Juana Garcia/The Cougar

College is supposed to be a place of innovation and bold ideas that will go on to revolutionize society. Yet, in terms of how UH organizes its Student Government Association, it is anything but innovative. SGA needs to become more democratic if it wants to have a successful impact on campus.

As a new administration comes into SGA, there is an opportunity to change this. It’s time for the University to start leading the way in how it includes the student body in the decision-making process. It must start adopting reforms that will make SGA a more effective and democratic body in the future.

The majority of principal focus should be fixing the broken election process. In this past election, only 2,028 students voted, a figure which is 25 percent lower than the turnout in 2020 and a whopping 45 percent lower than in 2018.

With a student body the size of over 47,000, turnout this incredibly low is absolutely unacceptable. 

To make the lack of democracy worse, these votes were gathered and tabulated by a process called Ranked Choice Voting which, while not the worst voting system, has many flaws.

The low turnout indicates the students are massively uninformed. A few policy upgrades would go a long way to fix these issues. 

Namely, there needs to be a far greater distribution of informational material during election periods.

Election week should come with everything from banners in the Student Centers, to email notifications, to the videoing and wide-scale sharing of the presidential debate. This shockingly has not happened since 2016. Tabling efforts also need to be expanded from the very limited scope to cover more locations during more times. 

Following this, an easy way to improve voter education would be to require candidates to submit a brief summary of their case to voters. These summaries could then be made easily accessible in the voting portal. With more information, students will be better equipped to make a choice that actually represents their beliefs and values.

Finally, it’s time to switch ballots to using Score Than Automatic Run-off voting, often referred to as STAR Voting. In this type of voting system, students would be asked to give each candidate a zero to five score based on how much they like those running.

Instead of needing to rank a dozen or so candidates, as it is required now, voters will be able to think about their opinion of each candidate in isolation. This would be beneficial since the current ranked-choice ballots benefit candidates situated at the top, said recently elected SGA President Joshua Martin. 

“It can be detrimental, especially in Senate races,” Martin said. “People will support individual parties and vote for the name at the top of the ballot. (It is) extremely unfair in my opinion.” 

A STAR system would eliminate this unfair advantage and allow students to give multiple candidates the same score if they so desired.

In addition, STAR would produce results that are far easier for the election commission to calculate, far less likely to fall prey to strategic voting and far more representative of the genuine preferences of students.

With these reforms, SGA could begin to regain its legitimacy as a body that genuinely represents UH’s diverse population. With enough political will, it could move on to consider even more ambitious democratic reforms that would truly prepare it for future success. 

Micah Erfan is an economics freshman who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“SGA needs more democracy to be successful” was originally posted on The Cougar

Gerald Sastra/The Cougar

Since Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s nomination to the Supreme Court and her confirmation hearing, many conservatives have questioned President Joe Biden in appointing her.

After several days of questioning, it has become quite clear that the intense scrutiny she went through was due to political agendas implicitly expressed by Republican figures.

Controversial conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson continued to question the merits of Judge Jackson’s career. He’s gone on national television asking for Judge Jackson’s LSAT scores, which are always undisclosed outside of law school applications.

Carlson mentioned asking for a Judge’s LSAT score would be considered racist in the eyes of his critics, just because Judge Jackson is a Black woman. But his statement is indeed seen as racist. 

Carlson hasn’t questioned the credentials of other white, Republican judicial nominees such as Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. He even defended Obama-era appointee Merrick Garland, despite him being appointed by a Democrat. 

But, in the case of Judge Jackson, graduating from Harvard University and Harvard Law, serving several years as a public defender and many more years in federal courts are, apparently, not enough to convince Carlson and many of his viewers that she is qualified to be considered for the Supreme Court. 

Other Republican senators such as Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley and Lindsey Graham all deviated from productive lines of questioning. They instead advanced their own political agendas to try and trap Judge Jackson into discussing the ethics behind one of her rulings regarding a case of child pornography back in 2013. 

This specific case is making many Republicans believe that her sentencing against the defendant was “soft,” and Democrats are gatekeeping information from Republicans regarding the case.

Judge Jackson’s ability to put aside her feelings regarding this crime and consider the merit behind the two arguments during the trial only exemplifies her as an unbiased Judge that follows the guidelines created by the legislative. 

Despite the attacks on her from the right, one thing that has been made clear throughout the hearing is Judge Jackson has been strenuously questioned on her merit when it has been nothing short of admirable.

Conservatives have likely been attacking her in order to keep a progressive judge from taking the bench. Senators tried to advance conservative political agendas in a hearing that should be bipartisan.

JJ Caceres is a political science freshman who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Political agendas interrupt Judge Jackson’s judicial hearing” was originally posted on The Cougar

Juana Garcia/The Cougar

The coronavirus pandemic brought a lot of change with moving to online education. A couple of years later, many colleges are back in person, something many people are grateful for.

That said, in order to help students get the best education they can, UH should prioritize offering HyFlex course options. 

Online learning

When it took off in 2020, there was a lot of criticism of online learning. For many people, the isolation of not seeing classmates made school difficult.

The lack of a regular schedule made many students anxious. Faculty stressed while struggling to adapt their curriculum to an online format. 

Because of this, many people are enjoying the return to campus.  With few exceptions, the majority of courses are now back to a face-to-face format. 

Nevertheless, many students also appreciated the convenience and flexibility of online learning. In fact, a Digital Learning Pulse survey found that a majority of college students want more online options. 

Accessibility is a big part of preferring online learning, especially for students like theatre senior Allie Funk. She had classes go online at the start of the pandemic but now is back to in-person instruction. 

“In general, (online classes) were helpful because I could do them from wherever, whether I was at home or in my dorm,” Funk said. “I could even attend a class in my recliner if I was having a really bad pain day.”

Funk’s experience exemplifies the utility of online school, especially for people whose disabilities may make it harder for them to attend class without pain. Online classes allowed her to take care of her schooling and comfort at the same time. 

Online options are not only useful for disabled students, but also for students with kids. 

History junior Desteny Guillen said being both a student and a parent of a young child has made her learn how to manage time better. Online classes have helped with that.

“My experience with online classes is awesome because I can do the work and readings when my son is sleeping or on my own time,” Guillen said. “Most of the work is always due at the end of the week. Therefore, each student-parent can make their own schedule on when to work and turn in their assignments.”

Remote classes provide the flexibility that people with time-consuming responsibilities, such as raising children, need to thrive as both parents and students. 

Online classes are clearly, very helpful. But a student’s need for in-person or remote learning may change based on their day-to-day schedule.

HyFlex learning

HyFlex classes, which are when students can attend the same class online or in person, can be useful for students who sometimes want to attend class, but can’t always make it. 

This is the case with Funk. When attending class, Funk often has to rely on the weather to be dry because of her power chair. 

“If it’s raining, I have to make sure to put a bag on the controller and if it’s raining really hard, a lot of times I just can’t go to class,” Funk said. “It’s not worth potentially damaging my wheelchair.”

This is an issue that is hard to fix in other ways. The University cannot control the weather, but it can control what alternative learning options it offers to students.

When UH had a soft opening featuring HyFlex, Funk found this to be helpful. 

“When I would use the HyFlex option, it was never because I didn’t want to go to class,” Funk said. “It was always situations where I wasn’t going to be going to class in person anyways. I was able to virtually attend and not miss out completely.” 

It’s no secret that Houston gets rain regularly. Students like Funk shouldn’t have to choose between damaging their expensive power chair and attending class. 

HyFlex can be extremely useful for other situations, such as car trouble.

Biology senior Nina Tran’s HyFlex course came in handy when her car’s tire popped on the way to school and she had to replace it.

“After having to deal with getting it changed, it really helped me to be able to attend class from home instead of worrying about making it to campus on time,” Tran said. 

Many students may prefer to come to an in-person class, but a HyFlex option can give them peace of mind that they can still attend if something happens. 

Issues

A HyFlex course sounds like the best of both worlds and it can be for students who need them. Of course, there is another side to HyFlex courses in the professors who teach them.

Honors College Professor Laura Bland offers all of her classes in HyFlex format. 

“The biggest benefit is student accessibility,” Bland said. “I want students to be able to participate in class even if they have something else going on.” 

While Bland is very pro-HyFlex, she said technology can be a big issue and sometimes just won’t work on certain days. In one of her classrooms, there’s a glare making it difficult for students online to see her or the class.

“From the professor’s side, it is a lot of extra time to do HyFlex well,” Bland said. “You might be able to fix those problems but of course, that takes class time.”

It’s not surprising that troubles arise in environments not originally built for having class in person as well as onscreen. Better technology and building classrooms with the HyFlex option in mind could probably solve many of these issues.

However, technology is not the only problem. While Bland is very enthusiastic about offering online options to students, it is no secret that some professors in general really struggle with teaching online.

Some professors at other universities have even compared HyFlex learning to dystopian fiction and there are likely faculty here who share a similar aversion. If UH expanded its online options, it would need to provide extra training and resources so that professors have what they need to teach effectively. 

While it’s not an easy fix, the University should decide if its priorities lie with all student’s educational needs. Because if so, it should push for and encourage professors to teach more HyFlex courses.

The educational benefits of HyFlex are clear. It is always better for a student to attend class than not, whether that be in person or online. Having more online options can help students decide what is best for their education. 

Expanding online options, especially HyFlex, would highly benefit the student body. Students deserve to thrive in their education, whether that be in a classroom, on a computer or both.

Anna Baker is an English senior who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“HyFlex course options should be prioritized by UH” was originally posted on The Cougar

Juana Garcia/The Cougar

The pandemic has allowed many employees to work from home but with restrictions lifted, many employers are requiring workers to return back to the office. While some may want this, a lot of people still prefer to work from home. Employers should let their employees decide whether they want to continue working from home or not. 

Students like political science freshman Sophia Wilson work for a law firm, having spent a year from home and six months in person. 

“I prefer working in person,” Wilson said. “I have found it much easier to make connections and build relationships in person. As a college student, acquiring references for my resume and meeting people who might be able to connect me with future jobs is incredibly important. I find this much more seamless to do in person.”

Wilson is one of the many people who found that the pandemic limited their ability to connect with others, stunting their professional, personal and academic growth. 

On the other hand, remote work has benefited others through lower travel costs, less stress and a better work-life balance. In fact, 70 percent of employees who worked from home considered video calls to be less stressful and were able to save about $4,000 per year because of remote work.

With this in mind, the decision of whether to go back to work in person or continue remotely should be decided by the employee, not the employer. 

Not every employee is the same according to a recent report. While 40 percent saw an increase in productivity in working from home, 15 percent saw the opposite. 

Some may prefer to work in person but see the benefits of remote work for other people. 

“While I prefer face-to-face interactions, other people found working from home to suit their lifestyle way more than going in person,” digital media junior Jeeda Bitar said. “Some people have kids or can’t drive or can simply get the work done in the comfort of their home.”

The employee is the only one who fully knows their strengths and limits, so they should be able to have the ability to choose how they would like to work. While some people thrive on connecting with others in person, like Wilson, others prefer zoom calls from the comfort of their home just like Bitar mentioned. 

The way in which employees and employers adapt to the ever-changing work culture is vital if not absolutely critical to America’s economy. 

“I work with numerous adults in their 50s and 60s who are pushing themselves to learn technology that used to be foreign to them,” Wilson said.  “In general, people are finding more creative solutions to problems and I love that.” 

With that in mind, employers should have more faith in their employees to do the job right whether it be remote or in person. Employees should be the ones to decide.

Cindy Rivas Alfaro is a journalism freshman who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Employees should choose whether to work in person” was originally posted on The Cougar

Juana Garcia/The Cougar

While the cost of lives has already been tragic in this conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the economic cost will continue to hurt citizens in both countries. Because of this, Putin must end this war. 

Since Feb. 24, a total of 2.7 million people have left Ukraine, no doubt hurting the country in the long run as it will likely struggle to recover economically in the future with a large portion of its population gone. 

A Pew Research study found that countries believe that having more migrants makes them stronger. This makes sense as having a large population can increase the variety of skills in the workforce.

Ukraine is struggling against Russia as of now, but even if Ukraine wins, it will struggle to get the economy back to thriving with a fraction of its people. 

A lot of this war is the result of a power struggle between NATO and Russia. If Putin doesn’t want to trigger a major military conflict with NATO nations, he should end the violence against Ukraine. 

It’s not in the interest of Russia to have war with any NATO member as its biggest member is the U.S, who has the most military spending than any other country by far. In the North Atlantic Treaty, article five states that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. 

Since Ukraine President Zelensky expressed a desire to join NATO, and Russia’s rockets have been striking dangerously close to Poland, a country in the treaty.  

Russia has a lot to lose, so it is better for them to back off. As of now, Russia is the most sanctioned country in the world. This is hurting its citizens who have been fighting over grocery store food due to shortages. 

A growing list  of companies including McDonalds, Starbucks and Goldman Sachs are also pulling out of Russia.

Additionally, the Russian ruble has declined over 40 percent and shares in Russian companies have fallen over 90 percent. Some experts have called this the worst economic situation in Russia since the Soviet Union fell. 

However, Putin does not want to stop. He is determined to get Ukraine no matter the cost to his country and people. 

Russia exports oil to mostly European countries. The top exports of Russia are crude petroleum, refined petroleum, Gas, Coal and Wheat, according to OEC. 

Germany relies on Russia for petroleum. Russia exported 8.53 billion dollars worth of crude petroleum in 2019 to Germany. Sanctions against them will hurt this large industry and continue to hurt the Russian economy.

Putin should put an end to this war or else the sanctions will continue. He must end this war for the sake of the Ukrainians and Russians who will economically suffer the most once this war ends. 

Jason Perez is a journalism and political science senior who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Putin must end this war or suffer economic consequences” was originally posted on The Cougar

Gerald Sastra/The Cougar

When you blossom into an adult and have to find your way in life, familial obligation continues to follow you. The choice of giving back to your parents for your childhood is circumstantial and comes down to the individual experience. 

Familial relationships are unique in the aspect that these are the only people in the world in which you share blood and had no choice in who they would be. To add on, parent-child relationships are tremendously different than other relationships since the responsibility relies heavily on the parent to care of their child as a moral obligation. 

With that in mind, the question arises whether the child has a moral obligation to care for their parents once they become adults. 

There are three common views when it comes to familial obligation which is the unconditional, conditional and friendship view.  

The unconditional view is that children should give back to their parents regardless of if their parents were good to them or not. 

The conditional view is where children only give back to their parents what they were given as children.

As for the friendship view, it provides the framework of how much a child should give back to their parents depending on a voluntary relationship between both parties. To put it in simpler terms, a child does not owe their parents anything other than what they choose to do for them out of love. 

All of the above views are understandable and the way one comes to a realization out of the three depends on their personal experiences and relationships with their parents. 

If someone has had a good relationship with their parents and is grateful to them, it is simple for them to decide to repay them back for the things they’ve done. However, not every parent-child relationship is black and white, which creates a cultural and moral dilemma within the adult child. 

In fact, familial obligation tends to be a source of stress for many.

Growing up, children often have to choose between following the norms within their family and the norms created by their peers. 

This causes a strain in adult children once they no longer live within the circle of their parents and enter the outside world where norms are different from what they grew up with. This is common in Latino cultures where Familismo, the unconditional closeness and love within your family, is a stark contrast to the individualistic identity embraced in America where one makes choices for their own self-interest rather than the collective. 

Leaving the family’s norms can create strain on your familial relationships and you may feel guilty for that. This is completely understandable but just because you feel that guilt, doesn’t mean you automatically have to repay your parents. 

“I think what contributes to the feeling of owing my parents something is the fact that my mom became a single mother of six,” said sophomore kinesiology exercise science major Kellsy Gutierrez.

Gutierrez comes from a Latino background and appreciates the family she grew up in.

“(My mom) did everything possible to ensure each and every single one of us had everything we needed. A roof over our head, clothes, shoes and more importantly, a full belly every night,” said Gutierrez. “With that being said, I feel as if her sacrifices paved the way for my siblings and me to branch out and take advantage of all resources available for higher education.”

There is no clear answer on how a child should give back to their parents or if it’s an obligation at all. With all the different experiences around the world regarding family relationships, there isn’t one decision that fits everyone.  

If you are grateful to your parents, you should show them. If not, that’s okay. There is no strict rule on how you should deal with your parents later on in life in terms of giving back. That’s up to you.

Cindy Rivas Alfaro is a journalism freshman who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Familial obligation is up to you” was originally posted on The Cougar

Juana Garcia/The Cougar

With instant messaging, society often expects people to reply the moment their phone gets a text. However, there needs to be an understanding that digital availability does not mean availability 24/7. 

In the digital world, there are unspoken social norms people follow. Replying instantly means you like someone while taking a few hours to respond means that you are not interested. Leaving someone “on read” is considered rude and many people speculate what it means for someone to not reply or take longer to do so.

When someone speaks to you in person, social norms consider it rude not to reply. However, the digital world is different. 

In an interview with BBC, a professor of social psychology said the digital environment has changed so rapidly that human minds are unable to adapt to the new shifts in communication. 

Before the internet, all people had were phone lines, letters and in-person meet-ups. Now, people can talk with anyone from any part of the world in less than a second. Digital social rules are hazy, if not nonexistent.

Additionally, digital communication means people can have multiple conversations at once with various other people. This can be overwhelming. This leads to viewing digital communication as a burden rather than a helpful tool to help people connect with others. 

For example, when employees transitioned to remote work during the pandemic, this highlighted issues regarding work and personal time. With people working from home, many may find it difficult to separate professional life and personal life. This isn’t a good thing. 

In a recent study, researchers found that when people were called to work outside of their job hours, it led to dissatisfaction with both their professional and personal life. This heightened during the pandemic because families had to manage their working hours. Many also had to help their children with their online school. 

With that in mind, there should be a re-evolution of digital availability norms. This will create a space that respects people’s boundaries and time. 

“I think if I had more boundaries [around digital availability] it would be better,” said public policy freshman JP Moreno. “Especially with my parents. I love them, but there are times where I don’t want my phone near me or don’t want to be paying attention to texts. Sometimes they have a hard time understanding that.”

The re-evaluation of digital norms should start small. People shouldn’t expect texts back right away, even if it’s from a loved one. Employers should also expect employees to log off work emails after their shift. 

A text not being answered does not mean a person is angry or upset. If anything, the person might be busy or not have the energy to respond. Whatever the reason is, there should be respect for it. 

The way the digital world has shifted over the past two decades has caused communication devices to change, therefore, the expectations of how people communicate should change as well. 

Cindy Rivas Alfaro is a journalism freshman who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Digital availability expectations need to change” was originally posted on The Cougar

Juana Garcia/The Cougar

Recently, it was reported that three conservative students are suing the UH System for its anti-harassment policy. This lawsuit is not about free speech. It’s only part of an agenda masquerading as a grassroots movement. 

The students, all anonymous, are working with an organization called Speech First which claims it wants to protect free speech on college campuses.

The lawsuit claims the policy, which bans slurs and negative stereotyping, violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The students feel as though they can’t express their views without facing pushback. 

While these students may face pushback from other students for these views, expressing their beliefs against gender-neutral pronouns and undocumented immigration doesn’t count as harassment under the University’s policy. The policy says harassment is when it’s “unlawful severe, pervasive or persistent treatment.” 

Simply stating a controversial opinion is not harassment. That said, if you keep persistently telling a transgender classmate that you don’t respect them or continue telling a DREAMer you dislike undocumented immigration, that’s when it starts to become harassment. 

The students in this lawsuit are not the biggest issue. The real problem is Speech First, the organization behind them.

Speech First claims to protect student speech on campus. The organization fights to ban investigations into harassment against minorities at several universities. 

It has sued the University of Michigan for its “Bias Response Teams” which dealt with claims of discrimination on camps such as “Make America White Again” pamphlets being passed around campus and white supremacist graffiti about securing the future of the white race.

It also sued UT Austin where it represented students who had not been punished for anything they’ve said, only that their conservative views make them vulnerable to being punished by the harassment policy. 

It’s been in legal battles with many universities, targeting harassment policies, bias response teams and more.

One important aspect of Speech First is how frames itself as grassroots. It claims that it’s made up of students, parents faculty, alumni and concerned citizens from all over the country. 

Despite this framing of a grassroots organization, founder and president Nicole Neily has admitted that no students were involved in the founding of the organization. In fact, its board is full of Bush administration lawyers and people associated with the Koch family. 

The higher-ups have ties to several conservative organizations like Independent Women’s Forum and the Heritage Foundation.

Most of Speech First’s funding comes from undisclosed donors, Neily said. Its five-dollar student membership fees make up a small fraction of it.

Speech First has only focused on conservative students demonstrating that agenda. This is very deliberate as there are plenty of instances of censorship against left-wing views at universities. In fact, most faculty terminations based on political speech were against left-wing professors. 

However, Speech First’s focus on conservative speech isn’t even the main issue, which is that it entertains some strange ideas in the name of free speech.

In one article on its website, a conservative student claims “to require that all speech be backed up with facts does not allow for the free flow of thoughts and ideas.” This was in response to an argument about how the press shouldn’t present ideas not based on facts. 

With all the concern about misinformation in the press these days, even concern from conservatives, this is a strange thing to focus on. Another problem with its agenda is that Speech First typically backs students that haven’t even been punished by the harassment policies they fight against. 

The lawsuits are often based on hypotheticals and on the students’ feelings, rather than the supposed harm of anti-harassment policies, such is the case with the lawsuit against UH.

A student feeling uncomfortable sharing their opinion doesn’t mean that their free speech is limited. Like the article on their website shows, the organization doesn’t necessarily care about facts when it comes to defending speech.

Speech First only cares about conservative speech, whether it’s based on something real or not. This lawsuit against UH is a perfect example of a political agenda under the guise of protecting constitutional rights. 

Anna Baker is an English senior who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Harassment policy lawsuit is part of larger conservative agenda” was originally posted on The Cougar

Juana Garcia/The Cougar

One of the main topics of news coverage recently has been the Russian invasion of Ukraine. While various news outlets report on Ukraine, many media figures have unfortunately turned to unacceptable racist rhetoric.

Western journalists have been especially guilty of this. A CBS News senior foreign correspondent said on-air that Ukraine’s situation was unique from the conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan which have had “conflict raging for decades.”

This rhetoric sends a harmful message that Middle Eastern conflict doesn’t matter as much as European conflict since it, supposedly, happens there more often. 

This correspondent also mentioned Ukraine was a “relatively European country” and “civilized.” This implies that Iraq, Afghanistan and other non-European countries are uncivilized. This is blatant white supremacy. 

There are many other examples of news correspondents saying Ukraine is somehow different than countries that are primarily non-white. One correspondent in an attempt to sympathize said Ukrainians “look like any European family that you would live next door to.” 

Once again, people are making a racist argument that the public should care about Ukraine, specifically due to the population being white.

It is also important to note that many affected by the invasion of Ukraine are not white. 

Many African students in Ukraine have spoken up about how they’ve been turned away from trains and buses while fleeing the country. Ukrainian soldiers have used guns to threaten Black people who just want to make it to safety. Arab and South Asian people have reportedly had similar experiences.

If people only express support for Ukraine because of its largely white population as these journalists have, then they ignore all the people of color suffering from this invasion who have also been denied the same access to safety given to white Ukrainians.

Additionally, it is just downright racist to feel more sympathy for Ukrainians just because they are white. 

This racist rhetoric is unacceptable, especially from journalists who many people expect to get accurate and largely unbiased information from. It, unfortunately, doesn’t stop with the media as people in the U.S. government gave similar comments. 

One senior policy adviser to congress tweeted that he cannot think of any other time in history that people have fought back against their aggressors like this. This statement’s blatant ignorance of history is racist in and of itself. It only takes a couple of google searches to learn about other groups fighting oppression.

There is the Haitian Revolution where Haitian slaves fought against the French. The Algerian War where Algerians fought against French colonization. There was also the First Indochina War where the people of Vietnam and other Southeast Asian groups fought against the French as well. 

People have fought back against oppression throughout world history. This is not limited to majority-white countries. To imply otherwise erases history. 

The fight for freedom and autonomy is not unique to Europe. People should not forget other groups’ fights against imperialism, many of them led by non-European people of color. 

Overall, western media has sympathy for Ukraine and has been centered around the country being white and European, which is racist as well as wrong. 

Support and sympathy should be shown to Ukraine because its people are having to flee their homes or risk their lives fighting, not because they’re white. Oppressed people fighting against imperialism should be supported, whether they are European or not. 

Anna Baker is an English senior who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Racist Ukraine coverage in media is unacceptable” was originally posted on The Cougar

Juana Garcia/The Cougar

As young Americans are realizing, gender norms can be harmful. Gender-neutral pronouns offer one useful mechanism by which society can foster greater gender equality through language.

While there has been progress towards gender equality in this country, there is still a way to go. A 2018 poll found that women were perceived by nearly 75 percent of respondents to be more affectionate and emotional than men. Another poll found that 87 percent of respondents perceived men and women to be different in how they express their feelings. 

The unfortunate truth is that while there has been progress, gender still influences how Americans view each other, and to a large extent, that’s a bad thing. This is evidenced by the million or so Americans who struggle with gender dysphoria every year. 

Research suggests that gender dysphoria may be attributable to cultural gender expectations. These gender norms cause major psychological discomfort to those who don’t conform. 

Gender norms are also often not rooted in biology and are social in origin. This is evident from the massive deviations in gender norms in history and across the world. 

Some societies throughout history and a few even to this day are matriarchies. In Ancient Rome, men painted their nails and powdered their cheeks. Back in 19th century America, it was normal to dress both little boys and girls in dainty dresses. High heels were worn by male European nobility. 

Since the social norms surrounding how each gender is supposed to act are arbitrary, it isn’t okay to enforce these norms on people, especially when they result in gender dysphoria.

To combat these harmful norms, there needs to be a change in how people communicate. In English, when a singular person is referred to with a pronoun, a gendered term like she or he is often used.

This means that whether conscious or not, the English language emphasizes that a person’s gender is uniquely important. 

If there were different pronouns for people based on race, height, nationality or weight category, that would be ridiculous. At this point, gender should be treated the same way. 

While this may seem radical at first, gender-neutral pronouns are already the norm for a lot of the Earth’s population. Chinese , Persian, Bengali and Turkish all use non-gendered pronouns. 

There is no better example of the potential benefits of introducing gender-neutral pronouns than Sweden. Swedish traditionally used the pronouns han (he) and hon (she), but in 2015 the gender-neutral pronoun hen (they singular) was introduced into the dictionary. Now, the word is seen on social media, the news and in books.

The word’s popularity stems from its utility. In place of having to write the Swedish translation of the individual, the person, the student and the employee, over and over again, Swedish people now just use the word hen. This reduces the wordiness of writing without requiring writers to arbitrarily specify gender. 

More importantly, the word has created a greater sense of gender egalitarianism. In a study produced by researchers from Washington University and the University of California, it was found that the gender-neutral pronoun reduces mental biases and increases positive feelings towards women and LGBT people.

If it works for Sweden, there is no reason it can’t work for the U.S. too. The only question that remains is what should these genderless pronouns be. There is a growing popularity of they/them, but a downside is that there is no differentiation between the singular and plural. 

Other options include terms like xe/xem or ze/zim. Regardless of what form it takes, as long as the term is put in the dictionary and taught with the rest of the pronouns in schools, like in Sweden, it will eventually catch on. 

While establishing a truly tolerant and egalitarian society will undoubtedly take many reforms, one change should be the introduction of commonly used and recognized gender neutral pronouns.

Micah Erfan is an economics freshman who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“The English language needs gender-neutral pronouns” was originally posted on The Cougar