作者： chenchen

Save the Snow Day: Save Teenage Education

The fledgling hope of a snow day offers a reprieve from the unforgiving Winter Break to Spring Break stretch. Nothing lights up the spirit quite like seeing a blanket of snow cover the ground, pristine and sparkling; checking the school’s Twitter confirms that eight hours of the day lie ahead, cleared.

This year, as schools became more comfortable with online learning, many school districts canceled snow days for the season. In that number was New York City, the nation’s largest school system. Several superintendents have already extrapolated the decision into the future, planning to utilize the technology and systems set up during the pandemic to cancel snow days forever.

Taking away the most potent symbol of playtime and joy and being a kid, the bona fide snow day, is unacceptable.

I had online classes on what would certainly have been a snow day in past years, but with the school workload as normal, I calculated that playing in the snow would make it difficult to stay on top of everything. Why struggle to fit playtime, of all things, into my schedule when there were so many other things I should be doing?

Anne Helen Peterson for Buzzfeed News explains that the millennial generation, growing into a work force that had already become efficient and stellar at turning a profit, needed to be “optimized” to survive. My generation, Generation Z, has felt the pressure as much as, if not more than, the one that came before it. Kids playing games in the neighborhood have turned into “supervised play dates.” Kicking around a soccer ball or hanging out at the basketball court has turned into “highly regulated organized league play.”

On one hand, we seem to be progressing faster than our parents and grandparents. We all know of high schoolers that have done cancer research or founded businesses. But how guided, how “optimized,” were they? How sustainable is this sort of education that funnels us into “achievement” rather than having us discover it for ourselves?

In other words, I’m scared. A chunk of our education, play, has been missing. In history class I chose to write the safe essay instead of brainstorming a political cartoon. I meticulously check the boxes on assignments, analyzing how I can score all the points. I’m an expert at following the directions.

This would not be simply a wave goodbye to a happy childhood tradition; it would be another nail in the coffin the education of kids has been squeezed into. Snow days teach lessons that cannot be taught as a curriculum, lessons about how to let the mind be creative, explore or simply exist that have been sorely missing.

Next year, take some time to build a snowman. It’s educational!

Works Cited

Cramer, Maria. “Sorry, Kids. Snow Days Are Probably Over.” The New York Times, 16 Dec. 2020.

Petersen, Anne Helen. “How Millennials Became the Burnout Generation.” Buzzfeed News, 5 Jan. 2019.

We Cannot Fight Anti-Asian Hate Without Dismantling Asian Stereotypes

A few weeks ago, my aunt decided to close the nail salon she had been running for years. Early on in the pandemic, her business was hit hard, regulars refusing to return and associating her salon with the spread of Covid. Now, she fears for the safety of her salon employees — most of them Asian and Asian-American women.

The New York Times has documented a surge of anti-Asian hate crimes during the coronavirus pandemic, including the deaths of six Asian women during the recent mass shooting in Atlanta. These incidents have rightly sparked protests and outrage, yet there can be no effective response unless we look beyond easy explanations. Talk of the former president’s xenophobic rhetoric, or the shooter’s “sex addiction,” only serves to distract from the underlying issue: America’s history of stereotyping, fetishizing and oppressing Asians and Asian-Americans — especially women.

By the 20th century, mainstream media and popular culture had already categorized Asian women into tropes still resonant today, from the hypersexual “Dragon Lady” to the docile “Lotus Flower.” Predating the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Page Act of 1875 made it unlawful for East Asian women to enter the United States without proof that they were “virtuous.” That Asian women were painted as a “moral contagion” becomes even more chilling when juxtaposed with the Atlanta shooter’s claim that the massage parlors were, “a temptation for him that he wanted to eliminate.” Objects of desire easily become objects of hatred. The key: both are things for the dominant class to fetishize, feel entitled to — or dispose of.

By now, many Americans understand how negative stereotypes of Black and Latinx people in the United States have enabled police brutality, anti-immigrant hysteria and violence. However, we tend to react differently to Asian stereotypes. While there are plenty of derogatory tropes (think bad drivers who eat dogs), Asians in this country are often viewed as smart and industrious — a “model minority.” But the truth is, all stereotypes are ultimately dehumanizing, stripping people of their individuality and objectifying them in ways that can lead to shameful violations like the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

Perhaps most dangerously, stereotypes like the submissive “Oriental” serving girl create artificial roles that women are forced to play, or to be punished for “not knowing their place.” When the dominant class feels threatened, even model minorities suddenly become invading Others, the alien “them” displacing “us” and threatening what is rightfully “ours.”

Until we stop regarding Asian stereotypes and the fetishization of Asian women as innocuous, Asians and Asian-Americans will continue to face the threat of racist violence. Recognizing that anti-Asian prejudice is deeply rooted in American history is the first step toward dismantling those dangerous stereotypes.

Works Cited

Jeong, May. “The Deep American Roots of the Atlanta Shootings.” The New York Times, 19 March 2021.

Lang, Cady and Paulina Cachero. “How a Long History of Intertwined Racism and Misogyny Leaves Asian Women in America Vulnerable to Violence.” Time, 7 April 2021.

It’s Just Hair

I’ve always been a hairy girl, and I’ve never seen a problem with it. Hair, the mark of mammals, has clear biological purposes, from thermoregulation to protection of sensitive body parts. Yet quite bizarrely, female body and facial hair is shrouded in stigma: The average woman spends anywhere from $10,000 to $23,000 on hair removal over a lifetime. It can be a particularly arduous ordeal for women whose genes, ethnicities or conditions like polycystic ovary syndrome predispose them to increased hair growth. Methods abound, but no panacea exists; from ingrown hairs to the agony of a full body wax, hair removal can be painful. And why shouldn’t it be? Pain is the body’s protest against a fundamentally unnatural act. Nonetheless, the multibillion-dollar hair removal industry continues to boom.

At-home shaving did not become popular in the United States until the 1910s, when Gillette debuted the first women’s razor. As soon as the industry’s potential became evident, advertisements characterizing body hair as unseemly proliferated. Author Rebecca Herzig writes that such emerging ideas were a form of “gendered social control,” accomplished by convincing women that they had to be hairless to stand a chance. Over the following decades, hair removal went from a status marker to a standard blindly followed by the masses, until the default was established: If you don’t want to raise eyebrows, shave. Despite all our long strides, in this respect, society is moving backward; while millennials are becoming increasingly comfortable with the idea of “going natural,” today’s girls feel compelled to remove their body hair at alarmingly young ages.

Traditionalists might argue that hair removal is hygiene, or that men shave their faces too. But why is the same bodily feature hygienic on men, yet unhygienic on women? Hair is not dirt. In fact, hair removal opens doors for infection. And for men, shaving is a personal choice, as it should be, not a cemented norm demanding unquestioning compliance. As long as more is societally required of a woman because of her gender, we are holding women back. There is so much about female bodies that is expected to be kept under wraps or changed to fit an arbitrary ideal, to the point where a woman who doesn’t alter herself is automatically perceived as a social justice warrior. When did it become bold to simply be? Why have we resigned ourselves to the ridiculous notion that the natural female state isn’t enough, or that beauty can only be attained through blood, sweat and tears?

Women are people, not works of art. It’s high time we started celebrating our inherent — not earned — beauty and appreciating our bodies as the miracles they are, hair and all.

Works Cited

Avison, Phoebe. “I Asked 17 Women Why They Actually Shave.” Bustle, 23 April 2015.

Basyah, Jihan. “How Hair Removal Became A Beauty Standard.” CR Fashion Book, 7 May 2020.

Cerini, Marianna. “Why Women Feel Pressured to Shave.” CNN, 3 March 2020.

“Hair Removal Products Market Size, Global Industry Report, 2019-2025.” Grand View Research, July 2019.

Harrison, Lauren R. “Shaving and Fashion: A Storied History.” Chicago Tribune, 14 Sept. 2010.

Savini, Loren. “A Retrospective Look at Women’s Body Hair in Pop Culture.” Allure, 23 April 2018.

Vora, Shivani. “Professional Hair Removal Catches On With the Preteen Set.” The New York Times, 19 March 2019.

“Women Spend up to $23,000 to Remove Hair.” United Press International, 24 June 2008.

Teach Us What We Need

My one year of sex education involved learning to spell abstinence (100 percent effective) and watching videos of teenagers regretting premarital S-E-X (I just felt so dirty!). For a class called sex education, sex was hardly mentioned without the word “never.” Rather than give me the tools to make safe decisions about my body, I, like many teenagers, was left in the dark by our inadequate sex education curriculum.

In my home state of Texas, sex education is optional, and, if offered, the course must be “abstinence-centered.” However, in the fall of 2020, Texas announced it would update its sex education curriculum for the first time in 23 years. My friends and I wrote to our representatives asking them to include consent, contraception, L.G.B.T.Q. identities and sexual harassment in the curriculum, but our calls fell on deaf ears. Teaching consent was out of the question as it would give “yes to sex as an option on the table for teenagers”; the mere phrase L.G.B.T.Q. was ignored; and sexual harassment was reduced to sexual bullying with the definition of “you’ll know it when you see it.”

The blunt truth is teenagers will have sex. Rather than ignore the given, our education system has the responsibility to give them the tools to be safe. When it comes to conversations about our bodies, teenagers don’t need shame or fear — we need guidance. In today’s world, where teenagers are exposed to sex through television and the internet with skewed perceptions of consent and contraception, it’s more important than ever to address these topics often thought of as “taboo.”

By working toward comprehensive sex education, we invest in the future, combating poverty and mitigating inequality. Our current sex education system has been costly. Abstinence-focused education has been shown to increase rates of teen pregnancy, a key factor in a heightened likelihood of poverty and maternal mortality. Texas, with its abstinence-centric education, has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the United States. Our deficient sex education curriculum is condemning our children. This is compounded in cases concerning L.G.B.T.Q. education, where students often lack further guidance from parents and peers; inclusion can protect the health of L.G.B.T.Q. students by increasing awareness of protection and sexually transmitted diseases, and even promote tolerance through simple acknowledgment. Furthermore, by including consent in our curriculum, students learn to value individual boundaries and create a safer world of respect and autonomy.

While most teenagers won’t be using calculus anytime soon, sex education is pertinent both for their today and their tomorrow. It’s time to improve our outdated and inadequate system into one that doesn’t fail our students but rather empowers them to make educated decisions about their bodies.

Works Cited

Stanger-Hall, Kathrin F, and David W Hall. “Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S.” National Center for Biotechnology Information, 14 Oct. 2011.

Swaby, Aliyya. “Texas Education Board Approves New Sex Ed Policy That Does Not Cover LGBTQ Students or Consent.” Texas Tribune, 18 Nov. 2020.

Waller, Allyson. “Texas Board Revises Sex Education Standards to Include More Birth Control.” The New York Times, 20 Nov. 2020.

For Most Latinos, Latinx Does Not Mark the Spot

“Don’t you mean Latinx?”

My white classmate had a confident look on his face. I was one of the only Latinos in the school, but that didn’t stop him from labeling me.

“No, I don’t.”

Silence followed, and his confidence turned into confusion.

“It’s complicated,” I added, trying to ease the situation and avoid a full-on rant.

The United States has always had trouble categorizing people of Latin American descent, and the term Latinx is just the most recent example. Created as a gender-neutral alternative to Latino or Latina, it has gained momentum over the past decade and is now used by politicians, universities and corporations eager to signal their awareness of this new term. Despite its good intentions, many Latinos, including myself, view it as problematic.

Latinx doesn’t work as an ethnic label mainly because it’s not even embraced by the community it describes; according to a 2020 study by the Pew Research Center, only 3 percent of U.S. Latinos use the term. Most haven’t heard of it, and those who have overwhelmingly reject it. Many of us find Latinx confusing or culturally offensive.

This is partially because of the term’s linguistic nuances. Latinx is an Anglicization of our language, an artificial label that defies the basic rules of Spanish pronunciation. To native Spanish speakers, Latinx feels foreign and imposed.

Conversations about gender inclusivity in Latin America have already been happening since long before the introduction of Latinx. Activists in Argentina have offered Latine as a non-Anglicized gender-neutral option which actually works in Spanish. Other accepted gender-neutral terms include Latin and Latin American. These alternatives prove that Latinx is simply not necessary.

Language changes over time, but such adaptations must be organic. Forced changes from outside our community are a form of linguistic imperialism, which centers the English language and perpetuates cultural erasure. At its core, this is an issue of linguistic self-determination. The Latino community doesn’t need politicians and corporations to “fix” our language; we can confront our community’s issues on our own terms.

It’s important that our society move toward gender inclusivity. But imposing an unwanted label on another community isn’t the right way to do that. While well-intentioned, the use of Latinx creates more problems than solutions, and makes Latinos feel ignored and disrespected.

To would-be allies, rather than rushing to embrace the latest progressive shibboleth, please step back and allow us the space to identify ourselves on our own terms. I am not Latinx. I am Latino, Latine, Latin or Latin American, and I’ll resist any attempt by someone else to define me con todo mi corazón.

Works Cited

De León, Concepción. “Another Hot Take on the Term ‘Latinx’.” The New York Times, 21 Nov. 2018.

Douthat, Ross. “Liberalism’s Latinx Problem.” The New York Times, 5 Nov. 2019.

Inocencio, Josh. “Why I Won’t Use Latinx.” Spectrum South, 6 Sept. 2017.

Lopez, Mark Hugo et al. “About One-in-Four U.S. Hispanics Have Heard of Latinx, but Just 3% Use It.” Pew Research Center, 11 Aug. 2020.

McWhorter, John. “Why Latinx Can’t Catch On.” The Atlantic, 23 Dec. 2019.

Politi, Daniel. “In Argentina, a Bid to Make Language Gender Neutral Gains Traction.” The New York Times, 15 April 2020.

The American Teacher’s Plight: Underappreciated, Underpaid and Overworked

I had perfected my routine: wake up, turn on my computer, log into Zoom and turn off my camera for a long day of virtual classes. That is, until I noticed that I wasn’t the only one with my camera off. My heart sank at the sight of my teacher trying to interact with a screen full of black boxes with barely any response, despite his repeated attempts to elicit conversation.

Too engrossed in our own issues, students are oblivious to the plight our teachers have experienced during the pandemic, much less the countless struggles teachers have faced over the past few decades. Teaching in America has become a thankless profession; teachers are unappreciated, underpaid and overworked. But how did we get here?

Before the 1800s, teaching positions were largely held by men, until socio-economic shifts facilitated the entrance of women into the work force. As teaching was one of the few jobs that fit within the feminine ideal, women increasingly took on teaching roles. The feminization of this occupation correlated with a decrease in respect for teaching and in teachers’ wages as schools paid women less for their work. This perception of teaching has persisted: The New York Times finds that today, “jobs dominated by women pay less on average than those with higher proportions of men” and “enjoy less prestige.” Funding for K-12 education has also suffered, as the Center for American Progress found that the “states with the steepest funding declines have seen one-fifth of state education funding vanish.”

As a result, teaching is becoming unsustainable. Teacher salaries simply aren’t enough, as stagnant wages over the last 20 years have forced many teachers to take on extra work to supplement what should be a full-time job.

This ongoing undervaluation of teaching, combined with a lack of education funding, has created a perfect storm for teachers and students alike. Not only are fewer people going into teaching, but lower wages contribute to lower quality teachers. Better teaching quality is the top factor behind increased student achievement, meaning the state of teachers’ salaries is damaging the quality of American education as a whole. In fact, U.S. education rankings lag dramatically behind those of its global counterparts.

How do we fix this education crisis? For starters, we need to increase investment into public education to bolster teacher’s salaries and provide necessary classroom funding. Our political leaders must also heed feedback from teachers, as their voices are often sidelined and ignored, leading to brewing frustration.

As for your roles, my fellow students, the next time you see your teacher struggling during online school, remember the sacrifices they’ve made for the sake of your education, and go turn that camera on.

Works Cited

Boyle, Elizabeth. “The Feminization of Teaching in America.” MIT Program in Women’s and Gender Studies.

Diliberti, Melissa Kay, Heather L. Schwartz and David Grant. “Stress Topped the Reasons Why Public School Teachers Quit, Even Before Covid-19.” RAND Corporation, 2021.

García, Emma, and Elaine Weiss. “A Policy Agenda to Address the Teacher Shortage in U.S. Public Schools.” Economic Policy Institute, 15 Oct. 2020.

Partelow, Lisette, Sarah Shapiro, Abel McDaniels and Catherine Brown. “Fixing Chronic Disinvestment in K-12 Schools.” Center for American Progress, 20 Sept. 2018.

Ravitch, Diane, and Antonia Cortese. “Why We’re Behind: A Report by Common Core.” Grantmakers in the Arts, 2009.

Rich, Motoko. “Why Don’t More Men Go Into Teaching?” The New York Times, 6 Sept. 2014.

“Why Teachers Are Paid So Little In The U.S.” YouTube, uploaded by CNBC, 10 Dec. 2020.

Cheap for You. Costly for the Environment.

We walk into the bread aisle on our daily trip to the grocery store and are overwhelmed by the large, colorful signs advertising the deals of the day. “Buy Two Loaves, Get The Third Free,” one sign reads. Of course, my mother does not pass up that kind of bargain; she quickly grabs the three loaves. Fast forward two weeks later, two of the loaves of bread, still untouched, have expired.

This wasteful cycle is typical of American households. According to a study published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, the average U.S. household wastes 31.9 percent of the food they purchase annually. Privilege underlies this cycle of excess consumption and subsequent waste. In countries where food is abundant, cheap and easily accessible, like the United States, most people do not think twice about all the food they discard.

From your trash bin, our food waste’s next home is the landfill. The Environmental Protection Agency finds that food is the largest occupant of landfills, making up 24 percent of the 146.1 million tons of total municipal solid waste in landfills in 2018. Therefore, in a year, more than 35 million tons of food ends up in landfills; according to The New York Times, around 40 percent of which — 14 million tons of food — is thrown out by consumers.

The issue worsens when the food reaches the landfill; our wastefulness is a significant contributor to climate change. As stated by The New York Times, in landfills, food waste “decomposes and emits methane, a potent greenhouse gas”; this creates 3.3 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases annually across the globe and amounts to about 7 percent of total emissions per year. The issue does not end there; Forbes points out that the wasted food also drains the resources that went into making it, including “a quarter of our water supply.”

As one of the top contributors to climate change, the global food system undoubtedly requires changes in all aspects, including production, processing and supply, on top of consumption. But, as consumers, we drive the food industry, and thus by reducing our household waste and, in turn, our carbon footprint, we are capable of reshaping it. With simple adjustments to our shopping habits, more environmentally conscious shopping trips are feasible. The Federal Drug Administration advises that people make a shopping list before going to the grocery store, be mindful of the items they already have, be aware of what they intend on preparing and be wary of perishable items. The environment, like food, is precious and life-sustaining, so next time you go to the grocery store, think twice before taking advantage of that convenient two-for-one deal. It may be more costly than you think.

Works Cited

“National Overview: Facts and Figures About Materials, Waste and Recycling.” The United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Nixon, Ron. “Food Waste Is Becoming Serious Economic and Environmental Issue, Report Says.” The New York Times, 25 Feb. 2015.

Sengupta, Somini. “How Much Food Do We Waste? Probably More Than You Think.” The New York Times, 12 Dec. 2017.

Simon, Ben. “What Environmental Problems Does Wasting Food Cause?” Forbes, 18 July 2018.

Taber, Sarah. “Farms Aren’t Tossing Perfectly Good Produce. You Are.” The Washington Post, 8 March 2019.

“Tips to Reduce Food Waste.” The Federal Drug Administration, 15 Nov. 2019.

Yu, Yang and Edward C. Jaenicke. “Estimating Food Waste as Household Production Inefficiency.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 23 Jan. 2020.

It Took a Global Pandemic to Stop School Shootings

I despise hearing the lunch bell ring at noon every day. My lunches are permanently scarred with the memory of me sprinting out of the cafeteria, running for my life.

In my freshman year, a gang-related shooting occurred just outside the lunch tables, resulting in the tragic death of a senior. Minutes after the shooting, a student, either as a joke or as a reaction to the event, yelled “Shooter!” in the middle of a crowded cafeteria, resulting in a massive stampede and a lockdown that lasted for what seemed like years, but in reality was a few hours. Although the threat was not directly on campus, the fear was — and it spread faster than the coronavirus.

In March of 2020, when we received notice that we would be subjected to the chaos of a hastily put together online class due to the pandemic, I felt a small core of relief amid the roaring vortex of confusion and negativity inside of me. While I lamented the loss of prom, sports and social interaction, I was secretly grateful: no more traumatizing active shooter drills, no more instinctive searching for exits every time I entered a room, no more running for my life. Despite my isolation, I was safe at home.

During the yearlong lockdown, school shootings dropped to historic levels. In fact, March of 2020 was the first March in 18 years with zero school shootings. Of the 10 total reported school shootings in 2020, five of them occurred in January, before the first mass quarantine.

As we inch closer to achieving herd immunity through vaccinations, schools have begun to reopen, with more students returning to in-person classes. With this steady renewal of prepandemic life comes another indication of normality: gun violence. In 2021, there have already been 17 reported incidents of gunfire on school campuses across the United States, despite most schools still operating at a limited capacity.

No student should have to go to school wondering if they will leave in the afternoon. School is a place for learning, not violence, but our lawmakers and politicians have enabled a society where school shootings are so common, they barely warrant a headline. Even an inept administration with no preventive mask messaging could stumble their way to the fastest vaccine development in the history of modern medicine; yet no administration has been able to brainpower their way to a vaccine for gun violence. So far, the most effective solution to ending school shootings has been a global pandemic that sent the entire world into lockdown. As the Covid-19 pandemic comes to an end, it is time to focus on the true pandemic for the youth of America: school shootings.

Works Cited

Cramer, Maria. “Mass Shootings in Public Spaces Had Become Less Frequent During The Pandemic.” The New York Times, 19 March 2021.

“Gunfire on School Grounds in the United States.” Everytown Research, 12 April 2021.

Maxwell, Lesli, Holly Peele and Denisa R. Superville. “School Shootings in 2020: How Many and Where.” Education Week, 2 March 2021.

Why Singapore’s ‘Ugly’ Buildings Should Be Conserved

If you were to see the Golden Mile Complex in real life, your reaction would probably be something along the lines of “Wow, that building is ugly.” The roughly stamped, varied colors of concrete would strike most people as untidy: a far cry from the modern steel-glass buildings of the financial district just two miles away.

This building has loomed over the vibrant district of Kallang for 48 years. When it was completed, people widely praised it for its stair-like exterior; Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas called it a “unique work.”

Fast forward to 2019: 80 percent of tenants supported the decision to sell the complex to developers, and one politician even called it a “vertical slum.” Pragmatic and aesthetic considerations make it compelling to say that buildings like this should be destroyed. But hear me out, they shouldn’t: There’s certainly more to them than their looks.

The building’s architectural style, Brutalism, became popular in Singapore during the 1970s. Brutalism is well known for its heavy reliance on exposed blocks of concrete and angular shapes, which has garnered polarizing opinions from many. However, the architecture embodies the rapid growth of Singapore during this period, right after the country attained independence in 1965. These buildings reflect the hard work and resilience of that era and have come to represent Singaporean identity itself. Now, many Brutalist structures are under threat: The Pearl Bank Apartments, built in 1976, were demolished last March despite conservation efforts.

I believe that looking at buildings is one of the easiest ways to understand a city’s identity. Two years ago, when I moved to Singapore, I immediately fell in love with the city’s modern architecture and learned how it expressed the island nation’s identity as a high-tech global hub. But there seems to be an obsession with modernity and cleanliness, only creating an artificial veneer of the city. These Brutalist buildings add layers to Singapore’s history. To simply destroy and replace them with new structures would make the city seem shallow.

Moreover, massive urban renovation isn’t only the case for Singapore. Many cities — both Asian and Western — focus too much on redevelopment, sacrificing their heritage for the sake of modernization. Buildings don’t only shape the city’s looks, but also its heritage; more people need to know this. I’ve noticed a similar trend in my hometown, Seoul. The cookie-cutter apartments, while pragmatically sound, take away from the city’s unique atmosphere.

So, you might ask, “What can I do?” Personally, I’m not asking for much. Next time you pass by an “ugly” building, take a moment before you frown. Look at it closely; you might learn something beautiful about where you live.

Works Cited

“Golden Mile Complex to be proposed for conservation, incentives will be offered: URA.” Channel News Asia, 09 Oct. 2020.

Ives, Mike. “‘Box’ or Gem? A Scramble to Save Asia’s Modernist Buildings.” The New York Times, 27 Dec. 2020.

Ives, Mike. “Too Ugly to Be Saved? Singapore Weighs Fate of Its Brutalist Buildings.” The New York Times, 27 Jan. 2019.”

Fast and Furious 2021: Sushi’s Dilemma

Zigzagging around corners, weaving through traffic, every second matters. It is neither a street race nor a 007 chase, but instead the haphazard journey of a sushi roll.

The streets of China have become filled with myriad colorfully clad delivery drivers racing noodles, sandwiches and soups across skyscraper-filled metropolises. While the everyday consumer may find these services convenient, or at worst complain about an over-tossed salad, most do not realize the true cost of their delivery. How much is that late-night snack really worth?

Strict time limits are the main concern for delivery drivers. The Chinese delivery app Meituan decreased the maximum time allowance from the original 50 minutes to 30, and even 20 minutes in certain regions. Time literally means money: Surpassing the limit even once can result in fines (which are paid to the firm rather than compensated to the consumers). Yet, beyond fines, there is often a greater cost. According to Pandaily News, one delivery worker is injured or killed in accidents every 2.5 days solely in Shanghai and, sadly, companies seldom provide insurance claims when their time limits lead to these consequences. Drivers are pushed to break traffic rules and risk their lives so mediocre sushi is not a minute late.

Furthermore, low wages and extensive working hours exacerbate these issues. According to The New York Times, companies in China take advantage of the inherent economic inequities between China’s large cities and less developed interior to offer extremely low compensation to migrant delivery drivers while demanding arduous hours. According to Beijing Jiaotong University and Alibaba, nearly one-quarter of drivers in Beijing work more than 12 hours a day, seven days a week. Yet these long hours and low pay are inherent throughout the global delivery industry. In places like the United States, advertised earnings of $22 per hour are largely exaggerated while workers complain that food delivery apps rarely give them all their tips.

Yet delivery apps and this model are only expanding, in part as a reaction to Covid-19. Under more desperate economic circumstances and with greater demand as people spend more time indoors, Uber alone gained 36,000 new drivers between March and November 2020, while the previous year’s total for all delivery app drivers in the United States was only 50,000.

What is the solution? First, consumers should recognize what is behind their impossibly cheap and fast delivery: exploitation. We should expect more from the delivery app companies and less from their drivers. That is, we should pay more and wait longer while only ordering from companies who are transparent about offering their drivers fair wages, insurance and a safe working environment. In the end, your sushi is just not worth it.

Works Cited

de Freytas-Tamura, Kimiko. “Food Delivery Apps Are Booming, While Their Workers Often Struggle.” The New York Times, 30 Nov. 2020.

Mcmorrow, Ryan. “For Couriers, China’s E-Commerce Boom Can Be a Tough Road.” The New York Times, 31 Jan. 2017.

Sun, Jiayi. “Chinese Food Delivery Platforms Embroiled in Controversy Over Responses to Popular Investigative Story.” Pandaily News, 10 Sept. 2020.