May 2017
VOLUME 13 • ISSUE 3
Speaking Up, Speaking Loud
A Study on the Media Bias at Gunn
4
AS WELL AS:
Opinion on TitanConnect, 6 UC Berkeley protests, 13
France elects Emmanuel Macron, 16
THE CHARIOT
EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Isha Gupta (‘17) Maggie Wang (‘17) SENIOR EDITOR Nicholas Chung (‘17) CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Sophie Alexis (’20) Advait Arun (‘18) Nicholas Chung (‘17) Edgar Hsieh (’20) Stephanie Jackson ('19) Colin Jaeger (’19) Siddharth Jain ('19) Ryan Li (’20) Chris Liao (’20) Arjun Prabhakar ('19) Caroline Ro ('19) Dana Zhao (‘17) Tejas Kadambi ('19) Natalie Ho ('18) Carolyn Wang ('18)
DEAR READERS,
I
n both Gunn High School and the greater United States, there has been an uptick in activism and protest. On one hand, in our own community, concerns were voiced about the PAUSD school board’s action to remove the reporting of weighted GPAs on transcripts. On the other hand, throughout the country, there have been protests against President Donald Trump’s executive actions regarding immigration, women’s rights, international trade, and health care. Both bodies have faced criticism for failing to consult with their constituencies on vital issues and have been surrounded by major controversy for some time. This is not to say that the actions of our school board and school administration are directly comparable to the actions of the Trump administration, as each group’s decisions have impacts of different scales and tackle very different issues that face our community. However, enclosed in this issue of The Chariot, you will find information and opinions on both debates and how they impact the Gunn community. Here at The Chariot, we have championed the right for free speech for all—which includes dissent, protest, and active dialogue. We hope that our issue informs you on various problems we face in our community and the globe today, and we encourage you to take action wherever you see fit. The United States was built on the fundamental idea of free speech; whether you identify as a Republican, Democrat or somewhere in between, we hope that you will continue to speak out and share what you believe in. Lastly, we would like to thank you for your continued readership and support of The Chariot. We have thoroughly enjoyed leading The Chariot through these interesting political times and hope you will continue to think critically about the issues that surround us. We look forward to see what’s in store for the 2017-2018 school year under our new leadership team, headed by Natalie Ho and Advait Arun as our new Editors-in-Chiefs. Sincerely, Isha Gupta & Maggie Wang EDITORS-IN-CHIEF
FOUNDATION/GROUP SPONSORS Adobe Systems • Daughters of the American Revolution • Palo Alto Lions Club PATRONS ($100+) Lauren Michals and Vinod Bharadwaj • Patricia Bruegger • Steven Guggenheim
The Chariot would like to thank Advisor Justin Brown for his support.
All images, unless otherwise stated, are courtesy of Creative Commons. ABOUT US The Chariot is intended to create and promote political discussion at Gunn and make people aware of issues that matter. We ask that you respect all opinions which are reflected in our publication, and write letters to the editors if you wish to voice your opinion. The views expressed do not reflect that of The Chariot, but rather those of the individual writers. The Chariot was originally founded in 2001 as The Partisan Review by Gunn alumni Ilan Wurman (‘06), Channing Hancock (‘06), and Sarah McDermott (‘05). Visit our website, gunnchariot.com if you wish to view any issues from previous years or for more information about us. Any questions, comments, suggestions, or requests to join can be sent to gunnchariot@gmail.com. If you’d like to make a donation or subscribe, please send checks to: Justin Brown Re: The Gunn Chariot 780 Arastradero Road Palo Alto, CA 94306 Checks can be made out to Gunn High School with “The Chariot” on the memo.
2
MAY 2017
New England Patriots win Super Bowl LI Natalie Ho Contributing Writer
O
n February 5, 2017, the New England Patriots defeated the Atlanta Falcons 34 to 28 to win Super Bowl LI. The New England Patriots, hailing from Boston, consisted of one college lacrosse player, one college quarterbackturned-wide receiver, 14 rookies, and 37 players who have never before won a playoff game. Despite the team’s lack of playoff experience, however, the Patriots’ continuous dominance positioned them as odds-on favourites to win as soon as betting lines opened late January. They were led by coach Bill Belichick, 64, and quarterback Tom Brady, 39, who were both seeking to cement their status as all-time football greats. Belichick was making his ninth Super Bowl appearance, attempting to win a seventh ring. Brady was playing in his seventh Super Bowl, hoping to cap off a stellar 14-2 season that began with a four-game “Deflategate” suspension. Although his public image suffered as a result of “Deflategate” accusations that he had authorised unlawful deflation of NFL footballs, he returned to the field for the remainder of the regular season, delivering some of the best performances of his seventeen-year career with the Patriots. Brady finished the regular season with a league-best touchdown-interception ratio of 28-2 and a passer rating of 112.2. By midDecember, he had quarterbacked New England to a record-eighth-straight AFC East division title. The team later secured its ninth Super Bowl berth, another NFL record, following a 34-16 win against the Houston Texans and a 36-17 win against the Pittsburgh Steelers.
SPORTS The Atlanta Falcons soared into the postseason, headed by coach Dan Quinn, 46, and quarterback Matt Ryan, 31. Quinn had entered his second year as the Falcons’ head coach after winning Super Bowl XLVIII as the defensive coordinator of the Seattle Seahawks. Ryan ended the regular season with 4,944 passing yards and a passer rating of 117.1, both league-highs, subsequently winning the annual NFL MVP award. Captaining an explosive offence, Ryan helped the 11-5 Falcons capture the NFC South division. En route to the conference championships, Atlanta defeated the Seattle Seahawks by a comfortable margin of 16 points (36-20). The franchise won its second NFC Championship with a 44-21 victory over the injury-depleted Green Bay Packers on January 22, 2017. At the end of the first quarter of the Big Game, the score remained 0-0. Less than three minutes into the second quarter, receiver Julio Jones’ toe-tapping catch along the sidelines brought life into the drive that gave Atlanta a 7-0 lead. With 8:55 remaining in the quarter, Matt Ryan slung a pass to tight end Austin Hooper, and New England’s deficit increased to 14 points. Just as the Patriots seemed to be putting something together, however, Brady threw his first-ever Super Bowl pick-six into the arms of Falcons cornerback Robert Alford, who returned the ball 82 yards to the end zone. As the first half winded down, the Patriots trailed 21-3. Halfway into the fourth quarter, the momentum shifted. Although Matt Ryan tacked on another seven points in the third quarter to extend his team’s lead to 25 points, New England finally found its stride; it scored its first touchdown of the game off a five-yard pass from Brady to running back James White. Chances of a miracle comeback diminished momentarily when placekicker Stephen Gostkowski missed the PAT wide right and unsuccessfully executed an onside kick. Atlanta’s lead reduced to 16 points following a quick New England field goal. The turning point came when PaMAY 2017
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
triots linebacker Dont’a Hightower forced Matt Ryan to fumble. Defensive tackle Alan Branch recovered the ball, and New England marched downfield again. White helped convert the twopoint attempt, cutting Atlanta’s lead to eight points. Despite New England’s efforts, offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan could have guaranteed Atlanta victory by kicking a field goal; given the little time remaining on the clock, the 11-point lead would have been impossible to relinquish. Shanahan instead called for Ryan to drop back and pass, leading to a sack by Patriots defensive end Trey Flowers. Bumped out of field goal range, the Falcons punted. The ensuing circus catch by receiver Julian Edelman set the Patriots up in scoring position; with 57 seconds left in regulation, the Patriots tied the score 28-28. The Patriots won the inaugural Super Bowl overtime coin toss and elected to receive the ball. Having accumulated an NFL-record 466 passing yards during the game, Brady led his offence to the red zone, and the rest is history. The New England Patriots had emerged, down by an unpredicted and unprecedented twenty-five points, as Super Bowl Champion for the second time in three years. Tom Brady, now a four-time Super Bowl MVP, hoisted the Lombardi Trophy for the fifth time in his storied career.
3
THE CHARIOT
Media bias at Gunn, a study in numbers Advait Arun Contributing Writer
A
s a member of Congresswoman Anna Eshoo’s (CA-18) Student Advisory Board, I have the chance to give my two cents on certain national policies, and present to the Congresswoman my thoughts. In the planning phase of my project for the Board, I came across a survey administered in 2005 to students at Los Altos High School, asking them to evaluate the news media after the 2004 election. I was struck at how detailed the survey was, and I secured the materials and support to write my own version and administer it here at Gunn, in wake of the 2016 election. The survey, comprising of 581 Gunn students of all grades, specifically inquired about students’ perceptions of media bias and fake news, both being prevalent in the 2016 election. The results of the survey were quite striking, and reveal a lot about the way students at Gunn (who will all
4
MEDIA BIA
be voters within the next four years) view the relationship between the internet, TV news, and the media. The first major finding is that students see the internet as a separate entity to the TV, in terms of news distribution: students expect, and sometimes desire, a variety of opinions disseminated through the internet, while recognizing a more mainstream media presence on television. At the same time, students overwhelmingly reject censorship of either. Even if content is objectionable, students seem to regard the First Amendment with reverence. Students were asked about the role of the media in the ostensible spread of anti-American news coverage, to which most students implied in their responses that most anti-American news is a result of a lack of government transparency—a clear mandate to our legislators. In regards to the 2016 presidential election, in which two historically unpopular candidates vied for the White House, students overwhelmingly said that both internet and TV media influenced their perceptions of candidates. A majority of students, clearly with an egalitarian mindset, supported equal advertisement time for all candidates of major political parties, regardless of their money. Slightly less than
MAY 2017
half of all respondents subsequently said that media consolidation was detrimental to the idea of fair coverage; it is highly probable that more students would agree with that if the concept of media consolidation was explained to them. Students overwhelmingly agree that the media in the 18th District is not right-leaning, at the very least, but almost all of them agree that media bias does have an effect on the public interpretation of news. Interestingly, while students felt that women and racial minorities were treated unfairly by the media (by comparatively slim margins), they were divided as to whether the police were treated unfairly by the media or not. More students have a trusted internet media source than a trusted TV media source (and most students use the internet to get their news), yet, at the same time, students confirm the existence of the “echo chamber” on social media, where one’s feed is biased towards people with similar ideas. Students also noted that they did not actively seek out news—for most, it appears on social media feeds without them having to search for it. As such, it is generally very easy for students to access news sources; however, it is slightly less easy for them to access trusted news sources.
S AT GUNN
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
Now onto the category that everyone is waiting for—fake news. An extremely slim majority of students consider themselves “somewhat confident” at identifying fake news, with a sizeable minority saying that they needed some help. Almost all students recognize fake news as very problematic; in extension, many students connected the problem of fake news to media consolidation and censorship. A slight majority of students put the onus of responsibility for accurate news onto journalists themselves, instead of their sources or their companies. Students are squarely divided on whether or not the government should filter fake news—most who said “yes” (in context of the fact that they probably did not support government censorship in earlier questions) noted that it should be extremely limited in scope. To help solve the problem of fake news, according to students, the public must continue to be made aware, and they also call for a concerted effort by journalists, social media companies, and the mainstream media themselves to make an effort. Students seem to desire “crowdsourced awareness” to help end fake news. In conclusion, most students seem to desire a society where, while there is a substantial lack of government censorship of media, there is a noticeable, concerted effort by both social media companies and the mainstream media to reduce bias, eliminate fake news, and promote digital citizenship. To all those who took the survey, thank you so much for helping Congresswoman Eshoo, her office, and myself learn so much about the ways we must deal with the media and the internet, especially in relation to bias and fake news. I could not have done it without your help. All the questions and the related results can be found at www.tinyurl.com/EshooSAB2017MediaSurvey. My full report itself can be found at www.tinyurl.com/EshooSAB2017MediaReport.
MAY 2017
5
THE CHARIOT
GUNN NEWS
TitanConnect will do little to connect Gunn students Ryan Li Contributing Writer
F
DR once famously said in his inaugural address “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” While I admire Mr. Roosevelt for his outstanding three and a half terms as President leading our God-given nation through the Great Depression and the Second World War, I would like to respectfully disagree with this particular statement. Roosevelt fails to address the three other things people have to fear besides fear itself. The first are those little cartons of almost expired milk you get for free in the lunch line (I don’t know what goes into them), the second one is Sarah Palin, and the third is TitanConnect. Two of these can be very easily avoided. The lunch line milk cartons won’t jump and attack you and no one is requiring you to listen to Fox and Friends. TitanConnect, on the other hand, is a different story. One and a half hours worth of double flex time that could have otherwise been spent studying for the bio test or writing English essays are instead redirected towards team building exercises and hours of continuous awkward silence. The underwhelming experience that I had pretty much inspired me to write this opinion. Many—myself included—came to dread the once-a-month double flex time sessions where we were supposed to
6
share our feelings with fellow students we only know by name and teachers we almost never meet. In almost every session I attended, the teacher would try to mix up the classroom up or say something clever and try to engage students in group discussion, asking a question about our feelings or our favorite ice cream flavors. People would then stare at each other with pleading eyes waiting for someone else to answer. Dead silence would ensue for about two to five minutes until one brave soul would stand up and give a generic, three word answer along the lines of “I feel good,” or “I like vanilla.” Each class is supposed to act like a Another question would then be asked and “support group,”where the students can the downward spiral would continue. express their emotional needs to the Curious of what other people thought, teachers and peers. The team building acI posted a one-question poll on the Gunn tivities and discussions are meant to help Class of 2020 Facebook group asking pareach student bond more closely to their ticipants to rate their Social Emotional classmates. Learning (SEL) experience on a scale of 1 I asked how well TitanConnect coach(worst) to 5 (best). Out of the 88 answers, es are prepared to lead such “support Option 1 racked up the most votes with groups.” “There’s a two day training every an exciting grand total of 34 with Option year, we went over dif2 and then 3 with Many—myself included—came to ferent types of strategies 27 and 19 respectively. The 4th dread the once-a-month double flex to use, ways to start up time sessions where we were sup- conversation, and lesson option received 8 votes and 5 none. posed to share our feelings with fel- plans,” she says. “There Some of the com- low students we only know by name are also monthly check ments people had and teachers we almost never meet. ins to see how each coach is doing.” In other words, ranged from “at teachers are at best minileast make it opmally trained to tackle heavy issues related tional,” to “It made me fail my Spanish to students’ emotional well being test ” to bits of colorful language the ediA lack of closeness between the students tors wouldn't let me put in this column. and teachers participating in this program A friend casually pointed out the rehas led TitanConnect into the awkward sults of this survey were somewhat (read very) skewed, and told me I should go up position it is in now. High schoolers have to the admins and ask for real surveys on grown past the marshmallow-and-toothpick building exercises and mixed with student opinion collected by the school. I talked with Ms. Carlomagno, one TED talks and inspirational videos that of the wellness specialists and the one in worked to so well in middle school transicharge of this year’s TitanConnect. She tional programs like JLS/Terman Panther/ says that there is data collected about stu- Tiger Camp. Real human connection and dents’ thoughts on the program but it will emotional health both take time to develop, and certainly do not generally spring not be released in a while. “TitanConnect is basically a transition up over the course of two hour sessions evprogram for the new wellness curriculum,” ery month. If there is something new and she says. “The idea is that every class will innovative about next year’s SEL, we have have the same 25 students and teacher for yet to see it. But for now, I’m stuck trying all 4 years. This way students will have to decide which kitchen utensil feels most time to bond and get to know each other.” like my school year. MAY 2017
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
GUNN NEWS
Surprise! Student Voice Trampled Again Nicholas Chung Senior Editor
T
his year, there has been a lot of debate centered around not only the recent decisions regarding weighted GPAs but also the new schedule at Gunn. Curiously, despite the significant role these issues and others, such as zero period, play in the daily lives of students, there has been a systematic effort by Dr. McGee and other decisionmakers to not only trample student voice but also subvert it in hopes of falsely claiming that students support the decisions being made in the past and in the present. The issue of student voice was first brought up during the debate around zero period. In this case, there were multiple surveys conducted that clearly showed the vast majority (about 90%) of students were against removing the choice of taking academic classes earlier in the day. Despite this and numerous attempts to make clear that taking zero period classes was a choice freely undertaken by students under their own volition, Dr. McGee made a unilateral decision during spring break to cut debate short and issued an order limiting zero period classes to only PE or non academic classes, effectively cutting off student voice at a time when students were least able to speak up (board meetings are not held during Spring Break). Dr. McGee claims in his 4/17/15 Superintendent Update that he did listen to student voice and set forth a “compromise.” Knocking out almost all options of zero period classes available is most emphatically not a compromise, especially in light of the fact that 11th and 12th graders do not take PE. Ironically, a Chariot conducted survey one year later on the impacts of zero period found that Dr. McGee’s decision actually increased student stress (see full survey results at https://tinyurl.com/zeroperiodsurvey). Even worse, zero period is not an isolated incident; this pattern of consistently ignoring students has continued to the present two situations. In the case of changes to the Gunn schedule, not only has the Administration ignored student voice but also has attempted to subvert it by falsely claiming students support the changes. In a Schoology post on March 28, Principal Herrmann wrote “the schedule we will implement next year will be the one aligned with the criteria set in November, strongly favored by staff and students on the schedule survey.” While the
schedule implemented may have been the one most favored in the Administration’s survey, none of the options in the survey contained provisions that students had been asking for. To name just one flaw, no option had the second Flex period placed at the end of the day. In other words, the Administration created its own data to support its claims by creating biased survey questions. Evidently, the survey writers never took AP Statistics at Gunn. The vast majority of students are simply sick and tired of the constant schedule changes (many seniors have given up on memorizing the schedules as it sometimes seems as if we have more alternate schedule weeks than regular weeks). Even so, the Administration did not see any irony when, in a recent email encouraging students to take surveys they wrote the statement “We value student voice.” In the case of weighted GPA (WGPA), the disregard for student voice has been even more blatant. Not only have Dr. McGee and others ignored the results of their own surveys, they have also relied on a lack of student awareness to push through “compromise” proposals. Before looking at the survey and forum results, one must note the student survey and parent forum questions were, again, undeniably biased. For example, the student survey included the question: “How much do you consider your GPA (or WGPA) when choosing classes?” This is inherently confusing; one does not know if the question is, for example, asking about choosing classes within math lanes, choosing between regular electives and weighted electives, or something entirely different. In addition, both the parent/staff survey and the student survey included this statement: “WGPA systems may benefit students but they also create some problems for students and schools.” There are two problems with this sentence. First, these problems that occur are never stated, which makes grading “ideas that might mitigate some potential problems” (asked later in the question) hard. Second, the statement is uneven; it states there are benefits for students but then goes on to say it creates problems for students and schools. For the parent forum, the questions for “thoughtful” and “civil” discussion included leading questions such as “To what extent do you think that reporting WGPA will increase unhealthy stressful competition among students and WHY?” This question inherently assumes that reporting WGPA causes unhealthy stressful competition; one gets the impression that Dr. McGee thinks that Gunn students are the equivalent of sharks circling around each other waiting for a chance to strike at one another to get ahead! Despite this all-encompassing bias, Dr. McMAY 2017
Gee’s survey results still showed overwhelming support for the current weighted GPA, with 77% student support and 84% parent support. Instead of acknowledging student voice, however, and keeping the current weighted GPA, Dr. McGee instead chose to obfuscate the issue by proposing his own shortened, hybrid weighted GPA proposal. The fact that this muddying of the waters is deliberate becomes more clear when one considers that the forums, touted as information sessions, were held after the surveys were conducted. In other words, Dr. McGee certainly seemed to hope people would take the surveys going in blind, increasing the chances that they would support his position. The main problem with Dr. McGee’s hybrid proposal is that student awareness on this issue is extremely inadequate. Many students still see the issue as one between unweighted GPA vs weighted GPA and are unaware of all the restrictions Dr. McGee has placed on weighing courses. For instance, many were not aware that Chemistry Honors was not going to be weighed under the hybrid proposal and still more were unaware that seniors this year got a full cumulative weighted GPA with no restrictions. When told about this, the first reaction from many was one of surprise. In addition, many students did not consider at all the impact removing 9th and 10th grade weighted courses would have on scholarship opportunities. This shortage of student awareness has been a key factor in the lack of more resistance to this hybrid proposal. At the end of the day, one is left with the distinct impression that the district’s attitude towards students is one of “We’re doing this for your own benefit.” Aside from past such decisions backfiring, such as the restriction of zero period leading to an increase of student stress, the fact that student voice and opinions have been repeatedly ignored is a problem in and of itself. When and where are students supposed to adjust to growing up and living in the world unless they are able to take part in these decisions that are so integral to their everyday lives? In the minds of the administrators, evidently not in Palo Alto or at Gunn High School. There is, however, one important recourse available to students: voting. In addition to participating in national and state elections, students—upon reaching the age of 18—can cast votes in local school board elections. Seniors who have reached voting age by November 2018 and PAUSD alumni who still legally reside here can participate. In November 2018, two school board seats will be up for election (the school board appoints the superintendent). If student voice continues to be dismissed, we should take note and head to the ballot box.
7
THE CHARIOT
Millions participate in the Women's March, including Gunn students Isha Gupta Co-Editor-in-Chief
O
n January 21, more than two million people across the globe took to the streets to protest the inauguration and proposed policies of President Donald Trump. Dubbed as “the Women’s March,” the purpose, according to organizers, was to stand up for the human rights of women and other minorities, 8
GUNN AD
particularly groups who were attacked throughout the presidential campaign. The main march took place in Washington DC, in Donald Trump’s new backyard, where an estimated 500,000 men, women, and children participated. Additionally, there were marches in other major cities across the United States, including San Francisco, Oakland, Chicago, New York City, Austin, and Boston. There were reportedly more than 600 demonstrations in total, with some of them taking place in 60 foreign countries, including Antarctica. MAY 2017
The Women’s Marches that took place domestically and across the globe were all relatively peaceful in nature, with no reported violence or arrests. Large congregations of protesters, clad in pink “pussy” referring to the lewd comments Trump said in a leaked Access Hollywood tape - caps and holding signs chanted phrases such as, “Women united will never be defeated,” and “Dump the Trump.” In the main march on the nation’s capital, prominent political and cultural icons spoke to the crowds, including Scarlett Johansson, America Ferrera, Gloria Steinem, and Van Jones.
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
DVOCACY
The images that were produced from the march in Washington DC and in other cities were a stark contrast to inauguration day the day before; it was reported that there were three times as many people on the National Mall during the protest than the inauguration itself. Though the marches seemed to unite people of all different backgrounds, races, religions, and creeds, it also did not come without controversy. The Women’s March elicited responses from many prominent figures, including former presidential candidate Hillary
Clinton, who tweeted, “Thank you for standing, speaking, and marching for our values.” The new White House also commented directly on the matter, stating that it was a shame that, “pro-life members were NOT welcome at the Women’s March” and affirming support for the March for Life that had taken place earlier in support of the pro-life movement. Other commentators remarked that some of the Women’s Marches did not champion intersectional feminism enough the belief that women of color must be featured and included in discussions on women’s rights. President Trump initially tweeted, “Watched protests yesterday but was under the impression that we just had an election! Why didn't these people vote? Celebs hurt cause badly.” He later clarified his tweet with another tweet, saying, “Peaceful protests are a hallmark of our democracy. Even if I don't always agree, I recognize the rights of people to
express their views.” Many students and families from Palo Alto and the Gunn community were also present at the “sister” Women’s Marches taking place in San Jose and San Francisco. Students posted pictures of the marches on social media, including on Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. Senior Inger Smuts attended the San Jose march with family and friends, remarked, “This was the first match I've ever participated in and it was very inspiring to be among so many people who also believed in supporting women's rights. It encouraged me to get more politically involved and to continue to fight for my rights.”
Left page: 1. Eliana K. (12) and Asa K. (12) 2. Scarlet Johannson Right page: 3. Inger M. and Isha G. 4. Asa K., Bella D., Anoushka J. 5. Chloe S.
MAY 2017
9
THE CHARIOT
GOVERNMENT
Trump's first weeks in office: disorganization and discontent
“
Edgar Hsieh Contributing Writer
My foreign policy will always put the interests of the American people and American security above all else. That will be the foundation of every single decision that I will make. ‘America First’ will be the major and overriding theme of my administration.” President Donald Trump uttered such words in a speech all the way back in the April of 2016. The crowd listened intently to his voice and gazed at his nimble hand gestures, cheering upon hearing such words fueling their fiery discontent. At last, their lives will be changed by the arrival of a savior descending from a grandiose escalator. “It is time to drain the swamp in Washington, D.C.,” he added in October as he was a step closer to his presidency. However, when Trump’s presidency began after his inauguration, it was evident that he was never dedicated in fighting for the people of America or “draining the swamp” in Washington D.C. One of his various campaign promises was to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The president was noted for saying during the first days of his presidency regarding Obamacare that we should “do nothing for two years, let it explode”. It is clear by now that Trump only pledged to improve healthcare for Americans in correspondence with his style of facile dismissal. He and the rest of the Republicans have provided no satisfying alternative as to what to do after leaving. According to a report from the Congressional Budget Office, about 18 million Americans would be uninsured. Efforts rolling back Obamacare have already begun within hours of his inauguration, as Trump signed an executive order to supposedly bring “relief for Americans from the cost burdens of ObamaCare.” While flaws of the ACA do exist and it does not guarantee universal health care for all Americans, Trump does nothing to resolve such issues and instead
10
determines to undermine the considerable progress Obama has made on healthcare during his years of presidency. Trump made some acceptable changes to correspond to popular discontent. He ordered the United States to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in the name of protecting “our jobs.” But we should not be fooled by this action; Trump does not care for the working people despite the tone of his rhetoric. His policies are formed from the basis of (futile) populist reaction towards globalization, and his solutions will not solve the cause of popular discontent. One good measure to see how Trump is going to actually serve the working people like he promised is to see his position on corporate influences in politics. Trump has nominated a cabinet packed with corporate ties. According to a report by Time, the total net worth of Trump’s cabinet reaches up to $4.5 billion, greater than any cabinet in US history. Driving out corporate influence, or as he put it so eloquently “draining the swamp,” did not seem like an interest for him. Trump further demonstrates his subjection towards corporate interests by reviving the Keystone XL pipeline and allowing the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, both projects of which are criticized extensively by environmentalists. As the Dakota Access Pipeline passes through the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, Native American lands would be threatened by pollution and drinking water could be contaminated if a breach in the pipeline occurs. Sioux Tribal Chairman Dave Archambault stated that instead of developing new methods of transporting crude oil, the focus should be on the search for renewable and green sources of energy. Trump’s failure to expel or reduce corporate interests and influences is overshadowed by something more condemnable. On January 27th, Donald Trump signed the infamous executive order prohibiting the entry of citizens from Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya, Iran, Sudan, and Yemen for 90 days. All seven countries selected for the immigration ban are consisted of a predominantly Muslim population. The president’s reasoning behind the executive order are not based on information stating a necessity to sign the order, nor from any meaningful statistic to even formally back it up. But it is clear why this order was signed: to fulfill MAY 2017
the rhetoric of Islamophobia present in his campaign. He has directed the people’s fury towards Muslims, conjuring up the threats of Islamic infiltration into western society to an unprecedented level. The most infuriating aspect of his reasoning is that he attempts to label this order as within the boundaries of legitimacy. Trump stated that the order was “not about religion... [but] about terror and keeping our country safe”. However, his focus on terror is erroneous. According to a survey conducted by the New York Times and the Police Executive Research Forum “only 3 percent identified the threat from Muslim extremists as severe.” The threat of Islamic terror is evidently ridiculously exaggerated, and was a resonating theme during his campaign. However, the imperative point here is not about how many attacks are carried out against the people of the United States by Muslims, but the right to travel for all. As soon as his order came into effect, airports around the United States fell to chaos and confusion. Protests erupted at multiple airports, all speaking out against the president for the right of travel for all who were excluded by the order. The two themes of Trump made during his campaign were to serve the American people and to limit corruption. Trump has followed up his promises by introducing corporate influences into his new government at an unprecedented scale and excluding various people from having basic human rights in just the first few weeks of his presidency. A study conducted by SafeHome.org has shown that accounts on social media dedicated towards discrimination, such as those promoting white supremacy or anti-LGBT messages, have “amassed more likes in 2016 than any year since 2008.” For those that resisted the goals of his presidency, it is important for the struggle to continue. However, what is perhaps more important is that those who still choose to back the president and the rhetoric of his presidential campaign need to, at some point, open their eyes. Almost none of his promises to bring back prosperity and harmony to the people of America have been put in effect. Instead, the force of his movement is leading us to a future of uncertainty, an epoch of unforeseen darkness that we are slowly coming closer and closer towards.
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
GOVERNMENT
Trump's cabinet picks and SCOTUS are ill-prepared to lead Arjun Prabhakar Contributing Writer
O
ur 45th President, Donald Trump, has certainly generated plenty of headlines with his speeches, executive orders, and tweets. However, perhaps his most important actions thus far have involved choosing the next Presidential cabinet of the United States. After some rocky Senate confirmations, Republican politicians, businessmen, and military personnel finally settled into their new roles. The Senate has not formally rejected a Cabinet pick since 1989, but a few of Trump’s selections, such as Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos were certainly close to rejection. Without further ado, here are some of the most important and controversial men and women who will advise Trump and run the executive branch: Secretary of State: Rex Tillerson Background: Tillerson is the first Secretary of State in American history to enter the role with absolutely no prior experience in the public sector. He has never worked in any government-affiliated job and spent his professional career with the energy giant Exxon Mobil. He began working for the corporation in an entry-level position in 1975 and eventually became the company’s chairman and chief executive in 2006. Tillerson appeals to Trump as a businessman and private sector employee who is not part of the Establishment or “swamp” that the President promised to take care of during his term. Additionally, Tillerson’s position as a chief executive gave him crucial experience in the area of working with foreign governments. President Trump tweeted, “The thing I like best about Rex Tillerson is that he has vast experience at dealing successfully with all types of foreign governments.” However, Tillerson’s drawback is his connection to the Russian government, which is unideal for an administration that is already under fire for its suspicious ties to Russia. He negotiated contracts with Putin to explore
Russian territories in the Arctic and Caspian regions. His work eventually led to receiving the Order of Friendship award from Putin in 2013. Opinion: 2017 is a pivotal year for United States foreign policy. Notable conflicts that the US must take a clear position on include Chinese aggression in the South China Sea, North Korea’s nuclear program, and instability in the Middle East. Tillerson has already signaled a change in our government’s policy on the Assad regime. Although he typically keeps reporters at a distance from his international work, he did say, “[the] longer-term status of President [Bashar] Assad will be decided by the Syrian people.” This means that the goal of US policy in Syria is no longer centered around removing Assad from power. While it is troubling that Tillerson is willing to avoid punishing a leader who committed atrocities against his own people, we can look to Libya as clear evidence that the US should not topple autocracies. I find Tillerson’s lack of experience in diplomacy and foreign affairs to be very concerning because it is absolutely necessary for the Secretary of State to be an expert in these fields. We will definitely see a stark contrast between John Kerry, Obama’s Secretary of State, and Tillerson in the coming years.
highly of Haley, despite her lack of experience in foreign affairs, and there are even rumors that he offered the Secretary of State position to her initially. Opinion: Considering the other options for UN ambassador, including Newt Gingrich, John Bolton, and Rudy Giuliani, we should be glad that Haley ended up being the choice for Ambassador to the UN. She definitely has aspirations that go beyond this Cabinet role and several foreign policy and government experts believe that she can eventually be a solid Presidential candidate. So far, she has echoed sentiments by Tillerson that the US might need Assad in order to establish some semblance of stability in Syria. She is the first ambassador to the UN since the 1980s to be a part of a Republican Presidential cabinet, so she is clearly well-liked by Trump and the other senior officials in his administration. She appears to have more power than past ambassadors and conducts foreign policy initiatives that are independent from Tillerson. Overall, I think that Haley deserves a chance in this role because it is a key stepping stone to future high-profile roles in the federal government. She has opposed bigotry in the past, so she can be considered more moderate and appealing than Trump or other high-level members of his Cabinet.
Ambassador to the United Nations: Nikki Haley Background: Haley, the daughter of Indian immigrants, became the first IndianAmerican to hold office in South Carolina when she was elected to the state House of Representatives in 2004. With the endorsement of fellow Republicans Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, Haley won the election for Governor of South Carolina in 2010 on a fiscally conservative platform. She gained national attention in 2015 when she vehemently advocated for the removal of a Confederate flag from the South Carolina Capitol. As a rising star in the Republican party, she gave the Republican Party’s rebuttal to President Obama’s 2016 State of the Union address. Interestingly, Haley was critical of Trump during the Republican primaries and openly supported Senator Marco Rubio. She even went as far to describe him as “everything a governor doesn’t want in a President.” Trump clearly thinks
Some Other Cabinet Members: Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education- DeVos had the most difficulty getting confirmed by the Senate among Trump’s Cabinet selections because of her extremely limited qualifications and opposition to the public school system. She supports the use of public funds to create a voucher system that allows students to pay reduced tuition for a private school education. The issue with this system is that it allows public funds to be directed to religious institutions, which is a clear violation of separation of religion and government. James Mattis, Secretary of DefenseTrump compared Mattis to General George Patton from World War II because they are both experienced military men who are not afraid of offensive action. Mattis is a good combination of an aggressive general and careful thinker. He is willing to be oppose Trump on certain issues, such as the Iranian nuclear deal.
MAY 2017
11
THE CHARIOT
NATIONAL
Trump's travel ban must be heavily revised Dana Zhao Contributing Writer
January 27, 2017 mere seven days after taking office, Donald Trump issues an executive order titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” designed to “ensure that those approved for admission [into the US] do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.” The order consists of four main parts: 1. A ban on nationals of the seven “countries of concern” as identified under the Obama administration—Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen—from entering the United States for ninety days. 2. An indefinite ban on the entry of Syrian refugees, given the political and
A
12
military turmoil of the country. 3. A cessation of admission of all refugees for four months. 4. A directive to review the Visa Interview Waiver Program, which allows travelers from 38 countries to renew travel authorizations without in-person interviews.
January 27-Mid-February Mass protests across the country ignite and federal judges in various states rule that the order violates rights to due process, freedom of religion under the First Amendment, and equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution, blocking key provisions of the order. Federal appellate judges stand by rulings, further preventing the reinstatement of the ban. March 6, 2017 Trump unveils a new travel ban excluding Iraq from the list of banned countries set to take effect on March 16—an exclusion which, according to a senior US official, was incorporated after “intensive lobbying from the Iraqi government at the highest levels.”
MAY 2017
March 15, 16 The US District Court in Hawaii and Maryland block the new travel ban, effectively preventing the second travel ban from enactment. Throughout the national chaos and political infighting accentuated by the fallout of his travel bans, Trump has held firm to his initial assertion that the travel ban is “about terror and keeping our country safe...not about religion.” This renewed scrutiny of the visa-granting process may or may not play a “crucial role” in deterring terrorists from entering the country, however, depending on two key questions: first, whether the travel ban specifically targets Muslims (a Constitutional violation) and second, whether an inhibited flow of refugees to the United States would actually benefit US counterterrorism efforts. The Trump administration has made repeated efforts to emphasize that the order is not a “Muslim ban,” but federal courts’ consistent blocking of Executive Order 13769 has revealed the hastily drafted order’s inability to clear the bar of legality as it stands. An intention to completely close national borders to travelers attempting to enter the US through legal channels (which already include thorough vetting of individual immigrants), it is necessary that the Trump administration gets their facts straight and releases substantial evidence to the public that closing borders will lower terrorism rates before attempting a rollout of another travel ban. Only time may tell if assuming a nationalist immigration policy will make the country safer, but one historical fact remains true: minorities may only be marginalized so much before they rise against it. Consistent isolation and stereotyping of the Muslim community, tagging people as potential terrorists simply based on their nationalities, portents alarming consequences. It is clear that Trump’s travel ban must be scrupulously rethought and heavily revised before there can be any possibility of successful implementation without detrimental, unintended consequences.
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
NATIONAL
UC Berkeley protests run out of hand
I
Collin Jaeger Contributing Writer
f there's one thing that everybody should respect about the conservative pundit and exBreitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos, it's his unabating and lavish way of displaying just how much the long-held value of freedom of speech has been suffering carelessly on today's college campuses. There's a pattern that can be well-examined throughout Yiannopoulos' career, with the multitudes of senseless demonstrations from college students attempting to shut down the commentator and making many disingenuous accusations of "hate started out as a simple protest outside the speech." Everything from over-the-top venue where he was set to speak quickly screeching to air horns to snatching away malformed into a series of bloodthirsty his microphone to wiping red paint over riots, after being hijacked by prominent themselves and even starting fights is not instigators, Antifa. The group performed off limits for some of these people. It's the what is increasingly being known as a kind of behavior that has rightfully lent "black bloc," a tactic involving a large mass inspiration to his infamous tour name, of protesters covered in all-black clothing the "Dangerous Faggot," which makes a so as to keep anonymity, often engaging comical mockery in rioting and It's unbelievable that violence over property damage of his enemies by capitalizing on political views is something that still outside of a more both the hypocrisy needs to be debated over in America, peaceful protest. of pro-LGBT but unfortunately, the rioting like It's the most progressives who the kind at UC Berkeley is what notable strategy mistreat a gay being used by keeps this debate relevant. man every time Antifa as of recent he arrives at their campus, as well as the and is typically their way of interjecting hysteria created by far-leftists about his their staunch anti-fascist, anti-capitalist unpleasant political views. sentiment into any random public And nothing could prove the effect of demonstration by leftists they can take Milo Yiannopoulos' presence further than control over. The actions of the black what took place on the UC Berkeley campus bloc at UC Berkeley included starting in early February of this year. A horrific fires, throwing smoke bombs, destroying demonstration arose on the campus, with windows and ATMs, and beating people effects so severe that many mainstream up. press outlets gave it noteworthy coverage, Despite the cult-like nature of the and Yiannopoulos even felt the need to black bloc tactic, there are actually plenty postpone the release of his upcoming of outspoken black bloc protesters and autobiography for several weeks just to defenders out there who have talked include it in another chapter. What had heavily about their ideology and the MAY 2017
justifications behind what they do. One of the people who gave outspoken support to the UC Berkeley riots was Yvette Felarca, an organizer for the group By Any Means Necessary, another militant left-wing group. In an interview on KTVU, she explains that the left has been "far too timid" in the current political climate and that they need more "mass and militant" protests in order to defend people from fascism and bigotry. As an activist who has unmistakably engaged in unjust violence against opposing political views, Felarca seems to have a hard time comprehending the fact that her own actions blatantly contradict the assertion that supposed "fascists" like Milo Yiannopoulos are trying to repress people's rights through unhinged aggression. It's unbelievable that violence over political views is something that still needs to be debated over in America, but unfortunately, the rioting like the kind at UC Berkeley is what keeps this debate relevant. If people stopped being so ostentatious about their activism and stopped treating it like it's the next big political revolution, they would realize that the democratic society we live in already grants them open dialogue, and thus, there is no need for such an elaborate revolution.
13
THE CHARIOT
GLOBAL
Tensions high between US, China, and Taiwan under Trump Christopher Liao Contributing Writer
A
lmost everything we can think about President Trump has been controversial; from his alleged contacts with the Russians to his new immigration policies, the 45th president of the United States has truly been a world apart from his predecessors. However, one thing that has not changed is his policy towards Taiwan. Well-known for his hard-line against China, Trump's controversial call to Taiwanese President Tsai-Ing-Wen on December 2nd was the first between a US president and a Taiwanese Leader since 1979 and threatened to break existing Sino-US relations. Yet, news from recent weeks show that Taiwan may feel a bit hesitant about the US's true motives. The United States is by far Taiwan's only major political and military ally,
14
and China has never renounced the use of force to take back what it deems a wayward province. Â Ever since her election in May of 2016, the Chinese government has been pressuring Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen, who leads an independence-leaning ruling party to concede Taiwan is a part of China. Should the US no longer voice its support for Taiwan's autonomy, it is very possible that China could use military force to take back the so-called rebel government and reinstate it as a province or as a Special Administrative Province, like Hong Kong. Rex Tillerson, the US Secretary of State, visited Beijing on his first foreign visit and met with Chinese premier Xi JinPing on March 19. The main purpose of Tillerson's visit was to set a more warm and agreeable tone regarding Sino-American relations ahead of Chinese premier Xi JinPing's visit with President Trump in Florida during April. Although before the visit, Trump tweeted that "China has done little to help!" stop North Korean missile tests, both Xi and Tillerson made positive comments on the meeting. In a joint message with Premier Xi to the media, Tillerson said,
MAY 2017
"We know that through further dialogue we will achieve a greater understanding that will lead to a strengthening of the ties between China and the United States and set the tone for our future relationship of cooperation." US and China still do not see eye-to-eye on many critical issues, but it appears that they have decided to constrain themselves in public. According to Premier Xi, China and the US "should properly handle and manage sensitive issues to promote the healthy and stable development of the Sino-US relationship." These talks come on the back of a potential 1.83 billion dollar arms sale to Taiwan, a move that will surely damage Sino-US relations. This new package would include advanced rocket systems and anti-ship missiles so that Taiwan can defend itself against Chinese aggression. A smaller military package was proposed towards the end of the Obama administration but talks were shelved in the December of 2016. The White House is aware that these arms sales could potentially cause more tension in the fragile US-China relationship but Trump's aides insist on making it clear that the US is committed to protecting Taiwan through upgrading its military defenses. What President Trump has in mind for Taiwan is a mystery, and there are numerous options for him. For Trump, Taiwan is a symbol of resistance against Chinese aggression and a tool that can be used to provoke China. Yet, as China's economy continues to grow and its sphere of influence expands, Trump may make another controversial switch of allegiance in foreign policy. Taipei urged the US and China to not use the island as a pawn for Sino-US negotiations on March 20, and his fears may not be unfounded. Trump has made many controversial decisions in fewer than 70 days in office, and it appears that he will make many more in the years to come.
GLOBAL
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
Restrictions on vetoing by the UN Security Council must be taken Sophie Alexis Contributing Writer
T
he founding principles of peace, stability, and human rights have molded the United Nations (UN) into the flourishing organization it is today. With 193 member states, this emblem of cooperation has aided millions living in poverty. Besides its humanitarian work, the UN prides itself on resolving conflicts through peaceful means and helping nations rebuild after devastation, whether it be from natural causes or war. However, the United Nations has been weighed down by undemocratic and unnecessary structures. However, the difficulties that would arise from changes to the system are so numerous, diplomatically and otherwise. It is tempting to say that we should simply accept the good that the UN has done and allow it to continue its work unmodified. However, by taking this course of action, the UN would be eliminating the potential to help innumerably more people in need. As president John F. Kennedy said, “There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long range risks of comfortable inaction.” The cost of inaction in this case is not only the thousands of lives that would be (and are being) lost but also the betrayal of the UN’s founding principles of democracy. Prudent action, then, is necessary. What action? There are numerous functions within the UN that could be vastly improved, including efficiency within agencies and better peacekeeping methods. There is one fundamental flaw that time after time hinders the progress that the United Nations has worked so hard to
maintain, found in one of the undisputedly most powerful bodies in the UN; the Security Council itself. The UN Security Council repeatedly finds itself standing in the way of justice and the promotion of human rights. The 15-member committee was established under the original UN charter as a method of ensuring rapid responses to disasters, both natural and otherwise. The countries represented rotate each year and authorize ceasefires, blockades, and military action. Five nations—China, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Russia—not only remain permanent members but possess the ability to veto (deny) any motion they choose. The decisions made by these five powers can mean life or death for millions worldwide. These lives do not deserve to be in the hands of such a system. For starters, the outdated list of members taken from the victors of World War II should be cause for alarm. After almost seventy-two years, the world has changed considerably. France and Britain, for example, are shadows of their former selves with France possessing only 212,894 square miles of colonial territory out of its once formidable 4,440,175. In addition, the nations that have maintained their significance often wield their powers to protect their own self interests. Russia and the United States have each used their veto multiple times to prevent themselves from being condemned for human rights abuses. For instance, the veto by the US of a resolution that passed in the General AsMAY 2017
sembly with a vote of 108 countries for and 9 against deploring the United States’ invasion of Grenada. Every other permanent member similarly has multiple instances of using their abilities to promote their own nations. Additionally, the council is frequently paralyzed when interests of the so-called “big five” often collide; famously exhibited in the security council’s inaction on Syria. This is unacceptable. The whims of five nations should not dictate the lives of millions. Clearly, action is needed. However, this statement proves trickier to implement at first glance. A complete abolishment of the veto would be impossible given the countries’ will to hold on to their power. The United Nations has been structured so most reforms need to go through the security channel in order to be implemented. Therefore, any reforms must come from within and must also be incremental. The UK and France have expressed support for a motion to restrict the veto in instances of condemnation and country recognition. Taking this action, while not completely solving the problem, would be a step in the right direction. Dag Hammarskjold, the UN’s second Secretary General once said “The United Nations was not created to bring humans to paradise, but rather to save it from hell.” His words still ring true over half of a century later. Although since then, the world has changed into something almost unrecognizable, the organization can still fulfill the role it played.
15
THE CHARIOT
GLOBAL
France elects Emmanuel Macron as challenges lie ahead Maggie Wang Co-Editor-in-Chief
I
n a decisive victory against Marine Le Pen, France elected Emmanuel Macron to lead the country. Starting with a total of eleven candidates in the first round of voting, Macron and Le Pen faced off in the second round after no candidate reached a majority. This secondround election was as unusual as it was important; traditionally, French elections are between the left and the right—this time, it was with the middle and far right. In addition, neither of the two winners came from France’s large, traditional par- free trade and relatively open immigration from Macron’s predecessor, François Holties, reflecting a trend all over the world policies. However, though Macron won lande. Mass unemployment plagues the (including the US) in which voters are with over 66 percent of the vote, many in country, averaging at 10 percent and rising choosing "outsider" candidates to lead the France made it clear that their votes were up to 40 percent in some areas. After the country. With Britain, Italy, Greece, Spain made against Le Pen, Paris attacks in 2015, In fewer than three weeks, France is still living politically destabilized, the results of this rather than for Macron. election mean lasting implications for the Macron’s opponent, France will hold parliamentary under a state of emerthat determine gency, and tensions are EU and Europe as a whole. Le Pen, is the daughter elections whether Macron will have the high between France’s Macron, who took office on May 14, of the founder of the legislative support he needs Muslim minority and has seen a meteoric rise—only three years National Front, Jeanto govern effectively. ago, he was unknown to the public. At 39, Marie Le Pen. She is non-Muslims. he is France’s youngest head of state since seen as the softer image of her father, yet Though the election is over, the fight Napoleon. Prior to making his presidential reflects many of his nationalist and anti- continues; in fewer than three weeks, bid, he worked as the Minister of Econo- Semitism beliefs. Her rise follows the na- France will hold parliamentary elections my and Finance untionalist wave after that determine whether Macron will Revitalizing France will not Brexit and the US’s have the legislative support he needs to der former President Hollande. Macron be easy; immigration, terrorism, recent election, and govern effectively. Already, his party has created his own po- and unemployment are central she campaigned on the nominated 428 candidates, half of them litical party called issues that have carried on from promise to put “na- women and more than half of them outEn Marche! (Ontive French” first. Her side the political establishment. Macron Macron’s predecessor. wards), a movement vision for France was will also be naming his prime minister that he describes as “neither left nor right,” protectionist and anti-global; she prom- and a full Cabinet later this week. Though aiming to unify the country. Despite nev- ised a “Frexit” referendum and to “take he has much work ahead of him, Macron er holding office, his pro-European and back” France’s borders and exit the free projects a message of hope, stating, “The economically liberal policies have gained a movement Schengen area. world needs what French men and wommassive following. He hopes to establish a Revitalizing France will not be easy— en have always taught it: the audacity of permanent headquarters and a ministry to immigration, terrorism, and unemploy- freedom, the demand for equality and the oversee the Eurozone, and campaigned on ment are central issues that have carried on desire for fraternity.”
16
MAY 2017