In My Words: Rethink what you know about 'the South'

A Winter Term course with International Fellows inspired Assistant Professor Jason Husser to explain why stereotypes can hurt a region.

Assistant Professor Jason Husser

*****

The following column appeared recently in the Charlotte Observer, the (Greensboro, N.C.) News & Record, the Fayetteville Observer, the (Burlington, N.C.) Times-News and the (Durham, N.C.) Herald-Sun via the Elon University Writers Syndicate.

*****

In My Words: Rethink what you know about “the South”
By Jason Husser – jhusser@elon.edu

“Why do so many people think the South is so bad?” one of my international students asked me this winter on the first day of a class I taught about Southern history and culture. “I think it’s pretty great here.”

Lacking a good reply, “me too” was all I could muster.

It was a weak answer to an important question. Like the boll weevil that once blighted cotton crops, stereotypes about the South rob the region of its greatness and hamper efforts to improve its shortcomings.

Most Southerners realize “y’all” is a contraction and not a single word bequeathed to us by Southern birthright. Very few of us plan our New Year’s Eve celebrations around dropping ‘possums down a pole. Car horns that play the “Dukes of Hazzard” theme song are quite rare. Mullets are seldom preferred over molars. And fried butter is hardly a delicacy in Dixie, despite what Honey Boo Boo’s mom might have told you.

Repeating falsehoods tends to reinforce them. I’ll refrain from alluding to more here but trust me: you’ve heard them before.

Stereotypes about the South, both good and bad, stigmatize many native Southerners in a competitive global economy that values cosmopolitanism. They confuse people who are deciding where to live. They can mislead businesses when deciding where to invest. And they coerce government leaders to focus on the wrong issues facing the region.

Many of these stereotypes arise from the way we’re programmed to think in broad brushstrokes. It’s not just shortsighted, but actually dangerous, when folks assume that an “average” anything about a place applies to everyone who lives there. Efforts to build on Southern “virtues” or to repair Southern “vices” have a cracked semantic foundation. Such efforts mistake the trees for the forest.

America is in the details. We can only address social or economic problems by understanding them in their full complexity. Differences within states are usually greater than differences between them. For example, and contrary to popular belief, America’s wealthiest state, Connecticut, has more in common with its poorest, Mississippi, than the rich have in common with the poor in any given state.

Then there’s the media. Hollywood and many national news organizations provide a skewed view of the South. Forest Gump, though lovable, wasn’t real. Neither was Scarlett O’Hara. George Wallace, Billy Graham, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Dolly Parton are realistic but atypical. In fact, there is no “typical.” That’s part of the problem we have when talking in generalities.

If that weren’t enough, the South suffers from what social scientists call “confirmation bias.” Humans selectively accept information that supports their views of the former Confederacy while rejecting information that challenges deeply held beliefs. It cuts both ways. Viewing “Southern hospitality” as universal is just as misleading as expecting a complex demographic group to be a monolith of “good ole’ boys.”

Many stereotypes come from natural tendencies that, in the short term, help people make sense of a complicated world. In the long term, however, these tendencies in thinking further complicate that world.

“Discovering Dixie,” as I called my winter class, ain’t so easy. Fertile farms, graceful charm and other sweet things sit juxtaposed with troubled legacies, economic hardships and lingering social problems. Mansions line remote swamps while homeless line urban mansions. Skyscrapers rise from old cotton fields while weeds grow from decaying factory yards. Myths fuel lies while piquing fascination.

I ended my winter class with a better answer to the student’s question. Simple observation alone will not lead to a true appreciation or understanding of a place. They need to seek a deeper, richer view of the South by looking at real evidence and seeking a diversity of experiences. Accept that grand statements about an area, however appealing, are almost always a mile wide and an inch deep.

Resisting our personal biases won’t end misunderstanding of the South, but it’s a worthwhile start. Stereotypes hamper the region’s progress and compromise the potential of a nation.

Many people tell me they would have difficulty finding anywhere worse. I would have difficulty living anywhere else.

Jason Husser is an assistant professor of political science at Elon University and a Louisiana native.

*****

Elon University faculty with an interest in sharing their expertise with wider audiences are encouraged to contact Eric Townsend (etownsend4@elon.edu) in the Office of University Communications should they like assistance with prospective newspaper op/ed submissions.

Viewpoints shared by this syndicate are those of the author and not of Elon University.

Email Author Your Email *
Message *
by Eric Townsend, Staff Last Updated - 3/6/2013

View the original article here

Read More

In My Words: Statistically, we don’t use calculus much

Associate Professor Dave Gammon suggests in a newspaper column that statistics courses - not calculus - may be more helpful for students.

Associate Professor Dave Gammon

*****

The following column appeared recently in the (Burlington, N.C.) Times-News, the (Durham, N.C.) Herald-Sun, the (Greensboro, N.C.) News & Record and the Roanoke (Va.) Times via the Elon University Writers Syndicate.

*****

In My Words: Statistically, we don’t use calculus much
By Dave Gammon - dgammon@elon.edu

Quantitative skills are highly sought after by employers and the best time to learn these skills is in high school and early college. And we all know the best math students should eventually learn calculus.

Or should they? Maybe it’s statistics, not calculus, that is a more worthy pursuit for the vast majority of students.

It’s not that learning calculus is pointless. Calculus applies integrally to physics, engineering, space exploration, satellite positioning, complex building projects and several other lines of work. If your career ambitions fit within one of these domains, by all means, learn calculus. Most of us, however, are destined for careers other than physics, engineering or mathematics.

Statistics weave deeply throughout the fabric of our society. Remember all those political polls last fall? Every one of them reported a “margin of error” and a “sample size” as part of the results. Without statistical training, it is easy to misinterpret their results – especially when you encounter conflicting poll results.

What about stories on the economic recovery and the fiscal cliff? Reporters throw at us a dizzying array of unemployment data, housing data, government spending data and more. Readers with training in statistics will have an easier time making sense of it all.

Because of the news media and the internet, we face a daily bombardment of quantitative information. This deluge is growing exponentially with each passing year and each technological innovation, becoming a virtual river into which our vessels are thrust. A citizen without a working knowledge of statistics is rafting that river without a paddle.

Can you remember the last time you saw in the newspaper a story that focused on the area under a curve, or the slope of a line? Yeah, neither can I. If you ever stumble upon such a story, then calculus might be your best friend.

To most students, however, statistics will be of far more use than calculus, especially if they select career paths that require them to analyze risk, evaluate trends, confront randomness, deal with uncertainty, or extract patterns from data.

As a child I realized I had a knack for math. All my mentors steered me toward calculus, which I gobbled up as a high school senior. After choosing to major in biology in college, I kept looking for calculus in my courses. Nine years later, after finishing my doctoral studies, I had encountered just one biology course that used calculus.

Not once in my professional career has calculus been particularly relevant.

Statistics, however, has been my bread and butter. Nearly every major project I have attempted required the use of statistics. I wish someone had told me this secret when I was younger.

If you care about numbers, and if those numbers vary, then statistics courses are what you need. They are fundamental to careers in business, economics, biological and health sciences, computer sciences, many social sciences, and even designing video games.

So why don’t high schools and universities do more to promote stat courses? Many factors probably play a role. Calculus had a historical headstart, invented more than a century earlier. Meanwhile, high school and college instructors trained to teach calculus are hesitant to take on a new subject. Calculus also requires limited technology, whereas statistics classes usually need sophisticated software and computing power that has become available only recently.

Ultimately, it will take time for our educational systems to adapt to the shifting needs of society. Students will benefit right now, however, if they expose themselves to more statistics. Parents and academic advisors everywhere should take heed and help promote this valuable discipline.

Dave Gammon is an associate professor of biology at Elon University.

*****

Elon University faculty with an interest in sharing their expertise with wider audiences are encouraged to contact Eric Townsend (etownsend4@elon.edu) in the Office of University Communications should they like assistance with prospective newspaper op/ed submissions.

Viewpoints shared by this syndicate are those of the author and not of Elon University.

Email Author Your Email *
Message *
by Eric Townsend, Staff Last Updated - 2/28/2013

View the original article here

Read More

In My Words: It's not the end of the world

In a newspaper column, Associate Professor Tony Crider looks back on the media buzz surrounding the Maya prophecy that didn't come true.

Associate Professor Tony Crider

*****

The following column was written recently for the Elon University Writers Syndicate.

*****

It's not the end of the world
By Tony Crider - acrider@elon.edu

New-age authors have been trying to convince us for decades that the Maya civilization predicted a “harmonic convergence” during our lifetimes.

Then a media blitz on the Maya took a darker turn three years ago with the release of “2012” starring John Cusack. The movie’s promotional campaign and subsequent television shows seem to have convinced many people of a Maya doomsday prophecy for the end of this year.

Google searches for “mayan 2012” surged the same month the movie came out, and according to market research company Ipsos, roughly 12 percent of Americans believed there was such a prophecy.

Concerns over the Maya, or the fiscal cliff, or peak oil, or zombies have led a growing number of us to stockpile food, guns and other supplies to prepare for the imminent End Of The World As We Know It. Occasionally, these “preppers” believe in what becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Thirty-eight members of the Heaven’s Gate cult were convinced by Marshall Applewhite in 1997 that the world was about to end. Their escape plan? Mass suicide.

It is both easy and common to convince people of extremely foolish ideas. In 2001, the FOX network aired the special, “Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?”, featuring an “analyst and engineer” named Bill Kaysing. It failed to mention that Kaysing had no training in science or engineering. With his degree in English, he proofread, edited and formatted documents for scientists and engineers building the Saturn V rockets.

The misleading claims from this show have been debunked repeatedly by both astronomers and even other television shows. NASA, however, largely ignored the Apollo hoax believers. How could anyone believe that the Apollo moon landing was faked? Surely no one would take this seriously.

And yet one out of four young Americans surveyed since the show’s airing doubt Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon.

NASA learned from its earlier mistake and has been proactive this time around. The agency released a short YouTube video, “Why the World Didn’t End Yesterday,” to explain that neither the Maya nor modern scientists have doomsday predictions for this month and that the ancient calendar simply begins again just as our own calendar rolls over every New Year’s Day.

The world is not going to end in 2012. At least, probably not.

On any given day there is some miniscule chance that life on Earth could be decimated. Arguably the most probable threat is from large asteroid impacts. Small asteroids hit the Earth all of the time, but the “mile-wide” ones, like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs, are rare.

Since the 1990s, NASA has used robotic telescopes and spacecraft to search for potentially hazardous asteroids. While most of them have been found, there are some still out there that haven’t been seen by astronomers yet.

In early December, a previously unknown small asteroid named “2012 XE54” whizzed by Earth at distance that was closer than our Moon. It is small enough to fit neatly on a typical suburban house lot. It was not discovered until just before passing the Earth, a reminder that we need to keep observing the skies.

Fortunately for us, modern telescopes have improved our chances at spotting an asteroid before it hits us. The odds of an unknown asteroid wiping out humanity on some arbitrary date are very low, about the same as two players each drawing a royal flush while playing straight poker.

I still am somewhat reluctant to point out this very encouraging statistic. After all, the headline “Astronomer Claims Asteroid Might Destroy Earth” could sell a lot of papers.

Tony Crider is an associate professor of physics at Elon University.

*****

Elon University faculty with an interest in sharing their expertise with wider audiences are encouraged to contact Eric Townsend (etownsend4@elon.edu) in the Office of University Communications should they like assistance with prospective newspaper op/ed submissions.

Viewpoints shared by this syndicate are those of the author and not of Elon University.

Email Author Your Email *
Message *
by Eric Townsend, Staff Last Updated - 12/21/2012

View the original article here

Read More

In My Words: When not every child is created equally

Professor Tom Arcaro offers a global perspective on the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy in a newspaper guest column.

*****

The following column appeared recently in the (Durham, N.C) Herald-Sun, the (Burlington, N.C.) Times-News, the (Greensboro, N.C.) News & Record and the Roanoke (Va.) Times via the Elon University Writers Syndicate.

*****

When not every child is created equally
By Tom Arcaro - arcaro@elon.edu

Here in the United States we are yet again reeling from another mass killing, this time in an elementary school.

Yes, there was an unthinkably sad event that led to the deaths of 20 young boys and girls and six of their role models and mentors in Newtown, Conn. Some have even called that tragic Friday morning a “9-11 for schoolteachers.”

As a parent, I gave pause the following Monday as my two young girls left for elementary school, knowing that every day it is a gift to see them come smiling home, complaining about homework. But as a sociologist I know that the dust kicked up by this event will take on predictable forms.

There will be the standard calls for more gun control, more soul searching about God and the role of religion in our schools, and more laments about how we have developed a culture of violence in the media. As with Columbine and Virginal Tech and Paducah and the Amish school attack in Pennsylvania and… well, you get the picture… we will again spin the same narratives: we must do “something.”

But consider this. According to UNICEF, worldwide, “research and experience show that 6 million of the almost 11 million children who die each year could be saved by low-tech, evidence-based, cost-effective measures such as vaccines, antibiotics, micronutrient supplementation, insecticide-treated bed nets and improved family care and breastfeeding practices.”

Doing the math, that means more than 16,000 children also died last Friday in what could be called “genocide by neglect,” a phrase used by Stephen Lewis, former UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa. Perhaps, tragically, it needs pointing out that 16,000 deaths are every day, day after day, year after year.

No, these distant child deaths are not the same as our domestic loses on many accounts. But explain that to parents who wept as their child died in their arms of a curable disease. In most cases these children will never have a memorial, their photos displayed across the Internet, nor even a proper burial in a casket.

Why do we ignore these 16,000 children and at the same time have saturation coverage of 20? Why have we already come to know the names and faces of the victims in suburban Connecticut but rarely, if ever, learn the stories of the thousands that die each day unnoticed? How is it that we are taught that we are “all born equal” but act as if some lives are clearly more important than others?

Does distance determine for whom we should weep?

To conclude by saying that we need a world with fewer guns, more reason and a balanced set of priorities is too simplistic, perhaps. I believe that we do need to revisit our national stance on gun control. I believe we need to critically assess the role of religion in our culture.

Most importantly, I believe our priorities should be questioned when so many die unnoticed, and I plead to feeling people everywhere to consider a more inclusive, global perspective as they react to the deaths in Connecticut.

Tom Arcaro is a professor of sociology and director of Project Pericles at Elon University.

*****

Elon University faculty with an interest in sharing their expertise with wider audiences are encouraged to contact Eric Townsend (etownsend4@elon.edu) in the Office of University Communications should they like assistance with prospective newspaper op/ed submissions.

Viewpoints shared by this syndicate are those of the author and not of Elon University.

Email Author Your Email *
Message *
by Eric Townsend, Staff Last Updated - 12/28/2012

View the original article here

Read More

In My Words: Everyone wins when labor, management cooperate

Professor Mary Gowan argues in a newspaper guest column that corporate executives & union leaders need to build healthier relationships.

Professor Mary Gowan

*****

The following column appeared recently in the (Burlington, N.C.) Times-News, the Winston-Salem Journal and the (Greensboro, N.C.) News & Record via the Elon University Writers Syndicate.

*****

When labor and management cooperate, everyone wins
By Mary Gowan - mgowan@elon.edu

Henry Ford believed a century ago that his nascent company should provide employees fair pay, educational opportunities and a safe working environment. Though the United Automobile Workers would gain a foothold in Ford factories, and the early years of their relationship were tumultuous, management and labor discovered ways to work together.

They introduced health benefits and pensions. They developed joint programs focused on work/family issues, quality and production techniques. They collaborated to avoid bankruptcies threatening other automobile makers. Most recently, the UAW announced that all Ford employees could expect an $8,000 bonus check early this year from profit sharing.

Ford’s belief in the importance of the worker and in adopting a collaborative approach to employee welfare should serve as a model for companies today. Unfortunately, it often does not.

Rather than build strong relationships with management, many unions now focus on political agendas, as they did in Michigan when they lobbied (and failed) to make collective bargaining part of the state constitution, or take management hostage. Hostess Brands, the snack food giant responsible for Twinkies, shuttered this fall after the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union refused pay reductions in the face of corporate bankruptcy.

One union failed to protect the jobs of its members and cost 18,500 workers their livelihoods.

Unions also have ill-served their members by creating false expectations of employee worth. Twenty years ago when I started researching the effects of job loss, unionized baggage handlers at Eastern Airlines were making $20 an hour, or about $33.67 an hour in today’s dollars. When Eastern closed, many employees were caught off guard and refused to acknowledge that union wages may have played a role in the airline’s demise.

Workers quickly learned how difficult it was to find new jobs that both fit their skill level and offered comparable pay. The same situation continues today.

Indiana and Michigan both passed right-to-work laws in 2012, changing the business landscape and presaging what likely will follow in other heavily unionized states. Workers in both states are no longer required to pay union dues and cannot be fired for their unwillingness to join a union. The laws also allow employers to negotiate wages and benefits directly with employees.

Proponents argue that such laws promote job growth. Foreign companies will not locate to states without right-to-work statutes nor will U.S. companies there expand.

Right-to-work legislation is no panacea, however, for what ails unions or employers. When non-unionized employers value profits more than their workers’ welfare, they are engaging in practices just as corrosive as those of the unions that make high wage and benefit demands. Many non-unionized companies pay low wages, limit hours and benefits, and create a work environment that is not healthy for employees precisely because the workers have no collective voice.

For an employer to argue that workers should simply go somewhere else if they don’t like the salary or working conditions is simplistic and disingenuous.

Look no further than Walmart.

In many locations, Walmart’s practices have put other potential employers out of business. And by refusing to buy products from companies that won’t meet their price point, Walmart forces their vendors to pay their employees less in order to make a profit, creating a downward spiral effect on wages.

Inflated wages resulting from some unions’ exorbitant demands, on the one hand, and the deflated wages following from the business practices of corporate bullies such as Walmart, on the other, create an unsustainable environment for business in this country.

Companies invested in the welfare of employees are more successful on metrics that matter most. Increases in innovation, profitability, growth and return-on-investment all happen when employees are paid fairly, given benefits that reduce their worry about what will happen if they become sick, and are treated with respect by their supervisors.

If you doubt this, look up the SAS Institute, Zappos, The Container Store, Starbucks, or any of the other companies that regularly appear on the “Best Places to Work” lists. These companies understood what Henry Ford understood—employees are essential to a successful business. Their welfare matters.

Somewhere between the special interest unions and opportunistic Walmarts is the middle ground that America and its workers seek and need. Reluctance to look for this middle ground may be another example of the polarization of American discourse that has so ill-served the political process and fueled extremes of opinion at the expense of the reasonable dialogue that would lead to real progress.

With a new year before us, there is no better time for corporate executives, union leaders and legislators to recommit to building healthy relationships between labor and management, partnerships where everyone thrives.

Mary Gowan is a professor of management at Elon University.

*****

Elon University faculty with an interest in sharing their expertise with wider audiences are encouraged to contact Eric Townsend (etownsend4@elon.edu) in the Office of University Communications should they like assistance with prospective newspaper op/ed submissions.

Viewpoints shared by this syndicate are those of the author and not of Elon University.

Email Author Your Email *
Message *
by Eric Townsend, Staff Last Updated - 1/23/2013

View the original article here

Read More

In My Words: Shadows of 'Animal Farm' haunt us today

Two years into the Arab Spring, Professor Rosemary Haskell writes in a newspaper guest column how Orwell's novel remains relevant.

Professor Rosemary Haskell

*****

The following column appeared recently in the (Burlington, N.C.) Times-News and the (Durham, N.C.) Herald-Sun via the Elon University Writers Syndicate.

*****

Shadows of 'Animal Farm' haunt us today
By Rosemary Haskell - haskell@elon.edu

Now that the Egyptian Constitution has been ratified, and after President Mohamed Morsi’s willingness to divest himself of at least some misappropriated powers, I am less inclined to award my “Napoleon the Pig Medal for Grandiosity and Power-Grabbing” to this post-Arab Spring leader.

The medal commemorating George Orwell’s porcine revolutionary-turned-dictator can go to someone else.

Orwell’s 1946 political allegory “Animal Farm,” the story of an animal revolt against Farmer Jones, is a fable for all seasons. Whenever and wherever people seize and cling to power, bleating choruses reverberate “four legs good, two legs bad” and “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Getting power, keeping it, extending it. This pattern is embedded in the careers so many men that only a few are listed here: President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, King Abdullah of Jordan, President Teodoro Obiang of Equatorial Guinea, President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, and the “hit-the-refresh-button” ruler of Russia, Vladimir Putin.

Some, like Mugabe, started out as anti-imperialist, anti-apartheid freedom fighters; some, like Abdullah and Assad, inherited near-autocracies; some, like Putin, are Cheshire Cat reappearance artists. Obiang’s succession followed a 1979 coup against his own uncle.

The living parallels to Orwell’s "Animal Farm" are varied. The elegant Aesop-like text is vivid and specific, general and flexible. Even though this post-World War II fable shadows the 20th century history of the old Soviet Union’s Marx-inspired 1917 revolution, the rise and fall of Leon Trotsky, the bloodstained rule of Stalin, and the country's immense resilience and bravery as the German invaders closed in, “Animal Farm” stays relevant because it is driven by enduring facets of a universal human nature.

And as we reach the second anniversary of the 2010 Arab Spring, “Animal Farm” is notable for reminding us that no revolutionary ideals can stay pristine when actually practiced.

A recap of the plot: After the ideologically pure Marx-like boar Old Major dies, the animals fight for, and win, a fleeting state of freedom and equality. But Napoleon and his swine comrades soon annex Farmer Jones’s house, purloin the surplus farm products, and, finally, walk on their hind legs. These clever, literate, agile, “natural” leaders become the enemy the revolution was supposed to banish.

Squealer, Napoleon’s public-relations pig, reassures the other animals that the pig-leaders “actually dislike milk and apples” but that “we pigs are brainworkers” who need the extra nourishment. Similarly, they need to get a good night’s sleep in real beds so that they will be rested enough to preserve the revolution. “Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back!” pipes Squealer, “skipping from side to side and whisking his tail.”

Only the donkey, Benjamin, remains alert to this betrayal, but he is too world-weary to act. The devoted and hardworking carthorse, Boxer, believes everything Napoleon tells him.

Actions in “Animal Farm” are important, but so is the written word. The barely literate animals periodically return to the Revolution’s founding principles, painted on the wall of the barn, to try to parse the legality of the pigs’ actions.

Clover, the mare, recalls a rule about animals not sleeping in beds. “With some difficulty, Muriel [the goat] spelt it out . . . ‘No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.’” And, famously, the bedrock value that “All animals are equal” now reads “But some animals are more equal than others.”

Napoleon and his hench-pigs have retroactively legalized their behavior.

The best political allegories can take us only so far but Orwell’s “Animal Farm” is peculiarly illuminating. Squealer the spin-pig; Snowball, the invisible Trotsky-like scapegoat for the ills of the revolutionary state; Mollie, the pretty young filly who wants sugar lumps and ribbons for her mane much more than freedom and equine dignity; the chorus-chanting sheep; and, of course, the duplicitous farm cats. They all have their real-life counterparts.

In this new year, in the Arab world and wherever else freedom and equality need champions, I look for the rise of people more like Boxer, Benjamin and Clover, with the provisos that Boxer the carthorse be less gullible, Benjamin the donkey less cynical, and Clover the motherly mare a better critical reader.

Old Major, the patriarchal fount of revolutionary aspirations, should have chosen all his ideological progeny more carefully. But there’s probably not much anyone can do about that.

Rosemary Haskell is a professor of English who teaches a course on George Orwell at Elon University.

*****

Elon University faculty with an interest in sharing their expertise with wider audiences are encouraged to contact Eric Townsend (etownsend4@elon.edu) in the Office of University Communications should they like assistance with prospective newspaper op/ed submissions.

Viewpoints shared by this syndicate are those of the author and not of Elon University.

Email Author Your Email *
Message *
by Eric Townsend, Staff Last Updated - 1/15/2013

View the original article here

Read More

In My Words: When preventing crime stunts moral growth

Should we keep people from being able to choose to break the law? Associate Professor Michael Rich poses the question in a newspaper column.

Associate Professor Michael Rich

*****

The following column was published recently by the Roanoke (Va.) Times, the (Greensboro, N.C.) News & Record, the Winston-Salem Journal, and the (Burlington, N.C.) Times-News via the Elon University Writers Syndicate.

*****

When preventing crime stunts moral growth
By Michael Rich - mrich2@elon.edu

If you’re convicted of drunk driving in the United States, should you want to keep driving, a judge sometimes will require that you install an ignition interlock system in your car. Provide a breath sample and the system determines whether your blood is free of alcohol.

While inconvenient for the driver, the sanction makes sense. Drunk drivers are often recidivists. Mothers Against Drunk Driving estimates that the average drunk driver climbs behind the wheel impaired 80 times before he or she is caught. Such convictions, with their accompanying due process, provides a formal indication of the person’s dangerousness that justifies an imposition on liberty.

And ignition interlock programs are effective, reducing repeat drunk driving arrests by two-thirds.

Now, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has teamed with car manufacturers to develop ignition interlock technology that could be included in every new vehicle. This technology, called the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, or “DADSS” for short, measures a driver’s blood alcohol level. If a driver’s blood alcohol level exceeds the legal limit, the DADSS prevents the car from starting.

A test vehicle incorporating the DADSS is expected within two years, and the technology may be available in all vehicles within a decade. Its appeal is intuitive: after all, who is in favor of drunk driving and the thousands of deaths and injuries it causes each year? Yet the DADSS represents a potentially troubling sea change in how we seek to prevent crime.
Federal, state and local governments engaged in a public campaign over the last 30 years to convince people that drunk driving is wrong, that those who drive while intoxicated will be caught, and that the punishments will be severe. And, yes, we may prospectively limit the freedom of the most dangerous potential criminals, which is where the current use of ignition interlocks comes in.

The DADSS program is different. It does not seek to convince people that they should obey the law; rather, it takes away the choice.

The DADSS is only the most visible piece of a trend toward the “perfect prevention” of crime, by which crime is made impossible rather than merely a bad idea. The federal government’s Intelligent Transportation Systems program could allow a roadside computer to instruct a vehicle not to allow a driver to speed, run a red light, or even hit another vehicle. By criminalizing the development of copyright-avoiding technologies, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act keeps the average person from illegally sharing some copyrighted materials such as video games.

The DADSS and other perfect prevention technology force us to ask, even if we can make a crime impossible, should we? At first blush, the answer seems obvious. By criminalizing conduct, we signal that the conduct is either so wrong or so harmful that no one should engage in it. Therefore, preventing every instance of that conduct would be good, right?

Maybe. There are many kinds of conduct that may technically be criminal but that we may not all agree should be eradicated. Every city dweller jaywalks sometimes. Millions “share” music in violation of copyright law. The heavy hand of perfect prevention may not be an appropriate way to deal with such relatively minor criminal conduct.

Moreover, perfect prevention can operate in the shadows, without people ever knowing that they have been prevented from engaging in criminal conduct. This is troubling, because it treats us like children. Part of adulthood, and citizenship, is making moral decision, and our right and wrong choices contribute to our personhood.

By removing the possibility of making wrong choices, perfect prevention stunts that moral growth.

One lesson for the development of the DADSS is therefore clear. Its operation must be transparent, so that even in the absence of punishment for drunk driving we can learn that what conduct society views as wrong.

The underlying question of whether drunk driving is the sort of criminal conduct we want to prevent is more difficult, because our laws conflict with our actions. Drunk driving is a strict liability offense: you are guilty if you drive with a certain blood alcohol level, even if you innocently had no idea that you were intoxicated. This suggests strong moral condemnation.

Yet the Centers for Disease Control estimate that Americans drive drunk more than 100 million times each year. So which is it? Is drunk driving so bad that it is always wrong, or is it just another example of the sort of risky conduct that is the price of freedom?

In a few short years, the DADSS may force us to answer that question. And it is likely the first of many such difficult choices we will have to make as perfect prevention technologies compel us to assess the importance of our freedom to sometimes make the wrong choice, especially when that choice can have awful consequences.

Michael Rich is an associate professor at the Elon University School of Law.

*****

Elon University faculty with an interest in sharing their expertise with wider audiences are encouraged to contact Eric Townsend (etownsend4@elon.edu) in the Office of University Communications should they like assistance with prospective newspaper op/ed submissions.

Viewpoints shared by this syndicate are those of the author and not of Elon University.

Email Author Your Email *
Message *
by Eric Townsend, Staff Last Updated - 1/2/2013

View the original article here

Read More

In My Words: We're all to blame for cliff diving

Assistant Professor Jason Husser uses a newspaper guest column to suggest ways for Americans to foster cooperation in Washington.

Assistant Professor Jason Husser

*****

The following column appeared recently in the Fayetteville Observer, the Winston-Salem Journal and the (Burlington, N.C.) Times-News via the Elon University Writers Syndicate.

*****

We’re all to blame for cliff diving
By Jason Husser - jhusser@elon.edu

Recent gridlock notwithstanding, the United States Congress remains the most powerful institution in human history. The men and women we send to Washington are a force beyond tangible comprehension.

Our flirtation with the “fiscal cliff,” however, brought an otherwise mighty government to its knees. When Congress finally passed the fiscal cliff deal, they passed the buck. In the months ahead, debt ceiling negotiations will meet all-too-familiar sequestration rules, and we will see political conflict of similar or greater scope.

The true, underlying danger isn’t politicians raising tax rates for fewer services. It’s a society that treats moderates as pariahs and “compromise” as a four-letter word.

The fiscal cliff and the upcoming debt ceiling showdown are just symptoms. Polarization is the disease, a virus in the body politic that poisons legislation. Unless something changes, leaders will continue their brinkmanship on critical issues like the fiscal cliff.

I don’t like it, and you probably don’t, either. Sadly, there aren’t any silver-bullet fixes. Congress didn’t become so divisive overnight. The political woes we face today won’t be corrected easily.

Making committee chair appointments less ideological could help. So could campaign finance, gerrymandering and lobbying reform. It wouldn’t hurt if elected leaders built stronger friendships with counterparts in the other party.

But the changes necessary for healthy levels of political debate in America can’t happen only on Capitol Hill. After all, voters elected our dysfunctional assembly. We are not just victims of divided elites in a complicated world. We are amnesic Americans who forget our Constitution and our nation wouldn’t exist without compromise.

Ordinary people have an opportunity to steady America’s wavering political ship. Here are four ways to start:

First, resist the “us against them” mentality common in domestic politics. Political coalitions rely on many social groups for support. Demonizing those with whom you disagree fuels polarizing rhetoric, hampers politicians from working across the aisle, and conceals valuable lessons we could otherwise learn from those who bring different perspectives to the table.

Second, be skeptical of simple solutions to complex problems. The world is a messy place. Like $100 bills lying on the sidewalk, if simple solutions were easy to find, someone else would have already grabbed them. Solutions to most problems require more information than politicians offer when they seek your vote.

Third, accept our two-party system. As hard as it might be to believe, our party system works admirably well, and it’s unlikely to go away. Institutional structures prevent viable third parties in the United States. We are left to improve what we have.

Fourth, think beyond campaigns. Even if a candidate aligns with your immediate views, ask if that candidate is really the person who would best represent your long-term interests. Ask if the candidate would actually contribute to a legislative process that is healthy for the country.

The cumulative effect of these proposals is to give life, once again, to bipartisanship in American political life.

Congress gets most of the blame for modern political ills, and such blame may be deserved. However, pointing the finger solely toward politicians is a dangerous path of least resistance.

A fix to the real problem, polarization, requires innovative thinking and growth on the part of leaders and everyday citizen alike. The American people must also be accountable to themselves.

Jason Husser is an assistant professor of political science and assistant director of the Elon University Poll.

*****

Elon University faculty with an interest in sharing their expertise with wider audiences are encouraged to contact Eric Townsend (etownsend4@elon.edu) in the Office of University Communications should they like assistance with prospective newspaper op/ed submissions.

Viewpoints shared by this syndicate are those of the author and not of Elon University.

Email Author Your Email *
Message *
by Eric Townsend, Staff Last Updated - 1/13/2013

View the original article here

Read More

In My Words: Shadows of 'Animal Farm' haunt us today

Two years into the Arab Spring, Professor Rosemary Haskell writes in a newspaper guest column how Orwell's novel remains relevant.

Professor Rosemary Haskell

*****

The following column appeared recently in the (Burlington, N.C.) Times-News and the (Durham, N.C.) Herald-Sun via the Elon University Writers Syndicate.

*****

Shadows of 'Animal Farm' haunt us today
By Rosemary Haskell - haskell@elon.edu

Now that the Egyptian Constitution has been ratified, and after President Mohamed Morsi’s willingness to divest himself of at least some misappropriated powers, I am less inclined to award my “Napoleon the Pig Medal for Grandiosity and Power-Grabbing” to this post-Arab Spring leader.

The medal commemorating George Orwell’s porcine revolutionary-turned-dictator can go to someone else.

Orwell’s 1946 political allegory “Animal Farm,” the story of an animal revolt against Farmer Jones, is a fable for all seasons. Whenever and wherever people seize and cling to power, bleating choruses reverberate “four legs good, two legs bad” and “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Getting power, keeping it, extending it. This pattern is embedded in the careers so many men that only a few are listed here: President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, King Abdullah of Jordan, President Teodoro Obiang of Equatorial Guinea, President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, and the “hit-the-refresh-button” ruler of Russia, Vladimir Putin.

Some, like Mugabe, started out as anti-imperialist, anti-apartheid freedom fighters; some, like Abdullah and Assad, inherited near-autocracies; some, like Putin, are Cheshire Cat reappearance artists. Obiang’s succession followed a 1979 coup against his own uncle.

The living parallels to Orwell’s "Animal Farm" are varied. The elegant Aesop-like text is vivid and specific, general and flexible. Even though this post-World War II fable shadows the 20th century history of the old Soviet Union’s Marx-inspired 1917 revolution, the rise and fall of Leon Trotsky, the bloodstained rule of Stalin, and the country's immense resilience and bravery as the German invaders closed in, “Animal Farm” stays relevant because it is driven by enduring facets of a universal human nature.

And as we reach the second anniversary of the 2010 Arab Spring, “Animal Farm” is notable for reminding us that no revolutionary ideals can stay pristine when actually practiced.

A recap of the plot: After the ideologically pure Marx-like boar Old Major dies, the animals fight for, and win, a fleeting state of freedom and equality. But Napoleon and his swine comrades soon annex Farmer Jones’s house, purloin the surplus farm products, and, finally, walk on their hind legs. These clever, literate, agile, “natural” leaders become the enemy the revolution was supposed to banish.

Squealer, Napoleon’s public-relations pig, reassures the other animals that the pig-leaders “actually dislike milk and apples” but that “we pigs are brainworkers” who need the extra nourishment. Similarly, they need to get a good night’s sleep in real beds so that they will be rested enough to preserve the revolution. “Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back!” pipes Squealer, “skipping from side to side and whisking his tail.”

Only the donkey, Benjamin, remains alert to this betrayal, but he is too world-weary to act. The devoted and hardworking carthorse, Boxer, believes everything Napoleon tells him.

Actions in “Animal Farm” are important, but so is the written word. The barely literate animals periodically return to the Revolution’s founding principles, painted on the wall of the barn, to try to parse the legality of the pigs’ actions.

Clover, the mare, recalls a rule about animals not sleeping in beds. “With some difficulty, Muriel [the goat] spelt it out . . . ‘No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.’” And, famously, the bedrock value that “All animals are equal” now reads “But some animals are more equal than others.”

Napoleon and his hench-pigs have retroactively legalized their behavior.

The best political allegories can take us only so far but Orwell’s “Animal Farm” is peculiarly illuminating. Squealer the spin-pig; Snowball, the invisible Trotsky-like scapegoat for the ills of the revolutionary state; Mollie, the pretty young filly who wants sugar lumps and ribbons for her mane much more than freedom and equine dignity; the chorus-chanting sheep; and, of course, the duplicitous farm cats. They all have their real-life counterparts.

In this new year, in the Arab world and wherever else freedom and equality need champions, I look for the rise of people more like Boxer, Benjamin and Clover, with the provisos that Boxer the carthorse be less gullible, Benjamin the donkey less cynical, and Clover the motherly mare a better critical reader.

Old Major, the patriarchal fount of revolutionary aspirations, should have chosen all his ideological progeny more carefully. But there’s probably not much anyone can do about that.

Rosemary Haskell is a professor of English who teaches a course on George Orwell at Elon University.

*****

Elon University faculty with an interest in sharing their expertise with wider audiences are encouraged to contact Eric Townsend (etownsend4@elon.edu) in the Office of University Communications should they like assistance with prospective newspaper op/ed submissions.

Viewpoints shared by this syndicate are those of the author and not of Elon University.

Email Author Your Email *
Message *
by Eric Townsend, Staff Last Updated - 1/15/2013

View the original article here

Read More

In My Words: We're all to blame for cliff diving

Assistant Professor Jason Husser uses a newspaper guest column to suggest ways for Americans to foster cooperation in Washington.

Assistant Professor Jason Husser

*****

The following column appeared recently in the Fayetteville Observer, the Winston-Salem Journal and the (Burlington, N.C.) Times-News via the Elon University Writers Syndicate.

*****

We’re all to blame for cliff diving
By Jason Husser - jhusser@elon.edu

Recent gridlock notwithstanding, the United States Congress remains the most powerful institution in human history. The men and women we send to Washington are a force beyond tangible comprehension.

Our flirtation with the “fiscal cliff,” however, brought an otherwise mighty government to its knees. When Congress finally passed the fiscal cliff deal, they passed the buck. In the months ahead, debt ceiling negotiations will meet all-too-familiar sequestration rules, and we will see political conflict of similar or greater scope.

The true, underlying danger isn’t politicians raising tax rates for fewer services. It’s a society that treats moderates as pariahs and “compromise” as a four-letter word.

The fiscal cliff and the upcoming debt ceiling showdown are just symptoms. Polarization is the disease, a virus in the body politic that poisons legislation. Unless something changes, leaders will continue their brinkmanship on critical issues like the fiscal cliff.

I don’t like it, and you probably don’t, either. Sadly, there aren’t any silver-bullet fixes. Congress didn’t become so divisive overnight. The political woes we face today won’t be corrected easily.

Making committee chair appointments less ideological could help. So could campaign finance, gerrymandering and lobbying reform. It wouldn’t hurt if elected leaders built stronger friendships with counterparts in the other party.

But the changes necessary for healthy levels of political debate in America can’t happen only on Capitol Hill. After all, voters elected our dysfunctional assembly. We are not just victims of divided elites in a complicated world. We are amnesic Americans who forget our Constitution and our nation wouldn’t exist without compromise.

Ordinary people have an opportunity to steady America’s wavering political ship. Here are four ways to start:

First, resist the “us against them” mentality common in domestic politics. Political coalitions rely on many social groups for support. Demonizing those with whom you disagree fuels polarizing rhetoric, hampers politicians from working across the aisle, and conceals valuable lessons we could otherwise learn from those who bring different perspectives to the table.

Second, be skeptical of simple solutions to complex problems. The world is a messy place. Like $100 bills lying on the sidewalk, if simple solutions were easy to find, someone else would have already grabbed them. Solutions to most problems require more information than politicians offer when they seek your vote.

Third, accept our two-party system. As hard as it might be to believe, our party system works admirably well, and it’s unlikely to go away. Institutional structures prevent viable third parties in the United States. We are left to improve what we have.

Fourth, think beyond campaigns. Even if a candidate aligns with your immediate views, ask if that candidate is really the person who would best represent your long-term interests. Ask if the candidate would actually contribute to a legislative process that is healthy for the country.

The cumulative effect of these proposals is to give life, once again, to bipartisanship in American political life.

Congress gets most of the blame for modern political ills, and such blame may be deserved. However, pointing the finger solely toward politicians is a dangerous path of least resistance.

A fix to the real problem, polarization, requires innovative thinking and growth on the part of leaders and everyday citizen alike. The American people must also be accountable to themselves.

Jason Husser is an assistant professor of political science and assistant director of the Elon University Poll.

*****

Elon University faculty with an interest in sharing their expertise with wider audiences are encouraged to contact Eric Townsend (etownsend4@elon.edu) in the Office of University Communications should they like assistance with prospective newspaper op/ed submissions.

Viewpoints shared by this syndicate are those of the author and not of Elon University.

Email Author Your Email *
Message *
by Eric Townsend, Staff Last Updated - 1/13/2013

View the original article here

Read More

In My Words: Everyone wins when labor, management cooperate

Professor Mary Gowan argues in a newspaper guest column that corporate executives & union leaders need to build healthier relationships.

Professor Mary Gowan

*****

The following column appeared recently in the (Burlington, N.C.) Times-News, the Winston-Salem Journal and the (Greensboro, N.C.) News & Record via the Elon University Writers Syndicate.

*****

When labor and management cooperate, everyone wins
By Mary Gowan - mgowan@elon.edu

Henry Ford believed a century ago that his nascent company should provide employees fair pay, educational opportunities and a safe working environment. Though the United Automobile Workers would gain a foothold in Ford factories, and the early years of their relationship were tumultuous, management and labor discovered ways to work together.

They introduced health benefits and pensions. They developed joint programs focused on work/family issues, quality and production techniques. They collaborated to avoid bankruptcies threatening other automobile makers. Most recently, the UAW announced that all Ford employees could expect an $8,000 bonus check early this year from profit sharing.

Ford’s belief in the importance of the worker and in adopting a collaborative approach to employee welfare should serve as a model for companies today. Unfortunately, it often does not.

Rather than build strong relationships with management, many unions now focus on political agendas, as they did in Michigan when they lobbied (and failed) to make collective bargaining part of the state constitution, or take management hostage. Hostess Brands, the snack food giant responsible for Twinkies, shuttered this fall after the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union refused pay reductions in the face of corporate bankruptcy.

One union failed to protect the jobs of its members and cost 18,500 workers their livelihoods.

Unions also have ill-served their members by creating false expectations of employee worth. Twenty years ago when I started researching the effects of job loss, unionized baggage handlers at Eastern Airlines were making $20 an hour, or about $33.67 an hour in today’s dollars. When Eastern closed, many employees were caught off guard and refused to acknowledge that union wages may have played a role in the airline’s demise.

Workers quickly learned how difficult it was to find new jobs that both fit their skill level and offered comparable pay. The same situation continues today.

Indiana and Michigan both passed right-to-work laws in 2012, changing the business landscape and presaging what likely will follow in other heavily unionized states. Workers in both states are no longer required to pay union dues and cannot be fired for their unwillingness to join a union. The laws also allow employers to negotiate wages and benefits directly with employees.

Proponents argue that such laws promote job growth. Foreign companies will not locate to states without right-to-work statutes nor will U.S. companies there expand.

Right-to-work legislation is no panacea, however, for what ails unions or employers. When non-unionized employers value profits more than their workers’ welfare, they are engaging in practices just as corrosive as those of the unions that make high wage and benefit demands. Many non-unionized companies pay low wages, limit hours and benefits, and create a work environment that is not healthy for employees precisely because the workers have no collective voice.

For an employer to argue that workers should simply go somewhere else if they don’t like the salary or working conditions is simplistic and disingenuous.

Look no further than Walmart.

In many locations, Walmart’s practices have put other potential employers out of business. And by refusing to buy products from companies that won’t meet their price point, Walmart forces their vendors to pay their employees less in order to make a profit, creating a downward spiral effect on wages.

Inflated wages resulting from some unions’ exorbitant demands, on the one hand, and the deflated wages following from the business practices of corporate bullies such as Walmart, on the other, create an unsustainable environment for business in this country.

Companies invested in the welfare of employees are more successful on metrics that matter most. Increases in innovation, profitability, growth and return-on-investment all happen when employees are paid fairly, given benefits that reduce their worry about what will happen if they become sick, and are treated with respect by their supervisors.

If you doubt this, look up the SAS Institute, Zappos, The Container Store, Starbucks, or any of the other companies that regularly appear on the “Best Places to Work” lists. These companies understood what Henry Ford understood—employees are essential to a successful business. Their welfare matters.

Somewhere between the special interest unions and opportunistic Walmarts is the middle ground that America and its workers seek and need. Reluctance to look for this middle ground may be another example of the polarization of American discourse that has so ill-served the political process and fueled extremes of opinion at the expense of the reasonable dialogue that would lead to real progress.

With a new year before us, there is no better time for corporate executives, union leaders and legislators to recommit to building healthy relationships between labor and management, partnerships where everyone thrives.

Mary Gowan is a professor of management at Elon University.

*****

Elon University faculty with an interest in sharing their expertise with wider audiences are encouraged to contact Eric Townsend (etownsend4@elon.edu) in the Office of University Communications should they like assistance with prospective newspaper op/ed submissions.

Viewpoints shared by this syndicate are those of the author and not of Elon University.

Email Author Your Email *
Message *
by Eric Townsend, Staff Last Updated - 1/23/2013

View the original article here

Read More

In My Words: When preventing crime stunts moral growth

Should we keep people from being able to choose to break the law? Associate Professor Michael Rich poses the question in a newspaper column.

Associate Professor Michael Rich

*****

The following column was published recently by the Roanoke (Va.) Times, the (Greensboro, N.C.) News & Record, the Winston-Salem Journal, and the (Burlington, N.C.) Times-News via the Elon University Writers Syndicate.

*****

When preventing crime stunts moral growth
By Michael Rich - mrich2@elon.edu

If you’re convicted of drunk driving in the United States, should you want to keep driving, a judge sometimes will require that you install an ignition interlock system in your car. Provide a breath sample and the system determines whether your blood is free of alcohol.

While inconvenient for the driver, the sanction makes sense. Drunk drivers are often recidivists. Mothers Against Drunk Driving estimates that the average drunk driver climbs behind the wheel impaired 80 times before he or she is caught. Such convictions, with their accompanying due process, provides a formal indication of the person’s dangerousness that justifies an imposition on liberty.

And ignition interlock programs are effective, reducing repeat drunk driving arrests by two-thirds.

Now, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has teamed with car manufacturers to develop ignition interlock technology that could be included in every new vehicle. This technology, called the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, or “DADSS” for short, measures a driver’s blood alcohol level. If a driver’s blood alcohol level exceeds the legal limit, the DADSS prevents the car from starting.

A test vehicle incorporating the DADSS is expected within two years, and the technology may be available in all vehicles within a decade. Its appeal is intuitive: after all, who is in favor of drunk driving and the thousands of deaths and injuries it causes each year? Yet the DADSS represents a potentially troubling sea change in how we seek to prevent crime.
Federal, state and local governments engaged in a public campaign over the last 30 years to convince people that drunk driving is wrong, that those who drive while intoxicated will be caught, and that the punishments will be severe. And, yes, we may prospectively limit the freedom of the most dangerous potential criminals, which is where the current use of ignition interlocks comes in.

The DADSS program is different. It does not seek to convince people that they should obey the law; rather, it takes away the choice.

The DADSS is only the most visible piece of a trend toward the “perfect prevention” of crime, by which crime is made impossible rather than merely a bad idea. The federal government’s Intelligent Transportation Systems program could allow a roadside computer to instruct a vehicle not to allow a driver to speed, run a red light, or even hit another vehicle. By criminalizing the development of copyright-avoiding technologies, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act keeps the average person from illegally sharing some copyrighted materials such as video games.

The DADSS and other perfect prevention technology force us to ask, even if we can make a crime impossible, should we? At first blush, the answer seems obvious. By criminalizing conduct, we signal that the conduct is either so wrong or so harmful that no one should engage in it. Therefore, preventing every instance of that conduct would be good, right?

Maybe. There are many kinds of conduct that may technically be criminal but that we may not all agree should be eradicated. Every city dweller jaywalks sometimes. Millions “share” music in violation of copyright law. The heavy hand of perfect prevention may not be an appropriate way to deal with such relatively minor criminal conduct.

Moreover, perfect prevention can operate in the shadows, without people ever knowing that they have been prevented from engaging in criminal conduct. This is troubling, because it treats us like children. Part of adulthood, and citizenship, is making moral decision, and our right and wrong choices contribute to our personhood.

By removing the possibility of making wrong choices, perfect prevention stunts that moral growth.

One lesson for the development of the DADSS is therefore clear. Its operation must be transparent, so that even in the absence of punishment for drunk driving we can learn that what conduct society views as wrong.

The underlying question of whether drunk driving is the sort of criminal conduct we want to prevent is more difficult, because our laws conflict with our actions. Drunk driving is a strict liability offense: you are guilty if you drive with a certain blood alcohol level, even if you innocently had no idea that you were intoxicated. This suggests strong moral condemnation.

Yet the Centers for Disease Control estimate that Americans drive drunk more than 100 million times each year. So which is it? Is drunk driving so bad that it is always wrong, or is it just another example of the sort of risky conduct that is the price of freedom?

In a few short years, the DADSS may force us to answer that question. And it is likely the first of many such difficult choices we will have to make as perfect prevention technologies compel us to assess the importance of our freedom to sometimes make the wrong choice, especially when that choice can have awful consequences.

Michael Rich is an associate professor at the Elon University School of Law.

*****

Elon University faculty with an interest in sharing their expertise with wider audiences are encouraged to contact Eric Townsend (etownsend4@elon.edu) in the Office of University Communications should they like assistance with prospective newspaper op/ed submissions.

Viewpoints shared by this syndicate are those of the author and not of Elon University.

Email Author Your Email *
Message *
by Eric Townsend, Staff Last Updated - 1/2/2013

View the original article here

Read More