How I Have Been Preparing For My Future Goals

In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, the author “Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate the integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity or it become the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world.”(Freire). This quote can be used as a catalyst to explain my final post here on our class site.

Ever since high school and my parent’s divorce I wanted to be an attorney. I wanted to help make the world a better place because I thrived off of justice in our country. I always excelled at being able to communicate and negotiate within a classroom. As well as being able to think quickly on my feet, all things that are useful for this certain profession.

My mother’s close friend is a very respected lawyer in Boston and has been mentoring me in preparation for law school. Every month I go to his office and he gives me 3 questions on a piece of paper, 2 short answer questions, and one longer question. He gives me 2 hours to prepare. For the 2 short answer ones, he gives me 30 minutes each and an hour for the lengthener one. Questions that he gives to incoming law students when they are recruiting for first-year associates to see if they can think quickly in times of distress. As Freire is trying to point out in the quote, this certain educational tactic helps me in my creative thinking skills so I can later apply it in transforming the world for the future in what I later do for my profession.

I thought these questions would be perfect for my last journal entry for this class. Instead of thinking about them and writing down small notes I would do research and present an intellectually written answer to each. Below I have presented each question and my answer to each specific one as well as the sources I used to back my thought process. There are a lot of sources I know but I actually wanted to extensively give the reader a well thought out answer with certifiable academic information to back it up.

Question 1 — Consider the claim: It is morally permissible to kill someone who poses a lethal threat to you only if that person has forfeited their right that you do not kill them. Evaluate the plausibility of this claim.

Like most other concepts in life, morality is relative. It is relative to the situation that is taking place, as in some cases, morality can be a grey area which allows for greater discourse from what is seen as morally right and legally right. The dilemma of it being morally permissible to kill someone who poses a lethal threat to oneself only if that person has forfeited their right that you do not kill them is no different. It becomes a grey area about what is morally correct when one’s own life is in danger. However, in this situation, it becomes morally permissible to kill someone, given that the other person gives up their right to not be killed.

But what does it mean to give up one’s right to not be killed? This term, according to McMahan and Otsuka, is used to demonstrate that the only time one forfeits their own right to not be killed is when they strip the same right over someone else. That is, it is morally permissible to kill someone who poses a legal threat because they have given up their own right to not be killed. Quong also tackles this question of self-defense morality, citing that it is permissible to kill someone on the basis of self-defense and protecting one’s own life. These two conditions must be present in order to make it permissible — if both conditions are not met, then the moral judgment changes. It is never okay, according to McMahan and Otsuka, to kill someone who has the right to not be killed.

To bring this dilemma to life, take a woman walking home. She is walking alone when someone tackles her and tries to kill her. She is obviously fearful for her life, and it is intentional that the other person is trying to kill her. Because the woman is fearing for her life, this becomes a lethal threat. This lethal threat is caused by the perpetrator stripping her of her right to not be killed. By doing so, he/she loses his/her right to not be killed — the woman is able to fight back and kill the perpetrator based on the judgment that he/she stripped her rights of not being killed and it is morally permissible. This example shows how the villainous aggressor gives up his/her right to not be killed on the basis of lethally threatening another person.

However, it is important to distinguish that there is a difference between moral and legal permissibility. Just because an action is legally moral does not necessarily imply that it is morally permissible. Because morality is relative, it becomes a dilemma in itself whether an action is morally and/or legally right. California law, for example, states that it is legally permissible to kill someone if and only if the victim believes that he/she was in imminent danger and the only way to diverge the situation is to cause harm to the other person. Therefore, it becomes legally permissible to kill someone on the basis that one believes the attacker was trying to kill them or cause harm. It stipulates that the victim must have used no more force than necessary in order for it to constitute legal permissibility.

Although does that make it morally permissible? It depends. It depends solely on whether one feels truly threatened for their life and the other person has given up their right to not be killed. Therefore, it is morally permissible because it is done out of defense of one’s life. It is not morally permissible for someone to make a lethal threat and take another’s life, and by doing so, they are forfeiting their own right to not be killed. It is not meant to be purposeful; if one is truly threatened for their life, then as a human, he/she must do whatever it takes to survive in the situation — even if it means taking the life of another.

Question 2 — In criminal cases, a person is often convicted when it is highly probable (but not certain) that they committed the crime. Statistical evidence can make it highly probable that a defendant committed a crime. And yet, in the United States, judges and juries are typically unwilling to convict someone on the basis of statistical evidence. Do you think judges and juries should convict on the basis of statistical evidence? Why or why not?

Within the United States, 2.3–5% of all prisoners are found falsely guilty. Although our judicial system tries to be as accurate as possible, it is still possible that people will be falsely incarcerated. And this is not including statistical evidence. (McMahan). If statistical evidence was the sole basis of whether or not someone gets convicted, then the percentage of innocent prisoners would be higher. This is due to two primary reasons — people’s lack of understanding of statistics, and the treatment of people as numbers instead of people. Thus, statistical evidence should not be used in the judicial system when determining the innocence or guilt of a defendant.

People simply do not understand statistics. Statistics are a very simple yet complex concept to wrap our heads around — it’s a number that tells us the likelihood of an event occurring and inferring events and decisions in the real world based on large quantities of data. Because statistics are based on data, both large and small, statistical evidence can basically mean anything we want it to. Statistics can be manipulated to make them mean anything to our advantage. For example, if one has met 4 people, and 3 of them have stolen something in their lives, one can use the data to state that 75% of people steal. Does this evidence mean anything? Not really. Is it skewed? Of course. However, because it is a number, people seem to believe it when anyone else says it.

That’s what makes statistical evidence so dangerous — it changes our perception of the world and skews our view of the world, whether consciously or subconsciously. That is an extremely important note to keep in mind: many people working in jury duty will come in with preconceived notions based on statistical evidence and things they have learned from past experiences. Because of this, statistics would only exacerbate the problem — with a lack of understanding of statistical evidence, many jury members will make more uninformed decisions than if statistical evidence was left out of the case. This would inevitably lead to more cases in which innocent people are found guilty, and the judicial system will be less effective.

Many will think that statistical evidence will be a way of standardizing the judicial system and therefore will be a more effective manner of handling our judicial system. However, the converse is true. If statistical evidence were involved, it would increase the chances of false convictions. This is due to the negative implications of statistics. Not only would using statistical evidence skew the jury’s decisions, but statistics are just that — numbers. Statistical evidence does not compare to what actually happens in the real world. It is impossible to turn qualitative information quantitative, such as physical evidence or witness testimonies. A bloody knife is at the crime scene with the defendant’s fingerprint on it and a testimony against the defendant cannot be turned into quantitative information, which makes this kind of qualitative information imperative as part of the judicial process.

These types of evidence are just as important if not more important to the decision-making process of a jury. As a jury, they may not understand statistical and quantitative information. Statistical evidence is very abstract based on events that are irrelevant to the case at hand; however, the bloody knife and testimony are very concrete and easy to understand. Statistical evidence will lead to more falsely accused people and a greater margin of error for making wrong judicial decisions.

Question 3 — Deconstruct a specific political ad from a candidate or outside group, or a speech, or an exchange in a debate, or another significant event in a campaign. Are there code words here? What is really being said — what is targeted voters actually hearing? What is the impact of image, delivery, and visual motif? How does this specific moment advance or derail campaign strategy?

The upcoming presidential race saw the greatest diversity in candidates of any in past history on the Democratic side. One of the most notable previous candidates was California senator Kamala Harris. Being a half-black, half-Indian woman from Berkeley, California, she physically appeared and experienced life in many ways that candidates next to her did not. And though gaining support at the beginning of her campaign, she failed to gain traction and ended her presidential campaign on December 3rd. Many factors played a role in her campaign ending, including her very poor communication, unclear message, and image throughout the campaign. These different aspects were also intertwined — each played a pivotal role in her campaign failing, and her decision to withdraw from the race.

Senator Harris’s communication did not allow her to capitalize on her campaign. Her communication was very poor, which did not allow for her to create a connection with her voter base. She was unable to articulate her own policies, which hurt her campaign. And with a presidential race, as fundamentally built on the policy like this, it becomes very difficult to gain voter support since Harris could not articulate her policies. An example of this is about whether she would fight for incarcerated felons should have a right to vote in a question she was asked a town hall. She simply stated, “We should have that conversation,” (Greenwood). Although this shows that she is trying to gain the trust of her voters, it also shows her lack of articulation of her own policies. She came out the following day stating that murderers and terrorists would not have the right to vote, which shows she has not already thought and solidified her own policy stances (Greenwood). In doing so, her communication made her message very unclear with her voters, and it showed in the polls.

Senator Kamala Harris’ lack of a clear message also made her suffer to the point of suspending her campaign. Specific to her message, she did not have a clear message to was able, to sum up, her brand in a few words, and she was too wishy-washy in her policies. Harris lacked a punchline that was able, to sum up, her entire campaign. Many other candidates, such as Senator Sanders and Senator Warren, had clear messages which resonated with voters and allowed them to distinguish themselves. Senator Bernie Sanders has “Not Me. Us,” and Senator Warren tours her slogan “Dream Big, Fight Hard.” However, Harris did not have a slogan which made her stand out as a candidate. As a result, Senator Harris did not have a slogan that shows her clear message. As a result, it decreased the perception of her key messages and priorities (Bacon). Instead, she used many phrases such as “let’s have a conversation” and that she is “open to ideas,” early in her campaign on social media (Kapur). Though it makes her appear like she wants to listen to her voters, it also makes her appear to not know what she is standing for yet. It makes her seem unsure about what she believes in, and the policies that she speaks about during the campaign. It also makes her seem as if she is still searching for what voters want. And for a democratic race that is based on having the power and policy to defeat current President Donald Trump, this message of not knowing has hurt her (Kapur).

Related to her lack of clarity, another reason Harris failed to create a coherent and solid message was her appearance to be wish-washy in her policies. She danced between being a progressive liberal and being a moderate, which did not help to provide her a clear message that illustrates her priorities as a candidate. This hurt her message, and it showed during debates regarding healthcare and busing. In the debate on June 27, Senator Harris raised her hand for the question of who would abolish private health insurance in favor of public, government-run insurance (Merica). And she seemed like her message was clear; however, she later stated that she did not understand the question, saying that she would not completely abolish private insurance. Though it may have been a misinterpretation on Harris’ part, it still conveyed an unclear message and showed that she is not certain on her own policies. This is not present in other candidates, such as Senator Warren, who believes that private health insurance should be abolished and there should be single-tax payer health insurance for everyone. She, along with Senator Sanders, is able to convey their message very effectively, unlike Senator Harris. This, in turn, makes voters feel as though Harris is not completely sold on her own policies, and makes voters turn to other candidates.

Another policy that demonstrated her lack of firmness to her policies has to do with busing. Her exchange with former Vice President and winner of the Democratic bid Joe Biden regarding busing resulted in her strongest resonance with her voters during the democratic debate on June 27 (Bacon). She was able to get voters to the polls and increased her support as a result of this debate. However, like her issue of eliminating private health insurance, she second-guessed her policy stance on busing. During the debate, she stated that integrated busing should be incorporated in order to allow children of all races and socioeconomic backgrounds to get the education they need (AP). She appeared to support that it should be mandated by the federal government when criticizing Joe Biden for his opposition to mandatory busing when he was a senator in the 1970s. However, she later stated that busing should be up to local school districts, not the federal government. Harris said that “I believe that any tool that is in the toolbox should be considered by a school district,” (AP).

This continues to show how Senator Harris has gone back on her own policies. And by doing so, she is creating a very unclear message and one that is unlikely to resonate with voters. Howard Gutman, a former ambassador who endorsed President Obama, stated that senator Harris seems fearful of losing the Left, and it leads her to say things she cannot fully support or defend, causing her to reassess her policy points to the public (Greenwood). Many of her supporters and voters were confused about her message, and Harris had trouble mobilizing her voters (Kapur). As a result of her performance in the debates and her speeches, her poll numbers dropped, and they continued to drop as she continued to be unclear about her own policies.

The image is very important in an election. And for Kamala Harris, it was a double-edged sword and the most pivotal factor in causing her to drop out of the race. Her image led to her demise for three reasons: being a black woman created trouble in raising capital, her perceived ingenuity, and her history as a persecutor. Being a half-Indian and half-Black woman, she was a poster woman for diversity in the executive branch of our government (Bacon). However, it becomes difficult for someone who looks like her to compete, let alone, win an election because of campaign financing and the expectations set on her. Because of her image, financing was an uphill battle that nonwhite candidates have to surpass, unlike white candidates. People of color face a harder time fundraising for their campaigns at the federal, state, and local levels than white colleagues (McCammond). In an analysis by Axios, it was noted that white candidates in the Democratic presidential primary have nearly four times as much cash on hand as non-white candidates.

The study continues to state that black woman’s numbers are particularly blunt — they raise less than half as much as the average white female candidate. This, although discriminatory, falls in the hands of donors not donating to minorities’ campaigns, including Senator Harris. Senator Harris tried to combat this by closing offices in different states in order to keep her campaign afloat; however, as these closures became public knowledge, many supporters were skeptical that she would not be able to sustain the campaign for much longer. As a result, many supporters have shifted their support and vote to other Democratic candidates (Rothman). The image makes it difficult for a candidate like Harris to sustain a campaign, and she saw this impact to be a reason for her withdrawal from the campaign (Janes).

Another aspect of Kamala’s image that suffered was her lack of authenticity. In an election that not only requires candidates to be firm on their policies but is authentic to their voters, Harris was not able to meet either. In a focus group taken in March in 2019 a group of young voters at Harvard University, the participants agreed that Harris didn’t seem genuine (York). This focus group stems from the lack of authenticity from Harris’ back and forth on policies; it seemed like she updated her policies to the current moment (York). By doing so, it did not help her image as a candidate with a solid plan, such as with other candidates. As a result, she was not able to get the voter turnout that she had hoped to receive, leading to her decision to drop out of the race.

Perhaps the most important reason for Harris’ image being tarnished her history being a prosecutor for the state of California. Being a prosecutor carries implications that are stemmed from decades of mass incarceration — that of poor minorities, especially young black people. 95% of elected prosecutors in the United States are white, and though she is the minority in elected prosecutors, she continued to enforce these policies, which hurt her image as she failed to appear genuine, especially in criminal justice (Bazelon, Neyfakh). While she considers herself progressive in terms of criminal justice, her record shows otherwise. Harris’s record as a prosecutor reveals she is a centrist on criminal justice. In 2004, Harris was elected as San Francisco’s top persecutor, and in 2010, was elected attorney general of California (Bazelon).

As attorney general, she used technicalities to keep wrongfully convicted people in prison without providing them with new trials. In doing so, she kept many wrongfully convicted people — overwhelmingly people of color — in prison without a fair treatment from the Justice system (Bazelon). Harris also did not hold police and prosecutors accountable for misconduct. Bazelon continues to state that her lack of oversight in Orange County, among other counties in California, led to the continuation of mass incarceration. As her history as a prosecutor made itself more eminent due to her campaign, it became difficult to better her image. She has many reforms for the criminal justice system and has voiced these reform policies since her campaign begun in January. However, with her past as being a prosecutor and the implications it carries, it can be difficult for her to have a solid image relative to other candidates such as Senator Sanders, who champions criminal justice reform and has a history of doing so.

Now that the campaign for Harris’ presidential bid for 2020 is over, it begs the question of what could have been done differently. As voters clearly state, they want a candidate who is more grounded on their issues in policies (Kapur). Senator Harris did not have this, and her campaign suffered as a result. Stating one thing in regard to policy, and then coming back on it and reassessing her stance did not help Harris throughout her campaign. It made her seem unsure of her stances on policy and made her seem ingenuine at the same time. Other candidates at the time, such as Senator Sanders, we're very grounded in their policies in healthcare, immigration, and the criminal justice system. Senator Sanders, for example, stood firm in his message to voters.

It is clear what his stances on healthcare were, and he is able to articulate a plan on it. He was able to use his communication in order to convey exactly what he wants to be conveyed to his audience. By doing so, he was able to create voter mobilization, and create support for his campaign (Janes). Had Harris’ campaign been more focused on her knowledge and stances on issues, it would have created a stronger platform for Harris. She would have been one of the toughest campaigns to beat since she announced her campaign with 10,000 supporters in Oakland in January (Bacon).

It is quite easy to understand how Kamala Harris was ineffective in her campaign for the presidential bid in 2020. Due to her lack of capitalization of communication with her voters and the public, her lack of a clear message in debates and speeches, and her image that many have begun to question, it made her campaign too difficult to sustain. As a result, she suspended her race for president on December 3rd. As many of the diverse candidates dropped out of the most diverse democratic presidential race to date, it will be interesting to see how the final election this November will go between Biden and Trump. Especially if Kamlea is chosen by Biden to be his Vice President.

Work Cited for all Questions Combined —

1. Associated Press. “Kamala Harris Reverses Her Stance on Busing, Says It Should Not Be Mandated.” MarketWatch, 4 July 2019, https://www.marketwatch.com/story/kamala-harris-reverses-her-stance-on-busing-says-it-should-not-be-mandated-2019-07-04.
2. Bazelon, Lara, et al. “Kamala Harris’s Criminal Justice Record Killed Her Presidential Run.” The Appeal, https://theappeal.org/kamala-harris-criminal-justice-record-killed-her-presidential-run/.
3. Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. The Seabury Press, 1970.
4. Greenwood, Max, and Jonathan Easley. “Harris Faces Pressure to Define Policy Proposals.” TheHill, The Hill, 20 July 2019, https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/453962-harris-faces-pressure-to-define-policy-proposals.
5. “Kamala Harris’ Authenticity Problem: Opinion: The Harvard Crimson.” Kamala Harris’ Authenticity Problem | Opinion, https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/7/3/harris-authenticity-problem/.
6. Kapur, Sahil. Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-21/-bellwether-harris-threads-needle-of-moderation-and-revolution.
7. McCammond, Alexi. “The Racial Wealth Gap among 2020 Democrats.” Axios, 1 Nov. 2019, https://www.axios.com/2020-democrats-racial-wealth-gap-776e5168-3659-43ac-bb20-be6360d0edd5.html.
8. McMahan, Jeff, and Otsuka, Michael. The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).
9. Merica, Dan. “Kamala Harris Says She Misinterpreted Question on Abolishing Private Insurance.” CNN, Cable News Network, 28 June 2019, https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/28/politics/kamala-harris-democratic-debate-abolishing-private-insurance/index.html.
10. Montellaro, Zach, and Krystal Campos. “Why Kamala Harris’ Presidential Campaign Failed.” POLITICO, 4 Dec. 2019, https://www.politico.com/video/2019/12/04/kamala-harris-ends-presidential-campaign-069205.
11. Neyfakh, Leon. “Ninety-Five Percent of Elected Prosecutors in the U.S. Are White.” Slate Magazine, Slate, 8 July 2015, https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/07/prosecutors-and-race-why-arent-there-more-black-prosecutors.html.
12. Perrybaconjr. “Why Kamala Harris’s Campaign Failed.” FiveThirtyEight, FiveThirtyEight, 3 Dec. 2019, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-kamala-harriss-campaign-failed/.
13. Rothman, Noah. “Kamala Harris and the Failure of Extremely Online Campaigning.” Washington Examiner, 13 Dec. 2019, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/kamala-harris-and-the-failure-of-extremely-online-campaigning.
14. “Why Kamala Harris’ Campaign Failed to Gain Traction.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 3 Dec. 2019, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-kamala-harris-campaign-failed-to-gain-traction.