“Welcome” seems narrow in appeal, charms all audiences
February 8, 2008
By Renny Logan (rlogan@hilite.org)
To the cursory glance, “Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins” at first seems to have a narrow appeal in terms of its intended audience. With an impeccable lineup including stars like Martin Lawrence, Cedric the Entertainer and Mo’Nique, it appears as if it is going to be another African-American comedy. However, the movie goes beyond its superficial limits and charms audiences of all sorts. Read more
Young voters need more exposure
February 8, 2008
By: Min Qiao <mqiao@hilite.org>
For as long as we have had the right to vote, there has been a fight to lower the age requirement attached to that right. Historically, 21 years was the amount of time regarded as necessary for one to become mature enough for suffrage. As early as the 20th century, the movement to lower the voting age began, which spread across the globe. Finally, by the end of the 20th century, the voting age was reduced to what we are familiar with today: 18. However, the movement to further reduce the voting age continues.
Around the turn of the 21st century, the push for having16-year-olds vote began. Like its predecessor, this movement has made quite an impact, especially on some of the European countries like Austria where it has met success. In America, this movement manifested in the form of teenagers urging for a constitutional amendment to update the one passed in 1971 that had lowered the voting age to 18.
For California, this goal might not be far from reach. In fact, according to The New York Times, several state senators in California have proposed a constitutional amendment to allow 17-year-olds a full vote, 16-year-olds half a vote and 14-year-olds a quarter of a vote.
Similar to the responses to the 1971 amendment, much of the controversy surrounding movements to lower the voting age today is caused by a concern involving the lack of competence, maturity and experience among teenagers. Other responses include comments that say 16-year-olds think in a shallow manner and that they will be emotionally driven.
And just like the critics of the 1971 amendment to reduce the voting age, many argue that 16-year-olds simply would not vote. As cited in an article in The New York Times, Amanda Carbonneau of Hopkinton, MA, who turned 16 in January said. “I think that a lot of kids around 15 or 16 aren’t really up to date on the current politics and wouldn’t really be able to make an informed decision. Most kids that I know would really vote based on something having to do with a silly reason.”
But the problem here is not with the actual age of 16. After all, 36 years ago, many had believed that 18-year-olds were too young to vote and their arguments were pretty much along the same lines as what some critics are saying about teens. No, the problem is that most teenagers just aren’t familiar with the political scene. And that stems from some fundamental issues with the infrastructure of how we are taught.
In all honesty, most teenagers do lack the experience and might not necessarily be able to make the most informed decision. After all, here at Carmel, as in other schools, students have to wait until their senior year, when most are either 18 or about to turn 18 to vote and learn about politics.
Taking government as a senior-only course means that kids have to wait until the last minute, until they are about to vote, to learn about what they are voting for. Of course they lack experience. Of course they can’t make the most informed decisions. It’s not necessarily a problem with maturity—there are plenty of adults who aren’t informed—it’s a problem, at least in part, with the way we’re taught. Or more precisely, the timing of our teaching.
The solution? Exposure. Teenagers should get exposed to government and politics years before they vote. Then they can go into their first election year with solid background knowledge about the current legislatures, bills and issues.
To a certain degree, casting a vote can mirror something we are all too acquainted with: taking a test. In order to do well on a test, we must have a good knowledge of what would be on the test, have a solid understanding of the material and have had some practice with the problems that might appear on the test. In an election, the same applies.
Young voters would be able to make a better decision if they had a good knowledge of the candidates running, have a solid understanding of the causes they are supporting through their vote and have followed the political scene for a while.
Let’s be honest here, how many students here will actually choose watching a one-hour program on the Democrats’ debate over one hour of Guitar Hero? How many of us would bypass the latest issue of People magazine with the headlines reading “Jamie-Lynn Spears Pregnant!” for a copy of Newsweek with Hillary Clinton saying that she “has found her political voice”?
In order to solve the issue with inexperienced, incompetent and poorly informed teenagers, we need to begin with baby steps. Since we spend over 40 hours at school every week, let’s begin the exposure here. Instead of limiting government to seniors, don’t wait until the last minute. Make it available for sophomores or even freshmen.
That way, if students already have a background understanding of government or politics, they are much more likely to tune in to the campaign trail once in a while or even watch a part of that one-hour program on the Democrats debate. Even if they can’t vote yet, they may be more likely to pay attention. It’s not much, but it’s a better start than what we would have had. Min Qiao is a reporter for the HiLite. Contact her at mqiao@hilite.org.
Censoring controversy undermines education
February 8, 2008
By: Jaclyn Chen <jchen@hilite.org>
For anyone who’s seen Hollywood’s “Freedom Writers,” “Dangerous Minds” or “Take the Lead,” the logical conclusion is that it takes a spectacular, unusual method to spark the minds of apathetic high school students. For Perry Meridian High School teacher Connie Heermann, the idea took on new meaning when she used The Freedom Writers Diary in her own classroom.
Heermann, according to an Indianapolis Star article, attended a summer training session by Erin Gruwell, the teacher who published and inspired the Freedom Writers book and movie. Heermann brought the book back to school and assigned it to her classes after obtaining permission from the principal and the parents. According to the article, the school district now says that it never OK’ed the book and fired Heermann for insubordination.
Regardless of the administrative procedures Heermann may or may not have violated, the school district exercised its authority too firmly. As a high school student, I am offended that adults would assume that, being young, I’m not mature enough to understand controversial material. And for the Perry Meridian school board to assert the same of its students is for it to assume that the education it offers doesn’t teach students about the complexity of important social issues. The statement the school board makes by firing Heermann is one of distrust and disbelief in its own system.
The controversy pertains to the racial and sexual slurs in the book, a collection of frank diary entries written by Gruwell’s inner-city students. According to the Freedom Writers Foundation’s Web site, Gruwell taught Holocaust literature in order to parallel the violence the students saw in their lives to a historic event they could relate to. The students kept detailed diaries about their lives, and the key to their learning, according to the Foundation, was their writing.
I am no expert on the best teaching methods, but as a student, I can say what doesn’t work. The easiest way to bore me in a classroom is to teach watered-down subjects. Literature with happy endings doesn’t enliven discussion, and history without debatable conflicts turns into Disney fairy tales. These techniques would send me straight into my post-lunch daze, and I’m a more eager learner than most. I can imagine the same applies for students already apathetic, only to a more excruciating degree; bored students with structured, approved curriculum hardly incites learning.
And if, for the Perry Meridian school board, the debate boils down to subject matter, it should note that some of the greatest books ever written have been about controversial topics. To Kill a Mockingbird comments on the intense prejudice harbored against African Americans grounded in a rape trial, and Brave New World presents a startling image of a diluted yet sexed-up world. These novels contain disturbing concepts, yet most educators will probably agree that there is merit to be found in their words.
This generation is one guided by YouTube and Facebook, and getting our attention through reading does require some effort by teachers. We can learn well through traditional lecture and note-taking, but an occasional dose of new methods is hardly detrimental. Just because we’re students doesn’t mean we have a fragile exterior that controversial discussions can crush. Instead, these discussions, like the ones Gruwell and Heermann used in their classrooms, foster a worldly type of learning that’s not confined to a textbook. These are the moments students will remember.
Controversial or not, Heermann employed a technique that would hopefully strike a chord in her otherwise uninterested students, but despite its promise, the method will never see fruition at Perry Meridian. While the administration has a right to direct what its teachers can and cannot teach, it seems unfair that Heermann must be punished severely for trying something new – her dismissal is a disservice to her students.
As a student, I hope Heermann’s situation does not force teachers to abandon attempts of excited and engaged learning for safe, yet sometimes monotonous curriculum. Schools should protect their students from obscenity to a certain extent, but they have a responsibility to teach about both the good and the bad, about both philanthropy and prejudice. High schools shouldn’t baby their students by not exposing them to reality and history. This isn’t protection, but rather a delayed exposure to the real world. Jaclyn Chen is the editor in chief of the HiLite. Contact her at jchen@hilite.org.
The goal is soul
February 8, 2008
By: Stephanie Walstrom <swalstrom@hilite.org>
On the way to school the other day, I drove behind two cars that had almost identical stickers plastered on their bumpers. The first read “Friends don’t let friends vote Democrat.” The other read “Friends don’t let friends vote Republican.”
In the wake of an intense battle for presidential nominations, I’ve become increasingly aware the sometimes-juvenile methods people use to condescend and belittle the opposing opinions of others. It comes in the form of generalizations, oversimplifications of the issues and the aforementioned bumper stickers, to name a few.
Many Americans have adamant opinions when it comes to candidates and government policy. The question I’ve been wrestling with is if it’s possible to find a balance between holding true to my own beliefs and opinions while respecting those of others.
And the battle between tolerance and personal conviction is hardly limited to politics.
I recently read Three Cups of Tea, an autobiography of a man named Greg Mortenson (I had never heard of the guy, but I picked up the book anyway during a two for three special at Borders). Long story short, Mortenson was a mountain climber-turned humanitarian who in the past 15 years has built more than 50 schools in rural locations all around Pakistan and Afghanistan.
It’s definitely a cool story, but Mortenson’s work represents more than just humanitarian efforts. Mortenson was white, American and Christian. In other words, he had several strikes against him when he was working in the Middle East before and after Sept. 11. And yet, because Mortenson exhibited a deep respect and tolerance for Islamic and Pakistani culture, Muslim leaders throughout the entire country were willing to work with him toward the common goal of educating the poor children in Pakistan. And because Mortenson’s schools offered an alternative to the jihad schools some Pakistani children had been attending, his efforts, in some small way, took steps toward peace and tolerance in the Middle East.
Despite the fact that Mortenson’s work was clearly benefiting everyone involved, he received hate mail following the Sept. 11 attacks written by people who disapproved of him building secular schools for Muslim children and not Christian schools.
Back on the topic of bumper stickers, I’ve seen one around that spells out the word “coexist” using a crescent and star to represent Islam, the star of David to represent Judaism and a cross to represent Christianity. The message of those religions peacefully coexisting has stirred up some controversy, and I’ve even heard the idea rejected at a Bible Study I attended. I’ve really had trouble understanding why an attempt to promote unity among different religions and cultures has been snubbed.
It all traces back to the question of tolerance. People wouldn’t steadfastly believe in a religion or adamantly agree with a political party’s ideology if they thought those ideas were incorrect. People are allowed to believe they are right. But I think ignorance in the name of religion or politics is always foolish, whether it takes place in the form of violent religious extremists or a condescending bumper sticker.
One of my biggest fears is that over time I will gradually become less and less tolerant. Maybe it will happen so quietly that one day I wake up and slap a bumper sticker on my car that says “I think, therefore I’m (insert political party here).” As witty as those sayings may be, they convey an elitist message of disrespect towards the opinions of others.
I’m sure my beliefs and opinions will change as I grow older; they’ve already evolved so much in the past year. But I don’t ever want to get to a point where I stop putting myself in the other guy’s shoes to try to understand where he comes from. I don’t ever want to write off someone else’s carefully thought-out opinions as stupid, even if I may not agree. To do so would be to discourage what should be our ultimate goal: finding common ground as human beings. Stephanie Walstrom is a reporter for the HiLite. Contact her at swalstrom@hilite.org.
FTK: For the kids
February 8, 2008
By: Claire Pickett <cpickett@hilite.org>
Maybe it’s something about spending your 12th birthday in the hospital that just sticks with you. Even though it was more than six years ago, I still remember it perfectly; the Band-Aid I wore on my face to try and cover up the red blotches, the little lies I told my classmates to try and seem as normal as them and the panic attacks my mom would have when she thought I couldn’t see. I’ll never forget the deep dread I would always feel when I would go back to the same doctor again and again.
Now that I’m living a healthy life again, it all seems like a dream sometimes, like it happened to someone else. And to be completely honest, I had almost forgotten about it until my sophomore year when I attended Carmel’s first Dance Marathon. True, I would go back to Riley Children’s Hospital for annual check-ups, but other than that, I did my best to make up for the time I had lost being a normal kid. I do remember being doubtful of the Dance Marathon when I first did it. I thought it would be similar to an awkward school dance, not a line dance we all did together as one. However, I walked out of there affected by one of the most amazing experiences that this school has to offer. The people dancing were all there not only for Riley, but also for Casey Crouse, whose sister had died that year in a tragic accident.
I watched as one by one, people stepped forward to tell their story of how Riley had impacted their lives. I had always been sort of embarrassed of being sick, and not being able to do all the things that my friends could do, so I was shocked of how easy it was for those people to open up like that. One of the things I have always struggled with, and still continue to, is opening up about a weakness. I couldn’t help but admire them.
Now it’s Carmel’s third Dance Marathon, and it’s my last one at this school. If anything has touched me at this school, it is this event. The people working on it are so passionate about doing all they can for the cause that it is impossible not to be inspired. Dance Marathon taught me to stop forgetting, and to remember all those days I wanted nothing more than to be just an every day kid. But it’s selfish to forget, because there are children out there struggling with things that I, and many of my classmates, could never imagine. I have come to realize how much we take for granted the ability of being able to dance for six hours, because six years ago, I never could have done that. We take for granted staying up until all hours laughing with friends, we take for granted waking up and going to school every day and we even take for granted sleeping in our own beds.
Dance Marathon is not just about raising as much money as possible; it’s about doing something for others that shows that you care. It’s about giving up a Saturday to help save a life, and it’s about dancing for all the children out there who would really do anything they could to be there. By attending dance marathon, you’re out there dancing for so much more than the $75 that you raised. And from experience, no amount of money can ever give you the rewarding feeling that you might just be making a difference in someone’s life. In the end, it isn’t about beating last year’s total amount of money raised. It’s about just being there and dancing your heart out for the kids that thank you with their lives. Claire Pickett works for the ads staff. Contact her at cpickett@hilite.org.
DM has its priorities straight this time
February 8, 2008
By: HiLite Staff
On Feb. 23, one of the most emotional and inspirational fund-raisers that this school has to offer—Dance Marathon—will again take place. In the Feb. 22, 2007 issue of this newspaper, there was an editorial criticizing the student government for its perceived emphasis on raising more money instead of encouraging more people to attend Dance Marathon. The event, that editorial said, should be about the experience and not just about raising money. It should focus on encouraging the charity and helping the sick children. It should work to raise money, but it should not lose sight of the cause.
The money aspect, in other words, should be simply an added bonus to the event. This year, however, there is no need to criticize because the event organizers have taken several steps in the right direction.
This year, the obvious focus of the student government has been to gain more attendees and to try to get more underclassmen to become involved. This year, student government representatives have reminded students on the announcements that the goal for attendees is 600 students rather than emphasizing a dollar amount.
This year, Katie Overbeck, assistant student government sponsor, said that it is more important to get more dancers because anyone who participates in the event will want to do so next year, and student dancers, she said, learn that it feels good to help others.
Last year, only 385 students attended this event, which is only about 11 percent of the student body. And while the total amount of money raised is admirable, it is a pity that more people decided to stay home during something as remarkable as Dance Marathon.
But since the House and Senate have put their focus on the number of dancers—by having the call-out meeting during SRT, offering parking pass incentives, visiting each freshman SRT and encouraging others to join—the numbers have already shown growth. About 700 dancers turned in packets at the last dancer meeting on Jan. 25.
To compensate for the money, more effort has also gone into fund-raising and getting more corporate sponsors involved this year. Already there have been several events at restaurants such as Qdoba, Mongolian Barbeque, Chick-fil-A and Max n’ Erma’s. Hopefully these efforts pay off, but even if it’s a struggle at first, the emphasis away from individual contribution and toward more corporate and group involvement is also a step in the right direction.
The Senate and House have done an admirable job this year focusing on getting students involved in Dance Marathon. Hopefully, their efforts will pay off and more students will attend this astounding and possibly life-altering event.
Welcome to Hilite Online
Advertisement
