Cya, New York. Hello Houston!Thanks to amazing tumblr friends and a couple ones irl that I consider my family - this is happening. I’m grateful beyond words you guys.
According to the EEOC, barring candidates based on arrest records can almost never be justified except in the rare case when the employer “evaluate[s] whether the arrest record reflects the applicant’s conduct”.
"Even where there is no direct evidence that an employer used an arrest record in an employment decision,” an employer who inquires about arrest information without giving the candidate an opportunity to explain the underlying conduct violates Title VII.
That’s because, as the EEOC acknowledges, “arrests alone are not reliable evidence that a person has actually committed a crime”. —
65 Million Need Not Apply by The National Employment Law Project.
Add to this that housing/apartment applications are increasingly requiring criminal background checks and can deny you on the basis of an arrest record, and let me know where this puts over 65m+ people.
Yes, this is my data and we should talk.
Frankly, I’m not sure if you guys understand what’s going on here. I’m starting to think I might actually get to do this “dream come true” business. My hopes are officially high. We’re at the half-way pointof reaching my fellowship fundraiser goal and I have one week left to keep trying.
To this end, the following (incomplete list) of incredible humans, are turning me into an I CAN DO THIS MAYBE! monster:
Malcolm Gladwell’s next book, The Power of Several.
So much of this is quietly speaking to me.
The number of neurolaw cases rose from 100 to 250 a year over the eight-year survey. In 2005, neuroscience appeared in 30 felony cases that did not involve homicide. That number rose to more than 100 in 2012. — "Legal expert to Obama tells Society for Neuroscience meeting those on trial mounting ever more sophisticated defenses" via
Today in history: me, balancing on a crooked 1940’s metal stool, alone, in a dark room, hunched over a microscope, mainlining Visine® and counting neurons for days.
Gave good lab.
I’m the one dressed up like a nervous neuroscience instructor.
It is always hard to predict things, especially the future — Nils Bohr (“probably”).
Nobody knows , says Lubarsky. “We’ve turned this into a circus of experimenting on prisoners,” he says. “The state is playing doctor without any regard for efficacy. — Regarding if midazolam is appropriate for lethal injections following another propofol shortage. Death row incurs drug penalty. Experimenting on prisoners: file under unintended punishment.
Let’s face it: the stereotypical specimen is a young white male with thick glasses, strong opinions about operating systems and a collection of Star Wars figurines. If that’s what we immediately associate with science – whether or not it’s an accurate portrayal of actual scientists – then coolifying nerdiness might be attractive for those who fit the mold, but could inadvertently steer away from science those who don’t. —
Might a more inclusive portrayal of science – one that includes a few well-dressed and socially astute women, for example – draw more people to science than a “coolified” depiction of stereotypical nerdiness? It might. (via npr)
"Hey kids, science is neat, no matter what you look like or whatever rad hobbies you have," says funny lookin, tattooed, whiskey drinking, leather jacket wearing, lady neuroscientist who’s reportedly happy to be uncool.
The Rational Choices of Crack Addicts -
“They didn’t fit the caricature of the drug addict who can’t stop once he gets a taste,” Dr. Hart said. “When they were given an alternative to crack, they made rational economic decisions.”
I want to know how this behavior compares to the behavior of gamblers, because playing slots and the lottery seems irrational from an economic point of view. It would be funny (and sad) if rational drug use is stigmatized and criminalized while irrational gambling is promoted by the state.
Interesting point. It’s about “providing attractive alternatives”, isn’t it. Very respectable work by Dr. H, highlighting social policy of problems we are content to slap a disease label on, wrap it in some stigma and jack up the penalties across the board. The options are less than desirable when you are dependent on drug related policies (which include chemical dependency facilities). It’s no surprise that this narrative comes in handy for some politicians…but also this:
“Eighty to 90 percent of people are not negatively affected by drugs, but in the scientific literature nearly 100 percent of the reports are negative,” Dr. Hart said. “There’s a skewed focus on pathology. We scientists know that we get more money if we keep telling Congress that we’re solving this terrible problem. We’ve played a less than honorable role in the war on drugs.”
The video is worth a watch.
Drawing of Purkinje cells (A) and granule cells (B) from pigeon cerebellum by Santiago Ramón y Cajal,1899.
“Every man can, if he so desires, become the sculptor of his own brain” - Santiago Ramón y Cajal