Yesterday Peter Laufer and Julianne Newton from the School of Journalism and Communication led an Intercultural Conversation entitled Perceptions of Islam and the Media. During the conversation, University faculty and students discussed the influence the media has on the public perception of Islam in the United States.

The conversation opened with a clip from the Colbert Report, which created satire of a poll that suggested President Barack Obama is a Muslim. Following the clip, Professor Newton posed the question: Why is the American public under the impression that it would be bad to have a Muslim president?  The answer lies in the media’s presentation of Islam.

Professor Laufer suggested America’s hostile opinion of Muslims can be attributed to right-wing media outlets, such as FOX News and The Glenn Beck Program.  Shows like these that are more invested in presenting distorted facts for entertainment value, than providing legitimate news have charged an anti-Islamic trend throughout the country. Most notable of this movement was the highly publicized “Ground Zero Mosque” debate.

In an age where media’s messages are constantly contradicting one another, how can you filter out the truth from the falsities? Professor Newton offered one solution—media literacy.  Media literacy entails deeply analyzing the messages a medium is sending. To do so, one must look deeper than face value and take into account who is writing, presenting, funding, and producing these messages, all while considering the principle market for the messages.

The Intercultural Conversation helped me realize the importance of challenging the idea that news is truth and factual. Failure to do so will have dire repercussions, as the public will digest these inaccurate messages and spread their ignorance and lies.  Members of the Muslim community have already fallen victims of this pattern. Only through media literacy will the American public be able to combat the widespread hostility towards the Islamic culture.

According to Nigerian authorities, the girls were lured from their homes under the impression they would be working in Europe. Upon arrival in Mali, the girls were told they would be held as prostitutes until they could pay off their debt. Simon Egede, Executive Secretary of NAPTIP reported that the girls were “held in bondage for the purposes of forced sexual exploitation and servitude or slavery-like practices” in the brothels.

These brothels were mainly located around Nigeria’s capital, Bamako, and in mining towns such as Kaynes and Mopti. Many of them had abortion clinics, forcing the girls into pregnancy termination procedures against their will.

Today, sex trafficking is the fastest growing criminal industry in the world. There are an estimated 600,000 to 820,000 men, women, and children trafficked across international borders annually. Of the 27 million people currently held as slaves, eighty-five percent of them will be sold as sex slaves.

While men mainly control this lucrative industry, in this case, women were in control. Although NAPTIP is currently working with Malian police to free the girls and help them return to Nigeria, the cycle will undoubtedly continue as Nigeria has become a hotspot for prostitution, with thousands of women and girls entering the industry to make money as sex workers.

As human trafficking remains a global issue, the looming question is why countries haven’t taken more aggressive actions to address the problem. Why haven’t governments or intergovernmental organizations done more to raise awareness of the issue, protect trafficking victims, and prosecute exploiters?

Check out the following sites for more information on the international sex trade:

http://www.humantrafficking.org

http://www.notforsalecampaign.org

http://www.naptip.gov.ng

What perceptions of Islam do these stories promote?  Do such stories reflect the values and experiences of the Muslims who read/listen to them?  Do they create a sense of isolation and discrimination among a significant and valuable portion of our community?

While such news stories may bring attention to issues that are of genuine societal concern, at what point do they cease to inspire thoughtful inquiry and begin to construct a superficial, monolithic and skewed image of Islam and Muslims?  Are there enough images and narratives in the media that counterbalance these negative portrayals and make the discussion of “Who is a Muslim?” and “What is Islam?” a truly multi-vocal conversation?

In the recent film Mooz-lum, filmmaker Qasim Basir provides a depiction of Islam and Muslims that is an alternative to those often represented by the media.  In an interview with Michel Martin, Basir explains what compelled him to make this film:

“…I was a little tired of seeing the consistent negative portrayal of Islam and Muslims in the media. And being that I was raised very different than what’s represented as what Islam or Muslims are supposed to be, I had to write something about it that showed the human perspective of a people, of a culture, of faith.”

Another film that draws attention to the ways in which Islam is portrayed in Western media is the documentary Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People, directed by Sut Jhally and featuring Dr. Jack Shaheen.  While this film specifically addresses depictions of Arabs and Arab culture, it also gives consideration to prevalent negative portrayals of Islam.

While there are numerous news stories featuring radical Islam and terrorism in association with Islam, major media outlets, such as ABC news, have also attempted to provide some balance to the discourse concerning Islam.  In a special edition of 20/20, Diane Sawyer reports on Islam in America and the common questions and misconceptions that some Americans have about the religion. On another ABC news segment, a hidden camera experiment caught bystanders’ reactions to a Muslim woman being denied service, bringing light to everyday discriminatory acts against Muslims and asking, among other things, how perceptions of Islam and Muslims influence interactions between individuals.

Considering these different types of news stories and representations of Islam in the media, the question arises, does the media have a responsibility to educate the public about religion? If so, how might it best go about accomplishing this?  And if not, what is the media’s primary responsibility?

Additional Readings:

The Portrayal of Islam by the Western Media

A Muslim Women’s Forum on Representation in the Media

Responsible Education and Media, Non-Profit

But why is this important?   As convicted criminals, haven’t these people given up their ‘right’ to an education?  As a culture that loves to be “tough on crime”, why would we put money towards the personal growth of incarcerated peoples?  That money should be spent on the betterment and increased safety of our communities.  The (perhaps unexpected) truth is that ultimately, education money for incarcerated peoples does make our communities safer.  And drastically so, at that.

For a society claiming to be “tough on crime” our end goal should ideally be overall decreases in both the crime and incarceration rates.  There is a faction of American society that believes the “lock ‘em up and throw away the key” attitude achieves this goal; that’s just simply not how our system works. The majority of incarcerated men and women will not serve their full sentence.  The majority (93% in the state of Oregon) will find themselves back in the communities and circumstances in which they committed the crime.  The majority—over 60%–will reoffend and find themselves back in prison.

With nearly two-thirds of ex-offenders finding themselves re-incarcerated, this does not point to great successes with current prison-management practices.  Nor, with an appallingly high recidivism rate and overflowing prisons, does it indicate we are a society that is “tough on crime”.  Taking steps to effectively lower the recidivism rate would, in turn, create safer communities.  For more than two decades (1970’s-mid 1990’s) recidivism rates associated with participation in college-in-prison programs were below 15%.  After the retraction of Pell Grants for prisoners in the mid-1990’s, college programs in prisons effectively disappeared, and the recidivism rate sky-rocketed once again.

The most important part of being “tough on crime” is addressing the needs of the main player: the ‘criminal’.  Educational and vocational training programs while in prison develop skills necessary for life in society.  Support services for the re-entry process—finding a job and housing, addiction therapy plans, and positive community involvement—are also essential for adjusting to life outside of prison.  So much of our society’s energy is placed on putting people behind bars; so little of it is addressed to what will happen when that person is no longer there.  Eventually, many people serving a prison sentence will come back into our communities, having either a positive or negative impact.  The negative (or positive) experiences had in prison will ultimately drive many of the actions taken upon return to our communities…just one of the compelling reasons why the outside community should have an invested interest in what happens in the one on the inside.  But, once society commits itself to this cause, what would be the most effective way to create change?  Will more be accomplished through a grassroots-style, community based undertaking?  Or will it require a broader, top-down, institutional policy?

Check out the links below for more information on educational and vocational opportunities for at-risk or incarcerated populations.

http://www.bard.edu/bpi/

http://www.homeboy-industries.org/index.php

http://governor.oregon.gov/Gov/governor_reentry_council/rec_index.shtml

For the U.S., the most significant contributing factor to this ranking is our high incarceration rates; with less than five percent of the world’s population, the United States holds almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners.  Criminal justice policies and practices have only aggravated the problem, as the number of jail and prison inmates in the United States has risen 274 percent in the past quarter century.  This silent migration of our own citizens from our communities to locked and monitored institutions is causing substantial social, economic, and cultural strains.  As a key step of progressing towards peace, we must address the realities of issues within the prison system.

Although incarceration is often presented through a ‘restorative’ lens as a time for growth and reflection, restorative justice practices and rehabilitative education are greatly lacking in the U.S. Prison system.  Lacking, but not absent.  In the field of restorative justice, there are several inspiring projects happening in prisons around the country.  Prison garden projects from Washington, Chicago, New York, and many places in between are connecting incarcerated individuals with nature, teaching marketable trade skills, providing produce to local food banks and hospitals, and reducing recidivism rates.  The Insight Prison Project in California offers a variety of educational and rehabilitative classes focused on community building, public safety, and, again, reducing recidivism.  The restorative justice movement is gaining momentum across the country, but has yet to come anywhere near fulfilling its potential in healing individuals, families, and communities whose lives have been fractured by crime and incarceration.

To reach this potential, we, as a society, must continue the dialogue about restorative justice and prison reform.  We must look critically at our laws and social practices and consider their implications; as well as look at current professional practices within the system, their successes, and opportunities for constant improvement and increased compassion towards our fellow community members, incarcerated or not.

For more information about the programs mentioned in this post, see the links below.

http://insightprisonproject.org/

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-09-09/news/ct-main-prison-garden-0909-20100909_1_jail-garden-inmates-volunteer-basil

http://planetgreen.discovery.com/food-health/prison-gardens-growing-trend.html

http://www.gardenproject.org/thegardenproject.htm

Those opposed to harsh sentencing and the criminal “warehousing” of United States prisons rejoiced on May 17th  when the Supreme Court took a step to reduce extreme policies of punishment.

It was ruled that juveniles can no longer be sentenced to life imprisonment for crimes other than homicide.   The case of Graham v. Florida decided that the court must provide young offenders with some opportunity for hope and reform. This is a welcome retreat from punishment without the possibility for reconciliation and rehabilitation.

The principle argument voiced by dissenting parties was that drawing a “bright line” between childhood  and adulthood is dangerous, and often unfair.  Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, wrote in support of the state of Florida:  “Suppose two delinquents commit a brutal rape,  and the victim barely survives. The leader of the two is just short of his 18th birthday, while the follower is just past his. Must we say on the basis of age alone that the leader is ineligible for a life-without-parole sentence while the follower may receive that sentence?”

The United States’ low ranking on the Global Peace Index demonstrates the large role that high incarceration rates play in  cultivating a culture of peace in our society. Even as the ruling does allow for optimism, it remains difficult to create concrete division between those who are protected from harsh sentencing, and those who are not.

Should more be done? How can we move away from a dependence on harsh punishment policies?

Read more about Graham v. Florida in the New York Times

Last week, NPR featured the story of Raymond Towler, a 52-year-old man who was released from prison on May 4th after spending nearly 30 years behind bars for a crime he did not commit.  After being sentenced to life imprisonment in 1981, Towler waited faithfully for justice. Thanks to the Ohio Innocence Project and their work to obtain DNA testing, he was finally proven innocent –29 years too late.

This story is tragically familiar, and brings to light many shortcomings of the United States criminal justice system.  Some factors that lead to wrongful convictions include eyewitness misidentification, improper forensic science, bad lawyering, and dependence on false statements from people with an incentive to testify.

The Innocence Project states that the implementation of DNA testing prior to conviction has resulted in the proven innocence of tens of thousands of prime suspects since 1989, and that 254 wrongfully convicted people have been exonerated since this same year.

The system of criminal “justice” in this country is in need of serious reform. The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world. In 2008, one in every 31 adults was in jail/prison or on probation/parole.

Why is this nation so quick to dismiss its citizens?

And how can we pursue change?

Read more about Raymond Towler on NPR

The Ohio Innocence Project is a partner of the Innocence Network, a national affiliation of organizations dedicated to the reduction of injustice through the exoneration of the wrongfully incarcerated.

The Innocence Project, a co-founding member of the Innocence Network, offers concrete suggestions for beginning to fix the system.

If I didn’t know better, I would guess that a law in defense of marriage was intended to protect same-sex partners who are married in states that recognize same-sex marriages and who then relocate to states that do not. Sadly, this is not the case. It is instead intended to defend a very specific definition of marriage and to deprive same-sex couples of the rights extended to heterosexual couples across the nation. Rather than defend the very personal decision to commit one’s self to another, it seems that the federal law has effectively mangled the sanctity of marriage for many same-sex couples.

Although same-sex couples can be legally married in a handful of U.S. states, they are not recognized as married by the federal government. These legally married couples must check “single” on their federal tax returns and forgo the substantial tax breaks extended to their heterosexual married friends. Federal employees worry about the security of their families because if they die unexpectedly while working on behalf of their country, their spouses will not be entitled to one cent of their hard-earned pension.

The Massachusetts Attorney General is attempting to sue the federal government for enacting a law that violates the Fifth Amendment. Recent news indicates that Connecticut politicians may also be about to join the fight. Besides tax breaks, pensions, and the very principles of democratic equality, what exactly is at stake? According to Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), there are approximately 1,138 federal laws on the books that pertain directly to marriage. Denying anyone those rights (or responsibilities, in some cases) based on the gender of their spouse is not only discriminatory—it’s not logical.

If pressed, I can think of a number of reasons people probably shouldn’t get married. In this country, however, the only people who are legally prevented from marrying are minors (although some states allow marriage with parental consent), close relatives, and non-heterosexual couples. The federal government grants marital privileges to people who slur drunken vows to relative strangers in Las Vegas wedding chapels but not to a great number of couples who, in my opinion, have more to offer in defense of marriage than a lot of married heterosexuals.

Some brave couples in Boston are leading a good-humored fight to defend their rightful marriages. Click on the following link to read or listen to their story on NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126541845

Appalling as they may be, these practices (and many others) are a part of our nation’s history. They represent brutalities and inequities, violations of the very principles our country stands for. Recalling these events conjures great sadness, but one from which I can also cultivate hope. I experience a moment of grace at the realization that, despite overwhelming inertia, change is possible. Not only is it possible, it is inevitable.

The rate of change, from a human perspective, is often dissatisfying. It feels impossibly slow, even imperceptible. Now, as I intellectually wrestle with my lack of tolerance for intolerance, my frustration that some of my friends cannot marry the people they love, the paradox of hunger in a world of plenty, I find some comfort in Rabbi Kula’s reminder. Change is slow. We can’t all be ready at the same time. But change is here—it always has been and always will be. We, as individuals, bear some influence on its shape and direction, but we don’t have much power over its pace. In the meantime, I maintain faith in my hopes for change because I cannot imagine living in a world that is so devastating yet so beautiful without it.

Click on the following link to read Rabbi Kula’s piece in April 30, 2010 edition of The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-irwin-kula/leviticus-loses-the-inevi_b_557976.html

In the meantime, some policymakers in Utah are hoping to implement similar legislation. Although Utah lawmakers may have been entertaining such legislation before Arizona established its new law, they have certainly been influenced by the dramatic actions of their neighboring state.

Representative Steve Sandstrom says he is drafting a similar bill for Utah because he fears that, if Utah continues to be perceived as soft on illegal immigrants, all the aliens residing in Arizona will flock to Utah. Sandstrom is taking the approach to undocumented immigrants that New Yorkers take to cockroaches. If your neighbor hires an exterminator, you’d better hire one, too, or the bugs will be eating in your kitchen tomorrow. The difference is that one method deals with disease-carrying insects and the other deals with people—families and children who are entitled to the same basic human rights as each and every U.S. citizen.

In 2002, Utah passed a controversial law that extends in-state tuition to children of undocumented immigrants. The law has been challenged unsuccessfully every year since it was passed. Sandstrom’s bill would supersede existing legislation for both in-state tuition and driving privilege cards currently extended to undocumented immigrants in Utah. Is a law that deters students from obtaining higher education ever a good idea?

Supporters from both Arizona and Utah insist that the new laws do not promote racial profiling, but it is difficult to see how they don’t. What other criteria will police use to guess who might be in the U.S. illegally? Mode of transportation? A penchant for ethnic cuisine?