The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

Jenn Lanke



Mrs. Quinn



Focus on Lit-A



May 31, 2007



Allegories in To Kill A Mockingbird



As Charles Dickens once said, “I only ask to be free. The butterflies are free.” This simple statement encompasses the whole of To Kill A Mockingbird, simply because three main themes expressed with symbolism in this book are oppression – “I only ask to be free” - non-conformity – the freedom to express oneself – and the need to be accepted – “The butterflies are free,” freedom brings with it acceptance. Three characters in To Kill A Mockingbird, by Harper Lee - Tom Robinson, Dolphus Raymond, and Dill - are used to represent oppression, non-conformity, an the need to be accepted.

InTo Kill A Mockingbird, Tom Robinson is a very symbolic character. Tom Robinson represents oppression, as, interrupting Aunt Alexandria’s tea party, Atticus states, “’Tom’s dead…they shot him…seventeen bullet holes in him’” (235). It was unnecessary to shoot Tom seventeen times; it’s as though they wanted to make sure he was good and dead, to make a point of it. Dolphus Raymond also talks about how coloured people are oppressed. Earlier in the book he states, “’Cry about the hell white people give coloured folks, without stopping to think that they’re people, too” (201). This shows that racism, which goes hand in hand with oppression, was strong during the setting of To Kill A Mockingbird, and Tom Robinson bears the brunt of it in this book. When he is ridiculed, pronounced guilty for a crime he did not commit and finally shot, it is a clear example of the oppression faced by Negroes not only in this book but also during the course of history.

Another character, Dolphus Raymond, is used to represent non-conformity. When Scout, Jem and Dill are at lunch and discussing Dolphus, Scout notes that “In the far corner of the square, the Negroes sat quietly in the sun, dining on sardines, crackers, and the more vivid flavours of Nehi Cola. Mr. Dolphus Raymond sat with them”(160). This shows that he doesn’t care who he’s seen with or who sees him with who. He lives the way he wants to, and that’s just how it is. Later on in the book, when Raymond is talking to Scout and Dill, she states, “I had a feeling that I shouldn’t be here listening to this sinful man who had mixed children and didn’t care who knew it…”(201). During the time period To Kill A Mockingbird is set, whites marrying blacks and having mulatto children was unheard of, not to mention socially incorrect. Dolphus’ outright disregard of the public opinion is a clear illustration of non-conformity.

Dill is a symbolic character in To Kill A Mockingbird in that he has an incessant need to be accepted. Attempting to amaze Jem and Scout, Dill states, “’…I can smell somebody an’ tell if they’re gonna die’”(36). In his constant endeavour to be part of the group, Dill says fantastical things to impress his neighbours. Later in the book, while discussing a game the three had made up, Scout observes, “Dill was in hearty agreement with this plan of action. Dill was…following Jem about…they spent days together…”(41). This clearly shows how Dill aimed to please the others in order to be included. His character fully illustrates the typical longing to be a part of the crowd.





font: baskerville old face

size: 13

School Resurrected



Well, it’s that time again. Yup, you guessed it: the inevitable has occurred, the cosmos have aligned once more, and summer vacation has rolled over and died. Every kid’s nightmare has come true. School has started once again.

Now, if you ask me, school really isn’t that bad. Some kids, however, act as if it’s Armageddon come upon the earth. I don’t see what’s so bad about it; friends meet friends again, learning starts up, new romances blossom. True, there are a few negative aspects to school, but what’s the good without the bad except for droll? We’re talking about school here people, not Utopia.

That would be my opinion at the beginning of the school year. Catch me about halfway through, and I can’t wait for it to end! On and on, an endless cycle of predictability and mechanical students. Then again, there are always the new [or old] friends that hang out in the hallways.

Yet does high school really have any value? Overall, if you think about it, the old adage rings true: “everything I need to know, I learned in kindergarten.” In today’s world, there is no WAY one can get anywhere without a High School Diploma. College has almost become a necessity as well. So people spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to go through the system, get chewed up, spit out, and hope to God something comes of it. But to what purpose?

Ages ago, school was for the rich. Today, school is required by law – in Wisconsin, it is illegal to drop out of school until one is sixteen years of age. How completely ridiculous can we get with this? If my family needed the money from my job, I sure couldn’t afford to spend all day learning things I’ll never use ever again. Half the subjects they teach in high school are useless.





font: century schoolbok

size: 13

The Ethics of Dissection:

Respect for Life or Science of Death?



Dissection has been used in American schools since the 1920s, and is often thought of as a rite of initiation into laboratory science. Thousands of students across the country dissect an estimated 6,000,000 (six million) vertebrate animals (animals with bone structures) each year. More than 100,000 (one hundred thousand) of these are cats; 75 to 80% of America’s 4,000,000 (four million) high school biology students dissect frogs. Many of these animals are “harvested” from the wild, contributing to the decimation of habitats and ecosystems. Though dissection serves to help students study anatomy and learn how bodies work, is it really necessary when there are alternatives readily available for use? Numerous studies have shown that students who participated in virtual dissections tested as well as or better than students who had performed actual dissections with tangible specimens. As many as 90% of students who participated in one study stated a desire for an alternative to dissection.

Animals used in dissection are procured in a variety of ways. The majority are taken, or “harvested,” from their natural environment. This method of collection has severely impacted many species of amphibians and reptiles, particularly frogs. Although the species’ populations are declining mainly because of pollution and human expansion, gathering these animals from the wild only worsens the problem. Other species that are typically taken from their natural homes include turtles, snakes, fish (usually perch), dogfish sharks, earthworms, crayfish, salamanders, and most other invertebrates used in dissection. Specimens for dissection can also be obtained from breeding facilities, where the animals are bred specifically to be killed and dissected, pet stores, shelters and pounds, or even other countries. Cats are a prime example of the latter method: they are often purchased in Mexico, then killed and shipped to the U.S. Slaughterhouses are also common specimen farms; fetal pigs, for example, are a “by-product” of the meat packing industry. Removed from pregnant sows destined to become someone’s pork chop dinner, they are often sold into the dissection industry.

Economically, dissection is a good thing. That is, dissection is big business; specimens are expensive, can only be used once, and therefore must be continually purchased. Dissection creates a cycle of buy, chop, toss, and repeat. In fact, Smithsonian Institution researchers who surveyed 14 major dissection supply catalogs found only one that offered "farm-raised" amphibians; none of the others verified their sources. For sellers, the cycle can be defined as sell, wait, and sell some more. Many legitimate dissection companies get their specimens from labs, which does not affect natural animals. These companies also get their specimens from other sources, such as smaller companies or groups of people; in these cases, they employ a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy: we won’t ask how you got the animals, and you won’t tell us. This allows the smaller groups to get animals by “harvesting,” hunting, breeding; however they can get their hands on specimens. After all, dissection creates a steady, profitable business flow which is relatively easy to maintain. Not much is easier than snagging some kittens from a neighbor, who assumes they are going to a “good home,” or breeding some dogs or rats in your home to sell them off. In some places, catching feral or stray cats and dogs is easy; then just drown them in the river and voila, a dissectible specimen.

There is, however, an economic downside as well. For those purchasing specimens, alternatives to dissection is more lucrative in the long run; while real specimens can be used only once, CDs and Internet programs can be used and re-used, plus there are no scalpels or chemicals involved, and therefore there is no risk of injury. Also, when humane alternatives to dissection are employed, students learn to respect living beings and understand that animals are, in fact, imperative beings.

If one wanted to become a surgeon, one must learn to perform surgery. In order to learn this art, one must practice. Just as it is impossible to learn to drive or ride a bicycle simply by watching others, it is impossible to learn to perform a surgery by taking notes on an open heart procedure. In this respect, dissection is invaluable. Dissection allows for practice in precision while allowing for mistakes, as there is not a life hanging in the balance, ready to be snuffed out at the tiniest slip of the scalpel. But is dissection really necessary at the high school level? In some states, dissection laws have been implemented. In New Hampshire, the use of live vertebrates or animals (“animal” being defined as any member of the kingdom “animalia”) in experiments or observational studies is prohibited. Disobeying this law is a Class A misdemeanor, with a maximum of one year confinement and a fine of up to $2,000 (two thousand dollars). The United Kingdom disallows the use of cats in school dissection classes. Switzerland, Norway, India, Argentina, the Netherlands, Slovakia and Denmark all forbid dissection below the university level. In German speaking countries, cruelty against animals is a criminal offense, making vivisection (the dissection of a live specimen) completely unthinkable, and dissection – as practiced in the United States – nearly impossible legally practice. So one must ask themselves, why does the United States insist upon including dissection in the high school curriculum?

Animals are everywhere. Walk outside your house in central Wisconsin, and you are likely to see a squirrel or two scamper up a nearby tree, perhaps some birds fly past, maybe a rabbit run under the bushes. Even deer are a familiar sight in this area. Animals are supposedly overpopulating; hunting specifications have been changed to accommodate the surge in population. Or perhaps it is not the animals who are overpopulating, but the humans who are forcing the animals into smaller and smaller habitats, causing them to seem overpopulated. Animals are commonplace, therefore they must be expendable. Humans are even more common than animals; why don’t we dissect them instead? Looks like a touchy subject when it comes to slicing open your own species and rooting around their anatomy, but animals are different. Aren’t they? As C. S. Lewis once said, “If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us and because we are backing our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reasons.” Instead of the death penalty, criminals could receive the dissection penalty. It is, after all, for the betterment of the human race; they were going to die either way, this way they can benefit the rest of us to pay for their wrongdoings.

Humans are mammals. Humans are animals. This is the breakdown of a human classification: animalia > chordata > mammalia > primates > hominidae > homo > sapiens. Now, the breakdown of a common house cat: animalia > chordata > mammalia > carnivora > felidae > felis > catus. Two similar organisms, yet homo sapiens feel as though they have a right to dissect felis catus. Whatever happened to caring about your relatives? Humans tend to forget the fact that they evolved from apes, remembering only when it is beneficial to know. Apparently, when considering the issue of dissection, it is not beneficial to remember that animals are our ancestors. As Charles R. Magel stated, “Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction.” He could not have been more correct.

If a survey was taken and the question “do you think animal cruelty is wrong?” were asked, most people would say yes. If the question “do you think animals should be killed to be thrown away?” were asked, most people would say no. However, if the question “do you think dissection is wrong?” were asked, many people would say no. If asked why or why not, those who answered no would likely cite something about medical advances or helping understand cancer. High school students sitting in biology classes, portioning animals does not aid in the advancement of science, medical or otherwise. A 1992 survey of 468 14- and 15-year-olds showed that 38% objected to any animal or animal by product being used for dissection. In fact, 73% felt breeding animals for dissection was unethical, and 84% believed alternatives should be offered. Preparation for medical or veterinary careers is often cited as the main reason to continue dissection. What is not mentioned, however, is the small number of students (less than 1%) who will actually enter into a dissection related field. And even those few that do choose this particular area of expertise have no need to dissect animal specimens; in medical school, human cadavers are rarely substituted for animal specimens. As the focus is the human subject, cadavers are used almost exclusively, and cadavers are gained when a person who has died has at some point stated that they wish to be donated to science. Therefore, the best preparation for medical school is human anatomy. One might argue that those going into a veterinary field must dissect, however numerous veterinarians state that pre-professional school dissection is unnecessary. Suzan Cliver stated, “I seriously question that any successful scientist or doctor can attribute his or her success to the high school…dissection experience.” In fact, many veterinary schools have implemented virtual computer programs into their curriculum, and have started to question the need for live animal labs.

So let’s take a look at this once more: high school teachers feel that dissection is necessary, as humane alternatives are not as good as actual experience, and that the students need the experience for future careers. Yet numerous studies show that students who participated in virtual dissections rather than the real thing tested as well as or better than those who actually sliced open a carcass, and of the 1% who will enter into dissection related fields, few if any need the high school dissection experience. Professionals have even stated that the dissection of animals lessens the respect for living beings; though many teachers disagree, saying that carving up a preserved corpse will instill “respect and wonderment” for animal life. When the question of dissection arises, one must ask oneself, what does it teach, truly? Is this respect for life, or merely the science of death? Students should be learning to treat animals with care and consideration, not to inject them with formaldehyde and mutilate their remains.