Gleanings 2014-2015
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
GLEANINGS A Journal of FirstFirst----YearYear Student Writing 20142014----20152015 Arst: Mackenzie L. Cox ’18 SIENA COLLEGE All of the work included in this journal was written by students who were enrolled in Siena’s First Year Seminar in 2014 - 2015. This required course prepares Gleanings: A Journal of First-Year Student Writing Siena College students for the intellectual Volume 5 rigors of college life and beyond 2014 - 2015 by building critical thinking and communication skills as well as by fostering creativity and advocacy. Throughout this two- E D I T O R I A L B O A R D: semester seminar, students are Editors – Britt Haas and Michelle Liptak encouraged to reflect upon and discuss the vast amounts of read- Editorial Committee – Susan Barranca, Britt Haas, Michelle Liptak and Elizabeth Redkey ing and writing that they do both inside and outside the classroom. Siena College is committed to showcasing the intellectual and engaging work being accomplished on its campus, so Correspondence and requests for copies may be Gleanings was created as a means sent to: of celebrating some of the finest Dr. Meg Woolbright and most provocative first-year Director of First Year Seminar student writing completed each Siena College 515 Loudon Road year. Loudonville, NY 12211 * * * * * * mwoolbright@siena.edu While editorial changes have been made to these works-in- progress, they were kept to a minimum in order to preserve the authentic voices of the student authors as well as the integrity of the assignments. Table of Contents 1 Women and War - Caroline L. Bablin 3 Don’t Stop the Music - Sara K. Barton 7 Bruce Wayne: Enemy-centered to Principle-centered – Tia M. Brown 9 Heating Up Illness: Climate Change and its Effects on the Rate of Infectious Disease Kathryn M. Burke 14 Head Trauma from Playing Football and the Liability of the NFL – Cheryl A. Clemens 19 Carving Imprints: An Exploration of Heritage – Erin B. Colligan 22 Food for the Right Reason – Chad M. Dashnaw 25 My Experience with Hudson Link – Zachary T. Farina 27 Alternatives to Incarceration – Nicholas J. Grammatica 30 America’s Shame: Central American Child Migrants – Pamela Harrison 35 The Myth of War – Kaela P. Mahoney 37 Be Good. Then Better. – Lauren E. McGrath 39 Promoting Normality Means Opposing Diversity – Jazmin A. Melendez 42 December 31, 2012 – Mitchel J. Miculcy 44 Keeping Earth in the Fastlane: NASCAR’s Reputation and the Environment Taylor F. O’Connor 47 Boxing: The Physical Embodiment of Life’s Struggle – Gerard Cassidy Palladino 49 The Second Sphere – Stephen M. Pendergast 54 The Power of Personal Narrative: Esther Bauer’s Story of Survival – Amanda J. Pra Sisto 55 I, Not Robot – Joseph K. Pugh 59 Our Inevitable Fate – Matthew I. Rebel 64 Interpreter Needed – Elizabeth Smith 66 To the Slaughterhouse We Go – Padmaja Sundaram 69 The Rise of Cyber Warfare – Samantha A. Tighe 72 How Much Privacy Do We Really Have? – Logan D. Touse 76 Proactivity Leads to Success – Madisen K. Wicker 79 The Misogyny of War – Elizabeth Wickham 81 The Cold Soup of Guilt – Mary E. Zick For this assignment, students were asked to think about the role of women in war and construct an argument about this topic using the readings assigned in the Diversity Unit. In addition to effectively using her sources to develop her points, this writer adroitly plants a naysayer in the final body paragraph, thereby strengthening her own argument. Women and War By Caroline L. Bablin (Prof. M. Woolbright - “War”) War has always been linked to men. It was men, perceived to be the stronger, more cunning, and more aggressive of the two sexes, who went to war while women, seen as peaceful, innocent, and nurturing, stayed at home. Society has created these caricatures of men and women, and only recently have we mildly strayed from them. It is important to realize that women are capable of possessing more than these presumed characteristics and can focus on the job that needs to be done. It is equally important to recognize the benefits that these natural traits can bring to a military setting. By failing to view women differently from how society projects them and being unaccepting of them in our military, we are hindering our military’s growth and its strength. Although America’s military is currently the strongest and most powerful in the world, this strength could be even greater with the full assimilation of women. If accepted into all roles in the military, women’s innate qualities of being nurturing and compassionate, together with their ability to put these qualities aside, will make the military, as a whole, stronger. There is no doubt that both men and women actually embody some of the traits society habitually has assigned to them. Women generally tend to be more nurturing than men, and this is not at all a negative thing. Women have been shown to be able to connect with others easily. In fact, women’s natural instinct to attend to another’s need and be supportive has been shown to be an advantage in the military. In Band of Sisters , Kirsten Holmstedt recounts Marine Lance Corporal Carrie Blais’s meetings with Iraqis when Blais and another Marine, Priscilla Kispetik, seemed to instill less fear within their enemy. The Iraqis were less tense when interacting with the women than with the men. This is seen when Holmstedt says of Blais’s and Kispetik’s encounters with Iraqis that “the mood of the house changed; the tension eased. They were happy to see the women” (10). Surely, it was easier to finish the required task when the Iraqis were calm rather than nervous and on edge. Despite such occurrences, women are still not received well by their fellow male soldiers in combat situations. Men, according to Peggy McIntosh, who works in the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women, have an “unearned advantage” in society, which can also be applied to a military setting (78). Men enjoy the control they have in the military and do not want women to undermine that because, as McIntosh explains, “Power from unearned privilege can look like strength when it is, in fact, permission to escape or domi- nate” (78). In other words, men are aware of the beneficial qualities women possess but are wary that their full integration into the military will result in the men’s own power being lessened. There is no proof that allowing women more opportunities would create chaos and disorder; it would only allegedly weaken men’s power. Yet, even if the acceptance and integration of women did lessen men’s power and control, it would still give the military, on the whole, more strength, which is surely something we should strive for. Although women tend to be more nurturing, they are fully able to put their nurturing tendencies aside and focus on the task at hand, no matter the consequences. Being nurturing and compassionate does not at all mean women are irrational, crazed, or hysterical; they are fully capable of being calm and collected. This composed behavior was evident in the interaction between Blais and the Iraqis. Holmstedt explains that “Blais was happy that her presence calmed her enemy, but she was also there to do a job,” which shows that women in the military take their tasks just as seriously as men do and do whatever it takes to complete a mission (10). This is also seen through Robin Brown’s experience when her Kiowa Warrior helicopter was shot down. Women are capable of being calm and collected in extremely intense and dangerous situations. Brown was able to land her helicopter safely after it was hit due to her composure and her putting aside all fear. Reflecting back on the event, Brown said that she “was proud [she] had remained calm and rational” (Holmstedt 42). 1 Although more nurturing, women, like men, are capable of acting rationally. In fact, sometimes it is actually men who break down. For example, when Army Specialist Rachelle Spors was severely injured following the explosion of an Improvised Explosive Device (IED), it was her boyfriend, Navy corpsman Aswald Hooker, who froze up. He was, as Holmstedt recounts, “at a loss for what to do. Intellectually, he knew exactly what to do. But his hands and fingers wouldn’t move. All he could do was kneel down beside Spors and hold her hand,” which goes to show men can break down when women do not (70). Perhaps not all women are able to be composed in tense situations, but many can be. Therefore, women should be given fair and equal opportunities to serve in the military, ultimately making it stronger. There are those, such as Kathleen Parker, a nationally syndicated columnist, who are against the idea of women being allowed in combat at all. Simply stated, Parker claims women are unequal to men when it comes to combat and that is the way it should stay. Women’s biological differences generally do not allow them to perform to the same physical standards as men, and we should not try to come up with separate standards or ones that are gender neutral, according to Parker. This, however, is not true for all women. One such woman is Marine Captain Vernice Armour, whose dedication to her personal strength and fitness resulted in her superiors naming her “Strongest Warrior at Camp Pendleton,” an honor that could have been given to a male, but was not (Holmstedt 157). There are women who can and do perform at and even exceed the same standards as men, and therefore women should be given the opportunity to serve their country as they please, especially since it is not just brute physical strength that makes a military strong.