involve some risk of failure, but they also offer hope of large benefits. For every ex-offender who successfully reintegrates into the world of work, there is one less potential recidivist consuming expensive criminal justice and corrections resources. For this reason alone, the “ban the box” campaign is good news. In the best American tradition, it represents voluntary action at the grass roots level. It does not involve costly regulation and enforcement. It constitutes a creative experiment Criminal Justice System xxxxxxx CJA/204 January xxth, xxxx xxxxxxxx Criminal Justice System The criminal justice system is one of the most important tools available to a society to help control and prevent anti-social behavior. The structure of the criminal justice system is split between the police departments, courts, and corrections. Each component of the criminal justice system plays a part in an individual’s experience with the criminal justice system. There are different theories Words: 1568 - Pages: 7 The Criminal justice process has many functions. The first function that is in the criminal justice process is investigation. The purpose of the criminal investigation is to gather evidence to identify a suspect and support an arrest. An investigator may require a search, an inspection of a person or property. There is also in probable cause it is the standard of proof required for a search. Probable cause means that there are facts or apparent facts that indicate that evidence of a Words: 1007 - Pages: 5 Words: 3060 - Pages: 13 Words: 1139 - Pages: 5 Words: 403 - Pages: 2 Words: 729 - Pages: 3 Words: 376 - Pages: 2 Words: 680 - Pages: 3 comfort the victims were imperceptible and irrelevant. Outraged citizens wanted the death penalty. A profiler was brought in who swore under oath that the likely perpetrator was “a black teenager.” Taylor was convicted by an all-white jury and sentenced to multiple life sentences, ensuring he would die in prison. Fortunately, the Arizona Justice Project recently took up the case. New research from the National Academy of Science proved there was no evidence of arson in the fire. Wrongly Work within a criminal Justice environment Major research assignment Maddison Brand 5/7/2014 1. Provide a working definition of crime. What are the main causes of crime in society? In the answer include psychological and socio economic causes of crime. Crime is defined as an offence against society; conduct is an act or omission considered to be a harmful offence, injurious or unacceptable to the community. Crime can be classified into two different avenues. Summary which is Words: 452 - Pages: 2 Trevor Gibby Sept. 5,2014 Justice in a Small Town In Harper Lee’s “To kill a Mockingbird”, writes of small southern community and the lives its citizens; who are depicted are fair but are exposed as racist and unjust. Early on, Atticus is depicted as a fair and honest person and is the only character to remain mostly unchanged though out the novel. Miss Maudie states “He is the same in his house as he is on the public streets” (pg. 87). Atticus is centered on justice, equality and his Social Justice 2. Substance abuse is acceptable: drinking alcohol, taking drugs, and especially selling them is portrayed as an acceptable way of life, and a successful way to make you more money than anything. Popular rappers make teenagers feel their lives aren't complete without expensive cars and countless bunches of girls open to and willing to carry through with any of their intentions. They strengthen the already existing idea that women are property and have influenced women to Part I The Association that I chose was The Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS). The Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS) was founded in 1963 to foster professionalism in the criminal justice system by advancing the quality of education and research programs in the field. The academy seeks to enrich education and research programs in institutions of higher learning, criminal justice agencies, and agencies in related fields by improving cooperation and communication, by serving Keyona Richardson CJ 1107 On February 29th Louisiana State University of Eunice had a criminal justice career fair; which consisted of various police academies, such as Opelousas Police Department, St. Landry Parish Police Department, Fire Marshal, etc. Opelousas Police Department taught me a lot of things that I need to know in order to become part of their team. In order to work for the police department you have to at least have a high school diploma or GED to start. The salary Ethics In Criminal Justice Current Date: 6 March 2013 Ethical Dilemma 1: Gun Rally I would support the right of the group to assemble and to recognize peacefully their 2nd Amendment rights. As long as they are not hindering businesses in their daily activities, harassing customers or bystanders and definitely not exceeding the noise ordinances for the city and surrounding area. The area where they assemble should be a public area but the size and capacity of the meeting area needs to be According to the principle of equity, a fair economic system is one that distributes goods to individuals in proportion to their input. While input typically comes in the form of productivity, ability or talent might also play a role. People who produce more or better products. either by working harder, or by being more talented, this argument goes, should be paid more for their efforts than should people who produce less. Note that this sort of distribution may not succeed in meeting the needs of all members of society. Use the following to cite this article: Some have suggested that equity, equality, and need are not principles adopted for their own sake, but rather ones endorsed to advance some social goal.[5] For example, while equity tends to foster productivity, principles of equality and need tend to stress the importance of positive interpersonal relationships and a sense of belonging among society members. An unbiased, universally applied procedure, whether it serves to distribute wealth or deliver decisions, can ensure impartiality as well as consistency. The principle of consistency proposes that "the distinction of some versus others should reflect genuine aspects of personal identity rather than extraneous features of the differentiating mechanism itself."[7] In other words, the institutional mechanism in question should treat like cases alike and ensure a level playing field for all parties. It may seem to be a simple matter of common sense that justice is central to any well-functioning society. However, the question of what justice is, exactly, and how it is achieved are more difficult matters. The principles of justice and fairness point to ideas of fair treatment and "fair play" that should govern all modes of exchange and interaction in a society. They serve as guidelines for carrying out justice. Beyond Intractability Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Beyond Intractability, the Conflict Information Consortium, or the University of Colorado. The principles of justice and fairness can be thought of as rules of "fair play" for issues of social justice. Whether they turn out to be grounded in universal laws or ones that are more context-bound, these principles determine the way in which the various types of justice are carried out. For example, principles of distributive justice determine what counts as a "fair share" of particular good, while principles of retributive or restorative justice shape our response to activity that violates a society's rules of "fair play." Social justice requires both that the rules be fair, and also that people play by the rules. In addition, we can also understand conflict in terms of tension that arises between the different justice principles. Conflict about what is just might be expressed as conflict about which principle of justice should be applied in a given situation or how that principle should be implemented.[11] The ways of thinking about justice can have conflicting implications, leading to disputes about fairness. For example, some believe that an equitable distribution is the most fair, while others insist that a society's assets should be allocated according to need. A conflict may thus arise surrounding whether to base an economic system on productivity (those who work hardest should earn the most), identity (the rich are "job makers" and thus should get richer) or social welfare (the poor need help more, so the rich should get taxed to help raise the income of the poor). Similarly, some believe that those who violate the rights of others should receive their just deserts (paying a fine or going to prison), while others believe that our focus should be on the needs of victims and offenders (which can be protected through a restorative justice system). In addition, the idea that justice requires the unequal treatment of unequals is in tension with the principle of equality. This principle of egalitarianism suggests that the fairest allocation is one that distributes benefits and burdens equally among all parties. If there are profits of $100,000, and 10 people in the company, the principle of equality would suggest that everyone would get $10,000. This principle, however buy a dissertation online writers, ignores differences in effort, talent, and productivity. Also, because people have different needs, an equal initial distribution may not result in an equal outcome. [3] Tom R. Tyler and Maura A. Belliveau, "Tradeoffs in Justice Principles: Definitions of Fairness," in Conflict, Cooperation, and Justice. ed. Barbara B. Bunker and Jeffrey Z. Rubin, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers, 1995), 291. <http://www.amazon.com/Conflict-Cooperation-Justice-Inspired-Deutsch/dp/0787900699 >. The way, or dispensation of God referred to here, is that the children should not bear the iniquities of the fathers, that the soul which sinned alone should die, and that God has not any pleasure at all that the wicked should die, but rather that they should turn from their evil ways and live. Are not my ways equal? Am not I just? when, instead of pu|nishing one for the iniquities of another, or rigo|rously marking every iniquity committed against my authority, I am even willing to pardon all the transgressions college application essay services, however enormous and inexcusable, of the truly penitent. But, as full a proof as can be given, that no implacability is to be included in our ideas of the divine justice, is to be drawn from the directions that are given us for our own con|duct. We learn, then, that to please God, we must not only do justly, but likewise love mercy, and exercise forgiveness. Now, here it is evident, that if, to do justly, was to punish with rigour every offence committed against us, then, if we would please God by doing justly, we could cxercise no mercy or forgiveness. Doing justly, therefore, can only signify, that we do no violence ourselves, that we should deprive no fellow-creatures of their rights and privileges, but do unto all others as we would that they should do unto us. And, in this light we are to view the divine justice; it is slow to wrath, Page 21 and keepeth the door of mercy for ever open to the penitent. Justice, in the distribution of gifts or rewards, can only consider the worthiness or unworthiness of any par|ticular person, cannot respect any one man in pre|ference to any other man of exactly the same pre|tensions to favour. In the court of justice, the rich and the poor, the bond and the free, the prince and the peasant, must be upon the same common level. In the court of justice, there can be no taking of bribes, nor distinction of country brainstorm for essay writing, fect, or party. And, here, the good that we would have done but could not. must set us in the same light with those, who had the opportunity and abi|lity, as well as the will to do the same good. God, therefore as a just being▪ can have no favou|rites among his children, independently of their devotedness to his service. He cannot respect their persons, nor be biassed by pompous appear|ances: but as he has made of one blood all nations of men to dwell upon the face of the whole earth, Page 13 whether you be Jew or Greek, ruler or subject, master or servant, born in the first or in the last ages of the world, it makes no difference in his eye. The only difference that he can make must arise from the different circumstances in which mankind have been placed. But, this difference he must make as no respecter of persons. He can|not require brick where there was no straw. He can only require a benevolent heart, where there is neither silver nor gold: and, he cannot judge those by the law, who had not the law, nor those by the gospel who had not the gospel. Where he has given ten talents, though there he must be ex|pected to look for the improvement of ten; yet, where he has given only five talents how to write a university personal statement, he can only look for the improvement of five; and, where he has given only two talents, he can only look for the improvement of two. In short, the equally, sincere and upright in his service, all the advan|tages or disadvantages of their situation being con|sidered, must be equally acceptable with him, and equally rewarded by him. This is obvious, at first view: for, strict justice can never exceed in its sentence the proportion of guilt in any offender. God, therefore, as a just being, cannot punish us for what we could not do, nor for what we could not avoid doing, nor for any iniquities of others, to which we were no way accessary, nor consenting. On the contrary, as the most just of all beings, he may be long-suffering towards us, and delay his judgments until the ruin of the inno|cent would be the consequence of any farther de|lay; and, as the most holy of all beings, he may likewise graciously accept the returning penitent. How infinitely injurious is it to his justice, there|fore, even to insinuate, that he will inflict endless Page 11 torments upon a very great majority of his crea|tures, for a crime that was committed before they existed, six thousand years before many of them existed, and that there are millions of infants in hell not a span long? I cannot so much as mention this doctrine of devils without the utmost horror. Nor should I mention it at all, it reflects such dishonour and reproach upon the children of men, to suppose that any individual of them is capable of believing it, was it not known that there are still some who zealously maintain and propagate it. Let such en|joy their sentiments, if they can. But, while rea|son and revelation have any influence upon the human mind, their God will be considered as a fictitious being, the work of a bewildered imagina|tion, and as such will be discarded out of the world. He will judge the world in righteousness, and the people with equity. When this grand and important day arrives, salvation and glory, and honour and power, shall be ascribed unto the Lord our God, for his true and righteous judgments; and, it will then be found, beyond all question free essays on history of psychology, I dare say write comparison essay, that God inflicteth punishment even upon the incor|rigibly wicked, not because his justice cannot par|don, but because mercy to the universe renders their punishment necessary, and because too, per|haps, there can be no way teach critical thinking in math, consistent with infinite wisdom, of making the wicked happy. Besides, God, in punishing the wicked, will eminently dis|play his justice, in proportioning the punishment of every particular criminal, to his lesser or greater degree of impenitency and hardness of heart. Those, that have sinned without law, shall also perish without law; and while some are beaten Page 22 with many stripes, others, comparatively speaking, shall be beaten with few stripes. Here, the line of justice is exactly drawn. And it has not, we see, the least respect to any kind of implacability in the Divine Mind, nor does it suppose that God cannot freely pardon the truly penitent, in perfect consis|tency with the full exercise of his justice, but is wholly confined to this rule, that God will make a proper distinction between the righteous and the wicked, and that he will punish none more than their iniquities deserve. In other words, the Jus|tice of God signifies that he is a being of absolute and unchangeable rectitude, and that there is not the most distant shadow of any kind of injustice with him; or, as Moses describes him, cloathed with this attribute, that, he is the rock, his work is perfect; for all his ways are judgment; a God of truth, and without iniquity, just and right is he. But here it should be particularly observed, (when we say that the Justice of God signifies that there is no injustice with him) that forgiveness of sin is not to be included in our idea of injustice: for, if it was, what should become of the whole universe of dependant beings? God chargeth his very an|gels with folly; and as to the rational beings in this world, what man is he, that liveth and sinneth not? If God was, therefore, strict to mark our iniqui|ties, or if his justice and pardoning mercy were at variance, misery must inevitably be the portion Page 9 of the whole human race. But, it is our comfort, that God is not strict to mark our iniquities, that he delighteth not in the death of a sinner, that he is gracious, forbearing, and long-suffering towards us, and not willing that any should perish. It is our comfort that his justice is in no respect repug|nant to his goodness, that his justice freely admit|teth of the infinite riches of his grace, that his jus|tice does not at all imply, that he is an inflexibly ri|gorous judge, but only, that, The Justice of God implies, that he will make a proper distinction between the righteous and the wicked. Again, the Psalmist says, that the wicked frequently bear rule in this life, Page 24 and that their eyes stand out with fatness; while the righteous are afflicted, and mourn, and some|times go down to the grave, labouring under the rod of oppression and sorrow. Because God is LORD of all, it maketh him to be gracious to all. The Justice of God implies, that, he will not punish the wicked more than their iniquities deserve. there was no for|giveness with him, without an equivalent satis|faction. In the first place then, goodness implies, it is well known, that benefits are bestowed without the prospect of any return. But rigour implies, as the proverb goes, that nothing is done for nothing. Again, the goodness of God implies, that he is not strict to mark our iniquities. But rigour, if this could be supposed to be one of his attributes, must make him punish, with exact weight and measure, every failing, not excepting the smallest, of which any being is guilty. Hence, then, it is obvious, that those who understand, by the justice of God, his unchangeable disposition not to pardon the least violation of his laws, without an equivalent satisfaction, inasmuch as they thus declare, that Page 4 there is no forgiveness with him, expressly de|clare, at the same time, that he is neither mer|ciful, nor good. Nor do they at all alter the case, by supposing that he will accept that debt from another, which the delinquent himself is not able to pay; for, this is still supposing, that there is no forgiveness with him example personal statement for scholarship, or that there is no goodness with him, for a good being must have forgiveness in himself. Accordingly, we never ascribe for|giveness, or goodness, to the man, who insists upon the whole of his debt, and who will never be satisfied until the whole is paid, though he should consent. at the same time, to accept this debt from another besides the person who owes it; for, by accepting it even from another, he has all he could demand, and all he could form any pre|tensions to have a right to receive. Nor do we ever ascribe any merit or praise to such a man; these are due only to him who paid the debt, not at all to him who received it to the full, though from the hand of a third person: Surely, then how to write a personal statement for college, we cannot compare the ever blessed God to such a man; we cannot divest him of goodness; we cannot represent him in a light that would fix a reproach upon any of his imperfect creatures. We cannot suppose, that there is any goodness or mercy in the universe, if not with him, the foun|tain of the whole. We cannot suppose, that any of his creatures are more benevolently dis|posed than the great Creator. We must suppose that, if there be any love, any tenderness, or com|passion, in any being whatever, these must reside, in their infinite fullness, in the Almighty and ever|lasting God. Rigour, therefore, cannot be one of his attributes. His justice must be such, as ren|ders him the object of our most delightful con|templations, Page 5 and as is consistent, therefore, with all his other most glorious perfections. This, I shall now endeavour to shew, is not only the doc|trine of reason, but is likewise deducible from the whole volume of scripture. God is not unrighteous to forget your labour of love; With the judg|ment they judge, they shall be judged; and with the measure they mete, it shall be measured to them again. says the Psalmist, not meaning with rigour, but without injustice; Having thus endeavoured to give the reader right apprehensions of the divine justice, and such as represent the great God to us, not in a forbid|ding, but in an amiable and endearing light, I shall now proceed to shew that the justice of God is, and must be such as I have here described it. Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also the God of the Gentiles? Yea, of the Gentiles also. Abraham drew near and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy, and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? That be far from thee, to do after this manner: and, that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee. Shall not the judge of all the earth do right? To this purpose, then, a fine field for satisfying all our enquiries is opened to us in the eighteenth chapter of the book of Genesis, which, from the twentieth to the end of the thirty-second verse, ex|pressly treats of the justice of God. The LORD said, to Abraham, because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great college application report writing, and their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me, and if not, I will know * .— And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righ|teous with the wicked? Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt Thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? That be far from Thee, to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: SHALL NOT THE JUDGE OF ALL THE EARTH DO RIGHT? And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes. And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the LORD, who am but dust and ashes. Peradventure, there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it. And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's Page 6 sake. And he said unto him, O let not the LORD be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it if I find thirty there. And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the LORD: Per|adventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake. And he said, Oh let not the LORD be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake. He accepteth not the persons of princes, nor re gardeth the rich more than the poor, signi|fying, that after God has encouraged us, by a pa|tient continuance in well doing, to seek for glory, honour, and immortality, he cannot, consistently with his justice, disappoint the hopes of his faithful servants. Let us think of this; and as we know not what a day or a night may bring forth, let us now, in the accepted time, seek the Lord while he may be found, desire his favour better than life, and run with pleasure in the way of all his commandments; that we may hereafter receive those crowns which Page 31 he has promised and prepared for those that love him, that we may drink for ever at the river of his pleasure. Again, that the Justice of God implies, that he will fulfil those expectations which he has raised in his crea|tures, is likewise expressly asserted in the scrip|tures. and he shall judge the world in righteousness, This I shall, first, endeavour to shew, upon the principles of reason, from his other perfections; and, secondly, from the scriptural account of his dealings with the children of men. Where he signifies, that the glory of his justice, consists in kindness and compassions, and in applying every reasonable means that can be offered for the reco|very and salvation of his back-sliding people. Words cannot more strongly express this sentiment than we find it in Ezekiel xviii. 25. The LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, Is it good unto thee, Who decides whether a he is just or not? Moderation: It is one of the virtues that Plato defines. According to him, moderation is the control of certain kinds of pleasures and desires. Moderation seems like a kind of harmony. It is located in ruler and the ruled both. They have the common belief about who should rule the country. (Plato, Republic,430e) In Plato's Republic we see that he created a best city possible and the nature of this city include four virtues. These virtues are wisdom, moderation, courage and justice. Rulers of the city, the philosopher kings, must be virtuous. Their soul should be ruled by its rational part. In republic Plato defines the types of good. According to Philosopher kings, best good should be the types of good which we welcome, not because we desire what comes from it, but because we welcome it for its own sake. Rulers should moderate parts of their soul. Who can truly decide the natural occupation of every single individual and the classes that they placed in? Justice in the individual, as the city, based on the correct relationship among parts, that each part taking appropriate roles. In the individual, the parts are not classes of the society. They are aspects of the human soul. In order to make justice parallel between individual and the city, Socrates shows that there are three parts of the human soul in the individual. He identifies a rational part of the soul that seeks after truth, a spirited part of the soul that seeks after honor and appetitive part of the soul that seeks after everything else, such food, drink, sex and money.(Plato, Republic 440a-441e). According to Plato, in a just person, the rational part of the soul should rule the other parts and with the help of spirited part, they keep appetitive part in line. Plato describes philosopher kings as "those who love the sight of the truth" (Plato, Republic 475c), then he supports his idea with the ship and the captain analogy. (Plato, Republic 488b-e) .We see there, according to him, sailing is not a thing that everyone is qualified to practice by nature. And in the cave analogy (Plato, Republic 514) Plato attempts to show the philosopher's place in society as king. He asserts that educational system should have steps and everyone should take these steps by their nature allows. Only true philosophers, who are ruled only by their rational parts, are able to take the final step. Plato claims that the philosopher is the only person that able to realise the form of the good. Since the philosopher is the only one able to realise what is truly good, and only he can reach the last step. only he is fit to rule society. He defines what is truly good in book II with the help of Glaucon's introduction of three types of good. Glaucan points out first type of good as where the good is welcomed in itself, like the emotion of joy. Second where the good is welcomed both because of itself and the effects it brings, like seeing and being healthy and third as where the good yields a beneficial result but isn't appreciated for their its sake. such as taking some kinds of medicine.(Plato essay on genocide, Republic 357). According Socrates, best good is the first one that Glaucan defined. So philosopher-kings, who rule not for their personal enjoyment but for the good of the city, are true rulers. Hence ruling the state will not corrupt the soul of the philosopher king. It seems unreasonable to insist that we remain on a stable path throughout our lives and surely we should be given a variety of occupations from which to choose. Plato claims that they select the guardians because they had the proper nature and upbringing. (430b). He then declares they inculcate ideas to this class of people to change their belief about what they should fear and not. This is not education but indoctrination. In such a case we cannot talk about free will or the justice. Plato considers education to be of supreme importance and is to be fully under the control of the Guardians of the state. This makes it to be what the guardians want it to be and no one dare question that. We could hardly call it education if it corrupted them. No educated person wants absolute power over others. Educated people know their own faults and failings and would abstain from this despotism. I will argue that ruling the state will corrupt the soul of the philosopher king. Even in the ruler class there are some desires which cannot be controlled at all times. Ruler is the law-maker so he has the power in the society. How and who decides that philosopher kings are wise people? Ideal city that Socrates established cannot put into practice because it is against the human nature. He argued that building a just city is not to make any one group happy at the expense of any other group, but to make the city as a whole as happy as it can be. People in society has mixed nature, does not act with the whole three parts of their soul nor with the only part of their soul in each case. However nesting individuals to classes is a kind of way to sacrifice them. Individual and the society should be there for each other's benefits. Therefore individual should not be sacrificed by the society itself. A society which determines occupation of the citizens without considering their free will, will not be a just society. Placing citizens into classes and assuming these classes of people to have one of the virtue defined by Plato is utopian. An important part of social justice education is to trust that students are able to evaluate the information we provide and use it in a way that is valid, realistic and relevant to their own lives. Because students are able to come up with so many unique and creative ways to address injustices in their interpersonal and professional lives, professors should not provide answers, but rather should pose questions to help students recognize the real challenges in our society. We can encourage them to critically evaluate their own views and the views of others and provide them with a range of interventions and interpersonal skills that they can then use to confront a range of social problems and issues in their own ways. We also need to recognize that this is hard, risky work. In response to these questions, I started a series of studies to investigate how students understood social justice and how, if at all, they were learning about our social justice message and integrating it into their own lives. What did all of this talk of social justice mean to the students? And, how could we, as educators, facilitate the goals of students who had the sincere desire to promote social justice, but who also had the notion that it was too hard, impractical, unrealistic or idealistic? As an educator, I had a personal stake in these questions. I wanted to know if integrating social justice concerns into my classes was actually making a difference in how students viewed themselves, their communities, and their own personal and professional actions. In other words, were we living up to the Roosevelt University mission of educating “socially conscious citizens”? Does talking about social justice make a difference, or is it all a lot of feel-good talk that is disconnected from reality? They tended to describe social justice as addressing injustices in equality and promoting opportunity, rights, fairness and acceptance of everyone, including people from diverse backgrounds. What was most impressive to me was the creativity displayed by students as they sought to promote social justice, as well as the diversity of issues addressed by their actions. Many students reported participating in marches, protests and other direct social actions for economic or racial change. One participant was working to promote social justice by acting in a short film that aimed to foster acceptance of LGBTQ youth during the coming out process. Some students were using a social justice approach when providing clinical services to children with developmental disabilities. A few reported that they were engaged in youth mentoring or were working on behalf of youth within the juvenile justice system. Others were working to promote racial justice, women’s empowerment and awareness around diversity-related justice. Still others described being LGBTQ allies or serving as advocates for women who have endured domestic and sexual violence. We also had students who volunteered at community or religious organizations to help individuals around issues of poverty and food security. Students who respected the social justice mission were much more likely to state that they intended to work for social justice in the future and felt that they possessed the skills to effect positive change. These students were also more likely to report having engaged in social activism, talk about social justice issues with family and friends and personally identify as social activists. It seems that Roosevelt’s social justice mission influenced students by impacting both positive attitudes toward social justice and facilitating the integration of social justice concerns into their personal and professional lives. Feeling a part of the Roosevelt community mattered because it allowed them to share in this core community value. The second study that my research team and I conducted focused on the role of the University mission in promoting positive attitudes toward social justice. I wanted to understand whether students who felt more involved at the University and agreed with its mission were in fact more likely to engage in social activism. Interestingly, I found that students who reported having a high sense of community—that is, feeling as if they belonged to the “Roosevelt family”—said they valued the social justice mission more. A significant number of students indicated that they spoke with family or friends about these issues. I think that these kinds of actions are more quiet forms of activism. Discussing issues of social justice with significant others might have the impact of changing attitudes or gaining support from them. In turn, this might ultimately increase awareness of social issues and might influence others to take action in some way in their own lives.
0 Commentaires
Laisser une réponse. |