This is the world of fake altruism created by the academically intense high school environments, where genuine care has been replaced by calculated moves in the college admissions game. At Westwood, the culture of performative service has reached epidemic proportions, turning what should be meaningful engagement into hollow resume padding. 

Walk through the halls during Fishbowl, and you’ll witness this frenzy firsthand. Students sprint between tables, signing their names on as many interest sheets as possible. The goal isn’t participation, it is accumulation. More clubs equal more lines on Common Application, or so the thinking goes. Whether those clubs actually matter to the student is secondary, if a concern at all.

The nonprofit industrial complex amongst students at Westwood reveals the most disturbing aspect of this trend. Students launch organizations with lofty mission statements about “combating climate change” or “spreading awareness about mental health.” They post a single time about their “initiative,” maybe lazily make a logo, and then let the initiative die a quiet death. The nonprofit exists only on paper and in college applications; it is a ghost company designed to impress the admissions officers who have seen this trick countless times before. 

Leadership positions have become another commodity to be collected rather than responsibilities to fulfill. Students run for officer positions in clubs they barely attend, seeking titles they’re unqualified to hold. Club elections devolve into popularity contests where promises are made but never intended to be kept. The title itself matters more than the service behind it. Leadership, once about contribution and accountability, devolves to yet another empty achievement.

This phenomenon occurs all across the nation, but is especially prominent at Westwood. At a school lauded for its academic rigor and cutthroat academic environment, with countless students in Advanced Placement (AP)  and International Baccalaureate (IB) classes, high average test scores, and tens of students attending top universities, the pressure to get into college at any cost is astoundingly high. Yet, the benefits of these students getting into colleges do not outweigh the costs. Although the end result of this pseudo-altruism is often favorable for students, it sets a bad precedent, and greenlights problematic behavior.

Perhaps the most troubling result of this culture  is how it corrupts genuinely good actions. Students organize charity drives not because they care about the cause, but because the title of “community service coordinator” looks impressive on college applications. They tutor underprivileged kids not out of desire to help, but because it demonstrates “leadership in education.” The action itself might be positive, but the motivation transforms it into something hollow. Ultimately, students are left doing good things for the wrong reasons, resulting in any potentially societally beneficial behavior being watered down, due to a lack of genuine desire to motivate change.

This behavior is not just hypocrisy; it is a fundamental misunderstanding of what ‘altruism’ means. When the primary goal is personal advancement rather than helping others, even objectively good deeds become tainted. The beneficiaries become props in someone else’s college admissions story. And the service becomes a transaction: I help you, you help me with the application.

This performative culture can be seen at Westwood, damaging everyone it touches in profound and lasting ways. Students lose connection to their authentic interest, becoming so focused on strategic positioning that they forget what genuine passion feels like. They develop what psychologists call “achievement addiction“一a compulsive need to accumulate accomplishments that never satisfy because they’re disconnected from real values.

The psychological consequences run deeper than simple dissatisfaction. When students spend years crafting false personas, they often struggle to distinguish between their authentic selves and their manufactured college application identity. This identity confusion doesn’t magically resolve upon graduation, it follows them into college and beyond, creating adults who are perpetually seeking external validation rather than internal fulfillment. 

Especially at Westwood, this constant performance creates chronic anxiety and burnout. Students find themselves trapped in commitments they never truly wanted, surrounded by activities that drain rather than energize them. They become experts at saying the right words about causes they don’t understand, attending meetings for organizations whose missions they’ve forgotten, and maintaining facades that require increasing amounts of mental energy to sustain. Westwood is an incredibly competitive school, and students spend hours of time juggling school, standardized tests, various extracurriculars, as well as their complex family and social life. This environment is already intense, and disingenuous extracurriculars only add to students’ already heavy mental burdens.

Meanwhile, genuine causes suffer immeasurably from this epidemic of performative altruism. Real nonprofits struggle for attention and resources while well-connected students with superior marketing skills dominate the narrative. At a school where many are fortunate enough to have access to financial resources and support, students are able to prop up these disingenuous programs with ease, while genuine causes struggle. Established organizations that have been quietly doing crucial work for decades find themselves competing with flashy student-led initiatives that promise revolutionary change but deliver only social media posts. 

The impact on vulnerable communities is particularly devastating. Food banks, homeless shelters, and tutoring programs become revolving doors of uncommitted volunteers who appear for photo opportunities and disappear the moment college applications are submitted. The constant turnover creates more work for already overstretched staff, who must repeatedly train new volunteers only to watch them vanish without notice. 

These communities often receive scattered, inconsistent efforts that create more problems than solutions. A “mental health awareness” campaign that consists of a single assembly presentation does nothing to address the complex needs of students struggling with depression and anxiety. A “literacy initiative” that provides books but no sustained reading support may actually highlight educational inequalities without offering meaningful solutions. 

The superficial nature of these efforts often causes real harm by oversimplifying complex social issues. Students launch campaigns to “end homelessness” with bake sales and car washes, inadvertently spreading the message that systemic problems can be solved through individual charitable acts. This not only fails to address root causes but can actually impede more effective advocacy efforts by making the problems seem more manageable than they actually are. 

These seemingly altruistic causes that ultimately never create any societal good are symptomatic of broader societal issues amongst teenagers and all those applying to colleges. They contribute to a growing apathy about charitable work and social activism that extends far beyond high school. When performative altruism becomes the norm, it breeds skepticism about all charitable efforts. Adults who witness the parade of empty student initiatives become jaded about youth activism in general, dismissing even genuine efforts as resume padding. This cynicism creates barriers for the minority of students who are truly passionate about social change, making it harder for them to find mentors, funding, and support. The culture also undermines democratic participation by treating civic engagement as a performance rather than a responsibility. Students learn that involvement in their community is something they do for personal gain rather than genuine concern for collective welfare. This transactional view of citizenship creates adults who are less likely to vote, volunteer, or engage in the messy but essential work of democratic governance. Furthermore, fake altruism contributes to the growing inequality in access to “impressive” opportunities. Wealthy students have the resources to launch professional-looking nonprofits and travel for volunteer opportunities, while their less privileged peers cannot compete with these manufactured achievements. This widens the gap in college admissions and perpetuates cycles of inequality that genuine service work should be helping to address. 

But this culture didn’t emerge from nowhere. High schools and universities have created this monster by incentivizing quantity over quality in the admissions process. Applications reward the student who can rattle off a laundry list of superficial commitments more than the one who pours real effort into fewer, meaningful pursuits. By asking for activity lists rather than deep reflections, the system encourages strategic positioning over sincerity. The solution requires fundamental changes in how we evaluate and reward service. Instead of counting hours or listing organizations, we should focus on sustained impact. We should teach students that real leadership comes from commitment, not titles, and that authentic passion cannot be manufactured or ordered from an Instagram comment section. 

Passion: noun, an intense desire or enthusiasm for something. By definition, passion cannot be manufactured or ordered from an Instagram comment section, yet here we are treating genuine enthusiasm like a commodity to be purchased or displayed. 

King was born on November 22, 1943 in Long Beach, California, to parents Bill and Betty Motiff.  King was welcomed into the world of sports at a very young age, growing up in a sports-loving environment. King’s father had previously tried out for an NBA team before becoming a firefighter, and King’s mother was a decorated swimmer. Additionally, King’s brother, Randy, pitched for multiple Major League Baseball teams. 

King played all the sports she could get her hands on. She started off in the footsteps of her father, by playing basketball. However, by age ten, King decided she was ready for softball; King played shortstop and played with an older age group, under 14, alongside winning the city championship. King’s father would later recommend tennis, and King began practicing tennis soon after. This little suggestion would serve as a catalyst for a lifetime of advocacy for women’s sports. 

King would spend long hours on local Long Beach public courts practicing from dusk till dawn. Hoping that her skills would one day be showcased at the highest level. However, a challenge struck when King realized that the standards for women were a lot different to those of men. Despite competing at the highest levels, women still were underpaid and underrepresented in nearly all of women’s sports. This realization would pave the way for King’s advocacy for equal rights in the game of tennis.

King’s advocacy would officially begin years later, though. In 1972, King took home a U.S Open title, making her the number one female tennis player in the world. The feat was symbolic of King’s dedication and grit. However, King brought home $10,000, while the men’s winner, Ilie Nastase, brought home $25,000. Upon hearing this, King made it very clear in the post-game press conference that if the wage gap at the tournament wasn’t cleared, she and other female athletes would boycott the event. 

King’s advocacy did not just stop there. In 1973, King would change women’ s sports forever. After lobbying for equal pay, the U.S Open became the first sporting event in the world to give equal money prizes to men and women. Furthermore, King and 60 other female athletes gathered together to create the Women’s Tennis Association, or WTA,  in response to downplaying of female sports and financial discrimination as a result of one’s gender. 1973 was a revolutionary year for King, and her efforts of advocacy were finally starting to be heard. However, her greatest feat was yet to come. 

During the 1930s and 40s’, Robert Larimore Riggs had dominated much of the male tennis world. Riggs himself was a U.S Open champion, accompanied by 2 other Grand Slam titles. Furthermore, at one point, Riggs was ranked world number 1 for men’s tennis. Riggs was not an open advocate of women’s tennis, openly stating it was “inferior to the men’s game,” and proceeded to make a variety of dismissive remarks regarding women’s sports. 

Hearing Riggs’ bold and harsh criticism, a 29-year-old Billie Jean King wasn’t going to have it, and challenged him to a match. The 55-year-old Riggs had previously beaten another top female tennis player, Margaret Court. His arrogance was boasted all over the world on television. On September 20, 1973, “The Battle of the Sexes” took place. 90 million worldwide were watching the showdown, with a world record-breaking attendance of 30,000 people in the stands. The two played three sets with King’s triumphant victory of 6-4, 6-3, 6-3. This event would be crucial, as it would be one of the first calls to equal pay and representation for women, in athletics and in general, setting a precedent for future movements for change in women’s sports.

Moreover, the match symbolized far more than just equal rights; it also represented equal fights. This milestone event marked the beginning of justice towards women’s sports, and specifically women’s tennis. It was a groundbreaking event, and ‘King’ became a household name. Following the match, King went on to win more grand slam titles, and continued her advocacy for women. 

The importance of King’s achievement is only magnified when one considers professional sports’ deep problems with misogyny preceding her rise. Today, many women athletes are the face of events once considered far superior than them. King’s advocacy combined with her immense talent broke barriers for women in sports, creating a space for women in countless different sports to not just compete, but thrive. The next time you turn on the T.V. and see Simone Biles create another self-named skill or break a world record, Coco Gauff expand her trophy cabinet with another Grand Slam, or Caitlyn Clark add to the Women’s National Basketball League’s (WNBA) records,  it is important to realize that had it not been for King’s efforts, these women would not be able to dominate their fields. Sometimes all it takes is a girl, a racquet, and a tennis ball to change the world.

Although the term is popularized and relentlessly mocked online, the problem with performative males runs deeper than an internet joke.

As performative men manipulate support for women’s empowerment to match their agendas, the original focus of gender equality diminishes. Putting “I’m a feminist” in a dating app bio might seem harmless, but when the sentiment isn’t backed by action or genuine desire for change, it trivializes the movement. Feminism isn’t a “vibe,” it’s a political struggle rooted in action and creating change. When diluted into a superficial style or trend, the political edge is gone, and what remains is an empty performance that is stripped of substance and any real threat to the status quo.

Performativity doesn’t just fail to help, it causes harm. Younger audiences are left to absorb these curated, shallow images without seeing the work behind it. As a result, distrust grows and leaves a reinforced “male manipulator” stereotype, making it harder to see who is committed to making change from those mimicking the language, traits, and behaviors of genuine people. Young boys learn a damaging dynamic of performing what women want to see is the key to validation instead of developing a sincere understanding of equality and respect. The pressure to appear progressive becomes a social script, creating a reinforced pattern of external acceptance rather than originality.  

This obsession with image over integrity distorts everything it touches. The pressure to conform with certain interests, like music taste, fashion, or favorite books, influences self-expression and shapes social manners. Fearing accusations of “trying too hard” or being fake leads to confusion about what is acceptable or not, and people feel forced to hide their true self. This incentivizes people to be as inauthentic as possible, making meaningful communication futile.

When many performative males proudly reference feminist literature or authors such as Jane Austen and Emily Brontë to signal intellectual depth, it reduces these works to social props solely meant for their own benefit. Their radical critiques of patriarchy and gender roles are lost, and their ability to spark authentic engagement is watered down into an Instagram caption, ultimately setting back material efforts for change.

Real allyship doesn’t come from mimicking the “right” traits; it comes from listening, learning, and doing the hard, unglamorous work of change. Feminism is not here to accessorize identity, it’s supposed to dismantle systems of oppression. When activism becomes performance, the movement stands still.

Awaiting attendance to be called, a student, proud to be a member of the LGBTQA+ community, hears their legal name called by the teacher. As thoughts of the version of themselves that does not resemble their true identity circle their brain, the student approaches the teacher asking for it to be corrected, but later finds out that a parent or guardian had to have filled out a form allowing for another name to be called.

These scenarios are all too real for Warriors. Following a slew of legislation the summer prior, most notably Senate Bill 12 (SB 12), and House Bill 1481, the lives of students and staff at public schools in Texas have been irreversibly affected. The Texas legislature has directly violated the First Amendment rights of LGBTQA+ students across the state. It is no secret that the provisions of SB 12 that ban teachers from calling students by their chosen name are a result of the negative sentiments that Texas lawmakers have towards the LGBTQA+ community. The bill’s harsh standards mean that for teachers, not addressing a student by their legal name can result in multiple repercussions, creating a hostile environment where being identified or addressed properly is impossible.

However, these recent bills are not the first time Texas lawmakers have attempted to enact oppressive policies. For example, in 2021, lawmakers passed a bill that required that K-12 students only participate in sports based on the gender listed on a legal birth certificate. More recently, a ban was implemented on gender identity clubs. These policies show that recent bills are not one-off events, but rather part of a broader agenda.

In Westwood alone, we have witnessed the government become increasingly more oppressive. In the 2023-2024 school year,  phone usage was left up to teachers. The next year, it was mandatory for teachers to have students put away their phones. However, students were able to use their phones in passing periods, flex, lunch, and if a school project required the use of a cellular device. This year marks the official start of the government-mandated phone ban. From bell to bell, all cellular phones and Bluetooth-connecting devices must be inside students backpacks or up in a caddy. Students now live in an environment of terror, where every day, they pass by administration holding ziploc bags with the possibility of their phones being disposed of.

The host of laws passed this summer show that the state government has begun to prioritize an agenda of oppression and encroachment, leaving students and staff frightened, and worried about what is next to come. As more and more laws are passed each legislative session, classrooms shift from places of learning to places of fear.

The average cost of a Big Mac Meal in Austin is $11.03. In it, you will receive a highly processed and out of state sourced meat patty coated in high fructose corn syrup and refined flour, coupled with fries linked to a litany of health diseases. Meanwhile, just down the street from Westwood is Los Reyes Mexican Grill which offers a $10 lunch special of two beef enchiladas, black beans, rice, with complementary chips, salsa, and a legendary bean dip. 

In the past five years, fast food prices have risen to absurd heights, the dollar menu has been abolished, and yet consumers have not seen any increase in the quality of food. To add salt to the wound, fast food prices have far outpaced inflation, with reports showing that prices have risen as high as 18% from McDonald’s chains, every month. The final nail in the coffin is that McDonald’s has raised their menu prices by 67% in the past ten years while employee, ingredient, and operating expenses have only increased by 40%.

Many will question what the problem with for-profit corporations raising their prices is. The reason is that, for many consumers, they have no other choice. In many rural and marginalized communities, there are fast food restaurants yet no grocery stores. This means for many families, junk food is the only viable way to ensure nobody goes hungry. When McDonald’s and other fast food restaurants raise their prices, communities can do nothing but grit their teeth and open their wallets. 

This phenomenon is extensively studied, and is known as the poverty-obesity paradox, where lower incomes communities can only access fast food, causing them to ingest highly processed and fatty foods that devastate their health. Only now, the problem is worse because these communities are losing money on these meals, because fast food prices have risen to exceed those of sit down restaurants. This means that fast food restaurants are now draining families’ savings, preventing them from buying healthy ingredients or seeking proper medical and weight loss treatment even if they need the help.

In the face of this crisis, the government needs to monitor the rising fast food prices with eagle eyed accuracy. If the government doesn’t want increased costs on healthcare and a medical crisis in a few years, they should subsidize local restaurants to help communities operate diners and businesses that can offer quality food and ingredients to even the lowest income communities, to create a healthier environment for all. 

At the end of the day, fast food prices are neither economically justified, nor socially moral. The only way we can combat this epidemic of price gouging and obesity, is to rally behind local restaurants and work together to start grocery stores. The solution’s journey is not going to be fast, but the result will certainly be finger licking good.

Queer activism in the United States dates back decades, with many attributing the birth of queer rights movements to the aftermath of the Stonewall riots. In the early hours of June 28, 1969, the New York City Police Department raided Stonewall Inn, a gay club in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Lower Manhattan. As the police began to arrest club patrons for violations such as cross-dressing and congregating in a queer space, crowds began to form around the scene. What set Stonewall apart from many other previous raids was that the queer patrons fought back. Instead of quietly submitting to the arrests, people resisted the police, resulting in full-blown riots lasting six days and involving hundreds of people. 

The Stonewall riots served as a motivating force for LGBTQA+ political activism for decades to come. It was a spur for the Gay Liberation Movement in the United States and led to the creation of dozens of gay rights organizations. The celebration of Pride Month every June is a way to recognize the impact of queer individuals throughout history, while also acknowledging the work that still needs to be done to someday reach equality for those in the LGBTQA+ community.

As Pride Month continues to gain more recognition, corporations seize the opportunity to present themselves as allies, often in ways that prioritize monetary gain over genuine support. Profits made from various pride-themed campaigns often go directly to the company, rather than being given to organizations that actually support the LGBTQA+ community. Moreover, numerous corporations participate in ‘rainbow washing’,  a subset of rainbow capitalism. Rainbow washing is the usage of LGBTQA+ symbols, especially rainbow colors, during Pride Month while failing to support the community year-round. An example of rainbow washing might include corporations changing their social media profiles to rainbow-colored versions of their brand logo. However, it’s not uncommon for the rainbow variant of the logo to be displayed in Western countries, while the logo remains standard in countries where LGBTQA+ rights are currently being repressed. This selective support lessens the true meaning of Pride as a commitment to equality.  

Additionally, there have been many instances where the support shown by large companies interestingly disappears in the face of controversy. For example, in 2023, Target removed certain items from its annual Pride collection after receiving backlash from conservative groups. This exposed a broader issue: while corporations profit from queer identity during Pride Month, they often fail to offer real support when it becomes politically inconvenient for them. True allyship means staying firm and showing dedication even when it might be deemed unpopular or risky. If companies are met with criticism and respond in the way Target did, it reveals that their supposed commitment is more about maintaining public image than fighting for equality. 

However, representation still does matter, especially for LGBTQA+ youth who might feel isolated or invisible. When these individuals see queer identity reflected in advertising and media, it might offer an opportunity of being part of a mainstream culture in which they often feel ostracized from. That still does not change the fact that visibility is not enough. Companies simply offering rainbow packaging will not make a difference in the experience that millions of people around the world face in discovering their identity. These gestures will remain surface-level unless they are accompanied by real, sustained efforts – like donations to LGBTQA+ organizations, support for inclusive legislation, and year-round support, in place of seasonal marketing opportunities. 

Fortunately, in spite of rainbow capitalism’s chokehold on America, there are some companies that move beyond performative gestures and showcase what real corporate allyship looks like. Popular ice cream brand Ben & Jerry’s has consistently supported LGBTQA+ rights and resources since its founding. Ben & Jerry’s has had inclusive policies, such as same-sex domestic partner benefits to employees, since 1989. They were among one of the first brands to introduce such policies. They also have collaborated with numerous LGBTQA+ organizations like GLAAD to raise awareness and funds for their campaigns. Additionally, they have introduced limited-edition flavors to specifically support LGBTQA+ rights and causes. Ben & Jerry’s is a prime example of how companies that align their values with their actions can actually become trailblazers for inspiring change. 

Rainbow capitalism ultimately reflects a deep-rooted issue of the commercialization of social justice. As consumers, it’s important for us to recognize instances of these exploitative practices within certain companies that center Pride Month around profits and monetary gain rather than activism. Pride began as a protest against marginalization and police brutality. It is not just a celebration, it is a powerful statement of resilience and progress. We shouldn’t lose sight of that history. Pride should not be a ploy for profit. If companies want to celebrate it, they should do so with integrity, accountability, and year-round support.

This is burnout culture at Westwood High School.

Burnout culture is the normalization of overworking and constant stress in a school or workplace. At Westwood, burnout culture feeds on unrealistic workloads, ultra-competitive students, and the gradual acceptance of burnout for both students and staff. This detriments students’ self-esteem, giving rise to problems such as health issues and cheating. With college decision season in the past and end-of-course tests coming up, it is more important than ever to protect our school from the effects of burnout culture by analyzing the roots of these issues and exploring potential solutions.

When schools are known for their academic rigor and competition, students’ idea of a “good” grade begins to shift. Whereas most people consider a grade below a 70 to be failing, in these hypercompetitive environments, anything below a 95 can cause someone to spiral. These perceptions of grades come from an academic culture that encourages constant comparison. After a big exam in any Westwood class, the halls are filled with discussion of a possible curve, grieving the loss of a report card with straight As, and queries as to what the final problem was really asking. Once grades are posted, the first question people ask is, “What did you get on the test?”

Not only are grades and academics a big source of stress, balancing schoolwork with extracurriculars, clubs, and leadership positions also contributes to burnout, especially in high school. At Westwood, one student’s weekly after school schedule may include a host of activities such as attending the Chemistry Olympiad, presiding over Engineer Club’s general meeting, and rehearsing as the prestigious All-State violinist. One major impetus for participating in such a plethora of activities is college applications. A well-known sentiment among students is that they participate in certain things just to “put it on the resume” or so that they can so that they can tick off a box on the Common Application. Since many students believe that participating in as many extracurriculars as possible makes them the best candidate for prestigious colleges, they might engage with clubs or nonprofits for this reason alone.

By involving themselves in too many activities, students spread themselves thin, leaving less time and energy for each activity. Students that experience high levels of burnout in high school could have issues transitioning to college due to reduced motivation and well-being. Work-life balance is lacking in Westwood culture, which focuses on maximizing productivity above all else.

A culture of normalizing and encouraging serious sleep deprivation among teenagers is more than just a joke among students or the cost of “locking in” or becoming an “academic weapon.” Sleep deprivation is incredibly harmful, especially to teenagers, who are in a critical period of growth and development.

While the National Sleep Foundation states that teens need an average of 8-10 hours of sleep each night, a study by the CDC found that 73% of high school students sleep less than eight hours per night on weekdays, which has been shown to cause a myriad of problems among high school students. Westwood Student Press conducted a survey of the student body about their experience with burnout. Over the course of two days, the survey received 425 responses. 24% of Westwood juniors and seniors reported that they pull all-nighters frequently for school. More alarmingly, 43% of freshmen reported to have pulled an all-nighter before; 67% of juniors have done the same. 

Large workloads and lack of sleep can also lead to burnout among teenagers. 55% of juniors rated their stress as five on a scale of 1-5. Juniors reported the highest stress of any grade level, with 19% of freshmen, 37% of sophomores, and 40% of seniors rating their stress as a five.

The normalization of sleep deprivation itself is counterproductive, as many teens sacrifice sleep to devote time to their studying, when getting less sleep decreases focus and brain function. A student’s teenage years are a critical time to develop and grow physically, emotionally, and socially. If teenagers can’t even meet a need as basic as sleep during school, then how are they going to have enough time or energy to grow into functioning adults? Schedules that depend on a lack of proper sleep and school-life balance are dysfunctional and harm students well into the future.

As students push their mental boundaries, teachers must adapt to the nuance of how to teach college-level material to tenacious students. And while the national issue of teacher shortages and budget cuts may seem insignificant, its real implications are apparent on the local level. Teachers are pushed to instruct additional courses, stripping them of valuable conference time and complicating their jobs as they quickly readjust between blocks. 

Daily teacher life encompasses an abundance of on-the-spot adaptations to daily challenges, and students, caught up in the whims of their own academic anxiety, are quick to blame teachers as the bane of their high school lives. A simple expression of understanding goes a long way, but students blinded by their goals of academic success often lose sight of supporting the teachers that are there to serve them. In fact, part of early career teacher burnout on campus can be traced back to cutthroat students who exploit teachers’ novelty and their unfamiliarity with the system to claim greater knowledge of how the content and classroom should be organized.

Although these manipulations benefit students in the short-term by lightening their course load and easing harsh grading practices, the teachers on the receiving end are subject to constant confusion and bilateral pressure. Teacher burnout is not a product of carrying out duties listed in the job description — it is the implicit tasks borne out of unstable student-driven conditions that claw at teachers’ mental and physical boundaries. In the end, teachers are overworked and overstimulated from counteracting students’ obsessive ambition with their genuine efforts to emphasize the long-term benefits of learning over comparatively trivial indicators of success such as class rank or GPA. 

Despite our incessant complaints about workload or an overload of stress, the problem stems from the fact that we crave being busy — students have begun gravitating toward burnout and high-pressure environments like it’s a trend. We live in a society that equates busyness and stress with success. At a school as competitive — and even cutthroat — as Westwood, burnout culture is a rite of passage. Protests about the overwhelming amounts of AP World History notes or near-impossible math tests have become an expected part of the student experience and even a form of bonding, rather than a cry for help. 

According to the survey, over 41% of students talk about the workload or stress from academics very frequently with their peers. We’ve fostered an environment centered around overworking and making stress our primary point of discussion.

To underclassmen, it’s almost a privilege to be powered solely on caffeine or to survive on two hours of sleep. But the truth is, that doesn’t have to be the norm. These toxic habits have mutated into an indicator of our work ethic and dedication to our academics, as though running on empty is somehow a badge of honor.

What we need is a culture shift — specifically, one that places more value on education and motivates students to learn for the sake of fulfillment, rather than anxiety over grades. If teachers decentralize grades from their curriculum by putting more emphasis on students’ progress, growth understanding, and engagement, students could absorb more knowledge and extract more meaning from their classes. This could look like decreasing the amount of graded busywork assigned in classes — if students aren’t worried about their grade, they might invest more into their learning out of interest; major assignments would reflect students’ overall understanding of the subject, as well as which students took advantage of this system to simply avoid work. Teachers could also implement more project based learning instead of simply just tests. A project over an entire unit gives students more time with the content and also ensures that students actually understand the content by forcing them to explain topics.

Projects could also prevent cheating, as students could be assigned different topics; even if a student gives information to another, it wouldn’t be just a simple letter choice. Students would still have to make the effort of gathering and explaining the correct information, making it much easier to detect academic dishonesty. Teachers can also provide more opportunities for students to give them regular feedback so they can understand the impact of their classes on students’ daily lives. The administration should get involved by limiting assigned homework to a reasonable extent to reduce the issue of multiple heavy assignments in each class combining to overload students’ schedules; teachers could log all major projects and assessments in a master spreadsheet to avoid overlapping assignments.

On a larger scale, colleges should adopt even more holistic approaches when reviewing applications, focusing on essays and contributions to school organizations. This would encourage students to place an emphasis on their learning as the end outcome of all their hard work, and focus on their understanding of their classes. Westwood can contribute to this as well by enforcing a stricter process of creating a club and ensuring that existing clubs are achieving their goals, decreasing some students’ ability to inflate their resumes with inauthentic activities.

Finally, the school should work harder to retain qualified teachers by increasing their salary. As leaders within their classrooms, teachers are crucial in shaping a productive learning environment for their students, and intense workloads affect them as well. Schools need to maintain experienced, hardworking teachers who can support each other in managing the difficult yet imperative task of educating a generation of incoming adults, and shaping the way they value knowledge. 

Ultimately, it’s difficult to find concrete solutions to a problem that extends far beyond the walls of Westwood. Our school is just a microcosm of a larger cultural issue amongst students that pushes them toward unhealthy academic habits and burnout. Every year, college admissions cycles get more competitive, fostering the same level of competition on a smaller scale, and continuing toxic cycles that devalue learning. However, addressing the root causes of these issues is an important step towards shifting the cultural mindset to become more open to failure, and recenter school on learning to obtain knowledge, not the highest GPA.

After all, success for one person is not success for another. A number can’t fully quantify the effort students put in and the growth they have, and there shouldn’t be constant comparison that leads people to devalue their efforts because they seem to lead to diminishing returns. So much of the beauty of learning is the small discoveries made along the way as you make mistakes and find knowledge within them, not just what ends up on a report card. Students should not be striving for the impossible standard of perfection that the academic culture that Westwood consistently fosters. Instead, they should be encouraged to pursue their passions and grow into the best version of themselves. The decentralization of grades and GPA and emphasis on student growth and learning should be paramount over all else.

*Due to identity protection, some individuals have been granted anonymity, and their names have been replaced with fake ones in order to tell the story authentically. The pseudonyms are Riley Stevens ‘26, Alex Sanchez ‘27, and Aster White ‘28, all transgender students at the high school. Any similarities to other individuals’ names are purely coincidental and unintentional. 

The 21st century has been heralded as an era of social progress. In the national anthem, the Star Spangled Banner, the United States is deemed the “Land of the Free.” Freedom, however, was the last word on nonbinary teenager Nex Benedict’s mind as they were brutally assaulted by a group of classmates in the girls’ restroom of an Oklahoma high school in February 2024.

Legislation restricting transgender individuals’ rights has been around for decades. However, with the rise of the right-wing Heritage Foundation policy initiative Project 2025 last year, fear surrounding the future of trans individuals has increased greatly. To make matters worse, President Donald Trump’s unprecedented election has resulted in many of these oppressive policies to be brought to life. President Trump’s unprecedented election win has struck fear in the hearts of trans individuals everywhere as their rights are slowly being stripped by the president who claims he believes in the “majesty of freedom”. Yet, for trans students across the nation who have been forced to hide their identity from others in order to escape persecution from both the government and those around them, Project 2025 is neither majestic nor free.

“I tried to be optimistic, especially leading up to the election,” Riley Stevens* ‘26 said. “Honestly, I didn’t think that Trump would actually win. I was just like, ‘it’ll be fine, hopefully’ because I was just trying to focus on the president. [Now, there is] the existential fear that today, I could wake up, and this could be the day that a decision is made that will take away my rights.”

When Project 2025’s 900-page manifesto, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, was first published right before the election, many individuals believed the suggestions the manifesto gave were far too extreme to be implemented by the Republican Party. Trump even publicly distanced himself from the project, claiming that some of the policies outlined were “ridiculous” and that he knew nothing about it. This denouncement of Project 2025 gave trans people a ray of hope; after all, Trump had publicly denied support for the project. However, immediately upon taking office, he wasted no time implementing the very same policies he had once condemned.

“If I go looking for [more] information [on anti-trans legislation], all I’m doing is just making myself super anxious, because I literally don’t have any rights,” Alex Sanchez* ‘27 said. “I know that Greg Abbott took away trans healthcare for minors, and [the Trump administration is] definitely trying to drill that even further. Some people say ‘we’re protecting children’, but trans attempted suicide rates [are] 40 percent.”

On the first day of his administration, Trump put out Executive Order 14168, which stated that the only two recognized genders were male and female. Furthermore, this order forbids official documents from recognizing any other genders. Though many have rightfully pointed out that this legislation does not recognize intersex people, the larger issue at hand is that this is a complete disrespect of civil rights and freedom of choice. Attempting to compromise with Trump supporters implicitly denies the fact that trans individuals inherently have rights, by virtue of being human. 

“It doesn’t just affect trans people,” Sanchez said. “It also affects people with too high levels of certain hormones, or people who need hormone replacement therapy, but for literal hormonal reasons, and kids who need puberty blockers [because] they’re going through puberty too early. ‘Trans healthcare’ isn’t just for trans people — it’s for the general population. In criminalizing being human, they’re also criminalizing having sicknesses related to being human.”

Almost immediately after Executive Order 14168 was implemented, the Trump administration implemented Executive Order 14183, banning trans and non-binary Americans from enlisting in the military, and paused gender-affirming care to active members and veterans. While the administration sees this as a power play to further limit the career options for whom they view as “transgender extremists,” this only hurts America. According to Vox, in 2024 the U.S. military’s active-duty army had the smallest enlistment since 1940, and the Navy and Air Force missed their recruiting goals. It is impossible for trans individuals to spread their so-called agenda in the military. However, those who join the military typically possess intense love for their country, and by denying dedicated individuals an opportunity to fight for their country, the government has inadvertently decreased their already dwindling military force.

Furthermore, various aspects of Project 2025’s legislation aims to abolish policies related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). DEI recognizes that certain groups of individuals have historically been oppressed, and need a boost to even the playing field. However, many Trump supporters believe that DEI provides these groups with an advantage against others, rather than providing them with the means to compete on equal footing. In reality, DEI ensures that everyone is able to fairly vye for the same positions or accomplishments.

“One of my biggest problems is the removal of DEI programs, which is not just trans and LGBT, but it’s also people of color, women, [and] anyone who is not a straight, white, cishet male,” Aster White* ‘28 said. “That’s going to severely limit the inclusion of minority groups in decisions that will 100 percent affect them greatly.”

It is clear that Trump won’t simply stop at anti-trans legislation. If cisgender women think they’re safe because the current fight is against the trans community, they are wrong. Once the administration is done restricting trans people in every aspect of their life, they won’t stop there; they will move on to the gay community, then women — because that is what authoritarians do. They fuel hatred of a community, and continue redirecting it everywhere until only they and their closest administrators have power.

“They made it illegal for doctors to treat trans patients,” Sanchez said. “I know that I personally have been turned down by 20 doctors because they’re afraid that they’re gonna lose their license. I literally cannot take the necessary steps to make myself as safe as possible because doctors won’t see me because they’re afraid of the repercussions. What am I supposed to do to protect myself? I’m a teenager, first of all, so I can’t move. I also don’t want to move. This is my home. This is where I live. This is where I built my life. I don’t want to have to move just because the government is against my existence.”

However, despite President Trump’s onslaught on trans youth, for many, this isn’t news. Specifically, Texas has implemented policies similar to the ones Project 2025 has recommended for years. In 2023, Governor Greg Abbott signed legislation barring trans youth from accessing gender affirming care. While administrators believe that this legislation will prevent the spread of the so-called “gender ideology”, it only encourages trans youth desperate for a release from gender dysphoria to obtain gender affirming care illegally or through unsafe methods, which could genuinely harm their body to a greater degree than opponents believe gender affirming care will.

“All you’re doing is encouraging people to get their estrogen or testosterone illegally brewed, maybe in somebody’s basement,” Sanchez said. “That’s not good because you don’t know what’s in there, and it’s not like you can legally get it tested. All it does is just put people in danger, and so I guess I technically don’t know much about [Project] 2025, but I definitely know the repercussions it’s going to have. What are you supposed to do to protect yourself? You can’t do anything except for not be your identity, which is what the government wants. They’re just trying to make trans people illegal, which sounds kind of like fascism, if you ask me.”

Project 2025 details vast, abusive legislation toward trans individuals, including removing protection against discrimination for the LGBTQ+ community, denouncing allies as sex offenders, and equating the so-called “transgender ideology” with pornography. There is no doubt that they view the trans community as malignant propaganda, displaying a complete lack of respect for human rights. How can one’s existence itself be propaganda? The project’s makers seem to be uneducated on basic law, as many of their principles go directly against articles seen in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One part of Trump’s legislation that has already affected the trans community is his restriction on passports: the State Department is no longer issuing passports with “X” gender markers, and trans men and women are receiving their documentation back with their sex assigned at birth. For some trans people such as Ash Lazarus Orr, their classified documents are being withheld wholly, showcasing a complete mismanagement of the passport and governmental system. 

“I was actually planning on changing my name after high school, and now I cannot do that if I want to vote,” White said. “I’m not allowed to dress really how I want to for fear that it will be taken as gender-affirming care, and I just generally feel less safe, especially in a red state where they’re already not accepting of LGBT individuals.”

When Benedict was assaulted in the bathroom that aligned with their assigned gender at birth — the bathroom that Republicans claim people should go in — the nation was swept by the brutal nature of the bullying. America is only the land of free for a select group of people, just as it always has been. Whether it was the genocide of Native Americans, mocking of Chinese laborers, oppression of women, crimes against gay men, or now the attack on the trans community, this country has proven time and time again that anyone different, American or not, must suffer.

“The American people know, to an extent, when something is not constitutional,” Stevens said. “I believe people know what’s right and wrong, and I like to believe that we as a country have some kind of power to keep fighting and to prevent it from getting to the worst circumstance.”

Over half a century ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg championed the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the nation began to take steps forward for equality. It is now clear that the Trump administration doesn’t just seek to reverse those steps — they will stop at nothing to revert to archaic beliefs when anyone who wasn’t white, cisgender, straight, and rich was under the heel of those in power. The Trump administration is following a guidebook to dismantle democracy from the ground up, disguised under protection of citizens. The signs of fascism are there; it is up to the general public to act.

“You’re not only taking away our rights, but you’re setting a precedent to take away anyone’s rights, and that includes your own,” Stevens said.

As incidents of violence against trans people increase rapidly, Benedict’s story is more relevant than ever. It’s clear that Project 2025 isn’t acting out of ideology, but rather hate for anyone who doesnt fit into their normative understandings of the world. As we slowly exit the first 100 days of Trump’s second presidency, it’s clear that if we don’t act now, stories like Benedict’s will grow tenfold.

When the tour was announced, both American and Chinese citizens were worried about how Speed would act in the country, fearing it would be detrimental to U.S.-Chinese relations. Given Speed’s claim to fame stemming from extreme actions, shown by his loud barking whenever he encounters a triggering post, or how he once jumped over a sports car travelling at full speed, many of Speed’s American fans worried that his radical nature would clash with the Chinese country’s more reserved persona, and potentially give American media a bad reputation.

Fortunately, Speed proved the fears unfounded while destroying the very preconceptions of China that Western media had taken as fact. While Speed made sure to tour more traditional Chinese landmarks such as the Great Wall and Forbidden Palace, he also made it a point to show the modernized side of China. Speed showed viewers a litany of things that American citizens seldom get to see, such as China’s high-speed rail and carts that traveled through buildings, threefold cell phones, late-night drone shows, and even the country’s first flying car. Through his unique presentation combined with his dedication to show American viewers a more authentic picture of China, Speed was able to dispel many viewers’ preconceived notion of China as a technological laggard stuck in the 20th century.

However, the greatest part of China that Speed showcased was not a new tourist attraction or technological development, but the people. Throughout the tour, Speed had collaborations with popular Chinese social media figures ranging from the singer of the hit song SuperIdol to social media star Tony from LC Sign. Through these collaborations, Speed introduced a Western audience to Eastern creators, helping disseminate China’s rich, multifaceted culture, and breaking the isolated bubble his viewers resided in. 

 Speed was a warm and friendly visitor, interacting with Chinese citizens despite a massive language barrier. Western media frequently portrays Chinese citizens as constantly stressed, robotic, and emotionless. However, Speed’s interviews helped combat this myth, as those who interacted with him were warm, energetic, and enthusiastic. The warmness Chinese citizens greeted Speed broke many viewers’ preconceived notions of a heartless and stress-filled China. At the end of the day, this resulted not only in westerners understanding China as a modern country with top-tier attractions, but also as a country whose citizens’ personalities serve as a reason in itself to visit.

This type of interaction between the West and East would not have been possible thirty or even twenty years ago. It is only through the rise of streaming has people from across the globe have been given a window into worlds far different, yet at the same time so similar to their own. While the media often displays nuisance streamers who create both negative impressions of the country they travel to, and even worse impressions for the natives to have on foreigners, stories like Speed’s show just how powerful streaming can be used as a tool for good.

By the time his last stream concluded, his tour had become so well-received that there were giant billboard advertisements in Chinese cities thanking the streamer. While tensions between China and the United States seem positioned to only rise further as the world gears for another trade war, stories like Speed’s showcase that all it takes is one person to humanize the other side and break through the tension.

Cancel culture can take a serious toll on anyone’s mental health, regardless if they are a celebrity. Despite repeated efforts by the media trying to cancel Taylor Swift, these attempts do not succeed. In 2016 Kanye West wrote the infamous song Famous, where he references Taylor Swift. Swift publicly stated how she did not approve of these lyrics, but then-wife Kim Kardashian leaked a recording of a phone call where Swift gave West permission. This led to a trending hashtag #KimExposedTaylorParty influencing backlash against Swift. In response to the hate she then made the album Reputation which was inspired by the drama. However, the backlash continued. Across social media in 2019, the new hashtag #TaylorSwiftIsCancelled gained the attention of Swift and pushed her to speak out to Vogue Magazine, saying “I knew it was the only way I could survive it. It was the only way I could preserve my mental health.” 

She started to suffer yet was able to overcome the “very isolating experience,” but found strength in overcoming it. This situation makes it clear the mental toll it took on Swift, and how she coped through music. Swift said “saying you’re cancelled is like saying kill yourself.” Many people would not have been able to handle the hate, and might have not been able to stand it. Social media has made it too easy to “cancel” public figures over small drama. It should not matter who is right, the public takedowns are a form of cyberbullying. To make someone almost start to question their existence is bullying and should not be normalized.  The normalization of online harassment only causes damage and should be stopped. 

While some celebrities can’t seem to get rid of the hate, others only benefit from it. Kanye West, now known as Ye, has made many tweets openly supporting Nazis and Hitler while still maintaining a loyal fanbase. Reports have even shown an increase in antisemitic hate crimes, showing how he is the leading cause of the wave of antisemitism. Although a few brands have cut ties with him, his music remains widely streamed. On Feb 6, he went on a tangent on X, formerly known as Twitter, posting tweets without end. “NEVER APOLOGIZING FOR MY JEWISH COMMENTS” and “IM A NAZI,” were just a few. This clearly shows how cancel culture is often selective, where it only affects a few, while others can continue on like nothing happened. Which comes to show how cancel culture is based on public perception rather than trying to ‘eliminate’ controversial figures. If celebrities with a huge influence can openly make insulting comments without any true consequence, it can send the wrong message to society. Ye proves how cancel culture’s purpose is not effective and more performative. 

Additionally, it is important to change as you grow, but despite that, cancel culture promotes the culture that you can not change and don’t deserve a second chance. Shane Dawson, a YouTube personality, faced backlash in 2020 after old videos resurfaced of offensive comments about race and inappropriate remarks about minors. This led to his platforms coming to an end due to his cancellation. He then released an apology video titled “Taking Accountability,” in June 2020 where he publicly acclaimed these actions as wrong, stating he had grown since and no longer identifies with that version of himself. Although he apologized, his subscribers went down by a million, and he had his YouTube channels banned despite his apology. 

The problem of cancel culture is that it focuses mainly on someone’s past, and can ignore apologies that have been made.  Dawson began his YouTube career in 2008 as a 19 year old, when social media humor was less restricted and more ‘dark.’ Yet in 2020, his videos became more mature, focusing mainly on collaborations like with a Jeffree Star Cosmetics makeup line. Regardless, his history overruled whatever he says in the present day. Personal growth is how people learn from their past mistakes, and to apologize if what they said caused any controversy. For society it gives the wrong impression that humans can’t change, and change their values. 

Cancelling someone does not lead to anything positive. From experiencing a mental health crisis to openly supporting Nazis and to apologizing about your past self, cancel culture is a system that is not beneficial. Let’s not let this toxic culture continue with the power that it holds, and bring it to an end.