Jannie Blackwell, who has represented West Philadelphia and University City on the city council for nearly 27 years, was unseated by newcomer Jamie Gauthier in Tuesday’s election. You have no doubt seen Gauthier’s campaign posters plastered all over and around campus. Blackwell has most recently come under fire for her policies and involvement towards real estate development in West Philadelphia, some of which include developments near Drexel’s campus and even Drexel’s own developments. Gauthier, on the other hand, ran her campaign on anti-gentrification and fighting to keep long-time residents in their homes, in what she calls the “Empowerment Agenda.”

So what does this entail for Drexel and its student body? While we certainly love to make our John A. Fry gentrification memes and post them all over the web for likes, the inconvenient truth is that Drexel students like us are very often a driving factor for the gentrification, rather than the new buildings on campus.

While the large incoming classes have forced students into the surrounding neighborhoods, students opting to live in Powelton Village and Mantua areas for less expensive rent is nothing new. Long-term renters are often said to be subsequently pushed out as landlords tailor their properties to more lucrative students.

While stopping or slowing gentrification might sound good on paper, it will ultimately hurt students. The rhetoric surrounding the topic has already led to Drexel’s administration to consider tightening housing policies to restrict students from living off campus. Forcing students into Drexel housing means putting an even greater financial burden on them.

However, this seems to be the sad truth of a college campus located in the city. When such a large establishment is built in such a diverse area, people need to get moved in order to fit the paying customers of the university. This may seem upsetting, but it is the way the American education system is set up. The City of Philadelphia gave Drexel the land because they paid the money for it, and that has resulted in the surrounding people having no choice but to leave. Furthermore, when such an institution is put up, it will evidently need to expand due to demand. As a non-profit, Drexel funnels that money into more land purchases, which leads to more people leaving their homes.  

There comes a point where the needs of the University conflict with the needs of the city we live in. As representatives of the student body and the University, it falls on our shoulders to do what we can to foster the community in which we live. That’s not to say you should have to pay upwards of $1,000 a month to have a roof over your head, but you should be aware of the effects we have on displacing families that have lived in this area for generations. Yes, the university and city need to protect these people, but there isn’t much we can do to immediately change the university’s actions or government policy. It’s on us to find ways to give back and be respectful and accommodating wherever we can. Maybe we can reach out to Gauthier and attempt to build a relationship in attempts to help her achieve her vision.

As for what Gauthier’s election means, that remains to be seen. Her background in urban planning could mean she’ll make well informed decisions for her district. But will the well being of university students be factored into those decisions?

In November of last year, a report was released by Hunger Free America that found that 18.3 percent of Philadelphia’s residents lived in houses deemed “food insecure” from 2015 to 2017. This percentage had increased significantly from the 2012 to 2014 rate of 11.1 percent, almost doubling in the three years since. Food insecurity is the term ascribed to people who are unable to afford a full supply of food. That is to say, almost 20 percent of the people in the city in which we live and love are struggling or failing to be able to put food on the table for themselves and their families.

There are a variety of reasons why food insecurity exists, but it’s hard to find an excuse for why anyone should be going without food when the world produces more than enough food to feed everyone in it. What often occurs is that food is wasted by consumers on a small scale, but by producers on an even larger scale. Produce that is deemed “ugly” or “unmarketable” is often sorted and trashed by those responsible for growing and selling. In a market driven by supply and demand, discounting this food means that you’re going to bite into your own profits in either the short-term or the long-term.

It’s hard to come to terms with these two conflicting truths. Do we protect the starving people in our city or the multi-billion dollar corporations who could easily feed them but choose not to? It’s a tricky question.

Oh wait, no it’s not. The people that have built the city and community that we live and learn in are suffering, and we are letting capitalism step all over their ability to not only live comfortably, but survive. Starving may seem like an alien concept to many of you reading this paper, but there are people not blocks from campus who are enduring it as you read.

Companies like Imperfect Produce and the work that they are doing are a great first step towards solving these issues, but it isn’t the end-all-be-all. We need to take steps as community members and consumers to ensure that people, at the very least, have the ability to feed their families. We owe it to ourselves. This is the “City of Brotherly Love,” afterall.

Value at Drexel University can easily be determined by distance from the Main Building. Entities located far from the Main Building seem to fizzle out in relevance the farther they are located from the seat of power in this institution. And this past week, one more of these entities fell victim to this unfortunate phenomenon: the College of Computing and Informatics moved from its initial location at the Rush Building to 36th and Market Street.5` It’s a terrific, state-of-the-art building with all the bells and whistles needed for a successful computing college, but it sits in the center of the commercial Science Center building, several blocks from the center of campus. With this move, the college and its computer whizzes have perhaps been dealt a final blow to the periphery of student life at Drexel; they are now out of sight and have been cast out of mind.

One only needs to stand at the Perelman Plaza to see what is valued at Drexel. Programs such as business, engineering and the physical sciences enjoy a cozy relationship with power. Their buildings are conveniently located close to the core of the institution, physically and, by extension, psychologically. On the other short end of the stick, programs such as sociology, communication and athletics are cast into obscure “garden level” broom closets and fields on 43rd and “where is that?” that remain foreign to a large subset of Drexel students. There does not seem to be an effort to foster a cohesive campus environment, and this shows in the diminished level of engagement in the school.

Our counterparts at the University of Pennsylvania seem to be succeeding where we have failed. It is not an oddity to see elements of campus life integrated into daily life at the campus. Greek houses are nestled between lecture halls on Locust Walk. Franklin Field is located right on campus, making it a resource not only for student athletes but also the occasional soccer enthusiast. Dining Halls are located within a stone throw distance of libraries. Such careful planning highlights the sense of community that the university considers in its acquisitions and allocations, a sense that is clearly lacking at Drexel.

Most students agree that being off-campus makes them feel isolated and out of touch with the Drexel community. Many programs at the university already push students out of campus. Co-ops move students away from the goings-on for six months. And with the increasing student population, some students are opting for off-campus living arrangements that drive them even farther from campus. And now, the university seems to cast its students haphazardly into far off spaces for classes. In the process, many students will undoubtedly feel that being associated with the Drexel University name is a mere formality and not the lived-in experience they bargained for upon matriculation.

Distance undoubtedly correlates heavily with how one is engaged on campus. Some spaces rarely receive any foot traction because there is no incentive to rein in these spaces as a part of the campus community. If Drexel keeps dotting Philadelphia’s map with random classroom locations, we will surely lose the importance of community. Indubitably, all the spaces, such as the Quad, that the university pours millions into creating will service the very same students taking classes at Lebow, the Papadakis Integrated Sciences Building,  and Bossone. The rest is an afterthought.

Walk into any student event at Drexel and you’ll be hit with a deja vu like you just walked into a brick wall. You’ll think, “Hey, why is this so familiar?” Oh that’s right, because it’s filled with the same 400 or so people that attend every other event. For a student body that’s supposed to be nearly 16,000 undergraduate students strong, you would never be able to tell by the small group of familiar faces. But why? There’s certainly no shortage of complaints about how Drexel has no school spirit or that there’s nothing to do around here, so why aren’t these students getting involved on campus?

Most would be quick to blame the co-op program for our fractured student body, or the 10-week quarter system for going too quickly to enjoy college life. But there’s a deeper issue than that; it’s ingrained into Drexel’s culture to be apathetic towards Drexel, and it’s ”cool” to be uninvolved.

Nearly every Drexel student knows at least one other that couldn’t care less about the University or the city of Philadelphia. Perhaps they’re one of the many wallflowers in your class, browsing Reddit or Facebook or even playing games in the middle of the lecture. Maybe they’re your roommate or acquaintance.

We have but one question for these people: why are you here?

If you’re not involved in student life or extracurriculars, you’re missing out on a huge part of what the university you are paying for has to offer. Complaining about the lack of whatever you think that the school is missing isn’t going to make it happen. The student body isn’t going to spontaneously explode with life and passion, it needs to be shaped by the students themselves. Sure the administration can play a role in easing that shaping, but the brunt of work falls on us.

Frankly, we don’t think Drexel students are up to the challenge. They might be able to focus their ambition on their careers and personal aspirations, but making Drexel a better place by being involved? That’s probably too tall an order. For a long time, things seemed to go down this path of diminishing interest, but it sincerely doesn’t have to continue.

Drexel students have too often resigned themselves to existing in a boring and uncaring environment and thinking there’s nothing they’re going to do about it. But this isn’t the case. It’s never too late to get involved and put yourself out there. You can spark the spirit in others that you wish to see here. There are countless opportunities and now is the time to explore opportunities and interests in a safe environment in a way you may not be able to in the future. Don’t let it pass you by! You may just find a community of interests and people that you love.

Anyone who went on a campus tour of Drexel University before attending might remember their tour guide touting the 10:1 student to faculty ratio or the average class size of 18 students. These are great numbers in comparison to some other institutions as they indicate a more personal educational experience. But after two consecutive years of record-breaking incoming freshmen classes, those numbers have gone up. Drexel has not hired the faculty necessary to sustain a close-knit educational environment.

While an increase to 11:1 student to faculty ratio and an average class size of 19 may seem insignificant or unproblematic, it highlights a significant issue in the attitude of Drexel’s administration towards academics.

It is one of Drexel’s worst-kept secrets that it does not invest in its academics in any capacity that the majority of students or faculty would find acceptable. The Triangle itself has even published op-eds from Drexel faculty members highlighting this very issue. Drexel’s administration justifies its cuts to programs and severe underfunding by insisting budget austerity brought on by low enrollment numbers immediately after its overhaul of the Drexel admissions process.

Rather than try to shield its academic programs from financial constraints, Drexel has used this guise of budget austerity to force tenured faculty into retirement under its “Voluntary Retirement Incentive Plan” and avoid hiring new faculty to meet the needs of the massive incoming classes of the previous two years.

The sociology department’s Sociology 101 course has long been a staple of several academic programs, including engineering and computing programs. Up until now, the course was heavily centered around discussion amongst classmates and critical thinking on important social topics, and relied on the small class format with around 18 students. But the sociology department lacked the funding and support it needed to hire enough faculty to teach all the sections of Sociology 101 required, forcing them to change the course format to a large lecture style this term. This means packing over 100 students in a lecture hall, and in the process losing any opportunity for discussion.

The actions of administrators have made one thing clear: courses exist not for quality learning, but rather for pushing as many students through their degree program requirements as quickly and as cheaply as possible.

Drexel’s administration so transparently tries to make Drexel into a top-tier institution that can compete with the likes of New York University, but its cut-rate attitude towards academics will make Drexel nothing more than a degree mill with shiny facilities and a co-op program. Drexel must hire the faculty needed to teach the sections required by the thousands of students it enrolls each year. It should not admit an ever increasing number of students without doing anything to support them— It’s unsustainable.

We all have childhood memories of a bookstore. Whether or not you liked to read or even wanted to be there at some point in your life, you have wandered down a narrow path lined with towering bookshelves stacked to the brim with colors and text staring back at you. In those pages, on those shelves lay thousands of stories, escapes, lessons, observations for every type of person that there is or was. There’s a magical quality to it, to being surrounded with the power to potentially learn anything with a few turns of a page.

As time has gonewent on, many bookstores have closed their doors as behemoths like Amazon have taken over the book distribution industry as we lost mom- and- pop stores left and right, and even some big chains like Borders. It seems now the only physical bookstore chain that stands tall is Barnes & Noble, who have made successful moves to keep up with the times that have managed to keep them afloat for the time being. Though the Nook may not have stacked up to the Kindle, these moves towards transforming their business (and being a staple on almost every university campus) are what has kept B&N in the game.

Smaller bookstores don’t have these resources or opportunities, so when it becomes their time, they often have little option but to close their doors, which is what has tragically happened to our near and dear Penn Book Center. Though it carries the name of our neighbor on its sign, the store is located pretty close to home, at the corner of 34th and Sansom streets to be exact.

As bigger companies like Amazon make some moves to instill physical locations, on the University of Pennsylvania campus for example, it becomes even easier for the convenience and discounts of these monoliths to eat away at the profits of smaller companies.

Universities are already a breeding ground for gentrification in a way that we have to actively combat, but these measures we can take for the sake of easing the lives of students can often come at the cost of local businesses and campus life. Penn Book Center frequently hosted literary and academic events and offered a meeting place for the literary minded from both Penn and Drexel University to consort and mingle. There was a sense of authenticity and care for products that bigger companies can’t replicate. The closing of the Penn Book Center is and serve as a loss for the student body and the city in general.

It’s admittedly hard to fight these changes, for as a university, it’s your goal to make your students lives as simple and straightforward as possibleyou can so they can prioritize studies. We should keep in mind, however, that sometimes it’s worth making compromises of ease for the purpose of supporting the community that we find ourselves living in for at least four years.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than one in three women and nearly one in four men have experienced sexual violence involving physical contact in their lives. One in five women and one in 38 men have experienced completed or attempted rape in their lives.

Your eyes just glazed over those numbers, didn’t they? Or maybe you thought about the cups of tea you were told not to give freshman year? Discussion surrounding sexual assault has become such a reality in our generation that you probably knew those numbers off the top of your head. But, we have to remember that those numbers are actual people, people who were made victims to their own bodies. People who were thrown off their course to deal with unexpected trauma that was no fault of their own. People who were called liars for standing up for themselves, or forced to stay silent given the possible consequences.

April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. As one walks around campus, they might notice a poster or two defining consent and listing statistics. Student organizations man tables next to our Dragon statue, doling out T-shirts for awareness. We are encouraged to participate in “Teal Tuesdays” to show our support for victims. Students participate; some with care, others out of obligation, and many for free merch. Yet do any of these (sometimes empty) gestures change the unfortunate reality?    

In this Drexel bubble, it can be hard to feel like any issue really affects us. Students are so disconnected from each other between busy schedules and different co-op cycles that it can be hard to create a sense of community. But this pandemic of people not keeping their hands to themselves didn’t simply skip over our bubble. Sexual assault very much exists within this campus as well. It is time to be sincere in getting involved, supporting peers, and showing up.

Efforts such as “Teal Tuesday” are a great start in sparking discussions about sexual assault on campus. As students, it is up to us to sincerely engage in them, for more than just a free T-shirt. There are many events taking place on campus this month to stimulate deeper discussion.

The “Memento” exhibit, as mentioned in the News section, is a stunning exhibit to visit in the James E. Marks Intercultural Center.

Tarana Burke, initiator of the “Me Too” movement and survivor of sexual assault herself, is being hosted by the school at Mitchell Auditorium the evening of April 26th.

There is also a lunch-and-learn “How to Support a Survivor” event on April 29, recommended for those looking to understand how to be an ally.

As part of World Dragon Week, the “Where’s My Voice?” panel will dive into international students and students of color being disproportionately affected by sexual violence.

The Office of Equality and Diversity is also collaborating with fraternities and sororities for a “Not a Bystander: Sexual Violence Awareness” panel this month as well.  

It might be uncomfortable for some to attend such events, but think about the reality a survivor faces. The least one can do is show up. And most importantly, don’t be a bystander.

Drexel University rarely finds itself on the good side of publicity. However, as the mumps outbreak unfolded these past two weeks, the university was largely spared, unlike our neighboring college on the other side of The Schuylkill River, Temple University. Around 100 students at Temple were infected with mumps, a disease that is preventable by vaccination and considered largely contained in most parts of the world.

The scourge exposed the fact that Temple does not require its incoming students to update their immunization records before matriculation as much as many other schools in the Philadelphia area, such as Drexel and the University of Pennsylvania, require their students to do so. This escape is not cause for celebration or claim to higher moral ground on account of the suffering of fellow students. On the contrary, it ought to call to attention the numerous lapses in preventative medicine and applaud the emphasis students and college administrators put on the importance of vaccination at Drexel University and beyond.

The out-of-pocket cost of vaccination is the biggest barrier among college students. Not all insurance companies cover the cost of vaccines, which can be as high as $300. Even among insurance companies that cover vaccination, the out-of-pocket costs can easily spiral out of control, especially when several vaccines are required at once, which is commonly the case when students matriculate into college and require booster shots. A $10 copay may not seem like much, but when multiplied across the myriad of diseases that college students need to be vaccinated for, that value increases drastically. Most people would rather dabble with the risk of contracting disease rather than pay a small cost for prevention.

Most people still have hesitations about vaccinations. This is not a claim that most people are anti-vaxxers: the idea that vaccines cause autism is largely a fringe idea. However, vaccines are viewed wearily even among proponents of vaccination. Think of the flu vaccine. Not many people get their flu shots because they hold the belief that the vaccine is likely to result in disease anyway. Now imagine if this belief were magnified to the dozens of diseases that incoming students are expected to be immunized against within the few months before matriculation. With this in mind, students dodging the shot becomes even more likely.

Vaccine researchers have failed in communicating the value of their work in protecting large populations. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor of communication and the director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, posits that using terms such as “herd immunity” to describe the value of vaccinations actually dissuades people from getting vaccinated, as humans respond negatively to terms that are used to describe animals such as sheep. Instead of using “herd immunity,” Dr. Jamieson encourages scientists to use terms such as “community immunity” because we are more likely to identify and empathize with our communities. Colleges are communities, and retreating to solitary enclaves is not an option. On the contrary, students ought to see the value of extending their care to the larger population of which they are an integral part.

Vaccinations guard us against debilitating diseases. However, the current modus operandi clearly has fundamental flaws that ought to be addressed by all stakeholders. Students ought to recognize the value of vaccination, and the school ought to make it easier to acquire vaccinations and to make the process more organized and reasonable. Getting vaccinated should not just be another hoop to jump through in order to register for classes.

Chances are that if you’re reading this you are one of Drexel’s 24,190 students. Between undergraduate, graduate, professional and online students there are quite literally tens of thousands of students, and hundreds of thousands before them, who worked hard to be able to receive a higher education.

Though Drexel isn’t exactly the most selective school around, clocking in at an acceptance rate of about 75 percent, the students who end up attending this school work tirelessly on 10-week term schedules, balancing academics with sports, activities and social lives.

They do this because the majority of people who set foot on this campus are grateful for the fact that they are here. Sure, every college campus is riddled with students who take their opportunities for granted or don’t try, but for a school with a high acceptance rate and even higher tuition, the students here appreciate what they get out of a higher education.

That’s part of what makes the college admissions scandal that hit headlines earlier this week so frustrating. To catch those up who may have missed it, multiple wealthy people and high-profile celebrities have been indicted by the FBI in an investigation surrounding bribery, cheating and fraud in the college admissions process.

Celebrities Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman were two of the dozens of parents who are being charged with cheating the system — anywhere from bribing standardized test proctors to faking entire student athlete careers to get their kids into schools like Stanford, Yale, Georgetown, Wake Forest University and the University of Southern California.

Wake Forest? USC? Really? Aim higher.

Regardless, this is a scandal that is symbolic of a much larger problem in the higher education system in this country. This was one of those things that everyone knew was happening but just let it continue anyway. Rich people getting their kids into good schools with money and influence? Totally fine. Unless it’s slightly behind closed doors. Then it’s a federal crime.

There’s a hypocrisy about higher education here that this story should compel us to address. The barriers to entry in higher education in this country are too high by academic standards alone, even before we consider letting parents let their kids who don’t deserve to ride through school on legacy admissions and endowment donations.

Our system of education is broken at almost every level, and as time goes on we take one step forward and two steps back as the people on top do whatever they can to make sure they stay there. The meritocracy that we pretend our country is built upon is heavily skewed downwards. These aren’t people who earned this. These are people who have amassed wealth and taken opportunities from other students who deserve them just as much, if not more.

If we’re going to put so much value on a college education as a society then we need to make it something that everyone can achieve. These practices of public bribery and bias that we encourage as a society won’t stop until we do something about it, and these indictments are a good first step.

Producing enough food to feed our student body is a large task. When you add in providing enough options for people with dietary restrictions and keeping food quality high enough to meet expectations, the task becomes even bigger.

This is the task that Campus Dining Services and Aramark try to accomplish everyday here at Drexel University. And to their credit, they do a pretty great job and are very receptive to feedback. Since taking over as the designated food provider in 2016, Aramark has consistently sought student feedback and made improvements based on the criticism they have received.

But there is always room for improvement. When it comes to the dining options and services, the system is plagued by inconsistency at different levels. Most importantly, is inconsistent availability of menu items. While many of the items on the various Urban Eatery menus are enticing, when you go to order you find items that are rarely available. In contrast, the Handschumacher Dining Center has an abundance of their menu options, but the food lacks quality and freshness.

Another inconsistency is what exactly the value of a meal swipe truly is. At the Hans, a meal swipe gives access to as much as you care to eat. But, when you go to Urban Eatery it can vary from as little as a coffee and a pastry, to a pizza in addition to a side and a drink. These three swipes are obviously not financially equivalent to each other. So how much is a meal swipe worth? Establishing a more consistent value across the board would make budgeting your dining plan out over the term simpler.

It is also basically impossible to use a meal swipe past 9:30 p.m. due to the Hans closing at 8 p.m. and the few stations that stay open until 10 p.m. running out of food or starting to close early. This is a big oversight considering many students have night classes that end between 9 and 10 p.m. These students, and those logging late study hours at the library, should have options available to them later in the night.

One of the biggest changes that Campus Dining Services at the beginning of this academic year was expanding menu options for vegans and vegetarians. The deli in Urban Eatery was replaced by the new U.C. Veg which has a sustainable, plant-based menu. The station also recently updated their menu with new items created through collaboration with Drexel Food Lab and Aramark’s Culinary Development Kitchen. The number of meatless proteins also increased, but not by much. With the growing number of people following plant-based lifestyles, whether out of necessity or choice, there should be more protein sources available for vegetarians and vegans.

We understand that creating a dining environment that pleases thousands of opinionated students is a near impossible task. And we applaud Aramark and Campus Dining Services on what they are able to do here each day. We hope this constructive criticism can help them continue to provide better services to our campus and help Drexel continue to feed ambition.