Recent skepticism from the student body about the Office of Student Integrity’s (OSI) investigation process has brought to light the case of “John Doe B,” a student who was recently expelled. Doe was found responsible for non-consensual sexual contact, two counts of non-consensual sexual intercourse and two counts of coercion; these charges refer to two separate incidents with two separate female students: “Jane Roe” and “Jane Poe.”

Doe appealed for a preliminary injunction and a trial by jury on Nov. 23, 2015, but his request was denied by the Atlanta Division of the U.S. District Court on December 16, 2015. Although the judge determined that Doe did not meet the high threshold of irreparable harm needed for an preliminary injunction, he expressed concern regarding the investigation, stating “Mr Paquette’s testimony … about the course of the investigation and the manner in which he made certain investigatory decision was very far from an ideal representation of due process.” Doe’s sentence has been upheld, and litigation is ongoing.

Doe was a member of the Chi Phi Fraternity. On Oct. 10, 2013, Doe and Roe attended a party at the fraternity together. Roe claims that Doe repeatedly poured her wine, despite her insisting that she had enough, while Doe claims in his statement that Roe “poured herself a great deal of wine.”

Afterwards, the two went upstairs to Doe’s room, where Roe claims that Doe made sexual advances on her without her consent. Doe, however, denies that any sexual contact occurred. Roe then began vomiting and left the party with a friend.

Another student, Poe, also claims to have been assaulted by Doe. According to her statement, Poe had been drinking alcohol and had used a narcotic and consented to have sexual intercourse with Doe but soon declined to continue. However, she claims, Doe continued, and she ran out of the room. Doe initially insisted that no sexual contact had occurred but later changed his statement, agreeing that he and Poe had sexual intercourse but claiming that the act stopped when she wanted it to stop.

Approximately four months after the incident, Poe began to believe that Doe had sexually assaulted her. On Feb. 17, 2015, over year after her realization, Roe filed a complaint with OSI.

Peter Paquette, the assistant dean of students and the director of OSI, contacted Doe and informed him of the charges against him on Feb. 27, 2015. Paquette began collecting statements from Doe and Roe, and, after a few weeks of investigation, learned about Poe’s claim and obtained her statement as well.

On April 3, 2015, Paquette held a final interview with Doe. “After this interview, I made the finding that it was more likely than not that [Doe] engaged in non-consensual sexual intercourse with both [Roe] and [Poe]; that he engaged in non-consensual sexual contact with [Roe]; and that he had isolated both women as a coercive act,” Paquette said in a written statement.

Doe appealed his case to the Sexual Misconduct Appeals Committee, to President Peterson, and to the Georgia Board of Regents (BOR). All three bodies affirmed the verdict of expulsion, but the BOR reversed all charges related to Poe, citing insufficient evidence to support the charges. Doe’s appeal for a preliminary injunction was based on his belief that his trial was unfair and that Paquette had been biased against his case.

“Mr. Paquette … conducted an investigation that made a mockery of the due process of a state school,” said Chris Giovinazzo, Doe’s attorney.

Paquette did not reveal any witnesses’ names, transcripts of their statements or the questions they were asked until 30 minutes before Doe’s final interview. He also did not interview five of the six witnesses Doe provided. One of these witnesses was the sole witness who saw Roe immediately after the incident on Oct. 10, 2013. Doe also noted that, despite Tech’s Code of Conduct requiring that complaints be made within 30 days after the discovery of the incident, “[Roe] was allowed to make her complaint more than 16 months later.” Tech’s Sexual Misconduct Policy does not have a statute of limitations.

Doe also claims that his sentencing was part of a pattern of discrimination against male students. Ultimately, however, the BOR concluded that Doe’s allegations of bias were unfounded. The BOR also noted that Doe was often unresponsive and failed to meet deadlines for statements and meeting arrangements.

Recent skepticism from the student body about the Office of Student Integrity’s (OSI) investigation process has brought to light the case of “John Doe B,” a student who was recently expelled. Doe was found responsible for non-consensual sexual contact, two counts of non-consensual sexual intercourse and two counts of coercion; these charges refer to two separate incidents with two separate female students: “Jane Roe” and “Jane Poe.”

Doe appealed for a preliminary injunction and a trial by jury on Nov. 23, 2015, but his request was denied by the Atlanta Division of the U.S. District Court on December 16, 2015. Although the judge determined that Doe did not meet the high threshold of irreparable harm needed for an preliminary injunction, he expressed concern regarding the investigation, stating “Mr Paquette’s testimony … about the course of the investigation and the manner in which he made certain investigatory decision was very far from an ideal representation of due process.” Doe’s sentence has been upheld, and litigation is ongoing.

Doe was a member of the Chi Phi Fraternity. On Oct. 10, 2013, Doe and Roe attended a party at the fraternity together. Roe claims that Doe repeatedly poured her wine, despite her insisting that she had enough, while Doe claims in his statement that Roe “poured herself a great deal of wine.”

Afterwards, the two went upstairs to Doe’s room, where Roe claims that Doe made sexual advances on her without her consent. Doe, however, denies that any sexual contact occurred. Roe then began vomiting and left the party with a friend.

Another student, Poe, also claims to have been assaulted by Doe. According to her statement, Poe had been drinking alcohol and had used a narcotic and consented to have sexual intercourse with Doe but soon declined to continue. However, she claims, Doe continued, and she ran out of the room. Doe initially insisted that no sexual contact had occurred but later changed his statement, agreeing that he and Poe had sexual intercourse but claiming that the act stopped when she wanted it to stop.

Approximately four months after the incident, Poe began to believe that Doe had sexually assaulted her. On Feb. 17, 2015, over year after her realization, Roe filed a complaint with OSI.

Peter Paquette, the assistant dean of students and the director of OSI, contacted Doe and informed him of the charges against him on Feb. 27, 2015. Paquette began collecting statements from Doe and Roe, and, after a few weeks of investigation, learned about Poe’s claim and obtained her statement as well.

On April 3, 2015, Paquette held a final interview with Doe. “After this interview, I made the finding that it was more likely than not that [Doe] engaged in non-consensual sexual intercourse with both [Roe] and [Poe]; that he engaged in non-consensual sexual contact with [Roe]; and that he had isolated both women as a coercive act,” Paquette said in a written statement.

Doe appealed his case to the Sexual Misconduct Appeals Committee, to President Peterson, and to the Georgia Board of Regents (BOR). All three bodies affirmed the verdict of expulsion, but the BOR reversed all charges related to Poe, citing insufficient evidence to support the charges. Doe’s appeal for a preliminary injunction was based on his belief that his trial was unfair and that Paquette had been biased against his case.

“Mr. Paquette … conducted an investigation that made a mockery of the due process of a state school,” said Chris Giovinazzo, Doe’s attorney.

Paquette did not reveal any witnesses’ names, transcripts of their statements or the questions they were asked until 30 minutes before Doe’s final interview. He also did not interview five of the six witnesses Doe provided. One of these witnesses was the sole witness who saw Roe immediately after the incident on Oct. 10, 2013. Doe also noted that, despite Tech’s Code of Conduct requiring that complaints be made within 30 days after the discovery of the incident, “[Roe] was allowed to make her complaint more than 16 months later.” Tech’s Sexual Misconduct Policy does not have a statute of limitations.

Doe also claims that his sentencing was part of a pattern of discrimination against male students. Ultimately, however, the BOR concluded that Doe’s allegations of bias were unfounded. The BOR also noted that Doe was often unresponsive and failed to meet deadlines for statements and meeting arrangements.

Pushing the envelope has always been, and will always be, a key part of what any Tech student strives to do. When any of us hears the word “challenge,” a primal sense immediately awakens within us. The zeal of youth, accompanied by brazen optimism and an unbridled imagination, whispers to us constantly, repeating the same thing: “You’re at Georgia Tech. You can do that.”

It’s no secret that the ultimate challenge to any Tech student, apart from that elusive 4.0, is stealing the T from Tech Tower. Hence, though the theft on the morning of March 18, 2014 may have stepped on some administrative toes, at its heart, the act was one of courageous ingenuity.

Currently, the perpetrator is awaiting trial by the Office of Student Integrity and may be tried by the Undergraduate Judiciary Cabinet (UJC), which recommended suspension the last time students attempted to steal the T.

Is suspension really the best choice here?

Saying that stealing the T is a tradition may seem awkward, but it is completely fitting. After the “Magnificent Seven” first stole the five-foot-tall T in 1969, groups of students have attempted the theft many times, to varying degrees of success. The act remains a shining part of Tech culture. John Patrick Crecine, the President of Georgia Tech from 1987 to 1994, praised the tradition, saying “I think stealing the ‘T’ off the Tech Tower is among the all time greatest rituals.”

Comments on Tech’s official Twitter page and on the Reddit discussion about the theft illustrate unified alumni and student support of the perpetrator. Several alumni praised him for his ingenuity; one student commenter lamented that “this tradition is so frowned upon by the administration now.”

Indeed, since the last successful theft in 1999, the Institute has cracked down, making stealing the T punishable by expulsion. According to former Institute President Gerald Wayne Clough, this policy was made, in part, due to the “incredibly expensive liability litigation” Tech could have to face after a possible accident.

Sure, this policy is great at protecting against the potential of dangerous falls and the possibility of injury to other students or to campus fixtures, but let’s just remember one thing: nobody has been hurt here, and the T has been safely recovered. Moreover, the crime is completely victimless. Comparing a 50-year-old campus prank to robbing a bank is a ridiculous extrapolation; at worst, our campus will be subjected to a few chuckles while students walk by the newly-christened “Ech Tower.”

The perpetrator had to bypass pressure-sensitive roof tiles, fibre optic cables that made him easy to spot and work quickly enough to avoid triggering an alarm system. His work suggests technical finesse, not reckless endangerment.

The perpetrator shouldn’t be exonerated completely; that would be far too idealistic to expect, and it might even encourage petty vandalism. Suspension, however, is an extreme solution that is only worthy of a far more serious offense.

Instead, the UJC should recommend less damaging punishments such as community service. The administration should hold a comprehensive hearing with the perpetrator to determine how he stole the T to help them prevent future thefts. Finally, in accordance with tradition, the T should be returned at the next homecoming game.

Ultimately, the perpetrator’s intentions boil down to just that: tradition. Stealing the T isn’t a simple, petty crime; it’s a tradition. It’s a challenge posed to all Ramblin’ Wrecks as soon as they step onto our wonderful, crazy, sleepless campus, and at least in my experience, completing a challenge isn’t followed by suspension.

On Friday, January 24, comedian, author and columnist Steve Hoffstetter visited Tech to host a Q&A session entitled “Comedy Without Apology.” For an hour, Hoffstetter spoke to about 30 students in the Clough Undergraduate Learning Center (CULC) and answered questions about the nature of comedy, life as a stand-up comic and writing jokes. The event was publicized through stands outside the CULC, posters in several locations and Facebook.

Born in Queens, Hoffstetter graduated from Columbia University in 2002, after which he pursued a career in journalism. Hoffstetter wrote for several well-known publications, including Sports Illustrated, Maxim and The New York Times.

Hoffstetter eventually left journalism because he was disappointed with unethical aspects of the career.

“I found it frustrating when I was edited for voice and not for content,” he said. “Your writers should be able to use their own voice… A lot of journalists don’t remember that their number-one job is information.”

Hoffstetter explained that he began pursuing stand-up comedy seriously six months after he tried it for the first time, mentioning that it enables someone to communicate complex and significant ideas through humor.

Hoffstetter explained that his on-stage persona was a more confident version of himself, and that since he enjoys debating in real life, he tries to carry this onto the stage.

“I didn’t really have a message when I started… it took me time to figure out what’s funny, but also what I want to say.”

Hoffstetter’s comedy is often blunt and about taboo topics, and many people have found his jokes offensive.

“I don’t say anything on stage that I don’t mean,” Hoffstetter said, in response to a student question about the importance of openness on stage.

He also explained that honesty is important even for comedians who have distinct characters on stage, like Stephen Colbert and Louis C.K. Hoffstetter explained that the character still has to be true to what he is saying.

Hoffstetter’s comedy analyzes aspects of American politics and society. The comic described his perfect audience member: someone who is willing to question his own belief system in light of new ideas. Hoffstetter himself claims that his views were probably influenced by other comics, and that he tries to have messages in his comedy.

“I write for the audience I want, not the audience I have… I want to be able to reach people, but I would never pander,” Hoffstetter said.

Hoffstetter explained that his writing process involves writing to the “top of the room,” or not dumbing down jokes purely for the sake of popularity.

Hoffstetter also addressed his comedic influences, saying that though he admires many comedians, specifically Bill Hicks, he does not try to emulate a specific comic.

“There’s no comic I want to be, because you can never be truly successful until all your heroes are dead,” Hoffstetter quipped. “If you elevate anyone to hero status, you can never eclipse them.”

Hoffstetter mentioned that this advice carries over into several different fields.

“This is some of the best comedy advice I’ve ever received, but it applies to almost anything, really,” he said.

Hoffstetter also encouraged students to have more insightful perspectives on real, important issues, saying that it’s good to strive to be right all the time, and that people should listen to diverse opinions.

Hoffstetter’s Q&A was a good break from the norm. While seminars about new technologies and scientific methods are interesting, having a discussion about a unique topic like comedy is refreshing, especially at Tech.

“College students actually doing what they’re interested in, huh,” joked Hoffstetter.

“Comedy Without Apology” was definitely a forward step for Tech, encouraging students to finally break out of their engineering mindsets and pursue their individual interests.

I’ve always wondered why almost every culture in the world, seemingly independently, came up with the idea of dragons. There are no other mythical animals that so many humans imagined independently and took to with such vigor.

Personally, I know with absolute certainty that I would never have come up with the idea of a dragon. A dragon looks like a fairly random combination of animals that aren’t even seen hanging out together, much less reproducing. A dragon looks like a bat-lizard. Or a crocodile-moth. Or a T-Rex-eagle.

Think about it. Basically, the entire human race fantasized about creepy T-rex-eagle fusion. First of all, we accepted this as completely plausible. We then came up with a “logical” conclusion, and we wrote books about dragons, why they are so powerful and why we should fear them. There are people that read these books and take them literally. Isn’t that ridiculous?

I’m not really that afraid of dragons. First of all, they don’t seem to pop up much in everyday life—at least not mine. If I had a nickel for every time I’ve thought “Man, I’m glad I didn’t run into any dragons today,” I would need to rely heavily on an alternate source of income.

Moreover, I’ve always thought that dragons might be unfairly represented in the media. They are vilified, portrayed as murderous, lecherous creatures with a hunger for gold which really makes no sense. Since we’re not mercantilists, I doubt that kind of payment would be readily accepted by an Applebee’s cashier. It’s not like dragons can carry paper money, which is extremely flammable. Overall, the whole anti-dragon sentiment seems quite excessive, especially since they don’t even exist.

Then again, the possibility stands out to me: Maybe dragons really do exist. Perhaps all of those people were right, and their faith isn’t horribly and illogically placed. I think, when I was younger, I entertained the possibility of dragons, and the world did seem like a better place. I was comforted by the concept of an incredibly powerful being that, for whatever reason, didn’t kill its human inferiors. I believed that dragons had decided to leave us alone and were just content to watch us go about our business. They were benevolent and kind, and if you looked at them the right way, they were even beautiful.

But as I grew older, I think scientific understanding started to take hold, and my fantasies of dragons dissolved into reality.

I now know that dragons most probably don’t exist. There’s no way, biologically, physically or even metaphysically, that dragons could be real. They’re just a whisper that thousands of people happened to breathe at the same time. Maybe, if they are real, dragons wonder what we think about them. Maybe they’re laughing at the concept of us “believing” in them.

One thing’s for sure: If they’re watching, they certainly don’t believe in us.

“You guys are so cynical.”

It was her go-to line whenever one of us claimed that we couldn’t relate to symbolism in literature or whenever we laughed at the words “English Degree.” And that was fine. It was a game, I thought, pretending to have the bleak outlook of Cormac McCarthy while being a 17 year-old with few experiences outside of SAT prep.

Yes, it was perfectly fine. My AP Lit teacher was playing the game too, I thought. She was obviously in on it. There was no way she actually believed that we were cynical, and there was no way I actually was cynical.

Eventually, I graduated high school. People stopped treating me as a kid, and instead adopted that gilded, condescending tone afforded only to the youngest of young adults. My friends enjoyed the same respect, and we were reminded by pedantic professors and “informative” flyers that we were “now adults.”

We all looked at each other and realized it at the same time. The words of our prophet, as it were, were written on the college walls.

We were so cynical.

What’s worse was, we weren’t actually cynical because of horrible life experiences or legitimately insightful thoughts about the world. No, we instead joined our generation in the superficial cynicism inspired by Temple Run 2, Cocoa Puffs and TMZ.

As children of the Information Age, we were raised at an interesting time. At the century’s turn was a world of possibility, one where six year-olds were told that they could become anybody as long as they tried to be, well, somebody.

But as knowledge filled the gaps that imagination created for us, our generation realized that practicality was the most brutal part of growing up. We had to settle with the goal of avoiding becoming, well, nobody. Claiming to be “the best” was negated by the introduction of someone younger and more intelligent.

Yes, there are visionaries that rise above the rest, but again, practicality brings us back down. For every Elon Musk, there are two million underachieving software engineers.

The truth is, our pessimism is nothing concrete. It’s just the result of being promised the Earth and finding that we’re only entitled to a few castles each.

Unfortunately, the cynicism of our generation is uncomfortably real, and it’s unlikely that a change in this social trend will happen soon.

Forty years ago, Bernstein and Woodward were lauded for their efforts, and today, Snowden has been branded an enemy of the state.

Forty years ago, our heroes were the morally perfect Superman and Spiderman, and today, Tony Soprano and Walter White dominate the media.

Forty years ago, our presidents talked about the enduring value of the American Dream, and today, all that they can hope to promise is change.

Mistrust of authority and a general dissatisfaction with the workings of the world aren’t ideas that just presented themselves to us once we turned 18. Rather, we have been taught to be dissatisfied and encouraged to want more than we can have.

I’m not advocating apathy, and I’m certainly not defending cynicism itself. However, whether it’s truly reasonable or not, the cynicism that plagues us rests not with us, but with the low-culture, high-information world that we call home.

Students gathered on the night of Wednesday, March 13 at the Robert Ferst Center for the Arts to watch the InVenture Prize competition’s live telecast of the final round. Over 200 teams competed in the challenge, but just six made it to the finals.

The InVenture Prize, a faculty-sponsored competition for undergrad students at Tech, has offered its participants an opportunity to exhibit their entrepreneurial and engineering skills since 2009. The competition consists of student teams that work to create marketable products and present them in a series of rounds.

Each year, the first- and second-place prize winners are awarded $20,000 and $10,000, respectively. The winners of the People’s Choice Award win $5,000. The top two winners are also invited to join Flashpoint, a Tech program that accelerates student start-up programs.

One of the top six inventions presented this year was created by Team Spark, which created a credit card-sized cell phone charger. Team iSleep created a car seat-shaped platform that simulates a rolling motion to soothe a baby. Team AnemoCheck invented a cheap, disposable, easy-to-use test for anemia.

Team Chewbots created a line of robotic dog toys. Team BioPIN conceived and produced cell phone software using a machine learning algorithm to authenticate identity with factors like keypad speed and pressure when entering in personal information. Finally, Team Hue created a toaster with chromatic sensors that enable the user to never burn toast.

Each team came to the stage for about fifteen minutes to present their products. The presentations were followed by a brief Q&A session with a panel of judges with entrepreneurial experience. The judging based their evaluations on factors that included technical impressiveness and economic feasibility.

Ultimately, Chewbots beat out the other inventions to win the grand prize of $20,000 and a chance to join Flashpoint.

Christopher Taylor, the inventor of the robotic dog toys, explained the importance of the InVenture Prize to him. “The InVenture prize is the opportunity for me to take my idea and turn it into a real product that helps make happier dogs and happier owners,” Taylor said.

Taylor, an ME from Stone Mountain, GA, designed, created and implemented three different kinds of robots which are specifically made to stimulate dogs. The robots, which will soon be fully autonomous, were popular with test subjects.

In second place came Erika Tyburski, the innovator behind AnemoCheck. Tyburski, a BME from Miami, explained why the project was important to her on a personal level.

“I’ve been working on this project throughout my undergraduate career,” Tyburski said. “It’s really convenient…and it provides a solution for a problem that thousands of Americans face.”

Tyburski’s anemia test only requires a simple finger prick, similar to a diabetic insulin test. Tyburski’s solution provides a cheap and sustainable way to address a medical problem that a large number of Americans may struggle with.

For her efforts, Tyburski also received $10,000 and will be attending Flashpoint.

Team BioPIN, consisting of CS major Steven Wojcio and EE major Scott Groveman, introduced a solution to a serious problem faced in downtown Atlanta. They won the People’s Choice award, worth $5000, for their efforts.

“Atlanta reports the highest rates of cell phone theft in the U.S.,” said Wojcio in his presentation.

Together, Wojcio and Groveman developed a program compatible with most smartphones that “remembers” someone who enters in their PIN on the phone. The program tracks parameters such as finger temperature and typing speed in order to develop a profile for each phone user. The BioPIN program can be customized to accommodate several users.