State V. Mann

To throw back to an era that was what some people call one hell of a time in American history, mainly due to the separation that was taking place between white and black people. Granted whites were genuinely horrid back then especially thinking and defending the enslavement of black Americans, however when African Americans were recognized as ⅗’s a person the first amendment applied to all.

In North Carolina in 1829 the US Supreme court was tested by its true and ethical meanings for being an establishment. In the case of The State of North Carolina Vs John Mann the NC supreme court put John Mann on trial for the execution of a slave he was lent by a nearby friend.

Back in the 1820’s truly I dont think that many people thought much of buying slaves or at least not in the south and that still to this day blows my mind; however, John did not purchase the slave Lydia from Elizabeth Jones. He had hired Lydia to work on his farm, it was almost an indentured servant kind of situation not quite “slavery” in a sense. One day when Lydia was on the farm she was beaten by John Mann and after she tried to run… she was shot on the spot by Mann and yet he still had not been relapsed by execution charges. John Mann was truly the definition of what was wrong with the country. He was willing to kill someone just for the color of their skin, we all know he wouldn't have done that if she were a white girl because he would've gotten in trouble, he didn't think he would over a colored person. No it's not a fact but in reality I don't think many people can argue against that fact.

In the final verdict Mann actually won; he was protected under the right that Lydia was his property at the time and not a free person. The Supreme court used judicial restraint and honestly didn't do anything about the case they lost to John Mann who executed someone for trying to find something better, a new life.

EOTO #4

In the case Regents of the University of California vs Bakke, he was suing based on racial descrimination for being white claiming that there was a disadvantage being white applying to the medical school. Yes it is indeed true that the University of California has used racial quotas in certain circumstances but in the case of Allan Bakke it is more complex than a racial quota or even the use of affirmative action. When I say this I am not meaning to be rude but maybe the case was more simple than this, maybe he just didn't have the chops for medical school or he was scored lower in his interview compared to other applicants.

The University of California has a very intense procedure when it comes to new enrollments in the program. The application board at the school consists of 6 members that review all applications and attend interviews. The board scores students based on what is known as a “benchmark score” ; it's a combined total of all different aspects of an applicant. In 1974 there was an entering freshman class of 100 students, all went through the exact same selection process. First GPA scoring, students whose GPA fell under or sometimes even with a 2.5 on a 4.0 scale, were most of the time rejected on the spot. Next were interviews, one of every six applicants was given an in person interview. Allan Bakke was given multiple interviews actually, he first met with a student interviewer then with the board. Following the interviewing process students were evaluated by each board member on a scale of 1 to 100. Each were judged by total Grade Point Average then by total science Grade Point Average, extra curriculars, recommendation letters, and testing scores. Out of the application class Allan Bakke applied for 56 students accepted were African American students and 44 were white students. At the time this could be seen as Affirmative Action but even yet, 44 students accepted were white students. Maybe it just came down to the fact that Mr. Bakke just wasn't apt enough for our program.

On the other hand, Bakke claimed that he was suffering from “reverse discrimination” because of the color of his skin. The University uses what is known as Affirmative Action, we are trying to increase and help students who are coming from low income communities that show major potential in the classroom. No I'm not saying that we are making the process easier for these students, we judge students all the same… There is no question about that, however we help those who might not have even thought to apply because they wouldn't be able to afford it.

The university gives equal opportunities to all students and this included Allan Bakke. Sometimes the student is good enough and has the grades but other students do too, and it just wasn't meant to be. To clarify one more time, 44 students accepted were white, it's not like we pushed Allan aside, we gave him equal and fair evaluations.

Final

After almost a whole four months of having to keep up a blog and make different writings almost every other week, I’d say that it helped me take appreciation for who and what being a journalist is. A modern day journalist will take however long to write up a story and then present it to the world, I guess I never thought about how much responsibility is put on the job.

I’m truly not sure when Dr. Smith asked the class this question but I’m pretty sure it was within the first couple days of school. It was something along the lines of “where do y’all get your news from?” Now this was right after the bombings in Kabul and almost none of the class had heard of the major disaster that Professor Smith was talking about. Now that really got me thinking and I wondered what was or when was there a change in how real journalism changed.

Back in the day, Mr. Smith has told us many times he was a journalist back in the day, but not just that it was also the job; people who held the title would actually go and attend certain events like natural disasters, political events, or international affairs. In essence Professor Smith made me realize quite a lot about the position. Not just the fact that there has been a major difference in the entirety of the job itself but also that the persuasion and “reality” of the stories being put out nowadays is honestly just plain sad. In the famous words of Bill Maher he called the internet now a “bitch session” of people just going back and forth again and again about in reality different things that are all relevant somehow.

Throughout the semester I think that having a blog and keeping up with classes, I've learned quite a bit. Mainly I want to say that I learned there is no reason for people to trust their information sources unless they can claim it is absolutely true and there is no falseness around the topic. Dr. Smith also posed the question that possibly the news “Gen-Z” our generation looks at is rather less decisive or falsified. Honestly it's probably true, and it's been proven to be true. People don't check their sources and that when false information starts to get spread amongst the youth.

Lastly I just want to add, I truthfully cannot say that there were many other classes i've ever taken that have shown me what T.A.F has taught me and that you Mr. Smith has taught me. I truly never looked at the first amendment the way your class showed me to look at it, people are given rights and are free. We honestly just forget that sometimes with how tight the world has been the last few years, but forever it's always changing.