The Spectator ● April 25, 2014
Page 15
Opinions A Minority of One By Shahruz Ghaemi The recent discussion about the issue of race in SING! has prompted me to seriously consider the issue of race within Stuyvesant at large. In attempting to approach this difficult issue, I have considered my own experience as a minority student. I should say first of all that I am Iranian-Chinese-American, that I identify strongly with my Iranian heritage, and that I look like neither of my parents. I would be considered part of a very small minority both inside of Stuyvesant, because of my identification as Iranian, and outside, because of my combined Iranian-Chinese heritage. What difference does being a minority make in my daily life at Stuyvesant? First it is necessary to examine the demographics at our school. Stuyvesant is unquestionably diverse; we have students from Bengali, AngloGerman, Korean, and Jewish backgrounds in the same classrooms. Furthermore, 40% of the student population benefits from free or reduced-price lunch, demonstrating that students come from every manner of income backgrounds. What Stuyvesant is not, regrettably, is representative of the city as a whole. The underrepresentation of AfricanAmerican and Hispanic students at Stuyvesant is well-known and
marks a significant gap in the student body. Here, however, I am concerned with my experience with Stuyvesant as it is, not with how it might be if the admissions process was changed. Still, the cultural diversity makes the minority label far less exclusive than it seems. Even Asians are not a monolithic cultural group at Stuyvesant, because that group is a fictitious construct. It is exasperating that the blanket term “Asian” captures so much variety in culture and ethnicity. Even I am completely caught up in that net, since Iranians and Chinese are both considered Asian, although I consider them to be entirely different. Similarly, other groups, when broken down, are just collections of highly diverse individuals. One would assume that being part of a minority can be lonely. But socially, I find your culture or skin color does not matter; your individual traits and interests affect your friends and associates. If you define your social status or relationships to others purely on racial grounds, then, yes, being part of a minority will be detrimental. If I decided to form a Persian Heritage Club and make it the center of my life, then the likely low attendance would definitely be discouraging. During relatively short four years of high school, people tend to form friendships based on
their shared interests and how well they like each other. A primary avenue for making friends and social connections is to join clubs or teams. Choices in extracurriculars and electives reflect personal interests, which lead to interactions with like-minded people, which, in turn, lead to personal bonds. Most of my close friendships have begun and been sustained through participation in shared activities such as Model United Nations. It also gives friends a chance to see each other that their schedules do not. Some may question the impartiality of these personal choices and their potential for unconscious discrimination, particularly detrimental to minority students. After all, there exists the perception that the Key Club, a volunteer-service organization, is the “Asian club,” regardless of what its actual membership is. This might fuel a cycle of “Asian” membership. However, the problem there lies in people’s personal perception of the organization, not in it as an institution. The very second regulation under DOE rules is the right of any student to join an organization “regardless of race, color, creed, religion, age, national origin, disability, citizenship status, marital status, gender, or sexual orientation.” This extends to sports teams where no separatesex team exists; for instance, fe-
male students interested in wrestling can join the boy’s wrestling team. Students who are especially interested in joining a club completely have the ability to do so, and if there’s one thing that Stuyvesant students can be, it’s determined. In addition, I find that Stuyvesant can be fertile ground for those who want to change attitudes. As in society at large, student’s views are shaped by larger trends and also as in society at large, there are students and faculty committed to countering negative trends. I have a lot of respect for events like JSA’s recent Fight Apathy event or GLASS’ annual Day of Silence for LGBTQA people being forced to remain in the closet. I don’t mean to say that Stuyvesant students as a whole demonstrate a Freedom Ridelike dedication to these causes, nor do I reasonably expect this. Rather, students generally give awareness events like these a lot of respect, due to the reputation for positive initiatives that groups like GLASS or people like SPARK counselor Angel Colon have. Stuyvesant is also not a hostile place for those who truly want to embrace their cultural heritage or that of others. Diversity clubs exist for those of Jewish, Greek, and Black descent which are, again, open to all. In a similar vein, the teacher of the senior elective Jew-
ish History regularly pitches it as a class with only four Jewish students. His point is that “you don’t have to be Jewish to be interested in Jewish history.” Once again, common interests trump purely racial considerations. But as a minority student, I don’t even feel the need to express my heritage through participation in yet another club. My personal pride in being Iranian-Chinese is well-known to those who know me, although most of my friends do not share my background. In fact, most of my friends are Jewish, and are as respectful of my personal representation of my heritage as I am of theirs. They appreciate the dumplings they can eat at my house, and I appreciate the sukkot they build in their backyards. In the end, I feel that Stuyvesant has never hampered my ability to connect with my heritage, and my heritage has never interfered with my ability to connect with other Stuyvesant students. While my environment does lack in others just like me, I am fully capable of personally expressing my heritage to my satisfaction. Moreover, I have been able to make friends with shared interests that are much more important that whether we both observe Jewish Yom Kippur or Persian Nohrooz. As an individual, I will always be a minority of one, and I find nothing wrong in that.
In 1955, Jonas Salk was hailed as one of the greatest men of the 20th century for discovering the vaccine for the vicious polio virus. During the polio epidemic of 1952, more than 3,000 people died, while more than 21,000 were left miserable and paralyzed. After Salk’s vaccination was introduced, the number of cases was reduced from 58,000 to 161. Since the introduction of the vaccine, the once ravaging polio virus has been quieted, and polio is now 99 percent eliminated. Yet, this suddenly changed on the battleground of war-torn Syria. The horrendous lack of resources in obliterated cities has prevented citizens from getting basic immunizations, and for the first time in 14 years, a case of polio has been reported. Polio is highly contagious, but with Salk’s simple vaccine, it was easily contained. Although the situation in Syria is extreme, it is an eye-opener to the horrors that could occur if people do not receive basic vaccines. According to UNICEF, vaccinations save 2.5 million children every year. However, ever since a 1998 paper linked vaccinations to autism, many people have questioned the safety of vaccines. This blatantly false accusation, which is not supported by any medical proof, whipped many American parents into a frenzy, and a disturbingly large number of parents began exempting their children from basic vaccinations required to go to school. These decisions, made solely out of a selfish and illogical fear, put thousands of people at great risk of contracting dangerous, yet easily preventable, diseases. A somewhat recent example of the dangers of avoiding vaccination occurred in 1991 in Philadelphia. In this city, measles became prevalent in unvaccinated children, and thus spread quite fiercely. Although measles is a
treatable disease, it is dangerous in children, sometimes even producing blindness. Because of this outbreak in Philadelphia, seven children died due to the illogical fears of a few. Since this outbreak, measles has remained relatively quiet, with fewer than 60 cases a year in this country. However, in 2013, this number tripled, with 189 reported cases. Of these cases, 28 percent were brought back from other countries. Measles would never have been able to spread so rapidly and viciously from these foreign carriers if citizens had gotten their proper vaccinations. Because of the opinions of a few, entire communities are put in jeopardy. Vaccinations must be mandated for the sole reason that all citizens of the United States should not suffer merely because of the fears of a selfish and illogical minority. Furthermore, a majority of arguments presented against vaccination are either not prevalent, or simply illogical and unproven. One of the popular arguments against this practice is that there is a possibility of the subject having an adverse reaction to the vaccine and thus going into anaphylactic shock or immediate death. Many even argue that very serious diseases can evolve from the injection of a vaccine, but these statements are simply not valid. The truth is that although there have been rare cases in which adverse reactions have occurred, the risks of not being vaccinated greatly outweigh the incredibly small possibility of risks surrounding vaccination. By avoiding vaccination, one is exposing oneself to an otherwise easily preventable, potentially life-threatening disease, while by getting vaccinated, one protects oneself (while gambling with the minute possibility of a side-effect). The CDC and FDA established the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to keep track of all adverse reactions to vaccinations. Each year,
the VAERS reports around 30,000 cases of adverse reactions, with only 10 to 15 percent of those cases considered serious and requiring hospitalization. However, each year, vaccinations prevent 10.5 million infections and 33,000 deaths. There are rare, sometimes serious, side effects associated with vaccines, however the probability of these side effects are dwarfed compared to the 99 percent effectiveness rate of vaccines. One of the truthful arguments about why vaccines are, in fact, detrimental to one’s body is that artificial immunity somewhat suppresses the human immune system. It is much more effective to be exposed to the true pathogen and contract the disease than to be exposed to a benign version. However, the sole reason why vaccines exist is to avoid the symptoms associated with many diseases. By avoiding vaccines in order to receive true exposure, you are subjecting yourself to very dangerous symptoms of diseases with serious consequences. With a benign pathogen, immunity is achieved almost as successfully without these consequences. Vaccines are only truly effective when a large majority of the population is vaccinated. This is called herd immunity, which means that when 75 to 94 percent of the population is vaccinated, the spread of a disease can be stopped. The refusal of many to have their children vaccinated undermines herd immunity, and therefore keeps the pathogen alive, swimming within our midst. When people refuse to be vaccinated, they not only put themselves at risk, but also those around them. Thus, the key in this battle is to present immunization as the vital survival technique it is. Many of those opposed to immunization are simply ignorant to its immense contributions to society. If one were able to show the true benefits of immuniza-
Jessica Wu / The Spectator
By Nadia Filanovsky and Evan Lieberman
Jessica Wu / The Spectator
To Save the Lives of Thousands
tion to the general public and help them understand the medicine behind it, perhaps the enthusiasm for mandated vaccines would rise. Vaccine exemptions should not exist, especially in a school environment where disease is easily spread. The fact that many children are allowed to enter a school building with exemptions from mandated vaccinations is not only disturbing, but also very threatening to other children. Because of these few exemptions, a disease can now thrive in the school environment, thus putting many children in danger. Not only should vaccine exemptions be discontinued, but all FDA approved vaccines should also slowly become promoted to dissolve any ignorant fears and to
eventually become mandated in schools. When vaccine exemptions are truly abolished, no longer will life-threatening diseases such as measles and whooping cough arise in communities. No longer will the lives of countless children be threatened because of the illogical fears and beliefs of selfish others. Once this has been accomplished, America can strive towards a future in which, due to vaccination, these few diseases may be eradicated. “It is unreasonable to expect the risk factor in vaccines to be 0,” said Dr. Edward Telzak, Chief of Medicine of St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx. “However in the risk-benefit analysis, there is no doubt that vaccines win by a long shot.”