essay questions journeys end

Resources you can trust

Journey's End

If you are teaching R.C. Sheriff's powerful World War One play, our resources on characters, key quotations and themes will help to consolidate students' understanding. Use the revision resources and essay questions to prepare GCSE English Literature students for their exams.    

Resource collection

• (-) Show all (9)
• English (9)
• (-) All key stages (9)
• All global tags (18)
• (-) Journey’s End (9)
• R.C. Sheriff (9)

Resource type

• Student activity (9)
• Revision (1)
• Teaching ideas (1)
• Edexcel (8)

Search results

‘Journey’s End’ complete set of questions.

You need to login or register to continue, description.

A complete set of questions for 'Journey's End'. Used to teach students studying GSCE Literature (Edexcel). Questions are intended to develop inferences and interpretation, rather than language analysis; however, these questions could be used as a starting point for anyone studying 'Journey's End' / any exam board.

Author Info

Rebecca Durham

Download info, july 29, 2020.

Journey’s End

R.c. sherriff, ask litcharts ai: the answer to your questions.

• International
• Schools directory
• Resources Jobs Schools directory News Search

Journey's End - Example Essays, Questions and Paragraphs

Subject: English

Age range: 11-14

Resource type: Assessment and revision

Last updated

20 June 2021

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

This resource is a hugely helpful bundle that includes a range of example essays, paragraphs and questions on Journey’s End. It can be helpful for teachers in developing their understanding of the play and how their teaching might be shaped; it can also be useful as exemplar or model material that is given to pupils in order to help them to develop their understanding of how to write analytically at a high level in KS3 or reasonable / solid KS4 level.

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

The Secret Push That Could Ban TikTok

U.s. lawmakers have long worried that the chinese government could use the app to spread propaganda..

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email [email protected] with any questions.

From “The New York Times,” I’m Sabrina Tavernise. And this is “The Daily.”

[THEME MUSIC]

American lawmakers have tried for years to ban the video app TikTok over concerns that its ties to China pose a national security risk. Last week, they passed a law that might finally do it. Today, my colleague, Sapna Maheshwari, on the secret effort behind the law and what a ban would mean for the company’s 170 million American users.

It’s Tuesday, April 30.

So Sapna, tell me about this law that just passed that potentially bans the social media app TikTok. We’ve seen efforts in the past to rein in TikTok, but this one really seems like the most substantial yet.

It’s a huge deal. What this law really does is it puts the future of this hugely popular app with 170 million American users into question. TikTok has reshaped the way many people listen to music. It’s changed the way we cook. It’s made a whole different kind of celebrity.

But it’s never been able to shake these concerns around the fact that it has really close ties to China. It’s owned by a Chinese company, ByteDance. And lawmakers, for years, have been worried that the Chinese government could somehow use ByteDance and TikTok to get information on Americans or possibly spread propaganda.

President Trump tried to ban it in 2020. The State of Montana tried to ban this app last year. TikTok has largely survived those challenges, but this time it could actually be banned in the United States.

So let’s talk about this. Why did this effort succeed where the other ones failed?

So it’s an interesting story.

Here we go.

The committee will come to order.

And it really dates back to this hearing about a year ago that Congress had with Shou Chew, the CEO of TikTok.

Mr. Chew, you are here because the American people need the truth about the threat TikTok poses to our national and personal security.

Members of the committee, thank you for your time.

— TikTok has repeatedly said that it has addressed these national security concerns and that there’s no issue here. And you can hear that when Shou Chew testified.

Let me start by addressing a few misconceptions about ByteDance of which we are a subsidiary. ByteDance is not owned or controlled by the Chinese government.

He’s saying American investors are behind ByteDance.

Now, TikTok itself is not available in mainland China. We’re headquartered in Los Angeles and in Singapore.

And I myself am Singaporean. I live in Singapore.

The bottom line is this — American data, stored on American soil, by an American company, overseen by American personnel.

And we are actually going above and beyond what American technology companies do to keep things safe.

And I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much.

And is Congress convinced by that?

Congress is not convinced by that.

ByteDance is a Chinese company?

Well, ByteDance owns many businesses that operates in China.

Is it or is it not a Chinese company?

Congressman, the way we look at it, it was founded by Chinese entrepreneurs.

No, no, no, no. I’m not asking how you look at it. Fact, is it a Chinese company or not? For example, Dell is a company —

It was this really fiery, five-hour hearing, where Republicans and Democrats asked really contentious questions.

We do not promote or remove content at the request of the Chinese government. Will you repeat —

The question is, are you percent certain that they cannot use your company to promote such messages?

It is our commitment to this committee and all our users that we will keep this free from any manipulation by any government.

OK. If you can’t say it 100 percent certain I take that as a no.

There’s this underlying sense of distrust around the company and its ties to China.

I will remind you that making false or misleading statements to Congress is a federal crime.

I understand. Again, you can go on our platform. You will find that content.

And it becomes clear through the hearing that, across the board, Republicans and Democrats largely feel the same way.

Mr. Chew, I got to hand it to you. You’ve actually done something that in the last three to four years has not happened except for the exception of maybe Vladimir Putin. You have unified Republicans and Democrats.

So within weeks of this hearing, this small group of lawmakers gets together. And they say, let’s come up with a law that works where all the other ones have failed and actually make TikTok answer to its Chinese connections once and for all.

So tell me about this small group of lawmakers. Who are they?

So it starts with Republicans. Among them is Steve Scalise, one of the most powerful Republicans in the House. And a small group sort of works together for a few months, but they realize that in order to really make this law work, they’re going to need Democrats. So they end up working through this House Committee that’s focused on China and competition. And this is where the bulk of the work on this bill takes place.

And just to note, this is a really small group. There’s less than 20 key players who are working on this. And all throughout, they are keeping this very, very secret.

And why exactly are they keeping it secret? What’s the point of that?

So this group really wanted to keep this out of the eyes of TikTok, which has a huge lobbying presence in DC, and has successfully worked to kill bills that targeted TikTok in the past. And what they’re really doing is looking at all of the past efforts to either force a sale or a ban of TikTok, and trying to work their way through why those plans didn’t succeed and what they can do differently.

But while the lawmakers are working on this bill, something big happens that kind of changes the politics around it. And that’s October 7.

Your social media feeds are unique to you, but could they be shaping how you view the Israel-Gaza War? The BBC’s —

As the war breaks out and people start getting information about it, a lot of people are getting information about the Israel-Hamas War on TikTok, especially young people.

Social media algorithms seem to be driving some users towards increasingly divisive posts —

And there’s this big messy argument spilling out into living rooms and all over the internet, and, of course on TikTok. And it’s getting very heated. For instance, there’s this moment in the fall where a bunch of TikTok users start sharing this old manifesto.

I read Osama bin Laden’s “Letter to America.”

It’s wild, and everyone should read it.

Go read “A Letter to America.” Seriously, go read it.

That was actually written by Osama bin Laden, defending the 9/11 attacks and criticizing the United States’ support of Israel. TikTok users start trying to tie it to the modern day conflict.

Reading this letter, it becomes apparent to me that the actions of 9/11 were all just the buildup of our government failing other nations.

The way this letter is going viral right now is giving me the greatest sense of relief. Now it’s all coming to light because of Palestine.

And there’s these accusations that TikTok may be promoting one side of the conflict over the other. And a couple of researchers look at hashtags around Palestine, and they say that the data they pulled shows that TikTok is showing way more pro-Palestine videos and not so much for Israel. And this sets off huge alarm bells for this small group of lawmakers.

But isn’t that just a function of the fact that TikTok, at this point, is the public square in the United States for young people? I mean, this is what young people were talking about, and this is where they’re doing the talking.

TikTok has pushed back really forcefully against these accusations. They said that Gallup polls show that young people view Israel differently than older generations. They say that they’re not the ones influencing what people post, that the hashtags and the videos are a reflection of the user base and nothing that they’re doing to influence.

But for lawmakers, this doesn’t really make their concerns go away. Instead, this conflict shows them how TikTok could be used to spread propaganda. It made lawmakers feel that TikTok could be really dangerous when it comes to shaping the views of Americans on foreign policy, on US elections. And what it also does is, it provides this driving force to this group that’s drafting this bill. And they suddenly see that this might be a way to bring more people into their effort.

And so heading into November against this backdrop, they even bring in the White House and the Justice Department to help work on this bill. And with the White House, they want to make sure that this is a bill that the president will support. And they work with the Justice Department to shore up the language in the bill to help defend against court challenges.

Because the Justice Department, of course, would be the one that would have to defend the bill, right?

That’s exactly right. And so they’re trying to make it as rock solid as possible so that they can win in court when TikTok challenges this law. And so March rolls around, and they decide that it’s time to unveil this bill that they’ve been working on for close to a year.

The battle over TikTok on Capitol Hill is intensifying.

This morning, House lawmakers have agreed unanimously to move a bill to a full floor vote.

And TikTok is caught completely flat footed. They didn’t see this coming. And this is just what the group wanted. So TikTok has this army of lobbyists that’s suddenly scrambling. And they go into damage control mode. They start reaching out to members of Congress.

This app is so much more than just an app for dumb TikTok dances.

They fly a group of TikTok stars and small businesses to come to DC —

This is a life-changing apps.

— and lobby on the steps of the Capitol and meet with lawmakers.

Standing up here with all these amazing TikTokers behind me is a complete honor, and every single one of them would voice their opinion just like this. This is how we feel. This has to stop.

They set up interviews between these TikTok creators, as they’re known, and big TV shows and news programs. And they’re doing everything they can to fight against this bill before it goes any further. And then they decide to do something unusual, which is use TikTok itself to try and derail this bill.

How exactly do they do that?

So days after this bill is announced, a ton of TikTok users get a message when they open the TikTok app that basically says, call Congress and tell them not to ban TikTok.

Hmm. OK. So like, literally this window comes up and says, call Congress. Here you go.

Exactly. You can enter your zip code, and there’s a button that appears. And you can press it, and the call goes straight to your representative.

So offices are quickly overwhelmed by calls. And TikTok sent out this message to users on the same day that a House committee is going into vote on this bill and whether to move it forward. And so the stunt happens. They go into vote, and they come out, and it’s 50 to 0 in support of the bill.

One of the representatives who worked on the bill said that this stunt by TikTok turned a lot of no’s into yeses and yeses into, quote, “hell yeses.”

[LAUGHS]: so the whole episode sounds like it actually backfired, right? Like, TikTok’s stunt essentially just confirmed what was the deepest fears of lawmakers about this company, that the app could be used to influence American politics.

That’s definitely how a lot of lawmakers viewed it. And when this bill is brought to the full House a week later, it passes by an overwhelming majority. And weeks later, it passes in the Senate as part of a broader aid package. And on Wednesday, it’s signed into law by President Biden.

But now the question is, what does it mean? Like, how will this actually work? And how will it affect the tens of millions of Americans who use TikTok every day?

[MUSIC PLAYING]

We’ll be right back.

So Sapna, now that Biden has signed this bill, what does it actually mean in practice for TikTok? What does the law do?

So the law is really trying to push ByteDance, the company that owns TikTok, to sell to a non-Chinese owner. And the company basically has nine months for this sale to happen. There’s an option for President Biden to add another three months to that clock. And if the company doesn’t find a buyer or refuses to be sold, it will be banned.

And what would a ban actually mean, Sapna? I mean, people would still have the app on their phones, right? So it wouldn’t disappear overnight.

Yeah, no one’s coming to pick up your phone and to forcibly delete this thing. What the law says is that app stores and web hosting services wouldn’t be allowed to carry TikTok anymore. So basically, it would kind of die a slow death over time, where it wouldn’t be updated and just kind of peter out.

So the bottom line here is that the clock has started on this potential sale, right? They have 12 months to find a buyer. So what are the obstacles here? I mean, it sounds pretty ferociously complicated.

There’s a ton of challenges here. And it’s a very messy choose-your-own adventure. So one of the first big questions is who could buy this?

ByteDance and TikTok are private. We don’t know their financials. But analysts estimate that it will cost tens of billions of dollars. That narrows the buying pool pretty quickly. And a lot of the companies that could afford to buy it, like Meta, the owner of Facebook, or Google, which owns YouTube, would probably be kicked out of the running because they are simply too big. Regulators would say, you already own these big apps. You can’t possibly add this to your stable.

There’d be a monopoly concern there.

Exactly. And then, there’s a lot of questions around how this would work, technically. ByteDance and TikTok are very much global organizations. You have the CEO in Singapore. They have huge operations in Ireland. They have this big workforce in the US. And of course, they do have engineers in China.

So how do you extract all those things, make it all work? It’s a very big international transaction.

And then there is the chance that the Chinese government blocks this sale and says, you cannot do this, ByteDance. We will not allow it.

So Sapna, how does that actually work, though, in terms of China? I mean, can China actually just ban the sale of this company? I mean, it is a private company after all, right?

Well, here’s one way it could work. The Chinese government could block the export of TikTok’s algorithm. And let me explain that in kind of plain English.

They could basically block the technology that fuels the TikTokiness of this app, the recommendations, the magic of it, why you see what you see when you’re looking at TikTok.

TikTokiness, is that an adjective?

That is now an adjective.

[LAUGHS]: Nice.

And there’s a chance that Beijing could say, hey, you can’t export this technology. That is proprietary. And if that happens, that suddenly makes TikTok way, way less valuable.

So the Chinese government could let the sale go through potentially, but as a kind of an empty shell, right? The thing that makes TikTok TikTok, the algorithm, wouldn’t be part of the company. So that probably isn’t very appealing for a potential buyer.

Exactly. And I mean, the role of the Chinese government here is really interesting. I’ve talked to experts who say, well, if the Chinese government interferes to try and block a sale of this app, doesn’t that underscore and prove all the concerns that have been expressed by American lawmakers?

If you’re worried about China being in control of this thing, well, that just confirmed your fears.

Exactly. And I mean, it’s an interesting thing that ByteDance and TikTok have to grapple with.

So bottom line here — selling TikTok is quite complicated, and perhaps not even possible for these reasons that you’re giving, right? I mean, not least of which because the Chinese government might not allow the algorithm to leave the country. And that’s not something that the US Congress has a lot of control over.

So is this law fundamentally just a ban, then?

That’s what TikTok is calling it. Right after this bill was signed into law on Wednesday —

Make no mistake, this is a ban, a ban on TikTok and a ban on you and your voice.

— Tiktok’s CEO made a TikTok — what else?— that explained the company’s position.

Because the freedom of expression on TikTok reflects the same American values that make the United States a beacon of freedom.

He actually argued that TikTok reflects American values.

TikTok gives everyday Americans a powerful way to be seen and heard. And that’s why so many people have made TikTok part of their daily lives.

And he said that this law infringes on the First Amendment free speech rights of Americans who love it and who use it every day.

The facts and the Constitution are on our side, and we expect to prevail again.

So it’s very clear that TikTok plans to challenge this law in court. And the court fight to follow will determine the fate of TikTok’s future in the US.

So is that First Amendment argument that the TikTok CEO is making here going to work?

Nobody wants to put money on that. I mean, the company is really approaching this with the idea that the First Amendment rights of Americans are being infringed on. But if you remember, the government has been working on this law. They’ve been anticipating those challenges. And they can justify an infringing of First Amendment rights in certain cases, including with national security concerns. And so it’ll be up to a judge on whether those concerns pass muster and justify this sale and even a potential ban of TikTok.

Got it. So TikTok will argue free speech, First Amendment. And the government will counter by saying, look, this is about China. This is about America’s national security interests.

That’s right. And the legal experts that I’ve spoken with say this is a really big and sticky area of the law, and it’s a huge case. And they really think that this will go to the Supreme Court, regardless of who wins in the first round of this.

So where does that leave the millions of Americans who use TikTok, and many of them, of course, who earn a living on the platform?

I mean, it’s really uncertain what happens now with the company, and the clock has started ticking. When I’ve looked at TikTok and looked at videos from users —

This is about the impending TikTok ban. And it just triggered me so much. It makes my blood boil, and I have to get this out there.

There’s a lot of shock —

The most success I’ve had has been here on TikTok, and now they’re trying to take it away.

This is so stupid!

— and anger.

You can’t ban apps! You can’t ban things from people!

People are confused.

Word on the street is that in the next 9 to 12 months, TikTok could be banned.

And they’re also caught a bit off guard, just because there have been these years of efforts to do something about TikTok. People on the app have been hearing about a TikTok ban, really, since 2020.

The government can take away a literal app on our phones, and we’re supposed to believe we’re free?

A few TikTokers have said, how can this be the thing that the government is pushing through so quickly?

Can we stop funding a genocide? No. Can we get free COVID tests? No. Can we stop killing the planet? No. Can we at least watch videos on an app of people doing fun things and learn about the world around us? No.

So there’s this sense of distrust and disappointment for many people who love this app.

We got rid of TikTok. You’re welcome. Protecting you from China. You know that phone was made in China. Ah!

And I think there’s also this question, too, around what about TikTok makes it so harmful? Even though it has increasingly become a place for news, there’s plenty of people who simply use this app for entertainment. And what they’re seeing out of Washington just doesn’t square with the reality they experience when they pull out their phones.

And I wonder, Sapna, I mean, just kind of stepping back for a second, let’s say this ban on TikTok succeeds. If it goes through, would Americans be better off?

It depends who you ask. For the users who love TikTok, if it actually disappeared, it would be the government taking away a place where maybe they make money, where they get their entertainment, where they figure out what to read or what to cook next. To free speech advocates, this would be dystopian, unheard of for the government to crack down on an app with such wide usage by Americans.

But for the American political class And the National security establishment, this is a necessary move, one that was years in the making, not something that was just come up with on the fly. And ultimately, it all comes down to China and this idea that you can’t have a social media app like this, a source of news like this, that is even at all at risk of being influenced by the Chinese government and our greatest adversaries.

Sapna, thank you.

Here’s what else you should know today. On Monday, in its latest high-profile showdown with pro-Palestinian protesters, Columbia University gave students until 2:00 PM to clear out from an encampment at the center of campus or face suspension. It appeared to be an effort to remove the encampment without relying on New York City Police, whose removal of a previous encampment there two weeks ago inspired similar protests on campuses across the country.

Free Palestine!

Hi, this is Sharon Otterman reporting for “The New York Times.”

00 PM deadline for protesters to clear out of the encampment at the center of Columbia University has come and gone, and there’s still quite a large contingent inside the encampment.

But Monday’s warning seemed only to galvanize the Columbia protesters and their supporters.

And hundreds of students and others from around the campus have come out to support them. They are currently walking around in a picket around the encampment.

Hundreds of students, standing for or five people deep, encircled the encampment in a show of solidarity. They were joined by members of the Columbia faculty.

There’s also dozens of faculty members, who are prepared to stand in lines in front of the main entrance to the encampment, in case Public Safety or the NYPD move in. But as of 2:00, there was no sign of that happening.

Then, on Monday evening, Columbia announced it had begun to suspend students who had failed to leave the encampment. It was unclear exactly how many students had been suspended.

[PRO-PALESTINE CHANTING]:

Today’s episode was produced by Will Reid, Rachelle Banja, and Rob Szypko. It was edited by Marc Georges and Liz O. Baylen, contains original music by Dan Powell and Marion Lozano, and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sharon Otterman.

That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Sabrina Tavernise. See you tomorrow.

• May 1, 2024   •   35:16 The New Abortion Fight Before the Supreme Court
• April 30, 2024   •   27:40 The Secret Push That Could Ban TikTok
• April 29, 2024   •   47:53 Trump 2.0: What a Second Trump Presidency Would Bring
• April 26, 2024   •   21:50 Harvey Weinstein Conviction Thrown Out
• April 25, 2024   •   40:33 The Crackdown on Student Protesters
• April 24, 2024   •   32:18 Is $60 Billion Enough to Save Ukraine?
• April 23, 2024   •   30:30 A Salacious Conspiracy or Just 34 Pieces of Paper?
• April 22, 2024   •   24:30 The Evolving Danger of the New Bird Flu
• April 19, 2024   •   30:42 The Supreme Court Takes Up Homelessness
• April 18, 2024   •   30:07 The Opening Days of Trump’s First Criminal Trial
• April 17, 2024   •   24:52 Are ‘Forever Chemicals’ a Forever Problem?
• April 16, 2024   •   29:29 A.I.’s Original Sin

Hosted by Sabrina Tavernise

Featuring Sapna Maheshwari

Produced by Will Reid ,  Rachelle Bonja and Rob Szypko

Edited by Marc Georges and Liz O. Baylen

Original music by Marion Lozano and Dan Powell

Engineered by Chris Wood

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music

American lawmakers have tried for years to ban TikTok, concerned that the video app’s links to China pose a national security risk.

Sapna Maheshwari, a technology reporter for The Times, explains the behind-the-scenes push to rein in TikTok and discusses what a ban could mean for the app’s 170 million users in the United States.

On today’s episode

Sapna Maheshwari , who covers TikTok, technology and emerging media companies for The New York Times.

Background reading

A tiny group of lawmakers huddled in private about a year ago, aiming to bulletproof a bill that could ban TikTok.

The TikTok law faces court challenges, a shortage of qualified buyers and Beijing’s hostility .

Love, hate or fear it, TikTok has changed America .

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

Special thanks to Sharon Otterman .

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Dan Farrell, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Summer Thomad, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Renan Borelli, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson and Nina Lassam.

Sapna Maheshwari reports on TikTok, technology and emerging media companies. She has been a business reporter for more than a decade. Contact her at [email protected] . More about Sapna Maheshwari

Advertisement

• Newsletters
• Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

The Last Thing This Supreme Court Could Do to Shock Us

There will be no more self-soothing after this..

For three long years, Supreme Court watchers mollified themselves (and others) with vague promises that when the rubber hit the road, even the ultraconservative Federalist Society justices of the Roberts court would put democracy before party whenever they were finally confronted with the legal effort to hold Donald Trump accountable for Jan. 6. There were promising signs: They had, after all, refused to wade into the Trumpian efforts to set aside the election results in 2020. They had, after all, hewed to a kind of sanity in batting away Trumpist claims about presidential records (with the lone exception of Clarence Thomas, too long marinated in the Ginni-scented Kool-Aid to be capable of surprising us, but he was just one vote). We promised ourselves that there would be cool heads and grand bargains and that even though the court might sometimes help Trump in small ways, it would privilege the country in the end. We kept thinking that at least for Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts , the voice of reasoned never-Trumpers might still penetrate the Fox News fog. We told ourselves that at least six justices, and maybe even seven, of the most MAGA-friendly court in history would still want to ensure that this November’s elections would not be the last in history. Political hacks they may be, but they were not lawless ones.

On Thursday, during oral arguments in Trump v. United States , the Republican-appointed justices shattered those illusions. This was the case we had been waiting for, and all was made clear—brutally so. These justices donned the attitude of cynical partisans, repeatedly lending legitimacy to the former president’s outrageous claims of immunity from criminal prosecution. To at least five of the conservatives, the real threat to democracy wasn’t Trump’s attempt to overturn the election—but the Justice Department’s efforts to prosecute him for the act. These justices fear that it is Trump’s prosecution for election subversion that will “destabilize” democracy, requiring them to read a brand-new principle of presidential immunity into a Constitution that guarantees nothing of the sort. They evinced virtually no concern for our ability to continue holding free and fair elections that culminate in a peaceful transfer of power. They instead offered endless solicitude for the former president who fought that transfer of power.

However the court disposes of Trump v. U.S. , the result will almost certainly be precisely what the former president craves: more delays, more hearings, more appeals—more of everything but justice . This was not a legitimate claim from the start, but a wild attempt by Trump’s attorneys to use his former role as chief executive of the United States to shield himself from the consequences of trying to turn the presidency into a dictatorship. After so much speculation that these reasonable, rational jurists would surely dispose of this ridiculous case quickly and easily, Thursday delivered a morass of bad-faith hand-wringing on the right about the apparently unbearable possibility that a president might no longer be allowed to wield his powers of office in pursuit of illegal ends. Just as bad, we heard a constant minimization of Jan. 6, for the second week in a row , as if the insurrection were ancient history, and history that has since been dramatically overblown, presumably for Democrats’ partisan aims.

We got an early taste of this minimization in Trump v. Anderson , the Colorado case about removing Trump from the ballot. The court didn’t have the stomach to discuss the violence at the Capitol in its sharply divided decision, which found for Trump ; indeed, the majority barely mentioned the events of Jan. 6 at all when rejecting Colorado’s effort to bar from the ballot an insurrectionist who tried to steal our democracy. But we let that one be, because we figured special counsel Jack Smith would ride to the rescue. Smith has indicted Trump on election subversion charges related to Jan. 6, and the biggest obstacle standing between the special counsel and a trial has been the former president’s outlandish claim that he has absolute immunity from criminal charges as a result of his having been president at the time. Specifically, Trump alleges that his crusade to overturn the election constituted “official acts” that are immune from criminal liability under a heretofore unknown constitutional principle that the chief executive is quite literally above the law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in February that the president does not have blanket or absolute immunity for all actions taken in office, including “official” acts performed under the guise of executing the law (for example, Trump’s attempt to weaponize the DOJ against election results under the pretense of investigating fraud). The D.C. Circuit’s emphatic, cross-ideological decision should have been summarily affirmed by SCOTUS within days. Instead, the justices set it for arguments two months down the road—a bad omen, to put it mildly . Even then, many court watchers held out hope that Thursday morning’s oral arguments were to be the moment for the nine justices of the Supreme Court to finally indicate their readiness to take on Trump, Trumpism, illiberalism, and slouching fascism.

It was not to be. Justice Samuel Alito best captured the spirit of arguments when he asked gravely “what is required for the functioning of a stable democratic society” (good start!), then answered his own question: total immunity for criminal presidents (oh, dear). Indeed, anything but immunity would, he suggested, encourage presidents to commit more crimes to stay in office: “Now, if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?” Never mind that the president in question did not leave office peacefully and is not sitting quietly in retirement but is instead running for presidential office once again. No, if we want criminal presidents to leave office when they lose, we have to let them commit crimes scot-free. If ever a better articulation of the legal principle “Don’t make me hit you again” has been proffered at an oral argument, it’s hard to imagine it.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke to this absurdity when she responded in what could only be heard as a cri de coeur: “Stable democratic society needs good faith of public officials,” she said. “That good faith assumes that they will follow the law.” The justice noted that despite all the protections in place, a democracy can sometimes “potentially fail.” She concluded: “In the end, if it fails completely, it’s because we destroyed our democracy on our own, isn’t it?”

But it was probably too late to make this plea, because by that point we had heard both Alito and Gorsuch opine that presidents must be protected at all costs from the whims of overzealous deep state prosecutors brandishing “vague” criminal statutes. We heard Kavanaugh opine mindlessly on the independent counsel statute and how mean it is to presidents, reading extensively from Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in a case arguing that independent counsels are unconstitutional. (Yes, Kavanaugh worked for Ken Starr , the independent counsel.) If you’re clocking a trend here, it’s gender. Just as was the case in Anderson , it’s the women justices doing the second-shift work here: both probing the thorny constitutional and criminal questions and signaling a refusal to tank democracy over abstractions and deflections. As was the case in the EMTALA arguments, it’s the women who understand what it looks like to cheat death.

Is the president, Sotomayor asked, immune from prosecution if he orders the military to assassinate a political rival? Yes, said John Sauer, who represented Trump—though it “depends on the circumstances.” Could the president, Justice Elena Kagan asked, order the military to stage a coup? Yes, Sauer said again, depending on the circumstances. To which Kagan tartly replied that Sauer’s insistence on specifying the “circumstances” boiled down to “Under my test, it’s an official act, but that sure sounds bad, doesn’t it?” (Cue polite laughter in the chamber.)

This shameless, maximalist approach should have drawn anger from the conservative justices—indignation, at least, that Sauer took them for such easy marks. But it turns out that he calibrated his terrible arguments just right. The cynicism on display was truly breathtaking: Alito winkingly implied to Michael Dreeben, representing Smith, that we all know that Justice Department lawyers are political hacks, right? Roberts mocked Dreeben for saying “There’s no reason to worry because the prosecutor will act in good faith.”

The conservative justices are so in love with their own voices and so convinced of their own rectitude that they monologued about how improper it was for Dreeben to keep talking about the facts of this case, as opposed to the “abstract” principles at play. “I’m talking about the future!” Kavanaugh declared at one point to Dreeben, pitching himself not as Trump’s human shield but as a principled defender of the treasured constitutional right of all presidents to do crime. (We’re sure whatever rule he cooks up will apply equally to Democratic presidents, right?) Kavanaugh eventually landed on the proposition that prosecutors may charge presidents only under criminal statutes that explicitly state they can be applied to the president. Which, as Sotomayor pointed out, would mean no charges everywhere, because just a tiny handful of statutes are stamped with the label “CAN BE APPLIED TO PRESIDENT.”

The words bold and fearless action were repeated on a loop today, as a kind of mantra of how effective presidents must be free to act quickly and decisively to save democracy from the many unanticipated threats it faces. And yet the court—which has been asked to take bold and fearless action to deter the person who called Georgia’s secretary of state to demand that he alter the vote count, and threatened to fire DOJ officials who would not help steal an election—is backing away from its own duty. The prospect of a criminal trial for a criminal president shocked and appalled five men: Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch suggested that Smith’s entire prosecution is unconstitutional; meanwhile, Roberts sounded eager at times to handle the case just a hair more gracefully: by cutting out its heart by preventing the jury from hearing about “official acts” (which lie at the center of the alleged conspiracy). Justice Amy Coney Barrett was far more measured, teasing out a compromise with Dreeben that would compel the trial court to tell the jury it could not impose criminal liability for these “official” acts, only “private ones.” Remember, drawing that line would require months of hearings and appeals, pushing any trial into 2025 or beyond. The president who tried to steal the most recent election is running in the next one, which is happening in mere months.

The liberal justices tried their best to make the case that justice required denying Trump’s sweeping immunity claim, permitting the trial to move forward, and sorting out lingering constitutional issues afterward, as virtually all other criminal defendants must do. They got little traction. Everyone on that bench was well aware that the entire nation was listening to arguments; that the whole nation wants to understand whether Trump’s refusal to concede the 2020 election was an existential threat to democracy or a lark. Five justices sent the message, loud and clear, that they are far more worried about Trump’s prosecution at the hands of the deep-state DOJ than about his alleged crimes, which were barely mentioned. This trial will almost certainly face yet more delays. These delays might mean that its subject could win back the presidency in the meantime and render the trial moot. But the court has now signaled that nothing he did was all that serious and that the danger he may pose is not worth reining in. The real threats they see are the ones Trump himself shouts from the rooftops: witch hunts and partisan Biden prosecutors. These men have picked their team. The rest hardly matters.

Journey's End

By r.c. sherriff, journey's end quotes and analysis.

"I hope you get better luck than I did with my last officer. He got lumbago the first night and went home. Now he's got a job lecturing young officers on 'Life in the Front Line'." Captain Hardy, Act I, p. 10

Speaking with Osborne, Hardy mocks the common schemes that officers employ to leave the war. In this passage, he speaks of an officer of his who left because of a back problem and later claimed to be a combat expert, when in reality he was barely able to face life in the trenches.

"Well, if you want to get the best pace out of a cockroach, dip it in whiskey—makes 'em go like hell!" Captain Hardy, Act I, p. 15

In this quote, Hardy gives Osborne advice on the soldiers' pastime of betting and racing cockroaches, a statement that stands in contrast to the discussion they have had about Stanhope's PTSD-related alcoholism and the looming threat of a rumored German attack. The passage is significant because it represents one of many instances of officers using dark humor to deal with the bleak circumstances in which they live.

"You see, he's been out here a long time. It—it tells on a man—rather badly." Osborne, Act I, p. 19

In this passage, Osborne tries to warn Raleigh that his heroic image of Stanhope may not match Stanhope's present, battle-addled condition. The difficulty Osborne has in articulating the statement is significant, as it speaks to how Osborne would not like to undermine Stanhope's authority by spreading doubt about his mental condition, while he nonetheless wants the bright-eyed Raleigh not to grow disillusioned.

Osborne: Small boys at school generally have their heroes. Stanhope: Yes. Small boys at school do. Osborne: Often it goes on as long as — Stanhope: — as long as the hero's a hero. Osborne: It often goes on all through life. Osborne and Stanhope, Act I, p. 30

In this private conversation on the subject of Raleigh's idolization of Stanhope, Osborne and Stanhope touch on the theme of heroism. Having looked up to Stanhope at school, Raleigh and Raleigh's sister turned him into a hero. However, Stanhope reveals in this dialogue his concern that Raleigh will see Stanhope for who he is truly is, having been damaged by the effects of war. Osborne sees things differently, and has faith that Raleigh will continue to see him as a hero, despite Stanhope's drinking and temper.

"She doesn't know that if I went up those steps into the front line—without being doped up with whiskey—I'd go mad with fright." Stanhope, Act I, p. 31

In this passage, Stanhope confides to Osborne that he drinks constantly in order to overcome his fear. He is concerned that Raleigh will report in a letter to his sister, to whom Stanhope is engaged, that he drinks constantly. He worries that she will not understand the brutal conditions he endures, and how he relies on drinking in order to calm his addled nerves.

"I believe Raleigh'll go on liking you—and looking up to you—through everything. There's something very deep, and rather fine, about hero-worship." Osborne, Act I, p. 33

In this passage, Osborne repeats his earlier suggestion that Raleigh's admiration for Stanhope will persist, despite the war-damaged person Stanhope has become. This quote is significant because it reveals Osborne's wisdom; as Stanhope will see when he hears Raleigh's letter, Osborne's prediction bears true.

"Tell me, mother, what is that That looks like strawberry jam? Hush, hush, my dear; 'tis only Pa Run over by a tram—" Trotter, Act II, Scene 2, p. 62

In this passage, Trotter blithely recites a grim rhyme about a mother reassuring her daughter at the sight of her husband being run over by a tram. This passage is significant because it speaks to the play's thematic concern with repression, revealing how soldiers use gallows humor to remain in high spirits when faced with the grim reality of war.

"To forget, you little fool—to forget! D'you understand? To Forget! You think there's no limit to what a man can bear?" Stanhope, Act III, Scene 2, p. 85

Raleigh does not feel like partaking in the higher quality food and champagne that celebrates the successful raid because he is stricken by sadness that Osborne did not make it back alive with him. Stanhope rebukes him, clarifying that he isn't the only one who cares that Osborne died, and that he drinks not to celebrate but to cope. This passage is significant because he finally admits to this weakness to Raleigh, risking that Raleigh will pass the revelation on to his sister, to whom Stanhope is engaged.

Raleigh: Hullo— Dennis— Stanhope: Well, Jimmy—( he smiles )—you got one quickly. Stanhope and Raleigh, Act III, Scene 3, p.93

After Stanhope learns that Raleigh has had his spine broken by a piece of shrapnel, he orders the sergeant-major to bring Raleigh back to him in the dugout. Lying in Osborne's former bed, Raleigh momentarily regains consciousness. In this passage, the two men greet each other with their first names. Although Raleigh has used Stanhope's first name a number of times, this is the first time that Stanhope calls Raleigh by his. This passage is significant because it reveals a tenderness between the characters, reminding the audience of the human lives that soldiers live outside of war.

" A tiny sound comes from where RALEIGH is lying—something between a sob and a moan. " Stage direction, Act III, Scene 3, p. 94

After Stanhope leaves Raleigh's bedside to fetch a candle, Raleigh emits a small, ambiguous sound. The sound turns out to be the last sound Raleigh makes before he dies—his final breath.

Journey’s End Questions and Answers

The Question and Answer section for Journey’s End is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel.

How does Sherriff create tension in the duologue between Osborne and Stanhope at the end of Act 1?

Stanhope meets the revelation that Raleigh has joined his company with unease. The presence of Raleigh introduces a new conflict to the play that involves the themes of heroism, alcoholism, and PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder). Stanhope knows...

What are Trotter's quotes showing his emotions?

From the text:

Trotter (throwing his spoon with a clatter into the plate) : Oh, I say, but dam!

Trotter : Well, boys ! ’Ere we are for six days again. Six bloomin’ eternal days. {He makes a calculation on the table.)

Trotter comes down the steps,...

How Sherriff presents the true horrors of was through the character of Raleigh?

The difference between the fantasy of war and its true, horrific and demoralizing nature is one of the play's major themes. The theme is most overtly revealed through Raleigh's character arc. When Raleigh first arrives, his boyish excitement at...

Study Guide for Journey’s End

Journey's End study guide contains a biography of R. C. Sherriff, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.

• About Journey's End
• Journey's End Summary
• Character List

Essays for Journey’s End

Journey's End essays are academic essays for citation. These papers were written primarily by students and provide critical analysis of the play Journey's End by R. C. Sherriff.

• The Depiction of War in Journey’s End and Exposure
• How does Sherriff present Heroism in Journey's End?
• How Stanhope Generates Conflict in the Opening Act
• Comparison of the mental suffering created by war
• Human Decency in a World of Human Waste

Wikipedia Entries for Journey’s End

• Introduction
• Plot summary
• Productions (professional)
• Productions (amateur)
• Adaptations

• Campus News
• Student News
• UK HealthCare
• UK Happenings
• Arts & Culture
• Professional News

May 2024 grads: Your most-asked questions about Commencement

LEXINGTON, Ky. (April 27, 2024) — This week, the University of Kentucky will celebrate its newest alumni at the May 2024 Commencement Ceremonies , taking place Friday, May 3, and Saturday, May 4, at Rupp Arena at Central Bank Center.

For many of this spring’s graduating seniors, this will be their first-ever graduation ceremony, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting closings and cancellations that occurred in spring of 2020, when they graduated high school.

Around 4,300 graduates have registered to participate across the four ceremonies (out of 5,736 total degree candidates conferred by the UK Board of Trustees). Those who are registered are receiving email communication with details regarding the ceremonies, and should continue to read those emails up until the day of the ceremony for important information and updates. 

To ensure everyone is well-informed and prepared, UKNow went directly to some of these graduating students to ask what additional questions they still have, or may have missed in the hustle and bustle of wrapping up their academic journey at UK. 

Do you need tickets to attend Commencement?

No. There are no tickets or assigned seats for guests of graduates during Commencement.

What time should graduates and guests arrive at Rupp Arena?

Graduates should arrive ONE hour before their ceremony for check-in. The entrance is located on West High Street and there will be signage directing graduates to check-in. Grads can find their college’s ceremony time here: https://commencement.uky.edu/may-2024 .

Guests of graduates may arrive up to one hour before the ceremony start time. Doors to Rupp Arena will not be open prior to one hour before the ceremony.

Where should graduates and guests park? Is there a shuttle?

The Rupp Arena at Central Bank Center parking lot is located on West High Street and will have free parking for all guests and graduates. To ensure all graduates and their families have an enjoyable experience, guests are asked to move their vehicle from the High Street Lot immediately after their ceremony concludes to ensure the next ceremony can start on time. A map of these locations can be  found here .

Shuttle services will run continuously from 8 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Friday, and 8 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on Saturday from Administration Drive (across from Cornerstone Garage, Parking Structure #5) to Rupp Arena​ at Central Bank Center. The Cornerstone parking structure, located on 401 South Limestone, will also be open for those interested in shuttling from campus. Entrances to the parking structure are located on both South Limestone and South Upper Street.

Is there a processional of graduates at the beginning of the ceremony?

No. After graduates check in they will make their way into the arena and find a place to sit with their college. Faculty marshals and posted signage will direct graduates on where to go. The platform (stage) party will process into the arena at the beginning of the ceremony when all graduates are seated. 

Which side of the floor is my college sitting? Where should I tell my family to sit so they can see me?

Seating charts for each ceremony are available here . Families may opt to sit on the side that faces their graduate’s college.

What’s the walking order for the colleges in my ceremony?

The walking order for each ceremony is listed here: https://commencement.uky.edu/may-2024 .

Will there be a speaker?

A graduating student will give a 5-minute address and there will also be a brief performance by a spoken word poet. 

How will I know when it’s my turn to cross the stage?

During check in, graduates will receive a card with their name on it. They will hold on to this card until it's time to walk across the stage. During the presentation of diplomas, graduates will be instructed to stand and line up by the faculty marshals. Just before going on stage, graduates will hand their card to event staff who will run the card through a device that will display the graduate’s name/degree on the jumbotron/livestream, and the reader will say the graduate's name as they walk across the stage.

What happens after I receive my diploma? Where should I go?

After being handed their diploma, graduates will take a quick professional photo on stage, exit the stage/arena, take an additional portrait against a backdrop, and be greeted with a gift from the UK Alumni Association. Graduates are then welcome to follow signs over to Club C on the Lower Level of Central Bank Center for Grad Gathering , hosted by the Alumni Association, where they can meet up with their family and friends and enjoy refreshments, receive a gift and take their own photos against a Commencement backdrop. 

Does Commencement follow Rupp Arena’s security policies?

Yes, with some adjustments. Patrons may only have  one clear bag  (no larger than 12"x12"x6 " ) or one small clutch purse, with or without handle or strap (no larger than 9”x 5”) for their personal items. All bags and items will be searched.

All signs, flags, posters and amplification devices (megaphones, speakers, etc.) are strictly prohibited.

Is there ceremony livestreamed?

Yes. All ceremonies will be livestreamed on UK’s  YouTube channel . Links and embedded videos of the streams will be available to watch and share via the  UK Commencement  website and UKNow the day of the ceremonies. Full video of each ceremony should remain available to watch on YouTube after the event concludes.

How long do the ceremonies last?

Ceremonies are expected to last around two hours depending on how many students participate. This may vary from family to family as students will leave after walking across the stage, so graduates may not be inside Rupp Arena for the full two hours.

Is there a reception following the ceremony?

Yes! The Alumni Association hosts a Grad Gathering following each ceremony. Graduates and their families are encouraged to attend and meet up in Club C on the Lower Level. Signage will direct graduates to the reception after they exit the stage/arena. Learn more here .

The UK Commencement ceremonies will take place at 9 a.m., 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. Friday, May 3, and 9 a.m. Saturday, May 4. A list of college and ceremony times can be found at https://commencement.uky.edu/may-2024 .

Find more information and answers to additional FAQs here .

Congratulations to the May 2024 UK grads! Share your special day on social media by using the hashtag #UKgrad.

As the state’s flagship, land-grant institution, the University of Kentucky exists to advance the Commonwealth. We do that by preparing the next generation of leaders — placing students at the heart of everything we do — and transforming the lives of Kentuckians through education, research and creative work, service and health care. We pride ourselves on being a catalyst for breakthroughs and a force for healing, a place where ingenuity unfolds. It's all made possible by our people — visionaries, disruptors and pioneers — who make up 200 academic programs, a $476.5 million research and development enterprise and a world-class medical center, all on one campus.   

In 2022, UK was ranked by Forbes as one of the “Best Employers for New Grads” and named a “Diversity Champion” by INSIGHT into Diversity, a testament to our commitment to advance Kentucky and create a community of belonging for everyone. While our mission looks different in many ways than it did in 1865, the vision of service to our Commonwealth and the world remains the same. We are the University for Kentucky.   

Latest Stories

Chellgren center inducts new fellows, celebrates graduating class, uk healthcare providers advocate for patient care in washington, frankfort, from the coal mines to the classroom: donovan scholar’s dream of college degree comes true, provost impact award trains uk community and beyond to be informed consumers of ai, machine learning, registration now open for college business management institute 2024.