ARE YOU DISCONTENT?
            IS KENT GIVING YOU AN ATTITUDE?

Well, cheer up - things will get worse, but, in the meantime, vent your problems through Points For Progress.

Send Dr Jack your opinions on the university, Dr Jack's Loft,  scheduling problems, drug problems, how life around  the university could be improved or just things that are bothersome. Send an e-mail to jveav@aol.com and it will be anonymously published (as long as it is not something really silly). Dr Jack will comment and  readers may e-mail a response. Although E-mail contains identifying information, your published opinion will be totally confidential - no names or identity clues will ever be revealed. This is a good chance for students to have a real voice in the university, not through do-nothing committees, but actually out in the open for all to see and offer a comment. Several students with good ideas has to be taken very seriously by instructors and administrators - at the least, a response is guaranteed. Let's see what you're thinking!
LOFT CAMPUS INTERVIEWS

(This site is not sponsored by Kent State University and in no way reflects official policies or opinions of the University and its representatives.)

 Fall 2009

Received 9.27.2009  "...The main problem I have with Kent State is scheduling.... I find it difficult to schedule classes in a time frame I can work with. I work Monday through Friday in the day. So classes like Psych of Adjustment and even Sociology are usually not into a time frame I can schedule into. I was lucky to have found a job where I can work and be able to schedule a late afternoon class occasionally. For the most part I need evening classes.

Having said that, I actually switched my major to HDFS because I was told it was an evening major and that I could get my classes at East Liverpool with one in the daytime and one in the evening and then reversing them the next semester. Now we are being told, not only do we have to drive to Salem to get these classes, most of them are scheduled from 6:30 to 9PM. That means those of us that started in East Liverpool in this program have to drive on dark roads, later in the evening to get home. We have been continually mislead and even lied to. And the sad part is that no one cares. We are being sacrificed to the "blending of classes" to save money. So not only do I feel frustrated with Kent State's lack of understanding as to what non-traditional students need. but I feel betrayed by an advisor who seems to have a new story and a new excuse every semester."

Name withheld.

Dr Jack's Angry Response,,, Interesting comment. Any two campus system will always have difficulties with communication and scheduling, but the author suggests more than a systemic difficulty. The author indicates that administration might be concerned with the quality of student services.

Received 4-14-07...  "...I just wanted to comment on the allegations against Mr. Imus' comments. It seems to me that there is a double standard. So what he called a predominantly black women's basketball team "nappy headed hos". I don't see Fifty Cent or Twister or any other rapper being criticized for calling black women "bitches", "hos", "hood rats" or other derogatory names in their music or everyday speech.. So what is the big deal? Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson make me sick...everything does not have to be them fighting against racism...or them coming to the rescue so to speak, this is not the '60s...If Don Imus' show will no longer be broadcast on NBC, then rapper's music should be banned as well...So it's OK for the black man to criticize and consistently degrade the black woman, but when a white guy does it, he is out of line! It's a double standard if you ask me...women have been called hos and bitches for years! If they are going to make an example of him (Imus), make an example of the so-called Hip Hop culture as well."   Shalonda Respress

Dr Jack's Angry Response... One of many problems with the American culture is its plethora of contradictory attitudes that exist side by side leading to much confusion and sometimes anger. As far as Imus is concerned, he has gotten away with far too much in the past in terms of ridiculing people who simply do not deserve it. Like all bully's, they tend to fall in love with their own words and eventually self-destruct and usually (boringly so) defend their positions by saying, "I was just kidding!" Well, Imus did just that.

 FALL 2006

Received 8-31-06... "...how do we begin and how do we get to the point of violence? I thought it had to do a lot with a person's upbringing and/or personality. However, a girl in class began arguing that everything stems from money. I thought at first that the idea was ridiculous. But I remember as a little girl in elementary school that most of the kids were friends with each other. There weren't many groups. But, when friends I made at school began inviting me to their houses to play, there were some friends that I was allowed to go see and there were others that I wasn't. I was asked questions by my parents. "Where does she live?" "Who are her parents?" Some turned out to be more suitable friends than others and, when questioned why, I was told that, "It is OK to be friends in school, but I really don't want you going over to her house." So my social group was chosen for me by my parents at a young age, as I am sure happens with many other children, because of how much money the families had. But I do not think they see it as continuing the same social hierarchy that they lived through too, they were simply protecting me from the "ugly" side of things. So by the time most of us get to high school we have been completely separated into groups with labels and attitudes to match. While I was in school we had "preps", the rich kids who dressed in nothing but name brand expensive clothes and drove expensive cars and never had to work because their parents were rich enough to pay for everything. They looked down their noses at everyone else and never spoke to anyone outside of their social group unless they had to, it was beneath them. At the bottom of the social pyramid was the "dirties", the ones who had reduced lunches and second-hand clothes and, if they had a car, it never worked properly or looked nice. They believed themselves better than the preps because they had to work and fight through life, nothing was ever handed to them . In the middle was my group. We were the middle class families who dressed well, but couldn't afford the really expensive clothes, we worked to pay for the insurance on our cars, but our parents bought the newer model cars for us. A run-in  with any one group demeaning another was cause for fighting, physical or mental. Mental was worse than physical most times. A person's reputation could be completely ruined with a single rumor. ...then when we all began dating, again the parents came into play. ...I have been dating my boyfriend for ... years and he treats me like gold and we have plans to marry. However my one parent still tells me that he likes him, but he just thinks I could do better. It is like, "He is below our social group, neither he nor any of his family has any money and he is not as educated as you." He seems to completely forget that he was once that poor boy dating a girl a class above him. ...

Name withheld for personal reasons....

Dr Jack's Angry Response... We are all chameleons in life's zoo, just do not get caught in the food chain!
 

Spring 2006

Received 4-26-06 from  info on internet to Lisa Frank: ...., when will they so something about my RIGHTS? I celebrate Christmas, but because it isn't celebrated by everyone, we can no longer say Merry Christmas. Now it has to be Season's Greetings. It's not Christmas vacation, it is Winter Break. We've gone so far the other way, bent over backwards to not offend anyone, that I am now being offended, but it seems that no one has a problem with that! IMMIGRANTS, NOT AMERICANS MUST ADAPT. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, we have experienced a surge of patriotism by the majority of Americans, but ... the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the "politically correct" crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to America. ...However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand. The idea of America being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Americans...we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials and victories by men and women who have sought freedom. We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language. "In God We Trust" is our national motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women founded this nation on Christian principles and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If (our) God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home because God is a part of our culture. If Stars and Stripes offend you, then I suggest you move to another part of this planet.. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change and we really do not care how you did things where you came from. This is OUR COUNTRY, our land and our lifestyle. Our First Amendment gives every citizen the right to express their opinion and we will allow you every opportunity to do so! But once you are done complaining, whining and griping about our flag, our pledge, our national motto or our way of life, I highly encourage you to take advantage of one other great American freedom - the right to leave.

Dr Jack's Angry Response: Interesting, but not something that has not been heard. Even still it is being said more and more. It would be nice to know the identity and background who wrote this, but that is the problem with anonymous e-mails. The logic ranges from sound/specious reasoning to interpretive touches of "supremacy" nationalism. Not that it should be dismissed, but a good argument is a bit more consistent. On the other hand, many successful protests and rhetorical speeches throughout history have had nothing to do with sound reasoning! The one really fascinating point relates to recent mass protests. A lawyer may be better able to answer this question - how can participants in any mass rally have the right of free speech if they are illegal immigrants? Citizens are protected by the Constitution, not illegals.

Received 4-24-06: I guess I have to say this with all the meetings going on around campus about rights and things. A couple years ago I worked at a restaurant and one day put up on  the bulletin board  a notice wheres to call about global warming and Greenpeace. I was worrieed that things were getting bad and should do something about them. The next day the owner of the place told me to take the notice down and if I ever put up anything like that again I could walk. I have one kid and I need to work. What good do protests and these meetings really do?

Dr Jack's Angry Response: The federal government has learned how to handle and manipulate "awareness" meetings and public protests almost to the point that they are unimportant. You did learn a good lesson that "rights" are in the hands of whoever has the social power - in your case, the owner of the store! Most social problems people today realize that change, more than other times, comes from within. Protests like those of the mid-20th century are a thing of the past in so far as getting things done. A more powerful way to change in contemporary society is still to gather advocates, but to use the internet because it is easier to accumulate vast numbers without being censored. It is also seen as a metaphorical symbol of contemporary power that garners much respect and sometimes fear from those in control!

 Received 4-8-06:    I need an opportunity to vent a little problem I have been having for the last two semesters. ... I work together with two other students on a common project. We have been working on it since last August. The professor meets with us approximately once a week. The problem is that I am the only person that cares about the project. One student has come up with every excuse on the planet to miss not only class meetings, but also meetings we have set up ourselves. The other student has to be lead (led) by the hand to get anything done. ... I have exhausted myself trying to accommodate everyone so that we can get together as a group and finish this project. ... I have complained to my professor and his solution is to place me "in charge" and load even more responsibilities on my shoulders. This would not be a problem for me if the students were graded for their effort rather than being placed in a category of Pass or Fail. As long as these students show up once in a while and pretend to do something, they will be given the exact same credit as myself. I do not understand why they would have joined the group to start with if they were unable to come to class meetings. I do not like to whine, but sometimes I must.

Dr Jacks Angry Response:  Congratulations! You have now learned the flaw in P/F courses. Most students just do not take them seriously and consider a P/F an "easy mark". Why not? Just hand in "any old thing  and the Prof will shuffle you through!" It comes down to student attitude and you may be on the wrong end. Obviously you are conscientious and the Prof trusts you with responsibility. That is a good thing and you should get some solace from it along with the fact that the others have good chances of being fired from any job they get after graduation because of the attitude they have developed. It does sound like you do not have a "team effort" so you might entertain this idea: document who does not come to the meetings, who does not do the work and finish the project yourself. Let the others worry about their lack of responsibility at grade time.

Received 4-15-06: Beth Allison-Christy forwarded this discussion from America Online concerning diversity with some thought provoking ideas:
      We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his comments are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration population conference in Washington, D.C. filled to capacity by many of America's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, Mexifornia, explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal - was destroying California.  He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of the American Dream.
     Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. Thee audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide."
     "Here is how they do it,"Lamm said.
     "First to destroy America, turn Anerica into a bi-lingual or multi-lingual and multicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual  to be bilingual; however it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymor Lipset put it this way, "The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy." Canada, Belgium, Malaysia and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons and Corsicans."
     Lamm went on, Second, to destroy America, invent multiculturalism and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the black and Hispanic drop-out rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. ...
   Third, we could make the United States a Hispanic Quebec without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwartz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently, "The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance, but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together." Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."
     Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.
     My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity and would establish a cult of "Victimology". I would get all minorities to think that heir lack of success was the faulty of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.
     My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful or stabile society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks ...(social) bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell.
      Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of "diversity". I would find a word similar to "heretic" in the 17th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like "racist", "xenophobe" or "homophobic" halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multiculturalism, having the large foundations fund the Doctrine of "Victimology", I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it will always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.
     In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said, "Lastly I would censor Hanson's book Mexifornia. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."
     There was no applause....every American in that room knew that everything Lamm had said was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that are practicing female genital mutilation are growing are we celebrate "diversity". American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America. Take note of California and other states - to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. ...

Dr Jack's Angry Response:   What an interesting article! Lamm does have some non-sequiturs and rhetorical argumentation that is logically questionable, but the points are real and troubling to many. There is no doubt there is concern about the suppression of speech in addressing politically correct topics. Often even jobs are threatened when such occurs. Sometimes what was radical or deviant in the past has become fashionable and this is of concern, not particularly because times do change, but for lack of a forum and healthy debate over philosophical contradictories. Some see America today as two-faced and hypocritical for these very reasons and target the real benefactors as corporate America. Even the hallowed "diversity" now has its detractors among minorities because it focuses on those very things that we have said we should not focus on. In other words, diversity reinforces and fosters discrimination while supporting a lack of cultural unity. Immigration has also become a point of contention with millions of immigrants pouring in as jobs fade away through downsizing and outsourcing. How long can the middle class support the unemployment and welfare rolls when that same class is being diminished? What is your opinion?
    
 

Received 2-15-2006: I was recently involved in a conversation with a few other students about a director of one of the most popular programs on campus. We all agreed that this person tries to make students feel as if they can not succeed. This person comes across as being very arrogant, to the point of being rude. This person is not the type of person that should wield the power to potentially decide our futures. There are several accounts of this person telling students that they are never going to survive in the program because they do not have the brains for it or several other insults to that effect. I have had this person tell me that they have no idea why I was accepted into the program because " There is no way you will ever make it!" This person has also said to students, "I don't let chemistry credits transfer because chemistry weeds out all the dumb ones." It is wrong for an administrator to speak to students this way. On top of being just plain mean, this person is also very unorganized and unapologetic. My application was lost three times while in this person's hands and my Honor's application, which that person insisted I turn in to them, was "missing" for five months. I almost wasn't accepted into the program because of this person's carelessness. Each time that I have had to submit a new application, I was told I shouldn't even be considered for the program because I wasn't responsible for turning it in on time. When I first started considering applying for this program, I was warned by second year students that the person in charge would do everything in their power to keep students from succeeding. These students also told me to be sure to make copies of anything important we had to turn in because papers often disappeared in this person's care. I was told by another administrator that it was necessary to check any information that was given by this person with another administrator because this administrator often gave the wrong information to students. This is a stressful enough time for students; administrators shouldn't intentionally make it worse. In fact, they should be trying to help. No one deserves to be treated this way. Any ideas on how to deal with this situation? Has anyone had a similar experience? I would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this topic.

Dr Jack's Angry Response: Teachers are supposed to teach, administrators are supposed to administer - not make value judgments. We need more comments from others who are in the same situation.
     A suggestion: An advisor once asked me why I wanted to come back to school when I was in my early 50s and older than most of the students. I did not reply, continued on and made straight "A"s .                                     (Oh, alright! There was a "B" in there!)

Received 2-18-2006: I find the student's comments very interesting. I too am experiencing a similar problem with the program I am to someday graduate from. Many of my fellow classmates in the program I am involved with are having problems with a certain individual in charge. Although these concerns/complaints have been addressed at the Main Campus with the main person in charge of our particular program, we are left without much results. Enrollment in this program has been decreasing. Many students have opted to change programs. I am sure that this individual, as well as others, (is) in search of a higher education in the pursuit to find ("of finding") gainful employment. The administrators in charge of these programs are ones that one seeks answers from in pursuit of the attainment of this goal. I agree with your comments. Teachers should be teaching and administrators should be administering. College is a very stressful time for all of us. The best suggestion that I could make to this individual is to contact the individual in charge of the Department at Main Campus that oversees their particular program. Another suggestion would be to form a committee or do a survey of students whom are experiencing this same problem and forming solutions to the problem.

Dr Jack's Angry Response: I wonder if the two people are discussing the same department? Let's see if other students agree.

CHALLENGE 2-6-06: Robert Risko. "You see a lot of photos, but a drawing done by a skilled artist can tell more than a photograph ever will. A photo is like junk food. it is an immediate read, you feel an immediate intimacy with the person, but in the long run a drawing is more memorable. Time magazine has done studies, and people remember an illustration of a person more than a photograph. A drawing creates an icon. A good photographer can do that, but most of them don't. Artwork plays into your dream consciousness..." Dr Jack: I agree and disagree. I would like students to submit drawings and photographs for publication on the web site. Is Risko right? Let's see who does the best - an artist or photographer? Winner of the contest will get a nice prize and the contest ends the first day of March.

1-23-06: While sitting at the Hard Rock Cafe, it was mentioned that women sure go for those guys with long hair and a guitar even though they may not have the total range of abilities of, say, a concert pianist. There was no disagreement and the conversation continued as to why this might be the case. The following is a woman's response concerning this issue:
     "It is not the musician nor the music - it is the length of the hair. In a way, it emasculates them so that it is less than a power struggle. Women always attempt to level out the playing field, especially with men. That is why apologies from men are so important - it brings them down!"
Interesting comment or admission. What do you think?

This was received 1-24-06: Two weeks into this semester and still for some of the classes students are patiently awaiting books. Classes continue and assignments are falling behind due to no books. Constant excuses and finger pointing is being done for the lack of books not being in. For some students this is ok because of the resources available to them to get the books from different avenues. For others they must patiently await the arrival of the books because they have no means to go elsewhere to get them. For those whose hope is striving for a better life and gaining a higher education to get "the finer things in life" or The American Dream; this can prove to be frustrating. Not to mention dealing with classes that one needs in order to graduate being cancelled and when calling ones advisor in regards to the implications this could pose in a possible postponement of a possible graduation date with no return call. Then if you advocate for your rights and what you believe in as being true, you are labeled as a troublemaker. What is up with this? We are all supposed to be adults. Is this what our future holds for the generation coming up in the ranks? We are doing a great disservice to those coming up. And people wonder about why many move away once they achieve their goals. And the question is: "With what is being learned today, in the system of schooling/higher education, are we not perpetuating the problems?"  SC

Dr Jack's Angry Response: There is no doubt that texts, through no fault of the E. Liv. Kent bookstore,  have become an enormous problem not only from a price aspect but also the obtaining of such this semester. In fact, many argue the publishing industry has gotten out of hand and others believe that the university community, administrators, managers and students should get together and decide what to do about the situation. Some feel the book companies should be protested, others advocate going to the WWW for text purchase and there is always the proposal of no texts in some classes with the instructor authoring a "guide" for minimal price. All have some merit, but there is more here as the writer indicates. We all know that the situation has come about because of money. Everyone wants more money and generally the Captains of Industry get it with the common person suffering higher and higher bills. That would be OK if salaries were raised proportionally to what the managers are paid, but this is not the case. Minimum wage deters such action and the common person is being left out of the so-called "strong economy". The author's question concerning what is learned in the systems of higher education today is intriguing. Does the contemporary student learn more about inefficiency and greed from their being immersed in the education systems or do they learn to become responsible, intelligent and good citizens? As Bob Dylan said, "It doesn't take a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing."    Dr Jack

Fall 2005
Spring 2005

This was received: 4-10-05 "The worst scenarios I've had are with guys. I was labeled as being a geek and it stuck from elementary school through high school. I remember in 7th grade, at the bus stop, a boy tried to make me smoke and he threatened to beat me up after school , but I ran all the way home before he could. On the worst case with the girls, had to be also in 7th grade, a girl, (I can't remember her name) spread horrible rumors about me and called me out of name constantly. Even after a face-to-face confrontation, where we almost fought, she still bullied me through Middle School. Also, I remember through High School, a group of boys spread rumors that I was a ho and pregnant. I had a face-to-face confrontation with a football player during Senior year. Basically, the assignment was we had to teach the class about something we were interested in for a week. Unfortunately I was chosen first, so I taught for two weeks and gave an open notes test on JFK. He got in my face because he didn't get the bonus question right, which if he had he would have had an "A" instead of a "B+", so he started calling me out of my name and said he would disfigure my face if I didn't give him an "A", but I held my ground and got into his face and I called for the Vice Principal because he was really acting like a spoiled brat who wasn't getting his way, and she resolved it before I had to. I asked him to step outside, if he was so macho to disfigure me as he put it, and you know he backed down every time I said it. Because I would have seriously fought him on school property and got suspended. After the clash, don't you know I had no more trouble from him and we were OK after that. It's sad when you can't get through your Senior year without friction. Ya know, also that year, these two Freshmen tried to claim their territory by saying the 3rd Floor was their domain because that's where their lockers were. The first thing I thought, "What a bunch of insecure, immature, jealous brats." I had been inducted into the National Honors Society a year before and I wasn't about to let Freshmen ruin my last year. I made it through that year with all A's and I graduated in the upper quarter of my class, even though I didn't make it to the top ten, I felt I had done my best. 6th grade and 9th grade were both hard for me because the upper classes really made fun of you plus I had family troubles at home. But, I had a supportive mother and we both went to counseling both during and after her depression to get help. And I still say the guys gave me more trouble than the girls even my secret crush did and I had to tell him off to ... because he was talking about my clothes and stuff ... not just him, "his group of friends". He talked about everybody like he was Mister Perfect or something and so that was a major turn-off and I asked myself, "Why do I have such a crush on this jerk?" and someone asked me out and I got over him. Even though the relationship lasted only six months, it's the longest relationship I've had with a guy, and there was some backlash of aggression and hot tempered so I left. But after looking at Junior High and High School, the girls weren't too bad to deal with, the guys took a lot of courage to deal with though. Believe me I ate alone at lunch all my Junior year, "If I have to change who I am to fit in then screw it and screw them if they can't accept me for who I am." Believe me, this motto kicked in at the end of the Sophomore year. Well, I've bugged you long enough, this is the bug signing off.

Dr Jack's Angry Response: Wow! Double jeopardy! Both relational aggression and male bullying. This is really interesting - male bullying of a female usually doesn't occur because it is seen as less than macho and often a sign of cowardice, especially in inner city environments. Also sounds like you were doing well in school and became a target for others to simply shoot at. (A favorite pastime of school students who have low esteem.) What is of more interest is the solution you inadvertently used to get through all this, i.e., a sound opinion of yourself and a strong family/supportive background which is the real lesson to learn here. Solid identity and realistic goals in school are strongly recommended along with family support by theorists and practitioners in these areas as solutions to the difficulties encountered. Relational aggression is never easy for the target, but it can be solved and apparently you had the "key".

This was received 4-18-05: "Something I've been noticing since I started going to college is a growing distance between friends and even family that have not gone to college or aren't planning to go. I'm trying to stay close with them all, but ever since I began planning a "higher education, they have been acting odd around me. My uncle, whom I have always been close with , now tries to avoid conversations with me and when we do talk he will always ask me about school only so he can say what I'm being taught is "bullshit". My father keeps telling me I need to stop talking "like a college boy", but I actually speak the same as I did before starting down here at Kent. Call me naive or stupid, but I didn't see any of this coming."

Dr Jack's Angry Response!  Of course you did not see any of it coming. These are your family and friends which you trust, but that has little to do with it. A  college education has a certain social status (imagined though it may be) that many people do not like, especially if they see they have lost that opportunity. Your friends are reacting with normal envy and I suspect a certain amount of jealousy. In a way, they see you as trying to be better than they are which is  probably true only in the sense that you want to improve your life - NOT to put one over on them. So they become defensive and try to put you back in your place. They may also see you as a friend who is moving away from them through education and are simply reacting to the supposed loss. Keep being who you are, respect them and eventually they will understand you are not a threat. 

Fall 2004______

This was received: 9-7-04: I was wondering what you thought about a small theory I came up with dealing with the abuse of drugs in our society.
Society views drugs as an outlet from the difficulties and hardships of everyday life, which I don't disagree with, but if we look back in time to the Romans, for example. They were profound wine drinkers and well known for their love of life and pleasure in all forms. Wine was more commonly drunk than water in that time and yet they didn't have alcohol abuse. Well, at least in the terms we have come to know it as because in their times there was no such thing. Another example is the Native Americans with their tobaco smoking. Very few Native Americans die of lung cancer or other llness tied to smoking.  They in their traditional sense of smoking the tobacco leaf for ceremonial purposes and making peace between people. We, on the other hand, have people dropping like flies over cancers and drunk drivers. In other cultures, such drugs as cocaine and opium were used for enlightenment and medicinal uses. What all these facts about past civilizations have in common is control over the substance and not the other way around as it is in our society. I have come up with the idea or theory that our society lacks the control and knowledge to simply use these once helpful substances. These substances were never truly viewed as a way to get away from the hardships of life, so why is it today that we now see it as so and why is it that we now have the terms of "druggies" and "rehab"? I suppose what I am trying to get at is wouldn't it be fair to say that in some sense that through our society's own self-indulged and close-minded ways we have created our own "drug problem" in the world and it wasn't just something that popped out of nowhere one day? 

Dr Jack's "Angry" Response: Well, what an interesting theory, but there are some problems. The Romans sure did have alcohol abuse and many writers of that time commented the Empire was "going to hell" through alcohol consumption. In fact, people would go to a banquet, stuff themselves with food and drink, then go to the Vomitorium to purge themselves and go back for more! There are no statistics to back up the mortality rate for Native Americans concerning lung cancer or any cancer for that matter. Since the beginning of the 20th century, American society has kept close tabs on disease rates, etc., but this does not infer that the rate is any greater or lessor than other cultures because there is no consistent study done so far to establish health trends in the nature you speak of. Your comment concerning social control is well taken and is the subject of some discussion. Americans and the government traditionally look for blame and overlook the real reasons for many social ills. Actually, Dr Leary and others in the 60s tried to convince people that drugs could enhance one's life. This met with little success and that is probably the best outcome considering the focus was on LSD which is not exactly a tame substance. Drugs remove some "reality restrictions", from a Freudian standpoint, but do not alleviate the problem in the long run. On the other hand, a recreational "buzz" now and then may aid one in seeing things from a different perspective and be helpful. Levels of reality are activated by many things not to mention drug assisted. On the other hand, levels of reality can become nightmares through drug influence! As far as Americans fabricating a "drug problem" - that depends on your point of view. Your argument tends to lack consistency and the facts are less than accurate, but you are thinking and do have a point concerning the concept of "control" whether it be personal or social.  Reactions from other students on your thoughts would be interesting. Of particular interest would be the sharing of similar thoughts from students in other institutions to see if there is a common cultural understanding. Student opinion from say, the University of Michigan, Case Western, Miami of Ohio, Pitt (for example) would be welcome. Thanx for the e-mail.  Dr Jack.

This was received:  9-14-04 Some students told me you signed up for extra credit going to career day in mary pat. i had to go home and take care of the kids. Am i being punished for not going?

Dr Jack's Angry Response:  Rather insightful question. There are several thoughts on that "extra credit" deal. Some argue it is the commodification of education and that knowledge is treated more like a thing than an experience, therefore one can get "extra credit". Does that mean that those who attend are favored over those that don't. If so, then this is discrimination in the educational process. The American educational system is, however, a rather forgiving one compared to other systems around the world and leaves many opportunities to adjust one's performance as one goes along. It is argued that this is a positive factor and "extra credit" is one manifestation. Of course, it is understood that "extra credit" is another way to get numbers of people to attend a specific function. The argument here is that "extra credit" would not be needed if the event was advertised  properly. Some also go so far to say that it is "academic blackmail". (Yea, but you do get food!) On the other hand, it still is one's free choice to attend or not attend no matter what the circumstances - short of catastrophe! Generally, however, "extra credit" is looked upon by education professionals as community college oriented and not particularly a university ploy. Actually, "extra credit" really has to do with people who are concerned, in a negative manner, about their grades. In all probability, if you are a good student and performing well, "extra credit" is irrelevant. Neat question. Thanx. Dr Jack. 

This was received:  9-16-2004 I believe that "extra credit" is simply something that teachers give out to allow the students that don't do their regular work to get more points to improve their grade, simply by doing something easier. For example, if a student does not complete a small homework assignment which may have required a little thinking, they may just say "...well, I'll make it up by going and writing my name on a paper at this stupid event." (quotes added) I personally believe that this is unfair to those who have completed the other homework and put the effort into getting the grade which they deserved. To me, "extra credit" should be for the students who, at the end of a grading period, are on the edge of a grade, such as someone who is 1 - 10 ponts away from an A or a B. They should have the ability to do one extra project or assignment to simply bump their grade up, as long as they have been doing the other classwork which was assigned. Furthermore, I believe that no one should be punished nor looked down upon for not doing an "extra credit" assignment. For example, many teachers will assign "extra credit" then on a test will take questions from that assignment. This, as you said, would be "academic blackmail", which I believe is one hundred percent incorrect and wrong for a teacher to do. Thank you.  

This was received:  9-16-2004 extra credit is unfair and stupid - it has nothing to do with work in class 

Dr Jack's Angry Response:  9-17-2004 Now this IS getting interesting. Both respondents question the veracity of applying "extra credit" to classroom work. It is a good question! Does a trip to a person who works in a certain profession have anything to do with one's grade in class? If they give them information to do better in class - sure. However, if this is not the case, then maybe there is a real issue here. Certainly a career counsellor may "hype" the student to do better, but desire is not really a gradable area. Most students desire to do better, but this is not grounds for credit in classroom achievement. Exams, by design, are not interpretive, although some results may be, but that still does not infer mandatory assignment of a grade - unless "extra credit" is considered a touchstone for academic achievement. (Well, hardly.)  Another way to look at this concerns the issue of a sick student or one who has obligations so that they can not go to the event that qualifies them for extra credit. Certainly all instructors have provisions for this as make-up exams, but should they also have "extra credit Make-ups"? This could get real ridiculous because then the people who went to the event would say that "extra credit make-up" is unfair to them because they took the time to go and the others are getting classroom credit without making the effort they did! (Again, is intent a gradable rubric?) Another point that was discussed was the question concerning students  "on the edge" of another grade as a B+ or C+. Do they get the opportunity for "extra credit". Some argue that there may be circumstances that qualify a student for this and others argue classroom achievement and the process is stipulated.  (Similar to: "A  grade is a grade - you had fair time and chance to achieve.") But one may still have that nagging feeling that a student who does not perform to their desires will be given another chance while one who does what they do and does not take the extra credit is really being penalized. Actually, if one looks at the U.S. school system as anticipatory socialization, then the "second chance" philosophy has a hard time mimicking the preparation of students for business and industry. Of course, the "loose-coupling" phenomena would justify "extra credit" to the instructor (this does not condone, just justifies). Administrators are not bound by this, but bound by other non-academic concerns. Which then brings up another question... Oh heck...neat stuff - let's see if anyone has an alternate take on this issue. (You'll get extra credit if you do....)

This was received  21 September 2004  Extra credit has been used for years by teachers for various reasons. I have taken a class where the teacher has no choice but to allow extra credit because he was not able to convey the material of the subject to us in a manner where we could understand it and pass his class. If he didn't give extra credit (and bend the grading curve to almost a breaking point) no one in his class would have gotten a grade above a C. This is an extreme case of course but one where extra credit became a savior to the students. It has also been my experience that most of the time the people that want extra credit are also the ones that need that A in the class no matter what or their world comes crashing down around them for some reason. The strive to be perfect and they don't care that they are already getting a B easily in the class, but they have to have an A. That case no extra credit should be assigned because, what is the point. I think it just causes the teacher more work because, then they have to go over a report or what not from a kid that is already passing their class with flying colors. I think that a teacher should examine their classes at the beginning of each semester and try to see if they are hard working or lazy bums. It can sometimes happen that a very bright student or class can try very hard and still just not grasp a full concept so then extra credit is not only a nice way of helping with their grades but also another way of trying to get across to the students what you are trying to teach in the first place. But every once in a while you get a group of very lazy people that will simply use the extra credit to keep their grade up and not even try in class to earn their grade. Often times these people are very smart just lack motivation to be all they can be. So basically you really can't pin extra credit down good or bad - it really depends on the situation because; a classroom is similar to a science lab, you have to keep experimenting with it because every class is different so not everything works the same.

Dr Jack's "Angry" response: The writer really sums up the different positions to this issue nicely, but ,"even though not everything works the same", the general opinion of all the writers is that extra credit is a less than a sound academic practice . If this is the case, why do instructors continue with its use and why hasn't any instructor at Kent stepped up to defend it?

This was received: 21 September 2004  ...It's not politically correct for Santa to go around our neighborhood at Christmas this year. This is not the world I grew up in. How can the future kids get past this shit? A liberal in the 70s was someone who was pro-choice, was OK with pot, wanted left alone. Now a liberal is fighting for your kids to learn next year that it's OK and healthy for little Susie to kiss Jane and get married. It's hard enough to make stuff, sell stuff and get along with people ... there's no hope for us if we have to do it walking on eggshells, and keeping all happy, because that's impossible and it shouldn't be expected.

Dr Jack's "Angry" Response: Uh-huh - I am just going to wait and see what the response is to this older student's gripe. It is sure interesting. Actually there are two main points of contention in the issue:
1. A "politically correct" society arose in the United States from a complex and often convoluted history of social conflict starting with the rights protests of the 50s, 60s and 70s (20th century). An outcome from this historical process was the litigious society being very sensitive not to "offend" people - particularly minorities and women's groups. The problem is that in a "free" society everyone is supposed to have freedom to express their opinion. If one is stiffled expressing an opinion concerning a person and/or group, then the very stiffling can be offensive to the person who expressed the opinion in the first place! So both parties are now "offended"! Actually, it is not a question of being offended and more a matter of choice paucity. If there are three ideas (for example A,B andC), the U.S. culture tends to say it is OK to talk openly about A and B, but NOT C. This is not only offensive, but also social censorship. Many argue there is no real freedom in the United States, because one is only free to discuss what those in power decide is appropriate discussion material. If a person does not do this, they may find that they are in for a court battle and/or are jeopardizing their job!
2. The issue of gayness was also attached to the above argument and needs some discussion too. Being gay is a matter of personal choice and not a particularly significant issue in sociology. After all, one still does have the freedom of personal choice in the United States. It is everyone's right to choose for themselves what they accept or do not accept. Who they like and who they do not like. The problem is when personal choice is politicized and competing groups start vying for power. The relation between personal choice and politics is night and day. Personal choice becomes political when  it is a group concern and social power is involved. Certainly "gayness" is an attribute of many, but it is the oppression of gays that has elevated it to a political entity. On the other hand, oppression is oppression and that is NOT a matter of personal choice, nor sex, nor age. Here a larger social problem is masked and has to be dealt with in a culture that espouses "freedom", but we have already seen that freedom can be limited. Finally, my opinion on the above received article is that the author has an interesting point in one area and really should not be so concerned in another. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide which areas I am talking about...Dr Jack
This was Received: 28 September 2004, The fact that in America today you have to watch every little thing you say or do because, of the fear of having a lawsuit brought down on your head it just pathetic. Yes what some people have to say is rude and cruel at times but we are supposed to have the freedom to say as we wish and not be punished for it. That is one of the reasons our founding fathers started the revolution against Great Britain. This country is just slowly slipping to a morally bankrupt shell of the once proud and powerful nation we once were. Freedom of speech is dead along with the values of this nation. As each generation comes along and grows up with them dies the respect for people and our past. No one cares anymore that our blood had to be spilled to make us free. All people care about anymore is that MacDonald's is "making our children fat" and what is going to happen on tonight's episode of CSI. At times you almost have to hang your head in shame to be called an American because of the absolutely stupid things people will do for money. Greed runs this nation and greed will bury this nation.
Dr Jack's "Angry" Response: Freedom of speech is a real dilemma today and one might agree with the above that there is very little of it. I suppose what bothers me personally is the hypocrisy that goes along with it. For example, Monday I was in the lobby of Community College of Allegheny County - North  talking to a department head. In the atrium was an exhibit for and presided over by Native Americans. One of the Indians went outside and three women teachers trotted right up to the doors and began making rather obvious remarks about how "good his buns were" and another said "I wouldn't mind ..." That is OK for them, but if a male were to ogle a female Indian like these women professors did, he would be jumped on immediately for sex discrimination and being a "chauvinistic pig"! This is probably no more than a reflection of upper management's attitude, but (again) in the U.S. there are things that one is "free" to discuss and there are others that are taboo. Not particularly unusual, but the problem part is consistency. If one group is restricted in a specific area of discussion - so should all groups if in point of fact this is a "free" country.
This was Received:  30 September 2004, Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone is entitled to share their opinion. An opinion becomes dangerous only when it leads to action that prevents a group (whatever group that may be) from life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There will always be someone out there who thinks that they are better and should be in control. And there will always be the people who resist being controlled. Isn't it funny though, people who fight to be on top are the people more often than not are constantly aware of their own inadequacies. and for those people who make these angry statements: Do you vote at every election? If you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain
The following excerpt is reproduced at the request and by permission of the author (Erin Gadd) as it appeared in the Daily Kent Stater of 9-30-04:  (Ms Gadd refers to the grant to study aspects of smoking on campus and this is part of her response) "I am tired of the constant preaching that the country gets on the dangers of smoking. It's bad for us, we get it, let it go! I am tired of cities and states making public places smoke-free. The entire State of New York and now the city of Columbus will never see me as a visitor as long as they continue to discriminate against me. I am a smoker and I have rights. I believe that I am a courteous smoker. If I am visiting your home and you don't smoke, I will gladly go outside. The same thing applies to your car. I won't blow smoke in your direction and I will NEVER smoke around children. Having said all these things, I am officially boycotting any business that does not have a smoking section inside the building. I am officially boycotting the State of New York, the city of Columbus and any other place that does not allow smoking inside public places. I am a smoker, I have rights and I am tired of being discriminated against. Now if you will excuse me, I need a cigarette."
Dr Jack's "Angry" Response: Ms. Gadd's point concerns the idea that, by definition, "public" generally refers to access by all and that provisions will be made for such. Her complaint is that "public" has been specifically re-defined to exclude a segment of the population. i.e., "smokers". Ergo, discrimination! Certainly her argument has credence but for the fact that the use of "public" infers Platonic "rights". What Ms Gadd has failed to include is that "rights" are not written in stone tablets and tend to be defined by those who control the power structure. Even the Equal Rights Movement stipulated "equal rights", not "sacred rights". On the other hand, the real problem is the politicalization of anti-smoking and smoking camps vying for power to control a specific segment of the social environment. (It is a mistake to equate personal choice with politics. Politics involves a consensual social phenomena for group power.) The strong anti-smoking lobby has gone the last step by demonizing smokers to the point that they are thrown out of buildings to smoke on the sidewalk. If industry provides all kinds of adjustments for the diversity of people in their structure, they can surely provide a "smokers room"!  Here, I believe, is the strength of Ms Gadd's argument whereas a great deal of her discourse is an emotional appeal, often with a shaky philosophical background.  I do like and understand her general discussion and invite the reader to see her other comments, especially those aimed at Kent State in the 30 September edition of the Daily Kent Stater. It is nice to see East Liverpool students can be just as erudite and thoughtful as those at the Main and other branch campuses.
This was Received:  3 October 2004, In my opinion, it is both good and bad when a "public" place prevents people from smoking inside. It, to me, is the same as when a person does not allow people to smoke inside their homes. Some people, like myself, are greatly allergic to smoke and tobacco. If there are a lot of people smoking in one area, I get short of breath and start having severe allergic reactions...sneezing continuously,. watery, itching eyes, etc.. I become miserable. By making those who smoke go outside a public place allows those like me to have an enjoyable place to go. Most restaurants have the smoking and non-smoking sections side by side, which consequently doesn't help any. All the smoke still mixes with the non-smoker's air. I don't see why smokers are getting so upset. If one is willing to exit a person's home for the better of their health, why are they not willing to exit a building for the better health of those like me? I realize that this is a type of discrimination, however, they chose to smoke. It is their own fault they are smoking. People know that in restaurants some have smoking areas and some do not. It was their choice to start smoking, and those who do, knew the consequences before they started They knew that these things existed. They could have said "no" in the beginning. It is different when one is born a darker color skin, or male or female, and discriminated against. They could not choose what to be. That I believe is unfair, however, smokers choose to smoke knowing the consequences. So, in my opinion, "public" places which do not allow smoking are not doing it to just single out smokers, it is for the safety and health of those who, like me, are allergic or have breathing problems with which the smoke might interfere. Also, just to add a little more, I do have friends/relatives who smoke. They understand that they chose to smoke, knowing the consequences. They accept it. They realize it is an inconvenience to go outside to smoke, but they do for the health of others.
Dr Jack's "Angry" Response:  Wow!  If effect, they are saying Ms Gadd's position is insensitive and just as discriminatory as the position Ms Gadd takes!  In fairness to Ms Gadd, one would have to respond to the writer by informing  them that life does not infer a condition of "fairness" and that "knowing the consequences of an act" does not mean that one will take action on such nor be behaviourally consistent to their beliefs!
This was Received: 4 October 2004, Ms Gadd: Actually standing up for something will always come back to you if you make it a personal statement and do not have the backing or support of a group. I spent my whole life trying to be a group - and I am not. We all make the assumption that our beliefs are embraced by others, but it may not be the case which I have found out often to my dismay.  The basis of most philosophies is personal and to be able to accept that our response is feminized  and that words are not going to say what an action will do. If you get fired because you smoked, then all you can say is that "I got fired because I smoked!" You have to be a part of a group or an integral player in the power structure to make change for you as an individual." CW
Dr Jack's "Angry" Response:  Amen! These three statements are fundamental concerns in this issue or any issue involving opinion and political tactics. They are all sound discussions and speak well for the thinking of East Liverpool students in general. Write in and state which person you believe has the strongest argument. It should be interesting!
This was Received  8 October 2004: So by reading that definition (a lengthy definition of "discrimination" quoted from Merriam-Webster dictionary) and interpreting it in your own way yes being a smoker you are being discriminated against. But I still feel there is nothing wrong with not letting smokers come into some businesses. A black person, a gay person, Jew, Muslim, Christian or non-smokers are not a threat to my health. While I do not have allergies, I do however wish to prolong my life and keep myself healthy. I have chosen not to smoke because, I know all the bad side effects that come with it and I don't want that in my life. By being a smoker you say you don't care and choose to smoke anyways which is all right, that is your choice. But where in the Constitution does it say that you may smoke around me and cause me to have health problems later if life? It is a proven fact that second hand smoke is even worse than actually smoking the cigarette in the first place. By smoking around me you have just revised my promise to myself not to smoke. I might as well pick up that cigarette and puff away it be better for me than what you exhale around me. Discriminating is not a good thing and I do not support it but not letting a black man into a business is wrong because he isn't hurting anyone. A smoker on the other hand can hurt others around them. Not on purpose of course but still by choosing to smoke and by doing so that hurts others.  Some businesses don't serve alcohol beverages. That is there choice to do so. Beer drinkers and such know this and just don't go to those places knowing they wont get what they want. They not in an uproar about it. The except the fact that some people don't like to be around drinking because, it can lead i repeat IT CAN BUT NOT ALWAYS lead to bad situations because of the side-effects of alcohol. So in closing my suggestion to smokers who feel discriminated against because they choose to smoke and the rest of us don't; cut your own life short that is your choice but you ain't cuttin' my life short so take it outside.
Dr Jack's Angry response: Actually I am kind of "angry" this time. First, this could not be a student of mine because they would know how upset I get with that opening of quoting the dictionary. Dictionaries are not authorities on anything except spelling and sometimes that is questionable. Second, this article is a conglomerate of clichés and non sequitors which makes one suspect that the writer simply did not take enough time to properly express their opinion. There are too many misspellings and wrong forms. To the writer,  I would also say get a book and learn the use of internal punctuation - especially commas. Having said that, there is a point to be made here and I understand, but the lack of a consistent form of argument takes away its effectiveness. The discussion is more of an emotional stream of consciousness which is OK, but the grammar ruins the impact of its meaning. Dr Jack's Response on his Response: Perhaps I am too harsh in my criticism of the above writer and I apologize. This is an open forum and I would not want anyone to resist submitting an opinion because they felt there would be undue criticism concerning their grammar and writing style. Again, this one is on me, but anyone who has ever been in my classes knows I am a real S.O.B. when one bases their argument on dictionary definitions. 
This was Received 10-10-2004: I wish people would wake up and realize that the recent focus on the dangers of smoking is the government's way of distracting us. If everyone is concentrating on the dangers of smoking no one will notice that several of our rights have been taken away. Then again, the government does not want everyone to quit smoking. If that happened then the billions of dollars collected from tobacco taxes would go bye-bye. But this is not the focus of my gripe. The focus of my gripe is that there are many businesses that are fast becoming smoke free. Why can't I go into a restaurant, have a good meal and enjoy a cigarette? If someone is a non-smoker and he/she does not want to be exposed to second hand smoke, why not only patronize smoke free establishments? Why do all restaurants have to be smoke free? Where are the restaurants that cater to smokers? And as far as the Constitution goes, I could easily argue that not allowing me to smoke violates my 9th Amendment rights. Finally: Honey (previous writer), you live in the Ohio Valley. The fresh air that you breathe outside is not so fresh, one could ponder that the fresh air outside is worse for you than you know. If everyone will remember, last year the government started and investigation on why so many people in this area have cancer. Here's a hint: it ain't from smoking. One last word on smoking in public places and then I will say no more. If you don't like my smoking - YOU LEAVE!
Dr Jack's "Angry" Response: It looks like this will never end and I am really surprised at the emotion displayed from smokers and non-smokers. One might think there would be more on "abortion", terrorism, corporate theft, etc.. Apparently "smoking rights" strikes a very sensitive chord. Then again, it may be we are witnessing the "growing pains" of a culture in transition attempting to solve or absolve an old problem which has been around for a long time. Consider the following from The Lost Promise of Patriotism by Jonathan M. Hanson:  "...the problem of U.S. civic identity at the turn of the twentieth century: how does a country founded on liberal principles and composed of diverse (many) cultures secure the solidarity required to safeguard individuality and promote social justice? The problem of American civic identity has received considerable attention of late from scholars and cultural critics concerned about the current state of liberalism and democratic participation. Rampant individualism, economic disparity and the impression of a government for sale on the open market induce political cynicism and a consequent retreat from public life that transforms citizens into spectators."  To "safeguard individuality and promote social justice" - are not the previous arguments on the horns of this dilemma? It may not be that the writers are so much against each other, but more trying to sort out cultural contradictions that they have to live through! 
Student Statement by permission of the author 20 October 2004:  "In my own experience, being born and raised in poverty, I find it hard to believe I could ever make it out. Being born in poverty has put me behind a boundary, which most people never get to cross. Granted, I am currently attending college to try to pull myself out of the poverty level, but even with training and skills, I may not make it far above that level. I truly believe that if you weren't born into wealth, the chance of getting to a high social status is nearly impossible unless one possesses an amazing talent. or a beautiful face. I feel that one's future firmly depends on your social standing and your ability to connect with the right individuals."
Dr Jack's "Angry" Response:  The writer is probably expressing what everyone has come to know that the old saying of "you can be anything you want to be in America" is just not true and those that do rise to higher social status are talented and lucky, but they are also the exceptions. Even ascending in the middle class has become monumental with the minimum wage holding people in a "minimum wage" stereotype that prevents them from moving away from low paying situations as WalMart, Wendy's, Eckerd, education part-timers  and the like that are oppressed through economics, discrimination and hours. (A professor from the University of Cincinnati has written that part-time college instructors are a new class of migrant workers in America!) The fact that one is "stuck in" or born to a certain social strata often hinders their knowledge of the behavioural experience they need to "get out of" a negative social situation! Research bears witness to the fact that the middle class is being eroded and the gap between those given overblown salaries and those pressed to economically survive is getting wider. Once it was true, now it is suspect that college will get one a career and better job. Put it this way, the United States has the greatest number of highly educated bartenders and waiters/waitresses that any other culture in the world! 
Received 10-22-2004:  Who is the new Dean and why haven't they introduced themselves to the students?
Dr Jack's "Angry" Response:  Deans all have different styles. Some are outgoing, others not. Stop in the Dean's Office and introduce yourself. I'm sure you will be welcomed by that office.
Received 10-24-04:  As I was reading the Point For Progress, I was surprised to find that the absurd subject of smoking had finally fizzled and an issue that effects so many in this area has been noted. ... I have always been interested in the issue of social boundaries. Have and Have Not has been an issue of predjudice and injustice throughout <an's history. Class distinction has been man's insurmountable hurdle forever. It is the sole reason for the demise of all "Utopian Societies". No one wants to be equal. Everyone wants to have more than the other. The rich want to hold their social status and really don't want anyone else to have apiece of it. That is the reason old money despises new money. On the other hand, there is such a frantic race to get get get (these are the writer's words and it is left to the reader for interpretation) that the poor as a as a whole will never have a chance. For example, as soon as you start to get ahead, everyone imaginable will be there doing all they can to get a part of what you have - to level you off. The bureaucrats want to tax you, your cousin needs new wheels for his house (?), and your neighbor wants you to get them into your network. You should help your fellow man, it is your family and civic duty to do that. Instead, you either cheat on your taxes or use every legal trick you can to beat them. You turn your nose up to your friends and family. They need to work as hard as you to get what you have is your attitude. Who is right? Do you fall into socialism and communism or is capitalism the way. Communism has been proven wrong. No one wants to be equal. Capitalism has spawned the envy and hatred that has brought about the terrorist attacks that plague the world.
Dr Jack's "Angry" Response:  Well, how many times do I have to reiterate that the pronoun "you" simply turns a reader off because the excessive use is accusatory and not everything one says applies to "everybody". Interesting discussion, though. Actually, the "downfall of communism" or perhaps the fall of the Berlin Wall did not prove anything about the essence of socialistic theory except that capitalism just beat it down! Are we then to say that capitalism is "right"? Certainly not. Theories of governments are just theories - it is the implementation of such by people where the value judgment comes. People are "right and/or wrong", theories are not. Again, the argument proposed really is between individuality and the conservative nature of the American culture. Contradictory themes that lead to a great deal of dissent and difficulties not only personally, but politically.
Received 10-29-04:  I am curious to find out how many f my fellow Kent State alumni are aware of the "breed specific" legislation or "vicious dog laws" that are being passed in an alarming number of states here in America and across the world. A simple summary of these laws ... states that certain breeds of dogs are being classified as vicious or dangerous animals and once a state passes this foolish law, regulations are put in place for people that own any dogs under this law. These laws really do go much more in depth and it also depends on which state you are referring to but that is the Breed Specific legislation or BSL in a nutshell. Even here in Ohio BSL have been passed and put into place but almost every state now in America has some form of these laws. It has even gotten to an extreme where certain cities have completely banned the dogs that are labeled under these laws from their city limits. Cincinnati ... is an example and in Michigan a total of six cities has banned these dogs from their streets and the number only grows every year. One part of this discriminative law is that in certain states including Ohio you have to buy an insurance policy to help cover you if your dog would attack someone and this insurance is usually in the neighborhood of $100,000 per dog. (ed.s note: it is assumed this is NOT the COST of the insurance as a yearly premium) The one breed of dog that has taken the brunt of this is the pit bull. In almost every single law you can find on BSL: the pit bull is named every time as a vicious animal. (ed.s note: the pit bull is well documented as a "vicious" animal, but it is contentious whether it is a matter of atavism and/or training) Other breeds under attack are ... and the list goes on and on. These laws even regulate how the animal must be kept and what kind of kennel must be provided for the dog so it will be unable to escape. These laws are appalling to me as a dog lover not only because of the fact you are telling me that all these dogs are vicious, you are then going to tell me that I can't either own one of these dogs or must keep it locked up its whole life. What makes these laws so atrocious is that they lump the whole breed together and don't base it upon the dog's personality. (ed.s note: Surely you do not want a state fee to certify the dog is "sane"!) Just as people have different personalities, so do dogs and it is unjust to label a perfectly harmless dog vicious before you can even know what the dog is really like. (ed.s note: Granted, but just like normal people, a dog can turn vicious depending on the situation. One can not assume a "nice" dog will be "nice" all the time. Sometimes calm dogs turn vicious against humans for reasons known only to the canine kingdom!) I do however understand that these certain breed where bred for certain purposes such as guard dogs, but that makes no excuse to chastise the whole breed when the majority of these animals are not guard dogs but family pets. (ed.s note: Most families assume a "family pet" is also a guard dog.) Law makers have unlawfully put these laws into action not only against the dogs themselves but dog owners. (ed.s note: It is impossible for a law to be "unlawful"- if it is a law! Perhaps here a better choice of words would be the value judgment of "unjust law".) People are overlooking why dogs attack and why people are injured. A dog is no different than a person in that they can be influenced and basically molded into something. It is fact  (ed.: define "fact" and its source?) that an abused child has a higher tendency to become an abuser when the child is older. An abused dog is more likely to be vicious not out of breeding but out of survival and training. (ed.s note: This is contentious. Inner city dogs are highly abused, but they are fearful and reticent to be around humans.) Lawmakers are passing these laws without seeing or understanding the whole truth. It seems to me that since a dog is unable to speak for itself and defend itself  (?) that automatically means it is not a living thing and doesn't have feelings. (ed.s note: This is an emotional statement drawing an unsound conclusion.) Anyone that has been around a dog knows that it is far from the truth, dogs have emotions and understand what is going on around them. Dog owners need to speak up for their dogs and be their voices to the world and lawmakers before it is too late. If you think you might be affects by these laws based on what type of dog you own please educate yourself on what the law states. There are endless website out there on these laws to help you. The people need to stand up against our blind lawmakers before someone comes knocking on your doorto take Rover to the pound for execution for simply being a dog.
Dr Jack's "Angry" Response:  What have I said about the use of "you: and "seems". No one listens to me anyway. Having worked in the circus when I was a kid, I know firsthand the devotion people have to animals and it is OK. I also understand that the majority of problems with animals, like attack and viciousness, comes from the animal's perception that its territorial imperative is being violated and this is a problem that most humans do not understand, yet humans put fences around their yards and stay out of "strange neighborhoods" - oh well! Here is a suggestion for the writer and lawmakers. Today, some dogs come with a "degree", which has nothing to do with a pedigree. After a dog's name sometimes one will see two letters  - "GC". This means the dog is a "Good Citizen" because it has gone through substantial training for just that. They are obedient, alert to danger, will walk next to the owner and will stay in place if called upon among other practical behaviours to let them integrate amicably with others. Instead of the "dangerous dog" labels, it might be a better solution to have all dog owners, before their dog was licensed, put their dogs through school to earn their "GC" Degree.