Originally On LinkedIn As a Commentary Sample Of Mine: A Correlation Between Backlash Against Columbus Day & Anti Semitism?

I'd like to see if someone will undertake a study on whether the increasing backlash against Columbus Day correlates with the recent increase in Anti Semitism—whether the Anti Semitism is intentional or unintentional, and whether it is subtle or brazen—after all, Cristoforo Colombo was an Anusi (Crypto Jew; "marrano"); and increasing exposure of evidence demonstrates this (not to mention that Anti Semites are also picking up on it outside of any context of Columbus Day, as hate-speech websites like Jew Watch show). Of course (and as I'm applying what I learned in my Political Research Methods class here), the following hypotheses would have to be considered:

1. H1: The increase in the backlash against Columbus Day correlates with the recent increase in Anti Semitism, and the Anti Semitism is intentional and subtle.
2. H2: The increase in the backlash against Columbus Day correlates with the recent increase in Anti Semitism, and the Anti Semitism is intentional and brazen.
3. H3: The increase in the backlash against Columbus Day correlates with the recent increase in Anti Semitism, and the Anti Semitism is unintentional and subtle.
4. H4: The increase in the backlash against Columbus Day correlates with the recent increase in Anti Semitism, and the Anti Semitism is unintentional and nonetheless brazen.
5. H5: The increase in the backlash against Columbus Day inversely correlates with the recent increase in Anti Semitism, whether any Anti Semitism would intentional and subtle otherwise.
6. H6: The increase in the backlash against Columbus Day inversely correlates with the recent increase in Anti Semitism, whether any Anti Semitism would be intentional and brazen otherwise.
7. H7: The increase in the backlash against Columbus Day inversely correlates with the recent increase in Anti Semitism, whether any Anti Semitism would be unintentional and subtle otherwise.
8. H8: The increase in the backlash against Columbus Day inversely correlates with the recent increase in Anti Semitism, whether any Anti Semitism would unintentional and brazen otherwise.
9. ∅: No correlation between the increase in the backlash against Columbus Day and the recent increase in Anti Semitism exists.

The methodology might be something like the following:

1. Surveying at least 1,000 Pro-Columbus Day Americans regarding a possible correlation between the increase in the backlash against Columbus Day and the recent increase in Anti Semitism.
2. Surveying at least 1,000 Anti-Columbus Day Americans regarding a possible correlation between the increase in the backlash against Columbus Day and the recent increase in Anti Semitism.
3. Interviewing scholars whom study the Inquisition, Christopher Columbus, the Age of Exploration and Colonialism, Native Central Americans (such as the Tainos), and Jewish history and genealogy (including Crypto-Jewish history and genealogy)
4. Interviewing Anti-Columbus Day activists, Pro-Columbus Day activists, and employees and volunteers of organizations regarding Jewish history and gemealogy—including Crypto Jews (e.g., JewishGen—whose database I, I mention for the sake of disclosure, use to research my own family history, since I am a descendant of both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Anusim—and the Society For Crypto-Judaic Studies).

The sample groups, of course, would have to be as randomly formed and equal in number as possible; and the study would be a mixed-type—that is, a quantitative-and-qualitative—study. As for the literature review, it would have to include scholarly and non-scholarly literature on:

1. The Inquisition
2. Christopher Columbus
3. The Age of Exploration and Colonialism
4. Native Central Americans
5. Jewish history and genealogy
6. Anti-Columbus Day activism and activists
7. Pro-Columbus Day activists and activism

Of course, I wouldn't be undertaking the study because I have an inherit bias in the subject and a hard time with both Excel and advanced statistical math (as my "C" grade in my Political Research Methods and my necessity of taking Statistics twice demonstrates), as well as a hard time with Literature Reviews (as I type with only finger on each hand due to Cerebral Palsy and have OCD/Anxiety-related angst over the already-angst-inducing pedantry of the MLA, the late Kate Turabian, and other citation zealots). My inherit bias, meanwhile, is demonstrated in this hypothesis:

"I stand by what I stated re Columbus, Caribeaños Nativos, and the Holocaust—also, I don't recall Jews mitigating, making light of, or denying the horrors of what Columbus did. In fact, a ben Anusim by the name of Bartolomé de las Casas worked to help and pursue justice for mistreated Americanos Nativos in his own day, which followed the day of Columbus."

Therefore, I've set up as much of the study as possible—may a professional researcher undertake the rest of the study, even if he or she gives me no mention concerning or other credit concerning the study.

By the way, Bartolomé de las Casas was indeed a ben Anusim.

A "New York Times" Quiz On Lying And How I Did, Etc.

I got 7/10, as I predicted. Pretty darned good. After all, listening to the audio version, wanting to give the benefit of the doubt on some, having had the experiences that I've had, etc. help with that. Remember, e.g., my final conversation with my granddad was over the phone (audio) and he finally implicitly conceded our Jewishness. As far as I know (unless that quote particularly struck me), I was paying attention to every word (especially, "If we had any Jewish blood, I don't know about it.).

That may have also been the conversation (or it was probably one of the ones before) in which he said that he'd said that he'd tell me that "[I] disappoint [him]" all over again (though I think that it was the conversation in which he also mentioned his service at Ft. Knox when Great-Granduncle Ed [z"l] was there in 1957 [I think, since he was 19-20, anyway. Great-Granduncle Ed, meawhile, had served in World War Two.]). I know, too, that he talked about how days and nights were different during his childhood (e.g., Great-Granddad would come home from the mines, etc., an they'd all be in bed at 9:00 PM), unlike how "people go to bed at all hours of the night" (which struck me, I guess, because I tend to be a night owl).

I'm also trying to remember anything else. Anyway, you're usually able to tell when you've been through what I've been through, even via audio.

How A Skewed Taglit-Birthright Study Endangers Both the Jewish Community At Large And Will Taglit-Birthright's Reputation

I see plenty of issues with this study:

1) "Saxe and research associates Michelle Shain and Shahar Hecht collected data from August 6-11 via an online questionnaire, which included versions of the Pew survey questions. It was sent to eligible US Birthright Israel-Taglit candidates who had applied for a trip between summer 2011 and winter 2013/14."

There is no real "control" group. There are only Birthright applicants.

2) "Encouraged through an an opportunity to win one of two $100 Amazon.com gift cards, 1,756 young Jewish adults filled out the survey. The respondents included 1,122 who actually did go to Israel on a Birthright trip, and 634 nonparticipants."

The one group that there was, was pooled and divided unevenly. There should've been a total of either:

1.  878 Birthright travelers and 878 non travelers (still 1,756 people total, and and bringing in a control subgroup of 878 people—because, again, there was no control group; and a control group within a group does not count as a separate control group), or 
2. 1,122 travelers and 1,122 non travelers (keeping the 1,122 travelers who filled out the survey and bringing in a control subgroup). 

Either way, the surveyed ("treatment")-to-control group ratio is completely absent, let alone lacking.

3) "For the study, the Birthright applicants’ results were compared to a recent Pew survey and a Gallup poll, both of which were completed at the end of July."

The same problem regarding the subject pool and control groups is here, and data collection is also a problem here. Data from June 21, 2011-December 21, 2013 is older and more plentiful than data from July 2014, for example. Thus, there is no adequate amount of recency and amount of data to compare. In other words, the study would have been less skewed if both sets of data were from June 21, 2011-December 21, 2013; June 21, 2011-July 31, 2014; or July 31, 2014.


4) "Saxe feels the young Jews polled are a representative cross-section of young American Jews for several reasons. Primarily, bluntly, “because Birthright is free — and fun,” said Saxe, meaning the trip doesn’t only draw those who think it’s worth spending money on  a trip to Israel."

Any "representative cross-section of young American Jews" would include Messianic Jews (who are banned from applying to [and even specifically targeted for persecution by] Taglit) and others who Taglit bans .

In fact, the specific wording is in part:

"Eligible individuals are those who identify as Jewish and are recognized as such by their local community or by one of the recognized denominations of Judaism. Applicants must also have at least one Jewish birth parent, or have completed Jewish conversion through a recognized Jewish denomination. 

"*Those applying for trips leaving from the Former Soviet Union are eligible if they have at least one Jewish birth grandparent. The accuracy of information pertaining to the heritage of an applicant for a trip leaving from the Former Soviet Union is also verified by a local Consul before an applicant is considered eligible."

This on an international level alone would single out Karaites (who Rabbinate Judaism often slanders) and many other Jews, including Lemba Jews (who go by Patrilineal Descent and are mostly Messianic— despite that most sources try to separate them from the Jewish community at large because they "are Christian" [as if Christianity is not Jewish], etc..). Therefore, this certainly would not allow for just a "representative cross-section of young American Jews".

5) "Saxe said his team has analyzed the backgrounds of those who responded and the profiling is in context with last year’s massive Pew survey study of American Jews. The years of Jewish education, day school all look just about the same, he said, noting one slight difference — Birthright draws a lower proportion of children from intermarriages."

This skews the study as well. The "cross-section" are mostly Rabbinically-Jewish Rabbinical Jews (with a Rabbincally-Jewish Rabbincal Jew being a Jew who has at least one Matrilineally-Jewish parent "[and/]or have completed Jewish conversion through a recognized Jewish denomination".

([Do not kid yourself; Taglit would not look twice at Jews whose family was raised outside of a Rabbinate shul for two or more generations. In other words, for instance, Isaac Kaganowicz would not be considered a Rabbincally-Jewish Rabbincal Jew if both of his parents were Atheistically-raised Jews who were raising Issac in the same way that their parents raised them.)

"Since Taglit was founded in December 1999, annually some 20-25% of candidates have had no prior involvement in Jewish life, said Saxe. “The great piece of Taglit is that it levels the playing field,” said Saxe."

They do go to shul, though. In fact, I had a peer at UMBC who is an Atheist and whose family goes to a Reform shul. So, the "20-25% of candidates" have either parents and/or grandparents who at least go to shul.

6) "Pew doesn’t consider many of the people who went on Taglit to be Jewish because they don’t call themselves Jewish by religion, rather by parentage. “They might not count themselves as Jews until they go on Birthright,” added Saxe."

The Pew data also skews the study.

In other words, the Taglit study (which is called a "Brandeis University" study) is flawed and both dangerous to the Jewish community at large (who, for example, loses numbers according to Taglit-Pew-Saxe standards) and Taglit Birthright itself (and Taglit Birthright has had trouble in the past).

Sample Of My Schoolwork Writing: "Assessment and Analysis of a Scholarly Article" (Originally For SOWK 240)

In full disclosure, I will say that doing this assignment scared the crap out of me. I just hope that I did well on the assignment—i.e., I hope that I covered all of my bases and cited everything correctly. By the way, I—unless I am unaware of some law which states that I can't share my own writing on my own own blog—have the right to share my own writing. Also, for you to cite me if you use this blog entry would be nice; but I would be a hypocrite if I required that you cite that, since I believe in the Bible as opposed to the concept of "intellectual property".

Assessment and Analysis of a Scholarly Article:

Student Critique of “Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) Students’ Prior

Sexual Abuse Victimization”

Nicole V. Czarnecki

University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Abstract

            This article attempts to summarize, assess, and analyze Michelle T. Gore’s and Pamela J. Black’s study which is titled “Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) Students’ Prior Sexual Abuse Victimization”. Published by Gore and Black (both of whom are affiliated with Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond, Kentucky) in Journal of Teaching In Social Work, the study stands for scrutiny insofar as it employed its chosen type of research and methodology, and insofar as it came to the conclusions to which it came. The scrutiny is the work of Nicole V. Czarnecki, who was then a student in the SOWK 240 (Information Technology in Social Work) class of Dr. Jessica Guzman-Rea at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC). Czarnecki was a Political Science (as opposed to a Social Work) major and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Political Science in December of 2013 (The time of Czarnecki’s critique of Gore’s and Black’s study was October 19, 2013, when Czarnecki was a to-be-graduating senior and Political Science major at UMBC.). Therefore, Czarnecki could not comprehensively assess and analyze the study of Gore and Black, both of whom are in the Social Work field (whereas Czarnecki is in the Political Science field).

            Keywords: analysis, assessment, Black, critique, Czarnecki, Eastern Kentucky University, Gore, social work, scholarly article, study, summary; University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Introduction

            Michelle T. Gore and Pamela J. Black of Eastern Kentucky University conducted and published a study which they titled ““Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) Students’ Prior Sexual Abuse Victimization”. Gore and Black published their study in Journal of Teaching In Social Work in 2009, and they described their 2009 publication as a study which “reports findings of an exploratory study surveying 61 students about their prior child sexual abuse victimization.” (Abstract From the Authors) They utilized quantitative work to attempt to answer the query of “What percentage of [Bachelor of Social Work] students [“at a south central U.S. regional university”] has been sexually abused (as defined by [the 2001 Kentucky Cabinet for Families and Children] statute) during childhood?” (“RESEARCH QUESTION” &“METHODOLOGY”)

            Gore and Black extensively laid out their 2009 study’s methodology. In sum, the methodology “consisted of 61 BSW students [who were] attending the university during the academic years of 2001 and 2002” and “taking a required course on child abuse”. The students each received “[a] confidential five-itemed questionnaire” (“SAMPLE” & “METHODOLOGY”). The questionnaires effected the researchers to find “that taking a child abuse course may increase BSW students’ self-awareness regarding prior victimization” and “social work students [indeed] report a higher occurrence of prior childhood abuse than the general population” (Abstract From the Authors & “DISCUSSION”).

Assessment and Analysis

            As Gore and Black concede in their study’s “LIMITATIONS OF STUDY” section, “There were several limitations to this study.” One significant limitation is that Gore and Black used a highly-flawed methodology in that they defined “sexual abuse” in the terms of “[t]he state’s current definition of child sexual abuse” (“METHODOLOGY”), which in of itself is highly flawed. The definition, according to Gore and Black, is as follows (ibid.):

“‘‘Abused or neglected child’’ means a child whose health or welfare is harmed or threatened with harm when his parent, guardian, or other person exercising custodial control or supervision of the child:

(e) Commits or allows to be committed an act of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or prostitution will be committed upon a child;

(f) Creates or allows to be created a risk that an act of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or prostitution will be committed upon a child.

(Cabinet for Families and Children, 2001, p. 4)”

            The flaw in the definition is that it “addresses abuse by a parent, guardian, or

others [who was or who were] acting in a caretaking capacity. It does not pertain to sexual abuse from non-custodians, peers, or abuse from strangers. For example, incidents of sibling sexual abuse would not be included unless the perpetrator was acting in a caretaking role with the alleged victim.” The flaw specifically is that the definition does not cover “sexual abuse from non-custodians, peers, or abuse from strangers” or “sibling sexual abuse” as “sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or prostitution” which a “parent, guardian, or other person exercising custodial control or supervision of the child… allows to be committed…[and/or] [c]reates or allows to be created.”

            Given that the definition is as highly flawed as it is, therefore, it alone nullifies and voids the study. After all, a “parent, guardian, or other person exercising custodial control or supervision of the child… allows to be committed…[and/or] [c]reates or allows to be created…sexual abuse from non-custodians, peers, or abuse from strangers” or “sibling sexual abuse”. Whether the custodian mandates, encourages, enables, or fails to act to stop and/or punish any “sexual abuse from non-custodians, peers, or abuse from strangers” or “sibling sexual abuse”, the custodian allows to be committed…[and/or] [c]reates or allows to be created…sexual abuse from non-custodians, peers, or abuse from strangers” or “sibling sexual abuse”. Therefore, Gore and Black must redo their study and base it on a definition that covers any and all custodian-mandated, -encouraged, -enabled, and –commended or –condoned sexual abuse.

            As far as the study’s other limitations, Gore and Black adequately speak to those limitations. Therefore, this critique needs to not comment on those limitations. As this critique aforestated, the study must go through a reworking process and base itself on a definition of any and all sexual abuse that anyone commits against a child.

            In conclusion, this critique assessed and analyzed Michelle T. Gore’s and Patricia J. Black’s 2009 annullable, voidable, and reworkable study which was published in Journal of Teaching In Social Work. This critique explicitly stated that Gore and Black must rework their study because of how they measured their concept of sexual abuse by the standards of the 2001 Kentucky Cabinet for Families and Children law, which  inadequately and illogically does not count “sexual abuse from non-custodians, peers, or abuse from strangers” or “sibling sexual abuse” as “sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or prostitution” which a “parent, guardian, or other person exercising custodial control or supervision of the child… allows to be committed…[and/or] [c]reates or allows to be created.”

References

Gore, M.T., & Black, P.J. (2009). Bachelor of social work (bsw) students’ prior sexual abuse victimization. Journal of Teaching In Social Work, 29, 449–460. doi:10.1080/08841230903249786

Paiz, J.M., Angeli, E., Wagner, J., Lawrick, E., Moore, K., Anderson, M., Soderlund, L., Brizee, A., and Keck, R. (2013, March 1). General format. Retrieved from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/

“. (2013, September 28). Reference list: electronic sources (web publications). Retrieved from https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/10/