“Seeking Asylum” opens in Milledgeville

GC alumni’s photography exhibit on Central State Hospital draws attention to mental health

Rowe

Contributing Writer

Jessica Whitehead, GC alumna and judicial assistant for Superior Court Judge Terry N. Masse of the Ocmulgee Judicial Circuit, has a photography exhibit called “Seeking Asylum” opening Feb. 4 in the W.H. Smith Building in downtown Milledgeville. The exhibit displays the beauty of the abandoned Central State Hospital here in Milledgeville.

Whitehead enhances the colors and ambiance that she was able to find on this campus with a long, sometimes dark history. Whitehead is also working on a book that will complement her exhibit and give insight to her experience while photographing Central State as well as the history around the hospital.

Whitehead credits Dr. Greg Jarvie, a deceased psychology professor from GC, with inspiring her to start researching the hospital’s history.

“For all of the almost 30 years that I knew him, we talked about mental health treatments and facilities,” Whitehead said.

Jarvie encouraged her to learn more about Central State, and she sought to do the history justice with the “Seeking Asylum” project, though she never imagined that it would become this big.

Because of this hospital’s history with mental health, it was important to Whitehead that this project shines a light on mental health. was always about learning more about what she could do to improve the circumstances so many find themselves in.

”The goals of the project are pretty multi-faceted, but one of the main goals is to continue destigmatizing people who have mental health issues,” Whitehead said.

The “Seeking Asylum” project is Whitehead’s self-proclaimed “cre- the hospital’s past and what was left behind.

The stigmatism around mental health, though it has improved through the years, is still difficult for those struggling with mental health to get around, and this is an issue that has always been close to Whitehead’s heart.

Choosing psychology as her major at GC ative outlet” that has also proved to be so beneficial to continuing this dream.

People from the state of Georgia, especially older generations, remember Central State purely as an “insane asylum,” and there have been many ghost stories told throughout the years regarding

One afternoon when Whitehead was taking photographs, she got in her car to move to another area on the campus. While her car was in reverse, she saw a man that she thought to be a security officer in the rearview mirror and back-up camera. She grabbed her permits to show to the officer, and when she got out of the car, no one was there.

Later, while doing more research about Central State, she stumbled across photos of the hospital, including some of male patients dressed like the one she saw behind her car. Whitehead also said that this experience did not deter her from continuing to visit Central State, and whatever presence was there was not threatening.

Jessica Whitehead is also opening an online store with merchandise featuring some of her favorite pictures on sweatshirts, t-shirts, stickers and other knick-knacks. Out of the profits Whitehead makes from book and merchandise sales, she will make regular donations to The Depot in the hopes that the Heritage Center there will reopen one day. People will be able to learn more about Central State Hospital, and donations will be accepted at the exhibit to be used for repair of the water damage at the Brown-Stetson-Sanford House.

“The Mist”

Continued from page 1

Remaining true to King’s original vision, “The Mist” captures the storyline of a father and son taking a trip to the supermarket to stock up on food supplies for an approaching storm. It is there that the father, character, David Drayton, and his son find themselves trapped in a supermarket with other shoppers when a perplexing mist drifts into town. Darabont wanted to capture The Twilight Zone’-esque theme with monsters and other unspeakable creatures lurking behind the translucent mist. Much of this film focuses on the actions of the people within the supermarket, highlighting the differences in their approach to decide what to do about the mist. While some shoppers were focusing on surviving and escaping the supermarket, others were drawn to Mrs. Carmody, a supermarket attendee preaching the gospel, and her religious explanations to this mysterious mist. In attempts to help create a theme for how society can turn on itself during high stress situations, Darabont includes a poster of the 1982 film “The Thing” (a remake of the 1951 film “The Thing From Another World”) within the walls of main character David Drayton’s studio in his home. The film helps to provide a visual depiction of how society, men, acts when they believe that the world may be crumbling. That juxtaposed with the fact that the United States had just entered its fourth year of the war in Iraq and with the most devastating economic recession around the corner, audiences were left feeling very unsettled.

This story, being set within a small town, meant that the patrons attending the supermarket knew each other, further adding to the horror of the events that would happen within those walls. Because the patrons knew each other, any outsiders were highlighted, including Drayton’s neighbor Brent Norton, a lawyer from out of town. These distinctions made between “townies” and “out-of-towners” meant that they did not fit into a survivalist or evangelist faction that the supermarket attendees divided itself into. To combat this, Norton, an out-of-towner, pointedly comments on the fact that himself and the other out-of-towners may “pay taxes here” but remain unwanted. The outof-towners were made to feel like immigrants to the country being ostracized from the group.

Brent Norton was a unique character depicted in this film, not only for the context of its production in 2007, but also in modern times. Following true to many of King’s stories, he is the only African American in an allwhite story. He plays an antagonist, meaning his rationality goes against that of David, the protagonist in the story. While David believes the creatures are real because he witnessed a gruesome scene in the back of the supermarket, Norton believes that there must be a rational explanation for the “creatures” David describes to the group. Norton, clothed with his “rationality,” leads a group of “out-of-towners” into the mist early white main character, to Barack Obama, a lawyer who began his campaign for presidency the same year as the film’s release. Norton’s character relating to Obama in 2007 speaks to a new landscape of racial divide in 2023, with his removal from the story’s narrative. The attendees of the supermarket, where every character is white, are shown guarding themselves from the color. The evangelist in the story, Mrs. Carmody, even makes a comment when speaking towards nonbelievers as believing they are “privileged” to survive and believe they are entitled to this privilege, much as our society believes there is privilege based on race or class rank. in the film, and they are never seen again. The “mystical negro” (Lopez, 2017) is a trope in several of King’s texts. Though not as offensively portrayed as John Coffet in “The Green Mile” John Coffey, Norton proves to be an oddly irrelevant character within this film. With this film being produced in 2007, it is hard not to associate Norton’s character, a lawyer in contrast to a

Drayton, accompanied by his son and other survivors, driving away from the supermarket in attempts to escape the mist. They inevitably run out of gas, and white hero Drayton, kills all of the survivors in attempts to spare a gruesome death at the hands of the monsters in the mist.

A.I. is not our enemy

Abigayle Allen Opinion Editor

OpenAI recently developed a language model named ChatGPT that changes the way in which society views and uses technology. This new model is laced with the ability to work as virtual assistants, a language translator and chatbots used to aid the way in which we interact with technology.

Think of ChatGPT as Siri without an attitude problem. ChatGPT provides a free application that will write or give any information upon asking. Students can use this tool to search for any information desired and to aid in brainstorming new ideas.

While this application is revolutionary in its collection and production of information, educators worry that this new tool will aid too much to a student’s advantage, writing computer generated essays and solving homework problems. Many education boards have even gone as far as blocking this application from school-given equipment and networks in attempts to combat this from happening.

Furthermore, ChatGPT can also be used recklessly. If this technology were to land in the laps of the wrong person, they may learn how to commit a criminal act in seconds. Although the technology may be designed to decline these inhumane requests, there is a possibility to form a loophole. This is possible through the algorithm that ChatGPT runs on. As this technology is used, it retains information and human-like responses, which could cause the reproduction of ambiguous and potentially detrimental information.

Although prone to errors, as more research is done, these kinks could be resolved. As this technology is used, answers could become more accurate. ChatGPT is based on data, meaning it is probabilistic, and the human use of this technology will increase the range of information and give more reliable information.

This proposes a question: Will ChatGPT become a nightmare within a classroom setting?

Although ChatGPT may give an easier and more efficient way for students to cheat, cheating did not commence with the birth of this new technology. Students have practiced and mastered the art of cheating. Whether it be copying their classmate’s homework or simply bringing a cheat sheet into a testing room, the students mist with a horror that’s different – in every sense, including racially. This aids in the scene where the supermarket residents do not try to stop and are almost eager to give Norton up to the mist because of his race. This narrative depicts white-on-white violence that can almost be seen as irrelevant in our society because this violence is mostly overlooked for being incited due to skin who are characterized by cheating will continue to cheat. This is especially true after the COVID-19 pandemic, where most classes were moved online and continue, even now, to run on a hybrid class schedule. Lucky for educators, many anti-cheating detection services have developed services in an attempt to combat this type of plagiarism.

Because cheating with or without ChatGPT is inevitable, how could educators use this service to their advantage in the classroom?

ChatGPT services can be implemented in the classroom for a plethora of reasons. Whether it be to simply aid students in formatting an essay or generating ideas for said essay, these services can be used for good. The flaws in this technology can even be used to the advantage of educators,

Mrs. Carmody’s character not only represents small-town conservatism but also small-town thinking. The store’s attendees are shown dividing themselves into factions, some of which believe she is a disciple, speaking with God’s tongue or that she has lost her mind. Supermarket employee, Dan, describes the attendee’s reactions as “scar[ing] people badly enough … [will] get them to do anything. They’ll turn to whoever promises a solution.” Mrs. Carmody’s character is exhibited as carrying both traditional and frightening beliefs, sharing that her solutions are from holy texts and her “facts” are true, depending on an individual’s personal thinking. In modern times, Carmody’s fears turn inward, and with the viewpoint of Donald Trump’s presidency, we can see how Carmody’s rhetoric, established in religion, can be perceived as societal fears. Her idea, derived from Abraham wanting to sacrifice young boys, can be applied to the dismissal of minorities or other marginalized community members.

The film ends with with the faulty responses that sometimes appear when using ChatGPT services. A popular structure for teaching produced by Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomy explains “the value of material and spread of information” (Barrett, 2023).

Drayton, with no bullets left to end his own life, steps out into the mist to die. Within 10 seconds, the government appears from the mist with everything under control.

In 2007, with the country at war and on the brink of recession, this ending depicts a theme of humanity’s quick will to kill for the greater good. Drayton, believing he is saving his compadres from a horrible death, ultimately comes to find that these actions were unneeded and over the top. In 2023, this ending holds a new truth: The government, unseen and uncaring throughout the film, takes its own time cleaning up their messes.

The government’s arrival at the end of the film will never provide Drayton with comfort because the damage had already been done. The film’s message provides audiences with a piercing look at humanity coupled with this same outlook on government employed by humanity.

“The Mist” remains a truly frightening horror story with its message changing as the years tick on. I can only imagine how its haunting message will remain true in years to come.

Our society and school systems are no strangers to change and reform. It was just three years ago when Zoom became the new format for many of our classes. Rather than letting upgrades in technology and the spread of information deter educators from utilizing its advantages, educators should learn how to incorporate these advances into their lesson plans. In any case, educators are leading a technology-fueled generation, and it would be to their advantage if they prepared for a more digital future.

The 37th President of the United States – Richard Nixon – is among the greatest presidents in our history. Elected twice to the Oval Office – the second time by an overwhelming margin – Nixon’s accomplishments in office were groundbreaking, transformational and inspirational. Indeed, Nixon embraced a moderate, rather than ideological, paradigm to governance and a principled, not partisan, approach to leadership. In fact, even a cursory glance at President Nixon’s accomplishments demonstrated that, under his leadership, the United States prospered economically and forged partnerships internationally. For example, Nixon:

• Ended the military draft.

• Created the Environmental Protection Agency.

• Appointed largely originalist judges to the United States Supreme Court.

• Dedicated $100 million to begin a war on cancer.

• Signed Title IX, which prevented sexbased discrimination in federally funded programs and activities.

• Oversaw the desegregation of southern schools.

• Authorized the joint work between the FBI and Special Task Forces to effectively eliminate organized crime.

• Participated in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) with Soviet Secretary General Brezhnev.

• Signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which substantially reduced the threat of nuclear war between the United States and Russia.

• Became the first President to visit the People’s Republic of China, where he helped to normalize trade relations with the Chinese.

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that in 1972, President Nixon was re-elected in a landslide, with a mandate to lead and an agenda to effect transformative change in domestic and international policy.

Then, Watergate happened.

And that would ultimately lead Nixon, under threat of impeachment, to resign from office, with so many promises unfulfilled and accomplishments unrealized. But that resignation should have never happened. Congress should have never sought to impeach Nixon, particularly in light of his policy and legislative successes, and his actual role in Watergate.

To be clear, Watergate was a third-rate burglary performed by low-level, junior-varsity henchman who were on Nixon’s re-election committee and seeking intelligence on, among other things, the Democrats’ strategy for the 1972 re-election campaign. Unquestionably, this was a criminal act and indisputably, it was morally reprehensible.

But Nixon never authorized the burglary.

Nixon never even knew about the burglary until after it happened.

Given these facts, and Nixon’s overwhelming success as President, why was he impeached? Because he covered it up, often lying to his colleagues and Congress about the extent of his knowledge after he became aware of the burglary. It was the coverup, therefore, not the crime that led Nixon, under threat of impeachment, to resign. The threat of impeachment, however, and subsequent resignation, should never have occurred. It led to the loss of a great leader and ushered in an era of American politics that was characterized by partisanship, polarization, and political gamesmanship.

This opinion may seem controversial, but the basis for this conclusion is not. To begin with, and as stated above, Nixon never authorized or even knew about the burglary until after it happened. Furthermore, at the time of the burglary, it was widely known that the mainstream media, which is overwhelmingly liberal, hated Nixon, and that the Democratic members of Congress were searching for something – indeed anything – to undermine his political power and reputation with the American people. Given this context, what was Nixon supposed to do after he was informed of the burglary? Have a press conference and give the media – and Congress – precisely the ammunition to attack him relentlessly and undermine his legislative agenda? Think about if you were in Nixon’s shoes. What would you have done?

The most likely answer is precisely what Nixon – and former President Bill Clinton –did when faced with damaging scandals. You would cover it up due to fear of the political, not necessarily legal, repercussions. President Clinton, for example, famously held a press conference in which he stated, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. [Monica] Lewinsky.” Well, sure enough, Americans soon learned that Clinton had oral sex with Lewinsky in the Oval Office, and they had the displeasure of learning about the infamous blue dress. Of course, like Nixon, Clinton covered it up too – and if you are honest with yourself, you would too. This is not to say that the conduct of these two men was not reprehensible. It is to say that the coverups were not nearly as reprehensible – or contrary to human nature – as critics, most of whom are politically biased, would suggest.

And the nature of the coverup underscores another critical point that should have prevented the threat of impeachment and Nixon’s eventual resignation. Put simply, Nixon never acted with the requisite corrupt motive that relevant federal statutes required. Specifically, the coverup was not designed to evade legal responsibility for the burglary (nearly everyone involved served time in prison), but to minimize the political fallout that would invariably accompany discovery of the burglary. This is not a distinction without a difference, because corrupt conduct, if entirely politically motivated, is not sufficient to satisfy the statutory elements upon which impeachment was predicated.

Perhaps most importantly, Nixon’s resignation must be viewed in a broader context given the totality of the circumstances. Nixon was an outstanding president. His extraordinary policy and legislative accomplishments benefited the United States domestically and internationally. His moderate approach to leadership (Nixon would likely be considered a Democrat today) was purposeful and principled. Yet, all of his accomplishments, both present and future, were destroyed because of a third-rate burglary, a partisan Congress, and a coverup in which almost anyone in Nixon’s position would have participated. Regardless of these facts, Nixon resigned.

But Clinton didn’t. Why?

Because when Clinton, a Democrat, was president, a democratic majority controlled the Senate. Democrats also controlled the Senate in 1972, but Nixon, who was a Republican, would not get the same courtesy from his political adversaries. Not to mention, George W. Bush, who invaded Iraq based on false and misleading premises, caused the deaths of over 100,000 American and Iraqi citizens. Despite these facts, Bush never faced impeachment. But Donald Trump was impeached not once, but twice, based in part on allegations of collusion with Russia that proved false. Do you see what is wrong with this picture?

Impeachment is not a moral endeavor. It is the height of hypocrisy. It is a political enterprise designed to destroy political opponents. And today, this country needs less, not more political gamesmanship.

Ultimately, given Nixon’s accomplishments and broad public support, one must ask: what public purpose did his resignation serve? Shouldn’t the public good, rather than artificial moral protestations and political tactics, guide leadership decisions? If it did, Nixon would have remained president. And the country would have been better for it. Elvis would probably agree.