Indian Hill Chieftain

December 2014 | Laney Myers

Do you ever find yourself confounded by the alarmist language of today’s culture? It seems like every time I open up Twitter a new “war” has sprouted up about something completely intangible like Christmas or the “Serial” podcast.

And in this atmosphere of volatile finger pointingfinger pointing, one guy seems to take a lot of the blame. While anyone can legitimately point out the shortcomings of Obama’s presidency, doesn’t anybody else think that he gets accused of some crazy evildoing?

So what’s the best way to combat this pattern? Satire, of course! Thankfully Chieftain is here to blow your mind with some 100% valid theories about our “President.”

Birth Certificate

I’m sure we’re all pretty familiar with the scandal of Obama’s birth certificate—after Obama was sworn into office in 2008 Americans started demanding verification that he was, indeed, an American citizen.

After quite a bit of persuading, the President released the documents to the public—probably doctored, but whatever.

But what no one ever told you was that Barack Hussein Obama refused to provide a birth certificate for such a long time because he is a Mexican alien. No, no, not like he’s in the country without papers. More like he’s a literal extraterrestrial being .who touched down in Mexico.

I know, at first I was skeptical. But then all the pieces started fitting together. How could it be possible that he landed such a good-looking wife asas attractive of a wife as Michelle, considering he’s a mom-jean-wearing nerd? Obviously he’s an expert in the Martian art form of mind bending! It’s called science, people.

ObamaCare – Causing Ebola????

Carl Sagan has said, “If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or you can inoculate.” Oh, poor, misinformed, NASA engineer and Pulitzer Price winning Carl. Everyone knows that scientific fact has no place in this modern world of critical decision making! Just look at the tobacco companies that tried to refute emerging evidence that cigarettes were turning our insides into to tar—those guys are totally on the right side of history!

I mean, so what if vaccines completely wiped out polio in the US, and keep Americans from contracting totally preventable diseases like smallpox, Hepatitis A and B, HPV, shingles and typhoid fever? There’s firmly insubstantial evidence that vaccination can lead to autism, a disorder about whose origins we know essentially nothing about.

So, now that it’s clear that vaccines are destroying our country one needle at a time, isn’t it a little suspicious that the Affordable Care Act (also known as OBAMACARE, also known as our alien President’s plan to make us more like Canada, land of leaf-worshipers whose health care is FREE) allows most consumers preventative care with no copay (I think, Obamacare is actually really confusing)?

In my humble and totally correct opinion, Obama’s flu shot agenda is just an elaborate hoax to cover up his true plans for our own health—giving us all EBOLA! That’s right, centralizing health care is just a way to sneak the highly infection virus into our flu shots at no out-of-pocket cost to consumers!

Why, you may ask, would Obama want to infect us all with Ebola? Well, I haven’t exactly gotten that far yet. No more questions please.

I could go on and on: Obama’s immigration “policy” that afforded millions of illegal immigrants a step toward citizenship was clearly a plot to provide covert information to South Korea; he’s adding invisible calories to our water supply to make us all fatter; stealing all my clothes in the dead of night and replacing them with identical versions that are just one size smaller, so that I’m supposed to think I’m gaining weight—nice try Obama!

But, by now it should be clear that our President is a modern dictator and probably has been the source of all problems in America since Benedict Arnold—because he has an evil time machine, obviously.

November 2014 | Kush Patel

Many colleges and universities use race as a deciding factor in admissions, but the approach has always been a hard-pressed issue with lots of controversy— even making its way to the Supreme Court several times since the late 1970s. There are arguments for and against affirmative action, and even though Republicans are typically against it, I strongly advocate on behalf of affirmative action.

Those against affirmative action argue that it does more harm than good, actually hurting minority students when schools are more lenient with their academic credentials and accept them over better-qualified students that are not of color. They argue these students are put at a disadvantage when they inevitably fall to the bottom of their classes, and that they are less likely to succeed and thrive in a world if they receive preferential treatment for their race. However, these opinions do not take into account the fact that affirmative action is fair, that it works, and it prevents discrimination.

Affirmative action is a positive idea that increases diversity within college campuses and helps prepare students for the real world that is full of differing races, cultures, and views. The purpose of it is to provide students with equal access to opportunity, which is what critics continually overlook.

Affirmative action is all about fairness. Candidates vying for the same position are not substantially different in ability, just slightly. If this is the case, then I ask you, what is the better way to determine who gets the spot? There is no better way. America is a significantly stronger and better country today because of affirmative action; the rich diversity of our culture thrives our economy, businesses, and educational institutions. The essence of affirmative action is indeed to provide opportunity to those who may not have it, and it works.

There are many success stories in the United States based on affirmative action, and there have been many instances in which people of color have benefitted from equal access to education and opportunity. In fact, it is because of affirmative action that stereotypical barriers have been broken, and women and minorities have begun entering traditionally male-dominated fields. By giving everyone equal opportunity, we no longer have fields that are not well represented by all demographics, contributing to our increasing diversity. The rich diversity of our college campuses should be attributed to affirmative action, as these policies have resulted in higher enrollment of minorities in higher education.

Besides, affirmative action is not solely used by minority political candidates. Take former President George W. Bush, a C student at Phillips Andover Academy in Massachusetts with a 1206 on his SAT’s—a full 180 points below the median score for Yale University class of 1968. According to the Wall Street Journal, “the legacy preference,” which gives the children of alumni an additional advantage in the admissions process, “overwhelmingly benefits whites.” It’s not just minorities benefitting; in fact, they are being given opportunities that people like George W. Bush have had from the start.

What people forget is that the true purpose of affirmative action is to create opportunity and counter discrimination. Affirmative action programs have a positive impact on all members of society, and should be implemented across the board. 

November 2014 | Asher Weinstein

Before I begin, I feel I must get one thing straight. Affirmative Action is not, and never was, a bad idea. It was a perfectly sound idea, and it was executed well. However, in today’s circumstances, it is no longer needed. I’m not suggesting that racism in schools no longer exists. However, with standards already in place that are separate from Affirmative Action, the purpose that Affirmative Action was meant to serve has already been fulfilled.

Affirmative Action was started in the 1960s with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was a way to equalize opportunities in the school and work world for both minorities and women. In the way it was set up, minorities and women were to be given special consideration over white males of equal qualification. This was not wrong. At the time it was passed, I believe it was essential. It has helped level the playing field for minorities for many years now. Racism and the unrest stemming from it still exist and affect many people, but for the most part, things are different in the work world. The way the selection process is set up may make things fairer. In cases where Affirmative Action has not or is not being followed, retaining our Affirmative Action laws won’t change those circumstances.

In the years since Affirmative Action has been enforced, there have been many criticisms against it. Some call it reverse discrimination, stating that a system that gives preference to minorities is racist against the white male majority. While I disagree, this may have a degree of validity. If we lived in a world where everyone had equal opportunities, Affirmative Action would be detracting from equal schools and workplaces more than helping them. However, while more people than ever have better opportunities, many still don’t.  For that reason, I would agree that the idea of Affirmative Action should stick around. Fortunately, the reason today’s laws can go away is positive. Most colleges and workplaces already have quotas and rules about accepting minorities that are completely separate from Affirmative Action, and they would not dissolve if it were to be revoked. To put it simply, Affirmative Action really isn’t doing much anymore and is no longer required.

However, there is another reason that Affirmative Action can go, and it’s related to the ideal of an equal world. Clearly, since we are only 50 years removed from the creation of Affirmative Action, we do not live in that world. However, in the event that an equal world was to exist, a law such as Affirmative Action would serve only to create a division between the minority and the majority.

A parallel can be drawn to baseball’s Negro Leagues. While they were not established by Major League Baseball and were actually the result of inequality, they were a way for African-Americans to have near equal opportunities. While the Negro Leagues were not equal, and were far less prestigious than the MLB, they had a purpose, since the Major Leagues would not admit African-American players. However, once baseball opened the gates, the Negro Leagues were no longer needed, and the league was quickly dissolved. Baseball has never turned back.

Affirmative Action served as the gate-opener for equal opportunities, but it is time for it to go. The rules and regulations already set up by many colleges will keep its purpose alive and, hopefully, it will stay like that forever. If racism suddenly increased, and colleges and workplaces could no longer, or no longer wanted to, keep up the rules they have set in place, of course Affirmative Action could be reinstated in order to restore the present situation. If this were the case, it should stick around. However, unless that is to happen, there is no further need for Affirmative Action.

Angela Karas | October 2014

On September 20th, Emma Watson, an actress best known for her role as Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter films, addressed the UN on behalf of the HeForShe organization, which promotes gender equality and specifically encourages men to take a stand for the feminist movement. Having only graduated from Brown University in May, she has expanded her impressive resume by becoming the UN Women Global Goodwill Ambassador, and kicked off the campaign with her brilliant speech.

 In this speech, she cited examples of misogynist influence in her life, such as being called bossy as a child for wanting to direct plays, while her male counterparts were not, being sexually exploited by the media in her early teenage years, her female friends dropping out of their sports teams for fear of seeming masculine, and her male friends’ inability to express their emotions for fear of seeming less masculine. Her decision to include first-hand experiences in her speech created an empathetic atmosphere that made her a much more relatable figure in the movement, and her intrepid confrontation of the injustices received an outpouring of applause from the crowd.

Watson professed that achievement of total equality would not only liberate women from socially prescribed submissive stereotypes and pressures to appear vulnerable in the face of male counterparts, but would allow men to be more free with their emotions, which would in turn reduce suicide rates. “I’ve seen young men suffering from mental illness, unable to ask for help for fear it would make them look less ‘macho’—in fact, in the UK, suicide is the biggest killer of men between twenty and forty-nine years of age; eclipsing road accidents, cancer and coronary heart disease.”

Watson went on to examine the process that must be taken to eradicate this prejudice in modern society. She makes a point to address that nowhere in the world can women expect to have total social, political, and economic equality with men unless action is taken. She stresses that it is just as important that men support the movement as women, stating  “…in my moments of doubt I’ve told myself firmly—if not me, who; if not now, when.” Should no action be taken, “it will take 75 years, or for me to be nearly a hundred, before women can expect to be paid the same as men for the same work. Fifteen point five million girls will be married in the next sixteen years as children. And at current rates it won’t be until 2086 before all rural African girls will be able to receive a secondary education.”

The poignant speech was so brilliantly executed it received a standing ovation from the UN audience, all of whom were moved by the eloquence and candor in which it was delivered.  Watson was gracious and humble amidst the endless praises she received from those with prominent positions in the UN. She is also receiving an outpouring of praise and support on Twitter and other social media platforms. It has also gained the support of many celebrities, as the likes of stars such as Harry Styles, Tom Hiddleson, and even Prince Harry (via one of Watson’s Twitter posts) have taken to Twitter to share photos of themselves holding signs that read “#HeForShe,” along with an accompanying message declaring their support for Watson and her cause.

Watson’s prolific UN speech has eternally branded her as a force in the gender equality movement. She embodies the principles of strength and emotion in a culture that places relentless pressure on her to fit a stereotypical notion of what the ideal young woman should embody, and she uses her influence to project ideals of gender empowerment. Encouraging men to take a stand is a fresh approach to the dilemma, and she flawlessly executes a convincing case on behalf of the HeForShe organization.

Arjun Sheth | September 2014

  Well, let me start by saying that I am in no way “Pro: DyKnow,” and that this “Pro” article, although I will illustrate a number of the advantages to the novel technology, is merely dubbed “Pro” due to its less invective nature than that of the “Con.” In fact, given the current, heated atmosphere surrounding this hotly contested “hot topic,” any remote, verbal appreciation of the intruder would constitute social suicide. I do concede, however, that unlike some peers (cough cough Sam Markiewitz), the blood that grazes my insides does not boil as warmly when confronted with the “imposter.”

    While I understand the significance and potential of such a program as has been recently instituted, I find it, from an objective standpoint, to have become wholly inconsequential, at least in the classes in which I’m enrolled. And indeed, when not trivial, it becomes an unintended nuisance (due to student complaints, technological difficulties, etc.). However, as this is the “pro” article, I will refrain from enumerating such grievances (as the Declaration of Independence so neatly does), and merely cite some of the positives delivered by various teachers, as well as those blatantly obvious to the unbiased onlooker (me).

    Notorious throughout the senior class for her advocacy and use of DyKnow is English teacher Mrs. McFarlan. “Okay, get your computers out. Everybody get on DyKnow,” you hear, as the bell concludes its musical announcement. Personally, I have no qualms or petitions. But inevitably, a chorus of indefatigable grumbling and groaning arises, to no avail. Strong in her belief that DyKnow is a positive aspect of learning, she surfs the massive wave of disapproval and persists in raising the “extinct” DyKnow.

    It “promotes interaction,” she suggests, providing concrete examples. For instance, multiple times has she utilized DyKnow to display a student’s screen over the projector so as to facilitate discussion regarding a student product: annotated texts, computer drawings, etc. This provision, one of the many positives, McFarlan says, is overlooked because “the only thing that’s being popularized is the monitor tool,” resulting in students having “the misconception that it’s a ‘gotcha tool’ to keep you on task.”

    Science teacher Mrs. Imrie agrees, citing other attributes of DyKnow – besides its detested “Big Brother” service – that lend it utility. “It’s really helpful for active reading quizzes,” she proposes. This is because the “White List” feature provides teachers an ability to limit students to “a list of programs for [them] to use during said active reading quiz,” or any other computer-based activity.

    While some may suggest this use simply represents an ineffective alternative to Lockdown Browser, the ability to grant access to note-taking programs (for open-note assessments) and other specified resources, while restricting Internet access, breaches the capabilities of Lockdown Browser.

    As McFarlan notes, “it’s unfortunate that we are in the beta phase,” for such a circumstance elicits multitudes of complaints, continually rendering in-class DyKnow use, well, useless. After finally overcoming student frustration and rebellion, disappearing DyKnow logins, and that one kid who just can’t get on, the question arises concerning DyKnow’s relative worth in the classroom. Like the dinosaurs, will it become extinct after a while? Or will the future bring relative ease and function otherwise unknown to us now. Perhaps, with the expulsion of ridiculous myths that DyKnow observation follows us home, or that teachers watch us when we’re not in their class, or, for non-religious sake, that teachers constantly watch us when we are in their class – which I have yet to experience… perhaps, with the expulsion of these ignorant arguments, DyKnow can thrive in coming school years.

    Thus, although certainly not an undisputed positive, DyKnow has been misrepresented by the overblown reaction to its rather hyperbolized disadvantages. It’s potential for more constructive and interactive learning is evident. It’s implementation for good use is obvious. The only thing that is not clear is when student/teacher mentality will change, if ever, deciding DyKnow’s fate. I guess that is up to evolution. Or maybe a large meteor. Your pick.

Troy Schwab | September 2014

Sitting at home, I begin to look up my Math homework answers for some of the odd questions – sorry Mrs. Kuhn (pro tip to Freshmen, almost every math book has the odd answers in the back for “checking work”). Before I can get to the right chapter of the online book answers, an icon begins to jump on my desktop, and an application opens up; it’s DyKnow. A message automatically opens up, “should you really be doing that, Troy?” It’s from my math teacher, Mrs. Kuhn…

All joking aside, I only cheat from the actual book, so nobody can see me doing it from Dyknow. No, but actually this time – I never cheat from the back of the book, and truthfully only use it to double check my work after having done all the math problems myself, and while Dyknow can’t quite do this, it can do some things that have some students screaming for their right to privacy.

But first of all, I should point out why it’s not as big of a deal as some of these students are making it: next to no teachers use Dyknow. Mr. Reger strictly oversaw its installation in my first period AP Euro class, but not a single day has gone by where he has asked us to 1) use our computers, or 2) get on Dyknow. Mr. Meyers in my Geology class doesn’t use it, nor Mrs. Croston in AP Psychology, despite the fact that both are computer based courses. The only teacher that has used it in class has been Mrs. McFarlan for AP Literature, and while that no doubt affects the content of browsing in the class, she nevertheless hardly looks at it, and spends time looking at other things, like college essays or power points instead.

That having been said, let's get into why Dyknow is a bad thing to have. Let’s throwback to Middle School days for a moment, when almost nobody used a laptop, and everything was in our binders and on paper. If you wanted to talk to someone across the room, you would write your note down on a piece of paper and crumple it up and wait for the teacher to turn so you could throw it at them. If you wanted to zone out of the class work, you had pages of paper to doodle on – you could draw anything from a classic scribble to that one elaborate “s” that everyone somehow knew how to draw. These things were ways for students to mentally relax after a long math lecture, or a way for students to try and stay awake during that boring science power point.

Playing video games and going on other websites during school to zone out are kind of in the same category as doodling and passing notes. Now you can just hop onto literally any instant messenger application and message people during class. Or you can sneakily take a picture on your snap chat or send a text. That’s the exact same thing we used to do in middle school, but now it just involves our technology. When I play tetris or minecraft during math class, that’s the exact same “I’m zoning out” mindset I would have when I scribbled down the margin of my notes in Middle School.

High School is one of the most overwhelming times of your life, and let me just say to any underclassmen – it only gets worse. If you try to stay awake all day during class, mentally at 100% and paying attention, you’re going to drive yourself crazy; it’s just not possible. You mentally need breaks throughout the day, and as long as you still perform well, then there’s no need to try to inhibit such breaks. DyKnow unnecessarily inhibits us from taking those breaks throughout the day. Therefore, I am of the opinion that Dyknow is detrimental and it should not be used any longer.

Vivian Zheng | February 2014

Oh, the dreaded topic of standardized testing. A high schooler’s life basically leads up to the good ol’ ACTs and SATs. So, what do these tests do? They try to measure and judge a student’s ability to learn, and show what he or she has achieved educationally in the past, helping colleges make a decision on whether or not to accept someone. So basically if you bomb them, you’re screwed. All students hate them, but if you think about it, they’re necessary to judge a person’s knowledge without actually knowing the person. I mean, I hate these tests as much as the next person, but there are some positives that come with them.

Primarily, what else is there? As of now, colleges have no other way to see a student’s potential academically. The SATs and ACTs are both reliable, objective measures of the achievement of a student. Without these tests, colleges can only rely on the recommendations and grades from a biased teacher and college-crazed school. By having standardized tests, colleges are able to compare all the achievements of the students in the nation with one another. Everyone takes the same test, so nobody seems to be at a disadvantage. The main point is that these tests don’t discriminate, they’re equal, and they are objective. So for now, until a better idea comes around, standardized testing is the way to go.

Also, the high standards of the SATs and ACTs prepare students for the difficult tests incollege. Even though college really is only about partying (of course), there still are some tests and homework thrown in the mix. The fact that some kids study and prepare for weeks on end for standardized tests only mimics life at college. Clearly, this depends on what college you go to and your level of intelligence, but at some level this holds true. College is a step up from high school, with more homework, less boundaries, and, obviously, more tests. College has its own set of standardized tests, depending on the career path you choose; you have your GREs, your GMATs, the MCATs, and a lot more. Like I said before, the SATs and ACTs are just another way for colleges to judge your readiness in their academic environment.

The ACTs and SATs have also been proven to be pretty successful in predicting a student’s future success in higher education. Usually if you get a good score on the SATs, you’re probably one smart cookie. Colleges obviously wouldn’t be using them if they weren’t accurate most of the time, so they have to work somehow. They can also be beneficial. If you sucked at life for the first two or three years of high school, a good score on one of these bad boys can give you a better chance to get into your dream school. Standardized tests can save your life. It makes sense if you don’t think about it.

Colleges aren’t only looking at test scores for admission. They just want to see thatyou’re a well-rounded person; they want to see you participate in clubs, volunteer in your free time, try your best, and lead fellow classmates. Standardized tests are only an addition to the application that helps them judge your ability to learn in the future. Let’s try to look past the three or four awful hours spent cooped up in a room, writing until your hand is cramped, and see Vivian Zhengthe positives in these tests. To sum it all up, even though we all hate taking them, it makes sense why standardized tests are required. So keep up the good work, and stay in school, kids.

Quinn Falter | February 2014

Colleges aren’t only looking at test scores for admission. They just want to see thatyou’re a well-rounded person; they want to see you participate in clubs, volunteer in your free time, try your best, and lead fellow classmates. Standardized tests are only an addition to the application that helps them judge your ability to learn in the future. Let’s try to look past the three or four awful hours spent cooped up in a room, writing until your hand is cramped, and see Vivian Zhengthe positives in these tests. To sum it all up, even though we all hate taking them, it makes sense why standardized tests are required. So keep up the good work, and stay in school, kids.

Let’s start with a little history. The acronym for the SAT was the Scholastic Aptitude Test, which was later changed to Scholastic Assessment Test, and now is just the mysterious SAT. It was first used experimentally in 1926, and then began widespread use after World War II in hopes that it would help admissions officers weed out those who were truly “gifted” and those who worked hard for their academic success. According to Fairtest.org, the test is supposed to predict the potential of the student in their freshman year at university, but according to a fair amount of studies, the test does not predict academic performance beyond that same freshman year. After its inception, it took the College Board several years of marketing before the SAT gained any sort of credibility within the collegiate circuit.

However, it didn’t take long after it gained popularity that someone figured that studyingand helping others to study for the test could be a lucrative business, even though the test was supposedly “uncoachable”. Today, College Board offers different study books for outrageous prices to help students obtain that perfect 2400. Now, this brings up two different factors: time and money. According to a study of musical students done by psychologists, those who performed better during their musical exam practiced up to 800% more than other students. So, it can also be assumed that those who spent more time practicing for the SAT also had higher scores. But what about those kids who can’t afford books and tutors? According to the Washington Post, SAT score averages rise with every $20,000 increase in family income. How can a test purportedly be standardized if it shows disparity in scores due to familial income?

Not only is there a disparity in scores among income, there is also a disparity amongdifferent races. According to Time Magazine, even when black parents have the same education levels and income as a comparable sample of whites, there is an average of 120 points lower in the scores among their children. Females and Hispanics have also traditionally scored lower than the average white male.

The SAT also seems like it would be a predictor of the first grades of freshman year ofcollege. According to a study done by University of California, using G.P.A, SAT, and SAT II scores, G.P.A was a better predictor of what a student will achieve in his or her freshman year of college.

In order to see what scores will look like, one needs to factor in education level, income, practice time, gender, and race, but one must also factor in stress-levels and those kids that are just not great test-takers. It seems clear to me that this test is outdated and that its competition, the ACT and the SAT II, don’t offer much of an alternative. With so many different variables that can affect a test like this, is it fair to call it accurate?