|
Note: These are not the positions of the editorial board. This contribution is from a visiting opinion columnist. His views are solely his own. By Aaron Deivaprakash Visiting Opinion Columnist Today, Nov. 5, millions of Californians who have not already voted will go to the polls to cast their ballots. While the focus of ongoing election discourse has largely been at the national level, state and local issues are also of utmost importance. Your vote has a much higher chance of flipping the outcomes on these issues that will more directly impact you. As former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill once said, “All politics is local.” In that spirit, I would like to share my endorsements on the 2024 California ballot and my reasoning behind them. Prop 2: YES A YES vote on Prop 2 authorizes $10B in bonds to upgrade our educational facilities. $8.5B would go to K-12 schools and $1.5B to colleges and universities. This would be paid back over the next 35 years. I’m supporting Prop 2 because our K-12 schools are in a grave state of disrepair and our postsecondary institutions need upgrades. Many K-12 schools across California in low-income neighborhoods (both rural and urban) do not have adequate school supplies, sanitation, building safety, after-school programs, etc., because property taxes fund most educational costs. It has been proven that when kids grow up in low-income neighborhoods and go to low-income schools, they are less likely to learn and more likely to fall into a life of crime, homelessness, addiction, or a host of other negative life outcomes. We want our kids to succeed and become productive, law-abiding, happy and healthy members of society. Prop 2 works towards that. As for our colleges and universities, we as students know very well that we could use more scholarships and fewer tuition hikes. We can also fund more research so college students can be at the cutting edge of science, as well as ensure our buildings don’t crumble during earthquakes as they are set to now. As a student who wants to save money, be in the loop on scientific progress, and not die under a pile of bricks, I’m voting YES on Prop 2. Prop 3: YES A YES vote on Prop 3 amends the California Constitution to enshrine marriage equality. The Supreme Court of the United States has already enshrined marriage equality into federal law in its ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). This is merely a matter of the State of California righting its wrong of having voted against marriage equality in the past (see: Prop 8 from 2008). I’m standing with our LGBTQ+ brethren by voting YES on Prop 3. Prop 4: YES A YES vote on Prop 4 authorizes $10B in bonds for water, wildfire prevention, and environmental protection. This would be paid back over the next 40 years. I’m old enough to remember when the drought of the 2010s first started and our water rates went up. We were finally blessed with a rainy winter 2 years ago, but lacked the reservoirs needed to store the water. We badly need the money Prop 4 would authorize to ensure the next time it rains, it does not go to waste. Furthermore, wildfires remain a significant threat to people and property, with entire cities burning down and leaving people homeless. That smoke also ends up in the air, slowly poisoning us. The money from Prop 4 helps fight that. Finally, California is known for her natural beauty, with wonderful parks like Yosemite, Sequoia, Redwood, Joshua Tree, and Mammoth Lakes. I’m voting YES on Prop 4 to expand our water supply, stop wildfires, and protect the natural beauty of California. Prop 5: YES A YES vote on Prop 5 decreases the threshold needed to pass local affordable housing bonds from the current 66.7% to 55%. It is shocking to me that in a democracy like ours, it is not enough to get things done by a simple majority vote. While not perfect, Prop 5 alleviates this issue. The fact of the matter is that many of us will not be able to afford to live in California after graduation because the rent is too high. Supply and demand tells us that this is because there are too few housing units being built. Developers want to build more homes, but are choked by excessively restrictive zoning laws that force them only to build single-family houses or no housing units at all. This is due to lobbying from older, wealthy homeowners concerned about a slight decrease in home prices and supposed changes to ‘the character of their neighborhoods.’ Their time is up. We, the future of California and America, must come first. Let us make it easier to approve local affordable housing projects so we can have a place to live in our beloved state. I’m voting YES on Prop 5 because it is time to cut the red tape. Prop 6: YES A YES vote on Prop 6 amends the California Constitution to remove the provision allowing for forced prison labor. I was under the impression that we abolished slavery in 1865, but evidently not. While the incarcerated may be in prison for potentially heinous crimes, the righteous punishment is a loss of freedom, not being worked in de facto concentration camps. They should not have their fundamental human rights violated by being forced to work in dangerous professions like firefighting with little to no experience. Under a post-slavery regime, firms would still be incentivized to hire prison laborers because they would be paid the federal minimum wage of $7.25, less than half the California minimum wage of $16. We can rehabilitate prisoners by preparing them for the job market after they finish their sentences, but they deserve fair compensation. I’m voting YES on Prop 6 because I want California inmates to be paid fairly and be prepared for jobs they actually want to work in upon completion of their sentence.. Prop 32: NO A YES vote on Prop 32 immediately raises the California minimum wage from $16 to $17, with another increase to $18 at the start of 2026, after which it would be pegged to inflation. There is a 1-year delay for small businesses. As someone who’s worked minimum-wage jobs, I’m deeply sympathetic to their desire for a wage hike. Our economy is built off of the often thankless work they do, and we owe it to them to ensure they are taken care of. Prop 32 does the exact opposite. There’s a certain point at which raising the minimum wage too much will cause excessive distortion in the market, leading to massive labor surpluses per the law of supply and demand. This means many will be left out of a job. Furthermore, prices will increase in line with wages, leaving those who would become unemployed behind while those who keep their jobs would be no better off than before. It’s also worth noting that cities often set higher minimum wages, the market wage rises higher than the wage floor, and workers get wage increases with promotions. The status-quo peg to inflation is more than sufficient. I’m voting NO on Prop 32 because I do not want to risk sending the California economy into a recession. Prop 33: NO A YES vote on Prop 33 repeals the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which currently bans local rent control ordinances. Thus, rent control will likely be expanded. Ever taken an Econ class? I am a terrible artist so I cannot draw it up for you, but one of the very first graphs Econ students learn is that of supply and demand and how price ceilings affect markets. In a nutshell, a price ceiling (like rent control) is only effective if it is below the market price, in which case supply is less than demand. Therefore, rent control will cause shortages in housing units since developers would not have as much incentive to build and landlords wouldn’t have as much incentive to rent out. Even those still able to acquire housing under a rent control regime would suffer, since rent is used to pay for maintenance. In sum, Prop 33 would lead to more homelessness and worsened living conditions for renters. The way to resolve our housing crisis is by building more housing (see: Prop 5), not artificially restricting rents. Most Californians agree, which is why we voted NO on near-identical propositions in 2018 and 2020. I’m voting NO on Prop 33 because I recognize the basic economic reality that rent control just makes things worse. Prop 34: YES A YES vote on Prop 34 requires healthcare providers spending more than $100M on non-patient expenses and owning/operation apartment buildings with at least 500 severe health and safety violations in the last decade to spend at least 98% of revenue from the federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care. It also makes permanent a policy from Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration requiring California state agencies to coordinate Medi-Cal drug price negotiations. Negotiating drug prices to keep pharmaceutical costs low is a no-brainer, so let us talk about the crux of Prop 34. There is only one healthcare provider in California meeting the aforementioned conditions: the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF). You would be hard-pressed to even consider them as such, given that their Co-Founder and President Michael Weinstein seems more interested in spending AHF revenue on campaigning for political causes than he is caring for his AIDS patients. Specifically, Michael Weinstein has backed regressive anti-housing initiatives in multiple states by dumping millions of dollars from the AHF coffers into campaign ads. This includes California, where he is the primary bankroller of Prop 33 in this election and near-identical initiatives in 2018 and 2020. The role of healthcare providers is not to play politics but to provide healthcare. Don’t let Michael Weinstein abuse AHF revenues by failing his patients. I am voting YES on Prop 34 to hold Michael Weinstein accountable and protect AIDS patients. Prop 35: YES A YES vote on Prop 35 makes permanent an existing tax on managed healthcare insurance plans that fund Medi-Cal. After my grandfather tragically succumbed to COVID-19 in 2021, my grandmother left her hometown in India to live with us here in the United States. She is currently on Medi-Cal, which ensures seniors like her do not face the same fate as my late grandfather. The tax on managed healthcare insurance plans already exists, and it is so marginal you have probably never heard about it. Letting it expire would add extra strain to Medi-Cal (whose solvency is constantly at the brink of a fiscal cliff). That would put the lives of millions of California seniors like my grandmother in jeopardy, and that is not an outcome any of us should be willing to accept. I miss my grandpa; a well-funded program like Medi-Cal would’ve let him live to see me graduate. I’m voting YES on Prop 35 to extend a crucial tax that funds Medi-Cal and ensures no California family has to grieve the loss of a grandparent prematurely. Prop 36: YES A YES vote on Prop 36 allows felony charges for drug possession and petty theft against repeat offenders. Drug possession convictions would mandate treatment under the threat of incarceration. When the Westfield Mall in San Francisco shut down due to rampant theft, my friends and I went there on its last day open. In just that one trip, we saw someone smoking crack cocaine on our BART train, people stealing from one of the few stores still open at Westfield, and someone getting put into a body bag following an overdose. It is not hard to see why cities like San Francisco have gone from beacons of prosperity to the laughingstocks of America. We need to get our drug and theft problems under control because the status quo is an absolute disaster. Allowing open-air drug use is not compassionate; it is cruel. True compassion is making our fellow Californians suffering from drug addiction get the help they need. As for theft? Enough is enough. It is time we send a message to the career criminals of California that if they rob our stores, threaten employees, hike prices up and drive businesses out, they will be thrown into prison on felony charges. I’m voting YES on Prop 36 because we need criminal justice reform to help drug addicts and put robbers in custody. Closing Remarks Regardless of how you’re voting, I strongly encourage you to vote if you haven’t already done so. The centuries-honored tradition of elections is the foundation of our Republic, so let’s stand strong and united as Americans by embracing it.
0 Comments
By Salahideen Salem Opinion Columnist A complaint not often heard when attending Saint Mary’s is the disparity of opportunities between dorming and commuting students. While many students live close by, others are not often afforded that opportunity when it comes to college, and as a result, it is easy to miss many events for those who do not live in places such as Walnut Creek. While dorming is a less time-consuming alternative, the increased tuition of dorming nowadays makes this more difficult for many students. This grows in starker relief in certain situations where one may live distantly, but not so far as to justify the increased costs of bunking in college. As a result, they are bound to miss many opportunities, such as through events, clubs, or even just forming bonds. Firstly, when attending Saint Mary’s, I was struck by how it was difficult to do much of anything when one was set on a timeframe. Many clubs are restricted to working late nights and when I began participating in the Visiting Writers’ Series course, I had a great deal of difficulty attending because they were set late at night. While one may argue that these are the only times where people can organize these events, it also means that people who come for night classes will seldom have the time to attend these events. Moreover, when I gave my contact information to many of the clubs I was interested in at the beginning of the fall semester, I quickly found they were often set at times when I wasn’t available. Both my brother and I normally just go home whenever we finish classes, and oftentimes free time was dedicated to just finishing work whenever we stayed in school. It made for a rough experience when adding the hour long drive home to it and the value of time to the mix. Being home is a time to wind down, and often staying late to attend events or clubs when you couldn’t before add to stress when there is little respite to the constant flow. On the opposite end of things, going home early is not a solution either. This robs many students of the opportunity to create bonds and in general, further adds to the anxiety propagated by the consistent rush and flow of college. It prevents them from becoming a part of the community and weighing more on issues or matters that pass through time. The inability to join a club makes matters especially difficult, as it grows tougher to befriend anyone or even interact with others beyond the few classes you have with them. It makes for further difficulties and adds to a growing sense of isolation as you are consistently locked out of the loop. While these complaints are not often vocalized in my experience, they tend to feel very real as a commuter, especially when one cannot devote all their time to college. While I feel like the community is great in Saint Mary’s, having limited opportunity to access it really hinders one’s enjoyment to it. It needs more time to be balanced among all sides, as well as more options to use apps to attend events remotely, such as through Zoom. Recently, many events now have been growing later and later in the hours of the day, and often I feel like it makes trying to join in on college activity or camaraderie exhausting. What good is a beneficial event if you can’t take it in due to all the stress and anxiety that comes from the constant flow of activity? We need to balance college life not only for people who dorm but also for commuters so that they can have a healthy and productive school year. By Nicholas Zuniga Visiting Opinion Columnist Fall of 2024 marks the first semester of the Graduate Student Association (GSA) at Saint Mary’s College of California. The GSA, including elected official positions such as president and vice-president, has gathered together in attempts to serve the graduate student body by implementing positive change for the graduate student experience. Considering the lack of embrace and inclusion for graduate students in the general - undergraduate - student experience at Saint Mary’s, graduate students are having to go above and beyond to be recognized within the school’s student body and student associations. Looking at prominent student associations, Associated Students at Saint Mary’s has a particularly influential role in undergraduate student life. Associated Students, an organization on campus that is “committed to fostering the holistic development of students,” has a well-established executive student council and is responsible for allocating $250,000 in funds to student organizations, clubs, programming and more. Within the association are several governing documents, including a constitution, bylaws, election code and budget. However, graduate students are not named or included in any of these documents or executive boards, only “undergraduate” is used. Regina Molitoris, the current president of Associated Students, who, notably, with her menstrual products resolution last year, provided students access to free menstrual products in campus restrooms, was asked about why graduate students are not integrated within Associated Students, “We address the problems and the concerns of the undergraduate, solely because in our constitution it says ‘undergraduate,’ Molitoris said. “The funds allocated to us are paid by the undergraduate students. It’s not to denigrate graduate students at all… I’m very happy about [the formation of the GSA].” Molitoris clarified that her focus for the year remains on undergraduates. However, she noted that Associated Students may be collaborating with the GSA to hold events and help facilitate the works of events. Speaking with Dr. Rebecca Anguiano, a department chair and professor within the counseling program here at Saint Mary’s, she noted that, “[Saint Mary’s] campus… It's a lovely campus, right? And it's geared towards undergraduate students.” “Our graduate students are amazing. They deserve to be represented,”Anguiano added. “Thinking about how we make campus accessible to our graduate students is really important… What are we supposed to do for working professionals who can't get to campus before their four pm class, and it's already a struggle to get [to class] by four.” As a graduate student, it is upsetting to see that only undergraduate student organizations receive funding, from the school, that enhances their extracurricular student experience. As a graduate student who is living on campus, I will be paying just below $50,000 dollars for this academic year alone. Even though my cost of attendance is high, my opportunity for extra funding is low. Graduate students are not eligible for the Pell Grant and we do not have paid leadership opportunities like elected students within Associated Students. Furthermore, textbook scholarships! I spent around $350 by renting most of my 11 textbooks this semester, and I did not get any scholarship from the textbook fund. All I received were several emails telling me to ‘please be patient and await further communications.’ Hopefully, in the near future, graduate students will begin to feel more supported by the beautiful Saint Mary’s campus.  Image C/O GaelAlumni Instagram Page By Emily Brazeal Opinion Columnist
Fall is almost upon us. That’s right, the season of pumpkin spice lattes, Gilmore Girls and crunchy leaves has returned once again. A time where we cater our Spotify playlist to act as if we were the main character of a John Hughes movie. We aestheticize everything from our drinks to our clothing and even our academics. As fun as that can be in reality–life isn’t a Pinterest board. Although we romanticize this season, it proves to be a very taxing one. Starting rigorous classes, juggling extracurriculars, and new potentially stressful social situations all pile up. Midterms loom over us for the whole of October. This stress is not uncommon, as about 1 in 3 students report being anxious about returning to school. In fact, the U.S. is reported to have the most stressed students. For many of us autumn beckons the return of the academic stress and long hours of trying not to fall asleep in the library. Yet Americans overwhelmingly choose autumn as their favorite season and it is chronically romanticized year after year on every social media platform. In fact, our overwhelming classes are one of the main things we aestheticize. We pretend as if our all-nighters are fall-esque instead of completely frustrating. In all autumn’s beauty, this is also the time when seasonal depression returns. The most common type of seasonal depression is fall-onset, beginning in autumn and persisting through winter. As the cool weather begins to creep in symptoms like fatigue, feelings of hopelessness and oversleeping take over. This is not the reality of mini pumpkins and platform uggs that is portrayed on my Pinterest feed. So what is the reason? Are we so delusional to reality that we prioritize pumpkin spice over mental health? Is it because we are so stressed that we desperately need to aestheticize this season to stop ourselves from going crazy? Or do we simply like stepping on crunchy leaves? I don’t fully know why fall becomes an over-romanticized season. Everyone's reason is different, but maybe in the end it’s just because it’s fun to do. However, this over-romanticizing can overshadow the very real stress and depression that come with the change of season. We end up comparing our social media feeds of scented candles and apple picking when really we should be checking up on each other. Maybe check in on yourself. I’m not telling you to stop romanticizing autumn. I love spiced coffee, “cute” study sessions, and getting mad at Rory Gilmore. But maybe we should pause for a second in this stressful season to check in on ourselves and others. Then we can go buy ourselves a pumpkin spice latte. So-called useless college classes and how they might not be so useless.  Image c/o Saint Mary's College By Madison Sciba Editor-in-Chief A common complaint heard around college campuses across the country is “ugh why do I have to take this class? It doesn’t even have anything to do with my major.” STEM students complain about having to take English and History classes while liberal arts students complain about being forced to take science labs and math classes. A great deal of people major in something that they are interested and/or good at, which is why a lot of students dislike having to take classes that are on a widely different topic than the one they are studying. What most students fail to realize is how essential these “other” classes are to creating a well rounded education.
When first starting Saint Mary’s I was infuriated that I had to take a math class. As a communications major and history minor, who has always had a great disdain for mathematics, I wanted to cry at the thought of having to use algebra or even think about the quadratic formula. After a semester of tears and crying out, “I just don’t get it,” I eventually realized that taking the class was actually beneficial to me. Sure I don’t use high level math in my everyday life, but the basic statistics and data that I learned has remained helpful when navigating the real world. In discussing these so called “useless classes” the conversation is usually liberal arts students having to take math and science classes. Interestingly, STEM majors complain almost as much, if not more, about having to take English and history class. My brother is a cyber intelligence and security major at an aerospace and engineering school. When he had to take his required English class it became apparent to me why it was necessary for people to take classes outside of their subject. People like my brother, those who are more geared towards science and technology, are not as skilled at English and language arts as liberal arts majors. Liberal arts requires a lot of writing so those majors get a lot of practice, STEM major’s don’t so they need that required extra English class to get those much needed skills that come with essay writing and reading important novels. Look, we all don’t want to take classes on topics we find difficult/uninteresting, but they are necessary. The goal of most universities is to create well rounded individuals who will be productive in the outside world. An essential part to being well rounded is taking a variety of classes on a range of topics. What good is a person who only knows one subject? An engineer who cannot write a legible paper on their research won’t be an effective one. Being able to quote a Shakespeare play in old English is great but won’t help you when doing math to manage your finances. Our society needs us to study and have a basic understanding of all areas so we can be productive, successful members of society.  Image c/o Mt Diablo Unified School District By Lizeth De La Cruz Visiting Columnist In this country, we all legally have to be enrolled in school from Kinder to 12th grade, therefore this research is meant to serve as a call to action appealing to all human beings. Public high schools are specifically meant to prepare their students for a life post-graduation as they see their students come in as teenagers and leave as young adults. Yet, only the students who attend high schools located in expensive cities have the privilege of receiving this. But how, exactly, does a public high school’s location impact a student’s access and preparation for a higher education?
Schools with higher amounts of lower-income students are given fewer resources to prepare for higher education and I first handily saw the lack of resources within my school district, Mount Diablo Unified. I compared the demographics of two schools in this district, Northgate High School which is located in Walnut Creek, a much more expensive zipcode to live in compared to Mount Diablo High School, located in Concord. According to the US News World Report, it stated that “64% of students” at Northgate took an AP exam and in their entire school only “20%” of students are of lower income”. While at Mount Diablo High School only “18% of students took an AP exam” and “75% of their students are of lower income”. These statistics clearly show the correlation between economic status and exam enrollment but what exactly does it mean for students to be considered of lower income? As specified by the National Center for Education Statistics, Mount Diablo had “433 students” who qualified for free lunch while at Northgate only “141 students qualified”. This means that students who are categorized as lower income have to have families who are annually making under what is federally considered as poverty in California. Students who are at an economic advantage have higher enrollment because of districts like Mount Diablo Unified which only provide the most funding to schools with higher-income students. Advanced Placement exams are meant to prepare students for the rigors of college while also allowing them to earn college credits to lower the cost of their education. Sadly, without having access to proper resources like college and career centers this information is almost impossible for students to learn about. This is a call to action for humanity as a whole as we must fight for the proper resources amongst all schools, not just those in wealthy neighborhoods. This matters because the minds being educated in high school are all the future workers of America. By helping fight we are ensuring that all future generations will have the equal opportunity to break through generational poverty and obtain a bachelor's degree while securing a high-paying job. But, the only way this is achievable is if districts like Mount Diablo Unified promise to have a college and career center with at least two counselors across all high schools. Students, I urge you to fight for your peers while advocating for them by sharing this information with others including your parents as having a proper education is a right, not a privilege.  Image C/O by Dimitrios Kambouris / The MET Museum / Vogue / GETTY Images By Isabella Wynn Visiting Columnist The MET Gala never fails to pump out fashion flops, celebrity drama, and memes. I am not usually very invested in the MET Gala, however this year I took a look at Vogue’s live streaming and their lengthy list of all attendees and their red carpet looks.
The theme for the 2024 MET Gala was “Garden of Time.” As you would expect, the red carpet saw lots of flowers and light colors. Of course there were also looks that were a little out of the box; some abstractly fit the theme and some definitely flopped (right down that giant MET staircase). As someone who knows absolutely nothing about high fashion, I will be giving my honest reviews on the 2024 MET Gala looks. I am simply a thrifting connoisseur and a consumer of the media; don't take these opinions to heart. Starting off strong, Zendaya gifted us with two stunning looks. Her designers definitely fit the theme dressing her in gowns and floral decor. Some may think that the black gown doesn't fit “Garden of Time,” but I think the color black is timeless and the floral headpiece ties it all together. Others who had strong looks were Emma Chamberlain and Lana Del Rey. Both of these women had designers who took similar approaches to the theme. They went for more of a roots and thorns look rather than a floral look. I appreciated the unique and darker take on the theme in these two looks. I always love a brown look. Lizzo’s designer also took on more neutral colors paired with subtle florals. I especially liked the shape of her dress. Sydney Sweeney’s look was another one that dipped its toe into a darker theme, mixing florals and pastel blue with black accents and a black wig. I liked it. My standing ovation critique goes to Tyla in her Balmain gown made out of sand. This was my favorite look as it was so unique and so creative. Playing off the theme of time, her designer made her look like an actual hourglass. The details in accessorizing were beautiful as she wore simple jewelry and carried around a “purse” hourglass. For a bit of a hot take, I really liked Doja Cat’s look. She showed up in a giant, white, soaking wet t-shirt dress. I didn't like it and didn't get it until she explained it in an interview. She chose to represent the cotton flower with a timeless white t-shirt. She felt it was very poetic and I agreed. In wanting to stand out, she succeeded. Another look that stood out, possibly for what I think are the wrong reasons, was Da ‘Vine Joy Randolph’s denim dress. Denim wins the timeless competition and I think her gown was very flattering on her. She looked like a denim flower. Now unfortunately there are quite a few looks that I have brutal opinions on. I saw looks representing (I’m assuming unintentional) themes of wedding cakes, tin foil, 2000s disney red carpet looks, and mermaids. And of course, most of the men disappointed this year wearing simple black and/or white suits with maybe a subtle floral detail. Wedding Cake looks: Gigi Hadid, Lil Nas X, Ayo Edebiri, Taylor Russell, and Madelyn Cline. All of these looks reminded me of a wedding cake. A lot of these looks are gorgeous but I cannot look at them without thinking “wedding cake.” Lil Nas X gets points for consistently stepping out of the black and white suit stereotype. I also love my girl Ayo Edebiri, but the flowers on her dress look tacky to me and I don't think the dress fits her well. Gigi Hadid and Madelyn Cline’s looks simply give “wedding cake”, I cannot focus on anything else. Lastly, I may get some heat for this, but Taylor Russell looks like she is wearing fondue. Tin foil: Michelle Yeoh, Amanda Seyfried, and Kim Kardashian. These are just some of the looks that reminded me of tinfoil. Michelle Yeoh and Amanda Seyfried most of all. These two women were dressed in almost the same wrinkled tin foil looking dresses. The only difference was that Amanda’s had little pink tin foil flowers on the skirt of the dress. I did not like these looks and did not think they were pleasant to look at. Kim Kardashian’s designer took a different approach but still falls into the tinfoil category. There are some beautiful details on Kim’s look however it is ultimately shadowed by the fact that Kim looked like she couldn't breathe, the inclusion of the random, gray sweater, and the looks resemblance to tin foil. Disney Red Carpet: One of my least favorite looks was Zoë Saldaña’s. I did not see how it fit the 2024 theme whatsoever. I feel like the look speaks for itself when you see it. Mermaid: Gabrielle Union’s designer got lazy. They put her in a shiny scaled mermaid dress. It doesn't fit the theme, looks tacky, and isn't anything new. It looks like a bad, ocean themed prom dress. Her husband, Dwyane Wade wore a purple suit, which was a nice color but paired poorly with a plain, v-neck t-shirt. Other: Barry Keoghan and Nicole Kidman. Barry Keoghan’s suit looked like the love child of Willy Wonka and the Mad Hatter. Perhaps he was channeling Timothée Chalamet after the release of his Wonka movie and poking fun at the rumors that Chalamet was the original choice to play Oliver in Saltburn. Again, I appreciate Barry and his designer not going with a black suit, but I did not like what they chose. Another one of my least favorite looks was Nicole Kidman’s. Her dress looked like a black, baby bird emerging from the crotch of her dress. I didn’t get it and didn’t like it. Ultimately, fashion is up for interpretation and in reality, none of us know anything about fashion because it is all made up. Wear what you want and like what you like. I am looking forward to the looks presented in next year’s Hunger Games. Whoops, I mean the MET Gala. How the state is failing to prepare students  Image c/o GVWire By Edith Cuevas Opinion Columnist California is paving the way for other states in many aspects, including green energy, having a strong economy, and human rights. The state of California is failing in one sphere, and that is ensuring that all California students have access to economic literacy courses in high school. Financial literacy is important because it empowers students to make informed decisions, and allows them to build safety nets for themselves.
California is one of the most diverse states in the country, and making financial literacy a requirement for high school graduation would ensure that there is equitable access to these courses, even in marginalized communities. I believe that this is a necessary change because it gives students the opportunity to learn about budgeting, saving, investing, understanding credit, and managing debt. This will eventually lead to a generation of students that are better equipped to make important financial decisions after their high school careers. Another benefit is the ability to navigate financial challenges by reducing the susceptibility of individuals to predatory lending or even scams. Individuals may also be able to be less likely to accumulate high levels of debt and even be less likely to declare bankruptcy. Here at Saint Mary’s, I have been working on an advocacy project with four other individuals from my public policy course. We are attempting to raise awareness on this core curriculum change as we believe that this issue has the potential to have a positive impact on many Californias through empowerment. During our project, we surveyed a group of about 30 students. Over 96% of students surveyed believe that financial literacy is important. About 70% of those interviewed did not have access to financial literacy courses. Only 30% of students did have access to financial literacy courses but it was only a requirement to graduate for 7% of those students. Financial literacy is important for students to understand things such as tax forms, interest rates, credit cards, loans, etc. Why should you care? Well, only less than 20% of students surveyed indicated that they do not struggle with filling out tax forms. The other 80% of students struggle with them and some do not understand how to file or fill out the proper forms. Nearly 70% of students surveyed did not feel prepared to manage personal finances upon graduating from high school. The consensus among those surveyed is that it is important for schools in California to offer financial literacy classes, with 85% of the responses noting that it is very important. Most importantly, there is overwhelming support for a core curriculum change across the state. 77% of those surveyed would support such a change. What can we do? Look out for any petitions supporting the cause, including one created by students here at Saint Mary’s, write to your local senators or assembly members, and look out for legislation supporting this matter during the upcoming November elections. Raising awareness and having conversations can make a bigger difference than you might think.  Image c/o Disney+ By Madison Sciba Editor-in-Chief ABC’s Emmy award winning show, Abbott Elementary, portrays the struggles of the teachers and staff at a financially struggling public school in Philadelphia. The mockumentary-style sitcom gives audiences a comedic view of what they could assume is what it is like to work at and/or go to a low income public school.
While I do believe that it is necessary to bring attention to the struggles of teachers, especially those at low income schools, I do not appreciate how Abbott Elementary seemingly sugar coats what it is actually like to work at one of these schools. While the show portrays the teachers having to deal with broken equipment, low budgets, and unsupportive administrators, it uses these as points of comedy rather than addressing the seriousness of the situation. In a time where our country is facing a detrimental teacher shortage, idealizing the battles of teachers is not helping. Abbott Elementary is centered around the kind of teachers who struggle the most in the teaching profession: those who do not have the necessary support from their administration, students’ parents, and community. All the teachers in Abbott, however, are portrayed as being dedicated educators who will do whatever it takes to be a good teacher to their students. That is, unfortunately, not the truth when it comes to the experiences of teachers at low income public schools. The teaching profession can break those who entered the field to change the lives of our children. They barely make a livable wage and yet they do one of the most difficult jobs in the world. We expect teachers to be the best no matter the circumstances and common misconceptions, like the one Abbott Elementary is portraying, is damaging. How else can we as a society change our perception and support of educators if our media is not showing the truth? Instead of making jokes about lacking funds or battling with the school district, why doesn’t Abbott Elementary show the parental neglect, the horrific conditions, and the real toll that teaching at a low income school can have on a teacher. Most teachers take what very little money they earn and put it back into their classrooms, buying the necessities that the schools and districts cannot provide them. For my whole life, my mom worked at a Title I elementary school in San Jose, CA. For those who don’t know, a Title I school is, “provides financial assistance to local educational agencies for children from low-income families to help ensure that all children meet challenging state academic standards.” (National Center for Educational Statistics). Growing up, I witnessed the struggle of someone who, although extremely dedicated to the field of education, lost their love and passion for the job. She and the other teachers would spend their own money on snacks, supplies, and sometimes even appropriate clothing, for students who couldn’t afford to bring in their own. Cockroaches were such a common issue that they would just put a cup over the bug and wait until the next lunch or break to deal with it. Barely anything was fully functioning and getting anything new was a rarity. I started off my educational journey at this school. After one year my parents decided that I had to be sent to a different school. My mother, someone who taught at a low income school for almost fifteen years, knew that students at that school were being done a grave disservice. Lucky for me, my parents had the means of sending me to a local Catholic school for a better, healthier environment, however, my former classmates were not as lucky. To this day, that school is operating even worse off than before. The buildings are practically falling apart and the students at this school are getting a significantly worse educational experience than a student at the wealthier public elementary school just a mile up the street. What this society needs is not for these kinds of low income schools to be the center of jokes, but to be the catalyst for great changes to the educational system. There needs to be more awareness of the struggles of teachers at low income public schools and how that struggle directly affects the ability for those students to learn.  Image c/o Getty Images By Isabella Wynn Visiting Columnist In adjusting to losing an hour of sleep on March 10th, we may be enjoying more daylight, but our internal clocks are not having as good of a time. Daylight savings time (DST) has become something most people in the U.S. have grown accustomed to. With the exception of Arizona and Hawaii, the U.S. is a part of the 70 countries that observe DST. Most Californians may be aware that absolving daylight savings has been on the ballots for years. I am personally on the side that believes we should join Arizona and Hawaii in not participating in daylight savings, and I’ll tell you why.
You may be familiar with the term “Circadian Rhythm.” Our circadian rhythms become wildly affected when DST begins or ends. The National Institute of General Medicinal Sciences (NIGMS) states that “circadian rhythms are the physical, mental, and behavioral changes an organism experiences over a 24-hour cycle.” While our circadian rhythms can be affected by things like food intake, social environments, and temperature, light and dark have the biggest influence. Light and dark does not only refer to the daylight or lackthereof outside, our circadian rhythms can also be affected by things like the light from our technological devices or the use of blackout curtains. I’m no woman in STEM, but I generally understand our circadian rhythms and how important it is to try to keep them regularly controlled. With so many aspects of our daily lives that could disrupt our rhythm, adding DST into the mix can cause not only short term risks but long term risks. Our social jet lag and sleep deprivation caused by DST can “result in a continued misalignment in your body's internal clock” (Business Insider) which is linked to causing serious problems. Short-term problems such as an increase in car accidents and workplace injuries are accompanied by “24% more people [having] heart attacks than on other Mondays throughout the year” (Business Insider) when DST begins. DST is also linked to an increase in poor mental health and suicide. In terms of long-term risks, we already have a society that has become addicted to our technology and microplastics in our food and water; if we have the opportunity to eliminate something that causes problems, we should take it. The NIGMS stresses that “long-term sleep loss and continually shifting circadian rhythms can increase the risks of obesity, diabetes, mood disorders, heart and blood pressure problems, and cancer, and can also worsen existing health issues.” DST was first temporarily implemented during World War I in efforts to save energy. Nowadays, DST does the opposite. It has been found that DST causes us to consume more energy than we conserve. DST also increases the “demand for heat and air conditioning.” And perhaps part of the reason the government hasn’t put an emphasis on the importance of abolishing DST is that we are more likely to spend more money after work in the spring and summer due to extra daylight. Don’t get me wrong, I love the switch when daylight savings ends and we get more sunlight later in the day. However, I do not love the process of resetting my internal clock. In wanting to get up early and have a productive start to my day, I find myself hitting snooze for an hour. I used to think Arizona and Hawaii were strange for not joining the rest of the states in observing DST. However, in learning about these major risks and acknowledging how I am personally affected by it, I found myself on the side of agreeing with the abolishing of daylight savings. Hopefully in reading this, you may reconsider how you feel about DST. Even if it means I’ll be spending more money later in the day, I’d love to have more sunlight later in the day year round. And, more importantly, I’d love for my circadian rhythm to not be extra affected twice a year. |
STAFFAndrew Martinez Cabrera '26, Archives
November 2024
Categories |
RSS Feed