Perspectives On Gender Equality

Aiden Crowley

We live in a world where gender inequality is talked about now maybe more than ever. It is evident through conversations such as the me too movement and feminism. Over the course of time there has been a long history of gender inequality where females have been repressed by society. Men have abused positions of power and maintained a societal system that benefits them over the course of history. This inequality has taken many forms over the years and shifted from voting equality to ideas such as equal pay. It was not all that long ago that women were forced to stay home, clean the house and watch the kids in our society. While this way of life has changed it is not completely gone and many of these ideals still persist among the population. The way we look at gender equality has shifted with the times to modern discussions of job opportunity disparity and work life balance amongst genders. Through articles from Slaughter, Reiner, Sandberg and Dorment an issue of socialized gender behavior emerges as a factor playing a major role in this disparity amongst genders. While very real inequality still exists through pay gap and job positions held. The question that is raised from this is what does a gender equal society look like?

Anne-Marie Slaughter

In Slaughter’s article Why Women Still Can’t Have It All she addresses gender inequality specifically in positions of power. Women are severely under represented in high positions of our society. In corporate level positions women “top out at 15, 16 percent”. A focus of Slaughter’s paper is striking a “work life balance” as there are unrealistic expectations put on women. According to Slaughter women are deprived from these positions because of maternity and social pressures. In her opinion there is an overemphasis on working extra hours or “macho time” as she puts it that is inefficient. She puts some pressure on businesses to get away from overemphasizing the vitality of being able to work all the time. Only when this way of thinking is removed will there be enough room for women to work up into high ranking positions. When this is achieved and women are appointed to positions of power while representing 50% of congress will there be gender equality.

Slaughter faces some opposition even with people on her side of the debate. Throughout Slaughter’s article she emphasizes being a mother before every speech. Her thinking is that normalizing being a mother in positions of power will overtime normalize this behavior, allowing for more acceptance in the workforce. Despite her intentions she is met with opposition from other feminists. These feminists claim that she must only be seen as a strong independent women and should stop feeding these gendered stereotypes that women can only be mothers. Slaughter’s point is that women should not have to hide their identity as a mother just as men do not have to as a dad. For society to be equal there should not be any emphasis on being a mother or taking maternity leave as it does not matter for the efficiency of the company. This feminist perspective in many ways perpetuates the ideology that being strong and a hard worker can not go hand in hand with being a mother. This brings up the question whether equal representation is actually equality if the values that are still being held are those of strength or what is considered masculine values. Some people may find Slaughter as unrelatebale as she was head of Policy Planning for the U.S. Department of state where her boss was Hillary Clinton when compared with the average person.

Sheryl Sandberg

Sandberg addresses the issue of gender inequality through her Ted Talk presentation Why We Have Too Few Women Leaders. Like Slaughter, Sandberg also agrees that the issue lies in the roles women are excluded from but differs in how to go about solving it. To Sandberg, women need to be more assertive and demand a spot on the table. They must have confidence and believe that they are deserving of the position. This theory seems to imply that women are socialized throughout their life to be more passive and self contained. Sandberg is telling women to abandon these norms embracing what is considered more masculine qualities to get what they desire. She states that “women systematically underestimate their own abilities”. According to Sandberg to achieve equality women must break this institutionalized barriers that are repressing them and “sit at the table”. Sandberg receives criticism from the likes of Slaughter that she is blaming the women for not achieving instead of institutional factors. In some ways this argument ties to Dorment’s argument that it is a matter of choice. One could argue that Sandberg being the COO of Facebook may overemphasize her own accomplishments instead of looking at social factors such as coming from a wealthy family and attending Harvard that provided her the opportunity to “sit at the table”.

Richard Dorment

Dorment in his article Why Men Still Can’t Have It All claps back at Slaughter and Sandberg. He does not think that there are considerable advantages in life being born a male versus a female. Dorment does acknowledge that institutional sexism and pay discrimination is a thing but are rare. He states “the opportunity gap between the sexes has all but closed but yet a stark achievement gap persists”. According to this article men and women have reached an equilibrium and too much blame is being put on men. Richard Dorment demises that the argument that is being made from the likes of Slaughter and Sandberg is over work life balance and happiness with work. When it comes to this argument he says men have it just as bad if not in some cases worse than women. He states “if anything, it is men who are twice as likely to say they are unhappy”. If the measure on gender inequality is happiness and work life balance then men are actually the disadvantaged not the women according to Dorment. Additionally, in this article he finds that women when given the option prefer to work part time which is contributing to the gender pay difference. He claims it is because women are working part time that they do not make as much as their male counterparts.

Throughout this article Dorment appears to allude to the fact that there is a biological component as to why we see this achievement gap. He claims that in most cases women do not want to work as much and are more content with working part time; which is preventing them from making it to the top. This idea is in direct opposition with the idea that there are socialized norms in our society that influence women to think this way as made evident by Slaughter and Sandberg. Dorment receives a lot of push back from people claiming that he is mocking of Slaughter and Sandberg in the way he composes this article. There are also claims that his audience is just young wealthy white males who do not want to see women make more than them. These criticisms help emphasize the fact that there are gendered stereotypes playing a role in this argument one way or another.

Andrew Reiner

Reiner in his article Teaching Men To Be Emotionally Honest indirectly aims at a solution to this gender inequality. In this article Reiner addresses socialized gender behavior in a way similar to what Slaughter says for women. Men are often taught to repress their emotions and “be a man” to not cry. He states “boys are taught, sometimes with the best of intentions, to mutate their emotional suffering into anger”. This does not provide males an outlet which often leads to anger. Reiner advocates for safe places for males to express their emotions in safe ways. He argues that giving males this outlet actually benefits women. Women are often the outlet for males problems and therefore carry the burden of their problems and the males. Some argue against Reiner claiming that he is just contributing more to the problem by providing more for the privileged males instead of really addressing the problem at hand. Arguments like these suggest again that males are on the receiving end of a lot of benefits which opposes some of Dorment’s claims.

What emerges from these debates over gender inequality is a fundamental disagreement on what a future of equality actually looks like. As shown, it is not as simple as merely looking at average pay between men and women. There are underlying debates such as whether our social structure inhibits women from making it to the top or potentially biological reasons. Are institutions the real problem or does it come down to the individual to really want it to achieve in life? There are disagreements on what we should even look at to measure equality. How should our society look? Is it a society that has equal representation in positions of power amongst genders or a society where males and females are equally happy? Should men be allowed to express “feminine” emotions or should women adopt “masculine” values. These moral questions emerge from these discussions and only add to the complexity of the debate. Are we striving for a society that both genders make the exact same amount or is it a society where gendered stereotypes are completely dismantled that allows both genders to finally be equal? Or have we already reached equality? Depending on who you ask you will get drastically different answers. So can we all have it all? It may not be as simple as a yes or no.

Work Cited

Dorment, Richard. “Why Men Still Can’t Have It All.” Esquire, 7 Oct. 2017, http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/a22764/why-men-still-cant-have-it-all-0613/.

Reiner, Andrew. “Teaching Men to Be Emotionally Honest.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 4 Apr. 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/education/edlife/teaching-men-to-be-emotionally-honest.html.

Sandberg, Sheryl. “Why We Have Too Few Women Leaders.” TED. 2010. Lecture.

Slaughter, Anne-Marie. Why Women Still Can’t Have It All. Oneworld, 2015.

Kennedy Turner

“Because I am a female I am expected to aspire to marriage. I am expected to make my life choices always keeping in mind that marriage is most important. Now marriage can be a source of joy, love, and mutual support which I think can be a good thing. But, why do we teach girls to aspire to marriage and don’t teach boys the same?” These impeccable words were spoken by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie.

This quote introduces the idea that the concept of marriage is primarily implemented into the minds of women in oppose to men. Why? In a culture consumed by the idea of change and equality for all, when will they reach the deep rooted problems taught at young ages that define the ways in which people live their lives.

Normalized Gender Norms

The natural upbringings of boys and girls are gendered. Whether it be how they play, what colors they like, and what they want to be when they grow up. More importantly, what goals they should expect to achieve. These gendered concepts have been normalized for decades. It is common to adopt the idea that girls should be princesses because it is basic knowledge amongst the American culture. However, marriage is also a concept embraced by American culture. Why is it important that girls know to work toward it to truly fulfill their lives? Societal norms frown upon middle aged women who are not yet married.

We Should All Be Feminists

In Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s Ted Talk,  We should all be feminists, she suggests that the culture is not to blame. She states, “Culture does not make people, people make culture.” The accusation that it is not society but the people within society causing societal issues baffles many people. Many would justify marriage being an aspiration for women because that is just the way the culture is… But, we are the culture and we believe in equality? Until modern culture accepts that they are the ones reiterating traditions and tired beliefs, there is no room for change.

She goes on to discuss how women are taught to behave in the eyes of men. She says, “We teach girls to have ambition, but not too much… to be successful, but not too successful otherwise they’ll threaten the man”(Adichie 2012). This correlates directly to the claim because all the different ways in which girls are taught certain things can be connected to aspiring to marriage because it is for the attention of men. She says, “We praise girls for virginity, but we don’t praise boys for virginity..”(Adichie 2012). This suggests that it is shameful to want to do some of the things that boys get to do. Because it is not respectable, or acceptable for a woman.

The Psychology Behind It

Three researchers in psychology, Marianne Taylor, Marjorie Rhodes, and Susan Gelman at the University of Michigan, created a study for children called : Boys will be boys; Cows will be cows. In this study, they asked young children a series of questions regarding animal species and gender role tendencies. Results at the end of the study were collected.

The psychologists state, “Children, based on the findings in this study, assume that girls are born with innate and unchangeable characteristics that fundamentally differ from the innate and unchangeable characteristics that boys are born with” (Brown par 4). Also in this study it is stated that, “Some may ask does it matter whether children think all girls sew and that all boys collect baseball cards? We know that with increased labeling of gender, our tendency to think that all boys have one set of attributes and all girls have another increases. But does that matter when we are raising our own kids? Yes, because once these stereotypes kick in for a child, they are extremely hard to change”(Brown par 6).  

This relates back to the claim because once stereotypes are embedded in a child, they continue to believe and trust in society. Which can be reason to believe that women are taught to aspire to marriage.

American Idol

Girls are raised and inspired to be like the women they watch and idolize. But, do they idolize specific women because they are taught to? And what makes the women they are taught to idolize, different than the ones they are not? Is it there clothing or self demeanor? Most importantly. Are the women we do not teach them to idolize married? It can be reasonably concluded that the men boys idolize are not married in most cases.

For example, Cinderella. Cinderella does a great job of teaching young women to aspire to marriage. She only finds true happiness when she lives happily ever after with Prince Charming. She tirelessly works everyday hoping she will eventually be swept off her feet and saved from her treacherous life. Insinuating, that a woman will only be safe and happy when she finds a man and keeps a man.

The Naysayers

Some make a very valid argument that teaching women to aspire to marriage is an aspect of the past that was well needed and that it doesn’t happen anymore. Many women relied on men for financial security, reproduction, safety, and more. Which was mostly arranged through marriage in the past. Kris Gage, author of the article Does Marriage Even Make Sense Anymore?, suggests that it is understandable for women to have felt the need to get married in earlier times but the obligation to teach it now no longer remains. She writes, “Women didn’t have access to the workplace, so they needed financial security. Men had income, but needed heirs. The exchange was simple”(Gage 2018).

This article accurately compares what life was like for women in the past vs. the present. It easily can display reasons for women to not get married because of all the things they can do on their own or without a legal document of monogamy. This connects back to the claim because this article gives reasonable explanations as to why young women do not have to be taught to aspire to marriage. However, the old traditions of movies and television still ring true for many families when teaching their daughters to aspire to marriage.

Living Single

The stereotypes of single men and women are endless. Women who are single at a certain age face significant backlash. They can be perceived as hard to love, or too attainable. Many women constantly have to keep in mind if they’re being too easy, too bossy, too smart, or too confident when trying to attract a man. And if they are single, it is easy to perceive them as women who are those things. Bella DePaulo, author of the article Is There A Bias Against Single People?, suggests that people without a marital status face harsh judgement from modern culture. She writes, “They were viewed as less happy, less secure, more immature, more fearful of rejection, lonelier, more self-centered, and more envious”(DePaulo 2016).

This connects back to the claim because many women are taught not to be too easy, not to be too bossy, for the attention of men. Ultimately, so that they can be the ideal woman a man would want to marry.

At The End of The Day…

The conversation of whether or not women are taught to aspire to marriage is ongoing with more than one answer. It is important that the conversation takes place and that society today acknowledges what the youth are being taught. If the main ideals of modern culture are change and equality, there is reasonable cause to believe they should start at the beginning, with the kids today.

Works Cited

Adichie, Chimamanda Ngozi. “We Should All Be Feminists.” TED, Dec. 2012, http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_ngozi_adichie_we_should_all_be_feminists?language=en.

Brown, Christia S. “Children’s Ideas About Gender Differences May Surprise You.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 16 Apr. 2014, http://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beyond-pink-and-blue/201404/childrens-ideas-about-gender-differences-may-surprise-you.

DePaulo, Bella. “Is There a Bias Against Single People?” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 19 Oct. 2016, http://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/living-single/201610/is-there-bias-against-single-people.

Gage, Kris. “Does Marriage Even Make Sense Anymore?” Medium, Personal Growth, 18 Feb. 2018, medium.com/personal-growth/does-marriage-even-make-sense-anymore-70e10f4d8c18.https://medium.com/personal-growth/does-marriage-even-make-sense-anymore-70e10f4d8c18

There’s no debate in saying whether technology is highly discussed or not, but there is a debate in whether it is good or bad. For many years, people have made countless claims about the pros and cons of using technology. The majority of the people in this country use technology, and even those who make claims that technology isn’t good ironically find themselves using it everyday. We find ourselves on social media, researching, writing, shopping, playing games. Yet after many years of debating, we still haven’t fully come to a conclusion on this topic. But many wouldn’t have been able to share their views on the this topic so easily if it wasn’t for their access to technology. So in reality, whether we think technology is good or bad, it’s everywhere.

Pros

If you were to ask someone why they thought technology was a good thing, their answer would most likely be that it allows for easy communication. Especially nowadays, there are so many different ways to communicate with people besides texting and calling. These new apps allow for communication and self-expression. In Jenna Wortham’s essay, How I Learned to Love Snapchat, she points out the use of this app and how it is leading the new way to communication. Take a picture, add a short caption, press send. It allows for an easier way to understand what a person is implying. It is also a easier and faster way to communicate, for example, if you are trying to tell a friend a story or just trying to explain something, but you don’t want to type it all out, you can take a quick video and when you’re done just press send. Saves time and the hassle of trying to type it all out.

Additionally, Wortham states that snapchat allows for self-expression. She says it is a place to be yourself, and that it is not a place where you go to be pretty. We can compare Snapchat to apps like Instagram and Facebook and find that those apps are more “formal” than Snapchat. On the other hand, Snapchat is seen to be less formal and more of a place where you can share whatever you want. Snapchat incorporates filters, funny filters, which allow for self expression of a person, whether they wanna add the filter to be funny or not. You can draw on your picture, add stickers, you can alter the picture to make it your own and how you want others to see it. This app is very common in kids and adolescents, and Snapchat allows them to express who they are and to learn to be open and expressive with who they are at young age. If a kid doesn’t have Snapchat, it might cause them to feel left out and feel isolated from everyone else. Having Snapchat, which comes from using technology, allows them to communicate with their friends, self-express and to ultimately feel like they fit in.

With technology taking over and being the center of most of our lives, it surprisingly has been making us smarter. You are probably asking how, and here are some answers. We use it every single day of our lives-unless you decide to isolate yourself from technology-for anything and everything. An example of this is seen in Clive Thompson’s Smarter Than You Think: How Technology Is Changing Our Minds for the Better. Thompson discovers a chess master that was beaten by a computer, which led him to the conclusion that our digital tools are making us smarter. This game of chess lead to the discovery that you didn’t even have to be good at chess to win against someone like a chess grandmaster. You just had to be skilled in knowing how to use a computer which would then aid you in winning against someone who was a professional at chess. The computer would show them a bunch of different moves that they didn’t even think of, allowing for a greater imagination and for creative playing that they wouldn’t have done before. This evidence is crucial, proving that technology makes you smarter in allowing you to learn new things. Learning new things allows for greater self confidence and a drive to want to explore more things that you didn’t know before.

Going off of Thompson’s example of the chess game, even if we don’t play chess, technology is still greatly used to teach other things. For example, it is now used in schools starting in elementary, or even pre-school, to aid in the learning of school subjects like math, reading, writing, science, etc.

Cons

Technology is taking over the world and while it may seem as if it is as a good thing, there are many things that cause it to also be a bad thing. If you were to ask someone why they thought technology was a bad they would most likely answer saying that it affects us and our health, and they’re somewhat correct. In chapter nine of Nicholas Carr’s The Shallows, talks about the internet and how it affects our memory; how technology became an “artificial memory” for us, being able to store everything so we can go find it instead of using our brains to think about it. Carr brings up some scientific points talking about how our “…synapses change with experience…” (Carr 182). The synapses are what are in our brain and they work when we try to memorize something. The more we work it, the more better we get at memorizing things. But if we don’t practice memorizing stuff, we lose that habit, lose that memory, and it tends to get replaced with something else.

“The Net quickly came to be seen as a replacement…to personal memory” (Carr 180). We as humans do not take the time to think about stuff anymore and it is causing an effect on the way this next generation thinks. We will start to rely on the computer right away to find things or to store things. People will create a habit of being lazy, wanting to search right away instead of taking the time to think. We train our brain to think of a way to find the solution, instead of finding the actual solution.

Overall, the debate about technology will probably be discussed for many more years to come. There are many pros and cons about the use of our digital devices, but ultimately it all comes down to each person individually and their own biases. The future is open to whatever and there will always be a good and a bad to something, so what side will you take?

Carr, Nicholas. The Shallows. New York, W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 2010.

Thompson, Clive. “Smarter Than You Think: How Technology Is Changing Our Minds for the Better.” They Say I Say, edited by Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, Russel Durst, W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 2018, pp. 441-461

Wortham, Jenna. “How I Learned to Love Snapchat.” They Say I Say, edited by Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, Russel Durst, W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 2018, pp. 474-479.

Although many people consider the concept of going to college as the unthinkable way, is it always the best option for everyone? To many, college sounds like a shiny idea, but when broken down into the pros and cons, are the benefits certainly worth the sacrifices? Once the expenses and loans get factored in, for some people the cons may start to outweigh the positive experiences young adults encounter in college. Often times, other alternatives get skipped over while people are racing to apply to various universities. It truly would not be the end of the world to either spend two years at a community college before committing to a university, go for a two-year degree, or consider the opportunity costs of even going to college at all.

Costs, Loans, and The Things College Students Don’t Want to Think About

College is expensive, everyone knows that. What many people do not realize is just how expensive it can be. The average in-state costs of tuition at universities in the U.S. is currently $9,716. This may seem doable at first, but all of the housing, fees, books, dining, and other expenses are not included in that number. The average total cost of four-year universities for in-state students from 2015-2016 was roughly $26,000 a year. Many people see the $9,716 without registering the fact that it will turn into $26,000. In their article “Should Everyone Go to College?” Stephanie Owen and Isabel Sawhill explain that tuitions are rising faster than family incomes, which is causing many students to be more financially responsible and more dependent on loans. Owen and Isabel state that the total federal student loans are about $1 trillion. Not only does their article concern student loans, it also concerns the rate of return on education, which is not what people expect. Owen and Sawhill share that each additional year of schooling adds about 10% onto one’s salary, but after factoring in the costs of the education, the returns are not always as high as many hope. Costs, loans, and future salaries are not the only things to think about; opportunity cost should be considered as well. Opportunity cost is the money students could be earning instead of attending additional school. The writers include that the average opportunity cost for 18-21 year olds that go to a four-year school is about $54,000.

College: The Best Time of Your Life

While some people are concerned with the expenses that come along with additional schooling, others claim that the life experiences that one gains from college are well worth the costs. Throughout “The Importance of a College Experience in Life,” an article written by Elon University’s “The Pendulum Online,” many reasons why college is important are shared. The article states that college is a transitional period that is full of growth and learning. It is a time that teenagers develop into adults. College both prepares students for a career and brings forth real-life situations that help the young adults learn more about themselves. The article stresses that this principal period of time allows students to begin to make their own decisions while gaining an understanding of how to live on their own. “The Importance of a College Experience in Life” claims that college provides life lessons through living in the residence halls. Students are surrounded by other people with all types of beliefs, backgrounds, and lifestyles. This gives young adults the chance to build a tolerance and understanding for others, which is key in the real-world. The article also emphasizes the opportunities college brings to young adults. Jobs, clubs, internships, athletics, study abroad programs, fraternities, and volunteer opportunities are all occasions made available to students simply by attending college. Along with new opportunities, college brings forth new friends and connections that can be utilized later on in life. Clearly an education is not the only thing one receives from going to college.

Community College Then University?

It is common for high school upperclassmen to look forward to searching for a large university with an impressive athletics program, a beautiful campus, and opportunities to bond with a few of their old friends while making new friends at the same time. Because of this, many high schoolers bypass the idea of spending two years at a community college before heading to a university. Owen and Sawhill, the writers of “Should Everyone Go to College?” explain that many kids are going to college, yet the graduation rates are remaining low. There are many reasons as to why the graduation rates are low, however a common reason for the recurrent dropouts and delays is financial stress. Owen and Sawhill share that fewer than 60% of students who enter four-year schools graduate within six years, and the rate for low-income students is even less. Community college costs far less than universities, making it financially wise to consider both options. Not only is attending a university more expensive, but it can be challenging and scary to jump right into lecture halls consisting of 400+ people when a student is fresh out of high school. It would be academically wise to begin college on a smaller scale in order to confirm that additional schooling is the best option before wasting extensive amounts of money at a university just to decide that college might not be the optimal decision.

Can A 2-Year Degree Really Be Better Than A 4-Year?

A common misconception is that either you complete at least four years of schooling after high school, or you stop your schooling altogether after high school. Liz Addison’s “Two Years Are Better Than Four,” implies that contrary to popular belief, more schooling will not always benefit a person. Some jobs only require two years of additional schooling, and in some cases, completing the minimum schooling required for a certain job and then heading straight into the workforce can be beneficial. Someone can benefit financially from paying for just the two years of additional schooling necessary rather than an expensive four years of college that are not all required. One can also benefit from stopping after earning a bachelor’s degree because they are giving themselves more time at their job, making it possible to move up to higher positions more quickly than others. The article “Should Everyone Go To College” shares that depending on the occupation, the lifetime earnings of certain graduates with professional degrees are less than those with bachelor’s degrees or only high school diplomas. 17% of people with a bachelor’s degree earn more than those with a four-year degree. There are multiple reasons for this staggering fact. Regardless of how much schooling one completes, the STEM majors are some of the highest paid majors, while education majors are some of the lowest paid majors. This being said, a person working in the STEM fields who completed two years of college or less will likely earn more than a worker in the education services who completed four years or more of college. Along with that, some majors experience more unemployment than others – such as architecture and art – resulting in skewed data.

It is apparent that there are many pros and cons of attending college, and there are more options than just four-year institutions. Owen and Sawhill stated very clearly that college is not a ticket that can be cashed in for guaranteed success and wealth. Instead, it is a stepping stone and a factor for young adults to review before starting the rest of their lives. Young people should carefully consider their path before wasting vast amounts of money.

Sources

Owen, Stephanie, and Isabel Sawhill. “Should Everyone Go to College?” They Say/ I Say with Readings, edited by Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst, W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 2018, pp. 318-335.

Addison, Liz. “Two Years Are Better Than Four.” They Say/ I Say with Readings, edited by Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst, W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 2018, pp. 365-368.

Paquette, Danielle. “Why College Isn’t Always Worth It.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 30 Jan. 2015, www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/30/college-is-worth-it-if-you-graduate-on-time/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6ba27e142a55.

The Pendulum Online. “The Importance of a College Experience in Life.” The Importance of a College Experience in Life, Elon University, www.elon.edu/e-web/pendulum/Issues/2006/10_26/opinions/editorial.xhtml.

“What You Need to Know About College Tuition Costs.” U.S. News & World Report, U.S. News & World Report, www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/what-you-need-to-know-about-college-tuition-costs.

“The NCES Fast Facts Tool Provides Quick Answers to Many Education Questions (National Center for Education Statistics).” National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Home Page, a Part of the U.S. Department of Education, nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76.

What is a fair price for life saving drugs? This ethically challenging question is one that may not have a correct answer. Take for example the fictional company “Alpha”. Alpha has developed a new drug that is an effective treatment HIV. Before this “breakthrough”, the previous plan for HIV treatment included patients being required to take multiple pills at several different points throughout the day. Alpha company’s drug needs to only be taken one time per day and has shown to provide more consistent treatment rates with fewer side effects. Alpha spent over 100 million to develop the drug, which can now be made for only one dollar a pill. The pills are generally not covered by insurance plans, for the older “cocktail” of medications that patients had previously been taken is more affordable and still meets treatment standards. Alpha company’s drug price is $1,000 a week whereas the current treatment plan costs $500 a week.

Is there a solution? Of course the above scenario is completely fictional, but what options do our elected officials have to regulate (or not regulate) this trillion dollar industry. Could Alpha create a free drug program to cover the costs of those who need it the most? What about lowering their cost to the point that insurance companies would be willing to buy it?

For decades, the high cost of prescription medicine has been a problem in the United States as it continues to rise year after year. Americans are spending more on prescription drugs than any other country. It can be hard for people to determine the origin of this problem because the topic is murky, convoluted, and complex. According to Bloomberg, the path prescriptions take from manufacturing to the consumer is costly and inefficient. Starting with the manufacturers, prescription drugs travel to the wholesalers who sell them pharmacists before they reach the consumers hand. This chain enables price increases at several points, with increases year over year totaling between 9-15% for the past decade. As a result, it is not uncommon  for people to skip days or refills of their medicine because it is not affordable. Imagine being in a situation where you are forced to borrow money, skip out on food, or even pick between your medicine or your rent.

Going back to my example of “Alpha” company, why wouldn’t they just reduce the cost of the drugs to even 25% of what they are currently charging? Well – here’s where it gets complicated.

What level of responsibility does the pharmaceutical company have to provide competitive wages for its employees, and returns for its stockholders? What about the necessary money they will have to make on this drug to continue to innovate and create new medicine? Unfortunately, this “responsibility” has left some patients with no availability to life sustaining drugs.

Insulin, a prescription drug diabetics depend on for survival, has been around for decades and its cost is escalating. “A federal report that said 40 percent of branded pharmaceuticals in 2015 were not subject to rebates, yet prices on those drugs continue to rise,” (Rowland 2). This has led to higher health insurance cost, insurance premiums, and out of pocket expenses for the consumers. Additionally, the lasting effects are hurting the uninsured, underinsured, people with high deductible plans, higher premiums and tax payers.

There is a large dissatisfaction for what some people believe is the largely for-profit health care system. Suggestions on policy efforts to control health care spending have been made, such as putting a cap on how much pharmaceutical companies can increase list prices. It was also proposed that there be price increase transparency. “I feel like I need a Ph.D. in prescription drug pricing to understand how the heck this industry works,” said Senator Maggie Hassan, Democrat of New Hampshire,” (Pear 1).

What can we do as college students in the interim time period before regulation can change this ongoing problem? We can help spread awareness, both of the problem and current resources available. An example, although not a solution, is the absence of knowledge about an app called GoodRX that can tell you where you can currently get your prescription the cheapest in your area. With the cost of a prescription at the counter being the main unsettlement for patients, the chief executive of Pfizer supports efforts to eliminate rebates paid to health plans and middlemen. ““None of the close to $12 billion of rebates that Pfizer paid in 2018 found their way to American patients,” Mr. Bourla said,” (Pear 3). He believes the benefit of such price concessions should be received by patients at the pharmacy counter.  

An example of how it is not just the price at the counter that is a problem but that our system is convoluted is with Mr. Brandicourt. Mr. Brandicourt served as Chief Executive Officer at Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. and he said “The net price of our insulin product Lantus has fallen over 30 percent since 2012, yet over this same period, average out-of-pocket costs for patients with commercial insurance and Medicare — before the benefit of any Sanofi financial assistance program — has risen 60 percent,” (Pear 4). This exemplifies it is not just drug prices rising but it is also our system.

Patients often request cost controls on prescription drugs, but that might not be the answer. As a matter of fact, Higher costs on branded drugs incentivize and attract community’s talent and assets to the biopharmaceutical business to support and explore new remedies and treatments that will eventually become inexpensive generic drugs. These leading generics represent a precious and under appreciated resource we have.

This issue can be hard for someone to grasp when other countries have the same drug for a half, or even a third of the price. Richard A. Gonzalez, the maker of a best-selling drug for arthritis, Humira, as well as chairman and chief executive of AbbVie, said his company “made profits in countries like Germany and France where prices of brand-name drugs were often much lower than in the United States,” (Pear 1). Trying to understand what it is that needs to be done to counterbalance prices here in the United States compared to other countries, Trump made a few proposals. Drug company executives said under such proposals we “would be importing price controls from other countries where coverage of costly new drugs is sometimes delayed or denied,” (Pear 2). Patients here in America have access to medicines around two years earlier than in other countries, resulting in greater improvements in cancer survival rates.  

A law professor at the University of California Hastings, Robin Feldman, spoke about the topic. She has a particular expertise in antitrust and patent issues. Feldman sheds light on the creativity of drug companies’ legal departments and how they have developed strategies to maintain their power position in the market. She says they try to keep cheaper drugs from entering the market. ””It is very simple. Drug companies are able to pay PBMs — as well as hospitals and some doctors — to make sure cheaper drugs are left out. It’s as simple as that. Drug companies pay everyone along the way so that lower-price drugs lose,””(Nocera 1).

One of the drivers of the American economy is entrepreneurial innovation. What protects innovation is our ability to patent things we create, which last for seven years. As a result, we stand at a crossroad with an odd juxtaposition; should we allow a life saving drug to be withheld from the oppressed population which cannot afford it, all for the sake of helping drive future innovation? There is not one correct answer or solution, other than an understanding that we are facing a growing problem that is effecting everyone’s lives that isn’t talked about enough. Some suspect that as the current aging population of baby boomers requires more medication to maintain a healthy lifestyle, we will see this topic more often discussed both politically and in our day to day lives.

Works Cited & Picture Credits

Blumberg, Yoni. “Here’s Why Many Prescription Drugs in the US Cost so Much-and It’s Not Innovation or Improvement.” CNBC, CNBC, 14 Jan. 2019, http://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/10/why-prescription-drugs-in-the-us-cost-so-much.html.

Nocera, Joe. “Why Big Pharma Is Winning the Drug Price Wars The Creativity of Drug Companies’ Legal Departments Keeps Them One Step Ahead.” Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, 8 Apr. 2019, http://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-08/why-drug-prices-keep-rising-despite-congress-s-efforts.

Pear, Robert. “Drug Makers Try to Justify Prescription Prices to Senators at Hearing.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 26 Feb. 2019, http://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/us/politics/prescription-drug-prices.html.

Pianin, Eric. “The Fiscal Times.” The Fiscal Times, 2 Dec. 2015, ttp://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/12/02/Why-US-Being-Gouged-Drug-Prices-Compared-Other-Countries

Rowland, Christopher. “Drug Industry Defense for High Prices: Blame Insurance Companies.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 25 Feb. 2019, http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/drug-industry-defense-for-high-prices-blame-insurance-companies/2019/02/25/cc0151ce-35e7-11e9-a400-e481bf264fdc_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.50e3f252c1ad.

In recent years the debate over the legalization of marijuana has come to the forefront of national politics. As some states have been leading the cause by allowing the drug to be available widely available for medical and recreational use, a debate over who possesses the power to regulate citizens behavior has emerged. Without a clear ruling by the Supreme Court, states have allowed for the use of this federally illegal drug within their borders. However, the debate has more overarching implications. It has sparked in broader sense, the question of exactly how much power the government should have over the behaviors of its citizens.

It makes sense for this question to come from the “land of the free”. Exactly how free are the people of the United States? With gay marriage only recently becoming legalized, censorship and prohibition of certain substances, the people in the United States may not in actuality be as free as they believe. In some instances, it makes sense for the government to regulate their citizens, on things such as murder and crimes against others, however, what about on topics that are by definition debates of morality. Issues such as gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana are simply put, opinions based on one’s feelings of morality. Thus, leading to the question of whether or not the government has the right to regulate issues based on morality.

Is this Really an Issue?

Currently, for the issue of marijuana legalization, the federal government has ruled it the use and distribution of marijuana for any purpose to be illegal. However, with states going against this policy and allowing for the use and distribution of the drug in their borders, there has begun a legal and philosophical debate about the government and their roles in defining laws that one may deem as a moral issue. When looking more deeply at this issue, I was not able to find any research or articles posing that question. Instead what I found was a debate over whether it was the state or federal government who should wield that power. This debate outlined not only the legal aspect of it, but the idea that state government may or may not be more responsive to its constituency. For some, the idea that the state government should wield the power comes from the reality that every individual has more say in their state government than the federal government. Thus, in certain terms, these people are saying they want these types of moral issues to be influenced more by the individual public. In the next few paragraphs I will be outlining four sources with different views to give a better sense of what kind of conversation is currently at work.

Federal Government First

Government was originally set-up to provide a way for rule of law to be made and enforced. It started out through necessity, to provide citizens with a set of clear rules and provide a safe environment for the individuals living in that society. However, as the years progressed, more power was given and taken by governments. It was through the need for safety of its citizens under which government began to provide not just basic rules of law, but to regulate the behavior patterns of their citizens. Taxes for things such as sugar, alcohol, and nicotine became more prominent as government attempted to control the everyday lives of its citizens by promoting healthier lifestyles. One such “lifestyle” issues is the use of drugs. Marijuana, being considered as one of these things was outlawed by the federal government.

In his political cartoon shown below, Paul Combs provides insight into why the federal government has the right and obligation to prohibit the use of the drug. This does come from an opinion piece and therefore is not backed up by facts. Although this is not considered to be a scholarly piece, the effect of the image is powerful and has logical connections to the statistical evidence about underage drinking. The aim of this piece is to provide more support for keeping the use of the drug illegal and leaving the power of this decision to the federal government.

One of the main topics of discussion in the debate of marijuana legalization is the use of the drug by underage teens. Under current state marijuana laws in states that allow for the use of the drug, only someone 21 years or older can purchase it. However, this is met with controversy. For many years, the legal age of alcohol purchase has also been 21, yet studies show that this has not stopped many teens for using and abusing it. In Paul’s mind, legalizing the drug and allowing states to do so will only increase its use by underage teens. In effect, what he is arguing for is that the federal government should have the right to regulate its citizens behavior on morale issues. Basically stating that in some instances the federal government should protect its citizens from themselves. His argument mainly states that people although may want the choice of whether not they do something, but it is in the best interest of the people for the choice to be taken away by the government.

Why Did it Become Illegal?

It seems reasonable for anyone to ask the question, why did it even become illegal in the first place? In his article, On This Date: FDR Made Marijuana Illegal 81 Years Ago, Eric Revell discusses how and why the drug became illegal in the first place. He uses sources such as the Federal Bureau of Narcotics to explain how this drug became caught up in a war between the United States government and drug use. Using statistics about national drug use, he gives a compelling argument for the need to regulate drug use. Citing the high number of crimes committed by those under the influence of drugs. In addition to this, he cites the astounding number of individuals who were arrested or cited for violating marijuana laws in 2014. At 700,000 cases, he provides a reasonable explanation to why the war on drugs became and still is so prominent in the United States.

The use of facts and premier sources of information gives his argument more weight. His use of logos is powerful and cannot be ignored. There is only a slight bias in his article as the question of why marijuana use is so bad is never mentioned within the article. He does however discuss the use of the law to focus on minorities in particular and outlines this bias. Even so, his argument for the need of government to regulate the use of the drug is apparent and backed up through facts.

The implications of this article again suggest that it is the right of the federal government to regulate its citizens choices. Specifically using the staggering statistic about the number of drug arrests and citations for violation of marijuana law. He shows that citizens are not able to make what is deemed as the preferable behavior of not using drugs even when the it is illegal. This provides basis for showing that there is a necessity for the government to save the people from themselves, as the number of users would most likely increase if it were to be made legal by the states.

People Above All

As states have already begun to construct and pass their own marijuana laws, the majority of Americans are standing behind their states. In an article entitled, Who Should Regulate Marijuana? Most Say States Over the Federal Government, Joanna Piacenza lays out facts about Americans attitudes over who should have the right to regulate the drug. Using national polls, she shows that about 56% of US adults believe that states should have the right to decide, while only 26% believe that the federal government should have the right to decide. She gives a convincing and seemingly unbias update on the current attitudes towards the legalization of marijuana using facts and quotes from senators and experts in the field. This push for states rights over federal shows that the people want to have more influence on the decision and do not want things that fall into the category of morality to be run by big government.

Next, in the article from Safe Access Now, an update on the federal and states laws over marijuana legalization are given. The article goes over the new and old court cases with their decision and explain how they are slowly giving more and more power to the states to handle the issue. It talks about how government agencies are dealing with the tension between the law of the federal government and the states that have legalized the drug. The article does very well to put aside personal biases and outline only the facts from court cases. In addition to this, since it is just a summary of the court cases and the findings of them, there is a large amount of logos that goes into this article. This article allows for a deeper look into how the people are putting the power in their own hands. No longer are they just waiting for the federal government to make a decision, they go through local and state government, of which they have a much bigger impact on, to get the laws passed in order for the law to represent their ideals.

Not only this, but the people are finally taking action. This fact in itself expresses how strongly the individuals on this side are. For them to fight using a legal avenue to pursue their beliefs, it shows that this is not just a issue that can be put aside, but rather a fight for the right to control their own lives separate from the supervision of the federal government.

References:

https://www.safeaccessnow.org/federal_marijuana_law

https://morningconsult.com/2018/07/20/who-should-regulate-marijuana-most-say-states-over-federal-government/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/cartoons/paul-combs/legalizing-marijuana-will-not-increase-or-promote-/

https://www.countable.us/articles/849-date-fdr-made-marijuana-illegal-81-years-ago

Pictures:

https://openclipart.org/detail/304147/group-of-people

The “BIG” Problem by Oliver DeMille

https://rowan.campuslabs.com/engage/event/3184137

Maddison Ficke

On April 20^th, 2017 Charlie and Francie Emerick decided to end their own lives, together, by taking doses prescribed by their doctors. Both of them being terminally ill, they wanted to die together on their own terms. With the Oregon Death with Dignity law this was able to happen.

 Basics

According to Dictionary.com, assisted suicide is, “The suicide of a patient suffering from an incurable disease, effected by the taking of lethal drugs provided by a doctor for this purpose.” This act is only legal in Canada and in the USA; California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia as of 2018. Assisted suicide only being legal in the states listed is linked to why this topic is so controversial. Criteria for physician assisted suicide.

Francie and Charlie

With a topic so controversial, there is no definite yes or no answer on if assisted suicide isethical or not. In the story of Charlie and Francie their goal was, “…to help people change the way they think about dying,” says one of their granddaughters (Aleccia, 2018). Many believe that when terminally ill, an individual should have a say on how and when they die, Charlie and Francie had that choice and had a painless death together.

Supporters of assisted suicide claim that, “…individuals have the right to end their lives as part of their right to autonomy” (Ayres, 2015). The couple married each other and dedicated the rest of their lives together and neither wanted to be without the other. The couple celebrated with their family six days before their death giving members time to prepare for losing their loved ones. “Charlie and I have a rather unique relationship in that we have done and been so much to each other for 70 years,” (Aleccia, 2018). Francie explained this after stating she had more time to live than Charlie. The process was explained to the couple as falling asleep after taking the prescribed drugs. Though many were concerned because assisted suicide does prevent people of certain religions of this law. Francie and Charlie wanted people to perceive dying in a different way with the assisted suicide law, they believed you choose your own destiny.

“We have a faith that says life is not to be worshipped,” Francie said. “It’s the quality of life that counts” (Aleccia, 2018). 

Managing Your Right to Die

            In the TED Talk “Beyond Life: Managing Your Right to Die” by Dr. Allan Sax, he addresses the big idea that people are fearful of dying. But not just dying in general, how we may die. He asks the question of, “what if someone says they don’t want to suffer anymore?” He brings up his mother, in the hospital fighting for her life. He asked for a pain medicine for her, but she died a painful death two hours later due to it not being ready. He asks, “Why do we do this? Why do we make people suffer?” Sax ties this question into assisted dying and introduces another thought of, how come we let our animals go when they are suffering but it is considered by many inhumane to end the life of a human being when they want to be done fighting? He states that people are afraid to die a painful death, where others may argue that some people want to fight until the end, which is just fine too, but Sax says it is about having a choice. We, humans, don’t know what it is like to want a choice whether to end our life until we are really in that position of being terminally ill and fighting the pain. Throughout this TED talk Sax does a beautiful job at admitting he is old, and getting older, and that he is scared of what he will do when the end is near for him. Dying is no longer painless, organ failure and disease are what make up the end of someones life. Sax makes sure viewers know that it is ok to want to stop fighting.

So is PAS Ethical?

Dr. Joseph E. Marine, author of, “Assisted Suicide Is the Wrong Prescription” and Professor of Medicine at John Hopkins University, links The Oath of Hippocrates. This is an oath taken by physicians and it has been around since 1923. This oath states, “…neither will I administer a deadly drug to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course.” This has been described, by many, as unethical for a physician to assist in this act because of this oath. Marine also makes a point in his article that in Oregon specifically, where PAS is legal, prescriptions are only written by 2-3% of in state doctors and in Washington DC only .02% are registered to help with PAS (Marine, 2018). This article supports that physicians don’t want to feel liable for helping someone legally end their life even though it may be what is best. The discussion between animal euthanasia and assisted dying for humans strikes some controversy towards emotions of a vet versus a doctor.

How come we do it to animals?

Robin Hargreaves, senior vice-president of the British Veterinary Association reveals that putting animals to sleep is “…one of the aspects of my job that I genuinely enjoy,” he states. Hargreaves believes that euthanizing an animal when it is at the point where there is nothing left to do relieves it of pain and suffering altogether. He also expresses that, “…in that hiatus after the animal has been put to sleep many clients express the wish that a deceased relative could have been given an equally peaceful end – and sometimes, that relative was suffering from exactly the same condition.” The text explains that no one wants to let a loved animal go but sometimes an owner must make the decision to end the suffering of an animal. Many agree this should be legal with humans. Ultimately, veterinarians and physicians differentiate because of how they feel about euthanasia and PAS with animals and human beings.

Wrapping Up

This controversy of PAS is nowhere near the end but think about this, “If it’s morally wrong does that still make it right?” asks Ira Byock, a writer, medical officer, and professor. This text has identified sides that veterinarians, physicians, and states agree and disagree with relating to end of life decisions and the state an individual is in. Many states have a law allowing PAS but yet it is rarely provided to the terminally ill. No one’s opinions are wrong nor right and we are free to follow whatever beliefs we choose. Wether an individual has six months to live or fighting a painful battle with cancer, every single person has the right to the pursuit of happiness.

Works Cited:

Aleccia, JoNel. “This Couple Died By Assisted Suicide Together. Here’s Their Story.” Time, Time, 6 Mar. 2018, time.com/5179977/assisted-suicide-couple-death.

Baggini, Julian. “Euthanasia for Animals: What Can It Teach Us about Assisted Suicide In.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 21 July 2015, http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/euthanasia-for-animals-what-can-it-teach-us-about-assisted-suicide-in-humans-10405840.html.

Byock, Ira. “Expanding the Right to Die.” The New York Times, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/10/06/expanding-the-right-to-die/doctor-assisted-suicide-is-unethical-and-dangerous.

Marine, Joseph E. “Assisted Suicide Is the Wrong Prescription.” RealClearHealth, 2018, http://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2018/09/20/assisted_suicide_is_the_wrong_prescription_110827.html.

Talks, TEDx. “Beyond Life: Managing Your Right to Die | Dr. Allan Saxe | TEDxPlano.” YouTube, YouTube, 7 May 2015, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7ehf6CmG4Y.

• 

Coming home from a long stressful day at school to your dog patiently waiting at the door to give you all the love they have can instantly brighten up somebody’s day. What society fails to notice is the importance that these dogs can have on our everyday lives, especially for people with mental illnesses. Typically, dogs are seen as “at home” pets, but more often we are seeing service dogs and emotional support dogs as we walk in public places. In our society today, Emotional Support Dogs have been more commonly seen. An emotional support animal, provides comfort for people suffering from a psychological, emotional, or mental disability. These animals are prescribed by medical professionals to individuals to help alleviate daily stressors that one may face. While some studies claim that these dogs are effective in the therapy process, naysayers will disagree stating that they are fake and “just a reason to bring a dog places”. Emotional support dogs can provide love and comfort to those in need, but some say that it can also get in the way of the path to recovery. The heated debate of whether emotional support dogs should be allowed in a school setting brings an uproar into our society. Whether it’s the comfort they provide, the treatment plan of the individual, or the effectiveness of these animals, emotional support dogs ultimately have the opportunity to either shine in our society or cause an argument amongst individuals.

Two reasons these furry friends should be allowed in schools

• 

Suppress feeling of loneliness, depression, anxiety, comfort, helps in time of crisis.etc.

• 

Emotional support dogs are there to help people when they are going through mental health related issues. These dogs help suppress feelings of loneliness, depression, anxiety, and many other psychological issues one may encounter, by providing comfort for these individuals. The way they provide this comfort is unique in which it serves as an all-natural antidepressant. Dogs can sense when something isn’t right, and for people who struggle with these emotional hardships, it provides a sense of love and companionship. According to Christine Grove and Linda Henderson, two commonly known journalists for “The Conversation”, “An individual might be encouraged to gently pat or talk to a dog to teach sensitive touch and help them be calm” (Grove and Henderson). The physical feeling of the dog allows the individual struggling to have something to distract them during hard times. This can help someone struggling with anger mask that feeling and practice being gentle to alleviate those feelings. An emotional support dog can allow someone in school who is struggling to take a step back from whatever may be going through and give them a safe space to decompress.

           A lot of times, people who struggle with mental health related problems often feel as if they are alone in this world. With the help of an emotional support dog, this gives these individuals a companion to vent to, love, and care for. Keeping busy when in a time of crisis can be crutial to someone in need. Being able to take care of a dog and have something to do to keep ones mind occupied during hard times is often necessary.

• 

Helps with school work

• 

For people who struggle with emotional and social issues, emotional support dogs can be extremely beneficial. These dogs are meant to provide comfort to individuals and with them being present on school grounds, this may be a new trend that will benefit a lot of students. According to Christine Grove and Linda Henderson,”, “In the wake of the school shootings in Florida, therapy dogs have been used as a way to provide comfort and support for students returning to school” (Grove and Henderson). In a time of extreme crisis these animals have been used to help alleviate the stress of coming back to school after this painful experience. But this is not the only thing that these dogs can provide for students. They also help with social interactions, home work, and attendance at school. Studies have found that dogs are providing emotional support to students by schools that are integrating them into their social-emotional programs. Due to these canines being at school, it reduces students stress levels by having the support of the animal there during tasks that may seem hard.

           With the help of these dogs, students are getting the opportunity to learn through a different style and are becoming more comfortable with the way that they are being asked to do so. “Decreases in learner anxiety behaviors resulting in improved learning outcomes, such as increases in reading and writing levels” (Grove and Henderson). For students who struggle in school with social, test, or any other type of anxiety, these dogs can provide many benefits to them. This can give students the opportunity to let go of their triggers and start feeling more comfortability within themselves. Reading can be hard for some students, especially reading out loud. An elementary school in North Carolina has therapy dogs that provide comfort for these children while they read. These students read to these dogs to help practice reading out loud and help with their confidence. The children who are participating in these studies claim that whenever they have issues with their pronunciation, they don’t feel the sense of judgement that would typically be felt if it was a whole class listening to them. It has been shown that by reading to these dogs, these students want to read more often and gives them a sense of achievement and pride.

Although there may seem like a ton of benefits to emotional support dogs, there is also reasons as to why they should not be allowed as well.

Two reasons these furry friends shouldn’t be allowed in schools

• 

Not effective- can cause issues in classrooms

• 

The idea of having an emotional support dog can be amazing, but it also provides many risks that many aren’t aware of. Many people are allergic to canines and this can cause a huge issue if they are around in schools. The individuals allergic would not be able to be around these animals even if they are hypo-allergenic dogs. This can cause severe reactions and even cause some to need medical attention. Along with this risk, these animals can also be a distraction within a classroom. The thought of a dog in a classroom may seem like an amazing idea, but it can also cause children to not pay attention and have the reverse affect of what an emotional support dog is initially there for. These children can start to not learn to their full potential due to a dog being there roaming throughout the classroom. This can start to bring down their grades, attention span, and their ability to retain information. Dogs are unpredictable, since emotional support dogs aren’t the same as service dogs, this may cause issues within a classroom. According to Linda Jacobson, a well known author and reporter for Education drive, “Some parents might also express safety concerns, especially after reports of children being attacked by emotional support animals” (Jacobson). Dogs who aren’t well trained can have a short temperament and react dangerously around people. This can cause issues with putting students at risk of being injured at school. Along with the dangers of the animal in the classroom, there is also not a lot of research being having these dogs in classrooms. This offers a potential risk since there may be no concrete research behind the benefits of the animal. In order for this to be accepted within all schools, there needs to be more research done behind the benefits and potential dangers regarding these dogs.

Gets in the way of service dogs

• 

According to The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), emotional support animals aren’t covered under it, whereas a service dog is. A service dog differs from an emotional support dog in which it provides for an individual with a disability and is allowed anywhere due to the needs of the person who is prescribed this animal. Service dogs go through extensive training that is geared towards the owner of the animal. Since these dogs serve as a function of help with a disability, emotional support dogs can get in the way of this function they are providing. Since emotional support dogs don’t need training to be one, their temperament and behavior can not only influence the service dog, but it can also distract the service animal from its duties. According to Wes Siler, a reporter for outside online, he has interviewed many people that have service dogs. One of the individuals he interviewed was a man named Randy Pierce, who has a service dog that helps him with his blindness. Randy stated that he was on a flight with a dog that was barking and influencing his service dog to act out and not perform his duties. With the dog on the flight distracting the service dog, it made it harder for the dog to do its job which then can create the dog to not protect Randy from barriers in the environment. Siler also interviewed a boy who has epileptic seizures. The boy uses a service dog to protect him from hitting his head during his episodes of seizures, if the service dog is distracted by the other dogs in the environment, this can cause it to not do its job that it’s there to do. With emotional support dogs in schools, if someone has a service dog at a school, this can cause for the service dog to lose focus and not do its job that it’s intended to.

Overall, the debate between the acceptance of emotional support dogs in school still stands today. The lack of research behind emotional support dogs being allowed in classrooms becomes hard to tell if this should be something that every school needs or shouldn’t have. There are both benefits to these dogs and downfalls which may cause underlying issues. The psychological and school work benefit can be a huge impact on classrooms around the world, but the issues that arise with these dogs can cause an uproar in our environment.

Works Cited:

CBSN, director. Therapy Dogs Help Improve Kids Reading. YouTube, YouTube, 24 July 2015, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRmVktOe9GA.

Grové, Christine, and Linda Henderson. “Therapy Dogs Can Help Reduce Student Stress, Anxiety and Improve School Attendance.” The Conversation, 23 Feb. 2019, theconversation.com/therapy-dogs-can-help-reduce-student-stress-anxiety-and-improve-school-attendance-93073.

“Service Animals.” ADA 2010 Revised Requirements: Service Animals, 2010, http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm.

Jacobson, Linda. “Dogs Go to School as Part of Social-Emotional Learning Programs.” Education Dive, 1 Mar. 2018, http://www.educationdive.com/news/dogs-go-to-school-as-part-of-social-emotional-learning-programs/518156/.

Siler, Wes. “Stop Faking Service Dogs.” Outside Online, 31 Aug. 2017, http://www.outsideonline.com/2236871/stop-faking-service-dogs.