Photo by Kyle Head via Uplash.

In the landscape of education, all schools have been facing tough decisions when budget cuts arise and, all too often, the Arts are the first programs to be trimmed or eliminated. However, art plays an essential role in the development of students and its removal has long-lasting negative effects. Art is not merely an extracurricular activity but a fundamental aspect of a well-rounded education that fosters creativity, emotional intelligence and critical thinking.

Graph illustrating the benefits of arts integration in education, sourced from Sarah Grace Griswold’s research on arts in the classroom.

Creativity and Innovation

The arts provide students with a unique opportunity to explore new ways of thinking. Whether through painting, music, drama, or dance, art encourages students to express themselves beyond the limitations of traditional subjects like math or science. This creative exploration can lead to innovations and breakthroughs in other fields.  

By fostering creativity, art also prepares students for the future workforce. In a rapidly changing world driven by technology, employers seek individuals who can think critically and solve problems creatively. Art classes provide students with these essential skills, enabling them to navigate complex challenges both in their careers and in life.

Emotional and Social Development

Art education is integral to students’ emotional and social development. It allows them to express feelings that they may not yet have the vocabulary to articulate, providing an outlet for emotions that can be difficult to process otherwise. This emotional expression is especially crucial during adolescence when students are dealing with significant challenges in their lives.

Furthermore, the collaborative nature of many art forms teaches students valuable social skills. Whether working on a group project in theater or performing in a choir, students learn the importance of teamwork, communication, and mutual respect. These experiences can foster empathy and a sense of community. 

Enhancing Academic Performance

Contrary to the misconception that the arts are unrelated to academic success, numerous studies have shown that participation in art programs enhances students’ performance in other subjects. For example, learning music has been linked to improved math and reading skills due to the discipline and attention to detail required. Similarly, visual arts can improve spatial reasoning, while drama and theater promote language development and public speaking abilities.

Art encourages critical thinking and problem-solving in ways that complement traditional academic subjects. Students who engage with art are more likely to approach problems from multiple perspectives, a skill that benefits them in subjects ranging from literature to science.

Preserving Cultural Identity and Inclusivity

Art plays a vital role in preserving and celebrating cultural identity. In a diverse society, art education allows students to explore and understand various cultures, fostering a more inclusive and empathetic worldview. This is particularly important in an increasingly globalized world, where understanding and appreciating cultural differences are essential for peaceful coexistence.

By cutting art programs, schools risk losing this rich opportunity to promote cultural awareness and inclusivity. Art can serve as a bridge between students of different backgrounds, helping them connect through shared experiences of creativity and self-expression.

Conclusion: Protecting the Arts in Education

While financial constraints may tempt schools to cut art programs, the benefits of arts education far outweigh the costs. The arts foster creativity, emotional intelligence, social skills and academic success, all while promoting cultural understanding. Removing art from the curriculum not only deprives students of these crucial opportunities but also limits their potential to become well-rounded, innovative and empathetic individuals. Art is not a luxury; it is an essential element of a complete education and it must be protected.

Photo by Toa Heftiba via Uplash.

BookTok is a dynamic and rapidly growing community on TikTok dedicated to all things literature. This vibrant platform allows users to create and share short videos that showcase book recommendations, reviews, reading challenges, and discussions about literary themes. With its engaging format, BookTok has become a powerful influencer in the publishing world, driving significant sales and sparking renewed interest in various genres. 

BookTok and Tropes

One of the defining features of BookTok is its emphasis on popular literary tropes. Users frequently highlight recurring themes, such as enemies-to-lovers, love triangles and found family, often reducing complex narratives to their most basic components. Business Insider has talked about how the format of TikTok has led to this result. “The focus on tropes has to do with the short nature of videos on TikTok… With one-to-three-minute videos, creators have mere seconds to capture the attention of a viewer and condense the plot of a book. Tropes make the task easier.” 

The problem is that this focus on tropes can lead to an oversimplification of literature, boiling a book down to its most basic points. As Isabella Madruga said in her article “How can reading make you dumber? BookTok makes that possible.” “…it’s like if someone took The Great Gatsby and marketed it with the tropes ‘pining,’ ‘exes to lovers’ and ‘love triangle,’ and ignored the themes of social class, cynicism toward the American Dream and glamorization of certain problematic/abusive themes.” 

While familiar tropes can enhance the reading experience by providing comfort and predictability, this reductionist approach can also detract from the richness of a story. It risks overshadowing nuanced character development, intricate plots and the deeper themes that make literature so compelling.

But that’s not the only problem found in the land of BookTok. Additionally, the focus on easily digestible content can create unrealistic expectations for readers. Many books that deviate from popular formulas may be overlooked. This could result in a  lack of diversity in reading choices. This narrow focus can stifle exposure to different voices and genres, ultimately limiting readers’ literary horizons.

The Positive Impact on Reading Culture

Personally, I have read a fairshare of books I found from TikTok. Whether it be a nonfiction book about the Donner Party or a “trope-centric” romance novel, BookTok has reinvigorated my love of reading. In this way, BookTok has played a crucial role in making reading more approachable and accessible. By creating a vibrant community where users share recommendations and discuss their favorite books, it has fostered a culture of enthusiasm around literature. 

When I was younger a book was always in my hand and to be able to return to even half the enthusiasm I used to have for books is so refreshing. In a lot of ways, reengaging with books and bookish culture has felt like coming home and I don’t know that it would have had happened without BookTok. 

BookTok and the Publishing Industry 

It has become obvious that people are buying books more than ever in no small part due to BookTok (though it is perhaps another question to ask if they are reading more than ever). According to The Week, BookTok contributed to the sale of 20 million print books by adult fiction writers in 2021. By mid-2022, sales in the genre had risen by another 50 percent. This phenomenon illustrates how social media can impact cultural consumption. As more readers discover titles through trending hashtags and relatable content, authors and publishers are keenly aware of the potential for viral success. This not only benefits established authors but also provides a platform for new voices, diversifying the literary landscape. In addition, authors and publishers are increasingly using tropes as a marketing tool to sell books by making new releases feel familiar to readers. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, I can neither fully endorse nor fully scorn the BookTok community. BookTok represents a transformative force in the literary world, bridging the gap between readers and books in innovative ways. While its emphasis on popular tropes can lead to oversimplification and limit exposure to diverse narratives, it undeniably fosters a vibrant community that reignites passion for reading.

The year 1936 has gone down in European history as the year of the Berlin Olympics under Nazi Germany. Three years before the outbreak of the Second World War, these Olympic Games were seen by Hitler as a propaganda tool to send a strong message to the world: Aryans are superior athletes. This belief was rooted in the eugenics theory that racial superiority could be explained by genetics. Of course, eugenics is at the heart of Nazi ideology and these Olympic Games of the past were the ideal opportunity to prove the hegemony of Aryan athletes; and thus defend the relevance of this ideology. However, African American athletes enjoyed enormous success in 1936, in particular Jesse Owens, famous for being the first African-American athlete to win four gold medals at the same Olympic Games. His success also left its mark on history, as Adolf Hitler refused to acknowledge Owens’ victories or shake his hand. Indeed, this famous episode, experienced as a humiliation by Hitler, underlines a major theme in sports and politics: the instrumentalization of sports by authoritarian regimes.

 But why is this so important today? Sports have been, and still are, an important form of soft power used by authoritarian and democratic rulers all over the world. In this article, I will attempt to analyze the limits and dangers of the instrumentalization of sports by authoritarian states and propose a broader description of sports as an effective geopolitical weapon for democratic states.

What does “Authoritarianism” really mean ?

Authoritarianism is a vague concept to a lot of folks. Its true meaning is poorly understood, yet roughly 40% of the world’s countries are ruled by an authoritarian leader. Simply put, authoritarianism is a political system whose main objective is to maintain the power of the ruler, come what may. regimes ignore the rule of law and democratic principles and their mandate does not depend on the consent of the people. To stay in power, authoritarian leaders use a range of strategies, from violent coercion to propaganda. Sports are a soft power tool used by authoritarian rulers to convey an ideology. But is this method effective? ? 

Firstly, sports bring people together and help build a nation. Secondly, it promotes the state’s official ideology and reinforces authoritarian narratives of national greatness. These characteristics are particularly true of totalitarian states such as Nazi Germany or present-day North Korea, whose ultimate goal is to create a utopia. In this sense, sports can be a vehicle for the state sponsored ideology. Nevertheless, sport is not always used as a means of conveying an ideology, and many authoritarian states see it simply as an effective weapon, an extension of the state’s political and economic power.

Sport and Authoritarianism: Dangers and Limits? 

These days, sports are primarily a revenue platform for authoritarian states. Several Middle Eastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, are increasingly financially involved in all kinds of sports, particularly soccer and Formula 1. In 2024, sports are attracting considerable attention and have become a global phenomenon that appeals to more and more people. The amount of money invested in and the revenues generated by the sports market are increasing rapidly, with an expected growth in revenues of over 60% by 2028. However, as sports revenues rise, so does the economic cost of hosting sporting events. 

A common trend has been observed over the past decade: unstable democracies and authoritarian states are increasingly hosting major sporting events. These states are often oil-rich countries such as Qatar, Bahrain or Saudi Arabia. As explained previously, these states use sports to convey broader political messages and achieve popular cohesion. Unfortunately, staging major events such as Formula 1 races, the World Cup or boxing matches, is financially draining and does not always benefit the economy as a whole. In fact, in many cases financing global sporting events ends up creating a greater financial burden for the population. For example, the 2022 World Cup in Qatar cost 220 billion American dollars, a huge sum that will take decades to repay, and has contributed to  the financial disparities within the country.

The protection of human rights is another major concern when it comes to authoritarian regimes hosting sporting events. In fact, most authoritarian countries lack the appropriate infrastructure and facilities to host sporting events, so they usually build these infrastructures from scratch, specifically for the events in question. Construction is often very intensive and these regimes do not hesitate to violate international laws. Most recently, Qatar, which hosted the 2022 World Cup, was targeted by numerous international organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Right Watch over the abuses committed against migrant workers and the hundreds of workers injured during the construction of half a dozen brand-new stadiums in the space of just a few years. The Qatari government has denied most of the allegations. Therefore, Qatar’s problematic situation has given rise to a real debate on the legitimacy of authoritarian regimes hosting such sporting events. 

But Why should Democratic States Care?

Colossal amounts of money are involved in hosting major sporting events, often creating significant conflicts of interest. Despite the mobilization of athletes and humanitarian organizations to denounce the abuses of host countries, democratic states have often turned a blind eye to the issue of sports in authoritarian countries. Recently, the situation has changed somewhat with the resumption of war in Ukraine. The Russian invasion of Ukraine represents the biggest ground war in Europe since  World War II. In this context, sports represents one of the many points of tension in the conflict. Sport became a veritable soft power weapon, helping to raise Russia’s profile. 

Since 2022, many Russian athletes have been denied the right to take part in sporting competitions, with the aim of penalizing Russian “soft power” and sending a strong message of support for Ukraine. One of the first victims was tennis player Danil Medvedev, who was unable to take part in a number of major tennis tournaments, including Wimbledon 2023. Despite being ranked No. 2 in the world, Medvedev and his fellow Russians and Belarusians were banned from that year’s Wimbledon. Similarly, the Russian and Belarusian delegations were banned from taking part in the 2024 Paris Olympics, a heavy sanction seen as a humiliation by both countries. Nevertheless, sports seem to be increasingly used by many as a way to condemn injustice and punish acts of impunity. For instance, Seven-time Formula 1 world champion Lewis Hamilton has repeatedly spoken out to call out Formula 1’s involvement with authoritarian and repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia, which fail to respect human rights.

With all that said, the financial and ideological stakes of sports make it a powerful weapon for sanctioning authoritarian states and defending liberal democratic ideals, notably the protection of human rights and freedom of expression. The current state of Putin’s war in Ukraine transcends any concept of human justice and in this context, the instrumentalization of sports to attack Russia’s image and soft power seems more than appropriate. While the intersection between sports and geopolitics is not intuitive, it is essential to understanding complex power dynamics. As guardians of democratic values, it is imperative that democratic states reclaim sports as a platform to oppose oppression, foster international solidarity and lead a global commitment to justice and human dignity.

Earlier this month, the two leading candidates in the 2024 United States Presidential Election faced off on the debate stage for the first, and likely only time. The event, hosted on ABC,  lasted 1 hour, 45 minutes and was watched by over 67 million viewers across major TV networks according to Nielsen TV ratings. Democratic candidate Kamala Harris and Republican candidate Donald Trump debated over the economy, immigration, foreign policy, healthcare and more, while also attempting to use their time in the spotlight to display their visions for the future of America, visions that will shape the world into which we as students will enter.

This article is a brief summary of the debate’s major themes and moments, and of the effects the debate has had on polling data and on broader culture in the ensuing few weeks. A debate transcript is available from ABC News and all debate quotes used here will follow the ABC transcript.

The Talking Points

Former President Donald Trump’s main talking point throughout the debate was immigration, specifically his claim that Democrats’ weak border policy had let waves of criminals into the country to wreak havoc. These claims often soared into the extreme (such as claiming that Haitian immigrants were eating cats in Springfield, Ohio, which the Springfield Police Department quickly denied), but in total painted a dreary picture of an America overrun by criminals as a result of inaction on the part of the Biden/Harris administration. When pressed on his own policy positions, Trump rarely explained his policies in detail. When questioned about Obamacare, he railed against it as a disaster while claiming he had “concepts of a plan” for replacing it. His explanation of how he would create the “greatest economy in the history of the country” was similarly nonexistent. 

Vice President Harris had a broader suite of major points, and she focused more on how to change the future than on the challenges of the present. She put particular emphasis on her proposed economic policies, intended to create what she termed an “opportunity economy.” Her proposal included providing tax rebates to small businesses, increasing the supply of housing, and working on cost caps for medication and other necessary consumer goods. Where Trump mostly attacked the Biden/Harris administration’s record, Harris turned to the past where needed to deflect those attacks, including her retort that she and Biden had spent the last four years “clean[ing] up Donald Trump’s mess.”

The Barbs

Harris’ main line of attack on Trump throughout the debate was to tell the audience that they were going to hear an endless barrage of lies from Trump, a point she returned to repeatedly when attacking several of Trump’s more outlandish claims. Her jabs highlighted Trump’s claim that Haitians were eating cats in Springfield and his assertions that blue states allow post-birth abortion, particularly when the moderators themselves corrected Trump. Trump’s attacks against Harris were more varied, but one common thread was claiming that Harris’ lines either were “incorrect statements” (as he said in reply to her calling his plan a national sales tax) or that her points had been given to her in advance. His attacks, however, often fell flat, especially against Harris’ requests that the audience research Trump’s platform themselves.

Another zone of conflict that wasn’t recorded in the transcript but dominated the live broadcast was their body language and use of space, particularly when listening to their opponent. Harris dominated this field from the very start of the debate, marching directly to Trump’s side of the stage and intercepting him before he could get to his podium for a pre-debate handshake. From then on, Trump appeared nervous, and he almost never looked in Harris’ direction for the rest of the debate, even when directly speaking about or to her.

Harris, on the other hand, took every opportunity she could to exploit the cameras. Every time Trump spoke, Harris spent the time looking incredulously towards his side of the room, and several of her expressions have since become memes. Her early assertions about Trump’s lying had primed the audience to expect lies; her facial expressions ensured viewers would both pay attention to those lies and react with the appropriate bafflement.

Harris’ focus on Trump’s lying did not stop some of her phrasing from falling under scrutiny for stretching the truth. In particular, NPR notes her claim about unemployment rates under Trump and about the lack of American troops in active war zones as being misleading. Harris’ statement that “there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty… in any war zone around the world” is technically true, but US troops are still under threat, and in January of this year three US service members were killed in a drone attack in Jordan.

The Visions

While the debate is intended to let candidates discuss policy and leadership, both candidates also used it as a chance to promote their visions of America and the perspective they would take as president. Nowhere was this more evident than in the closing statements. Harris’ closing statement focused on her own policies, her ideals for the future, and her leadership, with only a single reference to her opponent. She further described her career history and experience that she would bring to the table, recounting her journey from “prosecutor… (to) now vice president” and explaining that throughout her career she has “only had one client: the people.” Harris’ debate work portrayed her as an experienced leader seeking to be a President for all Americans who will protect their fundamental freedoms while working to provide actual policy solutions.

Trump’s closing statement, on the other hand, focused entirely on Biden’s record as president and Harris’ record as vice president, and on the current state of the nation, which he depicted as disastrous. He called America “a failing nation… that’s in serious decline” and described Harris as “the worst vice president in the history of our country.” The only policy achievement from his previous term as president that he listed in his own statement was a brief claim that he  rebuilt the military, a claim he explained in no further detail. Where Harris portrayed herself as a candidate of progress and the future, Trump portrayed himself as a candidate who seeks to return America to a past that he treats as a lost golden age, without providing a roadmap for that proposed revitalization.

The Impact

Vice President Harris was overwhelmingly ruled the winner of the debate, even among conservative media outlets. However, it’s unclear if the debate performance has been influential on the electoral race more broadly. Politico polling analyst Steven Shepard argues that the debate had minimal impact, with polling averages barely changing in the wake of the debate. Pennsylvania saw a 1% shift in the FiveThirtyEight polling average from before the debate to afterwards, but that shift was the largest jump Harris saw among any swing state. Polls in Wisconsin actually shifted away from Harris, with the FiveThirtyEight polling average shifting from +2.4% for Harris before the debate to +1.9% for Harris afterwards. The cultural and media impact of the debate is undoubtedly significant, especially when coupled with Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Harris in the immediate aftermath of the debate, but it remains to be seen whether the media frenzy will amount to anything at the voting booth at the beginning of November.