Sandra Knispel and Prof. Winkle

First, I just want to express how totally engaging and eye-opening both of these speakers were!  Being a liberal arts psychology major that has taken some but not many political science classes and certainly no media classes, I definitely received new information.  It's funny because I had just taken a class this spring semester which covered Brown v. Board, yet, Prof. Winkle's review of the historic case was still novel to me and certainly just as informative. 

Sandra Knispel, originally from Germany, highlighted Americans' quite different perception of the media as compared to around the world.  Here, (and it is certainly true), we have a very cynical view of the watchdog role of the media in society.  Of course, some more than others, are often skeptical of reporters' intentions and believe there are some ulterior motives somewhere.  However, this cynicism is not so unfounded.  The media monopoly that has emerged has impaired fair reporting by forcing journalists to cater to big overriding corporations which have some sort of indirect ownership over various media forms.  In addition to the constant pressure to report in a way which meets the demands of their office, journalists now have the pressure to make use of all media forms concurrently and especially the newly developed media forms that have risen from the internet, namely, blogs.  As a result, journalists today report in a way which considers these demands.  This is understandable-- they, like everyone else, simply want a desk to sit at the following Monday, but still, it makes the nature of their reporting certainly dubious.  But, as Ms. Knispel pointed out, the nature of Americans' attentiveness to staying informed by the media and about the right subjects (national/international news rather than a newly discovered breed of the giraffe), seems like it wouldn't make a difference whether we had a more fair media establishment or not (a bit of an exaggeration on my part). Despite the much greater ease with which people can access information (especially with the internet), Americans' opt not to make use of this luxury.  We remain glued to the t.v.-- overloaded with sensational sounds and images focusing on celebrity gossip rather than genuine headline news.  This raises now a few questions for me-- a sort of chicken or the egg scenario.  Is it the media's fault for reporting on frivolous subjects?  Or is the media simply complying with the American population who is really to blame and should be more accountable?  Should the media ignore popular demand and report on what we really need to become informed about (Americans' slanted perception of their country's name throughout the world is one example showing that we may need this)?  Or does American culture need to become more globally and societally responsible so that journalists can freely report on what their audience is demanding?

    Although I have read Brown v. Board multiple times, both in high school and college, Prof. Winkle's discussion failed to be dull or unoriginal.  Although I often learned about the general before an after events, Winkle talked about the interesting insider political events surrounding the Brown decision. 
    President Eisenhower thought nothing of appointing Justice Warren when a new seat in the Court opened up.  However, the appointment resulted in one of the most shocking consequences in light of the Justice's expected conservative jurisprudence.  Defying expectations, Justice Warren led the way in one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions, however eventually problematic, of the last hundred years.  When Warren arrived to the Court, Brown had been stalled for political reasons.   Warren helped to expedite the process.  According to Prof. Winkle, the gravity of the Brown decision needed to be in anonymity in order to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of American citizens and especially state governments.  As a result, Warren sought all the Court's votes yet one remained-- Justice Reed.  Justice Reed firmly stood against the decision.  However, upon receiving Warren's plea, Justice Reed agreed to give him his vote so long as the Court's decision did not denigrate the South.  Warren agreed and the decision stood true to Reed's wish-- it contains not explicit or even subtle mention of the South.   Once Warren announced the decision, Thurgood Marshall reacted by gleefully picking up a white baby to symbolize the beginning of the end to a segregated America.  Beginning is certainly emphasized here.  Although momentous, the decision's use of the phrase "with all deliberate speed" allowed states to begin desegregation at their own discretionary, meaning VERY SLOW, pace.  This phrase has been the basis for lingering segregation.  In recent history, the vestiges of segregation have been addressed by many state initiatives.  This is especially seen with the controversial use of buses to boost diversity in schools.  However, by and large, de facto segregation remains a hugely unresolved problem.  Like education, many factors contribute to the current segregation in schools, namely, residential and socioeconomic segregation.  Although busing has been used an option, this has met resistance.  So, what do you do?  Do you infringe on people's rights to decide where they want to live in order to eradicate residential segregation?  Do you approach segregation in schools from more of an economics standpoint?  Because socioeconomic gaps underly residential segregation, should try to improve desegregation by addressing the economic disparities between high and low income groups (and generally (emphasis on generally) white and minority groups)?  Of course, this option is tricky because residential segregation does exist in some communities without socioeconomic variation?  I'm sure these are not new questions, but they still seem to be worth raising again, and again, and then maybe a few hundred times more.