No Time for Silence

I am not teaching Ethics this term. Nor did I teach it this past spring. The last student posts were in November 2016.

But this is no time for silence.

So I ask. How can our presidents not condemn, or uphold to his condemnation, of hate groups who have stepped into the hole of hatred that he, our president, has help to tear open in America?

George Washington once said, “I cannot conceive any more honorable, than that which flows from the uncorrupted choice of a brave and free people.” Those people, who Washington could have been speaking of today, where the people who peacefully stepped forward to stand against hatred and bigotry in Charlottesville Virginia on August 12, 2017.

Yet, our president is unable to speak the truth of what happened in Charlottesville, he is unable to uphold the dignity of the presidency. More than 150 years ago, Abraham Lincoln, a president who stood firmly and bravely against injustice, said, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” Our current president has no moral character.

I grieve for my black and brown friends, my Jewish friends, my gay friends, my Muslim friends. I grieve for my country.



Thoughts on the University of Missouri

Guest post by: Cameron Harris, Articulate Cultural Enthusiast

When I first heard about racial tensions rising on the campus of University of Missouri, my first response was well of course you’re in Missouri. After getting by that I began to read more into the story about life for minority students on the campus. I must say they don’t sound different from my experience at Marquette or the experiences of other minority students at predominately white institutions. Things happen on a day-to-day basis sometimes subtle, sometimes overt but the point is people’s complaints go largely ignored because they make up such a small percent of the university’s population. My roommates (also minorities) and I often discuss whether it is it an institution’s job to please less than 10 percent of the population and even sometimes smaller than that.? According to Mill’s utilitarianism it is supposed to be the greatest good for the greatest number of people, therefore predominately white institutions should be catering to that demographic. I think where Mill misses the mark is in regards to how two students with the same major, living on the same campus will have completely different experiences based on the color of their skin. The person of color is probably more likely to have bad things to say about their experience.

Whenever I read articles that speak to race specifically on a college campus it strikes a chord with me. I wasn’t angered when reading this story but rather happy that things like this have woven their way into public discourse and things began to change rather rapidly. So many times peoples’ cries for help go unheard. I also question the role of economics in Wolfe’s decision to resign because it came the day after the football team said they would not play. Something tells me he was told to step down because the school needed those players to play. In any case he did step down and things seem to be moving in the right direction.

Screen Shot 2015-11-13 at 10.39.35 PMNow I do not know if anything will change at the University of Missouri because we live in a segregated society. When I arrived at Marquette University I was told by someone who lived on the floor that I was the first black person that they had ever had a conversation with. This pointed out to me that Universities are given the tough task of bringing together thousands of people with different backgrounds to come together and function. This of course does not excuse prejudice at all, but what do people expect to happen? A college campus is going to reflect the society that it resides in and that is a place that has a history filled with racism, prejudice and hate.

Media – Truth-telling Friend or Biased Foe?

Guest Post by Breana Glisch, Corporate Communication Student

It would probably be fairly difficult to find someone who isn’t somewhat familiar with the Trayvon Martin case. Maybe you know a few details, overheard people discussing the verdict or maybe you watched every moment of the trial.  Whether you know some of what happened or you watched the trial and chose a side, the Trayvon Martin case is a perfect example of how media coverage and the portrayal of individuals can influence people’s perceptions or possibly alter the reality of a situation.

Most of the time it’s not hard to figure out whether the news coverage you’re watching is right or left. While media is supposed to be objective and unbiased, everyone knows Fox News is conservative and MSNBC is liberal with CNN in the middle, supposedly neutral. Journalists are supposed to search for and report on the truth, but whose truth is it and does it greatly affect an outcome? It’s nearly impossible for a source to be completely neutral, just ask the people who watched coverage of Trayvon Martin’s death.


So, which side did you hear? Trayvon Martin – a hoodie-wearing thug who initiated a fight with the neighborhood watchman? Or Trayvon Martin – a teenager, who was walking home on a rainy night when he was followed, confronted and ultimately killed? Maybe you watched coverage showing a slightly old picture of Trayvon – a young smiling boy and his killer – a mug shot of a wannabe cop who profiled and shot him. Maybe you saw a different source showing Martin in a hoodie, not smiling and Zimmerman smiling and cleaned up in a suit and tie. Whichever story you heard and whichever pictures you saw likely had some effect on your feelings about the incident. One could say the truth is this – Trayvon Martin, a 17 year old was involved in an altercation with George Zimmerman, a 28 year old neighborhood watch coordinator who fatally shot the teenager one rainy night.


This case received so much attention and had strong opinions from many different outlets. It was nearly impossible not to see some coverage of Zimmerman’s trial and if you did see it, you more than likely had your own opinion of who was the aggressor and who was the victim, but how much did the media portrayals of those involved influence what you saw as the truth? One could argue that the real truth was only known by two individuals and one of them is dead. However, journalists still have a duty to report on the case, but how responsible are they? Do they always need to be completely ethical when searching for and reporting on tragedies such as Trayvon Martin’s death or do they just need to find a story that will sell? Does what they say really affect how we think or feel about these incidents?

I would argue that journalist should do their best to find all the facts and report on these, being fair to all sides and with as little bias as possible. At some point we all form an opinion, but we should have facts. Still, the facts could come from Fox News, with Trayvon Martin as a troubled teen who started the altercation or from HLN with Trayvon Martin as a scared young boy with nothing but candy and a beverage making his way home. Regardless of where “truth” comes from, what we see and hear from the media does have some effect on how we feel about things such as Trayvon’s death and the verdict for George Zimmerman.