Fraternities and sororities do not have stellar reputations, and for good reason.

Greek life is plagued with a repugnant history of abusive hazing, discrimination and elitism. Most of these problems persist today.

Many people outside of Greek life struggle to comprehend its bizarre traditions and culture. When I first visited a large college as a child, the gigantic mansions with illegible foreign symbols baffled me.

Why would organizations dominated by white Americans call themselves Greek and co-opt random pieces of Greek language? How could a system that outwardly projects being pristine, grandiose and esteemed simultaneously be infamous for the dirtiest and most despicable hazing, partying and alcoholism? Why would anyone choose to be part of such a cultish group?

Ask the average fraternity or sorority member these questions and they will probably reply, “That’s just the way it is.” I am a part of Greek life myself and the system even alienates me at times.

Ultimately, none of the negatives associated with Greek life are guaranteed. When operating properly, fraternities and sororities bring only good to their members with social, leadership and housing benefits.

Cat Edwards, a fourth-year student at the University of Minnesota, said many students dislike Greek life because of the culture associated with it.

“It seems like a lot of normalized alcoholism,” Edwards said. “Lots of day drinking. I lived in Dinkytown my freshman year, right on frat row. I’d walk to class sometimes, and it’d be like 10 a.m. and there’d be guys out on the front lawn drinking from red solo cups. I think a big part of it is also the reputations for sexual assault and misconduct.”

Greek life’s stereotype of rampant alcohol abuse is entirely based on reality, but it is not universal.

Every organization is different, and every person in each organization is also different. In many fraternities and sororities, partying is an aspect of life for some members but little more so than average college students outside of Greek life.

In other organizations, drinking is so deeply ingrained in the culture that it becomes problematic, creating an environment where sexual assault is far too common. In 2019, 41.5% of sorority members reported experiencing sexual assault compared to 25.8% of non-Greek undergraduate women, according to the Prevention Advocates program, which works to reduce sexual violence in Greek life at the University.

These problems are serious and need to be addressed. These issues stem from the culture within some Greek organizations, not the Greek system as a whole.

The list of potential issues in Greek life goes on. Discriminatory practices and exclusion toward minorities were historically widespread, and some organizations were infamous for judging members unfairly by appearance. Although most organizations have begun to promote inclusivity and fix these problems in recent years, they still exist.

High financial costs are also a common criticism. Membership in many sororities in Minnesota costs between $1,500 and $2,500 per semester even when not living in the house.

Hazing, another major problem in the past, has been widely prohibited but persists in some organizations.

We should not downplay these problems; they can be fixed. In many organizations, they already have.

When most people think of Greek life, they picture massive, stereotypical fraternity houses, but Greek organizations are actually far more varied. In addition to traditional social fraternities and sororities, many are based on areas of study like engineering, agriculture or STEM. Others are based on cultural background or religion, allowing minority groups to share spaces together.

All of these groups are Greek organizations like any other. They all have traditions, histories, ceremonies and shared values that define Greek life’s existence and make each one unique.

Yet, all examples of Greek life being unproblematic and positive are rarely discussed and are overshadowed by the larger number of organizations full of issues.

When Greek life works properly, it is highly beneficial.

“I think there’s built-in friends and job opportunities involved in Greek life,” Edwards said. “Some people may not like the idea of that, and for some people, it sounds great.”

Jaye Shaw, a first-year student at the University and member of a sorority, said Greek life helped her build connections.

“Through Greek life, I’ve been exposed to a lot of new people I probably wouldn’t have met otherwise,” Shaw said “It connects you with upperclassmen, and going through the process of rush, you meet so many different girls.”

While many people dismiss Greek life as “paying for your friends,” anyone can make friends outside of an organization if they choose. Membership dues in Greek life are not paying for the people — they pay for the unique experiences, activities and events that could not be obtained outside of a large community.

“There’s a lot of benefits to being in sororities,” Shaw said. “There’s a lot of events and get-togethers, and I like that they are also philanthropic sororities. Each sorority has a different philanthropy, which is really nice because we’re not just doing it for the statement.”

Because Greek organizations are inherently social, they push members to meet more people and naturally improve their social skills. As a result of my experience in a sorority, I have grown much quicker and become much more comfortable in a variety of social situations than I would have otherwise.

The structure of Greek organizations also allows for many unique leadership opportunities for personal growth.

“I’m a chairwoman, and I’m on an honors committee,” Shaw said. “I got these roles within three weeks of being initiated, so there’s a lot of opportunity to have leadership.”

Daigan Berger, a third-year student and member of a fraternity, said leadership in Greek life helps people develop interpersonal skills.

“A lot of leadership experiences, like managing finances or managing a group of people, have difficult parts,” Berger said. “People have various opinions, and when you’re the vice president or the president, you need to be able to understand multiple perspectives.”

Additionally, Greek organizations offer flexible housing arrangements that can create unique experiences. Some organizations save money by not owning a dedicated house, instead meeting in certain rooms or suites on campus. 

Other groups provide the unique opportunity to live in a massive residence with a group of friends that cannot be replicated outside of college. Sharing cooking, cleaning and living spaces together makes an ideal living arrangement for everyone.

“One of the good things is you don’t really have to find roommates,” Berger said. “You get to live with friends and don’t have to look for housing.”

The bottom line is that none of the common criticisms of Greek life are universal. The most important consideration when joining Greek life is finding an organization that helps you grow.

“Focus on joining an organization that has people that you think would like to hang out with,” Berger said. “Then, once you join, you still need to put in effort to get to know people.”

Bringing together college students with shared experiences in a dedicated organization is nothing inherently radical or problematic. Just like with any community, the people within every Greek organization make it what it is. 

Find the right people, and your experience in any group, Greek or otherwise, should only be positive.

Farming has always been a core industry in the U.S., yet in recent decades, agricultural careers have only been associated with strife and struggles. Our idea of a common family farmer is frequently said to be dead, dying or doomed.

Why is failure seemingly inevitable for small farmers? And more importantly, is there anything we can do about it?

Ultimately, massive agricultural businesses that exploit farmers for profit are the biggest threat to farmers of all kinds.

Brad Wilson, an activist for Family Farm Justice and researcher who grew up on a small farm, said the extent to which agribusinesses control the industry often goes unseen.

On the surface, it is easy to blame large farms for the industry’s problems. However, in 2017, 96% of farms in the U.S. were still family-owned. The largest 4% of farms owned 58% of total farmland, but many of these were still family farms that grew due to technological advances.

Wilson said these large farms focus on growing corn and soybeans and do not necessarily harm the entire industry. The larger enemies are the agribusiness companies that have a chokehold on farmers.

“Agribusiness” refers to the enormous companies involved in agriculture beyond farmers themselves, including food processors and manufacturers of fertilizer, pesticides and seeds. In the U.S., agribusinesses have consolidated greatly. A small handful of companies hold the vast majority of power, meaning farmers have little bargaining power for fair prices.

An example of an economic pattern observable across industries is that too much consolidation and too little competition lead to higher prices and fewer options.

For example, if you spend $2.99 on cranberries, only 86 cents goes to farmers because the agribusinesses who process the food can pay farmers unreasonably low prices without competition.

According to Wilson, agribusinesses hold so much power that they do not need to lobby the government to maintain it, unlike corn and soy farmers who lobby for subsidies.

“Agribusiness doesn’t have to lobby on these issues because there isn’t a significant movement that knows this is how you fix it,” Wilson said.

Today is a critical turning point for farmers. 

The advance of technology makes it inevitable that farms will continue to get larger, but we need to keep farms in the hands of families rather than let the industry as a whole succumb to agribusiness.

Farmers are the final sector of our food industry that is still held by the people. Losing them to agribusiness would make its already monopolistic power all-encompassing.

Currently, only 4% of farms are company-owned, according to the 2017 Farm Typology report. Family farms may still hold the upper hand, but we need to prevent agribusiness from gaining the power to infiltrate more ownership of farms themselves.

In order to compete, family farms will need to continue evolving with technology. Our traditional idea of small family farms continues to fade, but instead of letting corporations replace them, family farms are expanding and embracing new forms.

Marc Bellemare, a University of Minnesota professor and McKnight Presidential Chair in applied economics, said advances in agricultural technology place small farmers at a natural disadvantage.

“This is an industry characterized by increasing returns to scale,” Bellemare said. “There are still a lot of farms, but there are fewer of them because the technology has evolved in a way that pushes the industry towards consolidation. What we are seeing now is way fewer farms than we were seeing in, for instance, the 1930s or ‘40s. And there is no indication it is slowing down.”

The progression of agricultural technology over the past centuries is easy to follow, from steel plows to tractors to pesticides and combine harvesters. 

The newest development of the 2020s is artificial intelligence-powered agricultural technology, including self-driving tractors. Like all the past technology advancements, these devices are only affordable to larger farmers and work most efficiently on massive scales, according to Bellemare.

This prolongs a cycle where larger farms can sell crops at lower prices, so small farms struggle unless they manage to get bigger.

According to Wilson, the most important way to improve the agricultural industry is to recognize who to fight against. This is not a battle between family farms and large farms. Many family farms are already large farms, and many others will continue to grow to compete. 

The real enemies are the agribusiness companies that exploit everyone with unchecked power.

Take concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, for example. CAFOs, also sometimes called factory farms, are infamous for abusive treatment of animals and environmental damage. Yet, targeting one individual farm is useless when the entire system is broken.

According to Wilson, CAFOs exist because agribusiness companies like Smithfield Foods, a gigantic meat processor, hold all the power.

“The average CAFO raising hogs for Smithfield had only one fifteen-hundredth of the market share of Smithfield itself,” Wilson said. “They’re not comparable to these giant agribusiness firms.”

Countless ways exist to improve farms, including ending CAFOs, improving sustainability and expanding access to organic foods. 

Targeting farmers does not solve any of these problems, though. First, we need to deal with the abusive agribusiness companies that leave farmers without choices.

Some options exist for farmers who do not want to expand and embrace AI tractors. According to Bellemare, many consumers always hold strong desires to purchase from local small businesses, meaning hobby farms and farmers’ markets are sustainable on a smaller scale. 

Plus, organic and sustainable farms currently occupy a relatively small niche of the industry, so small farms usually have opportunities to fill it. However, this may change in the future with increased demand, according to Bellemare.

Family farmers are not dying — they are growing and evolving into new forms. Let’s help them face their common enemy.

The United States is traditionally considered the antithesis of socialism.

For decades, our country has represented free market capitalism at its brightest — starkly contrasting our perceptions of communism and socialism.

Yet, by most definitions, the U.S. is technically a partially socialist state already.

Sumanth Gopinath, a professor of music and comparative literature at the University of Minnesota with specialties in Marxism, said socialism is an economic system blending capitalist and communist ideas.

“Sometimes people call it a mixed economy,” Gopinath said. “There’s some amount of state or social control of the means of production, from anything like a very strong welfare state to the entirety of an economy being state-controlled. There are lots of different positions on these things.”

Some people will split hairs when defining socialism, but ultimately, it encompasses several ideas. Most social studies textbooks provide similar summaries when comparing socialism to communism and capitalism.

Capitalism is based on a free market with private ownership of companies and limited government intervention. Communism is the complete opposite, with no private property and all resources held publicly by the government.

Socialism lies in between communism and capitalism. Private property still exists, but the government owns at least some means of production and intervenes to lessen the gap between the wealthy and the poor.

This is exactly how the U.S. operates today.

No countries in the world are purely capitalist or communist — all use some type of mixed economy.

“Capitalism, in order to function, requires the state’s intervention of various sorts,” Gopinath said.

Despite constantly championing free markets, our government owns or controls many means of production. One example is water systems and some utilities, as 88% of Americans receive water through local governments. 

This is socialism, but normalized so most people don’t realize it.

Nearly all transportation systems in the U.S. are publicly owned, too. The federal government owns Amtrak and local governments own most airports. Highways are the biggest example, entirely owned and operated by federal, state and local governments. 

All of these systems are socialist.

For many Americans, the capitalist alternative — privately owned highways and airports — would be unthinkable. Yet they are entirely possible.

Other nations like the U.K. have many privately owned airports, making the U.S. an exception. Similarly, privately owned highways, funded entirely by tolls rather than taxes, are more extensive in Europe and other countries compared to the U.S.

The military is another massive example of our government controlling the means of production.

The military-industrial complex is an entire sector of our economy fueled by massive government spending on manufacturing companies for weapons, aircraft and supplies, such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The latter received 74.2% of its revenue from the U.S. government this year. Similarly, defense company Booz Allen Hamilton earned 98% of its revenue from the U.S. government.

“If you’re in the military, you are connected to a nearly socialist system,” Gopinath said. “From all the state-based structures of employment and the education system that’s associated with it to the V.A. healthcare system.”

The list of socialist policies in the U.S. goes on. Public schools, public universities and public transit are “public” because the government owns them, unlike private alternatives. Welfare systems like Social Security and Medicare are also socialist because they assist low-income people and slightly lessen the wealth gap.

August Nimtz, Jr., a political science professor at the University, said multiple U.S. welfare programs originated through demands of the working class for a socialist system that served the people.

“The big breakthrough was in the Great Depression with the New Deal and Roosevelt administration,” Nimtz, Jr. said. “That was the result of workers taking to the streets. The Roosevelt administration came up with the New Deal as a way to appease the working class.”

Socialism not only exists in the U.S., but it is also bipartisan. 

For example, neither Republicans nor Democrats advocate for ending our socialist highway programs because turning all our roads into private companies funded by tolls would be inefficient and unpopular among everyone.

While Democrats advocate for many of our socialist programs like public education and public transportation, many staunchly oppose our large, socialist military programs, which see more support from Republicans.

A growing number of Americans, particularly young people, have embraced socialism.

Following the Great Recession, more Americans became disillusioned with capitalists on Wall Street and began considering socialism, according to Gopinath. It gained momentum with Bernie Sanders’ campaigns for president in 2016 and 2020, who openly described himself as a democratic socialist.

Socialism is already here, so why is it a dirty word that many politicians use as a fear-mongering tool?

President-elect Donald Trump famously stated “America will never be a socialist or communist country” during his first presidency, even though his administration maintained the socialist policies that were in place for years.

When conservatives scorn socialism, they are not scorning our existing socialist system — they are scorning the movement that seeks to use socialism to reform our government and support the working class.

“Socialism is first and foremost, a movement,” Nimtz, Jr. said. “Not a doctrine, but it’s a movement in which the working class is the protagonist. And it seeks to make the working class the ruling class.”

Even though our government continues to use socialist policies, not all of them benefit the people and capitalism continues to widen the gap between the rich and poor.

“Once the socialist movement comes into existence with the working class at its head, it’s seen as a threat to the status quo — the ruling elites and most specifically to the capitalist class,” Nimtz, Jr. said.

Being a socialist is not a radical idea. It is merely advocating for a better version of our existing political system that works for everyone, not just a select few.

Every time my family from outside of Minnesota visits the Twin Cities, we agree on the same thing: our highways are terrible.

All the interchanges are massive monstrosities that confuse drivers and destroy neighborhoods. Most infrastructure is old and outdated. Every single on-ramp feels like it leads directly onto an off-ramp within ten feet, forcing drivers to make loops until they finally squeeze onto the freeway.

Problems with highway design are rampant across the U.S. and by no means unique to the Twin Cities. However, the issues are still pressing, and some of the design flaws in Minnesota are particularly unusual.

Investments in highway infrastructure in the coming decades should focus on improving the efficiency and safety of road design and reducing the detrimental effects on surrounding neighborhoods. 

Marcus Shiell, a Minneapolis resident, said the positions of many exit ramps are confusing.

“There’s a little inconsistency,” Shiell said. “Sometimes, to get on a westbound, you get in the left lane. Other times, there’s a cloverleaf. It’s sometimes difficult to assume which way to get on the interstate.”

For Holly Lewis, another Minneapolis resident, on-ramps built too close to off-ramps make driving difficult.

“It’s tricky because the exits are too close to the entrances right behind it,” Lewis said. “But I don’t know what they can do about that.”

Kyle Shelton, director of the Center for Transportation Studies at the University of Minnesota, said most of these annoying designs are caused by outdated ideas about highway design from past decades.

According to a study about different ramps and traffic flow, on-ramps and off-ramps being close together leads to congestion. Shelton said it creates conflict points that make driving harder.

The Twin Cities also have a large number of cloverleaf interchanges — common design elements in the 1960s and 1970s. Cloverleaf interchanges, take up large amounts of space and often cause slow congestion.

Our freeways are not only unpleasant for drivers but local community members, too. Shelton said freeways are notorious for harming the environment of nearby communities by their mere existence.

“There are a range of environmental challenges for folks who live alongside the roadways,” Shelton said. “There’s well-documented evidence of environmental risks, everything from air quality to long-term health impacts.”

Shelton said society has collectively decided these effects are a necessary trade-off considering the value of transportation infrastructure.

However, issues arise when certain communities disproportionately receive these negative effects.

The construction of Interstate 35W infamously destroyed Black communities and cultural centers in Minneapolis, uprooting countless people and homes. The historic Rondo neighborhood in St. Paul, home to primarily people of color, was razed by the construction of Interstate 94. The negative impacts are still felt today. 

Historic Victorian buildings were demolished in downtown St. Paul to make way for Interstate 35E and I-94. Today, the massive expressways that cut through St. Paul still hinder community growth, separating the Capitol and other buildings from downtown.

Downtown Minneapolis is not much better, as gigantic interchanges between Interstate 394, I-94, I-35W and Highway 55 surround the skyline. According to Shelton, this infrastructure was built to accommodate thousands of people moving to the suburbs, which created a hub-and-spoke highway system where all roads connect to downtown.

“The logic in the ‘50s, ‘60s and ‘70s, which obviously underpins all our existing systems, was, ‘Let’s build these hub-and-spoke models of the central business district, where we’re going to always draw people to,’” Shelton said.

Hub-and-spoke highway systems are efficient, but the attitudes toward many downtowns, including Minneapolis, have shifted since the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Shelton. More suburban residents work from home or in suburban offices and fewer drive downtown for work.

This means the massive highways that physically separate neighborhoods should be restructured to account for new demands. According to Shelton, some infrastructure bills are working to accomplish this, but the process will take years, so continuous support is needed.

“Federal programs under the relatively new infrastructure bill, particularly the Reconnecting Communities Program, are geared towards thinking about what types of cities we want to see and what types of transportation systems could serve them,” Shelton said. “And how we address the wrongs of consistent development of highways through communities of color and low-income areas in particular.”

Building a better highway system will be a long process of reworking rather than expanding our existing infrastructure.

“Expanding highways doesn’t work,” Shelton said. “Decades of research shows if you expand highways, you’re going to just give more people the option to drive on a highway, and your highway will be congested again in the near future.”

Merging our highway infrastructure with other forms of transportation is essential to create a system that serves everyone, according to Shelton. Highways and cars will always be dominant in the U.S., but creating alternatives can lessen the negative effects of expressways on communities. 

“It’s not to say we have to abandon everything about auto-centric design, but we have to enable all people to have the mobility and access to transportation that everyone needs to thrive,” Shelton said. “We have to do it in a multimodal way.”

The opportunity for change is now. Several highway redesign projects are currently being planned in the Twin Cities, including redesign proposals for I-94. This would improve neighborhoods and multimodal transit options, but we must find a balanced project that does not ruin traffic with construction. 

On the other hand, plans to expand Highway 252 could move us in the opposite direction by destroying more communities.

The process of creating an ideal transportation system will take decades of consistent work, so the most important step is acknowledging and facing the issues. If we ignore the necessary reforms, the problems will only get worse.

Many people cringe upon hearing the word “email.” It often represents the worst parts of bureaucracy — cold, formal, painfully orderly and inevitably passive-aggressive.

This stereotype is misguided. Email is benevolent and meant to help you.

Everyone in college has met at least one person simply incapable of communicating. Perhaps someone in a group project never replies to outreach attempts, takes days to read messages or never receives announcements the professor sends through email. Leaving more than 1,000 unread messages in your inbox is normalized.

Like it or not, email is involved in every aspect of the professional world — studying and researching as a student, applying and interviewing for jobs and working within your career. As soon as you become comfortable with email, all communication becomes far easier.

Unfortunately, becoming comfortable with email takes years for many people who were never taught its importance. Others intentionally shy away from email because of its negative connotations.

Email skills and the importance of clear communication should be taught to students in high school so they enter college and their careers with the basic tools necessary to succeed.

Struggling with email is understandable. Meagan Baker, a College of Liberal Arts career coach at the University of Minnesota, said the rigid structure of email can make it daunting to students.

“There are unspoken rules that dictate how you should use the system,” Baker said. “It’s really important to learn those on your own so you don’t accidentally convey information that you didn’t mean.” 

According to Baker, learning proper email etiquette and norms can be nerve-wracking because it is difficult to tell when you break them. Some people may refrain or procrastinate sending emails because it is intimidating.

“Using the norms might feel a little weird at first,” Baker said. “They feel kind of clunky, but they have a purpose behind them.”

Adam Schrag, a professor of management communication at the University, said students’ emails often come off as awkward if they are uncertain of the proper norms. Some students’ emails are too casual and impersonal, while others are too formal and cold.

Students’ widespread discomfort with email stems from one overarching problem — most people are never taught enough to perfect their email skills.

“It’s not something we’re often taught in classes, high school or college,” Baker said. “It’s something you are assumed to have the knowledge of already.” 

Why are students rarely given instruction on such a vital life skill?

“We spend our entire school years, elementary through high school, focusing heavily on reading and writing, the core aspects of education,” Schrag said. “But there’s two things, learning how to craft slides versus learning how to email. These skills aren’t necessarily taught.”

Schrag said the focus on formal and literary writing in high school may make it harder for students to find the right tone for emails.

“I’ve noticed that, in high school, we get very calibrated toward trying to sound extra fancy or official, and it distances us from sounding conversational,” Schrag said.

High school students spend years learning skills like calculus, algebra and the meaning of literary symbols that few will ever use in their personal lives. Surely a week or two of instruction could be dedicated to learning the near-universal email and communication skills of our modern world.

Teaching students to memorize the proper format of a formal email is not enough, however. Like all communication, email is an art of matching the other person’s tone on a case-by-case basis that can only be perfected through practice, according to Baker.

In an ideal world, high school students would get a brief unit on email to learn both how it works and practice reaching out and replying in different scenarios. Email is not just about writing clearly; learning how to be timely and proactive is equally important.

“Being able to make sure you’re conveying information in a timely manner is helpful for the other person because you are showing you care about their schedule,” Baker said.

Schrag said strong email skills are crucial in most careers.

“Being a responsible emailer, even though it sounds like a boring or unimportant thing, matters tremendously towards your reputation and success, especially in a traditional office setting,” Schrag said.

Email is equally important in college, which can be a good opportunity to practice emailing before moving into the professional world.

“Universities are very well known for loving to use our emailing system to communicate information,” Baker said. “Likely, you will need to reach out to instructors, professors and staff members.”

According to Baker, email is important when applying to jobs and interviews, too.

“Job applications are about building relationships with people to show you would not only be a great candidate, but you are a good person to work with,” Baker said. “Getting the right messages in your emails shows the passion and excitement that is really helpful when you’re applying for jobs.”

Ya-Chi Huang, a graduate student, said navigating the modern world without email would be a challenge. For people less comfortable with social skills, it may actually be easier than making phone calls or talking face-to-face.

“Email is an easier way of communication,” Huang said. “For someone who is more introverted, email is a very friendly way.”

Communication skills like email are valuable in every career path and walk of life. We should stop shying away from email and start building communication skills into high school curriculums so young people are ready to succeed.

Now stop wasting time and go check your inbox.

The aviation industry dominates our country like nowhere else on the planet, yet it is riddled with problems.

Commercial aviation makes up 5% of the U.S. GDP, according to Airlines for America. Our domestic aviation industry is the largest in the world, and the U.S. government spends billions of dollars supporting the industry every year, according to Airforce Technology.

Flying in the U.S. should be smooth. However, several flaws in aviation are only getting worse, and aviation companies continuously prioritize profit over public good. 

Reform is necessary.

Airlines employ several tactics to increase profit at the expense of passenger experience, such as overbooking flights. Airlines commonly sell more tickets on flights than the actual number of seats, assuming a certain number of people will not show up.

These predictions are not always accurate. Often, airlines ask passengers to voluntarily give up seats due to overbooking. Sometimes passengers are forced onto later flights.

Megan Radke, a St. Paul resident, said overbooked flights are very annoying.

“There used to be a time when you could fly standby, and you can’t anymore,” Radke said. “Even if you have a seat, sometimes you wonder, ‘Am I going to be on my flight anymore?’”

Flying standby allows passengers to get on earlier scheduled flights if seats are open. Not all airlines offer standby options, however, and overbooked flights make the policy difficult to use.

For the sake of passengers, overbooking flights should be drastically reduced. Instead, airlines should create better standby programs to fill empty seats without harming the passenger experience.

Many airlines increased the cost of baggage on flights in recent years. Some airlines even charge passengers for carry-on bags. The cheapest economy fares now come with almost nothing besides a cramped seat.

“I remember being in college and taking the economy fares and feeling like you’re strapped to the wing of the plane,” Radke said. “And then you’re paying for all these extras. Let me check a bag for free again.”

Issues in the aviation industry run far deeper than reservations and fares. Many airlines use ancient software to schedule their flights and crew. For example, in 2022, Southwest Airlines used two programs called SkySolver and Crew Web Access that were developed in the 1990s.

The software was so outdated that bad weather during the 2022 holiday season caused a systemwide meltdown. Too many flights needed to be rescheduled for the software to handle, and Southwest canceled thousands of flights.

Another major failure in aviation technology occurred in July when an update to the cybersecurity program CrowdStrike caused Microsoft systems around the country to crash, leading to mass cancellations of flights. For Delta Air Lines, the issues ensued for five days because their crew-tracking software failed to recover.

Clearly, aviation companies need to invest in replacing archaic technology to prevent more disasters. If airlines can afford to add touchscreens to every seat on their airplanes, they should make sure their basic software is sufficient.

Airplane manufacturers, too, continue to cut corners at the expense of public good.

Cheng Wang, assistant professor in the aviation department at Minnesota State University, Mankato, said Boeing consistently prioritizes making money over passenger safety. 

Wang said one example occurred when Boeing added new flight control technologies to their new Boeing 737 Max 8.

Pilots should have received new training with the system, but Boeing did not inform airlines or pilots of the changes since a training requirement may have caused fewer airlines to purchase the plane, according to Wang.

In 2018 and 2019, two planes crashed due to a malfunction in the system, killing 346 people. If pilots were adequately trained with the technology, the disasters could have been prevented.

Boeing’s position worsened when a door plug broke off and left a gaping hole in an airplane in January, all due to a simple manufacturing failure.

Boeing already receives 37% of their income from the U.S. government, making it essentially a taxpayer-funded company. For their number one priority to seemingly not be the public good is shameful.

Reforming Boeing is difficult as the company has already lost billions of dollars this year, according to MarketWatch. 

Ultimately, our airplanes must be safe. Hopefully, Boeing will improve, but if other manufacturers like Airbus gain dominance in the future, no one will be surprised.

Another concern plaguing the aviation industry is sustainability. Flying releases more greenhouse gas per mile traveled and contributes more to climate change than any other transportation form.

Aviation companies must do all they can to improve sustainability. Using more sustainable jet fuel with less fossil fuel is crucial. According to Wang, airport design should also be improved because airplanes often use excess fuel when moving on-ground.

“The design of the taxiway or runway can sometimes take a lot of fuel,” Wang said. “An ideal layout would have aircrafts taxi from the ramp to the runway in a shorter period of time. That could help save emissions at the airport and improve sustainability.”

Some argue airplanes are so environmentally destructive that the only solution is replacing planes with other forms of transportation. 

This is true, but only to an extent. The U.S. is so large and sparsely populated that planes are still the only realistic method of long-distance travel. However, on certain routes between close, dense cities, high-speed rail is a viable replacement.

Right now, aviation companies receive massive sums of money from the government through tax credits, bailouts and subsidies. Sean Ressler, a Minneapolis resident, said he supports the government investing in transit.

“The government invests in a lot of things that are for the public good,” Ressler said. “Airports and airlines are one of them, just like trains and buses and everything else. It’s about interstate commerce.”

Investing in transit is good—but the government currently pays aviation companies so much that it gets an unfair advantage over more sustainable forms of transit, like trains. 

Aviation will always have a place in our country, but it desperately needs change.

For the first 18 years of my life, my self-worth depended solely on academics.

I aimed for straight A’s and let nothing get in my way. Anything less than 90% on assignments sent me into an existential crisis. I dedicated my entire life to school, prioritizing it over my family, friends and personal well-being.

Academic success benefited my life in many ways, bringing me scholarships, awards and a sense of purpose.

Yet it never brought me happiness.

Despite my good grades, I suffered throughout high school. I had zero friends. My classmates existed in a social sphere that I observed from the outside. I could barely sustain a conversation.

I knew I needed to face my personal problems in order to grow. But I convinced myself that if I was academically successful, I would not need friends or social interaction.

By senior year of high school, I realized my mistakes. 

College was a new opportunity, but I started my quest for a social life far behind my peers.

I knew none of the social media trends, pop culture or social knowledge that most students considered universal. I felt incapable of getting to know people, had no sense of personality and radiated awkwardness. I experienced constant mental breakdowns and could barely live independently.

Fortunately, the exact purpose of college is to turn nervous freshmen into employable adults who can intelligently interact with coworkers and a boss.

Over the past year, I have grown dramatically and am much closer to a functioning adult but very little of this growth resulted from classes. Investing time into my social life was much more beneficial.

Jay Johnson, a second-year student at the University of Minnesota, said finding a balance between social life and academics is important in college.

“I think it’s important to get socialized, make friends and find those connections to help you balance your academic life because no one wants to be alone,” Johnson said. “But it’s definitely important to keep that focus on your academics because that’s what’s going to carry you through your years here.”

Making friends and developing a social circle at a large college is rarely easy, though.

“This is such a huge campus,” Johnson said. “There’s so many things to do, but it’s also super isolating. I’m not the best at making friends, so that was really nerve-wracking for me. It was holding me back from putting myself out there.”

Expanding your social circle leads not only to personal growth but can also help your professional development.

“Networking to build connections, especially within your major, makes friendships with people that you might end up working with someday,” Johnson said. “Especially in the Twin Cities where there’s so many job opportunities.”

Grace Vieth, a sixth-year graduate student in the Social Interaction Lab in the psychology department, said social life is necessary for human development.

“We’re social beings, so we’re always going to crave a sense of social belonging and affiliation with others,” Vieth said. “It provides a sense of safety and reassurance when we are able to connect with others and perceive that we have support available to us.”

Vieth said having an active social life often correlates to academic success, rather than the opposite.

“We know that students who feel a sense of belonging on campus tend to also excel academically,” Vieth said. “And we know that loneliness, which is rising especially in young adult populations, is really problematic.”

College is an important time to develop people skills because it gets more difficult after graduation.

“I think if people value friends in college and start developing skills about how to maintain and keep their friends, that’s going to benefit them in later adulthood when perhaps their friends don’t live down the hall in their dorm, but across the country,” Vieth said. 

Social skills developed in college also help out in later careers, Vieth added.

“People who excel in having friends in high school and in college go on to typically be better employees and excel more in the workforce because they have good people skills,” Vieth said.

Jade Intihar, a first-year student, said introverted or shy students may find it harder to connect with others, but having a social circle is still valuable.

“It’s important to make friends and build a group you feel comfortable with,” Intihar said. “It’ll make your college experience better.”

Still, Intihar said academics are usually more important.

“I prioritize academics, mostly,” Intihar said. “It’s why I’m here. But it just depends on the person.”

For me, learning how to make friends and talk to people was initially challenging. After months of forcing myself to attend club events and student organizations, though, I gradually made progress.

Today, I still feel behind my peers, but I am far more comfortable in social settings. I can talk at ease with strangers and have a stronger sense of personality.

Ultimately, letting your social life get in the way of your studies is a problem, just like how focusing too much on grades can hamper personal growth. Both are worth investing time in, and striking a balance is possible.

Dedicating time from your day to be social is never wasted time. It is a smart personal decision.

You’re preparing to leave your dorm on a chilly fall morning. Nothing can break the monotony of overcast skies and dull professors. You step outside without even thinking of your surroundings, too busy second-guessing your life choices.

Suddenly, a violent crash breaks the early morning silence, and you whip your head toward the sound, fearing you’re about to witness a SAFE-U alert in real time.

Instead, you only see a flock of turkeys.

One of the creatures snapped a massive tree branch cleanly to the ground after attempting to perch on it.

You can’t help but smile and roll your eyes. There’s no place like the University of Minnesota.

Kian Roemer, a first-year student at the University, said he likes seeing flocks of turkeys on campus because they are interesting for an urban area.

Campus turkeys appear at random locations across the University with seemingly no regard for students or faculty. Roemer said he frequently sees turkeys in front of buildings on Northrop Mall.

Abednett Browne, a third-year student at the University, said she sees turkeys most often near Superblock, Pillsbury Drive and Church Street.

In short, they’re everywhere.

The spontaneity of turkey appearances helps ward away my depression, and probably other students, too. It’s impossible to be sad when a tall, peculiar bird is present to remind you of the simplicity of life, waddling across a busy street without caring whatsoever.

Also, turkeys are a sign our campus excels as a healthy urban ecosystem.

James Forester, an associate professor in the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology at the University, leads the Twin Cities Coyote and Fox Project which tracks and studies foxes and coyotes in the urban area.

According to Forester, the Twin Cities are unique compared to other large cities due to the abundance of urban wildlife. Forester said having animals like turkeys in cities helps maintain an ecosystem and keep diseases, insects and other animals in check.

“Lyme disease is a great example of the interconnectedness of the natural system and humans,” Forester said. “It’s carried by black-legged ticks, also known as deer ticks, and their life cycle involves multiple species.”

Forester said deer ticks feed on both white-footed mice and white-tailed deer throughout their lives, so if the population of mice explodes out of control, the deer tick population increases, too. This heightens the risk of Lyme disease transmission to humans.

“One of the main ways you control mice is with mesocarnivores, and that’s going to be foxes and coyotes,” Forester said. “That’s what they specialize in. So if you don’t have those predators involved, you don’t have a big cap on the growth of the small mammal population.”

Turkeys play a role in balancing the urban ecosystem just like foxes, coyotes and any other creature. According to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, insects are a primary part of turkeys’ diet, in addition to seeds and plants. 

Tom Ritzer, assistant director of Landcare, part of Facilities Management at the University, said turkeys spend much of their time on campus digging up soil to eat insects and plants.

Not only does this help maintain equilibrium in the ecosystem, but Ritzer said it also can help the Landcare team locate certain grubs that cause patches of dead grass.

Campus turkeys peacefully coexist with the University’s human community — most of the time.

“During freshman year, I saw them chasing someone,” Browne said.

Ritzer said turkeys are not always helpful to the Landcare team. He added that turkeys digging in lawns makes a mess that is difficult to clean up.

“They will sometimes perch in trees above sidewalks and then defecate the sidewalks,” Ritzer said. “We have that problem with crows also, but turkey droppings are pretty nasty, so we get calls when that happens.”

Encountering campus turkeys for the first time can come as a surprise.

“I could see it being a little alarming if there’s a big group of them nearby,” Roemer said. “I know some birds — for example, geese — tend to be a little aggressive towards people.”

Until the turkeys actually cause a SAFE-U alert, though, I believe their benefits outweigh the cons.

“There are opportunities to interact with wildlife right here in our backyards if we just take the time to look,” Forester said. “And it can be as magical as seeing animals in a remote place. In fact, in some ways it’s even more curious because they’re right here, living amongst us.”

Having wildlife, like turkeys, in an urban area gives nature a place in our day-to-day lives that we could otherwise only see by traveling.

“Not everyone wants to or has the capacity or experience to go out into the Boundary Waters or some other kind of wilderness area,” Forester said. “It takes a fair bit of commitment, time and expertise to do so.”

I reached out to one of the campus turkeys for comment but received no reply. The turkey merely walked away from me and continued to peck at grass in the Knoll.

Hopefully, they will take this column in good grace. 

Eating healthy is expensive. Think about the last time you visited a fast-food restaurant. Why is a salad often twice the price of a burger?

Many people consider this inevitable but reality is far more complicated. Several powerful forces influence the price of food, including government bills relating to one impactful term — agricultural subsidies.

Subsidies are money paid by the government to outside companies or individuals to incentivize their work, according to the International Monetary Fund. Airlines, car manufacturers, energy companies and other industries are subsidized in the U.S. because the government considers them to work for the public good.

Agricultural subsidies — money paid to farmers or agricultural businesses — are no different, on the surface.

Marc Bellemare, McKnight presidential chair in applied economics at the University of Minnesota, said agricultural subsidies exist to lower the cost of food for consumers and raise revenue for farmers.

Both of these intentions are positive. Farming is a volatile industry where bad weather for just one year can decimate farmers, and the entire sector is in long-term decline, according to Bellemare. Subsidies are supposed to provide a safety net so farmers can stay afloat.

However, the distribution of agricultural subsidy payments is deeply flawed, as more money flows to certain farms over others, according to Anne Schechinger, Midwest director at Environmental Working Group. 

“Most subsidies go to the largest and wealthiest farms, and that’s not an accident,” Schechinger said. “That’s how the programs are designed. Between 1995 and 2023, the top 10% of farm subsidy recipients got almost 80% of payments, so it’s really concentrated, and the smallest farmers get hardly any money.”

The distribution of which crops are most subsidized is even more problematic.

“We don’t see a lot of money going to people who grow food like fruits and vegetables,” Schechinger said. “We see the money going to four main crops like corn, soybeans, wheat and cotton.”

According to Bellemare, these unequal subsidies cause differences in food prices. For example, corn producers receive huge sums of money from the government, so all products made from corn can be sold at lower prices than healthy fruits and vegetables.

“What gets subsidized tends to be cheaper,” Bellemare said. “And those food producers and processors are rational decision-makers. If a factor of production gets cheaper, they’re going to  use more of it. It’s more than a correlation, it’s a cause and effect.”

Corn and sugar are subsidized more than any other crops, according to Bellemare. However, according to research by the American Action Forum, less than 1% of corn grown in the U.S. is the sweet corn humans eat. 

More often, corn is used in processed foods, and due to subsidies, certain corn products are more dominant in the U.S. than other countries, according to Bellemare. Rarely are these products healthy. High fructose corn syrup is one example.

According to Bellemare, because corn is subsidized so much in the U.S., high fructose corn syrup is cheaper to make and included in more products. Bellemare said high fructose corn syrup was used in fewer products where he grew up in Canada. 

Consuming many products with high fructose corn syrup and added sugar is unhealthy and increases the risk of several diseases.

Processed foods are not the only products that benefit from extremely cheap corn. According to Schechinger, corn is also used frequently as animal feed, making the supply chain for meat and animal products less expensive.

“It’s tricky to narrow down the price impact of subsidies, but it definitely makes the production of meat cheaper,” Schechinger said. “When corn and soybeans are subsidized and fed to cows and pigs that makes it a lot cheaper for animal farmers to produce. So it definitely has an impact on the cost of meat, or at least the production of meat.”

Meat can be a healthy source of protein, but many Americans consume it in excess. The average American eats three times more meat than the global average.

Clearly, the agricultural subsidy program needs to be reformed so vegetables and fruits are not disadvantaged. Low-income people often have no choice but to eat less healthy foods because the difference in price is so large, according to Bellemare.

Samantha Mosallam, a third-year student at the University, said it is much easier to buy unhealthy foods like chips, soda and snacks instead of fruits, vegetables or anything with low carbohydrates because the difference in price is so large.

“I started gardening because I’m tired of trying to buy at the store and it being really expensive,” Mosallam said.

Unfortunately, reducing agricultural subsidies significantly is impractical because the American economy is already so entrenched in the system that it would lead to economic turmoil, according to Bellemare. A stronger first step would be equalizing subsidies for fruits and vegetables with other crops to make them more affordable.

According to Schechinger, the biggest barrier to reforming the agricultural subsidy system is the same reason it exists in the first place — lobbying. Many large meat and corn businesses contribute money to politicians’ campaigns, incentivizing them to vote in favor of larger subsidies.

“Agricultural business spends more money on lobbying than either the fossil fuel industry or the defense industry,” Schechinger said.

So, the government doesn’t only control what we eat, as agriculture businesses also control our government. Fixing this cycle of subsidies, lobbying and unhealthy food will be difficult, but it is possible.

“If you want to change how subsidies are sent out and what the money goes to, it’s an important time now to be emailing or calling your congressman,” Schechinger said.

The flawed agricultural subsidy system has endured for far too long. The time for change is now.

No one actually likes dollar stores.

If you think you like them, think again. Maybe you like their prices. Maybe you like their convenience. But if money was disregarded, no one would actually choose dollar stores over the countless alternatives.

Nevertheless, dollar stores in America are omnipresent and ever-growing. Dollar General now has 20,000 locations and plans to open 800 more in 2024.

Why is an unlikable business model overwhelmingly widespread?

Kennedy Smith, senior researcher at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, said dollar stores operate with razor-thin profits. As a massive corporation, they can set prices lower than any local grocery store can compete with.

This makes dollar stores the cheapest option for groceries and household items. So many families gravitate toward them. According to Smith, constructing new dollar stores increases the risk of grocers in the area closing.

Filling a bag for under $10 at a dollar store is fun for some people and necessary for others with a low income. In some towns, dollar stores are the only option for groceries.

All of these are understandable reasons to shop at dollar stores. However, the system that makes dollar stores dominant is deeply problematic.

Small towns are especially vulnerable to dollar stores because the economy can often only sustain one or two food stores, according to Smith. Whether or not a town has a grocery store makes a night-and-day difference in quality of life.

Northfield, Minnesota, a town of 20,000 people as of 2020, has a wide variety of grocery stores, including Cub Foods, Family Fare and Just Food Co-op, according to Deb Erickson, a local.

“For a town of this size, we have quite a few options,” Erickson said.

Erickson said Northfield felt much better than her previous town where dollar stores were very prevalent.

“I never shop at them,” Erickson said. “I think when they come to a city, they change the whole feel.”

Erickson said that dollar stores offer options for people who cannot afford to spend much money, but she questioned the quality of their food products.

To test whether dollar store products are worse than other stores, I conducted some field research.

I decided to compare a bottle of chocolate milk from Just Food Co-op in Northfield and Dollar Tree in Farmington, Minnesota, a town of 20,000 people without a single grocery store.

The chocolate milk from Just Food tasted fresh and flavorful in a clear container. I was pleased.

Dollar Tree did not offer chocolate milk.

However, they did sell strawberry milk in an opaque white container with a wrap-around pink sticker, like a can of paint. 

It tasted like paint, too. The bottle was infused with enough preservatives to extend the milk’s shelf life for months while nixing any natural flavor.

The people of Farmington deserve better.

William Pierre, a Farmington local, said the town desperately needs a grocery store.

“The prices keep going up, and Kwik Trip and Dollar Tree are the closest things we have to a grocery store,” Pierre said.

Pierre said locals often drive to Walmart or other stores in neighboring towns for food. Many Farmington residents already commute to the Twin Cities for work. However, Dollar Tree is the most accessible option to everyone else.

This makes it harder for people to eat healthy foods because the offerings at dollar stores are so limited, according to Smith.

The food selections at dollar stores look like they were chosen by a twelve-year-old. Two entire aisles are occupied by candy, chips and soda, while two other aisles are dedicated to all other foods.

Nearly every item is a bizarre imitation of a better product. Dollar Tree features a massive selection of Toast’em Pop-ups.

There is something missing from nearly every dollar store — fresh produce.

Smith said when dollar stores replace grocery stores in small towns, they are often left without a single source of fruits and vegetables. Dollar General added “DG Fresh” produce sections to some stores, according to a Dollar General press release, but only a small fraction of locations include it.

A store without fruits and vegetables is never an adequate source of groceries. Yet for many people, it is the only option.

Dollar stores’ operating model also disregards the safety of their employees, according to Smith. Aisles and storage are so tight that falling boxes have frequently injured employees. Armed robberies are common at dollar stores because often only one employee is on-staff at a time, making them vulnerable.

Even the physical design of dollar stores is repulsive and flawed.

Look at the exterior of any Dollar General. Every store is a generic metal box shoved unceremoniously on the edge of a forest or cornfield. No personality, no visual appeal, just the brutalest of capitalist architecture.

According to Smith, the copy-and-paste dollar store layout also causes problems because parking lots are rarely designed to allow for proper rain runoff, leading to environmental damage.

Replacing a small downtown grocery store with a bland dollar store on the outskirts also damages the sense of community as fewer people visit the town center. According to Smith, this problem is prevalent within neighborhoods of large cities just like small towns.

Smith said dollar stores almost always target low-income neighborhoods or people of color, where fewer people can afford the alternatives. This leads to food deserts where fresh food is not available at all.

Fortunately, fighting back against dollar stores is possible.

The societal flaws that make dollar stores dominant run very deep and cannot be solved with a single step. However, according to Smith, local governments do have the power to restrict the construction of new dollar stores, but locals must voice their opposition and make organized efforts.

Limiting your own purchases at dollar stores and supporting grocery outlets if you are financially able also makes a difference.

Unless you really want Toast’em Pop-ups, paint-flavored milk or a flimsy plastic cactus for $1.25. The choice is yours.