andrewd048-blog

[andrewd048-blog]

Hey Jordan! NCAA went last on my list of topics I wanted to be involved in, but through the presentations and facts that you all have presented it gave me pause as to whether or not I should’ve chosen it. I think the fact that the NCAA athletes don’t see a dime of the profits that their merchandise makes is probably the most interesting, and troubling, fact you gave. The Beatles when they were in their prime didn’t capitalize on the merchandise depicting their likeness and lost out on millions, it’s really sad to think the same is happening to so many athletes who work hard to play how they do, and go to school where they’re going.

3 Things I Learned

When I joined the class a whole three classes late, I had the choice of joining the group that was researching the problem of NCAA athlete not being appreciated, or in other words, if NCAA athletes should be paid or not. I immediately knew this was the group I wanted to be in because I have heard a lot about paying NCAA athletes, and it intrigued me. I had some prior knowledge, so I wasn’t expecting to learn a bunch, but I was wrong. The first thing I learned that surprised me was how much money the athletes get on breaks, known as a stipend. As I have mentioned before, my friend plays football for Louisville, so I was talking with him and they get less than I expected. I was also surprised that athletes would be taxed if they were given a paid salary. I never thought about the drawbacks of paying athletes, so athletes being taxed caught me completely off guard. The third surprising information I found was how many athletes have merchandise sold that depicts their name and number, but they never see a dime of it. When saying this, I am not talking about the jerseys and such that is sold through the NCAA and the Universities, I mean the smaller dealers who make shirts featuring the players. An example is in Louisville in the Mall St. Matthews, there is a cart in the middle of the walkway in the mall that has shirt that reads “Hei8man”, “Gr8ness”, or the shirt that mimics the tuxedo that Lamar Jackson wore on the night he won the Heisman award. These shirts are not commissioned by the University or the NCAA, so the money made goes straight into the pockets of these small companies, thus the athletes never seeing a dime of it. I have learned a lot this semester, specifically about my topic and I am very fortunate to have learned this information. 

[andrewd048-blog]

Hey Tori! Those are definitely some interesting finds with gerrymandering. So if most of the border redrawing happens when they do the census how does it happen all the time? To my knowledge the census only happens once every four years so it seems like gerrymandering would happen less than expected, but maybe I’m just oversimplifying it. You’ve definitely sparked my curiosity as to how often this happens in our own state of Kentucky. Although on many of the political maps of Kentucky you see most of the state is pretty solid red with the prospect of gerrymandering manipulating elections it makes you wonder whether or not we are actually as republican dominant as we usually associate Kentucky with.

Three Things I didn’t know about Gerrymandering

Going into this semester I had no clue that we would all be given a specific topic about what we would have to focus on and research for the rest of the semester. When Mr. Ferrington had us rank our choices for each topic I put gerrymandering as my third choice. I knew that gerrymandering had something to do with politics, but I had no clue as to what it actually was. I was curious about it and wanted to know more so I didn’t mind once I was given the specific topic. The first thing that I have learned about gerrymandering that I didn’t know before is how incredibly complicated and intricate it is as an entire process. It took me a while to actually understand how the process worked and I had to read numerous articles to get the gist of what the main goal of gerrymandering is, which is to create as many districts as you can that will elect members of one party, and only a few that will elect members of the opposite party to protect a specific party and give it an advantage to the opposing party. The second thing that I’ve learned that surprised me about gerrymandering is how often gerrymandering actually occurs. After looking at maps and research of the United States and seeing what districts actually conduct gerrymandering shocked me. It happens everywhere, all the time. It really put it into perspective for me that gerrymandering isn’t something that should be ignored, it happens all the time and it isn’t right. Attention should be drawn to it. I thought the process was something that happened once in a blue moon, but I was wrong. The final thing I learned about my topic is who actually does the gerrymandering. I wasn’t sure how people could go about and actually manipulate districts with no one stopping them, but as I’ve learned, after a new census is taken and the boundaries of congressional and state legislative districts are redrawn to accommodate new populations, legislatures in most states (some states have different redistricting processes) go in and redraw these new maps and manipulate districts, thus how gerrymandering occurs. Overall, I’ve learned so much about the topic of gerrymandering throughout all my research. I never thought that I would have been as interested as I am now about the topic, and I’m glad that I was given the opportunity to learn more about it.

[andrewd048-blog]

Three things I’ve learned

Throughout my research on the topic of vaccinations and immunizations I’ve learned a multitude of things, the three most interesting of which I’ll share with you in this post.

First, herd immunity takes a whole lot of people to actually be effective. Before my research I thought that the number of immunized people had to be around seventy percent or so. Everyone always talks about how vaccines provide herd immunity, and I knew some people abstained from being vaccinated so I assumed the number of people that needed to be vaccinated couldn’t be much more than seventy percent just to be generous. It turns out it’s more around ninety percent. Who could’ve guessed?

Second, there are quite a few harmful chemicals in a vaccine. Things like formaldehyde and other nasty chemicals do get put into a vaccination, which sounds really bad. But what they don’t tell you is that most of the “bad chemicals” found in a vaccine are also found in nature, in the food we eat, and our body has developed certain metabolic pathways to deal with and dispose of the “bad chemicals”. Plus they’re in such dilute amounts, it’s really no problem.

Third, polio still exists. So this one has less to do with vaccinations and more to do with the diseases they kill, but I still find it relevant and interesting. Surprisingly there are still cases of polio outside of the United States. Until now, since there’s been little to no reported cases of polio in the United states my Americentric mind just kind of assumed the rest of the world was polio free as well. But no, there are still widespread outbreaks of polio, and consequently a widespread effort to fight polio.

[andrewd048-blog]

Starting out, the NCAA athletes making money debate was probably the least interesting to me. I do not and have not ever liked basketball or any other sport so I was disinterested. That being said, through your speeches I actually got quite interested and can’t wait to hear this final presentation. Some concerns I have though are you said each member will be presenting a step of Monroe’s motivated sequence, and you will also be trying to present both sides of the argument. To me, this sounds like presenting both sides will hinder your ability to present both sides and vice versa, I think your speech would benefit greatly from deciding on one or the other. Other than that, I think the video idea is solid, and whether or not people agree with your argument will only be a matter of how well you present it. All and all, looking forward to it!

NCAA Group Proposal

As a group, we will be arguing the topic of NCAA athletes making their own money from their individual fame. By this, we mean that the athletes can obtain money from autographs, endorsements, merchandise, and anything else related to the individual player. We will be supporting our argument by creating a video. Our intended audience is anyone involved in the NCAA, college athletes themselves, and the millions of people who attend or watch the sporting event on television. We will organize our project in order of Monroe’s method. Exact order of each group member will be assessed once we gather all of our information, but we will all talk for the appropriate amount of time. Our video will show both sides of the argument with voice overs, interviews, and facts from the groups findings that support our claim. We will be covering why we believe the Olympic method is the best option for our group. The Olympic Method is a method that we found through the article “Solution Regarding Paying College Athletes or Not is Simple” by Ken Reed, in Huffington Post.   We believe this is best because it gives each athlete a chance of making their own fame and might even push other athletes to try harder in order to achieve the fame and make money. Each group member will cover a different step in the Monroe method. We will use the Monroe Method because we believe it is an effective way to present an argument clearly. We believe that through the effective use of our video, which will be created by the talented Kirstin Hampton, the great speaking abilities of Jordan Mudd and Wil Barman and the great leadership and organizational skills of Jessie Meldrum that we can accomplish the task at hand and get our audience to truly believe that these athletes should get the compensation that they deserve.

[andrewd048-blog]

Hey Tori! Good analysis of the ad, I agree with you for the most part. I think the image might also be implying that if you smoke, your children will be more likely to smoke when they become older. The reason I say this is because the child is blowing smoke rings. If you didn’t know, smoke rings are very difficult to blow for a beginner, it takes many times over the course of weeks or maybe even months to be able to start blowing smoke rings. The fact that this little girl is blowing smoke rings (that require expertise) as opposed to just puffs, makes me think the ad is implying the child picking up the habit.

Advertising Image Analysis

The advertising image above is a picture of a young female child blowing “bubbles.” But instead of bubbles coming out, there are rings of smoke. The image is in black/greys, with no bright colors and the background is simply black with nothing else around the child. It clearly states in text at the bottom right-hand corner “You smoke. She smokes. Do not snatch her right to live. Stop smoking for her sake.” This ad is representing second hand smoke. The bubble blower that the child is blowing out of depicts a cigarette. It shows that if you are a parent and smoke around your children, your children might as well be smoking a cigarette like you are, because if you smoke cigarettes around your child it will cause the effects of second hand smoke onto them. Thus it will cause them to breathe in toxic chemicals that will negatively affect them. The monotone black colors in the ad cause people who are looking at it to feel a negative effect. If the ad was in yellows, blues, pinks, etc. the ad would give a different feeling than the black colors do. The message behind this advertising image is to not smoke around your children, because it will affect them as much as it is affecting you. This is an anti-smoking ad and is calling out to smokers that are parents, and is trying to show them that they should not smoke around their children. It is meant to shock the people that view this image, and cause them to not ever want to smoke near a child. There is a little bit of text in the ad, but I feel that even without the text that the image would have still been clear as to what it was trying to illustrate.

[andrewd048-blog]

Hey Kyler! I totally agree with your analysis of the advertisement, good work. The ad does focus heavily on sex appeal. I would also add that the old timey tub and bathroom style is a call back to the post world war two era where masculinity was even more of a big thing to have as a man. There’s a bit of comedic value in this scene as well, with the bubble axe and all. Also, the branding and actual product placement take up very little of the picture in comparison with the picture which is more evidence that this was supposed to catch attention.

Old Spice Ad

This is an advertisement for Old Spice body wash and deodorant. They show a man standing with good posture and a muscular body in an old-fashioned bath tub with his foot planted on the rim. Body wash is covering him in the shape of overalls and also forms to make an axe in his hand. The reason for his posture, his body, his assertive stance, the overalls, and the axe as a prop all portray him as what males and females typically think of as a “manly” man. There is a woman standing outside the bathtub wearing only a towel starring at him with a mesmerized look. The woman is there to target the male sex appeal because she is fairly attractive wearing a towel like she is fresh out of the shower with him (although her hair isn’t wet so did she actually shower???). This is targeted at men because it’ll make them want to be a “manly” man because what man doesn’t want to have a good body with a woman readily awaiting him? The writer is implying that only “manly” men use Old Spice so if you use Old Spice then you will be a manly. There is text on the bathtub saying “Smell like a Man, Man.” This just further emphasizes that you’re only truly a man if you use Old Spice.

[andrewd048-blog]

Advertisement analysis

The advertisement shown here uses a lot of elements of design to try and make the advertisement look appealing, and therefore get you to buy the product. First of all, the image to text ration in the advertisement is about a ninety to ten percent split. The image itself of the ketchup bottle (or in this case the shape of the ketchup bottle) is the focal point.

The image’s background is well lit to convey a bit of positivity, but more importantly the background is red. This is an intentional design choice because red can often be linked psychologically to desire, think snow white being tempted with the apple.

The image itself is to reinforce the message of the text “no one grows ketchup like Heinz.” Obviously the ketchup “bottle” is actually several tomato slices stacked on top of each other. This is important because today a lot of stigma is placed on things that aren’t “organic” or naturally made. The stacked tomatoes in this iconic ketchup bottle shape is there as if to say, “we actually use real tomatoes for our ketchup,” while the text also subtly implies “unlike our competition”.

Another aspect about the photo is that the tomatoes have been put in probably the most flattering light they could’ve possibly chosen. They glisten like they were picked fresh off of the plant right outside of the photography studio. This is obviously another stab at trying to get the viewer appetized much the same way a grocery store will spray water on their produce to make it glisten and make even the worst looking cabbage look edible.

[andrewd048-blog]

Speech Reflection

               Today I feel like I did a pretty adequate job of giving my speech. I practiced most of it through the week until I could do it with minimal use of the flash card. But, when I went into class today it occurred to me that I had not been timing myself, so putting myself on the right pacing was kind of a gamble. Lesson learned. I feel like in the beginning I might have been a little timid, and I was definitely shaking to a noticeable extent, but after I got into the meat of the argument I started to loosen up and relax which was good. As far as my argument goes, I feel the structure could’ve been better. Maybe it’s just the endless amount of practicing making me paranoid about how it sounds (much like semantic saturation) but I think the evidence talking about the 80% figure could’ve been moved to the beginning of my speech when I was talking about herd immunity. Other than that, there were only minor details I either missed or was unhappy with, but overall, I think I did a good job of conveying my argument, and getting the information out there. Something I think I can improve on in the future is getting my audience’s attention. I felt I relied too heavily on ethos and didn’t do anything that really engaged my audience, my only bit of humor or attention grabbing was a small joke placed at the end of the speech. In the future, I’ll make a note to make it more lively.

[andrewd048-blog]

Hey Mary! sounds like you’ve got a pretty good game plan for approaching the speech. I also tend to have problems speaking fast whenever I’m in front of people because the adrenaline gets me energized and I don’t notice how fast I’m actually talking. Whenever you’re practicing maybe shoot for 15-25 seconds over the time you should be going to, that way when you speed up your speech it wont be that bad. For example if you practiced using the whole five minutes and did your entire speech in four minutes, that’s still completely on time. Just thought I would throw that out there.

Upcoming Speech

For my upcoming speech I will be talking about why prisons should not be privatized. I am kinda nervous for this speech because I haven’t really heard much about this topic before so I am trying to learn a lot about it in such a little amount of time. I am also nervous about the speech itself. I hate public speaking so to do a speech on a topic that I am newly familiar with is a little scary but I think with the research I have been doing it will be okay. For this speech I expect that I will do well because I have been putting so much time into it. Also, I hope that my speech spreads knowledge about private prisons because it is such an important topic that gets overlooked by most. My main goal for my speech is to just get in the time requirement. This is a struggle for me because when I am nervous I tend to speak must faster than I do when I practice. There is a lot to talk about with this topic because most people don’t know much about it. Another goal of mine is to not get too nervous because this will affect the speech as a whole and come across a little different than it would if I was confident. To combat these nerves that I have I am just going to have to practice a lot and make sure I know what I am talking about. 

[andrewd048-blog]

Hey Kyler! Believe me, no one notices when you’re shaking up there. When the adrenaline’s pumping and you feel like the shaking’s bad it’s mostly in your head. Besides, everyone has to do the speech, so even if you mess up that’s just something someone else will be worried about doing themselves, so they’ll have empathy. My advice to you is just have the speech well practiced before you come to class, and find some way to just relax before you go up “on stage”. Or if that doesn’t help, use the adrenaline to your advantage. The energy from the fear of public speaking can be a good thing.

Speech

I really don’t like talking in front of people so this whole situation is a fear of mine. I honestly don’t know why I’m scared to talk in front of our small class because I don’t have a problem with talking to people. I’m worried my speech isn’t going to flow or be professional enough because English is not my strong suit. I am also going the first day so that’s just more pressure and less time to practice. I also don’t know how to stand in front of people while delivering a speech with nothing in front of me and not be awkward about it. I expect that I’ll probably be shaking when I go up there because I’ll be nervous but hopefully I only feel that and people don’t see it. I expect people to be paying attention (even though I wish they wouldn’t) and not texting. One of my goals is to actually make it to the 4-minute mark, or at least 3:45, so I don’t get points deducted for that. I also want to be able to casually walk around in front of the class and look natural with what I am doing. Obviously I would also like to give a good speech that gets my point across and that I don’t sound dumb. I also want to be able to have my speech memorized so I don’t have to look at my card the whole time and be confident in what I am saying so my speech isn’t fast or slurred.

[andrewd048-blog]

Speech Expectations

               The speech that is coming up this Thursday is a bit of a daunting one. It’s a big unknown and my grade is very heavily hinging on me to do well on it. That being said, my biggest fear for the project is that I’ll bomb on stage. Usually I have some kind of visual aid such as power point to help me stay on track and keep focused during presentations so I never had a need for notecards. This time things are a bit different. Another thing that could cause some trouble for me is the topic. It’s not something I’m particularly passionate about, it was just the most interesting to me out of the topics chosen. This means that if my speech goes to fast and I have to go off the cuff, it’ll be a bit difficult.

               My goal for this speech is to have it well enough rehearsed to where I don’t stumble and fall into fill-in words like the dreaded “uhm”, or “like”. Though to get my speech to this point I run the risk of over rehearsing and getting into a rut where I may use hand gestures that don’t seem natural, or if I screw up I’ll be unable of getting myself back on track.

               I expect I ought to do just fine considering I’ve had years of public speaking under my belt and have spoken to much larger crowds than our class size. But I want to do better than I usually do, because again, my grade hinges on this assignment going well.

[andrewd048-blog]

Hey Wyatt! Nice thought provoking response to the articles, bringing them both into one comprehensive argument. I don’t think “Why torture Won’t Actually Change Anyone’s View on Torture” was talking about opinions on a matter rather than just talking about how people accept new ideas, but who knows, that could be my own bias talking. When you talk about how experiences are the most revealing does this mean that we should listen to people with the most experiences? Or that their opinions are more valid? I would love to hear your thoughts on that. Experts and people with experience are two very different things in my book, but that’s just me.

Critical Response

In the article “Why torture Won’t Actually Change Anyone’s View on Torture”, Matt Motyl addresses exactly what the title states. My favorite quote would be “remember that your opinion is just as biased as the person you are debating and that your beliefs may not be based on facts. Rather, your facts may be based on your beliefs. And that goes for the other side too.” It doesn’t really matter what topic you are debating or having conversation about. This is true. Changing someone’s view by stating your opinion is not going to change someones mind. Nothing is absolute so there is room for exceptions. Yes, people obviously change their minds or have compelling stories that may change your mind on a certain topic. Stating your opinion just isn’t necessarily the most effective way all the time. Of course our opinions are worth sharing so this isn’t to discredit them. It just so happens that everyone has one. They become more redundant due to that fact. Experiences are the main way people change their minds. In “Believe Me, It’s Tortue”, Christopher Hitchens actively pursues the experience of waterboarding. Hitchens then forms an opinion on the subject and precedes to express it. If every person actually went through the experience of being waterboarded, they might sing a different tune about the subject. Experiences are how we learn best. Going through something is more revealing than listening to someones opinion about the subject. Opinions are still valid and should be taken into consideration, but to put it into perspective. Expressing an opinion is almost as much for the person expressing it than it is anyone. Vocalizing our beliefs can be to our benefit and often times is for that sole purpose. That’s human nature. It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to influence a significant amount of people.

[andrewd048-blog]

Hey Andi! I liked your synopsis of the article and what it illuminated about how we as people let our own bias’s influence. I feel like there wasn’t much presenting of your own ideas in your response to the article though. Good job on the quotations and in text citations spread-out through the post. Just remember if the brackets are being inserted at the beginning of the quote (in this case [reinforced]) you can just scoot the quotation marks up one word and changed reinforced without having to use brackets. I did the same thing in my first paper and got a note on it, so just passing on the message.

Critical Response

Matt Motyl’s Why the Torture Report Won’t Actually Change Anyone’s Views On Torture argues that the type of politics a person identifies with molds his/ her views on controversial issues because of most people’s tendency to let their beliefs influence factual evidence. His argument is valid based on how when people are presented with facts supporting any type of issue, if the facts do not support their previously implemented personal politics or morals, they are dismissed. Motyl defends his claim by describing an instance concerning interrogations methods used by the CIA in which Democrats and Republicans either accepted or dismissed the exact same factual evidence based on their views. Republicans made sure to point out that the study was run by democrats and was “ideologically motivated and distorted”, while Democratic President Obama felt that the evidence “[reinforced]… that these harsh methods… did not serve our broader counterterrorism efforts or our national-security interests” (Motyl 6). Basically, Motyl is showing that both sides, whether they were Democrats or Republicans, distorted the facts in a given situation to validate what they already believed to begin with. I would agree with Motyl’s claim, that I have been more accepting towards things I was already comfortable with. Another valid point Motyl makes is that “the human brain is built to evaluate evidence in biased ways” (7). People are uncomfortable with change and challenging opinions, and it is much easier to contort evidence to support something a person has already decided that he/she believes. People are always going to be more inclined to stick to what they believe and defend at all costs that it is the “right” way to think, even if that means dismissing factual evidence.

Works Cited

Motyl, Matt. “Why the Torture Report Won’t Actually Change Anyone’s Views On Torture.” Time, http://time.com/3635977/torture-report-morals-beliefs/. Accessed 7 March 2017.

[andrewd048-blog]

Critical response to article

               Matt Motyl’s article “Why the Torture Report Won’t Actually Change Anyone’s Views on Torture” was quite the interesting read. The article played big time into explaining the science behind the logical fallacy of putting the argument first, talking about how bias plays a role in determining how we perceive evidence. Basically, our moral beliefs can and will cause us to rationalize rather than reason for certain topics.

               Although the article did a good enough job of covering the fact that people let bias influence them, the article fell short of telling us how to eliminate said bias or making a clear distinction on how or when this bias can be identified. Without giving us the details of the torture report the author asserts that Obama’s acceptance of it, and McConnel’s rejection of it, is biased. Which may be true., but my questions is when is it valid to say there’s bias? If I have an opinion and you have an opinion and we extrapolate differing conclusions from the same data can both of us just call bias on the other and walk away feeling we’ve won the argument?

               The article helps us see that people with a certain ideological mindset will have bias and try to rationalize their side. However, knowledge seeking is a path based function. You must look at how people are going about defending their side before you can call bias. Although the studies found that people came to conclusions that supported their prior stance, the true litmus test of bias is to see how they came to that conclusion. If it’s logical, can it be called bias? I personally don’t think so

|

[andrewd048-blog]

Hey Jessie! It seems you’re very well versed on the exigence of what you’re going to be rhetorically analyzing. Though I have to say the paragraph seems a little short, so perhaps you could add some more detail to the issue? Also the thesis seems to be more of a summary of the argument rather than a “road map” as to what argument you’re going to be rhetorically analyzing. Just a suggestion though, I’m not to clear on what a good paper’s supposed to look like just yet either. Nice work on the verbiage and language, it was professional without any kind of contractions.

Introduction to Rhetorical Analysis

The excitement and hype of any gameday on campus is a vital part of the college experience. Little do most students know, that behind the scenes, a great debate is raging within the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”). The issue creating this controversy is whether or not college athletes should be paid. Some stakeholders believe that student athletes deserve to be compensated from the large amount of revenue that the universities receive as a result of the athletes talents and efforts. CNBC’s Jeff Morganteen held an interview with Mark Emmert, the President of the NCAA, on the organization’s position on the issue. During the interview Emmert discussed why the NCAA does not believe student athletes should be paid to play. Emmert explained that the NCAA sees college athletes as students first and that paying student athletes in high revenue sports would risk less popular sports being eliminated from the university’s athletic programs. Fundamentally, Emmert’s argument is that the NCAA has the best interest of the players in mind, wants them to succeed in their academics, and wants to support the ameture nature of college athletics.

[andrewd048-blog]

Hey Paige! Great work on the reviewing the exigence and setting the scene for the analysis to come, it was thorough. I also felt like you did a good job at getting me interested in the topic to begin with. You start with an unarguable point that degradation is bad and then use that as a focal point to talk about the rhetoric within Bell’s project. Also, the thesis statement was very clear, concise and to the point. My only critique was that I couldn’t quite see a roadmap of what your was going to be about. It seems like the exigence covered the project thoroughly and then we jump straight to the thesis. Overall great job though.

Rhetorical analysis introduction

Downgrading ones potential is not a way to go through life. Photographer Trent Bell selected inmates that feel as if they looked over their own potential, didn’t listen to anyone’s advice, and hurt their loved one, leading them to a life in prison. Bell took a stand against prisoners being seen as all the same. He recognized that each inmate has their own story and decided to destroy the stereotype of inmates all being the same by creating a powerful project. He calls this project, “Reflect: Convicts’ letters to their younger selves”. In 2013 he captured a series of photos to help himself, his team and society reflect on the differences and emotions within prisoners. Not only did he successfully represent the difference between each prisoners story, he also created emotion and change of attitude in many people. In his project Bell selected prisoners to write themselves a letter from their younger self, giving advice, stating what they’d go back and change if they could, and helpful pointers. He then captured photos of each individual inmate, sitting and wearing the same things, then proceeded to photo shop their image in a subtle manner so that the photos would represent the tone he wanted to convey. Lastly, Bell photoshopped the words in their letters into the photos. He carefully placed the words around the inmate on a rather dull background. The words that were carefully placed around the inmates were powerful, honest, and most importantly they were words from their hearts. Through this project, Trent Bell clearly represents the differences in each inmates stories and how their actions have effected the way they think about life and opportunity today.

[andrewd048-blog]

Rhetorical Analysis Intro

In recent years, the discussion about the ethics and safety of vaccinating children has taken the lime light. Some people argue that it is within their personal rights not to have their kid vaccinated for philosophical reasons whilst others argue that vaccines are an overwhelming positive and should be administered. The latter argue this on the basis of herd immunity, a method to prevent the spread of diseases by immunizing most of the population to said diseases. In the midst of this ongoing debate vaccination rates plummeted in states where vaccinations could be opted out of. This drop in vaccination rates resulted in a cascade of vaccine preventable diseases resurging in the states where vaccination rates fell. In response to such dramatic increase in rates a Michigan school called The Children’s House, declared that all of its students must be vaccinated unless there is a legitimate health concern that prevents the student from being vaccinated. They claimed this was to ensure herd immunity within the population since the school was home to kids of all ages and health. This added more fuel to the fire so to speak. Some parents were angry that their child could be kicked out of a school for not having certain vaccinations. Other parents were glad to know that their kids were going to be in a school that was not as immunocompromised as other surrounding schools. Either way the message of this action was clear, due to the nature of schools and their structure schools would determine who eventually won the fight of immunizing or not immunizing their kid.