Today, the children’s section of your local Barnes & Noble or public library is chock full of books covering topics that an early 2000s baby such as myself would never dream would be depicted in the flashy illustrations of a picture book. Topics that, until recently, sometimes had yet to be accepted by society, let alone mainstream media. These books, some of which I will highlight, discuss ideas such as domestic abuse, emotional regulation and even gender identity and expression. While some might be inclined to label these subjects as “progressive” or “woke,” I would prefer to view them as “revolutionary” and “reflective of a major societal shift” — which I suppose is not as catchy.

Take, for instance, the book “The Rabbit Listened” by Cori Doerrfeld. In this work, Doerrfeld illustrates the story of Taylor, a shy toddler who has just constructed a magnificent tower out of blocks. Not minutes after her behemoth has been completed, a flock of birds swoops down and destroys her structure. The rest of the book follows various animals’ attempts to comfort Taylor, like the chicken’s suggestion that she talk about the incident. None of it helps Taylor feel better, until a rabbit comes along and listens to Taylor process her grief in the way that she wants. Now I ask you, the reader, does this sound like a book that only applies to children? Not at all. The discussion of coping mechanisms and emotional intelligence, paired with the overarching theme of, “Sometimes the best support you can offer someone is just to be there and listen to them,” has an application that extends to all ages. Many other contemporary authors have joined Doerrfeld in her mission to create books that touch upon meaningful and contemporary themes that apply to a broad age range beyond those to which they are marketed.

There are plenty of books that would fall under the category of “self-help” in the literary classification system that present the same notions of emotional vulnerability and support systems from a psychological or sociological perspective. And those books are phenomenal for researching the intricate details of these topics. However, they do not make these ideas nearly as accessible as picture books do. Because picture books are made for younger audiences, they can be understood by people of all ages with all types of cognitive abilities and interests. They have truly become crash courses on modern social, historical and behavioral developments.

Now, I could not possibly write on this topic without addressing the multicolored elephant in the room — politics. In the current political climate, which is polarized in ways that it never has been before, every aspect of social creation cannot escape politicization. This includes picture books. While there have always been political picture books, such as Dr. Seuss’ “Yertle the Turtle,” today’s books are more directly related to hot button issues in the political world. In light of recent book bans across American states, such as the recent removal of books in Florida classrooms that discuss topics such as race or gender, it is clear that the landscape of children’s literature has become a distinctly political one. While certain books may appear to advance or support a certain political ideology, the beauty of reading picture books, like reading anything in this country, is that there are a wide array of books that cover a range of beliefs to choose from. That said, I encourage you to examine picture books that cover topics and perspectives that are unfamiliar to you. I am confident that if those who are concerned with the politicization of children’s books took some time to read a few, they would realize that the knowledge these books present is universal and nonpartisan.

So what are you waiting for? Close your laptop — after checking out a few more Pipe Dream articles, of course — and head down to your local library. Peruse the children’s shelves. Discover, learn and grow. Everyone must take some time to view the materials that will become the building blocks of future generations, just as the books we read as children helped us craft our world today.

Peter Proscia is a junior majoring in English.

These words, spoken by Walt Disney on July 17, 1955, and today emblazoned upon a golden plaque at the entrance of Disneyland, are filled with the warmth and whim that is said to be foundational to the Walt Disney Company.

However, in the almost 70 years since its inception, the inclusivity that this message boasts has never truly been manifested in Disney’s practices. While enchanting castles and romance between lighter-skinned royalty have captivated the hearts of children and adults alike for decades, recent decisions within the Disney company have created a media-based movement to unmask the man in the mouse costume and test the corporation’s loyalty to embracing diversity.

At the beginning of March, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced his support for a piece of legislation titled “Parental Rights in Education,” which opponents have aptly named “Don’t Say Gay.” The bill will ban the discussion of sexual identity or sexuality in Florida’s elementary schools. As the head of a multibillion-dollar company with a strong basis in Florida and a substantial global influence, many turned to Disney’s CEO Bob Chapek to see how the company would respond to DeSantis’ ruling.

Initially, Chapek declined to comment on the matter, citing a desire for the company to remain unengaged in political affairs. Perhaps the CEO is unaware of a cartoon which depicts Donald Duck in a Nazi-based fever dream that the company’s founder oversaw the creation of. Still, the refusal to condemn “Don’t Say Gay” made many Disney employees and fans, especially those that are a part of the LGBTQ+ community, understandably upset. Some felt that the company which they cherished both failed to remain conscious of its social impact and failed to support the welfare of LGBTQ+ youth in Florida.

Even after an apology from Chapek and the release of multiple statements from Disney executives supporting LGBTQ+ rights, media and Mouseketeers alike are hesitant to immediately ignore the corporation’s recent actions, nor should they. This is not the first time that Disney leadership has failed to promote diversity and inclusivity in their work, nor will it likely be their last. Among the organization’s outputs, there have been various minorities that have left without any pixie dust on the cutting room floor. Among these individuals, by far the most underrepresented are LGBTQ+ people.

In the 1990s, or what is often referred to as the Renaissance of Disney animation, Walt Disney Animation Studios released a number of critically-acclaimed films, including “The Little Mermaid” in 1989, “Beauty and the Beast” in 1991 and “The Lion King” in 1994. While many of these productions are undoubtedly beloved classics today, modern viewers have begun to question the distinctions between the heteronormative protagonists and their seemingly “queer coded,” adversaries. Queer coding is the subtextual suggestion that a character is not heterosexual or cisgender without the explicit confirmation that a character identifies as an LGBTQ+ individual.

For instance, the sea witch, Ursula, from “The Little Mermaid” is modeled after the celebrated drag queen, Divine, while Scar’s lack of mating in “The Lion King” (plus a recent statement from the lion’s voice actor) and LeFou’s obsession with Gaston in “Beauty and the Beast” may suggest that both characters are gay. What is problematic about the connection of these characters to LGBTQ+ culture is that they are all the villains of their respective stories. Children observe their behaviors and involuntarily begin to label them, and by extension the behaviors of LGBTQ+ individuals, as evil. This mindset is then transferred into the wider social consciousness when these young viewers grow up and begin to shape society.

In recent years, Disney has transitioned from queer coding to “queerbaiting,” which is the marketing technique of saying that a product will include LGBTQ+ characters without presenting a meaningful depiction of LGBTQ+ representation. Disney loves to advertise that a film will include the “first” character of a particular community, filling the blank in with various LGBTQ+ identities, as a way to appear inclusive and draw in progressive crowds. However, the results are almost always disappointing.

While there have been numerous examples in the past decade of Disney queerbaiting, three of the most notable instances are in 2017’s live-action remake of “Beauty and the Beast,” 2020’s “Onward” (produced by Pixar, a Disney franchise), and 2021’s “Luca” (also produced by Pixar). In the former two examples, Disney announced before the release of the films that they would feature a gay character. However, in both, the references to non-straight characters were mere seconds long. LeFou in “Beauty and the Beast” was shown dancing with a man during one shot of a group scene and Onward featured a female police officer that makes an offhand mention of her girlfriend. Shortly after the backlash in response to “Onward’s” pitiful lesbian representation, Disney released a colorful animated short called “Out” on Disney+. “Out” tells the story of a man named Greg who is unsure how to come out as gay to his mother, only able to do so once he transforms into a dog. While it is wonderful to see an outwardly gay character as the protagonist of a Disney production, the fact that Greg has to become a dog before he receives acceptance dehumanizes the narrative. Incidentally, Disney also has a troubled history of their non-white characters regularly turning into animals, as is the case in movies such as 2009’s “Princess and the Frog” and even their latest release, “Turning Red.” In “Out,” the use of an animal transformation feels like Disney’s attempt to throw a bone (pun intended) to those chastising them for their heteronormative proclivity without creating a meaningful storyline with an LGBTQ+ character.

In “Luca,” two young boys develop a relationship that appears to not be completely platonic (they dream of traveling the world together on one Vespa scooter, an undoubtedly romantic image.) The boys are fish creatures and continually need to disguise themselves to fit in with human society, which can easily be viewed as a commentary on closeting in the LGBTQ+ community. All of these instances give the facade of LGBTQ+ expression without providing audiences with any authentic representation.

Disney has, however, made attempts to highlight LGBTQ+ individuals in their parks and merchandise by releasing a line of rainbow-colored items in June for Pride Month and switching all automated announcements from “Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls” to “dreamers of all ages.” However, both of these initiatives, especially the former, are based on Disney’s commercialistic desire to generate as much revenue from as much of the global population as possible. Disney only seems to respond to change when it is likely to generate an equal amount of change for Mickey’s pockets.

At the end of the day, the only way for Disney to shift away from their trend of misrepresentation and underrepresentation of LGBTQ+ individuals is by consciously redefining its creative process. Primarily, they need to allow members of the LGBTQ+ community who are in the company to have more influence over not only project ideas, but characters in existing projects. There are too many figures with similar lifestyles, backgrounds and mindsets running developmental departments to create content that is able to bring diverse stories to life. Currently, Disney is working on the movie “Lightyear,” which follows the canonical individual that the iconic Toy Story toy, Buzz Lightyear, is based on. During the production process, Pixar executives wanted to discard a scene in which two romantically-involved female characters kiss. Fortunately, backlash from the animators led this decision to be reversed. This incident only proves the need for Disney to utilize the diversity in its staff to create enjoyable narratives that represent all audiences. A similar solution should be applied to Disney’s interactions with various cultural and social groups, as well as their responses to legislation that applies to those groups. Chapek and his associates must purposefully listen to the voices of those in the communities that are being discussed and impacted in order to properly address them. It is the only way that Disney will ever be able to truly welcome all into their “happy place.”

Peter Proscia is a sophomore majoring in English.

So, why do schools across the nation choose to continue a decades-long tradition of downplaying the dangers of fossil fuel reliance, despite the flood of harrowing climate-related headlines in mainstream media? Is it a purely political and social matter, like the education of evolution or literary censorship? While sifting through fossil-fuel-based worksheets, lesson plans and textbook chapters from primary schools across the country, I found that the common thread was more economic than anything else. The vast majority of these materials were produced with funding from oil and gas companies. Thus, it should come as no surprise that many of these sources not only neglect to discuss the harmful and unsustainable elements of fossil fuel usage, but also glorify their role in society.

One of the most egregious and infamous examples of fossil fuel marketing in American classrooms is the “Petro Pete” campaign in Oklahoma public schools. Petro Pete is a cartoon character that was created by the Oklahoma Energy Resources Board (OERB) in the early 2000s. The OERB, which has proudly donated over $2 billion to schools in the past 10 years, is funded by Oklahoma fossil fuel companies. Pete, who resembles a grotesque and infantile rendition of Bob the Builder, is featured in a series of picture books and activity sheets that highlight the global reliance on oil and gas. In the most popular of the OERB books, “Petro Pete’s Big Bad Dream,” the titular character reflects on the number of his possessions that rely on fossil fuels to be produced, such as a toothbrush, or function, such as a school bus. Pete has a nightmare where he wakes up to find all of his fossil fuel byproducts have disappeared, only to receive an in-depth lesson on the “miracles” of oil and gas production in his science class. The young readers of the book are intended to learn vicariously through Pete about the role of fossil fuels in their daily lives.

For decades, this story and others like it have been directly implemented into American elementary education, often being the only sources regarding fossil fuels that children are exposed to. In addition to fabricating narratives that idolize fossil fuel production and use, oil and gas companies produce supplemental “educational” worksheets that underline the alleged advantages of non-renewable energy over renewable options. One infographic from the Ohio Oil and Gas Energy Education Program (OOGEEP), titled “Environmental Benefits of Ohio’s Crude Oil and Natural Gas,” claims that because natural gas pumps require less acreage and smaller surface structures than solar panels and wind turbines, fossil fuels are a more sensible choice than their energy-efficient counterparts. The OOGEEP has also developed a fossil fuel activity sheet that combines the glorification of pollution with the innocent fun of a maze and connect-the-dots. These materials, which present one-sided portrayals of fossil fuels, leave young students both ignorant of the ongoing climate crisis and fawning over their planet’s murder weapon.

Although some may believe that the gas-, oil- and coal-centric values instilled in American children are easily erased later in life after these students receive higher education, this is not the case. Despite the recent movement to include relevant and realistic portrayals of climate change in middle and high school science classrooms nationwide, these efforts cannot wholly reverse the harmful effects of a student’s elementary environmental education. As any expert in child development will tell you, children are highly impressionable. Between the ages of seven and 11 years old — years during which a child would typically be in elementary school — the human brain is constantly being shaped by sensory experiences, including the oral lessons that a child is taught. While it is possible for a person to change their perceptions later in life, it is improbable due to the steadfast neurological foundation that has been established. One might even compare the actions of fossil fuel companies to those of the multimillion-dollar company, Juul, which received backlash in 2020 for polluting children’s lungs and minds with flashing marketing campaigns and fruity flavors. Using mental manipulation, both enterprises are encouraging toxic lifestyles for young people that are hard to abandon.

While problematic discussions of fossil fuels continue to dominate American education, there has recently been a push among school administrations and district science departments across the country to shift the narrative to a less biased position. Organizations such as the New Hampshire Energy Education Project work with local schools to create demonstrations for young students to illustrate the impacts of climate change, such as using puddles on the playground to showcase the downsides of a rapidly warming environment. On a nationwide scale, climate-oriented groups like the United States Environmental Protection Agency offer a plethora of climate-conscious educational resources for educators and students. Additionally, the National Research Council, National Science Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and National Science Teachers Association recently partnered to propose new Common Core standards that would introduce a well-rounded narrative of fossil fuels and their alternatives in grades prior to middle school. These partnerships have created murmurs within the education industry regarding evident gaps in climate-science teaching that have the potential to become a roar.

Direct commercial intervention has no place in our nation’s classrooms. We cannot allow textbooks to be written by stockholders or lesson plans to be dictated by CEOs. The time has come to remove fossil fuel marketing from the curriculum of American elementary schools. Only then we can ensure that our science lessons remain scientific and our future remains open to change.

Peter Proscia is a sophomore majoring in English.

Some would argue that the mainstream commercials that play during the Super Bowl and on daily TV are relatively harmless, which is true. Most of these ads, with their rambling actors and personified peanuts, while slightly manipulative, do not pose a significant risk to anyone. However, other types of commercials, namely those that discuss an issue that affects many and provide quick “solutions,” can negatively impact us in ways we are not privy to. The main culprit of this deception? Pharmaceutical advertisements.

Take, for instance, the promotion of Efinaconazole, an antifungal medication that was advertised during the 2015 Super Bowl. According to a 2020 study, after the ad aired, prescriptions for the drug increased by 91 percent. Whereas on the surface this may appear to mean that a large percentage of the American population suffering from fungal infections received the help they needed, research suggests Efinaconazole is not the best way to treat severe conditions, and therefore most likely did not benefit all those who were encouraged to take it.

These ads pray on hopeful sufferers, leading them to try to get their hands on miracle cures only to discover they cannot receive it, their doctor does not recommend it or that it simply doesn’t work. As a result, patients begin to greatly distrust medical professionals and even consider bypassing their advice, taking an advertised medication unsupervised. According to a 2020 study from The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 23 percent of Americans would likely switch their health care provider if they were told by their primary doctor that they could not receive an advertised drug. Similarly, the data showed that over one third of Americans agreed that watching drug ads makes it seem as if medical consultation is not needed before taking commercialized medicine. Consequently, patients become frustrated and stressed with their medical care and begin to take medications that are unsafe for their consumption.

Some may claim that pharmaceutical ads might raise awareness for a certain condition or disorder and therefore have societal and medical value. However, the goals of these ads are to get people to take a certain medication. They are not made to support the research and social discussion of the ailments that they are showcasing. Thus, as aforementioned, the main impact they have is encouraging thousands of people to seek out a substance that will not help them alleviate their discomfort. The best course of action for those looking to aid other people dealing with a life-altering condition is to help them talk to their doctor about proper treatment plans and support not-for-profit organizations whose main goal is to raise awareness and fund research for that condition.

So, what can be done to avoid the dangers of advertising? Unfortunately, companies are never going to stop marketing as long as it remains profitable. And, with the expert knowledge marketing teams have on the human psyche, it will always be profitable. However, we as consumers are not powerless. We can shift the legislation that regulates what topics can and cannot be the focus of commercials. In fact, in 2015, the American Medical Association (AMA) advocated for Congress to ban drug ads. The movement is still ongoing and widely supported. In the meantime, the AMA has released a guide for medical administrations outlining ethical ways to approach patients exposed to harmful marketing. On a community-wide level, those who witness advertisements that appear to take advantage of certain suffering or underprivileged groups should respectfully address their concerns with the offending companies online or over the phone. Additionally, those who have been exposed to ads and had a negative experience should share their story in whatever forums they are able online and in print.

Before reaching for that telephone or credit card, all of us should consider whether a product is truthfully advertised and genuinely something that will improve our lives or if it’s just made to appear so. Be extra wary of medical advertisements and always utilize both your doctor’s opinion and your own independent research to decide whether a treatment is right for you. Diligence is key. After all, when advertisements feature utopia as a technicolor dreamscape combined with your average world, it is almost impossible to separate reality from fiction. With some more time and voices from the public, I am confident that the fight between marketing and public welfare can end with the latter as the victor.

Peter Proscia is a sophomore majoring in English.