The NonProfit Nation shows how powerful movement groups were form from nonprofit advocacy and that really change the way government dealt with public policies. These groups such as League of Women Voters, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and National Rifle Association all advocate their cause to the government. I feel that more and more groups like these influence our government and thus create lobbies. A question I have for everyone is "Are these groups / movement going to be the voice of the American people? Because it seems that everyone is joining and forming their own interest group to advocate their agenda in government. So how can the government get anything done when everyone wants best for themselves and that there is no bipartisan.
In the "Power of Nonprofit" article, I find it interesting that the abolition movement, woman suffrage, Social Security, and racial equality came from nonprofit associations that help start these things out. These groups produce environmental protection, pass labor laws, food safety laws, and voting rights. All these progressive reforms came from the power of the community and the people who wanted change. I feel that government won't change unless people act and rally together for a cause that they deeply care about.
The book really truthful explains how the arts are separated into entertainment which is for profit compare to art which is nonprofit. Movies, music, radio are closely connected to the business sector and serious art such as theater and museums are focus on the nonprofit sector. These two worlds divides what art really is and how we separate art and entertainment. I think art and music is a powerful tool for youth people to express themselves. Music and poetry give teens voices to talk about social issues such poverty and family relationships. I think the arts help people share their own personal experiences that is unique to them and bring positive self-esteem for teens. I find it is common that schools often cut music programs or reduce art classes in favor of math and science. The core classes such as math, english, and science are important for a successful education but so are the arts. Art and music classes gives empowerment to those who want to learn and voice their values. On the other hand, I find that the reason why arts programs are being cut is because of money and jobs. Being a painter, artist, musician, and actor are often hard to find success because not many painters get paid a lot, only once they get famous and recognize due they start making money. The same goes for dancers, actors, and singers, who all have talent but the industry they want to get in are difficult and not many make it big.
Should art programs be cut from schools entirely? It would save money and have more spaces for other important classes. Schools should be focus on educating students to be the best and to achieve the highest test scores so that we can compete against other countries. It all comes down to the schools's first and foremost responsibility to make sure children are graduating with the skills necessary to survive in the workforce and get a job. Without these skills, you can be a Picasso and still not have a job.
Here are some links that related to why art programs are being cut that can help you answer the question.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/arts/10cuts.html?_r=1
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/fine_arts_programs_being_cut_a.html
I found your question "are these groups going to be the voice of the American people" very interesting particularly with the new citizen's united decision. Citizen's United vs. the FEC
ReplyDelete(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission) basically said that corporations could give unlimited campaign contributions and, in my opinion is changing the whole relationship that corporations have with candidates. It is important then, to seperate between corporations and non-profit advocacy campaigns. The line between the two, at least in a legal sense is completely blurring, which is why Citizen's United a non-profit 501(c)(4) was able to provide precedent for companies like Time Warner to give unlimited corporations. I think that the influence that advocacy is beggining to have in politics is going to be scary. While I think that advocacy is vital to a demcracy, I feel like the only responsible way that politicians can deal with the growing influence corporations have in politics is by actual campaign finance reform. The problem with achieving this reform however, is monumental. Many people think that the money exchanged in elections is "speech" I couldn't disagree more. I feel like money is much more than just speech.
In response to your question of whether or not schools should cut art programs completely, I do not think doing so is a good choice. This study demonstrates the benefits in regards to academic achievement and school involvement that are associated with students who regularly participate in activities related to the arts, and gives an explanation for why that is so:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.americansforthearts.org/NAPD/files/9603/Living%20the%20Arts%20Through%20Language%20and%20Learning%20(November%20'98).pdf
I do not feel that saving money, competition for higher test scores, and giving students tools to survive in the workforce have to be in competition with the arts. It should not be a question of one or the other, but rather one of creating a balance of arts and math, science, history, etc. Just because not everyone is going to utilize the arts as a way to make a living, does not mean that they cannot play an important and significant role in an individual's life. As you mentioned, art has the potential to empower people, giving them the courage and means through which to make their voice heard, and those are not qualities that should be undermined because they does not have overwhelming economic benefits.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou brought up a number of interesting points about powerful interests such as the NRA and MADD. I feel like groups such as these are not always in the best interest of society as they influence legislature contrary to how many people would see fit. MADD for example is interested in keeping a strict 21 and over drinking limit as well as a .08 on driving. That is less than two beers when really you could drive just fine at that point. Many states have mandatory sentencing such as Oregon regarding DUI's and it overcrowds the prison system with non-violent offenders. The NRA on the other hand is purely set on lessening gun restrictions. The right to bear arms is the only part of the bill of rights which is not selectively incorporated. It seems that regulation is a good thing and that most can agree that there are certain weapons that should be outlawed while others such as hunting rifles should be allowed.
ReplyDeleteI feel like having art in the classroom would be a good idea and that it allows yet another area where students can expand on. We should not place one subject over another but at least allow the option for those who could benefit from an alternative education. Having art for example could compliment a science field such as with drawing medical diagrams for example. A background in art could help in a field such as marketing allowing for clever visuals or media projects. What I am saying is that focusing on a broad array of fields can be the best way to prepare oneself for a career. Like a liberal arts education it is important to have a number of areas of expertise.