Burlington High School

Burlington, Kansas

Teacher: Devra Parker

 

Standing in Line or Standing Alone; the Waiting and the Wise

By Meagan Arvieux

12^th Grade

 

One is the loneliest number…or is it? I mean after one follows two and three and so on. One is not lonely, it is merely in waiting. It is waiting to be followed, waiting for [other numbers] to join it. That is just the case with the individual who will tell you his or her opinion, stand up for what they think is right. These people are just waiting for someone to join them in their efforts. However, if no one rises to the occasion [they are] not afraid to stand alone. This “person” I am describing is the most honorable of men/women. The only reason I say “person” as if his or her characteristics are hypothetical is because they are. Nowadays, this type of being is merely a fictional character in the…story of America.

 

In 1964 a woman named Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death by a serial rapist and murderer in her home. She screamed for help as she was attacked for half an hour before she finally passed on. During her violent death no one notified the police, or tried to help her. So, obviously there was nobody around to hear her last few cries…right? Wrong! Nearly 30 witnesses came forward to the police during their investigation and said that they had heard Genovese’s screams. If they heard her, why didn’t they do anything to help her? Their excuse for letting this woman die was that they all assumed that someone else would intervene.

 

Sadly this is not a rare incident in our society. In fact, it is such a common happening that it has been dubbed “The Bystander Effect.” It is a psychological phenomenon in which someone is less likely to take it upon themselves to help someone in need because they assume that the other people present will take action. In addition, research on this topic has proven that the more people that are around and able to help in an emergency type situation the smaller the chances are that anything will be done to assist  the person or people in trouble.

 

Since when is it considered “OK” to sit back while a fellow American is in need? Never! That is when. It is our personal responsibility to look out for one another in our society. I mean we are Americans for goodness sake. We used to be know for helping out the under dog. Americans are supposed to be bonded together by courage. United we stand…right? If that was the case then each of those 30 people would have gotten up off of their couch and gone to Genoves’s house to help her.

This country is no longer united. We are falling faster and faster into a pit of selfishness and lack of dependability. Now we are all about our rights, freedoms, and ourselves.

 

If the people of America would realize and accept their responsibility to protect the future of our nation, our world would be a better place. Every should play a role in working towards the common good of our society, and by common good I mean to lower the crime rate and provide  a safer environment for our children, our communities and ourselves.

 

What exactly could each person do to better our nation? It is all a matter of choices; individual liberty. Individual liberty is defined as the condition in which a person is able to act according to his or her own free will. The entire country has to want a change for the better. Then the ENTIRE nation has to act on this desire.

 

Maybe I just feel so strongly about this because I am one of the few people left that is willing to take a stand for what is right. I do not let consequences like a bad reputation stop me from doing what I believe in. If I see someone in the halls being picked on I speak up. That is exactly how simple my solution is. Just speak up. I understand that some people are shy or they fear that someone else could be of greater assistance or that they could put themselves in danger by speaking up, but that should not stop them from doing the right thing. If we are unable to stick up for our fellow Americans then how we can expect other nations to believe that we are united and that we are the "All Powerful America” we portray ourselves as?

 

If we want to feel safer, which I'm more than sure the majority of us do, then we need to do something about the crime and corruption going on around us. If one sees or hears an emergency or just a chance to help someone out then one should stand up and do something about it. Waiting for someone else to take action could in turn be a fatal decision on ones own part. I know that I would feel extremely guilty if I knew that my laziness or fear was the reason that someone else DIED. Maybe that is why when a person is sentenced to death by electrocution the executer is made to believe that only one of the switches on the board works. So that they do not have to accept that they killed another human. This lie allows them to believe that they flipped a faulty switch and the prisoner is still alive. As human beings we need to take responsibility for our actions. Not doing so is negligent on our part.

 

If nothing else people need to speak up. In the story of the recent Chicago school shooting, a boy claimed that he had gone to the restroom the morning of the shooting and he had seen the shooter loading his gun. The student did his business and went to class. He did not say a word of what he had seen in the bathroom to anybody. Think of how the outcome of that day could have been changed if he would have told a friend or a teacher. Unfortunately he did nothing of the sort. This in itself is proof that silence is dangerous.

 

All it takes is one voice to be heard; one person has to speak up. There can be no response to a comment left unsaid. The police will not come to your side if they are not called and, just as when counting, without one there are no numbers to follow it. The number one should be an example to all people. One does not wait for another number; he takes the first stand. As Americans we should stand up for what we know is right, because we are one nation and even when we stand alone…we are standing united.

 

Answers to Questions Regarding the Required Reading

 

Q1-What do you think Justin Reiter meant by including the following in his essay?

“…if the people are not accustomed to the freedom they will be angered by the inequality.”  Were you angered by some of the things Justin said in his essay? Did you agree or disagree?

 

I think that Justin was trying to explain that people who aren’t free per say are used to being just as good as everybody else. If someone who is used to equality comes to America where we are free then he or she will be upset with the fact that they aren’t as good as everybody else. Their decisions actually affect their social status. Whereas, if they are not free somebody else is making their decisions for them and that person is making the same decisions for EVERYBODY else, making each and every person the social and economically identical to the next.

 

I was not angered by the things that Justin said in his essay. However, I did find that he seems to have a slightly limited vocabulary. His word choice was in no way colorful, so I found myself getting lost in his literary monotony.

 

I do agree with Justin. Many of his points match my opinion on the situation, including the above excerpt.

 

Q2- Explain: “He felt that the common good could be served by each individual pursuing self-interest.”  To whom did Chris Carney attribute these feelings?

 

Chris was speaking about James Madison in this excerpt.

 

Q3- In the next to the last paragraph in her essay, Faith Doyle discuses Emperor Diocletian and his Edict of 301. Relate that to the essay topic.

 

What Faith said about the Emperor Diocletian and his Edict of 301 is very relevant to this topic. In order to balance liberty and the common good, people have to work for themselves. They cannot be made fully equal because it would take away all forms of innovation and individuality. People who are not free to be who they are are not happy people and when a society is unhappy then it is not productive and is of no use to the people in it or the rest of the world.

 

Q4- Kelly Lanier says in her essay: “Even though everyone is born with the same rights here in America; sometimes a person can step on or take away the rights of another person.” Relate the example she gives and give us another one of your own.

 

Her example explained that one person could take away the rights of another person to live and be free from harm by simply exercising his or her right to bear arms. Another example of this would be if a newspaper were to exercise their right to freedom of the press and write an article about someone’s religion causing portraying his or her beliefs to be like that of a cult members, causing the person to be outcaste from the community in turn stomping on the toes of his or her right to the pursuit of happiness and freedom of religion.

 

Q5- Explain what Joshua Spencer means when he says that “individual liberty is a fragile, yet powerful, asset.” How does he relate individual liberty to dictators?   Do you agree with his assessment? Why or why not? Be specific.

 

He means that it is not difficult to forget your freedoms at times but that if you keep them in your grasp and exercise them then individuals can make a difference and help their society.

 

He says that a dictator will offer free handouts so the people do not need each other, or themselves, to provide the things that they need to survive. The people in turn need only the provider and forget about unity their individual rights and all of their freedoms because they no longer have to work or fight to survive. Therefore, the dictator has gained all control and the people will most likely not retaliate because they have everything they need and are not unhappy.

 

I agree with his assessment because if people are given everything that they need to survive from one person then they will become dependent upon that person and nothing else really matters. It is no different from the attachment that an infant has to its mother when nursing. The mother is the world to that child and nothing else really matters.

 

Q6-Luke Hall asked “Will we maintain our freedom or destroy it to be safe?” How would you answer that question?

 

I think we will maintain our freedom. The American people are more willing to fight for their rights than five them up to keep people from shooting at them. They understand that if we fight long enough for the rights that we have that in the end we will not lose them.

 

Q7- Some people, according to which student essayist in 1999, suggested that “the Constitution's framers might have 'put greater emphasis on the protection of the community over individual liberty', had they seen the world today.”? She doesn’t agree.  Do You?

 

This student was Molly McGlore and I agree with her. The reason the framers of the constitution allowed for the document to be amended was because they knew that circumstances in society change. Changes in their own Articles of Confederation were needed but not allowed by the articles themselves. Their society could no longer survive under the articles as written because of the current situation. They were, therefore, prepared, when writing the constitution, for the same situation to arise in the future of their government.

 

Q8- “Just because a law may achieve desirable results, it should not take precedence over the Constitution.” Do you agree or disagree?  Aaron Traffas, discusses the Ban on Smoking in Public Places and the Gun Free School Zones Act.  How do you personally feel about these two issues?
 

Yes I do agree with Aaron’s point. The constitution was not created to be overruled by modern day laws. I n the case of the two issues, I feel that neither of them should HAVE to be instituted. However, because of common courtesy I believe that they are a good idea. The help keep people safe and healthy.

 

Q9- Annie St. Romain referred to a book in her essay where “the government regulated every possible aspect of human life from profession to family to emotions.” What was the name of that book?  Have you read it?

 

The book Annie mentions in her essay is The Giver by Lois Lowry. I have read it on multiple occasions.

 

Q10- “As nations grow in size and social complexity, governments claim greater powers to restrain individuals and groups.  Those who criticize this development believe that it has gone so far as to threaten the existence of individual liberty.  Others believe that only if government is granted such powers, can complex problems be solved.” This quote can be found in Jessie Veit’s essay.  Which side of the issue do you support and why?

 

I support the side of the government in this case. My reasoning being that our government was created to unify and protect us and our rights. As the nation becomes larger and more complex there are more issues created that need to be taken care of. If our government does not grow and change with our population and its needs then eventually our government will be overthrown by the people. In order to maintain the balance that our nation is trying to reach between unity and individuality the government has to play a major role in society.

 

Q11- Give three examples where personal responsibility would replace the need for laws. Do not duplicate those found in Patrick Karcher’s essay.

 

If people were to follow some of the Ten Commandments (the less religious ones to prevent the conflict between church and state) there would be less need for laws. In addition, if people lived by the golden rule we would have a lot less crime. Another way to get rid of the need for laws would be if we had balanced finances for individuals. If everyone legal adult were to get a job and there was less debt and poverty in our nation there would be less need to commit crime for money ect.

 

Q12- It is obvious that Benji Lehman is idealistic.  In his essay he claims when the founding fathers “wrote the constitution they put a great emphasis on each person having personal rights as well as individual liberties. The true strength of each and every community falls on the individual. Believing each man, woman, and child will, and can recognize the importance of good responsibility. … These were laws that gave each and everyone of us the opportunity and self-respect to do the right thing.”  Benji believed that people would make choices that would serve and benefit their communities. Do you believe that? Please explain.

 

I believe that if people were less materialistic that this would be a possibility. People care too much about making money, buying themselves nice things, having prestigious titles and fending for themselves. If there was less of this then the people would have time to take a look at their nation and realize that we should all be in this together.