Our Opinions
Written By Interns
Totaling My Car Was A Good Thing?
Written by Jade
I crashed my beloved Honda Accord into the center divider on the freeway a week before my 21st birthday, leaving me with severe whiplash, a mild concussion, a pocketful of pain medication, a totaled car, an insurance deductible, and a brand-new fear of the California fast lane.
The hours I had spent planning birthday festivities were swallowed by heating pads and used-car searches. Had I not brushed aside a baby spider dangling in front of my face, I wouldn’t have lost control, veered off the road, collided with a metal railing, and spent my milestone birthday in pain.
But, as my parents reminded me, accidents happen, and all that matters is that I am okay.
At first, I obsessed over every negative consequence: the temporary inability to drive, no wheels, thousands of dollars gone, the pause on Pilates and hot yoga, and a cancelled Las Vegas trip. Dwelling on that list only deepened my disappointment. I was frustrated, unwilling to talk with loved ones; the enthusiastic inflection that shapes my character flattened.
So I made an intentional pivot. I reminded myself I hadn’t needed an ambulance, no one else was hurt, the side airbag saved me from worse injury, insurance will partly fund my next car, and I can still move through prescribed PT exercises and long walks. My family showed up—cracking jokes, baking cake, taking me out for food, making sure my birthday still felt like a celebration, and handing me a memorable answer for the inevitable “What did you do this summer?” question when I return to Campus.
Shifting my focus from losses to blessings lifted my attitude from disappointment to cheerfulness; my mental well-being returned.
Consider my crash a case study in the power of gratitude during hardship.
Expressing thankfulness—focusing on what you have rather than what you lost—can transform calamity into opportunity. Adversity is inevitable; how we frame it is optional. Totaling my car wasn’t “good” in itself, yet it gave me the chance to practice resilience, grow closer to family, and tell a story worth retelling. The next time life blindsides you, try listing the small mercies hiding in the wreckage. You might find, as I did, that gratitude is the best airbag of all.
Written by Jade
I crashed my beloved Honda Accord into the center divider on the freeway a week before my 21st birthday, leaving me with severe whiplash, a mild concussion, a pocketful of pain medication, a totaled car, an insurance deductible, and a brand-new fear of the California fast lane.
The hours I had spent planning birthday festivities were swallowed by heating pads and used-car searches. Had I not brushed aside a baby spider dangling in front of my face, I wouldn’t have lost control, veered off the road, collided with a metal railing, and spent my milestone birthday in pain.
But, as my parents reminded me, accidents happen, and all that matters is that I am okay.
At first, I obsessed over every negative consequence: the temporary inability to drive, no wheels, thousands of dollars gone, the pause on Pilates and hot yoga, and a cancelled Las Vegas trip. Dwelling on that list only deepened my disappointment. I was frustrated, unwilling to talk with loved ones; the enthusiastic inflection that shapes my character flattened.
So I made an intentional pivot. I reminded myself I hadn’t needed an ambulance, no one else was hurt, the side airbag saved me from worse injury, insurance will partly fund my next car, and I can still move through prescribed PT exercises and long walks. My family showed up—cracking jokes, baking cake, taking me out for food, making sure my birthday still felt like a celebration, and handing me a memorable answer for the inevitable “What did you do this summer?” question when I return to Campus.
Shifting my focus from losses to blessings lifted my attitude from disappointment to cheerfulness; my mental well-being returned.
Consider my crash a case study in the power of gratitude during hardship.
Expressing thankfulness—focusing on what you have rather than what you lost—can transform calamity into opportunity. Adversity is inevitable; how we frame it is optional. Totaling my car wasn’t “good” in itself, yet it gave me the chance to practice resilience, grow closer to family, and tell a story worth retelling. The next time life blindsides you, try listing the small mercies hiding in the wreckage. You might find, as I did, that gratitude is the best airbag of all.
The Importance of Community
Written by Zeynab
Community. Formally defined as “a unified body of individuals” by Merriam-Webster, and a concept that is encountered by society on a daily basis. However, this world holds a deeper significance to me, as it has been a constant in all 20 years of my life.
Growing up as a third culture child and moving between 6 countries and 3 continents, the concept of change is an unfamiliar thing for me, and rapid shifts in surroundings became second nature overtime. Nevertheless, a sense of community was something I had never lacked, because whether we realize it or not, it is something we are born into.
To continue from the dictionary definition, a community can simply be a unified body of individuals, whether it be through status, location, identity, mindset, or affinity. By default, I am part of my university community, the community of my city, and the community of my age. This being said, it is important to state that being automatically placed into a community does not automictically ensure the feeling of it.
Living in United States has provided me with a multilayered and intersectional view on the world, one that I truly believe could not be replicated anywhere else. With this, I was able to place this perspective towards the concept of community, especially in a time period where the rights of vulnerable communities are at stake, more than ever, the importance of community is illuminated.
Individuals deserve safe spaces where they can be themselves in their freest forms. Places where they feel supported, and realize they are not alone. The feeling of community is not reserved for exceptional people, or only for moments of peril and fear. They are spaces for celebration, joy, and inclusion – which serve as tools of resistance against forces of oppression.
As seen through various global conflicts and battles of equality, these hurdles were not overcome by Individualistic values and forces. It is with ones that were collectivistic and community centered, not leaving their neighbor behind. While it can appear that the virtue of humanity appears to wither away, it is important to hold onto the remaining parts of it, and pour it into neighbors, friends, and greater communities.
Community. Something I define to be a feeling and sense of unity and belonging, where humans can be their most liberated selves. An unconscious constant in all of our lives, and most importantly, a sentiment and feeling that we all deserve, no matter who you are.
Written by Zeynab
Community. Formally defined as “a unified body of individuals” by Merriam-Webster, and a concept that is encountered by society on a daily basis. However, this world holds a deeper significance to me, as it has been a constant in all 20 years of my life.
Growing up as a third culture child and moving between 6 countries and 3 continents, the concept of change is an unfamiliar thing for me, and rapid shifts in surroundings became second nature overtime. Nevertheless, a sense of community was something I had never lacked, because whether we realize it or not, it is something we are born into.
To continue from the dictionary definition, a community can simply be a unified body of individuals, whether it be through status, location, identity, mindset, or affinity. By default, I am part of my university community, the community of my city, and the community of my age. This being said, it is important to state that being automatically placed into a community does not automictically ensure the feeling of it.
Living in United States has provided me with a multilayered and intersectional view on the world, one that I truly believe could not be replicated anywhere else. With this, I was able to place this perspective towards the concept of community, especially in a time period where the rights of vulnerable communities are at stake, more than ever, the importance of community is illuminated.
Individuals deserve safe spaces where they can be themselves in their freest forms. Places where they feel supported, and realize they are not alone. The feeling of community is not reserved for exceptional people, or only for moments of peril and fear. They are spaces for celebration, joy, and inclusion – which serve as tools of resistance against forces of oppression.
As seen through various global conflicts and battles of equality, these hurdles were not overcome by Individualistic values and forces. It is with ones that were collectivistic and community centered, not leaving their neighbor behind. While it can appear that the virtue of humanity appears to wither away, it is important to hold onto the remaining parts of it, and pour it into neighbors, friends, and greater communities.
Community. Something I define to be a feeling and sense of unity and belonging, where humans can be their most liberated selves. An unconscious constant in all of our lives, and most importantly, a sentiment and feeling that we all deserve, no matter who you are.
There is no such thing as 'sustainable shopping' For Gen-Z
Written by Johan
When I look in my closet, I am ashamed. Most of my clothes are textbook fast fashion: outdated graphic tees, paper-thin linen shorts, colorful swim trunks, and the occasional loose-threaded sweater that I convinced myself was good quality. A couple of items are even from those ultra-cheap websites that sell you an entire wardrobe for the price of one hoodie.
While I can’t trace every hand that’s touched my clothes, I know many of them may have their origins in exploitative working conditions. As many brands continue to chase faster production and cheap labor, the commercial fashion industry continues to exploit workers, who are often grossly underage. Reports from UNICEF and the International Labour Organization as of 2024 show that more than 138 million children worldwide are involved in child labor, with the textile industry named among sectors of concern [1]. The children and workers forced into these deplorable working conditions are part of the invisible web of exploitation that makes it possible for me to buy a $7 T-shirt.
This is not just an abstract statistic I can easily ignore. Every time I pull out a crinkled top or a wrinkly tote bag from my closet, the evidence of child labour is right there on the tag: “Made in Bangladesh,” “Made in Vietnam,” or “Made in India.” All of these countries, among many others, appear frequently on the Bureau of International Labor Affairs' List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor [2]. I can cut off the label, but the uneven stitching, the almost-seethrough fabric, or the ridiculous shrinkage after one wash will still remind me that this wasn’t made with sustainability or care in mind. It was made in a rush, by small, tired hands. I know this, and still I shop. Because it’s cheap and fast. Because it’s what everyone else wears.
But not everything in my closet makes me feel like a fraud.
Some of my more treasured garments are thrifted—a leather jacket originally from Diesel, a pair of 90s Levi’s I bought for 8 euros in San Francisco, and a perfectly fitting white tee with no visible tag and a mystery stain I only noticed 3 months into wearing it. These clothes have stories and were likely made with love. They’ve survived lives before mine. They have values and sustainability instilled in them, and they’re fashionable. These are clothes I can wear and feel like I’m representing my values
Thrifting has come to be seen as the antithesis of fast fashion. It lengthens the life cycle of garments and keeps clothing out of landfills.
But even thrifting has become problematic. This practice has become a trend among Gen-Z— encouraged by social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram— and as a result, thrift stores have become gentrified. Resellers scour donation bins and then flip items for 10x the price on secondhand websites like Depop or Grailed. The people who actually depend on these donation bins—immigrants and low-income families—are priced out of their own local Goodwill racks. What started as a practice of sustainability is becoming a trend fueled by aesthetics, leaving only damaged and objectively unfashionable items behind..
And still, thrifting is magnitudes better than the alternative: massive hauls from low-cost retailers and bikinis that disintegrate after one wash.
Some items in my closet remind me just how far my generation has fallen victim to hyperconsumerism. A shirt with a half-faded alien print. A paper-thin hoodie that smelled like glue for weeks. These clothes were never meant to last, and honestly, neither was my desire for them.
Gen-Z has really put the ‘fast’ in fast fashion. We are constantly telling each other to consume—through TikTok trends, through Instagram influencers, through micro-seasons that change every two weeks. For You Pages dictate outfits, and cheap overnight brands are waiting to sell us whatever the new trend is—instantly, and in 40 different colorways.
It’s easy to put the blame on us, but the reality is that there aren’t many options. It’s true that we’re the most online generation, but we’re also the most broke. Inflation is rising, student debt is crushing, and ethical brands are expensive. Something from Abercrombie or Aritzia might cost $70, and you're supposed to own at least 3 from each brand nowadays. Meanwhile, TikTokers are pushing fast fashion dupes that are less than $10 [3]. What do you think a college student is choosing?
Even for those with money, luxury isn’t what it used to be. Designer brands offload labor to the same overseas factories they pretend to rise above. Global outsourcing has created a ridiculously inflated market where €2,600 bags can be made for just €53 [4]. Quality has turned from a guarantee into a gamble.
Even here, writing this on my bed, I am complicit in exploitative labour practices. My sheets and pillowcase, bought for $20 in total off Amazon from a third-party vendor, could possibly be sourced from child labour [5].
So, where does that leave us?
Back in our closet, trying to fix the disconnect between what I wear and consume and what I believe. I care about climate justice. I care about human rights. I care about children not being forced to sew seams by hand for pennies. But I also care about fitting in, saving money, and keeping up.
The fashion industry thrives on this contradiction. It wants us to feel bad and shop anyway.
So what does Gen-Z do now?
I honestly don’t know. Retail is broken, and this generation is locked in a vicious cycle of unsustainable shopping. Fast fashion is made off the backs of exploited workers and eventually ends up in the thrift store, where low-income families are pushed out through over-thrifting and price hikes. We cannot hope to correct the disparity between our values and what ends up in our closet on our own.
What we need is more transparency and more regulation. Brands must impose ethical standards on both sourcing and manufacturing. Social media platforms should hold creators accountable when they promote exploitative brands.
Fixing our individual closets will not fix the fashion industry. The companies that styled this mess need to start cleaning it up.
[1] https://data.unicef.org/resources/child-labour-global-estimates-2024/
[2] https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/reports/child-labor/list-of-goods?page=1
[3] https://www.tiktok.com/@mariee_1025/video/7386451242421079316?lang=en
[4] https://www.wsj.com/business/retail/christian-diors-57-handbags-have-a-hidden-cost-reputational-risk-8175c9c9?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[5] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/amazon-suppliers-linked-forced-labor-china-watchdog-group-says-rcna16452
Written by Johan
When I look in my closet, I am ashamed. Most of my clothes are textbook fast fashion: outdated graphic tees, paper-thin linen shorts, colorful swim trunks, and the occasional loose-threaded sweater that I convinced myself was good quality. A couple of items are even from those ultra-cheap websites that sell you an entire wardrobe for the price of one hoodie.
While I can’t trace every hand that’s touched my clothes, I know many of them may have their origins in exploitative working conditions. As many brands continue to chase faster production and cheap labor, the commercial fashion industry continues to exploit workers, who are often grossly underage. Reports from UNICEF and the International Labour Organization as of 2024 show that more than 138 million children worldwide are involved in child labor, with the textile industry named among sectors of concern [1]. The children and workers forced into these deplorable working conditions are part of the invisible web of exploitation that makes it possible for me to buy a $7 T-shirt.
This is not just an abstract statistic I can easily ignore. Every time I pull out a crinkled top or a wrinkly tote bag from my closet, the evidence of child labour is right there on the tag: “Made in Bangladesh,” “Made in Vietnam,” or “Made in India.” All of these countries, among many others, appear frequently on the Bureau of International Labor Affairs' List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor [2]. I can cut off the label, but the uneven stitching, the almost-seethrough fabric, or the ridiculous shrinkage after one wash will still remind me that this wasn’t made with sustainability or care in mind. It was made in a rush, by small, tired hands. I know this, and still I shop. Because it’s cheap and fast. Because it’s what everyone else wears.
But not everything in my closet makes me feel like a fraud.
Some of my more treasured garments are thrifted—a leather jacket originally from Diesel, a pair of 90s Levi’s I bought for 8 euros in San Francisco, and a perfectly fitting white tee with no visible tag and a mystery stain I only noticed 3 months into wearing it. These clothes have stories and were likely made with love. They’ve survived lives before mine. They have values and sustainability instilled in them, and they’re fashionable. These are clothes I can wear and feel like I’m representing my values
Thrifting has come to be seen as the antithesis of fast fashion. It lengthens the life cycle of garments and keeps clothing out of landfills.
But even thrifting has become problematic. This practice has become a trend among Gen-Z— encouraged by social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram— and as a result, thrift stores have become gentrified. Resellers scour donation bins and then flip items for 10x the price on secondhand websites like Depop or Grailed. The people who actually depend on these donation bins—immigrants and low-income families—are priced out of their own local Goodwill racks. What started as a practice of sustainability is becoming a trend fueled by aesthetics, leaving only damaged and objectively unfashionable items behind..
And still, thrifting is magnitudes better than the alternative: massive hauls from low-cost retailers and bikinis that disintegrate after one wash.
Some items in my closet remind me just how far my generation has fallen victim to hyperconsumerism. A shirt with a half-faded alien print. A paper-thin hoodie that smelled like glue for weeks. These clothes were never meant to last, and honestly, neither was my desire for them.
Gen-Z has really put the ‘fast’ in fast fashion. We are constantly telling each other to consume—through TikTok trends, through Instagram influencers, through micro-seasons that change every two weeks. For You Pages dictate outfits, and cheap overnight brands are waiting to sell us whatever the new trend is—instantly, and in 40 different colorways.
It’s easy to put the blame on us, but the reality is that there aren’t many options. It’s true that we’re the most online generation, but we’re also the most broke. Inflation is rising, student debt is crushing, and ethical brands are expensive. Something from Abercrombie or Aritzia might cost $70, and you're supposed to own at least 3 from each brand nowadays. Meanwhile, TikTokers are pushing fast fashion dupes that are less than $10 [3]. What do you think a college student is choosing?
Even for those with money, luxury isn’t what it used to be. Designer brands offload labor to the same overseas factories they pretend to rise above. Global outsourcing has created a ridiculously inflated market where €2,600 bags can be made for just €53 [4]. Quality has turned from a guarantee into a gamble.
Even here, writing this on my bed, I am complicit in exploitative labour practices. My sheets and pillowcase, bought for $20 in total off Amazon from a third-party vendor, could possibly be sourced from child labour [5].
So, where does that leave us?
Back in our closet, trying to fix the disconnect between what I wear and consume and what I believe. I care about climate justice. I care about human rights. I care about children not being forced to sew seams by hand for pennies. But I also care about fitting in, saving money, and keeping up.
The fashion industry thrives on this contradiction. It wants us to feel bad and shop anyway.
So what does Gen-Z do now?
I honestly don’t know. Retail is broken, and this generation is locked in a vicious cycle of unsustainable shopping. Fast fashion is made off the backs of exploited workers and eventually ends up in the thrift store, where low-income families are pushed out through over-thrifting and price hikes. We cannot hope to correct the disparity between our values and what ends up in our closet on our own.
What we need is more transparency and more regulation. Brands must impose ethical standards on both sourcing and manufacturing. Social media platforms should hold creators accountable when they promote exploitative brands.
Fixing our individual closets will not fix the fashion industry. The companies that styled this mess need to start cleaning it up.
[1] https://data.unicef.org/resources/child-labour-global-estimates-2024/
[2] https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/reports/child-labor/list-of-goods?page=1
[3] https://www.tiktok.com/@mariee_1025/video/7386451242421079316?lang=en
[4] https://www.wsj.com/business/retail/christian-diors-57-handbags-have-a-hidden-cost-reputational-risk-8175c9c9?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[5] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/amazon-suppliers-linked-forced-labor-china-watchdog-group-says-rcna16452
I Don't Want to be a Pessimist Anymore
Written by Lilly
The dismantling of USAID and PEPFAR, the drastic NIH funding cuts, the gutting of the CDC, and an administration that sees no value in the lives of those who are different from them. These things bring me, and many others, nothing but fear and anger. They are killing people, decimating communities, and harming the people we love. The effects are immediate and immediately destructive.
But, at the same time, I am tired of looking into the future and seeing only bad. I believe we can turn this into an opportunity–an opportunity to rebuild a flawed system. Our global health frameworks are being broken down brick by brick by the current administration, but their inability to persevere in the midst of an extreme political atmosphere indicates an inherent flaw, a flaw that defines what these programs are. They were intentionally developed to be “band-aid” solutions that rely on health disparities around the world. They cover up the wound so that, temporarily, it won’t get infected, but when you pull that band-aid off, the infection gets worse. That wound never really heals and you get sepsis and die.
I say this while simultaneously supporting what these programs are doing for global health crises. My issue with these programs, primarily, is that they focus only on fixing the immediate burden and fail to fix the underlying, deeper issues, like weak and failing health systems, which makes them, and the recipient communities of this funding, extremely susceptible to political shifts. That being said, you cannot build comprehensive health systems to be more resilient when there aren’t enough healthy people to staff health facilities or half the population is in a critical condition because they have no access to treatment due to funding cuts. You still need the band-aid. The vitality of the bandage coexists with the importance of nurturing your wound, applying antiseptic, replacing the old band-aid with a clean one, and monitoring the wound to make sure it has healed.
And now, we are back to ground zero. Recipients of this funding still have underfunded, overburdened, and ineffective health systems and are concurrently getting their life-saving treatment immediately stripped away from them. However, I believe that this regression offers us a chance to be constructively critical about these programs with the intention of using that to rebuild an even more effective, resilient, and sustainable system that can withstand unexpected political hurdles.
That means we have to act now. We cannot use this opportunity to reconstruct our approach to global health as an excuse not to act. We, the youth of today and the leaders of tomorrow, will be the ones to rebuild our future, transforming these devastating and destructive realities into something hopeful, resilient, and new.
Written by Lilly
The dismantling of USAID and PEPFAR, the drastic NIH funding cuts, the gutting of the CDC, and an administration that sees no value in the lives of those who are different from them. These things bring me, and many others, nothing but fear and anger. They are killing people, decimating communities, and harming the people we love. The effects are immediate and immediately destructive.
But, at the same time, I am tired of looking into the future and seeing only bad. I believe we can turn this into an opportunity–an opportunity to rebuild a flawed system. Our global health frameworks are being broken down brick by brick by the current administration, but their inability to persevere in the midst of an extreme political atmosphere indicates an inherent flaw, a flaw that defines what these programs are. They were intentionally developed to be “band-aid” solutions that rely on health disparities around the world. They cover up the wound so that, temporarily, it won’t get infected, but when you pull that band-aid off, the infection gets worse. That wound never really heals and you get sepsis and die.
I say this while simultaneously supporting what these programs are doing for global health crises. My issue with these programs, primarily, is that they focus only on fixing the immediate burden and fail to fix the underlying, deeper issues, like weak and failing health systems, which makes them, and the recipient communities of this funding, extremely susceptible to political shifts. That being said, you cannot build comprehensive health systems to be more resilient when there aren’t enough healthy people to staff health facilities or half the population is in a critical condition because they have no access to treatment due to funding cuts. You still need the band-aid. The vitality of the bandage coexists with the importance of nurturing your wound, applying antiseptic, replacing the old band-aid with a clean one, and monitoring the wound to make sure it has healed.
And now, we are back to ground zero. Recipients of this funding still have underfunded, overburdened, and ineffective health systems and are concurrently getting their life-saving treatment immediately stripped away from them. However, I believe that this regression offers us a chance to be constructively critical about these programs with the intention of using that to rebuild an even more effective, resilient, and sustainable system that can withstand unexpected political hurdles.
That means we have to act now. We cannot use this opportunity to reconstruct our approach to global health as an excuse not to act. We, the youth of today and the leaders of tomorrow, will be the ones to rebuild our future, transforming these devastating and destructive realities into something hopeful, resilient, and new.
Keep Fashion Weird
Written by Kai
J-fashion, also known as Harajuku street fashion, is a collection of alternative clothing styles originating in Japan. If you’ve ever been to Harajuku, you would have seen an overwhelming amount on the streets and in stores—both classic brands and ryousangata, which describes fashion that’s currently trendy. You might notice some differences between the two. J-fashion styles from the early 2000s are much more unique and (for lack of a better word) quirky. Ryousangata and styles like jirai kei focus on a more mass-produced look. It’s simpler, more uniform, and modern.
It’s easy to see the difference between “dead” J-fashion styles and currently popular ones. Decora’s bright rainbow of colors has faded to jirai kei’s signature dusty pink. Even gyaru’s recent revival has focused more on cute, classy clothing rather than its beauty standard-defying origins. Alternative fashion is everywhere, but less alternative than ever — its uniqueness has been diluted.
This shift in J-fashion reflects a bigger trend happening everywhere. What used to be bold and personal is now streamlined and made to sell. All kinds of brands are changing their images. Logos are shifting. Book covers start to look the same. The simple, modernist, created-on-Canva look is appearing everywhere, sapping personality and style from what used to be a form of creativity.
In a song that seems as relevant as ever, singer Laura Jane Grace asks, “With the instant availability of information and content so easily obtainable, is the culture now a product that’s disposable?” Very little seems to exist separate from the mainstream. It’s assimilation, not acceptance.
The world is more connected than ever, yet, in many ways, it’s becoming more difficult to find individuality. Social media, while offering platforms for self-expression, has simultaneously encouraged the mass replication of styles, phrases, and ideas. What once would have been a small, underground movement has quickly become a trend accessible to millions—often devoid of the depth and meaning that initially made it special.
The internet also makes it much easier to make fun of someone who doesn’t fit an “acceptable” aesthetic. It discourages people from branching out. They don’t want to try new styles that they may not do “well” at first, and they don’t want to look “weird.”
As the mainstream grows, everything else gets swept away in its current. It can be scary to hang on to the fringes while everyone else goes with the flow. But despite this, alternative communities still exist. Clothing is still a tool of self-expression and not just a selection of socially approved options. As long as you like what you’re wearing, no one else can tell you it’s wrong.
Written by Kai
J-fashion, also known as Harajuku street fashion, is a collection of alternative clothing styles originating in Japan. If you’ve ever been to Harajuku, you would have seen an overwhelming amount on the streets and in stores—both classic brands and ryousangata, which describes fashion that’s currently trendy. You might notice some differences between the two. J-fashion styles from the early 2000s are much more unique and (for lack of a better word) quirky. Ryousangata and styles like jirai kei focus on a more mass-produced look. It’s simpler, more uniform, and modern.
It’s easy to see the difference between “dead” J-fashion styles and currently popular ones. Decora’s bright rainbow of colors has faded to jirai kei’s signature dusty pink. Even gyaru’s recent revival has focused more on cute, classy clothing rather than its beauty standard-defying origins. Alternative fashion is everywhere, but less alternative than ever — its uniqueness has been diluted.
This shift in J-fashion reflects a bigger trend happening everywhere. What used to be bold and personal is now streamlined and made to sell. All kinds of brands are changing their images. Logos are shifting. Book covers start to look the same. The simple, modernist, created-on-Canva look is appearing everywhere, sapping personality and style from what used to be a form of creativity.
In a song that seems as relevant as ever, singer Laura Jane Grace asks, “With the instant availability of information and content so easily obtainable, is the culture now a product that’s disposable?” Very little seems to exist separate from the mainstream. It’s assimilation, not acceptance.
The world is more connected than ever, yet, in many ways, it’s becoming more difficult to find individuality. Social media, while offering platforms for self-expression, has simultaneously encouraged the mass replication of styles, phrases, and ideas. What once would have been a small, underground movement has quickly become a trend accessible to millions—often devoid of the depth and meaning that initially made it special.
The internet also makes it much easier to make fun of someone who doesn’t fit an “acceptable” aesthetic. It discourages people from branching out. They don’t want to try new styles that they may not do “well” at first, and they don’t want to look “weird.”
As the mainstream grows, everything else gets swept away in its current. It can be scary to hang on to the fringes while everyone else goes with the flow. But despite this, alternative communities still exist. Clothing is still a tool of self-expression and not just a selection of socially approved options. As long as you like what you’re wearing, no one else can tell you it’s wrong.
Who needs WHO? Apparently not U.S.
Written by Nisha
Imagine if COVID-19 hadn’t yet hit the U.S., but was tearing through the rest of the world. Imagine having no warning, no universal data, no set global guidelines, and no communication with the international community. Imagine the U.S. completely left in the dark at the height of the pandemic.
Can you even imagine it? Would you want to?
This is exactly the type of risk we would be taking if the U.S. withdraws from the World Health Organization (WHO).
On January 20, 2025, President Trump announced that the U.S. is expected to withdraw from the World Health Organization, with a 12-month notice period before taking effect.
In my opinion, the WHO is the world’s first line of defense against rising health threats. It plays an immense role in disease surveillance: helping to prevent, track, monitor outbreaks all while warning other countries. It curates evidence-based global guidelines for diagnosing and treating disease which helps prevent chaos and misinformation during troubling times. It is a universal data hub we can rely on for accurate, timely information.
Without the WHO, the U.S. would be cut off from global data which could delay our ability to respond to outbreaks. This would lead to more infections, more deaths, and more domestic chaos.
Diseases aren’t people. They don’t respect borders. No matter how strong our public health infrastructure is, without global coordination, we will be vulnerable.
Withdrawing from an organization like the WHO also risks the U.S.’s credibility in global health, leaving space for other powers to step in and fill the gaps. International collaboration would suffer and trust between nations would weaken. The exchange of vital information would no longer be standard. It would depend on whether another country was willing to share it. Now that doesn’t sound right.
And how could we forget the economic toll? Not only would we suffer as a nation, but thousands of jobs would be impacted. Jobs in global health diplomacy, healthcare, research, medical journalism, and more are now in jeopardy.
What’s the reasoning behind this decision?
The Trump administration argues that the U.S. is funding a disproportionate amount of the WHO’s budget, around 12 to 15 percent. But what is 12 to 15 percent compared to the trillions of dollars pandemics have cost? That number is small next to the damage of being unprepared. Another reason given was that the WHO mishandled the COVID-19 pandemic. But the poor domestic response by the U.S. cannot be blamed on WHO. Take New Zealand, for example. They followed WHO guidelines and their results speak for themselves.
What happens next?
Only Congress can block the withdrawal from unfolding. In the meantime, U.S. institutions like the CDC and NIH should continue maintaining their connections with the WHO whether we withdraw or not. Diplomats and allies can help pressure the administration to reconsider this decision.
We also need to educate the public on what global health security actually means and why credibility in global health matters.
No country can face pandemics alone. Cutting ties with the WHO while we face universal health threats will only send the wrong message. It will leave us blind.
Written by Nisha
Imagine if COVID-19 hadn’t yet hit the U.S., but was tearing through the rest of the world. Imagine having no warning, no universal data, no set global guidelines, and no communication with the international community. Imagine the U.S. completely left in the dark at the height of the pandemic.
Can you even imagine it? Would you want to?
This is exactly the type of risk we would be taking if the U.S. withdraws from the World Health Organization (WHO).
On January 20, 2025, President Trump announced that the U.S. is expected to withdraw from the World Health Organization, with a 12-month notice period before taking effect.
In my opinion, the WHO is the world’s first line of defense against rising health threats. It plays an immense role in disease surveillance: helping to prevent, track, monitor outbreaks all while warning other countries. It curates evidence-based global guidelines for diagnosing and treating disease which helps prevent chaos and misinformation during troubling times. It is a universal data hub we can rely on for accurate, timely information.
Without the WHO, the U.S. would be cut off from global data which could delay our ability to respond to outbreaks. This would lead to more infections, more deaths, and more domestic chaos.
Diseases aren’t people. They don’t respect borders. No matter how strong our public health infrastructure is, without global coordination, we will be vulnerable.
Withdrawing from an organization like the WHO also risks the U.S.’s credibility in global health, leaving space for other powers to step in and fill the gaps. International collaboration would suffer and trust between nations would weaken. The exchange of vital information would no longer be standard. It would depend on whether another country was willing to share it. Now that doesn’t sound right.
And how could we forget the economic toll? Not only would we suffer as a nation, but thousands of jobs would be impacted. Jobs in global health diplomacy, healthcare, research, medical journalism, and more are now in jeopardy.
What’s the reasoning behind this decision?
The Trump administration argues that the U.S. is funding a disproportionate amount of the WHO’s budget, around 12 to 15 percent. But what is 12 to 15 percent compared to the trillions of dollars pandemics have cost? That number is small next to the damage of being unprepared. Another reason given was that the WHO mishandled the COVID-19 pandemic. But the poor domestic response by the U.S. cannot be blamed on WHO. Take New Zealand, for example. They followed WHO guidelines and their results speak for themselves.
What happens next?
Only Congress can block the withdrawal from unfolding. In the meantime, U.S. institutions like the CDC and NIH should continue maintaining their connections with the WHO whether we withdraw or not. Diplomats and allies can help pressure the administration to reconsider this decision.
We also need to educate the public on what global health security actually means and why credibility in global health matters.
No country can face pandemics alone. Cutting ties with the WHO while we face universal health threats will only send the wrong message. It will leave us blind.
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)
Written by Gemma
WARNING: This opinion piece contains mentions of gender-based, sexual, and domestic violence, trafficking, abuse, stalking, and firearms.
We need feminism. As a young woman in this country, it frustrates me to no end when people claim that women and men are equal in the United States–and it’s even worse when they claim that “feminism has gone too far” and that men are now oppressed by women. Violence against women occurs at incredibly disproportionate and staggering rates–from 1994 to 2010, 80% of the victims of intimate partner violence were female. Over 1 in 3 women in the US have been raped, abused, or stalked by intimate partners in their lifetimes. While these statistics may just seem like soulless facts, each number represents a woman or girl who was raped, hurt, or killed. Each one was a daughter, a mother, a friend, a sister, a wife, and–most importantly– a human being who did not deserve what happened to her. Clearly, the fight for women’s equality, safety, and dignity is far from over.
Landmark pieces of legislation, specifically, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), have been key in the fight for women’s rights. Before this act’s passage, rape, domestic violence, and other forms of gender-based violence (violence committed against women because of their gender) were viewed as problems that stayed inside the home and rarely ever resulted in convictions and jail time. In 1994, the Violence Against Women Act changed this. VAWA was passed to address domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, stalking, and sex trafficking. It authorized over 1.5 billion dollars of grants to fund law enforcement, programs for domestic child abuse, the national domestic abuse hotline, shelters and other community programs, rape prevention, and research and data collection on violence against women.
VAWA has been found to have reduced the number of rapes and aggravated assaults committed against women; however, it has not reduced all types of gender-based violence in the United States. Given that gender-based violence is clearly still a pressing issue, VAWA can and should be amended in its next reauthorization in order to further protect women. Instead of solely aiming to effectively respond to gender-based violence after it happens, I believe that VAWA can be expanded to aim to prevent gender-based violence before it happens.
In order to do this, VAWA must close several gun law loopholes. The first is the boyfriend loophole, which refers to a loophole in gun law that allows abusive partners to access guns. Abusive partners who continue to be abusive after the relationship has ended or are subject to protective orders can obtain guns, which directly harms women–more than half of women killed by gun violence are killed in situations of intimate partner violence and the presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide for women by 500%. Another gun law loophole that must be closed is the stalker loophole. While federal law prohibits most convicted felons from owning guns, many stalking crimes are counted as misdemeanors, which allows convicted stalkers to own guns. This loophole must be closed, as attempted murders of women are often preceded by stalking incidents. Closing these loopholes will prevent gender-based gun violence before it even occurs, saving countless women from tragic and undeserved ends.
Closing these loopholes in future reauthorization of VAWA are especially important now, considering the Trump administration’s proposed changes to the firearm right restoration process. Those convicted of crimes can submit an application to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to restore their rights to own firearms; however, since 1992, Congress has not allowed the ATF to use any funding for this process. An interim final rule at the Department of Justice would provide the Office of the Attorney General with the responsibility for determining if a convicted offender should regain their rights to own guns, which would put victims of domestic violence at severe risk. Background checks have prevented hundreds of thousands of domestic abusers from buying firearms, but this rule would undo all of that. The next reauthorization of VAWA must close the boyfriend and stalking loopholes and ensure that, if this proposed rule comes into effect, the rights and lives of victims of intimate partner violence are prioritized over the firearm rights of convicted offenders.
Additionally, further reauthorizations of VAWA should fund programs for conditional cash transfers, intervention for abusers, teen dating abuse education, addressing online abuse and cyberstalking, and ending the rape kit backlog. These programs will aim to prevent gender-based violence from ever taking place while building up support for victims of gender-based violence. With violence against women still persisting, it is clear that the efforts against gender-based violence must not stop. The next time that VAWA is up for reauthorization, Congress must take action in order to expand the scope and strengthen the core of this legislation. We have a president in office who will not take action to protect women. It is up to Congress to stand up for women’s rights and protect women from violence.
Written by Gemma
WARNING: This opinion piece contains mentions of gender-based, sexual, and domestic violence, trafficking, abuse, stalking, and firearms.
We need feminism. As a young woman in this country, it frustrates me to no end when people claim that women and men are equal in the United States–and it’s even worse when they claim that “feminism has gone too far” and that men are now oppressed by women. Violence against women occurs at incredibly disproportionate and staggering rates–from 1994 to 2010, 80% of the victims of intimate partner violence were female. Over 1 in 3 women in the US have been raped, abused, or stalked by intimate partners in their lifetimes. While these statistics may just seem like soulless facts, each number represents a woman or girl who was raped, hurt, or killed. Each one was a daughter, a mother, a friend, a sister, a wife, and–most importantly– a human being who did not deserve what happened to her. Clearly, the fight for women’s equality, safety, and dignity is far from over.
Landmark pieces of legislation, specifically, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), have been key in the fight for women’s rights. Before this act’s passage, rape, domestic violence, and other forms of gender-based violence (violence committed against women because of their gender) were viewed as problems that stayed inside the home and rarely ever resulted in convictions and jail time. In 1994, the Violence Against Women Act changed this. VAWA was passed to address domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, stalking, and sex trafficking. It authorized over 1.5 billion dollars of grants to fund law enforcement, programs for domestic child abuse, the national domestic abuse hotline, shelters and other community programs, rape prevention, and research and data collection on violence against women.
VAWA has been found to have reduced the number of rapes and aggravated assaults committed against women; however, it has not reduced all types of gender-based violence in the United States. Given that gender-based violence is clearly still a pressing issue, VAWA can and should be amended in its next reauthorization in order to further protect women. Instead of solely aiming to effectively respond to gender-based violence after it happens, I believe that VAWA can be expanded to aim to prevent gender-based violence before it happens.
In order to do this, VAWA must close several gun law loopholes. The first is the boyfriend loophole, which refers to a loophole in gun law that allows abusive partners to access guns. Abusive partners who continue to be abusive after the relationship has ended or are subject to protective orders can obtain guns, which directly harms women–more than half of women killed by gun violence are killed in situations of intimate partner violence and the presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide for women by 500%. Another gun law loophole that must be closed is the stalker loophole. While federal law prohibits most convicted felons from owning guns, many stalking crimes are counted as misdemeanors, which allows convicted stalkers to own guns. This loophole must be closed, as attempted murders of women are often preceded by stalking incidents. Closing these loopholes will prevent gender-based gun violence before it even occurs, saving countless women from tragic and undeserved ends.
Closing these loopholes in future reauthorization of VAWA are especially important now, considering the Trump administration’s proposed changes to the firearm right restoration process. Those convicted of crimes can submit an application to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to restore their rights to own firearms; however, since 1992, Congress has not allowed the ATF to use any funding for this process. An interim final rule at the Department of Justice would provide the Office of the Attorney General with the responsibility for determining if a convicted offender should regain their rights to own guns, which would put victims of domestic violence at severe risk. Background checks have prevented hundreds of thousands of domestic abusers from buying firearms, but this rule would undo all of that. The next reauthorization of VAWA must close the boyfriend and stalking loopholes and ensure that, if this proposed rule comes into effect, the rights and lives of victims of intimate partner violence are prioritized over the firearm rights of convicted offenders.
Additionally, further reauthorizations of VAWA should fund programs for conditional cash transfers, intervention for abusers, teen dating abuse education, addressing online abuse and cyberstalking, and ending the rape kit backlog. These programs will aim to prevent gender-based violence from ever taking place while building up support for victims of gender-based violence. With violence against women still persisting, it is clear that the efforts against gender-based violence must not stop. The next time that VAWA is up for reauthorization, Congress must take action in order to expand the scope and strengthen the core of this legislation. We have a president in office who will not take action to protect women. It is up to Congress to stand up for women’s rights and protect women from violence.
Over-the-Counter Isn't the Same as Accessible
Written by Ashley
On a routine trip to CVS to pick up my brother’s EpiPen, I absentmindedly browsed the shelves while waiting at the pharmacy. Amid the usual cold and flu remedies, one item stopped me in my tracks: Narcan nasal spray, two doses for $44.99. That’s $22.50 per dose, which is more than double the average minimum hourly wage in this country. I was stunned. How can a life-saving medication, one that can reverse a fatal overdose in seconds, come with such a steep price tag? For something that can mean the difference between life and death, how is this cost even remotely defensible?
Narcan, the brand name for naloxone, is a medication that can quickly reverse opioid overdoses. In late 2023, the FDA approved Narcan as an over-the-counter drug, seemingly a step towards accessibility. However, the reality is far grimmer.
Previously, Narcan required a prescription, which allowed people with insurance to pay a copay of up to $30, yet it was still a high barrier for many. Without insurance, this medication would cost an individual a hefty $130. Now that Narcan is an over-the-counter medication, it no longer qualifies for insurance coverage. This leaves many individuals to bear the full cost of an almost $50 price tag in exchange for a product that costs a few cents to manufacture.
According to internal FDA data, raw naloxone materials cost around $0.01 to $0.02 per milligram of raw naloxone materials and up to 5 cents to fully manufacture Narcan nasal sprays. So why are consumers being charged over 1000 times the production cost?
In the fourth quarter of 2023, from October to December, when the FDA approved Narcan for over-the-counter use, Emergent Biosolutions, the company behind Narcan, reported a total revenue of $276 million. Specifically, Narcan nasal spray alone generated $111 million in revenue during Q4 of 2023. When comparing the few cents of manufacturing to the millions of dollars Emergent Biosolutions is raking in, the cost for consumers is simply unjustifiable.
In the midst of a continuing opioid crisis that kills over 100,000 Americans every year, Narcan is an essential public health tool. Although injectable naloxone exists, Narcan’s nasal spray is incredibly user-friendly and requires no medical training, allowing almost anyone to easily administer this drug.
While some community programs distribute Narcan for free, these programs aren’t always consistent or easily accessible. Making Narcan over-the-counter hasn’t done enough to improve accessibility, but instead, it has increased the financial burden on the people who need it the most.
More and more lives will continue to be lost because of the profit margins for big companies like Emergent Biosolutions. If we are fully committed to ending the opioid epidemic, we must demand that Narcan be significantly more affordable, if not free, for all.
Written by Ashley
On a routine trip to CVS to pick up my brother’s EpiPen, I absentmindedly browsed the shelves while waiting at the pharmacy. Amid the usual cold and flu remedies, one item stopped me in my tracks: Narcan nasal spray, two doses for $44.99. That’s $22.50 per dose, which is more than double the average minimum hourly wage in this country. I was stunned. How can a life-saving medication, one that can reverse a fatal overdose in seconds, come with such a steep price tag? For something that can mean the difference between life and death, how is this cost even remotely defensible?
Narcan, the brand name for naloxone, is a medication that can quickly reverse opioid overdoses. In late 2023, the FDA approved Narcan as an over-the-counter drug, seemingly a step towards accessibility. However, the reality is far grimmer.
Previously, Narcan required a prescription, which allowed people with insurance to pay a copay of up to $30, yet it was still a high barrier for many. Without insurance, this medication would cost an individual a hefty $130. Now that Narcan is an over-the-counter medication, it no longer qualifies for insurance coverage. This leaves many individuals to bear the full cost of an almost $50 price tag in exchange for a product that costs a few cents to manufacture.
According to internal FDA data, raw naloxone materials cost around $0.01 to $0.02 per milligram of raw naloxone materials and up to 5 cents to fully manufacture Narcan nasal sprays. So why are consumers being charged over 1000 times the production cost?
In the fourth quarter of 2023, from October to December, when the FDA approved Narcan for over-the-counter use, Emergent Biosolutions, the company behind Narcan, reported a total revenue of $276 million. Specifically, Narcan nasal spray alone generated $111 million in revenue during Q4 of 2023. When comparing the few cents of manufacturing to the millions of dollars Emergent Biosolutions is raking in, the cost for consumers is simply unjustifiable.
In the midst of a continuing opioid crisis that kills over 100,000 Americans every year, Narcan is an essential public health tool. Although injectable naloxone exists, Narcan’s nasal spray is incredibly user-friendly and requires no medical training, allowing almost anyone to easily administer this drug.
While some community programs distribute Narcan for free, these programs aren’t always consistent or easily accessible. Making Narcan over-the-counter hasn’t done enough to improve accessibility, but instead, it has increased the financial burden on the people who need it the most.
More and more lives will continue to be lost because of the profit margins for big companies like Emergent Biosolutions. If we are fully committed to ending the opioid epidemic, we must demand that Narcan be significantly more affordable, if not free, for all.
The Price of Life
Written by Akilan
There's a popular saying that life is priceless. But big pharmaceutical companies put a price on life. For them, diabetes is $700 in yearly insulin profits. Depression is $6,000 in yearly antidepressant profits. Cancer is $50,000 in yearly chemotherapy profits. These companies prioritize their wealth over America's health, and it's time America did something about it.
To get a closer look at the way these companies operate, let's first check up on how they make their money.
In 2024, major pharmaceutical companies, including Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, and Moderna, generated over $800 billion in revenue. But how did these pharmaceutical companies make so much? The Harvard Medical School notes that, due to the lack of price caps on drugs, pharmaceutical companies in the United States are able to overprice their products and maximize profits. That's why a vial of insulin, costing companies just $4 to produce, would cost you or me $400.
While large pharmaceutical companies rake in billions, we, the patients, are left to bear the consequences. It's estimated that roughly 1 in 4 Americans cannot afford to pay for key prescription drugs like Atorvastatin or Amlodipine - two drugs key for treating high blood pressure and cholesterol, preventing heart attacks and strokes.
When patients can't afford to pay for prescription drugs, they often end up back in the hospital within a couple of months. This is why, just due to not being able to afford prescriptions, over the next decade, an estimated 1.1 million Americans will lose their lives. The wealth of corporations is hurting the health of citizens, creating more flatlines instead of lifelines.
That seems like a pretty grim diagnosis of our healthcare system - so what's the solution?
I'd be lying to you if I told you there is an easy fix; instead, it requires a restructuring of American healthcare. Instead of private healthcare insurance, the United States should adopt a universal healthcare model. When private insurers are gone, Pfizer or Moderna can only sell to the government. That means the government can instruct pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices.
But this isn’t some revolutionary cure to healthcare.
Many developed countries around the world use a universal model and, coincidentally, have some of the lowest drug prices. It's estimated that forcing pharmaceutical companies to negotiate drug prices with the government would result in a 27% decrease in drug costs under a universal healthcare model.
One of the most prominent critiques of a universal healthcare model is that it would lead to increased wait times. After all, if healthcare becomes more accessible and affordable - wouldn’t our hospitals be overburdened and overfilled?
On the most basic level, when Americans can afford prescription medications, they won’t end up in hospital in the first place. With lower drug prices, Americans could afford to take medications like Atorvastatin and control their cholesterol at home instead of spending time in hospital beds after suffering a stroke. This would leave doctors with fewer patients, reducing their burnout and enabling them to provide better care for each individual.
Most opponents focus on Canada as a case study, arguing that a universal system in the U.S. would worsen wait times. Yet, due to the United States spending almost double per capita on healthcare ($13,432) compared to Canada ($7,013), the U.S. has developed more infrastructure, like artificial intelligence, that can help deal with the influx of patients.
This new artificial intelligence helps automate tasks such as patient records and rote procedures, allowing doctors to complete tasks that previously took hours in mere minutes, thereby giving them more time to spend with additional patients. In 2016, a study found that doctors spent over half of their time on paperwork and administrative tasks and only 27% of their time in patient care settings. But, unlike Canada, American hospitals are now willing to adopt artificial intelligence, freeing doctors from those administrative tasks. At Kaiser Permanente, the internal use of AI as a scribe saved physicians 15,000 working hours in just one year. That is 15,000 working hours that can be spent caring for patients, reducing burnout, and improving health outcomes.
It is high time that America stopped favoring millionaire executives and started protecting the millions, ensuring that life-saving medications can truly save lives. The Yale School of Public Health found that universalizing our healthcare system would decrease drug prices and improve hospital care to the point that 212,000 lives could be saved in just one year.
America is a country built on capitalism, and so naturally, with the right price, you can buy many things, from the latest technology to even your way out of jail for the wealthiest. But the one thing you can never buy back is a life lost. If life truly is priceless, how can we allow pharmaceutical companies to price Americans out of one.
Written by Akilan
There's a popular saying that life is priceless. But big pharmaceutical companies put a price on life. For them, diabetes is $700 in yearly insulin profits. Depression is $6,000 in yearly antidepressant profits. Cancer is $50,000 in yearly chemotherapy profits. These companies prioritize their wealth over America's health, and it's time America did something about it.
To get a closer look at the way these companies operate, let's first check up on how they make their money.
In 2024, major pharmaceutical companies, including Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, and Moderna, generated over $800 billion in revenue. But how did these pharmaceutical companies make so much? The Harvard Medical School notes that, due to the lack of price caps on drugs, pharmaceutical companies in the United States are able to overprice their products and maximize profits. That's why a vial of insulin, costing companies just $4 to produce, would cost you or me $400.
While large pharmaceutical companies rake in billions, we, the patients, are left to bear the consequences. It's estimated that roughly 1 in 4 Americans cannot afford to pay for key prescription drugs like Atorvastatin or Amlodipine - two drugs key for treating high blood pressure and cholesterol, preventing heart attacks and strokes.
When patients can't afford to pay for prescription drugs, they often end up back in the hospital within a couple of months. This is why, just due to not being able to afford prescriptions, over the next decade, an estimated 1.1 million Americans will lose their lives. The wealth of corporations is hurting the health of citizens, creating more flatlines instead of lifelines.
That seems like a pretty grim diagnosis of our healthcare system - so what's the solution?
I'd be lying to you if I told you there is an easy fix; instead, it requires a restructuring of American healthcare. Instead of private healthcare insurance, the United States should adopt a universal healthcare model. When private insurers are gone, Pfizer or Moderna can only sell to the government. That means the government can instruct pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices.
But this isn’t some revolutionary cure to healthcare.
Many developed countries around the world use a universal model and, coincidentally, have some of the lowest drug prices. It's estimated that forcing pharmaceutical companies to negotiate drug prices with the government would result in a 27% decrease in drug costs under a universal healthcare model.
One of the most prominent critiques of a universal healthcare model is that it would lead to increased wait times. After all, if healthcare becomes more accessible and affordable - wouldn’t our hospitals be overburdened and overfilled?
On the most basic level, when Americans can afford prescription medications, they won’t end up in hospital in the first place. With lower drug prices, Americans could afford to take medications like Atorvastatin and control their cholesterol at home instead of spending time in hospital beds after suffering a stroke. This would leave doctors with fewer patients, reducing their burnout and enabling them to provide better care for each individual.
Most opponents focus on Canada as a case study, arguing that a universal system in the U.S. would worsen wait times. Yet, due to the United States spending almost double per capita on healthcare ($13,432) compared to Canada ($7,013), the U.S. has developed more infrastructure, like artificial intelligence, that can help deal with the influx of patients.
This new artificial intelligence helps automate tasks such as patient records and rote procedures, allowing doctors to complete tasks that previously took hours in mere minutes, thereby giving them more time to spend with additional patients. In 2016, a study found that doctors spent over half of their time on paperwork and administrative tasks and only 27% of their time in patient care settings. But, unlike Canada, American hospitals are now willing to adopt artificial intelligence, freeing doctors from those administrative tasks. At Kaiser Permanente, the internal use of AI as a scribe saved physicians 15,000 working hours in just one year. That is 15,000 working hours that can be spent caring for patients, reducing burnout, and improving health outcomes.
It is high time that America stopped favoring millionaire executives and started protecting the millions, ensuring that life-saving medications can truly save lives. The Yale School of Public Health found that universalizing our healthcare system would decrease drug prices and improve hospital care to the point that 212,000 lives could be saved in just one year.
America is a country built on capitalism, and so naturally, with the right price, you can buy many things, from the latest technology to even your way out of jail for the wealthiest. But the one thing you can never buy back is a life lost. If life truly is priceless, how can we allow pharmaceutical companies to price Americans out of one.
"Zoom-bombers" : On Anonymity
Written by Arshdeep
On June 18th, I attended a webinar hosted by The Choice Agenda, titled: “Fight for Firewalls: HIV and Health Data Privacy in the Snowballing Surveillance State.” At approximately 09:16 CDT, the event was abruptly interrupted by an act that stunned everyone present. Through the speakers, the unmistakable sound of a man moaning filled the virtual room—at first faint, then impossible to ignore. For a few moments, the presenter continued, unaware or perhaps uncertain of what was unfolding. But soon the webinar came to a halt. The realization settled heavily: someone was either actively masturbating or simulating it for shock value. The irony was difficult to ignore. A space dedicated to confronting the harms of exposure, surveillance, and systemic vulnerability was itself exposed—violated in the very terms it sought to resist.
I did not see the screen shift—thankfully—but the audio alone was enough to provoke discomfort, confusion, and a palpable sense of shame. Why shame, I wondered? I was ashamed that someone—another human being—had seized upon a space devoted to unpacking exploitation and injustice, only to exploit it themselves for a form of gratification that felt not just intrusive, but disturbingly sociopathic. Whether it was purely auditory or involved a visual component as well, the effect was the same: the deliberate insertion of sexually explicit content into a space meant for dialogue, learning, and community-building around urgent public health issues. It was not simply disruptive; it was a targeted act of disrespect—an intrusion designed to humiliate, destabilize, and desecrate the seriousness of the conversation.
For the presenters and organizers who had labored to bring the event to life, it must have been a moment they wished had never occurred. And yet, despite the violation, the presentation continued. There was an undeniable unease that lingered in the air, a tremor beneath the words—but also, in the flurry of messages in the webinar chat and the quiet steadiness of the co-organizers, a visible determination to reclaim the space. It wasn’t just about supporting the presenter. It was about refusing to let the intrusion define the event. About standing, as a collective, against the act, not by silencing it, but by moving forward in defiance of it.
In The Choice Agenda’s post-event resources, which includes a recording of the webinar, the timestamp jumps from 09:16:21 to 09:17:12. These 51 seconds completely disappeared, wiped from existence it would seem, other than to those who attended it would seem. And at one level, this is truly understandable. The act was grotesque, an affront to not just the dignity of everyone present, but humankind. But in erasing those 51 seconds without explanation, something else was also lost: the fact that this happened. That it could happen. That it did happen here, in a space meant to protect and empower those already at risk of institutional surveillance, medical stigmas, and data exploitation.
I did a quick google search after the event to see whether “Zoom-bombing” is a natural occurrence, and encountered an article from 2020, talking about how an AIDS activist group’s video chat was hijacked by hackers, who subsequently made obscene gestures and screened pornography. These aren’t simply one-off accidents or coincidences, they’re intentional infiltrations of spaces organized by and for marginalized communities. So, what’s the significance of me trying to talk about an act that we should otherwise erase from memory?
I want to draw attention to a large motivator to this behavior: anonymity.
This anonymity—the ability to enter, violate, and vanish—makes these attacks especially difficult to contend with, precisely because there is often no clear subject to hold accountable. And when accountability dissolves, so too does the urgency to speak of what occurred. I understand why the organizers chose not to include those 51 seconds in the final recording. Their decision was not an erasure in the malicious sense, but a form of care—an attempt to shield others from the harm we witnessed, and to protect the integrity of the space they had worked so hard to build. However, to acknowledge the event is not to condemn the act of editing, but to name the structural conditions that make such editing feel necessary. It is to recognize that when harm is done anonymously, what’s at stake is not only justice but narratability: the right to mark the breach, and the ability to remember that it happened at all.
Silence, too, has a history. And what we choose not to name—however well-intentioned—shapes the archive of our digital and political futures.
Written by Arshdeep
On June 18th, I attended a webinar hosted by The Choice Agenda, titled: “Fight for Firewalls: HIV and Health Data Privacy in the Snowballing Surveillance State.” At approximately 09:16 CDT, the event was abruptly interrupted by an act that stunned everyone present. Through the speakers, the unmistakable sound of a man moaning filled the virtual room—at first faint, then impossible to ignore. For a few moments, the presenter continued, unaware or perhaps uncertain of what was unfolding. But soon the webinar came to a halt. The realization settled heavily: someone was either actively masturbating or simulating it for shock value. The irony was difficult to ignore. A space dedicated to confronting the harms of exposure, surveillance, and systemic vulnerability was itself exposed—violated in the very terms it sought to resist.
I did not see the screen shift—thankfully—but the audio alone was enough to provoke discomfort, confusion, and a palpable sense of shame. Why shame, I wondered? I was ashamed that someone—another human being—had seized upon a space devoted to unpacking exploitation and injustice, only to exploit it themselves for a form of gratification that felt not just intrusive, but disturbingly sociopathic. Whether it was purely auditory or involved a visual component as well, the effect was the same: the deliberate insertion of sexually explicit content into a space meant for dialogue, learning, and community-building around urgent public health issues. It was not simply disruptive; it was a targeted act of disrespect—an intrusion designed to humiliate, destabilize, and desecrate the seriousness of the conversation.
For the presenters and organizers who had labored to bring the event to life, it must have been a moment they wished had never occurred. And yet, despite the violation, the presentation continued. There was an undeniable unease that lingered in the air, a tremor beneath the words—but also, in the flurry of messages in the webinar chat and the quiet steadiness of the co-organizers, a visible determination to reclaim the space. It wasn’t just about supporting the presenter. It was about refusing to let the intrusion define the event. About standing, as a collective, against the act, not by silencing it, but by moving forward in defiance of it.
In The Choice Agenda’s post-event resources, which includes a recording of the webinar, the timestamp jumps from 09:16:21 to 09:17:12. These 51 seconds completely disappeared, wiped from existence it would seem, other than to those who attended it would seem. And at one level, this is truly understandable. The act was grotesque, an affront to not just the dignity of everyone present, but humankind. But in erasing those 51 seconds without explanation, something else was also lost: the fact that this happened. That it could happen. That it did happen here, in a space meant to protect and empower those already at risk of institutional surveillance, medical stigmas, and data exploitation.
I did a quick google search after the event to see whether “Zoom-bombing” is a natural occurrence, and encountered an article from 2020, talking about how an AIDS activist group’s video chat was hijacked by hackers, who subsequently made obscene gestures and screened pornography. These aren’t simply one-off accidents or coincidences, they’re intentional infiltrations of spaces organized by and for marginalized communities. So, what’s the significance of me trying to talk about an act that we should otherwise erase from memory?
I want to draw attention to a large motivator to this behavior: anonymity.
This anonymity—the ability to enter, violate, and vanish—makes these attacks especially difficult to contend with, precisely because there is often no clear subject to hold accountable. And when accountability dissolves, so too does the urgency to speak of what occurred. I understand why the organizers chose not to include those 51 seconds in the final recording. Their decision was not an erasure in the malicious sense, but a form of care—an attempt to shield others from the harm we witnessed, and to protect the integrity of the space they had worked so hard to build. However, to acknowledge the event is not to condemn the act of editing, but to name the structural conditions that make such editing feel necessary. It is to recognize that when harm is done anonymously, what’s at stake is not only justice but narratability: the right to mark the breach, and the ability to remember that it happened at all.
Silence, too, has a history. And what we choose not to name—however well-intentioned—shapes the archive of our digital and political futures.
Painting a Healthier Future: What Global and Community Health Means to Me
Written by Gianna
Global and community health to me is more than an academic interest--it’s a calling rooted deeply in brushes and ladders, paint-splattered clothing, and days spent after school at my grandmother’s house, working to remodel it while she recovered in hospital from Guillain-Barre syndrome. While she had lost the ability to use her hands, to write, to perform basic actions for herself, I was gaining an understanding of how profoundly health is shaped by environment, access, and care beyond the clinic. I began to see that healing was not necessarily entirely clinical; it happens in homes, in families, and in the overarching social structures that step in to help when people fall through the cracks.
It was during this time that I first began to question how the system works, and, more importantly, who the system is designed to work for. Watching my mother and grandmother attempt to navigate a maze of hospital bureaucracy and expensive options for aftercare, I saw how older adults, especially those who have no one to be a strong advocate for them, are routinely neglected by systems and institutions meant to aid them. At the same time, I was navigating my own experiences within the healthcare system as a young person with a recently developed chronic illness. Too often, I felt my pain was minimized, my symptoms were dismissed, and my voice was overlooked. Unfortunately, these experiences weren’t isolated to those in my family, rather, they exposed a too-common pattern of systemic failure that revealed itself more and more as I looked into it.
Choosing to major in Global and Community Health wasn’t a difficult decision--rather, it was a natural extension of my lived experiences. Community health, to me, means working to understand how an individual’s circumstances affect their susceptibility to illness and overall health. It’s, rather than just treating it, addressing all of the root causes of health: structural racism, economic injustice, housing insecurity, generational trauma, and more. Community health means caring about whether all members of our community have access to shelter, a warm meal, physical and mental health care, or a support system that picks them up when they relapse. Community health forces us to recognize that our physical health is not simply a reflection of our body, but of the environmental factors around us which make up our circumstances, too.
Global health expands this commitment outward, past borders. While specific patterns and trends in health may vary across national lines, our core determinants of health--access to clean water, shelter, food, and healthcare--remain universal. And, as a global superpower, we have both the resources and the moral responsibility to respond and engage in global health efforts with compassion and cultural humility. Our response must reflect not only careful expertise but a true and deliberate commitment to equity and justice for all, regardless of where they live.
My studies, this field of work has taken on a new urgency and meaning as the current administration moves to slash funding for public health infrastructure, community programs, and global health initiatives. Federal grants supporting work in infectious disease prevention have been halted, the FDA, CDC, and NIH have experienced mass layoffs, and funding supporting HIV/AIDS care and prevention locally and globally has been cut. These decisions, advertised to some as abstract budgeting items, have life-and-death consequences for our most vulnerable populations, including the very communities I come from. Weakening these already underfunded systems now, in a time of rising global threats and domestic inequities, is short-sighted, dangerous, and reflects poor regard for the populations we should care for the most.
Ultimately, to me, studying and understanding Global and Community Health is not just preparation for a career--it’s a conscious act of resistance in a time when public health is under attack. It’s commitment to building and reforming a world where healing, health, and care are not a privilege reserved for our wealthiest, but a right for all. And, it began, for me, with a paintbrush in hand, learning how to make a space more liveable--and healing more possible--for someone I love.
Written by Gianna
Global and community health to me is more than an academic interest--it’s a calling rooted deeply in brushes and ladders, paint-splattered clothing, and days spent after school at my grandmother’s house, working to remodel it while she recovered in hospital from Guillain-Barre syndrome. While she had lost the ability to use her hands, to write, to perform basic actions for herself, I was gaining an understanding of how profoundly health is shaped by environment, access, and care beyond the clinic. I began to see that healing was not necessarily entirely clinical; it happens in homes, in families, and in the overarching social structures that step in to help when people fall through the cracks.
It was during this time that I first began to question how the system works, and, more importantly, who the system is designed to work for. Watching my mother and grandmother attempt to navigate a maze of hospital bureaucracy and expensive options for aftercare, I saw how older adults, especially those who have no one to be a strong advocate for them, are routinely neglected by systems and institutions meant to aid them. At the same time, I was navigating my own experiences within the healthcare system as a young person with a recently developed chronic illness. Too often, I felt my pain was minimized, my symptoms were dismissed, and my voice was overlooked. Unfortunately, these experiences weren’t isolated to those in my family, rather, they exposed a too-common pattern of systemic failure that revealed itself more and more as I looked into it.
Choosing to major in Global and Community Health wasn’t a difficult decision--rather, it was a natural extension of my lived experiences. Community health, to me, means working to understand how an individual’s circumstances affect their susceptibility to illness and overall health. It’s, rather than just treating it, addressing all of the root causes of health: structural racism, economic injustice, housing insecurity, generational trauma, and more. Community health means caring about whether all members of our community have access to shelter, a warm meal, physical and mental health care, or a support system that picks them up when they relapse. Community health forces us to recognize that our physical health is not simply a reflection of our body, but of the environmental factors around us which make up our circumstances, too.
Global health expands this commitment outward, past borders. While specific patterns and trends in health may vary across national lines, our core determinants of health--access to clean water, shelter, food, and healthcare--remain universal. And, as a global superpower, we have both the resources and the moral responsibility to respond and engage in global health efforts with compassion and cultural humility. Our response must reflect not only careful expertise but a true and deliberate commitment to equity and justice for all, regardless of where they live.
My studies, this field of work has taken on a new urgency and meaning as the current administration moves to slash funding for public health infrastructure, community programs, and global health initiatives. Federal grants supporting work in infectious disease prevention have been halted, the FDA, CDC, and NIH have experienced mass layoffs, and funding supporting HIV/AIDS care and prevention locally and globally has been cut. These decisions, advertised to some as abstract budgeting items, have life-and-death consequences for our most vulnerable populations, including the very communities I come from. Weakening these already underfunded systems now, in a time of rising global threats and domestic inequities, is short-sighted, dangerous, and reflects poor regard for the populations we should care for the most.
Ultimately, to me, studying and understanding Global and Community Health is not just preparation for a career--it’s a conscious act of resistance in a time when public health is under attack. It’s commitment to building and reforming a world where healing, health, and care are not a privilege reserved for our wealthiest, but a right for all. And, it began, for me, with a paintbrush in hand, learning how to make a space more liveable--and healing more possible--for someone I love.
Why Public Health, Culture, and Society Matter to Me
Written by Andie
Often misunderstood or looked past, public health is the historian and storyteller behind our lives. It documents the neighborhoods we live in, the traditions we uphold, and the societies we build – all of which collaborate to choreograph whether our personal and collective stories flourish or falter. Public health is not a study of science or technology or medicine as the wellness panacea but utilizes people and a people’s history as the strategy to prevent disease, improve quality of life, and ultimately prolong life.
Seems simple enough, but it wasn’t until the pandemic that I could see the effects and truly grasp how all-encompassing this field can be, seemingly a melting pot of solutions to the problem of living a healthy life. Immediately I was hooked. Hooked on the idea that we can improve lives simply by understanding and addressing the root causes of health disparities that shape our lives and communities. Understanding the broader picture reveals why health isn't solely determined by biology but by our environment, cultural identity, societal structures, and personal appraisals.
And boy does that make the world make so much more sense!
Our own cultures and our own society deeply influence our health, shaping how we perceive wellness, illness, and the healthcare systems that serve us, assuming these systems are accessible at all. This everoccurring investigation reveals that the most advanced medical care does not translate into the bridging of health disparities. Health outcomes in public health are often defined as consequences of social determinants of health (SDOH): education, healthcare, environment, economic stability, and social context. These domains have the power to bridge or to widen health disparities. Institutional advantage, social affirmation, higher education, insured healthcare, health literacy, and convenience. Systemic exclusion, discrimination-based stress, unaffordability, inaccessibility, literacy, misinformation. All nonmedical factors that significantly influence health outcomes, but the latter are lived by a disproportionately large number of individuals across the globe. These social determinants vary by culture which, when backed by systematic influences, greatly determine diverse health outcomes.
While history – from the Tuskegee Syphilis Study to contemporary misinformation during COVID-19 – has supported the surge in medical mistrust of marginalized populations, there is hope within public health to implement successful community and individual responses that are rooted in empathy, cultural competence, and a “people first” doctrine.
In this field, we are taught to ground our interventions in theory and an open mind to teach us that not everyone or everything is willing to act in healthy ways in a specific moment. We can focus our efforts on those who are ready and willing, but what we are not taught is how to address political and ideological resistance. And without tools to engage resistant groups, we are ill-equipped to foster any long-term change. Simply using evidence-based recommendations is ultimately ineffective unless we also understand the belief systems of those exhibiting denial or resistance. Worse and worse outcomes can only be addressed by implementing strategies that are psychologically, culturally, and socially responsive.
Health interventions that lack cultural awareness and neglect personal history reinforce mistrust, nonadherence, and thus health disparities. Poor experiences that undermine faith in our collective systems prove that effective public health communication can only foster resilience when incorporating trust building and cultural understanding. This field works to be a resource for those who may not have the support of a community or a safe place within society; it is an organizational driver for equity in health. Culturally informed and population tailored strategies unify communities and attack inequity at the root causes, whether that be personal or societal or systemic. This is beautifully achieved in programs like mobile health units and Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) given their approach to meeting communities where they emotionally, socially, and culturally are. By leveraging community health workers, or “promotoras”, attuned to local values and fears, these programs establish authenticity and trust that public health should always strive for. Authenticity and trust that affirms identities and ultimately promotes health equity.
So, when you ask why public health, culture, and society matters, I encourage you to take a look away from your own being. To look towards your neighbors, your classmates, and the countless individuals you pass by every day. To those whose lives are shaped by forces beyond their control. To the systems they were born into and the barriers they must navigate every day. Public health, culture, and society will always matter because we do not live in isolation; our identities and even our health are inseparable in ways beyond our genetics.
It matters because my grandmother will walk away from her doctor feeling respected and sure of her treatment. Because a single mother won’t have to choose between paying rent, buying groceries, or refilling her daughter’s insulin prescription. Because an immigrant won’t have to fear government services over receiving treatment. Because I believe that dignity in healthcare is not a luxury, but a right. At least that is the goal. That is the reason I live my life to be a part of a future where public health systems universally prioritize people – their culture, their society, and their self.
Written by Andie
Often misunderstood or looked past, public health is the historian and storyteller behind our lives. It documents the neighborhoods we live in, the traditions we uphold, and the societies we build – all of which collaborate to choreograph whether our personal and collective stories flourish or falter. Public health is not a study of science or technology or medicine as the wellness panacea but utilizes people and a people’s history as the strategy to prevent disease, improve quality of life, and ultimately prolong life.
Seems simple enough, but it wasn’t until the pandemic that I could see the effects and truly grasp how all-encompassing this field can be, seemingly a melting pot of solutions to the problem of living a healthy life. Immediately I was hooked. Hooked on the idea that we can improve lives simply by understanding and addressing the root causes of health disparities that shape our lives and communities. Understanding the broader picture reveals why health isn't solely determined by biology but by our environment, cultural identity, societal structures, and personal appraisals.
And boy does that make the world make so much more sense!
Our own cultures and our own society deeply influence our health, shaping how we perceive wellness, illness, and the healthcare systems that serve us, assuming these systems are accessible at all. This everoccurring investigation reveals that the most advanced medical care does not translate into the bridging of health disparities. Health outcomes in public health are often defined as consequences of social determinants of health (SDOH): education, healthcare, environment, economic stability, and social context. These domains have the power to bridge or to widen health disparities. Institutional advantage, social affirmation, higher education, insured healthcare, health literacy, and convenience. Systemic exclusion, discrimination-based stress, unaffordability, inaccessibility, literacy, misinformation. All nonmedical factors that significantly influence health outcomes, but the latter are lived by a disproportionately large number of individuals across the globe. These social determinants vary by culture which, when backed by systematic influences, greatly determine diverse health outcomes.
While history – from the Tuskegee Syphilis Study to contemporary misinformation during COVID-19 – has supported the surge in medical mistrust of marginalized populations, there is hope within public health to implement successful community and individual responses that are rooted in empathy, cultural competence, and a “people first” doctrine.
In this field, we are taught to ground our interventions in theory and an open mind to teach us that not everyone or everything is willing to act in healthy ways in a specific moment. We can focus our efforts on those who are ready and willing, but what we are not taught is how to address political and ideological resistance. And without tools to engage resistant groups, we are ill-equipped to foster any long-term change. Simply using evidence-based recommendations is ultimately ineffective unless we also understand the belief systems of those exhibiting denial or resistance. Worse and worse outcomes can only be addressed by implementing strategies that are psychologically, culturally, and socially responsive.
Health interventions that lack cultural awareness and neglect personal history reinforce mistrust, nonadherence, and thus health disparities. Poor experiences that undermine faith in our collective systems prove that effective public health communication can only foster resilience when incorporating trust building and cultural understanding. This field works to be a resource for those who may not have the support of a community or a safe place within society; it is an organizational driver for equity in health. Culturally informed and population tailored strategies unify communities and attack inequity at the root causes, whether that be personal or societal or systemic. This is beautifully achieved in programs like mobile health units and Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) given their approach to meeting communities where they emotionally, socially, and culturally are. By leveraging community health workers, or “promotoras”, attuned to local values and fears, these programs establish authenticity and trust that public health should always strive for. Authenticity and trust that affirms identities and ultimately promotes health equity.
So, when you ask why public health, culture, and society matters, I encourage you to take a look away from your own being. To look towards your neighbors, your classmates, and the countless individuals you pass by every day. To those whose lives are shaped by forces beyond their control. To the systems they were born into and the barriers they must navigate every day. Public health, culture, and society will always matter because we do not live in isolation; our identities and even our health are inseparable in ways beyond our genetics.
It matters because my grandmother will walk away from her doctor feeling respected and sure of her treatment. Because a single mother won’t have to choose between paying rent, buying groceries, or refilling her daughter’s insulin prescription. Because an immigrant won’t have to fear government services over receiving treatment. Because I believe that dignity in healthcare is not a luxury, but a right. At least that is the goal. That is the reason I live my life to be a part of a future where public health systems universally prioritize people – their culture, their society, and their self.
Trump's Cuts to HIV Funding Put Lives at Risk - Including Mine.
Written by Kendall
When I was accepted into the Peace Corps to do HIV/AIDS prevention work in South Africa, I never imagined that an executive order would strip away that opportunity, or that my own government would simultaneously dismantle similar programs keeping people like myself alive in the U.S.
President Trump’s FY2026 budget slashes funding for HIV prevention, research, and care by 35%, including devastating cuts to the Ryan White Program, Medicaid, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). These programs are lifelines for millions, including the half a million Americans with HIV who rely on Ryan White for treatment. For those of us that are undetectable, meaning we cannot transmit HIV thanks to medication, these cuts aren’t just policy shifts. They’re existential threats.
The budget eliminates $794 million from CDC HIV prevention, slashes NIH research by $2.4 billion, and ends HOPWA housing support. The most dangerous cuts target Medicaid, which is the largest HIV care fund, and the Ryan White program, which fills gaps for low-income patients. The NIH hiring freeze and 36% cut to NIAID cripple research into long-acting treatments and vaccines, which will roll back decades of progress in a single blow.
For undetectable individuals, stable care isn't optional. It's what keeps us healthy and stops transmissions, yet these cuts will lead to more deaths, more infections, and reverse hard-won progress under the Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) initiative. Losing access to medication is not just a gap in treatment. It's a biological time bomb: viral load rebounds within weeks (making HIV transmissible again), drug resistance can develop (rendering future treatments ineffective), and immune system damage resumes (increasing AIDS-related risks). By gutting Medicaid, Ryan White, and NIH research, these policies don’t just harm individuals, they sabotage public health and fuel the epidemic’s resurgence.
Meanwhile, Trump’s executive order banning aid to South Africa—justified by xenophobic rhetoric about land reform—has forced the Peace Corps to suspend programs there. I was set to work on HIV outreach, but now, because of political posturing, South Africa’s clinics will lose U.S. support. This isn’t fiscal responsibility—it’s cruelty. The same administration that claims to care about “ending AIDS” is sabotaging efforts both at home and abroad.
I am alive today because of the very programs this administration is dismantling - programs that keep people undetectable, housed, and healthy. These cuts are a death sentence for the most vulnerable. We're witnessing the willful destruction of painstaking medical progress that has saved millions of lives globally. If we allow HIV funding to collapse, we’ll witness a preventable crisis: more transmissions, more drug resistance, and more graves. This isn’t just about budgets; it’s about whether our government values the lives of people with HIV. Call your representatives and demand they reject these cuts. The time to act is now.
Written by Kendall
When I was accepted into the Peace Corps to do HIV/AIDS prevention work in South Africa, I never imagined that an executive order would strip away that opportunity, or that my own government would simultaneously dismantle similar programs keeping people like myself alive in the U.S.
President Trump’s FY2026 budget slashes funding for HIV prevention, research, and care by 35%, including devastating cuts to the Ryan White Program, Medicaid, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). These programs are lifelines for millions, including the half a million Americans with HIV who rely on Ryan White for treatment. For those of us that are undetectable, meaning we cannot transmit HIV thanks to medication, these cuts aren’t just policy shifts. They’re existential threats.
The budget eliminates $794 million from CDC HIV prevention, slashes NIH research by $2.4 billion, and ends HOPWA housing support. The most dangerous cuts target Medicaid, which is the largest HIV care fund, and the Ryan White program, which fills gaps for low-income patients. The NIH hiring freeze and 36% cut to NIAID cripple research into long-acting treatments and vaccines, which will roll back decades of progress in a single blow.
For undetectable individuals, stable care isn't optional. It's what keeps us healthy and stops transmissions, yet these cuts will lead to more deaths, more infections, and reverse hard-won progress under the Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) initiative. Losing access to medication is not just a gap in treatment. It's a biological time bomb: viral load rebounds within weeks (making HIV transmissible again), drug resistance can develop (rendering future treatments ineffective), and immune system damage resumes (increasing AIDS-related risks). By gutting Medicaid, Ryan White, and NIH research, these policies don’t just harm individuals, they sabotage public health and fuel the epidemic’s resurgence.
Meanwhile, Trump’s executive order banning aid to South Africa—justified by xenophobic rhetoric about land reform—has forced the Peace Corps to suspend programs there. I was set to work on HIV outreach, but now, because of political posturing, South Africa’s clinics will lose U.S. support. This isn’t fiscal responsibility—it’s cruelty. The same administration that claims to care about “ending AIDS” is sabotaging efforts both at home and abroad.
I am alive today because of the very programs this administration is dismantling - programs that keep people undetectable, housed, and healthy. These cuts are a death sentence for the most vulnerable. We're witnessing the willful destruction of painstaking medical progress that has saved millions of lives globally. If we allow HIV funding to collapse, we’ll witness a preventable crisis: more transmissions, more drug resistance, and more graves. This isn’t just about budgets; it’s about whether our government values the lives of people with HIV. Call your representatives and demand they reject these cuts. The time to act is now.
The Ongoing Fight For Human Rights
Written by Melissa
A month ago, if you were to ask me what my 30 human rights were, I would’ve said, “I have no clue.” But after taking a Human Rights Course, I’ve learned that we DO all have human rights, simply because we are human. But what shocked me the most was that people around the world are still denied these rights every day.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was created in 1948 by the United Nations in response to World War II and all of the horrible things that happened during the war. It was the first time that countries were able to agree that rights need universal protection in order for people to live their lives freely, equally, and in dignity.
I originally thought that Human Rights and Civil rights were the same thing; however they are both very different. Civil rights only apply to citizens of a particular country and are granted by a government and ensure equal treatment under the law, such as the right to vote and free speech. Human rights are inherent to ALL people and are based on human dignity such as the right to life, liberty, and education. They apply to all regardless of citizenship and nationality.
However, even though the UDHR lays out each of the 30 human rights very clearly, it’s important to know that since it was adopted as a declaration, it is not a legally binding document. This means that it is not mandatory that all countries follow it since it is not law - and a lot of them still don't.
So why is this a problem, and why should we care? Our human rights are currently being violated all over the world
Being able to learn about the UDHR showed me that human rights aren’t guaranteed just because they are written down somewhere. They depend on whether governments choose to respect and protect them. And that's where WE come in. It’s up to us now to advocate for these rights and to hold leaders accountable. These rights shouldn't just be ideas; they should be realities for everyone.
After all, human rights are based on the principle of respect for the individual - so why is it so hard to get everyone on board? I wish I knew the answer, but it seems like power and control get in the way of getting everyone to agree. The best thing we can do is educate ourselves and keep fighting for these rights. If we abandon them now, then things are just going to get much worse.
Written by Melissa
A month ago, if you were to ask me what my 30 human rights were, I would’ve said, “I have no clue.” But after taking a Human Rights Course, I’ve learned that we DO all have human rights, simply because we are human. But what shocked me the most was that people around the world are still denied these rights every day.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was created in 1948 by the United Nations in response to World War II and all of the horrible things that happened during the war. It was the first time that countries were able to agree that rights need universal protection in order for people to live their lives freely, equally, and in dignity.
I originally thought that Human Rights and Civil rights were the same thing; however they are both very different. Civil rights only apply to citizens of a particular country and are granted by a government and ensure equal treatment under the law, such as the right to vote and free speech. Human rights are inherent to ALL people and are based on human dignity such as the right to life, liberty, and education. They apply to all regardless of citizenship and nationality.
However, even though the UDHR lays out each of the 30 human rights very clearly, it’s important to know that since it was adopted as a declaration, it is not a legally binding document. This means that it is not mandatory that all countries follow it since it is not law - and a lot of them still don't.
So why is this a problem, and why should we care? Our human rights are currently being violated all over the world
- In Afghanistan, girls are banned from going to school beyond sixth grade.
- Article 26 of the UDHR states that we all have a right to education no matter someone’s gender or where they live. Education should be accessible to all and what is occurring in Afghanistan is completely violating this human right.
- Over 63 countries still criminalize same-sex relationships.
- This goes against Article 19, which is the right to freedom of expression. We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think how we want, and to share our ideas with other people. This includes the ability to express who you are and love without fearing being punished.
- Nearly 700 million people live in extreme poverty.
- Article 25 states everyone has a right to a good life and a good quality standard of living, yet people are still living in poverty. Everyone should have access to food, housing, and medical care.
Being able to learn about the UDHR showed me that human rights aren’t guaranteed just because they are written down somewhere. They depend on whether governments choose to respect and protect them. And that's where WE come in. It’s up to us now to advocate for these rights and to hold leaders accountable. These rights shouldn't just be ideas; they should be realities for everyone.
After all, human rights are based on the principle of respect for the individual - so why is it so hard to get everyone on board? I wish I knew the answer, but it seems like power and control get in the way of getting everyone to agree. The best thing we can do is educate ourselves and keep fighting for these rights. If we abandon them now, then things are just going to get much worse.
My Post-Election Jeebies
Written by an Intern
Have you ever watched a horror film, then proceeded to go to bed immediately after? Flashing images, black and white. Blood. Screaming, smiling, devilish faces stare at you from all around. Maybe they jump at you. These memories of the movie flash to the front of your mind. Because of this, it’s hard to close your eyes and rest. You constantly look around, reassuring yourself that you’re hallucinating. You shut your eyes, trying to sleep through the horror.
Then you wake up, and you realize you were a fool, blinded by recency bias and paranoia.
On November 5th, We the People of the United States, apparently in order to form a more perfect union, voted Donald J. Trump to the highest commanding power in the nation. President-Elect Trump will take the oath of office on January 20, where he will immediately receive the power accompanying the presidential position. He will replace Joseph R. Biden, the current President of the United States, who defeated Trump in the 2020 election.
We know this already. It’s only on every news headline, every Twitter (sorry, X) post, and in everyone’s Instagram stories.
But what’s the real gravity behind what’s just happened?
On election day, Americans received a choice: one that’s granted to all Americans over the age of 18 under the 26th Amendment. And we chose Trump: a convicted felon. A man who quite literally started his career in criminal fashion when he was sued for alleged discrimination towards a family, whom his company refused to rent out a hotel room for. A man who has banned Muslims from entering the country, separating families in the process even years later.
A leader is someone who can see room for improvement, someone who can rally people to work towards a better vision. President-Elect Trump can definitely rally: Make America Great Again? Owning the support of billionaires, international leaders, and minority groups—groups that he has expressed racism and prejudice towards? He’s doing something right.
But problem-solving? Seeing room for improvement? Trump’s first term has, if anything, fortified the motive to keep him out of office.
Did I mention Trump, a man who speaks about unity based on values of family, has both cheated on his wives multiple times and has been convicted of sexual abuse recently in 2023?
I liked this post I saw on Instagram: “We ask women why they don’t come forward when sexually assaulted. It’s because we live in a world where an abuser can become president" (@hasslofficial). It’s crazy to me how we would rather have a convicted felon in office than a woman.
Now, I do understand people’s concerns towards Kamala Harris as president. Her time as vice president has felt underwhelming. People also felt she wouldn’t be substantially different politically from her boss, President Biden. She hasn’t expressed disapproval towards controversial Biden moves, notably Biden’s funding of the Israeli militia and his claim that the US is committed to deescalation. Bottom line is, I’m not writing this piece to express my support of Harris.
But we’ve seen what Trump has done/is willing to do as president. Just because someone says they love me doesn’t mean they actually do, and Trump has managed to convince plenty of Americans that he cares about them.
So now I sit in bed, face-up like a starfish, and I feel nervous. Maybe soon I’ll be banned from this country. I don’t know. If Trump was willing to ban Muslims like me from entering the country, what’s to stop him from kicking us out, as he plans to do with Hispanic and Latino immigrants, some of whom entered this country legally?
Now that Trump is taking office soon, I feel as though I just watched a horror movie. I fear what’s around me—what might come get me as the night progresses. I worry about how my paranoia will distort my surroundings, causing my room to change its color and layout.
I know I will wake up tomorrow morning. I just feel uncertain. Unstable. What’s going to happen between now and the morning? What will he do that makes him so special? Is it the good special? Or the bad?
Maybe I’m stressed over nothing.
Written by an Intern
Have you ever watched a horror film, then proceeded to go to bed immediately after? Flashing images, black and white. Blood. Screaming, smiling, devilish faces stare at you from all around. Maybe they jump at you. These memories of the movie flash to the front of your mind. Because of this, it’s hard to close your eyes and rest. You constantly look around, reassuring yourself that you’re hallucinating. You shut your eyes, trying to sleep through the horror.
Then you wake up, and you realize you were a fool, blinded by recency bias and paranoia.
On November 5th, We the People of the United States, apparently in order to form a more perfect union, voted Donald J. Trump to the highest commanding power in the nation. President-Elect Trump will take the oath of office on January 20, where he will immediately receive the power accompanying the presidential position. He will replace Joseph R. Biden, the current President of the United States, who defeated Trump in the 2020 election.
We know this already. It’s only on every news headline, every Twitter (sorry, X) post, and in everyone’s Instagram stories.
But what’s the real gravity behind what’s just happened?
On election day, Americans received a choice: one that’s granted to all Americans over the age of 18 under the 26th Amendment. And we chose Trump: a convicted felon. A man who quite literally started his career in criminal fashion when he was sued for alleged discrimination towards a family, whom his company refused to rent out a hotel room for. A man who has banned Muslims from entering the country, separating families in the process even years later.
A leader is someone who can see room for improvement, someone who can rally people to work towards a better vision. President-Elect Trump can definitely rally: Make America Great Again? Owning the support of billionaires, international leaders, and minority groups—groups that he has expressed racism and prejudice towards? He’s doing something right.
But problem-solving? Seeing room for improvement? Trump’s first term has, if anything, fortified the motive to keep him out of office.
- Trump left the biggest deficit in US history, and the deficit expanded expeditiously in comparison to his successor, Biden. National debt rose by 7.8 trillion to 28 trillion under his presidency.
- Trump incited a riot, claiming he won the 2020 election when dozens on dozens of courts have proven otherwise. These riots injured around 100 police officers, and Trump waited hours before speaking out against the riots, allowing for rioters to get their message out and threaten the “democrat” in democracy.
- Trump picked fights with close allied powers while glorifying leaders such as Vladimir Putin of Russia and Kim Jong Un of North Korea.
- Under Trump, hate crimes increased by 28% across the country.
- While Trump left office with a job deficit of 3 million jobs, Biden has added 16 million jobs since his term began.
- Relaxation of gun laws under his presidency attributes to a 30% increase in murders.
Did I mention Trump, a man who speaks about unity based on values of family, has both cheated on his wives multiple times and has been convicted of sexual abuse recently in 2023?
I liked this post I saw on Instagram: “We ask women why they don’t come forward when sexually assaulted. It’s because we live in a world where an abuser can become president" (@hasslofficial). It’s crazy to me how we would rather have a convicted felon in office than a woman.
Now, I do understand people’s concerns towards Kamala Harris as president. Her time as vice president has felt underwhelming. People also felt she wouldn’t be substantially different politically from her boss, President Biden. She hasn’t expressed disapproval towards controversial Biden moves, notably Biden’s funding of the Israeli militia and his claim that the US is committed to deescalation. Bottom line is, I’m not writing this piece to express my support of Harris.
But we’ve seen what Trump has done/is willing to do as president. Just because someone says they love me doesn’t mean they actually do, and Trump has managed to convince plenty of Americans that he cares about them.
So now I sit in bed, face-up like a starfish, and I feel nervous. Maybe soon I’ll be banned from this country. I don’t know. If Trump was willing to ban Muslims like me from entering the country, what’s to stop him from kicking us out, as he plans to do with Hispanic and Latino immigrants, some of whom entered this country legally?
Now that Trump is taking office soon, I feel as though I just watched a horror movie. I fear what’s around me—what might come get me as the night progresses. I worry about how my paranoia will distort my surroundings, causing my room to change its color and layout.
I know I will wake up tomorrow morning. I just feel uncertain. Unstable. What’s going to happen between now and the morning? What will he do that makes him so special? Is it the good special? Or the bad?
Maybe I’m stressed over nothing.
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.
