Issue 6
Following Apalachee High Tragedy, America Must Act: We Need Gun Laws
Louisa Corbett, Opinion
September 21, 2024
On Sept. 4, student Colt Gray opened fire at Apalachee High School. He killed four people–two students and two teachers–and wounded nine others in what quickly became a national news headline: the deadliest school shooting in Georgia’s history.
This tragedy is, however, not an anomaly in the United States: in 2024 alone, as of September 5, at least 11,598 people have died from gun violence in America. There have been more than 385 mass shootings* in the US. That’s more than one a day. As of Sept. 13, there have been at least 46 school shootings, or more than one per school week.
As the staggering volume of devastation and violence perpetuates daily news, it can be easy to numb to facts that should shock and outrage, to acquiesce to adapting to a deadly world. But what many Americans–standard citizens and politicians alike–forget is that it doesn’t have to be this way.
Mass shootings are undoubtedly an American epidemic. When compared to other developed countries, America’s gun violence and death rates are alarmingly high: between 2000 and 2022, according to the Rockefeller Institute for Government, the US has seen 109 public mass shootings** while the average among European countries and Australia is 2.3–the highest outlier being 6 in France.
What makes America different?
Some would argue that mental health, specifically depression, plays the largest role in triggering mass shootings. That doesn’t explain, then, the fact that Australia and the US have equal rates of depression, 5.9%, and Australia had only one public mass shooting during the same 22-year period in which the US had 109. Furthermore, a study done by Columbia Psychiatry debunked the myth that mental health causes mass shootings when it found that only 5% of mass shootings are linked to severe mental illness, and the 25% linked to nonpsychotic psychiatric illness, like depression, are usually pure coincidence.
When looking at gun policy differences between the US and countries with drastically lower gun fatality rates, we begin to see the importance of regulating gun usage. Australia has one of the strongest gun restriction policies worldwide and, correspondingly, one of the lowest gun violence rates worldwide. The country had seen only one mass shooting since 1996 when it enacted strict gun laws following the Port Arthur shooting that killed 35 people. Just 12 days after the incident, the Australian government cracked down hard on guns: they banned the sale and import of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and instituted a government buyback program.
Meanwhile, in 2024, roughly 120 Americans die every day from gun violence. Parents are scared to send their children to school. Kindergarteners as young as five years old experience anxiety and trauma responses to active shooter drills, in which kids are taught to cower under tables, while staff bang on doors, impersonating gunmen. At my K-12 school, we annually attend assemblies hosted by Campus Safety on school shooting protocol. Then, we return to our classrooms and wait for the sirens.
When shrill, foreboding beeping echoes down the halls, we pull down the shades and board up classroom windows with posters taped on walls. We pile our wooden chairs in a barricade in front of the door. We find heavy, blunt-force objects, like textbooks and full water bottles, and we crouch under the table, behind desks, or in cramped corners until Campus Safety comes around and tells us the drill is over. During the near-twenty minutes when I sit on the floor with my knees against my chest, anxious “what if”s–“what if this wasn’t a drill?” “what if I never saw my parents again?” “what if my teacher died?”–fill my head. And I count myself lucky that I received such comprehensive training that I would be prepared in case of emergency.
But then I remember: it does not have to be this way. We shouldn’t feel lucky when we don’t die at school.
The government needs to do more to regulate gun access in America. Though I recognize all citizens’ Second Amendment right to own firearms, I also recognize that steps, like background checks, buyback systems, and automatic rifle restrictions, can be taken to control gun access without violating this right. And, more importantly, recognize that people’s lives–children’s lives, parents’ lives, teachers’ lives, siblings’ lives, your life–are more important than the ownership of a metal object.
I don’t want to live in a country where my cause of death is statistically most likely to be a gunshot. I don’t want to leave the house wishing I hugged my sister in case today is our last day living. I want to know that the government values my life and millions of other Americans' lives more than it values power and profit. We need better gun control.
*Defined by Gun Violence Archives as an incident in which four or more people are shot or killed
**The Rockefeller Institute for Government uses a different definition to define “public mass shooting” than the Gun Violence Archives, a difference to which we can attribute the significantly lower number of mass shootings than is consistent with GVA data.
Skincare and Social Media Threaten Children's Wellbeing
Jennifer Li, Opinion
September 21, 2024
Characterized by their purchases of Drunk Elephant facial oils and other gaudy skincare serums, “Sephora tweens” have inundated the internet. Invading Sephora and other beauty stores relentlessly, they chase $35 dollar Glow Recipe Dew Drop Serums and $69 dollar Polypeptide Creams to gain fame on TikTok. The case of the “Sephora tweens,” now a distinguished place in the TikTok lexicon, describes children, some as young as eight years old, who mimic the beauty and skincare routines of older TikTok influencers. These children, adopting the behavior of grown adults, remain unaware of the real physical consequences of their precocious habits, forcing us to revisit an age-old issue: the potential dangers of the internet to children.
It is safe to assume, products designed for adults may not be beneficial–or even benign–to children. Alas, influencers are not professionals. To naive, gullible children who cannot yet comprehend the dangers of the internet, an attractive woman with millions of followers may easily win their trust. However, information about the skin, our largest organ, must be treated with more caution. Even though pediatric dermatologist Dr. Crandie Metz admits her content with seeing pre-teens paying attention to their skin, she cautions against the use of high-end products designed for adults. For instance, ingredients like retinol, exfoliating acids, and peptides can cause long-term damage to skin. Using unsuitable products can also lead to rashes, allergic reactions, or increased acne. Kids, whose skins are still developing, should not be picking up products advertised for “wrinkle-reducing” or “brightening and firming” purposes–at twelve, they have no skin pathology of concern! KidsHealth clarifies that children should stick to a simple daily regimen of a gentle cleanser, moisturizer, and sunscreen. The Glycolic Acid 7% Exfoliating Toner must go.
Influencers, who profit off of engagement, tend not to enlighten young viewers to its consequences. After all, interactions and recreations of their content will earn them more profit from sponsors and sustain their business. Thus, preteens copy their routines and products, blind to the health consequences it presents. Kid creators have also emerged. According to media psychologist Don Grant, peer pressure, which grows especially potent around the pre-teen years, perpetuates the trend. Dr. Grant has created a variation of the existing “parasocial effect,” which describes preteen’s tendency to prioritize the opinions of peers instead of adults, terming it the “parasocial media effect".
Parents and storeworkers alike express similar resistance to the trend. Sephora workers report children storming in and leaving with brimming bags in hand and disheveled aisles behind. Parents shake their heads at pricey, high-end products that pepper their children’s faces with breakouts. Undoubtedly, this combination of kids and skincare has created stress for many parties–except for the companies profiting from such ignorance, who capitalized on social media and continue to advertise their products as friendly to all ages.
This case of the “Sephora tweens” or, simply, “Sephora kids” depicts the perils of social media on kids. Even though both TikTok and Instagram claim they have a 13-year age requirement, the lack of formal verification and reposts on YouTube Kids further the challenge of restricting children’s online activity.
On Tuesday, Sept. 17th, Instagram released a new minor-protection policy in response to parents’ outcries about young exposure to sensitive, inappropriate content. The change mandates that potentially harmful content is censored to app users under the age of eighteen, but users and parents have yet to gauge its effectiveness. However, some requirements, such as the enlisting of adverse health effects to certain videos, sound like a good start.
Until we understand the implications of these new social media policies, the problem persists. Kids naturally want to grow up, and they want what other kids have. Perhaps this phenomenon is inevitable, but we should continue to take strides to mitigate it. Parents and organizations alike should educate children to question what they see on social media. Fortunately, skincare in its core centers on the concept of self-care. However, we cannot risk graver topics making their way to young children’s screens before more threatening consequences manifest.
“The Oxford Study” Needs To Be Studied
Chloe Yeo, Opinion
September 21, 2024
Nelly Furtado, a pop sensation of the 2000s, faced controversy over a line before the chorus of her song “Maneater.” The lyric, “She love you long time,” seems harmless, but the phrase represents centuries of stereotypes against Asian women. The broken English and the allusion to Full Metal Jacket (1987), a degrading depiction of Asian prostitutes, convey the evolution of Asian stereotypes. The newest term used to disparage Asian women is “Oxford Study.”
There are mixed opinions on the origins of the “Oxford Study,” but it is speculated that the title is a reference to an article published by the Oxford University Press. The article examines the relationship between Asian women and white men in media. As opposed to the current meaning of the slang term, the article itself sheds light on the submissive stereotyping and fetishization of Asian women in media.
However, the Guardian credits TikTok user, @lightskinbbyrei, for posting a reaction to a video of an Asian woman and a white man, captioned: “The power of the Caucasian [male] over the Asian female subconscious needs a full Oxford study.”
In either case, the term “Oxford Study” perpetuates the myth that Asian women desire to be the object of white men’s desires, whether that be in either a serious or casual relationship. Asian women can have a racial preference when dating. Still, no Asian woman’s relationship with a white man deserves to be reduced to a stereotype that uplifts white men and objectifies Asian women.
The romanticized interracial relationship originates from Old Hollywood when the majority of Asian women were either stuck as sex workers or pressured into marriage in the 1900s. Hollywood, then, turned their lives into movie tropes to please white male audiences and validate their exotic and hyper-feminine perceptions of all Asian women. The core of Hollywood’s portrayal of Asian women relies on the looming presence of the U.S.'s victory over Japan in WWII.
The majority of Asian women's stereotypes heavily emerged from the West’s hyper-exoticization of the East. America’s victory in WWII translated onto Hollywood’s screens, and the overarching idea of the West “conquering” the East was represented in the media’s depiction of a white man and an Asian woman coupling.
Gina Marchetti’s book, published in the 1990s, centers on the representation of Asians in Hollywood. She asserts the film industry “has long been fascinated by Asia, Asians, and Asian themes. Mysterious and exotic, Hollywood’s Asia promises adventure and forbidden pleasure.” This “exotic” perception of Asian women is a product of American society’s stigmatization of Asian brides and prostitutes. Asian women had always been excluded from society, but when Hollywood began romanticizing their marginalization to fit the narrative of Western dominance, Asian women lost any and all control of a narrative they never had access to.
Many Asian women have come forward about their experiences on TikTok, where “Oxford Study” comments litter their pages. In a later section of The Gaurdian’s article, Sophia, 22, states that even just the “optics of being seen with white men, even in a peripherally romantic sense” invokes “Oxford Study” comments. The article then proceeds to quote specific examples of degrading comments. In response to a post about a white man and Asian woman coupling, one commenter wrote, “Naw you Asian women love being humiliated by white men.” Another wrote, “Oxford study final thesis.” Asian women cannot protect themselves from the narrative that their relationships with white men are rooted in some innate need to please white men.
This narrative exists outside of their relationship with white men. Not only do ‘‘Oxford Study’’ comments dehumanize Asian women, but by extension, the comment brings into question whether or not a supposed “sex object” can even form a real romantic relationship; essentially, the Oxford Study suffocates any perception of a happy, healthy relationship between an Asian woman and a white man.
In 2024, “Asian American women reported that gendered racism attempts to silence their voices and force them into acting submissive and passive (Ahn et al., 2022). Thus, forming a romantic relationship with someone [who] holds more social power may help to mitigate this felt disempowerment.” Asian women cannot escape their stereotypes because their association with white men compromises their autonomy. Asian women cannot express their sexuality because their race itself leads them to be infantilized or demonized. While “The Oxford Study” may or may not be real, this social media phenomenon still degrades Asian women and invites random people to harass Asian women for their relationships with their partners. The societal consequences of Asian women’s relationships with white men far overshadow their capability of owning their sexuality. The term may die out but one thing is definite, all women, especially Asian women, shouldn’t need to explain themselves or their choices to the rest of society.
How is Social Media Influencing the 2024 Election?
Chloe Kubalak, Opinion
September 21, 2024
Social network feeds continue to flood algorithms with posts about Kamala Harris being “brat,” and her vice president candidate Tim Walz being a “Midwest princess,” a pair that fits the ideals of many young people. Internet trends and memes have exploded over the summer since Harris took current President Joe Biden’s spot for the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee.
Young people have been notoriously difficult to get to the polls, and the Democratic party will continue to rely on voters between the ages of 18-29, just as they did in the 2020 presidential election. Tufts University’s Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE determined that about half of this age group cast their vote for a candidate, a huge increase from the 2016 election where only about 40% participated. In the 2024 election process, accounts such as @KamalaHQ on TikTok rely on social media trends to garner public support, especially from Gen Z and younger millennials. With varying degrees of youth voting across the United States, embracing the latest slang and appealing to the “lime-green with blurred black text” aesthetics of many first-time voters, may be a great push for Harris campaigns.
How did Harris and her team know that they should be creating such content? Senior Researcher Colleen McClain of the Pew Research Center conducted a survey among some other researchers where they measured “how Americans navigate politics on TikTok, X, Facebook, and Instagram.” Almost half of those between the ages of 18-29 reported having TikTok as their most used social media to keep in touch with politics, more than any other age group.
Yet, Harris knows exactly where to target when advertising and campaigning: those who feel like their voices have consistently not been heard. For example, TikToks that join trends quoting Chappell Roan’s “Femininomenon,” with a slideshow depicting Kamala Harris as the Femininomenon needed in the White House, attract underrepresented individuals in politics. By leveraging current fads to gain exposure with increased views, likes, and comments (the video mentioned has almost 59 mil views from the time of publishing)–supporting an artist who handles topics relating to LGBTQ+ ideas, being loud and yourself, representing the ever-changing adolescent population, and most importantly, being a woman–Harris gains the attention of people who have been forgotten and treated unfairly in politics, LGBTQ+ members, women, and everyone who deserves to have their voices heard.
Young people flock to the comment sections with memes and positive remarks. Whoever is behind the KamalaHQ account is doing a great job at attracting attention from the mass public, especially when this upcoming election determines the fate of the next four years for many, many people.
The current Vice President and her team aren’t the only ones driving people to the polls. Charli XCX, who recently dropped an album in early June titled “BRAT,” called Kamala Harris “brat” on her X profile. Along with the idea of having a “brat summer,” people began creating lime green profile pictures and creating dances along to the tunes of this new album. The artist herself, in an interview, stated that by being her version of a brat, you take risks despite the stereotypes that society has set, you want to be the center of attention and be unique. Harris and her team embrace this in the fullest, showing sides of the current Vice President that many political figures fear to show: the real side.
Taylor Swift, mocking JD Vance’s comment about Democratic women being “childless cat ladies,” made a post on Instagram the night after the Democratic National Convention. Within this post, she formally announced her endorsement of Kamala Harris and her campaign. A-list celebrities that have become increasingly popular among this new age of voters over the past few years, such as Swift, know the power of their voice and that people will listen to what they have to say.
With the positive aspects, come the inevitable negatives. Social media is not always the place to get a full deep dive into that day's politics, and it is not a good source for credibility. Short-form content has taken over over the past few years, leaving TV shows and movies in the dust. Why watch commercial break after commercial break to watch five minutes of the daily rundown when you can find it all on TikTok or Instagram in thirty seconds? Our attention spans have shortened, but basing our opinions of presidential candidates on a TikTok meme is not going to provide us with any valid criticism or commendation.
With the people we look up to restating our beliefs, it creates an echo chamber. Through this, we come to believe only the ideas that we see, such as on our social media feed, while ignoring the opposing side. By viewing posts by Charli XCX, Taylor Swift, and similar artists, people who we agree with and stand behind, only reinforce our current beliefs, creating a complex bias. Humans tend to hear only what they want, but when it comes to something that will affect us all as a society, we need to hear every side of what they say and their plans for our futures.
Vice President Kamala Harris is laying the foundation for the Democratic Party through meme videos, hopping on trends, and gaining active celebrity endorsements left and right. Compared to former President Donald Trump, she is doing a much better job appealing to an age group that has been thrown to the curb for too long.