Originating in Europe during the Middle Ages, tipping was a way for the wealthy to pay servants extra money for excellent service. Slowly, however, tipping in London became present in coffeehouses and other establishments. Eventually reaching US in the 1800s through wealthy Americans who had just discovered this custom on a journey to Europe, tipping has become increasingly popular and has firmly rooted itself in almost all establishments in the country.

Tipping has been disliked since its inception. It came with many racial and economical problems, including many white store owners wanting to profit off of black labor by replacing wages with tips. The many issues that came with tipping prompted journalists to describe it as un-American.

Additionally, labor leaders opposed it so much that it was outlawed in different states including Iowa, Tennessee and South Carolina in 1915. This controversy in the United States shows how much of an issue tipping is and has been.

One downside of tipping is that it enables employees to be paid less, preventing them from earning the minimum wage they deserve.

Employers achieve this by paying tipped workers a wage that reaches the federal minimum wage only when
combined with tips. According to the National Restaurant Association, it is estimated that every $1 increase in the federal tipped wage could cause a 6.1% decrease in employment and up to a 5.6% loss in quarterly earnings for employees. The decrease in employment due to the slow transformation of wages into tips has become another issue resulting from modern tipping standards.

Not only has tipping culture negatively affected the pay rates of employees, it has also proven to be a disservice for customers. The custom of gratitude is now a demand rather than a choice within the past decade.

Changes in the economy, such as inflation, have also contributed to why tipping has gotten out of hand. This phenomenon became more apparent during the pandemic, when many businesses began “guilt-tipping” customers to support service industry workers at a time of crisis. According to a poll from Talker Research, the average person tips $37.80 a month and $453.60 a year due to guilt-induced gratuity, with 26% feeling they are always or often forced to tip more than they would like. If someone truly wished to tip, they wouldn’t feel unhappy to do so. Additionally, roughly spending $500 a year on undeserving service shows how excessive tipping culture has gotten. Additionally, many restaurants have turned to “auto-gratuity,” which further eliminates customer decision. With this format, customers are automatically charged an additional 15-20% of their total bill regardless of the quality of service provided. Policies like these contribute to why tipping is losing its definition. It diverges negatively from being a token of appreciation to a method of forcing people to pay extra.

In conjunction with auto-tipping, “tip-inflation” is a term that describes the increase in expected tips due to inflation. Tipping is based on a certain percentage of a total cost of a product or service, and when the price for that product increases, so does the tip amount. According to financial media company Investopedia, digital payment systems with screens that display preset tipping recommendations, often start at 20%. The lowest tip amount being 20% forces someone to pay an amount they may not feel comfortable paying and contributes to extreme tipping rates.

Once a method to express gratitude, tipping has slowly become a way to unfairly profit off of people. Tipping has strayed so far from its original purpose that it has taken on a new form of consumerism, a way for businesses to increase their revenue without charging upfront. An increase in tipping culture due to inflation has caused people to feel obligated to spend their hard-earned money on service they’ve already been charged for. This method of forcing gratitude has reached a tipping point, and therefore needs to end.

Much of the overspending by teenagers stems from a pressure to buy things seen in the environment surrounding them, including classmates and social media. This increased consumerism drives students to spend a substantial amount of money to fit in. In the fall of 2021, teens spent 22% of their own income on clothing, according to a Piper Sandler’s Taking Stock With Teens survey. This causes a discrepancy between the amount most students spend on clothing and how much they should be allocating towards wardrobe shopping. According to financial planners, only around 5% of one’s income should be allocated towards buying clothes. This 17% difference highlights the inability of teens to recognize the proper ways to spend and save money, which contribute to a lack of financial awareness.

Another way overspending has become normalized are the rising prices of consumer goods. As the eleventh most expensive city in California, according to Reader’ Digest, students in Palo Alto may feel pressured to contribute to the consumerist culture and spend more than anticipated in a short period of time. Inflation significantly contributes to teens’ increased spending. According to Mercury News, fast food prices in the state of California have risen by over 7% in the last six months alone. While 7% may not feel like a large increase, small increments over a longer period of time may lead to more noticeable differences.

Many of these issues stem from an absence of financial responsibility. Countless students do not receive sufficient monetary education, contributing to a lack of motivation to save or invest their personal wealth. Additionally, teenagers rely on their parents for income assistance, whether it be a total dependency for cash or occasional borrowing. While common, this reliance is detrimental to the futures of these students, who are missing out on learning economic skills at an early age. It is important to teach children the importance of money management from an early age to encourage sustainable financial habits.

A majority of high school students do not have an official form of income, and while getting a job may seem like an obvious solution, this is often difficult for students with significant academic and extracurricular commitments. Part time employment could affect a student’s academic performance. According to a study conducted by Penn State, having a job negatively impacts scholastic achievement, creating an incapability for students to maintain their grades while acquiring a source of income conducive to their preferred spending habits.

As children grow older, more time is spent independently with one’s friends. These excursions with friends encourage spending money, but without a steady income, this lifestyle is unsuitable for individuals attempting to be money-conscious, introducing the conflict between spending time with friends without going over budget. Teenagers encourage each other to make impudent decisions, ultimately leading to a lack of thoughtful monetary consumption. CollegeData refers to this as “financial peer pressure,” in which individuals are influenced to spend a larger amount of money around friends than they normally would while alone. These negligent social influences promote an ignorance towards responsible financial habits.

As societal coercion grows with age, student spending habits increase with it. Teens often feel pressured to buy unnecessary products due to their environment and the money habits in Palo Alto. To prevent excessive consummatory behavior, students should be aware of their spending and remain money-conscious when with friends. Instead of buying a $7 coffee simply because others are, money should be saved for more important occasions. Contrary to the popular mindset within Palo Alto, not all activities need to be expensive to be fun, and not all friendships need to involve money to stay strong.

Before divulging into the negatives of this privilege, it is important to understand the depth behind it. According to Vice News, “pretty privilege” is the idea that those who are conventionally attractive, based on current societal beauty standards, are given more opportunities than others. Pretty privilege, however, is not just a concept: It is also a proven science. In a 2019 study conducted by Behavioral Science, conventionally attractive individuals have a greater acquisition of resources and are more likely to experience marital and career success. This study highlights the systemic bias favoring attractive individuals, leading to unequal opportunities. The larger implications are clear: Society’s emphasis on appearance over personal value creates imbalance and undervalues intrinsic qualities, ultimately shaping people’s life outcomes based on looks rather than abilities.

Pretty privilege quietly exists in daily life, but is most apparent and harsh in the media. A primary pop culture example of this is how British singer Adele Adkins was treated before and after her weight loss. The current societal standard of a healthy, attractive body is thin and athletic, which up until 2019, Adele did not have. Once she managed to noticeably lose weight, however, she began receiving positive feedback from the media and was publicized by magazines such as the British Vogue who were surprised by her abrupt, undocumented weight loss. Because of the sudden amount of attention she was receiving, her idle career was given a boost. Adele had been trying to release music in the 5 years prior to her weight loss, but her label had rejected her sampled music. However, after the media attention, Adele was able to release a new album of music, she had said in the November 2023 edition of the British Vogue. Adele immediately gained more success in her musical career once she gained media publicity, which she received because her body was seen as more attractive. This common theme of altering one’s body to comply with societal standards can also be seen in celebrities such as American singer Lana Del Rey and American television personality Kim Kardashian, who all received career benefits after fitting themselves into a beauty standard.

Pretty privilege also affects one’s likelihood of being hired, according to an article written in April 2024 from Business Insider. Labor and employment attorney Robert I. Gosseen told Business Insider that despite the existence of hiring laws that protect candidates against biases, whether racial, economic or due to other circumstances, employers still typically weigh attractiveness as a key factor in hiring. Because the concept of appearance over personal matters is so deeply integrated into aspects of everyday life, from what is seen in the media to the chance of being successful in a career, attractiveness becomes associated with prosperity, wealth and overall wellbeing, furthering the Halo Effect.

While pretty privilege can be seen as beneficial to the people who have it and unaffecting or neutral to those who don’t, it is extremely demeaning and degrading to both parties. Of course, the absence of beauty advantages in a person can be incredibly detrimental because it engraves the message in their head that they are unattractive and undeserving, greatly impacting their self-image and worldview. Having a negative perception on one’s own attractiveness can taint their vision of how they can contribute to or fit into a societal setting. This problematic mindset can cause feelings of inferiority, decreased confidence and limited aspirations, as they believe their efforts will be undervalued due to their appearance. Living without advantages as a reward for one’s beauty while seeing others be rewarded can make them second-guess themselves, which can be frustrating if the more attractive but less qualified individual consistently receives better treatment. It is unfair to judge one based on their appearance in a societal setting, as it undermines the true value of an individual and bases their quality on something they have little control over. This fosters a divided environment where superficial qualities are valued over true abilities and character.

This notion is shown in a study conducted by Stress Health in 2019, which concluded that perceived appearance judgments can affect an individual’s willingness to do something, as well as increase their depressive and stress symptoms.

However, pretty privilege can also be a disservice to those who experience it because it impairs their perception on the realities of life and causes a lack of awareness around biases and struggles. It also creates an illusion that their beauty will be long-lasting and that they won’t experience treatment any different in the future. In actuality, however, it is impossible to keep up with changing beauty standards for a whole lifetime. Once an individual is no longer seen as conventionally attractive, they can be thrown off balance through having to learn what life is like without a pedestal.

In conclusion, the concept of “pretty privilege” permeates various aspects of society, offering disproportionate advantages to those deemed conventionally attractive. While it may seem like a benign or even positive phenomenon for those who benefit from it, the broader implications are far more complex and damaging. This preferential treatment based on appearance not only undermines the self- esteem and opportunities of those who do not fit these beauty standards, but also creates a skewed reality for those who do. This privilege fails to prepare individuals for life’s broader challenges and reinforces superficial societal values over genuine merit. Ultimately, pretty privilege perpetuates an inequitable social structure that prioritizes appearance over substance, leading to a society where true equity and fairness remain elusive. Addressing this issue requires a conscious effort to value individuals for their inherent qualities and contributions, rather than their physical appearance.

In the case where avoiding a dangerous situation fails, it is important that students learn some form of self-defense in order to keep themselves safe. In fact, according to the data analysis company Statista, 23.6% of high school students in 2017 reported that they have been in a physical fight. In order to supply students with the physical and mental tools necessary to protect themselves, Gunn should reinstate and expand upon its old self-defense unit as a part of the required P.E. classes, drawing inspiration from martial arts programs.

The self-defense unit taught in the past focused on teaching students how to get away as quickly and safely as possible. Some years, P.E. teachers were able to invite police officers to teach students what to do if confronted by someone with a gun. The main objective of these self- defense courses was to prioritize escaping over attacking.

The self-defense unit was taught at the beginning of the second semester of a students’ freshman or sophomore
year. Although not taught for an extensive period of time, even minimal training can make a significant difference. One example of the utility of self-defense training is shown in the case of sexual harassment. According a study by the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, 62% of women surveyed had experienced some form of physical sexual harassment at some point in their life.

The prevalence of this issue shows how impactful self- defense training can be. In addition, a study by sexual assault prevention specialist Jocelyn A. Hollander found that among women in college, those who had not taken a self-defense class reported that they had been in unwanted sexual situations twice as often as women who had taken a self-defense class. The students in the study participated in a 10-week course with three hours of instruction each week, which, although longer than Gunn P.E. units, is not an especially long period of time, given the significant results, proving the efficacy of even minimal self-defense training.

By reinitiating the self-defense program, Gunn would have an opportunity to expand upon their former framework by combining practical self-defense with the currently unexplored world of martial arts. This would include teaching stances, strikes, defensive techniques, among other skills. The main difference between martial arts and self-defense is that while self-defense often focuses on easy-to-learn, general-purpose escapes and strikes, martial arts is much more of a workout and consists of more advanced and complex maneuvers. According to the Physical Education Framework for California Public Schools, which Gunn’s P.E. program complies with, the goal of physical education in schools is to teach students how to take full advantage of their bodies in athletics. Martial arts disciplines, which also fall into the category of self-defense, fits well into the Physical Education Framework since they exercise a variety of skills that are applicable to other sports and activities.

For example, many martial arts disciplines make use of stances, which require strength and mobility, both of which are important in many sports. According to a study conducted by Faculty of Sport and Physical Education at the University of Novi Sad Patrick Drid, youth who participated in martial arts programs showed a significant improvement in many areas, including cardiorespiratory fitness, speed and agility, strength, flexibility, coordination and balance. All these benefits are relevant in many other forms of movement, making martial arts a worthwhile unit.

Despite the benefits that come with martial arts, some feel trepidation at the idea of teaching it to students. This concern is valid, as many students may use martial arts skills to participate in fights, rather than to avoid them. Additionally, the risk of injury while learning deters many.

However, the value of martial arts outweighs the risks. Although teaching martial arts has inherent risks, many martial arts disciplines, such as Aikido, prioritize avoiding injuries for both the attacker and defender. Additionally, martial arts training does not need to incorporate sparring and can instead focus on slow, defensive techniques. Not only this, but physical education classes are already dangerous. A study conducted by University of Ljubljana Sports Faculty Teacher Ana Šuštarši? found that more boys were injured playing basketball at school than practicing martial arts outside of school.

Although Gunn made a reasonable decision to initially remove the self-defense unit from its curriculum during COVID-19, now that the pandemic is over, they should bring it back and consult martial arts teachers to expand the unit. By doing this, Gunn can provide all students with the training they need to defend themselves and expose all students to a new form of exercise.

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.

According to Merriam-Webster, to boycott is to “engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (a person, a store, an organization, etc.) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions.” This form of peaceful protest originates from the Ireland Land War of the 1880s, when Irish tenant farmers protested against English landlord Charles Stewart Parnell’s unfair treatment and high rent prices. Over time, however, it has evolved to become one of the most powerful protest strategies for local, national and global issues. Especially in a digital age in which protests are widely advertised, students need to be more aware of the potential impacts of boycotting and avoid performative or ineffective protests.

Differences between company and consumer values have made boycotts against consumer goods companies prevalent today. This manner of protest is successful because it leverages both economic and social influence against an organization. By inflicting reductions in revenue, boycotts force businesses to reconsider company policies to mitigate further financial damage. However, not all of these boycotts impact a company’s sales revenue, since people may publicly denounce an institution but still purchase its products out of habit. Take the recent boycott efforts with Amazon, for instance. The company has been accused of tax avoidance, poor working conditions and unethical labor practices, and as a result of the “vote with your dollar” philosophy, many people have encouraged boycotting Amazon goods. But due to the near-monopoly Amazon has on the online marketplace and society’s dependence on their unparalleled fast delivery, reliability and variety, its stocks and overall market value faced little impact from this movement.

On the other hand, companies with many competitors are most impacted by boycotts, since customers can buy substitute goods more easily. Take beer brand Bud Light: According to the Associated Press, following the April 2023 controversy regarding transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, its year-over-year sales declined 25% to 30% for several months.

Boycotts may also be ineffective if the participants aren’t the company’s target consumer. For example, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ boycotting fast-food chain KFC has had little to no financial impact to the chain since PETA is not the main consumer demographic that restaurants like KFC cater to.

Nevertheless, boycotts can wield significant damage through negative media attention and reputational damages. In the digital age, social media figures with large platforms have the power to persuade millions of people. According to LendingTree, an online marketplace nonprofit, a poll that was sent out to company consumers in 2022 reported that friends and family influence 47% of boycott decisions, politicians impact 20%, and celebrities or influencers impact 19%. 34% of Generation Z boycotters said celebrities or influencers impacted their decision to participate in a boycott. One example of this media-driven phenomenon is the boycott on Starbucks: In the early stages of the Israel-Hamas war, Starbucks Workers United, unaffiliated with the official Starbucks corporation, posted the message, “Solidarity with Palestine” on their Twitter account. Unwilling to be associated with the workers union’s stance, Starbucks released a clarifying statement and filed a lawsuit against the workers for trademark infringement of the Starbucks logo. Even though Starbucks has stated that it doesn’t directly fund the State of Israel, many people believe this boycott is a way for people to align themselves with Palestine, support an anti-violence ideology and uphold a union’s ability to express themselves politically. According to The Economic Times, Starbucks has seen a loss of $11 billion due to the recent boycotts.

Generally, successful boycotts are those that generate the most social media attention because it spurs larger collective action and allows for activists to garner more support globally. In recent years, for example, collective criticism surrounding the unethical labor practices and negative environmental impacts of Shein — a large fast-fashion clothing company — has led many to stop purchasing from the vendor. Eventually, Shein even released a statement of investigation into unsafe work conditions in some of their supplier facilities. According to data analysis company Statista, Shein saw a sales growth decrease of 2.8% in the second quarter of 2023 compared to a 341.9% increase in the first quarter of 2021. According to media analytics company Commetric, 25% of boycotts receiving national media attention won concessions from the target company.

Even though boycotts through media advocacy can be effective, they should not be relied upon as the sole tool for advocacy. As polarization increases and media becomes more saturated with campaigns, the boycotts’ effect can become diluted and less effective. Instead, this method should be used in moderation and in conjunction with other forms of protest. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, for example, went beyond boycotts to economically pressure institutions that practiced segregation: mass demonstrations such as the Selma to Montgomery march, legal struggles like Brown v. Board of Education, grassroot organizations that mobilized local leaders and individuals, media campaigns, and coalition-building with groups from diverse backgrounds to garner support. It is not any of these events in singularity that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but the power and conviction of millions of people who persisted in their beliefs.

Ultimately, a boycott alone, however effective, will not define a social movement or result in substantial, legislative change — even if it achieves considerable media attraction. It is important to remember, especially in a world that increasingly prioritizes speed and efficiency, that affecting true change is difficult: It requires tremendous effort, time, patience and faith in one’s beliefs despite setbacks, and most importantly, a willingness to fight.

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.