Editor’s Note: The Plaid Line publishes editorials that contain opinions that are those of the student authors. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the the Plaid Line, HPSH, or its staff.
Standardized testing is a practice that has been around for many years. It was developed to test children’s understanding of subjects, and determine the level that they’re learning at. Many people question if this method of testing is accurately determining these things though.
One of the main reasons that people are against standardized testing is that all students have different ways of learning and showing their understanding. Some kids may thrive in a standardized testing environment, while others may not. The kids that don’t do as well on standardized tests, might be able to show their learning better through oral presentations, or group projects.
Standardized tests also don’t value creativity. Most questions require an answer with a certain format, and creative answers that don’t exactly follow the format may be counted wrong.
Most questions on standardized tests are multiple choice, or open-ended questions. Students may attempt to memorize certain pieces of information that they know will be on the test. After the test, it’s likely that they’ll just forget this information, and won’t actually learn the material.
Students are aware of the fact that the grade they get on this test could affect their future. To obtain a good grade, they might use answers from a friend, use the internet, and more. By doing this they aren’t actually learning the material, just like if they were to memorize it.
Another problem with standardized testing is that it doesn’t help prepare students for the future, or the real world. It is set up in an environment that you’ll rarely or never encounter in the future. In this environment, you can’t ask questions, you can’t use outside learning devices and sources, and you can’t talk with your peers.
A final con of standardized testing is the mental effect that it has of students.
Standardized testing causes a lot of stress, and some students find ways to work through this stress and anxiety, while others don’t. Too much stress can cause your body to enter fight or flight mode, and if this happens while testing, it becomes very difficult to answer higher level questions that could be on the test.
Receiving a bad grade can also affect a student’s self-esteem, and they may begin to connect the grade they receive to their self-worth.
Overall, standardized testing has many negative aspects to it that can’t be ignored.
For more information on standardized testing, feel free to check out the website below:
Prompt: photoreal robot looking over beautiful landscape with a lord of the rings style city on the side of a mountain in the distance
What is OpenAI?
Open AI is an artificial intelligence (AI) research lab created by a consortium of leading technology companies, including Tesla, Microsoft, and Alphabet’s Google. The lab was founded in December 2015, although its precursor, OpenAI LP, was established in August 2015. The main goal of OpenAI is to advance the state of artificial intelligence by researching AI safety and general artificial intelligence that benefits humanity. The research efforts focus on ensuring that AI does not take over the world, instead working to achieve a more equitable sharing of the contribution of AI strategically and broadly.
Prompt: Photoreal image of the founders of OpenAI
The formation of Open AI was prompted by a number of critical developments in the field of AI. One of the main motivations was the 2015 paper by professor Stuart Russell, titled “The Need for More Powerful AI Aligned With Human Interests and Values.” This paper made a compelling argument for the need for measures to ensure the safety of artificial intelligence, by closely monitoring and limiting its autonomy, with the authors emphasizing the importance of controlling the growth of artificial intelligence.
Another important development that led to the formation of Open AI was the ethical challenges pictured by advances in AI technologies. In April 2015, the MIT Technology Review published an article titled “The Artificial Intelligence Revolution:The Road to Super Intelligence,” which raised a number of ethical issues that needed to be addressed as the technology continued to develop.
The third factor was the abundance of hype surrounding the AI revolution. Despite the potential for significant future benefits, the exaggeration of the potential of AI risked raising public expectations and fears far out of proportion with reality. This posed the dual risk of annoying the public with premature and exaggerated reports of AI capabilities and creating a backlash against the technology that could set it back and delay the actualization of its full potential.
Open AI was created in an effort to bring together leading technology companies to address the challenges presented by advanced artificial intelligence. Its mission is to ensure the development of AI benefits humanity and to prevent any risks or harms caused by unchecked AI development. Open AI is a non-profit research lab with an open source research agenda, and hence its research is made freely available to all. By making the research available to all, Open AI has removed the traditional barriers to collaboration.
At the start of the organization, Open AI’s founders pledged $1 billion in funding from key tech players. This investment is managed by a board of directors that includes some of the most prominent thought leaders in AI—such as Tesla’s Elon Musk, Apple’s Jeff Dean, and Google’s Vint Cerf.
Since its inception, Open AI has grown exponentially, from a few core research staff to a network of more than 300 researchers working in a wide variety of areas, ranging from robotics/AI, to healthcare, to nanotech and beyond. Open AI also puts on numerous workshops and conferences to facilitate knowledge-sharing and collaboration between its researchers and the wider community.
Open AI has already established itself as one of the most innovative, impactful, and influential research labs in the world. Its mission to ensure AI safety and safety in general has resulted in a new approach to artificial intelligence development, with a focus on collaboration, sharing, and openness that is perhaps unrivaled in any other research arena. As it continues to grow and as its research continues to advance, OpenAI stands to bring immense innovation and economic benefit to humanity.
What IS AI?
Prompt: Photoreal image of a cyborg brain representing AI
At its core, AI is an umbrella term that covers a wide range of tasks and problems. The core algorithm of AI is a set of instructions, usually written in a programming language, that enables a computer system to act intelligently. This algorithm is then applied to different problems and tasks, such as task automation, game playing, data mining, language understanding, and vision capabilities.
An AI system processes data to understand its environment and then makes decisions and takes actions to accomplish a task or a goal. This process involves using algorithms that identify patterns in data, as well as machine learning which teaches the system to learn from its experience and improve performance.
AI systems are also able to reason and deduce logical conclusions from data. For example, a system may use past performance data and a set of rules to determine how best to accomplish a task or goal. This kind of reasoning may not be perfect, but it can be effective when applied to complex problems.
Ultimately, AI is designed to simulate that of the human brain when it comes to problem solving. AI is becoming increasingly sophisticated at solving problems and performing tasks that were once thought impossible. As more data becomes available, machine learning and AI will continue to improve and become more capable.
What really is ChatGPT?
Prompt: Photoreal robot waving at the camera on an alien planet
Chatbot GPT-3 (or ChatGPT) is a natural language processing (NLP) chatbot powered by the latest deep learning algorithm, GPT-3 (Generative Pre-trained Transformer), developed by OpenAI. GPT-3 is an advanced text-generating Artificial Intelligence (AI) system that uses deep learning to generate relevant and meaningful text in response to natural language input.
ChatGPT works by understanding context, which means it is capable of understanding user input and creating an appropriate response based on that input. To do this, the AI utilizes large datasets that contain the structure and context of the English language. Using these datasets, ChatGPT is able to understand nuances of language that are often missed with traditional computer algorithms. Additionally, GPT-3 has an improved ability to understand user context and generate sophisticated responses, allowing for more natural, human-like conversations.
Compared to earlier open-source chatbot systems, ChatGPT is more accurate, sophisticated, and reliable. This is because GPT-3’s text-generating algorithm is based on the same architecture used in advanced natural-language processing tasks in major technology companies. GPT-3 recognizes contextual meaning in conversations and can respond in more sophisticated and meaningful ways.
As a result, ChatGPT is becoming increasingly popular with businesses and organizations who are looking for a more efficient and reliable way to engage with customers in the form of natural language conversations.
What will the future of AI look like?
Prompt: AI being used in cybersecurity
The future of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is an exciting prospect, one which promises not only convenience and accuracy in many aspects of our lives, but also great potential for a new wave of advancements. Artificial intelligence has seen a massive boom in recent years, and its effects are quickly becoming integrated into many areas of our lives. Autonomous vehicles, personal assistants, and ‘smart’ home devices, show us that the use of AI has the potential to greatly improve our lives.
The next wave of AI technology is likely to be more widely integrated with our lives, and it’s predicted to open up possibilities for many new advancements. Key aspects of this technology are already being focused on, such as deep learning, which influences machines to mimic our own knowledge and capacity to make decisions.
It is forecast that in the near future, AI-powered machines and systems will be used in processes such as medical diagnostics, real-time decision-making, and cyber-security. Connected homes, known as the internet of things (IoT), will further develop to become an essential part of life. Smart home devices, thermostats, temperature sensors and power saving appliances will become commonplace and their operation and optimization can be handled with Artificial Intelligence.
Facial recognition technology, which was developed to monitor and protect public areas, is predicted to become more sophisticated, while also moving into arenas such as healthcare and public safety. An increased reliance on AI to handle various tasks will also create many opportunities for robots to enter our lives. Unmanned vehicles, such as drones and automated cars, will be further developed, offering convenience and accuracy.
AI is revolutionizing the way that businesses operate, and its use is expected to expand even further. Companies are already using AI to help automate tasks, guide customers through their journey, and prioritize customer service requests. It is also increasingly being used in marketing and digital advertising campaigns, to identify target audiences and help increase conversions.
In the future, AI will be an essential part of daily life, transforming aspects of our lives into a more secure, efficient, and convenient form. To ensure that the use of AI is advancing in the right direction, ethical considerations will increasingly be a factor in any developments. Risk models will be part of the use of AI, helping to identify and mitigate issues such as bias, and machines with the ability to explain their decisions are more likely to be trusted and taken as reliable.
Final thoughts
This is supposed to be the conclusion portion of the article, and usually is. However, the title of this section is kind of misleading. While this IS the closing section of the article, I can’t in good faith say that these are my final thoughts. Now usually that would mean I’ll be following up with this, but not this time. This time, my “Final thoughts” are really my first, and only thoughts. Confusing right?
See, up until the header “Final thoughts”, I, Reed Morris, have done nothing. Everything up until this point, including all text, paragraph structure, and even the images, is the completely unedited and unadulterated output of a publicly available Artificial Intelligence. By simply entering a handful of prompts (the headers of each section) into the latest version of ChatGPT-3 (Dall-E for images), I created a full, and publishing-worthy article.
How might AI affect us in MY mind?
Talking about ChatGPT to adults who were around before the idea of the internet existed is very interesting. Some compare AI directly to the splendor and excitement of the dawn of the internet age, but some simply call it magic. It is undeniable that the internet made human lives infinitely easier. We have all the world’s information at the tip of our fingers, it is just our job to organize it and turn the jumble of information into something useful.
The internet got rid of the need for us to dig through stacks and stacks of books at the library. Now, AI such as ChatGPT-3 have gotten rid of the need for us to dig through endless pages of customized search results, and instead, they organize exactly what is asked for in seconds. By simply entering a prompt into the AI’s input, you can get tailored and accurate information, as well as all of the sources it used to gather the information it gives you.
One of the best and more ethical ways that I myself use this AI day to day is by asking it for the information I want as well as the sources it used to provide that information. From there, instead of copying and pasting what it gave me, I use the sources it provides. GPT3 has access to billions of web pages, therefore making it easy to find useful information in hard to reach corners of the internet. I use it as a shovel more than I use it as a pen.
Anyways, speaking of ethics…
Let’s talk ethics
Now that the air is clear, we must talk about the ethics of this. While using AI to solve complicated problems and help push forward human discovery is most definitely necessary, using it in day to day life dips into a gray area. I don’t want to put my ideas into anyone’s mind, so I’ll just give basic factual information and you can form your own educated opinion.
AI makes our daily lives infinitely easier in a similar way to the internet.
Because the AI is designed to act like a human brain, it gathers information from billions of web pages and organizes what it finds. This means that AI written text is not recognizable through plagiarism scanning software.
Schools around the country (and I assume the world) are already blocking AI access on district devices. This is a choice that was made pretty swiftly. It’s something they seem afraid of, and don’t understand, so they decide to hide it away.
The fact that AI has been blocked on school devices creates an economic barrier. For example, I could not create this article if I used my school iPad, however, I am fortunate enough to have my own PC setup at home, allowing me to use the AI, whereas a student who is less fortunate, does not have the same access, and therefore has less of an advantage compared to me. This seems unfair.
AI is a useful tool that can make our lives easier, however, it can also make us lazy and subject to falling out of strong work habits. Think how you’d’ve written a book report before the internet. You’d have needed to read the book. Then, after the internet, you could find everything you need online. Now, that book report can be written in seconds at the push of a button (granted AI is not at the point where it can write very emotion or imagery heavy reports)
AI is here, and it’s here to stay. There is no turning back now. It will continue to grow and become more and more intelligent. Is it even worth fighting its inevitable global use?
It’s NOT going to take over the world. AIs are designed to be a tool, not a consciousness. As it is only a tool, it can only do what is asked. Nothing on its own. Until humans create true Artificial Consciousness, we have absolutely nothing to worry about.
Now that all of that information has been dumped on you, I hope you can come to your own conclusions, and act on those conclusions. I know I said I didn’t want to share my opinion, but there is one point I will be acting on. I strongly believe that while this tool can be used as a shortcut, it should be available to everyone, not just those that have access to personal devices.
All in all, AI is not a distant future. It’s here, and it’s here to stay. We just need to find a way to adapt to it and utilize it to its full potential. It is not something to be feared, it is a tool. It will teach us new things, and create new paths of discovery in tirelessly explored fields. As a wise man once said, “With great power must come great responsibility,” and that applies here. Maybe someday we’ll have something to worry about, but for now, all we need to do is explore.
Almost everyone played video games in class in 6th and 7th grade. Lately, I have been noticing that everyone has been playing video games in freshman classes. I don’t really know why, but the students are suddenly playing video games instead of paying attention in class. I mean, don’t get me wrong. I love playing a game while the classes get really slow. I will mostly just play games on my phone.
The way the students play games is usually on their phones. The most popular games are games like “Clash Royale” and “Clash of Clans”. There’s just something about these games that is more fun in class.
Another interesting thing about playing games in school is that some students have unblockers. These unblockers are coded by people and they let you go to any website even though they are blocked. Most of these unblockers are used for playing games in class. Most of the video games played in class are games like “Cookie Clicker”, “Helmetz Royale” and any IO game.
Everyone has probably played a video game in school before. In my opinion, people play video games in class because they try to compete with each other to see who’s better.
But also, these little competitions are kinda funny because at the end of the day they are meaningless. And it’s not like these people are playing these same games at home, because there are better things to do than play these small pointless online games.
But there’s just something about competing against your friends in school that is really fun. I mean me and my friends like to play a game called “Cookie Clicker” to see who can get the most cookies. Even though it’s a very pointless game, it’s still fun because of the competition.
If you want to get scientific about why people play video games in class, it is because of something called dopamine. Dopamine is a chemical that makes you feel happy and motivated. Dopamine gives you the motivation to play video games in class because it’s more fun than whatever you’re learning in class. If you want to learn more about that, you can go to thoughtfulparent.com.
In my opinion, gaming has been really boring lately. I used to wake up and be excited to play a game, but not anymore. There’s really no games to play, except for the big franchises like Call of Duty or “Fortnite” that have let us down. I think what we need is a huge game that will change the community.
Right now, you can see random trends of games going from very popular to nobody playing anymore. Games like “Split Gate”, “Fall Guys”, “Multi Versus” are all examples of games that everybody was playing but now nobody is playing. These games usually get popular from TikTok or big YouTubers. They are fun until your friends stop playing and the attention on social media goes down.
Another reason I think gaming is dying is because the big franchises are just not really trying to make their new games exciting. For example, Call of Duty now is just remaking games like “Modern Warfare”, “Warzone”, the Black Ops games, etc. All of these games are just recycled content. Back in the day, all had different content with new and exciting changes.
Probably, the biggest reason individual games are doing worse is because the big companies don’t really listen to their community. Take “Fortnite” for example. They come out with new updates almost every week; you would think the game would be really fun with that attention. The truth is, the community really hates these updates and misses the old content. The updates truly aren’t that bad until they add something that gives certain players an advantage over everybody else.
I asked some students here at Highland why they think the gaming industry is dying. One student said companies are trying to get easy money instead of investing more time into building better quality games, for example EA games have been going downhill for that reason. One student said that all the games are too similar to each other now. I completely agree with these statements. It seems like big companies are making the same games, slightly different for money.
In my opinion, the reason why gaming is dying is that companies are focused on the money. The games that are produced lately really aren’t fun because they are clones. There are also games that are known as pay to win, which means paying money gives you an advantage in the game. These types of games are perfect examples of why gaming is dying.
Intermittent fasting is the diet that revolves around controlling and restricting the times in which you eat, and the times that you fast. For example, the three most popular types of this are the 16/8 method, eat-stop-eat, and the 5:2 diet. The 16/8 method is when you fast for 16 hours, and eat for 8 hours. This eating window is usually from 12pm-8pm, with no food for the hours outside of that. The eat-stop-eat method is one of the strictest plans, which comprises of eating regularly 5 days a week, and for 2 days spaced out in the week, you don’t eat for 24-hours. The 5:2 diet is similar, but those 2 days, instead of fasting completely, you just restrict your calories for those 2 days from 500-600.
There is no doubt that women receive more societal pressure to be thin than men. That is not to say there isn’t pressures for men as well, just that women from a young age are forced to think about their weight. Women are more likely to diet and develop disordered eating habits from a young age, while also feeling dissatisfaction with their body and the desire to be thin, according to the National Library of Medicine. Most popular diets are dominated by women, so one would think that they benefit them, or at least fulfill their purpose of losing weight. However, this isn’t the case.
Intermittent fasting may benefit men, with their testosterone levels increasing, and their metabolism may even get a boost. This is more or less because in older, hunter-gatherer societies, a lack of food for men was associated with the need to go out and hunt, which to do so, you need more energy to burn. The response for women is much different.
Female bodies are much more susceptible to “starvation mode” than male bodies. When female bodies perceive that they are in a food scarcity, their responses are also hypothesized to come from the hunter-gatherer era. Contrasting to men, female bodies shut down all non-essential functions to preserve energy for their body to survive. This means metabolism slowing down, losing less fat stores, and shutting down reproductive functions, such as periods. This is almost the total opposite of the results of men.
Even short windows of fasting are enough to mess with hormone levels in the female body. Periods will slow, and eventually stop altogether, affecting a female’s fertility. This change in hormone levels affect many other bodily functions as well. Estrogen controls many things other than the menstrual cycle and ovaries. It is in your bones, and GI tract as well. Female bodies in starvation mode are more likely to develop osteoporosis, a weakening of the bones.
Like most things in the medical field, the male-body is studied more than the female body, so data and studies are lacking on the female body. The results of the studies on male bodies are not simply transferrable to the female body. These fad diets are many times not built for women, and most nutritionists recommend to sticking to nutritional food and doing what feels good for your body.
**For sake of consistency and international standardization, the word “football” here refers to the sport that the United States calls “soccer.”**
The FIFA World Cup is a quadrennial football competition, in which countries fight tooth and nail to even qualify. It’s an incredible honor to win, and even more of an honor to host—not to mention it’s incredibly profitable. So, it came as a shocking surprise when Qatar, a Middle Eastern country smaller than the state of Connecticut, was awarded the 2022 competition.
Before 1971, Qatar was a nation largely built off of pearl diving and trade. Then, oil and natural gas was found in the little peninsula, rocketing it to international wealth, a coup in 1972 cementing the monarchy. It’s 2008 bid for hosting was described by the country as an attempt to humanize it—get away from oil, sharia law, and its relationship with neighboring Iran. Because of this, Qatar has been accused of sportswashing.
The bid was off to a rocky start—in 2009, a delegate from FIFA, Harold Mayne-Nicholls, visited the country to inspect its infrastructure. His report was a resounding no—Qatar was too small, and was a sweltering 120ºF during the traditional World Cup window of June-July (an issue that has been “solved” by pushing it to the middle of the traditional football season, a massive upset to the schedule that has caused injury, disruption, and lost wages for those whose salaries depend upon the game). Not only did it lack a football stadium, but hotels, highways, and an airport too. Qatar countered with plans for stadiums and hotels, and a proposition to push the tournament back six months. The council was convinced, and in 2010 Qatar was confirmed as host for the 2022 World Cup. Al-Jazeera, a Qatari media company owned by the king, had started broadcasting news of the victory six hours earlier.
All was not well within FIFA, however; before the year was out, every single official who voted on the Qatar decision would be investigated for, or convicted of, corruption. 2 members had already been banned from voting because of an attempt to sell their votes; the US Justice department accused 3 South American officials of accepting 7-figure bribes from the Qatari government. Sepp Blattman, president of FIFA at the time, has been banned from ever holding an administration position within football for the rest of his life.
Nevertheless, the decision held, and Qatar embarked on a massive nation-building project, the likes of which the country had never before seen. To achieve all this, Qatar began recruiting foreign workers; workers from places like Uruguay and Pakistan poured in by the thousands. Qatar has a population of over 2 million, but only 15% of those people are citizens. Instead, the country depends upon foreign labor to keep the economy moving.
Conditions are awful; workers sleep in cramped conditions, passports are held by employers, and they are forbidden to leave or change jobs without the consent of their employers. Many of these migrant workers are in construction, working for over 18 hours a day to build Qatar’s stadiums and hotels; they are making barely 13 USD an hour.
More than 6,500 of these workers have died in the sweltering heat, among them a man named Mosharraf Hossen. He moved from Bangladesh to Qatar in 2014, getting a job working on a stadium to support his family. He died in 2018, collapsing when temperatures reached upwards of 115º; the Qatari government has denied this, and has put ‘cardiac arrest’ on his death certificate. The family has now been left without a way to earn money.
Qatari officials have stated that, more often than not, compensation is received in labor disputes, and the country will not take “destructive criticism” from outside observers. “The World Cup is a stage that will end in [December], but our laws are ongoing and being developed and we don’t implement them [only] for the World Cup.” said Qatar’s Assistant Undersecretary of Labor, Mohamed al-Obaidly.
There are other human rights issues to take into account, as well; namely the treatment of women and gay men. Female citizens of Qatar need to get permission from a male guardian for just about everything, even after a divorce. Pregnant attendees have been advised to be prepared to show a marriage certificate if medical care is necessary, and there have been repeated cases of sexual assaults on women going not only unpunished, but the women being penalized for “fornication outside of marriage.”
As for homosexuality, it’s punishable by jail time—and even the death penalty for Muslims. The Qatari officials have made attempts at sweeping these laws under the rug; despite this, Khalid Salmen, a Qatari football player turned FIFA ambassador, has been quoted as saying that “homosexuality is damage in the mind.” He has been defended fiercely, with Qatar stating that these laws are part of the country’s “conservative values.”
In light of these policies, female fans are being advised by human rights groups to proceed with extreme caution, and LGBTQ fans have been advised to cancel their tickets altogether.
The Qatari government has also been rumored to be using fake fans as a surveillance tactic; allegedly, these are paid plants meant to create atmosphere and hype up the crowd artificially. If this is true, they also serve the secondary function of sniffing out and reporting anti-Qatar sentiment on social media. Qatar has responded to these rumors with a statement from the Qatar World Cup 2022 Supreme Committee; “Fans from all over the world — many of whom have made Qatar their home — have contributed to the local atmosphere recently, organizing fan walks and parades throughout the country, and welcoming the various national teams at their hotels. Numerous journalists and commentators on social media have questioned whether these are ‘real’ fans. We thoroughly reject these assertions, which are both disappointing and unsurprising.”
Taken altogether, these issues with the World Cup have left many fans upset and disquieted. Miles Robinson, a freshman at Highland, and Mary Steffy, a teacher here, have been kind enough to speak to me about their feelings on the matter.
Miles Robinson is a freshman here—the MVP and captain of the Highland freshman football team, this sport is a large part of his life. He’s supporting the Dutch team this year, with USA and France as a close second (allez les Bleus!) Outside of World Cup season, he follows almost every league imaginable—including USA’s MLS, the English Premier League, and Germany’s Bundesliga.
“It shouldn’t be there. Honestly, FIFA was 100% bribed for it to be there. If you look at the infrastructure that was there before 2010, it was minimal at best; they had one major stadium, and had to build nine more. Close to 7,000 workers died building those stadiums. They had so few people in the country, they had to get thousands of migrant workers to build (them). They spent over 200 billion US dollars on infrastructure— they had to build cities, build railroads. They spent way, way too much money and time preparing.
“Not to mention the fact that this World Cup had to be moved to November as opposed to the summer. If a World Cup has to be moved, should it be held in that country? The FIFA World Cup is a staple of the summers. Most professional leagues’ seasons go from August to May—holding this in the summer means that most of the teams’ best players are either going to be tired or injured. France are one of the favorites to win this year, and they have five starting players out with major injuries, because this is the middle of their season. This gives less talented teams an advantage.”
The news coming out of Qatar of human rights and climate problems has even driven some people to a boycott—people like Madame Mary Steffy, another person kind enough to speak to me about their views. She’s a French and AVID teacher here at Highland Park Senior High; not a football fan, as a rule, the one exception being the World Cup. This year, she would be supporting the French national team, famously nicknamed “les Bleus”—she’s Luxembourgish, but the country is too small to support a national team, or indeed a league at all. She found out about the human rights abuses largely via Francophone news sources.
“Monsieur Curry and I follow a lot of online sites, and there was a lot shared—most of Paris and a lot of larger cities in France, for example, are not, on public television, showing any of the games. So we started reading all about it; I had heard some things, even, in the last couple of years about the construction going on in Qatar, and how so many young men had been dying and getting their bodies sent home with [death certificates] saying they had died of natural causes when that was not, in fact, true. The conditions were appalling—it was hot, there was no food or water, [employers] would take their passports, there were injuries; there were just a lot of human rights issues that I became aware of.
“I also became aware, in the past few months, of all the climate issues. When you host a large event like this—even the Olympics—it’s terrible for the planet in general, but Qatar had promised that this was going to be the ‘greenest’ World Cup ever. They really greenwashed it, and that has not happened.”
This is largely a France-based movement, but for Mme Steffy, it’s not a large group effort; it’s just about showing Qatar that they don’t want a World Cup that has been built by the blood of the workers.
“I don’t want to give any of my time, money, energy or attention to a country that has such appalling abuses of people coming in—actually about 90% of their society—and their stance on the LGBTQ community, whom any association with is punishable by death, even for visitors there. I personally, refuse to give them my time, money, or attention; which is what they get when I watch.”
Dog whistles in politics is usually a type of phrase that is suggestive or a coded message used to gain support from the group they’re appealing to without setting off any alarms to their opposing group. The name comes from an actual dog whistle that emits frequencies that dogs can hear, but humans can’t.
Some of these dog whistles or phrases connect to the same antisemitic trope, so I will address several dogwhistles that mean approximately the same thing. I will cover four tropes, including the following: Jewish people being money hungry, Jewish people controlling the word in general, Jewish people being at fault for many world tragedies or violence, and the caricatures of Jewish people emphasizing all these aspects.
First I’ll start out with one of the most common/normalized tropes: Jewish people being money hungry or greedy. The insinuation of Jewish people always wanting more money is incredibly common. Specifically, Jewish people wanting gold and treasure. Many anti-semites often refer to Judas as a representation of Jewish people, selling out Jesus for 30 silver pieces. The phrase “Jew down” is also incredibly offensive. It refers to someone bargaining for the lowest price, sometimes unfairly low, because they are such penny pinchers. “Jewish” or “Kosher tax” is another one, referring to the idea that food companies are conning non-Jews to support the Jewish “agenda” by having a kosher certification that taxes them. “Jewish lightning”, which coincides with the trope of Jews being greedy, is when a home or some sort of insured building is burned down. The burning of the building gives those who insured it money, saying Jewish people are so greedy that they burn down their own buildings for money.
Another idea is that Jewish people form a secret society that controls everything in the world, from politics to media like some sort of hegemony. It also implies that all Jewish people are connected in some way and are like a political group instead of a religious one. Does this sound familiar? It’s how many describe the idea of an Illuminati or a New World Order. Not everyone who believes in that conspiracy is necessarily anti-semitic, but it is too easy to arrive at that once you get lost in it. “Cabal” and “clannish” are more words that more or less mean the same thing, but with more religious undertones. “Cosmopolitan elite” is less outright, and is less organized. Cosmopolitan means: “of or meshing many cultures”, and elite being those who are in the upper echelon of society. All of these imply that Jewish people are conniving and disloyal.
Jewish people are also used as scapegoats following many world tragedies. “Blood libel”, for one, is the accusation towards Jewish people of using Christian childrens’ blood in some sort of Jewish ritual. Even if false, children being killed is an easy way to get a lot of people against anyone. In modern times, it might not be so outright. An example of this in a story most of you should know, is Rapunzel. Mother Gothel kidnaps Rapunzel, a young girl with blonde hair and blue eyes, to use her hair in a sort of ritual to stay young. “Poisoning the well” is also a phrase used to insinuate that Jewish people have caused tragedy for non-Jews. It originates from the Black Death, where Jews were accused and persecuted of poisoning the wells of the towns to infect them, and because they were in on it they weren’t affected as much. Jewish people probably did have a lower death rate from the plague, but this was likely because they practiced ritual hygiene unlike most Europeans at the time.
Jewish caricatures and depictions have been a way to dehumanize Jewish people for a long time. Sometimes Jewish people are portrayed as rats or other vermin, snakes, and spiders. All of these animals have a negative connotation, most being pests that people are either disgusted by or scared of. Portraying them as such makes them less connected from humanity through the eyes of others, making them easier to hate, a tactic used by many oppressive groups time and time again.
Another way of painting Jewish caricatures is making them seem as “other” as possible, exaggerating the features that are more distinct than other populations, many times seen as a larger or hooked nose, curly dark hair, or drooping eyes. Exaggerating these features, again, helps people separate Jewish people from themselves, making it easier to persecute them unfairly. We see this again in “Rapunzel”/’Tangled’. Like the blood libel example, we see Mother Gothel again being portrayed as a Jewish stereotype/caricature, with her thick, black curly hair, drooping/hooded eyes, and a nose bigger than most Disney women. She is also the villain of the story. Many Jewish people, such as myself, have remarked how much she looks like a relative of theirs, or themself. This is not the type of representation a child should have to see.
Sometimes, the caricatures are drawn with not only exaggerated features, but exaggerated actions. A prime example of this is the “smirking merchant”, an anti-semitic comic of a man with a “kippah”, which is traditional male Jewish headwear, a hooked nose and an evil smile with his hands rubbing together in a way that signifies greed.
All of these dog whistles and tropes I brought up are painted in extremely broad strokes; most of them running much deeper than I could portray in a single article. Most of these connect to the idea that Jewish people are morally reprehensible, and that they don’t care about non-Jews and act in their own self-interest, or the interest of the Jewish conglomerate. The idea that Jewish people are socially above non-Jews serves to oppress the Jewish people further. Anti-semitism can sometimes be a harder form of bigotry to understand because it is so distinct, but I hope this article helps you to understand the harm it can cause.
I’m sure many students have wished for this on a particularly difficult day at school, but would that actually be a good thing for students learning? I asked one HPSH student what they thought, and they had this to say.
“We already have time in advisory. We have a lot of time there. I get a lot of work time there. But you have to realize that most people just go on their phones or talk during that time. If we did have time in class most people wouldn’t even use it. A lot of people do it at home because they are more focused and their friends aren’t around.”
I think this is a great point. Even if you provide people the opportunity to get their work done early, many people wouldn’t use it and would just goof off. This means that if you give them extra work time, in reality you just shorten their school day which obviously isn’t ideal.
But then again if people don’t want to do their work it is their own fault, and not a lot would change. That’s because many of the kids that wouldn’t do their work in that extra time don’t pay attention in class anyway.
In my opinion, we should have more class time for homework, but not so much that it severely impacts our in class instruction. Especially because a lot of kids have sports after school or some kind of other activity, and having too much homework on top of all of this wouldn’t be helping them at all.
For kids that don’t pay attention in class nothing would really change, but for everyone else the extra class time would be greatly appreciated, especially those of us with busy schedules after school. Even just 10 extra minutes per class would be extremely helpful.
Obviously this wouldn’t work for all classes every day, but any and all time would go a long way. I have some classes that do this already, and I feel a lot less stressed about the work in those classes.
In class homework time wouldn’t fix kids not doing work, but it would be extremely helpful for students that care about turning things in on time. So, while classes shouldn’t turn into study hall, there’s nothing wrong with a bit of extra homework time here and there.
First of all, where’s the motivation for this? Who thought this rule up? Because that puts way too much pressure on high school students, especially in accelerated classes. I get trying to prepare students for college, but I think the one retake thing per quarter is a little harsh.
Second of all, what do educators hope to accomplish with this rule? I think I can understand the reason behind it. Maybe they think that if students are more stressed to perform well on the test, they’ll perform better. I think that more stress, even though some students perform better under pressure, isn’t necessarily what works well for all students. Is more stress really what students need? Most students don’t really need that extra pressure.
You have to account for all students when it comes to making these rules. I wrote in the last paragraph that some students cope well under pressure and absorb the material better and therefore, won’t have as much trouble test taking. But other students suffer from test anxiety, and with the one retake policy, feel more pressure to score high, which is pretty disastrous for them.
I think one of the biggest reasons for this rule is that in college, you’re not really allowed to retake tests like you would in high school. But in real life, you’re allowed to retake important tests. Imagine how many people wouldn’t have their driver’s license if they were only allowed to retake it once.
Retaking tests benefits educators too! Retaking shows the spots they need to reteach a little more, and work on with students.
I think there should be a compromise. Instead of one retake in every class per quarter, two makes more sense. Also, If students retake the test more, they will absorb the information better and won’t immediately forget about it after the test is over.
On Tuesday, November 8th, 2022, there was an election for the new governor of Minnesota. The results came in the same night, Governor Tim Walz was elected again for the governor of Minnesota.
On that Tuesday, all Saint Paul Public Schools (SPPS) had a digital learning day. According to the SPPS website, “A Digital Learning/E-learning Day is where students will be able to access work in Schoology during asynchronous time. During synchronous time, staff are available to assist and support students learning via Google Meet.”
The schedule for the day was a B day. Period 1 was from 8:30am-9am, period 2 was 9:05am-9:35am, period 3 was 9:40am-10:10am, period 4 was 10:15-10:45am. Teacher’s office hours were from 11am-12pm. During that time period, 8:30am-12pm, teachers and students were to be on the Google Meets.
Students were able to sit in the comfort of their own home, while teachers needed to be in the school that they work at.
From a student’s perspective, I think this is unfair for the teachers. They deserve a day off; they work very hard educating their students. I also think that they would feel more relaxed in the comfort of their own home.
I interviewed a teacher from a SPPS school, another student from SPPS, and a parent of a student at SPPS. I asked them these questions:
How did you think the digital learning day went?
Do you think it’s unfair that teachers had to go to school for the digital learning day? Explain?
I asked only the SPPS teacher this question:
Would you have felt more comfortable in your home compared to the school on the digital learning day?
I asked just the SPPS student and parent this question:
Do you feel that teachers would’ve felt more comfortable in their own home on digital learning day? Explain?
The SPPS teacher responded to the first question saying, “I think the digital learning day went pretty well. It was a bit hectic trying to get to all of my classes with only a 5 minute break, but I managed.”
They replied to the second question saying, “I don’t think it’s necessarily unfair that us, teachers, had to go to school for the day. I would’ve enjoyed showing my pets and kids to my students during the Google meet, which is a little upsetting I wasn’t able too, but it’s okay.”
They answered the third question saying, “I personally would’ve felt more comfortable and relaxed at my own house on that day. But again, it was not my choice to make. One thing I would like to mention is that it was difficult to get to my voting place, the one closest to my house, because I live fairly far away from the school.”
A student from SPPS responded to the first question saying, “I didn’t like the digital learning day personally just because I get work done better inside the school environment.”
They replied to the second question saying, “I would only think it’s unfair for the teachers to go to school that day if they didn’t vote already, or they didn’t have the chance because of the location.”
They answered the third question saying, “To a certain extent I do feel that the teachers would’ve felt more comfortable in their home on that day, but I think most of their materials are at school.”
A parent of students from SPPS responded to the first question saying, “For my 2 kids, I feel like the digital learning day went fine. I think my kids are more engaged with in-person learning. Ultimately I support the day of digital learning if it allows more adults to participate in the election.”
They replied to the second question saying, “Yes I think it’s unfair that the teachers had to go to the school, for two reasons. Number one, if students can learn remotely then educators have the ability to teach remotely. Number two, I think our country should make election day a national holiday to free up all workers to more easily vote.”
They answered the third question saying, “Yes, I feel that teachers would’ve felt more comfortable teaching from their own home because, teachers are professionals we should trust them to know what they need to do to educate our children.”
The Official Online Newspaper, Literary Magazine, and Video News of the Highland Park Scots
Plaid Line + PRIZM + Scottie News 