CRJ499 Undergraduate Capstone In Criminal JusticeWeek 7 Assignm

CRJ499: Undergraduate Capstone In Criminal Justice
Week 7 Assignment 2 - The Rights of Citizens
Overview
It is important to understand your responsibilities as a criminal
justice professional when engaging with citizens. This
assignment is broken into three parts and you must complete
each part of the assignment.
Each part includes a text or video scenario to which you will
respond by writing a 1–2-page paper for each scenario that
examines specific information regarding the events using your
knowledge of the United States Constitution.
Instructions
Part 1: Law Enforcement Officer Arrives at the Scene Scenario
An 18-year-old high school student walks to class carrying a
backpack. He is stopped by the school security guard and his
backpack is searched. A loaded handgun is discovered. The
school security guard takes the student to the principal’s office.
The principal calls the local police. In the state where the
school is located, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon
without a permit and all weapons are prohibited on campus.
Officer Smith arrives at the school approximately 10 minutes
later. Officer Smith takes a statement from the school security
guard and searches the student’s backpack. He seizes the gun
and places the student under arrest. Officer Smith then asks the
student if he would like to make a statement to explain why he
was carrying a concealed weapon on campus.
The student replies, “What weapon? That’s not my backpack
and I never saw that gun before.”
The student is then transported to the local jail. However, on
the way to the local jail, Officer Smith asks the student again
why he brought a loaded gun on campus. The student admits
that it was his gun and stated that he needed it for protection.
Upon arrival at the local jail, the student is booked. Six hours
later, the student is interviewed by a Detective Columbo. The

detective reads the student his Miranda warning and asks the
student if he would like to make a statement.
The student replies, “No, I want a lawyer.”
Write a 1–2 page paper in which you:
1. Examine the constitutional amendment or amendments that
would relate to this situation.
2. Outline the appropriate procedures you would need to follow
to comply with the associated amendments to ensure
admissibility of evidence.
3. Evaluate the officer’s actions and determine whether his
search, the student’s confession, and the weapon discovery were
lawful and/or admissible. Provide a rationale for your opinion.
4. Use at least two sources to support your writing. Choose
sources that are credible, relevant, and appropriate. Cite each
source listed on your source page at least one time within your
assignment. For help with research, writing, and citation, access
the library or review library guides.
. Consider using Cornell Law's LII U.S. Constitution Web page.
Note: Wikipedia and similar websites do not qualify as
academic resources.
Part 2: Arrest and Trial Scenario
Tyler, a well-known escort service provider in his community,
is suspected of the murder of an escort who worked for him.
The local police meet Tyler at the airport when he arrives from
a trip to Cancun. He is arrested for his suspected connection to
the murder of the escort. The police do not inform Tyler of his
right to remain silent or his right to counsel. They immediately
begin to interrogate him. They continue to question him until he
admits that he knew the prostitute and that she worked for him.
He also admits that he was with her the night of the alleged
murder. Tyler is transported to the local jail and booked. The
prosecutor files charges of first degree murder against Tyler.
Tyler does not waive his rights to a speedy trial. He asks that an
attorney be appointed and demands a trial by jury.
1. Examine the constitutional amendment or amendments that

would relate to this situation.
2. Identify and discuss four elements of arrest.
3. Describe the appropriate procedures to comply with Tyler’s
rights to due process.
4. Examine any consequences that might occur if his right to
due process is violated.
Part 3: Correctional Officers and Rights of Inmates
Hudson v. McMillian is a U.S. Supreme court case involving the
excessive force resulting in a claim of cruel and unusual
punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The court’s decision
resulted in the five-pronged Hudson test, also known as
PANAM:
· (P)erceived threat by correctional officers;
· (A)ny and all efforts to de-escalate;
· (N)eed for the application of force;
· (A)mount of force that was used and;
· (M)edical issues, and extent of any injuries, that are used to
evaluate cases involving any use of force before trial and after
conviction.
The test helps the courts determine whether correctional
officers’ actions were reasonable, necessary, and conducted in
good faith.
Watch the video scenario and take notes as you watch: CJ in
Practice Constitutional Issue: Deprivation of Inmates’ Rights
1. Summarize the events of this scenario and the persons
involved.
2. Examine the constitutional amendments related to this
situation and whether the rights of the inmates in this scenario
were violated. Support your opinion.
3. Determine whether the incidents pass the five-pronged

Hudson test discussed above.
4. Recommend how the sergeant should respond to the officer's
behavior. Support your response.
This course requires the use of Strayer Writing Standards. For
assistance and information, please refer to the Strayer Writing
Standards link in the left-hand menu of your course. Check with
your professor for any additional instructions.
The specific course learning outcome associated with this
assignment is:
· Make sound ethical decisions with consideration for legal
precedence, supreme court decisions, statutory laws, and
constitutional amendments.
V ALFRED KINSEY AND THE KINSEY REPORT
VERN L. B U L L O U G H
t:—..—ihe more I study the development of
modern sexuality, the more I believe
J in the importance and significance of
Alfred Kinsey. Although his research was on
Americans, it came to be a worldwide source
of information about human sexuality and
set standards for sex research everywhere. In
America and much of the world, his work was
a decisive factor in changing attitudes toward
sex. Within the field o f sexuality, he reoriented
the field, moving it away from the medical

model and medical dominance, to one encom-
passing a variety of disciplines and approaches.
In short, his work has proved revolutionary.
To understand what Kinsey wrought, one
must look at the field of sexuality when Kinsey
began his studies. One must also look briefly
at Kinsey as an individual to understand his
accomplishments.
SEX RESEARCH, 1 8 9 0 -1 9 4 0
The modern study o f sexuality began in the
nineteenth century, and these early studies
were dominated by physicians. It was assumed
that since physicians were the experts on body
functions, they should be the experts regarding
sexual activities. In a sense, this was a diver-
gence from the past, when sexuality had been
regarded almost entirely as a moral issue. And
although there were still moral issues involved,
physicians were also judged as qualified to
speak on these issues as well. Although few
physicians had any specialized knowledge on
most sexual topics, except perhaps for sexually
transmitted diseases, this did not prevent them
from speaking with authority on most aspects
of human sexuality.
Havelock Ellis, one of the dominant figures
in promoting sexual knowledge in the first
third of the twentieth century, said that he
sought a medical degree primarily because it
was the only profession in which he could safely
study sex. Inevitably, most of the so-called
experts were physicians. Equal in influence to

Ellis was Magnus Hirschfeld, another physi-
cian. Both Ellis and Hirschfeld compiled what
could be called sexual histories, as Kinsey later
compiled. Ellis, however, acquired almost all of
his histories from correspondence o f volunteers
and, as far as I know, never interviewed anyone.
Hirschfeld, later in his career, compiled many
case histories based on interviews, but early
on he depended mainly on historical data and
personal knowledge. Unfortunately, Hirschfeld
used only a small portion of his data in his pub-
lished books, and before he could complete a
comprehensive study of sexuality, his files were
destroyed by the Nazis (Bullough, 1994).
Although some of the data physicians reported
about sex [were] was gathered from their own
practices, these [data] were usually interpreted
in terms o f traditional views and were supple-
mented by historical materials or reports of
anthropologists [in order] to increase their
authenticity. Simply put, most physicians writ-
ing about sex were influenced more by the
Zeitgeist of the time rather than by any special-
ized base of knowledge. A few early physician
investigators, such as the American obstetrician
From “Alfred Kinsey and the Kinsey Report: Historical
Overview and Lasting Contributions" by Vern L. Bullough,
Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 35, Issue 2, 1998, pp. 127—131.
Copyright © 1998 Routledge, reprinted by permission
of the publisher (Taylor & Francis Ltd, http://www.tandf
.co.uk/journals).
http://www.tandf

ALFRED KINSEY AND THE KINSEY REPORT 55
Robert Latou Dickinson (Dickinson and Beam,
1931, 1934), had over 1,000 case studies, but
most had only a handful. As the twentieth
century progressed, the ordinary physician
probably was regarded as the easiest available
authority on sex, but most of the medical writ-
ings on sexual topics came from psychiatrists,
particularly those who were psychoanalytically
trained (Bullough, 1997). Unfortunately, even
the most comprehensive sex studies under-
taken by psychiatrists, such as that of George
Henry, were flawed by the assumptions of the
investigators interpreting data. For example,
they assumed that homosexuals were ill. More-
over, whether the answers to their questions
were valid for determining differences with het-
erosexuals is uncertain, as there was a lack of
any comparative study o f heterosexuals (Henry,
1941).
Still, assumptions about medical exper-
tise remained. W hen the Com m ittee for
Research in the Problems in Sex (CRPS), the
Rockefeller-funded grant-giving body oper-
ating under the umbrella of the National
Research Council, began to explore the pos-
sibilities of carrying out surveys of sexual
behavior, they first sought out physicians. For
example, Adolf Meyer of Johns Hopkins U n i-
versity was commissioned to complete a study
of attitudes of medical students, but failed
to complete his work. The only social scien-
tists funded in the first 20 years of the CRPS

were psychologists, although anthropologi-
cal consultants and members of other fields
provided occasional input. Lewis Terman, for
example, was given funds to carry out studies
on attitudes toward sex and marriage. Though
his and similar studies were valuable, they
depended on questionnaires rather than inter-
views to gather their data (Terman, Butten-
weiser, Ferguson, Johnson, and Wilson, 1938),
and the sexual part of their studies was sec-
ondary to other interests. Even though one of
the major reasons the CRPS had been created
in 1921 was to complete such general studies,
the com m ittee members were either unwilling
or unable to find a person to carry out this
kind of study. I suspect that the first factor
was more important than the second: There
is considerable evidence to indicate that the
com m ittee members were uncomfortable with
studies on actual sexual behavior and much
preferred to fund what might be called bench
(i.e., laboratory-based) scientists to social sci-
entists. I should add that this attitude was not
shared by the Rockefeller Foundation or John
D. Rockefeller, Jr.: both funded other survey
projects dealing with sex, including that o f
Katherine Bement Davis (1929).
Funding for research projects when Kinsey
began his work operated much more according
to an old-boy network than it does today. There
was little advertisement of fund availability and
individuals were invited to apply, had to be nomi-
nated to apply, or had to have a connection.
Certain universities and individuals dominated

the disbursement of the money available. To an
observer [today] examining most of the research
grants given for sex research, the relationships
look almost incestuous.
Unfortunately for the committee, sex activ-
ity could not be studied exclusively in the
laboratory or even in the field by observing
animals or gathering historical data. There had
been nongrant-supported popular studies of
sex, but their samples were not representative
and the questionnaires were poorly designed.
Moreover, in keeping with its reliance on aca-
demia, the committee seemed reluctant to give
its imprimatur to individuals conducting such
studies. What was needed was a person will-
ing to blaze new trails, dispassionately exam-
ining sex without the preconceived notions of
most of the physicians then involved in writing
about sex. The qualified individual or individu-
als needed an academic connection, preferably
one with an established reputation for scientific
studies.
56 INVESTIGATING SEXUALITY
KINSEY CO M ES O N THE SCENE
It was in this setting that Kinsey entered the
scene. He was the right person at the right
time; that is, a significant amount of money
was available for sex research and there was an
interest within the CRPS for some general kind
of survey of American sex behavior. Who was

Kinsey?
In terms o f overall qualification, Kinsey’s
best asset was that he was a bench scientisf,
a biologist with a Ph.D. from Harvard, and an
internationally known expert on gall wasps.
But he was also a broad-based scientist. Unlike
most research scientists today, who often are
part o f a team, researchers in the 1930s in the
United States were self-dedicated and carried
a major teaching load. Kinsey, for example,
simultaneously taught genera! biology, pub-
lished two editions o f a popular introductory
general biology text, two editions of a work-
book, and a general text on methods in biology,
and carried out major research. His entry into
sex seems to have been serendipitous, taking
place after he had completed his studies on gall
wasps. Professors at the University of Indiana
had discussed the possibility of an introduc-
tory cross-discipline course on marriage, then
a topic beginning to receive some attention in
academic circles. Kinsey was not only involved
in such discussions but took the lead. In 1938,
he was invited to coordinate and direct the new
course on marriage and family. As a sign of
the time, the course was taught by an all-male
faculty from a variety of disciplines, including
law, economics, sociology, philosophy, medi-
cine, and biology.
Before the appearance o f courses on mar-
riage and family, the academic discussion of
human sexuality had been confined to lec-
tures in the hygiene-type courses that had
been established on many campuses in the

second decade of the twentieth century, largely
through the efforts of the American Social
Hygiene Association. The approach to sex of
these hygiene classes was quite different from
that of the marriage and family courses, as they
generally emphasized the dangers of sexually
transmitted diseases and masturbation. In a
sense, these hygiene-type courses were con-
ceived to preserve sexual purity, whereas the
sexual portions of marriage and family courses
provided information, following the outlines of
the better sex manuals of the time.
Kinsey went even further in his discussion
o f sexuality than the sex-positive marriage
manuals, and soon clashed with Thurman
Rice, a bacteriology professor who had writ-
ten extensively on sex, primarily from the
point of view of eugenics. For many years, Rice
had delivered the sex lectures in the required
hygiene course, where the males were sepa-
rated from the females when he gave his lec-
tures. Kinsey deliberately had not included
Rice in his recruited faculty, which probably
furthered Rice’s antagonism. Rice was typi-
cal of an earlier generation o f sex educators in
that he considered moral education an essential
part of sex education. He believed and taught
that masturbation was harmful, condemned
premarital intercourse, and was fearful that
Kinsey’s course on marriage was a perversion of
academic standards. For example, he charged
Kinsey with asking some of the women stu-
dents about the length o f their clitorises.
To show that his accusations were based on

more than gossip, Rice demanded the names
of students in Kinsey’s class so that he could
verify such classroom voyeurism. Rice opposed
Kinsey’s questioning of students because he
believed that sexual behavior could not and
should not be analyzed by scientific methods
because it was a moral topic, not a scientific
one. Rice’s perspective thus was perhaps typi
cal o f the hygiene approach to sex.
Kinsey had probably been doing at least
some of the things that Rice mentioned because
he had approached sex as a taxonomist—as one
ALFRED KINSEY ANDTHE KINSEY REPORT 57
interested in classifying and describing— as a
dispassionate scientist and not as a reformer or
politician. In a sense, he was a political inno-
cent. He believed that science could speak for
itself, and he criticized his faculty colleagues
who took any kind of political stand, He
refused to join organizations that he felt had
any kind of political agenda, including the Soci-
ety for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (SSSS)
in its early years.
There is, however, much more to Kinsey’s
interest in sex than the dispassionate scien-
tist. In his personal life, he was not inhibited
about body functions. Even before starting his
course on marriage, he had sought information
about the sex life of his students. His openness
about sex (see Jones, 1997: 1997a) was what Rice

objected to.
It might well be that when Kinsey began
teaching the sex course, he was undergoing a
kind of midlife crisis, feeling that he had come
to know all he wanted to know about gall wasps
and needing to explore new fields. Sex to him
represented an unexplored new field where
comparatively little was known, and where there
was much information to be gleaned. He began
his study as he had that of gall wasps: finding
out what was known and, in the process, build-
ing up a personal library of serious books on sex
(hardly any of these had found their way into
university libraries) and reading extensively.
He also sought first-hand information by ques-
tioning his students about topics such as their
age at first premarital intercourse, frequency of
sexual activity, and number of partners.
All this gave fodder to Rice and his allies,
including a number of parents who, perhaps
at Rice’s urging, complained about the spe
cific sexual data given in the course and par-
ticularly about questions that Kinsey asked of
his students. The president of the university,
Herman Wells, a personal friend of Kinsey who
had appointed him coordinator of the course,
counseled him and gave him two options: to
continue to teach the course and give up some
of his probing of student lives, or to devote
more time to his sex research and not teach the
course. Because Kinsey had already begun to
extend his interviews off campus, the answer
was perhaps inevitable. Although Kinsey con-

tinued to teach courses in biology, his load
was reduced, and much of his life came to be
devoted to sex research.
Because Kinsey was already well connected
to the scientific establishment, his initial efforts
to study sex received encouragement from the
CRPS. He received an exploratory grant from
them in 1941, during which time he would be
evaluated as to suitability for a larger grant.
George W. Corner, a physician member and
later the chair of the CRPS, visited Kinsey as
one of the grant investigators to determine
whether Kinsey deserved further funding. He
was tremendously impressed and reported
that Kinsey was the most intense scientist he
had ever met. He added that Kinsey could talk
about little besides his research. According to
Corner (1981), Kinsey was an ideal person for a
grant to study sex:
H e was a fu ll professor, married with adolescent chil-
dren. W hile carrying on his teaching duties in the zool-
ogy department he worked every available hour, day a n d
night, traveling anywhere that people would give him
interviews. H e was training a couple o f young men in
his method o f interviewing. Dr. Yerkes a n d / subm itted
separately to his technique. I was astonished a t his skill
in eliciting the most intim ate details o f the subject’s sex
ual history. Introducing his queries gradually, he m an-
aged to convey an assurance o f complete confidentiality
by recording the answers on special sheets printed with
a grid on which he set down the information gained, by
unintelligible signs, explaining that the code h a d never
been written down a n d only his two colleagues could read
it. H is questions included subtle tricks to detect deliberate

misinformation, (p. 268)
Important to the continuation of the grant
was the support of the university administration
and its president, which Kinsey received despite
58
i n v e s t i g a t i n g s e x u a l i t y
sniping by some fellow faculty members such
as Rice and others who regarded Kinsey’s inter
est in sex with suspicion. As Corners reference
to Kinsey’s family indicates, the committee
wanted to make certain that the researcher had
no special agenda except, perhaps, to establish
some guides to better marriages. Kinsey satis-
fied them on this account and was well aware
that any indication otherwise might endanger
IS grant. Thus, his own sex life remained a
closed book, only to be opened by later gen-
erations o f scholars (Jones, 1997). The CRPS
committed to Kinsey that by
the 1946-1947 academic year, he was receiving
half of the com m ittee’s total budget.
Before the interviews stopped with Kin-
seys death, about 18,000 individuals had been
interviewed, 8,000 by Kinsey himself. Kinsey
strongly believed that people would not always
tell the truth when questioned about their
sexual activities and that the only way to deal
with this was through personal interviews in

which the contradictions could be explored.
He did not believe that self-administered
questionnaires produced accurate responses-
He regarded them as encouraging dishonest
answers. He also recognized that respondents
might he even in a personal interview, but he
provided a variety o f checks to detect this and
believed his checks were successful. Subjects
were usually told that there were some con-
radictions in their answers and were asked to
explain them. If they refused to do so, the inter-
view was terminated and the information not
used. Kinsey was also aware of potential bias
Of the interviewer. He sought to overcome this
hias by occasionally having two people conduct
the interviews at different times and by relying
mainly on four interviewers, including himself
o conduct the study. Ifthere was a bias, it came
to be a shared one. The questions, however
were so wide-ranging that this too would limit
a n v tn ‘he data in
c i l " T ' prin-ciples, he wanted to gather data from as many
subjects as possible, and he hoped initially to
sTrfnn ‘ “ d later to conduct
80 000 more H e did not live to achieve this.
efore he died, the funding sources had dried
up tor such research, and other methods based
on statistical sampling grew more popular.
WHAT KINSEY DID

Kinseys major accomplishment was to chal-
lenge most o f the assumptions about sexual
activity in the United States. In so doing, he
aroused great antagonism among many who
opposed making sexual issues a matter of pub-
lic discussion and debate. One reason for the
antagonism is that he brought to public notice
many sexual practices that previously had not
been publicly discussed. Although Kinsey
prided him self as an objective scientist, it was
bis very attempt to establish a taxonomy of sex-
ua behaviors-treating all activities as more
or less within the range o f human behavior—
that got him into trouble. Karl Menninger for
example, said that “Kinsey’s compulsion to
orce human sexual behavior into a zoological
frame o f reference leads him to repudiate or
neglect human psychology, and to see normal-
ity as that which is natural in the sense that
It is what IS practiced by animals" (quoted in
Pomeroy, 1972, p. 367).
M ost sex researchers today accept the fact
that total objectivity in our field is probably
i^mpossible. Some o f Kinsey's difficulty resulted
from his belief that he could be totally objec-
tive. He did not realize that the way he orga-
nized his data sometimes could challenge
his objectivity, even though the organization
seemed logical. For example, Kinsey developed
a seven-point bipolar scale, which was one of
the standard methods of organizing data in
social science research at that time. He did not
trust people’s self-classification as homosexual

or heterosexual. Therefore, he decided that
regardless of how they might have classified
themselves, the only objective indicator that he
ALFRED KINSEY AND THE KINSEY REPORT 59
could use was to define sex in terms of outlet—
namely, what activity resulted in orgasms.
In most seven-point scales, the extremes are
represented by 0 and 6 (or by 1 and 7, depending
upon the number with which the scale starts).
Most people tend to respond using the middle of
the scale. When one rates heterosexual orgasm as
0 and homosexual orgasm 6, a logical decision in
terms of taxonomy, he in effect weights the scale
by seeming to imply that exclusive heterosexual-
ity is one extreme and exclusive homosexuality
the other. Although his data demonstrated that
far more people were identified as exclusively
heterosexual than as any other category, his
scale also implied that homosexuality was just
another form of sexual activity, something that
1 think Kinsey believed was true. For his time
and place this was revolutionary. His discussion
of homosexuality and its prevalence resulted in
the most serious attacks upon him and his data
(Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin, 1948).
Kinsey was a trailblazer, openly and will-
ingly challenging many basic societal beliefs.
It was not only his dispassionate discussion
of homosexuality that roused controversy, but
also his tendency to raise questions that soci-

ety at that time preferred to ignore, In his
book on males, for example, he questioned
the assumption that extramarital intercourse
always undermined the stability of marriage
and held that the full story was more complex
than the most highly publicized cases led one
to assume. He seemed to feel that the most
appropriate extramarital affair, from the stand-
point of preserving a marriage, was an alliance
in which neither party became overly involved
emotionally. Concerned over the reaction to
this, however, he became somewhat more cau-
tious in the book on females. He conceded that
extramarital affairs probably contributed to
divorces in more ways and to a “greater extent
than the subjects themselves realized” (Kinsey,
Pomeroy, Martin, and Gebhard, 1953, p. 31).
Kinsey was interested in many different sex-
ual behaviors, including that between genera-
tions (i.e., adults with children or minors). One
of his more criticized sections in recent years
is the table based on data he gathered from
pedophiles. He is accused of not turning these
people over to authorities, although one of the
major informants was already serving time in
jail for his sexual activities when interviewed.
Kinsey gathered his data wherever he could
find it, but he also reported on the source of
his data. H is own retrospective data tended to
show that many individuals who experienced
intergenerational sex as children were not seri-
ously harmed by it, another statement that got
him into trouble,

Kinsey is also criticized for his statistical
sampling. Although his critics (even before his
studies were published) attempted to get him
to validate his data with a random sample of
individuals, he refused on the grounds that
not all of those included in the random sample
would answer the questions put to them and
that, therefore, the random sample would be
biased. It is quite clear that Kinsey’s sample
is not random and that it overrepresents some
segments of the population, including students
and residents of Indiana. Part o f the criticism,
however, is also due to the use and misuse of
the Kinsey data without his qualifications. This
is particularly true o f his data on same-sex rela-
tionships, which are broken down by age and
other variables and therefore allowed others to
choose the number or percentage of the sample
they wanted to use in their own reports.
Another assumption of American society
that Kinsey also challenged was the asexual-
ity o f women. This proved the issue of greatest
controversy in his book on females. A total of
40% o f the females he studied had experienced
orgasm within the first months of marriage,
67% by the first six months, and 75% by the
end of the first year. Twenty-five percent o f
his sample had experienced orgasm by age o f
15, more than 50% by the age o f 20, and 64%
before marriage. On the other hand, he also
reported cases in which women failed to reach
60 INVESTIGATING SEXUALITY

orgasm after 20 years of marriage. In spite of
the controversies over his data on orgasms, it
helped move the issue of female sexuality on to
the agenda of the growing women’s movement
of the late 1960s and the 1970s, and to encour-
age further studies of female sexuality.
In light of the challenges against him, Kinsey
ignored in his writings what might be called
sexual adventurers, paying almost no attention
to swinging, group sex, and alternate lifestyles
such as sadism, masochism, transvestism, voy-
eurism, and exhibitionism. H e justified this
neglect by arguing that such practices were
statistically insignificant. It is more likely that
Kinsey was either not interested in them or not
interested in exploring them. He was also not
particularly interested in pregnancy or sexually
transmitted diseases. However, he demystified
discussion of sex insofar as that was possible.
Sex, to him, was just another aspect of human
behavior, albeit an important part. He made
Americans and the world at large aware of just
how big a part human sexuality played in the
life cycle of the individual and how widespread
many kinds of sexual activities were.
Kinsey was determined to make the study
of sex a science, a subject that could be stud-
ied in colleges much the same way that animal
reproduction was, with succeeding generations
of researchers adding to the knowledge base.
He succeeded, at least in the long run. He had
a vision of the kind of studies that still needed
to be done, some of which were later done by

his successors at Indiana and elsewhere, but he
himself died before he could do them and the
funds dried up.
Another of his significant contributions was
to establish a library and to gather sources
about sexuality from all over the world. He
blazed a trail for future sex researchers; The
library he established at Indiana University
served as an example that helped many of us
to persuade other university libraries to collect
works from this field. Although there are now
several impressive collections o f this kind in
the country, Kinsey's collection is still tremen-
dously important.
In sum, Kinsey was the major factor in chang-
ing attitudes about sex in the twentieth century.
His limitations and his personal foibles are
appropriately overshadowed by his courage to
go where others had not gone before. In spite of
the vicious attacks upon him during his last few
years of life, and the continuing attacks today,
his data continue to be cited and used (and mis-
used). He changed the nature of sexual stud-
ies, forced a reexamination of public attitudes
toward sex, challenged the medical and psychiat-
ric establishment to reassess its own views, influ-
enced both the feminist movement and the gay
and lesbian movement, and built a library and an
institution devoted to sex research. His reputa-
tion continues to grow, and he has become one
of the legends of the twentieth century... .
REFERENCES

Bullough, V. L. 1994. Science in the bedroom: A history of sex
research. New York: Basic Books.
Bullough, V. L. 1997. American physicians and sex
research. Journal o f the History of Medicine, 57, 236-253.
Corner, G. W. 1981. The seven ages of a medical scientist.
Philadelphia; University of Pennsyivania Press.
Davis. K. B. 1929. Factors in the sex life o f twenty-two
hundred women. New York: Harper.
Dickinson, R. L., and Beam, L. 1931. A thousand marriages.
Baltimore: Wiliams and WIkins.
Dickinson, R. L., and Beam, L. 1934. The single woman.
Baltimore: Wiliams and WIkins.
Henry, G. 1941, Sex variants: a study o f homosexual patterns
(2 vols.). New York: Hoeber.
Jones. J. H. 1997, August 2 and September 1. Annals of
sexology: Dr. Yes. New Yorker, pp. 99-113.
Jones, J. H. 1997a. Kittsey: A Public/Private Life. New York:
Norton.
Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W., and Martin, C. 1948. Sexual
behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Kinsey, A.. Pomeroy, W., Martin, C., and Gebhard, P. 1953.
Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Pomeroy, W. B. 1972. Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex
Research. New York: Harper and Row.

Terman, L,, Buttenweiser, P.. Ferguson. L., Johnson, W. B.,
and Wilson, D. P. 1938. Psychological factors in marital
happiness. New York; McGraw-Hill.
8
Racism and Research: The Case of
the Tuskegee Syphilis Study
ALLAN M. BRANDT
Was it scientific zeal and the search for medical knowledge? Or
was it a callous dis-
regard for the lives and suffering of persons thought to-be
inferior in a racist soci-
ety? Probably both, and the lessons remain important for
everyone. This tragic study
has become a classic example of how to do unethical research.
Perhaps the lessons
to be learned from it can somehow begin to make amends for
the harm it did.
I n 1932 the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) initiated an
experiment in Macon County, Alabama, to determine the natural
course of untreated,
latent syphilis in black males. The test comprised 400 syphilitic
men, as well
as 200 uninfected men who served as controls. The first
published report of
the study appeared in 1936 with subsequent papers issued every
four to six
years, through the 1960s. When penicillin became widely
available by the

early 1950s as the preferred treatment for syphilis, the men did
not receive
therapy. In fact on several occasions, the USPHS actually
sought to prevent
treatment. Moreover, a committee at the federally operated
Center for Dis-
ease Control decided in 1969 that the study should be
continued. Only in 1972,
when accounts of the study first appeared in the national press,
did the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare halt the
experiment. At that
time seventy-four of the test subjects were still alive; at least
twenty-eight,
but perhaps more than 100, had died directly from advanced
syphilitic lesions.
In August 1972, HEW appointed an investigatory panel, which
issued a report
the following year. The panel found the study to have been
“ethically unjusti
fied,” and argued that penicillin should have been provided to
the men.
This article attempts to place the Tuskegee Study in a historical
context
and to assess its ethical implications. Despite the media
attention which the
study received, the HEW Final Report, and the criticism
expressed by several
professional organizations, the experiment has been largely
misunderstood.
The most basic questions of hotv the study was undertaken in
the first place
and why it continued for forty years were never addressed by
the HEW inves-
tigation. Moreover, the panel misconstrued the nature of the

experiment, fail-
ing to consult important documents available at the National
Archives which
bear significantly on its ethical assessment. Only by examining
the specific
ways in which values are engaged in scientific research can the
study be
understood.
66
Racism and Research: The Case of the Tuskegee Syphilis study
■ 67
RAC S M AND ME D I C A L O P I N I O N
A brief review of the prevailing scientific thought regarding
race and heredity
in the early twentieth century is fundamental for an
understanding of the
Tuskegee Study. By the tu rn of the century, Darwinism had
provided a new
rationale for American racism. Essentially primitive peoples, it
was argued,
could not be assimilated into a complex, white civilization.
Scientists specu-
lated that in the struggle for survival the Negro in America was
doomed. Par-
ticularly prone to disease, vice, and crime, black Americans
could not be helped
by education or philanthropy. Social Darwinists analyzed census
data to pre-
dict the virtual extinction of the Negro in the twentieth century,
for they believed

the Negro race in America was in the throes of a degenerative
evolutionary
process.
The medical profession supported these findings of late
nineteenth- and early
twentieth-century anthropologists, ethnologists, and biologists.
Physicians
studying the effects of emancipation on health concluded almost
universally
that freedom had caused the mental, moral, and physical
deterioration of the
black population. They substantiated this argument by citing
examples in the
comparative anatomy of the black and white races. As Dr. W. T.
English wrote:
“A careful inspection reveals the body of the negro a mass of
minor defects
and imperfections from the crown of the head to the soles of the
feet__ ” Cra
nial structures, wide nasal apertures, receding chins, projecting
jaws, all typed
the Negro as the lowest species in the Darwinian hierarchy.
Interest in racial differences centered on the sexual nature of
blacks. The
Negro, doctors explained, possessed an excessive sexual desire,
which threat-
ened the very foundations of white society. As one physician
noted in the Journal
of the American Medical Association, “The negro springs from
a southern race,
and as such his sexual appetite is strong; all of his environments
stimulate this
appetite, and as a general rule his emotional type of religion
certainly does not

decrease it.” Doctors reported a complete lack of morality on
the part of blacks:
Virtue in the negro race is like angels’ visits—few and far
between. In a practice
of sixteen years I have never examined a virgin negro over
fourteen years of age.
A particularly ominous feature of this overzealous sexuality,
doctors argued,
was the black males’ desire for white women. “A perversion
from which most
races are exempt,” wrote Dr. English, “prompts the negro’s
inclination towards
white women, whereas other races incline towards females of
their own.”
Though English estimated the “gray m atter of the negro brain”
to be at least
a thousand years behind that of the white races, his genital
organs were over-
developed. As Dr. William Lee Howard noted:
The attacks on defenseless white women are evidences of racial
instincts that
are about as amenable to ethical culture as is the inherent odor
of the race—
68 ■ A L L A N M . BR A N D T
When education will reduce the size of the negro’s penis as well
as bring about
the sensitiveness of the terminal fibers which exist in the
Caucasian, then will it
also be able to prevent the African’s birth-right to sexual

madness and excess.
One southern medical journal proposed "Castration Instead of
Lynching” as
retribution for black sexual crimes. “An impressive trial by a
ghost-like kuk-
lux klan [sic] and a ‘ghost’ physician or surgeon to perform the
operation would
make it an event the ‘patient’ would never forget,” noted the
editorial.
According to these physicians, lust and immorality, unstable
families, and
reversion to barbaric tendencies made blacks especially prone to
venereal dis-
eases. One doctor estimated that over 50 percent of all Negroes
over the age
of twenty-five were syphilitic. Virtually free of disease as
slaves, they were now
overwhelmed by it, according to informed medical opinion.
Moreover, doctors
believed that treatment for venereal disease among blacks was
impossible, par-
ticularly because in its latent stage the symptoms of syphilis
become quies-
cent. As Dr. Thomas W. Murrell wrote:
They come for treatment at the beginning and at the end. When
there are visi-
ble manifestations or when harried by pain, they readily come,
for as a race they
are not averse to physic; but tell them not, though they look
well and feel well,
that they are still diseased. Here ignorance rates science a fool.
. .

Even the best-educated black, according to Murrell, could not
be convinced
to seek treatment for syphilis. Venereal disease, according to
some doctors,
threatened the future of the race. The medical profession
attributed the low
birth rate among blacks to the high prevalence of venereal
disease, which caused
stillbirths and miscarriages. Moreover, the high rates of syphilis
were thought
to lead to increased insanity and crime. One doctor writing at
the turn of the
century estimated that the number of insane Negroes had
increased thirteen-
fold since the end of the Civil War. Dr. Murrell’s conclusion
echoed the most
informed anthropological and ethnological data:
So the scourge sweeps among them. Those that are treated are
only half cured,
and the effort to assimilate a complex civilization driving their
diseased minds
until the results are criminal records. Perhaps here, in
conjunction with tuber-
culosis, will be the end of the negro problem. Disease will
accomplish what man
cannot do.
This particular configuration of ideas formed the core of
medical opinion
concerning blacks, sex, and disease in the early twentieth
century. Doctors
generally discounted socioeconomic explanations of the state of
black health,
arguing that better medical care could not alter the evolutionary
scheme.

These assumptions provide the backdrop for examining the
Tuskegee Syphi-
lis Study.
■ 69
t h e o r i g i n s o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t
In 1929, under a grant from the Julius Rosenwald Fund, the
USPHS conducted
studies in the rural South to determine the prevalence of
syphilis among blacks
and explore possibilities for mass treatment. The USPHS found
Macon County,
Alabama, in which the town of Tuskegee is located, to have the
highest syphi-
lis rate of the six coimties surveyed. The Rosenwald Study
concluded that mass
treatment could be successfully implemented among rural
blacks. Although
it is doubtful that the necessary funds would have been
allocated even in the
best economic conditions, after the economy collapsed in 1929,
the findings were
ignored. It is, however, ironic that the Tuskegee Study came to
be based on
findings of the Rosenwald Study that demonstrated the
possibilities of mass
treatment.
Three years later, in 1932, Dr. Taliaferro Clark, Chief of the
USPHS Vene-
real Disease Division and author of the Rosenwald Study report,
decided that

conditions in Macon County merited renewed attention. Clark
believed the high
prevalence of syphilis offered an “unusual opportunit y” for
observation. From
its inception, the USPHS regarded the Tuskegee Study as a
classic “study in
nature,”* rather than an experiment. As long as syphilis was so
prevalent in
Macon and most of the blacks went untreated throughout life, it
seemed only
natural to Clark that it would be valuable to observe the
consequences. He
described it as a "ready-made situation." Surgeon General H. S.
Gumming wrote
to R. R. Moton, Director of the Tuskegee Institute:
The recent syphilis control demonstration carried out in Macon
County, with
the financial assistance of the Julius Rosenwald Fund, revealed
the presence of
an unusually high rate in this county and, what is more
remarkable, the fact that
99 percent of this group was entirely without previous
treatment. This combi-
nation, together with the expected cooperation of your hospital,
offers an unpar-
alleled opportunity for carrying on this piece of scientific
research which probably
cannot be duplicated anywhere else in the world.
Although no formal protocol appears to have been written,
several letters
of Clark and Cumming suggest what the USPHS hoped to find.
Clark indicated
that it would be important to see how disease affected the daily
lives of the

men:
1- In 1866, Claude Bernard, the famous French physiologist,
outlined the distinction
between a “study in nature” and experimentation. A study in
nature required simple obser-
vation, an essentially passive act, while experimentation
demanded intervention which
altered the original condition. The Tuskegee Study was thus
clearly not a study in nature.
The very act of diagnosis altered the original conditions. “It is
on this very possibility of
acting or not acting on a body,” wrote Bernard, "that the
distinction will exclusively rest
between sciences called sciences of observation and sciences
called experimental.”
70 ■ A L L A N M. B R A N D T
The results of these studies of case records suggest the
desirability of making
a further study of the effect of untreated syphilis on the human
economy among
people now living and engaged in their daily pursuits.
It also seems that the USPHS believed the experiment might
demonstrate
that antisyphilitic treatment was unnecessary. As Gumming
noted: “It is
expected the results of this study may have a marked bearing on
the treatment,
or conversely the non-necessity of treatment, of cases of latent
syphilis— ”

S E L E C T I N G T H E S U B J E C T S
Clark sent Dr. Raymond Vonderlehr to Tuskegee in September
1932 to assem-
ble a sample of men with latent syphilis for the experiment. The
basic design
of the study called for the selection of syphilitic black males
between the ages
of twenty-five and sixty, a thorough physical examination
including x-rays, and
finally, a spinal tap to determine the incidence of neuro-
syphilis. They had no
intention of providing any treatment for the infected men. The
USPHS origi-
nally scheduled the whole experiment to last six months; it
seemed to be both
a simple and inexpensive project.
The task of collecting the sample, however, proved to be more
difficult than
the USPHS had supposed. Vonderlehr canvassed the largely
illiterate, poverty-
stricken population of sharecroppers and tenant farmers in
search of test sub-
jects. If his circulars requested only men over twenty-five to
attend his clinics,
none would appear, suspecting he was conducting draft
physicals. Therefore,
he was forced to test large numbers of women and men who did
not fit the
experiments specifications. This involved considerable expense
since the
USPHS had promised the Macon County Board of Health that it
would treat
those who were infected, but not included in the study. Clark
wrote to Vonder-

lehr about the situation: “It never once occured to me that we
would be called
upon to treat a large part of the county as return for the
privilege of making this
study.. . . I am anxious to keep the expenditures for treatment
down to the
lowest possible point because it is the one item of expenditure
in connection
with the study most difficult to defend despite our knowledge of
the need
therefor.” Vonderlehr responded: “If we could find from 100 to
200 cases. . .
we would not have to do another Wassermann on useless
individuals— ”
Significantly, the attempt to develop the sample contradi cted
the prediction
the USPHS had made initially regarding the prevalence of the
disease in Macon
County. Overall rates of syphilis fell well below expectations;
as opposed to the
USPHS projection of 35 percent, 20 percent of those tested were
actually dis-
eased. Moreover, those who had sought and received previous
treatment far
exceeded the expectations of the USPHS. Clark noted in a letter
to Vonderlehr:
I find your report of March 6th quite interesting but regret the
necessity for Was-
sermanning [sic]. . . such a large number of individuals in
order to uncover this
relatively limited number of untreated cases.

Further difficulties arose in enlisting the subjects to participate
in the exper-
iment, to be “Wassermanned,” and to return for a subsequent
series of exam-
inations. Vonderlehr found that only the offer of treatment
elicited the
cooperation of the men. They were told they were ill and were
promised free
care. Offered therapy, they became willing subjects. The
USPHS did not tell
the men that they were participants in an experiment; on the
contrary, the sub-
jects believed they were being treated for “bad blood"—the
rural South’s col
loquialism for syphilis. They thought they were participating in
a public health
demonstration similar to the one that had been conducted by the
Julius Ros-
enwald Fund in Tuskegee several years earlier. In the end, the
men were so
eager for medical care that the number of defaulters in the
experiment proved
to be insignificant.
To preserve the subjects’ interest, Vonderlehr gave most of the
men mer-
curial ointment, a noneffective drug, while some of the younger
men appar-
ently received inadequate dosages of neoarsphenamine. This
required
Vonderlehr to write frequently to Clark requesting supplies. He
feared the
experiment would fail if the men were not offered treatment.
■ 71

ie it if
The readiness of the test subjects to participate of course
contradicted the
notion that blacks would not seek or continue therapy.
The final procedure of the experiment was to be a spinal tap to
test for evi-
dence of neuro-syphilis. The USPHS presented this purely
diagnostic exam,
which often entails considerable pain and complications, to the
men as a “spe
cial treatment.” Clark explained to Moore:
We have not yet commenced the spinal punctures. This
operation will be deferred
to the last in order not to unduly disturb our field work by any
adverse reports
by the patients subjected to spinal puncture because of some
disagreeable sen-
sations following this procedure. These negroes are very
ignorant and easily
influenced by things that would be of minor significance in a
more intelligent
group.
The letter to the subjects announcing the spinal tap read:
Some time ago you were given a thorough examination and
since that time we
hope you have gotten a great deal of treatment for bad blood.
You will now be
given your last chance to get a second examination. This
examination is a very
special one and after it is finished you will be given a special

treatment if it is
believed you are in a condition to stand it__
R emember T his I s Your Last C hance F or S pecial F ree T
reatment. Be S ure
TO M eet T he N urse.
The HEW investigation did not uncover this crucial fact: the
men participated
in the study under the guise of treatment.
72 ■ A L L A N M. B R A N D T
Despite the fact that their assumption regarding prevalence and
black atti-
tudes toward treatment had proved wrong, the USPHS decided
in the sum-
mer of 1933 to continue the study. Once again, it seemed only
“natural” to pursue
the research since the sample already existed, and with a
depressed economy,
the cost of treatment appeared prohibitive—although there is no
indication it
was ever considered. Vonderlehr first suggested extending the
study in letters
to Clark and Wenger:
At the end of this project we shall have a considerable number
of cases present-
ing various complications of syphilis, who have received only
mercury and may
still be considered untreated in the modern sense of therapy.
Should these cases
be followed over a period of from five to ten years many

interesting facts could
be learned regarding the course and complications of untreated
syphilis.
“As I see it,” responded Wenger, “we have no further interest in
these
patients until they die” Apparently, the physicians engaged in
the experiment
believed that only autopsies could scientifically confirm the
findings of the
study.
Bringing the men to autopsy required the USPHS to devise a
further series
of deceptions and inducements. Wenger warned Vonderlehr that
the men must
not realize that they would be autopsied:
There is one danger in the latter plan and that is if the colored
population become
aware that accepting free hospital care means a postmortem;
every darkey will
leave Macon County and it will hurt [Dr. Eugene] Dibble’s
hospital.
The USPHS offered several inducements to maintain contact
and to pro-
cure the continued cooperation of the men. Eunice Rivers, a
black nurse, was
hired to follow their health and to secure approval for autopsies.
She gave the
men non-effective medicines—“spring tonic” and aspirin—as
well as transpor-
tation and hot meals on the days of their examinations. More
important, Nurse
Rivers provided continuity to the project over the entire forty-

year period. By
supplying “medicinals,” the USPHS was able to continue to
deceive the par-
ticipants, who believed that they were receiving therapy fi*om
the government
doctors. Deceit was integral to the study. When the test subjects
complained
about spinal taps one doctor wrote:
They simply do not like spinal punctures. A few of those who
were tapped are
enthusiastic over the results but to most, the suggestion causes
violent shaking
of the head; others claim they were robbed of their procreative
powers (regard-
less of the fact that 1 claim it stimulates them).
Letters to the subjects announcing an impending USPHS visit to
Tuskegee
explained: “[The doctor] wants to make a special examination to
find out how
you have been feeling and whether the treatment has improved
your health.”
In fact, after the first six months of the study, the USPHS had
furnished no
treatment whatsoever.
Finally, because it proved difficult to persuade the men to come
to the hos-
pital when they became severely ill, the USPHS promised to
cover their burial
expenses. The Milbank Memorial Fund provided approximately
$50 per man

for this purpose beginning in 1935. This was a particularly
strong inducement
as funeral rites constituted an important component of the
cultural life of rural
blacks. One report of the study concluded. “Without this
suasion it would, we
believe, have been impossible to secure the cooperation of the
group and their
families.”
Reports of the study’s findings, which appeared regularly in the
medical
press beginning in 1986, consistently cited the ravages of
untreated syphilis.
The first paper, read at the 1936 American Medical Association
annual meet-
ing, found “that syphilis in this period [latency] tends to greatly
increase the
frequency of manifestations of cardiovascular disease.” Only 16
percent of the
subjects gave no sign of morbidity as opposed to 61 percent of
the controls. Ten
years later, a report noted coldly, “The fact that nearly twice as
large a pro-
portion of the syphilitic individuals as of the control group has
died is a very
striking one.” Life expectancy, concluded the doctors, is
reduced by about 20
percent.
A 1955 article found that slightly more than 30 percent of the
test group
autopsied had died directly from advanced syphilitic lesions of
either the
cardiovascular or the central nervous system. Another published
account

stated, “Review of those still living reveals that an appreciable
number have
late complications of syphilis which probably will result, for
some at least, in
contributing materially to the ultimate cause of death.” In 1950,
Dr. Wenger
had concluded, “We now know, where we could only surmise
before, that we
have contributed to their ailments and shortened their lives.” As
black physi-
cian Vernal Cave, a member of the HEW panel, later wrote,
“They proved a
point, then proved a point, then proved a point.”
During the forty years of the experiment the USPHS had sought
on several
occasions to ensure that the subjects did not receive treatment
from other
sources. To this end, Vonderlehr met with groups of local black
doctors in 1934,
to ask their cooperation in not treating the men. Lists of
subjects were distrib-
uted to Macon County physicians along with letters requesting
them to refer
these men back to the USPHS if they sought care. The USPHS
warned the
Alabama Health Department not to treat the test subjects when
they took a
mobile VD unit into Tuskegee in the early 1940s. In 1941, the
Army drafted
several subjects and told them to begin antisyphilitic treatment
immediately.
The USPHS supplied the draft board with a list of 256 names
they desired to
have excluded from treatment, and the board complied.

In spite of these efforts, by the early 1950s many of the men
had secured
some treatment on their own. By 1952, almost 30 percent of the
test subjects
R acism a n d R e s e a rc h : T h e C a s e o f t h e T u s k e g
e e Syphilis s t u d y ■ 73
74 ■ A L L A N M. BR A N D T
had received some penicillin, although only 7.5 percent had
received what
could be considered adequate doses. Vonderlehr wrote to one of
the par-
ticipating physicians, “I hope that the availability of antibiotics
has not
interfered too much with this project.” A report published in
1955 consid-
ered whether the treatment that some of the men had obtained
had
“defeated” the study. The article attempted to explain the
relatively low
exposure to penicillin in an age of antibiotics, suggesting as a
reason: “the
stoicism of these men as a group; they still regard hospitals and
medicines
with suspicion and prefer an occasional dose of time-honored
herbs or ton-
ics to modern drugs.” The authors failed to note that the men
believed they
already were under the care of the government doctors and thus
saw no
need to seek treatm ent elsewhere. Any treatment which the men
might

have received, concluded the report, had been insufficient to
compromise
the experiment.
When the USPHS evaluated the status of the study in the 1960s
they con-
tinued to rationalize the racial aspects of the experiment. For
example, the min-
utes of a 1965 meeting at the Center for Disease Control
recorded:
Racial issue was mentioned briefly. Will not affect the study.
Any questions can
be handled by saying these people were at the point that therapy
would no lon-
ger help them. They are getting better medical care than they
would under any
other circumstances.
A group of physicians met again at the CDC in 1969 to decide
whether or not
to terminate the study. Although one doctor argued that the
study should be
stopped and the men treated, the consensus was to continue. Dr.
J. Lawton
Smith remarked, “You will never have another study like this;
take advantage
of it.” A memo prepared by Dr. James B. Lucas, Assistant Chief
of the Vene-
real Disease Branch, stated: “Nothing learned will prevent, find,
or cure a sin-
gle case of infectious syphilis or bring us closer to our basic
mission of controlling
veneral disease in the United States.” He concluded, however,
that the study
should be continued “along its present lines.” When the first

accounts of the
experiment appeared in the national press in July 1972, data
were still being
collected and autopsies performed.
T H E NE W F I NAL R E P O R T
HEW finally formed the Tuskegee Syphilis Study Ad Hoc
Advisory Panel on
August 28,1972, in response to criticism that the press
descriptions of the
experiment had triggered. The panel, composed of nine
members, five of them
black, concentrated on two issues. First, was the study justified
in 1932 and
had the men given their informed consent? Second, should
penicillin have been
provided when it became available in the early 1950s? The
panel was also
charged with determining if the study should be terminated and
assessing
current policies regarding experimentation with human subjects.
The group
issued their report in June 1973.
By focusing on the issues of penicillin therapy and informed
consent, the
Final Report and the investigation betrayed a basic
misunderstanding of the
experiment’s purposes and design. The HEW report implied that
the failure to
provide penicillin constituted the study’s major ethical
misjudgment; implicit

was the assumption that no adequate therapy existed prior to
penicillin. None-
theless medical authorities firmly believed in the efficacy of
arsenotherapy for
treating syphilis at the time of the experiment’s inception in
1932. The panel
further failed to recognize that the entire study had been
predicated on non-
treatment. Provision of effective medication would have
violated the rationale
of the experiment—to study the natural course of the disease
until death. On
several occasions, in fact, the USPHS had prevented the men
from receiving
proper treatment. Indeed, there is no evidence that the USPHS
ever consid-
ered providing penicillin.
The other focus of the Final informed consent—also served to
obscure the historical facts of the experiment. In light of the
deceptions and
exploitations which the experiment perpetrated, it is an
understatement to
declare, as the Report did, that the experiment was “ethically
unjustified,”
because it failed to obtain informed consent from the subjects.
The Final
Report’s statement, “Submitting voluntarily is not informed
consent,” indicated
that the panel believed that the men had volunteered for the
experiment The
records in the National Archives make clear that the men did
not submit vol-
untarily to an experiment; they were told and they believed that
they were
getting free treatment from expert government doctors for a

serious disease.
The failure of the HEW Final Report to expose this critical
fact—that the
USPHS lied to the subjects—calls into question the
thoroughness and credi-
bility of their investigation.
Failure to place the study in a historical context also made it
impossible for
the investigation to deal with the essentially racist nature of the
experiment.
The panel treated the study as an aberration, well-intentioned
but misguided.
Moreover, concern that ih.% Final Report might be viewed as a
critique of human
experimentation in general seems to have severely limited the
scope of the
inquiry. The FinalReport is quick to remind the reader on two
occasions: “The
position of the Panel must not be construed to be a general
repudiation of sci-
entific research with human subjects.” The Report assures us
that a better-
designed experiment could have been justified:
It is possible that a scientific study in 1932 of untreated
syphilis, properly con-
ceived with a clear protocol and conducted with suitable
subjects who fully under-
stood the implications of their involvement, might have been
justified in the
pre-penicillin era. This is especially true when one considers
the uncertain nature
of the results of treatment of late latent syphilis and the highly
toxic nature of
therapeutic agents then available.

Racism and Research: The Case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study
■ 75
76 ■ A L L A N M. BR A N D T
This statement is questionable in view of the proven dangers of
untreated syph-
ilis known in 1932.
Since the publication of the HEW Final Report, a defense of the
.Tuskegee
Study has emerged. These arguments, most clearly articulated
by Dr. R. H.
Kampmeier in the Southern Medical Journal, center on the
limited knowledge
of effective therapy for latent syphilis when the experiment
began. Kampmeier
argues that by 1950, penicillin would have been of no value for
these men. Oth-
ers have suggested that the men were fortunate to have been
spared the highly
toxic treatments of the earlier period. Moreover, even these
contemporary
defenses assume that the men never would have been treated
anyway. As Dr.
Charles Barnett of Stanford University wrote in 1974, “The lack
of treatment
was not contrived by the USPHS but was an established fact of
which they pro-
posed to take advantage.” Several doctors who participated in
the study con-
tinued to justify the experiment. Dr. J. R. Heller, who on one
occasion had

referred to the test subjects as the “Ethiopian population,” told
reporters in
1972:
I don’t see why they should be shocked or horrified. There was
no racial side to
this. It just happened to be in a black community. I feel this was
a perfectly
straightforward study, perfectly ethical, with controls. P art of
our mission as
physicians is to find out what happens to individuals with
disease and without
disease.
These apologies, as well as the HEW Final Report, ignore many
of the essen-
tial ethical issues which the study poses. The Tuskegee Study
reveals the per-
sistence of beliefs within the medical profession about the
nature of blacks,
sex, and disease—beliefs that had tragic repercussions long
after their alleged
“scientific” bases were known to be incorrect. Most strikingly,
the entire health
of a community was jeopardized by leaving a communicable
disease untreated.
There can be little doubt that the Tuskegee researchers regarded
their sub-
jects as less than human. As a result, the ethical canons of
experimenting on
human subjects were completely disregarded.
The study also raises significant questions about professional
self-regulation
and scientific bureaucracy. Once the USPHS decided to extend
the experiment

in the summer of 1933, it was unlikely that the test would be
halted short of
the men's deaths. The experiment was widely reported for forty
years with-
out evoking any significant protest within the medical
community. Nor did any
bureaucratic mechanism exist within the government for the
periodic reas-
sessment of the Tuskegee experiment’s ethics and scientific
value. The USPHS
sent physicians to Tuskegee every several years to check on the
study’s prog
ress, but never subjected the morality or usefulness of the
experiment to seri-
ous scrutiny. Only the press accounts of 1972 finally punctured
the continued
rationalizations of the USPHS and brought the study to an end.
Even the HEW
• Racism and Research: The Case of the Tuskegee Syphilis
study ■ 77
investigation was compromised by fear that it would be
considered a threat to
future human experimentation.
In retrospect the Tuskegee Study revealed more about the
pathology of rac-
ism than it did about the pathology of syphilis; more about the
nature of scien-
tific inquiry than the nature of the disease process. The injustice
committed
by the experiment went well beyond the facts outlined in the
press and the HEW

Final Report. The degree of deception and damages have been
seriously under-
estimated. As this history of the study suggests, the notion that
science is a
value-free discipline must be rejected. The need for greater
vigilance in assess-
ing the specific ways in which social values and attitudes affect
professional
behavior is clearly indicated.*
*In the summer of 2010 Susan Revorby, history professor at
Wellesley College, revealed
that from 1946 to 1948 doctors from the United States
deliberately infected Guatemalans
with venereal diseases, ostensibly to study the use of penicillin
as a preventative as well as
a curative for syphilis. Dr. John C. Cutler, involved in the
Tuskegee experiments, led the
experiment in Guatemala. It is unclear if the Guatemalan
subjects were effectively treated
once they were infected with venereal diseases. See Donald G.
McNeil's article, “U.S.
Infected Guatemalans with Syphilis in '40s,"New; York Times,
October 1,2010, page A1 and
A6. [Editor's note]
Dichotomies
major theme in WGSS
Male / Female
White / Non-white

Wealthy / Poor
Heterosexual / Homosexual
Cis-gender / Transgender
Western / Non-Western
Citizen / Alien
Mind / Body
True / False
Normal / Abnormal
High Status / Low Status
Either / Or
• Firm, rigid, exclusive boundaries
• Based on biology – seems innate,
unabridgeable, universal, fixed,
stable, permanent, “natural”
• Polarized groups, opposition
• Socially imposed – no choice,
no control, perceived by others
• Hierarchical, unequal
dominant vs subordinate
• Two groups sum up the range of

possibilities
• Change possible only if subordinate
becomes more like dominant
Dichotomies
major theme in WGSS
Either / Or
• Seems logically neat, simple
• Reduces richness, complexity
• Puts an embargo on
both/sometimes-the-one,
sometimes-the other options
• Does not recognize plurality and
heterogeneity
• Influences social practices
• Not innocent, neutral, benign
• Maintains inequalities of power
• Institutionalized via policies and
public actions

Male / Female
White / Non-white
Wealthy / Poor
Citizen / Alien
Mind / Body
True / False
Normal / Abnormal
Dichotomies
major theme in WGSS
Alternatives: Seeing Social Constructs
• Develop new tools,
non-dichotomous ways of thinking
• Think relationally
• Refuse to live within the categories

• Challenge harmful constructions
• Examine how and how well
boundaries were built, as well as
to what consequences
• Include experiences of people from
different groups
Male / Female
White / Non-white
Wealthy / Poor
Citizen / Alien
Mind / Body
True / False
Normal / Abnormal
Dichotomies
major theme in WGSS

Alternatives: Seeing Social Constructs
• Non-hierarchical
• Multiple affiliations, fluid
• Voluntary, a choice – you learn and
adopt
• Not as closely linked with power
differences
• Divisions are not a biological fact
but a result of human interaction
– Varied through time and space
– Not universal
– Understood differently
Male / Female
White / Non-white
Wealthy / Poor
Citizen / Alien
Mind / Body

True / False
Normal / Abnormal
GENDER RACE SEXUALITY
• Compulsory patriarchy, familial unity, property value
• Heterosexualism, fidelity, homophobia
• Biological dimorphism is normal
• Gender domination, women relegated to private life / home
• Women as “weak”, asexual, passive
• Gynecracy (potency in female, egalitarian), collective unity
• “Unsexed humanity,” positive towards homosexuals
• Not necessarily dimorphic, diversity is normal
• Gender fluidity, communal relations, collective decision
making and economies
• Women not fragile, powerless or weak
VIOLENCE OF COLONIALISM
erased alternatives
“Traditional” Family Model

80 contexts.org
intersex and the social construction of sex
by georgiann davis and sharon preves
b
back page
Contexts, Vol. 16, No. 1, p. 80. ISSN 1536-5042, electronic
ISSN 1537-60521. © 2017 American
Sociological Association. http://contexts.sagepub.com. DOI
10.1177/1536504217696082.
“What is it?” It’s the first question most new parents field, and
it’s safe to assume no one wonders if the child is human.
Instead,
the question usually refers to the child’s sex, and it reveals the
fundamental social importance of anatomical sex. Its bluntness
also indicates that, without a neatly assigned sex, a child might
not fully be a person. Granted a physical sex label—female or
male—the newborn is immediately and forever “gendered”
through social interactions. Sociocultural scholars have
explored
the social construction of gender as a performative, fluid, and

non-universal category for decades, but the notion that physical
sex is also socially constructed has acquired far less
exploration.
Some babies are born intersex. Their bodies aren’t clearly
female or male. While there is no reliable estimate of intersex
people in the population, a commonly reported statistic is that
intersex genital variation occurs about once in every 1,500 to
2,000 American births.
While we tend to rely on genital appearance at birth (more
directly, the presence or absence of a phallus) as the basis of
our sex assignment, what constitutes the essential sign of sex
has varied over the years. Genital appearance, sex hormones,
sex chromosomes, and the brain have each been used to sex
categorize bodies at different points in time. Sex hasn’t always
been a simple binary divide, either: pathologist Theodore Klebs,
for instance, first classified anatomical sex into five categories
in 1876, using the presence of gonads (ovaries, testes, or a mix
of ovarian and testicular tissue) as his guide, and biologist and

gender scholar Anne Fausto-Sterling further described these
divi-
sions in her influential 1993 piece, “The Five Sexes.”
More recently, hormonal levels have been used to categorize
sex, as is the case in sex testing conducted by the International
Olympic Committee (IOC) and the International Association
of Athletics Federations (IAAF). In 2009, South African runner
Caster Semenya won the 800-meter race at the Berlin World
Championships in Athletics. The media and several of Seme-
nya’s competitors seized on her appearance and performance
to pose stigmatizing questions about whether she was eligible
to compete as a female. Semenya was temporarily banned from
competition. In a purported effort to prevent another such
fiasco,
in 2012, the IOC and IAAF issued sex-testing policies centered
on hyperandrogenism (a medical term describing ,in females,
higher than “normal” levels of androgen, including testosterone,
and often associated with intersex traits). The groups claimed
the guidelines were not about sex testing women athletes, but

about ensuring fairness in elite athletic competitions. After
years
of scrutiny, Semenya (who has never self-identified as hyperan-
drogenic or intersex) was reinstated. She won silver at the 2012
Olympic Games. In the summer of 2015, the sex-testing policies
were suspended after Dutee Chand, an Indian 100-meter
sprinter,
successfully appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Chand
didn’t advance to the semi-finals in the 2016 Olympic Games,
but
Semenya won gold in the 800-meter race. Immediately
following
her win, the IAAF made a statement that they would consider
the possibility of reinstating hyperadrogenism testing.
That one’s eligibility to compete as a female athlete is debat-
able and that the physical criteria used to judge femaleness have
changed over time are evidence that the categorization of sex is
a social, variable process.
Sex is far more diverse than we acknowledge when we ask
whether a baby is male or female. It cannot be neatly defined by

our genitalia, hormone levels, reproductive structures, or brain
structure. And as people with intersex traits make exceptionally
clear, even chromosomes are a poor guide. People with
complete
androgen insensitivity syndrome, for instance, have XY
chromo-
somes (typically associated with males) but an outward female
appearance, including breasts and a vagina and minimal, if any,
ability to develop male secondary sex characteristics, such as
prominent facial hair.
Perhaps, then, we ought to ask parents “Who is it?” rather
than “What is it?” when we meet a child. That way, the focus
might rest more holistically on the newborn as a human being,
rather than the predetermined product of a historically variable
and socially constructed sex and gender system. Maybe then we
can get to the root of why, as a society, we are so quick to cat-
egorize babies as “females” or “males” ascribed with
“feminine”
or “masculine” personalities. Doing so would require wrestling

with, and perhaps unraveling, our widely held beliefs that both
sex and gender are binary, neatly correlated phenomena. Simply
changing the focus of the conversation seems a good place to
start acknowledging the diversity of sex development.
Georgiann Davis is in the sociology department at the
University of Nevada, Las
Vegas. She is the author of Contesting Intersex: The Dubious
Diagnosis. Sharon
Preves is in the sociology department at Hamline University.
She is the author of
Intersex and Identity: the Contested Self.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1536504217696082
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F15365042
17696082&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-03-22
WRK100: Preparing for the Future of Work
Week 7 Discussion
Top of Form
·
· 4
· 5
Part 1:
This week you’re learning some of the characteristics that will
help you practice your relationship building skills of trust,
mutual respect, mindfulness, diversity and inclusion, and open
communication. Discuss how you are applying at least one of
these characteristics in your life right now at home, work, or

school.
Remember to answer the question in 2 paragraphs. Each
paragraph should be 5-7 sentences with limited grammatical
errors (total 10-14 sentences). Also, respond to at least 1 of
your peers (at least 1-2 sentences).
Part 2: Student Response (Respond Kindly to the student
below)Bottom of Form
Felecia Parks
RE: Week 7 Discussion
· 2
· 5
As a manager, I hold trust in my team that they will get the
work done. We give each other respect and maintain an open
line of communication with the team. I’m always involved with
my team and willing to listen. I plan social time luncheons with
my team. I keep everything professional all the time and ensure
they understand my role as their manager. All of these things
are essential to everyone being able to get along as a team.
I remember, before I was in my current position, I had to speak
up for one of my co-workers because she would let her team
lead and others just walk all over her. Later, I became her
manager and she was appreciative as to how much trust, respect,
and honesty; I provided to her and my team. Building an
understanding with each and everyone on my team makes our
teams succeed and achieve their required tasks.
Bottom of Form

JGR Fantasy Team Worksheet
REMEMBER to watch the Strayer Talk: Building Your Team:
Finding the Right Balance before completing this worksheet!
Part 1: Select Your Team Members
There are FOUR open positions on your Team. Below we’ve
listed each role and described their responsibilities.
1. LOGISTICS:This person is responsible for coordinating the
nuts and bolts of the event: from scheduling to arranging travel
to making sure there’s food on the table at lunchtime... just to
name a few! The logistics person needs to be able to multitask
and be organized, proactive, efficient, polite, and calm under
pressure. They have to anticipate all the needs of the day while
at the same being able to adjust and resolve any unexpected
problems. It’s a challenging role, but a tremendously satisfying
for the right person.
2. BUDGETING: This is the numbers job, the person
responsible for keeping track of all the costs of the event and
making sure expenses don’t exceed the amount of funds in the
budget. This person needs to have excellent math skills as well
as being precise and detail-oriented. They may be called upon to
problem-solve financially, so they can’t be too rigid in their
approach to situations, but at the end of they day, they need to
be a stickler for numbers.
3. PROGRAMMING: This person is in charge of what
participants take away from the event. They’ll research, write
and plan the activities for the small group team-building
sessions, as well as determine who will be the keynote speaker
and what that person should speak about. The programming
head needs to be a creative thinker who can come up with
interesting, relatable and practical ideas that will make the

event worthwhile and memorable.
0. MC/HOST: This person is the “face” of the event. They will
be manning the microphone beginning with the introduction at
the start of the day, and guiding participants from one activity
to the next with clear, concise direction. This person should be
a “people person” and enjoy interacting with the public, and an
excellent communicator, able to speak off the cuff in a smart,
clear way -- even if something during the event shifts last-
minute.
Once you’ve read carefully through the roles, meet your
candidates! You can learn about your 10 potential team
members’ skills, strengths and personalities in this week's
Strayer Story.
To help you remember who’s who, you can also reference their
profiles below.
JGR EMPLOYEE PROFILES:
Once you’ve looked over all the profiles, select the best
candidate for each of the following four positions. Don’t forget
to consider what skills you bring to the table and select people
who can pitch in on the things you find challenging. After you
select your candidate, justify your selection by explaini ng how
your choice’s particular skills and personality will help them
perform their role successfully and, where applicable, how they
complement your strengths and skills.
1. Who would you select to run LOGISTICS? Why?
2. Who would you select to oversee BUDGET? Why?
3. Who would be your choice to run PROGRAMMING? Why?

4. Which candidate do you think would make the best
MC/HOST? Why?
Part 2: Where Do You Fit In?
1. What will you be responsible for as Team Leader? What will
you handle personally, and what will you delegate to other
members of your team? Explain and justify your response. Be
specific.
2. In 3-5 sentences, outline what skills and personal strengths
you have that will help you to be an effective Team Leader.
3. Think about your personal DiSC assessment results from
Course 1. How do these team members’ strengths complement
yours? What skills and/or personality traits do they have that
will help your team in areas where you feel challenged?
Conversely, what strengths do YOU have that can make up for
duties your team members may find challenging? Explain your
answer in 3 paragraphs or less.
2
Assignment 3: JGR Fantasy Team
Due Week 7andworth 125points.
Introduction

Over the last few weeks, you've learned how to start identifying
the roles and skills needed to build an effective team. You’ve
also discovered methods for selecting and evaluating potential
candidates. Now it’s time to put your team-building techniques
into practice by participating in a case study with real
employees from Joe Gibbs Racing!
Imagine that you work at JGR. The CEO has tasked you with
being the Team Leader for a committee that will plan a one-day
summer team-building retreat. All JGR employees will be
attending the event. The purpose of the retreat is to foster
unity, trust and cohesion between the organization’s employees.
The event will start with a welcome/introduction, then everyone
will break out into group team-building sessions. The whole
team will reconvene for a company-wide lunch, followed by a
keynote speech.
As the Team Leader for the event planning committee, your job
is to choose 4 other JGR employees to be on your committee.
You may choose from 10 pre-selected candidates. You can
learn about your candidates by viewing this week’s Strayer
Story and by reviewing their profiles below.
JGR’s Chief Operating Officer Coy Gibbs is taking the same
challenge! Next week, once you’ve completed the assignment,
we’ll feature a video of Coy revealing who he chose for his
fantasy team and you can compare your results to his.
Instructions
Step 1: Download the JGR Fantasy Team Worksheet and save it
to your computer.
Step 2: Watch the Strayer Talk: Building Your Team: Finding
the Right Balance.
Step 3: Follow the directions in Parts 1-2 of the worksheet to

complete the assignment.
Step 4: Save your document as FirstInitial_LastName_JGR200_
A3.
Step 5: Submit your assignment using the Week 7 assignment
link in Blackboard.
Formatting:
This course requires use of Strayer Writing Standards (SWS).
(Note: You’ll be prompted to enter your Blackboard login
credentials to view these standards.)The format is different than
other Strayer University courses. Please take a moment to
review the SWS documentation for details. You can also find a
link to the SWS in the Blackboard side menu or Assignment
Areas.
Course Connections:
While completing this assignment, be sure to connect your
responses to the course content you’ve learned so far.
Wait! Before you submit your assignment, did you…
· Review the scoring guide? The scoring guide will give you a
clear understanding of the assignment’s expectations. If you are
unclear on what is expected of you, please reach out to your
instructor for support.
· Check your assignment for grammatical errors?
· Review what you’ve written for clarity?
· Reach out to your instructor if you have any questions?
Scoring Guide Assignment 3:
Criteria
Exemplary
90-100% A
Proficient

80-89% B
Fair
70-79% C
Meets Minimum Expectations
60-69% D
Unacceptable
Below 60% F
1. Select a candidate for each of the four roles and justify your
selection.
Weight: 30%
Selects a candidate for each role and justifies selection with
clarity and excellence.
Selects a candidate for each role and justifies the selection
proficiently.
Selects a candidate for each role and justifies the selection
satisfactorily OR selects less than all candidates for the roles
and only justifies 2-3 selections.
Selects a candidate for fewer than four roles and insufficiently
justifies the selections OR only selects 1-2 candidates for the
roles and/or does not justify any selections.
Insufficiently completed or did not submit.
2. Explain and justify your role as team leader.
Weight: 15%
Explains and justifies role as team leader with clarity and
excellence.
Explains and justifies role as team leader proficiently.
Explains and justifies role as team leader satisfactorily.
Insufficiently explains and justifies role as team leader.
Insufficiently completed d or did not submit.
3. Outline your skills and personality traits needed to be an
effective team leader.
Weight: 15%

Outlines skills and personality traits with clarity and
excellence.
Outlines skills and personality traits proficiently.
Outlines skills and personality traits satisfactorily.
Insufficiently outlines skills and personality traits.
4. Explain how each of the team members’ strengths you chose
complements you.
Weight: 25%
Explains how each of the team members complements them with
clarity and excellence.
Explains how each of the team members complements them with
proficiency.
Explains how each of the team members complements them
satisfactorily.
Insufficiently explains how each of the team members
complements them.
5. Write in a professional manner using proper grammar and
spelling.
Weight: 10%
Writing is excellent.
Tone is professional and sophisticated. Shows logic, clarity, and
consistent formatting.
Contains no spelling or grammar errors.
Writing is mostly good. Tone is professional.
Shows logic, clarity, and consistent formatting.
May contain few or no spelling and/or grammatical errors.
Writing is satisfactory.
Tone is somewhat professional.
Shows moderate logic, clarity, and/or consistent formatting.
May contain 2-4 spelling and/or grammatical errors.

Writing meets minimal standards.
Tone is not professional.
Lacks one or more of logic, clarity, and/or consistent
formatting.
May contain more than 4 spelling and/or grammatical errors.
Writing does not meet minimal standards.
Tone is not professional.
Wholly lacking in logic, clarity, and/or consistent formatting.
Contains many spelling and/or grammatical errors.
2
JGR200: The Power of People
Week 7 Assignment
Build a BALANCED team to plan and run a day-long event.
Review ten JGR employee profiles, then pick the four people
whose skill sets match the required team roles, make the
strongest combined unit.
Step 1: Download & Review the Assignment Introduction.
Step 2: Download the Parts of a Team Worksheet and save it to
your computer.
Step 3: Follow the directions on the worksheet to complete the
assignment.
Step 4: Save your document as FirstInitial_LastName_JGR200_
A3
Step 5: Submit your assignment using the Week 7 assignment
link in Blackboard.
This course requires use of Strayer Writing Standards (SWS).
The format is different than other Strayer University courses.
Please take a moment to review the SWS documentation for
details.

JGR200: The Power of People
Discussion Question Week 7
Part 1: A Balanced Team
Top of Form
Hiring people with complementary skills and personalities can
lead to a more effective team. When you’re picking out the
members of your team, you will need to apply what you have
learned about them (from your research and the evaluations) to
the selection process. This week, you learn how to balance your
team so you have complementary skills and personalities. Think
about what you have learned this week regarding balance. Why
is it important to make sure you have a balanced team? What
can happen if you have too many people with the same strengths
or weaknesses?
Part 2: Student Response ( Respond to the below student below
kindly)
Elizabeth Farley
RE: A Balanced Team
Hello Professor and classmates. Every team should be filled
with diversity. Each person should have separate strengths and
weaknesses. All at the same time you want these different
personalities to mesh well together to get the job done. If every
member of your team is shy, a follower, and not good at multi
tasking you may fall short of team goals for example. If you
hire one person who is quiet but strong with numbers and has
great organizational skills then maybe the next member should
be outgoing and well spoken, and one that's not afraid to take
charge. You want each person to understand the role they are
being placed into as well. They will want to know what is
expected of them, and will know themselves well enough to

know if they can fulfill those expectations. You always want to
find people that are capable of dealing with a wide array of
strong personalities because everyone is going to be there own
individual selves. You wouldn't want to place people together
that have conflicting goals or backgrounds. Building a
successful team requires knowing people and not just what's on
paper. Never begin building your team without a well defined
list of roles, expectations, and possible candidate list. This will
help you get off to a good start before even alerting potential
candidates.
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form
CRJ499: Undergraduate Capstone in Criminal Justice
Week 7 Journal Entry
Week 7 Assignment 1 - Journal: Schools of Criminology and
Your Career
After reviewing the information on criminology and the four
schools of criminology, discuss and give an example of how
each will influence your selected criminal justice career.
“There are four popular schools of Criminology, they are: Pre-
Classical School; Classical School; Positivist School; Neo-
Classical School; Pre- Classical School”
My chosen criminal Justice career is Homeland Security and
Emergency Management.
CRJ499: Undergraduate Capstone in Criminal Justice
Week 7 Discussion Question

Part 1: For this discussion, complete the following:
· Select a case from Four Kids, Four Crimes and discuss the
criminology theory that best describes why they became
criminals.
Four Kids, Four Crimes | Juvenile Justice | FRONTLINE | PBS
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/juvenile/four/
Be sure to respond to at least one of your classmates’ posts.
Part 2: Student Response (Respond kindly to the below student
post)
Felicia Mitchell
RE: Week 7 Discussion
· 5
Greeting Classmates and Dr. Egunjobi,
The case that I selected from Four Kids, Four Crimes , would be
Jose, he was tried as an adult, he served his sentence in Juvenile
Hall, I believe that he chose to be in a gang is because of low
poverty, lack of attention from his parents (divorced), physical
and mental abuse, also needed money to support himself. In my
opinion, during the time Jose was serving his time, he had
learned a lot by attending group meetings, earning a GED,
taking up a trade, while being incarcerated Jose realized that the
people who he thought was his friends really wasn't. Jose
decided t change his life around because he has a chance to
have a job once he get released from Juvenile Hall. Anyone can
change as long as they have an opportunity with no one judging
them because of their criminal background.
According from the article, Social Structure Theories believe
that the key elements to criminal behavior are the dominance of

social and economic influences that are prominent in rundown
neighborhoods where the population is primarily lower-class
citizens (Siegel,2010) Social disorganization theory, strain
theory, and culture deviance theory all fall under the social
structure theory. Each of these three sub-theories attempt to
explain what causes people to join violent gangs.
(1) Social disorganization theory concentrates on the
circumstances in the inner city that affect crimes. These
circumstances include the deterioration of the neighborhoods,
lack of social control, gangs and other groups who violate the
law, and the opposing social values within these neighborhoods
(Siegel, 2010) . The fact that youth in the lower class are raised
in such dilapidated neighborhoods is a primary reason that they
choose to participate in violence and become associated with
gangs.
(2) Strain theory suggest that crime is brought on by the
overwhelming strain that people feel when they have the
personal aspirations but no way to reach reach them. Strain
theories believe that wealth and power are allocated
disproportionately between economic classes and the frustration
of not being able to achieve goals and strain of not having
opportunities are what influence a person's choice to commit
crime (Featherstone & Deflem, 2003). According to the strain
theorist, the youth feel that the only chance to obtain the things
that they desire is to join gangs. They see other gang members
in the community with money from things such as drug sales
and feel that joining the gang will benefit them in the same way.
(3) Cultural deviance theory combines parts of disorganization
and strain theories. They believe that criminal behavior is the
result of the strain people feel and the social isolation that the
urban environments put them under. These two things form
subcultures within the lower class that adopt values that are
much different from the rest of the population (Siegel, 2010). A
cultural deviance theorist would say a combination of growing
up in deteriorated neighborhoods as well as the strain of seeing

no other way out is the reason that people participate in gangs.
They believe that it would take both factors to push a person to
the point at which they felt they needed to take part in this kind
of potentially violent behavior.
I hope everyone will enjoy reading my discussion, have a
blessed day.
(Sources)
https://www.crimino
logyjust.blogspot.com
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form

CRJ499 Undergraduate Capstone In Criminal JusticeWeek 7 Assignm

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to CRJ499 Undergraduate Capstone In Criminal JusticeWeek 7 Assignm

Similar to CRJ499 Undergraduate Capstone In Criminal JusticeWeek 7 Assignm (9)

More from MargenePurnell14

More from MargenePurnell14 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

CRJ499 Undergraduate Capstone In Criminal JusticeWeek 7 Assignm