Climate change has been a growing controversy between the Democratic and Republican parties. Some hope to crack down on unsustainable energy practices to stop climate change from degrading Earth’s plant and animal species, while others believe it is crucial to support the oil and gas industries due to energy independence and job creation. Voters’ views on climate change will help decide the outcome of the 2024 presidential election, specially given that climate change has significantly intensified in recent years. According to the Copernicus Climate Change Serive — a European Union Earth Observation Program — 2023 was the warmest year in global records going back to 1850. Moreover, according to 2023 research conducted by the World Health Organization, 3.6 billion people already live in areas highly susceptible to climate change. As Gunn students approach voting age, their understanding of current debates will help them establish their opinions on the matter.

Concern about climate change has increased rapidly for decades. In 1970, former U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson created Earth Day to raise awareness about environmental issues. In 1988, ozone-layer depletion became an increasingly prominent issue in politics. The ozone layer protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, and its depletion contributes significantly to global warming. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency states that currently, the rate of warming is more than three times as fast as it was in 1980.

Beyond the ozone layer, Earth’s average temperatures are increasing, sea levels are rising, glaciers and ice sheets are melting and severe weather is becoming more frequent, according to the Nature Conservancy, a global environmental nonprofit. Indeed, scientists estimate that the “safe threshold” for global warming could be passed in less than a decade. Nevertheless, Democratic and Republican views differ significantly when it comes to climate change. A 2022 U.S. survey conducted by the Pew Research Center on climate change showed that amongst the respondents, 78% of self-identified Democrats and 23% of self-identified Republicans view climate change as a major threat to the nation’s well-being.

Many Democrats believe that tackling climate change is important because of the threat it poses to humanity. During his time in office, President Joe Biden — who is running for reelection this year — passed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the largest piece of federal legislation to address climate change thus far. Aiming to reduce carbon pollution, this act includes $8.8 billion in subsidies for home energy efficiency and electrification projects, which are estimated to save American homeowners up to $1 billion per year.

On the other hand, many Republicans don’t see a strong connection between human activity and climate change. In 2017, former President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement, which slowed international efforts to reduce emissions. Additionally, in 2020, Trump finalized plans that allowed mining and drilling in nearly 1 million acres of land in Utah, which were formerly off-limits. More recently, ahead of the Jan. 15 Iowa caucuses, Trump supporters showed their enthusiasm for oil and gas drilling. Along with former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Trump promised surging levels of oil and gas drilling and the removal of President Biden’s climate change policies.

These differences could prove significant in November. According to 2024 research conducted by Matthew Burgess, an associate professor at Brooklyn College, views on climate change played a significant role in whom people voted for in 2020. Burgess and his team of researchers from Vanderbilt University and the University of California, Santa Barbara used logistic regression, a machine learning model and a simulation of the Electoral College, adjusting the importance of climate change in their study. They concluded that Republicans could have gained at least a 3% swing in the popular vote if climate change was not a top priority for voters, which would have almost guaranteed them the White House in 2020. Burgess’ team also found that one-quarter of Republicans who find climate change to be an important issue voted for Biden in the 2020 election.

In 2023, the Pew Research Center found that around three-fourths of Democrats approve of Biden’s actions against climate change. A large portion of the electorate views climate change as an important issue and want to see a future where it is taken into account. These beliefs will lead people to vote for the candidate that supports their views — most likely Biden.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that Biden’s policies have universal support. Some climate advocates feel that he isn’t meeting expectations. On Sept. 18, 2023, climate activists gathered in Midtown Manhattan to protest Biden’s insufficient progress in addressing climate change. Young voters in particular used the protest to show frustration with the slow pace of political action on green issues.

The ongoing debate surrounding climate change extends beyond presidential debates — it is something that will be discussed among students, clubs, families and communities. As Gunn students observe the effects of climate change around them, they should take care to understand candidates’ positions on the issue before deciding who they support.

According to Merriam-Webster, to boycott is to “engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (a person, a store, an organization, etc.) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions.” This form of peaceful protest originates from the Ireland Land War of the 1880s, when Irish tenant farmers protested against English landlord Charles Stewart Parnell’s unfair treatment and high rent prices. Over time, however, it has evolved to become one of the most powerful protest strategies for local, national and global issues. Especially in a digital age in which protests are widely advertised, students need to be more aware of the potential impacts of boycotting and avoid performative or ineffective protests.

Differences between company and consumer values have made boycotts against consumer goods companies prevalent today. This manner of protest is successful because it leverages both economic and social influence against an organization. By inflicting reductions in revenue, boycotts force businesses to reconsider company policies to mitigate further financial damage. However, not all of these boycotts impact a company’s sales revenue, since people may publicly denounce an institution but still purchase its products out of habit. Take the recent boycott efforts with Amazon, for instance. The company has been accused of tax avoidance, poor working conditions and unethical labor practices, and as a result of the “vote with your dollar” philosophy, many people have encouraged boycotting Amazon goods. But due to the near-monopoly Amazon has on the online marketplace and society’s dependence on their unparalleled fast delivery, reliability and variety, its stocks and overall market value faced little impact from this movement.

On the other hand, companies with many competitors are most impacted by boycotts, since customers can buy substitute goods more easily. Take beer brand Bud Light: According to the Associated Press, following the April 2023 controversy regarding transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, its year-over-year sales declined 25% to 30% for several months.

Boycotts may also be ineffective if the participants aren’t the company’s target consumer. For example, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ boycotting fast-food chain KFC has had little to no financial impact to the chain since PETA is not the main consumer demographic that restaurants like KFC cater to.

Nevertheless, boycotts can wield significant damage through negative media attention and reputational damages. In the digital age, social media figures with large platforms have the power to persuade millions of people. According to LendingTree, an online marketplace nonprofit, a poll that was sent out to company consumers in 2022 reported that friends and family influence 47% of boycott decisions, politicians impact 20%, and celebrities or influencers impact 19%. 34% of Generation Z boycotters said celebrities or influencers impacted their decision to participate in a boycott. One example of this media-driven phenomenon is the boycott on Starbucks: In the early stages of the Israel-Hamas war, Starbucks Workers United, unaffiliated with the official Starbucks corporation, posted the message, “Solidarity with Palestine” on their Twitter account. Unwilling to be associated with the workers union’s stance, Starbucks released a clarifying statement and filed a lawsuit against the workers for trademark infringement of the Starbucks logo. Even though Starbucks has stated that it doesn’t directly fund the State of Israel, many people believe this boycott is a way for people to align themselves with Palestine, support an anti-violence ideology and uphold a union’s ability to express themselves politically. According to The Economic Times, Starbucks has seen a loss of $11 billion due to the recent boycotts.

Generally, successful boycotts are those that generate the most social media attention because it spurs larger collective action and allows for activists to garner more support globally. In recent years, for example, collective criticism surrounding the unethical labor practices and negative environmental impacts of Shein — a large fast-fashion clothing company — has led many to stop purchasing from the vendor. Eventually, Shein even released a statement of investigation into unsafe work conditions in some of their supplier facilities. According to data analysis company Statista, Shein saw a sales growth decrease of 2.8% in the second quarter of 2023 compared to a 341.9% increase in the first quarter of 2021. According to media analytics company Commetric, 25% of boycotts receiving national media attention won concessions from the target company.

Even though boycotts through media advocacy can be effective, they should not be relied upon as the sole tool for advocacy. As polarization increases and media becomes more saturated with campaigns, the boycotts’ effect can become diluted and less effective. Instead, this method should be used in moderation and in conjunction with other forms of protest. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, for example, went beyond boycotts to economically pressure institutions that practiced segregation: mass demonstrations such as the Selma to Montgomery march, legal struggles like Brown v. Board of Education, grassroot organizations that mobilized local leaders and individuals, media campaigns, and coalition-building with groups from diverse backgrounds to garner support. It is not any of these events in singularity that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but the power and conviction of millions of people who persisted in their beliefs.

Ultimately, a boycott alone, however effective, will not define a social movement or result in substantial, legislative change — even if it achieves considerable media attraction. It is important to remember, especially in a world that increasingly prioritizes speed and efficiency, that affecting true change is difficult: It requires tremendous effort, time, patience and faith in one’s beliefs despite setbacks, and most importantly, a willingness to fight.

This oversensitivity is well intentioned. Those restricting their comments for political correctness — any measure taken to avoid offending or disadvantaging members of a particular group — often do so to respect and uplift marginalized communities. However, when taken to an extreme, this approach often does the opposite: When people push for extreme political correctness, to the point where they censor and restrict ideas, they limit the potential for meaningful conversations, promote binary thinking and exacerbate polarization.

Although inclusivity increases when people feel safe and respected, it also drops when they fear challenging ideas. For instance, trigger warnings — originally intended to help vulnerable individuals prepare for and avoid traumatizing material — have since become common online, even in arguably unnecessary contexts, such as discussions about racial discrimination or instances of hateful language.

In fact, in an Atlantic article, author and attorney Jill Filipovic writes that trigger warnings often seem to be “more about emphasizing the upsetting nature of certain topics than about accommodating people who had experienced traumatic events.” The effect of trigger warnings has evolved into labeling controversial and uncomfortable topics as “dangerous.” This shift promotes ignoring distressing issues rather than learning to listen and work through them.

Additionally, political correctness makes differentiating between hate speech and controversial opinions difficult. By prioritizing limiting offense over understanding different viewpoints, oversensitivity can further create polarization and conflict.

Amid the Israel-Hamas war, for example, the conflation of hate speech and controversial speech has become especially visible: Criticism toward Israel is sometimes taken as antisemitism, and pro-Palestinian points of view are sometimes quickly classified as pro-Hamas. Such generalizations erase layers of important nuance in a complex geopolitical conflict, precluding understanding on both sides and exacerbating polarization. Thus, even if people disagree with certain opinions or find them to be hurtful, they must remain respectful toward one another and listen with the intent of thinking critically about the issue at hand.

In higher education, political correctness has made college students — who will play key roles in shaping the future of the U.S. — afraid to engage in meaningful discourse. According to a September 2021 survey by Intelligent, an online magazine serving students, 52% of college students say they “always” or “often” hold back from expressing views on political and social issues in classrooms out of concern for being shamed or other potential consequences.

College campuses are meant to be bastions of free speech, allowing students to engage with ideologically complex material with thoughtfulness and empathy. If students feel unable to voice opinions regarding controversial topics, they cannot learn. Moreover, these habits only become more entrenched later in life, discouraging students from advocating controversial or unpopular views beyond school as well.

Ultimately, oversensitivity to the point of extreme political correctness restricts discourse more than it protects people. Respect toward one another shouldn’t need to come at the expense of intellectual inquiry and necessary — if uncomfortable — conversations. When people use their differences in belief as an invitation to better understand themselves and others, they improve trust and their relationships. Nuanced discourse, built on dismantling extreme political correctness, renders a tremendous service to society. It is the first step toward a more inclusive world.

This trend is a product of the recent growth in preteen social media presence, driven by peer pressure and a lack of parental control. Children who frequently use technology and social media prevent themselves from creating important real-life connections and developing social-emotional skills crucial for adulthood. At the same time, they risk addiction, mental health issues and exposure to harmful content.

The ages 9 through 12 bridge the early-childhood and teenage years, and comprise a vital developmental period during which the brain is sensitive to outside influences. During this period, building connections and friendships with peers is essential. According to Mount Saint Mary College psychology professor Paul Schwartz, childhood friendships help develop social skills, including respecting others’ views and understanding conversational etiquette. Friendships also help children build a support system, decreasing their stress and increasing self-esteem.

Children who frequently use social media sites, however, are less likely to build friendships and more likely to have online-only peers, as a study led by research scientist Linda Charmaraman found in 2022. These digital relationships tend to be more superficial and less personal than in-person friendships, and therefore don’t serve as a proper support network. At the same time, preteens are more likely to engage in cyberbullying, and victims are at risk of psychological complications such as anxiety and isolation.

Access to social media has also created an environment that often promotes unrealistic standards. If children believe that their physiques fall short of the artificial image they compare themselves to, for example, they are likely to develop body dissatisfaction and eating disorders, according to a 2022 study headed by research scientist David Bickham. In a 2023 study from the American Psychological Association, adolescents who reduced their social media usage by 50% for a few weeks felt significantly better about their body and appearance.

Furthermore, younger children with unrestricted internet access may stumble upon sexual or violent content, leading them to become desensitized at an early age or to seek out such content of their own accord, as the American Academy of Pediatrics found. The Academy also found that adolescents lack the ability to regulate themselves online compared to adult users.

Parents of preteens can protect their children from the adverse effects of technology usage. To reduce the impact of addictive algorithms, parents should limit their children’s time on devices and prevent them from using certain social media sites, such as Instagram and Snapchat, until they are older. Social media companies must also realize the harm their products have inflicted and revise their policies to keep younger users from accessing their apps, with stricter age verification, better screening of mature content and increased parental-control options. Ultimately, parents must work with their children to minimize the pitfalls of technology so they learn how to use it in a healthy manner.

Tracing back to ancient Egypt, where both men and women used cosmetics for cultural and religious reasons, to the Elizabethan age in Europe, where heavy makeup was a statement of wealth and position, makeup has always held a meaning beyond aesthetics. Today, it is a part of everyday life, with many using makeup to bolster confidence and express themselves.

Yet women are often faced with a double bind stemming from societal expectations around how they should look and act. Women who don’t wear makeup are often labeled unprofessional or unkempt, while those who do wear it are called fake or insecure. This impossible standard puts women in a lose-lose scenario, in which they are criticized and judged regardless of what they do.

Such sentiments have proliferated on social media platforms, with phrases such as “one wipe and it’s over” and “take a girl swimming on the first date” implying that women who wear makeup are inherently duplicitous. These posts show photos of women with and without makeup, urging men not to be fooled by their “heavy coverage.” Furthermore, when searching about makeup online, the importance of men’s opinions dominates the conversation: “What makeup do men prefer?” and “Do guys like girls with makeup on?” are frequent questions.

Beauty stereotypes are not unique to social media platforms. Despite gains made since the 1970s toward redefining women’s roles, the beauty industry has largely remained unchanged. In advertisements, makeup products are described as life-changing necessities for women. If a woman goes without makeup on the red carpet, it makes headlines: After the 2023 Fashion Awards, publications from Sports Illustrated to People Magazine covered how actress and model Pamela Anderson attended makeup-free. Furthermore, female characters in TV shows and movies are almost always wearing makeup, making female audiences believe that they too must wear makeup to look presentable and attractive. Women continue to be sold unrealistic ideas about beauty and success.

While these dynamics may seem inconsequential in the larger scheme of things, they wield significant impact in women’s work lives. An analysis from writer Valentina Zarya of a 2016 study by Dr. Jaclyn Wong and Dr. Andrew
Penner found that a “well-groomed woman of average attractiveness makes about $6,000 more annually than an average-looking, averagely-groomed woman. She also makes about $4,000 more than her better-looking, but less put-together coworker.” Another 2016 study by Dr. Viktoria Mileva from the University of Stirling in Scotland found that employers may be more likely to hire women who wear makeup to job interviews.

This phenomenon makes confronting the stigma surrounding a woman’s appearance imperative. Writer Georgia Sullivan, who went without makeup for a month in 2023, wrote in The New Feminist that the “psychological battles and daily rituals were simply not something most men have to deal with. Makeup for men does exist, and some people believe that normalizing men wearing makeup is a good way to fix this gender disparity. Yet I wonder if the most positive thing, the most radical thing, would be to rid ourselves of these insecurities altogether and to instead tell women that they are fine just as they are.”

Far too many women today are accustomed to cultural expectations regarding their appearance. The multibillion-dollar cosmetics industry is a stronghold that will likely remain, as it is profitable and beneficial for stakeholders. Raising awareness about these pressures, however, can help promote change.

Makeup- and non-makeup-wearers alike should be aware of the biases in their daily lives, educating and supporting one another to minimize harm. It is time to educate and support one another to minimize harm caused by the shame associated with makeup. It is time to break the mask and embrace the true beauty of individuality.

Recent statistics from the Anti-Defamation League and the Council on American-Islamic Relations highlight the urgency of addressing antisemitism and Islamophobia in schools. According to the ADL, U.S. antisemitic incidents reached their peak after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack, a 337% increase from the year before. Similarly, in the four weeks following Oct. 7, CAIR received over 1,000 reports of anti-Arab and Islamophobic behavior, a 216% increase from the previous year.

Teachers play a crucial role in fostering analytical and critical-thinking skills as students try to grapple with complex geopolitical conflicts. Acknowledging this, ����ӰԺ Board Policy 6144 mandates that instruction be presented in a balanced manner, addressing all sides of an issue without bias or promoting a particular point of view. While total objectivity may not always be possible, through presenting facts from a variety of reputable sources and holding space for informed discussions, teachers can allow students to form their own opinions while respecting others’.

The challenge, however, lies not in the absence of resources — materials were provided to teachers post-Oct. 7 to guide discussions on the war — but in the confidence and preparedness of teachers to engage with these topics openly and effectively, according to social studies teacher Tara Firenzi. Alongside being able to understand the conflicts themselves, teachers must be able to appropriately confront hate in the classroom. ����ӰԺ has already implemented several equity and wellness trainings for teachers, including the New Hire Equity Training, which explores race, diversity and tolerance. However, the training fails to explicitly cover Islamophobia and antisemitism in the context of events in the Middle East, including the Israel-Hamas war — an incredibly complex subject that cannot be navigated simply with knowledge from general equity trainings. The complexity arises not from the conflict being more important than others, but from its deeply rooted history and the multifaceted political, religious and cultural tensions unique to the Middle East. This omission can lead to scenarios in which educators find themselves ill-equipped to navigate such a sensitive subject in the classroom. As a result, students may feel uncomfortable, unsafe or unsupported in their learning spaces. A staffwide antisemitism and Islamophobia education training that teaches staff how to identify microaggressions and biased learning materials will equip teachers with the necessary tools to discuss current events with students who are both deeply impacted by them and those who may just be curious.

This doesn’t mean that educators have to deviate from their planned curriculum to address current events. While all teachers should have the resources and training to discuss global events if they choose to, it is equally important for those who may not feel it is within their purview — including non-humanities teachers — to communicate their support to students. It is most essential to create an atmosphere of understanding, in which students know they have supporters among faculty who are prepared to assist them in navigating complex discussions and emotions.

This dual approach — equipping teachers with the necessary tools to address sensitive issues directly when possible, and fostering an environment of support regardless of the curriculum — ensures that all students feel seen, heard and valued in their educational journey at ����ӰԺ.

In many ways, teachers are on the front lines of combating discrimination in classrooms, including tackling subtler microaggressions. ����ӰԺ’s messy response serves as a call for a change in how its schools should approach the teaching of global conflicts as they arise. By equipping educators with the necessary tools to address sensitive issues like Islamophobia and antisemitism thoughtfully, ����ӰԺ can foster a more empathetic and informed student body.

The precise method of achieving this goal, however, varies: The French high school system requires students to choose a specialty before they graduate, while South Korean high school students’ academic futures depend almost solely on a single exam. While the American public school system is often criticized for its lack of rigor, its advantages are indisputable: By allowing students to explore their interests throughout high school and emphasizing personal development, American public schools provide valuable opportunities for pupils to grow.

The U.S. school system gives students time to develop their academic interests before deciding a career path. Some European countries’ education systems, on the other hand, emphasize specialization and career preparation in high school. For instance, students in France attend three years of high school, which culminates in the “baccalauréat” exam. Students can take the technology or general exam to attend university, or take the professional exam to begin working. This exam forces students to choose a field of study to focus on during high school, restricting options further down the line: Once they choose their concentration, choices of possible college majors and careers become limited. Students who lose interest in their chosen subject have their futures strongly impacted, and they may face stress and regret as they make the difficult choice of changing career paths.

On the other hand, the U.S. school system allows students to change their interests and areas of focus in high school — and even college. High schoolers aren’t expected to choose a concentration, and instead take classes across disciplines all four years of high school: Gunn, for example, requires students to take Visual/Performing Arts and Career Technical Education courses to graduate. Beyond high school, many U.S. colleges allow students to switch majors. According to 2017 data from the National Center for Education Statistics, part of the Department of Education, around a third of college students switch their majors within three years of enrollment. Young adults are often uncertain about their futures, and U.S. schools allow space for that.

The American education system also strongly encourages students to explore their interests through non-academic avenues. Extracurricular activities help develop existing interests and spark new ones. Activities like sports, clubs or volunteering help students apply their knowledge in real-world settings. Students under the U.S. school system are thus more likely to pursue career options they enjoy because they have a stronger sense of their interests.

By stressing non-academic learning, the U.S. school system avoids the pitfalls of focusing solely on academic performance. Take the South Korean education system, which determines students’ capabilities and qualifications for further education by their performance on a single eight-hour-long intensive exam, the “Suneung.” The difficulty and importance of the exam creates a competitive, toxic environment for students. Pressured by the goal of academic excellence, students neglect their personal development throughout high school. According to a 2020 study published in the General Psychiatry journal by University of Melbourne researcher Jiacheng Liu, 12% of adolescent suicides in South Korea were due to academic stress.

The paths each student decides to pursue should be tailored to what they are comfortable with, not what society expects them to do. Many other countries fail to address the external factors that may cause students to decide against enrolling in a four-year college, while the flexibility of the American school system enables holistic evaluations.

Ultimately, the American school system best prepares students for life. Although some may believe it isn’t rigorous enough, it allows students to make important decisions for their futures at a time when they are ready. While it may not be perfect, its academic flexibility and extracurricular options create the best environment for students to flourish.