分类： 赛事资讯

“Cultural Appropriation” Is Critical to Human Progress

A skirt on Zara. A Dior campaign. Keziah Daum’s prom dress. What do all of these things have in common? They are the latest victims of America’s politically correct crusaders.

In today’s “cancel” culture, people are quick to attack others for behaving in a way they deem socially unacceptable. Central to many of these accusations is the idea of cultural appropriation: the adoption of the customs, practices, or ideas of one society by a member of another.

The fashion industry in particular has come under severe scrutiny in the past year for “stealing” traditions. As Vanessa Friedman writes in “Fashion’s Year in Cultural Don’ts”, the aforementioned skirt was too similar to an Indian lungi, the Dior campaign drew too much inspiration from the Mexican escaramuzas, and Keziah Daum’s qipao was too Asian for her.

These fashion statements were clearly not designed to offend or degrade the cultures that influenced them. However, that is not to say that everyone who draws inspiration from different cultures is doing it with the right intentions. Issues arise when imitation is based on a shallow and offensive stereotype, which is just blatant racism.

Cultural appropriation is not a modern concept; it has existed as long as culture itself. From a historical perspective, the term that is typically used to describe the adoption of certain practices from one culture to the next is syncretism. Without syncretism, human progress would be next to impossible.

Often referred to throughout history as a “melting pot,” America is a perfect example of the importance of syncretism. Immigrants from diverse backgrounds can all come together under a common American nationality. Pizza, hot dogs, and soft drinks are often considered characteristically American, but they were originally Italian, German, and Swedish, respectively. Is this cultural appropriation? Even Democracy, the very basis of American society, was first seen in ancient Greece. Is it time to “cancel” America?

Obviously not. But what makes drinking a carbonated beverage so different from wearing a Chinese-inspired prom dress? Cultural appropriation is just the modern term for a concept that has aided in the development of human society for centuries. Those who perpetuate “cancel” culture ignore this. And that has dangerous implications for the future.

Limiting oneself to dressing and acting as one’s heritage determines is dangerously close to a “separate but equal” mentality. As George Chesterton writes for GQ, “If we can only exist in and guard the cultures we emerged from, from those we resemble, we will shrink into the superficiality of newly contrived tribes.” Without embracing and building upon the ideas of other cultures, humanity remains static. History has proven that “cultural appropriation” is critical for human progress, and without it the future is bleak.

Works Cited

Chesterton, George. “Cultural Appropriation: Everything Is Culture and It’s All Appropriated.” GQ, 15 Jan. 2019.

Friedman, Vanessa. “Fashion’s Year in Cultural Don’ts.” The New York Times, 21 Dec. 2018.

A Change in the Menu

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, an estimated two billion people eat bugs as part of their standard diet. That’s nearly a quarter of the global population, and yet most countries in Europe and North America, despite the nutritional and environmental benefits, are fiercely reluctant to the idea of consuming bugs. So why should Westernized countries subscribe to the inclusion of bugs in their daily diet?

Eating bugs as a substitute for larger livestock could contribute substantially to a more sustainable world. Bugs have an efficient feed-to-product ratio and consume much less than traditional livestock per pound. To farm bugs, forests do not need to be cleared, fields do not need to be irrigated, and crops need not be sprayed with toxins and pesticides. According to an article written by the former manager of the Toronto Food Policy Council, Wayne Roberts, “Edible insects don’t appear on any endangered species lists, and their sustainable use could help conserve other wildlife since the tactic may contribute to habitat protection.”

The nutritional benefits of eating bugs are serviceable and can be instrumental in combating childhood mortality, and malnutrition rates. Monica Aiyeko of the Food and Agriculture department at Bondo University College has studied and published the effects of integrating native crickets into school meal programs in Kenya. Her studies have found that roughly 30% of Kenyan households are food insecure, leading to massive malnutrition amongst children, particularly under the age of 5. This is due to a lack of both macronutrients and micronutrients, including protein and zinc. Incorporating bugs into school feeding programs could provide children with the necessary nutrients to prevent stunting. Overall, bugs and insects are incredibly nutritionally beneficial. The New York Times states that “Some 2,100 insect species worldwide have been identified as edible...Their nutritional benefits, while varied across species, are substantial: high in energy yield, rich in essential amino acids and comparable and sometimes superior, per ounce, to beef, chicken, and pork in amounts of protein, omega-3 fats, iron, magnesium, calcium, and zinc.”

The Western consensus is best stated by New York Times writer Ligaya Mishan: “Europeans, and by extension European settlers in North America, never had a bug-eating tradition. Indeed, we largely consider insects dirty and drawn to decay, signifiers and carriers of disease; we call them pests, a word whose Latin root means plague.” This is a ridiculous stigma that we need to shake. The adoption of bugs into a normal diet would not be unlike the transition from raw fish being largely unaccepted in America, to sushi becoming a normal meal option.

All I want is a culinary cultural revolution, is that so much to ask?

Works Cited

Ilyashov, Alexandra. “How (and Why) to Cook With Bugs, According to Three Chefs.” The New York Times, 10 Sept. 2018.

Mishan, Ligaya. “Why Aren’t We Eating More Insects?” The New York Times. 7 Sept., 2018.

Münke-Svendsen, Christopher and Kipkoech Carolyne, John Kinyuru, Monica Ayieko, Anja Homan and Nanna Roos. “Technical Brief #5: Nutritional Properties of Insects for Food in Kenya.” University of Copenhagen, 2017.

Roberts, Wayne. “Eating Insects: Waiter, There’s No Fly in My Soup.” Alternatives Journal, vol. 34, no. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2008, p. 8+. Academic OneFile, Accessed 6 Mar. 2019.

Sheraton, Mimi. “Eating Raw Fish: The Dangers.” The New York Times, 30 Sept. 1981.

I’m a Disabled Teenager, and Social Media Is My Lifeline

I’m keenly attuned to the unwritten rules of social interaction. I can identify the subtle variations in people’s facial expressions, and I’m quick to read between the lines. And my discernment is not just on an intellectual level, but also at an intuitive level: I’m intimately familiar with the dance of social interaction.

The information that I just provided sounds like a mundanity, until I tell you I was diagnosed with autism. I defy the stereotypes of someone who can’t possibly “get it” socially.

No one knows that I can. I can “get it.”

Of course, people don’t see that. I struggle with impulsivity. My physical clumsiness makes it hard for me to maintain appropriate facial expressions and tone of voice. While I easily grasp abstract concepts, I often can’t convert them into tangible, step-by-step actions, making it difficult to communicate gracefully. Even the untrained eye notice these challenges, and they confound my social faux pas as a failure to understand or share other people’s expectations.

I’m depleted. Every day at school, I isolate myself from most of my peers: it’s a matter of time before they make these assumptions, before they postulate how my brain works. On social media, though, I’m a completely different person. I’m dynamic. I’m assertive. I’m people-oriented.

Many claim that social media distracts teens from meaningful, genuine interactions. My experiences, however, are the total opposite of that. Cultivating my own space on the Internet helped me thrive outside the pigeonhole. Namely, I use my blog to explain the real reason why I act the way I do. Even though not everyone will understand, I know some people will, and it gives me tremendous hope.

I know I’m not the only one. For many disabled people, social media gives them access to a social life and community involvement in an otherwise inaccessible world¹. Not only does social media give me the platform to correct assumptions, people don’t assume things about me in the first place, because it’s a level playing field. For example, when I Tweet, my addled movements are replaced by various emojis and reaction GIFs, which gives me a vaster palette to express myself.

Furthermore, I’ve learned to extend the conversation on disability from my own personal circumstances to the broader issue of ableism. Don Tapscott, a media consultant, remarked, “[Teens] didn’t grow up being the passive recipients of somebody else’s broadcast.”² This definitely resonated with me. I used to feel alone, not seeing girls like me on the magazine covers, but not anymore. In a click, I can create my own media where people with disabilities are seen and heard, rather than pliantly consuming the media that routinely devalue people with disabilities.

Works Cited

Ryan, Frances. “The Missing Link: Why Disabled People Can’t Afford to #DeleteFacebook.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 4 April 2018.

Parker-Pope, Tara. “Are Today’s Teenagers Smarter and Better Than We Think?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 30 March 2018.

Nothing Gets Between Me and My Sushi… Except Plastic, Maybe

As an Asian-American self-proclaimed millennial foodie, imagine the shock I experienced when I discovered a horrifying truth—plastic cuisine. Ubiquitous plastic extends beyond our surroundings—and invades our guts—through what we eat and drink. I first learned that sushi is chock-full of microplastics. There’s so much plastic in the water, churned down to the size of rice grains or smaller, and fish gobble it up. When the fish end up on our dinner plates, guess what? Our bellies receive an unsettling supplement that wasn’t on the menu.

In fact, a National Geographic study found microplastics in 114 marine species—with over half of them regulars in restaurants—meaning that my tummy acquires some uninvited non-digestible additives.

Even water isn’t safe! My parents often tell me to drink more water to wash down my food—but did they know that I was ingesting plastic too? A 2017 study by Orb Media found microplastic contamination in 83 percent of global tap water—with the highest amount, 94 percent, found in the United States!

You may wonder: So what? Has there been a study that proves housing microplastics inside of your body is harmful? Not yet, but still. Firstly—it’s gross! I’m eating a material that’s meant to last beyond a thousand years, and will probably accompany my skeleton long after I putrefy in my grave.

Imagine the surplus of chemicals needed to make these durable particles. National Geographic highlighted a few chemicals contained in plastic with the potential to become poisons in certain doses: “endocrine disruptors—chemicals that interfere with normal hormone function, even contribute to weight gain. Flame retardants may interfere with brain development in fetuses and children; other compounds that cling to plastics can cause cancer or birth defects.”

By informing you of this ongoing crisis, am I telling you to give up seafood? Never!

Personally, and I think I can speak for many fellow foodies, nothing gets in between me and my sushi. Instead, let’s stop dismissing the old-school motto: reuse, reduce, and recycle. Seriously—no more Acme bags that drift yonder with the wind, and take a hint from good ol’ Trader Joes for the more environmentally friendly alternatives. Sure, paper bags may be more fragile, and fabric ones are often more expensive, but that’s a small price to pay for potentially saving a sea creature that would have been strangled or starved otherwise.

Let’s cut down on the plastic, and the next time you’re tempted to innocuously trash some plastic straws, just remember that same “harmless” plastic is somewhere puncturing a turtle’s brain through its nostril and killing a fish through literally explosive bowels… and its next stop?

Your stomach.

Works Cited

Kosuth, Mary, et al. “Synthetic Polymer Contamination In Global Drinking Water.” Orb Media, 16 May 2017.

Quenqua, Douglas. “Microplastics Find Their Way Into Your Gut, a Pilot Study Finds.” The New York Times, 22 Oct. 2018.

Royte, Elizabeth. “We Know Plastic Is Harming Marine Life. What About Us?” National Geographic, June 2018.

Wassener, Bettina. “Fish Ingesting Plastic Waste, Study Finds.” The New York Times, 8 July 2011.

The Life-Changing Magic of Being Messy

You might have a “messy” friend or family member. You can’t help but sigh at the chaos of their room — clean and dirty laundry mixed together. Odds are it’ll be difficult to walk two feet without encountering an empty chip bag. Gross? Yes. Bad? Not necessarily.

As a stereotypically “messy” person myself, I’ve received my own share of scorn. Living in a boarding school, I’m obligated to keep my room nice and tidy, ready for visitors and as a model to underclassmen. Monday room inspections are the norm, and faculty members have sometimes passively, sometimes aggressively, urged my roommate and me to clean up. For these purposes, I used to harbor a 24 x 24 x 24 cardboard box in which I’d stuff everything on Monday mornings and empty it out later that evening. Now, I just throw everything downstairs into the communal storage. Out of sight, out of mind.

As much judgment as we get for our clutter, research has shown that messiness can be a sign of creativity and openness. In the NYT article “It’s Not ‘Mess.’ It’s Creativity,” Kathleen D. Vohs’ study of messiness serves as a rare champion for us less-than-neat people. In her study, she gathered a group of subjects in a tidy room and another in a messy room. When each subject had to choose between a “classic” or “new” smoothie on a fake menu, the subjects in the tidy room chose “classic” while subjects in the messy room chose the “new” smoothies. This shows that “people greatly preferred convention in the tidy room and novelty in the messy room.” In addition, Vohs revealed that messy people were more creative. So, what does this mean?

Messy people are willing to challenge the conventional norm. They aren’t confined to the status quo. In a growing age where minimalism seems to be taking on the world by storm, we must remember that there is beauty in chaos. Although a University of Michigan study warns that some people might take one look at your messy desk and view you as “lazy” or “neurotic,” we must remember the people who challenge the old ways of being are some of our greatest innovators. After all, Albert Einstein, Mark Twain, Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg famously harbored hideously disorganized workplaces.

So, when you see a scatter of papers, laundry, and old food containers, don’t rush out to buy your child, friend, or roommate “The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up.” Instead, appreciate that your acquaintance might be “sparking joy” by channeling their creativity differently.

Works Cited

Eichenstein, Izzy. “Albert Einstein, Mark Twain & Steve Jobs: The Messy Desk Link.” The LAX Morning Minute, Word Press, 19 Oct. 2013.

Vohs, Kathleen. “Tidy Desk or Messy Desk? Each Has Its Benefits.” Association for Psychological Science, 6 Aug. 2013.

Vohs, Kathleen D. “It’s Not ‘Mess.’ It’s Creativity.” The New York Times, 13 Sept. 2013.

Wadley, Jared. “Is Your Office Messy? If So, You May Be Seen as Uncaring, Neurotic.” Michigan News, The University of Michigan, 27 Nov. 2018.

Weinswig, Deborah. “Millennials Go Minimal: The Decluttering Lifestyle Trend That Is Taking Over.” Forbes, 7 Sept. 2016.

U.S. Citizens Are Dying and We Can Save Them

I have a luxury that 27.3 million Americans don’t: health insurance. Without it, my family would be hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt or I’d be dead.

In June of 2017 when my blood became dangerously acidic and my kidneys started to fail, I went to the ER. In June of 2017 when Alec Raeshawn Smith’s blood also became dangerously acidic, he died before anyone could save him. Alec didn’t have to die though; the insulin prescribed for his Type 1 diabetes could have saved him from the diabetic ketoacidosis that killed him. Alec, who had recently turned 26, could no longer afford his insulin because he was kicked off his mother’s health insurance plan. Unable to afford the $1,300 a month cost for his insulin, he turned to rationing the insulin and died within one month of becoming uninsured. In the weeks after both of our incidents with acidosis, I went back to hanging out with friends and enjoying my summer. Meanwhile, Alec’s family was left making funeral arrangements.

There is only one way to prevent innocent people like Alec from dying: adopt national health insurance. With a single payer-program where the government subsidizes the cost of treatment, any and all citizens would be able to receive and afford any medically necessary treatment. Many fear that this program would cost an exorbitant amount of money and it is true that U.S. citizens would have to pay more in taxes to support it. However, US families, would save more money because they are no longer paying as much for health care costs like co-pays, premiums and deductibles. According to some studies, Senator Bernie Sanders’s health care plan, which includes restrictions on drug markups, could save the U.S. government $2.1 trillion in the long run.

I have health insurance. Insurance that covers hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills, but that coverage runs out in nine years. My life after 26 is uncertain. Will I have a job that provides health benefits or will I be left hoping I won’t get sick again? Health insurance can no longer be a political bargaining chip that gets thrown around as if people aren’t dying without it. To make nationalized health insurance a reality, people like you need to decide health care is no longer a partisan issue; it’s an American issue. If we adopt a nationalized health care system, I will no longer live in fear for the day I might not be okay; I’ll know my name will never be splashed across newspapers reminding politicians that they’ve killed one more citizen with their complacency.

Works Cited

Berchick, Edward. “Who Are the Uninsured?” The United States Census Bureau, 14 Sept. 2017.

Epstein, Randi Hutter, M.D., and Rachel Strodel. “Diabetes Patients at Risk From Rising Insulin Prices.” The New York Times, 22 June 2018.

Haavik, Emily. “Mother Calls for Lower Insulin Prices in Wake of Son’s Death.” 10NEWS, 13 May 2018.

Stanley, Tiffany. “Life, Death and Insulin.” The Washington Post Magazine, 7 Jan. 2019.

Stein, Jeff. “Does Bernie Sanders’s Health Plan Cost $33 Trillion — or Save $2 Trillion?” The Washington Post, 31 July 2018.

Lessons for 2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates, From a Soon-to-be First-Time Voter

I am one of more than five million people too young to vote today, but who will be old enough in 2020. I am 16, I run a political blog with over 100,000 followers, and I am offering some free lessons to candidates on how they can earn our votes.

Given the slim margin in the 2016 election, our votes could make all the difference. So listen up.

While young people have diverse views, Democrats focus on issues that matter to many of us, like gun control and climate change, making them more attractive than the presumptive Republican nominee, President Trump. The challenge for Democratic candidates is to distinguish themselves to capture the youth vote.

So what actually matters to us? It’s simple, but elusive: authenticity.

When politicians force relatability, they seem fake. Prior to her bid, Elizabeth Warren Instagram livestreamed and began by announcing to the camera, “I’m gonna get me a beer,” and then thanked her husband for being there, in their own house, as if it hadn’t all been scripted. One Boston Herald analyst criticized the image of the “multi-million-dollar Cambridge law professor poppin’ a brewski.” It’s not credible that Warren opened Instagram and decided to livestream of her own volition.

In 2016, Secretary Clinton and Trump both tried to appeal to young people. Trump used Twitter, and his statements were so unfiltered that they could only have come from him. Clinton’s messaging, however, felt phony. In a particularly cringey video, Clinton said, “Pokemon Go to the polls,” referencing the tween-trending app of that summer, Pokemon Go. It was clear that she had been fed that line and it felt condescending, suggesting youth votes could be earned by name-dropping a game.

This isn’t to say candidates shouldn’t appeal to young people — they must, because our votes can’t be taken for granted. In 2016, 18-29 year olds had the lowest turnout of any age group. The key difference between our generation and our parents’ is that we belong to the “Bernie or Bust” generation. 2016 revealed that we won’t choose between “the lesser of two evils”; if no candidate inspires us, we will just stay home.

This is why politicians need to appeal seriously to youth voters. Take Sanders: he is nearly 80, yet he is incredibly popular among young people. Why? Not because of his Instagram skills, but because he’s perceived as genuine — his politics haven’t changed.

To the 2020 candidates: the key to earning our vote isn’t pandering to us. Rather, we want to see that you genuinely care about the issues that matter to us. If you do that, you won’t need to worry about spreading your message on Instagram. We’ll do it for you.

Works Cited

“Clinton Drops a Pokemon Go Reference at Rally.” YouTube, uploaded by CNN, 14 July 2016.

“Elizabeth Warren Drinking a Beer on Instagram Live Gets Mixed Reactions.” YouTube, uploaded by CBS News, 2 Jan. 2019.

Ember, Sydney. “Bernie Sanders Begins 2020 Race With Some Familiar Themes and a New One: Himself.” The New York Times, 2 March 2019.

Fellas, Nora (@nastyfeminism). Instagram.

Graham, Michael. “Elizabeth Warren Pours a Cold One — on Image of Authenticity.” Boston Herald, 4 Jan. 2019.

Khalid, Asma. “Millennials Now Rival Boomers As A Political Force, But Will They Actually Vote?” NPR, 16 May 2016.

Martin, Joyce A., Brady E. Hamilton, Paul D. Sutton, Stephanie J. Ventura, Fay Menacker, and Martha L. Munson. “Births: Final Data for 2002.” National Vital Statistics Report, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 17 Dec. 2003.

Breaking the Blue Wall of Silence: Changing the Social Narrative About Policing in America

As a child, I thought of police officers with veneration — if I saw a cop in the park, I felt safer. I told myself that when I got older, I would be wearing the badge too.

At 12 years old, I learned about police brutality. When I first saw the video of Eric Garner being thrown to the ground by police officers, I thought it was a movie. Despite knowing that the officers were at fault, I refused to change my internal rhetoric; I thought the media was only portraying the bad side of the people I saw as heroes.

Then on July 31, 2017, a police officer shot and killed my cousin, Isaiah Tucker, while he was driving. Isaiah wasn’t just my cousin. He was also a young, unarmed, African-American man. I no longer dreamt of becoming a police officer.

But the issue is much larger than what happened to Isaiah. As highlighted in The New York Times, the Center for Policing Equity found that African-Americans are 3.6 times more likely to experience force by police officers as compared to whites.

Despite this blatant disproportionality, there is still overwhelming ignorance about it. Just last August, a group of people marched in Philadelphia, countering Black Lives Matter protests with signs and chants of “Blue Lives Matter.” People are quick to challenge discussions of police violence with the idea that “not all cops are bad cops.”

But when we argue in defense of the morality of individual police officers, we are undermining a protest of the larger issue: the unjust system of policing in the United States.

When I met Wesley Lowery, a journalist from The Washington Post, he was adamant that the social narrative regarding police brutality in the United States needs to change. “Conversations about police reform and accountability are about systems and structures, not about individuals,” said Lowery.

It is not that some police officers aren’t doing admirable things in our communities, but revering police officers for not abusing their power is dangerous — it normalizes police violence and numbs society to these issues. The idea that “not all cops are bad cops” belittles attempts to uproot the system. When we go out of our way to controvert this fight, we are perpetuating the inherent problems with racialized policing.

So as you think about policing in America, think of Eric Garner. Think of Alton Sterling, my cousin Isaiah, and the families that were left behind.

We have a responsibility as citizens of this country to call out corruption in systems of power. Policing in America is rooted in racism, oppression and privilege — it’s time that we recognize that.

I learned to change my perspective. So can you.

Works Cited

Williams, Timothy. “Study Supports Suspicion That Police Are More Likely to Use Force on Blacks.” New York Times. 7th July, 2016.

Lowery, Wesley. (2018, August 2nd). Personal communication at Asian American Journalist Association’s JCAMP.

Shakespeare: Friend, Not Foe

Now is the winter of our discontent. Or so Gloucester had said during the opening of “Richard III.” But whereas Gloucester’s winter has been made into a “glorious summer,” this metaphorical winter of our discontent is far from over.

Why is it winter, then? Why, pray tell, am I in such discontent?

It is in more sorrow than in anger that I wear my heart upon my sleeve to say this. We, as a society, are treating the playwright who wrote these lines like the great villain of English literature — when he’s far from it. For goodness sake.

Irrefutably, it’s a rite of passage in high school, dissecting Shakespeare’s long-drawn-out Elizabethan verses. These works all seem Greek to you, don’t they? Why make sense of them on your own at all? And because of this, Shakespeare’s reputation, good riddance, has seen better days.

Brevity is the soul of wit, said Polonius in “Hamlet,” so I will make my voice concise. Have you even noticed eight Shakespearean phrases so far in this article already? That is how vital a presence he has even in contemporary English. When you "gossip,” wait with “bated breath,” feel “gloomy” or “bedazzled” or “dead as a doornail,” you’re revitalizing the Bard’s memory. You “have not slept one wink” last night? Neither did Pisanio from “Cymbeline.” Did you ever think Rose and Jack “star-crossed lovers”? So were Romeo and Juliet.

How can we defame a man who has changed the very face of language? How can we dismiss him as irrelevant, the original harnesser of the nuanced thing that is human emotion, just because we cannot understand him word-by-word?

It is time that we banish the notion of Shakespeare’s works being highly academic, exclusive-to-scholars “scripture.” Why? Because Shakespearean plays are built from emotion. Complaints on not being able to understand his words, in fact, trace all the way back to when his plays were first performed. So what if everyone cannot understand every word of Hamlet’s dense, long-winding soliloquies? This is Shakespeare’s very genius: to portray the raw anguish and internal strife of a young prince’s lonely, grief-stricken heart. You need only follow the emotion, and the plays are lush with it.

As you read, acknowledge also the timelessness of this work. Motifs of racism and privilege in “Othello” and “The Merchant of Venice.” Ambition and female agency in “Macbeth.” Jealousy and unrequited love in “A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Blackened vengeance in “Hamlet.” These are ideas that transcend time, the things you relate to without having to understand every word on the page.

Shed your presumptions. Open your mind. Only then, pick up a play, and you will find within it a dish fit for gods.

Works Cited

Anderson, Hephzibah. “Culture — How Shakespeare Influences the Way We Speak Now.” BBC News, BBC, 21 Oct. 2014.

Brown, Stephen. “Why Shakespeare? Because It’s 2016.” TedXStMaryCSSchool, 13 May 2016, Oshawa, 656 Taunton Road East.

Gaze, Christopher. “Shakespeare Is Everywhere.” TedXVancouver, 21 Mar. 2012, Vancouver.

Shapiro, James. “Shakespeare in Modern English?” The New York Times, 7 Oct. 2015.

Limiting Science Education: Limiting Ourselves

We’ve landed men on the moon, mapped out our genomes, and split atoms, but for the past 20 years, nobody knew why two grapes produced plasma in a microwave. Energy is conserved. Carbon’s atomic number is six. The mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell … Throughout my entire high school career, I’ve heard all of these facts presented to me, but never once have I felt as intrigued as I have from this bizarre phenomenon. Welcome to the world of high school science education.

Sadly, my experience mirrors that of others my age. In a New York Times article, when asked to name a change they would make to science classes, high school students across the nation replied, “I’d rather understand than just memorize formulas” and “I’d like more hands-on projects where I would learn something about what I’m doing instead of just memorizing things from a textbook.”

For certain, memorization has its uses; repetition can help students master fundamental skills and retain key pieces of information. “Students cannot apply what they understand,” William R. Klemm, a professor at Texas A&M University, notes, “if they don’t remember it.” But too often does repetition end up replacing more meaningful forms of learning. In science education especially, it ends up stifling curiosity and creativity, deterring people from science careers and opportunities.

The truth is that most students in today’s schools are rarely exposed to the limits of our knowledge. As a result, many are led to see science as a source of clear, well-defined answers, that every possible question has been solved. They see the rigorous process of inquiry, experimentation, and analysis as two-sentence lines in a textbook. Rote memorization discourages skepticism while encouraging blind, unquestioning acceptance of facts.

Yet these qualities are the opposite of what science embodies. Science is not complete, but ever-evolving. Science is not linear and static, but sporadic and dynamic. Most importantly, science is a process that embodies tackling uncertainty head-on, asking questions that push the boundaries of knowledge. Each answer is never final, but instead provokes new questions that demand new answers. If we never present these aspects of science, how can we excite our students and inspire curiosity? How can we expect innovation and discovery from our students if all we teach them is how to cram?

The solution? Schools must embrace and teach not only what is known, but what is unknown. The role of science teachers is not just to rattle off facts like a broken cassette player, but to challenge students to search beyond what is taught in class. If we continue to teach just memorization, we misrepresent science and ultimately fail to inspire the next generation of innovators.

Works Cited

Dreifus, Claudia. “Ideas for Improving Science Education.” The New York Times, 2 Sept. 2013.

Gorman, James. “When Plasma Becomes Another Fruit of the Vine.” The New York Times, 5 Mar. 2019.

Klemm, William. “What Good Is Learning If You Don’t Remember It?” Journal of Effective Teaching, 2007.