Chari t T
H
E
Delivering Gunn’s Culture and Politics
JUNE 2010
VOLUME 6 • ISSUE 9
In this issue A DUI Trial at Gunn: People v. Alexandra Taylor page 6 Dealing with DUIs page 8 Opinions on Arizona’s new immigration law pages 4–5 Racial profiling in our country page 10 Segregation in schools page 11
THE CHARIOT
EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Andrew Liu Sarah-Jean Zubair SENIOR EDITORS To be determined COPY EDITORS To be determined LAYOUT & GRAPHICS Celine Nguyen Susan Nitta CIRCULATION To be determined PUBLICITY Alice Ku CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Chloé Blanchard Naor Deleanu Tara Golshan Anish Johri Christine Kyauk Ryan Lee Max Lipscomb Jeff Ma Roxanne Rahnama Rupali Raju Hina Sakazaki Yoyo Tsai Ian Wilkes Kevin Zhang GRADUATING SENIORS Ron Ackner Yoni Alon Ben Bendor Arjun Bharadwaj Neil Bhateja Corey Breier Robert Chen Brittany Cheng Will Cromarty Andre Garrett Henry Gens Priya Ghose Aaron Guggenheim Jacob Guggenheim James Gupta Tommy Huang Alice Li Sam Neff Saurabh Radhakrishnan Daljeet Virdi Scott Wey Kevin Yang Alexandra Yesian Stanley Yu Ethan Yung Omer Zach
DEAR READERS, This issue, The Chariot was presented with the unique opportunity to report on a legal trial being held on campus. The trial stemmed from an incident wherein the defendant was accused of driving under the influence of alcohol. As drinking issues constitute a topic that most high school students find pertinent to their own lives, The Chariot availed the opportunity to feature the trial in our centerfold (pgs. 6–7) and also have several of our Contributing Writers express their opinions on various topics such as the legal penalties of driving under the influence (pg. 8) and ways in which DUIs can be curbed (pg. 8). On a national scale, the Arizona immigration law was passed on April 23. The tough crackdown on illegal immigrants in the state of Arizona has sparked controversy across the country. Some think that the bill infringes on civil rights while others believe that it is a necessary enforcement of already-present federal immigration laws. The timing of this ongoing debate makes it ideal for this issue’s Pro-Con topic (pgs.4–5). Whether or not the Arizona law is a positive or negative addition to American society, it draws into the limelight the ongoing racial tensions present in our everyday lives. Issues like racial profiling (pg. 10) and the persistence of racism in schools (pg. 11) are subjects of ongoing concern in this increasingly diverse society. Yet while there will always be conflict, every individual has the unique power as a person to either be a part of the problem or the solution. On that note, I hope that some of the topics of discussion in this issue will inspire you to get involved in resolving some of the social issues of the modern world. We students are in a unique phase of transition from a sheltered school to the real world. If that world is something you are loath to be a part of, don’t be afraid to challenge the injustices. Formulate your position and take a stand. Open your mind to others’ ideas. Take part in rousing discussions. As the school year draws to a close, it’s the perfect time to discover the issues that impassion you. As Mahatma Gandhi is oft quoted, “Be the change that you want to see in the world.” Wishing you the best of summers, Sarah-Jean Zubair editor-in-chief
The Chariot would like to thank the following sponsors and patrons: 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· Christina Jang, GlobalEduCamp· Shirley Zeng and Yajun Liu
SPONSORS ($50-99)
Mark and Rhonda Breier
CONTRIBUTORS ($21-50)
The Chariot would also like to thank Advisor Marc igler for his support. 2
JUNE 2010
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
Bilingual schools: just right Rupali Raju
Contributing Writer
T
education, the system of learning a secondary language like English while studying and learning in a first language, has increased exponentially in the United States in the last decade. The appeal of bilingual education is quite understandable, especially in California which has more English Language Learners (ELL s) than any other state, as learning a new language is quite difficult and acclimatizing to living and learning in a secondary language is even harder. There is much controversy surrounding this matter as many are concerned whether bilingual education is an efficient and successful way of teaching English. Although it is not immediately apparent, there are many advantages to the bilingual education system. It provides a convenient and successful way for students to transition from their native language to English. Students have the benefit of learning English from the standpoint of their own primary language. It is easier and more efficient for students to learn English and to identify grammar, idiomatic expressions, and vocabulary this way because they are already he deMand for bilingual
literate in another language and can already understand the grammar and nuances of that language. The highlight of the bilingual language system is that students learn contextualized terms in classes like physics or chemistry alongside their own native language which makes it easier for them to understand and is essential to long term success. Although there are concerns that students may never completely become proficient in English because they learn in a different language and not focusing on English, the bilingual education system is advantageous because students learn in a different language and have time to adapt to working, speaking, and learning in English. Even if a student can converse and understand English it takes time to be able to successfully use these skills. Furthermore, the bilingual education program allows students to graduate from the program at different times because not all people are equally skilled to adapting to a language. Critics of bilingual education advocate Structured English Immersion (SEI ), a technique used to teach ELL students typically in the course of one year or short period of time. The concept is well-intentioned but there are many flaws to the SEI system. The main problem, ironically, is that it focuses too much on English. The majority of class time is spent on the English language and other academic content is pushed out of the limelight. With the
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 2004 as The Partisan Review by Gunn alumni Ilan Wurman (‘06), Channing Hancock (‘06), and Sarah McDermott (‘05). Visit our website, www.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: Marc Igler 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.
main focus taken off of subjects like math, science, and history, it becomes increasingly difficult for students to re-enter the regular school education system as they have fallen behind in other subjects. Furthermore, even if students successfully learn English that does not necessarily guarantee that they will do well in school. Cognitive skills develop differently from language and the bilingual education system successfully focuses on developing both sets of skills hand- in-hand. The SEI system attempts to rush students through English in a short time and assimilate students to regular classes. Although it is efficient to have students to quickly learn English, students often do not properly learn grammar or the course material needed for them to be successful.In the Supreme Court case, Horn v. Flores, the majority stated that SEI instruction is significantly effective compared to the bilingual education system. In California, voters have already eliminated the bilingual education program by passing Proposition 227 in 1998 which mandated that students be placed in English immersion periods for a period of under one year. However, research by WestEd and the American Institutes for Research on the success of this bill has not found any statistically significant evidence to suggest that the English immersion program is better than the bilingual education system. A careful study of California areas such as the Los Angeles School District, where there are many ELL s, has failed to find quantifiable evidence that suggests that students who receive SEI instruction perform better in school or have better test scores. The bilingual education system is used in a majority of countries, where English is not the primary language. In places like Spain, France, Canada, the Middle East, India, China, and many European and Asian countries students initially spend their first few years conversing and learning in their native language and are slowly introduced to English as students start to focus more on their core subjects. The bilingual education system has been proven to be quite successful abroad and has the potential to do the same here in the United States. JUNE 2010
3
THE CHARIOT
ARIZONA’S NEW IMMIGRATION BILL The right step against illegal immigration Christine Kyauk
Contributing Writer
T
support our law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act was created to deal with the situation that Congress has failed to properly address, illegal immigration. Illegal Immigration is a crime where people are rarely discovered and punished. The Arizona Immigration law amends this issue by allowing police officials to arrest anyone whom they suspect as an illegal immigrant. Governor Brewer’s strictness in creating the law was necessary in order to quickly remove illegal aliens and improve public safety. The law was carefully crafted to maintain constitutionality by avoiding discrimination and rehe
Image from Cagle Cartoons
4
JUNE 2010
moving conflict between overlapping state and federal powers. The immigration situation dire need to be dealt with, considering the fact that there are over 11 million illegal immigrants, 57% of that 11 million come from Mexico, and 24% come from other Latin American countries. While the numbers have decreased, it was completely within reason for Brewer to pass the Immigration Law because in Arizona alone, there are 460,000 illegal immigrants that bring harm upon legal American citizens. Illegal immigration drains the public funding and taxpayer dollars, increases job competition, and lastly lowers the quality of health care and education. Illegal immigrants come into the US and willingly work for lower wages than the average American. This in turn hinders legal citizens that would need to stoop down to the lower standards just to receive the job and many are still left jobless. Many hospitals in the United States near the Mexico border have had to
shut down due to the flooding of illegals leeching the benefits of free health care. Also, the increase in population causes public school classrooms to be overcrowded, and fills up the few affordable housing that legal citizens are now struggling for. Along with these detriments are the damages that are brought along with the drug trafficking that these illegal immigrants are involved in. Most smugglers seem to cross Arizona as opposed to the California or Texas border and so the new law is a step towards prohibiting the drug smugglers from entering creating a more secure neighborhood and providing better living conditions for Arizonians. Criticisms over the newly passed law revolve around the fact that police may search people under reasonable suspicion, and many assume the determining factor is race. Although race may play a factor, the law explicitly states that it “prohibits racial profiling” and officers can and will search anyone. It seems that the criticism comes out of the fear of the execution of the law and deportation rather than the potential of discrimination. Another fault that some find is that states do not have the power to regulate immigration, yet many people fail to recognize that the bill is simply enforcing and is parallel with an existing federal law, the Immigration and Nationality Act’s Section 287 which was passed in 1995. This section of the Immigration Act allows US immigration officials to train local police officials, and if necessary gives them the power to jail immigration offenders. The Arizona Immigration law is a near replica of the federal law, with the exception that it increases the aspect of enforcement, therefore it is difficult to claim the Arizona bill is unconstitutional when the same law has not been challenged under federal law. It was a duty of the federal and state government to consider the safety and
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
Image from Cagle Cartoons.
well-being of Arizonians. Governor Brewer would not have passed such a stringent law had he not felt that his people were heavily impacted by the issue, and a better outcome was possible.
Racial profiling unveiled Anish Johri
Contributing Writer
W
arizona Senate Bill 1070, or the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, claim that the bill is designed to clamp down on illegal immigration and aid federal, state, and local officials in doing this, the bill essentially condones and aids racial profiling by law enforcement. The act makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien, regardless of legal status, to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents required by federal law. The most contentious provision of the bill states that law enforcement officials are able to inquire an individual’s legal status based on “reasonable suspicion” that the individual is illegally in the United States. In essence, this can be used to stop hile proponents of
all persons of Latino ethnicity and ask for legal identification. Criticism of the bill has been echoed from far and wide. President Barack Obama has called the bill “misguided” and said it would “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.” President Obama’s administration has also called into question the constitutionality of the bill based on civil rights violations. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union have also stated that they will challenge the constitutionality of the statute. Now, there is no doubt that the bill violates the personal rights of individuals, namely Latinos. In fact, the bill allows for a call for identification based effectively on race and therefore is reminiscent of the treatment of South African blacks during the Apartheid and European Jews during the Holocaust. The key problem with the statute is that it purports to solve the problem of illegal immigration. In reality, it is an excuse to discriminate against and infringe on the rights of United States residents. Constructive measures against the bill were made on April 30th, when the Arizona
legislature passed House Bill 2162, which modified the law by stating that “prosecutors would not investigate complaints based on race, color or national origin” and by easing the penalties from violating the law. Still, while this is a step in the right direction for Arizona, it would be the most advisable to scrap the bill entirely and deal with illegal immigration in a constitutional, effective manner. Arizona can move past this by setting a precedent in positively addressing the issue of illegal immigration. It is unrealistic for a conservative state like Arizona to call for the federal government to increase limits on immigration, which would allow for more Latinos to enter the United States legally. The biggest reason for this is the political stigma of allowing more non-natural individuals to have American jobs when so many natural citizens are unemployed. Instead, it would be wise for Arizona to take measures against illegal immigration. These could include making it illegal for businesses to hire illegal immigrants, which would inherently deter individuals from entering the United States illegally, as they would find it difficult to find the low tier jobs they were offered before. The state of Arizona should rescind SB 1070 as it is unconstitutional and an infringement of citizens’ rights. Instead, it should implement effective measures of combating illegal immigration, which can set precedents for future illegal immigration laws.with the general public. In order to ensure the people have the power, transparency needs to be widespread. A fantastic example is the Surrey Accountability Portal, a Web site that tracks government spending and contracts, and enables people and businesses to make wiser decisions. With outlets like these, the general public can gain power and make more intelligent decisions. All in all, the media has dramatically changed the lives of citizens. Although there have been issues with maintaining the morals of the media and properly educating citizens, there is potential for more transparency and more power to the general public who can then make wiser decisions that will change the world for the better. JUNE 2010
5
THE CHARIOT
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
REPORTING ON: DUIs
report was apparently praised by Congressmen and advocacy groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD ) for bringing underage drinking and driving to the forefront of the federal public health agenda. Yet seven years later, after all the
County Superior Court and Gunn law teacher Patricia Bruegger had arranged for the case, People v. Alexandra Taylor, to be held on campus for an educational experience for about a hundred students, interested community members, and the press.
fireworks of public outcry and agitation, the smoke has cleared and there are more teenagers drinking, driving, and drinking and driving than ever before. The whole debate over driving under the influence (DUI ), whether penalties are too harsh or if drunk driving is morally wrong, revived within me last week, when I watched a DUI trial in Gunn High School’s Little Theater. The Santa Clara
The facts of trial itself were short and simple, but the message was deeper: DUI s are serious. Judge Peter Kirwan best expressed this sentiment when he said, “The courts take DUI s very seriously because people can get killed. Maybe DUI is not the first thing you think about when you picture death – it doesn’t seem so heinous – but really it can take a life just like other more repulsive crimes.”
People v. Alexandra Taylor: Trial Summary Sarah Zubair
Co-Editor in Chief
O
May 27, gunn hosted a legal trial in the Little Theater. The case, People v. Alexandra Taylor, accused defendant Alexandra Taylor of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI ) and having a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC ) level of over 0.08 percent. Taylor pled “not guilty.” According to the prosecutor Deputy District Attorney Marsha Wallace’s, opening statement, Los Altos Police Department Officer Corkern was patrolling the intersection at El Camino and El Monte on Dec. 9, 2009 when he saw a black Audi A4 suddenly swerve out of the turning lane to go straight instead. This qualifies as a traffic lane violation. The Audi then began weaving within in the lane, so Corkern pulled the Audi over. When he spoke with the driver, Taylor, he smelt alcohol and asked her if she had been drinking. She replied that she had had two glasses of alcoholic beverages. Corkern then conducted five field sobriety tests, including the smooth pursuit test, in which the person’s eyes must follow the officer’s finger smoothly, the walk-and-turn and the one-leg stand. Taylor failed all five and was taken to the police station where she was “breathalyzed.” Her reading registered at 0.16 percent BAC level, twice the legal driving limit. The defense, Public Defender Avi Singh, countered by stating that the prosecution did not have the evidence to prove the charges for a dui or for having a BAC greater than 0.08 percent “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Judge Peter Kirwan addressed the jury, 6
n
JUNE 2010
The trial of People v. Alexandra Taylor, held in the Little Theater at Gunn. Photo from Ms. Bruegger.
saying that to prove guilt on both charges, the prosecution must prove that the defendant was in a motor vehicle, that alcohol impaired the driver so that her driving was worse than that of a sober driver (a BAC of 0.08 percent automatically fulfills this criterion) and that the driver’s BAC was greater than 0.08 percent. The judge and jury ruled that Taylor was guilty on both counts. The legal penalties are as of yet undecided.
Not just a DUI Andrew Liu
Co-Editor in Chief
“U
nation’s No. 1 youth drug problem, killing 6.5 times more youth than all illicit drugs combined,” reads a National Academy of Sciences report from 2003. The nderage drinking is our
It is this seriousness that has disappeared from our society today. The lack of awareness regarding DUI s and the true damage they can do to both the drinker and innocent victims is dangerous in itself. Everywhere, other issues seem to supersede DUI s – health care reform topped last year’s national politics and budget bickering is still center stage in Sacramento. Drunk drivers and even non-offenders have found ways to justify driving after one or two drinks: no harm no foul, right? These indifferent attitudes, unfortunately, are also part of our legal system. Regardless of how stringent or lax DUI penalties may seem, many people, even offenders who have already dealt with the consequences, display a shocking apathy and lack of respect for the gravity of a DUI . For example, it is eerily common that a DUI offender will hire an attorney the day after conviction, sit in a couple classes, take the bus for a few months, and start driving drunk again within a year or so. This carelessness leads to the sometimes fatal accidents that change lives. A first-time DUI costs about $10,000, which includes lawyer fees, fines, and increased insurance. On top of that, legal risks significantly grow due to probation and the possibility of civil liability for the victim’s damages. The DUI conviction sticks with the offender when he or she applies to schools or looks for employment. Most importantly, there is the moral wrong that never goes away – a heavy guilt shouldered by the offender, and possibly a family or social circle torn apart by the injury or death of the victim. The irony is that teenagers, the ones who have the most to lose from drunk driving, are committing DUI s at relatively higher rates compared to other demographic groups in the United States. Teenagers have the most driving inexperience, the most to fear from losing control over a vehicle, and the most energetic years of their lives just ahead; yet, according to MADD in 2003, “young men, age 18 to 20, too young to buy alcohol legally, report driving while impaired almost as frequently as men 21 to 34.” For teenagers who are just learning to drive, the last thing that JUNE 2010
7
THE CHARIOT
they want to deal with is a drunk driver, on top of the other anxieties on the road surrounding the freeway, turning, traffic laws, etc. Drunk driving is not only irresponsible, but also selfish and damaging to peers in this respect. The key is for all of us to think about DUI s more seriously and take action to stop them. On a personal level, this means exercising good judgment and influencing our friends positively by taking preventive steps like riding in a taxi and keeping a designated driver. For advocates and policymakers, this means taking concrete steps that go beyond the political fireworks. Waking up is the first step; other successes will follow.
The DUI dilemma Ian Wilkes
Contributing Writer
D
one of the most prevalent crimes in the whole of the United States, with more than 1.46 million DUI related arrests in 2007. Unfortunately, over the past 25 years, over 30% of all traffic fatalities in California have resulted from alcohol related incidents, and the same time period there have been almost 5 million DUI arrests in California alone. These have resulted in 45,000 drunk-driving related fatalities between 1982 and 2008. In an attempt to reduce the number of cases of drunk driving, California has enacted strict laws to discourage drinking and driving. Such laws prohibit driving alone with alcohol in the car, driving with a blood alcohol concentration level (BAC ) of .01 while under the age of 21, driving after consuming any alcohol while under the age of 21, driving with a BAC of .08 or higher, and driving with a measureable BAC while under the age of 18. All drivers who do not abide by these laws face increasingly harsh punishments beginning with up to 6 months of jail time, a $1000 fine, and a six month license suspension. The second and third offences have simi8
rinking and driving in
JUNE 2010
lar penalties, but with longer jail time, longer license suspensions, and greater fines. In addition, repeat offenders can be ordered to install an ignition interlock device, which requires passing a breathalyzer test before the engine will start. After the third offense, drivers can also receive formal probation. For offenders with four or more DUI s, the court can decide to consider the DUI either a felony or a misdemeanor, and if anyone was injured as a result of the infraction, the penalties become even more dire. On top of all of that, all drivers who have been arrested for a DUI are required to attend DUI school for differing lengths dependent on the number of offences and the BAC s associated with each offense. Unfortunately, with the current overcrowding of prisons, the jail and prison sentences for first time offenders are somewhat extreme. Instead of locking up any and all offenders, it may be more efficient for California to enact higher fines in exchange for reducing the amount of jail time for first time offenders who have not injured anyone. In 2007, there were more than 200,000 DUI arrests, 75% of which were first time offenders, almost all of which received jail time. By reducing or removing the jail time, the prison system would have to deal with 150,000 fewer people every year, which would save huge amounts of money for the already beleaguered California budget. At the same time, the punishments for those who injure others, or are repeat offenders should become worse, due to the severity and implications of being a repeat offender or someone who has injured others as a result of driving while under the influence. Ignition interlock devices should become mandatory after the first offense, because they can almost prevent all drunk driving. The current system for punishing DUI s is formatted incorrectly, and can and should be revised in order to prevent recidivism. Punishment for first time offenders should be shifted away from jail time, and towards fines and education to prevent reoccurrences. Education and alternatives are the keys to preventing further DUI s and reducing drunk-driving related fatalities, the goal of all DUI laws.
Time to clamp down on DUIs Alice Li Publicity
D
runk driving is astonishingly com-
mon. California alone has over 170,000 arrests of drivers under the influence a year. For a mistake and crime that is proscribed by simple sense, it seems impossible that every 45 minutes, someone, somewhere, is killed by a drunk driver. Every 45 minutes. Avoiding under the influence is a simple enough. There are countless ways to ensure that someone inebriated does not endanger himself and others. For example, SafeRide is will drive someone home for less than the fee of a taxi. Or he can call a friend. It is clear that there is something that people are not getting. At this point, it is obvious that the state needs to become more aggressively involved, because there is no dearth of supportive communities for drunk drivers. Studies have correlated tougher state laws with decreased arrests. When potential drunk drivers know that they will face harsher consequences for driving under the influence, fewer will do so. And in order for this to happen, legislation must be introduced to increase fines and to increase the length of jail sentences. The negative results of driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics must be then publicized so to spread the message that it is in no way sanctioned to do so. Statistics about and deaths resulting from drunk and reckless driving should be much more highly publicized so to educate the public further. Another way to drive the point home with those who violate these laws is to require those with drunk driving offenses to enroll in classes that teach them exactly what results from such actions. These classes would educate those on the very real dangers of drunk driving accidents. Technology has also given us ignition interlock devices that prevent a driver from starting the motor if his blood alco-
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
DUIs BY THE NUMBERS According to the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE ), in 2007, underage drinkers consumed
13.9%
of all alcohol sold in California, totaling
$3.6 billion
136 7,300
in sales. In the same year, an estimated
traffic fatalities and
nonfatal traffic injuries involved an underage drinking driver.
According to the Palo Alto Reality Check Survey (PARCS )...
The true cost of a DUI. Infographic from the Colorado Department of Transportation.
hol concentration is above a certain level (usually .02% or .04%). These effectively prevent a drunk driver from ever driving. Nanotechnology is making these even more sensitive—there are even sensors that are embedded in the steering wheel or gear shift that measure blood-alcohol through a driver’s skin, just as an exercise machine can easily sense a heart rate. Although these interlocking devices are only
required for certain DUI ers, if these devices were required on all cars there would be no drunk drivers on the roads. That would be ten thousand fewer deaths a year. I would say that this small encroachment is worth whatever little limitations there are on our privacy.
6.7% 3.5%
of all Gunn students who took the survey in 2008 have drunken and driven.
have done so multiple times. JUNE 2010
9
THE CHARIOT
RACISM IN AMERICA Beneficial to some, detrimental to others ChloĂŠ Blanchard Contributing Writer
I
n our current society, we are fortunate to contain such a thriving plethora of racial diversity. However, along with such a mixture of cultures and ethnicities, there exists an unjust practice that plays negatively upon these racial differences. Racial profiling, the act of using race, nationality, ethnicity, or religion as a basis for conducting a criminal investigation on an individual, has a largely detrimental impact on numerous persons throughout the nation. Racial profiling has been ruled illegal in the United States, on the terms that such a practice infringes upon the civil rights of national citizens as well as their international right to impartiality under the law. In 2000, it was declared that the use of ethnicity as a reason for examination of an individual was unlawful and illegal, with the exception of utilizing race as a criminal description of a suspect. Although the United States has deemed racial profiling an illegitimate practice, ra-
Comic from the Denver Post.
10
JUNE 2010
cial profiling is still consistently employed in various areas of society; for example, there have been several reports of racial profiling in stores, parking lots, outside of religious centers, in certain neighborhoods, and even in the street. One instance of racial profiling is the account of a Muslim family, headed to a family vacation, which was stopped and searched by airport officials. These officials not only separated the family and searched them separately and for a lengthy amount of time, almost causing them to miss their flight, but they also dismantled several of their personal belongings and questioned them offensively. Another example of racial profiling in society is the predicament of a young African-American shopping for gifts in a New York mall. After purchasing various items, she was stopped by mall security and charged with theft, even after showing the guard her valid receipts. The woman was then taken down to the holding cells reserved for shoplifters, where she observed the majority of shoppers kept in the cells were persons of color. After much difficulty she was finally permitted to leave the mall, but was not allowed to take any of her purchases with her. These are but a glimpse of the stark prominence with which racial profiling is applied to citizens in their everyday lives.
There is a substantial resistance and condemnation of the use of racial profiling, due to its harmful ramifications and the deep levels of discrimination it creates. The argument against racial profiling consists of the main points that firstly, racial profiling violates the individual rights of a citizen in the use of race as a basis for investigation, as well as the fact that racial profiling may be seen as an act of discrimination, where an individual’s ethnicity or religion is used as an instigation for unfair treatment, as well as the simple truth that such measures of racial profiling can lead to tensions and hostilities by those subject to said discriminatory measures. Nonetheless racial profiling, while criticized by some, is still supported by others. In defense of racial profiling, some argue with the idea that the process is merely a more effective measure with which to maintain security and safety of our citizens, and that racial profiling is merely basing investigations off of statistics and certain demographics. The main idea is that racial profiling does not specifically utilize race, but instead employs ethnic tendencies is a notion that would encourage the application of racial profiling in society as a tool for ensuring public safety and security. The public often questions the legitimacy and exact terms of racial profiling, for example, Arizona’s recently established immigration laws have initiated scores of heated disputes. The focal concern in dealing with racial profiling is the considerable necessitation for an increased awareness about the prominence of said practice in countless aspects of society. Many of our citizens are unaware of the powerfully destructive influence racial profiling has on individuals. Racial profiling has the ability to seriously damage our nation as well as cause unwanted tensions between various ethnic groups and races. In consequence, there is a strong need for the creation of more extensive laws that properly address the ever-present issue of racial profiling in our society.
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
Students attending a segregated prom in Montgomery County High School, Georgia. Photo by Gillian Laub for the New York Times.
Still here: racism in our schools Roxanne Rahnama Contributing Writer
T
he year 1954 is marked with a monumental change in the United States’ education system. In the Brown v. Board of Education case, the Supreme Court ruled that racially segregated schools are unconstitutional. Although this historic decision indicated progress in the racial equality movement, the problem has not been completely eradicated. Racism persists in schools today. From hateful words to violent and fatal actions, students in numerous schools in the United States undergo daily discrimination due to their race or the color of their skin. Over the past few years, several instances of racism in school have stood out the most in the large pool of cases. Nearly every year since 1971, schools in Montgomery County have held racially segregated proms. These two different proms are generally referred to as “whitefolks prom” and “black-folks prom,” and are held on two separate days. While all students are allowed to go to the “blackfolks prom,” only white students can go to the “white-folks prom.” Although concern
has been expressed to the administrations from the black members of different student councils, little action has been taken to ameliorate the problem at hand. Even when the actor Morgan Freeman offered to pay for an integrated prom at Charleston High School in Mississippi, the idea was immediately rejected by parents and accepted by students. Unfortunately, this issue has remained unchanged for over thirty years. The root of this form of discrimination comes not from the students themselves, but from the white parents. A white 18-year-old graduate from Montgomery County High School said that, “Most of the students do want to have a prom together. But it’s the white parents who say no . . .They’re like, if you’re going with black people, I’m not going to pay for it.” Despite the changes in modern society, the traditional sentiments of the past have lingered and are preventing the current generation from growth and transformation. These two proms have been referred to as a tradition. In an ever-changing society, however, such custom are subject to change. The time has come to cast this archaic tradition aside. Only a few weeks after the establishment of the controversial and possibly racist immigration law in Arizona, the governor of Arizona approved yet another contentious measure. Governor Jan
Brewer signed House Bill 2281, which puts a ban on ethnic studies classes in the elementary and secondary schools. These now illegal ethnic studies classes promoted race consciousness as well as ethnic solidarity and unity. The passage of this bill into a law was pushed for by state school Superintendent Tom Horne, who continually tried for two years to terminate a Mexican-Americans studies program. Critics of this bill claim that it will lead to greater racial profiling, or the use of race by law officials in deeming a person to be a suspect or possible suspect. Others refute this claim, however, saying it will decrease racial profiling. The debate over this potentially racist school law remains heated. Over fifty years have passed since the Supreme Court ruled racially segregated schools unconstitutional. Despite these many years though, the racism and segregation continues on. As a result of the ongoing prejudices of the older generation in certain regions of the United States, progress towards change has been hindered. Although this thought is pessimistic and cynical, one cannot deny the continuation of racism in the years to come. Nonetheless, by putting aside outdated beliefs and being open to embracing differences, racism is bound to decrease in schools. All it takes is a bit of change in traditions and open-mindedness. JUNE 2010
11
THE CHARIOT
Image from IMDB.
Iron Man 2 Ryan Lee
Contributing Writer
T
he first iron Man movie literally came out of nowhere to take the world by storm with its tongue-in-cheek, humorous take on the Marvel superhero.
12
JUNE 2010
The charismatic lead, Tony Stark, played by the always likable Robert Downey Jr., lead the film, even through its lackluster villains and scarce action sequences, to a film where the “super” part of the hero became secondary to personality. With the second film, the personality and witty dialogue of the first remains largely intact, but unfortunately it fails to improve on the one thing the first Iron Man lacked:
good action. With the main villain of Mickey Rourke, setting up a truly scary counterpart to Stark, things looked up for this sequel. Unlike the first movie, it had a villain established from the very beginning. Like The Dark Knight before it, it was trying to beat the first film by adding a memorable villain. This is where things start to unravel. As a character himself, Whiplash is just all right. His motives couldn’t be clearer, but his character? Murky as hell. He is a brilliant physicist, but yet acts like a Russian thug, with gold teeth and tattoos. He is able to take down Stark physically, but in the climactic battles, opts to instead sit behind his computer controlling a bunch of robots. His final battle with Stark takes about 45 seconds, and it is one of the most anti-climactic endings I’ve ever seen. The action was understandably pumped up from the first film: There’s more bang here. It also falls victim to the curse of thinking that more explosions equals more action. When you think about the great action movies in film, you don’t think about the big explosions so much as the characters involved. John McClane in Die Hard; Neo and Agent Smith in The Matrix. In Iron Man, all the action (more or less) is done by a bunch of CGI ’d drones, including Iron Man himself. They shoot CGI bullets at each other, there are CGI ricochets, all shot in dark, damp lighting. The action, believe it or not, is boring. You feel no connection to these CGI figures, even if you do know that Robert Downey Jr. and Don Cheadle are supposedly inside. This is perhaps why the first film was light on the action: They know audiences will find it hard to be enthralled and connect with blocky, non-expressive metal machines. At least the Na’vi had retable facial expressions. The script, penned by Tropic Thunder scribe Justin Theroux, hits the humor at the right moments, and the emotional ones as well. It’s unfortunate that it ends up suffering mostly from the directing. Maybe it’s that the director Jon Favreau gave himself a much more substantial part in this, where you can see him happily hamming it up on screen.