We explore why and how the hand gesture with many ascribed meanings caused the basketball banners in the gym to come down and go back up

Banners installed, removed, replaced shield the In wake of banner controversy, AISD promises new policy for approving official team photos

ELLEN FOX AND JULIA KAY SMITH staff reporters

At a Jan. 21 meeting, the boys and girls basketball teams, their parents, school officials and associate superintendent Dr. Craig Shapiro met to discuss the district’s decision to remove and ultimately replace the boys and girls team banners because they both included a player making a hand symbol in which the thumb and index finger form a circle and the remaining three fingers are extended. The symbol has been long used to indicate that things are “OK” or that a basketball shot attempt is beyond the 3-point arc, but recently, the commonly used hand symbol has in some contexts taken on a more sinister meaning: white supremacy. According to The New York Times, the signal was originally ascribed the sinister meaning as a hoax. In early 2017, several members of the anonymous message board, 4Chan, made a plan to try and trick liberals and much of the western world into believing that the “OK” symbol is a covert symbol for white supremacists.

The campaign to promote this hoax was so successful on many mainstream social media platforms that alt-right groups, such as NeoNazis and members of the Ku Klux Klan, started using the gesture as a serious expression of their racial ideology. According to the Anti-Defamation League, the direct use of the symbol to convey racism was made clear in March of 2019 when Brenton Tarrant, the mass shooter of two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, held out the symbol to reporters at his court hearing.

Entirely unaware that the hand symbol had been used to convey this sinister meaning, when it came time to take pictures for a promotional banner, junior shooting guard Makayla Mason put up the symbol in order to indicate that she is good at making 3-point shots. Mason’s hand signal caught the attention of team member Natalie Suri’s father Jeremi Suri, a historian at The University of Texas. “Someone texted a picture on the groupchat of the banner, and then I showed it to my parents,” Natalie Suri said. “At the time I had no idea about the symbol ... and then my dad said something because he’s a historian and very into activism. I showed it to him, and he was saying things like ‘This is not OK.’”

Mr. Suri said at the Jan. 21 meeting that he brought the gesture to the team’s attention in an email message over Christmas break. After the banner was installed, the issue escalated to the superintendent’s office, and after considering the matter, the district ordered that both the boys and the girls banners be taken down because a player on the boys team also made the hand gesture in that banner.

In a email response to a Shield request for comment, Natalie Suri wrote that the symbol should not be displayed in a public place such as the large gym.

“Although unintended, displaying a symbol utilized by white supremacists could be interpreted as endorsement of white supremacist views,” Natalie Suri wrote in an email response to The Shield . “Remember that the gym is a public place. Many of the visitors of the gym do not know much about McCallum or the people depicted in the poster.”

Girls varsity basketball team captain Ruby del Valle (above) speaks at the Jan. 21 meeting. She argued against the removal of the banner. McCallum principal Brandi Hosack (left) attempts to calm the group. Her goal at the meeting was to make sure that everybody had their opinion heard. “I support that everyone feels respected,” Hosack said. “And that includes both sides of the equation.” Photos by Gabby Sherwood.

Suri does not claim that any sinister message was intended by the gesture in the banners but rather that any possible misinterpretation of its meaning should be prevented. Suri wrote in the same email that the symbol’s appropriation makes it similar to other symbols, like the swastika, that once were innocuous but are no longer so.

“We should do everything possible to deny haters an ability to display their symbols,” Suri said. “That is why we prohibit swastikas in schools, even though it is a common symbol used by Hindus in India, many of whom live in Austin today.”

In addition to the current meaning of the hand symbol, Suri also worries about what the publication of the poster could do to her teammate’s futures.

“Obviously context matters, and Makayla didn’t mean it, but if somebody else saw [the basketball poster] it could be worse in the future, and we don’t want anyone to think McCallum would do that.” Principal Brandi Hosack said she worries that the white power symbol could become something much more widespread and serious than it currently is now.

“Right now, in January 2020, we know what the intention was. But especially with the rise of social media and whatnot, 15 years from now, first of all we don’t know what’s going to become of this particular hand symbol or anything else. We don’t know what the future looks like and that’s for sure,” Hosack said.

Mason sees the matter differently. “I get how they were offended by it, but I felt threatened after everything blew up,” Mason said. “All of the attention was on me, and I felt attacked.” At the Jan. 21 meeting, senior team captain Ruby del Valle argued that the symbol should be allowed because of its intended meaning.

“Since [the symbol’s misuse] is in its infancy, we shouldn’t succumb to its power. We should reclaim it and use it as ‘OK’ and threes, because it’s still used for threes in college and professional basketball,” del Valle said. “[The gesture] is even on our phones. We shouldn’t completely stop using the sign only because one hateful group is turning it into something horrible.”

Del Valle also pointed out how reading the symbol with context is very important. Since the gesture is shown in a basketball setting, del Valle argues that there shouldn’t be a problem with defining Mason’s signal in terms of the game of basketball.

“I feel like McCallum is such a good community that we wouldn’t even think about that. We used the symbol solely in a basketball context, and McCallum would 100 percent not support that [white supremacist] meaning. They put the poster up and took it down, and we were hurt by it,” del Valle said.

Del Valle acknowledged that there are two sides to every story and that professional and college basketball programs players are only allowed to use the hand sign while they are on the court, not in any sort of promotional poster or published photos, but she also said that using the symbol in its basketball context was effectively fighting against the racist meaning of the gesture.

In a comment made to our initial Instragram post covering this controversy on Jan. 23, 2019 graduate Townes Hobratschk agreed.

“The only way we can keep [white supremacists] from taking this from us is to make it clear that the ‘a okay’ sign means ‘a okay,’” Hobratschk wrote. “This is a situation where we lose if we yield to racists.”

Dr. Shapiro began the Jan. 21 meeting by expressing regret that the district did not have a set procedure in place to handle the controversy over the banners. He said that a policy has been developed that will prevent similar problems from recurring in the future. He stressed that he did not think that any Mac basketball players meant to convey a discriminatory message with the symbol as it appeared in the banners. New banners were installed at the district’s expense on Jan. 23.

Principal Brandi Hosack anticipates that the future policy will give principals the responsibility to review documents and promotional materials before they are disseminated before the local community.

“I don’t think anyone here would intentionally try to hurt anyone else, but I’m also not wanting to say ‘You’re not allowed to be offended by that.’ So, I think the policy will be that the principal has to review all of these things,” Hosack said.

Suri said the procedure should be similiar to the review of photos that occurs in student publications.

Hosack says that her decision-making will be driven by avoiding offending any students.

“I think the easy thing to do, not the popular thing to do, but the easy thing, is to tell the coaches that when they take the pictures make sure that your students are showing nothing that could be misinterpreted,” Hosack said. “I don’t want students to feel that they can’t be themselves; in fact, that’s what I’m working against, I want you to be yourself, but we have to make sure that we aren’t offensive.”

Makayla Mason opposes Hosack’s view. “If we take every poster that offends someone down, we can’t hang anything up,” she said. “You can probably pick something out that’s offensive in anything. Giving it this much attention takes away from the true meaning of the sign in the context of the photo.”

Finally done with finals overload

How a finals-opt out policy could reduce stress and create a level playing field

Senior Charlotte Evelyn works on her homework for statistics, one of three AP classes she is currently taking. Under McCallum’s current system, Evelyn can exempt finals if she has a high average and takes the AP exam. A finals opt-out program, like the one at Austin High, would allow Evelyn to omit two finals if she has an 85 average and good attendance. Photo by Alysa Spiro.

Let me tell you something you might not know, but that will certainly affect your high school career if it hasn’t already.

At Austin High School, juniors are eligible to opt out of two of their finals and seniors can skip up to four. To qualify, students need an 85 average or higher, no more than three absences and no serious disciplinary actions. A student can only opt out of the fall or spring final for a course but not both. Students who waive their exam are given a make-up assignment and are expected to still be present during the exam period.

When I first heard about this opt-out program, I couldn’t help but have an emotional response, namely lust and desire. A final opt-out policy could make those four, dreadful days of test-taking so much more bearable.

What makes me drool over this policy is its ability to reduce stress, something I struggle with especially every time the end of a semester rolls around.

Eight classes, eight semesters of lessons, equates to a monstrous amount of material to memorize. A student can only spend so much time studying until eventually their brain feels numb, unable to grasp anything else.

By removing two or four semester finals, Austin High students are able to narrow the scope of subjects to study and dramatically reduce their workload. Their study time, focus and attention is consolidated into fewer classes. When more time is spent studying, test scores go up. Students are happy; teachers are happy.

Way too often, students are given finals that are either a near exact copy of a study guide or simply a long list of concepts to ALYSA SPIRO staff reporter

memorize. When students have fewer tests to prepare for, their time and attention can be much better spent by focusing on the more challenging tests, maybe the ones where their grade in the class is below an 85, instead of spending time reviewing for subjects on which they already have a solid grasp. With a finals opt-out policy, McCallum students would be able to excuse themselves from these tests, giving them a clearer line of focus and more time to dedicate to other subjects.

Furthermore, a finals opt-out policy provides positive incentive for students to keep good grades, attendance and behavior in their classes.

Nobody loves finals. For a lot of students, finals pose the nasty threat of severely dropping their semester average. If McCallum were to introduce a policy similar to Austin High’s, students would have a positive incentive to do well and work hard in their classes all semester long.

Higher grades and attendance and fewer behavioral issues doesn’t just promote a better learning environment for students, but it also makes teachers’ lives a whole lot easier. Once again, students are happy, teachers are happy.

Lastly, this policy would act as an equalizer between students who can and cannot pay for the pricey AP test.

Right now, students with a high enough grade and the ability to shell out $94 for an AP test can waive their spring semester exam. This policy screams “pay to play.”

Let’s do some math. Two AP tests cost $188. Four AP tests cost $376. $376 is a lot of money to anyone. And, for many juniors and seniors taking AP electives, the price increases even more rapidly.

Yes, McCallum is quick to claim that it has a scholarship program for students who can’t afford AP tests. However, these scholarships are only given to students on the free or reduced lunch program. Everyone else, despite their financial circumstances, are left in the dark.

Many students are in a sort of in-between zone. They can afford their own lunches, but spending $94 on a single test is a major financial burden. Spending upwards of $376 on a handful of tests is, for many students, financially impossible.

On the other hand, this policy encourages wealthier students to sign up for AP tests simply because it allows them to get out of a few finals. Instead of being seen as a way to get college credit, the cost of the test is the price they are willing to pay to experience a little less stress at the end of the semester.

A final opt-out policy creates a level playing field. Students who can’t afford to spend nearly $100 on an AP test will no longer be at a disadvantage to students whose families are willing to pay the price.

This entire discussion begs a bigger question: do finals do more harm than good? Is it fair to expect students to re-learn an entire semester’s worth of material within a week, only to be printed on a test and never seen again? Are finals more of an analysis of how well a student understands information or how good of a testtaker they are? Do finals promote unhealthy habits such as undersleeping, cheating or even substance abuse?

However you answer these questions, a finals opt-out policy is step in the right direction. Because of its success at Austin High, there is no reason to believe that it wouldn’t work just as well at McCallum. In fact, who actually benefits from not installing this program at McCallum? Certainly not the stressed-out students, grading-overloaded teachers, or really, the school as a whole.

Spending money for your honey Has Valentine’s Day become a capitalist holiday? shield the

TOMAS MARRERO staff reporter Have you ever noticed that every year it seems Valentine’s Day season starts earlier and earlier? Or how there’s a seemingly endless stream of commercials claiming the only way you can truly express your love to your valentine is to buy ridiculously overpriced jewelry or get them this brand of chocolates? For most of high school, I have been single, so I haven’t been concerned with chocolates or flowers. But this year, that has changed. I began thinking about Valentine’s Day before I even asked my significant other out. I had a moment of self-realization, and questioned why I was stressing about gifts and what I should plan more than a month in advance. This led me to do some searching and find out how and why the day of love became so much about gifts and spending money to show your affection.

Although there are many myths and legends surrounding the origin of the holiday, V-Day came from a Pagan holiday during the Roman Empire called Lupercalia. It occurred midFebruary, and was a festival to celebrate fertility and pay homage to the god of agriculture, Faunus. It shared some elements of how we celebrate today, but much of the rituals involved animal sacrifice and auctioning off women to the bachelors in town. Valentine’s Day began to change around the fifth century when it was outlawed due to the rise of Christianity. It was officially named St. Valentine’s Day and decriminalized towards the end of the century. It was however not associated with love for much longer. It’s believed that since the mating season of birds coincided with the holiday, it eventually became associated with love. As for St. Valentine himself, there are many theories as to who he is and how he became the namesake of the day of love. Some suggest he was a priest who openly defied the emperor of Rome when he continued to perform marriage ceremonies when it was outlawed for young men by Claudius II. Others believe it was Saint Valentine of Terni who was later executed by the same Claudius II.

All this still didn’t explain the hyper-capitalist nature of the holiday today, so I dug a little deeper. Giving cards on Valentine’s Day, one of the very earliest traditions I could find, began as far back as 1400 in England. These were all handwritten cards, and didn’t become printed until the 1900s. This made sense not only with the technology available at the time, but as consumer culture began to take hold with the rise of the middle class. This is also around when Hallmark was created, the card company that has attained massive success today. It wasn’t until later in the opulence and spending of the 1980s when the holiday took its true form. Advertisements began pushing the idea of buying jewelry, chocolates and other presents for your valentine. These ads were extremely effective. According to a study released in 2019, the National Retail Federation saw men spend an average of just over $225, while women spend just under $100. With this all-time high in spending, it is worth noting that this increase

13 feb. 2020 % Americans Celebrating Valentine’s Day 2009-2019

Average Spending per American 2009-2019 Graphic by Bella Russo

The downward sloping graph (left) shows the change in percentage of Americans celebrating Valentine’s Day from 2009-2019. Interestingly enough, the percentage of people has been steadily declining, from 63% in 2009 to just 51% last year. The upward sloping graph shows the spending of those who do celebrate, which hit an all-time high of $162 lasr year. All data from the National Retail Federation.

comes with a decrease in the overall percentage of people celebrating the holiday.

This statistic truly shocked me. I can’t even imagine spending $225 for myself, let alone someone else. I’m already thinking about what I should get my significant other, and the expectation to spend real money has put more pressure on me to get something nice. I’m in a fortunate enough position to be able to afford chocolates, flowers and maybe something else small, but I wonder about those less fortunate than me. I wonder about those who can’t spare $20 for a bouquet of flowers or chocolates. Love is universal. Why shouldn’t the day of love be too? Is spending $200 the new way of saying I love you? Well, of course not. Some would say plenty of people don’t spend that much or anything at all on Valentine’s Day and just celebrate privately. And of course, this is true. After all, fewer people are celebrating V-Day overall. But I worry about the holiday is going the way of the wedding ring, if it hasn’t already.

To clarify, I mean pushy marketing tactics creating a social norm, like DeBeers diamond company’s marketing campaign in the 1980s. This campaign set the “expectation” of spending two month’s salary on a proposal ring. Debeers ran the same ad campaign in the Asian market years later, except instead of two months salary they changed it to three. It worked, and the norm in wealthier Asian markets such as Japan is spending three month’s salary. Maybe Valentine’s Day has already had its heyday in terms of profitability for huge companies, but it will only take another very successful ad campaign to make the new social norm spending $100 on roses, or jewelry, or maybe a new product the market has decided is essential for love.

I worry about the future of Valentine’s Day. As it stands now, I believe spending money to somehow prove you love someone is ridiculous. Of course, many people realize this idiocy and spend very little or nothing and simply enjoy their valentine’s company. But, it only takes a singular wildly successful marketing campaign over a few years to change the social norm and possibly ostracize those who prefer to celebrate privately. So, talk with your significant other. Flowers and chocolates can be a beautiful gesture, but agreeing to celebrate smaller or without buying anything can be just as powerful.