Feb. 2018.

Dittman, M. “Self-esteem that’s based on external sources has mental health consequences, study says.” American Psychological Association, vol. 33, no. 11, 2000, pp. 16. Web. 10 Dec. 2017.

Griffin, R. Morgan. “10 Natural Depression Treatments.” WebMD, WebMD. Web. 5 Feb. 2018.

“Higher Education.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster. Web. 13 Mar. 2018.

“The History of American Education: 1600s-2000.” ISM. PDF. 5 Feb. 2018.

“Industrial Revolution.” History.com. A+E Networks, 2009. Web. 5 Feb. 2018.

Kahn, Salman. Noer, Michael. “History of Education.” Youtube, Uploaded by Forbes, Web. 1 Nov. 2012. 5 Feb. 2018.

Klein, Karin. “About 3.5 Hours of Homework a Day for High Schoolers? That’s Too Much.” Los Angeles Times, Web. 1 Mar. 2014. 3 Feb. 2018.

Moorehouse, Isaac. “The Future of School.” Praxis. PDF.

The National Federation of State High School Associations. “2016-17 High School Athletics Participation Survey.” 2017. PDF. 5 Feb. 2018.

Next School. “6 Problems with our School System.” Youtube. Uploaded by Next School, 15 Dec. 2016. Web. 10 Dec. 2017.

Palmer, Brian. “E is for Fail.” Slate, 9 Aug 2010. Web. 10 Dec. 2017.

Start School Later. (2017.) Wake up Calls (Fast Facts). Web. 25 Feb. 2018.

Streetman, Chris. “Abolishing the ACT and SAT.” Abolishing the ACT and SAT. 12 Mar. 2018.

“Survey Reveals That US High School Students Lack Adequate Financial Knowledge.” EVERFI. Web. 24 Feb. 2018.

Thomas, D. “Probability of Competing Beyond High School.” NCAA.org — The Official Site of the NCAA, Web. 19 Sept. 2017. 5 Feb. 2018.

“Why Today’s Teens Are More Depressed Than Ever.” Center For Discovery. Web. 24 Feb. 2018.

Asian-Americans: Perspectives

Leave a reply

Melissa Yeh

Two years ago, I heard the story of a Chinese man who decided he was going to leave everything he knew and start living in America. In order to pursue this, he had to start from the bottom. He was able to arrive in the United States and did what was quite expected of most Asian immigrants; he began working in a Chinese restaurant, the small sort for late nights and comfort food. There were no former colleagues or friends when he arrived; everyone he passed was a stranger. He had no education for English. Slowly but surely, he worked hard and long enough to bring the rest of his family over, his wife and two sons. His oldest son was three years old when he left; the younger was only a year old. And yet, the man found his passage to America, not by plane or any easy means, but through small fishing boats. Without any familiarity of friends or family, not to mention he had no knowledge of the language, he raised himself from the bottom to create his own connections and opportunities. Alone, he managed all of this. For ten years, he managed all of this. For ten years, he did not see his wife and his two sons while they grew. Willingly, he went through this time in his life all for the sake of hoping his sons would be given beyond the opportunities he had. This man was my grandfather.

How do you struggle with good things people say about you? Suppose success is something you are set up to reach and exceptionally pushed toward, would there even be any issue? Above average academics, high standards in extracurricular activities such as music or other fine arts, and community involvement are all commendable goals to strive for. By all means, this should be a positive and an acceptable mentality. However, I still find myself asking, “Why do strife and broken relationships exist between parents and children despite these positive objectives? Why are self-image and worth damaged and cultural identity lost between generations? Why does the eldest child leave for college estranged from parents with a shattered relationship left in its wake? Moreover, why am I describing strangers I met from a retreat in New York? Why am I describing a student I met from St. Louis on a mission trip? Why am I describing not one, but four of the close friends that have left for college from my church? Why am I afraid I will be describing myself one day?”

For Asian-American students, the results of exposure to stereotypes and pressures of expectations are oftentimes overlooked in severity through how it affects identity and worth within Western society. The most common stereotype is known as the model minority stereotype and it is defined as a minority group who are successful in education/academics and overall quiescent in manner (“The Model Minority”). The Immigrant Bargain is defined as children recognizing the struggle and hardship their parents underwent and using it as a driving force to perform well for their parents; overall, they want to guarantee their parents’ effort in bringing the family to the states was not in vain (Bronstein and Chan 183). In knowing the trials my own grandfather underwent to allow the fortunate opportunities I have today, I bear a deep sense of respect to not waste the hard-earned efforts and comfort my family sacrificed.

This is a relevant issue, as Asian Americans across the country silently struggle with this exact problem as well as with their own cultural identity, feeling out of place for being raised differently. The loss of awareness and connection to understanding their own culture leads to misunderstandings that damage relationships between parents and children. Self worth is oftentimes dependent on merit, leading to an unhealthy mental state. Currently, another issue arises in the lawsuits claiming Ivy League schools are discriminating against Asian Americans. The problem is not so much that the schools may or may not be guilty but the fear such discrimination incites in students who are aiming for top universities. They fear with the expectation from parents looming over them, how will they overcome the odds stacked against them in college admissions? They question if their diligent efforts will ultimately prove futile. Overall, these issues affect how Asian-American students need to understand their own culture and determine self worth.

In order to prove the detrimental psychological effects of stereotypes and expectations on Asian-American students are overlooked and need to be addressed properly, I will confirm three arguments: Western stereotypes negatively influence self-image, the cultural expectations placed on Asian-American children are incorrectly based on merit, and Asian Americans lack awareness for mental health in identity and self-worth. I will refute two counterarguments: the psychological issues in Asian-American students are solely founded on the ignorance of stereotypes from Western culture and society, and the psychological issues of Asian-American students derive solely from the harsh standards in parenting and expectations.

My first argument follows how Western stereotypes negatively influence self-image for Asian American students, despite seemingly sounding positive. Upon mention of the ethnicity, Asian, the most common image that comes to mind is East Asian culture consisting of those based in China, Japan, or Korea. American society oftentimes fails to include people of Indian or Pacific Islander heritage as Asians. In addition to the assumption where one is always either Chinese, Japanese, or Korean, Asian Americans are oftentimes seen as foreigners, regardless of assimilation into society. A second or third generation Asian American will still be asked where he or she is from regardless of the fact he himself and his parents may have been born and resided in America for their entire lives (Bronstein and Chan 182). The most common Asian conception is the model minority stereotype. Though people may not connect the name, the idea has been widespread across America since the 1960s. The model minority is a minority group who has attained prosperity and is well educated and quiescent (“The Model Minority”). In essence, the stereotype will portray Asians as good at math and always achieving high-standing scores in academics. At first, these definitions may not give any appearance of insult or negative proportions. Yet if the wording were to be changed to, “Asians must be good at math and cannot afford to get anything other than high standing scores in academics,” the tone and meaning shifts. Now, these attributes have garnered urgency and have become required standards of behavior. The insult derives from associating an entire people group with one characteristic, no matter how positive it may be. The expectations in these standards rise to communicate Asian-American students must naturally have the ability to succeed in grades, especially in math and science. Furthermore, Asian Americans have begun to feel displaced or flawed for not embodying the model minority. This thinking, beginning at a young age, continues to influence an unhealthy attitude of how they view themselves. Young teenagers develop a motivation not founded on wanting to succeed and do well, but rather on the need to fill a quota to feel normal. The feeling of alienation and estrangement generates distance from identity from cultural differences (Wu and Lee 3). In addition to the insecurity created by the smart Asian stereotype, those who do not excel in academics because of disorders such as ADHD are hurt even more by this stigma (Wong). Asians cannot be naturally smarter on any level; there is no foundation for this notion. The stereotype, no matter how “kindly meant,” is hurtful and detrimental. Therefore, it must be rejected.

A second perception claims all Asians generally have an introverted demeanor, in which being quiet is misinterpreted as submissive and unassertive. When this stereotype is applied in a work environment, Asians rarely achieve high positions in careers such as CEO positions or other director/president titles in large organizations. In a study conducted by the Buck Gee, Janet Wong and Denise Peck, Asian-American executives who put together data from Google, Intel, Hewlett Packard, LinkedIn and Yahoo for a report published by Ascend, an Asian-American organization, they concluded, “In 2014, whereas 11% of law-firm associates were Asian, 3% of partners were.” Though Asians are perceived to find success in high school and gain entrance into top tier-universities, the same success is not true for life after college. A study of Fortune 500 CEOs was conducted by Richard Zweigenhaft and he found, “In 2000 eight of the five hundred were Asian-American, and in 2014 ten were, whereas the women’s tally in the same period rose from four to twenty-four. Academia, similarly, is stuffed with Asian-American professors, but among America’s 3,000 colleges there are fewer than ten Asian-American presidents (“The Model Minority”).” In this light, the influence of the stereotype is subtle but still noticeable, since Asians are known as “hardworking yet submissive” but are exploited and kept from their potential. The lack of respect for opportunities in high authority positions is less commonly recognized, and though it is not necessarily resentment, it does career limit opportunities (Bronstein and Chan 184).

The latest concern in relation to self-image and academic opportunities is the lawsuit and other concerns pending toward Ivy League Schools in racial discrimination against Asian Americans in admissions, particularly Harvard University. While Affirmative Action acts as a strong advocate in achieving balance in diversity, this is not the case for Asian Americans. These students feel they must have higher scores than other non-Asian applicants to gain admissions (Jaschik). While Harvard is being investigated and the Asian Advocacy organizations continue to push for access to records of the admission process, the effect of this issue is significant to those applying and how it alters their view on chances of gaining admissions. If the racial discrimination has been occurring in Ivy League schools, then the likelihood of entering these schools has decreased, and Asian Americans who apply are being held to an unjust higher standard. This discovery has created a newfound worry for Asian students, wondering whether their hard work and effort put into academics was worth enough. Students want to please their parents and perform well, but now the stakes are even higher than they were before. Moreover, this frame of mind can pit Asian-American students against each other in unhealthy competition. Another response from Asian-American students might conjure hatred toward African Americans and Hispanic students who supposedly gain entry through lower standards. Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz even states, “Discriminating against Asians in order to make room for other minorities does not seem right as a matter of principle” (Hartocollis and Saul). Another fear arises for the question, “If Harvard is allowing this, than how many other schools are as well?” Many different articles I have researched testify top performing students with near perfect SAT/ACT scores, academics, and extracurricular activities have been rejected without explanation from Ivy League Universities. Michael Wang had a 36/36 on the ACT, and become a finalist in piano competitions, math competitions, and debate tournaments, yet was rejected from six of the seven Ivy Leagues he applied to (“The Model Minority”). Austin Jia had a high GPA, near perfect score on the SAT and ACT, involvement on debate team, held the position of tennis captain, and participated in state orchestra, but was rejected from four Ivy League schools (Hartocollis and Saul). Evidence for whether discrimination is evident is still a matter of inquiry, but the important observation to draw is each student believed success was set up from the achievements they had worked on in high school and were confused and devastated when it was not so. With high-achieving students to compare themselves to, younger Asian-American students see themselves all the more negatively for not hitting those marks. The deepest problem occurs when the focus dwells on the perspective that since not even the best could achieve what their parents hope to see their child one day reach, there is no hope for them to even try to. The perception in which students see themselves needs change for the better.

The second argument to affirm my thesis is the cultural expectations placed on Asian-American children are incorrectly based on merit. Asian immigrants first arrived on the West Coast bringing their traditions and worldviews with them. Buddhist, Taoist, and Confucian philosophies heavily influenced and defined behavior and lifestyle. These emphasized harmony, family, and group needs over the individual’s needs (180). Cultural influences relied the most on family, the model family being two parents who cared for their elderly parents and established clear rules and discipline for their children. The cycle continued when the children became adults and had families of their own. In interaction with their children, parents are generally not physically or emotionally affectionate in an open manner toward their children. The effort to communicate care was demonstrated through respect to a sense of responsibility. The crucial understanding of respect for elders is a monument in culture as it can dictate long-term decisions such as career, marriage, and location for where the children decide to live. Therefore it is not uncommon to see children choosing academic paths in college, career, or spouse as their parents preferred over their own passions and interests (183). To choose otherwise is to be seen as disrespectful and ungrateful. This pressures the child to follow what others determine for him, even if he has no desired interest or enjoyment in the decision.

In 2011, Amy Chua coined the term “tiger mom” in her book describing Chinese mothers as superior in how they raised children, as opposed to the western archetype. With incredibly strict guidelines since their early childhood, her two daughters were raised forbidden from any dating, sleepovers, and they were absolutely required to play the piano or violin and receive only A’s in academics. They could not participate in any drama plays (due to the amount of practice time it required), not play any other instrument of their choice, and had to choose tutoring and music over their social life. This meant her two daughters underwent difficult tutoring for advanced classes and extensive lessons in piano and violin (Chua 10). In an article Chua states, “The solution to substandard performance is always to excoriate, punish, and shame the child.” This was literal, as oftentimes and even in public she would criticize her daughters when they were failing and yelled at them, calling them garbage, lazy, and cowardly. Though not always as extreme, the mentality behind this is quite common among the majority of Asian parents. Oftentimes, it will result in resentment and stress for both the parent and child. The practice of breaking down a child for discipline is damaging and when strict discipline becomes verbal abuse, two main reactions follow; as a consequence, the child will either suffer incredibly low self-esteem or accumulate unspoken hostility for his parents. Like pressure building in a balloon, the unsolved tension will burst into outspoken hatred from the child, and can ultimately destroy the relationship (Wu and Lee 732).

My third argument is Asian Americans lack awareness for mental health in identity and self-worth. In addition to their expectations and ideals, Asian parents typically discourage acknowledging any lack of mental health unless extremely severe. Otherwise, it is dismissed and the desire to seek help in terms of counseling is not only considered unnecessary but also frowned upon (Bronstein and Chan 185). Experiencing this attitude and refusal to acknowledge attention to mental health, the child can perceive the relationship is built on vulgar methods of criticism and lack of affection. Amy Chua’s method employs verbal abuse within the environment to stimulate academic discipline. In a national study led by Michael Spencer, Juan Chen, Gilbert Gee, Cathryn Fabian, and David Takeguchi, the number of Asian Americans utilizing mental health services was found to be significantly lower than the non-Asian population. They conducted the study through a series of questions asking about formal and informal means of mental health-related service use, racial discrimination, language proficiency, and barriers to service use. Informal means consists of seeking online self-help chats, or relying upon religious leaders in the community; formal means consist of seeking counsel from professional psychiatrists. They concluded,

In the United States Asian Americans have a sizeable burden of mental illness, with a 17.30% overall lifetime rate of any psychiatric disorder and a 9.19% 12-month rate over a 12-month period. Only 3.1% of Asian Americans use specialty mental health services, compared with 5.59% of African Americans, 5.94% of Caribbean Blacks, 4.44% of Mexicans, 5.55% of Cubans, and 8.8% of the general population. In a study by Abe-Kim et al., only 8.6% of Asian Americans sought any mental health services compared with 17.9% of the general population.

Since Asian Americans were more likely to use informal means of mental heath services, the discrimination and condescension toward mental health concerns proved to be a root cause in discouraging mental health. Another factor was the lack of clear communication due to the language barrier for immigrants. In another study conducted by the research team at the University of Maryland School of Public health, authors Meekyung Han and Helen Pong concluded,

Extra-familial intervention, such as seeking professional psychological help, is often considered shameful, a violation of the family hierarchy and harmony, and potentially disgraceful to the family. Our study suggests that, because Asian American community college students grow up in a culture in which family hierarchy, emotional restraint, avoidance of shame, and “saving face” are prevalent, these students’ foremost significant barrier to engaging professional help is the stigma of mental health issues, as learned and constructed within the family and cultural context (Han and Pong 10).

As parents do not encourage mental health as a significant priority, children continue to focus on accomplishing the task in front of them regardless of the strain it produces and accumulates over time. If this occurs, the student creates a negative image of himself built on merit and achievement only. Students will only continue to aim higher and higher without realizing or accepting the need to satisfy success will never truly be reached. No matter how much the individual attempts to continue striving for higher scores or better performances, the ultimate reality remains: perfection is out of reach. This mentality drives the unrealistic mantra, “I have to do better,” and it also leaves students susceptible to constantly comparing to others in academics and extracurricular activities. At the end of the day, when a student collides into failure, not only does he feel defeated, but the impact of such defeat can become much more devastating on self-image. The stress builds over frustration, helplessness, and lowered self-esteem. Failure is inevitable, and if parents do not communicate that failure is only a part on the process, or even worse do not know how to communicate the fact at all, the consequence of a strain and lasting damage on the relationship between the child and their parents ensues. The child perceives his efforts and work are not enough, which builds in her mind, replaying every mistake and regret on what should have been done.

On the other hand, the alternative approach follows from feeling deep resentment toward parents for not allowing the child to pursue what he wants to; there is no room for compromise and are prohibited from what he enjoys either for no reason whatsoever or unjust, controlling reasons. Conflicting ideals are a common issue: disagreement on career paths, college choices, etc., all factor into more tension between them. Furthermore, on top of pressure from family, the perception society holds adds to the anxiety and indecision over what to follow. The narrative society asserts emphasizes following what an individual desires in life; anyone holding him back is an obstacle to his happiness. With both the expectation of parents and society’s idea for pursuing individual happiness competing for influence, the student becomes more and more agitated and conflicted over whom to follow. Koko Nishi’s article, “Mental Health Among Asian Americans” summarizes the sources of stress commonly found in students:

Parental pressure to succeed in academics, discussing mental health concerns is considered taboo in many Asian cultures and as a result Asian Americans tend to dismiss, deny or neglect their symptoms, pressure to live up to the “model minority” stereotype (a view that inaccurately portrays Asian Americans as successfully integrating into mainstream culture and having overcome the challenges of racial bias), family obligations based on strong traditional and cultural values, and discrimination due to racial or cultural background, and difficulty in balancing two different cultures and developing a bicultural sense of self (Nishi).

With each of these perspectives, the self-image Asian Americans have assembled from society’s perception and familial cultural perception are detrimental to their self-worth and image; both aspects have the potential to change in a positive manner.

The first counterargument I will refute is the psychological issues in Asian-American students are solely founded on the ignorance of stereotypes from Western culture and society. This is incorrect because the assumption fails to understand from where the stereotypes and mentalities derive. In order to understand these stereotypes, immigrant history is necessary to identify the origins behind them. The stereotype that all Asians are Chinese, Japanese, or Korean is found offensive because it fails to recognize Indians and other Southeast Asians such as Vietnamese, Cambodian, etc.; yet the three ethnicities are only better known because they have had longer and larger presences in America (Bronstein and Chan 180). In the 1840s-1860s, the Chinese were the first nationality to immigrate; they worked as laborers and were placed in ghettos. They were also the first to be barred from immigration as only men could arrive and were prohibited from marrying. The Japanese experienced similar conditions in the 1880s, as did the Korean and Filipino groups that immigrated in 1903-1920. In each situation, policies were enacted in response to the fear that a growing community was a threat to the workforce. The height of anti-Asian sentiment occurred during the internment camps for Japanese Americans in WWII with over 110,000 sent away from their homes (181-182). Furthermore, Chinese citizens were also placed in the camps due to the similarity of appearance. When the immigration ban was lifted in 1965, an influx of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Indian, and Filipinos moved in hopes of better opportunities (182). Thus, while not excusable, many of the Asian American stereotypes derive from historical background. The failure to recognize or implement Asian American immigration into education results in ignorance. The stereotypes are not a misunderstanding, but a direct cause of psychological issues in Asian-American students today. They trace from immigrant history, dealing with the aftermath of abuse, racism, and oppression.

In addition, media has a large role in creating the Asian image. The constant exposure to media and characters created in movies and television shows have an impact on how Western society views Asian Americans. Especially in Hollywood, the identity created by films and television shows have started with stereotypical roles: the IT guy, the math nerd, or Chinese man #2. Examples include Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany’s or Dong in Sixteen Candles. Whitewashing has raised controversy among the Asian community not only with Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany’s, but also currently with films like Ghost in the Shell, Aloha, Batman Begins, and Doctor Strange. Whitewashing communicates that Asian leads are near impossible to have and find. In the same way, Asians then are only cast as minor characters, oftentimes as stereotypical roles. In an age permeated with technology and media, the idea presented here is discouraging to young Asian Americans who are only exposed to the stereotypes people who look like them play on television. Controversy on cultural appropriation and need for better Asian-American media representation has been addressed, but not nearly enough as it should change what is seen on screen. Until incorporated well enough into mainstream media, the ideal broadcasted by Hollywood remains a constricting view of how Asians are portrayed in society. It affects not only how others see Asian Americans, but also how they see themselves. Hence, this is a direct misrepresentation that negatively affects Asian Americans today, especially for the youth who have constant exposure to media.

The next counterargument I will refute is the psychological issues of Asian-American students derive solely from the harsh standards in parenting and expectations. This argument is incorrect because this statement fails to acknowledge the mentality behind Asian culture. When examining Asian parenting based upon a Western mentality, the ready observation is Asian parenting is cruel and inappropriate. Now imagine switching the mentalities on how Asian culture views Western culture on the topic of parenting. If Asian households encourage their children to be respectful and caring towards their elders and family as priority, the logical reaction is to wonder why Western households are so reluctant to focus and devote their time around the children as priority instead of the parents. As Amy Chua states in the article about her book Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, “The Western narrative wants to respect the child’s individuality, encourage to pursue their passions, support their choices, with only positive reinforcement, and nurturing environments, but by contrast Chinese parents believe in what their children are capable of to prepare for their future and arm them with skills, work habits, and inner confidence.” Asian parents believe in following safe career paths and academics that will guarantee success and a stable future where one can provide for their grandchildren and entire family.

The notion of sacrifice is incredibly significant to parents. Immigration is an immediate example of this. Parents recognize better opportunities for education and career and thus travel halfway across the world to unfamiliarity and discomfort, all for the sake of their children. In turn follows the Immigrant Bargain, in which children recognize that struggle and hardship their parents underwent, driving them to perform well for their parents and that their effort to bring the family to the States was not in vain (Bronstein and Chan 185). It is true there is a higher standard set for students but the parents want the best for their child, and when the child cannot accomplish the task in front of him, the parents push him because they believe he can do it. Hard work and discipline build character. Thus choosing the parents’ recommendation over passions is acceptable when it means a secure financial future and guarantees provision for future family and care for parents. It does not mean all passions are rejected for the sake of blatant hatred for letting a child want to pursue something enjoyed. The value of family is the priority and community rests on the unified family near each other.

Once while eating dinner, my grandfather exclaimed I was holding my chopsticks too high. He took the superstition quite seriously where the farther up I hold chopsticks, the farther away I will live from the family when I am married. Immediately it felt constraining to not have the freedom to venture away, but in an instant I realized the sentiment that he only wanted me to remain closer to visit often and spend more time together. Perhaps Asian parents are not verbally affectionate, but to say “I love you” was not through the outright “I love you,” but communicated through “Are you eating enough?” “Are you doing well in school?” When you consider how the majority of society demonstrates affection, these questions seem overbearing and nagging, but in reality it truly indicates care for wellbeing. It is without doubt their own parents did the same to show love. This was best demonstrated in a short film titled “What Asian Parents Don’t Say,” a comedic take on communication and lack of openness between parents and children. Two friends contrast how they relate to their parents; at first glance, the Asian friend feels as if his communication is askew or stunted, but realizes it is only said differently. Thus, Asian parenting is misunderstood in communication and in comparison to Western parenting. The intentions are built on heath, stability, and comfort for the future of their children as adults.

After doing research and listening to several testimonies from Asian Americans and their struggle in identity, I have learned the occurrences and thoughts among these students are incredibly similar. They are similar in academic pressure, self worth, and familial issues. It was not until I finished research that I realized the conclusion would be largely based in change starting in attitudes and perceptions. If there is no foundation in altering how people think, the changes in behavior or any other action will not hold in the long run.

For those who have not grown up within an Asian community or have not had the chance to learn about East Asian culture, take a step back to look through the perspective of Asian parenting. Truly look at the motives and values within an Asian-American family before discounting any method. Blindly criticizing and judging without understanding the full story is not justified, not only in this situation but also in any circumstance. By sympathizing with parents’ desire for the best for the children, common ground enables understanding into comparing and contrasting strengths and weaknesses of the ideal model for raising children. As for how non-Asian peers or adults view Asian-American students, there must be awareness and ability to relate to children in how they are raised. This allows for healthy growth and encouragement for Asian-American children from a young age.

For Asian parents, especially Asian immigrants, you should not disregard Western values out of ignorance. To understand Western values of raising children you cannot dismiss and classify status through merit-based achievements. Only focusing on accomplishments is detrimental to a child’s self worth; they live in a society where school preaches the ideology “pursue what one desires,” while parents insist on pursuing financial security in options regardless of personal desire. It is honorable to believe in a work ethic and discipline to succeed, but the idea will lose meaning when the motivation behind becomes founded on the need to always perform better or attain higher academic scores. The emphasis here also falls on encouraging mental health and understanding a child’s hope to please those wishes conflict and create anxiety and stress to maintain academic goals and excelling in other activities. In a study conducted to promote mental health by Tsu-yin Wu and Joohyun Lee, the results found that open communication was a key to disclosure and growth in relationship between the parent and child (Wu and Lee 9).

For Asian-American students, understanding where your parents are coming from is crucial. The method by which they were raised is still present in their attempt to convert into parenting within their current environment. The generation gap tends to break communication between parents and children, and the lack of acknowledgement of background and culture leads to a broken relationship. It is incredibly easy to compare yourself to the people around you, and when no one is familiar with the culture in which you are brought up, the temptation overwhelms you into thinking there is something wrong because you are different. When ignorance concerning your heritage follows, take the time to simply explain for future improvement rather than jumping to accuse another of being intentionally and maliciously racist. Lastly, your self worth is not built on the grades you receive, the scores you attain, or the achievements you receive.

This thesis is very much a personal account and journey, but also much more as it is a continuous problem for first- and second-generation Asian Americans. This struggle to find self-identity and worth is evident in my close friends, in the people I meet in church conferences, and also in the testimonies of strangers. All relate specifically to the urgency felt and supposed need to fulfill an academic standard. The immediate answer is to change how worth is measured alongside accomplishment. The wrong response often turns to holding someone else responsible for the disappointment in how we view ourselves. One side of the spectrum turns to hating peers and accuses them of ignorance and discrimination. The opposite side turns to hating parents and culture in feeling insufficient from pressure or outraged at the expectations placed upon them. I think we want our parents to be either heroes or villains. As heroes they are the perfect family and as villains we are justified in fighting against them. I think the hardest thing to realize is they are humans. It is easy to blame, yet our challenge is to forgive. The broken communication and estranged students from parents continue to run within Asian-American families today. We have every power and voice to make the first step. Forgiveness is not a blink of an eye but a long storm to move through; the relief and freedom from pain will heal the broken relationships within generations and culture. This issue ends within our generation.

Works Cited

Barbash, Fred. “Why Asian American Kids Excel. It’s Not ‘Tiger Moms.’” The Washington Post, WP Company, 8 Apr. 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/04/08/forget-tiger-moms-asian-american-students-succeed-because-its-expected-say-scholars/?utm_term=.518790214e52.

Bronstein, Phyllis, and Connie S Chan. “Psychological Issues of Asian Americans.” Teaching Gender and Multicultural Awareness: Resources for the Psychology Classroom, American Psychological Association, 2007, pp. 179–193.

Chua, Amy. Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014.

—. “Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones and Company, 8 Jan. 2011.

Han, Meekyung, and Helen Pong. “Mental Health Help-Seeking Behaviors Among Asian American Community College Students: The Effect of Stigma, Cultural Barriers, and Acculturation.” Research Gate, 18 Aug. 2016.

Hartocollis, Anemona, and Stephanie Saul. “Affirmative Action Battle Has a New Focus: Asian-Americans.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 Aug. 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/us/affirmative-action-battle-has-a-new-focus-asian-americans.html.

Jaschik, Scott. “The Numbers and Arguments on Asian Admissions.” Inside Higher Ed, 7 Aug. 2017, www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2017/08/07/look-data-and-arguments-about-asian-americans-and-admissions-elite.

“The Model Minority Is Losing Patience.” The Economist, The Economist Newspaper, 3 Oct. 2015, http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21669595-asian-americans-are-united-states-most-successful-minority-they-are-complaining-ever.

Nishi, Koko. “Mental Health Among Asian-Americans.” American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association, http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/ethnicity-health/asian-american/article-mental-health.aspx.

Spencer, M., Chen, J., Gee, G., Fabian, C., Takeuchi, D. (2010). “Discrimination and Mental Health-Related Service Use in a National Study of Asian Americans.” American Journal of Public Health, 100(12), 2410-2417.

Wang, Phil, director. What Asian Parents Don’t Say. Wong Fu Productions, 24 Dec. 2015.

Wong, Jin. “Why The ‘Smart Asian’ Stereotype Is Not Flattering.” The Odyssey Online, 25 Aug. 2017, http://www.theodysseyonline.com/why-the-smart-asian-stereotype-not-flattering.

Wu, Tsu-Yin, and Joohyun Lee. “A PILOT PROGRAM TO PROMOTE MENTAL HEALTH AMONG ASIAN- AMERICAN IMMIGRANT CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS: A COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY APPROACH.” International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies , vol. 6, no. 4, ser. 1, pp. 731–745. 1, journals.uvic.ca/index.php/ijcyfs/article/view/15055/5995.

A Cleaner Future: Electric Cars

Leave a reply

Hannah Elliott

The earth’s average temperature is so high plants get scorched and cannot grow. The ozone is gone. The seas have risen and taken over much of the earth’s land mass. The birds, fish, and mammals have all gone extinct. The earth is no longer suitable to sustain life. How did this happen? Was it our fault? The answer may be hard to swallow, but if we continue on the path we’re on, the downfall of the earth will be on our hands. The air pollution we create will be the death of our world as we know it. Now, how do we stop this from happening? In order to reduce our environmental footprint, we need to stop using so many gas-powered cars and start moving toward the future of electric vehicles.

Arguments relating to electric cars are often disputed because their elements are not fully understood. However, this issue is becoming increasingly more relevant in today’s world as we urgently need a way to reduce our air pollution. As the amount of air pollution grows, more and more people are at risk for several different infections, diseases, and even death. According to the Global Burden of Disease, an international organization that examines trends across population estimates mortality from major diseases and their causes, states, “more than 155,000 U.S. deaths in 2015 were related to pollution.” In that same year, 38, 300 people died in car related crashes. More people die from pollution each year than from car crashes. This is an alarmingly high number and cannot be overlooked.

The electric car became a reality in the 1800s as there were several breakthroughs in technology, energy, and electric motors. In the mid 19^th century, practical electric cars were being invented. William Morrison is responsible for the the first electric vehicle produced in the US in 1890. This invention sparked the interest of electric cars in the people. Just a few years later, electric cars made up one third of cars on the road. However, at the same time gas-powered vehicles were being introduced to the people in addition to the electric car. This was a tough competitor for the electric vehicle as Henry Ford’s Model T car was more available and affordable to the people. At this time, Americans were interested in traveling and exploring, but the electric car was not a practical option for this lifestyle as it had a very limited range. Interest in the electric car was rapidly decreasing.

By the 1960s and 70s the price of oil was increasing and the amount of gas was decreasing. In this time of need, the energy department looked desperately for a solution and concluded it was time to start supporting research of electric vehicles. But even then, EVs had drawbacks linked to range and price. Interest in electric vehicles sparked again in 1990 when the government got involved in trying to help the environment. This included the Clean Air Act Amendment of 1990 and the 1992 Energy Policy Act. Unfortunately, gas prices were low and appealing and with few visible negative effects of the damage of pollution, people were not concerned with taking action.

In the 21^st century, technology is improving and people are being drawn back to the EV as gas prices are up and carbon emissions are fatally high. The electric vehicle has come a long way, starting in 1890 with a range of only 14 miles, to reaching a range of 40 miles in 1970, then the EV1 was introduced in 1990 with a range of 80 miles, and finally today the Tesla claims to have a 300-mile range. The US Department of Energy is still working to improve the electric car, as it has finally begun to realize the necessity of reducing carbon emissions from traditional gas powered cars. It is now time for us to realize the same need.

To better understand the argument for reducing pollution through the use of electric cars two terms you must understand are greenhouse gases and global warming. Merriam Webster defines greenhouse gases as gases such as carbon dioxide and methane that trap heat in the atmosphere leading to deadly high temperatures. Based on multiple sources, global warming is defined as an increase in the earth’s average atmospheric temperature due to a build up of greenhouse gases that causes negative corresponding changes in climate. As the temperature is rising, ice in the artic is melting, causing sea levels to gradually rise. The ice melting is also displacing and killing many species in that area. According to National Geographic, the polar bear, a threatened animal, is being significantly affected by global warming. The polar bear hunts on the artic sea ice, but as temperatures are climbing and ice is forming later in the year and melting sooner, the bear has no way to find food. The polar bears have no where else to turn, and are disappearing because of global warming.

In order to prove the United Sates ought to move toward using electric vehicles to protect the environment, I will confirm the following two arguments: the use of electric vehicles will benefit the American population by reducing air pollution and the use of electric cars will improve the state of our environment by eliminating emissions. I will then refute four common counterarguments: powering electric cars will contribute to more air pollution than gas-powered vehicles, the use of electric cars will damage the economy, electric cars are not practical because they cost too much, and electric cars are not practical because they have a short range.

My first confirmation argument is the use of electric vehicles will benefit the American population by reducing air pollution. The amount of pollution in today’s world has become a significant and threatening issue and the condition of our planet is unhealthy. Due to this increased amount pollution, the health of Americans is at an extreme risk. According to the US National Institute of Health, lung function during childhood determines lung function in adulthood. “Reduced lung function is associated with increased morbidity and mortality.” In this review, they explain the effect of traffic related air pollution (TRAP) on lung function in children. The authors concluded that exposure to TRAP during the childhood age range affected lung function development. This is a significant discovery and there are many studies that show the effects of living in air pollution. Environment International investigated the Tasmanian Longitudinal Health Study to learn more about the link between TRAP exposure and asthma and lung function. Their findings state,

For those who never had asthma by 45, living <200 m from a major road was associated with increased odds of new asthma that persisted from 50 to 53. Asthmatic participants at 45 had an increased risk of persistent asthma up to 53 years if they were living <200 m from a major road, compared with asthmatic participants living >200 m from a major road.

This means that living near a major road and being in direct contact with TRAP negatively affects health and can be seen through the development or worsening of asthma later in life. A study recently completed at UCLA also suggested exposure to TRAP is linked to negative health effects. In this pilot study, a positive association was noted in adolescents who had prolonged exposure to traffic related air pollution and alterations in gut microbiome which is linked to abnormal glucose levels. These results suggest a strong possibility that high levels of nitrous oxide from car emissions may directly lead to the development of diabetes.

These tragedies are the repercussions of our own actions. The cars we drive are one of the largest contributors to pollution in the US. The health and well-being of Americans are being negatively affected by their cars and the overwhelming amount of pollution they produce.

According to the [Environmental Protection Agency], motor vehicles collectively cause 75 percent of carbon monoxide pollution in the U.S. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) estimates that on-road vehicles cause one-third of the air pollution that produces smog in the U.S., and transportation causes 27 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. has 30 percent of the world’s automobiles, yet it contributes about half of the world’s emissions from cars.

The number of cars Americans have does not match the amount of pollution in the country. We are creating more pollution than we should be. There is an imbalance and the United States needs to realize this amount of pollution is unacceptable and irresponsible and take action to minimize our negative impact on the earth.

One way Americans can make a difference is through the use of electric cars. With technology becoming a bigger part of the American life, electric-powered vehicles are becoming more practical and come with several evident benefits. They are quieter than other cars and thus reduce noise pollution as they don’t have noisy engines, they cost less to maintain in the long run since they don’t need the routine fixes like oil changes that gas-powered vehicles require, and they can accelerate quickly, providing a short ride. The average American changes his oil around three to five times a year, paying around $45 each time. This means the average American is paying around $135 to $225 each year on their gas-powered car. With an electric car, the average American would undoubtedly save money.

Most importantly, electric cars do not have exhaust systems, which completely eliminates the pollution created by gas-powered cars such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide. The US Department of Energy says, “EVs and PHEVs running only on electricity have zero tailpipe emissions.” This will result in cleaner air for current and future Americans to breathe, reducing the negative effect on health significantly.

My second confirmation argument is the use of electric cars will improve the state of our environment by eliminating emissions. With the use of electric cars, we will no longer be dependent on fuels and can begin preserving our natural resources like gasoline. The gasoline that has historically powered all vehicles will be conserved for other uses such as construction equipment, generators, and vehicles like semi-trucks that are required to travel extremely long distances in short periods of time. Such conservation and wise stewardship will lead to a more efficient future in which we are not dependent on a non-renewable resource.

In addition to the people being affected by the air pollution emitted from cars, our earth is also suffering. One of the most severe consequences of pollution is global warming. Our personal vehicles are a major cause of global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists confirms,

Collectively, cars and trucks account for nearly one-fifth of all US emissions, emitting around 24 pounds of carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases for every gallon of gas. About five pounds comes from the extraction, production, and delivery of the fuel, while the great bulk of heat-trapping emissions — more than 19 pounds per gallon — comes right out of a car’s tailpipe.

The high concentration of these greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide emitted from cars is contributing to a climate change. The release of more and more gases like carbon dioxide into our atmosphere is trapping heat at the earth’s surface. This causes the average temperature of the earth to rise every year. NASA concludes,

The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.

The climate is changing and temperatures are rising. The debate should no longer concern the validity of global warning, but the steps we must take to stop it.

In referring to global warming, the members of Environmental Defense Fund, an environmental organization made up of 700 scientists, economists, and policy experts who find solutions that benefit people while protecting natural systems, reported that “motor vehicles play a major part in what scientists call the most serious environmental problem the world faces.” The Center for Biological Diversity, an organization working to protects plants and animals, states, “The U.S. transportation sector is responsible for about a third of our country’s climate-changing emissions.”

According to National Geographic the effects of our pollution are catastrophic; glaciers and artic ice are shrinking and melting and “animals and plants are already vanishing from parts of their range that are now too hot- extinctions come next.” The adélie penguin is one animal being affected by climate change. These Antarctic birds feed on krill which are tiny crustaceans who live on the underside of ice sheets. As the temperatures are rising, the krill have no where to live and are dying. This impacts the penguins fatally as they have no food and are forced to migrate further to find other food sources. By spending more energy on finding food, the penguins are not as successful at breeding and raising young. Another example of a species dying at the hand of global warming is coral. As air temperatures rise, the oceans warm, affecting aquatic life. Because the coral is sensitive to high water temperatures, it begins to bleach, ultimately leading to death. According to the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, the two bleaching events in 2016 and 2017 have affected approximately 932 miles of the Great Barrier Reef. This leaves only the southern third of the reef unharmed.

NASA also agrees the earth is being affected by pollution. “Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner.” This negatively affects the animals that we were given dominion over by influencing their climate and when and where they get food, which is often leading to starvation. We are currently killing living, breathing, innocent creatures and something must be done. By using electric cars, there will be no more gas emissions, air pollution will decrease, the climate will stabilize, and all species will once again flourish.

Genesis 1:28 reads, ^“God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” As Christians, we are commanded by God to be good stewards of the earth. This means we are here to take care of the earth and do all we can to protect it. It is time for everyone to put themselves and their selfish desires aside and take a step back to see the bigger picture. We are killing our planet and many people are not willing to change their ways to make a difference. In order to be good stewards of God’s creation, we must reduce our carbon emissions that are slowly destroying our world, and one way we can fulfill this mission is through the use of electric cars. Many people reject electric cars because of a few commonly believed flaws. However, not only are these cons false, they are not legitimate reasons to shun electric vehicles.

My first refutation argument is against the common belief that powering electric cars will contribute to more air pollution than gas-powered vehicles. Many people believe the pollution created by power plants to power electric cars will be even more fatal than that from our current gas-powered cars. However, we are not confined to the traditional air polluting power plant. There are ways to produce energy without the negative effects of pollution. “If you are looking to generate as close to zero well-to-wheel emissions as possible, not all electricity sources are created equal. If your primary motive in purchasing an electric vehicle is to be green, you should consider powering your car with a renewable energy source that you can generate at your home.” This can be sources such as solar, wind, or geothermal energy. By replacing power plants that convert fossil fuels to energy with natural and renewable energy, electric vehicles will be powered by clean energy sources and will not contribute to air pollution.

The second counterargument I will refute says the use of electric cars will damage the economy. This statement is false. By switching to electric vehicles the US will actually be saving money. “The fact is, we spend or lose an insane amount of money, time, productivity, and quality of life from burning oil-based fuels. All of this strikes into our economy and extracts money or comfort, pleasure, and time that we can try to quantify.” Millions of dollars are wasted every year on elements related to gas-powered cars such as air pollution, negative health effects, and military in order to protect the oil in foreign countries. For example, the “cost of outdoor air pollution” in the US simply in terms of premature death was estimated to be $500 billion in 2010, with about half of that cost coming from road transport. Again, that is the estimated cost only from premature deaths — it doesn’t include the costs of asthma, cancers that people survive, heart attacks that people survive, etc.

In 2016, we spent about $155 billion importing oil. “The amount of money we spend importing oil is alone enough to compel a societal shift to electric transport, but the economic benefits related to health, climate stability, and national security make electrification of transport one of the most obvious solutions we should be pursuing at the quickest pace possible.” Electric cars will reduce air pollution by eliminating toxic gases like carbon dioxide. This is benefit the overall health of Americans as they will no longer be inhaling such high concentrations of unhealthy gases because their air will be cleaner. “The National Academy of Sciences found that air deaths from pollution could be reduced by 70% when electric cars dominate the market, and can use renewable sources of electricity, such as solar, geothermal or hydrological power.” The climate will stabilize as temperatures stop increasing because the greenhouse gases emitted from gas-powered cars that trap heat in the atmosphere and reflect the heat back on earth will be eliminated. Lastly, one way electric vehicles will improve national security is by reducing the money used to supervise and protect the oil in Middle Eastern countries used to fuel our gas-powered vehicles and using it in other areas. By using electric cars, Americans can begin saving lives, money, and overall boosting the economy.

The third counterargument I will refute is electric cars are not practical because they cost too much. When the technology of modern electric cars first hit the market, this was true, as it is with any new car, but today’s electric cars have been on the market long enough they no longer sit at the costly price they used to. In fact, some electric cars sell for the same or even lover prices than new gas-powered cars. “The cheapest ‘family size’ EV on the market appears to be the Leaf or the Toyota Prius plug-in, both of which retail for roughly $30,000. That’s actually lower than the average car’s new price of roughly $32,000.” Another cheap electric vehicle on the market is the Toyota Prius Prime which sells for $27,100 and takes about 5 hours to fully charge. In addition, there is already a second-hand market for electric cars and used vehicles go for as little as $15,000 which is more practical for the majority of the population.

A similar argument against electric vehicles is the overall price of maintaining an electric car will be higher than that of a gas-powered car. This however, is false. In fact, by owning an electric car in place of a gas-powered car, one would actually save money as electricity is less expensive than gasoline. Today, it would cost around $9.75 for an average gas-powered car with a 23.6 mile per gallon efficiency to drive one hundred miles. In high contrast, it would only cost $3.48 to travel one hundred miles in an electric-powered vehicle as the national average price is only twelve cents per kilowatt. This is significant factor considering gas prices are steadily on the rise. By buying and operating an electric vehicle, not only will you be helping the environment, but you also will be saving money.

The fourth refutation I will focus on is the counterargument electric cars are not practical because they have a short range. This is because they must be charged more often than a gas-powered vehicle needs to be refueled. However, this factor does not actually play a significant role in the life of the average American. The battery of an electric vehicle is surely sufficient enough for the life of most people today. The battery of an electric car almost matches the typical range of a gas powered vehicle. “The current king of EV battery range is Tesla’s 85-kilowatt-hour-battery Model S, which can drive for up to 265 miles on a fully-charged battery. The average new vehicle sold last year averaged 24.1 miles per gallon, and many cars can hold at least 12 gallons of gas, which works out to a typical minimum range of about 290 miles.”

Many people do not drive enough in one day to run down the battery of their electric car. “The average car in the United States is on the road for only 40 miles each day, and only 7% of the cars in the country travel more than 100 miles in a given day.” This proves that electric vehicles have a practical range for the majority of the country.

If this still isn’t enough, our world is rapidly advancing. Our technology is progressing and is always becoming better. In 2006, the MacBook computer made by Apple had a battery life of only 5 hours. With advancements, the MacBook Pro doubled the battery life of its former model at 10 hours. This situation is true for the battery life of an electric vehicle as well. “So much money has poured into battery development over the past few years that a range of intriguing breakthroughs could soon double or triple a typical battery pack’s capacity within the next few years, and greater capacity gains could well be in store a decade from now.” The charging time for electric cars has also been a deterrent in the past but it has improved significantly. Charging time is specific to the model of the car and the charger being used. “All models have a new 7 kW on-board charger as a standard feature. In the US, charging time is an estimated 2.5 hours — about twice as fast as the predecessor.” An EV can be charged with a regular 120-Volt outlet, which it the most practical way. They can also be charged with a 240-Volt charger which provides a faster charge. Other options include at home charging ports and super stations offered at certain Tesla locations.

In fact, there are already many places to charge an electric car in the U.S. There are websites that have locations of charging stations in particular areas. In the Hampton Roads area, there are several places that are equipped with EV charging stations. There is a station in the City Center garage, there are certain churches such as the Huntington Mennonite Church that are equipped, many car dealerships like Casey Chevrolet, the Yorktown Library, and even a Wholefoods Market.

Many technologies seemed limited and doomed to fail when they were first developed. The railroad was a folly, until it wasn’t. Air travel wasn’t possible, until it was. Horses were better than the automobile, until they weren’t. Human ingenuity has a way of proving its doubters wrong, and the electric car’s problems are by no means permanent. Like all other problems, they’re just waiting to be solved.

The technology in our world is improving. A few years ago, electric cars being used on the roads was a far-fetched idea. Today, they are used every day all over the world. With time, all the kinks of electric cars will be worked out as seen with other things in our history, like the airplane. Was it perfect when the Wright brothers first took flight? No, it wasn’t, but over time it evolved and is now one of the most dependable sources of travel. The electric car has already been improved and will continue advancing.

Another solution to reducing emissions is the hybrid car. Hybrids have a regular internal combustion engine which is powered by fuel and an electric motor. This means that you can use gas or electricity to power a hybrid car. These cars are ideal for people who normally travel around 50 miles a day but want to have a backup just in case or have the desire to travel. Most hybrids have a 50 mile range on electricity and a 350 mile range on gas. There are also certain hybrids like the Toyota Prius, for sale at $23, 475, which shuts off the engine when the car stops. This saves our world from the gasses emitted while cars are stopped on the road. Toyota says, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, “the Prius Family is estimated to have reduced 11,794,335 tons of carbon dioxide emissions from being released into the atmosphere.” Hybrids eliminate the bulk of daily emissions and are a practical choice because you are not only dependent on electricity.

Our actions are amounting to detrimental consequences not only to ourselves but also our world, and we need to take action before it is too late. Using electric vehicles is just one way we can be good stewards of the earth as God commanded. There may be some drawbacks of this method of transportation, but are you really going to use them as an excuse to destroy the only world we have? In time, the cons of electric vehicles will be reduced and possibly even completely eliminated. Even if we can partially decrease our air pollution it would be a significant change for our environment and America’s health. It is time for the United States to start using electric vehicles to reduce air pollution in order to save the world.

Works Cited

Alderete, TL et al. “Exposure to Traffic-Related Air Pollution and the Composition of the Gut Microbiota in Overweight and Obese Adolescents.” Environmental Research. Feb, 2018. Web. March 13, 2018. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29220800

Ayre, James. “The Cheapest Electric Car in USA.” CleanTechnica, 26, March May. Web. Feb. 6, 2018. https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/26/cheapest-electric-car-usa/

Bowatte, G et al. “Traffic-Related Air Pollution and Development and Persistence of Asthma and Low Lung Function.” Environment International. 7 February 2018. Web. March 1, 2018. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29427878

Braun, Stephanie. “The Biggest Pros and Cons of Electric Vehicles.” Earth911, 25 September 2017. Web. Nov. 30, 2017. http://earth911.com/eco-tech/pros-cons-electric-vehicles/

Brinson, Linda. “How Much Air Pollution Comes from Cars?” How Stuff Works, Aug. 29, 2012. Web. Dec. 7, 2017. https://auto.howstuffworks.com/air-pollution-from-cars.htm

Center for Biological Diversity. “Transportation and Global Warming.” Web. Feb. 26, 2017. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/transportation_and_global_warming/

Chappell, Bill. “2015 Traffic Fatalities Rose by Largest Percent in 50 Years” National Public Radio. February 18, 2016. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwoway/2016/02/18/467230965/2015-traffic-fatalities-rose-by-largest-percent-in-50-years-safety-group-says

“Climate Change.” National Geographic. Web. Jan. 21,2018. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/climate-change/

Clogston, Frankie. Todd, Jennifer. “Analysis of the Electric Vehicle Industry.” 2013. PDF file. https://www.iedconline.org/clientuploads/Downloads/edrp/IEDC_Electric_Vehicle_Industry.pdf

Cobb, Jeff. “11 Reasons to Buy an Electric Car Now.” HybridCars, 10 May 2017. Web. Nov. 30, 2017. http://www.hybridcars.com/11-reasons-to-buy-an-electric-car-now/

DeCicco, John. Fung, Freda. “Global Warming on the Road.” 2006. PDF file. https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/5301_Globalwarmingontheroad_0.pdf

Department of Environmental Protection. “Environmental Effects of Air Pollution.” MassDEP. Web. Jan. 31, 2017. http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dep/air/aq/health-and-env-effects-air-pollutions.pdf

“Electric vehicles & the environment.” EnergySage. Web. Nov. 30. 2017. https://www.energysage.com/electric-vehicles/advantages-of-evs/evs-environmental-impact/

Emissions from Hybrid and Plug-In Electric Vehicles.” US Department of Energy. 18 May 2017. Web. Jan. 30, 2017. https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php

Evershed, Nick. Knaus, Christopher. “Great Barrier Reef at ‘terminal stage’.” April 9, 2017. Web. Feb. 25, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/10/great-barrier-reef-terminal-stage-australia-scientists-despair-latest-coral-bleaching-data

Gauderman, WJ. Weaver, GM. “Traffic Related Pollutants: Exposure and Health Effects Among Hispanic Children.” 1 January, 2018. Web. March1, 2018. https:/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28605396

“Global EV Outlook 2017.” 2017. PDF file. https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/GlobalEVOutlook2017.pdf

Gordon-Bloomfield, Nikki. “How Much Range Does Your Leaf Lose If You Unplug It for Eight Days?” Green Car Reports. 10 April 2012. Web. Feb. 7, 2017. https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1075241_how-much-range-does-your-leaf-lose-if-you-unplug-it-for-8-days

“Greenhouse Gases.” Merriam-Webster. Web. March 6, 2018. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/greenhouse%20gases

Harrington, Winston. McConnell, Virginia. “Motor Vehicles and the Environment.” 2003. PDF files. http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-RPT-carsenviron.pdf

Matulka, Rebecca. “The History of the Electric Car.” Energy.Gov. Web. Feb. 13, 2017. https://energy.gov/articles/history-electric-car

“NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming.” 26 January 2018. Web. Jan. 31, 3017. https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

Planes, Alex. “The 4 Biggest Arguments Against Electric Cars — and Why They’re Completely Wrong.” The Motley Fool, 8 February 2015. Web. Nov. 30, 2017. https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/02/08/4-biggest-arguments-against-electric-cars-wrong.aspx

Portillo, Melissa. “Air Quality, Health, and How Electric Vehicles Help.” Evconnect. 14 September, 2017. Web. Feb. 27, 2017. https://www.evconnect.com/blog/air-quality-health-electric-vehicles-help/

Rissman, Jeffery. “The Future of electric Vehicles in the US.” 2017. PDF. http://energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2017-09-13-Future-of-EVs-Research-Note_FINAL.pdf

Schultz, ES. Litonjua, AA. Melen, E. “Effects of Long-Term Exposure to Traffic-Related Air Pollution on Lung Function in Children.” PubMed. 17 June, 2017. Web. March 1, 2018. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28551888

Shahan, Zachary. “Economic Benefits of Electric Vehicles.” CleanTechnica. 6 September 2016. Web. Jan. 31, 2017. https://cleantechnica.com/2016/09/06/economic-benefits-electric-vehicles/

Sifferlin, Alexandria. “Here’s How Many People Die from Pollution Around the World.” Time. October 19, 2017. Web. Feb. 2, 2017. http://time.com/4989641/water-air-pollution-deaths/

Toyota. “2018 Prius.” Toyota. Web. Feb. 28, 2018. https://www.toyota.com/prius/prius-features/

Union of Concerned Scientists. “The Clean Power Plan: A Climate Game Changer.” October 26, 2017. Web. Feb. 2, 2017. https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/reduce-emissions/what-is-the-clean-power-plan#WnS2zGaZOt8

Wilson, Lindsay. “The Electric Cars Aren’t Green Myth Debunked.” Shrink That Footprint. Web. Dec. 5, 2017. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-cars-green

Drones in Warfare

Leave a reply

Joanna Larson

Inside a dimly-lit trailer at Creech Air Force Base, an hour outside of Las Vegas, Nevada, Lieutenant Steve Watts and Airman First Class Carrie Gershon fly an MQ-9 Reaper drone by remote control over a small village in Kenya, Africa. Their mission is to eliminate two confirmed terrorists by firing a Hellfire missile at their meeting point, but the pilots are faced with an impossible dilemma: if they bomb the house and kill the terrorists, they risk killing an innocent girl selling bread just outside the door; if they don’t bomb the terrorists and save the girl, they risk the terrorists escaping and fulfilling their plan to suicide bomb eighty people. This story, from the movie Eye In The Sky, is a Hollywood portrayal of real-life situations that happen almost every day. This movie provides good insight into the thought, care, and precision drone pilots need to make tough decisions that can ultimately save hundreds of lives and benefit our country.

In order to understand my thesis better, I will define two key terms. The following definitions are quoted or adapted from Merriam Webster’s Dictionary. “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles” (UAVs), otherwise known as drones, are unmanned aircraft guided by remote control or onboard computers. “ Reconnaissance” is a preliminary survey to gain information; especially : an exploratory military survey of enemy territory. I am defining these terms for clarification when they are used later.

Post 9/11, drones have become the US Military’s weapon of choice, but they have been around for much longer. Air Warfare is a relatively new phenomena. The first aerial attacks occurred in 1911, used by the Italians against the Turks, but the use of aircraft in battle did not become a widespread concept until The Great War in 1914-1918. The concept of drones was inevitable from the beginning. As much as the use of aircraft was beneficial, there was still one major disadvantage: soldiers’ lives were risked because they needed to be physically in the plane to complete their missions (Sifton). During World War 1, the US Military hired Elmer Ambrose Sperry, inventor of the gyroscopic compass, to build a biplane that could be launched by a catapult and then guided by radio signals over enemy positions to be blown up with TNT. A biplane is an aircraft with two main supporting surfaces usually placed one above the other (Merriam-Webster). The program was considered a failure, as the planes often crashed soon after takeoff. After World War 1, interest in automated flying weapons systems increased. In 1925, the British Royal Navy designed a small, pilotless aircraft called the RAE Larynx that could torpedo into targets and blow them up. The RAE Larynx was intended to be used against German Zeppelins, blimp-like aircraft that had reigned terror on Europe by dropping bombs. Overall, primitive drones like these proved relatively ineffective. In World War 2, drone production began to gain some ground, but ultimately failed again. The US Navy began to refit B-24 Bomber planes to target German bunkers. These planes were filled with explosives and guided by remote control. At this point, remote control technology was still crude, so a pilot would have to takeoff in the plane and guide it to a cruising altitude. Then, the pilot would parachute safely to England, and a “mothership” would guide the plane to its intended target. This program was considered unsuccessful because many of the planes crashed before the pilots could parachute to safety. John F. Kennedy’s older brother, Joseph, was killed when the drone in which he was flying exploded prematurely (Sifton).

After all the failed attempts in World War 1 and World War 2, development of drones stagnated for decades; there was no pressing need for them. Instead, cruise missiles became the world’s weapon of choice. The Cold War prompted the creation of these weapons. Cruise missiles are guided missiles that have a terrain-following radar system and fly at moderate speed and low altitude. They are similar to drones, as they are guided by remote control. Unlike drones, they could not linger over locations or return to a base. Since the missile itself was the weapon, its delivery was very blunt and semi-unpredictable (Sifton). The military needed something with more precision. Air Force scientists continued to work with the idea of unmanned aircraft, and in the early ’70s, they focused on non-weaponized UAVs, specifically made for surveillance. Advances in technology during the ’80s and ’90s brought us the beginnings of modern day drones.

In 1981, aerospace engineer Abraham Karem created a drone called “Albatross.” He proved his drone could stay in the air for up to 56 hours. This prompted the military’s research and development department to fund his research. Karem’s next creation, “The Amber,” was a drone the military flew on numerous missions to gather intelligence. In 1995, Karem introduced his newest creation: the “Predator.” The Predator would eventually become one of the US Military’s most feared weapons (Whittle).

The government was impatient with its civilian contractors about the speed of development, so it started its own drone department. For many years, the benefits of this program were very few, because the CIA was forced by congress to keep a very tight grip on the program. In 1992, the Bosnian War lifted many of these restrictions. The military needed persistent surveillance over Bosnia, so it responded with the Predator drone. This version of the Predator proved to be successful, with its ability to stay airborne for many hours and its impressive line of sight. This was the first time drone pilots could be in a different region to operate the drone. In 1995, the Air Force began its very first drone squadron: the 11th reconnaissance squadron stationed at Creech AFB, just outside of Las Vegas, Nevada. Here began production to turn this non-weaponized surveillance hunter into a killer. The predator now lives up to its name, as it is a fully weaponized system that can conduct surveillance missions as well as strike targets. The US Air Force’s official web site gives this description of today’s Predator:

The MQ-1B Predator is an armed, multi-mission, medium-altitude, long-endurance remotely piloted aircraft that is employed primarily as an intelligence-collection asset and secondarily against dynamic execution targets. Given its significant loiter time, wide-range sensors, multi-mode communications suite, and precision weapons, it provides a unique capability to perform strike, coordination and reconnaissance (SCAR) against high-value, fleeting, and time-sensitive targets. Predators can also perform the following missions and tasks: intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, close air support, combat search and rescue, precision strike, buddy-lase, convoy/raid overwatch, route clearance, target development, and terminal air guidance. The MQ-1’s capabilities make it uniquely qualified to conduct irregular warfare operations in support of combatant commander objectives.

The M in MQ-1B Predator stands for multi-role. Multi-role means the Predator is capable of both persistent surveillance as well as striking targets. Some drones are surveillance only, while some others are for striking only. The US Air Force says this about the Predator: The Predator remotely piloted aircraft system continues to provide required armed intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities to overseas contingency operations warfighters. During August 2011, the Predator surpassed one million hours of total development, test, training, and combat — a significant accomplishment for the U.S. Air Force.

The other two major drones used by the Air Force are the RQ-4 Global Hawk and MQ-9 Reaper. The RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned aircraft system is the premier provider of persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance information. Able to fly at high altitudes for greater than 30 hours, the Global Hawk is designed to gather near-real-time, high-resolution imagery of large areas of land in all types of weather – day or night (Northrop Grumman). Although the Global Hawk doesn’t carry Hellfire missiles, it is invaluable for its high-quality imaging systems. The information Global Hawks provide is so important that at any point in time, there is always a Global Hawk in the air. The MQ-9 Reaper is the primary offensive strike unmanned aerial vehicle for the Air Force. Given its significant loiter time, wide-range sensors, multi-mode communications suite, and precision weapons – it provides a unique capability to perform strikes, coordination, and reconnaissance against high-value, fleeting, and time-sensitive targets (“MQ-9”). Although missiles are the Reaper’s most known feature, its surveillance systems are crucial to the mission. They provide intel, images, and video that support soldiers.

Safety and Surveillance are the two most important reasons drones are relevant in today’s world. Drones provide safety to US Military personnel like no other weapon. Their ability to be a protective eye in the sky, as well as the gains made from the intelligence collected make them invaluable. The way warfare is conducted has changed since 9/11. Post-9/11, terrorists’ thirst for the destruction of America has significantly increased. The amount of money and resources put into drone development and drone squadrons help us understand why drones are such an integral part of how the War On Terror is being fought.

Not everyone might be as interested in the military as those so closely involved with it. If an individual doesn’t know anyone currently serving in the military or who has served in the past, it can be difficult to find an emotional connection to the military. Not everyone may care about the day-to-day operations of the military, but it’s important to understand why they’re doing what they’re doing. Our military exists for our defense. They fight for our welfare; we ought to care about their safety. Their safety is our safety.

In order to prove the United States must continue the use of drone warfare, I will confirm three arguments: first, drones help keep the country safe by eliminating terrorist threats overseas; second, drones provide safety to US military personnel by providing high-quality imaging and video of enemy territory; and third, drones limit the amount of civilian casualties because of their accuracy and technical precision. I will then refute two counter arguments: first, airmen who work with drones have an emotional disconnect from war; and second, drones are unethical.

My first confirmation argument is drones help keep the country safe by eliminating terrorist threats overseas. The dictionary defines a terrorist as “ a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.” Over the past few decades, terrorism has increased exponentially. On September 11, 2001, planes hijacked by al-Qaeda terrorists crashed into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 people. This unprecedented attack on our own soil was a horrific tragedy, and a s the War On Terror intensifies, the United States has taken the fight to the heart of the enemy in their own land , exposing the people who would kill every American before they have the chance to reach them. Drones are an effective tool in this endeavor.

Two methods can measure the military effectiveness of drones. First is their ability to successfully disrupt enemy capabilities. In declassified documents found in Osama Bin Laden’s compound, it is evident drone strikes made Bin Laden and his comrades very uneasy. One of the letters stated, “Over the last two years, the problem of the spying war and spying aircrafts benefited the enemy greatly and led to the killing of many jihadi cadres, leaders, and others. This is something that is concerning us and exhausting us” (“Drones in the Abbottabad”).

The second measurement is how well drone strikes slow and inhibit communication between the enemy as they’re trying to prevent suspicion. The fear of being located by drones causes terrorist groups to communicate via letters, which slows communication overall. Survivors in a strike often cause conflict in their group because the leaders look for informants. Author Ensign Lacinski states:

Further, UAVs have proved effective at eliminating terrorist leadership including Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan founder Baitullah Mehsud; Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan leader Tahir Yuldashev; Majmiddin Jalolov, leader of the Islamic Jihad Union; and Saleh al-Somali, al Qaeda’s chief of operations, among others. The combination of these effects has produced a profound degradation on militant organizations that reduces their capabilities to launch regional and international attacks.

My second confirmation argument is drones provide safety to US military personnel by providing high-quality imaging and video of enemy territory . The imaging and video they provide is critical as they can alert soldiers of incoming enemy presence that might not be noticed from the ground. Drones provide safety by alerting soldiers of incoming enemy presence, providing imagery for soldiers to get from point A to point B, and helping soldiers plan attacks on and assets the enemy. Drones can spot enemy vehicles coming from miles away and give friendly forces sufficient time to plan accordingly. I will discuss three broad categories of drones that protect soldiers by providing imaging and video: High altitude drones, medium altitude drones, and low altitude drones.

High altitude drones, such as the RQ-4 Global Hawk: t he RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned aircraft system are the premier provider of persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance information. By persistent intelligence, I mean a strategy that emphasizes the ability of some collection systems to linger on demand in an area to detect, locate, characterize, identify, track, target, and possibly provide battle damage assessment and retargeting in real or near time (The Free Dictionary). Able to fly at high altitudes for greater than 30 hours, the Global Hawk is designed to gather near-real-time, high-resolution imagery of large areas of land in all types of weather – day or night (“Global Hawk”). Although the Global Hawk doesn’t carry missiles, it is invaluable for its high-quality imaging systems. The information Global Hawks provide is so important that at any point in time, there is always a Global Hawk in the air.

Second are medium altitude drones, such as the MQ-9 Reaper. The MQ-9 Reaper is the primary offensive strike unmanned aerial vehicle for the Air Force. Given its significant loiter time, wide-range sensors, multi-mode communications suite, and precision weapons, it provides a unique capability to perform strike, coordination, and reconnaissance against high-value, fleeting, and time-sensitive targets (“MQ-9 Reaper”). By loiter time, I mean the ability to stay airborne for a significant amount of time. Although missiles are the Reaper’s most known feature, its surveillance systems are crucial to the mission.

Third are low altitude drones such as the the RQ-11B Raven. The RQ-11B Raven small unmanned aircraft system provides real-time direct situational awareness and target information for Joint Special Operations troops in the U.S. military. The Raven includes a color electro-optical camera and an infrared camera for night operations. The air vehicle is hand-launched, weighs less than 5 pounds and has an endurance of up to 80 minutes (“RQ-11B Raven”). Because the Raven is so small, it has the ability to get closer to its target, which provides advantages for the soldiers who are relying on the information it collects. These advantages might include the ability to get geographically closer to enemy territory than a larger drone, such as the Global Hawk. Many different types of drones provide detailed images and video to give soldiers intel to keep them safe.

Drones image and video two main things: US soldiers and the enemy. As I mentioned before, one of the reasons drones are constantly surveying the land is to help protect soldiers by alerting them of unseen threats. For example, a Global Hawk could survey a desert US forces need to trek through. The Global Hawk will take images of the land to help determine the easiest or safest way through. Regarding the enemy, one of the many benefits of videoing them is for US forces to follow their location and expose meeting places. When an enemy is located, pilots use the images the drone has taken of the building to identify where all the exits and entrances are. They can identify where they believe enemies will run if they strike the building. Then, if any of them escape the strike, they know where to target their next missile, or where to tell ground troops to find them.

In June 2017, MQ-1 Predator drone pilots were going through their normal work routine. They were gathering intelligence of the local area in Iraq when they noticed something alarming: an armoured vehicle with bulletproof windowing and tires was moving in the direction of friendly forces. The pilots relayed a message to the soldiers warning them of a possible VBIED (vehicle-borne improvised explosive device) so they could take action necessary to defend themselves. Based on the speed of the vehicle, the pilots knew the soldiers only had minutes to prepare. It was clear they needed to take action. It took one minute of planning from the pilots and a thirty-second missile flight from the drone to reach its target. A Hellfire missile was shot at the vehicle, and based on the size of the explosion, it was clear the vehicle was in fact a car bomb. If the drone pilots were a minute too late, an estimated 850 combatants and indigenous Iraqis would have been in danger from the car bomb (Vlogger). This is an example of how drones help protect our soldiers through imaging and video.

My third confirmation argument is drones limit the amount of civilian casualties because of their accuracy and technical precision. Accuracy and precision are important regarding civilian casualties in that if pilots are not meticulous in their targeting, they could strike the wrong place and kill the wrong people. Because drones are so accurate and precise, the military must be extremely careful in deciding who they target and must be competent in recognizing and avoiding potential collateral damage (Lacinkski, 4). A drone is a machine; it doesn’t know the difference between enemy and friend. Its actions depend solely upon the commands of its operator. That’s why drone pilots in all branches of the military go through rigorous training processes, to make sure they are fully capable of understanding and operating these powerful machines. Avoiding collateral damage is a critically important task for the military. Unnecessary collateral damage can cause increased political tension between countries, but more importantly, the United States has to deal with the moral implications of the innocent lives that were lost.

Over the course of the entirety of UAV strikes in Pakistan, the SCRT report estimates 400 noncombatants were killed along with 200 additional “probable noncombatants.” This figure represents 27 percent of all casualties. However, as the usage of UAVs evolved with improvements in intelligence, weapons, and stricter rules of engagement, civilian casualties were significantly reduced. In nine strikes conducted in Afghanistan thus far this year, an estimated one civilian has been killed relative to as many as 65 militants (1.5 percent of casualties). UAVs, though imperfect, continue to make improvements in reducing collateral damage (Lacinski 2).

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports that since 2010, a minimum of 4,721 confirmed strikes has killed 7,275-10,586 people in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan, with only 737-1551 of those being civilians. Although any loss of civilian life is tragic, we must keep in mind the cost of war, and that drone strikes are a more discriminating weapon of war; meaning, they have the ability to surgically strike their targets, inflicting fewer civilian casualties.

The first counter argument to my thesis is airmen who work with drones have an emotional disconnect from war. This means they are desensitized to the horrors of war while they’re safe at home in the United States. This is false for two reasons: they still experience war and all the emotions that come with it even though they’re not on the ground, and high rates of PTSD among airmen and intelligence analysts prove operating drones causes emotional stress.

Over the course of a day, a drone pilot or intelligence analyst, someone who manages and evaluates information that drones provide, might monitor hours of typical activity; the “patterns of life.” A pattern of life is “ the specific set of behaviors and movements associated with a particular entity over a given period of time” (Biltgen and Ryan). Intelligence analysts and pilots study these patterns of life: people visiting friends, shopping in the marketplace or taking their kids to school. Because pilots and analysts are monitoring everything at all times of the day, they sometimes have to witness things much more gruesome than regular patterns of life. Col. Jason Brown, Wing Commander of the 480th Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Wing at Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Virginia says that “They (airmen) are exposed to the most gruesome things that you can think about that could happen on a battlefield. They find mass graves; they witness executions.” Airmen have had to watch rape, mass executions, beheadings, people be skinned alive or tortured to death just to name a few. And it’s all in high definition (Sarah McCammon). You’re not disconnected in these types of scenarios, you are immersed. In many cases, when observing these types of horrible acts, airmen leverage kinetic capabilities of drones to deliver justice. Let’s consider an example to illustrate how engaged airmen involved with drone warfare are. When recalling a tough decision during a mission a few years back, Staff Sgt. Kimi of the 480th said, “To this day I still think about it, but it’s been a couple of years. I made the correct decision, but knowing that I could have made the wrong one, and a lot of people could have died because of a wrong decision — I just could not stop thinking about it” (Kimi). The thought of making wrong calls often haunts airmen, just like Staff Sgt. Kimi. Although these airmen are not physically in the places they’re fighting, they’re still engaged in the fight and they can still experience all the mental and emotional trauma a soldier on the ground can. Granted, it might not be on a level as personal, but anyone who thinks the airmen are completely disconnected from the actions they do does not have a full understanding of the emotional burdens that come with the job. In combat, forces on the ground are often in communication with drone pilots in the United States. The pilots inform them of which roads to take, or what direction the enemy is coming from. There are also times when soldiers are in the middle of a gunfight with militants and call in for air support. Col. Christopher Larson of the US Air Force states emotional disconnect is a myth. When you have soldiers on the ground in the middle of a firefight radio to you, screaming for air support, you understand the importance of what you’re doing. There are real people down there, depending on you (Larson). There are also times when drone pilots and analysts have to watch American soldiers die, whether it be from a gunshot or an IED or something of that nature. It’s a terrible thing to witness, and saying they’re all just emotionless killers playing a video game trivializes these traumatic incidents.

The second reason this counterargument is false is drone pilots have been found to have higher levels of stress, anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts than people with other Air Force support roles. A study published by the Department of Defense last year suggests drone pilots experience PTSD in a similar way to soldiers on the ground. This is largely due to the fact so much power lies in their hands. At the press of a button, they could wipe out an entire town or kill hundreds of civilians. A 2012 military medicine study reports 10.72% of operators experience high levels of distress and 1.57% of operators show high levels of PTSD symptomology. The nature of the job is also very confidential. It wears on pilots to be in combat at 5, then home for dinner at 5:30 and not being able to talk to their significant other or family. The emotional distress is often taken out on family (Jason Koebler). Long shifts also contribute to this. Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James addressed this issue during the State of the Air Force in 2015, saying,

I visited Creech Air Force Base and saw our remotely-piloted aircraft ISR mission firsthand. Of course, the chief has been there many, many times. The airmen who perform this essential mission do a phenomenal job, but talks with the RPA pilots and the sensor operators, and their leaders certainly told me —suggested to me, that this is a force that is under significant stress — significant stress from what is an unrelenting pace of operations. Now, these pilots, just to give you a little color on this, fly six days in a row. They are working 13, 14 hour days on average. And to give you a contrast, an average pilot in one of our manned Air Force aircraft flies between 200 and 300 hours per year. Again, these are averages. But in the RPA world, the pilots log four times that much, ranging from 900 to 1100 flight hours per year. And again, this is very stressful operations because mistakes can cost lives (“State of the Air Force”).

The combination of the long work hours, statistics of distress and PTSD, and the confidentiality of the job can be emotionally debilitating for pilots. If piloting drones was just like playing an emotionless video game, all of this evidence should not be present.

The second counterargument against my thesis is drones are unethical. They’re an unfair and inhumane form of warfare because their targets have no idea what is about to occur. This is false because the enemy has to realize that their actions make them targets. The fact that they don’t know when a strike will occur doesn’t change the ethics of the situation. It wouldn’t be more any more ethical if they knew exactly when and where a strike is going to happen. The very nature of their intentions to do harm gives them an indication that they are a target. We won’t sit idly by and let them carry out their evil plans. Their actions cannot go without consequences.

According to the Jus Ad Bellum section of the Just War Theory, a theory that the United States explicitly acknowledges in regards to waging war, for an act to be permissible, it must meet two requirements: discrimination and proportionality. Discrimination says only military targets and combatants can become targets. It is illegal for the military to attack innocent civilians. The military doesn’t go around dropping bombs on random people. Bad people get eliminated because they have shown characteristics of a terrorist, or are a confirmed terrorist. Proportionality says the military advantage gained from an attack cannot outweigh the civilian damage. Drones possess the technology to acquire information that allows operators to make distinctions between combatants and non combatants. Planners then leverage this information to minimize collateral damage while at the same time maximizing the military effect of the strike (Lacinski 4). So in effect, the use of drone technology, when applied against the backdrop of the Just War Theory, is an ethical use of technology to conduct war.

Many people get caught up in the collateral damage argument. While this is something to be taken very seriously, we need to realize that the force America is putting on terrorist organizations is necessary. Terrorists would not hesitate for one second to kill every single American. As I stated, the only people who are targeted in the first place are people who have proved to us they are worth such a serious death. Whether it’s a drone strike or a bullet from a soldier on the ground, these people have given us reason to eliminate them.

As Christians, this issue can be very difficult to comprehend and decide how we should feel about it. We are called to love our enemy, but loving our enemy doesn’t mean allowing them to do evil. In fact, it can mean just the opposite. The act of loving means helping and defending the people that they’re persecuting. The act of loving means protecting our country. C.S. Lewis says this when talking about war in his book, Mere Christianity:

I imagine somebody will say, ‘Well, if one is allowed to condemn the enemy’s acts, and punish him, and kill him, what difference is left between Christian morality and the ordinary view?’ All the difference in the world. Remember, we Christians think man lives forever. Therefore, what really matters is those little marks or twists on the central, inside part of the soul which are going to turn it, in the long run, into heavenly or a hellish creature. We may kill if necessary, but we must not hate and enjoy hating. We may punish if necessary, but we must not enjoy it. In other words, something inside us, the feeling of resentment, the feeling that wants to get one’s own back, must be simply killed. I do not mean that anyone can decide this moment that he will never feel it anymore. That is not how things happen. I mean that every time it bobs its head up, day after day, year after year, all our lives long, we must hit it on the head. It is hard work, but the attempt is not impossible. Even while we kill and punish we must try to feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves — to wish that he were not bad, to hope that he may, in this world or another, be cured: in fact, to wish his good. That is what is meant in the Bible by loving him: wishing his good, not feeling fond of him nor saying he is nice when he is not.

Lewis’s words remind us we shouldn’t take pleasure in the destruction of our enemies. Our hearts should be saddened by the evil they do, and saddened by the fact that their evil has reached a point where it needs to be stopped. But defending America and people all over the world who cannot defend themselves is something that is necessary. It’s not something of which we need to be ashamed.

The men and women of the United States military have sworn an oath to protect this country each and every day. They fully understand the risks that come with this honor. They are willing to risk their lives to preserve our freedom and security. Consider this, Since September 11, 2001, thousands and thousands have paid the ultimate price (Department of Defense). Consider also these examples: The average age of servicemen and women in the military is twenty-nine years old. Of these, an average of sixty-one percent are married. As of 2015, in a study of the military community, the amount of family members far outnumber the number of active duty members. All of these active duty men and women deserve a chance to come home safe and sound. Their wives, husbands, children and parents deserve to hug them, kiss them and see them again. If they are so willing to sacrifice their lives for ours, should we not provide them with all the tools we can to help them return home safely? Drones are a tool to help accomplish this and so much more. The safety and security drones provide to service members are invaluable. Their safety is our safety. The intelligence drones collect give long lasting benefits to this country. It is our responsibility as United States citizens to be vigilant and informed on this issue, so we can help keep the military in check for their actions regarding drones. Their mission to fly, fight and win is something that deserves our full support.

Works Cited

“Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) Operator.” U.S. Air Force — Career Detail, http://www.airforce.com/careers/detail/airborne-intelligence-surveillance-and-reconnaissance-isr-operator.

“Biplane.” Merriam-Webster , Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biplane.

Budanovic, Nikola. “The Early Days Of Drones – Unmanned Aircraft From World War One AndWorld War Two.” WAR HISTORY ONLINE , 21 July 2017, http://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle-news/short-history-drones-part-1.html.

Biltgen, Patrick, and Stephen Ryan. Activity-Based Intelligence: Principles and Applications. Artech House Publishers, 2016.

Blain, Loz. “US Navy Tests Aerial Drones for Real-Time Mine Detection.” New Atlas — New Technology & Science News , New Atlas, 1 June 2017, newatlas.com/us-navy-mine-detection-drone/49849/.

Budanovic, Nikola. “The Early Days Of Drones – Unmanned Aircraft From World War One And World War Two.” WAR HISTORY ONLINE , 21 July 2017, http://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle-news/short-history-drones-part-1.html.

Chappelle, Wayne L., et al. “Symptoms of Psychological Distress and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in United States Air Force ‘Drone’ Operators.” Military Medicine , Aug. 2014, web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&sid=67c1c387-b197-4abe-998b-c6d7961e0c8c@sessionmgr102.

“Cruise Missile.” Merriam-Webster , Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cruise missile.

“Drones in the Abbottabad Documents.” Center for the Study of the Drone , 25 Mar. 2016, dronecenter.bard.edu/drones-in-the-abbottabad-documents/.

“Drone Warfare.” The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war.

“Global Hawk.” Northrop Grumman, http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/GlobalHawk/Pages/default.aspx.

“History of U.S. Drones.” Understanding Empire: Technology, Power, Politics , 23 Jan. 2017, understandingempire.wordpress.com/2-0-a-brief-history-of-u-s-drones/.

Just War Theory , oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/just_war_theory/criteria_intro.html.

Koebler, Jason. “The Curious, Stressful Life of a US Military Drone Pilot.” Motherboard , 18 Sept. 2014, motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bmjdxq/the-curious-stressful-life-of-a-us-military-drone-pilot.

Lacinski, Ensign. “Unmanned Ethics.” US Naval Institute Proceedings, Sept. 2015 usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2015-09/unmanned-ethics

Larson, Christopher. Personal Interview. 12 February 2018.

Lewis, C. F. M. Mere Christianity. Fount Paperbacks, 1977.

McCammon, Sarah. “The Warfare May Be Remote But The Trauma Is Real.” NPR , NPR, 24 Apr. 2017, http://www.npr.org/2017/04/24/525413427/for-drone-pilots-warfare-may-be-remote-but-the-trauma-is-real.

“MQ-9 Reaper.” Military.com , http://www.military.com/equipment/mq-9-reaper.

“Persistent Surveillance.” The Free Dictionary , Farlex, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/persistentsurveillance.

Rozenfeld, Monica. “Military Drones: From World War II to the Present.” Military Drones: From World War II to the Present — IEEE — The Institute, theinstitute.ieee.org/tech-history/technology-history/military-drones-from-world-war-ii-to-the-present.

“RQ-11B Raven.” Military.com , http://www.military.com/equipment/rq-11b-raven.

Sherman, Robert and Tom Weiner. “Drones Spare Troops, Have Powerful Impact.” Sandiegouniontribune.com , 7 Sept. 2016, http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sdut-drones-troops-impact-2014oct09-story.html.

Sifton, John. “A Brief History of Drones.” The Nation , 29 June 2015, http://www.thenation.com/article/brief-history-drones/.

Smith, Stew. “What Are The Iraq And Afghanistan Casualty Statistics?” The Balance, http://www.thebalance.com/the-cost-of-war-3356924.

“State of the Air Force Press Briefing by Secretary James and General W.” U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE , http://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/606995/.

Vlogger. “A Drone Strike That Saved Hundreds of Lives.” Military.com , Vlogger, 30 Jan. 2017, http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/improvised-weapons/a-drone-strike-thatsaved-hundreds-of-lives/5302970247001.

Whittle, Richard. “The Man Who Invented the Predator.” Air & Space Magazine , Air & Space Magazine, 31 Mar. 2013, http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/the-man-who-invented-the-predator-3970502/.

“World War One: How the German Zeppelin Wrought Terror.” BBC News , BBC, 4 Aug. 2014, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-27517166.

Multi-Sport Athletes

Leave a reply

Amanda Mericle

If I told you someone scored a touchdown and a homerun in the same week you wouldn’t believe me because today athletes are focused on one sport, especially at the professional level. However, one man, Deion Sanders, was able to participate in football and baseball at the professional level and complete this feat of athleticism. He is also the only man to play in both the Super Bowl and the World Series. Sanders is not alone in his support of multi-sport participation as many other professional athletes in the past and present have played multiple sports. There are even more examples of multi-sport athletes at the college level, and a few schools have even begun to encourage the participation in multiple sports. Athletes who participate in multiple sports are able to experience different environments, develop better skills, and maintain a passion for the game. There are several benefits to participating in multiple sports so why do many athletes, coaches, and parents still believe focusing on one sport is the best option?

I will first need to define a few technical terms central to my thesis. The following definitions are taken from Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Medscape, a medical dictionary. An athlete is “a person who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina” (“Athlete”). An overuse injury, otherwise known as cumulative trauma disorder, is “described as tissue damage that results from repetitive demand over the course of time” (Laker). Burnout is “exhaustion of physical or emotional strength or motivation usually as a result of prolonged stress or frustration” (“Burnout”). Cross-training means “to engage in various sports or exercises especially for well-rounded health and muscular development” (“Cross-training”).

Forty years ago, high school athletes were striving to letter in multiple sports before their senior year. If you were able to letter in three sports as a sophomore or even a freshman, you were at the top of your class. Playing a varsity sport in high school was the pinnacle of many athletes’ careers and only a few went out for sports at the collegiate level. Outside of school-sponsored sports, there were not many other opportunities for athletes. Summer leagues did exist but they were not as competitive as they are now and there were no travel teams. The idea of dropping a sport to focus on a single sport never crossed an athlete’s mind and athletes did not quit a sport unless they were injured. They played sports because they loved the thrill they got and it was a way to spend time with friends. Back then, the emphasis was not placed on which travel teams got you the best exposure for college but it was on how many different sports you could play during high school. Over the past forty years, the trend of sport specialization has been rising, and the age at which athletes specialize has been getting younger and younger (Wojtys).

Today, we see athletes dropping all sports but one at alarming young ages. There are instances where kids start focusing on one sport as young as six or seven. We see this through the rise of travel teams geared towards children of these ages. This is alarming because when I think of six and seven-year old kids I think of kids like my brother, who is eight. He spends a majority of his time outside riding his bike or kicking around a soccer ball just like he should be doing as an eight-year old kid. However, not all eight-year old kids are like my brother and they spend a majority of their time focusing on a single sport, often not even by their own choice. Children should not have to cope with the pressure of succeeding at a single sport when they are this young. Even high school students should not feel pressured to solely focus on one sport but at least at an older age they can begin to make decisions for themselves. This is one of the reasons why we see many athletes suffer from “burnout,” which was not an issue forty years ago. Many athletes who have been focusing on one sport their entire lives since they were young lose the joy and passion they once had for the game. The six and seven-year old children who were put on a club soccer team fail to see the point of playing once they reach high school because it may not have been their idea in the first place and they have not been able to get this across to their parents before. Some athletes decide to specialize in one sport even before high school in order to achieve greater levels of skill and move on to the next level. Others even bypass school sports altogether and focus on travel teams such as the year-round Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) or move to different cities and live with sponsor families so they can be exposed to better opportunities for their chosen sport. However, by doing this, these young athletes center their entire lives around a single sport and miss out on other opportunities around them like making memories other friends. By playing multiple sports, athletes do not always have to be around the same people and they can decide if they even want to specialize at all. Many kids decide to play sports just for the fun of it rather than play with the weight of others’ expectations on them (Wojtys).

It is important for us to encourage our athletes to participate in multiple sports because they will have many benefits as a result. Encouraging our athletes can be helpful for their overall happiness, health, and skill. Specializing on one sport puts not only physical pressure on an athlete but also emotional pressure. Oftentimes, specializing leads to a more controlled career for an athlete. It is not the athletes controlling their careers and focusing on what they love but the parents and coaches telling the athletes what they think is best for them. This leads to the athlete losing his passion and love for the game, especially if he has specialized at a young age. By playing multiple sports when they are younger, athletes have the opportunity to experience different sports and choose which ones they enjoy playing instead of being encouraged to focus on one sport at a young age and never getting the chance to experience anything different. My thesis is relevant because it will help people understand the benefits of playing multiple sports and why our society should encourage the participation in multiple sports. Encouraging this participation benefits athletes but it is not only athletes who should care because anyone who cares about the wellbeing of children should be an advocate for this cause. It has been proven by studies that young athletes who participate in multiple sports experience fewer injuries. Also, multi-sport athletes develop different relationships with teammates because they move from team to team. Playing multiple sports also increases a child’s wellbeing because he is able to determine what he does and does not like without being influenced by what his parents decide what sport they want him to play. Simply the reasoning of overuse injuries and psychological pressure should be enough to convince any person that multiple sport participation is the moral choice.

In order to prove it is beneficial for athletes to play multiple sports, I will confirm three arguments: playing multiple sports decreases the risk of serious injury, cross-training improves an athlete’s overall skill, and college recruiters look for multi-sport athletes rather than single-sport athletes. I will then refute two counterarguments: it is necessary for athletes to follow the 10,000-hour rule for better results and single-sport athletes will experience greater success, as shown by their skill level, as well as a longer career in their chosen sport.

My first argument is playing multiple sports is beneficial to athletes because it decreases their risk of serious injury. A myth has been spread that specialization in one sport is the best option for athletes who wish to continue their athletic career at higher levels. However, this is simply not the truth, especially in an athlete’s younger years. The types of injuries most prevalent in single-sport athletes are overuse injuries. These types of injuries occur because these athletes are repeating the same motions over and over again. There is no change in the athletes’ movements so the same muscles and joints are being used every time they play.

Two examples of an overuse injury are shoulder injuries and Tommy John injuries, which are common in throwing sports such as baseball or softball and cause serious problems for an athlete. These types of injuries can lead to issues down the road and can severely hinder an athlete in his later adult years (Andrews 98). Tommy John injuries are especially dangerous because the MLB and other baseball organizations have been lulled into a false sense of security that after receiving Tommy John surgery, an athlete will make a full recovery and experience no further issues. In 2014 alone, more pitchers underwent Tommy John surgeries than during the entire decade of the 1990s. A recent survey found that twenty-five percent of MLB pitchers have had Tommy John surgery and some have even had second and third surgeries. Why would pitchers need to go back to receive further operations on their elbow if the surgery is “successful”?

One such athlete who underwent two Tommy John surgeries is Jarrod Parker, a pitcher for the Oakland Athletics. In 2016, thirteen months after receiving his second surgery, Jarrod was pitching in a game when he experienced a sharp pain in the area of his elbow that had been operated on. Parker also experienced immediate swelling in his elbow and trainers soon discovered he had fractured his elbow. Jarrod Parker underwent surgery to repair his elbow but has recently decided to retire from baseball. He was only twenty-nine and still had a promising future ahead of him. Even though coaches, parents, and athletes have this example, and many others, to look at, they still believe Tommy John surgery will actually make an elbow stronger and give an athlete the ability to throw harder. However, analysis of pitchers after they have undergone surgery has shown performance declines in speed and accuracy and getting the surgery may not even get an athlete back to the performance level he was at before the injury. Only eighty percent of pitchers who receive the treatment get back to where they were and sixty-seven percent keep playing for more than one season after the first surgery. The Tommy John surgery also involves great risk because there is a complication rate of twenty percent. Ulnar nerve injury, factures, and infection are very common after the procedure. Also, the recovery time spans from twelve to eighteen months with nearly a year of intense physical therapy until an athlete can return to fast-speed pitching. Even Tommy John himself took nearly three years to return to pitching.

After undergoing this surgery, athletes are not good to go. Of the pitchers who receive first-time Tommy John surgery, twenty-five percent need additional procedures, thirty-four percent experience shoulder injuries, and fifty-seven percent return to the disabled list at least one more time. Experts agree that the best way to avoid these problems is to never need the surgery in the first place. The way they suggest to accomplish this is to play multiple sports so an athlete is not throwing year-round and his arm can be given a break (Monto).

A study done at Ohio State University found athletes who specialized early, high school aged and younger, experienced a higher rate of adult physical activity than those who played multiple sports (O’Sullivan). Athletes can avoid worrying about how their bodies will hold up in the later years by rotating the sports they play. This will give overused muscles, normally muscles around the joint areas, a break while still enabling the athlete to remain active and in shape.

Because playing multiple sports decreases the risk of injury, an athlete will also be less likely to experience a season-ending, or potentially career-ending, injury such as the injury Jarrod Parker experienced. Dr. Neeru Jayanthi of Loyola University found in a study of 1200 athletes, athletes who specialized were 70-93 percent more likely to be seriously injured than athletes who played multiple sports (O’Sullivan). Athletes who only participate in a single sport dedicate all their time to one sport, so their muscles are not able to rest, which leads to injuries like stress fractures and muscle tears. These types of injuries are not so bad when given time to heal but oftentimes single-sport athletes do not allow enough time for their injuries to heal and the same muscles are being overworked. Oftentimes, a single-sport athlete will injure himself and start working the same injured muscles too soon because he either injured himself during the season and tries to play too soon or he uses the injured muscle while training during the off-season. A single-sport athlete is more susceptible to overuse injuries because he performs the same movements day in and day out and the same muscles never get a break. A multi-sport athlete is able to give his muscles a break because different sports require different movements which means different muscles will be used each season.

Cross-training helps to heal overuse injuries because as an athlete moves to his next sport, he will likely not be working the same exact muscles which allows him to not aggravate muscles which may have been overworked the previous season. Single-sport athletes injure themselves and never have a chance to recover because they are competitively participating in their chosen sport all year long. This statistic from Loyola University that single-sport athletes are seventy to ninety percent more likely to be seriously injured than multi-sport athletes should be a wake-up call to all athletes and coaches and parents to push for multi-sport participation (O’Sullivan).

Another statistic is the amount of Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) tears among athletes, especially female athletes. When compared to male athletes, female athletes are about two to ten times more likely to experience an ACL tear because of the differences in how the bodies of men and women are made. A factor that contributes to females being more likely to tear their ACL is anatomy. In women’s bodies, the intercondylar notch, a groove at the bottom of the femur where it meets the knee, is much smaller than in men’s bodies. Because the notch is narrower, this restricts the movement of the knee, especially when an athlete is making twisting movements. Women also have wider hips than men which affects the alignment of the knee and makes women more prone to knees moving inwards, which puts stress on the ACL. Another factor is the gender difference when looking at biomechanics. Women’s knees tend to be more flexible than men’s which means it is easier for females to hyperextend or strain their knee and surrounding muscles and tendons. Also, women’s hips and upper leg muscles are not as strong as men’s so when force is exerted through jumping or changing direction, more of the force is absorbed through the knee rather than through the surrounding muscles. The last factor that helps explain why females have a higher tendency to tear their ACL is hormones. Although scientists do not understand the correlation between ACL tears and hormones, some studies have found that females have a higher risk of experiencing an ACL injury during their menstrual cycle and seem to be more susceptible to injury during the first part of their cycle (DeVries).

The rate at which these injuries occur among female athletes who specialize, especially in soccer, is increasingly higher than those who choose to participate in multiple sports (Gotlin 214). A study done at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health found athletes who specialized in one sport were fifty percent more likely to experience a lower-extremity injury, an injury defined as an injury to the lower musculoskeletal system, than athletes who participated in multiple sports. These types of injuries include ACL tears (Rerjck). Continuing to specialize in one sport also leads to further ACL tears and other knee-related injuries (Gotlin 214).

My second argument is multi-sport participation is beneficial because cross-training improves an athlete’s all-around skill. Experts suggest playing multiple sports builds up different muscles and produces an all-around better athlete. Most athletes have a sport they have decided is their favorite; however, this does not mean playing other sports will hurt their abilities in their top sport. Many athletes play a different sport in their offseason and develop skills that complement their primary sport. For example, if a football player plays basketball in his offseason, the hand-eye coordination developed in basketball will help him when he starts up football again. One athlete who is an example of this is Clayton Richard, a veteran pitcher for the San Diego Padres. He never solely focused on baseball. Richard was a three-sport athlete at McCutcheon High School and excelled at baseball, basketball, and football. He remarked, “It was a tremendous benefit. If I had picked one in high school, I don’t know that I’d still be playing.” The skills he developed in basketball and football, such as hand-eye coordination and footwork, aided his baseball abilities and enabled him to become a star pitcher for a professional baseball team (King).

My third argument is athletes should play multiple sports because college recruiters look for multi-sport athletes rather than single-sport athletes. The goal of any athlete who is serious about his sport is to get recruited by a college after high school. The best way for an athlete to accomplish this is to participate in multiple sports because many coaches, college and professional, look for athletes who have had experience in multiple sports. Many college coaches have started to see the benefits of having multi-sport athletes on their rosters. One coach who has seen this is Pete Carroll, former USC and current Seattle Seahawks football coach. He stated,

The first questions I’ll ask about a kid are, “What other sports does he play? What does he do? What are his positions? Is he a big hitter in baseball? Is he a pitcher? Does he play hoops?” All of those things are important to me. I hate that kids don’t play three sports in high school. I think that they should play year-round and get every bit of it that they can through that experience. I really, really don’t favor kids having to specialize in one sport. Even [at USC], I want to be the biggest proponent for two-sport athletes on the college level. I want guys that are so special athletically, and so competitive, that they can compete in more than one sport (O’Sullivan).

Pete Carroll, other coaches, and even elite athletes have all begun to voice their opinion on this issue, and the resounding opinion of all these coaches and athletes is playing multiple sports in high school helped them get to where they are today. In an interview, Dom Starsia, the men’s lacrosse coach for the University of Virginia, revealed his opinion on whether he prefers athletes to specialize or diversify when it comes to sports. He stated,

My trick question to young campers is always, “How do you learn the concepts of team offense in lacrosse or team defense in lacrosse in the off-season, when you’re not playing with your team?” The answer is by playing basketball, by playing hockey and by playing soccer and those other team games, because many of those principles are exactly the same. Probably 95 percent [of our players] are multi-sport athletes. It’s always a bit strange to me if somebody is not playing other sports in high school (O’Sullivan).

Many times, athletes will make the decision to drop all other sports at such an early age because they believe it is the only way they will be able to play in college. However, many colleges have begun a trend toward recruiting multi-sport athletes. One such college is Ohio State University, which posted a graph that portrayed the number of football players who had only played football in high school and the number of football players who had played multiple sports. Only five Buckeyes had played only football in high school and the other forty-two had played at least one other sport in high school. These statistics not only came from a state university but came after this university had won the national championship, which means these multi-sport athletes were not playing for some tiny, unknown school. The majority of the players recruited for this prestigious state school were multi-sport athletes, which means there must be a benefit for participating in multiple sports while in high school (King). Ohio State is not alone in its beliefs, as Clemson’s head coach, Dabo Swinney, also agrees.

The trend toward preferring multi-sport athletes even continues to the professional level. In the 2016 NFL draft, 224 of the 253 picks were multi-sport athletes and in the 2017 NFL draft, 30 of the 32 first-round draft picks had participated in multiple sports. Even though playing multiple sports will not guarantee an athlete will participate in collegiate level sports, it will greatly improve the chances and is a necessity now more than ever.

The first counterargument to my thesis is it is necessary for athletes to follow the 10,000-hour rule for better results. Several years ago, Anders Ericsson, a Swedish researcher, and his colleagues developed the idea that ten years or 10,000 hours of focused and specific practice were needed to master the skills in a particular field. This argument favors sport specialization, especially at an early age, because according to this rule, the only way athletes will meet their full potential and reach expert status is if they are exposed to a sport at an early age and maintain a high volume of practice over time. According to the Aspen Institute research brief, this rule “inevitably promotes early specialization” (DeLench). This mantra of practicing for 10,000 hours has been recited countless times by coaches, the sports industry, and best-selling authors such as Malcolm Gladwell, who wrote Outlier and made the 10,000-hour rule well-known among a mass audience.

While research does show a correlation between athletes practicing and their improvement in their sport, this does not mean 10,000 hours are required to reach an expert skill level. Studies actually show in many sports considerably less than 10,000 hours are required to reach a high level at that sport. Top competitors in sports such as basketball, field hockey, and wrestling only require 4,000 to 6,000 hours of deliberate practice to reach professional levels (DeLench). This means athletes do not need to spend every waking moment practicing one sport to become highly skilled at it, and they can spend some of their time enjoying other sports. A study performed at Princeton University found deliberate practice, which was defined as “engagement in structured activities created specifically to improve performance in a domain,” did not affect the performance levels of athletes as much as advocates for the 10,000-hour rule had claimed. Deliberate practice accounted for just a ten percent difference in performance (DeLench). This study weakened the myth athletes need ten years or 10,000 hours of intentional practice to master one sport, which means athletes do not have to specialize in a single sport at an early age and can try multiple sports while they are still young, even if they decide to focus on one after high school.

The concept of 10,000 hours is also flawed because when athletes at similar experience levels are compared, the amount of practice and training time that went into getting them to that experience level differs greatly. The amount of practice and the amount of training time is different because it depends on the athlete. Several factors determine how long or how much an athlete needs to train to reach a certain experience level. Some of these factors are coach/parent involvement, genetic background, and an athlete’s physical fitness level. Many athletes are blessed to have coaches and parents in their lives who support them and want to see them succeed. These coaches and parents listen to the athlete they are helping and do what they can to help him reach his goals. Some athletes even have a jump on other athletes just because of their genetic background. Some athletes are born athletes and have no problem figuring out a sport while other athletes need more time to work on their coordination and skills. An athlete’s fitness level also factors into how much time he must spend on training. If you are fit, it will be much easier to reach a certain experience level because you will only need to spend time training in technical skills for your sport (DeLench).

The American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) concluded “diversified sports training during early and middle adolescence may be a more effective strategy in ultimately developing elite-level skills in the primary sport due to a positive transfer of skills” and athletes should consider “delaying intensive, specialized training until late adolescence, rather than a specific age, to optimize skill development in most sports” (DeLench). By “a positive transfer of skills,” the AMSSM means athletes who participate in multiple sports are able to carry skills learned in one sport over to the next sport. As a three-sport athlete, I am able to carry skills developed through one sport over to the other two. For example, in soccer I am primarily defensively focused and have developed an instinct to be able to foresee where a player wants to pass the ball. By developing this instinct, I am able to intercept the ball as the opposing team passes it. This skill has transferred over to basketball beautifully because I am able to use the same movements and techniques. The footwork I use to play defense in soccer is almost identical to the footwork I use to play defense in basketball. The problem with the 10,000-hour rule is it discredits the coach/parent involvement, genetic ability, and even physical fitness as reasons for an athlete’s success and only points to deliberate practice as a reason for success in a sport.

The second counterargument to my thesis is single-sport athletes will experience greater success, as shown by their skill level, as well as a longer career in their chosen sport. They believe focusing on one sport increases an athlete’s skill level and enables them to play longer. However, researchers have begun to discover the exact opposite. Because of the cross-sport skills multi-sport athletes are able to develop, they actually become more skilled and have a higher sports IQ than single-sport athletes. An athlete’s sports IQ refers to his knowledge of the game, how well he is able to apply skills learned through drills to game situations, and how quickly he is able to make decisions in the middle of a game. This is why baseball players play basketball during their offseason to increase their hand-eye coordination or soccer players run track to improve their speed and reaction time (Eytel).

Athletes who participate in multiple sports are also more likely to experience longer-term success than single-sport athletes. One reason for this is because there tends to be a lower burnout rate among multi-sport athletes than among single-sport athletes. Burnout becomes a serious problem for athletes who specialize too early because the extreme pressure put on all the practices, games, and skills makes a young athlete lose the love for the game by the time college, and sometimes even high school, rolls around. By participating in multiple sports, an athlete is able to balance different sports and retain a passion to play each one. By playing multiple sports, an athlete is not always surrounded by the same people, playing the same sport on the same team. He is able to experience engaging with different teammates and different coaches. A multi-sport athlete also has the opportunity to experience different roles on a team. He could be the star player on the soccer team and a bench player on the basketball. This provides an athlete with humility because he will not always be the best player on the team and it can be a learning experience. A multi-sport athlete is given diverse opportunities and experiences different teams, teammates, and coaches (Duffek).

Another reason why multi-sport athletes experience longer term success than single-sport athletes is athletes who play multiple sports experience less injuries, especially overuse injuries, which I referred to in my first confirmation argument. Because of this, multi-sport athletes can have a healthier, longer career and will most likely be more active in adulthood than athletes who focused on a single sport. As athletes grow older, they will most likely begin to feel pain from all the things they have put their bodies through. However, because athletes who participated in multiple sports allowed their muscles to rest, the pain will be minimal compared to the pain felt by single-sport athletes. Single-sport athletes, especially those who maintained serious injuries from their sport, will not be as mobile as multi-sport athletes. All of this goes back to examples of overuse injuries and how cross-training can aid athletes by decreasing their risk of serious injuries (Duffek).

Think back to Deion Sanders. He is now a legend because he accomplished what was thought to be impossible. He competed in multiple sports and because of this, he was able to have a career most athletes only dream about. Athletes, coaches, and parents, think of the athletic feats that can be accomplished if more athletes follow Deion Sanders’s example and participate in multiple sports. Now I am not saying every single athlete has to play at least two sports at the professional level, but I am saying playing multiple sports, at least through high school, will increase an athlete’s physical abilities, lengthen his career, and provide a greater passion for his chosen sports. Even if you are not an athlete or a parent of an athlete, you should still be able to see the importance of this issue purely from the medical evidence. If there is a way to help athletes avoid serious injuries, should we not encourage it? Why do we stand by and watch young athletes experience ACL tears or crumble under the pressure of expectations? I challenge all of you to speak out against sport specialization, especially when it is affecting our young athletes, and encourage the athletes of tomorrow to become multi-sport athletes. Parents, allow your children to experience different sports at a young age and be open-minded to their preferences. Coaches, encourage your team to play different sports during their offseason and inform athletes of the benefits of doing this. Athletes, if you are not a multi-sport athlete already, give it thought because many experts agree with me when I say it is beneficial to your health and overall skill.

Works Cited

Andrews, Dr. James R. Any Given Monday. New York: Scribner, 2013. Print.

“Athlete.” merriamwebster.com. Merriam-Webster, Web. 7 Feb. 2018.

“Burnout.” merriamwebster.com. Merriam-Webster, Web. 7 Feb. 2018.

“Cross-training.” merriamwebster.com. Merriam-Webster, Web. 7 Feb. 2018.

De Lench, Brooke. “Early Sport Specialization: Some Benefits, But Many Drawbacks.” momsteam.com. momsTEAM, Web. 27 Jan. 2018.

DeVries, Carrie. “Why Are Women at Greater Risk for ACL Injuries.” sportshealth.com. SPORTS-health, 7 May 2015. Web. 21 Mar. 2018

Duffek, Jaimie. “A Few Surprises in the Data Behind Single-Sport and Multisport Athletes.” usatoday.com. USA Today, 28 March 2017. Web. 27 Jan. 2018.

Eytel, Chelsea. “Multi-Sport Athletes vs. Single Sport Athletes – The Pros and Cons.” NSR.com. NSR, 20 June 2017. Web. 07 Dec. 2017.

Gallucci, John Jr. Soccer Injury Prevention and Treatment. New York: Demos Medical Publishing, 2014. Print.

Gotlin, Robert S. Sports Injuries Guidebook. Champaign: Human Kinetics, 2008. Print.

King, Sam. “Multiple Sports Good for High School Athletes.” jconline.com. Journal&Courier, 6 May 2017. Web. 17 Dec. 2017.

Laker, Scott. “Overuse Injury.” medscape.com. Medscape, 31 July 2017. Web. 7 Feb. 2018.

Monton, Dr. Rocco. “Why Tommy John Surgery is Ruining Pitchers.” stack.com. Blue Star Sports, 10 June 2015. Web. 18 Feb. 2018.

Moser, Rosemarie S. Ahead of the Game. Hanover: Dartmouth, 2012. Print.

O’Sullivan, John. “The Perils of Single-Sport Participation.” changingthegameproject.com. Changing the Game Project, 25 Jan. 2015. Web. 17 Dec. 2017.

Rerjck, Mark. “The Importance of Multi-Sport Participation.” NFHS.org. NFHS, 01 June 2016. Web. 07 Dec. 2017.

Smith, Kent. Promoting the Multi-Sport Athlete. National Federation of State High School Associations, 2009. wiaa.com. Web. 17 Dec. 2017.

Timmons, Alex. “The 10 Greatest Multi-Sport Athletes of All Time.” bleacherreport.com. Bleacher Report, 2 Nov. 2008. Web. 17 Dec. 2017.

Wojtys, Edward. “Sports Specialization vs Diversification.” ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Sports Health, May 2013. Web. 7 Feb. 2018.

Language: Reflector of the Light of our Hearts

Leave a reply

Golnar Beikzadeh

Hosgeldiniz! Willkommen! Khosh oomadin! Bienvenido! You probably at least once in your life were in a situation you really wished you could speak one more language and know what’s going on around, especially when you are in a foreign country. When we are born we are not able to talk, we cry instead to say we are hungry, thirsty, or we need something. Language is a necessary part of our lives: we introduce ourselves, start a conversation and may start a friendship, relationship, business, or even be a witness to a person and change someone’s life forever. When there are thousands are languages among billions of people from so many different nationalities, why are we limiting ourselves with only one language? What don’t we teach our society the importance of being bilingual? The world with so many different languages is like a pencil case with different colours and shades; we don’t want to colour our picture with only one colour pencil. Our education system needs to aware of this; then our painting, our soul, and our understandings will be more colourful.

My history of the issue and kairotic relevancy can be combined together. I immigrated to the United States of America about two years ago, so as a foreigner and a person who can speak more than one language, I always felt very blessed and thankful to get to experience bilingualism. It’s a very different way of thinking. I see this as a need for the American education system to make it mandatory and take it seriously as they might take science and math at high school education all over the nation. It is very important for people to be able to speak at least one other language than their mother tongue. I remember back in the days when I wasn’t able to speak English, the time I was constantly misunderstanding people and being misunderstood, I had a very different understanding of a Western society than I do have now. It might sound crazy, but in my culture we have an idiom that it goes like this: if you know three languages, then you can be counted as three people in a body, and if you know four it’s the same, you will count as four people in a body. I believe these words because in this case you can have a wider perspective and understanding of the world and different cultures. You can put yourself in someone else’s shoes and walk the streets of life with them, feel how that person feels and view the life how the other person views.

I find it necessary for people to learn additional languages so they can understand and be understood by more people. Our community needs people with higher sympathies and awareness for the world because it’s not only about us, our family, our community, or our country; in fact, it’s about humanity. We as Christians should constantly search for people in need and be a voice for the voiceless. Whether we like it or not we need to realize one of the most important keys in cross-cultural relationships is language, because as I said language brings culture with it. Rather like sympathy, being able to speak other languages is very beneficial for our brains and souls, our personal development, our statement in life, and our relationships with one another. It also changes how society views us.

Since I’m talking about the benefits of being bilingual and why should the education system in the United States of America needs to take this issue more seriously, I’m going to define the term bilingualism. Dictionary.com defines bilingualism as being fluent in two languages; a native speaker who can communicate very well in a language besides his is called bilingual. Some people argue if bilingualism means being fluent or just being able to speak and communicate in a basic level. I think it is being able to connect and understand what they mean behind what they say. Also, no matter what level of learning a language you are in, you must strive more than you think you can to truly see the unseen behind the curtain.

In order to prove taking four years of an additional language must be mandatory and be taken seriously, I will confirm four arguments: it keeps our brains dynamic and work actively whether we use it or not; it’s an important element in cross-cultural relationship and gives people different worldviews, so we become less judgmental individuals; it opens a door to a sea of opportunities; and last but not least it gives us so many social benefits. I will then refute two counterarguments: we cannot force anyone to take a language class and high school students are mature enough to choose what class they want to take; and we don’t need to learn an additional language as long as we don’t go out of the country, and even if we go we can always find English speakers all over the world because English is an international language and everyone all around the world must learn it.

My first confirmation is the purpose of learning languages is to understand how others see the world. All humans in the world grow up with different perspectives. These perspectives are shaped by their culture, community, family, society, languages, etc. These perspectives allow them to process the events in their mind differently. We often can be pretty quick to judge people from different places, and most of the time it’s because what they do doesn’t match our culture and we don’t know the motive and story behind their actions. By learning a new language, you also learn a new culture because culture and language often go hand-in-hand. Culture includes codes of behavior, so the more we dig into a culture the more empathy we can have toward other people. Their behaviors tend to be more acceptable, because we start to view the events from their perspectives and we take our cultural blinders off. Every country has a dark side and a bright side, even the ones you may not really like. Having friends from different backgrounds and cultures with whom you can talk in their native language helps you to become a more open-minded person. We will realize how much we have in common: we might be different, but we all are human and can find small pieces of ourselves in each person’s story. For an example, there are so many stereotypes about counties in the Middle East. Most of them are real but we shouldn’t let these stereotypes affect our view toward their citizens. If we knew their language we could understand them better, and maybe we could love them instead of judge them. It was just one example. It can be true with Spanish-speaking countries. This doesn’t mean we have to learn all the languages in the world in order to have empathy with their folks, but if we experience this even with one ethnic group, we also can relate this experience to other cases.

Bilingual people’s vocabulary and skill of expressing themselves are better than people who only speak their native language. Every culture has some unique phrases and words that belong only to that particular language; these phrases can never be exactly translated into other language. This can be a good thing, because when we are learning new phrases, we can also learn how to talk about our certain feelings, which we weren’t able to express in our own language. Also, the more vocabulary we know the wider we can think about reality and the more we can understand and be understood. Even with reading the Bible, I can give a personal example about this: whenever I think the Word is not clear to me or I cannot fully understand what God is telling me, I read the same verse in Turkish or Persian. Although they both gives the same information or sermon, my mind processes them differently. For an example in both Turkish and Persian, there are two different words for the word “love,” very similar but slightly different. In the Scripture Jesus’s love is different from human love, so they use a specific word, but in English there is no specific difference for the kind of love expressed in the Bible. So, learning languages not only helps us see how people or nations see the world but it also helps us learn how God sees it as well.

My second argument is learning multiple languages gives the learner many personal benefits. Additional languages help people to talk with people from different nationalities and come out of their comfort zones; it gives us a wide field of opportunities for missions. Foreigners love when people from different nationalities try to speak their language; it is one of the signs that you show you care about them and like to learn more about their culture. In the Bible we see Jesus wants us to give the good news to all the nations. When we are doing evangelism, the second language can help us in some ways we cannot even think of before learning it. During mission trips, conferences, and even family vacations we can meet up with new people and by using our language skills we can be closer to them in spiritual terms or talk and share with them our faith. Being able to speak a second language gives you confidence, especially when we are talking about ourselves and achievements; these achievements can be academic or social.

Bilingual people earn more money. In the United States of America, the employees who know more than one language have more open doors in terms of job opportunities. Companies are more willing to give job positions to those who are bilingual. They are better at dealing with foreign costumers, international businesses, trades, and deals. They can have many experiences during business meetings to foreign countries including getting inspired by their different ideas, techniques, and technologies. When they come back to United States they can use these new ways to improve and develop their businesses and communities. Bilinguals sometimes can even earn a higher salary than their co-workers. Based on the researches on Times.com,

When it comes to money, members of the U.S. military can earn up to $1,000 more per month if they are proficient in multiple languages. If learning a whole new alphabet sounds intimidating, there is good news: Saiz’s study found that the pay premium for learning German was higher than the average, at 4%. And if you, say, want to test drive Deutsch before committing to a costly class — some top programs charge thousands of dollars to get you proficient — there are plenty of ways to learn beginner language skills for free.

I can’t tell you enough of how knowing foreign languages can open many doors. For an example, even one day if you lose everything you have including your job or maybe your university opportunity you can still make money by giving language lessons to people.

My third argument is being bilingual keeps our brain dynamic and helps it work actively. One of the biggest reasons why a person should learn an additional language is its health aspect. Bilinguals can improve their brain functions and increase the ability to focus, listen, and observe multiple things at the time. Bilinguals have good decision-making skills; they can easily decide about difficult subjects because they are doing this constantly on some daily basis. When they are casually talking, they are choosing to use each word among all those words that appear as a picture in their brains. To give an example, when I hear the word apple, a big, bright red apple appears in my mind; while I hear the word “elma,” a picture of the apples I see in the kitchen comes to my mind, and the reason is because I use “elma” at home, while when I first learned English I looked at the pictures in my textbooks, which were unrealistic, big, bright red apples and I repeated it as an “apple” and it stayed there since then. Imagine how bilinguals’ brains work fast when they are switching between the words and the pictures in their brains. Therefore, these people’s brains work faster when it comes to solving real-life problems, doing their tasks, and making decisions on what they want for their own lives. People who can speak in multiple languages can dream in another language, think, and even talk with themselves in different languages, which actually trains your brain.

As we get older, our brains get older too, but bilinguals’ brains get old much slower, based on the article “Learning Second Language ‘slows Brain Ageing’” on BBC News. Researchers found that reading, verbal fluency, and intelligence were improved in a study of 262 people tested either aged 11 or in their seventies. The strongest effects were seen in general intelligence and reading. It’s mostly because of their brain functions and reading abilities. Our brain develops resistance to unexpected events, and the person doesn’t lose himself over some tragic events in older ages. Alzheimer’s is one of the common illnesses among senior citizens, and it’s also one the biggest reasons why people are afraid of aging. People who speak more than one language can keep their memories fresher; even if they don’t use their additional language, their brains still makes choices between the words in their brains. Based on this, if your mind is active and fresh obviously you will have more energy in your life.

“The Cognitive Benefits of Being Bilingual” article by Marian Viorica, Ph.D. and Anthony Shook explains how knowing more than one language is good for our brains. It provides information about how the brain of a bilingual person is constantly at work: even if you use one language the other one is also active. The cognitive and neurological benefits of bilingualism extend from early childhood to old age as the brain more efficiently processes information and staves off cognitive decline. To maintain the relative balance between two languages, the bilingual brain relies on executive functions, a regulatory system of general cognitive abilities that includes processes such as attention and inhibition. Because both of a bilingual person’s language systems are always active and competing, that person uses these control mechanisms every time she or he speaks or listens. This constant practice strengthens the control mechanisms and changes the associated brain regions.

My fourth argument is students all over the United States must take 4 years of foreign language because of its social benefits. You can make cross-cultural friendships which may last a lifetime. Friend groups that have more than one language provide opportunities for diverse, authentic cultural experiences. You can make friendships with foreigners by using the mutual language of English, but in order to know a person deeply and really well you need to understand his culture and the reasons behind all his behaviors. During trips overseas, your tour guide may explain the culture and everything about the country, but sitting down and talking with a local can give you unexpected knowledge and a different experience, and also when you know the language everything will look friendlier and you’ll feel less home-sick in such situations. Now that I’m talking about how being bilingual gives you a field of opportunities, I find it necessary to make a point once again on how it’s going to help us to be witnesses. When we have the chance to reach a wider group of people, we have more opportunities to evangelize.

You can make so many new discoveries. It’s so boring to listen only to English songs when there are thousands of types of songs: same with movies, arts, books, and anything you can imagine. Knowing the original language of the movie you are watching is much more satisfying than watching it with subtitles. You may discover new authors and artists that speak to your heart and enjoy them the most. This is actually one of the reasons why people always say knowing another language will make your worldview wider.

The first counterargument against my thesis is schools should give the freedom of choice to their students. Not everyone enjoys learning a new language and people should use their time by focusing on what they are passionate for. Since most people think learning a new language requires skills more than training and academic discipline, it’s not going to be fair and enjoyable for everyone. Students have to take certain credits of math and science every year even though they might not like it; neither math nor science is enjoyable for everyone and practice and discipline is required to learn them. But we will not have any great achievements if we live continuously in our comfort zones. We need to overcome and have healthy academic struggles and challenges in high school in order to go above our limits and others’ expectations, so taking additional foreign languages cannot hurt that much.

One of the reasons people might not agree with my statement would be because of the hardships of earning a whole new language. It takes dedication and so much patience. It’s sometimes extremely hard to pronounce the words that only exist in that particular language, and high schoolers shouldn’t be under this much stress and pressure while they have so many other important subjects to study and spend time on when they aren’t even sure whether they are actually being able to use it or not. Sone people just don’t get it and teenagers shouldn’t been forced to take an additional langue when they aren’t smart enough to learn it.

My second counterargument against my thesis is most Americans do not think an additional language is necessary for them. America is a large country and traveling is very expensive, and that’s why Americans do not travel to other countries as much as Europeans do. Based on this, they will not have a lot of opportunities to use the other languages even if they do learn them. Even if they get to travel outside of the United States, they can find people who speak English in their hotel, historical, and tourist places. But people should consider it’s not all about you and you can’t expect others to know your mother tongue while that’s your only language, especially when you go to their country. Also, the trips and the visits are always much more enjoyable when you can understand almost everyone around; you may notice or realize the details you would never notice if you couldn’t speak the language. And you don’t need a foreign language when you are traveling, there is need for it always.

One of the reasons why some would not agree with my thesis is they don’t find it necessary for native English speakers since English is an international language. English is a second language in most of the regions in the world and this is a main reason why we expect everyone to learn English, but we don’t try to understand them often. For an example, there is always an English version description for almost every complicated product in the world and the reason is obvious, to be understood by everyone. Some people argue when we can get things worked out by using English in most major cities in the world (especially in Europe) why should we even bother ourselves to learn a new language and culture we might not even necessarily use in our daily basis? But as I said earlier it’s not all about us, and even if we don’t get a chance to speak that language often it is still going to help us because our brains are still trying to choose words and they are working actively.

Now that you know the benefits of bilingualism, take a small step and improve your certain language skills or start taking some classes. Make cross-cultural friendships. Let other people know how it improves our life, our school, our community. I believe high schools can play an extremely important role to cultivate this idea by making additional language classes one of the most important and necessary subjects for their students to take each year throughout their high school career in order to graduate. God doesn’t care about only one nation or doesn’t ask us to save only the ones who are like us. He wants us to go all over the word, love all the people regardless of their language, culture, or nationality. When we understand what others feel, or what are the morals behind their actions, it’s going to be easier to help them, to care about them, and to love them. Our world needs more empathy: let us learn about others more so we can positively influence others more.

Work Cited

“Additional Language as a French Teacher.” Personal interview. 11 Dec. 2017.

Athanasopoulos, Panos. “How the Language You Speak Changes Your View of the World.” The Conversation, 13 Dec. 2017.

Bhattacharjee, Yudhijit. “Why Bilinguals Are Smarter.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 17 Mar. 2012.

Cerebrum: the Dana Forum on Brain Science, The Dana Foundation, 31 Oct. 2012.

Fan, Samantha P. “The Exposure Advantage.” Psychological Science, 8 May 2015.

Fránquiz, María E. “Key Concepts in Bilingual Education: Identity Texts, Cultural Citizenship, and Humanizing Pedagogy.” New England Reading Association Journal, New England Reading Association, 1 July 2012.

Keysar, Boyaz. “The Foreign-Language Effect.” SAGE Journals, 18 Apr. 2012.

“Learning Second Language ‘Slows Brain Ageing.’” BBC News, BBC, 2 June 2014.

Marian, Viorica, Ph.D. and Anthony Shook. “The Cognitive Benefits of Being Bilingual.”

“Returned Missionaries Discover Benefits of Being Bilingual.” The Daily Universe, 22 Aug. 2014.

“Want a Healthy Lifestyle? Reap These Benefits of Being Bilingual!” Fluent Language.

The Immorality of Capital Punishment

Leave a reply

Tarah Leake

Let’s imagine tomorrow morning you receive a call your beloved brother has been arrested for murder. After vigorous trials, your brother is found to be guilty and is sentenced to death. Let’s also assume the evidence appears valid, as though he has in fact committed the accused crime. How many of you would cease to love your brother? Despite the action he is accused of committing, would that be enough to completely extinguish your love and compassion for a member of your family? More importantly, how many of you could be the actual individual to pull the lever or inject the drugs into your sibling’s system that stops his heart? How many of you could extinguish the life of someone you love? Someone born of the same flesh, someone raised in the same home, someone cradled by the same mother. How many of you could easily and unalterably remove life from someone you used to share life with, share clothes with, share friends with? You may think this has no connection to capital punishment, but it has everything to do with it; in the eyes of Christ, everyone is our brother.

Capital punishment is not a new idea; it has been present in societies since ancient times. However, public opposition of capital punishment did not surface until the 1700s. Capital punishment laws were instituted as Europeans began to settle in America and the colonists retained many of these laws. During the eighteenth century, a group of Americans began to speak out in opposition of the death penalty, believing it morally and politically wrong. Benjamin Rush, a physician, country founder, and signer of the Declaration of Independence, was among this group. Rush wrote several essays throughout the late 1700s denouncing capital punishment and calling for it to be outlawed. In one essay, entitled “Abolish the Absurd and Unchristian Practice,” Rush wrote, “I have said nothing upon the manner of inflicting death as a punishment for crimes, because I consider it as an improper punishment for any crime. Even murder itself is propagated by the punishment of death for murder.” He was stating here the very act of punishing murder with death was proven to actually propagate (or promote) more killing in society.

Italian philosopher and criminologist Cesare Beccaria wrote an essay in 1767 titled, “Of Crimes and Punishments.” Beccaria wrote there was no excuse or justification for the intentional killing of a criminal and commented the system was an “example of barbarity.” After years of working in his chosen field, Beccaria had come to understand “the punishment of death has never prevented determined men from injuring society” and therefore, he advocated a system of lifetime imprisonment he believed would be a “much more powerful preventative than the fear of death which men always behold in distant obscurity.” Thomas Jefferson was inspired by the writings of Beccaria and attempted to pass a bill that would limit the use of capital punishment only in response to murder and treason; however, his bill was defeated by one vote.

In the early part of the nineteenth century, several states revised their death penalty laws. Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey abolished public executions. By 1849, 10 other states followed after them. Michigan became the first state to abolish the death penalty completely except in cases of treason. Tennessee and Alabama broke away from their fellow states by enacting discretionary death penalty laws, giving them the right to choose whether a convicted person should die or not depending on circumstances. In 1895, a total of 18 states enacted these discretionary laws. The 1900s gave rise to the Progressive Era when revisions of federal law were abundant. By 1917, a total of nine states had abolished the death penalty. The Prohibition created an unfortunate setback in the crime rates of America. By 1933, the homicide rates had nearly doubled since 1915. Because of this increase in crime, support of capital punishment escalated dramatically. In the 1930s, more criminals were put to death than any other decade in American history. The steadfast support of the death penalty continued until the 1960s when anti-death-penalty movements became popular. Since then, disputes persist within the country whether the use of capital punishment is justified and should be performed. Since November 9, 2016, thirty-one states in America retain the use of capital punishment, and nineteen states have eradicated this system of punishment. These nineteen states have acknowledged the moral indecency of utilizing capital punishment, however several states and individuals are still blind to its dishonorable components.

I will now define some terms that will be discussed frequently in my paper so you may have an accurate interpretation of the arguments I wish to convey. I will be using “capital punishment” and “death penalty” interchangeably because they represent the same legal process. Merriam-Webster defines capital punishment as “punishment by death: the practice of killing people as punishment for serious crimes.” As I go on to argue the death penalty is immoral, I am discussing morality on the basis of Merriam-Webster’s definition of moral, which states, “of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.” I will specifically argue on the basis of biblical ethics and morality expressed in Scripture.

What does this have to do with you? Loving your brothers and sisters does not mean never letting them face punishment for their sins. In fact, Revelation 3:19 states, “Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline.” However, is capital punishment a moral act of loving, biblical discipline? — I do not believe so. The truth is this topic applies to all Christians, because God calls us, without excuse, to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:39). If Christians desire to love God with all of themselves and glorify Him, then they must love their neighbors. Because the death penalty does not exemplify a spirit of loving one’s neighbor as I will later discuss, it should not be supported by Christians. Even non-Christians may see the immorality of the death penalty through the following arguments.

My thesis is capital punishment should be considered immoral in the eyes of Christians. I will defend this statement by confirming three points: the system devalues human life by utilizing cruel and unusual punishment, prevents a chance for the salvation and restoration of prisoners, and is unsupported by the Bible in light of the New Testament. I will then refute three counterarguments: capital punishment is morally justified through due process of law, capital punishment is morally practical because it has served as a successful crime deterrent for centuries, and capital punishment is justified by the laws of the Old Testament.

My first confirmation argument is capital punishment devalues life by utilizing cruel and unusual punishment, which is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. “Cruel punishment” suggests something that causes undue pain, stress, or anxiety. The definition of “unusual punishment” is continually modified by the government to suit the evolving standards of decency the world declares as appropriate. This can make it difficult to judge whether a punishment is moral. For instance, it was once considered appropriate, but now considered cruel and unusual, to punish by the flaying of skin, crushing by an elephant’s foot, or the breaking of one’s back repeatedly. No matter the evolving standards of decency, punishment is considered cruel and unusual when it causes unpleasant and embarrassing pain that devalues human life. The devaluation of life is directly connected to human dignity, which is negatively affected by emotional devastation through humiliation, lack of respect, and abasement in front of public, family, or friends. These individuals are criminals, but according to the law, that does not make them any less human and they deserve to be treated as such.

In Supreme Court case Glossip v. Gross, Justice Breyer stated “the death penalty, in and of itself, now likely constitutes a legally prohibited cruel and unusual punishment.” Breyer asserts the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment and should be prohibited by the government. In this same case, the state’s expert claimed the first administered drug would make “virtual certainty” inmates do not feel pain caused by the second and third drug. However, there is a term in the medical world called the “ceiling effect,” which represents the optimal effect of a drug. Once a specific limit is reached, any additional administration may produce negative side effects. This means although the first drug in an execution is meant to prevent the potential for intense pain, this is only plausible if it is administered properly. Most states have adopted a three-step protocol of sodium thiopental to cause unconsciousness, a paralytic agent, which inhibits muscular movement and causes respiratory arrest, and finally potassium chloride to induce cardiac arrest. David Waisel, an associate professor of anesthesia at Harvard Medical School, discusses the most common anesthetic drug used in executions, midazolam, and claims “mounting evidence suggests that midazolam does not anesthetize inmates during executions, as shown by movement and difficulty breathing long after injection.” When Kenneth Williams was executed in Arkansas in May of 2017, several witnesses reported movements that indicated Williams was not unconscious after midazolam was administered. His “head began rocking forward and back,” and his chest “began convulsing up from the table.” A few moments later the convulsions became increasingly violent and “there was an audible cry of pain.” Four minutes into the execution, Williams was still struggling and “repeatedly clenching and unclenching his jaw.” This was not a random case but has been seen multiple times and has become almost predictable in the system today, Waisel remarks. In the execution of Clayton Lockett in 2014, the IV was administered improperly, causing the initial anesthetic drug to enter into the inmate’s system at far too low a rate. It was recorded the “physician determined that Lockett was unconscious,” but after the second and third drug were administered, Lockett began to move and speak. He claimed to be in an extreme amount of burning pain, a result of the second and third drugs, which cause the body to shut down. Waisel expresses the effectiveness of the first drug is imperative for the process to be considered humane. He goes on to say the drug must have “rapid onset so that the inmate does not go through an extended period of difficulty breathing and to block the burning pain of potassium chloride.” Since the current system of capital punishment continues to utilize midazolam, despite medical studies displaying its lack of effect, the system remains inhumane. Even if the drugs could eliminate pain, the process of taking a life as punishment is still immoral as I will discuss in my following confirmations.

My second confirmation argument is capital punishment prevents a chance for the salvation and restoration of prisoners. I recently had the opportunity to attend a Prayer Breakfast hosted by several Virginia legislators. The guest speaker was Reverend Eric Manning, who serves at Emmanuel Church in Charleston, South Carolina where the horrific mass shooting took place. I was absolutely struck with the amount of love and mercy he had after everything his church endured. He made an outstanding comment I believe is essential to daily life as Christians: “When we acknowledge that we are all sinners saved by grace, we have no need to be hostile or hate.” While capital punishment does not prevent prisoners from hearing God’s word, it does hinder their willingness to accept the message and use the rest of their life for the better. Bishop Dominick Lagonegro of the Chaplains Apostle Committee frequently visits death row inmates and stated, “it is extremely challenging to bring hope when there is no room for rehabilitation.” Even those placed in prison for brutally killing another person are sinners equal in God’s eyes, saved through Christ’s blood, and deserve to hear the Good News of forgiveness and salvation. By neglecting to show mercy and sentencing these individuals to death, we miss an opportunity to be used by God to alter the direction of their lives. We can have a positive influence on prisoners by aiding in their restoration and acknowledgment of being a chosen child of God.

Another issue with capital punishment is its prevention of restoration when innocent lives are taken. Utilizing life imprisonment instead of the death penalty can not only allow prisoners a better opportunity to find Christ and receive spiritual salvation, but also physical salvation when wrongly accused. Here are two examples of cases where an individual went to prison for a murder they did not commit. Thankfully, death penalty was not inflicted and they were able to continue their lives.

On February 17, 1987, Michael Morton was convicted of murdering his own wife and sentenced to life in prison. In 2011, DNA was retested on the bloody bandana and the DNA was found to match a convicted felon named Mark Norwood. Norwood had been found at the scene of the murder of Debra Masters Baker, who had been murdered in the same method Morton’s wife had. Debra was murdered 2 years after Morton’s wife was, while Morton was in prison. Michael Morton was released in 2011 after spending nearly 25 years in prison. Upon further investigation by the Innocence Project, it was also discovered that the judge had concealed evidence that could have initially proven Morton innocent. This judge served a sentence for criminal contempt and resigned from his position as district court judge, permanently surrendering his law license. In this case, a judge made a personal judgment to conceal evidence, which only succeeding in forcing an innocent man to serve 25 years for the murder of his own wife. Thankfully, Morton faced life imprisonment and not the death penalty, so when his innocence was discovered he could continue to live out the rest of his life.

When Marvin Anderson was only 18 years old, he was wrongfully convicted of rape, robbery, abduction, and sodomy. After spending 15 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit, he was paroled in August, 2002. Four years later, the Innocence Project discovered new DNA evidence and he was finally proven innocent. Marvin was the 99^th person exonerated in the United States due to post-conviction DNA evidence. Today, he serves as Chief of the Hanover, Virginia Fire Department and an active Innocence Project Board Member, helping other wrongfully convicted prisoners get their lives back.

These men were given a second chance at life, because their innocence was discovered, but this is not the case for all prisoners. Innocent people have lost their lives for crimes they have not committed. As Christians, we have no excuse not to make every single effort to save any lives we can. Life imprisonment allows for discoveries of innocence and the possibility of spiritual restoration and salvation. Not all prisoners will come to Christ, but if we could save just one, it would be worth it. If a bus filled with children was going to drive off of a bridge tomorrow to certain death and you had the chance to save at least one child, would you not try? The same applies to our world. We are all heading off a bridge to eternal death because of sin. Not all will find God before they die, yet Christ chose to die on the cross for every one of us. If God loved the world enough to sacrifice His son, how can we refuse to love these prisoners? How can we execute them and withhold the love and compassion Christ showed us? Even making a small shift from execution to life without parole, could give prisoners the extra time they need to prove their innocence or to find God and be used for His glory.

My final confirmation argument is the current application of capital punishment is unsupported by the Bible in light of the New Testament. Although the death penalty is often mentioned in the Old Testament, it is not mandated in the New Testament. Because the New Testament gospel of grace is meant to fulfill the Old Testament practices, it is worth questioning whether capital punishment is valid today or only appropriate within the context of the Old Testament covenant. Christ’s death on the cross took the place of all sacrifices and fulfilled the old covenants of law, thrusting the world into a new relationship with the Lord. His death made it unnecessary to execute persons to maintain human dignity, because his crucifixion and message established human worth and value forever. Christ’s sacrifice relieves us of eternal, spiritual death as expressed in Hebrews 9:14, which states, “How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God.” Ephesians 2:14-16 conveys Christ’s sacrifice also relieves us of the physical laws of the Old Testament and hostility itself shall be dead: “For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing hostility itself.”

Just as God gifted us with an opportunity to receive forgiveness for our sins through love and repentance, Christians should likewise mirror God’s love when approaching crime. When reciting the Lord’s Prayer, people ask God to “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” As he suffered on the cross, Christ called out, “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34). Christ asked his Father to forgive those who willingly tortured, whipped, stabbed, and killed him. If Christ can find forgiveness in His heart for these citizens, how dare we cast forgiveness to the side in our own lives? Keep in mind I am not arguing no one should ever face punishment for their actions; forgiveness is not the same as neglecting safety for society. I am arguing punishment does not have to mean a permanent execution of life.

The first counterargument I will refute is capital punishment is morally justified through due process of law. Those embracing this argument claim the Fifth Amendment is moral justification for capital punishment, because it guarantees everyone due process of law; therefore, each person convicted of murder and sentenced to death is rightly deserving of it. Justice Scalia argued the Fifth Amendment is the constitutional basis for capital punishment because, “It is impossible to hold unconstitutional that which the Constitution explicitly contemplates. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be held to answer for a capital…crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,” and no one will be “deprived of life…without due process of law.” Joseph Blocher, Professor of Law at Duke University, explains if the Fifth Amendment were to be used in moral defense of the death penalty, “the Court would have to first reject the ‘evolving standards of decency’ and embrace an especially strict ‘originalist’ approach to cruel and unusual punishment that it has consistently rejected.” What Blocher means by this statement is the current methods used in capital punishment do not meet the standards of decency the government has established in the Eighth Amendment, because it has become “cruel and unusual.” Christians may not conform to the idea of “evolving standards of decency” due to our beliefs in moral absolutes, however, this argument does demonstrate the government itself cannot use the Fifth Amendment as justification since the process no longer adheres to its own stated guidelines. Justice Brennan, when discussing the Fifth Amendment, stated, “it merely requires that when and if the death penalty is a possible punishment, the defendant shall enjoy certain procedural safeguards, such as indictment by a grand jury and, of course, due process of law.” This means the Fifth Amendment provides the right for people to be punished by death, if the process meets specific standards, but does not allow for cruel and unusual punishment. Once again, I am not claiming if the process was humane, it would be biblically moral. I am stating the entire argument of the Fifth Amendment as justification for the death penalty is invalid because the process does not meet the standards the Amendment requires. Supreme Court case Roper v. Simmons stated, “By protecting even those convicted of heinous crimes, the Eighth Amendment reaffirms the duty of the government to respect the dignity of all persons.” French President Jacques Chirac stated in an address to America, “You are well aware of the European Union’s determined stand on the abolition of the death penalty. It is based on the conviction that this penalty is contrary to human dignity.” The cruelty of capital punishment methods today, recognized by some countries, cannot continue to be ignored by others on the supposed moral basis of the Fifth Amendment. Individuals must understand the validity of the Fifth Amendment as a moral basis for capital punishment is only appropriate in light of other Amendments which protect human dignity. Because capital punishment devalues human life and dignity as explained by my first confirmation, the Fifth Amendment cannot be used as moral justification for the death penalty by anyone, including Christians.

The second counterargument I will refute is the concept capital punishment is morally practical because it has served as a successful crime deterrent for centuries. The first problem with this argument is the assumption if something has been “successful” throughout history, it is morally just. If past effectiveness was the sole determiner of morality, we would still be promoting slavery, sexist prejudices, and child labor. These acts viewed as immoral and dehumanizing today were once seen as completely acceptable and even biblical in the eyes of some of their advocates. Arguments stating capital punishment is practical for today’s world on the basis it was utilized “effectively” in the past hold no real significance for judging the morality of capital punishment according to the true word of God.

The second problem with this argument is its dependence on capital punishment being an effective crime deterrent, while statistical data disproves this concept. Since 2000, the effect of incarceration on the crime rate has been essentially zero. Increased incarceration only made up 6% of the reduction of crime in the 1990s and today accounts for less than 1% of the crime decline. When comparing crime rates in states with capital punishment and those without, The Brennan Center for Justice concluded, “Based on empirical analysis [real world data and results, not concepts or theories], this report finds that increased incarceration at today’s levels has a negligible crime control benefit.” The Brennan Center adds, “In line with much of the past research, this report finds that the use of the death penalty has no significant effect on crime…The same is true for the effect of the use of the death penalty on homicides specifically.” Professor John Blume of Cornell University Law School found states which have abolished capital punishment “by and large have lower murder rates than states that retain capital punishment.” The most notorious killers, such as Bundy, Gaskins, and Gacey, committed their crimes in states with active death penalties, and as Blume points out, “The threat of capital punishment, in short, was no deterrent to them.”

The final counterargument I will refute proposes capital punishment is justified by the laws of the Old Testament. Many Christians and Jews alike refer to the books of the Torah and Pentateuch as “God’s Law,” because they contain the Mosaic law. Believers often use arguments stating the Mosaic Law explicitly calls for the use of the death penalty for certain crimes. The verses most often quoted in support of the death penalty are Exodus 21: 23-25, Leviticus 24:17, and Deuteronomy 19:21. Exodus reads, “But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” Leviticus reads, “If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth…Whoever kills a man must be put to death.” Deuteronomy reads, “Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” After reading these verses, it would logically follow the Scriptures support capital punishment. However, one must read beyond these verses to understand the context.

The biggest problem with this belief is that in the New Testament, God clearly releases man from the bond of the law through Christ. In Matthew 5:17, Christ affirms, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Christ, the Son of God incarnate, directly references the verses from the Old Testament used to justify capital punishment in his New Testament ministry in Matthew 5:38-39; Christ instructs, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil.” Christ restates a law of the Old Testament and follows with “but I say to you” showing this is not an addition to the law but a replacement. There is more to our walk with God than law.

In 2 Corinthians, Paul condemns those still blinded by the law of Moses and points us to Christ: “But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Corinthians 3:14-17). In Galatians 3:23-26, Paul explains the death of Christ has replaced our need to obey the Mosaic Law: “Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.” The laws in the Old Testament were not meaningless in their time, but now through Christ we no longer must obey them.

As Christians, we must be careful not to allow ourselves to be blinded by law and neglect a personal relationship with the Lord and our fellow brothers and sisters. Someone using the laws of the Old Testament as moral justification for capital punishment is in danger of getting caught up in Pharisaical thinking, picking and choosing the scriptures which suit their needs and ignoring the redemptive truth of the New Testament. Even if one were to completely ignore the work of Christ and insist on obeying the laws of the Old Testament, he or she would be forced to apply the laws to all aspects of life, not just capital punishment. According to these verses, every act against a neighbor must be returned to him in the same way. The government would have to blind everyone who has blinded, steal from everyone who has stolen, hit anyone convicted of a hit-and-run with a car—where does it end? This form of “lawful punishment” would certainly classify as “cruel and unusual” and reach an inevitable state of unethical and immoral basis well beyond where it currently is. The argument the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament justifies the use of capital punishment is clearly refuted by the New Testament covenant secured by the death of Christ.

Many argue the death penalty not only punishes a criminal act but also provides “justice” and “closure” for the families of victims. I wish to clarify what people truly desire from this punishment. Through capital punishment, many are blinded by their hatred and grief and desire to see the assailant suffer themselves for their actions. This is not justice nor closure, but the desire for revenge. Christ warns the life of hatred toward enemies makes people no different from the very ones they hate:

You have heard it said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? (Matthew 5:43-47)

Although the Old Testament seems to be characterized by lawful instruction more than mercy and love, Leviticus 19:18 still warns readers that “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.” Loving someone and expressing forgiveness does not suggest an endorsement of lifestyle or choices. God chose to hate the sin not the sinner, and we have no excuse for refusing to do the same. No one is perfect and therefore none is justified in condemning his brother. In Matthew 7:1-5, Jesus instructs his followers to remove the log in their own eyes before ordering their neighbor to remove the speck in his or her eye. Jesus insists in John 8:7 that those who are without sin may cast the first stone. God himself can determine all fates because he alone is just and perfect. James 4:12 warns, “There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?” Christians will argue the Bible is contradictory and there is no obvious argument for, nor against capital punishment. However, God is clear in His word how He desires us to treat other human beings no matter what they’ve done. Bishop Dominick Legonegro remarks, “Every human being possesses a basic dignity that comes from God, not from any human quality or accomplishment, not from race or gender or age or economic status. Human life is inherently precious.”

After these arguments I have both made and refuted, you may still wonder if it is even possible for Christians to act on this realization of capital punishment’s immorality. One remarkable woman set a standard with her Christ-like love. Mark Bingham was one of the many to die in the Pennsylvania plane crash of September 11, 2001. His mother, Alice Hoagland would have had every right to hate the al-Qaeda members responsible for this but this is not what she did. Alice argued against the death penalty for Zacarias Moussauoi, a member convicted of helping plan the attacks. Hoagland stated, “We Americans have the opportunity to demonstrate our compassion toward a man who has shown no compassion for America. We are a nation of laws, of justice, and of mercy. By sparing his life, we can demonstrate our humanity by acknowledging the humanity of a man who badly needs compassion.”

One could not present a better example of the kind of love Christ calls us to. As Jesus hanged on the cross, a criminal suffering the same punishment asked Him for forgiveness. Jesus answered, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Today. Not tomorrow. Not after you check off this list of good deeds. Moments before death, Christ found mercy in His heart for a guilty and impure man. My fellow Christians, we have no excuse.

The question becomes, what can you do with this information? How can you demonstrate your Christ-like love and compassion? The best way you achieve this is by aiding in public awareness of the immorality of this system. This can include donating to non-profit organizations such as the Innocence Project, The Center for Justice and Reconciliation, and the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty that work towards freeing those wrongfully convicted, rehabilitating and witnessing to prisoners, and ultimately eliminating the current, inhumane system. You can start a ministry group in your church designed to spread awareness of injustice of the death penalty. You can witness to and serve prisoners for it is written, “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did to me’” (Matthew 25:40).

Look to your left and right. God calls you to love the people sitting next to you, everyone in this room, everyone on this earth, every person with a heartbeat as if he or she is your biological brother or sister. If you could not pull the switch, inject the drugs, or turn your back on the brother or sister you love so dearly, you should not be capable of doing that to any human being. Do you honestly believe your personal vendetta, flawed legal system, or fabricated practicality of this system morally justifies terminating the life of your brother or sister? If you could follow through with this immoral execution with no remorse or regret for the life you’ve taken, then please ask yourself what makes you any different from the very criminals you seek to kill? “Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, ‘Execute true judgment, and show mercy and compassion every man to his brother’” (Zechariah 7:9, KJV). Capital punishment is not the enactment of true justice; it is the legitimization of our personal retaliations. Without a doubt, capital punishment should be viewed as immoral in the eyes of Christians.

Bibliography

Blocher, Joseph. The Death Penalty and the Fifth Amendment. Vol. 111. Northwestern University Law Review. Joseph Blocher, 2016. PDF.

“Capital Punishment.” Merriam-Webster. Accessed March 06, 2018. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capital%20punishment.

“The Cases — Marvin Anderson.” Innocence Project. Accessed February 15, 2018. https://www.innicenceproject.org/cases/marvin-anderson/.

Glossip v. Gross. 14US7955. June 29, 2015.

Guernsey, JoAnn Bren. Death Penalty: Fair Solution or Moral Failure? USA Today’s Debate: Voices and Perspectives. Twenty-First Century Books, 2010.

Lentol, Joseph, Helene Weinstein, and Jeffrion Aubry. The Death Penalty In New York. Report. Assembly on Codes, Judiciary and Correction. New York City, NY, 2005.

“Michael Morton.” Innocence Project. Accessed February 15, 2018. https://www.innocenceproject.org/cases/michael-morton/.

“Moral.” Merriam-Webster. Accessed March 06, 2018. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral.

Parks, Peggy J. Does the Death Penalty Deter Crime? In Controversy. San Diego, CA: Reference Point Press, 2010.

Roeder, Dr. Oliver, Lauren-Brooke Eisen, and Julia Bowling. What Caused the Crime Decline? New York City, NY: Brennan Center For Justice, 2015.

Waisel, David. “The drugs we use for executions can cause immense pain and suffering.” The Washington Post, May 11, 2017. Accessed January 17, 2018.

American Foster Care: A System in Need of Reform

Leave a reply

Emma Kenney

A child is curled up, shaking underneath her bed. She knows her guardian will be home soon, and she waits in dread for that moment. Maybe he won’t be drunk this time or angry or in the mood to see her. Maybe he’ll be so tired he will go straight to bed. She’s been in this new home for about six months now, and she hasn’t seen her case-worker since the day the woman had dropped her off with this man. She’s been removed from the custody of her birth mother after the single parent had been evicted from her old apartment. Child Protective Services has rightly said the streets were no place for a child, and the girl could be reunited with her mother after the woman found a stable job, and new apartment and got back on her feet. The new home had seen nice enough at first, but once it was apparent her case worker wasn’t coming back to check on her, the abuse had begun.

This story sounds awful, right, and it must be an over-exaggerated example or an anomaly? Unfortunately, this happens within the American foster care system more often than one would hope. The system is broken and in need of repair. I will be arguing “the American (government) foster care system needs to be reformed.”

To understand fully why the foster care system needs to be reformed it is necessary to understand what exactly the foster care system is meant to be. Foster Care is defined by the National Adoption Center as, “a temporary arrangement in which adults provide for the care of a child or children whose birth parent is unable to care for them.” In simple terms, this means the foster care system is supposed to remove children from inadequate homes and place them into temporary homes where they will be able to grow and develop both mentally and physically. Inadequate homes are ones where the children are being abused or neglected by their guardians, either unintentionally or intentionally, as in the story told previously.

However, more often than not the system is not accomplishing this purpose. Even those who have been in charge of the system believe the system is in need of reform. Wade Horn, who served as the leader of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) child welfare wing under President George W. Bush, was and is a firm supporter of a reformed foster care system.

The first important thing to know about foster care is it has two parts: the first part is government run, and the second part is privatized. In both of these, children are placed in foster homes with individual families or in group homes with multiple children. Both parts work essentially the same way in that the majority of their funding is based on how many kids they place. The government portion gets a baseline fund, though privatized foster care does not, and unlike the government portion, the privatized section of the system has essentially no rules set in place at the moment to keep it in check. The first step to reforming that portion would be to simply get some regulations created to protect the children. For the sake of continuity within my thesis, however, I will focus only on the government-run section of the foster care system.

The second important thing to know about foster care is it is not meant to be a permanent solution or home for children. It is only supposed to be a temporary home until a child can either be returned to his or her birth family or adopted into a fit home.

Once again, my thesis is “the American (government) foster care system needs to be reformed.” My confirmation arguments are “the current system is not accomplishing its purpose,” “the current system is a waste of money,” and “the current system is catastrophic for the mental health and development of children.” The counterarguments I will then refute are “reform won’t work,” “reform isn’t worth it,” and “reform is too expensive.”

My first confirmation argument is “the current system is not accomplishing its purpose.” The National Adoption Center tells us the foster care system has two purposes: 1) to provide adequate care for a child who has been removed from an unfit home, and 2) to be a temporary home for said child.

First, let’s discuss how the system is not providing adequate care for children. “Adequate care” here means any care that if not provided would be grounds to remove a child from their birth home. Many complicated factors go into this, but the Children’s Bureau states at least the following must be provided for a child to receive adequate care: a safe home, enough food and clothing, adequate medical care, any mental and physical needs of the child, and protection from domestic violence. When any of these are not provided, a child is not receiving adequate care. Studies have shown roughly 30% of foster children admit to being abused within the system, but it is believed the percentage of children being abused is much higher (over 50%) since in many cases the children are afraid to speak up about the abuse they face or are taught to believe it is okay. This alone should show there is something significantly wrong with the system. Its job is to take children out of abusive homes, yet it simply places upwards of 50% of those children into abusive homes sometimes even worse than the homes they were removed from. On top of that, the system is the cause of an alarmingly high child mortality toll. Deb Stone, who has both fostered and adopted children and served as a Court Appointed Special Advocate for abused children states, “An estimated 1,564 [foster] children died from abuse in 2012… Neglect was involved in 70% of [those] child fatalities.”

One only has to look at Child Protective Services (CPS) and similar branches to see more of this failure to provide adequate care. Social workers essentially have two goals to accomplish after placing a child in a home. First, they must complete a large amount of paperwork concerning the child they placed and the home said child was placed into. Second, they are to periodically visit the child to make sure she’s been placed into a home good for her. These visits neglected leads to children remaining stuck in abusive or negligent foster homes. However, heavily because these branches are significantly understaffed in relation to the number of children within the system, social workers must spend so much time completing paperwork they don’t have time to check in on the children they have placed. Susanne Babbel, a former social worker and foster parent and current psychologist, states:

During my own time working with foster care agencies and group homes, I often witnessed the agency staff become overwhelmed with the number of children they were required to monitor — not to mention the pressure of completing mountains of paperwork. The paperwork would often trump the actual visits in priority because it was required in order to keep the agency funded and our jobs intact.

Another factor preventing the system from accomplishing its purpose of providing adequate care is the act of children being placed in inadequate homes. To understand this part of the problem, one must understand funding for the system depends on how many children are placed and kept in homes per year. This creates a problem, because in their desire to stay funded these branches don’t always do complete background checks on the individuals applying to foster children, or they overlook offenses in order to place another child. Children are often placed in homes with parents who are poorly educated as well, as, according to the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System, only approximately 50% of foster parents even have a high school diploma or equivalent. This doesn’t always have a negative effect, but it most certainly can and does in many cases. On top of that parents throughout the system, even ones who would otherwise be good, are often underprepared as there is no supervised or regulated training on what being a foster parent thoroughly entails. This means they don’t know how to properly handle the often emotionally unwell children being placed into their care. Studies conducted in multiple states show the majority of foster parents don’t even make it a full year before they decide to stop fostering. This means children aren’t being placed in fit homes at all: they are simply being bounced around from home to home. In her article “U.S. Foster Care: A Flawed Solution That Leads to Long-Term Problems?” Stone discusses how one particular boy she fostered had already been through 17 other homes by the time he was placed with her; that little boy was only 10 years old. Sadly this is far too common within the American foster care system, and the vast majority of children are placed in at least 2 homes, often many more. So long as this is a common occurrence, the system will never achieve its purpose at all.

Now let’s discuss how the foster care system is not accomplishing its purpose of being only a temporary home. Over 50% of children (roughly 218,733) remain in the system for more than a year, and approximately 15% (roughly 65,620) remain in the system for at least 3 years. On top of that, over 10% of children (over 43,747) stay within the system until they either reach adulthood and age out or reach 16 and successfully file for emancipation. This means approximately 40,000 children per year are stuck in the system until they are old enough to legally exit it on their own.

My second confirmation argument is “the current system is a waste of money.” The system receives two different kinds of government funding. The first is baseline for all 50 states and is not based upon state population or any other numbers. For example, using small easy numbers, the government could decide in 2020 each state will receive $100 as its foster care budget. The second type of funding is determined by how many children are successfully placed in homes the year before. Using small and easy numbers once again, this is along the lines of the government determining every child placed in a home in 2019 still in said home by January 1, 2020 was $1 toward the 2020 budget. This means states that place and keep 50 children in homes receive $50 toward their budget (for a total budget of $150), while states that place and keep 10 children in homes receive only $10 toward their budget (for a total budget of $110).

As we have seen, this means children are often placed or kept in unfit homes in order to keep numbers up so the program will receive sufficient funding the following year. This essentially means the program is doing the opposite of its job and is being paid to do so, which is both wasteful and absurd in concept, especially considering how much money goes toward the foster care system each year. Approximately $9,000,000,000 (9 billion American dollars) are poured into the foster care system each year. With approximately 400,000 children in foster care per year, this means roughly $22,500 are being spent per child per year. With an estimated 50% of children facing abuse within the system, approximately $4,500,000,000 is being poured into placing children into abusive homes, which directly goes against the purpose of the American foster care system.

My third confirmation argument is “the current system is disastrous for the mental health and development of children.” Crucial brain development takes place as a child; this development is so important it shapes the personality and mental stability of a person for, in most cases, the rest of her life. This means when children are placed in abusive or negligent homes they are debilitated on a mental level for the rest of their lives. “Developmental Issues for Young Children in Foster Care” by AAP News says, “During the first 3 to 4 years of life, the anatomic brain structures that govern personality, learning process, and coping with stress and emotion are established, strengthened, and made permanent. If unused, these structures atrophy.”

This leads to problems such as depression and anxiety, as statistics show children within the system are about five times more likely to commit suicide as adults and nearly eight times more likely to be hospitalized with a serious psychiatric disorder. They are also about 12 times as likely to be given psychotropic medications (medications used to treat mental illness that affect the chemical makeup of your brain, such as antidepressants and antipsychotics). On top of that, the system can also lead children to develop various attachment disorders. Since they are often moved around so much, they are taught never to become too attached to anything or anyone for fear of losing them as soon as they get too close. This creates a lifelong problem of closed off, distrustful adults who are unable to form relational bonds for fear of losing them.

The first counterargument I will refute is, “Reform won’t actually be effective.” Many people argue the system is simply too big and too messed up to be fixed, and while it is true no single thing will be able to fix the entire system it is simply not true reform will be ineffective. Often people become incredibly discouraged by the idea the foster care system is messed up on a gigantic scale and therefore lacks what could be considered a quick and easy fix, but they fail to realize successful reformation isn’t synonymous with instantaneous reform.

It is inaccurate that reform will not be effective. The biggest proof of this is the fact effective reform has already been seen at a state level. Organizations like Children’s Rights work alongside states and cities to pass court-enforceable regulations for the American foster care system, such as social workers must visit children the place every two months. They do this by assessing a state’s foster care system and helping state governments implement various legislation and progress to correct the problems they see. They also may offer finances to help states successfully implement these new programs and laws. This particular organization boasts many improvements to the system, including the following:

In Georgia in 2003, children in metropolitan Atlanta foster care would often go six or more months without a visit from a caseworker. But by 2015, workers provided 96 percent of required twice-monthly visits to children. In Michigan in 2006, approximately 6,300 Michigan children were legally free for adoption, but instead were growing up as permanent wards of the state. By 2014, the number dropped to under 2,700. In Milwaukee the rate at which children were abused and neglected in foster care was reduced tenfold between 2000 and 2014. Allegations of maltreatment, which used to sit for months, are now referred and investigated within days.

The fact reform has been successful at this level shows reform is an attainable and effective goal. Various states have reformed or begun to reform various issues of the system, and if the federal government would implement even one of those regulations country-wide, the system would begin to improve on a large scale. There is no denying it would take time (Milwaukee took over a decade to see the full extent of their reform), but there’s also no denying time does not take away from the effectiveness of reform.

The second counterargument I will refute is “reform isn’t worth it.” To argue reformation of the foster care system isn’t worth it is to argue the children within said system are not worth it. It sends the message even though the system in its current state involves and allows so much abuse and neglect, because it won’t be an easy task they are not important enough to help. The United Nations created something called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. This declaration essentially lays out a set of “fundamental human rights to be protected.” Articles one and two describe how everyone is equal and entitled to the rights set out in said declaration. Article three declares, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person,” and article five declares, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” However, children in the foster care system are having these rights violated. These children face rape and abuse of all kinds, and as previously stated, over 1,500 children die from abuse within the system every single year. When we say reform is not worth it we are indirectly telling children within the foster care system they are not even worth having their fundamental human rights protected.

The third counterargument I will refute is “reform is too expensive.” There are two different variants of this argument. The first is it is too expensive in relation to worth. The second variant of this argument is simply reform would just be too expensive in general, meaning even if reform should be done there is no legitimate way it could be done.

First, we will go over the claim reform is too expensive in relation to worth. I previously explained why reform is worth it, and the same can be applied to the financial aspect. When we say reform is too expensive to be worth it we are really saying the rights of children (which I’ve already shown hold as much value as any other age) do not matter enough to be fixed. We are saying we are not willing to pay the price to ensure children within the foster care have access to the rights which have already been proven to be theirs.

Second, we will go over the claim reform is just too expensive in general. It has already been stated the roughly 9 billion American dollars are spent on the foster care system per year (roughly $22,500 per child). While it is unfair to say none of that is being used properly, far too much of that is being spent only for children to be neglected, abused, and killed within the foster care system. This means a large portion of that 9 billion American dollars is being wasted in relation to money spent versus success of the system. While reform has the potential to seem somewhat costly initially, since the system is currently wasting money reforming the system would actually be cost effective for the United States in the long run. Reform would allow money spent on foster care and child services to be effectively and consistently put to good use, and even lower expenses over all. One of the main ways the system could lower expenses would be by fulfilling the portion of its purpose that relates to placing kids in long term homes and getting them out of foster care. Over 10% of children remain in the system until they age out of the system. If a child is in the system just from the time they are 16 onwards, $67,500 will be spent on said child. If they are in the system from 8 (which is the average age a child enters foster care) onwards, $247,500 will be spent. That is roughly a quarter of a million dollars being spent on a child when the whole purpose is to either reunite the child with their family or getting them adopted. Reform allows a greater number of children exit the system before aging out, overall lowering the total cost per year of the foster system.

Well, what now? I’ve shown you why the system needs reform, and I’ve refuted arguments saying otherwise, but where do we go from here? This paper has shown the foster care system is incredibly broken on various levels to the point no one thing will be able to fix it entirely, but there are various efforts that can be done to begin the process. A huge improvement that could be done is employing more social workers within the departments working with foster kids, even if they are only there temporarily. Earlier I described how social workers are often swamped with paper work, which means it is easy to get behind. Extra workers would help manage this workload, even if only temporary. Another thing to be done is doing a better job of getting kids out of the system, whether this is reuniting them with their birth parents or getting them adopted. The foster care system was never meant to be a permanent home, but as I showed previously a relatively large number of children are remaining within the system until they age out, occupying valuable time and money in the process. If the foster care system put more of an emphasis on moving children out of the system and into good homes it would free up that time and money to cycle more children through the system properly.

One needn’t be a social worker to help, though. We can help in multiple ways. The first is making sure we are educated on the issue. The majority of people are at least somewhat aware of the fact an issue exists, but often they do not realize just how big the issue is. It is much easier to convince people something needs to be done if we are aware of all the facts. The second way we can help is by voting for politicians who care and want to do something about the issue. If we vote for people who don’t care or want to help it will be much harder for reform to take place. The third way we can help is by supporting and donating to organizations like Children’s Rights. One of the biggest ways we can help is by supporting the organizations already helping reform become a reality.

In the end it is important we fight for reform in the ways we can. This is especially important for those who call themselves Christians. We are called to care for widows and orphans and to love others in the way of Jesus. We cannot leave the next generation of children to suffer in a broken system of neglect, abuse, and death.

Bibliography

AAP News Committee. “Developmental Issues for Young Children in Foster Care.” Pediatrics. AAP News and Journals Gateway. November 2000. Web. 19 Jan. 2017.

Babbel, Susanne, PhD, MFT. “The Foster Care System and Its Victims: Part 1.” Psychology Today. N.P., 11 Oct. 2011. Web.

—. “The Foster Care System and Its Victims: Part 2.” Psychology Today. N.P., 11 Oct. 2011. Web.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. “Determining the Best Interests of the Child.” Children’s Bureau. March 2016.

Children’s Rights. “Foster Care Reform.” Children’s Rights. N.d. Web. 29 Jan. 2018.

“Developmental Issues for Young Children in Foster Care.” Pediactrics. AAP News & Journals. Gateway, July 2000. Web. 16 Nov 2016.

Find Law — Family Law Practitioners. “Foster Care Funding and Federal Programs.” Find Law, n.d. Web. 15 Jan 2018.

FindLaw. “Foster Care Funding and Federal Care.” N.D. web. 23 Feb. 2018.

Kelly, John. “HHS Will Not Discuss New Personnel.” The Chronicle of Social Change, 7 April 2017.

National Adoption Center. “What IS Foster Care?” National Adoption Center, n.d. Web. 03 March 2016.

Stone, Deb. “U.S. Foster Care: A Flawed Solution That Leads to Long-Term Problems?” STIR Journal. N.p. 12 May 2014. Web. 14 Jan 2018.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. “The AFCARS [Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System] Report.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. November 2017.

United Nations General Assembly. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations. 10 December, 1948.

Zill, Nicholas Ph.D. “Better Prospects, Lower Costs: The Case for Increasing Foster Care Adoption.” National Council for Adoption. May 2011.

Contravening Contraception

Leave a reply

Ruth Grant

What if I said almost everything you, the reader, have learned about sex and marriage from the church was false? No, this paper will not give justification for pre-marital sex or other sexual “freedoms” taught by the left-wing Christian population. Rather, this paper is to all Christians, from every background and denomination. This is a call to examine and rethink our views for the purpose of marriage, sex, and family and, in particular, to relate this to our view of contraception. Most Protestants have been taught though children are a blessing from God, it is not required the marital act be procreative. The secondary benefits of sex like pleasure, unity, and companionship are good in and of themselves, they will say. Therefore, the question of birth control is largely tossed aside by most Protestants as a “Catholic problem.” But this question cannot be ignored! It is crucial to our Christian faith and knowing God. The approval of contraception from the majority of the church has some serious implications on how we as the church understand God’s sovereignty. As R.C. Sproul has said, “if God is not sovereign, [then] God is not God.” A proper understanding of God’s design for sex, marriage, and family gives us more insight into His sovereignty and His love and can cultivate a deeper relationship with Him. Therefore, Christians must believe the practice of contraception is contrary to God’s design for sex, marriage, and family and must be rejected in order to pursue holiness.

The issue of contraception is one of the most important yet ignored issues of the Christian faith. From the dawn of the early church until around 1930, the church at large has condemned its practice in all forms, whether by medicinal methods or by natural methods like the rhythm method or natural family planning (NFP). In 1930, the Anglican Church officially recognized the use of contraception under some circumstances in the Lambeth Conference. A year later, the Committee on Home and Marriage of the Federal Council of Churches, an ecumenical body that included Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregational, and Church of the Brethren denominations, made statements that defended limiting the family and advocated for the repeal of laws that restricted the use of contraception, particularly the Comstock Laws that prohibited the buying or selling of contraception, pornography, or other “lewd materials” (Carlson).

Though the church has always rejected this practice, it still had been a struggle and discussion within the church. Many church fathers and theologians commented on this issue because of how prevalent it is in every culture and how many secular ideas entered the church. Contraception in some form has been used since ancient times and it is seen throughout Scripture as an unholy practice of which God does not approve, as will be proven in the confirmation section. The purpose of this paper is to prove how important the issue of contraception is in the family life of a Christian and the consequences of accepting such a practice as it has some serious implications for the Christian’s view of God’s sovereignty and His role in the conception of children.

To help understand this thesis, four terms must be defined. “Contraception” can be defined as the deliberate use of any method, whether artificial or natural means such as natural family planning, or any sexual act that prevents the conception of a covenant child. There are several references to “covenant children” in this paper. By this, I mean children who are born to Christian parents and are therefore participants in the covenant of Grace God has made with His people. An abortifacient is chiefly a drug that causes abortions (Merriam-Webster). God’s design for sex, marriage, and family is couples be fruitful and multiply that they may produce covenant children and raise more disciples of Christ, who will live to glorify God. This idea will be expounded upon in the confirmation. Finally, the idea of pursuing holiness means the Christian will grow in his or her understanding of God and His holiness, seek to become more like Him, and to glorify Him through his or her marriage and family life.

In order to prove contraception is contrary to God’s design and must be rejected by the Christian, I will confirm three arguments: Most medical contraceptive methods are abortifacients and are therefore, murderous; using contraception denies God’s sovereignty over everything, including fertility; and Christians throughout the ages have universally condemned this practice. I will then refute three counterarguments: If God is truly sovereign, He will override any attempt at avoiding conception if it is His will for a child to be conceived; sex in marriage can be good for unity and strengthening the marriage bond regardless of whether it is procreative or not; and whether a couple decides to use contraceptive methods is really a matter of Christian liberty and is not explicitly condemned in Scripture.

My first confirmation argument is most medical contraceptives are abortifacients and are therefore, muderous. These must be rejected as a legitimate method of family planning. The church has unfortunately accepted these methods. The common birth control methods generally approved of by Christians must be examined. Most Christians who have studied science and read the Bible about what God says about abortion would agree abortion is murder and therefore wrong. These Christians would agree a human life begins at conception. Most Christians, however, don’t understand how most contraceptives work and how secular culture has even redefined “pregnancy” and “conception.” Contraceptives such as “the pill,” the patch, the ring, IUDs, depo-provera shots, and emergency contraception such as ella and Plan B, can cause a very early abortion by prohibiting an already fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine lining (Pasquale and Cadoff).

All the contraceptives just mentioned except for the IUD combine the hormones estrogen and progestin. The combination of these two is meant to serve two primary purposes: to prevent ovulation, stopping an egg from releasing into the fallopian tubes, and also to thicken cervical mucus, which changes throughout the woman’s cycle and affects sperm’s ability to get through the cervix to fertilize an egg. These are the primary means used in the pill to prevent a pregnancy. However, there is a third method if the other two fail. The progestin interacts with the endometrium lining, making it a thinner, more hostile environment for an embryo to implant. All advocates of this kind of contraception will say it’s really not a baby until implantation. This completely redefines what a pregnancy is and when conception is. To be pro-life, you cannot argue a life begins at implantation and not at conception. It’s intellectually dishonest as the so-called “cluster of cells” formed at the time of conception is completely distinct with all 23 chromosomes he or she will have for life and is scientifically and biologically a distinct entity from the mother. There are disturbing statistics of how many abortions occur every year. These don’t even account for the possible millions of unintended abortions due to these contraceptive methods. IUDs work a little differently. Many of them release copper into the uterus working as a spermicide as well as release progestin into the uterus to thicken cervical mucus and interfere with the balance of hormones in the endometrium lining (Pasquale and Cadoff). The synthetic progestin hormones interacting with the natural balance of progesterone in the body causes the endometrium to be an inhospitable environment for the implantation of an embryo, which is a serious ethical problem. This means an already-conceived child is potentially dying due to the inability to implant and receive nutrients from the mother. If you are truly pro-life, it is intellectually dishonest to approve of these methods as they act in a way that is entirely contrary to the pro-life position.

My second confirmation argument is the practice of contraception denies God’s sovereignty over everything, including fertility. It is clear in Scripture sex is designed to be practiced within the covenant of marriage. This is so children can be raised in a stable environment in a family. Sex was designed by God to create covenant children. This is made clear in Scripture. His desire for His followers is to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28, 9:1). This is not a mere blessing, it is a command. Imperatives in the Hebrew Bible are only expressed as requests or desire when an inferior is speaking to a superior. However in the Hebrew language, if a superior is talking to an inferior as God was talking to Adam and Eve, it is always a command (Hodge 129). This command is given explicitly and directly to couples joined together in marriage by God since creation. This is repeated twice: not only before the Fall to Adam and Eve, but post-flood to Noah and His sons also (Gen. 9:1). Therefore, to purposefully go against God’s created order and primary use of sex when He has given this great command is abominable.

It is important to note God throughout Scripture gives children as a blessing to those whom He favors. He opens Rachel’s womb in Genesis 30:22. The same language is also used when referring to Leah in God’s work in giving her children in Genesis 29:31. Samuel’s mother Hannah dealt with infertility and begged God for a child. God gave heed to her prayer and gave her Samuel. Lot’s daughters slept with their father in order to bear sons after fleeing Sodom. This was obviously a sinful act and God did not favor it, however we see with all of these women children were something to be desired and sought after. God’s people desired children, which was not a common attitude in the world around them. The pagan Babylonians at the time intentionally avoided conceiving and practiced forms of contraception in forms of herbs and potions, coitus interruptus, or the rhythm method (Hodge 53-80). It is important to understand this radical attitude of God’s people. Though stories like Lot’s daughters teach us a lesson of what not to do and show us a horrible way to go about having children, we understand how important it was they procreate and follow God’s command.

One of the most famous stories regarding sexual ethics in the Bible is the story of Onan. In Genesis 38, Onan’s brother Er is put to death because he is evil in the sight of Jehovah, and because his brother had no heir, Onan had to go into his sister-in-law and produce an heir for his brother. The narrative tells us he did this, but he “wasted his seed” on the ground, a term commonly been known to mean coitus interruptus. This was so grievous to God He struck Onan dead. This is not because of what he didn’t do (give an heir to his brother) but what he did do (waste his seed). Genesis 38:10 says, “But it was evil in the eyes of Jehovah, that which he did, so He put him to death as well.” Brian Harrison, head of the Theology department in the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico, comments this about Onan’s sin: “If simple refusal to give legal offspring to his deceased brother were, according to Genesis 38, his only offense, it seems extremely unlikely that the text would have spelt out the crass physical details of his contraceptive act.” He continues to say when a marital, lawful sexual act takes place in Scripture, in English it is always translated to “going into” one’s wife or “knowing” one’s spouse. However, more explicit terms like “lying with” or “uncovering nakedness” and especially this explicit act described indicates something illicit and sinful. This is also proven in a clear reading of Deuteronomy 25:5-10 that the punishment for not fulfilling the law under this circumstance is not death, but for the woman and the man to go before the elders, the woman will pull off his sandal and spit in his face (v9). Therefore the sin of Onan has to do particularly with the contraceptive act, not just failing to give an heir to his brother.

Leviticus 18 is a portion of OT moral law that lays out a list of sexual sins God finds detestable. Some of these things include incestuous relationships, sleeping with a woman and her daughter, sleeping with a woman during her menstrual period, sleeping with your neighbor’s wife, homosexual activity, and bestiality to name a few. Most Christians would agree these things are unnatural relations that go against God’s created order in Eden, but many Christians don’t think about why they are unnatural. It is impossible for two men to reproduce. It is impossible for a man to reproduce with an animal. It is unlikely for a woman to conceive while on her period (something people in this time period would do to prevent conception). Incest is not healthy and can produce genetic problems for a child as a product of these relationships. These sins have one thing in common: it is impossible or nearly impossible to procreate. Other sins mentioned such as sleeping with a woman and her daughter or sleeping with your neighbor’s wife also contradict God’s design for marriage. It is possible to conceive a child in these acts, however it is not within the marriage covenant God designed. We can discern God, therefore, desires his children to have sex for the purpose of having and raising children born into the Covenant in the fear of the Lord, with all of the other benefits of sex such as pleasure and unity coming second to this purpose. More disciples of Christ are potentially created in the birth of children.

These sentiments are echoed in the NT in Paul’s condemnation of homosexual activity and unnatural relations with women in Romans 1. Paul’s description of homosexuality is the two combined words “male” and “bed.” The word for this is arsenokoites. These descriptions were used in the Old Testament and were echoed by Paul in the New Testament. If Paul’s words are to be believed and homosexuality is still unnatural as it doesn’t produce children and is a waste of semen as Onan’s sin was, then it logically follows this is unnatural because it is not fulfilling the primary purpose of sex and is wrong because of that. Therefore, for Christians to believe homosexuality and all these other unnatural sins are wrong yet to affirm the practice of contraception is illogical.

All true Christians agree on the concept God is sovereign. However, the attitude toward acceptance of birth control, whether intentionally or unintentionally, implies God is sovereign over all, except over one’s fertility. The miracle of conception is seen as a purely naturalistic event. It is seen as an ability God has given to humans but one He is not actively involved in. This is simply a form of Christianized deism. No Christian would argue God is not actively involved in His creation, so why would one believe He is not sovereign and involved in this act He created for those who bear His image to produce more image bearers? God designed this earth and designed human beings especially so specifically it requires the presence of an Almighty God to create and sustain this complex life. We see all throughout Scripture God supernaturally intervenes in this natural process He has created and given to man. In Psalm 139:16, we see God sees our unformed substance and in His book were all written the days ordained for us. God knew people before they were born or conceived. Verse 13 says, “For you formed my inward parts; You wove me together in my mother’s womb.” Job also says in Job 10:10-11, “Did You not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese; clothe me with skin and flesh, And knit me together with bones and sinews….” This verse is a poetic representation of the reproductive act: the term milk being semen and curdling like cheese meaning the joining to an egg to form a solid substance (Henry). This is a description of the Almighty God forming a child in the womb. God knows us before we even come into existence. One cannot read the Bible and deny God is sovereign over everything, including the formation of children in the womb. All people that come into existence have a purpose, as we see throughout Romans 9 as Paul talks about all those in Scripture whom God has raised up for His eternal purpose and to show His glory first and foremost such as Pharaoh, and Jacob and Esau. All of these people, whether good or bad, were part of God’s plan.

We also see in the stories of Rachel, Leah, Hannah, Sarah, Rebekah, and many other women in the Bible the language of the Lord “opening her womb” is used. To be faithful to the text, this should be interpreted literally. They still participated in the sexual act to conceive a child, but it was God that had to make the environment possible for them to conceive. It was considered a blessing from the Lord. For every one of her children except for Levi, Leah recognized those children were from the Lord. She says after the birth of Judah “this time I will praise the Lord” (Genesis 29:30). This was different from her response to Levi, in which she turned the glory on herself and said Jacob would now love her because she had born him three sons (v34). Rachel was barren for a long time, and seeing Leah had sons, she was upset. She told Jacob to give her children lest she die (30:1). Jacob rebuked her saying, “Am I in the place of God who has withheld you the fruit of the womb?” Jacob was angry at Rachel for not giving this credit to God and assuming it was Jacob’s fault. Part of the purpose of these stories is to show it is God that gives us children. These children are merely entrusted to us by God: “Children are a heritage of the Lord, offspring a reward from Him” (Psalm 127:3-5). This includes all children, both good and bad. Jesus died for all people without distinction. This means He died even for children who are awful or who grow up to be criminals. We cannot know what God has planned for any person who is born into this world, but we can trust that in all things, God will be glorified, “for from Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to Him be the glory forever. Amen” (Romans 11:36).

All things are under His dominion and belong to Him, therefore it is not our place as people to decide how many children we should have. That is not our responsibility. It is the Lord who gives and takes away. If Christians truly believe in God’s sovereignty and faithfully exegete these passages in context, then there is no need to plan what children to have and when. The blessing of children are dependent upon the Lord. Intentionally using contraceptive measures to ensure a child cannot come into the world is something the church for centuries condemned as something worse than murder, as will be discussed in my final confirmation argument.

My third confirmation argument is Christians throughout the ages have universally condemned this practice. This argument is one from the historic Christian church, from its conception to approximately 1930. In 1930, the Anglican church was the first protestant church to approve of the use of contraception. They allowed sex merely for the sole purpose of pleasure with no other purpose behind it as God intended. God designed sex to be pleasurable, but that is not its only purpose. The primary concern for couples is to please God by allowing the act to be procreative. To use sex for oneself and one’s own pleasure without the desire to please God by following His commands is hedonistic and wrong. Many other protestants followed suit in this hedonism. They argue there is no explicit Biblical condemnation of contraception. This is not valid. The Bible doesn’t explicitly condemn many things. The word pedophilia is not specifically used in Scripture, but no Christian would make the argument it is not condemned in Scripture implicitly. The church for centuries until the Lambeth Conference in 1930 universally condemned contraception. These people include preachers, teachers, and influential Christians, celibate and married alike such as Augustine, John Calvin, John Chrysostom, Clement of Alexandria, David J. Engelsma, The Synod of Dort, Matthew Henry, Irenaeus, Jerome, Justin Martyr, John Knox, C.S. Lewis, Martin Luther, John Owen, John Wesley, the Westminster Divines (writers of the Westminster Standards in the 1640s), and many more (Hodge 35-38). This is not to say doctrine is decided by humans or the majority rules on morality. The issue at hand is implicitly talked about throughout Scripture. Protestants adhere to Sola Scriptura. This does not mean the church should not learn from the teachings and confessions of the Christian church derived from Scripture alone. These faithful teachers of the Word have studied and have come to the same conclusion: contraception is wrong. Doctrinal unity throughout the ages shows faithfulness to the Word of God and the true Christian faith. There is and always has been division over certain doctrinal matters in the church, however, this was never one of them until recently. It is important for the church today to learn from its past and from faithful teachers of Scripture. All of the Christians previously mentioned have spoken in their works about the topic of contraception and all have come to the same conclusion: preventing a covenant child from coming into the world is wrong. Early church father John Chrysostom said,

Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before conception? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. … Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with His [natural] laws? … Yet such turpitude…the matter still seems indifferent to many men — even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks….”

The point of Chrysostom is these parents are showing hate to their child God is planning to give them by making attempts to thwart His plan and never allowing that life to exist. So many children are not conceived every year due to the wide use of contraceptives. John Calvin said this in His Institutes:

We are not our own: therefore, neither our reason nor our will should dominate our plans and actions. We are not our own: therefore, let us not make the gratification of our flesh our end. We are not out own: therefore, as much as possible, let us forget ourselves and our own interests.

Rather we are God’s. Therefore, let us live and die to Him. We are God’s. Therefore, let His wisdom and His will govern all our actions. We are God’s, therefore, let us — in every way in all our lives — run to Him as our only proper end.”

This means everything we are belongs to God. Our lives, our bodies, and our spirits are His. Relying on His Holiness and sovereignty should be our aim in all of life and in our fertility. We should not aim to fulfill our hedonistic passions and use this gift solely for pleasure, a great secondary benefit God has given, but not His intended primary purpose (possibility of procreation). But as Calvin says, may we seek the Lord and run to Him as our only proper end.

The first counterargument I will refute is if God is truly sovereign, He will override any attempt at avoiding conception if it is His will for a child to be conceived. Nothing can stand in the way of His purposes, therefore, it is appropriate to plan and use caution but also to trust His judgment and know He can override your plans. This line of reasoning sounds reasonable and even holy in some ways. Many protestants hold to this view. However, it is a skewed interpretation of God’s sovereignty, His will, and requires a skewed view of God’s design for sex. I have already discussed in my confirmation God’s design for sex is not exclusively for pleasure without the procreative aspect. This idea comes not from the Bible, but from the naturalistic view God is not actively involved in the creation of children in the womb and conception is solely a human ability. This idea is also not from Scripture but comes from naturalistic philosophies that have crept into the church since its infancy. With a closer examination of Scripture, it is clear this argument has too many holes.

Both sides of the argument share the presupposition God is sovereign. The pro contraception side, however, misunderstands the meaning of God’s sovereignty and His will for His people. God’s efficacious will shows His overarching rule and dominion over all things. Everything that occurs falls under God’s efficacious will. For example, it was God’s efficacious will for Joseph to be sold into slavery by His brothers, mistreated, interpret the Pharaoh’s dream, be given power, and eventually save the lives of his brothers during the famine. However, for Joseph to be mistreated and sold into slavery was not something God directly caused. The sinful acts that took place on the part of Joseph’s brothers that brought about God’s efficacious will fell under God’s permissive will. He was not the direct cause of the sin but used it to fulfill His purposes. The same can be said about Job. God was not the cause of the torture Job went through, He allowed Satan to torture Job under His permissive will. God could have divinely intervened in both cases but chose not to and used man’s sin for His ultimate purpose and for His own glory. This does not mean it is morally acceptable to use God’s sovereignty as an excuse for disobedience. God can use our mistakes for good, but is that a good excuse to continue to sin and shun what God desires of us? This is a similar line of reasoning Paul warned the church in Rome about on the topic of grace. Romans 6:1-2 says, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” Just as Christians may not continue to sin and rely on God’s grace, so Christians should not sin by ignoring God’s clear design and relying on His “sovereignty,” meaning He will override our sin if need be. This is not what God would have us believe about Him. We should look at God’s sovereignty as a beautiful thing and as believers, seek to act within His will.

The second counterargument I will refute is sex within marriage can be good for unity and strengthening the marriage bond regardless of whether it is procreative or not. Greg Parsons makes the argument in his article, “Guidelines for Understanding and Utilizing the Song of Songs,” since no children are mentioned in Song of Songs, he argues, then it is acceptable to have sex for only pleasure’s sake. This argument essentially presents an either/or statement: Either you can have sex for procreation OR you can have sex for pleasure. This is a false dichotomy. These two ideas are not contradictory to one another. God created sex for the purpose of conceiving children AND God created sex to be pleasurable.

There are seasons in life in which couples are infertile, miscarriages occur, or women hit menopause and are past their childbearing years. God allows the first two to happen under His permissive will. It is difficult to understand why God would allow such terrible things to happen, but Scripture says all things work together for the good of those who love Him (Romans 8:28) and God uses evil for our good (Genesis 50:20). This does not mean that during these times, the primary purpose of sex should be overlooked. God can open the womb of the infertile as He did with Hannah and Scripture also tells us God is near to the broken hearted and saves such as have a contrite spirit (Psalm 34:18) as most will have when a tragedy like a miscarriage occurs. Sex should still be had in a manner that would allow for the conception of a child. As for women past the age of childbearing, sex should still be had in a manner that glorifies God with our bodies. God opened the wombs of Sarah and Elizabeth when they were too old to have children. God can still intervene and work His will in creating covenant children even in women who are post menopausal. He most likely will not, as these women were exceptions, however it is good to have sex during this time because there are secondary benefits to be had such as pleasure and unity. Even in these times, it is a both/and event. The act must allow for procreation and is pleasurable and unifying simultaneously.

The argument sex is good in and of itself for pleasure and unity regardless of whether or not it is procreative is also a fantastic argument in favor of homosexual relationships. Most Protestant Christians who have studied Scripture all agree the Bible condemns homosexuality as it condemns many other sexual sins. In the confirmation section of this paper, the sins described in Leviticus 18 were discussed, of which homosexuality was one. When considering the question why homosexuality is unnatural and sinful, the unanimous response of Christians polled is twofold: first, it is not “intuitive” meaning the sexual organs of men are not made for one another nor are the sexual organs of women made for one another. Rather, they are made for the opposite sex. “Sex makes sense” when it is with the opposite, whereas it “doesn’t make sense” when with the same sex. Second, homosexuals cannot reproduce, therefore a purpose of sex is removed from the act. Why does God institute marriage? His institution of marriage in Eden was to be fruitful and multiply. He created male and female in His image to reproduce so more bearers of His image could be conceived. The argument being made requires us to ask the question, “do homosexuals experience unity and pleasure in the sexual act?” The answer to that is “yes.” That act produces the same dopamine release and provides the same feelings as heterosexual acts. If God approves of sex within marriage for pleasure’s purposes regardless of whether or not conception could occur is essentially another application of the idea “God wants me to be happy.” If God just wants us to be happy, and homosexuals are happy in their relationship, then according to this logic homosexuality would be an acceptable method of expression. True Christians know our chief end is to glorify Him and enjoy Him forever, borrowing from the words of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. His purposes for us is not that we be happy, but to worship Him as He is worthy of all our worship (Revelation 5:12). Making this argument is essentially making an argument in favor of any sexual sin one may wish.

The Bible is clear regarding God’s purpose for sex within marriage: God desires children to be brought forth as He wills (Genesis 1:28, 9:1) because they belong to Him and are a heritage from Him (Psalm 127:3). God is also clear about His disdain for sexual immorality throughout the Bible. The term used in the OT was zanah and the Koine Greek NT word used was porneia. Understanding the meaning of porneia in the NT strengthens the argument practicing contraception is sinful and refutes the argument the Bible does not speak to this issue.

The third counterargument I will refute states whether a couple decides to use contraceptive methods is really a matter of Christian liberty and is not explicitly condemned in Scripture. In order to refute this argument, it is important to understand the meaning of the term porneia. It is used throughout the NT, especially in Paul’s letters when referring to the broad idea of “sexual immorality.” Postmodern Christians popularly interpret that term as sex before marriage or sex outside of marriage. While sex was created to be practiced within the covenant of marriage and it is wrong to violate that principle, that is not exclusively what Paul is speaking about here (Hodge). The term was much broader than just sex outside of marriage. It translated more literally to “the misuse of the sexual act.” Throughout the NT specific sexual sins like sex outside of marriage, which is a form of adultery, are distinguished by using the word moicheia such as in Matthew 15:19 where Jesus specifies the sexual sin of adultery instead of using the more broad word porneia. From this, we see there is more to porneia than just pre-marital/adulterous sex. In Acts 15:20-29, the council at Jerusalem concludes the Gentiles must abstain from porneia. The Gentiles were not uncivilized. They had laws regarding adulterous affairs and other types of fornication. However, the new Gentile Christians were told to abstain from porneia indicating there were things the Jews saw as sexually immoral but the Gentiles did not. The verb form of porneia used is porneuo as found in Jude v7. Jude v6-8 describe angels having sex with human women (v6), sodomy (v7), and masturbation or coitus interruptus (v8). In this context we see three different distortions of the sexual act. Therefore, it is clear the Bible does distinguish different sexual sins.

There is also another word used in Scripture: pharmakeia or pharmakos, meaning “potion making” and “potion maker.” These words speak directly to the contraception issue at hand. Pharmakeia is often translated to “sorcerer” in the NT (Gal. 5:20, Rev. 9:21, 18:23, 21:8, 22:15). We think of sorcerers in terms of witchcraft, but these sorcerers were usually people who created potions of many sorts, including ones used to avoid conception. These potion makers also knew incantations and spells and used amulets and trinkets to cause infertility (Hodge 91). Scripture has a low view of these people as the potions and herbs they used were not made to preserve life like healing drugs (which are good) are, they are used to prevent it. Revelation 18 talks about Babylon the Great. It is said all the nations partake in her porneia (sexual immorality). However in 18:23, the apostle John switches and uses the word pharmakeia. In 21:8 and 22:15, the writer alternates between using the words porneia and pharmakeia indicating practicing one leads to the practice of the other (Hodge 92-93). The arguments from the Greek against sexual immorality, the distortion of the sexual act, and the use of these “potions” are condemned in the New Testament.

Those who argue the Bible does not speak explicitly to the issue of contraception are correct. The Bible does not explicitly speak to the issue. The Bible doesn’t do this because the Jews and the early church would have shared the same presuppositions about contraceptive measures. Whereas the Bible never explicitly condemns the practice, God’s attitude toward conception and children and family is made known and His people shared the same idea the family was important and central to society. The idea family is not the central sphere of society is a Postmodern idea that has infiltrated the church.

Now that it is proven the Bible does speak to this topic if not explicitly, then implicitly, we must discuss the idea of “Christian liberty.” The idea of this liberty comes from Romans 14-15, in which Paul states certain things a stronger brother in Christ can do in good conscience the weaker brother cannot. This includes drinking wine or eating meat sacrificed to idols. The point is the weaker brother should not be judged for these differences. Postmodern Christians, however, read moral implications into this passage in order to support their eisegesis.

First, Paul is not speaking in terms of moral absolutes. He is speaking in terms of Jew-Gentile relations. Many Jews had convictions about eating and drinking things deemed unclean. Paul says in 14:14, “I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” This is not talking about moral relativity, but aspects of the law Gentiles did not feel the need to follow but Jews did. Paul tells both parties not to condemn one another for these convictions, because Christ has set us free. This concept of freedom Paul talks about comes from Isaiah 61:1, in which Isaiah says the Lord has anointed Him to “proclaim liberty to the captives.” The word “liberty” in this context refers back to the concept of the Year of Jubilee, in which the people rested from their labor, captives were freed, and debts were dropped. The final Jubilee Year was inaugurated by Christ’s coming, in which He set His people free from and paid our debt for our sin. The freedom we have in Christ is not freedom to do as we please, but freedom from the Law of works and the bondage of sin. We are now under Grace and are not in bondage to the Law in working for our Salvation. It has already been accomplished. This is what Paul is talking about: freedom in Christ in dealing with Jew-Gentile relations, not freedom to accept situational ethics/moral relativity.

The Apostle Peter tells us in 1 Peter 2:16, to live “as free [men], and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.” We are not called to use the freedom we have from sin to please ourselves, rather our lives must reflect God and what He has done for us. This does not mean we can never take pleasure in anything. In fact we should have joy because Christ has given us joy in salvation. However, there can be no argument made for Christian liberty in the contraception debate. God has not given us freedom to deny His Sovereignty and combat His design, both of which are grievous sins. These sexual morals are objective, not subjective, and no matter of “Christian liberty.” In order to make the argument, one would have to argue OT Laws echoed in the NT allow for such a practice, which has already been disproven. It is clear through multiple passages on children and family and the stories of many couples God had blessed with children and descendants all throughout Scripture there is simply no justification for this practice. Everything in Scripture relating to this points to the fact God does not approve of the practice of contraception.

Christians must avoid this sexual sin. I urge my brothers and sisters in Christ to pray about this important issue and take a second look at the thought process used to justify the practice of contraception. Examine the history, the motives, and the character of its advocates and the movement. The church has been involved in this secular practice far too long. It is time to stop! It is time to stop ignoring God’s design for marriage. It is time to stop using sex for selfish motives instead of using it to glorify God as He commands. It is time to stop participating in a practice that is not in any way Christian nor does it demonstrate God’s love for His children. Rather, it is time to think about sex as something sacred and good because God uses it to create covenant children, people with a purpose in His sovereign plan, and potentially, more followers of Christ who will grow up to do great things for the Kingdom of God. It is time to look not to our own interests but each of us to the interest of others (Phil. 2:4). This includes the interests of those unborn children who we may not know, but whom God knows intimately and is waiting to form together in the womb that they may glorify and enjoy Him forever.

Works Cited

BBC Ethics. “Moral Case Against Contraception,” BBC Ethics, 2014. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/contraception/against_l.shtml.

Calvin, Jean. A Little Book on the Christian Life. Edited and Translated by Aaron C. Denlinger and Burk Parsons. Reformation Trust Publishing, A Division of Ligonier Ministries, 2017.

Carlson, Allan, “History of Contraception in the Protestant Church.” Family Policy, 1999, rpt. in www.bound4life.com/history-of-contraception-in-the-protestant-church/.

Carlson, Allan, Godly Seed: American Evangelicals Confront Birth Control, 1873-1973., Transaction Publishers, 2011.

Carlson, Allan. Interview by E.J. Hutchinson. The Calvinist International, 29 May 2013, https://calvinistinternational.com/2013/05/29/carlson-interview/. Accessed 7 Dec. 2017.

Henry, Matthew. Commentary on Job 10, https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/mhc/Job/Job_010.cfm. Accessed 24 Jan. 2018.

Hodge, Bryan C., The Christian Case Against Contraception. Wipf and Stock publishers, 2010.

House, H. Wayne, “Should Christians Use Birth Control?” Christian Research Institute, 2009. www.equip.org/article/should-christians-use-birth-control/.

Pasquale, Samuel A., and Jennifer Cadoff. The Birth Control Book: a Complete Guide to Your Contraceptive Options. Ballantine Books, 1996.

Sproul, R.C. “God’s Sovereignty.” Chosen By God Lecture series, Ligonier Ministries, 1986.

Redeeming Pandora

A Journal of Scholarship and Opinion

Monthly Archives: July 2023

Technology Overuse

Savannah Cartwright

Education Reformation

Sarah Mertz Silva

Asian-Americans: Perspectives

Melissa Yeh

A Cleaner Future: Electric Cars

Hannah Elliott

Drones in Warfare

Joanna Larson

Multi-Sport Athletes

Amanda Mericle

Language: Reflector of the Light of our Hearts

Golnar Beikzadeh

The Immorality of Capital Punishment

Tarah Leake

American Foster Care: A System in Need of Reform

Emma Kenney

Contravening Contraception

Ruth Grant