By Danny Campbell, ’27

Staff Writer

Students often complain when our school bathrooms are closed and they have to walk to a different floor or down to the cafeteria to find one open. But in an interview with Principal Mattos and custodian Fabz Saldanha last week, I learned that students are often the ones responsible for the closures.

In the past, Hanover High School regularly had just one bathroom open per floor to minimize issues with students gathering, creating messes and getting into trouble. Also in the past, teachers were assigned duties to monitor the halls and bathrooms. Last spring, concerns about the rotating closed bathrooms were brought to the HHS School Council (composed of students, teachers and community members) and the HHS Student Advisory Council. This led the administration to open all bathrooms after announcements were made to the student body about care and maintenance.

“Students control what happens,” Mr. Mattos said, echoing a message he gave during assemblies on the first day of school. “If students respected the bathrooms, they would be open forever. They only get closed for cleaning and maintenance as needed.”

Unfortunately, only three days into the school year, the bathroom in the World Language wing was seriously vandalized. A student or students pulled the stall dividers right out of the wall. Damage like this has cost the school thousands of dollars in the past, Mr. Mattos said. With the school budget tight this year, and a busy maintenance staff serving all the school buildings, it’s going to take time to fix. That bathroom has been locked since.

While students who commit vandalism are just a small part of the school population, Mr. Mattos said, it’s hard to catch them because the general law prohibits cameras in the bathrooms. Due to budget cuts, the school also doesn’t have enough staff to constantly monitor the spaces.

Aside from that closure, the school has been handling the issue much better than years prior, Mr. Mattos said. I noticed one day in September when both bathrooms on the second floor were closed at the same time, leading students to have to walk farther. But Mr. Saldanha said that was a temporary closure because a motion-activated sink needed repair; town health officials say a bathroom must be closed if a sink or toilet is not working.

The metal gates were installed in 2022 to lock and secure bathrooms as needed, but the idea of closing a school bathroom for cleaning or a repair is not new. Prior to that, the school had used movable plastic barriers for years, but students would simply push them aside and enter the bathrooms. “With the gates, bathroom maintenance has been much better,” Mr. Mattos said.

We should all be aware by now that the administration and custodians are not in the wrong to close the bathrooms when issues occur. It’s up to students to treat the bathrooms with respect. Having a clean, working bathroom close to your classroom is a privilege, not a given. If you are responsible and behave in the bathrooms, they will stay open. Throw your trash in the bins. Do not put unflushable items in the toilets. Show courtesy to your classmates who use the bathrooms and to the custodians who keep them clean. If only as much as one student misbehaves in the bathrooms, they are all at risk of being closed!

I have done my part in covering this issue. Now it is your turn to do yours!

By Samuel Frattasio, ’27

Opinions Editor

In a nation once defined by its shared ideals and a commitment to democratic discourse, the alarming rise of political violence serves as a stark reminder of how deepening divisions can threaten the very foundations of our society. As communities split along ideological lines, the consequences become increasingly evident: violent protests increase, rhetoric escalates into threats and civil discourse becomes chaotic. Most apparent are the two assassination attempts on our former president, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. No matter where you stand, we should all agree that this is unacceptable. We have come too far as a country to be ruined by individuals who are so blindly passionate and extreme toward their respective parties. We must confront a crucial question: can we bridge all that separates us, or are we destined to remain divided? 

I’m well-versed in news and politics, regularly engaging with various sources across the political spectrum. Whether browsing the Apple News app on my phone or reading articles from AP, Reuters, The New York Times and The Boston Globe, I make it a point to stay informed. I also watch broadcasts from NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and FOX. Some are left and right of the political spectrum, while others may be classified as more center. I enjoy getting information on all sides; this helps eliminate some of the inherent biases of most major media networks. For example, Fox leans right and CNN leans left. Even though these networks and their anchors, analysts, and correspondents differ from each other significantly, they all share one common belief: political violence is not okay, and it’s not the way to solve our division. Jeremey Adam Smith and Zaid Jilani of the Greater Good Magazine said it best: “The attempted assassination of Donald Trump highlights a terrible truth: Political violence and support for political violence have been rising in the United States.”

To better understand this issue, we need to discuss a few key topics: historical context, current trends, impact of rhetoric, mental health, consequences for democracy and potential solutions.

 Historical Context: Our country was born amidst political tensions. The great patriots of the “Sons of Liberty,” who dumped thousands of dollars worth of tea into Boston Harbor, did so in response to an increasingly harsh and dominant England. The split into Loyalists vs. Patriots and the Revolutionary War was the result. After the American Revolution, our country saw the emergence of political parties, which fostered intense rivalries, and political violence occasionally erupted in the form of duels. African American resistance was also prevalent during this period, most notably in Nat Turner’s Rebellion. Also during this time, abolitionist movements faced violent oppression from pro-slavery Americans. Fast forward to the Civil War era. The Southern states’ secession was driven by the desire to preserve slavery, leading to violent conflict between Union and Confederate forces. Throughout this period, political violence was often seen as a means to achieve social and political objectives; the tone of this era set the stage for ongoing conflicts that continue to affect our democracy. 

Current Trends: One may argue that our country is more divided than ever, and this is most obvious when one turns on the news and hears stories of violence and destruction, constant arguing, and continuous falsehoods from both sides of the political spectrum. Something has to be done to fix the wounds of our nation. The current trends of our divisive legislative, executive, and judicial branches have proven tragic; most apparently, the recent assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, which came as a surprise for many, raised some eyebrows and questions on who is truly safe from political “extremists.” To better understand the motives of those who wish to destroy, we should examine former successful or failed attempts on politicians’ lives to identify what could have gotten us to this moment. Most notably in the mid-19th century, President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated over disagreements regarding slavery and the treatment of the South. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Presidents James A. Garfield and Willaim McKinley were killed over the growing discontent with the existing societal norms. Years later, the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. highlighted the extreme opposition to the civil rights movement. Fast forward to present times, and we have seen several assassination attempts on politicians, including former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in 2011 and the attempted bombing of prominent Democrats in 2018. While these examples all were different in some ways, they were all results of individuals who disagreed so strongly with these politicians that they wanted to end their lives. This shows us the beliefs within American society and the complex interplay between ideology, power, and violence. 

 Impact of Rhetoric: As we have come to understand, words have great power, and the spread of hateful, negative, and false allegations has deep impacts on its listeners. We as a society have a duty to determine what words and ideas we want to resonate within ourselves, things that match our own beliefs. Sometimes extreme language evokes strong emotions like fear, anger, or pride, which can galvanize people to act or adopt more radical views. In my opinion, the most prominent effect of Democrat/Republican rhetoric is the Us vs. Them mentality, which often creates clear distinctions between individuals who are “in” groups and “out,”  fostering hostility toward those perceived as opponents. This is the case during political debates and interviews when candidates constantly try to belittle their opponents and spread lies. 

 Mental Health: Kevin Boyle, Professor of American History at Northwestern University who was featured on PBS just days after one attempt on the former president’s life, said, “So what that means is that you essentially have motives and means. I don’t know anything about the motivation of this young man, but I think we have to be willing to acknowledge that it is also tied, to a striking degree, to the mental health crisis that does afflict young men, particularly, and that leads some of those young men to extraordinarily violent behavior.” What Boyle is alluding to is that there has been an immense rise in violence in the last decade perpetrated by individuals who may have mental health struggles. According to an article in The Hill, the Trump shooter in Butler, Pa., had a form of depressive disorder. This issue raises many questions like, “How does one get to this point?” and “Is political rhetoric to blame?” In the case of the man who shot at the former president, one must ask “How can someone with a (known) mental condition have access to a weapon?” To answer the first, there are various reasons why an individual can become radicalized. Mental health struggles can exacerbate feelings of isolation, leading one to join extreme groups for a sense of belonging. In addition, mental health conditions can affect judgment and impulse control, potentially increasing the likelihood of violent behavior. And to answer the latter, it is hard to control what people do and what they have access to. “Are the parents to blame?” That is a question that gets asked after incidents of violence. In my opinion, I believe that individuals who are struggling with mental health disorders should not be anywhere near harmful objects; this was the complete opposite scenario for the man who hoped to assassinate Trump. 

 Consequences for Democracy: This alarming rise in political violence poses a significant threat to the very foundations of democracy. This phenomenon not only undermines public trust in democratic institutions but also deepens societal polarization, making it increasingly difficult for citizens to engage in constructive dialogue. The fear of violence deters many from participating in elections, protests, and civic activities, ultimately weakening the democratic process. The big issue with this is that it opens the door to others with beliefs of violence toward people with whom they disagree. We must commit to fostering dialogue, understanding, and respect for democratic processes to combat this rising tide of violence and protect the ideals that underpin our societies.

Potential Solutions: This pressing issue requires immediate attention and thoughtful solutions. One effective approach is to promote political unity across different groups. When leaders and citizens alike focus on common goals rather than differences, it could significantly reduce tensions and foster collaboration. Additionally, the language used in political discourse matters greatly. Leaders should strive to avoid harmful words and negative ideologies that can incite violence or deepen divisions. Instead, promoting a message of empathy and understanding can create a more positive political climate. Public awareness campaigns that encourage civil discourse and highlight the importance of listening to differing viewpoints can also play a critical role. Ultimately, addressing political violence involves a commitment to unity, respectful communication, and proactive engagement in communities.  

A Call to Action

It is time for us to take a stand against political violence. We live in a country not riddled with hate but with freedom, kindness, and, at our center, unity. Days after the assassination attempt of former President Donald Trump, politicians from all parties expressed their strong opinions on the matter, including how relieved they were that the president was not badly injured. Unity is possible. We’ve seen it done, not just after this incident but also during the aftermath of 9/11, where many Americans came together, or the pre-American Revolution, where a once divided 13 colonies joined together under a shared desire for independence. The stories in the news today can be frightening; they can be violent and negative. However, when I am overwhelmed by this, I try to remember moments when we have come together, and that is what gives me hope. Political violence is not and will never be ok. While all politicians and people may never agree on all the issues, we can agree to be civil, working for a common good and remembering that our democracy is worth preserving.