Our Opinions
Written By Interns
Why You Should Vote
Written by Kareem
Oh boy, another person who’s going to talk about voting. Get a load of this guy, right? Voting doesn’t even matter: nobody ever does anything in office, anyways.
This is a perfectly understandable reaction to someone telling you to go vote. Millions of Americans every year express this feeling: the feeling that nothing changes or that their vote doesn’t matter anyways. And if you’re one of those people, don’t feel like a minority: around ⅓ of eligible voters don’t vote each election season.
But that mentality is wrong.
Voting is what keeps the country moving, slowly or quick. Voting for the people who support the progression and development of our nation allows us to reach a better state. And don’t think that just because an issue isn’t directly related to you, it won’t affect you.
Roe V. Wade was overturned in 2022 by the US Supreme Court. It was a landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide, establishing a woman's right to choose under the constitutional right to privacy. The overturning placed abortion rights in the hands of the states, rather than making it a national right.
Because of this, it became much harder to get an abortion in the United States, even if someone's health (and even life) was at stake. Oftentimes, women need to get an abortion to protect their reproductive organs, and states with more abortion restrictions prevent some individuals from getting one until their health is beyond repair. This affects women and even their partners as well, since a woman’s future reproductive ability could be compromised, preventing them from starting their own families in the future.
Now, Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President, and not voted in by the people. This means that Roe V Wade overturned was inevitable, right? This means that voters couldn’t have influenced the Supreme Court in any way, right?
No. Not at all, actually. Because guess who voted for the president who appointed some of these justices in the first place?
We did.
I’m not trying to preach that Roe V Wade’s overturn was essential for human morals, and that getting an abortion is effectively murder. I’m also not trying to preach that Roe V Wade is good. Fact is, the after-effects of the overturn were devastating, and plenty of families couldn’t afford to support a child, leading to the increase of children in foster care. States who legalized abortions were faced with floods of individuals attempting to obtain abortion medications. Furthermore, many women were (and still are) not prepared to have a child, or simply cannot afford it in their living conditions.
And voting caused this. So did not voting. By not understanding America’s situation if a certain candidate wins, eligible voters who don’t vote have welcomed themselves into a trap that keeps their voices unheard.
Yet, non-voters have a right to feel the way they do about voting not helping the country enough. Let’s discuss why non-voters should move past these feelings and vote for candidates who will represent them in the democracy.
First of all, every vote counts. Even if you’re just 1 person, when enough people are voting for someone, the votes add up. If you think that someone else is going to win even if you vote for your candidate, you should still vote since that individual embodies who you feel should’ve won, and you know it's not on you if the other candidate wins.
Secondly, change does happen in government. It’s just often slowly executed or behind the scenes to where you don’t notice it until it’s extreme. One example of this is inflation in America in the past few years, with a 2022 post-pandemic peak of 9.1% change. People, to this day, have pushed the narrative that inflation is horrible, but in 2024, the number is around 3% (which is still high, but not nearly as much).
News outlets and media share responsibility here, as few of them report the statistics as much as they should. This is partially because it’s easier to report extremely sudden or devastating news to capture the public eye rather than “boring statistics about inflation.” Get your news from a credible source that talks about topics with little to no bias, since bias can cause your perception of the government to be skewed.
Many people are not satisfied with either candidate for the 2024 Presidential election. With Donald Trump’s actions on January 6 of 2021 and his harsh policies that make him unappealing to many candidates, many people are not a fan of seeing him in government. Meanwhile, because of Kamala Harris’s “inaction” in government as vice president and her occasionally controversial (and contradicting) statements, people aren’t a fan of her either. She would also be the first female President in US history, which many people are unfortunately not prepared for.
It’s because of this that one must do their research on a candidate and what they’re likely to vote for. Whichever candidate represents your ideals better is likely the candidate who you’d rather have in government, and if that requires a candidate with slightly less cognitive ability, so be it.
But not voting at all means you are giving grounds for a candidate who you support less than another candidate to win. It means your opinion goes to waste, and you lose the opportunity to express yourself. As we already saw with Roe V. Wade’s overturn, many people are not going to be happy when they don’t vote and someone in government makes a direct impact on their daily lives
So vote. As Americans, we have a great freedom that our votes are counted as our votes and not someone else forcing us to vote. Even if filling out that form or going to that voting center takes you a few hours to complete, it’ll likely make years of your life better.
Written by Kareem
Oh boy, another person who’s going to talk about voting. Get a load of this guy, right? Voting doesn’t even matter: nobody ever does anything in office, anyways.
This is a perfectly understandable reaction to someone telling you to go vote. Millions of Americans every year express this feeling: the feeling that nothing changes or that their vote doesn’t matter anyways. And if you’re one of those people, don’t feel like a minority: around ⅓ of eligible voters don’t vote each election season.
But that mentality is wrong.
Voting is what keeps the country moving, slowly or quick. Voting for the people who support the progression and development of our nation allows us to reach a better state. And don’t think that just because an issue isn’t directly related to you, it won’t affect you.
Roe V. Wade was overturned in 2022 by the US Supreme Court. It was a landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide, establishing a woman's right to choose under the constitutional right to privacy. The overturning placed abortion rights in the hands of the states, rather than making it a national right.
Because of this, it became much harder to get an abortion in the United States, even if someone's health (and even life) was at stake. Oftentimes, women need to get an abortion to protect their reproductive organs, and states with more abortion restrictions prevent some individuals from getting one until their health is beyond repair. This affects women and even their partners as well, since a woman’s future reproductive ability could be compromised, preventing them from starting their own families in the future.
Now, Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President, and not voted in by the people. This means that Roe V Wade overturned was inevitable, right? This means that voters couldn’t have influenced the Supreme Court in any way, right?
No. Not at all, actually. Because guess who voted for the president who appointed some of these justices in the first place?
We did.
I’m not trying to preach that Roe V Wade’s overturn was essential for human morals, and that getting an abortion is effectively murder. I’m also not trying to preach that Roe V Wade is good. Fact is, the after-effects of the overturn were devastating, and plenty of families couldn’t afford to support a child, leading to the increase of children in foster care. States who legalized abortions were faced with floods of individuals attempting to obtain abortion medications. Furthermore, many women were (and still are) not prepared to have a child, or simply cannot afford it in their living conditions.
And voting caused this. So did not voting. By not understanding America’s situation if a certain candidate wins, eligible voters who don’t vote have welcomed themselves into a trap that keeps their voices unheard.
Yet, non-voters have a right to feel the way they do about voting not helping the country enough. Let’s discuss why non-voters should move past these feelings and vote for candidates who will represent them in the democracy.
First of all, every vote counts. Even if you’re just 1 person, when enough people are voting for someone, the votes add up. If you think that someone else is going to win even if you vote for your candidate, you should still vote since that individual embodies who you feel should’ve won, and you know it's not on you if the other candidate wins.
Secondly, change does happen in government. It’s just often slowly executed or behind the scenes to where you don’t notice it until it’s extreme. One example of this is inflation in America in the past few years, with a 2022 post-pandemic peak of 9.1% change. People, to this day, have pushed the narrative that inflation is horrible, but in 2024, the number is around 3% (which is still high, but not nearly as much).
News outlets and media share responsibility here, as few of them report the statistics as much as they should. This is partially because it’s easier to report extremely sudden or devastating news to capture the public eye rather than “boring statistics about inflation.” Get your news from a credible source that talks about topics with little to no bias, since bias can cause your perception of the government to be skewed.
Many people are not satisfied with either candidate for the 2024 Presidential election. With Donald Trump’s actions on January 6 of 2021 and his harsh policies that make him unappealing to many candidates, many people are not a fan of seeing him in government. Meanwhile, because of Kamala Harris’s “inaction” in government as vice president and her occasionally controversial (and contradicting) statements, people aren’t a fan of her either. She would also be the first female President in US history, which many people are unfortunately not prepared for.
It’s because of this that one must do their research on a candidate and what they’re likely to vote for. Whichever candidate represents your ideals better is likely the candidate who you’d rather have in government, and if that requires a candidate with slightly less cognitive ability, so be it.
But not voting at all means you are giving grounds for a candidate who you support less than another candidate to win. It means your opinion goes to waste, and you lose the opportunity to express yourself. As we already saw with Roe V. Wade’s overturn, many people are not going to be happy when they don’t vote and someone in government makes a direct impact on their daily lives
So vote. As Americans, we have a great freedom that our votes are counted as our votes and not someone else forcing us to vote. Even if filling out that form or going to that voting center takes you a few hours to complete, it’ll likely make years of your life better.
Why Broccoli Is Superior to Cauliflower
Written by Kareem
I love plants. They’re green, occasionally tall spots for shade, and sometimes you can pick fruits off of their leaves and climb through their branches. A single plant has the potential for hours of fun for children or years of food for people, and they’re vibrant and beautiful, especially when you see forests in California and sprawling landscapes full of them. It all starts with the green, the very thing that assigns beauty and life to these plants in the first place.
Now take away the green. You get brown grass, dead trees, withered flowers, and a complete eradication of a landscape's beauty. A relatively dull, ugly landscape that doesn’t encapsulate the same beauty as the luscious, green scenery from before.
And this follows suit with consumption. Animals prefer green grass over hay, and will only eat hay if the green grass is not available (usually during times of the year where rain is less prominent). Fresh grass contains Omega 3’s and other Vitamins, namely A and E, which are essential to some animals' cellular health and inflammatory responses. Hay, however, loses the potency of these benefits as the grass dries out, meaning that it’s not as healthy as grass is for these animals.
But the beauty of green extends beyond landscapes and pastures and, for our purposes, in the direction of the second greatest vegetable, broccoli, and its absolute inferior evolutionary family member, regular, white, not-genetically altered cauliflower.
Consider the case of these two vegetables that often find themselves side by side in the produce section. While both are nutritious, broccoli simply has more “raw nutritious power,” which it gets through its higher Vitamin C and K count and its presence of Vitamin A, something cauliflower regularly does not have. Sure, cauliflower has less calories than broccoli according to the USDA, with approximately a 0.1 calorie difference per gram between the two (~0.25 and ~0.35 respectively); however, with that difference in calories, you’re talking about a 10 calorie difference at 100 grams (or half a head of broccoli/cauliflower) at the cost of necessary Vitamins, namely Vitamin A.
Your body needs a diverse set of colors in order to absorb nutrients and interact with other parts of the body to provide health benefits. Green foods are known to help cleanse the body, and can fight against heart disease, obesity, high blood pressure, and declining mental states. Without a diverse set of colors, your body’s health may not reach as high a potential as it has, and since regular cauliflower has no pigments of color in the head, your body is not receiving certain chemicals and antioxidants it needs to work with the rest of the body.
And cauliflower is a depressing food. It’s a broccoli devoid of its life, bland and boring but flavorful enough to leave a bad taste in your mouth. The body will likely struggle to enjoy it, since there’s no color, no beauty, no life within the food.
Meanwhile, broccoli is green and vibrant, full of flavor and enjoyment. Throw some in a boiling pot with some noodles, beef, and carrots, and you have created a diversely-colored and flavorful dish. Broccoli demands attention and it is well deserved, as your body is met with health-related benefits and an enjoyable food all combined in one.
People naturally appeal to things with vibrancy and life, and foods are no exception. We eat with our eyes before anything, and regular cauliflower is a dull, boring white color as opposed to the vibrant, luscious green color found in broccoli. After, we eat with our hands, as texture is a large part of enjoying a food, and cauliflower’s bumpy texture is inferior to broccoli’s grainy, more satisfying one. Eventually, when we eat with our taste buds, we expect that our expectations be met, through satisfying texture, appeal, and smell, and cauliflower simply doesn’t provide that level of satisfaction.
Regular cauliflower is one of the worst standalone vegetables to eat. It provides little health benefits in comparison to broccoli aside from its lesser calories, which are a result of a lack of pigments and antioxidants within them. Colored cauliflower doesn’t have this problem, since it has some of these pigments, and it is healthier than regular cauliflower, but both fail in the taste category, providing bland, occasionally disgusting flavor to your mouth that’s a struggle to enjoy. Additionally, broccoli’s visual appeal and texture is superior to that of regular cauliflower, providing a nice, vibrant hue to itself as opposed to the boring white color of regular cauliflower.
Cauliflower can be beneficial at times: it’s a good, light source of carbs and can be helpful for people on a keto diet. It can also be a good supplement to many meals, despite its rather bland taste, and can add a kick to your food.
However, a good fruit/vegetable is one that can be eaten and enjoyed on its own just as much as in a dish, and regular cauliflower comes completely short of that standard. On its own, broccoli is a better food to eat than cauliflower, and it’s also a more refreshing ingredient to mix with other foods.
The appeal of broccoli comes through its luscious visual appeal, its refreshing taste, its healthy benefits, and its edibility individually compared to cauliflower. Cauliflower simply cannot live up to the standards of broccoli, so we should stop pretending that it can.
Written by Kareem
I love plants. They’re green, occasionally tall spots for shade, and sometimes you can pick fruits off of their leaves and climb through their branches. A single plant has the potential for hours of fun for children or years of food for people, and they’re vibrant and beautiful, especially when you see forests in California and sprawling landscapes full of them. It all starts with the green, the very thing that assigns beauty and life to these plants in the first place.
Now take away the green. You get brown grass, dead trees, withered flowers, and a complete eradication of a landscape's beauty. A relatively dull, ugly landscape that doesn’t encapsulate the same beauty as the luscious, green scenery from before.
And this follows suit with consumption. Animals prefer green grass over hay, and will only eat hay if the green grass is not available (usually during times of the year where rain is less prominent). Fresh grass contains Omega 3’s and other Vitamins, namely A and E, which are essential to some animals' cellular health and inflammatory responses. Hay, however, loses the potency of these benefits as the grass dries out, meaning that it’s not as healthy as grass is for these animals.
But the beauty of green extends beyond landscapes and pastures and, for our purposes, in the direction of the second greatest vegetable, broccoli, and its absolute inferior evolutionary family member, regular, white, not-genetically altered cauliflower.
Consider the case of these two vegetables that often find themselves side by side in the produce section. While both are nutritious, broccoli simply has more “raw nutritious power,” which it gets through its higher Vitamin C and K count and its presence of Vitamin A, something cauliflower regularly does not have. Sure, cauliflower has less calories than broccoli according to the USDA, with approximately a 0.1 calorie difference per gram between the two (~0.25 and ~0.35 respectively); however, with that difference in calories, you’re talking about a 10 calorie difference at 100 grams (or half a head of broccoli/cauliflower) at the cost of necessary Vitamins, namely Vitamin A.
Your body needs a diverse set of colors in order to absorb nutrients and interact with other parts of the body to provide health benefits. Green foods are known to help cleanse the body, and can fight against heart disease, obesity, high blood pressure, and declining mental states. Without a diverse set of colors, your body’s health may not reach as high a potential as it has, and since regular cauliflower has no pigments of color in the head, your body is not receiving certain chemicals and antioxidants it needs to work with the rest of the body.
And cauliflower is a depressing food. It’s a broccoli devoid of its life, bland and boring but flavorful enough to leave a bad taste in your mouth. The body will likely struggle to enjoy it, since there’s no color, no beauty, no life within the food.
Meanwhile, broccoli is green and vibrant, full of flavor and enjoyment. Throw some in a boiling pot with some noodles, beef, and carrots, and you have created a diversely-colored and flavorful dish. Broccoli demands attention and it is well deserved, as your body is met with health-related benefits and an enjoyable food all combined in one.
People naturally appeal to things with vibrancy and life, and foods are no exception. We eat with our eyes before anything, and regular cauliflower is a dull, boring white color as opposed to the vibrant, luscious green color found in broccoli. After, we eat with our hands, as texture is a large part of enjoying a food, and cauliflower’s bumpy texture is inferior to broccoli’s grainy, more satisfying one. Eventually, when we eat with our taste buds, we expect that our expectations be met, through satisfying texture, appeal, and smell, and cauliflower simply doesn’t provide that level of satisfaction.
Regular cauliflower is one of the worst standalone vegetables to eat. It provides little health benefits in comparison to broccoli aside from its lesser calories, which are a result of a lack of pigments and antioxidants within them. Colored cauliflower doesn’t have this problem, since it has some of these pigments, and it is healthier than regular cauliflower, but both fail in the taste category, providing bland, occasionally disgusting flavor to your mouth that’s a struggle to enjoy. Additionally, broccoli’s visual appeal and texture is superior to that of regular cauliflower, providing a nice, vibrant hue to itself as opposed to the boring white color of regular cauliflower.
Cauliflower can be beneficial at times: it’s a good, light source of carbs and can be helpful for people on a keto diet. It can also be a good supplement to many meals, despite its rather bland taste, and can add a kick to your food.
However, a good fruit/vegetable is one that can be eaten and enjoyed on its own just as much as in a dish, and regular cauliflower comes completely short of that standard. On its own, broccoli is a better food to eat than cauliflower, and it’s also a more refreshing ingredient to mix with other foods.
The appeal of broccoli comes through its luscious visual appeal, its refreshing taste, its healthy benefits, and its edibility individually compared to cauliflower. Cauliflower simply cannot live up to the standards of broccoli, so we should stop pretending that it can.
If I Were Mayor
Written by Gia
Over the past decade, the opioid crisis has urgently and significantly impacted San Francisco, leading to a disturbing surge in opioid-related deaths. In the last year alone, as reported by the city’s Department of Public Health, there were 806 overdose deaths, a stark increase from 647 deaths in 2022.
The first wave of this epidemic is believed to have started in the 1990s when opioids were overprescribed as painkillers driven by major pharmaceutical companies. The next wave began in 2010 due to an increase in heroin-related overdoses. The third wave, starting in 2013 (up until today), was caused by synthetic opioids, mainly illicitly manufactured fentanyl. Fentanyl is 50 times more potent than heroin, (1) and it accounted for 81.02% of the overdose deaths in San Francisco in 2023.
To address this issue, Governor Newsom instituted a 97 million dollar budget for the 2023-24 fiscal year. This budget encompasses $79 million for a naloxone distribution project, $10 million for grants for education, testing, recovery, and support services, $4 million to make test strips more available, and $3.5 million for overdose medication for all middle and high schools. He has also set aside $30 million to expand the California National Guard to prevent drug trafficking. (2)
Newsom’s budget focuses on education and reducing the number of deaths through overdose prevention. His plan focuses on improving the services that are already in place instead of ideating new solutions. The $10 million budget for education, testing, recovery, and support services was available through application to all non-profit residential substance use disorder treatment facilities. Twenty-five clinics were chosen to receive funds to support establishing or enhancing their Medications for Addiction Treatment (MAT) services in 2018.
The measures demonstrate the priorities of the state of California, which include reducing the opioid overdose death rates and increasing the availability of essential services. However, these strategies are insufficient for three main reasons.
Firstly, the current measures do not sufficiently address the need for sustainable recovery. Without tackling the socioeconomic factors that contribute to addiction, individuals may relapse even after receiving treatment. To create lasting change, San Francisco must address these underlying issues. When people continue to struggle in their circumstances, substance use will continue. With 8,323 homeless individuals in San Francisco as of the 2024 PIT Count and a 7.3% increase in homelessness between 2022 and 2024, stable housing and employment opportunities are crucial to preventing relapse and supporting sustained recovery.
Second, the outreach methods are not fully available to everyone in need despite the efforts to expand services and improve accessibility. These issues include documentation requirements and administrative delays, which have deterred individuals’ attempts to seek treatment. A 1999 study conducted by J. Porter, for example, discovered that long-term heroin injectors in Puerto Rico recognized psychological, institutional, and cultural difficulties in entering treatment. One crucial structural obstacle that affected all heroin injectors was identified as the waiting period between detoxifications and “rehabs” and the first waiting period for treatment. (3)
Lastly, these measures lack coordination and a cohesive strategy among stakeholders. Multiple agencies, non-profits, and governmental bodies operate independently, often without sufficient communication or data-sharing mechanisms. Due to the lack of communication and data-sharing mechanisms, these facilities often operate independently. This leads to a duplication of efforts, such as multiple centers offering similar outpatient treatments without a cohesive strategy to manage patient transitions between different levels of care. Additionally, gaps in coverage emerge because patients needing to transition from outpatient to residential care may not receive timely referrals, resulting in inefficient use of resources and potential delays in treatment.
To address these issues, I would implement two different strategies.
Firstly, I would implement more efficient harm-reduction measures. Currently, in San Francisco, harm reduction measures include preventing overdoses from being fatal by supporting and broadening overdose prevention services such as naloxone distribution, fentanyl test strips, and drug checking. Additionally, efforts are being made to improve post-overdose outcomes by enhancing targeted overdose response teams and connecting individuals to care.
However, these measures are often isolated and do not contribute to sustained recovery or effectively prevent further overdoses. Without an integrated approach that includes coordinated long-term treatment and recovery support, these efforts fall short of addressing the root causes of addiction and ensuring comprehensive care for individuals at risk.
To lower the rate of overdoses, I would open safe injection sites in key locations around the city where drug usage is the most prevalent, including areas in the Tenderloin and near City Hall. These sites would include sterilized equipment, drug checking, testing for infectious diseases such as HIV, HCV, and other STIs, education on drug use, safe drug practices, and safe sex practices, access to resources such as rehabilitation referrals, addiction treatments, social services such as housing and employment services. Emphasizing community connection through small group sessions and peer support groups can create an environment where
individuals can access the help they need without fear of judgment or stigma.
Creating these centers is essential because providing a non-judgmental space for drug users creates an environment of trust and support that can lead to better engagement with treatment services and long-term recovery. San Francisco currently lacks sufficient harm reduction facilities, leaving many drug users without safe options for using substances and accessing related health services.
The efficiency of community-centered treatment can be seen in the success of peer support groups in addiction treatment. Research has indicated that the benefits of peer support groups are related to the following: less substance use, treatment engagement, lower risky behaviors related to the hepatitis C virus and the human immunodeficiency virus, and less secondary substance-related behaviors like craving and self-efficacy. (4)
Harm reduction encompasses a wide range of strategies aimed at reducing specific harms. When considering syringe service programs and safe injection sites, it's important to acknowledge their targeted role in providing support to those most vulnerable. Implementing harm reduction measures should prioritize the community's needs and well-being.
The next issue we need to address is: What happens next? Harm reduction is not offered as the solution to the opioid crisis. Our focus should be on making the change sustainable.
Treatment maintenance drugs should be fully legal and accessible to those who need them. These medications, such as methadone and buprenorphine, have been proven to be effective in treating opioid addiction and reducing the risk of relapse and overdose. Currently, accessing these drugs can be challenging due to various legal and regulatory barriers.
In order to address this disparity, Bill AB-1288 sought to improve access to essential medications. The bill prohibited health care service plans and insurers from requiring prior authorization or step therapy (requiring patients to try and fail less expensive treatments before approving the prescribed medication) for specific medications used to treat substance use disorders. Governor Newsom vetoed the bill, providing reasons such as utilization review being important for containing healthcare costs, protecting patients from unexpected billing, and ensuring necessary care, and because it helps prevent fraudulent requests or drug abuse.
However, these issues can be easily mitigated by expanding the naloxone distribution to include buprenorphine and methadone (used for opioid addiction treatment), and long-acting injectable naltrexone (used for opioid addiction treatment and prevention of relapse). These drugs have proven effective in addiction treatment. Methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone reduce opioid use, symptoms, infectious disease transmission, and criminal behavior. They increase the likelihood of individuals remaining in treatment, and lower overdose mortality and HIV/HCV transmission. (5)
It's time to move beyond temporary fixes and implement comprehensive, sustainable solutions that support every individual's journey to recovery and well-being.
(1)https://www.assembly.ca.gov/system/files/2023-05/05.24.2023%20Fentanyl%20Select%20Committee%2 0Background_0.pdf
(2)https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Fentanyl-Opioids-Glossy-Plan_3.20.23.pdf
(3)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2396562/
(4)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5047716/
(5)https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/medications-to-treat-opioid-addiction/efficacymedications-opioid-use-disorder
Written by Gia
Over the past decade, the opioid crisis has urgently and significantly impacted San Francisco, leading to a disturbing surge in opioid-related deaths. In the last year alone, as reported by the city’s Department of Public Health, there were 806 overdose deaths, a stark increase from 647 deaths in 2022.
The first wave of this epidemic is believed to have started in the 1990s when opioids were overprescribed as painkillers driven by major pharmaceutical companies. The next wave began in 2010 due to an increase in heroin-related overdoses. The third wave, starting in 2013 (up until today), was caused by synthetic opioids, mainly illicitly manufactured fentanyl. Fentanyl is 50 times more potent than heroin, (1) and it accounted for 81.02% of the overdose deaths in San Francisco in 2023.
To address this issue, Governor Newsom instituted a 97 million dollar budget for the 2023-24 fiscal year. This budget encompasses $79 million for a naloxone distribution project, $10 million for grants for education, testing, recovery, and support services, $4 million to make test strips more available, and $3.5 million for overdose medication for all middle and high schools. He has also set aside $30 million to expand the California National Guard to prevent drug trafficking. (2)
Newsom’s budget focuses on education and reducing the number of deaths through overdose prevention. His plan focuses on improving the services that are already in place instead of ideating new solutions. The $10 million budget for education, testing, recovery, and support services was available through application to all non-profit residential substance use disorder treatment facilities. Twenty-five clinics were chosen to receive funds to support establishing or enhancing their Medications for Addiction Treatment (MAT) services in 2018.
The measures demonstrate the priorities of the state of California, which include reducing the opioid overdose death rates and increasing the availability of essential services. However, these strategies are insufficient for three main reasons.
Firstly, the current measures do not sufficiently address the need for sustainable recovery. Without tackling the socioeconomic factors that contribute to addiction, individuals may relapse even after receiving treatment. To create lasting change, San Francisco must address these underlying issues. When people continue to struggle in their circumstances, substance use will continue. With 8,323 homeless individuals in San Francisco as of the 2024 PIT Count and a 7.3% increase in homelessness between 2022 and 2024, stable housing and employment opportunities are crucial to preventing relapse and supporting sustained recovery.
Second, the outreach methods are not fully available to everyone in need despite the efforts to expand services and improve accessibility. These issues include documentation requirements and administrative delays, which have deterred individuals’ attempts to seek treatment. A 1999 study conducted by J. Porter, for example, discovered that long-term heroin injectors in Puerto Rico recognized psychological, institutional, and cultural difficulties in entering treatment. One crucial structural obstacle that affected all heroin injectors was identified as the waiting period between detoxifications and “rehabs” and the first waiting period for treatment. (3)
Lastly, these measures lack coordination and a cohesive strategy among stakeholders. Multiple agencies, non-profits, and governmental bodies operate independently, often without sufficient communication or data-sharing mechanisms. Due to the lack of communication and data-sharing mechanisms, these facilities often operate independently. This leads to a duplication of efforts, such as multiple centers offering similar outpatient treatments without a cohesive strategy to manage patient transitions between different levels of care. Additionally, gaps in coverage emerge because patients needing to transition from outpatient to residential care may not receive timely referrals, resulting in inefficient use of resources and potential delays in treatment.
To address these issues, I would implement two different strategies.
Firstly, I would implement more efficient harm-reduction measures. Currently, in San Francisco, harm reduction measures include preventing overdoses from being fatal by supporting and broadening overdose prevention services such as naloxone distribution, fentanyl test strips, and drug checking. Additionally, efforts are being made to improve post-overdose outcomes by enhancing targeted overdose response teams and connecting individuals to care.
However, these measures are often isolated and do not contribute to sustained recovery or effectively prevent further overdoses. Without an integrated approach that includes coordinated long-term treatment and recovery support, these efforts fall short of addressing the root causes of addiction and ensuring comprehensive care for individuals at risk.
To lower the rate of overdoses, I would open safe injection sites in key locations around the city where drug usage is the most prevalent, including areas in the Tenderloin and near City Hall. These sites would include sterilized equipment, drug checking, testing for infectious diseases such as HIV, HCV, and other STIs, education on drug use, safe drug practices, and safe sex practices, access to resources such as rehabilitation referrals, addiction treatments, social services such as housing and employment services. Emphasizing community connection through small group sessions and peer support groups can create an environment where
individuals can access the help they need without fear of judgment or stigma.
Creating these centers is essential because providing a non-judgmental space for drug users creates an environment of trust and support that can lead to better engagement with treatment services and long-term recovery. San Francisco currently lacks sufficient harm reduction facilities, leaving many drug users without safe options for using substances and accessing related health services.
The efficiency of community-centered treatment can be seen in the success of peer support groups in addiction treatment. Research has indicated that the benefits of peer support groups are related to the following: less substance use, treatment engagement, lower risky behaviors related to the hepatitis C virus and the human immunodeficiency virus, and less secondary substance-related behaviors like craving and self-efficacy. (4)
Harm reduction encompasses a wide range of strategies aimed at reducing specific harms. When considering syringe service programs and safe injection sites, it's important to acknowledge their targeted role in providing support to those most vulnerable. Implementing harm reduction measures should prioritize the community's needs and well-being.
The next issue we need to address is: What happens next? Harm reduction is not offered as the solution to the opioid crisis. Our focus should be on making the change sustainable.
Treatment maintenance drugs should be fully legal and accessible to those who need them. These medications, such as methadone and buprenorphine, have been proven to be effective in treating opioid addiction and reducing the risk of relapse and overdose. Currently, accessing these drugs can be challenging due to various legal and regulatory barriers.
In order to address this disparity, Bill AB-1288 sought to improve access to essential medications. The bill prohibited health care service plans and insurers from requiring prior authorization or step therapy (requiring patients to try and fail less expensive treatments before approving the prescribed medication) for specific medications used to treat substance use disorders. Governor Newsom vetoed the bill, providing reasons such as utilization review being important for containing healthcare costs, protecting patients from unexpected billing, and ensuring necessary care, and because it helps prevent fraudulent requests or drug abuse.
However, these issues can be easily mitigated by expanding the naloxone distribution to include buprenorphine and methadone (used for opioid addiction treatment), and long-acting injectable naltrexone (used for opioid addiction treatment and prevention of relapse). These drugs have proven effective in addiction treatment. Methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone reduce opioid use, symptoms, infectious disease transmission, and criminal behavior. They increase the likelihood of individuals remaining in treatment, and lower overdose mortality and HIV/HCV transmission. (5)
It's time to move beyond temporary fixes and implement comprehensive, sustainable solutions that support every individual's journey to recovery and well-being.
(1)https://www.assembly.ca.gov/system/files/2023-05/05.24.2023%20Fentanyl%20Select%20Committee%2 0Background_0.pdf
(2)https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Fentanyl-Opioids-Glossy-Plan_3.20.23.pdf
(3)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2396562/
(4)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5047716/
(5)https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/medications-to-treat-opioid-addiction/efficacymedications-opioid-use-disorder
Why Voting Red Might Come Back To Bite You
Written by Kareem
It’s election season in America, so it’s time to start thinking about our future governments. Who we want to enforce laws. Who we want to create laws. Who we want to see representing our country.
But why should we care? You might not be eligible to vote, or you might think that no matter who is elected, America is doomed to crumble. And honestly, if you believe that, you might not be far from the truth.
Former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden held their first national debate of the campaign season on June 27, a debate that took America by storm because, to put it simply, it was a disastrous look at the possibilities of the next 4 years of American democracy. On the one hand, President Biden provided weak, discouraging responses to debate topics, including a misleading response towards tax reform that concluded with a confounding statement regarding beating Medicare.
Democrats are beginning to worry about the longevity of Biden’s mental abilities. At the age of 81, Biden has lost much of his ability to cohesively put arguments and statements together and stay within the bounds of a topic. Additionally, people have begun to worry about his overall health.
An Ipsos poll of around 2500 people (who are very likely to vote in the coming election) showed that 15% of the voters thought Biden was physically fit to participate in the election after the debate. This is a 6% drop from the pre-debate statistics, where 21% of the survey participants said the same thing. Additionally, in a Morning Consult poll, the number of participants who believed Biden was mentally fit to be the next President dropped from 43% to 35% pre-debate to post-debate.
So, Biden is old and fatigued, both physically and mentally, and we should vote for Trump, the (albeit not much) younger candidate with brighter ideas and more aggressive policies to help bring change quicker and easier than before, right?
Well, not exactly.
During the debate, Trump continued his 3-term tradition of exaggeration and misinformation. This includes a blatant shot at Biden’s tax policies, including a statement that he will, as president, “raise your taxes by 4 times.” Biden’s tax policies do call for an increase in taxes, but more so on larger corporations and multimillionaires rather than the average American household. In fact, Trump’s tax law that was established in 2017 was skewed to the rich; if anyone raised your taxes in the last 8 years, it was him. It also includes bashing Biden’s border policy, with statements along the lines of Biden’s bad border killing Americans and allowing illegal immigrants to enter and terrorize the nation. In reality, violent crime rates have only been going down, and statistics show that illegal immigrants are less likely to perpetuate violent crime than American-born citizens.
But Trump wasn’t the only individual who lied during the election. Biden has claimed that he has kept a stronger military than Trump, yet, 16 service members have died since he took office in 2021. He also butchered medical insurance statistics, including costs of health insurance and insulin shots, which were changed from a bill he put into office (the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act).
Then why, when both parties lied and Biden’s health is looking worse and worse, would anyone not vote for Trump?
Two words: Project 2025.
Project 2025 is a comprehensive plan created by far-right conservatives from The Heritage Foundation. It features a 180-day plan of action for the next conservative administration in a 920-page guide, with sections discussing complete government reform, the economy, independent regulatory agencies, public defense, and a thriving nation.
But what’s wrong with that? Conservatives might just want a plan so they can achieve as much as possible as soon as possible. Well, the problem lies within the plan itself.
For one, the next conservative Administration will infuse Christian Nationalism into daily life. Many conservatives believe that, because America has grown less and less religious over time, Christianity and the Christian roots of the nation are at risk. This would effectively isolate people of different religions, and dramatically push a religious agenda on them, and many non-Christians would likely leave America as a result.
Project 2025 calls for a complete reform of government. Yes, complete. This includes extending the President’s power to allow him to appoint individuals to office who will follow him and support him in executing his policies. The checks and balances system would thus become useless, since if the President both has complete government support and power surpassing that of the rest of the branches, then those other branches can’t do anything to bring balance and ensure the president cannot run free.
On Project 2025’s website, there’s a section where you can apply for a governmental position, in which you would interview with a recruiter at Project 2025. This move pushes to get people who support the plan in government.
Want to know what’s wrong with this picture? A complete compromisation of democracy. This plan will completely ruin the idea of democracy that the nation was founded under.
But it doesn’t stop there. Project 2025 covers many topics over its 920-page guide, which you should consider reading, even if it’s a simple skim/gloss over. Some of the more notable policies include:
The future of our democracy is in all our hands. A conservative government that follows Project 2025 will completely reshape American politics and will impact small businesses, immigrants, the execution of the 1st amendment, our children, and the future of American civil progression. But what can you do to stop this?
It’s likely you’ve only briefly heard of Project 2025 before reading this article if you’ve heard about it at all. All it takes is a few goals/policies covered within it to compromise our government’s democracy and ruin the sense of freedom that made America stand out from other nations.
So spread the word. Many individuals don’t plan on voting for Trump or Biden this coming election, for neither have helped the US progress in a manner significant enough to help people’s daily lives, or they simply don’t care who wins. Tell them what’s at stake with a red government: our democracy, freedom, and societal/civil progression.
And if you can vote, vote to keep our democracy safe.
While Joe Biden is growing older, and becoming less and less competent by the day as well as growing weaker both physically and mentally, he won’t compromise our democracy the way a Trump Administration would. The recent disastrous debate showed us Biden’s age and why he may not be physically qualified to run the nation, but it more so outlined just how much Trump is willing to lie/exaggerate to influence the minds of the people. Reading, voting, and spreading the word will help us maintain our government and the very things it was founded on.
Written by Kareem
It’s election season in America, so it’s time to start thinking about our future governments. Who we want to enforce laws. Who we want to create laws. Who we want to see representing our country.
But why should we care? You might not be eligible to vote, or you might think that no matter who is elected, America is doomed to crumble. And honestly, if you believe that, you might not be far from the truth.
Former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden held their first national debate of the campaign season on June 27, a debate that took America by storm because, to put it simply, it was a disastrous look at the possibilities of the next 4 years of American democracy. On the one hand, President Biden provided weak, discouraging responses to debate topics, including a misleading response towards tax reform that concluded with a confounding statement regarding beating Medicare.
Democrats are beginning to worry about the longevity of Biden’s mental abilities. At the age of 81, Biden has lost much of his ability to cohesively put arguments and statements together and stay within the bounds of a topic. Additionally, people have begun to worry about his overall health.
An Ipsos poll of around 2500 people (who are very likely to vote in the coming election) showed that 15% of the voters thought Biden was physically fit to participate in the election after the debate. This is a 6% drop from the pre-debate statistics, where 21% of the survey participants said the same thing. Additionally, in a Morning Consult poll, the number of participants who believed Biden was mentally fit to be the next President dropped from 43% to 35% pre-debate to post-debate.
So, Biden is old and fatigued, both physically and mentally, and we should vote for Trump, the (albeit not much) younger candidate with brighter ideas and more aggressive policies to help bring change quicker and easier than before, right?
Well, not exactly.
During the debate, Trump continued his 3-term tradition of exaggeration and misinformation. This includes a blatant shot at Biden’s tax policies, including a statement that he will, as president, “raise your taxes by 4 times.” Biden’s tax policies do call for an increase in taxes, but more so on larger corporations and multimillionaires rather than the average American household. In fact, Trump’s tax law that was established in 2017 was skewed to the rich; if anyone raised your taxes in the last 8 years, it was him. It also includes bashing Biden’s border policy, with statements along the lines of Biden’s bad border killing Americans and allowing illegal immigrants to enter and terrorize the nation. In reality, violent crime rates have only been going down, and statistics show that illegal immigrants are less likely to perpetuate violent crime than American-born citizens.
But Trump wasn’t the only individual who lied during the election. Biden has claimed that he has kept a stronger military than Trump, yet, 16 service members have died since he took office in 2021. He also butchered medical insurance statistics, including costs of health insurance and insulin shots, which were changed from a bill he put into office (the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act).
Then why, when both parties lied and Biden’s health is looking worse and worse, would anyone not vote for Trump?
Two words: Project 2025.
Project 2025 is a comprehensive plan created by far-right conservatives from The Heritage Foundation. It features a 180-day plan of action for the next conservative administration in a 920-page guide, with sections discussing complete government reform, the economy, independent regulatory agencies, public defense, and a thriving nation.
But what’s wrong with that? Conservatives might just want a plan so they can achieve as much as possible as soon as possible. Well, the problem lies within the plan itself.
For one, the next conservative Administration will infuse Christian Nationalism into daily life. Many conservatives believe that, because America has grown less and less religious over time, Christianity and the Christian roots of the nation are at risk. This would effectively isolate people of different religions, and dramatically push a religious agenda on them, and many non-Christians would likely leave America as a result.
Project 2025 calls for a complete reform of government. Yes, complete. This includes extending the President’s power to allow him to appoint individuals to office who will follow him and support him in executing his policies. The checks and balances system would thus become useless, since if the President both has complete government support and power surpassing that of the rest of the branches, then those other branches can’t do anything to bring balance and ensure the president cannot run free.
On Project 2025’s website, there’s a section where you can apply for a governmental position, in which you would interview with a recruiter at Project 2025. This move pushes to get people who support the plan in government.
Want to know what’s wrong with this picture? A complete compromisation of democracy. This plan will completely ruin the idea of democracy that the nation was founded under.
But it doesn’t stop there. Project 2025 covers many topics over its 920-page guide, which you should consider reading, even if it’s a simple skim/gloss over. Some of the more notable policies include:
- a complete ban on production and user-consumption of pornography
- a movement against “woke propaganda,” including:
- Abortions
- LGBTQ+ and reproductive rights
- Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)
- A complete reform of the White House, Congress, and government agencies
- Amalgamating and removing agencies, including the Department of Education
- Reshaping their leadership
- Changing power balances
- A mass deportation of illegal immigrants the very first day of the next conservative administration, whether it be Trump’s or not
The future of our democracy is in all our hands. A conservative government that follows Project 2025 will completely reshape American politics and will impact small businesses, immigrants, the execution of the 1st amendment, our children, and the future of American civil progression. But what can you do to stop this?
It’s likely you’ve only briefly heard of Project 2025 before reading this article if you’ve heard about it at all. All it takes is a few goals/policies covered within it to compromise our government’s democracy and ruin the sense of freedom that made America stand out from other nations.
So spread the word. Many individuals don’t plan on voting for Trump or Biden this coming election, for neither have helped the US progress in a manner significant enough to help people’s daily lives, or they simply don’t care who wins. Tell them what’s at stake with a red government: our democracy, freedom, and societal/civil progression.
And if you can vote, vote to keep our democracy safe.
While Joe Biden is growing older, and becoming less and less competent by the day as well as growing weaker both physically and mentally, he won’t compromise our democracy the way a Trump Administration would. The recent disastrous debate showed us Biden’s age and why he may not be physically qualified to run the nation, but it more so outlined just how much Trump is willing to lie/exaggerate to influence the minds of the people. Reading, voting, and spreading the word will help us maintain our government and the very things it was founded on.
Why Thrift is the Answer
Written by Mia
We all love the feeling of getting a new outfit to show off at our work, with our friends, or out on the streets. It makes us feel so stylish, so fresh, so new. However, is it the newness of the actual merchandise that makes us feel so special? Is it the fact that the clothes on your body came from a factory creating masses of waste? I think for most of us, it is the fact that the clothes are new to our wardrobe that makes us so fascinated with them. So, why not just thrift? After all, it is affordable, stylish, and might just help us save our planet.
We currently have enough clothing on this planet to clothe the next 6 generations of people, yet we keep buying and producing. Wondering where this excess clothing goes as we keep creating more and more? The answer is, the trash. According to Maundy Relief, each year, 92 million tons of clothing each year end up in the trash. That is an incredible amount of waste that is due to our overconsumption as a human population. To make a single t-shirt, you need 2,000 liters of water. To put that into perspective, you drink around 2,000 liters of water over a 3-year period. That is a whole lot of water! Speaking in terms of carbon dioxide, making one t-shirt typically creates 7kg, which is how much is created on a 30 mile car journey. So, why would we keep feeding these habits that are causing so much destruction to the earth? The only answer to this seems obvious: let’s just continue to wear the clothes that already exist on earth!
Along with the fact that it is great for your planet, buying second-hand clothing is also great for your wallet. Due to my frequent visits, I know that the clothing prices at Goodwill, a very popular nation-wide consignment store, typically range from $1-$15. If you put the effort into looking through the store, you can get a lot of bang for your buck! On my most recent trip to Goodwill, I spent a total of $92. You might be thinking that is a lot of money, but with this $92, I got 3 cashmere sweaters, 3 sweatshirts, 1 purse, 1 vest, 1 top, and 1 jacket. The jacket I got normally retails for $168, and I paid $11 for it. Although it was gently used, I still only paid less than 7% of the original retail price. So, I recommend doing your wallet a favor and see what you can find at your local thrift store!
The final point I will make about why thrifting is the answer is that it allows you to create your personal unique and timeless style. There’s a variety of fast fashion stores people all love to shop at, including Urban Outfitters, Zara, Shein, H&M, etc. However, have you noticed how fast items come and go from these stores? Or, how do they all seem to carry the same styles at the same point in time? This is because the definition of fast fashion is literally “the business model of replicating recent catwalk trends and high-fashion designs, mass-producing them at a low cost, and bringing them to retail quickly while demand is at its highest.” You could buy something from one of these stores absolutely loving it, and then it goes out of trend the next month. You and everyone else may then return back to these stores and buy the new “trendy” item. Do you really want to have the same clothes as everyone else? Thrift shops are like a time capsule: they contain items from all different periods of time and fashion trends. You may find many outdated pieces in there, but you also may find timeless and unique pieces. Shopping at thrift stores can allow you to create your own style from unique pieces rather than just buying what fast fashion stores tell you to buy. You can finally dress like you!
Written by Mia
We all love the feeling of getting a new outfit to show off at our work, with our friends, or out on the streets. It makes us feel so stylish, so fresh, so new. However, is it the newness of the actual merchandise that makes us feel so special? Is it the fact that the clothes on your body came from a factory creating masses of waste? I think for most of us, it is the fact that the clothes are new to our wardrobe that makes us so fascinated with them. So, why not just thrift? After all, it is affordable, stylish, and might just help us save our planet.
We currently have enough clothing on this planet to clothe the next 6 generations of people, yet we keep buying and producing. Wondering where this excess clothing goes as we keep creating more and more? The answer is, the trash. According to Maundy Relief, each year, 92 million tons of clothing each year end up in the trash. That is an incredible amount of waste that is due to our overconsumption as a human population. To make a single t-shirt, you need 2,000 liters of water. To put that into perspective, you drink around 2,000 liters of water over a 3-year period. That is a whole lot of water! Speaking in terms of carbon dioxide, making one t-shirt typically creates 7kg, which is how much is created on a 30 mile car journey. So, why would we keep feeding these habits that are causing so much destruction to the earth? The only answer to this seems obvious: let’s just continue to wear the clothes that already exist on earth!
Along with the fact that it is great for your planet, buying second-hand clothing is also great for your wallet. Due to my frequent visits, I know that the clothing prices at Goodwill, a very popular nation-wide consignment store, typically range from $1-$15. If you put the effort into looking through the store, you can get a lot of bang for your buck! On my most recent trip to Goodwill, I spent a total of $92. You might be thinking that is a lot of money, but with this $92, I got 3 cashmere sweaters, 3 sweatshirts, 1 purse, 1 vest, 1 top, and 1 jacket. The jacket I got normally retails for $168, and I paid $11 for it. Although it was gently used, I still only paid less than 7% of the original retail price. So, I recommend doing your wallet a favor and see what you can find at your local thrift store!
The final point I will make about why thrifting is the answer is that it allows you to create your personal unique and timeless style. There’s a variety of fast fashion stores people all love to shop at, including Urban Outfitters, Zara, Shein, H&M, etc. However, have you noticed how fast items come and go from these stores? Or, how do they all seem to carry the same styles at the same point in time? This is because the definition of fast fashion is literally “the business model of replicating recent catwalk trends and high-fashion designs, mass-producing them at a low cost, and bringing them to retail quickly while demand is at its highest.” You could buy something from one of these stores absolutely loving it, and then it goes out of trend the next month. You and everyone else may then return back to these stores and buy the new “trendy” item. Do you really want to have the same clothes as everyone else? Thrift shops are like a time capsule: they contain items from all different periods of time and fashion trends. You may find many outdated pieces in there, but you also may find timeless and unique pieces. Shopping at thrift stores can allow you to create your own style from unique pieces rather than just buying what fast fashion stores tell you to buy. You can finally dress like you!
What is Different About the Kamala Harris Campaign?
Written by Sarah
Ever since the jaw-dropping announcement that Joe Biden would be stepping out of the race for President and endorsed Kamala Harris, there has been a sense of hope surrounding the Democratic party that has been lacking for quite some time.
In the 24 hour period after Harris stepped up to be the presumptive Democratic nominee, the Harris campaign raised a stunning $81 million in under 24 hours, blowing previous fundraising goals completely out of the water.
This has left many people wondering: What is different about this campaign? Why are people who have never donated to any political campaign donating to the Harris campaign? Why do people seem far more excited about this campaign than any of the previous Democratic campaigns?
All of these questions lead to this: What is Kamala Harris doing differently?
First of all, we need to look at the differences in our candidates. Up until this announcement, many Americans were not happy with either candidate, stating that both candidates were too old, too out of touch, or just not appealing. When you are set on two options you are not very happy with, wishing you had a different option, then out of the woodwork another option arises, this creates a sense of relief and rejuvenation. This is part of the phenomena of the Kamala Harris campaign, when options look sparse, then a miracle appears to happen, people will see anything that is a step up from their current options as a massive win.
Secondly, we have witnessed a huge uptick in the amount of young voters registering to vote after Kamala Harris announced she would be running for President. In the first 48 hours after the announcement, more than 38,500 people registered to vote, 85% of those being voters under 35.
A massive appeal of Kamala Harris is that she is about 20 years younger than both her opponent, and the former Democratic nominee. One of the aspects of Joe Biden that concerned people the most was his age and mental stamina, so Harris is a huge relief for voters who found this to be their deepest worry.
Harris has completely embraced the younger generation through social media in a genius campaign strategy. Since the @BidenHQ on TikTok has become the @KamalaHQ, views, likes, and followers have skyrocketed. The average views per TikTok has increased 12-fold from 500k to 6 million, all due to the creativity of the Harris campaign team. With over 121 million Americans on TikTok, this platform creates a unique opportunity for a candidate to connect with voters, especially in the younger demographic. About a ⅓ of Americans under the age of 30 also regularly get their news from TikTok, emphasizing its importance for political candidates to make their mark on the app.
The campaign has taken advantage of popular trends that already existed about Kamala Harris, embraced “Brat Summer” an idea coined by artist Charli XCX making their X mainpage the same font and color as the “Brat” album, and have received endorsements from celebrities such as George Clooney, Olivia Rodrigo, Mark Cuban, and more.
There have also been independent campaigns in support of Kamala Harris that have raised a large sum of money for her campaign in the past weeks. This includes, Win with Black Women who raised over 1.5 million dollars in a 90 minute zoom call, “White Dudes for Harris” an event that featured Mark Hamill of Star Wars which raised over $4 million and emphasized why white men should vote for Harris, “Comics for Kamala”, and more.
To put it simply, the Harris campaign is unlike any other campaign we have witnessed in American history. Not only is it the latest that a nominee has put their hat in the ring for a Presidential election due to a completely unprecedented drop out by Joe Biden, but it also represents the first time that we will have a Black woman or a person of Indian descent as the nominee of a major party.
People are excited, and there is a feeling of hope that has been missing from the Democratic party for quite some time, but the job is just beginning. As much as the excitement surrounding the campaign is hopeful for many, this needs to be translated into action at the polls on or before election day for any of it to matter.
To register to vote in your state please refer to this link to do so.
Written by Sarah
Ever since the jaw-dropping announcement that Joe Biden would be stepping out of the race for President and endorsed Kamala Harris, there has been a sense of hope surrounding the Democratic party that has been lacking for quite some time.
In the 24 hour period after Harris stepped up to be the presumptive Democratic nominee, the Harris campaign raised a stunning $81 million in under 24 hours, blowing previous fundraising goals completely out of the water.
This has left many people wondering: What is different about this campaign? Why are people who have never donated to any political campaign donating to the Harris campaign? Why do people seem far more excited about this campaign than any of the previous Democratic campaigns?
All of these questions lead to this: What is Kamala Harris doing differently?
First of all, we need to look at the differences in our candidates. Up until this announcement, many Americans were not happy with either candidate, stating that both candidates were too old, too out of touch, or just not appealing. When you are set on two options you are not very happy with, wishing you had a different option, then out of the woodwork another option arises, this creates a sense of relief and rejuvenation. This is part of the phenomena of the Kamala Harris campaign, when options look sparse, then a miracle appears to happen, people will see anything that is a step up from their current options as a massive win.
Secondly, we have witnessed a huge uptick in the amount of young voters registering to vote after Kamala Harris announced she would be running for President. In the first 48 hours after the announcement, more than 38,500 people registered to vote, 85% of those being voters under 35.
A massive appeal of Kamala Harris is that she is about 20 years younger than both her opponent, and the former Democratic nominee. One of the aspects of Joe Biden that concerned people the most was his age and mental stamina, so Harris is a huge relief for voters who found this to be their deepest worry.
Harris has completely embraced the younger generation through social media in a genius campaign strategy. Since the @BidenHQ on TikTok has become the @KamalaHQ, views, likes, and followers have skyrocketed. The average views per TikTok has increased 12-fold from 500k to 6 million, all due to the creativity of the Harris campaign team. With over 121 million Americans on TikTok, this platform creates a unique opportunity for a candidate to connect with voters, especially in the younger demographic. About a ⅓ of Americans under the age of 30 also regularly get their news from TikTok, emphasizing its importance for political candidates to make their mark on the app.
The campaign has taken advantage of popular trends that already existed about Kamala Harris, embraced “Brat Summer” an idea coined by artist Charli XCX making their X mainpage the same font and color as the “Brat” album, and have received endorsements from celebrities such as George Clooney, Olivia Rodrigo, Mark Cuban, and more.
There have also been independent campaigns in support of Kamala Harris that have raised a large sum of money for her campaign in the past weeks. This includes, Win with Black Women who raised over 1.5 million dollars in a 90 minute zoom call, “White Dudes for Harris” an event that featured Mark Hamill of Star Wars which raised over $4 million and emphasized why white men should vote for Harris, “Comics for Kamala”, and more.
To put it simply, the Harris campaign is unlike any other campaign we have witnessed in American history. Not only is it the latest that a nominee has put their hat in the ring for a Presidential election due to a completely unprecedented drop out by Joe Biden, but it also represents the first time that we will have a Black woman or a person of Indian descent as the nominee of a major party.
People are excited, and there is a feeling of hope that has been missing from the Democratic party for quite some time, but the job is just beginning. As much as the excitement surrounding the campaign is hopeful for many, this needs to be translated into action at the polls on or before election day for any of it to matter.
To register to vote in your state please refer to this link to do so.
The State of DEI in Higher Education
Written by Dawson
These days, bipartisanship seems rare and the United States is currently as polarized as I can remember. Many citizens are split over views on immigration, taxes, foreign policy, and a plethora of other topics that are extremely important in this upcoming 2024 election where Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump will be battling to secure their spot as chief of state. One topic that the country is very divided over at this time is diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, or DEI initiatives, in higher education.
Currently, I’m in my senior year at a university in Texas and I’ve witnessed the attack on DEI initiatives over these recent years. Lawmakers in Texas passed Senate Bill 17 which bans DEI offices, programs, and training in public universities in Texas. It was surreal to see the University of Texas at Austin, one of the more prominent universities in the nation with a diverse student body, be forced to shut down their DEI office and programs which many lawmakers thought was ‘indoctrinating’ students. I know students at UT Austin and they’ve shared the impact these offices and programs have had on students and how enraged they were when these offices and programs were swiftly closed with their employees being let go.
This year, I’m working in an office at my university which looks to promote positive social change and inclusivity. If this office were in the UT system, it would likely be targeted by Senate Bill 17. The events and training this office promotes help students become more educated about social issues and how they can make a positive change as well as create a stronger and more tight-knit community. This year, I will be working as an Inclusion Leader with my specific role being the Director of Redefining Me(n), an organization created by my boss. My role entails changing narratives on what masculinity means through holding meetings and events, as well as using social media, and helping organizations on campus and others in my office with their initiatives. Being able to redefine masculinity, sit down with individuals to have meaningful conversations about gender, and help create positive social change with my peers is one of my dream positions and I feel very fortunate I was chosen for this role.
The office that I’ll be working at this year means a lot to many of my peers and I believe that our experience as students would not be the same without it. The office helps create a community where students feel like they belong and have a voice on campus which is vital. Though we are a private institution, I fear what will happen to the office as another Trump presidency could have devastating impacts on DEI offices and programs across the nation. The UT system has already been forced to shut down twenty-one DEI offices and hundreds of employees have been let go. Both Donald Trump and JD Vance are very openly against DEI initiatives and I fear that if they are elected, our university may lose federal funding if we do not comply with their policies regarding DEI. Part of Trump’s proposed policies as President, known as Agenda47, is ending DEI programs in schools. In addition, as a Senator, JD Vance introduced the Dismantle DEI Act which looks to end federal DEI programs and prohibit things such as awarding federal contracts to entities that have DEI initiatives.
I believe that the attack on DEI is pushing our nation backward, as well as polarizing it, and critics of DEI use the tactic of fearmongering to garner support. Baseless claims are often used to scare parents that their children are being indoctrinated and ostracized when in reality, DEI initiatives in schools strive to create an inclusive space where all students feel like they belong. My hope is that individuals realize that the narrative about DEI initiatives pushed by people such as Donald Trump and JD Vance is false and a tactic used to divide citizens. I know the positive impact these initiatives have on college campuses and I fear that the attack on them will grow if Trump wins the presidency. I’ve been fortunate enough to have an office that promotes inclusivity on campus and my hope is that as many other college students as possible are able to experience this too.
Written by Dawson
These days, bipartisanship seems rare and the United States is currently as polarized as I can remember. Many citizens are split over views on immigration, taxes, foreign policy, and a plethora of other topics that are extremely important in this upcoming 2024 election where Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump will be battling to secure their spot as chief of state. One topic that the country is very divided over at this time is diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, or DEI initiatives, in higher education.
Currently, I’m in my senior year at a university in Texas and I’ve witnessed the attack on DEI initiatives over these recent years. Lawmakers in Texas passed Senate Bill 17 which bans DEI offices, programs, and training in public universities in Texas. It was surreal to see the University of Texas at Austin, one of the more prominent universities in the nation with a diverse student body, be forced to shut down their DEI office and programs which many lawmakers thought was ‘indoctrinating’ students. I know students at UT Austin and they’ve shared the impact these offices and programs have had on students and how enraged they were when these offices and programs were swiftly closed with their employees being let go.
This year, I’m working in an office at my university which looks to promote positive social change and inclusivity. If this office were in the UT system, it would likely be targeted by Senate Bill 17. The events and training this office promotes help students become more educated about social issues and how they can make a positive change as well as create a stronger and more tight-knit community. This year, I will be working as an Inclusion Leader with my specific role being the Director of Redefining Me(n), an organization created by my boss. My role entails changing narratives on what masculinity means through holding meetings and events, as well as using social media, and helping organizations on campus and others in my office with their initiatives. Being able to redefine masculinity, sit down with individuals to have meaningful conversations about gender, and help create positive social change with my peers is one of my dream positions and I feel very fortunate I was chosen for this role.
The office that I’ll be working at this year means a lot to many of my peers and I believe that our experience as students would not be the same without it. The office helps create a community where students feel like they belong and have a voice on campus which is vital. Though we are a private institution, I fear what will happen to the office as another Trump presidency could have devastating impacts on DEI offices and programs across the nation. The UT system has already been forced to shut down twenty-one DEI offices and hundreds of employees have been let go. Both Donald Trump and JD Vance are very openly against DEI initiatives and I fear that if they are elected, our university may lose federal funding if we do not comply with their policies regarding DEI. Part of Trump’s proposed policies as President, known as Agenda47, is ending DEI programs in schools. In addition, as a Senator, JD Vance introduced the Dismantle DEI Act which looks to end federal DEI programs and prohibit things such as awarding federal contracts to entities that have DEI initiatives.
I believe that the attack on DEI is pushing our nation backward, as well as polarizing it, and critics of DEI use the tactic of fearmongering to garner support. Baseless claims are often used to scare parents that their children are being indoctrinated and ostracized when in reality, DEI initiatives in schools strive to create an inclusive space where all students feel like they belong. My hope is that individuals realize that the narrative about DEI initiatives pushed by people such as Donald Trump and JD Vance is false and a tactic used to divide citizens. I know the positive impact these initiatives have on college campuses and I fear that the attack on them will grow if Trump wins the presidency. I’ve been fortunate enough to have an office that promotes inclusivity on campus and my hope is that as many other college students as possible are able to experience this too.
The Silent Killer: Tackling the Fentanyl Crisis in the Bay Area
Written by Victoria
Over the past couple of years, the drug Fentanyl has silently become one of the leading causes of drug overdoses across the country. According to Yale Medicine, Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that is not only cheap to manufacture, but can also be made easily in a lab. It is also highly potent, ranging anywhere from 50-100 times stronger than prescription opioids. This, coupled with its affordability to manufacture makes fentanyl a goldmine for drug dealers. Typically, dealers mix fentanyl into other drugs like cocaine or heroin so their users are unaware that they are ingesting fentanyl. Because of its potency, even tiny amounts of fentanyl can kill. However, illicit drug dealers know that its potency will cause their clients to become highly addicted, and even at the expense of lost lives, they continue to prioritize their profit over everything.
Growing up in the Bay Area, I knew of far too many kids who had died of fentanyl poisoning. With each story I heard, I grew more and more devastated. I could not understand how these heartless drug dealers were continuing to willingly murder innocent people. According to The SF Chronicle, 2023 surpassed 2020 as the deadliest year for overdose deaths with a total of 811 lives lost in San Francisco. I am deeply concerned by the impact this crisis has left on my community. I understand that this is a complex issue and that there are many social determinants of health that play into the problem, meaning that not one single solution will be able to solve this. The fentanyl crisis is an urgent issue and every minute counts.
I believe that we must take a multifaceted approach, using both the government and society-wide methods to tackle this epidemic. I think it is imperative that we increase the range and accessibility of evidence based treatment and recovery services available in our communities. For example, American Progress suggests expanding access to naloxone, an overdose reversal agent, and test strips for fentanyl. I believe this would help save many lives as people could take preventative measures and in the event of an overdose, naloxone could reverse its effects. Aside from these more immediate measures, I also believe that the government needs
to strengthen their border security to ensure that drugs cannot be smuggled in and out of the US. American Progress suggests that the United States invest in scanning technology and heavier security at ports of entry to ensure that illegal drugs cannot be trafficked. This would curb the amount of illicit drugs in the United States and make them a lot less accessible to people, which is a big part of the problem.
Moreover, I think that our government needs to implement outreach programs and support groups for people struggling with addiction. We need to focus on giving people spaces to heal and learn rather than criminalizing their addictions. In the Bay Area, there are many substance abuse resources available to people including free clinics offered through Haight Ashbury Clinics where they offer counseling, treatment, and codependency groups. Investing in more of these types of programs and making them accessible to everyone, no matter their socioeconomic background, would help people fully recover from their addictions and reintegrate them back into leading a healthy lifestyle. I also believe that it would be valuable to increase educational opportunities about the dangers of fentanyl in schools. Having representatives come visit schools and teach children about fentanyl and signs of an overdose could potentially save a life. Also, implementing programs in schools that can connect students to resources and distribute naloxone and test strips would be very valuable. According to CBS News, California has recently enacted “Melanie’s Law” which is designed to prevent fentanyl overdoses in public schools and trains school employees on opioid prevention. This law is a step in the right direction and if we can come together as a community to combat the fentanyl crisis, I am confident that we will make progress.
It is understandable that California may be hesitant to implement these changes because of expense factors. However, I propose a reallocation of the state-wide budget to be aid in programs like I mentioned above. Also, naloxone is often distributed for free by anti-fentanyl organizations and is inexpensive to purchase. Overall, the fentanyl crisis is a pressing matter and must be addressed with the proper measures. Countless families are being affected by this crisis and you never know if yours could be next. We must come together as a community to create a safer, healthier, fentanyl-free environment for future generations. Every minute counts.
Written by Victoria
Over the past couple of years, the drug Fentanyl has silently become one of the leading causes of drug overdoses across the country. According to Yale Medicine, Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that is not only cheap to manufacture, but can also be made easily in a lab. It is also highly potent, ranging anywhere from 50-100 times stronger than prescription opioids. This, coupled with its affordability to manufacture makes fentanyl a goldmine for drug dealers. Typically, dealers mix fentanyl into other drugs like cocaine or heroin so their users are unaware that they are ingesting fentanyl. Because of its potency, even tiny amounts of fentanyl can kill. However, illicit drug dealers know that its potency will cause their clients to become highly addicted, and even at the expense of lost lives, they continue to prioritize their profit over everything.
Growing up in the Bay Area, I knew of far too many kids who had died of fentanyl poisoning. With each story I heard, I grew more and more devastated. I could not understand how these heartless drug dealers were continuing to willingly murder innocent people. According to The SF Chronicle, 2023 surpassed 2020 as the deadliest year for overdose deaths with a total of 811 lives lost in San Francisco. I am deeply concerned by the impact this crisis has left on my community. I understand that this is a complex issue and that there are many social determinants of health that play into the problem, meaning that not one single solution will be able to solve this. The fentanyl crisis is an urgent issue and every minute counts.
I believe that we must take a multifaceted approach, using both the government and society-wide methods to tackle this epidemic. I think it is imperative that we increase the range and accessibility of evidence based treatment and recovery services available in our communities. For example, American Progress suggests expanding access to naloxone, an overdose reversal agent, and test strips for fentanyl. I believe this would help save many lives as people could take preventative measures and in the event of an overdose, naloxone could reverse its effects. Aside from these more immediate measures, I also believe that the government needs
to strengthen their border security to ensure that drugs cannot be smuggled in and out of the US. American Progress suggests that the United States invest in scanning technology and heavier security at ports of entry to ensure that illegal drugs cannot be trafficked. This would curb the amount of illicit drugs in the United States and make them a lot less accessible to people, which is a big part of the problem.
Moreover, I think that our government needs to implement outreach programs and support groups for people struggling with addiction. We need to focus on giving people spaces to heal and learn rather than criminalizing their addictions. In the Bay Area, there are many substance abuse resources available to people including free clinics offered through Haight Ashbury Clinics where they offer counseling, treatment, and codependency groups. Investing in more of these types of programs and making them accessible to everyone, no matter their socioeconomic background, would help people fully recover from their addictions and reintegrate them back into leading a healthy lifestyle. I also believe that it would be valuable to increase educational opportunities about the dangers of fentanyl in schools. Having representatives come visit schools and teach children about fentanyl and signs of an overdose could potentially save a life. Also, implementing programs in schools that can connect students to resources and distribute naloxone and test strips would be very valuable. According to CBS News, California has recently enacted “Melanie’s Law” which is designed to prevent fentanyl overdoses in public schools and trains school employees on opioid prevention. This law is a step in the right direction and if we can come together as a community to combat the fentanyl crisis, I am confident that we will make progress.
It is understandable that California may be hesitant to implement these changes because of expense factors. However, I propose a reallocation of the state-wide budget to be aid in programs like I mentioned above. Also, naloxone is often distributed for free by anti-fentanyl organizations and is inexpensive to purchase. Overall, the fentanyl crisis is a pressing matter and must be addressed with the proper measures. Countless families are being affected by this crisis and you never know if yours could be next. We must come together as a community to create a safer, healthier, fentanyl-free environment for future generations. Every minute counts.
To or To Not Ice Cream?
Written by Aesha
While ice cream has long been the global favorite, popsicles offer benefits that are often overlooked. In light of recent high temperatures, I'll make the case for why popsicles are the superior summer treat. For a simple and satisfying way to cool down, popsicles truly take the cake.
Convenience plays a significant role in why popsicles are the best summer treat. On a stick, popsicles are perfect for on-the-go enjoyment. Unlike ice cream, which typically comes in a pint and requires a spoon, popsicles only need to be unwrapped. Their design makes them ideal for a quick, mess-free treat.
Additionally, popsicles are the perfect serving. Like aforementioned, ice cream typically comes in pints and need to be refrozen if not eaten fully. Popsicles come in a pack of individual servings, making it easy for distribution and consumption.
Popsicles also offer a light treat. Ice cream, full of dairy, can be hard on one’s stomach, especially with the overwhelming heat. Popsicles are fruity and offer a non-stomach wrenching experience. This also makes popsicles inclusive to all, lactose intolerant and tolerant. Do better, ice cream.
Now to get a little more scientific, popsicles contain more water than ice cream, increasing your water intake. Making sure your body is being fueled with water during the summer is essential to ensuring you don’t suffer from heat exhaustion or a heat stroke.
This part may require a little extra effort, but next time you go to the grocery store, check the prices of a pint of ice cream and check the prices of a box of popsicles. You’ll be surprised to see that the popsicles with more servings per container tends to be typically cheaper than a measly pint.
Lastly, popsicles are deeply nostalgic. I fondly remember grabbing ice pops from a cooler at the playground and trading flavors with friends until I got my favorite (blue raspberry is best, and don’t try to convince me otherwise). As we grow older and our summers shift from playgrounds to work, a popsicle can always transport us back to those cherished summertime memories.
Written by Aesha
While ice cream has long been the global favorite, popsicles offer benefits that are often overlooked. In light of recent high temperatures, I'll make the case for why popsicles are the superior summer treat. For a simple and satisfying way to cool down, popsicles truly take the cake.
Convenience plays a significant role in why popsicles are the best summer treat. On a stick, popsicles are perfect for on-the-go enjoyment. Unlike ice cream, which typically comes in a pint and requires a spoon, popsicles only need to be unwrapped. Their design makes them ideal for a quick, mess-free treat.
Additionally, popsicles are the perfect serving. Like aforementioned, ice cream typically comes in pints and need to be refrozen if not eaten fully. Popsicles come in a pack of individual servings, making it easy for distribution and consumption.
Popsicles also offer a light treat. Ice cream, full of dairy, can be hard on one’s stomach, especially with the overwhelming heat. Popsicles are fruity and offer a non-stomach wrenching experience. This also makes popsicles inclusive to all, lactose intolerant and tolerant. Do better, ice cream.
Now to get a little more scientific, popsicles contain more water than ice cream, increasing your water intake. Making sure your body is being fueled with water during the summer is essential to ensuring you don’t suffer from heat exhaustion or a heat stroke.
This part may require a little extra effort, but next time you go to the grocery store, check the prices of a pint of ice cream and check the prices of a box of popsicles. You’ll be surprised to see that the popsicles with more servings per container tends to be typically cheaper than a measly pint.
Lastly, popsicles are deeply nostalgic. I fondly remember grabbing ice pops from a cooler at the playground and trading flavors with friends until I got my favorite (blue raspberry is best, and don’t try to convince me otherwise). As we grow older and our summers shift from playgrounds to work, a popsicle can always transport us back to those cherished summertime memories.
The Invisible Epidemic of Latrogenesis
Written by Adam
The story is simple. An unassuming patient waltzes into the doctor’s office. After months of their dentist harping on them, they’ve finally carved out time to make a wisdom tooth removal appointment. It’s a routine procedure. So they enter the waiting room, their mind at ease. Why would they worry? After all, they are surrounded by professionals who have undergone years of the most rigorous training and have spent even more time afterwards accruing experience with previous cases. The patient is called into the operation room. All is calm. Then the surgeon starts to perform.
Heart rate drops inexplicably. Hypoxia rears its ugly face. The patient is quickly losing brain functionality. Quick movements. Rushed commands. Bated breaths. Silence. The patient awakens, but a shell of who they used to be. Their slowed heart rate deprived the brain of so much oxygen that the damage is irreversible. A week later, complete brain death is pronounced. This specific story belongs to a 17-year old girl named Sydney Galleger (ABC News 2017). But there are so many other unfortunate and tragic cases that trace a parallel arc to Sydney’s.
Indeed, iatrogenesis, or medically-induced harm, accounts for five to eight percent of deaths worldwide (Peer and Shabir 2018). In several countries it even earns the title of leading cause of death (Peer and Shabir). For the United States alone, it is estimated that medical error claims the lives of more than 250,000 individuals each year (Johns Hopkins Medicine). Not to mention, these figures do not even begin to touch upon the countless many whose existences have been fundamentally disrupted by chronic injuries and conditions they have incurred at the hands of medical practice. Yet despite these chilling numbers, iatrogenesis has largely failed to achieve an even comparable level of notoriety to some of its counterparts, with afflictions such as heart disease, cancer, and influenza never leaving the tongues of the medically conscientious. Oftentimes, iatrogenesis is not even allotted its own category in displays of public death statistics, either pigeonholed under the overly broad umbrella of “preventable injuries” or erroneously attributed as some other cause (i.e. “heart disease” if the medical harm occurred at any point in the treatment of a heart problem). Whether this public perception of wide scale iatrogenesis is a symptom of apathy or neglect is not immediately clear. What is clear is that the problem is burgeoning and people, en masse, are looking the other way.
Although, this is not to say that iatrogenic occurrences have not garnered attention at an individual level – in the past decade, the nation has watched malpractice cases rise with unseen rapidity (Gallegos). Now, more than ever before, patients are likely to react to iatrogenesis by launching a legal battle against their provider. Whether this spike in malpractice suits is inspired by heightened awareness of physicians’ faults or by the ever-heftier settlements that victimized parties are coming to receive, the premise holds that people are more conscious than ever of missteps in their personal medical care. Accordingly, the patient-doctor relationship seems to tout a novel hint of opposition and ferocity. Patients are announcing their newfound commitment to self-advocacy; they will no longer be the mere ground over which the medical system plows. Physicians, in turn, are readying their defenses, surging to find the optimal malpractice defense teams and insurance plans. This all accompanies a marked shift in the physician-patient relationship, from a paternal mode of care to a tug-and-pull decision making process between provider and patient (Chawla). At least in these direct one-on-one relationships, the patient seems to be more involved, and invested, in their medical treatment plans than ever.
So, I present a portrait of the medical system that brims with paradoxical colors and shaded nuance. At once, the American population cares so little and the American individual cares so much. At once, medicine heals us and kills us. At once, physicians heed to a medical system rooted in decades-old precedents and patients look forward to a medical system that does not yet exist. The landscape of medical care in America has become fraught with incongruity, discord, and, most notably, danger. So, where are we erring? Why are so many people dying and getting injured in the care of a system meant to heal? The answer I begin to offer transcends the blunders of individual physicians and the grievances of individual patients. It grapples with iatrogenesis as a systematic dilemma, as an epidemic rather than a series of individual events. I argue that a systems-based approach is critical in addressing the urgent crisis that is iatrogenesis.
Our first priority, societally, should not be the condemnation of specific physicians for their shortcomings, nor the isolated accidents that befall hectic medical settings, as has become the trend in recent times. We must, instead, seek to unroot and stifle primary causes of iatrogenesis. I say this because a purely reactionary mode of medical harm mitigation is ineffective and misguided. To watch a doctor fail in the operating room, to watch the life slip from a patient with a treatable ailment, is heart-wrenching and terrible. But if we truly seek to aid these patients, it is paramount that attention is directed towards the fundamental causes of these medical missteps rather than the particular missteps themselves. Reactionary responses to iatrogenesis – ranging from physician disciplinary measures to avoidable emergency procedures – apply short-term fixes (if that) to a long-term problem.
We see this sentiment supported in sociological and bioethical literature. Measures such as innovative safety technology and revised patient information protocols have been shown to affect an appreciable decrease in incidences of clinical iatrogenic harm (Yang et al.). Risk assessment tools which aid in the identification of patients who would face the greatest risk for particular procedures have also played an integral role in improved patient safety (Yang et al.) Yet despite this glaring evidence in support of systematized approaches to iatrogenesis, cultural attention is not directed towards the benefits of such harm-mitigation policies.
Some of this might be due to the heightened emotional investment people have in individual iatrogenic events rather than the issue at large. Iatrogenesis certainly crescendos in significance when it enters our own personal lives; otherwise, it remains shrouded in statistical discussions and becomes a problem solely relegated to circles of public health officials. Indeed, this tendency to prioritize causes close to oneself is a tendency so deeply human in nature. We are undeniably most moved by affective influences. Just look to the world of activism as evidence: the vast majority of cancer activists report that their lives have been profoundly touched by cancer at some point, the same holds for most social injustice activists (Cox). The simple fact is that people are most emboldened to combat issues when they become personal. Tying this back to iatrogenesis, it becomes evident why people come to care so deeply about the failings of the medical system in their individual experiences, meanwhile their sympathies lose traction when extended more widely. Personal histories, like that which opened this article, are simply more compelling than matters which assume a broader, nationwide, scale. So, influenced by these personal experiences, people are most likely to respond to only these individual occurrences, rather than the issue as it is widely understood.
Yet irrespective of this elevated personal awareness, rates of clinical iatrogenesis have not decreased in the past decades (Hartford Institute for Geriatric Nursing). This is because to attack the errors of specific physicians is to attack human error, and to err is an unyielding facet of human experience. No matter how many years of training we demand from our doctors, no matter how many examinations we set for them to pass, error will occur. Rather than attempting to quench the stubborn and inevitable fact of human fallibility, we must construct nets and protocols which mitigate the consequences of such mistakes. We should seize the variables which are truly beneath our control. This might look like a rethinking of hospital safety protocols, as aforementioned, or policy initiatives which construct additional barriers of defense between the patient and instances of iatrogenesis. One such policy initiative which has gained notable prominence is the Patient Safety Act, which emboldens providers to voluntarily collect information pertaining to patient safety and health care quality (Federal Register). This data are then analyzed and aid in the formulation of policies and protocols that would be most advantageous towards ensuring the perpetual safety of the patient (Federal Register). In fact, this strategy of tackling medical error by constructing manifold layers of safety has been coined by past public health professionals as the Swiss Cheese Model (Perneger). The premise is that no one medical safety measure will be completely effective (they will have holes in a manner akin to swiss cheese). So, through the implementation of numerous safety nets, we can ensure the highest potential for patient safety.
However, it is critical to note that none of this systematic reworking of healthcare safety should come at the cost of individual physicians’ quality of care. The standards which we hold doctors to should not be relaxed – rather, we should make sure to optimize the safety protocols which are enacted in the cases in which these standards are not met. Patients are absolutely entitled to assume agency over the healthcare they receive. I merely contend that there are factors beyond a myopic perception of healthcare safety that are worth considering – and fixing. No magical salve can be placed on the problem of human error, so society must reorient itself in a manner which it has not yet; people must view iatrogenesis as the societal, not merely individual, threat it very much is. It is through this broad-scale recognition of iatrogenesis that we will begin to render practical and effective solutions to the phenomenon currently harming so many.
Written by Adam
The story is simple. An unassuming patient waltzes into the doctor’s office. After months of their dentist harping on them, they’ve finally carved out time to make a wisdom tooth removal appointment. It’s a routine procedure. So they enter the waiting room, their mind at ease. Why would they worry? After all, they are surrounded by professionals who have undergone years of the most rigorous training and have spent even more time afterwards accruing experience with previous cases. The patient is called into the operation room. All is calm. Then the surgeon starts to perform.
Heart rate drops inexplicably. Hypoxia rears its ugly face. The patient is quickly losing brain functionality. Quick movements. Rushed commands. Bated breaths. Silence. The patient awakens, but a shell of who they used to be. Their slowed heart rate deprived the brain of so much oxygen that the damage is irreversible. A week later, complete brain death is pronounced. This specific story belongs to a 17-year old girl named Sydney Galleger (ABC News 2017). But there are so many other unfortunate and tragic cases that trace a parallel arc to Sydney’s.
Indeed, iatrogenesis, or medically-induced harm, accounts for five to eight percent of deaths worldwide (Peer and Shabir 2018). In several countries it even earns the title of leading cause of death (Peer and Shabir). For the United States alone, it is estimated that medical error claims the lives of more than 250,000 individuals each year (Johns Hopkins Medicine). Not to mention, these figures do not even begin to touch upon the countless many whose existences have been fundamentally disrupted by chronic injuries and conditions they have incurred at the hands of medical practice. Yet despite these chilling numbers, iatrogenesis has largely failed to achieve an even comparable level of notoriety to some of its counterparts, with afflictions such as heart disease, cancer, and influenza never leaving the tongues of the medically conscientious. Oftentimes, iatrogenesis is not even allotted its own category in displays of public death statistics, either pigeonholed under the overly broad umbrella of “preventable injuries” or erroneously attributed as some other cause (i.e. “heart disease” if the medical harm occurred at any point in the treatment of a heart problem). Whether this public perception of wide scale iatrogenesis is a symptom of apathy or neglect is not immediately clear. What is clear is that the problem is burgeoning and people, en masse, are looking the other way.
Although, this is not to say that iatrogenic occurrences have not garnered attention at an individual level – in the past decade, the nation has watched malpractice cases rise with unseen rapidity (Gallegos). Now, more than ever before, patients are likely to react to iatrogenesis by launching a legal battle against their provider. Whether this spike in malpractice suits is inspired by heightened awareness of physicians’ faults or by the ever-heftier settlements that victimized parties are coming to receive, the premise holds that people are more conscious than ever of missteps in their personal medical care. Accordingly, the patient-doctor relationship seems to tout a novel hint of opposition and ferocity. Patients are announcing their newfound commitment to self-advocacy; they will no longer be the mere ground over which the medical system plows. Physicians, in turn, are readying their defenses, surging to find the optimal malpractice defense teams and insurance plans. This all accompanies a marked shift in the physician-patient relationship, from a paternal mode of care to a tug-and-pull decision making process between provider and patient (Chawla). At least in these direct one-on-one relationships, the patient seems to be more involved, and invested, in their medical treatment plans than ever.
So, I present a portrait of the medical system that brims with paradoxical colors and shaded nuance. At once, the American population cares so little and the American individual cares so much. At once, medicine heals us and kills us. At once, physicians heed to a medical system rooted in decades-old precedents and patients look forward to a medical system that does not yet exist. The landscape of medical care in America has become fraught with incongruity, discord, and, most notably, danger. So, where are we erring? Why are so many people dying and getting injured in the care of a system meant to heal? The answer I begin to offer transcends the blunders of individual physicians and the grievances of individual patients. It grapples with iatrogenesis as a systematic dilemma, as an epidemic rather than a series of individual events. I argue that a systems-based approach is critical in addressing the urgent crisis that is iatrogenesis.
Our first priority, societally, should not be the condemnation of specific physicians for their shortcomings, nor the isolated accidents that befall hectic medical settings, as has become the trend in recent times. We must, instead, seek to unroot and stifle primary causes of iatrogenesis. I say this because a purely reactionary mode of medical harm mitigation is ineffective and misguided. To watch a doctor fail in the operating room, to watch the life slip from a patient with a treatable ailment, is heart-wrenching and terrible. But if we truly seek to aid these patients, it is paramount that attention is directed towards the fundamental causes of these medical missteps rather than the particular missteps themselves. Reactionary responses to iatrogenesis – ranging from physician disciplinary measures to avoidable emergency procedures – apply short-term fixes (if that) to a long-term problem.
We see this sentiment supported in sociological and bioethical literature. Measures such as innovative safety technology and revised patient information protocols have been shown to affect an appreciable decrease in incidences of clinical iatrogenic harm (Yang et al.). Risk assessment tools which aid in the identification of patients who would face the greatest risk for particular procedures have also played an integral role in improved patient safety (Yang et al.) Yet despite this glaring evidence in support of systematized approaches to iatrogenesis, cultural attention is not directed towards the benefits of such harm-mitigation policies.
Some of this might be due to the heightened emotional investment people have in individual iatrogenic events rather than the issue at large. Iatrogenesis certainly crescendos in significance when it enters our own personal lives; otherwise, it remains shrouded in statistical discussions and becomes a problem solely relegated to circles of public health officials. Indeed, this tendency to prioritize causes close to oneself is a tendency so deeply human in nature. We are undeniably most moved by affective influences. Just look to the world of activism as evidence: the vast majority of cancer activists report that their lives have been profoundly touched by cancer at some point, the same holds for most social injustice activists (Cox). The simple fact is that people are most emboldened to combat issues when they become personal. Tying this back to iatrogenesis, it becomes evident why people come to care so deeply about the failings of the medical system in their individual experiences, meanwhile their sympathies lose traction when extended more widely. Personal histories, like that which opened this article, are simply more compelling than matters which assume a broader, nationwide, scale. So, influenced by these personal experiences, people are most likely to respond to only these individual occurrences, rather than the issue as it is widely understood.
Yet irrespective of this elevated personal awareness, rates of clinical iatrogenesis have not decreased in the past decades (Hartford Institute for Geriatric Nursing). This is because to attack the errors of specific physicians is to attack human error, and to err is an unyielding facet of human experience. No matter how many years of training we demand from our doctors, no matter how many examinations we set for them to pass, error will occur. Rather than attempting to quench the stubborn and inevitable fact of human fallibility, we must construct nets and protocols which mitigate the consequences of such mistakes. We should seize the variables which are truly beneath our control. This might look like a rethinking of hospital safety protocols, as aforementioned, or policy initiatives which construct additional barriers of defense between the patient and instances of iatrogenesis. One such policy initiative which has gained notable prominence is the Patient Safety Act, which emboldens providers to voluntarily collect information pertaining to patient safety and health care quality (Federal Register). This data are then analyzed and aid in the formulation of policies and protocols that would be most advantageous towards ensuring the perpetual safety of the patient (Federal Register). In fact, this strategy of tackling medical error by constructing manifold layers of safety has been coined by past public health professionals as the Swiss Cheese Model (Perneger). The premise is that no one medical safety measure will be completely effective (they will have holes in a manner akin to swiss cheese). So, through the implementation of numerous safety nets, we can ensure the highest potential for patient safety.
However, it is critical to note that none of this systematic reworking of healthcare safety should come at the cost of individual physicians’ quality of care. The standards which we hold doctors to should not be relaxed – rather, we should make sure to optimize the safety protocols which are enacted in the cases in which these standards are not met. Patients are absolutely entitled to assume agency over the healthcare they receive. I merely contend that there are factors beyond a myopic perception of healthcare safety that are worth considering – and fixing. No magical salve can be placed on the problem of human error, so society must reorient itself in a manner which it has not yet; people must view iatrogenesis as the societal, not merely individual, threat it very much is. It is through this broad-scale recognition of iatrogenesis that we will begin to render practical and effective solutions to the phenomenon currently harming so many.
Sustainable fashion is More than a trend, It is a Necessity
Written by Marisa
I wish to share a very personal and deeply held belief of mine: low-rise, bootcut jeans...preferably with bedazzled pockets are superior. Now that I have stirred the sweet kettle of controversy, let me defend myself. My enthusiastic support for a bygone trend, often dismissed as an early 21st-century fashion horror story, (Let’s be clear, this title should go to skinny jeans), is rooted in something that is an integral part of my daily life- my personal style through sustainable fashion. I am passionate about fashion sustainability and have continued to explore this topic outside of my trips to the thrift store due to the jarring truth about the fashion industry and its effects on our environment. Sustainable fashion teaches the importance of being purposeful, and informed while inspiring some cute outfits! This is where science meets style.
Picture this: me, a roguish and humble beauty, donning a get up that looks like Stevie Nicks meets Country Club mom who got lost at a dive bar, addressing my freshman year Sustainable Energy class. With conviction, I launch into my presentation, saying something to the effect of, “The fashion industry is responsible for approximately 10% of CO2 emissions...chemical pollutants in manufacturing, microplastics from synthetic fabrics, treatments for wool and leather etc. pollute our water, soil, and atmosphere... 80% of clothing produced ends up back in the landfill, a gross reflection of a quantity over quality, fast fashion, consumerist culture! Solutions for systemic change in the fashion industry include replacing current industry business operations with circular business models, putting money into research for sustainable fabrics, agricultural practices, and manufacturing processes ... there are still things that can be done on an individual level...if not, our Earth and the ecosystems within it will perish because of your Zara tees and Target impulse buys!” I take a deep breath and survey my audience, gauging their reaction. Their faces are vacant, but I know they feel grateful to be enlightened by my supreme wisdom!
Silk scarves, vintage tea dresses, what I deem to be an appropriate amount of animal print, bell bottoms, and platform boots-- so many boots. If I like it, I wear it. I have adopted many sustainable practices into my daily life, giving my vagabond soul a sense of purpose. I would like to say I immediately went all in, never buying anything new again. Alas, the cold, clammy grip of materialism was too strong. Fortunately, I did not let the fact that I am a pawn of consumerist culture deter me. Taking baby steps, I increased my thrift finds, traded clothes with roommates, bought less impulsively and made higher quality purchases that would last longer. The ultimate goal is to decrease overall consumption. It’s not an all-or-nothing deal; it’s a collective decrease.
While thrifting is an obvious solution, there are still repercussions. For example, fabrics such as polyester release microplastics every time they are washed. 500,000 tonnes of microfiber plastics end up in the oceans annually. And lastly, consumers and designers want to create and purchase new designs. The solution to this is sustainable textiles. Sustainable textiles are creeping their way into high fashion and name-brand companies. For example, Stella McCartney’s mushroom leather bag, or collaboration with Bolt Thread’s Microsilk; Ralph Lauren uses Mirum by Natural Fiber Works; And Dauphinette has partnered with TômTex for biodegradable leather. While I cannot stop millennials from wearing high-waisted skinny jeans, men from tucking in Chelsea boots into fugly khakis, and internet fashion girls from wearing Gossip Girl-esque opaque hosiery. I can hope the jeans are burned (just kidding, send them to Blue Jeans Go Green.), the boots are made from mushroom leather, and the tights are spider silk compounds. Fashion faux pas' deserve a redeemable quality; why not a planet-friendly twist?
Most people will not assume that a woman with my chic and idiosyncratic tendencies can go on and on about circular business models, agricultural plans, and textile sciences, and spew the devastating statistics surrounding climate change and loss of biodiversity in global ecosystems. But they sure will ask themselves, “Why is this lady still going on about rechanneling government funds, carbon-negative textiles, and the horrors of washing polyester? I just said I liked her coat.” I never suspected my love for zebra print and shiny things would connect me to sustainability science and business. Sustainable Fashion practices are in the hands of the individual and the fashion industry. Thrifting and clothing swapping can create a sense of community on a smaller scale while making an effort to invest in eco-friendly textiles is where scientists and designers in the industry can make their creations responsibly shine. Perhaps, seeking to create and consume responsibly is the key to feeling satisfied enough to stop over consuming. It just goes to show that sustainable fashion is both intellectually stimulating and totally sexy.
Written by Marisa
I wish to share a very personal and deeply held belief of mine: low-rise, bootcut jeans...preferably with bedazzled pockets are superior. Now that I have stirred the sweet kettle of controversy, let me defend myself. My enthusiastic support for a bygone trend, often dismissed as an early 21st-century fashion horror story, (Let’s be clear, this title should go to skinny jeans), is rooted in something that is an integral part of my daily life- my personal style through sustainable fashion. I am passionate about fashion sustainability and have continued to explore this topic outside of my trips to the thrift store due to the jarring truth about the fashion industry and its effects on our environment. Sustainable fashion teaches the importance of being purposeful, and informed while inspiring some cute outfits! This is where science meets style.
Picture this: me, a roguish and humble beauty, donning a get up that looks like Stevie Nicks meets Country Club mom who got lost at a dive bar, addressing my freshman year Sustainable Energy class. With conviction, I launch into my presentation, saying something to the effect of, “The fashion industry is responsible for approximately 10% of CO2 emissions...chemical pollutants in manufacturing, microplastics from synthetic fabrics, treatments for wool and leather etc. pollute our water, soil, and atmosphere... 80% of clothing produced ends up back in the landfill, a gross reflection of a quantity over quality, fast fashion, consumerist culture! Solutions for systemic change in the fashion industry include replacing current industry business operations with circular business models, putting money into research for sustainable fabrics, agricultural practices, and manufacturing processes ... there are still things that can be done on an individual level...if not, our Earth and the ecosystems within it will perish because of your Zara tees and Target impulse buys!” I take a deep breath and survey my audience, gauging their reaction. Their faces are vacant, but I know they feel grateful to be enlightened by my supreme wisdom!
Silk scarves, vintage tea dresses, what I deem to be an appropriate amount of animal print, bell bottoms, and platform boots-- so many boots. If I like it, I wear it. I have adopted many sustainable practices into my daily life, giving my vagabond soul a sense of purpose. I would like to say I immediately went all in, never buying anything new again. Alas, the cold, clammy grip of materialism was too strong. Fortunately, I did not let the fact that I am a pawn of consumerist culture deter me. Taking baby steps, I increased my thrift finds, traded clothes with roommates, bought less impulsively and made higher quality purchases that would last longer. The ultimate goal is to decrease overall consumption. It’s not an all-or-nothing deal; it’s a collective decrease.
While thrifting is an obvious solution, there are still repercussions. For example, fabrics such as polyester release microplastics every time they are washed. 500,000 tonnes of microfiber plastics end up in the oceans annually. And lastly, consumers and designers want to create and purchase new designs. The solution to this is sustainable textiles. Sustainable textiles are creeping their way into high fashion and name-brand companies. For example, Stella McCartney’s mushroom leather bag, or collaboration with Bolt Thread’s Microsilk; Ralph Lauren uses Mirum by Natural Fiber Works; And Dauphinette has partnered with TômTex for biodegradable leather. While I cannot stop millennials from wearing high-waisted skinny jeans, men from tucking in Chelsea boots into fugly khakis, and internet fashion girls from wearing Gossip Girl-esque opaque hosiery. I can hope the jeans are burned (just kidding, send them to Blue Jeans Go Green.), the boots are made from mushroom leather, and the tights are spider silk compounds. Fashion faux pas' deserve a redeemable quality; why not a planet-friendly twist?
Most people will not assume that a woman with my chic and idiosyncratic tendencies can go on and on about circular business models, agricultural plans, and textile sciences, and spew the devastating statistics surrounding climate change and loss of biodiversity in global ecosystems. But they sure will ask themselves, “Why is this lady still going on about rechanneling government funds, carbon-negative textiles, and the horrors of washing polyester? I just said I liked her coat.” I never suspected my love for zebra print and shiny things would connect me to sustainability science and business. Sustainable Fashion practices are in the hands of the individual and the fashion industry. Thrifting and clothing swapping can create a sense of community on a smaller scale while making an effort to invest in eco-friendly textiles is where scientists and designers in the industry can make their creations responsibly shine. Perhaps, seeking to create and consume responsibly is the key to feeling satisfied enough to stop over consuming. It just goes to show that sustainable fashion is both intellectually stimulating and totally sexy.
The Private Education System Should Be Abolished
Written by Sabreen
Private schools. These institutions, known for offering a more rigorous curriculum than its public counterparts, are said to create a more enriching learning environment. For many, entrance to a private school is the ticket to securing a spot at an esteemed university or college - setting students up for a successful future.
In the United States, the average yearly tuition of a private school (including private elementary and high schools) is around $12,000.00 USD. However, tuition can cost as much as $60,000.00 USD. With this in mind, it is clear that the average private school student belongs to a specific demographic: the socially privileged.
So, despite arguments that these schools provide a better education and offer students with more opportunities, why should we deprive families who cannot afford private school of an educationally equal playing field? I would argue that the answer is simple; we shouldn’t.
Perhaps the most important argument against private schools is how they perpetuate divides based on income, race, and social status. In 2017, of the 5.7 million students in the US enrolled in private elementary and secondary school, 67% were white. Students who attend private school are given a variety of resources that can open doors to more opportunities in life, and increase their chances of getting into top universities, not because of academic ability, but because they are able to afford it. This ultimately reproduces cycles of inequality, where students who are equally able as their peers in private school but may not be of the same socio-economic status are limited in opportunity. Evidence supports that creating a unified education system can help close the wealth gap; Finland - a country that got rid of fee-paying schools in the 1970s, attributes their education policies to the closing of the attainment gap between the wealthiest and poorest students.
Moreover, students who are placed into the private education system at a young age are often deprived of the opportunity to socialize with people of all different backgrounds during their most formative years. Empathy and awareness are skills that need to be taught - and to experience something is the best way to learn. Instead, private schools have the tendency to isolate children into an echo-chamber of people who look like them, and have experienced the same privileges as them. This in turn breeds an environment of elitism and ignorance. In a world that already suffers from a lack of empathy, private schools exacerbate social divides.
I conclude by acknowledging it is almost inevitable for families to want and provide the best education for their children if they have the means to. However, if we instead shift our focus on improving the state of public schools, and get rid of a system that provides resources and opportunities to those who are already privileged, we can start to address prevalent systemic issues. Getting rid of private schooling could be a step in ending cycles of inequality.
Written by Sabreen
Private schools. These institutions, known for offering a more rigorous curriculum than its public counterparts, are said to create a more enriching learning environment. For many, entrance to a private school is the ticket to securing a spot at an esteemed university or college - setting students up for a successful future.
In the United States, the average yearly tuition of a private school (including private elementary and high schools) is around $12,000.00 USD. However, tuition can cost as much as $60,000.00 USD. With this in mind, it is clear that the average private school student belongs to a specific demographic: the socially privileged.
So, despite arguments that these schools provide a better education and offer students with more opportunities, why should we deprive families who cannot afford private school of an educationally equal playing field? I would argue that the answer is simple; we shouldn’t.
Perhaps the most important argument against private schools is how they perpetuate divides based on income, race, and social status. In 2017, of the 5.7 million students in the US enrolled in private elementary and secondary school, 67% were white. Students who attend private school are given a variety of resources that can open doors to more opportunities in life, and increase their chances of getting into top universities, not because of academic ability, but because they are able to afford it. This ultimately reproduces cycles of inequality, where students who are equally able as their peers in private school but may not be of the same socio-economic status are limited in opportunity. Evidence supports that creating a unified education system can help close the wealth gap; Finland - a country that got rid of fee-paying schools in the 1970s, attributes their education policies to the closing of the attainment gap between the wealthiest and poorest students.
Moreover, students who are placed into the private education system at a young age are often deprived of the opportunity to socialize with people of all different backgrounds during their most formative years. Empathy and awareness are skills that need to be taught - and to experience something is the best way to learn. Instead, private schools have the tendency to isolate children into an echo-chamber of people who look like them, and have experienced the same privileges as them. This in turn breeds an environment of elitism and ignorance. In a world that already suffers from a lack of empathy, private schools exacerbate social divides.
I conclude by acknowledging it is almost inevitable for families to want and provide the best education for their children if they have the means to. However, if we instead shift our focus on improving the state of public schools, and get rid of a system that provides resources and opportunities to those who are already privileged, we can start to address prevalent systemic issues. Getting rid of private schooling could be a step in ending cycles of inequality.
Brainrot: Why Content Is Affecting an Entire Generation's Mind
Written by Lionel
Skibidi, Rizz, Gyatt, Aura, to some this string of words is just incoherent gibberish, but to a whole generation, it's their entire vocabulary. If you know anyone who is a member of Gen Alpha (Born after 2010) chances are you hear them constantly reference these terms, along with a whole host of seemingly ordinary terms turned into lingo such as W, L, Fanum Tax, and even Ohio. These terms are often referred to as Brainrot, a term used to classify low-quality content made for quick consumption usually by kids between the ages of 5 to 14, generally made for platforms that prioritize video content like TikTok and Youtube. Brainrot, as the name suggests, is associated with the feeling of having your brain actively decay due to being chronically online and consuming an abundance of low-effort content leading to a loss of intelligence. The short-form flashy content is addictive to consume, directly attacking the part of the brain that releases dopamine, making it hard to stop scrolling and instead consume more and more of this content. This consumption becomes harmful as it creates an addiction that turns passive social media use into a way of life. Brainrot and the excessive use of Social Media amongst Gen Alpha is incredibly harmful for the new generation of children, as it reduces their
cognitive and social functions by creating harmful addictive content.
We have all fallen into the addictive loop that is going on a lunch break, opening a TikTok your friend sent us, beginning to scroll past this one video, and then suddenly looking up and your break is over without even realizing that thirty minutes have passed.
Binge-watching short videos, hours at a time directly targets our brain's dopamine receptors. Dopamine is sent directly to our Nucleus Accumbens in the Basal Ganglia, leading to a pleasurable feeling when we continue to see new content. Kids are more susceptible to binging such content, as their prefrontal cortex has yet to fully develop, meaning the fight between their rational decision-making and immediate satisfaction is more often won by the midbrain where the dopamine is released than it would when an adult is making the decision to stop and put down the phone.
It is not out of the ordinary for one to go to a restaurant and see parents of young children hand them an iPad in order for them to not make a fuss in public. This trend has coined the term “iPad Kid”, which is a term that refers to young children who are seen with a tablet at all times, barely looking up to interact with others. The term insinuates that the children are being raised by the iPad rather than their parents. This leads to the addiction to screens at an early age, due to the habits built while the brain is rapidly developing.
A lot of people, mainly parents, will brush off these claims and think this type of content is harmless. They believe Brainrot is just a buzzword or a joke amongst those online. Haven’t we all had something similar to Brainrot in our childhood? Past generations have also had widely condemned forms of entertainment accused of harming their brains; Gen Z had Vines and early TikToks, Millennials had programs such as South Park and Family Guy, and even Gen X had Punk Rock music, so are the warnings against Brainrot just as meaningless as those before it? Some might think that since other generations turned out just fine, the concerns over Brainrot ruining our children’s minds are just as meaningless as the concerns that Punk Rock music would turn an entire generation of kids into anarchists.
This pushback against the harms of Brainrot would be justified if there wasn’t an exuberant amount of evidence that those who consume such content have much worse social and executive skills. DovePress has released a study in which they found that individuals aged 18 to 27 with more screen time had worse performances in planning and decision-making than those who used their phones much less often. The same study uncovered that those aged 18 and above with higher social media usage had higher levels of depression and burnout, as well as developing an addictive relationship with social media. Dr. Preetika Mukherjee, a neuropsychologist, noticed it in her own son’s behavior. During the pandemic, her son began consuming more and more content on social media, which caused him to become more moody, tired, and irritable.
“I teach seventh grade, and they are still performing on a fourth-grade level,” says a middle school teacher and TikToker @QBthedon.
So how do we stop kids' brains from “rotting”?
Habits built at an early age are difficult to break once the brain fully develops, which is why it is important to create a healthy relationship between kids and their screens at an early age. It is recommended that children who are developing limit their screen time to an hour a day. A lower use of their screens creates a less reliant relationship between someone and their phone/tablet. These can also be automated through parental controls on many devices, which has the added benefit of blocking kids from seeing a ton of inappropriate content.
Overall, the rise of Brainrot content has made Social Media and screen usage amongst small children and teens immensely addictive, each new video bombarding our brain with a quick dopamine rush. This phenomenon serves as a reminder that while social media and technology give the access to connect in ways we have never seen, it also comes with negative risks to cognitive development and mental health. By understanding these problems, we can create and foster healthy habits and help Gen Alpha develop a much healthier relationship with their social media and screen time.
Written by Lionel
Skibidi, Rizz, Gyatt, Aura, to some this string of words is just incoherent gibberish, but to a whole generation, it's their entire vocabulary. If you know anyone who is a member of Gen Alpha (Born after 2010) chances are you hear them constantly reference these terms, along with a whole host of seemingly ordinary terms turned into lingo such as W, L, Fanum Tax, and even Ohio. These terms are often referred to as Brainrot, a term used to classify low-quality content made for quick consumption usually by kids between the ages of 5 to 14, generally made for platforms that prioritize video content like TikTok and Youtube. Brainrot, as the name suggests, is associated with the feeling of having your brain actively decay due to being chronically online and consuming an abundance of low-effort content leading to a loss of intelligence. The short-form flashy content is addictive to consume, directly attacking the part of the brain that releases dopamine, making it hard to stop scrolling and instead consume more and more of this content. This consumption becomes harmful as it creates an addiction that turns passive social media use into a way of life. Brainrot and the excessive use of Social Media amongst Gen Alpha is incredibly harmful for the new generation of children, as it reduces their
cognitive and social functions by creating harmful addictive content.
We have all fallen into the addictive loop that is going on a lunch break, opening a TikTok your friend sent us, beginning to scroll past this one video, and then suddenly looking up and your break is over without even realizing that thirty minutes have passed.
Binge-watching short videos, hours at a time directly targets our brain's dopamine receptors. Dopamine is sent directly to our Nucleus Accumbens in the Basal Ganglia, leading to a pleasurable feeling when we continue to see new content. Kids are more susceptible to binging such content, as their prefrontal cortex has yet to fully develop, meaning the fight between their rational decision-making and immediate satisfaction is more often won by the midbrain where the dopamine is released than it would when an adult is making the decision to stop and put down the phone.
It is not out of the ordinary for one to go to a restaurant and see parents of young children hand them an iPad in order for them to not make a fuss in public. This trend has coined the term “iPad Kid”, which is a term that refers to young children who are seen with a tablet at all times, barely looking up to interact with others. The term insinuates that the children are being raised by the iPad rather than their parents. This leads to the addiction to screens at an early age, due to the habits built while the brain is rapidly developing.
A lot of people, mainly parents, will brush off these claims and think this type of content is harmless. They believe Brainrot is just a buzzword or a joke amongst those online. Haven’t we all had something similar to Brainrot in our childhood? Past generations have also had widely condemned forms of entertainment accused of harming their brains; Gen Z had Vines and early TikToks, Millennials had programs such as South Park and Family Guy, and even Gen X had Punk Rock music, so are the warnings against Brainrot just as meaningless as those before it? Some might think that since other generations turned out just fine, the concerns over Brainrot ruining our children’s minds are just as meaningless as the concerns that Punk Rock music would turn an entire generation of kids into anarchists.
This pushback against the harms of Brainrot would be justified if there wasn’t an exuberant amount of evidence that those who consume such content have much worse social and executive skills. DovePress has released a study in which they found that individuals aged 18 to 27 with more screen time had worse performances in planning and decision-making than those who used their phones much less often. The same study uncovered that those aged 18 and above with higher social media usage had higher levels of depression and burnout, as well as developing an addictive relationship with social media. Dr. Preetika Mukherjee, a neuropsychologist, noticed it in her own son’s behavior. During the pandemic, her son began consuming more and more content on social media, which caused him to become more moody, tired, and irritable.
“I teach seventh grade, and they are still performing on a fourth-grade level,” says a middle school teacher and TikToker @QBthedon.
So how do we stop kids' brains from “rotting”?
Habits built at an early age are difficult to break once the brain fully develops, which is why it is important to create a healthy relationship between kids and their screens at an early age. It is recommended that children who are developing limit their screen time to an hour a day. A lower use of their screens creates a less reliant relationship between someone and their phone/tablet. These can also be automated through parental controls on many devices, which has the added benefit of blocking kids from seeing a ton of inappropriate content.
Overall, the rise of Brainrot content has made Social Media and screen usage amongst small children and teens immensely addictive, each new video bombarding our brain with a quick dopamine rush. This phenomenon serves as a reminder that while social media and technology give the access to connect in ways we have never seen, it also comes with negative risks to cognitive development and mental health. By understanding these problems, we can create and foster healthy habits and help Gen Alpha develop a much healthier relationship with their social media and screen time.
On Good, Evil, and Intentions
Written by Sami
In the early morning – the quietest hours of the night – the moon just waning from its zenith, I sat. I sat, right inside my cozy home with a family quilt covering my body sipping a hot ginger tea lazily reading through the pages of a book, The Pince, by Niccolo Machiavelli.
In the excerpt I read, Machiavelli carefully laid out how princes must conduct themselves to be successful. He argued that the prince should never become despised and hated so they must actively take steps away from these outcomes. He describes how the prince must act as if they are merciful, kind, and understanding when in reality they should be anything but. The author establishes that all humans are always trying to subvert each other for their own personal interests so therefore a good prince would recognize this and trick their citizens before he gets used by them. Something here felt wrong. Are humans really that evil? Is Machiavelli right to claim that humans are bad? Somewhere deep inside of me I feel that the average human is good.
Disgruntled, the next morning I thought about this idea as I watched my instant coffee swirl into my water. I realized that I could not argue that humans were good if I don’t define what it means to be good. From there we can assess to see how many people are good and how many people aren’t, then we can see if the good outweighs the bad. So what does it mean to be good? To be good one must be helpful to others and do well.
Later on that day in math class, I look over at my partner, “Hey, do you think humans are good?” I ask him. After a second of contemplation, he responds,
“No, I don't think so. Everyone acts for themselves. We never do anything for anyone else.” Surprised by the clarity of his answer I think for a second,
“Well some people do acts of good, and if you do more good and than bad, if you help others more than you hurt others doesn’t that make you good? Mother Teresa for example, hasn’t she caused more good than harm? Was she not a good person?”
“Well yeah right we can say she was relatively good but is she really good? Did she help others for their benefit or for hers? She may have said that she was helping others but really she was really just doing it to feel good. Think about it, when’s the last time you helped someone? Were you really doing it for them or were you doing it for another reason? I think if there is an ulterior motive then can we really can’t really count it as a good deed because you’re intentions were not good.” This raised another question for me. Talking about this to him made it clear that my definition of being good is too unclear. Does intention matter in relation to being a good person?
“Well we are coded to help each other right, we are herd animals, it is only natural to want to help the tribe. So our acts of good will always make us feel good but is that the reason why we do good?”
“Is it?” He responds. As the bell rings signaling the start of lunch I think about it more. Yes, I do good because I feel that it is the right thing to do but also the feeling and comfort surrounding doing good is a huge motive in my life. I sit next to my friends near the basketball courts. As some of them play a pick-up game I bring my dilemma to my friend next to me. Explaining my conversation he gains a contemplative expression.
“Well, I see what that other guy was saying but does intention really matter? Like isn’t it just the result?” Defending my math partner I respond,
“Well intention matters, why would it not? To be a good person you must want to do it, what if I had evil thoughts and intentions but I accidentally do good? Do your thoughts not matter when judging if someone is good?”
“I mean yeah, I think that what you say matters because that's an action but like you can’t really control what you think. The only way to control your thoughts and make them pure is to do well and say well, if I am always doing good and saying good then I will think well too.”
“But it's not just your thoughts, it's your intention of each action that guides your thoughts right? Like if I attend a bunch of Climate reform protests with the intention to look good on Instagram and not spread awareness then my action will still be impure because my intentions were impure.”
“Alright well think about it like this, if I go into a test trying to fail it for whatever reason but I ace it do I get an A or an F? In the same way, if I really want to pass my exams and study all day for a test but fail it, what can I do? I can’t go up to my teacher and tell them ‘Well I really wanted to pass this test so can I pass it?’ No, in your climate change example if you are making meaningful change and really spreading awareness to others it doesn’t matter what you're doing it for. You objectively helped others which is objectively good making you objectively a good person.” This seemed fair enough, but in the same way, if you found out your best friend's mother was sick so you cooked her a nourishing chicken soup and gave it to her. But she does not know it is chicken soup and being a vegetarian, when she finds out she feels hurt. Objectively you have hurt her, while your intentions were pure – just trying to be helpful – your actions were bad. I would still count this as a good deed though because your intentions were pure.
Written by Sami
In the early morning – the quietest hours of the night – the moon just waning from its zenith, I sat. I sat, right inside my cozy home with a family quilt covering my body sipping a hot ginger tea lazily reading through the pages of a book, The Pince, by Niccolo Machiavelli.
In the excerpt I read, Machiavelli carefully laid out how princes must conduct themselves to be successful. He argued that the prince should never become despised and hated so they must actively take steps away from these outcomes. He describes how the prince must act as if they are merciful, kind, and understanding when in reality they should be anything but. The author establishes that all humans are always trying to subvert each other for their own personal interests so therefore a good prince would recognize this and trick their citizens before he gets used by them. Something here felt wrong. Are humans really that evil? Is Machiavelli right to claim that humans are bad? Somewhere deep inside of me I feel that the average human is good.
Disgruntled, the next morning I thought about this idea as I watched my instant coffee swirl into my water. I realized that I could not argue that humans were good if I don’t define what it means to be good. From there we can assess to see how many people are good and how many people aren’t, then we can see if the good outweighs the bad. So what does it mean to be good? To be good one must be helpful to others and do well.
Later on that day in math class, I look over at my partner, “Hey, do you think humans are good?” I ask him. After a second of contemplation, he responds,
“No, I don't think so. Everyone acts for themselves. We never do anything for anyone else.” Surprised by the clarity of his answer I think for a second,
“Well some people do acts of good, and if you do more good and than bad, if you help others more than you hurt others doesn’t that make you good? Mother Teresa for example, hasn’t she caused more good than harm? Was she not a good person?”
“Well yeah right we can say she was relatively good but is she really good? Did she help others for their benefit or for hers? She may have said that she was helping others but really she was really just doing it to feel good. Think about it, when’s the last time you helped someone? Were you really doing it for them or were you doing it for another reason? I think if there is an ulterior motive then can we really can’t really count it as a good deed because you’re intentions were not good.” This raised another question for me. Talking about this to him made it clear that my definition of being good is too unclear. Does intention matter in relation to being a good person?
“Well we are coded to help each other right, we are herd animals, it is only natural to want to help the tribe. So our acts of good will always make us feel good but is that the reason why we do good?”
“Is it?” He responds. As the bell rings signaling the start of lunch I think about it more. Yes, I do good because I feel that it is the right thing to do but also the feeling and comfort surrounding doing good is a huge motive in my life. I sit next to my friends near the basketball courts. As some of them play a pick-up game I bring my dilemma to my friend next to me. Explaining my conversation he gains a contemplative expression.
“Well, I see what that other guy was saying but does intention really matter? Like isn’t it just the result?” Defending my math partner I respond,
“Well intention matters, why would it not? To be a good person you must want to do it, what if I had evil thoughts and intentions but I accidentally do good? Do your thoughts not matter when judging if someone is good?”
“I mean yeah, I think that what you say matters because that's an action but like you can’t really control what you think. The only way to control your thoughts and make them pure is to do well and say well, if I am always doing good and saying good then I will think well too.”
“But it's not just your thoughts, it's your intention of each action that guides your thoughts right? Like if I attend a bunch of Climate reform protests with the intention to look good on Instagram and not spread awareness then my action will still be impure because my intentions were impure.”
“Alright well think about it like this, if I go into a test trying to fail it for whatever reason but I ace it do I get an A or an F? In the same way, if I really want to pass my exams and study all day for a test but fail it, what can I do? I can’t go up to my teacher and tell them ‘Well I really wanted to pass this test so can I pass it?’ No, in your climate change example if you are making meaningful change and really spreading awareness to others it doesn’t matter what you're doing it for. You objectively helped others which is objectively good making you objectively a good person.” This seemed fair enough, but in the same way, if you found out your best friend's mother was sick so you cooked her a nourishing chicken soup and gave it to her. But she does not know it is chicken soup and being a vegetarian, when she finds out she feels hurt. Objectively you have hurt her, while your intentions were pure – just trying to be helpful – your actions were bad. I would still count this as a good deed though because your intentions were pure.
