NEWS

On Oct. 27, the United States Department of State (DOS) issued its first passport with an “X” gender marker, acknowledging those who do not identify as male or female. The recipient was Dana Zzyym, an intersex military veteran. Zzyym was born with ambiguous physical and sexual characteristics, but they were raised as a boy and had several surgeries that failed to make them appear fully male, according to court filings (Associated Press). While Zzyym’s original birth certificate identified them as a male, they opted to have their driver’s license list them as female. Additionally, Zzyym served in the Navy as a male but later came to identify as intersex while working and studying at Colorado State University.

Zzymm originally requested for a passport with a gender “X” option in 2015, but was rejected by the DOS (Associated Press). In response to this, Lambda Legal, a national civil rights organization, filed a lawsuit against the DOS in the U.S. Federal Court for the District of Colorado on Zzyym’s behalf. The court ruled in favor of Zzyym in 2016, but the DOS continued to refuse recognition of a gender marker that is neither ‘M’ (male) nor ‘F’ (female) on passports (New York Times). However, since assuming office, President Biden has conducted several executive actions through the DOS to protect human rights, such as the recent addition of a non-binary marker for Zzyym’s passport. The DOS will expand the gender neutral option to all applicants next year (New York Times). After hearing about Zzyym’s struggle and success, sophomore Natalia Salazar, who identifies as gender nonconforming, felt optimistic about gender “X” becoming an option.

“I would like to get the [gender “X”] mark on my passport, [as] I would feel much more comfortable without needing the label of female or male,” Salazar said. “I feel that the option of gender “X” on U.S. passports gives [the gender-fluid community] a chance to be recognized and respected.”

The previous policy for changing a gender marker on a passport required medical certification, which was an option available only to those who had transitioned from one gender to another. Now, applicants will be able to self-select their gender as male, female or “X” regardless of their medical history (Associated Press). As far as medical records are concerned, sophomore Jiselle Nguyen, who identifies as non-binary, feels that they would rather have the opportunity to mark a gender option on their passport than having their passport being marked for them.

“I think that self-selecting gender options are much better,” Nguyen said. “It is about preference, so if [the passport] gets marked for you, it can be damaging to your mental health if [the gender selected through medical records] is not what you would prefer.”

The U.S.’s decision comes after several other countries--including Argentina, Canada and India--have adopted similar policies. In addition to passports, 21 U.S. states and the District of Columbia allow an “X” gender designation on driver’s licenses. Each state has a different set of laws that regulate how someone can request a gender marker change on a driver’s license, and 22 states allow people to decide what gender markers are appropriate for theirs; this is the policy that the DOS will use (National Broadcasting Company). Regarding the U.S.’s decision to join other nations in providing gender “X” as an option on passports, sophomore Lia Osipyan feels content about how it would affect the non-binary community.

“I think that the U.S. joined the other nations in this decision a little late, but I am still glad that they [eventually] made it,” Osipyan said. “I hope that making gender ‘X’ an option on passports will further solidify the LGBTQ+ community and [shed light on] its struggles to be correctly represented in society.”

Since the Partition of India in 1947, which split British India into the two independent countries of India and Pakistan, there has been tension between the two. This rivalry, which is evident in many interactions between the two countries and their people, extends to their cricket national teams. On Oct. 24, Pakistan and India played against each other for an official International Cricket Council (ICC) event, the Twenty20 (T20) World Cup opening game, which was the first cricket match between the two countries in five years. The result of the game was a win for Pakistan, which many people considered an upset as Pakistan had not defeated India in the T20 World Cup tournament in nearly 30 years (New York Times).

The scarcity of recent matches between India and Pakistan is due to tense diplomatic relations between the two countries (Forbes). Ever since the Partition of India, the countries have been feuding over controversies such as unsettled territorial issues, political incompatibility, irreconcilable positions on national identity and the absence of significant economic and trade relations between the two states (Research Gate). These problems have resulted in four wars between the two countries, including one undeclared war, along with many border skirmishes and military standoffs (Times of India). These relations between the countries and their citizens led to three college students from Kashmir getting arrested by Indian officials. According to Cable News Network, Kashmir is a territory that is administered in part by India and in part by Pakistan. The students were charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act after reportedly shouting pro-Pakistan slogans and putting up social media posts in support of the neighboring country at an engineering college in Punjab, India after the match (Aljazeera).

Due to the tense relations between the countries, Pakistanis are not permitted to play in the Indian Premier League (IPL), the most lucrative and popular outlet for the game of cricket according to Britannica, and India’s government does not allow its cricket team to play Pakistan in either of the team’s respective countries. As a result, when India and Pakistan were set to play against each other in the United Arab Emirates for the World Cup match, there was much excitement surrounding the match. 167 million people tuned in, making it the most viewed Twenty20 International (T20I) match to date.

“The match started around 6 a.m.,” junior Arnav Singh said. “My whole family was up and ready to watch. [We were sitting] with popcorn and blankets in the living room, waiting to see who would win the toss.”

With Pakistan having a high Muslim population and India having a high Hindu population, much of the tension between the two countries is rooted in animosity for the others’ beliefs. This religious divide is not only evident between the government of the two countries; it also manifests itself within the citizens of both countries, especially online (Global Conflict Tracker). After the cricket match, some people on social media and select news outlets attacked an Indian cricketer of Islamic faith, Mohammad Shami. They blamed Shami for India’s loss, since the Pakistani batsmen were able to score a significant number of runs against him, and accused him of being a “traitor”, questioning his allegiance to his country of birth. Other people came to Shami’s defense, calling out the display of Islamophobia in these accusations and saying that Shami was not the only one who contributed to the loss that day. Sophomore Zeyna Haji is upset by the treatment of Shami online.

“The world should take these issues [of discrimination] seriously and the media should stop provoking the situation,” Haji said. “[The treatment of Shami] is not fair at all; he is playing for his country, not his religion.”

While the stakes and the tension surrounding matches between the two teams have always been particularly high, the players on both teams are usually civil toward one another and show each other respect. Virat Kohli, the captain of India’s national team, was applauded for his sportsmanship when he congratulated Pakistan after they defeated India in the Champions Trophy final in 2017 (Forbes). Freshman Maryam Ali hopes that both governments will follow the actions of their cricket teams and learn to be more civil towards one another.

“The rivalry between the two countries [ultimately] causes the behavior against players on the field,” Ali said. “[The reactions to the match by fans on both sides] cannot be condoned by politicians and other leaders. They need to speak up to educate and unite and serve as the role models they should be, [following the examples from the cricket players on both teams].”

PALOS VERDES FACULTY ASSOCIATION NEGOTIATES FOR A FAIR CONTRACT

Recently, students have not been able to hold meetings in classrooms or contact their teachers after school, which sparked a rumor that the teachers are going on strike. However, this is not the case; teachers and staff who are members of the Palos Verdes Faculty Association (PVFA)--a union of teachers, counselors, nurses, speech language pathologists and other public servants that work in PVPUSD and are committed to promoting and preserving the collective voice of their members--are continuing to work amid negotiations with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD). The contract negotiation process started at the beginning of quarantine for the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, which called for the shutdown of schools nationwide and the transition to online learning in March of 2020. Concurrently, the contract between the PVPUSD school board and its employees expired in July of 2020. The faculty have continued working without a contract, which PVFA claims is due to PVPUSD delaying the negotiation process repeatedly over the course of the pandemic.

Since the beginning of the 2021-22 school year, these negotiations have been ongoing, with a renewed contract for staff in the district back on the table for negotiation. On Oct. 14, PVPUSD made their final offer of $8.5 million in new funding for employees that is pay-related, which refers to salary and benefits, such as insurance, raise and stipends. According to PVFA, PVPUSD’s last offer is still below the benefit caps and total compensation for other school districts in the South Bay. Although PVPUSD’s final offer came out to a total average compensation of $93,173 for PVPUSD employees, surrounding districts’ contracts offer upward of $100,000; Manhattan Beach Unified School District’s total compensation is $113,451 and Redondo Beach Unified School District’s is $111,728. As someone who has to provide for a family, Advanced Placement Physics C and Advancement Via Individual Determination teacher Mike Spalding believes that PVPUSD teachers deserve a competitive salary.

“I [do not] like thinking about the fact that we still have to negotiate for a fair contract because, as with many teachers on campus, it makes me feel undervalued by the people who run the district, which is ultimately the school board,” Spalding said. “I [do not] think teachers are asking for too much [because] what our bargaining team has requested is [not completely] unreasonable.”

Although PVFA matches PVPUSD’s final offer concerning benefits-related pay, the disagreement regards faculty salary in their contracts. PVPUSD’s final offer includes a 3% on-schedule raise for the 2021-22 year, which refers to a scheduled annual percent increase of one’s salary, as well as a 2% off-schedule raise for the 2020-21 year, which is a negotiated raise that happens during bargaining between faculty and the school district. PVFA wants a 4.25% on-schedule raise for the 2021-22 year, as well as a 3% off-schedule raise for the 202021 year, and this offer has a 1.25% difference to PVFA’s on-schedule offer and 1% difference for the off-schedule offer.

As of Oct. 21, the constant bargaining between PVFA and PVPUSD has reached an impasse, a state where both sides are unable to reach an agreement. In response, PVPUSD notified PVFA on Oct. 28 that they will move on to the next step, mediation, due to the lack of a settlement or agreement reached. This means that the Public Employees Relation Board (PERB) will send a mediator from the state on Dec. 10 to meet with both sides in order to try and formulate a compromise. On their website, PVPUSD expressed that their goal regarding the mediation process is to balance student needs with providing competitive salaries for their staff. PVFA has claimed that PVPUSD is not negotiating in good faith, as PVPUSD is hoping to engage in bargaining off the record, which is bargaining that is not legally binding. English 4 and Advanced Placement English Literature teacher Tim Coleman, who has been the president of PVFA since August of 2020, disagrees with the district’s decision to bargain off the record because he believes both sides should go through the entire negotiation process legally.

“The collective bargaining process is important because it allows districts and teachers to work through labor issues in a professional way,” Coleman said. “If the district has a proposal to make [regarding salaries], [they] can and should do so on paper as the PVFA does.”

If both parties are unable to reach a settlement in mediation, the mediator will notify PERB and the next step of the negotiation process may be requested from either side. This next step is Factfinding, in which a third-party panel hears oral and written evidence from both sides; in this case, this is PVPUSD and PVFA. Including the third party allows for PERB to issue a non-binding recommendation on the issues as the last stage of the process. Kelly Baranick, a school counselor and member of the PVFA bargaining team, has been part of the union for nearly two decades and believes that employees deserve the terms of their proposed contract.

“I have been a school counselor [at Peninsula] for 19 years and [have] never seen it as a job [because] it has always been [my] way of life,” Baranick said. “[It is] hard to be in a situation where you [do not] feel valued. A lot of people understand that going into education [you are] never going to be a millionaire, but that still [does not] mean you [do not] deserve to be fairly compensated like the rest of the professionals in your field.”