Back in May, a first grader was suspended from school due to his singing of the popular song “Sexy and I know it” to a girl at lunch while “shaking his booty” near her face (yes, that’s what the news said). His overflowing confidence was not appreciated by the school administrators and the six-year-old was slapped with a sexual harassment charge by the school. The police were not involved because they only deal with “sexual harassment offenders” aged ten and up. Though the news is disturbing and certainly controversial (the boy had been warned before), what is worrisome is that in the interview, the boy and his mother talked about how often he encountered the song by LMFAO* on the radio, at the department stores, on the TV, and on the internet.

It is true that the popular song is everywhere. The “thong thrusting” music video has garnered hundreds of millions of views on YouTube and the new M&M SuperBowl commercial that uses the song has twenty one million views itself. Even the seemingly innocuous remake called “I’m Elmo and I know it” has a suggested link that leads straight to the original video. (Another entertaining clip here)

We always try to protect our kids – we impose a rating system on movies/channels, we censor lyrics on popular radio stations, we even put a restriction on the commercial time for children’s TV stations. This kind of stuff isn’t new, but in this Information Age, it is simply impossible to supervise what children see and hear (my four-year-old cousin owns a 3G iPad). Imagine how difficult it would be to keep an elementary school child from hearing the song/fully understanding why it is inappropriate? Who is to blame in this situation? The parents? YouTube**? M&M? LMFAO?

This “corporate responsibility” reminded me of the Facebook news last week: Facebook is trying to get rid of its “age 13 and above” rule but the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act is getting in the way. The wording of the law will most likely not stop Facebook, who is more profit thirsty than ever after its IPO failure. Its age check already intentionally shaky, Facebook, like so many other popular companies, stations, and advertisements, need to be aware of their inherent ethical responsibility and the potential consequences they can easily create. As companies that appeal to the masses, their influence is tremendous, and they need to do a better job in monitoring their content.

*LMFAO claims that their acronym stands for “Loving My Friends And Others,” don’t you just love these little coincidences in life? Also the song “Sexy and I know it” was meant to be a parody.

** YouTube does require you to report your age in order to watch the video – obviously not very effective.

Lena Reppart was one of the three percent of airline travelers pulled aside for a pat down through airport security to fly from Florida to her native Michigan June 18. As if the process of being groped by a stranger wasn’t awkward enough, the security agent encountered a dilemma–Reppart’s adult diaper was full, and they couldn’t let her through the checkpoint without knowing for certain what the liquid was.

To make her flight, Reppart removed her diaper in the bathroom and went through security again, this time without a hitch.

Even more so than 8oz of shampoo or a water bottle, the prospect of a terrorist sneaking a bomb onto a plane through a used diaper seems preposterous and comical, even. But this is what TSA representative Sari Koshetz had to say:

“TSA cannot exempt any group from screening because we know from intelligence that there are terrorists out there that would then exploit that vulnerability.”

2008 Jeff Koterba cartoon, via internationalairportsecurity.com

I can understand this logic. We can’t just pull aside people who vaguely resemble Osama Bin Laden for “random” screening – not only because that’s racist – but because who’s to say that a 95-year-old, white, American woman doesn’t have a reason to commit an act of terror? The safety of American citizens is obviously important, and if that means we have to check a diaper, then we have to check a diaper.

As much as I value safety, though, I also value privacy – though the Reppart’s screening was in a private room, she still had to discuss her adult diaper with complete strangers and proceed to travel without any underwear. In what other circumstance would that be acceptable?

However, if the TSA is going to continue to enforce this rule, I would challenge them to be consistent.

Just a few days ago, they announced that they would attempt to avoid pulling aside children for intrusive pat downs, after a video of an agent searching a 6-year-old girl went viral in April. (Note: it has since been removed.) Just as they cannot exempt elderly women from their policies, they shouldn’t eliminate children–particularly those who are still in diapers who could smuggle mysterious liquids through security.

Under this amended policy, children would only be searched if their parents raised a “red flag” – but what constitutes a “red flag”? Reppart’s “red flag” was her diaper; so logically, wouldn’t an adult traveling with a young child wearing a full diaper raise a “red flag,” as well?

I’m honestly not sure if I’m convinced whether or not in-flight terrorism is really thwarted because of TSA security measures. Is it worth it to get an extra dose of radiation every time I pass through an x-ray machine or to have a woman run her hands down my thighs? Maybe it is. However, I’m sure it’s not in any way helped by the fact that TSA does pick and choose who are subject to extra screening.

Maybe people get pulled aside because they are every-25th-passenger, because they have metal joint replacements that set off the metal detectors, because they have brown skin and beards or because they are wearing adult diapers. I would say that an overwhelming majority of these people aren’t terrorists, but what about the seemingly non-descript 24th passenger? Or the man with a full-diapered baby?

Unfortunately, it isn’t feasible to thoroughly examine everybody who passes through an airport, and it wouldn’t be safe to stop examining them altogether. These half-way practices do, at least, make people feel safe, which might be all we can ask for.

Instead, I want to talk about the unnecessary rigidity with which we enforce rules today. Instead of making rules a flexible code by which to properly keep order and respect in society, we have, in many cases, allowed rules to become elevated to sacrosanct status. Instead of looking at the pros and cons of enforcing a rule in any given situation, we repeat the mantra that “rules are rules” and the punishment must be enforced no matter the situation.

One of the best speakers I have seen on this subject is Barry Schwartz, who within this excellent TED talk (it’s long, but worth it) tells the story of a professor who accidentally gave his young son a “Mike’s Hard Lemonade” and nearly ended up losing custody of him.

Schwartz emphasizes that in nearly every step of the process, the hospital workers, social workers or judges told this man that “they wished they didn’t have to” enforce whatever sanction they were upon him. Schwartz tells us, they didn’t have to at all.

For another example, which resonates with me personally as I attended school at Fairfax County, check out this Time Magazine column comparing a recent Fairfax County “drug” violation of a high school football player with the recent, controversial decision by BYU to suspend one of their star basketball players. The tragic incident in Fairfax County, in which the 15 year old, after being expelled and told he would have to transfer took his own life, is not an isolated occurrence. Here is yet another example in Fairfax County from the Washington Post of a girl who was expelled for bringing in her own prescription medication.

I can understand the need for schools to create strict drug and alcohol related laws, and I sympathize with the difficulty administrators must face while trying to keep schools safe and drug free. But, is there really no room in the system for flexibility and understanding? Do we really need to penalize a young girl who brings in prescription acne medication the same as a student who knowingly brings illegal drugs like marijuana to school?

Ultimately, I think the question comes down to: are rules being enforced just because they exist, with no regard to context, or is there a greater purpose and meaning to them? Rules, like Schwartz says, are too often put into place so people don’t have to think. Why think carefully about the conditions and context of a child bringing prescription medication to school if we can just rely on the “rules” and expel her? Are we really content living in a society where rules have been placed so high on a pedestal that we have stopped thinking about…well, anything?

Photo via Impressions of Saratoga Online

Everyone knows drinking alcohol and driving vehicles don’t make a good match. But what about handling other means of transportation while under the influence of drugs or alcohol? Recently, a public safety ad in Montana which broadcasts catching a ride home with a horse as a metaphor for finding a safe ride home is now actually calling into question whether riding your horse home while intoxicated is illegal.

According to Montana law, horseback riding while drunk is, in fact, legal, as an animal is not lawfully defined as a vehicle (this isn’t the case in Colorado). So should Duke consider installing a safe-ride horse service to take students between East and West campus post-Wednesday-night Shooters (it may get you home faster than waiting for that C-2)? Not quite.

The larger issue at hand is what, exactly, it means to have a “safe ride.” The point of the public safety ad was not that drunk people should now start riding their horses around (although it was interpreted that way by many Montana residents given the horse culture there) but rather that an intoxicated person should make sure s/he has a ride home of which s/he is fully aware and in control. Which probably isn’t a horse.

On a college campus, there is always discussion about drinking alcohol and staying safe. Though it’s pretty strange to think about horses as a ride home, are some of the ways Duke students get home any safer? Is walking home drunk safe enough? What about flagging down the Jimmy John’s car? The dangers of drinking don’t stop at operating machinery. When you’re intoxicated, your judgment is impaired. This is the case whether you’re getting in your car or someone else’s, your motorcycle, your Nimbus 2000, and yes, even when you’re walking. The important part is to make sure you’re with someone you can trust to be monitoring the situation for things you may not notice in your après- St. Patrick’s Day haze. Tragedy involving alcohol can occur in any situation whether or not vehicles are involved; in fact, it happened here on campus this year.

We need to make Duke an even safer place for those who decide to drink. True, we have a bus system and a van service, if you’re so inclined to wait between 20 and 45 minutes at 1:30 AM on a Saturday.  Which you probably aren’t. How about a walking service, in which Duke provides a trained official to make sure you walk back safe to the boondocks that is Edens Quad? How about offering students safe rides in a more timely fashion so they aren’t standing in the cold or, more likely, stumbling back to their dorm by themselves? If the Duke administration is really as committed to keeping its students as safe as it claims, new ideas need to be encouraged and implemented with all due speed. In the meantime, if springtime in Durham leads you to party it up, leave your horse at home.

Williams-Bolar was arrested and found guilty of tampering with records and falsifying enrollment papers for her two daughters so they could attend a prominently “rich, white” school for two years. The school has closed enrollment policies and it costs $800 per month to enroll students who do not live in the district.

Williams-Bolar was sentenced to 10 days in jail, two years probation, and 80 hours of community service. There is also a possibility that Williams-Bolar will no longer be able to obtain the teaching degree she was close to obtaining at the University of Akron in Ohio.

Most would agree that committing fraud, as a general principle, is unacceptable and must therefore be punished. As a single act, there may not be a hugely significant cost to Williams-Bolar sneaking her daughters into the school, but the entire system would unravel if every poor mother followed in her footsteps.

But it is important to look at Williams-Bolar’s intentions and the situation she lives in.
Is it possible that her only real chance to provide her daughters with a real life opportunity to succeed required her to break the law?

It seems as if through a number of underlying factors in this case point to systematic discrimination of women like Williams-Bolar who feel they have no better option than to break the law to help their kids succeed.

Her desperation makes a powerful statement about how our current public education system may be failing certain students (most likely those who are already the most disadvantaged).

It is important to look beyond just the individual players in this situation, and look back into the history of Akron and how African Americans have been disadvantaged and discriminated against for generations. The civil rights history of Akron reminds us that many African American families may be facing a life of poverty due to structural reasons from the past and maybe more needs to be done to “even the playing field.”

Although, we like to think that our society has moved away from segregation, this map of Cleveland (nearby to Akron) makes me think otherwise:

Photo credit: Eric Fischer via Flickr

Each red dot represents 25 white people, and each blue one represents 25 black people. Blacks and whites clearly continue to live separately, and race continues to correlate with socioeconomic status and income level.

Although we like to say that racial discrimination and segregation is in our past, the educational and wealth disparities that continue to perpetuate it say otherwise. In fact, education is the civil rights issue of our time. Public schools are mainly funded by property taxes, and thus richer neighborhoods have better resources, and thus more opportunity for kids. Poor students are essentially banned from these schools. Although there is formal opportunity available to all, it is unimaginable to think that any poor family would be able to pay $800 per month to educate one child. So the reality becomes that poor kids go to schools that typically have less qualified teachers, fewer academic materials, poor facilities, and so forth.

As a woman who was training to be a teacher (but might no longer be able to do so), Williams-Bolar certainly understands the value of an education. Maybe she realized that the risk of committing a minor legal offense was worth the added educational value her girls would be getting at this school. I think that most people could imagine making the same choice that she did.

On principle, we have to hold Williams-Bolar accountable for breaking the law, but I think we also need to hold ourselves accountable for the inequalities that continue to be apparent in our public education system. A strict enforcement of the current laws and the Williams-Bolar ruling will probably help deter parents from falsifying enrollment papers in the future, but what is being done to help these parents find a way to provide equal opportunities to their children?

Of course our legal system cannot allow people to tamper with records in order to access resources that they have not paid for. But we also should not accept a societal structure which continues to systematically discriminate and withhold opportunities from certain groups of people.

Why did Williams-Bolar have to sink to such desperate measures to get a better life for her children? I would argue that she should have never had to make such a choice in the first place.