Abortion

1. The National Right to Life Website definitely had more information on it than the NARAL- Prochoice America one had. The NRLC website had many statistics about abortion as well as detailed information as to how abortions are performed. The NRLC website started off by explaining that about 93% of all induced abortions are done for an elective reason, meaning that there was no medical risk to the expectant mother and the abortion was merely done for social reasons. The NRLC website was definitely better than the NARAL website because it made me feel bad when I was reading it. They talked about dismembering the body of the fetus and explained, in vivid detail, how an abortion is carried out and what the different procedures are like. They explained that when an abortion is done, the baby's heart is already beginning to beat and that depending on how far in the pregnancy the abortion is performed, a baby may have identifiable arms and legs, display measurable brain waves, and their fingers and genitals may already be appearing. They explained that there are about 3,000 Crisis Pregnancy Centers throughout the United States. At these centers, there are volunteers that are there to help women that have an unplanned pregnancy and can offer them assistance and support in some of the financial aspects of taking care of a baby.

The NARAL website had much less detail than the NRLC website did. The NARAL website had information on what pro-life activists are doing to pro-choice activists to try to eliminate the possibility of the pro-choice people having an abortion. Some of these tactics include being violent and intimidating doctors and patients, banning safe abortion methods, passing laws that jeopardize a woman’s health and safety, or having Crisis pregnancy Centers that intentionally mislead women. The NARAL website does offer some advice on how to combat these tactics, but it also heavily supports improving access to birth control and having better sex education to help lower the amount of abortions.

It definitely seems as if the NRLC website is winning the debate. They definitely seem to be on the offense while the NARAL seems to be on the defense. The NRLC is giving reasons why abortion is bad and why it shouldn't be allowed, while the NARAL website was simply stating what pro-life activists were doing to inhibit abortion and how it was unfair and against the Roe v. Wade ruling. I definitely wouldn't say that this information changed my opinion on abortion, but it definitely gave me more information that I hadn't known. While I knew that abortion was a big decision, I didn't really realize how having an abortion is actually killing the baby and tearing its limbs apart. I still think that it should be the women's choice, because ultimately they are the one that is carrying the baby for nine months and caring for it after its birth, but it is definitely shocking for me to realize how detrimental it can be to the fetus and what an abortion actually does.

2. Personally, I am pro-choice. I think that it is the right of a female to decide what she wants to do with the baby. While there are definitely other options besides parenting, carrying a baby for 9 months, as well as visiting the doctor and going through childbirth, are events that can change a woman’s life. Being pregnant is not a “no big deal” situation that can simply be ignored. A person that becomes pregnant needs to change their entire lifestyle, the way they eat, and possible how much they can work just to suit the needs of the growing baby inside of them. While abortion may be a gruesome procedure, I believe that it is up to the discretion of the mother if she believes that she is ready to have a child, and if not, she has the right to terminate the pregnancy before she must go through with it. I think that a parent should have the right to know if their daughter is having an abortion but should not have the right to consent to it. Up to a certain age, I think it is appropriate for the parents to be notified about the abortion because they should know what is going on with their daughter and that she is going through a major procedure. I do not think that they should have the right to consent to it because again, it is not them that is going to have to go through the pregnancy. The parents may say that they can take care of the kid and let the new mom go back to school or pursue her previous life plans, but it is not the parents that are going to have the bay growing inside of them for nine months. A women can want an abortion and feel that she is not ready to carry a baby, but if her parents are extreme pro-life activists, this should not limit her ability to go through the procedure that she would like to go through.

3. I definitely think that if the mother and father do not speak to each other, every effort must be made to at least notify the father about the abortion. While he may truly want to have a baby and promise to dedicate himself to caring for the baby, he is not the one that is going to be going through the nine months of pregnancy, and therefore should not have the ability to consent or not. The father is not the one that is going to have the baby growing inside of him for nine months, so I think that it is unfair for him to have a say in the decision as to if the woman gets an abortion or not. Ideally, the mother and father will be stable and supportive of each other, but when this is not the case, it is not up to the father to decide what happens. If the father truly wants a baby, I think that this is a conversation that should happen well before the woman becomes pregnant so that when it does happen, it is something that they both want and have planned to have with each other.

4. I definitely disagree with Illinois’ positions on abortion. Illinois definitely seems to be pro-life, and being pro-choice, I definitely am opposed to the state laws and opinions. I think that the woman should have a choice on what they should do if they become pregnant. On the NARAL website, it says that Illinois has expressed “its intent to restrict the right to choose to the greatest extent possible.” This really bothers me because it shows that the state is trying everything they can to limit abortions.

In A Heartbeat-- Post 1

For my outside reading assignment, I have decided to read the book In A Heartbeat written by Sean and Leigh Ann Tuohy. Those names may sound a little bit familiar to you, and if they do, it is because you saw the movie The Blind Side. Sean and Leigh Anne Tuohy are the adoptive parents of NFL player Michael Oher, and this book is their story of how they came about adopting Michael and the journey that they took. I decided to read this book because of my love for the movie. I instantly developed a love for The Blind Side after I saw it, so I decided that I wanted to read the book by the Tuohys to get an inside view at their perspective and why they decided to take in a homeless black man. When reading the prologue to this book, I was taken aback by the way in which the Tuohys described American's and put the act of charitable giving in perspective. The Tuohys began to think about making a difference and how many people do things because it will give them positive attention, will make them look good to others, or, as they say it, "Gives us more points on our Visa card." While hard to hear, this is unfortunately true for many of Americans. Although 89% of American households give to charity, many of the people who give to charity do so for the sole reason of getting attention from others, which brings the average to only 1.9% of total household income being donated to charity. When put into perspective, this is a very low percentage. The Tuohys decided to take a different approach to giving to charity.  They decided to "do small things with great love. If [they] could do that, little opportunities to give might grow beyond [their] wildest dreams." This is the mentality that needs to be spread across the country to so many more people.

Death Penalty Article

With the death penalty unit wrapping up, I thought it would be a good idea to direct your attention to this recent article. This is a follow up on the article that we previously read in class. I know that Mr. Kramer posted it on his blog, but I thought that I would do it too. Check it out below...

Click Here!

Death Penalty #3

Stages-

In an effort to protect the rights of the accused, police try to be sure that they are arresting the right person for the crime. Unfortunately, many crimes that become cases of possible capital punishment are not caught in action by the police, and therefore all arrests must be made using evidence that is collected and by speaking to witnesses. While this is definitely a way to verify that the correct people are being arrested, it is also the first flaw in the system. A person’s life is directly being put into someone else’s hands. If a police officer shows the picture of a suspect to a witness, if that witness says “Yes, that’s the guy,” then he has sent that person to their deathbed, but if the witness says “No, that isn’t him,” then that is giving the police a huge reason to let that suspect go, even if it really was the murderer. The defendant’s case in the guilt phase trial is another way for the government to ensure that the accused are being given their rights. The defendant is allowed to present their argument and produce evidence that would show why they are innocent. In addition, it is now a rule that the penalty must be decided by a jury, rather than a judge. In the next stage, the Direct Appeal, the defendant is allowed to demonstrate that a mistake was made and that they are in fact innocent. Lastly, there is a stage called Clemency, in which a person is allowed to motion for their sentence to be reduced. I do not think that this is a sufficient system because many innocent people are being executed. While there definitely are a ton of stages that allow for an innocent person to prove themselves, I still think that something obviously has to be wrong with our system because there are many people being executed who are later found to be innocent.

Methods-

The most humane form of execution is definitely death by lethal injection. I think that all of the other forms of execution are “cruel and unusual” punishments and that they violate the 8^th Amendment. Hanging is “cruel and unusual” because the prisoner dies by fracturing or dislocating their neck. While this is a very quick process, there are many complications that can occur, causing the death to be very slow and painful. The next type of execution that was introduced, firing squad, is clearly “cruel and unusual.” Being executed by a firing squad means that a person is shot at by multiple people, eventually resulting in them bleeding out and dying. This is extremely cruel because being shot is extremely painful, let alone being shot five times. Sometimes, the heart can be missed, and the death then becomes extremely long and painful. Death by electrocution is also cruel and unusual because oftentimes a person does not die from the first shock. It is hard to say how many shocks it will take, but the body is literally frying like an egg afterwards. Lastly, death in a gas chamber is extremely cruel and unusual because it is extremely painful. Dr. Richard Traystman from John Hopkins University School of Medicine said that, "The person is unquestionably experiencing pain and extreme anxiety...The sensation is similar to the pain felt by a person during a heart attack, where essentially the heart is being deprived of oxygen." This is a horrible way to die, and making someone go through this type of pain is extremely cruel and unusual.

(Some pictures of the different methods of execution...)



Hanging





Firing Squad





Electrocution



Lethal Injection



Gas Chamber





State By State Data-

Looking at the maps with the different data, I found it to be very interesting how there were many trends regarding the death penalty and different races and genders. Looking at the data, California and Texas seem to be the states with the largest amounts of executions. Each time I filtered the results to see a different statistic, it always seemed that these states had an overwhelming majority of executions, especially California. I definitely think that there is racial profiling occurring in the executions. For the most part, most of the people being executed are white males. I think that the reason for this is the fear that sentencing someone of a different race to death would start an argument that that was racial discrimination. This, of course, is not always true, but I truly think that the government fears that these issues will arise, and therefore try to limit the amount of minorities that are sentenced to death. Another huge trend is in the gender. Basically, all of the people on death row are men. There are definitely some women scattered throughout the country, but for the most part, it is men who are on death row. Because of Roper v. Simmons in 2005, there are no juveniles on death row because it was considered “cruel and unusual” to sentence someone to the death penalty to a crime that they committed as a juvenile. I definitely think that there appears to be a trend in this data. It seems that mainly white males are the ones sentenced to the death penalty. I don’t think that this is the way it should be because each case should be treated equally. There should be guidelines as to when the death penalty is and is not appropriate, because I think that there is definitely a possibility that if a white male committed a crime and an Asian female committed the same crime, they would not receive the same consequences.

Looking at the information presented in the fact sheets, my previous response is shown to be correct and my opinions are only reiterated. Cases involving capital punishment are extremely expensive, and in many states each case costs over $2 million. Making the taxpayers pay for these executions seems completely unfair to me. Sentencing the accused to life without parole accomplishes the same thing as the death penalty because it is keeping these criminals off of the streets. In addition, these graphs prove that there is an extreme racial discrimination against white males when it comes to the death penalty. It is very obvious that the Death Penalty Information Center feels that there is a bias towards white males because they constantly include data that shows how there are many more white males on death row than any other race. My favorite piece of data from the information is that 88% of criminologists believe that executions do not lower homicide rates. I think that this is so interesting because one of the main purposes of having the death penalty is to lower the number or homicides, but it appears that this is not working.

Taking the I and P out of RIP

In my opinion, Clifford Boggess deserved to be executed and received the justice that he deserved. The case against Clifford Boggess was extremely complex, as there were many factors that strengthened and weakened the case against him. Ultimately, there are more aggravating factors that strengthen the necessity for execution than mitigating factors that lesson the necessity for execution. Yes, I do believe that people can change and that they can recognize their actions, but I also believe that people need to pay the price for what they did and need to suffer from the consequences. In the case of Clifford Boggess, his consequences are something irreversible…death.  Personally, I think that Boggess changed. I think that while in jail and on death row, Clifford Boggess was able to come to terms with himself and realize that what he had done was wrong. While this is very nice to know that he is remorseful, it does not change the fact that he brutally killed two men in a premeditated fashion. Boggess is a monster. He did not get into an argument with someone and shoot them, but he carefully planned out each murder and then gruesomely followed through on his plans. The first man that Boggess killed was an older man that he had known his entire life. Boggess was in need of money and decided to target someone weaker than him, an older man who worked at the store in town. Boggess carefully planned out what he was going to do, putting super glue on his fingers in an effort to eliminate the possibility of fingerprints being lifted from the crime scene. He then slit the man’s throat and repeatedly stabbed him in the Adam’s apple. This murder was carefully thought out and committed by a man with absolutely no soul. While this is definitely an aggravating factor that would strengthen the case against Boggess, there definitely are some facts that mitigate the case and make it seem less necessary to execute Boggess. Growing up, Boggess had a very difficult childhood. His mother was extremely abusive, whether she was abusing him physically or she was out abusing drugs. Boggess grew up with his grandparents because of his extremely tough childhood and became an all-star at his school. He was extremely academically successful, as well as being a star of the basketball and football teams. He was a multifaceted kid, being an athlete as well as a successful pianist. While these facts could strengthen the argument that Boggess didn’t deserve to be executed, they are not enough to overpower the immense amount of aggravating factors in this case.

3-4 weeks after his first murder, Boggess struck again. He walked into a gas station and shot the owner, another old man, in the back repeatedly. After being caught by the police, Boggess said that he didn’t even care that he was being arrested. He had absolutely no feelings for the people that he murdered and for the lives of the families that he terrorized, demonstrating the horrible qualities that he possessed and the awful person that he was. When on trial, Boggess threatened to kill the judge as well as his girlfriend, showing the danger that he would pose to society. This is no man that should be on our streets and he did not deserve to get a second chance at life.

Clifford Boggess brutally murdered two men and tore apart their families. Whether or not he is remorseful for his actions and knows what he did was wrong, he needs to face the consequences and face the death penalty. It is unfair for Boggess to be able to take the lives of two people but to be able to continue to live his life. He needs to pay for what he did and face execution. Boggess’ life has no societal value anymore. Society does not deserve to have such a horrible man living, and Boggess, no matter how good of an artist or how devout a Christian, does not deserve to be alive anymore. Boggess had his chance to be a good member of society, but he ruined that by murdering two people. Executing Boggess is the only option that would finally give justice to the families of the victims. Society is a better place without Clifford Boggess and this horrible, monstrous man does not even deserve to have “I.” and “P.” on his headstone. He deserves absolutely no peace in his death because of the horrible actions that he committed and the precious lives that he viciously stole.

Bullying

After watching the two films and talking about the bullying situations, I have gained a new prospective on bullying and the extreme toll it can take on people. In Bullied, the story of Jamie Nabozny and the extreme discrimination that he faced was displayed. Being gay, Jamie was the target of a lot of bullying, physically and verbally. In one instance, Jamie was beat so hard that he had to receive surgery. This is something that I never realized because in our community, it is rare to see someone physically being hurt while being bullied. Jamie constantly talked to the school administration and told them about the bullying that was occurring, but nothing was ever handled with and solved. After running away multiple times, Jamie finally decided that he was going to file a lawsuit against certain individuals, as well as the school district, for neglecting to protect him from the violence. In the case Nabozny v. Podlesny, a landmark decision was made that schools have the right to protect students from physical harm and verbal abuse of comments regarding being gay. Nabozny was able to summon the courage to relive his bullying experiences and face the people who bullied him as well as the administrators, such as Vice Principle Podlesny, who neglected to do anything when he would report the bullying to them. Thankfully, I don't think that there is a big bullying problem here at DHS. Personally, I think that there is probably verbal bullying that occurs for different reasons, but I would be very surprised if someone told me that there was a problem with people being physically bullied. Of course, any form of bullying is unacceptable and should not be tolerated, but I think that we are very fortunate to not have a problem with people being physically harmed due to being bullied. I think that the reason for this lack of physical bullying is being people generally know that they will be punished if it were to occur. DHS has a strict bullying policy, as well as rules that protect students from being harmed, so I can confidently say that if someone were to be physically bullied, I think that the situation would be handled with if it were reported to the proper administration. I definitely think that we are very fortunate to have this type of security and that DHS is different from many other schools. There are many other schools, such as Jamie Nabozny's, in which people are bullied and physically harmed for lifestyle choices or even religion, something that a student doesn't even choose to be associated with. I find this to be absolutely horrible because school is a place that children should be able to feel safe, but in these types of schools, life for people like Jamie Nabozny is hell because he had to live every single day wondering if he was going to be bullied again. In order to protect these students, rules need to be put into place forbidding any type of bullying and offering severe consequences if bullying occurs. I think that setting the bar very high and informing students that bullying is 100% not tolerated and that if it occurs there will be a severe punishment, it will ingrain into that minds of the potential bullies that bullying is unacceptable and if they choose to pick on someone else, they are going to have severe consequences. Also, I think it is up to each individual to have the courage to stand up for themselves. Being bullied can be something that is very embarrassing, especially when others see it happen. Having the courage to stand up, stop the bullying, and report it to the proper authority is not an easy job but is something that needs to be done in order to ensure that each student is receiving the safe haven that they need. In addition, programs such as "Challenge Day" are a good way to organize an entire student body and allow them to share their thoughts and feelings with one another. It is hard to predict what the outcome will be after such an event, but in the case of the episode of If You Really Knew Me, Challenge Day was something that really helped that high school because it allowed the students to reach out to each other and share their feelings about the bullying in their school. Thankfully, I think that the bullying at DHS is much less severe than the bullying that was occurring in that school, so I think that something like Challenge Day wouldn't be as affective at the less-bullied schools like DHS. It is important that people know that bullying is unacceptable and that if it is done, there will be consequences. Protecting every student and giving them a safe haven to learn should be the goal of every single school in the United States.

Students and the Fourth Amendment--Article Responses

I read the article titled "'Sexting' Suit Tests Searches of Student Cell Phones" as well as the response to the article which was titled, "ACLU and PA School Board Association Working On Guidelines For School Administrators On Searching Students' Cell Phones." I found these articles to be very interesting because they seemed to really relate to our school and were interesting because it is something that I think many people fear here at DHS. In this case, a high schooler from Pennsylvania had her cell phone confiscated because she was using it during the school day. Upon receiving her cell phone, the principal began to rummage through the contents of the phone, searching through her pictures, text messages, e-mails, etc. Upon looking through her pictures, the principal of her school found naked pictures that she took of herself that were stored on her cell phone. Upon viewing these images, the high school student was suspended for three days, and she filed a lawsuit against her school for unlawfully searching through her phone. In New Jersey v. T.L.O., it was established that the search of a student by a school official must be “justified at its inception” and is “permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.” Because the photos were not in plain view upon looking at the cell phone and required three steps to acquire them, this high school student argued that the search of her cell phone was illegal and therefore her punishment was unjust. The student won the case and the school had to pay her for all of her legal fees and for their wrongdoing. I found this to be really interesting because it is something that I hear a lot at DHS. When people get their cell phones confiscated and taken to the Dean's Office, many people worry that their phones will be searched. Upon reading this article, it now seems to me that this cannot be done unless there is a justifiable reason, as established in T.L.O. Students are entitled to their privacy and therefore cannot have their things searched unless there is a legitimate reason for it to be done.

Students and the Fourth Amendment-- Personal Opinion

In my personal opinion, I am against drug testing because I wouldn't want for it to happen to me and I wouldn't want to feel as if my privacy was being invaded. Although I feel that I personally wouldn't want for a drug testing policy to be enacted here at DHS, I honestly think that a drug testing policy is constitutional and that it would be reasonable for a drug testing policy to be enacted at DHS. The intent of a random drug testing policy is to be sure that the students of the school are not engaging in illegal behaviors and are being safe. In multiple Supreme Court cases, it has been ruled that random drug tests are legal courses of action to ensure the safety of the students. While this may seem to be like an intrusive and uncomfortable position to be "forced" into, if a student is not doing drugs, they should have nothing to hide and shouldn't be worried about the testing. Those students who do engage in illegal activities may not want to be subjected to the testing, but if they are caught with a substance they can be properly helped and potentially saved from a future drug accident. This one point on the drug policies that I do not agree with is that many of the random drug testing policies are solely directed towards student athletes and people participating in extra-curricular activities, and not towards the rest of the student body. In my opinion, implementing this type of rule is a way to say that the school district is more concerned about the people who are participating in activities outside of the classroom, and don't care as much about the students who don't have these additional activities. I think that this is something that should be changed because every student should be receiving the same amount of care and attention from the school, and therefore, every student should be subjected to the same drug testing. Additionally, if a student is heavily involved in drugs or other illegal substances, there are large chances that they do not participate in athletics or in extra-curricular activities, in an attempt to free more time to do drugs. By neglecting these students and only testing the ones who are participating in other activities, these students are getting away with their illegal behaviors and are not being helped with their problems. Randomly drug testing students is a way to make the community feel more secure and to help save the lives of young high school students who may be simply making a poor decision.

Freedom of Religion

Upon looking at the first article of the survey on Americans, I am astounded by the responses that were given. Question 1 asks what the specific rights were that are in the First Amendment. Although the statistics have improved over the past 13 years, they are still extremely low. For example, only 6% of the people that were surveyed knew that the First Amendment granted the Right to Petition. In my opinion, this is an extremely low number, especially because it is regarding the First Amendment, the most common Amendment in the Constitution. The right to Freedom of speech was the most commonly known right in the First Amendment, but this too only had a 61% rate of being identified. Another thing that surprises me is that the vast majority of people surveyed believed that student speakers should be allowed to offer a prayer at public school events. 75% agreed and 22% disagreed with this, an amount that I find to be really surprising and high.

            After reading the second article about religious liberty in public schools, I happen to strongly agree with many of the points that were raised. As a country, it is our goal to ensure that the principles of religious liberty are being sustained and that people or religions are not being taken advantage of. As people are beginning to believe in more and more religions, it is becoming more crucial that schools establish concrete rules regarding religious expressions, in an effort to be sure that no religion is receiving more benefits and opportunities than another. A common consensus among 24 religious associations is that public schools “must be places where religion and religious conviction are treated with fairness and respect. Public schools uphold the First Amendment when they protect the religious liberty rights of students of all faiths and none. Schools demonstrate fairness when they ensure that the curriculum includes study about religion, where appropriate, as an important part of a complete education.” I strongly agree with this statement because I agree that it is imperative that each religion is treated with respect and is treated as equals. If one religion is forbidden to practice during school, then all other religions should be forbidden as well. If all religions are treated equally, then there will be minimal conflict between different religions, creating a more peaceful society.

 The article that I read was titled “Schools Juggle Holidays in Effort to Respect Many Faiths.” This article was very interesting because it highlighted the issues that occur in school districts in which some holidays are given days off of school when others aren’t. This becomes a very tough area for school administrators to deal with because they have to basically decide which holiday is more important than another. While there are holidays that are generally given days off across the nation, there are many other holidays in other religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism that aren’t granted as many days off as other religions, which can be thought of as being unfair towards those religions. In Florey v. Sioux Falls School District, the Court upheld the school district’s policy that stated, “It is accepted that no religious belief or nonbelief should be promoted by the school district or its employees, and none should be disparaged. Instead, the school district should encourage all students and staff members to appreciate and be tolerant of each other’s religious views.” In my opinion, this is the perfect policy for a school to establish. In order to ensure that there is no controversy amongst different religions, it is to the benefit of the school to simply take no religious belief and remain unbiased towards any religion. Lastly, another idea that was established in the article was the idea of “floating” or “choose your own holiday days.” These days allow for students to take their pick on which holidays they want to observe and what days they want to take off. By implementing this type of policy, it takes the pressure off of the school board as to which holidays should be declared as a day off. I specifically like this method because it gives students their own choice as to which holidays they are going to miss school for. While religion can become a very difficult issue to discuss because of the sensitivity that many people have on it, it is very important that no religion is favored or “advertised” in a public school setting. All religions are equal and should be treated as such.

7 Days in September

I thought that this was one of the best documentaries that I have ever seen. The entire film was very compelling and heart-wrenching at the same time. Being able to see the raw footage of what New York was like during the attacks, as well as in the days following them, was something I have never been exposed to, and thought was very interesting. After the attacks, New York was a ghost town. It seemed so eerie and dead. I never imagine New York to be like that because of the large population and the reputation that it has of being so "fast-moving". This was so interesting to me because it showed me how the entire city basically shut down and how everyone was fending for themselves. At the end, I really liked how everyone was coming together as a city to help others. In a big city, especially in New York, this is a very rare sight to see. People were bringing supplies for others, giving rides to complete strangers, and offering any help that they could, even if it was for someone that they didn't know. It is this type of behavior that needs to be more contagious and apparent throughout our cities, without the need of a devastating terrorist attack to spark this generous behavior.

Speech Codes

Throughout the past few weeks, we have been discussing he issue of speech codes and how certain actions can be considered unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment. One issue that we heavily discussed was about a fraternity party at Auburn University in which people were painted blackface and wearing KKK costumes. Many photos surfaced from this party, and the ways in which people were dressed and impersonating others was extremely discriminatory an caused for action to be taken against the members of the fraternity.

These were some of the pictures:

After these pictures appeared, many arguments began as to the type of disciplinary action that should be taken against the students. Auburn University prohibits “any form of discrimination or harassment related to a student's race," and by the pictures and the article, these students were clearly displaying discriminatory and harassing behavior. The way in which they portrayed others and degraded people of other races is horrible and it deserves strict consequences. The pictures displayed are in violation of the University policy, and thus, the students that were involved deserve to be punished. Although their actions may seem harmless and funny to some, they are not funny to others and can cause extreme emotional distress to a person that they are portraying. Auburn's policy of "any form of discrimination" indicates that these actions are not permitted and violate the University code. In addition to the University code, these actions can be debated as to if they are also in violation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment allows free speech, but it also doesn't allow free speech that hurts others or puts them in danger. Posting these images and acting in such a way can put others in danger because it could cause someone that was being made fun of to be emotionally distressed and to hurt themselves or others. The school should punish the students by suspending them and investigating the legality of their actions. The students should have to formally and publically apologize to those that they offended because their actions were completely inexcusable. In addition, the fraternity should be placed on probation with the university. While the fraternity may not have known that the party was going to occur, they are still responsible for what happens there. They should receive a warning about this type of behavior and be told that if any type of incident occurs again, the fraternity would be kicked off of campus. An example needs to be made and people need to recognize that this type of behavior is not taken lightly and that it will result in strict consequences.