Student Council holds Movie Night

By Luke Schneider ’20 Middle school students gathered for a Halloween-themed Movie Night on Oct. 28. There was a wide variety of Halloween activities for attendees to participate in, including pumpkin carving, dodgeball and table tennis. “Movie Night was particularly exciting because we had multiple activities that we have never done before, like a scavenger […]

Girls’ Tennis

By Samantha Morris

img_0695

Wolverine girls’ tennis teams have had seasons of improvement and success this year. On Oct. 24, the varsity squad defeated Flintridge Sacred Heart 14 matches to 4 in their last league competition, finishing with a league record of 7-1. Their only league loss was an 11-7 defeat by one of their main rivals, Notre Dame HS.

The team competed in their first round of the CIF playoffs on Nov. 2, overcoming Camarillo HS 13-5. The girls then played in their second and third rounds of playoffs on Nov. 4 and Nov. 7 respectively, beating Murrieta Valley and Arcadia. Following this success, they were able to compete again in the playoff semi-finals on Nov. 9, winning 77-73 in games against Corona del Mar. Such success then allowed the girls to compete in the CIF playoff finals on Nov. 11. After a close competition, the Wolverines were defeated 10-8 by Campbell Hall. Although the girls’ goal to win the championships was not realized, they have been extremely successful this season, reaching the finals for only the second time in Wolverine girls’ tennis history.

Not only did they receive second place in their CIF Southern Section Division 1 category, but the squad also qualified to play in the SoCal Regionals, where they beat Fresno Clovis North HS 5-2 on Friday. Advancing from this win, they then played Torrey Pines HS in the regional semi-finals, losing 7-0. The CIF Individual Sectionals occurred on Monday, but the results were not available as of press time.

Several varsity tennis players also recently played in the Mission League individual playoffs, a tournament in which two singles players and two doubles teams represent each school. Jenna Moustafa ‘17 and Jennifer Gadalov ‘19 represented the Wolverines in singles, while the doubles team of Amanda Chan ’19 and Sophia Genender ‘19 played for the school alongside the doubles team of Lara Mikhail ’18 and Maddy Dupee ‘20. These six girls succeeded in this competition, with Moustafa and Gadalov earning first and second in singles and Chan and Genender emerging as champions in doubles. Varsity coach Kristie Gipe, recently named Reigning Daily News Coach of the Year, commented on the season.

“I have a great coaching staff that broadens the relationship with the players. It’s wonderful to have players that are willing to work hard, and yet there is a wonderful sense that there are friendships and that being together is a pleasure. Coaching players that are willing to be coachable is a coach’s dream. We are fortunate to have this on this team,” Gipe said in an email.

Doubles player Sophia Ekstrand ‘20 felt similarly when reflecting on how the season has gone.

“I think we’ve definitely bonded during practices and matches and improved as a team in both singles and doubles,” Ekstrand said.

The J.V. team has also had a successful season. The girls’ final match took place on Oct. 24 against Flintridge Sacred Heart, where they defeated them 14-4. The team finished first in their league with a 6-0 record. They had a

Football teams prepare for next season

By: Luke Casola’20 and Gautam Natarajan’20

Both the middle school and varsity football teams competed and practiced all season long.  The varsity squad finished with a record of 3-7 (0-4 in league play) and the middle school squad finished with an undefeated record of 8-0.  The young freshman players on the varsity squad have taken a step up in their play and have improved.  Quarterback Jameson Wang ‘20 looks to come back next season with more experience.

“Our team will be more experienced and more mature than last season.  And we are only losing eight seniors.  Even though they have the most experience, we will have many returning juniors that will be seniors next year to be the leaders,” Wang said.

The varsity squad, coached by program head Scot Ruggles, opened the 2016 season with a 2-0 record.  Despite ending the season with a losing record, linebacker Jake Kelly ‘20 said he believes the varsity team will bounce back next season.

“We have a super young team, so all of us are very excited for the future. One of the main problems we had this year was size and inexperience, and that should change next season.  Many of our juniors have been great leaders for us this season, and the transition to seniors should be easy,” Kelly said.

The squad competed against Calabasas on Nov. 11 in the first round of playoffs and lost with a score of 28-56. Next season, the players said that they look to make it farther in the CIF playoffs and their ultimate goal would be to win the CIF Finals.  Many players said that they believe that making it further in playoffs is possible if the team continues to work hard in the upcoming summer.

The two hour practices gave the squad an understanding of the defensive and offensive plays. Running back Cam Jones ‘18 led the team in rushing yards and will be returning next year to make a playoff run as a senior.

Linebacker Vincent Temesvary ‘20 said he believes that this season was a great learning experience as a freshman playing varsity football.

“This season was a learning experience for me and the rest of the freshmen.  While we could have done better, we have a really young team and are looking at building upon this season to push for a deeper playoff run next year,” Temesvary said.

The middle school squad, consisting of seventh and eighth grade students, had a great defensive and offensive season.  The defense gave up only 35 points in eight games and the team scored a total of 358 points all season.  The team averaged almost 45 points per game, which is more than they allowed on defense all season.  According to quarterback Evan Roderick ‘21, the squad favored defense as much or even more than offense.  Many of the team’s points came from forced turnovers and stops on the defensive end.  The squad’s hardwork and dedication paid off this season with a 41-0 win against Chaminade in the championship game on Nov. 5. An appearance in the championship game is not only a great accomplishment, but the team also brought back the title of “Delphic League Champions” to the Middle School.  Roderick expressed his feelings about playing football with his friends and teammates.

“Amazing….nothing like it to win a championship.  We went into the season with a great attitude wanting to win every game, and it happened.  I had a great experience with my friends this season,” Roderick said.

New council members chosen

By Lindsay Wu ’20

thumbnail_img_4828cmyk

The newly placed members of HW Give commitee poses for a picture. Credit: Jessa Glassman ’20 / Spectrum 

The new representatives of Character Committee, HW Give and STEAMbassadors have been announced.  Students applied in September for each program.

Character Committee welcomed Rachel Brown ’20, Michael Lehrhoff ’20, and Andrew So ’21 to the committee this year.  They will join returning members George Grube ’20 and Tyra Hirooka ’20 in their attempts to change the community into a more inclusive place.

“We’ll be working toward accomplishing several goals this year.  Currently, we’re working to bridge the gap between seventh, eighth and ninth graders, specifically on the buses.  We’re trying to eliminate the gap to make our community a more comfortable place for everyone,” Hirooka said.

HW Give is made up of six representatives, with five ninth graders and one eighth grader. This year’s representatives are Georgia Gerber ’20, Jessa Glassman ’20, Kyra Hudson ’20, Keila McCabe ’20, Emily Nutting ’20 and Andrew So ’21.  Glassman and McCabe are returning members.

“Unlike last year, HW Give is trying to focus on helping causes within the Los Angeles.  This will benefit the locals and make the community a better place,” Nutting said.

This year, George Grube ’20 is the only new STEAMbassador.  The program helps to excite students about the STEAM fields through events such as the annual Science fair.

“I’m really looking forward to being able to represent the STEAMbassador program because it is a topic that interests me so much, and I will be able to help others,” Grube said.

 

Seventh grade senators elected

By Keila McCabe ’20

New seventh grade senators were elected on Nov. 4, the elected representatives are Jade Stanford ‘22, Sophia Lindus ‘22, Mark Cho ‘22 and Landon Lewis ‘22 have already begun brainstorming and are excited to work together.

“It was a bit of a shock because I was one of only three kids that came from my elementary school. Then a lot of people started talking to me and saying I had their vote. I was surprised to see how many people supported me and were going to vote for me. Once the results came out I was excited to be senator and better the community”, Cho said.

The election process lasted from Nov. 1-4. The candidates filled out an application which included their candidate statements. The candidates prepared speeches to present at class assembly and the seventh graders voted that night.

According to seventh grade dean Kate Benton, senators have been a prominent factor of the Middle and Upper School since the school was first merged. The senators have many responsibilities, such as planning school-wide events and upholding the honor code.

“Senators benefit Harvard-Westlake because they are sort of the pulse of the student body and hopefully their classmates come to them with questions, complaints, concerns,” Benton said.

New senators have begun to make plans for the upcoming year. They said they are excited to unite the school and work together to achieve goals.

“I want to try to have a later start to school on some days because that has happened before and I feel like it would really benefit the students. Other senators and I also wanted to keep the cafeteria open until 5:30 pm when after all the sports end,” Lindus said

 

 

 

 

STAFF EDITORIAL Should I Stay or Should I Go: Attending school sick does not help

Cough, sniffle, sneeze.

It is impossible to avoid the presence of a virus spreading through the Middle School. Every fall, students return to piles of homework and a stuffy nose. However, this year there is an unusually drastic increase in sick students. Brenda Simon, Middle School Attendance and Health Care Coordinator, confirmed an unusually large number of people are getting sick this year.

With the increasing number of students contracting illnesses, many face the tough decision of whether to compromise others students’ health as well as their own and go to school, or fall behind in class and stay home. With the first quarter being an important time to establish a strong foundation in grades, students feel pressure to attend school, even when they run the risk of worsening their condition and spreading their sickness.

Teachers have tried to lessen pressures by making notes and worksheets available through the Hub. Students can also obtain materials from classmates or meet with teachers to catch up. The Middle School urges sick students to stay home in order to control the spread of sickness, but so far, this has not dissuaded students from coming to school.

Ninth grade students particularly feel pressure to attend school even when they are sick since grades count for college and are included on students’ transcripts. The looming pressure of college and importance of grades influence students to attend school, despite their poor health. While kids might feel worse if they go to school, most are willing to deal with pain in exchange for staying on pace with the class and possibly achieving higher grades.

If students are willing to miss a day of class, staying home and resting can reward them physically and mentally. By going to school while sick, students will not produce their best possible work. According to the Boston University Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation, the average child when ill experiences an inability to concentrate for lengthy periods of time and has difficulty registering information. Low concentration impairs a student’s ability to learn and can lead to lower grades. Even though most students believe attending school is worth the risk, they will not be able to function as well as they would if they were fully rested.

Aside from intellectual demands, students face physical stress when at school. Students are required to walk around campus and participate in P.E. or sports. This physical exertion can extend the length of the illness and reduce mental sharpness due to fatigue.

Attending school also means interacting with others constantly throughout the day. The illness circulating around campus this season is viral, and human contact leads to a high probability of spreading the sickness. Many illnesses are circulating around campus, making it easy for people to become infected even if they try their hardest not to. With the number of sick students attending school and spreading germs, mountains of hand sanitizer and tissues will not protect students as well as they may think.

However, these illnesses are not exclusive to students, as adults on campus are affected as well. Teachers most likely will not be able to teach at their full capacity if dealing with fatigue and the other side effects of being illness. When sick, it is hard to function normally, let alone grade piles of tests. Also, teachers have to miss school if their sickness gets worse, which further restricts students’ learning. Students’ education ends up being impaired, just because a few individuals decided to attend school when they were sick. When making the decision to come to school sick, students are not only hurting themselves, but others as well.

Sick students should stay home so that they will be back to school at peak performance in a matter of days. But attending school results in operating at partial capacity, spreading the illness and over-exerting oneself. Though students may think suffering through the pain and going to school will ultimately be easier than making up days of work, they would be doing a disservice to themselves, their fellow students and ultimately the school. Resting, even for just one day, can do wonders to the body and health of an individual.

So put misconceptions about failing classes aside and prioritize your health.

 

Political Pressure: Where students get their political beliefs

By Jessa Glassman ’20
img004
Eugean Choi ’21 / Spectrum

With the upcoming election, opinions are everywhere. This happens especially in an academic environment where we investigate and discuss topics from different points of view. Often students can feel overwhelmed with influences coming at them from a thousand different directions, like from their parents, teachers, friends or even the media.

Too often students talk about politics in school, yet their conversations only include a supported candidate and no substantive topic analysis. Students often repeat things that they hear from influences, which can be problematic when it prevents them from forming their own views and opinions. In an online survey sent to the Middle School, 72% of the 351 respondents said that their parents are one of their biggest influences, and an additional 38% said the media. Young people who are on social media are confronted with everything from memes to rant-like posts which can include untrue or exaggerated facts from biased parties. These forms of influence come from all angles and influence our thoughts on every candidate. Most people who read something online or hear it from someone they trust believe it is factual right off the bat; however, they often don’t recognize that what they are hearing or reading may hold a bias.

In a survey, students talked about the importance of forming independent political opinions.

“It is important to expose yourself to all candidates or issues and make decisions for yourself. You also need to be aware of the benefits and repercussions of certain policies that you have an opinion on,” Siji Smolev ’22 said in the survey.

Not so surprisingly, political opinions are not a genetic trait or trait inherent to any specific detail. This means that just because a student’s parents identify in one party or feel a certain way about a candidate, the student does not have to feel the same way. It also means that just because they live in an area that is swayed toward one party or candidate they do not have to support the same views. Political views are something that should be determined individually. And because of this people need to learn to be accepting of other’s views and not make them feel lesser for believing what they do.

It is crucial for our generation to familiarize ourselves not only with current topics, but also with what each party stands for. 82% of respondents said they feel like they do not fully understand the political climate. By becoming educated on current political happenings they can successfully find a place for themselves and form their own opinions. Avoiding blind agreement with others does not mean one should not respect and listen to others’ opinions. It is an important skill to be able to recognize and hear other people’s thoughts and then respond, to show respect for what someone else is saying, to build of their opinions and expand political knowledge.

Survey respondents talked about the importance of being clear on political views.

“During this controversial year in politics, it is important to understand the views of candidates as well as fully understanding your own philosophy concerning politics,” Michael Lehrhoff ’20 said in the survey.

94% of the survey respondents think that it is important to be socially involved in the political world at this point in their lives; however, only 75% of them would actually vote during this election. Many people think that this election will have an impact on their lives, and that it is important that the we become knowledgeable about political topics and are incentive to vote in the future. Voting is a right and all citizens should exercise it to stand up for something they believe in, regardless of the opinion of others.

In the survey, students spoke about the recognizable duty to become politically educated.

“I believe that as the next generation that will be working and contributing to this nation, we should be aware of who is leading this country and the policies that shape our government. Active children transition into better educated adults, who will make better decisions when electing any sort of leader. By educating the children of today, we are making the fully informed adults of tomorrow,” Andy Seol ’22 said in the survey.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Cell Phone Policy: One year later, is it helping or hindering?

By Anusha Mathur ’20 and Alex Daum ’20

 

The middle school cell phone policy has been continued for the 2016-2017 school year. The policy prohibits phone use from first through eighth period. The only exceptions to the policy are in class use for educational purposes with permission from the teacher or use in a dean’s office to communicate with a family member or coach.

According to the deans, the policy was instated because cell phones were decreasing interaction between students and were excluding students who were not on their phones or did not have phones.

They also said that phones were distracting kids from their school work, and one major goal of the policy is to help students with organization. However, we believe
that the policy is not successful at achieving its goal and that it ultimately doesn’t make students any more inclined to do their work.

Cell phones are helpful to students. They enable communication and can be used for school-related work. Students use their phones for academic purposes, such as looking up information on the internet, because pulling out a phone to look something up is much easier than having to get out a computer. Additionally, when students are able to carry their phone with them, it is much easier for students to communicate amongst themselves or with parents and coaches.

Since they are not allowed to have their phones out, students will often not receive important information from their parents during the day simply because they do not see the message. Furthermore, the middle school campus is so large, and phones are essential for students who are trying to meet up during the school day, to work on group projects or school-related work.

The cell phone policy is ineffective at achieving its goal of minimizing distractions. Forcing students to get off their phones does not decrease students’ attachment to these devices or suddenly make them more inclined to do their school work.

Gaming has also persisted despite the restrictive policy. Many students have continued to do different non-work-related activities such as playing games or going on social media on other devices, such as their computers. Since students continue to be distracted by electronics, the policy ends up hurting those who are using their phones for school-related purposes without benefiting anyone.

A cell phone policy also does not solve the problem of students being excluded from social communities. Regardless of whether or not cell phones are allowed during school hours or not, there will still be small select groups. Not having cell phones does not make these circles any more welcoming to other students. Additionally, not all 300 students in a grade will be able to talk at the same time, so a cell phone policy will not be able to bring everyone together in the first place.

Likewise, the concern of cell phones hindering students’ organization is actually worsened by the cell phone policy. Before, most students used the HW app to keep track of their schedule, homework and other school related-work. Apps like these enable
organization, and with the current cell phone policy, students are prohibited from using them, which can cause disorganization for students who rely on them.

Cell phones can help students with their academic work and are essential to communication. A restrictive cell phone policy completely eliminates all these benefits. Since students continue to use other devices for non-school related purposes, the cell phone policy should be repealed.

 

                                                                                                       

 

POLITICS Left/Right/Center: The heavyweight debate

By David Arkow ’20, Jessa Glassman ’20 and Amelie Zilber ’20
The 2016 Presidential Debate at Hofstra University between main party candidates, Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton, took place on Monday, September 26. The candidates fought over issues such as tax rates, regulations, trade, foreign policy and the refugee crisis. The candidates also debated about personal issues, including personal taxes, past statements about women and african-americans and e-mails. The first presidential debate was the most watched debate of all time, with a viewership of over 84 million people.

LEFT

On Sept. 26, in one of the most anticipated and widely watched debates in modern American history, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump faced off. This marks the first of three debates they will hold before Election Day.

Clinton, the Democratic nominee, gave a crisp, polished, and if not always inspiring, professional performance. Trump, on the other hand, was aggressive and meandering, rarely landing strong points, followed by substance-less promises and hard to follow responses. The two debaters engaged with one another on topics ranging from America’s direction, achieving prosperity and security.

Clinton dominated with a commanding performance, delivering an array of cultivated answers on subjects ranging from race to the Middle East to tax policy. She was poised and assertive, which contrasted with Trump, who spattered jargon and chastised her for having prepared for the debate.

“I think Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate. And yes, I did. And you know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president,” Clinton said in the debate.

Attacking Trump, Clinton called him out for refusing to release his tax returns, stiffing contractors he hired, inciting anti-Obama conspiracy birth theories, mocking black Americans and spreading lies to make his inconsistent policies more palatable. Although occasionally hesitant, Clinton remained calm and composed, smiling as Trump berated her with falsities.

Clinton presented a strong command over the urgent issues of our nation at the debate, and it was clearly a win for her.

Much like the first debate, a win for the second debate steered in a direct path towards Clinton. A rattled and defiant Trump sought Sunday’s debate as a way to direct the conversation away from the video of him reflecting on his ability to sexually assault women that sent his presidential campaign into a tailspin. While trying to defend the comments in the video, the Republican nominee mixed qualified contrition with angry counterattacks on Clinton, pushing undecided voters even farther away from his campaign.

Trump blamed Clinton of dismissing women who have accused her husband of sexual assault and demanded that she be “ashamed” for discussing his personal affairs. However, Clinton held her head high, wearing a poker face of disinterest as Trump stayed on the attack. Even more strikingly, Trump pledged to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton’s email controversy, letting his opponent know that if he were elected, “you’d be in jail.”

Clinton’s performance was astonishing. She rarely interrupted Trump, and although she used harsh words toward the video and his candidacy, Clinton also avoided direct controversial statements. For example, she indirectly alerted viewers to take notice of the dozens of prominent Republicans who have revoked their support for Trump over the weekend.

“This is who Donald Trump is, and the question for us, the question our country must answer, is that this is not who we are,” Clinton said.

As polled by the viewers, Clinton pulled a strong win for her party in both debates.

 

RIGHT 

“[Hillary Clinton is] a typical politician. All talk. No action. Sounds good. Doesn’t work. Never gonna happen,” Donald Trump said in the first debate on Sept. 26.

With those words, Trump tried to connect with the undecided voters and was successful in portraying himself as the outside-of-politics man that can bring about real change in our country.

The Republican Presidential Nominee Donald Trump debated Democratic Nominee Hillary Clinton in two of three presidential debates. The first debate was held on Sept. 26 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY and was moderated by Lester Holt, anchor of NBC Nightly News.

For most people, the debate serves as 90 minutes to justify their decision in choosing the candidate they support. For others, it allows them to weigh the two candidates side by side and see whose policies they favor. Polls heading into the first debate showed the race narrowing, including a Washington Post/ABC News Poll that had Trump and Clinton deadlocked at 41% among registered voters.

The first debate began with the discussion of “American Prosperity,” or the economic plans of each candidate. Their policies remained the same with Trump talking tough on foreign trade, by promising to withdraw from the Trans Pacific Partnership and re-negotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. He also said he would make it easier for businesses to operate in America with fewer taxes (35 to 15%) and regulations. Clinton spoke of creating more jobs, more opportunities for the middle class and other public government programs, but failed to mention how she would accomplish her goals.

When Trump asked Clinton what her actual plans to achieve those goals were, Clinton responded, “I’ve written a book about it. It’s called ‘Stronger Together.’ You can pick it up tomorrow at the bookstore.” Her failure to respond directly to his question showed that she cannot deliver all of these positive reforms. The debate continued with topics such as race relations in America and cyber security.

For the first part of the debate, Clinton seemed to have memorized scripted responses. Trump, in his typical style, sounded more organic and natural (probably due to the lack of preparation) which came off as less eloquent than Clinton. Trump was more aggressive than Clinton in the first half when the debate focused on economic policies. He showed why he, as an outsider, can bring jobs and businesses back to America by being tough on trade, while Clinton has failed to make any major reforms with 30 years of political experience. Clinton’s strongest part of the debate was when she addressed Trump’s controversies on the Obama Birther Issue and releasing his tax returns. While these are truths about Trump and he can try to deny or justify them with complicated answers, the real matter is who would make a better president. What matters most in electing a president is who would improve our economy, national security and other issues that concern our country rather than one’s personal past.  A Time poll showed that 54% of people thought Trump won the debate and a CNBC poll found Trump winning 2 to 1 against Clinton.

The second debate was held on Sunday at Washington University in St.Louis, MO. The debate was a town hall format with pre-selected undecided voters asking the candidates questions. The debate was moderated by ABC News Martha Raddatz and CNN’s Anderson Cooper. A Qunnipac Poll had Trump trailing 5 points to Clinton due to the discovered tape of his lewd comments about women with NBC’s Today Show’s Billy Rush. This debate was not strong from either side as the first half focused on the recently discovered Trump tape. The second half focused on policies including health care, the conflict in Syria, alternate energy, refugees and relationships with Muslims in America. Overall, this debate easily could have been Clinton’s chance to knockout Trump, but she did not seem to do so, and Trump’s campaign is still alive. There is no clear winner for the second debate as there was for the first, but Trump was successful in his mission of keeping the campaign alive.

CENTER

During most presidential elections, voters are able to find a nominee that they can confidently support throughout their candidacy. In the current election, however, that has not been the case. Many citizens have been choosing to support a candidate based solely on who they believe is the lesser of the two evils. Unfortunately, the American people find themselves discussing and questioning things like the morality of the candidates, tax returns and emails rather than what is really important, like immigration, tax plans or even national security. Every political conversation devolves to a candidate’s flaw. While many wish this was not the case, the the election has surpassed the point where this could be changed. For those who plan to vote based on whom they dislike less, or for those who associate in a certain party but do not agree with that party’s candidate, choosing someone to get behind can be very difficult.

Even though topics like foreign policy, social issues and more are not discussed as much as in past elections, it is important that voters keep in mind the candidates’ points of view. Since the candidates’ lives both include scandal and moments of outrageous behavior, rather than focusing solely on who better fits a specific moral code, voters should keep it in consideration and think about political views above all. It is entirely important that voters think about who is better suited for a presidency, and that should include thinking about candidates’ qualities and how they interact with others. Issues like deleted emails, tax returns and inappropriate video-taped conversations do not belong in a presidential election. It is extremely unfortunate that these are involved and must be evaluated by the nation.

When looking at this election, the debates are supposed to be a mechanism for the voter to use to solidify their candidate choice. While this year’s debates, held on Sept. 25 and Sunday tended to start off with substantive topic discussion, they progressively became less and less educational. Both candidates fired at each other and very little important discussion took place. The candidates picked at many of their opposition’s positions and posed questions about personal information, however for the most part suspicions are never answered. It was difficult to evaluate policy and plans when the majority of the debates seemed like fighting and conversation about scandals that should not be present in our future president’s life.

Using the vice presidential debate as a tool in figuring out where to vote is also significant. While the vice president is not someone who would hold nearly as much power as the president, they still are going to be working in the Oval Office. The vice presidential candidate should be analyzed as well as their running mate just to make sure there is nothing alarming about them, or even to help pick who a voter wants to support if they can not make up their mind. Another way to help allocate a vote is to think about the supreme court. The upcoming president will also appoint another justice, so a vote for a democrat likely puts a democrat in the supreme court and the same for other parties.

Declaring support for a candidate is usually a quick choice; however, this election has not proven so. Regardless of whether or not people are decided on who they will vote for, everyone should watch the debates because it is important to see how our future president stands on certain issues.

 

The Third Wheel: Give third-party candidates a chance

By Jeanine Kim ’20

third-party-candidate

Joanna Im ’20 / Spectrum

Where They Stand

         MINIMUM WAGE      

Jill Stein: Raising the minimum wage to a living wage.

Gary Johnson: The government should eliminate all federal wage standards

GUN CONTROL 

Jill Stein: Increased restrictions from purchasing gun.

Gary Johnson: Extra regulations for only criminals and the mentally ill.

ABORTION

Jill Stein: Pro-choice and continued funding for Planned Parenthood.

Gary Johnson: Pro-choice and supports Planned Parenthood.

With election day approaching, political tensions are higher than ever. People from both the left and right are declaring themselves either for or against their traditional candidates. However, this year being an atypical political season, third party candidates are having a much greater impact than usual. Both liberals and conservatives are renouncing their past parties and declaring their support for candidates like Jill Stein of the Green party and Gary Johnson of the Libertarian party.

The Green party lies on the extreme left of the political spectrum. This party is based on the four pillars of peace, ecology, social justice and democracy. The Green party’s ideology emphasizes green politics and eco-socialism. These values highlight the idea of an ecologically sustainable world and the importance of eradicating socially destructive systems such as patriarchy and homophobia. The Green party is the fourth largest political party in the United States, with its main base being composed of liberals.

Jill Stein was a physician whose practice was based in Massachusetts. She was the Green party’s nominee in 2012 as well. After studying anthropology, psychology and sociology at Harvard, she practiced medicine for 25 years at many different hospitals and was an instructor of medicine.

The Libertarian party is at the other end of the political range. This party is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. Members of the Libertarian party believe in cultural policies like ending capital punishment and same-sex marriage. On the economical side, this party supports ending welfare and decreasing national debt. The Libertarian party generally promotes classical liberalism, which values individual freedom and limited government. This party is the third largest in the country, and its support mainly comes from conservatives.

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian party’s nominee, is a businessman from New Mexico. He attended the University of New Mexico and graduated with a degree in political science. Johnson started his own business, Big J Enterprises, which is now a multimillion dollar corporation. He also was the governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003.

With polls showing that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are unpopular candidates, both Stein and Johnson are generating a lot of attention about what their presence will do to this year’s political race.