Seattle Public Schools and many other high schools around the nation promote frequently-banned books on their syllabi, including The Great Gatsby, Slaughterhouse Five, and To Kill a Mockingbird.  More commonly read books such as The Lord of the Rings, the Harry Potter series, and Goosebumps have also been banned in some areas, but are still found in school libraries.

Sure, some might consider these books to be offensive. but as the American Library Association states, “banned books week highlights the benefits of free and open access to information and while drawing attention to the harms of censorship.” This is something that should be celebrated. What shouldn’t be happening, however, is the restriction of access to education-related materials on the internet in school.

While administrators from Seattle Public Schools celebrate banned books, many internet websites are blocked because they are distractions to a learning environment.

Seattle Public Schools pledges “to prevent access to obscene, racist, hateful, or violent material.”  However, the Seattle School District’s internet filters go far beyond this basic prevention by blocking material that can be used for educational purposes.

Now  that the internet is becoming the main medium for communication and scholarly learning, students take advantage of the free software from Google, Microsoft, and other companies to store schoolwork online.

Currently, “[the district] doesn’t support email for students,” says Angie Martinez, a technology expert from Seattle Public Schools.  “We just don’t have a way to control it.”

Using electronic media cuts out paper use, costs, and creates hassle for both students and teachers, but isn’t a plausible alternative unless the technology experts at Seattle Public Schools redesign the filters to allow access to online applications such as Google Docs and Dropbox.

While these applications are sometimes allowed, it is often very difficult to access them.

Online email accounts shouldn’t be blocked either, because they can also be tools to supplement educations.

Emails are not supported by Seattle Public Schools because they can be used for “communication with external people outside the district,” says Martinez.

However, students can use these accounts to contact experts and organize their work in ways that textbooks can’t provide.  Taking the initiative to contact an expert shouldn’t be shunned by Seattle Public Schools, but celebrated.  The current policy is too restrictive to allow students to go above and beyond.

While caution is necessary when navigating online information sources, the web can provide more up-to-date information than teachers and textbooks can offer.

Garfield celebrates Banned Book Week as a symbol of rejecting the practice of limiting information.  While many banned books contain racially and  religiously offensive themes, we celebrate these novels as a part of our nation’s literary history.

If we celebrate open access to information, we shouldn’t be limiting that access to educational materials online.

For an organization that basically established itself as the gateway to college — an organization that deems itself a nonprofit — it charges $45 for every shot at the SAT and $87 per AP test.

In today’s economy, this high price tag may not seem incredibly astounding, but the fact that this private organization has a stranglehold on today’s youth whom it continues to financially exploit is unacceptable.

CollegeBoard is a “mission-based, not-for-profit” company that strives to create uniform tests in order to measure student preparedness for college.

Its two main branches, the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) and the Advanced Placement (AP) program, play a huge role in the college application process.

By a “huge part,” I mean that I, as well as a number of other students, feel extremely obligated to enroll in AP classes and score well on the SAT in hopes of having a fighting chance at attending my first choice school because the quickest way for college admissions departments to judge a student is by their test scores.

Although widely recognized for the SAT, CollegeBoard also fuels the AP program, in which students can take AP tests to receive college credit.

Each test costs $87, which appears small when compared to the cost of one year’s college tuition.

The SAT debuted as an organized attempt to simplify the college application process in the late 1800s.

Today however, it is almost mandatory that an applicant take the SAT if they have any hope of being admitted to a four year university or college.

CollegeBoard appears generous by sending the first four SAT score reports free of cost. However, students must commit to the release of their scores before seeing them. For whomever decides to play it safe and wait to see their scores before they send them, CollegeBoard charges $10.50 per score report – which could easily and effortlessly be provided for free.

Yet chronic procrastinators are the organization’s favorite prey; charged an extra $30 if they need to send scores within two days.

Colleges require scores to be directly sent from CollegeBoard, so students have no other option.

Your household doesn’t have Internet access but you need to register for our test? No problem. Just call us. By the way, that call will cost $15.

Your beloved family member’s funeral is on Saturday? Sure, you can change your testing date — oh, that’ll be $25.

I messaged CollegeBoard about two weeks ago at several email addresses, asking about its non-profit status, high prices, and the power it holds in the application process.

I received no response.

The SAT is not this corporation’s only money maker. AP tests generate two times the revunue of the SAT. After paying over $375 for the SAT, AP tests, and score reports over the past two years, CollegeBoard owes me the right to know how my money is being used.

CollegeBoard is great in its concepts but corrupt in its practice. If America allows this private company to determine the future of our generation though standardized testing and AP level courses, it should at least treat us with due respect. As a monopolistic non-profit, that sideswipes its users with a myriad of unfair and unreasonable prices, CollegeBoard’s bogus non-profit label might be less irksome if students had access to CollegeBoard’s financial information.

Students want to avoid offense, and teachers want to maintain control of their classroom, especially concerning a subject potentially fraught with minefields of misunderstanding. Teachers especially tread carefully when it comes to this topic since they are under constant academic audit by parents and administration, keeping faith tucked away where no one can talk about it.

We should not leave religious differences untouched. By tiptoeing about the perimeter of faith, we are not courteous, we are cowardly. When we mute religious discussion, we refuse to confront a significant part of our culture and politics, afraid of the liberal monster such open dialogue might unleash.

Of course, in a public school, imposition of religion is illegal. This is separation of church and state, but this does not mean we aren’t allowed to talk about the validity of religion, in fact the right to free speech necessitates it for democratic discussion.

Religion is an important part of our lives. Whether we adhere to a faith or not, it is impossible and irresponsible to ignore it. God has made its (notice my ambiguous pronoun?) way onto our dollar bill and into our pledge of allegiance. There are even people who will vote for a candidate solely based on religion.As Americans, we understand the value of political disagreement and welcome conversation, a relatively recent idea. It is no longer politically incorrect to discuss politics (ironic), so why is it still taboo to debate about religion?

We are perfectly willing to dispute any aspect of a person’s moral compass or ethical beliefs, but we refuse to acknowledge any differing opinions based in faith, for fear of being labeled a bigot.The distinction between bigotry and civil disagreement lies in the way religion is disputed. It is one thing to scorn a person’s faith with slanderous remarks, but entirely another to engage in friendly dispute based on substantiated arguments. If we are able to remain respectful and considerate, discussion should be encouraged, not shunned as taboo.

It could be argued that religion is personal and should be exempt from outside scrutiny, but when a group of observers becomes large enough to have political and social influence, it is irresponsible to leave the issue untouched. Even in the most secular setting religion plays a role, welcomed or otherwise.

We frequently learn about religion’s role in history, something that is no less relevant now. Religion and politics are intertwined and must be evaluated in to have  knowledge of current events.

Considering it’s pretty hard to get elected to public office without calling yourself a “person of faith,” religion is ingrained in our society and is something we need to confront. If we continue to regard religion with such aversion, we ignore a fundamental aspect of human nature.

We constantly search for reason, making religion undeniably an intrinsic and natural part of being human. But then again, homosexuality is also a natural part of being human for some people, and we sure like to dispute that.

RAVE: Coring Baby carrots!  
The only thing I like more than taking a bite of a carrrot is taking a bite of a carrot, while keeping the core still completely intact. That’s right, I said it! I like coring carrots, and so should you! Fact: The core is sweeter than any other part of the carrot. Non-fact: You suck. I am now at the point in my life where coring a carrot is a task that I can complete with only the right side of my mouth and one eye closed. I like to start from the top and go to the bottom, or start from the bottom and go to the top. Wait! Which is the bottom and which is the top!?
–LS

RANT: Sad Blogging 
OMG why’s he being  so meaaaann!    Might as well go the gym again so I don’t gain anymore weight!!! Smh. At what point in time did it become socially acceptable for people to use Facebook and other social media sites to display their innermost thoughts for everyone else to see? If your life is really as sad as it seems from looking at your wall posts, then it probably would have been a better idea to talk to your counselor first before publishing your angst for the world to see. Now, I’m going to go post this on my wall. Everyone needs to know.
–AC

access to toilets. Unfortunately, Garfield’s school administration believes that it can deny students of this most basic human right.

Frustrated by its inability to stop vandalism, robbery, and marijuana use on school property, the administration recently declared all but one of the male bathrooms off limits to 800 or so students.

What resulted was a hazardous situation in which hundreds of male students, deprived of their ability and opportunity to urinate as punishment for offenses which they did not commit, crowded into the one remaining open male bathroom. Toilet paper and soap depleted rapidly as dozens upon dozens of young men clambered in to relieve themselves.

When for the reasoning behind the bathroom  closure, assistant principal Ms. Lee declined to comment.

This is not the first time that the administration has punished the student body by closing bathrooms; they tried this same tactic last year. Apparently, the administration didn’t get the memo that collective punishment simply doesn’t work.

The philosophy behind collective punishment is to indiscriminately punish an entire group of people in order to influence the behavior of the mischievous segments of that group.

While this tactic may be tolerated in other aspects of school life, such as “group grades,” it represents a grievous and unnacceptable violation of student right, and an abuse of power, when applied to bathroom use.

According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the adverse health effects that can result from the unavailability of bathrooms include:  urinary tract infections, bladder obstruction, constipation, abdominal pain, intestinal tract inflammation, and, in rare cases, kidney damage.

Students do not shed their rights when they enter the schoolhouse. We deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, and denying us the right to use the bathroom is extremely degrading,  but potentially a violation of the law.

In Michael Michaud vs. Sheriff of Essex County, a court case regarding bathroom rights, the ruling stated, “however primitive and ordinary, the right to defecate and to urinate without awaiting the permission of government…are rights close to the core of the liberty guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

In a similar case involving a school denying bathroom use to a teacher, the Supreme Court of Missouri stated “a person’s right to use public restrooms is about as fundamental a right as one can imagine, probably equal to or more fundamental than speech rights.”

Admittedly, t’s unacceptable that robberies are happening in the bathrooms, and no student should feel unsafe anywhere in the building.

But with that said, the punitive bathroom closures have got to stop. It’s never OK to deny hundreds of people bathroom rights; it doesn’t solve anything and just frustrates the student body.

The bathrooms reopened only a few days after being closed. Security will now be patrolling all bathrooms repeatedly throughout the day, and cameras will be fixed on the entrances to all bathrooms. Any person spending an unusually long amount of time in the bathroom may face questioning. Hopefully, this new solution will catch the actual perpetrators of the misuse instead of punishing everyone for the actions of a few. If only they had thought of it earlier….

And that’s assuming the defendant is actually guilty. Accrding to deathpenaltyinfo.org, there have been 138 cases of exoneration of death row inmates since 1973 (in other words, 138 people put on death row have been taken off before execution). However, these exonerations took an average of 9.8 years each. The study goes on to say that the number of executed inmates later proven innocent would be impossible to keep track of because there is no legal record of these cases after the inmates were killed. Rather than run the risk of executing innocent civilians, you’d think it would be worth the trouble to just leave everyone who is on death row in prison for the rest of their lives.

In fact, many sources show that replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment would actually save money. A lot of money. The Los Angeles Times estimated that, in the state of California alone, savings from replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment would total more than $165 million a year. To a state government threatened by bankruptcy, abolition of the death penalty must sound like a pretty attractive option. Instead of killing people who could possibly be innocent, why not just let them sit in prison until their guilt is certain?

Oh right — peace of mind. It makes us feel much safer to know that the serial killers of our society might cease to exist on the face of the earth. After all, anybody locked up in prison for life would jump at the chance to escape. And jail breaks happen all the time, right?

Wrong. According to asca.net, only one in 2,000 prisoners escapes incarceration every year. Of the 3,000,000 people we have locked up in our jails, that translates to 1,500 escapees. The idea of a massive jailbreak is one made famous by popular culture (Goldmember, anybody?) but it is in no way factual. The truth is that once these people are put in jail forever, they usually stay put.

Yet one of the most troublesome problems with the death penalty is how it breeds sympathy for the perpetrator. Take the case of Troy Davis — an ambiguous one, to say the least, as there was never any solid evidence of Davis’ guilt. Whether or not he actually killed an off duty police officer, he was effectively labelled as a hero. His case was used to symbolize all that is wrong with our justice system, and thus his name is preserved in the archives of digital media with a positive connotation when he very well could have been guilty.

There is a shocking parallel to this issue of capital punishment, found in a practice abolished more than 150 years ago. This practice was labelled as inhumane and found to be unlawful in European nations long before the United States took any action against it. Similarly, the greatest support for keeping it in place came from the Central and Southern states. Sound familiar? It should — the practice I’m referring to is slavery.

Will a future generation 150 years from now see capital punishment in the same light that we see slavery?There is no way to obtain a certain solution to this question, but I think the answer will be a resounding “yes.” There really is no reason to keep the death penalty in place. It is more expensive and less humane than life imprisonment, and  no morethan a relic of an ancient and primitive human past characterized by such legal systems as Hammurabi’s code. There is no place for the death penalty in an advanced society, and so the question is up to us: will we join the upper echelons of the first world, or will we continue a practice better suited for the likes of neanderthals?

Unfortunately, the altruistic ideals that TFA is based on are outweighed by poor execution and lack of necessity, especially in Seattle Public Schools.

In just five weeks during the summer, TFA “corps members” are trained, handed provisional teaching certificates and sent into the hiring pool with almost no classroom experience. In an area in critical need of teachers, a program like Teach for America fits the bill, but Seattle has no such dearth.

In areas of need, such as post-Katrina New Orleans, Teach for America has helped provide much needed teachers, but when many teaching jobs in Seattle Public Schools get almost 800 applicants, most with masters’ degrees, there is no reason or need to incorporate TFA candidates, other than to save money and “to create a more diverse pool of applicants” said interim                    superintendent Susan Enfield to The Stranger. Corps members are hired almost exclusively into schools in low-income areas where the achievement gap is most evident.

An obvious case of classism, TFA does the opposite of its intent. It places the most inexperienced teachers in the classrooms where the most committed and competent teachers are needed. TFA’s own mission statement says that their intent is to place teachers in low-income areas. For example, this year, three TFA graduates were placed at Aki Kurose Middle School, which is in one of the lowest income areas of Seattle.

In fact, a six-year study conducted by Stanford University showed that among more than 4,000 teachers and 132,000 students, TFA graduates never outperformed certificated teachers.

Not only are jobs taken by less expensive, much less experienced teachers, but over two thirds of TFA graduates leave the classroom after two years, at the end of their contract.

Many corps members do stay involved in education, but only a small minority remain teaching once their contracts expire, earning TFA the moniker “Teach for Awhile.” It is counterintuitive to place the least committed teachers in schools where a continuing relationship is necessary to bridge the achievement gap. Since corps members have no time to establish themselves and effect change, it is impossible for any goals to be reached, especially with only fundamental training and no formal mentorship.

Another controversial aspect of Teach for America’s presence in Seattle is through the University of Washington. In May, UW launched Accelerated Certification for Teachers, an alternative pathway to becoming a teacher, through TFA. What is startling about this is that UW would encourage this alongside its College of Education.

Many students are going through a masters’ program to become teachers with TFA educators sprinting by in a five week training. It seems ludicrous that UW would want to undermine its College of Education, to which students pay the tuition costs of a university, by implementing a program that not only is less expensive and briefer than a college education, but completely unnecessary in Seattle.

If five weeks is sufficient schooling to enter the classroom, shouldn’t you be teaching your AP classes by now?

On September 21st in Georgia, Troy Davis was executed for killing a police officer.  He was on death row for 20 years.  This new execution has revived debate over the legality of the death penalty, and will continue as a point of debate through the 2012 presidential election.  As citizens, it’s our obligation to ask, is the death penalty is worth it?

Chauncey and I can agree that capital punishment should not be administered with an “eye for an eye” mentality, but I believe that in some cases, the death penalty can be used fairly.  If we reform the capital punishment system to lower the total number of executions, then the establishment is worth keeping.

Government officials have a right to be protected from the hazards of their jobs.  Capital punishment can be used as a deterrent for criminals, because they know that if they kill a police officer, like Troy Davis did, they will be sentenced to death.  The worst possible outcome of   a detterent is the death of a murderer, but it has the potential to save lives, turning an “eye for an eye” into an eye for two, three or four eyes.  That’s pretty good math.

The death penalty should be used for war crimes in which thousands of civilians die.  That means that Hitler and his Nazi generals would have been executed for the millions and millions killed during the Holocaust.  That means that Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, the Serbian leaders responsible for the genocide of the Bosnian people, would be put to death.  That means that men responsible  for the deaths of thousands will die for their crimes against humanity.

Convicting the innocent is an inherent risk in our justice system, and not an issue concerning only the death penalty. However, the capital punishment program’s lengthy appeals system is in place to prevent executions of the innocent.

You hear about the exonerations — over one hundred in total — of people on death row in which criminals originally sentenced to death are released.  This statistic doesn’t necessarily point to the conviction of the innocent, but instead to the thoroughness of the appeals.  Controversy over innocence doesn’t need to end capital punishment completely, but should be a reason to maintain the appeals system and remove the death penalty for all but the worst cases.

Most of those who take an anti-death penalty stance, like Chauncey, believe in a life sentence without parole.  Escapees are relatively non-existent, but  parole has been granted when prisons become overcrowded.  One of the most famous examples of this scenario is the McDuff case in 1998. After being released on parole, this convicted  murderer killed six more people.

The death penalty shouldn’t be used broadly for fear of release, but for secondary offenders. The possibility of release is too high for the punishment to be only a lifetime in prison.

Yes, using the death sentence is expensive.  Chauncey will point to the millions of dollars California would save if they abolished the death penalty.  However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the extra cost isn’t worth it.  Fewer executions means a lower cost, and the death penalty can still  be used for critical cases.

I believe the death penalty shouldn’t be used for redemption, but rather to save other lives.  I know it sounds like pretty backwards logic, but a reform of  the death penalty can keep crimes where civilians die from occurring and save innocent lives.

This clearly seems like a perfect way to be entertained: “buffering” the night away. However, I recently came to the realization that watching too much YouTube might dampen viewers’ attitudes towards real life. The intensity of these video clips, when viewed in abundance, may very well affect people’s appreciation for reality.

You should know what YouTube is, but, if you don’t, don’t be ashamed. YouTube.com is a worldwide sharing website that allows anyone to upload their home-made videos for billions to see. Video include educational lectures, comedic skits and mind-bending stunts. According to Alexa, a site that provides information about websites, approximately 30% of all internet users visit YouTube every day, making it the #3 most used site on the entire World Wide Web.

YouTube has become such a significant part of contemporary entertainment that it has the potential to raise the expectations of the public. Thanks to YouTube, anyone with access to a computer could upload a video that anyone on Earth would be able to watch in an instant. That being said, a professional with a lifetime of training could post a video that could blow billions of viewers away.

Once in 8th grade, I filmed a video of myself doing nine consecutive flips on my trampoline. I was pumped to post it on YouTube. Then I saw that someone else did 100 flips in a row, and I instantly believed that my video was worthless. When they have the opportunity, people will search for the most exhilarating experience available.

Real-life excitement is much more subtle that the extremes that YouTube supplies; real excitement is hard to come by in everyday life. Looking back on this YouTube experience, I realize that my perception of entertainment was changed by the videos offered. I was amazed and proud of what I had done until I became aware of the extent of the other videos. Because of YouTube, my video was slightly embarrassing.

This is what YouTube has the potential to do. It takes the best of the best and showcases it to all of mankind. Whenever they please, audiences can be amazed by clips of risky stunts and dangerous tricks. However, when viewers make a habit of searching for a thrill in these videos, the extraordinary begins to become their ordinary.

They adapt to seeking the extreme of human potential, and often lose significant interest in anything less stimulating. When over-exposed to that level of excitement, ordinarily entertaining sights in reality become dull and uninteresting. After relying on youtube for entertainment, searching for excitement in real life is like drinking a Red Bull, then trying to enjoy a cup of tea; it just isn’t satisfying anymore.

Surprisingly, very few notice this alteration in the back of their minds. I’m not saying don’t watch YouTube, just limit yourself and don’t expect that kind of excitement in your daily life. Although YouTube is a great, effortless source of entertainment, it can degrade the quality life and cheapen the appreciation many have for the exciting world we live in.

Buying locally grown foods helps sustain farms close to our community and supports the local economy.

The further food must travel, the more fossil fuels are emitted. Food importation is a major contributor to air pollution.

Without being transported or spending days on the shelf, the food sold locally is also more fresh and flavorful.

John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, told Time Magazine that when he can’t find local and organic foods , he goes off of taste.

“I’d probably purchase a local non-organic tomato before I’d purchase an organic one that was shipped from California. The local tomato will be fresher [and] will just taste better.”

PCC is a co-op with nine stores in the Seattle Metro area dedicated to providing the community with quality foods and locally grown produce. Diana Crane, director of sustainability and media relations, said buying locally also influences selection.

“[PCC does] try to go for variety and because we have relationships directly with a lot of growers, we can actually influence that to some extent. Heirloom tomatoes look horrible, but they taste delicious. They are something that you might not find in a normal grocery store. We are able to source those because we can guarantee a market for them.”

Finding locally grown foods can be a challenge, but Seattle has a considerable amount of venues for this. Downtown’s Pike Place market, for example, is one of our city’s highest drawing tourist attractions, where dozens of local farmers sell their goods every day.

Another challenge is accessibility. Plenty of shoppers can’t afford to always buy local because it tends to be more expensive. Regardless, more people are eating locally grown foods now than ever.

“[There’s a] definite trend toward local that has been guided very much by consumer concerns about food safety. That has to do with traceability – wanting to know where your food is coming from,” said Crane.

Personally, I’d much more rather support a small family farm  than a large company that is more likely to exploit human and natural resources. However, the final draw for me is what this means for the future.

As Garfield students, we’re all on the brink of adulthood. Soon we’ll be growing, selling, and buying food ourselves.

Our generation will feel the impacts of decisions made today. Choosing to buy locally grown foods now means less air pollution, a more stable local economy, and stronger community relationships throughout the rest of our lives. It will be our responsibility to find ways to make the healthier, more environmentally conscious food choices accessible to everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status.

As Seattleites, we have a great number opportunities to buy directly from local farmers and more diversity in the goods we can buy locally compared to other parts of the country.

We should take advantage of these resources and equip ourselves with the knowledge needed to make choices that will benefit our future.