Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine is one of the most dominant international events of the past two weeks.
In addition to the death, destruction, and havoc that it’s causing, the conflict is predictably generating significant news and social media interest.
The news media has interviewed current and former politicians, retired four star generals, academics who are Russia and Ukraine specialists, former ambassadors to these countries, and current or previous National Security practitioners and experts.
But then there’s the social media circus.
Many people appear to have gone wild weighing in on all matters of import concerning the invasion, and have freely offered their opinion about who is really to blame, which side is currently winning, what the end game might look like, etc.,
Clearly the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not the first time that uninformed people freely offer their opinion. But the invention of different types of social media platforms and their increased use has transformed what used to be the annoying drunk at the end of the bar, or your crazy uncle spouting his conspiracy theory to an army of people operating in hyperdrive status.
But why do people freely offer their opinion on subjects they know nothing about?
It’s hard to know for sure but I suspect that it has some do with some combination of
• An innate need to engage
• Loneliness
• Ease of access/minimal barriers to access social media
• The desire to build or maintain an audience
• Positive reinforcement of one shape or another
• Part of the propaganda/disinformation war
What’s wrong with this kind of behavior?
Although reading or watching this kind of rhetoric can initially be amusing, it can slowly change to being annoying.
For the poorly informed, or misinformed, this kind of opining may unnecessarily muddy the water and confuse those who are easily confused.
Even worse this kind of pontificating can contribute to the ongoing propaganda war, and encourage lots of undue fear, panic, or overreaction.
The fact that just because you have access to a microphone or megaphone does not mean that your opinion is just as valid (as in plausible) as someone else’s. That’s why we have experts.
On the other hand, when confronted with situations in which you have minimal expertise it’s important to understand this, to admit it, and if you believe that the situation calls for it, then you should educate yourself using respected sources.
Yes everyone has the right to free speech. They also have the right to be ignored.
Photo Credit: Ilmicrofono Oggiono
megaphone screaming
portrait of young man screaming with megaphone against a tropical background
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/31049242487_9140ca0db0_o.jpg607789Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-03-03 14:51:002022-12-15 12:21:41Just because you have access to a megaphone, doesn’t mean you need to use it
Earning a bachelor’s degree from an accredited university in the United States is, in many respects, no small feat.
This is especially true if you are the first person in your family to go to college, are a single mother, a foster child, are of limited financial means, and were formerly incarcerated or have a criminal conviction.
Even more challenging is when people with criminal records want to enter a graduate program to pursue a masters or a Ph.D. in criminology or criminal justice. Most people in this position are poorly equipped to make this kind of leap. Among numerous concerns is that many of these individuals have unrealistic expectations and are often poorly prepared for what awaits them.
Fortunately, members of the Convict Criminology network, including those who are part of the American Society of Criminology’s Division of Convict Criminology (DCC), are frequently approached both by instructors who reach out to us on behalf of their formerly incarcerated students, or students themselves requesting our assistance regarding getting into an appropriate graduate school and identifying whom among our colleagues might be good mentors. Our response is that we are here to help.
Convict Criminology was established in the mid 1990s, by scholars (mainly those who had earned a Ph.D. or were on their way to completing one), who were previously incarcerated, justice impacted/involved, and those who shared our central goals. CC’s primary mission is to elevate the convict voice that was frequently ignored or marginalized in scholarly research and policy circles. We also wanted to assist convicts and exconvicts in a mentoring capacity, and to weigh in on public policy decisions concerning the field of corrections by engaging in activism or policy work.
In many respects, providing advice to formerly incarcerated students about how to prepare for a graduate program, which ones to choose from, and which professor/s to work with (and whom they might want to avoid), is no different than what we would advise our typical students at the places we teach.
But the path for formerly incarcerated students wishing to pursue a masters or a doctorate in criminology/criminal justice is a little more complicated. Formerly incarcerated students have more challenges including selecting graduate programs that are truly ex-convict friendly, and finding appropriate mentors in that program.
We point out that just because some universities or university systems no longer require prospective students to check a box indicating that they were either convicted of a crime or formerly incarcerated (part of the ban the box movement), doesn’t mean it’s a good place to start and complete a post-baccalaureate degree.
Similarly, even though an academic department mentions on their web site that they are inclusionary, promote social justice, and have professors who specialize in areas of study that align with the student’s major interests, does not necessarily mean that they are good places for a formerly-incarcerated person to get an appropriate graduate education.
Moreover, although a graduate program may be easy to get into, be relatively frictionless to receive instruction, of access, and “affordable, as with some for-profit universities, these options are frequently inappropriate educational institutions as places to study and earn ones masters or doctoral degree.
There are countless other issues to keep in mind. For example, some formerly incarcerated individuals decide to apply to graduate school some years after they earned their bachelor’s degree. Thus, they may not know any of the professors in the program from which they graduated. Alternatively, their degree may not be in the fields of criminology or criminal justice, and could very well have been a professional degree (e.g., law). Thus the academic field of criminology and criminal justice seems attractive, but untested for them. One of the questions formerly incarcerated people inevitably ask is how open they should be about their criminal past; should they disclose it, if so, when should they disclose, to whom should they disclose, and how should they disclose? Sometimes this decision is made for them in the application process where they are asked if they have any prior criminal convictions.
Because of our collective experience and our network, we generally know which universities, programs, and scholars are best suited for prospective formerly incarcerated graduate students. Not only do we suggest the person, but we often reach out to them, and sometimes make introductions.
One of the first questions we ask formerly incarcerated students interested in pursuing graduate school is why they want to make this kind of investment of resources? Many students, regardless of their background, have unrealistic ideas about the costs and benefits of a graduate school education. We also ask why they don’t want to do it at the place where they already earned their undergraduate degree. For some they want or need to spread their wings, including the possibility that the program from which they graduated/are graduating from may no longer serve them well, while others have alienated people at their home institution.
The CC network and the DCC believes in the power of mentorship. Thus, we help to put directly-impacted students in touch with supportive people in our network. We freely give our opinion(s) on respective programs, whom to work with, whom to avoid, and how to improve their chances of getting selected into a program, including whom to ask for letters of recommendation and what those letters should emphasize.
Graduate school, just like a bachelors can be a great experience for formerly incarcerated students. It may also be a pathway to open up more doors in terms of jobs and a career. This will insure that the person can put bread on the table, refrain from criminal activity, and create opportunities to engage in prosocial change.
Photo Credit: Alan Levine
Education is All
University of Manitoba
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/5069892924_a1646270ea_o.jpg11762304Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-02-25 04:00:322024-09-22 12:23:36Helping formerly incarcerated people get into respectable graduate programs in Criminology/Criminal Justice
You’ve heard and seen them. They include some of our elected and appointed officials, wanna be politicians, heads of organizations, and pundits that appear in our news media feeds complaining about crime rates, and the institutions we’ve created and entrusted to respond to this social problem.
They decry the uptick in crime, the brazenness of today’s criminals, and the general moral depravity of society. This loose collection of individuals are quick to blame someone (e.g., an elected politician, single mothers, etc.), an entity (e.g., the family, or a branch of the criminal justice system (CJS), etc.), or some new trend in society (e.g., social media, etc.).
These individuals often argue that what we really need is more laws, police, correctional facilities, lengthier prison sentences, harsher prison conditions, equipping police with better tools, etc. But after a careful review these so-called “solutions” are overly simple. And if their proposals sound new, then they are usually old wine in new bottles.
To be certain, criminal justice related challenges have existed since the creation of laws and organizations designed to respond to individuals and organizations that break them.
Murder, robbery, assault, etc. are not going away anytime soon. And there are no quick fix solutions.
More importantly, we can’t simply delegate the management of crime and people who engage in criminal activity to elected officials like mayors, chiefs of police or public safety, or the individual branches of the CJS, and wash our hands of the problem. This approach is not vigilanteeism or taking the law into our own hands.
So why do so many of our leaders or those who aspire to leadership positions play the blame game?
The public loves quick fix solutions. In fact they are socialized into this way of thinking. Got a medical problem, surely it’s easily diagnosable, and there’s an appropriate drug to take that will give you instant relief. Worried about your state of affairs, seek distraction by grabbing a drink or getting high, rather than confronting the problem.
And why are the previously mentioned targets quickly blamed? It’s easy. Don’t get me wrong. There are plenty of bad political leaders and heads of criminal justice agencies. But that’s not my point.
Why is blaming politicians, branches of the CJS and the heads of these agencies bad?
It’s an overly simple approach to a real and persistent problem and it’s part of what got us to where we are now. This tactic appeals to people who think that it’s easy to solve the crime and justice challenges of America.
The problem with the new and improved solutions approach is that it takes the focus away from the more labor intense processes and issues, the ones that are harder to solve, like encouraging people to take individual responsibility and stop blaming others, the development of quality interpersonal relations, the improvement of family dynamics, providing adequate resources to schools that teach meaningful content and not to the test or are staffed with instructors whose primary job is classroom management.
How do we change this state of affairs?
In the short term, if we are going to implement meaningful change in the reducing crime and improving the criminal justice agencies tasked with responding to crime and criminals we need to base our decisions on empirical research. It exists and it is conducted by experts. And there are methods to determine who and who is not an expert. The system is not perfect. But we need to avoid a tendency to ignore the results, and the policy recommendations, even when it’s not politically convenient.
This strategy might also consider looking towards those countries that are similar to the United States but have less crime. Indeed there are subtle differences in the ways that those societies are arranged, but maybe we should seriously consider emulating some of the more helpful processes (e.g., ones that encourage social solidarity) in those nations.
In the end, I’m not suggesting some sort of utopian society, but it’s time to stop advocating the quick fixes and choose ones that have been empirically proven to work.
GotCredit
Solution Key
Solution on Keyboard
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/33715651766_299ccda710_o.jpg14762333Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-02-17 18:12:462024-02-04 04:25:02Why quick fix solutions to crime and criminal justice challenges don’t and won’t work
Just because you have access to a megaphone, doesn’t mean you need to use it
/by Jeffrey Ian RossRussia’s invasion of the Ukraine is one of the most dominant international events of the past two weeks.
In addition to the death, destruction, and havoc that it’s causing, the conflict is predictably generating significant news and social media interest.
The news media has interviewed current and former politicians, retired four star generals, academics who are Russia and Ukraine specialists, former ambassadors to these countries, and current or previous National Security practitioners and experts.
But then there’s the social media circus.
Many people appear to have gone wild weighing in on all matters of import concerning the invasion, and have freely offered their opinion about who is really to blame, which side is currently winning, what the end game might look like, etc.,
This opining, pontificating, and bloviating has taken place even when people are misinformed, the evidence upon which their opinions are based is circumspect, and the logic that they use to make their arguments are flawed. All information does not fit nicely into a little box. And points are often cherry picked without examining counterarguments.
Clearly the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not the first time that uninformed people freely offer their opinion. But the invention of different types of social media platforms and their increased use has transformed what used to be the annoying drunk at the end of the bar, or your crazy uncle spouting his conspiracy theory to an army of people operating in hyperdrive status.
But why do people freely offer their opinion on subjects they know nothing about?
It’s hard to know for sure but I suspect that it has some do with some combination of
• An innate need to engage
• Loneliness
• Ease of access/minimal barriers to access social media
• The desire to build or maintain an audience
• Positive reinforcement of one shape or another
• Part of the propaganda/disinformation war
What’s wrong with this kind of behavior?
Although reading or watching this kind of rhetoric can initially be amusing, it can slowly change to being annoying.
For the poorly informed, or misinformed, this kind of opining may unnecessarily muddy the water and confuse those who are easily confused.
Even worse this kind of pontificating can contribute to the ongoing propaganda war, and encourage lots of undue fear, panic, or overreaction.
The fact that just because you have access to a microphone or megaphone does not mean that your opinion is just as valid (as in plausible) as someone else’s. That’s why we have experts.
On the other hand, when confronted with situations in which you have minimal expertise it’s important to understand this, to admit it, and if you believe that the situation calls for it, then you should educate yourself using respected sources.
Yes everyone has the right to free speech. They also have the right to be ignored.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/insight-is-2020/201712/why-people-give-unsolicited-advice-though-no-one-listens
Photo Credit: Ilmicrofono Oggiono
megaphone screaming
portrait of young man screaming with megaphone against a tropical background
Helping formerly incarcerated people get into respectable graduate programs in Criminology/Criminal Justice
/by Jeffrey Ian RossEarning a bachelor’s degree from an accredited university in the United States is, in many respects, no small feat.
This is especially true if you are the first person in your family to go to college, are a single mother, a foster child, are of limited financial means, and were formerly incarcerated or have a criminal conviction.
Even more challenging is when people with criminal records want to enter a graduate program to pursue a masters or a Ph.D. in criminology or criminal justice. Most people in this position are poorly equipped to make this kind of leap. Among numerous concerns is that many of these individuals have unrealistic expectations and are often poorly prepared for what awaits them.
Fortunately, members of the Convict Criminology network, including those who are part of the American Society of Criminology’s Division of Convict Criminology (DCC), are frequently approached both by instructors who reach out to us on behalf of their formerly incarcerated students, or students themselves requesting our assistance regarding getting into an appropriate graduate school and identifying whom among our colleagues might be good mentors. Our response is that we are here to help.
Convict Criminology was established in the mid 1990s, by scholars (mainly those who had earned a Ph.D. or were on their way to completing one), who were previously incarcerated, justice impacted/involved, and those who shared our central goals. CC’s primary mission is to elevate the convict voice that was frequently ignored or marginalized in scholarly research and policy circles. We also wanted to assist convicts and exconvicts in a mentoring capacity, and to weigh in on public policy decisions concerning the field of corrections by engaging in activism or policy work.
In many respects, providing advice to formerly incarcerated students about how to prepare for a graduate program, which ones to choose from, and which professor/s to work with (and whom they might want to avoid), is no different than what we would advise our typical students at the places we teach.
But the path for formerly incarcerated students wishing to pursue a masters or a doctorate in criminology/criminal justice is a little more complicated. Formerly incarcerated students have more challenges including selecting graduate programs that are truly ex-convict friendly, and finding appropriate mentors in that program.
We point out that just because some universities or university systems no longer require prospective students to check a box indicating that they were either convicted of a crime or formerly incarcerated (part of the ban the box movement), doesn’t mean it’s a good place to start and complete a post-baccalaureate degree.
Similarly, even though an academic department mentions on their web site that they are inclusionary, promote social justice, and have professors who specialize in areas of study that align with the student’s major interests, does not necessarily mean that they are good places for a formerly-incarcerated person to get an appropriate graduate education.
Moreover, although a graduate program may be easy to get into, be relatively frictionless to receive instruction, of access, and “affordable, as with some for-profit universities, these options are frequently inappropriate educational institutions as places to study and earn ones masters or doctoral degree.
There are countless other issues to keep in mind. For example, some formerly incarcerated individuals decide to apply to graduate school some years after they earned their bachelor’s degree. Thus, they may not know any of the professors in the program from which they graduated. Alternatively, their degree may not be in the fields of criminology or criminal justice, and could very well have been a professional degree (e.g., law). Thus the academic field of criminology and criminal justice seems attractive, but untested for them. One of the questions formerly incarcerated people inevitably ask is how open they should be about their criminal past; should they disclose it, if so, when should they disclose, to whom should they disclose, and how should they disclose? Sometimes this decision is made for them in the application process where they are asked if they have any prior criminal convictions.
Because of our collective experience and our network, we generally know which universities, programs, and scholars are best suited for prospective formerly incarcerated graduate students. Not only do we suggest the person, but we often reach out to them, and sometimes make introductions.
One of the first questions we ask formerly incarcerated students interested in pursuing graduate school is why they want to make this kind of investment of resources? Many students, regardless of their background, have unrealistic ideas about the costs and benefits of a graduate school education. We also ask why they don’t want to do it at the place where they already earned their undergraduate degree. For some they want or need to spread their wings, including the possibility that the program from which they graduated/are graduating from may no longer serve them well, while others have alienated people at their home institution.
The CC network and the DCC believes in the power of mentorship. Thus, we help to put directly-impacted students in touch with supportive people in our network. We freely give our opinion(s) on respective programs, whom to work with, whom to avoid, and how to improve their chances of getting selected into a program, including whom to ask for letters of recommendation and what those letters should emphasize.
Graduate school, just like a bachelors can be a great experience for formerly incarcerated students. It may also be a pathway to open up more doors in terms of jobs and a career. This will insure that the person can put bread on the table, refrain from criminal activity, and create opportunities to engage in prosocial change.
Photo Credit: Alan Levine
Education is All
University of Manitoba
Why quick fix solutions to crime and criminal justice challenges don’t and won’t work
/by Jeffrey Ian RossYou’ve heard and seen them. They include some of our elected and appointed officials, wanna be politicians, heads of organizations, and pundits that appear in our news media feeds complaining about crime rates, and the institutions we’ve created and entrusted to respond to this social problem.
They decry the uptick in crime, the brazenness of today’s criminals, and the general moral depravity of society. This loose collection of individuals are quick to blame someone (e.g., an elected politician, single mothers, etc.), an entity (e.g., the family, or a branch of the criminal justice system (CJS), etc.), or some new trend in society (e.g., social media, etc.).
The rhetoric of these critics temporarily standing in front of or holding a microphone (or bullhorn for that matter), may sound credible at the time, allows them to catch a headline or two, score some political points, and maybe even bolster the fledgling ratings of news organizations, but it’s the same old thing. The subtext is elect or appoint me, I will do a better job, I have new ideas, or the guts to do something about the real criminal justice problems where others have failed.
These individuals often argue that what we really need is more laws, police, correctional facilities, lengthier prison sentences, harsher prison conditions, equipping police with better tools, etc. But after a careful review these so-called “solutions” are overly simple. And if their proposals sound new, then they are usually old wine in new bottles.
To be certain, criminal justice related challenges have existed since the creation of laws and organizations designed to respond to individuals and organizations that break them.
Murder, robbery, assault, etc. are not going away anytime soon. And there are no quick fix solutions.
More importantly, we can’t simply delegate the management of crime and people who engage in criminal activity to elected officials like mayors, chiefs of police or public safety, or the individual branches of the CJS, and wash our hands of the problem. This approach is not vigilanteeism or taking the law into our own hands.
So why do so many of our leaders or those who aspire to leadership positions play the blame game?
The public loves quick fix solutions. In fact they are socialized into this way of thinking. Got a medical problem, surely it’s easily diagnosable, and there’s an appropriate drug to take that will give you instant relief. Worried about your state of affairs, seek distraction by grabbing a drink or getting high, rather than confronting the problem.
And why are the previously mentioned targets quickly blamed? It’s easy. Don’t get me wrong. There are plenty of bad political leaders and heads of criminal justice agencies. But that’s not my point.
Why is blaming politicians, branches of the CJS and the heads of these agencies bad?
It’s an overly simple approach to a real and persistent problem and it’s part of what got us to where we are now. This tactic appeals to people who think that it’s easy to solve the crime and justice challenges of America.
The problem with the new and improved solutions approach is that it takes the focus away from the more labor intense processes and issues, the ones that are harder to solve, like encouraging people to take individual responsibility and stop blaming others, the development of quality interpersonal relations, the improvement of family dynamics, providing adequate resources to schools that teach meaningful content and not to the test or are staffed with instructors whose primary job is classroom management.
How do we change this state of affairs?
In the short term, if we are going to implement meaningful change in the reducing crime and improving the criminal justice agencies tasked with responding to crime and criminals we need to base our decisions on empirical research. It exists and it is conducted by experts. And there are methods to determine who and who is not an expert. The system is not perfect. But we need to avoid a tendency to ignore the results, and the policy recommendations, even when it’s not politically convenient.
In the long term, the real work needs to be done in our personal relationships, families, neighborhoods and communities. Values of equity and fairness need to be emphasized, and we have to question and avoid the winner takes all approach at all costs.
This strategy might also consider looking towards those countries that are similar to the United States but have less crime. Indeed there are subtle differences in the ways that those societies are arranged, but maybe we should seriously consider emulating some of the more helpful processes (e.g., ones that encourage social solidarity) in those nations.
In the end, I’m not suggesting some sort of utopian society, but it’s time to stop advocating the quick fixes and choose ones that have been empirically proven to work.
GotCredit
Solution Key
Solution on Keyboard