Talent Show Review
The University of Toledo has an annual talent show in essence of raising the spirits of the students during the week leading up to homecoming. The talent show is one of the many events held during this week. The event purpose is to uplift spirits/educate students, unite campus students, entertain, and if the football team wins the game celebrate. I believe the talent show magnifies all three goals: uniting students, uplift in spirit/education, and entertainment.
The talent show is hosted in the auditorium in the student union, a location accessible to all student life. The show allows group performances and individual performances. This gives friends something recreational to do together and the rest of the student body something to attend. Students attended the show with a group of friends, fraternities, or sororities, or alone. The seating arrangements allowed no one to sit allow, therefore if you came alone you may potentially gains friends. The talent show created an environment of fun and laughs for the entire student body, the performers and the audience.
The talent show had many spirit uplifting and educational performances such as a Trayvon Martin tribute, relationship skit/speech, roll call, etc. The Trayvon Martin tribute was educational because it is an event in black history. The tribute told his story through dance and informed those watching that there are many Trayvon Martin’s in the world and that Trayvon Martin lives on through their dance team. Another educational performance was the relationship skit. The skit was performed by a young lady whom told a story about how guy and girls interpret “let’s chill, at 2am”. The young lady spoke to both sexes and explained the importance of respecting each other’s wishes/minds. The instructors used roll call, the calling out of fraternities and sororities whom perform their signature call out, to uplift the students’ spirits. Roll call got everyone spirits up and also magnified the different sororities and fraternities on the university’s campus. They also called out different cities which also got the students shouting, laughing and more engaged.
The instructors of the talent show incorporated various raffles, performances, jokes, and up to date music to heighten entertainment. The instructors performed a series of jokes and a raffle calling every four to five performances. The jokes got the audience involved and laughing and the winner of the raffles received gifts. There were various performances that were entertaining, such as a gentlemen playing the saxophone to the beat of Singer Ciara Body Party record. This made all the ladies sing and dance. Another entertaining performance was a dance battle performed by two random students picked from the audience. This raise spirits tremendously. Overall, the talent show was entertaining because the music was up to date. The music had the students dancing from the beginning to the end. The music along with the performances and jokes allowed the talent show to be a success. The talent show was fun, campus life engaging and entertaining. The talent show was educational as well as recreational. Everyone should attend The University of Toledo annual talent show.
Violation Of Basic Human Rights
For this paper, I will explore the ethical issues in Psychology, more specifically the violation of basic human rights in the example of the Stanford Prison Experiment. The following questions will be addressed: Was the Stanford Prison Experiment worth the consequences it had on the participants? Was it morally right to put the participants in these conditions without their full consent? I will first begin by discussing the experiment and then explain how it was conducted. I will also briefly explain the American Psychological Association guidelines relevant to this example using three of their APA codes: beneficence, autonomy and justice.
Then, I will discuss two contrasting theories, the first will be the theory of utilitarianism and if the consequences of the experiment justify the means; in this experiment it seems that the findings justify the actions that took place. The second theory will focus on the Kantian ethics, more specifically the Categorical Imperative 2 where the experiment will be categorized as morally justified or morally unjustified; it seems that using the Categorical Imperative 2 makes the experiment morally unjustified. Finally, I will present my point of view on the ethics of this experiment, which is derived from both theories such that I believe that the findings of the experiment can morally justify the actions that Zimbardo permitted the prison experiment.
First of all, what are human rights? As stated by Murthy (2010) human rights are: “another basis for making ethical judgments. The most basic human rights are to have claims or entitlements that enable; a person to survive, to make free choices, to realize one’s potential as a human being (a right means that a person or a group is entitled to do something or entitled to be treated in a certain way).” The Stanford Prison Experiment was a violation of human rights because the prisoners’ rights were revoked.
The Stanford Prison experiment took place in 1971 by Professor Philip Zimbardo. This experiment was held at Stanford University. The aim of this study was “to investigate how readily people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a role-playing exercise that simulated prison life (McLeod, 2008).” The men that were chosen to do this experiment went through a series of tests. Zimbardo chose twenty-four participants that were randomly assigned to the role of guard or prisoner. This experiment would last two weeks and each man would be paid 15$ a day. The guards were the first to have a meeting and were told to keep order in the prison. They were also given uniforms and mirror-reflective sunglasses.
The prisoners were, on the other hand, arrested without notice at their home were strip-searched without consent. They were to wear white robes and had a chain to their ankle. Within a very short period of time the participants started to settle into their roles. The guards quickly became more authoritative and also sadistic, they started to harass the prisoners and became very violent. They were enjoying their role of power. The prisoners became more submissive. After thirty-six hours, one prisoner had to leave the institution because he started to “have uncontrollable bursts of screaming, crying and anger; his thinking became disorganized and he appeared to be entering in the early stages of deep depression (McLeod, 2008).” Following this episode, more and more prisoners started to show signs of depression. The experiment that was supposed to last fourteen days ended after six.
The American Psychological Association is the largest organization representing psychology in the United States and Canada (APA, 2013). The mission of these psychologists is to “advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people’s lives (APA, 2013). The APA has a set of five major guidelines in their ethics code, which are: beneficence, fidelity and responsibility, integrity, justice and respect for people’s rights and dignity (autonomy).
In the case of the Stanford Prison Experiment, some of the principles such as beneficence, justice and autonomy were not put into effect. “Beneficence means to maximize benefits and minimize harm (Shaugnessy et al., 2006 quoted by Xavier, 2013).” Zimbardo did not try to minimize harm because although the prisoners were humiliated, in distress and experiencing psychological stress, it took six days for the experiment to shut down. “Justice means fairness in receiving the benefits of research in addition to accepting the risks (Shaugnessy et al., 2006 quoted by Xavier, 2013).” Here justice was not respected because the participants did not consent to the full experiment. They weren’t properly informed about what really was going to take place in the prison and therefore did not make a decision on the entirety of the facts. “Autonomy (or respect for people’s rights and dignity) implying respect for individuals was not present (Shaugnessy et al., 2006 quoted by Xavier, 2013). People’s rights and dignity were not taken into account. The dehumanizing process began at the beginning of the experiment, when prisoners were instructed to strip naked and accelerated from then on.
If this experiment were to be done in today’s society, it would be turned down. “If modern guidelines were followed, the Stanford Prison Experiment would never have been allowed to take place as it would constitute a serious branch of ethics in accordance to the guidelines of the American Psychological Association, not least because of the fact Zimbardo and his fellow researchers failed to respect the rights of their participants by failing to tell them exactly what they were getting themselves in too (Burgemeester, 2011).”
From a Kantian point of view, can we morally justify the actions by Dr. Zimbardo in the Stanford prison experiment? The answer to this question is in Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Kant’s second Categorical Imperative states that “So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never means” which in basic terms means “don’t use people”. It is important to remember that Kant believed that human beings have a special dignity because of their rational nature and that therefore humans deserve a special kind of respect (Van Der Wee, 2013).
When taking the example of the Stanford prison experiment, many of the participants’ human rights were not respected. First of all, the prisoners were arrested at their homes, without notice. They were brought to a police station where they had their fingerprints and photographs taken. They were then blindfolded and driven to the Stanford prison where they were stripped naked and then put in a cell. This is a perfect representation of how the prisoners’ were striped of their rights. They had not in anyway consented to this: “Participants were deceived; an example would be that their consent forms were not complete and did not properly address all that would take place (Shaugnessy et al., 2006 quoted by Xavier, 2013).” After a day in the prison, the participants already started to take their roles more seriously.
The prisoners were more submissive and the guards were more aggressive: “It was not long before the situation rapidly worsened as the behavior of the prison guards became increasingly sadistic and more prisoners succumbed to psychological stress (Burgemeester, 2011).” Prisoners wanted to leave the experiment but weren’t allowed to: “Several of his participants requested withdrawal numerous times, but he discouraged this and almost forced them to carry on (Zuczka, 2012).” Although the experiment was supposed to last fourteen days, it was stopped after six. Many researchers wonder why it was not stopped after the first time a prisoner was beaten.
- Alkadry, M. G., & Witt, M. T. (2009). Abu Ghraib and the Normalization of Torture and Hate. Public Integrity, 11(2), 135-153.
- American Psychologists Association. (n.d.). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. American Psychological Association (APA). Retrieved April 29, 2013, from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx?item=3
- Burgemeester, A. (2011, June 21). What are the Zimbardo Prison Experiment Ethical Issues? | What is Psychology?. What is Psychology? |. Retrieved May 1, 2013, from http://whatispsychology.net/what-are-the-zimbardo-prison-experiment-ethical-issues/
- Cherry, K. (n.d.). The Stanford Prison Experiment – Overview of the Stanford Prison Experiment. Psychology – Complete Guide to Psychology for Students, Educators & Enthusiasts. Retrieved May 1, 2013, from http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/a/stanford-prison-experiment.htm
- Dreifus, C. (2007, April 3). Finding Hope in Knowing the Universal Capacity for Evil. The New York Times, p. 1. Retrieved April 23, 2013, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/science/
- McLeod, S. (2008, January 1). Zimbardo – Stanford Prison Experiment. Simply Psychology – Articles for Students. Retrieved April 29, 2013, from http://www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html
- Murthy, C. S. (2010). Chapter 3: Normative Ethics in Management. Business ethics (Fully rev. ed., pp. 74-79). Mumbai [India: Himalaya Pub. Book. Retrieved April 29, 2013, from http://dc153.dawsoncollege.qc.ca:2440/lib/dawsoncoll/docDetail.action?docID=10415475&p00=business+ethics
- Van Der Wee (Winter 2013) In Class Notes & PowerPoint
- Xavier, R. (2008, January 5). The Stanford Prison Experiment: Exploring the Ethical Issues. Yahoo. Retrieved April 25, 2013, from voices.yahoo.com/the-stanford-prison-experiment-exploring-ethical-563843.html?cat=37
- Zuczka. (2012, February 5). Zimbardo’s prison experiment: do the ends justify the means of the ethical implications? | Psycho4Stats. Psycho4Stats | Because we all love: Psychology Statistics. Retrieved May 1, 2013, from http://zuczka.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/zimbardos-prison-experiment-do-the-ends-justify-the-means-of-the-ethical-implications/
Why So Few Students Read Newspapers?
Do you read newspapers every day? Do you like to read newspapers? When I interviewed some students from Saint Louis University, most of students said no. Why do so few students read newspapers? Some interviewers told me that they prefer to read novels, magazines, books, Twitters, and Facebook news instead of reading newspapers. Some students said they did not have enough time to read a whole newspaper. In addition, some students even said that they did not like to spend money on purchasing newspapers. Also, some students thought newspapers which made from woods are waste of paper and harmful to the environment.
The main reasons why so few students read newspapers are because most students have many other resources to get information, they do not like to harm to the environment, they do not have enough time and they think the cost of newspapers are expensive. One of the main causes why so few students read newspapers are that most students prefer to read other resources than the newspaper. On one hand, the articles in the newspaper might not interest many students. Newspapers always report some current events, policy news which is not very closely related to students’ levies and they might not interest in these kinds of topics.
The style of newspapers’ articles are always serious, concise and not amusing. Most students prefer to read novels, magazines and books which are more interesting to them (Goodbye Newspaper). On the other hand, some students think that reading newspapers are too old school.
They prefer to read some online resources, such as Twitter and Facebook news. For example, many of my friends, including me, we use our cellphones during breakfast. I like to scan the news on my Facebook and Twitter. On my phone, these news are always terse, short and clear; therefore, I can get information quickly. However, the news written down in the newspapers always have long paragraphs. If I try to read the newspaper during breakfast, it will take a lot of time. In addition, online news is more convenient. Students can read online news everywhere and at anytime.
However, if they read the newspaper, it is a little bit complicated. They have to find a newsstand to buy one, take it with them and find a place to sit and read. Another main cause that why so few students read newspapers is that some students are care for the environmental issue. Since newspapers are made from wood, many trees are cut down to made newspapers, this is harmful to environment. Lv, a junior student of Saint Louis University, said she does not read newspaper because she wants to protect the environment. The more students who read newspapers, the more quantity of newspapers will be required, which means the more trees need to be cut under this circumstances.
Trees combat the global warming effects, they clear the air, save water, provide oxygen and help prevent soil erosion (Tree People). “Trees have many benefits to humans, if we cut them in order to make newspaper, it will be a huge mistake. The more people do not purchase newspaper, the fewer trees will be cut”, Lv emotionally said that. Thus, she thought not reading newspapers benefits and protect the environment. “Online news will be better, it does not waste of paper”, she emphasized.
Time issue will be serious to result so few students read newspaper. College students always too busy with their daily schedule, they have a lot of homework to do; therefore, they do not have enough time to finish the whole newspaper. Zhou, a junior student of Saint Louis University, said he had to read many academic books and write book analyzes every semester.
Thus, he did not want to spend time on reading newspaper. In order to know what happened in the world, he likes to read short online reports which can quickly get information. In addition, he said he can read online news by cellphone or laptop when he is in line. But if he read newspaper in line, he said “it will be weird”. Thus, he has to find a place to sit and read the newspaper.
However, he said he did not have enough time to do that every day, “I want to know what are the current events every day, but I have a lot of things to do, such as taking classes, writing papers, doing homework, doing sports and hanging out with friends. I do not want to sit there and read newspaper alone”. Otherwise, some students are not willing to spend their time on reading newspaper, there are too many things can divide students’ attention. For example, they prefer to talk with friends to get information instead of reading newspaper alone. They also prefer use time to play video games, watch TV plays or movie, do sports and hang out with their friends when they are free.
These reasons can tell why students do not have time to read newspaper. Besides, the cost of newspaper is a cause why so few student many newspapers cost fifty cents or one dollar to buy it, but students can read online news for free. Thus, some students are not willing to paying extra money to buy newspapers. Although some students think one dollar is not a large number of money, it will be 365 dollars a year which we can use it to make a different to someone who need help. In conclusion, as modern social medias develop faster, just few students read newspaper. Many students use internet to search information and they think buy newspapers every day is such a money waste. In order to protect the environment and save forest resources, some students rejected to read newspaper.
In addition, science develop very fast in recent society, students need to know information in time. Sometimes, the news written down in the newspaper are not new enough; thus, many students prefer to search news online which can get the newest news immediately and save times. In the future, as the fast society development, the number of students read newspaper might be fewer.
- “Top 22 Benefits of Trees.” Tree People. Web. 7 April. 2013
- Shapiro, Alan. “Goodbye Newspaper.” Teachable Moment. Web. 7 April. 2013
- Lv,Yawei. Personal interview. 26 March. 2013.
- Zhou, Yang. Personal interview. 26 March. 2013.