A view from the bridge Essay Example for Free

A view from the bridge Essay All my life Ive been trying to create a blissful loving environment, in my house. All my expectations of life for my family would very probably have come true. However since the day that Marco and Rodolfo arrived all this has changed. A tense environment is what reigns in this house due to our different points of view.  I can accept that I am a bit confused about them hosting in this house but its very difficult for me to seem inferior to them. I think that Marco is a good person, he likes to collaborate in some house work, and he is an intelligent man with an amazing future. On the other hand Rodolfo is completely different, he has blonde hair, likes to sew dresses, doesnt know to fight and sings Paper Doll, its impossible to have a good impression of him. I think he doesnt want us to know he is a sissy because he is playing with the feelings of my family and he is trying to trick someone. When Rodolfo arrived I thought he was a normal person but it was annoying and shocking when I realized he wasnt right. He is invading my house and trying to impose new rules and authority, that is unacceptable. I want him to leave my house and let me continue the life I had before we met him. It was such a perfect life when we knew Catherine was going to grow in a disciplined manner with a perfect assured future but now he is spoiling her and ruining the expectations that I had for her future. Catherine is a very sweet girl and I love her. Thats why I protect her always and I cant accept the fact of her being with him. I dont know what Catherine likes about Rodolfo; shes unwise in her decision for the first time. Its even harder for me to assume that she is planning to live with him for the rest of her life. I have been taking care of her since she was a little girl, that is why I am nervous about her future and I feel responsible for the consequences. This is why I cant let grant her free will on her future. I think Rodolfo is playing with her feelings and taking advantage of her, his real interest in her is to obtain his legal American papers. For obtaining these papers he just needs to marry an American lady and this is just what hes doing. I know Im not Catherines father and she can take her decisions, but I want the best for her and the best is not beside Rodolfo. Some days ago I went to a lawyers office to ask him for help. He is called Alfieri but unfortunately we couldnt find a form of getting rid of Rodolfo. There is no proof of him wanting to obtain legal papers from Catherine. I had the idea of telling the truth about him being an illegal immigrant but soon I realized other members of the Italian community would have killed me for doing that. Alfieri told me that I should let Catherine choose her future and if she wants to stay with Rodolfo, I should let her do that. If Alfieri cant help me to get rid of that immigrant, I will have to solve this thing myself, the problem is that I still dont know how. My relationship with Beatrice has also been affected since they came. It is getting worse all the time and all of this is Rodolfos fault. I have to pay extra attention in Rodolfo so that he doesnt over step the mark with my niece. That is why Im letting my relationship fall apart. If this continues being as it is I will have to make a radical change and get rid of him because the last thing Im willing is to let the mutual love between Beatrice and me finish here. Some days ago I was trying to get proof to show my family that Rodolfo is gay. I started fighting with him and everyone noticed that he boxed like a girl; however none of them paid attention in that. After this Marco challenged me by lifting a chair from the lower part of the leg but I couldnt understand his idea about this. I think the real force of somebody can be measured by fighting. Unfortunately nobody in my family also believes this.  I am still finding a way of getting rid of Rodolfo. Meanwhile I will try to convince Catherine that he is not the best man for her. Maybe the only solution is to snitch on him but its very risky. In my inside I know that everything Im doing is of good will, for the future of my niece and to recuperate our prosperous loving family.

Civil Disobedience and the Abusive Power of Government Essay -- Thorea

Civil Disobedience and the Abusive Power of Government In response to the annexation of Texas in 1845 by the United States, Henry David Thoreau's wrote the essay, Civil Disobedience.   Thoreau felt that this purely economic move by the United States expedited the Civil War, which he, and many Americans, disapproved of.   In his essay, Thoreau argues that government should not be in control of the people and that the people should be able to rule themselves freely however they please.   In addition, he clearly states and points out that in many instances it is best when individual rights take priority over state authority.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Very often, the best authors, whether it be of a novel or an essay, clearly state their opinions and facts using various literary techniques and devices.   From reading other Thoreau works, such as excerpts from Walden and Excursions, I was able to infer that he has his own unique, unmatched writing style.   Most ordinary and banal writers start their essays with long, tedious descriptions of the point they are trying to convey.   But like all great writers and thinkers, Thoreau begins his essay with a strong, captivating sentence: "That government is best which governs least" (222).   Thoreau's opening line grabs and lets the reader know what topic(s) the essay will be discussing.   As it turns out, this opening sentence is the basis for the rest of his essay as he encourages individuals to take responsibility for keeping the government in constant check.   He believes that the best way for a country and its people to survive is if individuals are willing to exert control over the government and not be ruled like sheep.   Part of Thoreau's writing style includes using examples to justify his op... ...are fighting for.   When he talks about the evils of slavery, Thoreau states that "When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote" (226).   As a dedicated abolitionist, he believes that only individuals hold the power to end slavery.   He thinks that you cannot depend on the government to stop slavery because it thinks as a whole, and not as individuals.   As he concludes his essay, Thoreau's main point is that individual power should be greater than that of the government. Thoreau's observation, "That government is best which governs least" continues to be as true today as the day it was written.

Parents Are the Primary Cause of Disturbed and Disturbing Behaviour in Their Children Essay

‘Parents are the primary cause of disturbed and disturbing behaviour in their children’ this essay will look at evidence for and against this claim. It will start by explaining the meaning of the phrase ‘disturbed and ‘disturbing behaviour’ and then move on to explain the role that parents play in the cause of ‘disturbed’ or ‘disturbing’ behaviour within their children. In the past theorists would have agreed with this phrase, having good evidence to support their theories. Nevertheless this is now considered by many to be a naive view of a child’s development. The essay will look at three different models, the medical model, the social environment model and the transactional model. It will conclude by looking at the role of the child in the process and looking at whether there is conclusive evidence to support this claim. There is a large minority of children who find certain circumstances difficult to adjust to and because of this; their behaviour is considered by others to be difficult, withdrawn, disturbed or even bizarre. Parents of these children may describe them as being ‘hard to manage’, ‘demanding’, and ‘aggressive’. People who work with these children for example teachers or health care workers could consider them to have ‘behavioural problems’. The expression ‘disturbed’ and ‘disturbing behaviour’ is very unclear, it can have several meanings at one time. One suggestion could be that the child is the victim of incompetent or abusive parenting. Then another suggestion is that the child is the cause of the problem with behaviour that needs to be contained. What is meant by a ‘problem’? ‘Childhood signs of psychological abnormality are, by and large, manifestations of behavioural, cognitive and emotional responses common to all children. Their quality of being dysfunctional lies in their inappropriate intensity, frequency and persistence (Herbert, 1991, p. 13). Children are said to present problems when their behaviour falls out of the range of tolerance and age-appropriateness. That range maybe more or less wide depending both on the context and the attitudes of those making such judgments. To put it bluntly, many children are only seen as having problems when they become a problem to others. So, whose problem is it? Where does the problem reside (Chapter, 2, p. 63)? Individuals have different perspectives of the ‘problem’. From the medical view the problem might be described in terms of ‘disorders’ which locates the problem firmly within the child as part of their psychological make-up. The approach to treatment was to prescribe medication or psychotherapy. This model was very prevalent during the 40’s and 50’s which came under much criticism. Emotional and behavioural difficulties were not considered within the medical model. The social environment model was careful not to put labels like ‘disturbed’ on to the child. As the medical model focuses the problem within the child the social environment model sees the problem as being outside the child for example a poor home situation, incompetent or abusive parental care or inadequate discipline at school. Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation is a good illustration of this perspective, which was highly influential in the 1950’s in the construction of post-war social policy on the functions of the family and especially the role of women, as mothers, in promoting children’s mental health (Chapter, 2, p. 8). Referring to children and their behaviour there is a very common phrase used in everyday life ‘I blame it on the parents’. This spanned many generations believing that the explanation for children’s bad or disruptive behaviour lay firmly within the home environment and the quality of parenting. Believing this removed the attention from the child themselves and the role that they might play in their behaviour and it also removed the attention from society and its responsibility for the welfare of the child. Most importantly, this belief is not just a feature of a particular ideology; it has become a foundation stone for some psychological theories about the processes of typical and disturbed development (Chapter 2 Pg 69). Kessen (1979) alerts us to the fact that some ideologies masquerade as psychological knowledge, information which is extremely important when taking into account research links between mother and child relationships and the development of disturbed behaviour. Many studies have suggested that disturbed/disturbing behaviour in children can be related to difficulties in the relationships with their mothers, which may reflect the mothers’ mental states (Murray and Stein, 1991; Garver, 1997; Wakschlag and Hans, 1999; Halligan et al. , 2004). Maternal responsiveness is important to an infant as is a mothers’ mind-mindedness (the ability to know what is going on in their infants mind) but this sensitive response can be affected by different factors. One example would be postnatal depression. A study done by Murray (1992) found that 18-month-old infants whose mothers had suffered from postnatal depression were more likely to be assessed as ‘insecurely attached’ in the ‘strange situation’. This was more prevalent in boys. Insecure attachment has been consistently linked with psychological difficulties (Greenberg et al. , 1993; Sund and Wichstrom, 2002). Murray also found that children of depressed mothers were more likely to have difficulties such as temper tantrums, eating problems, have trouble sleeping and be over clinging. This could suggest that infant temperament may also be causing problems. However not all depressed mothers develop difficulties in their relationships with their offspring (Cox et al. , 1987). Although maternal depression is one pathway to behavioural difficulties there is another; research has been carried out which traces the origins of antisocial behaviour to harsh and inconsistent discipline and ineffective parental control strategies which unwittingly reinforce the child’s negative, coercive behaviour (chapter, 2, P. 73). In disturbed relationships the people involved not only behave towards each other but they also think about each other. They both have an internal working model of the relationship which means that the cognitive as well as the social and emotional dimensions of the relationship need to be taken into account. In an Australian large-scale longitudinal study they found that mothers who had negative attitudes towards their infants at 6 months old were more likely to report behaviour problems when their children were 5 years old, especially for boys (Bor et al. 2003). The fathers also have a role in care giving. A father’s child-rearing beliefs, working hours, personality and age predicted fathers’ care giving activities. Fathers were more likely to assume care giving responsibilities if they had more positive personalities and were younger. They also assumed more care giving responsibilities when they contributed lower proportions of family income and were employed for fewer hours. Also marital intimacy predicted fathers’ care giving activities with fathers more involved when mothers reported more imitate marriages (Research summary 3, chapter, 2, p. 6). Much of the research which has explored fathers’ roles in shaping children’s behaviour has focused on the relationship between antisocial behaviour in fathers and children’s development. There is now strong evidence that there is a significant relationship between the two (Deklyen et al. 1998; Margolin and Gordis, 2000; Jaffee et al. 2003). Absence or low involvement of the father has been shown to be associated with poor outcomes for children (Scott, 1998; Carlson and Corcoran, 2001). Research shows that a father’s involvement at age 7 protected against psychological maladjustment in adolescents from disrupted families. For boys, early father involvement protected against later delinquency as measured by the child’s history of trouble with the police (Flouri and Buchanan, 2002) and for girls, father involvement at aged 16 protected against subsequent psychological distress (Flouri and Buchanan, 2003). Many studies have focused only on the amount of father involvement, neglecting the quality of the relationship (Research summary 4 pg 77). Although it is important to acknowledge the role of the parent’s involvement in their children’s adjustment we need to recognise that the child also has a role in the process. Attitudes about some styles of parenting as being the cause of atypical child behaviour, reflects a ‘social environment’ perception seeing the child as a passive victim of circumstances. Traditional questioning of the effects of environmental variables on children’s development and adjustment has been challenged through various researches. In a report from a study carried out by Sears et al. they offered a ‘social environment’ interpretation, arguing that it was the combination of parent’s permissiveness and punitiveness that caused their children to become aggressive. A highly permissive style means that children do not have clear guidance on appropriate behaviour, where as a highly punitive style means that, at the same time, they may have been frustrated by bouts of severe punishment (chapter, 2, p. 79). Bell (1968) argued persuasively for changing the direction of effect. He maintained that it was the child’s temperamental characteristics that determined how aggressive he or she was and that it is the parental disciplinary approach that attempts to adapt the child’s behaviour. Johnston et al. ’s research illustrates the dangers of presuming particular directions of causality. It would be wrong to assume that environmental risk factors would be in some sense causing children’s problems. There could be some circumstances where the characteristics of the child could add to family stress, changing parental attitudes and influencing maternal behaviour. The relative influence of parenting behaviour versus child behaviour will vary, according to the characteristics of the child and of the parent and the circumstances affecting both (chapter, 2, p. 80). It is clear that children can have both direct and indirect influences on their environment. Children and environments can also share transactional relationships. Consider a child who is easily upset and also hard to soothe, the so called ‘difficult’ temperament. Such a child with a parent who has a good social support network an a well-provided home and is relatively easily able to ‘contain’ the child’s distress and minimise upsetting experiences, may end up experiencing only brief and infrequent periods of upset and evoking a lot of supportive, sensitive care giving from ‘the environment’. The same child, however, might evoke a very different kind of care giving in a more stressed household with a parent who is less able to behave sensitively and protectively and reacts to the child’s distress in overly emotional ways. Thus environments can differ in their reactivity to children’s behaviour (Method and Skills Handbook pg 41). Chess and Thomson introduced the concept of ‘goodness of fit’ to describe the transactional relationship between child and environment. As they state, ‘goodness-of-fit results when the child’s capacities, motivations and temperament are adequate to master the demands, expectations and opportunities of the environment’ (Chess and Thomas, 1984, p. 80). Looking at the evidence presented above it is inconclusive that parents are the primary cause of disturbed and disturbing behaviour in their children; it is important to reaffirm that there are multiple pathways to disturbed behaviour and that maternal and paternal behaviour represent just two among a constellation of social context, family and parental risk factors that have been found to be associated with childhood difficulties (chapter, 2, p. 77). The evidence presented by Murray and Stein, 1991; Garver, 1997; Wakschlag and Hans, 1999; Halligan et al. , 2004 stating that disturbed/disturbing behaviour in children can be related to difficulties in the relationships with their mothers, is refuted by Cox et al. saying, not all depressed mothers develop difficulties in their relationships with their offspring. The issue is not about whether the direction of effect runs from child to mother or from mother to child; it is about their mutual influence as partners in a relationship. Children as well as parents play an active role in the process of development (chapter, 2, p. 80). In summary any particular ‘problems’ that a child might present need to be understood in terms of the demands of the context, the history of similar experiences faced by the child and the history of the adult who finds the child’s behaviour disturbing (chapter, 2, p. 64).

The School-to-Prison Pipeline Definition and Evidence

The school-to-prison pipeline is a process through which students are pushed out of schools and into prisons. In other words, it is a process of criminalizing youth that is carried out by disciplinary policies and practices within schools that put students into contact with law enforcement. Once they are put into contact with law enforcement  for disciplinary reasons, many are then pushed out of the educational environment and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems. The key policies and practices that created and now maintain the school-to-prison pipeline include zero tolerance policies that mandate harsh punishments for both minor and major infractions, exclusion of students from schools through punitive  suspensions and expulsions, and the presence of police on campus as School Resource Officers (SROs). The school-to-prison pipeline is supported by budgetary decisions made by the U.S. government. From 1987-2007, funding for incarceration more than doubled while funding for higher education was raised by just 21 percent, according to PBS. In addition, evidence shows that the school-to-prison pipeline primarily captures and affects Black students, which mirrors the over-representation of this group in Americas prisons and jails. How It Works The two key forces that produced and now maintain the school-to-prison pipeline are the use of zero tolerance policies that mandate exclusionary punishments and the presence of SROs on campuses. These policies and practices became common following a deadly spate of school shootings across the U.S. in the 1990s. Lawmakers and educators believed they would help to ensure safety on school campuses. Having a zero tolerance policy means that a school has zero tolerance for any kind of misbehavior or violation of school rules, no matter how minor, unintentional, or subjectively defined it may be. In a school with a zero tolerance policy, suspensions and expulsions are normal and common ways of dealing with student misbehavior. Impact of Zero Tolerance Policies Research shows that the implementation of zero tolerance policies has led to significant increases in suspensions and expulsions. Citing a study by Michie, education scholar Henry Giroux observed that, over a four-year period, suspensions increased by 51 percent and expulsions by nearly 32 times after zero tolerance policies were implemented in Chicago schools. They jumped from just 21 expulsions in the 1994–95 school year to 668 in 1997–98. Similarly, Giroux cites a report from the Denver Rocky Mountain News that found that expulsions increased by more than 300 percent in the citys public schools between 1993 and 1997. Once suspended or expelled, data show that students are less likely to complete high school, more than twice as likely to be arrested while on forced leave from school, and  more likely to be in contact with the juvenile justice system during the year that follows the leave. In fact, sociologist David Ramey found, in a nationally representative study, that experiencing school punishment before the age of 15 is associated with contact with the criminal justice system for boys. Other research shows that students who do not complete high school are more likely to be incarcerated. How SROs Facilitate the Pipeline In addition to adopting harsh zero tolerance policies, most schools across the country now have police present on campus on a daily basis and most states require educators to report student misbehavior to law enforcement. The presence of SROs on campus means that students have contact with law enforcement from a young age. Though their intended purpose is to protect students and ensure safety on school campuses, in many instances, the police handling of disciplinary issues escalates minor, non-violent infractions into violent, criminal incidents that have negative impacts on students. By studying the distribution of federal funding for SROs and rates of school-related arrests, criminologist Emily G. Owens found that the presence of SROs on campus causes law enforcement agencies to learn of more crimes and increases the likelihood of arrest for those crimes among children under the age of 15. Christopher A. Mallett, a legal scholar and expert on the school-to-prison pipeline, reviewed evidence of the pipelines existence and concluded that the increased use of zero tolerance policies and police...in the schools has exponentially increased arrests and referrals to the juvenile courts. Once they have made contact with the criminal justice system, data show that students are unlikely to graduate high school. Overall, what over a decade of empirical research on this topic proves is that zero tolerance policies, punitive disciplinary measures like suspensions and expulsions, and the presence of SROs on campus have led to more and more students being pushed out of schools and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems. In short, these policies and practices created the school-to-prison pipeline and sustain it today. But why exactly do these policies and practices make students more likely to commit crimes and end up in prison? Sociological theories and research help answer this question. Institutions and Authority Figures Criminalize Students One key sociological theory of deviance, known as labeling theory, contends that  people come to identify and behave in ways that reflect how others label them. Applying this theory to the school-to-prison pipeline  suggests that being labeled as a bad kid by school authorities and/or SROs, and being treated in a way that reflects that label (punitively), ultimately leads kids to internalize the label and behave in ways that make it real through action. In other words, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sociologist Victor Rios found just that in his studies of the effects of policing on the lives of Black and Latino boys in the San Francisco Bay Area. In his first book,  Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino  Boys, Rios revealed through in-depth interviews and ethnographic observation  how increased surveillance and attempts at controlling at-risk or deviant youth ultimately foster the very criminal behavior they are intended to prevent. In a social context in which social institutions label deviant youth as bad or criminal, and in doing so, strip them of dignity, fail to acknowledge their struggles, and do not treat them with respect, rebellion and criminality are acts of resistance. According to Rios, then, it is social institutions and their authorities that do the work of criminalizing youth. Exclusion from School, Socialization into Crime The sociological concept of socialization also helps shed light on why the school-to-prison pipeline exists. After family, school is the second most important and formative site of socialization for children and adolescents where they learn social norms for behavior and interaction and receive moral guidance from authority figures. Removing students from schools as a form of discipline takes them out of this formative environment and important process, and it removes them from the safety and structure that the school provides. Many students who express behavioral issues at school are acting out in response to stressful or dangerous conditions in their homes or neighborhoods, so removing them from school and returning them to a problematic or unsupervised home environment hurts rather than helps their development. While removed from school during a suspension or expulsion, youth are more likely to spend time  with others removed for similar reasons, and with those who are already engaged in criminal activity. Rather than being socialized by education-focused peers and educators, students who have been suspended or expelled will be socialized more by peers in similar situations. Because of these factors, the punishment of removal from school creates the conditions for the development of criminal behavior. Harsh Punishment Further, treating students as criminals when they have done nothing more than act out in minor, non-violent ways weakens the authority of educators, police, and other members of the juvenile and criminal justice sectors. The punishment does not fit the crime and so it suggests that those in positions of authority are not trustworthy, fair, and are even immoral. Seeking to do the opposite, authority figures who behave this way can actually teach students that they and their authority are not to be respected or trusted, which fosters conflict between them and students. This conflict then often leads to further exclusionary and damaging punishment experienced by students. The Stigma of Exclusion Finally, once excluded from school and labeled bad or criminal, students often find themselves stigmatized by their teachers, parents, friends, parents of friends, and other community members. They experience confusion, stress, depression, and anger as a result of being excluded from school and from being treated harshly and unfairly by those in charge. This makes it difficult to stay focused on school and hinders motivation to study and desire to return to school and to succeed academically. Cumulatively, these social forces work to discourage academic studies, hinder academic achievement and even completion of high school,  and push negatively labeled youth onto criminal paths and into the criminal justice system. Black and American Indian  Students Face Harsher Punishments and Higher Rates of Suspension and Expulsion While Black people are just 13 percent of the total U.S. population,  they comprise the greatest percentage of people in prisons and jails—40 percent. Latinos are also over-represented in prisons and jails, but by far less. While they comprise 16 percent of the U.S. population they represent 19 percent of those in prisons and jails. In contrast, white people make up just 39 percent of the incarcerated population, despite the fact that they are the majority race in the U.S., comprising 64 percent of the national population. Data from across the U.S. that illustrate punishment and school-related arrests show that the racial disparity in incarceration begins with the school-to-prison pipeline. Research shows that both schools with large Black populations and underfunded schools, many of which are majority-minority schools, are more likely to employ zero tolerance policies. Nationwide, Black and American Indian students face far greater rates of suspension and expulsion than do white students. In addition, data compiled by the National Center for Education Statistics show that while the percentage of white students suspended fell from 1999 to 2007, the percentage of Black and Hispanic  students suspended rose. A variety of studies and metrics show that Black and American Indian students are punished more frequently and more harshly for the same, mostly  minor, offenses than are white students. Legal and educational scholar Daniel J. Losen points out that, though there is no evidence that these students misbehave more frequently or more severely than do white students, research from across the country shows that teachers and administrators punish them more—especially Black students. Losen cites one study that found that the disparity is greatest among non-serious offenses like cell phone use, violations of dress code, or subjectively defined offenses like being disruptive or displaying affection. Black first-time offenders in these categories are suspended at rates that are double or more than those for white first-time offenders. According to the U.S. Department of Educations Office for Civil Rights, about  5 percent of white students have been suspended during their schooling experience, compared with 16 percent of Black students. This means Black students are more than three times as likely to be suspended than their white peers. Though they comprise just 16 percent of the total enrollment of public school students, Black students comprise 32 percent of in-school suspensions and 33 percent of out-of-school suspensions.  Troublingly, this disparity begins as early as preschool.  Nearly half of all preschool students suspended are Black, though they represent just 18 percent of total preschool enrollment. American Indians also face inflated suspension rates. They represent 2 percent of out-of-school suspensions, which is 4 times greater than the percentage of total enrolled students that they comprise. Black students are also far more likely to experience multiple suspensions. Though they are just 16 percent of the public school enrollment, they are a full 42 percent of those suspended multiple times. This means that their presence in the population of students with multiple suspensions is more than 2.6 times greater than their presence in the total population of students. Meanwhile, white students are under-represented among those with multiple suspensions, at just 31 percent. These disparate rates play out not only within schools but also across districts on the basis of race. Data shows that in the Midlands area of South Carolina, suspension figures in a mostly-Black school district are double what they are in a mostly-white one. There is also evidence that shows that the overly harsh punishment of Black students is concentrated in the American south, where the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow exclusionary policies and violence against Black people manifest in everyday life. Of the 1.2 million Black students who were suspended nationwide during the 2011-2012 school year, more than half were located in 13 southern states. At the same time, half of all Black students expelled were from these states. In many of the school districts located in these states, Black students comprised 100 percent of students suspended or expelled in a given school year. Among this population, students with disabilities are even more likely to experience exclusionary discipline. With the exception of Asian and Latino students, research shows that more than one out of four boys of color with disabilities... and nearly one in five girls of color with disabilities receives an out-of-school suspension. Meanwhile, research shows that white students who express behavioral issues in school are more likely to be treated with medicine, which reduces their chances of ending up in jail or prison after acting out in school. Black Students Face Higher Rates of School-Related Arrests and Removal from School System Given that there is a connection between the experience of suspensions and engagement with the criminal justice system, and given that racial bias within education and among police is well-documented, it is no surprise that Black and Latino students comprise 70 percent of those who face referral to law enforcement or school-related arrests. Once they are in contact with the criminal justice system, as the statistics on the school-to-prison pipeline cited above demonstrate, students are far less likely to complete high school. Those that do may do so in alternative schools for students labeled as juvenile delinquents, many of which are unaccredited and offer lower quality education than they would receive in public schools. Others who are placed in juvenile detention centers or prison may receive no educational resources at all. The racism embedded in the school-to-prison pipeline is a significant factor in producing the reality that Black and Latino students are far less likely than their white peers to complete high school and that Black, Latino, and American Indian people are much more likely than white people to end up in jail or prison. What all of these data show us is that not only is the school-to-prison pipeline very real, but also, it is fueled by racial bias and produces racist outcomes that cause great harm to the lives, families, and communities of people of color across the United States.