The Darkness We Laugh At
I wrote this story to provide an alternate perspective from the usual statistic highlight faced when covering Suicide Awareness month. It challenges the normalization of cyber bullying, which was becoming a trend around the time.
Hashtags are a way to gain traction on social media. On TikTok specifically, many creators will add hashtags that relate to their content. Eventually, this led to commenters posting hashtags in response to videos in general. Recently, many social media users have begun using “#BringBackBullying” as a way to joke around on this app. But was it ever really gone?
This hashtag began in response to the introduction of PACER’s National Bullying Prevention Month in 2006. The sarcastic movement never truly disappeared, but has recently reemerged stronger than ever.
In today’s society, it has become normal to mock, insult, and attack others. Many people now get targeted, scared, and confused about details of themselves that others may have noticed.
I have been people. I see “#BringBackBullying” and think about how I used to come home from school and beg God to change the way I looked, felt, and acted. I asked Him why people were so cruel. I asked Him why I was so far from perfect. I asked Him why this had to be my fight. I felt unworthy. I felt used. I felt ashamed. I felt broken. I felt alone.
People would tell me that I was “too much.”
People would tell me that they wished they hadn’t met me.
People would tell me that I was unlovable.
People would tell me that their lives would be better if I hadn’t existed.
People would tell me that I was useless.
They would say anything to dig into my skin. And, unfortunately, not only did I let them, but I listened. No matter what I did, I could never speak up about the way that I felt. Every time I would work up the courage to tell someone about what I was going through, my voice would break, and the sharp pain in my throat would force my words back down. All I felt was my own darkness.
I did everything to fill the void of what were supposed to be my happiest years, because I felt they were being actively taken from me. I tried my very best to make the people around me happy. I put a smile on my face. I worked as hard as I could to keep my life normal, because maybe normalcy would find its way back to me. Maybe I would deserve it.
Eventually, the cycle of repeating the same day made me feel numb. I felt exhausted. I had no motivation. At some point, I began to do anything to feel alive. I longed for something good. I wanted to experience at least a moment of boundlessness. I would do things that hurt, because I found comfort in my own pain. Ultimately, this want for pain led to more serious actions.
Now that I’m on the other side of my battle, I realize that the only way around my pain was through it. I know what it’s like to struggle. I know what it’s like to feel overlooked. And now, I know how to stick up for other people like me. When I see “#BringBackBullying” typed out so thoughtlessly on the internet, I wonder why people think it’s okay to force someone into a darkness like the one that almost cost me my life. I question how people can be capable of wanting to make someone suffer. I wonder why people like me don’t have the representation needed to avoid this treatment, and I wonder when this cruelty will stop. So no, we don’t need to “bring back bullying.” We need to end it.
Glamorization of Drugs in the Media
I wrote this piece to educate my peers about the pressing issue of opiate usage in the media. It explores culture in America and confounding statistics which follow close behind the normalization of drug usage.
The media has become an all consuming platform of knowledge for young generations. Throughout adolescence, Generation Z has exposed itself to the internet, and all of the amenities which are displayed within the online realm. The media is an online space which depicts the ever developing world through a lens of bias produced by those who promote much of popular culture through the entertainment industry, social media apps, and cyberspaces. Unfortunately, this bias often endorses the use of drugs, and by exposing many individuals to the euphoria produced by them, has created a positive connotation with drug use. Although opiate abuse stems from the personal will and enthusiasm of users, glamorization of drugs in the media has birthed addicts into society and with efficient monitoring, the media could decrease addiction.
The entertainment industry endorses drug use. Within the music industry, lyricists have incorporated anecdotes of highs they have experienced while taking “cocktails” of opiates. They go into detail about specific cocktails they have created by combining alcohol or pills with candies or carbonated beverages. As seen commonly within the hip-hop genre, artists often expose the cocktails while filming their music videos and try to illustrate the euphoria that they face while under the influence of them (Halls). Beyond just music videos, movies and television series have been produced and, with the intention to relate to viewers, have depicted actors and actresses as high and drunk within the series. Rarely do these films or series express the seriousness of addiction or the habits formed by the actors and actresses, post filming. Increased exposure to this kind of habit by celebrities to television consumers directly increases drug use among viewers. Viewers are more likely to begin using substances if they see them advertised within films, shows, or movies (Kaliszewski). Incorporation of substances to the media has glamorized the idea that drugs produce a sort of exhilaration that can not be found elsewhere. Because of their recent uptrend in exposure, the public has been manipulated to long for the thrill of schedule II substances. Regulations placed on the entertainment industry would decrease substance use and abuse, and would be a tremendous help to moving towards the decline of the opiate crisis.
Social media offers a variety of viewpoints relating to addictive behavior. Restrictions have been placed on resale, social, and gaming apps where users directly connect with one another. Even still, commitment of dealers and addicts often drive users to perform misconduct on these apps, typically by finding a loophole around the restrictions. On Depop, a resale app that is marketed towards teens, posts are filtered to keep any inappropriate items from being advertised or sold. The company insists that very few of the posts made on the app are flagged, but many drug related sales posts are made nevertheless (Camber). Not all social media is designed to demote the discussion of drugs, however. Many American politicians and their political campaigns rally by addressing the drug crisis in the United States on social media. A statistical study shows that republicans often associate trending opiate use with the illegal drug trade, while democrats associate the trend with pharmaceutical companies, treatment and recovery (Stokes). Social media often confuses the idea that drugs have a negative connotation with the idea that people should not be educated about the impacts of the drugs themselves. Internet consumers are often influenced by social media and with the correct education from the media itself, the public could potentially be guided away from drug use.
Heightened exposure to the media has a stupendous correlation with heightened suicide rates. The opiate crisis is typically consumed by the idea that drugs and the people who use them are “distasteful.” The public perceives addicts with disdain, as they are viewed as the selfish, dirty, no-good-for-society people who clutter their streets. What the public does not consider is how many of these addicts suffer from mental illnesses alongside the disease that is addiction, all while blending into their community. Society often mimics what the media introduces to it. Basic advertisement of opiate use influences behavior of consumers, often causing the public to view substances as socially acceptable (Kaliszewski). Even though the media typically does not encourage suicide, it does introduce a cyberspace for it’s users to discuss their habits. Oftentimes, internet users follow each other blindly, collecting ideas from what their counterparts are doing. If a user discusses their personal drug abuse and the attempts they made to end their life by overdosing, someone else may be inspired to echo those actions. Statistics show that over 70% of adolescent suicides are related to substance use and dependence, and at least 25% of substance addicts commit suicide (Miller). Abuse of drugs is all but uncommon, and, unfortunately, irresponsibility of addicts often leads to their deaths. Suicide itself is a very underfunded field of study, and though it is a leading cause of death, with many factors correlating with drug use, it is still under-resourced and extremely stigmatized (Godlasky). The media has inspired an influx of stigma associated with a major cause of death, simply by including drug related products on websites or television. Overdosage is an unfortunate, yet frequent, action taken by many addicts following exposure to drugs in the media at some point in their path to addiction. The outcome of many addicts’ tribulations could have led to an entirely different life, had the media not introduced them to drug use.
The media glamorizes the use of many opiates, and is rarely held accountable. The entertainment industry does not receive retribution for encouraging people to use drugs, and the media is unbothered for its lack of successful regulations regarding opiates. Lives are at stake, but society is continuously manipulated by the media, and people continuously fall victim to addiction. With efficient monitoring, the media has a substantial opportunity to decrease the opiate crisis.
Bread on the Brain
I wrote this piece to highlight the effects of gluten consumption on neurodivergence. It references studies of cells, dieting, nutrition, and cross referencing to uncover the likelihood of gluten affecting neurological health.
Popular culture always embraces a diet. Society has convinced itself that in order to “feel the best,” the easiest solution is cutting out part of one’s diet. Though there are many unspoken repercussions following closely behind this idea, be that malnutrition, eating disorder, rapid weight changes, or hormone imbalance, among others, when done properly, a diet might truly be the best decision for the body. Frequently, a diet can be medically necessary. One of the most common examples of a necessary diet is a gluten-free diet. Through the decrease or absence of the gluten protein in the diet, many people see improvement in different aspects of their health. This diet is primarily prescribed for patients who cannot physically digest the gluten protein, called celiac disease patients, but also recommended for patients who struggle to or or cannot properly digest the protein. Most commonly, the patients who follow this diet experience physical relief in skin disorders, gastro-intestinal disorders, and mental disorders. Mental health struggles and neurodivergence have been linked to the consumption of gluten -- regardless of whether the patient presents with celiac disease.
Previously, gluten has been particularly studied in patients with celiac disease, but recently, research of gluten consumption in non-celiac patients has sky-rocketed. Clinical observation has indicated that gluten consumption causes a plethora of symptoms for patients of all levels of gluten sensitivity. Pediatric signs and symptoms of gluten sensitivity may consist of brain fog, headaches or migraines, dizziness, acne or rashes, joint pain, neuropathy, mood changes, constipation, gas, diarrhea, and bloating (“The Signs and Symptoms of Gluten Sensitivity” 2-3). Other physical diagnoses are also common for the patients. Many non-celiac patients present with dermatitis herpetiformis, which has historically only been effectively treated with a gluten-free diet (Hoey 2). Research can be collected now, more than ever, because physicians know what to look for in these patients to determine evidence of gluten sensitivity. After studying everything from nutritional behavior to previous health records, the eventual cellular structure of the patients and what they consume, researchers have discovered what most likely has caused these symptoms. In people with gluten sensitivity, the body cannot properly process and break down gliadin - a component of wheat, rye, and barley - due to antibodies building up and attacking tissues which would normally break it down (Hoey 1). The body cannot healthily adapt to this protein when it is not properly processed, and a researcher has found not only that approximately forty percent of people cannot, but also that the other sixty percent are likely at risk (Perlmutter 2). He explains that the body is harmfully affected by gluten in blood-sugar, digestive, and neurological homeostasis. What could be the most damaging to the body is the effect of gluten on the brain. Dr, Perlmutter explains that gluten is harmful to the brain due to how highly it stimulates the inflammatory pathways leading to it (Perlmutter 2). In hindsight, the only definite solution to this lack of digestion is to remove gluten consumption from the patients meal plan. Many people are unaware of how they would adapt to this change, though. Oftentimes nutritionists must stress the intake of macronutrients and micronutrients to their patients (Popan 1). Without proper guidance, patients facing this change resort to either unhealthy dieting or even going against medical advice to avoid it. It is very important that these patients know that diets which primarily lessen the intake of carbohydrates, like that of a gluten-free one, should emphasize the intake of healthy fats, proteins, and nutrient-dense whole foods. The study of non-celiac gluten sensitivity has pointed both professionals and patients towards a healthy and guided gluten-free diet to resolve many physical triumphs they may be facing with their health.
Due to the increase in research surrounding gluten consumption and intolerance, scientists have linked gluten to neurodivergence. While studying both gluten consumption and neurological disorders separately, doctors noticed a significant correlation between the two. When truly studying the cause of both, research led to specific proteins in the body, like that of gliadin, which is a component of gluten. The enzymes which break down the excess proteins are also important to recognize, as there has been evidence of its imbalance in patients with many learning disorders. Researchers compared a 2006 and 2011 study to showcase the idea that an overrepresentation has been found in patients with celiac-related gluten sensitivity presenting with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder presenting with celiac-related gluten sensitivity symptoms (Alabaf, et al. 3). Evidence has led researchers to examine a variety of similar disorders as well. Statistics have recently been strengthened by increased study in this field, and led to implications of both gluten sensitivity and autism spectrum disorder to be investigated, and eventually linked (Alabaf, et al. 2). The relationship between people who struggle with their mental health and food is also worth noting. Nutritionists have educated the public about the renowned “food is fuel to the brain” mindset, but never truly detail what kind. Physically, neurologists have proven that gluten stimulates the brain's inflammatory pathways (Perlmutter 2), but they need to know the mental effects and implications resulting from it. Not only does this research mean studying learning disorders, but also mental health disorders. When exploring the relationship between gluten sensitivity in patients and mental health disorders, researchers frequently reported coexistence of autism spectrum disorder, anxiety, depression, and psychosis ( de Sousa Francklin, et al. 9). These findings are strengthened due to the frequency of improvement for all levels of gluten sensitivity. In fact, the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia reported that roughly six percent of the population reports “feeling better” once they remove gluten from their diet - even without celiac disease (“The signs and Symptoms” 1). Evidence of a correlation between neurological disorders and gluten consumption has led medical professionals to view a gluten-free diet as a treatment, rather than another “maybe.”
Medicine does not always mean taking a pill. Consumption of gluten-packed food has been repeatedly linked to mental disorders, and both are subsequently treated with separate medications and solutions, regardless of their connection. Maybe if the public was more aware of the body’s process, they would understand that the removal of gluten from their plate is not just a fabulous new diet - it is the medicine that much of society needs. Perhaps the next social “norm” should be putting the bread down.
A Paradox of Independence
I wrote this piece to explore a less common persepetive on grant based scholarships. It details the inevitable triumph which students face while beginning their postsecondary study applications. It includes firsthand experience, interview skills, and research material to justify my logic.
As students at BHS, we are always encouraged by administrators and teachers to strive for our utmost success. We are told to prioritize our academics, join as many clubs as we can handle, and maintain a healthy social life. From the start of Freshman year, students can apply to join clubs and academies like Teacher Academy, Law and Public Safety, Culinary, Health Science, JROTC, Student Council, Beta, Multicultural, and Dog Pack, among so many others. We are encouraged to push ourselves academically, beginning with signing up for AP World with Mr. Kettler or Mr. Anderson Freshman year, then moving to AP Government and AP Econ with Coach Huskey, Ms. Walker, or Coach Tullos as Sophomores. We are told that we can achieve anything, as long as we put the work in. If we study hard enough, we can score highly on the ACT; or if we involve ourselves enough, we stand out better in college. We are given a starting track to guide us to our ultimate success. We are given so many opportunities to become someone successful and are continuously expected to lift ourselves and commit to our betterment, even beyond our years at BHS.
Now that I am closing out my Junior year of high school, I am reminded that my class is about to enter an era of our first lasts. While we begin our Senior year, we are now encouraged to apply for scholarships and therefore determine our responses for specific criteria on each application. Recently while speaking with my counselor, I was told to keep in mind that I may not be considered for some scholarships due to their grant-based requirements. While I understood that scholarships are meant to provide opportunities to students, I did not really understand the difference between grants and merit scholarships. With that being said, I decided to look into it. After I looked at a couple of these grant organizations, I realized that I would probably not get scholarships that I felt I deserved just as much as anyone else. Grant-based scholarships deter students from receiving them based on their parents’ income. This led me to the question, “Why are students punished for their parents' success?” I ultimately feel as though this standard of exclusion is unfair to many students because oftentimes, students pay for their own schooling following their completion of high school.
The competitive nature of grant-based scholarships often results in either very few students getting selected to be presented to them, or the amount presented in each award decreasing. Obviously not every student should be selected to receive them, but even still many students apply for this form of financial aid and are dismissed without understanding why. Document submissions are often built into applications to determine expected family contribution or EFC. EFC is the amount of money an independent student or a dependent student’s family can pay during each year of post-secondary education. Each student’s dependency status is constituted by who has guardianship of them, typically making a student who lives with and relies on someone other than their parents independent, and a student who lives with and relies on their parents as dependent. For many student loan documents, there is a section for students to submit their parents’ tax information. The FAFSA website notes that “If your parents refuse to provide their consent and approval to have their federal tax information transferred into your FAFSA form, you won’t be eligible for federal student aid.” Upon reading this statement I realized that if some students submit their parents' documents, they probably won’t get financial aid; but if they don’t submit my parents' documents, they definitely won't get financial aid. I understand that every college is a fully functioning business and their scholarship programs are trying to help people who need it most, but I feel as though a large group of people within their student bodies are overlooked for these opportunities.
While merit-based scholarships are an excellent opportunity to assist those who need them, an actual financial aid grant can make or break the chance to receive an education that we, as students, have always been encouraged to strive for. I’m obviously not a financial aid officer and probably have much more to learn about financial aid, but I do feel that the information I’ve learned about recently has educated me enough to understand that the college system as a whole is not fair to its students. The system which we rely on as students to prepare us for our future is- in the words of many- “broken.” Opportunity for a successful future should be equally possible to every student, regardless of who their parents are. Every person on our earth is shaped by their experiences and upbringing but must become their own person at the end of the day. So, again I ask the question, “Why are students punished for their parents’ success?”
Unsealed Files
I wrote this piece to break down legistaltion in an organized and accessible way. It demonstrates my ability to understand complex government articles and encourage others to be aware of civil matters through my writing.
As many of us know, today's politics are full of various "he said, she said," or "he did, she did" accusations. Recently, this sort of "professional behavior" has become a trend surrounding the notorious Epstein Files. Epstein, who has been accused of running a sex-trafficking ring for minors, was very publicly involved with other prominent political and social figures - especially around the time of his investigation. Now, many Americans are making an effort to hold Epstein and those who may have also been involved in his case accountable. It seems the best approach to debunking these conspiracy theories is to release the files related to the case. These files contain a multitude of legal documents, ranging from travel records to Epstein's private island, Little Saint James, physical and digital evidence seized from his properties, emails and other internal communications between his associates and other professionals within the Justice Department, records from his 2008 non-prosecution agreement, and other personal items like his will and autopsy report.
Portions of the files have been released because they were involved in other cases surrounding Epstein, and, due to the nature of those cases, anyone implicated in them or opposed to their release is subject to public scrutiny. Now that the House of Representatives has exerted sufficient pressure, there has been action toward the release of the files from the President himself. As of November 19, 2025, President Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act into law, effectively setting a deadline for their release by December 19.