NPR recently published the article “A Dreaded Part of Teachers’ Jobs: Restraining And Secluding Students” which touched upon the subject of restraints and seclusion in the classroom, especially in regards to special needs children. This article sheds light on the negative impact of restraints and seclusion, as the usages of these techniques can be easily abused by teachers in the classroom. The article additionally mentions the mental and physical risk that comes with these holds, both to the student and the teacher. What the article fails to mention however is any alternative.

When it comes to working in a special needs classroom, it’s not easy to go by the book on much of anything. Individual approaches for special needs children and those with behavioral issues are most effective. I have personally worked in a classroom setting with children who need this kind of individualized support and can attest to the fact that there is an insurmountable number of benefits from building a close relationship and trust with the children in these classrooms. It’s easy to see how this individualization could be repeated in order to reduce potential harm directed toward these children.

Restraints and seclusion are taught to be used as a last resource when dealing with a student who is having a meltdown, according to Psychiatric Times. When speaking to an educator who works in a classroom and caters to the needs of children with behavioral problems, it was stated that they use restraints or holds “when they’re a danger to themselves or others; so throwing stuff, slamming heads into walls and the obvious, fighting, spitting … any bodily fluids can be a danger for others,” affirming the fact that holds are discouraged unless completely necessary. Additionally, the educator, who prefers to remain anonymous, stated that they had once “physically felt a child relax” when in a hold. In some cases, the holds that they use, which are comparable to bear hugs, can act in a similar way that weighted blankets can reduce anxiety and stress.

What the ethics behind restraints and seclusion boils down to is knowing the children that one is working with. By carefully studying The Individualized Education Programs and other forms that help one understand the mental state and past history of a child, it’s clearer to know how to cater to their needs in ways that can accurately reduce stress and their ability to harm themselves or others. By individualizing the way educators deal with a child who is having a meltdown, there is less of a chance that they need to risk using a restraint or seclusion technique, which may negatively impact the child or the educator. Sometimes, being removed from a classroom and having the ability to sit in a quiet room with a desk and chair and no other distractions is what a child needs to calm their thoughts. In other cases, it’s important to give a child their personal space and have them talk through what they’re thinking. Above all else, it’s imperative that educators, as well as the public, understand that restraints and seclusion, which are to only be practiced by a trained professional, are strictly a last resort.

On Nov. 5, a white supremacist was charged with plotting to blow up a Colorado temple and it’s said that the outlet that he used to air his frustrations was one that we are all familiar with: Facebook. Due to his frequent use of Facebook as a way to share his anti-semitic outlook, he had been tracked for years by local authorities. However, the question remains, is it the responsibility of various social media outlets to protect against hate speech? To what extent should these outlets attempt to censor certain user’s voices in order to make their platforms more accessible and hospitable to all who wish to use it, especially those in traditionally marginalized groups? 

Facebook is running into the same problem Twitter faced in the recent outrage over President Trump’s use of the app to agitate certain problems. For Facebook, however, it appears that the issue of aggressive message sharing isn’t between a president and his national and international audience, but rather between family members or neighbors. As the 2000s have moved through trends, Facebook has become more of a social media for the older demographic, often favored by parents and grandparents and seen by many younger internet users as a more formal form of social media. Rather than the memes and jokes that are seen on Twitter, or the photos that are shared on Instagram, Facebook remains a place where people share their thoughts and have a wide audience, often containing only those who the user knows in real life.

It’s because of this intimacy on Facebook that the power and ability to say whatever one wishes can be seen as a direct threat to one’s livelihood if these messages are hateful. In the case of the 27-year-old white supremacist who attempted to place a bomb in a synagogue last week, a particular message was shared on Sep. 9 in reference to Jewish citizens: “I wish the Holocaust really did happen … they need to die.” 

This message is blatantly hateful and would be more than enough to harm Jewish citizens who come in contact with the message or with the man himself, regardless of the fact that he later attempted to take action in order to fulfill these beliefs.

It’s difficult to say where exactly the boundary lies between protecting a platform’s users and preventing another user’s free speech, a line that has been attempted to be drawn for a decade now since the rise in popularity of social media. Until Facebook and other platforms begin to crack down on hateful speech, slurs and threats, the most we as users can do is to remain vigilant and make our own private pages as welcoming and accepting for all, especially for marginalized groups that face so much hate online.

Social media makes it all too easy for politicians, such as President Donald Trump, to speak their minds to people all over the world with often unedited tweets. President Trump has historically caused controversy with his tweets, and in recent months it appears that now more than ever Twitter users are calling for an end to Trump’s account due to the incredible levels of impact these, what often appear as thoughtless, tweets have.

Earlier this week, Sen. Kamala Harris used her platform to call to Twitter’s attention to the seriousness and severity of the situation that is brought on by various tweets by Trump, specifically those concerning the call to impeach the president. Sen. Harris referred to the tweets as intimidating his impeachment whistleblowers, in hopes that they would be too afraid to continue working against him after he had called them out in an incredibly public fashion. CNN reported that Twitter denied having an ability to suspend Trump’s account, which Sen. Harris suggested they do, due to the fact that it was in no violations of their company’s policies. Twitter upheld that they suspend accounts for strictly what their users write in tweets, not the political or societal implications and consequences that a particular tweet may encourage, meaning Trump had technically broken no rules.

In CNN’s report, they raised the question, what happens if a world leader were to incite violence via Tweet? Could the end of a trade agreement or start of a war, something that has drastic and life-altering repercussions not be worthy of an involuntary account deactivation? Having spent time in Washington D.C. this summer, and having spoken to writers for Politico and NPR about the way that Americans consume media and how politicians interact with the public through social media, their greatest concern was of the complete independence such powerful people have through these platforms. Any speech to the nation by the president goes through tens if not hundreds of White House employees who look over it and make sure there are no holes in an argument, to fact check all data and keep controversy to a minimum. By using Twitter to share his thoughts, however, Trump has complete control over what he says. This is something that can absolutely be seen in a positive light and allows politicians to connect more effectively with the average American and Twitter user, but also allows those with immense amounts of power to send mindless thoughts and ideas out into the world, and not be able to take them back.

When I was in high school and social media first began to get popular my mother always told me that I should never put anything on the internet that I wouldn’t want to be published in the paper. I thought about this every time I would post a tweet or share a picture, now I believe it’s time for Trump to take the same advice.

In December of 2018, a confirmed overdose left Vine and HQ Trivia co-founder Colin Kroll dead in his apartment. While the concept of a wealthy business person taking part in the use of illicit drugs such as cocaine and heroin is not something new to the American people, the revelation of just how easily these drugs are obtained is catching the eye of many citizens.The New York Times reported that Kroll had ordered the drugs responsible for his overdose on his cellphone. This order was placed through a company that delivered the drugs straight to Kroll’s home. It has been reported that six people within this operation had been charged for supplying the drugs.

It’s well understood that the rich and famous are able to get their hands on just about anything that they want, including class A drugs. The shock comes from the knowledge that this operation, which was being run under the name “Mike’s Candyshop,” worked the same way that any food delivery service does. An individual is able to type in an order on their phone for a certain delivery time and watch as the delivery makes its way to the personal drop off at the individual’s door. Gone is the shame and anxiety that came with a back alley drug deal that would have occurred 10 years ago. In its place, a new form of accessibility and anonymity has taken root.

Opening the door to a decreased stigma around acquiring drugs means trouble. The less dangerous any particular part of the drug purchasing, obtaining and consuming appears to be the more likely people are to try it. Without the risk of getting mugged in a poorly lit parking lot to get your cocaine or heroin, many more amateur and first time drug users are likely to be seduced by the convenience of it. The second drugs seem less dangerous and more normalized teens and young adults will let their guards down.

The U.S. has a long way to go in combating the drug crisis and developments like that of Mike’s Candyshop only makes drugs a trickier thing to tackle. In a society where drug users will get their hands on what they’re looking for, regardless of whether it’s illegal or not, technological advances concerning drug trafficking don’t change the game much. What it does change is the accessibility for people who may not have previously entertained the idea of obtaining drugs. These companies and operations need to be stopped so people understand that while there is just as much ease in ordering a pizza from Dominos as there is in getting a bag of cocaine from Mike’s Candyshop doesn’t make the drug any less deadly. The story of a celebrity as wealthy as Vine’s CEO is a prime example of this.

Ask anyone and it’s likely they will have a story about some kind of bullying they or someone they know endured in their schooling, oftentimes coming to peak around middle school and early high school. In my high school, a pretty mild place as far as bullying goes went, I recall being on the receiving end of profanities, thrown trash, and occasional tripping.  I was not an outlier; these were occurrences that happened to a majority of students and was accepted as a culture within the school. However, none of the light bullying and teasing that my friends and I experienced was anywhere in comparison to other schools. 

For example, the recent death of a 13-year-old Californian student at the hands of school bullies has shaken the nation this week and it is a wakeup call to the severity of the issue of bullying. The victim, who received support from teachers and administrators in his school, was still helpless due to the bullying he received at the hands of his classmates. 

When facing bullying, it seems like something that will never be able to be nipped in the bud. Even our current president has been regarded as a bully for how he speaks to those categorically under him. Bullying is seen on any sports team, in any workplace, in any club. It almost seems as though in our culture, bullying appears in any context which requires ambition and a strong work ethic. The cycle seems never-ending. Once you have paid your dues by being a victim of bullying, you will earn the position and power of the official bully yourself.  

The question remains, is there a way to get rid of the culture of bullying all together and if so, how? As deeply ingrained as bullying is in our school systems, athletic teams and organizations, the solution lies not in replacing principles or getting rid of Division 1 sports or Greek life, but rather in an entire societal change, something that is not able to happen overnight. We need to hold our leaders responsible for conducting a climate of respect and support to all, not just those above us. We need to teach our children to be just as kind to the garbage man as they are to a CEO and that there’s no shame in being a little slower, a little quieter or a little weirder. In order to make such enormous changes to the world that we want the next generation to grow in, we have to take a look at ourselves and how we treat one another, and if we consider success  a process that requires stepping on others to get to the top. 

Historically, teenagers have been told that their ideas have no merit, or that their opinions and stances are too dramatic and not fully developed because of their young age. This attitude has been challenged thanks to groups of teenage activists who are taking a stand to surpass adults who hold the microphone regarding large social issues. The growth of the internet and the rapid ways in which ideas can be shared around the globe have contributed to today’s teenagers being able to reach a larger audience; In doing so, these teens are furthering their chances of convincing the greater population that young doesn’t mean ignorant.

Take, for example, Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old Swedish activist who has reached fame and notoriety for both her young age and her stance on climate change regulation. On Wednesday, Sept. 18, Thunberg addressed the United States Congress and compared the regulations Sweden has to the U.S.’s own. She then chastised President Donald Trump for pulling out of the Paris Agreement, an agreement within the United Nations that works for climate change prevention and mitigation. CNN reports that Thunberg takes her role as an advocate so seriously that to travel to the U.S., she took a zero-emissions sailboat from Sweden rather than flying in order to reduce carbon emissions.

Thunberg is just one case of a teenager who has made their voice known in recent years; after the 2018 shooting in Parkland, Florida, the media watched as many students that experienced this horrific event came forward to tell their stories and advocate for stronger gun regulation laws and appeals. After being told for generations that teenagers are secondary citizens to adults and that their changing brains result in unstable ideas and poor judgment, a generation of youths have emerged who are fed up with being belittled and reduced simply to children who are unable to think for themselves or form their own ideas. 

Teenagers are some of our most vital assets when it comes to activism and advocacy because they are witnessing what it means to be an active member in society for the first time, with fresh eyes, where many adults have become numb to the problems faced in everyday life because of certain political agendas and administrations. Teenagers can use this clear view of the world to help fuel the outrage that is necessary in creating a successful campaign. 

Teenagers have the poor reputation for being moody and angry, but that is exactly what is needed to get voices heard, a group of people who aren’t afraid to speak their minds and step up to the plate when they feel like something isn’t working how it should. We all need to take pointers from these growing minds and respect their ideas as they come to fruition about the injustices that we as Americans face, and trust them to take the reins because, at the end of the day, the kids are alright. 

Last week, the world was shocked by the horrible accident that occurred in France when the Notre-Dame cathedral caught fire. This tragedy rang out through all nations and was highlighted by various news organizations covering the event in real time, helping to bring together the audience of viewers who watched the 800-year-old cathedral burn, and with it the art, history and tradition stored inside.

This accident was regarded by most as an epic catastrophe as the cathedral is over 800 years old and has had historical and cultural significance since its initial construction. To the many people who had the pleasure of viewing the landmark, it was understandable that its beauty and significance has had such an impact on the world. After the fire and the subsequent damages had been publicized, various pledges of donations were coming in from around the globe in order to rebuild the well-known landmark. Most notably, some of these donations were pledged by independent billionaires and well-known companies such as Apple and Disney who made their mark in announcements that they too would put a share of money into rebuilding. The New York Times reported that since the fire, which took place on Monday, money from donors has cumulatively built up to be approximately $950 million.

While the donations are generous and will be put to good use in rebuilding a worldwide landmark, this particular phenomenon of kindness has turned many heads because of the large sum of money that has come in within such a small amount of time along with the news coverage that the event received. This raises the question of how many other problems across the world could be solved by the wealthy and elite in partnership with corporations that bring in incredible sums of money annually.

CNBC reported in 2017 that the top one percent of earners in the world own over half of the entire world’s population of wealth; a disparity that is only exemplified through massive donations such as those made for Notre-Dame. Many of the world’s most elite families and independent individuals have accumulated enough wealth that they may never be able to spend it all in their lifetimes, yet they abstain from donating to many causes around the world that could help solve serious problems.

For example, the water crisis that has plagued Flint, Michigan for over a decade would take approximately $55 million to solve, according to the Guardian. This amount is only a small portion of what was raised in a few days for Notre-Dame.

When facing these facts the 99 percent is left with only one real message: money can solve almost anything, but it’s those who hold it who make all the decisions.