Cerritos High School S o m e h a t s a re b e t t e r t h a n n o h a t s BY NICHOLAS NICHOLSON Staff Writer
Executive Editors Hannah Yin Allison Luan Managing Editor Radhika Bhaskar Editorial Editor Frederick Lin Special Feature Editor Aarius K. Frazier Sports and Entertainment Editor Brian Bagorio Staff Writers Ayne Aguilos John Cho Lydia Cho Nathan Chung Yale Chung Cheyenne Edwards Anastasia Han Mary Higgins Grace Kang Debbie Lee Seung Lee Debbie Lee Annie Lin Alex Martinez Ian McDonnell Camryn Mclnerney Nicholas Nicholson Parth Patel Setu Patel Leanne Pichay Adviser Alan Jepsen
Cerritos High School, among other schools, has the hat policy enforced for students every year in order to maintain a specific image and stay in compliance with district rules. In ABCUSD, the hat policy is designed for multiple positive reasons for schools. A huge advantage in banning students from wearing hats that are not school affiliated is that students will not give off the impession that they have any possible gang affiliation. There are several sports teams with specific logos or specific colors that could be tied into gangs and the school would not want students going around promoting gang affiliation or violence. However, CHS does allow students to have student apparel such as visors and caps for the students to wear on campus. This is not a violation of the hat policy because it is school approved and, maening if it is approved by the school, one is able to freely wear the apparel on campus. Senior Alex Martinez does not see the purpose of wearing the hats in general and is fine with the policy “We don’t need the hats at school, “ said Martinez. In addition, Adding the current hat policy would be easier handling of student identification when something happens. Imagine seeing a student destroying school property (knocking cans over, riding their skateboards, and so on) but you cannot identify them because their hat is in the way of showing their face. Administration and SIAs would need to be able to see who is in charge of these wrongdoings and students wearing certain hats might keep them from being identified as easily. Students must be apprehended for their actions and shouldn’t be able to just sneak by since they are covering
themselves with a hat. “Everyone’s face is visible at all times,” said CHS Senior Mikayla Washington. “You can easily identify students,” said English teacher Janis Lake. Stealing is prominent almost anywhere whether it is at school or not, it can and has several times occurred. If someone has on a hat that another person or student likes and they decide to take it, not much can be done because the student whom it belongs to should not have had it on in the first place. A theft report could be made but the student who the hat belonged to could face consequences for violating school policy. It is definitely a lose-lose situation for students because one can be charged with a crime and the other gets less of a penalty and is simply given the school’s choice of consequences. Along with gang affiliation and negative connotation in general, students could potentially also hide drugs or weapons in their hats. Most weapons that you would see a student unfortunately carrying on campus would be something like a switchblade or a pocket knife which could more than likely fit in a hat and go unseen unless withdrawn. Drugs may be hidden within hats as well and also go undetected by SIAs or any other form of administration around the campus. One of the final cons of hats could be students cheating or helping others cheat. They may have papers with answers hidden somewhere in their hats and it could lead to serious penalties and stronger enforcement of the hat policy, not to mention the consequences of cheating. That goes on students’ personal records and I doubt that anyone would want to be seen by colleges as a hat-wearing cheater.
“They may have papers with answers hidden somewhere in their hats and it could lead to serious penalties and stronger enforcement of the hat policy...”
Cartoon by Mary Higgins
October 31, 2016
Airstrikes in Aleppo BY ANDREW SONG Staff Writer
Thousands of people --including children-- are dying for no reason. Millions of civilians are displaced due to perilous airstrikes. Billions of civilians in the global community are wasting time by worrying about a conflict that can never be solved with inaccurate weaponry and leaders who despise each other. The Syrian conflict spurred in 2011 between Bashar al-Assad, the president, and the civilians of his country due to a small conflict including less than ten people. As protests became more valiant, enforcement measures became merciless as well, resulting in an all-out war where war crimes and the use of chemical weapons runs rampant. On top of this, the Islamic State (IS), being an unrestrained and successful terrorist group, found victory by claiming the lives of over 2,000 people by 2015. The United States, alarmed by the success of IS, decided to launch the first airstrike in 2014, along with Russia following along in 2015. An airstrike is any attack made by air, usually delivered by Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) since sending in physical pilots deems unnecessary and dangerous. Russia and the US have created a disaster by initiating airstrikes in Syria, including Aleppo. At first, the attacks seemed great. Terrorists were being killed. Mission accomplished. Statistics have shown that the airstrikes have proven to be highly effective against the terrorist groups. As a matter of fact, the US was able to kill the Taliban leader, Omar Mansoor, in July. Russia has also been very successful by strategically attacking the oil supply of ISIS, which results in money deficit for the extremists. Airstrikes seemed awesome from these statistics, However, the darker side of the statistics are the civilian casualties. Airstrikes do indeed kill terrorists, but they also kill innocent civilians - a lot of them. In Pakistan of 2004, the US has killed nearly 424 to 966 civilians by mere accident. Of course, this sparks controversy and renders the airstrikes useless. 40 to 60 new terrorists are formed, in theory, for every civilian killed since every person deceased may have several close relationships with other people. Those people who had the close relationship seeks vengeance, and thus joins extremist groups, which is extremely easy to do, especially in the middle east. Therefore, when doing the math, the US has created 16,960 to 57,960 new terrorists in Pakistan alone. These airstrikes are literally creating more terrorists, which negates the initial purpose of sending in these airstrikes. Airstrikes are useless. On top of the catastrophic effect on civilians, airstrikes have created a proxy war between the US and Russia, where some experts claim that this will be the cause of World War III. Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, and President Obama have polar policies about Aleppo. Putin assists the Syrian Government and regularly sends in Russian troops in assistance to fight IS. Obama, on the other hand, supplies rebel groups in the area with aid to overthrow the Syrian government and fight IS. Both policies incorporate the destruction of extremists, but also incorporate the destruction of each other. This form of proxy war is nearly as strong as the Cold War. The airstrikes have sparked even more tension, as the US “accidently” killed several Syrian officials along with terrorists in an airstrike. Turkey, who has good relations with the US, has also “accidently” shot down a Russian UAV. In other words, the proxy war is true, and Putin and Obama hate each other. Airstrikes are useless and negate their initial purpose of killing terrorists. These attacks cannot be used in a more precise manner, and thus should not be used at all. By killing innocent civilians, the action itself is amoral. On top of this, airstrikes may be a contributing factor to a possible World War III due to the proxy war, which will definitely cause genocide. Airstrikes should not be used.