The Explanation of Social Issues - Assignment Example

Sociology Analyze the McMartin case from a current social work perspective.Compare and contrast the approach that the social work profession took toward suspected child abuse at the time of the McMartin trials,with the social work climate today. The MacMartin case was a celebrated case in 1983 not only in Manhattan Beach, California but also all over America. It was all about alleged child abuse by some teachers and personnel of the MacMartin Pre-school, which was somewhat mishandled by the Police Investigators, by the Prosecution Panel, by the media, and, unfortunately, even by the supposed expert Social Worker from a reputed agency for the treatment of abused children, the Children’s Institute International (CII). The Social Worker, Kee MacFarlane, played a very significant role in the case since she was entrusted to help investigate by drawing out from the children of MacMartin Pre-school “confessions” about abusive conducts done to them by any personnel of the pre-school. However, in the conduct of investigation, MacFarlane used manipulative techniques to draw out the desired answers from the children. These manipulative techniques included leading questions, promises of rewards for desirable answers, and other such techniques which unfairly placed the pre-schoolers in a confusing situation where they had to lie and invent unbelievably weird stories. In the current Social Work setting, protocols have been set and social workers follow strictly code of ethics and standard procedures in cases of child abuse. Proper child handling, cushioning the child from further stress and trauma, is an essential standard that social workers follow nowadays. Manipulative, coercive behavior, as manifested by Macfarlane in the case, which was clearly due to her personal entanglements with the prosecution side of the case, therefore, is prohibited and is regarded as a serious offense in current field of social work. 2.Evaluate what impact the public reaction to the terrorist attacks of 09/11/2001 had on the subsequent presidential campaign and election. The 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks on the most significant landmarks of the US had caused lots of damages to the American people. It also was a divisive event in the history of America. Most Americans, especially those who lost relatives and loved ones to the attacks, and actually all of America, suffered emotionally and psychologically for a long time. But on the positive side, the 9/11 attack brought the American people closer, as the attacks somehow had positive effects on the American psyche, contributing to their sense of cohesion. A survey1 made after the attacks, showed significantly higher levels of patriotism among American people compared to what had been reported in other national surveys conducted in the past five years. However, there are also groups of Americans who are critical about the political manipulations that they suspect had been behind the attacks, and have thus questioned the leaders for withholding essential information about the details of the attacks. In the subsequent elections, the American people had been vigilant about who among the candidates at any levels would speak the truth about the 9/11/01 attacks. Generally, the candidates did not talk much about the attacks, only cited it or reckoned it in their moving-forward messages. Most focused on the economic crisis and on other pressing issues at hand, seemingly evading such topic, perhaps because they were aware of the controversies around it. Significantly, the American people observed keenly, albeit silently, the candidates and used the 9/11/01 issue as a very weighty gauge of their voting decisions. 3. How are two different groups able to come to different conclusions from looking at the same evidence regarding a social issue? Use welfare reform as the social issue. The welfare reform issue is one of the most interesting issues in the US. Affecting many immigrants and American families, the issue is also one of the most very sensitive, and politicians and other leaders have been very careful about any utterances about it. There are two opposing sides to the issue: one that considers the welfare reform as a welcome change in the way the US treats the people in need; and one that considers the reform as something very insensitive and repressive. This is just normal, that groups of people looking at the same evidences come to opposing conclusions. It is borne of the differences in socio-cultural contexts, in interests and in convictions. 4.There will soon be a revival of "West Side Story" on Broadway in New York. The original play reflected attitudes toward certain immigrants in the United States. How will the new production have to be different? How have attitudes toward immigrants changed since the first major wave in the nineteenth century?. The “West Side Story” tells of a love story of Maria and Tony who have been fighting for their love in a neighborhood of ethnic and racial conflicts. The original versions of the West Side Story had been very American, meaning, even the Hispanic (Puerto Rican) characters talked and sang and danced so “American”. The new production of the play should be interwoven with Spanish, to provide authenticity in the characters and the “feel” of the racial conflicts portrayed. Also, the portrayal of the immigrants being discriminated must be downplayed in the new version to reflect the true picture. Since the first major wave in the nineteenth century, immigrants in the US have been treated better, they have become welcome in the US society. In fact, America have since regarded itself as a country of different cultures, that cultural diversity has made the nation stronger, with the immigrants contributing much to the progress of the country. Better policies, more lenient and more welcoming for immigrants and their families, have consequently been installed across states. 5.Policy workers can have a significant impact on eventually policy outcomes. Describe how that impact can come about, and give at least one example of a major social policy that has been significantly impacted by the outcomes of policy work. Policy workers work hard researching, gathering relevant data to push for policies they advocate for. For instance, advocates for the preservation of the environment would want a certain policy on the reduction of gas emissions to help prevent global warming to be enacted or passed, the advocates do as much research, and as much lobbying with the legislators as possible to push for such policy. An example of this is the Clean Air Act, which encompasses carbon emissions regulations, among others. 6.Asses the current thinking on global warming from the perspective of the principles laid out. How can there be two such polar opposite points of view, one claiming that global warming is a huge threat to the earth, and one claiming that the effect of global warming are inconsequential? The issue on global warming has two perspectives – that of the alarmists and of the skeptics. The former believe that global warming is a huge threat to the whole earth and that radical measures must be taken to reverse the situation, otherwise, all living things on earth will perish very very soon. On the other hand, the skeptics believe that the alarmists are exaggerating facts, misreading data, and only create fear among people to advance their business interests. The Alarmists claim that global warming is more serious than the threat of terrorism, that in fact, it is the most severe problem that the world is facing today. The scientific explanations of the greenhouse effect relating to global warming or climate change have been richly backed up by religiously gathered data. The warnings that the polar ice caps are melting at very rapid pace and will much likely cause the rise in water levels all over the world, and therefore would place the earth in danger of “drowning”, are very scary and have led many people to join movements and organizations which aim to help reduce climate change. On the other hand, skeptics claim that all the data and researches on global warming used and presented by the alarmists are filled with inaccuracies and misleading statements. Equally, this group present their own scientific and well-researched claims, refuting the alarmists’ claims point by point. With two opposing opinions on a very critical issue like global warming, people who are indecisive may be paralyzed by confusion and not take any side at all. However, those with strong convictions will surely take sides, no matter what the other side claims. 7.During the recent presidential campaign, we heard a lot of rhetoric about "two Americas", with one being those who shower" before they go to work and those who shower after they get home from work; with one being full of opportunities and one being severely limited and limiting, with one having adequate health care, food and housing, and one inadequacy on all parameters. Which America do you live in? Why is that so, and where do you hope to be in ten years, and how will you get there. I live in the America where there are inadequacies in all parameters, where families feel they are deprived of the life they deserve, where bones must be broken of hard work in order for people to eat. This is primarily because in America, like the rest of the world, there are social classes, and wealth is concentrated on the top where very very few families and individuals are. I belong to the lower strata, where majority of Americans share on the very little wealth available. I hope in ten years, things will be reversed, that more wealth will be available for the majority to share, equitably distributed for all to enjoy. I will work hard and stay involved in activities that would contribute to the realization of my dream. 8. Compare and contrast the grounds, warrants, conclusion that proponets and opponents of same-sex marriage employ. The issue of same-sex marriage has been one of the most controversial issues nowadays. Moralists oppose the concept, as they claim that, in the Bible, God created only the man and the woman, and instructed them to cleave together and produce offsprings. In this perspective, it is claimed that same-sex marriage truly violates God’s own creation and therefore would lead to eternal damnation. On the other hand, advocates of same-sex marriage claim that the expression of love and commitment to another person regardless of sex or gender does not violate any law, moral or otherwise. This perspective claims that same-sex marriage must be allowed in order for same-sex couples to legitimize their union, since, like heterosexual couples, same-sex couples also need legal security in life. For instance, allowing same- sex marriage would help solve problems on insurance claims, benefits granted to spouses, as well, when one is hospitalized, it would be easier for the other partner to decide as he/she will be legally recognized as the other’s spouse. In this kind of debate, two conflicting perspectives hardly meet since one focuses on the moral side of the issue, while the other tackles the issue through the legal arguments. Read More