第七届学生社论大赛亚军文章

“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》