"Hitting the Snooze Button" by Jan Hoffman of Upfront Magazine - Moral Code Essay (Caroline R.)

The article “Hitting the Snooze Button” by Jan Hoffman of Upfront Magazine discusses the negative effects lack of sleep has on learning in the classroom. Hoffman talks about how teenagers aren't able to focus as well due to lack of sleep, which is caused by the insanely early time students must wake up in order to get to school. The article is written to convince it's readers that it is necessary for schools to push back their start time in order to maintain the physical and mental health of kids in attendance. I, personally, wholeheartedly agree with this, as I think a child's well-being is more important than fitting more education into the day. I also believe it is a very justified campaign, as students perform better when well rested, teenagers are incapable of going to sleep early, and students will not be as late to school.

It is an undeniable fact that students are able to do better in school when they have a good night's sleep behind them. According to the article, researchers from the University of Minnesota discovered that schools which had a later start time held students who had better mental health, car crash rates, attendance, grades, and standardized test scores than students from schools with an earlier start time. Students are reported to be much more rested and alert. This is good for everyone involved, as students will be less reluctant to go to school and will be ready to learn and able to take in more information.

It is also a truth that, biologically, it is nearly impossible for a teenager to simply “go to sleep earlier”. It has been found that kids going through puberty release the hormone melatonin much later than other age groups. Because of this, children won't feel tired until 11 pm, or even midnight. If they go to sleep at midnight and have to wake up at 6 am, though, that's a full three hours of sleep they're missing that will give them a full night's rest. Teenagers need roughly nine hours of sleep in order to have successful R.E.M. This means that it would be much more effective if schools started at 9 am, letting students get in an extra two hours of sleep so they can be alert and ready to learn the next day.

Finally, students will be far less likely to oversleep with a later start time. Many students who don't get enough sleep tend to hit the snooze button one too many times, causing them to be late to school. If they are well rested, they will most likely wake up on their own, with plenty of time to spare. One student the article mentions, Jilly Dos Santos, only arrives a few minutes late with the pushed back start time, which deeply contrasts to her 10 minute lateness when the start time was very early. This would mean students get more learning in, and they will miss less class time, which is, of course, a good thing.

In conclusion, I believe it is the morally, and statistically, right thing to do to have all schools start at 8:30 or 9 am. It would make students perform better in school, give them enough sleep at night, and prevent them from arriving late every day. It would also make students hate school less, and they would be in a much better place physically and mentally.

"The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet" by William Shakespeare - Essay (Caroline R.)

Who is to blame for the deaths of Romeo and Juliet?


“The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet” is perhaps one of the most famous classical plays in our society. Written by William Shakespeare, the dramatic piece follows the story of two 'star-crossed' lovers, named Romeo and Juliet. They instantly fall in love upon meeting, but suffer hardships when they discover that their families despise one another. This pair seems to have been doomed from the moment they met to suffer death. However, was it truly fate's decision to kill the teenagers? Or was it, perhaps, the fault of the people around them, as well as of themselves? Truthfully, it appears the most likely that their passings should be blamed on Friar John, the Montague and Capulet families, and on Romeo. This is due to Friar John's incompetence, the rivalry between the households, and Romeo's decision to not take responsibility for his actions.

The first, and most obvious guilt, falls upon the shoulders of Friar John. Friar Lawrence entrusts him to deliver an extremely important letter to Romeo. This letter details how Juliet is in a short coma, giving her the appearance of death, and when, along with where, to meet her. Unfortunately, Friar John fails to realize the enormity of the message, and doesn't put up enough of a fight when he is kept from passing it along to Romeo. For example, he says to Friar Lawrence that there was sickness in a town and that the officials refused to let them leave, for fear they pass on the disease to others. He states, “I could not send it (here it is again), nor get a messenger to bring it thee, so fearful were they of infection.” Though it is technically the officials' fault for not letting him pass, Friar John should have stood up for himself more and demanded to be released. Even if he couldn't, he at least should have followed and/or caught up to Romeo, instead of going all the way back to Friar Lawrence. In short, Friar John handled his quest very, very poorly, and it played a large part in taking the lives of the lovers.

The second, and also quite obvious fault, is that of the Montague and Capulet families. It is, in fact, because of them and their misguided distaste for one another that prevents Romeo and Juliet from being open about their love for each other, and subsequent relationship and marriage. The rivalry is the cause of the secrecy surrounding the affair between the two, and is what drives Juliet to take the “poison”, as she does not wish to be forced into a marriage with a man she doesn't love. However, if the rivalry was not there, she could openly and freely discuss her desire to be with Romeo, and her father would not be displeased by it. It is even stated at the end of the play, after Romeo and Juliet's bodies are discovered, that the two households have put an end to their hatred out of respect for their lost children. The Prince says, “Where be these enemies?-Capulet, Montague, see what a scourge is laid upon your hate, that heaven finds means to kill your joys with love, and I, for winking at your discords too, have lost a brave of kinsmen. All are punished.” Here, he is saying that they are all to blame, the families for fighting, and himself for not doing something about it.

The final blame, shockingly enough (or, perhaps, not so shockingly), goes to Romeo himself. All throughout the play, Romeo is portrayed as being very concerned with fate; he believes that he is not responsible for his own actions, but, rather, some higher power is, and will continue to control his life. This is very problematic thinking, for it means that he went through all of his actions without thinking about the consequences first, as he thought that his destiny was already decided. He never weighed the pros and cons of a situation, instead acting on instinct and knowing in his heart that it would lead him down the path chosen for him. Because of this, he thought that the stars pointed him to killing himself, so he went ahead and did it, without pausing to consider if it was the right choice. Had he been less concerned with the higher powers and more focused on what the right thing to do in each scenario was, perhaps he and Juliet could have survived. Even early on in the play, what triggers Mercutio into his long Queen Mab speech is Romeo persisting that he had a foreboding dream, and that he believes his destiny is bad. By choosing to believes this, he begins to make unconscious choices to bring about that future and prove himself right.

In conclusion, this play is incredibly interesting for many reasons, but perhaps none more than the sheer amount of blame to be placed upon all the characters involved. Nearly everyone can be described guilty for something, though, again, the main ones at fault are the two households, Friar John, and Romeo. One way they could have avoided all of this is to have been more open with each other, instead of trapping themselves in waves of secrecy. It is a cautionary tale, Romeo and Juliet, and should be taken seriously by audiences nowadays, as it tells of the dangers of deep-seated hatred and arranged marriage.

"Should a Hated Word Be Banned?" by Jodi Rudoren of Upfront Magazine - Writing Prompt Response (Caroline R.)

Prompt: In the article, "Should a Hated Word Be Banned?" Rabbi Dov Lipman says that "every country has to establish certain value-based limits" to free speech. Do you agree? Why or why not? Use EVIDENCE from the text to support your response.

The article "Should a Hated Word Be Banned?" by Jodi Rudoren of Upfront Magazine discusses whether the use of the word "Nazi" in Israel without educational context should be considered a criminal offense. This, however, goes against freedom of speech, something which Israel very strongly advocates. One supporter, Rabbi Dov Lipman, stated that, while he supports freedom of speech, he believes that it can only go so far, and, at a certain point, becomes too immoral. I, personally, agree with his statement, because I feel the use of this word in a non-educational environment trivializes the Holocaust, over-exaggerates a person's flaws, and makes it so that "Nazi" is synonymous with a person doing things you don't like, which goes against history.

Using the word "Nazi" in ordinary circumstances trivializes the Holocaust. For example, the article states that it is used as a term in comedic television shows. It is inappropriate to use such a serious word for a normal situation. The Holocaust is not something that should be taken lightly, and using the word that describes a person who supported gassing people to death in a comedic sketch makes the Holocaust into that of a joke.

Along with this, it also is unfair to the person you may wish to describe. For example, the article gives the scenario in which a student "harmlessly" pokes fun at their annoying teacher with a fellow classmate by comparing the educator to a Nazi. This is a horrifying insult to the instructor as a human being; it's basically stating that the student thinks a person who is strict and gives more homework is as bad as a person who helped kill thousands of people. It is extremely inappropriate, especially when there are other, less offensive insults to be used with a friend in private.

Finally, using the word "Nazi" in such casual instances changes the very definition of the word. For example, the article says that a sports commentator referred to a basketball referee as a "Gestapo", which is a type of Nazi. Obviously, a particularly annoying basketball referee is absolutely nothing like a Nazi - they are simply a person the commentator doesn't like. However, since they are being called a Nazi, then the word is taken to be a derogatory umbrella term for anyone you don't like and not a term used to describe a supporter of Hitler in the Holocaust. This goes against basic facts and is an insult to history.

In conclusion, I do believe that, while you perhaps should not be imprisoned for speaking the word aloud in a non-educational environment, you should be issued a warning first. This would make it so that people would think twice before making inappropriate and offensive comments, without worrying about being put in jail.

"Revenge" - Sonnet 2/28/14 (Caroline R.)

*Note: The below sonnet was handed in on time as a hard copy.

Revenge

As the darkness starts enveloping me

And my vision melds with the cold, black night

I close my eyes and think of family

And flames that claimed the souls that burned so bright

My childhood, comforting and happy

A celebration that would soon commence

All ruined, tainted with murderous glee

Emptiness consumed me – a consequence.

But now my time has finally come at last

And hopefully brings forth some peace of mind

The anger that burned bright; hatred so vast

Can now be put to rest, I've come to find

For those who caused me to feel so much pain

Will never see the light of day again.

"Martin Espada" - Martin Espada Essay 2/13/14

*Note: The below essay was handed in on time as a hard copy.

Martin Espada is a brilliant poet whose work showcases many types of power imbalance, inequality, and disrespect. He also writes about the issues with privilege and racism. Three of his poems, “Mexicanos Lynched in Santa Cruz, California, May 3, 1877”, “Revolutionary Spanish Lesson”, and “The New Bathroom Policy at English High School”, all depict examples of different types of power struggle. They can be between different groups or between two singular people. He addresses how power can give separate people different feelings, such as confidence and intimidation. The poems explain how power evokes these contrasting emotions, as well as the different reasons why people crave power.

In Espada's “The New Bathroom Policy at English High School”, the emotion shown through the principal is discomfort and unease at not being the one in power. An example of this are the lines “The only word he recognizes / is his own name / and this constipates him”. This shows that the principal feels uncomfortable because the students are the ones holding power over him. Even though they could be saying anything, the chance that they are badmouthing him when he doesn't understand their words is too great for him to sit still and let his students have their freedom. Another instance of this are the lines “So he decides / to ban Spanish / in the bathrooms / Now he can relax”. This explains that power can be an addiction, almost – the only way the principal can be calm is to hold power.

The poem “Revolutionary Spanish Lesson” displays how being disrespected can make one crave power. This is particularly noticeable in the lines “hijack a busload / of Republican tourists / from Wisconsin, / force them to chant / anti-American slogans / in Spanish”. It proves that, when deprived of some power over others, someone can want to go to drastic measures to ensure they do not go unnoticed. Another example of this are the lines “and wait / for the bilingual SWAT team / to helicopter overhead, / begging me / to be reasonable.”. This shows that, even if someone tries to take power from someone else, they will never have real power because of a certain group they are in. It also shows that power can make someone feel equal to, or at a higher ranking than other people, even though it might be just an illusion.

Finally, “Two Mexicanos Lynched in Santa Cruz, California, May 3, 1877” shows how power can drive a person to do horrifying things. This is evidenced in the lines “a high-collar boy smirking, some peering / from the shade of bowler hats, but all / crowding into the photograph.”. This brings to life the meaning of the poem: that, even more terrifying than the grotesque, inhumane practices depicted in the photographs is the fact that all the people wanted to be remembered for committing this crime, as if it were something to be congratulated for. It's horrifying that this is what they BELIEVE, and that they can get away with it due to their power. Another stanza from the poem that is true to this meaning is “More than the moment / when forty gringo vigilantes / cheered the rope / that snapped two Mexicanos / into the grimacing sleep of broken necks,”. This shows that the moment after they murdered the people is more terrifying than the moment it happened, because they enjoyed the feeling of evoking fear and anguish in their viewers. In a way, they thrived off of that power.

Martin Espada's three poems all showcase different versions of power and the effects they have, but they all come together to say that a person can want power because they desire to finally have control over someone, because it gives them anxiety when they don't have it, or because they enjoy being able to make someone tremble with fright at the sight of them and be able to get away with heinous crimes due to their power. In the world today, these depictions exist in people who hold positions of power, such as teachers, politicians, and racial groups. Everyone has been on both sides of the struggle at one point or another, all for different reasons. When someone finds themselves in a position of power, they should try to look inside themselves and figure out why they want this and what it will do to them and others in the long run. If it will have some sort of negative effect on anyone, be it mentally or physically, they should rid themselves of their power, especially if they know they will be corrupted by it.

"Workers at an Amazon Warehouse Reject Forming a Union" by Steven Greenhouse of the New York Times - Reading Response 1/15/14 (Caroline R.)

*Note: The below reading response was handed in on time as a hard copy.

The article “Workers at an Amazon Warehouse Reject Forming a Union” by Steven Greenhouse describes how the majority of technical workers in an Amazon warehouse in Delaware voted against forming a union. The machinist's union filed a petition on December 8th on behalf of the 30 workers in the warehouse. While the union claims that they faced pressure from Amazon and anti-union workers to decline the offer, Amazon says that the workers made this decision on their own. This is most likely true, due to the way Amazon acts towards its employees.

One of the reasons the workers probably voted without being pressured is that it would be better to have a direct connection with the company. Its easier to discuss issues with your employer immediately, rather than having to go through a union. Another reason is because of its “open door policy”. This means that employees may talk to management at any time with their concerns. This is a kind way to approach problems, rather than completely dismissing the worker's opinions. Finally, the employees wouldn't have wanted to create tension between them and the company. Joining a union would have made the company angry with them, which might have put their jobs at risk.


Of course, we'll probably never know for sure why they voted against joining the union. It might have been because they felt it was best or because the company felt it was best. It seems that the former is more likely than the latter, due to the convenience, the open door policy, and the security of having their jobs. Either way, what's done is done, and the workers did not join the union in the end.

"Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" by J.K. Rowling - Reading Response 12/11/13 (Caroline R.)

*Note: The below reading response was handed in on time as a hard copy.

The book “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” by J.K. Rowling really makes me question justice in the world, especially considering people in high positions of power, such as teachers, bosses, government, etc. This novel engraves the idea in my head that many times in life, workers' and/or students' sides of the story may be overlooked in favor of their bosses and/or teachers due to the latter holding more respect over them. J.K. Rowling portrays this through Professor Umbridge, Professor Dumbledore, and Cornelius Fudge.

First of all, the use of Professor Umbridge is meant to show the unfairness of many punishments some teachers inflict upon their students. For example, often Professor Umbridge will deduct House Points if a student voices their own opinion. This is unfair because it demonstrates the mentality that people must not question authority, or raise any suspicions against the higher power, and everyone must think alike. In many schools, teachers will discourage debate in classrooms to prevent questioning of rules and regulations. In reality, it offers students the chance to behave like adults, and, in turn, be treated like adults. Another example is Professor Umbridge physically abusing Harry. Aside from being against the law, this is a psychological override of power. Harry feels as if he cannot come clean about what Dolores is doing to him for fear of her finally having power over him. This is very interesting, yet also quite disturbing. It shows that she has complete control over him; he's stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Second, Professor Dumbledore is used to demonstrate the disregard of a student's desire to be treated like an adult. For example, although mainly for his own safety (and for others'), Dumbledore refused to speak to Harry for many months, even though Harry pursued him. This shows that sometimes authority figures will wrongly assume children are too young or are in too much danger to be in the know on things that greatly concern them, and it degrades them. It is an injustice. Another example is Dumbledore then showing up at the Hearing to help Harry with his case. This shows that, although he thinks Harry in too much danger to know what's going on, he will still have Harry rely on him to get him out of his various predicaments. This is damaging psychologically, though Dumbledore does have the best of intentions.

Finally, Cornelius Fudge is painted as the idiotic government official. For example, he completely refuses to acknowledge the return of Lord Voldemort. This shows that many people in high positions in politics will lie to the public to protect themselves, and it is an injustice to the citizens. Another example is his blatant demeaning of Harry Potter. This proves that politicians will not only lie but turn on their friends and/or coworkers to further their own success. It's an awful thing to do.


In conclusion, this book perfectly depicts real-life injustices through the use of wonderfully portrayed characters, such as Dolores Umbridge, Albus Dumbledore, and Cornelius Fudge. It does this by having Umbridge play the unfair teacher, Dumbledore the well-meaning but inconsiderate parent/guardian type, and Fudge the greedy politician. These are all stereotypes we see in our daily lives, yet it is only now, through the use of literature, that they are brought into question. What can we do to bring about justice in our world?