Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Eye of the Editors CHANGING TEACHERS | Some students at Diamond Bar have switched their teachers countless times, while others have not had the benefit of such an option. Every year there is the same mad rush to change classes. Students swarm grade level coordinators’ offices in a desperate attempt to get this teacher or that teacher. The inconsistency and bias among the GLCs, however, turns this annual tradition into an unpredictable, and often unfair, process Simply by luck, certain students have a better chance of changing teachers based on who their GLC is. Some GLCs are notorious for being inconvincible when it comes to altering a student’s schedule, while others are well-known for being overly flexible. However, it is not acceptable that students should rely on pure luck in order to determine their schedule. What teacher a student has may not only affect the students’ experience during the year, but also their grades and performance on AP tests. Therefore, there must be a more uniform policy across the board in order to give all students an equal chance at success. This is especially important when prejudice and favoritism are taken into consideration. As responsible as our GLCs may be, they are still human. They may be more partial to some students than others, and obviously, this is a factor when deciding whether to switch a student’s class. This creates a skewed system that is difficult to understand and even more
difficult to defend. Also, the huge number of students switching teachers leads to an unbalanced proportion of pupils in certain classes. One teacher may have, at most, 16 or 17 students while other classes may be bursting at the seams. This leads to overcrowding and will drastically reduce the educational experience of each student. In addition, much of this switching of teachers occurs on registration day. This automatically puts students with earlier registration days at a serious advantage as classes may fill up before these later students have the chance to switch their own classes. This directly contradicts the school administrators’ assertion that schedules are made prior to registration and the appointment dates have no real influence. To eliminate the ability of GLCs to bypass more formal measures, the school should disable the feature in Aeries that allows GLCs to freely change a student’s classes. The school administration should also be more transparent with their policies. The policies should not be some unspoken secret that only a few are privy to. All students should be aware of the procedures and should be treated fairly by all grade level coordinators in order to create an equal educational environment.
EDITORIAL
THE BULL’S EYE
5
QUESTION:
Should students be free to change their schedule based on their preference?
“No, because students should just deal with the teachers they are given [...] Teachers don’t change how hard you should be working.”
—Catherine Palanca,
Senior
“No, but if they already had that teacher and he or she was a bad teacher, then they should be able to.”
—Siham Ayoub, Junior
“No, because if they chose their own class, they would want to hang out with their friends.”
—Rashad Marshall,
Senior
“Yes, that way they can take classes for which they have a passion allowing them to accelerate in their classes.”
—Harry Moon,
Eye of the Editors is an editorial piece of The Bull’s Eye. Statements and opinions expressed in the article herein are strictly those of the editors of The Bull’s Eye. The view of the editors does not necessarily reflect that of the entire staff.
Junior
Valedictorian Denied Diploma A valedictorian was unjustly punished after using the word “hell” in her graduation speech. BY KATLYN LEE ASST. NEWS EDITOR
D
espite teenagers’ frequent use of swear words, schools have been attempting to control profanity and negativity from their students by implementing new consequences, such as student conferences or suspensions. However, there is a certain boundary to these consequences, a boundary that Prague High School in Oklahoma has undoubtedly overstepped by
taking away a right all competent and accomplished students fully deserve: receiving their hardearned diploma. Instead of taking such extreme measures, the Prague High School should keep in mind that it cannot punish students for exercising their freedom of speech. The high school’s 18-year-old valedictorian, Kaitlin Nootbaar, was honored with the opportunity to deliver a graduation speech. According to her father, the graduate shared in her speech how her aspirations for her future career had changed over her four years in high school. When others wondered what she wanted
to pursue as she approached graduation, she answered, “How the hell do I know? I’ve changed my mind so many times.” Although her fellow students were laughing and applauding in response to her tastefully colloquial speech, her principal, David Smith, was not. When Nootbaar and her father visited the school office to pick up her diploma, the principal refused and explained that there was a problem. Smith was not pleased with Nootbaar’s profanity in her speech and demanded that Nootbaar issue a written apology to him and the faculty members of Prague High School.
Not only is the school making an unnecessarily extreme decision over a word uttered in a speech largely enjoyed by the audience, but it is also depriving the valedictorian of her freedom of speech. A student should not have to feel remorseful about what he or she says, especially if it no harm was intended. Nootbaar was not using “hell” to offend or affront a specific person or a group of people. The straight-A student told her parents that her choice of words were inspired by another graduation speech given in the “Twilight” movie “Eclipse,” and that she was simply expressing her
frustration about her future. Even after making their absurd demand for an unnecessary apology, the school and the administrative board could not fully justify their decision. The superintendent claimed that the valedictorian used inappropriate language for a graduation exercise. Despite this claim, Nootbaar should not be punished for exercising her freedom of speech. Prague High School should either provide reasonable explanation for its offensive actions or award Kaitlin Nootbaar the diploma she earned, in order to rectify their unjustifiable action.
Drug Testing Professional Athletes PRO | Drug testing is imperative to keep all sports clean. BY JOSEPH PARK ASST. SPORTS EDITOR
M
any believe drug test for professional sports nationwide are overused to the point where it may be considered intrusive. Drug tests for professional athletes should remain the way they are now or be intensified to confirm that there are not any athletes taking performance enhancing drugs. The number of drug tests that athletes take should not be reduced because of a few complaints. The tests’ only purpose is to ensure the safety and fairness of the athlete and the sport involved. Performance enhancing drugs such as anabolic steroids are illegal. Every sport would be played unfairly with a ratio of the athletes taking steroids. Steroid-using athletes use these drugs to take the easy way out to build muscle and bulk up in a short period of time, primarily to have a speed and strength advantage over their opponents. This shortcut should be eliminated because the majority of athletes work hard to compete with the cheaters. To make sure there are no athletes who cheat their way out with performance enhancing drugs, drug tests should be held consistently, or even more often, when suspicions rise against an athlete. Thorough
check-ups should be given to all athletes even though it requires severely pestering them. They drag innocent athletes into these tests due to the liars who cheat their way out of situations. Due to the lack of trustworthiness caused by numerous lying athletes, Lance Armstrong was continuously tested for drugs because of suspicious surroundings his amazing accomplishments, such as winning Tour de France seven consecutive times after surviving testicular cancer. Although he repeatedly stated that he did not take drugs, he was not believed. The hundreds of drug tests that Armstrong underwent did, in fact, prove him innocent. If the sport’s officials had only relied on testing, Armstrong would be considered a clean athlete. Plenty of athletes have been proved guilty with the aid of drug tests. Alex Rodriguez is considered to be one of the best all-around baseball player of all time. However, he tested positive of anabolic steroids in 2003. Rodriguez’s drug test emphasizes the point that performing enhancing drug tests should be required for even the biggest starts. Even though testing officials may go a little overboard with constant accusations such as in like Armstrong’s, complaints about drug tests should not be taken into consideration. At the end of the day, there will be athletes who lie and athletes who tell the truth, and under any circumstance, the only way to find the truth is a drug test.
CON | Drug testing organizations can bring more harm than good. BY ANDREW CHOI ASST. SPORTS EDITOR
T
o ensure that every team is playing by the rules, every athlete has to take a drug test. Such tests are necessary for every sport because gaining an undeserved advantage is cheating. Although drug tests have been proven helpful in convicting many elite athletes, such as Manny Ramirez and Alex Rodriguez, the results should be taken with a grain of salt. People should not always trust the drug tests for they can be misleading and eventually hurt each athlete’s respective sport. Even the tiniest of suspicions that someone is using illegal performance enhancing drugs can cause officials to go overboard. Former cyclist Lance Armstrong, considered one of the greatest cyclists ever, has been accused of using steroids since 1999 due to his Toure De France championship win after being diagnosed with testicular cancer. Armstrong would later win five more consecutive championships from 2000-2005. Suspicion from the United States Anti-Doping Agency of Armstrong rose even higher as a result of his incredible feat. Recently, Armstrong gave up the fight against the charges from the USADA and has consequently been banned from competitive cycling. The USADA has also
stripped the world-renown cyclist from his seven championship wins, despite the hundreds of drug tests he passed. The USADA should stop badgering athletes who have not failed tests about steroids even if their accomplishments are off the charts. For example, basketball player Kobe Bryant is by far one of the greatest players to play the game. He did not get those accomplishments from using performance enhancing drugs—he got it by hard work. The USADA and other testing groups should know that players go to the extreme in their workout just to accomplish a goal, most without using drugs. Most times, drug tests are considered reliable when used to convict an athlete of using illegal substances. However, before the start of the 2012 Major League Baseball season, reigning National League MVP Ryan Braun was accused of using illicit performance enhancing drugs. Even though he had passed previous tests, he was still suspended for 50 games. When Braun appealed against the suspension, he was cleared from the sentencing because the sample collector who dealt with Braun’s urine left it in his refrigerator for two days before shipping it to the lab. Therefore, the sample was considered contaminated, raising suspicions about whether or not Braun used drugs. A single accusation of a player using steroids can do harm not only to the athlete but to the sport as well.