Weber Writes 2010 Weber Writes 2010 I 2
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1 Weber Writes 2010 2 Weber Writes 2010 i Table of Contents Foreword .............................................................................................ii Research and Argument .................................................................1 Maryam Ahmad, “France’s War on Religious Garb” .............3 Liz Borg, “When it Comes to Sex and Jr.” ..............................9 Brandi Christensen, “Communism and Civil War”............. 13 Casey Crossley, “Integrity Deficit: The Scarcity of Honor in Cable News” .................................................... 18 Chris Cullen, “The Power of Misconception” .................... 28 Chase Dickinson, “Are Kids on a One-Way Path to Violence?” ............................................................ 35 Melissa Healy, “Lessons from a Lionfish”............................ 39 Feliciana Lopez, “The Low Cost of Always Low Prices” .......................................................... 43 Sarah Lundquist, “Women in the Military: The Army Combat Exclusion” ............................................... 48 Jamie Baer Mercado, “Radical or Rational?” ........................ 57 Olivia Newman, “Science Friction” ...................................... 63 Jason Nightengale, “Cheating and Steroids” ........................ 68 Paulette Padilla, “Grotesque Entertainment: Should It Be Legal?” ........................................................ 76 Dolly Palmer, “The Social and Physiological Separation of Space” ....................................................... 82 Michael Porter, “Are Video Games Addictive, Or Is Blaming Them?” .................................................... 88 Kyle Rollins, “Utah’s Red Rock: A Natural Legacy” ........... 98 Michael Young, “Disembodiment and Disenchantment: Disconnection and Society’s Problems” ..................... 107 Literary Analysis .......................................................................... 112 Jomar Giner, “A Puritan Prison” ......................................... 113 Micah Hassett, “The Beauty of Silence: An Introspective Look at Ray Bradbury’s ‘The Murderer’” ................... 117 Editors: Scott Rogers, Sylvia Newman Anthony Tran, “Tom Sawyer: A Look Into the View Copyright © 2010 is retained by individual authors. of Adolescents and the World Around Them” ......... 122 Lori White, “A Look into Mark Twain’s Art of Satire” .... 127 Printed in the United States of America by Weber State University Printing Services, Ogden, Utah. Personal Essay ............................................................................. 133 Kyle Kapp, “When Scooter Meets Weed-Eater”............... 134 Cover: “Ogden, Utah.” Hollard Photo Co., April 1914. Courtesy of the Library of Congress American Memory Collection. ii Weber Writes 2010 1 Foreword t is with great pleasure that we bring forth the first issue of Weber Writes, an anthology of student writing. The essays Ithat follow were written by students enrolled in Weber State University’s college writing program during the academic year 2009-2010. Participating classes selected the best writing from the semester, and the result is the 22 essays in this anthology, which represent a range of genres that we have grouped simply into three sections: Research and Argument, Literary Analysis, and Personal Response. Research and Argument It is our hope that this anthology will serve at once as a reward for students’ hard work in their college writing courses and as models of excellent student writing in future courses. We could not be more proud of both the students and their instructors. We have made a concerted effort to leave the essays as close to their original form as possible, making only light editorial corrections for general formatting and correcting spelling and typographical errors. Scott Rogers, Director of College Writing Sylvia Newman, Assistant Director of College Writing 2 Weber Writes 2010 France’s War on Religious Garb 3 France’s War on Religious Garb Maryam Ahmad, ENGL 2010 n a rush towards staunch secularization, France has declared war on religious garb. Religious symbols like Jewish skullcaps, Ioversized Christian crosses, and Muslim head-scarves have all been banned from public schools. Although France’s actions of targeting all religious symbols seem fair, I view these bans to be a serious infringement on human civil liberties. A governmental body exerting control over intimate aspects of individual lives, such as religious autonomy, puts cherished freedoms at stake. France’s bans on religious garb have generated much criticism, especially from the United States government and its citizens, who strongly adhere to individualism and an engraved Constitutional belief that government must not meddle with personal issues, particularly religious freedom. In the United States and abroad, however, little has generated the firestorm created by France’s bans on varying degrees of Muslim garb. In 2004, the Muslim female head-covering—or hijab, which covers the hair—was banned from all public schools, along with other religious symbols (“The Taliban”). Now, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has gone further by proposing a ban on face veils worn by some Muslims, stating that they are “unwelcome” in France and a symbol of “subservience” (qtd. in “Sarkozy’s”). Unlike past bans, this proposed ban is specifically targeted towards Muslims. The ban will bar women who wear the veils, the burqa or niqab from certain public services like schools, hospitals and public transportation (“The Taliban”). I spoke with Bushra Roumani, a young Muslim woman living in France, who observes the hijab. Now twenty-one years old, Bushra described when the 2004 ban on religious symbols was implemented. At the time, she was sixteen and had been wearing the hijab for one year. She described the day she had to take off her hijab as “very difficult.” Every day, through tears, she took off her scarf before stepping onto the school property, and at the end of the day she determinedly put it back on. Bushra described feeling “targeted” for her faith, stating, “The ban prevents me from wearing what I believe is modest clothing and this is why it is hard.” Now Bushra is a university student, free to wear the hijab. When I asked her if she believed that France’s actions adequately reflect the will of the French citizenry, she replied with, “No … I have close friends who respect me … We have a strong friendship. France has the largest 4 Weber Writes 2010 France’s War on Religious Garb 5 Muslim population in Western Europe and a lot of French citizens who are forced to represents a conundrum. However, painting all know Muslims and are not fearful of us. The language from the women who wear the burqa or niqab as oppressed does not solve the French Parliament is harshly spoken but a lot of French citizens are problem. This generalization is the equivalent of its pole opposite: compassionate.” blissfully claiming that oppression does not exist at all. Clearly, Although supporters of the French secularization campaign argue either extreme does not describe reality, as variation exists within the that France’s moves are fair since they target all religious affiliations, Muslim community. Therefore, it is imperative that these variations some critics argue otherwise. For instance, the 2004 ban targeted are recognized for alienation can lead to frustration, yielding not all Christian crosses, but “oversized” crosses (Henley). Such a potentially dangerous consequences. distinction was not made between large hijabs and smaller, more Another argument in support of the proposed ban is that it fitting hijabs, or even extra-conspicuous Jewish skullcaps versus less attempts to assert France’s ideas of secularization “amid fears of obvious caps; any head-covering is prohibited. Some critics go even growing fundamentalism among France’s five million Muslims” further by stating that the secularization taking place has an anti- (Erlanger). However, social psychological research has illustrated a Islamic tint. Not only is clothing worn by many Muslims banned; common reaction to restrictions on freedom: psychological reactance, some are shunned and stigmatized by comments deeming them as or rebellion in the face of a perceived threat (Myers 218). In the case backwards. Such stigmatization hastily generalizes Muslim women as of France, it is not likely that the bans on certain Muslim garb will “subservient” and “oppressed,” greatly undermining the character of drive French Muslims in a more secular direction. On the contrary, the women who willfully choose to adopt such dress. this ban alienates many French Muslims, whether religious, moderate, To the French government’s credit, viewing the burqa or niqab as or secular. Perceiving themselves as the targets of xenophobia, a symbol of oppression is a legitimate concern. After all, when the French Muslims will likely cling more steadfastly to their identity in Taliban ruled Afghanistan, they made the burqa compulsory. That the face of such restrictions on religious liberties. If anything, this said, oppression cannot be ousted with oppression; force in its many ban will only prevent secularization from taking place within the manifestations maintains dangerous ramifications. Sarkozy’s ban is French Muslim community. a symbol of the dangers of reverse oppression via governmental A more reasonable argument that supporters of the ban present mandate, as it infringes on a woman’s right to choose. How many is that of security concerns. Bans on religious garb aside, any garb women