Stuff YOU Should Know
Kaepernick vs. the NFL
Over the past two years, the name Colin Kaepernick has become synonymous with the idea of protest. Even people who aren’t football fans are aware of Kaepernick and his refusal to stand for the national anthem. Kaepernick originally “took a knee” during the national anthem in 2016 as a player for the San Francisco 49ers, in order to protest police brutality against unarmed black men in the United States. His actions inspired other athletes, and in some cases entire teams, to do the same. But he also inspired widespread public outcry from people who believed his protest to be disrespectful and unpatriotic.
Credit: Jason Lugo/E+/Getty Images
In March 2017, Kaepernick became a free agent, and found himself out of a job when no other NFL team would sign him. So in October 2017 Kaepernick filed a grievance, accusing the NFL of colluding against him (in other words, he accused the teams of working together to make sure that he didn’t receive a contract). The grievance went to an arbitrator, who last week announced that Kaepernick’s accusation will now enter a formal hearing process. If it is proven that the NFL colluded against Kaepernick, then the NFL would be in violation of the collective bargaining agreement between the management and the players’ union. Kaepernick is asking for compensation equal to what he would have made if he were still playing for the NFL. The new season begins next week, and the hearings could begin to take place before the end of the year.
What Do You Think? While some people believe that Kaepernick’s actions are disrespectful, others say that his peaceful protest is protected under every American’s right to free speech. What do you think? Remember to carefully consider both sides of the issue and be respectful of other viewpoints when responding.
Time for a Change?
Do you find it frustrating to move your clocks ahead an hour every spring, and back an hour every fall? If so, you’re not alone: a recent survey taken in Europe revealed the practice to be so unpopular that the European Union will now consider legislation to permanently get rid of it.
Daylight savings time originally began in the early 1900s. The goal was to decrease energy use during the summer months by allowing people to stay outside in the daylight longer. But studies have found these energy savings to be minimal: in some cases, it’s been found that people use even more energy during daylight savings, possibly because more waking hours on hot days means more air conditioning is used. And regardless of whether or not there are actual energy savings involved, people say that disrupting their sleep habits and the amount of light they receive every day takes a toll on both their mood and their health.
Recently, the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, officially introduced the idea that people are unhappy with changing their clocks twice a year. The Commission then sent out an online survey to its member nations. More than 4.6 million people responded–more people than have ever responded to such a survey in the past–with three-quarters of them saying that changing times was a negative experience, saying that the change in sleep patterns impacts their health and energy levels. Now that the practice has been shown to be so widely unpopular, the Commission will look at legislation to eliminate it. The question now becomes what that legislation will look like. For example, will each member nation be allowed to choose their own time setting, or will the whole EU be required to be on the same time (currently, the EU crosses three time zones)?
Dig Deeper Two U.S. states and one territory have never participated in daylight savings time. Use internet resources to help you figure out which ones.
Trump to Freeze Pay for Federal Workers?
Last week, the president faced a lot of criticism for a controversial letter he wrote to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, saying that federal employees shouldn’t get the 2.1 percent raise they are supposed to receive automatically in January. According to Trump, the government simply can’t afford it.
Many Republicans defended Trump’s decision, reminding critics that the Obama administration froze pay for federal workers three times. But Democrats were quick to point out that Obama’s decision to do so was the necessary result of a recession. In Trump’s case, they argue, the president approved a trillion-dollar tax cut, which is why there is now not enough money in the budget to give the more than two million federal employees the wage increase they were expecting. Also, if it goes forward, this wage freeze would burden future budgets because eventually, federal employees will need to receive a large enough raise to cover the rising cost of living.
It’s important to note that, though Trump’s letter has received a lot of media attention, the president isn’t actually allowed to freeze wages. Only Congress can create the spending bill which determines how much federal employees will be paid. Theoretically, Trump could veto the upcoming spending bill if it includes a raise. But so far, he hasn’t threatened to do that. Also important to note is that members of the military will still receive a 2.6 percent pay increase as expected.
Dig Deeper How much money do federal employees make? The amount varies widely, depending on the job, years of experience, and location. Using this calculator, determine how much money you would make for an entry-level federal job in your area.
Harvard Faces Discrimination Charges
A group at Harvard University, Students for Fair Admissions, is suing the school for discriminating in its admissions practices. Last week, the U.S. Justice Department sided with the student group, filing a document in federal court supporting the group’s position. According to Students for Fair Admissions, who sued the school back in June, Harvard discriminates against Asian Americans who apply to the university. Harvard currently uses a rating system when considering applicants, which the group says is unfair. They claim that if admissions were based on grades alone, many more Asian Americans would be accepted.
But Harvard argues that basing admissions on grades and test scores alone isn’t fair either, especially since grades and test scores can also be biased as well. Instead, they use a “whole person” approach, considering other factors such as teacher recommendations and personal essays. Race is another factor considered in this “whole person” approach, but, the university argues, it is just one of many. Recently, a group of more than five hundred social scientists and scholars filed a document in support of Harvard’s admissions policies. The university also points out that its rate of acceptance of Asian Americans has grown by 29 percent over the past decade.
Students for Fair Admissions is backed by Edward Blum, a former investment banker who has challenged schools’ admissions policies for decades. At least two of his earlier lawsuits have made it all the way to the Supreme Court. Blum also created a Web site (HarvardNotFair.org) which encourages students who have been denied admission to Harvard to file a lawsuit against the school, offering to cover all of their legal expenses if they do.