Academic Adaptability

Follow-up remarks on ‘academic Darwinism’

When we struggle to keep up, what are we forced to do?

For many students and classmates in my school, ‘accepting the status quo,’ taking a lackluster grade and laziness are never options. The students of my year (class of 2013) undergo immense pressure in the quest for academic achievement and ultimately, college admissions. This phenomenon and its social consequences were discussed last year.

As juniors, many of my classmates are enrolled in several Advanced Placement courses – some of them with little to no regard of their actual academic capabilities. Admittedly, there are a select number of students in these AP courses that demonstrate incompetence – again, some only are a bit lacking, others are committing academic suicide and robbing themselves of sleep, sanity, and socialization. Many students who exhibit clear academic competence and are capable of college level thinking in the biological or physical sciences, mathematics, social science, and English simply lack the motivation or the personal interest to truly demonstrate themselves as the outstanding students they are. Symptoms of academic anemia ensue. Students procrastinate on their assignments, others socialize excessively, and a select few engage in illegitimate activities. Sometimes, it may be difficult to spot out those in this crowd who are sincerely incapable of ‘surviving’ a demanding courseload and the ones who are simply too lazy to do anything about it. In any case, a student’s ‘academic capability’ does not guarantee their ‘academic survivability’ in the high school (or the college-level) environment.

Countless social factors promote what I call ‘academic adaptability,’ a precursor to ‘academic survivability.’ (Adaptation – which can also be called ‘conformism,’ allows survivability, to loosely associate with natural selection.) Since this discussion primarily regards students taking advanced classes, it can be safely assumed, in most cases, that these students are ‘academically segregated’ from the ‘academically average’ group. This form of separation adds pressure to these students, who associate less with those the ‘academically apathetic’ and the incompetent. They are pressured to conform to the general attitude of upward academic mobility, or at the least, to maintain their positions. The minority of students who are ‘academically average’ and find themselves in classes with more ‘intelligent’ students may have a much more difficult time achieving ‘academic adaptability.’

Our collective struggle to maintain academic competence culminates in ‘academic dishonesty’ – cheating. But while schools – teachers and administrators – all condemn the act, students are doomed to perform it. The academically motivated or the academically adapted (Paradigms who set the academic standard and set the curves, these top students are propagators of academic Darwinism. Hence, they are already ‘adapted’ – properly developed [mentally, of course] for the rigors of a specific course.) This forced, artificial means of adaptation serves to achieve the same goal, and is usually used only in desperation. However, individuals who see the conveniences in this ‘artificial adaptation’ will develop it as a habit, to a point where artificial adaptation becomes their only means of keeping up with the pack.

Cheating is personally motivated and personally conducted, but even perpetrators of ‘artificial academic adaptability’ are succumbing to greater social forces. These actions are best described as ‘anomie,’ a sociological concept which explains that individuals who lack the proper means to accomplish a goal presented to them as a social norm will defy these norms to accomplish the goal anyways through what is usually illegitimate behavior (as also defined by social mores). While superficially effective, artificial adaptation – at any extent – has detrimental effects. Students eventually have to expose themselves to the wilderness of academic reality and adapt like anyone else would – study, practice, and sleep more, play less. But we should recall that some students – the ‘academically average’ – can attempt to adapt as much as possible to little positive effect. Everyone’s intelligence is limited, unfortunately, by a threshold of academic capability, preventing a full percentage of students to adapt successfully and rendering many to fall hopelessly behind. This limit, often overlooked by what some criticize as a quality of American culture that every student deserves to, and should, go to college’(with little regards to intelligence), can generate furious debates over the meritocratic aspect of education. Should ‘dumber’ students also be given the opportunity to take AP classes and attend university-level schools? Are they able to handle it? Do they deserve it? How do we even define who is ‘dumb’ and who is ‘smart’ in our society? I would be hard-pressed to address these questions in this post.

We were students yesterday and students today, but we will become college students tomorrow and a part of the workforce the week after. The widespread phenomena of ‘academic Darwinism’ seems confined to high school according to these depictions, but while social roles will change down the road, a ‘race to the top’ will persist in whatever field one chooses to pursue – promoted by nothing other than a capitalist economic system. It’s not to say capitalism is bad; capitalism drives us to achieve and overachieve; capitalism has become the pipe for a fountain of innovation, technology, and novelty. Just understand that if you get more, someone else will settle with less; if you are on top, they will be underneath; if you are stronger, they will be weaker – and we cannot all be ‘smart’ or all be ‘stupid.’

SAT Vocabulary (specialized terms in italics)

1. competence - n. adequacy
2. anemia - n. a lack of power, vigor, or vitality
3. apathetic - adj. showing little emotion; indifferent
4. culminate - v. to reach the highest point or development; to arrive at a final 5. stage
6. perpetrator - n. person who commits an illegal act
7. succumb - v. to yield
8. mores - n. sociology: customs or practices that are representative of the moral values of a social group
9. meritocratic - n. system in which people possessing ability/talent are rewarded and advanced in society

At Request #3: No Train of Thought

The harnessing of a schizophrenic thought process

Ah, yes, the mustache conundrum...

Facial hair located prominently on the area around the mouth has long been a symbol of masculinity and all-around cool. Of course, this image has been warped by the societal values of the now, much of which values simplicity and simplistic clarity (look at Apple) - and that often translates into a clean-shaven face.

There's nothing wrong with a mustache - or a lack thereof – in modern society. Mustache donners are typically stereotyped as masculine Caucasian men who potentially ride motorcycles and happen to be cowboys. Which really sucks for those who don’t fit these profiles. But not to worry, nobody needs to conform to stereotypes. The significant ‘hipster value’ of mustaches, interestingly, has done a negligible effect on keeping the hair on mens’ faces. Then again, once it does, it won’t be ‘hipster’, highlighting the paradox of conforming to a counterculture, which by definition attempts to defy conformism. Conformis-conception or conform-inception?

Most adolescents harbor little opinion, positive or otherwise, towards mustaches. As a semi-regular wearer of a mustache, mine is representative of eccentricity and individualism; a pathetic attempt to feel older, not a pathetic attempt to fit in or stand out –  because if you try too hard to stand out, you’re just another one of those who tried too hard to stand out, and that would mean – yeah, you fit in. Plan thwarted?

Gabe Saporta

Gabe Saporta. What a hunk of a man. And what a name! Saporta? Sounds like Sapporo, the Japanese draft beer. This guy should totally get an endorsement. I’m pretty sure this lead vocalist of Cobra Starship, popular synthpop/dancepop group, has plenty of ‘saportas.’

An Uruguayan Jew in the United States, Saporta seems to be the ultimate amalgamation of all things multicultural. Also a philosophy major, the man tells us all that philosophy is not a piece-of-crap field of study – I bet he’s applying his ideas to his music and his public relations efforts right this second. Also a PETA activist, and almost by definition, a vegetarian, Saporta seems to be the true nonconformist. Take that, hipster mustache-cult-worshippers.

Koreans

Koreans – more specifically, South Koreans – have become a somewhat widespread cultural tour de force in areas outside the tiny peninsular nation in which they reside in. Their incredibly aggressive cultural ministry consistently makes concerted efforts to essentially sell their culture. For a small, ambitious, and sometimes arrogant nation, government clout is necessary to make their television and music known around the world.

It’s obviously worked. The Republic of Korea houses a multitude of game companies that singlehandedly spawned the free-to-play massively multiplayer online game genre, which collectively generates billions of dollars (trillions more Won, due to the relatively small numerical value of their currency) annually. Even more can be said towards their other media foci, television and music. Their developments and efforts in this field has literally created an industry equally as efficient as Henry Ford’s assembly-line process. Entertainment giants tap in to consumer ideology and philosophy to develop attractive television drama plotlines that have apparently captivated more than just the average Korean – after all, there are only about 50 million South Koreans. Many dedicated Korean culture worshippers reside outside of Korea and have created their own niche cultural environment in the process.

More can be said about their popular music, which has managed to sweep the shores of Japan, China, Vietnam, and the Pacific Coast. The “Korean wave” is the aptly-named title of this analogical cultural natural disaster – I meant, financial success. Many of these highly qualified, highly attractive (by artificial or natural construction) pale-skinned vocalists have learned Japanese, Chinese, and English in order to tap into lucrative foreign markets. Of course, much of these things – multilingual ability, vocal talent, physical attractiveness, sold-out concerts, and so on – ultimately benefit none other than the higher-ups in the Korean entertainment industry, a series of corporate oligarchies which have a stranglehold on popular culture, and in turn, socio-cultural ideals for Korea and its youth population. Whether all of this is good is up to you, not me, to judge.

Facebook phenomena

It might be hard to believe that with over 800 million Facebook users, many of them are doing pretty much the same thing. Status updates from the English-speaking population are usually not meaningful updates about today’s happenings or musings on the world but rather appeals to ‘like’ their statuses in exchange of some sort of emotional gain – a truth-telling session, an admission of guilt, and whether or not you deserve to be avoided, dated, kissed, or – I’ll stop before things get out of hand.

The big question is whether this is simple ‘attention whoring’ or a larger issue – group conformity. Indeed, it could probably be both. The typical Facebook user uses the social-networking site not for serious business, but because they have nothing better to do (than online social interaction). And what better to do but to post a status that will keep him/her busy for hours? Statistically speaking, the only other things we do on the computer are online banking, movie/Youtube streaming, email checking, instant messaging, and perusing pornographic movies. The individual will probably not post a status just because someone else posted it and it is copyable – unless the individual is an adolescent aggressively seeking conformity, of course.

Congress Super Committee

The 12-man “supercommittee” in US Congress announced today that they were unable to solve a multi-trillion budget shortfall – not even able to decrease the deficit by the minimum goal of 1.2 trillion over 10 years– due to partisan disagreement over key spending cuts, including entitlement programs and tax increases. This disagreement is nothing new, but the new thing all Americans will be receiving soon are severe cuts on all governmental services, and I’m pretty sure all Americans are already tired of it. This is what happens when politicians care more about a party platform’s values than the people they represent, of course.

But perhaps the dumbest part of this whole disaster is that the due date for the compromise is Thanksgiving Day, not Monday. Perhaps the congressmen (there are no females in the supercommittee) want to celebrate their failure with their families and not in a dreary government chamber? The supercommittee’s failure is another reason why US Congress has less approval from Americans than the prospect of the United States turning on its capitalist ideals and turning communist.

Tootsie Pops

The age-old question: How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?

Siri answers:

START LICKING. I assume no biting is allowed.

Global Peace

Is such a thing possible? George Orwell writes in dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four that “war is peace.” The only way humanity can achieve peace is if…well, we ceased to be human. Even if all global conflict were to immediately end, significant internal conflict would continue to exist. Greed and corruption fuels broken third-world regimes and military juntas in Egypt and Burma alike. Are humans – because we are human – incapable of peace? Perhaps.

The United States proclaims itself as the harbinger of freedom and liberty, but it seems perfectly comfortable in using oppressive and destructive means to achieve their ends – those ends being democratic government, which Washington has long viewed as the only proper definition of freedom and liberty. (Examples: Central American neocolonialism, Cold War interventions, ongoing conflicts in the Middle East) Is communism not freedom or liberty? Communist countries – or proper, non-Stalinist ones, at least – provide better social benefits to the entire populace, with greater emphasis on gender, social, economic, and racial equality than capitalist, market-driven societies. Yet again, the flawed nature of the human personality has undermined the possibility of a perfect Communist state all but entirely.

But to flip over the other side of the same coin, there is no perfect democratic state either, as shown by American foreign policy. Without perfect people, there would be no perfect world, no perpetual peace. And although the current state of affairs is by no means ideal, there’s no goal as unrealistic – or as discomforting – as trying to achieve something that’s impossible to attain. A nation that simply minding its own affairs – a selfish philosophy, one that ignores problems in other nations – is the only method the country (not the world) can be at peace. The limit as x approaches total human equality and world peace: Does not exist.

SAT Vocabulary:

1. conundrum - n. puzzle, problem
2. prominent - adj. conspicuous in position, character, or importance
3. negligible - adj. so small or unimportant as to warrant little to no attention
4. eccentric - n. peculiarity
5. amalgamate - v. to mix or blend together in a homogeneous body
6. peninsular - adj. pertaining to a piece of land almost surrounded by water
7. perusing - v. look over in a casual or cursory manner
8. partisan - adj. characterized by devotion to a party

Damned Kids, Damning Rant

The Problem/Introduction

Every teenager (that's most of you readers) with a sliver of self-consciousness and awareness should run into one problem growing up and interacting in the community. It's a damning brand of discrimination and prejudice hardly covered by scientific studies and mainstream media. What is it?

We're not being taken seriously enough.

'We,' the youth, that is. Famous quotations from notable figures in society regard children – but adolescents in particular – as a negative statistic, a social problem, a malady found in every corner of the globe. We damned kids are a problem that adults have somehow deal with, in all our angst and uncooperativeness.

The Premise

Americans, sociologists, and activists all love to talk about gender discrimination, racial discrimination, stratification, income discrimination, and so on – but 'age discrimination' – ageism – is an underrepresented topic of social inequality. Some individuals are concerned with the stereotyping that surrounds their blonde hair; those with white skin are always defending themselves against accusations of racism; those with black skin are sometimes excessively sympathized or ostracized, as victims of such. Of course, 'ageism' does exist, to some extent – those of old age may be forced to ignore that some think of them as social and economic burdens to the general public, rotting away while robbing government money through Social Security and Medicare.

While this ageism towards the elderly has been documented and its stereotypes being fiercely torched by these individuals, Adolescents are held in a similar regard with little of the coverage, or the defense. While we young millenials are two or more generations apart from the ‘Silent Generation’ (as TIME Magazine calls it), it turns out we have much more in common than most think – there is a connection between the Damned Kids and the Damned Old People, as we both are viewed as costly assets, taxpayer burdens, and unavoidable social problems.

Researchers cite us in reports as perpetrators of a wide variety of problems, whether it is depression (we get our own brand – 'adolescent depression'), substance abuse ('teen substance abuse'), or delinquency ('juvenile delinquency'). Many of these alarming reports call on parental action as an important factor in fixing the problem, but even then, the teenager becomes a victim – hardly a solution. Adults rarely call upon adolescents to solve our own problems, because we are apparently incapable, unaware, and indifferent. Adult-made organizations such as the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the United States, which runs the well-known anti-drug ad campaign 'Above the Influence,' continue attempts to inform teenagers about the harmful effects of various drugs. Ignoring the fact that the advertisements have proved ineffective and thus are a taxpayer burden, they also implicate that teenagers are too weak to make independent decisions against overbearing and powerful forces like drugs. (Of course, many adults lack the self-control as well. How funny!)

If our elders are not being negatively regarded as costly problems, then why are teenagers subject to being victims, assets, problems, and worst of all– uninformed and immature? Adult perception of adolescent immaturity is the crux of the problem, and this stereotype, I believe, proves more important than all the other issues I previously discussed regarding the portrayal of adolescents. I'm tired of it. Adults should wake up and smell the coffee (that they need to get through their days). Not all of us are depressed, delinquents, or drug users, so what makes us dumbasses?

The Incompetence

Part of the problem is that – yes, I hate to say this – there is a considerable portion of the adolescent and youth population that gets depressed, gets in trouble, or gets high, and it's only rising. However, instead of focusing on solutions for these troubled individuals or programs to benefit talented, mature, and/or intelligent youth, we only get a heap of victimization. I mean, we're even bullying each other to death now, right?

The social construction of adolescence and childhood denies us – most of it rightfully – many avenues of adult life. Children and younger adolescents can't get married or consume alcohol; we aren't allowed to pursue semi-permanent or lasting careers, vote in elections, or pay taxes. (Not that any child would want to pay taxes or manage married life anyways.) However, we are also barred from public office, denying us from nearly all policymaking positions, including those that make decisions affecting adolescents. Of course, most teenagers are apparently (or evidently) incapable of functioning in a formal, adult-run bureaucracy (those who do may make tons of mistakes). It's impossible for the problems adolescents apparently have/perpetuate to disappear if there is no chance for input from these 'victims' themselves.

Of course, the most compelling example is the one that has probably happened to us. A group of male adolescents on the street or loitering may generate anxiety from passersby, and especially so if attire is seen to be negative in any way. Teenagers may be subject to suspicion or scrutiny if a group enters a place of business. We are often unwelcomed, sometimes even when our wallets are open.

The Incongruity

The last part of the adolescent ageism problem regards other adult opinions towards adolescents.

We’re seen as children, grown-up and more aware of the world. But despite being granted this title, nothing much else is done – if not worsened by the slew of findings that portray us in a negative light. To be deemed mature but accepted elsewhere as incapable is a distasteful double standard that splinters our development as social, functioning, productive beings. With all this role confusion, is it surprising that adults find that we have higher chances of being depressed?

Adolescence is a confusing interim period of life – to be seen as immature, uninformed, or socially deviant only works to our detriment. As we grow up, we may rapidly transform from the oppressed to the oppressors – a biological truth, but one that should compel us to do something about the social status quo, before we lose the legitimacy of our youth.

Here, the National Youth Rights Association with its ideas, some similar to my own. But these are adults talking. The NYRA is also more concerned with curfews and voting age than social portrayal of adolescents.

SAT Vocabulary: (specialized terms in italics)

1. malady - n. disease or ailment
2. stratification - n. division of society into 'layers' of social, economic, political, and economic qualities and inequalities
3. premise - n. A judgment as a conclusion.
4. ostracized - v. To exclude from public or private favor.
5. asset - n. Property or holdings in general
6. crux - n. critical point
7. incompetent - adj. Not having the abilities desired or necessary for any purpose.
8. perpetuate - v. To preserve from extinction or oblivion.
9. interim - n. Time between acts or periods.
10. detriment - n. Something that causes damage, depreciation, or loss.
11. compelling - adj. requiring attention; overpowering
12. status quo - n. the existing state or condition

At Request #2: Boys and Girls

In a few days, I will have been in school for two months. Over half of a quarter has passed, warning notices for dangerous grades have been sent, and students are groaning and crying in grand style over the English project, calculus test, or expository essay. In a previous post, "Drugs, Teens, Love," I discussed in moderate detail the methods in which adolescents cope with social, academic, and familial stressors, with a focus on unconventional or unheard-of methods and means. The post also brushed upon the idea of romance and emotional attachment in the form of relationships. Now, as a high school junior, I feel that a second look is most deserved.

Any quick-and-dirty look into a school hallway or lunch court in high school will show how much teenagers are in love with, well, love. Public displays of affection (PDA) – generally regarded a social characteristic for adolescents in the West, as opposed to socially conservative Eastern cultures – pose so much of an eyesore (or eye candy, for some depraved individuals) that most schools have rules against kissing and caressing, respective from sexual harassment codes. Some schools around the world have gone so far to ban hugging or high-fiving; this rise in restrictions strangely correlates with the acceptance of the idea that mainstream media is becoming exceedingly grotesque and sexualized as conventional wisdom. Immense peer pressure that seldom opposes relationships (at least, on the outside) only makes teenagers more predisposed towards 'falling in love.' All this points to the idiotically obvious fact that adolescents have a tendency for romance and infatuation.

Students, of course, often lack the tendency – or the need – to notice larger patterns of relationships in school. (Being in a relationship is a tunnel-vision inducing experience.) The most visible pattern I could find regarding newfound attachment in my school is an escalating presence of couples as age progresses. Relationship gossip becomes more ubiquitous among students as they progress through high school. Those without a boyfriend or girlfriend may find themselves preoccupied with talking about someone else’s.

I have observed high school activity as being divided into four key parts, corresponding to the four years students spend in secondary school.

• Freshman: The acquaintance stage – Newcomers to the high school environment and the subcultures associated with it primarily use large-scale social interaction (acquaintanceships) to quickly develop their own ‘social location’ amongst the student body.
• Sophomore: The friendship stage – Once the student has defined his/her social group, efforts are made to solidify relations with the students he/she affiliates with.
• Junior: The relationship stage – Comfortably settled in a social group, the 11th grade student may further hone in on developing deeper friendships with select individuals within the peer group – often, romantic attachment, if not at least stronger friendships, develop here.
• Senior: The farewell stage – 12th grade marks a beginning of a potential end to relations with the peer group/s they developed in the past 3 years. Loose ends with friendships – disagreements, squabbles, rivalries – are resolved or dissolved; students begin making the effort to ensure the continuation of peer relations beyond the familiar environment of the high school campus. Social cohesion in universities, by contrast, may be much more powerful and permanent (primarily because students may be neighbors, smaller peer groups in college)

The “relationship stage,” as I title junior year, is the focus of this article/post. The eleventh grade student is no longer preoccupied with the troubles of finding new friends. But how does the alleviation of this minor stressor contribute to the development of relationships? The answer comes from another type of stress: academic pressure.

Eleventh grade is a year full of standardized tests, challenging AP courses, and the task of dwindling down prospective colleges. The “academic Darwinism” that ensues is disturbingly ferocious: friends become enemies that become friends again, only in an effort to gain an academic edge. (Cue: can you help me with this essay/these math problems/this project?) The friendships that took years to develop are either superseded by the high priority of academic achievement, or are simply dissolved by academic pressure. Amidst this meritocratic war of intellects, the student finds a need for emotional support. This is where relationships and close friendships foster.

Most adolescent relationships, contrary to what I’ve previously stated, are not purely byproducts of teenage impulsion and hormonal activity. Relationships tend to be developed through a catalyzing force. For any stressed-out student – but especially juniors – the shadowy forces of academic stress pull friends and people together, if not apart.

Part 2: The Relationship

A short, quick, speculation-based supplement to ‘Boys and Girls’

The only thing more commonplace than the adolescent relationship is the tendency for one to end quickly. The average span of a relationship among high school students is roughly four months. The psychological reason is simple enough: the hormones that sponsored the euphoria and natural high within the body got tired and went away; love, attachment, romance – whatever you wish to call it – fades. But is there a social context to the faltering or broken relationship? Again, ‘yes’ may seem to be the obvious answer.

Many (but certainly not most) high school relationships are typically brought upon with much publicity and attention from curious/delighted friends. Indeed, publicity is an all-too-common aspect of the teenage relationship. Few couples expect their hand-holding habit to be spotted by nobody; in fact, many couples intentionally conduct these subtle forms of PDA in front of other students. The sometimes-annoying wall-post exchange conversation between couples on Facebook is another, virtual example. I prescribe two interpretations for such actions. To conduct acts that prove to others two people are in a relationship serves to reassure the individual of his/her companionship; it is a form of demonstrating relationship security. The social context is that adolescent culture and domestic mainstream media may subtly support such demonstrations of mutual compatibility (real or not). This, of course, brings pressure to the couple.

If two individuals become subject to excess scrutiny regarding the nature of their relationship, the romance becomes nothing more than a publicity stunt. Adolescents are already unsuited for lasting relationships, so when the relationship becomes an extended public relations campaign, it only takes one mistake (or none at all) to render the couple to realize that they were nothing more than a result of external forces – peer pressure – impacting on internal forces – hormonal impulse.

A healthy adolescent relationship is not impossible, of course. It simply must be executed in a way where it is not subject to the stereotyped, idealized, romanticized, and sometimes malevolent opinions of peers.

~will be subject to further review~

SAT Vocabulary:

1. Expository – adj. pertaining to a formal presentation.
2. Harassment – v. To trouble with importunities, cares, or annoyances.
3. Depraved – adj. morally bad
4. Conservative - adj. adhering to the existing order of things.
5. Grotesque – adj. incongruously composed or ill-proportioned.
6. Immense – adj. very great in degree, extent, size, or quantity
7. Ubiquitous – adj. being present everywhere
8. Cohesion – adj. the property of being consistent
9. Alleviate – v. make less burdensome or less hard to bear.
10. Dwindling –v. diminish or become less.
11. Supersede – v. displace
12. Speculation – v. to pursue inquiries and form conjectures
13. Idealize – v. to make to conform to some mental or imaginary standard
14. Malevolent – adj. wishing evil to others
15. Predispose – v. similar to ‘predilection’, a common SAT word (n.) that means “a preference or inclination for something”

Codified in Convolution

undress it

The school dress code is regularly challenged, contested, or taken to court by junior high and high school students around America itching to exercise the First Amendment, the only constitutional law that relevantly applies to school-related affairs. A favorite topic of grade school essays,  school dress code seems to be a topic of perpetual debate. It is apparent that I, among many others, am a participant in this heated argument.

For many students across the United States, personal expression often fails to be verbal and usually takes form on a screen tee. However, incendiary responses to Mark Keppel High School’s newly updated dress code for the 2011-2012 school year have incited much disagreement among the student body. Female students are irked at the “mid-thigh or below” regulation for shorts, and a male student has expressed outcry in particular via Facebook regarding the prohibiting of male students to dress in muscle shirts (male equivalent of a tank top). In an attempt to rouse the student body to take action via petition, he has drawn on values stated in the Declaration of Independence and has asserted that the dress code is “sexist.”

The school regulations are by no means extreme. Many high schools around America have incorporated uniforms or only allow a narrow set of garments in a limited number of colors. But when a school instills a “free dress” policy, some form of backlash from any attempt to incorporate a “dress code” on top of the free dress policy should be expected; students see it as a laughable contradiction – wearing anything you want, except you can’t wear anything you want. Evenhanded enforcement of dress code is also necessary to prevent ambiguity/dissent among student opinion.

With the most controversial court cases on school dress code usually about the text of a shirt/accessory (see here and here), it is a challenge to argue that students have a right to uphold their lawful ability to wear short shorts or male tank tops in defense of any sort of “expression.” The school asserts that such clothes are a “distraction to the learning process,” educational jargon to root out any undesired object/event that may occur on school campuses. One student calls the reasoning a ‘carte blanche,’ and it is indeed, for both students and staff. Shorts with a pant length of less than 10 inches and shirts that reveal male shoulders, apparently, will create a decline in academic achievement.

It is imperative to review official codifications on dress code in California schools when discussing the issue. Notably, students’ rights on free expression on attire are defended by the landmark 1969 Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which incorporated the 14th amendment’s statement that no “State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...”

California Education Code Section 35183 (CEC § 35183) explains the following on dress:

• "Gang-related apparel” is strictly forbidden.
• Uniform policies may be enforced under the judgments of each individual school “to facilitate and maintain an effective learning environment.”
• Administrators cannot ban club (“nationally recognized youth organization”) attire on meeting days.
• "Both students and staff of the primary, elementary, junior and senior high school campuses have the constitutional right to be safe and secure in their persons at school.”

Alhambra Unified School District’s District Board Policy Section 5132 states:

• "Students' clothing must not present a health or safety hazard or a distraction which would interfere with the educational process.”

Alhambra Unified School District’s “Appearance/Dress Standards” section in page 16 of the AUSD Handbook for Parents and Students 2011-2012 denotes several specific rules regarding dress, including:

• "Clothing shall be [of] appropriate size, not too large or small or revealing”
• "Light (not too dark or excessive) make-up is permitted for students in grades 7-8.”
• "No clothing revealing bare shoulders.”
• "Any clothing which disrupts the educational process is prohibited.”
• Minimum actions range from warnings and changing clothes; maximum action is suspension.

The section also notes that “students shall not be allowed to wear buttons, badges, clothing or other insignia which”:

• "Are obscene.”
• "Are libelous or slanderous.”
• "Incite students, express or advocate racial, ethnic, sexual or religious prejudice so as to contribute to conflict or … unlawful acts on school premises…”
• "Advertise alcohol, tobacco or drugs.”

If we are to correspond with the administration’s actions with the following local and regional codes, MKHS is actually being too lenient on dress code, with disproportionate time and effort invested on the most visible violations of short length and such. Some accusations, statements, and facts:

• The writer has observed a student wearing a shirt from Mexico tourism hotspot Puerto Vallarta evidently advocating alcohol consumption. The administration has not taken any action.
• The writer has worn a shirt on campus with the text and logo of Dutch beer Heineken on numerous occasions. The administration has not taken any action. note: The writer does not advocate underage alcohol consumption in any way, shape, or form.
• The writer has observed a student with a pin on his backpack stating “that’s what she said,” which could be logically argued as being able to “incite … sexual prejudice.” The administration has not taken any action.
• Peers have explained that larger-bodied students are being discriminated against: between a thinner female student and her larger counterpart, both wearing shorts breaking the dress code, the larger figure has a higher chance of being “caught” by “narcs” (student services staff) who will force them to change into PE shorts, usually. 
• The male student mentioned above again cites gender discrimination against men in regards to wearing clothes with bare shoulders: females students are allowed to wear tank tops, while male students are given little leeway on the issue.
• The administration seems to be conducting minimal enforcement of sagging jeans which fail to “conceal undergarments at all times” (AUSD Handbook).
• Because Hi-Y and Tri-Hi-Y clubs in the WSGV YMCA have been disbanded, MKHS administration now has the authority to ban all ‘social club’ attire on school campus. Due to negligent amount of questionable behavior, the administration has taken little or no action on the issue.
• A male student who was told to change out of his sleeveless shirt has explained that the administration’s implied reasoning was the student’s excess body hair.
• Girls that wear spandex leggings under code-breaking shorts are still required to change out of the shorts.

These observations and codifications should allow the reader to draw a few conclusions about the attitudes of the school on dress:

• Female revealing of bare shoulders do not “distract from the learning process,” but is distracting when shoulder-revealing garments are worn by men.
• BMI is a determining factor in incriminating the female student on her legitimacy to wear shorts
• T-shirt designs advocating or advertising alcohol are less dire an issue than tank tops or shorts
• Women who wear skin-revealing shorts are a bigger impedance to the “learning process” then men who reveal their underwear
• Social conservatism is a deciding factor in whether the learning process is disrupted.

Besides the overtly subjective matter of dress code enforcement in MKHS, there are other factors that render the enforcement illogical:

• Male muscle shirts, female tank tops, and short shorts do not violate any other students’ “constitutional right to be safe and secure in their persons at school” (CEC § 35183)
• Nor do they “present a health or safety hazard or a distraction which would interfere with the educational process.” API scores have seen steady improvement for the last few years, concurrent with the short shorts fashion trend.

However, some existing codes do make the administration’s imposing of negative consequences on violations of said dress legitimate, as students cannot wear clothing that is “not too large or small or revealing,” which implies the bare shoulders statement. Nebulous statements such as "Any clothing which disrupts the educational process is prohibited” leave much space for a school to make their own decisions restricting dress and much more rationale for a student to challenge the logic behind any decision on dress code. Other codes, such as permission for “students in grades 7-8” to use “light makeup,” demonstrate gaping loopholes in district policy that can be exploited by both students and staff.

The MKHS administration seems to be appropriately doing its job of rule enforcement, but it apparently holds a double standard regarding dress code regulation: some rules are strictly enforced, more serious violations are left unchecked, and the same rules are not being enforced justly and correctly. These actions will prove detrimental in the administration’s efforts to build trust with the student body, a vital relationship that should best be symbiotic. Many a student may ask, is this the right way to repay us for the steady climb in API scores?

SAT Vocabulary:

1. Apparent – adj. easily understood
2. Incendiary - n. chemical or person who starts a fire-literally or figuratively.
3. Instill – v. to infuse
4. Ambiguity – adj. having a double meaning.
5. Dissent – n. disagreement
6. Denote - v. to designate by word or mark.
7. Lenient – adj. not harsh
8. Nebulous – adj. vaguely defined, cloudy
9. Detrimental – adj. causing damage, depreciation, or loss.

Caught Strait Between: Contemporary Findings on National Identity in the Republic of China

For Emma – adapted from an argumentative dialogue

Do we fight war with weapons or words? In my last post, I described the abysmal foreign policy the United States incorporates to defend itself against foreign “threats.” I noted that the American government has successfully rendered its people to believe that constitution-infringing acts like the USA PATRIOT Act are necessary to defend ourselves and our national sovereignty. A populace that does not question its leadership fails to challenge it – that is the ultimate goal of any government that seeks to control. ‘Control,’ in this case, means the ability of your people to do as you (the administration) say.

This time, I ask, how does a state wage war? In particular, I will investigate the state of national identity and ideology in the Republic of China and how political causes have been able to provide highly nationalistic – yet high quality – education to its students in the last decade under the rule of now jailed president Chen Shui-bian. A brief review of the social consequences of such actions on today’s youth will also be described.

Taiwan’s Personality Crisis

It is without saying that the Republic of China (abbrev. ROC; Chinese, 中華民國), better known as “Taiwan” to foreigners, has long been in an ideological struggle with itself to determine its place in the world. The root of the problem lies in controversial nature of cross-strait relations (海峽兩岸關係) between the ‘two Chinas’; with both parties claiming ownership of each other and neither party admitting legitimacy, the rest of the world has also experienced much difficulty to recognize which China is legitimate. Only twenty-three sovereign states – most of them minor island countries – recognize the ROC as a legitimate government, while most countries, including the United States, have adopted a de facto relations policy with the island entity.

Any writing, scholarly or un-scholarly, on Taiwan seems to demand a historical explanation for the current state of affairs. This is indeed necessary. Following the outbreak of the Second World War, the fledgling Communist Party of China (CPC) and the Nationalist Party (KMT) ceased fighting to form a bittersweet coalition against the threat of the Japanese Empire. Immediately after V-J Day, cooperation was dropped and fighting between the two fundamentally socialist political parties resumed for four more bloody years of conflict. Communist leader Mao Zedong’s force of go-for-broke, diehard soldiers managed to root out the Nationalists, but instead of absorbing them into the new People’s Republic of China (abbrev. PRC; Chinese, 中华人民共和国) 1949, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek fled to the island of Taiwan, which had just been relinquished from years of Japanese rule. He declared that Taipei be the provisional capital of the ROC; he still believed he owned all of mainland China, forming the basis for the modern diplomatic situation and the “Two Chinas” issue. With the postwar establishment of the United Nations, the ROC, a founding member, was recognized as the legitimate representative of China. However, with passing of UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 forty years ago, the ROC was expelled and replaced by the PRC, making it much more difficult for the ROC to represent itself as a sovereign state or anything otherwise. The UN’s absence of an explanation of what the ROC actually is has made their status an open-ended question.

Current issues with Taiwan’s self-determination and national identity exist. In the 2008 Beijing Olympics, athletes representing the ROC were instead titled as from “Chinese Taipei.” (As it turns out, this is because of an IOC mandate that forced Taiwan to represent itself as something other than the “Republic of China.”) China’s claim over the island (and a smattering of other territories) would make the PRC the third largest country in the world, but American rankings that determine Taiwan to be an independent state put the United States in the third spot instead.

Forging an Identity

In the midst of such limbo in self-identity, aggressive and persistent measures have been taken to construct national identity, especially one respective to that of the PRC. From the days of Chiang Kai-Shek, nationalist ideologies have been implemented to eliminate remnants of Japanese culture in Taiwan. The ROC uniquely instates its own “Minguo Calendar” (Chinese: 民國紀元) that corresponds to the year the ROC was founded, 1911. (This year marks the 100th anniversary of the ROC; likewise, the passing of a century on the calendar.) During a 30-year period of diplomatic freeze between the PRC and ROC between 1949 and 1979, the Nationalist Party loosened its socialist stance and eventually adopted a center-right, more conservative position. At the same time, the ROC looked to the United States of America for ideological influences and rapidly became ‘Westernized’ and ‘Americanized,’ although only recently has the KMT allowed an opposition party to arise – the Democratic Progressive Party (abbrev. DPP; Chinese, 民主進步黨).

The DPP is the largest “green” party in the ROC – “green” parties support Taiwanese independence, while the “blue” faction (KMT) takes a more progressive approach of cooperation with China. Since its inception in the late 80s, the party and the series of smaller parties (forming the Pan-Green Coalition) have simply been a collective opposition force; its existence merely justifies a level of democracy and political competition in Taiwan – another way to differentiate the ROC from single-party state PRC. Their radical views earned them little support from a majority of Taiwanese. For a decade after their establishment in 1986, the DPP had no method to ascend any members to presidential positions due to the lack of democratic elections. Their role in volatile Taiwanese politics seemed limited to participation in the raunchy unicameral Legislative Yuan (Chinese: 立法院).

In the next few years (1990s), the DPP would gain steam in the Legislative Yuan and create increasingly violent spectacles on televised sessions of legislative meetings, a normal sight in Taiwanese politics. When the first-ever democratic elections were held in the ROC on 1996, the DPP failed to defeat longtime KMT incumbent Lee Teng-Hui, a Taiwanese native who was eventually expelled from the KMT for his overemphasis on localizing culture and support of an independent Taiwan, despite championing economic and democratic reforms as president for twelve years. Lee’s ideologies ironically conformed more to the platform of the DPP.

The 2000 ROC Presidential election and its verdict would prove to turn a new chapter in the search for identity, which for years has teeter-tottered between Chinese nationalism and “Taiwanization” – Taiwanese nationalism (this theme will prove important). The DPP marginalized its political platform to accept the status quo regarding Taiwan’s international status, while a rift in the KMT and the political mudslinging during campaigning allowed DPP candidate Chen Shui-bian to win the election with only about one third of the popular vote, most of which came from southern counties/cities such as Tainan County, Kaohsiung, and Pingtung County; the population in southern Taiwan is typically regarded as lower-class than the more educated population in the north, which features sizeable populations of college graduates in major metropolitan areas such as Hsinchu and Taipei.

Soon after President Chen was sworn in, he ignored the platform (screw the platform) and swore by a fast-and-furious, aggressive campaign of Taiwanization. Signs that featured “China” or “Republic of China” were strongly suggested or mandated to be replaced with “Taiwan”. Localization of culture and “desinicization,” the elimination of Chinese cultural elements, were stressed throughout. Evidence and naming of organizations or entities with Chiang Kai-shek were removed or replaced. Taiwanese nationalism and the Taiwanese identity soon became the prevailing concept of the island entity, with the ruling DPP ultimately supporting the total independence of Taiwan and stronger partnerships with Western ally United States. A propaganda campaign of some sort was necessary to perpetuate the idea that Taiwanese nationalism is righteous and appropriate. The most powerful and lasting propaganda campaign, as it turns out, lies in how one educates the posterity of a state.

Blue Sky, White Sun, and a Wholly Red Earth -青天, 白日, 滿地紅

Lee Teng-hui, a native Taiwanese, was strongly nationalistic and favored Taiwanization, but nobody on the entire island knew what to expect when a radically nationalist party took the reins of the entire state. Chen’s education reforms were not profoundly sweeping – he simply accelerated the development of already nationalist curriculums that were being implemented. It was rumored that Chen altered political maps to feature Taiwan prominently and above Mainland China, a bold, but not impossible, move. Heavy emphasis was placed on Taiwanese history and local Taiwanese culture, and history of the Chinese on the mainland – including over 4000 years of imperial history and beyond – became grossly underrepresented as a result. Students were required to memorize (the characteristic of any East Asian education) names, location, and geography of Taiwan in its entirety – the island’s area is only slightly larger than Maryland state. Students also learn and memorize the National Anthem and the National Flag Anthem – the latter being the equivalent of the Pledge of Allegiance. Through their locally nationalistic study of history, Taiwanese youth are strongly informed that their country – which very status is disputed – is the best on Earth. Taiwan is flawless. China, Japan, Korea, even America – they are all flawed. Forget self-determination!

The mandated study of Taiwan and Mainland China through an intensely nationalistic perspective as a covert social propaganda campaign has proved effective. It should be strongly argued that the propaganda has brainwashed students from Tainan to Taipei. The strategy has given children an entity to strongly affiliate themselves with, but this collective solution to an identity crisis feels all-too-superficial – after all, adolescents usually undergo numerous crises in their search for self. Pupils are told by the government to antagonize Mainland China and its ruling scoundrels – the Communists, who took the entire area away from the Republic that righteously deserves it. All this is alluded to despite the KMT’s socialist ideology under Sun Yat-sen during the first third of the party’s existence. Although Taiwan has been extensively Westernized and Americanized in culture, economy and politics during the last half century, students may be oblivious to or refuse to believe that there are any traits of foreign culture in Taiwan, which should be labeled uniquely ‘Taiwanese’ and nothing else. Radical members of the DPP believe the Republic of China should be renamed the ‘Republic of Taiwan’; surely, some students may take up this viewpoint with positivity.

More incriminating evidence on the brainwashing of young Taiwanese students exists. Taiwanese students tend to hold more radical views in regards to China than their parents – they believe, after all, Taiwanese culture sprouted from the island itself. In an outstanding example of Orwellian ‘doublethink,’ Taiwanese are capable of acknowledging the fact that they hold Chinese heritage but assert that they are singly ‘Taiwanese’ – nothing else. Only two percent of Taiwanese are aboriginal; the other ninety-eight percent of residents bear original ancestry in mainland China, predominantly in neighboring Fujian Province. It is simply illogical that the requirement for students to be informed about Chinese history is near-nonexistent. Meanwhile, the definition of what ‘Taiwanese’ really means is nowhere to be found.

The difference between Taiwan’s manipulative textbooks against, say, the PRC or America’s slanted textbooks, is the nationalist nature of the curriculum. Blatant Taiwan-centering of textbooks that creates a narrow-minded worldview (apologies for writing ‘world’) does little to foster an attitude of international cooperation or friendly diplomacy. Few high school students in Taiwan that seek higher education look to the United States or elsewhere – their critical opinion of American cultural values and beliefs would prove unsettling. Students who attend international schools may to turn to the United States for college, only to receive a culture shock.

Textbook biasing, however, is no Taiwanese affair. No one-hundred percent objective history textbook has every found its way to any classroom desk anywhere in the world. China has long biased against the KMT in their history textbooks but has recently readjusted the bent on some crucial events such as the defeat of the Japanese in the Chinese Civil War. History textbooks in the US generally criticize communism and advocate market capitalism as the ideal political-economic system. General cultural standards in the US idealize the Founding Fathers, who were really nothing more than spearheading a rebellion in intellectual style – they were treading uncharted waters with a declaration of independence and not confidently strutting along with nationalism flowing out of their pockets. The overtly nationalistic history curriculum under President Chen, this pro-blue faction article suggests, is similar to a secessionist group – say, the Confederate States of America – educating a mainstream United States.

Chen Imprisoned, Taiwan Nationalistic

If you don’t believe the extent to which Taiwanese have been brainwashed from slanted history textbooks, take to the Internet. The first entry on Urban Dictionary for “Chen Shui-bian” describes a benevolent president who has done far more good than harm – a total contrast from his actual presidential run, which eventually earned him 19 years of imprisonment. Tone and other linguistic qualities suggest that the entry was written by a Taiwanese individual who strongly supports the green faction and is downright disillusioned in his evidence.

Nationalism is a powerful fighting force that can be described in far too many metaphors. Guns and F-16 fighter jets are not the only way to wage war; a domestic campaign of subtle propaganda, properly executed, is all it takes to muster up a force of nature, one that is willing to die for something they may not even have good reason to affiliate themselves with. The DPP’s eight-year stint was enough to effectively control the opinions of a whole generation of youth – the Nationalist Party, as its namesake suggests, has little intention to lessen the Taiwan-centralized curriculum too severely. You don’t need martial law to force anyone to do anything. You don’t need a bomb to take over the world. “Just give the education a reform.”

SAT Vocabulary: (government/history-specific terms in italics)

1. infringing - v. trespass upon
2. populace - n. the common people
3. nationalist - political ideology that involves strong identification with a group of individuals with a political entity (usu. a nation)
4. de facto - in practice (but not in theory) (also see: de jure)
5. fledgling - n. a young bird; used to describe anything that is young
6. coalition - n. combination in a body or mass
7. relinquish - v. to give up using or having
8. self-determination - n. principle that nations have the right to choose their own sovereignty and political status freely
9. implement - v. to put into effect, to institute
10. inception - v, n. founding
11. collective - adj. Consisting of a number of persons or objects considered as gathered into a mass, or sum.
12. volatile - adj. changeable, unstable
13. unicameral - n. in government, composed of a single legislative body
14. incumbent - n. one who holds an office
15. mudslinging - n. negative campaigning
16. prominent - adj. conspicuous in position, character, or importance
17. mandate - n. a command; v. to require/make involuntary
18. affiliate - v. to relate; n. some auxiliary person or thing
19. aboriginal - adj. native peoples of a place
20. blatant - adj. offensively loud or clamorous; obvious
21. muster - n. to assemble, gather up
22. martial law - n, v. to impose military rule on an area, usu. in emergency or war

18 Weeks and Confused

I don’t label myself as a feminist, because I am not actively involved in any sort of activism pertaining to the movement, which has seen serious movements throughout the last century and especially during the post-war era. I like to call myself, however, a sort of feminist sympathizer. Indeed, the “feminist perspective” can be applied to anything, including academic disciplines in the social sciences such as sociology (where it is one of the more minor perspectives of research). Women are regarded as having more aesthetic talent and language ability (right-brained) of their left-brained, male counterparts; they are holders of “women’s intuition.” All jargon aside...

...There is an ongoing trend on Facebook that seeks to raise awareness for female-exclusive or female-predominant illnesses such as ovarian and breast cancer. With a feminist tinge, a woman is supposed to post a status update that corresponds to a set of esoteric instructions that in no way allude to any form of cancer, feminist ideology, or activist message – it’s simply fun and games, like most socialization on Facebook.

There is a sort of ulterior motive in the whole ordeal, which has included posting statuses about bra color, underwear color, fruits, purse placement, and most recently, length of faux pregnancy and craving corresponding to your birthday. To be objective, a status about the location of a women’s purse preceded by a provocative “I like it on the...” does nothing to raise awareness for any form of cancer or even gender equality itself. Instead, it drives men crazy and perpetuates sexism against men in a way – by making them clueless and uninformed about raising awareness for a serious problem and finding a solution to it. Women seem to find some sort of perverse satisfaction in leaving men in the dark, and it’s wrong, no matter which gender this is directed towards.

If women are going to eschew half the world’s population to raise awareness on a contemporary health issue, then there better be more masculinists in the world to defend the rights of men to be informed. Cures do not come from sensationalism on social networks, but from research funding. Why don’t we – as men and women – we fix our education system to create more competent scientists before we herald what we may crave on a given week of pregnancy? It doesn’t take women’s intuition to figure this one out.

SAT Vocabulary:

1. Aesthetic – adj. artistic, related to the appreciation of beauty
2. Intuition – n. Instinctive knowledge or feeling.
3. Jargon – n. Confused, unintelligible speech or highly technical speech
4. Esoteric –  (adj.) understood by only a select few
5. Allude – v. To refer incidentally, or by suggestion.
6. Ulterior – adj. Not so pertinent as something else to the matter spoken of
7. Faux – adj. fake
8. Perpetuate – v. To preserve from extinction or oblivion.
9. Perverse - adj. Unreasonable.
10. Eschew – v. to avoid
11. Competent – adj. qualified

Foreign Policy Magazine’s “Foreign Policy”

Personal viewpoint generously added to article syntheses

We, the people of the United States of America, should have been taught that foreign policy is a pivotal aspect of international relations that seeks to protect national interests with diplomacy and discussion. Our interactions with other nations should come with words, not weapons. But for hundreds of years, the American government has misunderstood foreign policy. To apply our country’s foreign policy to easily understandable situations, the inability to comprehend what my teacher is lecturing about would result in sudden lead poisoning, and a justification for my unfinished homework would be to torch the assignment altogether. “Acta non verba” is a Latin phrase that means “action, not words.” The mantra is best popularized by the EA DICE video game Battlefield: Bad Company, but Washington seems take this phrase much too seriously.

Foreign Policy agrees.

No, foreign policy is not an entity that can make decisions. Foreign Policy, as in the American magazine dedicated to political affairs, especially of those outside or between the United States. Owned by the Washington Post Company, the bimonthly periodical features a host of acclaimed writers and does not exhibit a clear political leaning, just like the Washington Post newspaper itself. While they seem nonpartisan enough, their views on foreign policy are unusually fatalistic – as if America bears little foreign policy as well. Their stance, I can agree on, if the preceding argument did not explain anything. I found several articles on foreignpolicy.com compelling, but others were downright befuddling – or disturbing, to be exact.

Our “Foreign Policy”

It is unmistakable that the United States has an apparent lack of actual, diplomatic foreign policy. Foreign Policy (hereafter, FP) thinks it’s simply military policy with military bases and soldiers over embassies and ambassadors. The argument is incontrovertible. Our militarized responses to nearly every problem that has been thrown at us (or that simply lies there, in the case of the Cold War), have resulted in billions in dollars allocated for weapons research and development and military defense. This, of course, is all paid for by dutiful taxpayers that cannot tell the government we don’t need to defend ourselves against all 200+ nations in the world or endlessly pester small nations to dismantle nuclear weaponry as if we were poking them on Facebook. In “The Empire at Dusk,” the writer investigates these deep problems in our “foreign policy.” He accurately explains that the United States faces staggering economic crisis – as if we’re not in crisis already – by playing national defense insurance agent through installing expensive military bases and sending soldiers to stand guard against perceived “threats” in random places across the planet. Stephen Glain also discusses the methods in which we addressed the numerous problems America faced after World War II, from the gross overreaction towards the Soviet Union’s development to our massive military campaigns against terrorism under the Bush Administration. In reality, the self-defense we played against Iraq to dispose Saddam Hussein and his “weapons of mass destruction” was really a preemptive strike against...uh, nothing. It ended up as another way to promote “the American way” of democracy and whatnot – best demonstrated with the failed “government in a box” plan in Afghanistan. It is important to note that the “war on drugs” took a similar path – one of small arms. Is it no surprise, then, if we were told that the State Department seems grossly underfunded, understaffed, and undertrained when compared to the Department of Defense? It’s not just because learning how to talk is that much harder than shooting a gun.

What I believe is the most crucial parts of the article are the final segments, which explain the outdated and overambitious ideology that America should maintain armed forces across the world as to maintain global control against any threat. We are a big target, but we may have inflated our size, and even more so after a harrowing 9/11 that threw the American people off severely – most Americans support the Patriot Act, which gives the government the ability to infringe on the constitutional rights of residents in exchange for ‘defending national sovereignty’ and other patriotic jargon. The most relevant – and at the same time scariest – example proposed to such is America’s problem with China. We are deeply troubled at the rise – for the first time since we attained superpower status post-World War II – that there is a potential competitor to our global military-political-economic hegemony on the rise.

Asian Defense

From the Pentagon’s narrow-minded trigger-happy perspective, the logic is impossible to challenge. China is rapidly developing advanced weapons systems capable of destroying America’s. China possesses nuclear weapons. China has a massive standing army. This is enough to convince the DoD that China is ready for war, whereas China is merely on the defensive. (More reasoning for China’s defensive position will come later.) Whatever actual diplomatic relations the United States has established in Asia have almost entirely been dedicated to forming a defense perimeter around the People’s Republic. It doesn’t matter if you go left-to-right on the map or vice versa. The United States has maintained close and cooperative ties with Japan, which we have subordinated into ideological followers after exporting democracy there in the postwar era. South Korea enjoys a positive relationship with America; we gave them capitalism after the Korean War (following a similar path as Japan) and now they love us, be they the citizens or government officials. While opinions of America from the Middle East are at depressing all-time lows, Korean opinion of America and its superpower status is among the highest of the world – this is coming from what surveys and statistics show to be one of the most culturally arrogant nations on earth. In the 2011 Pew Research poll on US favorability, Japan was one of the few countries to bear a higher percentage of favorability than Korea. Washington maintains relations with the Republic of China (Taiwan) despite our abidance to the One-China policy, in which we recognize the People’s Republic of China as the only China there is – thus, one China. Relations with Taiwan are mutually positive and we have sold the tiny island entity weapons and military vehicles – including F-16 fighter jets – as recently as last year, when President Obama presented a 6.4 billion USD weapons deal to the Taiwanese (much to China’s utter dismay). Taiwan’s far-right Progressive Party (despite their liberal ideas, they should be labeled conservative; Taiwanese do not differentiate between the left and the right) believes in maintaining strong ties with the United States to achieve independence – even more than the dominant Nationalist Party (Kuomintang). The irony of the nature of our relations with Taiwan is imminent – it gives us the ability to block China’s front door from what we believe will be some arbitrary naval attack. The Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea remain the two most strategically vital maritime regions of East Asia – something FP takes note of as well.

Our substantial ties with countries in Southeast Asia – some of which are competitors for ownership of parts of the South China Sea – further demonstrate the strategic military defense the Pentagon has created. Although Vietnam is a communist state, the United States extends cordiality with demonstrations of our naval power and competence. Vietnam and Taiwan both claim the South China Sea to be their naval territory, making an American relationship more crucial and ominous. All across the islands of Southeast Asia, the United States’ military influence is undeniable and highly visible. The United States has supplied defensive measures to numerous countries in the region. Longtime ally and American imperial brainchild Philippines has US-sponsored naval defense. America has offered extensive military assistance, equipment, and training to Thailand, which includes an extensive military exercise program. Their government allows our Navy to make pit stops on their coast, which features one of the best naval facilities in Southeast Asia. We have run extensive military joint exercises with Brunei and Malaysia. America has trained and supplied arms to economic power nation-state Singapore, which also enjoys a free trade agreement. Many Southeast Asian countries have free trade agreements with the US, but free trade with China has long been stalled despite calls for economic partnership, partially due to the volume and profits involved in the trade. Military bases in Guam allow America to oversee these activities fairly easily. Draw the line: it makes a neat defensive curve blocking the United States from China.

While the United States has itself well-defended from a hypothetical Pacific encroachment from China, we have further ensured our defense with preemptive protection to the south and west of China’s borders. Our cordial relations with many of China’s immediate bordering countries – and the guns we have there, from military bases to counterterrorism operations in Central Asia – serve to finish sealing up China in a defensive bubble. Widely publicized weapons deals totaling over seven billion USD were mentioned in President Barack Obama’s state visit to India last year. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have declared India’s profound importance as an American strategic partner – which really means, “I like how you guys are right next to China and that we’re giving you guys some weapons at the same time.” Cool story bro.

Under the guise of counterterrorism – much of it legitimate – the United States has also managed to usher in extensive military firepower to countries within firing range of China. The long-running counterinsurgency operation in Afghanistan is a prime example. Other counterterrorism/defense/aid efforts with Bangladesh, Tajikistan, Pakistan, and Kazakhstan serve to seal the ultimate defense perimeter against China. Vice President Joe Biden’s state visit to Mongolia this week may also include defense talks.

China’s military expansion can be easily explained: they are a rapidly growing country that needs to know how to be able to defend itself. Dreadful mistakes dating from the Qing dynasty era have traumatized China; the Chinese Communist Party knows that defense is a necessary investment however much disappointment that brings to Washington, who still secretly hopes nobody will ever wield a stick that comes close to ours in size. Still, China’s military expenditure as a percentage of GDP is half of America’s; gross spending is more than six times as less. Coming from China, a country with a population quadrupling ours, the United States’ fears are almost irrational and a waste of taxpayer dollars. We pay far too much for peacetime at home. The greatest irony in America’s lavish habit of protecting one-third of the world and helping every country in proximity to China for our apparent benefit is that, well, China is helping us pay for it. America is swiping its credit card like mad to buy guns just to point them at the credit card company’s headquarters. And all the creditor has to do is ask for their money back.

Sino-American Conflict?

The above analysis of the situation, the Pentagon’s actions, and FP all point to the fact that Washington seems to be hell-bent on promoting perpetual defensive measures to be taken. It doesn’t help when you stumble across another article that describes in detail the impending naval clash in the South China Sea. A sensationalist title, nevertheless. The Sea is described as an incredibly strategic region for the volume of passing trade, the sheer populations of the countries that surround it, and the nature of developing economies to stake claims over some of these waters. The fact that almost all the aforementioned countries that surround the sea rely on America for financial and military assistance does not help the matter. The writer notes a parallel between this scenario and late 1800s America in the age of neocolonialism, when we projected power towards the Caribbean and garnered international strength via the Panama Canal. He makes an important point that China’s naval expansion is simply a historical reaction – a refusal to be exploited by Western bullies once more. With China being the obvious contestant for regional hegemony, the writer again attempts to use US parallel to explain the situation: China will exert ‘soft’ imperialism over its neighbors. This is a bad comparison – the Chinese think nothing like the Americans. As clueless as the writer seems to be on China’s actions to come, he does explain that America should stop trying to flex its military muscles all over the world; it’s simply too much. Let the neighbor take care of his front lawn.

The writer’s opinions on China are shared by much of the West and exhibit the Westerners’ misunderstanding of East Asian political, social, and cultural philosophies when he asks: What the hell is China up to?

What if I told them they were up to nothing? Laissez-faire – “Let it be.”

Democratization – An American Fetish

The last article on FP.com that caught my attention was a blog post from the “loyal opposition” about China and democratization. These words aren’t to be used simultaneously.

The article details a recent protest – twelve thousand strong – for the closing of a petrochemical plant in Dalian, provincial seat of Liaoning province in northern China, near Beijing. It somehow uses this example to posit the possibility that China will “democratize.” In Dalian, the county government quickly responded by stating that they would take action quickly. The response was indeed rapid: the government and the chemical plant are currently undergoing the appropriate measures to close down. The public outcry on the situation, the government backing down, and the successful result convinced the writer that this is a glimmer of hope for the Chinese people that the coming democratization will come and sweep them out the horrible tyranny that they are being subjected to.

It’s a silly fetish, guys.

The writer falls prey to the usual traps Westerners fall into as a result of their laughable misunderstanding of Chinese political affairs, which really are too dense and multilayered for anyone to understand, including myself. During the Cold War, America never told the USSR to just become a democracy; they knew it was impossible. But why do we do so to China?

The People’s Republic of China during the Mao Era (1949-1976) was full of mass political chaos and social dysfunction. The Cultural Revolution, Mao’s last-ditch effort to instigate social change, was a great socio-political jump so far left that went extended farther than the Great Leap Forward ever did in scope and level of failure. By 1976, social turmoil and a radical amount of Maoist orthodoxy (Read: ideological crap) devastated the Chinese economy to the brink of collapse; Chinese cultural traditions and society almost completely fell apart. (The effects on today’s youth are discussed in brief here.) By the time Deng Xiaoping revived the state and helped regain sanity, China, the Communist Party, and the people were scared doubtless of social tumult. Peace and stability became top priorities, and leaders were willing to pull out all the stops to maintain the status quo that they had fought so hard for. But as soon as China became stable for the first time in 10 years, democratization threatened to have everything come crashing down. When the 1984 Tiananmen Square protests broke, the Central Government was dumbstruck, to say the least. The military crackdown that followed only served as the last-ditch effort– the government could not figure out any other way without to quell the students without threatening national stability.

The petrochemical plant protests and the response that followed served to achieve the same goal. It is a question of stability, not one of democracy or democratization. The blog entry asks a series of questions in the last paragraph, one of them which is: “Will the Chinese come to resent and then to oppose a one-party state that demonstrates that it is not competent to lead them, and that it demands too high a price for the bargain of materialism in exchange for their freedom?” The Chinese are already extremely cynical of the Chinese government, but most recognize the fact that nothing can be done, or more accurately, nothing should be done. The democratization of 1.3 billion individuals, the CCP fundamentally fears (and obviously opposes), will only serve to create more of the crisis seen forty years ago.

However, the bigger idea in all this is that the United States should just stop meddling in other countries’ affairs. The article suggests that our Department of State take action to promote democratization in China, a pathetic proposal that only serves to justify the insatiable desire of the United States to sell capitalist democracy abroad. We do it with “foreign policy” – military action, in many cases – and with too much money. Is it a worthy investment to spend billions on turning Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan into American-style democracies? It doesn’t take an investment banker or an economist to figure out what’s wrong with our foreign policy. It’s too paranoid, too expensive, too overbearing, and too trigger-happy – all without diplomacy, sensibility, or pragmatism in sight. Did you know practicality is a key American social philosophy? The Pentagon doesn’t. I don’t think a five-sided building is practical at all, quite frankly.

SAT Vocabulary: (specialized terms in italics)

1. pivotal - adj. of vital importance
2. justification - n. vindication
3. nonpartisan - n. not taking any sides (esp. in a debate)
4. befuddling - adj. confusing
5. incontrovertible - adj. indisputable
6. hegemony - n. domination over others
7. imminent - synonym of impending
8. ominous - adj. foreboding or foreshadowing evil
9. encroachment - n. the act of unauthorized entry
10. preemptive - adj. marked by seizing initiative
11. guise - n. external appearance
12. expenditure - n. spending, esp. funds
13. impending - n. imminent, apparent
14. sensationalist - n. style meant to generate startling response
15. neocolonialism - n, v. using economic and cultural forces to control a country (as opposed to direct political/military control)
16. laissez-faire - n. minimal government intervention in economic affairs
17. orthodoxy - n. holders of commonly accepted/dominant ideas
18. quell - v. to control or diffuse a potentially explosive situation
19. insatiable - adj. incapable of being satisfied
20. pragmatism - adj. practicality
    

The Current State of “Hi-Y” and “Tri-Hi-Y” Clubs in the West San Gabriel Valley

Writer’s note: This is my finalized opinion on the topic. No further articles will be posted. Please enjoy my final, more concisely written, expository post however you wish, but not as an attack or an offense on the organization. Opinions are welcome, but expletives are not.

Introduction

Socialization is an important skill and an unavoidable consequence of being a functioning human being in a complex social world. Two pivotal parts of our lives – toddler age and adolescence, respectively – are so vital to our social development precisely because they are periods of rapid development in social skills and mental development that creates self-consciousness. As a middle school student, I caught wind of a collective noun called “social clubs”. Although most local high schoolers are familiar with the clubs existence, few – including I – had a comprehensive or objective idea as to what they actually are.

Hi-Ys and Tri-Hi-Ys – a brief history

"Social clubs”, formally known as Tri-Hi-Y clubs, are the division of the YMCA that serves the interests of teenagers across America. For example, Tri-Hi-Ys can be respectable student government programs and community involvement clubs. Here, I detail operations of social clubs in the West San Gabriel Valley area (hereafter abbreviated WSGV) of Southern California, which are unique to the immediate area. The development and original intent of Tri-Hi-Ys should not be understood without a general idea of the YMCA itself.

As its expanded name suggests, the Young Man’s Christian Association was founded upon “Judeo-Christian” values – the same values that a very religious America has prided itself on. The mission of the YMCA is “To put Christian principles in to practice through programs that build healthy sprit, mind and body for all.” Religion is generally unattractive to the increasingly secular adolescent, but Tri-Hi-Ys make light of religious values through social bonding, even though it eradicates any connection between faith and the club itself.

Girls-only clubs under peculiar names such as Talondi (many clubs use local, yet foreign languages such as Hawaiian and Native American tongues in their naming) established themselves in the 1950s and 60s under the central goal of community service. Hi-Ys, the male counterpart to the Tri-Hi-Y, began forming roughly 20 years later. Councils and boards existed to govern all clubs in all the schools with Tri-Hi-Y club programs in the area.

The relocation of the local YMCA resulted in a radical transition in administration. A lack of oversight in the transitory process, a longtime Mark Keppel High School alumnus and Tri-Hi-Y club founder postulates, resulted in Definition No.2 of oversight (“inadvertent omission or error”) and created a vacuum in administrative authority. With the business of each Y club left to students, they perverted club goals on a new path that focused on inclusive social interaction and bonding rather than community service; giving rise to the nickname “social clubs.” The transition of administration, surprisingly, did not disintegrate the Tri-Hi-Y club; a change in protocol, combined with the retention of core ideologies, allowed Y clubs to thrive.

Evolution of the club

Social clubs were able to become one of the most locally revered, yet mysterious social institutions for teenagers – an institution for socialization. Volunteerism was sacrificed for more social cohesiveness, which attempted to address the psychological need for affiliation among teenagers often stressed by school, work, family, and relationships. The aura of exclusivity within clubs also generates a feeling of identity, although it may be more collective than individual, superficial than actual.

Social clubs actually consist of three main components, titled “educationals”,“socials”, and “services.” Although the tasks accomplished during the different activities are different, abundant amounts of social networking between members and with other clubs occur at all the events. The opportunity to conduct community service – although there is little left – and the chance of being a member of what is essentially a clique make joining a club much more lucrative to the adolescent undergoing what Eric Erikson defines as the identity vs. role confusion crisis.

Interest

The inclusive nature of these teen Y clubs incites the interest of freshmen and even the incoming students (8th graders) that have all expectations and no realities of high school. Indeed, because individuals in clubs see a drastic increase in friends and school popularity, club membership is attractive to the conforming student. This interest may come from the notion that it is an opportunity to establish a self-identity in relation to others. This chance, while unconsciously accepted, is highly attractive. Forming an identity is liberation of another kind, freeing the student of the need to change his or her demeanor on a regular basis until he or she is satisfied. Interestingly, even Erikson noted himself that association with negative groups, such as cults or fanatics could actually harm the fragile developing ego. Thus, clubs inadvertently prey on adolescent impulse.

Acquaintances occur throughout the month of March, a clever setting because March is a month with a minimal amount of school holidays to preoccupy students, a contrast to the maximum amount of homework students face from upcoming standardized testing season. As a result, bored students are more easily compelled to take an interest for social clubs during this time. Two individuals who I interviewed “tried out” and “got in” the same club, simply out of this boredom.

There is inevitable competition, of course, to acquire something that few have, even if the rewards – popularity in particular – may be all but superficial. Social club membership is restrictive, as it maintains an atmosphere where members are “fictive kin”. Thus, competition must be established, and ‘tryouts’ do exactly that.

Initiation

The ‘acquaintance’ is the first stage for the popularity-seeking student. Each club has several acquaintances and there is a minimum number that must be attended for membership. The “First Acquaintance” is typically a simple and fun “ice-breaker” activity that maintains or creates greater interest in the social club. Current members carrying out the activities put on their best impressions through leading by example. By perpetuating the ideal social role of the adolescent male or female, current club members establish themselves as superior in the club hierarchy, and give interested members the title of ‘prospects.’ One member noted that this title is similar of that given to soldiers being trained in the military, implying that there is a degree of resocialization in the tryout process. With the playing field slanted, members create ‘brother’ or ‘sister’ assignments (hereafter the ‘Sibling System’) between them and the Prospects.

As a Prospect, one is compelled to succumb to the ‘requests’ (read: commands) of their Sibling. These requests can be quite taxing and can range from performing a trivial, bewildering task to buying snacks for the Sibling. Along with such petty tasks, Prospects are required to participate in grueling assessments of their mental and physical limits, all of which equate to hazing. Conducting these tasks, hypothetically, allows the Prospect to build rapport with the members and solidify relations between the two parties. The hazing process is repeated in greater severity to cut down the number of prospects to a manageable amount.

Although current members and Prospects not are sworn under a formal oath to speak nothing of detail regarding hazing, most abide by instructions such as “what happens here stays here” in fear of some arbitrary consequence. Social clubs demonstrate that with adequate peer pressure and pressure from the environment, a teenager can keep a secret as well as the Central Intelligence Agency can.

Inclusion

New club members done with Tryouts and Acquaintances face a new array of challenges, most of them more demanding than simply the costs of club-themed clothing and YMCA facility membership. Maintaining social identity and social status is the primary goal of the social club member, as group conformity within clubs is extremely strong. Joining a social club perpetuates what I have titled the more general “elite clique phenomenon.” In high school cliques, maintaining social status is every student’s biggest goal, as they are scrutinized perpetually. Appearance becomes so much more important. Self-image maintenance is challenging and tends to cause personality changes to the club member. Such personality change is usually incited by an exponential increase in high school “drama,” an emotional output of impulsive and hormonal adolescents.

Heavily portrayed in popular media, cliques indeed have a glaring presence of high school culture. How cliques assume themselves around America and the world varies. In the WSGV, this elite clique happens to assume itself within a recognized extracurricular organization.

The demographics of the WSGV help justify why the clique is embedded in the Y club. The WSGV’s population is primarily composed of Asians. Clubs are sometimes regarded as ‘Asian clubs’,‘Hispanic clubs’, or ‘mixed clubs’, which are used to point out the predominant demographic of a particular social club. The Asian culture, in particular, tends to promote passive-aggressiveness, or at least, defers explicit actions in lieu of a more subtle approach. This shows in adolescents as well. Asians are also more self-conscious of their ‘face’ (a direct translation of ‘reputation’ or ‘impression’) than other ethnicities are. These teenagers are able to comfortably conduct socially unacceptable tasks under the guise of the Y club, subsequently avoiding the loss of face and gaining a sense of legitimacy in their actions.

Social clubs, now

To compare the activities with a street gang is compelling, but fallacious. While the social club exists for social cohesion, much like that of a gang, gangs are also formed to defend oneself from the corrupted, dangerous realm of inner-city urban life. Social clubs exist solely for the purpose of adolescent values of social cohesion and community service, making them much more ‘innocent’ than street gangs. Illegitimate activities that occur are technically independent from the club itself; they are simply carried out by club members, and nothing more.

I spoke to numerous classmates and peers and eavesdropped on many more conversations to gather information about Hi-Y and Tri-Hi-Y clubs. The current consensus among social club members themselves is that the clubs are ailing and may even disappear entirely. The most prominent reasoning for this opinion comes in light of an incident which occurred spring 2011, in which a Prospect who was undergoing hazing for a female club told her parents, who subsequently notified the YMCA in a formal complaint. Because the Y was unaware that such activities occurred regularly in club, they immediately disbanded the clubs and severed relations. This has rendered these clubs to be nothing but elite cliques, which I postulated long before the disbanding occurred. One of the members in the club primarily at fault for the disbanding is even blunter on the issue: “technically, we’re gangs.”

The loss of prestige of club membership from the Y’s disassociation indeed reduces social clubs to mere gangs; facilitating membership and fees in will become exceptionally difficult. Coupled with the apathetic opinions of current members, clubs seem to have a bleak future – or none at all. One friend explained that he would stay in his club despite his total lack of interest for his membership, because it would make no difference if he left. The loss of incentive for individuals to be join a social club – after all, you can make your own friends on your own – will inevitably mark the end of over fifty years of controversial history. But to observe the rise and fall of the social club from a sociological perspective, it will indefinitely live on under some different shape or form in order to satisfy the adolescent desire to socialize and conform to their peers.

SAT Vocabulary:

1.    Eradicate – v. to destroy thoroughly
2.    Inadvertent – adj. accidental
3.    Perverted – adj. corrupted or distorted from its original course
4.    Protocol – n. declaration or memo of agreement; code requiring strict adherence
5.    Retention – n. to keep something within one’s power/possession
6.    Resocialization – n. in sociology, to radically change one’s personality by controlling the environment; in context, I do not use this in the strictest sense, as resocialization is usually used to describe penitentiary life or military training
7.    Arbitrary – adj. based on random choice or personal whim rather than logic or reasoning
8.    Incite – v. to rouse to a particular action
9.    Ailing – adj. in poor health