“With all the emphasis on 21st-century skills, with the globalization of the economy and the world becoming smaller because of technology, we have so many opportunities out there, and I think we’re behind — really, we’re behind most nations — in teaching second languages.” This statement by Desa Dawson, president of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, proves how crucial it is for schools to introduce comprehensive world language programs. In the United States, less than 25% of students study a world language in school, contrary to 92% of Europe’s students who begin their world language learning as early as the age of six. Learning a different language gives students insight into different cultures around the world as well as a toolkit for communicating with people of different nationalities. Our students are the future of our country and it is crucial that they have these skills in life. California schools should provide comprehensive world language programs because it would expand students’ cultural worldview, help bridge the gap between diverse races, and ensure that students don’t fall behind in world language education. Introducing a comprehensive world language program is essential if we are to expand students’ cultural understanding of our world. The language of a nationality or country is closely intertwined with its culture and traditions. It cannot be taken out of this context. For example, every language has its own set of idioms. If we were to translate them verbatim into the English language, disregarding any cultural context, the idioms wouldn’t make sense. In the same way, if students learn the Chinese language without learning about Chinese culture, their understanding would be limited to what they’ve learned on paper. They would lose any understanding of the intangibles such as the culture, traditions and unspoken social customs. Guest teacher programs are an effective way of bringing a cultural context to language learning. The Chinese guest teacher program began in 2007 and it is now implemented within 30 states—Utah, North Carolina and Ohio being the largest of them. Schools in Bradenton, Florida are already preparing their second language students for a more complete cultural worldview. Xu Dou, a Chinese guest teacher in a Bradenton middle school, centers his lessons on Chinese traditions, including the writing of Chinese characters. Says Xu Dou, “If you want to learn real Chinese, you have to learn how to write Chinese characters… an indispensable part of Chinese tradition.” Similarly, the College Board, a non-profit organization that runs SAT and AP exams for the US, understood the benefits of providing a holistic view on language when it created an AP program in Chinese language and culture, which is similar to the second year program taught in colleges throughout China. If the College Board recognizes the importance of introducing a “cultural world language” program, it is time that the state of California catches on. Spanish teacher Caitlin Santin of Ross School, California, describes learning a second language as an experience that “opened up [her] world to different cultures and how different people live.” Second language programs would not be complete without an understanding of the culture and society from which languages come. California schools would benefit its students by providing language learning within a cultural context. Learning a world language also helps bridge the gap between people of different nationalities and can promote and repair relationships. Learning a language is not only necessary to communicate with its native speakers, but is also a way of breaking down barriers and differences between people as it brings commonality and connection to any interaction. This concept has been accepted worldwide. Language exchange programs such as France’s Parler en Paix initiative are centered on repairing relations between the French Jewish and Muslim communities affected by French laïcité (secularism). The organization’s students learn both Arabic and Hebrew in an effort to achieve the public’s end goal of a unified country. Ultimately, “efforts like Parler en Paix emphasize a desire within the French public for tolerance and unification,” (newsela) thereby making a profound impact on eliminating xenophobia and anti-semitism throughout France. By embracing the language, religion and culture of other races, we have the potential to unite diverse groups, even those with a history of religious and political conflict. And, with global warming trends, pandemics, and dwindling natural resources, our world is in a precarious position. It is up to our generation of students to unite as one global community to solve our world’s problems. Much like France, the state of California has a diverse racial and religious group of citizens. Second language teaching should be more integrated into our state’s education requirements in order to prepare for the future. California lags in world language education, which in turn limits the opportunities available to its students and affects their competitive standing. European countries have been the forerunner in recognizing the importance of introducing comprehensive world language programs. Even US government officials recognize that world language learning is “essential for US economic and strategic interests” (Washington, newsela). Without world language education, how can we expect our students to take on global interests? Moreover, learning a world language reaps many intellectual benefits that are necessary for success. “By acquiring a foreign language, you will double the number of available jobs… and climb the career ladder much faster” (Jiidee, University of the Potomac). If California’s students are to intellectually “stay in the running” against other countries, language learning is a must. And, due to the fact that language requirements are determined at the district or state level, each state must be accountable for its own students’ education. Some may argue that learning a second language isn’t necessary for California students, most of whom stay within California or take jobs where a second language isn’t useful or required. The chances are that the majority of California’s students will pursue jobs that don’t require international travel or global relations. Arguably, if second language proficiency is required on the job, diplomats or global professionals may be hired
essay
Animal Farm and the Concept of Failed Socialist Utopia
Historians estimate that around twenty million perished under Stalin’s totalitarian socialist regime (Keller). Around 18-45 million died in China’s Great Leap Forward under Mao Zedong’s similarly structured dictatorship (SimpleHistory). Many more perished during his Cultural Revolution (Lowndes). Though similar to fascism in terms of death toll and suffering, communism is somehow interpreted as an egalitarian utopia, which is far from the truth. In Animal Farm, George Orwell presents a fascinating allegory of the rise of the Soviet Union and the dangers of communism. Through a simple fable, Orwell provides a detailed study of how absolute power corrupts and how dictatorships don’t ever work even if they have a populist basis. Any system that puts too much power into the hands of a few people is doomed to fail. Stalin leveraged Marx’s “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” to seize absolute power (Daugherty). Animal Farm’s central idea is that of a failed socialist utopia like the Soviet Union, with egalitarian socialist ideals, corrupted and twisted into something unrecognizable by power-hungry elites. Both Old Major and Karl Marx saw a fundamentally unjust system with flagrant exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoise and challenged the status quo, inciting many revolutions. Karl Marx believed that all of society’s production is carried out by the proletariat, but the bourgeoise steals the fruit of their hard labor and reaps all the benefits, or “for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work” (Marx, 21). Old Major endorses the same beliefs in the relationship between animals and humans, when he says “Man is the only creature that consumes without producing. He does not give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak to pull the plough, he cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits. Yet he is lord of all the animals. He sets them to work, he gives back to them the bare minimum that will prevent them from starving, and the rest he keeps for himself” (Orwell, 4). Karl Marx was against any divisions amongst the proletariat, including classism, nations, or religion, because he believed these differences would be further exploited by the bourgeoise. Old Major’s commandments are similarly structured stating that animals should never have any of the habits of the humans and should always be equal and united. In his speech, Old Major says “No animal must ever tyrannize over his own kind. Weak or strong, clever or simple, we are all brothers. No animal must ever kill any other animal. All animals are equal” (Orwell, 5). Both imagined a classless society free of private property, in which everyone received equal shares of the products that labor creates. They saw this as the ultimate and inevitable end result of society. The similarities between Old Major and Karl Marx also spill over to Napoleon and Stalin. While Stalin rose to power through lies, manipulation, and elimination of everyone who stood in his way (starting with Trotsky (Stuart)), Napoleon blazes a similar trail in Animal Farm with Snowball paying the price. Squealer is Napoleon’s mouthpiece, just like how all of the media in the Soviet Union were Stalin’s. Both Napoleon and Stalin controlled the flow of information and relied on propaganda to push their rhetoric, as propaganda is a key component of any authoritarian regime (McGregor). When the pigs stole all the milk and apples on the farm, Squealer justified it to the gullible animals by saying that “Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig” (Orwell, 15). This is a partial truth, as it’s necessary for the well-being of any animal. Though all animals are considered equal, Squealer also says that “We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organization of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for your sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples” (Orwell, 15). So, Squealer is using propaganda and fear to convince the other animals. Napoleon’s army of dogs is based on the Soviet secret police, who relied on fear to suppress all dissent and to establish a totalitarian regime that controlled every aspect of life in their society (Stuart). Napoleon and Stalin share many similarities, but Animal Farm is not an exact replica of the Soviet Union. Though Stalin collaborated with the capitalists in World War II, similar to how Napoleon makes friends with the farmers in Animal Farm, he never reverted Russia back to a tsardom or abandoned the communist rhetoric, while Napoleon completely strays from everything the ideology of animalism once stood for. The animal farm ends as a total failure because they never manage to build the windmill to industrialize the farm and their living standards never improve, but the Soviet Union rose to being a superpower that challenged the United States for many decades during the Cold War before it finally fell (SimpleHistory2, Stuart). Stalin’s collaboration with the allies was a temporary measure, and he later betrayed them, establishing socialist dictatorships in the territories he seized from Germany (SimpleHistory2). On the other hand, Napoleon colludes with the humans and even invites them to the farm for a game of poker to show his solidarity, causing some friction when “Napoleon and Mr. Pilkington had each played an ace of spades simultaneously” (Orwell, 60). The animal farm is permanently renamed to its pre-revolutionary name, signaling the abandoning of all founding principles. Napoleon announces in his speech that “the name ‘Animal Farm’ has been abolished. Henceforward the farm is to be known as ‘The Manor Farm’—which is its correct and original name” (Orwell, 59). All commandments are erased except for that of “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” George Orwell captures the giddy rise and inevitable corruption of utopian socialist ideals in a way that can be understood by everyone in a cute but gritty allegory. It’s horrifying to see the transformation of what starts out
Conservatives Want to Ban All My Favorite Books, by Emma, 9
Something I know from personal experience is that Melissa, by Alex Gino, is an amazing book that has been praised widely for its inclusion of the LGBTQ community. In 2016, it was awarded the Stonewall Children’s Book award. The book is about a transgender girl who wants to be Charlotte in her class production of Charlotte’s Web, but is not allowed to because her teacher says she is a “boy.” The novel used to be called George, but people complained that Alex Gino was deadnaming their character, and the title was changed to Melissa. While a lot of people think that Melissa is a great book that addresses the problems that transgender kids face, it has been banned by many school districts. The book has been moved up and down the American Library Association’s Top Ten Most Challenged Book list, from number three to number five to number one on the list, before becoming the first most banned book ever. The Wichita, Kansas public school system banned the book from its district libraries, and when the book was included in the Oregon Battle of the Books, two school districts removed their students from the competition in retaliation. Those critical of the novel said the book had “sexual content,” of which there is none whatsoever, thereby mixing up sex with gender identity. Some critics went as far as to say that Melissa just did not go with or reflect “community values.” However, it is important to learn about real issues like this in the world, and these “community values” should be expanded to include all people. Some people simply disliked the novel because they thought a book about a transgender girl was not appropriate for children. Children should know about the real world, and they shouldn’t be banned from learning about what actually happens. Insisting that young people shouldn’t read these books signifies that transgender people or members of the broader LGBTQ community are somehow “wrong” and that their existence should be hidden. While this news may be outrageous, this is not the only recent book to be banned by schools. New Kid, by Jerry Craft, is also under the status of “banned.” While Melissa was banned because it was about a transgender character, New Kid, a graphic novel about a Black boy from the Bronx who attends a school full of rich, white kids, was banned for bringing up the subject of racism. New Kid was banned from Texas schools after a parent had complained that it promoted “critical race theory,” which is not actually taught in public schools. What conservatives call “critical race theory” is actually just the history of racism in the United States. According to someone from the far right, the words “white people owned slaves” is critical race theory. Right-wingers are upset about people knowing the truth, because the truth is embarrassing, infuriating, and could very well help overturn the whole system. As I move on, you will begin to see a pattern. Books that are banned are banned for the fact that reading about the topics they contain makes certain people “uncomfortable.” Another banned book, The Absolutely True Diary Of A Part-time Indian by Sherman Alexie, is a novel about a Native American boy living on a reservation struggling at his new all-white school. This book was banned in the Stockton, Missouri School District because of violence, bad language, and sexual content. Many banned books address issues that conservatives don’t want to address. The Absolutely True Diary Of A Part-time Indian is about racial injustice. In one scene from the novel, the main character punches a white boy for bullying him. Critics of this book claim this promotes violence, and, while this scene is indeed violent, it shows what the main character’s school is like and the violence that racism produces, and it impacts how the rest of the story works. This book was also banned for bad language, but the idea of swear words just circles around random words which have somehow been considered as “bad.” This book was also banned for “sexual references,” which are probably the scenes where the character talks about women’s bodies. While this is problematic in some ways, the book uses this to expand upon the character, and just because you dislike something in a book, doesn’t mean people shouldn’t be allowed to read it. The way this novel addresses these topics is realistic, but its right-wing critics use the novel’s references to racism and violence as a jumping off point to challenge it. All of the challenges to these books either mix up terms or want to suppress certain topics. In Melissa, critics confuse sex and gender. In New Kid and The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, critics want to suppress conversations about racism and violence. Why do we need to tell young people that a topic is not appropriate for them, or that they can’t read a certain book? Why do some adults think that young people don’t have the ability to read difficult texts and think about their meaning? If they are concerned that young people will struggle with understanding these books on their own, all the more reason to teach them in schools. Books should not be banned; they should be discussed. I am nine years old, but I don’t shy away from books with demanding content. Important questions and issues should not be hidden from young people because they might find them challenging or confusing. All books worth reading require discussion; no book requires banishment.
