*This column contains information sensitive to some readers. If you or anyone you know is a survivor of sexual assault or harassment, please contact the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 800-656-HOPE.

This past week, several of the people I follow on Instagram began sharing a link to a post by the account @gspecumn. GSP stands for Gender, Sex and Policy, and the account is run by a student group affiliated with the Humphrey School of Public Affairs and Center on Women, Gender and Public Policy. The post contained a link to an article by the Star Tribune, and after reading that article, I felt sick to my stomach.

On Feb. 5, the Pioneer Press was the first outlet to reveal that James Ron, a professor at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School, received over $200,000 following his resignation. He was paid $86,198.40 in severance, $28,107.36 in insurance premiums and $80,685 to cover attorney fees.

Ron resigned from the Humphrey School in July 2020 after being disciplined when a University investigation found he had violated sexual misconduct policy. Since initially being reported on, additional complaints were filed, though he was found “not responsible” for any University policy violations in those instances; the additional cases have since been closed.

Ironically enough, Ron was a human rights professor at the Humphrey School. Ron was allowed to return to work for the fall 2019 semester following a suspension, but some students were not notified that he was returning until after classes had started as well. The people who accused him of harassment could have seen him walking down the hallways, as though nothing had happened to them.

Humphrey School Dean Laura Bloomberg notified students and staff of Ron’s resignation in mid-July of 2020 via email. The email read: “Jim is an accomplished scholar. During his nine years of service to the School he has contributed substantially to the growth and development of our global policy teaching and research agenda. I wish Jim well in his future endeavors.”

Knowing that a University investigation found that Ron had violated sexual misconduct policies, I find this email haunting. I have a hard time understanding why anyone would wish an alleged sexual predator well in their future endeavors, regardless of their scholarly prowess.

The Humphrey School is not alone in allowing accused predators to escape the ramifications of their actions. At the University of Illinois Law School, professor Jay Kesan was accused by 15 women of violating the university’s sexual misconduct policy, according to the Illinois Times. During the investigation into these allegations, Kesan was put on paid administrative leave. As of February 2020, his last reported salary was over $200,000.

While these men were removed from their positions, the fact that they didn’t face harsher ramifications further perpetuates the notion that men can sexually harass people and get away with it simply because they hold a position of power.

James Ron, I am now speaking to you directly. You disgust me. Some may consider you “an accomplished scholar,” but in actuality, I think you are a weak man who felt he had the right to sexually harass people. While I hope that you feel some semblance of shame for what you have done to these people, I highly doubt that you are capable of feeling culpability or remorse. It makes me sick to think about how relieved you must have felt when you received that $200,000.

But you did not win. Those people came forward and spoke out against what you did to them. They are survivors, and you will never be able to take that away from them.

Picture this: You’re standing in a crowded bar on a Friday night. It’s too warm, it smells like stale beer and you’re debating leaving your friends behind when you see them. Your eyes meet. They smile. You smile back. Everything around you goes quiet, and you know in that moment that you have found someone you want to be with, whether for the night or for years to come.

But this is a fantasy, especially now since you should not be going anywhere crowded during a global pandemic.

During the beginning of my first year of college, I scoffed at people who used dating apps. Growing up, I believed that people should find romantic partners “organically” and that apps like Tinder were a sleazy way to meet casual hookups. This misguided opinion had been ingrained in my head from watching countless romantic movies and TV shows, nearly all of which contained a scene of the main characters meeting by some chance encounter or by already knowing each other, which would ultimately lead to them falling in love. But as I made more friends and got to know more people, I realized that using dating apps was much more common than I thought. Additionally, it was quite possibly the best way to meet potential romantic partners.

A 2019 study by the Pew Research Center found that 54% of Americans believe that relationships that begin on a dating app are just as successful as relationships that begin in person. This same study also found that 57% of those who use online dating platforms had a positive experience with the platform.

So, why are people still ashamed of using dating apps? In my opinion, this stems not only from preconceived notions about meeting romantic partners in person but also fear of how friends and family will react. However, the only one who should have a say in how you find a partner is you.

Our generation has the luxury of constant accessibility, especially when it comes to finding a romantic partner. With apps like Tinder, you can meet people who live on the other side of campus or who are in different majors or even people from adjacent universities with a simple swipe. Using these apps is an extremely convenient and low-stakes way to find someone who shares your interests, or who you simply think is attractive. Since so many people use these apps, it is very likely that you will find someone who is looking for the same thing you are, whether it be a casual fling or a full-blown relationship.

However, there are some drawbacks to using dating apps regularly. According to Psychology Today, since users of apps like Tinder do not know who they are going to match with, people can become addicted to the unpredictable quality of the app. Additionally, people tend to get hooked on the “reward” aspect of receiving a match, which makes people eager to continue to use the app. Clearly, the addictive nature of apps like Tinder can cause toxic behavior, and it is important to check yourself if you notice that you’ve been visiting the app a concerning amount of times.

But ultimately, using apps like Tinder is not something to be ashamed of. There is no right or wrong way to meet a romantic partner and, if anything, dating apps help you meet people you otherwise would not have met because of different classes or friend groups. While there are some toxic aspects of dating apps, there are a lot of benefits as long as you’re smart about who you swipe on and don’t obsess over the number of matches you get. It is entirely possible to meet someone “organically.” There is nothing wrong with taking the process of finding a romantic partner into your own hands.

As I was walking across campus the other day, I saw something that left me both furious and perplexed: an absurdly long line of people waiting outside of one of the most popular bars on campus. While future patrons were supposed to be standing on marked Xs on the sidewalk in an effort to socially distance, people were standing shoulder to shoulder, as if a global pandemic weren’t continuing to take the lives of people across the world.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, more than 400,000 people have died from COVID-19 in the United States alone, according to the Centers for Disease Control. While many people I know and I take this pandemic very seriously, it shocks me to see so many others who do not. A common excuse I have heard from many my age is something along the lines of, “Well I’m young and healthy, so it’s not like I’ll die if I get COVID.” My question is, even if this statement weren’t wildly inaccurate (which it is), why aren’t they worried about getting people they care about sick?

At the beginning of the pandemic, many people, myself included, believed that the only people who would die from coronavirus were the elderly or those who were immunocompromised. Because the previous administration consistently gave conflicting information regarding social distancing and prevention of the virus’s spread, not much was done to refute this common belief. But as more and more people continued to die, it became evident that it is not just the elderly who die from COVID-19. In fact, a significant number of young adults with no preexisting conditions have died from the virus.

Even if you don’t die from the virus, it can leave long-lasting impacts. One such example is the loss of taste and smell, which can dramatically alter a person’s life. A study conducted by Harvard Medical School found that while the chances of losing taste and smell permanently are slim, it is possible. You want to be able to taste that vodka soda, right?

In a few months, some students will likely travel across the country for spring break. I am almost certain people will bring COVID-19 back from their destinations, which could cause an outbreak. Occurrences like this are why we are so far from “getting back to normal,” and it makes my blood boil. Just because the virus hasn’t affected your life directly doesn’t mean that you should risk killing other people or their family members.

The line outside of bars on campus is just one consequence of young people feeling like they are invincible against COVID-19. I am not going to pretend like it’s easy to stay home when all throughout high school we were told that college was going to be the best years of our lives. As someone who just turned 21, I wish I could spend a Friday or Saturday evening at a bar having drinks with my friends. But it just isn’t worth it right now. Too many people are dying, and while people are starting to get the vaccine, it is not enough to warrant going out.

In July 2020, Peacock TV, a streaming service created by NBC, went live. In the months following Peacock’s release, both “Parks and Recreation” and “The Office,” two of NBC’s most popular comedy series, were taken off of Netflix. While this likely came as somewhat of a shock to those who are big fans of the shows, there wasn’t too much uproar. It would be fine because both “Parks and Recreation” and “The Office” are on Peacock, right?

Well, it’s more complicated than that.

While Peacock advertises itself as a relatively free streaming service, only the first two seasons of “The Office” are available for free, and that’s not the only misleading piece of information. If you want access to more content, you have to pay $5 a month, but you still have to sit through commercials. If you don’t want to sit through commercials, you have to pay $10 a month, a dollar more than the basic Netflix subscription.

Over the past decade, streaming services like Netflix, Hulu and more recently Disney+ have been in constant competition to have the largest number of consumers and subsequently make the most money. This has resulted in platforms making their own high-budget television shows and movies with esteemed casts and crews and attempts to sign series that people love onto their platforms.

Peacock is an example of prominent television networks trying to get in on the action. Not only does Peacock have “Parks and Recreation” and “The Office,” but it also has movies like the “Harry Potter” series and claims to have upcoming original content by writers like Tina Fey.

The battle between streaming services and the creation of new ones by prominent television networks is a way of financially manipulating the consumer, whether intentional or not. More than half of consumers subscribed to Netflix, Hulu or Amazon Prime are also subscribed to another service, as people’s favorite movies and series are bounced from one platform to another. If a consumer doesn’t want to miss out on a popular TV show or movie, they will have to spend more money by subscribing to additional streaming platforms.

For example, “Parks and Recreation” is one of my favorite comedy series. When it was taken off of Netflix, I was anxious to see what streaming service would pick it up next. I was expecting maybe Hulu or HBO would snatch it, but, to my dismay, I realized that it would only be available on Peacock. As much as I love “Parks and Recreation,” I was not willing to subscribe to an entire platform just to watch one series.

Honestly, the creation of Peacock just annoys me. It is, in my opinion, a shameless attempt to force consumers to subscribe to its service by holding their favorite series over their heads. Unfortunately, I think it is likely that other television networks will follow in NBC’s footsteps. When it comes to making money, large television networks aren’t going to simply stand by and watch streaming platforms profit off of their series.

I realized that I was a Taylor Swift fan at the tender age of seven. It all started when I heard her song “Teardrops on My Guitar” on the radio for the first time. Though I had never experienced heartbreak or unrequited love, the raw emotion within Swift’s song resonated with me. I will admit that there were several nights I spent listening to “Teardrops on My Guitar,” when I was supposed to be asleep, pondering how Drew, the boy Swift pines over in the song, could possibly choose someone else over her.

When high school rolled around, it suddenly became cool to hate Taylor Swift. Until that point, I had shamelessly adored Swift. I listened to “Love Story” and “White Horse” on repeat throughout elementary school and became an even bigger fan after she released her albums “Speak Now” and “Red,” which were released when I was in fifth and seventh grade, respectively. But many of my high school peers thought Swift was annoying and incapable of writing about anything other than her boyfriends.

While some might write this off as high schoolers trying to seem cool by hating an artist that was too “mainstream,” there is actually a deeper source of hatred toward Taylor Swift that is much more insidious: sexism within mass media and on social media.

Since the release of Swift’s first album in 2006, many have criticized Swift for her short-lived romances with fellow A-list celebrities. This criticism, along with claims that Swift was not politically active enough, only got more intense as social media platforms like Twitter gained popularity. According to an article written by MTV Australia editor Alice Griffin, while Swift has not been as vocal about politics as she could be given her enormous platform, people take their dislike of her to extremes for seemingly no reason.

I am ashamed to admit that I abandoned my love for Taylor Swift in favor of fitting in with my peers. For years, I did not listen to any of her new releases or pay attention to any news surrounding her.

Then Swift’s surprise albums “Folklore” and “Evermore” were released in 2020.

In my opinion, “Folklore” and “Evermore” are amazing albums. The songs on these albums perfectly capture themes of lost love, heartbreak and the toxicity of one-sided relationships. It was after listening to these albums that my love for Taylor Swift was reinstated, and I began to revisit her older music. To my surprise, they were even better than I remembered. Turns out, her songs have always been well written and full of raw emotion, and I started to feel embarrassed for letting peer pressure and sexist attitudes get in the way of appreciating them.

Taylor Swift is not perfect by any means, but some of the reasons why people hate her are absurd. It’s true that she has been in obnoxious feuds with celebrities such as Katy Perry and Kanye West, but in my opinion, many celebrities have been involved in scandals much worse. There is absolutely no point in resenting an artist just because they are fun to hate.

It’s the holiday season: the time of the year where people look forward to spending time with their families, friends and pets. College students let out a sigh of relief as finals end and they get to go home for a month of rest and relaxation. But — as with everything this year — the end of 2020 is different.

According to the New York Times, as of Nov. 29, 266,732 people have died from COVID-19 and more than 91,000 are hospitalized. We cannot gather with our friends and families, much less travel to see them without risking the lives and health of our loved ones. This means a somber end to 2020, as I personally would love to spend Christmas with my extended family. However, there seems to be hope in the air.

On Nov. 18, Pfizer and BioNTech announced that they had concluded testing the vaccine they created to combat COVID-19. The vaccine is 95% effective across different ages, genders, races and ethnicities, creating a sense of excitement as people all over the world crave an end to this virus and nightmare of a year.

However, as exciting as this is, a vaccine doesn’t change the fact that more than a quarter of a million people across the United States have died as a result of COVID-19. Even after people have begun to take the vaccine and the country attempts to return to normalcy, it will quickly become apparent that a gaping hole has been left by this virus. A vaccine won’t bring back the people who couldn’t be around their families as they died in the hospital.

And even though the vaccine has been successful in trial runs, there is still a very small and rare chance that the virus will mutate and become even deadlier. Because COVID-19 is an RNA virus, it will continue to change. According to a Heathline article, COVID-19 has been mutating over the past few months, though these mutations aren’t drastically different from the original virus. Though these mutations are more likely to result in a weaker virus, there is still cause for concern.

The vaccine will also not be available to everyone at the same time. There is debate over who will receive the vaccine first, but the general consensus seems to be that healthcare workers and the elderly will be the number one priority when the vaccine starts to be distributed. This means that people who are not part of those populations will have to wait longer to receive the vaccine and must continue to socially distance.

Additionally, not everyone is so eager to take this vaccine or even have it available to the masses. An ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that while 71% of Americans will get a vaccine if it is made available, 40% of Americans who identify as Republican say they won’t or probably won’t get one. Meanwhile, 81% of their Democrat counterparts said they will or probably will receive a vaccine if it becomes available. The number of people who will not receive a vaccine because of political affiliations boggles my mind. A virus should not be a political issue.

Don’t get me wrong, as soon as a vaccine is released, I will get it in a heartbeat. I just think it’s important for people to realize life isn’t going to go back to normal just because there is now a solution to the virus. We need to continue to social distance and follow guidelines — because many others aren’t.

I was diagnosed with epilepsy when I was 15 years old. Before I had my first seizure, I didn’t give a second thought to my habit of losing control of my arms and dropping things first thing in the morning. The only time I’d seen someone have a seizure or even heard about them was from watching shows like “Grey’s Anatomy” that occasionally featured a character who had some form of epilepsy. That character’s seizures were usually uncontrollable and required brain surgery, which would play out in a dramatic scene set to an even more dramatic score. I never would have thought having epilepsy would become such a huge part of my life.

The remainder of my teenage years were a series of trial and error with different medications. While I never dealt with constant seizures, developing a chronic health disorder as a teenager was not easy. It became especially difficult as I prepared to leave for college and realized the transition would be challenging.

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about 3.4 million people nationwide have epilepsy. Three million of them are adults and 470,000 are children. The seizures caused by epilepsy range from tonic-clonic seizures, where the person loses consciousness and convulses, to myoclonic, which is characterized by the quick jerking of one’s arms or legs. I have myoclonic epilepsy. My seizures are triggered by lack of sleep and stress and — on occasion — dehydration. As I entered college, I also realized that a new catalyst had developed around my seizures: drinking too much.

When I thought about college as a high schooler, I pictured late nights cramming at the library, humid parties with warm beer and staying up until 2 a.m. with friends. I was forced to realize that doing any of these things with epilepsy would be wildly irresponsible.

I don’t want to throw myself a pity party. Yes, having epilepsy is tough, but there are others with this same disorder who have it so much worse than I do. I found a medicine that controls my seizures very well, and I am able to go about my day like anyone else. While I can’t stay up all night, I can hang out with my friends without worrying about having a seizure in front of them. Having epilepsy does not control my life. It is something that has arguably made me stronger, as cliche as that sounds.

The past four years have been, quite frankly, horrible. We have witnessed a global pandemic, uprisings and extreme economic hardship just within the past year. In addition, people are still dying in massive numbers as COVID-19 continues to ravage the United States, and the current administration is doing very little to stop it. Nov. 3 is Election Day, and the stakes could not be higher. No matter who wins, America is not going to be the same.

Trump has made it quite clear that he is not going to go down without a fight. If Biden wins, he may fully intend to declare a premature victory or fight the results in court — an attempt which would throw the country further into chaos. While there are plenty of Americans who do not support Trump, there are many who will become enraged if he loses.

According to the latest poll by the New York Times, Biden is up eight points nationally. Prior to the 2016 election, Americans would probably be fairly confident that Biden would prevail on Election Day with those numbers. However, Trump’s victory in 2016 changed everything. It has made many Americans, including myself, skeptical of polling accuracy. I am very worried about what will happen if the polls are as inaccurate now as they were in 2016.

Political polarization has spiked in recent decades and has been particularly highlighted since Trump became president. This, along with the turmoil of 2020, is a recipe for disaster. I think it is reasonable to expect violence and general animosity on both Election Day and the days that will follow, especially in Minneapolis, which is coming off of a summer of uprisings and protests that were, at times, violent.

In Minneapolis, many voters are concerned about whether they will be subjected to an intimidation campaign at the polls on Nov. 3. This stems from the emergence of private security groups actively trying to recruit people, like Atlas Aegis, to intimidate voters at the polls under the guise of preventing violence and the looting of businesses.

It has been speculated that we will most likely not know the real victor of the election for days or even weeks. This puts additional stress on Americans who just want the election to be over with and figure out how to approach the next four years.

The anxiety I have faced in the past few weeks has been insurmountable. As someone who has always paid attention to politics and cares about the well-being of this country and the people who live here, every time I check the polls I hold my breath. But I have to accept that either outcome of the election will throw the country into chaos.

I can honestly say that I don’t know what is going to happen on Tuesday or how people will react. If 2020 has taught me anything, it’s that anything is possible, even if it seems too terrible to imagine. All I know is that we need to prepare for the worst over the next few days.

On Thursday night, over 63 million people tuned in to watch the final presidential debate. While there were originally going to be three debates, Trump’s coronavirus scare led to the second debate, originally scheduled for Oct. 15, being canceled. This means that the debate on Oct. 22 was the last chance both candidates had to convince Americans to vote for them before the election on Nov. 3, but considering how many people have already voted, Trump and Biden’s petulant bickering might have had less of an impact than it would have prior to 2020.

The final presidential debate yielded nothing unexpected from either of the candidates. Trump remained as tone-deaf and egotistical as ever, while Biden tried to appease both far left activists and moderates. But even if something outrageous had occurred during the debate, it might have meant very little for either candidate’s polling numbers.

Back in 2016, a Vox article called into question how much the presidential debates actually impacted the outcome of the election. The article points out that while Americans may think the debates can make a huge difference, there is evidence showing that this is often exaggerated.

According to The Washington Post, more than 58 million Americans have already cast their votes for the 2020 presidential election. This is a staggering increase from 2016, where just 29 million Americans had voted prior to election day at this time in the election season. This can be attributed to not only the high stakes of this election, but the fact that voters may be worried their ballots won’t be counted as a result of an overwhelmed U.S. Postal Service; I would add that it could also reasonably be due to coronavirus concerns.

I believe that Thursday night’s debate will have little impact on who ultimately wins the election. Looking at how many people have already voted, it seems like no amount of controversy, last minute miracles or October surprises would create a significant difference in a voter’s candidate choice. While I do think it is important to watch the debates in order to keep tabs on who is running the country, very little can change people’s minds, much less the minds of those who have already voted.

Obviously, this doesn’t mean that those who have yet to vote should think their vote doesn’t matter or that they shouldn’t vote at all. If we have learned anything over the last four years, it is that every single vote counts. If you are living near the University of Minnesota campus, there are several places on campus where you can drop your ballot and have a say on what America will look like over the next four years.

This is the first presidential election that I was able to vote in, and I am one of the 58 million who has already submitted their ballot; this is also the case for many of my peers at the University of Minnesota. Voting this year is paramount. If you haven’t voted already, make a plan to vote on election day or find a place to drop off your ballot.

I can’t remember the last time more than a few weeks passed without a SAFE-U alert showing up in my inbox. Whether it be a mugging, assault or breaking and entering, crime continues to plague University of Minnesota students in the off-campus neighborhoods of Dinkytown and Marcy-Holmes. The lack of safety on and off campus has become a joke of sorts; even I respond to SAFE-U alerts with a shrug instead of shock anymore. As a third-year student, I have observed a general, steady increase in crime throughout the past few years, and it is becoming evident that we, as students, need to look out for ourselves and our peers.

From Oct. 1 to Oct. 7, five SAFE-U alerts were sent out to students. This disturbing frequency of SAFE-U alerts just over the course of one week exemplifies a real problem with crime off campus. Unfortunately, students need to take some matters into our own hands when it comes to protection and security.

One of the most important ways students can protect themselves is to walk in groups when going home late at night. While traveling in groups does not completely eliminate the possibility of crime, it does significantly decrease the likelihood of being attacked. I personally feel much safer walking around campus or off campus with at least one other person, especially if it is dark out. Now that it is getting darker earlier, it is very important to make sure that if you need to walk somewhere — even if it is to your car — have a friend accompany you.

Another way to stay safe on campus is to download the app, Citizen. This app tracks crime in your area and sends you alerts whenever an unsafe situation arises. Apps like Citizen make it easy to know where crime is concentrated on campus and show you areas to avoid in real time. The utilization of Citizen enables students to take control of their own safety and not rely on others to protect them.

However, the responsibility of staying safe shouldn’t just fall on students. I believe that the city of Minneapolis should push crime prevention initiatives, like increasing street lights in the Dinkytown and Marcy-Holmes areas. I would feel a lot safer if the streets were more well-lit in these areas, especially given the recent influx of crime.

While some people may believe that increasing police presence on campus would reduce crime, it is not that simple. In fact, evidence states that it is unlikely crime will go down even if there is a higher concentration of police. According to a USA Today article, as the number of police officers has declined over the past five years, violent crime rates have also decreased. Bringing down crime does not depend on how many officers are in a given area but what the city is doing with the officers to prevent crime from occurring. I think it is quite apparent that even if police presence increased on campus, crimes that victimize students would still occur.

It makes me sad that students have to take safety into their own hands, but it is clear that not enough is being done to prevent crime from increasing on and off campus. We need to look out for each other and take the proper steps to keep ourselves safe.