# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Should you be reading this on some electronic device while crossing the street, please stop. Right now. Traffic may be swirling around you. Your inattentiveness puts you in harm's way. And if by chance you're in Montclair, Calif., while reading this and crossing the street, you'd best keep an eye out not only for cars but also for the police. You're breaking the law.

Officials in Montclair, in Southern California, decided that their 39,000 residents needed a heads-up - literally. There were accidents that resulted in part from pedestrians burying their noses in smartphones with their minds miles away. Something had to be done about these "cellphone zombies," Edward Starr, the city manager, said. So Montclair made it illegal to cross streets while on a phone, texting or listening to music with buds in both ears. Fines of $100, and as much as $500 for repeat offenses, will go into effect in August.

Other places have had the same idea. Honolulu enacted a comparable law months ago. Rexburg, Idaho, a town about the same size as Montclair, adopted a similar ban in 2011 after the shock of having five pedestrians die. It hasn't had a single pedestrian fatality since. Legislation along the same lines has been contemplated in several states and major cities. In New York, Mayor Bill de Blasio said on Thursday that he, too, was open to the idea.

Maybe it's time for every municipality to get serious about distracted walking, as it's called, even though distracted driving is plainly a bigger concern. This is the belief theologically held by many motorists that they can read email, text friends, call the office and all the while stay fully focused on the road. They're delusional. They're also dangerous.

It is perhaps not a shock that in this age of cellphone zombies, traffic deaths in the United States have risen, after years of steady declines thanks to safer cars and improved road design. The 2016 toll was 37,461, or 14 percent higher than that in 2014. The final tally for 2017 is expected to be no more heartening.

The increase in pedestrian deaths, which account for 16 percent of all traffic fatalities, is even more discouraging. There were 5,987 of them in 2016, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Expectations are that 2017 will end up with a toll at least that high. That's a rise of 22 percent from the 4,910 registered in 2014.

No doubt, inattentive driving is to blame in large measure. But distracted walking is a likely factor, too. And maybe so is pot-smoking. Analyzing data for the first half of 2017, the Governors Highway Safety Association found a notable increase in pedestrian deaths in states that had legalized marijuana. Elsewhere, the death toll declined. It is too early for firm conclusions, but you can't rule out that judgments are flawed when drivers and pedestrians go around stoned.

Enforcing an ordinance like Montclair's won't be easy. You can't put police on every corner. And as sure as a sunrise, some people will wail about personal freedoms being violated. But there's a social contract to be observed. When you venture forth in public, you assume certain responsibilities, be it preserving your own life or having regard for others. Even in nonlethal situations, who isn't driven crazy when blocked on the sidewalk by people ambling so s-l-o-w-l-y, with eyes glued to their screens?

Mr. Starr says that people in Montclair seem to get it, including youngsters who deem smartphones a birthright. "Students are actually pretty understanding, and even tell us this was really needed," he said of the new rules. That's because they know their lives matter.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page SR10 of the New York edition with the headline: The Dangers of Walking While Texting. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Do Not Read This Editorial While Walking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Should you be reading this on some electronic device while crossing the street, please stop. Right now. Traffic may be swirling around you. Your inattentiveness puts you in harm's way. And if by chance you're in Montclair, Calif., while reading this and crossing the street, you'd best keep an eye out not only for cars but also for the police.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ben Carson, the secretary of housing and urban development, showed utter contempt for his agency's core mission last month when he proposed deleting the phrase "free from discrimination" from the HUD mission statement. Yet Mr. Carson is not the first housing secretary to betray the landmark Fair Housing Act of 1968 - which turns 50 years old this week - by failing to enforce policies designed to prevent states and cities from using federal dollars to perpetuate segregation.

By its actions and failure to act, HUD has prolonged segregation in housing since the 1960s under both Democratic and Republican administrations. The courts have repeatedly chastised the agency for allowing cities to confine families to federally financed ghettos that offer little or no access to jobs, transportation or viable schools. The lawsuits, filed by individuals and fair housing groups, have forced the agency to adopt rules and policies that have been crucial in advancing the goals of the Fair Housing Act.

Mr. Carson was named in such a lawsuit filed last month by the nonprofit Texas Low Income Housing Information Service. The suit accuses HUD of illegally funneling federal money to the city of Houston, despite a 2017 finding by HUD itself that the city was flouting federal civil rights laws by allowing racially motivated opposition to stop affordable housing projects in white neighborhoods. In a detail reminiscent of the Jim Crow South, the plaintiffs argue that Houston discriminates even at the level of flood relief, maintaining "entirely different (and markedly inferior) drainage systems in predominantly minority neighborhoods, exposing the residents of those neighborhoods to increased risk from storms."

The next round of lawsuits against Mr. Carson's HUD will almost certainly challenge his recent decision to suspend until 2020 rules introduced under the Obama administration that require communities to analyze housing segregation and submit plans to address it as a condition for receiving billions of dollars in federal aid.
FEDERALLY SPONSORED SEGREGATION
Critics of the Fair Housing Act have glibly attempted to dismiss attempts to end segregation as "social engineering" - as if rigid racial segregation in housing were a natural phenomenon. In fact, the residential segregation that is pervasive in the United States today was partly created by explicit federal policies that date back at least to World War I. It is now widely acknowledged that the federal insistence on segregated housing introduced Jim Crow separation in areas of the country outside the South where it had previously been unknown. It stands to reason that dismantling a system created by a set of government policies will require an equally explicit set of federal policies.

The scholar Richard Rothstein exposed the roots of this shameful process in his recent book "The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America." He reported that the government's first effort to build housing for defense workers near military installations and factories during World War I was founded on the premise that African-American families would be excluded "even from projects in northern and western industrial centers where they worked in significant numbers."

The same toxic pattern prevailed under Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, when the government created the first public housing projects for nondefense workers, building separate projects for black people, segregating buildings by race or excluding African-Americans entirely. Particularly telling is the fact that racially integrated communities were razed to make way for Jim Crow housing.

The federal insistence on rigid racial separation found its most pernicious expression in the Federal Housing Administration, created in 1934 to promote homeownership by insuring mortgages. As the sociologists Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton document in "American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass," the government typically denied mortgages to African-Americans, shutting out even affluent black people from the suburban homeownership boom that remade the residential landscape during the middle decades of the 20th century.

Government at all levels embraced racial covenants that forbade even well-to-do African-Americans from purchasing homes outside of black communities. Cut off from homeownership - the principal avenue of wealth creation - African-Americans lost the opportunity to build the intergenerational wealth that white suburban families took for granted. The vast wealth gap that exists today between whites and African-Americans has its roots in this era.

The argument for what became the Fair Housing Act emerged forcefully in the 1968 Kerner Commission report, which blamed segregation in large measure for the riots that ravaged the country in the 60s and called for national fair housing legislation. The housing law might well have died in committee had the country not erupted in fresh violence after the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on April 4, 1968. It was signed into law a week later.

The housing act put the federal government on record as supporting open housing and prohibiting the pervasive discrimination that had locked most African-Americans out of decent accommodations and homeownership. But the version that passed in 1968 had been declawed - stripped of enforcement provisions that would have given HUD strong authority to root out discrimination. Nearly a quarter-century would pass before Congress strengthened the law. So during that time, African-Americans were left subject to the harsh discrimination the original act was supposed to preclude.

This progressive sounding law - which requires entities that receive federal money to "affirmatively further" fair housing goals - was consistently undermined by officials of both parties who had little appetite for confronting entrenched segregation.

That realization came home with particular force to George Romney, Richard Nixon's HUD secretary, who initially took the law at its word and tried to enforce it by turning down grant applications from communities that continued to segregate themselves racially.

When white communities complained directly to the Oval Office, Nixon shut down Romney's effort and eventually forced him out of government. Subsequent administrations shied away from enforcing the law in ways great and small - but the Reagan administration sold it out in an egregious fashion that angered even Republicans in Congress. The administration conspired with the real estate industry to undermine HUD's already limited powers, brought cases that attacked integration programs and showed scant vigor in enforcing civil rights laws.
THE NEXT FAIR HOUSING FIGHT
The Fair Housing Act received new life three years ago when the Supreme Court endorsed the doctrine known as disparate impact, ruling that housing discrimination did not have to be intentional to be illegal. The court reminded the country that the statute does indeed bar governments from spending federal money in a way that perpetuates segregation.

Soon after, the Obama administration issued a long-awaited rule that required state and local governments to affirmatively further fair housing goals by making efforts to address the cumulative results of the discrimination that historically shut African-Americans out of many communities.

The common-sense rule rightly breaks with the laissez-faire approach of the past, making it clear that compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws means abandoning the strategy of dumping affordable housing in ghettos - and giving poor residents access to areas that offer greater opportunity. To that end, communities that receive HUD money are being asked to consider data on segregation and concentrations of poverty when making affordable housing decisions.

The fact that Congress has not overturned the rule reflects a growing awareness on both sides of the aisle that ghettoizing poor people is counterproductive - and that the country has an interest in giving low-income families access to areas that further opportunity. Later this month, for example, the House Financial Services Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on a draft bill that would increase mobility for families receiving federal housing vouchers, improving their job and educational opportunities.

The hearing is no doubt related to a widely cited Harvard study showing that young children whose families had been given housing vouchers to move to better neighborhoods were more likely to attend college and had higher incomes as adults than children whose families had not been given the vouchers. The data show that changing the circumstances in which poor families live can be crucial to breaking the cycle of intergenerational poverty.

This brings us back to the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which was intended to break down the walls around the country's ghettos so that at least some people could forge successful lives elsewhere. If the country keeps betraying this landmark law, it will continue to squander a powerful tool for reducing lethal concentrations of poverty and for opening the door to upward mobility for the poor.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page SR8 of the New York edition with the headline: America's Federally Financed Ghettos. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | America's Federally Financed Ghettos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ben Carson, the secretary of housing and urban development, showed utter contempt for his agency's core mission last month when he proposed deleting the phrase "free from discrimination" from the HUD mission statement.

# data[].attributes.body
cited link: Lewis, Benoit. “Why Are More American Teenagers Than Ever Suffering From Severe Anxiety?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 11 Oct. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/10/11/magazine/why-are-more-american-teenagers-than-ever-suffering-from-severe-anxiety.html.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Liberals And Conservatives Fight Labels And Stereotypes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Library Guides: Evaluating resources: Home

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Library Guides: Evaluating resources: Home

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Library Guides: Evaluating resources: Home

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Library Guides: Evaluating resources: Home

# data[].attributes.headline
The Muslim Exclusion: A Proposal Hauntingly Reminiscent of the Japanese Internment’The Muslim Exclusion: A Proposal Hauntingly Reminiscent of the Japanese Internment’

# data[].attributes.subject
The Muslim Exclusion: A Proposal Hauntingly Reminiscent of the Japanese Internment’The Muslim Exclusion: A Proposal Hauntingly Reminiscent of the Japanese Internment’

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We are honoring each of the Top 10 winners of our Third Annual Student Editorial Contest by publishing an essay a day. You can find them all here.

Below, an essay by Sarah Hess, age 16.
The Muslim Exclusion: A Proposal Hauntingly Reminiscent of the Japanese Internment
From the Chinese Exclusion Act to Jim Crow laws, America looks back upon its legal exclusion of certain groups with embarrassment and deep regret. How could this country, with its melting-pot culture, possibly succumb to blind fear and xenophobia time and time again? With the benefit of hindsight, there is hope that we can move toward a more progressive future. But there's an issue. The polls are telling a different story, one of regression: according to Bloomberg Politics, almost two-thirds of Republican primary voters and 37% of general election voters support Donald Trump's proposal to "temporarily" halt Muslim entrance into the United States.

In defending his plan to alienate those of the Islamic religion, Donald Trump cited the internment of the Japanese during World War II by Franklin D. Roosevelt - "a highly respected president," he said. In using Order 9066 as support, Trump broadcasts his ignorance on the subject - the relocation of the Japanese is now considered one of the biggest executive blunders in history, a stain on the Roosevelt administration. The government robbed hardworking citizens of their rightful property and put their lives on pause for three years, all while misinformed but influential people insisted that they were traitors. In 1942, General John DeWitt famously spat, "A Jap's a Jap - it makes no difference whether he is an American citizen or not." Dewitt's outburst undermined the true facts: throughout the entire war, not a single case of espionage by a Japanese person was ever confirmed. And despite this discrimination, Japanese-American sons continued to volunteer for the U.S. army, even while their families stayed in repurposed horse stables. The 442nd Regiment of predominantly those of Japanese descent would become the most highly decorated regiment of its size.

The rhetoric used against the Japanese is scarily similar of that to ban Muslims. Charlie Marzka of South Carolina agreed with Trump, saying, "The reason [to disallow Muslims] is simple: We can't identify what their attitude is." The reason is not actually that simple. Just as the Ku Klux Klan isn't representative of Christianity, so too are extremists not representative of Islam. "It's unbelievable to have a religious test for admission into this country," refutes Nancy Morawetz, a New York University clinical law professor.

By making emotional arguments instead of logical ones, Donald Trump manipulates the fear that ISIS has stirred up; our guns have turned inward, toward our own citizens. We as a country must not fall victim to this trap, this trap of hatred - there are people who would die to prove their loyalty to the U.S.A. America should and will remain open as a beacon of freedom for all those who wish to seek it.
Works Cited
Barbaro, Michael and Healy, Patrick. " Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S. " The New York Times. 07 Dec. 2015.

Bever, Lindsey. " Internment Camps? 'I Certainly Hate the Concept,' Donald Trump Says. " The Washington Post. 08 Dec. 2015.

Japanese American Internment Curriculum.

McCormick, John. " Bloomberg Politics Poll: Nearly Two-Thirds of Likely GOP Primary Voters Back Trump's Muslim Ban. " Bloomberg Politics. 09 Dec. 2015.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Editorial Contest Winner | 'The Muslim Exclusion: A Proposal Hauntingly Reminiscent of the Japanese Internment'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We are honoring each of the Top 10 winners of our Third Annual Student Editorial Contest by publishing an essay a day. You can find them all here. Below, an essay by Sarah Hess, age 16.

# data[].attributes.body
Columnist Editorial

# data[].attributes.body
Student Editorial

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Contests

One of this year's winners wrote about school lockdown drills. Related Article Credit... Alec Soth/Magnum, for The New York Times

Update | Read the work of _________ this year's 10 winners here and this year's runners-up here.
For the past four years we've invited students to write short editorials about issues they care about, and each year thousands take up the challenge.

Students often start with thoughtful questions from their own lives: Why is my school's athletic program better funded than its music program? Why do we hide in the corner of our classroom during active shooter drills? Why don't my classmates stand during the Pledge of Allegiance? And they develop sophisticated, sincere and well researched answers in response.

Students look at the nation's and world's problems and hunt for solutions - to improve the plight of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in China, for example, or to reduce recidivism rates for U.S. prisons.

We really like this contest because it asks students to look closely at their world and find something, large or small, they want to change. So, if you don't like being last in line all the time because your surname starts with "Z," then take a stand. If you want more characters in books and movies to be more like you, then write about it. If you want society to be less wasteful or more tolerant, then tell the world. Change starts with noticing, thinking critically, and starting meaningful conversations - and that's what these students have done in their editorials.

But winning this contest? It's no easy task being selected as a winner out of 7,895 entries, a record. How do you make your writing stand out from the piles of other editorials submitted to our contest - especially when you have no more than 450 words to get your point across?

Here's one way: Start strong. Grab our attention in the first few sentences, but don't take too long to state your argument.

Here's another: Pick a fresh topic, or a new angle on a popular topic, and be very clear about what you are arguing. Often when students narrow in on a specific concern, their editorial becomes more persuasive.

What else? Write with an original, confident voice and avoid formulaic language and structure. And if appropriate, acknowledge, and deftly dispatch, counterarguments.

Below, we list 10 winners, 15 runners-up and 45 honorable mentions. We also include a PDF of all the finalists, including 58 who made the cut to the third round of judging, but didn't quite reach the winner's circle.

Starting May 22, we will be publishing one of the Top 10 essays each weekday in posts that we hope you will spread on social media, hang on school bulletin boards and perhaps even use as "mentor texts" for next year's contest.

Thank you for participating - and we hope you'll take part in our Summer Reading Contest, starting June 16.

_________

Each category below lists our favorites in alphabetical order by title. Where titles were missing, we came up with our own.
Top 10 Winners
" A Psychedelic Cure?" by Reagan Briere, age 16
" In Nothing We Trust" by Francesca Kelley, age 18
" Leave the Citizens to Their TV Shows" by Yijia Hu, age 17
" Losing the Internet" by David Scharts, age 15
" Reform the Prison, Then the Prisoner" by Katherine Leonard, age 16
" Stopping Bullets With Locked Doors and Silence Is Already Pulling the Trigger" by Daina Kalnina, age 15
" The Anguish of the Rich" by Yiqi Wang, age 17
" The Asian Misnomer: What the Affirmative Action Debate Misses" by Matteo Wong, age 16
" The Collateral Damage of Defending Democracy" by Sarah Heiland, age 18
" The Missing Anthropological Exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History " by Alec Farber, age 16
_________ Runners-Up
"America First" by Safa Saleh, age 17
"America? More Like Ameri-Can't Vote" by Gianni Carcagno, age 17
"Climate Literacy: A Critical Step Toward Climate Stability" by Ella Shriner, age 14 and Hannah Witscher, age 15
"Cultural Appropriation: A Measure of Empathy" by James Chang, age 16
"Discourse Is Democracy: Allowing Uncensored Speech on College Campuses" by Abigail Hogan, age 17
"Drone Warfare: The Failing Fight Against the Modern Hydra" by Michael Levinger, age 16
"Generation Code Red" by Grace Scullion, age 16
"Humane Human Zoo?" by Ella Ward, age 15
"Paper or Plastic? How About a Paper ON Plastic!" by Melody Markert, age 17
"The Future Disintegration of American Democracy Through Athletics" by Julianne Yu, age 16
"The Case for Teaching News Literacy" by Mary Hannah Grier, age 17
"The Unspoken Alphabet Problem" by Stephanie Zhang, age 14
"The 'War on Drugs' Will Never Work; Legalization Will" by Kristina Vakhman, age 18
"There Is No Happily Ever After Without Once Upon a Time" by Bridget O'Leary, age 17
"When Will This Class Be Useful?" by Casey Stark, age 15
_________ Honorable Mentions
"#WorldChanger" by Joyce Zhou, age 17
"A Case for Impassiveness" by Lea Marchl, age 16
"A Scoop in the Right Direction" by Emma S., age 18
"AP Tests Don't Leave Enough Room for the Human Side of History" by Tom Malmgren, age 16
"Are My Shoulders Distracting You?" by Mairi Alice Dun, age 17
"Autism: Educated and Extraordinary" by Isabella Zhang, age 17
"Bittersweet" by Rena Rachlin, age 15 "Child Labor in the U.S. Today" by Jasmine Campos, age 16 and Charlotte Principal, age 16
"China Needs Silver Lining" by Wangchen Zhou, age 17
"Colleges Should Abandon Race-Based Affirmative Action to Achieve True Diversity" by Eric Davis, age 18
"Embrace the Mess" by Chi Yu, age 14
"Fast Fashion Is Destroying Our World" by Melissa Wang, age 17
"Food Stamps Need a Change" by Patrick Meara, age 17
"Governor Cuomo Frees the Plastic Bagss" by Jiayan Chen, age 17
"Help Wanted: Moderate Politicians" by Ireland Degges, age 17
"High School Should Not Just Be About Sports" by Swathi Kella, age 16
"How Far Can Post-Truth Democracy Take Us?" by Jiahe Yang, age 18
"How to Revitalize the Public Education System" by Dhara Yu, age 18
"Last Man Standing" by Kathryn Porter, age 16
"Leave Me Alone" by Celia Silver, age 17
"More Than a Morning Kick" by Emma Cary, age 16
"Multiple Choice: Not Multiple Enough" by Yi-Mei Templeman, age 17
"Picking Cotton: An Immigrant's Perspective" by Allan Njomo, age 16
"Post-Democracy" by Nadav Ziv, age 17
"Should Juvenile Offenders Receive Life Sentences Without Parole on Their First Offense?" by Tayler Gavetti, age 16
"Should Obamacare Be Repealed?" by William Pharo, age 16
"Single Payer: A Cure for America's Healthcare Woes" by Akshay Manglik, age 13
"Streaky Friendship" by Yuxin Long, age 16
"Technology: A Hindrance to Learning" by Zachary Weiss, age 17
"Teens, Technology, and The Pursuit of Happiness" by Sam Jagolinzer, age 17
"The Bluest Note" by Nicholas Dasoveanu, age 18
"The College Conspiracy" by Serenity W., age 17
"The Cost of Health Care May Be in Your Genes" by Sophia Lo, age 16
"The Demoralizing of the Elizabethan Language" by Olivia Seymour, age 14
"The Disposable Nightmare" by Tianxin Guo, age 14
"The Education Gap" by Adam Traweek, age 16 "The Environment in the Age of Trump" by Elliot Tuttle, age 17
"The Growing Problem of Screen Addiction" by Kaitlin Craig, age 16
"The Picture of Education We Must Change" by Danielle Naidrich, age 17
"Tipping the Pay Scale" by Ruhee Damle, age 14
"Untitled" by Melinda Hartz, age 16
"We Should Be Teaching Rap Music in Schools" by Jack Zuckerman, age 19
"What Do You Call Someone That Only Speaks One Language? An American." by Paige Patton, age 16
"Where Are All the Rainbows?" by Storm Viridian Murray, age 17
"Where Trump's Ban Stands Legally" by Marcus Linde, age 16
_________ And All the Finalists, Including 58 More Great Editorials That Made It to Round 3 (PDF) Judges: Amanda Christy Brown, Shannon Doyne, Caroline Crosson Gilpin, Michael Gonchar, Annissa Hambouz, Thomas Houston, Shira Katz, Willow Lawson, Linda Leavitt, Sue Mermelstein, Anna North, Roxie Salamon-Abrams, Katherine Schulten, Matt Schwarzfeld, Natlie Shutler and Kate Spence-Ado

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Call to Action: Winners From Our Fourth Annual Student Editorial Contest (Published 2017)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Contests Update | Read the work of _________ this year's 10 winners here and this year's runners-up here . For the past four years we've invited students to write short editorials about issues they care about, and each year thousands take up the challenge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Contests

One of our 2017 editorial winners wrote about China's unofficial ban on Korean cultural exports, such as the boy band Exo. Credit... Starnews, via Agence France-Presse - Getty Images

The challenge is fairly straightforward. Choose a topic you care about, gather evidence from sources both within and outside The Times and write a concise editorial (450 words or less) to convince readers of your view.

Because editorial writing at newspapers is a collaborative process, you can write your entry as a team effort or by yourself. When you're done, submit it using the contest form below by Thursday, April 5, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern. Be sure to read the rules, also below, before posting.

Our judges will then use this rubric (PDF) for selecting winners to publish on The Learning Network.

As teachers know, the persuasive essay has long been a staple of high school education, but the Common Core standards seem to have put evidence-based argumentative writing on everybody's agenda. You couldn't ask for a more real-world example of the genre than the classic newspaper editorial - and The Times publishes, on average, two of them a day.

And at a time when breaking out of one's "filter bubble" is more important than ever, we hope this contest also encourages students to broaden their news diets by using multiple sources, ideally ones that offer a range of perspectives on their chosen issue.

So what issue do you care about? Gun violence? Sexual harassment? Social media? You decide.

Good luck, and please post any questions you might have in the comments. We'll answer you there.

_________
Note: The submission form has been removed from this page. The contest is closed.
_________

Video

The New York Times's editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal provides seven tips for writing an effective editorial.

To help with this challenge, Andrew Rosenthal, in his previous role as Editorial Page editor of The Times, detailed seven pointers in the video above. And we have published related lesson plans, including " For the Sake of Argument: Writing Persuasively to Craft Short, Evidence-Based Editorials," " I Don't Think So: Writing Effective Counterarguments" and " 10 Ways to Teach Argument-Writing With The New York Times," that offer additional teaching ideas.

We have also culled a list of 401 prompts for argumentative writing organized by category, to help inspire you - although, of course, you are not limited to those topics.

We encourage you to look at both our comments on last year's winners and the winning essays themselves. They can serve as excellent models, and they cover topics from active-shooter school lockdowns to Korean television shows in China.

In addition, you can watch our free, archived webinar, featuring the Op-Ed columnist Nicholas Kristof and Kabby Hong, a high school English teacher.

1. Use at least one Times source. You can write your editorial about any topic, as long as you use at least one source from The Times. That should pretty much open the whole world to you, as you may be surprised how much you can find in The Times.

Be advised that nytimes.com has a digital subscription system in which readers have access to five free articles each month, but after that you will be asked to become a digital subscriber. The Times also offers K-12 digital subscription plans for schools. But all Learning Network activities for students, including our daily writing prompts, as well as Times articles linked from them, are free, so you can access them without exceeding the five-article limit.

2. Use at least one non-Times source. But make sure that the source you use is a reliable one. We encourage you to find sources that offer different perspectives on an issue.

3. Always cite your sources. Our submission form contains a required field for entering your citations. We include an example as well, though you can use M.L.A. or A.P.A. styles, or just list the website URLs. Even if you use a print source or an expert interview, you must provide a citation. Readers (and judges) should always know where you got your evidence.

4. Be concise. The editorial must not exceed 450 words. Your title and list of sources are separate, however, and do not count as part of your 450-word limit.

5. Have an opinion. Editorials are different from news articles because they try to persuade readers to share your point of view. Don't be afraid to take a stand.

6. Write your editorial by yourself or with a group. If you are working as a team, just remember to submit all of your names when you post your entry. But please submit only one editorial per student. If you're submitting as part of a team, you should not also submit as an individual.

7. Be original and use appropriate language. Write for a well-informed audience, but include enough background information to give context. Be careful not to plagiarize: Use quotation marks around lines you take verbatim from another source, or rephrase and cite your source.

8. Submissions must be from students who are 13 to 19 years old, and they may come from anywhere in the world. Unlike in previous years, students can now use their entire name if they want.

9. All entries must be submitted by April 5 at 11:59 p.m. Easternusing the contest form above. If you have questions about the contest, feel free to post them in the comments section, and we'll respond to you there.

10. Follow these instructions if you need proof that you entered this contest. Within an hour of submitting your editorial, you should receive an email from "The New York Times" with the subject heading "Thank you for your submission to our Student Editorial Contest." If you don't receive the email within an hour, even after checking your spam folder, then you can resubmit your entry. Be sure your settings allow emails from nytimes.com.

After two attempts and waiting over one full day, if you still have not received a confirmation email, you can contact us at LNFeedback@nytimes.com with the email address you used in the contest form. Use the subject heading "Please send me an email confirmation for my editorial contest submission." Be sure to include your name and editorial title (or subject) in your email. You may have to wait up to a week for a reply.

11. We will use this rubric (PDF) to judge entries, and the winning editorials will be featured on The Learning Network.

" Writing an Editorial" Unit Plan, by Lindsay Thompson

" Reader Idea | He Said, She Said, I Say: A Researched Argument Essay," by Danielle Harms

" Reader Idea | Using an Op-Doc Video to Teach Argumentative Writing," by Allison Marchetti

" Reader Idea | Using Room for Debate to Teach Argumentative Writing and Discussion Skills," by Gerard Dawson and Justin Rex

" Reader Idea | An Argument-Writing Unit: Crafting Student Editorials," by Kayleen Everitt

Good luck and have fun. We welcome your questions and comments if we have omitted details that might be useful. Let us know how we can help.

_________
The Learning Network runs contests for teenagers all year long. See our full calendar.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Our Fifth Annual Student Editorial Contest: Write About an Issue That Matters to You (Published 2018)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Contests The challenge is fairly straightforward. Choose a topic you care about, gather evidence from sources both within and outside The Times and write a concise editorial (450 words or less) to convince readers of your view. Because editorial writing at newspapers is a collaborative process, you can write your entry as a team effort or by yourself.