The ratio between minority teachers and their minority students has become an ever-growing gap. The low amount of minority teachers present in schools combined with the growing minority population in America has created a constant cycle and has resulted in a lack of teachers of color. In order to break this cycle, our education system needs to find a way to both get and keep teachers of color in classrooms.

By not seeing minorities represented in the teaching position, student minorities don’t picture themselves as teachers and the cycle begins there. The government estimates that minority students have become the majority in public schools, so we need to start teaching to the majority.

Having teachers of color in the classroom is extremely important to all students. For some, it would mean being able to identify with the teacher and having someone with similar experiences to help them as a mentor. For others, it may mean having someone who can open their eyes to different beliefs, cultures, perspectives and more.

Some research has indicated that there is a small effect in students’ academic achievements when they have a teacher they can identify with. This effect is small, however. The real impact is on the students’ perspectives and ability to relate to the teacher in front of them.

A report by the Center for American Progress stated, “Teachers of color provide real-life examples to minority students of future career paths . . . And while there are effective teachers of many races, teachers of color have demonstrated success in increasing academic achievement for engaging students of similar backgrounds.”

According to The New York Times, over 80 percent of teachers are white. To put this in perspective, in Boston, there is only one Hispanic teacher for every 52 Hispanic students and one black teacher for every 22 black students. However, the reported ratio for white teachers and students is one white teacher to fewer than three white students.

In New York City, The New York Times reported, 85 percent of the students were racial minorities and only 40 percent of the teachers were minorities. In Washington, two thirds of the students are black and only half of the teachers are minorities.

According to The StarTribune of Minnesota, only four percent of the state teachers are not white. They report that the rate of racial diversity in schools is increasing one percent each year and the teaching profession just isn’t keeping up.

Thomas S. Dee, a professor of Education at Stanford University, said, “When minority students see someone at the blackboard that looks like you, it helps you reconceive what’s possible for you.” Students will subconsciously internalize messages like this, which essentially starts the cycle of not having teachers of color represented in schools.

The cycle moves on and follows these students as they move through their education. When it comes to their senior year of high school, some minority students will choose to go on to college.

As stated by The Boston Globe, most of these students will be the first ones in their families to go to college and this means that they will most likely be paying for the majority if not all of their schooling on their own.

From there, students choose a major in which they know they will be able to get themselves out of their debt from college. When thinking of a career in which pay is high, teaching is not going to be the first one to come to mind. This is another reason The New York Times reports is discouraging the growth of colored teachers.

In addition, The New York Times states that black college students are more likely than whites to graduate. Therefore, from the pool of students who choose to go to college, the amount that don’t graduate combined with the amount that don’t choose teaching shrink the pool of possible teachers to represent the minorities in schools drastically.

According to The New York Times and the StarTribune, colleges have started offering scholarships to minority students who choose the education profession. Organizations such as Teach.org and Teach for America have begun to target and recruit colored teachers.

States have started to change the out-of-state license requirements for teachers so recruitment will be easier. School districts have started to encourage minority paraprofessionals to seek certification, help pay off debt, teach faculty how to be culturally respectful, improve their language instruction and actively recruit teachers of minorities.

We need not only to recruit, employ and retain teachers of color in the classrooms of America but also to teach the minority students of America to imagine themselves in careers they may not see other minorities in today. Otherwise, we will have a never-ending cycle of white teachers in classrooms in which the majority of students are minority students.

Taylor Howe can be contacted at thowe@kscequinox.com

Over the past year, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has had four students commit suicide. These tragedies — two of which occurred in the span of one month — have forced MIT and colleges across the nation to rethink their outlooks on school work, mental health and student achievement. Many are blaming MIT and the pressure put on students to reach perfection and avoid failure, but I believe the real issue here starts much sooner than college.

Many of the students at MIT are competitive with their classmates as well as with themselves. They are often overachievers who are unfamiliar with failure. Therefore, when they arrive at a competitive school like MIT and push themselves to their limits, they are stressed out more than ever and caught off-guard by the strange feeling of not succeeding.

TYRRA Demeritt / Equinox staff

You don’t have to attend an elite college like MIT in order to feel the stressors of a college workload, though. Even here at Keene State College students can be heard stressing about their assignments on a daily basis.

In a normal week, college students find themselves overly stressed. Now make it an academic “hell week” in which multiple tests or large assignments are due. Time and time again, college students have heard professors say something like, “I don’t want to hear about your other classes” when students try to tell their professors that they are drowning in work.

Some students may find it easier to adjust to college and the possibilities of failure by altering their expectations, reaching out for help, changing their schedules and adopting healthy routines.

However, with the typical college workload, just finding time to make these adjustments is a challenge. These changes should be happening a lot sooner than college.

MIT estimates that students should spend 12 hours a week on a 12 credit course. It seems 12 hours is an understatement. According to the Boston Globe, students can spend seventy hours or more per week on schoolwork. Unfortunately, not everyone is able to adjust to college life so swiftly and controlling the stress still doesn’t prevent suicide.

According to a Boston Globe review of public records and university and media reports, MIT’s suicide rate over the past decade is 10.2 per 100,000 students including undergraduates and graduates.

That number is actually a decrease from the previous decade. From 1994 to 2005, MIT’s suicide rate was 18.7 per 100,000 students. However, it is still higher than the national average among colleges: 6.5 to 7.5 suicides per 100,000 students, as reported by major studies for undergraduates and graduates from 1980 to 2009.

MIT is not the only school with a high number of suicides. From the fall of 2013 to the fall of 2014, the University of Pennsylvania had six students commit suicide. During the 2009 and 2010 academic year, six Cornell students committed suicide. These numbers don’t portray the many others that may have attempted suicide or had suicidal thoughts.

MIT plans on starting a campaign called “We All Struggle Together” aimed at eliminating the stigma of mental illness, making it socially acceptable to acknowledge imperfections and seek help.

Although it is helpful, valiant and appreciated that colleges are taking the first steps to prevent suicides and lead students to a life with less stress and higher acceptance of failures, this overwhelming task should not fall entirely on universities’s shoulders.

If we start back at the beginning of a student’s education, we can teach that student that failure is okay. If we continue on the path we are on as a society and education system, then we are sure to only increase the number of suicides committed as a result of stress.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported that suicide is the leading cause of death for people ages ten to 24-years-old. They report that this results in approximately 4,600 lives lost each year. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, the number of children with diagnosable anxiety has risen up to 25 percent.

We as a society have forgotten to teach students how to cope with failure and stress in healthy ways. We have lost sight of how valuable it is to fail sometimes. Instead, we push students to their limits, stress them out and wear them down to reach perfection.

Maybe a student succeeds at everything they do all throughout their school years but, eventually, that student will fail at something and, when that happens, they will be unprepared to handle it because they have not been taught how.

We need to veer away from the perfectionist attitudes we have instilled in students and allow them to experience failure. By making changes in elementary and high schools, we can potentially prevent the fear of failure and overwhelming stress levels as well as a number of suicides.

We could rid our students of the perfectionism that has become the norm in colleges across the nation.

Taylor Howe can be contacted at thowe@kscequinox.com

In today’s social media-driven society, we often post, tweet, yak and just type without even considering the consequences it might have. We’ve come to adopt a group mentality on social media — believing that what we say and do online won’t follow us or even have any impact. However, Curt Schilling, former Red Sox pitcher, has proven that group mentality to be especially faulty, and thank god he did. Maybe other social media users will learn from the example Schilling made of nine adult Twitter users.

The end of the nine Twitter users’ reputations began with an innocent tweet from Curt Schilling on Feb. 25. Schilling tweeted a congratulatory tweet for his daughter, 17-year-old Gabby Schilling, who was accepted into Salve Regina University in Rhode Island. It’s unfortunate that these Twitter users’ lives will forever be tarnished by less than 140 characters, but I believe it is quite deserving.

Within hours, Schilling received many tweets in response. Some joked about taking his daughter to a party or out on a date, while others went to the extremes of vulgarity, even graphically threatening rape. These were adult male Twitter users threatening sexual abuse of a minor, thinking that they could tweet at a celebrity with 121,000 followers without getting noticed.

Instead of ignoring the sexually-explicit tweets, Schilling chose a direct approach, writing words that would later tarnish the reputation of at least two offenders.

Schilling posted a 2,000 word entry on his blog, “38 Pitches,” where the story was first reported. In the post, Schilling names two of the offenders. With simple Googling tactics, Schilling collected information on the offenders’ real names, contact information and schools.

According to the New York Post, Schilling began by Googling their Twitter handles, their online friends, Facebook profiles and Instagram pages. He uncovered their names, addresses, high schools, colleges, sports teams, parents’ emails and more.

Tyrra DeMeritt / Equinox Staff

With persistent research and helpful blog readers, Schilling had the full names of at least two offenders. @primtime227 and @Nagels_Bagels soon turned into Sean MacDonald of Montclair State University and Adam Nagel of Brookdale Community College.

Even Keene State College students have made several “anonymous” Twitter accounts over the years, ranging from well-intentioned, like KSC Compliments to down-right rude and inconsiderate, like KSC Boobs or KSC Booty Call. Just like Schilling’s offenders, the people behind these accounts could easily be revealed with some simple research. Those people don’t realize that anonymous accounts really aren’t anonymous.

Since Schilling’s research, MacDonald and Nagel along with other offenders, have been suspended, fired, kicked out of their universities and fraternities or kicked off of their sports teams. MacDonald and Nagel have also deactivated their Twitter accounts.

Prior to the now infamous tweets, MacDonald was a part-time ticket seller for the New York Yankees. However, after Schilling exposed him he was fired from his job.

In response, the New York Yankees Executive Director of Communications, Jason Ziller, said, “There is no place for anything like this and the Yankees have zero tolerance for anything of this nature,” according to the New York Daily News.

MacDonald was also a part of Theta Xi Fraternity at Montclair State University, an organization which soon released a statement saying, “We agree wholeheartedly that cyber-bullying is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. This is not in accordance with the values of our organization, and we assure you that disciplinary actions have begun to address his unfortunate decision and hold our member accountable.” According to a statement released by Brookdale Community College, Nagel was suspended from school as a result of his vulgar tweets and released from the student-run radio show which he aired for one hour every week.

The school’s statement also said, “The Twitter comments posted by this student are unacceptable and clearly violate the standards of conduct that are expected of all Brookdale students.” Nagel will be going through the school’s conduct system and more disciplinary action will be taken at that time.

Social media users of our generation often forget that their actions on social media can have consequences offline. What is written online does not just disappear in the news feed. Instead, that post is forever a part of that user’s digital footprint that will never go away. It’s time users understand that they are not anonymous, their posts are not forgotten and their words and actions have serious consequences that can very well follow them for and ruin the rest of their lives.

According to the LA Times, Schilling has since been contacted by the FBI and local law enforcement about pressing possible criminal charges. Schilling has made it clear to several sources including CBS’s “CBS This Morning” that he plans to pursue every legal action possible. However, he has stopped naming offenders at the request of his daughter.

Schilling proved that social media accounts are not anonymous. It doesn’t take a tech genius to uncover who is behind a Twitter account, no matter how anonymous and secure the user thinks it is.

In Schilling’s original blog post that broke the story, Schilling wrote, “This will follow them for the rest of their lives. And for some of these guys, I’ll make sure of it.” And just by naming two of the offenders, Schilling has already made sure of it.

Taylor Howe can be contacted at thowe@kscequinox.com

Imagine you’re twelve years old again on a school field trip. Now imagine you’re covered in beer and have just become the target of a group of men’s racial slurs. Well, that’s what happened to a group of 9 to 13 year olds in Rapid City, South Dakota, on Jan. 24, 2015.

Since then, more reports of racism in the Rapid City area have come forth. It’s appearing that our nation is more racist than we thought.

We have more work to do than we thought we did. And it’s time we start working for justice — and not just with a single tweet.

On Jan. 24, it was reported that 57 students from the American Horse School in Allen attended a minor league hockey game at Rushmore Plaza Civic Center. All the students were members of the Native American Oglala Lakota tribe. They were awarded the field trip for their good behavior in school and academic success.

Unfortunately, during the third period two non-Native men seated above in the VIP section started to allegedly shout racial slurs, throw beer and a frisbee at the students and their chaperones below. According to the news outlet, Al Jazeera America’s Massoud Hayoun, the men even called the students and chaperones to “engage in face-to-face confrontation” and told them to “go back to the rez.” The students were eventually escorted out by their chaperones before the hockey game had ended.

To make matters worse, Rapid City’s local newspaper, the Rapid City Journal, published an article in the weekend paper soon after the incident with the headline, “Did Native Students stand for national anthem?,” as if to pour salt in the students’ wounds. The article’s headline itself alleged that the students angered the spectators becuase of their own actions and thus deserved what they received. The outrage against the story’s headline spread like wildfire. Many were outraged that the article was a picture perfect example of victim blaming and racism and I could not agree more.

The chaperones and other spectators report all the students stood. Had the students not stood for the national anthem, the outrage against them shown by the men would still be considered undeserving in my opinion. They have the choice in America, as granted by their Freedom of Speech, to decide whether or not to stand for the country’s anthem. That is no reason to subject an innocent person to a hate crime or child abuse.

That following Monday, the editor of the Rapid City Journal, Bart Pfankuch, released a statement after receiving criticism for the article. In the statement, he apologizes and acknowledges that the article could be interpreted as victim blaming. However, a chaperone and school board member, Justin Poor Bear, stated, “We don’t want an apology. We don’t want free tickets to a hockey game. We want justice.”

The incident was reported to the event staff at the sporting event as well as the Rapid City Police Department and on social media. Al Jazeera America stated the police have since started an investigation but have not decided if criminal charges should be filed.

A Twitter campaign mirroring the Twitter campaign, #BlackLivesMatter, began that night. The hashtag, #NativeLivesMatter, allowed the incident to become nationwide. People starting utilizing social media to organize rallies and protests in reaction to the incident. And it worked. Hundreds of people gathered outside the Rushmore Plaza Civic Center to call for justice and to keep the pressure on the city leaders and police.

The incident has since caused others to come forward and report three more alleged racist incidents in Rapid City, which has only raised the racial tensions between Native and non-Native residents.

According to National Public Radio’s Charles Michael Ray, the incident added to the racial tension already present in Rapid City as a result of a police shooting of a Native American man in December.

The incident at the hockey game and the recent campaign for Native Americans only continues to shed light on the “pattern of troubled race relations” in Rapid City and other regions of South Dakota. If we are to be honest with ourselves, this racism has been going on since the white settlement in the 19th century and simply hasn’t stopped since.

It’s time we utilize social media to bring attention to the injustices still occurring in America. And not just a hashtag — I mean a fully loaded social media movement.

Taylor Howe can be contacted at thowe@kscequinox.com

If you’re a woman, you’ve probably heard of or even worn “boyfriend jeans.” Now, toddlers and even babies are wearing the same style with the same name. This past week Old Navy advertised “boyfriend jeans” for their girls and baby lines of jeans. Parents and psychologists weighed in with varying opinions on whether or not the name of the jeans was really going to have an effect on the young girls wearing them. Now it’s my turn to weigh in and I think there’s an easy solution to this debate: simply change the name of the jeans and stop sending sexualized messages to young girls.

If you’ve never heard of “boyfriend jeans,” they are jeans made for women that have a loose-fitting style similar to those of men’s jeans — as if the woman is literally stealing her boyfriend’s jeans to wear for herself. This is the root of the problem; it’s not the existence of boyfriend jeans for younger girls but rather the message that these jeans are sending to young girls. Many argue that the children don’t know what the style is called. However, I believe the message will be internalized by young girls.

Tyrra Demeritt / Equinox Staff

One New York City based psychologist states that, “the term ‘boyfriend’ should not even be on kids’ radar at the toddler and under-12 age range,” as stated on ABC News. Realistically, girls should not be thinking about boyfriends nor should they be thinking about wearing a boyfriend’s jeans, as stated in AOL News.

Unfortunately, Dr. Jennifer Hartstein said, our society is sexualizing girls younger and younger with each new mature trend marketed to young girls such as writing words on the butt of pants, basing styles of off women’s fashion and dressing girls in skimpy clothing. Just add the newest trend of boyfriend jeans to the list.

Leslie Venokur, co-found of Big City Moms (a New York City-based resource for moms) and a former worker in the children’s fashion industry, argued that parents were being too dramatic. Members of the fashion industry like Venokur claim that the name of the jeans is simply “just being true to the style” or using “standard industry lingo.” Other companies, however, have no problem changing the name of their boyfriend-style jeans. According to Daily News, children’s clothing stores OshKosh B’gosh and Gymboree don’t offer the boyfriend style jeans and companies like Abercrombie only sell the style to older girls. According to AOL News, H&M and Gap, which actually owns Old Navy, call the jeans by other names. H&M calls them “loose fit jeans” while Gap calls them “boy jeans.”

An Old Navy spokesperson told AOL News that the product name is “intended to describe only the fit, cut, and style” and the company has no intention of changing the name of the jeans, despite the negative reactions from parents and psychologists across the nation. Old Navy continued to state that it offers “current American fashion in essentials for the whole family in trends that everyone can participate in.”

Parents may think that their children won’t be affected by Old Navy’s youth line for “boyfriend jeans” just because the children don’t wear the jeans or don’t know the name of the jeans they wear have the word “boyfriend” in them. However, I believe just the advertisements for children’s “boyfriend jeans” alone would send a message to young girls.

Joe Taravella, PhD and supervisor of pediatric psychology at Rusk Rehabilitation at New York University’s Langore Medical Center, stated that boyfriend jeans for young girls will set children up to not only want a boyfriend but also need a boyfriend.

Not to mention, it is just another part of our society that assumes our children are heterosexual, but that’s a whole other issue with boyfriend jeans. It’s unfortunate that young girls are being taught to sexualize themselves.

It feels as if our society is making young girls, and even young boys, grow up faster and faster each year.

With something that has such a simple solution as changing the name of the jeans, it’s unfortunate that the fashion industry in America is using the same lingo with children as they are with grown women.

Taylor Howe can be contacted at thowe@kscequinox.com

For most college students, news is acquired through satirical news shows hosted by comics like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and John Oliver, but that may soon be a thing of the past. With Oliver’s departure from Comedy Central last year, Colbert’s departure in December and Stewart’s departure recently announced, the network will be without their big stars and on their way to the reconstruction era of late night. I believe that in order for the network’s late night programs to be of the same success Stewart brought to the network, Comedy Central has no choice but to reinvent themselves.

On Tuesday, Feb. 10, Jon Stewart announced his decision on air to leave his Comedy Central comedic news program, “The Daily Show.” Stewart has become the highest paid host on late night with an annual salary of $25 to $30 million.

Now, 20 Emmys and 16 years later, Stewart has decided not to renew his contract, which ends this fall. It’s likely that his fan base will be looking for a new satirical news program on late night but if Comedy Central doesn’t bring something new to the table that meets the high bar Stewart has set, then those fans probably won’t continue to tune in to the network.

Philip Bergeron / Graphic Design Editor

John Oliver, a prior correspondent on Stewart’s “The Daily Show” for eight years, was suspected to have been the replacement for Stewart had Oliver stayed with the network. However, Oliver left the network for his weekly news show, “Last Week Tonight,” on the HBO network which premiered last spring.

Six months after Oliver’s departure, Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central’s “The Colbert Report” left the network in December after almost 20 years. Colbert will become David Letterman’s replacement as the host of CBS’s “The Late Show” in September.

Since Colbert’s show ended, Comedy Central has launched a new late night talk show to fill his 11:30 p.m. time slot, “The Nightly Show,” hosted by Larry Wilmore. So far, Wilmore has not been able to fill Colbert’s shoes.

According to the New York Times’ Dave Itzkoff and Ad Age’s Jeanine Poggi, “The Daily Show” averaged 2.2 million viewers a night last year while The Colbert Report averaged one million viewers a night. The Colbert Report’s finale alone brought in 2.5 million viewers. Wilmore’s show, however, debuted to 963,000 viewers and has averaged 835,000 viewers a night in its first five episodes this month.

In addition, Ad Age states, “In the TV season from September until now, the network’s core 18-to-34-year-old demographic has declined 16 percent from the equivalent period a year earlier while total viewers have fallen 17 percent.” A decrease in viewers is not the only struggle the network has been facing lately. According to Ad Age, Comedy Central’s ratings have been decreasing in prime time, outside of late night.

According to The Atlantic’s Emma Green, a Pew Research study found that 18 to 29-year-olds were 40 percent of the audience of “The Colbert Report” and “The Daily Show.” According to the LA Times’ Scott Collins, Comedy Central is “the number one network in late night among young men.” Since this audience is hard to reach, advertisers pay big money to advertise during these programs, but not if the number of viewers and ratings are decreasing. The Hollywood Reporter’s Marisa Guthrie and Michael O’Connell report that in 2013 alone “The Daily Show” brought in $780.5 million to Comedy Central’s revenue.

As stated by LA Times’ Scott Collins, this added revenue allowed Comedy Central to take more risks on new shows. Without that cushion, Comedy Central will most likely resort to developing safe and cheaply produced shows — which I believe will be a mistake.

Although taking an experimental approach may be risky, it seems to me to be the only way to increase Comedy Central’s ratings, viewers and star factor. Whether Comedy Central decides to promote from within or replace Stewart with outside talent, one thing is clear: whatever the host does, it has to be different.

I believe that Stewart’s viewers will be on the lookout for a similar program. It has been shown that the younger demographic prefers receiving their news through a satirical tone. The steady decrease in viewers and ratings that Comedy Central has been experiencing over the past year is a message to Comedy Central that they need to reinvent their programs.

To sit another host at the news desk of “The Daily Show” with nothing but a substitute for Jon Stewart would be a horrible mistake. It’s time for Comedy Central to take a risk and revolutionize the satirical news programs they have become known for. They need to maintain their original programs while adding something new that their viewers won’t be able to ignore.

Even Stewart himself noticed the need for a new approach. In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter’s Marisa Guthrie last summer Stewart stated, “Look, there’s only so many ways that I know how to evolve it. I’m sure even at this point I’ve overstayed my welcome to a good number of people.”

The President of Comedy Central, Michele Ganeless, told the LA Times’ Scott Collins, “Comedy Central has always been in the business of reinventing itself . . . The brand has never been stronger.” But it appears now that the network may not be the weakest it has been. Stewart put Comedy Central on the pop culture map but he may very well be the one to take them off the map now that he has announced his departure to his devoted viewers. In order to keep those viewers, it is time that Comedy Central reinvent themselves once more and bring something new to late night.

Taylor Howe can be contacted at thowe@kscequinox.com

Arizona State University [ASU] has become the center of controversy after one of its new English courses for spring semester was featured on Fox News Network’s “Fox and Friends” show.

I believe, however, that the controversy is undeserving in that the problem is not the course’s controversial topics, but
rather the inability or unwillingness to speak about race in an objective manner. Race is a part of society no matter who you are or where you go.

It is an unavoidable topic, so it is important that people become more familiar and comfortable talking about it.

As part of the segment, “Trouble with Schools,” co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck critiqued the university’s course, “ENG 401 Studies in American Literature and Culture: U.S. Race Theory & the Problem of Whiteness.”

The course is a three credit interdisciplinary English course taught by Professor Lee Bebout with twenty students enrolled, according to the Washington Times’ Jessica Chasmar.

Hasselbeck started the nationwide outrage toward the course for allegedly being “quite unfair, and wrong and pointed” for blaming whites in America for the country’s social issues.

Fox News was unable to get a comment from Bebout. Despite this, Hasselbeck and interviewee Lauren Clark, a student of ASU and campus correspondent for CampusReform.org who is not enrolled in the course, continued to present their opinions about the course which they knew very little about.

The only information given about the course at the time of the Fox News segment were the five textbooks required, the title, the professor and the course description.

Both Clark and Hasselbeck portrayed the course as an attack on whites without even speaking with Professor Bebout about the course’s objectives and, assumably, without reading the textbooks listed for the course.

Clark and Hasselbeck presented whites as victims of Bebout’s course without the knowledge of what the course would actually be addressing. Jumping to conclusions the way that they did is a bold move that is hard to back up when they really made no effort to understand the course material.

In the segment, Clark stated, “Clearly we have a lot of work to do as a society in terms of racial tensions, but having a class that suggests an entire race is the problem is inappropriate, wrong and quite frankly, counterproductive.”

I agree with Clark in that there is a lot of work to be done in our society in regard to racial tensions, but I do not agree that the course is counterproductive.

Actually, I believe the opposite. If anything, the course is educating people about a topic that is oftentimes difficult to discuss.

Although I may not know the substance of the course, just like Clark and Hasselbeck, I believe that just the outrage the course has brought in America over this past week has done enough and proven a point for Bebout. It has proven that racial issues in our country are present and are still difficult for some to talk about.

Clark had also written an article about the course for CampusReform.org. In it Clark interviewed James Malone, a junior economics major at ASU who is also not enrolled in the course.

He said, “I think it shows the significant double standard of higher education institutions . . . They would never allow a class talking about the problem of ‘blackness.’ And if they did, there would be an uproar about it. But you can certainly harass people for their apparent whiteness.”

The course’s title, specifically the “problem with whiteness,” seems to be bringing up topics of inferiority and
inequality for those criticizing it. According to Arizona Central’s Kaila White, “The idea of ‘Whiteness’ as a concept, rather than just skin color, has been a popular topic for research and academic classes since the late nineties.”

The concept is not simply about race but the deeper meaning of what it means to be white. The topic is complex and cannot simply be tackled in one class sitting. It requires a semesters worth of time, if not more, just to understand the gist of the topic.

Even I as a Keene State College student, have taken courses in both the psychology and
elementary education departments that address concepts such as whiteness, white privilege and racial bias, although they may not be titled as such. It is also certainly discussed in many women and gender studies courses. In fact, at KSC, you can even take a class titled “Women of Color Feminisms.”

After the segment aired on Fox News, Bebout told The Arizona Republic that he had been stressing out about receiving an abundance of hate-mail as a result of the segment. Bebout did not comment further to any source.

ASU released a statement, however. In it they explain, “This course . . . encourages students to examine how people talk about — or avoid talking about — race in the contemporary United States . . . The class is designed to empower students to confront the difficult and often thorny issues that surround us today and reach thoughtful conclusions rather than display gut reactions.”

It appears the course is meant to teach students how to thoughtfully discuss racial issues in modern American society without making a “gut reaction.”

However, a gut reaction seems to be exactly what America was making. People are speaking about the issue without giving it some true thought and reasoning.

ASU has proven that race is still a “thorny issue” in modern day America, as a result of their choice to offer the course in question.

It seems that the people of America are only proving to ASU that the course is necessary after all.

Taylor Howe can be contacted at thowe@keene-equinox.com

Take a look around at any billboard, open a magazine or walk through a mall. It’s almost guaranteed that you’ll see models of the same size: extra small.

Myla Dalbesio, a model for a new Calvin Klein underwear line, was under scrutiny in November over her self-proclaimed plus-size model status with a contradictory ten size frame.

I believe the debate of whether or not Dalbesio should be considered plus-size or “in-between” is much more irrelevant than the actual issue here — who’s to blame for the labeling? And who’s going to change the fashion industry’s standards for weight? My answer is the consumers themselves.

After looking at Dalbesio’s photo for Calvin Klein, it’s a no-brainer that her self-proclaimed label of a plus-size model and being one of “the biggest girls Calvin Klein has ever worked with,” as stated by Dalbesio in an interview with Elle Magazine, is not only completely wrong but also worrisome.

When realizing how Dalbesio sees herself, you may start to wonder if the fashion industry, model agencies, designers or even Dalbesio herself are to blame for her poor self-image but it’s really the consumer. This is not to say that any of the other options are completely blame-free but it is not often that we as consumers think of ourselves as part of the problem too. When Twitter caught wind that a size ten model was being called plus-sized, an explosion of disappointment in the designer erupted. Many were outraged that Dalbesio was being labeled as such and went on to insist that she did not belong in the plus-size category.

People all over the nation were scrutinizing Calvin Klein when they should have been scrutinizing themselves. The audience was the one tearing Dalbesio’s body apart, labeling it as if they had any authority to do so and completely missing the message Calvin Klein was trying to send.

Actually, Dalbesio’s body matches the name of the underwear line, “Perfectly Fit,” which is hard to find in the advertisements consumers see day-to-day. In the fashion industry, however, Dalbesio is actually in the plus-size range. Depending on the source, plus-size can range from size six to fourteen, even though most plus-size clothing doesn’t start until size sixteen, according to Cosmopolitan’s Laura Beck. The minimum size for being considered a plus-size model has continually decreased over time, making the idea of what an average woman should look like more delusional with each decreased size requirement.

According to the magazine Rader Programs, which treats eating disorders, the average fashion model weighs twenty-three percent less than the average woman. This example of what a woman should look like is simply unrealistic. But that’s nothing new. What’s new is the incorporation of plus-size and even average size models into mainstream fashion industries.

The line, “Perfectly Fit,” “was created to celebrate and cater to the needs of different women, and to communicate that our new line is more inclusive and available in several silhouettes in an extensive range of sizes,” as Calvin Klein told Elle Magazine in response to the viral outcome of the original article. Calvin Klein was simply trying to be better about its perceived prejudice about models of varying shapes and sizes. Even though Calvin Klein knows that skinny sells and has worked for them all these years, they diversified their models to make their product more relatable to the everyday woman. It may not be a size fourteen woman posing for Calvin Klein’s new line, but it is a step in the right direction.

Dalbesio even told Elle Magazine that no one at Calvin Klein batted an eye or treated her any differently than the other models. Unfortunately, the audience couldn’t react the same way to Dalbesio. Maybe if more designers followed suit and exposed their consumers to more images of “average” or “in between” and “plus-size” models, then maybe not every “plus-size” model in a designer advertisement would go viral or be scrutinized.

Unfortunately, while Dalbesio may be a viral name at the moment, it will most likely fade away just as quickly as the weight issue in fashion always does. Hopefully, with the help of the consumer and the industry, this trend can become a movement.

I do not believe that the fashion industry can change overnight, however. At least for now, consumers will continue to see size four models in every advertisement. This will only reinforce the unrealistic idea that all women should be this size even if the average woman is a size fourteen instead (Beck, 2014).

According to PLOS ONE, a peer-reviewed scientific journal published by the Public Library of Science, “seeing diverse bodies makes us more comfortable with body diversity.” Therefore, if the fashion industry continued to expose the consumer to average and plus-size women instead of unrealistically thin women, and even men, then the average and plus-size would finally lose their shock value and become everyday sights. And not just on the streets — but on the billboards, magazine covers, and shopping malls too. But the consumer must also bring acceptance to these changes in order for the fashion industry to continue to change.

Taylor Howe can be contacted at thowe@keene-equinox.com

A recent March 31 article from Alternet.com noted four shocking examples of police militarization in America’s small towns; the first was none-other than Keene, N.H. Among Keene, also listed were the cities of Ogden, Utah, Columbia, S.C. and Paragould, Ark.

Many are questioning why such quiet small towns with low crime rates and low populations are in need of such militarized weapons. It is time we reevaluate if these vehicles and other weapons are truly necessary.

The city of Keene’s Ballistic Engineered Armored Response Counter Attack Truck, or BearCat, which was featured in Alternet.com’s article is now world-renowned as the article was picked up in Australia and Russia. This article is bringing attention back to the controversial BearCat. Even Keene’s First Baptist Church’s Pastor Mark Ferrin asked the question, “Would Jesus Ride into Keene on a BearCat?” at worship on April 13, according to the Keene Sentinel Religion Briefs.

The fact that other countries have noticed Keene’s militarization calls for a reality check. Writer of the Alternet.com article, Aaron Contú, states this movement of militarized police departments is the result of the culture wars of the 1960s and a combination of the war on drugs, fear of inner city crime, and anxieties over the threat of terrorism.

Peter Kraska of Eastern Kentucky University said he believes it is not a need that drives these small towns but the fear of being left behind.

According to Kraska, there were only about 3,000 raids by Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) units per year in the early 1980s. Now, there are about 50,000. Investigative journalist and author of “Rise of the Warrior Cop,” Radley Balko, found that 75 percent of all towns with 25,000 to 50,000 people had their own SWAT teams by the year 2000. According to Balko, the Pentagon had provided surplus military gear to more than 17,000 law enforcement agencies in America by 2005.

In 2012, Keene accepted a grant of $285,933 from the Department of Defense (DOD) to purchase the militaristic vehicle. According to Contú, this grant was offered through the 1033 program signed into law back in 1997 that “created a pipeline” for the DOD to pass on surplus military gear to local police departments. Although there was great resistance from the residents of Keene, especially at the town meetings held by City Councillor Terry Clark back in 2012, the Keene Police Department started to use the BearCat in the Fall of 2012.

Keene, a city with a population of about 23,000 and a murder count of three between the years of 1999 and 2012, is now questionably equipped with a BearCat. Surrounding cities have even signed pacts with Keene to borrow the BearCat when needed, according to Contú. As of the summer of 2013, the BearCat had been used 21 times as stated by Contú. Nineteen times were for training exercises while the remaining two were for responses to a barricaded person and a person threatening suicide.

According to an article in The Equinox from February of 2012 by Leah Hughes, the Pumpkin Festival and Red Sox Riots were cited in Keene’s grant application as examples for when the BearCat could be used.

Surprisingly enough, the BearCat was not used this past year in the riots of Keene State College students celebrating the 2013 Red Sox World Series Champions back in October. It also was not used at Pumpkin Fest despite the estimated 3,500 person party on Winchester Court, according to an article in The Equinox by Karina Barriga Albring.

Towns with 20,000 people do not need militaristic vehicles or weapons like the BearCat. By using the BearCat for mostly training purposes and not using it at either The Pumpkin Fest or the Red Sox Riot, Keene Police Department has proved that it is not needed.

Representative J.R. Hoell, a Republican from Dunbourton, proposed House Bill 1307, that would prevent communities from buying military hardware, according to an article by New Hampshire Public Radio’s Chris Jensen. According to Jensen, six of the 13 representatives from North Country voted against killing the bill but the House voted 195-138 to kill the bill.

The Concord Monitor stated that Hoell was worried about police becoming increasingly militarized.

Between 2002 and 2011, the Department of Homeland Security gave out $35 billion in grants to local and state police for militarized defense, according to Economist.com.

The Pentagon gives militarized hardware to police departments across the nation at almost no cost, which was the case for Keene’s BearCat. SWAT teams were originally intended for extremely dangerous and high risk occurrences, such as murderers or hostage takers. The police departments defended their defense weapons and vehicles by stating these purchases provide invaluable protection to their police officers in dangerous situations, but it appears that these units are not responding to serious high risk events.

According to Contú, SWAT teams are most commonly used for drug-related cases now. The fears of terrorism and high-crime levels along with the war on drugs have essentially contributed to the militarism of small towns but we need to start being more realistic. We are spending money for small towns to feel like they are not being left behind in comparison to larger cities.

It is about time we re-evaluate the actual need for such programs and grants that result in militarized quiet little towns.

Taylor Howe can be contacted at thowe@keene-equinox.com

Being a celebrity comes with many benefits, but according to celebrity actors Dax Shepard and Kristen Bell, it is not all glitz and glamour. Shepard and Bell are fighting off the paparazzi who follow and harass celebrities and their children. 

For the sake of the children, Shepard and Bell started a Twitter campaign in late January featuring the hashtags #pedorazzi and #NoKidsPolicy to end the unauthorized photography of celebrities’ children by paparazzi, according to the Los Angeles Times.

In August, actors Jennifer Garner and Halle Berry stood in front of a court in California. Garner and Berry showed their support for a new law stating that a first-time convicted paparazzi can spend up to a year in prison, and/or pay $10,000 for harassing a minor because of the parent’s occupation, according to the Huffington Post.

Garner and Berry shared their experiences with paparazzi and the traumatizing effect it had on their children. This bill was signed into law in September and took effect January 1 in California, according to circa.ca.

Although this bill may seem like an optimistic step, it will take the cooperation of law enforcement to enforce this law.

Keene State College senior and elementary education major, Haley Brittain, said, “I’m not sure [how the laws could be enforced], but I think they should try to have something. Paparazzi should be held responsible for disrupting people’s lives. I don’t know how, though.”

Since then, Shepard and Bell have started to take their campaign public. They have appeared on Entertainment Tonight and Access Hollywood.

On Entertainment Tonight, Bell stated that celebrities such as Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Aniston, Ben Affleck, Amy Adams, Michelle Williams, Katie Holmes and Scarlett Johansson were all interested in supporting her campaign, according to CBSnews.com.

While on Access Hollywood, Shepard and Bell spoke with Steve Ginsburg, owner of a paparazzi agency, and Christian Zimmerman, a celebrity reporter, according to Entertainment Weekly. When asked if they would ever stop photographing celebrities the way they do, Zimmerman replied with a simple “no.”

KSC senior and secondary education major, Ally Massi, disagreed. “I don’t think that paparazzi should be able to photograph any children whether it’s a celebrity’s child or not. Being in student teaching, I think about how students have a right to their own privacy in terms of photography,” Massi, said.

In the various television interviews, Shepard and Bell have called upon the celebrity gossip media industry to stop using the photos and the consumers to stop buying the products. People Magazine, the online blog Just Jared, Entertainment Tonight, The Insider, Entertainment Weekly, Buzzfeed and Perez Hilton have publicly banned all unauthorized photos of celebrities’ children according to adweek.com and jezebel.com

“I think it’s great that someone as notoriously gossipy as Perez Hilton is already trying to put this to an end. I think magazines might get the message when someone brings it to their attention,” Massi said.

People Magazine issued a statement saying that they would no longer publish photos of celebrities’ children taken against their parents’ wishes. People Magazine began this protocol in January, also listed on jezebel.com

Shepard has been writing about the issue in editorials and on his internet blog. There, he asked readers to boycott magazines such as Star and US Weekly who exploit unauthorized pictures, as seen on New York Daily News.

“I think that paparazzi should not be allowed to photograph celebrities’ children without the consent of the parents because the children are helpless and innocent. They didn’t ask for that life and can’t stick up for themselves,” KSC junior and avid photographer, Sarah Landers, shared. On his blog, Shepard also spoke about how the consumer can make a significant difference. He stated, “The consumer is the only one who can put an end to this. They are the ones with the real power.”

According to Shepard, the paparazzi are doing that particular job because they need to make money and the magazines are paying them for their pictures.

If the consumer stops buying these magazines, the magazines will be forced to stop sending the paparazzi and using the photos.

According to LA Time’s Susan Rohwer, the consumers are the ones who want to know everything about a celebrity’s life. The paparazzi are simply giving the magazines what they believe the consumer wants.

In his Huffington Post editorial, Shepard stated that although the bill limits the press and puts the First Amendment in question, it serves the purpose of protecting the children.

The main point Shepard and Bell are making is celebrities were able to make the choice to enter into the spotlight, but their children have not yet. They believe every child deserves the right to make this choice when they are ready.

Taylor Howe can be contacted at thowe@keene-equinox.com