South Africa's 'virgin bursaries' ruled unconstitutional

A scheme offering university scholarships to young South African women who remain virgins is unconstitutional, the country’s commission for gender equality has ruled.

The “maidens’ bursaries” offered by a state official triggered a nationwide debate in January, with critics calling the scheme’s emphasis on virginity outdated and traditionalists saying it would help preserve African culture.

On Friday, the commission said the programme discriminated against women because male students were not subjected to the same tests. “Any funding by an organ of state based on a woman’s sexuality perpetuates patriarchy and inequality in South Africa,” it said.

Rights groups applauded the ruling. “It is not the cultural practice that is the problem here; it is the allocation of state funds on the basis of girls’ sexuality that violates the constitutional protection to equality, dignity and privacy,” said Sanja Bornman at the Lawyers for Human Rights campaign group.

Recipients of the scholarships, which were offered only to women, were required to undergo virginity testing each time they returned home for holidays, and could lose their bursary if it was determined that they had engaged in sexual activity.

Dudu Mazibuko, the mayor of the Uthukela district of KwaZulu-Natal, who initiated the programme, said in January it would help reduce teenage pregnancy and the spread of HIV/Aids as well as widening job opportunities for women in her small municipality in KwaZulu-Natal province.

Mazibuko, a member of the ruling African National Congress, argued there was already a strong culture of virginity testing in the eastern coastal province. But gender activists and some political parties condemned the practice, with the Economic Freedom Fighters opposition party describing it as “patriarchal and anti-women”.

Response

This article thoroughly summarizes the conclusion that the South-African commission has made towards the ‘South African virgin bursaries’- a scholarship offered to women who choose to abstain from any sexual practices while at university. The South-African commission deemed it unconstitutional because it discriminated against men and it ‘violates the constitutional protection to equality, dignity and privacy,”. I fully agree with the conclusion that the commission has ordained because I see how it discriminates against men, since they are not offered such a scholarship and I also see their point on the ‘ allocation of state funds on the basis of girls’ sexuality’ as quite unpolitical.

Many traditionalists think that it would be good in terms of preserving ‘African culture’ but that is also invalid because African culture is very diverse and not every culture has the notion of virginity, in fact many times the opposite. As for the health aspect of it, I do realize how it would be beneficial in reducing teenage pregnancy and the risk of HIV/AIDS. But, the initiative of providing scholarships is creating yet another problem of whether it is moral, discriminatory or inappropriate. At the same time, I do applaud Dudu Mazibuko, the mayor of the Uthukela district of KwaZulu-Natal, who initiated the programme, since it is rare to see someone who would come up with a solution to reduce teenage pregnancy and the risk of HIV/AIDS .The author showed no obvious bias, he presented both the commission’s response and Mazibuko’s response to the situation clearly.

Works Cited

"South Africa's 'virgin Bursaries' Ruled Unconstitutional." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 17 June 2016. Web. 20 June 2016.

The ‘three black teenagers’ search shows it is society, not Google, that is racist

This week Twitter user Kabir Alli posted a video of him carrying out two specific searches on Google. The search for “three white teenagers” produced smiling and happy generic images of white teenagers, while the search for “three black teenagers” produced some generic happy images too – alongside far too many mug shots and what could be perceived as negative images of black teenagers. The video of the search was put up without any explanation, and people predictably reacted emotively; it’s been shared more than 60,000 times. It brought back an internet meme I debunked back in March this year, in which, on the basis of such search results, people on social media called Google “racist”

'Three black teenagers': anger as Google image search shows police mugshots.

The outrage towards Google as a result of those searches makes sense if a person isn’t aware of the nature of search engine optimisation (SEO), algorithms, alt tagging and stock photography.But once you have that knowledge, it enables you to direct your outrage more accurately. In short, Google doesn’t produce or tag the images themselves. Google is a search engine; search engines collect data from the internet. The most popular and most accurate search results make their way to the top. Websites and companies use SEO to get their images, products and articles to the top of the search engine. So you, the viewer, can see them.

Alt tags are the descriptive words attached to an image or article by its producer, ie, a human, and Google uses these alt tags to bring you “accurate” results. For this particular search the images that appear tend to come from two sources: stock photography and news sites.

Stock photography involves a photographer taking generic images of models and then tagging the images in order to sell them to advertising companies. Black people make up 13% of the US population and 3% of the British population. That means there are far more white people in each population, which means far more companies potentially looking to buy images of smiling white teens. The demographic breakdown of society isn’t, in itself, racist. However, the fact that companies don’t think white people would buy their products if they had black models advertising them seems like a reflection of society’s prejudices. For instance, when the US clothing brand Old Navy used an interracial family in its advertising, it was bombarded with racist tweets.

Whenever a news site publishes an article writers will describe the pictures in the caption and alt text, and these news pictures form the source of many of the “negative” images and mugshots that appear. So, if a story is about a white or black teenager committing a crime the image which accompanies it may well be associated with the phrase “black/white teenager”.

News organisations want page views, and sadly many see the promotion of fear as a great way to reach a big audience. In western countries one of the fears some seek to exploit is the perception of black men as “dangerous”. This perception is evident if you compare the media’s depiction of young black men Tamir Rice and Trayvon Martin, who were 12 and 17 respectively when they were shot dead, and that of Brock Turner, 20, who has just been convicted of sexual assault. The two black teenagers were depicted as criminals and their deaths were blamed on themselves. This narrative was supported by images chosen to portray them with the “young black thug” stereotype. Turner has been depicted as the wholesome white swimming star with a bright future ahead of him – except for the moment he decided to try to rape an unconscious woman. The media portrayed him with a smiling college photo rather than his mugshot.

A study by the US campaign group Color of Change found that black people account for 51% of those arrested for violent crime in New York City. However, the arrests of black people receive 75% of the news coverage. Why? Because a calculation has been made – even if subconsciously or inadvertently – that these stories are of particular interest to a news audience.

So, is Google racist? No. But society is still racist. Not in the same way as the obvious and profound segregation seen in the US before the civil rights movement. But in more subtle, insidious ways, manifested through advertising, the media, film and police.

We have to accept that computers and search engines do not think for themselves. They are a reflection of their creators, and in the case of search engines, a reflection of those who use them – us. Negative images of black teenagers aren’t at the top of the search results because Google is racist, but because society reflects our institutional and subconscious prejudices.

If people want to see positive images of black young people they are going to have to start writing, searching, reading and sharing them. This is the only way to change the negative perception of black teenagers, and black people.

Response: 

This article is basically talking about how Google is deemed racist after someone posted a video of a google search that he did as he compared the images that pop up when he typed 'three black teenagers' vs 'three white teenagers'. Upon doing this Google search-- mugshots of three angry black people where revealed while the white people picture were three happy looking teenagers. The article clearly explains that Google itself is just a search engine and therefore picks up on what people post the most; which is whites as happy and successful and blacks as criminals and so society should be blamed for being racist.

 In my opinion the author makes an excellent point, however, I still question whether Google is racist because there are several success stories of black people, maybe it could be because Google is an American company and as mentioned the white population is larger. But, Google is also a worldwide company and I don't see how they can blame it on society when they could easily use a filter to present more accurate information. And along with that, besides the stereotypical and racial slur condemning  blacks as criminals there are other, if you will, positive stereotypes that could have been portrayed such as black people and athleticism. 

The author, Antoine Allen is clearly biased towards Google because he mentions in a negative tone how the video was posted 'without any explanation' and he consistently defends Google saying that it only a search engine that cannot think for itself. However,I would be curious about that remark since Google has no problem remembering random holiday dates, and adding interesting facts for all its followers to be distracted by when the Google tab is opened. On the other hand, I also wonder why anyone would waste their time posting the video of such a controversial google search when it is quite obvious that all societies consist of racism and hence should not be shocking to public to view tan criticize it mercilessly.

Works Cited

Allen, Antoine. "The 'three Black Teenagers' Search Shows It Is Society, Not Google, That Is Racist | Antoine Allen." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 10 June 2016. Web. 13 June 2016.

Donald Trump accused of 'hypocricy' over twitter tribute to Muhammad Ali

Donald Trump has been accused of “hypocrisy” for his tributes to Muhammad Al, as Bernie Sanders criticised those who praise the boxing legend while being "prejudiced against Muslims in this country".

After publically calling for all Muslims to be banned from entering the US, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate sparked a political row by tweeting: “Muhammad Ali is dead at 74! A truly great champion and a wonderful guy. He will be missed by all!”

Mr Trump and Ali had a relationship going back at least 35 years, with Ali attending the businessman’s second wedding in 2005, and their paths crossed at countless charity events.

Asked about the statement on Saturday, Mr Trump said he did not “believe that was about me”. “He never mentioned the name or anything like that,” he said, adding that if it were about him, Ali “would have mentioned the name”.

Adding to his online tribute, Mr Trump said of Ali: “He was two people. In the ring, he was fierce, and outside of the ring, he was one of the nicest guys you could ever meet.” He added that he was an “amazing poet”, “so generous”, and a “terrific guy”.

Nonetheless, followers on Twitter were quick to contrast Ali’s devotion to Islam with Mr Trump’s ban on Muslims.

David Hobby asked if Ali would have received a “special exemption from your Muslim ban” – like the one Mr Trump offered to Sadiq Khan upon his election as London Mayor.

And the comedian Brian Gaar said, simply, “[Donald Trump], you are the epitome of everything he despised.”

Others pointed to a tweet Mr Trump posted in the wake of a speech by Barack Obama on the San Bernardino shootings. In it, the businessman appeared to suggest he wasn’t aware of any Muslim “sport heroes”.

The President had urged people in the US to rise above an Islamaphobic reaction to the terrorist incident saying “Muslims-Americans are our friends, neighbours and sports heroes”.

Mr Trump reacted: “Obama said in his speech that Muslims are our sports heroes. What sport is he talking about, and who? Is Obama profiling?

Mr Sanders, who still entertains hopes of being the presidential rival opposite Mr Trump, explicitly called out those who praise Ali while condemning Muslims.

He said in an LA press conference: "I’ve been all over this country and I’m talking to Muslim people who say, ‘You know, Bernie, our kids are now afraid.’

"I say to those people, one of the great American heroes in modern American history was Muhammad Ali, a very proud Muslim.

He added: "Don’t tell me how much you love Muhammad Ali and yet you’re going to be prejudiced against Muslims in this country."

Responding to Mr Trump on Twitter, Sam Heughan suggested that maybe Ali “would not be allowed in the country under your proposals”.

Again speaking on Saturday, Mr Trump said the post did not mean he was unaware of any Muslim sports stars.

“I know who they are. I mean, look, Muhammad Ali is somebody that I’ve liked for a long time — and I know he’s Muslim.

“All I’m saying is, ‘I’d like [Obama] to name them because I agree there are some. That’s not a knock by any stretch of the imagination.’

                                                        Works Cited

              Withnall, Adam. "Donald Trump Accused of 'hypocrisy' over Twitter Tribute to Muhammad Ali." The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, 6 June 2016. Web. 08 June 2016.                                                                                        

                                                         Response

  This article is talking about Donald Trump’s tribute to Muhammad Ali and his xenophobic attitude towards Muslims. Donald Trump is known for his very blunt and racist comments towards the ‘diverse America’ and yet trying to gain popularity at the same time; in this case people have seen the contradiction in his statements after he posted on Twitter his condolences to Ali stating him as ‘truly a great champion’ and a ‘terrific guy’. It brought to light his Muslim ban and questioned whether Ali was exempt from his Islamophobia tendencies. Along with that Donald Trump stated that Muslims can never be ‘sport heroes’ and when questioned about Ali, he could only reply that Ali was a good friend and he didn’t include him in the statement that he had originally made, “All I’m saying is, ‘I’d like [Obama] to name them because I agree there are some. That’s not a knock by any stretch of the imagination.’ In my opinion, this is a foreshadow of what it would be like to have Donald Trump as president—endlessly contradicting himself and stirring confusion and anger in people’s minds. I think it was wrong of him to make such harsh and xenophobic comments towards the Muslim religion and the people definitely have a right to be angry. The author showed little to no bias, and it was very well-written.