This past February, Dr. Zev Williams, director of the Columbia University Fertility Center, informed CNN Health that around two percent of U.S. births occur through in vitro fertilization (IVF), a process in which an egg is fertilized in a lab and later transferred back into the uterus. Since the first IVF baby was born in 1978, this method of conception has grown in popularity and improved the livelihoods of many families, from heterosexual couples struggling with infertility to same-sex couples looking to conceive biological children. However, recent developments in Alabama have complicated and stunted the process, adding unnecessary difficulty to a procedure that is already financially and emotionally costly.   
In December 2020, three different couples sued a fertility clinic when a patient at an IVF clinic in Alabama accidentally destroyed their embryo samples. Although the case was initially dismissed at a lower level, on February 16, 2024, the Alabama Supreme Court overruled this decision, stating that frozen embryos are children, and are protected as such by Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act; this act has now been modified to include “all unborn children, regardless of their location,” as explained in the decision.   
In this ruling, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Parker did not attempt to mask his religious bias, stating in the case that “human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God.” Parker’s direct religious reasoning has raised essential concerns regarding the court’s blatant disregard for the separation of church and state; the judiciaries’ decision was deeply rooted in Christian belief, while simultaneously dismissing our freedom of religion, as granted by the First Amendment.   
The government, and thus legislation, should represent the views of the majority. Since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, Alabama has completely banned abortion. Now, with the most recent development in the reproductive rights of Alabama citizens, those who do not want to give birth are forced to, while those who seek fertility treatments in order to start a family are restricted from doing so. It’s been abundantly clear that this ruling has nothing to do with protecting lives, and everything to do with controlling them. A poll conducted by CBS News in the weeks following this decision found that 86 percent of Americans believe IVF treatments should remain legal.   
Although this ruling originated from one isolated incident, that does not mean that other states with similarly biased and religious politicians will not follow suit. Yet, this decision evidently does not represent the majority voice of the people. This ruling continues the debate regarding reproductive rights; in fact, even conservatives are divided on the issue, despite the public impression that it was right-wing politicians who pushed for this detrimental ruling in the first place. 
Since this ruling faced national backlash, politicians were incentivised to take action. On March 6, Alabama governor Kay Ivey signed a bill providing IVF doctors and clinics with legal protection against future lawsuits. However, several clinics have not resumed their operations due to the fact that the law fails to address the legal standing of families and doctors with embryos currently stored in Alabama clinics. As a result, several patients have voiced their desire to move their frozen embryos out of state, but even that has become a challenge as some embryo transfer services, such as Cryoport, have yet to resume services in Alabama. 
While such a radical decision is unlikely to occur in New Jersey, we should always remain aware of events that occur nationally and globally, not just locally. Pro-life laws have never carried out their intended purpose of “saving lives,” but instead have controlled and endangered women. This new ruling, and its basis in religious scripture, is highly unconstitutional, which begs an important question: Why are we allowing religiously-biased politicians to police people’s lives, and when will we put them to an end?     

In vitro fertilization rights after Roe v. Wade 

   In late November of this year, the White House announced that President Joe Biden will not make an appearance in this year’s United Nations Climate Change Conference, angering and confusing climate activists. This UN conference aims to formulate concrete plans to combat global warming and greenhouse gasses emissions through crucial policy-making. Vice President Kamala Harris has stepped in to fill the seat for the U.S. representative in place of Biden, but the president’s last minute withdrawal from the conference still poses an essential question: What is the role of political and world leaders in taking an active position to combat climate change?
   As a nation, the United States is one of the leading countries in the emission of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. According to Statista in 2021, the United States ranked second in a report of countries that produce the most carbon dioxide per capita. Wouldn’t a country that causes so much harm to the environment try to make more of an effort to reverse this damage? While it is true that several of the policies passed under the Biden administration, such as the Inflation Reduction Plan that aims to reduce greenhouse gasses emissions by investing a large sum of money in clean energy, have made steps to improve the state of global climate change, it doesn’t mean that missteps have not occurred. For example, Biden’s approval of the Willow Project — a large oil drilling plan in Alaska — in March of 2023 was an incredibly frustrating decision, especially coming from Biden, who had frequently displayed commitment to combating climate change prior to this occurrence.
   With the UN Climate Change Conference being arguably the most important and impactful environmental conference in the world, bringing together hundreds of world leaders and thousands of participants and representatives, it’s difficult to argue against activists’ criticism of Biden’s sudden withdrawal. Politicians, particularly presidents, must be advocates for climate action, especially in times such as these. This past summer was the hottest one ever recorded according to NASA. Additionally, Maricopa County in Arizona reported over 500 heat-related deaths this summer, and on July 3, the average global temperature reached 62.6 degrees Fahrenheit, the highest ever recorded, according to Science News. At this point, immediate climate action is essential to Earth’s survival, and world leaders must actually carry out the promises they’ve had for decades.
   While Biden’s announcement has shocked and discouraged many people, it would be incorrect to place all the blame on the sitting president of the United States. In fact, many of the Republican politicians who are currently battling for the Republican presidential nomination in the upcoming primary election have plans that are detrimental to the environment. In November, NPR found that all seven of the major GOP candidates agreed that the United States should increase oil drilling as an energy source, with only candidate Chris Christie supporting renewable and clean energy sources such as solar and wind power. Additionally, several candidates, such as Vivek Ramaswamy, have stated their belief that climate change is a “hoax.” It is astonishing that there are climate change deniers who could possibly hold presidential or vice presidential positions in just a year’s time; the irresponsibility of several of these politicians cannot be disregarded.
   While it is the role of world leaders to lead their nation towards a path of environmental consciousness and climate activism, it is ultimately the role of the general public to elect into office politicians who display a genuine devotion towards protecting the planet from the looming effects of climate change. Considering that a significant portion of the current PHS student body will be eligible to vote at the next presidential or even primary election, this issue is about to be in our hands too. When the 2024 ballot box rolls around, it is high time to remember that unless we significantly decrease global temperatures in the next few years, several ecosystems will begin to collapse, and the impact of natural disasters will be more severe than they ever have been. Voting for a candidate who will help or hurt the environment may truly be a life or death decision, for us, and for all other species that roam the Earth.


Hot talk, cold action the climate may be  changing, but policy isn’t

   In late 2022, following the release of Chat-GPT 3.0 and its image-based counterpart DALL-E 2.0, an AI revolution took the world by storm. In just under half a year, Open AI, GPT’s parent company, went from less than 100,000 monthly visits to nearly 2 billion. Immediately, dozens of large tech companies, like Amazon and Google, rushed to develop their own AI-powered products. 
   Now, few dispute the power of these tools in applications as diverse as medical diagnoses, autonomous vehicles, and environmental planning. For example, the Brazilian non-profit, PrevisIA, is using AI to identify parts of the Amazon rainforest at risk of deforestation by analyzing vast amounts of satellite data. However, in fields of creative expression, like the visual arts, literature, or music, the use of AI has proved controversial.
   This conflict was central in this year’s SAG-AFTRA and WGA labor strikes, where writers, artists, and actors alike feared that AI was and would continue to be used in place of their own creativity. While the strike was eventually resolved with a provision that dictated that AI could not be used to “undermine a writer’s credit” or “reduce a writer’s compensation,” it nonetheless raised an important question: what is the value of human creativity over AI “creativity”? 
   At the center of the debate is interpretation of creativity. According to influential philosopher Immanuel Kant, it is the “ability to produce works that are “new” and “exemplary.” There, a problem arises. AI, despite appearances, cannot spontaneously create original work—known as Strong Artificial Creativity. Programmer Ada Lovelace proposed that for a computer to possess Strong Artificial Creativity, it must be able to produce results that cannot be explained by its creator.                                              
   However, AI-generated results have a very simple root—the work of human artists that the system was trained on. Essentially, AI is fed millions of samples of human work (without the creator’s consent) and then regurgitates a product according to the prompt it is presented with.  Throughout this process, there is no innovation—AI cannot create truly original work, rather it relies on human ideas. The result is a mass production of art devoid of meaning or thought, which overwhelms the truly new.   
   Unfortunately, corporations seem willing to sacrifice quality in the name of profit margins. In November of 2023, Michael Whelan—an illustrator known for designing book covers for the likes of Stephen King and Brandon Sanderson—told the New York Times that while he doesn’t feel particularly threatened by AI creativity, he believes competing with machine-made art will be “really tough” for younger artists, not necessarily because AI produces stellar results, but because of the high speed and low cost that comes with it. In fact, several publishers have already admitted to using AI-generated art on book covers, and many artists are understandably frustrated over this new development. 
   The sense of pride and accomplishment you feel after standing back and observing an art piece that you created, a product of your own creative mind, is something special. Creativity is our purpose and our pride, the one thing that defines our individuality. So, the thought that this might be replaced by an emotionless machine is not only upsetting, but also terrifying. AI-generated art will never be a true replacement of human art, nor should it be. If the strikes have taught us anything, it’s that while the defense of human creativity may be difficult, it’s surely worth fighting for.

Artificial Ingenuity: Is it AI’s Time to Steal the Creative Spotlight?

   On October 7, 2023, Hamas, the Muslim authority of the Gaza Strip, invaded the state of Israel. In response, the Israeli cabinet vowed “to wipe… Hamas off the face of the Earth.” In the following weeks, the world watched the attack become the bloodiest war in Israel’s history. According to the New York Times, as of November 7, there have been over 1,400 Israeli and 10,000 Palestinian civilian and militant casualties, as well as 422 Israeli hostages and 1.5 million internally displaced Gazans. 

  The war has also come with inflammatory speech and calls for violent protest. The Anti-Defamation League has recorded a 388 percent rise in antisemitic incidents in the U.S. between October 7 and October 25, compared to the same period last year. Similarly, according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, reports of Islamophobia were up 182 percent in the U.S. between October 7 and October 24, compared to the average 16-day period last year. Educational institutions have been particularly rife with confrontation. For instance, at UMass Amherst, a student was recently arrested for assaulting a fellow Jewish student at a vigil. Stanford has also been investigating possible hate crimes committed against a Muslim student. And at Harvard, a group of pro-Palestinian students received widespread condemnation after “holding the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all ongoing violence.” 

   Other, less extreme responses have also contributed to the deafening noise. One such reaction is performative activism on social media, and the rush to take sides; this is often caused by the widespread lack of empathy for others and a general lack of understanding of this nuanced situation. You have probably seen it online; a binary stance, or lack thereof, becomes a part of one’s character. This pressures people to hop on social media to share a quick something about the war and get it over with. A global conflict becomes a box they can check off, a guilty feeling they think they can dispose of with a simple click. This leads to a common sentiment — when people lack compassion and time and space for reflection, the results are horrendous. In October 2022, AP News conducted a poll that found that around 75 percent of adults in the U.S. agree that misinformation leads to violent views and behaviors.

   Incorrect, radical, and often conflicting messaging related to the Israel-Hamas war can make it difficult to discern the truth and process our reaction to it. However, instead of trying to easily address the situation with a simplistic perspective or opinion, the most effective solution is to take time to develop a complete understanding and keep empathy at the center of thought.

   While not all responses to the war have been peaceful, we are fortunate that at PHS, we have had thoughtful and constructive opportunities for reflection. On October 17, PHS invited Rabbi Merow from The Jewish Center to help students process their reactions. On October 20, PHS hosted a Gathering for Peace and Hope, in which the Muslim Student Union, the Jewish Club, and the Middle Eastern Students Association came together to recite Amanda Gorman’s poem “The Hill We Climb.” 

   Rather than making rash and violent decisions or participating in performative acts without a true understanding of the issue at hand, we should continue to encourage each other, and ourselves, to take time in making decisions and keep an open mind. It’s not an easy topic. That’s not to say that one may not have an opinion on the subject; individual opinions are encouraged and valued, but it is essential to maintain an anti-violent and open-minded approach when developing them. This war, and our reactions to it, are anything but a justification for hatred. If we want true unity, true resolution, and true peace, the best reaction is a thoughtful and empathetic one. 

Embracing empathy amidst the conflict in Israel and Palestine

Contrary to popular belief, censorship is not always an illegal practice in the U.S. Despite appearing to violate the First Amendment, over time, that standard has changed. One of the most striking examples of this is courts legally banning certain books from being distributed in public schools, a measure initially put in place to prevent schools and educational facilities from promoting pornographic content or general obscenity. However, in recent years, many conservative politicians, parents, and community members have been pushing for book bans on stories with content they deem to be too liberal, leading to a steep increase in the amount of book bans. According to the American Library Association, book bannings in the U.S. have been on the rise since 2022, with a 38 percent increase from 2021. Unfortunately, this narrative has become so normalized, but we must shed a light on the harmfulness of banning books, especially for young, impressionable youth who deserve the right to learn about all different types of people, places, and ideas.
Banning books has been a legal practice in the U.S. since 1982, when the Supreme Court ruling in Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico stated that in public schools, book bannings can occur when books are deemed “pervasively vulgar.” However, the same court ruling also stated that school districts are forbidden from banning books “simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books,” according to the official court case syllabus on Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. In the early years of book bannings, books such as “Catcher in the Rye” by J.D. Salinger, “The Grapes of Wrath” by John Steineck, and “Lord of the Flies” by William Golding were all banned mostly for profanity and sexual content. Although these ideologies were conservative and the books banned have since been recognized as classics, the book banning process was quite a rare one initially, and was, for the most part, exclusive to stories with mature content.
Regardless of how this custom began, in many conservative states and communities, it has since been expanded to include virtually any book with queer themes or characters or themes of race, religion, or diversity. Conservatives have been able to get away with this movement by masking their blatant hatred, homophobia, and racism as concern for children. Last year, more than 45 percent of books challenged contained an LGBTQ+ character or were written by an LGBTQ+ author. Oftentimes, challengers claim that these stories contain sexual content, but that is seldom the case. “Drama” by Raina Telgemeier, a harmless graphic novel about a seventh grade girl who participates in her school’s drama club, has been repeatedly flagged for sexual content, simply for its inclusion of LGBTQ+ characters. The book appeared on the American Library Association’s top ten most challenged books of the year five times between 2014 and 2019. Seeing seemingly harmless books such as “Drama” being so harshly ripped apart by bigoted people in power, it isn’t far-fetched to presume that some if not most of these banned books are being wrongfully judged.
Additionally, book bans disproportionately target stories with themes revolving around race and racism. An organization called PEN America Index of School Book Bans reported that between July 1, 2021 and June 30, 2022, 40 percent of books banned had a protagonist or secondary character that was a person of color. It’s been made abundantly clear that those behind these harmful restrictions are intent on silencing minority and marginalized voices, and not on providing children with the resources they need to educate themselves and form their own opinions regarding these topics. 
However, this tactic is flawed at best, and ridiculous at worst. An October 2023 report by Advocate uncovered a story in which the Huntsville-Madison County Public Library in Madison, Alabama, added a children’s book titled “Read Me a Story, Bella” to their list of soon-to-be-removed books. The plot of the book follows a brother and sister who read stories together. Given its innocent and harmless storyline, you might be wondering what could have possibly led this book to be flagged as containing sexually explicit material. Turns out, the only reason for the restriction on this book was that the book author’s name was Marie-Louise Gay. Not only are people targeting books with actual LGBTQ+ content, but now, even an author’s name can get their stories removed from public libraries. The same report from Advocate also provided a statement from author Alyx Kim-Yohn, who disclosed that oftentimes these book removals occur without a single complaint, and without a further review of the content.
Fortunately, those pushing tirelessly in favor of book bans are the loud minority. In fact, over 70 percent of voters oppose removing books from public libraries, according to a 2022 poll by the American Library Association. In the past few years, the counteractive “reading banned books” movement has gained just as much attraction as the book banning movement. Popular YouTubers and bloggers have resisted the book bans by purposefully reading banned books, and letting their audience know that they should too. Even famous authors such as Stephen King have stood up against this censorship, encouraging young people to “find out what they don’t want you to read” in his tweet from January 2023. The voices creating censorship in the U.S. should never be louder than the ones fighting for complete and correct education for children all across the country. We owe it to kids in conservative states spearheading the book banning frenzy to advocate for their right to access informative and resourceful books that will allow them to explore the world with an open mind.

Investigating Motivations Behind Banning Books

If we think of past U.S. presidents, many of them come from humble backgrounds, where hard work and passion ultimately secured them the presidency. Think Jimmy Carter, the humble peanut farmer who rose to fame. Or Barack Obama, the boy who moved back and forth from Hawaii and Indonesia and eventually discovered a passion for public policy. Even in the good old days of presidents we liked to trust, there was always a lack of trust in the truthfulness of the electoral system in our country, but recently we have developed a sense of numbness to political scandal. In the wake of recent political behavior including sexual assault charges, impeachments, lawsuits, slur usage, and arrests, our understanding for how we evaluate candidate behavior must change. 
As the presidential election looms over the American population, the comparison of presidents and the comparison of their actions in general becomes an overwhelming topic of debate. Some candidates’ comments stand out over others such as Trump’s “nasty woman” or Kamala Harris’s “Mr. Vice President I’m speaking.”Although both of those examples have become synonymous with some political candidates, viewing them with the same level of concern is unfair considering the contexts in which each comment was made. While Trump’s comment to Hilary Clinton was intentionally offensive and very unnecessary, Harris’s comment to Mike Pence was far more justified, as the former vice president interrupted Harris multiple times throughout the vice presidential debate of 2020. As more students turn eighteen and have the power to vote, it is more common to hear the PHS politics buffs comment that the next election will be riddled with terrible candidates, or that they would rather have Chris Christie than Ron DeSantis as our next president. Granted, Christie did have his picture in Princeton Soup and Sandwich (we love a good local business supporter). But considering the George Washington Bridge shutdown scandal of 2013, where Christie seemingly caused traffic jams to get back at another politician, such a statement ten years ago would have been unthinkable. But in comparison with criminalizing abortion, banning books, or prohibiting drag performances in public, a simple traffic jam seems small. 
Through this comparative lens, we can weigh candidates based on the worst things they have done relative to one another. However, this method of comparison makes it almost always possible to make the claim that one candidate would be better than another comparatively. However, it’s not the most effective way to choose the next congressperson, senator, Board of Education President, prom queen, and most importantly—president. Similarly, should we really be settling for an ideal leader of a country who is just one step above a mugshot? 
Generally, when it comes down to a final presidential election, party loyalty creates the divide between candidates. A study in 2021 by the Washington Post regarding the 2020 election concluded that about 95% of registered Democrats voted for the Democratic candidate while only about 5% voted for a Republican candidate. A similar trend can be seen with registered Republicans about 95% of whom voted for the Republican candidate. Based on each person’s political party based biases, it makes sense that they will believe that the candidate that has done the fewest bad things will be the one who aligns with their own political values. Therefore, considering that the final election comes from party loyalty based biases, we would hope that the primary elections would eliminate the candidates that would have the most “wrong with them,” however you want to define that. Thus, the final candidates in a presidential election would not only hopefully have the least wrong with them, but would allow the trend of party loyalty to stay intact with a reasonable candidate on either side to settle for, as the most polarizing and problematic candidates would have already been eliminated. 
In this context, doesn’t that make this the crunch time in which we should be working to eliminate the candidates who are the most problematic rather than settling for ones based on our lowered political standards? Granted, we assume that the final two candidates in an election would already be the least problematic, but we know from recent elections that our trust in a more moral candidate such as Hillary Clinton can still be surpassed by Donald Trump, a very controversial candidate that some people would have assumed would have been eliminated earlier on. Although cancel culture is cancellable in and of itself, it seems that any candidates who have cancelable traits such as sexual assault charges, evidence behind their stealing of an election, or slur usage, should not have as much power. When we see these kinds of traits in the art or music world we do our best to separate the art from the artist, but in this context, the art of public policy is so directly tied to the artist’s views and past actions that we should not be letting them slide or lowering our standards. While America continues to search for the presidential candidates, we should not look for the biggest persona and the craziest farmer, but instead, remember the humble peanut farmer. Carter is long gone, but he's a prime example of the candidate that we desperately need — hardworking, relatable, and passionate about truly improving the country.

What are the Standards for Our Political Candidates?

With an influx of social media hashtags such as #summer body, #weightlossgoals, and #skinnylegend, it’s easy to get sucked into the idea that a summer without perfectly tanned skin and a flat stomach is not sufficient. The constant upsurge of social media’s presence in our lives has made it possible for harmful trends such as these to arise and rapidly gain popularity. Many content creators have championed the “summer body” trend  for the past few years, creating a collective mindset that a body that doesn’t check off certain boxes is a body that could never be loved. The “summer body” trend refers to the documentation of diet and workout regimens to create the “most appealing” body for being seen in summer clothes. This mindset is especially detrimental for teens who are already faced with many social pressures, unrealistic expectations, and possible mental health issues. As summer is approaching, it is becoming increasingly important to highlight the issues that these toxic beauty trends create.
Large social media platforms such as Instagram and TikTok can easily create false perceptions of what we should look like. These platforms’ sole purpose is to keep users scrolling for as long as possible, because the ads that pop up every once in a while create revenue for the company. Unfortunately, this leads to people, especially young women and girls, coming across videos and posts that encourage people to shave off weight before the summer and enter the season prepared to rock a bikini. 
Why should a random content creator on the internet get to dictate who can and can’t wear a certain type of swimsuit? This random content creator is likely following the ever-changing beauty standards that are so prevalent in today’s society. The Kardashians, Bella Hadid, and other such celebrities are quick to deny having had plastic surgery procedures done, but the repercussions of these denials are massive. These actions cause the emergence of unrealistic standards in the beauty world as the lines between plastic surgery and natural features are muddled, and the usage of social media filters and photoshop intensify. With these quite literally impossible standards set, online influencers feel the need to conform to a certain body type, and may even believe that without achieving their goal, they could never be content.
This constant circulation of the so-called perfect body type creates a mindset that eventually leads to a higher likelihood of people developing mental health problems. When a person compares their own body to someone else’s, they become more likely to develop body dysmorphia and eventually even eating disorders. Evidently, the whole theme that lies at the heart of the “summer body” trend on social media is the idea of comparison, jealousy,
     
When many people active on social media are already dealing with body dysmorphia, depression, anxiety, or other mental health issues, this feeling of forced conformity and a need to change in order to fit impossible beauty standards only increases the pain and the burden on their mental health.
It is also important to consider that for teens and young people, this issue may be even worse. For one, young people make up the largest demographic of Instagram users. In 2023, Statista, a German company that specializes in gathering data, found that almost 70 percent of Instagram users globally are 34 years old or younger. It is also true that young people are much more susceptible to social influence and pressure, so when they view a certain look or body type as the standard, they likely feel the need to conform to it. With the added pressure of adhering to the “summer body” trend or other such social influences, young individuals who are already struggling face even more pressure and harmful criticism. 
The “summer body” trend on social media and other tags like it create more insecurities, more mental health problems, and more hatred towards one’s own self-image. The time to eradicate all such terrible messaging is now; far too many people on social media have felt the need to look slimmer, tanner, and more “perfect,” just because an influencer on Instagram said they must do so before the summer. It is so important to remember that the “summer body” is not a real thing because perfection is such a varied construct. It is absolutely imperative that we vocally defy these terrible standards and put an end to these damaging, detrimental trends. 


The problem with the summer body trend

Cheers and Jeers

The accepting and progressive environment of PHS and the Princeton community can often serve as a bubble, protecting us from all the bigotry that still exists, even in more liberal states such as New Jersey, but especially in the conservative South. Just as the new year commenced, thousands of anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been introduced around the country, and several of them have already passed. One of these bills that has been making recent headlines is Tennessee House Bill 9, which prohibits drag performances on public property or in a location where the performance could be viewed by a minor. This law will lead to child abuse charges being placed not only on parents of children who happen to see the drag performance, but also on the performers themselves and producers of the performance. Another such bill that has recently been the focus of major national discourse is Tennessee House Bill 1, which makes it illegal for minors in Tennessee to access any health care that treats their gender dysphoria, such as puberty blockers and hormone treatments. Both House Bills will go into effect starting July 1, 2023.
   The effects that are bound to follow both bills will be extremely harmful to LGBTQ+ people in the U.S., specifically the youth of the community. House Bill 9 is especially likely to bring about a lack of exposure to LGBTQ+ people. Criminalizing public drag performances and explicitly hiding them away from children will not only lead to kids being unaware of the LGBTQ+ identities that exist, but it will also isolate the kids that are actually part of the community. If these identities are hidden away from them, these children will grow up resenting their own feelings. The already harmful concept that this law is based upon, when instigated in a conservative state such as Tennessee, will likely create an even more hostile environment that targets and isolates LGBTQ+ people.
   Not only is the state of Tennessee aiming to cut down on LGBTQ+ exposure, but the new legislations are also explicitly targeting transgender and gender nonconforming youth. With this bill, the medications are specifically banned for transgender and gender nonconforming youth, meaning that for cisgender children experiencing early onset puberty, these medications would still be used. The implications of Tennessee House Bill 1 will be a tremendous step backwards in the journey towards equality and justice, as the bill prevents LGBTQ+ youth from accessing medication that treats their gender dysphoria. According to a 2021 study conducted by the Journal of Adolescent Health, 75 percent of transgender and nonbinary youth who did not receive gender affirming hormone therapy experienced recent depression, compared to 61 percent of these youth who did. These numbers also correlated to rates of suicide attemption, which was 57 percent for the youth that did not receive GHAT, and 44 percent for the youth who did. Prohibiting the usage of puberty blockers and hormone therapy in minors will only lead to a greater likelihood for mental health issues in transgender and gender nonconforming youth, and it’s important to discuss why this is an issue and how we can prevent it from spreading.
   These two bills are specific to Tennessee, but don’t let that fool you into presuming that this problem is singular to that state. In the U.S. alone, we have already seen hundreds of other anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced this year in states such as North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Montana. Luckily, New Jersey is unlikely to pass bills similar to these since we do live in a liberal state. However, that does not mean that we as PHS students and staff should not advocate for awareness regarding these bills, and advocate for the limitation and hopefully termination of these legislations. At PHS we should amplify the voices of LGBTQ+ individuals, which can be done by placing a spotlight on the Gender and Sexuality Alliance club, as well as encouraging Pride celebrations and protests all year long. 
   It is imperative that at PHS, we continue to fight for LGBTQ+ acceptance. Even though we might not be able to single handedly control the legislations passed in other states, we can still make sure our voices remain powerful. In these distressing times, LGBTQ+ individuals are being explicitly attacked, and at our school we must speak up against these hateful, harmful bills, and provide support for our LGBTQ+ friends and peers.

Tennessee: bills and bigotry

   With the conclusion of New York Fashion Week for the spring season, it is time to do a full Anna Wintour-style review of PHS. As teenagers who are constantly consuming media, we are impacted by the trends and styles that we see in high-end fashion brands, whose products are considered to be the finest, most exemplary creations in the fashion world. However, the attire that most students at PHS come to school in seems to take no influence from the people that consume so much of our time on social media. 
   Since the beginning of American history, style standards have become more and more relaxed, much to the benefit of those who no longer need to wear corsets or cumberbunds. From the 1970s to 2000s, school style stayed relatively consistent, with students wearing jeans, T-shirts, and casual street wear. Although some students occasionally break out of the style, for the most part, school style has stayed very consistent for the last 40 years. 
   However, in the past ten years, that standard has almost disappeared. Although many of us are happy to have the flexibility to wear sweatpants to school, should pajamas and loungewear really be the standard of what we wear to school? If clothes are a way to express ourselves, then we should be trying to wear outfits in school that break from the norm and express how we want to look.
   Since we came back to school following the pandemic, it seems as though there’s been an upward trend in the loungewear that we see worn at PHS. For over a year, it was perfectly normal to wear pajamas to Zoom class. In fact,  not having to worry about how our clothes were perceived 
by others was a major relief. When we returned to school, we tried to wear clothes that represented the way that we wanted to appear to the world or stayed in the clothes that we wore all throughout the pandemic. The majority of students maintained the norm that was established during the lockdown, wearing sweats to school. But as this routine continued, it became even more difficult to break out of it. When we see others wearing pajamas to school, we are more likely to do the same, wanting to blend in. But if that does not match your personal style, you shouldn’t be so influenced by other people to copy that look. Individuality and self-identity are significantly more important than the desire to dress identically to the people you surround yourself with. Only a temporary feeling of “fitting in” is gained from doing so, and eventually, discomfort, knowing that you don’t actually fit into the boxes you’ve forced yourself into.
   Not only does keeping up with the latest fashion trend eliminate personal style, but it’s also exhausting. Fashion trends change so often, meaning that they’re almost impossible to keep up with. When you do so, it ends up being tremendously expensive. If we rushed to the shopping cart every time we saw a pop-up ad for the most-bought item at SHEIN, our hauls would overload our wardrobes, and our financial struggles would only be amplified. It’s easy to get sucked into a frenzy over fast fashion, because at first glance, it might seem affordable, but like anything else, the price tags add up. Oftentimes, these clothes end up in the trash due to the ever-changing trends. Alternatively, people might throw these clothes away due to the poor-quality materials used in these “cheap” products, just to follow their actions up with another clothing haul, continuing the cycle. This amounts to a large amount of wasted products that are costly not only to our wallets but to the environment. The non-profit organization Rest of World conducted an investigation that discovered that between July and December of 2021, SHEIN added between 2,000 to 10,000 new styles to their app daily. With such insane numbers, it comes at no surprise that the company’s carbon footprint is worse than very poor, producing 6.3 million tons of carbon dioxide yearly, according to a 2023 study by Time. The environmental damage caused by SHEIN and other such fast fashion brands simply cannot be ignored, and it is a major reason to completely ditch fashion trends which encourage consumers to keep buying more and more products. SHEIN also does not produce the types of clothes that are particularly representative of personal style because they sell clothing that is simply meant to check a box for what’s trending at the moment. When so many consumers shop from the same brand, the clothes they wear look the same as the ones worn by everyone else, which makes fast fashion not only environmentally unfriendly, but also lacking in individuality. A more sustainable way of cultivating personal style is thrifting. Not only is thrifting inexpensive, but it allows you to repurpose already created clothes, and the items that you find are almost always unique and for a good price. 
  It should become more normalized for students to actually represent themselves through their appearance when they want to. What we really want is for PHS to be an environment in which people feel comfortable wearing clothes that they think represent their interests, personal identity, and the way that they truly want to be seen by others. What we truly want to see is students abandoning their pandemic habits of comfort over self-expression. Fashion trends are harmful to our ability to self-express while simultaneously hurting the environment around us. There’s no reason to prioritize trends over using clothes as a method of showing the world who we are. It seems that the true line between loungewear and Dior is simply what you feel comfortable in. Truly wearing what you want to convey about yourself should come first, not the influence of other people and the media. If that happens to be sweatpants, then that’s absolutely wonderful, and if it is a full petticoat and stays, that is wonderful as well.


What are we wearing: An outlook into the world of PHS fashion

“Diversity is our power,” read a sign held up by a protest-er outside the United States Supreme Court on October 31.  They  were  protesting  for  one  specific  reason  —  the  Supreme Court seems poised to scrap affirmative action, a series of policies passed by the government that man-dates that colleges accept more diverse pools of students. Within a school as academically competitive as PHS, con-tention surrounding the subject is undeniable. Students and  faculty  at  PHS  and  the  Princeton  community  as  a  whole should refine our understanding of the topic and understand why it is such a shame that the Supreme Court will probably rule affirmative action as unconstitutional. We need to find a way to reckon with the opportunities that  such  a  decision  would  take  away  from  minorities,  because the loss of affirmative action would also result in a  devastating  loss  of  equality  and  diversity  in  America’s  elite colleges, and, by extension, its eventual leadership.  Many assume that the anti-discrimination laws the U.S. has,  which  protect  people  from  explicit  discrimination  on  the  basis  of  race,  gender,  and  sexuality,  are  enough,  but  that  is  far  from  the  truth.  Those  who  belong  to  un-derrepresented  racial  minorities  still  experience  great  inequality  on  college  campuses  and  private  workplaces.  In order for this gap in enrollment and hiring to slowly close,  affirmative  action  should  not  be  struck  down.  A  study  by  Georgetown  University  in  2021  found  that  11  percent of Latinx people and 14 percent of Black people over  the  age  of  25  have  a  bachelor’s  degree,  compared  to  21  percent  of  white  people  and  31  percent  of  Asian  people.  This  discrepancy  also  resulted  in  lower  average  yearly salaries for Black and Latinx people. When college admission  offices  take  affirmative  action  into  consid-eration,  they  also  help  to  decrease  those  problems.  The  wealth gap will only increase without affirmative action.   Already, affirmative action has been made illegal in pub-lic universities across several states. This has left some top universities from states like California and Michigan fac-ing massive declines in student diversity. In 2021, report-ers at The New York Times found that one such school, the  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  had  a  freshman  class  of  6,931  students,  and  of  those  students,  only  258  were  Black  and  27  were  Native  American.  Clearly,  without affirmative action, the diversity of student bod-ies  at  top  colleges  across  the  country  would  plummet.    In  2022,  The  Daily  Princetonian  found  that  most  Princeton  University  students  are  in  strong  support  of  affirmative  action.  A  group  known  as  AASA  (Asian  American  Students  Association)  that  has  led  a  peti-tion  to  voice  their  support  for  affirmative  action.  PHS  students  should  also  make  their  voices  heard  about  the  subject,  or  at  least  find  ways  to  help  increase  di-versity  wherever  they  go  to  college,  which  will  likely  be  after  affirmative  action  is  ruled  unconstitutional.   Proponents of what will likely be the Supreme Court’s ruling  on  the  subject  claim  that  income-based  affir-mative  action  will  do  more  good  than  race-based  af-firmative   action.   Unfortunately,   there’s   no   guarantee   that  such  policies  will  be  passed.  But  additionally,  low  income  white  students  do  much  better  on  the  SAT  than  their  black  counterparts,    and  also  make  up  much  more  of  the  low  income  population  (in  sheer  num-bers),  which  is  why  the  Journal  of  Blacks  in  Higher  Education  finds  in  2014  that  income  based  affirmative  action  would  ensure  that  white  students  “continue  to  hold  a  huge  admission  advantage  over  Black  students.”    In  reality,  PHS  students  can‘t  do  much  about  the  fact  that  the  Supreme  Court  will  likely  rule  affirma-tive  action  unconstitutional.  They  can,  however,  real-ize  how  the    decision  will  be  harmful,  and  strive  to  make   sure   their   classes,   extracurriculars,   and   jobs are accurately reflecting the diversity of our nation. 

Why affirmative action will be missed

  The season of witches and werewolves, of jack-o-lanterns and skeletons, and of superstitions and pranks, is just around the corner. Halloween delivers sugary scents and long-lasting memories, so why have so many of us highschoolers brushed aside this holiday that we once held so dear? Perhaps when we were younger we had this notion that someday we would outgrow this festivity, but have we?
   Trick-or-treating on Halloween can provide high school students with a short break from external stress, as well as an opportunity to spend some quality time with younger siblings. Most importantly, Halloween grants us a chance to just have fun. After over two years of isolation from our neighbors and community where Halloween seemed, to many, like a safety risk, this wonderful event should definitely make a reappearance. 
  Halloween activities are a great way to take our minds off all of the tests, projects, and overdue assignments that collapse onto our plates during this time. For juniors and seniors, this anxiety-free evening is a great way to wind down from the SATs, ACTs, and PSATs.  Social activities reduce our stress from schoolwork, college applications, potential part-time jobs, and any other obligations we may have, boosting our mental health. At the end of the day, setting aside a few hours for Halloween won’t make or break your GPA or sour your resume, so why not escape into a fantastical world for one night?
  COVID-19 said no to opening doors to kids in silly costumes, no to trading candy with our friends and eating our share obsessively within the following weeks. But the majority of PHS is now unmasked, and Princetonians are generally less fearful of seeing each other’s faces—a gradual return to normal is occuring, and this should include celebrating Halloween in all the ways that we missed out on. COVID-19 induced a massive amount of pressure and loss in so many, fracturing families and communities, so it’s a blessing that we may finally get to take back the Halloweens we lost. We often forget that Halloween isn’t just about gorging on sweets and dressing up: it’s about bringing our community together. On Hallows’ Eve, almost every family across town makes an effort to create a positive (-ly spooky) experience for each other’s children, buying candy and putting up decorations. It’s a chance for kids and teens to say hello to and play pretend with their neighbors who they almost never see. We can’t let the pandemic blow out the candles of this precious, unifying holiday.
  Trick-or-treating can be a bonding experience, not just between friends or neighbors, but also between siblings. Taking your younger sibling trick-or-treating may at first sound like a tiresome evening, or even like a waste of time, but for some it may actually be extremely rewarding. Many teens (myself included) have a somewhat rocky relationship with their younger siblings, but a few hours together could strengthen this connection. Some of my most cherished memories have come from trick-or-treating with my younger brother when I was in middle school. That opportunity to spend some time with him truly brought us closer—we were usually surrounded by our own friends and we didn’t make time to be around each other. With an abundance of other commitments and responsibilities, most of us could likely benefit from having this time to nourish our sibling relationships.
   Just like finding a board game that was your favorite when you were younger and remembering why you adored it so much, rediscovering the anticipation for trick-or-treating may turn out to be an overwhelmingly positive experience. Yes, we are all growing and maturing, but that doesn’t mean that we should completely discard the things that brought us joy. You’d be amazed at how enjoyable trick-or-treating can still be for us highschoolers. Be it thrifting clothing for elaborate costumes exploring the nooks and crannies of Princeton, or roaming Princeton University at dark, Halloween will not disappoint.
    With autumn finally upon us, Halloween is so close you can almost taste the delicious flavors of your favorite sweets. As kids, our most treasured pastime during this holiday season was trick-or-treating, but the belief that this can no longer be an activity we enjoy is simply not true. In fact, high school students could largely benefit from the opportunity to relieve stress, spend time bonding with family members and the rest of the community, and reclaim the giddy excitement of Halloween that many of us had as kids. After all we’ve been through, we deserve to love Halloween again, so don’t be afraid to slip into a costume this year and prowl the streets. 



Halloween: trick or treat? 

PHS Takes: How do we like to use our free periods?

   While many of us Princetonians like to think that we live in an impenetrable progressive bubble, racist and misogynistic ideologies have already made many inroads into our community. One such inroad comes in the form of social media. “I think the woman belongs to the man” was one of many messages that Andrew Tate, social media influencer, communicated to the world on a daily basis before being banned from most platforms. Tate garnered tens of millions of followers over the course of this summer, some of whom attend PHS. The dangers of this kind of cyber-misogyny to our school and community cannot be understated.
   To fight against online misogyny, it is first important to examine the effects of social media, especially with regard to one of its largest demographics: kids and teens. Within the span of even a ten to thirty second TikTok video, a child’s value system can be dramatically altered. Children and teenagers often idolize social media influencers without a second thought. In 2019 UNICEF and AEM conducted a survey showing that “When a child… sees something or someone on TV or the internet… the odds are high that the child will absorb everything unconditionally. Absorb and, most often, imitate.” Kids and teens are much more susceptible to trusting whatever they come across online, and unfortunately, this is also around the same age range that many kids start gaining access to social media platforms. What this creates is a situation in which influencers can easily weaponize social media to tout their ideologies to children, who are the most prone to being manipulated. 
   The summer of 2022 laid bare this threat, as Andrew Tate took the world by storm. His TikTok videos have amassed over 11 billion views on the app, and his name was searched on Google more than Donald Trump’s name was in July. From blaming assault victims to encouraging domestic abuse, from advancing homophobic views to glorifying the exploitation of women, from intentionally misgendering online figures to stating that​​ “Females are the ultimate status symbol,” his messages are as varied as they are harmful. In fact, the only thing that does not seem to change about Tate’s eclectic posts is the unrelenting prejudice that underlines all of them. He has managed to introduce what are essentially Victorian gender roles and hierarchies back into the mainstream, warping the beliefs of millions of teenagers. He has shown that one man with a deeply twisted worldview and some semblance of charisma can fundamentally alter the views of a generation. Andrew is not simply another social media nuisance to make fun of, he is a serious danger to social progress and to the safety of our community.
   Thankfully, Tate was just recently ousted from Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube, though many of his misogynistic proverbs can still be heard recited unironically in school hallways. There is likely no redemption for Andrew Tate, but there still remains hope that we can learn from our mistakes in allowing someone like him to gain such traction at PHS, and amend the damage that he has done. It is imperative that our school community does as much as it can to fight off this ongoing problem. Radicalization is remedied by open discussion. While social media may seem like a doorway to a wide range of opinions, recommendation algorithms quickly turn it into an echo chamber. Teachers should promote civil discourse in and out of the classroom, no matter how sensitive the issue. On social media, teenagers are already exposed to issues like sexual violence on the daily—Andrew Tate shouldn’t be the one mediating the conversation. 
   One article from 2018 by Harvard’s Making Caring Common Project suggests that teaching students how to critically consume media is an effective way to combat misogyny. English and History teachers must allocate more time to such exercises. Telling students “don’t trust everything on the internet” or “Wikipedia is bad” isn’t enough. Teachers should teach students how to research a topic: how to assess the bias of a paper, how to check the sources of a media pundit, how to choose articles from both sides of an issue. This doesn’t just undermine misogyny, it ingrains in students a skepticism which is necessary in the internet age. 
   Moreover, students should take control of their own education. They should mediate their own conversations out of the classroom. They should try to truly educate themselves on the issues which interest them, and share that information with their peers and classmates. 
   PHS does not tolerate any type of discrimination, but many of us see it online every day. As a community, our school should work towards preventing the misogyny and manipulation that we see on social media from having an effect on the student body. Words on a screen can sometimes translate to actions in real life. We cannot allow Andrew Tate’s ideology, or anything like it, to be realized. Through civil discourse and education, we can hope to prevent that from happening.



The spread of misogyny and manipulation

 In early May of this year, a draft of an opinion overruling Roe v. Wade, written by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, was leaked. In light of this new development, heartbreaking stories  like  that  of  an  unwanted  pregnancy  causing  a  teen  to  drop  out  of  school  have  reentered  the  national  spotlight. A wave of justified panic has spread across our entire nation. An overturn of Roe v. Wade would still be detrimental to women everywhere. Abortion rights and access  to  birth  control  are  just  as  important  at  PHS  as  they  are  anywhere  else.  Princeton  residents  must  stand  together in fighting to prevent the overturn of Roe v. Wade. 
Roe  v.  Wade  was  a  1973  Supreme  Court  decision  which  guaranteed  a  woman’s  right  to  abort  in  the  first  and second trimesters of pregnancy, ruling state bans on such  abortions  unconstitutional.  The  court  ruling  has  been a consistent guarantee of women’s bodily autonomy with  regards  to  pregnancy  for  decades.  However,  this  may now all disappear. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, New Jersey, is unlikely to ban abortion. But that is not at all to say that New Jersey and PHS would be unaffected by the decision.  Quite  the  opposite  is  true.  From  2016–2020,  Mercer  County  has  had  the  third-highest  teen  birth  rate  of  all  New  Jersey  counties,  according  to  the  New  Jersey  State  Health  Assessment.  The  vast  majority  of  teen  births  are  unwanted.  This  is  unacceptable;  every  unwanted  pregnancy  is  a  life  turned  upside  down.  
 To reduce the high rates of unwanted teen pregnancies in  Mercer  County,  abortions  must  be  destigmatized  and  made  more  accessible.  Overturning  Roe  v.  Wade  would  do  just  the  opposite.  By  demonizing  abortion,  the  Supreme  Court  would  be  discouraging  teens  with  unwanted  pregnancies  from  seeking  the  help  that  they  require.  Those  who  choose  to  seek  an  abortion  should  not  be  burdened  with  shame,  especially  if  they  haven’t  reached adulthood. A ruling overturn would only increase the  rate  of  unintended  births  in  our  town  and  county.
As  a  community,  PHS  should  advocate  for  abortion  rights  on  a  state,  national,  and  global  level.  There  are  thousands  of  young  people  each  year  who  end  up  carrying a child they aren’t ready to care for. They either raise  it  anyway,  which  often  results  in  large  economic  burdens,  or  put  it  up  for  adoption  or  foster  care,  which  can  be  a  traumatic  experience  for  both  parent  and  child.  These  orphaned  children  often  face  neglect  and  a  reduced  quality  of  life.  Without  the  care  of  a  parent,  they are at higher risk of developing mental health issues. 
In  the  case  that  Roe  v.  Wade  is  overturned,  26  states  are likely to ban abortion, according to a 2021 survey by Guttmacher Institute. This is a human rights crisis. New Jersey, as a state where abortion would still be accessible, has the responsibility of helping women from other states obtain abortions. Demand for abortions within New Jersey will increase as patients cross state lines to attain them. It is necessary that we strengthen our abortion infrastructure to  handle  this  influx  and  maintain  accessibility.
The  Princeton  community  can  hold  a  lot  of  power  in  this  fight.  A  good  way  to  start  might  be  to  spread  awareness  within  our  town.  For  example,  a  petition  to  include an abortion rights article in the Princeton Patch, or  a  petition  to  the  University  to  make  a  statement.  We  can  also  encourage  friends  and  family  to  donate  to  organizations  like  Planned  Parenthood  that  provide  abortions.  If  like-minded  people  of  this  age  can  come  together  and  demand  change,  we  may  be  able  to  mobilize our entire community for pro-choice activism. 
It should go without saying that the doctrine of states’ rights  does  not  justify  the  restriction  of  citizens’  basic  bodily freedoms. It is not a state’s right to decide whether or not a person can seek an abortion. No one, in power or otherwise, should have a say about what other people do with their bodies. However, since it is the politicians who are in power, we need to make it clear to them that access to abortion is a human right. The PHS community must stand up on behalf of those who cannot do so themselves.   

The fight for abortion is ours, too

THE SAT:

The SAT has been causing high schoolers stress since it was first administered almost 100 years ago, in 1926. The exam seems fair on paper. Students take the test and the highest scores look better in the eyes of college admissions officers. Currently, the most selective colleges in the U.S., including our local Princeton University, either require or prefer students to have an SAT (or, alternatively, an ACT) score on their applications. However, the SAT is anything but fair: it is a test which systemically promotes classism and elitism.

Over the past few years, especially with the pandemic, many colleges have removed the SAT as a requirement on applications. However, most of these test-optional schools still give a leg up to applicants with high scores, so students still feel the need to take the test and do well. The SAT is not fit as a measure of students’ academic merit. It should become optional on all college applications, and remain that way too.

The SAT is a deeply prejudiced exam. In order to do well on the test, many students start preparing months, or even years, in advance. They attend SAT study groups, pay for private tutors, order thick textbooks, and study whenever possible. This is not the reality for everyone, especially for students from low-income households. For such students, paying for college is difficult as is, so acquiring extra SAT prep is often impossible. Some students also have a part-time job to help support their families, so adding SAT studying to the work they do for existing classes is not feasible. A 2014 article by The Washington Post found that students with household incomes of above $200,000 had an average combined reading, math, and writing score an average of 388 points more than students with household incomes of below $20,000. This very clearly demonstrates the advantage of wealthier families. Moreover, a 2021 University of Pennsylvania analysis found that the correlation between SAT scores and household income is three times as large as that between GPA and income.

The test is exceptional at weeding out those that are economically disadvantaged. While income is a factor, so is race. People of color (especially Black, Latinx, and Native Americans) experience higher rates of poverty than white Americans do. When colleges require or recommend for SAT scores to be present on applications, they are further promoting this classist and racist history of injustice.

Not every person’s brain works the same way. Some people’s brains just aren’t well equipped for these types of tests: people with ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), autism, dyspraxia, and dyslexia struggle on the SAT more than those without those disorders. The CDC writes ADHD alone affects from 8% to 10% of school age children in the US, which means that country-wide, there are almost five million students that struggle with time management, forgetfulness, and have trouble staying sitting in one place for too long without fidgeting. Requiring these students to sit down for hours completing more than one hundred and fifty multiple choice questions with barely any breaks in between is impractical. In the neurodiverse world that we live in, the SAT, which suits only those that are neurotypical, is out of place. It is unfair for colleges to require students to submit their SAT scores on their applications because people function differently — not everyone happens to fit into that compressed box of high-scoring, “normal” students.

As it turns out, College Board has attempted to address this issue of fairness with its accommodations system, where students with disorders receive the bare minimum of extra time to complete their exams. Yes, this is a step in the right direction, but if the SAT is willing to accommodate (albeit insufficiently) neurological differences among students, why doesn’t it also accommodate socio-economic differences? This is the fundamental flaw with standardized testing: fairness is only achieved when you make the test less standard. It's impossible to make a test that fairly asseses every single high school student, because every high school student is different.

The SAT doesn’t define who we are as people, but all around us, people use it as a bar for comparison and competition. Standardized tests often provide students with unnecessary anxiety, and scores are often dependent on socio-economic status and whether or not one is neurodivergent. These exams are clearly a poor representation of one’s intelligence; yet they are still one of the largest contributing factors in determining students’ future academic success. Your score on an exam that could determine whether or not you get into your best fit college should not depend on how rich your parents are. It is unquestionable that colleges should keep the SAT optional on applications in order for everyone to experience a more fair academic environment.


THE APs:

According to U.S. News, 76 percent of Princeton High School students take at least one AP during their time at PHS. PHS’s broad assortment of AP classes allows students to pursue any subject that they are passionate about at a high level. Unfortunately, the accessibility and diversity of these classes has resulted in a race between students to take as many AP classes as possible. Students who take time-consuming AP courses must balance a college level workload with sleep, extracurricular activities, and a normal teenage life. If PHS limited the number of APs each student can take per year to three, it would help limit stress, support students’ mental health, and increase time for other activities, all of which could go a long way in preparing them for college and continued education.

The University of Wisconsin Press found that students taking AP classes have increased stress levels and lower grades due to pressure and rigor. AP classes require students to make time for at least an hour and a half of homework each night which consists of practice problems, essays, and consistent studying for the AP exam. Being an AP U.S. History student, I know firsthand how rigorous an AP course can be. Whether it be submitting three page-long essays at 11:59 p.m, or reading through entire review books in the weeks before the exam, the AP U.S. History course pushes students to their absolute limit – and that’s just one AP. When students move on to their junior and senior years, they feel pressured by their teachers, guardians, and peers to participate in more advanced, competitive classes and end up balancing sometimes more than four APs at once.

Moreover, colleges aren’t just looking for students with good grades: They also want students who are passionate, outgoing, and able to carve out their own path in life. Extracurriculars, especially ones that demonstrate students’ leadership and dedication, are incredibly attractive to colleges. For example, a student who is the leader of a section in band organizes practice sessions and inspires sectionmates to work harder, and thus can use that on their application as an example of their leadership abilities. However, when students are weighed down by several AP courses, they have less time to focus on their extracurriculars — time which is required for students to obtain leadership positions in the first place. A leadership role in a club or extracurricular can be much more valuable to admissions officers than an AP class. This is a fact that students may have a hard time believing when everyone around them is loading themselves up with APs. There are also students who are aware of the value of leadership positions in extracurriculars, but are intimidated by the responsibility which comes with those positions. Putting a limit on APs may push students to step out of their comfort zone and take on roles of responsibility. Extracurriculars are thus also incredibly valuable in helping students grow as people. Also, AP courses are inequitable: Those with the money and resources to spend on tutoring and review books are at a huge advantage. However, anyone can become a leader in an extracurricular or their own club — as long as they have the work ethic and willpower to do it. If PHS wants to prepare students to get into college, it should limit students to three APs a year.

Of course, AP classes are still an incredible resource that Princeton students are privileged to have at their disposal. Students can pursue their interests at a college level and delve deep into the nuance and quirk of their desired field. When students choose to take time-consuming APs that don’t align at all with their interests, however, such as a STEM-inclined student taking AP French and AP English, that only takes away from students’ ability to fully take advantage of the AP classes that they are truly interested in. Without the burden of five AP classes, students can pursue those interests out of school as well. A club or extracurricular can actually be better at increasing students’ interest in a subject than an AP class. In a club, students are exposed to people who are truly passionate about the subject, not there just because it’s an AP, and plan their own events and activities, contrasting with the rigidity of many AP classes.

AP season is finally here, the culmination of all of PHS students’ hard work and suffering over the past few months, and students all know what that means: one last bout of all-nighters and mental breakdowns. But maybe all of this can change. Though the PHS student body cannot easily make any executive decisions regarding a limit on AP classes, it is important that PHS faculty and administration recognize the predicament which students face. PHS students feel the need to compete with their peers by loading up their schedules with APs, and as long as there is no limit on this behavior, they will continue to be limited in their potential, and utterly stressed.

The benefits of fewer tests

Princeton High School must recognize the impact that a lack of gender-neutral bathrooms has on its students. Considering the discrimination and discomfort that transgender, gender-nonconforming, and queer students face at PHS, the school should convert all bathrooms to gender-neutral bathrooms. Doing so would follow a global trend towards more inclusive restrooms and establish PHS as a safe space for LGBTQ+ students. A few weeks ago, the high school’s only gender-neutral bathroom was temporarily closed. The problem that sparked the closing was students who were using the gender-neutral bathroom to vape, talk, or hang out with friends. For those who actually needed to use the bathroom, walking in and seeing several students crowded in a stall vaping was awkward and embarrassing. PHS Art Teacher Bridget Schmidt met with Principal Frank Chmiel about the issue, emphasizing the importance of making transgender and nonbinary students feel more comfortable at PHS. A group of students also came forward after the initial shutdown to discuss the negative impacts of the closure. These impacts made navigating this issue even more difficult for nonbinary students, who not only felt insecure in the gender-neutral bathrooms, but were then deprived of these facilities all together. The high school agreed to convert two existing bathrooms into gender-neutral bathrooms, which is a promising sign, but there is still a long way to go for PHS’s efforts to increase comfort for queer and gender-nonconforming students. Two new gender-neutral bathrooms in the high school is not enough. Not only will the misuse of gender-neutral bathrooms continue, but because of the sheer size of PHS, valued class time is taken away from nonbinary students who have to spend time searching for inclusive bathrooms. This could frustrate teachers and staff, who feel the need to wait on students who are using the restroom. Making gender-neutral bathrooms more accessible by converting all existing bathrooms would reduce both bathroom misuse and class time missed by students.

Moreover, transgender and gender-nonconforming students experience intolerance for their gender identities in schools across the country. Providing everyone with the possibility to use gender-neutral bathrooms is an important step towards inclusivity. This change would not only help LGBTQ+ students in our school feel that their identities have been recognized, but would also set a strong example for other schools to follow. The necessity of establishing this environment of acceptance cannot be overstated. In recent years, the mistreatment of queer youth has been on the rise, as seen in the increased number of hate crimes on the basis of gender identity. The Uniform Crime Reporting Program’s Hate Crime Statistics report disclosed that the number of hate crime incidents on the basis of gender identity went up from 198 in 2019 to 236 in 2020 in the U.S. Many queer people don’t feel safe in public. In fact, 65 percent of trans students in America are harassed in school because of their gender identity, according to a survey done by the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network in 2015. They can’t be forced to receive an education in the presence of those who they feel mean them harm, and should not have to fear for their safety everytime they need to use the bathroom. Transgender and gender-nonconforming students often feel that they will face judgment or be harassed simply by using a bathroom that matches their gender identity. Without gender-neutral bathrooms, their only other safe option is to go to the bathroom of their assigned sex at birth, which could lead to or worsen body dysphoria. We must eliminate single-gender bathrooms.

PHS wouldn’t be the first to take these steps. In many European countries, most notably Denmark and Sweden, gender-neutral restrooms are growing in popularity. In Vermont, an act passed in 2018 mandated all single-user bathrooms in public places, like schools and community centers, to be gender-neutral. These bathrooms seem to be the way forward all across the globe, and PHS should be one of the first schools in New Jersey to fully embrace that truth.

Traditionalist fear-mongering has alienated the idea of a world without single-gender bathrooms. Many fear that without the enforcement of a separation of genders, sexual harassment and assault will run rampant. However, this postulation is false. A 2014 Media Matters study covering 600,000 students over 17 school districts found that laws protecting trans students’ rights to use gender identity aligned bathrooms did not lead to any increases in sex crimes.

Though there aren’t many executive decisions that we as a student body can make, we must do all that we can to pressure school officials to take this issue seriously. The more this topic is circulated, the more likely it is to be heard by people in more powerful positions, such as the district’s Board of Education. Problems like these, no matter how uncomfortable to talk about, cannot be ignored by the school’s administration. If we want transgender and gender-nonconforming students to feel safe coming to school, action must be taken to make all bathrooms at PHS gender-neutral.

All PHS bathrooms should be gender-neutral

THE PROS:

Following winter break, PHS students found themselves in a school wildly different from the one they had left. Students discovered that they had only half the number of classes each day and a school day which ended almost an hour earlier than before. Also, students had enough time for their assignments, extracurriculars, and friends. Teachers could exercise their creativity to plan engaging lessons. For many students and teachers, this new block schedule was a breath of fresh air, vastly improving student and faculty life at PHS.

Before the block schedule, there were usually daily assignments from each class. With the block schedule, on the other hand, assignments were similar in size, but less frequent. Consequently, there was less homework and grading. Moreover, a buffer of at least two days was provided between assignments, meaning that even if one day was especially busy due to extracurriculars or other assignments, a student always had the cushion of a second day to complete an assignment. Thanks to the block schedule, PHS students became less stressed.

Students and teachers also found that they had more time to finish their homework. With this extra time, teachers were able to catch up on grading past assignments, and students were able to catch up on missed assignments. Teachers were also able to use this time to create lessons that were effective and enjoyable. Though the 77-minute period may have seemed intimidating at first, teachers at PHS succeeded in making it engaging. A longer period allowed for more project-based and student-centered activities. There was enough time for longer class discussions, which were seen throughout many English and World Language classrooms. This method of “self-teaching” has been shown to greatly enhance student comprehension. In science classes, the schedule allowed learning to be more easily geared towards hands-on labs. Now that students could work together with their peers, they found themselves more immersed in their classes. Before the block schedule, Gym Classes could be dull because students only got to do one activity throughout the entire period. During the block schedule, students were able to participate in volleyball, floor hockey, and the fitness center all within one period. The block schedule reinvigorated students’ academics, and made classes more enjoyable.

Perhaps the most cherished part of the block schedule, however, was that Tiger Time was built into every single day, instead of just two days a week. Students used this time to meet up with friends and hang out. Friends that that both play instruments would often jam out together in the band room. Any socialization that was lost due to the altered lunch schedule was more than made up for in Tiger Time. Of course, having this period off every day was also a test in students’ time management. Thankfully, students made good use of the it. Clubs had more frequent meetings and enjoyed better engagement from members, and Students who were struggling or confused in their classes used the time to seek the help they needed. The block schedule was a godsend for students and teachers alike. It was introduced as a preventative measure against COVID-19, but was even more effective as a remedy for stress and boredom, in and out of school. If the school wishes to reduce stress and increase student productivity, it should return to the block schedule. Students and faculty will welcome it with open arms.

THE CONS:

During the few weeks that the block schedule was implemented, my lunch break was a consistent source of stress. Everyday, the bell would ring, and I would make my way to where I ate lunch. I was forced to take careful steps so as to not step on someone’s hand or smush a neatly wrapped sandwich. This was the norm in the crowded 190s hallway — the place I ate lunch while the block schedule was in effect. This scenario was mirrored all over the school. The block schedule, just retired by PHS, was harmful for a number of reasons: It created crowded lunch spaces, separated friends, decreased class time, and resulted in a loss of focus.

You’d think that with only a third of the school eating at once, these three lunch periods would be less concentrated. Unfortunately, that was not the case. There was a very limited amount of spaces where eating lunch was permitted. Consequently, large, maskless groups congregated in small, highly populated areas. Furthermore, because friend groups were often split into different lunch periods, students were eating with people that they had never eaten with prior to the block schedule, increasing the number of possible exposures to COVID-19. Instead of minimizing the problems COVID-19 has created at our school, the block schedule only worsened them. With the return of the normal lunch schedule, this issue will likely become less of a concern as students return to their normal eating places and lunch groups.

Socialization is a very important part of high school, and because many of us are already overburdened with both schoolwork and extracurriculars, spending time with friends is more important than ever. Unfortunately, the block schedule interrupted many students’ social lives. Students were often left in the hallways alone because their friends had different lunch schedules — something I certainly don’t miss now that lunch periods are back to normal.

At first glance, the block schedule might seem to increase overall class time because individual block periods are longer. But this is misleading: Classes end almost 50 minutes earlier than in the normal schedule, which creates an overall decrease in synchronous learning time. Even with longer periods, less learning happens every day.

These excessively long class periods aren’t doing any good for our personal or academic self-improvement, either. It’s pretty obvious that the attention span of teenagers is not long. Spending 77 minutes focusing on one single subject is difficult for many PHS students, myself included. At a certain point, staying productive becomes almost impossible. Taking a mental break from work and difficult tasks is incredibly helpful, in regard to both our well-being and our work ethic. In addition to the strain the block schedule places on students, an even heavier burden is placed on teachers. Teachers are struggling to maintain student engagement during these block periods but are still forced to cover content at a breakneck speed due to reduced instructional time.

Although there are some students and staff who did enjoy the block schedule, it ended up hurting our school in a lot more ways than it helped. The block schedule is counterproductive to the school’s efforts to curb the pandemic, prevents socialization, and places pressures on students and teachers. The termination of the block schedule is for the best, and for the sake of our collective mental and physical health, it should not return.

The Tower

Tamar Assayag's Work

The Tower