Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

The Olympic Truce has a history dating back to the ninth century B.C. and has been cited as the reason to ban multiple countries from participating in the games over the years. With nations like Russia and Belarus being excluded from this year’s games, it should go without saying that Israel should be banned as well.

Despite this, the country remains in the competition.

The original idea behind the Olympic Truce was to provide safe travel to athletes and other participants as they attended the games. As time has changed the context in which the games exist, it has evolved into something meant to protect participating athletes and sports while promoting a peaceful narrative for every nation to aspire to.

In the evolution of the truce, the International Olympic Committee has aimed to unify nations and reconcile conflict. This is why Russia, who has been banned for the past eight years, and Belarus were excluded from this year’s summer games due to their involvement in the invasion of Ukraine.

Athletes from excluded nations are still permitted to compete in the games under the Olympic flag rather than their country’s. These competitors are considered “Individual Neutral Athletes,” and there are over a dozen competing this year from both Russia and Belarus.

Given the nature of these particular bans, it only makes sense that Israel would follow in the list of disallowed nations given the country’s persistent attacks on Palestine. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case.

This has led to mass uproar online, with many audience members booing Israeli athletes once they take the stage and insisting they should have sat this year’s games out. The Palestinian Olympic Committee even sent a letter to the IOC insisting the Israeli teams should be banned, as the bombings in Gaza clearly violate the Olympic Truce.

IOC president Thomas Bach claimed he would not take part in “political business” in response to said letter.

Given the fact that the International Court of Justice has ruled Israel’s occupation of Palestine as unlawful, citing multiple violations of international law, these objections to the country’s presence at the games are more than justified.

During the 1948 Summer Olympics, nearly three years after the end of World War Ⅱ, both Germany and Japan were excluded from the games as punishment. In addition to this, South Africa was barred from participating from 1964-1988 due to their refusal to condemn apartheid.

The Israeli occupation of Palestine has been an issue for decades, and the last year of attacks alone has resulted in the loss of about 40,000 Palestinian lives.

If the German, Japanese and South African teams were disbanded in such a manner, then the Israeli Olympic Committee should have faced the same treatment this year in accordance with those same rules.

Denying Palestinian athletes safe passage and refusing to uphold the standards they’ve kept for every other nation up until now is a shameful display from the IOC. Every day, citizens of Palestine have been made to face the trampling of their homes and loved ones. An estimated 400 Palestinian athletes have lost their lives in the midst of this conflict.

Bach and the IOC condoning Israel’s participation in the games despite this is not “neutrality,” it’s blatantly disregarding the events that have occurred during the Israel-Palestine conflict.

In refusing to take a strong stance against the Israeli government’s offensive to the Palestinian people, the IOC is effectively ignoring not only the point of the Olympic Truce but the spirit of the games themselves. In choosing “political neutrality,” they’re choosing to damn the cries from Palestinian athletes and turn a blind eye to their suffering.

The Olympics have always been political. The games have a history of boycotts and bans that simply cannot be described as apolitical and claiming otherwise is absurdly disingenuous.

Banning Israel would not immediately result in the end of the Israel-Palestine conflict, but it’s a step in showing the world that we should not stand for Palestinian genocide.

The Olympic Truce exists to inspire peace, and that’s a good thing. Instead of scapegoating through “political neutrality,” the IOC should uphold the truce’s message in the hopes that we may one day see a free Palestine.

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

—
“Israel should have been banned from this year’s Olympics” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

If you’re an avid follower of queer media, you’ll undoubtedly know the experience of watching a new show and having to predict whether its queer characters will have a happy ending, or even live to see the end. It’s a tradition!

Thankfully, with recent media, there’s been a clear push for depicting queer joy before tragedy, allowing gay characters to live as happily as their straight counterparts.

As someone who grew up with little queer representation, it’s an exhausting process trying to find a piece of joyful queer media. Something that goes somewhat unacknowledged is the positive impact of having access to happy queer stories as a queer person.

This doesn’t just apply to young LGBT people either, or even just LGBT people at all. Seeing gay people on screen or in literature depicted as humans rather than tokens or part of a death count is what makes people realize our identities are normal, and not just something to point and laugh at.

It’s very alienating to see someone meant to represent a queer individual depicted on screen as nothing more than a trope, rather than a person. Being excited to see a gay or trans character, only to realize they exist for comedic relief or wind up dead in the end hurts, and reinforces the idea that queer individuals are not allowed to have better.

Now, this isn’t to say that tragic queer stories shouldn’t exist. There’s nothing inherently wrong with a good gay tragedy — look at films like “Brokeback Mountain!” There are plenty of classic queer tragedies that set the stage for the sorts of stories present now.

Even recent queer media has plenty of sadness to it, and they perform just as well as the happy ones. “Euphoria” is an easy example, even if its central theme doesn’t lie within its queerness. “I Saw The TV Glow” is another, as well as “Moonlight,” both of which have also garnered plenty of positive representation.

These are all great stories! Even if they are sad, it’s in a way that’s relatable and realistic.

The issue arises when that’s all there is. Story after story, tombstone after tombstone for every queer character depicted.

This is why it’s such a great thing to see more authors showcasing the many joys of being queer. It not only brings the community together but reminds the world that queer people deserve to be accepted and loved for who they are. 

It’s been argued by some that a big reason marriage equality was legalized in the United States was due to more widespread positive depictions of gay people. Even outside of fiction, celebrities like Elton John, Wanda Sykes and Ellen coming out were big steps in the normalization of LGBT identities.

Since that initial dam of acceptance was broken, creators have been allowed to represent these identities without it being a huge deal. Take “The Owl House,” a Disney show with a multitude of LGBT characters whose relationships are shown just as seamlessly as you’d see any straight one.

To give some other examples of recent stories, there’s Netflix’s “Nimona,” a film centered around a character who shapeshifts as a metaphor for being transgender. Nimona’s fluidity was shown in a way that was simple enough for its intended young audience while still being very relatable and heartwarming.

While it’s what some would consider a very clean version of a queer story, “Love, Simon” was also a groundbreaking film when it came out. It produced hundreds of stories of queer youth that used the film as an introduction to their identities for their families.

Another is Alice Oseman’s “Heartstopper,” which had similar reactions due to its depictions of gay and trans people, and how it shows realistic homophobia while still having such joyful narratives.

As time goes on, there are more and more depictions of queer joy, and the effects of that can’t be understated.

Any queer representation, considering how many years were spent hiding away, is important. With as many positive effects as it can have, though, it’s integral that creators continue to make stories that remind the world that queer stories are not just doomed to the narrative.

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

—
“Positive queer media is important for representation” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

As AI-generated imagery continues to encroach on the art world, numerous ethical dilemmas arise. The most common concern is its impact on human jobs and whether it constitutes theft. Beyond ethical issues, a new problem has emerged.

Generative AI imagery is negatively affecting the way we engage with art, and if proper restrictions aren’t implemented soon, the trend will continue.

In some cases, generative AI has become indistinguishable from real art created by human hands. For example, in a recent Pokemon illustration contest by The Pokemon Company, six AI-generated submissions, each under similar pseudonyms, made it into the top 300 submissions.

Thankfully, these submissions were eventually identified by other artists, leading to their disqualification. However, the fact that these pieces advanced so far in the competition highlights how refined generative art is becoming.

What does mean for the future of art? More importantly, what does it mean for artistic communities now?

Generative imagery is already changing the way we interact with art. Online artists and their audiences have learned to be skeptical of every piece they come across, as even established artists have begun employing models like Midjourney or Stable Diffusion to engineer pieces rather than create them by hand.

Navigating artistic settings online has become a minefield, as it’s far too easy to engage with AI imagery unknowingly. With the proliferation of AI art, many viewers have found themselves meticulously studying illustrations before offering any form of engagement.

There is one positive: Thorough scanning of art means that audiences are taking more time to appreciate artistic themes. However, how much of an upside is this when it stems from a fear of theft?

This widespread dilution of art undermines the value of real human creation. It breeds paranoia, and it has already led to real artists being accused of using generative imagery in place of their normal creations. If this is the cost of viewers taking time to stop and smell the roses, it’s simply not worth it.

No one should have to deal with their creations being stolen for datasets to mimic real artistic skill. Moreover, no one should have to face paranoid accusations of their art being fake because a large group of people don’t want to pick up a pencil and learn.

It’s becoming far too difficult to meaningfully engage with art do to the attitudes generative AI has created among artists and their audiences alike. Something needs to change.

While artists have already taken steps to prevent their works from being stolen by AI models by using things like Glaze and Nightshade, which slightly alters an image so that these models can’t properly mimic them, these measures won’t be enough in the long run. Currently, there are no laws or restrictions on generative AI and the datasets used to train them.

To preserve real, meaningful art created with human intent, something needs to be done to prevent AI artists from infiltrating our communities any further. Lasting solutions are required to eliminate paranoia and allow us to appreciate art for what it really is: a display of human creativity and a labor of love.

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

—
“Generative AI is negatively affecting the way we engage with art” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

Despite years of climate education, the general public has a habit of disregarding climate change. Some even rebuke the notion that it’s happening at all. Considering not only what it’s projected to cause, but what it already has caused in both Texas and around the world, it should be much more of a pressing concern.

In Texas particularly, there has been a very clear increase in extreme weather. It’s become a new standard in this state for temperature records to be broken, both on the high and low end. We have seen severe heat waves and frequent natural disasters and it’s projected that by 2050, millions worth of Texas land will be below sea level. By the same year, global temperature is expected to increase by 2.7 degrees.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the issue of climate change, it’s the furthest thing from an individual issue. 

Not to sound too gloomy and doomed, but we as individuals will never be able to cut carbon emissions or change our actions enough to save our planet from climate change ourselves. On an individual level, we are simply not the problem.

Now, this isn’t to say we can’t do something, or we shouldn’t bother making an effort at all. Quite the opposite, actually.

While yes, our singular attempts at things like cutting down on how much we drive, making switches to renewable energy, reducing power usage and a myriad of others can only do so much, our real power lies in our voices. Continuing to reduce our energy output is important! But it’s not the most integral step we should be taking.

China, The United States and India are the top three leading countries when it comes to carbon emissions per year, and this isn’t because of individuals. The vast majority of carbon emissions come from corporations, and the fault lies not only with them but with lackluster policies preventing this by our governments.

So, what can we do about this?

Remember your right to protest, and keep up initiatives to pressure our legislators to act. This is especially the case in places like universities, where there are masses of students who can manage massive coverage if we make enough noise.

Even if protesting isn’t your thing, you can still take action by contacting legislators and reminding them that their constituents not only want, but demand action to be taken. Remember that we are able to advocate for stricter policies regarding corporate emissions, and remind our government that we care about things like The Paris Agreement and other things relating to climate change.

While climate change is absolutely more of a governmental issue,  something we can do as residents of this planet is educate ourselves. Do your research! Find out what you can do to help the planet, no matter how small, but take care to remind yourself that you are not the problem.

Our planet cannot save itself. Climate change is real, and it has already shown devastating effects. We must use our voices and remind our governments that something needs to be done before we see even more devastating effects.

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

—
“Climate change is in the hands of corporations” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

When it comes to life as a college student, mental health is often misunderstood and disregarded. This is especially the case for disorders such as borderline personality disorder, bipolar disorder, dissociative identity disorder and other stigmatized mental disorders that people tend to disregard or demonize.

No one wants to face stigmatization, whether it be mental health related or otherwise. This is why it’s in our best interests as students to spread and offer understanding to those who are different from us, despite negative portrayals of disorders we see around us.

Mental illness has always been a contentious topic. Unfortunately, it’s also a conversation that seems to arise in times of tragedy when blame needs to be tacked onto something. This has led to certain disorders, such as DID, schizophrenia and BPD, gaining a reputation for being “dangerous” or “scary.”

These disorders, however, are not truly understood by the general public. Thankfully, conditions like autism have seen a shift in perception in recent years. As autism has come more into the public eye, people have confronted their misconceptions, moving away from seeing it as completely debilitating or linked to aggression.

Simplifications of mental disorders are common and harmful. While certain stigmas have lessened through better education, many persist. DID is often regarded as frightening due to media depictions, such as the 2016 film “Split,” and bipolar disorder is commonly misunderstood as being synonymous with consistent anger.

Schizophrenia is often made into a joke, and many other mental illnesses that receive same treatment.

In reality, these disorders manifest very differently in each person. The simplification of very complex disorders is extremely harmful, especially in college, where students are introduced to a diverse group of people that may have mental disorders.

Simplification leads to stigmatization, and stigmatization leads to ostracization. For students, it’s isolating to learn that people around them misunderstand their disorders. This can make them hesitant to talk about it or even acknowledge it.

Disorders being cast in a negative light is a self-perpetuating cycle that only causes harm to those with mental illnesses. If everyone adopts a face-value understanding, no one is learns the truth and no one advocates for better understanding.

The last thing anyone should have to face while struggling with a mental disorder is the feeling that they have to hide it due to negative perceptions.

Fortunately, with like depression, anxiety and autism, the general public has shown that it’s possible to move past harmful depictions of mental illnesses. As these disorders have become more widely accepted, it’s easier to identify with them without feeling the need to hide.

As students, we have a unique environment that exposes us to diverse backgrounds. It’s the perfect place to start destigmatizating misunderstood mental illnesses.

This unique setting that we’re in should be utilized. We can’t feed into the idea that mental disorders are inherently frightening or deserving of being shunned. Many students face these issues, and at such a formative age, ignoring them can be disastrous.

Though examples here are few, when encountering any disorder we’re unfamiliar with, it’s important to understand them or at the very least refuse to amplify negative stereotypes and simplifications.

The only scary thing about any mental illness is the harm caused when it’s treated as villainous.

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

—
“We need to reject the idea of scary mental disorders” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

With such an explosive celebration like July 4th, it’s no wonder that other holidays and observances of the month get overshadowed by fireworks and cookouts. One such observance is Disability Pride Month, and it’s one that should be much more well-known.

Disability Pride Month began in 1990 in Boston with Disability Pride Day, a celebration that was created to commemorate the Americans with Disabilities Act officially being signed into law. The first disability pride parade was held in Chicago in 2004.

In addition to the month, there’s also a disability pride flag. The original design was created in 2019, and was later redesigned in 2021 due to the 2019 one causing eye strain for some when viewed on computers and other devices.

According to the CDC, about 27% of the country’s population is disabled in one way or another. Whether they are physical or mental, over one-fourth of Americans experience some sort of disability. This can range from things that the average person would immediately think of such as amputations or paralysis, to things like epilepsy, PTSD and mental disorders that are often disregarded.

Disability Pride Month serves to advocate for those with these conditions, whether it be focused in the workplace, educational institutions or otherwise. In addition to this, it’s a time for those with disabilities to uplift themselves and others, sharing their own experiences and reminding the general public of misconceptions surrounding disabled people.

With common misunderstandings like what qualifies as a disability and the disregarding of disabled issues, it’s integral to have time dedicated to pushing back against stereotypes and misconceptions.

There are so many barriers in day-to-day life that disabled people still face, even since the creation of the ADA. The estimated employment rate for disabled people has remained between 30 to 40% for years, barely fluctuating at all.

Disabled people have to face the constant challenge of not being taken seriously and worrying that employers won’t see them as competent or capable, and this is if they’re able to access job opportunities in the first place.

Disabled people are more likely to have issues with smoking and obesity, and often don’t have access to healthcare. Unfortunately, even when they do have healthcare, they’re often unable to take advantage of it due to accessibility issues within society.

In addition to these, there’s also the issue of law enforcement failing to accommodate those with disabilities, especially people of color, and winding up wounding or even killing them. There is an unacceptable lack of training for police to understand disabilities and how to interact with them without the use of force.

It took until just this year for proper training to be created for police forces on how to interact with intellectually and developmentally disabled people. 

While this is undeniably a big step, why did it take so long? As needed as it is, it should not have required the bloodshed of so many disabled people to happen.

Things like this are exactly why we need Disability Pride Month. If there’s no one to advocate for it, no progress will be made and that lack of progress has shown to be deadly.

Disabled people should not have to jump through hoops to get a job or medical assistance. Disabled people should not have to fear for their lives because of improper training for law enforcement. Disabled people should not be barred from living their lives as safely and comfortably as anyone else, and they deserve to be widely accepted and understood.

While July may be nearing its end, the existence of Disability Pride Month should remind us to strive to uplift disabled voices and educate ourselves on the challenges they face. The ADA didn’t solve every disabled issue, and having a time each year to advocate for progress and acceptance is more than necessary.

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

—
“Disability Pride Month should be celebrated more” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

Houston is one of the largest cities in the country, home to about 2.3 million. With such a large range of people, it’s no secret that such a sizable city would need adequate public transit to boot.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the case and the sudden shelving of recent METRO line projects only serves to reinforce the city’s lack of priorities regarding public transport.

One reliable thing about Houston is the guarantee that its public transportation system is lacking. Accessibility is practically nonexistent, which causes fewer people to use the sparse rail and bus lines that are available, and leads to the consistently awful traffic we all know and love. 

With this inaccessibility comes the issue of existing lines not running through areas with schools and other educational and economic opportunities.

This is a problem that would have been addressed with METRO’s “University Corridor,” but in mid-June, METRO decided to halt it.

To give a brief idea of what the project would have provided, it was proposed to have five bus lines and was meant to cover about 25 miles. Stops along these routes included the Harrisburg Art Museum, Lyndon B. Johnson Hospital and several universities, including our own University of Houston. There were even stops near parks and high schools.

If the loss of easy access to schools and other economic opportunities wasn’t disappointing enough on its own, one of the biggest letdowns of the project’s cancellation is that the lines were meant to run through several low-income areas that are lacking in public transportation.

These lines could have provided much-needed opportunities to several communities, considering it was intended to have stops in Uptown, Montrose, the Third, Second and Fifth wards and more.

The University Corridor project was overwhelmingly backed by Harris County voters, who voted to approve the $7.5 billion plan back in 2019. So why cancel it now?

METRO claims their intentions are to “prioritize improved customer and community essential services and will better position the authority to increase overall system ridership,” but it’s undeniable how revolutionary the project would have been, and it’s disappointing that such an overtly backed operation has taken such a sudden hit.

Strangely enough, despite the fact that it would have provided easier access to campus for students, President Renu Khator actually opposed the project back in 2022, claiming it would cut campus off from highways and thoroughfares.

It’s somewhat telling that a University known for its high parking and transportation prices opposes such a project. If nothing else, Khator’s objections sound less like concern for commuting students and more as though the University has a vested interest in keeping its student body paying the same rising amounts for things like parking permits.

Suffice it to say that it’s extremely disappointing that the University Corridor project was canceled, as it would have provided much-needed transportation to many, not just students. Houston, especially its students, needs adequate transit and we’re not getting it.

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

—
“Houston doesn’t prioritize public transit enough” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo / The Cougar

Pride month is afoot, and with the season must come an onslaught of discourse relating to who, and what, is “allowed” at pride events. From kinks to straight people, there are widespread discussions on the validity of every group in attendance. At the end of the day, though, these arguments are not only counterproductive but harmful to the idea of pride as a whole.

“Straight” boyfriends

One of the hottest debates on X recently has been on the issue of whether or not bisexual women should bring their straight boyfriends to pride events. This discussion had led to both lighthearted memes about “cishet boyfriend enrichment areas” and heated arguments insisting that pride isn’t for straight people, end of story. 

A big issue with these arguments is that you can’t tell at first glance whether or not someone is straight, or cisgender, for that matter. It’s easy to look at a couple and assume a “bisexual girlfriend with a straight boyfriend,” but what if that’s not the case?

What if said boyfriend is also bisexual? What if they’re transgender? Out of a multitude of queer labels, why default to cishet for a person that you don’t know?

In addition to this, it’s somewhat telling that this sort of discourse has been focused almost entirely on blaming the hypothetical bisexual women in question.

There’s nothing wrong with bringing your partner to pride, even if they aren’t queer. If nothing else, it’s good to have more allies supporting the cause and educate those that may not understand the ins and outs of queer culture.

Sexual content

In addition to the cishet boyfriend discourse, there’s always the discussion of sexual content at pride events. It’s inarguable that throughout queer history, sex has been an important facet of queer identity.

Unfortunately, though, there are many that argue that sexual topics don’t belong at pride events at all.

While it’s true that there are minors at many pride events, it’s a common, disingenuous point to bring up when there are just as many family-friendly events as there are 18+ ones.

When it comes down to it, this argument is mostly about respectability politics. There’s an unfortunate common idea among young queer people that LGBTQ+ identities shouldn’t involve sex at all so that respect can be garnered from those outside the community.

The idea that such an important part of queer history and identity must be purged to make others comfortable is an insult to those that have fought, and continue to fight, for LGBTQ+ rights. The goal should not be to water queerness down in order to assimilate into the majority culture. The whole point of pride is in the name, and pride should not be conditional.

The real issue with pride events

All of this bears the question: why is the focus on petty disagreements that invalidate sections of the queer community when there are pride events being sponsored by weapons manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin, or other companies complicit in Palestinian genocide?

Every year, there are pride parades sponsored by oil companies and weapons manufacturers, yet the most pressing online discourse is about whether or not women should be allowed to bring their partners to pride.

It’s divisive and entirely misdirected to point fingers at bisexual people for simply sharing queer joy with their loved ones. Shaming bisexuals for dating the opposite sex is far past worn out. In the same vein, it’s just as divisive to pretend sex isn’t important to queer history.

There are pride events being directly supported by heinous companies. Companies that could absolutely be pushed out of LGBTQ+ spaces if the community stood together to make that happen, and stopped squabbling over who is allowed to do what in order to appeal to the masses.

The first pride was to commemorate a riot. That riot didn’t happen just for the LGBTQ+ community to divide itself over petty, invalidating arguments. That riot shaped who we are today, and was the first step of many in creating a world where we’re allowed to be openly prideful at all.

This June, take time to remind yourself of queer roots and focus on making a better place for LGBTQ+ people to feel safe among themselves and allies. We get nowhere through pointless exclusion when there are genuine issues to be addressed with pride events.

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

—
“Pride discourse is counterproductive to its mission” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

Over the past year or so, the use of generative AI art has become a hot topic online, sparking debates on the ethicality of AI creations from both a marketing and personal standpoint.

One of the consequences of the recent surge in AI art is an influx of jarring advertisements created by AI. These ads are not only ineffective, but take opportunities from actual human artists.

To give an example of an AI generated ad, take Popcorners, who posted an ad on X this month with an image that is clearly artificially generated, given the uncanny visual of a woman with teeth jutting out of her lip, and left viewers disturbed.

The comments on said post are mostly condemnation, pointing out the various unsettling details and threatening to boycott the company. At least in this instance, it’s clear that the average viewer doesn’t support the use of AI imagery, and would much rather see real art or photography in advertisements.

Despite this, this isn’t the only example of advertisers using generative AI rather than hiring an artist. Just last year, a promotional poster for the second season of Disney show Loki garnered controversy for its clear AI elements.

This isn’t the first time Disney in particular has used generative AI either. The opening credits for Secret Invasion came under the same scrutiny upon release, as the blatantly AI generated sequence could have easily been replaced by proper animation, given the amount of money companies like Disney make every year.

In addition to robbing human artists of potential job opportunities, AI art steals from artists themselves in the way that it’s created. If you’re unfamiliar with how AI generation works, it essentially cobbles together assets from datasets of human creations.

This is often done without consent from the artists within these datasets, and results in an off putting amalgamation of several creators’ genuine work. Whether it’s meant to mimic photographs, drawings or otherwise, to put it simply, it’s theft.

Even looking aside from the clearly unethical practice of stealing from already established artists, there have already been cases of AI advertisements misleading an audience.

Take the disastrous Willy’s Chocolate Experience from this year for example. The event, which happened in Glasgow back in February, was advertised as an immersive experience for families, and turned out to be a bleak showing in a warehouse with crappy props and actors that were just as confused as the guests.

When the event was advertised, its website was laden with AI imagery with wonky lettering and misspelled promises of enriching entertainment and a paradise of sweet treats. While, in this instance, hiring an artist to create ads would not have helped the actual content of the affair, the images used to promote it just go to show how bizarre AI generated art looks, and how deceptive it can be.

When it comes to creative expression, there is no replacing human hands. It’s, in the words of Hayao Miyazaki, “an insult to life itself,” to attempt to substitute a real, working artist with a machine. AI art, especially in advertisements, is jarring and misleading and judging by just about every comment section under a clearly AI generated piece, audiences don’t want to see it.

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

—
“AI art in advertisements is unethical, unwanted” was originally posted on The Cougar

Jose Gonzalez-Campelo/The Cougar

When it comes to free speech on campus, there are too many people, both within the student body and the general public, who don’t know the extent of their rights, or recent threats to those rights.

Last week, Students for Justice in Palestine HTX organized an encampment in front of M.D. Anderson Library, advocating for divestment. Within hours of the encampment being put up, UHPD tore it down, arresting two students in the process.

Student movements in regard to the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict at UH have been very consistent over the past months, though the recent encampment was a unique occurrence.

So, why exactly are encampments not allowed on campus, and what’s the deal with free speech policies when it comes to protesting?

The University’s statement regarding the dismantling of the encampment referenced Texas Penal Code Section 48.05, which prohibits any form of camping in a public area without prior consent from authorities that manage the space.

This law was enacted in 2021 and lays out procedures for directing campers to other spaces and seizing belongings related to the encampment. The bill largely focuses on camping in relation to homelessness but can be applied to any temporary settlements on public property.

After last week’s encampment’s destruction, students were allowed to continue protesting, as it’s within their rights to do so.

This is due to Senate Bill 18, enacted in 2019, which opened up all “open common areas” at Texas public universities to any member of the public wishing to exercise their free speech.

It’s worth noting that SB18 was created following concerns from Texas Republicans that conservative voices were being silenced on university campuses.

Since the bill went into effect, anyone, regardless of their relation to a university, is within their rights to use campus grounds for constitutionally protected expressive activities, so long as they’re acting within that specific institution’s personal free speech policies. UH’s own policies on free speech cite several locations, allowed decibel levels for amplified sound, rules for stationary structures and displays and allotted time frames for such activities.

One important thing to note in regard to this is Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s recent executive order.  In his description, he directed college campuses to revise their free speech policies and discipline due to “the sharp rise in antisemitic speech and acts on university campuses.” This directive specifically targeted organizations like Students for Justice in Palestine and the Palestine Solidarity Committee, insisting that they be punished for violating the policies listed.

This order spells disaster for pro-Palestinian movements and other student movements across Texas that have noted that it’s not within Abbott’s authority to restrict the sort of speech he’s referring to. In conflating these movements with anti-semitism, Abbott is effectively attempting to use his authority to silence a movement he disagrees with.

Based on UH’s track record with recent protests, it’s not unfair to assume the administration has no intent to push back on this order.

Coming back to SB18, the aforementioned bill was signed after worries about students being silenced. However, the recent executive order is a clear push toward silencing Palestinian organizations and students. Under no circumstances should this be allowed.

Pro-Palestinian movements are in no way antisemitic, and it’s not only disingenuous to imply such, but dangerous, especially coming from a government official. Abbott’s order blatantly disregards First Amendment rights and blurs the lines between what is hate speech, and what is not, entirely to support his own agenda.

Regardless, when it comes to student movements, it’s important to know your rights, and just as important to know the origins and specifics of the laws they come from. Even more so, it’s imperative to be aware of threats made to your free speech and fight against them.

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

—
“More students need to know their free speech rights” was originally posted on The Cougar