It has been too long without any change. They need to make a  change and meet with students about the demands being asked for. I have also heard that at the next board meeting, it is not on the agenda tot be discussed and there is also no real statement being put out to address the situation. It shows a lack of leadership and initiative on their part, however, I am not surprised at the response. I hope that as a university, we as students will take action such as displays in the forum, protests, etc. I know some discussions about that have been brought up,  but as of now no real plans have been set in order to pressure the board to meet the demands.

It is crazy to think that making assumptions has been around for forever. The podcast begins by giving examples that are commonly believed as “normal.” This included one of the most common beliefs of women not being allowed to wear tank tops as women can be distracting to men if their shoulders are exposed. Black hairstyles are also crazy to view as being unprofessional due to the assumptions that black individuals are unprofessional.

After listening to the podcast, I reflected on all the rules I had in school. I attended a Catholic school up until college. I had a uniform to wear and it had to be up to the expectations set by the school board and principle. This went from having a skirt of a certain length along with the right collard short that was always tucked in to create a professional look. I never truly queestioned any of the rules presented even as I got older. When I started high school, I still had a uniform as I attended a Jesuit school. The high expectations were set since you stepped into the school with the right khakis, to the right collard shirts with the school emblem and any sweaters worn had to match as well. The most bizarre rule in my opinion were the socks. In grade school, you had to wear knee high socks that were white. Some girls would wear blue or black and I remember having the principle com into our class to reiterate the rules to a group of 2nd grade girls. I truly believe that makes no real difference as parents are the ones with the real power of having the student wear the right socks. A few other rules included not wearing nail polish, having natural color, and hair being a certain length. Guys also had a similar rules so there was not just one gender that had more rules, but both were held to a higher standard.

In college its very different having more freedom on my day to day clothing, however, I still catch myself saying I can not wear a dress without a cardigan or my shorts and skirts need to be a certain length. So although these rules are not enforced, I catch myself still thinking about them and using them as a reference.

The Podcast and reading were both very interesting and reiterated bias as I studied it in high school during my ethics class junior year. The podcast began by saying, “bias is dirty.” Bias can be dirty in the fact that it is seen as something wrong which is completely true. However, I have learned that some people come from a bubble where they only interact with diverse environments in very limited situations. It is important to remember that even when something wrong is being said, it is a learning opportunity for individuals. It can be a period of growth as some individuals do not grasp what they have said and view nothing wrong with the situation. Taking these incidents and making them a learning curve by creating open dialogue and not attacking an individual aids in making the change in righting the wrong.

Something that just stuck out to me was the section on stereotypes. I think it is so interesting how stereotypes can easily change my personal perspective of a situation especially when it can be with people I have never interacted with and have absolutely no knowledge about them as individuals. This also makes me wonder how often stereotypes have played a role in my decision making without being fully aware of the  thoughts. And this made me think on a larger scale, such as how many decisions are made daily that are based on stereotypes alone?

Another section that made me laugh was when the questions were brought up. I know for myself, I am used to saying “I’m fine” whenever I am asked how I am doing even when I am not. However, whenever that is answered by someone else, I like to follow up to see if it is true (when time in the conversation allows). All the question in the article were so true and its crazy to think of all the times I have had one of these happen to me.

IAT Response

I decided to take the same IAT that I took in high school during my junior year Ethics class. I was not surprised at the results as I had a hunch it would be similar to three years ago. However, I did think that I am just not as skilled at remembering when the buttons switched categories, so that added an extra difficulty in keeping that straight every round. But, I would take some time during some of the questions as I could not remember what each key represented and would have to read the instructions over a few time. I am not sure if other people had a similar experience or if it was just me but it also could have just been the test I chose.

The Moral Argument reading and Dr. B’s podcast were both very interesting and provoked some questions that I have always found difficult to answer. I will say after reading the article, I found myself continuing to think about it as I allowed myself some time to process the information before writing the blog post.

In the Moral Argument reading, it was captivating how when I read the examples of moral claims, it was second nature for me to assume they were true or false. Learning about noncognitivists opened my mind set as I never thought about moral arguments not existing. After the article introduced cognitivists, it made me question if it is possible to be a noncognitivists and cognitivists depending on  the statement presented. Could someone be in between both yet have clear thoughts that are respected by other individuals that have a clear distinction of where they fall when it comes from noncognitivists and cognitivists. Also, it is crazy to believe that in a hypothetical world, it could be seen as morally acceptable to murder someone. The fact that the podcast dove into the ideas of pointing out what is commonly believed yet they are not true moral arguments if you have the perspective of a noncognitivists.

Do you view yourself as a noncognitivists or cognitivists? Was this new terminology or has one of these perspectives been known to you before reading the article and listening to the podcast?