作者： chenchen

“Death Is Hard. Let’s Talk About It.”
By Frances Brogan, age 14, J.P. McCaskey High School, Lancaster, Penn.

“Passed away.” “Went to join his Creator.” “Lost his battle with cancer.” My friends and relatives used these phrases to describe my dad’s death two years ago. My grief made them uncomfortable. They resorted to euphemisms because they couldn’t even say the word “died.”

American culture is plagued by an inability to talk about our feelings, most painfully felt in an inability to talk about death. We’re so scared of feeling deeply that we do each other a disservice by failing to honor each other’s heartache.

This is partially due to our fear of our mortality, but it’s also due to our culture’s superficiality. We love small talk; we say “Hey, how are you?” to acquaintances and expect them to respond, “I’m fine.” We don’t stop and invite them to elaborate. We are frightened of connecting with others beyond the surface because that would require exposing our emotions and revealing that beneath our polished exteriors, we are vulnerable and broken and definitely not fine. In fact, almost 20 percent of the American adult population deals with an anxiety disorder, and the suicide rate rose 33 percent between 1999 and 2017. Yet even in the wake of this escalation, our culture continues to discourage emotional expression.

American superficiality also creates an inhuman idolization of productivity. We focus almost exclusively on working hard and getting ahead in life, yet devalue talking about our feelings, associating vulnerability with incompetence. We care most about success and wealth. In 2018, Americans rated money and their careers as higher priorities than friendship. Our materialism limits our capacity for emotional connection. This capitalist paradigm, where even our feelings are commodities, engenders a sense of obligation to help in concrete ways, but an aversion to the most profound kind of help: emotional support, something that can’t be bought or sold.

So we send bereaved families meals, flowers, and saccharine “sorry for your loss” cards. And we reduce our grief to the palatability of a post on social media, where 72 percent of Americans are active. We summarize a person’s existence in one cute picture and a generic caption, carefully curating the most appealing aspects of our lives instead of authentically addressing it all.

We’re living through a global pandemic. The climate crisis threatens to render Earth uninhabitable by 2050 unless we mitigate it in the next ten years. Everywhere we look, we are surrounded by death. I struggle with this every morning when I wake up and realize all over again that my dad is gone. But confronting our vulnerability now, in this pivotal yet terrifying historical moment, is the only way to transcend the barriers that divide us and carry our fundamentally human sorrow together.

Works Cited

“Demographics of Social Media Users and Adoption in the United States.” Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech, Pew Research Center, 12 June 2019.

Gander, Kashmira. “Americans Value Money More than Friendship, Survey Reveals.” Newsweek, 23 Nov. 2018.

Siegel, Lee. “Why Is America So Depressed?” The New York Times, 2 Jan. 2020.

Spratt, David, and Ian Dunlop. “Existential climate-related security risk: A scenario approach.” Breakthrough — National Centre for Climate Restoration Australia, May 2019.

_________

“You Can’t Be Free if You’re Dead: Why Freedom Isn’t Free”
By Xinni Chen, age 16, Deerfield Academy, Deerfield, Mass.

“This is a free country,” the anti-lockdown protester shouted. “Go to China if you want communism.”

I’m from China. Amid the pandemic, I would much rather be in a communist regime than in the “land of the free” because freedom isn’t absolute.

When I flew back to China from the United States, I was restrained to a small room away from my parents despite having tested negative for the virus. At 4 p.m. every day, I video call the neighborhood committee and take my temperature for them. The government tracks my movements through cellphone signals and bars people who have been to Wuhan or other countries in the last 14 days from entering public places. Though it might seem draconian, this method has been working. The World Health Organization declared that “China’s bold approach to contain the rapid spread of this new respiratory pathogen has changed the course of a rapidly escalating and deadly epidemic.”

I gave up my freedom of movement in exchange for the well-being of my parents and the citizens of Shanghai. Your freedom to party on the beaches of Florida and your right to liberty infringes upon the right of others to live. When essential workers are forced to the front-lines of this brutal war, your freedom isn’t free anymore.

Freedom is worth protecting, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be abridged. As John Stuart Mills, the 19th-century philosopher, explains, “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against their will, is to prevent harm to others.” It is legitimate for the government to prevent third-party harm. Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Your freedom to protest ends when Eric Feigl-Ding, a Harvard public health scientist, wrote on Twitter “2500 anti-lockdown rally in Olympia Washington. I predict a new epidemic surge … So increase in 2-4 weeks from now.”

When two million people agree that “government orders that interfere with our most basic liberties are CERTAIN to do more harm than good,” we have to re-examine our fundamental liberties. Most people agree that inalienable rights include “the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” However, the right to life is a prerequisite for liberty and happiness. You lose the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness when you’re buried six feet underground. Furthermore, the economy may be important, but it can always rebound; human cadavers cannot be brought back to life.

Living in both the United States and China has taught me that freedom isn’t absolute. Isolating in Shanghai, I am not free. I’m bored, but alive and that’s all right with me.

Works Cited

Brito, Christopher. “Spring Breakers Say Coronavirus Pandemic Won’t Stop Them from Partying.” CBS News, 25 March 2020.

Gabbatt, Adam. “US Anti-Lockdown Rallies Could Cause Surge in Covid-19 Cases, Experts Warn.” The Guardian, 20 April 2020.

Gunia, Amy. “Would China’s Draconian Coronavirus Lockdown Work Anywhere Else?” Time, 13 March 2020.

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty; Representative Government; The Subjection of Women. Oxford University Press, 1971.

Russonello, Giovanni. “What’s Driving the Right-Wing Protesters Fighting the Quarantine?” The New York Times, 17 Apr. 2020.

Warzel, Charlie. “Protesting for the Freedom to Catch the Coronavirus.” The New York Times, 19 April 2020.

_________

“From Silence to ‘Stigma Free’: Why We Need to Talk About Suicide”
By Veronika Coyle, age 16, Northern Highlands Regional High School, Allendale, N.J.

After a suicide in my local district, the magnet school which I attended last year simply sent out a two-sentence mass email saying the guidance office was always open to make appointments. My district put up a few signs claiming to be “stigma-free” in what was received as more of an attempt to deflect blame than to comfort those grieving a loss. Watching a few videos of bad actors pretending to be suicidal does not cut it. We as students need a respectful and open proactive dialogue about suicide before this epidemic spreads any further.

Of course, schools have procedures in place to handle the aftermath of suicide. Most high schools have crisis teams in place and specific plans to ease students in the coping process, such as the Suicide Prevention Resource Center’s After Suicide: A Toolkit for Schools, but minimizing suicide contagion is not enough. Schools have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their students in general, which means minimizing all suicide risk proactively rather than responsively. According to The New York Times article “The Crisis in Youth Suicide,” suicide is the second leading cause of death among high-school age students, and youth suicide attempts have quadrupled over six years. With solely reactive procedures in place, this number will never see a decline.

Many teachers and administrators believe reaching out to students directly about suicide will somehow encourage suicidal thoughts. However, a 2014 study found that “talking about suicide may, in fact, reduce, rather than increase suicidal ideation, and may lead to improvements in mental health in treatment-seeking populations.” While it may appear a daunting task, there are many more effective ways to discuss suicide than the responses many of us may have seen in our schools. Clinical psychologist Thea Gallagher recommends creating small groups monitored by guidance counselors and faculty to encourage students to speak up.

Although many students may be hesitant to say anything at first, their behavior and comments may help faculty identify at-risk students, as well as create bonds between students and staff. As mandated reporters, teachers are key in helping prevent teenage suicide by enlisting mental health professionals and counselors to intervene if necessary.

Suicide cannot be a reactive topic of discussion; the goal is to prevent suicides in the first place, not just to minimize the damages. This is a sensitive topic for many, but it is a necessary subject of conversation. The tragedy of teenage suicide will persist at an alarming rate until changes are implemented. We are not a “stigma-free” community, and we deserve better than a mass email and some videos. We need this discussion now, not when the next teenager chooses to end their life.

Works Cited

American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and Suicide Prevention Resource Center. “After a Suicide: A Toolkit for Schools.” Education Development Center and American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, 2018.

Brody, Jane E. “The Crisis in Youth Suicide.” The New York Times, 2 Dec. 2019.

Dazzi, T, et al. “Does Asking about Suicide and Related Behaviours Induce Suicidal Ideation? What Is the Evidence?” Psychological Medicine, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Dec. 2014.

Gallagher, Thea. “Talking About Suicide in Schools.” AFSP, 6 Dec. 2017.

_________

“Redefining a Life: Changing the Conversation About Gun Violence”
By Anna, age 17

In the second grade, I learned how to barricade my classroom’s door to stop a man with a gun. I would fold myself into the corner of my dark classroom and close my eyes until I heard, “code green” echo on the loudspeaker. The drill ended, and I was safe again.

But 26 miles south of my school, on the South Side of Chicago, that code green never comes. Safety isn’t the norm, violence is. Growing up in a “safe” suburb has taught me that privilege is grocery shopping, walking to school, or going to church without the threat of violence swallowing me whole. Privilege is turning fear off when a drill ends.

If my school got shot up, it would make national news. Millions of Americans would mourn my death, and call for stricter gun laws. Policy and Change, the people would demand. There would be outrage and tears.

But we’ve grown deaf to the cries of the black community. White fear overshadows black trauma, making violence in inner cities invisible. The New York Times reports that the same weekend the El Paso and Dayton shootings consumed America’s attention, “52 [were] wounded by gunfire throughout Chicago.” Violence is an aberration in white communities but the default in the black inner city.

Our fundamental understanding of gun violence is racist. Vox reports that mass shootings account for “fewer than 1 percent of homicide victims.” According to The Washington Post, while the death tolls rose in Chicago due to inaction and indifference, the Parkland shooting catalyzed a national walkout. How many black kids must die before we care enough to make a change?

White America has always found a way to explain away their apathy to black gun violence in race-neutral terms. Mass shootings are especially tragic, they argue, because there are so many lives taken at once. However, USA Today reports that 63 were shot on Chicago’s 4th of July Weekend. By this logic, these black inner-city deaths would have garnered more attention than Sandy Hook’s school shooting. Mass shootings are tragedies and should be treated as such. But when we cease to care when black lives are lost, we become complicit in that violence.

We manufacture colorblind justifications for why we don’t care about black lives, but it’s the color of the victim’s skin that drives our anger and agency about gun violence. We must open our ears to listen to the cries of the black community, our mouths to amplify their voices, and our hearts to empathize. It’s then that the “code green” will ring out again — but this time, for us all.

Works Cited

Bacon, John. “More than 100 Wounded, 14 Killed in Chicago over July 4th Weekend.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 5 July 2017.

Bosman, Julie. “Chicago Has Its Worst Weekend of Gun Violence in 2019 as 7 Are Killed.” The New York Times, 5 Aug. 2019.

Heim, Joe, and Marissa Lang. “Thousands of Students Walk out of School in Nationwide Gun Violence Protest.” The Washington Post, 31 March 2019.

Matthews, Dylan. “Mass Shootings Represent a Tiny Share of All Shooting Deaths.” Vox, 14 Nov. 2018.

_________

“Every Student Should Apply to Community College, and Yes, They Are Real Schools”
By Emma Kaminski, age 16, A.W. Dreyfoos School of the Arts, West Palm Beach, Fla.

If I wanted to live in a low-rent studio apartment with mold in the ceiling and a broken air-conditioner, while working an office job I’m overqualified for, I would apply to Harvard or the University of Georgia. I don’t know about you, but when I envision my future I don’t want to picture myself duct taping the gaping holes student loans poke into my life, which is why I’m applying to my local community college, and encourage the rest of the country to as well.

Trust me, I know that community college is not the answer for every person in the world, but the option is one that should be considered by every student. An ingrained bias toward community colleges for higher education is evident throughout the country, a bias which negatively affects the economy and the futures of children.

Drip, another drop into the trillion dollar bucket of student loans owed by American graduates.

Drip, too many people are confusing affordable and available with less quality, and that confusion is hurting graduates in the long run.

Drip, young men and women who have worked hard for their education are forced to accept less-than jobs and wage to pay off their debt.

Gaining a two-year degree from community college makes for a more attainable transfer to a state school, which can further education in a field of interest. The inaccuracy of the general consensus is evident in a New York Times article that discusses new steps community colleges are making to diversify and enrich student life by expanding facilities and clubs, creating the perfect environment for students starting their higher education journey.

The truth of the matter: community colleges offer more opportunities to students and are more affordable than public or private higher education schools. Oversight of possibilities available decreases students’ likelihood to succeed before they’ve started, but the key to solving that issue is destigmatizing community colleges. Inform people and demystify what it means to attend a community college. Dr. Steve Robinson, president of Owens Community College, emphasizes students completing their degrees and successfully joining the work force instead of just enrolling in college.

According to Forbes, this change in thinking could lead to more graduates of four-year institutions because community college transfers are more likely to graduate with their degrees. I understand that, for some people, scholarships, other available resources or just circumstance makes public state colleges or private colleges more feasible, and maybe for some they’re even the best option. My point here is that the stigmatization of community college needs to end, and students should be made fully aware of all of their options without judgment. That kind of thinking tears holes into people’s futures.

Works Cited

Sánchez, Nancy Lee. “Erasing The Community College Stigma.” Forbes, 20 Aug. 2019.

Spencer, Kyle. “Middle-Class Families Increasingly Look to Community Colleges.” The New York Times, 5 April 2018.

_________

“Freedom Isn’t Free: The Price to Preserve Democracy”
By Tara Kapoor, age 15, Palo Alto High School, Palo Alto, Calif.

Six hundred thousand Wisconsinites, five polling stations. Do the math.

For as long as I can remember, I eagerly watched my parents connect arrows, mark their votes and mail off their ballots. It seems seamless, but in many states, only once you request a ballot by mail can the at-home voting process proceed.

Imagine thousands filing for mail-in ballots as health officials warned against in-person voting amid the intensifying Covid-19 pandemic. Overwhelmed infrastructure, unable to handle the surge in requests, failed to send voters their ballots and forced the choice between safety and civic duty. This was Wisconsin on April 7: an Election Day catastrophe.

Other recent examples show a contrasting approach, however. Take Alaska’s primary: the state mailed ballots to all eligible voters after canceling in-person voting. The outcome? A safe and successful election with almost twice the turnout of the 2016 primary. Additionally, existing implementations of vote-by-mail have consistently demonstrated benefits — states that mailed ballots to all voters showed over 15 percent greater turnout than those that didn’t in the 2018 election. And while some raise concerns for potential partisan advantage prompted by the elevated turnout, studies show mail-in ballots don’t favor either party. So, what now?

The remedy to prevent a voting-day debacle in November: administering universal vote-by-mail. This doesn’t just mean allowing voters to request mail-in ballots. Instead, it means mailing every eligible voter their ballot automatically and strengthening election infrastructure to collect and count each one. This is, indeed, a realistic goal — five states have successfully and repeatedly set an example with almost all ballots cast by mail for years. It’s high time we guaranteed the option for all Americans.

Not to be ignored is the $2 billion estimated price tag for facilitating vote-by-mail nationwide. But as The New York Times wrote, “it’s a drop in the $1-trillion-plus stimulus bucket … and it should be an essential part of any coronavirus response package.” Susceptibility of mail-in ballots to voter fraud has been cited, yet ballot-tampering instances are few and far between — barely a handful of cases surfaced from hundreds of millions of votes cast in 2016.

We, the people, are the central pillar of our democracy. With voters sheltered at home, a clear consequence looms barring adoption of universal mail-in voting: disenfranchisement. “A voter cannot deliver for postmarking a ballot she has not received,” articulated Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her dissent regarding Wisconsin’s primary, and, “will be left quite literally without a vote.”

Of the people, by the people and for the people, our nation prides itself on free, fair elections. By automatically sending Americans their ballots, our democracy’s promise will endure.

Enabling universal vote-by-mail? A small price to form that more perfect union.

Works Cited

19A1016 Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee. 6 April 2020.

America Goes to the Polls 2018. Nonprofit Vote, 2018.

Linton, Caroline. “Alaska Democrats say they received almost double the ballots than in 2016 in vote-by-mail primary.” CBS News, 20 April 2020.

Norden, Lawrence, Elizabeth Howard, Gowri Ramachandran, Edgardo Cortés and Derek Tisler. “Estimated Costs of Covid-19 Election Resiliency Measures.” Brennan Center for Justice, 19 March 2020.

The Editorial Board. “The 2020 Election Won’t Look Like Any We’ve Seen Before.” The New York Times, 21 March 2020.

Thompson, Daniel M., Jennifer Wu, Jesse Yoder and Andrew B. Hall. “The Neutral Partisan Effects of Vote-by-Mail: Evidence from County-Level Roll-Outs.” Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, 15 April 2020.

_________

“To Smash the Glass Ceiling, First End the Double Standard”
By Yui Kurosawa, age 16, and Carolyn Rong, age 15, Hong Kong International School, Hong Kong

Judges tell me I’m “too aggressive” after debates. Classmates say I’m “too bossy” during group projects. And I can’t help but notice that judges praise male debaters who practically yell their arguments for their powerful rhetoric. Male classmates assuming the role of project leader are seen as assertive and driven. Me? I’m just a bossy girl who needs to stay in her lane.

That’s why, when the losses of female politicians are consistently linked to being too “bossy” and “unlikable,” I question whether it’s an issue of problematic personality, or if gender inequality is at fault.

Some commentators argue that, with female suffrage celebrating its 100th anniversary and equal rights enshrined in law, gender inequality cannot be responsible for the severe female underrepresentation in government. However, this misses the point: men and women may be relatively equal on paper, but an implicit double standard for female politicians means this theoretical equality does not translate into reality.

As seen in a New York Times article, the treatment of female politicians in the 2016 presidential election and recent Democratic primaries highlighted society’s double standards. During debates, impassioned male politicians were praised for confident rhetoric. Women with more moderate oratory were bashed for being too brash for voters. This phenomenon is known as role congruity theory — where we hold female politicians to a double standard because, by pursuing leadership, they contradict traditional gender norms and seem unlikable. Confidence is “emphatic” in men but “shrill” in women.

Female politicians can’t escape this double standard. As a study by the Columbia Journalism Review found, female politicians with traditionally “feminine” traits, such as compassion, were seen as less competent than if they acted more “masculine.” As former Vermont governor Madeleine Kunin stated: “If you’re female and running for president, you better be perfect.” This Catch-22, where voters dislike assertive women but see milder counterparts as incapable, means female politicians struggle to appease voters.

The impact of this double standard stretches beyond the political arena. Think of it as “trickle-down prejudice” — seeing qualified women disparaged on a national level for their assertiveness only causes people, especially youth, to subconsciously adopt this mentality. That’s how prejudice in politics ends up in workplaces, classrooms, and everyday life. It’s imperative we end this double standard.

However, ending this harmful perception is challenging — unlike previous hurdles to gender equality, subconscious double standards can’t be banned or criminalized. For progress, every individual must acknowledge their subconscious biases and make a concerted effort to change their thinking. Only then can society truly smash this ceiling. So the next time you see a woman as bossy and unlikable, ask yourself: “Would a man be treated the same way?”

Works Cited

Astor, Maggie. “‘A Woman, Just Not That Woman’: How Sexism Plays Out on the Trail.” The New York Times, 11 Feb. 2019.

Garret, Rachel. “Subtle Sexism in Political Coverage Can Have a Real Impact on Candidates.” Columbia Journalism Review, 4 Sept. 2018.

Kunin, Madeleine M. “If You’re Female And Running For President, You Better Be Perfect.” HuffPost, 26 July 2017.

_________

“It’s Time to Take Responsibility: Addressing the Indigenous Health Crisis”
By Mira Mehta, age 16, Westfield High School, Westfield, N.J.

As the president moves to restrict travel and immigration as his latest response to the pandemic, it is hard not to see the irony in America’s story. When Europeans first came to the United States, they brought with them new diseases, which devastated the communities who already lived here.

Today, disease is once again taking a harder toll on Indigenous people. For example, despite making up only 11 percent of New Mexico’s population, they account for 37 percent of confirmed coronavirus cases.

A lack of infrastructure has made it particularly difficult to respond to the crisis. Many Indigenous people lack access to food, and have limited availability of running water, both of which prevent people from taking adequate precautions against the coronavirus. However, the biggest problems come from the inadequate health care provided to Indigenous people before the crisis hit.

Due to disproportionate poverty, generational trauma, and discrimination in the medical field, Indian Health Services finds that Indigenous people have a life expectancy that is 5.5 years shorter than all other races as the IHS has remained underfunded with care still often inaccessible.

To help remedy these problems, the government must take action, not just by providing emergency health services in the short-term, but through sweeping systemic change. The Native Health and Wellness Act of 2019 (HR 4534) would address some of the inadequacies of the current system by authorizing $56.7 million in annual grants to improve or establish health care programs in Indigenous communities.

This act is crucial because IHS reports 3.2 times more deaths from diabetes, 1.1 times more deaths from heart and respiratory conditions, and 6.6 times more deaths by alcohol among Indigenous communities. The effects of these disparities are particularly evident now, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that all of these conditions put people at risk for severe illness from the coronavirus. The bill would help provide more affordable care to both prevent and treat these diseases, allowing for a better response to future outbreaks.

American history is littered with broken promises, the denial of the right to self-determination and basic necessities, and brutality against Indigenous peoples. While it certainly does not make up for this, the proposed bill would help remedy these problems. In fact, the bill would also help Indigenous people invest in their own communities by giving $10 million in annual grants to support Indigenous people in the medical field.

For far too long, the United States has turned a blind eye to the systemic oppression faced by Indigenous communities. It is time to take responsibility and work to fix these injustices. The Native Health and Wellness Act of 2019 is the beginning of this process, and it is imperative that Congress pass it.

Works Cited

“Groups at Higher Risk for Severe Illness.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 17 April 2020.

Krishna, Priya. “Disparities.” Indian Health Service. October 2019.

Krishna, Priya. “How Native Americans are Fighting a Food Crisis.” The New York Times, 16 April 2020.

Romero, Simon. “Checkpoints, Curfews, Airlifts: Virus Rips Through Navajo Nation.” The New York Times, 20 April 2020.

Stafford, Kat, et al. “Racial Toll of Virus Grows Even Starker as More Data Emerges.” Associated Press, 18 April 2020.

United States, Congress, House. Native Health and Wellness Act of 2019. 116th Congress, House Bill 4534.

_________

“The Eagle of Freedom: Birdcage Edition”
By Nicholas Parker, age 17, Glens Falls High School, Glens Falls, N.Y.

From fringe Facebook groups inciting rebellion against their state’s quarantine precautions to our basic inability to stop touching our faces, Americans really hate to follow rules. If we, as a country, are going to survive the global pandemic of Covid-19, we’re going to have to suppress some of the national character traits that make us who we are.

The American personality is brash, bold, and in love with its privileges, liberties and freedoms. We formed our country through rebellion against an authoritarian regime. Our heroes recast paradigms and break rules. Our national character resists our attempt to cage our pursuit of happiness.

A Pew Research Center poll in mid-April found that 51 percent of Republicans and Republican leaners were worried the country would reopen too quickly for safety, while 48 percent feared it wouldn’t happen quickly enough. Even within a single political party, that’s a spread of opinion as diverse as the American psyche and just as conflicted.

As federal, state and local governments struggle to find a balance between their citizens’ safety and right to make their own decisions, demonstrators have gathered to campaign for the end of quarantine. What we need to do to survive is adhere to caution and common sense, which is hard to do when our national leadership recklessly panders to fringe groups for political gain. As protesters prepared to rally in states with Democratic governors, President Trump egged them on with tweets encouraging them to “LIBERATE.”

Protest signs included legends such as “Let my people go-lf” and “Social distancing = Communism.”

Even simple admonitions by health officials to stop touching one’s face provoke a complex compulsion to do that very thing. In the age of the Covid-19 pandemic, it’s verboten to risk putting germs and viruses near one’s orifices, but we just can’t stop the feeling. If we can’t tame these urges will marketers be reduced to serving up public service announcements on the hazards of hairline handling? Will works of art featuring personal probing be prohibited like cigarette advertising? Will finger foods become forbidden fruit?

It is a dark, dystopian world where even for a short time citizens must cultivate their own coiffures, miss a massage and feed with family. It’s obvious this quarantine will have drastic consequences for the economy and the families that make up that economy. However, there will be catastrophic consequences if we can’t curb the part of our national identity that insists on getting what we want when we want it. We need to set aside our fears that this is the end of the world today and have enough common sense that it doesn’t become the end of the world tomorrow.

Work Cited

Casiano, Louis. “Republicans Bash Facebook for Stopping Promotion of Protests that Would Defy Social-Distancing Guidelines.” Fox News, 20 April 2020.

“Most Americans Say Trump Was Too Slow in Initial Response to Coronavirus Threat.” Pew Research Center, 16 April 2020.

Parker-Pope, Tara. “Stop Touching Your Face!” The New York Times, 2 March 2020.

Russonello, Giovanni. “What’s Driving the Right-Wing Protesters Fighting the Quarantine?” The New York Times, 17 April 2020.

_________

“Farewell, My Mary Sue”
By Yu Qi Xin, age 16, St. Paul’s School, Concord, N.H.

As a Chinese-Canadian teenager trapped indoors like the rest of the world, I’ve been on the hunt for relatable Chinese dramas to add to my English language-heavy TV queue. But each of the dramas I’ve watched has left me cold. Why?

I learned that the type of Chinese dramas I find particularly irksome are referred to in China as “Mali Su” dramas (a transliteration of the American genre term “Mary Sue,” which describes an unrealistically flawless female character). A typical Chinese Mali Su show features a clueless female protagonist who glides through life on luck and good looks. For instance, this year’s workplace drama “Perfect Partner” follows a hapless female CEO who, despite having a master’s degree in public relations, does not know how to write a media release, much less navigate a profit and loss statement. The drama glorifies the executive’s incompetence as beguiling, securing her the affections of the handsome male lead. Romantic! Try to imagine the coolheaded lawyer Alicia Florrick from “The Good Wife” tripping over herself to “charm” Will Gardner into helping her win cases.

It would be an unfair generalization to say that China is the only media market that portrays women as Mali Su-style ditzes. American TV is full of “brainless popular girls,” “naggy housewives” and other insulting archetypes. In Japanese and Korean dramas, beauty standards are strictly defined and surgically enforced. But the key difference is that these markets give viewers more options and offer a diversity of representations. English speakers wanting more nuance can turn to knowing shows like “Fleabag.” Korean media has produced “My ID is Gangnam Beauty,” a sharp satire of local beauty culture.

Beyond my personal frustration as a TV viewer, I worry that the ubiquity of Mali Sus has a broader social impact. People imitate TV, especially younger audiences. Young women may idealize the unhealthy relationships and harmful stereotypes portrayed in Mali Su dramas and act accordingly, while young men may view the dramas as justification for sexist behavior.

Luckily, some signs show that the Chinese audience is ready for a change. Mali Su dramas have consistently been panned by online reviewers. Sarcastic commenters on Douban, China’s IMDb equivalent, have mused that the actors must be “broke” to accept such horrid scripts. In contrast, the period drama “Story of Yanxi Palace,” which features an intelligent and scheming concubine, has reached a record-breaking 17 billion views. Chinese audiences clearly responded positively to this sophisticated and form-breaking depiction of women.

Having complex and real women in Chinese dramas is not just a feminist agenda item; it’s good business. It’s time for studios to act and scripts to change.

Works Cited

Farago, Jason. “Gentlewomen of the Forbidden City: The Power, the Intrigue, the Clothes.” The New York Times, 20 Sept. 2018.

Framke, Caroline. “Is Star Wars’ Rey a Mary Sue? And What Does That Mean, Anyway?” Vox, 28 Dec. 2015.

Screenshot of comment on Douban by Yu Qi Xin.

_________

“Why Aren’t We More Worried About Teacher Attrition in Public Schools?”
By Sarah Schecter, age 17, Oakland School for the Arts, Oakland, Calif.

“I love teaching and I love you, but I just can’t do this anymore” has become the official marker for summer at my California public charter school, Oakland School for the Arts. This is the premise of goodbye notes and speeches from teachers who leave at the end of each school year, or, often in the middle of it. This March, after my new English teacher, Mr. T, announced that he wouldn’t be returning for the rest of the year, I felt sadness, but I felt an even deeper twinge of déjà vu. Didn’t he just replace Mr. R, who said something similar? And wasn’t that the case with my last two English teachers, Ms. B and Mr. C? My thoughts quickly went toward how many teachers I’ve lost in high school.

I am a junior and eight out of 11, or about 66 percent, of the academic teachers I’ve had in high school have left. To paint a more striking picture, I can count the number of my teachers who have stayed at my school on one hand. To count my teachers of color who have stayed, I don’t even need a hand: just one finger. My amazing 10th grade English teacher Alan Chazaro wrote about this dearth, specifically on why men of color are leaving the classroom. He notes how an ABC News report found teaching to be the fourth most stressful job in the United States, but living and teaching in a city like Oakland means teachers must deal with a contemptuously low salary while dealing with one of the highest costs of living in the nation. As similarly highlighted by The New York Times back in 2001, low wages and poor working conditions are to blame for poor teacher retention. However, looking at the present, it is clear that we have crossed over from retention issues into attrition.

It’s not a mystery to me that teachers keep leaving. What is puzzling to me is why people aren’t more collectively concerned about this. After all, isn’t a student’s loss a society’s loss? As significant reform can be expected to emerge from a national and global crisis, we can expect huge changes coming in the United States. We cannot forget about our education system.

Besides the disruption and sadness of saying goodbye, what is lost feels less tangible: feeling known and secure, continuity in learning and school culture are all things that disappear along with teachers. School is a place for many students to imagine the world and their place in it. Teachers are our guides in a sense, and I, for one, feel lost without them.

Works Cited

Chazaro, Alan. “Why Men of Color Like Me Are Leaving the Classroom.” Medium, The Bold Italic, 29 Jan. 2020.

The New York Times. “A National Deficit, of Teachers.” The New York Times, 10 July 2001.

_________

“The Show Must Go On: Theater Needs to Survive This Pandemic”
By Clara Shapiro, age 16, Stuyvesant High School, New York, N.Y.

Just weeks before New York City went into lockdown, I went to see “Hamlet” at Saint Ann’s Warehouse. What I remember best were the deaths — Hamlet’s father is killed mid-nap, poison poured into one ear. Ophelia drowns when she falls from a willow tree that grows “aslant a brook.” The sententious Polonius is skewered through a curtain. The originality of these characters’ deaths lends originality to their lives. Nobody dies anonymously, or as a digit in a statistic.

In theater, nobody is a number. All last words are worth hearing. The dying are allowed a final twitch and soliloquy. At the theater’s core is the assumption that the stories of individual lives are worth an audience’s attention. Theater reaffirms the importance of every life. Ultimately, this is what prevents theater from being frivolous during and after a crisis — it makes every life (and every death) mean more.

As I write this, the worldwide Covid-19 death toll reached 164,936 (WorldOMeter). It feels like human lives have never been more numerical and anonymous. I find myself grieving the enormity of the number, not the individual lives that compose it, simply because I don’t know what to grieve. I don’t know what was unique about their lives because there’s nothing unique about their deaths.

As coronavirus erases the individuality of the dead, the living look for ways to make sense of loss: “The purpose of suffering may be mysterious, but the search for meaning is obligatory. There is a need for narrative, for integration, for some story about what the pain and anguish meant” (The New York Times). Some people searching for meaning find it in the theater — people congregate to process, heal and, eventually, to hope. Theaters are spiritual spaces. But right now, theater can be nobody’s top priority. Money needs to go to hospitals first, as well as the jobless who are struggling to find food and housing. Theater can wait. For now.

But with spring and summer seasons canceled, theaters, especially smaller ones, risk extinction. Even Congress’s stimulus package, though it lightens the burden, “falls well short of the $4 billion sought by advocacy groups” (The New York Times).

An end to theater wouldn’t just be the end of a form of entertainment. It would be an end to one of the ways people experience togetherness. People cram themselves into one space and sit together to watch one play together, to go on one journey together. It’s hard to find this sort of unity anywhere else.

So bookmark theaters for later. The show must go on.

Works Cited

“Covid-19 Coronavirus Pandemic.” WorldOMeter. 2020.

Douthat, Ross. “The Pandemic and the Will of God.” The New York Times, 11 April 2020.

Rutter, Samuel. “Where to Donate to Bolster a Quieted Arts Scene.” The New York Times, 3 April 2020.

_________

“It’s Time to Hold Ivies Accountable”
By Jiahn Son, age 17, Bergen Tech High School Teterboro, Teterboro, N.J.

Growing up in an upper middle-class town, and now, attending a well ranked, academically competitive high school, I’ve always known that Ivy League colleges are the schools to go to. They offer a world class education, unparalleled networking opportunities, brilliant peers and the chance to work alongside some of the most accredited professors in the nation. But amid the shining veneer of this picture, Ivies hide one major flaw: lack of socioeconomic diversity.

Associated with prestige and entry to the American elite, Ivy League schools are dominated by the children of the wealthy and powerful. A 2017 study by the Equality of Opportunity Project found that five colleges from the Ivy League (Dartmouth, Princeton, Brown, Yale and Penn) had more students from the top one percent than the bottom 60 percent.

Yet, for the majority of these students, an Ivy education is unnecessary. A 2018 study found that, overall, there is no correlation between the acceptance rate of a school and graduates’ long-term salaries. Other studies have proven that high achieving students who work hard and don’t attend selective schools achieve similar rates of success as those who do. So, if Ivies are really nothing more than a name and a brand, who even needs them?

It’s the students that Ivies have the least of who would benefit the most from attending an Ivy: students from the bottom quartile. For them, Ivies offer social mobility at a scale that allows them to vault up the ladder. People like Justice Sonia Sotomayor use Ivy educations to earn influential connections, gain societal clout and find a foothold in a world that would otherwise be closed off to them. Ivies invite an entrance to future opportunities that would most likely be inaccessible to a student attending a local community college. Low-income Ivy students get a seat at the table.

I’m not the biggest fan of Ivies, but I can’t deny that “Princeton ’24” in an Instagram bio never fails to impress me. They’re the colleges that everyone covets, at the forefront of every high achieving high school student’s mind. With the American public’s gaze fixated on them, they have a responsibility to set an example.

Ivies must take accountability and start working harder to admit more low-income students. With billions of dollars in endowment money, they can well afford to take on more students who can’t pay the full tuition ticket. Harvard’s tagline is that it selects the next generation of leaders. If that’s true, I don’t want to live in an America where every CEO and senator is a cookie-cutter copy of an upper-class kid who was a Harvard legacy. I want an America where our leaders reflect our people.

Works Cited

Aisch, Gregor, Larry Buchanan, Amanda Cox and Kevin Quealy. “Some Colleges Have More Students From the Top 1 Percent Than the Bottom 60. Find Yours.” The New York Times, 18 Jan. 2017.

Easterbrook, Greg. “Who Needs Harvard?” Brookings, 1 Oct. 2014.

Thompson, Derek. “Does It Matter Where You Go to College?” The Atlantic, 11 Dec. 2018.

Tulshyan, Ruchika. “Why You Should Apply to Ivy League Colleges.” Forbes, 30 July 2014.

_________

“It’s OK Not to Come Out: Oftentimes Pride Is a Privilege”
By Sophia

Ever since I was young, I’ve known that I’m not allowed to be gay.

As a second generation Pakistani-American Muslim girl, I’m accustomed to many of my family’s rules: no bacon, no bikinis, no boyfriends and no being gay. Unfortunately, I’m a rebel. I secretly love bacon, own two bikinis, had a boyfriend for three years and consider myself queer. In a utopia, my culture would be completely accepting of homosexuality. However, I’m aware of how deeply I would upset my family by coming out, so I prioritize. I keep this aspect of my identity hidden, and I think that’s OK.

At home, I tiptoe around the idea of homosexuality and try to question without seeming overly interested, but it’s difficult always hearing that homosexuality is wrong “because it just is.” A gay, Muslim filmmaker, Parvez Sharma, accurately states that a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy exists “in the Muslim world” for members of the L.G.B.T.Q. community. I don’t blame my family for being closed to discussions because they’ve only ever known homosexuality as a deep-rooted cultural taboo.

I recognize that my ability to go through life simply camouflaging my queerness is a privilege. By concealing this part of me, I can explore my sexuality privately, while also maintaining a peaceful relationship with my family. However, I have to acknowledge the larger issue that lies in others’ inability to do the same thing.

I know that not being “allowed” doesn’t stop anyone from being gay and that sexuality isn’t a choice, but coming out is definitely a choice and should remain one. In a New York Times article, Andrew Solomon writes: “Pride is an internal and an external state … It comes with both privileges and obligations.” For marginalized groups like gay Muslims, having pride in personal identity isn’t always easy, especially when their culture tells them to be ashamed. Therefore, having pride publicly can be a privilege.

Some might consider me weak for not voicing my opinions within the Muslim community, but that’s not how I see it. I do argue with my family when I want to and I’m not scared to stand up to them, I just choose not to further strain a relationship that’s already made complicated by cultural differences. In other words, I pick my battles. There are many people in scarier situations than me who risk being physically abused or disowned for coming out, which is why we must let people come out on their own time and terms, if at all.

As the L.G.B.T.Q. movement continues and cultures move at different paces, I believe that everyone deserves a choice in how they share their sexuality. The goal is to stay happy, safe and unashamed.

Works Cited

Solomon, Andrew. “The First New York Pride March Was an Act of ‘Desperate Courage.” The New York Times, 27 June 2019.

Wright, Robin. “Love Jihad: Orlando and Gay Muslims.” The New Yorker, 16 June 2016.

_________

“China Must Protect Its Whistleblowers”
By Xiyue Tan, age 17, Wyoming Seminary, Kingston, Penn.

The year 1972 was a landmark year for fighting corruption in the United States. Frank Serpico exposed the corruption emanating through the New York City Police Department and Deep Throat revealed Nixon’s nefarious tendencies. Their selfless efforts in laying bare the vested interests that govern institutions culminated in the Whistleblower Protection Act, a remarkable piece of legislation that protects those battling the powerful forces of their institutions. One cannot help but wonder if the coronavirus that is currently making global headlines would have spread as quickly if a similar mechanism was in place in China.

On Dec. 30, 2019, Dr. Li Wenliang, from Wuhan, detected SARS-like symptoms in several patients and reported it to his colleagues. However, instead of being applauded for highlighting this dangerous new virus, he was questioned by police and government officials, who claimed he was “spreading rumors” and “disturbing social order.” It does not matter that he has since been vindicated; the coronavirus has already spread far and wide. Dr. Li’s untimely death has since instigated a massive online debate on Chinese social media, where many believe that the virus could have been contained sooner if his warnings were heeded.

The Chinese central government is famously rigid regarding information control; its incessant 24/7 monitoring of social media, where it removes every post that contradicts the government’s ideology, is a contentious issue within the country. Chinese people are generally permissive of government monitoring, and accept limitations on freedom of speech, because we feel the trade-off for a safe, secure society is preferable. However, the drawbacks, as evidenced by the tragic case of Dr. Li, should provide an opportunity for reflection for the government. The current policy of silencing honest citizens, and downplaying events to curry favor with the upper echelons of government, are clearly insufficient for dealing with a dreadful epidemic such as the coronavirus.

A policy change is clearly needed. While expecting the Chinese government to expunge all limitations on freedom of speech is unrealistic, a happy medium can be struck as a safeguard against extraordinary threats to public health. One such solution could be to guarantee additional protections to those who work in sensitive areas. It should not be too hard for the government to identify similar processes to ensure this: the Whistleblower Protection Act is living, breathing proof that such mechanisms work, and work effectively.

The debate on freedom of speech is likely to rage on inside and outside of China. Whatever direction it takes, it is imperative that we enact a practical measure in the interim to mitigate the potential crises posed by events like the coronavirus. For it is necessary to grant people access to accurate, transparent information in order to keep them educated and alert, regardless of ideology.

Works Cited:

Elliott, Carl. “Why They Blow the Whistle.” The Atlantic, 2 Oct. 2019.

Sieren, Frank. “Sieren’s China: Li Wenliang, a tragic hero.” Deutsche Welle, 13 Feb. 2020.

Zhao, Kiki. “The Coronavirus Story Is Too Big for China to Spin.” The New York Times, 14 Feb. 2020.

_________

“Drawing Circles Around Animals”
By Betty W.

In the 1980s the ethical concept of a moral circle was coined; those we consider worthy of moral consideration were deemed to be within this circle.

Nowadays activist circles are using this term, as animal rights movements make the case for granting rights to non-humans, predicating the case for moral consideration on sentience, or the ability to feel and have subjective experiences.

Early ideas about animal behavior were, in short, anti-animal. Most of these attitudes can be traced to the 17th century philosopher, René Descartes. He claimed that animals were merely machines made of flesh who, in the words of one of his followers, “eat without pleasure, cry without pain, grow without knowing it: they desire nothing, fear nothing, know nothing.”

Even arguments nowadays for the fundamental worth of animals, especially ones borne out of our modern “pet-obsessed” culture, are often anthropomorphic in nature, portraying animals as having humanlike qualities. Animals are like humans, the case goes, not the other way around.

Species differ, but we too often don’t consider the meaning we place on these differences. Almost all the traits of the human mind are found in some animals (mammals and birds, in particular): captive dolphins will spontaneously imitate what divers do in their tank; elephants have self-awareness, recognizing themselves in a mirror; chimpanzees can manipulate and deceive others. In the words of Dutch primatologist, Frans de Waal, “believing that only humans have minds is like believing that because only humans have human skeletons, only humans have skeletons.”

Our wild companions have complex inner lives. Emotions, for example, have physiological effects. When you “get emotional,” your heart rate goes up, your blood pressure increases, hormones such as oxytocin and dopamine are released — changes that are very much the same in humans and animals.

What’s more, animals, too, can control and express their emotions. Chimps hide when they’re embarrassed; they laugh; they get anxious. Animals without anatomical resemblance will exhibit emotions with different bodily reactions. Octopuses, for example, change color when they’re afraid.

Experiences such as the farewell between Dutch biologist Jan Van Hooff and the terminally ill chimpanzee, Mama, speak to moral crossover. When Mama recognized Dr. Van Hooff, she grinned, and seemingly joyful yelps could be heard. She gently stroked Dr. Van Hooff’s hair before pulling him in with one of her long arms.

Mama was happy, and their reunion proves that emotions aren’t a distinctly human trait. Animals have rich inner experiences. We value each other’s lives because we think of each other as moral equals. Animals might not be the same as us, but they experience their lives vividly. As such, they are worthy of moral consideration. They should be in the circle.

Works Cited

Berns, Gregory. “Dogs Are People, Too.” The New York Times, 5 Oct. 2013.

“Can We Know What Animals Are Thinking?” The Economist, 14 March 2017.

de Waal, F.B.M. Mama’s Last Hug: Animal Emotions and What They Tell Us about Ourselves. W.W. Norton & Company, 2020.

Montgomery, Sy. “Frans de Waal Embraces Animal Emotions in ‘Mama’s Last Hug’.” The New York Times, 25 Feb. 2019.

Safina, Carl. Beyond Words: What Animals Think and Feel. Profile Books Ltd., 2020.

Samuel, Sigal. “Should Animals, Plants, and Robots Have the Same Rights as You?” Vox, 4 April 2019.

_________

中学

按作者姓氏的字母顺序排列。

我们的中学亚军之一M. Calcagno使用文章“在精益时代，学校挤出图书馆员”作为她文章的来源。。。。迈兰·坎农/《纽约时报》

“Bringing Ethics to Your Plate”
By Alexa Troob, age 13, Robert E. Bell Middle School, Chappaqua, N.Y.

Growing up in a family of meat-eaters, I always accepted the fact that animals were food. I was in denial of the inhumanity.

This year, I volunteered at the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, helping mistreated dogs. I would tear up seeing the desperate eyes of previously abandoned dogs while there were chickens being ground alive, suffocated in bags, gassed to death and then eaten by me. One day, I began to wonder what differentiated those chickens from my two labradoodles and the other dogs at the shelter. Whenever pet abuse is seen, instant outrage is unleashed. Meanwhile, farm animals are tortured and killed daily, and we do far from express outrage: we eat them.

The book, “Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows,” discusses carnism, the belief system that allows people to eat certain animals over others. If you were told the grilled meat you were enjoying came from a golden retriever, you would be immediately disgusted. If you were told you were eating pork, you would continue to see your meal as delicious food rather than a dead pig. A New York Times editorial states that we need to disconnect from reality to eat meat. Trying to disregard the truth of eating an intelligent and aware animal so you can enjoy your meal is selfishness in its truest form. There is a reason you take your kids to pick apples, but not to a slaughterhouse.

Once I questioned eating animals, one thing that shocked me was the complexity of farm animals’ feelings. According to an article in One Green Planet, cows have an unbelievable memory and form strong friendships, pigs recognize themselves in mirrors and chickens are empathetic mothers. I had the opportunity to go on a safari where I witnessed a mother wildebeest mourning her newborn’s death. She stayed by the scraps of her baby for over 24 hours showing obvious distress. For those of you that have also observed an animal interacting with the world, there is no doubt they feel fear, joy, empathy and pain.

People claim eating meat is a health necessity. That couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, meat is a leading cause of heart disease, diabetes, strokes and cancer. A Huffington Post article claims that vegetarians live approximately eight years longer than average, similar to the gap between smokers and nonsmokers. We possess many alternatives to eating meat that will raise the average American life span, decrease the risk of numerous diseases and improve overall health.

We need to break our wall of numbness, accept the truth and make changes. If our world went meat free, our farm animal friends would be eternally grateful.

Works Cited

Freston, Kathy. “Why Do Vegetarians Live Longer?” HuffPost, 28 Oct. 2012.

Joy, Melanie. “Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows.” Conari Press, 2009.

Schott, Ben. “Carnism.” The New York Times, 11 Jan. 2010.

Vallery, Anna. “5 Farm Animals That Are Probably Smarter Than Your Dog.” One Green Planet, 2019.

“Switching Letters, Skipping Lines: Troubled and Dyslexic Minds”
By Hayden Miskinis, age 12, Epping Middle School, Epping, N.H.

I look down at my book. I slowly read the first line of jumpy letters that won’t stay still. It takes me a minute to find the next line, as my eyes jump around. This is a repeating process until I’m at the end of the page. This doesn’t just happen to me; it happens to 70-80 percent of dyslexic students in schools, and yet schools aren’t providing resources, teachers aren’t getting trained and people don’t even really understand dyslexia.

What is dyslexia? I didn’t know until 2015 when I was faced with the truth as to why I wasn’t progressing in school. I had been given interventions through a program called Title I which helps kids who don’t have access to books or reading in their homes, but it wasn’t working for me. I had plenty of books; I just couldn’t read them. What I needed were interventions that would work for me.

Many people think that dyslexia is just switching letters. In my case, and that of many other dyslexic people, switching letters is only a small part of the bigger issue. A recent study suggests that “The brains of dyslexics do form accurate neurological representations of language sounds” (Paul). This would explain why a dyslexic learner’s comprehension is so much higher than their reading ability. In other words, a dyslexic student could understand Harry Potter but not be able to read a simple word like “the.” In order for a dyslexic student to succeed, correct interventions should be applied early in school.

While it might be true that some schools acknowledge dyslexia, most schools don’t. In my case, it wasn’t until third grade that I started to get the right interventions. The delay made becoming a strong reader especially challenging. I don’t blame my teachers for this. Teachers don’t recognize dyslexia or use interventions because they aren’t prepared to. “One-on-one, individualized intervention is almost never an option in the public school system, but it is necessary for a dyslexic student” (Lunney). Students need to “attain functional reading and spelling as fast as possible. The longer that is delayed the farther behind they fall academically” (Lunney). I was fortunate that my school hired an Orton-Gillingham specialist who was trained in dyslexia. But, I’m one of the lucky ones. Most schools don’t have the funding to provide these necessary resources.

After years of intensive interventions including tutors and outside programs, I can finally pick up a book and read it like it’s nothing. This could be the future for many kids but not until teachers are trained properly and appropriate interventions are provided. In the meantime, we all need to remember, “Great minds don’t think alike.”

Works Cited

Emanuel, Gabrielle. “Dyslexia: The Learning Disability That Must Not Be Named.” NPR, 3 Dec. 2016.

Lunney, Marie. “Why Schools Don’t Do Dyslexia Intervention.” Lexercise, 25 Oct. 2016.

Paul, Annie. “Reading Experience May Change The Brains of Dyslexic Students.” The New York Times, 15 May 2014.

“Harnessing Boredom in the Age of Coronavirus”
By Elan Cohen, age 14, F.A. Day Middle School, Newton, Mass.

We all get bored frequently: waiting in line at Starbucks, riding the bus to school, sitting at home with nothing to do. It is inevitable, especially during this time of physical distancing, and it is not going away anytime soon. But if it happens so often, why do we tirelessly try to counteract it? Maybe, instead of avoiding the daydreaming and mind-wandering, we should be embracing it.

A study published in the journal “Science” showed what people would do when they were by themselves for six to 15 minutes and given two choices: do nothing or self-administer mild electric shocks. The findings were astonishing: two-thirds of the men and one-fourth of the women chose to shock themselves rather than be bored.

Do we crave external stimulation so intently that hurting ourselves is preferable to being alone with our own thoughts? Have we forgotten what it is like to be inside our own minds?

A few weeks into quarantine, I decided to take a walk around the woods near my house, with no destination or direction in mind. I saw a swan sitting on her nest, gently tending to some fragile twigs; an old beehive high up in a tree; another swan flying above the river like a bullet, wings just barely grazing the water; and a serene grove of trees on the waterfront with a circular stone path all around, the perfect spot for a picnic. I climbed up a tree and sat there for many minutes, simply observing the shimmering lake and the swaying trees. I never would have noticed these beautiful marvels of nature had it not been for my aimless wandering, and I never would have been able to appreciate my surroundings so fully had it not been for my mindful boredom. I learned that it is possible to be both bored and happy at the same time; the two emotions are not mutually exclusive.

Contrary to the media-manipulated messages we get from modern society, it is healthy to let our minds wander every once in a while. Our brains are host to vast stockpiles of deep thoughts, honest emotions, nostalgic memories and wildly creative ideas just waiting to be exploited. When we use boredom as a tool to tune in to our deepest internal selves, we unlock all those hidden elements, becoming more connected with ourselves and the world around us.

So next time you find yourself at home with nothing to do (which will happen a lot over the next couple months), remember that it is OK to be bored. Try being content with following the crazy stream of thoughts inside your own head because you never know what you might find.

Works Cited

Paul, Pamela. “Let Children Get Bored Again.” The New York Times, 2 Feb. 2019.

Razzetti, Gustavo. “Why Boredom Is So Powerful in Your Life.” Liberationist, Accessed 30 March 2020.

Webb, Jonathan. “Do people choose pain over boredom?” BBC News, 4 July 2014.

Wilson, Timothy D., et al. “Just think: The challenges of the disengaged mind.” Science. 4 July 2014.

“How Pragmatism Is Poisoning the Democratic Will of America’s Youth”
By Edward Xu, age 16, Shanghai American School, Puxi Campus, Shanghai, China

What the 2020 election cycle has taught me is that the most hopeless candidate is whichever one excites me. Throughout the year, I progressed from falling in love with Andrew Yang’s human-centered capitalism, to begrudgingly rallying behind Elizabeth Warren’s battle with billionaires, and finally being forced to support Bernie Sanders as the only remaining candidate whose conception of human rights aligned with mine.

And now, like so many other teenagers, I am deeply disappointed — or at least vaguely resentful — with the nomination of Joe Biden. Love or hate Biden, it is impossible not to mourn the unfortunate defeat of some of the most novel policy proposals in American history by the textbook definition of establishment. While the passionate communities of “Yang Gangers” and “Bernie or Bust” voters were able to keep their candidates on a lifeline, the unoffensive and palatable nature of Biden invoked a much more powerful force opposing the optimism of radical reformists: Pragmatism.

Increasingly, members of the Democratic Party have surrendered their ideology for the singular goal of unseating President Trump in 2020. A report from The New York Times showed that after the first six Democratic primary debates, “party strategy” received more airtime than climate change — and almost as much time as women’s rights and education combined. This sacrifice exists far beyond screen coverage, as a YouGov survey of Democratic primary voters found that 65 percent of respondents believed that a candidate’s electability was more important than their stances on major issues.

When did we learn to consider democracy as a means to an end? When did politics become about idle stewardship and keeping someone else out of office? When were the human aspirations of change swallowed by our fear of failure?

While administrations come and pass, the soul of a generation persists for decades. As my peers and I evolve from teenagers to activists, any inaction will be seen as a free pass for complacency. If we refuse to abstain out of principle, our threats have no leverage. If we refuse to stray from the party line, our demands receive no reaction. If we refuse to dream bigger, our successes will always be mild.

Two things need to happen to restore courage and imagination to America’s political youth. First, reform in the voting system itself. America needs to abandon “first past the post” and transition to sensible alternatives, such as the single transferable vote, which dispel considerations of popularity while voting. Second, Gen Z-ers need to recognize the collective power they hold over the fate of our country. With a voting bloc 72 million strong, there is no need to hide behind the party sanctioned poster boy.

One day it will finally register, that the future is ours to decide.

Works Cited

Barbaro, Michael. “Who’s Actually Electable in 2020?” The New York Times, 5 Nov. 2019.

Burden, Barry. “Democrats Aren’t Voting Only on ‘Electability.’ They’re Just as Interested in Candidates’ Stances on the Issues.” The Washington Post, 4 March 2020.

Seitz-Wald, Alex. “‘Electability’ Is the Most Important, Least Understood Word in the 2020 Race.” NBCNews.com, 23 June 2019.

The New York Times. “The Issues That Got the Most Time at the Debates So Far.” The New York Times, 20 Nov. 2019.

“How Animal Crossing Will Save Gen Z”
By Ananya Udaygiri, age 15, Shadow Creek High School, Pearland, Tex.

Generation Z was born in the aftermath of 9/11, molded by the economic recession of 2008, and polished off by the coronavirus, the worst pandemic in a century. And that doesn’t even include the mounting crisis of climate change. Or the growing nationalism. Or the gun violence epidemic. Gen Z’s childhood is rooted in issues that would be unrecognizable only a decade prior. We are no strangers to a fight. So what drew us to a Japanese video game about living in a village with anthropomorphic animal neighbors? Like moths to a flame, or perhaps more appropriately, like children to their first love, Animal Crossing has captured the young teenage heart.

Animal Crossing is a video game made by Nintendo in the early 2000s. The game’s iterations and evolutions have mirrored our developments throughout grade school, and now, when the curtains of our childhood begin to close, Animal Crossing’s masterpiece has taken the stage. Animal Crossing: New Horizons, the latest version of the game, is now a staple of Generation Z’s culture. The characters in the game connected with my generation at a level never seen before. Yet in Animal Crossing, the characters live virtually unrecognizable lives.

The basic premise of Animal Crossing is small-town living. Your character, a human villager, performs basic, everyday functions. You fish. You catch bugs. You grow a tree. Common themes are relaxation and simplicity. Even the soundtrack is purposely designed as a calm lullaby, which harks back to simpler times today’s teens have only dreamed of. It’s a stark contrast to the chaos of our lives. In a New York Times article focusing on Animal Crossing in the age of coronavirus, the author described how Animal Crossing was a “miniature escape” for those isolated by the pandemic. He labeled it as a “balm” for the “rushing tonnage of real-world news.” While that is certainly true, for Generation Z it encompasses all that and more. The characters in the game don’t have to worry about school shootings, arbitrary college admissions or the rapidly deteriorating environment. They simply… live. For a generation that has been denied safety, a voice, and now, as the final blow, the coming-of-age traditions of prom and graduation, Animal Crossing represents a Gen Z vision for better times.

There are those who seek to diminish my generation’s concerns. They cite the suffering of others and admonish us for our presumptuousness. But sadness is never relative to others. Our generation’s troubles are valid and growing. Buzzfeed News so aptly describes it as a “generation free fall.” So pick up your video game console. Load in Animal Crossing. Play the game. For Generation Z, Animal Crossing is hope, and it will save us all.

Works Cited

Brodeur, Michael Andor. “The Animal Crossing Soundtrack Is an Unlikely Lullaby for a Nervous World.” The Washington Post, 21 April 2020.

Brooks, Ryan. “The Coronavirus Pandemic Has Put Gen Z And Young Millennials’ Lives On Hold.” Buzzfeed News, 20 April 2020.

Buchanan, Kyle. “Animal Crossing Is the Perfect Way to Spend Quarantine.” The New York Times, 31 March 2020.

“This Land Was Made for You and Me”
By Nicole Tian, age 15, The Harker School, San Jose, Calif.

“Welcome home!” the United States customs agent smiles at me, handing me my deep blue passport embossed with a golden eagle. America is my home, where I can celebrate Lunar New Year and drive up to San Francisco five months later to cheer with strangers, united under fireworks on the Fourth of July.

Picture an American on Independence Day. Picture a Chinese. Now, picture a girl, a product of these two cultures, smiling so wide her cheeks hurt as the night rumbles awake. The dark hides her face and skin tone. Her silhouette against the sky outlines the features of a patriot.

Now, the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus has transformed part of my identity into a slur. My own president designated the pandemic as the “Chinese Virus,” a moniker that implicates a whole culture and its descendants, inviting fear and offering up Asian-Americans as easy targets.

Inflammatory language leads to violent actions. Reports of bigotry against Asian-Americans recently spiked. Clearly, this violence is misguided. The viruses are blind to ethnicity. Not every Chinese American has Covid-19, and not everyone who has tested positive is of Chinese descent.

To confront the coronavirus and alienation, the Chinese-American community has gone to great lengths to mobilize in slowing the virus’s spread. However, my community’s good will is misunderstood by some as a plea to be accepted as American, a submissive gesture from the “model minority” to please the system that is constructed against us. Indeed, prominent members like former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang have called upon Chinese-Americans to increase their efforts at patriotism to escape stigma. According to his argument, Asian-Americans must volunteer vigorously, wave the flag more enthusiastically and spin their tale into one of die-hard patriotism to prove their rights for being in this country.

Novelist Toni Morrison pointed out the truth of this strained effort to prove one’s Americanness, commenting “In this country American means white. Everybody else has to hyphenate.” Yang reinforces the idea that hyphenation means not fully American, not fully loyal, and connotes a degree of separation from being American.

The peril of social division is not just about our president and politicians’ literacy and decency, but of ours. As citizens of this country, we, born here or naturalized, are obligated to join the collective effort to stop the virus. It is also our responsibility to call out another form of pathogens in our systems and structures. The use of “Chinese Virus” is rooted in ethnocentrism and racism, which not only undermines our civility but also comes at a cost to human lives.

You and I are both Americans, featured differently, but committed equally to the well-being of our country.

Picture Americans, you and me.

Works Cited

Tavernise, Sabrina, and Richard A. Oppel, Jr. “Spit On, Yelled At, Attacked: Chinese-Americans Fear for Their Safety.” The New York Times, 23 March 2020.

Toni Morrison Quotes. Goodreads, 2020.

Yang, Andrew. “We Asian Americans are not the virus, but we can be part of the cure.” The Washington Post, 1 April 2020.

“The Class of 2021 Could Change College Admissions Forever”
By Erin Tan, age 16, Middlesex County Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Technologies, Edison, N.J.

Junior year of high school is notorious for being the most stressful, acne-inducing year of a teenager’s life. With college applications fast approaching, students scramble to bump up their course rigor and boost their grade point averages. On top of that, they have to find time to prepare, and pay, for the SAT, ACT, subject tests and Advanced Placement exams.

By mid-March, I was starting to feel the heat: It seemed like I had two tests every day and four projects a week. If this kept up for three more months I would implode from stress. Then a global pandemic shut schools down indefinitely.

The high school class of 2021 just lucked out hard. In the busiest part of our hardest year of high school, we get to have school from home and abridged open note A.P. exams. Because of all these changes, our college admissions are going to be much more complex. Maybe that’s a good thing.

Ahead of the fall of 2021 college application period, many universities across the nation have announced modifications to their application requirements, specifically for standardized testing. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for example, will not consider SAT subject tests. Dozens of other colleges and universities have dropped the SAT and ACT altogether, with some schools even amending their admissions requirements beyond fall of 2021. If this precedent catches on, the landscape of college admissions, as well as the overall high school experience, will change drastically.

Colleges claim to value a student’s character in the admissions process. “It’s not enough just to be smart at top schools,” says Angela Dunnham, former assistant director of admissions at Dartmouth College. “Students must also show that they’ll be good classmates and community builders.” If this were truly the case, then an applicant’s essay and extracurriculars would hold equal or more weight than a test score or G.P.A. After all, there’s nothing about a multiple choice test that showcases a student’s creativity or versatility.

Placing less emphasis on standardized testing will remove an added stressor that students face during high school. Students have accustomed themselves to the reality that if they are poor test takers, they will automatically disqualify themselves from admission at most top-tier colleges. Additionally, the high costs of taking and preparing for these tests have made standardized testing a catalyst for socioeconomic privilege.

By valuing more personal aspects of an application, colleges will be able to assemble a diverse roster of students that don’t fit one cookie-cutter model. High school students will worry less and become the sociable, humanitarian people that any college would be proud to admit. The fall 2021 college freshman class will prove what admissions guidelines truly produce the most well-rounded group of students, and colleges better pay attention.

Works Cited

Butterly, Joel. “7 Admissions Officers Share the Things They Never Tell Applicants.” Business Insider, 7 Feb. 2018.

Cole, Jonathan R. “Why Elite-College Admissions Need an Overhaul.” The Atlantic, 14 Feb. 2016.

Hoover, Eric. “What Colleges Want in an Applicant (Everything).” The New York Times, 1 Nov. 2017.

My long-distance friend and I often text pictures of books back and forth, accompanied by “Have you read this?” He also sends photos of crowded bookshelves, crammed with pale booklets. They’re his dad’s, who owns roughly ten thousand books.

When I displayed my more modest personal bookshelf, featuring shiny-foiled fantasy and colorful young adult novels, he bemoaned, “My dad won’t let me read anything un-classic. He thinks it’s a waste of time.”

I was immediately indignant over his dad’s attitude. How could you own so many books, yet deride almost every genre? But how would I, a high schooler, have more valid tastes than a scholar and elevated press editor?

Most of the books in my house are bright and sparkly, characterizing my reader origins: Rainbow Magic, Candy Apple, Dork Diaries, Popularity Papers. Motifs include magical creatures, “distracting” font choices, unrealistic high school drama, crushes, mean girls. Also present is a subsection of young adult, with the same elements. I devoured these wastes of time.

But today, I whittle away at classics, fully appreciative of their cultural significance and artistry. My recent leisure reads include Austen, Beckett, Hugo and Neruda. Next to heist fantasy “Six of Crows,” social media teen romance “Tweet Cute,” and graphic novel “Pumpkinheads,” of course. Such “frivolous” genre reads can be meaningful in their own right, offering breaks from the density of both classics and real life. Most importantly, they’re fuel for the reading habit that’s significantly linked to success and well-being.

This habit is created, as described by editor Pamela Paul, by experiencing reading not as “spinach,” but as “chocolate cake”— not necessarily full of nutrients, but deliciously addictive. (Perhaps the spinach becomes chocolate cake: Homer’s “Odyssey” after reading “Goddess Girls,” “Pygmalion” after “Princess Diaries,” “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” after “Her Evil Twin.”)

Parents may be underwhelmed by their kid diving into “Captain Underpants" or their teenager’s obsession with “Twilight.” Readers themselves may feel guilty in sticking around in young adult, chick-lit or romance sections. But as Lev Grossman writes of genre fiction, “What is it, exactly, that those pleasures are guilty of?” You’re still getting the boost in vocabulary, an expanded worldview and access to originality and imagination. In whatever amount it may be present in.

I certainly feel the need to steer others toward capital-G Great books that are well-written and inventive. Yet my younger sister will ignore my recommendation of “Anne of Green Gables” for a month while flying through a book about magical cats in a day. At such a time, I recall the privilege of pulling “Dork Diaries” from the shelf, sitting down with it for several hours, relishing the sparkly illustrations and overdramatic plotlines in a decidedly un-literary way.

Works Cited

Bruni, Frank. “The Gift of Reading.” The New York Times. 25 Nov. 2015.

Grossman, Lev. “Literary Revolution in the Supermarket: Genre Fiction is Disruptive Technology.” Time. 23 May 2012.

Pinsker, Joe. “Why Some People Become Lifelong Readers.” The Atlantic. 10 Sept. 2019.

Laboring over Spotify unable to find the Rachmaninoff piano concerto played by a favorite soloist, attending a Mahler’s symphony surrounded by empty seats … such is the reality that we classical music enthusiasts face.

Since the start of this century, the popularity of all traditional classical music platforms has been plummeting. The percentage of adults attending classical music performances declined from 11.6 percent to 8.6 percent between 2002 and 2017, whereas participation in all other genres rose by as high as 15.7 percent. In the year 2012 alone, classical album sales decreased by 21 percent. The ingenuity of Beethoven is becoming increasingly impotent against the ferocious attraction of pop music.

In this age of the internet, one can easily avoid the blame of such tragedy by claiming that classical pieces moved online. However, it is precisely metadata — the algorithm based on the album, song and artist that popular music streaming platforms use — that has been impeding their digital growth. How can Spotify accurately place into its categories the second movement of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9 played by the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra and conducted by Gustavo Dudamel? As a result, classical music presently constitutes less than one percent of all streaming services, lagging behind its 2.5 percent of American album sales.

Ultimately, society’s abandonment of classical music stems from modern cultural changes. Since the mid-20th century, Western society has developed a countercultural attitude that readily questions established authority, the classical canons included. Encountering a myriad new adrenaline-charged music styles, people eschew the slow-paced, less immediately accessible classical music. Plagued by modern populism, those in search of easy numbness dub classical music “elitist,” using it as a convenient excuse to turn away from the elusive genre.

In rejecting classical music, we neglect its unique and timeless emotional depth. It is an abstract representation of the composers’ meditations on the world, expressing complexities when words are inadequate. Cambridge composer John Borstlap asserts that classical music offers an “alternative to the modern world” instead of the “reflection” or escape from reality that people seek in pop lyrics about sex or drugs. From Brahms’s melancholic tunes, to Schumann’s rhythmic introversions, to Tchaikovsky’s impressive harmonies, classical pieces preserve our inner peace to balance out the external bombardment of indigestible information from society. Such is the perennial virtue of classical music.

Despite the current waning of classical music, its future remains hopeful as long as we embrace its fruits and pass on its legacy. Go to a local concert. Pick up an instrument. Advocate for classical music education in schools, starting from childhood. Download apps like Idagio and Primephonic — streaming platforms devoted to classical music, search for a serenade, and feel how your soul soars with every chord.

Works Cited

Borstlap, John. “The Relevance of Classical Music.” The Imaginative Conservative, 29 April 2017.

Sisario, Ben. “In Streaming Age, Classical Music Gets Lost in the Metadata.” The New York Times, 23 June 2019.

“U.S. Trends in Arts Attendance and Literary Reading: 2002-2017.” National Endowment for the Arts, Sept. 2018.