Congratulations to the Scholars on the Close!
Presidential Scholars Shiva Khanna Yamamoto ‘19 Maggie Wang ‘19 (see https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/161-students-across-country-named-2019-us-presidential-scholars for the full list) National Merit Scholars Olivia Vella ‘19 Maggie Wang ‘19 (see https://patch.com/district-columbia/washingtondc/dc-national-merit-2-500-scholarship-winners for the full list)
0 Comments
by Julia Sherman '22
America: the land of the free and the home of the brave. Founded on ideals of democracy, liberty, opportunity, and equality. Equally important though, is the separation of church and state. As anyone who took a middle school history class knows, Europeans fled to the United States from the sixteenth century onwards to escape religious persecution. From that, they built a society where, unlike in many powerful European countries, they could freely practice whatever religion they wanted without government interference. The structural ideal of a separation of church and state practice guides our current government. During the Trump Administration, policies based on religious practices have started to creep into our government. For example, when trying to defend the policy that was enacted to arrest everyone who crossed the border from Mexico, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions cited the Bible. Sessions said, “I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Roman 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes.” Sessions defends the policies of the Trump Administration by citing the Bible, which many would read as a basic violation of separation of church and state. By using biblical justification for government practices, Sessions attempts to put God in charge of government. It is hard to discern morality in a polarizing debate about religion in the government. Many religious people use their respective religions to glean their personal morals and ethics. They look to their god or gods for guidance. While dealing with human rights and politics, religion easily comes into play. Abortion, for example, can be debated in a religious manner. One of the most polarized issues in government, Abortion has continued to be heavily debated even after Roe v. Wade. Recently, multiple states in the Midwest proposed “heartbeat bills” to ban abortions after six weeks, when you can first detect a heartbeat in the fetus. None of these laws have yet gone into effect, so abortions are still legal during the first trimester in these places. Many have speculated that conservatives have begun drafting these “heartbeat bills” to challenge Roe v. Wade, the supreme court decision which granted women a constitutional right to an abortion, following the appointment of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Personal privacy for women and the separation of church and state most intersect in the abortion debate. Most anti-abortion groups defend their argument using the Bible, while most pro-choice groups say that the right to choose should be no concern of the state. The conservative lawmakers that aim to pass the “heartbeat bills” base their decisions in religion, claiming that “God says life begins at conception, and the murder of unborn babies is not only morally wrong but should be lawfully wrong as well.” Using the Bible to justify arguments not only violates Roe v. Wade, but also the First Amendment to the Constitution which guarantees freedom of religion. Should women not be allowed to make choices about their own bodies just because it conflicts with a lawmaker’s religious beliefs? These proposed bills are encroaching on the personal freedoms of women. In addition, the recently sparked debates on abortion highlight the general use of religion by many politicians as an abuse of power. At its essence, religion serves as a belief system that connect people to a higher power, but when used for political gain, religion becomes a corrupting influence. Religion has no place in politics, or in political debates. After all, that’s how America was first built. by Esther Eriksson von Allmen '19
Whether it be at Government Club or during my fourth period Microeconomics class— whenever the issue of socialism is brought up, we tend to reference Nordic countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Norway. And it is during these discussions that I hear an onslaught of fallacies projected about Sweden to the larger Close community. Let me be clear: by slandering Sweden as socialist, one reveals their own incorrect understanding of socialism. So let’s define socialism, shall we? According to Merriam Webster, socialism is, “Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” So, does Sweden have high tax rates? Yes. Does the Swedish government offer its citizens welfare benefits that cost the state billions of dollars? Yes. Do either of these two facts qualify Sweden as a socialist country? Absolutely not. To be perfectly clear, Sweden’s status as a welfare state does not make it socialist. Economist Johan Norberg states it best, “I don't think the American Left knows that Sweden is the country of pension reform, school vouchers, free trade, low corporate taxes and no taxes on property, gifts and inheritance. Sweden affords its big welfare state because it is more free-market and free trade than other countries. So if they want to redistribute wealth they also have to deregulate the economy drastically to create that wealth” Contrary to what many of my classmates may think, Sweden follows free-market economic principles. Sweden does not have minimum wage laws. Stockholm, the capital, produces the second-highest number of billion-dollar tech companies per capita, after Silicon Valley, and in Sweden overall, there are 20 startups per 1,000 employees, compared to just five in the United States, according to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Sweden’s corporate tax rate today, at twenty-two percent, is much lower than the thirty-nine percent collected in the United States. If Sweden is truly a socialist country, then why did Forbes ranked Sweden as the second best country for business? (Keep in mind that the United States ranked 17th on the same list.) Ironically, by calling Sweden “socialist,” you are in many ways advocating for socialism as an effective economic system. Uninformed Americans—predominantly from the political right— will argue that Sweden’s “socialist” policies stifle economic growth and entrepreneurship. In reality, Sweden’s generous government benefits have the opposite effect. Its social safety net, for instance, helps entrepreneurs feel safe to take risks. In Sweden, university is free, and students can get loans for living expenses, which allows anyone to pursue higher education. Health care is also free, and childcare is heavily subsidized. In Sweden, citizens know that they can take entrepreneurial risks because their necessities will be covered. You might ask: why do you care so much about the vocabulary we use when talking about Scandinavian countries? The answer is straightforward: Because socialism is terrible. Affiliating modern-day Sweden with Venezuela or Soviet-era Russia, unfairly attempts to tarnish the reputation of what is one of the most successful governments in the world. I’m not saying you have to like Sweden. I’m not saying you need to accept Swedish government policies. I’m not asking you to abandon your libertarian, don’t-tread-on-me, good old-fashioned ‘murican principles. I’m just asking you to recognize reality and to refrain from spreading falsehoods. by Aidan Stretch '20
The state of healthcare in the United States is unfortunate. Unfortunate because exorbitant deductibles and copays leave millions of Americans reluctant to seek insurance. Unfortunate because trillions of annual taxpayer dollars are apportioned to inefficient and ineffective Medicare and Medicaid plans. Unfortunate because pharmaceutical products are priced so high as to be an extravagance to those in dire need of them. This reality of the American healthcare system thwarts any appeal, any reasoning, to the idea that the status quo is somehow an imperfect inevitability in the realm of health insurance. So pair this abhorrent reality with another one: this same basic system of healthcare has persisted in the U.S. since the 1850’s. It seems outrageous that this standard of poor coverage and ineffectiveness has passed for normalcy over the course of the last decades. Yet, despite its apparent flaws and injustices, the reason for its persistence is quite simple: Healthcare is a business and like all other businesses in the U.S., its legal obligation is not the well-being of every single American, but rather to produce a profit for its shareholders. In corporate or business terms, the healthcare industry is not broken, nor is it ineffective. Instead, it is thriving with companies making nearly $5 billion in quarterly net earnings and their CEO’s making $20 million per year. This is precisely the problem. It is not the health insurance companies that are swindling millions of Americans each year but the U.S. healthcare model itself. These health insurance companies seek not to cheat citizens out of basic needs, but instead to simply turn a profit like all companies aim to do. Attacking the isolated incidents of high-deductibles, co-pays, and pharmaceutical prices, will get reformists nowhere. They must instead dismantle the very system that allows and even encourages them to occur. These problems, so deeply imbedded in the healthcare system, lend themselves to only one viable solution: scrap the healthcare business model altogether and adopt a single-payer, “Medicare for All” plan. The initiative, supported by Bernie Sanders as well as other 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls, would establish a universal health care system, funded by the federal government and operated by the private sector, in which all persons living in the U.S., regardless of citizenship, are insured. In making the federal government the “single payer” of health insurance, the profit motive basis of healthcare would be annulled, while a necessity for improving care would assume its place as the driver of most macro health insurance decisions. At first glance, or after hearing Senator Sanders describe it, the single-payer method is the savior of the underinsured or the champion of those with looming medical debt, but in practice, the plan is far from perfect and has raised some very serious concerns. The leading caveat with the plan is its monetary implications. According to George Mason University, Medicare for All would lead to a $32.6 trillion increase in federal spending, which would be mirrored in a similarly scaled increase in taxes. Not to mention, doctors and other medical practitioners’ salaries would be expected to decrease by 10% (Mercatus Center). A second quite practical issue that has been raised is that the government is notoriously inefficient in handling both the allocation of money and supervision of everyday operations—two essential functions that would be required of them as the “single payer” of American healthcare. “Trust the market, not the government, in operating a system such as this,” skeptics say. “What’s to say that the government will be any more effective than the health insurance agencies in managing these challenging issues?” These are undoubtedly valid concerns, but the weight of this debate lies not with money or efficiency or politics, but instead with what I believe should be the primary purpose of healthcare in the United States. It is difficult to arrive at absolutes and ultimatums within a controversy as nuanced as health insurance, but if there is a single weight in this discussion it is the notion that every American should have the luxury of basic accessibility and use of healthcare. For this reason and no other, “Medicare for all” deserves, at the very least, the right to be heard and considered by the people of the United States. by NM '20
Among 2020 Dems, tuition-free higher education is a popular policy; Bernie Sanders’s official stance is that “all public colleges and universities should be tuition-free.”[1] An analysis in the Atlantic also highlights Julian Castro, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar’s tacit or overt support for the policy.[2] Liberal proponents of free college education often point to Europe when advocating for the policy. However, in doing so they ignore fundamental differences between our education system and theirs; in other words, they desire an American system at European cost. The central distinction is the number of students who go on to enroll in university or college; in Germany, for example, only about 30% of university-age students attend college.[3] In the U.S. that number is roughly 70%, as of 2016.[4] Of that 70%, moreover, about 73% attended public colleges, meaning that over 50% of American high school graduates go on to attend public college, more than 14.5 million.[5] Even without examining the underlying causes of this dichotomy (which I’ll do later in the article), it should be immediately evident that this raises several questions not only about the American glut of college attendees in general, but about 2020 Democratic hopefuls’ far-reaching plans. First, economically speaking, the comparatively high number of American college attendees erodes the value of a college degree, because it confers less of a competitive advantage upon degree-earners and thereby equates to less real value. Clearly, this is a problem; if college isn’t to be free (which, as we shall soon see, is necessarily the case), then as more and more Americans attend college the net value of their degree declines further and further; even assuming that college costs remain constant (a very conservative estimate), the year-over-year erosion in the value of a college degree means that graduates find they earn less real return in their college investment. What’s the problem with all this? Debt. The result of the combination of increasing costs and the erosion of degree value means that prospective graduates have to take on student debt to finance their education. Democrats seek to tackle this problem from the demand-side; if we eliminate the cost, they say—just like Europe!—we can get rid of that debt problem and then everything will be fine. Well, to return to the fundamental differences between the American and European education systems, the first reason that plan is untenable is cost; given that about 1.6x more American youths attend college on a percentage basis than Germans, for example, the burden on the American taxpayer would be far greater than that on the German taxpayer is now, even with Germany’s comparatively massive tax rates. Such a plan is in no way viable. Now, to examine some of the reasons for such a difference between the college-attendance rates between the U.S. and Europe. In the European system, only the top x% (varying by country) of the class at various stages in education—say, at middle school, high school, and finally into college—qualify to stay on the “university track,” the end product being that only more academically-oriented students have the opportunity to attend university. So, while many point to the European college system as a great example of the equalizing effect of education for all, they overlook the central inequality—that undoubtedly, a large proportion of any crop of college-age students is precluded from attending college, instead led to attend vocational school or tertiary job training. Give, of course, a rather high European-level tax rate, this system has the happy outcome of filling vocational jobs (like plumbing, or metalworking) for which there are a dearth of workers in the States, largely due to the massive societal expectation of college attendance. Therefore, unless we in America are willing to swallow the bitter pill of massive taxation and government command of access to tertiary education—determining who can and cannot attend college, based on their academic performance—the policy of many 2020 Democratic hopefuls when it comes to higher education is truly a free college fantasy. [1] https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-education/#college-tuition [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/02/2020-democrats-free-college/583585/ [3] https://www.german-way.com/history-and-culture/education/ [4] https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/69-point-7-percent-of-2016-high-school-graduates-enrolled-in-college-in-october-2016.htm [5] https://www.statista.com/statistics/183995/us-college-enrollment-and-projections-in-public-and-private-institutions/ by Will Nash '20
When Brett Kavanaugh was first nominated by President Trump last summer to the Supreme Court seat left by retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, hysteria ensued. Members of the left were quick to point to his voting record, his written opinions, and his views to suggest that his career on the nation’s highest court would spell catastrophe. In a Washington Post article entitled “It’s hard to find a federal judge more conservative than Brett Kavanaugh,” it was asserted that Kavanaugh had the second-most conservative voting record in all policy areas between 2003 and 2018. Many even went so far as to suggest that Kavanaugh would provide the conservative majority vote necessary to repeal Roe v. Wade. However, these fears have recently proved to be unfounded. Judge Kavanaugh’s voting record thus far on the Supreme Court has been much more centrist than anticipated. Although many expected him and fellow Justice Neil Gorsuch, both alumni of Georgetown Prep, to be “jurisprudential twins,” that has so far not been the case, with the two disagreeing on a wide range of issues, including Planned Parenthood and the death penalty. Case in point, only yesterday, Justice Kavanaugh ruled in favor of allowing an antitrust suit against Apple to go forward. In doing so, Kavanaugh sided with Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, the traditional liberal justices of the court. He also authored the majority opinion for the case, while his fellow conservative colleagues (Justices Roberts, Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito) dissented. While on the outset, many pundits on both the right and the left believed they had a lock on Kavanaugh’s political agenda, his most recent court decisions have shown that his views are much more nuanced than they initially may seem. While one can argue about whether the sexual assault allegations against him are true or not, the simple truth is that Kavanaugh’s judgeship thus far is exceeding everyone’s expectations. During his contentious confirmation hearings, many believed that Kavanaugh’s terse answers reflected a lack of the calm and poise necessary to make decisions on the nation’s highest court. However, Kavanaugh, through his voting record, has shown that he is able to regard every issue that comes in front of the court with a dispassionate and unbiased demeanor. Kavanaugh’s recent court decisions also display a courageous sense of loyalty to the higher ideals of jurisprudence: rather than voting along party lines, Kavanaugh is taking his role on the nation’s court very seriously, weighing legal precedent rather than his own political views. Ultimately, his approach to deciding the most important cases in the land is refreshing, and one can only hope that under his judicial example, the Supreme Court will revert to its original job of interpreting the Constitution, rather than pursuing one political party’s agenda. by Simon Palmore '19
Like many loyal Democrats, I look back on the 2016 Republican primaries with some glee. How comical it was to see all the Republicans run against each other, only to lose to Trump! The glee does seem to stop when I remember what ended up happening after Trump won the nomination. That’s why I’m paying particular attention to the Democratic Primary this election cycle. With 22 major declared candidates (and two more imminently declaring), the stage is crowded; that there are so many candidates, however, means that the eventual nominee will be well equipped to beat President Trump in his bid for reelection. Here I will rate the current candidates—and soon-to-be-candidates—based on my personal preference, their primary viability, and their general election viability. Candidates’ levels of qualification for the office are rated in stars: 1 star means no elected experience, 2 stars means only local elected experience, 3 stars means elected to the House or appointed to cabinet position, 4 stars means elected to the Senate or a governorship, 5 stars means combination of multiple tiers and/or high executive position. Michael Bennet While I have some loyalty to this St. Albans grad who notably pummeled Ted Cruz on the Senate floor during the Trump government shutdown, moderate Bennet doesn’t bring much to the race that’s not already present. My rating: 6.5/10 Primary viability: 3/10 General election viability: 6.5/10 Qualification: 4 stars Joe Biden Joe Biden’s launch raises some questions. Is a changing Democratic party in need of an older, white man as its face? Can Biden ride the Obama wave in spite of an often-questioned past? Despite uncertainties, he is certainly the most well-known candidate in the primary and has the most experience. My rating: 7.5/10 Primary viability: 8/10 General election viability: 8/10 Qualification: 5 stars Cory Booker Booker’s antics in Senate Judiciary Committee meetings have raised some eyebrows, but the hard-hitting former mayor of Newark, NJ preaches a unique message of unity and reconciliation. My rating: 7/10 Primary viability: 5/10 General election viability: 6.5/10 Qualification: 4 stars Steve Bullock Bullock is the down-to-earth governor of Montana, and seemingly the only Democrat that can possibly be elected in the state. However, he is largely unknown and would better devote his energies to ensuring that Montana has at least one statewide Democrat in power. My rating: 6/10 Primary viability: 5.5/10 General election viability: 7/10 Qualification: 4 stars Pete Buttigieg Mayor Pete is the current darling of the Democratic Twittersphere. The gay, polylingual veteran only has a mayorship under his belt, though, and the current president has proven that experience is all but required for an effective presidency. My rating: 7.5/10 Primary viability: 6.5/10 General election viability: 7/10 Qualification: 2 stars Julián Castro Castro is one of my personal favorites for a simple reason: he knows his policy while maintaining a down-to-earth personality. Once considered a rising star, he might be too obscure for the nomination (but would make an effective running mate). My rating: 8.5/10 Primary viability: 4/10 General election viability: 6/10 Qualification: 3 stars Bill de Blasio The mayor of New York has confused many with his decision to jump to national politics. Considering his popularity numbers in New York City are less than phenomenal, his chances in a primary race, to which he doesn’t add very much, are slim. My rating: 6/10 Primary viability: 4/10 General election viability: 5/10 Qualification: 2 stars John Delaney Delaney is a former House member who has already been running for almost two years. Despite lots of time to campaign in early states, his name recognition is still minimal. My rating: 4/10 Primary viability: 2/10 General election viability: 4/10 Qualification: 3 stars Tulsi Gabbard Gabbard is a member of the Bernie wing of the Democratic party, but her apparent status as an Assad and Modi apologist raise some eyebrows (including mine). My rating: 2/10 Primary viability: 3/10 General election viability: 5/10 Qualification: 3 stars Kirsten Gillibrand Gillibrand is noted for two things: her advocacy for the resignation of fellow Democrat Al Franken and her appearance in a derogatory tweet from the President. One lesser-known fact about her, however, is that she has been a very productive legislator during her time in the House and Senate My rating: 7.5/10 Primary viability: 5.5/10 General election viability: 6.5/10 Qualification: 4 stars Mike Gravel I have no idea who Mike Gravel is, but he is 89 years old. My rating: N/A Primary viability: 0/10 General election viability: N/A Qualification: 4 stars Kamala Harris Harris’s launch was one of the most powerful of all the candidates: she quickly emerged as a powerful speaker and potential Obama-like candidate. However, her background as a prosecutor has angered some members of the progressive wing of the party. My rating: 9/10 Primary viability: 7.5/10 General election viability: 7.5/10 Qualification: 4 stars John Hickenlooper Another relative moderate from Colorado, Hickenlooper keeps a relatively low profile and hasn’t been in the spotlight frequently. Observers will wonder whether he is prepared for the national stage. My rating: 5/10 Primary viability: 4.5/10 General election viability: 6.5/10 Qualification: 4 stars Jay Inslee Inslee has set himself apart from the pack by running a one-issue campaign, and that issue is climate change. If voters will buy his message, that climate change is the most pressing issue of the day, then he could surprise more well-known candidates. My rating: 7/10 Primary viability: 5.5/10 General election viability: 6.5/10 Qualification: 4 stars Amy Klobuchar Klobuchar is a moderate, unflashy senator from the Midwest who earned many voters’ admiration during her tough questioning of Brett Kavanaugh last fall (and her steady reaction when Kavanaugh rudely interrupted and lashed out at her). She is likely the most viable of the moderates (or second most, if Biden counts). My rating: 7/10 Primary viability: 7/10 General election viability: 7.5/10 Qualification: 4 stars Wayne Messam I have never heard of Wayne Messam, but he is the mayor of Miramar, Florida. My rating: N/A Primary viability: 0/10 General election viability: N/A Qualification: 2 stars Seth Moulton Moulton is known mainly for his opposition to Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. He is a moderate veteran, but mostly unknown to the average voter. My rating: 3.5/10 Primary viability: 4/10 General election viability: 4.5/10 Qualification: 3 stars Beto O’Rourke Beto was the darling of the 2018 midterm elections, although he was unvictorious in his Senate campaign against Ted Cruz. His late entry into the primary cost him some momentum, however, and it is unclear whether he can translate his relative statewide success into national traction. My rating: 6.5/10 Primary viability: 7/10 General election viability: 7.5/10 Qualification: 3 stars Tim Ryan Tim Ryan is another moderate House member who opposed Pelosi’s bid for speakership. My rating: 3.5/10 Primary viability: 4/10 General election viability: 4.5/10 Qualification: 3 stars Bernie Sanders Sanders came out of nowhere in 2016 with a progressive message that gave Hillary Clinton a run for her money. Two questions remain. Can he repeat his past success? Can someone who isn’t technically a Democrat win the Democratic nomination? My rating: 5/10 Primary viability: 8/10 General election viability: 7.5/10 Qualification: 4 stars Eric Swalwell Swalwell’s message centers around gun control—clearly an important issue for the Democratic base. But he doesn’t seem to add much to the race, considering most voters still haven’t heard of him. My rating: 5/10 Primary viability: 4/10 General election viability: 5/10 Qualification: 3 stars Elizabeth Warren Warren certainly leads the pack in policy: she releases complex new policy proposals on her website frequently, and has a knack for explaining these policies in simple terms on the campaign trail. However, her history of engaging with President Trump in his petty nickname wars makes some question her judgment and ability to take the high road. My rating: 8/10 Primary viability: 7/10 General election viability: 6/10 Qualification: 4 stars Marianne Williamson Williamson is not a politician; she is an author and philanthropist. Almost nobody has heard of her in the context of this race. My rating: N/A Primary viability: 1/10 General election viability: N/A Qualification: 1 star Andrew Yang Yang has run quite the unconventional campaign: his group of online warriors is known as the “Yang Gang,” and propelled him to the debate stage. His “Humanity First” platform includes policy ideas include a universal basic income and policy to address mechanization. My rating: 5/10 Primary viability: 3/10 General election viability: N/A Qualification: 1 star by Priya Phillips '20
On July 26th of 2017, President Trump announced through Twitter that the United States Government would no longer allow transgender individuals to serve in the U.S. military. People who openly identify as transgender had been barred from service in the U.S. military until the Obama administration policy of 2016 which allowed the admission of transgender service members, protected those service members--active and future--from being discharged because of their identity, and provided access to free, gender-affirming health care. Amid great legal controversy, including several lawsuits waged against the Trump administration, and public backlash, the Department of Defense began to implement a new policy surrounding transgender military service in April of 2019. While the DOD has maintained that the new policy is not a ban, it does greatly limit the avenues by which transgender individuals can serve. Persons with a history of “gender dysphoria,” unless they have lived in their birth gender for three years prior, are barred from applying. Individuals with any history of medical treatment related to gender-transitioning are permanently disqualified from applying. The policy, DTM-19-004, allows for current service members who were diagnosed with “gender dysphoria” prior to April 12th, 2019 to serve and transition genders under the prior rules; however, those without grandfathered protection are vulnerable to discharge if their identities appear to “interfere with assignment to or performance of duty.” The issue surrounding the status of transgender service members has become increasingly complicated in recent years. While those who oppose the new policy often argue that said limitations encroach upon the United States Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection, those who support the policy often cite their concern being for the safety of U.S. troops. Some see the governmental costs which come with the military paying for soldiers’ gender-affirming surgeries to be a strenuous burden on military funds, a burden which hinders troops from performing at their greatest capacity. Some supporters of the ban have also cited that ‘emotional instability’ could make someone with “gender dysphoria” unfit for service and thus a liability to not only themselves but to other service members. However, the reasons which the Trump administration and others cite for supporting this new policy are not significant enough to excuse the ways in which the policy weakens the United States. In reality, the administration’s stance on the issue goes against the best interests of the United States military and perpetuates ideals which are not supported by our nation; the new policy is counterintuitive to the American identity and it threatens the moral foundations which our nation has been built upon. First and foremost, barring transgender service members from actively participating in military service encroaches upon the guarantee to liberty and freedom which every American is promised. The United States is supposed to be a champion of promoting freedom, however, this service ban blatantly invalidates every American’s guarantee to libertya concept which is deeply ingrained in the identity of our nation. Furthermore, the government’s role in this issue is a gross intrusion on the ability of American citizens to be free beings- an ability which our service members fight to protect every day. The actions of the Trump administration surrounding this new policy have set a dangerous precedent for the expansion of governmental powers. By limiting transgender Americans’ freedom of choice and their ability to serve in the military the government is expanding their authority in a way which goes against the political and ideological norms of the United States. In totality, this service policy promotes the government-driven oppression of American citizens and their abilities to serve and defend our nation- a job which many Americans are not brave enough to take on. Moreover, the principles of this policy situate themselves upon a growing under appreciation among Americans for the sacrifices and services of our troops. When this policy tells transgender service members that the value of their commitment to protecting American ideals and institutions is outweighed by the ‘costs’ which they place on the military it is an offense to American in the military. This policy communicates to all service men and women that their sacrifice is of little value to the American people. When the American government creates policies which undermine our troops and the ideals which they protect we, as a nation, destroy an important part of our identity. This ban damages our loyalty to not only the safety of our nation, but our loyalty to maintaining our nation’s societal and moral foundations. The idea that a monetary value can be placed on the work of our military to promote freedom and democracy signifies that important American ideals are eroding away--a reality which is painful to imagine. by Nina Miller ‘19
“You can’t be what you can’t see.” My experience in Government Club has led me to conclude that this statement is both true and false. The trek to St Albans for my first meeting sophomore year only made the seem more daunting. I was entering foreign territory, and the feeling of safety and security that I felt at NCS dissipated as I crossed to the other side of the wind tunnel. As I entered the Kellogg room, my emotions were a mix of nerves and excitement. However, disappointment entered the mix as the meeting started. Though there were two NCS seniors, the first ever NCS Government Club presidents, sitting proudly at the front of the room, not one girl made a speech during the meeting. That was a time where girls only asked questions. Often times, the only girls who were bold enough to stand up faced giggles and less attention from the rest of the members, including the other girls. The culture of Gov Club when I started was what it had been for the decades before; a boys club. What I perceived at my first meeting was a debate forum where the boys were educated orators and the girls sat by and watched. My intention, along with many of the other girls, coming into the club was just to learn more about politics, while the boys’ was to speak. However, as the year progressed, I found myself wanting to speak during debates. I would always search for a sign, something to tip the scales, so that I would final overcome my nerves and share my opinion. I didn’t know exactly what I was looking for then, but I have realized that it was representation and validation. Since I rarely saw girls speak, I didn’t feel like I was a part of the crowd that dominated the discussions. Gov Club was divided into two distinct groups, the people who spoke and the people who listened, the two connected by an unstable rope bridge that not many crossed while I was a sophomore. Since I couldn’t see people crossing that bridge, it became much scarier. What I needed was that validation that the bridge could be crossed for me to build up the courage to do it myself. After being elected president, I vowed to myself that I would speak at every meeting from that point on. By doing that alongside Katie Klingler, my co-president, we became the presidents that we needed to have when we were sophomores. I am beyond proud to say that the active participation of girls has skyrocketed this year. In fact, there was one meeting where every speech was made by an NCS student. The change that I have witnessed over the past year in the dynamic and unity of the club has shown me how important representation is. Deciding to create two more presidential roles was the best decision made in Gov Club without a doubt. However, seeing a girl sitting at the head of the table is very different from seeing her speak. Thus, though it isn’t true that you can’t be what you cant see, it is a whole lot harder. I would have started speaking up sooner if I saw girls participate equally during meetings. Having Gov Club presidents from NCS is an absolute necessity, but it is only the first step to more active participation from the NCS student body. What Gov Club needed two years ago was NCS presidents who would speak during meetings to show every other girl in the room that they belong. by Christina Nordby '19
From Virginia Tech to Parkland, it is clear that the United States has a gun violence problem. In the first two months of 2019 alone, there have been forty-eight mass shootings and four school shootings (Gun Violence Archive). While all Americans want to ensure the safety of this nation, there is serious disagreement over the solution. Historically, Americans have taken two major approaches to this problem. One embraces the protections granted by the Second Amendment and encourages all Americans to be armed. The other places stricter regulations to limit access to guns. Those who support gun control and those who do not operate from the same core American values of safety and freedom. The pro-gun view tends to be that guns are fundamental to our identity as Americans, our right to self-defense, and the protection of our liberties. Therefore, many gun rights advocates argue that key to preventing school and other shootings is armed citizens and the elimination of gun-free zones. Though well-intentioned, gun-free zones allow gunmen to enter an area knowing that people are unarmed and thus vulnerable. Furthermore, some argue that properly trained and armed teachers could both discourage and stop an active shooter. Beyond the issue of mass shootings, proponents of gun-rights also maintain that gun control laws do not stop criminals; instead, gun ownership by law-abiding Americans hinders criminals who can easily access the illegal gun market. Moreover, in a 2008 case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects individuals’ rights to possess a firearm— unconnected with service in a militia— for purposes such as self-defense. Therefore, D.C.’s ban on handguns and restrictions on rifles and shotguns were unconstitutional and violated the right to safety (Supreme Court of the United States; District of Columbia et al. v. Heller). The Heller case solidifies the view that individuals have the right to possess guns for protection and, hence, any further limitations that infringed upon a person’s right to self-defense would be deemed unconstitutional. In short, gun right supporters view that the safest option for Americans is to follow the given Constitutional right to own guns in order to protect themselves and their property. Conversely, gun control advocates believe that stricter gun control laws are essential to ensuring a safe environment for all. Proponents of gun control believe laws, ranging from increasing background checks to bans on high capacity magazines, would reduce the number of gun deaths and frequency of mass shootings. A 2013 study by the American Journal of Public Health states “Ecological studies have correlated higher levels of gun ownership rates in the United States with higher national rates of homicide than are experienced in other countries” (Siegel, Ross, & King). Based on this evidence, gun control advocates believe that by regulating and reducing the number of guns in the US, stricter laws would decrease the number of gun-related murders. In contrast to gun rights supporters, the majority of gun control proponents agree that the foundation of public safety lies in strict gun-control. Many gun owners have called for greater firearm restrictions since the Parkland shooting. In a Quinnipiac poll, over sixty percent of Americans support better control laws with fifty percent of them being gun owners (US. Support for Gun Control Tops 2-1). Despite having opposing views on solutions, all Americans want to ensure the safety of our nation and protect the right for children to attend school without the fear of being killed. However, neither the regulatory approach nor the arming approach have worked. In 2017, both California and Texas had over three thousand gun-related deaths despite having drastically different laws ranging from permissive to restrictive (Firearm Mortality by State). Their common denominator, however, still allowing guns in their states. The presence of guns in our society is deeply problematic. Therefore, repealing the Second Amendment and banning guns is the most viable and direct option to ensure the safety and freedom of Americans. From new means of protection to a more cohesive relationship between the citizens and the government, the US no longer needs to rely on personal gun ownership for safety. There are now alternative, less-lethal methods of self-protection. Perhaps an amendment that guarantees a general right to protection would be more effective, and lessen the reliance on guns as a means of self-protection, and encourage the use of other measures. Americans should address the root cause of gun-violence and repeal the Second Amendment to remove the barrier of gun ownership as a Constitutional right. Only then would debates about how to end gun violence and ensure safety in the United States be truly left to the consideration of the people. |
|