这封信由 Ridge High School in Basking Ridge, N.J. 16 岁的 Anya Wang 撰写，是学习网络学生公开信竞赛的前 9 名获奖者之一，我们收到了 8,065 份参赛作品。
Dear The New York Times Learning Network,
I’m not sure if you imagined that someone would write a letter to you when you announced that we could write an open letter “to anyone you like.” Well, whether or not you did, here I am.
Don’t get me wrong. I admire your contests and resources deeply. But after three years of pouring hours into your contests yet receiving nothing but a copy-pasted rejection email in response, I want to bring a facet of your contests into scrutiny. A facet that you may have never thought twice about.
That is, your policy that you do not provide feedback on submitted essays.
I get it. You received 12,592 submissions for your last editorial contest. But after all, you’ve named yourself the Learning Network. Feedback is how students grow. It’s how we learn. Without it, every time I’ve received a “You lost!” email from you, I’ve felt sorely disappointed and lost, not knowing where to look or what to change to improve my writing.
And I know that I’m not alone. In fact, your contests leave the vast majority of your participants stranded in the dark. In last year’s editorial contest, the chance of getting recognized — not even winning — was a measly 1.199 percent. Winning was bestowed upon just 0.087 percent of your participants — a rate almost 40 times lower than Harvard’s class of 2027 acceptance rate.
You want to be prestigious. You want to be selective. But what you’re creating for the thousands of hopeful teens who enter your contests — nearly 100,000 in just your editorial contests alone — is not a network for learning and growth. Instead, you’re creating a cutthroat competition where feedback and encouragement are given at a rate even below what the Ivy League has deemed ethical. It’s discouraging and unresponsive — a culture far from conducive to learning.
Additionally, you’ve commonly mentioned a Round 4 in your recognized finalists, but never explained how Rounds 3, 2 and 1 work. I desperately want you to tell us more. What if you discreetly told each participant which round their essay reached, and then shared some general thresholds that prevented essays from proceeding to the next round?
I hope that won’t be too logistically difficult — you probably already need to sort essays into different rounds to determine contest winners. I also hope that you won’t balk at the supposed decrease in prestige such a change might bring. You’re a global leader in journalism. You know how things are for teens right now. You know, with the world changing at breakneck speed, with everything from A.I. to full-blown wars flung at us, how sharply teen voices demand to be heard.
Don’t leave us in the dark. Shine a ray of light into our writing, and prepare all teen voices to take the stage.
As a Type 1 diabetic living in Indiana (where you’re headquartered), I’ve known your name for a long time. Every meal I have your insulin delivered into my bloodstream, something I’ll need my entire life. But I’ve come to associate your name with frustration, not gratitude.
You, alongside Novo Nordisk and Sanofi, control 90-plus percent of the insulin market worldwide. You posture about capping costs, providing aid, serving the people first. These claims make you look great — you’re doing all you can to aid your patients.
Except you aren’t.
Frederick Banting, Charles Best, John Macleod and James Collip helped to discover and purify insulin in 1921. In 1923, Banting, Best and Collip sold their patents on the drug for $1 each.
The reason? As Banting said, “Insulin belongs to the world.”
Yet so many people today still find themselves on short supply of that miracle drug — rationing it, fighting with insurance over it, buying it from third parties.
What happened? We’re no longer in the days of purifying pig pancreas extract. We have synthetic biology! We can mass produce insulin — more than we’d ever need — and it’s cheap, easy, and efficient. It’s the simplest business imaginable. Think about it — I, alongside countless others, can’t survive without insulin. I’m reliant on you. So you got to work approaching my life like an economics class — there’s always demand, so why not increase prices?
But (eventually) political pressure started, and for once you seemed threatened. So, about a year ago, you announced that you’d limit the cost of a vial of non-branded insulin to $25. In the announcement, you boasted about how this is the lowest price since 1999.
The lowest price since 1999 still has a profit margin of 417 percent (at $6 per vial). Obviously, you’re a company — you exist to profit. But to claim you’re doing any charity with this is a farce. You gouged prices for decades, cut them down once any pressure was applied, and then acted a hero for it. Even the price cut wasn’t selfless! It helped you avoid millions of dollars of rebates under the American Rescue Act. You did the bare minimum and nothing more.
There’s an issue when a life-or-death drug can be played like a stock — where companies are incentivized to gouge the prices of their drugs for the patient while paying their C.E.O. $26.5 million per year.
I don’t have any power. I can’t boycott insulin, nor undo the pain you’ve caused. What I hope to share with this letter is that I’m tired. I’m tired of the Eli Lilly name being associated with greed over patient care. I’m tired and frustrated, and I think people have the right to understand why, and to determine whether such a company deserves support.
Jawaher Korichi, 17, from Columbus, Ohio, responded to an article headlined “Official Death Toll From Hajj Pilgrimage Climbs Into the Hundreds.” She wrote:
As a Muslim, those words pierce my soul, but as a Saharan, I’m not surprised. People don’t appreciate how deadly the desert is. I humbled myself, however, after reading that those hundreds struck down by the heat during Hajj season did not lack knowledge, but funds.
My paternal family never has to worry about affording any religious journey, let alone dying during it. They are comfortable and can stroll between the sacred mountains of Safa and Marwa. They could book a hotel instead of staying in a flimsy tent or lodging area, although the former lacks the modest charm associated with pilgrimage in the first place. Afterward, they can pick up gifts while exiting Saudi. I once received a glimmering blue dress.
My maternal family is different. My mother’s aunt on her first-ever Umrah; a smaller, more accessible religious journey. Facetiming us late one night, she smiled wearily showing us where she slept, an overcrowded room with yellowed walls. My mother warned of the heat; like most pilgrims pictured here, she is more than elderly. It is unlikely she will bring back anything besides her sanctification.
I’m going to Umrah this December. I’m grateful to do so. I’m also grateful for these authors revealing why so many die during Hajj. They bring to light how these people aren’t ignorant, but victims of price-gouging and predatory tourism companies taking advantage of pious people. People like my mother’s aunt.
Runners-Up
In alphabetical order by the writer’s first name.
Adam Liao on “Some Words Feel Truer in Spanish”
Annalise Huang on “Today’s Teenagers Have Invented a Language That Captures the World Perfectly”
Grace Xie on “Whirlwind Romances Are Not Reserved for Thin Women”
Jiachen Cao on “With Each Basket Steph Curry Shoots, I Inch Closer to Death”
Kanishk Dasgupta on “Well Beyond the U.S., Heat and Climate Extremes Are Hitting Billions”
Mara Gualtieri-Horowitz on “Supreme Court Upholds Law Disarming Domestic Abusers”
Oz Susskind on “The Very Online Afterlife of Franz Kafka”
Sabrina Baru Valdez on “How Venice Might Remake Itself as a Contemporary Art Hub”
Yihan Yoon on “How to Talk to Someone With Alzheimer’s”
Ziming Cheng on “A School With 7 Students: Inside the ‘Microschools’ Movement”
Honorable Mentions
Anya Wang on “This Is Peak College Admissions Insanity”
Brianna Liu on “Workers Shouldn’t Have to Risk Their Lives in Heat Waves”
Claire Dong on “A Sock War Is Afoot Between Millennials and Gen Z”
Emma Fennell on “No, I Don’t Want to Protest”
Jason Lu on “Enough With the Fireworks Already”
Julia Weissman on “Surgeon General Declares Gun Violence a Public Health Crisis”
Sophie on “A.I. Is Getting Better Fast. Can You Tell What’s Real Now?”
Yehui Feng on “Our Pandemic Puppy Brought Pure Joy. Losing Him, Pure Heartbreak.”
Yihan Tang on “Surgeon General Calls for Warning Labels on Social Media Platforms"
Yujin Lee on “Today’s Teenagers Have Invented a Language That Captures the World Perfectly”
这封信由 Jesuit High School in Portland, Ore 17 岁的露西·罗伯 （Lucy Robb） 撰写，是学习网络学生公开信竞赛的前 9 名获奖者之一，我们收到了 8,065 份参赛作品。
Dear American Lawn Owner,
Imagine this for a moment:
PUT-PUT-PUT! A lawn mower revs its engine and prepares to do its worst. The fuming machine plows over a vast expanse of pristine grass, spewing smog into the air. In front of a white picket fence, green growing turf stretches in great swathes across a front yard.
Perfectly manicured, this lawn has long been the hallmark of the American dream. This dream, however, bears carbon emissions, pesticides, and a lack of diversity. The difficulty of maintaining 40 million acres of lawn across the United States is evident. Annually, 800 million gallons of gas are guzzled solely for lawn mower fuel.
When it comes to front yards, grass is not your only option. Through the many regions of America, native plants grow independently and support their ecosystems. These plants can be incorporated into our own homes as well. Grass lawns should be gradually phased out and replaced with native plants and ground cover.
Some may lump together native plants and weeds, calling this heterogeneous array of botanical life unappealing to the eye. On the contrary, native plants are not all the same as pesky shrubs that spring up when you least expect them. These noninvasive plants and ground covers come in a variety of vibrant hues and sizes. As a yard owner, you can cultivate beauty through unique native plants of your choice.
Native plants have more benefits than simply being pretty to look at. They foster diversity and support ecosystems. The New York Times details how incorporating naturally occurring species of plants into front lawns can foster thriving ecosystems, among other benefits.
By planting native flora, we can pave the way for a more sustainable future. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, 17,532 gallons of water are used by the average household in America each year, just for landscaping irrigation. With native plants, this worry dissipates. Many indigenous plants are able to sustain themselves during dry spells with barely any water.
After this vegetation has been planted, there is little that a homeowner must do for maintenance within their own yard. Native plant lawns only need to be cut twice a year, as opposed to the 25-plus times a year that grass lawns are mowed on average in America. They also thrive in their indigenous habitats, slashing the needs for fertilizers and maintenance.
Beauty and diversity are two intrinsic characteristics of a healthy, happy, and aesthetically-pleasing yard. With the installation of these mini native ecosystems, a bit of botanical life can be incorporated into your daily regime, simultaneously saving you money and helping the Earth.
这封信由 The Winsor School in Boston 的 16 岁的 Leela Uppaluri 撰写，是 The Learning Network 学生公开信竞赛的前 9 名获奖者之一，我们收到了 8,065 份参赛作品。
Dear Classmates,
You should know that I am not autistic. But growing up just 16 months younger than my autistic brother has given me a front-row seat to how this condition is viewed by many of you. In school, we are surrounded by values of education and inclusion, but these values don’t seem to translate to disability awareness.
Though only four years old, I remember like it was yesterday when my mom told me that my brother is autistic. How she whispered the word “autism” to me, as if she was shielding me from a four-letter word, hoping to protect me from classmates who might later mimic and bully my brother. In 6th grade I remember hearing many of you label autism a “disease.” A disease connotes something wrong with a person, something needing to be fixed. Unfortunately, these constructs outline how we have all grown up thinking about autism.
Fast forward to 9th grade — I have even heard some of you use the “r” slur or the words “moron” or “lame” jokingly. And I’ve also grown up in a world where when you don’t do so well on a math test one of you might joke “are you autistic?” Whenever I hear these insults, I come home angry. Angry because you use an important part of my brother’s identity, who he is, as a put-down. When I’ve told you that you are being ableist, you’ve called me “sensitive.” Though you speak naïvely, you devalue my brother and those like him when you use such language.
The truth is, one in 36 of us is diagnosed with autism. Moreover, people with disabilities are the largest minority group in the United States, and as new disability categories within neurodiversity emerge and grow, so does that percentage. Make no mistake — autism is in all of our classrooms, and we must move toward true acceptance now.
How do we achieve acceptance? Not being ableist is a start. Join a disability advisory group in your school to learn why using language like the “r” slur is not appropriate. Avoid language like “low functioning” that is demeaning and devaluing to some of your peers and learn how to treat and include your autistic peers as you would want to be treated and included. Last, applaud neurodivergence instead of making excuses for it. In other words, the next time you see my brother sway to “Hey Jude” in the aisle of a grocery store or wear headphones to block out sensory overload at California Pizza Kitchen, don’t stare! Just smile. By doing so, you are showing how you accept him and other autistic people for who they are.
这封信是Seoul Foreign School in Seoul的16岁的贾斯汀·金（Justin Kim）写的，是学习网络学生公开信竞赛的前9名获奖者之一，我们收到了8,065份参赛作品。
Dear Midjourney,
I’m writing this letter to report a crime — one which you’ve committed against me and my fellow artists. Your programs do not create, but merely plunder human creation in order to amalgamate your horrid handiwork.
This is robbery, plain and simple. All artists “take” inspiration, but you seem to have a habit of “taking” entire works and making monsters of them. As artist and illustrator Jackie Ferrentino put it, “A.I. programs scrape human artists’ work to Frankenstein them into a new creation.”
In doing so, your every action disregards artistic convention and robs thousands of their livelihoods. Thus, your current “artistic” practice “devalue[s] the human labor” so inherent to mankind’s God-given gift for creation, as journalists Julia Rothman and Shaina Feinberg aptly described in their 2022 New York Times article.
Of course, this is not to say that your work possesses no potential value. Jason M. Allen of Pueblo West, Colo., claimed that “Art is dead,” and that “humans lost.” His Midjourney-sourced work is certainly impressive: your “Théâtre D’opéra Spatial” won Mr. Allen an award at the Colorado State Fair in 2022. Arguments have been made in favor of your creative use.
We all know that art is more than just paint on a canvas. In the early days of photography, then too did artists predict creative expression would perish. Perhaps you are also merely a new medium for artistic creation. But if so, you must be bound by the same code as us. Therefore, we artists declare: if you are here to stay, you will be leashed.
Regulatory action remains in flux, but good people in good governments are already making progress. The European Union has successfully passed the world’s first major act to regulate A.I. Across the sea, the United States Congress is already debating the feasibility of an “A.I. Bill of Rights.”
The E.U.’s resolution demands a clear definition for A.I., dividing your functions into categories of risk. It does not, at least yet, stipulate that you cite your sources like the rest of us. I acknowledge that may be impossible, given the sheer number of works you steal from to assemble your handiwork, but that does not mean you will be allowed to purloin unabated. Even now, laws are being written that will require you to yield your stolen source material.
Certainly, your work improves by the day. You have grown uncannily good at imitating man. Some would argue you could even replace man. But that just means you must be subject to the same laws as the rest of us. So like any other, you have the right to remain silent. Like any other, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
