Chasing the Great American Solar Eclipse

Some people spend their lives chasing eclipses, and some have yet to see their first. Thousands of both categories flocked to remote areas of Kentucky on August 21, 2017. The prospect of seeing the “Great American Solar Eclipse” in its path of totality surpassed any wonder, and any desire for a gas station within 50 miles.

Eclipse visibility cut clear across the United States, the moon’s shadow crossing from Oregon to South Carolina. The New York Times reports that an estimated “88% of American adults—about 215 million people—watched the solar eclipse, either in person or electronically.” For the record, that’s twice the number of people who watched the Superbowl last year.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53c358b6e4b01b8adb4d5870/t/53ee9b23e4b086379f963f1c/1408146282068/Eclipse2017_USA

The path of totality is the strip of land along which the total solar eclipse is visible. The eclipse becomes less and less “total” the further you stray from this path. This has to do with the relative motion of the Earth and Moon, as illustrated below.

My dad and I planned out our own trip months in advance. We embarked on what came to be called “Vic’s Epic Eclipse Road Trip” from New Jersey to Hopkinsville, Kentucky—in a Prius, no less. Unfortunately, weather conditions can make or break an observing event, and the forecast was not looking so bright. The weatherman predicted a substantial amount of cloud coverage along most of the path, much to the dismay of many astronomers.

The place we chose to view the eclipse was called Hopkinsville, Kentucky. This town was called Eclipseville, USA because totality lasted longest there. The morning of the event, we left from our hotel 5 hours in advance to make sure we’d make it to our destination, 40 minutes away, in time. We arrived at a park containing hundreds of canopy tents and telescopes. This odd conglomeration of astronomy enthusiasts waited on the field for hours. There was a loud cheer at the moon’s “first contact” with the sun. For most of us, it was the first time we’d seen the sun as anything other than a perfect circle. We waited in anticipation as the moon crept across the orange disk, nervously repositioning our lenses. The air became incrementally cooler, and, while the sun appeared to be of the same brightness, the surrounding sky grew dimmer. Finally, the moon completely concealed the sun, and a roar erupted from the crowd.

“YEEEEAAAAA-HAAAH,” I yelled.

The entire sky went dark, and we could see the stars. The crickets started chirping as we turned around to see a 360-degree sunset. The eclipse looked like a jet-black disk emanating delicate spikes of light. A flock of birds broke their formation and scattered, confused into the day/night. We were standing in the shadow of the moon.

As the sun slowly emerged for the second time that day, the tree leaves functioned as thousands of pinhole cameras, projecting the image of the crescent sun onto the grass. The sounds of tens of thousands of car horns faded into the background, and for those few minutes, we stood in absolute awe.

The next total solar eclipse visible in the US will happen in 2024, and should pass right over New York. Be sure to catch it.

Published by Deerfield Academy's science journalism magazine, Focal Point.

On Censorship and Safe Spaces in Schools

The idea of safe spaces has been under attack since they were first formed in the mid-60’s, but this has been most apparent following the presidential victory of Donald Trump. As I understand it, a safe space is a designated community where marginalized students can be guaranteed a sense of safety from both intentional and unintentional hostility. However, many students and adults question academic institutions’ right to censor their words, citing first amendment rights. But instead, the question we should be asking is: what would schools be like without censorship?

The notion of a safe space is one form of censorship. Safe spaces on academic campuses are meant to be a place or community where marginalized students can feel confident they will not be exposed to discrimination, harassment, or any threats thereof. But lately there has been pushback, from students and academic institutions alike, about the idea of safe spaces. For instance, the Dean of Students of the University of Chicago recently issued a statement to the incoming freshmen class denouncing safe spaces in particular.

I recognize the faults in considering an entire campus a safe space. It is, of course, important to promote tolerance among the broader community, but the limitations of a “campus-wide safe space” can inhibit healthy dialogue. If there are intolerant undertones to someone’s argument, those should be exposed in a healthy and productive way. Some people don’t know the extent to which their words affect others; some have wholly innocent intentions, but tend to trip over their words; some don’t know why what they say is unacceptable. In this sense, I think it important to allow students the freedom to express themselves while promoting a sense of mutual respect about these types of interactions.

Of course, not all conversation will be held respectfully, but school is the ideal place to learn how to do just that. Education comes in many forms. The primary purpose of school is to educate and inform us such that we can function in society. Along with a factual understanding of the world, schools are also expected to impart critical thinking and cultural understanding. Cultural competency, the ability to communicate respectfully and considerately with people of different backgrounds, is one such form. This skill is absolutely essential, and contrary to popular belief, wholly part of our expected education--not separate from it.

We’re going to have to deal with all kinds of ignorance and hatred. But schools, in educating us, play a vital role in cultivating the kind of community we’d be proud to participate in. Working toward eliminating bias takes much more than silencing uncomfortable opinions: it takes creating constructive and respectful dialogue, supporting your arguments with fact, and having empathy for another’s story.

A common misconception is that today’s college students are very socially sheltered. A survey conducted by the Knight Foundation and Gallup found that 78 percent of college students were partial to being exposed to “all types of speech and viewpoints,” including speech considered biased or offensive. However, 69 percent of the same pool agreed restrictions should be imposed on “slurs and other language...that is intentionally offensive to certain groups.”

Far from being “coddled,” more Millennials are actually in favor of free expression, and only advocate restrictions once speech becomes targeted. Safe spaces offer a temporary relief from targeted harassment, sweeping generalizations, and cultural ignorance. Being exposed to new ideas and being able to lean into discomfort is vital in today’s demanding world, and should be required, but only as long as students have access to places where they aren’t constantly fighting. Ideally, these spaces will encourage engaging other ideas, and will not span an entire campus so as to silence inexperienced, but well-intentioned students. We must also be cognisant of the fact that, although dialogue is important, a minority student feeling unsafe in their own home takes precedence over the discomfort a majority-identifying student feels about discussing it. Safe spaces are vital for ensuring the wellbeing of our peers. I only hope that students will confront the concept with less outright rejection and more reformative ideas, so as to work toward a more understanding community for all.

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/27/us/university-of-chicago-strikes-back-against-campus-political-correctness.html

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/safe%20space

https://lgbtq.uchicago.edu/page/safe-space

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/08/30/so-you-like-the-university-of-chicagos-rejection-of-safe-spaces-for-students-consider-this/?utm_term=.225b34cad187

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-university-of-chicago-safe-spaces-letter-met-20160825-story.html

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/09/14/u-chicago-professors-issue-letter-safe-spaces-and-trigger-warnings

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/27/us/university-of-chicago-strikes-back-against-campus-political-correctness.html

https://splinternews.com/what-s-a-safe-space-a-look-at-the-phrases-50-year-hi-1793852786

Published in Deerfield Academy's political magazine The View

Deerfield Students March for Science

2017 Boston March, photo by the author

“What do we want? Evidence-based science! When do we want it? After a peer review!”

Over 1 million people participated in the March for Science on April 22 (Earth Day), 2017. Three Deerfield students, myself included, attended the march in Boston, which had an estimated 70,000 attendees in total. This made for a powerful demonstration of support for science and education.

The movement’s mission states: “We unite as a diverse, nonpartisan group to call for science that upholds the common good and for political leaders and policy-makers to enact evidence-based policies in the public interest.”

After the appointment of Scott Pruitt as head of the Environmental Protection Agency, many felt the need to speak out. Pruitt has stated repeatedly that he does not believe man-made carbon emissions are responsible for global warming, which is a scientifically inaccurate statement. Those responsible for protecting the environment cannot be in denial of its condition. (Please see our article on global warming for more information.)

President Trump’s initial federal budget proposal was also cause for concern. With massive cuts to EPA, the Federal Drug Administration, and the Department of Education, I believe speaking out continues to be vital. Regardless of one’s political background, it is apparent that the proposed cuts to science and education-oriented programs reflect a lack of concern. With the accelerated effects of global warming, committing to the goals of the Paris Agreement, funding education, and maintaining waste regulations are vital.

We need to support evidence-based thinking in our policies. The whole point of science is to eliminate bias by performing experiments over and over, constantly trying to disprove what we already know. Everything is asserted through a due process of reasoning, evidence, and statistics. This same system of thought is what the movement advocates. Science is a way to supercede party loyalty, not to reinforce it. Science is universal, and we need to start treating it accordingly.

If you would like to learn more, please visit www.marchforscience.com.

Sources:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/16/trumps-federal-budget-would-eliminate-dozens-of-agencies-and-programs.html

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/paris_en

Published by Deerfield Academy's science journalism magazine Focal Point.