Extra Credit One: Contestant No. 2

                How far will one go to pursue their dreams? For Duah Fares, this is a question she must have pondered countless times. Duah is a 17 year old Arab Israeli. She lives in the seemingly modern state of Israel and wears clothing that we, in the United States, would deem "normal." Duah is a member of the Druze community - an offshoot of Islam. Druze women are expected to behave in a traditional manner, to behave modestly, to stay within the Druze village, and to marry within Druze. Duah is well aware of her religion and very aware that women who "step out of line" are subject to violence.

                Throughout the documentary, we learn about Duah's desire to model. She chooses to compete in the Miss Israel pageant, in which the winner will go on to the Miss Universe pageant and will likely have the opportunity to model in a place like Paris or Milan. She really believes that she has the skill and desire win the competition. However, as we see throughout the documentary, it becomes known to us that she receives threats on her well being. These threats come about because it is well known that if she makes it though the entire pageant, she will have to wear a bathing suit, which upsets members of her culture. "Ultimately, it's my life," says Duah, in contemplating whether she should quit the contest or go on, possibly putting her life in danger.

                In Duah's family, we can see a very strong correlation between religion and culture and the influence it has on their lives. The Druze religion has very strict rules about women and their behavior. It confuses me, however, that even though Duah's father was arrested for robbing two stores in trying to get extra money for her in support of the Miss Israel pageant, the Druze society did not reject him. On the other hand, it was a possibility that Duah was going to wear a bathing suit, and she was receiving death threats from those within her community. If she did end up taking part in the contest, she would have had to wear the "revealing clothing," thus bringing what Druze religion leaders deemed disgrace to her family and her people. Her participation was so controversial in the community that the sheikhs, who are the Druze leaders, got involved, saying that she must withdraw. Once her mother was told this, she had to get her daughter out of the competition, even though she, personally, would have liked to see her daughter compete and be happy. The conservative religion and culture ultimately won in the end because of the profound impact it has on its members.

                When Duah had to partake in events leading up to the Miss Israel pageant, before her withdrawal, she was being guarded. Three people were arrested when it was discovered that they were plotting to murder her. We are not told, though, if any more government action was taken against the three individuals or if any of the people sending threats were tried in Israeli court.

                We can see a changing dynamic within the younger generation of Druze by taking notice to what Duah tells her mother. She says that many people from her generation would not be bothered if she was to wear a bathing suit. Her mother, however, tells her that the elders would be upset, and rhetorically asks, "is it okay to please the younger generation [of Druze] and upset the older generation?"

                It has been well known that in the traditional world religion has had a very heavy influence on life and culture of those in a particular time and place. As we can see, those societies which still hold traditional aspects, like the Druze, can have a great impact on those of this particular branch of Islam. From what we know about Duah, we can infer that her generation of Druze is more open minded to modernizing the "rules" of her religion. For now, though, we know that Duah Fares' dream was crushed due to the presence of religion and its influence on her life. 

"Contestant No. 2." Wide Angle. PBS, n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/contestant-no-2/full-episode/5334/>.

Blog Two: College, Inc.

                What makes education more special than the everyday items that we purchase? For Michael Clifford, John Sperling, and countless others who have obtained success by asking this question, a new type of industry has emerged within our nation, one with immense consequences on our economy and politics.

                Michael Clifford is deemed an "educational entrepreneur," because he invests capital in failing universities, and sells shares of these schools to investors. His rescued schools then become "for-profit" colleges. John Sperling, of whom Clifford formerly apprenticed for, believed he could "mass produce" education, thus running a school more like a corporation rather than a traditional university. Sperling is the founder of the University of Phoenix, a booming for-profit school with over a 500,000 students enrolled.

                What exactly are "for-profit" schools? In comparison to traditional universities, for-profits sell shares to investors, as opposed to raising money from alumni and other donations. The majority of their courses offered are available online. Their calendar differs than that of the norm, so opposed to having semesters, classes are constantly starting every few weeks.  The University of Phoenix, for example, only offer short term contracts to teachers to keep costs of education low. Campuses are generally built near highways (for easy access and convenience) and are separated by roughly a 20 minute drive. For-profits are seen as the "open doors" to those who were shut out of traditional education. Many students want to increase their job prospects by going back to school, because it is incredibly difficult to sustain a "good" living-wage job with only a high school or associate's degree. Higher education is the answer to many people who need to obtain knowledge. For-profit schools are taking full advantage of this situation.

                For-profit schools are enrolling students into their systems at incredibly high rates. With these schools in place, they are constantly having to add students to keep revenue coming in. It has been determined that about 25 percent of revenue of any given for-profit is spent on advertising, while only 10 to 20 percent is spent on their faculty. These schools rely on "sales people," or recruiters, to keep enrollment rates up. There are many issues with this, however, because recruiters use sales-like phone calls with high pressure tactics to convince potential students that "a college degree can solve all of their problems." Many of the students who enroll in for-profit schools are generally from low socioeconomic backgrounds, mainly because it is their only option. However, because of this population, the majority of these students have to take out loans to pay for their education, which is having a tremendous impact on the economy and political sector of our nation.

                A for-profit tuition is expensive. The costs are about five to six times that of a community college. The students that enroll at for-profits generally have to take out many federal loans. Out of all of the students obtaining higher education, only 10 percent are from for-profit schools. However, these students make up around half of all the students who are at default with their loans - and these numbers only include a two year period from "graduation," which does not include the big picture of debt, so the percentages are actually higher than shown. Because of the student population and its large growth, there is much concern in Washington and on Wall Street that many of these students are going to fail to pay back their loans and that the government will then become responsible for them.  Congress sees the danger in this. The concern parallels that of the crisis in 2008 with the housing market collapse: people were buying houses that they couldn't afford, much like students who are taking out loans that they probably won't have the ability to pay back. This critical factor raises the question: are for-profit schools setting up students for failure?

                What steps is the government (and Wall Street, for that matter) taking to ensure that no economic crisis occurs? Congress has imposed a gainful employment test, which is a test to figure out whether for-profits are training students well enough for their intended degree. The for-profit schools dislike the regulations, but as Jack Welch (better known as the former and very successful CEO of General Electric and the founder of the business school at Strayer University) puts it, "you can't be afraid to go into a business because of regulation risk." This regulation is also expected to make education stocks fall, so lobbyists are trying to fight them in Washington. President Obama, on the other hand, has a goal that our nation will have the highest amount of people who have a college education by the year 2020. Therefore, Obama will need the for-profit sector to meet his goal. However, many students are now finding (upon completion of their degree) that their education is unsatisfactory for the work that they have to do and are finding it troubling to get a job, which then causes them to fail to pay back their debt. Some students faced with this dilemma (of realizing that their school lacked credentials or the accreditation they needed) are filing lawsuits against their school. Even if they won their case, the government would not be able to take back the debt of the student.

                With all of this said, are for-profit schools becoming "too big to fail," like many of the banks on Wall Street? Is our country adopting a culture of apathy towards its future? Our nation's population has gained an attitude of "buy now, pay later (even if I can't pay later)" to meet all of its needs, as we have clearly seen throughout history (resulting in Great Depression of 1929 and the 2008 housing market collapse, for example). Should we worry about the "fast-food-ization" of education (the very essence of making a slowly-gained and traditional education worthless)? Are these for-profit schools making education lose value and reducing the quality of a college degree? We may be able to answer yes, but who is to say what holds value or not? Only time will be able to allow us to find concrete answers to these potential obstacles that for-profit schools have induced.

 
"College, Inc." Frontline. PBS, n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2012. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/view/>.

Blog One: Opium Brides

                Not only are headlines about Afghanistan front page news for various reasons, including war, terrorism, and the like, but one more defining factor can be added to the list. Drugs are heavily trafficked in this nation, and along with this comes other forms of trafficking. Humans, women and girls most commonly, are used as a form of debt repayment to opium smugglers. These "opium brides," as they are most often referred to, are critical factors in determining whether opium farmers either live or die. Najibullah Quraishi, an Afghan journalist and filmmaker, exposes this trade in his 2012 documentary Opium Brides.

                Opium is a primary crop grown in Afghanistan. The geography is favorable for opium growing conditions. In the Nangarhar province, opium eradication is the government's target. They destroy much of the opium poppies, thus leaving thousands of farmers in debt to drug smugglers, of whom they borrowed money to plant and grow opium. This debt fuels the trade of females, which is often the means between life and death for the father. The opium brides can sometimes be bought back once the debt is repaid to the drug traffickers.

                Many farmers have no choice but to grow opium. Over 200,000 farmer families produce over 90 percent of the global opium output. The opium trade brings in roughly two billion dollars into the Afghanistan economy, which equates to about 10 percent of the economy. As we can see, opium has a great effect on this nation's economy, and surely the economy would suffer if this crop would cease. It was estimated by one farmer that his two acres of opium would equal twenty times the money of what wheat crops would bring in. Thus, we can see that opium is economically desirable. One farmer estimates that one kilo of opium ranges from 2,000 dollars to 2,500 dollars. Many farmers say they would all grow opium if they could. Some cannot, however, because of their proximity to the city of Jalalabad. As we can see, opium has a heavy effect on this country's economy, both in the macro-economy of Afghanistan as a whole, and micro-economically, in the individual lives of farmers.

                Jalalabad is the main city in the Afghan province of Nangarhar. Like mentioned earlier, the government's main target is to eradicate opium growth in this area. One district official claims that farmers in this area support opium eradication, while documentary footage obviously goes against that claim. Security for this eradication process is provided by NATO ISAF troops; they "do not eradicate the poppy, but provide security and stability in order to provide an alternative livelihood for Afghan people." They provide a program that helps farmers in this region to grow alternative crops (like maize or wheat). But, as it comes down to economics, this would lead to a slow income and the farmers would not make nearly as much as they would have from opium. Thus, the farmers still would prefer to grow opium. In some farming communities, farmers are "fighting back" and protesting against police with force. In the documentary, there is footage of the police opening fire on to the farmers. Within the chaos, the farmers are still hoping to get the right to grow their crops.

                In other communities, farmers have no intention of switching crops. One man claims that he "will die for it." Much further from the city of Jalalabad, some districts are under the protection of the Taliban, thus giving the farmers a sense of security because police do not venture far into these areas, which are near the Pakistan border. Drug smuggling is a primary source of income for the Taliban, which includes actual drug trafficking and forcing others to pay bribes to safely pass through their territory (while smuggling drugs). Other  villages in Afghanistan are so small and isolated that they are simply too distant for the government to reach. These villages are particularly interesting because they have traditional means of dealing with disagreements among villagers, with the village elders handling most of the problems. The geography of Afghanistan, being very mountainous, in particular near the Pakistan border, leads to the isolation of these villages and also the lack of police effect in these areas.

                In Afghanistan, females are considered to be at fault even if they are raped. Afghanistan does not acknowledge the abuse of women, which Quraishi deems "taboo to talk about sexual abuse." For such a modern age, the fundamentalist and cultural ideals portraying women to be less than human is obviously influencing political and social ideas within Afghanistan. Safia Siddiqi, a former member of the Afghan parliament, does not speak much about sexual abuse of the opium brides when questioned by Quraishi. A local director of counter-narcotics, when questioned about the opium brides, claimed to know nothing while the camera was filming. We can see these ideas, of females being at fault no matter the circumstance, being played out. This also leads us to know that there is a lack of equality in Afghanistan, that traditional ideologies are still leading the country in politics, religion, and culture. Also, a framed photograph on both the desk of Siddiqi and the local director of counter-narcotics, I would assume, is the Afghan leader. I was very taken aback by this because it reminded me so much of a dictatorship where people would be forced to bow and worship to a leader.

                There are numerous cases of "opium brides" that Quraishi exposes in his documentary. The sadness and guilt felt by one father who had to give his daughter to drug smugglers led him to become an opium addict. Another girl, whose sister was taken by smugglers, claimed that she would kill herself if she was taken, saying that "death is better than sorrow and sadness." Another father was forced to give his son and daughter away, because even if he gave his own life, he knew his family would still be in danger because of his debt. The eradication policies that the Afghanistan government is enforcing is tearing apart many families and causing much disorder within the lives of many.

                On a small scale, the debt is causing (mostly) young girls to be taken from their families. This has to have a great impact on the psychological development of the girls, and also on their surrounding family members. But in a country where females do not have equal rights, the government displays much apathy towards this issue. In my opinion, for such a "modern" age in which we live, this nation is so traditional in its thinking that it will succumb to any outside influx of information if it accidentally slipped in.

                The culture in Afghanistan is heavily influenced by many features that define this nation, including its religion, politics, demography, and even in some cases, geography (as per the isolated villages in Afghanistan). The culture is so heavily woven into everyday life that religion and culture seem to go hand in hand. In the Islamic faith, many fundamentalist ideologies are present, and in areas where the Taliban reigns, fundamentalist ideas rule. The religion and culture heavily shape the government, where there is definitely not a separation of church and state in Afghanistan. In traditional societies, however, there is no separation. Thus, I believe that Afghanistan is still traditional in its ways because of this, despite the fact that we are in the twenty-first century. I do question the amount of technology that is readily available in Afghanistan, because I did see cellular phones, automobiles, and other modern technologies present in the documentary. So philosophically and analytically speaking, what constitutes modern society: modern government, the latest technology, or a multi-diverse and accepting culture?

                As I was watching this documentary, I wondered what it would be like if I were the one filming. Would I, a very non-Afghan looking person, have been able to hold a camera and ask questions of various people (with a translator, of course)? Demographically, I would have stuck out. I probably would have been questioned immediately and maybe thrown into jail. Oh yes, I also am female, which probably would not have been such a likeable thought with the Afghan majority. Or would I have been able to do exactly what Quarashi was able to accomplish in this very ethnocentric and traditional society? My guess would be the former, as most people would assume.

                It is very bizarre to think that human trade still exists in the world today. As Quraishi exposed in his documentary, there are many factors determining the fate of many young girls (and boys) throughout Afghanistan. How are we in modernized countries supposed to react to this? If the Afghan government does not recognize these innocent victims of the opium trade, what will become of them? These are questions with answers that we do not yet know, but can only hope that the answer is better than the current situation.

"Opium Brides." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2012. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/opium-brides/>.

Photo from:  "The Truth About Opium Brides." Foreign Affairs. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2012. <http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137315/fariba-nawa/the-truth-about-opium-brides>.