I Left My Rights At Home

In 1969, in response to the "Tinker v. Des Moines School District" case, the supreme court ruled that "student do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate." So why can a school official go through my possessions WITHOUT probably cause? Why can I be told what not to wear and what not to say? With all these "slight modifications" to our most basic constitutional rights, schools have become more like private institutions than government-run facilities. I say this due to the fact that very basic rights such as freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and at times freedom of (or from) religion, are all heavily restricted.

Perhaps the most abhorrent of these violations is the change from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion." I would say that in America, one of the rights our people value the most is the right not to be searched unless there is some tangible evidence against us. In school that rights is stripped from us. Instead, it is replaced with "reasonable suspicion." Does that sound very, very, VERY vague to you? That's because it is! "Reasonable suspicion" could be anything from photographic proof to an anonymous phone call, but regardless of what it is, it gives school officials the right to search just about all of your stuff. That includes your locker, phone, backpack, laptop, pretty much anything you have on you. If they find something, you're screwed, and if they don't, they say "sorry" and go on their merry way.

This all begs the question: why are students' rights taken from them, and why are people not up in arms about it? Why are students' most basic constitutional rights taken from them "at the school house gate?" And what can we, as students and concerned citizens, do to combat this?

Criminals or Patients?

For residents of the US, drugs are a taboo topic. Our government wages a war on them, our citizens don't want to talk about them, and the people that use them are thrown in jail. The U.S.'s (draconian) stance on drugs is very clear. But now, let's observe a different country, Portugal. The government's stance there was very similar; 12 years ago. Today, you can go to Portugal and carry up to 1 gram of heroin, 2 grams of cocaine, 25 grams of marijuana, and limited amounts of other substances, without fear of being criminally prosecuted. In 2001, Portugal made the choice to decriminalize illegal drugs, and it's been working. According to this article in Time magazine, HIV from sharing needles has been halved, while people seeking help for drug addiction has doubled. The percent of Portuguese who use marijuana over the age of 15 is 10%; in the U.S. it's close to 40%. Lifetime drug use in Portugal has fallen from 14% to 10%. The idea behind this initiative is to treat drug addicts as patients, not criminals. It costs more to incarcerate someone than to provide therapy and rehabilitation, after all. After reading these staggering statistics, it's hard to be sympathetic towards U.S. drug laws. And why should we be? The government has had 12 years to change them.

 To put the difference in policy between these two nations into more familiar terms, let's look at an example. A teenager is caught by police with two grams of marijuana. In Portugal, he is given 72 hours to report to a drug policy center. Once there, he speaks to a social worker and lawyer. The social worker examines the kid to make sure he is not at risk of further drug abuse and the lawyer explains that this will be kept private, and will not go on his record, unless he commits further offences or is found to possess drugs a second time. In the U.S., regardless of the age, mental state, or criminal history of the teenager, he receives a fine and community service, along with two court dates, costing hundreds (perhaps thousands) of taxpayer dollars. It is becoming increasingly clear that our system of dealing with drug users is outdated and unfair. The path to less crime and less punishment in relation to drugs is clear: just look at Portugal.

Will New Trier Make Me Happy?

Most kids at New Trier are good students. They try their best, they do their homework, they get A's in honors and "high honors" classes, and they don't ask questions. The majority of my peers will graduate from a four year college, live in the city for 2-5 years, marry at around 30, have 2.5 children and a dog, settle down in their suburban homes for the remainder of their lives, and die. And to many that seems like a good life plan. The question I pose may seem obvious but it never even occurs to many: am I, and will I be, happy? I've thought about this a lot in the past but it has really been at the forefront of my brain this year so far, along with thoughts of homework, junior theme, college acceptance, and so on and so forth. A question I've begun asking myself when I sit down every night to tirelessly complete my homework is, will doing this extra hour of french homework make me any happier? The answer I've been repeatedly coming to is no. Completing my homework will not make me happy. Yes, I would rather have an extra hour every night to practice music and read rather than get an A instead of a B in science. No, learning that "cos^2(x)=1-sin^2(x)" will not benefit me whatsoever. Yes, I would rather have another 20 minutes to eat lunch than meet with my adviser about college applications. And, perhaps most importantly, no, becoming an engineer and making upwards of 100k every year will not make me automatically happy. What makes me happy is playing and listening to music, travelling, laughing with my friends, informing myself of the events of the world. When do we learn about those in school? Are we being armed with tools with which to lead a pleasurable life, or a successful one, and is there a difference?

Follow the Silk Road

Imagine a marketplace where drugs, and other black market services are sold openly, and are available to everyone. And the marketplace is usable through the internet. It sounds outlandish, but it exists, in the form of the "Silk Road." In case you haven't heard of it, it's a website that can be accessed through the Tor Browser, a service that hides your identity with a series of servers. For additional security, users purchase their illegal goods using bitcoins, a nearly untraceable currency. Once you get on the wesbite, you can buy everything from black tar heroin to liquid LSD. The website has been up and running for over two years, and has made over $1.2 billion. Perhaps the most amazing part was that for the two and a half years it was up, no one got caught. Somehow, the anonymous owner of the website (nicknamed "Dread Pirate Roberts,") ran an illegal 1 billion dollar business right in plain sight of the government.

But it couldn't last forever. Last month, the Dread Pirate Roberts, AKA Ross Ulbricht, was taken into custody and is now in a high security prison. So why? It may seem like an obvious question, but think about it. What did he do? He sold people goods. He wasn't hurting any one; the customer made the decision to purchase the drug. It's their decision what to put into their bodies, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Ulbricht currently faces probable life in jail because he gave people what they wanted. Arresting him and putting him in prison ruins his life, but does nothing for actual drug users. They can just get it from somewhere else; there are already dozens of different website doing the same job as Silk Road. All the government does is knock down one kingpin and watch three more take his place. It's a pointless game, and until we address the issue of drug legalization/abuse in our country, no one will be able to win it.

The Forgotten American Hero

On Sunday, October 27th, Lou Reed died. To some this is just a name, but to other this signifies the loss of a hero. Someone who shaped music as we know it today. The death of this icon is awful in itself, but unfortunately it has farther reaching implications. His death signifies a new generation, and its failure to acknowledge the accomplishments of musicians before it. Lou Reed made perhaps his most profound music as a part of the Velvet Underground, a band that directly influenced the rock, punk, and avant-garde scenes in a huge way, but also indirectly affected almost all American music. The simple tracks, complex lyrics, and undeniable charm has made them one of the most important figures in modern music. But ask most 16 year olds who they are, and you'll get a puzzled look. In today's musical environment of loud pervasive rhythms and computer-made melodies, the Velvet Underground would never stand a chance, and they've been forgotten. To test this, I asked 30 random high schoolers at my school if they'd heard of the Velvet Underground. Out of the 30, only 8 said they'd heard of them, and of those only 5 could name a song by them. To me, these results are shocking. This indicates a lack of musical awareness that I find very troubling. We should use the death of this musical genius, Lou Reed, as a reminder of the amazing musicians before us who have paved the way for the artists we love.

Video Games Aren't Just Games Anymore

Anyone with eyes and ears knows about the release of the critically acclaimed video game "Grand Theft Auto 5," which was made available for purchase in this past week. It received hugely positive reviews and many awards from various game-reviewing entities. What is most amazing, however, is the sales statistics. In only its first day, GTA V grossed over $800 million. That's a tough number to conceptualize, so allow me to break it down. That's more than 9 times more than any movie has grossed on it's opening day, and more this number competes with movies that hold the record for total sales. Rockstar, the manufacturer of the game, reported that the game grossed over $1 billion in its first three days on the North American market, making it the fastest selling entertainment product in history. Frankly, this is a mind-blowing figure. And one look at the history of video gaming puts this number in an even more incredible perspective. Video gaming consoles in the home, have been around for less than 30 years, making video games one of the fastest growing industries in the nation. Video games are directly responsible for employing over 32,000 people, and those employees received a total compensation of more than $2.9 billion in 2009. Not only is the gaming industry itself huge, but competitive gaming is also quickly growing. MLG (Major League Gaming) tournaments are held throughout the year, awarding thousands of dollars to winning teams, and streaming services are rapidly expanding. For many years, video games were viewed as products for children, but with these incredible statistics, it's difficult to deny that lucrative potential of video games.

The Death of the Intelligent Student

I can't think of a kid that doesn't hate homework. We joke about it all the time, but it's a big issue. The productivity of homework is very debatable, and as any student knows, so much of the work we get is just hammering dull, simple topics into our brain. Some of our youngest and brightest minds are loaded down with hours upon hours of homework every night, and the repercussions are widespread. Not only is it a waste of time and boring, it makes students value, as this Atlantic article aptly puts it, "Memorization, not rationalization." The article describes a middle aged man who, after seeing his 13 year old daughter up til 1 A.M. some nights completing math worksheets, decides to do her homework for a week. The results are disheartening to say the least. Karl Greenfield (the author of the article) averages about 3-4 hours of homework per night (and that's with his daughter's help and instruction) and is often falling asleep in the middle of assignments. Perhaps most amazing is when Greenfield, an author and reader by trade, is required to read a book for his daughter's English class and can't even finish half of the assigned reading in one night. 

Homework dehumanizes children. It's a bold claim, but a true one. As more and more work is piled on, less and less rational thought is put into it, but instead more memorization and repetition, a task many animals can perform. It's visible in the article, and at New Trier. Many a time I've had assignments that kept me up til 12 or 1 in the morning (giving me little sleep for the next laborious day) that required me use very little of my intellect. This so-called "busy work" is slowly killing the diligent student, and replacing them with a homework machine. If we don't cut down on homework, our students will lose all interest in strengthening their knowledge base and preparing themselves for their lives.

One Nation, (Fill in the blank,) Indivisible

I am not a morning person. I get dragged out of bed, through the shower, out the door, onto the bus, and somehow I find myself sitting on a couch in the Scrounge at 8:20 wile my adviser talks about "Environmental Club." One thing I'm always very aware of, though, is the Pledge of Allegiance. It's something I'm very conflicted about. On the one hand, it's a display of love for America, and pride for our country. On the other hand, I often feel that it's a display of empty patriotism, and I believe many people recite it without really understanding the words or even thinking about them, like a child reciting obscene lyrics to a catchy song. But regardless of what I think about the pledge as a whole, I wholeheartedly object to one line. Not even a line, a phrase. Two words. "Under God." (Note: the only reason I capitalized "God" is because I was referring to the Christian God, who is the subject of the line in the pledge.) Quite frankly, I just don't understand why it's there. Separation of church and state, anyone? Remember that? Not only that, but I disagree on a spiritual level as well. I myself am an Atheist, so I believe it's unfair to acknowledge the existence or even the benevolence of "God." But not only Atheists are outraged by this phrase. Other religions who believe in god in a different form or believe in many gods could be offended by this as well. I get very heated about this subject, and often bring it up to my adviser and other kids in my advisory. I can't even count how many times they've said to me, "...so just don't say it." To me and many others, "Under God" isn't just two words. It represents a a Christian nation, where other religions (or the lack of religions) are acknowledged as lesser. I see this phrase as directly violating the 1st amendment and the rights of millions of people living in America. Next time you're saying the pledge, think about the words you're using, and ask yourself, "Do I really believe this?"

To Serve and Protect (And Sometimes Steal Your Stuff)

I read very few things that make me cringe with a potent cocktail of outrage, despair, and anxiousness. This article did just that. It opens with a man taking his lower class family to see his father in the next state over. They buy a used car and put the only cash they have, some $6,000, into the center console. The man is driving at night and is pulled over for driving for too long in the left lane, or "passing lane" (not a crime.) The officer asks if there are any drugs in the car, the man says no, the officer "smells marijuana," though they never found any, and the situation quickly escalates. At the end of story, the couple is told that they can either hand over all their cash to the police department or give their two children to Child Protective Services. All of this was completely legal. How? Civil forfeiture. Basically, it's a law that lets police officers take your stuff. The law allows officers to seize your possessions WITHOUT finding any evidence or even charging you. All they need is probably cause, which, in the case of the story from the New Yorker article, can be "smelling" marijuana (but not finding any.)  I didn't believe this could be true at first. I could not bring myself to believe that in America, the supposed home of the free, that this law could exist. But somehow, it does. Lately I've been seeing a lot of articles and video clips popping up on Facebook and Twitter about police officers unlawfully searching people and their vehicles, but nothing compares to this. It is clear that many police officers in this country are unable to protect society justly, as our laws outline. And unfortunately, police officers are the sympathetic ones in courts, because both entities are operated by the federal government, and they can often get out of cases like this with only a slap on the wrist. Frankly, I believe that not only should we update outdated and unconstitutional laws like civil forfeiture, but we should take power away from corrupt police officers who unjustly harm innocent citizens.