Art has intrigued the masses for millennia. From ancient Greece to 20th-century New York City, people have wondered, what can be considered art? As the purpose of artworks and artists alike shifted away from early Greek portrayals of reality and beauty, all previous definitions of art had to be reconsidered. This begs the question, what really makes an object art?

Plato would have walked down the streets of Athens, in ancient Greece, and marvelled at the divine sculpture he saw. Sculptors, contemporaries of Plato, would have a lasting impact on the man now known as the “father” of Western philosophy. Plato, inspired by depictions of the human body and soul, would form the first modern theory of Aesthetics, centred around the idea that art is an imitation of Plato’s forms, specifically the ideal form of beauty.

Over a millennium later, on a separate continent, Arthur Danto, a 20th-century American aesthetic philosopher was living in New York City, one of the most economically, socially, and culturally influential cities in the world. Danto would have studied aestheticians’ theories extensively yet, when he walked into a New York gallery, viewing the work of Andy Warhol for the first time in the mid-1960s, he decided that no aesthetic theory was able to explain the modern art of his time. Inspired by modern and contemporary art, as well as earlier philosophers, Danto would craft his own aesthetic theory and definition of art - one more broad and encompassing than any of its precedents, dependant on the “art world,” a term he coined.

Plato’s theories on art stemmed from his thoughts on ideal forms. He detailed the way all worldly objects are derived from the realm of ideal forms, including perfect truth, justice and beauty, along with geometric identities. At the time, Plato viewed art as an imitation of the form of beauty, specifically the idealization of human sexuality and emotionality.

Arthur Danto, on the other hand, was a 20th-century American philosopher. The Columbia University professor focused his philosophical work on aesthetics, and the philosophy of art, but also dabbled in the history of philosophy. Danto was also an acclaimed art critic, reviewing modern and contemporary exhibitions in New York City. One of Danto’s crowning accomplishments was the formulation of his own, final, definition of art. For this theory, he drew upon the philosophies of Plato, Hegel, and Schopenhauer and especially Nietzsche’s aesthetics, eventually deeming them all antiquated.

Danto’s theory of art relies upon a central pillar: the art world. Danto both coined and defined the term “the art world.” The art world, according to Danto, was the social and cultural circumstances in which art exists, in “an atmosphere of art theory.” This term would be essential in inspiring Danto to revise art’s definition.

Other key inspirations would be drawn from the modern and contemporary art of the late 20th century. At this time, New York City was s the art world's epicentre. Danto found himself immersed in this hotbed of aesthetic culture. New York served as the perfect place to develop his ideas on what truly constituted art. Similar to the way Plato was inspired by Greek sculpture, the art of Danto’s time was crucial in the formulation of his aesthetic perspectives. The art of the ‘60s, ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s was far different from the Greek sculpture Plato had witnessed. No longer was art’s purpose to capture the beauty of the human form. Art was being torn apart, both ideologically and physically. This era marked the emergence of contemporary art, and a profusion of artists were looking to bend and break all barriers imposed on their craft.

One day, Danto strolled off the streets of New York into an art gallery, where he viewed Warhol’s work, titled Brillo Box (1964-1964).

This sculpture was constructed by Warhol in order to perfectly mimic the soap-pad boxes that filled shipping warehouses. But, this one was presented as a work of art. When Danto viewed Warhol’s work, he came to a stunning realization. Danto knew that these sculptures could not be differentiated from the shipping crates through any “visible” characteristics. Upon further study of other artistic movements and pieces, especially the artist Marcel Duchamp and his breakthrough group of sculptures called “readymades,” Danto was forced to form a definition of art through “invisible” characteristics: specifically meaning, embodiment, and interpretation. Danto summarizes the progression of art best in his book, What Art Is:

In our narrative, at first only mimesis [imitation] was art, then several things were art but each tried to extinguish its competitors, and then, finally, it became apparent that there were no stylistic or philosophical constraints. There is no special way works of art have to be. And that is the present and, I should say, the final moment in the master narrative. It is the end of the story.

Today, Danto’s definition, requiring artistic purpose and perception along with the art world’s consensus, is both relevant and optimistic. Visual art has entered a new age, and while Danto may have titled this new-age at the end of art, it is not as bleak as the name may suggest. Freedom of expression has granted freedom to the arts, and artists. Coupled with an open definition, artists have been able to innovate past what Plato could have fathomed. It is essential for both society and culture that artists continue to explore the boundaries of human creativity and thought, crushing any barriers that still persist. The definition of art, which in turn removes all definitions of art, is not only fitting but crucial, in this age of dualism, where true and free thoughts are a sought-after commodity. Art must hold no limitations.

We all know the feeling of sheer panic after we spend hours watching Netflix despite having a project due the next day. Such lapses in judgement aren’t isolated incidents but, rather, common occurrences. They’re habits. And everything that we do is impacted by our habits. From the time you wake up to the time you go to bed, we are instinctively making decisions. When you brush your teeth in the morning, every move is instinctive. You don’t have to think about which hand you use to hold your toothbrush or how long to rinse your brush. Over time, our day-to-day decisions become automatic. As an instant gratification aficionado, some of my habits are influenced by my efficiency or what my parents like to call, my “laziness”. I always thought that our bad habits stream from our incapability to persevere but, in reality, there is so much more to them.

A habit is a routine of behaviour that is repeated regularly and tends to occur subconsciously, but how can we look at habits on a neurological level? Our habits are controlled by our basal ganglia: a small part of our brain that neurologists only recently began to understand, which is involved in the integration and selection of voluntary behaviour. The striatum, the major input station of the basal ganglia, has a key role in something called instrumental behaviour, which is the learned behaviour that is modified by its consequences. Our brain creates habits to conserve energy and reduce brain activity but what may seem like a positive thing can be as much of a curse as a benefit. Due to our habits, we tend to create routines that can be damaging to ourselves. Instead of choosing to drink water, we opt for sugary drinks. Instead of walking a short distance, we drive.

Our brains are wired to go through a cycle where we crave and consume. All we need is three simple things. A cue, a routine, and a reward. A cue triggers a behaviour. A routine is a behaviour itself. Finally, there is a reward. These three steps are what teach your brain to encode an automatic behaviour. You may be wondering, “How can I change my habits?”. To remove your old, bad habits and replace them with positive ones, you need to create new neurological routines. If we take control of the habit loop, we can force our bad tendencies to go away.

In 2002, researchers at New Mexico State University studied 266 individuals. The goal of the study was to get the subjects to create new exercising habits. The results found that many of the subjects started exercising by the end of the study, but how did that come to be? Exercising became a habit because researchers gave subjects specific cues and rewards to incentivize them to exercise. The group of people had to choose an obvious cue like putting workout clothes on their beds or exercising at the same time. Then, they were told to go for a run and, at the end of the workout, they were to give themselves a small piece of chocolate. While a piece of chocolate may seem like a small incentive to perform vigorous exercise, the results showed that the brain craved any kind of reward for its work, regardless of the size of the reward. Over time, the researchers found that the people who ate a small piece of chocolate were more likely to start exercising habitually and, as the study progressed, researchers found subjects didn’t need chocolate and their workout was engraved into a routine.

You may be aware of former football player and coach, Tony Dungy. Not only was he a great player but he had a coaching technique that changed the reputation of his football team. He took the Indianapolis Colts and made them a force to be reckoned with. Before Tony Dungy’s mentorship, the Colts were in a stagnant state. They rarely made it to the playoffs and when they did, they almost never won. Tony believed that the key to winning was changing players' habits. He wanted to get players to stop making so many decisions during a game and to react automatically, habitually. During practices, Dungy didn’t pay attention to trying to run faster or throw farther, rather, he focused on instilling the correct habits in the players. His positive teaching philosophy greatly attributed to the success of this team and made them go from a losing team to a winning one.

What these examples show is that if you really want to break your habits, you need to do three things. First, identify your triggers. Why are you doing what you are doing? What causes you to continue with your habits? Then, identify your reward. You need to know what you are craving. For example, a smoker doesn’t smoke cigarettes because they like the process but they smoke because they covet the feeling the get from smoking. Finally, you need to swap out your routine. So, whether you are looking to break a habit or form a new habit, just know the rut you’re stuck in isn’t permanent. Taking a methodical approach is key, and if you stay committed and follow your steps, before you know it, your destructive habits will be turned into new, healthy ones.

Dear Cuspidor Reader,

Back again, are we? Honestly, I didn’t see you as the type to make the same mistake twice, but here we are. You and I both know you’re got so many better things to do than read this shambles of an advice column, but we also both know that you’d not get those tasks done anyways until three minutes before the deadline even if you were working now, because procrastination and panic run in your blood. I must say, it gets to the best of us.

Anyways, on with the show. If you want to be miserable this merry holiday month, look no further (actually, look just a little further -- down this page to where the column actually is).

Work

At this point in the year, you’re probably sick of school and in need of a break. Good news: the winter holidays are coming up very soon (depending on when you get this, they may be here already), so you’ll have plenty of time to waste indulging in self-pity. Bad news: you’ll have to survive the upcoming onslaught of summatives in order to get to those two sweet weeks of freedom.

You may not care too much about this round of assessments as they won’t provide you with the instant gratification/mortification that comes with the marks on your December report card, but believe me, they still do count. In order to save your April self from shame and regret, start studying now for all your tests and planning out your projects. Set aside time each day to work on what you need to do so you can get it all done, and make room for summatives in your schedule. If you’ve got questions or things you don’t understand, ask your teachers as soon as possible in class or at an extra help session instead of in the dying minutes of a test when you can feel your consciousness slipping out of your body.

Now is also a good time to ask for extensions or get summatives rescheduled - if you take a look at your calendar (which you probably don’t use, let’s be honest) and see that you have six tests in five classes next Thursday, see if you can do something about it by approaching your teachers and Student Services.

Play

Of course, you’ve got to make some time for yourself so you can remember what happiness feels like before the year (and the decade) comes to an end. There are plenty of winter activities happening this month that will be sure to tickle your fancy. Permitted that climate change hasn’t gotten the best of us yet, you’ll be able to ski, skate, and toboggan, so get whatever friends or non-enemies you’ve got and spend a day together in the great outdoors.

Within the city, there are also a number of seasonal activities you can partake in, including the Christmas Market in the Distillery District and the Cavalcade of Lights at Nathan Phillips Square. Nothing better than a little consumerism and a planned social media candid to celebrate the true spirit of the holiday season.

Finally, you can take advantage of the worsening weather by spending some quality time indoors, taking care of yourself and your vastly ignored emotional needs. Whether it’s a drawn-out existential crisis with hot cocoa and Netflix at 3 AM the night before a test or a cozy Saturday night with a book that tests the limits of your very basic literacy skills, there are plenty of easy, low-budget ways to spend a day in.

Well, dear reader, seems like I’ve got to go now. May your holiday season be more enjoyable and relaxing than reading this column and trying to make sense of it. I hope, for your sake, that making better life decisions is one of your New Year’s resolutions and that I don’t see you here ever again.

In May of 2014, the Xinjiang province of China launched the Strike Hard Campaign against Violent Terrorism. This region is comprised of multiple minority groups, notably Uyghur Muslims, which make up 45% of its population. The purpose of this campaign is to frame separatism as an act of terrorism, and forcibly censor and convert separatist ideologies.

Within the hundreds of functioning camps across the country, the Chinese government is forcing millions of Uyghur and Kazakh detainees to renounce their religious beliefs and adopt those of the Communist party. According to accounts by former detainees, these camps commit severe human rights violations through physical, mental, and sexual abuse: detainees are kept in inhumane conditions and frequently punished for disobeying rules. Living conditions are overcrowded and unhygienic, and there is inadequate health care. Observant Muslims are forced to eat pork and denied food as punishment. Rape can result in pregnancies, which are forcibly terminated. Detainees are subject to medical experiments.

The Chinese government has denied these claims and presented the media with a completely different picture. NBC News was recently allowed by Chinese government officials to interview camp directors and detainees within the centers but found themselves leaving with more questions than answers. At the two camps reporters were allowed to see, classrooms and dormitories were sparsely furnished, and officials were constantly present. According to the interviews, being placed in one of the centers can be a result of a minor offence or as an alternative to jail time. The officials denied multiple questions, including how many camps exist, how many people are detained within, and how many have been released; however, officials did specify that in order to be released, detainees must pass exams based on what they are taught within the centers. Exact success criteria were not provided.

Various escapees and those related to detainees in the camps believe this image is staged; they assert that individuals are detained without being tried in court or without any legal charges against them, and have personal stories of physical torture. The Chinese government dismisses them as lies, and because of China’s large diplomatic and economic presence, the rest of the world has remained relatively silent on the issue. Recently, however, secret government documents that dictate strict instructions on how the camps should be run were leaked. The revelations were shocking. The documents order camp directors to "never allow escapes,” “increase discipline and punishment of behavioural violations", and “encourage students to truly transform.”

The Communist Party still maintains that these camps are for re-education and rehabilitation purposes, but the reality of what happens within them is not far from what we’ve seen before. From where I stand, this is a blatant human rights violation. Though one would expect that the world has progressed beyond this kind of behaviour, the issue itself and the lack of attention surrounding it shows us that we still have a long way to go, and that what we hear about in history books is not so different from what is happening now.

Can you imagine a million of anything? Probably not. How about a billion?

In a world of more than 7.5 billion, a miniscule group of people - just over 2,000 - have access to this literally incomprehensible amount of wealth.

Meanwhile, 4.2 billion people make under $7.40 a day - the minimum amount required to achieve basic nutrition and a normal human life expectancy of roughly 70 years. That’s the majority of the world’s population. Even if you lower the standard to $1.90 a day (a level of poverty almost as unimaginable as a billionaire’s wealth), 736 million still cannot meet the threshold.

In a world with so much grinding poverty, how can one person get so rich? And is it immoral to do so?

Some people will tell you that billionaires make it to the top through hard work and the value they add to society. They came up with a great idea, started a business, and got rich because people liked the product. They’re self-made. They provide a direct service to their customers, like quick package delivery or a high-quality computer.

But there’s an important question going unasked in this analysis: how is that product made and delivered so efficiently? The answer is the exploitation of labour. Take Jeff Bezos and Amazon as an example. Workers at one warehouse in Chicago say they were forced to work overtime, then denied pay. Others say they were given so few breaks that employees had to pee in bottles. Workplace injuries are common, and over a half-dozen warehouse workers have died on the job. The contractors Amazon relies on for same-day deliveries are assigned quotas that are impossible to meet, leading to long shifts and unsafe driving, resulting in at least 60 car accidents since June 2015 - ten of them fatal.

Some billionaires resort to truly psychopathic means to gain their wealth. The Sacklers, worth $19 billion, created the pharmaceutical company behind OxyContin. They paid for studies saying the drug was not addictive so it would be prescribed more, leading directly to a skyrocketing rate of prescription drug addiction. More than any one family, they are responsible for the opioid crisis we face today.

To say that billionaires earn their money through benefitting society is utterly false. Not all of them are actively malicious - in fact, the vast majority don’t sink to the level of the Sacklers, or even Jeff Bezos - and many use their money to donate to good causes. But it’s clear from these examples that a billionaire’s wealth is not correlated to their positive impact on the world.

But what about the good billionaires, the ones who donate to charity and treat their workers well? If such a billionaire exists, then I would still say they shouldn’t have a billion dollars. Why? Because hoarding unfathomable amounts of money while others die young from poverty is inherently unethical.

Moral philosopher Peter Singer has argued that being a billionaire is only ethical if you give your money away. The reasoning is very simple: if you are in a position where you can prevent something bad from happening, but choose not to, you are morally culpable. Billionaires can single-handedly lift millions out of poverty and food insecurity, so they should use their money to do just that. But, relative to their income, most billionaires give next to nothing. Famously charitable men like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates give away just 2.6 and 3.9 percent of their wealth, respectively. The average Canadian household spends that on utilities alone.

And what if they caused such inequality in the first place? The Koch brothers have gained somewhat of a reputation as philanthropists, despite giving away 0.2% of their combined wealth. Their charitable contributions are dwarfed by their support of numerous think-tanks and outlets that deny climate change (did I mention they made their money in oil and gas?), push corporate tax cuts, and generally make themselves even richer at the expense of everyone else.

Even if billionaires did give away most of their fortune, and stayed out of politics outside of voting every few years, shouldn’t our most vulnerable be helped by a publicly-accountable government instead of the whims of a few powerful men? They may choose to help people and refuse to interfere in the political process, but every billionaire has the potential to buy candidates and influence elections. No one person should have that power in a democracy. New York Times columnist Farhad Manjoo summed it up best: “If we tolerate the supposedly ‘good’ billionaires, we inevitably leave the door open for the bad ones.”

Ultimately, what we are left with is a tiny group of people with disproportionate and frankly ridiculous amounts of power and wealth, acting unethically and without consequence. They hoard their wealth as billions of people live in unacceptable conditions. They use their outsize wealth to influence elections and pay for candidates. No just society can allow this to continue. No one should have a billion dollars.

Sources

One gets a rather cathartic feeling watching the American political system implode upon itself. After over 2 and a half years under President Trump, political drama has become the norm. Yet now, for what seems like the upteenth time, Democrats are trying to impeach Trump-but this time, their measures have actually gotten off the ground.

The present impeachment effort revolves around one country: Ukraine. Allegedly, President Trump pressured newly elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to produce incriminating evidence upon former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. Using a “quid pro quo” (a sort of tit-for-tat agreement, conditional on a transfer from both sides), Trump supposedly made $400 million dollars of American military aid contingent on Ukraine investigating supposed corruption by Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden plays an odd role amidst this all. During the tenure of his father as Vice President under President Obama, Hunter was appointed onto the Board of Directors of Burisma, a prominent Ukrainian natural gas company.

The whole process began due to the complaint of an unknown “whistleblower,” who supposedly wrote a “letter expressing concern” regarding Trump’s phone call with Zelensky, in July of 2019. Trump, to the surprise of many, released the transcript of his phone call with Zelesnky, thus presenting the first solid piece of evidence to the public.

The transcript itself provides a clear and straightforward answer: Trump did indeed request Zelensky to look into the alleged corruption by Hunter Biden and Burisma. In specific, he wanted the new Ukrainian government to find out whether the firing of a prosecutor looking into Burisma was politically motivated.

Below are two excerpts of the conversation, the former relevant to the US aid, the latter, the investigation into Burisma:

1. Trump: “I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are.”

Zelensky: “You are absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000%! Logically, the European Union should be our...partner but...the United States is a much bigger partner...I'm very grateful to you for...doing quite a lot for Ukraine. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically...to buy more Javelins [anti-tank missiles] from the United States for defense.”

2. Trump: “They shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved...The former ambassador from the United States...was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news...There's a lot of talk...that Biden stopped the prosecution… [and] Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it.”

Zelensky: “About the prosecutor...the next prosecutor general will be...my candidate… approved by the parliament...He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company [Burisma]...The issue of the investigation…is actually the issue of...honesty. If you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful… to administer justice in our country.”

It is very important to note that Trump did request for Zelensky to investigate Burisma and the Bidens. However, he did NOT make US military aid conditional on it. In fact, it’s Zelensky who brings up the topic of buying US weapons, not Trump! This means that the current, prevailing case for impeachment is null and void if Trump didn’t associate the aid with an investigation as there was no “quid pro quo”. In fact, the military aid discussed in the call was delivered, albeit after a short halt. However, due to the intricacies of the impeachment process, even if there was no implicit “quid pro quo”, impeachment could still be carried out on different grounds, according to some legal scholars who testified during the proceedings. According to one of them, Michael Gerhardt, the Ukraine incident is “precisely the misconduct that the framers created...impeachment, to protect against.”

It gets even worse. Joe Biden has publicly boasted, on camera, at a “Council on Foreign Relations” of meddling in Ukrainian politics. He said, and I quote, “if the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money and oh...[he] got fired!”. Now that’s a smoking gun if I’ve ever seen one!

Secondly, it is crucial to understand the role of the whistleblowers themselves, specifically, the more recent of the two. The information relayed by him is based upon, frankly, pure gossip. His “mangled” recollection of the call between Trump and Zelensky doesn’t match up with the official transcript. The “whistleblower” is a registered Democrat, and the “protege of Trump’s most adamant opponents, including Susan Rice, John Brennan and Joe Biden”. Further proof of the unreliability of the “whistleblower” is seen by the fact that he did not report to the Attorney General, but to Adam Schiff, the Democrat at the head of the impeachment inquiry. While the “whistleblower” had asserted his support of Ukraine under the Obama administration, he clearly had no qualms with Obama actually halting all aid to Ukraine, while Trump merely considered doing so. There is a clear double standard here!

This does pose important questions about the efficacy of the impeachment process itself. Increasingly, as seen both today and by Bill Clinton’s impeachment in 1998, the process itself has metamorphosed into an arena for bitter, partisan conflict-instead of actually fulfilling its role as the “Checks and Balances” that the Founding Fathers intended it to be. If Trump is indeed convicted by “lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger” (according to Jonathan Turley, a legal professor called to testify), then “we [should] expect every future president to [face] the same type of inchoate impeachment.”

The impeachment committee itself should face some serious scrutiny. Its chairman, Adam Schiff has repeatedly misled the public. He lied when he claimed that the infamous “Mueller report” would provide a “bombshell” piece of evidence for the proceedings. He lied when he claimed that his staff hadn’t been in touch with the “whistleblower” prior to his testimony. He lied, by literally “making up” his own version of the transcript between Trump and Zelensky, before insisting it was only a mere “parody”. He has prevented Republican representatives of the House Intelligence Committee from participating in the proceedings (by examining witnesses, a privilege given to the Democrats in the 2016 hearings when they were a minority), making Trump’s claim of a “partisan witch-hunt” not seem too far from the truth.

The reasoning behind the current impeachment process is simple. Democrats have been searching, and failing, to find a catalyst for Trump’s impeachment since the day he was elected. The Mueller report was a bust, the Stormy Daniels-Michael Avenatti case was inconclusive and hence now, they have resorted to Ukraine. Increasingly, establishment Democrats are growing concerned that their party may not have what is needed to defeat Trump in 2020. According to a New York Times poll examining potential scenarios in 6 key battleground states (between Trump, Biden, Bernie and Warren), the election is going to be much closer than some make it out to be. Trump beats Warren in 3 states, ties in 2 and loses in 1. He leads Bernie in 3, and loses in 3 others. Only when matched up against Biden does Trump conclusively lose; Biden is leading in 4 states, tying in 1 and losing in 1. Democrats are awakening to the reality that (spoiler alert!) Trump could win in 2020. Thus, they have turned to their last resort; impeachment. It would be wise for Democrats to refer to the words of a young Joe Biden, in 1998: “We in Congress had better be very careful before we upset [the people’s] decision and make darn sure … that our decision to impeach him [Bill Clinton] was based on principle and not politics.” Amidst all the chaos, the average American should be feeling a curious sense of déjà vu as the country attempts to impeach, for all the wrong reasons, its President.

References

1. https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/trump-impeachment-inquiry-illegitimate-ten-reasons-why/
2. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-shouldnt-whistleblower-testify-99637
3. https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/trump-impeachment-inquiry-alleged-bad-thoughts-not-crimes/
4. https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/462969-trumps-ukraine-transcript-unwise-words-but-no-proof-of-a-crime
5. https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html
6. https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/ukraine-transcript-donald-trump-zelensky-biden/index.html
7. https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/15/politics/donald-trump-volodymyr-zelensky-white-house-transcript-april-call/index.html
8. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49838433
9. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39945744
10. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/10/impeachment-trump-democrats/600448/
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_inquiry_against_Donald_Trump
12. https://newrepublic.com/article/155404/pundits-got-impeachment-wrong
13. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-impeachment-trap-for-democrats-by-eric-posner-2019-10
14. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/30/trump-ukraine-alleged-bribery-impeachment-inquiry
15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY
16. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/opinion/letters/polls-battleground-states.html
17. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/trump-impeachment.html
18. https://www.rev.com/blog/impeachment-hearing-day-4-transcript-gordon-sondland-testifies
19. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/curious-release-military-aid-ukraine-n1082256

I remember one day in class hearing someone talking about how it would be such a nice thing to have a pass/fail system for evaluation. Let’s delve into why this is a good idea:

1. Reducing Stress

Entering a new school is a challenging time, especially for those who are only 12-13 years old. There is immense pressure to make friends and find cliques, which some believe to the only set of friends they will ever have for the rest of high school. But at UTS, F1s also enter into an entirely different academic world, one far more alien and unforgiving than that which they were previously a part of. F1s have to navigate grading levels, learn new studying methods to keep pace with the material being taught, and do more homework, all in less time due to their probably longer commute on the TTC. In a school where those who earn the most level 5s also earn the most respect, the overall result is an extremely heavy burden on children who do not yet know that what they feel is normal, or that their is a way to get help.

2. Less Work For Teachers

Many teachers are, surprisingly, like us: they have lots of work, mainly marking assessments, and not a lot of time to do it Having a pass/fail system for F1s will allow teachers to prioritize the heavy load of work that they do have. Take a teacher who handles both F1 and S5. Often they are forced into deciding to mark an F1 test from a month ago or an S5 one from last week. Both will take 10 hours each to complete. The S5 test will matter far more as students need to get feedback on how to improve their grade as they get closer to university applications, but time is wasted marking meaningless F1 assessments out of fairness. By making F1 pass/fail, teachers can hand back tests written by older grades faster.

3. Preparation

Young students can take this time to learn about levels and the intricacy of marking, as well as what counts as good quality work or not, instead of being launched right into the thick of it as soon as they arrive. They can learn skills like how to solicit feedback from teachers, how much to study for, etc. The marks that one receives in F1 sometime ends up being the story that they tell themselves of their future academic performance, and so they don’t put any extra effort in following grades out of low self-confidence or defeat. Giving F1s the opportunity to learn about what is required to do well may lead them to perform better in F2 than they otherwise could have, with the benefits continuing as they move on to subsequent grades as well.

The most glaring refutation to pass/fail is the lax conditions required to pass. Under this system, a student needs to only put in little real effort to do well, and then get shocked in F2 as they cannot do the same thing as last year. However, the University of Michigan did a trial where they changed assessments to a pass/fail model for its first-year (!!!) medical students, and found that there was “no evidence...students achieved at lower levels than had their predecessors with the former, more traditional grading system”. Student responses to the trial said that it significantly lowered anxiety and increased their satisfaction with the school. Opposition to pass/fail also comes in the proud defense of UTS being a highly demanding and stressful school, and that the jarring integration into F1 is sort of the trial by fire which every student has to endure. It is central to UTS’ identity for it be a naturally hard school, but responding to the needs of students does not have to mean compromising on this. Making F1 pass/fail is the right step towards dispeling this belief and placing student happiness and academic rigour on the same, high pedestal.

Study from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7718068.

Bonjour! 안녕하세요! Hola! 你好! Do you ever wonder how many languages humans can speak? People can speak from none to 58 languages in total! Language itself, is very ubiquitous and connected, because it relates to how we think to make decisions in our lives. When we talk to other people, our brain follows a neurotic protocol, turning frequencies of sound into neurotic patterns of waves. When reading, our brain takes the abstract symbols and converts them into complex ideas as well. The earliest humans would have spoken or gestured in a way unalike or similar to our languages today. Then, the humans separated into different groups, living in different places, and evolving new languages along the way. It’s an essential part of our life, that we use to communicate, listen, read, and write.

Language can be divided into two main categories: active, which is writing and speaking, and passive, part of reading and listening. The mind functions in a very different way when we are exposed to these different language categories. A study published in January 27^th, 2017 by Uri Hasson, explained the relationship when subjects listened to stories. As soon as the story started, the neurotic waves of all the subjects aligned with each other. Most of the listeners heard, “And they recommend against crossing that line. He says: ‘Dear Jim, Good story. Nice details. Didn’t she only know about him through me?’” In this version, making non transitional fragments included the use of certain areas of the brain, including the frontal cortex and parietal cortex, since it tried to understand grammatically comprehensible bits and pieces. Reading also makes a big difference in connection to the brain. It involves diverse functions, like visual and auditory processing. It gives the mind time to stop, think, and create a visual image. Reading doesn’t only limit itself to one language or style of writing, but goes beyond to create different contextual uses of words and their meanings.

There are also three universal types of bilinguals. When learning a language with a younger brain, the brain mostly uses emotional and social context. Compound bilinguals can pick up various sounds and process their surroundings. Coordinate bilinguals can simultaneously switch between languages, probably learning one at school, and speaking another at home. Finally, subordinate bilinguals learn a secondary language through their primary language, using mostly analytical decisions. Sometimes, the brain can acquire words that sound very similar to other ones, like French and Italian. The word au loin sounds like in lontananza. These equivalent sounds can relate to their origin, like how some indigenous groups’ languages often share many words and meanings.

In my own personal experience, I am a coordinate bilingual, because I learn French and English at school, while speaking some Korean at home. When I go to South Korea for vacation, there are some words which have two meanings or none in English. Learning Korean has opened lots of possibilities, like helping me to communicate to my grandparents and (think before I talk Korean). It shows how much diversity is present in languages and how it connects to our mind. If I were able to learn every single language, I would be able to talk to everyone, even people who live in the jungle!

As Benjamin Lee Whorf said, “Language shapes the way we think, and determines what we can think about.”

Sources

1. https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/language-quotes-01

2. https://ideas.ted.com/this-is-your-brain-on-communication/

3. https://medium.com/@alltopstartups/the-reading-brain-why-your-brain-needs-you-to-read-every-day-f5307c50d979#:~:targetText=Our%20brains%20change%20and%20develop%20in%20some%20fascinating%20ways%20when%20we%20read.&targetText=Reading%20involves%20several%20brain%20functions,something%20as%20by%20experiencing%20it.

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWDKsHm6gTA

5. https://www.ted.com/talks/mia_nacamulli_the_benefits_of_a_bilingual_brain?language=en

6. https://www.theintrepidguide.com/best-inspirational-quotes-for-language-learners/#.XdsqluhKhEY