Climate change has been a growing controversy between the Democratic and Republican parties. Some hope to crack down on unsustainable energy practices to stop climate change from degrading Earth’s plant and animal species, while others believe it is crucial to support the oil and gas industries due to energy independence and job creation. Voters’ views on climate change will help decide the outcome of the 2024 presidential election, specially given that climate change has significantly intensified in recent years. According to the Copernicus Climate Change Serive — a European Union Earth Observation Program — 2023 was the warmest year in global records going back to 1850. Moreover, according to 2023 research conducted by the World Health Organization, 3.6 billion people already live in areas highly susceptible to climate change. As Gunn students approach voting age, their understanding of current debates will help them establish their opinions on the matter.

Concern about climate change has increased rapidly for decades. In 1970, former U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson created Earth Day to raise awareness about environmental issues. In 1988, ozone-layer depletion became an increasingly prominent issue in politics. The ozone layer protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, and its depletion contributes significantly to global warming. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency states that currently, the rate of warming is more than three times as fast as it was in 1980.

Beyond the ozone layer, Earth’s average temperatures are increasing, sea levels are rising, glaciers and ice sheets are melting and severe weather is becoming more frequent, according to the Nature Conservancy, a global environmental nonprofit. Indeed, scientists estimate that the “safe threshold” for global warming could be passed in less than a decade. Nevertheless, Democratic and Republican views differ significantly when it comes to climate change. A 2022 U.S. survey conducted by the Pew Research Center on climate change showed that amongst the respondents, 78% of self-identified Democrats and 23% of self-identified Republicans view climate change as a major threat to the nation’s well-being.

Many Democrats believe that tackling climate change is important because of the threat it poses to humanity. During his time in office, President Joe Biden — who is running for reelection this year — passed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the largest piece of federal legislation to address climate change thus far. Aiming to reduce carbon pollution, this act includes $8.8 billion in subsidies for home energy efficiency and electrification projects, which are estimated to save American homeowners up to $1 billion per year.

On the other hand, many Republicans don’t see a strong connection between human activity and climate change. In 2017, former President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement, which slowed international efforts to reduce emissions. Additionally, in 2020, Trump finalized plans that allowed mining and drilling in nearly 1 million acres of land in Utah, which were formerly off-limits. More recently, ahead of the Jan. 15 Iowa caucuses, Trump supporters showed their enthusiasm for oil and gas drilling. Along with former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Trump promised surging levels of oil and gas drilling and the removal of President Biden’s climate change policies.

These differences could prove significant in November. According to 2024 research conducted by Matthew Burgess, an associate professor at Brooklyn College, views on climate change played a significant role in whom people voted for in 2020. Burgess and his team of researchers from Vanderbilt University and the University of California, Santa Barbara used logistic regression, a machine learning model and a simulation of the Electoral College, adjusting the importance of climate change in their study. They concluded that Republicans could have gained at least a 3% swing in the popular vote if climate change was not a top priority for voters, which would have almost guaranteed them the White House in 2020. Burgess’ team also found that one-quarter of Republicans who find climate change to be an important issue voted for Biden in the 2020 election.

In 2023, the Pew Research Center found that around three-fourths of Democrats approve of Biden’s actions against climate change. A large portion of the electorate views climate change as an important issue and want to see a future where it is taken into account. These beliefs will lead people to vote for the candidate that supports their views — most likely Biden.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that Biden’s policies have universal support. Some climate advocates feel that he isn’t meeting expectations. On Sept. 18, 2023, climate activists gathered in Midtown Manhattan to protest Biden’s insufficient progress in addressing climate change. Young voters in particular used the protest to show frustration with the slow pace of political action on green issues.

The ongoing debate surrounding climate change extends beyond presidential debates — it is something that will be discussed among students, clubs, families and communities. As Gunn students observe the effects of climate change around them, they should take care to understand candidates’ positions on the issue before deciding who they support.

This oversensitivity is well intentioned. Those restricting their comments for political correctness — any measure taken to avoid offending or disadvantaging members of a particular group — often do so to respect and uplift marginalized communities. However, when taken to an extreme, this approach often does the opposite: When people push for extreme political correctness, to the point where they censor and restrict ideas, they limit the potential for meaningful conversations, promote binary thinking and exacerbate polarization.

Although inclusivity increases when people feel safe and respected, it also drops when they fear challenging ideas. For instance, trigger warnings — originally intended to help vulnerable individuals prepare for and avoid traumatizing material — have since become common online, even in arguably unnecessary contexts, such as discussions about racial discrimination or instances of hateful language.

In fact, in an Atlantic article, author and attorney Jill Filipovic writes that trigger warnings often seem to be “more about emphasizing the upsetting nature of certain topics than about accommodating people who had experienced traumatic events.” The effect of trigger warnings has evolved into labeling controversial and uncomfortable topics as “dangerous.” This shift promotes ignoring distressing issues rather than learning to listen and work through them.

Additionally, political correctness makes differentiating between hate speech and controversial opinions difficult. By prioritizing limiting offense over understanding different viewpoints, oversensitivity can further create polarization and conflict.

Amid the Israel-Hamas war, for example, the conflation of hate speech and controversial speech has become especially visible: Criticism toward Israel is sometimes taken as antisemitism, and pro-Palestinian points of view are sometimes quickly classified as pro-Hamas. Such generalizations erase layers of important nuance in a complex geopolitical conflict, precluding understanding on both sides and exacerbating polarization. Thus, even if people disagree with certain opinions or find them to be hurtful, they must remain respectful toward one another and listen with the intent of thinking critically about the issue at hand.

In higher education, political correctness has made college students — who will play key roles in shaping the future of the U.S. — afraid to engage in meaningful discourse. According to a September 2021 survey by Intelligent, an online magazine serving students, 52% of college students say they “always” or “often” hold back from expressing views on political and social issues in classrooms out of concern for being shamed or other potential consequences.

College campuses are meant to be bastions of free speech, allowing students to engage with ideologically complex material with thoughtfulness and empathy. If students feel unable to voice opinions regarding controversial topics, they cannot learn. Moreover, these habits only become more entrenched later in life, discouraging students from advocating controversial or unpopular views beyond school as well.

Ultimately, oversensitivity to the point of extreme political correctness restricts discourse more than it protects people. Respect toward one another shouldn’t need to come at the expense of intellectual inquiry and necessary — if uncomfortable — conversations. When people use their differences in belief as an invitation to better understand themselves and others, they improve trust and their relationships. Nuanced discourse, built on dismantling extreme political correctness, renders a tremendous service to society. It is the first step toward a more inclusive world.

Before working to combat misinformation, it is essential to understand what political polarization truly is, as well as how social media has contributed to it. Britannica describes political polarization as “extreme and long-lasting partisanship in a two-party system that results in the division of a country’s entire population into two diametrically opposed political camps.” According to social studies teacher Laurel Howard, as this polarization intensifies, the incumbent party’s followers behave in a more autocratic manner to stay in power. On the other side, opponents are more willing to resort to undemocratic means to undermine their potence. Consequently, those on the opposite extremes of the political spectrum tend to be less likely to work with one other on bipartisan efforts. This is relevant now more than ever: A Pew Research Center analysis from 2022 found that, on average, Democrats and Republicans are ideologically farther apart today than at any time in the past 50 years. This dynamic can severely damage democracy and encourage citizens to become blindly loyal to their parties.

In the U.S., extreme points of view have been easily disseminated on social media in the digital age. This contributes to the widening gap between political parties by providing avenues for extreme groups to circulate fake news. In the #pizzagate conspiracy, the false theory was promoted on social media through the use of apps such as Reddit and Facebook. More recently, far-right groups helped organize the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, over social media sites.

Social media algorithms also make it easier for the average citizen to confirm their own political beliefs, rather than explore others, thus facilitating further polarization. These algorithms personalize the content that users see on the app based on their past behavior and interactions, using previously liked or shared posts to continue to recommend similar or related content that the user might want to engage with. This can lead to a bubble (or echo-chamber) effect in which users are only exposed to content that reinforces their beliefs, contributing to intense confirmation bias. Interacting with different points of view necessitates strong media literacy skills so students can draw their own opinions. Interacting with others who hold diverse perspectives, sentiments and experiences can extend our knowledge, shape our viewpoints and enhance our societal connections. However, if individuals opt out of these conversations, instead isolating themselves from those with different political beliefs, it only fosters and encourages division.

In a 2021 survey conducted by research foundation Reboot, 27% of respondents said social media made them “less tolerant” of people who have opposing points of view. When people fail to interact with those with opposing viewpoints, they lose an essential part of their critical thinking abilities. As future—or current—voters, it is crucial that Gunn students learn how to be responsible and knowledgeable citizens who are able to engage with those that may have beliefs differing from their own.

A significant part of this issue is learning to identify the information’s credibility. There are several ways to assess a piece of information’s credibility, whether it be an Instagram post discussing recent news or a retweet of an article. First, simply slow down: When skimming through an article, one may forget to be analytical and critical of the writing and might blindly follow disinformation. It is crucial to determine whether the information is echoed in multiple sources. For example, if one finds something on social media, they should look to see if there is similar content in other reputable sources, such as the Associated Press or perhaps a textbook. Additionally, people tend to get pulled in by statistics that lack context. For instance, if a news source states that 20% of people are affected by an issue, take a moment to check the subtext and see how many people were surveyed. 20% of a small sample of the population is different from 20% of the entire population. Put the statistic into perspective. Finally, it is important to assess word choice in the media. When reading the information, search for inflammatory words, specifically adjectives, that may imply biases and specific narratives that the source is trying to push. Word choice, specifically in regard to adjectives, can shift the entire meaning of a text.

These steps may seem minuscule, yet their impacts are great. Making these efforts to improve media literacy can stop the mindless resharing of the type of disinformation that pushes our society further and further apart.

President Biden’s decision was neither unexpected nor unprecedented: former President Jimmy Carter withdrew both American athletes and diplomats from attending the 1980 Moscow Olympics, and the Obama administration opted to only send lower-profile officials to the 2014 Sochi games due to political differences. The United States’ boycott of the Beijing Olympics will be a blend of these past approaches: while athletes will still be allowed to participate, no American political officials will be in attendance.

Although the decision received bipartisan support, some, such as Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, have called for a boycott on a larger scale. “The President has once again opted for a half measure when bold leadership was required,” Cotton said. “The U.S. should fully boycott the ‘genocide games’ in Beijing.”

On the other hand, Social Studies Instructional Lead Jeffrey Patrick holds concerns regarding the unintended consequences of a full boycott. “Given the nature of some sports, you only have one opportunity to participate in the Olympics,” he said. “I understand why politicians might be making this point, but I sympathize with the athletes.”

Meanwhile, U.S. allies such as Australia, Canada and the U.K. have also announced diplomatic boycotts. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) President Thomas Bach reiterated the organization’s system of political neutrality. “By not commenting on political issues, you’re not taking a side,” he said in a press conference. “This is the mission of the IOC. Otherwise, we could not manage to accomplish the mission of the Games: to bring and unite the world.”

Amid continuing disputes, social studies teacher Laurel Howard noted the difficulty of predicting the effect of a Beijing 2022 boycott. “We don’t have a lot of data points on Olympic boycotts and their effectiveness, so it’s hard to tell what’s going to happen,” she said.

However, historical examples—the 1980 Olympics, for instance—can provide insight into the effect of boycotts. “In the 1980 Olympics, the boycotting countries were protesting an invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union,” Howard said. “The Soviet Union did eventually crumble, but there were a lot of other factors. The fall only happened seven years later.”

According to U.S. Foreign Policy teacher Tara Firenzi, New Zealand’s rugby team toured South Africa before the 1976 Olympics despite the United Nations’ calls for a sporting embargo due to South Africa’s apartheid abuses. While countries pressured the IOC to ban New Zealand from the 1976 Montreal Olympics, it refused to do so. That year, 29 predominantly African nations did not attend the games. “On the issue of apartheid, it was good that the abuses in South Africa were taken seriously,” Firenzi said. “It forced the country into an isolated position in terms of its stance on its discrimination and deeply oppressive policies. There could have been more done beyond the boycott, but the Olympics were a strong message to send in the case of extreme wrongs.”

While previous boycotts have each carried unique political contexts, one trend that most agree upon is that Olympic protests carry more symbolism than impact. “If the goal is to draw more attention to this issue, I think it’s absolutely doing that,” Howard said. “If the intended effect is stopping China from carrying out a genocide, I’m not sure how far a symbol can go.”

Senior Neha Muthiah, the Editor-in-Chief of The Chariot—Gunn’s social and political magazine—pointed to more meaningful actions that the United States could take. “The U.S. cannot influence China’s opinion, but our leaders can learn how to cooperate in matters requiring the cooperation of the world’s giants,” she said. “Messages like the boycott erode the possibility of cooperation without any projected improvement in China’s human rights abuses.”

Patrick even questions the morals behind the U.S. justifying their Olympic boycott. “The U.S. prison population as a percentage of its entire population is larger than that of any other country, including China’s,” Patrick said. “When you also look at the disproportionate racial makeup of our prison population, it’s hard to make the argument that it is color-blind. I think it’s disingenuous to protest other countries’ practices instead of reforming our own policies to serve as a model.”

Ultimately, one must place this Olympic boycott within its historical context to truly understand intent and ramifications. “Rather than addressing China’s human rights violations, the U.S. is more interested in trying to demonstrate to the world that we are stronger and more powerful than China,” Firenzi said. “The optics are extremely important at a moment where China is a genuine threat to the hegemony that the United States has enjoyed for the last few decades.”

Muthiah looks to what the Olympic boycott reveals about global relations. “Western countries conduct massive violations of human rights given that they directly or indirectly participate in wars,” she said. “There’s scrutiny in the analysis of China’s human rights positions not afforded to the western world. While China certainly has committed violations, we selectively ignore the wrongdoings of our allies.”

The Beijing Olympics will officially commence on Feb. 4, 2022.

Kramer began as an intern for multiple Stanford professors, completing research focusing on health policy. As a result, he received a rare opportunity. In Jan. 2020, Kramer flew across the country to the United States capital for an internship at the White House. “I had the privilege of working with two economically involved people; one was the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, and another one was the [Council of Economic Advisor] CEA chair,” Kramer said. “At the White House, I would attend hearings and briefings. I got to see virtually everything that happens at the White House.”

After his unique experience, Kramer co-founded an organization called Institution for Youth in Policy (IYP), a governmental nonprofit. While youth voices cannot be heard by ballot, Kramer’s organization gives them a stage through social media. “Political Youth is a platform for youth to share their opinions, and with our accounts, we basically give them a platform to do so,” Kramer said. “Our mission is to try to highlight youth voices and to bridge the gap for self-partisan politics.”

IYP has two TikTok accounts, one with 35,000 followers and another with 25,000 followers, both devoted to youth in politics. Besides their social media presence, the organization has eight different chapters in the U.S., with one in Palo Alto, one in Seattle, three in Texas and two in Washington, D.C.

Despite having a primarily social media based organization, Kramar is concerned over the lack of research people do before posting. “In D.C., I went to a fairly bipartisan school, and the students were 50% Republican and 50% Democrat,” he said. “People felt that unless they have actually done research or written a policy piece on it, it was not worth posting. I think it’s important to educate yourself before posting on social media.”

With the school year starting, Kramer chartered a new political club at Gunn. “The Civil and Political discourse club has two sponsors: Political Youth and Real Talk,” he said. “In partnership, we have guest speakers come in, and we run sessions that switch off with each other: one session being educational and one discussion-based session. Through the club, we try to promote bipartisanship.”

Kramer believes that a club community that hears all voices, despite one’s party or personal beliefs, is crucial. “Gunn is mainly a Democratic school, and because of that, there are many suppressed Republican voices,” Kramer said. “If it’s a Republican school in Texas, there is going to be a lot of Democratic suppressed voices. I think that is when we should try to come together and bridge the gap.”

A club with diverse political opinions is bound to have intense arguments, but Kramer believes there is beauty in the disputes.“I think it is healthy to have disagreements all the time,” he said. “My co-founder and I disagree on virtually everything, but we love to talk it out, and we love to debate about it. It is like a symphony playing music together [people] are all playing different parts, but in the end, it all comes together.”

Kramer emphasizes that the ideas of compromising and working through disagreements are essential human skills that should be practiced. “I have been a part of Politics 4.0, which is when one Marxist, one Leftist, one Libertarian and one Republican come together, and you try to find the middle ground on one topic,” Kramer said. “I think that is what the government should do because, ideally, that is how the government should work. Currently it works more like Republicans are going to do their bill, Democrats do their bill, and whoever has more power ends up passing the bill.”

Kramer is currently senior manager for Rishi Kumar, a congressional candidate in California’s 18th District. His experience working on a political campaign has helped him gain a better perspective on how candidates should reflect both personal views and future prospects. “I actually disagree with my candidate on quite a few things, but I believe he is better for Silicon Valley than the other candidate,” he said. “Helping someone’s campaign helped shape how I see politics work from an internal view, by seeing issues from my candidates viewpoint.”

While some may not want to involve themselves in politics, Kramer highlights that exercising suffrage rights is crucial because it affects each and every person. “You are affected by politics on a daily basis,” he said. “Public school itself is political. Some people want to privatize education. Your drinking water is affected by politics; your city government is affected by politics, the roads, even your home. You live in a capitalist based nation, and politics are bound to affect you no matter where you live.”

Kramer’s experience in politics has inspired him to run a campaign himself in years to come. “I’m sadly not born in America, so I can’t run for president, and I don’t have the money either,” he said. “But I do see myself at some point running for either a local position, or to be on county council. In the greater scope, maybe eventually running for Congress.”

Rapper Kanye West has been one of the most outspoken musical artists. Starting just after the 2016 presidential elections, West openly supported Donald Trump and claimed that he would run for president in the 2020 elections. It is unclear whether he will follow through with this presidential bid, but it still caused a huge, unnecessary distraction during the elections. He continues to voice his political opinions on Twitter.

Many artists have diehard fans who listen to and regurgitate everything that they say. Many young fans can become brainwashed by these singers, causing them to not think for themselves and blindly follow celebrities. Artists can use their wealth and fame to influence the population, stopping many voters from thinking for themselves.

Moreover, many artists spread their influence over social media, where often they have millions of followers. These sites have no way to verify the information being spread, so the opinions can often be very biased or even based on false information.

In one case, Kanye West tweeted about a very controversial topic: “We will provide jobs for all who are free from prisons as we abolish the 13th amendment.” The 13th amendment is the amendment passed by Abraham Lincoln that abolished slavery. Later on, he clarified that he actually wanted to make positive reforms to it, not abolish it. In this incident, by speaking his political opinions through Twitter, he caused outbursts across the internet, spreading contentious opinions while hurting his own reputation at the same time.

Artists across the world have been speaking up about politics, but by doing so, they are hurting others more than they are helping them. Voters have the ability to think for themselves, and celebrities shouldn’t be getting involved in issues that don’t directly pertain to them.

On Nov. 8, 2016, the nation watched as Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton by 77 electoral votes, becoming the 45th president of the United States. Trump’s victory empowered both ends of the political spectrum to take action to further their beliefs, and, a year later, these actions are continuing to prevail. The results of the election created a rift between political parties and their voters, and many expressed feelings of shock, elation or dismay. As the country became further divided between triumph and turmoil, individuals and groups with strong political views conveyed their beliefs, whether through violence or peaceful protests.

Although over a year has passed since the 2016 election, students are still voicing their political beliefs amidst a newly changed political landscape.

Women’s Marches Around the World

One of the most attended peaceful protests was the 2017 Women’s March that took place on Jan. 21, in Washington D.C., a day after President Trump’s inauguration. According to The Washington Post, there were over 653 recorded marches in the United States and at least 261 marches abroad. In Washington D.C. alone, over one million people were estimated to have marched to advocate for issues including women’s rights, reproductive rights, health rights, health care reform and immigration reform. A Women’s March occurred in both San Francisco and San Jose on the same date. The impact of political protests like these was extensive, earning online responses from politicians such as President Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders, while fostering a volatile political environment across the nation.

With the prevalence of these nearby political events, many students had the opportunity to participate. Senior Madison Mosier attended the San Francisco Women’s March and felt that the experience helped her connect with other people who shared similar political views. “This Women’s March was so important because it was a compilation of a lot of people who felt [angry and frustrated], and it was really great to see other people outside of my family that were having the same emotions and reactions, and were doing something productive with [them],” Mosier said.

The enthusiasm of the San Francisco Women’s March participants did not falter, despite the day’s unfavorable conditions. “It was pouring down rain…we were using [our signs] to shield our heads until they got soaked through but everyone was still out there—no one went home,” Mosier said. “Cheering in the rain was a really interesting experience too [because it created an atmosphere] of coming together with all these strangers in the pouring rain for a common cause. It felt really amazing to be a part of such a huge group.”

Current Involvement

Junior Arjun Prabhakar is currently on Anna Eshoo’s Student Advisory Board, where students lead discussions to decide on an overarching topic for the board, choose specific topics to write policy papers on and present them to the congresswoman. “Some examples of papers would be education reform, gender equality proposals, wind energy subsidies and government support,” he said.

In addition, Prabhakar is passionate about the relationship between technology and public policy, a topic that includes internet privacy, net neutrality and the responsibility of social media companies to regulate their sites. “People often focus on the innovation side of technology, but the rapid rise in innovation has built a demand for effective public policies that protects privacy and security,” he said.

Junior Jenna Kaplan, a supporter of the Democratic Party, has been involved in phone banking, a campaign strategy in which volunteers call local, potential voters to discuss a campaign and its candidates in order to increase voter turnout and expand the voter base. Kaplan is also part of the Young Political Activist panel, a group that she moderates for the Mid-Peninsula Media Center. “Phone banking has been my greatest contribution to political activity,” she said. “Local political activism is something that I am looking forward to contributing more towards through participation in voter registration drives and information sessions.”

Importance of Voice

According to social studies teacher Laurel Howard, it is important for students to also be politically active in order to make sure that they are heard and not overlooked. “Students inherit the world that is being shaped and created now, so [their] voice should be heard just as much as anyone else’s,” she said.

Although the majority of the Gunn community has not reached voting age, Howard feels that students should take advantage of their rights when they turn 18. “When I was just old enough to vote, I missed a small county election, and my mom, who had spent the day volunteering at a poll station, was furious with me,” she said. “She helped me to see that the ability to actively participate in politics as a woman is something that so many women before me fought for, and by not using my right to vote, I was disrespecting those sacrifices.”

Kaplan agrees that student voice is important and needs to be further represented in order for students to be able to enact change. “I think that the government and who is legislating and judging is too important to be left to everybody else,” she said. “We are supposed to be a country governed by and for the people, and I believe that is impossible to achieve unless everyone, regardless of whether you can vote or run, participates to the best of their ability. Being politically active is also a great way to learn more about what goes on in every aspect of politics, which is beneficial for fun facts as well as for greater understanding of the systems that run the country.”

Social studies teacher Anna Ward emphasizes the impact of students exercising their right to share their beliefs through participation in political activities. “I think it’s really important that we get out and speak, because the moment we’re silent, bad things can happen,” she said.

Campus Opportunities

A multitude of resources are available for students to get involved in politics, according to Howard. “Sooner than you think, students in high school today will be the responsible adults [who] are making decisions. Why not try to prepare for that now?” Howard said.

On campus, one opportunity available for students to share their political perspectives is the Junior State of America club, which focuses on civic education, and is held every Thursday at lunch in V-25. Junior Collin Jaeger has been involved in this club since its formation. “I go to [this club], which is new on campus,” Jaeger said. “It’s pretty cool because you can have a lot of political discussions and debate there.” The Junior State of America is a national organization that hosts thousands of clubs across the country, advocating for student participation in politics. According to their official website, students plan and execute all of the conventions and activities available to those who join the club on their own.

Jaeger hopes that the impact of his work will extend further than himself, encouraging those around them to become politically active as well. “Especially [with] people who may be afraid to express their views…I often try to approach people with political questions or insights that will get them to speak their mind about politics and whatever they’re feeling on the subject,” Jaeger said.

Moving Forward

Although she is not teaching government this year, Howard believes that political involvement can be linked with independent thinking, which she tries to encourage in the classroom. “I try to build critical thinking and a healthy sense of skepticism into my history curriculum,” she said. “It’s so important that we evaluate everything we read carefully and that we don’t take something as fact just because it appears to be written in an intelligent way.”

Regardless of the country’s political status, Prabhakar believes that the fundamental role of citizens in the functioning of government warrants political involvement. “I understand that everyone has a lot of tasks and responsibilities in their life, but democracy goes as far as  people take it, so everyone has an obligation to be politically active,” he said.

Similarly, Kaplan believes that all change starts with political participation, regardless of how insignificant it may seem. “Political activity is the backbone of our country, and as the represented in a representative democracy, we must make sure that we keep it strong,” she said. “Local-level, state-level and federal-level decisions are all shaped by the voices of those who vote, those who submit bills to or lobby their representative and those who help and encourage others. Political participation is the way to claim your voice.”