It is evident that the universities in this country are simply not designed for low-income students. The students with the most debt in America are the ones forced to take out loans in order to attain the degree and education they are more than capable and deserving of. The individuals with administrative power at these universities continue to reap the financial benefits while students live in crippling debt for several years after graduation — if they make it that far.

There is currently $1.67 trillion in student debt because universities make attaining a degree as a financially illiterate individual nearly impossible — unless you are born into wealth. The student debt crisis currently affects around 45 million borrowers in America. Higher education is not the “great equalizer” people claim it to be. Universities like Drexel consistently perpetuate the current class divides by charging over $50,000 a year in tuition costs. Low-income students are being deprived of the higher education they deserve at the schools they are qualified to attend because they lack the knowledge and resources to apply and fund their education.

Private universities across America are using an unfair business plan and targeting “full pay” students who will not need financial aid or scholarship awards. Most of these schools can barely function based on their current business plans, which are geared toward higher-income students. Adjusting their funding to accommodate low-income students would make their system weaker, which would in turn decrease their revenue. According to The Atlantic, “…many schools don’t want more low-income students because they won’t be able to pay for them without a major overhaul of school funding practices.” Higher education institutions are a breeding ground for making wealthy people wealthier, while those from lower- and middle-class families continue to struggle.

Being financially independent and from a low- to middle-class family has caused insurmountable amounts of stress in my academic career and has hindered my progress. I was not aware of the structure of higher education institutitons and was promised success by an institution who does not value my education. Success is subjective to those in power when you are poor. Drexel University was unwilling to award me additional funding, and I was forced to take a leave of absence while there are currently thousands of full-pay students who do not require aid. Getting a degree from a private university is something I am physically capable of doing and more than deserving of. However, the system prevents me from being successful because I require additional funding that the wealthy students do not. I have over $100,000 in student debt and I do not have a degree yet. This is unfortunately the case for millions of students.

In order to alleviate the stress and increase opportunities for low-income students, there needs to be more information available for high-achieving, low-income students. This would increase the number of applications and pressure the business-dominated universities to decrease costs. Universities should be offering additional resources to families to make them aware of their funding options. By offering more scholarships and grants, the administrators and admissions offices can help slowly decrease the number of students in a debt crisis. Educate yourself and your low-income friends and family on the available resources and the effects of student debt. Petition your administration to be more transparent and advocate for those who need it most. College is hard no matter what socioeconomic background you come from. We don’t have to make it harder for those already struggling.

As I am sure all of you know, our beloved newspaper has been publishing online since the beginning of COVID-19 in order to keep our writers and readers safe.

With that being said, I would like to shine a spotlight on a few memorable and noteworthy articles that have only been published online.

Our writers have been keeping up with the times, researching and being a voice for years now, and none of that has changed with a global pandemic.

Here are 10 awesome opinion articles worth reading on the Triangle’s website (not listed in any particular order):

1. An Open Letter on Mental Health by Brandon Martinez

2. Adapting to college at home by Matthew Brooks

3. Cancel Culture helps no one by Roxana Shojaian

4. Cutting ties with Aramark by Aru Nittur

5. How to talk to your parents about politics by Nicky Como

6. Philly Food Tribute by Kwame Amuh

7. The Truth about Zoom Settings by Sally Elhers

8. Voter Suppression in the United States by Shreya Srinivasan

9. The Benefits of Joining Professional Organizations by Jonathan Liss

10. A Criticism of Drexel by Sklyer Verrone

COVID-19 undoubtedly changed things. The world and idea of normalcy is drastically different for countless individuals, families and students across the globe. Remote learning, social distancing and cancelled events, among other changes, are believed to have ruined the best years of people’s lives. Life as we know it is different, and that is certainly something to grieve.

Yet somehow, I think this pandemic affected Drexel students’ party life the hardest.

Since last March, I am sure the poor, empty fraternity houses are going through withdrawal, as are the rest of the Drexel students who enjoy the beautiful experience that is a college frat basement party.

Flashing colorful strobe lights, walls that are sweatier than the girls pushed up against each other because it is so packed, and obviously the beverages (which would never be served to minors, of course) are the defining characteristics of a college party lifestyle, which many people are not getting the chance to experience. Though it may seem superficial, countless individuals are missing these parties, and some students still yearn for the day they can be reunited with their friends while upbeat music blasts in the background and girls dance in tank tops and ripped jeans on the elevated surfaces of a house on Powelton Avenue.

I am sure we are all deeply saddened for the freshmen who do not know what it is like to see girls running toward a house where the music is so loud it seeps through the front door and can be heard from the fourth floor of a dorm building. It is probably hard for students to hear about the excitement of dressing down, to as little as possible, in the middle of the winter because you know you’re going to be sweaty in the basement.

However, having been a part of this particular aspect of Drexel’s student life, I would say I am maybe a little more sad for the fraternity brothers, who could not hold their typical Welcome Week parties. For those of you who are unaware, these parties usually consisted of sweaty, sloppy college boys trying to “introduce” themselves to the new freshmen on campus and give new Drexel students a taste of what weekends typically look like on campus.

For many students, including myself, this is what college feels like. To look back at my college experience, I am of course grateful for my wonderful professors, my extremely challenging and insightful classes, the people I’ve met and my volunteer activities.

But I will not be deceitful or pretend that I didn’t experience this while writing an article about it. The partying experience defined my college experience. It gave me countless memories I will cherish forever.

Going out with my friends and stumbling into a crowded living room filled with people I don’t know, dancing to music I probably don’t like, and doing things I might not be proud of or post on my social media accounts is an experience I feel any college student deserves if they want it.

Contrary to popular belief, our system is not broken. It is functioning exactly how it is supposed to, which many Americans fail to realize due to the ignorance and manipulation of wealthy, white people in power. The United States of America was built upon and continues to reap the benefits of stolen land, stolen labor and abused human lives.

Black History Month can be a frustrating and upsetting time for many people, especially Black Americans. Dedicating a singular month out of our calendar year to Black history does not really make sense, considering the well-proved notion that American history simply is Black history. Why does it take people until February to celebrate and welcome the countless Black artists, businesses, celebrities and historians into a celebratory and admirable category? They should be celebrated every day and in every way.

On Feb. 16, 2021, I had the pleasure of attending one of the Drexel Chai Chats, which happened to be focused on Black History Month. The title of the chat was “Black History: More than a month,” and I spoke with other Drexel students about different aspects of Black history and the month dedicated to Black Americans.

One particular focus that allowed for an interesting and informative discussion was how American history is taught—or rather, how it isn’t taught. American history is white-washed. There is no denying it. The slave rebellions, economic growth, power and the treatment of slaves is romanticized and downplayed severely. We were lied to. We need to take responsibility.

American history is written to please and protect white people. It is written to keep white children and their parents comfortable. A quick public service announcement though, for anyone who wasn’t aware: History is supposed to make you uncomfortable. By teaching young children the truth about American history, we are teaching them empathy. Explaining slavery and racism to a young, impressionable child eliminates a crucial part of systematic racism; it allows for growth and change in future generations.

The reason the education system and political leaders of this country avoid such honesty is that instilling and teaching empathy in young white children will ultimately change how society functions. Empathy towards Black people can and will create the change we so desperately need. However, the system and those in power do not want this. They reap the benefits of oppressed minorities and changing that would take power and wealth from them.

Drexel Chai Chats is a fairly new organization sponsored by Drexel’s Student Center for Diversity and Inclusion and run by Drexel student leaders Rowan Sheridan and Zack Levy-Dyer. The organization and its conversation series aim to bring awareness to and have the difficult conversations about numerous pressing issues that affect society and Drexel’s students and staff. Racism, mental health, gun violence, domestic violence, gentrification, voter suppression, homelessness and displacement are just some of the topics we hardly hear enough about—but we should.

This country and the education system in place continues to manipulate us and use the habitual abuse and torture of Black Americans to keep the system functioning the way it has since its origin. I am frustrated because I cannot comprehend why it took me until my sophomore year of college, in a specialized history and sociology class I selected for myself, to learn even a sliver of how Black people were treated in this country and how racism originated in Western civilization.

The disgusting, gut-wrenching history of this nation and the treatment of Black people in the U.S. needs to be taught. It cannot be ignored any longer, and it should not be taught in a way that diminishes the horrendous treatment of slaves and BIPOC in America. We are being blinded, and it is in our hands to demand that accurate information be taught to us.

It is our duty to self-educate and undo what our ancestors did. We need to change how we perceive and teach history. I hope you are uncomfortable. You should be.

This was a public letter emailed to the opinion editor of The Triangle, at the request of the Drexel Emeriti faculty, who feel strongly that the community should read and understand the following points.

To the Members of the Drexel Community:

We, the Undersigned, emeriti faculty of Drexel University, call upon President John Fry and the Drexel Board of Trustees to revoke the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws awarded Rudolph W. Giuliani in 2009, forthwith.  Mr. Giuliani has been the principal mouthpiece and instigator of former President Donald Trump’s unfounded, vitriolic, and insurrectionary campaign to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, which culminated on January 6 in a violent attack on the Houses of Congress in session, an act unprecedented in the history of our country.

The facts of the case are not at issue, nor is the direct, sustained, and incendiary conduct of Mr. Giuliani in the events leading up to the assault, including his speech to an assembled and armed mob calling for “trial by combat” that immediately preceded it.  There can be no place of honor for Mr. Giuliani, and no consequence but dishonor for any institution of higher learning that continues to accord him one.  Two universities that had granted honorary degrees to Mr. Trump, Lehigh and Wagner, at once withdrew them.  Middlebury College, which awarded such a degree to Mr. Giuliani in 2005, revoked it on January 12, with the statement by its president, Laurie Patton, that Mr. Giuliani’s conduct amounted to “an insurrection against democracy itself.”

On January 19, Drexel’s Faculty Senate called for the revocation of Mr. Giuliani’s degree by a vote of 43-3.  More than four weeks have now passed without further action by the University.  With due respect, there can be no further need for discussion, and no excuse for delay.  A majority of the United States Senate voted to convict former President Trump of incitement to insurrection.  Mr. Trump himself congratulated Mr. Giuliani for his participation in this incitement.  The New York State Bar Association, which is now considering Mr. Giuliani’s disbarment, states in its by-laws that “no person who advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States” shall be entitled to practice law by its warrant.  That is precisely what Mr. Giuliani has done, not only by advocacy but in action.  And that is not merely incitement, but co-conspiracy in treason.

Emeriti faculty have a singular responsibility for the integrity of the institutions they serve, as its longest-serving academic members.  We feel this particularly in so egregious a matter as the present one.  The damage done to the honor and reputation of Drexel University is already a significant one.  Each passing day compounds it.  Our connection to Mr. Giuliani must be severed at once.

Anthony Addison

Professor Emeritus, Department of Chemistry

Raymond Brebach

Professor Emeritus, Department of English and Philosophy

Roger Doherty

Professor Emeritus, Department of Materials Science and Engineering

Leonard Finegold

Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics

James Friend

Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Chemistry

Teck-Kah Lim

Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics

Donald Larson

Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics

Charles Morscheck

Professor Emeritus, Department of Art and Art History

James Spotila

Professor Emeritus, Department of Biodiversity, Earth, and Environmental Science

Blaise Tobia

Professor Emeritus, Department of Art and Art History

Peter Wade

Professor Emeritus, Department of Chemistry

Jian-Min Yuan

Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics

Robert Zaller

Drexel Distinguished University Professor of History, Emeritus

It has nothing, yet everything, to do with politics this time. The Democratic party has officially elected and sworn in a female vice president. The United States of America finally has a female vice president.

Not only is Madam Vice President Kamala Harris a female, but she is a black, South Asian female. The representation and motivation of this historical occurrence is monumental. Intersectionality, on a much smaller scale than we need, has been overcome. Kamala Harris has made dreams become a reality for countless women and minority women around the world. She is standing as living, tangible proof that women can now do exactly what men do — though, we as feminists have known that for a long time now.

For centuries, women have been viewed as inferior or incapable of being powerful, especially in government positions and politics. The idea that women are “too emotional” or “too sensitive” has allowed men to disrespect and disregard our capabilities of accomplishing something great for far too long. I said this has nothing to do with politics, because to some degree it doesn’t. Having our first female vice president ultimately has to do with society… and feminism. We are slowly changing how society views and treats women. We are making progress, and though it appears political, it can simply be categorized as societal.

Since the first women’s rights convention in Seneca Falls, New York, American women and others around the globe have been fighting for equality and equal opportunities. Politics were typically viewed as masculine, and for years women have been told they have no place in the government. Unfortunately, I think too many women themselves believed this given the lack of female representation in our government until the most recent elections. Given how few women have ever held a high-ranking position until now, it is safe to say that women are far more likely than men to see structural barriers and uneven expectations holding them back from these positions. According to the Pew Research Center, about seven in 10 women — versus about half of men — say a major reason why women are underrepresented in top positions in politics and business is that they have to do more to prove themselves. When asked whether gender discrimination is a major obstacle to female leadership, 44 percent of men say this is true in the corporate world and 36 percent of men say this is true in politics. Contrarily, about six in 10 women say this is true in each of these realms.

I want to explain why this has everything to do with politics. On a very large scale, these gender gaps persist within parties. Among Republicans and Democrats, women are more likely than men to say there are too few women in political and corporate leadership positions, and there are substantial gender differences, particularly among Republicans, in views on the obstacles holding women back from these positions.

Americans today often view women in politics in a negative light… or rather I should say many American men view women in politics in a negative light. The amount of disgusting, degrading comments on social media platforms about women politicians is seriously alarming. Are some men so insecure about or threatened by a woman in power that their first thought or argument is that she must have performed sexual favors to get to that position? Comments such as “She must be good on her knees to go from a basic District Attorney to the Vice President” flooded social media posts the days leading up to and following Inauguration Day. The problem is not necessarily bitter Republican men complaining about the current administration, though that is inevitable. The problem is not actually about politics; it is about women being in power and achieving landmark successes while the underlying sexualization and invalidation from men is still being excused.

I cannot seem to fathom why so many men think a woman is incapable of accomplishing something without her achievements being sexualized or being attacked for her appearance. Women do not exist to make men feel better. Women who hold political positions should not be categorized as “women politicians.” They are politicians. The downfalls of gender and sex always seem to wiggle their way into conversations where a woman has accomplished something monumental, yet hardly ever come up when the conversations about sex and gender require men to take responsibility for their faults such as rape, sexual violence, discrimination and so on.

Overall, the public sees benefits to female leadership. The notion that we are “too” anything to accomplish what a man can is invalid. Having a period every month does not change our capability to do anything, despite what men like Donald Trump might think. Having children and a family does not mean we are less dedicated or motivated. There is no valid argument why men and women cannot hold the same positions anymore. Kamala Harris is proof of that.

It is evident that the majorities say having more women in top positions in business and government would improve the quality of life at least somewhat for all Americans. Women are far more likely than men to say having more women in top leadership positions would be beneficial. Two-thirds of women say having more female leaders would improve the quality of life for men at least somewhat.

Millions of women, including myself, applaud you, Madam Vice President. Thank you for showing us that landmark accomplishments are possible.

As she so eloquently said, we did it.

Drexel is planning its partial return to campus for winter quarter despite the current spike in cases both in Philadelphia and throughout the country. In response, many are worried about how Drexel should prepare for some students and staff to make that return. 

A message was sent out Oct. 29 outlining Drexel’s plan for the partial reopening of campus. However, this message was written and released before the news of highly-effective vaccines — set to be distributed soon — came to light and before the new preventative measures that Philadelphia has implemented in response to the recent spike in cases. Drexel has issued statements and made changes in its procedures regarding these measures, but as of yet, there has been no indication of changing reopening plans in light of these developments.

In fairness, it would be unreasonable to expect Drexel to adjust their plans so quickly under such volatile circumstances. However, the fact remains that a safe return to campus for the winter quarter will require a more detailed plan than the one released Oct. 29. According to the statement, the current plan includes the following:

• Students will return to campus and reside in single-occupancy on-campus housing.
• Drexel will accommodate students who want to participate in full-online learning.
• Increased testing protocols will be implemented.
• Classes will start Jan. 11 and will be fully remote until Jan. 18, at which point some classes will switch to a hybrid or face-to-face format.
• Study abroad and international co-op’s will be suspended for the winter.

Currently, programs have listed which classes will be remote, in-person and hybrid for the upcoming term. There are some details listed for what measures will be taken for in-person classes. 

Testing is already in place on campus, and it has proven to be efficient in processing students and quickly delivering results. However, with the current plan to bring freshmen to campus housing for the winter, Drexel will need to expand its testing protocols to meet the likely increase in demand. Additionally, a strong actionable protocol will help families feel that their students are safe at college. 

There is notably no mention of how students will be moved into residence halls and how life in dorms will be regulated to reduce outbreaks. Additionally, there is no mention of whether dining halls will be open or what regulations will be in place if they are. As of now, Drexel is also supporting American Campus Communities in bringing sophomores to campus as well.

It might be ambitious to expect Drexel to have a full plan for the winter at the moment, especially given the probability of major changes in the month ahead. However, detailed plans for testing, move-in, classes, dining plans and other safety measures are vital if Drexel plans to have students return to campus in January, regardless of the pandemic’s status. Additionally, many students, including some freshmen but mostly upperclassmen, chose to return to campus this fall despite instruction being online, which reminds us of the responsibility the University has to continue to keep the community safe even without a formal return to campus.