photo credit: http://www.magicalday.com/soccer-groom-wedding-figurine.html

Separate and equal.

At least that’s the idea behind the new emerging trend of dividing boys and girls in public school classrooms. The students would be taught the same curriculum, but in different styles. (another link here)

Obviously the range of this novel (or should I say, archaic?) type of education varies widely. On one extreme end, the boys and girls simply sit in different classrooms, and on one other extreme end, boys and girls are not even allowed to speak to each other on school grounds.

Somewhere in the middle, however, teachers are instructed to use more direct commands and louder voices for boys and a calmer tone for girls.

The trend is emerging because, well, it’s working on tests and discipline issues, or at least those are the claims by some researchers and the schools that employ this method. As of now, there is really no conclusive evidence that favors either method due to a lack of data, and there are also just too many variables that need to be considered. Some variation of the method, however, is being used in some public schools in 39 states plus District of Columbia.

Proponents go as far as saying that this new method bridges the achievement gap between races, class, and of course, gender. In contrast, the opponents treat it as a way to enforce gender stereotypes and believe that the method does not prepare the students well for the co-ed real world.

While I must agree that telling boys to brainstorm sports things and girls wedding cakes is a terrible idea (many schools actually did this). It’s hard to argue against the notion of inherent differences in a boy’s brain and a girl’s brain.

In the U.S. today, more girls like pink than boys and girls tend to do better in reading tests than their gender counterparts. These are facts that are not disputable because they are hard numbers. But are these due to genetic differences? Or are they results of socialization? If it’s more of the former, is it ethical to divide up the boys and girls then? If the same is true for whites and blacks, can we divide them up the same way as well? And what if it’s more of the latter? Is it ethical then to divide up the boys and girls to try to break the expectations?

This attempt at education reform also focuses on less quantifiable characteristics such as the perceived notion that most boys are more impulsive and most girls more compassionate. The teaching style then addresses these differences. The keyword is most. People recognize that this may only work with a proportion of people, and that’s why they allowed optional opt-outs (the Alabama middle school that made it mandatory dropped it immediately after the ACLU came knocking). And if the improved test score numbers are real and it is working for the majority, what do we do? We don’t really know how detrimental it is to the minority that doesn’t fit the model yet as there definitely will be some social pressure against opting out. So should these public schools keep continuing their models?

This reminds me of the post when I talked about whether it is okay to send inmates to churches instead of jails. It’s a different approach to solve the problem, and it’s something that certainly lies in the ethically ambiguous area, but if it works, it certainly warrants more attention. Sure, test scores are not everything, but if this approach really helps the boys catch up on reading, is that really a bad thing? And according to many interviews, this method seems to help girls gain confidence and encourages them to ask more questions in class (this, to me, is less genetics and more society, stupid boys) – and that’s not really a bad thing either is it?

We live in a society where the most politically correct thing is to not enforce stereotypes and gender roles, and this is why a lot of people (me included) find this idea repulsive. But these educators are trying to use inherent differences to help, and what if this approach encourages more boys to pursue poetry and more girls to pursue science? The schools that employ this method argue that will eventually be the results.

Perhaps there is a better solution – test individual kids and determine which child goes to the “reading focus” and which child goes to the “math focus,” but then that will divide up the students even more and inevitably lead to accelerated classes for more talented kids and “remedial classes” for the ones behind. And whether that is ethical or not is a whole other discussion.

source: WXIA/NBC

So here’s the briefing:

The KKK wants to adopt a highway in Georgia; the court said no, and now the KKK is suing.

And many people are upset about many things.

Some are upset that the KKK did not get the right to represent itself (this group includes the KKK and the ACLU–strange alliance), and some are upset that the application was even considered (Georgia Association of Black Elected Officials).

A similar case has happened before– the KKK in Missouri was able to adopt part of the highway after Missouri’s state rejection was rejected by the Supreme Court in 2005. Though the KKK sign was sawed down twice and the highway was later renamed as the Rosa Parks Highway.

In the Georgia case, however, the application was denied because the state court believed that “promoting an organization with a history of inciting civil disturbance and social unrest would present a grave concern” and could “have the potential to negatively impact the quality of life” of people in the county and state. The court further concluded that the sign would be a distraction to motorists.

At his point I am sure you are curious, so here are some interesting adopt-a-highway signs.

Some of these adopt-a-highway signs are very distracting in my opinion. Yes, the KKK has a racist and violent past*, but using this as a basis for the judging seems subjective and there certainly are organizations that fall in the grey area.

Does the state government have the right to determine what sign is “too offensive” to be posted? It definitely has the obligation to protect the minority, and like Christian suggested, driving pass a KKK sign everyday is extremely uncomfortable for African Americans. But to what degree should the government protect the offended? Should the government step in for Confederate signs in a black community? Or crusade signs in a Muslim suburb? Communist signs for veterans from the Vietnam War? Or planned parenthood in a conservative Christian community? Or pro-gay right organizations in say, my home state Alabama?

This also begs the question: What is the ethical implication of denying groups like KKK the right to clean roads for free? We don’t mind jailed criminals cleaning our streets – and the fact that KKK is offensive to the majority of the people should not be a reason why they shouldn’t be able to represent their views. At the same time, we don’t allow offensive license plates either (“KKK” will most certainly be denied as a license plate).

The KKK claims all they want is to clean the roads, though if they really want to do that, they wouldn’t be asking for a sign. The spokesman also maintained that they just wanted to use this as another way to assist the community (the word “another” is quite alarming). But if all we know is that an organization wants to adopt a highway, it’s hard to say no basing solely on the offensive claim.

Because of freedom of speech, Westboro Baptist Church can protest legally outside of veteran funerals and American Nazi Party can stage peaceful marches with police protection. It is extremely difficult to accept some of the resulting actions, but such is the negative consequence of freedom of speech. So why can’t KKK adopt a highway?

* KKK has changed their stance to white loving instead of color hating, do I believe that and do I think that is a legitimate thing? No, but that is their official stance.

Courtesy of COCOEN Daily Photos/Flickr

Oh, you’ve heard the old adage that less is more. We all know that it’s wrong. Why would you want quieter speakers, a slower computer, or less money? Everybody knows that more is indeed more. But more doesn’t mean better, as some students in a California school are learning.

Dozier-Libbey Medical High School in Antioch, California opened two years ago with a new premise-abolishing Ds from the grading system. And in many ways, it makes sense-nobody wants Ds, and they’re perched right between the permissible C and the dreaded F. But alas, in practice, this system didn’t work—high school students (and their parents) became frustrated with the failing grades some of them received, which lowered their GPAs. As a result, the district finally decided to add Ds back to the mix, and as a small gift, retroactively changed every single F into a D. Great, right? Nope. While it did raise the GPAs of students, it also prevented them from retaking subjects that they had previously failed. Obviously, many of these students actually wanted the F—by having a failing grade, they were allowed to retake classes, something that a barely-passing D didn’t allow them to do.

So in a situation like this, what is a school to do? Bring back the Fs? Change the policy and allow students with Ds to retake classes? This is not an easy question to answer, and there is a cost to each option as well. If the school allowed students with Ds to retake classes, wouldn’t this hurt students who had just barely gotten a C by not allowing them the opportunity to retake a course? And how well do grades truly demonstrate differences in knowledge? Does a 71% take significantly more effort or knowledge to earn than a 69%? From my perspective, it seems like the best way to solve this problem is to allow all students to retake courses, regardless of the grade they received. It isn’t fair to give a group of students a second chance simply because they did poorly the first time they took a class. If a second chance is given, it should be extended to all students.

The ramifications of this extend well beyond a student’s freshman transcript; in today’s increasingly competitive world, we often look to standardized measurements (like grades and test scores) as shortcuts to find optimal candidates for jobs and positions. At a place like Duke, it is easy to see how important these standards are. While these standards are often useful and efficient, we must also consider the shortcomings. For example, grades don’t demonstrate promise or dedication, and they don’t inherently take into account improvement over time.

We’ve all been in that instance where we are on the border of a better (or worse) grade. We know how much of a difference these small indicators make. And as a result, it is our responsibility to look (and live) beyond these standards. We should accept them, but we should also look at them as just a small part of who an individual is.

Credit: WeKnowMemes

I can’t resist.  I’m going to add my two cents to USA Today, Atlantic Monthly, The Washington Post, etc. about Kony 2012.

For those of you who haven’t seen the viral (or infamous?) video yet, it’s worth half an hour of your time:

Although the campaign has generated a lot of media buzz, including celebrity endorsements from Rhianna, Justin Bieber, and Oprah, there is also significant backlash.  According a recent USA Today article, many experts are now “lambasting Invisible Children for doing more harm than good.”

The tension between the Kony 2012 campaign and vocal critics raise questions about the ethics of mass-media activism.

First, there’s the issue of timing.  Obama has already committed 100 special operations troops in October to work with Ugandan forces to root out Kony and his supporters.  The increased media attention may compromise their work and exacerbate violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and Southern Sudan, where the LRA is currently operating.   It is also highly ironic that Invisible Children chose to re-start the campaign focused on child soldiers in Uganda when Kony’s operations have moved to Southern Sudan and the DRC.

Second, the efficacy of Invisible Children is being called into question.  Many people are insinuating that Kony 2012 is merely a money-making scheme.  Online blogger, Amber Ha’s critique of Kony 2012 has also gone viral.  According to Ha, a student at Columbia University who spent last summer in Gulu, Uganda, locals see Invisible Children as a greater threat than Joseph Kony and believe the organization is out there “to use them and make money.”  A recent Atlantic Monthly article, entitled “Soft Bigotry” echoes the sentiments that Kony 2012 makes Africans seem “helpless” and Western civilization “the savior.”

Finally, there’s the critique of fostering “slacktivism” in place of informed “activism.”  Invisible Children makes it seem like Joseph Kony is the source of all evil and that arresting him will solve the problems in the region.  The campaign encourages people to like the video, to put up posters, and to wear the Kony 2012 bracelet.  Critics point out that blind awareness for the sake of awareness is counterproductive.  Most people have not taken the time to understand the political context of the situation.  Kony falls into the paradigm described by Malcolm Gladwell in “Small Change”: it is “effective at increasing participation—by lessening the level of motivation that participation requires,” but hardly fosters informed activism.

Now, my two-cents.

Although I agree that the campaign is oversimplified and paternalistic, I disagree that the Kony 2012 campaign (and the controversy surrounding it) is largely negative.

Why?  Although USA Today, Atlantic Monthly, The Washington Post, etc. have all harped on the negative impacts, I fail to see any concrete harms (the in-country program and Invisible Children as an organization is a separate issue).

First, regarding the accusation of ill-timing: is there ever a “wrong” time for awareness? Although I acknowledge that Invisible Children has misrepresented many facts about Kony, it has been overwhelmingly successful in generating awareness, including awareness about its misrepresentation.  Moreover, the claim that this newfound awareness could compromise the strategic operations of the U.S troops is weak, at best.  The video isn’t the first thing to let Kony know that the international community is watching him; the ICC beat Invisible Children to the punch with an indictment.

Next, regarding the accusation of fostering soft-bigotry: while Kony 2012 may represent the Africans as helpless, I think that the backlash has done an excellent job combatting this notion.  Most people who have seen the video have also probably seen, heard, or read the overwhelming critiques of its paternalistic content.  And for those who haven’t, I ask, is paternalistic concern worse than ignorance?

Finally, regarding fostering slacktivism: I think the movement as a whole (including the backlash) has not only raised awareness about the LRA and child soldiers in Central Africa, but has also encouraged many people to reexamine our mass-media activism.  The fact that every major news source has published some form of critique shows that most Americans are not passively imbibing propaganda (although some may be).   As social justice issues grow increasing more global, we cannot realistically expect Americans to be invested in the same way as the generation before us in the civil rights movement.  Yes, liking a status is “slacking” compared to marching for freedom or conducting a sit-in, but given that the nature of the social issues has become increasingly international, liking a status, then feeling guilty about merely clicking a button after reading endless news tirades, may be the first step toward informed activism.

The beauty of duality of Kony 2012 and the criticism it raises is that this time, we won’t feel jaded or cheated about another social fad.  The critique (which is just as popular as the original video) lets us watch the video and judge Invisible Children with our eyes wide open.

Photo credit: Christian Ferney

A video showing a Chinese dad forcing his son to run essentially naked in the snow has gone viral recently. The boy cried for his dad to hug him and instead his father told him to do pushups in the snow. It is a “training regimen,” the self-proclaimed “Eagle Dad” told the media, for his pre-maturely born son and that he has cleared this Navy SEAL-like routine with the doctors beforehand.

Quite a regimen for a crying four-year-old.

I’m sure this immediately reminded many of the Tiger Mom, the Yale professor who published a memoir of her controversial Chinese parenting style,* she used to teach at Duke, too. I would be terrified to have her as a professor. In fact, though it is a small sample size and certainly biased (remember, only angry people go online and post), here is her rateyourprofessor profile, with a five being the highest score.

It seems clear that both the Eagle Dad and Tiger Mom want the best for their kids and are implementing measures they consider most effective. It’s just that their measures are…extreme (Chua admitted that she has called her daughters garbage at times).

This certainly draws parallels with the “Botox mom” I wrote about last year, though the botox mom turned out to be a liar and just wanted attention and money, a similar question persists: what do we do in these kinds of situations? What makes Tiger Mom’s and Eagle Dad’s cases different, however, is that the children demonstrated clear forms of resistance.

So how do we determine the “mother-knows-best child abuse?” (Tangled, anyone?)

The Eagle Dad was not teaching his son how to make snow angels, but he has cleared it with the doctors beforehand to make sure his son’s health will be okay. So how do we say “that is bad” and at the same time saying that forcing our kids to take bitter medicine when they are sick is “good?” Or when we force young children to go through the difficult gymnastics training knowing that it is better for them in the long run?

I am certain that the value judgments on these parenting styles differ in cultures as well. Though Eagle Dad has created an uproar in both China and the U.S., Tiger Mom’s book has created varying opinions in the two different countries.

Perhaps the hardest thing to swallow is the fact that these harsh parenting techniques may be working. The Eagle Boy is, as far as we know, currently physically healthy despite pre-mature birth, and the Tiger Girls turned out to be phenomenal according to multiple sources. When I really think about it, it is really hard for me to rationally tell the dad that he is wrong when every part of me wants to put him in jail.

P.S. Some other things to think about: Asians and Asian American students have incredibly high cheating and suicide rates.

*Here’s an excerpt from an essay Chua wrote:

“Get back to the piano now,” I ordered.

“You can’t make me.”

“Oh yes, I can.”

Back at the piano, Lulu made me pay. She punched, thrashed and kicked. She grabbed the music score and tore it to shreds. I taped the score back together and encased it in a plastic shield so that it could never be destroyed again. Then I hauled Lulu’s dollhouse to the car and told her I’d donate it to the Salvation Army piece by piece if she didn’t have “The Little White Donkey” perfect by the next day. When Lulu said, “I thought you were going to the Salvation Army, why are you still here?” I threatened her with no lunch, no dinner, no Christmas or Hanukkah presents, no birthday parties for two, three, four years. When she still kept playing it wrong, I told her she was purposely working herself into a frenzy because she was secretly afraid she couldn’t do it. I told her to stop being lazy, cowardly, self-indulgent and pathetic.

Photo credit: John Henry Mostyn/Flickr

“It’s no fun being a kid when you’re fat.”

“It’s hard being a little girl when you’re not.”

This is the rhetoric used by the Strong4Life Obesity Campaign recently launched in Georgia.  According an  ABC news article, the campaign uses negative portrayals of obese children to “scare” parents into awareness about the issue.

To view the campaign propaganda, check out the following videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaFhB1fu31k

With childhood obesity on the rise, it seems that Strong4Life is attempting a new angle.  Instead of promulgating positive messages of healthy eating and exercise, the campaign is instead relying on negativity and shame to galvanize parents into action.

In one video, an obese boy looks into the camera and asks, “Mom, why am I fat?”  Such images are startling and heartbreaking…as intended by the campaign organizers.

The recent firestorm of controversy raises two important questions.

First, are these videos effective?  Strong4Life cites that public service announcements which showed the harsh realities of drug-use were highly effective in the 90’s anti-drug campaign.  These recent print ads and videos are similarly eye-catching, but it is still unclear whether the “shock-value” will translate into action.

The rhetoric of the campaign is entirely negative.  “Stop sugarcoating it, Georgia,” the ads demand.  And instead do what?  The Stop4Life campaign does not provide any positive guidance.  It sensationalizes childhood obesity, but once the buzz dies down, will parents imbibe the message and attempt to instill healthier behaviors in their children?

Even if parents do compel their children to lose weight, how feasible is weight-loss and keeping the extra pounds off?  A recent article in the New York Times suggests that once obese, children may be condemned to the “fat trap.” Scientific studies have shown that losing weight is difficult because diets send the body into starvation-mode.  Moreover, keeping the weight off is even harder- the New York Times article chronicles one woman’s effort to maintain her weight-loss which includes exercising every day, counting every calorie, carrying a scale around- even on vacations ‑and still she is overweight.

More importantly, the campaign raises the question of whether it is ethical to use obese children as the spokespeople.  In an era where we try to encourage children to build self-esteem and embrace their bodies, is a campaign where children admit their shame over their condition a step in the right direction?

Although parents and children need to take accountability for their own health, the Strong4Life campaign seems to take it a step too far.  It turns a war against obesity into a war against obese individuals.  It implies that obesity is a shameful condition.  It implies that parents of obese children are entirely at fault.  It accepts the teasing and bullying of obese children without challenging its cruelty.

The videos breed further intolerance toward obese children and their families.  What the campaign, and the larger public, fails to understand is that losing weight for an obese individual is not the same as slimming down for the average person.  We try to lose a pant size.  They try to lose 100 pounds.  We cut fries and soda.  They need to go on medically supervised diets.  An Atlantic Monthly article points out that often, it’s not that obese children and their families don’t care, but rather, that losing weight is a whole different ball game.  Although the campaign is well intentioned, it only further propagates the myth of obesity and weight-loss.

Obese children are already vulnerable and marginalized; we don’t need to put them up on billboards.  There are other ways of calling attention to the issue without using these children as a neon-sign.

Credit: Bruce Thomson/Flickr

Full confession: I used to be a fat kid.  I was a scrawny, sickly toddler until my concerned grandparents decided to plump me up.  So, between the ages of three and five, I went from underweight to severely overweight.

According to a recent Associated Press release, an 8-year old boy from Cleveland Heights, Ohio, is being placed into foster care because his family has failed to control his weight, which the state has determined to be a form of “medical neglect.”  Weighing slightly over 200 pounds, the boy suffers from severe obesity; most boys his age are only 60 pounds.  Despite the mother’s protests that she has tried her best to help him, the state has determined that it is in the boy’s interest to be temporarily placed in a foster home.  Cuyahoga County (my home county!) is of the opinion that putting children temporarily in foster care is more ethical than obesity surgery or other drastic recourses to promote weight loss.

This scenario raises an interesting ethical question: When is the state justified in taking children out of their parents’ custody?

I think we can all agree that in cases of neglect or abuse, the state is justified in its paternalism.  Minors are not afforded full rights; thus, the state is the best arbiter of their well-being in cases where the parents have demonstrated clear incompetence.

Severe obesity however, is a more contentious case.  Unlike other forms of neglect such as starvation or refusing a child medical care, failing to control a child’s weight is not the fault of the parent alone.  There are behavioral and genetic factors involved.  Although the details of this case have not been released due to privacy reasons, it is possible that the boy is genetically predisposed to obesity.  It is possible that his mother has tried to compel him to exercise and eat less, but he refuses.  In addition, obesity is not equivalent to starvation or lack of medical attention because it does not place the child in imminent danger.  Given these circumstances, it would be unjust and most likely traumatic to remove the boy from his family.

Speaking from personal experience, my grandparents did not feed me to maliciously clog my arteries or “medically neglect” me.  My weight spiraled out of control because I loved ice cream and candy (like every normal five-year old).  Certainly, they tried to restrict my intake, but since when did children always do what their parents or guardians wanted?

We have to question: can the state do a better job?  Although the Cuyahoga County social worker who has been in charge of this case for 20 months has determined that the boy will be better off separated from his mother, is foster care the most ethical way to help him lose weight?  Is being in foster care better than having an indulgent mother who lets you eat too much?  The state fails to take into account that the boy is happy and well-adjusted with his mother.  Placing him foster care to protect his health seems likely to harm his psychosocial well-being, and the state should not be the one making this trade-off.

Allowing Ohio to take away children in cases of severe obesity sets a dangerous precedent.  It implies that the state can discipline our children better than we can.  Cuyahoga County is arguing that the state is justified because obesity is a precursor to serious medical problems in the future, but this line of thinking careens down a slippery slope.  What is next?  Taking your child away failing for school?  Taking your child away for joining a gang?  Taking your child away for having a severe eating disorder?  Each of these also has grave future implications.  Does Ohio, the new “nanny state” propose to babysit these children too?

Fans of masked heroes will be thrilled to know that vigilante justice is not unique to Gotham City.  According to a recent Reuter’s article, Seattle’s very own Phoenix Jones has been unmasked.

Phoenix, whose real name is Benjamin Fodor, was recently arrested for assault after pepper-spraying patrons of a local night club because he suspected that they were involved in a street brawl.  When the police arrived, Fodor was being attacked by an angry woman with her shoes.   The Seattle police have not charged Fodor, and he vows to return to vigilante work.

See the video below to catch Phoenix/Fodor in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4bjJAAALDE

This case raises two important issues.

First, should vigilante justice seekers be subject to the same punishments under the law?  I would argue that despite his intentions to prevent crime, Phoenix/Fodor should be charged with pepper-spraying the night club patrons.  It would be highly contradictory if Phoenix/Fodor were exempt from the law while trying to enforce it on other citizens.  The police did not ask for Fodor’s help in patrolling downtown Seattle; rather, the fight that Fodor started was the reason that they showed up.

The larger issue is whether vigilante justice should be permitted at all.  Phoenix Jones is a local celebrity and often gives the police tips about crimes in the area.  Should this type of adoration/cooperation be permitted?  It is one thing to see a crime and fail to act, like bystander effect in the infamous Kitty Genovese murder, but it is another to actively seek it out when you are not a law enforcement officer.  Fodor/Phoenix’s actions are also different from that of a neighborhood watch group.  Citizen patrollers are organized by local councils, wear uniforms to identify themselves (not tights and capes), and act only to report the crime. Where does the moral distinction lie between acting appropriately to prevent crime, and acting out of line as a vigilante?  I think Phoenix/Fodor crossed it when he put on his mask and pulled out his pepper spray.

I would say that vigilante justice is more permissible in Gotham City where Jokers run amuck and the police are incapable, but in Seattle, this seems hardly the case.  Despite his best attempt to preventing crime, Phoenix/Fodor has difficulty getting involved in it.  Vigilante justice is prone to physical confrontation which looks cool in the movies, but is undesirable in the real world.  Phoenix/Fodor has already been involved in numerous tussles (with his weapon of choice—pepper spray) prior to his arrest.

Unlike Batman and Superman, Phoenix Jones does not possess an inordinate amount of money or special super powers which compel him to a higher calling.  Unlike Gotham city, Seattle does not have supervillains which only Phoenix is capable of fighting.   At the end of the day, Phoenix Jones is Ben Fodor, and perhaps he should remain that way.

From the tumblr page, Weighty.

Math? A.

Reading? B+.

Writing? B-.

Science? A-.

Physical Education? Pass.

BMI? What?!

Yes, this is now what a typical report card looks like in Malaysia.  According to a BBC news article, the Malaysian government has mandated schools to record students’ BMI on their report cards as an effort in the national campaign against obesity.  Teachers are now required to measure the height and weight of their students.

Although the government claims that this is merely an effort to make parents more aware of their children’s weight and to help them monitor their health, it has stirred up quite the controversy in the West.  Anyone who has ever hid a report card from a parent knows why—fear and shame.

To learn about the policy, click on this video (after the jump):

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMcsorhNkyE]

This policy brings up two interesting ethical issues (besides the whole Big Brother thing).

First, is BMI inherently different than a grade in a subject or a pass/fail in gym class?  If it is ethical to assign grades as a measure of effort and intelligence and a pass/fail benchmark as an assessment of physical fitness, why is it un-ethical to report BMI?  BMI is also a reflection of the individual student.  BMI is also changeable.  If we motivate students to study harder, exercise more, and behave better by issuing report cards with grades,  why is it unethical to motivate students to become healthier by the same mechanism?

A broader ethical issue is whether using shame/fear of punishment is an acceptable catalyst for positive behavior.  Report cards are not only informational for parents; they are also tools for parents to shame/punishment if their child performs poorly. Is this type of consequence-driven, negative-reinforcement ultimately beneficial?  Do the health and educational benefits outweigh the blows to self-esteem?  Malaysian teenage girls seem to think, yes!  They are in favor of this measure that will help them better self-motive to stay in shape.

So maybe this hullabaloo is much ado about nothing.  We can all agree that a campaign against obesity is a positive step—maybe it just looks different in different countries and different cultures.  In the U.S, we censure corporations and the fast-food culture.  In Malaysia, they crack down on the kids, through report cards.  Different cultures do things differently.  Malaysia doesn’t stick its nose in our business, so maybe we should not shove our outrage in theirs.

This also reminds me of the infamous Amy Chua, author of Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother.  In her controversial Wall Street Journal article, Chua writes that:

Chinese mothers can say to their daughters, “Hey fatty—lose some weight.” By contrast, Western parents have to tiptoe around the issue, talking in terms of “health” and never ever mentioning the f-word.

Is she right?  Maybe our culture coddles children and assumes that anything and everything will deal an insufferable blow to their self-esteem.

My friend from Singapore recently told me that in his home-country, overweight and obese children were required to join the “Trim and Fit” club where they were given an apple at recess and made to run laps.  While I was horrified, he appeared perfectly nonchalant.  Apparently, the success rate was amazingly high while traumatization was low.  In fact, club members were not picked on mainly because it was an accepted and normal part of school.

Maybe reporting BMI on report cards will also become an uncontroversial norm.  After all, BMI is a number; F is not for fat. Cultural relativism is alive and well.

The deeper issue (believe it or not) lies beyond whether your apple juice is killing you.  Rather, I think this latest incident calls to question the intentionality and the repercussions of Dr. Oz’s proclamation.  Is it morally reprehensible that Dr. Oz is fanning the health hysteria if he truly believes it?  Debatable. Is it sad that so many Americans are brain-washed by what they see on TV? Definitely.

There are two interpretations of Dr. Oz’s intentionality.  Cynically speaking, he may know that arsenic levels in apple juice are safe and is inciting fear for the sake of yellow “televisionalism.”  In this case, I would argue that he deserves to be reprimanded for his publicity stunt.  More leniently (and more realistically) speaking, Dr. Oz may genuinely think that he is on to something.  After all, he is not a chemist and the FDA has been wrong before.  If this is the case, then his next steps are crucial to assessing his moral culpability.  For his credibility’s (and moral standing’s) sake he should retract his statement and call off his cult of fans who are attacking the FDA with a frenzy.

To see the news story and Dr. Oz’s response, click on the videos below:

Regardless of the intentionality, the repercussions of Dr. Oz’s warning distinguish it from analogous cases such as the Jenny McCarthy vaccination-autism scare.  Unlike the autism claim which scared many parents into refusing their children vaccinations, this recent is apple-juice hysteria is relatively innocuous.  Aside from apple-juice manufacturers, the general public will probably emerge unscathed.  So from a consequentialist viewpoint, perhaps Dr. Oz is off the hook after all.

The effects of the crusade against apple juice have yet to play out.  Maybe the same parents who refused to vaccinate their children because of autism will now boycott apple juice.  Maybe, the FDA will be forced to print “safe levels of arsenic” on all bottles of juice.  Maybe Dr. Oz will declare apple juice safe and apologize with his winning smile.  Or maybe, America will realize on its own that apple juice is not out to kill us…seriously.