“Designer Babies” - No Longer a Thing of the Future: Research Essay (Final)

The City College of New York

English 11000 Honors 

December of 2013

Omar Rafael

“Designer Babies” - No Longer a Thing of the Future

  Although highly controversial, the ability to genetically engineer our children seems less and less far-fetched with each passing day. Whether it be athletic prowess or an inclination towards musical talent, in the near future, parents might very well be able to pick and choose the characteristics or traits that will shape the development of their child before he or she is even conceived. Because the genetic engineering of babies is still in a developmental state, there are many problems that are worthy of examination. This paper will consequently present the case of genetically engineered babies. It will initially examine its beginnings and look at how the practice has changed till our present day. It will proceed to introduce and examine the arguments that are commonly used by those who are for and against such a practice, and ultimately culminate with an opinion as to the approach that we as a society should take with regards to this pressing topic of wide debate. 

  The concept of genetically engineering our offspring is not a new phenomenon. Its beginnings began with the practice of in vitro fertilization, an assisted reproduction technology introduced in the 1970’s that helps infertile women become pregnant by fertilizing the sperm and egg cells outside the body (Zhu, “In Vitro Fertilization”). This in vitro fertilization brought about the ability to pre-select embryos before they are attached to the mother’s uterine wall where the embryo will remain until birth. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is a procedure that is often done in conjunction with in vitro fertilization as it allows “viable embryos to be screened for various genetic traits, such as sex-linked diseases, before implanting them in the mother. Through PGD [pre-implantation genetic diagnosis], physicians can select embryos that are not predisposed to certain genetic conditions. For this reason, PGD [pre-implantation genetic diagnosis] is commonly used in medicine when parents carry genes that place their children at risk for serious diseases such as cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia” (Ly, “Ethics of Designer Babies”). However, for quite some time now, many clinics in the U.S. have been using pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to allow parents to choose the gender of their child. This is argued to be a step towards designer babies as one is altering the genetic material (Naik, “Designer Babies: Patented Process Could Lead to Selection of Genes for Specific Traits” ). 

  In 1996, Monique and Scott Collins went to doctors at the Genetics & IVF Institute in Virginia in order to undergo in vitro fertilization. Through this process and pre-implantation genetics diagnosis, the Collins ultimately opted to have a girl given that they had already had two boys, and that they sought to have a daughter in their family. This marked one of the first highly publicized instances of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis where the selection of the embryo was not performed for purely medical purposes. “The Collins’ decision to have a “designer baby” by choosing the sex of their child entered the public vernacular when they were featured in Time Magazine’s 1999 article "Designer Babies". Though the Collins’ case only involved choice of gender, it raised the issues of selection for other traits such as eye color, hair color, athleticism, or height that are not generally related to the health of the child” (Ly, “Ethics of Designer Babies”). 

  Today, advances in genetics technology have situated us in a very crucial position; though no process has been perfected yet, as science stands now, we are on the brink of developing “designer babies”. A personal genomics company in California was recently awarded a broad U.S. patent for a procedure that could be used in a fertility clinic to create babies with selected traits. The company awarded the U.S. patent, “23andMe”, founded their business in collecting DNA from their clientele and analyzing it to provide information regarding their health and their ancestry. “The patented process from 23andMe… could be employed to match the genetic profile of a would-be parent to that of donor sperm or eggs. In theory, this could lead to the advent of "designer babies," a controversial idea where genes would be selected to boost the chances of a child having certain physical attributes, such as a particular eye or hair color” (Naik, “Designer Babies: Patented Process Could Lead to Selection of Genes for Specific Traits”). The acquisition of this patent was groundbreaking as the procedure involved is not oriented solely for specific and altruistic medical purposes like in vitro fertilization originally was, but it also seeks to allow parents to pick certain cosmetic traits. 

  Originally published in the Wall Street Journal, the attached diagram illustrates how the patented procedure would essentially work. According to the company, “while its new patent encompasses trait selection in babies, through a tool called the Family Traits Inheritance Calculator, it has no plans to apply it to that end. Instead, 23andMe said the tool offers customers "a fun way to look at such things as what eye color their child might have or if their child will be able to perceive bitter taste or be lactose tolerant” (Naik, “Designer Babies: Patented Process Could Lead to Selection of Genes for Specific Traits”). 

  Just this past month, the federal government was also asked to consider whether it would allow scientists to take a controversial step forward and alter the genetic material in a woman’s egg that would be passed down through generations (Stein, “Proposed Treatment To Fix Genetic Diseases Raises Ethical Issues”). According to scientist Mark Sauer who is part of one of the two teams researching, the research hopes “to cure disease and to help women deliver healthy, normal children” (Stein, “Proposed Treatment To Fix Genetic Diseases Raises Ethical Issues”). This research would help create an egg with healthy mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Mitochondrial DNA is the genetic material residing in the mitochondria, which is responsible for providing energy inside a cell. “Scientists estimate that 1 in every 200 women carries defects in her mtDNA” and that “Between 1 in 2,000 and 1 in 4,000 babies may be born each year with syndromes caused by these genetic glitches; the syndromes range from mild to severe. In many cases, there is no treatment, and the affected child dies early in life” (“Stein, Proposed Treatment To Fix Genetic Diseases Raises Ethical Issues”). The procedure would involve three sets of genes in the making of a baby. It would require that doctors take eggs from women and take out all the existing genes except the mtDNA. Then the DNA from the woman who wishes to have a baby is transferred into a healthy egg. The new egg would then be fertilized in the laboratory with the father’s sperm and the embryo could then be transferred into the mother’s womb (Stein, “Proposed Treatment To Fix Genetic Diseases Raises Ethical Issues”).

  Advancements like the ones previously described have begun to test the waters with the general public to see whether or not they favor the pursuit of research towards “designer babies”.   In recent years, the concept has been a growing issue to the point where the Oxford English Dictionary created an entry defining what constitutes a “designer baby”. The entry defines a “designer baby” as a baby whose genetic makeup has been selected in order to eradicate a particular defect, or to ensure that a particular gene is present. It is important to note that the definition encompasses the reasoning that is being used in the aforementioned research projects: not only is it taking into consideration the ultimate goal of possibly enhancing the quality of life for many, it is also accepting the fact that the ultimate goal may simply be trivial. Generally speaking, there is a divide between those who think that pursuing such research will do much good and those who believe that we should not probe further into the matter. Perfectly phrased by Sarah Ly in her entry for the Arizona State University’s Encyclopedia, The Embryo Project Encyclopedia, “The increased ability to control and manipulate embryos presents many possibilities for improving the health of children through prenatal diagnosis, but these possibilities are coupled with potential social repercussions that could have negative consequences in the future”. 

  The main argument presented by those in favor of genetically engineering babies often points to the fact that not only might the process help parents ultimately have a healthy child, but that the procedure will help eliminate diseases, and that it bestows favorable characteristics and traits onto our future descendants. In an opinions article, written by Dartmouth College ethics professor Ronald M. Green and published by the Washington Post, the professor states that “With knowledge comes power” and that “Eventually, without discarding embryos at all, we could use gene-targeting techniques to tweak fetal DNA sequences. No child would have to face a lifetime of dieting or experience the health and cosmetic problems associated with obesity. The same is true for cognitive problems such as dyslexia. Geneticists have already identified some of the mutations that contribute to this disorder. Why should a child struggle with reading difficulties when we could alter the genes responsible for the problem?” (Green, “Building Baby From the Genes Up”). 

  Although this may be the case, those who are in opposition are mainly worried that this technology will be misused and that it may just lead to more complications. In an op-ed rebuttal published by the Washington Post, the executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society, Richard Hayes states that he supports research directed towards preventing and curing terribly diseases but that he disagrees with altering the genes of babies. He points out that theres still a lot left to answer:

 “… these same technologies also have the potential for real harm. If misapplied, they would exacerbate existing inequalities and reinforce existing modes of discrimination. If more widely abused, they could undermine the foundations of civil and human rights. In the worst case, they could undermine our experience of being part of a single human community with a common human future. Once we begin genetically modifying our children, where do we stop? If it's acceptable to modify one gene, why not two, or 20 or 200? At what point do children become artifacts designed to someone's specifications rather than members of a family to be nurtured?”

(Hayes, “Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks”)

  Objectively speaking, the fact of the matter is that there are still many things that need to be addressed before the genetic engineering of babies is either outright banned or allowed. Furthermore, the population as a whole also needs to reach as much as a consensus as possible with regards to what should be done. Intelligence Squared Debates which serves as a forum for scholarly discussions grounded in facts and informed reasoned analysis recently held a debate with a motion to “Prohibit Genetically Engineered Babies” as its central topic of discussion. “Before the debate, 24 percent of the audience supported the idea of prohibiting genetic engineering of babies, while 30 percent were against. Forty-six percent were undecided. After each side presented its case, 41 percent of the audience voted for the motion, "Prohibit Genetically Engineered Babies," while 49 percent sided with the experts arguing against it…” (NPR Staff, "Should We Prohibit Genetically Engineered Babies?”). Evidently, there is a great schism present in terms of public opinion, and this consequently only makes the topic one where both sides have to tread lightly.  

  With designer babies slowly becoming a reality, one thing that does appear to be gaining ground is the idea that legislation needs to be enacted in efforts to not only regulate these procedures, but to also protect babies from harm. As the practices that were explored in the beginning of this essay gain ground (in vitro fertilization, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, and the mtDNA procedure), an elusive form of discrimination has emerged. Evidence has shown that some U.S. couples will go through with in vitro fertilization, and even an abortion, in order to get what they want, particularly to choose the sex of their baby. As the president of the Population Research Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher, describes it, “We're approaching an era of designer babies where everybody wants what they consider to be the perfect child or perfect family… This is the worst form of discrimination possible… We're not talking about discrimination, about pay or job or benefits. We're talking about discrimination that kills” (Sells, "States Move to Fight 'Designer Babies' Trend”). This reasoning, in conjunction with other arguments, has led Illinois, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and Arizona to ban the practices (especially abortions) if the reasoning is merely rooted in trivial matters. Other states, including New York, have begun to look at passing similar legislations. It is important to note that these legislations are being done at the state level. At the federal level, there is still much uncertainty with regards to whether legislation should be enacted, and even if it is, with what it should address. 

  The idea of manipulating genes leaves one feeling more than uneasy and raises many ethical issues. For example, in the aforementioned research that the federal government was asked to consider to be allowed in humans, the procedure would require that doctors take eggs from women and take out all the existing genes except the mtDNA. Then the DNA from the woman who wishes to have a baby is transferred into a healthy egg. The new egg would then be fertilized in the laboratory with the father’s sperm and the embryo could then be transferred into the mother’s womb (Stein, Proposed Treatment To Fix Genetic Diseases Raises Ethical Issues). But even this is very controversial as the baby would be born with genes from three different individuals: from the father, from the mother trying to have a healthy baby, and from the woman who donated the healthy egg. With genetic material from three different people, issues of identity may rise up in the later stages of life of the baby. Furthermore, it is still to be determined if the procedure is safe for the infant and if by trying to fix one problem, if scientists might inadvertently introduce mistakes into the human genetic code (Stein, Proposed Treatment To Fix Genetic Diseases Raises Ethical Issues). As Ronald Green points out, "If [genetic] mistakes are made, they won't just be mistakes in the child that is born. But if that child [is a girl and] has children down the line, those children will inherit the mitochondria from that child, and we'll have introduced new genetic diseases into the human population” (Stein, Proposed Treatment To Fix Genetic Diseases Raises Ethical Issues). Lord Robert Winston, professor of Science and Society and Emeritus Professor of Fertility Studies at Imperial College London, seconds this view, “We know fiddling with mitochondrial DNA may make a massive difference to what happens to nuclear DNA. … Abnormal children have been born as result of mitochondrial transfer," he said. "I think, in preventing one genetic disease, you are likely to cause another genetic disease” (Howard, "Genetically Engineered Babies? Experts Debate Idea Of 'Designer Baby' Ban”).

  The ability to genetically engineer babies to one’s liking becomes a reality more and more with each passing day. As it has been shown, scientific advancements have led us to the brink of possibility. Although this is the case, the fact of the matter is that research needs to continued before we ultimately settle on either allowing or banning the practice of genetically engineering babies. Yes it is true that such a technology can greatly help, and even allow in the case of infertile women, parents to have normal, healthy children. It may even ultimately help our species as a whole in the long run as it may provide a means of eradicating malignant diseases. However, with these great benefits, there also exist repercussions of the same magnitude. With something as delicate as the manipulation of genes, everything needs to be weighted equally and therefore be taken into consideration. For now, it seems the U.S. should adopt an approach similar to that of the United Kingdom. “Since 1991 the U.K.’s Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has made rules for in vitro fertilization and any type of embryo manipulation. The HFEA licenses clinics and regulates research: it limits the number of embryos implanted and prohibits sex selection for non-medical reasons” ("The Need to Regulate "Designer Babies”, Scientific American). Additionally, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority regulates and inspects all UK clinics providing in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination and the storage of human eggs, sperm or embryos and is accountable to the Department of Health. The U.S. need not replicate the same exact system of oversight, but it does seem to be the case that regulatory measures need to be established for the existent procedures, for any research currently being conducted, and for everything that is yet to come. 

Bibliography

"Brink: Designer Babies." The Science Channel. Discovery Networks. N.d. Science.discovery.com. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/brink/videos/brink-designer-babies.htm>.

Green, Ronald M. "Building Baby From the Genes Up." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 13 Apr. 2008. Web. 12 Nov. 2013. <http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-04-13/opinions/36842817_1_preimplantation-genetic-diagnosis-genetic-mutations-pgd.html>.

Hayes, Richard. "Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 15 Apr. 2008. Web. 12 Nov. 2013. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041501620.html>.

Howard, Jacqueline. "Genetically Engineered Babies? Experts Debate Idea Of 'Designer Baby' Ban." The Huffington Post. The Huffington Post, 19 Feb. 2013. Web. 08 Dec. 2013.

"Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority." HFEA - Fertility, Infertility, IVF, Embryo Research - Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2013. <http://www.hfea.gov.uk/>.

Krimsky, Sheldon, Lord Robert Winston, Nita Farahany, and Lee Silver. "Debate: Prohibit Genetically Engineered Babies." Lecture. Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates. Kaufman Center, New York. 13 Feb. 2013. Intelligence Squared Debates U.S. The Rosenkranz Foundation, 13 Feb. 2013. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.

Ly, Sarah. "Ethics of Designer Babies." The Embryo Project Encyclopedia. Arizona State University. School of Life Sciences. Center for Biology and Society. Embryo Project Encyclopedia., 31 Mar. 2011. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.

Naik, Gautam. "'Designer Babies:' Patented Process Could Lead to Selection of Genes for Specific Traits." The Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal, 03 Oct. 2013. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.

Pray, Leslie A. "Embryo Screening and the Ethics of Human Genetic Engineering." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 2008. Web. 12 Nov. 2013. <http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/embryo-screening-and-the-ethics-of-human-60561>.

Sells, Heather. "States Move to Fight 'Designer Babies' Trend." CBN News: US. CBS, 5 Mar. 2013. Web. 10 Dec. 2013.

Staff, NPR. "Should We Prohibit Genetically Engineered Babies?" NPR. NPR, 19 Feb. 2013. Web. 10 Dec. 2013.

Stein, Rob. "Proposed Treatment To Fix Genetic Diseases Raises Ethical Issues." NPR. NPR, 09 Oct. 2013. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.

"The Need to Regulate "Designer Babies": Scientific American." Scientific American. Scientific American, 4 May 2009. Web. 09 Dec. 2013.

Waldman, Paul. "In Praise of Designer Babies." The American Prospect. The American Prospect, 10 Oct. 2013. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.

Zhu, Tian. "In Vitro Fertilization." The Embryo Project Encyclopedia. Arizona State University. School of Life Sciences. Center for Biology and Society. Embryo Project Encyclopedia., 22 July 2009. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.

Blog Prompt: Drafting the Research Essay

As a whole, the researched essay experience was one that I enjoyed. To start off, I thought that the fact that we were able to write about essentially anything that interested us was great. In the majority of the English classes I've been up until now, except for an occasional paper, all the papers that were assigned had clear and precise prompts that needed to ultimately be addressed. I guess the same can be said in the previous 3 papers that we've had in this class. This research paper provided us with a greater degree of freedom and that was certainly a positive thing. 

The research process, although at times quite burdensome, ultimately proved to be quite enlightening too. When we were asked to choose our topics, I had some sense of what "designer babies" consisted of. As I researched the topic more and more however, it seemed that the implications it brought forth were endless. Even after we were asked to submit our first drafts, after presenting my research and then having a brief Q&A session in class, there were new questions that arose. Would the genetic engineering of babies lead to an outcome similar to that of cloning? Is there any legislation present about it? If not, then could we possible create some sort of legislation? Could this process lead to abortion? Discussing this topic with my classmates provided me with perspectives that I had not noticed nor addressed before and it will certainly help me when I shape and finalize the final draft. The drafting process was probably the toughest part. To put it simply, there was a lot of information that I felt needed to be put out, and there was only so much that one could include in 10 pages. Overall though, I think this research paper is a great way to end-off a semester as it basically culminates to all that you've learned and practiced the whole semester. 

        What I find startling with the research that I've done so far is the fact that it is more than likely that this will become a possibility in the near future. When you consider that we already genetically engineer some of our foods, well whats to say that this process can be perfected? Alone, the benefits that a break-through of this sort may bring are more than great. However, once you begin to examine the possible repercussions that this process may bring, it is more than likely that you will stop to think. I guess what I'm trying to get at is the fact that it seems we are not yet ready for genetically engineered embryos. Personally, it seems that there are still so many questions that need to be answered before such a procedure is perfected, much less allowed at a gran scale. 

Blog Prompt: "What Do You Fight For?"

"What do you fight for?" When I initially read the this particular free-write prompt, there were all these answers that immediately rushed to my head. Not being someone to act on impulses however, I continued to ask myself the same question a couple of times. "What do I fight for"?. By the time the 5 minutes were up, I remember looking at my paper and realizing that my time had already gone by. For that particular free-write prompt, I probably just jotted down a couple of words and that was that. In retrospect though, I realize that this unconscious act speaks in it of itself. 

Presented with the opportunity to give this question another try through this blog prompt, I've come to realize that, at least at this point in time, I have yet to truly decide what it is exactly that I want to accomplish. Upon careful inspection, I think that this is probably the most pressing question. Up until the whole "college experience", it seemed that I had a clear path that I wanted to follow: to carry on with my education and hopefully become either an engineer or an attorney. However, this past summer and these past months have been quite the eye-openers. My aspirations haven not changed much but through added responsibilities, I've come to see that there is more to life than to simply get that so called dream career - that there are other ways that one can be successful. 

         As of right now, the things that I do think I can do in efforts to eventually reach success are to develop good and worthwhile habits, to build strong foundations, to continue to do as well as is possible academically, and to make the most out of every possible opportunity all while still having some amount of fun. "What do you fight for?" is such an open-ended prompt that certainly elicits a wide variety of answers depending on who is choosing to answer. The main purpose that this prompt has served for me is to make me reflect on not only the possible future that is yet to come, but also on everything that I've done in order to reach where I stand now. It is true that time passes by in the blink of an eye but, even if you accomplish everything you had set out to accomplish, if you are not ultimately content, then are you really successful? For me, this prompt will continue to go unanswered, at least for the time being, but it is one that will constantly be present in every decision I come to make. 

"Engineering the Future": Persuasive Essay Final Draft

The City College of New York

English 11000 Honors 

November of 2013

Omar Rafael

Engineering the Future

“Designer babies”. It is highly probable that you have heard this colloquial phrase in the last couple of months. When we consider the scientific advancements that are constantly being made, the idea that we might one day in the near future harness the ability to genetically engineer our offspring does not seem implausible. Nevertheless, the last couple of weeks have seen various genetic advancements that are paving the road for the aforementioned process. This therefore raises a central question: should we intervene in a process that has conventionally been left to mother nature? Although the idea of genetically engineering our offspring is currently being propelled by benevolent intentions, the endeavor to make this idea a possibility should be stopped altogether as the possible repercussions drastically outweigh any possible benefits. 

The concept of genetically engineering our offspring is not much of a new phenomenon. Its beginnings can be said to have started with the practice of in vitro fertilization, which is an assisted reproduction technology introduced in the 1970’s that helps infertile women become pregnant by fertilizing the sperm and egg cells outside the body (Zhu, In Vitro Fertilization). This in vitro fertilization brought about the ability to pre-select embryos before they are attached to the mother’s uterine wall where the embryo will remain until birth. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is a procedure that is often done in conjunction with in vitro fertilization as it allows “viable embryos to be screened for various genetic traits, such as sex-linked diseases, before implanting them in the mother. Through PGD [pre-implantation genetic diagnosis], physicians can select embryos that are not predisposed to certain genetic conditions. For this reason, PGD [pre-implantation genetic diagnosis] is commonly used in medicine when parents carry genes that place their children at risk for serious diseases such as cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia” (Ly, Ethics of Designer Babies). However, for quite some time now, many clinics in the U.S. have been using pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to allow parents to choose the gender of their child. This can be argued to be a step towards designer babies as you are altering the genetic material (Naik, The Wall Street Journal). In 1996, Monique and Scott Collins went to doctors at the Genetics & IVF Institute in Virginia in order to undergo in vitro fertilization. Through this process and pre-implantation genetics diagnosis, the Collins ultimately opted to have a girl given that they had already had two boys and they sought to have a daughter in their family. This marked one of the first highly publicized instances of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis where the selection of the embryo was not performed for purely medical purposes. “The Collins’ decision to have a “designer baby” by choosing the sex of their child entered the public vernacular when they were featured in Time Magazine’s 1999 article "Designer Babies". Though the Collins’ case only involved choice of gender, it raised the issues of selection for other traits such as eye color, hair color, athleticism, or height that are not generally related to the health of the child” (Ly, Ethics of Designer Babies). 

In vitro fertilization and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis are both practices that initially started off as practices seeking to bestow parents with the opportunity of having a normal, healthy child. However, as time revealed, what started with specific and purely altruistic intentions such as allowing infertile woman to become mothers and allowing carriers of malignant genes to change the future for their offspring, was gradually altered to meet less imperative needs. What guarantees that if “designer babies” were to become a possibility, that people would not just make use of the practice for purely trivial purposes such as desired eye, desired hair color?, or desired talents? If we are eventually able to genetically engineer our children, and if we do allow the practice to be used for purely trivial purposes, we would be commodifying the human being. Now, because an ample supply of money would be all one would need to pick and choose the characteristics of one’s child, the human being would then just equate with any other product that can be bought and sold at will.  

Just this month, the federal government was asked to consider whether it would allow scientists to take a controversial step forward and alter the genetic material in a woman’s egg that would be passed down through generations (Stein, Proposed Treatment To Fix Genetic Diseases Raises Ethical Issues). According to scientist Mark Sauer who is part of one of the two teams researching, he says that the research hopes “to cure disease and to help women deliver healthy, normal children” (Stein, Proposed Treatment To Fix Genetic Diseases Raises Ethical Issues). In a more detailed fashion, this research would help create an egg with healthy mitochondrial DNA  (mtDNA). This mitochondrial DNA is the genetic material residing in the mitochondria, which is responsible for providing energy inside a cell. “Scientists estimate that 1 in every 200 women carries defects in her mtDNA” and that “Between 1 in 2,000 and 1 in 4,000 babies may be born each year with syndromes caused by these genetic glitches; the syndromes range from mild to severe. In many cases, there is no treatment, and the affected child dies early in life” (Stein, Proposed Treatment To Fix Genetic Diseases Raises Ethical Issues). However, this research brings about many concerns, including concerns it perpetuates, and could eventually facilitate the whole “designer babies” process. Perfectly phrased by Sarah Ly in her entry for the Arizona State University’s Encyclopedia, The Embryo Project Encyclopedia, “The increased ability to control and manipulate embryos presents many possibilities for improving the health of children through prenatal diagnosis, but these possibilities are coupled with potential social repercussions that could have negative consequences in the future”. 

The idea of manipulating genes leaves one feeling more than uneasy and raises many ethical issues. For example, in the aforementioned research that the federal government was asked to consider to be allowed in humans, the procedure would require that doctors take eggs from women and take out all the existing genes except the mtDNA. Then the DNA from the woman who wishes to have a baby is transferred into a healthy egg. The new egg would then be fertilized in the laboratory with the father’s sperm and the embryo could then be transferred into the mother’s womb (Stein, Proposed Treatment To Fix Genetic Diseases Raises Ethical Issues). But even this is very controversial as the baby would be born with genes from three different individuals: from the father, from the mother trying to have a healthy baby, and from the woman who donated the healthy egg. With genetic material from three different people, issues of identity may rise up in the later stages of life of the baby. Furthermore, it is still to be determined if the procedure is safe for the infant and if by trying to fix one problem, if scientists might inadvertently introduce mistakes into the human genetic code (Stein, Proposed Treatment To Fix Genetic Diseases Raises Ethical Issues). As Ronald Green points out, "If [genetic] mistakes are made, they won't just be mistakes in the child that is born. But if that child [is a girl and] has children down the line, those children will inherit the mitochondria from that child, and we'll have introduced new genetic diseases into the human population” (Stein, Proposed Treatment To Fix Genetic Diseases Raises Ethical Issues). 

As you can hopefully see by now, the concept of genetically engineering our offspring to our liking is not there just yet. Although there is still much to research, one thing is for certain and that is that we are closer than ever to be able to make “designers babies” a possibility. Even though this is the case, the endeavor to make this a possibility should be stopped altogether as the possible repercussions drastically outweigh any possible benefits. The driving force behind this concept is that it would allow parents to have normal, healthy children. At hindsight, this seems perfectly fine but such a practice has many readily apparent repercussions. With the latest research that involves the elimination of defective mtDNA, what if the child later on has an identity crisis in the later stages of his or her life? In a broader sense, with genetic engineering, aren't we perpetuating the commodification of the human body? What is it is used for trivial purposes instead of its original intent? What if mistakes are made? What if new genetic diseases are introduced into the human population? With something as delicate as the manipulation of genes, all these questions deserve answers. Evidently, until that happens, the effort to make “designer babies” a possibility should be stopped because the repercussions are much more severe than any possible benefit the practice may bring. 

Works Cited

"Brink: Designer Babies." The Science Channel. Discovery Networks. N.d. Science.discovery.com. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/brink/videos/brink-designer-babies.htm>.

Ly, Sarah. "Ethics of Designer Babies." The Embryo Project Encyclopedia. Arizona State University. School of Life Sciences. Center for Biology and Society. Embryo Project Encyclopedia., 31 Mar. 2011. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.

Naik, Gautam. "'Designer Babies:' Patented Process Could Lead to Selection of Genes for Specific Traits." The Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal, 03 Oct. 2013. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.

Stein, Rob. "Proposed Treatment To Fix Genetic Diseases Raises Ethical Issues." NPR. NPR, 09 Oct. 2013. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.

Waldman, Paul. "In Praise of Designer Babies." The American Prospect. The American Prospect, 10 Oct. 2013. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.

Zhu, Tian. "In Vitro Fertilization." The Embryo Project Encyclopedia. Arizona State University. School of Life Sciences. Center for Biology and Society. Embryo Project Encyclopedia., 22 July 2009. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.

"A Call For Action": Literary Analysis Final Draft

The City College of New York

English 11000 Honors 

October of 2013

Omar Rafael

A Call For Action 

As 1965 approached, the Civil Rights Movement was slowly reaching its culmination. In their endeavor to end segregation and racial discrimination, African-Americans had exhausted the practices of boycotts, sit-ins, and marches and had slowly started to gain support. However, for some, this was not enough. Around this time, Malcolm X emerged as a prominent leader within the African-American struggle and adopted an unconventional approach of how African-Americans should fight for their rights. Instead of voicing for peaceful and pacifist practices, Malcolm X wanted his fellow Blacks to adopt a more proactive approach. In Malcolm X’s speech, “The Ballot or the Bullet”, although Malcolm X intends to emphasize the importance of the African-American vote, his speech is really a calling for them to wake up and adopt a much more insistent role in fighting for their innate rights. 

Malcolm X successfully touches upon many issues throughout his speech however, the most salient one from which he branches out is the issue of voting. Early on, Malcolm X explains that 1964 is an important year as elections are right around the corner:

It's the year when all of the white politicians will be back in the so-called Negro community jiving you and me for some votes. The year when all of the white political crooks will be right back in your and my community with their false promises, building up our hopes for a letdown, with their trickery and their treachery, with their false promises which they don't intend to keep (Malcolm X, 1-2).

Here, Malcolm X fervently and explicitly states that white politicians head to African-American communities and make all these false promises not because they intend to help their struggle for equality, but merely because they seek to gain office. As Malcolm X impeccably phrases it: “That's why, in 1964, it's time now for you and me to become more politically mature and realize what the ballot is for; what we're supposed to get when we cast a ballot; and that if we don't cast a ballot, it's going to end up in a situation where we're going to have to cast a bullet. It's either a ballot or a bullet” (4). From this premise, Malcolm X successfully ventures out and urges his audience to stop turning a blind eye and instead, be much more mindful of who they vote for.

Throughout his speech, Malcolm X employs the use of various rhetorical techniques that help his speech come to life. From the very beginning, an immediate aspect that stands out is Malcolm X’s tone. Malcolm X’s extreme degree of bluntness along with the logic and analysis he presents creates a mood where the reader is able to feel the anger and dissatisfaction that he feels towards the not only the white man, but also his fellow Blacks. In his speech, Malcolm X goes through the usual formalities that one would expect of anyone presenting a speech to an audience. He begins by introducing himself, by providing the public with some background information about himself, and by starting to hint at what his speech will concern. Immediately following these formalities however, he switches into full gear when he states why he is here today: “I'm not here to argue or discuss anything that we differ about, because it's time for us to submerge our differences and realize that it is best for us to first see that we have the same problem... We're all in the same boat and we all are going to catch the same hell from the same man. He just happens to be a white man” (1). Shortly thereafter, he continues by stating that everyone has suffered at the hands of the white man, “All of us have suffered here, in this country, political oppression at the hands of the white man, economic exploitation at the hands of the white man, and social degradation at the hands of the white man” (1). It is important and significant to note that Malcolm X wastes no time with formalities. Instead, he immediately delves into the matter at hand. This therefore provides an indication of the fact that this was a pressing matter in his eyes. The words that he uses are also important. “Hell”, “oppression”, “degradation”. These are very powerful words that not only seek reactions from his audience, they also serve to convey Malcolm X’s anger and dissatisfaction.

Malcolm X is not only angry and dissatisfied by the white man’s inability to recognize African-Americans as the Americans that they are, he is also dissatisfied by his fellow African-Americans’ degree of passiveness towards the situation that they are in.  Malcolm X presents a picture where it is as if African-Americans naively believe that voting for democrats would help their situation take a turn for the better. To this, Malcolm X tells them that they have to wake up. 

To get his audience thinking, Malcolm X points out that both the House of Representatives and the Senate have had a democratic majority for a while now and yet, African-Americans have not made any progress.  “What alibis do they use, since they control Congress and the Senate? What alibi do they use when you and I ask, "Well, when are you going to keep your promise?" They blame the Dixiecrats. What is a Dixiecrat? A Democrat” (3). A crucial element that Malcolm X repeatedly employs throughout his speech is the concept of rhetorical questioning. It is evident that Malcolm X recognizes the power of a question as here, he is not seeking answers from his audience, he is simply using these to keep his audience attentive so that they will ruminate on the statements he is making. “... I love my Brother Lomax, the way he pointed out we're right back where we were in 1954. We're not even as far up as we were in 1954. We're behind where we were in 1954. There's more segregation now than there was in 1954. There's more racial animosity, more racial hatred, more racial violence today in 1964, than there was in 1954. Where is the progress?” (5). In this quote, Malcolm X’s meticulous and strategic placement of the rhetorical question not only conveys his dissatisfaction, it also begins to make his audience really assimilate what he is saying.  By now it is evident that Malcolm X knows that getting his audience to arrive at his conclusions on their own is a much more effective way to bring about the changes he proposes later on than if he simply tells them to take what he says at face value. Malcolm X’s anger and dissatisfaction is readily apparent when he address them and states:

It was the black man's vote that put the present administration in Washington, D.C. Your vote, your dumb vote, your ignorant vote, your wasted vote put in an administration in Washington, D.C., that has seen fit to pass every kind of legislation imaginable, saving you until last, then filibustering on top of that. And your and my leaders have the audacity to run around clapping their hands and talk about how much progress we're making... (2). 

Malcolm X’s level of directness, his persistent attempts to get his audience to associate with what he is saying, and his logic all lead me to conclude that he was more than successful in his efforts to make his audience understand the importance and severity of not only their vote but also, their fight for rights as the Americans that they were.

Although the title of this speech may be “The Ballot or the Bullet”, as readers approach the final sections of his speech, it appears that there is a bigger and broader message that Malcolm X is trying to get out. By the end, Malcolm X explicitly states that African-Americans have to stop waiting around for the white man to eventually change his opinions of them. He proposes that the African-American community take matters into their own hands:

“If you don't take this kind of stand, your little children will grow up and look at you and think "shame." ... I don't mean go out and get violent... I'm nonviolent with those who are nonviolent with me. But when you drop that violence on me, then you've made me go insane, and I'm not responsible for what I do. And that's the way every Negro should get. Any time you know you're within the law, within your legal rights, within your moral rights, in accord with justice, then die for what you believe in (7).

Although Malcolm is essentially telling Blacks to treat their opposition as they treat them, Malcolm is also planting a little seed that advocates for a more active approach in fighting for their rights. “We want freedom now, but we're not going to get it saying "We Shall Overcome." We've got to fight until we overcome” (9). This marks a point where Malcolm X blatantly points out that nonviolence can only get them so far. The whole notion that they will not get their freedom by saying “We Shale Overcome” alludes to all the times they have peacefully demonstrated. Now, Malcolm X seeks to get them to fight until they overcome. 

“It's time for you and me to stop sitting in this country, letting some cracker senators, Northern crackers and Southern crackers, sit there in Washington, D.C., and come to a conclusion in their mind that you and I are supposed to have civil rights. There's no white man going to tell me anything about my rights. Brothers and sisters, always remember, if it doesn't take senators and congressmen and presidential proclamations to give freedom to the white man, it is not necessary for legislation or proclamation or Supreme Court decisions to give freedom to the black man. You let that white man know, if this is a country of freedom, let it be a country of freedom; and if it's not a country of freedom, change it” (11). 

With these words providing a sense of closure, Malcolm X is really urging his fellow compatriots to stop sitting around and instead wake up to the reality at hand: that if they truly wanted to progress, that they had to adopt a more forcible stance and fight for their rights as Americans. 

Malcolm X’s “The Ballot or the Bullet” is more than successful in not only cautioning African-Americans about the way that they exercise their right to vote, but also in urging his audience to stop turning a blind eye to their current situation and instead to adopt a more proactive role in efforts to finally receive the rights they deserved as Americans. Malcolm X’s extreme bluntness along with the logic and analysis that he presents creates a mood where the reader is more than able to feel his dissatisfaction and anger at both the white man and the black community. With the aforementioned elements, Malcolm X has the power to shock his audience into realizing the harsh truth that simple noncompliance will not help them more than it already has. Instead, he urges them to take action. This does not necessarily have to mean that the will go out and buy guns, as he points out in his speech, rather it means that they have to start by judiciously exercising their right to vote, by adopting a sense of black nationalism, and by adopting a more insistent role in fighting for their rights. Malcolm X expresses that only after this is done will they begin to gain ground. 

Works Cited

X, Malcolm. "The Ballot or the Bullet." Cleveland, Ohio. 3 Apr. 1964. Speech.

Blog Prompt - Drafting the Literary Analysis

Throughout my senior year of high school, particularly in English class, it seemed like there was no end to prompts that required one to closely read and analyze a piece of literature.Whether it was one of Donne's famous sonnets or Karl Marx's and Friedrich Engels' Manifesto of the Communist Party, in simple terms what we always had to look at was what the author was trying to communicate,what techniques he or she made use of in efforts to achieve their purpose, and ultimately, whether or not he or she managed to accomplish their goal. I saw our latest assignment in Freshman Composition, the analytical essay,  to be essentially the same as the assignments which I had encountered in high school. Although this was the case, one thing that I found to be interesting was the fact that we have a lot more leeway with regards to what we would like to discuss whereas in my previous experiences, the prompts were usually more tailored so that we would focus the essay that we would write in the end.
For the literary analysis, I ultimately decided to use Malcolm X's "The Ballot or the Bullet" speech. I chose this piece over the others suggested because it really grabbed my attention the day that we first used a small excerpt of it in class. From that small excerpt, what immediately caught my attention was Malcolm X's particular writing style. It was evident that Malcolm X was one to speak his mind. He writes in such a way where his readers not only understand what he is saying but rather, they are also capable of feeling the emotions driving his words. What really sealed the deal for me was the fact that after reading the entire speech, it was evident that there was something far more important at the heart of his work than what the title conveyed. I guess what I am trying to get at is the fact that it really seemed to me that Malcolm X chose everything that he talked about in his speech deliberately. What Malcolm X was really trying to accomplish in his speech was to hit his audience hard so that they would wake up and adopt a more proactive approach in their fight for equality.
The toughest obstacle to overcome in an analytical essay is definitely to come up with an arguable thesis. In order to make sure that my thesis was arguable, I first wrote it down and then continued to quickly jot down a couple of points both in opposition and in favor it. I repeated this a couple of times and gradually developed it to the one that I ended up using. I think that once you manage to come up with a decent arguable thesis, you already have a good portion of the work done because at that point you already have more than a good idea of what your essay will ultimately look like.

Literary Analysis - First Draft

The City College of New York

English 11000 Honors 

October of 2013

Omar Rafael

A Call For Action 

     In Malcolm X’s speech, “The Ballot or the Bullet”, although Malcolm X intends to emphasize the importance of the African-American vote by warning African-Americans that they have to cautiously exercise their right to vote during this crucial period, his speech is really a calling for them to wake up and adopt a much more insistent role in fighting for their innate rights. 

“Don’t be throwing out any ballots. A ballot is like a bullet. You don’t throw your ballots until you see a target, and if that target is not within your reach, keep you ballot in your pocket” (Malcolm X, “The Ballot or the Bullet”). If someone were to select a phrase that most clearly identifies the gist of Malcolm X’s speech, that line would probably achieve just that. Although Malcolm X successfully touches upon many issues, the most salient one from which he appears to branch out from is the issue of voting. Early in his speech, Malcolm X explains that the year of 1964 is an important year as elections are right around the corner. He fervently voices that this marks the time of the year where the white politicians head to the African-American communities and make all these false promises not because they intend to help their struggle for equality, but merely because they seek to gain office. From this premise, Malcolm X successfully ventures out and urges his audience to stop turning a blind eye to all of this and instead, be much more careful with who they give their votes to. 

Throughout his speech, Malcolm X employs the use of various rhetorical techniques that help his speech come to life. From the very beginning, an immediate aspect that stands out is Malcolm X’s tone. Malcolm X’s extreme degree of bluntness along with the logic and analysis he presents creates a mood where the reader is able to feel the anger and dissatisfaction that he feels towards the not only the white man, but also his fellow compatriots. In his speech, Malcolm X goes through the usual formalities that one would expect of anyone presenting a speech to an audience. He begins by introducing himself , by providing the public with some background information about himself, and by starting to hint at what his speech will concern. Immediately following these formalities however, he switches into full gear when he states why he is here today: “I'm not here to argue or discuss anything that we differ about, because it's time for us to submerge our differences and realize that it is best for us to first see that we have the same problem... We're all in the same boat and we all are going to catch the same hell from the same man. He just happens to be a white man” (Malcolm X, “The Ballot of the Bullet”). Shortly thereafter, he continues by flat-out stating that everyone has suffered at the hands of the white man,  “All of us have suffered here, in this country, political oppression at the hands of the white man, economic exploitation at the hands of the white man, and social degradation at the hands of the white man” (Malcolm X). 

Malcolm X is not only angry and dissatisfied by the white man’s inability to recognize African-Americans as the Americans that they are, he is also dissatisfied by his fellow compatriots’ degree of passiveness towards the situation that they are in.  Malcolm X paints a picture where it is as if they believed that voting for democrats would help their situation take a turn for the better. To this, Malcolm X tells them that they have to wake up. He points out that both the House of Representatives and the Senate have had a democratic majority for a while now and yet, African-Americans have not made much progress.  Malcolm X’s anger and dissatisfaction is readily apparent when he directly address them and states that “It was the black man's vote that put the present administration in Washington, D.C. Your vote, your dumb vote, your ignorant vote, your wasted vote put in an administration in Washington, D.C., that has seen fit to pass every kind of legislation imaginable, saving you until last, then filibustering on top of that. And your and my leaders have the audacity to run around clapping their hands and talk about how much progress we're making...” (Malcolm X). Malcolm X’s level of directness, his persistent attempts to get his audience to associate with what he is saying, and his logic all lead me to conclude that he was more than successful in his efforts to make his audience understand the importance and severity of not only the importance of their vote but also, the importance of the fight for their rights as the Americans that they were.

Although the title of this speech may be “The Ballot or the Bullet”, as readers approach the final sections of this speech, it appears that there is a bigger and broader message that Malcolm X is trying to get out. By the end, Malcolm X explicitly states that African-Americans have to stop waiting around for the white man to eventually change his opinions of them. Instead, he proposes that the African-American community take matters into their own hands and adopt a sense of black nationalism so that all the evils harming the morality of the black community are removed so that everyone will be satisfied with where they are and consequently not aspire to belong to other social circles. He is asking that they all re-evaluate themselves so that their community will thrive. “It's time for you and me to stop sitting in this country, letting some cracker senators, Northern crackers and Southern crackers, sit there in Washington, D.C., and come to a conclusion in their mind that you and I are supposed to have civil rights. There's no white man going to tell me anything about my rights. Brothers and sisters, always remember, if it doesn't take senators and congressmen and presidential proclamations to give freedom to the white man, it is not necessary for legislation or proclamation or Supreme Court decisions to give freedom to the black man. You let that white man know, if this is a country of freedom, let it be a country of freedom; and if it's not a country of freedom, change it” (Malcolm X). With these words providing a sense of closure, Malcolm X is really urging his fellow compatriots to stop sitting around and instead wake up to the reality at hand: that if they truly wanted to progress, that they had to adopt a more forcible stance and fight for their rights as Americans. 

Malcolm X’s “The Ballot or the Bullet” is more than successful in not only cautioning African-Americans about the way that they exercise their right to vote, but also in urging his audience to stop turning a blind eye to their current situation and instead, to adopt a more proactive role in efforts to finally receive the rights they deserved as Americans. Malcolm X’s extreme bluntness along with the logic and analysis that he presents creates a mood where the reader is more than able to feel his dissatisfaction and anger at both the white man and the black community. With the aforementioned elements, Malcolm X has the power to shock his audience into realizing the harsh truth that simple noncompliance will not help them more than it already has. Instead, he urges them to take action. This does not necessarily have to mean that the will go out and purchase guns, as he points out in his speech, rather it means that they have to start by judiciously exercising their right to vote and by adopting a sense of black nationalism where they can re-evaluate themselves. Malcolm X expresses that only after this is done will they begin to gain grounds. 

Blog Prompt - "The Ballot or the Bullet"

Although I had always encountered Malcolm X in my history classes when we would go into the Civil Rights Movement, I have to admit that I had never read anything extensive that he had written. I knew the basics that were taught; that he was an assertive political activist in the U.S. who passionately advocated for African American rights. After my exposure to the small excerpt of his “The Ballot or the Bullet” however, I was intrigued to the point where I ultimately made it a point to actually read the whole piece. I understood the the whole purpose of his speech to be to warn African-Americans that they had to cautiously exercise their right to vote during this crucial time. I thought that he was more than successful in accomplishing his as he clearly expresses himself and his thoughts. 

Malcolm X’s “The Ballot or the Bullet” was a public speech that he gave in Cleveland, Ohio on the 3rd of April of 1964. What immediately caught my attention was his particular style of expressing himself. Right from the very beginning, I immediately felt everything that he was trying to convey to his audience. Malcolm X’s extreme degree of bluntness alongside the logic he presented made me feel the apparent anger and dissatisfaction that he had towards the white man. For example, in his speech, Malcolm X goes through the usual formalities that one would expect of anyone presenting a speech to an audience. He begins by introducing himself , by providing the public with some background information about himself, and by starting to hint at what his speech will concern. Immediately following these formalities however, it appears to me that he switches into full gear when he states the reason why he is here today: “I'm not here to argue or discuss anything that we differ about, because it's time for us to submerge our differences and realize that it is best for us to first see that we have the same problem... We're all in the same boat and we all are going to catch the same hell from the same man. He just happens to be a white man” (Malcolm X, “The Ballot of the Bullet”). I consider this part to be of crucial importance because it vaguely gets to capture the gist of what Malcolm X discusses later on. Instead, I saw this section as a portion where he successfully attempts to get his audience to feel the same feelings of dissatisfaction and anger that he felt. He flat-out states that all everyone has suffered at the hands of the white man,  “All of us have suffered here, in this country, political oppression at the hands of the white man, economic exploitation at the hands of the white man, and social degradation at the hands of the white man” (Malcolm X, “The Ballot of the Bullet). As he begins to focus on the struggle that African-Americans were undergoing in their attempts to be considered Americans, he makes it clear that he is not anti-white in any way - he even makes it a point to state that he does not consider himself American. I think that it was the parts like these that really add weight and significance to what he was saying. Malcolm X’s level of directness, his persistent attempts to get his audience to associate with what he is saying, and his logic all lead me to conclude that he was more than successful in his efforts to make his audience understand the importance and severity of not only the way they would exercise their right to vote but also, the importance of the fight for their rights as the Americans that they were. 

Literacy Narrative: "Law and English" (Final Draft)

The City College of New York

Freshman Composition - English 11000

September of 2013

Omar Rafael

Law and English

“Chief justice, and may it please the court. My name is Omar Rafael and I along with my co-counselor, Jesse Reiff, represent the petitioners, Manny Slater and his parents...”

My mind raced as I delivered my opening. I forced a nervous smile and slowly scanned the panel of judges in efforts to figure out if I had caught their attention. Upon seeing the judge on the far-right return a smile, I slowly loosened my grip of the podium and began to feel comfortable. In just a matter of minutes, this would all be over. 

Moot court was one of the most rewarding experiences throughout my years in high school. Not only did it help me meet one of my closest friends during freshman year and give me a taste of what it is like to be an attorney, moot court ultimately provided a worthwhile experience that lead me to embrace and enjoy the intricacies of the English language. 

In a succinct fashion, moot court simulates an appellate court or arbitral case, the latter being more similar to the cases that appear before the U.S. Supreme Court. Contrary to what one sees on shows like Law&Order, moot court is not a trial. Instead, it is more concerned with the interpretation and application of the law to a particular case. Moot court generally only involves the attorneys presenting their arguments for the parties they are representing and a panel of judges. 

Townsend Harris High School participates in the annual citywide Mentor Moot Court Competition that is held at Fordham Law School beginning in November. The NYC Bar Association pairs participating high schools with law firms that help prepare teams for the competition. Each year, the case for the competition is unveiled in early October and from there on, students and law firms work together to prepare a basic argument for the competition as the heart of the competition lies in how competitors fare against a bench and the questions they pose in efforts to make the competitor falter. Amid this process, competitors are scored based on their understanding of the law, their application of the law to the case at hand, their ability and effectiveness to address the concerns voiced by the panel, and their overall presentation. 

In retrospect, I do not know what drove me to want to join this academic team. Since elementary school, I have always yearned to become an engineer. All I can remember is that from the moment I started attending the team meetings, I had decided to work towards becoming a competitor. I truly struck out that year. Freshmen were generally not favored to compete for obvious reasons but because two seniors had left the year before, auditions were held for the available spots. This screening process was where I met my close friend Jesse as me and him were the only two freshmen to try out that year. 

After ingeniously debating our way through the fabricated prompts, Jesse and I were warmly welcomed into the competing team of four. From there on, it was all work. In a span of four weeks, the competitors have to learn the basics of law, read and fully know the case distributed that year, peruse a lot of case-law to gain insights on the issues and laws pertaining to the case, and finally, prepare a roadmap, essentially an outline of the points you hope to make before the panel of judges. It was through this scaffolding process that I learned to appreciate the beauty of the English language.

English is key in law. With this I do not just mean that one has to be fluent. No. Instead, if you truly want to succeed, you need to dominate the language so that it completely works to your advantage. If I had to describe it in simple terms, law is basically English on steroids. Everything comes into play. Diction and one’s word choice is important. Rhetoric is crucial. When you are arguing before the panel, not only do you have to believe what you yourself are saying, you have to persuade the judges that what you are saying is the only logical solution. Even imagery helps as you want to ultimately paint a picture where what you are advocating makes perfect sense.

In that year’s case, the plaintiff was a disabled child who claimed that the school he attended had not done enough to accommodate his needs and that as a consequence, he had been harmed. The school on the other hand responded by saying that although they did not entirely abide by Manny’s Individualized Education Program (IEP), a plan customized to Manny that outlined what accommodations he needed, that Manny made significant progress and therefore did not cause Manny any harm. This is the simplified version. In the case, there were many technicalities that both helped and harmed both sides. For instance, there were two major laws that were set as precedent for cases of this nature. The one I was advocating to be used looked to whether or not the school made a meaningful effort to help the child. Just in that phrasing there are many problems. For one, what constitutes a “meaningful effort”? Delving further into the case, if the school could not abide by Manny’s IEP plan because they simply did not have the resources, could they be held liable? The second part of this law looked to whether the school’s alleged failures were to a significant extent where the child suffered harm. Well, what constitutes a “significant failure”? What constitutes a “harm”? It were these little but important questions that had to be addressed one way or another if you intended to prove your case. 

When drafting my road map, I remember initially thinking that these little questions were nothing but trivial. The theme of my first road map was that a school had an obligation to cater to the needs of disabled students under the Free Appropriate Public Education statute that called for schools to follow a disabled child’s IEP. However, as we started to simulate the competition or moot each other, it quickly became evident that an argument of that sort would never hold in court. If you intended to win, you needed to tackle the technicalities of the laws. You had to show you understood them. You had to clearly define any ambiguous phrase in a way that favored you. Still, it did not end there. If the court completely neglected your case-law and instead chose to go with the opposing side’s logic and law, you had to be willing to go the extra mile and embrace and adapt those laws so that they favored you. 

As the competition drew nearer and nearer, it was truly heartening to see my argument go from being very vague and primitive to something much more tailored and conspicuous. With the guidance of the attorneys whom we worked with for two hours weekly, after each test run I gave my argument, I would make sure I knew how to explain everything I mentioned in it, and that it did not contain anything unnecessary. By the time the competition came around, the team was ready to the point where we would not need papers to go up with us - we all knew our arguments so well that no matter what curveballs were thrown at us, we could stand our own. 

Moot court provided a valuable and significant literary experience in my life. Going beyond learning to simply win or lose a competition, it enabled me to hone and strengthen my skills as both a reader and a writer. All the countless hours spent reading case-law were not for nothing. In the beginning, I have to admit that it was tough sifting through all the texts for specific examples or phrases that would strengthen my argument. As I did this more and more however, this gradually became easier. Through the process of editing my argument, I learned to weed out unnecessary information and thereby how to become more direct in my writing. I learned there are many ways of phrasing the same information and that each phrasing has its own particular effect on the listener. I learned that depending on what you intend to accomplish, that certain literary techniques work better then others. It was through all of this that moot court made me appreciate English. Although the we have yet to earn the privilege of being the best in the city, Townsend Harris always places among the top teams in the competition at Fordham. I think that this just goes to show that no matter how well you believe you have learned something, that there is always room for improvement. I have deviated from this activity for now but I know for certain that everything I learned in moot court will not leave me. Now, I just hope to build upon the foundations I already have to become both a better reader and writer. 

Literacy Narrative: "English and Law" (First Draft)

  “Chief justice, and may it please the court. My name is Omar Rafael and I along with my co-counselor, Jesse Reiff, represent the petitioners, Manny Slater and his parents...”

My mind raced as I delivered my opening. I forced a nervous smile and slowly scanned the panel of judges in efforts to figure out if I had caught their attention. Upon seeing the judge on the far-right return a smile, I slowly loosened my grip of the podium and began to feel comfortable. In just a matter of minutes, this would all be over. 

Moot court was one of the most rewarding experiences throughout my years in high school. Not only did it help me meet one of my closest friends during freshman year and give me a taste of what it is like to be an attorney, moot court ultimately provided a worthwhile experience that lead me to embrace and enjoy the intricacies of the English language. 

In a succinct manner, moot court simulates an appellate court or arbitral case, the latter being more similar to the cases that appear before the U.S. Supreme Court. Contrary to what one sees on shows like Law&Order or CSI, moot court is not a trial. Instead, it is more concerned on the interpretation and application of the law to a particular case. Moot court generally only involves a panel of judges and the attorneys presenting their arguments for the party that they are representing. 

Townsend Harris High School participates in the annual citywide Mentor Moot Court Competition that is held at Fordham Law School beginning in November. The NYC Bar Association pairs participating high schools with law firms that help prepare teams for the actual competition. Each year, the case for the competition is unveiled in early October and from there on, students and law firms work together to prepare a basic argument for the competition as the heart of the competition lies in how competitors fair against a bench and the questions they pose in efforts to make the competitor falter. Amid this process, competitors are scored based on their understanding of the law, their application of the law to the case at hand, their ability and effectiveness to address the concerns voiced by the panel, and their overall presentation. 

In retrospective, I do not know what drove me to want to join this academic team. Since elementary school, I have always yearned to become an engineer. All I can remember is that from the moment I started attending the team meetings, I had decided to work towards becoming an actual competitor. I truly struck out that year. Freshmen were generally not favored to compete for obvious reasons but because two seniors had left the year before, auditions were held for the available spots. This screening process was where I met my close friend Jesse as he and I were the only two freshmen trying out to be on the team that air. 

Once we had earned our spots onto the competing team of four, it was all work. In a span of four weeks, the competitors have to learn the basics of law, read and fully know the case distributed that year as if they had written it, peruse a lot of case-law to gain insights on the issues and laws pertaining to the case, and finally, prepare a roadmap, essentially an outline of the points you hope to make before the panel of judges. It was through this scaffolding process that I learned to appreciate the beauty of the English language.

English is key in law. With this I do not just mean that one has to be fluent. No. Instead, if you truly want to succeed, you need to dominate the language so that it completely works to your advantage. If I had to describe it in simple terms, law is basically English on steroids. Everything comes into play. Diction, or one’s word choice is important. Rhetoric is crucial. When you are arguing before the panel, not only do you have to believe what you yourself are saying, you have to persuade the judges that what you are saying is the best way to go about. Even imagery helps as you want to paint a picture where what you’re advocating makes perfect sense. 

In that year’s case, the plaintiff was a disabled child who claimed that the school he attended had not done enough to accommodate his needs and that as a consequence, he had been harmed. The school on the other hand responded by saying that although they did not entirely abide by Manny’s IEP plan, a plan customized to Manny that outlined what accommodations he needed, that Manny made significant progress and therefore did not cause Manny any harm. This is the simplified version. In the case, there were many technicalities that both helped and harmed both sides. For instance, the there were two major laws that were set as precedent for cases of this nature. The one I was advocating to be used looked to whether or not the school made a meaningful effort to help the child. Just in that phrasing there are many problems. For one, what constitutes a “meaningful effort”? Delving further into the case, if the school could not abide by Manny’s IEP plan because they simply did not have the resources, could they be held liable? The second part of this law looked to whether the school’s alleged failures were to a significant extent where the child suffered harm. Well, what constitutes a “significant failure”? What constitutes a “harm”? It were these little but important questions that had to be addressed one way or another if you intended to prove your case. 

When drafting up my road map, I remember initially thinking that these little questions were nothing but trivial. The theme of my first road map was that a school had an obligation to cater to the needs of disabled students under the Free Appropriate Public Education statute that called for schools to follow a disabled child’s IEP. As we started to moot each other however, it quickly became evident that an argument of that sort would never hold in court. If you intended to win, you needed to tackle the technicalities of the laws. You had to show you understood them. You had to clearly define any ambiguous phrase in a way that favored you. However, it did not end there. If the court completely neglected your case-law and instead chose to go with the opposing side’s logic and law, you had to be willing to go the extra mile and embrace and adapt those laws so that they favored you. 

As the competition drew nearer and nearer, it was truly comforting to see my argument go from being very primitive and vague to something much more tailored and conspicuous. With the guidance of the attorneys whom we worked with for two hours weekly, after each test run I gave my argument, I would make sure I knew how to explain everything I mentioned in it, and that it did not contain anything that was unnecessary. By the time the competition came around, the team was ready to the point where we would not need paper to go up with us - we had all gotten to know our arguments so well that no matter what curveballs were thrown at us, we could stand our own. 

Moot court provided a valuable and significant experience in my life. Going beyond winning or losing a competition, it enabled me to hone and strengthen my skills as both a reader and a writer. All the countless hours spent reading case-law were not for nothing. In the beginning, I have to admit that it was tough sifting through all the texts for specific examples or phrases that would strengthen my argument. As I did this more and more however, this gradually became easier. Through the process of drafting my argument, I learned to weed out unnecessary information and thereby how to become more direct in my writing. I learned there are many ways of phrasing the same information and that each phrasing has its own particular effect on the listener. I learned that depending on what you intend to accomplish, that certain literary techniques work better then others. It was through all of this that moot court made me appreciate English. Although I have deviated from this activity for now, I know for certain that everything I learned in moot court will not leave me. Now, I just hope to build upon the foundations I already have to become a better reader and writer.