Welcome to another article from Youth Alliance for Activism in Society. We remind you to stay engaged in issues you feel strongly about and continue doing your research. 
 

Inequities in Education Amidst COVID-19

By: Shvetali Thatte

With all higher-ed institutions switching to virtual learning amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, the question arises as to how to best accommodate all students given the nature of the circumstances. Undoubtedly, the student body population of any university has socioeconomic diversity. In light of recent events, this socioeconomic divide has been widened, with certain students facing new challenges in the face of WiFi access and laptop necessities.

Each institution has implemented a different policy, with some choosing for universal pass/fail grading, and others having opt-in or opt-out pass/fail grading. Each of these policies comes with advantages and disadvantages for select groups of students, but ultimately, only one of these policies equally serves all students.

Universal pass/fail is the only choice that adequately bridges the socioeconomic gap that has been exasperated by the current crisis. For students who are already burdened by financial and family obligations, virtual learning comes next to their other priorities, including working a job to feed the family or taking care of family members. For these students, asking them to spend the same amount of time on classes as they would in-person is unfair. Without universal pass/fail, these students are asked to choose between saving their future and taking care of the present. While such students can, and most likely will, choose to opt-in for pass/fail grading, they are placing their futures at risk by doing so. Not many secondary institutions have made claims as to how they will change their admissions criteria when looking at the Spring 2020 transcripts, and given this uncertainty, students cannot know whether their chances of admission in the future will be hurt should they choose to pass/fail. On the other, with universal pass/fail, students will have complete university backing during their future admission processes, meaning the playing field will be even for all graduate students of a particular university, regardless of economic status.

Common arguments against universal pass/fail are that the policy does not do justice to students’ hard work and it disincentivizes learning. In light of a pandemic, where no one’s circumstances are truly “fair,” it hardly seems just to prioritize hard work over some students’ mental and physical health. The purpose of grades in today’s education system is to allow students to gauge how well they know a particular subject; the grading system is not meant to reward students for their hard work, although this appears to be the mentality of many who are against universal pass/fail. Furthermore, while universal pass/fail does pose the risk of disincentivizing learning, it should not be the university’s role to incentivize learning by providing grades. The role of a university is to educate its students in the subjects they desire by providing quality teaching on current content. Through virtual learning, it is still possible for a university to achieve this goal, as many institutions are doing so currently. However, universities do not have the burden of helping their students stay motivated to learn; it is the students job to decide how much they want to learn, and how much time they are willing to spend to learn that content.

The COVID-19 pandemic has left each student in a unique circumstance, with each individual facing different challenges. It is the university’s duty to choose a path that will minimize the burden on those students who are most severely affected by the crisis. Education should not require one to choose between helping put food on the plate or study for an exam; education should not come at the price of ignoring your friends and family when they may be fighting between life and death.

Pro-Life Campus Club Approval

By: Nicole Palmer

Within the last week, the campus has become divided on the approval to re-recognize a Pro-Life club, Students for Life, with a 24-8-1 vote. This decision has been made by citing a CWRU Policy on Freedom of Expression and Expressive Activities. It is also noted that the school does not want to set a precedent of not recognizing a club based on differing opinions. However, a group of students has expressed outrage at this decision due to the trauma that could be caused specifically by the peaceful vigils that the club intends to hold and the breach in medical privacy that may occur. They also note that refusing recognition does not silence the organization or remove them from campus. A petition has been created for USG to hold a referendum vote, under Article XI and XIII of the USG Constitution. This would put the decision of recognition in the hands of the student body instead of an anonymous vote from select members of campus in USG. The dissent can be read HERE. The petition corresponding to it can be found HERE. More information about the current plan for programs, funding, and campus support can be found in a previous USG email. There is a lot behind each side of the argument and so I encourage you to seek them both out. I encourage you to express your opinion, whatever they may be, through your USG representatives, this petition, or any other means that you put worth in.

The Case Against Circumcision

By: Desmond Weisenberg

Though many have yet to give infant circumcision a second thought, more and more critics are asserting that this procedure is unethical. Though many think the foreskin is “just a flap of skin”, it is rich in lubricative function and sensitivity. Although circumcision may reduce the rate of diseases such as urinary tract infections (UTIs), HIV, and penile cancer, critics of circumcision argue that all of these decreases in risk are statistically very small as well as barely relevant, since UTIs can be treated with antibiotics, and by the time problems like HIV and penile cancer pose threats, the person will be old enough to make their own decision about circumcision. Ultimately, infant circumcision destroys sensitivity and function for trivial benefits – if they can even be called that.

More importantly, people should have a right to bodily autonomy and integrity, especially regarding the most intimate part of their body. Though I have nothing against circumcision of consenting adults, it should not be forced on children. While parents can make medical decisions on behalf of their child that are necessary to promote wellbeing or future autonomy, neither apply here. Furthermore, while parents have the right to raise children in line with their culture and values, this does not mean they can carve their culture into their children’s bodies. As society moves in a direction of respecting sex positivity and people’s right to make decisions about their own bodies, it is clear that non-therapeutic circumcision is not supported by our values.

As the anti-circumcision “intactivist” (intact + activist) movement grows, controversy is growing as well. In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a policy statement saying that the “health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns” but nevertheless insisted that parents have the right to decide. In contrast, circumcision is not the norm in Europe – most men there are intact. The Royal Dutch Medical Association has argued that the procedure should be deterred, and Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly has called it “a human rights violation”. Even within the U.S., the conversation is changing. In 2011, over 12,000 San Franciscans signed onto an (ultimately unsuccessful) anti-circumcision ballot measure. In March 2019, then-presidential candidate Andrew Yang called himself “highly aligned with the intactivists”. All things considered, society is on its way to realizing that infant circumcision belongs in history books, not hospitals.

SOURCE1. SOURCE2. SOURCE3. SOURCE4. SOURCE5. SOURCE6.

The Earn It Act Poses a Cybersecurity Risk

By: Nicole Palmer

What is end-to-end encryption?

End-to-end encryption is a system of communication used on platforms like Gmail, WhatsApp, Messenger, Instagram, etc. so that only the users communicating can read the messages. This is meant to prevent the messages from being read or secretly modified by anyone other than the intended recipient and sender for security. It also means that law enforcement and agencies are unable to get access to people’s digital communications. They argue that end-to-end encryption makes it harder to track terrorists, pedophiles, and human traffickers.

What is the Earn It act?

The Earn It Act is meant to incentivize companies to “earn” liability protection for violations of laws related to online child sexual abuse material (CSAM) found on their platform. To gain protection, they must allow law enforcement access to content to the extent proposed by a 16-person commission. They may recommend content scanning to identify abusive content, communication surveillance to watch suspected predators or anything in between. This reverses the previous protections provided to messaging platforms through Section 230 from liability for any data sent that they did not say themselves.

What are the implications?

The bill at its worst would allow unaccountable commissioners to set practice requirements that make it illegal for online service providers to provide end-to-end encryption, which is used primarily to protect users from hackers and criminals. Many worry that the bill would work as a black box, where the data scanned for would range from CSAM to political dissidents or LGBTQIA+ members, depending on the government’s goal. At its best, it would be used to track illegal activity and stop it before it occurs.

What can I do?

This is a very dividing bill. Regardless of your opinion, call your representatives to let them know what you believe. Cosponsors include representatives from Alabama, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.

Read the bill HERE. SOURCE2. SOURCE3.