I sez wipe yo' feets."  These words are a depiction of an old African American woman Aunt Jamima, head wrap and all.  The image of "mammy" is rooted in slavery, when old African American women kept house and watched the children of their "Massa."  The language is found not only in Hollywood renditions of slavery but also in historical or literary texts that describe slavery and the antebellum era.  Today we know this language as ebonics.  The continuation of this language and its use within our schools has recently been a topic of considerable debate.   Ebonics is a dialect and the language of a minority group which serves to support ethnic identity.   The use of ebonics in our schools, however,  is not as benign or even "politically correct" as it may initially seem.  I will argue that it actually functions as a silent and passive means of segregation.  Society has taken the language of a people and is making use of this language to encourage African Americans to segregate themselves.  In turn, African Americans are unwittingly supporting stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination that have worked against the advancement of their people.

Assimilation of African Americans into mainstream culture will not occur through the continuation of negative images and corresponding stereotypes.  Supporting ebonics in our classrooms inadvertently valorizes the language and the conditions of our ghettos and consequently reinforces already established stereotypes.  This further traps African Americans in poverty, a persistent poverty which supports an entrenched stratification of social groups.  In the past this oppression has been as blatant as slavery.   When slavery was outlawed, Jim Crow laws took its place.  After Jim Crow the attacks on African Americans continued.  Although blatant forms of racism are much less accepted today, the subtler and perhaps more insidious forms of racism continue.  The support of ebonics in education encourages minorities to live up to the stereotypes with which they are identified.  The acceptance of ebonics is not an acceptance of multiculturalism.  On the contrary, ebonics is a non-marketable skill which sustains social class immobility; its support is merely another form of subtle racism.

Today African Americans constitute the largest percentage of the non-white population in the United States.   While African Americans clearly have made significant gains on a variety of fronts, they continue to lag behind other groups politically, economically, and educationally.   African Americans are still underrepresented in government.  African Americans are rejected for mortgages more often than any other ethnic group, and only 13% of African Americans are college graduates (Henslin, 330).  Education is the foundation to a career, and the amount of money and prestige a job offers usually parallels the level of education the job requires.  One reason to learn "standard" English is to compete in the labor market.   By supporting ebonics and downplaying the market value of "proper" English, we are segregating African Americans and insuring the future availability of a poor, non-white surplus labor force.

Others argue that it is the denial of ebonics which is prejudicial and that it is, in fact, discriminatory to expect all Americans to speak "standard" English in our schools.  Admittedly, ebonics reflects the identity of a specific culture and should be, in many instances, respected as a means of communication.  This does not mean, however, that it should be or will be respected in all contexts.  The specific marketability of "standard" English must not be underestimated.  By not learning to use standard English as a skill, poverty will remain a way of life for those African Americans who use it.   African Americans have experienced the largest increase in the proportion of the "ultra poor" (Henslin, 330), and they are often stereotypically associated with guns, ghettos, and gangs.  This is the lifestyle with which ebonics is associated.  This is a lifestyle of poverty and deprivation.  To support the use of ebonics as formal language is to condone and sustain more years of deprivation and oppression for many African Americans.  Assimilation of minority groups through the commercialization of stereotypes is nothing more than polite segregation.

Henslin, James.  (1997).  Sociology: A Down to Earth Approach.   Needham, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

You're 18 years old and you just graduated from high school.  Naturally you've enrolled in college and are looking forward to
your first semester.  One of the first things that crosses your mind is where you will attend the first party.  Conventional wisdom about the world around us suggests that drinking and college go hand in hand.   But should we put all our faith in this commonly shared notion?  In order to create a more accurate understanding of campus life, I believe we need to rethink the presumed importance and role of drinking on campuses.  Consider the media which supports a number of misperceptions about college drinking:  "College student falls two stories to his death at frat party"; "College student cries rape at wild party"; or "College students killed in DUI."  While these are no doubt newsworthy events, the problem is in the unbalanced coverage of campus news.  Rarely do we hear about the college student that made the dean's list or the one who wrote an award-winning editorial for the newspaper.

It turns out that college is quite the opposite of what conventional wisdom suggests.  A recent report in the Chronicle of Higher Education indicates that a majority of incoming freshmen have come to college primarily to gain a general education and a greater appreciation of ideas.  Seventy-four percent want to learn more about what interests them.  So college is still a place of higher learning, a place for a young adult to begin preparation for life.  Drinking and partying is not the focal point of campus life, although many people, including many students, tend to think so.  Jim Matthews, author of Beer, Booze, and Books, notes that more than half of our college students average less than one drink per week (93).  This is not to suggest that students don't drink.  An acquaintance of mine once told me that she received higher grades when she took tests drunk and, consequently, couldn't think of a better reason to drink.  In fact, alcohol poisoning on campuses is on the rise.  As Matthews notes, "in the last five years, the number of emergency room admissions for alcohol poisoning in campus communities has jumped 15 percent" (29).  Likewise, 28% of students have missed classes because of drinking (28).

Public misperception about the causes of drinking contributes to the strong association between drinking and academia.  Many believe that the college environment causes drinking; yet the fact is that many students begin to drink long before entering college (Califano, et al., 94).  This suggests that drinking problems for many students begin at home and much earlier in the socialization process.  As one student writes, "I know I have to be careful 'cause I don't want to turn out like my father or grandmother.  They both got sick from alcoholism and my grandmother died from it" (Matthews, 43).

We need to take a deeper look at why college students drink.  Research suggests that "many college students drink with the intention of losing control, rebelling against authority, and creating a counterculture" (Califano, et al., 94).  The family norms and values that once functioned as a kind of social control on young adult behavior are perhaps now hundreds of miles away.  The research indicates that many students interpret college as a time of less supervision and more rebellious behavior.  "Escapism" is listed as a cause of young adolescent drinking (Califano, et al., 94).  Anomic feelings of detachment, lack of social control, and plain boredom may provide an excuse for students to drink.  Califano finds that 37% of students turn to booze to occupy their time (94).  In addition, drinking may act as a kind of social lubricant, facilitating new and ongoing social interactions (Matthews, 11).  I am not suggesting that we ignore underage or excessive drinking on campuses.  I am stating that an appropriate approach to the problem probably involves balancing this concern with attention to alternative student role models and other positive recreational activities that do not emphasize drinking.  This does not require a re-programming of student minds nor a grandiose project that provides students with "alternative" leisure activities.  We need to work at redefining campus life for college students and the society at large.  Rather than obsessing about the minority of students who do drink, we might do well to focus our attention on the nearly half of all students who do not drink or drink very little. We need to decide whether we want to feed or suffocate the misperceptions of campus life.

Matthews, Jim. (1995). Beer, Booze, and Books. Peterborough, NH:  Viaticum Press.
Califano, J. et al. (1994). Rethinking Rites of Passage: Substance Abuse on  America's Campuses.  Center on Addiction and
        Substance Abuse at  Columbia University.
Chronicle of Higher Education. (1998). Volume XLIV, No. 1.

As correctly indicated in Elizabeth Carreira's article "Re-thinking Campus Drinking," the media hype surrounding college drinking tends to give a tainted view of what is really happening on today's campuses.  Admittedly, high-risk alcohol and other drug use continues to plague students, and campus prevention specialists must continue to alert students as to the dangers associated with high-risk use.  However, in doing so we must be careful to avoid feeding the misperception that all college students drink and do so at a high-risk level.

In taking a deeper look at college drinking, as suggested by Ms. Carreira, it becomes obvious that there are two fundamental reasons as to why they do.  First and foremost, we must accept the fact that for many students alcohol assists them in becoming more social.  Quite frankly, alcohol works!  It does act as an effective "social lubricant," assisting students in overcoming their insecurities about interacting with others in social situations.  However, students do not realize that often the social skills they develop while under the influence of alcohol do not transfer very well to the sober state. As a result, they develop a reliance on alcohol to socialize.  This is demonstrated in their participation in pre-party primers.

The second reason that many students drink is their perception that there is nothing else to do.  In fact, I have heard this reason expressed on campuses in the middle of Manhattan as well as in the heart of Miami.  Those of us interested in our students' success must assist them in appreciating alternatives to drinking - - which can be a real challenge.  After all, there is not a lot that can compete with the inexpensive, immediate gratfication provided by alcohol.  Again, alcohol works!  However, everyone must understand -- students, faculty, and administrators -- that alcohol's ability to assist in providing social opportunities continues to take a serious toll on many of our students.

I applaud the unique approach taken by Ms. Carreira in her article.  The idea of redefining campus life is something that will only be attained if students who continue to make low- risk choices speak up about their lifestyle and speak out about their concerns for other students' high-risk use.  The concept of supporting the low-risk users and abstainers in their choices continues to be a strategy utilized here at Keene State College.

College fraternities have traditionally embodied the ideology of brotherhood and service.  There is an ugly side to Greek life, however, as increasing incidents of sexual assaults against college women are occurring within these privileged walls.  Some college administrators attribute these events to individual deviance.  They believe the solution lies in educating students about campus rape through an oversimplified campaign whose slogan reads:  "No means no."  This is an ineffective approach because it overlooks the fact that there is a rape culture which exists within many fraternities that wields tremendous influence over the attitudes and behaviors of individual members.  It is the institution, not the individual, that is largely responsible for the epidemic of rape on college campuses.

Boswell and Spade define rape culture as "a set of values and beliefs that provide an environment conducive to rape" (133).  It is predicated on the stereotypical roles of men as dominant sexual pursuers and women as passive partners or resisters (134).  Some fraternities fortuitously encourage their members to act out these gender roles.  Brothers are often obliged to take control of sexual situations and to adopt the antiquated notion that even if a woman says "no," what she really means is "yes."  Alcohol intensifies the tendency towards a rape culture.  At fraternity parties, the men control the atmosphere by offering alcohol as the dominant, or even exclusive, beverage.  Women are encouraged to drink excessively and their intoxication is regarded by the men as an invitation to engage in sexual contact.  Many brothers oppose the assertion that a woman who is drunk is unable to give consent to sex (143).

It is estimated that 25% of college women have been raped on a college campus, and 1 out of 12 college men have admitted to forcing a woman to have sex (133).  These numbers reflect an environment in which rape has been labeled as "culturally
normative" (Ward, et al., 70).  One freshman fraternity member stated:  "I have a problem with the word 'rape.'  It sounds so criminal, and we are not criminals; we are sane people" (Boswell & Spade, 143).  Are these young men criminals -- "bad apples" predisposed toward deviance -- or are social forces at work that invite this kind of behavior?  The answer lies in the tight-knit social structure of the fraternity which provides both friendship and a sense of family (Boeringer, et al., 59).  This structure also embraces exclusivity, often holding the brothers in high esteem and regarding women as outsiders.  The pressure to be part of the group, to demean women, and to encourage a division between the sexes reinforces a rape culture (Boswell & Spade, 145).

Many fraternities fortify their identity as an in-group by perpetuating the dangerous concept of group think (145). A single, narrow, hostile view of women develops through behavioral conditioning, modeling, and intimidation (Boeringer, et al., 59).  An institutionalized denial of responsibility, injury, and a victim serves to normalize the otherwise deviant behavior.  This denial is prevalent not only among the fraternities themselves but throughout many college campuses as well.  It is within the boundaries of this "normal" setting that rape occurs, leaving dozens of emotionally scarred young women in its wake.

So what will it take to reverse this trend?  While raising the level of awareness, education, and individual accountability is indeed important, the social environment of fraternities must be dramatically altered to reflect a view of men and women as equals.  In addition, fraternities as well as college administrators need to reconceptualize alcohol as a weapon that aids aggression instead of an accepted component of socialization.  Brotherhood shouldn't translate into a license to rape.  It is the institution, not the individual, that needs to change.

Boeringer, Scot B., Constance L. Shehan, and Ronald L. Akers.  (1991).  "Social Contexts and Social Leaning in Sexual
        Coercion and  Aggression: Assessing the Contribution of Fraternity  Membership."  Family Relations, 40, January, pp.
        58-63.
Boswell, A. Ayres and Joan Z. Spade.  (1996). "Fraternities and  Collegiate Rape Culture: Why are Some Fraternities More
        Dangerous Places for Women?" Gender and Society, 10, April, pp.  133-145.
Ward, Sally K., Kathy Chapman, Ellen Cohn, Susan White, and Kirk  Williams. (1991). "Acquaintance Rape and the College
        Social  Scene." Family Relations, 40, pp. 65-71.

Despite the fact that India grows enough wheat and rice for its people, 63 million children are malnourished and close to 50 million work in slavery to provide for their families (Burton, 1).  "Poverty," as Mahatma Gandhi once stated, "is the worse form of violence," and this is especially so when it contributes to the problem of child slavery (Oxfam, 1).  Oxfam estimates that approximately 35% of the entire population of India lives in poverty and that 20 million children are victims of slavery.  These children who are forced to work 12-16 hours per day are often mal-nourished and virtually abandoned by their parents.  Because children in India are viewed as a form of "economic security," the money they receive is often sent directly to their parents (Burton, 1).  According to Raja Ram Arya, head of Mutki Ashram School, "The parents of these children know that [their children] will suffer from various ailments in the long-run, but [parents] are greedy and do not want to lose immediate financial gains" (Malik, 6).  According to the Indian government, "child labor is necessary to overcome the extreme poverty in the region" (Burton, 1).  India's children serve as a reserve army of laborers who are often sold into slavery by their impoverished parents to work in carpet-making factories and other types of industries.  Conditions in these factories are often a violation of human rights, according to the United Nations, and because the workers are un-empowered children, there is a little support for or enforcement of their rights.

Although the caste system was formally abolished in India in 1949, many rural people still accept the ideology of each individual having a fixed social location.  While people sometimes move in and out of poverty, there is virtually no social mobility between castes.  According to the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, 16% of the poor were newcomers to poverty, while 25% had moved out of poverty (Global Aid, 1).  This indicates that while individual mobility around the poverty line can be either upward or downward, poverty itself is a relatively enduring condition for the society.  It is largely due to this chronic condition of national poverty that children have become such a vital asset to the welfare of families.

While India passed a law in 1989 which outlawed child labor for children under 14 years old, family-owned businesses are exempt and many companies find loopholes around the legislation (Burton, 1).  Enforcement of labor laws in India is also a problem because the government generally feels that child labor is essential to a family's well being.  This suggests the need not only for legal reforms but social reforms as well.  Education is not mandatory in India, and many poor agricultural families choose the labor route for their children.  With nearly all lower caste children in bonded labor, their future is seriously jeopardized by the nation's lack of educational commitment.  In 1994 it was estimated that 49% of adult Indians were illiterate (UNDP, 1).  The Indian government must educate its people with the money intended for education rather than using up that reserve to combat other social problems.  If India produces enough food to feed its people and they are not being fed, this indicates the serious need for social reform on multiple fronts.  Other couintries and businesses around the world are becoming involved in the fight to end child labor in India.  Mattel, Inc., the world's largest toy maker, has banned the use of child labor in its factories around the world (James, 1).  Non-governmental organizations such as UNICEF, rug manufacturers, and the German government have also developed "Rugmark," a labeling system used to show consumers that products were not made through the use of child labor (Free the Children, 2).

A volunteer rescue mission is currently in progress in India.  Of the children whom Kailash Satyarthi has rescued from bonded labor, a 13-year-old boy wishes to be heard:

A broker kidnapped me and took me to a carpet-making unit in our border state.  There we were made to work form 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.  If we made a mistake, or were slow in working, we were physically manhandled and beaten mercilessly.  Even weeping was not allowed.  Whenever any of us hurt our finger, the employers used to put match stick powder on the bleeding wound.  This stopped the bleeding immediately, but was a very, very painful experienced.  I have now come from four years of hell into heaven (Malik, p. 9).

Children are in virtual slavery in India today.  They are not allowed to bathe on a regular basis; their wounds go unintended; and when they are in pain, they are not allowed to cry.  India's level of poverty is directly contributing to the physical and emotional abuse of their children -- their future.  Children deserve to have a childhood, to play outside, and to go to school  They should not be subjected to slavery, and we, as consumers, should not condone this abuse by buying products made by the hands of innocent and enslaved children.

Burton, Dan. (1995). "The Exploitation of Child Labor in India."  Congressional Record.
        http://pangea.org/kids/asia/carpet.htm,  25,  July.
Free The Children. (1997). "Free the Children: Rugmark Campaign."  http://www.freethechildren.org/ftc_rug.htm.
UN Development Programme (UNDP). (1997). "Human  Development." http://www.undp.org.in/conthdr.htm.
Malik, Raji. (1995). "Exploitation is a Grown-up Problem for India."  Hinduism Today.  March, 5-9.
         http://hoohana.aloha.net/~htoday/MarchHTtext.html.
Global Aid. (1996). "Moving in and out of Poverty in Rural India." Issue  2.
        http:www.globalaid.co.uk/technology/healthcare/gla2/box24.htm.
Oxfam. (1997). "Poverty in India."  http://www.heinemann.co.uk/oxfam/oxabout/asia/poverty.htm.
James, Steve. (1997). "Toymaker Mattel Leads Fight Against Child  Labor." Infoseek: The News Channel, 21, November.
        http://guide- p.infoseek.com/Content?arn...ld+India&col=NX&kt=A&ak=news14886