Affiliate Marketing Secrets

I was wondering if there are positions at the United Nations headquarters (or anywhere, just affiliated with the UN) where you can write for them or be a journalist for them relating to world issues?

I had a lot to say about my college, and I ended up writing way more than I intended. I don’t want to sound rude or offend the school, but I tried to be as rational and logical as possible. I would also like to know if it is well-written as well.
How are whiteness, wealth and heterosexuality normalized at Boston College by students, faculty, and administrators. How could such normalization be challenged? How does Joiner’s work help you to make change more effectively?
Boston College’s student population primarily consists of wealthy, Caucasian, heterosexual males and females. Anything outside of this description is considered out of the majority. One way in which whiteness is normalized by the administration of BC is the “AHANA” group, which consists of students of African- American, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American descent. Although this is meant to be helpful to people of cultures other than Caucasian and to help minorities find common ground, it is essentially labeling minorities and placing them into a separate category from the rest of the student body. Caucasians are not given a special acronym or advantages upon entering the school, and I believe this AHANA label is counterproductive to its purpose. Cultural groups should be something optional, something that a student joins because they are interested and would like to explore their culture. In fact, many students that are labeled “AHANA” do not identify with their cultures at all and have grown up in wealthy suburban neighborhoods with mostly Caucasian peers. They then come to BC and are de-normalized by essentially being grouped and labeled by administration. Although this is not the intention, if BC genuinely sees minorities as normal and equal, this label does not need to be automatically placed upon minority students entering the school.
Wealth is normalized at BC by its administration and students. The school has an extremely high tuition cost, lack of generous financial aid, legacy acceptances, and a religious/private affiliation. BC is a popular place to apply among Catholic high schools, which are most often optional and cost thousands of dollars per year. Therefore, the majority of students who apply to BC come from well off families who could afford a private, Catholic education. BC administration could work on cutting down on costs that are not absolutely necessary and offering more financial aid to deserving students, as well as rejecting students who are not. With such a large portion of wealthy students who are able to pay full tuition, it is no wonder that many students wear designer clothing items and accessories to class that make it visible that they have been able to pay the extra money. When a large portion of students are this way, it may make people who come from different socioeconomic levels feel inferior, when in fact it is because they are at an abnormally expensive university. Students could challenge this by not wearing clothing items which have large logos on them or designer patterns, but it is majorly up to the university administration to be more generous with financial aid and perhaps advertise it so that students who come from lower socioeconomic levels are not automatically discouraged from applying. In addition, simply wavering the large application fee of $70 would encourage less wealthy students to apply, as BC is a competitive school, and underprivileged students may feel like they do not have a great chance and that such a large fee is not worth the money.
BC administration normalizes heterosexuality due to its label as a religious school. Homosexuality goes against Catholicism, so it is likely that homosexual students will steer away from applying or attending a religious affiliated school due to feeling uncomfortable. If they would like to attract a more diverse body of students, they should drop their label as religious but still have the religious aspect available to students so that no student feels they should be a certain way. Although people of all religions are welcome and religion is not pushed upon students, the label as Jesuit narrows down on the type of students who apply: heterosexual, Caucasian, Catholics. Although the Jesuit ideals of education of the whole person are intended to be beneficial for everyone, it still tends to attract religious, conservative students who can pay the high price of a private college. There are still masses held for students, crosses in most classrooms, and a theology core required. One could challenge this by proposing the idea that if BC’s main goal is to produce successful students, they should solely label themselves an academic school with religious aspects available to all types of religions, as well as diversifying its groups and activities to homosexual students. Although dropping the religious affiliation is an extreme change and the student body has diversified over time, it is the basis of the student homogeneity issue.

How are whiteness, wealth and heterosexuality normalized at Boston College by students, faculty, and administrators. How could such normalization be challenged?
Boston College’s student population primarily consists of wealthy, Caucasian, heterosexual males and females. Anything outside of this description is considered out of the majority. One way in which whiteness is normalized by the administration of BC is the “AHANA” group, which consists of students of African- American, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American descent. Although this is meant to be helpful to people of cultures other than Caucasian and to help minorities find common ground, it is essentially labeling minorities and placing them into a separate category from the rest of the student body. Caucasians are not given a special acronym or advantages upon entering the school, and I believe this AHANA label is counterproductive to its purpose. Cultural groups should be something optional, something that a student joins because they are interested and would like to explore their culture. In fact, many students that are labeled “AHANA” do not identify with their cultures at all and have grown up in wealthy suburban neighborhoods with mostly Caucasian peers. They then come to BC and are de-normalized by essentially being grouped and labeled by administration. Although this is not the intention, if BC genuinely sees minorities as normal and equal, this label does not need to be automatically be placed upon minority students entering the school.
Wealth is normalized at BC by its administration and students. The school has an extremely high tuition cost, lack of generous financial aid, legacy acceptances, and a religious/private affiliation. BC is a popular place to apply among Catholic high schools, which are most often optional and cost thousands of dollars per year. Therefore, the majority of students who apply to BC come from well off families who could afford a private, Catholic education. BC administration could work on cutting down on costs that are not absolutely necessary and offering more financial aid to deserving students, as well as rejecting students who are not. With such a large portion of wealthy students who are able to pay full tuition, it is no wonder that many students wear designer clothing items and accessories to class that make it visible that they have been able to pay the extra money. When a large portion of students are this way, it may make people who come from different socioeconomic levels feel inferior, when in fact it is because they are at an abnormally expensive university. Students could challenge this by not wearing clothing items which have large logos on them or designer patterns, but it is majorly up to the university administration to be more generous with financial aid and perhaps advertise it so that students who come from lower socioeconomic levels are not automatically discouraged from applying. In addition, simply wavering the large application fee of $70 would encourage less wealthy students to apply, as BC is a competitive school, and underprivileged students may feel like they do not have a great chance and that such a large fee is not worth the money.
BC administration normalizes heterosexuality due to its label as a religious school. Homosexuality goes against Catholicism, so it is likely that homosexual students will steer away from applying or attending a religious affiliated school due to feeling uncomfortable. If they would like to attract a more diverse body of students, they should drop their label as religious but still have the religious aspect available to students so that no student feels they should be a certain way. Although people of all religions are welcome and religion is not pushed upon students, the label as Jesuit narrows down on the type of students who apply: heterosexual, Caucasian, Catholics. Although the Jesuit ideals of education of the whole person are intended to be beneficial for everyone, it still tends to attract religious, conservative students who can pay the high price of a private college. There are still masses held for students, crosses in most classrooms, and a theology core required. One could challenge this by proposing the idea that if BC’s main goal is to produce successful students, they should solely label themselves an academic school with religious aspects available to all types of religions, as well as diversifying its groups and activities to homosexual students. Although dropping the religious affiliation is an extreme change and the student body has diversified over time, it is the basis of the student homogeneity issue. It is hard to find a private, Catholic college with a large number of students who are gay and non-Caucasian, particularly in a state such as Massachusetts. BC administration should realize that college is a place where people should be opened up

Here is what I have so far. I need to get it to four minutes and its at like 2:40
Help with adding stuff would be much appreciated
Rosa Parks once said “No”. While that one simple syllable doesn’t seem like much out of context, her response to being told to move to the back of the bus because of her color caught the attention of the entire country. Nowadays, people rarely stand up for themselves due to fear of confrontation or earning the disapproval of their peers. People don’t realize how crucial it is as a society that we not only fight for ourselves, but fight for what is right. Rosa Parks inspiring act of standing up for what she believed in, regardless of what the consequences were shows just how critical defending our beliefs is. First, I will share Rosa Park’s story so that we can go on to reflect the importance of standing up for oneself and lastly I will talk about the consequences of not fighting for what’s right.
On December 1st, 1955, Rosa Parks was ordered by a bus driver to give up her seat to a white passenger. She refused. While she didn’t know it at the time, her courageous act of standing up for herself , became one of the most important symbols of the modern Civil Rights Movement. That one simple word caused her to become an international icon for the resistance of racial segregation and led her to be affiliated with iconic people such as Martin Luther King Jr. When looking back at all her success and huge role in the Civil Rights Movement, it all started when she first stood up for herself back on that bus. She knew that refusing to give up her seat would inevitably lead to being sent to prison, but by sticking up for herself, she helped start a revolution.
While fighting for what you believe in may not have the same monumental effect it did for Rosa Parks, the message behind it stays the same. That you will not back down easily just to avoid confrontation when you know something isn’t right. The importance of protecting your beliefs is a message that normally goes unheard in today’s world. We hear all the time about people such as Rosa Parks or Susan B. Anthony or even someone who sticks up to a bully but the truth is, in today’s world people like that are a rarity. People have been forgetting why we should stick up for ourselves in the first place. When you stand up for yourself, not only are you showing others how important respect and your morals are, but you are showing yourself as well.
The consequences of refusing to stand up for yourself may not always seem monumental enough to waste time over, but simply backing down every time you’re faced with confrontation can lead to a negative outlook on the way other perceive you.

I need to outsource content. Can I outsource it to a content writing agency without worrying about deadlines and quality of content?

Lets go over the pros and cons of a creative writing mfa.
First, “creative writing” is almost a redundancy, considering that all writing in itself is creative, whether fictive, poetic, or instructional. In essence, you may as well be getting a degree in “creative thinking,” seeing that all writing is more mental than syntactic, regardless of affective stylistics and the like.
All degrees or majors in academia require some level of creative thought, though we dont say we are majoring in “creative philosophy,” or “creative chemistry,” or “creative arts,” because its impled that they’re all creative.
Next, people always say that ‘it gives them a chance to devote a few years to reading and writing,’ as if they didnt have time before they started the mfa degree? Usually if you write and read, you do these whenever you are not working or gaining experience than may better serve your ability to write than writing itself. Its almost as if people need the officiality of the degree to either validate their efforts, or to materialize their desires – both of which are bad reasons to begin with.
Heres are some ‘creative’ facts about the mfa. For one, most mfa programs were started by other mfa graduates because they could not do anything else with their creative writing. You certainly cannot find work in other non-creative outlets, other than working in a bakery or waiting tables, or working for people who are evidently not creative.
So what is the real import of a creative writing degree? Besides pretension and narcissism?
Im not sure? It seems like a really really really bad idea in the 21st century. Basically niche poetry and prose and fiction is for other writers, but usually other writers are so blinded by egotism and self-reference that they cant appreciate other writing. Its a strange situation. I was going to apply to a bunch of mfa programs but after reading various college publications and examples of what they claim is ‘good,’ I went to law school instead.
Basically, I just want to know why anyone would want to subject themselves to this hyper-pretensious form of academia? And why should anyone take someone with a creative writing degree seriously considering the absolute garbage that is published today.