By Ryan Costello, ’27

Staff Writer

The death penalty is one of the most controversial and troubling punishments in modern society. While some argue that it provides justice to victims’ families or prevents future crimes, a deeper look shows that capital punishment fails in many ways.

One of the strongest arguments against the death penalty is the possibility of executing innocent people. Courts and juries have made mistakes. The Innocence Project, a nonprofit that works to exonerate people who are wrongly convicted, claims that since 1973, more than 190 people in the United States have been sentenced to death, often after spending decades behind bars for crimes they did not commit. DNA testing and improved investigative techniques have proven there can be many errors in the legal system. Once someone is executed, there is no way to correct such a mistake. No judicial system can reverse such a permanent punishment.

Another argument is that it is more expensive and more time consuming to use the death penalty than to sentence someone to life in prison. The death penalty is more expensive than life in prison because death penalty cases require longer trials, more lawyers, and years of appeals. Housing inmates on death row also costs more due to higher security needs, ultimately costing an average of $1 million taxpayer dollars per inmate. An inmate can sit on death row for as long as 20 years.

Some people believe that the death penalty is beneficial because it holds people accountable for their heinous actions and provides justice to victims and their families. While there may be some truth to this, the negatives hold more of an impact.

That is why the 27 states where capital punishment remains legal should do away with the procedure. The cost, in terms of taxpayer money and potentially life-ending mistakes, is too high to pay.

Featured image: https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/326540/rtr3hrgi.jpg

By Danny Campbell, ’27

Staff Writer

Most likely, everyone has an opinion about the Hanover High School student cell phone policy by now, since we’re into its second year. To minimize distractions, the handbook restricts students from using cell phones in class without the teacher’s permission. Most teachers require students to place their phones in the classroom “phone hotel” (better known, in my opinion, as the “prison”), or keep them in student backpacks. This is enforced with varying levels of strictness depending on the teacher. The policy, implemented by district administration and approved by School Committee, is part of a state and nationwide trend toward restricting cell phone use in schools. I personally think the cell phone “hotels” are a waste of time. They not only show distrust of students, but also could lead to safety issues.

In the last few years, cell phones have become a major part of our lives, and nearly everyone in the United States now has a phone that they use frequently. I can almost guarantee that you – the person reading this page – have spent large chunks of time only on your phone, letting a platform like YouTube, TikTok, Instagram or games consume hours of your day. Many have fallen victim to it, admit it! This is why school districts across the country started limiting or restricting cell phones in school. The Massachusetts legislature is considering a bill this year to ban students from using cell phones and other personal electronic devices during the school day. Most teachers think that getting rid of the phones in class will automatically make the students pay more attention to them during their lessons. Other supporters of the policies feel limiting phones will reduce bullying and improve students’ mental health.

But we need to note three things about these arguments. First of all, NOT every single student in the school is tied to their cell phone! This is a very big thing that I feel people completely ignore when discussing whether or not to restrict phones. There are students who only bring their phones to check the time, text important people during their downtime, or keep in contact with their parents during school hours. So restricting our only form of outside communication is very unfair for those of us who barely take them out.

Secondly, the policy can cause safety problems during an emergency. Imagine that a fire or some other catastrophic event happens that could lead to school being evacuated. If students are as attached to their phones as administrators seem to think, the first thing they’ll do in an emergency is try to get their phones from the “hotel.” This could cause injuries and a delay in getting students out of the building quickly.

Finally, having to put phones in a classroom “hotel” makes it possible for students to forget them when the bell rings for dismissal. This means students have to interrupt their next class to come back and retrieve them, or wait until the next day to pick them up if school is over. It could even lead to theft of the often expensive devices.

I think a better approach to the cell phone issue would be to teach students how to use the technology responsibly. This could be taught in a unit for middle school health class, during Mrs. McHugh’s library sessions, or through auditorium presentations like the ones we have about topics like drug abuse and lockdown drills. Students need to be taught the benefits of moderating screen time to take care of their mental health. If we can do this, there won’t be the need for phone “hotels.”

By Jolie Coviello, ’27

Staff Writer

The Department of Education is at risk of being dismantled after the President signed a March executive order to reduce national debt and limit federal overbearance on schooling. Following this action, the Supreme Court allowed the current administration to fire more than 1,000 government employees – half the department’s workforce. The Department of Education is responsible for billions of dollars in student loans and funding for public schools, which allows millions of American students to get their education. The department also enforces civil rights laws that protect many vulnerable students. What will the future look like for students?

The President claims eliminating the Department of Education will not take away from “K-12 students, students with special needs, college student borrowers, and others who rely on essential programs.” However, according to the executive order, quite the contrary will happen: those involved with the department will continue their affairs as usual, but educational authority will be restored to the states. The department costs more than $10 million per year to run, according to President Trump, an egregious amount for an office that “does not educate anyone.” In addition, he points to reading and math scores which he claims are near historic lows across America, with over 70 percent of 8th graders nationwide below proficient. This is further proof, the President argues, that the current federal Department of Education is not working.

But the department manages a significant amount of money, including $1.6 trillion in student loan debt. President Trump claims the loans will simply be managed by another federal department: Treasury, Commerce or the Small Business Administration. Critics of the plan fear there will be delays or disruptions to loans that will interrupt or terminate borrowers’ educational plans. And the department is responsible for enforcing civil rights laws in federally funded schools, including anti-discrimination laws protecting vulnerable populations. Just this month, according to the Associated Press, officials have had to rehire dozens of workers from the department’s Office for Civil Rights to handle a backlog of discrimination complaints (more than 200 were laid off in the spring). How will these matters be processed without the federal department? In addition, the department funds special education services for students with disabilities and foreign-born residents, including immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and more. This helps all parties receive an individualized education suited to their needs. Critics of the executive order argue that eliminating the department will affect the quality and equality of education.

According to conservatives, there is a trend of “indoctrination” of liberal ideologies within the American education system. For example, there is significant public backlash against alleged incorporation of subjective topics into college curricula, such as a professor’s personal take on the current administration, how they believe politics could be improved, and criticism of viewpoints that are not their own. This perceived agenda in an educational environment is a significant motivator for Trump’s executive order to eliminate the department as a sort of reform and reprimand. But by taking away the department, significant funding for public schools disappears, along with legal protections, and that loss negatively affects teachers and students alike.

Despite President Trump’s executive order, Congress would need to approve the elimination of the department, and that would require the cooperation of Democratic lawmakers in addition to proponents of Trump. Many Americans wonder whether it is likely that such a bill could pass, and there are potential constitutional and moral concerns from both sides. Multiple federal laws relating to education, such as those protecting people with disabilities, would need to be reevaluated to ensure no federal authority is breached in this process. Teachers unions, parent groups and other education advocates are fighting the move in court.

Many Americans continue to debate this issue and the implications of a future without the Department of Education: What does this mean for oversight of local educational agencies? What happens to federally funded educational programs? What about the billions in higher education grant funding? 

Works Cited

Babinski, Leslie. Policy 360 Episode 165 with Leslie Babinski. sanford.duke.edu/sites/default/files/165_Transcript_Leslie_Babinski.pdf. Accessed 14 Oct. 2025.

“Educational Resources for Immigrants, Refugees, Asylees and Other New Americans.” U.S. Department of Education, 2015, http://www.ed.gov/teaching-and-administration/supporting-students/educational-resources-for-immigrants-refugees-asylees-and-other-new-americans.

Faguy, Ana. “What Does the US Education Department Do – and Can Trump Truly Dismantle It?” BBC, 15 Nov. 2024, http://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79zxzj90nno.

“Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities.” Federal Register, 25 Mar. 2025, http://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/03/25/2025-05213/improving-education-outcomes-by-empowering-parents-states-and-communities.

Preede, Ken. “Abolishing the Department of Education: Can It Happen and How Would It Impact Schools?” Parkerpoe.com, 2024, http://www.parkerpoe.com/news/2024/12/abolishing-the-department-of-education-can-it-happen-1.

School, Sanford. “Explainer: What Dismantling the Department of Education Really Means [Podcast].” Sanford School of Public Policy, 24 Mar. 2025, sanford.duke.edu/story/explainer-what-dismantling-department-education-really-means-podcast/.

Trump, Donald. “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities.” The White House, 20 Mar. 2025, http://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/improving-education-outcomes-by-empowering-parents-states-and-communities/.

U.S. Department of Education. “Statement on President Trump’s Executive Order to Return Power over Education to States and Local Communities.” U.S. Department of Education, 20 Mar. 2025, http://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/statement-president-trumps-executive-order-return-power-over-education-states-and-local-communities.

Walker, Tim. “How Dismantling the Department of Education Would Harm Students | NEA.” Nea.org, National Education Association, 4 Feb. 2025, http://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/how-dismantling-department-education-would-harm-students.

By Billy Hersey, ’27

Editor in Chief

Vigilante justice, or taking the law into one’s own hands, has been happening in the United States since before its founding. When imagining what vigilante justice looks like, people may picture a headstrong hero that roots out corruption, but the only difference between a terrorist and vigilante is public opinion. For example, to a Patriot, the winning of the American Revolution was a triumph and celebration of freedom. However, to a Loyalist, the war was a disaster that caused the loss of their lands and their displacement to Canada.

Vigilante justice can cause harm to innocents. This was notably done by the Sons of Liberty in years before the Revolution when tax collectors were frequently tarred and feathered as an act of defiance against the British Crown. To be tarred and feathered was painful, humiliating, and often left people scarred or burned. Whether the actions of the Sons of Liberty were justified is left to the individual to decide, but at least in my opinion, innocent people should never be hurt for political gain.

Of course, rooting out corruption in society sounds great, but before acting, people need to consider all perspectives on the issue and the veracity of the information they read or hear on the subject. A lot of times, people who commit these acts are manipulated and turned radical by the podcasts, videos or social media from which they form their political opinions. In some cases, these people are also mentally unstable, which, when paired with propaganda, can heavily influence people toward making bad decisions. Though there certainly is corruption in the government, people need to trust in the courts and our justice system. All people are entitled to a fair trial in front of a jury; whether the defendant is guilty or not, to deny that right is a crime in itself. When vigilantes strike, they are acting as judge, jury, and executioner.

The most recent example of vigilante justice was the murder of Turning Point USA leader Charlie Kirk, who was shot to death during an appearance on a college campus in September. Kirk was a determined and strong debater who was credited with gathering support for conservatism among younger voters. Kirk swayed public opinion against abortion, gun control and countless other issues. Kirk’s opponents may point out that the legislation and ideas he preached appealed mostly to white men, causing more harm than good, especially to the detriment of women and minority groups. This leaves Kirk’s legacy uncertain; however, he was a vocal advocate of peaceful free speech and political debate who deserves respect for his courage to create change. Many people in both political parties said kind words on social media and emphasized the immorality of political violence, but others celebrated the actions of the clearly troubled shooter, who was arrested days later. Reactions to Kirk’s death were more evidence of the growing political divide in this country. Even if you don’t agree with what Kirk stood for, you should at least recognize he was human and didn’t deserve the death chosen for him.

The December 2024 murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson also begs the question of vigilante or murderer. Of course, most people would agree that murder is wrong, yet upon hearing of Thompson’s death, many celebrated. United Healthcare is notorious for having one of the highest percentages of claim denials among all health insurers. By denying claims for expensive but possibly life-saving care, critics argue, this corporate giant is indirectly responsible for the deaths of thousands. Though Thompson isn’t completely to blame for the company’s policy that seems to put profits over human lives, he could have tried to make change. As a CEO he certainly had some power to enact at least small reforms, but any change that would have hurt the company’s bottom line would have likely been vetoed by the company’s board. Still, that doesn’t excuse the actions of alleged shooter, who is awaiting trial. Killing one man doesn’t bring back all the people killed by claim denial. Premeditated murder and crimes in the heat of anger don’t bring justice. If people truly want to make lasting change they should confront corporate giants in the courts. If the alleged shooter had done this, Brian Thompson’s children would still have a father.

The attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 could be considered another example of people trying to take the law into their own hands. Armed, right-wing protestors gathered in front of the building after a rally by Donald Trump, the outgoing president at the time, who had been pushing the narrative that the 2020 election had been “stolen” and Joe Biden was not the rightful winner. Against overwhelming evidence and ballot recounts in multiple states, Trump and his supporters insisted the election had been stolen and their country was in danger. With Trump’s call to action in their ears, the protestors marched to the Capitol, where tensions quickly escalated and the rally turned to a riot. Police forces stationed at the Capitol to maintain peace were easily overwhelmed, and rioters entered, intent on harming members of Congress and disrupting the certification of Biden’s election. This event is largely regarded as a stain on American history, and the multitudes of people injured as well as the 10 people whose deaths were related to the attack are proof of the dangers of propaganda. Some, including President Trump and some Republican officials, still believe that there was election fraud and praise these domestic terrorists as heroes and true Americans.

Wherever you stand ideologically, vigilante justice must stop. Although the battle to change government policy can be long and riddled with opposition, we have systems in place to create change. People can petition their representatives or senators and they can peacefully protest. This type of violence only strengthens the determination of the opposition. Assassination attempts on President Trump and Charlie Kirk have only widened the ideological divide and furthered political polarization. One House representative, Marjorie Taylor Greene, has even expressed desire for a “national divorce” along party lines! Unfortunately, hatred between liberals and conservatives is strong, but one issue that should have bipartisan support is ending political violence. Silencing people over ideological disagreements is primitive and contradicts the values upon which this country was founded.

Works cited

BBC. “Capitol Riots Timeline: What Happened on 6 January 2021?” BBC News, 2 Aug. 2023, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56004916.

“Charlie Kirk’s Legacy Deserves No Mourning.” The Nation, 12 Sept. 2025, http://www.thenation.com/article/politics/charlie-kirk-assassination-maga/.

Dorning, Courtney, et al. “There’s Anger behind the Internet’s Reactions to the Death of UnitedHealthcare CEO.” NPR, 10 Dec. 2024, http://www.npr.org/2024/12/10/nx-s1-5223471/theres-anger-behind-the-internets-reactions-to-the-death-of-unitedhealthcare-ceo.

Huo Jingnan. “People Are Losing Jobs due to Social Media Posts about Charlie Kirk.” NPR, 13 Sept. 2025, http://www.npr.org/2025/09/13/nx-s1-5538476/charlie-kirk-jobs-target-social-media-critics-resign.

Klee, Miles. “UnitedHealth Is Sick of Everyone Complaining about Its Claim Denials.” Rolling Stone, 9 Feb. 2025, http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/unitedhealth-defends-image-claim-denials-mangione-thompson-1235259054/.

Maag, Christopher, et al. “UnitedHealthcare CEO Shooting: What We Know about Brian Thompson’s Killing.” The New York Times, 4 Dec. 2024, http://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/06/nyregion/unitedhealthcare-brian-thompson-shooting.html.

Maloy, Mark. “Tarring and Feathering.” American Battlefield Trust, 16 Mar. 2023, http://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/tarring-and-feathering.

Rattray, Kate. “Clio.” Clio, 8 Dec. 2024, http://www.clio.com/blog/procedural-justice/.

“Who Was Charlie Kirk? What We Know about the Shooting and the Suspect.” Al Jazeera, 11 Sept. 2025, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/9/11/who-was-charlie-kirk-what-we-know-about-the-shooting-and-the-suspect.

By Maverick Langill, ‘27

Staff Writer

If you rely on Medicaid, federally funded health care or the Affordable Care Act, or just can’t afford the ridiculous bills that pile up from the use of our world-renowned health care system, you’re in for a wild ride. On July 4th, President Donald Trump signed a budget bill reducing all federally funded health care programs by 25 percent. Our health care system has been struggling for a while now, and Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” has exacerbated the already rough conditions faced by health care workers and patients. In the few months since it was signed, the bill has already resulted in:

• Shortages of nurses and doctors
• Rising prescription drug costs
• Privacy and data risks from the integration of AI into recordkeeping systems

The recently ended government shutdown lasted a record 43 days partly because of health care issues, as Democrats in Congress fought to extend tax credits they argued help keep insurance affordable for millions. The shutdown ended with Republicans promising to vote on the issue, but many fear that is a token gesture since the party has enough votes to reject it.

Although our health care system is not perfect and there are disparities in care and treatment outcomes based on race, ethnicity, sex, and socioeconomic status, the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid have provided lifesaving care. Many people with disabilities depend on these programs to pay for medicine, treatment and even basic living expenses because they are unable to work. Others apply for benefits because of an accident or injury that keeps them out of work. But Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” — which he promises will cut taxes and wasteful spending while diverting funds to national security and immigration enforcement — decimates this support. According to the Disability Law Center, the bill makes it harder to secure and maintain disability benefits, imposes unrealistic work requirements, and cuts benefits while raising prices at the same time.

Despite Trump’s constant campaigning to the working class, it seems he could care less about what happens to most of us. Even before this budget bill, the Trump administration paved the way for many states to reduce reproductive rights for women. One of the more troubling stories from recent months is that of Adriana Smith, a Georgia nurse who was six weeks pregnant when she had a stroke in February. She was pronounced braindead. But since Georgia law prohibits abortion after six weeks excluding medical emergencies, the hospital and state argued they were legally obligated to keep Adriana “alive” until the baby was viable. This was against her family’s wishes. Our society has made a horrific, almost dystopian turn for the worse, putting moral ideas over the health and safety of women and children.

Trump also has pushed American medical research back by decades. He cut funding for kids’ cancer research, and just as scientists were figuring out the cure to AIDS, he cut that budget too. The president showed how little he understands science when he cut funding to “transgender mice.”  What our president was supposed to know was that scientists are studying Transgenic Mice, which are not used for transgender operations, as Trump suggested, but for research into gene function, human disease and new therapies. The mice are genetically modified by injecting DNA into a fertilized mouse egg, which is then implanted into a surrogate mother. Once born, these mice serve as invaluable research tools, with the altered DNA becoming part of every cell. So you see, there’s a big difference between transgenic mice and transgender people, but Trump certainly doesn’t get that. Yet he’s making decisions that impact the health of millions.

On the topic of transgender people, it’s hard to ignore the executive orders that Trump has issued that limit the rights of the LGBTQ community. In terms of health care, the president has attacked gender affirming care, which includes everything from getting your hair and nails done to undergoing testosterone injections and reconstructive surgery. He has decreed that no federal funding can be used in hospitals, government offices and schools to even discuss gender, let alone perform gender affirming care. He’s working double time to try to legislate trans people out of existence.

If you think these issues don’t impact you because you are not disabled, LGBTQ, a woman, or someone with health concerns, think again. As history shows, governments and people in power go after the rights of minorities first, and then slowly target other groups. What’s happening in health care will affect you whether you’re rich or poor, disabled or able bodied, cis or trans, man or woman. It’s time to wake up and protect yourself and your community against these injustices.

By Mae Evans, ’27

Staff Writer

Turkeys, table settings, matching napkins, travel, desserts—the checklist of gratitude has never looked so expensive. Thanksgiving was built on simplicity, or at least that’s the myth we tell ourselves while scrolling through sales and calculating oven times. It’s supposed to be about pausing, appreciating, giving thanks—but somewhere between the grocery cart and the group photo, the holiday turned into a production. Gratitude now feels like a performance: the curated table, the perfectly browned turkey, the caption that insists “so thankful for everyone in my life.” 

We’re not giving thanks—we’re staging it. 

The irony is that Thanksgiving preaches humility while thriving on excess. We consume until we’re full, then talk about how grateful we are. We buy our way into meaning because it’s easier than sitting in silence and feeling it. It’s easier to measure love in portion sizes than in presence. For a holiday about appreciation, it depends heavily on abundance. Gratitude becomes something you perform with purchases—a kind of moral receipt that says, I’ve done enough to feel thankful. 

But when the table is cleared, the receipts crumpled, and the leftovers cooled in the fridge, what’s left that actually matters? Maybe the point isn’t to strip the holiday down, but to notice what would remain if we did. Without the desserts, matching napkins, or endless refills, could we still recognize the feeling we were trying to buy? Every year, we’re asked, “What are you thankful for?” Maybe the harder, more revealing question is the one we never say out loud: “What would still matter if everything else was gone?”