Video Games and Violence: Do Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence?

War Crimes in Video Games. 2013. Stories by Williams. Web. 21 Mar. 2013.

          Call of Duty: Black Ops, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat are just some of the most popular games played by the youth today. Video games are what the youth like to play by themselves or with friends rather than going outside to play it is just the new media trend that they are currently following. However, not everyone likes video games, specifically the video games that are violent. The issue of violent video games and youth violence is a controversial one. While I will support that violent video games are not the reason why there is youth violence, the opposing views believe that violent video games that children play, along with other factors, contribute to the violence occurring.

            Many people believe that violent video games contribute to youth violence and I would have to say on some terms I agree with this belief. After a child has played a violent video game, compared to a nonviolent video game, they are more aggressive and louder than usual (Ferguson). Therefore, a violent video game can possibly cause a child to act more violently because his aggression level has increased. For example, Mortal Kombat is a fighting game and one has to kill his opponent in order to win the game. Once a child has finished playing this game, he may want to imitate some of the fighting moves that his character from the game did to his opponent. In addition, this desire to do so could be very dangerous because he could not only hurt the other person he is trying this on, but hurt himself in the process as well. Video games and youth violence is not a new issue. The controversy over violent video games resurfaced following the massacre of 13 people at Columbine High School in Jefferson County Colorado on April 20, 1999. The two teenage shooters, were revealed to be avid players of weapon-based combat games Wolfenstein 3D and Doom (“Video Games”). The young men who opened fire on innocent people and in other massacres, all had one thing in common with one another: they were gamers who seemed to be acting out some dark digital fantasy (Carey). It was as if all that exposure to computerized violence gave them an idea to go on a rampage–or at least fueled their urges (Carey). Perhaps violent video games do cause such violence, and perhaps they can possibly cause someone to do something they would not normally do because playing games does something to their bodies, such as cause a stir hostile urges and mildly aggressive behavior in short term (Carey). Moreover, youngsters who develop a gaming habit can become slightly more aggressive —as measured with clashes with peers, for instance –at least over a period of two years (Carey). Therefore, I do believe on some terms that violent video games can contribute to youth violent because those games teach children how to act violently and, in addition, to learn things that they should not be learning at a particular age.  

            Many psychologists argue that violent video games “socialize” children over time, promoting them to imitate the behavior of the games character’s, the cartoonish machismo, the hair-triggered rage, and the dismissive brutality (Carey). Children imitate almost everything and everyone present in their lives, this question can be asked, when exactly does a habit that is so consuming that it’s influence trumps the socializing effects of other major figures in a child’s life? I believe that this habit happens when this habit is always available to the child and then that is when it influence trumps the socializing effects of other major figures in a child’s life. (Carey). This is quite true because children are easily influenced by their surroundings. For example, if a parent is constantly swearing around his or her child and lives in a violent home, that child will most likely be subject to speak profanity as well because of his or her parent, and he or she will have a violent behavior because that is what he/she was exposed to. Therefore, if a child is playing a violent video game, such as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, he/she could possibly be likely to imitate the behavior of the character. On the other hand, Ferguson, in his studies, Dr. Anderson, a scientist who studied the relation between video games and its effect on children, had failed to cite any peer-reviewed studies that had shown a definitive casual link between violent video game play and aggression (“Violent Video Games”). He had also ignored researched that conflicting conclusions on this issue “Violent Video Games” (“Violent Video Games”). Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Williams, who were also scientist, noted that several of Dr. Anderson’s studies concluded that there was no relationship between the two variables (“Violent Video Games”). Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Williams also concluded that in certain instances, there was a negative relationship between violent video game play and aggressive thoughts and behavior (e.g., initial increases in aggression wore off if the individual was allowed to play violent video game for longer period) (Ferguson). 

Fig 1. Youth Violence and Video Game Sales Data (“Violent Video Games”)

This picture of this data goes to show that scientists are having a hard time to find a link between violent video games and violence. Their studies are failing and they do not really know why such is the case. Perhaps violent video games decreases the aggressive thoughts and behavior in children just like Dr, Goldstein and Dr. Williams concluded when looking at Dr. Anderson’s research. I believe youth violence occurs if the child lives in a violent household, or it occurs because they have aggression problems and have tendencies to act out violently. However, for most children and teens gaming is a social activity and a major component of their overall social experience (“Video Games Are Good”). Most children and teens generally only play violent video games to interact with their friends or other people around the world (online gaming), or they just play to blow off steam and play a violent video just to play it. At times, parents will play the video games with their child because it is a way to interact with them as well as it provides have some bonding time with one another. In addition, studies show that a child playing a violent video game does not necessarily increase the likelihood that he or she will engage in real violence (Bezio). Americans need to stop blaming something other than our own behaviors and ideologies for societal behavior, especially gun violence (Bezio). It is possible that the reason why it is so hard for scientists to find a link between violent video games and youth violence is that there is no link at all. Americans just need something to blame for so much gun violence and violent video games, such as Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. These games are perfect for such blames to be put on them for causing such behavior. On the other hand, there could possibly be a link to violent video games and youth violence, but it is just that scientists may be overlooking something, which is causing flaws in their studies.

            Parents should monitor the games that their children play. If a game has “Teen”, “M for Mature” and “Adults Only”, and their child is under the age of 18, then it is best if they do not buy their child that game especially if they believe that their child may possibly imitate the violence that occurs in the game. Also, Americans should not just jump to conclusions that violent video games causes youth violence, but instead find out if the child lives in a violent home or if the child has any behavior problems that could possibly cause them to act out violently. In conclusion, children should not play violent video games but if they do it is at the own risk of his/her parents. 

 

Works Cited

Video Games." ProCon.org. ProCon.org, 19 Feb. 2013. Web. 5 Mar. 2013.

Carey, Benedict. "Shooting in the Dark." The New York Times. The New York Times, 11 Feb. 2013. Web. 5 Mar. 2013.

Bezio, Kristin. "Stop Blaming Video Games for America's Gun Violence." The Christian Science Monitor . CSMonitor , 12 Feb. 2013. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.

Video Games Are Good For Kids, Experts Find; With titles like 'Guitar Hero,' a Pew Internet survey refutes some common confusion about games -- that most are violent and teens tend to play alone." InformationWeek 17 Sept. 2008. Academic OneFile. Web. 15 Mar. 2013.

Ferguson, Christopher J. "Violent Video Games and the Supreme Court : Lessons for the Scientific Community in the Wake of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association." Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost, Feb. 2013. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.

School Uniforms in Public Schools: Helpful or Hurtful?

School Uniforms. Art. Scholastic.com, United States.

               In this generation, fashion is everything. If someone or his or her peers is not using or involved in the latest trends, they are placed in the category of being non-popular. This is the case in most public schools. Students worry too much about what they are going to wear to school instead of wondering about what they are going to be learning that day. School uniforms have helped to decrease that problem. Uniforms help create a sense of equality among all students because everyone has on the same clothes, discipline becomes enforced, parents save money and it creates a safer environment. Therefore, students who are less fortunate than other students are not being peer pressured to buy the latest trends just to fit in with the popular crowd.

               School uniforms are no new phenomenon. Uniforms were first instituted in the16^th Century in England at the charity schools for poor children (HBC-SU). It was not until the 19^th Century that the great English public schools began instituting, and even later, for them to be widely accepted at state schools–especially state elementary schools (HBS-SU). It was not until 300 years later that the students who attended the better English public schools began wearing uniforms (Carson, Chris). The debate over whether or not students should wear uniform in American public schools began in the 1980’s (Carson). There were comments such as preventing individuality, or freedom of expression at the top of the list of reasons against doing so (Carson). However, arguments for school uniforms have included that uniforms reduced peer pressure to and lessens the students in need to have the latest designer clothing. In addition, uniforms help save parents money on their children’s clothing by requiring the same uniform every year (Carson).

Truthfully, I believe it is a good idea for students who attend public schools to wear uniforms. Wearing a uniform Monday through Thursday is good idea and on Friday, students can have the privilege to dress down and wear clothes of their choice. When I was in middle school and high school, it was mandatory for all students to wear uniforms and on Friday’s we were able to wear clothes of our own choice. The clothes that we had chosen to wear had to be appropriate for school, meaning we could not wear clothes that promoted sex, money or anything that was offensive. If students did not wear a uniform on the days they were supposed to, they had to pay the consequences. In middle school it was detention, and in high school students could not go off campus for lunch and, instead, had to eat the school lunch with the dean of students. Nobody wanted to eat that nasty school lunch so the majority of the students wore their uniform because they wanted to go off campus for lunch. In addition, my graduating class scored 100 percent in passing the English Language MCAS and earned a 98 percent in the Mathematics MCAS, and, uniforms were in full effect during that time. In a sense, it seems as if uniforms help improve student’s academic performance.

However, why do school facilities and some parents think school uniforms in public schools are a good idea? According to Marlyn, school uniforms act as a way to decrease gang violence and teen violence, in schools, and in a sense, they create a safer environment (“Are Uniforms A Good Way”). Over the past few years, the media has covered many stories about this issue, where the attacks of faculty members and much more frequent and children of all age groups and grade levels are being killed over such matters as designer clothing and shoes (Phaneuf). Issues like these make people upset and wonder whether or not schools are as safe as people thought they were. Faculty members are being attacked for wearing nice things. This is outrageous and children of all ages are being killed for wearing nice things their parents bought for them or things they bought themselves depending on how old they are. With all the attention schools are getting about such heinous crimes it has been reported that school districts and their respective politicians need to act quickly on this procedure before the situation gets even more out of control (Phaneuf). The children in the United States are being hurt, assaulted and killed almost every day over a pair of designer jeans, or a nice blouse or shirt (Phaneuf). Children cannot go to school and learn when another student is jealous and wants the Jordan sneakers, Hollister shirt or TRU Religion jeans that another student is wearing. It makes me sick to hear and read things like this happening in American public schools.

In 1995, Long Beach, California was the first public school district in the United States to adopt the mandatory school uniform policy (Phaneuf). After a year had gone by, schools in Long Beach California had a dramatic decrease in the violence and discipline problems they formerly experienced. In addition, the district noticed that the students were having higher test scores (Phaneuf). This clearly shows that the uniform policy did a great deal of good for the students because it decreased the amount of violence happening and increased the students performance academically. In his 1996 State of the Union Address, President Clinton said, “If it means that teenagers will stop killing each other over designer jackets, then our public schools should be able to require their students to wear uniforms” (Phaneut). If a president has to address such a problem as this one then it is very serious. If President Clinton believed that uniforms were going to stop those teenagers from killing others for their designer clothes, then why not make the students wear mandatory uniforms? The same problem is going on in public schools today, except that the children do not die every day from it. They just get hurt very badly from it to the point they would make poor choices to get the designer clothes that they wish to have to fit in or they maybe even think about killing themselves from time to time because they are picked on for not wearing designer clothing.

On the other hand, school uniforms limit a student’s self-expression and individuality. Children and Teens use the way they dress as a way to express themselves, just like singers and/or rappers use music to express themselves. Students also use the way they dress to identify themselves with certain social groups (Kouzmine). For example, if a kid or teenager is wearing nice designer jeans, such as Hollister, a shirt from Hollister as well and Jordan sneakers on, another kid or teen is wearing something very similar to them, they would identify themselves as being in the same social group together, especially as compared with someone who wears like more casual attire. Many students who are against school uniforms argue that they lose their self-identity when they lose their right to express themselves through fashion (Kouzmine). In addition, having the students wear all the same clothes/attire not only takes away from their individuality but from their creativeness as well (Phaneut). Students believe their self-identity is very important because if they are being told what to wear they do not feel comfortable about it because that particular type of clothing is not their type of style, and being able to express themselves through fashion is very important to them as well. When they are able to express themselves through fashion, it makes it easier for them to find friends who are interested in the same type of style like them. Sociologists claim that if students are hindered from the need of self-expression, it could cause unsuitable ways of expression by students, such as offensive usage of makeup or jewelry (Chitranshi). Therefore, if children become hindered by the need to freely express themselves, they will find other ways in which they can do that, consequently they end up expressing themselves in a way that they should not be doing.

School uniforms are a great idea for many of reasons. From the parents perspective, they do not have to worry about buying their child expensive clothes that they wish to have throughout the years and parents do not have to worry about what their children are wearing when they are not around (Phaneut). In a sense, it gives parents control over what their children wear and when their children are in uniform it gives them a feeling that their child is safe because they will not have to worry about another kid/teen trying to take their child’s designer clothes. Moreover, gang colors are a major threat in today’s public schools by incorporating school uniforms, schools will not have to worry about those certain colors being worn inside the school building because the design of the uniform will be well planned and not coincide with a gang’s color (Phaneut). Therefore, uniforms are a way to create a safe environment, especially if the area that the students live in has a very high crime rate. It is very important for students to feel safe while they are in school because if they do not feel safe they will not be able to concentrate on their school work. In regards to all the schools that have a mandatory uniform policy, it has been noted that crime rates have dropped drastically, and that the students grades have improved (Phaneut). In addition, by students wearing uniforms, it allows them to practice wearing the appropriate clothes at future interviews for a particular job or even a college doing so can mean the difference between success and failure.

Where should someone stand the whole school uniform policy debate? Should all schools adopt the uniform policy, or should students be able to freely express their individuality through fashion? Truthfully, I believe the school uniform policy is a good idea. Wearing a uniform is not as bad as students may say it is. It creates a safer environment for students to learn in without having to deal with violence because some student was hurt, assaulted or killed for his designer clothes. It also makes parent’s mornings easier for the young children they have and for teenagers as well because they will not be stressing on what to wear to school every day. I agree that school uniforms hinder a student’s individuality and creativeness to a certain extent. However, who said a student could not add a little spice to his or her own sense of fashion to their uniform that way they could feel a bit comfortable while wearing it. There is nothing wrong with that as long as students are wearing their school uniform everything should be good. Students have to remember that school is not a fashion show. They go to school to learn and because they want to be successful later on in life.

Works Cited

"Schools and Education." School Uniform. HBC-SU, 2 June 1998. Web. 28 Jan. 2013.

Carson, Chris. "The History of School Uniform." EHow.com. EHow.com, n.d. Web. 30 Jan. 2013.

Phaneut, Marlyn. "Are Uniforms a Good Way to Improve Student Discipline and Motivation?" HubPages. HubPages, 12 July 2012. Web. 30 Jan. 2013.

Kouzmine, Michelle. "The Arguments Against School Uniforms." About.com Kids' Fashion. About.com Kids' Fashion, n.d. Web. 3 Feb. 2013.

Chitranshi, Mansi. "School Uniforms Debate." ArticlesWave.com. ArticlesWave.com, 2 Mar. 2009. Web. 3 Feb. 2013.