The Union - Milpitas High School - December 2017 by Milpitas High School's The Union

NOVEMBER 2017

EDITOR I A L : The Opinion of The Union

Cultural rally does not do cultures justice MHS prides itself in the diversity of its student body. We celebrate our differences and share our unique cultures in a multitude of ways, one of which is holding cultural shows. Usually, cultural clubs such as the Vietnamese Student Association and the Chinese Club present a set of performances during the school day to showcase aspects of their culture. These shows contribute to the cultural education of the students at MHS and provide an opportunity for students–some of whom would otherwise be too busy or lack the money to attend a night show–to experience other cultures. However, this year, instead of separate cultural day shows, the school intends to have a single cultural rally for all cultural clubs. It is the opinion of The Union that to do every culture justice, putting all of the clubs together in one show is insufficient. There is not enough time to fully represent each culture, especially considering that there are eight clubs planning to participate in the rally this year. The details of each culture would be difficult to fit into the span of approximately an hour. To condense an entire history into roughly a class period’s worth of acts is a daunting challenge on its own–to limit each club to a an even smaller time frame essentially trivializes each culture. If a club wants to showcase a cultural performance, it comes at the ex-

pense of the audience potentially missing out on other significant aspects of the club’s culture. Furthermore, when presented back-t o-b ack, individual cultural traditions could prove to be confusing or incomprehensible. Concurrent performances run the risk of distracting from the unique aspects of each culture and is unlikely to do any single culture justice. In addition, the large gym, where the rally will be held, is not large enough to accommodate many students in a way that is comfortable. The populous student body would also prove detrimental to the coherency of the show, given the general rowdiness that occurs in every rally. The noise could blur the focus of the rally, and therefore minimize the importance of each culture featured. Also, given that students tend to skip more rallies than cultural shows, due to the crowded, rambunctious nature of rallies, a cultural rally in place of day shows in the theatre could have the opposite effect of what cultural shows intend to do. Instead of educating students on other cultures, it could create negative associations regarding displays of culture. However, while there are obvious issues with holding a cultural rally rather than multiple day shows over the course of the school year, it is important to note that there are benefits as well. Because the cultural day

shows are during class periods, the teachers decide whether the students will attend, and so many students miss out on learning about other cultures. With a cultural rally, attendance would be mandatory–even if a handful of students skipped it, the amount of students exposed to the cultural show would be greater overall. But even though a rally would reach a broader audience, the impact on students would be shallower. The time spent taking every student to have an inadequate cultural experience is not as worthwhile as having a few students gaining a greater appreciation for other cultures. Ultimately, the goal should be to further people’s understanding of other cultures. With the current cultural divide, it’s important now more than ever that students deepen their knowledge of other cultures and learn to relate to people they don’t necessarily understand. With this in mind, limiting the cultural shows’ in this way seems like a step down, rather than an improvement. In order to progress as a society and promote cultural acceptance for all, it is imperative that we take enough time to learn from other cultures in order for students to properlyunderstand and be educated on other cultures. To do otherwise, to take cultures and boil them all down to a variety show, simply doesn’t do anyone justice.

EDITOR I A L : The Opinion of The Union

Net neutrality allows access to information Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favouring or blocking particular products or websites, according to the Oxford Dictionary. What that means, is that ISP’s such as Comcast and AT&T can not discriminate websites depending on content or how much money that particular website is paying them. We, The Union, believe that net neutrality is essential to the age of the internet and the generations yet to come. Net neutrality has meant that a significant amount of information has been free to use to a large population. It has meant that one can read an article about abortion as well as an article advocating against it, and both are free to use in the same capacity, regardless of whether the ISP being used disagrees with either stance. This creates a culture of openness and allows the country to look at any and all sides of arguments. If an ISP decides to block all content that advocates for abortion, then so much valuable content will be lost.

The student population would especially be affected by the repeal of net neutrality, as many websites we use are educational websites that could potentially talk about controversial topics. In order to have sufficient information that then compels us to take a stance on issues, we need to see all sides of any argument. A blocking of websites based on their content threatens a cornerstone of democracy: freedom of information. If a portion of the population is essentially forced into only reading one side of arguments and issues, they essentially become indoctrinated by their ISP. This results in a populace unable to understand one another, because of their inability to understand someone else’s point of view. A repeal of net neutrality could also mean that if a particular website, such as Netflix, is paying more money to Comcast, and Hulu is not paying as much, then Comcast could slow down the connection to Hulu and speed it up for Netflix. Then, Comcast could potentially charge extra if consumers want to use Hulu at a higher connection speed. The

THE UNION

EDITORIAL

same scenario is true for any other website. This could very well increase the amount of money we spend on the Internet, and thereby make it very difficult to use for those who cannot afford to spend the money. It becomes especially problematic when those with lower income don’t have much opportunity to have access to a resource that gives so much useful information. The amount of inf luence of big businesses in our own lives will be extremely large if ISP’s are able to control the speed of specific websites, depending on which company or website is paying them more money. It will lead to a monopoly over our lives with us having little control over which website we want to go to. In essence, it does come down to money and the right we have to information. ISP’s should not have the ability to charge us extra for a resource that is quintessential to living in the 21st century. For students, net neutrality means an ability to freely look at any source of information, regardless of its content. For the country, a loss of net neutrality is a dent in our democracy.

U NION The

S T U D E N T V O I C E O F M I L P I TA S H I G H

The Union is published by the Journalism class of Milpitas High School. The views in The Union are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of the school, students, administration, or Milpitas Unified School District.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

Yearly subscriptions to The Union are available for $25. Contact the Business Manager for more information.