Academic Art

            During my freshman year of high school, I took an Art 2-D class as one of my electives—I’ve never considered myself much of an artist, but between that and automotive technology (which was essentially learning how to fix a car for 45 minutes a day and getting graded for it), art was by far the better option. None of my art projects would’ve been considered “good,” by any standards—I’m just not gifted with artistic abilities. For one project, a sketch of a still-life scene, I remember turning it in to my teacher and jokingly apologizing for how awful it was. In response, she simply laughed and said, “It’s okay, art just isn’t your thing.” But I still got a 100 on every assignment I turned in—because in public school, being mediocre in a fine art is acceptable, even understandable. It’s no big deal if you aren’t great at painting or sketching, or even singing, or playing an instrument; it’s just art, right?

            Public schools create and, whether purposefully or not, encourage students to focus on excelling solely in what have been deemed “academic” subjects, and disregard the importance of the fine arts in a young person’s academic career. Somewhere along the line, educators decided that the only subjects that measured intelligence were math, science, history, and English, and while arguments can be made that electives are considered just as important because one or two fine arts credits are required for graduation (in most public schools), it’s clear to any public school student that way more value is placed on getting an A in chemistry than getting an A in Art 2-D. In The End of Education, Neil Postman discusses the reasons for this differentiation in value when he writes, “…There is, after all, a measure of arbitrariness to the weight given to one subject or another. When I attended public school (in New York City), both music and art were considered ‘minor’ subjects—for what reason, I have no idea.” (Postman 101) Postman encountered the same problem I did in public school: fine arts have very little importance in public school. We take standardized tests that measure our skill levels in math, critical reading, and science, and whether or not we get into college is based on how skilled we are in these areas. Why are there no standardized art tests? Why is being able to read music not a requirement for being accepted to a university? Science has showed that our brains have left and right hemispheres, the left side being used for critical thinking and the right side being used for creativity. The two sides work together to process information, but most people generally have a tendency to be more inclined to think one way or another. So how is it fair that “left brain” people should be considered more intelligent than “right brain” people? They shouldn’t be, but public schools won’t be changing any time soon; guess I better brush up on my math skills.

Works Cited

 Postman, Neil. The End of Education. New York: Vintage Books, 1995. Print.

Simone de Beauvoir (Or What You Will)

Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night is a comical tale of mistaken identity, love triangles, and a great deal of disguises. But throughout the play, there’s another motif, and while it’s not as obvious to readers, it’s vital to the story. The concept of gender roles is the basis of Twelfth Night, and had she been around during the time that it was written, I think Simone de Beauvoir would have been thrilled to see that the way the play presented a woman as an independent character, who could actually make decisions for herself and make choices regarding her future.

            Simone de Beauvoir used Sartre’s theory on existentialism to try and explain the concept of females having the same nature as men. She “denied the existence of a basic ‘female nature’ or ‘male nature’” (Gaarder 459) and “believed that women and men must liberate themselves from such ingrown prejudices or ideals”. (Gaarder 459) In Twelfth Night, the existence of such gender roles is something that is defined very early on in the novel. The opening scene describes Duke Orsino, a wealthy aristocrat, pining for Lady Olivia, the most coveted woman in Illyria. However, Olivia has no interest in marrying the Duke; in fact, she blatantly turns him away when he tries to court her. Considering that Twelfth Night was written during the 17^th century and generally, women didn’t have much of a say in who they married during this time period, it’s important to note that Olivia did have control over this decision in her life. Females during the 17^th century were subordinate to men, and for Shakespeare to portray Olivia as such an independent woman was completely different from the way that females were traditionally viewed.

However, de Beauvoir might also be interested in another part of the plot, in which another woman, Viola, must disguise herself as a man in order to get a job working for the Duke. While she does this of her own free will, I believe de Beauvoir would inquire about why this disguise was necessary and what it meant about gender roles. Sure, a woman during this time period was free to marry who she chose, but at the same time, another woman can’t get a job simply because she’s female? While Twelfth Night does challenge gender roles in some aspects, and Simone de Beauvoir would definitely be supportive of that, I think she’d definitely have an issue with the fact that there was still a bit of an underlying notion that women are inferior to men.

Works Cited

Gaarder, Joseph. Sophie's World. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007. Print.

There's Nothing Exceptional About American Exceptionalism

When I was in sixth grade, my earth science teacher was a former Navy SEAL. The day after Osama bin Laden’s death, we put our lesson for the day on hold and simply talked about this event and how it would transform our nation and our nation’s history. I don’t remember much from that day, mostly because I really didn’t have any understanding of the gravity of the situation. But I’ll never forget the statement he made as we finished up and were about to leave the room: “I’m glad he’s dead.”

It’s a bold statement, freely admitting that you feel relieved, or even happy, to learn that someone was murdered. But, whether rightfully so or not, those were feelings that many Americans shared on May 1, 2011. In his essay “Was There an Alternative?”  Noam Chomsky discusses the concept of American exceptionalism, and makes a claim that, in any other country, following any other event, the way our troops executed bin Laden’s killing would be completely unacceptable—but since it was America doing the executing, there’s no way these acts could be considered intolerable. Chomsky even goes as far as to call the execution “’supreme international crime’—the crime of aggression” (Chomsky 7), further implying that he believes we didn’t even try and find an excuse to finally kill bin Laden, we simply went out and did it. Consistently, Chomsky provides evidence that supports the fact that American exceptionalism played a major role in the event, including an excerpt from an investigation into American military affairs that states, “’The administration had made clear to the military's clandestine Joint Special Operations Command that it wanted bin Laden dead, according to a senior U.S. official with knowledge of the discussions. A high-ranking military officer briefed on the assault said the SEALs knew their mission was not to take him alive.’” (Chomsky 4) Chomsky’s goal was to make his readers understand that the attack was targeted at one individual; the attack ignored not only American constitutional laws, but also international laws regarding entering a foreign land. And while one could argue that the justification behind the attack was the events of 9/11, looking at the recent months before the raid, Chomsky believes that the attack was unprovoked.

In President Bush’s speech following the September 11^th attacks, he seeks to create a sense of unity among the American people. He says, “I ask you to uphold the values of America, and remember why so many have come here. We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them.” (Bush 6) Bush alludes to the Constitution here, and uses kind, uplifting words to try and inspire the American people to remain confident in the government’s abilities. But Chomsky seeks to prove that, while we do have principles and beliefs that form the very foundation of this country, just like Bush pointed out, we don’t uphold those values if it doesn’t benefit what we’re trying to accomplish. The beliefs exist—our desire to actively practice them does not.

In the criminal justice system, first-degree murder is any murder that was planned, willful, and had malicious intentions. Based on that definition, Osama bin Laden’s death could be classified as first-degree murder. But of course, no one thinks of it that way. Most Americans would agree that the Navy SEALs did America a service—they were the heroes in that situation, not the criminals. But what if the roles were reversed? What if it was al-Qaeda deliberately raiding the White House, and murdering our president, unarmed and unprovoked? Would al-Qaeda still be the heroes?

This, precisely, is Chomsky’s point. It's the same scenario, but this time, it's not us doing the executing, and immediately it's unacceptable.We make the rules, we enforce the rules, but we see no need to follow the rules ourselves. Osama bin Laden was a criminal, and a horrible human being. But the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense”. The amendment makes no distinction between someone who stole a pack of gum from a convenience store and the leader of the world’s most infamous terrorist group—the written American law applies to every person who is accused in the eyes of the American judicial system. We might never know if there was an alternative. But it’s safe to assume that, if there were one, America probably wouldn’t have needed to use it; we knew that we would be able to get away with the original plan.