Archives for April 2014

By Tharuni Jayaraman

In a recent study that has created some buzz (The Guardian, The Boston Globe, and The Atlantic), researchers Aurora Sherman and Eileen Zurbriggen investigated whether playing with a Barbie doll for just five minutes could affect a girl’s belief in the type of career she could pursue.

To test their hypothesis, they recruited a pool of 37 girls between the ages of four and seven. 59% of the girls studied had at least one Barbie doll at home and 57% reported having two or more, while 41% of them had never played with a Barbie doll before. (A 1999 study found that 99% of girls between the ages of three and ten owned at least one Barbie doll — perhaps times really have changed.)

Each girl was randomly assigned to play with one of three toys: Mrs. Potato Head (the control condition), Doctor Barbie, and Fashion Barbie. The researchers selected Mrs. Potato Head as the control condition because:

Mrs. Potato Head is lacking in sexualization cues, thereby allowing us to vary sexualization while holding other elements constant. Mrs. Potato Head is similar to Barbie in the color and texture of plastic that makes up the doll, is a feminine doll with a well-known female persona, and is marketed with clothing and accessories similar to Barbie.

The Doctor Barbie was dressed in “tight fitting blue jeans embedded with pink glitter strands, a scrubs style V-neck shirt printed with rubber ducks, a white lab boast imprinted with Barbie in pink, and pink low-heeled shoes.” The Fashion Barbie was dressed in “a knee-length, form-fitting, low V-cut, short-sleeved pink dress with black overlay and accessories.” Mrs. Potato Head “was presented to participants with one set of eyes, ears, and mouth attached, with other eyes, ears, and accessories available for play.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Read more…] about Can Playing with a Barbie Doll Impact a Young Girl’s Career Aspirations?

By Noah Marks 

Last week, the Wall Street Journal broke the news that the FCC’s third attempt to regulate “in defense” of net neutrality would allow “commercially reasonable” agreements between content providers and Internet service providers. The “commercially reasonable” test aligns with the January DC Appeals Court decision striking down the FCC’s previous attempt but affirming their right to regulate broadband. Net neutrality is based on the premise that all Internet traffic is treated equally, regardless of who requests and what is requested. Under the new rules, larger companies could purchase from ISPs the right to have their content arrive faster to consumers. Since broadband is essentially a straw, with fixed (albeit expandable) capacity, it is impossible to have some content arrive faster without the rest of the content arriving slower.

The FCC chairman has been quick to assert that the new regulations would not, as many have warned, destroy net neutrality, for three reasons: (1) they would require ISPs to disclose their capabilities and any agreements they make with companies, (2) no legal content could be blocked, and (3) the “commercially reasonable” requirement for all agreements. It is dubious at best whether transparency protects net neutrality – knowing that Netflix pays to deliver Breaking Bad faster does not help companies who are unable to pay the premium, it only makes sure the fee to play is standard across ISPs. As for the second restriction, even if content is not per se blocked, slowing down delivery by as little as 250 milliseconds has a significant impact on visitors. Finally, the third restriction is essentially a policy punt – leaving for another day, and the FCC’s case-by-case judgment, what is reasonable. An obvious problem the FCC will face is defining in which commercial world to judge reasonableness – what is reasonable for Amazon or Facebook in their commercial context is very different than in the NGO/non-profit context of Jstor and the Red Cross, but they all rely on the same ISP infrastructure.

[Read more…] about Net Neutral?

By Ana Choi

The comprehensive immigration reform package passed by the Senate last year has yet to be taken up by the House of Representatives, due to partisan disagreement over issues such as the path to citizenship and reinforcement of border security.  Meanwhile, President Obama has come under increasing pressure to use his executive power to unilaterally suspend deportations. There have been about 2 million deportations under this administration—a number that exceeds that of previous administrations—and Democratic legislators as well as immigration activists have called on President Obama to take action instead of waiting for Congress. The President did promise during his 2014 State of the Union address to use his “pen and phone” to overcome Congressional gridlock when necessary, and he has taken measures such as halting the deportation of “Dreamers” and ordering a review of the administration’s immigration policies to determine ways to make it more humane. However, he has resisted using his executive power to suspend deportations on a large scale so far, and he is right to do so.

As observed in a report by the Brennan Center for Justice, executive power has been used in expansive ways by both progressive and conservative presidents in the past: President Reagan imposed greater oversight and control over agency actions by creating the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), President Clinton catalyzed welfare reform through the Department of Health and Human Services, and President Bush issued orders ranging from the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security to the revision of rules for detention and interrogation. As a result, executive power has become a malleable tool that can serve a wide spectrum of policy goals, and public reaction to the use of executive power tends to turn on partisan considerations (Democrats protest when it’s used by a Republican president, and Republicans protest when it’s used by a Democratic president) rather than on doctrinal considerations such as separation of powers.

[Read more…] about The “Pen and Phone”: Executive Action in Immigration Reform

Mr. Robert Maguire did not express any opinions about what the future of campaign finance should be; he just presented the findings of his research. Likewise, Mr. O’Mara made it clear that his comments only reflect his personal opinion and not that of Congressman Sarbanes.

With the McCutcheon decision fresh in everyone’s minds, the panelists on our Campaign Finance panel had a lot to talk about. The discussion opened with Robert Maguire of the Center for Responsive Politics giving an overview of the effect of dark money. He explained that the amount of dark money that has been spent so far during this midterm election is four times higher than the amount that was spent up to this point during the 2012 cycle. To that put that in perspective: at the end of the 2012 cycle, a staggering $311 million had been spent in dark money. (If you are interested in Mr. Maguire’s entire presentation, you can view it here.) Lee Aitken, a former Shorenstein Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, also expressed concerns about the lack of transparency in today’s system of campaign financing. In particular, she drew attention to “shell companies” that enable campaign consultants to engage in “profiteering” and “self-dealing.” In essence, argued Ms. Aitken, anyone can set up an LLC in Delaware without having to disclose an owner/beneficiary and then use that company to funnel money.

Raymond O’Mara, Legislative Assistant to Congressman Sarbanes, turned the discussion to the implications of the McCutcheon decision and “the pernicious effect of money.” He noted that the Chief Justice’s notions of “gratitude” and “access” in the opinion did not properly capture the “dependence of Congress” on money. He explained that any “good staffer” ends up looking at both the (1) merits and (2) money associated with any proposal. Moreover, legislators are forced to spend hours fundraising on K Street and in party “call centers.” Mr. O’Mara also gave some insight into the Hill’s reaction to the McCutcheon decision – as soon as the decision came down, a task force within the House Democratic Caucus was conveyed. Those Members breathed a “sigh of collective disbelief” at the Court’s decision.

[Read more…] about Elections in America: Campaign Finance Reform