In the 1980’s and through the 1990’s crime rates were beginning to rise and schools began to crack down on violence, disorder, and weapons in the classroom. There was a term used to justify the punishments given to children who were misbehaving, Zero Tolerance, the official definition being the refusal to accept undesirable misbehavior, typically by strict and uncompromising application of the law. Retro Report is a website that publishes documentaries on major new events and shares them to a digital audience. On October 2nd, 2016 they released a video describing the Zero Tolerance policy in depth and depicting the impact it had on schools where the policy was enforced. There were witnesses to the effect of Zero Tolerance speaking in the video, speaking against the policy and how it had an overall negative outcome. Muckraking does still exist in film as demonstrated by Retro Report’s documentary, Unraveling Zero Tolerance, a video that examined the effect of the zero tolerance policy on students in school.
Eric H. Holder, former attorney general, spoke in the video, construing the difference between the handling of misbehavior in the 1980’s and present day. Jeremy Hudson, a highschool dropout, explained how his life was after hes was affected by the Zero
…show more content…
Eric Holder and Jeremy Hudson are both muckrakers who helped form a better, safer way for kids to learn by speaking to the public through a documentary. They shed some light on the bad points of the Zero Tolerance policy and helped out a lot of kids who got in trouble at school. Without the muckrakers that helped them, these kids would have to deal with very severe punishment that they might not have deserved. Now kids weren't getting expelled left and right, and they still had an opportunity for a bright
It also explores the minority poor demonization to serve political ends contributing to minority unrealistic fear by the whites and to persistent police brutality problems against the minority communities. Videos taken by bystanders and by use of cams worn by officers and some placed in police cars show how the unarmed minorities were fatally shot by the police in minor confrontations in the 21st century. The film end with a graphic of recent videos of blacks’ fatal shooting by the police. Questions 1.
On August 13, 2013 Pete Yost, a journalist with the Associated Press, published an article titled “Attorney General Eric Holder to Push for Sentencing Reform” informing of Attorney General Eric Holder’s view on the current criminal justice system at the time. Holder believes that the nation’s view of harsher punishments has become less effective as “Mandatory minimum prison sentences” have come to be the norm. (Yost, 2013) A proposed strategy that has been generated would focus the criminal justice systems attention to the “low-level, non-violent drug offenders [and] elderly non-violent offenders”. (Yost, 2013)
Many of the speakers are frustrated at the fact that systemic racism is still very much alive, yet they remain professional. They discuss issues and problems in detail to give the audience a full understanding of the topic. Because of this and their desire to be direct, glossing-over details and censorship does not occur. The documentary has two main points of discussion: the history of oppression in America, and the prison industrial-complex. During the first half of the film, wherein the speakers discuss the discrimination of African-Americans, the tone used is factual and [smth].
The stories "No More" by Alysia Tucker and “Zero Tolerance for Abuse" by Jaime Sherrill are very similar and different. They are both interesting essays about women that get abused by their partners which may be their husband or boyfriend. It is an issue that goes on in many homes every day, but there is many of us that are lucky and do not go through that experience. In both essays, it tells us the experiences of many women that do but the essay “No More” is more effective that “Zero Tolerance for Abuse.” Alysia Tucker and Jaime Sherrill are both talk about domestic violence
“On a night when thousands of Paris residents and tourists were reveling and fans were enjoying a soccer match between France and world champion Germany, horror struck in an unprecedented manner. Terrorists -- some with AK-47s, some reportedly with bombs strapped to them – attacked sites throughout the French capitol and at the stadium where the soccer match was underway” (CNN). In a world of constant fighting and terror everyone is in need of leaders that remind them of goodness. Jimmie Lee Jackson, John Lewis, and Barbara Jordan are leaders who fight for good through their determination for equality, beliefs in peace, and passion for justice. Jimmie Lee Jackson was a good leader because he was determined for equality.
These progressive views were often published and voiced by journalists. These journalists would expose the injustices and corruptions occurring and were dubbed muckrakers. Whether in established groups or voicing an individual opinion, numerous people started fighting injustices due to morality or religious reasons. (Norton,
They set the precedent for future generations of journalists who had to explore race relations in America during the
The Muckrakers, were investigative journalist who succeeded to exposed the social ills of citizens and corruption of both corporation and politics, and they had a huge impact on the success of the Progressive movement. Without the muckrakers the progressive movement would have not achieved the well-known status they had. These crusading journalists exposed bribery and corruption at city and state level, as well as in Congress. They called attention to the exploitation of child labor, the revulsion truth of lynching, and the cruel business practices employed by capitalists. The muckraker’s journalism resulted in legislations and reforms that had long-lasting effects.
During the integration of Little Rock Nine central high school in 1957, the media illuminated certain events but painted and inaccurate picture of other events. In many cases not just the ones during that time the media has illuminated lots of things like the Trayvon Martin case where as thought they told us everything. During the time things were so bad back then. Also it was dangerous for the kids to go to the school by there self so the president sent in the military.
Thurgood Marshall, Roy Wilkins, A. Philip Randolph, Rosa Parks, Dr. Martin L. King, Jr., among others, have become household names as pioneers of the Civil Rights Movement. Mention of Thurgood Marshall immediately conjures in mind the historic United States Supreme Court Case, Brown vs. Board of Education. A. Philip Randolph immediately reminds us of the “Second Emancipation Proclamation”, Executive Order 8802 which gave thousands of Negroes access to jobs in manufacturing plants receiving contracts from the defense department during World War II. Rosa Parks is inextricably associated in the minds of millions with the Montgomery Bus Boycott. And who cannot think of Dr. Martin L. King together with the March on Washington and
McCarter describes thoroughly the consequences STPP has on the nation’s school-age youth, including but not limited to increased exposure the criminal justice system, and gives solutions that schools can implement that will hopefully limit the overwhelming amount of students coming in contact with the STPP. The article proves that zero tolerance policies are not conducive to a safe school environment and does not foster a safe learning climate for
The literature review clearly has shown that there is a phenomenon called School to Prison, Schoolhouse to Jailhouse, or Public Education to Prison Pipeline. Therefore, Jeremy Thompson (2016) says, “Zero-tolerance policies in schools result in high suspension rates and expulsion rates among students in general, but disproportionately affect minority students, especially African-Americans because students who have been suspended or expelled are more likely than not to end up in the Criminal Justice
Summary Of Argument, Methods: In 1968, stop and frisk was based on strict guidelines that explained how far an officer can frisk someone according to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Behind the police officers’ stop and frisks, the strategies of broken windows policing and the zero-tolerance policy were introduced. Broken windows theory began in New York during the year of 1982, and former Mayor Giuliani of New York created zero-tolerance policy in 1997. Broken windows was a known policing strategy throughout all departments in the nation.
It wasn 't just students and their parents - civil rights groups got involved, as did educators, and even juvenile judges sounded alarm at the number of young people who came out of zero tolerance with arrest records and other disciplinary millstones around their necks. The Obama Justice Department has also pressed school districts to find alternatives to arrest and expulsion. In recent years, Florida has indeed changed its approach - a 2009 amendment puts more discretion in the hands of school administrators to discipline students. A number of counties have also set up alternative sanctions for infractions - counseling, community service and other rehabilitative programs aim to help students improve their behavior, unlike expulsion, which left students to wander the streets during the day, fall behind on school work and get into even more trouble.
Remove or Revise Zero-tolerance policies are policies that have been adapted in work places, communities, and, most frequently, schools. Depending on how certain schools are run and who they are run by, zero-tolerance policies could be positive and helpful or negative and harmful. Many people wonder are these policies really effective in reducing crime and creating safer environments in schools like lawmakers claim these policies are doing ; most of the opponents to zero-tolerance policies believe that the policies are just cruel punishments that add to the problems that already exist in our schools and communities. There are obviously those who feel that the policies do exactly what they say they do; advocates for zero-tolerance policies