To amend title III of the Social Security act to require a substance abuse risk assessment and targeted drug testing as a condition for the receipt of unemployment benefits, and for other purposes.
This was introduced by Jack Kingston, a Republican (obvi) from Georgia. There are a myriad of problems with this bill. One, we’ve already seen (thanks to Florida) that drug testing welfare recipients doesn’t work.
So why are we still so intent on treating the poor and the down-and-out like criminals? Kingston himself has made claims that companies want to hire people but “half” their options are on drugs. But that seems highly unlikely.
And why would we opt for a system that looses money on drug testing people, instead of using this money to help people get back to work?
The other thing that worries me about this bill is the wording that would allow it to randomly test people who are more “at risk” for drug use. And who would that be? People with prior drug charges? It doesn’t seem to specify, and so I feel like it wouldn’t be too bold of me to say this would likely effect minorities and people with a lower income. Right?
I know it’s actually a popular public sentiment to test recipients of government resources. But we need to think about what this would actually accomplish and how problematic this is. But those ideas are based off stereotypes and ignorance. People receiving unemployment generally already have guidelines they are following - applying for a certain number of jobs a week, etc.
Feel free to inbox me any comments/ideas, and I would encourage writing to your representative to oppose this bill.
The typical Hispanic woman who worked full-time, year-round in 2010 earned just over half of what her white, non-Hispanic male counterpart did – she made only 54 cents for every dollar he made.
Why do schools need the arts?
The following are some bullet point overviews of what benefits arts education has to students. I feel like the last one really jumps out. Students from lower socioeconomic background benefit more from arts programs than those with a higher socioeconomic background. Which, is interesting, because of course with the budget many schools/districts are facing, these programs get cut very quickly in the schools in lower-income neighborhoods, where as many schools with a higher population of students from a high socioeconomic background often have active and powerful PTO’s and such to make up the difference.
Not to mention, the rest of the points make a compelling case for arts education. This excerpt is from Arts With the Brain in Mind, by Eric Jensen
· The arts reach students not ordinarily reached, in ways not normally used. This keeps tardies, truancies, and eventually, dropouts down.
· Students connect to each other better – great camaraderie, fewer fights, less racism, and reduced use of hurtful sarcasm.
· It changes the environment to one of discovery. This can re-ignite the love of learning in students tired of being filled up with facts
· Arts provide challenges for students at all levels, from delayed to gifted. It’s a class where all students can find their own level, automatically.
· Arts connect learners to the world of real work where theater, music, and products have to appeal to a growing consumer public.
· Students of lower socioeconomic status gain as much or more from arts instruction that those of higher socioeconomic status. This suggests the gifted programs need to expand their target audiences.