Topic

fairness

29 petitions

Started 2 days ago

Petition to Christine Rossmiller, Katherine Sunseri, Mark Armstrong

Students v. Unit 3 FRQ

[October 2018] Landon Shea, with whom many other students join, petitioning for the removal of the FRQ from the Unit 3 Exam Administered on October 11 & 12, 2018. I am of the opinion that the FRQ in the Unit 3 Test was unfair for a couple of reasons: I do not believe  “draw from” is synonymous with “refer to”. I genuinely feel that the facts of any case could not possibly be deduced from the holding of another. The facts were simply context which made mention of the holding in McDonald v. City of Chicago, however there was no reasoning -- only information. I believe this question was poorly worded. Another question asked which clause is used in both DC v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. The only way we could have known the answer to this question was if we had read the actual case documents for both cases (not the summaries provided). Nowhere in the Street Law, Inc. summary of DC v. Heller was the Due Process Clause attributed to both DC v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. Unless we were expected to have read the actual cases for both DC v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, I believe this question had unfair expectations. Students who answered correctly likely implied the 14th was used in both, however they did not know this to be correct because the summary never addressed whether the Due Process Clause was utilized in both DC v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. Also, it is important to mention that approximately ⅓ of test takers had an unfair advantage on this FRQ. While a supermajority of students was tasked with having a deep understanding of Roe and Citizens United, a minority of students were tasked with having a deep understanding of McDonald v. City of Chicago. Now of course I am not accusing the test-writer of willingly creating an unfair advantage for a group of students, but by mandating that only ⅓ of students do extensive research (for the sake of court simulation) on a case which just happens to be the topic of an FRQ question, the test-writer inadvertently gave an advantage to some students. One may argue “all students had equal access to the contents of the case, therefore there wasn’t any unfair advantage”. To this I respond: accessibility to the contents of the case was incentivized -- nay, required -- for ⅓ of students, whereas it was merely optional for the other ⅔ of students. By mandating case knowledge for some students, but not other students, there was an inherent disadvantage for those not placed in the McDonald simulation. Furthermore, the Fab 15 Case Summaries were uploaded to google classroom the morning of the test (this applies specifically to Sunseri's class). This was most unfortunate for students who prefer to study days in advance to the test as opposed to the morning of the test. Finally, I hope that the test-writers can acknowledge one thought: there were better alternatives to McDonald v. City of Chicago being the Fab 15 FRQ topic. Perhaps a case which all students knew equally (Baker v. Carr, Marbury v. Madison, McCulloch v. Maryland, etc.) would be better suited for this FRQ. While I respect the decisions made by the test-writer, I must disagree with the decision to use McDonald v. City of Chicago in the FRQ question. I solemnly hope that the test-writers consider altogether rescinding the FRQ from the Unit 3 Exam.  

Landon Shea
13 supporters
Update posted 2 weeks ago

Petition to Eric Garcetti, Mike Bonin, Tricia Keane, Ezra Gale, Vince Bertoni, Ira Koslow, Chad Molnar, David Graham-Caso, Len Nguyen, John Gregory, Gilbert Cedillo, Paul Krekorian, Bob Blumenfield, David Ryu, Paul Koretz, Nury Martinez, Monica Rodriguez, Marqueece Harris-Dawson, Curren Price, Herb Wesson, Mitchell Englander, Mitch O'Farrell, Jose Huizar, Joe Buscaino, Taylor Bazley

Build new homeless services in every LA District 11 neighborhood, not just Venice!

Venice is fed up and pushed to the brink! We have big hearts and open minds, and are willing to do our fair share, but we cannot be the only community in District 11 solving the huge problem of homelessness. Now the City of Los Angeles wants to build a 100-bed "temporary" shelter at the former MTA bus yard, just 1 block from the beach, and surrounded on all 4 sides by homes, when not a single one of the other 17 site proposals and alternative options across LA is completely surrounded by homes. This is in addition to: 136 units of permanent supportive and low-income housing and a variety of related services on the Venice Median, also 1 block from the beach, at an exorbitant and wasteful cost of nearly $500,000 each.Another 98 units of permanent supportive housing in the Oxford Triangle, with a similar price tag nearing $500,00 each. Another 34 units of permanent supportive housing on Rose. Allowing indiscriminate RV camping across large parts of Venice with no enforcement of the 72-hour parking rule. 24/7 bathroom access on the boardwalk, encouraging further encampment growth.A storage facility in a neighborhood park surrounded by homes & schools. ...and other plans for more storage facilities, more car camping, 24/7 portable bathrooms, and other services throughout Venice. ALL THIS, when essentially NONE of the rest of Council District 11 has had ANY proposals for ANY homeless services, accommodation of campers, or housing of any kind on Mike Bonin's watch! *Venice has already welcomed a large services infrastructure near Rose and near Lincoln, including the enormous St. Joseph Center on Hampton, multiple health clinics, day use facilities, and a vocational training center, plus a variety of section 8 and affordable housing.  Why aren't other neighborhoods in Council District 11 being asked to do their part? Why aren't there more proposals to help share some of the burden in the Pacific Palisades, Brentwood, Mar Vista, West LA, Playa Vista, Westchester, Playa del Rey, or any other community in Mike Bonin's district? Why are Malibu, Beverly Hills,  and Culver City, who are not even part of the City of Los Angeles, allowed to house their homeless in Venice projects? PUT A STOP TO THIS NOW! Speak up and demand that NONE of these projects go forward until similar wide-ranging plans are proposed and approved for each and every community in the rest of District 11.(* West LA currently has 37 units proposed for homeless families, the only proposal in all of District 11 outside of Venice, a tiny fraction of the 268 permanent supportive and low-income units plus 100 shelter beds planned in Venice.)

#RespectVenice
3,712 supporters
Update posted 2 months ago

Petition to Motion Picture Association of America, A24 Films

Change “Eighth Grade” Movie’s MPAA Rating from R to PG-13!

When I heard about the new movie “Eighth Grade” coming out, I was so excited. Having just finished my eighth grade year in middle school, I felt I could truly relate to the movie and learn valuable life lessons from it. When I heard that the film was given an R (18+ only) rating by the Motion Pictures Association of America, not only was I very surprised, I was also very dissapointed. According to its creators, the film is targeted for the younger audience; people in middle school or high school. By reading reviews of people who had seen it, I realized that what is discussed and shown in the movie is extremely similar if not a perfect match to what I experienced during my years in middle school. While this film does include some vulgur content, MPAA and the public need to understand that the content here is something that kids my age are exposed to every day. This is the reason why I believe this movie needs to be PG-13, not R. Some children still feel uncomfortable discussing the topics in the movie with their parents. If they could see the movie alone or with a few friends, they could talk about it later with their parents in a way that is comfortable for them. This movie could teach them to be more open to their parents about these topics. Changing the rating will help in growing the movie financially (more tickets purchased = more revenue), and even more importantly it could give access to the movie’s content to more people, therefore spreading the messages and themes of this film. Help me and millions of other kids in the country to see this movie and learn from it!

Einav Tsach
49 supporters