[NOTE: This is the first in a pair of articles that take opposing points of view with regard to the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia. In the following editorial, Ms. Riordan argues against the relationship. Next week we will publish an editorial MHS senior, Edward Corcoran, offering a counterpoint to this.]

Learn more about Senior Seminar Editorials here. View a list of previous editorials here.

A Senior Seminar Editorial by Gillian Riordan, MHS 2010

In 1938, the United States had just won World War I; the entire nation was in desperate need of oil in order to meet economic opportunities for rebuilding Europe. United States President, Franklin Roosevelt (1938-1933) requested drilling in Saudi Arabia to see if there was any oil available. Luckily there was, and lots of it. The United States became Saudi Arabia’s largest oil customer and brought great wealth to the country.  Until September 11, 2001 The United States and the Saudi Arabian alliance remained strong. Now there is a question to whether the alliance should end because our ally might have been involved with the horrific terrorist attack on our country.  Mounting evidence is showing that Saudi Arabia may be more of a threat to the United States than an ally. This new evidence, along with other fundamental differences between our countries, supports the belief among many American’s that our long standing alliance with this country should end.

Read more

Learn more about Senior Seminar Editorials here

A Senior Seminar Editorial by Emily Jo McKnight, MHS 2010

After reading Jenee Desmond-Harris’ article “Why Michelle’s Hair matters,” It’s safe to say that Americans spend a little too much time focused on hair. Not that hair isn’t important or time consuming- especially for African American women, as Desmond-Harris points out- rather that Americans think too much about it and place too much significance in its ‘meaning’. From blogs and websites to stereotypes of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ hair, maybe it would do US citizens good to think less about Michelle Obama’s hair and more about her work and role as first lady.

Read more

Learn more about Senior Seminar Editorials here

A Senior Seminar Editorial by Colman Flanagan, MHS 2010

The overreaction of school administrations to cases of poor behavior by students has quickly become one of the biggest problems in society today. The reasons for some expulsions being handed out have left parents, as well as the students both baffled. The requirement by congress put in place in 1994 that forced states receiving federal education money to expel students who bring guns onto school property has quickly been blown way out of proportion. The zero tolerance policy can have a domino effect on a young student who gets in trouble and gets expelled from school. Many of these students will decide to just bag the whole school idea, and are much more suspect to more trouble down the road once they get involved in the juvenile justice system. This system is also subject to racism. The stats show that blacks and Hispanics are being shipped off to court at a higher rate then white students are.

Read more

Learn more about Senior Seminar Editorials here

A Senior Seminar Editorial by Liam Fox, MHS 2010

A recent article in Time Magazine discussed the Gaza Strip, and how Israeli blockades around the area keep it shut out from the rest of the world. Because of this, many have turned to digging tunnels under the blockades, so that they can get supplies and the basic necessities for everyday life. Israelis have targeted these tunnels, destroying them when possible, but the tunnel workers go right back to digging them. A potato-chip and clothing smuggler, Abu Obeida stated that “We are just trying to earn a living here. We have no other choice.” Simply blocking off the Gaza Strip border will not solve Israel’s conflicts with the Palestinians. The act itself only shuts the Palestinians off from the rest of the world, and thus, will only create more hatred between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Read more

Learn more about Senior Seminar Editorials here

A Senior Seminar Editorial by Emily Mcknight, MHS 2010

If there was ever a quagmire, Afghanistan would be it –specifically the “what do we do next?” part. Peter Bergen and Leslie Gelb offer their differing views on how the conflict in Afghanistan should continue. Bergen supports staying in Afghanistan, while Gelb prefers a middle ground between ‘win’ and “going home.’ Gelb’s argument is the stronger of the two, offering a detailed plan of what he thinks the best course in Afghanistan should be. In particular he deals with The US’ role as a nation builder; the probability of attack from the Taliban should the US leave, and dividing and containing the Taliban.</p> <p>Though Bergen aptly notes that after having overthrown the Afghani government in 2001 the US has a certain obligation to leave the country in good condition, Gelb argues that any counterinsurgency strategy that involves a complete reworking of an already chaotic country is madness. He understands that a country filled with such problems of corruption, poverty and violence is not going to be fixed by just the US. Especially since the recent economic recession the US can hardly think to offer advice to other countries on how to prosper.

Another strong argument that Bergen, and other supporters of continuing in Afghanistan, make is that should American troops leave, Afghanistan will fall right back into the hands of the Taliban. Bergen’s piece mentions one Afghani politician who believes if the US troops leave the Taliban will make it to Kabul in 24 hours. Gelb’s argument includes this view, as he understands that there is “no chance of simply pulling out of Afghanistan.” Instead his middle ground stance supports a smaller American presence aimed at training the afghan army and arming the warlords and tribal leaders. In this scenario, should the Taliban invade or attack, Afghanistan would be amply able to defend themselves.

Read more

Learn more about Senior Seminar Editorials here

A Senior Seminar Editorial by Sidney Madden, MHS 2010

The annual assessment of America’s children shows that they have peaked in terms of academic progress. According to a New York Times article by Sam Dillon, the effects of the ‘No Child Left Behind’ law put in place by the Bush administration back in 2001 have wore off and children have failed to improve scores in math from 2007 to 2008.  The test, called the National Assessment of Educational Progress, is given every year to third through eighth graders. The scores are reported not just by averages, but other demographics like race and gender, and in addition to the flat lining scores, the results also shows disparities in scores when it comes to race. Many politicians and researchers were quoted in this article, and the opinion of Chester E. Finn Jr., president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a research organization in Washington, is that “The trend is flat; it’s a plateau. Scores are not going anywhere, at least nowhere important.”  But what the article fails to examine is the reasons behind what seem to be “plateau” scoring and racial disparities.

One possibility that would explain the lack of improvement would be that teachers across the U.S. have not found any new ways to teach the same old subjects or get through to their students because of pressure from the government. The report states that some schools have lowered their academic standards so that students can pass the test and that the school itself can “avoid sanctions the law imposes on failing schools”. The lowering of standards is also due to the 2014 deadline set by the No Child Left Behind Law for schools to bring 100 percent of students to reading and math proficiency.  This push for mediocrity in the name of good test scores is actually detrimental.  If teachers are more worried about their students passing a test than actually learning the material, this makes the whole education process useless.

Read more

Learn more about Senior Seminar Editorials here

A Senior Seminar Editorial by Alexa MacIsaac, MHS 2010

Since texting came out a few years ago, it has become a popular craze that almost everyone does. For most people, it is their major mean-of communication. It has replaced actual human conversation on the phone because people would rather text than call others. Since texting is most teenager’s favorite way to communicate, they tend to do it when they should not; during school, at work, and most importantly, while they are driving. Driving without any distractions can be dangerous on its own. When teenagers add texting to the situation, they are only asking for trouble, even though there are simple ways to avoid it. The government is now becoming involved in this growing problem and states are being forced to take action. Even though teenagers may be the largest group of people who do this, no one should text while they drive! The government needs to make this hazardous act illegal before more lives are lost.

Texting while you are driving requires taking your eyes, a hand, and attention off the dangerous, unpredictable road.  In general, teenagers make up a large percentage of vehicle accidents each year. Since they are inexperienced drivers to begin with, adding a cell phone can be fatal. There have been many accidents reported that were caused by texting. Unfortunately, lives have been lost as well. “Studies show this is far more dangerous than talking on a phone while driving or driving while drunk, which is astounding,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer. If you would not drink and drive, then you should not text and drive.

Read more

Learn more about Senior Seminar Editorials here

A Senior Seminar Editorial by Julie Mitchell, MHS 2010

A recent article in the Boston Globe pointed out that North Korea performed their second testing of nuclear missiles.  Though nuclear missiles were first introduced by the United States in August 1945, countries have been perfecting their own model of destructive nuclear missiles.  These countries view nuclear missiles not only as a defense mechanism to protect their country, but the answer to end wars.  In order to make a nuclear free world, the United Nations needs to take action into creating a long term strategy.

Though the world does not want to face a global nuclear war, countries are racing to build and test nuclear missiles.  The race towards nuclear missiles is predominantly seen in North Korea, as the country is a leading manufacturer and supplier of nuclear missiles to other countries.  This should serve as a red flag to the United Nations, to take action in shortening North Korea’s production of KN-02 rockets.  The United Nations should try to prevent North Korea or any country from manufacturing future productions of deadly nuclear missiles.  On July 4th, North Korea started their first missile testing, launching both seven short and medium ranged missiles into the Sea of Japan.  Unfortunately, the first missile maneuver was a success.  However, this is just the beginning of North Korea’s missile testing for supposedly training exercises.  This past weekend North Korea frightened the world, vigorously continuing its missile testing and classifying it as just routine.  However, this second testing should have alerted the United Nations to take more aggressive action into forming a strategy to make North Korea a nuclear free country.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated, “Our goals remain the same.  We intend to work toward a nuclear – free Korean Peninsula.”  This proves that action is being taken to hopefully put an end to future missile maneuvers in North Korea and forming a nuclear free country.

Read more

Learn more about Senior Seminar Editorials here

A Senior Seminar Editorial by Emily Hughes, MHS 2010

A recent article in the Washington Post, “New D.C. Teacher Ratings Stress Better Test Scores” describes a new $4 million system initiated by D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee. The system is called IMPACT, and it will access teachers’ abilities based on their classes standardized test scores. The article claims that education reformers nationwide maintain the idea “that the best way to improve schools is to continuously monitor and improve teacher performance”, but D.C. is one of the first areas in the nation to enact a system in which teachers’ job security depends on standardized test scores. Teachers should not be evaluated solely based on their students’ test scores. This faulty system will hinder the learning process, and as a result hurt schools, more than it will improve schools.

In order for the results of students’ test scores to be effective in evaluating a teacher’s performance, all students would have to take a standardized test at the beginning of the school year. Students’ abilities may have improved during the year with the help of their teacher, but these improvements may not be visible if education reformers do not know what level these students began the year at. The IMPACT system fails to take this into consideration because it is a general system that fails to take students’ and classes’ individual situations into account. Improvement in relation to the IMPACT system is defined by a single “event”, a test day, instead of the difference between two events.

Read more