Freedom is a common word. Politicians slam it down before applause breaks, speakers enunciate it before a pause, philosophers predict the future with it, and writers end their long, syntax-heavy sentences with it. Freedom is used for its strength and for its intrigue. Freedom incites an appeal to the human condition, and to be unrestricted–who wouldn’t want freedom?. Despite this, we have yet to agree upon what it means or what it takes to achieve it, so forever since it’s been a word to conjure up images of a bald eagle clasping an American flag, lacking clarity and proper definition.

America’s freedom originated from one core idea: freedom from the British and taxation without representation. Following the American Revolution, it seemed inappropriate to build a government based on the traditional monarchical structure responsible for the disagreement. So, these newly deemed Americans pursued the interpretation of “freedom” stemming from the Enlightenment whilst structuring their government. Then, freedom was defined as opposition, or simply an alternative, to absolute monarchy, separation of powers, natural rights, equality, and free-market capitalism. Already, freedom began to lose its one-dimensional drive as the conversation fell victim to a variety of individual inputs.

Debates sparked in regards to the ideals of government and how they should be interpreted. For example, slavery is clearly a violation of “equality” and “natural rights”, as slaves were not treated the same as their white counterparts and did not possess the same liberties. However, wealthy plantation owners rebutted that the slaves were “property” and that this free labor fueled their profits. In fact, the debate was so divisive that the founding fathers postponed it for future generations to sort out, effectively postponing freedom. A more successful instance of adherence to these ideals was when a newspaper published an opinion article criticizing the governor of Massachusetts at that time. The publisher was initially arrested before the Supreme Court ruled that he was within his rights to do so, tying his actions to the principle of “opposition to absolute monarchy”.

These instances were already occurring in the late 18th-century, mere years after the United States gained independence, representing how rapidly freedom became unclear and divided. Since then, we’ve codified many of these disagreements into amendments of the Constitution. This hasn’t stopped the divergence between freedom’s varying interpretations. With modernization, words and messages have been allowed to spread with increasing efficiency. In fact, this efficiency has only complicated the definition of “freedom” by higher individualization of the concept.

Throughout the 20th century, movements for women’s suffrage, civil rights, and queer rights have grasped onto this valuable word. For activists, protesters, and supporters, the word represented a strong belief that related to a cause they were proud of, something that they’d been fighting for, and something that could finally give them the equality they seek. The word became almost a motto for these movements, as the “I Have a Dream” speech featured it 21 times. However, while these movements achieved great traction and accomplishments throughout the 1900s, today’s definition of “freedom” does not always encompass them, representing a continuation of these battles today.

It seems that individuality plays a greater role in the word’s meaning with increased media and the internet presence in our lives. According to a project conducted by The Colombian, a newspaper from Clark County, Washington, people define freedom as everything from safety from racial prejudice, to better treatment of homeless individuals. Essentially, the word’s meaning has continued to take on a more personal definition, as freedom began to relate to people and their problems, diverging yet again from organized movements of like-minded individuals to more opinionated, personal takes.

While the continued division of the word carried it from the wigged, constitutional authors to the hands of those who held freedom in their palms, who cherished it, and who relied on the word’s significance for hope — who wouldn’t want freedom? — freedom eventually found its way to organized politics and politicians.

With the prevalence of organized movements and reform, plus an immense amount of personal opinions, it’s overwhelming to sort through these varied definitions of freedom and identify what it really means. Hence, for the word, political parties act as planter boxes. The soil is the freedom; it is the foundation of these parties, the center of their origin. The politicians, though, are the various seeds, sprinkled throughout the planter boxes haphazardly. These politicians vary greatly, having different experiences and backgrounds. But although it seems that the freedom is the same, and the politicians are all equally different, there seems to be no difference, right? Well the only factor that really changes the meaning of freedom and the sprouting of these politicians is the color of their planter boxes, red or blue.

Essentially, while freedom is the basis of both parties, they have such vastly different interpretations of its meaning. Democrats can state freedom as the ability to have financial stability and security, and that all members of society should have these freedoms as well. On the other hand, Republicans can define freedom as a free-market economy and a lack of government involvement in incomes, as reflected by lower taxes. Additionally, the individual freedoms discussed earlier also play a major role in a party’s platform. Politicians pull these personal beliefs from deep inside and present it to their audience as a blooming, gorgeous flower. Some GOP politicians can present the right to open carry, while others may not propose so. Some Democrat politicians can raise the continuous issue of LGBTQ+ rights.

While freedom is a common word, it’s by no means an easy word to define. Its interpretation has changed so vastly over the course of this country, continuing to divide and become gradually more complicated. Ultimately, though, it’s a perfect embodiment of the development of our country and the functioning of our political system today.

Written by Hayden Bouza & Leo Nevezhin

Climate change is a serious problem that’s been developing for decades, and has negatively affected regions worldwide. And while those effects can be discussed for the entirety of this article, it’s best to understand how climate change impacts us locally and how we can alleviate its effects.

Climate change stems from an increase of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere (such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) that trap heat and increase global temperatures. These gases began building up during the industrial revolution at an increased rate, and have continued to climb at a rate proportional to our modernization. In fact, data shows that last summer was hotter than the Dust Bowl.

However, how does this impact Westchester County? Well, increased temperatures lead to faster evaporation and greater heat exchanges, making hurricanes more dangerous. In fact, Westchester County is one of the most vulnerable counties in the state, declaring eight flooding disasters between 2011 and 2019.

So, when Hurricane Ida struck Mamaroneck, citizen accounts and statistics alike, reflect that the flooding was the worst in living memory.

Bronxville too, has seen its fair share of turmoil, despite being located approximately five miles awy from the nearest body of water. When water levels in the Bronx River increase following hurricanes or storms, flash flooding occurs, affecting the Bronxville School, the Bronx River Parkway, and many houses located near the winding river.

Well can we do to prevent the increasingly destructive and unstoppable force facing our county? Westchester County has local climate groups that aim to educate, mitigate, and provide funding to those often affected by the effects of climate change, such as the Federated Conservationists of Westchester County, and Sustainable Westchester. You can donate to or get involved in groups like these to benefit your county and community.

Additionally, it’s important to educate yourself on the kinds of policies that exist in Westchester County, and what is up for debate. For example, the Clean Water, Clean Air, And Green Jobs Bond Act will be up for vote on November 8th, 2022. The act will create 100,000 jobs and improve New York State’s environmental policy on multiple levels. You can also keep in touch in regards to what environmental policies are being discussed in the legislature, and urge your local representatives to act in favor of protecting your county, state, and country through calling or emailing their office.

It’s imperative that climate change be acted upon with as much urgency as possible and taking the first step isn’t as hard as it seems.

Written by Leo Nevezhin and Shreyasi Paudel

Legendary in the world of American iconography is the hardened policeman, ready to jump into the perils of a fight and become a sweat-glistened hero, stopping at nothing to keep everyone safe. But increasingly, another story has been shoved into the forefront: the deeply American plight of school shootings. Snapshots of kids hiding under desks with their light-up Sketchers have caused nothing short of a public safety crisis.

So what better way to combat an American symbol of danger than with an American symbol of safety?

WHAT ARE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS?

Before we get into the recent effects on our community, however, it’s important to take a step back and talk about the history of policing in schools.

School Resource Officers (SROs) are specialized law enforcement personnel specifically deployed in K-12 school districts. While the program began in the 1950s, and expanded due to school shootings in the 1990s, it really began to take on a new meaning and significance following the 2013 Sandy Hook massacre.

Then-president Obama signed into law a bill that allocated $150 million for school resource officers, psychologists, social workers, and counselors. States and counties began using the resources almost immediately. In Fairfax, Virginia, for example, police were added to 139 elementary schools for a whopping $20 million per year.

WHY AREN’T THEY HELPING?

However, SROs are greatly more harmful than effective. Firstly, the presence of SROs usually creates a sense of distrust, as officers often punish and arrest students for childish behavior. Students also begin to view officers negatively due to these early experiences. The factor is also perpetuated by the fact that SROs are usually placed in diverse, underserved schools and not in white, affluent schools, even though the latter has been historically more prone to shootings.

Moreover, hiring more police is simply the wrong approach. While an increase in SROs is not related to a decrease in school shootings, states with decreased mental health resources, such as Texas, have been shown to have more shootings. Hence, the proper way to prevent or decrease the likelihood of shootings is to increase the availability of school counselors and psychologists, as well as other mental health resources.

WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW?

Following the shooting in Uvalde, states have increased SRO presence. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has been advocating for hiring more SROs, and Kentucky signed a new law requiring the addition of hundreds of SROs before the school year begins. But, the impacts of Uvalde have been felt in our community too.

WESTCHESTER

We’ve seen police increases right here in Westchester at schools like Hendrick Hudson, New Rochelle, Sleepy Hollow, etc. In the affluent suburban bubble of Westchester, it’s easy to see the increase in police as just another way the white picket fences gate us from danger. However, when we have the statistics to back the fact that SROs aren’t actually effective, the increase in SROs isn’t so much an instillation of safety as it is the taking away of funds and resources from actual preventative measures for school violence so certain demographics can feel safer. The existence of SROs means that during times of mental health crises at schools, kids have reported extra SROs being called in rather than a trained mental health professional. SROs in schools like Hendrick Hudson are presented as being there for “emotional support” despite there being actual guidance counselors at the school that more energy and attention could be directed to instead.

The most obvious counterpoint to this is that even if we didn’t have SROs take over a psychologist’s job, they’d still be useful for school shootings drills. But SROs at drills aren’t doing anything that couldn’t be done by another faculty advisor; banging a door and telling it to “open up” in school shooter cosplay does not require special skill. At Edgemont Junior Senior High School when a police officer was brought in to talk about protecting yourself during a shooting, the advice he gave was to “fight back using whatever you can,” even if that “whatever you can” was an empty water bottle against an AR-15. This is, of course, ridiculous, because throwing an empty bottle at an active shooter is likely to get you killed.

The truth is, the majority of SROs cannot give advice on school shootings, cannot address the underlying mental health conditions that lead to school shootings, and often cannot even handle a school shooting when it’s happening. Uvalde had an SRO on site when the shooting happened; plenty of shootings have happened at schools with easy access to the police department. Yet these shootings still happened because of incompetence. The increase in police at Westchester schools is Weschesterians buying into the idealized image of the police rather than the statistics and anecdotes of what they actually are. Real change requires a structural upheaval that isn’t just bringing a cop in to smile at middle schoolers in the hallway. Maybe that’s not as pretty as the facade of serenity the existence of police gives to white, middle-upper class suburbanites, but it’s certainly a lot more useful.