Monday, January 26, 2009 The Smoke Signal
the
Smoke Signal
Mission San Jose High School Est. 1964 Vol. 44, No. 5 | January 26, 2009
Editors-in-Chief Sophie Diao, Mala Neti News Vidya Mahavadi, Amy Mao Opinion Julia Harrell, Marianna Mao Feature Lena Liu, Hannah Scobel Centerspread Amanda Kwan, Natalie Yang A&E Vicraj Gill, Eric Sun Sports Ryan Tanakit, Audrey Tseng Graphics Cici Cao, Jerry Ting Web Raymond Chou, Lucy Liu Tech Abhay Malik, Albert Yuan Ads Rebecca Gao, Sargunjot Kaur Business Victoria Gu Circulation Derek Yueh Events Megan Bernstein, Clara Ma Copy Editors Sandhya Chandrasekaran, Sonya John, Cynthia Kang, Tanu Patel, Anastassia Tselikova, Jane Wang
Writers & Photographers Andre Abrahamians, Monica Chen, Victor Chen, Christine Cheng, Michelle Chu, Ankur Dhar, Hannie Dong, Michael Feuerman, Peter Gao, Alissa Gwynn, Niku Jafarnia, Henna Jethani, Karen Lin, Yvonne Lin, Gina Liu, Joseph Teng, Elisa Ting, Anthony Wu, Jonathan Ye, Jordan Zhang
Adviser Sandra Cohen Send letters to the editor to opinion@the smokesignal.org. Letters under 300 words may be considered for publication and must include a full name and school affiliation. The Smoke Signal reserves the right to edit for clarity and length.
To advertise in the Smoke Signal, e-mail ads@thesmokesignal.org. Advertising that is included on the pages of, or carried within, the Smoke Signal, is paid advertising, and as such is independent of the news and feature content.
The Smoke Signal’s right to freedom of speech and press is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
www.thesmokesignal.org
Jules of Wisdom
MAOTH off!
Inform Students of Their Rights
Political correctness glosses over reality
www.thesmokesignal.org
41717 Palm Ave. Fremont, CA 94539 (510) 657-3600
By Julia Harrell Opinion Editor
Picture this scenario. You’re walking to class when, suddenly, you’re stopped by the campus resource officer and asked to answer a few questions. Confused and slightly scared, you agree and follow them into the office where they proceed to rifle through your backpack and interrogate you. Seem like an illegal activity on the part of the administration? It’s not. Until about two weeks ago, I, like many public school students, thought that I was protected by the 4th amendment while on campus. After Officer Teresa Martinez made a presentation to my government class on 4th amendment rights, however, that myth was dispelled from my mind. The 4th amendment is a constitutional right that protects all citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. While all rights granted to citizens of the United States (including the 4th amendment) are applicable regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, or age, many of them only loosely apply to public school students. Unfortunately, no reasonable effort is made to inform MSJ students of this fact. In the MSJ Student Handbook, there is no mention of student rights regarding administrationconducted searches of student property. This information is only briefly outlined in the Parent and Student Handbook and Notice of Rights and Responsibilities that is pub-
lished by the FUSD. The handbook states that students can be searched if there is “reasonable belief ” that “illegal, dangerous or inappropriate objects” will be found. Such guidelines seem relatively reasonable at first. However, “reasonable” is a term that can be molded and loosely thrown around when it comes to the investigation of minors. In a 2002 ruling by the Supreme Court in the case of Pottawatomie County v. Earls, the court determined that “securing order in the school environment sometimes requires that students be subjected to greater controls than those appropriate for adults.” Rulings such as this are said to be protecting students and preserving a calm educational atmosphere but in essence are grossly discriminatory on the basis of age. Why should high school students be subject to looser restrictions in property searches than adults? While maintaining a safe campus is an understandable goal, students need to be properly informed that they do not have the same rights on campus as adults do in the real world. Instead of having a small section on student rights in a handbook that no one reads, the administration should give a presentation to all incoming freshmen and let them know that they are not fully protected by the Bill of Rights while on a public school campus. Better they be informed than arrested. ▪ Send letters to the editor to opinion@thesmokesignal.org
No Excuse for Booze Abuse By Megan Bernstein & Alissa Gwynn Staff Writers
Flipping through the channels on TV, one commercial seems to be played over and over again-the drunk driving commercial advocated by the US Department of Transportation. The 30-second clip depicts several drivers with cars filled, quite literally, with alcohol. The sad fact is that it is hardly an exaggeration. Each year, drunk drivers account for the greatest percentages of accidents on the road. Although the California Highway Patrol has increased its sobriety checkpoints and patrols, these measures haven’t been enough to significantly decrease the number of drunk driving accidents. Though trying to prevent drunk driving accidents from happening is ideal, the fact of the matter is that there will always be people who get hammered and decide to pick up the keys. The only way to truly make an impact on the drunk driving epidemic is to amplify the consequences for those who have chosen to commit the crime. Driving while intoxicated is an irresponsible choice that results in fatalities and should be treated as just that. It is not a matter of if, but when, a fatality will occur. When someone makes the choice to drive while intoxicated, it isn’t much different from deciding to take someone’s life. No matter what the circumstances are, fatal car accidents are a direct result of the choice to drive drunk. Some state attorneys have taken the matter into their own hands in trying to bring about greater change. In New York, district attorneys have pushed for drunk drivers who kill others to be charged with not only manslaughter, but first degree murder, a much more serious charge. And rightly so, for in the 10-year span
missouriinjurylawblog.com
between 1996 and 2006, DUI fatalities hardly wavered from 13,470 deaths to 13,451 deaths. By proving that drivers intentionally drove with complete indifference to human life, the state can then press higher charges in the hopes of dispelling future and repeat offenders. Although the number of alcohol related deaths has slowly decreased from approximately 26,173 in 1982 to 15,829 in 2006, the change has not been accelerating nearly rapidly enough in comparison to the lives being taken. By implementing a more severe charge for DUI fatalities, drivers will be more greatly dissuaded from driving while intoxicated, thus saving many innocent lives. Every 39 minutes, somebody is killed due to an alcohol-impaired driving crash. Every 39 minutes, innocent lives are sacrificed and families are ripped apart. Drunk driving is a gamble with human life. There is no doubt that courts must implement more severe consequences to prevent these tragic accidents and provide justice to those lives which are torn apart by ignorance and apathy. ▪
By Marianna Mao Opinion Editor
A recent survey conducted by TheBabyWebsite.com pinpoints the latest politically correct trend: at bedtime, more and more parents are abandoning offensive traditional fairy tales like Cinderella and Rapunzel in favor of more “appropriate” stories. Perhaps if the Brothers Grimm had been more thoughtful and referred to Snow White’s dwarves as the Seven Vertically Challenged but Otherwise Normal People, this wouldn’t be happening. Political correctness is part of a bigger movement in America, a futile tendency to try to conceal rather than fix the ugly truths of reality. The desire to protect children from disturbing realities about subjects such as racism and drug abuse is understandable, but all too often, political correctness is used as an excuse for censorship. Songs with political messages about poverty, gangs, and drugs are labeled as dangerous and slapped with parent labels advising of explicit content; abstinence-only sex education is taught in public schools even though statistics show that teaching students about contraceptives and safe sex is much more effective. Recently, I have heard pro-Israel students around campus defend the death of hundreds of civilians in the Gaza strip: “Collateral damage is inevitable in any war.” It’s true, but it also highlights another gross incongruity in American culture. Despite our desperate attempts
Opinion 5
to filter out “offensive” material, violence is ubiquitous, and we’ve become inured to it. The entertainment industry and the media has exploited the concept of death and maiming to the point where it has become something comically melodramatic. We weep over the death of a fallen soldier in Black Hawk Down or the end of a romance in The Notebook, yet remain unperturbed when confronted with reallife statistics about the number of people who have died in Darfur or the number of children left parentless in Gaza. Maybe we need to see the gritty side of reality more often; if we did, we would hardly be so complacent about “collateral damage.” Most Americans are so removed, both physically and culturally, from death and suffering that they cannot grasp what headlines like “Ten dead in suicide bombing” entail. In the 60’s, the media did not shy away from publishing explicit photos of the destruction brought about by the Vietnam War. Death was on display, and it forced people to confront the consequences of their country’s actions—to question their leaders. This is no longer the case today. Of course, sensationalist stories and macabre images are just as dangerous as striving to always be “appropriate” and “politically correct.” There is a middle ground, and we must find it. There are some grim truths we should not conceal. The reality of war is one of them. ▪ Send letters to the editor to opinion@thesmokesignal.org