By Duncan Baumgarten On June 26, 1996, a motorcyclist pulled up alongside Irish journalist Veronica Guerin’s ruby red car. They proceeded to shoot Guerin six times, both in the head and in the back, showering the car and the street with shattered glass. This was not the first attempt on her life, but it would be the last, leaving her dead on the M7 motorway in Ireland. Guerin had been reporting on the effects of the heroin crisis within Ireland, tracking down kingpins and sellers for more than two years. She had received threats of both legal action, and physical violence, towards both her and her son. She had been previously shot in the leg at her residence by another masked gunman, instructed to shoot to kill by crime boss John Gilligan.
On February 22, 2012, foreign correspondent Marie Colvin was discovered to be inside the journalist-exclusionary Syria, within the city of Homs, after going on air for CNN. She publicly condemned the actions of Syrian President Bashar Al Assad, and described the death, the torture, the violence that she had seen within her time in the civil-war torn country. She was discovered a few hours later by the militia occupying the city, and a mortar brought the ceiling of her hideaway down on her. She died instantly. What do these cases have in common? Women being stalked, attacked, threatened, and murdered for doing their job: reporting the truth. Organizations, from narcotic sales to national governments, finding displeasure and anger within the words of these women. Those same organizations seek out the journalists, and silence them. What do these cases mean in 2018? Things have not changed. If anything, the brutality and the murder towards journalists has escalated to an all-time high, not at all helped by the seemingly international condemnation towards those who attempt to seek out and share the truth as they see it. America had always been fairly exempt from the equation, leaving the violence to war-torn countries and dictatorships. They can’t claim that status anymore. With the at best biased, at worst universally hateful, view of the media, the US Government has joined the ranks of Syria, Afghanistan, Mexico, Yemen, and India. 80 journalists were killed in 2018 worldwide, with 49 murdered or targeted. Six journalist were killed in the United States this year. The violence has come home. Freedom of the press is the fundamental right of all Americans. It is outlined within the first amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” How can America call itself the land of the free, the land of opportunity, when they refuse to preserve, protect, and defend the institution that attempts to check the power of those in power? Regardless of the effects that journalistic scrutiny may have on a government, or a movement, or a culture, that institution must stand unwavering in its attempts to root out corruption and crime. America is in league with the monsters, and must immediately amend their ways, to further protect those who seek out justice and truth when no one else will. It’s the responsibility of the US government, and the governments of the world, to see the value of journalism and respect its integrity, with further legislation with the specific intention of protection of journalists. In early February 2018, the Journalism Protection Act was proposed, which would make it a federal crime to intentionally cause bodily harm to a journalist, affecting interstate or foreign commerce in the course of reporting or in a manner designed to intimidate him or her from news gathering.” Intentional lawmaking and legislation will help extend the guard of journalists both nationally, and internationally. Additionally, foundations like the Committee to Protect Journalists must be given the proper funding in order to supplement the objective reporting, and preservation of journalists everywhere. This is not how it has to be. This is not a problem that is unsolvable. Those who risk their lives to find the truth deserve the support and defense. We have to start somewhere. We don’t need another Marie Colvin, or Veronica Guerin, incident to happen again. Let’s start now.
0 Comments
By June Ganguli Life is not something to be played with. Geneticists around the world are all aware of the dangers of messing with human life, and they respect the laws that safeguard it. What would happen, though, if someone pushed the boundaries? He Jiankui, a geneticist in Shenzhen, China, claims to have genetically engineered the first pair of human twins, leaving the scientific community in shock and horror. Jiankui says he removed a gene from the twins, preventing them from contracting the HIV virus. Genetically altering humans has always been a major moral concern, and now the deed has been done.
The parents of the twins, whom Jiankui names Grace and Mark (for privacy) weren’t going to have children because Mark has HIV. Having faced discrimination due to his disease, Mark didn’t want his children to face the same. Employers in many countries will fire people with HIV and doctors can refuse medical care. Jiankui believes he has done the right thing, providing an opportunity for Mark and Grace to have children, but the scientific community feels differently. Frankly, no one man should tamper with human life without the supervision of his peers. There are laws against gene editing on humans, because of the risk of dangerous mutations causing harm to the individual and future generations. The National Health Commission of China says that Jiankui’s work “seriously violates China’s laws, regulations, and ethical standards.” Though the twins were born normal and healthy, Oxford Professor of ethics Julian Savulescu expressed his concerns to BBC stating, "Gene editing itself is experimental and is still associated with off-target mutations, capable of causing genetic problems early and later in life, including the development of cancer." Perhaps Jiankui would have gotten a better reaction if he’d been upfront about his experiment. Jiankui kept his project a secret from everyone creating a suspicious aura around his work. For example, he did not name the journal to which he submitted his study nor the experts that supposedly reviewed it. Also, the Southern University of Science and Technology, Jiankui’s employer, was unaware of his experiments. Jiankui said he was “proud” of his work when he presented it at the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing in Hong Kong, but the event's organizing board said his research was "irresponsible". In response to Jiankui’s presentation, more than 120 Chinese scientists stated that "directly experimenting on humans is nothing but crazy." Jiankui’s downfall could have been avoided if Jiankui had followed international norms on gene editing, maintained transparency with his institution and consulted with his peers instead of relying solely on his own findings. An analysis of the screen's relation to your mood, your habits, and your well-being By Amanda Frantz How much time do you spend on your phone? If you’re anything like a normal teen, it’s a staggering five hours a day. Let that sink in. That’s five hours of homework, hiking, reading, learning, lost. And if you're anything like me, it’s alarming to learn you spend 157 hours a month on your phone, which boils down to almost an entire week. Imagine spending an entire week plugged into Facebook, or Instagram, or Discord, or Youtube. It’s nuts.
After teen self esteem, confidence, and happiness had been on a steady rise since the 90’s, it began to tentatively drop alongside the invention of the smartphone, and took a hard plunge following smartphone teen ownership reaching 50%. The year was 2012. Nowadays, it’s become a common practice to “stalk” individuals on the internet, filtering through their feeds on Instagram or Facebook, comparing them to their own. It’s not unlikely, if you have a profile on a site, to feel the need to “tailor” it, picturing things to look like you’re living your best life, your most productive life. Smartphones are diversifying and adapting like viruses. There are apps for your every need, modifications for every situation. They are designed for everything from enabling you to examine Olympus Mons on Mars to reminding you to drink water. The fact that smartphones are so addicting is no huge wonder. They’re literally designed for it. Human brains are funny. If you were born between 1995 and 2001, you are part of the iGen and Gen X overlap. You probably don’t remember a time without the internet and computers. Or, maybe, one day it wasn’t there, and then was. I grew up playing Freddie Fish and Pajama Sam games on my now dated, chunky Windows computer with my sister. In later 2008, my mother purchased a copy of Zoo Tycoon 2, and then my home life got a whole lot more exciting. We were allotted ‘screen time’- one irreplaceable half hour a day. I’d play my bit, and then my sister would play hers while I gazed over her shoulder. I ate supper whilst observing her raise a Sim baby, design a enclosure for a polar bear, or create a Spore creature. This kind of relation to a screen is what drives the human brain a little nuts. It was entertaining, and I was addicted. Computers and iphones are so fast it builds a chemical reward response with you- the more content, such as pictures or videos, the faster you get a baby-sized dopamine rush, which makes you feel the same as if you’d completed and actual task, such as cleaning your room or getting a good grade on a test. It’s frightening to think of how this is going to impact our generation further down the line. Will we grow to be completely lenient? Or not? Do we have a chance to rewild ourselves? And what do the inventors of the iphone think of this? In Silicon Valley, parents are raising their children tech-free. Even Steve Jobs, pioneer of the smartphone, recognized to what extent that his devices could be double-headed snakes. In a 2011 New York Times interview, Jobs revealed he prohibited his two children from using the iPad, newly released. Many families followed his example to a T. Apple programmers and designers who keep their family on company grounds have rules that’d seem strict to us, but to them it’s a lifestyle- no screens for the kids, plain and simple. One Silicon Valley employee prohibits screens for her daughters day and night, with the exception of friday- when they watch a movie together as a family. If you wanted to cut back on screen time, yourself, it’s easy. Try eating meals without a screen. When you go out to eat with friends, leave your phone in a pocket and pick it up only when needed. When you are using your phone, ask yourself if it’s necessary. Unplug, and you may find you appreciate the outside world more than ever. By Jami Metcalf Personalized Learning is a strategy that is in the process of being implemented into the high schools of the Fairbanks Northstar Borough. It started in elementary schools in 2016 and moved into middle schools last year. This year it was introduced to high schools. The school district spent $1.6 million on the program in the last three years. Also in the last few years the district has cut classes, teachers, and other important factors at West Valley. Personalized Learning is supposed to allow students to move at their own pace and work with peers, which will give more time between teachers and students who need extra help. Heather Johnson, principal of West Valley, says that with PL, “Bigger classes are managed differently because there are different stations and centers set up.” which allows students to learn how they want to, in an effort to use their skills to their advantage. The district has decided to invest in PL because, as Mel Hadaway, Director of Teaching and Learning, says, “We haven’t seen success in students, so we have to change something.” Because there are so many methods to PL there isn’t one certain way to know if it is effective and beneficial to students. Many students still don’t know what Personalized Learning is, so it seems the money wasn’t spent in the best interest of students. The money was spent on training for staff, yet some teachers are still unsure of how to implement Personalized Learning because there are so many different strategies and methods that could be used. As Sarah Gillam, West Valley Principal says that, “every teacher will interpret PL differently.” Hadaway explained that, “the ‘what’ isn’t changing it’s the ‘why’ and the ‘how’.” Teachers are still going to teach the way they feel most comfortable. Forcing them to change would be the same as forcing students to adapt to teaching methods for various classes and teachers. Hadaway also thinks that, “All teachers should do what’s best for students, even if that means changing preferred methods.” A large part of PL will include technology and Heather Johnson, West Valley Assistant Principal, says one main concern for using technology is that it will, “further isolate students”. There is also nation-wide concern about the connection between increased technology use and rates of depression and suicide among teens. This approach, which increases technology use, is dangerous and schools need to be careful about how technology is being used in the classroom. The money could’ve been spent on other things that students and staff could benefit from. Since Personalized Learning is more of an approach and a method, why couldn’t it be done without paying Ed Elements a large sum of money? I agree that something needs to change in the classroom but it could be done in a cheaper and more effective way. “All major changes are like death. You can't see to the other side until you are there.” ― Michael Crichton, Jurassic Park By R.J. Sullivan Salutations, today I’ll be taking a break from my normal sphere of topics to discuss an upcoming change that is seeping into our classes. Personalized learning (PL), undoubtedly you’ve heard someone bring it up in a conversation, after all it's the “next big change in education” or the “future of education”. Both nauseatingly optimistic phrases seem almost voluntarily ignorant to an untested education system that, according to the Daily News Miner, the district pumped $1.6 million into. The district definition of PL is fittingly vague, “Personalized learning is the structuring of schools, classrooms, and instruction so we can better respond to the individual needs of students. Personalized learning shifts from a one-size-fits-all model of education to one which better prepares students for the jobs and needs of the future.” Now, don’t let my pessimism fool you into thinking I’m on the extremes against personalized learning, I am not. I am, however, noticing a distinct carelessness in the way the district has brought personalized learning to our schools. It almost as if they got a new puppy, and in their rush of excitement about a new canine, they forgot to get the essentials to care for such a fragile life. Likewise, we’ve been told that we’re getting personalized learning but have not been told how to use it, much less what it is. Rather worryingly, students who are in the firing line if this goes poorly, appear to have been cut out of a lot of the planning that’s gone into bringing personalized learning to our school. In the words of Mrs. Gallaway, student input has been “woefully inadequate”. The district’s timeline for implementation of Personalized Learning according to the school district website (https://www.k12northstar.org/personalized-learning) is currently:
If any of y'all know what that means then congratulations, because I sure don’t. The problem with that? This is the public information release, for both parents and students! How is anyone supposed to understand personalized learning when they can’t even understand the press release? And I haven't even gotten to the other “phases” yet! Now to keep this short I’ll end with Launch next, and this one is good. “Share focus areas with schools during Academies”, “Survey teachers and students”, “Confirm plan to capture and share data related to outcomes and focus areas”. If anyone has more questions or wants to see the presentation for themselves you can find it at https://www.k12northstar.org/Page/6543. Now, before you go on and say “of course there’s no student involvement we haven’t reached that stage!” to that I’ll reply, why is student involvement limited just one section? the smallest section might I add, and why don’t students get more say overall? I am not using this article to attack personalized learning or person(s) involved with it. I am, however bringing the flaws of how personalized learning is being implemented to your attention so that you, the student, can ask more questions and make sure that this new “education revolution” will go smoothly. Even more glaringly important, is that it will take perhaps until the class of 2023 before personalized learning will be fully implemented. So while the upperclassmen (myself included) will be long gone before things get topsy-turvy, there will still be newer students coming to this school, which means it’s imperative that we, the students of here and now, make sure that personalized learning will work effectively. I can write on and on about the pros and cons of personalized learning but that’s not what’s important, what is important is that personalized learning affects all of us, and we need to act like it. |
EditorWolfpack Editorial Board Categories
All
Archives
October 2020
|