This last weekend saw the release of one of the best movies of 2019, if not the singular best. Pick any appealing movie quality — humor, entertainment, thrills, frights, emotions or meaning — and it is probably present in “Parasite.” Americans might scoff at this suggestion, as many of them may not even be aware of the film’s existence, let alone its subject.

“Parasite” is a genre-bending movie about class dynamics, told through the entanglement of families of opposite social statuses. Equally funny, insightful and thrilling, the script cleverly surprises at every turn. Actors charm and humor, but never once drift beyond reality. Most vitally, though, the deft filmmaking on display is a masterclass work from the auteur Bong Joon-ho.

Yes, “Parasite” like its filmmaker comes from South Korea. Still, American viewers should not allow the foreign language and subtitles dissuade attendance to one of 2019’s few must-see feature films.

For Americans unfamiliar with his work, Bong is a 50-year-old South Korean writer-director. He first made his name with the 2003 crime story “Memories of Murder” and the 2006 monster movie “The Host,” both of which were produced in his country of origin. 

More recently, Bong stepped into the more robustly budgeted American industry, making “Snowpiercer” and “Okja.” His works often use fantasy or sci-fi elements to tackle very human themes, eliciting almost universal acclaim from critics. With “Parasite,” Bong returns to his home to explore some of the same concepts that have always fascinated him: social status and family.

Before delving any further into his newest release, it is pertinent to express just how powerful this movie can be for viewers who go in blind. The film defies genre and narrative conventions so much and so well that the experience is best had on the edge of one’s seat without any prior knowledge of what may transpire. In fact, the only audiences who may not respond well are those who are squeamish or uncomfortable with violence.

Co-written by Bong and Han Jin-won, “Parasite” details the employment of the impoverished Kim family by their affluent counterparts — the Parks. After coming into a position as a tutor, Kim Ki-woo(Choi Woo-sik of “Okja”) begins deceiving and tricking the Parks into hiring the rest of his family — played by Park So-dam, Jang Hye-jin and Song Kang-ho — a popular Bong mainstay from “The Host,” among others.

From even the earliest moments, viewers can sense that they are in the hands of greatness. The cinematography dazzles — thanks to the efforts of director of photography Hong Kyung-pyo (“Snowpiercer,” “Burning”) — the dialogue quips and the edits generate rhythm and charm. At its best moments, Bong’s presentation of the Kim’s con-job feels akin to an “Ocean’s Eleven” heist.

While the Parks receive less attention and development than the protagonistic family, “Parasite” proves smart enough not to frame them as villains. Actors Jo Yeo-jeong and Lee Sun-kyun respectively present Mrs. and Mr. Park as naive figures, each projecting the aura and attitudes that accompany their elevated social status.

Up through the film’s initial setup, the “Parasite” experience is immersive and enthralling. Even as Bong puts on a showcase of craft, no techniques or maneuvers jolt audiences out of the movie’s impeccable rhythm and flow; in other words, no element reminds viewers that they are indeed watching a movie. The quality of production is high, but not egregiously flashy.

From this total absorption into the lives and world of the movie, the ensuing sequence of twists and reveals transfix eyes on the screen, dragging audiences along on a thread of Bong’s making. As the narrative quickly descends into chaos and elevates tension, watchers will slouch forward with bated breath as their understanding of the movie drastically changes.

While the filmmaking is unparalleled, the most remarkable feat of “Parasite” is that it somehow sticks the landing. Explanations prove plausible, and conclusions draw throughlines across the two-hour runtime with subtlety. Moreover, meanings and allegories prove effective and powerful, as the specificities of the resolution are simultaneously real and resonant.

Through a stroke of brilliance, no element or quality holds “Parasite” back. Actors put forward real and nuanced performances, without even a scent of the overdramatic. Cinematography, editing and production designs shine and delight with elegance and fluidity. The script is sharp, but subtle. Although thousands of cast and crew deserve credit for the work, Bong’s uniform, impeccable vision draws the collaborative effort into a perfect unison.

Like few others, the genre-defying feature proves the rare film that propels the art form forward, dazzling audiences and critics alike with humor, emotional resonance, visceral thrills and powerful meanings. Audiences should put aside their foreign-language apprehensions and dive into the sensational work of “Parasite,” delivered from one of the world’s best working filmmakers — Bong Joon-ho.

On Oct. 28, Netflix released “Little Miss Sumo,” a documentary short from British filmmaker Matthew Kay. The 20 minute film, which was first released in Britain last year, follows Hiyori Kon, a female Japanese sumo wrestler as she strives to become the world’s top female competitor in the traditional Japanese sport.

While following Hiyori in this pursuit, the film highlights the obstacles that female sumo wrestlers face in pursuing their dreams in Japan. Female wrestlers are banned from the sport at the professional level there, so the prime age for female sumo wrestlers is considered 20 years old — the oldest at which wrestlers can compete as amateurs domestically.

The film introduces this issue with simple exposition. Kon speaks about how society’s perception of her as a female sumo wrestler has changed as she matured from primary school, to a young adult and beyond. Hiyori explains that Japanese society expects women to be quiet, domestic and submissive — in Hiyori’s own words, the ideal Japanese woman is “invisible.”

This expository phase is the weakest part of the film. While it serves as a decent introduction to the topic, it does not show any creativity or craft on the part of the filmmaker. 

Where the film gets interesting is when Hiyori travels to compete in the international sumo wresting championship. Kay uses the competition as an extended metaphor for the struggle of female wrestlers attempting to break into the world of professional sumo wrestling.

While the competition does not directly pit female wrestlers against males, Kay calls the viewer’s attention to the dearth of Japanese women in the field of globally prominent sumo wrestlers. This under-representation of Japanese wrestlers in the highest women’s tournament in a sport invented in and culturally universal in Japan emphasizes the magnitude of the barriers women face when trying to stay in the sport past their adolescent years. 

The strength of this narrative technique is in its subtlety. Rather than telling the viewer that women from Ukraine, Russia and the U.S. dominate the female sumo wrestling world on the international level because they see drastically better investment and interest in the women’s sport, Kay leads the viewer to discover this for himself. Kay thus reveals his thesis while at the same time supporting it with actual evidence. Most importantly of all, this makes for a much more interesting film than the simple exposition which dominates at the beginning of “Little Miss Sumo.”

American audiences may find the film a bit unsophisticated, as the way women’s sports are discussed in the film can feel regressive and outdated. Ultimately, though, this serves as a reminder of just how far behind  the U.S. many countries are on  the issue of gender inclusivity in sports.

Matthew Kay does not redefine the documentary art form in the 20 minute runtime of “Little Miss Sumo.” Still, the film is undeniably interesting in substance and style, and at only 20 minutes long, it is certainly worth a watch.

It seems that nearly every week, #TheDiscourse is under attack. Last week, it was pushback on criticism dedicated to Ellen Degeneres sitting at a football game next to war-criminal-at-large George Bush. Degeneres, herself worth $450 million and a beneficiary of regressive tax cuts from Bush’s presidency while insulated from the untold horrors in the Middle East as a result of Bush’s foreign policy, used her ample public platform to defend her actions, saying, “I’m friends with George Bush. In fact, I’m friends with a lot of people who don’t share the same beliefs that I have.” Degeneres followed up by slamming Twitter users criticizing her enjoyment of the company of Bush, claiming that we should “be kind to everyone”. 

This week? #TheDiscourse defenders are up in arms over the president being booed at a baseball game. Donald Trump was in attendance at Game 5 of the World Series, and when he was shown on the big-screen at the park, he was subjected to boos and chants of “Lock him up,” a reference to Trump’s promise to lock up his political opponents following his election. Even the harmless act of making uncomfortable the man behind the creation of internment camps on the country’s borders was too much for MSNBC commentator Joe Scarborough, who took to Twitter to compare the chants from the ballgame to Trump’s own campaign rhetoric: “let’s see if I’ve got this straight: When crowds chant ‘Lock her up’ toward Hillary, it is illiberal and anti-American (I agree). But when crowds chant the same toward Trump, it is suddenly a fulsome exercise of sacred First Amendment rights. What hypocritical clowns.”

You would be hard pressed to determine what other principles Scarborough and other beltway slime have genuinely stood for in their careers as talking heads, but the one ideal that they have so consistently upheld and defended is #TheDiscourse, a notion that public political discussion requires some degree of mutual respect for ideas and parties, and should avoid devolving into undignified language. What undignified language is that? That is for punditry to decide.

#TheDiscourse defenders have made a career of pitching themselves as practitioners of “elite” discourse, capable of conversing about politics at an academic level. The pitch creates an implicit comparison between their craft and popular discourse — the rhetoric that these same pundits so widely decried from the populist campaigns of Trump and Bernie Sanders. Essentially, those who argue for the necessity of political discourse do so because it reinforces their position as a member of the elite class, not consigned to the “rabble” of popular discourse. When Scarborough bemoans booing at a baseball game, he is casting down the populace and elevating himself.

Those who strive so ardently to uphold #TheDiscourse are themselves enforcing a class system of rhetoric that favors the privileged, one that allows them to rise to prominence and prosperity. There is a reason Scarborough serves as a political commentator and host on MSNBC — there is some misguided belief that because Scarborough gets paid money to wear a suit and sit in front of a television camera, his opinion carries more weight than a working class individual. Rejecting “popular” rhetoric as a form of political discourse reinforces the idea that decision making belongs to the elite class and is inherently undemocratic.

If anything, popular rhetoric is all the more relevant today than it has ever been. There is no polite way to express the appropriate amount of outrage of the indignity of human beings being locked in cages like animals — yet, such outrage would be quieted by Scarborough and his fellow ivory tower residents for failing to observe some modicum of respect towards the president, as though he is deserved the respect he so callously denies to the migrant families he detains at our nation’s border.

Popular discourse is not only valid, it is necessary in a political environment where the voices of the oppressed are silenced and physically removed from the conversation. Those who seek to police appropriate discourse are cowards attempting to insulate themselves from challenges to their power and argue for their own necessity in a world that has little need of them. So if the #TheDiscourse is to die, then may it die denied the dignity it so strongly denied to the voice of the people. Long live #TheDiscourse!

After a well-deserved rest following an overtime road victory against Miami in their most recent game, Tech football will suit up for their homecoming game against the Pittsburgh Panthers this Saturday. The Jackets look fired up coming off their first ACC win of the season, while the Panthers are reeling after a 16-12 loss to the Hurricanes in which they failed to score a touchdown. Here are the story lines to keep an eye on entering Saturday.

Mason gets top marks

It is time to show appreciation for Jordan Mason. The sophomore running back received only a small portion of Tech’s ample carries last season under the triple option, but now that Mason is not competing with his quarterback for the bulk of Tech’s run yardage, he has emerged as the Jackets’ prime offensive weapon. Following his 141-yard performance against Miami, including the game winning touchdown run in overtime, Mason was named the top-graded college RB in the nation by Pro Football Focus, an analytics site that grades college and professional football players. Mason is averaging an impressive 6.0 yards per carry across 95 attempts and has 609 yards from scrimmage on the season, nearly double that of the next-best Tech player (Tobias Oliver, 309 yards). Mason scorched an impressively stout Miami run defense during Tech’s last game, and he will be challenged again by a Pittsburgh unit averaging just 2.6 yards per carry allowed. If Mason can keep busting open rush defenses the way he did against the Hurricanes, the sky is the limit for the Jacket’s best running back. 

Familiar Foes

Both Tech and Pitt are coming off of games against Miami — whereas the Jackets stunned the Hurricanes in overtime, it was Pitt who was shocked, losing 16-12 to Miami at home. Despite out-gaining Miami 309-208, the Panthers were held to just four field goals, never once finding the end-zone, and Pittsburgh’s three turnovers helped the Panthers little. Pitt was 5-2 and 2-1 in ACC play entering the game, but Miami found their footing defensively after an impressively awful showing against the Jackets the week prior.

Playoffs?

Although both teams are currently stuck in the bottom half of the ACC Coastal, the crowded field for the divisional title means that an ACC Championship berth is in play for both Pitt and the Jackets. For Tech to capture the spot, the Jackets must win out, Duke must lose an additional ACC game, and UNC must lose two additional ACC games in order for the Jackets to clinch the Coastal — an unlikely path, but still technically feasible. Pitt’s path to Charlotte has the Panthers winning out with UVA picking up an additional loss along the way — should UVA win out, they will have the same number of wins as a Pitt team that wins out, but will hold the head-to-head tiebreaker by virtue of their season-opening 30-14 Panthers victory. A loss for either team will effectively end the already slim ACC Championship hopes for either team, as all of the teams ahead of them have just two losses.

Halloween Hijinks

While Tech will mostly be celebrating homecoming for Saturday’s game, they will also be getting in the Halloween spirit. Collins handed out candy to reporters before his weekly press-conference and James Graham is even getting in the spirit on the stat sheet — the  QB had recorded exactly 666 passing yards on the season entering Saturday’s game. Spooky! 

In the past few years — spurred on, perhaps, by the election of Donald Trump — some progressives have initiated a conversation about how to most effectively advance their agenda without alienating moderates. At the very least, it has become popular to talk about softening progressive language to avoid shutting down political discussions. More and more liberals advocate for avoiding labels and attempting to sympathize with moderate and even conservative voters. 

Debates over who is the most electable Democratic primary candidate have often centered on which presidential hopeful can most effectively appeal to the moderate, working class white voters that carried Donald Trump to victory in 2016. It is certainly difficult to imagine any of the Democratic candidates for the 2020 election labelling Trump’s base a “basket of deplorables.”

Still, the measures which liberals are discussing are largely aimed at political ends, rather than at achieving practical progress. The narrative around avoiding labels and sympathizing with moderates is that it will help progressives with the immediate political goal of defeating Donald Trump in 2020, and, to a lesser extent, wresting control of the Senate from the Republican party. 

Framing the discussion around political name-calling and shaming distracts from the actual effects that changing our discourse might have. Avoiding name-calling and alienating those that disagree with us has the power to encourage change in a variety of areas, but perhaps the most obvious example is the issue of race. 

There are few words more powerful in American politics than “racist.” It is a label that can torpedo entire careers, political or otherwise, exile individuals from the mainstream both online and in real life, and end any debate or discussion instantly. 

In addition to ending political conversations, calling an individual a “racist” can change the way that we view the person. After all, that racism is evil is a nearly universal principle in progressive politics, so those who perpetuate racism must themselves be evil, right? Thus, using the word “racist” makes others less likely to want to work with us, and us less likely to want to work with others.

Because of the term’s unique power to end conversations, many progressives have advocated for avoiding the term “racist” or “racism” when having discussions about race. While this approach is better than throwing the term around anytime you find someone’s opinions on race problematic or uninformed, it fails to alleviate the effect that applying the label to an individual has on our perception of that individual. Even if I do not call my political opponent a racist out loud, when I think it to myself I change my opinion of that person, thus making me less likely to sympathize with and work with that individual. 

Clearly, then, simply treating the word “racist” as a political obscenity, to be avoided in polite company, is not enough. Rather, we need a full redefinition of what the term means and how it can
be used. 

Ibram X. Kendi, a prominent author on the history of race in America, argues that we attach too much emotion to the word “racist.” Kendi believes that every action, policy and institution is either racist or antiracist, and that in every moment a person is either a racist or antiracist. He argues that over time — or even moment to moment — people can change between being racist and antiracist. 

In his view, it is perfectly normal and okay to have moments of racism, and we should continue to label people as racist in the moments in which they are, but that we should attach less sentimentality to the term. The term “racist” should not be an inescapable definition of a person’s character, as it is generally used today.

I would go further than this. If a person can be racist in one moment and not in the next, then why apply the term to the person in the first place? Perhaps only actions, ideas and — possibly — institutions, not individuals, can
be racist.

We use “racist” as a term of ideology. Someone is racist in the same way that he is Christian or Jewish, progressive or conservative, intelligent or unintelligent. The way that we use the label, the state of being racist is, if not permanent, long-term. If we could deliberately both use and interpret the label in the way that Kendi suggests it would be great, but the reality is that society does not see it that way.  If “racist” is taken to be a permanent state of being, then it is inaccurate to apply it to individuals. People are not anything permanently. I am not arguing that we should excuse racist ideas or actions. Rather, we must acknowledge that humans are inconsistent, irrational and temperamental. Simply having a racist idea once does not make someone a racist. Believing racist ideas for one’s entire life does not make him a racist. People change, and we should use language that acknowledges this, especially if that language can also bolster political discourse and facilitate progressive change. 

The word “racist” is a powerful weapon, and its use has profound consequences for the way that we think about whatever we apply it to, and the way others think about us. While dropping the word from the political lexicon entirely just ignores the issue, redefining the way in which it can accurately be used can bring us and those we disagree with closer together. Ultimately, it may even make a difference. 

In about a year, American citizens will again decide who holds the privilege of leading our country for the next four years.

I was a freshman when we elected Donald Trump president. I remember how it felt to walk up freshman hill, passing chalked campaign messages since rendered irrelevant. I remember the utter feeling of disbelief on campus. Like many other college campuses and metropolitan areas, Atlanta is strongly democratic, and we had been firmly reminded of what it is like to live in a bubble.

2016 was also the year that social media became more influential than ever in determining the results and knowledge about the election. Echo chambers aren’t something new; we largely surround ourselves with people we agree with, who share similar values and who are passionate about the same things.

But social media certainly exacerbated this. Algorithms on social media platforms are designed to show you what you want to see, because this will keep you online for longer and drive up advertizing revenue. I remember the confusion of that freshman year, as we realized that our social media feeds were not reflective of the entire country. It is something that we should have realized earlier.

According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center this July, 54% of Americans get their news from social media sites “sometimes” or “often.” This is despite contradictory data that questions on the same survey indicate 62% of people think that social media companies have too much control over the news that they see and around half view one-sided news and incorrect news on social media as a “very big problem.”

I will be the first to admit that news sources, in their current print and broadcast television forms, will not survive the next decade or two (forgive me, Technique staff). 

However, I do think that the new medium has not yet settled into its final form. For now, all we have is a bizarre juxtaposition of opinion-driven snippets of news on social media against news platforms that are largely stuck in the past.

That said, there are ways to break the echo chambers we so often find ourselves in, and Tech is the perfect place to do so. There are plenty of political organizations on campus that are intended to expose students to new ideas. These students have a lot in common with you: they are young, intelligent and level-headed. Sit quietly and listen to what they have to say.

There are some things you can do online to broaden the viewpoints you are exposed to. Follow one or two people whose opinions you can understand and respect, if not fully get on board with. Subscribe to a newsletter like the Skimm or Morning Brew, which assemble important national and international news from a diversity of sources.

In the next year, there is plenty of time to read, to like and retweet, to share articles and have respectful debates. There is plenty of time to break the bubble and shatter the echo chamber.

For many students, this November will serve as the first chance to participate in politics. For others, this election cycle serves as a continuation of their active work in politics. 

In order to better understand how students can contribute to the political realm, the Technique chatted with students with experience working in the political field.  

Rupkatha Banerjee, a second-year MATH and ECON student, currently works as an intern with the Georgia chapter of the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU).

“I wanted political experience and I wanted to be with a prominent legal and political organization that was protecting people’s constitutional rights,” Banerjee said about her choice of work.  

Banerjee also discussed her how her experience has helped further her future dream of conducting research that can affect policy. 

“I knew I would be able to make a lot of good connections and meet people [at the ACLU] who would help me figure out a path if I did choose to go that way,” Banerjee explained. 

“My primary role is demographic and policy research so I’m getting a scope for where I fit into the political scene.” 

A fourth-year MGT student also spoke with the Technique about her experience in politics, which involved interning for S.C. Senator Lindsey Graham in the summer of 2017.  

“At the time I was interested in politics and didn’t know what I wanted to do. I still don’t, but I had heard of people
working there.

“I thought it would look good on my resumé and I think it has because people always ask about it,” the student explained.

The aforementioned student explained how much of the political process still remains unclear to her, as she mostly worked in the constituent services office answering phones.

In contrast, Banerjee spoke about the insight she has gained from her experience — insight which taught her that about the amount of work that precedes the ballots voters see. 

“There’s a lot of small things that go into building a campaign that I never realized,” Banerjee said. “When we look at politics, we think of the bigger picture but there’s a lot of small elements that go into politics.” 

“We had to research core districts that the ACLU wants to target, make profiles of candidates, and stuff like that. 

“All those small nitty gritty details help them decide which candidate they want to endorse and where they want to target in terms of demographics of who will accept their policies.”

The fourth year business student elaborated on her experience at Senator Graham’s office, explaining her surprise to find out that the calls from constituents with an opinion rather than a specific need oftentimes lead to
no resolution.

“Whenever people say, ‘Here’s your senator’s phone number, you can call’ — do not,” said the student.

“You can call if you want but I was the one answering those calls and they don’t go anywhere … It just made me realize how important voting is.”

Banerjee expressed a similar view on the importance of voting, especially stressing the significance of doing so in the more local levels of city and state elections.

“I wasn’t politically involved on a state level until I started interning — I didn’t think it was that big of a deal, but it definitely is.

“Federal politics is more like political theater. You kind of watch it happen from afar and obviously your vote matters, but I feel like it’s a lot more important to be educated in what’s going on at the local level because it has a more immediate effect on your life,” Banerjee explained.  

As many students struggle to manage their already hectic schedules, interning for political campaigns may not be feasible. Nevertheless, staying informed on government policies, both on the national stage and local level, can help students take a more active role in the political realm and important issues.

Such action enables the informed citizen to then help shape the future of policy in the places they call home.   

Tech students are often involved in politics through active and vocal student groups. In April, the Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA) and Hillel chapters of Tech clashed in an incident that has put free speech and discrimination concerns center stage. 

On April 1, 2019, YDSA held a “Teach-in: Palestine 101” event that hosted speakers from Jewish Voice for Peace and Joining Hands for Justice in Palestine and Israel. The event was part of YDSA’s “Israeli Apartheid Week”, an international effort “to raise awareness about Israel’s apartheid regime over the Palestinian people and build support for the growing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement,” according toapartheidweek.org.

The teach-in aligned with the Palestinian side of the sensitive and decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Hillel at GT, an organization advocating for and supporting Jewish Tech students, falls firmly on the opposite side of the conflict as an advocate for Israel.

“While we encourage civil discourse [and] discourage confrontation with these anti-Israel activists, several student leaders and staff will attend some of the week’s programs to offer a counter-narrative and questions,” said Lauren Blazofsky, director of Hillel at Tech, in a statement sent to members of the Hillel community several days before the teach-in. “We condemn organizations that view Israel as a colonialist entity, seek to question’s Israel’s legitimacy, or create a climate on campus where our Jewish students may feel threatened, or unable to celebrate their own Jewish identity.”

Blazofsky’s intention to offer a counter-narrative was impeded, however, when she was stopped at the entrance of the event by a co-chair of YDSA who recognized her. She was told by the co-chair that because she was there to disrupt the event, she would not be allowed in. Blazofsky argued with the co-chair, stating that because she is staff at Tech, Institute policy states that she must be allowed in. The co-chair refused to allow her entrance, and Blazofsky left the event.

Blazofsky’s claim was likely referring to Tech Policy 6.1.1 regarding free speech, which states that “assuming responsibility for the use of Institute facilities includes ensuring that the Institute does not restrict the First Amendment rights of the public, students, staff, and faculty, including protecting the rights of speakers to be heard, the rights of the Institute community to hear speakers, and the reputation of the Institute as a center for free speech and scholarly inquiry.”

After Blazofsky departed, the teach-in began. At some point during the talk, two women “began shouting questions and interrupting the speakers,” said the co-chair, whose name has not been made available to the Technique, in a statement. 

The women were told that the event was not a debate and that if they didn’t stop disrupting the event, they would be asked to leave. The women were permitted to stay for the duration of the event.

In the following days, two complaints were filed with the Office of Student Integrity (OSI): one from Blazofsky, and one from the women who attended the event. Blazofsky’s report stated that YDSA had “discriminated against others with differing opinions” by refusing to allow her entry to the teach-in.

YDSA was informed of complaints filed against them and was informed that they would be resolved within 30 business days, as is policy. However, OSI was unable to schedule a hearing between all active parties until September.

On Sept. 6, YDSA received a summons to appear at a Student Conduct Panel hearing on Sept. 17. According to Kat Rolinson, sixth-year ECON and RUSS student and YDSA co-chair present at the hearing, the organization was surprised by several changes that occurred on the day of the hearing. They were informed that they were being investigated for violation of Student Conduct Code Policy 21a instead of the original 21b. OSI also informed them that investigators had falsely conflated the two complaints and that the hearing that day would only cover Blazofsky’s complaint, not the attendees’.

On Oct. 4, the organization received notification that the student justices of OSI had found YDSA responsible for violating the Student Conduct Code Policy 21a, which prohibits “objectively offensive conduct directed at a particular person or persons” due to their status as a protected class and that results in exclusion from educational programs.

Associate Dean and Director for Student Integrity Bonnie Taylor wrote in the letter that she had reviewed and decided to accept the panel’s recommendation.

The sanctions imposed on the group included a nine-month disciplinary probation, creation of an action plan to host events with “other on-campus clubs to discuss differing viewpoints on subject matters,” creation of a risk management policy and a required meeting with the Office of Student Engagement.

YDSA found these sanctions to “miss the point” according to Rolinson.

Shortly after the receipt of this decision, YDSA wrote a lengthy appeal letter detailing the ways in which they believed OSI had mishandled the investigation and incorrectly found YDSA responsible for discrimination. The appeal will be reviewed by Associate Dean of Students Colleen Riggle.

“This sanction straightforwardly violates the First Amendment by compelling YDSA to engage in and endorse speech and political viewpoints with which we do not agree,” states the appeal letter. “The sanctions further indicate that the investigation and sanctions were aimed at the organization’s political viewpoints rather than any alleged misconduct.”

The appeal letter claimed that the complaint did not suggest that Blazofsky was targeted at the door based on a protected characteristic. The letter stated that YDSA believed that they did not receive enough time to review the evidence against them, which they received less than 24 hours before the start of the hearing. 

The letter goes on to detail further ways YDSA believes the investigation was mishandled, such changing the subject of the hearing at the last minute. In addition, the appeal letter states that the sanctions themselves violate the free speech rights of YDSA members.

“For the past six months, YDSA was subject to an open-ended, opaque, politically-motivated, and ultimately unlawful investigation of our organization and our individual members surrounding an April 1, 2019 meeting to discuss and promote our views on the situation in Palestine,” stated the appeal letter. “This investigation culminated in a hearing and decision that were procedurally rife with blatant errors, and a sanction that is itself unlawful.”

The appeal letter was supported by a letter from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education addressed to Vice President for Student Life John Stein, which repeated many of YDSA’s claims and stated that “the sanctions are unsupported by sufficient evidence and premised on an interpretation of Georgia Tech’s policies that violates the institution’s binding legal obligations under the First Amendment. Accordingly, we call on Georgia Tech to end any pending investigation and rescind the sanctions imposed on YDSA.”

On Thursday, Oct. 24, YDSA leaders and members set about a vast publicity campaign intended to tell their side of the story. 

Their petition, which calls for the decision to be overturned and a public apology to be issued, lists 42 supporting organizations and has 829 signatures at the time of writing this article.

While Rolinson said that responses to the petition have been overwhelmingly positive, Blazofsky issued a statement to the Hillel community that was not so supportive and indicates surprise with regards to the results of the investigation. 

“As the complainant is not notified of the outcome of their incident report’s hearing, we only learned of the disciplinary action through YDSA’s petition against the university’s decision, calling for Georgia Tech to reject censorship, ignoring all of their wrongdoing and falsely trying to conflate issues of political differences that have nothing to do with the incident in question and outright discrimination,” writes Blazofsky. “The group that censored is asking Georgia Tech to reject censorship.

“Their plan to ban Lauren from the program was well thought out and predetermined, and in every step of that plan they acted antisemitically,” continued the statement. 

“They singled out Lauren because of her religious beliefs, because of her assumed politics, because of her connection to the Jewish community, AND because of her ethnicity.” 

Administration has mostly been quiet on the topic. In response to a request for comment from the Technique, Denise Ward, media relations lead, stated that “the appeals process prohibits us from discussing the details of this matter.”

“Georgia Tech supports student groups in their efforts to hold open forums. We do not restrict the First Amendment rights of the public, students, staff and faculty, which includes protecting the rights of speakers to be heard and the rights of the Institute community to hear speakers,” said Ward. “Our policy for Student Organizations Conduct outlines procedures that student organizations should follow, as well as their right to due process.”

During the first days of his administration, the Technique sat down with President Cabrera to discuss his goals for his term and the future of Tech. Cabrera described his first week as “intense, emotional and fun,” noting the “surreal” nature of returning to the school to which he came for his graduate studies. Cabrera, an alumni twice over, was the 11th President of the Thunderbird School of Global Management at George Mason University (GMU), and later the 6th President of George Mason from 2012 to 2019. He officially assumed office at the Institute Sept. 1, 2019. 

President Cabrera received both his MS and Ph.D. in cognitive psychology from Tech and served as a member of the Advisory Board. Both his wife and son graduated from Tech.

The Technique began the interview discussing the changes to the campus since Cabrera had last been a student. According to the President, the overall structure is the same, but the physical architecture of the campus is much nicer and more walkable. Cabrera commented that the expansion onto Tech Square was “fabulous,” and that the development of West Campus has been “unbelievable.” “It is a much nicer campus than it was years ago,” Cabrera said with a smile.

“I think there is a student culture I totally recognize. The student body, though, is more diverse — which is great!” he said, citing the increased number of women and international students on the campus. “Diversity makes institutions of higher education better places to learn,” Cabrera added.

As for what was most recognizable to him, Cabrera stated that the “interest and love for technology, even among people who are not majoring in engineering,” as well as “the intensity of the academic experience hasn’t changed, and yet, I think it’s a more fun student experience than people give us credit for.” President Cabrera, having spoken to members of the Georgia Tech Advisory Board about the current culture of campus, said that our campus exudes “excellence without arrogance,” complimenting the hardworking and talented students on campus. 

The Technique asked about his time at George Mason University and what he believed his legacy might be now that he has moved on from Virginia. The Technique touched on issues such as enrollment growth and establishing new schools within GMU. “The person involved is the least able to answer that [question],” Cabrera said when asked to describe his greatest accomplishments. 

According to the numbers, the university became a Research 1 university and George Mason accounted for over 64% of growth in Virginia during Cabrera’s administration. 

“I can give you an official list of all the cool things that happened on my watch, and yet, is that the legacy?” He wanted to emphasize the shared mission of his administration and coworkers at George Mason rather than his own personal accomplishments, but stated that he was very proud of the work he had done there.

In regards to his focus at Tech, Cabrera stated that every school is different, despite him being the same. The context through which he will make his decisions will change based on the student body and the goings on at Tech. He stated that the outcomes of his work here would vary from those at George Mason University. President Cabrera intends to uphold the “tenets of higher education,” as he is a product of it. Additionally, he believes in maintaining excellence at Tech while also working to provide access to higher education for all.

Having been a student at Tech, Cabrera is “very, very vested” in the success of the Institute, but he “has a lot of homework to do” before the work can truly begin. 

Under President Emeritus Peterson, growth, quantity, research and infrastructure have flourished, but according to President Cabrera, “there are a few things that need to be taken care of.” President Emeritus Peterson developed and began the implementation of a 25-year strategic plan, “Designing the Future.” 

President Cabrera intends to make a similar move, taking his first year to survey the problems and the successes at Tech before crafting his own strategic plan. The administration needs to decide “the next chapter” of Tech’s history and the new “wave of aspirations.”

At the time of the interview, President Cabrera had already met with a group of student leaders including members of the Student Government Association in order to set up mechanisms to get input from students. The Strategic Plan intends to involve open forums to extract aspirations of all the constituents at Tech. In addition to what they do on an ongoing basis, the administration will have a “good opportunity to increase the level of dialogue.” 

So far, President Cabrera has made good on his promise, as visioning sessions are taking place this and next semester so that students may voice their opinions and start to collaboratively form the strategic plan with the new President.

But President Cabrera is not only looking to address the long term. He mentioned several immediate issues that need to be resolved. 

“We’re not pausing, we’re not stopping, we are keeping momentum,” Cabrera said. While working on these short term issues, Cabrera hopes to simultaneously work toward a long term agenda that continually addresses these issues for the foreseeable future. 

“Clearly it’s been a tough last two years,” Cabrera said. “The ethical culture of the Institute has been questioned and we have to address that.” 

President Cabrera is already prioritizing transparency, an issue that is especially important now after the ethics violations of the past year by top Tech administrators. Immediately, Cabrera’s focus has been to restructure. General Counsel Ling-Ling Nie, hired by President Emeritus Peterson, is charged to be the Institute’s attorney and to be the champion of ethical conduct at the Institute. The General Counsel’s job is “to be better and to do better.”

Other restructuring initiatives include the shifting of responsibility of responding to legal requests, in intentional and transparent ways, from the General Counsel to Institute Communications.

“[We] have to do a much better job of communicating [our] story,” said Cabrera, who hopes that Institute Communications, “[whose] job is to tell our story,” will thrive under this new role.

The other major issue Cabrera hopes to immediately address is mental health on campus. 

“I share the concern … it comes up in all conversations,” Cabrera said. “We have seen the consequences of [Tech’s mental health crisis] two years ago in a very painful way on this campus. We need to address this.” 

Since this interview, the CARE center has opened and currently has two working case managers that are seeing patients daily. 

President Cabrera intends to know exactly what’s going on with mental health initiatives, including the Campus Safety Action Team, and he wants to know what has been implemented, what’s been discussed and wants to insert himself in those conversations. By all accounts, he has done so, meeting with the members of SGA about these topics and ongoing issues related to them. 

On Oct. 28, Cabrera was formally confirmed as the President of the Georgia Institute of Technology at his Investiture, having announced the start of the “appreciative inquiry” into crafting his and the constituents of Tech’s vision just two weeks earlier. 

For now, President Cabrera encourages the student body to “dream bigger,” and imagine what would make Tech the best it can be. More information about the ongoing visioning sessions and how students can get involved in the creation of the Strategic Plan can be found at strategicplan.gatech.edu.

Despite a stout showing from Tech’s defense, 20 points were more than enough for the Pittsburgh Panthers as they took down the Yellow Jackets at homecoming to go 6-3 on the season. With the loss, Tech falls to 2-6 on the season and 1-4 in ACC play, effectively ending whatever slim hopes the Jackets may have had for a postseason bid. The Jackets mustered just 10 points for the game as QB James Graham went 3-13 with 57 passing yards, Tech’s worst offensive showing since recording just 2 points against Temple earlier this season. Here were the biggest takeaways from Tech’s loss under the lights.

Graham hits the bench, Johnson shines

Tech’s QB competition was the talk of the off-season this year, and it continued into the start of the season as Tech rotated Tobias Oliver, Lucas Johnson, and James Graham at QB for some of the first games of the season. While Graham won the job outright by mid-season and appeared solid against Miami, he hit the bench during halftime after going just 2-9 with 54 yards, and Johnson — who had previously appeared in the game as a kick-holder for placekicker Brenton King — took over. Johnson went 5 for 8 with 51 yards, good for a 62.5% completion rate and a 116.1 passer rating in the half before coming up limping after a red-zone fumble. Graham returned to QB following Johnson’s injury and finished the game, going 1 of 4 with 3 passing yards.

“There were some balls [Graham] wishes he could have back,” Collins explained post-game, effusively praising Graham’s attitude. “We brought him in at halftime, talked him through it, he settled down… he was the consummate teammate, he was cheering for [Johnson] and was excited to see him back out there playing.”

Despite a poor showing, Graham was collected post-game, and promised to improve: “I didn’t play as well as I wanted to — I missed a lot of throws that I should have made and I felt like I was rushing everything. I should have just settled down, set my feet — I’m just going to get better this week at practice, working at things like that in the pocket.”

Tech run game stifled by Pitt defense

The Jackets torched one of the nations’ top run defenses last game, racking up 207 rushing yards against Miami, but against a stout Pittsburgh defensive unit the Jackets struggled. Tech put up just 86 yards rushing, averaging 3.0 yards per carry. Workhorse back Jordan Mason had a game to forget as well, as despite accumulating plenty of volume — the sophomore recorded 56 yards per carry on 15 carries, a far cry from his breakout game against Miami. Graham, slotting in at QB for the first half, was reasonably successful with keeper plays, going for 30 yards on 8 attempts, but both Graham and Mason tended to avoid the perimeter on rush plays and usually found plenty of Panthers ready to receive them up the middle, limiting Tech’s capacity for big plays. Tech’s longest rushing play of the game was just 18 yards.

Tale of the Takeaways

Collins made a name for himself as a top-tier defensive coordinator at schools like Mississippi State and Florida, but Tech has struggled on the other side of the ball this year, allowing 412 yards per game entering today. Saturday’s game, however, represented Tech’s finest defensive effort on the season in terms of turnovers — Tech picked up 3 takeaways and a blocked punt against a Pittsburgh offense that had allowed just 1.6 turnovers per game on the season prior to today. Tech’s brightest defensive star was on full display, as Juanyeh Thomas recorded 8 tackles and a dazzling one-handed interception. Despite ample opportunity, however, Tech recorded just 7 points off of turnovers. Tech’s defensive line also struggled to pressure the pocket, recording just 1 sack.