Feb 16, 2021 | Andrew Wong, Opinion
By Andrew Wong (V)
Over the summer, like many of my friends at Pingry, I watched The Social Dilemma on Netflix, a documentary exposing the inner workings and dangers of social media and surveillance capitalism. Perhaps I was naïve at the time, but after watching the show, I still felt that social media was not a clear and present danger to our freedoms in this country. A negative social influence? Perhaps. Issues with user data and security? Certainly. But not a serious threat to society and civil rights.
However, in the wake of Capitol violence motivated by online actors, former President Donald Trump’s ban from every single social media platform on allegations of “incitement,” and thousands of other bans being handed out to conservative influencers, it is clear that the issue of social media needs to be addressed. Social media can be a force for good, helping to connect people from all over the world and allowing for immense information sharing that human history has never seen before. But on the flip side, it can also be used to facilitate illegal activities, share illicit material and content, curb free speech, or change the minds of millions with misinformation and propaganda. So how should social media be regulated in order to continue being a force for good, while also protecting our right to free speech and keeping unwanted actors out?
Presently, all social media in the United States is regulated under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230(c)1 grants social media companies legal immunity from whatever content is posted on their platforms, and makes it so that social media companies cannot be held liable for what is said and done by users, even if said actions are illegal. The second portion of the law, Section 230(c)2 provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable”, as long as they act “in good faith” in this action. In essence, platforms cannot be held liable for violating the free speech of users by removing content.
However, while Section 230 has allowed social media companies to expand and flourish without fear of legal repercussions for moderating what is posted on their platforms, it’s also presented many moral questions. For example, should illicit material or content that inspires violence or terrorism be allowed to be harbored on social media platforms with no repercussions whatsoever? Or what about the flip side of the coin, in that we’ve essentially given so-called “Big Tech” a free hand to play judge, juror, and executioner when it comes to free speech in the twenty-first century public square?
How should Section 230 be changed to try and remedy these issues? Democrats and Republicans have proposed several solutions. Democrats, most notably President Joe Biden, have supported weakening Section 230(c)1 protections, having stated in a January 2020 interview with The New York Times that “[Facebook] is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false”, and that the U.S. needed to “[set] standards” for what content is and is not allowed on social media. Republicans, led by Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Josh Hawley (R-MO), have proposed legislation limiting Section 230(c)2 protections, clarifying what it means when a platform takes down content in “good faith”, and stripping away immunity for content takedowns, thus allowing users to sue companies over content moderation policies.
Ultimately, effective regulation must address issues regarding illicit content and free speech. Such regulation must establish that content promoting illicit activities (such as child abuse, human trafficking, terrorism, and cyber-stalking, among others), are illegal on the internet, just like it is in the real world, and platforms will have their immunity stripped if they promote these activites. However, such regulation must also have adequate protections on free speech. This could be accomplished through clarifying the “good faith” clause with specific language, or perhaps writing specific legislation that only allows platforms to take down content when it is blatantly illegal, rather than letting platforms take down content they don’t like to see.
Social media is the public square of the 21st century, and ultimately, everyone should be able to have access to this public square, in keeping with our values of free speech. It is in the interest of everyone that the internet remains a free and open space, but also a safe space where illegal actions are not allowed to persist. Effective and smart regulation, accomplished via updating Section 230, would be an easy way to create an open and safe environment on all social platforms.
Feb 16, 2021 | Aneesh Karuppur, Columns, Technology
By Aneesh Karuppur (VI)
First, an update from the Pingry Student Technology Committee (STC) and its subsidiary projects. Starting this February, the Code Team, in which students program solutions to Pingry issues, is running a weekly workshop on different fundamental tools, from GitHub version control to Python-Flask web design. Moreover, the Apple Certified Mac Technician (ACMT) training group has started their comprehensive regimen on laptop repairs. After the ACMTs pass their final exams from Apple, they will be able to diagnose and repair Apple computers owned by the School and members of the Pingry community. STC team meetings have lately been occupied with weekly presentations from different project groups, including the 3D Printing Team, the Communications Team, and the Tech-Ed Team. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, STC Help Desk has been open for some time now! Now that we have a regular schedule of in-person school, the friendly, qualified STC Team Members who staff each flex and CP Helpdesk shift are here to assist you with any of your tech needs. Whether it’s a new application, like Zoom, or an old “friend” like the printer or Google Docs, STC Help Desk in the Tech Office is the place to go to receive quick tips and pointers. Be sure to stop by if you need anything tech-related!
From January 11 to 14, the 2021 Consumer Electronics Show (CES) was in full swing. Traditionally an in-person event, CES pivoted to a fully virtual setup this year to accommodate for the pandemic. LG hinted at the impending launch of their rollable phone. Unlike folding phones (which are on the market if you’re willing to pay the princely price tags), LG’s device would not suffer from the durability and practical difficulties of opening and closing a massive phone like a book. Instead, according to patent information, it could simply extend one edge of the device and unfurl a wider display in the process. As usual, several PC makers including HP and Acer revealed new updates to their laptop lineups. Finally there were a few one-off products, like the tech-enabled N95 masks from gaming hardware-maker Razer. These clear masks feature active ventilation. LED lights, and self-sanitization functionality. Adding on to products that nobody asked for but seem pretty cool, Cadillac hinted at an electric air taxi drone-car mashup, Samsung invented a robot butler, and the Infinity Game Table converted classic board games into a tabletop touchscreen.
Finally, let’s turn to the issue of social media. There has been renewed scrutiny into social media networks as a result of misinformation and plans for violence in recent months. Platforms have been banning and suspending the accounts of individuals with dangerous or objectionable content. In an age where seemingly everything happens on social media, lawmakers have been grappling with whether privately-owned social media platforms can be defined as public fora with free speech protections. Furthermore, laws that provide digital platforms with immunity from hosted content, such as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, have come under scrutiny for a variety of reasons. Interestingly, print media publications do not afford those same protections. More important than the individual details is the glaring need for tech literacy in American society and policy. Congressional lawmakers have oftentimes demonstrated a woefully limited understanding of the internet and its platforms, so it’s important that the public involvement of the next generation of Americans is well-informed.
Thanks for dropping by on this Tech Column! Hopefully the weather will be a tad warmer when we return for the next issue.
Feb 16, 2021 | Andrew Wong, Columns
By Andrew Wong (V)
On January 20, in a deserted Washington D.C. guarded by more than 25,000 National Guard soldiers, Joe Biden took the Oath of Office to become the 46th President of the United States.
President Biden takes the reins of the nation in an extremely tumultuous time. Never before in American history has the population been so polarized. According to Pew Research Center, both Democrats and Republicans now lean further to the political left and right, respectively, than at any other point in American history. The reasoning behind this shift may not even be grounded in changing ideals over policy, but rather, in hatred for the other side. A recent study conducted by a group of political scientists from Northwestern, NYU, Stanford, and Harvard which looked at political sectarianism in America concluded that a majority of Republican and Democrat voters today are united not by their love of their own party’s policy, but rather by a hatred of the opposition. As a result, both parties end up moving towards their political extremes as they seek to counter everything the other party stands for––a self-fulfilling prophecy that only widens the gap between Democrat and Republican.
Perhaps the best example of this great disunity in our nation comes in the form of the violence on Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021, when a group of right-wing extremists and anarchist agitators broke into the Capitol Building to try and stop the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election. This tragedy shows us that American society faces two major issues:
- Americans are losing faith in the democratic system.
- Some Americans unfortunately believe that the outlets for them to express their grievances with the government have failed to the point where violence becomes acceptable
The loss of faith in our democratic system can be found directly in the fallout surrounding the 2020 election and the general anger towards a gridlocked Congress. Polls show that more than 74 percent of Republicans and over 42 percent of Independents believed Joe Biden was elected by illegitimate means: a dangerous proposition in a country built on the democratic process. The refusal of election authorities to even listen to this bloc of voters and seriously look into irregularities surrounding the election only exacerbated this situation and only served to assuage fears that something was afoot.
One can argue about what right these voters had to challenge the results of the election and the validity of their evidence, but nonetheless, the lack of an independent investigation into these election concerns, even if they were built upon shaky evidence, only further damaged voters’ faith in the democratic process. Such an investigation would not have been unusual. Keep in mind, after the 2016 Presidential Election, Democrats pursued a two-year-long investigation into “Russian collusion with the Trump campaign” under the Mueller probe, which was eventually shown to be built on its own mound of shoddy evidence. An independent investigation to debunk theories surrounding fraud in the 2020 election would have gone a long way in preventing what had happened at the Capitol. Even if the investigation were as fruitless and frivolous as the Mueller probe, it would have at least let the people know they were being listened to.
The second ingredient in creating the explosion at the Capitol was extreme distrust of the government. Americans are tired of seeing the constant gridlock of Congress and the inability of Republican and Democratic caucuses to even compromise on basic legislation. Perhaps the most glaring example of this incompetence and deadlock has been the general failure of Congress to pass meaningful coronavirus relief legislation, even after months of debate. When these two factors of mistrust in the electoral process and anger at the government were combined, it created a ticking time bomb.
Political scientists define pressure release valves in a democracy as means for the public to voice their discontent with the government. Such valves include elections for representatives, a media that values free speech, and civil disobedience and protest. However, with a sizable portion of the American electorate believing the election was rigged, in conjunction with a gridlocked Congress, and months-long COVID-related lockdowns brought down on the people by the government, many of the pressure release valves in American society failed. It was only a matter of time before all the pressure and anger over a questionable election, ineffective legislative branch, and crippling lockdowns exploded and ordinary citizens took matters into their own hands. Let me be clear: violence is inexcusable in all forms, and I wholly condemn the actions of these extremists at the Capitol. Nonetheless, history clearly shows us that when the government fails to fix the pressure release valves, shuts down opinions and ignores requests for change, people will resort to extreme means to make a point. We saw it last spring in Minneapolis and Portland in the context of racial unrest, and we saw it happen again on January 6.
In his inaugural address, President Biden promised to be a “President for all Americans” and “end the uncivil war that pits red against blue, rural versus urban, conservative versus liberal.” As America picks up the pieces and looks towards the future, President Biden must accomplish two things if he wishes to unite this nation. One, he must win back Americans’ trust in the federal government and Congress. The second task is to fix the pressure release systems of the nation, and make it clear to citizens that their government can hear them, and cares about them. While there is no cut-and-dry method to accomplish this, certain tasks, such as passing stronger coronavirus relief bills and safely reopening the economy, would go a long way in helping heal a wounded nation. Biden’s ability to be a successful president is contingent upon him figuring out how to solve these two problems in a way that is beneficial for all Americans. If these problems are allowed to persist, they will only continue to strain the bonds between us.
Feb 16, 2021 | Columns, Emma Drzala, Movies
By Emma Drzala (V)
With limited access to movie theatres over the past year, one must rely on the one thing nothing can seem to beat: streaming services. Netflix, Hulu, and HBOMax have all gained immense popularity this year; so, maybe it’s a sign to go back and rewatch an old classic. My movie of choice: Superbad. Directed by Greg Mottola and written by comedic geniuses Seth Rogan and Evan Goldberg, Superbad is a raunchy comedy that keeps you laughing for 1 hour and 59 minutes. The movie follows two inseparable best friends, Seth and Evan, who are hoping to get in one last “hurrah” before the conclusion of their senior year. The two friends, however, are only to be considered “super” unpopular. With two weeks to go in high school, the odd pairing, along with their sidekick Fogell, are finally invited to a high school party by the prettiest and most popular girl in school – but there is a catch. They must find a way to supply alcohol for the party. The three boys hope to impress the girls and eventually become their “headaches” of boyfriends. Fogell attains a fake ID under the name “McLovin,” but his attempt to buy alcohol quickly goes south. He becomes buddies with two lackluster cops and engages in some not-so-legal activities with them. Meanwhile, Seth and Evan are still trying to find ways to procure alcohol before the party begins. Superbad captures the awkwardness of the high school experience and dives deep into Seth and Evan’s comedic friendship. It is not just a movie that lands some random jokes, but the whole concept behind this masterpiece is where all the comedy lies. With stars like Jonah Hill (Seth), Michael Cera (Evan), Bill Hader (Officer Slater), Seth Rogan (Officer Michael), and Christopher Mintz (Fogell), a Rotten Tomatoes score of 88%, and a spot on Empire’s 500 best movies of all time, Superbad is not a movie you will want to miss. The crude and inappropriate jokes make this movie what it is, and I must say that Superbad was nothing less than comedic perfection.
Feb 16, 2021 | Mirika Jambudi, Sidebar News
By Mirika Jambudi (IV)
Over Winter Break, students were given the opportunity to participate in Pingry’s first ever virtual Global Program. Ms. Julia Dunbar, Director of Global Education and Engagement, and Dr. Megan Jones, History Department Chair, worked together to convert this Global Studies Program into a three-day virtual course with the help of Atlas Workshops.
This program was based on the previous Global Studies Program, “Nations at a Crossroad: Nationalism and Religion in the Balkans,” which was a thirteen-day travel course. In that course, students visited areas of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, learning about the Yugoslav Wars and the underlying nationalist strife that caused the regional divisions.
In this year’s virtual recreation of the trip, students were able to meet and speak with actual residents of the countries. Many shared that these conversations were one of the most valuable aspects of the Program. For three hours each morning, from December 21st through 23rd, Pingry students dove into the history and politics of the former Yugoslavia, meeting and interacting with locals, participating in group discussions and activities, and ultimately working towards an answer to the overarching essential question, “What makes a nation?”
Ms. Dunbar and Dr. Jones remarked that they were very pleased with the virtual program. Although the “power of in-person travel is irreplaceable,” the Global Education and Engagement Department hopes to offer more virtual courses to Pingry students as “a complement to [Pingry’s] travel programs.”
Dec 11, 2020 | Fun, Monica Chan
By Monica Chan (VI)
English 9: Angsty freshmen reading about other angsty freshmen.
English 10: No one actually read Jane Eyre.
Advanced Algebra and Trigonometry Honors: You thought you were good at math, didn’t you…oh well…
AP Statistics: Dear Ms. Peake, can you send me the entire Upper School student email list? I need to do another survey.
Math 6: https://www.wolframalpha.com.
Any Mr. Poprik class: “Ok Folks!”
Any Computer Science Class: The Labs and Problem Sets will bring my grade up, right?
AP US History: More like APUSH me off a cliff please.
US Environmental History Honors: Why didn’t I sign up for APUSH?
American Society and Culture: Boy, am I glad I didn’t sign up for APUSH.
Art Fundamentals: Wait, I thought this was supposed to be an easy graduation requirement!
Chemistry I: Colorado PhET.
AP Chemistry: A 70% curves to an A, right?
Honors Biology II: Were the Bio I Honors Projects not enough of a deterrent for you?
AP Physics C: Mechanics: Everything you learned last year, but add the word “derivative.”
AP Physics C: Electricity and Magnetism: Math 7.
Dec 11, 2020 | Editorial, Meghan Durkin
By Meghan Durkin (VI)
Following a recommendation from a friend to my mom, and then to me, I ordered a copy of Susan Cain’s “Quiet”—and well, the rest of the title spoils its thesis, so I’ll wait on that. The book follows society’s distaste for introversion, a trait Cain notes is seen as “a second-class personality trait, somewhere between a disappointment and a pathology” (Cain 4). Well, if introversion is a “pathology,” then extroversion is its cure. Society loves to love extroverts; we admire charismatic speakers and outgoing performers more than we care for quiet bookworms. Pingry too loves to praise its extroverts: if you’re not a voice in discussion, were you there at all? I love Cain’s book for its unparalleled argument against these values; the aforementioned title, a glimpse into the book that follows, ends like this: “The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking.”
This call for extroversion begins in a fundamental place: schools. Cain begins her book with an acknowledgement of this: “at school you might have been prodded to come ‘out of shell’—that noxious expression which fails to appreciate that some animals naturally carry shelter everywhere they go, and that some humans are just the same” (6). Cain recognizes the natural incompatibility many introverted students have with school. You have to talk.
I’ve experienced many of the “come out of your shell” comments as a Pingry student. My interim reports never fail to mention that I’m “not the biggest talker” or “a dominant presence” in class; a particular favorite comment of mine is “she could benefit from getting involved even more in conversations.” Now, I do wish I was more comfortable with my status as a “quiet student,” yet it’s difficult not to see the introverted, soft-spoken part of my personality as an unshakeable weakness.
Often, what you say is greater than what you write, do, or present. Without a voice in demand of attention, your other contributions fall short. Unfortunately, not all strengths are made equal. More than ever, there’s a demand for “soft-skills.” Everyone, from friends to teachers to bosses, wants people who excel in communication and teamwork, or are confident and humorous. Our culture, and our school, admire “people skills” above everything: unfortunately, for many introverts, these skills don’t always come naturally.
Thus, here’s my take.
For students: it’s good to play to your strengths. Yes, there are benefits to stepping out of your comfort zone, but there’s validity in doing that on your own terms. If you like being quiet, be quiet. If you like to talk, then talk. Extroversion is not a trait of success, just as introversion isn’t a recipe for failure. Maybe find a little bit of both.
To Pingry teachers: forcing uncomfortable students to speak is not a reliable tool to change your “quiet” students into “talkative” ones. More often than not, it perpetuates a sense of inadequacy for a trait people are incapable of changing. Why can we only celebrate the people that lead the conversation? What about the thoughtful, attentive listeners? Or the students who bring creativity? Organization? How did we conclude loud is a far better quality than quiet? Why have Pingry teachers fostered learning environments that suit their extroverted students far more than any others?
While I often wish I could be, I am not the loudest in the room. I hate volunteering to answer questions, I don’t like raising my hand, and I don’t want to present in class. There is a constant fight circulating in my mind when I try to do so, and it’s often I fight I lose to my introversion. Though, as Susan Cain suggests in her book, introverts have something unique to offer our loud, hectic world: some quiet.
Dec 11, 2020 | Editorial, Noah Bergam
By Noah Bergam (VI)
George Orwell once wrote that our language “becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”
I wish Orwell could have seen Twitter.
But look––this isn’t a rant about social media per se, or even political discourse. I want to talk about “slovenly” language specifically as it relates to the learning experience. The word of the day is “interesting,” a word used and abused so often inside the classroom that it’s become a default response, an easy out to intellectually discourse.
If we want to challenge ourselves as learners, we ought to ponder: what does “interesting” really mean? How long does the comment at hand capture the imagination? Does it trigger new thoughts and connections?
Maybe you had a genuine intellectual dopamine rush. You’ve dug deep, and you’ve found that there’s really no justification except an appreciation for the underlying beauty of a Faulkner passage or a clever computer algorithm. That’s okay. To an extent, it’s necessary. We all ought to stop and smell the roses every once in a while, especially in fast-paced, lecture-heavy STEM courses. But when it comes to the humanities, where student insight reigns supreme, we should be more mindful of our language.
After all, we don’t write book reviews in English class. We write critical essays, make evidence-based arguments in our writing––and we should expect no different from our verbal discussions. The core issue with “interesting” is that it effectively cuts out the need for justification, turning commentary into a passive, antiquarian pursuit.
As we saw earlier, Orwell voiced his concerns about the feedback loop between words and thoughts. But while Orwell speaks of language that is “foolish,” I’m more concerned with that which is vacuous. We have a word at our disposal that can mask critical thought and make the classroom far more comfortable than it ought to be. In the drain of hybrid learning, we have every incentive to use this word to patch up complications, misunderstandings, turning discussions into strings of weak non-sequiturs. Whether you are a teacher or a student, I implore you to be cautious. “Interesting” makes Zoom learning more remote than it has to be.
And no, “fascinating” is not better. Maybe we could hear “scintillating” a little more often, but ultimately, all these one-word substitutions reach the same dead end. There’s no easy answer to the linguistic dilemma at hand. It takes a community-wide consciousness to limit our use of the i-word. If you hear it, ask for follow-up. If you use it, provide some.
Keep in mind your agency over language. If you want a classroom that’s more than just “interesting,” it starts with you.
Dec 11, 2020 | Athletics, Mirika Jambudi
By Mirika Jambudi (IV)
The Girls’ Swimming team is looking forward to an exciting season, despite current uncertainties surrounding COVID-19. Led by Coach Deirdre O’Mara, and co-captains Lily Arrom (VI) and Amanda Pina (VI), the team is eager to get back into the water. They have seen lots of success in previous years at events including the Skyland Conference, Somerset County Championships, and the Prep “A” Championship at Lawrenceville. Though Preps and the State Championships have been canceled, the team is still hoping to swim at dual meets with Mount St. Marys, Ridge, and Watchung Hills. Coach O’Mara’s goals for the team this year are to maintain an “environment of positive enthusiasm, swim fast, and stay safe!” With that enthusiasm on their side, as well as several freshmen members bringing new levels of talent, the team is ready to work towards a successful and fun season!
Dec 11, 2020 | Investigative, Mirika Jambudi
By Mirika Jambudi (IV)
The Pingry Admissions process is a somewhat mystifying one, as a lot of the decisions are, quite literally, made behind closed doors in the Admissions Office in the Upper School foyer. The Form III entry year is the most competitive, with around fifty to fifty-five open spots. The school typically receives around four or five applications per spot, indicating a 20-25% acceptance rate for the freshman class. Recent years have also seen a steady increase in the number of students applying each year, making the selection even more competitive. To gain more insight into exactly how these students are chosen, I spoke with Ms. Lorian Morales, the Assistant Director of Admission.
As part of the application process, students must first submit their actual application. This consists of family and applicant information as well as the Parent and Student Questionnaires, which include a few short essays. Then, three recommendation forms, transcripts and report cards, and standardized testing results need to be submitted from the student’s previous school. For the final stage, the applicant usually visits campus on a specific “Buddy Day,” during which they are paired with a current freshman to experience a day in the life of a Pingry student.
The application process also consists of an interview with a member of the Admissions Office. Both the student and their parents have their own interviews, which is a great opportunity for the family to ask questions and learn more about Pingry. Ms. Morales also mentioned that it allows the Admissions Office to “get a true sense of the applicant during their interview … whether it be their sense of humor that comes across, or something they care deeply about. Getting a glimpse into the student beyond their activities helps see how they may connect with others at Pingry.” Currently, the interview and visit days are virtual to ensure community safety, but all components of the application must be completed by late January. Decisions are typically announced in early to mid-March.
The Pingry admissions process is similar to the college admissions process, as there are a “limited number of openings compared to the abundance of great students” who would thrive and enhance the school community, explains Ms. Morales. Pingry values both well-rounded and “spiked” students (those who particularly excel in a certain area). When looking to add students to a grade, the Admissions Office “is truly working to craft a class.” Both types of students play a role in enriching the Pingry community, but the Admissions team really looks for students who “will come to Pingry and be eager to get involved in the community,” whether that is through athletics, the arts, STEM-related activities, or clubs.
The COVID-19 pandemic has also impacted the application process at Pingry in that there is an influx of applications from families who do not typically explore private schools. With this year’s remote learning and hybrid models, many families who are no longer satisfied with their public school system are now turning to Pingry and other institutions. The smaller class sizes, teacher accessibility, and safety precautions around COVID-19 are very appealing, leading to an increase in applications for the incoming class.
The selection process for applicants is a challenging one. However, it is evident that the Admissions team takes great care when crafting each new class, making sure to include students with diverse backgrounds and talents who are eager to get involved in the Pingry community.
