The American Education System
Education is the linchpin of society. It measures how well we take care of each other and forecasts our future with consistent accuracy. And if the same is true for the American education system, it is a hapless indictment of our nation. As someone who has experienced the ebbs and flows of our ever-changing public school system for the past 12 years, I have some suggestions.
First, cancel student debt. In 2018, the researchers leading a study at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College found that a one-time cancellation of the $1.4 trillion outstanding student debt would translate to an increase of $86 billion to $108 billion a year, on average, to GDP. It would also help close the racial wealth gap and pave a path for rethinking higher education financing. Plus, fixing higher education financing could improve the K-12 system by removing disincentives for continuing to college.
Making education more inclusive and less localized taps into a pattern of diminishing engagement among learners. The education pathway seems designed for one select subgroup of American children. For students who do not fit into this category, attendance drops, and interaction dwindles.
This is one thing the pandemic taught us about institutionalized school: the expected one-size-fits-all education plan has significant limitations that can stifle some students’ success. While some extroverted individuals struggled with the concept of online learning, with overwhelming loneliness taking away from work, others enjoyed not being in a physical school building.
Avoiding social pressure was helpful for reticent students who could better focus on their studies. Students who may have been less likely to participate in a typical school environment may have benefited from the chatbox function and excelled in the small group settings afforded by Zoom breakout rooms.
This is not to say that we should adopt online learning as the new standard. Not at all. Personally, I struggled with the isolated environment. But, it is important that we begin to embed unique learning styles to fit varying needs.
The ambiguity of learning styles among children can be addressed in a number of ways, but it will help if we start by teaching things worth learning. The Association of American Colleges and Universities found that only half of American high school students feel prepared for the real world.
The study raises some interesting questions. Who decided that it is more important for me to learn about King Tut or the Pythagorean theorem instead of how to file my taxes? Why was this decision made? After 12 years of public school, there is no reason why I should have to Google what a W-4 form is but can perfectly recite the differences between baroque and classical art in 1700s Europe. Adding classes for real-world exposure and lessons paired with shaping a new curriculum for students to choose based on their interests will heighten engagement.
In part, fixing the curriculum problem can be as simple as putting education back in the hands of teachers. The politicians should step back and let the people who have dedicated their lives to teaching decide how to do it. Sure, it’s important that there are federal standards that need to be met. Still, for the same reasons we don’t let lawyers perform surgery, we should not give politicians complete jurisdiction over our education system.
Unfortunately, this is one small component in another larger issue: teachers are underpaid, undertrained, and undersupported. Take Finland as a counterexample. According to a survey conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the American workforce has some of the weakest problem-solving and mathematical skills in the developed world. Finland, which is in the top ten, has proudly accredited its success to rigorous and selective teacher training programs that have substantial impacts down the road.
In 1979, the Finnish government merged teaching colleges with standard universities. The short-term implications of this decision included an increase in the level of training teachers received and a correlated increase in pay. In the long run, professionalizing the teacher corp raised the value of the profession, establishing prestige.
Today, teaching is the most popular occupation among younger Finns. The competitive programs only look at the top quarter of a high school class and only accept about ten percent of applicants to their eight elite universities that educate teachers.
The United State’s teacher training is appalling by comparison. A report by the National Council on Teacher Quality called American teacher preparation programs “an industry of mediocrity,” deeming only 10 percent of the sample size “high quality.” The report pointed to an underwhelming interest in the occupation as a direct result of the average teachers’ infamously low salaries. Beyond waning interest, low wages for teachers have real impacts on the students in their classes. The National Education Association discovered that a ten percent increase in teacher pay is estimated to produce a five to ten percent increase in student performance.
Education is at the root of many larger-scale problems we face, and fixing the education system can offer solutions. We need to give control to talented teachers who have the skills, disposition, and knowledge to prepare students for the real world in a way that suits them.
First, cancel student debt. In 2018, the researchers leading a study at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College found that a one-time cancellation of the $1.4 trillion outstanding student debt would translate to an increase of $86 billion to $108 billion a year, on average, to GDP. It would also help close the racial wealth gap and pave a path for rethinking higher education financing. Plus, fixing higher education financing could improve the K-12 system by removing disincentives for continuing to college.
Making education more inclusive and less localized taps into a pattern of diminishing engagement among learners. The education pathway seems designed for one select subgroup of American children. For students who do not fit into this category, attendance drops, and interaction dwindles.
This is one thing the pandemic taught us about institutionalized school: the expected one-size-fits-all education plan has significant limitations that can stifle some students’ success. While some extroverted individuals struggled with the concept of online learning, with overwhelming loneliness taking away from work, others enjoyed not being in a physical school building.
Avoiding social pressure was helpful for reticent students who could better focus on their studies. Students who may have been less likely to participate in a typical school environment may have benefited from the chatbox function and excelled in the small group settings afforded by Zoom breakout rooms.
This is not to say that we should adopt online learning as the new standard. Not at all. Personally, I struggled with the isolated environment. But, it is important that we begin to embed unique learning styles to fit varying needs.
The ambiguity of learning styles among children can be addressed in a number of ways, but it will help if we start by teaching things worth learning. The Association of American Colleges and Universities found that only half of American high school students feel prepared for the real world.
The study raises some interesting questions. Who decided that it is more important for me to learn about King Tut or the Pythagorean theorem instead of how to file my taxes? Why was this decision made? After 12 years of public school, there is no reason why I should have to Google what a W-4 form is but can perfectly recite the differences between baroque and classical art in 1700s Europe. Adding classes for real-world exposure and lessons paired with shaping a new curriculum for students to choose based on their interests will heighten engagement.
In part, fixing the curriculum problem can be as simple as putting education back in the hands of teachers. The politicians should step back and let the people who have dedicated their lives to teaching decide how to do it. Sure, it’s important that there are federal standards that need to be met. Still, for the same reasons we don’t let lawyers perform surgery, we should not give politicians complete jurisdiction over our education system.
Unfortunately, this is one small component in another larger issue: teachers are underpaid, undertrained, and undersupported. Take Finland as a counterexample. According to a survey conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the American workforce has some of the weakest problem-solving and mathematical skills in the developed world. Finland, which is in the top ten, has proudly accredited its success to rigorous and selective teacher training programs that have substantial impacts down the road.
In 1979, the Finnish government merged teaching colleges with standard universities. The short-term implications of this decision included an increase in the level of training teachers received and a correlated increase in pay. In the long run, professionalizing the teacher corp raised the value of the profession, establishing prestige.
Today, teaching is the most popular occupation among younger Finns. The competitive programs only look at the top quarter of a high school class and only accept about ten percent of applicants to their eight elite universities that educate teachers.
The United State’s teacher training is appalling by comparison. A report by the National Council on Teacher Quality called American teacher preparation programs “an industry of mediocrity,” deeming only 10 percent of the sample size “high quality.” The report pointed to an underwhelming interest in the occupation as a direct result of the average teachers’ infamously low salaries. Beyond waning interest, low wages for teachers have real impacts on the students in their classes. The National Education Association discovered that a ten percent increase in teacher pay is estimated to produce a five to ten percent increase in student performance.
Education is at the root of many larger-scale problems we face, and fixing the education system can offer solutions. We need to give control to talented teachers who have the skills, disposition, and knowledge to prepare students for the real world in a way that suits them.
America needs a Space Race
Space exploration could help solve some of America’s most pressing problems.
On July 16, 1969, Apollo 11 launched atop a Saturn V rocket with Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins. Four days later, 125 million Americans huddled around grainy television sets in patient anxiety as the module landed on the lunar surface and prepared for deployment. After six-and-a-half hours, as the world watched, Armstrong and Aldrin became the first people to walk on the moon.
The historical phenomenon took place more than eight years after Yuri Gagarin and Alan Shepard made independent voyages into space. Gargarin’s successful breach of the thermosphere terrified the United States. The Cold War was underway, and the Soviet Union’s technological achievement suggested the prospect of nuclear advancements.
In September of 1962, President John F. Kenedy delivered his well-known speech promising American men on the moon by the end of the decade. Historians argue whether the Space Race ended when Aldrin planted the American flag into the dusty lunar regolith in the summer of 1969 or if the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, which came to symbolize détente, is the more official conclusion. But, it is an unequivocal truth that the prodigious competition would leave more of a mark back on planet Earth for years to come.
A recent NBC poll found that America’s most significant problems today fall into four categories: the economy, education system, environment/climate change, national unity. Space exploration could address these issues and deliver the benefits that we saw in the Space Race.
Sputnik’s successful launch kicked off the Space Race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The competition spurred a new zest for the sciences – particularly engineering – and led to a prolific increase in American investments in education. Inspired to raise a generation of young Americans more knowledgeable and capable than their Soviet counterparts, the United States Government established organizations like the National Science Foundation (NSF), which was credited with ushering in early education technology like overhead projectors and lab kits into U.S. classrooms.
In 1958, President Eisenhower signed the National Defense Education Act, which infused more than $1 billion into education and became the first of a series of bills aimed at obsoleting the American school system of the 1940s. One of the series’s overarching goals was to reinstate America as the global leader in education. The space-inspired education reforms and academic programs produced stunning results: according to a study done between 1970, five years after Congress passed the Higher Education Act to assist postsecondary education, and 1983, college enrollment rose by 45%. The trend matched a steady and ambitious increase in education funding.
Today, according to the Pew Research Center, the US is in 38th place out of 71 countries in math scores and 24th place in science. With a waning interest in these fields, America is set to slip in every measure of technological proficiency. National interest in something as fascinating and rewarding as space exploration would be a great solution for this issue.
Science and technology are the greatest agents of economic growth the world has ever seen. And while it can be an expensive investment, it is well worth it. In 1966, NASA received nearly 4.5% of the federal budget compared to 0.05% today. Some questioned if that was too much then and asked if returning to the moon today is worth the expense.
The answer is yes, unequivocally. Last year, NASA released an agency-wide economic impact report. The report showed that through all NASA activities, the agency generated more than $64.3 billion during 2019, supported more than 312,000 jobs nationwide, and generated an additional $7 billion in taxes throughout the United States.
Beyond the raw economic output, money put towards space exploration acts as a catalyst for innovation. The Apollo program brought us an ocean of developments still in use today. For example, smoke and carbon monoxide detectors were developed for NASA in the 1970s. The polymers created for space suits laid the groundwork for modern firefighting equipment and shock absorbers produced to protect equipment during launches now stabilize buildings in areas prone to earthquakes. The extraordinary combination of resources and scientists attained by and operating through NASA has benefits beyond everyday uses and even economic prosperity.
Critics argue that space exploration is pointless and cite our problems here on Earth, one of the most prominent being climate change. However, as ironic as it may seem, NASA and space programs are a huge contributor to protecting our world and environment. With alarmingly high levels of fossil fuel supply and demand, rising global temperatures, melting glaciers, and an international crisis in energy and water, NASA’s capabilities and expertise put the agency in a unique position to play a critical role in saving our planet.
In the 1970s, NASA developed photovoltaic cells (solar panels) to power their spacecraft’s systems and telescopes as well as filtration systems to ensure that astronauts had safe drinking water. They shared their panels with the energy sector and a handful of private companies to hasten the technology’s advancement and use their equipment for public avail. NASA also published the design details for the filter, which has become standard and saved countless lives.
The filter and solar panels are two notable items on a long list of similar contributions from the Space Race era. If NASA received 1960s and 1970s level funding today, imagine the groundbreaking discoveries we could make towards healing our planet. Even with their current allowance, the United States’ space agency is still one of the leaders in fighting the climate crisis. And no, the 500,000 gallons of ready-to-burn fuel in rocket ships does not exactly scream climate warrior, but after all, NASA is an organization that draws from the ranks of biologists, chemists, engineers, and geologists whose collective efforts have the capacity to improve all that we have come to value in our society. The cross-pollination of ologies almost always leads to innovation and discovery, which is at the heart of progress, and nothing accomplishes this quite like space travel.
Shockingly enough, the climate crisis is a partisan debate. Space exploration, on the other hand, is not. Since NASA's establishment in 1958, American space exploration has always been a bipartisan venture. President Kennedy, a Democrat, announced the goal of going to the moon, and President Nixon, a Republican, brought that goal to fruition. The mission united Americans under one common goal and empowered them as a people. It ignited a sense of hope and belief that is much needed in our heavily divided society.
Progressing in interplanetary exploration and travel would require bipartisan support and a coalition of our leaders uniting under common goals – something that has remained largely unseen in the past couple of years but will hopefully begin to reappear. If it does, the United States will reap the significant rewards: improved education, economic prosperity, advancements in technology with a focus on fighting the climate crisis, and unity.
On July 16, 1969, Apollo 11 launched atop a Saturn V rocket with Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins. Four days later, 125 million Americans huddled around grainy television sets in patient anxiety as the module landed on the lunar surface and prepared for deployment. After six-and-a-half hours, as the world watched, Armstrong and Aldrin became the first people to walk on the moon.
The historical phenomenon took place more than eight years after Yuri Gagarin and Alan Shepard made independent voyages into space. Gargarin’s successful breach of the thermosphere terrified the United States. The Cold War was underway, and the Soviet Union’s technological achievement suggested the prospect of nuclear advancements.
In September of 1962, President John F. Kenedy delivered his well-known speech promising American men on the moon by the end of the decade. Historians argue whether the Space Race ended when Aldrin planted the American flag into the dusty lunar regolith in the summer of 1969 or if the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, which came to symbolize détente, is the more official conclusion. But, it is an unequivocal truth that the prodigious competition would leave more of a mark back on planet Earth for years to come.
A recent NBC poll found that America’s most significant problems today fall into four categories: the economy, education system, environment/climate change, national unity. Space exploration could address these issues and deliver the benefits that we saw in the Space Race.
Sputnik’s successful launch kicked off the Space Race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The competition spurred a new zest for the sciences – particularly engineering – and led to a prolific increase in American investments in education. Inspired to raise a generation of young Americans more knowledgeable and capable than their Soviet counterparts, the United States Government established organizations like the National Science Foundation (NSF), which was credited with ushering in early education technology like overhead projectors and lab kits into U.S. classrooms.
In 1958, President Eisenhower signed the National Defense Education Act, which infused more than $1 billion into education and became the first of a series of bills aimed at obsoleting the American school system of the 1940s. One of the series’s overarching goals was to reinstate America as the global leader in education. The space-inspired education reforms and academic programs produced stunning results: according to a study done between 1970, five years after Congress passed the Higher Education Act to assist postsecondary education, and 1983, college enrollment rose by 45%. The trend matched a steady and ambitious increase in education funding.
Today, according to the Pew Research Center, the US is in 38th place out of 71 countries in math scores and 24th place in science. With a waning interest in these fields, America is set to slip in every measure of technological proficiency. National interest in something as fascinating and rewarding as space exploration would be a great solution for this issue.
Science and technology are the greatest agents of economic growth the world has ever seen. And while it can be an expensive investment, it is well worth it. In 1966, NASA received nearly 4.5% of the federal budget compared to 0.05% today. Some questioned if that was too much then and asked if returning to the moon today is worth the expense.
The answer is yes, unequivocally. Last year, NASA released an agency-wide economic impact report. The report showed that through all NASA activities, the agency generated more than $64.3 billion during 2019, supported more than 312,000 jobs nationwide, and generated an additional $7 billion in taxes throughout the United States.
Beyond the raw economic output, money put towards space exploration acts as a catalyst for innovation. The Apollo program brought us an ocean of developments still in use today. For example, smoke and carbon monoxide detectors were developed for NASA in the 1970s. The polymers created for space suits laid the groundwork for modern firefighting equipment and shock absorbers produced to protect equipment during launches now stabilize buildings in areas prone to earthquakes. The extraordinary combination of resources and scientists attained by and operating through NASA has benefits beyond everyday uses and even economic prosperity.
Critics argue that space exploration is pointless and cite our problems here on Earth, one of the most prominent being climate change. However, as ironic as it may seem, NASA and space programs are a huge contributor to protecting our world and environment. With alarmingly high levels of fossil fuel supply and demand, rising global temperatures, melting glaciers, and an international crisis in energy and water, NASA’s capabilities and expertise put the agency in a unique position to play a critical role in saving our planet.
In the 1970s, NASA developed photovoltaic cells (solar panels) to power their spacecraft’s systems and telescopes as well as filtration systems to ensure that astronauts had safe drinking water. They shared their panels with the energy sector and a handful of private companies to hasten the technology’s advancement and use their equipment for public avail. NASA also published the design details for the filter, which has become standard and saved countless lives.
The filter and solar panels are two notable items on a long list of similar contributions from the Space Race era. If NASA received 1960s and 1970s level funding today, imagine the groundbreaking discoveries we could make towards healing our planet. Even with their current allowance, the United States’ space agency is still one of the leaders in fighting the climate crisis. And no, the 500,000 gallons of ready-to-burn fuel in rocket ships does not exactly scream climate warrior, but after all, NASA is an organization that draws from the ranks of biologists, chemists, engineers, and geologists whose collective efforts have the capacity to improve all that we have come to value in our society. The cross-pollination of ologies almost always leads to innovation and discovery, which is at the heart of progress, and nothing accomplishes this quite like space travel.
Shockingly enough, the climate crisis is a partisan debate. Space exploration, on the other hand, is not. Since NASA's establishment in 1958, American space exploration has always been a bipartisan venture. President Kennedy, a Democrat, announced the goal of going to the moon, and President Nixon, a Republican, brought that goal to fruition. The mission united Americans under one common goal and empowered them as a people. It ignited a sense of hope and belief that is much needed in our heavily divided society.
Progressing in interplanetary exploration and travel would require bipartisan support and a coalition of our leaders uniting under common goals – something that has remained largely unseen in the past couple of years but will hopefully begin to reappear. If it does, the United States will reap the significant rewards: improved education, economic prosperity, advancements in technology with a focus on fighting the climate crisis, and unity.
Opinion: America’s political satirists are maintaining its democracy
Political comedians are front-line fighters for democracy; it is time we recognize the symbiotic relationship they have with us and America.
In light of Donald Trump’s presidency, news programs and political satire saw a dramatic spike in viewership. According to the Associated Press, cable news ratings went by 72% over 2019. In part, this was a byproduct of the younger generation’s increased interest in social and political issues. However, bored by the formalities of network news, millennials and early members of Generation Z turn to comedy programs and the monologues of late-night comedians as an information source.
Programs like Saturday Night Live – a 45-year-old show that has made fun of every president since Richard Nixon – weave together various humor with social and political critiques. On the other hand, monologue-based shows feature one comedian, either directing viewers’ attention to a series of news headlines or focusing on one overarching theme. According to the New York Times, some of the most popular political satirists include Trevor Noah, John Oliver, Hasan Minhaj, Seth Meyers, Jimmy Fallon, Samantha Bee, and Stephen Colbert.
Ample research has shown that this sort of political satire is a win for democracy. Political comedy encourages young people to enthrall themselves in modern affairs, prompting them to seek more information. It provides them with an appealing method of following political campaigns and enables them to feel better about their ability to participate in politics and even feel more inclined to join in acts of political expression.
Political comedy serves as a powerful tool for youth to learn about and navigate the complexities of politics while acting as an exciting, fast information source. The New York Times reported that only 46% of eligible American voters between 18 and 29 voted in 2016. With problematically low levels of youth voter turnout, discussing politics in an accessible manner is precisely what makes these programs important.
Compared to the 50% of Fox News’ viewers older than 68, these comedy shows consistently draw more than 40% of their views from people between 16 and 29. Compelling young people to vote requires capturing their attention and interest, something comedians attain by embedding additional aspects of entertainment in a shorter amount of time.
For example, I don’t want to sit down and watch an hour of NPR, but 20-minute episodes of Minhaj’s “Patriot Act” have taught me more about complex topics such as taxes, student loans, and American immigration enforcement than my 12 years of public school. Minhaj first came to fame on Noah’s “The Daily Show” before receiving his own Netflix segment. On “The Patriot Act,” Minhaj’s vibrant energy and witty humor are paired with an in-depth analysis of pressing issues. For such a short amount of time, it is a wonder how he manages to incorporate so much information and humor.
On “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver,” Oliver’s likable personality and cynical tone keep younger people informed through comedy. His unique strain of intelligent satire spreads across the internet, prompting laughter while informing viewers. His clips provide quick insight into the news for millions of young people on Twitter and Instagram. Recently, his segment on net neutrality ended up crashing the Federal Communication Commission’s website as viewers of Oliver’s program flocked to offer comments about a pending proposal. This was not the first or last time Oliver made a statement that prompted newly informed and intrigued people to investigate and crash a federal website.
This is not to say that there is no bias. More often than not, the mockery is directed towards the executive branch – no matter the party in power – and it is mostly clear which side of the aisle the commentator leans toward. Like Meyers, some have openly denounced Trump and blatantly explain their excitement for the end of Trump’s term. Meyers’ twisted-mouth impersonations of the president combine physical imitation with political judgment as he covers various news headlines concerning the White House and other global affairs.
Despite some bias, research from groups like the Pew Research Center has shown that viewers of these comedic political shows tend to be more informed and knowledgeable than audiences of other shows. A Pew Research Center study found that youth who regularly watch comedic entertainment media such as “The Daily Show” are 60% more likely to be correctly informed about current affairs than those who do not watch. Not only do these shows empower youth to get interested in politics, but they also equip their viewers with the proper knowledge and information needed to mitigate ignorance.
For a generation with a declining attention span, political humor can be an effective way to keep them engaged and interested in the news. Dr. Amy Bree Becker, a Loyola University professor, conducted a study that proved watching a comedy interview increases the likelihood that a young person will participate in a protest, march, or demonstration by 38%.
At Carlmont, many students are highly political. In 2016, weeks after Trump was elected, more than 300 Scots gathered for a walkout rally called “Love Trumps Hate.” In 2018, following the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, hundreds of Carlmont students participated in a national walkout where they expressed their condolences for the 17 people killed in Parkland and protested gun accessibility, sharing fears for their lives.
This year, Carlmont students joined in Black Lives Matter demonstrations all across the Bay Area and held a mock presidential election. However, in a partisan atmosphere, some students feel uncomfortable with politics. A FiveThirtyEight study revealed that younger people, ages 15-24, are less likely to get involved in politics because of time constraints and confusion about current events or the political system.
The study, which also pointed to misinformation on social media as a primary cause for confusion, can explain the mindset of Carlmont students who are less politically active. For Carlmont students who want to get involved but feel disconnected, political satire may be the perfect way to learn and get involved enjoyably. As Carlmont students begin to turn 18, they, too, can start impacting society not only through their voice but also through their vote.
Political satire inspires young people, like students at Carlmont, to involve themselves in politics while equipping them with an understanding of current events. The TV personalities motivate and allow students in our community and across the country to feel comfortable expressing their views and manifesting their beliefs through action – most notably, voting. Voting is the core of democracy, and by encouraging people to vote, political comedians are maintaining it.
In light of Donald Trump’s presidency, news programs and political satire saw a dramatic spike in viewership. According to the Associated Press, cable news ratings went by 72% over 2019. In part, this was a byproduct of the younger generation’s increased interest in social and political issues. However, bored by the formalities of network news, millennials and early members of Generation Z turn to comedy programs and the monologues of late-night comedians as an information source.
Programs like Saturday Night Live – a 45-year-old show that has made fun of every president since Richard Nixon – weave together various humor with social and political critiques. On the other hand, monologue-based shows feature one comedian, either directing viewers’ attention to a series of news headlines or focusing on one overarching theme. According to the New York Times, some of the most popular political satirists include Trevor Noah, John Oliver, Hasan Minhaj, Seth Meyers, Jimmy Fallon, Samantha Bee, and Stephen Colbert.
Ample research has shown that this sort of political satire is a win for democracy. Political comedy encourages young people to enthrall themselves in modern affairs, prompting them to seek more information. It provides them with an appealing method of following political campaigns and enables them to feel better about their ability to participate in politics and even feel more inclined to join in acts of political expression.
Political comedy serves as a powerful tool for youth to learn about and navigate the complexities of politics while acting as an exciting, fast information source. The New York Times reported that only 46% of eligible American voters between 18 and 29 voted in 2016. With problematically low levels of youth voter turnout, discussing politics in an accessible manner is precisely what makes these programs important.
Compared to the 50% of Fox News’ viewers older than 68, these comedy shows consistently draw more than 40% of their views from people between 16 and 29. Compelling young people to vote requires capturing their attention and interest, something comedians attain by embedding additional aspects of entertainment in a shorter amount of time.
For example, I don’t want to sit down and watch an hour of NPR, but 20-minute episodes of Minhaj’s “Patriot Act” have taught me more about complex topics such as taxes, student loans, and American immigration enforcement than my 12 years of public school. Minhaj first came to fame on Noah’s “The Daily Show” before receiving his own Netflix segment. On “The Patriot Act,” Minhaj’s vibrant energy and witty humor are paired with an in-depth analysis of pressing issues. For such a short amount of time, it is a wonder how he manages to incorporate so much information and humor.
On “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver,” Oliver’s likable personality and cynical tone keep younger people informed through comedy. His unique strain of intelligent satire spreads across the internet, prompting laughter while informing viewers. His clips provide quick insight into the news for millions of young people on Twitter and Instagram. Recently, his segment on net neutrality ended up crashing the Federal Communication Commission’s website as viewers of Oliver’s program flocked to offer comments about a pending proposal. This was not the first or last time Oliver made a statement that prompted newly informed and intrigued people to investigate and crash a federal website.
This is not to say that there is no bias. More often than not, the mockery is directed towards the executive branch – no matter the party in power – and it is mostly clear which side of the aisle the commentator leans toward. Like Meyers, some have openly denounced Trump and blatantly explain their excitement for the end of Trump’s term. Meyers’ twisted-mouth impersonations of the president combine physical imitation with political judgment as he covers various news headlines concerning the White House and other global affairs.
Despite some bias, research from groups like the Pew Research Center has shown that viewers of these comedic political shows tend to be more informed and knowledgeable than audiences of other shows. A Pew Research Center study found that youth who regularly watch comedic entertainment media such as “The Daily Show” are 60% more likely to be correctly informed about current affairs than those who do not watch. Not only do these shows empower youth to get interested in politics, but they also equip their viewers with the proper knowledge and information needed to mitigate ignorance.
For a generation with a declining attention span, political humor can be an effective way to keep them engaged and interested in the news. Dr. Amy Bree Becker, a Loyola University professor, conducted a study that proved watching a comedy interview increases the likelihood that a young person will participate in a protest, march, or demonstration by 38%.
At Carlmont, many students are highly political. In 2016, weeks after Trump was elected, more than 300 Scots gathered for a walkout rally called “Love Trumps Hate.” In 2018, following the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, hundreds of Carlmont students participated in a national walkout where they expressed their condolences for the 17 people killed in Parkland and protested gun accessibility, sharing fears for their lives.
This year, Carlmont students joined in Black Lives Matter demonstrations all across the Bay Area and held a mock presidential election. However, in a partisan atmosphere, some students feel uncomfortable with politics. A FiveThirtyEight study revealed that younger people, ages 15-24, are less likely to get involved in politics because of time constraints and confusion about current events or the political system.
The study, which also pointed to misinformation on social media as a primary cause for confusion, can explain the mindset of Carlmont students who are less politically active. For Carlmont students who want to get involved but feel disconnected, political satire may be the perfect way to learn and get involved enjoyably. As Carlmont students begin to turn 18, they, too, can start impacting society not only through their voice but also through their vote.
Political satire inspires young people, like students at Carlmont, to involve themselves in politics while equipping them with an understanding of current events. The TV personalities motivate and allow students in our community and across the country to feel comfortable expressing their views and manifesting their beliefs through action – most notably, voting. Voting is the core of democracy, and by encouraging people to vote, political comedians are maintaining it.
Ayal Meyers: On Achieving Unity
Unity is hard; division is equal parts easy and dangerous.
In recent years, the political playing field has gotten increasingly polarized on a domestic and international level. Within government parties and between enemy countries, partisan warfare has reached a climax unseen since the outbreak of the civil war in American history and World War Two on the global stage. These trends are worrisome and need to be resolved before history inevitably repeats itself.
In his 1796 farewell address, George Washington cautioned against political factionalism: “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.” Washington warned of the perils associated with political parties which create systemic divisions.
He worried about the prospects of an American republic gripped by tribalism. “But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty,” Washington continued. Despite the ironic nature of this slave owner is flaunting liberty, the hypocrite makes a strong argument highly applicable to the political deadlock we see in D.C. today.
Some have argued that these partitions are healthy as they promote engaging discourse and support a more heterogeneous environment. And this is not completely wrong. It’s been proven that differences in opinion among groups bolster societal ingenuity and progress.
But, this straw man fallacy groups differences in opinion with divisions – a misconception that is completely wrong. It’s like saying that my brother and I rolling around in the dirt when we were five is comparable to nuclear warfare because it is healthy to be outside and is human nature to engage in playful scuffles.
The division that is worrisome and unlike constructive debate is the division that alienates groups from each other and inhibits conversations and compromise. This disunification of groups that we are observing now is the type that historically leads to violence and destruction.
In a 2003 study, Stanford civil war experts James D. Fearon and David D. Laitin conducted research on the reasons for civil war. They found that civil wars are sparked by a wide variety of factors from religion to wealth distribution but share one important constant: powerful divisions between factions. “Wars do not just happen; they are made,” explains Fearon.
In another investigation, Crawford Young, an African politics expert at Wisconsin and a former dean at the National University of Zaire backed up the Stanford study. Young blames recent African civil wars largely on divisions sparked by financial and military factors that created groups unwilling to commit to any sort of compromise.
Solving this problem is just as bipartisan as the solution itself. It takes a multilateral commitment and care for the security of the nation to be willing to engage in real debate and listen with an open mindset. Listen to others, support, encourage, compromise, and maybe the country will live to see another day.
In recent years, the political playing field has gotten increasingly polarized on a domestic and international level. Within government parties and between enemy countries, partisan warfare has reached a climax unseen since the outbreak of the civil war in American history and World War Two on the global stage. These trends are worrisome and need to be resolved before history inevitably repeats itself.
In his 1796 farewell address, George Washington cautioned against political factionalism: “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.” Washington warned of the perils associated with political parties which create systemic divisions.
He worried about the prospects of an American republic gripped by tribalism. “But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty,” Washington continued. Despite the ironic nature of this slave owner is flaunting liberty, the hypocrite makes a strong argument highly applicable to the political deadlock we see in D.C. today.
Some have argued that these partitions are healthy as they promote engaging discourse and support a more heterogeneous environment. And this is not completely wrong. It’s been proven that differences in opinion among groups bolster societal ingenuity and progress.
But, this straw man fallacy groups differences in opinion with divisions – a misconception that is completely wrong. It’s like saying that my brother and I rolling around in the dirt when we were five is comparable to nuclear warfare because it is healthy to be outside and is human nature to engage in playful scuffles.
The division that is worrisome and unlike constructive debate is the division that alienates groups from each other and inhibits conversations and compromise. This disunification of groups that we are observing now is the type that historically leads to violence and destruction.
In a 2003 study, Stanford civil war experts James D. Fearon and David D. Laitin conducted research on the reasons for civil war. They found that civil wars are sparked by a wide variety of factors from religion to wealth distribution but share one important constant: powerful divisions between factions. “Wars do not just happen; they are made,” explains Fearon.
In another investigation, Crawford Young, an African politics expert at Wisconsin and a former dean at the National University of Zaire backed up the Stanford study. Young blames recent African civil wars largely on divisions sparked by financial and military factors that created groups unwilling to commit to any sort of compromise.
Solving this problem is just as bipartisan as the solution itself. It takes a multilateral commitment and care for the security of the nation to be willing to engage in real debate and listen with an open mindset. Listen to others, support, encourage, compromise, and maybe the country will live to see another day.
Justine Siegal teaches the MLB how to "throw like a girl"
When she was 13, Justine Siegal was told that she should “no longer play baseball.” Twenty-one years later, she became the first female coach of a professional men's baseball team.
Justine Siegal grew up in Cleveland, Ohio, where she first started playing baseball at age 5. She fell in love with the game and her hometown team, the Cleveland Indians, and never considered playing softball.
“I played baseball with my brother and my friends, and it was just the sport that made sense to me,” Siegal said. “I was a big Cleveland Indians fan, and I wanted to play the game that all of my heroes were playing.”
Baseball became her life. After hours of playing in the searing summer sun, Siegal would come home to a household that shared her love for the game. She jokingly recalled that there was no dinner conversation that didn't include the Indians, and, with a grandfather who had season tickets, the ballpark became her second home. But the simplicity and joy that baseball represented were soon replaced with discrimination and discouragement.
She experienced her first real taste of discrimination at age 13, when her new coach conveyed his disapproval of her playing on his team, insisting that girls play softball. This blatant display of misogyny served not to dampen but to encourage her dream.
“That's when I decided that I'd play baseball forever,” Siegal said.
This was the first of many discouraging conversations Siegal would have with men who viewed baseball strictly as a man's game.
During her freshman year, Siegal was not allowed to try out for her high school team. Weeks later, however, she pitched against them while playing for a different team. The coach then offered her a spot and she became the first girl to play at her high school. When she was 16, she was laughed at by that same coach after informing him she wanted to coach
baseball.
“No man would ever listen to a woman on a baseball field,” he said.
She found that because she had unequal playing opportunities, she needed to overcompensate, and for her, this meant education.
“I wasn't going to get the same playing opportunities as men, but I could at least out-degree most of them,” Siegal said.
While getting her Ph.D. in sports psychology at Springfield College in Massachusetts, she worked as an assistant coach for their baseball team.
Then, in 2009, Siegal became the first woman to coach men professionally when she was the first-base coach for the independent league Brockton Rox in Massachusetts.
In 2011, she was called up to the major leagues to throw batting practice to her hometown Cleveland Indians, becoming the first female ever to do so. She then went on to do the same for five other teams, including the Oakland A’s.
During her time throwing for Oakland, Siegal met Billy Beane, Oakland's general manager at the time. She kept in touch with Beane, emailing him for four consecutive years in a row inquiring about a coaching position. For the first three years, Beane rejected her requests.
Then, on Sept. 29, 2015, the Oakland Athletics announced that they had hired Justine Siegal to be a coach for their Instructional League team in October. Finally, for the first time in 140 years of official American baseball, the league had a female coach. But it wasn't smooth sailing from then on. As a woman trying to become a coach in a men's league, Siegal lived in a world where her mistakes were significantly more consequential.
“I had to sort of be invisible and perfect all at once,” she said.
There was still work ahead, but Siegal had proved to herself and to the world that she could do what nobody thought possible.
“I'm proof that a man will listen to a woman on a baseball field — when you know what you're doing, when you show that you care, and when you can help them become a better ballplayer,” she said.
In addition to breaking barriers in the men's baseball world, Siegal has worked to revolutionize the place of women in sports. Inspired by her daughter, she used her influence and passion to start Baseball for All, a non-profit that provides assistance, instruction, and encouragement for girls who want to play or coach baseball.
According to the National Youth Baseball Organization, every season, more than 100,000 girls play youth baseball, but only 1,700 girls go on to play high school baseball.
“Their love of baseball — and their talent — didn't just go away,” Siegal said. “So what happened to those other 99,000 players?”
She suspects the answer lies within her own experiences. Viewing the obstacles women in sports face as social injustice, Siegal founded her organization on the premise of opportunity and empowerment. In addition to direct coaching, Baseball for All teaches communities how to build and support girls baseball programs, helping organize and run events to bring those girls teams together, while also supporting girls in “boys” leagues.
“Boys that grow up to be husbands and fathers need them to know and understand how amazing girls and women are because that will create healthy relationships, and that's what creates healthy children, and that's what creates a healthy society,” Siegal said. “Plus, every time a girl strikes out a boy, it makes him a better father.”
Since Siegal's first major league appearance, several other women have made their debuts in professional men's sports. The most notable is the 49ers' offensive coach Katie Sowers, who made history last February when she became not only the first female coach but also the first openly gay coach to coach in the Super Bowl. The Sacramento Kings and San Francisco Giants became the third and fourth organizations in California to hire female coaches, making the state a leader in supporting women in previously men-dominated roles. Women are also breaking down barriers and stereotypes in the sporting world globally, including Siegal.
In 2016 and 2017, she served as a mental skills coach for Israel in the World Baseball Classic. Siegal also coached with the Fukushima Red Hopes, an independent pro club operating in central and eastern Japan. With these increasing opportunities, Siegal is optimistic about the future of women in sports.
“I think the day will come — I’m not sure when — that a woman will be signed by a major league team,” Siegal said.
For now, Siegal plans to focus on Baseball for All and continue fighting for women and social justice.
“If you tell a boy that girls can't play baseball, what else would they believe that girls can't do?” Siegal said. “This is not just a female issue; this is about our society and about what we can do together.”
Justine Siegal grew up in Cleveland, Ohio, where she first started playing baseball at age 5. She fell in love with the game and her hometown team, the Cleveland Indians, and never considered playing softball.
“I played baseball with my brother and my friends, and it was just the sport that made sense to me,” Siegal said. “I was a big Cleveland Indians fan, and I wanted to play the game that all of my heroes were playing.”
Baseball became her life. After hours of playing in the searing summer sun, Siegal would come home to a household that shared her love for the game. She jokingly recalled that there was no dinner conversation that didn't include the Indians, and, with a grandfather who had season tickets, the ballpark became her second home. But the simplicity and joy that baseball represented were soon replaced with discrimination and discouragement.
She experienced her first real taste of discrimination at age 13, when her new coach conveyed his disapproval of her playing on his team, insisting that girls play softball. This blatant display of misogyny served not to dampen but to encourage her dream.
“That's when I decided that I'd play baseball forever,” Siegal said.
This was the first of many discouraging conversations Siegal would have with men who viewed baseball strictly as a man's game.
During her freshman year, Siegal was not allowed to try out for her high school team. Weeks later, however, she pitched against them while playing for a different team. The coach then offered her a spot and she became the first girl to play at her high school. When she was 16, she was laughed at by that same coach after informing him she wanted to coach
baseball.
“No man would ever listen to a woman on a baseball field,” he said.
She found that because she had unequal playing opportunities, she needed to overcompensate, and for her, this meant education.
“I wasn't going to get the same playing opportunities as men, but I could at least out-degree most of them,” Siegal said.
While getting her Ph.D. in sports psychology at Springfield College in Massachusetts, she worked as an assistant coach for their baseball team.
Then, in 2009, Siegal became the first woman to coach men professionally when she was the first-base coach for the independent league Brockton Rox in Massachusetts.
In 2011, she was called up to the major leagues to throw batting practice to her hometown Cleveland Indians, becoming the first female ever to do so. She then went on to do the same for five other teams, including the Oakland A’s.
During her time throwing for Oakland, Siegal met Billy Beane, Oakland's general manager at the time. She kept in touch with Beane, emailing him for four consecutive years in a row inquiring about a coaching position. For the first three years, Beane rejected her requests.
Then, on Sept. 29, 2015, the Oakland Athletics announced that they had hired Justine Siegal to be a coach for their Instructional League team in October. Finally, for the first time in 140 years of official American baseball, the league had a female coach. But it wasn't smooth sailing from then on. As a woman trying to become a coach in a men's league, Siegal lived in a world where her mistakes were significantly more consequential.
“I had to sort of be invisible and perfect all at once,” she said.
There was still work ahead, but Siegal had proved to herself and to the world that she could do what nobody thought possible.
“I'm proof that a man will listen to a woman on a baseball field — when you know what you're doing, when you show that you care, and when you can help them become a better ballplayer,” she said.
In addition to breaking barriers in the men's baseball world, Siegal has worked to revolutionize the place of women in sports. Inspired by her daughter, she used her influence and passion to start Baseball for All, a non-profit that provides assistance, instruction, and encouragement for girls who want to play or coach baseball.
According to the National Youth Baseball Organization, every season, more than 100,000 girls play youth baseball, but only 1,700 girls go on to play high school baseball.
“Their love of baseball — and their talent — didn't just go away,” Siegal said. “So what happened to those other 99,000 players?”
She suspects the answer lies within her own experiences. Viewing the obstacles women in sports face as social injustice, Siegal founded her organization on the premise of opportunity and empowerment. In addition to direct coaching, Baseball for All teaches communities how to build and support girls baseball programs, helping organize and run events to bring those girls teams together, while also supporting girls in “boys” leagues.
“Boys that grow up to be husbands and fathers need them to know and understand how amazing girls and women are because that will create healthy relationships, and that's what creates healthy children, and that's what creates a healthy society,” Siegal said. “Plus, every time a girl strikes out a boy, it makes him a better father.”
Since Siegal's first major league appearance, several other women have made their debuts in professional men's sports. The most notable is the 49ers' offensive coach Katie Sowers, who made history last February when she became not only the first female coach but also the first openly gay coach to coach in the Super Bowl. The Sacramento Kings and San Francisco Giants became the third and fourth organizations in California to hire female coaches, making the state a leader in supporting women in previously men-dominated roles. Women are also breaking down barriers and stereotypes in the sporting world globally, including Siegal.
In 2016 and 2017, she served as a mental skills coach for Israel in the World Baseball Classic. Siegal also coached with the Fukushima Red Hopes, an independent pro club operating in central and eastern Japan. With these increasing opportunities, Siegal is optimistic about the future of women in sports.
“I think the day will come — I’m not sure when — that a woman will be signed by a major league team,” Siegal said.
For now, Siegal plans to focus on Baseball for All and continue fighting for women and social justice.
“If you tell a boy that girls can't play baseball, what else would they believe that girls can't do?” Siegal said. “This is not just a female issue; this is about our society and about what we can do together.”
March is worth the madness
When the March Madness basketball tournament starts up again, basketball fans around the U.S. will pore over ESPN analytics reports and turn their attention to the top 68 college teams in the nation.
Since its first tournament in 1939, March Madness has rocketed in popularity and influence, in sync with its consistently profound effect on America's people and economy.
In 2019, one in five Americans bet on the tournament, combining for a net total of roughly $9 billion. That includes nearly $2.5 billion wagered illegally, according to the FBI. It is also estimated that $1.9 billion was lost in reduced workplace productivity.
Up until the Final Four, games begin at noon and last until 11:00. For March Madness fanatics, this means sacrifices must be made. Students admit to faking illnesses or skipping classes for the sake of the tournament.
"I remember taking an extremely long bathroom break during my first-period class on the first day of the tournament last year and then watching the second half of a particularly close game that would have ruined my bracket during sixth-period the same day," junior Brad Croshal said.
Teachers and students alike notice a shift in attention as March rolls around, with more time spent on phones instead of focusing on school.
"I don't normally go on my phone during class, but I get so invested that I probably watch a part of a game at least once a day," senior James Souza said.
"Last year, all my grades dropped because I did basically no homework for the entire second half of March," junior Thaddeus Duffy said.
One purpose for the mass public involvement in the tournament is the predicting of games and outcomes, commonly known as the "bracketology" of March Madness.
This phenomenon began in 1977, at a Staten Island bar when a couple of friends of the bar owner argued over who could make a perfect bracket and wagered over who could get the closest. The bar owner opened the competition for the public, and 88 people filled out brackets in the pool that year and paid $10 in a winner-take-all format. In 2006, at the same Staten Island bar, 150,000 people filled out brackets, and the prize money exceeded $1.5 million. In 2017, ESPN reported that upwards of 70 million March Madness Brackets were made, 10 million more than reported in 2015.
People have a multitude of different reasons for making brackets. For many, the bracket making is social and recreational.
"I made my first bracket when I was in seventh grade, just as a competition with my friends. And we've done it every year since," junior Derek Chavez said.
"March Madness allows me to look my friend in the eye and say 'I told you so,' after calling an upset," Duffy said.
Like Chavez, many view the bracket as a casual form of entertainment, while others take it more seriously.
"I am normally in a couple of leagues that cost about $20 to play in, and if I win, I would normally get about $200," junior William Hesselgren said. "I also like to try to get a perfect bracket," Hesselgren added, "because if anyone can get a perfect bracket, it's probably going to be me."
Like Hesselgren, many people believe that they will be the ones to defy the odds and make a “perfect bracket.”
Despite their aspirations, the chances of a perfect bracket are a slim one in 9.2 quintillions. This can be a difficult number to comprehend. To put it in perspective, there are 31.6 million seconds in a year, so 9.2 quintillion seconds equates to 292 billion years. Similarly, there have been 5 trillion days since the Big Bang, so 9.2 quintillions would be to repeat the entire history of our universe 1.8 million times.
However, the tournament has not always been about money and fan competition. "March Madness" has evolved quickly and is vastly different from its original state. The original March Madness was a 1908 boys' high school basketball tournament in upstate Illinois organized by the Illinois High School Association (IHSA).
Before the power of broadcast, and before the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) assumed the name, a handful of Kentucky high schools teams called the "Sweet Sixteen" attracted large crowds to IHSA championship games. By 1930, the number of teams participating in IHSA's annual March Madness tournament grew to 900.
The buzz around the fast-growing popularity of the tournament fascinated IHSA secretary, Henry V. Porter. He first coined the term in a 1939 essay titled "March Madness.” Fascinated by the way fans viewed the annual high school basketball tournament, he wrote that "a little March madness may complement and contribute to sanity and help keep society on an even keel."
In 1942, he elaborated on his essay in a poem called "Basketball Ideas of March." He wrote, "The Madness of March is running./The winged feet fly, the ball sails high…"
The phrase "March Madness" was not commonly used to reference the NCAA tournament until broadcaster Brent Musburger used it during the 1982 tournament. "March Madness" has been synonymous with the men's basketball tournament ever since.
In 1939, the attention shifted away from the small-town, Kentucky high schools, and shifted toward the first official college tournament.
Until 1951, eight teams were invited to participate in the tournament. That number grew steadily until a 65-team tournament format was unveiled in 2001. In 2011, the league announced that 68 teams could qualify. In the current 68-team set up, the tournament is divided into four regions, each consisting of 16 teams. The winning teams from those regions comprise the Final Four, who meet in that year's host city to decide the championship.
The tournament began to bloom when coach John Wooden and UCLA began to dominate the league. The increase in popularity in Los Angeles led to the televising of parts of the tournament beginning in 1969. A decade later, a 1979 game between Magic Johnson's Michigan State and Larry Bird's Indiana State put college basketball on the map as one of the most significant sporting events in the United States. It has remained the second-highest-rated sports event, behind the Super Bowl.
Beyond the brackets, betting, and boasting, March Madness, at its core, is about the teams and their players. For the players, it is an opportunity to show their worth in hopes of earning a spot in the NBA. For colleges and universities, March Madness serves as a stage for their athletic programs and their student body to shine and earn respect.
For the fans, whether it be via gambling or trash talk, March Madness serves as a distraction from everyday life.
The “joint” effort against vaping falls short
For years, a heated debate has raged in the United States over the health consequences of nicotine e-cigarettes. Meanwhile, the vaping of marijuana has been swiftly growing. Recent deaths from vaping have led to a series of bills and other proposals to ban certain vaping products. The problem is that these proposals could end up doing more harm than good.
The public discussion around vaping intensified when teens began vaping and smoking. Millions of people now inhale marijuana from joints and pipes, which have been around since the ancient Egyptians civilization, and from new methods that have been introduced in recent years. These new methods allow for inhalation via sleek devices and cartridges filled with flavored cannabis oils. According to Robert H. Shmerling, a Harvard professor, vaping devices were initially intended as a way to help smokers quit, but evidence is mixed on how well they work.
Teenagers, millennials, and baby boomers alike have all been intrigued by this technology and its many perks—no ash, little odor, ease of hiding —and it is in high demand. Professionals in the legalized marijuana industry say vaping products now account for 30 percent or more of their business.
Many experts, such as Patrick Schulenberg, claim that the vaping boom is mainly a byproduct of teenage interest. According to Schulenberg's team at the University of Michigan, teen vaping has increased 58% in the past year. The result has at times been tragic.
On Oct. 4, 2019, a 17-year-old student from the Bronx was the first teen to die from vaping. Dr. Brandon T. Larsen, a surgical pathologist at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona, reported ruptures and chemical burns in the student’s lungs resembling the effects of mustard gas inhalation. Weeks after the death, counties all across the nation were scurrying to ban vaping-related products. In Sacramento, California, State Senator Jerry Hill of San Mateo introduced Senate Bill 38. This bill called for the banning of flavored vaping products that are particularly attractive to teenagers.
Unfortunately, the bill and other propositions like it did the exact opposite of what officials had hoped for.
They made it increasingly difficult to buy "mainstream vapes," which are purchased from dispensaries and regulated by the government. They did little, though, to counteract the vape black market, which trades in unregulated products of unknown sources.
Scott Aberegg, a pulmonologist and critical-care specialist at the University of Utah Hospital, was the first to provide evidence of black market operators using thickening agents to dilute THC oil, the ingredient in marijuana that makes people high.
THC oil is used to fill disposable containers called vape cartridges, which are heated to create inhalable vapor. Peter Hackett is the owner and operator of Air Vapor Systems, a company based in San Francisco that provides vape supplies to the legal market. In recent months, Hackett has found it harder to sell his product.
He says that black market dealers buy empty cartridges from Chinese factories at incredibly cheap rates. They then fill the carts about halfway with THC oil and fill the rest with thickening agents to dilute the THC oil in the cartridges. Using less THC allows them to sell the product at a much lower price.
Aberegg and his team found vitamin E oil, known as vitamin E acetate, mixed in many black-market cartridges. Vitamin E acetate is a legally sold product, commonly used as a nutritional supplement and in skin-care products. It is colorless and odorless, has a similar consistency to THC oil, and is much cheaper. It is not harmful when ingested or applied to the skin, but is hazardous when inhaled, causing the sorts of symptoms many patients have reported: cough, shortness of breath, and chest pain.
The crackdown by state authorities that have made THC oil more expensive and challenging to acquire makes vitamin E acetate an increasingly practical and convenient choice for black market dealers. Pediatric pulmonologist Dr. Franziska Rosser, of UPMC Children's Hospital in Pittsburgh, said that these factors also forces teens to turn to the black market products.
Vaping is quickly becoming a reality for teens. According to the 2019 National Youth Tobacco Survey, one in four high schoolers has tried vaping in the last 30 days. Banning vaping will not fix the solution; it will just exacerbate the problem. The bans cause teenagers to buy less safe products from makers who are forced to make it in an even more dangerous manner.
In the outbreak of severe lung illnesses — which has left 1,479 people sick and 33 dead so far, most of the patients had vaped THC, and all acquired their vaping devices from the black market. Reporting by the LA times states that of the 33 dead, 27 were below the age of twenty-one.
A San Mateo County meeting which was organized to take a stand against the electronic cigarette industry, that, in the words of one leader said is, "preying on our children," took place at 11 a.m, right in the middle of Carlmont’s third-period classes. This virtually prohibited any teens from joining the debate. Lack of representation has left teens feeling vulnerable and unheard in a matter that affects them most.
The bans will not provide an alternative to current cigarette smokers, nor will they stop teens from vaping. Instead, they will only increase lawlessness.
The public discussion around vaping intensified when teens began vaping and smoking. Millions of people now inhale marijuana from joints and pipes, which have been around since the ancient Egyptians civilization, and from new methods that have been introduced in recent years. These new methods allow for inhalation via sleek devices and cartridges filled with flavored cannabis oils. According to Robert H. Shmerling, a Harvard professor, vaping devices were initially intended as a way to help smokers quit, but evidence is mixed on how well they work.
Teenagers, millennials, and baby boomers alike have all been intrigued by this technology and its many perks—no ash, little odor, ease of hiding —and it is in high demand. Professionals in the legalized marijuana industry say vaping products now account for 30 percent or more of their business.
Many experts, such as Patrick Schulenberg, claim that the vaping boom is mainly a byproduct of teenage interest. According to Schulenberg's team at the University of Michigan, teen vaping has increased 58% in the past year. The result has at times been tragic.
On Oct. 4, 2019, a 17-year-old student from the Bronx was the first teen to die from vaping. Dr. Brandon T. Larsen, a surgical pathologist at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona, reported ruptures and chemical burns in the student’s lungs resembling the effects of mustard gas inhalation. Weeks after the death, counties all across the nation were scurrying to ban vaping-related products. In Sacramento, California, State Senator Jerry Hill of San Mateo introduced Senate Bill 38. This bill called for the banning of flavored vaping products that are particularly attractive to teenagers.
Unfortunately, the bill and other propositions like it did the exact opposite of what officials had hoped for.
They made it increasingly difficult to buy "mainstream vapes," which are purchased from dispensaries and regulated by the government. They did little, though, to counteract the vape black market, which trades in unregulated products of unknown sources.
Scott Aberegg, a pulmonologist and critical-care specialist at the University of Utah Hospital, was the first to provide evidence of black market operators using thickening agents to dilute THC oil, the ingredient in marijuana that makes people high.
THC oil is used to fill disposable containers called vape cartridges, which are heated to create inhalable vapor. Peter Hackett is the owner and operator of Air Vapor Systems, a company based in San Francisco that provides vape supplies to the legal market. In recent months, Hackett has found it harder to sell his product.
He says that black market dealers buy empty cartridges from Chinese factories at incredibly cheap rates. They then fill the carts about halfway with THC oil and fill the rest with thickening agents to dilute the THC oil in the cartridges. Using less THC allows them to sell the product at a much lower price.
Aberegg and his team found vitamin E oil, known as vitamin E acetate, mixed in many black-market cartridges. Vitamin E acetate is a legally sold product, commonly used as a nutritional supplement and in skin-care products. It is colorless and odorless, has a similar consistency to THC oil, and is much cheaper. It is not harmful when ingested or applied to the skin, but is hazardous when inhaled, causing the sorts of symptoms many patients have reported: cough, shortness of breath, and chest pain.
The crackdown by state authorities that have made THC oil more expensive and challenging to acquire makes vitamin E acetate an increasingly practical and convenient choice for black market dealers. Pediatric pulmonologist Dr. Franziska Rosser, of UPMC Children's Hospital in Pittsburgh, said that these factors also forces teens to turn to the black market products.
Vaping is quickly becoming a reality for teens. According to the 2019 National Youth Tobacco Survey, one in four high schoolers has tried vaping in the last 30 days. Banning vaping will not fix the solution; it will just exacerbate the problem. The bans cause teenagers to buy less safe products from makers who are forced to make it in an even more dangerous manner.
In the outbreak of severe lung illnesses — which has left 1,479 people sick and 33 dead so far, most of the patients had vaped THC, and all acquired their vaping devices from the black market. Reporting by the LA times states that of the 33 dead, 27 were below the age of twenty-one.
A San Mateo County meeting which was organized to take a stand against the electronic cigarette industry, that, in the words of one leader said is, "preying on our children," took place at 11 a.m, right in the middle of Carlmont’s third-period classes. This virtually prohibited any teens from joining the debate. Lack of representation has left teens feeling vulnerable and unheard in a matter that affects them most.
The bans will not provide an alternative to current cigarette smokers, nor will they stop teens from vaping. Instead, they will only increase lawlessness.
The life of a Carlmont Surfer
On a crisp, not yet sunny morning at a Pacifica beach, high school students Christian Buck and Tyler Dartnell, sit on their boards, rising and falling slowly, surveying the horizon, waiting, relaxing. As a large wave approaches, they paddle just a few yards in front of it. They smoothly slide up over the waxed belly of the board as the shoulder of the wave majestically carries them; an hour from now, they will be in math class.
Long before it was a world-recognized sport, surfing was a cornerstone of Bay Area culture; and Carlmont High school in Belmont, California, is located in the center of the bay area which is a prime location for such a culture. It is a short drive from a number of prestigious surfing destinations including Mavericks Beach. Worldwide, Mavericks is known as the home to one of the deadliest waves on Earth that instills high doses of anxiety into those who dare defy it.
Students teach surfing classes, make surfboards and even surf before school. Surfing brands such as Quicksilver, RVCA, Volcom, and of course Vans, are among the most popular clothing brands worn by Carlmont students. Beach-themed spirit days highlight the enthusiasts once a year.
Despite the spirit days, however, surfing has become a hidden aspect of Carlmont's culture due to the lack of representation through a surf team or club.
Whether students are aware of it or not, surfing is deeply embedded in Carlmonts' current culture and earlier history. Professional surfers Jeff Clark and Michael Ho attended Carlmont High in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
More than half a century later, Carlmont seniors Christian Buck and Tyler Dartnell are the leaders in the attempt to follow in their footsteps. The new flex schedule allows them to wake up at 5 a.m. and surf before school.
“Yeah we are definitely willing to give up sleep to surf,” Dartnell said.
While this wasn’t the intent of the new schedule, Principal Ralph Crame condones and applauds those who do take advantage of the late start in such a way.
“I think it is great that students get to go and do something they love before school starts. [...] I think it has a positive effect on a student's overall well-being. It is like playing a sport in that there is a physical component to it and keeps people in shape,” Crame said. “It also is a great way for students to socialize without social media. I think it helps students maintain balance in their lives.”
Carlmont science teacher and surfer Josh Engberg envies these students. He began surfing during the summer between his seventh and eighth-grade year and never had this opportunity.
“It's great for surfers that we have a late start now, as the conditions are generally much better in the morning. I wish I could do that during the school year, but teachers have meetings and work to do on those late start days. Surfing is one of the most condition and weather-dependent sports, so it's not like other sports where you can practice it at any time. You get skunked often with it being too windy or too small or big,” Engberg said.
Additionally, a few select competitive surfers skip a class or two to participate in competitions. For example, this year’s Big Chill Out competition semi-finals drew a couple of students out of their classes.
Despite hoping to surf professionally, Ruben Neyroud, a junior, knows the importance of staying in school, and his parents strongly agree. Just like many other parents of student surfers who are big advocates for their children staying in school and getting their education.
“I think I miss way less school than some other athletes who miss classes two or three times a week, whereas, I only miss because of surfing once a year,” said Neyroud.
While there are very competitive surfers, a multitude of Carlmont students also casually surf. Competitive surfers call them
“Troders” which is also a term to describe a surfer who is generally inexperienced and wipes out a lot. These students are the type to surf once a year maybe on a warm summer day only because they live close to the beach and it is what everybody else does.
“I know a lot of students like to get out to the beach only when it gets hot,” said Engberg.
Engberg believes that these “troders” are the defining factor of the Carlmont surf culture, while Dartnell disagrees. He runs a surfboard company in which he makes boards, and he claims that the majority of the people that buy his product are Carlmont students looking to surf more or improve their surfing ability.
“I think most people at Carlmont come up to me wanting to become a more advanced surfer and don’t want to be just a once a year surfer type guy, but for the most part they are scared off by the cold water or the underrated level of danger that comes with surfing, ” Dartnell said.
That is another aspect that makes Carlmont surf culture different from most places worldwide.
“We don’t have warmer water like in So-Cal or Hawaii, but I think that makes the people that do surf at Carlmont and in Belmont more passionate because it takes a different breed of human to willingly subject yourself to that cold at five in the morning,” Buck said.
While surf culture is represented in many different ways around school from wearing a surf brand to showing up decked out in beachwear on Surf Day during spirit week, the core of Carlmont surf culture is in the passion and pride that these surfers take in surfing their cold, unforgiving and beautiful ocean. Each individual talked about surfing the local beaches with such devotion and with such strong feelings, but when asked how many people they normally tell about their surf endeavors, the consistent answer was only one or two of their close friends, who in Dartnell's case, also surf.
“Surfing has been such an important part of my life and it was kinda nice to not feel like an outsider when I came to Carlmont. I would even say that I felt welcomed by Carlmont’s quirky and low-key, but vibrant surf community.”
Long before it was a world-recognized sport, surfing was a cornerstone of Bay Area culture; and Carlmont High school in Belmont, California, is located in the center of the bay area which is a prime location for such a culture. It is a short drive from a number of prestigious surfing destinations including Mavericks Beach. Worldwide, Mavericks is known as the home to one of the deadliest waves on Earth that instills high doses of anxiety into those who dare defy it.
Students teach surfing classes, make surfboards and even surf before school. Surfing brands such as Quicksilver, RVCA, Volcom, and of course Vans, are among the most popular clothing brands worn by Carlmont students. Beach-themed spirit days highlight the enthusiasts once a year.
Despite the spirit days, however, surfing has become a hidden aspect of Carlmont's culture due to the lack of representation through a surf team or club.
Whether students are aware of it or not, surfing is deeply embedded in Carlmonts' current culture and earlier history. Professional surfers Jeff Clark and Michael Ho attended Carlmont High in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
More than half a century later, Carlmont seniors Christian Buck and Tyler Dartnell are the leaders in the attempt to follow in their footsteps. The new flex schedule allows them to wake up at 5 a.m. and surf before school.
“Yeah we are definitely willing to give up sleep to surf,” Dartnell said.
While this wasn’t the intent of the new schedule, Principal Ralph Crame condones and applauds those who do take advantage of the late start in such a way.
“I think it is great that students get to go and do something they love before school starts. [...] I think it has a positive effect on a student's overall well-being. It is like playing a sport in that there is a physical component to it and keeps people in shape,” Crame said. “It also is a great way for students to socialize without social media. I think it helps students maintain balance in their lives.”
Carlmont science teacher and surfer Josh Engberg envies these students. He began surfing during the summer between his seventh and eighth-grade year and never had this opportunity.
“It's great for surfers that we have a late start now, as the conditions are generally much better in the morning. I wish I could do that during the school year, but teachers have meetings and work to do on those late start days. Surfing is one of the most condition and weather-dependent sports, so it's not like other sports where you can practice it at any time. You get skunked often with it being too windy or too small or big,” Engberg said.
Additionally, a few select competitive surfers skip a class or two to participate in competitions. For example, this year’s Big Chill Out competition semi-finals drew a couple of students out of their classes.
Despite hoping to surf professionally, Ruben Neyroud, a junior, knows the importance of staying in school, and his parents strongly agree. Just like many other parents of student surfers who are big advocates for their children staying in school and getting their education.
“I think I miss way less school than some other athletes who miss classes two or three times a week, whereas, I only miss because of surfing once a year,” said Neyroud.
While there are very competitive surfers, a multitude of Carlmont students also casually surf. Competitive surfers call them
“Troders” which is also a term to describe a surfer who is generally inexperienced and wipes out a lot. These students are the type to surf once a year maybe on a warm summer day only because they live close to the beach and it is what everybody else does.
“I know a lot of students like to get out to the beach only when it gets hot,” said Engberg.
Engberg believes that these “troders” are the defining factor of the Carlmont surf culture, while Dartnell disagrees. He runs a surfboard company in which he makes boards, and he claims that the majority of the people that buy his product are Carlmont students looking to surf more or improve their surfing ability.
“I think most people at Carlmont come up to me wanting to become a more advanced surfer and don’t want to be just a once a year surfer type guy, but for the most part they are scared off by the cold water or the underrated level of danger that comes with surfing, ” Dartnell said.
That is another aspect that makes Carlmont surf culture different from most places worldwide.
“We don’t have warmer water like in So-Cal or Hawaii, but I think that makes the people that do surf at Carlmont and in Belmont more passionate because it takes a different breed of human to willingly subject yourself to that cold at five in the morning,” Buck said.
While surf culture is represented in many different ways around school from wearing a surf brand to showing up decked out in beachwear on Surf Day during spirit week, the core of Carlmont surf culture is in the passion and pride that these surfers take in surfing their cold, unforgiving and beautiful ocean. Each individual talked about surfing the local beaches with such devotion and with such strong feelings, but when asked how many people they normally tell about their surf endeavors, the consistent answer was only one or two of their close friends, who in Dartnell's case, also surf.
“Surfing has been such an important part of my life and it was kinda nice to not feel like an outsider when I came to Carlmont. I would even say that I felt welcomed by Carlmont’s quirky and low-key, but vibrant surf community.”