The fight against workplace harassment continues with the introduction of a new California bill requiring that hotels provide panic buttons for employees who work alone in guests' rooms. We debate the pro's and con's. We also examine the efficacy of college interviews; analyze North Korea's recent olive branch to its southern neighbor; and more.
World roundup: Protests in Iran, and warming relations between North and South Koreas
Protests have stretched into its sixth day in Iran, with at least 21 people dead.
Anti-government demonstrations erupted last Thursday in several towns and cities, fueled mainly by economic woes the country has been experiencing. The protests are the largest seen in Iran since 2009, sparked in response to the disputed presidential election.
Meanwhile, North Korea has reopened a border phone line with South Korea, signalling thawing of relations between the two Koreas. Earlier this week, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un expressed interest in speaking with South Korea about participating in the Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, which led the South to suggest resuming high-level talks with the regime.
Larry is joined by a panel of experts to talk about the quickly changing situations in these parts of the world.
Guests:
Kevan Harris, an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA; author of “A Social Revolution: Politics and the Welfare State in Iran” (UC Press, 2017)
Suzanne Maloney, senior fellow at the Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution; authors of multiple books on Iran, including “Iran’s Political Economy since the Revolution” (Cambridge University Press, 2015)
Aaron David Miller, director of the Middle East program at the Wilson Center; former advisor at the Department of State focusing on Middle East policy
Sung-Yoon Lee, an expert on the Koreas, and a professor in Korean Studies at The Fletcher School at Tufts University in Massachusetts
Debating the efficacy and necessity of the college interview
Are college interviews necessary?
It’s a question that many, if not most, college-bound students ask themselves at one point or another. An in-person interview is often billed as a student’s best chance to make a personal connection with an admissions representative or, more often, an alumni in the student’s area who conducts interviews on behalf of the school’s admissions department. Some say it gives students who may not be as strong as others at expressing themselves through essays or on paper in their application an opportunity to do so more convincingly in-person.
A recent article in The Atlantic argues a point that some in the admissions industry have been making for years – that the college interview is a largely unnecessary extra step that causes undue stress on students and is usually not be the deciding factor in whether a prospective student is admitted or not. A report from the National Association of College Admission Counseling found just under five percent of colleges see interviews as having “considerable importance.” Just under 50 percent said that interviews are irrelevant. Others argue that the interviews are simply a way to make alumni feel more involved in the student selection process, and hopefully drive them to donate money back to their alma mater.
Do you think college interviews are useful or an unnecessary, stress-inducing extra step for students? How much weight do schools actually give in-person interviews versus the rest of the application? If you attended college, did you do an in-person interview during the admissions process? What was your experience and, if you got accepted, do you think the interview played a role?
Guests:
Jon Reider, director of college counseling at San Francisco University High School, former senior associate director of admissions at Stanford University, and co-author of “Admission Matters: What Students and Parents Need to Know About Getting into College”
Brian Taylor, managing director of Ivy Coach, a college admissions consulting firm based in New York City
Are panic buttons for hotel workers a needed protection or impractical overreach?
Today, two California Assembly members are introducing a bill that would require hotels to provide panic buttons for employees who work alone in guest rooms.
Calls for more stringent employee protections against sexual harassment have reverberated through various workplaces in the wake of #MeToo and are now hitting the hospitality industry, where labor activists argue that workers, most often immigrant women, experience harassment from guests.
The bill would also require hotels to keep a list of guests who have harassed employees and to bar guests with verified incidents of harassment from the property for three years. It would also mandate paid days off to employees to contact police or lawyers after they’ve been assaulted.
Other cities in the U.S., such as Long Beach, have looked at similar measures. The hotel industry has been against the idea and has raised questions about whether such buttons are practical, effective or needed.
If you’re in the hotel industry, what do you think of the logistics and need for such a “button” and guest ban? Is this overreach or a much needed protection for vulnerable employees? If you’ve serviced hotel rooms, have you experienced harassment from guests?
UPDATE: Following the airing of the segment, California Hotel & Lodging Association president and CEO Lynn Mohrfeld sent us the following statement:
The safety of our employees and guests is our top priority. For decades, the hotel and lodging industry continuously reviews and updates procedures and protocols for employees about prevention and reporting of sexual harassment. Specifically, CH&LA has provided multi-language sexual harassment and workplace violence prevention trainings, active shooter trainings, coordination of a security directors’ alliance that includes a property warning system and an annual forum dedicated to safety and security.
We will continue our work, day in and day out, with a focus on ensuring that hotels are secure places for all those who work and visit them. While we will await the formal introduction of the proposed legislation, it is our hope that the state legislature will give this matter serious thought and work together with our industry to ensure commonsense policies that empower employees, maintain the proper role of law enforcement and provide a safe working environment.
Guests:
Lorena Lopez-Masumi. organizing director for Unite Here Local 11 in Long Beach, a labor union that represents workers in various industries, including hospitality
Carl Winston, director of the School of Hospitality & Tourism Management at San Diego State University
LA’s playing host to an NFL playoff game this Saturday, thanks to the Rams
Playoff football is returning to Los Angeles after 32 years – courtesy of the Los Angeles Rams.
The Rams’ 2016 season in Los Angeles – the team’s first since back in L.A. since it originally left in 1994 – was a 4-12 disaster that led to the firing of then-head coach Jeff Fisher. But the Rams’ turnaround has been miraculous to say the least. Led by 31-year-old football savant Sean McVay, who is the youngest head coach in the history of the NFL, a tenacious defense, and a second-year quarterback that led the highest scoring offense in football this season at 30 points per game, the Rams went 11-5 and dethroned the Seattle Seahawks as NFC West Champions, and quite possibly the team to beat in the division. On Saturday, the Rams face off against the Atlanta Falcons at the Coliseum in downtown. The Falcons won't make it easy -- they're defending NFC Champions with a playoff score to settle, aiming to get back to the Super Bowl after a blowing a 28-3 lead in the third quarter to the New England Patriots in last year's Super Bowl.
The last time the Rams played in a home playoff game in Los Angeles? It was 1985, the head coach was John Robinson, and the Rams won 20-0 thanks to a 248 yard rushing performance from Eric Dickerson.
Guest:
Gary Klein, reporter who covers sports for the L.A. Times, including the Rams
Do sensitivity readers censor or elevate fiction?
If you’re writing a Young Adult novel with diverse characters, then it’s likely your book will go through various editors, fact checkers and beta readers, and nowadays, a sensitivity reader.
Sensitivity readers look over a manuscript and give edits on race, gender, religion, disability, sexuality and other variables to vet the story for stereotypes or inaccurate or insensitive portrayals.
In the new landscape of instant social media feedback, children’s and teen book publisher’s are increasingly turning to sensitivity readers to pre-empt negative backlash. Sensitivity readers have been the subject of some recent debate, critiqued as “thought police” and criticized for potentially discouraging writers from imagining characters outside of their own demographics.
On the other hand, sensitivity readers have been lauded as quality control, especially in a publishing landscape that’s mostly white. Some authors have said they prefer the feedback of sensitivity readers to make sure they’re not creating harmful stereotypes.
We talk to a sensitivity reader and a YA fiction author about the role of sensitivity readers in publishing and in an author’s creative endeavour.
Do sensitivity readers censor an author’s vision or improve it? Are current readers too sensitive to “problematic” portrayals in fiction? If you’re a writer, how do you negotiate writing about characters whose race, gender or other demographics are different from your own?
Guests:
Sherri L. Smith, young adult author and faculty at Goddard College’s MFA in Creative Writing program and Hamline University’s MFA in Children’s Writing program; her recent book is “Pasadena”
Ebony Wilkins, sensitivity reader, assistant professor of English at National Louis University in Chicago and young adult author; her book is “Sellout”