YG State Conference

By Zuly Noriega,
Duncanville High School 

As the Renaissance Hotel becomes flooded at State with eager delegates from Youth and Government (YAG), we can’t help but notice District 5’s theme and attire. A navy long-sleeve blue shirt with big bold red letters spelling out, “THE NOW GENERATION.” Delegates also can’t help but stop and read the messages being plastered on posters and balloons displayed all throughout the lobby saying “FUTURE CHANGE MAKERS”.

These phrases echoing around this week’s conference raise our curiosity and invite big questions: How do both these topics tie together and apply to YAG students; and why is it so significant to acknowledge delegates’ roles in them?

The Now Generation has high ambiguity, many meanings, and is uniquely defined by every delegate. Two conference delegates asked what the Now Generation means to them gave different definitions, although both had a similar idea of how the Now Generation contributes to the theme of “Future Change Makers.”

State Affairs Forum (SAF) delegate Thomas Goa defines the Now Generation as, “The Now Generation is how our generation doesn’t recognize the role they have, which is why a lot of youth does not vote.”

Legislative delegate Sergio Juarez says, “The Now Generation is a unique group who have gone through lots of physical, social, and emotional challenges.” Both delegates have unique meanings of the Now Generation and both mention change.

Goa adds, “We need to realize that it is up to the youth to make changes, speak out when we have the chance, and be aware of our situations and our society.”

Juares says, “Delegates have built the determination to be able to make a change if they want to make a change.”

Overall, these two delegates help shine a light on how the youth are the drivers of this change. In other words, the “Future Change Makers.”

Since the Now Generation is believed to be the future change makers, which includes the YAG delegates, it is significant for these individuals to understand their impact on the world. YAG delegates’ awareness of their influence on the future is significant and represented in YAG because it helps demand change now and fast. For YAG, a lot of members want to make a change and know they can do it now, so they create these proposals and bills to have a future of getting passed in the National Congress.

The next time you delegates come across a Now Generation t-shirt, or when you are taking pictures with friends with the words “Future Change Makers” in the background, remember and understand that you all are the “NOW” and you all are the “FUTURE.” It is up to YOU as a delegate to take responsibility for the torch, maintain the flame and strongly pass it onto the next. 

  Delegates Thomas Gao and Sergio- Juarez, The Now Generations shirts worn.

By Alanis Rodriguez,
Chisholm Trail High School

In late October 2021, Jefferson Doyle was hit by a car that was driven by Arlo Key. Before this, Key had taken an Ether pill, distorting his perception of time and the senses. He then went to the club PB&J after an eight-hour shift as a nurse aide. In the club, he drank alcohol and smoked marijuana, further distorting his senses. As he drove home, Key hit Doyle, causing Doyle to get stuck on his windshield. Key then drove home and kept his car in the garage. An anonymous tip led the police to Key’s home, where Key broke down in tears and admitted to killing Doyle in a written statement.

By Joelle Henry,
Chisholm Trail High School

As people say “there are two sides to every story.” In court, this statement applies in the same way. For cases in court, the prosecution presents facts to the jurors and judges to incline the result that the prosecutors want.

In the mock trial “the windshield murderer”, Arlo Key, a nurse aide, killed a homeless man named Jefferson Doyle while under the influence on October 6^th, 2021. As the story goes, the defendant, Arlo Key, went out to a bar with family and friends, but before arriving to the bar Arlo went to their friend’s house and took a narcotic and was not in the right state of mind. After many drinks at the bar that night, Arlo was driven home by a friend but got back into his car highly intoxicated to take a drive. During that drive Arlo, in an inebriated state of mind, and as an occurrence of their reckless driving, they hit and killed a homeless man, Jefferson Doyle.  

In a state of panic, the defendant took the body, which is tampering with evidence, and hid the body in the garage until they dumped the body in a nearby park. The case went cold for a couple of months until an anonymous tip was given to the police saying that Arlo Key was the murderer. A prosecutor’s job is to find the defendant, which in this case, Arlo Key, guilty of murder and tampering with evidence. After seeing different versions of the case, it can be concluded that every prosecutor has a different way to approach witnesses and the defense.

Regardless of the outcome of the case, it’s interesting to hear what prosecutors do to prepare themselves, and what type of strategies they use. Charles VanScoy, from YMCA of Greater Williamson County, was one prosecutor interviewed about strategies for words and comments that they might have been using during the trial.

“We really tried to base everything factually. We wanted everything to be like based in the affidavit, so it is less objectionable,” VanScoy said, who also acknowledged areas for improvement. “We were pretty disorganized,” VanScoy said, “so we probably lost some points on decorum. I think my opening was pretty good. And his closing work was good, but I think we can improve the directs by adding more evidence.”

Arnav Koppala was another prosecutor, from NorthPark YMCA, who shared ideas and strategies that were used on trial. “On the prosecution side, we truly believe that the substance abuse did not affect her decision making, because it’s integral for the prosecution,” Koppala said,” that we meet the burden of proof and for failure to stop and render aid that goes under the felony for felony murder. Whereas, on the defense, we’re trying to show there’s doubt in the prosecution’s case.” 

“Prosecution is proving their point of to the court, and they use multiple strategies to do so. I take time and practice to polish statements and evidence, for every case prosecution may have.”

Arlo Key is tried after killing a homeless man while driving under the influence of narcotics.

By Syrah Omar,
Chisholm Trail High School

Exposure to drugs could lead a victim down a shadow-casted path. The less fortunate never escape this path, leading to a life controlled by their addiction. In the trial case “The Windshield Murderer”, the defendant Arlo Key has taken the life of another while under the influence of intoxicants and drugs. Among the drugs consumed by Key is ether, a drug that can cause disorientation and hallucinations. As a first-time user of ether, the effects of this drug were new to Arlo. A question emerges: if a law were enacted that lightened the punishment for first-time users of a certain drug, how would this change the court verdict?

“I think that people always deserve second chances,” said Catherine Masey, a Judicial delegate who served as a judge. Individuals who consume a certain drug for the first time may underestimate the effects and potential development of addiction. The effects that result from the intake of these substances may also be heightened as a surprise factor is included within the experience. Delegate Masey emphasizes the difficulty of the case, especially when drugs and their influence must be considered when making a final decision.

From a defense attorney’s point of view, “leniency”, as described by the judicial delegate Eva Wesley, is what would have been given if the law was enacted. However, his innocence would not only stem from Key’s new experience with this drug, but also the environment surrounding him. Ibenehita, a Judicial delegate who also played the role of defense attorney in the same trial, stresses the unfairness of his situation from a personal perspective of what is morally correct. She elaborates, “Putting yourself in Arlo Key’s shoes, it almost wasn’t fair. His friends, Avery Beasley especially, was familiar with the effects of ether, and Arlo should never have been left alone.”

The dangers of drugs were shown in the trial case of “The Windshield Murderer” in the form of death. With cases that display similar outcomes that result from drug and substance intake, the question still remains: what justifications must be made to deem drugs as non-influential to a court’s verdict?

Court case considers leniency for first-time drug offender.

By Zuly Noriega,
Duncanville High School

Literature covers a wide variety of topics, and the reader is the keeper of the key to the knowledge literature provides. But this isn’t always true when discussing student readers. Rules and restrictions have always been meant to protect and benefit individuals, however shielding students from reading about life obstacles and knowledge in society such as racism, LGBTQ+ representation, gender inequality, religion, and sexual assault does the exact opposite.

Books discussing these topics are often banned or highly restricted in Texas schools, thus stopping the expansion and the knowledge to prepare students for real-world situations. These limitations of literature enforced onto students are what have inspired the State Affairs Forum (SAF) delegates Aanika Dewan and Krrish Patel to propose an opportunity to lift restrictions on books that expose students to societal situations. For Example, “Drama” by Raina Telgemeier, which includes LGBTQ+ representation, and “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” by Stephan Chbosky discuss sexual assault. When interviewing delegate Aanika, she was asked what her motivation was and she responded, “I tutor kids who love to read, and I believe kids my age should be educated on the topics that are being banned.” Aankika intends to achieve this with her and her partners’ proposal. 

When observing SAF Committee Room 5, delegates Aanika and Krrish, who believe students should have access to all literature, presented their proposal (#104), which tackles this issue by suggesting the course of action of allowing the parents to grant permission regarding the literature content for their child through an online form that is given out every school semester. If permission is granted, students can access books of their choosing, gain freedom and expand their knowledge.

During the pros and cons section, some delegates appreciated the idea but opposed this proposal because they found it ineffective in situations where the parents don’t approve. During an interview with delegate Krish, he was asked what his response to the cons side opinion about the proposal, and he responded, “It is ultimately the parents’ decision, and the online form isn’t meant to be forced.” In addition, con delegates discussed their view that students can always access any book they would like on the internet. In response to this, delegates Aankia and Krrish state, “Not all students have internet access at home.” On the other hand, many delegates such as Crystal Zamora promoted this proposal because of the awareness it brings to serious issues like racism and sexual assault. 

Overall restrictions on topics seen as inappropriate have, for the longest time, taken away the freedom, diversity, and knowledge of students. The attempts of delegates Annika and Krrish’s proposal strives to break this ongoing cycle and give students the opportunity and inclusivity of everyday societal topics. Students can only wish that SAF delegates believe in this proposal and its potential for Texas students’ literature access in the future to come. 

Delegates propose expanding access to books on controversial subjects.