Departmental News Archive
South Africa Internship
September 18, 2015
When Hannah Dalglish ’16 was considering summer internships, her sociology professors encouraged her to seek an experience abroad. She took the advice to heart.
Left and Right-Gun Permits
August 8, 2015
Views on gun permits are similar, across political parties by Abigail Wing ’18
By Abigail Wing '18
Who would have thought political parties could have such similar views on a controversial topic like gun permits? I am a proud Republican and entirely believe in the freedom to own and use guns, yet when I tell people I support firm gun laws and imposition of permits, they look at me in shock and say that I’m not much of a Republican with a viewpoint like that. Right-wings are all about handing guns to everyone and want to bypass any laws to regulate firearms, right? Wrong! The General Social Survey shows some surprising facts about gun permits and political views that many Americans are unaware of.
While the More Conservative side has the lowest support amongst the Moderate and More Liberal political groups, over 70% of those who identify as More Conservative support gun permits. This data would surprise many people. The difference between the Most Liberal and Most Conservative group is only 10 percentage points. This is such a small difference in opinion, yet people still insist on believing that 100% of Republicans hate gun laws and 100% of Democrats don’t even want guns to be sold at all. Misconceptions abound in politics, so the idea that there is a massive gap between Republican and Democrat mindsets is not surprising. In reality there is not a wide gap between political parties.
Many people accept information based purely on what others and the media tell them. Do some research and find out what the data says! Political parties argue and point fingers on television and in newspapers, but the GSS makes it clear that both sides have similar opinions concerning gun permits. Whether people say they are Democrats or Republicans, the differences between these parties are not as large as we once thought.
Trust in Government
July 8, 2015
Why are we seeing such high levels of distrust for the American government? by Nick Liotta ’17
By Nick Liotta '17
Nowadays, if you were to go up to people walking down almost any street in in the United States and ask them, “How much confidence do you have that the individuals holding office in any of our three branches of government will do the “right thing” the majority of the time?”, an overwhelming number of them would respond with “hardly any”. Cynicism and distrust for government has become a trend in the United States, specifically from the early 1970’s. Throughout the past four or so decades, a tremendous number of American citizens have followed along with this development of skepticism of the government, regardless of gender, political ideology, region of the country, or even the income and education levels of the individual. All of this begs the question, “Why are we seeing such high levels of distrust for the American government?”
According to the latest results from the General Social Survey (GSS), which was conducted in 2012, 47% of all Americans have “hardly any trust” in Congress, while only 7% responded saying they have a “great deal of trust”. Regarding the Executive Branch, 36% of respondents said they have “hardly any trust” while 15% said they had a “great deal of trust”. Numbers for the Supreme Court remained relatively constant throughout the past 40 years – about 30% of Americans have responded saying they have a “great deal of trust” and about 15% said they have “hardly any trust”. These percentages remain higher than the other two branches, perhaps mostly because Americans do not individually elect the justices on the Court. Nevertheless, these high percentages of distrust highlight a growing and concerning problem in the United States. Below is a graph that depicts the percentages for “hardly and trust” for each branch of government:
The trend of cynicism that has continued to grow throughout American society is one that needs special attention. These numbers reflect the opinions that many Americans have of the officials that are supposed to represent the people of this country. With numbers this low, it can undermine the ability of these officials to make important policy decisions, start initiatives and help make this country a better place to live. One can only assume that these numbers of distrust are going to continue to increase as the years go on. As the number of political scandals continues to increase (i.e. Watergate), it gives the public even more of a concrete justification to be skeptical of the officials elected to office. It seems that although incumbents are replaced with new politicians, the majority of them fail to meet the expectations of the citizens who elected them.
In order to see actual change in these percentages, it may take a complete revamp of the way these institutions are structured. All politicians, from Representatives to Senators and up to the President, should be held accountable for each and every single one of their actions while in office. The American people need to be assured that the people they elect to office will fulfill the promises that they make throughout their campaigns. That when any politician takes an oath into office, he or she will maintain the integrity of the office they are being elected to. That they will be working on behalf of the people, not for their own self interests. Any violation of such principles will be accounted for and it will solely be up to the people to decide what should be done as a consequence. The United States has continued to have relatively low levels of trust in comparison to other developed nations – if we want to see higher levels of trust, maybe it is time that we take some notes.
How Have Attitudes Towards Working Mothers Changed?
May 29, 2015
Has the image of the homemaker been displaced by images of today’s working woman? by Stephanie Reeves ’16
By Stephanie Reeves '16
From baking apple pies to waiting on husbands hand and foot, the image of the 1950’s perfect housewife doesn’t appear to be going away anytime soon. However that image is not reality. Today the Department of Labor estimates that 70% of mothers with children under 18 are participating in the labor force. So what has lead to this shift and have attitudes changed as women have moved into the labor force? Not too long ago mothers were only seen as homemakers, and now more than half work full or part time. Have the women of the generation that lived through this stereotype been replaced by the progressive women of today? To answer this question we can look at the data collected by the General Social Survey on attitudes towards working mothers.
The graph shows us a breakdown by generation of respondents that agreed that “… family life [will] suffer if the mom works full time?” The difference by generation is clear. Those in the oldest generation, the “GI”, born between 1901 and 1924 agree that family life will suffer more than those in other generations. This is in contrast with the youngest generation, the “Millennials”, born between the 1980’s to the early 2000’s. The data shows that when asked, the “GI” generation agrees nearly twice as often as Millenials. Also when looking at the graph as a whole we see that all the generations are disagreeing more in the last 10 years. So what does this mean for the future of working moms?
As the older generations begin to die off and the younger ones grow up, I believe there will be an even larger increase in working mothers. The societal norm is changing and the stigma surrounding childcare are becoming less and less. The factors that may play into this are plenty. The passing of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 allows women to take jobs and then have children without fearing that their job will be lost. The economy has taken a downward turn in the past few years, which may have lead to more economic pressures on families. For the future this might mean paid maternity or even paternity leave and with more women in the work force, equal pay or job opportunities. Telecommunications giant, Vodafone, has been one of the first to take steps in the direction of paid maternity leave. They recently announced they would be giving a minimum of 16 weeks leave to all new mothers who work for the company in any of the 30 countries Vodafone operates in. Some states have also taken on the issue. California passed a paid paternity leave law that offered 6 weeks at 55% of pay for both mothers and fathers. New Jersey and Rhode Island followed California’s efforts soon after. While efforts are being made on company and state levels, a national program is the way of the future, so all working mothers are given the same benefits. The goal for mothers will no longer be fulfilling the role of the perfect housewife but to find the balance between working and being a mother.
General Social Survey Cumulative Datafile (1972-2012)
US Department of Labor, Data and Statistics, Women in the Labor Force
May 17, 2015
With only three days notice on March 28, 2014, North Adams Regional Hospital closed its doors leaving 37,000 residents without access to emergency care and 530 employees without work. By Peter Dassati ’15
With only three days notice on March 28, 2014, North Adams Regional Hospital closed its doors leaving 37,000 residents without access to emergency care and 530 employees without work. The closing sent shock waves through an already impoverished community, forcing small business to close and residents of Northern Berkshire County to mobilize and demand the return of quality health care. This short documentary by Peter Dassati '15 explores how former employees, elected representatives, and members of the community are dealing with this shattering experience.
To see the documentary, click here.
Are Funeral Homes Killing the Environment?
May 15, 2015
So what are you going to do with your body when you die? By Lily Munsill ’15
Are Funeral Homes Killing the Environment?
By Lily Munsill ‘15
So what are you going to do with your body when you die? Most of us probably know that we have several options. Many people choose to be buried in a cemetery plot next to deceased family members, while others want to be cremated and perhaps have their ashes scattered in a place that has a special meaning for them. You might not be aware, however, of a different, greener, alternative. Forgo the formaldehyde, the embalming fluids, the steel coffin and the cement encasings, and the industrial flames that reduce you to ash. Instead return your body to mother nature in a way that sustains the environment rather than harming it.
Its not my place to tell you where your final resting place should be, but I’d like to shed some light on the environmentally harmful aspects of America’s death industry.
Let’s start with embalming, or the injection of fluids, usually containing formaldehyde, methanol, and other highly toxic preservatives, into the body to replace the blood and preserve the body for viewing and burial. Formaldehyde is a group 1 carcinogen, meaning that it definitely can cause cancer in humans. It is puzzling that it is so commonplace in the U.S. to engage in practices that leach carcinogens into the soil and groundwater. In fact, while embalming is illegal in most European countries, it is actually illegal in some American states for bodies not to be embalmed, at least when crossing state boundaries. Some religions, including Islam and Judaism do not practice embalming because they believe it compromises the sacredness of the body. I would argue it also compromises the future health of the earth.
Disregarding embalming for a minute, let’s consider the immense use of material resources in cemeteries. Most people are buried in large caskets, which are usually made of wood or metal. The wood is so heavily treated that it takes a long time to biodegrade, and the metal biodegrades on a much longer timescale. Some people opt for caskets made of mahogany or walnut, woods that are relatively rare and expensive. And the burden on the earth doesn’t end with the casket. Cemeteries enclose your casket with a cement vault or grave liner. The purpose of this cement encasing is to avoid soil settling over your grave after your casket decomposes. This seems like a lot of effort and waste of natural resources to prevent the return of your body to the soil, a natural biological process that plays an essential role in the success of every ecosystem.
And how many people will we be burying? Currently the rate of “traditional” burial in the U.S. is around 60%. With just over two and a half million people dying each year, will we have the space to continue these traditional burial practices? Could there be a more productive use of land? Will people in the future see our current burial practices as archaic, inefficient, and environmentally harmful?
Cremation is the path that the other 40% of Americans choose, and it too damages the environment. It is true that cremation contributes far less carbon emissions than other industries. Nevertheless, many crematoria are located in densely populated areas and emit toxic chemicals, most notably mercury, as many of the deceased have amalgam dental fillings, which contain mercury. Cremation also releases those toxins that bioaccumulate in the body, including heavy metals, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans, and other organic pollutants that persist in the environment. These pollutants adsorb onto ash particles that settle onto nearby land, contaminating soils and grass, and thereby contaminating all life that gets exposed to it. Removing teeth that contain amalgam fillings could prevent Mercury emissions, but it would be difficult to prevent emissions of these other persistent organic pollutants. Crematoria also use a lot of energy for their fires.
A “green burial” is a far more environmentally sustainable way to provide all of us with a final resting place. Green, or natural burial, does not inhibit decomposition. It often entails a simple burial; the deceased wrapped in a cloth shroud or a biodegradable pine casket. You can even avoid the high costs of funeral directors and cemeteries and choose a burial site on your own property. Clearly, there are some regulations in place that ensure you can’t be buried within a certain distance of a surface water or groundwater supply, but other than that, it is remarkably easy to plan a green burial in a place of your choosing! You can even plant a tree above your grave. In fact, there is a new burial concept, the organic biodegradable pod that facilitates the growth of a tree using your nutrients in the most natural of processes.
As I said, I’m not here to tell you where you should go for your final resting place, but I do encourage you to research the environmental impacts of traditional burials and crematoria when you are thinking about your or your loved ones’ future resting places. A cemetery doesn’t have to be a field of tombstones. Instead, it could be an expanse of memorial forestland. Personally, I’d like my death to leave a little gift of life for the environment of those who come after me.
What if Cities Looked a Little More Like Farms?
May 5, 2015
Upon graduating from college, will I be able get a job in New York City, joining a tide of business-suited execs on their morning commute, while dressed in my coveralls and heading to my farm in mid-town Manhattan? By Ciara Sidell ’15
By Ciara Sidell '15
I was raised in a high-rise apartment in Queens and had a view of the New York City skyline from my bedroom window. As a child, I found comfort in the bright lights and tall buildings of the city. I can still fall asleep to loud noises and flashing lights, but sadly the city’s hustle and bustle doesn’t comfort me as much as it once did. I now wish the city was a little more like a farm.
I was in kindergarten when I went on a field trip to the Queens County Farm Museum; I was captivated. The Queens Farm lies on 47 acres of land that has been farmed longer than any other plot of land in all of New York State. It really is an oasis of green in the concrete jungle! Since that kindergarten trip, I have been drawn over and over to the Queens Farm, more recently as a high school volunteer and then again in college as a summer intern. Long story short: combining my kindergarten trip with my food-conscious vegan upbringing has inspired me to study everything about food and piqued my imagination to wonder if, and how, cities could change. Upon graduating from college, will I be able get a job in New York City, joining a tide of business-suited execs on their morning commute, while dressed in my coveralls and heading to my farm in mid-town Manhattan? Apparently so; my very limited world of tofu and vegetables has opened a door to unlimited possibilities.
Urban agriculture seeks to re-embed food production into cities, and in doing so, revitalize communities and provide food for people whom the conventional food system fails to adequately feed. Most urban agriculture initiatives take shape in the form of community-based food projects like neighborhood gardens, farm to school programs, and farmers’ markets. But not all people benefit from such small-scale programs and no matter how many programs of the sort exist, they just can’t produce enough food to feed the masses. As a production-focused farm in the city, the Queens Farm is an anomaly.
I see a future where more Queens Farms exist; where concrete becomes permeable and vegetables occupy more land; where everybody, regardless of who they are, has access to farm-based food education and reasonably priced locally grown produce. It’s true that small-scale urban agriculture initiatives alone cannot make this vision a reality. Community gardens, farm to school programs, and farmers’ markets should act as teaching tools and stepping stools for cities along their journey towards food sovereignty – a future where everyone has the right to take part in and define their own sustainable food systems. In addition to these programs, I believe there is value in pursuing innovative urban agriculture projects like the development of commercially sized rooftop greenhouses and vertical farms.
Through utilizing rooftops or space within old warehouses, and growing in artificial conditions, greenhouses and vertical farms can produce yields comparative to conventional agriculture within city limits. As has already been proven at the world’s first vertical farm in Singapore and the world’s first commercially sized rooftop greenhouse in New York City, such innovations can produce at scale while using less water, less fertilizer, less land, and fewer agrochemicals than conventionalized agriculture.
Growing indoors with artificial light and within a controlled climate takes away weather- and climate-related agriculture challenges. Utilizing hydroponic methods even takes soil out of the equation. In such controlled conditions, there is a reduced need for agrochemical application. If such projects are located within city boundaries, food will travel fewer miles, ultimately reducing both fossil fuel emissions and the costs of transporting the food. Such programs are therefore both environmentally and economically sustainable. A killer combination! Combined with programs focused on the sociocultural sustainability and wellbeing of urban residents, larger-scale urban agriculture programs and urban food self-provision in general, could very well prove viable.
Community-based programs and technologically innovative agricultural systems can exist side by side within cities. Together, they can more sustainably integrate agriculture into all aspects of urban areas. This isn’t to say that all it takes to solve hunger disparities is some community work and technological innovation. State and national policies must come into play as well. Once the government aligns itself with the community and the community accepts the technology, my vision might just become reality.
From vertical farms to rooftop greenhouses and all of the small-scale community gardens in between, urban areas are beginning to grow more and more vegetables within their borders. I see a future where even more food grows in cities; where leafy greens grow on each and every balcony and beans climb up all public park fences; where locally grown vegetables can be purchased at reasonable prices from every food distributor in the city; and where every person has an abundance of healthy food to choose from and no one goes hungry.
I envision a future where I return to my childhood bedroom, look out of my high-rise apartment window, and see a city that looks a little more like a farm.
Publications, honors and creative works: A. Javier Trevino
February 14, 2015
Sociology professor Javier Trevino publishes a new book: Investigating Social Problems.
Insight. Experience. Connections. - Ana Brenes Coto ’15
Ana Brenes Coto ’15 flew to South Africa to work at a nonprofit supporting AIDS and HIV research.
Graduates head into the world of work - Mollie Lane '14
October 17, 2014
Sociology major Mollie Lane ’14 takes on new responsibilities as the meeting and events planner for the CM Group in Hingham, MA.