Page 1



SCOPE The Dark Horse: Social Media's Impact On The # MeToo Movement US Intervent ion: W here It Went Wrong W hat 's Next For t he U.S.-China Trade War?

SEPTEM BER 1, 2019

THE DARK HORSE What is social media's impact on the #MeToo movement? As a Swahili proverb states, ?unity is strength and division is the weakness.? Sexual assault is a horrible issue dividing America today. A few years ago perpetrators were brought to justice but, it cannot be certain if this was because of #MeToo movement or because of an increase in technological advancements. W hich brings about the question of, ?Did Social Media Impact The #MeToo movement?? The movement entitled #MeToo was known to create resolution for many men and women suffering. None of this solvency would have been possible without social media. Social media arose increasing communication triggering social change, and caused perpetrators to be convicted, and finally, this movement effectively gave those suffering a voice. But first, social media is a dark horse: a savior in the night for those suffering from sexual assaults in Hollywood. Social media effectively increases the amount and variety of people being brought together. Instagram alone has approximately 800 million users as of

September of 2017. The Pew Research Center did a report on this and found, ?Some 78%of 18- to 24-year-olds use Snapchat, and a sizeable majority of these users (71%) visit the platform multiple times per day. Similarly, 71%of Americans in this age group now use Instagram and close to half (45%) are Twitter users,?(Pew Research Center) People of all stages of life are being brought together by different social media platforms especially young people. Stimulus material, of the source entitled ?Social Media & The Movement of Ideas?puts this ideology in new limelight. It discusses how social media increased connections when there were more people using it. Thus the number of people using encourages social movements such as the #Metoo movement, ?The number of people using social media accounts grew so much as did the amount of global and national connections,?(Kessler). Social media has become an important part of our online lives in a short period of time,?Social media sites have grown exponentially in the last 5 years and control has moved from website owners (dominant in the 1990s to website users. This

means social media is not a communication tool; it enables connections. It enables affiliation, interest group formation, and solidarity in new ways,? (Kessler) W ith an increase of connections between people, trends and social change became more inevitable and widespread. This is further proved in a book by authors Ritabrata Mallick (Amity University Gwalior, India) and Shri Prakash Bajpai (Amity University Gwalior, India). The book discussed how social media spread awareness of environmental issues through social media,?Social media has become a part of the present-day lifestyle. W ith the advancement in industrialization, science, technology, and globalization, various environmental issues are brought to light both and globally. This social media can be utilized as a tool to promote awareness regarding various current environmental issues in a much faster way and to a large mass within a very short span of time.?(Narula, Sumit) Social media has the power of communities and cultures being brought together by the click of the thumb. A problem-plagued Hollywood and the country for years. In Hollywood,

specifically many young children suffered in silence. Not having any power over the adults they were working with they were scared to ask for help when they were struggling. Trends and social change such as the #Metoo movement were facilitated by the connections brought about by social media. For example, an article about celebrities who finally people through this social movement found that ?263 celebrities, politicians, CEOs, and others who have been accused of sexual misconduct since April 2017.?(North) These people were effectively brought to justice in the means of the legal system. Before this hashtag people were scared of being judged because they felt there did not have any power over their perpetrators. This movement successfully brought together an accepting community that effectively fought for social change that would not have occurred without the usage of social media. Next, the perpetuation of societal change due to the increase in connections resulted in an increase in perpetrators being successfully brought to justice through their victims. Specifically, a journal on #Metoo discussed this idea effectively. The author,

Nadia Brown, shares her story of how the #Metoo movement gave her a voice and her own form of justice, ?The details are too difficult, too painful to write or to speak, but I will say, that my spirit left my body and I heard my own screams, from across the room. My story from the 1970s is compared below to a story from the 1990s and then to what is happening today. One of the comments by the judge was, ?If you had not been wearing a short dress, this might not have happened.?My father did most of the speaking and agreed with the judge that probation was a fair sentence for the man. I told this story publicly for the first time as a keynote speaker for ?Take Back the Night?march at Purdue University in 2018 having been strengthened by the discourse of a movement called #MeToo?(Brown) This story discussed specifically that a common story in the 1970s and 1990s was that women would report misconduct and rape but the victims would be blamed. This movement took the blame off of the victim, and gave them the justice that the United States justice system failed to give them. The United States government is based on participatory democracy. However, by victim shaming, we only perpetuated these gender inequities. This is where social media came to play. It gave people a voice when the government did not give them one. At least allowing these women to be able to have a voice in all the torture they have had to suffer is justice in itself. This would not have been possible without social media influence. Stimulus

material, Bob Dylan's song ?Blowin with the W ind? discusses change not occurring with the status quo effectively which can be easily applicable to the ethical viewpoint of why justice had not been occurring without social media change,?How many years can a mountain exist. Before it's washed to the sea??(Dylan) From interpreting this quote it has been found that it means,?How long can one continue to put up with societal problems and doing nothing before getting washed away by them?? This applies to the claim that the #Metoo movement took place because of social media because people stood by doing nothing to bring these perpetrators to justice for years because of fear. They had their lives torn apart and destroyed. They were not given a voice in society so they used this movement to bring themselves justice that was necessary. Social media in the future will continue to positively affect social movements and continue to bring justice to people who are unable to find justice in the United States legal system. Next, not only does social media give justice to Americans, but it also effectively gave women a voice. Through all the positives come a few irrelevant negatives, it may be said that social medias stigma cannot be overlooked. Suicide is the second most common cause of death for people from the ages of 10-24. Mental illness and substance abuse are on the rise. Many blame social media. But with the massive impact social media has on connections it would not

make sense to halt usage, especially when the psychological impacts on certain groups are entirely positive. The National Library of Medicine did a study on the psychological benefits that social media usage had on cancer patients. It specifically discussed,?To ascertain the prevalence of depression among cancer patients with reference to the use of social networks, 316 cancer patients in the Association of Cancer Patients and cancer-related centers in Tehran at 2015 were evaluated. Depression was measured using the Beck Depression Inventory. Data were analyzed by the Chi-square test with SPSS software.?(Farpour) The results of this incredibly successful study found,?61% (N=192) of patients were depressed. Interestingly, a significant difference was observed between depression in users and non-users of social networks (p=0.001), 33.9% and 66.1%being affected, respectively. The results of this paper have demonstrated that the users of the social network are less depressed.?(Farpour) This study directly disproves the point others may make that the stigmas surrounding social media cannot be overlooked even if they effectively bring others together. Since there is actually a positive effect on people that are suffering from cancer it can be seen that not only does it effectively combat social change but it helps patients suffering from depression recover. Thus, this point can be effectively overlooked seeing as the stigma and negative consequences of increased usage of social media are

minimal. Social media effectively gives women a voice because some women are unable to bring light to the issue of sexual misconduct in the workplace. Just like in the case of Susan Fowler,? Susan Fowler had tried going to human resources. She had tried going to her managers. She had tried transferring departments. But nothing changed. The sexual and sexist comments she received as an engineer at Uber kept coming. So she went online and wrote a 3,000-word blog post exposing the behavior.? (Miller) This blog post did damage to her colleges and finally allowed her to make change in her workplace,?A year later, a raft of executives, including Travis Kalanick, Uber?s co-founder and chief executive, are gone. Ms. Fowler, meanwhile, has a new job, a book contract, and a movie deal,?(Miller) W hilst she had tried to speak up with the issues she had been dealing with on a daily basis she tried to find her voice but was unable to. She and many other women could make a change because of the equal platform social media can offer. Choosing to not encourage social media users to find their voice and continue using platforms in schools is only going to be encouraging a silent generation of minorities suffering in silence. W hich is exactly why in schools we should be encouraging social media instead of the opposite. In schools currently, social media is being discussed in schools as something that encourages body dysmorphia and depression. This is not the intent. The overall intent of social media is incredibly positive. 3 MAGAZINE NAME

This is why it would not make sense to discourage this in schools. Instead, health classes must encourage students to find their voice and make social media a positive platform. The only reason social media has been a negative platform in some ways is because of the conversations an images that are not started a positive conversation. Encouraging students to use social media to change the negative conversations into positive ones is how changing and shaping the internet would be effective. To conclude the analyzed information, conversations on the internet are inevitable whether or not you like the topic being discussed. Due to the reasons that social media arose increasing communication triggering social change, caused perpetrators to be convicted, and finally, this movement effectively gave those suffering a voice. It needs to be effectively communicated that without social media there would not be nearly as many sex offenders brought to justice today. This would make it clear that without the #Metoo movement there would still be a growing number of people suffering from the memories of being sexually assaulted with no justice for the person who caused this tarnish to their life. People may discuss how there are plenty of horrible negative conversations being put out on the internet as a whole. This is likely occurring because teachers are not encouraging students to use social media in a positive manner. Then at home parents are refraining from

discussing social media and only telling their children not to post immature things. Thus, everyday American people have the opportunity to let the internet divide them through controversial posts meant to cause people to get hurt just so internet fame can be established. This is why it must be encouraged that the right choices are made to continue to effectively unify American constituents by schools having a required unit in health classes that specifically talks about how to use social media responsibly. Then, we will see a change of conversation and a even more positive change in society as a whole, by making conversations more positive will we see more movements comparable to the #Metoo movement. This will only create more societal change. Tiffany Taller



Unit ed St at es Int er vent ion: Wher e It Went Wr ong oung Un, at the age of 5, only knew yellow ribbons and scribbled crayon pictures. But in the year 1975, Loung quickly learned that playtime was over. The Khmer Rouge, a communist insurgency group, had achieved their long awaited goal; a complete takeover of Cambodia. After President Gerald Ford recalled troops from South Vietnam and the remainder of Southeast Asia, a deteriorating situation detonated. The Khmer Rouge wasted no time to seize power and take advantage of the situation, cursing Cambodia to be a subject under communism for years. But while the Khmer Rouge has the majority of Cambodian blood on their hands, Uncle Sam has a considerable amount dripping from his fingers. W hile the US did not directly institute a murderous regime in Cambodia or build grueling labor camps, indirectly they helped these things come to fruition. This is not a first in US Foreign Policy, as over the course of decades american intervention has been sloppy and destructive, rarely taking into consideration the regional and cultural factors that make geopolitical conflicts so complex. On the other hand, this is not to say that US intervention should cease, but rather this work encourages the opposite; a more active and comprehensive intervention strategy. Over the course of this paper we will analyze several conflicts and diplomacy operations, and observe how they relate to a universal trend in US foreign policy.


1954, the North Vietnamese W orker?s Party begins aiding the communist South Vietnamese rebels and their crusade against the democratic government. Eventually, sometime

around the 1960?s, the US begins involvement. However while the US, under President Richard Nixon had good intentions, they merely made the war worst and can even be blamed in part for why Vietnam is communist today. The fatal flaw of US intervention in Vietnam, was that the US did not take care to adapt to the guerilla tactics of the North Vietnamese militias and did not take care of the innocent populations disproportionality affected. W ithout any utilization of safety zones for infrastructure rebuilding and humanitarian relieve, many of the South Vietnamese caught in the crossfire had no choice but to turn to communist rogue forces for survival. In addition, the US tried to fight South Vietnam?s war, rather than equip South Vietnam with the weaponry and intelligence they needed to fight their own battle. And to top it all off, the US began dropping bombs like it was passing out candy, giving illiberal forces in Southeast Asia all the ammunition they needed for the perfect propaganda regime. Had the US created a network of safety zones for civilians, aided in humanitarian efforts, and took care to adapt their offensive strategy; the Vietnam war may have had a different, less bloody outcome. Decades later, you would assume that American policymakers would change their tune?The answer to that is sadly, no. In fact during 2002, the US engaged in yet again another war, one that we?re still fighting today; The Afghanistan W ar. After the 9/ 11 massacre, President George W . Bush was determined to protect the American people by engaging and winning the ?war on terror?, and one of his prime targets was Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a South Asian nation that borders the Middle East, for years the Soviet Union consolidated power

over the country during the Cold W ar, but when the US wanted to combat the spread of Russian authoritarianism, they decided to fund the Mujahedeen (later known as the Taliban). Ironically, after the Soviets were pushed out of the small nation, the Taliban consolidated power and instituted a new authoritarian regime. For 16 years the US has been fighting in Afghanistan simply due to a careless foreign policy decision. The US needs to intervene, but they should regulate and monitor militias they sponsor to ensure they don?t cancel one problem out with another. W hen returning back to the Bush administration?s approach to Afghanistan they had to a degree attempted this, but it was never fully implemented. Hence why to this day the US is fighting a battle it cannot win, the citizens in Afghanistan do not trust the US, and the more failed bombings and raids we conduct, only result in their resentment for America?s ?star spangled hammer of justice?. The current Trump Administration has a ?new strategy?in Afghanistan that involves utilizing allies, it's important that they also consider our allies to be the local people who are struggling to defend their families from slaughter. During my freshman year of High School, my friends were convinced that South Sudan wasn?t a real country. And for awhile this was funny, but looking back now it only appalls me, considering the fact that

South Sudan has been struggling with a nationwide genocide for years. But nevertheless it only highlights how distant Americans are to global issues of violence, hunger, and economic disparity. The simple fact is as Americans; we don?t know and thus don?t care. To bring some context, South Sudan was originally apart of Sudan, a North African country with high Muslim population. The southern part of Sudan was home to millions of non Islamic ethnic groups that were constantly battling the discriminatory northern government. Eventually, around 2005-2011, President Obama and the UN officiated the separation of the South from the North, sounds pretty good right?W rong. Although the separation of the two populations was needed, the US went a step further that condemned South Sudan for a path of bloodshed and political instability.

when the former Vice President turned against the country. In fact, even in recent peace talks between the African Union and the two warring ethnic groups, the US is as absent as ever. As I stated earlier, Intervention is a good thing, in the book ?TheClash of Civilizations?, Samuel Huntington explains that when the US gets involved in global conflicts it can only be effective when we realize that not every country is the same and we stop trying to make our goal westernization. He goes on that because the US adopts a policy of one size fits all, we don?t understand the nuances of cultural clashes and thus only make the situation worse. But he


he Government quickly elected its president, Salva Kiir, who then asked Riek Machar to be his Vice President. The problem was that South Sudan has over 60 ethnic groups, each with their own traditions and rivals. The two major groups are the Dinka and the Nuer who happen to be long time rivals. W hen the two groups attempted unity, it failed miserably, resulting in a corrupt, military based government. Eventually, President Kiir got rid of his Vice President, who then with his own militias against the Government. This all resulted in one of the most devastating massacres in history, according to the Council on Foreign Relations Global Conflict Tracker, over 50,000 people have been killed and over 4 million are displaced. Child soldiers, forced cannibalism, and rape are common as the police even turn on citizens. The economy is an utter disarray with a rising inflation rate. And where is the US?Nowhere at all. The US didn't intervene when the government began to radicalize nor


also points out, that doing nothing is not the better alternative either. The world is complex, but when the US takes time to forge connections to developing countries and understand new cultures, not only do we have a more diverse world but a more

progressive and prosperous one as well. In the movie, First They Killed My Father, Loung struggles with how a rouge regime could even get power in the first place. Five-year-olds should not have to learn how to wield guns or be forced to scavenge for food. W hich is why the United States, as the leader and founder of the ?International Liberal Order?, must maintain its responsibility and adopt a more comprehensive and effective foreign policy, Especially in the times of ?America First?, we must remember not ?America Only?. Safety zones and specialized local militias are a great start. Harnessing growth and education with modern infrastructure projects is the ideal path. But most importantly, learning both the political and cultural problems of a country (developing or developed) is vital to actual growth and success towards peace. I write this article solely to urge present day youth to read about what's going on in the world such as the Taliban in Afghanistan, the South Sudanese Civil W ar, and even other topics I did not have the chance to cover such as the Myanmar Genocide. Because while these problems may seem miles and oceans away, everything in global politics is connected, and when we turn our back on the world, eventually, the world turns its back on us. JulietteReyes

The Changing Face of Policy exual abuse and harassment scandals seem to infiltrate some of the most beloved industries such as woman?s gymnastics and Hollywood film making. W hen these came to light and were exposed to the public, the United states seemed to halt everything and focus on the impact of the abuse, but we, as citizens of the United States, didn?t quite recognize policy making going on afterwards on how to halt these scandals from happening in the first place. This article isn?t another outspoken piece on what policies are best but how the 2020 presidential election could happen to change the face of sexual abuse and harassment prevention policy.


W ith the 2020 presidential election approaching quickly you can recognize some of the most outstanding amounts of candidates on the democratic side we have ever had in history. This is important to note because that means we have a lot of choices and how those choices view policies of the United States, specifically, sexual abuse and harassment policies. W ith this article we are going to analyze the workings of campaign management specifically on the democratic side because it?s the most prevalent on acting on issues of sexual abuse and harassment. We are clearly going to see that this opportunity will most likely cause a cultural impact on sexual abuse and harassment in America. We have to start at the #MeToo movement. This movement used the power of social media and support from victims to speak out on the issue that is sexual abuse and harassment. W ithout this movement people would still be hiding in the shadows of fear. Not only this, it sparked a movement within government officials and sponsors to target sexual abuse and harassment as a focal point

of campaigns. W hen you talk about the #MeToo movement you can see it changed the viewpoints of major officials within the government. This is a major development in what officials are going to target when coming to the 2020 presidential election. Not only that, but when the candidate is chosen for the presidential election this may be the tipping point for them being chosen as President. Campaign management is a huge part of any candidate at any state of the race for presidency. W ithin campaign management there is also political consultants that direct what your campaign should aim for changing. They also help draw support for your campaign. One of the biggest political consultants for this upcoming election is one named Bright Compass. It is a Democratic consulting firm that is providing 2020 campaigns with services around sexual harassment prevention. This was started by Dallas Thompson because she was influenced by the #MeToo movement. She was also in the political campaign field for a while and saw how she was harassed in that field and felt a consultant like this is imperative during our country?s transitioning point revolving sexual abuse and harassment. Bright Compass specifically looks at policies of candidates by performing policy reviews. This is basically a questioning tool to see where the candidate?s

campaign lands in the spectrum of what they are trying to achieve policy wise, but with Bright Compass they?re looking at sexual abuse and harassment policy which surprisingly is on a lot of candidates campaign list. According to a Greenwich Times article posted on July 14, 2019, The campaigns of Sen. Kamala Harris, President Donald Trump, Sen. Cory Booker, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, former Rep. Beto O'Rourke, Sen. Elizabeth W arren, and Sen. Bernie Sanders confirmed to INSIDER that their campaigns have specific harassment policies. According to BuzzFeed, Sen. Amy Klobuchar has also developed specific harassment policies (I would like to clarify that not all listed are partnered with Bright Compass). W hen Bright Compass can define what policies the candidates are firm on, they create live situations to look at the gray areas and how a candidate would handle the situation. According to Thompson. "We come in, and we train the staff on these policies. We believe that you need live, engaging training with hypotheticals and discussions about the gray areas that exist, particularly, in politics because it's not your average nine to five," she said. "You're going to be working long hours, a lot of your employees are going to be very young, it may be their first job. We make sure that people have definitions of what harassment is."


ow issues and questions of conflicts of interest do arise because forming these policies and enacting them is easier said than done. People worry that companies such as Bright Compass would prioritize business over the individual who was harassed. Thompson assessed the situation by saying that these businesses would maintain their own lawyers, and that they would assess the response and infrastructure of those situations she stated, "We are there to offer guidance on making sure that, not only is the campaign protected, but the victim is protected and that the workplace remains safe."

Many professionals found that having this additional HR would help campaigns because of the management resources of policies. Dr. Matt Dallek, a political historian at George W ashington University says the step of introducing a third party is probably better than pre-existing structures that handled HR issues on campaigns. Having conflicts of interest "would be true probably of an HR office embedded within the campaign itself," Dallek noted. This is potentially a good step for campaigns. They will have management resources to back up and watch the candidates helping them stay true to what they stated before. In conclusion, political consultants such as Bright Compass could most likely shape the political culture of the upcoming election. This all depends on if they can stay true to what their mission is. It also comes down to the ?tone?and ?culture?set forth by the candidate in relation to Bright Compass, but if this can work out sexual abuse and harassment policies will have a new meaning coming up in the presidential election in 2020 and maybe scandals will not pop up so often. Reid Pinckard

finds in 2017 that the median family income is $168,800, almost three times the national median and clocking in at the 79th income

SAT: St alling Amer ican Talent ince 1926, the SAT has been a staple of American culture. As a dominant metric used in college acceptance, the test has transformed from a mere quiz of one?s scholastic abilities to something much, much larger than education. Most recently, dozens of stars in Hollywood were caught inflating their children?s SAT scores to achieve acceptance into elite schools. Even former President George W . Bush has referenced the test. In his 2000 campaign, the then-governor of Texas touted the ?Texas Education Miracle,?proclaiming his success in raising SAT scores across the state by nearly 100 points! Unfortunately, it appeared that College Board (the organization which manages the SAT) had rescaled the test around the same time to increase the national average. It wouldn?t be the last time Mr. Bush?s assumptions were thoroughly incorrect. Despite the SAT?s media coverage over the years, a much more sinister paradigm has gone unchecked for far too long: the assessment?s favorability towards higher-income test-takers. Although college admissions officers routinely downplay the importance of the SAT in college admissions, the fact of the matter is that a low SAT score makes it incredibly challenging to get into a top school.


repScholar explains that as of 2019, the 75th percentile of Cornell students have an SAT score of 1550. The 25th percentile of students have a score of 1390. Unfortunately, those are the lowest scores among the Ivy's. At the top, Harvard has a 75th percentile score of 1590 and a 25th percentile score of 1460. The bottom line has been drawn by a permanent marker: elite schools require elite scores. Here?s where the problem arises: income is a huge determining factor in one?s SAT score. This graph from the Brookings Institution using data from College Board illustrates that trend. Students from families with incomes of $200,000 or greater have a combined Reading & W riting and Math score of almost 200 points more than students from families with incomes of less than $20,000. This Income-SAT pattern manifests itself in the income demographics of Ivy League. Harvard?s very own ?The Harvard Crimson?


Number s, even if seemingly fair, do not det er mine t he f ull capabilit ies and int elligence of a st udent .

percentile. Harvard and Dartmouth both had at least 15%of their undergraduate body coming from households with incomes of $630,000 a year. These numbers are all really important, but the contextualization and insight behind them are equally, if not more important. Students of low-income households tend to go to schools that are underfunded and don?t have very many resources, whereas students in more affluent households will end up going to schools with better funding and better educational resources. The disparities arise not just within schools, but also outside of them. Wealthier students have the opportunity to attend elite SAT prep courses to get an even larger advantage over their peers. The SAT was first created in 1926 as an academic test that measured innate intelligence, with the goal of being ?unpreparable.?Only 12 years later, Stanley Kaplan began offering SAT prep courses. It?s been the meta ever since. Organizations like Elite Educational Institute and The Princeton Review offer courses cost thousands of dollars, resources poor students simply can?t afford. eing surrounded by such a plethora of SAT preparatory resources, wealthier students do better on the test and go to more selective colleges, like the Ivy Leagues. They end up going down a more profitable career path, acquire wealth, and send their children to high-quality educational institutions. Meanwhile, less affluent students go to less selective colleges, like community college, don?t make as much money, and thus the cycle continues. Raj Chetty, a researcher at Stanford University, corroborates this cycle of


inequality. Tracking students in the 1980s, he found that those who graduated from top colleges made approximately $52,000 more

per year than community college graduates. Even more importantly, however, he and fellow researchers found that low-income students who had the opportunity to attend elite colleges could make just as much money as affluent classmates. So what has been done to reverse this trend?Well, several solutions have been implemented. In 2016, the SAT completely redesigned their test, with one of the major changes being the removal of obscure vocabulary that could be learned beforehand The new SAT is more focused on material that students actually learn in school, a move that dramatically leveled the playing field. As part of the 2014 redesign, College Board also partnered with the non-profit educational organization Khan Academy to offer free SAT preparatory courses and 8 practice tests. Additionally, thousands of educational institutions have dropped the SAT and its counterpart, the ACT, as a requirement for college admissions, including the University of Chicago. In 2019, the SAT unveiled the ?Adversity Score,? which is calculated using metrics such as college attendance, family stability, median family income, housing stability, education level, and crime. The 31 total factors are weighed to generate a score between 1 and 100. A greater score correlates to a greater amount of adversity faced. The adversity score will not change a student?s SAT score, but rather will provide contextual information for a college admissions officer. Although widely regarded as a sign that


Refor m comes in many ways. SAT accessibilit y, adver sit y scor es, or dif fer ent t est cont ent .

College Board is attempting to close iniquities within the test-taking process, many have criticized it for not offering any information to college admissions officers that wasn?t already available on the public domain. Others have suggested taking much broader steps to address socioeconomic inequality. There have been calls for reform in the ?Affirmative Action?system to base it on class rather than race, a concept first proposed by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in his 1964 book, ?W hy We Can?t W ait.?He advocated for A Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged of all races: ?W hile Negroes form the vast majority of America's disadvantaged, there are millions of white poor who would also benefit from such a bill.?Americans widely agree: In 2016, Gallup poll found that 63%of Americans oppose colleges factoring race into admissions, whereas 61%favor consideration of a family?s socioeconomic background. In spite of glaring issues that have plagued the SAT for far too long, College Board has taken substantive steps over the past few years to correct them. Although far from perfect, the current SAT is significantly fairer to those of lower socioeconomic standings, and we can expect it to improve even more as the years progress. David Coleman, president of College Board, has stated that ?[l]ow scores should never be a veto on a student?s life.?As his promises begin to tangibly manifest, the playing field is getting fairer by the day--it?s about time. CharlieGu


by Yash Wadwekar New York Cit y is filled wit h vibrance. It 's bust ling wit h crowds, cars, and color. But on t his part icular day, New York Cit y seemed bleak. That liveliness was missing. And while it may seem negat ive t o some, New York in black and whit e is magical. The Scope aims for a new perspect ive. Traveling t o New York Cit y gave me just t hat . As humans, we assign roles t o environment s. New York has t o be people everywhere. Phot ography has t o capt ure people everywhere. Somet imes we have t o st ep back and remember our art . Not t he labels assigned t o it . So whet her it be working or writ ing or phot ographing, remeber t hat what you do and what t hey t hink don't have t o mat ch. Because somet imes, a colorless New York is bet t er t han a vibrant one.

editorial on the effects fake news has on the government, and finally we?ll complete our front-page story by discovering how fake news can destroy reputations and create harmful skepticism. So, let?s go outside and grab this newspaper out of our driveway to dive into fake news.

The Tr ut h About Fake News n November 3, 1948 the Chicago Tribune published a headline that would change the course of American history. No, this headline did not say ?W ar Over?or ?New Vaccine Found to Cure Polio?This article had no inspiring news, but rather set forth the toxic trend that still plagues our society today. This news headline declared ?Dewey Defeats Truman!?Even though Truman had not only defeated Dewey in the presidential race, but he did it by a very wide margin of 303 electoral votes to Dewey?s 189. This false article headline is one of the most famous examples of the phenomenon known as ?fake news?The Cambridge-English Dictionary defines fake news simply as ?false stories that appear to be news, spread on the internet or using other media, usually created to influence political views.?Although the dictionary has a simple way to explain the term, the impact of fake news is far greater than many may think. Fake news is causing the destruction of the American society. Now, I know that is a very large claim to take in, but don?t worry. First, we?ll do some online journalism as we find out how fake news and social media collaborate. Then, we?ll write our


In an alr eady polar ized nat ion, fake news is det r iment al t o bipar t isanship.

It?s no secret that social media has affected our society in many ways, whether that be giving others a way to spoil the next Avengers movie or allowing suburban moms to post a picture with a Minion from Despicable Me saying ?it?s 5 o?clock somewhere,?social media has brought forth new ways of communication to the world. It has also become one of the most common places for people to get their news. According to the Pew Research Center more than 2 out of 3 Americans get news from social media. This unfortunately means that people are also more likely to visit fake news pages. According to a 2017 study by researchers from New York University and Stanford ?More than 40 percent of visits to 65 fake news sites came from social media.?Social media has become a breeding ground for fake news sites to expel their false reports upon the American people. Russia is commonly blamed for sharing fake news across social media, and even though social media has only been around for a little over a decade, Russian fake news reporting has been around since the Cold-W ar era. A Senate Judiciary committee hearing in 2017 showed that for decades during the Cold W ar, the Russian Active Measures operations created

thousands of false stories and gave them to news outlets throughout the world. Today, anonymous sites offer unlimited options for placement of fake stories that drive Russian narratives. These anonymous placements may be used by Russian agents as false evidence to support conspiracies and enrage American audiences. As we see social media has helped spread fake news stories and people are believing what they read online. his troubling trend may have larger effects on America than you may expect. The spread of fake news has enormous effects on our government. According to a report gathered by the National Public Radio, 1 in 4 Americans visited a fake news website supporting either Clinton or Trump in the final weeks of the 2016 campaign. W hile this seems like nothing huge the effect is larger than you may think. In the 2016 Presidential election. False reports on these candidates were not uncommon, but some may have swayed the election away from Hillary Clinton and towards Donald Trump. In January of 2017, Ohio State University undertook a nationwide survey. They found that fake news most likely did have a substantial impact on the voting decisions of citizens who voted for Obama in 2012. This group of voters was selected for the fact that, if Hillary Clinton had kept their support, she would have easily won the 2016 election. Ohio State?s survey asked respondents 281 questions that included three fake news statements. Two of these were negative statements about Hillary Clinton and one was a positive statement involving Donald Trump. The first false claim is that ?Hillary Clinton is in very poor health due to a serious illness.?1 in 4 respondents in the national sample believed that this was true as did over 1 in 10 of the former Obama supporters. The second false statement is that ?Pope Francis endorsed Donald Trump for president prior to the election.?About 10 percent of the national sample and 8 percent of Obama supporters thought this statement was true. Finally, the respondents were asked if they believed the false statement that ?During her time as U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton approved weapon sales to Islamic jihadists, including ISIS.?nearly 1/ 2 of the national sample believed that Clinton had sold weapons to ISIS, as did 1 in 5 Obama voters. The report concluded that ?of those who voted for Obama in 2012, and believed all 3 false statements, only 17%voted for Hillary

Clinton.?These effects of fake news not only swayed the election, but also changed American history, and the American image forever.


Ther e is not one per son at fault . It is a selfper pet uat ing cycle of hat e.

So yes, fake news can and has affected the nation politically, but it has also caused social harm by destroying reputations and causing harmful skepticism. Throughout our time together I have given many examples in which right leaning sites have been at fault however, it?s important to remember that this is not a one-sided issue. Those on the left are just as guilty of spreading fake news as those on the right. Case in point, Nick Sandmann. On January 20, 2019 Nick Sandmann attended the March-for-Life rally in W ashington D.C. There Sandmann would unintentionally become infamous across America when he was photographed seemingly making fun of a Native American Chief. People and news station quickly began to judge. The Guardian reported the headline ?Native American mocked by student in Maga hat?CBS news reported ?Teen with MAGA hat harasses Native American Vietnam Vet.?In fact, because of these false articles Nick Sandmann received death threats and was almost expelled from his school. However, upon further investigation it was found that Sandmann was trying to defuse a hostile situation between political groups. The hostility towards Sandmann could?ve been avoided if news outlets had performed more research before putting a teenager in the national spotlight. Not only can false reporting cause harm towards individual people but it can also delegitimize events. On December 14. 2012 a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut and killed 20 children and 6 adults. As family members and friends of these victims mourned their loss, conspiracy theorists quickly began claiming that Sandy Hook was faked. Most famous of these theorists is Alex Jones, who?s talk show reaches approximately 5.9 million Americans. These conspiracy theorists would harass the victim's family members and parents through social media, over the phone, and through the mail. This harassment went so far as to lead one of the victims' fathers to take his own life just 1 month ago and still they continue to harass these families who have dealt with enough pain for multiple lifetimes. Some may say that fake news is a form of free speech but preventing the spread of a false report does not limit your right to say it. It is limiting the ability for it to harm the American Society. Fake news is something that has altered American history and destroyed the

lives of many. But there is a solution. This solution will take dedication to fully accomplish, but I believe we can do it. There are very important steps to accomplishing the goal of delegitimizing and eliminating fake news. We must call out fake news stories. It is important that we keep everyone educated with factual stories so that our democracy can run correctly. We must remember though, just because we don?t agree with it does not make it fake news. Fake news is an impartial disease, it can be spread by anyone no matter what their political views are. Also, if you see a news story that is not from a trusted news source or seems fabricated, research the topic. That does not mean to just listen to Joes blog from his mom?s basement because, that is likely where conspiracy theories are spreading from. Analyze sights such as PolitiFact or Snopes which are dedicated to fact checking claims and events no matter who posts them. These sites debunk and confirm news stories daily, and even rate political figures and organizations based on how often they fabricate stories. Researching through these websites can help to eliminate false reports by individuals or organizations and help decide if that news story is true or just being used to push a political agenda. If we can do this, our democracy will be able to thrive and act correctly to represent the American people in the most accurate way possible. Fake news will not be an easy thing to eliminate, but if everyone does their part to identify it and eliminate it, we can strengthen our democracy and society has a whole. Now that we?ve done some online journalism on how fake news and social media collaborate, finished our editorial on the effects of fake news on the government, and printed our final copy for the report on how fake news can affect individuals lives and cause harmful skepticism, we can now publish our front page news story and this time make sure that the paper calls the correct result: ?Truman defeats Dewey. CurtisMiller


IN CHINA" is THEBACKGROUND "MADE certainly a familiar phrase

for Americans. As one of the world?s largest economies and the world?s top exporter, China?s economic dominance is felt globally. China?s economy was built on manufacturing and exports, and given its economic success, which is rivaled only by the US, this approach appears to be working. However, this US-Chinese rivalry has grown too bitter since President Trump took office and tried to stop China?s exploitation of their relationship with the US. This began the Sino-American Trade W ar in 2017. We have watched as this relationship has become increasingly fraught, as tariffs have increased, causing global markets to fluctuate. We have heard several times that this war is not far from over, but still see no resolution. How has this trade war affected countries, markets, and consumers around the world?Is the trade war truly winding down following agreements during the G20 Summit?How will postwar markets and global politics be reshaped by an agreement in the coming months, should one be reached? Game consoles, smartphones, computers, and almost all technology is manufactured in China. However, take a step back, and you may realize that China is just as dependent on the US to develop this technology as we are on China to manufacture it. As market analyst Kenneth Ropza puts it, most smartphones in the world run on either Apple or Google, two companies both based in the United States. Despite the manufacturing of these phones being outsourced to China, the US is extremely critical to the development of these products. This holds true for many technological products and manufactured goods, and it is the key reason that a US-Chinese relationship is so critical. In the short term, the US has benefitted in some aspects. Obviously, Trump?s decision to start a trade war is not unfounded. Simply put, a trade war is a time of reciprocating tariffs between competing nations vying for economic dominance. In the context of the Sino-American Trade W ar, the United States is able to create an economic incentive for American companies to return to domestic manufacturing, and penalize those who outsource labor to China. The Trump economy has consequently grown significantly. In theory, if the US can outlast China in avoiding a recession, causing China?s economy to begin suffering, a USvictory can be declared. However, it?s not so simple, and there will be other consequences both now and in the future. In the coming months, if a deal is not reached, higher prices on affected goods should be expected. The last major move made in the trade war was the US?decision to increase tariffs from 10%to 25%. We are currently at a limbo point, where US retailers and manufacturers are relying on imports stockpiled before the tariff hike took effect. However, when these companies begin to import more goods and pay the 25%tariffs, consumers may have to begin shouldering these additional costs. If a deal could be made in the coming months, much of this could be circumvented. W hile a deal

has seemed unlikely for much of the trade war, a resolution may be on the horizon following agreements made between President Trump and Chinese Premier Xi Jinping at the G20 Summit. At the June G20 Summit in Osaka, Japan, Trump and Jinping reached an agreement to avoid further increasing trade war tariffs. This is not a resolution to the conflict, but it could be a beacon of hope. In June, Trump threatened to extend the 25%tariffs to more Chinese goods (worth about $300 billion) if Premier Jinping refused to meet with him at the summit. Clearly, President Trump is searching for a deal, being that he wanted to meet with Jinping enough to threaten him with more tariffs. An ideal resolution to the conflict would have to involve both countries scaling down on their tariffs, meaning the agreement reached at the Osaka Summit is certainly a step in the right direction. W ith a mutual agreement to a ceasefire while negotiations can continue, it appears that both countries may be ready to begin scaling back on tariffs. In fact, Trump even tweeted after the meeting with Jinping that talks for an agreement are ?right back on track?.


Although no meetings or comprehensive discussions have been scheduled, Trump appears to be right that negotiations are in the works. W hite House trade adviser Peter Navarro has indeed confirmed that he and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have resumed informal talks with top Chinese officials in Beijing such as Chinese Vice Premier Liu He and Minister of Commerce Zhong Shan. Navarro warns that a concrete resolution is a long way off. His outlook for concerned US consumers is simple: complicated negotiations take time, but the objective is to make a good deal, not a fast one. In the short term, China has made some concessions. One of the W ashington?s requests for China is that they open their markets to more US goods. W hile the US continuously imports significant amounts of Chinese goods, about $540 billion in 2018, China continues to linger at about $120 billion in US imports per year. One contentious issue is China?s low importation of US agricultural products, hurting US farmers. However, at meetings during the G20 Summit, China has agreed to buy more agricultural products from US farmers, a move Navarro describes as ?immediate?and ?significant?. Though a resolution to the trade war has been promised many times by the Trump administration with no outcome, it seems that progress is being made this time around. But how will global markets be shaped by a deal?

APOSTWAROUTLOOK Postwar markets could likely go in several directions, depending on the strength of the deal made between Jinping and Trump and international cooperation and alliances following the war. Ideally, if the Trump and Jinping administrations are able to come up with a mutually beneficial deal, international trade can return to a largely

both sides making needed changes, global markets will be the least disrupted. However, given Trump?s major demands and both sides?drive to come out on top, it is unlikely that everyone will go home satisfied. A possible scenario, should the US lose the trade war, is a global market that is less reliant on the United States and the US dollar. Market Analyst Kenneth Rapoza furthers that reckless US trade policy with China could prompt many other nations to decrease reliance on the US in the economic sector. Currently, many countries, firms, and governments rely on the US, especially for developing core technology. However, if the US undermines its own economic accountability, its trustworthiness and global image could wean too. Nations could instead begin to search for a new global superpower, and China would be likely to try to fill that gap. China is still significantly behind the US when it comes to technology. However, it is not inconceivable that in a future with less US hegemony, China could become number one when it comes to global dominance, soft power, and technology. what THETRADEWAR"SIMPACTHowever, would happen if China loses the trade war?Many predict that this is actually a more likely outcome because China?s economy is much smaller and relies on exports. As a result, it is predicted that US tariffs will begin to place a strain on China much before Chinese tariffs hurt the US. Chinese exports to the US account for 19%of its total exports, while the US only exports 9%of its goods to China. The US has many other

beneficial and healthy relationships with other nations, especially its fellow North and South American nations, meaning that the US is likely to outlast China. W ith this outcome being very possible, the Chinese economy would certainly take a major hit. Additionally, global trade patterns would definitely be altered. China?s manufacturing prices would increase, and global firms would most likely have to shift production into other countries such as Vietnam and Cambodia to maintain cheap manufacturing. Investment in China would also likely decrease, as its economic future would be a highly uncertain and unstable one. This would hinder the technological empowerment and control that China could have gained from winning the trade war. Regardless of how the trade war ends, one thing is certain: global markets, politics, and hegemony will be changed. Currently, the trade war is nearing a point wherein Chinese and American consumers will begin having to shoulder the costs. However, since the June G20 Summit in Osaka, Trump and Jinping have reopened dialogue for a resolution, though whether one will be reached is still uncertain. W hen a resolution is reached, it is uncertain how global markets will be changed. If there is a clear victory to the trade war, the country who declares it will have a major advantage in geopolitical influence for years to come. ?Made In China? will either be heard around the globe or become a flashback of times of old.

The Lives Depending On 5 Let t er s -

n May 8th, 2018, President Donald Trump pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, otherwise known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. The JCPOA forced Iran to limit the development of their nuclear programs and to allow in international inspectors. Originally the JCPOA was signed into agreement by Iran, the European Union, China, France, Russia, the UK, Germany, and the United States, in order to prevent more countries from being able to acquire nuclear arms. Of course, nuclear arms are extremely dangerous, especially in areas of such chaos like in the Middle East. Ever since the United States has pulled out of the JCPOA, diplomatic tensions between the countries have been becoming more heated than ever.


Recently, Iran has been accused of attacking an American aerial drone and multiple foreign oil tankers; most notably, two oil tankers off the Coast of Oman, and a British tanker housing a full crew. On June 13th, 2019, two Japan-bound oil tankers that were exporting oil from Iran were reportedly attacked, leaving one on fire and forcing the crews to abandon both. This was surprising, because the Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, was visiting Tehran to ease tensions between Iran and the United States. As a result of these attacks, the price of Brent crude oil jumped 4%to over $62 a barrel. 44 crew members were forced to evacuate their ships with one suffering minor injuries. Unfortnuately, this wasn?t the only recent violent act involving Iran. On June 20th, 2019, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) shot down an American surveillance drone, claiming that even after warnings, it continued to fly within Iran?s airspace. The Iranian Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif stated that they shot the drone down once it reached 12 nautical miles from Iran?s territorial waters. On the contrary, the United States Air Force Central Command reported that the drone was in international airspace, and the closest that it ever got to Iran?s airspace was 21 nautical miles away. Russian Intelligence is in support of Iran, however, it is unlikely that Russian intelligence is without bias, considering the fact that Russia and Iran are close allies. On July 19th, 2019, a British oil tanker was seized by Iran in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran had members of their military rappel out of helicopter to take control of the British vessel and held the crew captive. Although there have been calls from the UK and the U.S. for Iran to immediately release the tanker Iran has failed to do so. Fortunately, Iran has recently

decided that they would be willing to trade the British tanker and crew for an Iranian tanker that the British took control of earliert this month. The main linked cause to all of these crises is from when President Trump pulled out of the JCPOA, in which many global leaders are calling an ?escalation spiral?in which the Middle East is only becoming more chaotic. W hat?s been happening with Iran is clearly extremely problematic, and global leaders need to come together to figure out a solution to these problems. Eston Kuwahara

Money Pr oblems Money: It impacts nearly every aspect of our lives. It affects everything from what we eat to where we live, and according to a recent study from the University of California Berkeley, even our lifespan. You can't escape it, and even to do something such as escape to an isolated island, you need money. In fact, our financial health doesn?t effect just us, it will also impact our children. A 2012 study by Stanford University found that children from low income families received a lower-quality education, had less opportunity to participate in wholesome activities such as sports or clubs, and were more susceptible to destructive things such as drug/ alcohol addiction and mental illness when compared to kids from higher-income families. Although money may not be necessary to living a healthy and happy life, it can clearly make doing so more attainable. Despite these facts and the integral role money plays in our lives, an astounding number of Americans are ill-educated when it comes to personal finance. According to a 2017 report by the US News and W orld Report, student loans and credit card debt are at all-time highs. Likewise, two-thirds of Americans have no emergency fund and would struggle to come up with $1000 dollars in an emergency, like if they got into a car accident for example. In addition, the average retirement age in the United States has risen to 63, and 78%of seniors are fearful they haven?t saved enough money for retirement. Furthermore, the primary source of income for most retirees, Social Security, will have to be cut by 23%by 2033 unless it is reformed, according to the Social Security Administration. Perhaps more astonishing is the fact that the same study by the US News and W orld Report found a meager 24%of millennial demonstrate basic financial literacy. The problem is clear, but despite the fact that knowing how to manage money is essential to financial well-being, it is unfortunately largely neglected in the American education system. A recent survey conducted by the Council on Economic Education found that less than one-third of high school or college students have taken a course in finance. Only a few states require such courses in high school, and the survey found that students who have

taken such courses are far more likely to build a savings account and pay off debt. Based on this information, if all high school students across the country took a course in basic financial literacy it would drastically improve some of the financial problems facing Americans today, so it should therefore be made a requirement. Fortunately, some states have begun to craft legislation that would help to improve financial education in their schools and increase funding to nonprofits such as the National Endowment for Financial Education, which is dedicated to promoting financial education in the United States. Although this is a start, financial illiteracy is a huge national issue that could potentially lead to another financial crisis in the future. We still have a long way to go before the financial problems that plague many Americans are resolved, and doing to will require a unified national effort. Xander Black

Roar ing Yout h Af r aid of Their Ow n Voices o speak is a key form of communication. No matter the language, sign, or image, to declare a message is a vital part of our society. The vibrating of vocal cords, the movements of a hand, and even the stroke of a brush hold countless stories to tell. Yet with all of these forms of communication there seems to be one thing that we are afraid of. Our youthful generation presents an interesting paradox, we are one of the most open and opinionated generations, yet are afraid of our own voices.


In a world of instant messages and texts, communication has dwindled. Conversations are reduced to a few words and phrases. Leaving a conversation with a ?k?or simply not responding at all may seem a quick release at the time, although irritating to the recipient, these short and sudden reactions are a sign of a much larger problem then ghosting someone of Snapchat. This ghosting happens outside of internet conversations as well. That being said, the key part lies in when that block of communication occurs. In a trying time, politically and socially, our lines of communication have been cut in terms of the conversations which matter most. We seem to suffer from exiting out of any conversation which may seem controversial or hard. This ?ghosting?out of a conversation happens especially when topics regarding religion, politics, and ethics are involved. However, I argue these are the conversation which we should be more invested in. Almost every one of us has an opinion or belief that we feel strongly about, it doesn?t matter the topic. Yet when that belief is met with an opposing view we choose to simply end the discussion rather than risk hurting others or ourselves. This is where the conversation ?ghosting?turns

truly harmful. I understand that there certainly are topics which are difficult to handle. However, when we simply leave these topics aside it stunts and blocks the growth we may have shared with the other members of the conversation. It is when we share views with opposing persons and discuss the reasoning and contents within our opinion that we are open to growing as a person. We lose the opportunity to make a change, to educate ourselves on the opposing side, but also to further explain our viewpoints. Change does not happen silently, but instead with a roar. To discuss difficult topics allows us to gain confidence and understanding, things lacking in our political and cultural climate. It is by continuing within a conversation where emotion and personal feeling may be attached that we are better able to understand the other sides view. By not allowing the fear of people not liking what you say,and not refusing to hear the contention but genuinely seek to understand it, that you are able to better educate yourself and others on topics that you feel strongly about. Not everyone needs to be an amazing public speaker, or even speak in public at all. It is at the dinner table, in the classroom, and even in the most random places such as the bookstore, that change arises. Your voice may not be heard around the world or on giant stages. Yet, a voice which chooses to not remain silent pushes forward progress, no matter which side of the discussion you are on. A voice which chooses to not remain silent changes those around it, making differences within communities, families, and classrooms. To be faced with challenges only opens the door to further opportunity. So, don't be afraid to talk, stop ?ghosting?your way out of tough situations. Don?t be afraid to share your own opinion and discuss it with others. Most of all, never be afraid of your own voice, for it is the power by which worlds may be remade. Holten Hennrich

SIMPLE QUESTION, COMPLEX ANSWER Hana Le| Opinion We live in a society where it is complexity that sets us apart, yet we have turned towards simplicity to regard some of mankind?s most complex issues. Just as how we ?debunk?global warming by pointing out that it is cold outside, we stigmatize mental health and automatically link it to drastic mental illnesses. To us, it seems easier to group issues together, and thus in our minds solving them together, than to view the factors and fine lines between what we want to believe and what is actually there. The problem, however, is that when it comes to the human mind, mental health and mental illnesses cannot be regarded in the same dimension. Often, these two terms are used interchangeably. And while it certainly made the fluidity of our conversations much easier, the simplification of a mental state into the same definition has created a toxic mindset towards mental health in recent years. To be scared and nervous about the future automatically means that we have anxiety. To feel the weight of expectations and to think that we may not be good enough instinctively turns into a depression scare. We either glaze over these terms or try to avoid both completely, never truly discussing them because


of this stigma. The prevalent issue of serious mental illnesses and the way we view them, stops the conversation of internal issues in today?s youth. W hen the conversations stop, stress and fears of expectations we sweep under the rug and ignore, we present negative attitudes, impulsive emotions, and, in the worst cases, actual mental illnesses, onto ourselves. Our society of simplicity has turned the simple question of, ?How are you??into a surface-level question with the expectation of a reply along the lines of, ?I?m doing good. How about you??By asking this, we believe we know how others are doing and that we care yet, not everything is always such. To say anything otherwise prompts turbulent conversations that are unmistakably hard to navigate on either side. The Canadian Mental Health Association puts it best when they state that, ?In the course of a lifetime, not all people will experience a mental illness, but everyone will struggle or have a challenge with their mental well-being.? Expressing that mental health is our mental


well-being: a combination of our feelings, emotions, thoughts, and our ability to interact and connect with each other, to overcome adversity, and to understand our environment. Like our physical health, we also have to keep up with our mental health, and as we take care of ourselves and others when injured, we should be there for others and ourselves when we?re feeling down. We?re so scared of talking about mental health because we think it will be linked to some illness that we may or may not have, and thus make it seem like we are contagious to others, or at least weaker. So while mental health and mental illnesses are not mutually exclusive, it is critical to think of them differently. We should not be afraid of opening up and expressing our feelings when we know we should, because some external stigma is telling us not to. We should not let ourselves fall into the simple rhythm of superficial conversation, automatic labeling, and easy answers because in today?s world, it is crucial that we open up the conversation surrounding mental health. We can start by asking each other and ourselves, ?How are you??

people form a tyranny and should be driven to act against their leader.

Gover nment : Absolut e or Quest ionable? t?s no question that the actions of a government have always been contested by its people. Yet, amid such a tumultuous political landscape, it has become essential for us to revisit the basic principles of the interactions between a government and its people. We can start with a simple question: why do people resist their government?The answer lies in the type of government which they lie under. Throughout history, wars have been fought and rebellions have been staged to overthrow governments. Let?s take a short trip through time - starting in ancient Greece - to gain a deeper understanding of the complex relationships between the government and the people.

Throughout all three of these forms of government, one general trend may be observed. Under an equitable rule, the people are content. However, under an unjust rule, the people will rebel, and this is evident from past precedent. Now that we know why people act against the government, it?s time for us to ask a different question: should they?


In Book VIII of his masterpiece TheRepublic, the Greek philosopher Plato explores aspects of different forms of governments. The three most relevant forms are the monarchy, tyranny, and democracy. Plato concludes that the ideal government is the first - the ?rule of the best?. We know this form of government as a kingship or an aristocracy. On the surface, this seems sound. In an ideal monarchy or aristocracy, the leaders are well qualified to provide a just rule to their people. Under such a system, the people have no reason to resist their government because they would be content with a just rule. However, this form of government ultimately proves to be a double-edged sword. 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant correctly noted that ?out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.?It is worth noting that a tyranny is only one step away from an equitable monarchy. Replace a just ruler with a cruel one, and a fair monarchy becomes an unjust tyranny. Under the rule of a tyrant, the people are driven to act against their government because it is bigoted. A democracy proves to be a hybrid of these two systems. John Stuart Mill, a British philosopher, popularized the notion that democracy was the dictatorship of the majority. This is a fair observation - a democracy chooses a leader through a popular vote. If the people elect a just leader, they effectively form a fair monarchy and have no reason to rebel. If they elect a tyrant, the

The hist or iogr aphy of gover nment cont r ol dat es far back . Even so, is t her e r eally an answer ?

Governments are man-made structures, and they have flaws. A government is made to serve the people and protect their rights. If it fails to meet the needs of the people, then the people should and must question it. The Declaration of Independence itself states that ?whenever any form of government becomes destructive ? it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government.?And, if it is the right of the people to alter or abolish the government, then it is also their right to criticize or question it if they do not understand their government?s motives. Loyalty to the government and patriotism do not mean to silently and unquestioningly accept whatever it does. If people do not question what their government does, it is a clear indicator of a totalitarian state. Civilians are not breaking the law by justly and fairly questioning or denying the government. To be unable to resist the government creates an authoritarian regime such as those described in 1984 or BraveNew World. Therefore, it is not only acceptable to question or deny the government, but a civic duty to do so. Society needs to amplify voices, not silence them, because no action cannot be our reaction to the injustices within our nation. Ultimately, it?s clear that people question their government based on its perceived fairness and justice. However, the fact still remains that people should always have the right to question their government. A government which does not allow its people their right to question it becomes a totalitarian state. In a time where the lines between justice and inequity have become blurred in our democracy, it has become categorically imperative that we exercise this right. IsaacKan

What Happened t o t he Amer ican Dr eam? lmost every highschooler across America has had to read TheGreat Gatsby for their sophomore english class. Countless class periods have been spent analyzing the numerous symbols Fitzgerald dropped from the green light to the eyes of Doctor T.J. Eckleburg. And yet for many, this story seems to resonate with them more than the other books they may have read in an english class before. The narrator, Nick Carraway, is a classic rags to riches story and serves as a reminder of the promises behind the American Dream: the idea that if you work hard enough, you can achieve your highest aspirations and goals no matter what. Paired alongside the underdog narrator is the ever enviable Jay Gatsby. Gatsby and his luxurious parties are enticing and may remind students why many of them (or rather, their families) came to this country in the first place: to hopefully create a life for themselves where they can indulge in such extravagant fantasies. After all, America is often praised for being the ?Land of Opportunity?or as it?s more commonly known, the ?Land of the Free.?Taking TheGreat Gatsby for what it is at face value can lead many to have these wrong ideas about the novel. A closer look at the book shows that TheGreat Gatsby isn?t praising America and its ability to provide equal opportunity for all. In fact, Fitzgerald wrote this novel in the roaring 1920s as a way to critique American society and their obsessions with consumer culture and the culmination of wealth. The reality is, the American dream has never been anything more than an American fable. The idea that America is a land known for providing equal opportunity for all couldn?t be further from the truth, especially in today?s society.


The land of t he f r ee, t he home of t he br ave, demanding t o be f r ee, t o money t hey ar e enslaved.

conomic inequality has been a pressing matter in the United States since the early 20th century. Important historical events with significant economic consequences during this time period such as the Great Depression and W orld W ar II attributed to this growing disparity between the rich and the poor. As time has gone on, many cite factors such as gender, globalization, and global warming as just a few of the many reasons why this large gap has grown even bigger. Economic inequality refers to both income distribution (measuring how much money people are paid) and the distribution of wealth (the amount of valuable assets people own). The issue has grown into a political topic as many Americans have started to notice several examples of economic inequality across the country. Many areas covered in affluent homes are only miles away from areas covered in tents for the homeless. How is it possible that two extremes of income can live so close together only to be separated by a few miles? Many Americans are beginning to realize that the growing separation between both income levels is just a catalyst for several other issues having to do with gender, race, and child poverty. However, once a problem has become prominent enough to become the forefront of political discussions, the issue arises of how to solve it. Liberal Americans tend to argue for a more progressive tax rate as a means of combating the issue. Senator and Presidential nominee for the 2020 election Elizabeth W arren proposed an annual tax on wealth in 2019. W arren argues that there should be a 2%tax for wealth over $50 million and another 1%surcharge on wealth over $1 billion. The ambitious plan has garnered a lot of controversy. A majority of conservative Americans call the plan unconstitutional, arguing that there should only be a flat tax rate. This is due to the fact that many believe taxing based off of income is unfair since those that will be taxed more have worked hard for their money only for it to be taken away.

Regardless of the bipartisan divide that arises when discussing the topic of income disparity, here are the facts:


Over 60%of the Forbes richest 400 Americans grew up in substantial privilege (Institute for Policy Studies, 2012.

There are 750,000 Americans who are homeless on any given night, with one in five of them considered chronically homeless. The ranks of the sheltered homeless include disproportionate numbers of males, blacks, middle-aged people (i.e., ages 31-50), veterans, and disabled. (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2017)


Starting in the late 1970s, there was a substantial increase in women?s relative earnings, with women coming to earn about 80%of what men earned. This historic rise plateaued in 2005 and, since then, the pay gap has remained roughly unchanged. (U.S. Department of Labor, 2010)

3 4

In the United States, 21 percent of all children are in poverty, a poverty rate higher than what prevails in virtually all other rich nations. (OECD, 2011)


In 2007, 8.1 million children under 18 years old were without health insurance. Children in poverty and Hispanic children were more likely to be uninsured. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008)


The top 10%of households controlled 68.2 percent of the total wealth in 1983 and 73.1%of the total wealth in 2007. (Stanford, 2010)


A full 37%of those who are both young black males and high school dropouts are now in prison or jail, which is rate that's more than three times higher than what prevailed in 1980. (Stanford, 2010)

There is no denying the fact that there is a growing separation between the rich and the poor, and that it may be the causation for several other issues dominating political talk today. However, what exactly are we supposed to do about this problem?Throwing money at the homeless won?t solve any problems, yet what are the top 1%supposed to do with their accumulated wealth?Do the rich have a larger moral obligation to give back a greater percentage of their earnings than other income levels?There?s no easy answer to any of these questions. But as teenagers, we can educate ourselves on this issue and do what we can to help. There are several nonprofit organizations that go into improving education not just in America but across the globe, numerous candidates proposing strategies to combat income inequality in the upcoming election (so please go register to vote), and doing community service to help the homeless in your area. These are just a few steps we can take as a society to help improve conditions for all, so that every human one day can have an equal opportunity to work their way to the top, just as the American Dream intended. Sophia Khan

Legacy Admissions in t he College Applicat ion Pr ocess n the wake of an intense high-bribery college admissions scandal, it is easy to forget about an already existing scandal that tackles a different facet of the college admissions process, Affirmative Action. As a brief recap, a group called Students for Fair Admissions sued Harvard in 2015 asserting that the school?s admissions processes discriminates against Asian-American students, giving them lower ?personal?ratings that lessen their chance of admissions. This case, which is being reviewed by the Supreme Court as this is written, will likely rule on the future of Affirmative Action as a tool for college admissions in this country. As a result, a wider conversation concerning the fairness of college admissions has been initiated, and something which seems inseparable from the conversation is legacy admissions. The premise of legacy admissions as a fair way for some kids to be accepted into college has started to come under question, as it has even gone as far as to been equated to a rich white Affirmative Action. Now, with the fairness of college admissions currently questioned by the public, it is important to look at all aspects of what devalues and advantages some over others in the admissions process, and legacy admissions is a big part of that. More specifically, it is imperative to look at the problem, cause and solutions that legacy admissions poses on the system of college admissions.


Legacy preference, or legacy admissions, is defined as preference given by an institution or organization to certain applicants on the basis of their familial relationship of alumni to that institution, with college admissions being the field in which legacy preferences are most controversially used. Legacy admissions have been known to give applicants an extensive advantage, as evidenced by American journalist Daniel Golden. In his book ThePriceof Admissions, Golden states that legacies are ?two to four times more likely?to be accepted than other applicants, and that many elite universities enroll more legacies either African American or Hispanic students. Just take Harvard, where around 14%of their student body are legacy students. It was even found that by Michael Dannenberg, director of strategic initiatives at the policy think tank Education Reform Now, that applying to college as a legacy student is an equivalent of a 160 point boost on the SAT. This problem is made even worse given the fact that most students who have legacy at elite institutions come from rich white backgrounds, perpetuating another aspect of elitism in this country. The biggest and primary rationale that colleges give for legacy admissions is finances. They believe that bringing in more legacy students secures larger amounts of alumni donations. For example, a committee formed in 2017 at Harvard was tasked with scouting out potential tweaks to

the admissions process. In their conclusions, they found that getting rid of legacy admissions would jeopardize the, ?generous financial support that is essential to Harvard?s position as a leading institution of higher learning.? Aforementioned Michael Dannenberg even stated that, ?colleges have defended the legacy preference by saying it?s necessary for fundraising.?However, as Dannenberg and many others have noted, legacy preferences is not a very precise fundraising tool, stating that is both ?overbroad?and ?underinclusive.? ore specifically, Dannenberg points to a study that tracks alumni giving from 1998 to 2008 at the top 100 ranked American Universities, and found, ?no statistically significant evidence?that legacy preferences themselves make any given alumni more likely to donate. Instead, legacy admissions just lets them bring in more children of wealthy alumni then they usually would.


After looking at the problem and cause of legacy admissions, the next step is looking for solutions. The easiest, and perhaps the most simple, solution would be to get rid of legacy admissions in general. More specifically, get rid of the section on the college application in which students can note if they have legacy at a school. Others who aren?t as extreme have proposed giving colleges a cap of how many legacy students they can let in. This solution becomes a little more complicated, seeing as how you must calculate a certain baseline percentage for all colleges to use, or you have to figure out a different percentage for each college. Either way, some action needs to be taken to limit the number of legacy admits at elite colleges and universities, in order to balance the playing field. The Harvard Supreme Court case is likely to rule on the future of Affirmative Action in this country. As a result, the entire country is tuned into a decision that could potentially affect the lives of millions of teenagers and college students. However, our attention to this case should not mean our loss of attention to the unfair ways that other students get into college, primarily legacy admissions. Getting rid or limiting legacy admissions may be a huge and unrealistic step towards evening the playing field, but regardless, we need to start talking about it if we want anything to come of it. After all, if we are talking about how famous actresses cheat the college application process, we should talk about all the ways people are scamming the system.

The Toxic Masculinit y Pr oblem, or How Men ar e Tr ained t o Self-Dest r uct


hen French tennis pro Alize Cornet turned her shirt from backwards to forwards on the court at the US Open in August 2018, briefly exposing her sports bra, she was immediately charged with a penalty from the umpire. During the same tournament, several male players, in an attempt to battle the unprecedented heat, changed their shirts on court and even sat on the sidelines shirtless. Nobody questioned men removing their shirts because it fit a broader pattern of toxic masculinity, in which it seemed natural for men to show off their ?maleness?in every possible context. From the time of their birth, boys in our country are raised to showcase their masculinity and to avoid all hints of femininity; we are collectively socialized to find this acceptable. We tell boys to ?take it like a man?when they get hurt and to ?have the balls?to do something they are afraid of. Toddlers are told that boys don?t cry, and older boys are advised to ?toughen up,?or to ?get mad and do something about it.?

been taught about girls that was so horribly negative?For LGBTQ people, the concept of masculinity is even more complicated. Toxic masculinity is predicated on the assumption that relationships consist of one agentic partner (the man) and one submissive partner (the woman) ? when confronted with a man who is attracted to other men, the assumption is that one must be dominating the other. Same-sex couples are shoehorned into a male-female schema in which they don?t fit. For nonbinary people, it?s even more confusing ? the system of toxic masculinity forces the existence of a gender dichotomy as society?s primary organizational system. In other words, when power dynamics are defined by gender, those who don?t adhere to a ?traditional?gender are left powerless. The bottom line is that in a system that equates agency with masculinity, queer people are feminized, and, by extension, stripped of their agency.

espite changes over the past few decades, gender-based stereotyping continues. Socialization and stereotyping still restrict the futures of both girls and boys. It is time to allow both boys and girls to realize they should not be limited by their gender. There are some very specific ways to do this. First, avoid unnecessarily gendering children?s activities This means letting kids play with whatever toys they want to play with. Don?t limit playing with dolls to a girls-only activity, for example. Boys, if allowed, will develop loving and nurturing attitude towards a doll just as often as a girl. And giving a boy the chance to do so without judgment will allow him to explore a softer side of himself. Deprived of this opportunity, it?s no surprise that a boy could grow up lacking compassion and warmth.


oxic masculinity refers to the repressive ideas about male gender roles that define masculinity as being unemotional, sexually aggressive, competitive and even violent. But toxic masculinity is primarily defined by what it is not: emotional, empathetic, or yielding. In short, toxic masculinity is the fear of being vulnerable and impotent. In his TED Talk entitled ?A Call to Men,?Tony Porter discusses the ?man box?all men are expected to reside in, as well as how paralyzed many men and boys feel at being anywhere except inside that box. He describes speaking to a 12-year-old football player and asking him how he would feel if his coach told him, in front of all of his teammates, that he was playing like a girl. Porter said he fully expected the boy to tell him it would be a negative experience, that it would make him sad or angry. But what the boy said went far beyond that. Instead the boy told Porter that ?it would destroy me.?Porter said his first thought was that if it would destroy this boy to be called a girl, then what had that boy



ne of the fastest growing industries in the United States is the business of decoding Generation Z (also known as Gen Z), the 7 to 22-year-old cohort promptly following Millennials. Hardly a week goes by without some group or another declaring that it has ascertained what makes Gen Z tick. As a card-carrying member of Gen Z, I appreciate the attention, even if many of the observations and characterizations strike me as comical. W ith so many people trying to define what our generation means and stands for, it's about time that we offer our perspectives. Here are my top four ways that Gen Z is already effectuating societally advantageous change: 1. Gen Z is a cult of culture creators. The brand solutions firm W ildness, born out of AwesomenessTV, conducted a study that surveyed 3,000 teens in eight U.S. cities. The most significant finding was that Gen Z'ers are catalysts of a burgeoning social revolution. In the words of W ildness, Gen Z is ?redefining entertainment, consumption, the workplace, and marketing.? Growing up with the internet has freed our generation from the confines of traditional expression. We are fomenting a renaissance of collaborative creativity unencumbered by adult supervision and arbitrary limits. 2. Gen Z is America?s first entrepreneurial generation. Unlike its predecessors who looked up to sports and music icons, Gen Z emulates the founders of America?s most prominent growth companies. 3. Gen Z is America?s first post-race, post-gender generation. Our life experience has stimulated a whole new outlook on race and gender. A substantial amount of us has had an African American president for most of our lives. W hite children will be a minority in this country by 2020. Race doesn?t matter when so many of us are mixed-race. Marriage equality and gender-neutral bathrooms are the norm for us, not the exception. 4. Gen Z will be America?s greatest giving generation. Ours is the first generation for which schooling was twinned with community service. W orking for the collective good is at the core of Gen Z?s ethos.

have dedicated my concurrent personal, civic leadership efforts to advancing youth interests. This year, a group of colleagues and I partnered with Arizona State University (ASU) to help address the opioid crisis in Arizona. We collaborated with schools, community leaders, government officials, and law enforcement to develop innovative solutions promoting the use of medication return boxes as a way to safely dispose of expired, unwanted, or unused opioids. One of those initiatives was ASU?s Maroon Ribbon Week, which our team was recognized for at ASU?s Homecoming Game. One thing I discovered during the formulation stages of these activities was that although opioid abuse is, generally speaking, a non-partisan issue, certain complexities that arose demonstrated the biggest challenge facing Gen Z, tribalistic thought. If our generation is to set a prodigious precedent for the ones that will, of course, follow, we will need to utilize our distinctive qualities to ensure that we do not fall victim to the prevalent threat of polarization.

- El ijah Rusk


available, there wouldn?t be the situation where the people were waiting for the entire footage of the situation to be released. This can be paralleled to police as well. If complete footage were released upon request from the body camera, then the story could be perceived by the interested person and wouldn?t feel as if they were manipulated by the media. Finally, this simply increases trust in police themselves. This one is a pretty simple line of logic. W hen people can see the footage, they can believe it when their police tell them they didn?t mean to unlawfully hurt someone. The TorontoStar decided to quantify this and concluded Connecticut saw more trust when shown more footage from police officers.

The Police and Body Camer as


s of June 18th, presidential candidate, Pete Buttigieg, called on South Bend police to begin wearing body cameras. However, it is important to notice the scope of this issue is much larger than just South Bend. In Australia, police broke a man?s arm for ?looking Middle Eastern?. Crimes such as these seem preventable by requiring police to wear body cameras, but many argue this would impede police?s ability to fight crime. Countering this, one must note body cameras come to save many in multiple ways. First, body cameras allow people to increase trust in the entire system. Wesley Jennings, principal investigator for the study and associate chair of USF?s Department of Criminology, explained with data and maintenance costs, body cameras can be $1,000. Therefore, with the government and politicians investing in a system the people believe in, whereas 89%of Americans support requiring policy officers wearing body cameras to record on-duty interactions according to the Cato Institute, this will provide officials more support of the people and will reinstate some of the people?s trust in the government, which is where the government seems to be lacking most. Further, body cameras used at all times when on-duty would increase trust in the media. W ith the ?fake news?movement around the country, the people seem to be losing faith in our media along side our politicians. According to the Nieman Foundation at Harvard, we, as a society, have been losing trust in our media sources. The Conversation goes on to explain the reason we mistrust the media is because they can sway it. However, if body camera footage were to be released then people would not feel constrained to the perception of the media companies. One example, not exactly related to police but rather the media, is the Covington Catholic situation from this past year. In examples such as these, media is released bit by bit from bystanders. Had official footage been

Wit h so many shoot ings of unar med black men, r esear cher s ar e scr ambling t o f ind a new solut ion. Body camer as?

Second, we must also note that body cameras do not only affect perception, but crime in itself, as well. Speaking about this terms of theory, according to Defense One, the footage from police officers allows for research to create algorithms to predict future actions and crimes. This is because camera footage helps identify recurring mechanisms in people committing certain crimes, so when these can be identified, police will be able to quickly predict who has committed a crime from footage. Further, while those against body cameras often say cameras prevent police from completing their jobs, cameras can also help people complete their jobs as well. The Conversation explained body cameras help people feel safe to seek out the people who are committing crimes. Ultimately, police want to know that in the event someone were to harm them, it would be caught on camera and the one seeking to hurt them would be held accountable for their actions. Further, police can no longer turn a blind eye to the crimes around them when their perspective is caught on camera. In fact, when the Toronto Star quantified this, they found police caught more crimes when they were wearing body cameras. Ultimately, it is time that we as a nation stand together. W hile you and I may disagree as to whether police are systematically allowing this harm, body cameras help hold our police and society as a whole accountable. Pete Buttigieg was just a man in charge of a city and then took the country by storm. Let?s take his city policy and allow it to take the nation by storm to help diminish this storm of nationwide violence.

Amer ica's War On Weed arijuana has not had a treacherous history comparable to other drugs. W hich brings up the question, is the drug marijuana bad for constituencies in Illinois?Marijuana has clearly been illegal in 40 states for many years. W hat was found was that legalization would solve the drug crisis, and help the mentally ill, boost creativity and regulate it.


Marijuana is the solution for the drug crisis. The book Smoke Signals goes in dept in the history of Marijuana. It was written by Martin A. Lee. He is an author and an activist who writes his books primarily on terrorism, media issues and drug politics. According to the book,?in 1906, when cannabis was first regulated by Congress as a potentially troublesome ingredient that had to appear on product labels. Cannabis treatments were available for self-medication,?(Lee). W hen cannabis was first regulated and used as medication not much happened Opioids as medication sprung an opioid crisis that is still in motion today. Later on the belief that marijuana drove people crazy emerged allotting for restrictions,?The term marijuana itself, of Spanish origin, was largely popularized by Americans using an anti-drug campaign as a pretext for anti-Mexican discrimination,?(Lee). Americans making weed illegal was a way to discriminate against Mexicans and was unnecessary. In the past it has had many different uses from sails to medication early colonists have used cannabis without THC for years upon years. This article goes into depth about how the use of hemp and cannabis changed over time. It is written by Barney W arf. His research is mainly allocated solely towards a broad range of human geography. It typically ranges from contemporary political economy, and social theories to even more empirical issues. According to the article,?Hemp has a long history of applications: its fibers have been used for millennia to make rope, canvas, clothing, paper, shoes, and sails. In contrast, Cannabis sativa, the focus The most important of this Thc was discovered by two Israeli biochemists in 1964. THC induces a variety of sensory and psychological effects, including mild reverie and euphoria; heightened sensory awareness, creativity, and empathy,?(W arf). Cannabis has had a wide range of uses in the past. Once biochemists in 1964 mixed in THC that created what is known today as marijuana. THC and hemp create a very intriguing depressant drug that offers its users a wide range of effects. It can cause positive effects such as creativity, empathy it can offer constituents in Illinois that suffer from mental health issues such as depression a sense of euphoria and long awaited happiness. Marijuana has been shown by historians to have a better history of helping people than prescription drugs that can cause a dangerous outcome such as an opiod addiction. People have used marijuana in many other places in the world. Before it was used for medical or recreational use it had a variety of uses. The article stated,¨The Chinese used

hemp widely, including rope, clothing, sails, and bowstrings. Paintings of the plant were found on pottery dating to 6,200 BC,?(W arf). Just like the origins of hemp in the US was used as sails it had similar uses in ancient China. Cannabis can not be inherently bad especially due to the simplicity of its original uses and lack of negative impacts in comparison to opiods. The article says,?The first documented evidence of medicinal cannabis sativa, dates back to 4000 BC. It was utilized as an anesthetic during surgery, including for the emperor Shen Nung in 2737 BC,?(W arf). Soon the use of marijuana developed into medical use as seen in other countries across the world in more modern day. Still there have not been any notable dramatic impacts on society upon legalization medically or recreationally. If it were to be legalized in Illinois there wouldn't be a dramatic impact on society because negative trends have not been incredible as seen in trend of opioids. However, marijuana does have some notable negative effects that truly need to be taken into account when deciding whether or not to legalize it nationally or even just in Illinois. There have not been incredibly dramatic to be noted in historical documents consistently. These negative effects no matter how small have been concurrent with other countries decisions on legalization and should be addressed. Ethan Russo is a neurologist, psychopharmacology researcher, and Director of Research and Development of the International Cannabis and Cannabinoids Institute (ICCI). He wrote an intense book about different states such as W ashington and how legalizing marijuana in those states allowed for weed to be contaminated, ?Out of the 26 W ashington State samples, 22 tested positively for pesticides (84.6%). Many harbored multiple contaminants, attaining levels in the tens of thousands of parts per billion exceeding the upper limit of quanti?cation. These included 24 distinct pesticide agents of every class: insecticides, miticides, fungicides, an insecticidal synergist and growth regulators, including organophosphates, organochlorines,carbamates, etc?(Russo). W hat the book fails to address how legalizing marijuana will allow it to be more regulated than it`s without being mandated. Regulated it decreases the possibility of it being laced with other drugs. Leaving things that people do regardless of the legality unregulated corporately is extremely dangerous for the health of constituents much more so than if they used pesticides to increase the growth rate of the marijuana in production. n ancient times this plant was used mainly as a fiber and for useful, resourceful purposes. Now it is used to cure the mentally unstable or just to give people a euphoric feeling they have not felt ever before. It has been used for anesthetic surgeries when technology could not help people in need of surgery marijuana could. Constituents can use this plant to get rid of their anxieties and depressions to do things that make them happy. It will stop people from illegally purchasing pot from dealers that laced it with other drugs without the consumer knowing and over time getting rid of the opioid crisis all together.


-Tiffany Taller

The Pur pose of News To Your Aver age Teen don?t think I read the news right. It?s one of those few things that?s incredibly difficult to do wrong, yet impressively, I still manage to screw it up. It?s essentially a two-step process: first, find that perfect mix of magazines, websites, periodicals and newspapers that tell you everything you could ever want to know about what?s happening in the realm of politics, business, tech, society, or culture. Second, read. I?ll be honest, I?m way worse at the second step than the first; I?ve meticulously planned, re-planned, and re-re-planned my ?news diet?at least ten times since I first started reading the news a couple of years ago. It?s just never felt right. I?ve gone through a lot of phases ? sudden realizations that I?ve been doing it all wrong and thiswas the right way to do it. ?How could I havebeen soblind for thepast (insert timein the rangeof twoweekstofour months)??I?d ask myself, until the cycle inevitably repeated itself two weeks to four months later. Through the past few years, I?ve gone through a lot of different ways of reading the news, each one brings a new (but not always beneficial) perspective to current affairs. Hopefully, you can learn from my experience.


?People with actual political opinions suck, the only true way to remain on top of every new and upcoming political trend is to view it with the mighty, unbiased, and untarnished lense of the moderate.?This was basically the news-reading ideology that encourages reading everything (and I mean everything) no matter where it comes from. On face, it sounds like a kinda balanced way to read the news and understand critical issues. Glance over a Buzzfeed analysis of the latest Trump Tweet?Just watch a few minutes of Hannity to balance it out! Yeah, I?ll admit, this is the only one of these news-reading ?phases?I?ve ever gone through which physically makes me cringe to

The Moder at e

What 's t he pur pose of news nowadays? Infor mat ion, disseminat ion, or capit alizat ion?

remember, the same way you cringe whenever you think about a stupid phase you might?ve gone through in middle school (which is pretty fitting, considering I adopted this strategy for the majority of eighth grade). However, I wasn?t alone, a significant portion of American news-readers find themselves tired with the ubiquitous accusations of falsified narratives and inaccurate reporting, a gradual decay of journalistic integrity as they see it, and begin to (somewhat) logically reason, ?Well the two extremes have to average out to something near the truth, right??. News aggregation websites like Allsides, ThePerspective, and The Flipsidepinpointed this growing market and capitalized upon it expertly. Sites like these became my home during the brief stint I spent as a certified moderate on every issue in existence. It?s unhealthy to characterize your opinions to the dead-center, exact average, of the most extreme viewpoints on a given position. In my experience, all it did for me was stigmatize the idea of having political opinions in the first place. It made me view those who had views which clearly leaned towards one side of the political spectrum ? passionate views which fueled advocacy, protest, and actual change ? as simply not well-read enough on the issue to understand the other side?s perspective, ironically resulting in my own failure to grasp the nuances behind nearly every issue I formed my centrist ?opinion?on. People who pride themselves on being political ?centrists?or ?moderates?can continue to do so, but shouldn?t recognize any hint of bias towards one side of a tumultuous issue as falsification, as I did for an embarrassingly long time. It kills advocacy and

embarrassingly long time. It kills advocacy and discussion in favor of the ever-better sounding: ?W ait no, both sidesare wrong!? I can?t lie though, the real reason I started reading the news wasn?t to become more educated on topical political, social, and cultural events, it wasn?t to advocate for change on the biggest problems in society, it wasn?t even because I wanted to know what?s really going on in the world, it was because of speech and debate. Shortly after first trying the debate event ?Public Forum Debate?, an event which demands a reasonable degree of knowledge on a scarily diverse set of topics, I was surprised to learn that, contrary to my previously held beliefs, I quite literally knew nothing. Thus, the beginning of my freshman year of high school marked the ?card dumper?phase of my news routine. My news didn?t come from CNN, CNBC, or TheHill anymore, actually, it might have, I honestly don?t know. The only thing I doknow about the news I got from this phase was that it never came from the front page of an actual news website, it was always a copy-pasted, bite-sized paragraph from who knows where neatly reformatted into a chunk I could paste onto my speech doc usually titled something like ?1AC PF North Korea?. I?d somehow convinced myself that my research into hyperspecific issues that came up in debate was a viable substitute for a breadth of knowledge on the entire set of issues that define our political climate. It lead to a situation where, seeing as my only reading came from websites like Prepd,, and ExtempGenie, I knew all I could ever want to know about 1 or 2 individual problems, but not too much about the stuff that actually matters today. Ask me anything, I dare you: Universal background checks? Go for it. THAAD?Guaranteed 40 minute argument. Trump?s tariffs?...Uh I?ll get back to you on that (if it becomes a PF topic). I was so blinded by the depth of information I received on topics that I, realistically, learned way too much about that I allowed myself to believe that it was a fit substitute for actually, well, reading the news. But things like substantive advocacy, societal change, or even a personal will to want to make a difference never come from sitting down for a couple of hours a day, searching Google Scholar for random journal entries published in 2006 about NAFTA, it comes with just going back to step 2, you haveto actually read thenews. Now, I?ve used the phrase ?actually read the news?a lot when looking back over my past news-reading phases. I think this phase was the first time I actually did that; the fact-checker was the phase where I first started looking past the fiery rhetoric of news headlines and started to look into what the article was telling me, ?Did that sound right?Or, even if it did, should I really just believeit without question??Contrary

The Fact -Checker

to the ?Card Dumper?, the ?Fact-Checker?seeks out the news based on the truth, not any agenda or preconceived bias (or what best fits their debate case). The UPenn?s Annenberg Public Policy Center runs the famous which rose to popularity during the 2016 election cycle as it repeatedly succeeded in calling out candidates on both sides of the political aisle. Recently, however, smaller initiatives like OwlFactor, a startup based in San Francisco, have surprised me with their innovative approach to fact-checking. Speaking with the founder and CEO of the company, Arjun Moorthy, who explained that many of the current approaches used by the most popular fact-checking websites such as Politifact are ?hand-written?so to speak. Meaning a human being, who inevitably holds biases regarding political and ideological positions, will have to try to mask their lack of objectivity as a fact-checker and hopeto be as unbiased as possible. Arjun instead takes the job out of the hands of people and puts it into the hard drive of computers - smart computers at that. Using an algorithm which provides the user with an ?OwlFactor rating?of the accuracy of the news articles they read, OwlFactor takes into account things like the author?s history and prior affiliations with political groups, how opinionated the tone and word usage of an article is , and the number of verifiable sources cited by the journalist. As a result, a long, well-cited, op-ed from the New York Times, will likely receive an OwlFactor rating of 90%+, meanwhile, a Fox Newspiece minimizing the impact of the most recent climate change study will probably receive a rating <50%. I bring up companies like OwlFactor because I think they showcase that the ?Fact-Checker?might not just be a news phase, it could become the norm for ordinary Americans who simply want to know what?s going on instead of the million different perspectives on it. Since this is the current phase of my news habit, my regular weekend routine consists largely of browsing the, Politifact, and OwlFactor websites and newsletters. It helps me form a more objective opinion of the truth while still recognizing opinions which I personally don?t like or agree with just might have some factual basis to them. All in all, reading the news is one of the most important activities a teenager can engage in. You can?t slap it on a college application and you can?t flex it to your friends but you can fundamentally change the way you think. You can question the basis of your biases and beliefs. I changed a lot as newsreader, and I?m happy to stand where I do now. My personal recommendations for how to read the news today are some mixture of TheEconomist, Vox, CNN, NPR, and Reuters. No, I can?t browse them all every single day , but I now make it my goal to at least glance over them every weekend or so. So seriously, start reading the news, today, right now. I swear it?s not just a phase. Rushil Roy

Profile for The Scope Magazine

The Scope Magazine - September 1, 2019  

The debut publication of The Scope Magazine, a national political magazine looking for the best high school writers in the country.

The Scope Magazine - September 1, 2019  

The debut publication of The Scope Magazine, a national political magazine looking for the best high school writers in the country.


Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded