Customer service Essay Example for Free

Customer service Essay This company operates globally in more than 100 countries and territories throughout the world. Their marketing objectives are realistic, measurable, and time specific. In the mission statement it says that every customer will be back, which is true because every family has eaten Pizza Hut more than once or twice. Pizza Hut is the leading pizza delivery group that has Dine-In restaurants. The restaurant has good customer service. In researching this company notes were taken on how good the customer service for this company really is. Create a pizza thats custom made just for you. Start with your favorite crust; add your toppings, and just the right amount of cheese and sauce. This is one way of service Pizza Hut gives and is known for being the best, because you get your pizza just the way you ordered it. Whether youre gathering for a game or making it a lunch meeting, feeding a large group is easy when you order from Pizza Hut, where its affordable, easy to order and assessable to many others to order. They are considered to have lower prices to be able to feed a lot of people for just a little of money. They have a very different variety of products on their menu one to please all types of individuals. Their mission statement says we take pride in making a perfect pizza and providing courteous and helpful service on time, all the time. Every customer says, I’ll be back! The definition that for good customer service that I have is that every customer can get everything they want as in pizza regardless of what they want on it. This is called pleasing the customer with what the customer has ordered. The basic customer Common needs are whatever the customer wants in prospected to what they ordered from the menu. The rapport and customer relations are established by giving the customer everything they prefer on the order when it is ordered. In other words giving the customer what they want. The basic common needs of the customer are given them what they want as a customer and make them happy. This is why I chose to write about Pizza Hut. (American Psychological Assoc. ) References Kramer, L. (1997). Pizza Huts Gier looking beyond boom for growth. Advertising Age, 68(42), 40. (American Psychological Assoc. ) References PIZZA HUT: PAN PIZZA ANNIVERSARY. (2005). Advertising Age, 76(39), 81. (American Psychological Assoc. ) References MacArthur, K. (2000). Pizza Hut brings back its Edge: $25 mil supports new version. Advertising Age, 71(18), 4. (Source: Northwestern University Center for Media Management www. mediainfocenter. org). (Sources: Pizzahut. com, and Yum. com).

Using animals in medical research

Using animals in medical research Introduction   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Throughout history, animals (refers to ‘non-human animals, excluding human) are widely used in different fields. However, the issue of using animals in medical research notably attract public attention because, to many people, it appears unnatural and cruel, even though the number of animals used for other purposes and the ill-effects exposed (eg. blood sport) may often be greater, because the estimated 50 million animals used annually in experiments worldwide only account for about 0.2% of all animals used (Mepham, 2008).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The debate about animal experimentation ranges broadly over two distinct questions. Firstly, do animal research yields useful knowledge that could not be gained from other source and secondly, is it morally acceptable to use animals in a way that cause them harm (Nuffield Councils on Bioethics, 2005). The question of scientific justification is, obviously, fundamental to the question of moral justification. Scientific Justification Justified ‘There could have been no oral polio vaccine without the use of innumerable animals. Without animal research, polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year. (Sabin, 1995) The primary reason given for using animals in research is that most medical advances since the 19th century have resulted from research using animals (Mepham, 2008). Among the examples are the extraction of first hormone (1902), a chemical treatment for syphilis (1909), isolation of insulin (1920), modern anaesthetics (1920s), kidney transplants (1940s), chemotherapy for leukaemia (1960s), and meningitis vaccine (1980s) (Monamy, 2009; Mepham, 2008). According to Sabin (1995), those who view animal experimentation as useless overlook the fact that it has been instrumental in developing medicines that saved countless human lives, such as the development of polio vaccine in 1957. Next, halting animal research would have unfavourable consequences for human health and welfare since there are no viable alternatives to animal experimentation yet (Mepham, 2008). Paris (1994), too, expressed that ‘all of the work being put into improving health care system will be for nought if we allow a powerful band of self-righteous activists to deny us the privilege of studying non-human animals medical sciences most valuable tool in the fight against disease. Lastly, animal experimentation is justified due to the extensive biological similarities between the physiology of humans and non-human animals (Mepham, 2008). This is supported by Bernard (1865), who stated that ‘the vital units, being of like nature in all living beings, are subjected to the same organic laws Even if the knowledge itself cannot be directly applied to humans, they add to the level of understanding that may eventually be exploited in human medicine (LaFollette Shanks, 1996). In short, animal experimentation is essential to ensure scientific progresses. We live in a modern age where life-threatening diseases are kept at bay to an extraordinary degree, bringing about the majority of us to forget that as recently as 60 years ago, many diseases (eg. TB, polio) were common killers in our society (Monamy, 2009). Unjustified However, there are also people who believe that animal experimentation is scientifically unjustified. For example, Burgos (1996) brought forward the argument that ‘it is impossible to cure a sick human by experimenting on animals, just like how it is not possible to cure a sick cat by experimenting on humans. Every species have different biomechanical and biochemical entity, and it is difficult to extrapolate data from one species to another. Moreover, every species reacts differently to different substances. For instances, aspirin kills cats and penicillin kills guinea pigs. Yet, the same guinea pig can safely eat strychnine- one of the deadliest poisons for human, but not for monkeys. Sheep can swallow enormous amount quantities of arsenic. Potassium cyanide, deadly for humans, is harmless for owl. Supposing that one has chosen the best model for a human disease, it is still difficult to decide the dosage of the drug for humans. The thalidomide tragedy is one of the many examples of how things can go wrong. The sedative drug thalidomide was introduced in 1956 and widely used by pregnant women to reduce nausea and vomiting. But by 1960s, it was identified as the cause of phocomelia- a devastating birth defect in which the limbs do not form properly and long bones in the arms or legs are absence (Mepham, 2008). Another example that shows the limitations of animal studies in assessing human reactions to drugs was dramatically illustrated by the detrimental effects experienced by the six male volunteers to the oral administration of TGN1412, a drug developed to treat rheumatism (Mepham, 2008). Although the drug had been tested on animals without deleterious effect, it produced life-threatening reaction on humans. Ethical Justification Cartesian Today, few will argue that animals are like machines and have no souls, hence granting us the rights to use animals in any ways that we see suited. However, back at the 17th century, this human-centred view was very prevalent. Rene Descartes (1596-1650), especially, played an important role in the early debate. Descartes (1637) believed that ‘the divine gift of soul distinguished the human from all others and the reactions of animals were dismissed as mere reflex. This, as a result, provided a convenient ideology for early vivisectionists (Monamy, 2009). Descartes statement was, also, supported by British psychologist Nicholas Humphrey. ‘Descartes was as nearly right as makes no matter. If we walk down on English country lane, we walk by ourselves. Trees, birds, bees, the rabbit darting down its hole, the cow heavy with milk are all as without insight into their condition as the dummies on show at Madame Tussauds. (Humphrey, 1983) Such views are not widely held anymore, partly due to the fact that studies of self-recognition using chimpanzees and mirrors have shown that some animals are capable of recognising themselves and have self-consciousness (Monamy, 2009). Kantian   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Immanuel Kant echoed the voice of ancients: non-human animals are non-rational, and hence demonstrably inferior to humans. However, he added a philosophical twist that helps ground one very common argument used to morally justify our treatment of animals (LaFollette Shanks, 1996).He believed that as far as animals are concerned, we have no direct duties. Animals have no self-conscious and are there as means to an end. Our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity (Kant, 1963; Monamy, 2009). ‘Animal nature has analogies to human nature, and by doing our duties to animals in respect of manifestation of human nature, we are directly do our duty towards humanity. However, he argued that overt cruelty to animals was to be avoided because how we threat animals does affect how we threat humans. ‘he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Within Kant we, therefore, identify two elements of current moral thought about animals: the belief that humans are superior to animals because of our intelligence, and that we have some duties towards animals. These uphold the belief that although we should not be cruel to animals, we can use them for our purposes (LaFollette Shanks, 1996).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The problem with Kantian theory is its failure to make a theoretical distinction between animal species beyond human sphere. This theory can morally justify the use of a chimpanzee in an experiment where a mouse would suffice, because neither species has moral autonomy (Monamy, 2009). Animal Welfare/Interest ‘The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny The question is not, can they reason? Nor can they talk? But, can they suffer? (Jeremy Bentham, 1789) The first person to bring up the idea of equality was Bentham. He pointed out that the capacity to suffer should be a vital characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration. This was further upheld by Peter Singers Animal Liberation. Singer, reviving Benthams utilitarianism, argued for the liberation of animals based on equality of consideration and their capacity to suffer (Monamy, 2009). ‘The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interest at all. Hence, it would be nonsense to say that it was not in the interest of a stone to be kicked along the road. A stone does not have interest because it cannot suffer. Nothing that we can do to it could possibly make any difference to its welfare. A mouse, on the other hand, does have an interest in not being harm, because it will suffer if it is. Moral judgements must be made based on equal interest and, we should never be influenced by species, in the same way as we should never be influenced by race or sex (Monamy, 2009). ‘If an animal suffered, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering- in so far as rough comparisons can be made- of any being. (Singer, 1974) Singer argued that since laboratory animals were capable of feeling pain, their interest must be considered morally by humans. If the level of suffering in an experiment is not outweighed by any increase in the quality of human life, it is morally indefensible to allow such an experiment to continue (Dolan, 1999; Monamy, 2009). The idea put forward by Singer have provided a sensible starting point for debate over the moral issues essential in any discussion of animal experimentation. Virtually everyone, now, acknowledges that many animals, certainly mammals, feel pain- even though there is still disagreement about the severity or nature of the pain. Plus, majority too agrees that we cannot do whatever we want to the animals, at least if it causes the animals pain (LaFollette Shanks, 1996; Monamy, 2009). However, there are still some weaknesses concerning Singers argument. Firstly, moral calculations become impractical when all factors are taken into consideration. How do you quantify an amount of pain and pleasure? Or the benefits of an experiment to mankind? Secondly, Regan (1986) argued that utilitarianism has ‘no room for the equal rights of different individuals because it has no room for their equal inherent value or worth. What has value is the satisfaction of an individuals interest, not the individual itself. Regan believed that this theory can easily be exploited since an evil means can be justified as long as there is a good end. Lastly, some suggested that it simply do not go far enough- there is more to life than pleasure and pain (Monamy, 2009). Charles Birch (1993) posed an interesting question: ‘If all animals used for human purposes were to be constantly anaesthetised for all their lives, thereby eliminating the pain/pleasure argument, would such a proced ure be morally defensible? Animal Rights   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Animal rights moral view was brought forwarded by Tom Regan (1986). According to him, basic moral rights should be assigned to all beings who are ‘subjects of life, due to the fact that ‘these animals have a life of their own, of importance to them apart from their utility to us. They have a biography, not just a biology. They are not only in the world, they have experience of it. They are somebody, not something. Regan claimed that all creatures should be treated equally unless there is some relevant reason that justifies otherwise. It thereby rules out discrimination based on irrelevant reasons. He proposed that every individual of any species should be considered to have an ‘intrinsic value (or ‘inherent value), the value of conscious individuals, disregarding of their usefulness to others and independent of their ‘goodness. Equal rights for such individuals protect their ‘inherent value and give them moral status (Mepham, 2008; Monamy, 2009). When it comes to animal experimentation, Regans view is unequivocal: ‘the rights-based view is categorically abolitionistthis is just as true when animals are used in trivial, duplicative, unnecessary or unwise research as it is when they are used in studies that hold out real promise of human benefitsthe best we can do is not to use them.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Nonetheless, some claims that ‘rights can be attributed only to individuals who can claim them, and that they can only apply in circumstances where that individual understands the notions of ‘rights. However, Regan has countered this by pointing out that such a viewpoint would also withhold rights form infants, the mentally retarded and senile. Apart from that, many find the concept of animal rights confusing. Exactly what rights do animals have? Do every single animal, including insects, has the same right, or just mammals? (Mepham, 2008; Monamy, 2009; Dolan, 1999) Reverence for Life   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) believed that an ethic that advocated goodness towards all life and, not just to humanity, would be derived from emotion, not from rational thought. This belief contributed to his theory of ‘reverence for life. ‘The most immediate fact of mans consciousness is the assertion: I am life which wills to live in the midst of life which wills to lifehe feels a compulsion to give every will-to-live the same reverence for life that he gives to his own.He accepts as being good: to preserve life, to promote life, to raise to its highest value of life which is capable of development.'(Schweitzer, 1936) It is an ideology which makes no distinction between ‘higher and ‘lower life forms, plants and animals, human and non-human. Acceptance of the ethic does not mean that it is wrong to cause death of another creature, it is the causing of pain or death when it can be avoided that is wrong. Anyone guided by this belief will only cause death or suffering of any animal in cases of inescapable necessity, never from thoughtlessness (Monamy, 2009).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã¢â‚¬ËœThose who experiment with operations or the use of drug upon animals.must never quiet misgivings they feel with the general reflection that their cruel proceedings aim at a valuable result. They must first have considered in each individual case whether there is a real necessity to force upon any animal this is sacrifice for the sake of mankind. And they must take the most anxious care to mitigate as much as possible the pain inflicted. (Schweitzer, 1936)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In short, Schweitzer urged that all life must be given the same respect: the need for every experiment must be carefully reasoned based on the ideal of reverence for life, not sentience an argument that gives a place to emotion (Monamy, 2009). Conclusion   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã¢â‚¬Ëœthere are no simple answers to be found and there is no single guiding principle that will answer the questions that are raised about the problems of animal welfare and the use of animals in our society.where ethical principles are concerned, there is no possibility of proving the validity of an ethical principle (Stone, 1989) In conclusion, the debate on animal experimentation is extremely complicated and it involves both rational discussion and personal feelings. Every one of us must, therefore, attempt to form an opinion of our own about the extent to which we use research animals.

The Effects of Reagan and Bush’s Policies in El Essay -- Foreign Polic

The Effects of Reagan and Bush’s Policies in El Salvador and Iraq United States foreign policy, since the Cold War, has been driven by ideology: good versus evil, capitalism versus communism, and democracy versus totalitarianism. America’s foreign policy objective from 1945 to 1991 was to contain communism, prompting Cold War calculus – the enemy of your enemy is your friend. The United States, following Cold War calculus, allied with unscrupulous leaders opposed to communism, like the Somoza dynasty in Nicaragua, the Reza Shahs in Iran, the dictator Franco in Spain, and the elite in El Salvador. Reagan’s belief that the Soviet Union was the Evil Empire committed him to support the brutal military regime in El Salvador, which he justified as protecting national security. Since September 11, the new American enemy is terrorism. To eliminate terrorist organizations, Bush has invaded Afghanistan and Iran. Bush has continued the precedent of ideology-induced foreign policy by justifying the invasions as introducing civilizati on to the primitive Middle East and simultaneously protecting American interests. Bush, like Reagan, has intertwined ideology with national security. Reagan’s intervention in El Salvador was driven by ideology, but was justified as protecting national security, whereas Bush’s invasion of Iraq was prompted by national defense, but was promoted as American ideology. Defending National Security The United States justified its involvement in El Salvador as protecting American national security, a notion fueled by anti-communist ideology. Reagan believed the FMLN (Farabundo Marti Front for National Liberation), the radical leftist guerilla insurgency in El Salvador, threatened the U... ...31-5.html November 17, 2003. [6] â€Å"September 7, 2003 President Addresses the Nation† http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031031-5.html. November 17, 2003 [7] â€Å"National Security Advisor Dr. Rice Remarks to National Legal Center† http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031031-5.html November 17, 2003. [8] â€Å"Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?† John W. Dean. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html November 5, 2003. [9] 160 [10] National Security Advisor Dr. Rice Remarks to National Legal Center† http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031031-5.html November 17, 2003. [11]â€Å"Iraq Democracy Watch: Report # 1 on the Situation in Iraq.† The Iraq Foundation. http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/isept/26_democracy_watch.html. November 5, 2003.

My Good and Bad Habits :: Personal Narrative Essays

My Good and Bad Habits A habit can be many things, some good, some not so good. Everyone has habits that they would like to change and maybe improve upon. I believe the majority of habits I have are good ones but some are not. These bad habits are the ones I will talk about. Smoking is a bad habit that is not only harmful to myself, but also to the people around me, namely my wife and children. They are the ones that receive the most harmful and the most concentrated amounts of smoke. I inhale through a filter, my wife and children do not. Another of my irritating and potentially harmful habits is my ability to let anger build up inside and redirect it to another source. The main reason that I say that this is potentially harmful is that when a man lets his anger build up over an extended length of time he eventually becomes a bomb, ready to explode at any time. This anger could show up at any time and be redirected toward anything, such as cars, other people, or things in the home. After the birth of my first child, I had to learn to develop constructive ways to vent anger. One of those ways was to go off alone, count to ten, and think about what it was that made me angry. After I discovered the root of my anger, I often asked myself, "Will it do me or anyone else any good to be angry?", and, "Will being angry do anything to solve the problem", and the answer to both questions was usually no. By the time I had done the walking and thinking, I was usually not angry anymore. Even in light of these habits I believe the worst habit is my use of foul language. I know that "four letter words" are only a sign of a limited vocabulary but old habits die hard. I believe I have gotten better after my son was born, due to the fact that it seemed he could repeat the "s" word more plainly than he could say "ball" and usually at the most inopportune times.

American Indian Stories Essay -- essays research papers fc

In American Indian Stories, University of Nebraska Press Lincoln and London edition, the author, Zitkala-Sa, tries to tell stories that depicted life growing up on a reservation. Her stories showed how Native Americans reacted to the white man’s ways of running the land and changing the life of Indians. â€Å"Zitkala-Sa was one of the early Indian writers to record tribal legends and tales from oral tradition† (back cover) is a great way to show that the author’s stories were based upon actual events in her life as a Dakota Sioux Indian. This essay will describe and analyze Native American life as described by Zitkala-Sa’s American Indian Stories, it will relate to Native Americans and their interactions with American societies, it will discuss the major themes of the book and why the author wrote it, it will describe Native American society, its values and its beliefs and how they changed and it will show how Native Americans views other non-Natives. Before the introduction of the â€Å"pale face† Native Americans lived a calm and serene life. They lived in big communities and help one another in order to survive. They had a form of religion, poly-theistic, that would be their main form of salvation. They had chiefs and warriors. They had teepees that would allow them to quickly pack up and move. The Native Americans were a nomadic, primitive people that did not live up to the whiter man’s view of â€Å"civilization†. However, the white man, pale face, felt the need to change the Native Americans barbaric ways of life. The Americans were smart in their efforts in trying to convert the Indians. They would go after the kids because they were still young and gullible. â€Å"Yes, my child, several others besides Judewin are going away with the palefaces. Your brother said the missionaries had inquired about his little sister... â€Å"Did he tell them to take me, mother† (40). The children were impressiona ble. In this first story, the daughter gets hooked on going with the missionaries because they said they had apple trees and being that she has never seen an apple tree, she begged her mother to go not knowing that her mother did not want to send her away. Some Indians enjoyed leaving with the Americans; others did not because of what the Americans had done to the Indians. The mother in this story had told her daughter stories of what the paleface had done and how they had killed most... ...ew that the Americans came in and killed their ancestors and forced others to leave their lands. They knew that they were taking their children away and brainwashing them into thinking that their families were savages and that the Americans had more to offer them. They knew that the Americans were making their kids forget about their ways of living and their beliefs. The children, however, saw the Americans invitation as a way to better themselves and their families. The children would happily go away with the American strangers thinking that everything would be better for them.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Zitkala-Sa tried to show how her people were treated by Americans in her book American Indian Stories. She showed how the Indians life was before the Americans and how it had changed after the introduction of the Americans. She proved that not all of the Indians liked the white people. She proved that most of the children that left did not remember their family’s way of life. She proved that when the Americans came they not only took the Indians’ land, they also took their people. Works Cited Zitkala-Sa. American Indian Stories. University Of Nebraska Press. Lincoln and Lo

Warren Buffett

Warren Buffett There are many ways to describe Warren Buffett such as genius, best investor of all time, down to earth, and full of wisdom. Buffett is the second richest man on the planet and still seems to come off as an average person. He is a native of Omaha, Nebraska and attended the University of Nebraska-Lincoln for his undergraduate degree. Buffett attended Columbia of the Ivy League for his graduate degree. He has been very generous with his wealth, which is estimated to be worth $40 billion. When Warren Buffett was 25 years old, he began a limited partnership with his close family and friends. His original capital was estimated just over $100,000, over the next decade he added partners who brought money with them for him to invest. He did not have a year in which his company did not make money that decade and in return was paid 25% of the profits. Once his partnership dissolved, he began distributing shares of Berkshire Hathaway. Long story short, Buffett has taken Berkshire Hathaway from $7 per hare to $103,000 today and owns over 65 companies. The most recent company Buffett purchased was Burlington Northern for $34 billion, which is the biggest acquisition of his life. By purchasing Burlington Northern, Buffett is betting on the United States economy making a comeback. Moving materials by railroad is much more cost effective than by trucks. Buffett is a man who has many followers and he has given hope to people by making this gamble on America. Warren Buffett plans to give away 85% of his fortune to charities and foundations, most of it going to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. He is a truly generous man and cares deeply about the people of America. Buffett will go down in history forever because of his brilliant investing but will be remembered by many around the country for what he gave back to it. References 1. CNN Money. 25 June 2006. Web. 15 Nov. 2009. . 2. About. com. 2009. Web. 25 Nov. 2009. . 3. Los Angeles Times. 4 Nov. 2009. Web. 15 Nov. 2009. .

PBS Frontline Essay “Rape in the Fields”

he PBS Frontline documentary â€Å"Rape in the Fields† reveals the gross atrocities of human rights violations against undocumented immigrant women throughout America’s vast farmlands. The group consists of a half-million female workers. Culturally they are from a male dominated society that migrates to the U. S. for economic opportunity. These women are underprivileged workers without access to learn English. They are unaware of American laws that protect persons from violence and crime. They are very afraid and focused on basic survival instincts.Because they are in this country illegally, they are afraid of being deported and lose their income. Fear keeps them from speaking out and uniting to make changes in their work environment. The story of Olivia Tamayo who worked for Harris Farms for approximately six years is only one example of cases featured in the documentary. Her supervisor Rene Rodriquez raped Olivia Tamayo three times at gunpoint. Her voice was shaky in the interview when she recalled her ordeal, â€Å"He said I was his, and that he would never leave me in peace.†She tried to defend herself from her boss. She remained silent until she reported her case to a Rape Crisis Center. Human Services workers reported the abuse to the EEOC. Then the EEOC contacted the law firm of Smith and Johnson who took the case of Ms. Tamayo. Attorney Willie Smith was successful in winning a lawsuit that awarded her a damage settlement. However, the CEO Mr. John Harris sides with his Supervisor and denied the rape occurred.It took teamwork from the report by the Rape Crisis Center and working within a network of other services to bring a small amount of justice to her unjust treatment. It was in 1995 that Bill Tamayo from the EEOC brought attention to the plight of women raped in the fields by supervisors and coworkers. These deplorable acts have been taking place for generations by not uniting and rising up the women remained in a disadvantaged s ituation. The U. S. enacted EEOC laws in 1964 to protect workers from all forms of sexual harassment.The EEOC forced a 1. 3 million dollar lawsuit settlement with DeCoster. Fourteen women workers with Evans Fruit testified of sexual assault in their Apple orchards, but they lost their case. The United States economy is dependent on illegal immigrants to harvest our vegetables, fruits, nuts, and eggs. Our government needs to implement policies to protect all workers documented or undocumented against crimes of violence, sexual harassment, and abuse. The U-Visa is a small stepping-stone in the right direction.