Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

As the banning of TikTok in the United States approaches, now comes the time to reflect on some of the effects the app has had on social media as a whole. One of these effects is an influx of self-censorship that has spread to seemingly every mainstream social platform.

Conversations of topics such as death and rape have become infested with terms like “unalived” and “graped.” This censorship is counterproductive and heavily minimizes the impact of serious situations.

These sorts of replacement words originated as a workaround for algorithmic censorship. Users avoid directly naming subjects that may result in their videos or accounts losing monetization, though no explicit list of bannable words is within TikTok’s terms of service.

This attempt at dodging bans, however, is not where the issue lies. While clever in theory, it has evolved into something done simply for the sake of individual comfort. Now, years later, users discuss the “unaliving” of victims to selfishly make themselves feel at ease with difficult topics.

“Soft language” is a term used for this phenomenon, and it has made its way to sites like Instagram and X in recent months; with both apps often used for news and political discourse.

The reality of this, though, is that no one should feel comfortable during conversations about heinous crimes and tragedies.

Death, assault and politics are and will always be hard-to-swallow topics. This is by design, and, while tough to endure sometimes, is integral to upkeep. An important part of hard conversations is making sure they remain impactful, so as to remind ourselves why societal changes are needed.

When hearing of tragic events, the deliberate use of descriptive words reminds readers of the devastation that comes with them. If soft language like “sewerslide” is used, that impact is completely nullified. No one is going to be angry reading that someone “unalived” another person, or someone in the news was “graped,” and that’s a problem.

Sex crimes and death should evoke negative emotions. Anger, sadness and fear are the fuel for social activism and tangible change, which are more than necessary in times when marginalized people fear for their lives and safety.

If we allow ourselves to become comfortable with these topics when they arise, we will also become complacent. When complacent, no one fights for those who fall victim to brutality and oppression.

So, no, unarmed victims of police and bombed civilians have not been “unalived,” and other highly politicized issues should not be diluted for the sake of keeping oneself at ease. Being upset during times of tragedy is part of being human.

While conversations surrounding crime and brutality are undoubtedly tough to approach, watering down these subjects is only harmful long term. We are meant to be disgusted by those around us being harmed, and no one should be allowed to skirt around that.

Parker Hodges-Beggs is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“TikTok’s “soft language” is detrimental to discussion” was originally posted on The Cougar

Lily Huynh/The Cougar

As the election results came in and Donald Trump’s victory was concluded, the question of voter fraud immediately came into the spotlight. One particular name many have focused on is Elon Musk, given his presence in this year’s presidential cycle.

Regardless of one’s convictions regarding the results, Elon Musk’s involvement in the election perpetuated right-wing ideas that aided in Trump’s victory. When looking into the details, Musk’s actions this presidential cycle have been predatory and abusive.

Musk’s election presence began with his acquisition of Twitter, now called X. Shortly after buying the app, Musk said, “For Twitter to deserve public trust, it must be politically neutral.”

However, that supposed neutrality quickly derailed.

Since the aforementioned quote, X has morphed from something of a social media town square to a platform powered by almost exclusively right-wing voices.

Though it started with simple endorsement posts and the like, research by the University of Pennsylvania found significant bias in the visibility both sides of the political spectrum were given.

With this discovery being almost two years before the election, it’s undeniable that the right-wing echo chamber created within the platform aided in the republican majority the US government will face come January.

Musk essentially used his power to give widespread attention to conservative ideals and voices, whether they held credibility or not. The massive amount of misinformation and broader right-wing coverage was bound to amass a larger republican turnout.

Even more than this, Musk also created the America PAC in July, a political action committee dedicated to conservative ideals. This group promised voters money in exchange for referring others to register while also running a supposed giveaway for $1 million, all of which was brought under fire for supposedly being voter fraud.

When a legal case was made against these giveaways, it was determined by a Pennsylvanian judge that Musk was allowed to continue as such, as the “giveaways” were not actually random, and, while misleading, were legal.

The problem with this, though, is that in funding such an enormous PAC during a very contentious election, Musk has effectively taken advantage of a key issue during this election cycle: poverty.

It’s no secret that many Americans are discontent with the state of the country’s economy, with the topic of costs of living being brought up many times during debates and candidate rallies. In promising money to those who follow his agenda, Musk effectively exploited the impoverished to further Trump’s campaign.

While not illegal, the America PAC was exploitative and will continue to be so, if its track record is anything to go by. Even if its legality remains upheld, it is shameful that a man with such a large amount of influence is allowed to abuse the system in such a way.

The combination of X’s conservative echo chamber and exploitative practices by Elon Musk goes to show that those like him cannot be left unchecked. Legal or not, elections are sensitive subjects, and practices surrounding them should not be as manipulative as his.

Parker Hodges-Beggs is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Elon Musk’s election practices were exploitative, misleading” was originally posted on The Cougar

Lily Huynh/The Cougar

With the presidential election season underway, many eligible voters found themselves scrambling to register before their state’s deadline. In most states, this was made easier by the existence of online voter registration. Unfortunately, eight U.S. states don’t have this option, with Texas falling into that list.

Online voter registration is a more streamlined method that makes voting more accessible and greatly increases turnout, especially among younger demographics. The lack of such a practice is a hindrance to the democratic process and should be implemented in all states.

This is especially true for regions with as a large population as Texas, which only allows online registration when renewing one’s license.

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, public health concerns led several states to implement online systems so that the general public could avoid human contact that may have put them at risk.

Even despite health concerns,  there are a multitude of obstacles one may face when registering without an online system to aid in the process.

Citizens may not have access to a printer, preventing them from filling out the necessary registration forms. Some lack transportation, which can keep them from mailing in forms or visiting locations where they can register.

Those with disabilities may also face difficulties that could easily be avoided if they had access to a modernized method of registration, rather than the tedious processes states like Texas require.

In addition to this, there’s a common sense of apathy among voters that prevents many from putting in the effort to register. If this could be done online, the ease of access could quell that attitude and increase the likelihood of higher voter turnout.

It’s also important to note the sort of positive effects online registration has not only on voter turnout but also on general efficiency and costs.

Online systems lift off some of the burden on election officials, minimizing the work required to read forms filled out by hand. Studies have shown that states with online registration have saved thousands of dollars by modernizing their systems, as this cuts paper costs and lessens the need for workers to be tasked with processing thousands of documents.

It is undeniable that the implementation of online voter registration has had a largely positive effect on many states. The only question now is why isn’t everywhere else following suit?

Online voter registration would benefit every state, making voting more accessible and efficient for everyone. Considering Texas’ trend of increased voter turnout over the last ten years, adopting a modernized system can increase those numbers. 

Parker Hodges-Beggs is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Texas should allow online voter registration” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

This past year, three presidential debates have been broadcast to the public, with animosity only growing between each one. Given this, it is paramount that debates follow a standardized ruleset to avoid confusion and hostility. The way they’ve been formatted is flimsy and harmful and in dire need of revision.

Trump/Biden debate

On June 27, the first debate of the year between Donald Trump and Joe Biden was hosted by CNN.

The rules allocated candidates two-minute responses to questions, one-minute rebuttals and one-minute responses.

Muting of candidates’ microphones was also a key rule, decided upon after Biden’s notorious “Will you shut up, man?” retort during the 2020 presidential cycle.

Now, whether or not these guidelines were upheld is an issue of its own.

Within the first 20 minutes of the broadcast, Trump’s microphone was not cut while Biden spoke. This was followed by constant interruptions, with the same attacks on each other’s character present during the previous election cycle.

Moderators frequently struggled to steer the debate in the right direction when the candidates elected to go off on unrelated tangents. 

There was also the issue of live fact-checking during this particular debate, of which there was none.

After the debate ended, The Washington Post summarized 35 faulty statements.

This absence of fact-checking once again only serves to confuse viewers, resulting in an inaccurate idea of candidates’ policies and stances.

Trump/Harris debate

Once Kamala Harris was nominated to take Biden’s place, a second debate took place on Sept. 10.

This one was hosted by ABC with slightly tweaked rules. Though mostly the same, there was live fact-checking and the allotted rebuttal period was two minutes, rather than one.

While these changes were theoretically beneficial, once again the issue arose of whether or not they were followed. Despite the microphone rule being enforced at times, there were occasions of mics being unmuted to allow candidates to speak when they should not have been allowed to.

Moderators also continued to be spoken over. In addition to this, fact-checking was ignored at times due to the fact that it is not a standard candidates are expected to be held to.

Vance/Walz debate

After the presidential dialogues came the debate between J.D. Vance and Tim Walz on Oct.1. Hosted by CBS, the ruleset was a bit different.

Mics remained on for both speakers throughout the broadcast, though moderators could turn them off at any time. There was also no live fact-checking and rebuttal time was similar to that of the previous debate.

All of these rules met trouble, namely the one regarding microphones. Leaving them on at all times led to disorder, making it necessary to completely cut them at one point due to an argument that arose.

Fact-checking was also a large issue, as CBS News found a plethora of misleading or blatantly false claims following the debate.

So, what should the rules be?

Despite opposition, live fact-checking and mic-muting would aid in maintaining the integrity of conversations and preventing false claims from being made, diminishing confusion and allowing more genuine arguments that cannot mislead voters.

Parker Hodges-Beggs is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Presidential debate rules need to be standardized” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

Within the past year, a commonality among conversations about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the idea that it began on October 7, 2023.

While not always an idea pushed maliciously, it’s ignorant and harmful to perpetuate this, as the Israeli occupation of Palestine has been a subject for decades and has displaced hundreds of thousands of people throughout the years.

To give some basic history, the conflict started in 1947 with the UN partition plan that separated Palestinian territories into one Jewish and one Arab state; a far cry from the proposed year ago that some believe began the wave of bombings and bloodshed.

Don’t believe it? Look no further than The Cougar’s own archives.

The earliest records of the paper UH provides date back to April of 1928, far before the conflict began.

Looking as far back as the 1970’s, there are a multitude of articles and letters to the editor discussing Israeli occupation and the displacement of Arab populations.

In October of 1982, an article by Ghada Foty, a Palestinian immigrant who studied journalism at UH, titled “Conflict seen from Palestinian view” was written hoping to “clarify this popular misconception,” as Foty wrote, that Palestinians are terrorists.

It detailed the location of Palestine, explained the goals of the Palestinian people and even included quotes from four Palestinian students.

These students shared sentiments very similar to those that we hear today; feelings of detachment from their culture, wishes to return to their homes and hope that they may one day see their homeland free from occupation.

On the dissenting side lies a piece written by Patrick Newport in 1977 with the headline “Israel author says prose reflects war,” Israeli author Matti Megged is quoted, speaking on the ways war and conflict have morphed his and other authors’ writing.

“I believe we have to be prepared to live with war or with the threat of war for at least another generation,” he said.

There were also letters to the editor from readers of The Cougar slamming articles written by the UH Organization of Arab Students, who occasionally wrote in the paper discussing the conflict and addressing ideas surrounding it.

It wasn’t uncommon for heated discussions to be brought forth in the paper by both sides of the issue.

In the 70s, a multitude of both articles by the editorial board at the time and published statements from students were put out, arguing over a dispute between Israeli and Arab students at UH’s International Week.

In 1973, The Cougar published a letter by Zachi Wiezentrager, an Israeli commanding officer from UH stationed in the Sinai peninsula. Wiezentrager wrote, “eager to participate in the efforts to bring this war to an end and to a peace condition.”

This piece was commented on by student Ramzi Hakim soon after in a letter to the editor.

“I really can’t see… how a victory can bring peace unless Wiezentrager’s peace is built on injustice and oppression,” Hakim wrote.

This was one of many contentious letters published in the paper regarding the topic.

Regardless of one’s standing on the conflict, it’s important to note that the fight between the Israeli and Palestinian people is by no means new, and it’s a shameful misrepresentation to claim otherwise.

As Matti Megged reminds us today from the yellowed pages of The Cougar back in 1977, “peace can be a long and painful process,” and it is our duty to remember the history that has led us to where we are now.

Parker Hodges-Beggs is a sophomore journalism major who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a new issue” was originally posted on The Cougar

Eman Ghacham/The Cougar

Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, the United States has enacted more than 1,550 executions. Just this year, 25 death row inmates throughout the United States have either already faced execution or are scheduled to.

The criminal justice system undoubtedly needs many overall changes, but capital punishment in particular is a barbaric, inhumane practice that subsists on discriminatory practices and lack of certainty.

Just last week, on Sept. 24, a man named Marcellus Williams was executed in Missouri. His punishment was taken out despite a forensic investigation showing that he was not the source of the DNA found on the murder weapon, after years of investigation, years of incarceration and the delay of his sentencing in 2017.

The St. Louis Prosecuting Attorney’s Office even conceded that the prior administration involved in Williams’ case had mishandled evidence that could have resulted in his exoneration. These willfully admitted “mistakes” resulted not in the punishment of prosecutors, but in the death of an innocent man.

This evidence should have at the very least raised enough uncertainty to remove him from death row. While the presumption of innocence is not a written constitutional right, it is necessary that every conviction is supported beyond a reasonable doubt, which his most certainly was not.

This, to put it frankly, is an abhorrent abuse of the justice system. This is a case of a man failed at every step by those who are supposed to uphold law and order, and a shameful display of injustice.

Unfortunately, this isn’t a lone occurrence. If Williams’ death is not a prime enough example of the sins of capital punishment, take Melissa Lucio.

In a similar case of improper consideration of evidence, Lucio is an inmate sentenced to death for the alleged murder of her daughter, which she falsely confessed to after five hours of coercive interrogation.

In Lucio’s initial trial in 2008, Judge Arturo Nelson refused to allow testimonies from a social worker and a psychiatrist; key input that had the potential to exonerate her. In no just system should a judge have the power to reject statements that could aid such a contentious case.

After 15 years of occupying death row, Lucio remains incarcerated with an unscheduled execution date. This is despite clear testimonies from her children that her confessions were false and brought about by predatory interrogation techniques when she’d reiterated her innocence over 100 times during the investigation.

Even looking aside from specific cases, statistics show that there is and has been a disproportionate amount of people of color, namely black men, on death row. While unsurprising considering the general incarceration rates of people of color, it’s worth noting just how overrepresented racial minorities are on death row in comparison to the percentage of the population they make up.

In addition to racial makeup, it’s important to keep in mind just how many sentences have been later discovered to be wrongful convictions. Once again, exonerations have been disproportionately imposed on black men, which serves as a reminder of how skewed the system is in regard to racial inequality.

While many will argue that the majority of death row inmates have committed atrocious crimes worthy of their punishment, contempt for the guilty should not allow damnation of the innocent. In a perfect world, capital punishment would be enacted on only guilty persons with 100% accuracy. Unfortunately, that’s not the world we live in.

A system so clearly beset with inequality and consistent mistakes should not hold the power to end lives. The death penalty, with all its errors and biases, holds no rightful place in our justice system.

While any wrongful convictions are an obstruction of justice, wrongful execution is an especially egregious mistake to make. Human life cannot be given back, and the death penalty spits in the face of what justice is meant to be.

Parker Hodges-Beggs is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“The death penalty needs an overhaul” was originally posted on The Cougar

Eman Ghacham/The Cougar

With the 2024-2025 school year underway, it’s a certainty, as it is every year, that plenty of students have begun doubting their decision to come to college.

Higher education is a big undertaking, both mentally and financially. Many choose not to pursue it immediately after high school, and plenty of those who do it later decide it’s not for them or take a break in the middle of their studies.

This is called a gap year, and while many will claim it’s a bad idea to take one, there are a multitude of reasons to do so.

Studies have shown that, despite contrary beliefs, students who have taken gap years are more likely to graduate on time than those who haven’t. In addition to this, these students often report higher satisfaction with their careers and mental health.

This is likely due to the fact that those who take that break have the time to assess themselves and their outlook on school and life in general, whereas those who neglect that time are thrust straight into the stress of studying in a new environment.

There’s also the issue of financial struggles, which many are not prepared for before going to school.

An unfortunate reality for many students is that they’re not ready to dish out thousands of dollars to a university, and they don’t realize it before the pressure to commit to a career path forces them into massive amounts of debt.

It’s also worth mentioning that what many people, particularly worried parents, think a gap year constitutes is a far cry from what it actually entails.

Despite concerns that gap years will lead one to become lazy or party too much, surveys have shown that those who take them often use that phase to expand their cultural knowledge, explore career opportunities and join volunteer organizations.

These are all very beneficial ventures that overall increase the likelihood of individuals finishing college and finding the path that works best for them.

Strangely enough, it’s not uncommon for students in other countries, specifically within Europe, to take a break from academics before pursuing a degree. During this period, young scholars will set aside a year or two to travel or work. This is done in the hopes of gaining real world experience and following their passions before reentering an academic setting or joining the workforce.

In the United States, though, the concept of a gap year is often shunned and discouraged.

Of course, the sort of adventures that are suggested for gap years are often financially improbable for those who have just graduated from high school. 18 year olds with minimum wage jobs can’t feasibly travel to another country to “find themselves” before locking down on school or their careers.

While college is also a large financial strain, it’s much easier to justify going into debt in the pursuit of education than it is to spend thousands traveling across the world in what some would consider a waste of time.

In reality, that “waste of time” could be the difference between being adequately prepared and completely bogged down by the unexpected mental and financial burdens of higher education.

Going to college is a big decision, and one that many, if not most students are not as prepared for as they may think. Despite the claims of many that gap years are wasteful, it’s important to take the time to consider whether or not college is for you.

Whether this leads to grand adventures across the world, or simply finding somewhere to settle in and save up, no one should feel ashamed for allowing themselves downtime in between education.

Parker Hodges-Beggs is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“There’s no shame in taking a gap year” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

Since the early 2000s, fandom culture has been steadily on the rise. This can be largely attributed to the popularization of things like the Marvel Cinematic Universe and K-pop groups. This sort of “geek culture” has expanded beyond the small groups it used to belong to.

While this has been great in regard to community building and giving artists the representation they deserve, it also has had some very unfortunate consequences. The globalization of fandom culture has led to far too many parasocial relationships between creators and their fans.

This may not seem harmful at first glance. So what if someone is a little too invested in the personal life of their favorite pop star, or particularly interested in the dating lives of the YouTubers they watch? It’s not like they’re ever going to meet them, so it should be fine, right?

Unfortunately, this is not the case. 

Entitlement

A very recent example of the consequences of parasocial relationships can be seen with Chapell Roan, a singer and songwriter who quickly rose to fame in 2023 with the release of her debut album.

Since her massive spike in popularity, certain followers of hers have shown to act far more friendly than appropriate when meeting her in person or interacting with her online.

Roan has posted on TikTok and Instagram about some of the creepy behavior that fans have exhibited, from demanding hugs when encountering her to full-blown stalking of her and her family.

In her response to this, she emphasized that no fan is owed positive reactions from her, especially in cases of abuse and harassment. Interestingly, this message was met with pushback by some, with viewers calling her sensitive and claiming that she simply can’t handle fame.

The reality of this issue is that no one, regardless of how famous they are, should have to put up with that sort of treatment, much less be grateful for it. Any objections to this come from outright entitlement, which far too many fans have these days.

This idea that public figures owe it to their fans to constantly smile and nod at whatever may come their way puts them in danger. There have been far too many cases of parasocial relationships eventually going too far and resulting in the injury or even death of an artist.

Take John Lennon, or Christina Grimmie for example. Both artists were shot and killed by obsessive fans, and yet their stories clearly haven’t sent a clear enough message to some.

Celebrities are people, and those people do not owe anyone camaraderie or acceptance of intolerable behaviors whether it be from fans or otherwise.

Controversy

Another issue that comes with parasocial relationships is the adamant denial of wrongdoing by fanbases when a creator comes under fire. This is especially prevalent among fans of streamers as well as celebrities with larger followings.

Despite accusations of abuse and grooming, streamers Wilbur Soot, Dream and others within their communities have maintained steady fanbases that defend their actions without shame.

This is also the case with Taylor Swift, who has been criticized for her constant usage of private planes despite interviews where she claims to be horrified by climate change.

Certain fans of creators like these have taken it upon themselves to, rather than hold them accountable, either claim accusations as baseless or excuse them due to personal perceptions of them. Fans will sometimes acknowledge wrongdoing but insist that despite it, they’re still good people because they’ve donated to charity before or seem kind.

Unfortunately, this behavior fails to acknowledge that the personas we see online are not who these people really are.

No matter how kind and bubbly someone may seem on screen, the boundary between an online persona and a real life person can hide many secrets that no viewer will truly understand without personally knowing them.

To put it simply, online personalities are not your friends. From moderately popular artists on Twitter to the big names that sell millions of tickets worldwide, you don’t know the people you see online.

Fandom culture is great in many ways, but it becomes an issue when being a “fan” breaches into the personal lives of artists, or viewers decide to absolve them from consequences. No matter how much you may adore a singer’s music or an actor’s films, take care to remember that behind the face they put on for audiences, there’s a real person behind it.

Parker Hodges-Beggs is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Celebrities are not your friends” was originally posted on The Cougar

Lily Huynh/The Cougar

Despite being labeled as things to improve your life, many self-help routines and items are often more predatory than meets the eye.

Industries for things like razors, makeup and online accounts dedicated to self-improvement, have a tendency to create more insecurities than they solve. This is especially true for products and content targeted at young female demographics that has led to things like depression, eating disorders and other mental issues among girls.

One of the most egregious examples of this lies in the popularity of razor companies. Though it’s a largely unknown truth, it was not common for women to shave before the early to mid-1900s.

Razor companies before around 1915 targeted entirely male demographics. It wasn’t often that women worried about their body hair like we do now, and this only changed when the industry decided to expand its marketing by taking advantage of changing fashion trends at the time.

In Gillette’s first advertisement aimed at women, the company referred to having body hair as “embarrassing,” specifically when it comes to going on dates. This initial ad began a trend of creating a problem to sell a beautifying product and resulted in razors becoming a household necessity among women.

In creating this issue to sell more razors to women, the market expanded to things like waxing strips and other products that promise to make buyers more feminine and attractive: something that simply was not considered before a century ago.

There is a similar issue among makeup companies with the perpetuating idea that natural parts of age are things that need to be corrected in order to be seen as beautiful.

Creams that erase wrinkles, formulas made to combat pimples and dark spots and face masks made to “rejuvenate and brighten” skin have become widespread through predatory marketing tactics that do much more harm than good.

All of this has only been exacerbated by social media, with girls so young that they haven’t even hit puberty yet worrying about supposed problems they’re shown online. Despite their age, girls have been made to fret over being seen as attractive when in reality, the images they’re trying to live up to are unattainable.

Accounts on sites like TikTok and Instagram based around self-improvement routines often perpetuate negative perceptions many users have, even without intending to do so. It’s become natural to suggest extensive routines that use the same language that beauty companies do.

The vast majority of people don’t need an extensive skincare routine with a plethora of products pedaled to us with scientific-sounding ingredients. If anything, people forcing themselves to keep these routines commonly results in burnout and depression when they either can’t keep up or don’t achieve the “ideal” body image they’re going for.

No matter how much they promise to keep you looking young and beautiful, these markets are driven by making you feel like you need to adhere to a certain standard, often dictated by male desires. They want you to be insecure to sell their products.

Things like body hair, skin blemishes and many other “imperfect” characteristics are natural, and our bodies should not be preyed upon as marketing ploys.

When browsing online, it’s important to keep in mind that the self-help blog pedaling the latest trends, or the beauty company reminding us that hair is “unhygienic” or blemishes are “embarrassing” may not have your best interests in mind.

Parker Hodges-Beggs is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Self-help content is built to create new insecurities” was originally posted on The Cougar

Lily Huynh/The Cougar

Mental health is a very important topic, especially when it comes to being in school. Students often have a hard time balancing proper mental health with meeting expectations during the school year, and one particular disorder that tends to lack support is ADHD.

According to the CDC, approximately 11.4% of children ages three to 17 have ADHD. Among college students, the number is bumped up to about 16% worldwide, and these statistics are only based on those that have received diagnoses.

Despite such a large number of people suffering with the condition, thousands of students report struggling in classes from young ages due to their inability to manage their symptoms. This is largely due to the fact that educational institutions, at both the upper and lower levels, do not prioritize accommodating them.

Take UH’s DART Student Accessibility Center for example. DART offers services like extended time frames for exams, controlled spaces for test taking and note taking support, among plenty of other resources.

While great in concept, many UH students have faced struggles with the center when applying for the various resources it provides. Some have noted the difficulty of the required processes and paperwork, while others have posted online asking for advice when the center neglects to email them back in a timely manner.

This issue also extends to the University’s professors, with some electing to ignore accommodations despite students going through the proper process to get them. Whether it be through word of mouth or on social media like Reddit, students have complained about professors making them jump through hoops to get extensions they’re owed, or even outright rejecting certain accommodations.

Some common issues that students with ADHD face are time management and coping with certain environments when learning. The accommodations laid out by the DART Center are meant to minimize these issues so that these students can properly learn and succeed in their classes. Things like not taking, controlled environments and extended deadlines are especially important for those with ADHD.

So, if a professor refuses to respond to emails regarding these arrangements in a timely manner, requires those in their classes to provide extensive proof of their disorders or outright ignores them, what exactly are students meant to do?

ADHD is a particularly difficult disorder to cope with in the first place, given how many people go undiagnosed and lack of education surrounding it. ADHD symptoms make it incredibly difficult to function in classroom settings, and are often comorbid with other learning disabilities that further these issues.

At a younger level, many teachers even report difficulty working with students with ADHD. It’s not uncommon to hear stories from those with ADHD about how teachers treat them particularly harshly due to misunderstandings regarding their disorder.

A common misconception from teachers is that children with ADHD act out on purpose, or make it a point to be disruptive in class. This leads to stigmatization and consistent punishment of hyperactive behaviors that could potentially be worked with if schools had proper programs to support said students.

Studies have shown that there are proper and simple solutions to assist students with ADHD, such as flexible seating and allowing extra testing time. Even occasional positive feedback is a very effective tool in making sure students don’t become depressed over consistent criticisms for behaviors they can’t control.

An estimated 32.2% of students with ADHD drop out of secondary school. In addition to this, those that manage to make it to college are far less likely to finish their degrees within four years than those without psychological disorders.

Given this, it’s nothing short of unacceptable that students are so commonly faced with the barriers they are, at UH or otherwise.

Every student should be allowed to learn in an environment that suits them, and have the means to progress as well as their fellow students. Considering how much of any student body has ADHD, it’s integral that these students are catered to properly.

Parker Hodges-Beggs is a journalism sophomore who can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

—
“Students with ADHD lack integral support” was originally posted on The Cougar