At Juniper on the UMass Amherst college campus, Betsy Wheeler (Managing Director) and Jennifer Jacobson (Juniper Director) walk around South College. They are going to be hosting teens from all over the world to come work on their writing. They are bursting with excitement; they have been planning this week for over a year now, and it is finally here. Finishing up their final check on everything, with beaming smiles and happy, light voices, they welcome the energetic teens who enter. 

Juniper is a writing institute designed specifically for teens in high school. This program is made to help inspire and develop teens’ writing. Teens go for one week during the summer to develop their writing community and read and edit each others’ work. This program is for anyone who loves writing. You must be a rising sophomore, junior or senior in order to attend. While I was there, I met a rising senior from Los Angeles, California, a rising junior from Connecticut, and a rising sophomore from Reno, Nevada.

Juniper is 100 percent worth going to if you want a career in any type of writing. At Juniper, you will be challenged to try different styles and techniques of writing. For example, I consider myself a novelist, but when I went to Juniper, they challenged me to write poems, and I fell in love with being a poet. In my workshop, my mentor had us make word banks of words we do not normally use and try to incorporate some of those words into our writing. This will force you to step out of your comfort zone and see if you like any other writing styles.

 “Flying out from Reno, Nevada was definitely worth it,” said Lexi Deeter, a Juniper alum. “The friends I made and the skills I learned are long-lasting. Since writing communities don’t really exist where I live, having those second and third pairs of eyes allowed me to turn a hobby into a passion.”

The workshops change every year because the mentors who direct them are also changing, but they always revolve around fiction, poetry or visionary art writings. For example, mine was a freewriting workshop, where everyone brought in a piece of their writing and shared it, then gave each piece editorial advice. 

Yes, they will alway give you free time to write. However, if you do not feel inspired, writing time will be your free time to get to know your “pod” (the group you are assigned). My pod had movie time with snacks, and we bonded over our love of romantic comedies. 

No, the application process is easy! To apply, fill out their online application on their website (https://www.umass.edu/juniperinstitute/#/). When it becomes available, send a writing sample, and select what type of workshop you want. 

The program costs around $1,800, which includes housing and food. When you apply, they will present you with the cost and choices in housing/food. If you are accepted and decide you want to go, you have to put down $200 immediately towards tuition costs. 

They do offer a full scholarship. I was lucky enough to get to full scholarship and everything was covered completely. (Pay attention to their website https://www.umass.edu/juniperyoungwriters/scholarship-sponsors to apply for the schoolarship). The full scholarship covers the cost of the housing, tuition, food and transportation. 

Juniper is hosted by the MFA Program for Poets and Writers at the UMass Amherst campus. UMass Amherst is in Western Massachusetts, about two hours from Boston. 

Overall, you should give Juniper a chance and apply to go to this once-in-a-lifetime immersion program— it will be worth the cost! Make sure to use all of the opportunities they give you, such as performing at an open mic or going to an optional mentor workshop. 

“Juniper was a fantastic experience,” said Laura Chin, a Juniper alum, “and I would recommend it to anyone who's looking to learn a lot about writing and also become part of a very talented, slightly strange, extremely wonderful and lovable community of young writers.” 

 Social activism is usually prompted by empathy for others, particularly those who are marginalized in our society. However, many dismiss forms of activism designed to protect minorities because they feel that the activists are too extreme, and overreacting to the situations. These “extreme activists” are usually called social justice warriors, and they have a reputation of being radical, participating in protests and causing uproar. This gives them a lot of negative stigma and hate, which leads people to use the term “social justice warrior” as an insult towards these activists.

  If we call people brave enough to go against the system “social justice warriors”—with a negative connotation—is that really a valid critique of them, or is the insult just a tactic to devalue the practice of empathy? 

According to the Heritage Lecture, the term social justice is described as, “equality of the burdens, the advantages and the opportunities of citizenship.” Social justice warrior is a term that has been regularly used negatively, but why should that be the case if it means fighting for equality? 

Kathy Lebrón, Director of Communication and Storytelling of the social justice program Resist believes, “people use terms like ‘special snowflake’ in a derogatory manner to make the person they're labeling feel badly for voicing an opinion that makes them feel uncomfortable.” 

Yasmin Mohamed, a sophomore at Snowden International, agrees. She said, “people use those terms as a drag to those who actively support minority groups, and use ‘special snowflake’ as a dig at how they think people who don’t follow society norms desperately want to be different.” While calling someone a ‘special snowflake’ isn’t a life or death situation, it is often used to make a mockery of people.

When quarterback Colin Kaepernick knelt during the National Anthem, it sparked controversy, because many felt it was disrespectful that he did not stand and place his hand over his heart for the flag. But in fact, Kaepernick was kneeling as a silent protest against police brutality. Since then, the NFL created a policy stating that “All team and league personnel on the field shall stand and show respect for the flag and the anthem,” and could risk being fined if they refused. His purpose was to promote equality, yet he got a lot of backlash for this and was accused of being too “sensitive.” 

People’s denunciation of social activism not only discredits the movement, but discourages others who may be on the fence about certain issues. When Catie Dodd, a passionate social rights enthusiast, was asked about the negative stigma surrounding social justice, she said “I know that I used to be embarrassed to speak out about injustice or to support those who did because so many people mock it. For a long time I was one of those people, because trying to fix things for the better was seen as over the top and extreme. I’m sure many other people have similar experiences, so if these belittling terms weren’t used, much more progress would likely be made.”

Remember playing in the park during the summer with your friends, boys and girls all coming together to play tag and hide-and-seek? As teenagers, we are now playing more competitive sports like basketball, football and soccer. Maybe you are realizing there is a bigger gender gap in these sports and that you rarely play with the opposite sex. Maybe you have wondered if you are just better than them at competitive sports, or maybe that the sport is too rough. As gender equality has become a popular idea in modern society, we should also apply this to sports. I believe that in order for men and women to feel equal, we need to hold women to the same athletic standards as men in sports. 

It wasn’t until the year 1900 that women were allowed to play in the Olympics, according to Olympic.org. Ever since then, women have only played recreational sports, rather than competitive sports. According to the Sport Journal, “women were not active in intercollegiate sports until basketball was introduced at Smith College in 1892.” 

Men and women should have felt comfortable playing together since the time sports began. Men and women should be able to play the same sport, and not be held at different standards when they play. 

Drew Hendrickson, Director of Tennis Fitness and Summer Programs at Tenacity, added, “We still live in a world where boys are encouraged to play sports more than girls, boys are pushed harder.”  

Hendrickson even states that it’s harder to find female legends. Boys were raised to look up to Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson, Michael Jordan and such, but girls are only now finally getting athletes like Serena Williams and Jackie Joyner-Kersee to look up to. 

But it’s never too late. According to Dan Lebowitz, Executive Director of the Center for the Study of Sports in Society, equality is closer than people think. He noticed that men and women actually train equally. But, even though men and women train the same and workout the same, depending on the sport, such as the hypermasculine sports of hockey and football, men are watched more than women. 

Cheryl Cooky, a Perdue professor, stated in an interview in the Atlantic, “Men’s sports are going to seem more exciting, they have higher production values, higher quality coverage and higher-quality commentary.” 

There is more money spent on men in sports as of now, and this makes women’s sports less entertaining. Rather than spending money separately, a combined league will make the game interesting and visually appealing for both men and women. 

A benefit of having men and women play the same sport is that they can help challenge and humble each other. 

Seventeen year old Stencia Bastien plays for the Cristo Rey Boston track team and she said, “guys are a lot faster than me so it makes me want to go faster.”

 That’s the competition aspect. The humbling aspect is told by Keisa Ferreira, who is part of SquashBuster, and said, “women feel stronger and they have more confidence in playing against anybody, and men won’t feel overpowering. Once women reach their [males] level they won’t feel as cocky.” 

The men will be humbled and the women will be more competitive, and this will even out the games and make them much more entertaining to watch. 

I believe with a gender neutral league, sports will be much more entertaining, challenging, humbling and interesting for both men and women, and it will bring us closer to a gender neutral society.

Picture a city where a teenager is expected to carry the responsibilities of law enforcement and school at the same time while evil villains run around endangering citizens, until the teenager sweeps in to save the day. Since 2002, Marvel has released six films of “Spider-Man” as an adaption to the comics and TV shows. 

In the first movie of the franchise, Tobey Maguire played Peter Parker. Since then, two additional actors have also played this role: Andrew Garfield and Tom Holland. In 2019, a new movie in the franchise is set to hit theaters, “Spider-Man: Far From Home.” With the anticipation of the seventh “Spider-Man” movie, fans and critics have been raving and comparing each actor’s portrayal of the young superhero.

According to Cindy Gold, a professor of theatre at Northwestern, “whenever one is playing an iconic character, there’s the difficulty of not repeating something someone else did as they created the role.” 

Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield and Tom Holland all lead Spider-Man differently. Tobey Maguire introduces the reality of Peter Parker, while Tom Holland uses his carefree youth in his depiction of a real-life teenager. However, Andrew Garfield exceeds the other two with better chemistry overall in his world of Spider-Man. 

I believe that acting is divided into three common cores: character development, building relationships with characters and connection with the audience. Based on this criteria, here’s my ranking of the three actors:

Andrew Garfield captures an emotional side of Peter. From the get-go, there is a close connection between Peter and Uncle Ben, like twenty minutes into “The Amazing Spider-Man,” when Ben and Peter have a dispute when Peter’s behavior changes abruptly because of his responsibilities. Peter and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) have fiery chemistry compared to Mary-Jane and Peter Parker in the early depiction. There’s a ton of character development with Andrew Garfield, as the audience sees how Peter is before he becomes Spider-Man. In addition, Garfield carries out well the classic note of how Spider-Man makes smug and clever comments which also have a childish feel. Developing a connection with the audience, he tugs at the viewer’s heartstrings in many ways. His character feels truly raw with his dilemma of searching for the truth behind his father and the deed that he promises to keep before Officer Stacy’s passing (to keep Gwen out of it.) All of these reasons explain why Garfield is the best Spider-Man in the franchise. 

Tobey Maguire only hits two of the common cores. One thing that Maguire does great is portray Peter Parker correctly. Peter Parker is in fact the smart outcast in the school who is pushed around constantly. In comparison to Andrew Garfield and Dane Dehaan’s portrayal of Peter and Harry's relationship, Maguire builds extreme chemistry with James Franco as the classic Peter Parker and Harry Osborn best friends pair, bringing a nostalgic feeling from the Marvel comics. On the other hand, Maguire makes Spider-Man look weak, and plays him uncomfortably. He isn’t confident enough and fails to make zingers in his battle with villians, thus becoming cheesy and overall, awkward. 

A majority of teens think that Tom Holland is the best Spider-Man because of his childish persona and fresh young perspective. He would be the best because Tom Holland is an actual teenager and inherits a better understanding of Peter Parker. 

According to Rauly Fabian, a student from John D. O’Bryant, “I think Tom Holland is portraying Spider-Man the best because he acts and looks like a true 16-year-old.” 

Also, Tyler Tse, a student from Boston Latin School, said, “based on his previous presentations of Spider-Man, he has proved capable of delivering a Spider-Man not only a handful of people enjoy watching, but the entire fan base.”

 However, I still stand by Garfield because of his growth in becoming Peter Parker, his bond with other characters and his correspondence with the audience as if we are there, thus creating a more effective Spider-Man. Generally, when you think of superhero movies, it’s all about epic battles and a super villain, but Garfield brought an emotional storyline to the table which makes his performance significant. 

Andrew Garfield overrides the other two actors by being the most convincing Spider-Man to save the city.

 Much of what we have been led to believe about history is shrouded in more misinformation than mystery. Our knowledge of the world is based mostly off information we have heard and never really questioned or looked too far into. According to a survey I conducted, there are a lot of facts local teens believe—not just about the world, but even about our own local history—that are simply untrue. Here are a few examples of cultural myths that teens fall for, so you can boast about your own superior intellect at your next family gathering. 

 In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue, and then committed mass genocide—weird how they cut that out of the poem. Christopher Columbus is often credited with the discovery of the American continent in 1492. However, according to the History Channel, he was not the first European to “discover” the new world. It was actually the Viking Leif Erikson who first set foot somewhere along the North American Atlantic coast in roughly 1000 A.D. Though he would not stay long, it is worth noting that Erikson had Columbus beat by four centuries. Columbus is most likely given more credit because his travels were better documented.

Speaking of Vikings, we all know the generic Viking look: a big, angry, bearded guy with a horned helmet. However, according to the History Channel, there is literally no proof Vikings wore horned helmets. The iconic headpiece doesn’t even appear until the work of 18th century Scandinavian artists like Gustav Malmström, who added horns to the Viking's helms for added flair. Years later, costume designer Carl Emil Doepler would use Malmström’s work as reference while designing costumes for “Der Ring des Nibelungen,” that one opera with the singing Viking lady you always see mocked in cartoons. The rest, as they say, is history. 

“The British are coming, the British are coming!” shouted Paul Revere as he… almost immediately got captured by the British. According to documentation at Boston’s Paul Revere House, Revere did not even make it all the way to Concord, as he was captured shortly after leaving Lexington. In truth, it was Samuel Prescott who alerted the militia in Concord.  

 After being gifted a hatchet from his father, a 6-year-old George Washington chopped into his father's cherry tree. After his father discovered his misdeed, Washington said, “I cannot tell a lie; I did cut it with my hatchet.” However, this story does not appear anywhere in the journals of Washington or in any other primary sources. According to the Mount Vernon Historical Society, this was essentially fan fiction written about the president. After Washington's death in 1799, the people of the U.S. wanted to know more about the man who led them to victory against the British, so a biographer named Mason Locke Weems had the genius idea to make up stories that sound plausible, and essentially made Washington into a folk hero.