第六届学生社论大赛亚军文章

Not Enough Boxes
by Summer Abdelbarry, age 16

I speak Arabic, walk around with dark skin, coarse black hair, and embrace my Egyptian culture through and through, and yet somehow, every time I am required to specify my ethnicity on a standardized test or a census, I am forced to forget my roots and grudgingly check the box that says “white” because it seems like the only option I can chose when the alternatives include: Black, Asian, Pacific Islander, American-Indian, or Hispanic. It feels like I’m lying anytime I fill in that narrow little “white” box, not because I want to, but because these tests and censuses force me, a person of color, to be invisible and hide behind this little white box.

The census is an area where these “colored” boxes have presented the most serious issue. If the purpose of a population census is to gain the most accurate and specific insight into the demographics of a particular area, then wouldn’t limiting the options presented in a survey, forcing people to fit themselves into one of maybe six boxes, only leave room for inaccuracies?

For example, a town like Dearborn, Michigan is listed as being 90.5% white, however, nearly 40% of its population is comprised of Arab-Americans who immigrated from Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and Yemen. The national census has backed all of these Arab-Americans into a corner, not providing them with any accurate options to specify their ethnicity, forcing them to check off that “white” box when in reality they are people of color. They are continuously discriminated against with their convenience shops getting vandalized and “random” airport screenings. Our country does not treat them like they’re white, so why force them to check off that white box? At this point, where censuses have become so unsound and inaccurate, isn’t the entire “race/ethnicity census-taking” system essentially void? What is the point of spending millions of dollars of federal funds to conduct surveys and censuses which seem to be completely failing in their intended purposes to provide accurate information?

The Census Bureau has made attempts to “produce the highest quality statistics about our nation’s diverse population,” in entertaining initiatives such as the Arab American Institute’s to add different race and ethnicity specifications to the national census. However, these attempts have continuously failed, presumably because it would have significantly reduced the overinflated counts of “whites” in the census. The issue then is, if accuracy in race representation is essentially unimportant in these censuses, wouldn’t it make more sense to just count the bodies? If we continue to repress various races and ethnicities with these little boxes and refuse to add more, leaving the results incredibly inaccurate, is there even a point to having the boxes?

Sources

“Dearborn, Michigan Population 2019.” Dearborn, Michigan Population 2019 (Demographics, Maps, Graphs), 2019.

Arab American Institute Foundation. Washington, D.C., 2013.

Wagner, Alex. “The Americans Our Government Won’t Count.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 30 Mar. 2018.

_________

Rape: The Only Crime Where Victims Have to Explain Themselves
by Corinne Ahearn, age 17

“It’s your choice if you want to press charges.” The officer’s eyes briefly met mine before he went back to shuffling papers. “But you won’t win.”

Instantly regretting getting the legal system involved, I knew the only thing that would come from this was my assaulter getting even more enraged.

The only way to describe the powerlessness I felt in that moment would be to compare it to the reason I was there in the first place.

The sad reality for most victims of sexual violence is that their voice may never be heard or believed.

“Rape is the only crime in which victims have to explain that they didn’t want to be victimized,” says Callie Rennison, a criminologist at the University of Colorado in Denver. As if survivors haven’t gone through enough, they also deal with skepticism, victim-blaming, and rape myths. These are not only harmful to victims, but they skew the opinions of the general public on what rape really is.

You would never see a victim of a stabbing explaining that they didn’t want to be stabbed. You would never see people claiming the victim lied about being stabbed for attention. Why isn’t this the case for rape victims?

Victims are blamed less by the general public when the perpetrator was violently motivated rather than when the perpetrator was sexually motivated. Numerous studies have shown that victims of acquaintance rape were blamed more than victims of stranger rapes. The truth is, over 80% of all rape victims know their rapist personally, and rape doesn’t have to be terrifyingly violent for it to still be rape. Just because a rape “could have been worse” doesn’t excuse the fact that it’s rape. Why do factors as small as these cause such a decrease in the validity of a survivor’s story?

Not only do rape victims go through the initial trauma of the assault, but over 80% of survivors suffer from chronic physical or psychological conditions, the most common being post-traumatic stress disorder.

Thirty-three percent of women who are raped report contemplating suicide. Thirteen percent of women who are raped attempt suicide. These facts alone should hold enough weight to show that change is needed when it comes to the treatment of rape victims.

Fewer than 20 percent of all rapes and sexual assaults actually get reported to the police, a clear effect of these stereotypes and preconceived notions.

The statistics on those who bravely choose to press charges are all telling.

Of the small percentage of reported rapes, only eight percent are taken to trial.

In other words, 98.4 percent of rapists will get off without even going to trial.

That means only 0.006 percent of rapists are incarcerated.

Shocking? It should be.

Sources:

Brody, Jane E. “The Twice-Victimized of Sexual Assault.” The New York Times. 12 Dec. 2011.

Villines, Zawn. “Overcoming the Stigma of Sexual Assault: Know the Facts.” Good Therapy, 26 June 2018.

Mitchell, Damon, et al. “Effects of Offender Motivation, Victim Gender, and Participant Gender on Perceptions of Rape Victims and Offenders.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Sept. 2009.

“Fast Facts: Sexual Assault.” Bstigmafree.

_________

Paying to Stay: How an Outdated System Hurts New York State Prisoners
by Alexis Ahn, 17

Prisoners can earn as little as ten cents an hour, working eight hours a day and six days a week. But imagine $1 of that being taken away every week for “room and board” in prison. In New York State, a portion of a prisoner’s meager earnings, up to $1 per week, is allocated towards the cost of their own incarceration. Many argue the collection of incarceration fees helps to offset exorbitant incarceration budgets, but this practice is immoral and futile.

A violent prison environment separated from loved ones makes rehabilitation already difficult, but the incarceration fee is another demoralizing factor for working prisoners. 60 percent of inmates have financially dependent families, and according to the Brennan Center for Justice, 57 percent of New York State inmates lived below the poverty line before their incarceration. With negative social stigmas surrounding prisoners, they can expect to earn even less after their release. Reentry into civilian life would be easier if inmates left prison with all the wages they’ve earned. The money made in prison may not seem significant, but to inmates earning 10 cents an hour, every cent taken away cuts into the money available when they’re released. A major challenge released prisoners face is finding meaningful employment. Being in better financial standing can help inmates focus on getting a job, which will lower recidivism rates.

The collection of this fee is also a misguided attempt at decreasing incarceration costs. Eliminating the incarceration fee would negligibly increase the state costs of correction by 0.0008 percent. This is an estimation based upon the maximum annual amount collected by an incarceration fee of $1 per week from 50,000 convicted inmates, divided by the $3.2 billion the state anticipates in corrections expenditures in 2019. The most effective way to reduce the costs of incarceration is to reduce the number of people incarcerated. Eliminating the incarceration fee will encourage the rehabilitation of inmates, decreasing repeat offenders, and diminishing long-term costs for the state.

Incarceration fee policies are far worse in other states. Stated in a New York Times article, “Many Local Officials Now Make Inmates Pay Their Own Way,” other states’ policies not only charge for room and board, but also medical costs, toiletries, and other items. Inmates in Maycomb County, Michigan have property seized or are put back in jail if they can’t pay off their bills, which are often thousands of dollars. Eliminating incarceration fees must be the next national advancement in prison reform, but New York State’s situation is less severe, making it easier to implement this necessary change.

If New York State prides itself in being progressive, then how can we justify not doing everything we can to ensure that prisoners leave prison for good?

Sources

Butterfield, Fox. “Many Local Officials Now Make Inmates Pay Their Own Way.” The New York Times, 13 Aug. 2004.

Eisen, Lauren-Brooke. “Paying for Your Time: How Charging Inmates Fees Behind Bars May Violate the Excessive Fines Clause.” Brennan Center for Justice, 31 July 2014.

_________

Religion’s God Complex
by Julia Bennett

In a 2011 New York Times article, philosophy teacher Louise Antony takes a veritable leap of faith and subtly poses a bold inquiry: Can we be good without God?

To answer this question, we face a daunting task—we must define “good.” Harvard philosophy professor Ralph Barton Perry defines goodness as “generous, disinterested, self-consistent, devoted, principled action.” This abstract description is—unsurprisingly—in line with the moral tenets in many modern faiths. As it has been for centuries, the perceived connection of spirituality to morality forges a polarizing image for churches of today’s world.

But are theists truly more moral than the rest of society? Does the belief in God somehow set believers on a pedestal, towering over everyone else like Goliath? I am hesitant to confine all members of a group to such a rigid label as “good” or “evil” without quantification. Absolution from absolutes is necessary in this case.

The theory of moral absolutism states that some things (murder, slavery, child abuse) are undeniably wrong, regardless of circumstance. This theory of objective moral goodness runs parallel to the theist belief of a higher law, and if a person desires to have a relationship with God, they must adhere to his commandments and keep his law on Earth (Craig). Yet there are countless cases of those in the church committing acts that directly violate these moral laws. Take, for instance, the 2002 Boston Globe story about the cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. The number of clergy accused has now grown to 271, and sixteen years after the story broke, the emotional toll on the victims continues to push them to go public with their stories (Rocheleau). Although the church is supposed to be morally superior, their dissimulation of decades of abuse paints a very different—and disturbing—picture.

Conversely, atheists cannot be labelled immoral by default. In fact, many atheists adhere to profound abstract principles, and can remain morally self-disciplined without belief in a holy law. Case in point—Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, two of the richest men in the world, are atheists, and both have funded and launched charitable organizations that help millions of people worldwide (“World’s Largest”).

Therefore, arguing that goodness is unattainable without God is baseless; many atheists can be good people. Likewise, asserting that belief in God automatically makes one moral is fallacious, as theists have the same potential for moral corruption as everyone else. Why? We’re human. We are doomed to mistakes and sin, and while belief in higher law can curb dark impulses for some theists, the only way for us to accurately consider morality is to separate it from religion.

Otherwise, we risk creating false prophets from men.

Sources

Antony, Louise M. “Good Minus God.” The New York Times, 18 December 2011.

Craig, William Lane. “Can We Be Good Without God?” Reasonable Faith with William Lane Craig.

Perry, Ralph Barton. “The Conception of Moral Goodness.” The Philosophical Review, vol. 16, no. 2, 1907, pp. 153. Duke University Press.

Rocheleau, Matt. “Database of Accused Clergy in Boston Archdiocese.” The Boston Globe, 6 November 2015.

“World’s Largest Philanthropists Atheists?” The Great Realization.

_________

The Integrity of Pineapple Pizza
by Sarah Celestin, 16

For many years those who enjoy pineapple on their pizza have faced ridicule. Many people strongly disagree with the combination pineapple and pizza, and it is understood that not all opinions are always completely agreed on, but the perspectives of pineapple pizza eaters have been disrespected for far too long. The outright disgust expressed by non-pineapple pizza eaters is a contradiction to some of of the world’s favorite foods. For centuries various fruits,such as mango and watermelon, have been topped with salt and chili mixes, but the reaction to the list of concoctions previously stated do not even begin to compare to the reactions to pineapple pizza. Salted caramel, kettle corn, chocolate covered pretzels, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches: these are all snacks that are widely loved, but carry the same flavor profiles as pineapple pizza. So why is pineapple pizza so hated?

Scientifically pineapple pizza stimulates two major areas of the tongue that are responsible for flavor — sweet and savory. Our bodies naturally crave sweetness because it signals calorie intake, and saltiness because sodium is necessary for certain everyday bodily functions. The flavors of pineapple and pizza work so well together because it tackles two instinctive cravings at once. Pineapple is also a great source of vitamin c and magnesium. Vitamin c is essential for the growth, development and the production of collagen, and magnesium helps with bone formation and calcium absorption. Pineapples create a new dynamic for boring everyday pizza by adding a tropical twist and increasing its nutritional value.

Pineapple pizza eaters are not looking for validation, they are just looking for respect. They refuse to be belittled for their choices any longer. The president of Iceland, Gudni Thorlacius Johannesson, once said that should he be able to pass laws, he would like to ban pineapple as a pizza topping. Is the choice of having pineapple on pizza that bad to the point where a president would make it illegal if he had the ability to? Remarks like this revile the choices of all pineapple eaters everywhere. Let’s ask ourselves, Is it fair to judge what a person decides to indulge? Is it fair to make a person feel bad because they enjoy something you may not? Put yourself in the position of a pineapple-pizza eater before you decide to make a face or a snarky remark about the harmless decision of enjoying a slice of pineapple pizza.

Sources

Behm, Mackenzie. “The Scientific Reason Why Pineapples Belong on Pizza.” Spoon University, 28 April 2017.

Pogrebin, Robin. “Pineapple Pizza Tests Limits of Presidential Power in Iceland.” The New York Times, 22 Feb. 2017.

_________

We are the Generation of Self-Deprecation
by Faith Christiansen, 17

We love self-deprecation.

After all, it is what fills the majority of our favorite jokes or humorous memes. We can’t help but double-tap the post that states, “They said I could be anything!...So I became a disappointment” or “Who needs April Fools when your whole life is a joke?” Self-deprecation is a major component of our conversations. Besides, would it sound right if I didn’t put myself down every available chance? It’s the “trendy” thing to be doing, as it fills every comedic sketch, video, and post on your feed. Social media pages are full of these constantly circulating messages that destroy self-image. One teen described his experience as such:“I come off as someone confident, but I suffer from such low self-esteem. Which defines my generation” (Levin). But, when did it become not only okay but expected for a class of teenagers to respond “same” when someone makes a suicide joke or says they are a failure? And where do we as a society draw the line? How are we supposed to differentiate between humor and someone’s call for help?

Self-deprecation has become this generation’s coping mechanism and is our new way of maintaining humility (Bellis). It’s as if we have to validate taking care of ourselves. No wonder our mental health is deteriorating before our very eyes. According to Time magazine, in a study, 91 percent of Gen Z adults feel symptoms of anxiety or depression, with 27 percent reporting their mental health as fair or poor (Ducharme). We make ourselves self-conscious when we don’t have to, shame ourselves for things that don’t matter and are overly critical in analyzing failures that could be simple mistakes. It is an epidemic, and we’re all happily taking a part in it. It is self-sabotage and allows us to wallow in our problems rather than try to find solutions.

We are not only in a committed relationship with our misery but are in love with it. Suffering makes us happy (Sol). Our misery stems from the lack of self-confidence and grows into a flourishing constant state of mind. Each petal thriving from self-fulfilling prophecies hope for sympathy, self-generated stress, overeating, undereating, and critical self-evaluations (Luna). In a society that thrives off of being different, so many use that self-created pain to define their difference and create their individuality.

So be different, but more healthily. Know and advertise that it is okay to love yourself. Use all of your quirks to define your success. Pay attention to how many times you put yourself down and stop doing it. Replace every negative thought with a complement and become an advocate for self-love and self-worth.

Sources

Dahl, Melissa. “The ‘Self-Esteem’ Movement Is Over. Here’s What’s Taking Its Place.” Fast Company, 14 June 2018.

Ducharme, Jamie. “More Than 90% of Generation Z Is Stressed Out.” Time, 30 Oct. 2018.

Greenberg, Emma. “Opinion: Our Generation Needs to Stop Self Deprecating Out of Validation.” The Eagle, 2 Nov. 2018.

Levin, Dan. “Generation Z: Who They Are, in Their Own Words.” The New York Times, 22 March 2019.

Luna, Aletheia. “17 Habits of the Self-Destructive Person.” LonerWolf, 9 March 2019.

Sol, Mateo. “Why Your Misery Makes You Happy.” LonerWolf, 8 March 2019.

_________

Life Sentences for Children Should Go Away...for Life
by Jessie Dietz, 17,

In 1993, Taurus Buchanan threw a single, deadly punch in a street fight among kids and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. At the time of his arrest, Taurus, a young African American boy living in Louisiana, was a loving son, a hard worker, and a loyal friend. But most importantly, he was just a kid.

So why should Taurus, who was still a child at the time of his arrest, be given a sentence reserved for serial killers, cold-blooded murderers, and violent gang members? The answer is he shouldn’t.

Life in prison for juveniles has been a phenomenon plaguing our nation for over 50 years. Even after the 2012 Supreme Court Case, Miller v. Alabama, which established that mandatory life sentences for children were unconstitutional, many children are still unjustly sentenced and forced to spend their formative years locked behind bars.

Currently, there are over 10,000 children incarcerated across America. Of those 10,000 children, 3,000 are serving life sentences without the possibility of parole. But prisons are dangerous places for children. While in prison, children are five times more likely to be sexually assaulted, are at an increased risk of suicide, and are exposed to violent and destructive behaviors.

A 2006 study, which tested juvenile offenders for the level of trauma they experienced while imprisoned, found that two-thirds of the incarcerated youths tested reported symptoms related to high aggression, depression, and anxiety. Even more shockingly, thirty percent reported a history of sexual or physical abuse, and eighty-four percent had tried marijuana at least once in their life.

So how can we solve this issue? The answer is placing a stronger emphasis on rehabilitation rather than punitive sentences for children. Research has shown that the human brain continues to develop through adolescence, with the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for critical thinking and decision making, not fully developing until the mid-20’s. This brain flexibility not only makes teenagers more susceptible to reckless behavior, but also makes them more amenable to rehabilitation than adults. In Missouri, one of the few states that places a strong emphasis on juvenile rehabilitation, only 8 percent of juvenile offenders who were rehabilitated were arrested again, representing its vast potential for success.

In almost every aspect of life, the U.S. acknowledges that children are unable to exercise the same kind of emotional and mental restraint as adults: they are unable to vote, serve on juries, or even drink. Regardless, when it comes to the criminal justice system, they are still subjected to the same repercussions as adults. We must continually challenge this egregious double standard, urging politicians to emphasize the importance of rehabilitation for juvenile offenders.

Sources

Armstrong, Ken, and Corey G. Johnson. “When He Was 16, This Man Threw One Punch—and Went to Jail for Life.” Mother Jones, 4 Jan. 2016.

Cose, Ellis. “Rehabilitation Beats Punishment for Juveniles.” Newsweek, 14 Jan. 2010.

Gottesman, David, and Susan Wile Schwarz. “Juvenile Justice in the U.S.” National Center for Children in Poverty, July 2011.

Muller, Robert T. “Rehabilitation Benefits Young Offenders.” Psychology Today, 17 Sept. 2015.

Robinson, Rashad. “No Child Deserves a Life Sentence. But Try Telling Prosecutors That.” The New York Times, 10 Aug. 2017.

Roll Call Staff. “Youth Offenders Deserve a Chance for Rehabilitation.” Roll Call, 11 Nov. 2009.

“United States: Thousands of Children Sentenced to Life without Parole.” Human Rights Watch, 11 Oct. 2005.

_________

Cynicism Sells: Why Negativity Is so Popular and Why You Should Care by Teaghan Duff, 16

Scroll down through the comments on any social media platform, and you’ll find scathing remarks. Meet up with a group of people and the conversation inevitably turns to something wrong with the activity, their work, or their day. Even the news focuses almost solely on the negative. We’ve become numb to just how obsessed our society has become with venting about, well, anything.

Why do we love pessimism? The answer actually comes from our ancient ancestors; according to psychologist Timothy Bono, Ph.D., “We inherited the genes that predispose us to give special attention to those negative aspects of our environments that could be harmful for us.” In other words, we are wired to fixate on the negative.

Historically, genes focused on negativity helped us survive. As Margaret Jaworski writes, “Dwelling on the ‘bad stuff’ is similar to the sensation of pain — it’s our bodies working to keep us safe.” Though this trait isn’t necessary today, it persists — as do negative thoughts. They linger longer than positive thoughts, a phenomenon known as the “negativity bias.”

So, why do we need to change our outlook on life? It turns out the positive thinking your local yoga teacher preaches can increase your lifespan and rewire your brain for the better. Though it sounds cliche, negativity can actually damage your health. According to Health, “A 2014 study... linked high levels of cynicism later in life… to a greater risk of dementia.” Furthermore, the synapses in your brain grow closer together as your brain processes a thought to allow the chemical signal to jump from one to another faster. The more often a thought is processed, the nearer those synapses grow. As Steven Parton puts it, “Your thoughts reshape your brain.”

There are several methods to break this habit. One is training your brain to be more positive; as positive thoughts become more common, those synapses grow closer together and make your brain more apt to optimism. Another comes from surrounding yourself with positive people. Our brains, instinctually empathetic, will fire synapses to mirror the emotions it sees around it. Again, the more often those synapses fire, the closer they draw, and the more instinctual that thought process becomes. Our neurons don’t provide us with a quick fix, but we still have the power to fight the addictive pull of negativity.

Our lives aren’t perfect, but the added negativity we project upon them is up to us to change. No matter how many times you’ve heard the overused adage “don’t worry, be happy,” taking that advice could truly help. The world would be a much better place if we spent less time degrading this cliché and more time living it. It’s time to evolve our brains.

Sources

Alderman, Lesley. “The Year of Conquering Negative Thinking.” The New York Times, 3 Jan. 2017.

Editorial Board. “Negativity Wins the Senate.” The New York Times, 5 Nov. 2014.

Hoffman, Andrew. “Can Negative Thinking Make You Sick?” Health, 30 Jan. 2017.

Jaworski, Margaret. “The Negativity Bias: Why the Bad Stuff Sticks.” Psycom, 8 June 2018.

_________

FAA Negligence Plus Corporate Greed Equals Avoidable Passenger Deaths
by Will Golder

When I first heard about the Ethiopian Airlines crash of a Boeing 737 Max 8 and the panic it incited with the flying public, I dismissed it. I’m currently working toward my pilot’s license and have no fear of flying. I said to myself, “I’m sure it was just a fluke.” As the story of the crash developed, my opinion drastically changed.

The crash bears a striking resemblance to another crash of a 737 Max 8 Lion Air flight in October 2018. John Cassidy of The New Yorker reported that both planes experienced the nose dropping uncontrollably shortly after takeoff, due to a flaw in Boeing’s MCAS autopilot system, causing the computer to falsely think the plane was stalling. Only one of two angle-of-attack sensors needed to be tripped to induce the autopilot’s stall-recovery system. A single false reading could drive the planes into the ground. I immediately thought “How did a mistake like this get through inspection?” The answer is a sad story of greed and neglect that cost hundreds of lives.

The FAA outsourced considerable elements of the inspection and certification process of the Max 8 to Boeing. That’s like a health inspector telling a restaurant to give themselves the sanitation rating they think they deserve. Boeing rushed through the inspection in order to compete with Airbus’s new A320 Neo. Had the FAA inspected the planes themselves, rather than allowing Boeing to rush the plane into production, the two crashes might not have happened.

The corporate greed goes even further. The New York Times reported that Boeing charges extra for two safety features, neither equipped on the downed planes, that could have prevented the crashes. An optional angle-of-attack indicator would tell the pilots what the sensors were seeing, and an optional disagree light would indicate when the two sensors are disagreeing with each other. Bjorn Leeham, an aviation analyst, told the New York Times “Boeing charges extra for them because they can. But they’re vital for safety.”

Boeing isn’t the only company that charges extra for safety features — it’s standard practice in the airline industry — but that doesn’t make it right. When the FAA lets plane manufacturers regulate themselves and make critical safety features “optional,” rather than standard, accidents are bound to happen, and the public is left to suffer the consequences. The FAA is grossly understaffed, lacking even a full-time agency head. It’s one of the many positions the president has failed to fill. The first step toward preventing crashes like this in the future is for the FAA’s vacant positions to be filled, and for the agency to fully take over the regulation and certification process of the planes used by 2.6 million Americans each day.

Sources

“Air Traffic By The Numbers.” Federal Aviation Administration website.

Cassidy, John. “How Did the F.A.A. Allow the Boeing 737 Max to Fly?” The New Yorker, 19 March 2019.

Tabuchi, Hiroko, and David Gelles. “Doomed Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Boeing Sold as Extras.” The New York Times, 21 March 2019.

_________

The Broken Catholic Church Needs Female Priests
by Noah Handfield, 17

Strong women raise strong children, but, according to the male leaders of the Catholic church, they are somehow incapable of raising strong Catholics. Small cracks in the impenetrable walls of the Catholic church seem to be growing, and there is only one way to mend them: the church must allow the ordination of female priests.

I live in a small town south of Boston, and the Catholic church has always been a present force in my community. Today, the Catholic Church is often seen as an archaic institution synonymous with child abuse. With all church leaders historically being men, over time a power structure that promotes inequality and abuse has developed. Without the introduction of women into the priesthood, abuses will continue. Seventeen years ago, a scandal with unprecedented impact shocked not only the city of Boston but people across the globe. In 2002, The Boston Globe, specifically its “Spotlight” team, conducted an in-depth investigation which revealed the systematic child sex abuse in the Boston Area. Church attendance steeply declined as did trust in community parishes and beloved priests.

In Massachusetts, people say “I have not lost my faith in God, but I have lost my faith in the church.” Today, there is a population of religious people who will not support a supposedly sacred institution that is so broken and so wrongful. Catholics and non-Catholics alike ask: What can be done to end clerical abuse and restore sanctity to the holy Catholic Church? The answer: allow women to become priests. Not only are women capable of guiding people out of the darkness with maternal light, but their introduction into a role historically led by men will break a patriarchal structure and change a distorted male mindset.

If women can become presidential party nominees, if they can run Fortune 500 companies, if they can teach astrophysics, then they must be able to become priests. In Catholic communities across the nation a new voice, a woman’s voice, would attract Catholics who have turned away. A woman’s voice always manages to “restore order to chaos,” and inspire hope in those who have none. Male leaders, when given complete power in the church begin to have a heightened sense of self. Priests often believe they can do no wrong; this is dangerous.

The’introduction of women into a leadership role forever held by men would, of course, be radical, but considering the current state of the Catholic church, there is a demand for radical change. A female and male perspective must stimulate religious conversation. The church's messages of love, suffering, and charity will be more relevant and profound for all.

Sources

Globe Spotlight Team. “Church allowed abuse by priest for years.” The Boston Globe, 6 Jan. 2002.

McDermott, Alice. “Why the Priesthood Needs Women.” The New York Times, 23 Feb. 2019.

_________

The Korean Dream Is A Korean Tragedy
by Jinha Kim, 15

November 16th, 2018. No planes are permitted to land in South Korea for an hour. It’s not a national crisis. It’s not a terrorist attack. It’s just an ordinary day in November except that sixty thousand Korean students take Korea’s college entrance exam, the College Scholastic Ability Test. Even the distant noise of a plane landing is an outrageous distraction: the CSAT is the decisive shot for students to achieve their “Korean dream.”

The CSAT is the Korean version of the SAT, a yearly exam spanning nine hours and eight subjects. This exam is the culmination of twelve years of study and will impact students’ lives for many more. The college a student attends “determines his future for the rest of his life,” says Kim Dong Chun, a sociologist at Sungkonghoe University. Lower-ranking colleges graduates have a harder time getting employed as “large conglomerates [tend] to hire people from a specific university” and entry “into a top university is still the key to economic success and social status in Korea.”

Given its importance in college admissions, the CSAT pressures students to the extreme. 53 percent of South Koreans students “who confessed to feeling suicidal in 2010 [have] identified inadequate academic performance as the main reason for such thoughts.” Jin-yeong, a CSAT retaker, exclaims “when I found out my score was less than what I needed, my heart broke. I felt like I wanted to melt into the ground and disappear.” Students like Jin-yeong undergo emotional breakdowns that severely lessen their self-confidence as they face the brutal future of not having a fighting chance at their chosen career.

As a student in Korea who studied in Canada, I am resolute that there is a better alternative education system. Although some assert that standardized tests are most efficient for college admissions, many countries have already moved away from the system. Canadian colleges do not put as much weight on provincial exams and focus more on extracurriculars and students’ school lives. Canada’s less competitive education system was why I found learning to be fun rather than stressful.

The “Korean Dream” has brainwashed students on what a successful life is: an excellent CSAT score and a prestigious college degree. Contrary to some beliefs that academic pressure is inevitable, students do not deserve this much pressure only to have twelve years of arduous studying judged, possibly poorly, by a single CSAT score. The CSAT – a hierarchical, life-changing test – should be replaced with a less heavily-weighted test, such as the SAT, in the admission process. Colleges should instead acknowledge the importance of extracurriculars such as club activities, and stop determining students solely by standardized scores. It is time that this Korean tragedy ends.

Sources

Choe, Sang-Hun. “In South Korea, Students Push Back.” The New York Times, 9 May 2005.

“College Entrance Exam.” Korea4expats website.

Koo, Se-woong. “An Assault Upon Our Children.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 1 Aug. 2014

Sharif, Hossein. “Suneung: The Day Silence Falls Over South Korea.” BBC News, 26 Nov. 2018.

_________

Astroturfing: Political Injuries Caused by Fake Grass
by Emma Leek, 16

In August 2017, the Cook County government in Illinois started a public health campaign by taxing citizens on sugary beverages. Representing the disgruntled citizens of Cook County, the Can the Tax Coalition, made up of concerned voters, quickly stepped in. Even before the tax started, the group was producing political ads and gallantly speaking out against the tax. These go-getters were eventually successful and got the tax repealed within a few months, a perfect example of democracy and citizens directing change in their community.

Unless you notice the small “supported by the American Beverage Association” notice appearing in all of their advertisements and on their website (Can the Tax).

This phenomenon is known as “Astroturfing.” Astroturfing involves phony grassroots movements, hence the name that comes from an artificial grass brand, and can be anything from a populist-sounding group receiving funding from big businesses to bots and foreign hackers masquerading as concerned citizens.

Groups can claim that there is transparency and that “[o]rganizing isn’t cheating. Doing everything in your power to get your people to show up is basic politics” (Sager). However, when people base campaigns on deceptions, and get thousands on board with decisions that are far less popular than they seem, one has to question the ethics of allowing astroturfing groups to operate with as much leverage as they have.

Take Brexit, for example. What started out as European begrudgement and a referendum quickly led to a political, economic, and even humanitarian trainwreck. But, as the vote was a referendum, steadfast Brexit supporters stuck to their positions, claiming that the vote was final and representative of the will of the people. That seems plausible, until you learn that a team of Oxford researchers found evidence that “of the almost 314,000 accounts that tweeted about the vote, pro or con, in the week of June 5 to 12, 15 percent were heavily or entirely automated” (Dewey). According to the report, there were even fake Tinder accounts run by robots, which left an automatic Brexit-centered message whenever a person swiped right. (Challenging). Astroturfing to repeal a tax in one large U.S. county affects millions of people, whether or not they know it. Astroturfing to change the outcome of a decision like Brexit affects billions of people; it adversely affects every country with relations to Europe.

Astroturfing is deceptive and dangerous and calls into question the ethics of allowing groups to lie to people in plain sight. Moving forward in the digitized world, if we don’t call out Astroturf groups and set regulations on their transparency and output, we will allow them to continue stuffing our genuine votes into their faux ballot boxes.

Sources

Bradshaw, Samantha, and Philip N. Howard. “Challenging Truth and Trust: A Global Inventory of Organized Social Media Manipulation.” Working Paper 2018.1. Oxford, UK.

“Can the Tax.” Can the Tax website.

Dewey, Caitlin. “How Online Bots Conned Brexit Voters.” The Washington Post, 27 June 2016.

Sager, Ryan. “Keep Off the Astroturf.” The New York Times, 19 Aug. 2009.

_________

From Kpop to Kondo: Why Mere “Inclusion” Isn’t Enough
by Nicole Li, 16,

“So, do your parents approve of you acting?”

You’ll likely find this question, or similarly-awkward variations, only in interviews with Asians in Hollywood. Recently, cries for increased Asian inclusion in pop culture seem to have been heard with the success of movies like “Crazy Rich Asians.” Yet, as one notices question after pointed question, one wonders if we have advanced as much as perceived.

A seemingly-innocuous, positively-received element of Asian culture can be found in Marie Kondo. The KonMari decluttering method emphasizes gratitude towards one’s possessions and keeping objects that “spark joy”. Ms. Kondo has enjoyed great acclaim, appearing on “Ellen" and “Jimmy Kimmel,” and scoring a Netflix special. However, closer examination reveals television appearances laden with offhand jokes about thanking your socks. Critics have called Kondo “a little doll” and her method “woo-woo nonsense.” These instances border on condescending, reducing Japanese culture to a gimmick.

Such slights are everywhere, from the obligatory “Which American artist do you wish to collaborate with?” asked of most Korean-pop groups, like they’re only worthwhile based on how they fit into the Western world, to surprised huffs heard when Constance Wu says she’s from Richmond. This phenomenon of unconsciously belittling and commodifying the unfamiliar is deep-rooted. But if we’re making progress, that’s all that matters, right? A New York Times article wonders whether “in a world where overt prejudice is seldom tolerated,” these concerns merely demonstrate “divisive hypersensitivity.”

However, lack of effort to understand minorities leads to devastating effects, apparent from extreme examples like blackface minstrel shows or emasculated, exotic roles historically relegated to Asians. They harm generations of people and how they’re perceived. Today, intentions are more benevolent — talk-show hosts aren’t genuinely trying to alienate guests. Unfortunately, no matter the intent, inclusion loses meaning if it exacerbates the Otherness of minorities. Paralegal Serena Rabie says “drawing attention to microaggressions” helps eliminate stereotypes.

These subtleties are dangerous because they’re found in the most liberal places, where diversity and inclusion are lauded. It’s easy to dismiss small injustices as paranoia or feel we’re doing enough. But it’s not enough to simply put Asians there. We have the responsibility to take them seriously, with an open mind, and to stop making jokes out of discomfort. Rashad Robinson, executive director of Color of Change, cites the importance of representations that are “authentic, fair, and have humanity”, where minorities aren’t “seen through white eyes.” They deserve to feel whole in their own right.

There’s no doubt that there’s much to celebrate for Asians everywhere. We just can’t fall into the trap of believing some diversity-box has been checked. We must remain vigilant in pursuit of a world where differences aren’t only present, but appreciated in their most authentic forms, not tailored towards Western-centric world views.

Sources

La Force, Thessaly. “Why Do Asian-Americans Remain Largely Unseen in Film and Television?” The New York Times, 6 Nov. 2018.

Mae, Clara. “The Racist Backlash Against Marie Kondo.” The Daily Beast, 8 Feb. 2019.

Vega, Tanzina. “Students See Many Slights as Racial ‘Microaggressions’.” The New York Times, 21 March 2014.

White, Abbey. “How Can TV and Movies Get Representation Right? We Asked 6 Hollywood Diversity Consultants.” Vox, 28 Aug. 2017.

_________

Self-Care Alone Will Not Fix the System
by Walter Li, 18

Mental health is entering the mainstream. The conversation has opened up as more high-profile individuals talk about their mental health struggles. As a mental health activist, I am thrilled at the momentum, yet I have reservations about the dominant focus of the conversation. Those reservations surfaced recently when I was posting a self-care tip about the value of journaling on the Instagram of my school’s mental health club. Something felt off; telling people to journal felt like putting a band-aid on a broken arm.

Like my post, mainstream conversations oversimplify mental health. Self-care (meditation, mindfulness, and other self-help methods) have dominated current narratives. Media profiles of athletes or celebrities accessing treatment miss a crucial fact: treatment is still too expensive and stigmatized for the vast majority. Self-care tips are not enough. It is time for mainstream conversations to address how the mental health treatment system is fundamentally broken. It is time we talk about how to fix the system to offer accessible, comprehensive care for everyone.

The default in society is to deal with your mental illness alone: according to Mental Health America, 56.4 percent of adults struggling with a mental illness never get help. Imagine if 56.4 percent of adults with a broken arm never saw a doctor. How did we get here? After psychiatric asylums were closed in the United States, the goal was to replace them with a more supportive alternative. That alternative never came to fruition, meaning a comprehensive mental health system was never put in place.

The debate over solutions has some consensus: according to The New York Times Editorial Board, no one “wants to return to the era of ‘insane asylums,’ . . . Nor does anyone disagree that the ‘system’ that replaced them is a colossal failure.” The core components of a working system include overall higher quality care with more treatment options and a greater bandwidth of medical programs including integrated and preventive care. This system must be paired with insurance parity and a culture that makes accessing care clear, affordable, and de-stigmatized for everyone. According to Mental Health America, this new system must “support individuals at all stages of their recovery.” Many people have promoted ideas for the exact details of this new system; however, these ideas cannot coalesce unless a discussion occurs in mainstream circles.

I do not write this editorial to say that self-care is less important. I write it to say that the status quo of the current mental health system must be challenged. This system is not working: it is too expensive, too inaccessible, and too stigmatized. We cannot go forward unless we carefully examine and alter mental health treatment. Now is the time to have that conversation.

Sources

The Editorial Board. “The Crazy Talk About Bringing Back Asylums.” The New York Times, 2 June 2018.

“Mental Health in America — Access to Care Data.” Mental Health America, 2019.

“Transforming the Mental Health System.” Mental Health America, 2019.

_________

Why I, a High School Football Player, Want to see See Tackle Football Taken Away by Keegan Lindell, 17

You feel a cool drop of sweat slide down your spine, sparking chills throughout your body. Your eyes dart back and forth in hopes of spotting the kamikaze player coming in. Shoulder to shoulder, you are a shield for the returner; however, a man disguised as a bomb sails through a gap five yards away and strikes head first into the teammate next to you. With a loud disturbing crack, anger, hatred, fear, and desperation fill your body. Paler than an albino, he rises with a stumble and it’s apparent that fear has overtaken his eyes along with a look of confusion. Knowing he isn’t alright, you insist he gets off the field; nevertheless, he needs to prove his manhood and forces himself back into the huddle.

Sadly, this is the reality of tackle football.

Excitement, brotherhood, life lessons are all extraordinary things that the game brings to your life; however, it brings brain diseases, concussions, and lifelong ripple effects as well. With the knowledge that our brain doesn’t stop developing until our mid-twenties, the last thing you want to do is injure it. According to the Nida Blog Team article, teens and children are at a higher risk for concussions because the “brain’s nerve fibers can be torn apart more easily.” Why expose our nation’s future to potential brain damage?

Human anatomy is not built for football. Humans lack a “safety belt” for the brain and instead have protective fluid that can send the brain flying into your skull wall and severely bruise it. Meanwhile, a woodpecker that slams its beak into a tree can absorb the the force through its beak and a muscle that wraps around the brain so it can’t collide into the skull. Since humans lack this, we are prone to concussions. According to the New York Times, a former NFL player is “three to four times more likely” to develop “brain diseases, including Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.” Instead of being oblivious to these problems, we should be concerned about the symptoms of football and take action.

At such a vital point in my developmental life. I am ripped apart between my love of the game and my growing realization that tackle football is not safe. As an avid football player since the fourth grade, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that if I have future sons, they will not play tackle football. We need to make the wiser choice and lead ourselves into a safer future by removing one of my greatest passions. It’s sad, but it is time for tackle football to go.

Sources

Gonchar, Michael. “If Football Is So Dangerous to Players, Should We Be Watching It?” The New York Times, 13 Sept. 2012.

The NIDA Blog Team. “Traumatic Brain Injury, Drug Addiction, and the Developing Teen Brain.” National Institute on Drug Abuse for Teens, 19 Mar. 2015.

_________

China: It’s Time to Meet Your Daughters
by Lila McNamee, 14

In 1979, China implemented a one-child policy to solve its overpopulation problem. This policy created a dilemma for families, particularly given the cultural preference for male children. It is estimated that the one-child policy prevented the births of 400 million children, and forced thousands more, primarily girls, to be abandoned. I am one of those 175,000 abandoned children who ended up in an orphanage, ultimately adopted to be raised in America.

In 2015, China relaxed its policy, allowing two children per family. This was not due to the realization by the central government that the policy was immoral, but rather because they needed to protect their future. The one-child policy had created a number of unforeseen problems for China. For example, the distinct preference for boys had led to gender imbalance, and by 2050, there will be a major labor shortage due to the aging population.

China has attempted to address these statistical problems, but it is time that the government concentrates on the effect this policy had on its people, and what they can do about it. It’s time they focus on the personal, not the political. The human rights of the parents and children were denied for over 35 years. Some people have said that I’m lucky to be in America and that I have a better life here, but is that really true? Yes, I go to an amazing school, have an incredible mother, and love living in Los Angeles. However, I don’t know my genetic makeup, the time I was born, and don’t get to know my biological family. The Chinese government took my identity from me. I have always just been Asian….dark straight hair, brown almond eyes, good at math. I have never experienced the “lunch-box moment,” and just recently learned what the “Asian squat” is (and I’m pretty sure I do it wrong). Although I take Mandarin and feel connected to Chinese culture, I wish I knew more about me. What is my family medical history? Do I have siblings? Who do I look like?

The Chinese government took these things from me and 175,000 others. It’s time they try to make amends. I don’t want a generic letter saying, “We’re sorry.” I want a letter with my genetic information. The government could set up a program where families could submit their DNA, the approximate birth date of their child, and their province/district, giving Chinese adoptees a real chance to find the parents that were forced to give them away. I dream of meeting my biological family, and I think the Chinese government owes me the opportunity to make that happen.

Sources

Clarke, Aileen. “See How the One-Child Policy Changed China.” National Geographic, 13 Nov. 2015.

Clemetson, Lynette. “Adopted in China, Seeking Identity in America.” The New York Times, 23 Mar. 2006.

Lee, Jenni Fang. “A Letter of Frustration and Gratitude on the End of China’s One-Child Policy.” Huffington Post, 30 Oct. 2015.

“Somewhere Between.” Directed by Linda Goldstein Knowlton. Long Shot Factory and Ladylike Films, 2011.

_________

Why Mainstreaming CBD In Consumer Products Is Detrimental To Our Society
by Emily Milgrim, 15

One recent morning, my aunt’s family went to a local bakery. Her toddler-aged daughters love seltzer, and a pink pastel can, labeled “Recess,” on display caught their eyes. My aunt thought they were adorable —what could be wrong with a pastel can with a playful name? She was about to pour the seltzer into her girls’ sippy cups when she noticed the fine print. The innocent-looking, beverage contained 10 milligrams of CBD. It’s preposterous that there is no requirement to include a warning, and that the store is not required, at a minimum, to alert the purchaser of the ingredient. Many CBD products have no age restrictions. Because my aunt was educated on the subject, she saved her children from potential harm. However, many uneducated consumers are unaware they are consuming cannabinoids, or their potential effects.

So, what’s the big deal with CBD? Why is it being marketed in everyday items?

CBD, also known as Cannabidiol, is highly commercialized as an additive in simple pleasures from ice cream to dog treats. CBD is a chemical compound found in the Cannabis plant that does not cause the ‘stoned’ effect that is associated with its sister compound, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). This makes hemp-derived CBD currently legal in all 50 states. It is marketed to cure pains and anxiety, and is being experimented with medically. CBD may also have adverse effects such as anxiety, diarrhea, dizziness, and vomiting, just to name a few.

Many consumers believe that the benefits of CBD outweigh the possible side effects. However, this is not the case. Exposing an unneeded, drug-like substance to audiences who don’t medically require it opens gates to experimentation with its sister, THC. Having Cannabidiol marketed towards younger crowds, including items that attract very young children, such as desserts or soda, kickstarts this exposure to our society prematurely. Joe Camel cannot sell cigarettes anymore, so why is a pink soda can named “Recess” with CBD allowed?

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, in 2017, nearly 70 percent of all CBD products sold online were incorrectly labeled, and in some cases may have included other compounds such as THC. Moreover, the adverse effects of CBD are being studied in pregnant and nursing mothers, including developmental defects and the increased permeability of the placental barrier. Luckily, my aunt, a nursing mother, noticed this ingredient before consumption.

With these potential ramifications, should CBD be marketed towards shoppers in a non-medical environment? Absolutely not. All items containing CBD should require 21-plus identification when purchased, and warning labels should be mandated to alert consumers of possible effects. We must push for stricter legislation to regulate the non-medical marketing of CBD.

Sources

“America’s CBD Boom: Brazen Claims, Fake Products, Regulatory Scrutiny.” The Business of Fashion, 17 Feb. 2019.

Chaker, Anne Marie. “Cannabis Comes to Your Coffee and Candy — but Is it Legal?” The Wall Street Journal, 12 Sept. 2018.

Williams, Alex. “Why Is CBD Everywhere?” The New York Times, 27 Oct. 2018.

Wong, Cathy. “CBD Oil: Benefits, Uses, Side Effects and Safety.” Verywell Health, 6 Mar. 2019.

_________

I’m Not Surprised at the College Admissions Scandal, and You Shouldn’t Be Either by Maria Olifer, 18

The lunchroom was louder than usual as seniors read the news on their phones. Twenty-five million dollars? Perfect scores fabricated by an agency? Photoshopped athletes? No wonder I couldn’t get in!

The college admissions scandal erupted on March 12, 2019, as United States federal prosecutors brought to light a conspiracy to influence student admissions into prominent U.S. universities. Wealthy families would pay the Key Worldwide Foundation or The Edge College & Career Network—foundations led by William Rick Singer—which would then use this money to bribe test proctors to take standardized tests for the students; coaches at Ivy League institutions to assure the admissions officers that said student is a world-class tennis player despite the fact that they have never picked up a racket; or any number of other avenues to acceptance that could be paved with the power of the American dollar.

The frightening reality isn’t that students are being admitted based on their parents’ wealth; it’s that the general populace is shocked by this.

This year, I applied to 11 universities. Each university had an application fee averaging $80. I had to pay to take the ACT ($62 per attempt, 2 attempts) and the Advanced Placement (AP) exam ($94 per exam, 13 exams); for each prep book that I used to study; and then again to send these scores to colleges. This means that I spent about $2,500 on applications alone, and while my family could pay, the cost was noticeable.

However, not everyone is as lucky. To be a competitive candidate for top schools, students are expected to not only maintain good grades and have good test scores, but to have multiple leadership opportunities, play sports, and partake in internships in their spare time. If your weekend job is integral to your family paying rent on time, these résumé fillers become difficult to achieve.

The college admissions scandal should not serve as another reason to detest the ultra-wealthy, but rather as a platform for education reform. Going to college in America requires approximately 53 percent of parents’ salary in the face of a constant rise in tuition and stagnant wages; whereas in Europe, high taxes — anywhere from 37 to 56 percent income tax, paid over the course of a lifetime — result in the opportunity for “free” college for a majority of those who seek it. The reality is that college will never be completely free, but there need to be more plans in place to decrease the cost. While the Federal Pell Grant only covers tuition, applying it to encompass a wider socio-economic bracket would be less contentious than raising taxes on the public and would result in more instantaneous impact. It would be a start.

Sources

Brinded, Lianna. “10 of the Most Expensive Countries for a University Education.” Independent, 28 Dec. 2015.

Harris, Adam. “The College-Affordability Crisis Is Uniting the 2020 Democratic Candidates.” The Atlantic, 26 Feb. 2019.

Jackson, Abby. “‘Free’ College in Europe Isn’t Really Free.” Business Insider, 25 Jun. 2015.

Levitz, Jennifer, and Melissa Korn. “Two Parents in College-Admissions Scheme Indicted on New Charge.” The Wall Street Journal, 26 Mar. 2019.

Lombardo, Clare. “How Admissions Really Work: If the College Admissions Scandal Shocked You, Read This.” NPR, 23 Mar. 2019.

Taylor, Kate. “12 People, Including 6 Coaches, Plead Not Guilty in College Admissions Scandal.” The New York Times, 25 Mar. 2019.

__________

That’s Not My Problem: The Bystander Effect in Today’s Society
by Cassidy Remboski, 17

On a frigid night in the midst of Michigan’s polar vortex, I found myself stranded in a grocery store parking lot with an unchangeable flat tire. I was clearly in need of assistance; I was crying and my coat and face were riddled with dried blood splotches from a cut on my finger. Despite this, I was met only with sideways glances from over thirty individuals who likely assumed that someone else was going to help me.

We’ve all been in a situation where we feel compelled to help someone, but something is holding us back. This is called the bystander effect, a phenomenon when we push the responsibility of helping someone onto those around us. A study conducted by John Darley and Bibb Latane in 1968 revealed that while 85 percent of people would respond to someone in need, that number dropped dramatically to 31 percent when they thought four or more people around them also saw the individual (Darley). And in my case, that number dropped to zero.

In short, the more people who are present, the less likely we are to help.

So why is it that we neglect those in need because of others being around? Are we afraid of judgements? If this were true wouldn’t others view us more positively for doing a good deed in the public eye? Are we simply conforming to the inaction of others (Cherry)? If so, why are we trusting their judgements over our own?

Long-term data collected by the General Social Survey dating back to 1972 has revealed that Americans trust each other far less than in the past 40 years; making them evermore hesitant to help even their fellow citizens when in distress (Ortiz-Ospina).

But that leaves those in honest need of aid stranded.

Maybe in that grocery store I didn’t clearly vocalize for help, but maybe I was in a place where I couldn’t ask due to emotional or physical limitation either.

When we judge books by their covers we neglect the facts behind someone’s situation.

As Joe Nocera wrote in his editorial “It’s Hard to Be a Hero” after analyzing the bystander effect, “We don’t really know how we’d act until the moment is upon us. Sadly, science says we’re more likely to do nothing than respond...” (Nocera).

This statement holds true in today’s society, but maybe it’s time to break this cycle of pushing responsibility on others and take it upon ourselves. So next time you see someone in need of assistance, instead of assuming they can handle it or someone else will help, assume that nobody is going to help but you—and maybe in the future when you need help someone will do the same.

Sources

Cherry, Kendra. “Understanding the Bystander Effect.” Verywell Mind, 27 Dec. 2018.

Darley, John M., and Bibb Latane. “Bystander Intervention in Emergencies: Diffusion of Responsibility.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 8, no. 4, 1968, pp. 378–379.

Nocera, Joe. “It’s Hard to Be a Hero.” The New York Times, 7 Dec. 2012.

Ortiz-Ospina, Esteban, and Max Roser. “Trust.” Our World in Data, 22 July 2016.

_________

Drop Everything And Yoga
by Rose Sanders, 17

Imagine this: In a dimly lit room, twenty people are staggered evenly, their phones and daily worries stowed away in cubbies just out of their reach. The gentle cadence of their breathing bathes the space in a soft but constant energy as they flow through different postures. In these forty-five minutes of movement, body, mind, and spirit are reconnected, and any semblance of stress gradually washes away.

What am I describing? Public schools of the future. While it is increasingly popular for offices to offer yoga breaks, we have yet to incorporate yoga into the tense environment of a public school. This introduction could be vital in relieving adolescent stress, as the National Survey of Children’s Health discovered that there was a twenty percent increase in diagnoses of anxiety between 2007 and 2012 in six- to seventeen-year-olds.

There is a certifiable link between teenage anxiety and poor performance in school, as adolescents are forced to balance their home lives, academic success, recreational activities, and navigate social media. A recent study found “a statistically significant association” between anxiety and substandard grades. This pressure only intensifies as students get older and enter the teenage years.

Adolescents spend the majority of their day learning academic subjects to prepare them for their futures, so what better place to teach them to regulate anxiety than with a practice that has the power to change lives?

But why yoga? Yoga leaves the body with more than just a good workout. One study discovered that yoga allowed participants to “focus their mental resources, process information quickly [and] accurately, and also learn, hold, and update pieces of information” better than aerobic exercises. Yoga practitioners also have larger superior parietal cortexes, which are brain areas that increase the ability to focus, as well as enlarged hippocampuses, key brain regions that regulate stress.

Three students at Briarcliff High School reaped these benefits after a parent at the school hired a yoga teacher to “create an opportunity for kids to learn how stress affects our health and emotions and find a way to release tension.” They reported that yoga helped them to prepare for classes by enabling them to concentrate, but also allowed them to relax after their fast-paced days.

With or without a hired instructor, yoga is accessible to everyone through the millions of free online videos that guide viewers in calming yoga sequences. If administrators blocked off a time period weekly to bring yoga into the classroom, they would be investing not only in the academic futures of their students, but giving them a long-term tool to manage their stress as well.

Sources

Castillo, Michelle. “Yoga May Improve Focus, Ability to Remember New Things.” CBS News, 10 June 2013.

Ellis, Fay. “Students Turn to Yoga to Cut Daily Stress.” The New York Times, 9 July 1995.

Mazzone, Luigi, Francesca Ducci, Maria Cristina Scoto, Eleonora Passaniti, Valentina Genitori D’Arrigo and Benedetto Vitiello. “The Role of Anxiety Symptoms in School Performance in a Community Sample of Children and Adolescents.” BMC Public Health, 5 Dec. 2007.

Nutt, Amy Ellis. “Why Kids and Teens May Face Far More Anxiety These Days.” The Washington Post, 10 May 2018.

Sutherland, Stephanie. “How Yoga Changes the Brain.” Scientific American, 1 Mar. 2014.

_________

How “It’s Okay to Be Gay” Has Become a Lie in the Trump Era
by Lane Schnell, 16

Straight people always seem to take delight in telling me, “It’s 2019, no one cares if you’re gay or trans!" As a lesbian, and a relatively socially-conscious one at that, I can confirm that this is a delusion of the highest order. Even if the individuals who claim this aren’t overtly homophobic or transphobic, there are groups within the population who most definitely are. Namely: the current administration, who make it borderline dangerous to be a queer American.

Now, Trump supporters will immediately point to people like Peter Boykin, who runs “Gays for Trump,” as evidence of mutual support between him and the LGBTQ community. However, this “evidence” is immediately counteracted by Trump’s ban on transgender individuals serving in the military. Setting aside its nonsensical nature, the ban is yet another declaration of who the government feels are true citizens. Trump and the GOP have decided that trans people are too much of a “liability” to die for their country, and they’re also trying to make it harder to even live in America and be LGBTQ.

A bill introduced to Congress on March 13, supposed to bring comprehensive anti-discrimination laws to the national level, will now likely fail, due to lack of Republican support. This mirrors the state-level situation, where only 20 states have specific legislation to prevent discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations/services. As Jodee Winterhoff of the Human Rights Campaign notes, “No one’s civil rights should be dependent on what ZIP code they live in.” Unfortunately, that’s exactly the circumstance that many LGBTQ people are in currently, or will be at some point in their future.

Even smaller departments of the federal government are shifting in favor of anti-gay/trans policy. The current head of the Civil Rights Office at the Department of Health and Human Services is Roger Severino, a former civil rights attorney and outspoken critic of same-sex marriage. He has decried the LGBTQ community (falsely) for being “an ideology that’s saying you can only go one way, against your biology,” and he concurs with Trump’s position on trans service members.

But perhaps the most dangerous and destructive policy that Severino has adopted aligns with his “conservative Christian” ideals: he believes that healthcare providers should be allowed to refuse care to gay or trans individuals if they have strong religious or moral objections to the patient’s “lifestyle.” This presents a special danger for the community, especially with violent hate crimes on the rise.

Queer people, therefore, are at a constant risk and disadvantage; the door of opportunity isn’t consistently open for us. We all must continue to challenge the people in power who label LGBTQ lives worth less, because of who we are.

Sources

The Associated Press. “Push for Broader LGBT Rights Slowed by Lack of GOP Support.” The New York Times, 12 Mar. 2019.

Green, Emma. “The Man Behind Trump’s Religious-Freedom Agenda for Health Care.” The Atlantic, 7 June 2017.

Pitofsky, Marina. “‘Epidemic of Violence’: 2018 Is Worst for Deadly Assaults Against Transgender Americans.” USA Today, 28 Sept. 2018.

“Roger Severino.” GLAAD, 2018.

“United States: State Laws Threaten LGBT Equality.” Human Rights Watch, 19 Feb. 2018.

_________

Can We Please Do Our Homework?
by Carolyn Strandberg, 16

As a high school student who struggles in math, I am so grateful that my math teacher has over 100 videos on his YouTube channel that give guidance to those that are mathematically challenged. The ironic part is that almost half of these educational videos are blocked by my school’s internet filter. Now, I am obviously no mathematically whiz (evident by the fact that I spend my free time viewing my math teacher’s YouTube channel), but surely there is nothing too scandalous about conic sections, complex dynamics, and correlation values.

The Children’s Internet Protection Act was created in order to “address concerns about children’s access to obscene or harmful content over the Internet.” While it is most definitely important to protect children from what they are seeing on the web, it is equally important that students are able to take full advantage of the extensive amounts of information that is available to them at their fingertips without being stopped by a robot policing their search topics.

Extensive filters deny students opportunities to research anything that entails even the slightest suggestive or inappropriate slant. Students’ learning opportunities are being hindered due to the fact that many face a technological roadblock when researching topics such as sexual abuse or breast cancer. Important topics such as these may be shied away from in school given the fact that students are not given the tools to learn more about them.

Similarly, filters that are basically telling students what they can and cannot look at are taking away students’ rights and abilities to choose what they view. In many cases, sources such as Wikipedia, Quora, and The Onion are blocked on school WiFi. A statement from the Association of School Librarians says, “Relying solely on filters does not teach young citizens how to be savvy searchers or how to evaluate the accuracy of information.” Kids need to learn critical thinking skills that will allow them not to fall victim to the growing usage of fake news we see today. Students need to learn how to use their own brain to decide what sources are reliable and which ones are purely created for satirical purposes.

If we are to replace the current filters that are hindering students from working as effectively as possible in school, what would we have to replace them? A solution could be to trust the students. A part of the educational system that many schools are failing to teach their students is discretion, self-accountability, and common sense. Decreasing the number of filters comes with an increase in responsibility of the students. Would this really be such a bad thing? Decreasing restrictive filters and increasing student responsibility sure sounds like a win-win to me.

Sources

“Children’s Internet Protection Act.” Federal Communications Commission, 12 Mar. 2019.

Gonchar, Michael. “Are the Web Filters at Your School Too Restrictive?” The New York Times, 27 Sept. 2016.

_________

Insulin: Our Lifeline, Not Our Luxury by Carly Teitelbaum, 15

It is not a privilege to survive.

Diabetics like myself struggle to stay alive, but fortunately, the chronic disease is not as fatal with the proper use of insulin. Yet, since the 20th century, insulin prices have risen drastically and continue to climb year after year.

A study at Yale University found that one in four diabetics ration their insulin due to the skyrocketing prices. 26-year-old Alec Raeshawn Smith was one of those unfortunate diabetics.

After being taken off his parents’ insurance plan, Alec’s insulin cost more than $1,000 a month, so he began rationing his medication; he was neither a candidate for Medicaid nor able to afford it without government assistance. But unfortunately for Alec, both time and insulin ran out.

Alec’s cause of death was diabetic ketoacidosis, meaning he died from an insulin deficiency that resulted directly from the high costs.

For all diabetics, the thought of not having enough insulin, like Alec, shakes us to our core. There are no generic versions of insulin available in the United States, and only three companies control 99 precent of the world’s insulin: Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk. The price for one to two weeks’ worth of Eli Lilly’s Humalog went from $21 in 1996 to $275 in 2017, a 1,309 percent increase in just 21 years. This is approximately $6,600 each year. Drug companies can upcharge for insulin since type 1 diabetics have no other choice; it’s either pay the price or die.

Diabetes is the seventh leading cause of the death in the United States, and charging an absurd amount of money for insulin makes it a privilege for diabetics to survive. If life’s not a privilege for everybody else, why us?

One might suggest a form of insulin that is affordable and easily accessible: Walmart Insulin. Selling for $25 a vial at Walmart, this solution seems almost too good to be true.

That’s because it is.

Walmart Insulin is proven to do more harm than good, such as causing hospitalization due to complications from hyperglycemia.

Companies are finally starting to release cheaper versions of their insulin, and continuing in this direction is the only way to keep our diabetics safe and alive.

9.4 percent of Americans are diabetic, and that number is rapidly increasing. You might not know or love a diabetic yet, but if you do in the future, I hope you do not have to face this fight. We cannot just sit idly by while insulin continues to be exploited. We cannot just sit idly by while these drug companies take our money and our lives into their greedy hands. We must demand lower insulin prices.

Don’t make surviving a privilege. Make it our right.

Sources

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

Nichols, Nicki. “Why Walmart Insulins Aren’t the Answer to High Insulin Prices.” Insulin Nation, 16 Oct. 2016.

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

“Type 1 Diabetes Statistics.” Beyond Type 1, 2018.

Weixel, Nathaniel. “Skyrocketing Insulin Prices Provoke New Outrage.” The Hill, vol. 25, no. 57, 21 June 2018, p. 14.

_________

Tiger Parenting: An Angel in Disguise
by Michelle Twan, 17

I used to not want to be Asian.

My non-Asian friends’ parents were affectionate and never threatened them because of a “B.” Mine were tiger parents, and I despised it. But when they transitioned to a more Western approach to parenting, I saw the effects and changed my mind.

My sister, who’s 11 years older, was raised heavily with tiger parenting, or the authoritarian approach – harsh punishments, little nurturing. Though brutal, it was understandable: my parents wanted their child to have a better life, and this was how they were raised themselves. My sister ended up successful — a Columbia dental school graduate — but she suffered from depression and anxiety because of the tremendous pressure placed on her.

I was also raised with tiger parenting, but my parents became less authoritarian after my sister got into dental school. I’m more emotionally stable than my oldest sister was at my age, but my grades and SAT score are significantly less impressive. Was it because of how I was raised? What would’ve happened if I hadn’t experienced any tiger parenting? Would I have been less motivated? Less worried about my future? If possible, maybe even less intelligent?

This leads me to ask: how should I, an Asian-American, raise my future children?

It’s a question that many American children of Asian immigrants ask. Some Asian-Americans are traumatized by tiger parenting, but it’s part of our tradition, our culture. A New York Times article reports that “we’re largely abandoning traditional Asian parenting styles in favor of a modern, Western approach focused on developing open and warm relationships with our children,” but is that actually good? I want my children to be raised with love, but also with a strict regime that emphasizes the importance of education — a cornerstone of tiger parenting. Tiger parenting leads to success. Asian-Americans attend prestigious universities in large numbers and make up “12 percent of the professional workforce while making up only 5.6 percent of the U.S. population,” my sister included. Tiger parents are intimidating, but effective.

That’s why I want to raise my children through tiger parenting — with enough love to minimize emotional scars but still ensure success: a mix of me and my sister. Other Asian-Americans should consider this, too; after all, with each successive generation, immigrant children do worse, and the absence of tiger parenting is partly to blame. I don’t want my parents’ sacrifices and hardships to be in vain because I didn’t raise successful, intelligent, “Asian” children, and I know the same goes for other Asian-Americans. We’re Americans, but we don’t need to abandon our traditional method of raising children. With tweaks, tiger parenting doesn’t have to be abhorred – it can be embraced and appreciated.

Sources

Gee, Buck, and Denise Peck. “Asian Americans Are the Least Likely Group in the U.S. to Be Promoted to Management.” Harvard Business Review, 31 May 2018.

Park, Ryan. “The Last of the Tiger Parents.” The New York Times, 22 June 2018.

Weissbourd, Richard. “Why Do Immigrant Children Struggle More Than Their Parents Did?” The New Republic, 25 Feb. 2002.

_________

Why We Should Teach The Truth About American History
by Patrick Wang , 16

The bell rings, and I barely make it into my AP U.S. History class. I look up at the board: “Today’s Topic: Slavery.” I do not think much about it because slavery has been a part of the Georgia curriculum since elementary school. What more could I possibly need to learn about? Yet, as I read through sickening excerpts of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” and watch clips of “Twelve Years a Slave,” I can feel the horror building up inside me. I am confronted by my own ignorance, the cruel reality of history clashing with my own sugar- coated understanding. I realize that I have been fed a filtered version of history all my life. In the end, however, I am thankful for the opportunity to learn the truth in my AP U.S. history class, because for millions of other students, the truth is a privilege denied in the name of “patriotism.”

In 2015, College Board’s AP U.S. History course came under fire for “painting American history in too negative a light.” Conservative critics charged that the framework of the course was “biased and unpatriotic,” with GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson even calling the course “so anti-American that students who completed it would be ready to sign up for ISIS.” Many states such as Texas and Georgia even threatened to pull the course all together. Caving under pressure, the College Board changed the AP U.S. History framework to include a new emphasis on “American exceptionalism.”

This controversy brings to light the U.S.’s inability to own up to its past. Whether we like it or not, the U.S. is a country built upon not just democracy but exploitation and injustice. Events like the My Lai massacre and the slave trade are scary and real. We can not casually sweep the ugly pieces of history under the rug and hope that our rosy facade continues to fool the next generation into being “patriotic.” Patriotism is not the pride you feel when you believe that your country has done no wrong. Patriotism is the pride you feel when you know that your country is on the present journey to righting its past wrongs and preventing future wrongs. By indoctrinating students with the idea of “American exceptionalism” rather than teaching them the truth about American history, the only people we end up fooling are ourselves. As the Yale professor of American Studies Jon Butler puts it, “America emerged out of many contentious issues. If we understand those issues, [only then can we] figure out how to move forward in the present.” Thus, knowing the truth about American history should not be a privilege. It is a right.

Sources

Ganim, Sara. “Making History: Battles Brew over Alleged Bias in Advanced Placement Standards.” CNN, 24 Feb. 2015.

Quinlan, Casey. “College Board Caves to Conservative Pressure, Changes AP U.S. History Curriculum.” Think Progress, 30 July 2015.

Schlanger, Zoe. “Revised AP U.S. History Standards Will Emphasize American Exceptionalism.” Newsweek, 29 July 2015.

Simon, Cecilia Capuzzi. “Taking the Politics Out of American History (and Out of A.P.).” The New York Times, 8 Apr. 2016.

_________

A Student Program to Heal a Divided America
by Yu Qi Xin, 15

America’s soul is splitting in two, and it’s not hard to see why.

Part of the problem is messaging. Cable news caters content to divergent audiences. Social media bolsters the extremes: feeds are deep red or deep blue, and programmers in Menlo Park are compensated to keep those colors intoxicating. The other half of the problem is structural. A flight to Milwaukee or Boise can be pricier than one to Milan or Berlin. Soaring real estate prices in cities keep qualified talent from other regions away. Interstate migration, an indicator of labor market dynamism and cultural integration, is down. Americans simply don’t view the whole country as “their own.” The nation aches for efforts to bridge this chasm, to build a less fractured society for future generations.

Such an effort exists in Europe, in the form of the Erasmus Program. Erasmus is an EU-funded scholarship that funds university students to study or work abroad. An small-town kid from a farming family in Crete might be thrown into bustling city life in London. A native Parisian might explore the remnants of Roman civilization in Croatia. Erasmus participants overcome cultural challenges through classroom discussions, shared housing, and a decent amount of partying. Participants gain a home away from home and, according to exit interviews, leave feeling “more European.”

America is not a collection of nation states, but like Europe, we are a divided polity with a weakened ethos. An American Erasmus (we could call it “The Whitman Program,” or maybe something less literary) would give students the opportunity to live and learn in a region of the country they might not otherwise explore. A technical student from inner- city Camden might go live with a family in Huntsville to study space technology. An artistic student from South Carolina could spend a semester with a family in New York to study the Harlem Renaissance. Program directors could pair students according to their cultural and academic interests. The Department of Education could underwrite the program and award distinctions to successful participants. Properly implemented, the program would help youth from across the nation form long-lasting interregional connections. Participants would emerge with a more expansive view of the country and gain a sense of belonging transcending region and tribe.

Such a program should not model itself after Peace Corps or Teach For America. Students would not be deployed as “helpers” to targeted region “in need.” An American Erasmus would create a platform for friendship, unlikely connections, mutual understanding, and some awkward teenage moments. Our divided nation is at a dangerous juncture. More and more Americans are seeing fellow countrymen as “the enemy.” An American Erasmus could help a house divided transform into a house united.

Sources

Caputo-Pearl, Alex. “Teach for America Shows the Downside of Quick Fixes to Education.” The New York Times, 30 Aug. 2012.

“Erasmus Students Feel More European.” Youth Employment Decade, 15 May 2018.

Frey, William H. “U.S. Migration Still at Historically Low Levels, Census Shows.” Brookings, 20 Nov. 2017.

Keegan, Jon. “Blue Feed, Red Feed.” The Wall Street Journal, 18 May 2016.

Schuetze, Christopher F. “Erasmus Exchange Program Celebrates 25th Year.” The New York Times, 29 July 2012.

_________

Moving Forwards: Stopping Volunteer Tourism, by Jack Jian Kai Zhang, 16

No Good Samaritan would intentionally do harm to the 69 million refugees and 766 million individuals living in extreme poverty around the world. Unfortunately, this happens all too frequently. “Voluntourists” are volunteers — often from the West — who pay companies to arrange short-term charity work in poor countries, ostensibly to assist the less fortunate. I’ve seen plenty of my peers’ pictures on these trips. Voluntourists, my friends included, may have noble intentions with volunteering abroad, but they represent the commercial corruption of charity and inadvertently reinforce the imperial conceptions of foreign cultures that contributed to global wealth inequality in the first place. We, both as students and as global citizens, ought to avoid falling into the feel-good trap of direct foreign volunteering.

Firstly, voluntourism agencies divert money from those who need it most. Over two billion dollars are spent each year on agency-arranged voluntourism trips. This sum nearly quadruples the total U.S. economic assistance in 2017 to South Sudan, Syria, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo — all countries with severe humanitarian crises. And yet, despite massive spending on voluntourism, proportionally little good comes of it: at one major voluntourism agency, less than a third of the money spent ultimately reaches communities in need. The rest disappears into administrative costs, advertising spending, and shareholders’ pockets. In terms of financial efficiency, voluntourism falls short.

Even if the financial frictions to foreign volunteering were justified, it remains far from clear that voluntourists are actually able to provide the assistance that they intend to give. For example, the introduction of short-term volunteers to orphaned children can easily cause serious developmental harm. The children, often looking for long-term emotional attachment, end up repeatedly losing their short-term volunteer friends. Indeed, while the United Nations Refugee Agency lists fundraising, planned gifts, and one-time donations under its “How to Help” page, directly volunteering in orphanages is notably absent.

Still, proponents of voluntourism argue that it is better than nothing: costly, yes, but nevertheless a form of much-needed assistance to the less fortunate. However, this defense highlights a less obvious, and arguably more fundamental, issue with voluntourism: its roots in a colonial psyche. The notion that untrained Westerners can meaningfully better foreign communities is both unrealistic and based on an unspoken Western myth of superiority. It is as if foreign cultures will be elevated by speaking Western languages, by conforming to Western culture, and with the direct assistance of amateur Western volunteers. Voluntourism paints a picture of inferiority and dependence for givers and receivers of voluntourism alike. Eliminating this form of international support, which reinforces imperialist visions of “saving” the Global South, will contribute to a future based on mutual respect and solidarity instead of pity and reliance.

Sources

Bearak, Max and Lazaro Gamio. “The U.S. Foreign Aid Budget, Visualized.” The Washington Post, 18 Oct. 2016.

Blackledge, Sam. “In Defence of ‘Voluntourists.’” The Guardian, 25 Feb. 2013.

Hartman, Eric, Cody Morris Paris, and Brandon Blache-Cohen. “Fair Trade Learning: Ethical Standards for Community-Engaged International Volunteer Tourism.” Tourism and Hospitality Research, vol. 14, no. 1-2, 10 June 2014, p. 108-116.

“How to Help.” USA for UNHCR: The UN Refugee Agency, 2018.

Howton, Elizabeth. “Nearly Half the World Lives on Less than $5.50 a Day.” The World Bank, 17 Oct. 2018.

“Refugee Facts.” USA for UNHCR: The UN Refugee Agency, 2018.

Rosenberg, Tina. “How to Really Help Children Abroad.” The New York Times, 23 Oct. 2018.

Wesby, Maya. “The Exploitative Selfishness of Volunteering Abroad.” Newsweek, 18 Aug. 2018.

“Where Does the Money Go?” Projects Abroad, 2014.