White really is boring

I’ll be the first to admit I haven’t been in the young adult section of a bookstore since I was about 13 and obsessed with vampire love stories. At 13, it never occurred to me that the books I loved so much, with female protagonists emblazoned on the covers, were actually whitewashed by publishing companies. Where I once saw mystery and romance, now I see rows of identical covers all featuring a white, beautiful female protagonist, even when the heroine herself is a woman of color.

Most recently, the massive publishing house Bloomsbury misrepresented protagonists of color on two different young adult books: “Liar” by Justine Larbalestier, and “Magic Under Glass” by Jaclyn Dolamore. Thankfully, Bloomsbury later re-released the novels with more accurate covers.

But it isn’t just Bloomsbury. The Book Smugglers blog lists titles from 1987 to the present that illustrate this ongoing issue.

How could publishers get something as characteristically fundamental as race or ethnicity so incredibly wrong? Moreover, how has a system so incredibly racist and colorblind gone unnoticed by bibliophiles like myself for so long?

Publishers have convinced themselves and their readers that the only thing that sells is whiteness, because there just aren’t many books featuring people of color to choose from in the first place. The young adult market seems to prefer white protagonists because they are the only ones offered, not because of an aversion to or lack of demand for protagonists who are people of color. Quite the Catch-22.

What’s distressing is that the trend of whitewashing so apparent in young adult books begins at the earliest ages of reading and development.

In a study done by the Cooperative Children’s Book Center at the University of Wisconsin, there were 3,200 children’s books published in 2013, yet only 93 of them were about black people.

 By exposing children to only white protagonists, it sparks the conception that protagonists must be white in order to be successful, and a black protagonist must be the exception and not the norm. That’s just about as white-centric as you can get.

Christopher Myers, an author of books for children and young adults, calls this paucity of black protagonists the apartheid of children’s literature.

“Characters of color are limited to the townships of occasional historical books that concern themselves with the legacies of civil rights and slavery but are never given a pass card to transverse the lands of adventure, curiosity, imagination or personal growth,” Myers wrote in a recent article for the New York Times.

Publishers come up with all sorts of reasons for featuring a majority of white protagonists. The most ridiculous reason I’ve come across is that white readers just won’t be able to relate to characters of color — which is complete crap. Young adult readers aren’t looking to identify with a character based only on their skin color. They’re more likely to identify with the personal struggles of the protagonist.

In an interview with Vanity Fair, actress Anika Noni Rose the voice of Princess Tiana in Disney’s “The Princess and the Frog” voiced a similar sentiment about what happens when black authors approach their editors with stories that have black protagonists.

“And why can’t you expand yourself so you relate to the humanity of a character,” she asked, “as opposed to the color of what they are?”

What accounts for the fact that most popular young adult novels feature supernatural creatures or other fantasy creations? Certainly not the fact that white werewolves are more popular than black ones, because that’s truly ridiculous.

To escape being blamed themselves, publishing companies place the blame for underrepresenting people of color on a lack of demand or empathy from readers. The publishers are the ones who perpetuate the system by limiting the market to mostly white-centric novels, and not because readers are demanding only white characters.

While it’s unclear how deeply the trend of whitewashing extends into more adult novels, the current situation reinforces a system of power and oppression through books marketed to children and young adults who are just developing their sense of self and awareness of the world.

A lack of racially diverse protagonists systematically reenforces the conception that a hero can’t be any race other than white. Publishing companies evade blame to save face, when what they should be doing is fixing the problem by adding more diversity to characters in young adult literature.

 

We’re Addicted to Self-Perpetuating Loneliness

A friend of mine recently posted a link to an interesting video on Facebook about the effects of Facebook and other forms of social media on the brain. The video was originally posted by Cam Lincoln on mobiledia.com, and in it he describes a phenomenon we’ve all come to subconsciously realize: “I share, therefore I am.”

As we become more and more intimate with our technology and social media platforms, it’s important we realize the things that seem to connect us are also making us lonely.

On the internet, we get to create our best selves. We spend hours crafting and editing tweets, status updates and even text messages. We can choose which Instagram filter best suits a photo and the Facebook profile picture that makes us look the best. The cost of this excessive preoccupation with creating our best selves is a connection to reality.

In a study done by the International Center for Media & the Public Agenda, college students reported feeling addicted to social media such as Facebook and even facing anxiety and depression when asked to refrain from using them. When it comes time to face reality, we’re more inclined to immerse ourselves in a world of virtual friends and perfect images, leaving us with less time to experience real life.

But we don’t get to edit real-time conversations, and we can’t go back and touch ourselves up in everyday interactions with other people. There’s an unhealthy obsession with creating and selling a false image, even if we just think it’ll make us appear more interesting. Our addiction is to the instant gratification, the validation we think we’re getting when we get “likes” on a picture.

Margie Warrell a blogger for The Huffington Post calls this being seduced by social media.

“They seduce us with the implicit promise that, if we get enough friends or followers or likes, we will feel truly significant in the world,” Warrell writes. And many are falling prey to this promise.

According to thenextweb.com, Facebook has 1.19 billion monthly users and 728 million daily users. More and more people are connecting with each other, but what value do these connections actually hold?

Lincoln’s video suggests that a human cannot physically and emotionally connect with more than 150 people on an intimate level, but last time I checked, my friend count was two or three times that. Intimacy is a natural part of being human, but Facebook only offers the illusion of such connections.

Our hunger for more friends and more connections draws us to sites like Facebook, but reality suggests that more virtual friends, rather than real life relationships, really aren’t the key to relieving us of our loneliness. When we add friends on Facebook, especially friends we don’t even know well in real life, we’re not seeing their profile as an honest picture of who they are.

A Facebook profile offers a limited, edited version of a persona that the person has created. And yet, we revert to Facebook time and time again to learn more about people, to get glimpses into their “personal” lives that often misrepresent who they actually are. We get hung up on details about a person’s life without realizing that we’re never privy to the whole story.

It’s the conviction that what we’re getting on Facebook is real that drives our sense of loneliness. Studies have shown that people who use Facebook more tend to be more depressed afterwards because they feel inadequate compared to their friends. On the same note, people may feel lonelier even with so many connections because they realize there’s nothing truly worthwhile or real about the friendships they only maintain through Facebook.

Internet profiles and personas may make us feel interesting and get us more likes, but they don’t establish emotional connections or lasting intimate relationships between people. We’re making ourselves lonelier by continuing to believe that real relationships can come from a simple “add friend” button and that we can really know someone just by what they post online.

Online Classes Give us Opportunity and Hopefully Fewer Boring Lectures

I dare you to try and count the number of times you have been on the Internet within the past 30 minutes. Try remembering how many times you’ve glanced down at the shiny iPhone superglued to your hand, or used that tablet to “take notes” during class.

I pose these challenges not because I resent technology — I am just as guilty of constant device-use as any other college student. It’s our educators who need to realize this trend. Many professors ban the use of laptops or tablets in class, and speak longingly of the days before “eBooks” and “online homework.” But they’re missing a key piece of the puzzle: online is opportunity.

Pearson released a survey this month titled, “Grade Change.” The survey examines whether we are embracing the digitalization of our higher education system by looking at the attitudes of professors and educators, rather than those of students.

Despite the wealth of resources available online, the survey points to a crowd of educators stuck in the past. Thirty four percent of those polled said that online learning “was not critical to their long term strategy.” This is disheartening, considering the survey also reported that almost 7.1 million students in the U.S. are taking at least one online course.

The numbers show that students are embracing online education, but educators haven’t yet learned that there are more resources and greater flexibility available online than in a typical classroom.

For instance, look at the success of sites such as Khan Academy, which provides simple yet effective tutorials on everything from elementary algebra to differential equations. Students are not trapped in a 50 minute class period. They can view materials as many times as they need and engage in online discussions with their peers, to solve complex problems.

If Khan doesn’t work, there are thousands of other sites and tutorials available for free online.

 

Moreover, online learning can be self-tailored; if you want to take a class at 3 a.m. because it’s when you’re most awake, you can. If you don’t understand a math problem, you can watch an instructional video more than once. Learning is not the same for every student, and online education provides opportunities for each student’s distinct learning style.

And yet, traditional college classes are still defined by the lecture format — a completely antiquated method of teaching that better corresponds with the era of manually catalogued library books and late nights spent pouring over dusty textbooks.

Professors who still rely on this “face-to-face” method of teaching are skeptical about online learning because it creates a “disconnect” between student and teacher. But this “disconnect” is already prevalent in 400-plus person lectures.

Ashley Lykins, a pre-pharmacy freshman, said she has similar feelings about teacher-student engagement in large lecture classes.

“I think it really depends on the professor,” she said, “but for the most part they just talk at you.”

It is time for higher education in the U.S. to move forward and embrace the resources available to us through digital classrooms and online learning. If professors are worried they will lose the intimacy of a “real” classroom setting, they have yet to discover webcasting, Skype or FaceTime.

If they are worried about the efficacy of their teaching, it’s because they have yet to realize that the Internet is a massive ocean of untapped resources and educational opportunities waiting to be explored.

Online learning does not diminish the efficacy of good educators, rather, good educators are the ones who take advantage of the opportunities presented by teaching in an online setting and using digital integration in a physical one.

Our generation of students is the most plugged in to ever attend college, but this doesn’t have to pose a threat to the professor who is willing to adapt. It’s an opportunity to explore the possibilities of putting more classes online, of embracing the digital era and of reconditioning the old teaching system to meet the growing needs and demands of its students.

Lifeline Laws: the Good, the Bad, and the Preventable

It’s no secret that many UA students like to have a good time, whether it be at a kickback, house party, or even a frat bash. It’s also not a secret that copious amounts of alcohol are usually involved in such festivities. Most of the time things go great, but on a not-so-great night of binge drinking and poor decisions, things can often turn out really, really bad. What’s worse is the frightening realization that you could get into trouble simply by getting help for a friend in need.

Binge drinking is a pervasive trend among college students, and the Center for Disease Control reports that 11 percent of all alcohol consumed in the United States is by adolescents between the ages of 12 and 20. For this group, 90 percent of their drinking occurred as binge drinking, meaning that five or more drinks were consumed in about two hours for men or four in about two hours for women.

Binge drinking can result in alcohol poisoning or, if left untreated, death. In a study by the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence in New Jersey, you start accumulating risk at a blood alcohol level of 0.30 and it only gets worse as you drink more. Unfortunately, judging just how intoxicated you are is no easy task, especially when you factor in variables such as time, hydration, and weight.

While underage drinking is not going to vanish, we can push for legislation to support and protect students who need to report serious accidents or overdoses. Currently, Arizona does not have such “Lifeline” legislation, but it has been successfully implemented in Indiana and Colorado, where underage drinkers are protected from criminal prosecution for illegal possession or consumption if they call 911 and ask for medical assistance, and they provide their names and remain on the scene to cooperate with the medical and law personnel.

When students are faced with the choice between letting a friend “sleep it off” or getting the notorious minor in possession slip we’ve all come to fear, it’s no wonder that many students would hesitate to act, further endangering the life of someone who is severely intoxicated or even blacked out.

ASU conducted a random survey of 6,000 undergraduates and 1,500 graduates and asked what would compel them to seek medical attention for someone passed out or incoherent due to alcohol. 35.5% of those surveyed said they feared getting their friend into trouble, and 47.6% said they wouldn’t even know what to do. In a life or death situation, hesitation is the worst reaction to have.

While the Lifeline Law is not a surefire way of avoiding an MIP or other repercussions of underage drinking, it is the most effective way of protecting underage drinkers in situations of medical necessity. When properly in place, the Medical Amnesty Protocol at Cornell University reported that more people called for assistance and there was less fear of getting into trouble that forestalls aid.

 

Michael Rabbani, a freshman studying environmental sciences and business administration, readily agreed that safety must be the biggest priority for students in trouble.

He said that “by giving minors leniency in a situation like this, it would take away any hesitation they have to call authorities for help.” When you’re not scared to call for help, it’s that much easier to make a responsible and crucial decision. Right now, Arizona law puts more lives at risk than it protects. It is clearly illegal to drink if you are not 21, but this fact is continually ignored by the pleasure-seeking party-goer. Rather than punish responsible actions, we need to protect our students with laws that will encourage them to seek help and realize that irresponsible binge drinking isn’t the way to have a good time in college.

A Lifeline Law is one of the greatest gifts we could give our students, and as a solution to an already prevalent problem, it encourages responsibility and promotes health and safety even in a crisis situation.

Pay Attention, those Pesky food Label are About to get a lot Sweeter

Cue the collective sighs of relief from health-conscious American consumers, harmonized with the groans of the food industry, lobbyists and the national budget.

On Feb. 27, first lady Michelle Obama, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg unveiled a redesigned nutrition label in a radical attempt to overhaul the way we think about and consume food.

For the average college student looking to stay healthy and abide by a budget, these labels will make it simple to know, at a glance, what you’re getting out of what you buy. Rather than searching through tiny print and confusing serving sizes, these labels will streamline the process of identifying healthy food, something simple we all need with so many other things on our plate.

For the first time in 20 years, the FDA has approved massive changes to the hard-to-read and even harder to understand food labels that can be found on about 700,000 food products, according to The Washington Post. Some of the changes to the labels include increasing the font size for the calorie count, redefining a serving size and, for the first time, differentiating between how much sugar is present naturally versus how much is artificially added — finally calling attention to America’s sugar addiction.

The American Heart Association says men should limit their added sugar intake to no more than 9 teaspoons a day, roughly 150 calories. For women, it’s only a 6 teaspoon or 100 calorie allocation. Considering a 12-ounce can of Coca-Cola contains a staggering 39 grams, or 7.8 teaspoons of sugar, it’s easy to see how simple it is to vastly underrate the amount of sugar we consume in a day.

Recent data shows this change could not have come at a better time. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009-2010 data indicates the adult obesity rate was at 35.7 percent. This change may be drastic enough to alter the way we view food and choose what we consume to impact the obesity epidemic in a positive way. Rather than providing a set of rules, the new labeling system promises a tangible way to see just what kind of nutrition you’re getting from that pack of M&M’s you’re binge eating while studying for your next exam.

By making it quicker and easier to tell exactly what you’re eating, there’s less of a chance you’ll make poor choices and consume calories you don’t need. As students on tight schedules and tight budgets, it’s important that we know exactly what we’re getting at the U-Mart or grocery store.

 

While opponents of the change may scoff at its hefty immediate cost, a whopping $2 billion according to The Washington Post, the administration predicts that over the next 20 years, companies will see that cost offset by $20 billion to $30 billion in benefits.

Although the results won’t be immediate, the creation of a system that makes it easy and efficient to make healthy choices is a long-term benefit for Americans. In a country where, according to the CDC, the annual cost of obesity in 2008 was $147 billion, it’s a wonder that such changes haven’t been implemented sooner.

This isn’t just an overhaul of aesthetics; it’s an entirely new frontier for the food industry. The FDA must take public comments on these changes for 90 days, and manufacturing companies will have two years to implement the changes, according to CNN. Coupled with the increasing pressure on food companies to produce healthier and more desirable products from an increasingly health-conscious population, the changes will have to be massive.

While health is often low on the priority list of overstressed and overworked college students, this is a national change we should all be paying close attention to. Within the span of a few years, this major victory for public health will become a reality. There is overwhelming evidence that the long-term benefits will be far greater than the initial costs. This overhaul is a massive step in the right direction for our well-being and longevity.

Give me a Break aka Stop Being so Sensitive

The definition of solipsism is a preoccupation with one’s own feelings, which is exemplified by the overuse of trigger warnings on the Internet.

If you’ve surfed the web long enough, or even paid attention to Tumblr, you know that a trigger warning is often used to advise an audience of ensuing graphic content. This could be anything from eating disorders to rape, but the message is always supposed to be the same: We care about your feelings and sensitivities, so we’re here to warn you about all of the bad stuff.

Unfortunately, this doesn’t actually work the way it’s supposed to. According to newrepublic.com, trigger warnings can be provided for just about anything at the request of just about anyone. At the University of California, Santa Barbara, students recently passed a resolution to include trigger warnings on syllabi, letting students know ahead of time what kind of content they’re going to be exposed to.

Yes, it’s sensitive, but it’s also incredibly short-sighted.

Trigger warnings are problematic from the outset because they blur the line between genuine sensitivity and downright censorship. Where do we stop having open discussion about the implications of complex topics displayed in the media and start limiting ourselves solely to our comfort zone?

Reading about rape may be especially difficult for a rape victim, but when we most need to talk about and deal with rape and raise social awareness, we’re shutting down the conversations before they’re even allowed to take place. Trigger warnings should not be an excuse to just skip over sensitive topics, especially at the collegiate level.

In another instance, students at Wellesley College protested a sculpture of a man in his underwear because it triggered thoughts of sexual assault. They demanded it be moved inside even when the artist explained that it was merely a representation of sleepwalking. A piece of art and personal expression was hidden from the rest of the student body because of triggers not associated with the intent of the piece itself. This incident isn’t reactionary sensitivity, but a stifling of artistic creativity and expression because of the rampant solipsism of a select group of students.

 

While the original intent of trigger warnings was to prevent survivors with post-traumatic stress disorder from suffering panic attacks or uncomfortable flashbacks, their widespread use is far less virtuous. There is no way to know how every person is going to react to every possible scenario and every reaction will be different. Without the ability to anticipate reaction, we’re not doing ourselves any favors by limiting the things we read or experience in the real world. Life does not come with trigger warnings, and neither should anything else we’re exposed to.

We are becoming so preoccupied with our feelings that we forget how to learn from inflammatory or sensitive material. Novels like “The Color Purple” or “The Kite Runner,” both of which include explicit themes such as rape and domestic violence, are also incredible stories of strength and personal development.

Trigger warnings aren’t protecting us. If we were to cite every seemingly explicit scene or insinuation in every classic novel, we’d be left with a short list of culturally irrelevant novels that teach us nothing about society or the realities of life. They’re a catalyst to stunt our own growth as students and as individuals who must deal with our share of trauma. We should be pursuing open and informed discussion about these topics not ignoring or brushing aside the issues. There is no way to address every single concern for each person.

The cure to solipsism is discourse, something we can’t have if we’re too caught up in posting trigger warnings along the way.