March 1, 2016
Edward Snowden broke the law. He broke the ethical code of his employer, government contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. He leaked secrets that cost him his personal freedom to assure the freedom of the general public. Were his actions justified? Though Snowden was disloyal to his company, his ultimate duty was to serve the citizens of the United States, which he did successfully by informing on issues of privacy. Accountability is key here. The federal government is accountable to the state government who is accountable to local governments and then the people of the United States. While this concept is not quite so linear in actuality, it is clear to see that citizens rest on the bottom of the breakdown—or perhaps the middle of the web—meaning everyone is accountable to the public in some form or another. Political Scientist Donald F. Kettl brings up an important
point, which is “Who is to watch the watchers? […] There is no absolute standard for accountability, and a large number of hands tussle over what it ought to look like.” While no absolute standard exists, representative democracy does cater to we the people and it would be impossible to make an informed vote if information were being withheld, as in the case of Snowden. Snowden’s actions were completely justified and indeed professionally ethical due to his ultimate goal of serving the public and watching the watchers by keeping the triad of governmental branches in check.
Professors Cox, Buck, and Morgan, in quoting Verne B. Lewis, assert that “The ideal of democracy is that the desires of the people, no matter how they are arrived at or how unwise they may be, should control the actions of the government.” How can the desires of the people be wholly expressed with the fear of violated privacy? At minute 00:38:09 of the documentary Citizenfour, Snowden covers himself with a blanket to block the view of potentially snooping image-capture devices. Journalist Glenn Greenwald then remarks how he has been bitten by the paranoia bug and is disturbed by the capabilities of modern surveillance technologies. In the Hong Kong hotel room, the people being filmed acknowledged
that everything said between them would eventually become public record—but what of everyone else? What of protest planners, business leaders, ideological dissenters? Even the kid updating her Instagram in the local coffee shop deserves privacy.
What is truly immoral about the events leading up to the Snowden leaks are the lies that were told on public record. If Snowden did wrong, his actions were a trifle compared to the wrongdoing and corruption within the federal government. At minute mark 00:10:11, NSA Director Keith B. Alexander blatantly lies to congress about spying on telecommunications. When asked, “Does the NSA routinely intercept American citizens’ emails, cellphone conversations, Google searches, text messages, Amazon orders, bank records…” Alexander answered “No” to every question. Again, it is impossible to make an informed decision to vote or deliberate otherwise without being properly informed. Perjury is a basic immoral principle which detracts from one’s ability to assess a situation and act accordingly. Kettl brings up the Rule of Law which holds every member of society accountable under a mutually agreed upon code of regulations—this assures that the government does not overpower the people. Through his leaks, Snowden counteracted Alexander’s lie and he did so with a certain modesty that deemed the action both morally permissible and not an act of martyrdom.
Snowden had plenty of options when it came to whistleblowing. He could have chosen the dissension tactics of exit, voice, disloyalty, or a combination thereof. Since he remained an employee of Booz Allen but shared confidential information in a public forum, it is quite obvious that a combination of voice and disloyalty had been achieved, the result of which being leaks. He did not take the confidential files and email them out to people or send them to a news outlet or recite them on television or a personal blog. Instead, Snowden responsibly contacted two separate journalists and a trusted colleague to carefully plan out the revealing of the data. He left the discernment of presentation to the journalists while keeping his personal story to a minimum to avoid bias. If there is a respectful way to break the law, he has accomplished it—almost in an
honor among thieves fashion. His being a government contractor does not mean he is any less obligated than a public servant to protect the privacy of the public. A counterargument may be that Snowden was unethical because he failed to uphold his company’s code of ethics. Perhaps it is not he who failed the company but rather the company who has failed him. At minute 01:07:53, Snowden explains that normal NSA employees have either TS, SI, TK, or Gamma access to secure documents (or a combination thereof). As a Systems Administrator, he received PRIVAC access, meaning access to any security level no matter the job—this included access to live drone feeds across the globe. How is it at all sensible that a government contractor should have greater access than a government employee? That concept blows the accountability web wide open.
While it is so that Snowden broke the law and the ethical code of Booz Allen, his actions were justified in that they were for the greater good of the American public. He risked his personal freedom to inform the world about the unjust covert actions of the US federal government and, as a result, spurred a global conversation on privacy issues in regards to advancing technology and terrorism. While it is understandable that some government documents must be kept private for the purpose of national security, documents regarding governmental process directly affecting citizens should be open to the public for debate and revision. Bureaucrats, as well as elected officials, are morally fallible. This is why it is imperative that the handful of policymakers, executive actors, and judiciary heads be checked by outside forces—and what better force than a contractor who is being paid and granted express security access to the dirty truth.
Written for Dr. Michele Deegan’s Public Administration at Muhlenberg College.
School
November 28, 2015
Revisiting the Hindu Temple Society expanded my knowledge of Indian religious life in Allentown and addressed important questions that were left unanswered during our last visit only weeks ago. The initial tour was brief and reiterated much of what we learned in class. This second visit was a chance to delve further into the life of Sri Shyam Prasadji and his family, the history of the society, and Indian religious practice in the United States.
I went with a small group of students from class on the night of Sunday, November 15th at 7pm. We entered the temple from the back, hoping to find community members in congregation for arti—where firelight is offered to deities. To our dismay, no one was in the central room. This was our chance to more carefully observe the room and its adornments.
The edges of the central room have swirled, golden patterns that decorate otherwise off-white walls. The carpet is red and worn, hinting at the many religious observers who have sat for puja in past years. Three shrines dominate the back wall: Hinduism prominently in the center, Jainism to the left, and Sikhism to the right. Buddhism is accounted for, though only a small, white statue of the Buddha sits around the corner from the three main shrines. Hindu gods are decorated with grandiose clothing, flowers, and colors. Shiva, the largest icon, stands to the right of Parvati, his wife—the Hindus of the temple are Shaivas. Other gods such as Ganesha and Hanuman are smaller icons and reside on lower steps under Shiva and Parvati. Each god has an upside-down golden cup hanging above its head, which the priest explained is in regards to showing reverence. The Jain icons, in contrast, are not clothed nor colored. They are polished white with some parts gold. The Sikh shrine, or Gurdwara, has no icons. Instead, it has a framed portrait of Guru Nanak and a pedestal for the Guru Granth.
When Sri Shyam Prasadji entered the room, he greeted us with the utmost respect and hospitality. During our first visit it seemed that he did not know English very well, but after speaking extensively with us it became apparent that he knew the language well. He called upon his wife and 17-year-old daughter to enter the sacred space with us and gestured for us to sit as he began a short, daily puja. Shyam was dressed in orange—different from the usual white robes of a priest. He explained that all colors, especially in clothing, have meaning beyond their beauty. The orange in his robe represents saffron, which in turn represents both physical and mental strength. The puja he performed was identical to the puja performed upon our last visit. The only noticeable difference was the prasad offered—a banana instead of little orange dough clumps. His daughter (whose name was difficult to transcribe from audio recording) assisted with the
puja by holding a small flame and waving it around the deities.
Each member of our group bathed in the flame when offered, however, not all of us partook in the giving of bindis. When asked, Shyam explained that kumkum is the powdered mixture used to make bindis. It is placed over the ajna chakra, otherwise known as the third eye. The kumkum is said to be medicinal and antibacterial, which led to a discussion about Indian medicine and treatment of illnesses. Before moving to that discussion, it is interesting to note that bindis, a symbol of strength, are traditionally worn by women, which points to cultural gender equality. Though many aspects of Indian religions—including the gender of gods—point to patriarchy, this symbol on women offers quite an interesting disparity.
Shyam handed some questions off to his daughter and wife for answers which he could not so easily explain. The next set of questions was about medicine and treatments. Shyam’s daughter, who will be called D, talked about the use of pain killers and other chemicals. She explained that a certain type of doctor—who I transcribed as an ayurveda doctor—is sought by the Indian community for advice on natural cures. They offer different ways to stay healthy mainly involving the consumption of enriching foods versus fatty foods. Besides sickness, another misfortune requiring treatment is that of inflicted violence. D explained that when violence occurs, the best treatment is meditation. Since meditation involves stillness and inaction, it counteracts violence and pain. Meditation is also used to show respect and reflection for others who have experienced violence such as in acts of terrorism. When D does not have time to meditate or
spontaneously experiences fear or sadness or pain, she relies on the recitation of om. She gave the example of waking up from a bad dream. When she is scared and sits up in bed, repeating the om mantra calms her and gives her strength to overcome fear. Shyam’s eyes lit up as he talked about the importance of om. The syllable O represents the self, M represents the outer world, and H is the transference of energy between the self and the outer world.
Transference of energy is constant. Shyam’s wife, who will be called W, assisted in her family’s description of god. She used a metaphor that beautifully simplifies the abstract idea of god—god is electricity. Electricity itself cannot be seen, but it flows through everything, and can be seen where it is concentrated. When the temple bell is rung, god is called into the shrine figures just as a light switch brings electricity to a bulb. I was humbled by all of the different offerings made to god—in this case, Shiva—during puja. I was curious, however, as to what is offered when certain physical offerings are unavailable such as during travel. Shyam said that Shiva understands when physical offerings cannot be made and he accepts love and reverence in their absence. Shyam’s answer brought up many more deep questions: What is the purpose of existence? Is it love? Shyam, D, and W, all looked at each other upon hearing this question. Shyam then turned to me and said that we exist for
others.
Others have differences and differences, historically, keep people apart. How could we exist, then, for others? This brought up the question of caste, which D took without hesitation. D explained that some Indians marry within their caste because it is simply easier. Members of the Prasadji family Brahmin caste, for example, are vegetarians. It makes sense to marry another vegetarian so food utensils are not cross-contaminated with meat products. This answer really opened my eyes to the practical applications of Indian religions. Before, my western ideals led me to think that castes were a facade—a justification for discrimination. Now, I can see the practical side of adhering to certain age-old traditions. There are many misconceptions about the caste system making it out to be a corrupt, separative system. There are also misconceptions about the meanings behind certain traditions
and figures. The bindi, discussed earlier, is often mistaken for a fashion item. Though there are fashionable variations of the bindi worn mostly by younger generations, the bindi has a powerful meaning which goes far beyond beautiful, exotic appearance—which is why it is so often appropriated. When asked about common misconceptions in Hinduism and specifically with Shaivas, both Shyam and D said that people who are not Shaivas often do not entirely understand their god.
Shiva is known as the destroyer god—the thought of destruction is not very welcoming! Though what Shiva destroys, Shyam and D informed me, is evil. Shyam’s family, being Shaivas, believe that Shiva is the destroyer of evil and thus is the most important god. How do they spread this idea to other Hindus? Is it possible to persuade a person raised Vaishnava to the beliefs of a Shaiva? Shyam said that Hindus do not seek converts because it is not instructed in the Vedas. It is difficult to think that a group of people with a shared belief does not have the intention of spreading their ideas upon others, however, in Hinduism, according to Shyam, this is true. I asked how Shyam knows as much as he does and how he is able to so readily recite prayers. He told me that he spent 12 years in India at a school for priests starting at a very young age and by his decision. I then asked if
his jewelry had any significance to a priestly ranking. He said that Hindus believe expensive materials such as gold bracelets or BMWs can bring temporary happiness and that seeking temporary happiness through objects is not shunned.
Shyam enjoys his gold bracelets. He also enjoys dosa, his favorite Indian food. He speaks both Kannada and Tamil—languages of his region of India. D is studying to become a chemistry professor. W assists her husband and the Indian community in Allentown. The Prasadji family moved to America after being called upon to guide the local Indian community. They have been here ever since; leading pujas, religious holidays, and keeping the Hindu Temple Society temple in good, clean shape. Two visits to their beautiful, sacred space has given me and my classmates a glimpse into the practical side of Indian religions—specifically Hinduism—in the United States. While I am still curious about exploring other religions and talking to more practitioners, Sri Shyam Prasadji’s hospitality was very inspiring and I was eager to
investigate his history after our first visit. Though class has taught us about religions of India through text and images, religion is truly a living entity that can only begin to be understood through sensory exploration and human exposure.
Written for Professor Purvi Parikh’s Religions of India at Muhlenberg College.
School
February 7, 2015
The Apple Store—a place where middle class civilians congregate to peruse and purchase the most exalted consumer electronics. The Lehigh Valley Mall hosts one of these stores, and within it, a social-norm-breech experiment was conducted on February 7th 2015 at 3:30pm Eastern Time.
Preliminarily and throughout the experiment, the store retained a familiar ambiance of cleanliness and attention to detail. Every item had its place and employees were stationed systematically to maintain an efficient commercial attitude towards customer service. All employees wore the same uniform: A t-shirt and white necklace. One employee stood at the entrance to greet potential buyers and answer any questions about Apple products. Families, couples, and young individuals clustered around devices on display. They interacted with the technology in a manner that attested to prior experience with the devices. Many customers could be overheard asking employees about pricing, availability, and differences between devices. Other customers inquired about technical difficulties.
Dan, the actor in this experiment, entered the Apple Store dressed to match other customers. He wore clothes that were casual yet hinted at higher-class status, e.g. a collared button down shirt. Upon entering the store, Dan was approached by an employee, Lucas, who immediately and unknowingly assumed the responsibility of the test subject. Dan utilized his Israeli accent and asked questions about Apple products as if he had no idea what they were or how they functioned.
It is normative of the middle class to be familiar with this expensive technology. The juxtaposition of being well dressed in an Apple store yet not knowing anything about the products breached a social expectation. Lucas had to remain professional and answer Dan’s questions due to the social contract of employee-customer relations. Lucas, when interviewed after the experiment, noted that he did feel strange about the situation yet rationalized Dan’s naivety because of his foreign accent. This is an example of sociologist Jodi O’Brien’s concept of secondary elaboration.
Lucas’s rationalization compelled him to answer Dan’s questions in a way that did not assume total naivety of the subject. When asked “What is this iPhone?” Lucas proceeded to answer using terms such as smartphone, digital phone, texts, and apps. Lucas assumed that even if Dan was unaware of Apple technology he would still know what these terms meant. Dan continued with “What is an app?” and received an answer with even more jargon, including terms such as programming code and software package. This demonstrates how breaking down the social normative understandings of middle class technical and consumer knowledge takes ample time—it did not immediately register with the employee that someone might deviate. Once Lucas understood that Dan was legitimately unknowledgeable of Apple products, Lucas attempted to repair the breach by asserting the ideologies of the Apple company, thus imposing certain cultural capital upon Dan. To
accomplish this, Lucas dropped phrases such as “iPhones are the best phones on the market.”
Until this moment, other customers throughout the store had not been involved in the contained social breach between Dan and Lucas. The shift in passive bystander behavior occurred when Dan’s breach changed from verbal to physical. When Dan assumed that the iPhone camera hole was the microphone and began to talk to the top of the phone, observers looked puzzled. Observers then searched for interactional corroboration among their parties and surrounding parties. When Dan had the spotlit attention of surrounding customers, he brought Lucas down to his level by asking a question Lucas could not answer: “What is the meaning of the apple?”
According to O’Brien, “Humans are meaning makers.” Lucas had failed to recognize the meaning of the company he was representing and resorted to Google for the answer. Once on the topic of Google, Dan asked Lucas how he was accessing such a large database of knowledge. Lucas explained that it was accessible through Safari. It was implied that Dan knew Safari to be the branded browser rather than the African expedition.
Lucas stepped off the social class ladder with the next question thrown at him by Dan: “What is this Guinness Bar? Can I get drink?” Lucas started to question reality and wonder whether Dan was acting with comedic intent. He maintained professionalism and explained the Genius Bar, yet air quoted the word genius. In Lucas’s transference of cultural capital, he took liberties in degrading his fellow associates which effectively took down the curtain between Apple’s ostensible air of high class and Dan’s representational facade of lower class.
The previously-described occurrences played out over the course of around twenty minutes. The experiment concluded after this time and Lucas was approached and interviewed about his experience. He admitted that he started to question the reality of the situation about ten minutes into the encounter. He said that Dan’s dress did not affect initial judgement and treatment of Dan as a customer, however, had Dan been in his sixties or older, Lucas would have attempted to speak in a more simple manner. The social norm of assumed knowledge in economic class levels functions as a trapeze net. If an encounter between individuals of similar social class fails to entertain the knowledge of either party, there is certain assumed knowledge to fall back on. In this case, Lucas recognized that Dan did not know about Apple products and explained the products using vocabulary he assumed persons of his similar social class would know. A consequence of these trapeze nets is that they promote
separatism. A person of lower class has less to fall back on in terms of cultural capital.
An interesting aspect of this experiment was the age Lucas mentioned at which he would simplify the communication between employee and customer—the visible appearance of sixty years or older. From this derives the notion of cultural capital as a bell curve. Experience is gained in adolescence and lost in seniority. Is the Apple Store sustaining the ideologies of the middle class by assuming prior knowledge of its customers? Employees like Lucas certainly seem to be doing so, however, at certain points he took his own liberties in explanation and deviated momentarily from the norm. All it took was the initiative provided by Dan—a catalyst for social change.
Written for a college class.
School
April Littrell